|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Disney is putting out Cthulhu stuff now? I always knew they were evil. I bet they turn it into a cartoon musical.
*duck* Yes, I know what you meant.
If you want to bring a Cthulhu worshiping PC to the table, you can. What your PC is actually doing, in game terms, is venerating Cthulhu, not worshiping him. But that's minor semantics.
You won't be able to gain any mechanical benefit from Cthulhu. So you can't have any feats, traits, divine class levels, or other mechanical features that require worship of that deity, even though Cthulhu exists in the setting.
Nobody is arguing against this, as far as I know, though I haven't gone back to re-read the whole thread from the beginning, just today's new posts.
If you choose to worship Zon-Kuthon, you CAN get mechanical benefits. You can be a cleric, warpriest, or inquisitor of Zon-Kuthon, or just a fighter who's obsessed with him. And you can get traits, feats, or whatever else from that worship. That's because he's a legal deity for PFS.
On the other hand, if you show up with a Zeus worshiping character, everyone at the table is going to look at you weird, and someone's likely to tell you, "Umm, dude, Zeus isn't part of this setting." Which I think was Nefreet's point about bringing a klingon to a Star Wars game.
The season 8 Pathfinder Society RPG Guild Guide (the document formerly known as
Wow. I totally missed this. And Muser's quote from Ultimate Magic doesn't really help. You need to quote both the Spell Combat and Spellstrike rules to clarify this. One or the other isn't enough.
And to think, I've killed 2 PCs in 3 times GMing [redacted], even though I was denying the BBEG one of his attacks per round, because I was doing this wrong!
It's meant to be a feat for only those classes that share their teamwork feats with their animal companions. In other words, hunters, and archetypes that impersonate them.
There are plenty of feats that are restricted to a specific class, or just those classes that have a particular feature. There's nothing wrong with this being one of them.
You spelled Dalsine wrong.
Yeah, I know what you mean. When I made my first sorcerer PC, I tried to find a mini that just looked like a nobleman type without a weapon, and I couldn't find any. I eventually decided to make the character female because I found a mini of a woman in a dress just holding a staff, which was the best I could find.
Be sure to ask for the GM boon. You've earned it.
PFS is definitely worth giving a try. It's not nearly as open ended and free form as a real campaign, since you have to get through each adventure in 4-5 hours. But it also limits GMs from doing dick moves like what this guy pulled on you.
If nothing else, playing in a public venue like that might be a good chance to meet some other gamers in the area, and join a different group if you want to leave the one run by this guy.
Occultists actually seem to make good front liners. I don't speak from experience, as I haven't seen them in actual play much. But I've been designing a couple of occultist PCs lately, and between the 3/4 BAB, d8 HD, medium armor, martial weapons, and lots of buffs from their focus powers and spells, they seem like they should be at least as good on the front line as any other 3/4 BAB class. Add in a reach weapon and a high enough int for Combat Expertise, which is the prereq for Improved Trip, and you should be golden.
Check out my post here for what I was thinking of for two possible occultists for PFS, one of which is melee focused.
Andrew Roberts wrote:
I'm leaning towards doing multiple occultists. I'm thinking a front liner, a pure caster, and maybe a pure necromancer later, with the necroccultist archetype, though that one's on hold, because it would require studying the necromancy spell list in detail to come up with a good design.
Have you looked at the Haunt Collector archetype from Horror Adventures? It gives up the circles and summoning stuff for outsiders in order to create your own temporary haunts. Not something you'll do regularly, but neither is the stuff it's replacing.
More importantly, it doesn't give up any implements like most archetypes, but it does optionally let get some of the medium class's sceance bonuses instead of the resonant powers on some of your implements. So if you weren't going to use a particular resonant power anyway, trade it out for +2 on your weapon damage rolls, or your spell damage rolls, or your spell/class ability healing. That +2 on weapon damage makes it a GREAT archetype for weapon focused occultists, as long as you weren't planning to go Battle Host archetype instead (they don't stack).
That's actually my plan for a front line occultist - elf or half-elf with an elven curve blade (I've wanted to do a front liner with that one before, but never got around to it). I'll take Transmutation and Divination at level 1, Abjuration at level 2, but replace the Abjuration resonant power with medium's Champion sceance boon, for +2 on all weapon damage rolls for life. I'll probably take mostly Transmutation buffs as resonant powers to self buff in combat. Mental Focus would also go heavily into Divination for both the resonant power and swift action base power, which seems like a nice little bonus in combat. And use that elven favored class bonus for extra Mental Focus to be able to afford all that. All in all, a pretty easy build once you get past the initial roadblock of understanding the class.
For my pure caster, I'm thinking of skipping Transmutation altogether, even though it's clearly the best implement/school, just to avoid redundancy with the front liner. There are plenty of other good schools to take. I could do Conjuration early for cure spells and summoning minions at low level, Enchantment for the spells (Daze cantrip for something to do all day in combat at low levels), Illusion for defense and that early entry Minor Image, and Divination for out of combat scouting/utility. Also an elf, because that favored class bonus is too good to give up. And I'm thinking of going skill monkey/utility caster primarily with this, so the Breadth of Experience feat would work well for +2 on all knowledge checks and ability to roll untrained knowledges on a high int PC.
Emotion Component: If a spell has listed that it requires a somatic component, for a psychic spellcaster that instead means that is has an emotion component. All this component really does is restrict when a psychic spellcaster can cast spells. If the psychic spellcaster is under any kind of non-harmless effect with the emotion or fear descriptors, then the psychic spellcaster cannot cast a spell with an emotion component at all as the effect interferes with spellcasting. Yes, this includes having the shaken condition from an intimidate check to demoralize.
And this is why all psychics, spiritualists, occultists, and mediums that focus on casting should walk around with potions of Remove Fear (50 gp). Mesmerists have a class ability to deal with this, I think starting at level 3.
"Pharasma forbid! When the lady of graves commanded me to join the Pathfinder Society to hunt down undead in the ancient tombs we tend to explore, I'm sure she never intended me to work with such evil! And Norgorber?!? The god of murder!?!?! How could you even consider it?"
Sense Motive DC 27:
Julian is only pretending to be an inquisitor of Pharasma, and has an insane bluff check to back it up (that DC 27 is from taking 10 at level 5). He's actually an inquisitor of the Reaper of Reputations (Norgorber's aspect as the god of secrets).
I have a pair of friends (a married couple) who are both 3 star GMs in PFS. They decided to switch to 5th edition D&D after buying School of Spirits, and deciding that learning a new edition was easier than figuring out how the NPC with the occult class in that adventure worked. I think they were expecting that kind of difficulty in GMing to come up more often in the future, so it wasn't just that the one scenario did something weird. It was more the expectation that this was becoming the norm.
I actually had a similar experience that almost drove me away from PFS. I didn't play much PFS in seasons 5 or 6, when most of my RPG time was spent GMing for a home group that kept things relatively simple, and didn't keep up with the latest and greatest books. I returned at the start of season 7, so the Advanced Class Guide, Pathfinder Unchained, and Occult Adventures had all been published while I wasn't paying attention, and I didn't know anything about them.
I played 7-01: Between the Lines at GenCon, then volunteered to GM it locally, only to be completely overwhelmed by players with the new classes at my table. Not to get into spoilers, but there's part of that scenario where the GM has to adjust the adventure based on what classes the group is playing, and I literally had no clue for 5 of the 6 PCs at my table whether they were full BAB, arcane casters, divine casters, etc. The paladin was the only class at the table that I knew anything about.
If I hadn't already been scheduled to GM again a week or two later, and felt bad dropping out of that commitment, I probably never would have GMed a Society game again. As is, my later game ran much smoother, and I realized the one bad experience was just a fluke. But it was a fluke based on the specific content of that scenario requiring a level of rules expertise that I didn't have at that time.
What we could probably use is disclaimers on the scenarios saying what level of difficulty they are for GMs. I know some of them already mention when they use material from a particular book in the product blurb, but I'm thinking we could use a more decisive disclaimer on adventures like those two.
Except when you don't.
Core Rulebook wrote:
So under at least that circumstance, you can make part of a full round action, see how that part of it turns out, and then decide if you want to continue with the full round action or switch it out to be a different action type.
I'm not saying that spring attack necessarily allows for the same thing, but it's not quite as black and white as you're making it out to be. I could see arguments either way.
Personally, I tend to be a "nice GM", in that I usually rule in favor of the players in ambiguous rules scenarios. In this case, I'd probably rule that a PC could start moving, see if there's a target for their spring attack, and then decide if their movement so far was a move action or part of an SA. Of course, that's if a PC was trying to do it. But once our group decided that was the rule, it would apply for monsters and NPCs, as well.
I have three siblings that started as a joke, based on the back story of my first PFS PC.
Venture-Captain "Mash" is a 14th level barbarian. His birth name is Reginald Bartholomew Brightsword VII, and he's the descendant of 6 generations of male paladins. His father desperately wanted a son to carry on the family tradition, but his wife gave birth to 6 daughters in a row. When the 7th child was finally a son, tons of pressure was put on young Reg to follow the family's footsteps, and he eventually snapped and rebelled. He became a barbarian instead, dropped the family name, and went by "Mash". He loves a good fight, but hated all the rules, so being a barbarian suits him. he's also nowhere near as stupid as he seems, but after years of being a disappointment to his father, he decided that it was better to be underestimated by everyone.
So when I later made a paladin and a cleric to good and holy gods, I ended up making them Mash's older sisters.
Sister Isabella Maria Victoria Brightsword is a priestess of Sarenrae (cleric 9), and the youngest of the 6 Brightsword sisters. Mash is her only younger sibling. She was actually my second Society PC, because I wanted to make a cleric, and a friend jokingly suggested that I should make her Mash's older sister. She's also the first female PC I've ever played in a table top RPG, though I've made several more in PFS since then.
Catherine Elizabeth Cassandra Brightsword is the eldest of the siblings, and a paladin of Iomedae. She had already begun he paladin training before Mash was born, and insisted on not giving it up now that there was a boy to carry on the family tradition instead. I haven't played her much, though, as she's kinda boring, and I later made a much more interesting paladin PC, so Catherine's only level 2.
The one page or so that I wrote above for this particular question will be formatted nicely in MS Word. It'll definitely be easier for a GM to skim than the wall of text above.
And it's not like I'll hand them the sheet and walk away. If they want me to summarize it verbally, I can say, "Basically, I've got these two feats" *point at the quotes on the page* "One lets my thrown weapon bounce back to me after every attack. The other lets me bounce it off two enemies with each throw. Can I combine them to bounce it off two enemies and then have it return to me at the end?"
And then the GM can decide how much thought they want to put into it. I'll have the page there, along with the pages from the book with the full feat descriptions, for them to read if they're interested in doing so.
It's really not that difficult. The key is to put a little prep into it, so you have everything in front of you to show the GM, depending on how much detail they want to see.
That question really is email it ahead of time level of complicated.
If possible, yes. But I don't think it's THAT complex.
I have a PC that will use this combo once I hit 6. He's only level 1 at the moment, and actually Core, until I eventually start taking feats from the Weapon Masters Handbook and convert him to standard, so I'm nowhere near that far yet. As Hilary suggested, I'll probably do a quick write-up to hand to GMs before the session begins to warn them this is coming and give them a chance to think about it in advance. Maybe something like this:
How's that for a single page explanation to hand the GM 5 minutes before the game?
Yeah, with the 10 foot reach from the tongue and a racial wisdom bonus, they could be fun as a "bad touch" cleric, without having to tank on the front line quite as much as most. If I didn't already have a bad touch cleric in PFS, I'd probably go for that.
I really love the flavor of the Princely alternate racial trait. I'm just picturing this 2 foot tall frog walking around with a rapier and crown, charming people with his diplomacy skill. Given the dex bonus, maybe a swashbuckler or something, though that wastes the free rapier proficiency. The social skill bonuses are still cool, though.
Maybe a Princely divine caster (cleric, warpriest, inquisitor) with Weapon Finesse, to finesse the rapier and make use of the racial dex and wis bonuses.
The flavor of playing a humanoid frog is awesome - I just need to decide what to do with it mechanically.
They can't use it on themselves, but they can use it on their allies. Just like the mercies for the Shaken condition and Diseases, which they're immune to.
Darksol is correct about the RAW rules.
I guess we can put that back on topic:
You know you're in trouble when...
... the GM makes you roll a perception check to notice that the rest of the party left without you.
... when one of the players brings his nephew along, who is new to the game, has ADHD, and just wants to bash monsters with a warhammer. (*whistles innocently and wonders if Wei Ji will notice this before playing at a table with my nephew and I tomorrow*)
And despite all the negativity, there has been some positive discussion in this thread. For instance, before this, I never would have even considered a single level dip in fallen Paladin or int dumped wizard. These obviously don't work as full classes, but there have been suggestions here for how both can be used as a useful single level dip on an oddball, yet playable, PC.
And others (myself included) have shared similar build suggestions, like my single level dip in a charisma casting class with a 7 cha PC.
I like to introduce some of my characters without mentioning their class at all. We've had this discussion before, and I had some good examples there. From that thread, here's how some of my PCs introduce themselves (after I give a physical description). See if you can guess what class each one is.
1. "My name is Misaki. I'm a warrior these days, I guess."
Hint: That last one is the only one that's Core.
As others have said, I'd worry more about save DC's than getting 9th level spells. Most PCs don't get to that high level, and a lot of casting classes don't get that many spells. Besides, you should assume headbands as well as 4 level bumps, so getting to a 19 casting stat really isn't that hard.
For any PC that's worried about save DCs, I've always put at least a 17 in my casting stat up front. I tend to min/max, playing races with the right racial boost to get a 19 or 20. But I'll settle for 17 or 18 if the race doesn't get the right race bonus for that casting class, and I've got a good reason for playing that race despite that.
But for buff/heal types that don't worry about that, and/or secondary casters (usually with less than 9 levels of casting), I seem to usually end up with 14 as the starting casting stat. For instance, my front liner druid, warpriest, and huntmaster inquisitor all have exactly 14 wisdom. It's enough to cast my buffs, and I can bump it up with a headband later.
I even have a 12 on one PC that just gets a little casting from multi-classing and doesn't really focus on it. And as mentioned above, I'll be dipping a level of a cha casting class for a PC with 7 charisma, but that dip is for other class abilities, not the spells.
This is mostly based on my 24 PFS characters, along with advice in helping others build PCs here and there.
I guess this would be a good time to (once again) repost my PC building criteria:
You'll note that "Does this PC do what people expect from that class?" is NOT one of my criteria.
There are plenty of people who generate enough spam just casting Summon Monster spells. Having one combat animal that replaces the one who died/retreated/was sacrificed to the gods for good luck on the missions/whatever doesn't seem excessive to me.
But again, I'd call this an "expect table variation" question. Nobody should be planning in advance to do this often enough to need a definite ruling.
I always picture the two familiars sniffing each other's butts. Maybe I've just spent too much time around dogs in my life.
As others have mentioned, I'd be curious to know what adventures the OP has played. There are plenty of dungeon crawls in the early seasons, but more recent adventures (especially season 7) have seemed to focus much more on skills and diplomacy than those early seasons.
Yes, running out of spells for the day is always going to be a concern for spellcasters, especially at low level. Spend your first 2 prestige on a wand of Magic Missile, and your sorcerer will always have something to do. Actually, I recently saw a level 2 wizard dominate a 1-2 with a wand of Color Spray. You'd think DC 11 wouldn't work often enough to bother, but the bad guys had such low will saves that he was knocking half the enemies out to start every encounter, then running away while us beat sticks mopped up the remainder.
And it's been a while since I've posted this, so here's my general character building advice that I post every couple of months around here:
When I make a new PC, I try to answer 4 questions (used to be 3, but I ended up with a couple of boring PCs, so added a 4th):
1. What's this character's specialty in combat? As long as the PC can do something that helps the party succeed in a fight, this can be anything, not just dealing damage, but make sure you're actually good at whatever this is. You don't have to be uber-optimized, but make sure you can contribute.
2. What does this character do in combat when they're specialty isn't an option? This is things like having a ranged weapon even though your character is a melee beast, or an enchantment based character having something they can do when facing mindless foes. Also, everyone should try to get some splash weapons for use against swarms, though that might have to wait until after your first adventure to be able to afford it.
3. What does this character do outside of combat? This isn't just for personality, this is also making sure you have something useful to contribute between fights. Sometimes, it's diplomacy or other face skills, even if it's just enough of a bonus to be the "aid another" guy behind the main face. Sometimes, it's knowledges, sense motive, or whatever other skills could come in handy between fights.
4. What personality traits will you be able to actively portray at the table? The above 3 questions are designed to make a playable PC by giving them something useful to do in most situations. This question was added afterwards to make a fun character. I had a couple of PCs that were mechanically interesting, but didn't have a personality. Or they had a detailed back story, but that didn't really give me something to role play at the table. This is about giving your PC personality, whether it's a distinctive voice, an obsession that you can play up, or whatever other quirk makes the PC fun to play.
You're on a Tier 5-9 diplomatic mission, and the question "who's the party face?" is met with blank stares.
Yeah, I had one of those once. The GM warned us that we should bring PCs with social skills, and the rest of the group just didn't have any. So having a choice of PCs, I brought my battle oracle, since he has some charisma and diplomacy skill, though in an emergency, he can only speak Infernal, due to the tongues curse.
Avril Axiel wrote:
Do you mean the x next to the new markers? That doesn't prevent the thread from taking up half the screen, i otherwise can't find an ø button.
No, there's an O with a line through it (like a theta), to the right of the last post date/time. If you click that, the thread stops showing at all.