KBrewer's page

KBrewer wrote:

thegreenteagamer wrote:

I disagree with the Undead Lord hate. If playing from level 1, its the only way to be a true necromancer with a minion and all. Plus it may only be one, but he does level with you and can be resummoned infinitely, which makes for no need to have a trapspringer.

"Is the hall safe?"

"Let's find out. Timmy, go check"

Skeleton walks down hall, blows up.

"Looks like we're gonna need another Timmy! But at least the hall's probably safe."

"Unless it's a resetting trap."

"Timmy, go check."

Really? That's your example? You're missing something, then:

"Unless it's a resetting trap."

"Okay. Let's wait around 8 hours while I do a ritual to make a new companion to check it out."

... 8 hours later ...

"Timmy, go check."

And, no, your minion really doesn't level with you. Your Hit Die cap does go up each level, but that definitely doesn't mean the minion is scaling along with you. A level 2 character can get a CR=1 skeleton - a one level difference. A level 9 character? Only a CR=4 skeleton (5 levels difference). A 20th level character? Only a CR=8 skeleton (12 levels difference.)

To drive it home further, let's take that 9th level character, who with the Undead Lord feat, can animate a 9 HD skeleton as a CR=4 minion. Or, they could cast Animate Dead on a Bloody Tyranosaurus Skeleton - which would be a CR=9 minion.

So... on one hand we've got a CR=4 creature that takes 8 freaking hours to animate... or we've got a CR=9 creature that *won't die*. To be honest, even if you found a candidate creature you'd make an Undead Lord minion out of, it'd probably be better to just Animate it, then use the Control Undead spell on it.

And to get this bad ability, you're choosing a substandard domain and outright losing the second.

I definitely stand by the Undead Lord hate.

Touché. Still only way to raise undead from level 1 though...

Agreed. Reread what I wrote not longer after I posted it and winced a bit. Didn't mean to be prickly - sorry if I came across the wrong way.

Is this link not ipad friendly?

I can't get it to work :(

Yeah, I've been hearing from a number of people about Google Docs not posting mobile friendly versions.

I'm still trying to figure out how to do it differently. I've been uploading PDFs... maybe I need to upload Docs, or HTML, or some other format - or maybe ditch google docs and find another hosting site?

Anyone have any ideas?

I disagree with the Undead Lord hate. If playing from level 1, its the only way to be a true necromancer with a minion and all. Plus it may only be one, but he does level with you and can be resummoned infinitely, which makes for no need to have a trapspringer.

"Is the hall safe?"

"Let's find out. Timmy, go check"

Skeleton walks down hall, blows up.

"Looks like we're gonna need another Timmy! But at least the hall's probably safe."

"Unless it's a resetting trap."

"Timmy, go check."

Really? That's your example? You're missing something, then:

"Unless it's a resetting trap."

"Timmy, go check."

And, no, your minion really doesn't level with you. Your Hit Die cap does go up each level, but that definitely doesn't mean the minion is scaling along with you. A level 2 character can get a CR=1 skeleton - a one level difference. A level 9 character? Only a CR=4 skeleton (5 levels difference). A 20th level character? Only a CR=8 skeleton (12 levels difference.)

To drive it home further, let's take that 9th level character, who with the Undead Lord feat, can animate a 9 HD skeleton as a CR=4 minion. Or, they could cast Animate Dead on a Bloody Tyranosaurus Skeleton - which would be a CR=9 minion.

So... on one hand we've got a CR=4 creature that takes 8 freaking hours to animate... or we've got a CR=9 creature that *won't die*. To be honest, even if you found a candidate creature you'd make an Undead Lord minion out of, it'd probably be better to just Animate it, then use the Control Undead spell on it.

And to get this bad ability, you're choosing a substandard domain and outright losing the second.

I definitely stand by the Undead Lord hate.

Dragon had an article in the late 90s (IIRC) making the case for structuring campaigns and sessions as if they were TV series. I wasn't a fan of how they did it and I'm not a fan of your approach, either.

In general, the problem is that a TV series - or any other kind of narrative storytelling medium - is controlled by one person. RPGs are an entirely different beast; treating them like a TV series will end up the DM-as-writer syndrome... probably one of the biggest complaint I have heard about the style of generally-reckognized-as-bad DMs.

I think your splitting hairs when trying to differentiate your version of recaps and what "a lot of GMs do." I've always done a quick recap to get people's juices flowing, but in general I find players (or, at least, the group collectively) will remember all relevant details. If they haven't, they probably aren't properly engaged in the campaign.

You also seem to write assuming that people have neat sessions in which an entire adventure or adventure leg is completed. I've always had regularly timed sessions which rarely butt up nicely with in game events. Starts of new arcs can happen in the middle of sessions, in the last hour, etc., This is another reason the comparison to an episode of TV sow falls flat.

Few things.

Point #1 - Treating it like a TV show will lead to DM-as-writer.

I completely disagree. Step back for a second and separate Structure versus Content. You're absolutely right that if you rely on tv plots/adventures as the source of your *content*, you're going to creep into GM-as-writer territory. But that's completely different than using TV's *structure*. Those things that I talk about in the guide have nothing to do with the actual content - it's just the way/order you present them to your players.

Heck, take a look at my prior guide and the specific examples in this one and point to where I'm railroading.

Point #2 - The refreshers/recaps being unnecessary.

Again, I completely disagree. I definitely don't think it's fair to say that if a player doesn't remember the relevant details, they're not engaged in the campaign.

And even if most of the players remember most of the relevant details... isn't it still worth it to get everyone on the same page? Heck, at the very least, it makes sure that people aren't confusing two different NPCs or two different enemies they've run into in sessions past. Clarity is rarely a bad thing when GM'ing.

Point #3 - Neat sessions versus regularly timed sessions.

You've got an assumption you're working off of - it's also one I'd suggest you test out for a campaign or two. Your assumption is that how you're handling adventures is superior to neat/clean sessions of adventure legs.

Our group is in the same boat as you - we've got one semi-timed session per week (starts at a specific time, goes 3-4 hours.) So it's not like what I'm suggesting pertains to a group radically different than yours.

....

Or maybe this will help: Imagine your television was interactive. You get to control what one of the characters does.

Do you really think the *structure* of the show would be different? You don't think the same tricks would be involved? You don't think the pacing would crescendo into a commercial, but then stall for a bit after the commercial to get you back into the action? You don't think the episode would try to tie the content off in a mostly-complete bow? You don't think the episode would give you teasers as to what you could do next week if you participated again?

... and yet another guide. A second GM guide, this one targeting the structure of a session and how to give your players the most enjoyment out of the same basic content.

The Guide: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5kvBvq2DEHjRU5FRWV6eDAwa1k

The Discussion Page: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2prfy?Brewers-GM-Guide-2-Session-Structure

I've completed the rough draft of a second GM guide, this time concerned with session structure and giving your players the maximum enjoyment with the same basic content.

The Guide: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5kvBvq2DEHjRU5FRWV6eDAwa1k

I've completed the long over-due revising of the Reach Cleric Guide. I want to thank all the people so far that have helped out with it, both in support and in fixes/suggestions/etc. The improvements:

The race section was greatly expanded to include Featured and Unusual Races from the Advanced Race Guide.

Additional Metamagic options were added as qualifiers for Spell Perfection.

Dodge-Mobility added to the feat section.

Erastil added as a deity to consider, with Fur/Feather+Growth subdomains listed as options.

Ring of Counterspells, Eyes of the Eagle, Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier, and Dusty Rose Ioun Stone added to the suggested items.

Grace added in the spells section.

Stand Still feat fixed.

Rules issue with multiple-AoO fixed.

Int Score recommendations fixed.

Fixed a rules issue with the Liberation domain's ability.

Modified the wording on Combat Reflexes after more field testing.

----------------

Some additional items that I looked over and didn't include:

Big Game Hunter: I couldn't find a reference to this as a Cleric Option. The only thing I found with this was an option for Barbarians.

Rice Runner Trait: I didn't end up expanding the guide to include traits. Maybe in the next version.

Guided Property on a weapon: I couldn't find any reference to it.

Spiked Gauntlets. I know a few commenters went through the trouble of figuring out how to threaten the 5-foot range as well as the spear's 10-foot range. The thing is, I don't think it's terribly relevant. What circumstances have to occur in battle before you get the 5-foot AoO? About the only thing I can think of is Casting + moving right next to an enemy archer/caster (if you're going to attack them, wouldn't you attack 10-foot away so you can use your superior weapon?) It seems to me that anything that'd be within 5 foot of you wouldn't be doing something that would provoke AoO.

Sheyln as a Deity: Sorry, but this deity is Neutral Good. That gives up all the benefits of Sacred Summons.

Anyway, again, thanks to everyone that has helped me improve the Reach Cleric Guide - and I hope it's been a good contribution to the Pathfinder Community! :-)

Oh, by the way, this one is starting out a bit more rough-draft than my other guides; I did a lot less proof-reading and verification on it.

If anyone sees any improvements, clarifications, or rules issues, please bring them up.

Anyway, time to start going back and getting the other guides back up to date...

Added! Very nice KBrewer, looking forward to more guides from you.

Comprehensive Guide to the Guides

Flooding the field. Here's another guide, intended for those wanting to bolster their party with some undead.

The Guide: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5kvBvq2DEHjRWFhSWc1ZzAzaDg/edit

The Discussion Thread: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pqof?Brewers-Guide-to-Undeath-A-Necromancers

I've got a new mini-guide for those casters that are wanting to have some undead minions.

The Guide: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5kvBvq2DEHjRWFhSWc1ZzAzaDg/edit

KBrewer wrote:

As for Servitor 2, I think you missed something. Putting "Boost" on the Selected word increases the level of all the effect words by 3. Servitor 2 to summon 1d4+1 creatures takes a fifth level slot (this is what I meant about Servitor not being suitable to summon multiple lower level summons - it's an extra level behind the regular version's 1d4+1 summon, and it even takes a meta word to use.)

Well thats just terrible. One of the major good points about summoning is typically getting a bunch of lower level critters - brute combatants pretty much top out in Summon Monster VI with the Dire Tiger, for example... Not to mention summoning clusters of Bralanis for lightning bolt support, or Vulpinals for Healing (18d6 lay on hands per Vulpinal and SM 6 can get pretty damn close to a Heal!)

Yeah, the "no multiples" bit does kind of suck, but I think it's peanuts compared to getting that standard action summon (the paranoid part in me wants the GM to have almost no opportunity to make me roll a concentration check.)

Plus, if you're playing in a campaign high-enough level where summoning multiples is a lot better than just 1-of the highest, you're probably pretty close to just using the Abyssal bloodline to destroy things.

(As a side note... are you thinking of 3.5 summoning? I didn't think Vulpinals were summonable in pathfinder.)

Mergy wrote:

TheRedArmy wrote:

This looks super. In about 709 years, when I can finally play my Varisian Harrower Sorceress I want to do, I'll be looking to this guide. I'll give a more formal critique when I have the time to fully read it, but it looks great. Thanks for your effort!

EDIT: I do have a question. Why does it stop at 6th-level spells (12th level)? Is it primarily designed for PFS?

Considering the system isn't allowed in PFS, I doubt that's the intention.

I didn't realize. Thanks. But now my original question is valid again. Why only go to level twelve?

Maybe I do need to go back and chart it out past the 6th level. I didn't do it original because I don't have as much experience as I should with the high level magic and the game changes quite a bit at those higher levels.

I'll take some time to think about it.

Question, given a bloodline's bonus spells come as actual spells, not WOP words, why do you think that Human bonus spells become WOP words? As a player, I'd certainly take the bonus spells; there are some effects that are nearly impossible with WOP eg. Planar Binding, Limited Wish, Dimensional Anchor, Polymorph any Object...Not to mention some dominant save or Die effects (Suffocate, Icy Prison).

I'm surprised that you have rated Metaword Mastery Green - I would think blue. Using Boost is sooooo commmon, you need every use of metawords you can get. Also as a rules question, does a given spell count for more than one use of metawords. Eg does a Burst (boosted) Acid Wave (Mind Warp) count as 1 use of metawords or 2?

Summon Servitor 2 is blue - it will devastate fights with boost...1d4+1 blocks of hp and attacks (giant frog/Giant Spider/Hyena) turns outnumbered and outflanked around very effectively at 3ed level...

Regarding Unfetter, falling damage caps at 20d6.

I would encourage you to continue with the higher level words, and looking further into combinations.

The reason the bloodline spells (and all those exceptions listed for the various classes in the W.o.P. section is pretty simple: there's no way of translating the bonus to the Words of Power system. Unless Paizo was going to try to go back to every single bloodline and say, okay, the Serpentine bloodline gets these effect words at these levels, they basically have to just let the sorcerer get those regular spells.

The reason I think the Words of Power translates to the favored class bonus is how the two texts interact:

From the W.o.P. section:
"These spellcasters begin play knowing a number of effect or meta words equal to the number indicated on their respective Spells Known tables. Whenever they gain a level in their respective classes or a level of spellcasting in those classes, they gain new effect or meta words based on the same table"

From the Alternate Favored Class bonus section:
"Add one spell known from the sorcerer spell list. This spell must be at least one level below the highest spell level the sorcerer can cast."

... basically, when a sorcerer gains spells, they gain them from the effect words.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to twist rules. If your GM rules the opposite, that the favored class bonus gives you regular spells, it is LOADS more powerful. Suddenly, you get the best of both worlds - the best effect words and the best regular spells. In fact, I think that'd be busted in half. Can you imagine? All the flexibility in those higher slots compared to getting the cream of the crop of the God Wizard spells?

-----

As for Servitor 2, I think you missed something. Putting "Boost" on the Selected word increases the level of all the effect words by 3. Servitor 2 to summon 1d4+1 creatures takes a fifth level slot (this is what I meant about Servitor not being suitable to summon multiple lower level summons - it's an extra level behind the regular version's 1d4+1 summon, and it even takes a meta word to use.)

----

I didn't know falling damage was capped at 20d6. Shoot, that makes the spell a lot less funny. Shoot, back to red territory that spell goes after all...

Another one for the list:

Brewer's GM Guide to Campaign Design

The Guide: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5kvBvq2DEHjLUs1bHB2UERIcnc/edit

Discussion: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pq98?Brewers-GM-Guide-to-Campaign-Design

I started a new guide: a GM Guide to Campaign Design.

Here's the link: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5kvBvq2DEHjLUs1bHB2UERIcnc/edit

Let me know if anyone has any suggestions or improvements.

Moved it to the Sorcerer section!

Wait, what? No, the "Words of Power" guide that was already there was fine in the Misc section - it didn't apply to any class or anything.

My guide, the new one, belongs in the Sorcerer section.

Thanks for all the comments so far!

Atarlost: Can you point me to a ruling? I'd be happy to change and correct the parts of the guide if that's the case about Wildblooded/Crossblooded. Also, yeah, it started out as a W.o.P. version of the God Wizard - I thought I had cleaned out all the parts where it applies to Wizards (preparing spells, etc) - can you point to me where I messed up?

VRMH/Buzzard: Okay, you got me. I might have to tweak that section of the guide, though it'll have to be with some big caveats (that GMs will likely put the hammer down on it.) For more info, see this original (unresolved) thread involving the lead designer: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m8u1

Don't know if the front page of the thread gets updated - but I have the Word of Power guide here:

Comprehensive Guide to the Guides

Hm. Didn't see that before.

Well, that's okay - can you put mine under the Sorcerer section anyway - it is a Sorcerer guide (just using the Words of Power system.)

Actually, I might give a shot at rewriting that generic W.o.P. guide. It's currently just a blurb after each word... but it doesn't help you in actually making a character (it doesn't cover which spells your class is allowed, or what spells can be combined with one another.)

I'd like to add a new guide to the list - one that covers something I've never seen covered: Words of Power. The guide covers an optimized Words of Power Sorcerer.

The Guide: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5kvBvq2DEHjY2pwRUNXcG5Ybjg/edit

The Discussion Board: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ppvi?Thus-She-Spoke-A-Words-of-Power-Sorcerere ss

I've finished a new guide to an under-used segment of the Pathfinder System: Words of Power. Suggestions and improvements are welcome; am considering writing a second Words of Power guide for the Oracle.

The Guide: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5kvBvq2DEHjY2pwRUNXcG5Ybjg/edit

...

One thing I would say is you seriously underrate Sirocco. Forget the fire damage - it's basically a range AoE trip/exhaustion combo. They get knocked prone (and them missing a save is a lot easier than trip dc's most of the time; it even works against low fliers!) and since they're still there the second round they get hit with the exhaustion stacking with the fatigue.

...

I guess the way I looked at it, you cast it, and the creature doesn't save, falls prone, and is fatigued. On their turn, they get up and move out of the area. Why would they be in the area after the first turn?

I might be mis-evaluating it, but it seemed to me like it'd just be small damage + Fatigued; admittedly, I've never actually used it in a battle, so I could very easily be wrong.

Since this method of casting is very DC dependent, and the shadow spells are so flexible, would you recommend the Spellslinger archetype for use with this? Four opposition schools won't matter so much.

That's an awful lot of work and significant downsides for pretty little reward. I mean, you lose cantrips, gain four opposition schools, and a spell per level (since you don't have a specialty school giving you an extra spell perlevel.) All you get out of it is that the line/ray/cone evocation spells have a higher resist - it doesn't improve the AoE ones or the utility ones (Light/Darkness/Grasping Hand/Telekinetic Charge/etc)

It's a good idea, and a way of improving the DC's that I hadn't thought of, but I think it gives up way too much for too little of reward.

I'm missing something as to why a Heavens Oracle would be any better than anyone else using Shadow Evocation.

I guess you are talking about this:

"Awesome Display (Su): Your phantasmagoric displays accurately model the mysteries of the night sky, dumbfounding all who behold them. Each creature affected by your illusion (pattern) spells is treated as if its total number of Hit Dice were equal to its number of Hit Dice minus your Charisma modifier (if positive)."

What is your angle on using the Heavens Oracle? If it is because you took the Spell Focus:Illusion Feats anyone could do that.

And as regards the original poster's guide, I notice that he worked his numbers with a gnome sorcerer, and assumed the sorcerer didn't have Spell Focus:Evocation. You get a lot of flexibility with the Shadow spell, that is the big draw to me.

Sunbeam,

Yeah, I was trying to figure out a way of demonstrating the numbers. The reasoning: There's very little chance of a caster having both Shadow Evocation and Spell Focus: Evocation. If they're dedicated enough for regular Evocation spells that they've taken S.F., they're probably not going to take Shadow Evocation. Likewise, if they've taken Shadow Evocation, they're probably never going to take S.F. Evocation.

As for the Gnome part, I was trying to mimic what most casters will have in terms of a bonus. Most people using Shadow Evocation will have anywhere between +1 and +3 (between being a Gnome, having Spell Focus, and having Greater Spell Focus.) +2 seemed a good estimation point - I could have easily just made it "non-Gnome caster with both S.F. and G.S.F."

We recently had a long thread about Shadow Evocation, as it turns out, so you missed something crucial for the daylight and darkness--the spells target objects, so they fail for the same reason as you correctly pegged wind wall as failing. Additionally, since you cast the spell, you have incontrovertible proof that the illusion isn't real and don't get a chance not to disbelieve, though you can certainly have other party members choose to auto-fail. I think that only hurts contingency much out of all of these.

Otherwise, spot on and great analysis.

Two things:

First, you *don't* have incontrovertible proof that a shadow spell isn't real - because it's not true; Shadow spells are partially real. In fact, you could just as easily take the mindset of "Shadow spells are 100% real unless you go out of your way to dismiss them with your mind" - after all, that just as accurately reflects how the mechanics work (and it accounts for why you can voluntarily fail a Will save to disbelieve.)

Hmmm.... maybe I do need to put the same section that I put in my Shadow Conjuration guide (the Zen Flavoring section.) It's a lot more relevant for Conjuration, but maybe there's enough for Evocation to warrant its inclusion.

Second, I'm not sure Daylight and Darkness fall into the same camp as Wind Wall. Objects/Creatures getting will saves simply affect whether the object/creature believes the effect is 100% real *just for that object/creature*. An arrow making a will save just means that the arrow "knows" the spell isn't 100% real. Same thing for a stone that you cast Shadow Light on. The stone knows the light that it's emitting isn't 100% real... but that doesn't stop someone from seeing the light coming from it as real.

You sound pretty confident against Goth goblins. What about Emo goblins or Hipster goblins?

My group was fighting goblins before it was cool. Now we fight a lot of Ansher Nightshrieks. You might not have heard of them.

Staves have issues mechanically. I don't want to discuss their pros and cons.

I am curious if anyone has any interesting staves they've made that they do like.

Personally, I have one I made that contains all the spells to safely use planar binding. It's a nice thing to have just in case. I'll post it when I'm not typing from my phone.

Actually, I have one staff that I really like to put in a wizard's hands around level 7 or 8. I call it the "Starter Staff"

Starter Staff
Hideous Laughter - 1 Charge
Silent Image - 1 Charge
Suggestion* - 2 Charges
Confusion - 4 Charges

* If you really don't like enchantment effects, this could just as easily be Glitterdust

... the thing that makes this staff so good? It only costs 8,000 gp.

That's because you're taking advantage of spells that a Bard gets earlier than a Wizard, but without the increased caster level coming into play (since staves have a minimum caster level of 8 anyway.)

From a Wizard's perspective, you're getting a staff with a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level spell on it - all of which are solid staple spells on a very bare-bones price. But when it comes to the actual price (with a bard having made it) :

400 gp x 8 x 3 x 1/4 = 2400 gp
300 gp x 8 x 2 x 1/2 = 2400 gp
200 gp x 8 x 1 x 1 = 1600 gp
200 gp x 8 x 1 x 1 = 1600 gp

... and another one. Shadow Evocation: More Than Just Blasts (A guide)

The Guide

The Discussion Thread

I've typed up another guide, this time for Shadow Evocation.

I'd appreciate comments and suggestions; I don't have the most experience with higher-level evocation spells, so some additional PoV on some of the spells would be nice.

The Guide: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5kvBvq2DEHjTVF4NEY4SXpSTUU

And it was recently discussed on another thread here that you can use Shades to emulate Create Lesser Demiplane.

That actually let's you do Mordenkainen's Mansion without all the servants and food. Plus no focus item. You can literally say "We are out of here, everyone hold hands." And it's a standard action unless Paizo added something to Shades I didn't notice.

Of course you have to come back eventually, but still.

Yeah, see, that's an example of something I wouldn't want to put in the guide, or at least without putting some *heavy* disclaimers on. I can't imagine this with any reasonable GM:

Me: I want to cast Create Demiplane.
GM: That'll take four hours.
Me: What?
GM: Yeah. You're creating your own pocket universe, after all.
Me: Okay. I'll use Shades and do it as a Standard Action.

... dunno. Maybe it's only a personal hangup of my part.

All right - I added a lot of material to it (including info about Shades and some GM Adjudication material.) And I definitely learned something (didn't know Shades was all Conjuration spells, not just Summoning/Creation.)

I'm hesitant about adding material that exploits a lack of Material Components, a Spell Focus, or a long casting time. As a GM, I would think long and hard about letting the Shadow Conjuration version remove those restrictions, even if it's RAW.

I had originally avoided doing anything with Shadow Evocation, because I thought it was too one-dimensional... but I'm seeing now that it has a few options available (Blasts, Walls, Utility.) It's not nearly as flexible as Conjuration, but it might be worth including.

I love it! I started a discussion on this just last night. Was that the inspiration?

Heh, no. Actually, the sad thing is, I've had this typed up in a less pretty format for about 5 months for my own personal use. Realized that, hey, maybe I should make it available for other people to get use out of as well.

Edit: Whoa, checked out the thread you're talking about, and I can definitely see why you asked. It even includes the same sort of discussion on "Can you purposely fail the will save."

Got another one for the compilations, though I'm not sure how you'll want to fit it in. It's not a guide for a class, but for Shadow Conjuration. It's also intended as a reference material for casters that have the spell.

Discussion Thread

The Guide

I've just finished a guide for one of the most underused and powerful spells in a Sorcerer/Wizard arsenal: Shadow Conjuration.

It's also a reference manual for the spell, giving a quick one-stop place to see what spells you can translate Shadow Conjuration into.

The Guide: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5kvBvq2DEHjR1dOeEVkRUU4WlU

Attack action: Roll d20 + Attack Bonus, Roll Damage, apply damage to target character.

Sunder as part of Attack action: Roll d20 + CMB, Roll Damage, apply damage to target item.

The Roll Damage part is left when Sunder replaces your normal Attack Roll with a Combat Maneuver Roll and targeting parameters. If there were different rules for rolling damage on a Sunder, then it would be more appropriate to say that the whole Attack Action is replaced. Moreover, it can simply be a case of "inelegant words". The whole book isn't written by a single person and many people will have different nuances as to how they write. Lastly, the word 'part' doesn't always refer to a subdivision of a whole. Sunder can have a part to play in the execution of an Attack Action.

I agree with the Inelegant words bit.

I really don't agree with the usage of Part you offered. That use of Part is as a noun, a subject. If the Sunder rules said "... opponent as a part of an attack action..." I could buy it. But it's not referring to "a part" or "a part to xxx", it's referring to "part of" - a portion of something. As it is, it looks pretty straight-forward in its writing: some portion of the attack action can be replaced by taking out a melee attack and replacing it with Sunder.

So it really comes down to which you think is more likely:

A) "Part of" is used inelegantly, being added despite being unnecessary and confusing.

B) "Attack Action" not referring to the Standard Action - Attack (method), but an action that is an attack.

Unfortunately, now I can't even make up my own mind. Both seem equally silly and confusing.

If A is the correct, why didn't they simply phrase it like Vital Strike? Why is the Monk's Flurry of Blows ability phrased like it is (or for that matter, why does the Monk get to flurry Sunders while the Fighter's Full Attack can't?) Why add "Part of" to sunder's definition?

If B is correct, why didn't they simply phrase it like Trip? Why is Attack Action used as a definitive phrase in Jason's post on Vital Strike, and why is Vital Strike use the same phrasing with "The attack action" instead of "an attack action".

Bah. I'm going to bed. And clicking FAQ'ing. And hoping the issue doesn't come up in any games.

Ah, k.

Proposal for you. Not trying to be snarky - legitimately offering a possible way of thinking about this:

Jason's usage of the term "Attack Action" isn't an exact match of the term "Attack Action" in the Sunder Rules.

Hear me out. When Jason refers to an "Attack Action" in his post, he's explicitly referring to a Standard Action - Attack (method). But that phrasing doesn't make sense with how the Sunder Rules are written. That'd mean the Sunder rules could have been phrased like:

Sunder: You can attempt to sunder as part of a standard action attack (melee) or standard action attack (unarmed.)

Which begs the question: what part is left? If that's all Sundering is, what part of the standard action is left over? Why did the rules for Sunder say "Part of"?

Seems like, either way of parsing this, something has to give. It makes a lot more sense to me that the phrase simply isn't being used in the exact same way, than it is that the Sunder rules have an extremely misleading phrase thrown in for no apparent reason.

You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Conditions). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.

I don't get the misunderstanding on the rules here. The wording that gives it away:

You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.

If Sunder can only be done as a standard action, it can never be "part of" an attack action. It would be the entire attack action.

Therefore, you have to be able to do a Sunder as part of a full attack action, because otherwise, that whole "part of" wording wouldn't make sense.

Another thing to keep in mind is: The rules don't have to be right. This is one thing that hung me up when I started DM'ing.

If nobody knows exactly how the rules work in a situation, don't bother looking it up on the spot. Just dictate something and move on - it keeps the game flowing, and doesn't break the players' experience.

Afterwards, you can look up what the rules should have been, and then before the next session, let your players know what the rules are.

So I've been playing a sylpe magus for a while and decided to try a human sorcerer in another game. We have a cleric, bard, fighter, ranger, and a rogue but no all around magic user. We're level two and I'm having a hard time trying to figure out feats, gear, and spells. I want to be a blaster human sorcerer still debating on draconic or arcane bloodlines.

Just have some fun with it. If your party has five other members, including a Cleric and Bard, a lot of the typical bases you'd need to cover is already addressed.

That said, picking up a few Necromancy debuffs will make everyone feel a lot better. Ray of Enfeeblement, Blindness/Deafness, Bestow Curse, Enervate, etc - that's something you can contribute that probably won't be done very well by other party members (Clerics typically don't have the ultra-high wisdom to really pull off consistent debuff effects.)

Stay away from the Enchantment and Abjuration spells. That way you'll give the Bard and Cleric something to feel happy about with their spellcasting.

KBrewer: This Guide is quite well put together. I haven't taken the time to review it in depth at present, but I might recommend attempting to make the guide more visually pleasing (perhaps with pictures). Formatting is key so that you're not reading nothing but blocks of text, which can make the eyes a bit weary. You're off to a very good start, though.

I would also recommend making a more in depth analysis of races; you've generally covered the basics, but many of the nonstandard races would work out quite well for this Cleric build.

Finally... finished spicing up the guide with some pictures.

Will be going over it the next few days with the additions people are requesting: races, alternative reach weapons, Big Game Hunter feat, etc.

Thanks for all the support! I'm glad it's useful and people are getting something out of it.

Set - the problem with those spells is they're low-level save-or-sucks... not the forte of a Reach Cleric. Maybe in the early levels, but it probably wouldn't be very long before hitting a DC=13 Will Save would be too easy.

jlord - I would probably say "no", mostly because most caster clerics usually have low physical stats to support a high wisdom (though I have no idea how your build looks.) Maybe your GM would let you tweak your character to adjust stats and swap out a few feats for Power Attack and Combat Reflexes.

Just a word of warning, though - you might run into tactical obstacles when trying to both heal during battle and still get attacks of opportunity. You'll probably have to put more thought and planning on how you maneuver in battle - and work with your intended heal target (especially if they're another caster.)

Hi all,

I am currenly GMing the Darkmoon Vale adventure series. We finished Hollow's Last Hope and Into the Haunted Forest. Last session we started Crown of the Kobold King.
Originally the gaming group consisted of 5 PCs. However, one player missed most of our sessions so far. I seriously doubt that this will change in the near future, so I plan to replace this PC with a permanent NPC.
Now I am not quite sure what class this NPC should be. I envision him/her as a purely support character who should not take the spotlight away from the PCs. More something of the buffer / healer type who remains in the background most of the time.

The group consists of
- gnome sorcerer 3 with the draconic bloodline (copper)
- oread druid 3(with earth domain, no animal companion)
- elf rogue 3(TWF)
- half-elf magus 2

What would make a good addition for this group? The NPC should be purely for support (buffing, healing, etc.) though. I am looking forward to your ideas.

Um, the group looks pretty squishy. Adding a pure support character might be a bad way of handling it. How about a Paladin with a relatively low damage output and good tanking abilities? That way the PCs would usually be the ones delivering the kills, but would be saved from having to be up on the front lines.

I've written a new guide to that I'd like to submit for inclusion. It's for a Reach Cleric - a kind of cross between a two-handed melee and caster cleric, with a different take on action economy.

Guide

Discussion Thread

I've written a guide to a different style of Cleric that I haven't seen covered before: A Reach Cleric.

Suggestions and Improvements are welcome; I'm hoping it can get added to the "Guide to the Guides".

The Guide: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5kvBvq2DEHjRWctNG05X0JINm8

Wanted to thank everyone that's helped out so far, and I've done a number of revisions/rewriting. The biggest one was Tark's take that, if I'm doing a focused guide specifically for one type of build, I don't want to try to be comprehensive on every possible option - just the good ones.

How do I go about things from here? Do I just start a new thread? Do I post in the stickied "Guide to the Guides" thread?

TarkXT wrote:

Eh, why not. PM me a link.

Same here. I might have some time available this week-end

PS : how will you want the feedback ? On this thread (which could get people interested in your guide even before they can read it) or through PMs (if you prefer some confidentiality)

Thanks for helping out :-)

On here works. While I'm not new to writing, I'm definitely new with writing a guide to Pathfinder - so I want to make the general concept/direction/tone of the thing is worth trying to put among the guides. Last thing I want is to burst into the 'Guide to the Guides' thread, say, "Look at this cool new guide!", and have the general consensus be, "Uh, dude, that character concept sucks"

Anyone willing to take a look at a new cleric guide and give it a read-through? I'd like a few people to look at it before submitting it here.

A little while ago, I heard from another player that having access to an extensive library might justify a character performing a second knowledge check where they've failed a time before.

I haven't found anything to support that at all, nor really have an idea where it might have come from.

Is there anything by the RAW that might allow one to retry a knowledge check?

Spells, maybe, that might allow a reroll? A significant enough change in bonuses? Anything of the sort?

I don't think it'd be a reroll, because it's not like the *Character* is having another chance to know something. It's not whether they know anything, it's whether that bit of info is in the library, and whether the character can find it.

Instead, I'd do it like one of the following:

Option #1 - Full Fledged

A) Determine, as GM, whether the library has the piece of information in question. Maybe it's by a "Take 20" by a level 8 expert with an INT of 14. In that case, would a Knowledge check of 30 succeed? Then that bit of info is in the library

B) (Optional) Determine whether the char can find it. Maybe an INT check with a DC=5 or DC=10. Depends on how well the library is laid out, and how obscure the info is.

Option #2 - Quick and Easy

Assume the info is in the library. Then, make the char do an INT check, with a DC ten less than the original Knowledge DC. Trying to determine a relatively obscure fact with a Knowledge DC=25? Then it'd take an Int check of DC=15 to manage to find it in the library. Not ideal, but it's a nice quick way of handling it.

So I've got 30,000 GP (and maybe up to 12,000 additional if I'm lucky) and want to spend it on a custom magical item. I'm a level 8 wizard and am looking to make some sort of gauntlet that will be used exclusively for combat or something that will have some useful applications all the time anyway.

Any suggestions about what I should do?

Combat gauntlet but I wouldn't mind utility if it warrants it.

A really boring, but incredibly useful, option would be to give them the Dueling enhancement (+4 to initiative, and other misc bonuses) for 14k, and then a +10 skill boost to Perception.

That brings you up to 30k almost exactly:

Dueling Enhancement: 14k
Perception Boost: 15k (100 gp x BonusSquared x 1.5 for multiple attribute)

= 29k, plus the cost of a masterwork version of what you're operating on.

... the idea being that wizards win battles if they go first and aren't surprised; they lose battles if they're surprised and have an init roll after the enemies. It's even got a good flavor to it - call them "Mage's Gloves of Preparedness" or such.

My favorite is to bend the fourth wall and actually throw a puzzle in front of the players (not the characters.) It's an easy way to break up a group of optimized characters, because it doesn't matter how well the character is built, if the player can't solve the puzzle, they're hosed.

For instance, I was DM'ing a mini-campaign that was modeled after a Zelda game (temples filled with a mix of puzzles and deadly monsters; with a magic item/spell they acquired midway through that would allow them to finish the temple and level up.)

On one session, they entered a series of ruins that held a crazed wizard that laid traps and puzzles everywhere. When the group entered one room, I pulled back a curtain which had been hiding seven paper cutouts hanging from a string and paperclip. Each cutout was six connected squares, sort of like tetris pieces. I then said,

"An inscription glimmers in the air before you in shimmering green letters:
Seven shapes float before you
But three of them are lies
And even the barest touch of the
three lethally electrifies
The four you need each make a cube
when folded in just the right way
Choose those four carefully my friends
if in the mortal realm you wish to stay"

... the idea being that they have to pluck shapes hanging from the ceiling and try to bend them into a cube. Four of them work; three of them do not. You can choose the amount/style of damage (or, heck, make it actually lethal.)

Another puzzle had them choosing from a set of ropes. Each rope looped around a bit, but both ends were taped to a piece of paper. They had to choose the ropes that, when they pulled on the ends, would result in a knot (some, when pulled, would simply result in a straight taut rope.

Anyway, if you're looking for something that's possibly lethal, this is a great way to do it, and the players will even love you for it. You've got complete control over the difficulty and penalties for failure, so you can easily dip it into lethal territory.

If he takes haste, maybe he'll get another two week's survival out of it, but I don't see that happening.

... wouldn't Haste just make it quicker? ;-)

The funny thing is, I don't even know if it's the spell layout - it's not a question of Haste vs Something else, or Grease vs Something Else. I get the impression it's the manner he's portraying/RP'ing his char. In my personal experience, I can bring a suboptimal character to the table and still get a good response, as long as I do two things: Make them interesting and get buy-in from the other players over the first few sessions.

And to be honest, the easiest way to get buy-in is to have a humble character. The weakest character I've ever played (Cleric 3 + Druid 3, working towards a homebuild Mystic Theurge for two divine classes) was beloved by the party - simply because she was a genuinely nice person that tried her hardest to do good and protect those around her - and one that was open in her admiration on the other character's acts.

It's awfully tough, as a player, to get pissed at the character who's paying your character sincere compliments. Betcha if that happened - Nives gets his life saved by the other characters and genuinely looks up to them and respects them - that a lot of his playgroup's complaints would vanish.