Cowjuicer's page

I was just looking at the Construct modification rules and there is a way to change a Construct into a suit of armor. A Necromancer could make the Flesh Golem negative energy variant and change it into Construct armor. The party fights this big hulking Necromancer. Then, when they think they have him beaten, the Flesh Golem disassembles itself and reassembles next to the unharmed medium sized Necromancer. Of course, once the party gets over the fact that the Necromancer was wearing a bunch of dead bodies stitched together, they will probably hate you for making you fight the same enemy twice in a row. Though, the Necromancer might need to be a Cleric because I can't tell if Construct armor always has arcane spell failure or if it gains it if the armor dies while you're wearing it.

OH,BRILLIANT IDEA. The Necromancer wears the Flesh Golem whenever it confronts the PCs. Thus, they think the enemy is a hideous monstrosity. Then, the Necromancer takes off the Flesh Golem and the party meets him as a local noble or something like that. They would never equate the hideous large sized Necromancer with the attractive medium sized noble/friendly wizard/whatever else you want to work with.

EDIT: Wait, same size required... Well, you're the GM so you're always right. Just don't let the party look at the requirements for construct armor.

Rocky Williams 530 wrote:

So, the DM's didn't realize he didn't actually own one of those items? Or did he own one, and was throwing a dummy cube?

Didn't realize that he didn't have one at all. In organized play, a DM is often unfamiliar with exactly what equipment a PC owns.

Hahaha. Serves that GM right! I never metagame with my NPCs. :P

Metagaming does not included BBQing PCs over a river of lava; inflicting them with disease; pouring black lotus extract on them; using illusions to fool them; turning them into stone; turning stones into monsters; turning dead monsters into monsters; turning water into monsters; turning players into water; dispelling and shattering their magic items; attacking the party with multiple terrasques who were created in a lab; dropping them into rooms full of black pudding guarded by stone golems; having NPCs drown them in alchemist fire; spamming enervation until people begin to cry; ordering plague zombie bats to follow the party and infect any town they come across while avoiding combat with the party; having NPCs use potions and wands in maniacal ways; dropping a cloudkill on the party once or thrice; using cross breed dragons (stronger and immune to multiple elements); skeletal red dragons (immune to fire & cold and very strong); giants with reach weapons; stinking cloud traps in dungeons with undead; floor traps that hit everything on them with inflict spells when you stand on them (in dungeons with undead of course); use illusion spells to create total concealment; pit traps filled with swarms; tight spaces filled with small angry creatures; tight spaces filled with swarms; low-level minions spamming slow to negate the party's haste; sepia snake sigil, explosive runes, fire trap, spike growth, and stone spikes (enough said); mummy barbarians rage-cycling; incorporeal undead with rogue levels; incorporeal undead with sorcerer levels; large predators grappling and then fleeing the battle with their prey in tow (works good with stuff like wyverns and underwater predators who can out-fly or out-swim the party); use minor magic items like feather tokens, dust of disappearance, dust of tracelessness, elemental gems, elixers of hiding, necklaces of fireballs; adepts who spam sleep; adepts who like wands of lightning bolt; armies of simulacrum mages without fear of death; and a few hundred other things...

If a summoner and his eidolon both have the Escape Route (Teamwork) feat, and he is mounted on the eidolon can they move about the battlefield without provoking AoOs?

Escape Route (Combat, Teamwork): An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

Since they are always in each other's space do they always have each other's back covered?

Feather Fall = Just get a Wand.

We have a running joke in my gaming group that when the wizards graduate from the academy they're given a Scroll of Feather Fall and told to leap from the roof of the school with it. The smart ones refuse, because it takes a standard action to read a scroll and by the time you have it unrolled *splat*

Monks suffer from a unique affliction that is quite obvious when you observe all the threads about them.

Almost everyone sees the monk and tries to compare it to a fighter.

This weird sort of view is a result of everyone holding onto the ideal of the Advanced D&D monkl, which WAs a match for the fighter. After 3.0 they were seriously dropped in power, and no one ever bothered to correct this viewpoint. Pathfinder did, but they didn't make it obvious enough.

Monks are not a full melee class - the only class you should be comparing a monk to is a rogue, not a fighter.
-3/4 BAB.
-Skills centered on movement and dealing with people.
-A conditional attack that does atypical amounts of damage: the Flurry of Blows (this is the one that fools everyone into thinking they're some kind of fighter class, when it should be looked at like the rogues sneak attack and treated as such).
-A host of abilities designed to help deliver singular attacks backed by save-or-suck and save-or-lose abilities OR to help them get to where allies can be helped to do the most effective attacks possible (repositioning enemies for spells to take effect, flanking with rogues, getting the potion of healing to a badly injured ally, etc.).
-medium AC (similar to the bard, summoner, alchemist, and other 3/4 combatants who are not full casters).
-Abilities and saves that make them less likely to be affected by powers and abilities that would render other characters helpless or out of the fight.

This is touched upon by their role explanation in the Core book:
Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils, striking where it's least expected, and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities. Fleet of foot and skilled in combat, monks can navigate any battlefield with ease, aiding allies wherever they are needed most.

Yet everyone tries to play monks like they are fighters, rather than what they are designed to be played as - a 3/4 BAB non-full-caster who has a set of abilities designed to hinder enemies and make it easier for other people to kill them, rather than directly killing enemies themselves. The problem with monks tends to be the player's mindsets, more than anything mechanical.

Okay, look, it's not that freaking hard.

To hit an opponent, you must select an opponent and weapon, but do not have to describe exactly how you connect the two. (BAB)

To convince someone to do something, you must choose what you're convincing them to do, but need not act out the entire minute or so of back-and-forth involved. (Diplomacy)

To create an illusion, you must choose what the illusion is meant to resemble, but do not have to describe every tiny detail. (Spells)

To forge a document, you must choose what type of document you are forging and what it indicates, but do not have to be able to describe how it would be done or what that document looks like. (Linguistics)

To lie, you must choose what lie you wish to tell, but do not have to specify the exact wording. (Bluff)

This pattern is in all abilities of the game. You need to specify just enough information for the DM to know your intent, then the rolls take over. That's it. Done.

That said, here are some examples where it is okay to say "I need more":

You tell the DM "I lie to them", but do not specify what you're trying to convince them of. Fix: Say something like "I tell them I'm the sheriff."

You tell the DM "I attack" without specifying a target. Fix: Specify a target (such as "whatever attacked me through the grate").

You tell the DM "I create an illusion" without specifying of what. Fix: Specify a form (such as "a wall to block their line of sight").

You tell the DM "I forge some papers" without specifying which papers or at least for what purpose. Fix: Specify the documents *or* the purpose (such as "I want to get into the ball, but don't have an invite")

Ashiel wrote:

joeyfixit wrote:

Talonhawke wrote:

Do you even allow cha based skills in your games?

How about bardic performance should someone be prepared to sing?

I'm all for roleplaying being a boost for social skills but i would never punish a player for having high ranks in a skill in game that they themselves suck at I would encourage them to get their point across without making them feel like they played the wrong choice.

Whereas I see the skill ranks as being a boost to the roleplaying. If a player came up with a lie, but didn't have a great delivery, but rolled a 25, yeah, I'll give it to him. The character is a better liar than the player. If the player comes up with a great lie and sells it, then rolls a 1... wait, why did I make him roll to begin with?

If an Inquisitor has a +23 to hit with a repeating crossbow, but can't tell me which enemy he wants to shoot because he can't make up his mind, he doesn't get to roll damage. Period.

Likewise, if a bard can't tell me ANYTHING for a lie, or a lie so unconvincing that it's ludicrous, I'm not going to let him roll. He has to sit on the bench with the Inquisitor while the game goes on around them.

So basically, you love metagaming and not roleplaying. Gotcha.

Forcing face characters to act out the occasional social encounter is metagaming?

Shenanigans.

And I rest my case. You should have to force anything. If you're forcing something on it, then yeah, shenanigans. You dun goofed. Welcome to sucky-GMsville, population: "????".

Why not, oh, I dunno, actually encourage roleplaying through positive encouragement. If you're so amazingly set on acting stuff how, why not lead the way with your NPCs? Either he'll catch on or he won't feel comfortable. The game is about having fun, not forcing people to do stuff they don't feel comfortable doing. Just because the dice fall a certain way doesn't mean roleplaying suddenly stops anymore than rolling attack rolls means you should describe combat less vividly.

Player A: "Um...I'll...try to convince...that guard...to let us pass."
GM: "Ok! As you approach the guard, he glances in your direction momentarily before focusing in on you as you approach. He asks, what can I do for you, citizen? in a burly voice. So how would you like to go about getting the guard to let you pass?"
Player A: "Um...I dunno...maybe try to create a diversion...or something?"
GM: "Well, perhaps you might be able to convince him that there was a suspicious person elsewhere. Or, maybe since you know the name of the big bad, you could try to pass yourself off as an old friend of his, or something else."
Player A: "Hmm, actually, I like the idea of pretending to be his friend. I'm going to try that." *rolls his Bluff for a 24*
GM: "When you introduce yourself to the guard, you drop the name of Vinkerson. You mention that you met him at a social gathering some time ago, and you received an invitation to be an investor in his next project. The guard is a bit skeptical at first, but you at least seem sincere and calm enough to not appear to be lying. The guard makes a bit of small talk as you go. So you must be one of those ironlords from the south. Are these guys, he says pointing to the rest of the party, your bodyguards?"
Player A: "Oh...uh, yeah, my bodyguards. Um, you can never be too careful after-all. Especially, um...being an...Ironlord was it? What's an Iron Lord?"
GM: "It's kind of like a cattle baron, or oil tycoon, except they own and control lots of iron mines and such."
Player A: "Oh, oh, ok, yeah that sounds good. I'm pretending to be an ironlord!"

Sometime Later, the party is trying to wheel and deal in a trade city to secure something plot relevant. This time the player is trying to pretend he has a bit more clout than he actually does.

Player A: "Yeah...uh, I'll tell them I'm an ironlord, like last time. And...what do you think guys? Maybe that we want to pay off the...uhh...thieves' guild to stop raiding the caravans to place-place?"
Player B: "That sounds pretty good. We could use the signet ring we got from that badguy, and perhaps throw in some gold or something to make it look right?"
Player A: "Yeah, how about that silver statue we got from the orcs?"
GM: "That might work."
Player A: "Ok, well, I'll tell him I am an ironlord from the south, and...uhhh, show him my signet ring...but not like in his face or anything weird like that..."
GM: "You mean casually make sure it's noticeable."
Player A: "Yeah, that. Ok, and...uhhh...I'll sit the silver statue on the table and say it's...a gift or something...for good will, maybe?"
GM: "Sounds pretty good. Gimme a Bluff check to see if he buys it. The signet ring helps you out a bit so I'm going to drop a +2 bonus on your check. Then I need a Diplomacy roll, and the gift also helps with that a bit, 'cause it makes you seem more important and it's a good offer."
Player A: "Awesome, here goes!" *rolls a 23 and a 25*
GM: "Ok, the man looks at you while running his finger around the edge of his wine glass with one hand, and stroking the hair of one of his servant girls with the other. You seem to be a man of wealth, he says. I like that. But why should I give the order to hold up on the raids against the southern caravans, merely because you ask? Perhaps you have something that could make it worth my while? he suggests. You're pretty sure that he would probably call off the raids if you were to give him some sort of cut under the table. Paying him off. You know the raids cost him as well if they fail, and a sure thing is a better deal."
Player A: "Hmmm...so...can I haggle?"
GM: "Of course."
Player A: "Um, how about 10 gold per month?"
GM: "You would know that he's been stealing easily a hundred times that each week. Ideally he'd probably want half as much. He might settle for lower, but 10 gp would probably just irritate him or at best be found as an amusing jest before your real offer."
Player A: "Um, ok, then maybe 200?"
GM: "Let's say that every 100 gp you want to lower it by, the Diplomacy DC increases by +2. However, you might be able to sense his motives to get an idea as to how low he would go."
Player A: "Hmmm, okay, well I'm going to try that." *rolls Sense Motive vs the Merchant Lord's bluff, and rolls a 12.*
GM: "Doug, your character is standing right next to Sam's. You can roll a Sense Motive as well."
Player B: *rolls Sense Motive and gets a 32*
GM: "Very nice roll. While Sam's character can't see past the merchant's poker face, you could advise him. You're pretty sure that, given the cost of actually fencing the stolen goods, he'd probably accept around 350 and call it even."
Player A: "Well Mr. Merchant Lord, I think you...are...ummm, a man of great...umm...what's that word for clever with deals or something?"
GM: "Uhh...savvy?"
Player A: "Yeah, that. I think you're a real savvy guy. You understand the..um, value of money. How does 300 gold sound?"
GM: "He smirks, amused by the fact you didn't begin with a pitiful amount. He suggests No I don't think so, it is too little. 450. he says, trying to haggle you up. However, with Doug's character advising you, you are confident he will accept lower and is just testing the waters."
Player A: "Hmmm, well I have to make some profit. Or else I might as well not ship stuff at all, right? So then we...both don't make money, right? Uhhh...that sounded good, right?"
GM: "Oh yes, keep going."
Player A: "So...let's do it 350 for you to ignore the caravans from Ravenport, and make sure they're safe in your lands, and we both make good."
GM: "Hmmm, I hadn't thought about suggesting he protect them in his lands. I guess that makes sense, because if he's not raiding them and you're not shipping them, he makes no money. Good plan! He says you are a shrewd businessman, but one who knows the value of a good deal. Very well, your trade shall go unhindered as long as I get my cut. I'll throw in an extra 50 XP per level for you guys, since you went a bit above and beyond."
Players: "Awesome!"

Much later...

Player A: "Look my good knight, we're are the heroes from Ravenport, and the ones who ended the raids on the trade caravans a month ago. You must let us pass, because we must reach Daggerdale in time to intercept the Duke before he is crowned the new Reagent of the land, and inform the people that her ladyship is still alive and on her way from Watercrest."
Player B: "............"
GM: Just smiles.

Really? That's what the skill points are for.

Now you can reward/penalize role playing with the precious 'circumstance bonus'.

Great Role player: (Intimidate) "Wrong!" Westley’s voice rang across the room. "Your ears you keep, so that every shriek of every child shall be yours to cherish—every babe that weeps in fear at your approach, every woman that cries 'Dear God, what is that thing?' will reverberate forever with your perfect ears. That is what 'to the pain' means. It means that I leave you in anguish, in humiliation, in freakish misery until you can stand it no more; so there you have it, pig, there you know, you miserable vomitous mass, and I say this now, and live or die, it’s up to you: Drop your sword!" (+2 bonus)

Good Role player: (Intimidate) I need new boots. Unless you want your skin peeled and tanned you will fetch your commander AT ONCE! (ok, give a +1 bonus)

Average role player (Bluff) "These aren't the druids you're looking for." (Meh, no penalty)

Poor Role Player: "She turned me into a newt! *mumbles* I got better." (-1 penalty)

Abysmal role player: Um, yeah, I tell him something. (-2 penalty).

Now it's all subjective. I'd give the average "Wake me when combat begins" player more slack if he's playing outside his comfort zone than a city councilman playing a slick rogue. But that's how I do it.

Ashiel wrote:

joeyfixit wrote:

Talonhawke wrote:

Do you even allow cha based skills in your games?

How about bardic performance should someone be prepared to sing?

I'm all for roleplaying being a boost for social skills but i would never punish a player for having high ranks in a skill in game that they themselves suck at I would encourage them to get their point across without making them feel like they played the wrong choice.

Whereas I see the skill ranks as being a boost to the roleplaying. If a player came up with a lie, but didn't have a great delivery, but rolled a 25, yeah, I'll give it to him. The character is a better liar than the player. If the player comes up with a great lie and sells it, then rolls a 1... wait, why did I make him roll to begin with?

If an Inquisitor has a +23 to hit with a repeating crossbow, but can't tell me which enemy he wants to shoot because he can't make up his mind, he doesn't get to roll damage. Period.

Likewise, if a bard can't tell me ANYTHING for a lie, or a lie so unconvincing that it's ludicrous, I'm not going to let him roll. He has to sit on the bench with the Inquisitor while the game goes on around them.

So basically, you love metagaming and not roleplaying. Gotcha.

Is he really comparing something as simple as "I want to shoot that guy" with a lie, which if does not make sense to the person being liked to could really get the party in a lot of trouble?

At least if you don't shoot the most important guy you have still made a contribution. Tell the wrong lie, and you have not helped at all.

Metagaming in RPGs means you can't separate reality from the game. Using game knowledge as PC knowledge. Also, if you can't separate yourself from your character, you should probably seek medical help.

I have a player who is amazingly charismatic as a person playing a Barbarian with nothing but penalties in his social skills. Meanwhile, I have a friend who stumbles on his words and gets frustrated easily and tends to talk in circles when he's thinking on his toes, but also loves playing things like Bards and social rogues.

When they come into a situation, I let them roleplay it out. Have fun with it. But the ultimate deciding factor is the dice, because like the Joker says, chaos is fair. So both players give an idea as to what they're character is trying to say, and then the dice determine how well they said it. Maybe their character used poorer phrases, hit nerves, or had issues that got in the way of that message. Maybe their characters put it better than they could have a thousand times over.

So their characters are separate, nobody is screwed, and everyone has fun. Everyone gets to be happy when they invested in social skills, or gets to consider the drawback of not doing so.

What is being described her would be like preventing players from playing elves because they're not skinny androgynous people, or preventing someone from playing the Iconic Paladin pregen because they're not of African descent. Get it? It's metagaming, and it's also stupid.

A labyrinth which is a multi-level sphere, with radius 10 feet per caster level of the BBEG. Wandering around are various mindless undead, each of which have a 100gp gem inside their body.
The BBEG is a necromancer who has a fondness for the spell Magic Jar...

His body is in a small central room, hidden inside a blast furnace, wearing a ring of Fire Resistance and a Necklace of Adaptation.

He can locate the gems via Locate Object/Creature, casting any kind of Scrying, or using a Crystal Ball.

This is a nice thread for every GM.

I'll add the first dumb thing that springs to mind.

I recall Golarion's Moon having a "demonic wound" similar to the Worldwound. Take a Demonologist, or a powerful Demon who wants to go there to reclaim rulership of its army, or a powerful Demonic minion who has accomplished a task upon the world and is going to return to its master, or perhaps even a Diabolist who wants to go there for some crazy reason.
It could be interesting to fight the guy(s) inside of an "elevator-shrine" that once activated begins flying to the Moon. It is partially open, and its innner section is protected from the dangers of altitude and, later on, from the void of space between the world and the Moon. The outer section, instead, is unprotected and can be used to one's advantage in a combat (forcing someone to suffocate or casting him/her in the open space).

inside the big bad's mind.
basically a demiplane that's aligned as the big bad and spawns fiend-like creatures to represent the badguy's innermost thoughts and ideals. two ways to run big bad himself. one: big bad takes the form of some kind of golem (advanced, with extra nasties added), who's smashing the pcs with support from his mind.
way number two is that the big bad isn't actually big or bad. he's trapped in his own mind and the pcs have to free him from some outside influence who take the forms of whatever... something from the far realms would be cool of you can pull it off.

A fight against a Mythos monster on/inside a meteor headed for the PC's home town.

One I had fun with was a battle on top of a dungeon that was sinking into the swamp over a large McGuffin, against a rival band of adventurers who were attacking from the player's stolen airship.

SPELL NOT NEED SAVE. BARBARIAN FEEL NOT FEAR.

RIGHT NOW, ALL SITE, ALL PIZAO, BE THEY CASTYS, MARTIALS, GISH, BUFFERS, DEBUFFERS, NPC CLASSES, EVERYTHING. ALL AM WORKING TOGETHER TO DESTROY END OF WORLD! ALL WORK TOGETHER AM STOPPING STUPID GOD OF DECAY!

BARBARIAN AM WINNER OF MANY ARGUMENTS. TODAY, BARBARIAN NOT WINNER ALONE.

IN ARGUMENT OF EVERYONE VERSUS C-M DESTRUCITY, AM TAKING EVERYONE TO WIN. AM ALL CHARACTERS, EVERYWHERE WORKING IN TEAM TO OVERCOME CHALLENGE. CHALLENGE LIKE C-M DESTRUCITY GOD. AM NOT CASTYS, MARTIALS, ETC. AM ONLY PCS AND THINGS PCS AM SMASH.

DESTRUCITY AM THING PCS AM SMASH.

GOD AM FALL TO RAGELANCEPOUNCE. GOD AM FALL TO SOD. GOD AM FALL TO BUFFING AND DEBUFFING AND MIND-BLANKET INVISIBILITY. PIZAO AM SUNDER GOD, AM CASTYFY GOD, AM OBLITERATE GOD.

ARGUMENT AM OVER. EVERYONE AM WINNER.

RAGELANCEPOUNCE.

i have a variety of odd concepts i want to play, too many to list, and none of them have earned the approval of any of the many "Grognards" in my area. because they deem them too "Anime" and don't want "Anime" in thier "Fantasy". and to them, "Anime" is a broad term that may as well accomodate anything not from thier precious "Medieval European Fantasy" they they refuse to accept that Pathfinder is truly a kitchen sink.

let me quote one of my old posts.

i don't get why people see D&D or it's derivatives as medieval european.
you have medieval knights wearing rennaiscane era armor, wielding roman era falcatas, worshipping greek gods, traveling with native american shamans wearing the hides of saharan beasts, who transform into prehistoric dinosaurs who are accompanied by modern japanese schoolgirls wielding Tokugawa Era Daisho and Wearing black pajamas, and old men wearing robes and pointed hats who chant mathematical equations to control reality, on a journey to kill brain eating space aliens, giant sentient firebreathing spellcasting reptiles and sentient jello.

but Toz and i have a Concept in common at least.

It's fine to do that. It's called Letting the DM Have Fun.

Accepting the joinging with the Fearless Turgul and Grimble is one of the most diverse characters in existence, Mountous.

Montonius Fuji, Level 20 Failure

Str: 8
Int: 9
Wis: 9
Dex: 13
Con: 20
Chr: 9

Ability advances: Con +5

Human Monk 1 / Cleric 3 / Bard 1 / Sorceror 3 / Wizard 3 / Oracle 1 / Witch 2 / Druid 1 / Rogue 1 / Pathfinder Chronicler 1
/ ShadowDancer 1 / Dragon Disciple 1 / Mystic Theurge 1 / Peasent 1

Feats: Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Mobility, Enlarge Spell, Empower Spell, Skill Focus (Knowledge,: Engineering),
Toughness, Skill Focus: Appraise

Specialities: Sun domain, plant domain, Dragon path, universal specialty wizard, fire specialty oracle, hexes, fat pet wolf (Snuffles)

Attacks: Bab: +5 - +5 Holy LongSword (+9 hit, +11 vs Evil.... damage 1d8+4, +2d6+2 vs Evil)

Belt of Fortitude +6 (+6 Con)
Inherent +5 (wishes)

Final Stat: Con - 36

HP: 11d8 + 7d6 + 1d12 + 1d4 380 = 458 HP

Back story: Montious started his life as a humble monk, learning a lot about religion at the monestary. Too much in fact, he decided that despite the inability to cast spells he would pursue the true church (which was a good thing, as the fattest man who ever existed he was quickly running the monestary out of money). He loved hearing the tales at the monestary, so much so that he decided to go and tell them himself, becoming a bard. His regal tales talked much of dragons and great magic, so much so he convinced himself that he was a magic-casting dragon. He tried this for a while, but couldn't actually cast any real spells; so he decided to spend what was left of his money and join a school for wizards. During his time at the school for wizards, he had a vision of his greatness, and decided to figure out its meaning, becoming an Oracle. Whenever people would come to him for a fortune telling, he would start to curse at them, and became so good at these curses he graduated into being a witch. Well, living in the woods got him to appreciate nature, and he eventually adapted it, becoming a druid and raising a wolf almost as fat as he. But he missed the city life and the delicious foods there, so he moved back; but without money, he had no choice but to rob people in an attempt to feed himself. He robbed the necessary components to become a chronicler, took them in and with their approval, started to make money as a book writer. His writings however, received much criticism for being "remarkably stupid", so he decided to take up dancing; he figured with his talent as a bard it was a natural fit. But the dancing didn't work, he being so fat and all, so he remembered his old days as a Dragon, and returned to them. This brought back all of his memories of the great magics, and he decided to fuse the two magics he could never cast in the first place and become a mighty Mystic Theurge. Finally, he decided to screw it all and just spend his life as a peasent.

He is pleased as punch to finally be given a chance to prove his might, and is happy to bring his mighty +5 Holy Long Sword in thier great quest to defeat the Ancient Green Dragon. He was told it was a bit easy for champions of their stallor, but he figures to start small and work his way up.

I once built a level 20 character made up of as many 3.5 splat classes as I could think of.

I think he had levels in ninja, dwarven defender, scout and knight. So he got sneak attack when his opponents were flat-footed, but couldn't take advantage of it, and got bonuses when he moved and when he stood still, but was also penalized when he moved, and when he stood still. He got bonuses for wearing armor, and bonuses for not wearing armor. He had several defining class features that were completely negated by wearing armor, but could cast arcane spells in medium armor without penalty.

He could also inspire courage. Which I'd imagine anyone seeing this poor bastard would be filled with. "If he can do it, I can do it too!"

God rest his soul. All of his saves were 20+ though.

EDIT:
He could also wield the katana, as a class feature from the samurai class.

His name was Amazo. I want to try to play him one day.

One thing I keep trying to remind my players of, and which they are having a very hard time "getting":

They are free to make stuff up. I do not claim sole authorship of the game world. It's an additive process. If one of them If I haven't provided them with details about something int he campaign, those details can be whatever they want to be. If one of them asks "Do I have any relatives who work in the palace?" I'll answer "I dunno, do you?"

They are free to make up NPCs, history, culture, etc, whatever. Saves me brainpower coming up with stuff myself. More than that, I want them to "own" the campaign setting, so that they'll be more involved in it.

I'm actually going to add something of a correction/addendum to my previous post. Cause really, I only hit the tip of the iceberg there. There's an even greater reason why the two concepts aren't linked, and never were.

Let's say I make a character and name him Kaze. Kaze is a two weapon fighter, and is mechanically built to optimize this. But let's also say Kaze is the student of a swordmaster that taught him the art of using feints and 'false strikes' to lower an opponent's guard and get some hits in. (In this context, I'm defining 'false strikes' to be the concept of blatantly using attacks that are intended to miss, or get pulled back from. The enemy doesn't know this, so he attempts to react anyway, thus leaving him open tactically.)

Now, lets say Kaze has a special ability that lets him strike twice with both weapons as a standard action. (Four strikes total).

Mechanically, there isn't much to complement the very specific roleplaying tactic I gave him. There is the basic feinting combat mechanic, but its not quite this specific, and it would generally require him to not have moved. (Improved Feint as move action... so if he moves, he can't do a mechanical feint.)

However, let's drop the mechanical aspect for a moment.

On my turn, I declare that Kaze moves at the enemy, and uses his four-hit special. But, I also state that amidst the four mechanical strikes, that he also uses countless feints and false strikes, and ultimately that is the reason why his attacks might hit. Because his opponent was fooled by his motions.

Mechanically, I don't have the ability to actually do this. But what stopped me from saying I did? Nothing. Lemme explain. I make my attack rolls as normal, as per game mechanics, and lets say two of them hit but the other two miss. Ignore the simple mechanic that states "you just missed." And remember for a moment that a target's AC embodies not only their armor, but their ability to move in it. (Dex bonus).

I decide to roleplay my two hits by saying that my enemy was fooled by my complex motions, and he wasn't able to defend himself properly against them (mechanically: the attacks hit). However, after eating my swords two times already, he caught on to my strategy and was able to deflect the other two strikes with his shield. (mechanically: the other two missed).

The mechanics don't say that I did all of that. But what is actually stopping me from saying I did? Nothing.

Roleplaying is about adding flavor and personality to your character's actions. The rules can never stop me from doing that. Ever.

But there are times where you can't be both 'optimizing' and 'roleplaying'; sometimes you need to make a choice that will either benefit the story OR the efficiency of your character.

This is an interesting statement, I'm intrigued.

Can you give an example of a situation where a player would need to "make a choice" between roleplaying and optimizing?

Keep in mind that by "roleplaying" we are talking about bringing forth a memorable personality and bringing your character to life in an interesting way.

I like the definition from Marshall Jansen on another thread:

Role-player: A person who plays a role-playing game to take on a persona other than theirs. At some point during a game session, a roleplayer will talk in character, act in a way that their character should act, make choices based on their character's personality or foibles.

Also keep in mind that by "optimizing" we are talking about making choices after creating a character concept that are mechanically effective and support the concept.

Once again, I really like the wording Marshall Jansen used on another thread:

Optimizer: A player, who when given a character concept, makes the best possible character mechanically while staying true to the chosen concept.

So basically my question would be whether you define optimization and roleplaying differently than I do (and if so, how do you define them?), or, if you define them the same as me, what example could you give of a situation where a player would have to choose between them?

I ask because I can't think of a single example. To me, at this point, these two concepts are so different, I can't think of any case where one would interfere with the other, nor have I ever run across any case in practice. No more than having an upper lip flour sifter interfere with either.

I didn't misquote a thing -- that's his full on post. Just because he's not tracking it doesn't make the post irrelevant.

He has Sean Reynolds track the FAQ -- however I didn't misquote JJ at all -- false accusations are nice though keep it up!

It's doubly funny because your post isn't even relevant -- or correct:

What he actually said -- in your specific link:

joela wrote:

Pathfinder rule that seems to get the most queries.

I'm not really sure; I'm not really tracking the FAQ or rule threads. I tend to work on the Golarion side of things and leave the rules to Jason and Sean.

As for my quote Original Post says I'm still right

Since you aren't in agreement -- that makes you wrong.

So I just sat down and read through the rules for Ability Score damage, penalty, and drain on page 555 of the core rulebook, and it does indeed look like the rules don't work exactly as I thought. Part of the problem is that ability damage doesn't actually reduce an ability score's actual total, which is counterintuitive on some level.

So here goes.

Ability damage only results in a penalty to actions associated with that ability score; it does NOT make you lose access to feats or spells that require ability score minimums, since your actual ability score does not lower. Only ability DRAIN can make you lose access to spells you can cast or feats that have prerequisites.

But it's not that simple. Some effects that cause ability damage or ability penalties DO have additional effects. Touch of idiocy is one such spell, since it says in the spell's description that it affects the target's ability to cast some or all of its spells if the penalty imparted to the ability score drops low enough. This is an exception to the general rule for ability scores and applies only to touch of idiocy (the point of the spell, really, is to be a lesser version of feeblemind that screws over spellcasters, after all).

Ray of enfeeblement, on the other hand, does NOT have this type of language. It merely works as a normal penalty to an ability score.

So taking it that way...

AvalonXQ wrote:

1a) A 12th-level wizard with a 16 Intelligence takes a 3 point Intelligence penalty from Touch of Idiocy. What is the highest level spell he can cast, sixth or third?

Third.

AvalonXQ wrote:

1b) A 12th-level wizard with a 16 Intelligence takes 3 points of Intelligence damage. What is the highest level spell he can cast, sixth or third?

Sixth.

AvalonXQ wrote:

1c) A 12th-level wizard with a 16 Intelligence takes 3 points of Intelligence drain. What is the highest level spell he can cast, sixth or third?

Third.

AvalonXQ wrote:

2a) A fighter with 13 strength and the Power Attack feat takes a 3 point Strength penalty from Ray of Enfeeblement. Can he Power Attack?

Yes.

AvalonXQ wrote:

2b) A fighter with 13 strength and the Power Attack feat takes 3 points of Strength Damage. Can he Power Attack?

Yes.

AvalonXQ wrote:

2c) A fighter with 13 strength and the Power Attack feat takes 3 points of Strength Drain. Can he Power Attack?

No.

As you can plainly see -- he even gives examples.

Nonetheless, the Thread really got my attention and I've since been more honest on Saves for my monsters.

Players are not the only ones who can mature into a genuine enjoyment of risk. Your story sounds much like my own.

As a young GM, it was all about my story. My story was sacrosanct, and the dice were just smoke and mirrors to add a sense of risk.

As a less-young GM, I've decided that the ability of the dice to make me surprised by my own story is the most worthy aspect of the whole hobby.

There have been a lot of homebrew races posted in these forums, and a great many of them are quite broken and very one-sided. There ARE some minor guidelines in the pathfinder conversion guide for making or converting races (which are often ignored, I might add) but not a lot of information on building up races that will lack an adjustment. So, after looking over the races I've written up a rough set of guidelines for making a race that will not be game-breaking, and which will be roughly on par with existing races, without having a level adjustment (typically).

Start here for stats. For the purposes of the guidelines, stat category means "physical" or "mental":

• +2 to a stat of choice if the race is at least half human.
  
• +2 to a predetermined stat and +2 to a stat of the other category, balanced with a subtraction from the same stat category.
  

Bonuses are racial bonuses, penalties are untyped penalties. Thus, racial bonuses do not stack, but the penalties do. The guidelines for races in PF are not "any combination of stats that sum to +2" as some people seem to believe.

As for racial abilities, races should have roughly the equivalent of 2.5 feats worth of abilities. To avoid dealing with fractions, we'll convert the 2.5 feats into 10 points... thus, 4 points is equivalent to 1 feat. Here are some examples of racial abilities and their "point cost":

10 point racial ability:

• Improve a racial stat bonus from +2 to +4
  

8 point racial ability:

• A feat of the player's choice
  
• Add a new +2 bonus to a stat that lacks it in a category that already has a bonus
  

4 point racial abilities:

• up to 30 foot fly, burrow, climb speed or up to 50' swim speed
  
• negate -2 worth of racial stat penalty.
  
• switch a racial stat bonus to the other category.
  
• +2 to a stat in a category with no stat bonuses yet.
  
• +1 bonus to all saving throws
  
• +1 AC bonus (armor, natural armor, etc)
  
• spell resistance of 6+class levels
  
• One natural attack that deals 1d6 or two (ie claws) that deal 1d4
  
• anything that resembles an existing feat (ie, gnome magic's +1 DC is identical to spell focus)
  

2 point racial abilities:

• 1 bonus skill point per class level
  
• +2 save bonus vs. small set of specific things (ie, fear, poison, disease... up to 3)
  
• +2 racial bonus to two different skills.
  
• Immunity to one type of effect (ie fear, sleep, poison)
  
• +5 spell resistance if the race already has it.
  
• One natural attack that deals 1d3 points
  
• Amphibious (breath both air and water)
  
• Darkvision 60'
  
• speed not reduced by heavy armor
  
• anything that resembles an existing feat but with half the bonus
  

1 point racial abilities:

• +4 dodge bonus vs. a specific creature type.
  
• +4 CMD bonus vs. one type of combat maneuver.
  
• +2 save vs one very specific thing
  
• +2 racial bonus to a skill.
  
• +1 attack bonus vs. specific creature types (one type - for humanoid and outsider must select up to two subtypes)
  
• Low-Light vision
  
• Weapon familiarity (up to 4 martial weapons - if only exotics for the race, costs 0)
  
• anything that is fairly trivial or minor
  

Things that give you MORE points to work with are generally penalties that are half as powerful as their same-point positive equivalents.

-4 point racial drawbacks

• -2 penalty to a stat that lacks a penalty in a category that has no existing penalties.
  
• -10 foot movement speed (a 5 foot penalty is worth nothing)
  
• Vulnerability to fire or cold.
  

-2 point racial drawbacks

• -2 penalty to a stat that already has an adjustment (positive or negative).
  
• Negate racial bonus to one stat
  
• Vulnerability to electricity, acid or sonic.
  

-1 point racial drawbacks

• -2 penalty to a stat in a category where additional penalties have already been applied.
  
• Light sensitivity
  
• Very situational penalty (ie, merfolk not liking to be out of water for long)
  

These are by no means complete or comprehensive, but they do give a rough guideline for building PF races that have no level adjustment and are on par with the existing examples of races from the Core books. Here's a quick look at a few of the existing races:

Human:
+2 to any stat
bonus feat of choice (8 pts)
+1 skill point per level (2 pts)

Half-Orc:
+2 to any stat
Darkvision (2 pt)
Intimidating (1 pts)
Orc Blood (1 pt)
Orc Ferocity (4 pts)
Weapon Familiarity (1 pt)

Gnome:
+2 Con, +2 Cha, -2 Str
Small (none)
Slow (-4 pts)
Low-light vision (1 pt)
Defensive Training (1 pts)
Gnome Magic +1 DC Illusions (4 pts)
Gnome Magic cantrips (4 pts)
Hatred (1 pts)
Illusion Resistance (1 pt)
Keen Senses (1 pt)
Obsessive (1 pt)

Dwarf:
+2 Con, +2 Wis, -2 Cha
Slow (-4 pts)
..and steady (2 pts)
Darkvision (2 pts)
Defensive Training (1 pt)
Greed (none - so specific that its fluff)
Hatred (1 pt)
Hardy (3 pts) - ad hoc +1 adjustment since "spells and spell like abilities" is pretty broad
Stability (2 pts)
Stonecunning (2 pts) - ad hoc +1 adjustment for the utility of 10' notice range
Weapon Familiarity (1 pt)

Merfolk:
+2 Dex, +2 Con, +2 Cha
Slow x 2 (-8 pts)
Negate racial penalty (4 pts)
Swap bonus to other category (4 pts)
+2 bonus to another stat (4 pts)
50' swim speed (4 pts)
Ambibious (2 pts)
Low-light vision (1 pt)
Can't (or won't) spend too much time out of water (-1 pts) ad hoc

Goblin:
-2 Str, +4 Dex, -2 Cha
Improve +2 Dex to +4 Dec (10 pts)
-2 Str (-4 pts)
Negate bonus to mental stat (-2 pts)
Darkvision (2 pts)
Skilled (4 pts... +2 to two skills x 2)

Orc:
+4 Str, -2 Int, -2 Wis, -2 Cha
Improve +2 Str to +4 Str (10 pts)
Negate mental bonus (-2 pts)
Penalty to mental stat with bonus (-2 pts)
Penalty to new mental stat (-1 pts)
Penalty to new mental stat (-1 pts)
Darkvision (2 pts)
Ferocity (4 pts)
Light Sensitivity (-1 pt)
Weapon Familiarity (1 pt)

Hobgoblin (12 pts, thus +1 adjustment... or CR 1/2 rather than 1/3):
+2 Dex, +2 Con
Negate racial penalty (4 pts)
Swpa bonus to other category (4 pts)
Darkvision (2 pts)
Sneaky (2 pts)

Kobold (0 pt, thus -1 adjustment.. or CR 1/4 rather than 1/3):
-4 Str, +2 Dex, -2 Con
-2 Con (-4 pts)
-2 to Mental stat with bonus (-2 pts)
-2 to Strength with penalty (-2 pts)
Darkvision (2 pts)
Armor (4 pts)
Crafty (3 pts) +2 to 3 skills, and two are always class skills ad hoc +1 pt
Light Sensitivity (-1 pt)

As always, the best guideline is to look at a racial ability and say "would I accept this ability as being about as powerful as a single feat? Would I let players have this ability as a feat without reservation?" If no, its worth more than 4 points! In fact, if its something you probably wouldn't let a player have as a feat, the race as a whole probably needs a level adjustment and thus the ability should be worth 8, 10, or even more points. You'll note, for example, that no 3.5 race had "Powerful Build" and 0 level adjustment... Goliaths and Half-Giants were both +1 ECL... and yet maybe a third of the races people post have powerful build with 0 adjustment.

Also notice the diminishing returns on stat penalties in the same category. This prevents people from category-loading their penalties in order to super-charge the race's stats in the other category and/or give lots of racial abilities. The Orc is an example of how you can category-load your penalties and get a pretty decent focus on the other category, but not superhumanly so!

I hope this helps some folks. Obviously when you get into fancy and intricate races you'll need to use ad-hoc point adjustments in conjunction with your common sense - the latter being the best tool of all.

I think most people don't know how to conduct mounted combat.

Want to cast a spell while your mount is moving? Concentration Check.

Want to make an attack while mounted on a NON-COMBAT TRAINED mount? it's a Ride Check as a MOVE ACTION.

Want to make an attack with a 2 handed weapon (or use a weapon and shield) while mounted? Ride Check.

Want to make a ranged attack while your mount is moving? -4 to your attack (or -8 if its running).

Took damage while mounted? Ride Check.

So I got no issue with a good wizzie's summoned demon saving a group of orphans from a burning building caused by the stray blast during a battle between a summoned celestial and summoned elemental for a dispute over water rights between two neutral clerics.

Seems like a good deed to me. Despite the "[evil]" descriptor.

Greg

Maybe.

But let's look what a Herozu ordered to save the poor children entrapped in the burning building will probably do.

1) smash the wall to enter the building (smashing is fun);
2) grab one child (and the other children will scatter at the sight of a hulking demon);
3) smash another wall to leave the building (smashing is fun and after all he is saving the children even if he get a few burns, right? so he is obeying your orders);
4) rinse and repeat till the burning building collapse above the boys left in it.

He will be simply following his alignment doing that.

Do the same thing with a Lillend Azata:

1) She would use a door if possible;
2) sleep on the children so they stay together (if the current location is not immediately dangerous);
3) grab 2 children and hurry outside for the safest route possible;
4) repeat till all the children are safe.

As she has different priorities than the herozu she will try to use different systems.

So what means you use isn't meaningless.
Sure, you can give very explicit orders to the herozu to reduce the collateral damage he will do, but he (and all the summoned creatures) will follow his nature if your orders leave any option to him. If possible he will follow your instructions in a way that will create the most collateral damage and suffering possible.

The alignments are tied to certain actions. If you do X it falls into an alignment. In theory all of us GM's would agree on what that alignment is for that one action. To stay in the spirit of the thread if I summon an evil monster then that is an evil act. It does not matter if it saves the world. Now I would never change a character's alignment if they did something really bad to save the world, but it is what it is.

Specific actions SOMETIMES fall into a specific alignment. The definitions we have aren't actually broad enough to handle every action. To demonstrate this I'm going to quote Frank Trollman (yeah, yeah, I know. Not this boards favorite person).

D&D morality is not a strait jacket, but it also is not very helpful when determining the alignment of a specific action. But that's okay, because specific actions shouldn't have alignments since the definition of alignment states that alignment is a measure of "general personality"

Exactly. A single act does not a trend, or a habit, make; its one act. It doesn't define a character.

However, when it becomes your default trick, your primary mode of acting on things...

...then you are acting in accordance with you own nature, which should be defined by you. You might think summoning demons is justified. The vicars of the Enlightened Way may agree that its entirely acceptable while the mayor may ban it in his town entirely. We don't need alignment systems to account for good and bad. The world handles it just fine.

Here are the arguments I've seen so far for why summoning demons (or casting other [evil] spells) should be an evil act. I'm going to respond to each of them.

1. People frown on demon summoning. Let them frown! Just because people don't like what you're doing doesn't mean what you're doing is evil.

2. (from the devs) It says evil right there in the descriptor, how could it possibly not be an evil act!?! Because it's just a spell descriptor, and nowhere in the rules does it say that the spell descriptor makes the act evil. It says that a good cleric isn't going to be allowed by his God to summon demons, but it doesn't say that a paladin is going to lose his class features if he does the same.

3. Well in my home games I make evil spells have negative consequences. Good for you. They don't have inherent negative consequences in the actual game.

4. The means are evil so it doesn't matter if the ends are evil or not. I just want to clear something up. "Ends justify means" is not about whether consequences are more important than the actual actions. It's about whether certain consequences trump other consequences. For instance, if I pull a lever, and the consequences of that are that a train gets diverted from its original path (which would have killed hundreds) and instead barrels over a small child, we would have to have an ends justify means discussion to figure out the morality of the situation.

The ends justify means conversation would not be about whether the inherent evilness of lever-pulling is outweighed by the total consequences. It's about whether the negative, unwanted consequences (killing the small child) outweigh the positive, wanted consequences (saving the group of people). Ends justify means is about whether the good consequences override the evil consequences. In the rules, there are no evil consequences for summoning a demon to have tea with. Nothing bad happens as a result of your summoning, so ends justify means is not even relevant - there's no evil consequence to justify.

5. It's like the dark side of the force, and it corrupts you. That's not in the rules.

6. Demons are a quick and easy method for power. There's nothing evil about power, quickness, or easyness. In fact, if I'm fighting off a madman with hostages and it's a close fight, I might want to use the quickest, easiest, and most powerful combat option I have to stop him from harming them, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. A good person would not use the slower, harder, and less powerful option out of some twisted sense of duty to avoid quick and easy power. Unless of course you have some houserules in place that make quick and easy power have a corrupting effect ala the dark side, in which case see #3 and #5.

Talynonyx wrote:

Where do you get 30 km out of "up to one 10-ft. cube/level"?

I'm working on the assumption that that's only meant for the area, not the volume, since it's a 7th level spell, and nerfing it that hardcore should make it MUCH lower in level. So I guess there's a bit of a problem with it either way...it's either pretty overpowered for a 7th level spell, or it so massively underpowered that it's all but useless as a 7th level spell.

If that was the case, it'd be a column of "one 10' square/level" or something like that. A cube is already a 3 dimensional shape. 13 10' cubes is still a very versatile and useful spell for 7th level. You could lift 120' square feet (40'x30') worth of area off the ground 10', which is high enough that anything medium sized in it is immobilized. You could lift a single 10'x10' square 130' into the air. And so on. It's quite useful, especially because as you pointed out, it has no save and no spell resist.

To continue this side-bar discussion about nasty critters with class levels in PRPG:

I am anti-powergaming. I don't see how "optimizing" and "powergaming" become synonymous though. Optimizing is a subjective term that implies there is a goal that you're attempting to achieve. I optimize all of my characters to suit my character vision.

+1

I'm the same way. I've built 6th level characters that could deal 194 points of damage in a round (0.32% chance of that actually happening, but it can, and he does 45 points on an average round) just using the core rule (go Earthbreakers!), and I didn't even have to use two-handed weapon fighter to do it.

But that particular character's concept was heavily defined by "He smashes things real good." His giant hammer of whomping is an extension of his whole personality - he's this tactless, blunt and overbearing bonehead with no real awareness of how forceful he is. Is he optimized for being a hammer-based fighter? Heck yeah, he is. But is he powergaming?

No. If I was powergaming, I would carry a composite longbow built for my 20 Str (plus enchantments) and not have thrown feats into throw anything and ranged crush - because awesome as an earthbreaker is, it's a pretty lousy ranged weapon. But it doesn't make sense to my vision of the character for him to carry anything but his hammer, and he's the kind of guy who would totally throw his hammer at something if he couldn't hit it up close.

I also put a feat into Improved Sunder, even though its a seriously suboptimal feat (because sundering is not usually the best tactic), because he seems like a sundering sort. I knew the character was the sort who would be more likely to sunder a wizard's wand and demand he surrender than to do the most effective tactic and just knock him dead (and at his level there are few APL balanced NPC wizards who could survive one round of his full-attack).

That's very different than the guy (in my last group) who picked the clearly never playtested Sea Serpent (from Stormwrack) as the animal companion of his completely-not-sea-related-at-all druid because it quickly develops a sick AC that's impossible to hit (I was the GM, and I didn't manage to hit that damn snake with a single non-critical attack over seven levels of play.) and its poison is super-effective. Why did he have a Sea Serpent? Because it was the best mechanical option. He never even tried to explain it in character terms. It was all mechanics.

That's power-gaming. And every character this guy made was built around some mechanical exploit that made his character better than every other character in the group. Everyone in the group thought it was total cheese and resented the way he manipulated the rules, but this player was providing a place to play, so they wouldn't let me kick him out or piss him off. And telling him he wasn't allowed to use half of his complete collection of WOTC splats (of the four other players, 3 were playing straight core book, and one had two splats) because they were broken and introduced way too much power-creep was a deal-breaker for him, so I had to just put up with his nonsense. Eventually I got so sick of it I left the group and it disbanded without a GM.

Synzilla...

Use point-buy method.
Dump all three physicals to 7 (saving 12 points).
Take venerable age, dropping all three physicals to 1 each, but bumping all three mentals by 3 each.
Be a Synthesist Summoner and only unfuse to sleep.
Minimum hit points per Hit Die = 1.
Con boost from 1 to 13 (when fused) = +12 Con = +6 hit points per Hit Die.
Basic hit points per level = 7 (+1 per level every time you bump the eidolon's Con by 2).
Bonus hit points (such as favoured class, or Toughness) stack on top of this.
Level 20 hit points, with eidolon Con at 21 (Ability Increase evolution x4) = (levels 11x20) + favoured class (20) + Toughness (20) = 260. Plus eidolon's own hit points (10.5x15) = 157.5. Total hit points = 417.5, rounded down to 417. Before using any other magic.

The rest, to be honest, is gravy.

I have a psychological point, and a philosophical point.

Psychological -- Here's a system of rolling up stats that is completely fair, and will nontheless drive players bug-nuts with dissatisfaction: roll 5d6, scratching the bottom two, for 8 attributes. Then scratch the top two attributes and assign the others as you please.
For example:
5d6 ⇒ (3, 3, 4, 2, 4) = 16 = 11
5d6 ⇒ (3, 3, 3, 5, 2) = 16 = 11
5d6 ⇒ (4, 5, 5, 3, 2) = 19 = 14
5d6 ⇒ (2, 1, 1, 1, 3) = 8 = 6
5d6 ⇒ (5, 4, 6, 3, 6) = 24 = 17
5d6 ⇒ (5, 4, 6, 2, 2) = 19 = 15
5d6 ⇒ (2, 1, 6, 2, 3) = 14 = 11
5d6 ⇒ (2, 1, 3, 6, 4) = 16 = 13
Final attributes: 14, 13, 11, 11, 11, 6.
The reason this will drive a player nutty is that you are showing her something cool -- the 17 and 15 -- and then taking it away. For the rest of that character's career, the player will keep wondering if that extra +2 or +3 would have made a difference in a hard fight, or a failed Perception check.

Showing your player the terrific reroll and then trying to take it away is always going to be rough.

(Some of my "friends" used to tip their waitress by showing her a pile of a hundred $1 bills and then deducting "penalties" for less than over-the-top perfect service; the waitress usually ended up with, like, 6 or 7 dollars, but she felt miserable about it.)

Philosophical -- Here's something you're going to want to decide right now: throughout the campaign, if a player rolls well and finds an obscure clue, or rolls a critical against your climactic villain, or rolls a 20 on a saving throw that you were expecting would incapacitate him; are you going to follow the habit of thinking that the player rolled too well?

I give you a lot of credit for making this work. If you are going to take the character with a bunch of 17-18's, you should also take the one with a bunch of 10's.

With that said, I once tried to play a fighter/rogue who kept rolling bad for HP. It was almost a joke. We had the rule that 1's get rerolled, so what did I roll? 2. Then I took a fighter level... 3. I don't know if I had more then 20 HP by 4th level, and that includes toughness! Every encounter, I would take one or two hits, and go down. I think I spent more time in combat unconscious then fighting.

I can't say that I regret playing the character, but I feel like I missed out on the opportunity to do more interesting things then go down like a chump in round 1. All because of 3 or 4 die rolls.

My conclusion was that luck should affect what you are doing that attack, or round, maybe your characters success or failure for a day. But luck shouldn't brand your character for life. If you are rolling for ability scores, you may disagree.

No useful comment on your character build other than, "Good on you!"

Those stats look perfectly fine (one slightly below average and one above average). Very refreshing to see someone work with what they have rather than cry like a 2 year old that the DM won't let them have 18 (or greater) in every slot. Any idiot can make an awesome character when they aren't stat limited, you are doing the hard yards. A whole table of players such as yourself would be a DM's dream.

Highest regards,
S.

Regarding the role of the GM in reconnecting the (new) PCs to the game/adventure/campaign following a TPK, I have to say most of that is on the players. If they have bought into the story previously, then they'll expend the effort on connecting their new characters. This might take some homework (ideally a group project rather than a bunch of undirected individual efforts) on their part, but it's still not something that the GM needs to do much with - he just needs to keep going with what got them engaged on the story. If the players haven't got a buy in, then they can just crank out new characters and it shouldn't matter either way.

Since there's been a lot of talk about monks on these forums, I've decided to create a thread dedicated to discussing how to fix them.

1. Monks add their Wisdom bonus to attack and damage rolls with monk weapons in place of their Strength modifier.

2. Monks get full BAB all the time. Ignore the clunky "but but but the monk can use his monk level as his BAB on a flurry and for his CMD" mechanical failure. (No, I don't care that it breaks the BAB/HD rule.)

3. Pretend that the Paizo vow of poverty doesn't exist.

4. Wholeness of Body is a swift action that heals 3d8 + monk level hit points. (None of this "standard action, low healing" junk. The ability doesn't need to be super powerful, but making a swift action with a slight boost in healing ability makes it worthwhile to use for 2 ki points.)

5. Quivering Palm: as a standard action, make a single melee attack. If the attack hits, the target must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 monk level + the monk's Wisdom modifier) or die. Consumes 5 ki points. (No reason to make it a random 1/day ability when the spellcasters are throwing out save-or-loses all day long from a range of 50 feet or more.)

6. Empty Body lasts 1 minute per monk level. (Seriously, 3 ki points to go ethereal for 1 minute? Lame.)

7. Nevermind, as Paizo apparently fixed this.

Regarding the male beefcake vs female cheesecake in art issue

The issue here is one of idealism vs hypersexuality.

Let's look at that big half nude barbarian. what's accentuated? The muscles. Barbarian pictures tend to be exercises in aggressive anatomy. His face is typically not the Fabio variety, but rather rugged and scarred. The barbarian is idealized. His primary attributes that are accentuated are his strength, his muscular body, his ruggedness.

Let's look at the female picture now. What's accentuated? Swelling breasts. Slightly red face. Plush, open lips. The female picture is hypersexualized. Here, her primary attributes that are accentuated are all involved with her readiness for sex.

It gets worse when you leave the barbarian. Protagonist male wizards are crafty, wizened, and wise, while the female ones look exactly the same as the female barbarians. Warriors? Hello to the chainmail bikini. The male warrior is drawn to accentuate the armor, the female drawn, once again, to accentuate her sexual capabilities.

To put a finer point on it, the problem is, both men and women in this type of art is drawn in a way intended to appeal only to straight men. While the man is punching, flexing, or running, the woman is shown arching her back, presenting herself, or shifting her hips.

This was, for a long time, even disputed along fantasy race lines. Dwarves were the "masculine" race, with the ever present question regarding females with beards - or, more often, females that simply never appeared. Half the artwork and stories out there would have you convinced dwarves are entirely mono-gendered. It's no surprise then that dwarves hit a large popularity with the "neckbeard" style crowd. Elves, on the other hand, were considered the "feminine" race, but even this is drastically flawed, as elven women are, if anything, even more hypersexualized then the human women were. No, the reason for them being considered the feminine race was because the men were typically drawn as having softer features, and they were set up as being opposite to the dwarves.

Let's turn the table and see how things would work if we really did want to use the argument of "Well women have their beefcake too!"

The barbarian now has plus, open lips. Slightly red skin on his face. His rugged and scarred face is far prettier now, maybe with a single scar meant more to accentuate the good features. Oh, and the loincloth he wears is somewhat extended due to the large bulge underneath it.

Still think things are fair?

For the record, the male depictions are equally damaging as the female ones, but for a different reason. What do you see in the typical depictions of men and the masculine race? Real men are strong. Real men are violent. Real men always hold the position of power. Real men put their trust in physical solutions.

This is not healthy.

One of the most important things I've found that both DMs and players need to learn is that you can be an assassin without being an Assassin, or a barbarian without being a Barbarian. A druid from a tribe of savages in the north is no less barbaric then a Barbarian is.

Likewise, you can be a Barbarian without being a barbarian. An angry fighter who eschews mastery of arms for pure, unrelenting strength, doesn't have to wear animal furs.

You have to be wielding it during your turn, and that means out and ready to hit things with.

==Aelryinth

Great, so you've come around.

A wizard wielding a spiked gauntlet and holding nothing in that hand is ready to hit things with it.

Thus if the wizard's spiked gauntlet were defending then he could, as a free action before making any attacks during his turn, allocate an amount of the gauntlet's bonus to defense.

But the wizard does NOT have to make an attack action with the gauntlet.

Now if the wizard at any time winds up where he is holding something in that hand which would mean that he could not make an attack with the gauntlet then the wizard would not get the AC bonus for as long as that was the case.

Period.

-James

That doesn't work because now you have a weapon readied and are casting a spell with no penalty. How are you going to take a TWF penalty on your spellcasting?

It only works if you subsume the Attack action as part of wielding as a qualifier.

==Aelryinth

You don't have to take a TWF penalty on casting. I specified if you were using two weapons, one with and one without defending, but only wanted to attack with the one that didn't have defending, but wanted the defending bonus.

Let me put it like this, if the wizard has a longsword (elf), and casts a spell, then someone runs past him, he get's an attack of opportunity. He does not lose his AoO because he cast a spell, he doesn't have to take TWF penalties on his AoO. The weapon, being one-handed, is wielded in his primary hand. He used his empty off-hand to make gestures for the spell he cast.

If the longsword were a +3 defending longsword, he could add all +3 to his AC as a free action at the beginning of his turn. During the AoO, he'd not get the +3 enhancement to attack/damage with the longsword, because he allocated it to defense. The longsword is wielded in his primary hand, it's available for AoO, because if it wasn't wielded he couldn't make AoO with it.

You are conflating two different things and trying to say because one is an apple, the orange can't have a peal.