I have a question regarding a combat situation that will likely come up with the enraged owlbear.
-Now it is the owlbear's turn. It maintains the grapple and automatically does damage with it's claw attack. Then can choose to automatically damage with it's other claw or bite attack. This is correct?
-Now it's Bill's turn, he's given up on breaking free so he uses a swift action to heal himself with LoH and then attacks again.
-This time the owlbear maintains it's grapple getting a +5, by maintaining it's hold it deals automatic damage with the claw again. Now can it "move" Bill so he is only grappling Bill with that claw taking a -20 penalty on future grapple checks?
-Bill repeats his last turn.
-Now the owlbear barely succeeds to maintain, deals damage. Since it is no longer being grappled it should be able to make a full round attack on other foes, possibly grappling them in the same manner as Bill, including full body hug to single claw grip?
|
I have a question regarding a combat situation that will likely come up with the enraged owlbear.
If Bill the paladin charges the owlbear and it claws him, using his grab ability to initiate a grapple and succeeds does Bill still resolve his attack despite being grappled? So long as it's an attack with a single handed weapon, right?
Correct as far as I can see.
-Now it is the owlbear's turn. It maintains the grapple and automatically does damage with it's claw attack. Then can choose to automatically damage with it's other claw or bite attack. This is correct?
Ouch. By the way the grab ability is worded and the way grapple is worded (from PRD) this appears to be accurate.
I'm not sure if the monster's supposed to deal damage twice myself, but that's me questioning intent. As written, the owlbear can totally do that.
-Now it's Bill's turn, he's given up on breaking free so he uses a swift action to heal himself with LoH and then attacks again.
Yep. In fact, at this point Bill can full attack.
-This time the owlbear maintains it's grapple getting a +5, by maintaining it's hold it deals automatic damage with the claw again. Now can it "move" Bill so he is only grappling Bill with that claw taking a -20 penalty on future grapple checks?
No. The -20 penalty has to be chosen at the start of the grapple, and there are no rules for switching to the -20 penalty in mid-grapple. Moving the grapple doesn't allow you to switch to only using one claw, it lets you physically move the entire grapple and nothing else. If you started grappling using both claws and taking no penalty, that's how you've got to continue.
-Bill repeats his last turn.
-Now the owlbear barely succeeds to maintain, deals damage. Since it is no longer being grappled it should be able to make a full round attack on other foes, possibly grappling them in the same manner as Bill, including full body hug to single claw grip?
As I said before this doesn't work, but also by the rules the owlbear can't full attack other people. While the owlbear does not have the 'grappled' condition if it takes a -20 it still needs to take a standard action to maintain the grapple, as this isn't a function of the 'grappled' condition. Note the line from grab: 'If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself.' You're still grappling the opponent with the -20, you're just free to perform actions requiring 2 hands, don't suffer -4 Dex, etc. Again...I'm not sure that should work that way, but that's how it looks by PRD.
If anyone knows different, shout up.
|
Mechanically speaking, it's actually 'better' for the owlbear to let go every round, do a full attack, then try to grapple with a claw attack. Personally I think it's more flavorful to have him keep grappling and just claw away, but that's just me.
** spoiler omitted **
I read it like this. If it has Grab and you roll to maintain the grapple it deals damage with the attack that started the grapple.
Then since the hold has been maintained the grappled condition let's you have a selection of options such as move, damage, or pin an opponent.
If the damage from Grab replaced those options that makes no since because that damage is not optional, it's automatic. This would mean that any creature with Grab has no other options in a grapple then to deal damage, kinda silly.
|
|
It may seem kind of silly, but really, that's how it reads. If you assume that the extra damage is free and it can then *also* do damage as per the grapple skill, then it basically gets double damage. A creature with constrict would get double damage + the constrict (which is usually the same type), or triple damage.
I think the idea with Grab is that it is a unique kind of grapple in which the creature is only going to try to damage its opponent through it. If it wanted to move the other person around or pin them, then it would start a grapple without grab.
I do agree it's a bit confusing though. However, in either case, I still don't see how it could get another bite or claw attack in. Maintaining the grapple is still a standard action in both our assumptions.
|
|
However, in either case, I still don't see how it could get another bite or claw attack in. Maintaining the grapple is still a standard action in both our assumptions.
Because reading from the 'free attack plus standard maintain' approach, when it wins the grapple check for maintaining, it can choose to deal damage with one natural attack. It doesn't have to be the attack that it used grab on.
So it's either [free claw] (has to be claw, since grab explicitly states it must be the grabbing attack) -> [maintain grapple, deal damage with any one attack form as per standard grapple rules] or [maintain grapple, deal damage with grappling appendage, no other choice permitted], depending on how you read grab.
Grab either grants a free attack and lets the attack from maintain be any natural attack, or grab proscribes your actions and forces you to maintain plus deal damage with the grabbing appendage.
I noticed a misprint, fairly minor though.
Page 5: The Old Beldame is listed as having an Int of 20 and a Chr of 15. It should be the other way around according to the stats on page 24.
I presume that she was originally designed as a wizard? I say that since she owns a spell book and a spell component pouch (p. 25), neither of which is necessary for a sorcerer.
A charisma that high makes her a perfect ruler for the kingdom. Scary thought. lol.
Well, the goal they give in a sidebar in Varnhold Vanishing is to hold off on really starting the main key locations in Varnhold until their kingdom is around 50 hexes or so. They can certainly start exploring when their kingdom is smaller than that, but the ideal goal is to have them at 70 or so hexes right before finishing the 3rd chapter of the AP. (The PCs get a big new area of terrain added to their kingdom, which ideally will be just what they need to push them up to 81+ hexes and thus true Kingdom status.)
Interesting. I haven't read that adventure yet, so maybe my question is addressed in there, but: when the kingdom suddenly annexes another 11+ hexes, that will increase all DCs by 11+. This will push all checks from easy to difficult, or from tense to impossible. Is there some additional adjustment to compensate for this?
Well, the goal they give in a sidebar in Varnhold Vanishing is to hold off on really starting the main key locations in Varnhold until their kingdom is around 50 hexes or so. They can certainly start exploring when their kingdom is smaller than that, but the ideal goal is to have them at 70 or so hexes right before finishing the 3rd chapter of the AP. (The PCs get a big new area of terrain added to their kingdom, which ideally will be just what they need to push them up to 81+ hexes and thus true Kingdom status.)Interesting. I haven't read that adventure yet, so maybe my question is addressed in there, but: when the kingdom suddenly annexes another 11+ hexes, that will increase all DCs by 11+. This will push all checks from easy to difficult, or from tense to impossible. Is there some additional adjustment to compensate for this?
Free buildings in Varnhold. I haven't run through the bonuses to see exactly what you get though. Also some free roads and farms.
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the goal they give in a sidebar in Varnhold Vanishing is to hold off on really starting the main key locations in Varnhold until their kingdom is around 50 hexes or so. They can certainly start exploring when their kingdom is smaller than that, but the ideal goal is to have them at 70 or so hexes right before finishing the 3rd chapter of the AP. (The PCs get a big new area of terrain added to their kingdom, which ideally will be just what they need to push them up to 81+ hexes and thus true Kingdom status.)Interesting. I haven't read that adventure yet, so maybe my question is addressed in there, but: when the kingdom suddenly annexes another 11+ hexes, that will increase all DCs by 11+. This will push all checks from easy to difficult, or from tense to impossible. Is there some additional adjustment to compensate for this?
The additional adjustment is on the players to plan ahead for that sudden increase in their kingdom size. Of course, some of those 11 new hexes and some of the buildings in Varnhold will also give them bonuses to their kingdom's stats, but it's not supposed to necessarily be a smooth and easy thing to suddenly annex a large swath of land like that. It's supposed to be kind of scary and rough—not something you do without forethought or planning or preparation.
Is the number of buildings from the Improvements Per Month table a limit to be applied per city or globally?
I.e. does founding more cities let you build more buildings in the same turn (for example, 1 in each city at kingdom size 1-10)?
If not, what is the benefit of founding new cities considering they cost money, increase Consumption and split up your Defense modifier?
Is the number of buildings from the Improvements Per Month table a limit to be applied per city or globally?
I.e. does founding more cities let you build more buildings in the same turn (for example, 1 in each city at kingdom size 1-10)?
If not, what is the benefit of founding new cities considering they cost money, increase Consumption and split up your Defense modifier?
It's per city district..
|
It's per city district..Is the number of buildings from the Improvements Per Month table a limit to be applied per city or globally?
I.e. does founding more cities let you build more buildings in the same turn (for example, 1 in each city at kingdom size 1-10)?
If not, what is the benefit of founding new cities considering they cost money, increase Consumption and split up your Defense modifier?
Where does it say that? I can't find the specific rule, one way or the other.
Where does it say that? I can't find the specific rule, one way or the other.It's per city district..Is the number of buildings from the Improvements Per Month table a limit to be applied per city or globally?
I.e. does founding more cities let you build more buildings in the same turn (for example, 1 in each city at kingdom size 1-10)?
If not, what is the benefit of founding new cities considering they cost money, increase Consumption and split up your Defense modifier?
It's for the kingdom as a whole and not per district AFAIK. The only thing that's per city district is the economy check for selling valuable items. (Which is why I have an understanding/house rule with my players to prevent a mass building of cities just to be able to sell more items each month)
|
...the Sootscale kobolds (they still exist in the other KM campaign I've started, with my daughter and her high school friends, which have just hit 2nd level after their first harrowing battle with the mites at the Old Sycamore)...
Jason - please forgive me if this is a threadjack (I can't figure out how to PM on this site), but I'm doing almost exactly the same thing with my daughter's friends and would like to hear your lessons learned.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Anyone else experience the glee that is the necklace of fireballs (carried by Hargulka) going off when he fails a save vs. fire damage?
It was truly epic, a really memorable encounter. When it got down to the later, smaller fireballs, it was nail biting close on which PCs would stay up.
It could not have gone better if it was scripted.
It's for the kingdom as a whole and not per district AFAIK.Where does it say that? I can't find the specific rule, one way or the other.Is the number of buildings from the Improvements Per Month table a limit to be applied per city or globally?It's per city district..
Is there any purpose then in building new cities rather than improving the one you started with?
Is there any purpose then in building new cities rather than improving the one you started with?It's for the kingdom as a whole and not per district AFAIK.Where does it say that? I can't find the specific rule, one way or the other.Is the number of buildings from the Improvements Per Month table a limit to be applied per city or globally?It's per city district..
Attempt to sell more items per income phase (it's quicker than waiting to fill up one city district to get another one, though can also be exploited by spamming cities)?
Not have all the bad events happen in your most important city?Have other cities to retreat to should one of your cities fall under enemy hands?
Flavor?^^
Is there any purpose then in building new cities rather than improving the one you started with?Attempt to sell more items per income phase (it's quicker than waiting to fill up one city district to get another one, though can also be exploited by spamming cities)?
In my experience, items over 4,000 gp aren't generated nearly fast enough for the 1/district/month limit on selling them to be enough of a bottleneck to justify building a whole new city. Perhaps with the largest buildings which create better items.
And I don't think you need to wait to fill a city district before you can start a new one?
Not have all the bad events happen in your most important city?
Events are kingdom-wide, aren't they? Bandits steal money from the treasury, not from a specific city, scandals cause unrest throughout the kingdom, not in a specific city, &c. An event could be narrated as occurring in a specific location, but it's no more or less severe whether you have a single city or many, and there's absolutely no control over where it occurs, so even with many cities, you could have a murder spree after murder spree occurring in your most important city, or recurring bandit raids in the countryside, outside of any city at all, &c.
In short, how many cities you have really has no bearing on what events occur and how they affect the kingdom.
Have other cities to retreat to should one of your cities fall under enemy hands?
It's less likely they'll fall if you don't split out your investments and Defense modifiers over multiple cities... :)
Flavor?^^
That's a metagame reason good enough for me as a player or a DM, which is why I'm looking for reasons that would seem relevant to the characters.
One of my players first buildings was an Academy. Followed by a Dump for some reason. That turn they had a natural disaster event occur. I decided it was caused by rampaging fire golems improperly disposed of from Academy experiments. Ever since than we mostly blame crazy Professor van Haughten for the creation of anything really expensive or terrible.
I gotta say they sell 4k+ items all the time. That major item slot regularly churns out 15 BP a month.
They tried their hardest to figure out how to afford the Apparatus of the Crab though...
Is there any purpose then in building new cities rather than improving the one you started with?Attempt to sell more items per income phase (it's quicker than waiting to fill up one city district to get another one, though can also be exploited by spamming cities)?In my experience, items over 4,000 gp aren't generated nearly fast enough for the 1/district/month limit on selling them to be enough of a bottleneck to justify building a whole new city. Perhaps with the largest buildings which create better items.
And I don't think you need to wait to fill a city district before you can start a new one?
I couldn't find any rule to get rid of "worthless" items of less than 4000 gp outside of the PCs buying them with their own gold even if they don't need them. So more cities increases the possibilities to prevent them from taking up the available magic item slots.
I also added a house rule that there's a 5% chance that any item of less than 4000 gp is sold on the market each month.You might not need to fill one district to get another one, but in my campaign each city has an effective amount of districts equal to 'filled city block/36'. If not, you could just have a bunch of districts with just one building in them.
Any other reasons you'd have to ask James Jacobs I guess. I just listed some of those I could think of. :)
Edit: My first group's (The second hasn't begun part 2 yet) first building was also an academy and they sell magic items quite well. They were annoyed with the fact that there's no good way to get rid of cheaper items without buying them, though. Thus my house rule mentioned above.
Any other reasons you'd have to ask James Jacobs I guess. I just listed some of those I could think of. :)
Well, yes, I'm hoping for an answer from one of the designers either way: do more cities mean more buildings per turn?
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To take a shotgun approach to recent questions...
1) Encounters do not only affect your main city; they're kingdom-wide and can affect multiple or different cities according to the GM's desire.
2) The total number of buildings you can build per turn is limited by your kingdom's size (see the table at the top of page 65). This number of new buildings can all be in one city, or they can be split up among different cities.
3) You don't have to wait to fill a city district to add a new one. You can add new city districts at a rate according to the "New Cities" limits on the Improvements per Month table.
4) The incorporation of how magic items flow through the economy remains, in my opinion, the "sketchiest" part of kingdom building. It's something that the GM absolutely needs to monitor, and if strange things start showing up, like the city's item slots getting clogged with stuff, he should just arbitrarily say that, after a year or whatever, those items are purchased or lost or whatever, just to get things moving again.
If there's other recent questions I've missed, repost and I'll get to them soon.
To take a shotgun approach to recent questions...
*snip*
Lots of answers.
Thanks for clearing that up! :)
I have a question from my players that I couldn't find an answer to.
The rules say you can't build city walls on a water border. Is there any reason for that?
While I know the city wall isn't shouldn't only be effective on the border it is built, but it's hard to believe why an enemy wouldn't just attack from the lake or river since the rules point out you can't have a city wall there.
(My hope town is a fortified city with walls all around, even along the river^^)
To take a shotgun approach to recent questions...
*snip*
Lots of answers.Thanks for clearing that up! :)
I have a question from my players that I couldn't find an answer to.
The rules say you can't build city walls on a water border. Is there any reason for that?
While I know the city wall isn't shouldn't only be effective on the border it is built, but it's hard to believe why an enemy wouldn't just attack from the lake or river since the rules point out you can't have a city wall there.
(My hope town is a fortified city with walls all around, even along the river^^)
Well, the easiest solution would be to build two city districts with a common water border - kind of like a river passing through the city. Then you could build walls all the way around. Otherwise, I think it might be a little funny to build walls around your water border buildings like piers or mills.
|
Creative Director
|
I have a question from my players that I couldn't find an answer to.
The rules say you can't build city walls on a water border. Is there any reason for that?
While I know the city wall isn't shouldn't only be effective on the border it is built, but it's hard to believe why an enemy wouldn't just attack from the lake or river since the rules point out you can't have a city wall there.
(My hope town is a fortified city with walls all around, even along the river^^)
The reason is multifold:
1) Water is an IMPORTANT resource for any society. Perhaps the MOST important one. Drinking, trade, fishing, defense... walling off a source of water from a city is kind of foolish.
2) Water makes a great natural barrier. There's no real NEED to build a wall there, since it already provides a great defense. Sure, an enemy can try to attack a city from the water via boats or whatever, but the defenders are still going to be able to do their job.
3) Water is not a solid surface, and therefore can't support a wall. I know you can still build right up to the shore, or in the shallows, but for the purposes of these rules we wanted to rule it out.
4) As a balance, and to make the city builders face a choice. There are plenty of reasons in the real world why you might want to not build a wall along a part of a city, and by effectively saying "If you want water trade and the option to be able to build a waterfront or similar building in your city, you have to deliberately choose not to build a wall." It makes things a bit more interesting during the city building process.
5) A water border assumes the city is built right up to the edge of the water. You can certainly have a city built next to the water that's still walled off—as in the case of your home town—but that just means that when you initially place the city district, you denote all four sides are "Land," even if there's a major source of water just beyond that border. If you want to later add a port or whatever to that city, you'll need to add another city district right next to the first one and leave one of its borders a water border is all.
Thanks again for the detailed explanation. :)
I just assumed that the walls could have gates in them to allow passage when needed.
As you suggest, having an extra district for a waterfront or pier is a good solution. (I guess also that the location of the Stag Lord's Fort isn't right next to the water on either side allowing for an expansion both towards the Shrike and Tuskwater.)
2) The total number of buildings you can build per turn is limited by your kingdom's size (see the table at the top of page 65). This number of new buildings can all be in one city, or they can be split up among different cities.
Thanks.
But this seems to leave little incentive to build new cities rather than improve a single one, and I think I'd want to encourage more than one city, since that seems to make for a more organic and interesting kingdom.
Am I missing some reason why the PCs should want to build new cities?
What would happen if you said that the number of buildings per turn is equal to the number of cities in the kingdom? In the lower end half of the table it seems close enough, but as the kingdom grows it might be more restrictive than the table in the adventure (I don't think even a big kingdom is likely to have 20 cities... but it's difficult to say, really, since we're still new to the kingdom building rules).
|
Creative Director
|
2) The total number of buildings you can build per turn is limited by your kingdom's size (see the table at the top of page 65). This number of new buildings can all be in one city, or they can be split up among different cities.Thanks.
But this seems to leave little incentive to build new cities rather than improve a single one, and I think I'd want to encourage more than one city, since that seems to make for a more organic and interesting kingdom.
Am I missing some reason why the PCs should want to build new cities?
What would happen if you said that the number of buildings per turn is equal to the number of cities in the kingdom? In the lower end half of the table it seems close enough, but as the kingdom grows it might be more restrictive than the table in the adventure (I don't think even a big kingdom is likely to have 20 cities... but it's difficult to say, really, since we're still new to the kingdom building rules).
One REALLY good reason to build more than one city is so that if something bad happens to your one city (say, it's destroyed by monsters or disasters or the bad guys attack it and claim it), then you have other cities to fall back to.
Also, building multiple cities makes your nation feel more like a nation. You could certainly say that the number of buildings you can build per turn is equal to the cities in all, I suppose; or you could say that every new city you found gives the PCs some sort of additional XP award; in fact, if I remember correctly, there's something like that in the article?
To expand on the water border topic.
What my players have a problem with is that aside from fluff reasons and that you can build a water front or a pier, there's no mechanical benefit that I've found in part 2 or 5 of Kingmaker from having a water border, since it prevents you from having a city wall to boost defense.
Would it be unreasonable to say that any city district border next to water gives a bonus to defense similarly to a city wall, or a +2 perhaps?
One REALLY good reason to build more than one city is so that if something bad happens to your one city (say, it's destroyed by monsters or disasters or the bad guys attack it and claim it), then you have other cities to fall back to.
Counting on taking significant losses to make your investments worthwhile is more of a defeatist mentality than I ever see from my players.
(Which is probably why so many PCs die when we play Paizo's adventures... :D )
Also, building multiple cities makes your nation feel more like a nation.
Well, yes, that's my basic conundrum. A kingdom with one city feels like a city with an area of influence rather than a kingdom, but both my players who are out to survive and thrive in the adventure, and their characters who are out to do the same in their world, are unlikely to invest their resources and split up their focus based on that feeling, they'll do it on what works best.
So I'm thinking about ways to make more cities work better than one big city.
You could certainly say that the number of buildings you can build per turn is equal to the cities in all, I suppose; or you could say that every new city you found gives the PCs some sort of additional XP award; in fact, if I remember correctly, there's something like that in the article?
The XP awards are tied to kingdom size and filling the city grid, but they could certainly be tweaked to specifically award the founding of new cities.
The biggest mechanical benefit of having multiple cities is that there are four city sites initially that give you cost reductions:
Stag Lord Fort: half cost castle (and +1 all rolls)
Temple of the Elk: half cost temple
Oleg's: free building
Tatzylford: half price Market (or other building)
These are each significant benefits for the initial starting of a kingdom. In later modules, you annex other settlements which will give you even more cities. I'm not sure you really need more than this. It will already feel like a kingdom to me.
There's also Candlemere Tower, which is a half-cost caster's tower, and the abandoned elven tower, which is a complete free castle.
Yes, there's a decent incentive to pick up those freebies by building new cities in those squares.
The Old Beldame supposedly has a quest for the PC. It references a Black Rattlecaps side bar. I can't find the sidebar. Was it cut out of the book, it not, what page is it on?
The Old Beldame supposedly has a quest for the PC. It references a Black Rattlecaps side bar. I can't find the sidebar. Was it cut out of the book, it not, what page is it on?
It's on pg. 26
Thought I would chime in. My 7th level party currently consisting of an illusionist specialist, a bow ranger, and a two-hand fighter just dealt with the Owlbear lair. The wizard used invisibility sphere to sneak the group past the entrance straight to the nesting owlbear. Surprise rounds consists of haste and two attacks for a little bit of damage. Wizard wins initiative and slays the owlbear with phantasmal killer. I cry a little but cheer on their luck. Next they loot everything and check out the spider lair aka XP pinatas.
After this they go into the trapped corridor. The ranger and fighter both fail their saves and plummet 40 feet into the green slime. Both land prone and take fall damage. Exposure to the slime deals Con damage they are covered head to foot. The wizard throws a rope down the hole and they climb their way back up. Luckily the wizard had that old wand of burning hands so he torches them clean. Four rounds of slime exposure had knocked the ranger down to 1 Con though so he nearly dies from the spell itself.
Does it sound like I ran that encounter right? It really ticked them off and they kept spouting about how "This is like a CR 15 encounter!"
I kind of liked the fact that they steam rolled the owlbear but nearly got taken down by dungeon slime. I'm sad they fled before running into the shambling mound though. I'll reposition that guy in one of the empty hexes.
Thought I would chime in. My 7th level party currently consisting of an illusionist specialist, a bow ranger, and a two-hand fighter just dealt with the Owlbear lair. The wizard used invisibility sphere to sneak the group past the entrance straight to the nesting owlbear. Surprise rounds consists of haste and two attacks for a little bit of damage. Wizard wins initiative and slays the owlbear with phantasmal killer. I cry a little but cheer on their luck. Next they loot everything and check out the spider lair aka XP pinatas.
After this they go into the trapped corridor. The ranger and fighter both fail their saves and plummet 40 feet into the green slime. Both land prone and take fall damage. Exposure to the slime deals Con damage they are covered head to foot. The wizard throws a rope down the hole and they climb their way back up. Luckily the wizard had that old wand of burning hands so he torches them clean. Four rounds of slime exposure had knocked the ranger down to 1 Con though so he nearly dies from the spell itself.
Does it sound like I ran that encounter right? It really ticked them off and they kept spouting about how "This is like a CR 15 encounter!"
I kind of liked the fact that they steam rolled the owlbear but nearly got taken down by dungeon slime. I'm sad they fled before running into the shambling mound though. I'll reposition that guy in one of the empty hexes.
I don't know if the slime attaches to you, but it sounds like a fun session. Then again I was not the one covered with flesh eating slime(how I think I will describe it). My players, will love you for this idea. Ok, so maybe they won't, but thanks anyway. :)
PS: I stand corrected. It is actually a living creature, not just some dangerous mold. At least one person in the party took knowledge(dungeoneering).
XP 1200
This dungeon peril is a dangerous variety of normal slime. Green slime devours flesh and organic materials on contact and is even capable of dissolving metal. Bright green, wet, and sticky, it clings to walls, floors, and ceilings in patches, reproducing as it consumes organic matter. It drops from walls and ceilings when it detects movement (and possible food) below.
A single 5-foot square of green slime deals 1d6 points of Constitution damage per round while it devours flesh. On the first round of contact, the slime can be scraped off a creature (destroying the scraping device), but after that it must be frozen, burned, or cut away (dealing damage to the victim as well). Anything that deals cold or fire damage, sunlight, or a remove disease spell destroys a patch of green slime. Against wood or metal, green slime deals 2d6 points of damage per round, ignoring metal's hardness but not that of wood. It does not harm stone.
Bolded for your conveniuence
I think it should probably have devoured most of their gear as well but they already wanted to lynch me. Be sure to remember climbing is 1/4 normal speed! So only 15 ft. a round with double moves.
I ruled they had to climb out of the hole first unless they wanted the wizard to torch the rope and they fall back in.
** spoiler omitted **
Bolded for your conveniuenceI think it should probably have devoured most of their gear as well but they already wanted to lynch me.
I went and checked, but thanks anyway. You ran it correctly.
** spoiler omitted **
Bolded for your conveniuenceI think it should probably have devoured most of their gear as well but they already wanted to lynch me. Be sure to remember climbing is 1/4 normal speed! So only 15 ft. a round with double moves.
I ruled they had to climb out of the hole first unless they wanted the wizard to torch the rope and they fall back in.
LoL. I think the rope getting burned makes sense. I would spare them their gear though. Me struggling to not laugh while their are giving me angry looks will be bad enough without me making them loose all of their equipment. That dwarf in my part better pray he can move fast enough.
There is a girl named Lily who is supposed to have a quest for the PC's. I don't see her anywhere in the main. Is she just supposed to be added in whenever I feel like it?
Yup, I plopped her down in the Inn my players built. She was great. Several of the quest givers are similar to her.
She is mentioned in the section about the evil fey castle though...because that's where the art she wants is.
|
|
I'm conflating Lily with Naleska, the Lady of Negotiable Virtue from the Hirelings free pdf.. I think they're pretty much the same personality.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thought I would chime in. My 7th level party currently consisting of an illusionist specialist, a bow ranger, and a two-hand fighter just dealt with the Owlbear lair. The wizard used invisibility sphere to sneak the group past the entrance straight to the nesting owlbear. Surprise rounds consists of haste and two attacks for a little bit of damage. Wizard wins initiative and slays the owlbear with phantasmal killer. I cry a little but cheer on their luck. Next they loot everything and check out the spider lair aka XP pinatas.
After this they go into the trapped corridor. The ranger and fighter both fail their saves and plummet 40 feet into the green slime. Both land prone and take fall damage. Exposure to the slime deals Con damage they are covered head to foot. The wizard throws a rope down the hole and they climb their way back up. Luckily the wizard had that old wand of burning hands so he torches them clean. Four rounds of slime exposure had knocked the ranger down to 1 Con though so he nearly dies from the spell itself.
Does it sound like I ran that encounter right? It really ticked them off and they kept spouting about how "This is like a CR 15 encounter!"
I kind of liked the fact that they steam rolled the owlbear but nearly got taken down by dungeon slime. I'm sad they fled before running into the shambling mound though. I'll reposition that guy in one of the empty hexes.
HA HA! That sounds great - while I'm a bit saddened the owlbear was a bit of a pushover, I do like the irony of the green slime being the most dangerous thing they encountered in there. SOunds to me like you ran it right, and have an interesting story to tell, too! :)
Yeah I rolled 2 on it's Fort save. My dice never fail me on save or suck spells UNLESS it's the BBEG.
...the Stag Lord fell pray to glitterdust.
|
|
Yeah I rolled 2 on it's Fort save. My dice never fail me on save or suck spells UNLESS it's the BBEG.
...the Stag Lord fell pray to glitterdust.
Yup, my cursed dice do the same. My most recent example was the party cleric taking down a certain dragon inside Scarwall with a Command (to fall). Got through its SR and it rolled pathetically low on its save. By the time it got back on its feet it was in single figure HP.
Earlier in that AP, the same cleric effectively took out a certain Rakshasa with Blindness!
He's a relatively new player and is constantly amazing my other players (who've all been gaming for decades) with creative uses for low level spells that they'd dismissed as useless beyond about 4th level.
I'm conflating Lily with Naleska, the Lady of Negotiable Virtue from the Hirelings free pdf.. I think they're pretty much the same personality.
Thanks for the link.
Yeah I rolled 2 on it's Fort save. My dice never fail me on save or suck spells UNLESS it's the BBEG.
...the Stag Lord fell pray to glitterdust.
Yup, my cursed dice do the same. My most recent example was the party cleric taking down a certain dragon inside Scarwall with a Command (to fall). Got through its SR and it rolled pathetically low on its save. By the time it got back on its feet it was in single figure HP.
Earlier in that AP, the same cleric effectively took out a certain Rakshasa with Blindness!
He's a relatively new player and is constantly amazing my other players (who've all been gaming for decades) with creative uses for low level spells that they'd dismissed as useless beyond about 4th level.
I have noticed new players don't see the constraints vets do because they dont see the limitations on the intentions of the spells. <---Did anyone understand that. I wrote it, and I had to read it again.
Along the lines of the above posts, looking for some perspective here. I am running Kingmaker for some experienced players, and the troll lair was anticlimatic since the party used hold person (trolls are humanoids with bad will saves) and then coupe de grace full round actions before they could recover.
There are more trolls and giants in the future books, and I guess I will make sure they all have clerics with dispel magic hanging around to make things a bit more challenging. More than anything, I am frustrated that the spell - instead of hold monster - works on them and am considering some sort of house rule (though that would feel like a takeaway).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Along the lines of the above posts, looking for some perspective here. I am running Kingmaker for some experienced players, and the troll lair was anticlimatic since the party used hold person (trolls are humanoids with bad will saves) and then coupe de grace full round actions before they could recover.
There are more trolls and giants in the future books, and I guess I will make sure they all have clerics with dispel magic hanging around to make things a bit more challenging. More than anything, I am frustrated that the spell - instead of hold monster - works on them and am considering some sort of house rule (though that would feel like a takeaway).
You could have lower level clerics with remove paralysis and it would automatically work, rather than having to roll vs. PCs' higher caster level.
Also, you can avert the tactic by simply having multiple enemies present at a time. Doing a coup de grace provokes AoOs; if multiple trolls are present with reach, they can wail on people trying to pull of a CDG. Single-target SoS spells become vastly less awesome when you can't gang up on single targets.