Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
The Clockwork General

CommandoDude's page

265 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.




Right now I am planning to make a CG Dwarven Battlecleric of Cayden Cailen Travel/Ferocity(Strength).

At first I was planning on taking two levels of Barbarian for the Rage class feature (+4 STR to help on hits and damage during combat) but the DM pointed out I would be unable to cast spells during rage.

Plus the fact that at later levels I'll have a significant dearth of rage rounds and less access to higher level cleric spells.

There was also the possibility of a 1 level dip into Fighter for Bonus feats and Heavy Armor proficiency.

So, is multiclassing worth it? I saw the new combo classes Paizo released for testing and got approval from DM to use them. One of them was a Fighter/Cleric (Warpriest I think it was?) Would that be better? (Didn't really look tempting because I like the Regular Cleric's domains).


My party started Kingmaker in March of 2012; tonight we finally completed our Kingmaker adventure. The party slew Nyrissa (who went from OP to chump in the span on one Anti-Magic Field spell) and saved the Stolen Lands! The Kingdom of Anatoray is safe and free to flourish.

Did I enjoy this campaign path? Very much so. Although it's my first Pathfinder campaign, so only 4e to compare it to. (I could make a whole thread comparing the two systems, but that is another idea)

Was this the campaign path I wanted? ...Yes...but no.

There were two things that Kingmaker was selling me on in the players handbook. One, you get to BUILD A KINGDOM. Two, there's a civil war which happens, and it's going to be a BIG DEAL. As it turns out? The latter is a Red Herring and the former is a broken mini game that honestly started out cool but rapidly became unfun.

Here are my three major complaints about this campaign which I think Paizo should have done.

1) Nyrissa. I don't like her as a BBEG (Big Bad Evil Guy). She detracts from the 'Kingdomesque' setting, and she's entirely too passive a villain for my taste (though I recognize there was much foreshadowing of her through various 'agents' she cultivated to harass the PCs). I think she should've been removed entirely, and book 6 should've been replaced by the Brevic Civil war, with Surtova being set up as the BBEG. The party could've spent a lot more time going back and forth between Brevoy and their Kingdom, having to deal with the political games of the different houses, the issue of their Kingdom's fealty to Brevoy, and the Rostland independence movement.

I think that this Nyrissa plot would have worked MUCH better imo if the party were stuck exploring in the River Kingdoms, and having to deal with the various River Kingdom governments, the impending coming of Nyrissa, and trying to unite a lot of people who don't like each other to deal with her.

Over all. Kingmaker made me think I was going to get Game of Thrones, I didn't get that.

2) Lack of reoccurring characters. Personally, I dislike how Kingmaker treated its NPCs as throwaways who were only ever around for one book. The fact that characters never seemed to STAY relevant severely stymied my and my party's seeming interest in them. The only exceptions were those engineered specifically by our DM to be brought back. (Grigori for instance, became a great nemesis for the King to deal with) I think this case in particular highlights just how much the fun of this campaign depends on the effort put in by the GM.

3) Kingdom building is broken. As a minigame, it's entirely too easy to game and become ridiculous. Plus, the amount of tracking and dice rolling that goes into it sucks up far too much time except for only the most dedicated of micromanaging parties. Not to mention, the actual "mechanics" of the Kingdom matter very little in the course of the campaign, and I felt that the way we shaped our Kingdom did not dramatically affect how things were played (hence the Yes but no earlier). Overall, until Book 5 it felt like our Kingdom existed in a bubble, and only seemed to serve as a base of operations.

Personally, I think the Kingdom building needs to be made more relevant to the story (ie doing certain things unlocks quests or causes unforeseen issues, potentially with other Kingdoms). And that the whole Kingdom building process needs to be taken off the rails as much as possible, maybe one or two dice rolls once in awhile (I did like the Event generating mechanic). In this instance, I think Free Form roleplaying would have made the Kingdom building much more fun.

Granted, the Path did very well in what I think it set out to do, which was to create a wide open sandbox for the party to explore. The campaign offered a GREAT deal of freedom in terms of development, and I'm glad that our DM took as much advantage of it as possible.

There is also one other point I'd make. Vordaki is a Red Herring that I think needs to be deflated. I would prefer the Varnhold Vanishing to be, well...rewritten, so that the players and thrust into the center of a war between Humans and Centaurs, who have to deal with moral quandaries. Vordaki I feel could have been a good villain who could've perhaps united everyone against a larger threat, or perhaps drew the attention of Brevoy, or something. Overall I feel he's a character that's just nipped in the bud so early that he accomplishes nothing.

PS. Some of these mini quests are just insulting. Why are kings and lords still getting fetch quests after book 2?

PPS. Don't put cool powerful artifacts in the campaign with the implicit intention of trying to make them unusable by the party. I was tempted to make my character NE (he was the LN ruler of the Kingdom) just to use the Oculus. Seriously.

Personally, I think that some day if I can get a party together, I would like to GM this campaign path, but change/rewrite it into what I want it to be.


The language under Handle Animal is unclear as to specifically how long it takes to raise an animal from infancy to domestication.

The wording specifically states that reared animals can be taught tricks as they're reared; so would training a wild animal for a General Purpose be considered the amount of time it takes to rear an animal?

as a refereance:

Handle Animal wrote:

To rear an animal means to raise a wild creature from infancy so that it becomes domesticated. A handler can rear as many as three creatures of the same kind at once.

A successfully domesticated animal can be taught tricks at the same time it’s being raised, or it can be taught as a domesticated animal later.

Also, how would Cavalier's Expert Trainer class ability interact with Rearing a Wild Animal?


Recently, animal companions were changed. In addition to those changes, new feats were made available to Animal companions.

When I put together the above feats, I realized that, potentially, you could have an Animal Companion making Opportunity Attacks up to its Dex mod both to give you +2 AC against multiple attacks on the PC (using Aid Another per the Bodyguard feat) while simultaneously tripping the PC's Paired Opportunists feat and allowing him to make multiple Opp attacks on the person they're fighting (with a +4 on all of them).

Of course, that's only if I'm reading this right.

Now, Paired Opportunists works by granting a person with the teamwork feat an Opp Attack if they are adjacent to someone else with the same teamwork feat and they get an Opp attack.

Paired Opportunists wrote:
Whenever you are adjacent to an ally who also has this feat, you receive a +4 circumstance bonus on attacks of opportunity against creatures that you both threaten. Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity from your ally also provoke attacks of opportunity from you so long as you threaten them (even if the situation or an ability would normally deny you the attack of opportunity). This does not allow you to take more than one attack of opportunity against a creature for a given action.

The key here is that in the second to last sentence, it says you are allowed this Opp attack in any event, even if you, say, had already taken an Opp attack and did not have Combat Reflexes.

I'm also assuming the last sentence to mean, "You get only 1 opp per action which triggers an opp."

Some confusion on how this works with Bodyguard, which I will get to in a second.

Bodyguard wrote:


Benefit: When an adjacent ally is attacked, you may use an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally’s AC. You may not use the aid another action to improve your ally’s attack roll with this attack.

So you take an AoO to aid another.

The key is, how does this apply? I assume it works either two ways.

-One AoO protects against all attacks from one enemy (so say, if they used a full attack action). Thus, trips P.O. only once.

-Multiple AoO protects against each individual attack roll from any enemy, so a full attack action would provoke multiple AoO from both the mount and the rider. (I don't think this is right though).

Also for further reference.

Combat Reflexes wrote:
You may make a number of additional attacks of opportunity per round equal to your Dexterity bonus. With this feat, you may also make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.

Mount gets the paired opportunist teamwork feat either through gaining +1 Int or through Horsemaster's Saddle.

Horsemaster's Saddle wrote:
This ornate military saddle, tooled with an elaborate equine motif, grants the mount a +5 competence bonus on Acrobatics checks and the mount's rider a +5 competence bonus on Ride checks. In addition, the mount gains the benefits of any teamwork feats possessed by the rider.

So, does this work out?


Does this mean that the trap is ignored?

Here is the effect.

Quote:
When affixed to a horse, these horseshoes allow the horse to travel without actually touching the ground. The horse must still run above (always around 4 inches above) a roughly horizontal surface. This means that the horse can cross non-solid or unstable surfaces such as water and that it can move without leaving tracks on any sort of ground. The horse moves at its normal base land speed. All four shoes must be worn by the same animal for the magic to be effective.

So my horse can walk across friggen water, does this mean that it can walk over a pit trap? (I assume if you can walk over water, that means you're exerting zero pressure on the ground?)


Basically as the title says. Right now I'm in the Kingmaker campaign, and we've faced a fair amount of large monsters that often try to grab me off my mount and are usually successful due to their redonculous CMBs.

Does anyone have recommendations for items that can increase my CMD or ways I can avoid getting grabbed?

I've got an insight bonus due to an Ioun Stone, plus a decent strength, and my DM gives me a +2 in circumstances where I'm mounted (due to having a Military Saddle) but it still feels woefully inadequate since the DM can get me even on low rolls.


So, my DM just called me up and explained that I've been kicked out of one of my DnD groups, the hosts apparently feel as if my behavior has become unacceptable and right now I guess I just need to get a second opinion.

I feel both a little guilty and a little wronged here, personally I'm more upset on principle than anything else, the campaign was just feeling...tedious? I don't know, but I wasn't really having a lot of fun and just went as something to do, so I don't care as badly about being forced out as I possibly could be. Maybe my apathy contributed to my poor behavior?

So, the reasons cited were:

1. Forgot to pay my share for Pizza.

In total, this happened 3 times this year (we've only met 3 times this year) and it's never happened before. I've been playing with this group for 1 and 1/2 years. The first meet this year I didn't have any money with me so I asked if I could just pay next time, so, next time rolls around (3 months later) and I just forgot to pay at all, hosts never reminded me about my debt or asked to collect pizza money so it slipped my mind. Same happened at my last meeting. I was never called/emailed/or talked to at any game (even by the DM) about this.

2. I was not chipping in for snacks.

This was something that I frequently did during 2011 (I usually brought chocolate donuts). I was never asked to bring snacks, I did it of my own violation. Eventually I just sort of stopped because it seemed like only I was eating them, I was never asked to continue doing this. And plenty of other members never brought snacks (although those people were absent frequently).

3. Drinking the host's milk.

The hosts did not mind this since the formation of the group, I asked at the beginning and just assumed they didn't mind from then on. Never a problem throughout 2011. Then the hosts moved further away in 2012, and they brought up that they didn't want me drinking their milk on session 1 2012 (apparently because the grocery store is further away...can't they buy more when they're there?) Alright, no big deal. I bring my own milk at the next session (amazingly I remembered). Third session I did not remember, and helped myself to some milk. Hosts never said anything.

4. Problem with cursing.

Alright, this one is actually legitimate since I have cursed, DM has asked me since the beginning not to curse. But in my defense, it isn't often. The hosts never voiced this concern to me, never said anything during the game, and only ever asked the DM to talk to me about it. And tbh I'm on pretty good behavior compared to my other DnD game which has heavy cursing.

Above all else, I feel like this whole thing just sideswiped me. I was never given any indication that my behavior was being a problem beforehand (aside from the one time about the milk and the very occasional "can you not curse at the table?").

What do you think? Was I really that bad?


Is it?


5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, if you have been paying attention to this thread

"Creating magical item for the party + small fee on the work = players uprorar?"

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5i8n&page=40?Creating-magical-item-for-the- party-small-fee#1982

One of the arguments I brought up, is that the following FAQ,

Quote:

PC Wealth By Level (page 399): If a PC has an item crafting feat, does a crafted item count as its Price or its Cost?

It counts as the item's Cost, not the Price. This comes into play in two ways.

If you're equipping a higher-level PC, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. Otherwise the character isn't getting any benefit for having the feat. Of course, the GM is free to set limits in equipping the character, such as "no more than 40% of your wealth can be used for armor" (instead of the "balanced approach" described on page 400 where the PC should spend no more than 25% on armor).

If you're looking at the party's overall wealth by level, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. Otherwise, if you counted crafted items at their Price, the crafting character would look like she had more wealth than appropriate for her level, and the GM would have to to bring this closer to the target gear value by reducing future treasure for that character, which means eventually that character has the same gear value as a non-crafting character--in effect neutralizing any advantage of having that feat at all.

—Sean K Reynolds, 01/14/12

is intended that all items created by a crafter are counted at Cost for the purposes of WBL.

I based this on the placement of punctuation.

The question is written, "If a PC has an item crafting feat, does a crafted item count as its Price or its Cost?"

You will note, there is a comma between feat and does. Now, this comma, in my opinion, drastically alters the context of the sentence. Meaning that all crafted items are counted as their cost, rather than price, for WBL.

For instance, if the sentence wrote. "If, a PC has an item crafting feat does a crafted item count as its Price or its Cost?"

The the FAQ would be interpreted to say that, only for item crafters, are crafted items counted at cost rather than price.

The relevance of course being, that if crafters make items for their party members, then (if according to the second interpretation) that the party's WBL is increased due to calculating at Price rather than Cost; while the crafter's falls behind.

As an example, I provided the following link, a story on the fate of a criminal,

http://www.emwa.org/PastTWS/FatalcommaClark.pdf

How the position of a comma drastically changed this mans fate. Thus, the position of the comma in this FAQ is in my opinion, of great import. Since it is separating "If a PC has an item crafting feat" and "does a crafted item count as its Price or its Cost?"

In particular, I also examined this sentence.

Quote:
If you're looking at the party's overall wealth by level, you have to count crafted items at their Cost.

Which to me, implies the meaning of the FAQ to be that all party members count their crafted items at Cost.

The follow quote supports my interpretation

Quote:
if you counted crafted items at their Price, the crafting character would look like she had more wealth than appropriate for her level

If the crafter sells his items at their material cost to the other players, and they count their magic items at Price (not Cost) to determine their WBL. They are directly contradicting the sentiment expressed in the FAQ, that crafted items should not increase WBL disproportionately according to character's wealth.

In addition, the FAQ clearly states that crafters and non-crafters should have equal gear value.

Quote:
eventually that character has the same gear value as a non-crafting character--in effect neutralizing any advantage of having that feat at all.

If non-crafters count crafted items at Price for WBL they are gaining an advantage over the crafter. Which seems to be contradictory to the former quote.

And NO I am not a troll.

Your opinions?


Planning on making a Dervish Magnus using the Scimitar with the Dervish Dancer feat. In doing so, I'm dumping all my strength to pump up Dex + Int. However, looking at the Elven curve blade (because I am taking an Elf, easy choice tbh), it has a d10 over the Scimitar's d6 with the same crit range, and I save a feat. But doing so, I'd take a -2 on damage rolls (in essence, -5 if you consider my dex bonus for scimitars as well) unless I take points out of elsewhere to put into strength (which I could do by dumping cha/wis).

I am still leaning for that Scimitar, but with reworking, would the curve blade be better even with less damage modifier?

As an aside question, how useful is the Spell Recall ability for Magnus? (I'm looking at taking Spire Defender archetype, which replaces it)


He's got a -2 strength modifier and he wants to take a level in Ranger just to get martial proficiency with a bow. Why? Because he doesn't want to use a crossbow since that would eat up his movement in reloading. Also, he's basically obsessed with being a skill monkey and wants that +4 skill points and other class skills pretty badly.

Am I alone in thinking that taking a level in ranger is going to do absolutely nothing for him? Esp at low level.


©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.