4-23 Rivalry's End (spoilers probable)


GM Discussion

151 to 200 of 381 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court ***** RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

I'm not so upset about Torch screwing the Shadow Lodge over. I *am* upset that the party can't really do anything about it. I mean, DC 41 sense motive to know what's happening? Really?

Let's say level 7, so that's +10

We'll add another 6, for an inquisitor having sense motive maxed, and a 16 wisdom.

Add another 3 for skill focus, just to be hypothetical

Now toss in another 1 for a trait bonus.

That's a +20 I roll a - well crap, I can't roll at 21 on d20.

I had fun, and the GM did a good job, but that last bit. Really?

Shadow Lodge ****

Yah, the spell he has going wouldn't even apply, as he isn't trying to pretend to be innocent, he is trying to conceal his intentions, which the spell specifically says does not work.

Liberty's Edge ***

It has a great story. It has two of my recurring favorite NPC's. A+

*

You could use an Azlant Pendant or an Inquisitor's Monocle to up your sense motive...

...can anyone didn't realise what was going to happen though. Torch started out as a devious underworld blackmailer, then was found to be running the Shadow Lodge (duh, the bad guys). Then he betrays the Pathfinders again...

...how can agents be so credulous to be suprised by this? :-)

Anyway, he got what he deserved.

(Loved the scenario)

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

I honestly expected him to be the real Spider, having not played any of the earlier scenarios where the Spider was identified.

Liberty's Edge **

Quick Question:

In the Spider encounter is the Spider likely to emerge from her room if the Touch of Idiocy causes characters to drop? And if so , is she just likely to kill them or run? I find it hard to believe she would simply wait as other party members repair the stat loss issues. Or is it more likely she would greater invis out to wrack some dominate /confusion shannanigans?

Grand Lodge *****

Matthew Pittard wrote:

Quick Question:

In the Spider encounter is the Spider likely to emerge from her room if the Touch of Idiocy causes characters to drop? And if so , is she just likely to kill them or run? I find it hard to believe she would simply wait as other party members repair the stat loss issues. Or is it more likely she would greater invis out to wrack some dominate /confusion shannanigans?

I think if she used greater invis, then opened up one of the two doors (while hiding behind the other for cover) she could stand there and blast out a confusion.

"Attack closest creature" results could even end up with folks crossing the carpet again, or just standing on it and losing mental stats each round. Since it is a penalty and not damage, I don't believe it stacks with itself, but simply imparts the highest penalty and cannot be healed with restoration. However, dispel magic or possibly break enchantment should get rid of it.

I'm a fan of her being a bit more proactive in that fight... right now she just waits for the inevitable.

Liberty's Edge **

Thanks Andrew. I dont want to go against RAW but by the same token she is protected by a desk and a flimsy double door. Anyone affected by the Touch is a prime candidate for Confusion/Dominate.

Would the same go for those Affected by the Creeping Doom? Its a fair distance away yes, but if they have been poisoned to the point of lockup... would she do anything?

Grand Lodge *****

Matthew Pittard wrote:

Thanks Andrew. I dont want to go against RAW but by the same token she is protected by a desk and a flimsy double door. Anyone affected by the Touch is a prime candidate for Confusion/Dominate.

Would the same go for those Affected by the Creeping Doom? Its a fair distance away yes, but if they have been poisoned to the point of lockup... would she do anything?

She would probably not hear them fighting the creeping doom unless they are exceptionally noisy (See: Alchemists). You've got essentially 2 closed doors and lots of space to penalize the perception check. If they are very noisy, it may just be that she knows they're coming even early and has more time to prepare.

...you know, summon an eidolon or something... (oh that's right, rules as written...)

Liberty's Edge **

Yeah, thats what I thought. Im hoping to run the high tier one

Silver Crusade *

Of all the traps I've seen in Society play the one at the end of the second level was just OW! AAAHHHH! I don't think BRUTAL was strong enough. Well played sir, well played.
Good luck to all Society members.

Dark Archive **

Well I just played this last Saturday. Tier 3-4 last fight went like this, Torch kills the girl. GM goes, what are you going to do? Well we said we are going to attack him, so we rolled Init, Gm rolled like a 1 and a 2 for Torch and his body guards. We all rolled higher, round one my character had set up right next to Torch since he was a shadow lodge member. Stepped up, and hit Torch, fighter then went and crit Torch, wizard did scorching ray and hit with both rays. Torch went down... Then body guards were cleaned up rather quickly.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

K'el, when I ran it, it went very, very different, and I think a bit more consistent to what is likely to happen. Torch won initiative, had a clear path to the door without taking a single AoOp, full move, plus cape and he was gone. Had one player move before the guards, and that was game. Torch escaped with ease (something that I don't think is as easy for him to do on the high tier) and the half-orcs actually did a good chunk of damage to the party.

Though, honestly, Torch did more damage to them (Have a regular Tuesday night group, so it's always the same players and characters) as they are now extra suspicious towards any venture captain or even anyone asking them to do anything even slightly dubious, even calling Amara Li out as doing something stupid in another scenario (which got them a scolding, but she had to agree she had done something less than ideal). It has created an interesting and permanent party mechanic.

Dark Archive **** Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Twin Cities Metro South

I am still having a hard time understanding the idea that he wont get away 95%+ of the time. two instant escapes that have no possibility of following? He is not even supposed to try to move to the door... just dramatic poof - gone.

sure a few builds can drop him or bad init rolls. And that assumes the players all want to actually kill him quick.

Dark Archive ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—Minneapolis aka Silbeg

In the game that I played, Munny (Lawman of Abadar) won initiative, and started his full-round attack with Vera against Torch...

Hit for 19hp (Vera does 1d12+10 at point blank range)

then rolled a 1 (misfire?!?!)

Next, Torch's initiative... with a flurry of his cape, he is gone.

In the game that I ran last weekend... Torch managed to roll pretty poorly on his initiative. He, and 2 of his bodyguards, are captured in an Aqueous Orb. Torch then "clicks his heels", using the Boots of Escape (the players pointed out he probably couldn't use the Cape of the Montebank... something I am not 100% sure about).

He was then beyond their reach (he was only about 10' from a wall, so d-doored to the other side... next turn he could use the Cape).

Interestingly, the players were rather mixed on what to do about him. I described his CdG against The Spider... and called for initiative... they said "Why?"

Then, they started talking... and about 1/2 the table decided that the outright evil act of executing a bound prisoner needed to be answered (the lone Shadow Lodge character was pretty 'meh' about it). The bodyguards reacting (and attacking) got them moving...

Shadow Lodge ***

Silbeg wrote:
He, and 2 of his bodyguards, are captured in an Aqueous Orb. Torch then "clicks his heels", using the Boots of Escape (the players pointed out he probably couldn't use the Cape of the Montebank... something I am not 100% sure about).

Nothing in the description of Aqueous Orb prevents the use of items or spellcasting. He can use either the Boots or Cape with no issue. If forced to, he could cast a spell after 2 concentration checks--1 check due to continuous damage from the Orb (DC + 1/2 Orb damage from that round + Spell Level) and 1 check for casting underwater as a non-water breather (DC 15 + Spell Level).

Shadow Lodge ***

Also, since it came up in our game, several members of our party learned the Spider was an enchanter type and prepped with Prot Evil. Prot Evil does NOT protect against confusion or deep slumber :)

**** Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Gloucester aka Findas

I had the rare privilege of playing this with Mike Brock as GM at this past weekend’s PaizoCon UK (side note: Mike is a pretty good GM ;)).

There were 5 of us playing low tier and it was a good, challenging adventure. We were still in full stealth mode as we came down the stairs and heard the mechanicals. We went down the other hall, ignored the middle rooms, and never fought them. Given what I’ve read here I can’t say I’m sorry about that.

We set off the web-swarm trap, at which point Mike asked for will saves. Upon making mine I was shown a brief bit of text saying that the spider swarm was an illusion (at least I’m pretty sure that’s what I read). Not having read the scenario myself I’m not sure if this is just for low-tier or what, but it seemed much less deadly than some of the descriptions I’ve read here. In any case between some hacking and burning of webs and most of us disbelieving we got through relatively unscathed.

We picked up that there was magic on the carpet and simply avoided it, assuming it to be a trap.

Oiudda was a good, challenging fight. My character was incapacitated once with hideous laughter and again with deep slumber, while others spent much of the time confused. We eventually beat her into submission and headed back to Torch.

Ah, Grandmaster Torch. I must admit I didn’t see it coming. My Shadow Lodge character, unswervingly loyal to Torch, was absolutely shattered. Torch himself won initiative and escaped easily. His brutish minions did their best to kill me, and very nearly succeeded.

I enjoyed the adventure. At the end I genuinely didn’t know what I was going to do with my character. Her back-story was built on her being personally recruited by Torch and trusting him implicitly. While she may find his motivations for turning on everything he’d built inexplicable, as a player I think it’s an interesting twist and I don’t have a problem with it.

I briefly considered retiring the character, but I think she is too much of a fighter to give in like that. As far as where to go from here, there is only one faction that specifically says they “seek to be more than just adventurers doing the bidding of the Decemvirate and the venture-captains.” And who look beyond the petty infighting of selfish factions or individuals. And while my character is certainly no goody-two-shoes, I think she will be joining the Silver Crusade after this. It will allow her to most closely follow the best ideals of the Shadow Lodge – helping fellow Pathfinders, leaving no one behind. It allows a continued distrust of the Decemvirate and their machinations. And it doesn’t require allegiance to some foreign country or other questionable power.

Dark Archive ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—Minneapolis aka Silbeg

Sammy T wrote:
Silbeg wrote:
He, and 2 of his bodyguards, are captured in an Aqueous Orb. Torch then "clicks his heels", using the Boots of Escape (the players pointed out he probably couldn't use the Cape of the Montebank... something I am not 100% sure about).

Nothing in the description of Aqueous Orb prevents the use of items or spellcasting. He can use either the Boots or Cape with no issue. If forced to, he could cast a spell after 2 concentration checks--1 check due to continuous damage from the Orb (DC + 1/2 Orb damage from that round + Spell Level) and 1 check for casting underwater as a non-water breather (DC 15 + Spell Level).

Yeah, I read the description of the spell again.

However, it could be argued, that because you have to hold your breath (or drown), you cannot do anything that requires speech. Of course, that could be considered a "standard or full-round action", and just reduce the time left before drowning.

Regardless, I didn't want to argue it, so I just had him use the boots... and then the cape once he was in the other room. No damage done, and he got away. Not that it would have been bad had they captured or killed him.

Liberty's Edge *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Morris wrote:

I'm not so upset about Torch screwing the Shadow Lodge over. I *am* upset that the party can't really do anything about it. I mean, DC 41 sense motive to know what's happening? Really?

Let's say level 7, so that's +10

We'll add another 6, for an inquisitor having sense motive maxed, and a 16 wisdom.

Add another 3 for skill focus, just to be hypothetical

Now toss in another 1 for a trait bonus.

That's a +20 I roll a - well crap, I can't roll at 21 on d20.

I had fun, and the GM did a good job, but that last bit. Really?

So you are upset that an NPC with a major NPC plot point had a skill check the equivalent of a bluff optimized PC skill check?

Huh... An NPC who automatically succeeds for once, that's novel.

*

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What happens to those who refuse to change factions?

Can a character continue as a Shadow Lodge (or Lantern Lodge) agent, losing out on the faction prestige point on all new scenarios, or is the official campaign stance "change or be retired"? Do I refuse to seat someone at a table who will not change factions, or can they still play and simply not get the chance for a faction mission? How do I report it? Treat them as Grand Lodge but willingly failing the assignment?

As an aside:
I doubt this will come up much with the Lantern Lodge, given the satisfactory way that was handled, but many Shadow Lodge characters (my own included) don't feel betrayed at all. Torch got the information out of the asset (that we couldn't) and killed her (which we were going to do anyway) and then he headed out to fulfill his plan, which we've been working towards all this time. He's got something to hold over the Decemvirate, great! Isn't that what we wanted?

Grand Lodge ****

On Torch;

Spoiler:

On the Bluff check thing, looking at Torch's stats, they could have swapped his Improved Feint feat for Skill Focus (Bluff) and he'd have had a +27 Bluff without needing the innocence spell that seems to be causing the arguments. Does a totally legitimate DC 37 Sense Motive instead of a slightly shaky DC 41 improve matters? Because to me it doesn't make that much of a difference.

Liberty's Edge *****

They change or they are retired.

They cannot play with that character if they will not change their faction mission.

Grand Lodge ****

Andrew Christian wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

I'm not so upset about Torch screwing the Shadow Lodge over. I *am* upset that the party can't really do anything about it. I mean, DC 41 sense motive to know what's happening? Really?

Let's say level 7, so that's +10

We'll add another 6, for an inquisitor having sense motive maxed, and a 16 wisdom.

Add another 3 for skill focus, just to be hypothetical

Now toss in another 1 for a trait bonus.

That's a +20 I roll a - well crap, I can't roll at 21 on d20.

I had fun, and the GM did a good job, but that last bit. Really?

So you are upset that an NPC with a major NPC plot point had a skill check the equivalent of a bluff optimized PC skill check?

Huh... An NPC who automatically succeeds for once, that's novel.

Problem is.. the spell he's using doesn't work that does it?

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Which is immaterial the the fact that he is 11th level and could have that skill bonus anyway, even if the writer made an error when doing so.

Liberty's Edge *****

How so? I think it is perfect in the situation.

Grand Lodge ****

Andrew Christian wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

I'm not so upset about Torch screwing the Shadow Lodge over. I *am* upset that the party can't really do anything about it. I mean, DC 41 sense motive to know what's happening? Really?

Let's say level 7, so that's +10

We'll add another 6, for an inquisitor having sense motive maxed, and a 16 wisdom.

Add another 3 for skill focus, just to be hypothetical

Now toss in another 1 for a trait bonus.

That's a +20 I roll a - well crap, I can't roll at 21 on d20.

I had fun, and the GM did a good job, but that last bit. Really?

So you are upset that an NPC with a major NPC plot point had a skill check the equivalent of a bluff optimized PC skill check?

Huh... An NPC who automatically succeeds for once, that's novel.

Problem is.. the spell he's using doesn't work that does it? The move he makes is more of a feint than a bluff/lie to look innocent right?

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

The Sense Motive check is to see if the PC notices Torch is about to murder her. How does innocence not apply?

Innocence wrote:
They find it difficult to believe you capable of any wrongdoing.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Had an interesting time playing this one at 3-4 with my 3rd-level sorceress.

My first action against Ouidda was to cast silent image, putting her in an illusory box. The idea was that it would cut off her line of sight and ability to leave that square, forcing her to spend an action to disbelieve (figured I couldn't hope for more than one failed save). That'd give the party a round to do any buffing or tactical positioning they needed to, without having to deal with spell effects in the meantime.

What happened instead is that somehow, the GM managed to roll single-digit saves multiple times per round for multiple rounds (kicking statistical probability in the nads). By the time she finally managed to disbelieve the box, she was so low on HP that she surrendered.

Never dreamed I'd get that kind of mileage out of a single silent image spell. :)

****

Jiggy wrote:

Had an interesting time playing this one at 3-4 with my 3rd-level sorceress.

My first action against Ouidda was to cast silent image, putting her in an illusory box. The idea was that it would cut off her line of sight and ability to leave that square, forcing her to spend an action to disbelieve (figured I couldn't hope for more than one failed save). That'd give the party a round to do any buffing or tactical positioning they needed to, without having to deal with spell effects in the meantime.

What happened instead is that somehow, the GM managed to roll single-digit saves multiple times per round for multiple rounds (kicking statistical probability in the nads). By the time she finally managed to disbelieve the box, she was so low on HP that she surrendered.

Never dreamed I'd get that kind of mileage out of a single silent image spell. :)

That exact same scenario happened to a BBEG I was running in one of the Thornkeep modules. Single silent image, failing save after save.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Andrew Christian wrote:

So you are upset that an NPC with a major NPC plot point had a skill check the equivalent of a bluff optimized PC skill check?

Huh... An NPC who automatically succeeds for once, that's novel.

OF course heaven forbid if there's a PC who would automatically succeed at a skill check...

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

I don't know about you Matt but I've seen plenty of PCs auto-succeed. Even some of my own.

Grand Lodge *****

Jiggy wrote:

Had an interesting time playing this one at 3-4 with my 3rd-level sorceress.

My first action against Ouidda was to cast silent image, putting her in an illusory box. The idea was that it would cut off her line of sight and ability to leave that square, forcing her to spend an action to disbelieve (figured I couldn't hope for more than one failed save). That'd give the party a round to do any buffing or tactical positioning they needed to, without having to deal with spell effects in the meantime.

What happened instead is that somehow, the GM managed to roll single-digit saves multiple times per round for multiple rounds (kicking statistical probability in the nads). By the time she finally managed to disbelieve the box, she was so low on HP that she surrendered.

Never dreamed I'd get that kind of mileage out of a single silent image spell. :)

With illusion spells, they don't create any physical barrier just the appearance of mass. Once she tried to push on part of the box to get out, her hand would go right through and she wouldn't need to make a save at all:

d20 SRD (emphasis mine) wrote:

Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)

Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.

Shadow Lodge ****

She also has a +12 or +15 Spellcraft, so she should have a pretty good shot at identifying the Silent Image spell being cast.

I'm running the scenario this Sunday - I'll try to remember to report back anything interesting.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

wakedown wrote:
She also has a +12 or +15 Spellcraft, so she should have a pretty good shot at identifying the Silent Image spell being cast.

Really? Wow. Guess the GM must've either rolled really low (only DC 16 to ID a 1st-level spell) or forgotten to ID it.

----------------------

@Andrew Hoskins - Up until now, it had been my understanding that if faced with (for instance) an illusory wall, a creature who has not made their disbelief save still really believes deep down that their hand should stop where the wall is and so they unconsciously stop themselves from pushing their hand any further, all while honestly believing that the wall was stopping their hand. Thus, Ouidda was trapped within the box not because the illusion had substance, but because (as indicated by the failed saves) she honestly believed she couldn't push herself through the walls.

Upon reflection, I now realize that that understanding is one I was told as a player whenever my (or my teammates') PC encountered an NPC's illusion, rather than being an explicit rule I can remember reading. Guess I'll do some digging and see if I can figure out the true nature of illusory walls.

In the meantime, to all you GMs reading this: if an NPC put an illusory wall/box in a PC's path, and they said "I push my hand through it", would you (as Andrew Hoskins suggests) have their hand pass through it and provide "proof" of the illusion, thus requiring no save whatsoever? Or would you call that "interaction", give them a save, and have a failed save mean they stop their own hand where they believe their hand should stop?

Liberty's Edge *****

Matthew Morris wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

So you are upset that an NPC with a major NPC plot point had a skill check the equivalent of a bluff optimized PC skill check?

Huh... An NPC who automatically succeeds for once, that's novel.

OF course heaven forbid if there's a PC who would automatically succeed at a skill check...

Do we really want to dredge up that argument again and derail this thread?

I just find it interesting that one of the players who argued vehemently against me about auto successes (you said players should be encouraged to create characters with such and I said that if it becomes too prevalent it takes the challenge out of things and they should get no XP), hates it when the NPCs do the same.

What's good for the goose... and all that.

Sovereign Court ***** RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Ah, the classic "I'll bring this up, but don't want to talk about it."

I found it funny that you find it fine to have NPCs autosucceed, but not PCs. What's good for the goose... and all that.

*

Spoiler:
Unless someone can find a build that will make a 3-7 character beat a 41

The Exchange **

Jiggy wrote:
In the meantime, to all you GMs reading this: if an NPC put an illusory wall/box in a PC's path, and they said "I push my hand through it", would you (as Andrew Hoskins suggests) have their hand pass through it and provide "proof" of the illusion, thus requiring no save whatsoever? Or would you call that "interaction", give them a save, and have a failed save mean they stop their own hand where they believe their hand should stop?

I'd normally ask them for a save. However, for them to say "I push my hand through it", they would have to have a good reason to believe it to be an illusion already, so I would likely give them the +4.

*****

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:

Ah, the classic "I'll bring this up, but don't want to talk about it."

I found it funny that you find it fine to have NPCs autosucceed, but not PCs. What's good for the goose... and all that.

*** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
Bard: CHA +5, ranks +7, Class Skill +3, Circlet of Persuasion +3, Feat (can't remember name +2 to 2 performs) +2, Skill Focus(perform) +3...This is 23 at level 7. There's other ways to boost perform as well. My 8th level bard has a 22 or 23 performance, but it's been so long, I'm not sure where it all came from off the top of my head.
Sovereign Court ***** RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

I agree Brock. If they 'push to see how hard the box is' that's requiring thesave, but their brain will stop them from going thrugh it if they fail it.

(OTOH, if it's a figment affecting the target only... you've created a mime.)

****

Matthew Morris wrote:

Ah, the classic "I'll bring this up, but don't want to talk about it."

I found it funny that you find it fine to have NPCs autosucceed, but not PCs. What's good for the goose... and all that.

*** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
You can hit +23 at with a Level 6 Archon-Blooded Aasimar Inquisitor of Irori (Illumination Domain). Could probably get higher, but this is all assuming you wanted to build a Sense Motive Skill Check Crusher instead of a character.
Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Matthew Morris wrote:
(OTOH, if it's a figment affecting the target only... you've created a mime.)

Figments affect everyone, actually. In fact, the Magic chapter even goes so far as to point out that everyone sees the same thing rather than their own personalized version.

But that's beside the point, I suppose. :)

Liberty's Edge *****

No it isn't Matthew. Its an observation based on an old argument, which we don't need to bring up here. You argue vehemently one way, but don't like it when an NPC does it to you. Hypocritical to me.

Besides, it isn't always an Auto Success

Half-Elf Bard 7
Cha 24 +7 (18 base, +2 Half Elf, +4 Headband)
Versatile Performance (Oratory) – Use Performance for Sense Motive
Skill Focus (Perform) +3
Ranks 7
Class Skill 3
Circlet of Persuasion +3
Prodigy feat +2

= +25

So a roll of 16 or better would get a 41.

I’m sure there are other bonuses from traits and such that could be added as well.

*

Hey Folks,

I have a Shadow Lodge character and I don't see that I will have the time to play this scenario before the cutoff date. For my reference, and so I can tell my players how...how do we go about making the Faction Change? Just make a note on the Chronicle Sheet?

Shadow Lodge

GM Hands of Fate wrote:

Hey Folks,

I have a Shadow Lodge character and I don't see that I will have the time to play this scenario before the cutoff date. For my reference, and so I can tell my players how...how do we go about making the Faction Change? Just make a note on the Chronicle Sheet?

The Rivalry's End chronicle sheet has a spot to enter the faction you're switching to; otherwise, just put it in the "conditions gained" section.

*

OK so even if I don't get a chance to play the scenario in time, I just note the faction change in conditions gained, and won't have to play the required prestige cost?

Shadow Lodge *

GM Hands of Fate wrote:
OK so even if I don't get a chance to play the scenario in time, I just note the faction change in conditions gained, and won't have to play the required prestige cost?

I'm pretty sure its free as long as you were Lantern/Shadow Lodge.

Looking at my sign-ups for this weekend, 2 wizards and a magus. Looking forward to this!

Shadow Lodge

GM Hands of Fate wrote:
OK so even if I don't get a chance to play the scenario in time, I just note the faction change in conditions gained, and won't have to play the required prestige cost?

Correct, and even if you don't play Rivalry's End, you can still use the free faction change prior to August 14th.

That said, Mike Brock HAS stated you only get ONE free change, so while you COULD technically switch to Lantern Lodge, you would have to pay the normal cost to change factions.

Not that I think you want to do that, I just try to explain things as completely as possible.

Grand Lodge *****

Jiggy wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
(OTOH, if it's a figment affecting the target only... you've created a mime.)

Figments affect everyone, actually. In fact, the Magic chapter even goes so far as to point out that everyone sees the same thing rather than their own personalized version.

But that's beside the point, I suppose. :)

Not only that, but they aren't mind affecting. Some illusions ARE mind-affecting, but glamours and figments (such as silent image) are not. This doesn't affect the encounter in question, but I find it a useful fact that GMs often overlook.

****

Maybe its just me, but I'd be pretty unwilling to believe that someone who had an entire faction, and the decemvirate fooled could just be found out by a 3-7...

I can buy there being builds that can (in the right parties) cut through his HP before he has a chance to act (although I'd have liked to have seen some more defensive items to prevent this, thought to bring in the half-orcs but not have someone stoneskin him?), but he has been fooling EVERYONE for years, did anyone expect to just be like, "should have rolled better on that bluff bro?"

151 to 200 of 381 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / 4-23 Rivalry's End (spoilers probable) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.