I'd love some feedback on this build. In particular, what to use those three slots for. I worry that Come and Get Me makes easy fights easier, and hard fights harder.
That's a legitimate worry, especially when you don't have your DR raised as high as you can. Consider it situational, ideal at times, less so at others...I'd encourage you to at least consider this build, 1-12
How many fighter levels does your build use? I recognize that it's excellent at what it does, maximize DR and AOO.
I'm seeing a lot of folks picking Pounce and charge attacks in the Barbarian builds. While I'm a big fan of charging attacks, it just seems in my opinion, over half of PFS fights discourage charging. Due to either terrain, junk in the way, or your fellow pathfinders being in the way.
So in my opinion, it's just not worth the feat investments for a attack you'll end up using so little on. It's a balancing at, do I take Pounce that I'll use around once a fight (on average) vs something that I'll use more often?
I understand your concern, and since I'm considering a three-power investment myself, I'll look at a few parts individually.
Encounter Design
My experience with Pathfinder published fights consists of a half dozen PFS games and two Adventure Paths. In general I see:
Home made encounters = very few obstacles to charging
Adventure Paths = some obstacles to charging
PFS Scenarios = many obstacles to charging
It seems like Paizo uses the PFS scenarios as a place to show off interesting encounter design. I think that's a good strategy on their part, but it could also make a charge-based character sad.
Fellow Pathfinders
While this can occasionally be a problem, the groups I play with usually have it straightened out by third level. Knowing your party members' abilities and accommodating them is Battle Tactics 101.
"Leave a line of charge for the barbarian." is comparable to
"5' step to help the rogue get flanking." or
"Stay within 30' of the witch."
Of course, it is dependent upon your group, and I can see why many PFS games could cause difficulties. Most PFS games have rotating membership, and the ones I've played all had large parties, leading to a situation where party coordination was more troublesome than in a typical "home game".
Level
Pounce becomes available at level 10, but gets better with every attack added to your full-attack routine: level 11, level 16, and Haste. At level 11 with Haste on (Haste, Blessing of Fervor, Boots of Speed, whatever) that full-attack with +2 hit from charging is 4 attacks in place of 1. That's a huge difference!
I don't mean to be too rough on PFS, but it caps out at level 12, and usually takes place from level 1-8. Pounce starting at level 10 just won't be a factor very often.
The Rest of the Time
Assuming the wants-to-charge barbarian is in a typical 4-5 person party, in which he travels at the front, many fights will begin with an opportunity to charge. After the initial charge, only 10' of space is needed to set up a second charge, and 5' allows a full attack without charging. So, barring someone (intentionally or unintentionally) interfering with your charges, every round of combat should allow a full attack.
Final Assessment
I would not pursue Animal Totem with a PFS character.
I would pursue Animal Totem for an Adventure Path, expected to run through its conclusion, played with a group of 4 well-coordinated characters.
No, there is no legacy material when I GM, and none in the separate group with whom I play. I can understand why some groups wanted it early on, but there's plenty of Pathfinder material published now.
Deane Beman, your build looks very similar to what I'm working on. Our only differences are the three abilities I highlighted below. I'm not sure I want to commit to Come and Get Me as a strategy.
I'm considering Improved Sunder, Reckless Abandon, Eater of Magic, Internal Fortitude (with a flawed ioun stone for rage cycling), and Raging Brutality as other candidates.
I'd love some feedback on this build. In particular, what to use those three slots for. I worry that Come and Get Me makes easy fights easier, and hard fights harder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Barbarian (Invulnerable Rager)
Favored Class Bonus: 1/3 Superstition
Str 17, Dex 12, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
Level 1: Power Attack, Raging Vitality
Level 2: Lesser Beast Totem
Level 3: Extra Rage Power: Superstition
Level 4: Reckless Abandon
Level 5: Extra Rage Power: Witch Hunter
Level 6: Spell Sunder
Level 7: Extra Rage Power: Beast Totem
Level 8: Strength Surge
Level 9: Combat Reflexes
Level 10: Greater Beast Totem
Level 11: Dazing Assault
Level 12: Come and Get Me
----------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . multiply for infinite/30, we get 242.000*infinite/30, I get infinite as a final value.
No need to check the DR cost, you need a infinite sum of money to make it and an infinite period of time.
But cheer, the DC to make it is only 16, like for the ring.
First I loled, then I loled more. Thanks for the best thing I've seen all day.
I'm joining a campaign, and I'd like to find a fitting miniature for my new character. I prefer prepainted (plastic) but I'm willing to paint a metal mini if I need to. He is human, Mwangi, barbarian with a greatsword or polearm. I'd love any suggestions you can offer.
Browsing online for an image, I like the look of Ukafa, Bob Sapp's character from Conan the Barbarian.
pic 1, pic 2, pic 3
The other part of the brawl was that via this method, you could also create a new "spell effect" in this sideways method, embed it in an item, and bypass any ties to a spell class or character class as long as you can describe it. Looks like my Helmet of Darth Vaderness is on the way!
Masterwork Helmet + wonderous item feat + (5) Vaderness (can only be destroyed by my own son/voice mod/mind flay) = DC 10? I take 10 on that.
All custom magic items and effects are explicitly under the control of the GM. Obviously no GM would approve that item.
1. Unlike all your other major Hexes, Ice Tomb can target OBJECTS as well as opponents (including Undead, Mindless, Constructs, etc). Retribution CAN affect these targets but is easily defeated by the target switching to ranged attacks or simply stop swinging in melee and casting spells.
Wait, what? My GM ruled that all Ice Tomb does to undead is 3d8 cold damage, save for half, and that it doesn't work at all on inanimate objects. (If it did, I could freeze a lake solid with a little time. That'd be fun...) Was there a new ruling I missed?
Ice Tomb (Su): A storm of ice and freezing wind envelops the target, which takes 3d8 points of cold damage (Fortitude half). If the target fails its save, it is paralyzed and unconscious but does not need to eat or breathe while the ice lasts. The ice has 20 hit points; destroying the ice frees the creature, which is staggered for 1d4 rounds after being released. Whether or not the target’s saving throw is successful, it cannot be the target of this hex again for 1 day. Source: Ultimate Magic
Undead creature type includes "Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless)." I don't see anything in Ice Tomb that says it works on inanimate objects, so it seems like undead might be immune.
I am also in the process of making a new character right now, and am seriously considering a barbarian. I'll happily continue to discuss barbarian building in this thread:)
Like many things, random encounters can be used for good or ill.
Bad
Slavish devotion to the random result on any list.
Wildly random encounters, common in older material, that have vastly underpowered, vastly overpowered, or nonsensical enemies.
"Don't cross the Grey Woods at night!"
"Why not? I thought they were just full of hobgoblins."
"Because the nighttime encounters table has a 1% chance per hour of encountering Orcus, the Chaotic Evil Lord of the Underworld."
Random encounters that interrupt the players' sense of progress toward their goals. (Interrupting the characters' progress is fine, since it's frequently those difficulties which make the story interesting for the players.
Good
The exercise of good judgement when using lists. Sometimes the best "random" encounter is one the GM chooses from a list.
Variety for the players! If the plot is all about fighting demons in caves, then finding a place to fit in an outdoor battle lets the character with flight stretch his wings, and encountering a dire animal gives the ranger or druid the spotlight - If the plot is all about humanoids, fit in some outsiders for the Paladin,
Variety for the GM! Sometimes you just get a brilliant idea for an encounter. Great, use it!
Ideas. Reading or rolling on a list can be a great way to brainstorm encounter ideas. Take inspiration wherever you can get it.
Filler. Sometimes the players just want to smash some faces; sometimes the GM just wants to give out some treasure. One or both of these conditions can occur when "the plot" isn't ready for it.
A classic narrative structure has three peaks: try and fail, try and fail, try and succeed. It can be very difficult to work failure into an RPG, but when done well, it really pays off in the long run.
1. Sufficient competency with the rules to either know the right rule, know how to find it quickly, and know the framework and intent well enough to wing it if you don't have the time to find it.
2. An open-minded attitude that's willing to say "yes" to player ideas.
3. Enough critical thinking skills and logical analysis to know how to apply items 1 and 2.
4. A creative and flexible mind that can both plan grand adventures, and react quickly to whatever the players throw your way.
5. Sufficient organizational skills to find what they need, when they need it.
6. The interpersonal and communication skills necessary to keep a table of four or more people engaged, having fun, and relatively argument-free.
Numbering does not indicate priority, but rather allows for quick referencing should it be necessary.
Thanks for saving me having to write that out, it's almost exactly what I would say. I'll add two items to your list though.
7. The commitment and availability to hold a game together for the required period of time. It's easy to replace a player who drops out, but a dropout GM usually means ending the campaign.
8. Commonality of style with the players. A certain GM might be ideal for one group, but terrible for another.
Look, it's a dangerous world for player characters, and they rarely know where to go. That's why GMPCs are necessary, like my Doomfam. He's just there to help the PCs; even though he's a 25th level fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue, he doesn't dominate the game. He's just there to back the PCs up, give them directions, solve puzzles and kill the BBEG. Last session was great; the PCs were paralyzed, so they got to hear some of Doomfam's backstory (not all of it-that's being self published on Amazon this fall- look for "Doomfam the Destructor") before he killed Asmodeus. It was such an awesome victory that the PCs got to hold some of Doomfam's artifacts. Anyway, I could talk a lot more about Doomfam, but I have to write the upcoming adventure where the PCs help Doomfam save Thor, who gives Doomfam Mjolnier to use as a backup weapon. Ta!
How receptive are you to the GMPC if he is low powered and doesn't contribute to many ideas or directions - just role play and combat help (though he gets a share of the loot and xp).
100% unreceptive.
I've been playing RPGs for more than 20 years, in a wide variety of game systems, with a wide variety of GMs. Many times I've seen a DMPC, and while I've never once seen it make a game better, I've frequently seen it flaw, wound, or even kill a game.
I'd like to add that it's not just new gamers who feel the way you do. Many gamers have different preferences, and here's one useful theories about those differences in preference, GNS Theory. It sounds like you are more of a narrativist than the posts you disagree with.
It sounds like some of your players aren't ready for your, "world I've created over the years, gallons of backstory and a pantheon which I've slightly altered to equate to the Golarion gods etc." I suggest giving them something simpler for a while. They may be ready for more later, after they've gotten used to the game and had a chance to play around a bit.
I'm not saying a DM isn't allowed to say "No", I'm just against that being a DM's first reaction instead of "Alright, I would rather you not, but please explain why you want to play/do that and I will either consider it or we can try and think of a compromise that works for both of us." And it seems very few of the DMs who post about "player entitlement" are willing to do that. (emphasis added)
First, I think you're getting a lot of sampling bias by reading a forum. By the time any GM logs on and asks a group of nearly anonymous strangers for advice on how to handle a situation, most of them have tried discussion, negotiation, compromise, and whatever other means they have. I've played with dozens of groups over more than 20 years, and I've never seen a GM turn down a character without a reason - usually a very good reason.
Second, the GM will usually receive the benefit of the doubt in these scenarios for three reasons:
The GM is working with far more information than the player.
A GM may say "no guns" because she's planning to use the development of gunpowder by the enemy state as a major plot device, or "no evil" because evil characters would be unmotivated to follow the do-gooder plot hood that drives the campaign, or "no elves" because the planned campaign focuses on discovering what happened to the lost ancient race of elves that went extinct before the age of men. (Each of those examples is based on a real campaign I have played.)
But, the player doesn't know the plan, and for their own enjoyment probably shouldn't. For the game to work, the players simply have to trust the GM to guide them toward the infinite number of characters that actually fit into a game.
The GM has additional responsibilities to the entire group.
While great players will contribute to everyone's fun, a player can simply play their own character and stay out of the other players' way. The GM, on the other hand, takes on a great deal of responsibility for making a game fun for everyone. In this capacity, GMs sometimes have to deny one player something they want (not everything they want, of course) because they believe it's better for the whole. In this capacity of spokesperson, a GM is frequently saying what everyone in the room would say if it were there role to do so.
For this reason we see more discussion of GM vs. Player and fewer discussion of Player vs. Player. But from my own experience, many times when a GM says "no" their speaking as a representative of the group. Reasons I've denied characters in the past include:
- Ben may not play a rogue. Every time Ben plays a rogue, he steals from the other PCs, hides during combat instead of helping, sneaks off from the group and causes trouble, and generally pisses off all of the other players. If I let Ben play a rogue, nobody else will want to play.
- Steve may not play a Wizard. We have 4 new-ish players who made fairly weak characters, and one very experienced player (Steve) who has a tendency to make very powerful characters. If we let Steve play a "God Wizard" the other players will all feel weak and useless in comparison.
The GM is stuck with whatever she allows into her game.
If a player hates pirates, he shouldn't join a pirate game - it doesn't matter to him if someone else plays a pirate game. If a player hates druids, he shouldn't play a druid - it doesn't really matter to him if someone else plays a druid.
If a GM hates druids, what is she to do? If she allows a druid into her game, she's committed to months or years of interacting with and actively supporting her pet peeve. That could be some serious anti-fun (and very demotivating) for the GM. The only way for the GM to avoid the (probably narrow) set of things the really detest is to ban those things from the game. And, with 21 other classes available, she is likely saying, "No to one thing, yes to 21".
Granted, there are a tiny minority of GMs who want to ban most character concepts and allow only a few. But, generally speaking, those people simply shouldn't be GMing. Likely they should write novels instead.
A personal note:
My pet peeve in RPGs is japanophiles.
I've studied Eastern philosophies and religion, tutored Japanese students, had Japanese roommates, and dated Japanese women - I don't harbor any ill will toward Japanese people. Also, in general, I'm extremely flexible about what I will play and GM. (I've accepted roles in LARPs that are so extreme that no one else would take them, and controversial enough that I won't post them here for fear of starting arguments.)
However, I have no interest in introducing Japanese themes and culture into a euro-centric fantasy game. I don't want a samurai or ninja sharing the battlefield with knights. I don't want people bowing, reciting koans, or speaking in fake Japanese accents. I simply find Japanese characters to be annoying and disruptive, and I don't have any fun GMing for them.
When I run Pathfinder, I tell players they can't play ninja or samurai characters. (They may use the rules for either and re-skinning them to fit the setting. I don't have anything against the game mechanics Paizo wrote for either class.) Does that make me a tyrant? I don't think so, but you may disagree.
In certain dungeon crawls, you will need a trapfinder, and the best one has Trap Spotter, which used to be only for a Rogue. Now Bards and Ninjas can have this in certain builds.
Just for the heck of it, let's plug in Blueluck's party and Soupturtle's party into the "Round Out Your Party Tool"
Blueluck's Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, Wizard yields a General Team score of 2.25 and a combat score of 6.01. It looks like we are suffering from a lack of trapfinders and debuffers. Magic ability and healing are a little bit high (as every party member can do both), and we might get more mileage out of focusing on other areas.
Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, Wizard, Barbarian (Melee) yields a General team score of 5.98 and a combat score of 8.38. We've got trapfinding covered now, but are a bit low on debuffs and area attacks. The party also has great tanking material at this point, which, combined with good heals, makes for greatness!
Well, I certainly agree with your statement that my party has "a lack of trapfinders and debuffers." I don't think debuffing is a good use of actions on in most cases (there are exceptions) and I don't think trapfinding is worth going out of the way for.
Paladin - Human, Skills(Diplomacy, Ride, Perception), build for melee DPR
Ranger(Infiltrator) - Human, Skills(Survival, Perception, etc.), build for ranged DPR with a melee backup plan
Cleric - Human, Skills(Sense Motive, Heal, Perception), build for melee with feats but use spells for party buffs and control
Wizard - Elf, Skills(Spellcraft and Knowledges), build for control without neglecting party buffs and damage
I feel like I should add some explanation for my choices.
Cleric & Wizard - I choose vancian rather than spontaneous casters because their access to a wider variety of spells makes them more powerful in the long run. Also, depending on how my GM handles WBL and item availability, I would consider item creation feats for one or both casters.
No Trapfinder - Given reason to believe my GM or campaign would cause the party to encounter an unusually high number of traps, I'd make adjustments to accommodate. However, in my fairly extensive experience with D&D/PF, I've found that traps play a decreasing and fairly small role in most games. Traps are infrequent, rarely deadly, often avoidable, can be dealt with by other means, and having a character who specializes in dealing with traps provides only a partial defense.
Paladin & Ranger - Both can cure, which is primarily important for emergency situations. Both can function at range or in melee. And, most important, both can dish out tremendous amounts of damage when needed.
Fifth member - If I were to add a fifth member to the group, it would be another character focused on DPR. Likely I'd go with a barbarian.
Strategy - The basic strategy of this group would be to end fights as quickly as possible through dealing massive amounts of damage.
I don't agree with all of your roles, so my party will look a little different along those lines.
Spoiler:
Tank - Everyone should have defenses, more so for those who willingly enter melee.
Healer - The party should have the ability to heal itself, but I don't consider "healer" to be anyone's primary job.
DPS - Everyone should contribute to damage.
CC - Control comes in many forms, and everyone should contribute.
And Secondary Roles:
Scout/Trapfinder - First, I would separate these tasks.
Face - The party should ideally contain at least one large bonus to Diplomacy and Sense Motive, but they don't have to be on the same character, and I prefer to let all players participate in social roleplay.
Buffer - Definitely not a role, but not an unwelcome element to any character.
Skill monkey - Again, not a role, however there are certain skills I would prefer to have represented in the party.
One build, without a particular setting or campaign in mind, would look like this:
Paladin - Human, Skills(Diplomacy, Ride, Perception), build for melee DPR
Ranger(Infiltrator) or Barbarian - Human, Skills(Survival, Perception, etc.), build for melee or ranged DPR
Cleric - Human, Skills(Sense Motive, Heal, Perception), build for melee with feats but use spells for party buffs and control
Wizard - Elf, Skills(Spellcraft and Knowledges), build for control without neglecting party buffs and damage
People like to ape iconic fantasy characters of every kind. Some of those have such weapons.
There's my answer, I think. People want to mimic iconic characters I'm unfamiliar with. I've never played Final Fantasy, didn't know who Cloud was until I looked him up, watch little anime (and even that isn't fantasy anime), and rarely read comic books (never fantasy comics). So, I'm simply out of the loop on big-weapon role models.
I can't think of a good reason to add a fake Hollywood effect to Pathfinder.
I too am appalled that players might want to do cool but unrealistic things in my game about elf wizards fighting dragons.
Or pop-culture Ninjas, Monks that can punch through things as if their fists were magical and made from cold-iron, silver and, adamintine, and Summoners who have trans-planar pets.
Y'all are aware that it was the OP who brought up real-world physics in his call for knock-back, right? That, in fact, this thread is entitled "Knockback - A Question of Physics"? That, furthermore, several people in their responses said that real-world physics wouldn't necessarily bar something from the game?
To address the real question buried in your sarcasm, I'm not appalled that people want unrealistic things in their Pathfinder games, but the OP clearly marked the thread as being about real-world physics. My answer to his inquiry, "I have always wondered why "knock back" has never been in the rules. . ." is that the "knock back" he describes is primarily a product of Hollywood.
I added the personal note that I don't see Hollywood knock back as an element that needs to be added to Pathfinder. There are, however, other unrealistic elements that I'm happy Pathfinder has included, such as the three you mention, elves, magic, and dragons, as well as many others.
Fortunately for those who want knock back in Pathfinder, trip, tripping strike, bull rush, bull rush strike, and awesome blow all exist.
I've allowed it as a GM, even suggested it to players on occasion, and have no problem with it at all. Since the rules are straight out of the book, the characters don't cause power/balance problems. And, so long as the swap is withing my groups tolerance for believability (I wouldn't allow "ogre with stats of a goblin" for example) there's no harm done to the flavor of the game either.
I do the same thing for weapons occasionally as well, like a pirate who wields a "scimitar" by the rules, but describes it as a "cutlass".
Currently on the front page of the rules forum there are three conversations about wielding oversize weapons, and that's not unusual. There seem to be a significant number of players with a strong desire to swing enormous weapons.
Why do so many people want oversize weapons so badly?
More words:
Understanding
There are lots of other recurring questions along the lines of "How can I make this work?" or "I wish this worked better." For most of them, even if I don't happen to want the same thing, I understand the motivation. (e.g. sword and shield fighters, direct damage casters, heal/buff pacifists, agility based combatants, throwing experts, etc.) The oversize weapon chasers, however, I don't understand.
Realism
A historical greatsword is a really big weapon! Up to six feet in length and made of solid steel. Likewise various polearms, axes, and clubs that appear in the Pathfinder weapons list are modeled after big real-world weapons that push the envelope of human ability to wield. It doesn't seem plausible that a character, especially a first level character, would wield a weapon larger than thousands of years of human history have produced.
Weapons of the gods?
There are myths and legends about weapons too big and heavy for mortals to wield, Thor's hammer Mjölnir is perhaps the most well known example, but even Mjölnir had the ability to change size and become "so small that it could be carried inside his tunic." If requests for oversize weapons were linked with high level characters, possibly as capstone (20th level) abilities for melee character of godlike power, perhaps I would understand. But, typically, requests for oversize weapons are for first level characters.
As others have stated more eloquently than me, because knock back doesn't happen in real life. I can't think of a good reason to add a fake Hollywood effect to Pathfinder.
I've done it a number of times, but apparently I do it differently than most people.
1) Choose a theme for the party. They're the main characters, and if they have something in common, all of their adventures will seem more natural than if they're randomly thrown together:
A gang (or part of a gang) of thieves, con artists, and ruffians who grew up in the same ghetto.
"Army brats" who grew up as camp followers, trailing around after their parents who are soldiers or camp followers themselves.
Refugees from a war, cut off from their homes and families, living in a refugee camp together.
2) Design a first mission for the party. Again, this is to make their motivations for grouping together feel real and therefore make all of their later adventures more organic. In the three cases above, I might choose:
The young gang want to join the thieves' guild and make their fortune through crime.
The army brats want to set out on their own, spying on the enemy and bringing back the intelligence that will bring victory.
The refugees want to mount an expedition to find their lost families.
3) Stop! Call for characters. At this point I stop writing. Write up a document that includes all of the above, plus anything else I'm already committed to about the campaign. This includes house rules, campaign setting if I know it already, character building info (starting attributes, equipment, etc.), and anything else the players will need to know in order to make characters. Also, as part of character creation I ask players to include motivations, goals, desires, fears, etc.
4) Write plot. Now that I have a group of main characters, I can begin writing antagonists, allies, missions, adventures, and whatever else I will need to make a good campaign. Now, it will be a campaign that truly features the players characters, using their histories, personal goals, etc.
It’s also worth noting that your average citizen or soldier of Vigil would not consider joining Dierik’s caravan a worthy act. The general populace’s focus is firmly on defending their borders from the orc threat. Joining a caravan seems like shirking your responsibilities. Joining a caravan that is heading into the Hold of Belkzen, and will likely trade with the orcs, verges on the treasonous.
Ah, an interesting twist!
For Tibal, who's particularly concerned with trying to build a good reputation for himself, it would be painful to look traitorous to his family or neighbors. But, there must be a great story behind a hero like Dierik turning from his knightly occupation to a life of trade, one that Tibal will certainly try to discover. Also, while Tibal is not the great warrior he wishes to be, knowing that his talents lie along a more social course, perhaps he can contribute more by spying on the enemy than by fighting openly.
(None of this would change how people perceive Tibal's actions, just internal motivations. Reasons why Tibal would be willing to sully his family's name by making such a journey.)
I believe in a very direct approach. I told the players for my current Skull & Shackles campaign that I wanted, "Tier two characters, if measured on a three-tier system," and assured them that I would scale challenges appropriately.
They gave me exactly what I asked for. The less expert players did so by building the best they could within concept, and the more experienced players used it as an opportunity to play weaker concepts that they would typically avoid.
Don't forget cover! Many times I have seen an archer deemed "overpowered" only to discover that the GM is not using the rules for cover correctly, or that his monsters stand conspicuously in the open to get shot at, even when it's unnecessary.
I've taught dozens of new players, including adults and kids. Here's how I manage first time gamers.
Core Book Only - Yes, there area classes, feats, spells, etc. out of other books which are great, even for new players, but the ability to find every rule you need to play in a single book cannot be overstated. It's comforting to know all the answers are in there somewhere, they're dealing with a single index, and everything is fairly well organized. Whether they buy or borrow a copy, it's also the only book their likely to have with them at the gaming table.
Guided Character Creation - I never expect a newbie to make a character on their own. There's just too much material that's incomprehensible until you've actually played the game.
Step 1 - I show them the classes, and ask them to choose which one they want to try.
Step 2 - I offer them a choice of appropriate races for that class.
Step 3 - I offer them a choice of appropriate "specialties". That is, a main weapon for a melee character, sorcerer bloodline, cleric domains, etc. Depending on the maturity of the player, I either give them a short or complete list to choose from, but I always make a suggestion if they feel lost.
Step 4 - I help them choose skills by putting a rank in the "mandatory" skills (Stealth for a rogue, spellcraft for a caster, etc.) then offer them choices from the remaining class skills.
Step 5 - I fill in feats & spells for them. Depending on the character, I may offer them a couple of choices, but not the whole list!
Step 6 - I give them starting gold, make the first necessary purchases (armor, weapons, ammo) and tell them they can spend the rest of the money themselves.
Step 7 - I describe how the character works, and it's strong points. "Og the Barbiarian will want to start every fight the same way, 'Rage, Power Attack, Charge the biggest enemy!' As Og's player, you may decide he holds back sometimes, but his approach is usually right at low levels."
Step 8 - I let them loose with the core rulebook to determine height/weight/coloration, make up a name, buy equipment, then browse through whatever they find interesting.
Guide to Simple Options - While guiding character creation, I push for easy to use options, especially passive ones. Take a monk for example, Dodge is a great beginner feat because it just gets figured into your character sheet as a number, while Improved Grapple is a poor beginner feat because it opens up an extra ruleset.
Put Everything in Writing - As much as possible, I load their character sheet with everything they'll need during play. I'll print out spells, write down weapon attack routines, etc.
@ BlueluckBack in 3.5 days Knowledge (local) was tied to a specific region, which made sense to me, although it’s of less utility playwise. I’d ask you to specify a region (based on wherever your character grew up). But as suggested, I’d let PCs make knowledge (local) checks in other areas provided they’ve spent some significant time there.
The text doesn’t give a source for funding cohorts, because there is no special source to fund a cohort. A cohort who is traveling around with the PCs must somehow be equipped, and with no other source of funding, its PC (or the whole party) is the only source.
Actually, the NPC section of the rules gives rules on how to determine an NPC's equipment.
Yes, the rules do say how to determine starting equipment. I was speaking of ongoing equipment, and should have said so more specifically. 3,450 gp (starting equipment for an elite 5th level NPC) isn't going to go very far.
Tibal’s a great character who could fit well into the campaign. Mechanically speaking, Tibal can have another trait – perhaps the Lost Kin feat homebrewed above would be suitable considering Tibal’s history. Presumably Knowledge (local) would be Lastwall?
I intentionally left one trait open in case a campaign trait would be appropriate. Lost Kin is perfect for Tibal.
Knowledge (local) is odd, in that it never tells you to choose a location. I assume a character from Lastwall would know the most about that region, and would learn a bit about other areas by studying them. For an academic, that might mean reading up on the subject, but for a bard like Tibal, it would mean traveling there and talking to the people.
1) No where in the feat itself does it limit the cohort to the Elite array or how the ability scores are customized. This would mean you are using the creating NPC section to make it - or have some self imposed limitations on doing such a thing. This is also something that Buri has mentioned as well. As a game master, I use Rule 0 to improve enjoyment of the players.
In the rules for leadership, the cohort is explicitly an NPC. Therefore, it uses the rules for building NPCs. (I assumed the elite rather than standard array because it was more charitable to your argument, and more common in my experience.) It is certainly a GM’s prerogative to give higher scores if they wish, but it would be a house-rule to do so.
Starfell wrote:
2) Per cohort level you can not first attract (recruit) a cohort more than two levels below you. Per the last paragraph concerning the cohort level in the core book and SRD - your cohort is limited to being a single level behind you after they join you. The two level limit does not infringe at any time after they've joined - one level lower is the accurate number once they've adventured with you. The difference, between 1 and 2 levels can be very drastic. . . .Though you are outright wrong on the -2 level.
I’m sorry, but you should read it again. Here’s the relevant quotation. “If a cohort gains enough XP to bring it to a level one lower than your level, the cohort does not gain the new level—its new XP total is 1 less than the amount needed to attain the next level.”
Starfell wrote:
3)No where in the feat does it say that the gear is from the PC's budget. This is merely commonly accepted reasoning that may be a stigma to the leadership feat. As with anything, I would personally expect hand me downs from PCs to the cohort or those odd items no one else can use to best effect. Lesser gear? Sure I'll give you that.
The text doesn’t give a source for funding cohorts, because there is no special source to fund a cohort. A cohort who is traveling around with the PCs must somehow be equipped, and with no other source of funding, its PC (or the whole party) is the only source.
I was going to respond to more of your comments, but I'll wait until you read the rules again. It's not worth discussing how to change the rules until we can agree on what they say in the first place.
As a non-casting archer, you're probably hurt more by darkness than any other kind of character. What level is your character?
I have two suggestions that work independently of level and class. First, print or write the spell descriptions for Darkness and Deeper Darkness and bring them to game with you. Both spells have limits: starting light level, radius of effect, duration, etc. People frequently forget parts of that and play the spells more powerful than they really are.
Second, sometimes you just have to back up and wait. That won't always be an option, of course, but sometimes a tactical retreat is the best decision. Especially when the enemy has a limited number of 3rd level spells per day.
Having a stable of characters and rotating through playing different ones is frequently called "troupe play" or "troupe style play". I rarely see it done in D&D or Pathfinder, but it's a bit more common in certain other genres. I've done it myself in Shadowrun a couple times.
