richard develyn's page

Three sessions in, running with 6 PCs, not modifying anything in the module so letting the XPs and treasure fall where they may.

Just finished the plague house and they're now going up a level. They also have enough cash to buy themselves a wand of CLW (sovereign glue is very valuable, especially since there has to be an ounce of salve of sliperiness in with it).

They investigated the plague house during the day, so the half orc and flood troll weren't there. Then they set up an ambush for them at night and got them one at a time (actually, they tracked the flood troll back to its lair when the thing ran off - I added that encounter and a bit more treasure).

By my calculations, the party will go up to 3rd level just before the two major encounters in the tomb. I will allow them to just level up on the fly and automatically get any new stuff (hp, spell slots, and so on) as it happens (my logic is that PCs do all the levelling up "work" on an ongoing day-by-day basis and that the levelling up event represents that final moment of revelation when everything comes together and makes level-up sense!)

Enjoying it so far :-)

Richard

Thank you, guys!

thank you everyone :-)

are they primary or secondary?

i.e. a sorcerer shape changes into a creature with natural attacks, who then wears something which gives him even more natural attacks.

are these second lot of natural attacks primary or secondary?

Richard

Back in 2011 I kicked off a discussion along these lines:

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ls27&page=1?Is-GMing-fun-any-more

because I felt that if a GM is just supposed to mindlessly deliver a core experience then why on earth would anyone want to do it?

In all the years I've been playing and GMing, the appeal of being a GM has been that it was "your" game, that you weren't totally constrained in what you could do and that you could, therefore, be creative.

So, sure, Pathfinder is a co-operative experience, but part of that co-operation has to include enough in it for the GM to agree to put in all the time and effort to want to do it in the first place.

Or you can decided that GMing is a no-fun part of the game and have everyone takes turns.

Richard

Excellent, thank you.

I imagine the smaller one would be prone (i.e. you fall into a 10' sq pit with a tiger in), but if they're both the same size I see no reason why they shouldn't both be prone.

Cheers

Richard

Richard: I bought a half dozen of the Four Dollar Adventures a few years ago, and they are some of the best one off adventures I've ever read. They're creative, with a ton of detail, and have that specific flair of managing to present situations that the PCs need to deal with or solve without necessarily laying out a railroad they're expected to follow. You've done excellent work, and while I know that indie publishers get very little feedback or response, I just wanted to let you know that your work was extraordinarily appreciated.

Thank you very much - I'm pleased you enjoyed them, and I very much appreciate the feedback.

I'd love you to share any favourite moments, if you have any. You're right that indie publishers are always feedback-starved, so even if you can't think of any thank you very much just for putting up your message.

All the best

Richard

Four more years have passed and Horn of Geryon has passed the 300 sales mark.

(and my daughter, who's 26 going on 27, still doesn't go anywhere without her rabbit!)

I stopped writing these adventures some time ago but obviously I still keep track of the sales. They've more or less trickled to a close now, except every now and then I get a surprise such as when someone bought all 10 a couple of months back.

They're still pretty good value, let's face it, even if you just use them to cannibalise ideas.

As PF1 comes to an end and PF2 rises from the ashes, I'm pleased that my most popular adventure has crossed the 300 sales mark, before sales of the line disappear completely.

So many thanks to the 300 purchasers and to everyone else who bought Four Dollar Dungeons.

All the best

Richard

I guess there’s still no real answer to this.

I remember asking this about PF1 years ago where we had someone fall into a 10’sq pit holding a tiger (a large animal).

What’s supposed to happen? I asked.

Don’t let it happen - seemed to be the answer.

That cannot be an answer. It is, IMO, fundamental to an RPG that anything that we can sensibly imagine happening in our fantasy world should be allowed to happen in that fantasy world. This open-endedness is what separates an RPG from a board game.

Not allowing two creatures to occupy the same space is a convenience for combat, in much the same way that lack of facing is a convenience for combat, but neither of these things should be allowed to subvert the open-ended nature of adventuring in the fantasy world. If two unarmoured characters want to have a cuddle in the middle of combat they should be allowed to do so. If someone wants to wait until someone’s back is turned before they do something then they should be allowed to do so. These are reasonable things for PCs to ask to do in an open-ended game. It would be nice if PF2 had something to say on these two things rather than leave it to house rules.

Richard

What happens when two creatures are forced into the same space, as in for example two medium sized creatures falling into a 5'square pit?

Richard

Well, I've just started getting aquainted with PF2, and I didn't do the playtest, but so far I'm encouraged.

What I'm looking for in the new system is a consistent set of meta-rules.

Meta-rules are the axioms of the world. They determine things like roughly how powerful should a nth level spell or ability be, or what can you expect from a feat. It underpins the world with a sanity which maintains suspension of disbelief (IMVHO).

This should stop min-maxing and other sorts of exploitations, and future proof the game as long as the axioms are never broken.

Looking at the way everything is so carefully "typed", it encourages me to think that a lot of time and effort has been put into these axioms. Going forwards, I hope the editorial team will be dilligent in ensuring that future rules of any sort stick to them.

Richard

You’ve already shown the numbers but to calculate misfortune you take your odds of hitting and square them. If you hit on 11 or better then 10 out of 20 rolls will normally hit. With misfortune you square those numbers so 100 out of 400 roll sets will hit, which is 25%.

For advantage you do something similar but square the odds for missing instead of for hitting to find the new miss chance. To convert the miss chance to a hit chance, then just subtract the result from 1, or subtract from 100% if you already jumped to making it a percent.

OMG, that's so obvious now you've said it!

Richard

I know firsthand how effective Misfortune is because the witch in my group shuts down every monster I throw at them with it. :(

I have the same problem - it's a killer. I just wanted to point out just how much of a killer it is.

Most of the encounters my PCs face will be hitting them on about a 15. Misfortune effectively reduces their hit rate by 7 in 10, and criticals disappear completely.

Richard

I actually didn't do the maths, BTW - I wrote a computer program to enumerate all the possibilities.

Obviously, there is some sort of neat mathematics behind this, because it's so symmetrical, but I haven't figured it out!

Richard

Ok, so I've just done a bit more maths (actually, I did it the long way, so I'm not sure how the actual maths works), but I get that:

If your change of hitting is x %, then your effectiveness changes by 100 - x %, better if you roll twice and take the highest, worse if you roll twice and take the lowest.

So, if you need an 11, so you are 50% likely to hit, your effectiveness changes by 50% (of the 50%), so you are now 25% on the poor effect, 75% on the high effect.

If you need a 15, with a 30% chance to hit, your effectiveness changes by 70%, i.e. now 9% on lower and 51% on higher.

It you need a 1, then it makes no difference.

Here's the full table:

need a 20: normal 005.00%, take lower 000.25% (-95%) take higher 009.75% (+95%)
need a 19: normal 010.00%, take lower 001.00% (-90%) take higher 019.00% (+90%)
need a 18: normal 015.00%, take lower 002.25% (-85%) take higher 027.75% (+85%)
need a 17: normal 020.00%, take lower 004.00% (-80%) take higher 036.00% (+80%)
need a 16: normal 025.00%, take lower 006.25% (-75%) take higher 043.75% (+75%)
need a 15: normal 030.00%, take lower 009.00% (-70%) take higher 051.00% (+70%)
need a 14: normal 035.00%, take lower 012.25% (-65%) take higher 057.75% (+65%)
need a 13: normal 040.00%, take lower 016.00% (-60%) take higher 064.00% (+60%)
need a 12: normal 045.00%, take lower 020.25% (-55%) take higher 069.75% (+55%)
need a 11: normal 050.00%, take lower 025.00% (-50%) take higher 075.00% (+50%)
need a 10: normal 055.00%, take lower 030.25% (-45%) take higher 079.75% (+45%)
need a 09: normal 060.00%, take lower 036.00% (-40%) take higher 084.00% (+40%)
need a 08: normal 065.00%, take lower 042.25% (-35%) take higher 087.75% (+35%)
need a 07: normal 070.00%, take lower 049.00% (-30%) take higher 091.00% (+30%)
need a 06: normal 075.00%, take lower 056.25% (-25%) take higher 093.75% (+25%)
need a 05: normal 080.00%, take lower 064.00% (-20%) take higher 096.00% (+20%)
need a 04: normal 085.00%, take lower 072.25% (-15%) take higher 097.75% (+15%)
need a 03: normal 090.00%, take lower 081.00% (-10%) take higher 099.00% (+10%)
need a 02: normal 095.00%, take lower 090.25% (-05%) take higher 099.75% (+05%)
need a 01: normal 100.00%, take lower 100.00% (-00%) take higher 100.00% (+00%)

And perhaps more interestingly:

need a 20, effective d20 addjustment +/- 0.95
need a 19, effective d20 addjustment +/- 1.80
need a 18, effective d20 addjustment +/- 2.55
need a 17, effective d20 addjustment +/- 3.20
need a 16, effective d20 addjustment +/- 3.75
need a 15, effective d20 addjustment +/- 4.20
need a 14, effective d20 addjustment +/- 4.55
need a 13, effective d20 addjustment +/- 4.80
need a 12, effective d20 addjustment +/- 4.95
need a 11, effective d20 addjustment +/- 5.00
need a 10, effective d20 addjustment +/- 4.95
need a 09, effective d20 addjustment +/- 4.80
need a 08, effective d20 addjustment +/- 4.55
need a 07, effective d20 addjustment +/- 4.20
need a 06, effective d20 addjustment +/- 3.75
need a 05, effective d20 addjustment +/- 3.20
need a 04, effective d20 addjustment +/- 2.55
need a 03, effective d20 addjustment +/- 1.80
need a 02, effective d20 addjustment +/- 0.95
need a 01, effective d20 addjustment +/- 0.00

The effects on criticals (critical threats) are even more pronounced.

Chances of a critical threat:

crit 20: normal 5%, take lower 0.25%, take higher 9.75%
crit 19-20: normal 10%, take lower 1%, take higher 19%
crit 18-20: normal 15%, take lower 2.25%, take higher 27.75%

Basically, a misfortuned person pretty much waves goodbye to any chance of criticalling.

Richard

I haven't seen it posted anywhere else, so FYI, the effect on a D20 is:

- 3.325

i.e. expected results on a D20 are:

Ordinary: 10.5
roll 2x and take lower: 7.175
roll 2x and take higher: 13.825

Richard

So Witch + slumber hex = bye, bye, Argus

(I do hate that slumber hex)

Richard

Yes, well, if I ever employ a sentry, I'll make sure it doesn't suffer from narcolepsy.

Anyway, what does "vulnerable to sleep" actually mean in game terms?

Richard

I guess, but I can't see what use it is a sentry.

Argus on d20pfsrd

What does "vulnerable to sleep" mean?

And how is this thing a "vigilant and restless sentry" when it's vulnerable to sleep?

Richard

My argument regarding this would be, enchantment also adds hardness and hit points to a weapon. If enchantment only applied to the head, then you would be able to sunder a magical spear like a normal spear by chopping at the haft. Which isn't the case.

So enchantment must apply to the whole weapon.

Richard

Turns out my formula was slightly wrong, it should be:

number-to-hit < 21 - ( average-damage / power-attack-extra-damage ) - power-attack-bab-multiplier

where the latter starts at 1, goes to 2 on bab 4, etc

Like I said, this doesn't take into account the 1s and 20s (I'll leave a better mathematician for that one).

Here's my workings:

DPA = max(0.05, min(0.95, (21 + atk - AC)/20)) * (1 + thr * (crit - 1)/20) * dmg

Remove the 1s and 20s bit, and let Z = (1 + thr * (crit - 1)/20)

DPA = ( (21 + atk - AC) / 20 ) * Z * dmg

Factor out the / 20:

DPA = (21 + atk - AC) * dmg * ( Z / 20 )

Power Attack has two components, a bab based one (1, 2 when BAB = 4, and so on), which we'll call B, and a component based on whether you are using a one or two handed weapon, i.e. either 2 or 3, which we'll call T.

So, when you power attack, your atk goes down by B and your damage goes up by BT, giving us:

DPA(pow) = (21 + atk - B - AC) * ( dmg + BT ) * ( Z / 20 )

We should power attack when this is better than not doing so, i.e. Power Attack when:

DPA(pow) > DPA, i.e.

(21 + atk - B - AC) * ( dmg + BT ) * ( Z / 20 ) > (21 + atk - AC) * dmg * ( Z / 20 )

Cancel the Z / 20 on both sides:

(21 + atk - B - AC) * ( dmg + BT ) > (21 + atk - AC) * dmg

Expand the left hand side a bit:

(21 + atk - AC) * ( dmg + BT ) - B * ( dmg + BT ) > (21 + atk - AC) * dmg

And a bit more:

(21 + atk - AC) * dmg + (21 + atk - AC) * BT - B * ( dmg + BT ) > (21 + atk - AC) * dmg

Subtract (21 + atk - AC ) * dmg from both sides:

(21 + atk - AC) * BT - B * ( dmg + BT ) > 0

Move the negative bit across to the other side:

(21 + atk - AC) * BT > B * ( dmg + BT )

Cancel out one B and divide by T

(21 + atk - AC) > ( dmg + BT ) / T

Divide the T on the right hand side into the brackets:

(21 + atk - AC) > ( dmg / T ) + B

Subtract each side from 21 (which reverses the inequality)

AC - atk < 21 - ( dmg / T ) - B

Which is basically my (now slightly corrected) formula.

Richard

With respect, your example is useless, as it doesn't exist in practice. Pathfinder mechanics don't really scale well past a certain point.

The decision to power attack as a means of achieving optimal damage is a mathematical one, not a game-rule one.

There's a straight formula at play here, and it's as relevant to creatures doing 1000 points of damage as it is to creatures doing 10.

But, you know, if you don't believe me, that's fine :-)

Richard

I know it feels counter-intuitive but the more damage you do the less you should power attack.

Consider an extreme example: a mega-titan that does 1000 points of damage on average.

Why would such a thing ever power attack?

I'll do a bit more maths if you like, let's assume that it hits on an 11, and ignore criticals. Assume we have a complete average set of 20 rounds in which every number of the dice is rolled once.

Without Power Attack, total damage is 10 hits times 1000 = 10,000

Let's do Power Attack -1 and +3. Now it only hits 9 times but doing 1003 hit points, for a total of 9027. Much less.

Power Attack -2 and +6, and we have 8 hits doing 1006 damage, or 8048.

And so on.

Richard

I've never seen this very satisfactorily explained anywhere, but from my maths, and without taking into account natural 1s and 20s, which I'm hoping will even out, you should power attack when:

number-to-hit < 21 - ( average-damage / power-attack-extra-damage )

So, for example, a 1st level barbarian with a two handed sword, +6 to hit and 2d6+6 damage: average damage is 13, power-attack-extra-damage is 3 (two handed), so

number-to-hit < 21 - (4 1/3)
number-to-hit < 16 2/3
number-to-hit <= 16

which basically means anything of AC 22 or less.

Which is going to be most things for a 1st level Barbarian

A Frost Giant, however, with a greataxe, +18/+13 for 3d6+13 damage: average damage 31, extra is 3 again so:

number-to-hit < 21 - (10 1/3)
number-to-hit < 10 2/3
number-to-hit <= 10

which basically means anything of AC 28 / 23 or less (go for the average of 25).

Which for a CR 9 monster is going to be pretty rare.

Which makes sense, as anything which does a lot of damage is going to get a very marginal gain from power attack in exchange for losing the chance to do the lots of damage it's already doing.

Most of the time, giants shouldn't power attack.

Richard

excuse the necro, but i’m going to suggest that if aid another in combat is not an attack action then it should not break invisibility.

so, either that, or you can fight defensively with it

richard

just as the title says :-)

sorry to bump this up but does anyone have any opinion on this?

my reading of the rules is that the shadow does.

richard

(incidentally, i just made it electrical to make a point about non fiery burning)

so, if my djinn blooded sorcerer casts an ectoplasmic burming hands spell, using alchemical fire as a mateial component, changing the damage type (and spell type) to electrical, against a shadow that fails its reflex save, does that shadow start to burn with ectoplasmic electrical flame?

richard

is pfs legal for ifrits only

but it is part of the solar sorcerer bloodline which is not race restricted.

so, can a non ifrit solar sorcerer use fury of the sun as his bloodline bonus spell in pfs?

(hero lab says no, btw)

I just want to check I've got a few things right:

1st level Gnome Sorcerer (crossblooded)

Alternative racial: Lava Gnome (Darkvision and Pyromaniac), Eternal Hope, Nosophobia

Bloodlines: Orc and Solar

1st level bloodline power: Sunsight

From all of this, I have low-light vision, darkvision 90' and although I have light sensitivity I'm immune to being dazzled so it doesn't bother me.

Then:

Feats: Point-Blank Shot
Traits: Gifted Adept (Burning Hands), Extremely Fashionable (Diplomacy)

Spells:
0: Acid Splash, Daze, Disrupt Undead
1: Burning Hands

Burning hands does 3d4+6 damage. Disrupt Undead and Acid Splash both do +2 damage too (point-blank shot and orc bloodline).

I'm getting 2 skill points per level which I'm putting on Bluff and Diplomacy, and wearing very fashionable clothes :-)

Where I'm going next with this is down the fire route, with Precise Shot, Scorching Ray, Fireball, etc. First magic item will probably be an elemental meta-magic rod to turn the fire into electricity if I need to, or intensify to raise my burning hands some more.

Looks good?

Richard

P.S.F.Y.I

Stats are: STR 5 DEX 14 CON 16 INT 7 WIS 14 CHA 19 and I'm putting my one class point into skills

It was this bit in the arcana:

one target of your choice affected by the spell takes 2 additional hit points of damage

vs this in the swarm type:

A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures

I wasn't sure whether a swarm was a target.

Richard

will it do 1d4+2 damage x 1.5 for a 1st lvl sorcerer?

Heroic Recovery is a feat that gives you a once per day ability.

So - does that mean that as a Ki Power it can only be used once per day?

Or do you get to use it every time you use a Ki point?

Richard

I guess we've taken the approach that no magic item is harder to buy than any other, so I can buy a psychic scroll of faerie fire as easily as a druidic one.

I'm wondering now if there are any spells which you can't cast using Cha.

Richard

FF is on the Mesmerist spell list, so you can get a psychic scroll made with that spell which you then cast using CHA as the stat.

I think that broadly speaking as long as you are buying the scroll yourself, you can probably always find a CHA based caster that can cast any spell.

Which is most optimal for UMD, since you're likely to have a reasonable CHA just to use the skill.

Got it; but am I right that otherwise you can pick the most favourable class for your stat bonus (likely charisma for UMD) to avoid having to make that rather hard UMD spell-casting attribute check (i.e. use Oracle for divine and sorcerer for arcane)?

I *think* this is correct but I want to double check.

If I get myself a scroll of Faerie Fire, can I use it with UMD by pretending to be a Mesmerist, that has FF on its list, but thereby only needing to have a high Cha score rather than a high Wis score?

My understanding is that spells on scrolls do not have a particular class hard-coded into them.

Otherwise, presumably, I could buy a Mesmerist FF scroll.

Richard

Thanks for all the answers.

I had always imagined they were the same thing but I stand corrected.

Richard

Although there are some spells which are particularly called "ray", the term seems to have been used as flavour text in some places (e.g. Disintegration) leading me to believe that "ray" was never meant to be a game concept as such and that it is really just synonymous to ranged touch.

Am I right?

Or do you, for example, have to take Weapon Focus( Ray ) and Weapon Focus (ranged touch) separately?

Richard

It takes a bit to qualify for, Unhindering Shield would be better.

Thank you for that.

Although it takes 3 feats, you then potentially have access to 6 points of AC (+5 Buckler). That's pretty good, in my opinion.

Richard

Sorry - I was being stupid.

The quickdraw thing is just to allow you to flurry.

But you are both right.

Richard

TVM

On the second one, because you put your shield away at the end of your initiative/turn, and then you're no longer wielding it so you *do* get your AC whilst everybody else is busy trying to hit you.

1) Can a monk with a two handed weapon still deflect arrows when not on his turn, by using free actions to free one hand at the end of his turn and reapplying his hand to the two-handed weapon at the beginning of it?

It would presumably mean that AoOs would have to be with unarmed strikes.

2) Am I right that you need to have Shield Proficiency to use a quickdraw shield, so a monk that wants to use such a shield when it isn't his turn will need two feats: shield proficiency and quickdraw?

Cheers

Richard

Planar AP coming next?

I think this is a rules rather than an interpretation question, but an incident came up at our game last night which illustrated that we hadn't (I think) being playing this right.

Dominate Person is very much geared on the concept of a "command". The dominated person is only controlled by the dominator to the degree that they obey that command to the exclusion of all else save their survival needs, and it takes a move action to change that command so this is nothing like a puppetteer subconsciously controlling his puppets.

So what happened:

An NPC bard dominated a PC fighter and told him, trying to be clever, to go and subdue one of his friends (2nd PC) because he's sure that 2nd PC has been possessed. The NPC was trying to make the request sound reasonable because someone had already been possessed earlier in the combat and suggesting subdual is in keeping with what the PC would do - so no need for another saving throw.

All fine and well.

Then the 2nd PC disappeared and the first PC did not know where, although in the light of what happens next one might even consider that this event is not actually necessary.

The first PC still saw the NPC bard that had dominated him as an enemy. There's no "charm" component in dominate. So the PC argued that his survival needs required that he defeat the enemy, which he promptly did before the NPC bard got a chance to use a move action to change his command.

So if all of this was reasonable, which I guess is my question, then any time you dominate someone your command to them has got to include "don't attack me and my friends but do this and that instead" or you could find your command ignored.

Richard

I quite like this because it suggests that world changing events happen at the rate of 2 a year, which is quite realistic imo. It also shows how incredibly rare PCs are.

I would like to suggest that Paizo thinks about producing something along the lines of The Poor Wizard's Almanac for Golarion.

Richard