Larur Feldin

Justin Ricobaldi's page

Organized Play Member. 89 posts (97 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

ingenuus wrote:

My main two questions to everyone are as follows:
-Does anyone have any advice to give on making a custom story for the specific PCs in my group?
-Does anyone have any general "I wish I had known/done this when I first started DMing" advice?

Thanks so much in advance everyone!

Yes. To answer the first.

I don't if any of the players have given you back stories to their characters but if they have it will prove to be your greatest tool as a DM in involving them into plot. It allows you to work with material they are familiar with and that they can get extra invested in.

In this matter, vagueness can be your best friend and you should be able to take liberties with characters and events from your player's back-stories that their character has no control over. Which is why I always advise people who are making character backgrounds not to be too specific with the fates of other characters who are a part of the actual character's back story, unless their character was personally there to witness these fates. This allows you to introduce/re-introduce characters who are important to the party and still throw in new information or twists.

For example:

Say a player says they learned their magic at a magic-school and left. You could have one of their old professors re-appear to give the party a quest based on magical research the professor was said to be dabbling in when the player-character was a mere student.

Or the orc warlord who destroyed the Paladin's hometown when he was a boy has re-emerged after a long disappearance into Demon mountain and now has great power from a pact he made there with evil spirits.

The player-char's sister shows up after being thought dead and turns out she's evil now.

etc. etc.

Other bits of advise:

-Know your players as people and pay attention to their play style. This will help to tailor the game to their humor in the future. Some people like to fight, others to role-play. Some subject matter you can get away with, and others not quite so much. Knowing how they play and what they think is cool, will allow you to adjust your game to suite those qualities.

-Keep notes. I know that sounds silly but at the end of the night a lot can be said and done and you don't want to forget a new line inquiry the party had or forget something they said or did.

-Keep track of their experience. No seriously, keep track of their experience points in the form of a chart or something. I do including what was given for RPing and what was given for encounters etc. Some players are bad with keeping track of experience and knowing how close they are to leveling up can also be very handy.

that's all I can thin of for now.


Throw bow using enemies at the party?

Sometimes as a DM/or player I find that the best combats are ones that cater to to either party strengths giving everyone some equal task or cater to their weaknesses turning a routine or moderate encounter into more difficult fair.

For example, you said the party fought 30 orcs. (Christ dude really? did any of them die, damn man) So what if say 30 orcs were accompanied by goblin archers on a higher ledge that was most easily accessed by arrows?

Until something statistically can be or may be done to adjust her character, take special note perhaps to involve her character's skill set into by-passing obstacles and challenges.

And yes, I agree, that throwing in a few more of her favored enemies would be nice.

Wraithstrike said archers are good at doing damage and it may be a build issue, and that maybe so. I'd give more outside the obvious for it but thelast archer I saw was very, un-orthadox. (Zen archer monk/inquisitor)


Vic Wertz wrote:
Round 1 Rules wrote:
The entire submission, including the title, must not exceed 300 words.

The template we provide includes the item name as the first line. It's expected to be in the body. If you do not put the item name in the body, and including it would put you over 300 words, your entry *will* be disqualified, even if the word counter shows that you are at 300 words or less.

I just rejected four entries that did this. They are dead and gone, never to be voted on by the general public.

Let's not make it five, yes?

Ouch, sorry. I guess I'm number five. This is my first year submitting and I just submitted my entry about 5 or 6 minutes ago.

I suppose there is always next year.


Cheese Golems


I'd say augment Summon is worth it. Especially if you are going to be summoning an Eidolon or several fierce melee creatures. And the extra hit points are good.

Don't have books in front of me now to tell much on the moonlight or starlight summoning feats. I've been wanting to play a summoner or conjuring character for a while.


So Call Me Tim, has it right, the question pretty much answered.

Though, while we are one the subject, I had a game where part of the party slept on the beach at night after a terrible shipwreck.

Chuuls came up on to the beach to eat at the bodies that had yet to be buried and the wizard and the halfling rogue were nearly pulled paralyzed beneath the waves. The battle was fierce and damage inflicted was great. Needles to say, the party moved camp further inland.

Since then, my players have had a great amount of fear for Chuuls. While I have not used them in a meaningful encounter since those years ago, they remain one of my most memorable encounters of my DMing carrier.


Wow,good question. Alternatively you could also use Strength? Or make some kind of endurance check near the end to see who begins to slow down. Another question is whether or not the course is in a straight line? There could be some play with those curves and who is on the inside and outside of them.


My first sorcerer experience in Pathfinder was the Aberrant bloodline sorcerer. The 10ft reach on those touch spells while standing behind the party's fighter characters was a potent combo.

With that said, I'd like to agree with this statement:

AndIMustMask wrote:
I'd wager that any bloodline can be feasible with the right build, it just wont be "The Best Build" for the class (from an optimization perspective).

I'm sad to here that many people are displeased with the other bloodlines presented for the sorcerer class. Especially when those bloodlines are the sorcerers number one way of distinguishing themselves from amongst their fellow casters.

But after all, these bloodlines are merely tools to help create the character in your head. And I'm sure you will find a good bloodline to make what it is you seek.


I believe that you could make a Dragon Disciple mostly from or entirely from the CRB. I recently helped a friend to create a 12th level character who is Sorcerer into Dragon Disciple. This character is practically made entirely out of the Core Rules book save for at least the Sorcerous Bloodstrike feat from Ultimate Magic.

Looking at the attack bonuses and the abilities that a Dragon Disciple gets, its obvious they want to be in melee, but with a sorcerer base that seems hard. The final build had the Toughness Feat, Armor Proficiency: Light, Arcane Armor Training, Combat Casting, and I believe Dodge was in there some where. But essentially his spell choices, feats, and abilities all came from the Core Book.

At 12th level he had 160-something hit points, an AC of 29 (or somewhere around there) and he could fight with a lot of natural attacks or cast spells from afar, all the while flying around and breathing fire on people. So essentially fighting like a dragon. I can see using other classes to help make the character beefier, but I believe that depends on how much of a focus you want on spells vs melee sustainability.


Alright, I just wanted to be sure.

My brother is building an elf spell bond universalist wizard the Fast Study and Spli-Slot discoveries. Combined with gaining spells memorized with Spell Mastery feat, he will never need his spell book to actualy have access to a majority of his spells.


So the elven Spell Bond ability (from the Spell Bonded wizard archetype in the Advanced Race Guide) allows elves to take a full round action to convert a prepared spell into a spell that they have bonded with.

My question is whether or not this full round action converts and casts or just converts the spell?

I'd assume it just converts but I wanted to be sure.


Coolio. I do have some time for research before the game begins. This will be interesting.

If anything people's advice has helped to keep an open mind on what the party can do.


Lets get to the point of the matter, I'm running a 10th level game in the near future at my local friendly gaming shop.

They are using point buy, the 25 point pool. I have yet to officially learn what everybody is, but the core, advance players & race, ultimate magic & combat are fair game. (note: while we are using the advanced race book, there are no custom races allowed. I don't know how balanced the system is.)

However, for all my experience I have really played more games at the 4-8th level range and have been in that ball-park for the longest time.

Seeing as this will be the highest level party I have ever run (in Pathfinder that is) I want to know if there are things I should be aware of that any of the good folks here have come across in their 10th-12th level experiences?

to be sure I have looked at what higher level characters get and have made some in that range for bosses and such but a party of 10th level characters will be a new running experience for me.

thanks for the help.


Having run a group of 8 to 9 players before, my advice is: Don't.

Once you hit that 7 to 8 marker for players, you can say good-bye to the days of rping with npcs and the party rping amongst themselves.

Encounter are also very tough to handle once you get too large of a group because singular monster encounters are either too weak or too strong. The combat last for eternity.

I wish you the best of luck in running your group. But I personally feel you should split the group.


Yes, because your CMB roll is an attack roll affected by things that affect your attack roll such as the enhancement bonuses from weapons, and the effects of spells, feats, abilities, etc. This means that combat expertise would affect your CMB rolls, and even things like a bardic performance.


Alright, this proves that I was thinking the right way in terms of how the weapon worked, however...

When grappling an opponent form a distance, can you get 2 actions from Greater grapple and do you suffer the -4 penalty for not having 2 hands free? There still seems to be some mystery about this.

I suppose there are strong arguments for both sides but I personally think the -4 penalty applies (though for the sake of a ninja I rolled up for fun I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong), and I suppose since the weapon description states you can only make one action, you can only make one action.


1) Yes, your hand is free to do other stuff. Because reloading is a free action for you, its no time at all to reload. Also you reloaded on your turn, doesn't mean it has to be the final action of your turn.

2) Same as above counts for the staff sling as well. A weapon inspired by that one Staff weapon Tass used in Dragon Lance. Or least I think that's where its from.


Kusarigama is an eastern weapon that is light one-handed sickle with a 10ft light chain attacked to the bottom. At the end of the chain is a small weight. The weapon's qualities are: Double, Monk, Reach, Trip, and Grapple.

The Grapple quality says this: On a successful critical hit the wielder can attempt a combat maneuver check to grapple his opponent as a free action. The grapple attempt does no provoke an attack of opportunity from the creature you are attempting to grapple if it does not threaten you. While grappling with the weapon you can only move or damage the target on your turn. You are still considered grappled though you do not have to be adjacent for this condition, nor be adjacent to continue the grapple. If you move out of the weapon's reach, you end the grapple.

So my questions are:

1)Can you only move or damage the target with your turn once grappling the opponent because that is the normal grapple rules, or if I gain the Greater Grapple feat, can I take two grapple actions?

2) Does the ability to initiate a grapple on a critical hit only count for the chain end?

3) Can I attempt to make a grapple check with the chain end anyway as per the normal action without having to score a critical hit? And can I do this from a distance with Reach?

4) If using the weapon to grapple, from a distance or not, do I suffer from the -4 penalty because I do not have two free hands with which to sufficiently grapple my opponent?

5) Also, is it possible to trip with the chain from a distance?


People upstairs seemed to run the gauntlet of social stuff and they are right on!

So some game related advice:

1) Consistency. No really, consistency in your game's theme, tone, descriptions and reasoning will go a long way to help bring characters and players alike deeper into the world you've presented.

This rule of consistency should also in some ways apply to the characters as well. Nothing is more jarring than the player who is playing Goku while everyone and everything else in the world resembles Game of Thrones.

2) Calling it early. Don't be afraid to end your game a little earlier than usual if it will help smooth out the game as a whole. Sometimes you are thrown a curve ball as DM and you need time to plan or perhaps the players just moved through what you had set up a little earlier than expected.

Either way, reward them with a longer more precisely thought out session next time you meet and they won't even remember they had to stop early last time.

3) Saying no. If you are like me and find yourself DMing 8 people, then something has to change. While it is baller-awesome that a large number of people are looking to be in on a game. You have to know some of your limitations and you can't DM the world. Some players may just have to sit this one out.

The best policy is to pick those who approached you first since they showed the first initiative. Or at least that is my rule of thumb for gaming at my FLGS.


Sardonic Soul wrote:
Having recently ended my last campaign due to rampant munchkinism. I have to say I think there is nothing wrong with optimizing to fit a concept. But those that game the system know who they are, they know they are doing it, and always excuse it with barest amount of roleplaying.

Ker-Blam! That is exactly what I'm saying in my first reply to this thread on page 2. Only in many more words than this. I feel your pain.

Sardonic Soul wrote:


Also I got a great idea the Paizo staff should steal. A new book that you could call it "Ultimate Roleplaying". Put no game mechanics in it and charge $50. That way if see someone owns a copy then I would know I should let them play in my game.

Though, wouldn't all the people you want to play in your game actually have no need for this book as seeing they are already very role-play savy? Though now I just want to see this book, just to see what is in it!


Rasmus Wagner wrote:
I'm not 100% sure what you mean. Could you look over my "Ranger Archetype" post (on the first page of this thread) and tell me if that's the problem as you see it?

The archetype of ranger that you choose, and the reasons you choose it for, are the opposite of the miss-matched character choices that I previously mentioned. I'm refering, more or less, to abilities chosen 100% out of what would be optimal for character character strength rather than character concept.

But here it gets tricky because, as I acknowledged, there will always be at least some meta choices in a character, optimized or not. I'm certainly not one for telling people what they want to play, and mechanics are just mechanics, and can thus be placed under new lighting to change their very fluff and feel when it comes to how they apply to and reinforce a character.

In the case of the ranger, you choose archetype that reinforced the idea of the character you wanted to play, and it just so happens to grant you abilities that are particularly helpful, then that's fine too.

Rasmus Wagner wrote:
"Powergaming" does not require bad roleplaying. Making unoptimized (or sandbagged) characters does not automatically make you a good roleplayer either.

That is very true. However, in my experience at any rate, poor role playing or even lack thereof always seems to accompany "power-gaming". And I for one feel that it is due impart to the mentality of the player who placed an extremely high value on having a "powerful" character, to the exclusion of what such statistical abilities could imply or really do for the character's well, character. It seems as so long as their character is powerful, it doesn't matter how they are, if they are, role played.

There may not be a right and wrong way to role play, but as I said before its an opportunity to role play that is lost.


FallofCamelot wrote:
Comedy races.

You know what's more hurtful than comedy races that I CAN NOT condone in my fantasy game? (usually)

Comedy characters.

These guys manage to spoil shit for all just for fun. Or worse, they take the atmosphere right out of the game and belittle the tension when the party is encountered with a dangerous obstacle or enemy.

Oh, I also hate it when dwarves chip the glasses, crack the plates, dull the knives, bend the forks, smash the bottles and burn the corks. Yo know, because Bagins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

See a thread about the nature of power gaming? I can't help but put a pin on the problem that gets me most about it and others, even if they haven't figured out it is this. So here it goes:

The problem I encounter with most "power-gamers" is that their actual character that they role-play is un-informed by their game mechanic choices and vice-versa.

That is to say, their characters abilities, feats, powers, spells, gear etc. are all chosen based on being powerful at a particular task and reflect nothing of the character presented outside of the statistics.

I cannot, and will not, say that all meta-choices are bad. If you like a spell pick it, if your character needs to be harder to hit then get a feat or an item to help with that. Certainly there is some level of the knowledge of the rules that influences the choices we make for the statistical side of our characters.

However, I have seen many power gamers disregard letting a single one of these choices actually be reflected in their role-playing. Even if the choices are oddly specific and miss-matched to one another, they were purely chosen out of an end result of a powerful character and never addressed or mentioned by the offending player's character.

This dual nature between what is role-played and what is on paper creates an inconsistent character who's seem out of place due to their lack of connection to the abilities they possess.

The equivalent is like watching a pacifist speed construct an m-16 and fire it, hitting a bulls-eye. It's like watching a professional skate-boarder trip over his own feet while simply walking.

What's most hurtful is the fact that these "power-characters" have flat static personalities that you could copy paste onto anyone you wanted. Rather than having a character in mind and then choosing statistics to create that character, they create a powerful combination of numbers and then slip the character over it like a mask or costume. And while that is not a crime in and of itself, it is a lost opportunity to run a truly unique and dynamic character who could have been just as memorable for who they were as well as what they could do.


From my personal experience, system mastery is and yet is not everything. I've witnessed new players express unhappiness with their characters that "veteran" players have helped them create simply for the fact that they either

A) Didn't use the choices that were somewhat made for them.

or

B) Found another option later on in a book they hadn't quite looked through and desired those options for their characters more than what they already possessed.

I am not sure whether or not this came up also, but in several advice threads on how to build or optimize characters, I see references to feats and spells that are not even in Pathfinder but instead in latter 3.5 D&D material. If some games are open to using such material, I would bet dimes to dollars that a "veteran" player would be running a far "superior" character build than that of a person relatively new to the game.

side note: The power of an optimized character is still not what bothers me most about an optimized character.


My browser crashed when I clicked on this thread. Probably crashed out of sheer disbelief of the name of the thread.

Anyway, I've never noticed a "turn-off" to Clerics before in my time playing Pathfinder. Certainly there are other classes that can heal a party such as an Oracle of Life but clerics have many strengths and are very customizable.

One group that I ran featured a War/Travel Domain cleric who could nearly do anything save for having lots of skills. But he could fly, fight, heal, buff, and cast some offensive spells. Hell he even had Power Attack and combat Expertise when he originally made his character in 3.5. Once converted to Pathfinder, the war domain's 8th level domain power opened up a realm of combat possibility.

But combat aside, clerics are a rich class that are full of variety depending on what domains you choose and how you run your cleric.

I personally have never heard anyone complain about them. However I can see where the class can be written off as a chore some player will have to do to ensure party survival. This however, is a limited scope of a what a cleric can be for the party.


I want to say I read an article somewhere that actually was about scientists that discovered that gamers have slightly larger risk/reward centers in their brains and that similar sized centers could be found in professional gamblers and people who have gambling problems. Or it was something like that.


You've seem to got everything well in hand to be honest. I can't myself see any problems as per my view of just this Pathfinder write up. I know that is not really advice but I'm not sure what else I can say.

Though, since Wakazashi(s) are light weapons you could always alternatively make you DEX the higher, take Weapon Finese in place of Weapon Focus. That way you could up you AC, your 'to hit', and your Acrobatics skill, which I'm assuming you will take skill focus in during the next spare feat that comes along?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would name my Dhampir: Alucard Von MC-Satan B$#*$-slap the 3rd, esquire.

But no seriously, probably something like, Carvastan or Emelric. Something that at least tries to sound old and Romanian.


Altus Lucrim wrote:
the ACME variety with a long fuse (think Looney Tunes).

I for one, am glad I grew up in a generation that knows what that is. I once met a 10 or 12 year old girl while volunteering with my parents at the local library and she didn't know what an anvil was. I used looney toons as my example, still didn't know. What happened world?


For funzies, what are you and your wife's characters?


Banecrow wrote:
Dam! would have been a lot of fun to have a staff that I could keep enchanting as I grew in levels.

Yeah, sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I double checked too and the example they use in the core is a 5th level wizard needing to be 5th level before he could enchant his bounded dagger.


I believe the rules elaborate on this by saying that you must be of at least the caster level it would normally take to qualify for said feat and thus enchant said item. So no, you could not make your staff a magic staff at level 1.


It falls under heavy blades according to the revised weapon group list in Ultimate Combat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is one a player told me:

-A dwarf walks out of a bar. (that is the joke)

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Red Wizards stuff is Faerun.

Hey man, don't Faeruin it for everyone.


Considering the lose of abilities, it sounds like multi-classing wouldn't help your character be even keel. However, if you are brave and choose what makes sense for the character that you have established in role play over the statistics on paper, then you are pretty cool dude.

On the big HOWEVER, I've got good news! Under the script of ex-paladin in the core book, it mentions the loss of Paladin's abilities and the ability to progress in the class itself if you break the code of being a paladin, or willfully commit an evil act, or cease to be lawful good.

Nowhere does it mention leaving the paladin class to pursue another class as something you can't do. And just because you took a level in another class, doesn't inherently mean you break all bounds, ties, and oaths for righteousness and with your deity and changed your alignment. Under bards it list that you can be any alignment and be a bard.

Ergo= you shouldn't actually lose any of your abilities should you multi-class and you can always go back to paladin so long as you meet the standards in you behavior from your paladin class. So problem solved I guess. Rock on you holy-roller!


Ah, am I correct in assuming Foehammer is from the Advance Races Guide? I unfortunately do not own this book due to a bought of unemployment, else I would have purchased a copy as soon as I saw it on the shelf (at local comic /gaming shop).

So all I had to go off of was the name Foehammer. I personally invisioned dwarf fighter with a hammer who just barrells into combat smashing into and through enemies like an angry football player/rail road worker. Though I am not aware of any hammers that have tripping qualities, I suppose if there is a race that is not going to be tripped back, it is the dwarf.

I like your build though. Shields over all are pretty baller with some of the feats that are ubtainable.


Bullrushing into battle is very good for being, a bully. Not to mention there are feats that allow one to later on, knock foes down as well as bullrush with their first attack in an attack action. You could go shield or no shield but sticking strictly with a hammer this is what I'd get:

Feats to get:
1st lvl: Power Attack and Improved Bullrush
2nd lvl: Shield of Swings
3rd lvl:Weapon Focus: Hammer
4th lvl:Improved Overrun
5thlvl: Charge Through
6th lvl: Greater BullRush
7th lvl: Quick Bullrush
8th lvl: Greater Overrun

(Note: Charge Through and Shield of Swings is from the Advanced Player's Handbook, Quick Bullrush is from Ultimate Combat and the rest are from the Core Book.)

If you are a non-human Fighter, this should carry you through to Level 8, Feat wise. I personally don't know much about the Rise of the Rune Lords (assuming its an adventure module) other than it has something to do about some guys called Rune Lords and their "rising".

If you are human, than I suggest getting Combat Reflexes for your feat. It will help with all the Opp attacks you'll get when knocking folks down. Alternatively you could go the shield/hammer route. In which case you can swich the following:

2nd lvl: Improved Shield Bash
3rd lvl: Two-weapon Fighting
7thl lvl: Shield Slam

I hope this was of some help.


I suddenly remeber my own party of level 3 or 4 characters. We were nearly killed by a challenge ratting 1 or 2 swarm because swarm. No one could hurt it because we had no splash weapons and it did damage and poison because it was a spider swarm. Sometimes a monster for which the party has no weapon and or defense can be enough.


Darkghost316 wrote:
Also is the Two-Handed Fighter archetype worth it?

Yes. A member in a party I was with wielded a Great Sowrd. He always struck for 4d6+15 points of damage and would crit for 6d6+30. Lol, being level 7. :D

But yeah, thf brings a lot fo damage to the table. Alternatively polearms are also very good, along with the pole-arm master architype. That way you could net enemies as well with superior reach if you are he only front line fighter.

side not question: 15 point build with slow character progression? How is that working out? I have yet to play with either of those point build cost or exp prgression track.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Remember, you can be a "ninja" without the any levels in the ninja class.

Restricting your character to the name of your class is a common mistake.

Don't I know it. However Stealth and Acrobatics are not class skills for a wizard.

My point of building them out of ninja, is to see how far I can bend the ninja class and for S's and G's, not because I believe ninja's can only be made from the ninja class.

However, when mking a ninja, the ninja class just might be a nice starting point. While rogues, and monks could make great ninjas, as well as some architypes of other classes like fighter could also do the job; Ninja just so happens to have profincieny in eastern weapons, stalth, acrobatics, poison use, sneak attack, and a few over odds and ends that make it easier as a starting point.


Remco Sommeling wrote:
You can run adventures fine with 4 clerics or similar roles nowadays really, it might just be more fun for each character to have it's niche, characters are far more flexible in their building then they were in D&D 1st edition but the role division still exists in people's mind, in part because it is cool in part because they are used to thinking that way.

4 Clerics would be pretty boss. Especially if the cleric who had the battle domain, had an INT of 13 and a STR of at least 13. Then he could get combat expertise and power attack. At level 8, watch the magic happen...

But I myself have been theory crafting an enitre group and the "classic" roles using nothing but the Ninja class, from Ultimate Combat. My inspiration originally coming from the champion Shen form League of Legends who is a ninja, but he is a tank and is capable of defending his fellow champions by taunting, dashing, teleportation and above all, staying alive despite taking immense amounts of damage.

So I want to see:

Stealth + Tank
Stealth + Magic
Stealth + Healing
and stealth plus stealth would be pointless to list at this point. Though a Magic+Tank would be cool. I've wanted to try a wizard-tank. I started on a build once but its difficult.


Kyoni wrote:
Justin Ricobaldi wrote:
The very idea of a party prefering to kill enemies before healing teammates and putting enemy erradication as top strategic priority strikes me as a very "Diablo 2" way of playing.

To counter that statement:

the idea of must-have-healer-in-party is imho entirely and only based on MMOs, where people go as far as flame you in party chat if you don't keep them full-health at all times (even when it's entirely unnecessary).

My issue about the entire healing debate is not if a player wants to play a healer... but rather that some people react in ways that make me sad if I want to play a cleric/oracle/witch/... and NOT be the healer.
That same MMO-thinking tends to default to cookie-cutter builds/specs as well, i.e.: wizards are only there for blasting and fighters are the best tanks (which they are not, imho) and only rogues can take care of locks and traps...
that is not true in Pathfinder.

If nobody in such groups feels like playing a healer, these groups tend to force one person to be the healer nonetheless, because they think is mandatory (=compulsory, obligatory).

The goal here is to explain that healers are not "must-have", they are "nice-to-have": If you like playing one, that's cool, but if you don't you shouldn't be forced to, because others refuse to try different tactics.

Imho the one screaming for a healer as necessary, should be the one who has to play it (if nobody else volunteered). :-p

To counter a counter?

Not really I agree with everything you said. I've played in parties with and without healers. It always turns out someone is usually capable of healing even if albeit minutely. And I've never been in a group where someone was forced to be a healer.

However...

The idea of always having a mandatory healer, to me as a concept, is as old as the hills that rpgs started being played on and not exclusive to the realm of MMO's. Though I can surely see where the concept would take flight into the mainstream theory crafting of party-ability dynamics after the success of MMO's.

But high consideration for characters that offer healing has always been a thing. Looking at AD&D 2nd Edition the priest groups, i.e. Cleric and Druid had lower exp requirements to jump level than wizards or even fighters. Such characters would attain higher levels and have more healing capabilities faster to meet with the growing demand for survivability against more powerful monsters. Because healing in combat and out is important.


Missing out on three levels worth of game? I'd assume he's no longer interested.

I'm assuming because this is an issue his absence has not been consecutive. The DM really should talk to this player rather than trying to conduct some kind of DM divine retribution scheme.

It sounds like this player sadly doesn't have a schedule that is doable for the game and may have to be let go. But this sounds like a scheduling issue to me.


I was thinking the same thing. If you treated Charitable Hands as a different ability then there would be no way to modify you ability with feats. And you couldn't even get extra uses of it as the Extra Lay on Hands feat requires you HAVE Lay on Hands.

Obviously though this logic of another ability working as an ability for the purposes of getting feats doesn't work for all replacement abilities.

Side not: Extra Lay on Hands is a nifty ability for an Oath of Vengeance Paladin as they can use 2 uses of LoH to get an extra smite, thus making Extra LoH feat effectively Extra Smite. Cool guys doing cool things!


Also 2nd question!

Because Charitable Hands says it functions as but replaces Lay on Hands, does that mean I can't have the Reward of Life feat since I do not techincally have Lay on Hands as a class feature which is the prerequisite for having the feat in the first place?


I'm currently running a 5th level Paladin who is an hospitaler/Oath of Charity paladin at 5th level. My charisma is 18, giving me a +4 modifier.

With my abilities I have the Charitable Hands ability that allows my Lay on Hands to heal a person for 2d6 +50% of the result but I only heal myself 2d6 -50% of the result.

Now here is the tricky part, I also have the Reward of Life feat, which can be found in Ultimate Magic. This feat allows me, that when I heal an ally, or someone else in general, with my Lay on Hands I also heal myself for a number of points equal to my CHA modifier, so 4.

The question is do I half that and only heal 2?

At first I figured no, because I wasn't the target of the Lay on Hands myself but, that is the ability that is triggering my healing for the most part.


I've never seen anybody in all my life complain when someone choose to play a healer. If someone told me there'd be a player who would scoff me for choosing cleric or some heal heavy paladin (by the way, love my heal paladin!)I'd be very surprised and taken-aback.

The very idea of a party prefering to kill enemies before healing teammates and putting enemy erradication as top strategic priority strikes me as a very "Diablo 2" way of playing. (note: I'm saying nothing bad about Diablo 2, its a fun game. It just works differently from Pathfinder.) In such cases I'd assume that party had no real dedicated healer, and that's just as well. A druid and an alchemist can make up for the healing of 1 cleric in terms of after battle maintainance. After a fight, some healing before the next encounter is much appreciated or necesssary.

Sure tactics can help take you far, but if that enemy should crit... Well it'd be nice if someone could help keep you on your feet, especially if that person being healed is the damage dealer.

As a side note: I've seen an optimized assimar oracle of life be the party's healer. Its rather effective at protecting choice memebers of the party, but only becasue it excelled at mid combat healing using ability called: Life Link and using normal cure spells.


So, I notivced your favored enemy are constructs. If that's something you plan on persuing more into I'd suggest a Magic item called: Scarab, Golembane (page 529 of the core rule book). This item allows you to "detect golems" and also allows you to ignore their damage reduction even with unarmed attacks.

I also noticed that you seem to be doing a lot of unarmed combat, where did you get the Rending claws feat?


Darkghost316 wrote:

Looks interesting, so you want to have a lot of hps, damage reduction, and strength, but you want low ac?

That my firend is the sound of a heavy shield in now added to your equipment list.

Ot at least that's my 2 copper pieces. Everything else seems legit.


Davor wrote:

I recently started looking at some monk archetypes, and I really like the idea of creating a monk that specializes in using Ki for abilities, as well as acting primarily as a support character.

My idea, at the moment, is Qinggong Monk/Ki Mystic/Sensei, focusing primarily on Dexterity and Wisdom as is primary attributes, with a major focus on having a massive Wisdom score (for more Ki points), as well as using lots of feats on the Extra Ki feat.

When I see this all I think of is Qinggong monk's ability to gain scorching ray. With the extra ki from ki Mystic and feats, all you need is point blank shot, weapon focus: rays, and precise shot.

thanks one idea. If you like monks with laser beams.

1 to 50 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>