That's what I was thinking. Any monster than can hit a good AC will be shot full of holes and automatically killed by a gunslinger. I'd raise your will save. Only thing that can touch you.
Before we get into this your ideas have been covered in other threads, and explained why they are not acceptable to a lot of us. In the last thread I listed links to other monk threads. Could you read them so we can avoid rehashing the same points? At the very least read the entire last thread.
Thank you for moderating the board. I wouldn't want someone new to make a thread. You never know when Paizo is going to run out of space!
Moving away from a hit is better than taking it head on.
Turning your back, closing your eyes and holding your breath during a fire ball will save you from half the damage.
Having a lightning bolt jump down your right arm and out your right leg will save you from most of the damage, compared to having it go straight through your chest.
Lad of the Bloodhammer wrote:
true true. if not treating my game with the respect I ask is too much for a player then he/she doesn't need to play in my game. I'm going to be putting hours and hours into this and I want to give a genuine experience. Not a hack and slash game where the players actions don't have conciquences. if you want that you can stay home and play skyrim on easy. so, 20 points is the general verdict?
It doesn't matter what their stats are. The game isn't balanced on any level. There is no internal logic regarding the level of NPCs or the number of goblins. Want 10 goblins instead of 6? 10 goblins appear. Town black smith not strong enough at 4th level? Make him 12th and give him a level of fighter. Who cares? There is no reason as the GM to pick one thing over another.
Maybe you will end up with a bunch of crappy fighters and multiclass rogue / sorcerers, or maybe you will end up with a party full of Witches, Summoners, Paladins and Clerics. APL doesn't even mean anything.
If everything can be selected without rhyme or reason, the world and game is neither balanced nor internally consistent, and the strength of the PCs is random based on taste - completely derived from feat and class selection, it does not matter, at all, how many points you give them to start.
Honestly, I was impressed that they ran away at all.
I'm a big believer that logic is b%@%%~$+ and that everyone makes their decisions emotionally. Logic is just a rationalization of your decision after you make it. That's why the Supreme Court can go 5/4 every time on pure logic, so to speak.
Something about running all out of spells and HP changed their feeling, made them want to run. That doesn't happen in PF much. Normally it is rocket tag. It was big luck the fighter was up with 1. It was luck they nat 20ed an intimidate check after killing the chief to put a break in the fight (which they squandered by jumping back in on their own). That break let the paladin wake up the cleric.
I was thinking, wondering, if hero points or something like them might be good at getting PCs to run. If you explain the hero point as, "play this not to die but know death is coming," maybe they can use it to get away.
In that case I don't know why your players don't run. Do you allow them to die for not running or do you save them?
I roll all the dice in the open. I tell them the levels of the NPCs. If it is important, I declare what I need on the dice before I roll it.
I'll occasionally give some advice. I'll stretch NPC behavior sometimes to give the PC the benefit of the doubt. But that's about it. Like, I let the troll be distracted longer than I needed, but it still came.
I run pretty standard internal scale. You can tell what level NPCs are by their reputation provided there isn't a secret history with the NPC. The orc chiefs exploits were known, so his level was known.
For a LOT of reasons, I think the game is more simulationist if you can gauge CR and Level directly. It helps with RP for me.
Gnoll Bard wrote:
Player: Will we ever need to be able to run away?
GM: Probably. Can't win them all.
Player: I don't care. I'm making a dwarf fighter with no Fleet, no Run, no horse and no spells.
GM: What's your back up?
Pathfinder doesn't make it hard to run away. Players choose to make characters that can't run away.
I routinely have first level characters with speed scores of 40' or who have a spell like Obscuring Mist or Expeditious Retreat memorized so that they can escape. If I feel like I need to cast it to have a chance at winning the fight, I flee to fight another day.
If you make a dwarf with a speed of 20', it is not the GM's fault.
There is a lot of emotional content when PCs feel like they have to run, especially from a fight they started.
Tonight, the party was trying to rescue a noble woman from the clutches of the vile orc chief. The party of 4 2nd level characters was planning on taking on a 5th level orc, 12 first level orcs, and a standard troll, plus a POSSIBLE wyvern rider who may or may not show up (didn't).
They have a good plan. I give orcs -2 strike during the day, so they come in the day, distract the troll with a summon monster, and set fire to the oil treated animal skin tents. They were hoping during the disarray they could bust in and grab the woman and flee.
Instead, first guy out Leeroy Jinkins style charges a random orc and they get embroiled in a combat that seems to get worse every round as more enemies get into the fray and they party doesn't have a spell caster to thin out the orcs.
They manage to cut the woman free who flees to the NPC archer and yet the player playing the cleric decides, screw it, and attacks another orc.
It was only after the paladin was out of healing and the cleric had been revived TWICE, after the fighter is reduced to 1 HP because I managed to roll 1s on a falcion, while the troll and most of the orcs are still up, that they decided to withdraw.
It occurred to me that emotionally, it was the spending of resources, of being out of spells and being below some imaginary HP threshold that let them make the decision they needed to run.
They should have run as soon as the woman was free. They should have known they couldn't win because they have fought orcs before, while level 2, and they are all old gamers. Gamers hate to run. The fighter should have realized he was near death at 6 HP vs. orcs with 2 handed weapons, but being reduced to 1 was all that made him scared. But if they were just suicidal, why run in the end at all?
Anyone else notice the resource thing is what gets PF players to run?
Does anyone think having hero points, and spending them, makes players more likely to run because their get out of jail free card is blown?
Humphrey Boggard wrote:
Thanks. That makes sense.
The high level feats are ranger bonus feats for a two handed stylist.
I just wrote up another 11th level character. I'm playing in a high level game today and this is my first session.
I wrote up an 11th level Ranger Skirmisher, two handed fighter, with a pole arm. I am locked into this decision now as the GM has purchased a miniature already.
Here is his frame:
Cat Fall 20’
Right now, he looks like a bit of a wuss. I'm afraid he isn't going to hit enough and when he hits, he won't do enough damage. I understand he has advantages fighters don't, but I'm used to having weapon training, weapon spec, and so on and on.
Wizards are too powerful.
Wizards have an unfair disadvantage - they can be disarmed!!! And the disarm takes 24 hours to take effect!!!
And I can't pick another class!!!
Ridiculous utility, versatility and overall power should indeed have a significant drawback. Even if that only drawback is "my DM is a dick and specifically targets my spellbook with Sunder/by theives/etc."
It is certainly the DM doing it and not the NPC because no DM crafting an intelligent enemy would dare let that enemy take advantage of a common knowledge weakness you chose for yourself.
Grizzly the Archer wrote:
My alternate is a Fighter 6 / Duelist 5 with a dump stat of Strength (10). He's a little guy who disarms and grapples with something like a +26, and his AC in Mithral Parade Armor +2 or +3 shoots up to around 37 when drawing AoO's for moving.
So his schtick is so run up to the monster, knock away its weapon and jump on, then throw a couple grapples a turn and tie it up.
I was down on him because without magical aid he CAN'T do his thing against any kind of worthy boss monster, and a whole character wrapped up around the idea of fighting one single enemy, it sucks if they can't dish it out on their own.
As I understood it with Hammer the Gap, if you miss it starts over. So you hit with the first two shots, then the rest miss, you get 1 point of damage, and often nothing against anything with a high AC that's dangerous.
I'm trying to dump dex because I wanted to make an old man.
Thanks for the tip about being able to dump strength. I didn't know about the guided enhancement.
The theory is that the wizard always starts the fight. He summons a monster that is as good as the fighter. Then he hastes the monster and it wins.
Also, if a wizard casts haste on a fighter, anything the fighter kills, he shouldn't get credit for. Really, it is the wizard doing the killing.
I'm working on some higher level characters for a 12th level game. I get an 11th level character.
I'm probably going to make a switch hitter and try to stuff several different abilities onto him.
Doing too many things at once does weaken a martial and I'm concerned I don't know how powerful he needs to be to be relevant.
How high does a skill like Perception or Stealth need to be?
How much DPR against a CR 12 does it need minimum if I want him to be able to stand on damage.
What are the minimum archery feats at that level? Arrows seem very feat intensive.
Nope, archetypes are all or nothing.
Question to all:
Dazing Assault (Combat)
You can daze foes with wild attacks.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –5 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to daze opponents you hit with your melee attacks for 1 round, in addition to the normal damage dealt by the attack. A successful Fortitude save negates the effect. The DC of this save is 10 + your base attack bonus. You must choose to use this feat before making the attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn.
Does the feat listed here apply to AoOs as well?
The second level Polearm Master's Ability:
At 2nd level, as an immediate action, a polearm master can shorten the grip on his spear or polearm with reach and use it against adjacent targets. This action results in a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon until he spends another immediate action to return to the normal grip. The penalty is reduced by –1 for every four levels beyond 2nd.
This ability replaces Bravery.
Question: Can I take two levels of Fighter - Polearm Master, then switch to regular fighter? Is there any funky rules with the favored class bonus and does the ability above continue to improve despite no longer gaining levels in Polearm master?
I'm about to kick martial / caster disparity in the face. I just got invited to join a live group that is playing at 11-12th level. I said I wanted to play a fighter. They said they needed a fighter.
I'm about to be the strongest wizard carrying fighter they've ever seen.
Mission - Protect Casters during Surprise Rounds
Method - Get a 25' Reach, Standstill, See Invisibility, Improved Initiative and a maxed out Perception Score
Secondary Goal - Be able to escape battle when the wizards fail, without their help.
Lets get to character creation.
I always tell my players the DCs of checks and the ACs of enemies. Knowing the difficulty in my opinion, increases immersion by letting players make better decisions and picture by how much and why they are missing.
Amung experienced players, I think telling them before an attack roll on a fighter either:
Create very different images of the competence of the target.
In addition to all that: when a GM conceals target numbers, it is almost never an honest game. They probably don't even care what your total is or know the DCs. They just want to see you roll a natural 10 or 15+, or want a certain outcome no matter what the dice say.
My group has changed gms but kept characters and story several times. It isn't about the gms story - it's about the players and what they want. If a player likes what's going on enough, they couldn't care less who is pulling the strings.
I ran a large battle tonight. In a cave, 3 squares wide, 3 1st level pcs with a 3rd level fighter, 10 first level fighters, and a 1st level cleric went against about 25 crazed farmers and a ghast - with the ability to turn to his side a round later anyone he bites, instead of stench and disease.
During the battle, the third level fighter and a first level fighter were turned. The ghast made it up to the paladin and paralyzed him (for 3 rouns). Before the ghast struck the final blow, the legionnaire behind the paladin switched places with him and fought it off (was eventually turned) until the paladin was healed by the npc cleric and the paralysis wore off.
The party won, but it was dicey.
While I like maintaining the integrity of the sandbox I run and I don't fudge dice, I find having some npcs around really helps keep the party active in adventures and death free. Nothing like a good npc meat shield or multiclass healer / rogue to keep the party alive. They might redshirt, but at least the invested players stay alive.
I'm running for a decent party. For only having three people, fighter, paladin and cleric, they found ways to get tracking and trap finding and now that they are second level, two sources of healing, plus some ok damage.
I asked them today if they wanted a DMPC to round out the group and like any self respecting old schoolers, they declined. Still, I really do like having one around to play. At least I know they aren't afraid to badger npcs into helping them when they think they need it.
This is general discussion, so I'm just generally discussing.
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).
The problem with the Palladium system is how you can abuse the action system. For example, get an extra action per round by any means, and then always shoot with your last action because your opponent will be out of dodges.
I've never once let a PC get a resurrection or had a character raised in a game.
"I want to actually run this game, so can I help gm?"
"Is it ok if I don't respect you, your rulings, or the time you put into the game?"
"Is it ok that I don't trust you?"
"Is it ok that I am so invested in the outcome of every dice roll that I am not willing for the outcome to be less favorable, in any way, unless that less favorable condition was prescribed completely in the rules in accordance with page 72 of the PFS SRD FAQ? I will however accept boons from outside the rules."
I never got the impression any kind of undead is like a robot. They are fueled with negative plane energy - they are sufferings.
Either their soul doesn't want to go back to the ground, or they feel hungry or sick and are pissed off about it. That's what makes it evil - not the act of making a robot, but that the robot is motivated by its own suffering.
The biggest source of the caster / martial disparity is the way the game is played. I'm guilty of this as well, so I play by house rules that weaken the caster.
The issue is encounters and difficulty, or put another way, you can force a caster to run out of spells but you can't make a fighter run out of sword, or even arrows past a point.
In the old days, you might have half a dozen encounters in a dungeon and to sleep the characters would have to board up a room. Monsters might attack in the night and keep you from sleeping. You never knew what level of monster you were dealing with right away and often they were right around corners, coming up out of cracks, or hiding behind doors.
Casters could run out of spells, not sleep to get them back, not have time to precast, and not know when he should throw his good ones.
To make matters worse, it was easy to disrupt a wizard.
Now days, casters in most people's games start fights, know what they are up against, get 12 rounds to precast, only have to fight one hard fight a day, always get to sleep... it is no wonder they seem strong.
The natural and fair environment for this game is a dark, long, and dangerous dungeon that harshly pushes the party's resources and in which the wizard does not have enough spells.
The usual environment that benefits him is the leisurely stroll with a BBEG with whom you start the fight after mopping up his minions.
So you have three options to fix the martial / caster dispairity:
Neuter the wizard with house rules
You could drop the INT as low as you want sense Themistocles was pulling the strings anyway. I'd dump INT to a 9-10 and boost CHA more.
GMs hate crafting because they hate the drive in their players to try and make adventures he put time into obsolete by creating work arounds.
GMs also hate crafting because they haven't figured out that what they really want is to just play E6.
Sensten, abstraction makes the game world feel more realistic because your understanding of combat and my understanding of combat, as well as anything else, are not the same. Whatever shared ground we have will be nullified anyway by things like turn based movement and decision making.
The more ability for each person playing to simply narrate what they are trying to do, and the more fair the dice mechanic is between players, the more realistic it will feel, because their isn't a wide gulf between the narration and the action, nor a brick wall of rules.
In pathfinder, I can't swing on a rope past a pirate and wack him because I don't have fly by attack. Stupid.
So long as what is being asked for is within the scope of what an ordinary person would expect for such a character in a novel to be able to do, just let it ride.