Dark Die High's page

You have a pretty solid build but there a few things I notice right away.

1) Weapon Finesse at 1st Level. My guess is that this is to help you hit with touch spells. I would try as hard as possible to stay out of hand-to-hand. You are going to have an AC under 20 probably and 38 hitpoints. A full BAB character of your same level could kill you with a full round of attacks, pretty easily.

You have a lot of touch spells and I would really re-think that whole idea. If you have your heart set on touch spells, I would consider getting the Reach Meta-Magic feat and just memorizing them with Reach.

As an example: You have Touch of Gracelessness, I would go Ray of Enfeeblement instead. It's a similar kind of debuff, but you get to do it at range.

In general, I think there are better options like Glitterdust, Create Pit, Spiked Pit. Even the old standard Fireball.

2) Your lack of defensive spells. Wave Shield is OK, but DR/3 isn't going to help you a whole lot. you need to not get hit. Mage Armor, Shield, Invisibility, and Mirror Image are pretty staple defensive spells. I even like Fly as both a defensive and movement spell. Unless you have gear to compensate for it. You're going to need some spells to protect you.

3) No Quick Study. This is probably the second best exploit available right behind Potent Magic. It lets you swap out a slot for another spell with a full round action. It makes spells like Investigative Minds and Detect Thoughts that much better because you can use them without having to memorize them. I would take that instead of Weapon Finesse. You can get with the Extra Exploit feat.

4)Persistent Spell is an awesome feat, but what are you using it on? I might move that one a little later on when you are actually using Persistent spells. Persistent Burst of Radiance sounds pretty awesome but you won't be able to cat that until 7th Level. Take Improved Init at 5th.

5) I don't see Perception on your skill list. You should almost always max that skill out it is by far the most used skill in the game. I'd also think about investing in some other skill areas since you have the points. There are some feats that let you use INT for social skills and I also might think about Stealth, you have a good DEX, you get a +2 racial bonus and a +4 size bonus. Even a single point without any feats or traits gives you a +10 Stealth. With a little tweaking you could have an awesome stealth score.

6) Your stats. I plugged them into a Point Buy calculator and came up with 23 points. What point-buy are you using?

Your INT. Max INT is awesome, high spell DCs, extra skills, a whole list of goodies. But it comes at a price. You could drop it a point or two and really boost some other stats. A 14 CON would help you a lot, +1 FORT and another +6 hitpoints. You could raise your CHA pretty cheap too, if you wanted to do social skills.

All in all I think you have a good start, but those are the things I would look at. Looks like a fun character to play!

I get that no one likes unpleasant surprises, and no one likes being told that something is permissible and then being told later that it's not. Those are valid complaints. I understand why that annoys you and you have a right to be annoyed.

However, that doesn't change the fact that you monopolized the spotlight and used your knowledge of the game to build a character that was significantly more powerful than the other characters.

To be honest, given your group's complete lack of experience with high level play (and the GMs especially) you should have made a character that didn't include all of the most powerful combinations of options you could find. Playing an 18th level wizard is a powerful enough option without adding all the bells and whistles. Think about it from the other side of the screen, you had a character who was taking multiple actions a turn and wasn't even present to be actually attacked. Come on man, right there that alone is uncool.

Making a character is a solo activity. Playing RPGs is a group activity. Don't let your enjoyment of the solo activity interfere with everyone's enjoyment of the group activity. And when I say everyone, I mean you too. Was having everyone involved complain about the character you made fun for you?

The fact that you don't think their complaints were valid doesn't really change that. They are telling you that you are making the game less fun for them and that should be what matters.

Needless to say, the entire thing has left a bitter taste in my mouth. I quite like my character, and want to keep running him, but at the same time I'm quite ticked at having had the gauntlet thrown down. I have no idea what to do before next week's game, and time is running out...

What should you do? Make a different character or don't play.

At the end of the session. You get a good cliff hanger, the players have a chance to talk about it without disrupting the flow of the game, and you end the session on an interesting beat.

That's my take, but I don't think you can go wrong either way.

Stuff...+ "Does that sound fair"

The problem I see with trying to tell them it's impossible because Cheliax has a ton more resources than them is that it isn't impossible. It just totally changes the game into something you don't want to run. If the players have resources X and Cheliax has resources X to the 50th power, then all the players need to do to win is get X to the 51st power resources- this would include assets, allies both supernatural and otherwise, control of the prevailing culture in the region. etc, etc. But that totally changes the entire nature of the game. The game stops being about going on adventures and starts being about diplomatic missions, influencing culture, propaganda wars, and mass combat.

I think the real problem is that the players and you see this as two different problems. The players think that Cheliax is the Empire from Star Wars and they want to play Luke and Han. You see Cheliax as an integral (and interesting) part of the region that can't simply disappear without completely remaking the cultural and geopolitical make-up of the gameworld.

Rather than telling them they can't do it, I would try explaining to them what would be required to do it and how that changes the game into something you're not interested in playing.

Hard to say since 3.0/3.5 are a little different from Pathfinder and I'm much more familiar with Pathfinder than 3.0/3.5. That being said, the godawful things you can do with a 20th Level Caster, are well godawful. Things like Time Stop, Wish/Miracle, Power Words, and Summon Monsters sounds pretty good.

If it was Pathfinder- an Exploiter Wizard w/ the Foresight School would be awesome. In a fight like that, I think going first would make a huge difference. With Time Stop and a Rod of Maximize, you could cast 5 spells before your opponent even got to go.

How did you place?

What character won?

Were there any characters that you thought were going to do well, that just fell flat on their face?

Having done it, what builds did you think worked the best?

It is in Unchained. It completely replaces the Alignment system by having each player pick a number of things that they are loyal to. It reminds me of what Exalted uses, so I may have my answer.

EDIT: Unfortunately, this is the best that I can do to provide a link.

I'd have to read the whole thing, but at first glance it looks like a positive change. I'll have to check that out!

@Dark Die High, Would you then say that using loyalties, or a similar system, is more adding then replacing something?

To be honest, I'm not familiar enough with loyalties to offer a qualified opinion, but I will say in general I'm not a big fan of mechanics that dictate player choice. I've played other games that had similar mechanics, like Exalted and Pendragon, and those aspects of the system weren't horrible, but I don't think they added to the game.

As a general rule, I think players should be free to choose whatever actions they like. As a GM, I'm not keeping track of the bad things players do so I can change a box on their character sheet. The gameworld watches what the characters do and treats them accordingly.

How does the loyalties system work and what book is it in?

that opinion is clearly incorrect...

Using opinion and incorrect in the same sentence, other than pointing it out I'm not even sure what to say.

Alignment is integral to the game as a descriptive element, as a natural cause for drama (it's EVIL! Kill IT!)

It's pretty clear from this statement that you and I have entirely different philosophies about how the game should be run and what parts of it need to go to improve gameplay. I think characters should have better reasons to kill things than— It pings Evil. It has to die. That's not drama that's a videogame.

As for spell descriptors, planes, and what not- Evil Outsider could be replaced by Outsider of the Lower Planes, Good Outsider by Outsider of the Upper Planes. There's no need to attach the capital E, evil to Demons. The fact that they are willing to torment people for their own pleasure pretty much says it all.

While the alignment system works fine for things like Angels and Demons, when attached to people it just seems like arbitrary and pointless pigeonholing. It doesn't add anything to the game.

If you leave the tool in the toolbox it doesn't get much use.

And if you can leave the tool in the toolbox, it's not a necessary tool. Here's my question. How does the game change if you get rid of alignments? In my experience it doesn't, but that's just my opinion.

The alignment system is one of those weird legacy issues. It's a hold over from earlier editions that is included in newer editions, not because it adds to the game, but simply because it's always been there.

For the vast majority of characters it is a meaningless distinction. What does it matter if your wizard is LN, or LG, or TN or any other alignment for that matter. It rarely has any in-game effect.

To be honest, I fail to see the purpose of the system at all. In the OPs article he said, "your alignment doesn't determine your actions, your actions determine your alignment." And while that is an interesting perspective, it really fails to answer the question. Why does it matter?

Is it just so the DM can say, "You've been bad, change your alignment and now you take extra damage from holy weapons."

It really strikes me as pointless for every character except perhaps Clerics and Paladins, and a code of conduct for those characters would be both a better role-playing aid and a clearer measure of whether the character was adhering to their religious beliefs.

I've decided that I'm not going to worry about how high player stats become; I will work on being able to build encounters that can take it, moving to higher CRs if necessary.

When it comes down to deciding stats; I've seen a lot of recommendation for a 20 point buy. I actually saw in a different thread someone talk about rolling 2d6+6 for stats, and I'm thinking of giving that a try. I was worried about stats being over-powered, but I still want my players to have decent stats to work with.

Thank you everyone for the advice and opinions; a lot of it was really helpful to me, and I'm amazed I sparked such a conversation about this.

Since you said you were new, let me tell you something it took me a LONG time to figure out as a gamer. The GM has unlimited resources. It doesn't matter how powerful the characters are, the GM has as much power as he or she decides to have. Your job as the GM is to set the difficulty level. With a little practice, you can set it anywhere you and your players like.

There are people who've been playing 30 years that haven't figured this out. So I think it's good you decided not to worry about it. You're way ahead of the GM curve!

In a meat grinder like Rappan Athuk, I think a 10 CON is a death sentence. You NEED hit points and Fort save. I'd look at dropping WIS to 14 and bumping your CON to 14. The 14 WIS hurts and you'd have to put your 4th and 8th Level stat bumps into WIS to make that up, but you're going to need more hit points.

Right now the group I'm playing in is playing Giantslayer. After we finished the second module I said to the group, "This is stupid. Why are a group of sixth level characters going to stop a giant army? Why aren't we heading to the nearest big city and trying to convince whoever rules it that there is a huge threat and that they need to martial an army and meet it. In a situation like this, this is exactly what we should do. But the GM hasn't prepped all that crap and that's not how the module is written, so off we go to face a threat that looks on its face to be far above our pay grade."

Don't get me wrong. I'm not holding our GM at fault at all. We bought in. We agreed to follow the module. I'm just not entirely enjoying what I bought.

The whole AP feels very railroady. Collect the macguffins, kill the villains, rinse and repeat. The thing I really hate about it is just the feeling that what character I made really makes no difference at all. Whether I'm the reluctant sorcerer or the intrepid ranger bent on the destruction of his hated foe, the module rolls out the same.

I haven't played modules in years and playing this one reminded me why I stopped playing them- they're too restrictive and too generic.

Just because it's a sandbox, doesn't mean it still isn't a box. The difference between a sandbox and a railroad game is whether the players are free to diverge from the presented plot hooks.

When I run games I try to present the players with all the problems and NPCs they might like to interact with and then let them do whatever they want. I look at it less as plot hooks and more as situations the PCs may choose to involve themselves with.

That being said, it's still a box. When I say I'm running the city game, there's no running off to be pirates. When the PCs try to climb over the walls of the box, I gently remind the players that they agreed to stay in the box when we made characters for the game.

One suggestion I got from the Alexandrian is rolling initiative at the end of the encounter, for the next encounter. We use an initiative tracker, so it means the only who has to give an initiative is the GM. I'm not sure it preserves the immersion, but it speeds up encounters and it makes surprise encounters that much more of a surprise.

I'd suggest Greater Spell Focus (Conjuration). I assume you're using Glitterdust and the Pit series- extra DC never hurts.

Exalted was a game that did a great job of finding ways to reward characters outside of XP. The game had a feature called Backgrounds. During character generation, you could buy allies, contacts, magic items, places of power, money, mentors, influence, or creatures.

This made a great list of things that can be given out as treasure.

Another thing I've used in the past is titles, monikers, and family relics.

Titles or positions of authority are great treasure. Being knighted, getting more land, or getting a position in a powerful organization are good ways to reward players.

Monikers, I've passed out like magic items or free feats. You get the moniker "the Lightning Hand" you might get the quick draw feat for free or you might get the moniker "the Hundred Orc Slayer" and then you would get Bane vs. orcs as a character. If it's something big like that I figure out what the cost of that as a magic item would be and subtract that from their WBL.

Relics, I work just like magic items only they aren't magic. The saddle of the knight who had never been unhorsed might provide a +2 luck bonus on ride checks. You make them just like magic items and count them against their WBL, but they aren't magic so it allows you to pass out treasure without littering the gameworld with magic items.

Figuring out what a reward would cost in gold if it were a magic item and then making it part of their wealth by level is a great way to make sure everyone is getting even rewards and that you aren't making the characters too powerful by giving them things.

Bending the rules a little is another one I've used. In a 2nd edition game, I let a character throw 6 magic missiles. Another 1d4+1 didn't break the game, but the player got to enjoy having something unique about his character.

I think little unique things like these, players enjoy more than just money or XP. Although everyone likes levels ;)

The game rules disagree with you, and so do the game designers.

There are lots of things I disagree with the game designers about and numerous ways I would advocate for ignoring or changing the rules. To use a less controversial example: The game rules state when you kill a monster you get an award called XP. When you get enough XP your character increases in level. The intention of the game designers was to include a meta-game reward for killing monsters. I don't think that makes for good gameplay and I would encourage anyone who plays the game to ditch XP and just level characters at either regular intervals (i.e. a level every 2 or 3 sessions) or at story appropriate points.

The fact that it's in the rules doesn't mean that taking away a cleric's powers is the best thing for a game.

It is not really about telling someone how to play something. The gameworld assumes that deities only grant power to those who further their goals.

And I would encourage GMs to remove that assumption. All that does is encourage players to play classes that don't have behavior restrictions. What purpose does it serve to say— you can play your wizard any way you want, but if you play a divine caster you have to follow a certain code of conduct?

If deity X is the god of happiness, life, and all things good then some psychopath out killing random people, or <insert other bad thing> is not going to be doing what the deity wants so there is no reason to give said cleric/inquisitor/paladin/etc any more power.

I guess it really comes down to whether you think gods are characters with motives, thoughts, feelings, and desires or whether you think they're more like ideas. I don't think gods should be characters. I have no problem with the Church punishing a wayward priest, but I don't think gods should ever "do" anything. Anymore than arcane magic or psionics should have an opinion.

And since I don't think Saerenrae should be a character, it doesn't really matter who is answering the prayers of the player character. Lots of posters have advocated for switching/suggesting a switch to Asmodeus. I say it doesn't matter which "god character" answers there prayers, what matters is how the gameworld reacts to the PC. Do followers of Saerenrae stop listening to him? Do adherents of Asmodeus start showing up at his new Church? Do peasants that once came to him for comfort and advice now cross the street to avoid him?

Have the gameworld react to the character the way you think the gameworld would react to him. Don't use meta-game punishment.

I have a very different opinion from the majority of posters on this subject.

My first question is whether the character really believes what he is saying, because unless he plans on going through with helping the Night Peddler he needs to make a Bluff check.

I do not believe that a GM should take away a cleric's powers ever. Essentially, this a meta-game issue. If you take away a clerics powers, you as a GM are basically saying "If you don't play your character the way I think you should I will take away your powers." Now the problem with this is that divine casters are the only characters in the game that have this restriction. So then you are creating a meta-game penalty for not playing the character in a certain way. If I'm playing an assassin, and I decide to become a pacifist, I don't lose all my assassin abilities.

I really believe it is not the GM's job to tell players what actions their characters should and shouldn't take. I also am really against the gods taking any direct action in the game world. I've never been in a game where a god showed up, or intervened directly and thought 'Wow, it sure was cool that God X came down and told us what was what.' It always seems heavy-handed and paternalistic.

Now I do believe it is the GM's job to present a world that is internally consistent and has verisimilitude. As a GM, I would never say, "God X wouldn't like that." I would say, "Clerics of this religion act in a certain way. They have a code of conduct and a belief system. Your character is pretty sure other clerics of Saerenrae would find the idea of using any religion to enslave people repugnant. If you continue with that course of action, other members of your church will not look kindly on this."

Then I would let the player decide what they wanted to do. Having other clerics of Saerenrae show up and confront the character is better than having a god do it. The scene where another cleric says "Burn me if you can heretic. Whatever god hears your prayers, I'm sure it isn't mine!" is way better than 'You pray but you don't get any spells.'

Then everytime the character uses any fire magic, turn the flames green. Make it clear that his actions have consequences, but don't strip him of character abilities. All stripping him of his powers is going to do is convince the player next time he should play a wizard, because spell books don't tell you what to do.

The game that becomes about who are the true followers of Sarenrae is fun and interesting to me. The game where the GM says don't do this or I'll punish you seems less fun.

I enjoy providing my players with a game world that I would enjoy playing in. I like getting to play a variety of NPCs and reveal their stories. But the part I find most satisfying is knowing that I helped my friends tell the story they wanted to tell. Being a GM is a lot of work, I don't particularly enjoy the prep or bookwork aspect of it. However, at the end of the night when my players say, "That was f'ing awesome!"— that's a pretty good feeling.

Where is the line when it comes to indirect or unintentional harassment of other players?

Who's responsibility is it to enforce the non-harrassmemt aspect of the campaign?

I kind of side with Deadmanwalking here. The host and the GM. I disagree with the people who say it's everyone's responsibility. Essentially, anyone besides those people is just a guest and doesn't have the right to tell other guests what to do. However, everyone has the right to speak their mind. In essence, you can tell my guests there being jerks, but you can't ask them to leave. However...

For some context, assume a campaign has a non-harrassmemt clause or rule in affect.

Hold up. There is an official policy in place. Like this is something everyone has been told and agreed to. That seems a little odd for an informal social gathering, but if that's how it is at your table— cool. If that's case, it's the responsibility of whoever instituted the policy.

My experience has been that there is never something so spelled out in place and things like this are a matter of the general social contract that's in place.

As a general life rule, I think that when people say things that you find offensive you should speak up if you can. Sometimes you may find yourself in a situation where that just isn't possible, but an RPG table is probably not one of those places.

In the instance you sighted, a simple "Do you know how incredibly bigoted that statement is?" might start the conversation you're hoping takes place.

In my own life, when people say things that I think are uncalled for (i.e. racists, homophobic, etc.) I call them out on it and leave it at that. Once I've said my peace, it generally doesn't bother me.

I highly recommend HeroLab for making characters and managing encounters. Also d20pfsrd is a great resource and it's free!

Dark Die High wrote:

This guy came up with a questionaire that you fill out during session 0 as a group to make sure that everyone understands what kind of game they are playing.

That seems like an interesting take. If I had a group of people that spontaneously decided they wanted to play some kind of TTRPG, I might suggest a tool like that.

The method I am accustomed to for group formation goes something like:

• Person decides to GM a game.
  
• GM creates setting, content, world, etc.
  
• GM preps info for players.
  
• GM recruits players.
  

In this kind of a situation, a lot of those options are already pre-selected. The ad is helpful in informing prospective players of some of those pre-selected choices (but maybe not as obviously.)

You could also reverse engineer it and answer all the questions and make that part of the recruitment pitch. Whether you're forming the group or recruiting for it, I think it's a useful idea to make sure everyone is playing the same game.

Jiggy wrote:

I think it's worth pausing to reflect on how a person could come to think that "[GROUP] are not welcome here" is helpful info rather than divisive toxicity.

I'm happy to discuss it. Some playstyles don't mesh well with one another. Some personalities don't mesh well with others.

I've had my fair share of groups, both as a player and as a GM, where it was obvious that two individuals in the group simply butted heads over and over.

As the usual GM, I don't want to risk the campaign collapsing due to arguments. IME, filtering out people who's playstyle is far different from mine has led to cohesive groups, and a lot of fun for all involved.

Everyone at the table having the same expectations about the game is critical to the enjoyment of everyone there. The tough part about using terms like "roll-player", "role-player", "optimizer", or "powergamer" is that they mean different things to different people.

This guy came up with a questionaire that you fill out during session 0 as a group to make sure that everyone understands what kind of game they are playing.

I'm not sure if I would ask those exact questions, but the idea that there are play parameters that need to be agreed upon by the entire group is really important. Things like what is the GMs role? Is it okay for PCs to fight with each other? Can the players make up things about the game world and how much can they make up? These are questions that need to be answered before play.

All the stuff that makes the game seem like homework. I don't use XP and I don't bother with encumbrance.

I like at least 4 skill points per level for non-casters too.

My second name is Jaraczewski. It's a human name from planet Earth. I dare you, I double dare you undereducated 'muricans to pronounce it correctly. You won't, unless you have a degree in Slavic studies or you hail from either Chicago or NY's Greenpoint.

Yar a chew ski?

I had to try. And no I'm not from Chicago or Greenpoint, but I will admit to being an undereducated 'Murican.