Gentleman's page

As a DM, my biggest gripe with the Kingmaker campaign is the kingdom building rules. Which is a bit sad, since a lot of the campaign is about it. They are cumbersome and quickly grows very broken, with the scores racking up high, the BP keeps flowing in and every kingdom building phase becoming a chore. I ultimately decided to remove it entirely and just narrate everything that happens, because the kingdom building was just a needless timesink.

However, I love my players being the lords of the place, and I enjoy introducing all manner of quests and events they have to take care of. Being kings and lords is good roleplaying, and that is why I enjoy this AP so much.

I'm not terribly experienced with running multiple encounter crawls, especially not high level.. Are players expected to be able to handle her entire realm in one go? From the start, all the way up to Nyrissa? How to handle resting, should they teleport out and try again?

The Rushlight Tournament looks really nice - too bad everyone except for the Paladin and a Rogue follower is a spellcaster! Though there will be some variation I suspect, the dragon disciple sorcerer has more Strength than the Paladin, and the druid is a better archer.

I'm tempted to include one more challenge that involves spellcasting. A straight up wizardly duel sounds a bit unwieldy, but it's very hard to create an event just for spellcasters. Perhaps an area blasting tournament to score as many target dummies as possible. Or an intelligence based contest of some sort. Has anyone tried something like this out in their game?

Our group has also done away with the kingdom building system, though I suspect they will want to have control over their armies in the defence of their kingdom. I'm trying to think out a good way to narrate it all, and perhaps some way to run a mass combat system based on that - with the caster heavy party they are, they'll be throwing spells left and right, and I'd rather avoid just ignoring their efforts.

So...how does that translate to "men should always be the head of the household"? Sure, I'd totally understand him being all for marriage and reproduction and strongly encouraging that, it's when he basically says "...and the men should hold the power!" that he becomes sexist.

And that's why I despise him, and even my good characters would rather see his churches burn that stop the goblins (contain them to keep from spreading, sure, but burn that cancerous faith out, you glorious green bastards!").

And this is why so many people dislike the modern day feminism. Those are some really extreme views you have, and seems like a very hardcore self-insert on your own characters. I like equality in many things, but equality is something that goes both ways.

Also, burning churches because of an unreasonable hatred for misogony would not make you good. Two wrongs does not make a right, etc. It's the same as a crazy witch hunter burning women he considers witches in the name of good.

Why would he be considered close-minded? This is not the 21st century where luxuries and technologies are common. Life was hard for the common folk. Women and young men needed to get wed early, form families, get children, and then wed them off. Else a population would just die out. ESPECIALLY in frontier and rural regions, which is where Erastil is most common to be worshipped.

Why should he be egalitarian? He is good god yes, because he values life, protects innocence, helps people. Good does not have to mean he or his church can not have preconceived notions on gender. In their eyes, it's what is necessary for a family, for life to grow out of a place, where women AND men have their place in life. And lets not even begin to talk about the dangers of the world which gives even a bigger sense of urgency into forming strong communities.

I find his more conservative and in my opinion, realistic view on medieval life to be somewhat refreshing. They don't apply everywhere, in the magic-aided society of the more urban areas, life is easier and then people don't hold to as conservative values.

There are some decent ideas here. Range is definitely a good idea, but this only defeats the Witch, rather than the Wizard. Eitherway, there are many encounters I can think of that can be very challenging. Any combination of demons/undead/golems will mess up their day. Problem is, it would become painfully obvious if I over-exposed them to that type of monster, as the campaigns primary focus is not those kind of enemies.

The problem lies in their heavy use of save or suck spells, a concern I have raised to them, though it does not seem to have stuck. I am neither as eager to use save or sucks right back at them, as it can be a percentile chance of outright dying in combat most cases. I much more prefer more balanced combats, that stretches on a bit.

I did not expect the system to have as many as it did, which unfortunately is its biggest flaw. I am considering some homebrew rules so far, making the slumber unable to effect creatures above the Witch's HD. Not sure what to do about say, the Wizards pit spell.

Edit: I will check out the Witch related thread, but my problem is, as stated in my first post, not only related to the Witch. Save or suck spells in general is a constant thorn in my games side.

I tried that a few times before, though it's not viable for every encounter. Also: they have a blastermaster dragon sorcerer, who will blow up any gatherings of lower level monsters/npcs.

In my current game, my players are level 11. While I throughly like Pathfinder, it still has the same problem of Save or suck spells, which are quite frustrating when designing encounters. It's fun when the players can pull a clever trick; a desperate banish on an enemy demon to save the day. But when you expect every encounter to go the similar way, it becomes very frustrating for me as the GM.

Witches are a particular problem here. Their hexes pass through spell resistance. Slumber has no HD cap and goes on will. Ice Tomb locks away an enemy until everyone else is dead, and goes on fort, with nothing what so ever that gives you immunity to it! Feats can make the witch drop several opponents a round, or try again should she fail.

The wizard is problematic as well. Pit-spells lock out opponents entire fights - those are a little easier to avoid than the slumber though, a lot of things can climb out, fly, teleport etc.

Does anyone have advice how to handle the abundance of save or sucks that my party has, aside from throwing nothing but golems at them?

I must mirror the statement a little on the kingdom building rules. While we have pushed through almost 4 books now, the kingdom building rules have been very messy to deal with.

Roleplaying as the rulers and making up fun events that only happens when you are the person of ultimate authority in an area is a very unique playstyle. But the endless grinding of making new buildings and rolling economy all the time gets boring very fast, as the rules are not that deep, and are quickly broken.

At this point, I am just going to stop using them, and handwave the kingdoms growth with my players. Not entirely sure how I will handle the army rules of the 5th book as it is tied pretty closely to the kingdom rules.

My players beelined through the Slough, to Fort Drelev and then straight to Armags camp, they're currently level 11(I have mostly myself to blame for this, as I'm an expert at making them feel the situation is dire). Though a well optimized party, I think they'll have a tough time in the dungeon.

I'm wondering whether or not one should allow resting in the dungeon, or if it's simply too dangerous a place for that. They could be beset by wandering skeletons every odd hour or so, or worst case scenario - Zorbrek and Armag comes out to fight them. I also think the dungeon should be teleport and scry-proof, so they can't just teleport out to gather supplies and rest(sort of ruins the entire mood of delving into a dangerous, ancient burial tomb)

So they've already spent some of their power rescuing the hostages, and are diving into the dungeon the next session. I'm curious whether they can handle it, but I suspect their powers will be next to spent when they come to meet Armag, and he's not an easy beast(especially not using the updated rules for 6 players)

A friend, and a player of mine has been hard at work coding a little app for Android, a spelldirectory which will let you easily keep track of spells memorized, as well as quickly look up spell descriptions imported directly out of the SRD.

This was originally built for our group, as we have a lot of casters(and programmers) with Android phones, so the mobility and ease-of-use really came in handy in our games and saved a lot of time flipping through books or fiddling with laptops. But I and some of the others urged him to release it on the market, so others could benefit from the work he's put down.

So he's done just that. I present to you the Pathfinder Spelldirectory, for Android version 2.2 and upwards. It will work on any Android phone as well as tablets, and is completely free with no strings attached.
It's an excellent resource for your games, if you have any android users I'd strongly advice you to tell them to look it up.
I can attest to that it's quite good for DMs as well, as it has features to let you keep track of several characters, which can be very nice for NPCs, or just to quickly look up spell effects.

Unfortunately, it's not available for Iphone or Ipad, as it would require a port, and we're not entirely sure if the Iphone market would even accept it, as it's quite restrictive.

Hope you and your groups can find as much use for this as we have!

You are absoloutely correct on the economy part - the best way to gain large income, and the best way to break the economy of the game very quickly, is just to get as many magic items as possible.

You'll need the income to be able to make the DC rolls, but get enough cheap low cost buildings and you can write that DC off very quickly.

It's not really hard to break the system if you really try(you don't really have to try even), which I do not suggest for the sake of your DM. He'll have to houserule things to make the game more balanced, in my opinion.

Something which has been bothering me is that Iorvetti gets namedropped several times in this book. The players will know the King of Pitax aided the Tiger Lord Barbarians, and subsequently lead to the attack on their homeland.

Of course, he was not directly involved in the attack, that being Baron Drelev acting out of his own self interest. But taking the fact that he helped to more or less annex their neighbour and his reputation as the Bandit King of Pitax, how will he ever convince them to travel to his castle in the next module?

I haven't read War of the River Kings yet, so I don't know if a viable explanation is given - because I know my players, and they'll be paranoid if they think he's after their lands.

Don't necessarily need charisma for the leader either, I houseruled in Wisdom as king stats together with Charisma. Kings can be charming and a good leader, or they could be wise decision makers, who'll have diplomats to handle the talking for them.

Hmm, that one is more expensive than the age resistance amulet that we made. Then again, I believe that was lesser age resistance only, so I'm sure we'd save money if we made that ioun stone from start.

Enough time for my king to need an amulet of age resistance!

Well, you'll never fit all your spells in one book unless it's a Blessed Book(lets assume it's not), so he'll have several.
What I just went with is that he had his lower level spells, as well as one level above what he could currently cast in his spellbook.
The other was hidden away in his dimension door room, where the players couldn't reach it.

The fight was quite epic, so he started ripping out pages and using them as scrolls, because he was completely out of magic after a while. In the end, they got it -mostly- intact, where he had expended goodies such as Dominate Person and Chain Lightning already.

Ripping spells for scrolls is in general a great tactic if you don't want to bloat your players with new spells. Other tactics involve I prepared explosive runes this morning, which will really mess up anyone trying to read the spellbook(along with the spellbook itself)

Those are really good ideas Luther, and I'll be sure to remember them when the time comes. Using scry as a clever way to present information is always a good idea, and as you say, there might be other things interfering with the scry such as guardian spirits and whatnot else.

I wasn't aware lead was used as such a common construction material, but I imagine at least many castles and well built houses has it.

Problem is, they aren't really covered in it. It doesn't specify how much lead is required to block scrying. Having all your walls and ceilings covered in sheats of lead would I imagine. Having a rooftop reinforced by lead? Not sure.

@Luther

@Luther, there isn't a specific supervillain that they are trying to scry at. Well... not that they know of yet. I am running Kingmaker, and put a heavy twists on the political and scheming type of enemies. So many are agents, minor villains, monsters of some power, and nobility.

What I'm curious about is how identity protection can help with Scrying. If you have a name, can you scry on a person, and what guarantees do you have that it will even get the same person? If you have a description/memory, will it fail if the person was disguised at that time? And if the person is currently disguised and you go on his original description/memory, will you still find him?

Provided you don't have a clear link to that person that is, such as possession or body part.

Detect Scrying seems rather handy, especially if you are expecting scrying - such as the players trying and failing to get through his will save once.

What I would want is a spell that could retroactively track a scrying. You get scried upon, the NPC suspects it, and gets meassures to find out. Is there anything that can do that short of a Wish/Miracle?

Perhaps a homebrew spell could do the trick, I would imagine spell level 5-6 could be appropriate, since its a bit more powerful than detect scrying. And could prompt a will save by the caster. So essentially, a counter-scrying that works like the scry spell, but can be used retroactively.

It's just an idea, I would prefer to have counter-scrying than block-scrying all the time. And it's just not realistic that most people(except the really powerful/important npcs) have mind blank or nondetection going all the time - but it's a fair bit more realistic that they can do something about it if they suspect themselves being scried upon.

All of those spells are relatively easy for a big bad villain, king, rich noble etc all to have, by either having that power level themselves or hiring wizards to do it for them. But that's for the more powerful of villains and NPCs

For the more mundane people, or those with limited resources, it seems like quite a pain. What can even a non-caster do? Lead is a good idea, but too bad you can't use a lead helmet to protect you. Or... could you...?

As for will saves, is that true? Do you ALWAYS know when you make a will save? And what exactly do you find out, can one detect a successful will save is an effort to ward off a scrying attempt?

My players have recently reached the mid-levels, and are a relatively caster heavy party. The biggest problem I've been facing as a GM is the amount of scrying that can be cast, and that combined with teleportation.

What precautions can villains and other NPCs take against scrying? I know it's possible to discover the scrying sensor, and the perception check is not too hard to beat. What exactly do they discover, and would they require spellcraft to recognize what exactly it is? Once discovered, I assume they can take physical precautions to hide, such as shutting off lights or stopping whatever they are doing.

What ways are there to combat scrying? Because the person scrying can just keep casting those spells, and eventually they will fail their saves. What methods / magic can be used in preventive measures(I assume most important NPCs would do something to prevent scrying, since it's so damn easy to use), and what can be done once they discover they are scried upon?

Right now I see few ways to actually put any kind of repercussions on overusing scrying. The person scried upon will not know who is doing the scrying, and thus can't scry back. I would like my players to use it more sparingly, as I imagine overuse of scrying against other powerful creatures/characters could lead to badstuff - but what exactly?

I just felt like I had to write my thanks to the authors of the conversions - these have helped me immensely, and saved me from having to do a lot of on the spot balancing!

Many thanks for all the hard work you've put down in making it possible to play this balanced for 6 players!

I would verily much want the word document as well.

Please send it to mothmail at gmail dotte com

Why must there always be gods for everything? And more importantly, why would these gods if they exist as a lesser form of deity, be powerfull enough to grant boons to clerics?

I've always been a strong believe that gods gain their powers from how much faith they receive, which technically has been the modus operandi in FR as well. Then why are there gods of obscure concepts, such as -waterfalls-, -unicorns-, or the natural element of fire.

These are very specific concepts that is usually overshadowed by greater gods of nature and likewise. Leave specific concepts up to demigods, but I don't think they should have clerics of them.

I had this conflict arise in my game too, the Inquisitor and the hot-headed Dragon Sorcerer wanted to kill them all. But they made some deals with Kressle, information for her life - the two of them still wanted to off them or do something gruesome like cut off a hand.

I did tell them that if word got out they didn't keep their word, it could lead to potential troubles getting other denizens of the Stolen Lands to trust them in the future. Some of the other players agreed, and they decided against it.

Kressle is now in their employ and serves as the kingdoms Royal Executioner.

I'm in a bit of a bind in my adventure.

My players are raiding Vordakai's tomb right now, and they managed to find the hidden entrance, and managed to break through it's magical lock. They've just gotten part of the Hell Pit, and are now heading in the direction of Vordakai...

The problem is, they're missing out a lot of the dungeon, as well as a LOT of treasures. It's all well that they avoided the evil deathtraps on the first level though, but the entire shrine as well as the prison is a big deal. One of their NPC friends are there(aside from the Centaur), that got kidnapped by Vordakai.

The Hell Pit is not easy to get across, so they might not even try to head that way before jumping on Vordakai. With the updated encounter for 6 players(the one that adds an anti-paladin into the fight), I think it'll be hard without their NPC cohort support. As well as the additional XP/potential level before they tangle with Vordakai itself.

Golems are certainly a possibility, they would mess their stuff up major-league. But I can't have golems in every encounter.

More enemies are indeed better, one of the more diverse fights they've had was against a bunch of Spriggans that holed up in a castle and used blackpowder kegs to set traps for them. The battle was still a whack-a-mole as the witch dropped NPCs one by one with her slumber hex. But it's very problematic to create encounters like this, it takes a lot of time and you need to think about balance, as it can easily tip over if you're not careful.

I'm thinking I need to drop in a few more spellcasters perhaps. A wizard or cleric NPC in some of the fights could really make the fights more interesting, especially with plentiful uses of dispel magic.

My entire party is filled with casters.

More specifically, we have a Paladin(I suppose that's just a semi-caster), a wisdom-focused Druid, a Witch, a Kensai Magus, a Transmuter Wizard and a blastermaster dragon-disciple Sorcerer. And me as the DM.

Needless to say, battles are very flashy, and a lot of spells gets thrown around. A lot of powerful effects, and we're now getting up to a bit higher levels(level 8 at the moment), and I'm really starting to feel how problematic running encounters are for them. We're currently doing the Kingmaker adventure path, and it includes a lot of singular encounters throughout the world map. What's mostly problematic is:

The transmuter and the sorcerer isn't bad. The sorcerer deals a lot of damage with his fireballs and breath weapon, but anything from broken. The Transmuter is fond of those annoying pit-spells, which can lockout combatants for pretty much the entire combat.

The Witch, has a lot of powerful mind-effecting hexes and spells. She can essentially slumber most big monsters such as giants and the like, or illusion-trick most more mindless beasts. She also has the fortune hex, which leads on to the next point...

The Kensai Magus. It's a real monster in melee. With mirror image, the highest AC in the group, and access to greater invisibility, he's anything but a glass cannon. This magus fights with a Scimitar and always puts keen on it - resulting in massive spellstrike crits(using mostly frigid touch or shocking grasp) that range up to 50-70 damage. With the fortune hex, he'll be critting about 50% of the time, so even the toughest monsters will stand little chance, provided they aren't status-effected by the others. I suppose his damage is not sustainable in longer dungeons, but I'm not a fan of long crawls, and the adventure module doesn't have that many of them either.

How do I solve this situation the best? Some of my players feel unhappy by the fact that the Magus is doing so well, they've asked me to double-check that he's playing everything by the rules. So far I've not found anything conclusive on that part. And I'm fast becoming unhappy my encounters are becoming pushovers either by oneshotting magic spells or too much damage, and I don't think my players are feeling terribly challenged either.

I do not tell my players that I fudge, but we've all(my group) had our try at DMing for each other, we can all read between the lines and know that it can happen. Just never when, or where. They trust me enough that I don't fudge in order to make a situation unfavourable or less fun for them, which I never do.

But ultimately, DMing is a game of smoke and mirrors. How you lead on the adventure is up to you. You may create complex dungeons to let your players solve them in any way they wish, after all diversity is fun. But you may already know how the campaign will end, or that the players will eventually end up in this dungeon no matter what road they take - reflavouring it to fit in of course, or perhaps delaying it until later. Or you simply create a good enough reason for them to go there, something you know their characters won't say no to. All the cards are in your corner.

And this is all fine for most players, they want to believe that they are in control but in the end you set all the DCs, you decide where all the roads will end up, how all encounters will be designed, what people they will meet, what motivations they will be given and how the story will proceed and ultimately end. You may go with the flow as much as you can and try and pre-decide as little as possible, but there are always things you will decide secretly that the players will have no power over, and you will maintain the illusion that it was through their actions this came to pass.

I'm not saying you have to decide that the players will fail a roll or action before they even perform it, far from it. I enjoy leaving things up to chance as a DM as well, even important story elements such as a spy trying to infiltrate their group, and the only thing that stands between that is a few sense motive checks. But there comes times when you actually do decide something, perhaps you think the action they are trying to perform is too hard? Or you simply wish something to happen, because it would make the game more fun.

I never admit any of this to my players. I never tell them if I fudge a roll, I never tell them if a certain encounter with assassins would have happened if they went left instead of right, and I will be evasive or even lie to maintain that illusion. Why? Because ultimately, it makes the game more enjoyable for everyone.

I personally believe many of the aforementioned weapons were powerful for their time, compared to others of their time. The sling, the kukri, the roman shortsword, all were great weapons of the time.

But none of them would still compare with the knightly weaponry. Military picks, poleaxes, cavalry mace, lance and longsword became the superior medieval weaponry for a reason.

One has to take that into account if you wish to make the weapon more powerful.

Basically you're cheating and saying don't get caught.

And you realize what happens to the campaign should you get caught.

So why on earth would you wish to cheat? It's obviously not for your players as you've outlined above them knowing that you're willing to cheat destroys the game for them.

So you're cheating for yourself, for something that you want. And it should be viewed the same as if you were a player and elected to do the same.

-James

First of all, you're mixing up fudging and cheating. The DM is already the sole arbiter of the rules, and is(hopefully) not playing to win. How do you cheat at something you already control all the rules for, and is out to create an enjoyable experience rather than to win? To fudge is to change an outcome something more enjoyable.

You draw a poor conclusion though. The players will be unhappy if they think you're leading them on and their rolls mean nothing, the players will also be unhappy if you make too hard encounters or a streak of bad luck lead to the campaigns premature end. The players(mine at least) do not enjoy such equally much as they do not enjoy obvious fudging. So if I fudge, I do it for the enjoyment of everyone, not for my own sake. But I also know when a situation does not call for you to fudge, because doing so would make the game even less enjoyable. There are other ways for a DM to correct his mistakes, such as retroactively changing a stat for a monster. You use what tools are at your disposal to make the game an enjoyable experience.

Aside from that yes you're correct, don't get caught with the ace up your sleeve, no matter how good your intentions are. Sometimes it's better to roll with the punches, it all depends on the situation.

Well, it seems quite poor that you can't lunge out of stealth and get the drop on someone. Surely enemies should be considered flatfooted if you charge someone out of stealth?

Actually, the writing says: "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. " Doesn't say you need total concealment or full cover to do stealth. Although it is sort of silly that you could hide behind a friend(and get a cover bonus) and thus stealth, hiding in his shadow. So something definitely up for DMs discretion there.

I've been running with that so far, just wanted to see what the RAW said, but it seems to say very little. Will keep my eyes on the blog though.

I think it's important to remember to -never- let your players on if you fudge a roll. If they smell even a hint of you changing your mind, you need to roll with it.

The reason to this is because, even if they accept it, they will start thinking that the DM won't let anything bad happen to them. This sort of happened in the beginning of one of our campaigns, where we were to test ourselves against a powerful ghost wizard. The DM made the encounter too hard, and when we were on the brink of losing we noticed we suddenly started doing a LOT better, why whatever could be the reason! The wizard stopped after a while when we called him out on it, and explained to us we fought valiantly and he doesn't find us wanting, gave us the magic item, and disappeared.

This was a poor decision by the DM, as it undermined his entire campaign, and gave us the impression that nothing we did really mattered, as the gameworld wasn't very dangerous. It proved to be just that, and I played an extremely reckless character that never died.

Subtle fudging should mostly be used if you(the DM) have made a mistake, like introducing too powerful monsters. I've secretly upped monsters stats when they've been made too weak, to make the fights a little bit more interesting.

I've some questions regarding the use of stealth in combat. The rules allow you to make stealth checks as soon as long as you are within concealment. Would this mean that a rogue could move out of a bush, hit someone with spring attack, and then head right back into the bush, rolling a new stealth check?

Another thing I've wondered is that it states you need cover or concealment to be able to use stealth, but in above mentioned example, would the enemy be considered flatfooted against any attack if the rogue moves out of the bush on them? Or do you NEED to use a ranged weapon to get sneak attack out of stealth, provided your enemy does not walk up right next to you?

I've a question about Vordakai's familiar. In his paragraph it says "Horagnamon may take a specific act against the PC, as indicated by the text".

Except I haven't found any of these supposed "specific acts" the raven familiar will do, aside from follow them around and give them the feeling they are being watched.

Eitherway, I'm thinking of having Vordakai appear a little before-hand, either to test their mettle in combat or to disguise himself as the professor Ervil Pendrod, and infiltrate their little group, trying to steer them down bad paths(misleading them and possibly trying to make them attack the Nomen). What other ways have you people managed to use him as?

Well we opted for a life oracle in the end, it's fluffy and fits as well. I chose to essentially give it heroic NPC stats and equipment, as well as avereged its HP. This makes it a lot weaker than the PCs, and squishier, but will still accompany them through their adventures.

Hello boards, one of my players have decided to pick the leadership feat in our Kingmaker campaign, which is very suitable since he's also the king. And it's good being king, right?

We haven't yet decided what the cohort is supposed to be, some form of divine caster, oracle or cleric most likely. I am mostly concerned with the feat partly out of balance issues, so I have a few questions:

Since your cohorts are loyal to you and doesn't ask for much, you can pull them with you on all your adventures. Does fights have to be balanced for an additional party member, and does the cohort require part of the loot to remain loyal?

Are stats rolled, or used standard/heroic NPC rolls? Or is that entirely up to me as the DM?

I'm mostly concerned introducing an NPC healbot to the group would skew up the balance of fights mostly.

Well, my group and I have tried many different ways of awarding XP, everything from flat XP per session to me just saying when they level. I never liked either of these as it doesn't feel as rewarding for a big effort.

I have a question to various DMs and groups out there regarding avoidable encounters and XP rewards. I realize this can probably vary from group to group, but I'm interested in what other people tend to run with.

I've been primarily playing adventure paths with my group, so this situation crops up more than in perhaps my own designed encounters. The players entered a lizardmen village which had several encounters of it statted up, most of them they would have to fight if they assaulted the village head-on. They opted for diplomacy however, and only managed to fight the lizardman king in a duel, plus an additional encounter after that.

One could argue that, because they didn't fight the other lizardmen, they shouldn't be rewarded with XP for the remaining combat encounters. But you could also say that the challenge was the entire village, and because the PCs handled it smartly(by being diplomatic), they shouldn't be punished. Though the challenge is definately lower than hacking through every single lizardman, it did effectively "solve" the encounter.

Similar situations include dungeons/locations and simply missing out certain areas. You end up fighting the boss monster before some of its minions, the minions figure out/hear/see their boss go down, they escape the dungeon, taking their loot with them. Or secret areas completely missed. You could say that them rushing to the leader without clearing out the dungeon properly makes it their own fault for missing out on certain encounters and rewards thus. The same if you miss secret areas.

How far should one go to award XP for encounters that were avoided, either by approaching it in another way, or missing it for one reason or another?

True, yet I would like there to be other benefits of having additional cities. Realistically cities sprang up in areas of resource, or where land were bountiful. Perhaps flat-out bonuses for raising up cities close to natural resources, as they will be more easily tapped.

I've also put additional restrictions on cities as well, so PCs can get access to some cheap buildings. For example I've put some restrictions on the amount of dumps and other inexpensive but effective stat-raisers they can have, at least in one district. I've also limited them for starting up another district before the first one is filled.
This will let them build additional of these cheap buildings, as well as start off a new district.

Another idea is that you could have a zone of influence, a city being able to influence grids at a distance of X. Grids further away would either not be able to support farmlands/roads and other important structures, thus new cities would be required to spread your nation far and wide. A little like the Civilization PC games, lands not used by cities is just empty land, buffer zones for your cities, and potential fortifications for your military.

We've played the last couple campaigns with a rule that whomever has the highest number of ranks is the primary for the skill check. Everybody else is aiding another. Basically what you described.

We did throw in a rule that if the aid another person has a higher result, you can take their result up to +5 your result (so, if I'm the primary and roll a 22 while the Aid Another person rolls a 25, I could take 25).

I never liked the "lottery" aspect of the skill check - let's just keep rolling dice until we get a success. The 20 STR barbarian didn't knock down the door? Have the STR 10 rogue try, then have the STR 8 wizard try.

Well in the case of the door, it's logical that you can keep trying as minutes pass by. Usually a take 20 can represent that effort, if there is no chance for failure(such as hurting yourself while the portcullis slams down), or on a time restrain. Knowledge skills can't be used untrained, and you usually only get one check.

My apologies then, I thought the idiot part was directed at me.

Eitherway it was not my intention to get this moved to the rules section, perhaps it had been better posted under the houserules board. I did not intend to discuss the RAW of the knowledge rules, but rather various ways to expand the use of it. Or know how other people use it.

My "house-rules" are only suggestions on how to use it. As it stands, I'm using skills as RAW, which I find to be somewhat lacking.

...

I like your ideas about pieces of knowledges, that would let several players making the roll feel useful, and anyone who really maxes it out can spew out information like a book, instead of everyone doing it.

Except that is out and out wrong. If you don't make a high enough knowledge roll, you don't know that much about the creature. You do not get wrong information. If one Wizard gets a 30 on dragon knowledge and another gets 20, they aren't going to argue about what dragons can do. They will both know the DC20 knowledge about dragons but the Wizard with a DC30 will know even more.

I don't dispute this as RAW, but I don't think that makes sense realistic or is consistent with how other skills usually work. Realism as in knowledge is not always a binary thing, you don't just know or not know, you have varying degrees of certainty. Many skills offer penalties for rolling low, usually a certain increment below the set DC.

The best way to combat that would of course be a longer and extensive brainstorming, which would represent everyone with the relevant skill using aid-another against one of them.

Also try to keep your petty insults to yourself, if you can't argue without them I suggest you don't at all.

I've always been a sucker for limiting the information my players(or at least their characters) should rightfully know, and enjoy using knowledge skills extensively, anything from identifying monsters to recall old knowledge, history, local information or lore.

But I've been at a loss for how to effectively use knowledge skills, and then how to spread that information around. For monsters in combat, I tend to rank them to a DC depending how rare they are, their more common abilities easier to know, rarer ones requiring a higher DC.

There are two ways I can see you rolling for knowledge, especially if you have several people with the same knowledge skill. The first one is the regular, everyone rolls a dice and whomevever rolls high enough knows this and that. I find this way to be somewhat lacking when several people have the same knowledge, one player rolls low and another rolls high, or perhaps one rolls high and another higher. Two experts in magical knowledge gets two different results, both are no doubt confident their training is extensive, the natural reaction isn't to bend to the roll of the higher dice, but I'd imagine the two would come to a twist of who's information is the accurate one. Imagine two wizards arguing over the weaknesses of Devils and Demons.

So the other way I thought could represent them putting their heads together and figuring out an answer would be an aid another roll, and the highest skill making the actual roll. I thought this would be a good idea to keep consistency of information, but it does take away the option to actually roll another dice. Two persons with the same skill is essentially two chances to get it right after all. And having aid another rolls would not work in combat encounters for example, when you make a roll to see what this sudden monster that jumped out at you is, and have no time to stand around and discuss.

Would an idea perhaps be to let them chose? They roll separate, but extensively low or widely different rolls can produce faulty information, or twists on who is right. Or they decide to think it through together, use aid another and get only one roll on it, which is guaranteed to be accurate(if they roll high enough).
The DM would have to do the knowledge rolls then. The problem of a stressful situation such as a combat remains, where three people can roll knnowledge religion to figure out what this strange decaying wizard is(a Lich), and all three get widely different results, potentially causing a LOT of misinformation being yelled out in the combat.

So how do you handle knowledge rolls?

What's the point exactly of building several cities? Aside from the one per city buildings(which are really really expensive), I see very little reason(aside from realism) to create more than one city.

And even the cities they can get freely, what point is there to invest any BPs in anything but one city?

I'm the DM of our Kingmaker campaign, and it's been progressing fairly well so far. After the Stag Lords defeat, they formed the fledgeling kingdom of Medelia, and their first city Flodar. They've been keeping busy a year since after that, expanding the kingdom, building their city, and recently fending off several crises.

Ser Crofton, Lord of Medelia. Paladin, protector, noble. Ser Crofton was the leader of the expedition to the stolen lands, a destitute noble that had been promised a future for his house and name in the service of the Swordlords. He suspected that Restov would make a grab for the stolen lands, but never suspected to be given so much power. He formed the kingdom together with his loyal party, whom rule at his side and advice him.

Fiodyr, half-orc Inquisitor. Former royal assassin, now deceased at the hands of a barrow wight

Harold, Summoner and researcher, former Grand diplomat. After the death of Fiodyr, he left the kingdom realizing it was far too dangerous for him, and he had important research to report back to the university.

Kyras, Transmuter, crafter of magical items and Magister. He makes most of the magic items the party needs, and is an expert in magical matters. Killed by the morningstar of a troll warlord, but twice-born and reincarnated into a new body thanks to the help of Old Beldame's magic.

Leriam, dragon-blooded Sorcerer. Spymaster

Kressle, Royal Assassin. Kressle surrendered to the party and spilled a bit of information about the Stag Lord. She was disinterested in serving him and his descent into alcoholism and uselessness. The party kept her a prisoner at Olegs while they dealt with the Stag Lord, and afterwards she offered to serve them since they're the new movers and shakers of the land. She's loyal to their coin, and likes to antagonise them when she can.

Zach, elven druid, and Marshal of the land.

Kasteen Garess, Captain of the Militia and responsible for the training of the kingdoms military. Crofton had a few harsh but inspiring words to the also destitute noble, and managed to make him shape up a little in his behaviour, at the very least shave regularly.

Akiros, Warden and captain of the city watch. Akiros joined the kingmakers side in the climactic battle against the Stag Lord, and almost died by the bandits kings marksmanship. A stray(or ruthlessly uncaring) firespell from Leriam almost sealed his fate when bleeding from his wounds, but Crofton threw himself over the ex-paladin to take the blow.

Jhod Kavken, high priest of Erastil. With the temple of Erastil found, Jhod was somewhat redeemed in the eyes of his clergy. He called some of them to the Stolen Lands to join him in the restoration of their temple. When the kingmakers required a candidate for religious matters, they chose Jhod.

Councilor Kurt, Olof the treasurer and Edward the diplomat, three colonists that were picked to serve vacant positions

Alyssa, a witch with a patron of trickery and illusion. She found her way to the stolen lands running from her past and seeking a future, and a way to understand her strange powers. Old Beldame(which I made a witch instead of a sorceress) introduced her to the party, and demanded Kyras to take her as an apprentice, though they soon figured out their ways of approaching magic was very different. She hasn't taken any leadership position yet.

I've also kept a map of their kingdom updated, based on the map from the book.

Making Craft Work
There's that one book for a dollar. Quick and easy fix I guess.

You could also just search crafting rules in the Suggestions/Houserules/Homebrew search box. The base rules are notoriously bad, and everyone and their mom has had a hand in trying to make it work. I personally had given up on craft as is.

Myself, I hand wave a lot of it, none of this bajillion craft checks nonsense; just 1. Though I do require the player have a reasonable way to get resources to craft the object, none of the handwaving gold into materials nonsense.

You can only jack up (and thus roll for) an item (that you actually have craft ranks in) if it's actually complicated. Magical items need specific rare and unique items that the player may have to go on a quest for or make a deal with a really shady character. Nat 1 on a magical item means it's cursed, but the player/character may still want to use it because of all the work they had to go through.

My biggest problem with dual identity is actually conceptual. These kinds of characters are either lone wolves or are part of a group of dual-identity people. It's rather antithetical to adventuring party idea.

Within a party, when does it make sense for single person to have a dual-identity? "Oh look, there's that pesky group and some civilian who keeps hanging out with them when the masked guy is around..." It might be funny the first time, but it'll quickly get annoying.

Which is why I don't think a single class should be devoted to it. You might as well just have a book that modifies all classes to have a dual-identity with new archetypes and feats and new uses of skills and add on rules to run such a campaign around the party of secret identities.

The reason it keeps getting compared to supers is because the only well-known groups of vigilantes (or just people with secret identities) are Justice League and Avengers.

I'm kind of in agreement with the feeling that this class is entirely unneeded. We didn't really need a batman class. I clicked on the playtest out of curiosity. If anything, there should have been alternate rules for a different kind of playstyle that could incorporate different classes, not a new class.

Really it's just backwards compatibility with 3.5

There are d20 games that use 10 levels (13th Age) and games that use 30 levels (4th Ed.) but if you look at them you can see that they scale differently.

For example in 13th age with only 10 levels, you get a feat at every level and the caster's spell level is their character level (7th level spells at 7th level).

The obsession with levels is actually a flaw in the game. The problem is level 20 capstones. People want to reach them, but once they reach them they want to make those capstones relevant. So they think, let's add on more levels so we can get more capstones, but we should give a lil' something something to those who want to focus on one build and they add on more capstones. Repeat ad nauseaum.

You know when I read the comment about Rogues and Monks pitying the Sorcerer, I laughed, but it seems Sorcerers cant even have their own thread without Wizards invading. A sad fate indeed...

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

Low Magic just helps makes the game feel immersive, something a lot of GMs and players want to go for.

I'd say Low-magic allows for a certain type of immersion. DMs and players are able to feel immersed in their standard high magic fantasy Pathfinder games. Some themes are more difficult to convey in high-magic; therefore low-magic has its place.

Yeah, I should correct that, low-magic helps makes the game feel more immersive in the types of setting that many GMs run.

Now if you're running a setting where cities are floating on in the sky on rocks, lords get resurrected every time an assassin tries to make an attempt on their lives, and wizards run taxi services, then low-magic makes no sense (or you're playing in a sci-fi setting ;p).

When people use the term "realism" they are actually referring to verisimilitude, which is essentially the ability to keep the players immersed in the universe of the game. Players care less about realism, and more about consistency.

Too many rules that need to be applied during play will also shatter that illusion and break verisimilitude as well. How can you be immersed in the world if you have to stop every 5 minutes to make sure the rules are right?

Obviously, for different people it's different points. Which is why it's extremely important to find a group that you have at somewhat a similar mindset with. If I ask a player what he says to the guard to bluff his way in, that's because my group is the kind that wants some sort of verisimilitude. The player doesn't have to act, be charismatic, know tons of lore, or make complex formulae to succeed; they just need to have some image in their head of what they are doing. In the same vein, I make magic scarce where people wouldn't have it, but available where there is lots.

Low Magic just helps makes the game feel immersive, something a lot of GMs and players want to go for. Figuring out how to limit without adding in obtrusive or game breaking houserules is difficult but possible. The game actually works pretty well for low magic at low levels, it's only at higher levels that it starts bleeding through.

My point was that I prefer low magic games, and in fact most of the games that have burned me have been high magic games where the magic just got silly and killed my immersion; this is as a player.

The problems with all 3 of those situations above was not "low magic" it was the GM who put in a houserule that skewed who had magic; in fact you can see where it was the magic in the "low magic" game that ruined the fun. Sometimes you have to sit back and look at what you've done and say, "Wow, that was a dumb idea". Or if you're too dense, hopefully your players will let you know.

I am a GM who gives in to his players. When I decide what kind of game I am running, I consider the players' fun. With my players, immersion is important. They want do want challenges, but it doesn't make sense for their characters to walk if they've got a free ride going where they're going. They want to have something powerful to fall back on, but it pulls them out of the game when they realize that every other person can use cheap tricks to live forever, but for some odd reason doesn't. If there is an auto-win button with no consequence, they don't want to insult their own intelligence to have fun.

I can't say I have a great sense of balance, and even my sense of "low magic" can be considered "high magic" based on some of the posts up here. I do know that I like to add 1)Rituals, 2)Rare Important Magical Components, and 3)Side Effects for Powerful Spells. All of these things are tropes in fantasy but strangely missing in D&D.

I think one of the bigger questions that keeps popping up is why use Pathfinder for low magic? Apparently there are sooo many other established systems that do it better.

The problem is that it just isn't that easy. Please trust me when I say I've been looking. Yes, there are PLENTY of other systems rules light or rules heavy; I've played White Wolf Games (Mage, Vampire), Shadowrun, Ironclaw, WRM, and multiple versions of D&D. As one of friends have told me, "You're never satisfied with any system you use". For some reason I still come back to D&D despite it not being made for low magic.

The Reason:

1) Everyone knows it. It's just overall easier to get into a system that is really well known rather than try to have everyone relearn a new system that may or may not work but we won't know until we try. There's just a certain value from that legacy.

2) Despite being rules heavy, this game has a simple and easy to remember mechanic that was secured in 3rd edition: the d20 roll. Roll your icosahedron, 1's are bad and 20's are good. Ta-da success.

3) Interchangeable parts. Sure if you add in new things, it might create a broken combination down the line, but in general there are a lot of subsystems in play that can be taken out and replaced if need be: Skills, Classes, Feats, Spells, Hitpoints, etc. This is absolutely horrible for someone not ready to face the daunting challenge, but for tinkerers who have a goal in mind it's an incredible tool. That is why there are so many d20 games including M&M for Superheroes and Starwars for Jedi. 8 in 10 campaigns I've played include houserules of some sort.

4) You can choose your game by choosing your levels. Different levels hold within them to play the game. For super gritty games, go with Levels 1-3, for a truly low magic feeling game try for somewhere between 3-8, for really off the wall and magic dependency go higher. Whether this is a good feature or a bad feature is debatable.

5) It supports multiple play styles. Let's be honest, this game was built upon miniatures tactics with fantasy thrown in. However there is room to evolve it into something more. One can and should be able to apply clever solutions. It depends on how the GM runs it all. You can make more or less player involved for those who just want hack and slash or for those who want a little something more like actual negotiations or puzzles. Sometimes you can even have something in between to allow people of both sides to play in and enjoy the same game.

There actually is support for low magic in this game, it's just difficult to keep it that way. House rules are used to keep it from spiraling into a high magic game. I have actually taken bits and pieces from a bunch of other systems (most house rules I have used are actually from different editions of D&D).

In my experience, d20 and it's variations are far from the perfect system, but it by far the most malleable to people's desires.

I actually do like magic. There are even many 4th level spells like Dimension Door and Haste that I really like the party to have. It's the broad spells that are too broad and powerful spells that can be cast at any time that actually bug me.

Broad spells include Summon Monster (I feel it should be limited to certain monsters and that learning to summon other creatures should be separate spells, I also like it being the same creature every time so the more you use that creature the better rapport with it) and Polymorph (I seriously feel like each polymorph should be it's own thing, learning each new shape should feel like an adventure, also that picking something out of a bestiary is just silly)

I also have a weird thing against prestidigitation for it's broad and general use. I feel that it's uses should be separated (cleaning things, changing the taste of something, creating a crude object) for their lack of cohesion, but I also feel that none of those things should really be a spell but just things you can do as a wizard of a certain school.

I like teleport in my game... through the use of gates. Limited by the crystalline bases etched with runes. Not something you can just take about and do whenever, there is a process to it and rare components.

I'm the similar with resurrect, which is a ritual which requires powerful people and any delay or inferior materials lowers the chance of successfully bringing someone back.
I would prefer Breath of Life be a lower spell, but requires an important spell component.

As far as "low magic" not being Pathfinder, well it's kind of subjective. Pathfinder does have all these rules that slip into the void with even low magic. Maybe you're talking about Golarion? It's definitely got plentiful magic with powerful characters, but there is much of it that can be presented with even low magic. How often do generals get resurrected? Why would the desert bother people if they can just go with any old cleric (Protection from heat and constant supply of water)?

In fact the only settings that feel like they're actually high magic are in the southeast of Golarion where two legendary wizards dueled and created the mana wastelands. One went missing but the other runs a successful undead country. But then, they go and make those wizards feel like one of a kind.

Cayden Cailean's trial of the gods is a mystery... Even though we all know how well mysteries and high level magic play out...

How often is magic spoke of in it's aid to help win the battles in the legends of pathfinder? Even though it is almost always prevalent with fly and haste, resurrections and protections, a creative use of an odd spell that has lasted through the ages?

I mean there's always the binding of demons, but that's usually with a macguffin not a specific spell for some reason. With a high magic world, shouldn't there be a legend for every spell or at least a good number of them?

Even the stories of pathfinder don't always resonate with the quite the same kind of high magic world.

Because "High Magic" doesn't truly represent most fantasy. It's not as much an issue of what magic is available, as much as how available and how easy is it to obtain. When magic is 1)frequently 2)easy to obtain with 3)little to no consequences, it is an easy and annoying cop out that can destroy the immersion of your world.

Take for example resurrection; If all you need for resurrection is enough gold, a cleric of appropriate level, and the willingness to come back, then why won't every king have this? In D&D and Pathfinder the only real bar to higher magic is gold (and technically level). Even if you can't cast it yourself, with enough gold you can get somebody of appropriate level to cast it.

Just the mere access of those spells changes the way the world runs and how it's perceived. Any permanent death of a ruler would require deliberate murder and access to high level magic. Any misdeed could be scryed upon, and would require appropriate. The separation between poor and rich would be that much greater. Clerics and Mages would be trained and respected more in their ability to protect against environmental dangers with low level spells.

Disregarding that as a GM can be pretty immersion breaking when you realize that there is this problem that can be solved easily by something that exists within the universe, but is also easy to obtain (as long as you have the coin, which all the rich people do).

And I ache every time I see the excuse "Well people fear magic, because it's different". If that's so true, then we wouldn't have people going to magic shows, or taking advice from "psychics".

No in fantasy, people fear magic because it's dangerous. There are risks. There's the chance of possession, working with dark unknown powers. There is the chance your spell could go horribly wrong, and wreak all sorts of dangers. Maybe these spells cause you to give up some of your life. What if for every cure spell you cast, you draw positive energy permanently away from the world creating imbalance between dark and light?

But in D&D / PF, spells have a set effect (unless it's "wild magic") that works just like science. You do x and you get y. Sure people might have misgivings at first because it's new. But if it gets a specific result each time they'll come to accept, love, and even improve upon it. Because seriously, there's no danger in using magic.

Not only that, but they only need to take a single rest and can do it all again the next day. No specific and rare resources (it's converted all to gold equivalent), no need to sacrifice blood, people, time (unless you're the specific target the spell is against), no need to gather up a group of peers to help channel your power and control, no need to wait longer than a single day. It's easy, and it's convenient. No wonder groups are willing to rest in the middle of the dungeon to let their casters get their spells back, it's more convenient and safe than non-magical means.

I'm still not entirely sure what this "social justice warrior" is (haven't even heard or read of it until this thread).

But you know what is awful? Exclusionists. People who want to harass someone for including something into a game. Whether it's homosexuality, transgender, or women with nice t$&+.

There's a big difference between sexual preference and gender identity. One is an interest the other is how you present yourself.

Yes, they both receive some pretty negative prejudice, but they are still different concepts.

This whole conversation about pies is irrational.

Well I for one believe that Octopi and Squid have more in common with aberrations than they do with cows.

You see, elves are weird and pick up interesting (or rather uninteresting hobbies) that would drive a normal person insane. These include watching grass grow, watching paint dry, watching trees grow, waiting at the chariot stop, following snail migration patterns, watching the sun from dawn to dusk, etc.

I was hesitant at first, but then I got to take a look at the PHB and got really excited and ran a quick game, borrowing the PHB and Adventure Module HotDQ from one of my friends.

While 5E addressed so many of my problems, it also introduces so very many.

The novelty of Advantage/Disadvantage quickly wears off because everything applies to it and there is no other mechanic to fall back onto.

Bounded accuracy, I love the idea, in fact E6 feels like it's baked in; it's not, however. Levels 1 & 2 are super risky (half your enemies have advantage which means twice the critical, which doesn't need to confirm btw, it's easier to be one-shot slain at level 1 by CR appropriate enemies), and magical / nonmagical divide while less apparent is even stronger. One of their simplifications was the removal of most AoO, which means Reach weapons no longer strike first onto people charging on their face, casters no longer need to worry about casting in front of melee units, etc. I could go on, but I think this rant has gone on long enough.

I love the backgrounds section (although the inspiration is rather lackluster further pushing the already repetitive mechanic) and would take them any day over Pathfinder's Traits. The classes are pretty awesome, I'd like to incorporate their version of Fighter, Rogue, and even Paladin into the Pathfinder game.

It's a mixed bag, which means I'd really only want it for inspiration. I won't even talk about how much the campaign book turned me away in this post.

tldr; I won't be switching over. I feel like I'm better off modding PF to my liking.

In some cases, the feat tax comes with a stat tax as well; the most obvious is the Int 13 from Combat Expertise, but the Dex 15 for TWF kills some shield builds. So just giving them more feats won't help them. It also means that casters can do anything they like, because they're not going to waste feats on tree taxes.

What's really bizarre about the Dex 15 for TWF is that deflect arrows is only Dex 13.

Apparently it's a lot more effort to wield those two weapons together efficiently (While not common, still can be found a fair amount in real life) than to knock arrows out of the sky (Something only seen in movies).

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

Squirrel_Dude wrote:

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

With a few minor changes, to the spells, it's surprising how less broken magic feel. Take Knock for example; A wizard can still use it to automatically bypass a lock, but it makes a loud knock that will alert everyone in the proximity. You might be able to crack a lock, but only to the equivalent of a brawler knocking it lose himself. The rogue is the one who can get you in silently.

There's also the fact that many traditional buff spells require the wizard to concentrate to maintain the effect, meaning that wizards can't multitask in combat as well as they could in previous editions.

It's still not perfect obviously. Sleep is still hilariously potent, and saves don't scale like they should, especially considering that there are now six different ones.

Yeah. Sleep itself is a weird gamble of a spell. Since it goes off of hitpoints not hitdice and you can get anywhere between 5 and 40 hitpoints worth to knock out (may not even work at all to working too well). It's also got fiddly bits, counting out hitpoints turns into accounting. Clearly an example of a spell that's gone in the wrong direction.

I am with wake on this one. I think the hp angle is easier to run and it adds and interesting angle to the game. Namely: it adds the concept of "weakening up" an enemy for a spell-based knock out. It also keeps those low level spells potentially useful over all 20 levels (because even Asmodeus might have under 40 hit points or whatever late in the fight).

It felt like it's more of a lateral move in practice. I actually like the concept of weakening enemies to affect them better. However from actual play, I guess it just feels more fiddly because I'm not used to it. As the GM, I know the HD and Will saves (or at least have a quick sheet). Normally 5 quick rolls (those closest who failed sleep until 4HD Sleeps. That time, I had to check who was in the range, who of the 5 had the lowest hp (one was shot and the other was attacked with swords) subtract the 3 and 5 from the 21 and decide that the one in the back (nearest to the spell origin) would be the third one affected.

YMMV; In that particular case, it actually would have been more in the player's favor if we had gone with the pathfinder version of the spell, if only because two of the buggers who actually fell asleep were going down next turn anyway.

For better or worse, attack rolls, skill checks, and saves all follow the same track. The proficiency bonus. This means replacing a save with a skill or an attack is quite easy. DCs are universal and having contests between the three is easier.

With a few minor changes, to the spells, it's surprising how less broken magic feel. Take Knock for example; A wizard can still use it to automatically bypass a lock, but it makes a loud knock that will alert everyone in the proximity. You might be able to crack a lock, but only to the equivalent of a brawler knocking it lose himself. The rogue is the one who can get you in silently.

At first, I too was skeptical of 5E (extremely skeptical) even after I saw some of the playtest stuff. But after having looked through the book, making a handful of characters, and testing a little; I feel I've been pulled into the sway.

A lot of people mention feats, and 5E's lack of them. The feats that are there are actually well worth it and generally balanced, as others have said. However, what's not mentioned, is the lack of need for feats. For example Weapon Finesse is there by default (Finesse on Weapons). Two-Weapon Fighting is there by default, the feat dual wielder just adds onto it giving a bonus to AC, better use with non-light weapons, and quick drawing two weapons at the same time. You can attack between movements without having to take the long feat chain of Dodge->Mobility->Spring Attack.

Another thing that I really liked that I honestly didn't think I would is the proficiency bonus and the way they did skills. If your character is proficient, they get their bonus, if not they don't get the bonus. It means that you don't have to keep pumping into a skill to keep it relevant. I was worried that this would mean that Lv1 is not really any different than Lv20. This is not true. Even though the characters stay the same, the DCs remain static. What this means is that your character can accomplish more amazing things as they level. Yet similarly, if a high level character has a low ability score and is not proficient in a skill, they will be worse than a proficient character with a good relevant score even if the latter is a much lower level. Also, it doesn't show up much, but for all those in-between you can sometimes just use half-proficiency.

Another thing that I really love that noone has mentioned is that the keen eye can pick out. Although the number of options are not bountiful right now, it is set up right from the get go for expansion and thus homebrew. The races are simple and elegant, but still provide a lot of flavor that will last a campaign and all the classes have swappable parts.

The Injury / Strain thread that's in these boards does wonders.

Trapfinding just isn't that great in a game where traps have been nerfed to hell and other classes can do it just as well (Ranger archetype). Though this really depends on how you see traps in your game. Poison Use is a really nice ability to have when you actually use poisons, but I think it's a fair trade.

As far as ki goes, Rogues don't get to apply their level where the ninja does, does not get an extra attack, get half the bonus to speed when using ki to boost speed (rogues only get 10ft, where ninja get 20ft) does not get to use it to improve stealth, does not get a reduction on acrobatic checks, and must use wisdom (which most players don't bump up very high on a rogue, they'd rather have a charismatic rogue).

All the cool ninja tricks require ki, which the rogue will have very little of (about half as much as the ninja). The rogue gets the stripped down version of ki which requires them to have the wisdom of a cleric to actually be worth it.

A ninja can also take Evasion after 10th level as a trick, thus only really missing out on trapfinding.

And the 20th level ability (which to be fair doesn't come up in most games) is much better. They get the ability to become completely undetectable even by see invisibility, or even true seeing for 2 minutes, and with every sneak attack they can deal ability score damage (no saves). Where with the rogue's master strike the enemy gets a save which is determined by the rogue's intelligence.

tldr,
What it really it just comes down to: Ninja ki > Rogue ki

Also, 'Were and 'where' are not homophones and the H represents the small aspiration.

Everyone I have heard pronounces the T in 'cents' too, and won/one is nobody's idea of a homophone. So we're left with there/their/they're and a knotty problem... chwarae teg.

'where' and 'wear' are homophones regardless of the 'h' ("We're" is just pronounced differently, unless it's 'were' as in 'werewolf'). Also, anytime there is an 's' after an 'n' that 't' sound squiggles it's way in there, and won and one sound exactly the same.

I have a bigger problem with the antipaladin, they make a complete 180 on both good and law. I can see a paladin who trying to be good, but feels law is holding him back. Or the paladin who is lawful, but feels that good is holding him back and making him weak. But the, "screw this I'm gonna go chaotic evil" mentaility would never be seen in a person who could've become a paladin.

I've never had a player want to play pretty much everything under the sun, but never the anti-paladin. Maybe greywardens, necromancers, assassins, cannibalistic barbarians, body snatchers, doppelgangers. But never anti-paladins.

When players get upset with their GMs about their Paladins, it's a communication issue. Paladins are a touchy and highly variable class, despite usually being the chaste and lawful ones. If you wanna play one in a particular fashion, especially if you know it to deviate from the norm, but even if you don't think it's a big problem, talk to your GM about it.

If there's a problem, it's not that paizo didn't do a good job with the class or the alignments, it's the player and the GM didn't agree.

Ciretose has a problem of not knowing what he's asking for. It's not realism or control or even etiquette. In this thread, anyone with any ability to read subtle context cues can probably tell that he's just trying to understand why people are calling his games badwrongfun for asking/requiring his players to make an effort to keep the immersion.

If there's something that actually annoys me on these boards is that the "player entitlement" is so high that GMs who ever say "no" or even just "wait, let's work something out" are bashed as over-controlling GMs who don't care about their players and just want to narrate their own story. It never occurs to anyone that maybe, the GM might be hosing down one player so they aren't ruining it for all the other players. Because if another player is telling another how to play their character, they really just need to mind their own business, right? Forget the setting, forget any sense of a story, forget what the other players want. You as a player are entitled to a character and as long as its in the rules, you may as well play that and no silly GM is gonna stop you because rules.

If wizards are really supposed to be the all-powerful world-altering super mind, why ever have them at level 1. What's the point of levels if they don't mean anything. Beef up the wizard, make it a prestige class. That's what wizards in literature are, people who spent most of their life studying to gain great power, not usually the adventuring heroes who just happen upon a quest. Most don't usually work with people who do everything for you nor do they usually keep a bunch of bums who can't keep up with them. I mean some do, but those are always such awkward times.

A lot of people confuse background with roleplaying. Background is there to provide plot hooks, determine motivations, and connect your character to the world and while it can help with roleplaying, it is something separate. Roleplaying is playing the role of your character, getting into the mindset of your character trying to figure out how your character would act in said situation. Roleplaying isn't acting, it's going through the actions; you can even roleplay your character in 3rd person, "My character goes up to the door, puts his ear next to it to try and hear what's being said between the generals on the other side of the door."

However, every now and then you will have elitists who have their own version of roleplaying, and for them drawn out table-theatre is their thing.

Like blackbloodtroll has already told you guys, and I have already stated. I had an overreaction. I have cooled down. I am fine now. The gm agreed with my concern. maybe some of the things I said contradicted each other, but I was mad and I apologize. It can happen. I started this thread because I was upset about something I knew was no big deal, something any of the great gamers of paizoland could be totally fine with. But I wasn't, and I knew I was in the wrong, and I needed advice on how to stop this horrible anti-evil problem I have.

To the 95% of responders who helped me get over it, thank you.
edit: realized first sentence didn't fit with theme of post.

It's good to hear you got it worked out. Sadly, some posters in this forum can't let things go, and many more just don't read past the first page, or even the first paragraph, some don't even read past the title. The best thing to do in the case of this thread is to just forget and use the hide button.

The real solution depends on what exactly it is about evil characters you don't like.

If the problem is, "He might turn on us" then it's not alignment it's the player.

If the problem is, "He'll put us in uncomfortable positions" then it's not the alignment, but the player playing his character like a fool.

If the problem is, "His character holds beliefs and does actions that make me (as a player) uncomfortable" then you should talk about it, out of game.

If the problem is, "His character holds beliefs and does actions that make my character (or other characters in the party) uncomfortable" then you should roleplay it when it comes up.

If the problem is that you're worried that the party will fall apart when such issues come up, the real issue is that you don't trust the other player/s (or yourself) to play characters that will put their differences aside.

A lot of people worry too much about "alignment" when what they're really worried about is party cohesion. The important thing is that they aren't playing the party backstabber. Even a LG Paladin who tosses the rogue in jail (or even worse just straight kills) for being too greedy can be a disruption to fun gameplay.

MY CHARACTER DOESN'T CARRY A RANGED WEAPON BECAUSE.....

The guy wielding a bow isn't carrying a melee weapon.

If the curse is in your eyes, then cut 'em out and get them replaced.

Terquem wrote:

The DM must, without fail, entertain the group, and people are entertained in different ways, but they must be entertained.

The Players also must, without fail, entertain the GM.

Both are true statements, if the GM fails to entertain the players, there are no players and there is no group and no game. If the players fail to entertain the GM, it becomes work, and the motivation for working on and presenting the campaign is gone, and the game falls to pieces because the GM is no longer putting in the enthusiastic work.

So one of the players was playing a 5th level Dwarven Foehammer in the game I was running. He overran a heavy war horse and proceeded along to overrun a second one. I guess having a +16 to overrun really helps with that, but it was an amazing tactical maneuver. Causing two people to lose their horses, one ending up prone with the horse.

What's are some ridiculous but amazingly useful tactics you've seen?

I think it depends on what's in the area. Otherwise it'd be like people stopping in the middle of a dungeon to buy gear.

But, you know, a druid with full casting, 3/4 bab, 6+ skill points, an animal companion at first level, and a handful of other class abilities is just so helpless without being able to shapeshift into a dinosaur.

This is a great idea for a Wuxia campaign!

Effectively,you could have everyone be a gestalt character (from 3.5's Unearthed Arcana) with one of classes being monk. You end up with a game where everyone is jumping and tumbling and kung-fu fighting, but where their other "main" class become the focus of their character. I.e., a fighter would be a master of weapons, a wizard would be a wizened old martial arts master, etc.

If everyone knows what they're getting into, this could be a lot of fun. You could also split up the monk abilities, and allow everyone to pick two or three. I would also ditch the alignment restriction entirely, and watch out for weird archetype combos.

The lawful alignment restriction for monk never really made sense to me. The monk is all about devotion. Devotion does not mean Lawful, otherwise clerics would have to be all Lawful as well.

I've actually have wanted to run an Japanese style game at some point with Yokai and Samurai (Cavalier/Knights), Ninja(Rogues), and Shinto(Oracles).

Suddenly this is a GM vs Player argument... Problem is that both are needed.

What I find ridiculous is the thought that a player has spent more time, money, and thought than the game master; that would imply that the "player" has somehow taken control of the game since they are creating more content and contributing more to it than the "game master"/host of the game. I mean what's even the point of having a proxy game master who apparently sucks at narrating your stories? So you can play out your character in your world?

Players should have control over their characters, with this I agree. The game / campaign is a combination and fleshing of ideas. Sometimes the players even contribute to creation of the world. But if the players have the same responsibility and power as the game master, what is the GM for? Everyone is a GM.

Ugh, I hate inconsistency in gaming as well. I can recall one game where the DM decided that the horse that I summoned with the mount spell(he has weird summoning house rules) was considered an enemy mage and an extreme threat, but in that very same city a Goblin teleported right into the port and not a single eyelash was batted at it.

However being spiteful towards the GM is never helpful because if the GM is going to be a control freak they will be a control freak and their NPCs will be invulnerable and you will be super frail. Communicating with and working with the GM is infinitely better.

Following that same note, I hate being a player in games where I'm trying to play a character that fits in the game and somebody comes along with a cheese build disregarding setting entirely and expects to have complete control and has a hissy fit when any of their class features is even the slightest bit limited. (This has happened before and it was such a horrible experience that I left the game)

Also something that bothers me is the way that exotic weapons work. I feel like exotic weapons shouldn't be its own subgroup but should be a regional thing. Guns should just be simple weapons (like crossbows) that are exotic outside of Alkenstar. Eastern Weapons shouldn't be exotic in the east. I also feel that monks should be able to use weapons appropriate to their region otherwise they really do just end up being Chinese immigrants or Asian Wannabes (if they aren't really from the East). Exotic uses of a weapon should still be considered exotic but it should still fall under simple / martial.

I think people (I mean everyone, myself included) just like complaining and arguing.

Gaekub wrote:

Okay, let's approach this from another angle. Let's say I have a character concept. I want to make a character with a little bit of inherent magic, but not enough to make him a sorcerer. Let's also say he used these powers and some cunning to make himself a better combatant than those stronger and larger than him.

Alright, now what do I want out of this? Sneak Attack is good, as it fits the oppurtunistic idea of his character. I reject vivisectionist out of hand, as the alchemist abilities don't fit the idea, and anyway, rogue is the obvious first choice.

So I look at rogue, and realize that the only real way to get built in magic as a rogue is the minor/major magic rogue talents, which are very limited, and even worse run off of intelligence instead of charisma, which doesn't fit the idea of a weak sorcerer.

True, you could go for a sorcerer/rogue multiclass, but that's awkward, and has some weird side effects (taking a bloodline even though you only have a trace of magical power, for example.)

So instead, I go for the ninja, and voila! Magic(ish) powers based off charisma, sneak attack, poison, all in one easy class! I have created a completely non-"eastern" character using an "eastern" class.

Would you bar this character from a game with no ninjas, and why?

EDIT: Oh, and just to cover my bases, this character uses daggers, wears studded leather armor, speaks common and dwarven, and comes from the largest human town/city/settlement in this theoretical setting.

"Admiralackbar.exe has already launched. Are you sure you want to start another session?"

See, I see this example as rubbish. In your excuse for not multiclassing and then the problems with minor magic (and you describe yourself as a sorcerer). Your problem can easily be fixed with magic items and UMD (which is a class skill for rogues), but if you don't want to go down that route, you don't even need to multiclass, that's what Eldritch Heritage is for.

Hmm, can we get a list somewhere of these trap feats?

So I'm running a short game for a while, and well my players are so used to sooo much cheese that things were awkward when starting up.

The Stats:
Hearing statements like, "An 8 is pretty bad, but a 7, that's just terrible!" and "A 13 isn't terrible, but it's not good" and seeing a player get all frowny face because she wasn't sure what to do with her stats (None were below 10).

Piecemeal Armor:
One of the players wanted to use piecemeal armor, it turns out when you build a suit of medium armor with piecemeal rules it's much better and incurs no movement penalty. So those rules straight out banned.

Combat:
One player was wielding two weapons to use two combat maneuvers as a full round action, (checked the rules, it doesn't work like that).

The Rolls:
Trying to run Jade Regent with the caravan rules, two of the players both kept rolling and taking the better roll. I had to ask them to please not do that.

They aren't terrible players, but they are so used to cheese and a harsh DM (not me) where if they didn't cheese they would be screwed. They are used to gestalt, and feats that bumped up their stats, and everything stacking, and taking flaws and traits, and getting feats for writing a background, and looking for rule exploitations just to be on par with their campaign (and still being outshined by the DM's OPNPCs), I know because I've played in those campaigns.

But I'm trying to run a game not drenched in such cheese, and so I have to convince them that a 14 is indeed a good number, that a 20 in an ability score at 1st level is amazing, that there are DCs below 25, that I'm not going to set them in a fight with a black pudding at 1st level, that they aren't going to be outshined by every npc that they meet.

Overall, it's going good.

So has anyone else dealt with this situation?

The problem is that you can get rid of an ioun stone; you can't get rid of a trait and traits are usually chosen at the beginning of the game before you know what you're going to get. If two characters, one a wizard 9 and one a wizard 7/fighter 2 find a pair of orange ioun stones, it would be pretty balls for the pure wizard to be able to boost up his CL beyond his level but the multiclass character to get nothing out of it.

This is clearly an anti-multiclass perspective. You're punishing those who are trying to mix it up. Quit being racist against half-elves...

Unless you're looking to be romantically involved or shipping someone, I don't really see the fascination with having someone with the opposite orientation game with you.

I mean, you'll never see someone say, "I'm not into chubby chicks, but I sure would love to game with a 'chubby chaser'" or "I'm not really into dating outside my race, but I'd love to game with some interracial couples".

To me, it just seems like it really shouldn't ever be the deciding point of whether or not to game with them.

pft

To be honest that sounds like a huge stereotype only because it assumes that every bisexual cares about fitting in with society. You might as well not trust anyone ever because it's possible for them to turn around and betray you. I think it's important to figure out if your loved one cares more about how society sees them or if they care about you.

I don't really identify as bi, but if I were in a relationship with a man, I would have to be really jaded to not care that anyone knows that I'm with a man now, and then years down the line suddenly want to 'integrate' into society.

EDIT: I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, because some people do feel societal pressure like that, but it's exactly the same as if a gay man were to marry a woman for the same exact reason. Or if a guy who likes interracial relationships marries someone of the same ethnicity to please the parents, etc.

Conversely, Atheists can be some of the worst sheeple. As they say, a little bit of knowledge is the most dangerous thing.

I think the problem comes from when people think they know it all. Most humans are susceptible, regardless of what forces they believe control the world. I used to blame religion too, then I looked at atheists, I use to blame my country for being stupid, but then I looked at all the failures other countries were capable of, and then it clicked. The world is full of stupid people, and everyone is stupid at some point.

We don't have infinite time to check and verify everything and so in order to delve and focus in one area, we tend to neglect another so we have to rely on trusting that someone else who's spent a significant amount of time on their selected subject. Sometimes that other person we trust is family, sometimes it's a priest, sometimes it is a scientist with credentials.

Who you trust with what information is important. Anyone who trusts a single source for large quantities of information is doomed to be a tool. Atheist or theist.