Lord Phrofet wrote:
Just in case there was confusion. When, in my post, I said "looked it up, still the same" I meant that the PF rules are identical to the 3.5 rules on this. It's really cheap to add an up to +5 enhancement to your claws.
This is to say nothing of peripheral Druid spells that allow the application of other effects (flaming property etc.) to natural attacks. Even without permanency, wands/scrolls of these types of spells work well.
I haven't really dealt with this in PF, but in 3/3.5 days, the rules for finding someone to cast Magic Fang/Greater Magic Fang+permanency was surprisingly cheap if treated like buying a magic item. This worked both for monks and natural weapon-bearing creatures/characters.
Looked it up, still the same:
Greater Magic Fang, Permanent, treated as a magic item...
Magic Fang +5 (assuming a metropolis, even though the rules say one cannot assume that a character can find a character capable of casting 9th level spells even in a metropolis, they say nothing about a caster level cap) cost = spell level x caster level x 10 + material component costs. 3 x 20 x 10 = 600 gold for GMF, 5 x 11 x 10 + 7500 = 8050 for Permanency. Total, 8650 per natural attack for +5 enhancement. Assume instead one goes for caster level 20 on Permanency (the better to avoid dispelling) the price only goes up to 9100.
Ranger by far, nothing really good and crunchy is hiding in the first two levels of fighter. As a lightly armored skill-beast, ranger is the the obvious pick. Also, when you go back to ranger, don't go for animal comp, go for the companion bond, that way you can be the ultimate party-booster.
Go to 6:09
Is the RAI question really that hard? Has it somehow not been made imminently clear at what levels a character is expected to be able to make/afford +5 weapons?
This is clearly not RAI.
But so what? The game has always had loopholes, and finding them is part of the fun. If we were playing a game that was obsessed with perfect scaling and balance, that never rewarded the ingenuity of the player, we'd be posting on another site's boards (you know which one).
However, I've found that gaining an this powerful too early begins to sap the fun out of the game. Even if it doesn't overbalance actual play, once you have +5, what items are you going to spend the next ten levels looking forward to?
Cleric has been more powerful overall since the 3.0 reboot. I will now reveal my geezer-gamer status:
In the pre 3.0 world, here was the breakdown:
If you wanted to own earth-shattering, supreme power, you had to play a wizard. Here's the cost you payed:
How wizards got more powerful in 3.0:
How clerics got more powerful:
Clerics, gods love 'em, have been overpowered ever since. Not that I mind.
They probably weren't +2 bows, they were probably composite bows. (That's what I'm hoping, anyways) Even so, those would be some very strong bandits.
I said +2 str bows, I didn't mean +2 enchantment. For there to be a +2 str bonus on a bow it must be:
Composite Longbow (or shortbow, but he's saying they're long): 100 gp
total: 600 gp per bow. This is like arming 13-year-olds with .50 cals.
I can't believe no-one's noticed this:
1st level players with 90 gp worth of equipment faced down 8 npcs (presumably with NPC classes) who inexplicably had equipment worth more than the party's entire wealth put together. +2 comp MW longbows cost 600 gp each (you can't have a str bonus otherwise).
This doesn't invalidate other arguments about balance, retreat, etc. Even without the mechanical advantage, first levelers should be careful when outnumbered. But there is a certain degree to which this story sounds like: "We showed up with rusty flintlocks, they had AR-15s, we got our asses kicked."
Those +2 str bows are pure GM fail, characters that level shouldn't have them.
In 3.0 ambidexterity was the prereq for TWF, 3.5 changed this because two feats for TWF was expensive (TWF w/Ambidexterity still had the normal -2). Ambidexterity in 3.5 was a class feature for the Tempest prestige class, which reduced and eventually eliminated all TWF penalties.
It depends on the story. An epic-scope story, saving the world and all that (I've really only played in one), worked all the way into 20 because the increasing abilities meant more than having the wherewithal to fight higher level monsters.
However, in games with a non-epic scope, where we were just playing 'adventurers' I found that fun potential kind of dries up around twelfth or thirteenth.
This is a home campaign. Play an actual Zen archer, i.e. someone who is dedicated (to a monastic degree) to archery. Clerics don't have to actually have gods, sometimes they just have ideals.
Pending GM approval (my own GM instincts would allow this in the interest of coolness) allow your character to be a seeker of a certain philosophic ideal, and the meditative practice of the bow is his devotional form.
Thank you, I was reading through and waiting for someone to get that right before I had to correct it. Yes, it was cocaine, why else do you think Robert Downey Jr. gets the character so right?
Uhh, I wasn't saying that the bows were the size of longbows when strung, I was saying their staves, previous to shaping, were the same length as a longbow's.
Moisture has always been bad for bows, irrespective of where they originated of what style they were made in. The Turks and the Mongols as history and the systematic pillaging of Europe and Asia have shown, managed to keep their bows in working order wherever they went. Both made laminated leather cases that the entire strung bow could be placed in to keep the whole thing dry.
Here's a number of things I have considered changing about bow, based on my own mechanical and historical knowledge.
*Longbows cannot be used with any sort of plate armor. This would be historically accurate; the flanges and plates around shoulder and elbow would both prevent proper extension of the arm, and would block the path of the bowstring. Specially designed "Archer's Plate" could be possible.
-On a historical note, very few bows would actually conform to the idea of a "shortbow". Most bows used from horseback were mechanically altered in some way, either by offsetting the center, as with the Japanese daikyuu, or recurving the length, such as with the composite recurves of the various steppes archers. Recurved bows, if flattened, would usually actually be as long as normal longbows.
Consider the four possible draw lengths of a bow: Anywhere from the elbow to the shoulder (these are usually called "snap" bows by my archer and bowyer friends), to the shoulder/breast (often called breastbows), to the corner of the mouth (this is the normal, Olympic draw that most everyone knows), and the full clothyard arrow draw(this is what British war archers would use, drawing to the point where the thumb of the drawing hand is under the ear, (this measurement gets its name from the way of measuring a "yard" of cloth in relation to someone's frame).
Shortbows (i.e. "snap" bows) don't get shot the same way as other bows. By and large, an instinctive "point-don't-aim" method gets used when firing, allowing for much much faster firing.
*Shortbows allow the user to make AOOs, they threaten a range of 10-15'.
*Shortbows, because of their swift firing time, come in a surprising speed and angles, allowing the wielder to make Bluff checks to catch an opponent flat-footed.
*Allow "re-stringing" of a bow for different shooting. Some cultures created bows with alterable pull-lengths for use in different terrain ("Princess Mononoke" shows this at the beginning, where the main hero quickly restrings his bow from one length to another before jumping on horseback). Allow one certain type of bow to be quickly shifted from longbow for ground fighting to a shorter draw for horseback use. Allow another model of bow, the Warbow, that acts as a normal longbow (normal attack rate, etc.) and can be restrung for a deeper, heavier draw, that allows a full-round action draw to shoot full clothyard arrows (which were incredibly heavy, and would have higher damage, knockback/knockdown, power attack, or all of the above).
As I recall, back in 3/3.5 there were a lot of different materials, metals from elemental planes etc. That would confer a single point of energy bonus damage to any weapon constructed of them. You could look these up, if you have the resources, and perhaps add their costs into the item, along with some fee for 'alloying' them together.
Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel"
I don't have a name for this syndrome -and HW, try not to be insulted here, I think everyone who's gamed has suffered from it at some point- where a gamer wants to use their character to illustrate some philosophical stance and demonstrate its value, even if the system really doesn't support that point.
Example: once for a bit of fun, some friends of mine played a one-off game where each player was allowed to choose some character of god-like power, something already established in fiction, to play.
One player chose Smaug.
One player chose Thor.
One player chose Darth Vader.
One player chose Shaft (need you ask? Yes, this player was a skinny white kid from the suburbs).
Guess which character didn't survive the game? No matter how cool you might suppose Shaft is, he isn't going to beat Darth Vader in a fight. The rules don't support it, reality doesn't support it, good gaming doesn't support it.
If you really want to keep these parts of the character as a flavor piece, re-skin your aversion to money. Gems aren't money, though they have value, and it wouldn't be unusual for there to be lots of gems in a jungle setting, so maybe your GM helps you out, and you start finding gems, or artifacts, or just barter and trade goods in hoards (that's more realistic anyway).
Back to "Guns, Germs, and Steel": better weapons defeat weaker weapons, however virtuous the wielders of either are. Choosing weaker weapons and armor for cultural reasons has always, without fail, historically been the death knell of a group. It's nothing personal, and it is an amoral judgement, but history is clear on this.
If you really want your character to work, look up the times where, at least temporarily, those using more primitive weapons took down more advanced invaders. King Shaka, the Apache Scouts, and King Lapu Lapu of the Philipines (he's the one who personally beheaded Magellan) are a good place to start.
One hint, all of them used the terrain against their opponents.
Petty Alchemy wrote:
What's the thing you're going for? Why werewolf monks? Are you looking for flurry of claws/bites? Other monkish powers used in conjunction with werewolf abilities, or ablative enemies who fight first as monks, then as they near defeat wolf out and go into Crinos form (forgive the reference)?
Adding flurry to natural attacks is iffy, though as I recall, a WW's bite and claws would be weaker than a 5th level monk's punch, so really the only thing you'd gain would be a strength bonus.
I think the usual concerns about high powered encounters at lower levels should be more important. Have the players received hints about the nature of the enemy? Have they been given opportunities to pick up a couple of silvered weapons. Do they have some wolfsbane available to treat the bitten?
You have expressed laudable concern for balance, which tells me you're a conscientious GM. If by mid-encounter it becomes clear that you've botched the power level and the party has no hope in hell, have an out. Let someone notice that there's a stash of silver weapons (spoils from a defeated party of werewolf hunters) in the corner, or something similar.
Quantum Steve wrote:
Points for anyone who creates this character based on the gnomes from Discworld, either Wee Mad Arthur or the Mac Nac Feegles.
This one I lifted from the Green Ronin pirate book:
For low magic worlds, each character starts with 1d4+1 'lives'
Every time the character would be killed, he or she instead loses a 'life' and somehow survives, miraculously. However, the character is still out for the rest of the fight.
I remember one character in a game I ran was hit, nat 20, by a Vorpal blade, she survived, but he vocal cords had been destroyed. It was actually a pretty cool development.
Players don't know how many lives they have, the GM keeps track. Also, there was either a feat or a trait "Nine Lives" that changed the number of lives to 2d4+1 (or the full 9 if you felt generous).
I've seen a GM allow Force as a energy type, it swiftly unbalanced the game.
I've gone down this path; as tempting as it seems, don't go.
Writing out Buddhist sutras in their own blood was considered a devotional act by many Buddhist sects that you could hardly call evil.
Esoteric Tibetan Buddhism used various human-derived items: rattles made from finger bones, bowls made from skulls, as ways to emphasize one's separation from the physical.
The most devout Catholic I know owns a cane with a knob made from the top of a Priest's femur (it's carved to look like an owl) which he got from a reliquary shop in the Vatican.
Objects derived from people aren't inherently evil unless your ethos specifically focuses on the sanctity of the body.
No. First of all, since it isn't defined, we have to go off of common sense and artistic representation to determine handle sizes. The handle of a large dagger, or sword, or what-have-you, is not as big around as a thigh/telephone pole, more like a can of Fosters. Size Huge is where you get into telephone pole size.
Secondly, no, it isn't the same. The physical mechanic involved is actually and clearly different. You do not grasp a glove onto your fist any more than you grasp your underwear with your pelvis. The mechanic is, in fact, clearly and obviously reversed.
If it is a garment, and it magically resizes, problem solved; it is now a medium +1 gauntlet.
Are we seriously playing the 'bonus as definition' game here? Look up gauntlet in any dictionary... okay, never mind.
This is a game for thinking people:
How are you going to put on a metal glove when each finger of which is larger than your fist?
Yes, it's a weapon, but it's also a garment; it's something a character must don to use. The rules are clear that you can't wear clothing or armor that's the wrong size...as is the most basic understanding of reality.
Transitive property: armor is made up of pieces, gauntlets are pieces of armor. Yes, they ARE "armor" themselves. Can't wear them, can't wield them. It follows both rules and common sense. If something is both armor and a weapon, and one must wear it to wield it, if one can't wear it, one can't wield it.
As for size large spikes on medium armor...no, the rules are less clear, but common sense rule, by my GM instinct, says no, trying to move with spikes the size of short-swords sticking out everywhere is implausible.
Though if you did, you gain automatic free admission to a GWAR concert.
I'll answer the question this is posted under first, then maybe the question implied in your actual entry.
Cleric. Hands down.
3/4 BAB. Good armor access. Best, easiest healing. Best buffs. Also, that whole 'murdered by undead' thing...no, undead literally run screaming from them. Come at him confused, he hits you with break enchantment, or hold person.
I don't know your brother's play style or level of experience, but lightly armored support types (Rogue and Alchemist) are best tackled by those with experience. By that measure, I would nix Horizon Walker, considering you're most likely to get there through Ranger. Again, lightly armored might not be the way for him to go.
Barring anything else, if melee inexperience is the problem, create a ranged character, someone who stays out of the fray. That's a good way to observe and figure out how to survive.
Again, I must extoll the virtues of the wondrous flour sack, it costs something like five copper. The only expense is in weight. The old rules for use as a mundane Invisibility Purge were in Dungeonscape, I think.
Note: I feel that characters have gotten above their value-limit if anything they own is worth more than half their expected level wealth. (this is the same rule I use for higher-than-first-level character creation, I forget if it's an actual rule).
If you are dealing with intelligent monsters, and they figure out that they can't hit a character, don't have them act like idiots, flailing away.
I personally don't like the idea of a 'treasure audit' but if your player have managed to get their AC this high, either they are sitting on tech they shouldn't be for their level (I know tech would be SF, but it fits here)
In the first instance, there are several options, it may sound cheap, but if your party is walking around with a lot of expensive goods that they really aren't qualified to defend, have them targeted by thieves.
In the second option, look to see where they left things bare to optimize their AC. Poke them there a few times, and even let it be known to them that word has gotten around that they have this achilles heel, and maybe they should invest in patching that hole.
As said above though, never spank the players for doing their jobs well, but prod occasionally to keep the game exciting.
Keep normal BAB, lose favored enemy. This is class would be someone who spend most time figuring out fiddly little tricks and traps, not studying creatures. Also, lose Endurance and make Ref the only good save. This is a character who focuses more on cleverness than toughness.
Review your facts about wolves:
Usually mate for live (not always, but almost).
Consider not one boss. But two, a mated pair: A Werewolf and Warg. They fight in unison, like wolves would.
Something that actually happened in a campaign:
GM: the stone slab slides into place, sealing the hole in the floor. You're going to have to go to the entrance on the other side of the mountain.
I think this question is really "What's the best cheap, non-magical equipment?" (who stays first level for longer than the first floor of the dungeon?)
A GM of mine once, as a reward for helping a besieged town, allowed our party access to the stock of a general store whose owner had been killed. I then spent the rest of that campaign MacGyvering the heck out of everything he'd allowed us to take.
A few suggestions:
Grease or lard in large amounts can be used to make traps and mimic the effects of the Grease spell.
Handsaw: you don't need Craft:Trapmaking to saw 3/4 of the way through the stringers on a set of stairs.
Simply put, I would tell him to buy a wand. He probably doesn't realize that he'll most likely never have to use that item more than 50 times. The only reason he would need an at-will wondrous item is if he wasn't a caster, in which case he wouldn't be able to custom make magic items because I don't let players go to an npc wizard with requests like that.
Exactly. Do the math. Average length of combat (in my experience) 5-6 rounds. Number of times you will use this wand instead of something more powerful, 1 out of 4, maybe 1 out of 3 times. Average use per battle, approx. 1.5. Number of battles it will take for you to run through a 50 charge wand: over 30. Level you will be 30 battles from now?
Seriously, ask around, do you know anyone (barring people who actually build wandslingers) who has gone through an entire 50 charge wand without discarding it for something better. I'm sure it happens, but I haven't seen it in 20 years involvement in RPGs.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Aside from the barbarian's sword (core book) I have liked all of the art.
Yeah. Silliest sword ever.
This is one of the most polished systems ever. Almost no other system has gotten to basically revise the same rules three times (3, 3.5, PF) without trying to relaunch as a fully different edition and system.
When I came to PF after the demise of 3.5, as an inveterate player and GM, I found every, and I mean every, issue I'd ever had dealt with, from the 1/2 point skill system, the spellcasting ability for Arcane Archers, the hit die size for arcane casters, the rules for turning undead, the advent of CMB/CMD, everything spoke of people who knew and played the system.
Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal wrote:
Actually, there is scientific evidence to indicate that about 10% of the human population or so is sexuality-wise asexual. They aren't abstaining, they just really aren't interested. The popular term among among those of that orientation is 'ace'.
Where are you getting your numbers? Last I knew, this number was 1%. I'm not a hater, whatever gets people off (or not, as the case may be) but 10% seems a bit of a misrep.
Ultimate Heroics (Heroism?)
Allow for the expansion/adaptation of skills.
Add rules for creating a skill battle that is just as gripping as a physical battle. At the very least rules for a diplomacy/bluff confrontation (if you don't think diplomacy can't be heroic/gripping/funny, watch anything by Aaron Sorkin).
I agree -1 to Skill Tricks, they were a patch (a decent one, but we can fix things at the source here). Instead, Feat chains with multiple skill trick-type abilities?
Add expanded rules for settings and more specifically genres different from standard fantasy.
Example: Noir Rules
Other settings/ideas: Wild West, High Intrigue (Game of Thrones), Medieval Superhero (Marvel's 1602).
I see a bigger lack of Arcane power as a problem.
If you still want to bring the monkish style fighting, plus a bit of the on-demand arcane power, how about a Magus (Black Blade, Kensai) into Eldritch Knight? You could still be part of a sect dedicated to the eradication of demons and such (the Black Blades are kind of a blank slate), but you'll be able to do some monkish style antics, too.
Otherwise, if you want to be a monk, but with bigger punch (sic) consider being a Qinggong or Master of Many Styles Monk/Fighter (Unarmed)
Here's a few spells from the other books, in case you have access (Advanced Player, Ult Mag, Ult Com)