Kain Darkwind's page

I use atheist and anti-theist to differentiate between those groups, Brian, but I've definitely seen what you are talking about. All the same jerkish behavior, mockery and derision of 'your false beliefs' set against 'our truth'.

And what you are finding, Silverclaw, is that you are being painted with the same brush that you paint Christians and Pat Robertson with. A bunch of loud jerks became the spokespeople and ambassadors of your associated lack of belief.

"No, it's different because we're based on the truth. That allows us to act like dicks to our fellow man who disagrees with our truth."

Never sat well with me. Doesn't matter if you are trying to convince someone of Hell or global warming, you can do it without being a cock.

Kain Darkwind wrote:

I think a lot of you who are saying that 'Pat Robertson is mostly about the money' are wrong.

Basic psychology. If you spend all your time trying to separate the suckers from their money, it's probably all about the money for you.

The fact that it isn't all about the money for the marks, doesn't mean it isn't for the con-men.

It may not be for some of them, but it's a good default assumption.

Of course, the perks of adoring fans and minions who hang on your every word don't hurt either.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't apply to any other job either. High paid actors, professional sports stars, doctors, lawyers...all of them might be rich, but it would be premature to presume they are all in their respective professions merely for the money. Or that they are in it for their art, for that matter.

It also ignores the miniature versions. Are all pastors trying to become big and famous conmen like Robertson according to this philosophy? Or are they middle management marks themselves? Once they get a TV show like Joel Osteen (sp?) do they suddenly become money first hucksters?

I'm not saying Robertson isn't a conman, liar or any of that. I've just seen too many dogmatic individuals to assume that he doesn't actually buy into the bile he puts out.

I think a lot of you who are saying that 'Pat Robertson is mostly about the money' are wrong.

I'm Jewish, but I've seen firsthand, through Christian family members and family friends, just how pervasive the ideology they espouse can be. It's a community, like any other, but it is also threaded through with a doctrine of proselytization. There are people who will cheerfully spend their money, time and resources baking goods to sell to raise money for the church, or head into needy communities to lend a hand, because they really think Jesus wants them to. Then they will turn around and explain how if you come out of the closet, or play DnD, or fall in love with a Muslim woman or have sex outside of marriage, they will be forced to disown you. It's such an odd mix of conflicted personalities, there is no wonder that people leave the church in droves, or that the church frequently discourages critical thinking.

I don't think it's all about the money for Pat, anymore than I think it's all about the money for Billy Graham, Kenneth Copeland, or any of those others. They might be making a lot of money in their field, but to view it through a 'money first' is simply trying to make sense of something that does not make actual sense. People don't shoot up abortion clinics or bomb buildings because it's about the money. Why do you think the sowers of that hatred are about the money?

I've never really understood some of the behaviors or attitudes that come into this game. From things like "It is punishing a player if they lose XP when they die/don't gain XP when they don't come to the session/etc" to "How dare you get upset about a player drinking the milk in your house you told him to leave alone?", the mentality just seems foreign from how I was brought up to game.

Walking out on a lame game is somehow off limits? Why? There are more serious things that you can walk out on, like a job, and that's not off limits. Is it not ok to leave a ball game you aren't enjoying? A movie? In fact, it isn't even as much an inconvenience to the others as other situations. If someone agrees to go out on a boat ride, and then they get terrified and sea sick, do you just make them 'tough it out' or do you go back to dock for them?

Honestly, I don't really have a problem with a player walking for any reason. It might be immature, and they might be doing it because they're a little b***h, but oh well. That's their right if they choose to exercise it, poorly or no. And this isn't a vote from the player entitlement crowd, either. I'm a pretty strict DM. I won't have a drow soulknife in my game, and what I say goes. Doesn't mean I have command over the players beyond what they give me to stay in the game.

Inflicted it on my party. (Including Pete)

Came nowhere near killing the game, although both of the Voided players were close to leaving. Drastically altered the campaign though. Allowed me to highlight some places that I never thought I'd have to develop, introduce some elements of the campaign world to the players and much more. Excellent item.

Later on, the Dire Gamblers made an appearance, putting a spotlight on the PCs who survived the Void, which is unheard of in their circle.

Not for every campaign, nor for the faint of heart, but can be serious fun. I prefer the versions with less drastic effects though, just because it is difficult to get players to draw when they know the stakes are so high. (See above reaction for exhibit A)

Tooth faeries are from Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, I'm betting.

In which case, they'll be friggin' terrifying.

Artanthos wrote:

Neither person was entirely correct, or entirely wrong. There are, in fact, far few than 100 spells with significant cost, but 2/3 of those spells have costs above 250 instead of below.

The post itself is listed in a sub-forum devoted to 3E D&D, not Pathfinder.

I never said there were 100 spells with significant cost. You did. I never made any claims to that effect. I posted a number - which was wrong not because it was too high, but because it was too low.

You called my number 'crap' and declared 'shinanigans' on me without bothering to do even a cursory back check of the information. You made superfluous claims which were demonstrably wrong. Why is this hard to own up to?

Minor point of order, Abraham Spalding did that. Artanthos defended Abraham when I pointed out Spalding was incorrect. Art was misreading, I think, that Spalding's main argument was about 100 spells having 1k gp costs, when it was in fact, about the total.

Hmm. Sean, I like the idea of what you've suggested, but I would prefer it in a Monstrous Codex, along with sample alternate monsters, like the balor lords, or some good templated stuff, like white half dragon polar bears.

NPC Codex 2.

Full 1-20 alchemist, cavalier, gunslinger, inquisitor, magus, summoner, witch, plus 1-20 antipaladin, ninja, samurai is 10 classes, to the original codex's 11. Summoner's eidolon can be done in the same way the animal companion was. (20 builds)

Level 2, 4, 7 and 10 prestige class builds for the eight PrCs in APG gives us another free spot, since NPC Codex had nine. (4 builds)

Level 1-10 NPC builds gives us another section of 5 classes. (50 builds)
Level 1,7,12 PC builds gives us another section of 11 classes. (33 builds)

So that's 107 statblocks that were in the original that wouldn't be in the next one, assuming they were covered in the same manner.

Personally, I'd like to see archetypes start. Not 1-20 for each archetype, but maybe 5,10,15,20? Or some other way. For instance, there are 22 fighter archetypes between UM, UC and APG. 12 just in the APG. You could literally do a Fighter NPC Codex larger than the original NPC Codex, with nothing but APG fighter archetypes. That seems really excessive, and I don't know a good way to approach the issue.

This might sound off, but I'd like to see the NPCs built a little more to their CR, or their CR adjusted a bit better to their build. I've seen ACs of 13 on supposed CR 18s. Can we at least stop the formula madness?

Kain Darkwind wrote:

Abraham spalding wrote:

Peter Stewart wrote:

To reasonably be able to cast all core wizard spells at level 20 you need to set aside 115,910gp. Have fun with that number.

:)

Citation on that amount cause it's crap.

That would require 115 spells with 1k in expensive components, or 11 spells with 10k in expensive components.

You may issue your apology any time.

That is 45 spells, of which only 30 explicitly have material costs over 250 gp.

It is also a 3.5 reference. I'm not sure how many have had component cost updated.

First off, the specific number of spells is irrelevant, AS called Peter out based off his listed total price. Which is correct, as my link demonstrates.

Secondly, you bothered to make a claim about it being 3.5 without checking? Why would this make any sense? The man used Pathfinder to provide these numbers. Shadowsoul's point about symbols only increases the total value. On the other hand, a minor oversight hardly dismisses the work that went into generating the value. The missing spells and underrated costs only strengthens the argument against the Shrowiz and further buries Abraham's spurious claim.

Peter Stewart wrote:

Just remember boys and girls when stating up Schrodinger's Wizard that he in addition to having to pay to scribe every spell also needs to set aside money for components.. To reasonably be able to cast all core wizard spells at level 20 you need to set aside 115,910gp. Have fun with that number.

:)

Citation on that amount cause it's crap.

That would require 115 spells with 1k in expensive components, or 11 spells with 10k in expensive components.

Since there aren't that many (there are less than 100) wizard spells with expensive components in core and the vast majority are close or under about 250gp per casting, I'm calling shinanigans on you.

You may issue your apology any time.

You suck.

That's already actually happened to a player in the game...

Heh. I agree with you, Radiant Sophia. Feels like that all the time.

Kain Darkwind wrote:

Explain where you are coming from, why you want what you want, and approach the conversation from a direction that stems from the fun you get out of the game. For better or worse, some people just don't imagine that X might be that important or fun. Once you have an understanding of why X is important to the other party, work to achieve an agreeable compromise.

Good advice as ever. And, heh, that's a long list. Should I count myself lucky for getting away with just a blind eye so far? :p

I would not attach too much comfort to 'so far'. As you know from playing in the game from which that list was generated, I'm an overbearing and whimsical tyrant.

Kain Darkwind wrote:

Yup. Doesn't make it wrong though. And if the players disagree, the option to walk is always there. I'm not entitled to their presence anymore than they are entitled to my game. But in my game, there will probably be some jostling of their expectations and movement out of their comfort zone. Whether that comes from chopped off pinkies or antimagic cells or being knocked unconscious and imprisoned doesn't really matter.

Open communication keeps those instances as smooth as possible though.

If you at the start of the game are upfront about these possibilities then the players are implicitly giving you permission when they agree to play in the campaign. As you said it is all about communication and when things like this are surprised onto a character is when people get upset and resentful.

See, that sounds ok, but sometimes people have assumptions, and going into detail about every single one of those assumptions is too time consuming for the beginning of the game. Especially when people don't always consider their assumptions.

For instance, animal intelligence. I've been a big proponent of animals having Int scores over 2 for years now. (Rats have 14 and dolphins 12, thank you Hitchhiker's Guide) Whether you disagree or not is not the point. The point is that I assumed, based on my vocal expression of such and frequent messageboard posts to that effect, that my players would understand that's how I was running things. I was wrong.

Tangentially related, my player, who I was wrong about, also has assumed that eating anything with an Int > 2 is wrong, cannibalism, morally evil in all cases, etc. When he was confronted by my assumption on animal int being a given, his own assumption caused him to feel that he had been tricked into betraying his own moral code.

I can safely say that neither one of us would have brought up feelings on animal intelligence and cannibalism during a pre-game sharing session. It is something that arose within the game, and needed to be dealt with in the game.

When you agree to play a game with people, you are implicitly agreeing to deal with each others' own assumptions in a mature and mutually beneficial manner, rife with social compromise. It's just the way things work.

Kain Darkwind wrote:

Other times, I didn't care, because my players can be a stuck in their ways lot, and loosening them up some is good for them.

Have to be careful, this is dangerous thinking. Its self justification and its aggressive towards personal opinions and values.

Yup. Doesn't make it wrong though. And if the players disagree, the option to walk is always there. I'm not entitled to their presence anymore than they are entitled to my game. But in my game, there will probably be some jostling of their expectations and movement out of their comfort zone. Whether that comes from chopped off pinkies or antimagic cells or being knocked unconscious and imprisoned doesn't really matter.

Open communication keeps those instances as smooth as possible though.

Kain, you must be an incredible DM with awesome communication skills, because, honestly, I will feel fairly angry with some of those changes, but if the players accept them, I suppose there is no problem. But I'm pretty sure a great % of players will not accept something like that.

Like I said, some of the changes did not go over well. I am a learning DM, like any other. I make mistakes, as do my players. Sometimes I clearly underestimated the importance of X to the player. Other times, I didn't care, because my players can be a stuck in their ways lot, and loosening them up some is good for them.

But this isn't new. Conflicts like this are older than DnD. Ideally though, you deal with it in a spirit of cooperation, which is where both sides tries to make the other happy.

Without bothering to address the specific, seemingly growing and shifting goalpost original point, my take on the general matter is that, yes, a DM can change the player's character, both mechanically and fluffily.

The level of input a GM has vs the level of input a player has is determined by the personalities involved. A headstrong DM and conflict adverse player might have a very different ratio of input than a story-first DM vs a mechanical optimization focused player. There's literally a multitude of different priorities, personalities and playstyles that mesh here to create what ends up being played. Some players might walk if a certain line is crossed, some DMs might throw players if another is. And there's always compromise.

I've taken away things from my players before. I've changed aspects of their characters' fluff, appearance and physiology. Sometimes those changes were welcomed, sometimes they were requested, sometimes they were hated. As a list of things I can recall offhand that I changed:

Changed a rogue/shadowdancer to a shadow bloodline sorcerer.
Chopped off a mage's pinky.
Chopped off a two hand fighter's forearm.
Cut out a single eye from two different players.
Forced a barbarian level on a fighter.
Forced a sorcerer level on a rogue/wizard.
Made a character a father.
Made a character a bereaved father.
Caused a character to constantly be the target for all blood and guts that spill from slain enemies.
*Last two points also include a clause that disallows them from retraining those levels.
Provided a character with extremely powerful magical items which made up an outfit that looked like Aquaman's costume.
Changed a male character to a female.
Turned a character into kraken food.
Turned a character into a mummy.
Turned three characters into gods.
Turned a character into a worm that walks.
Turned a character into a weretiger.
Forced afore mentioned character into a hybrid appearance.
Turned a character's skin to glowing and eyes to black.
*Last two points were unable to be hidden via magic.
Informed players that certain attacks might permanently scar their characters beyond magic's ability to heal.
Docked a character XP and gold, including future rewards. Informed the player that the docked price would come out of any future character they played.
Oh, and I play an awesome DMPC.

So yeah. Lots. The more successful changes were not those that had the most successful justification IC (for instance, failing a save against lycanthropy or putting on a girdle of femininity), but those that had player input. Not player control, but input. For instance, possibly the biggest meltdown caused by the list above was due to the Aquaman costume, which was completely optional for the player to reject if he chose. Giving the player the choice between dressing like Aquaman and leaving the gear for another character, the player chose to use the gear and be furious about it. That's a fairly low level of DM coercion involved, and a 99% negative outcome. The second biggest meltdown came from the loss of the pinky, which scarred the psyche of the player and character alike for months. (Still hasn't been healed, incidentally)

If I was looking at the list without context, I'd definitely peg the forced levels, the change to shadow sorcerer, the DMPC or the docked XP/gold as the big offenses, but they've been fairly tame. Some even welcomed.

For any DMs or players involved in a situation where you find your expectations on control are being challenged, I urge communication between the two parties. Explain where you are coming from, why you want what you want, and approach the conversation from a direction that stems from the fun you get out of the game. For better or worse, some people just don't imagine that X might be that important or fun. Once you have an understanding of why X is important to the other party, work to achieve an agreeable compromise. Sometimes pushing people outside of their comfort zone is good for them. But it's a delicate balance, and best done with transparency.

I tend to agree with you, RD. I ruled it like that even when I thought the RAW said differently, but now I'm seeing that it supports me after all.

Which is a little ridiculous. I can dump a hundred doses of poison in the pie, and they have to make 100 DC 15 saves? I'd just increase the duration and DC automatically. Quicker and more realistic.

It means negative con +1. Death +1 hp does not equal 1 hit point.

One thing in particular I want to try to do with this book and Wrath of the Righteous is do away with the perception that devils are the sneaky and subtle and "intellegent evils" of the fiend races, but demons are just big lumbering stupid brutes.

A quick glance at demon intelligence scores is enough to dispel that, but for whatever reason, the idea that "chaotic" = "stupid" and "lawful" = "smart" seems to persist.

I'm not saying that devils aren't subtle and sneaky in their evils. I'm just saying that demons are as well, and the argument of which is the sneakier is not one anyone can win since both are really good at it.

I always wondered at those distinctions. Pit fiends can rip balors apart in hand to hand combat, even more so in 3.5 than PF. Regeneration, plus a nastier full attack routine than dragons can boast...oh, and they are stronger than balors too. (And more agile, intelligent and wise)

Pretty sure if you compare the CR 19 demon vs devil you'll see the same thing. Devil = brute, demon = sly.

Always struck me as strange that pit fiends were down and dirty with their natural weapons, while balors sort of rely on those weapons.

I enjoyed Mutants and Masterminds by Green Ronin. I thought it gave a lot of tools to help build your heroes the way you wanted, and keeps you strangely able to pit Batman types vs Superman types.

What a fantastic story. I really liked the artwork for this one as well.

You do amuse me. I call total BS on your "I'm a hardass GM and if you don't bow to me I'll kick your ass no matter if you're my own mother" attitude.

You (and many others) make every player/GM interaction seem like Kennedy vs Kruschev. I don't know why you feel a need to act that way on the boards, I have no doubt whatsoever that in actual social situations you actually act like a decent person who can chuckle at a joke now and then, even if its at your expense.

of course I could be wrong. It's possible you do view everything in the manner you suggest here. If so you are right, I sure as heck would not want to be at your table.

Probably somewhere in between. I'm known as a hardass and a joker, and it frankly varies from situation to situation. No doubt you have shades as well. My players have commented on my DMing before, on these boards, and I don't find their opinions off base.

One thing I don't have time for though, is disrupting the game. Withholding information from me at any time that I asked for it would be a disruption. Doing so because it was assumed that the player knew better than the DM how to use that information properly would be grounds for ejection. To me, that's just as disruptive as someone who flicks the dice before someone can see what they rolled, or who throws them trying to knock over minis. Since I am an old softie these days, I'd explain my position to a new player who was unfamiliar with that expectation, if it came up in game. But the position itself wouldn't be changing.

It's not really about kicking asses either. It's about making sure the game runs smoothly so that everyone can have fun. Not much a bigger deal than making sure that people run to first base rather than second or third when they hit the ball.

Ashiel wrote:

Meanwhile the critical hit aspect is a tactical consideration. Just yesterday I played in a game that had a random encounter with like 4 bugbears and an ogre. Several of the bugbears were wielding longspears and spiked gauntlets, the ogre was wielding a longspear and spiked gauntlets, and some of the bugbears were wielding shields and battle axes.

This is a great example of playstyle variety.

For me, I would regard it as super-metagame-tastic to have random ogres (intelligence 6) and bgbears (intelligence 10) employing tactics like reach-weapon+spiked-gauntlets to create a zone of death and would actually find it more tactically interesting to allow my 2nd level PCs the option of getting inside their reach.

Do you have issue with humans and dwarves (Intelligence 10) employing those tactics? Longspears are simple weapons, as are spiked gauntlets.

I'd be curious myself, about these well armed monsters, particularly if the setting was standard PF. I don't know that I'd lose immersion from it though. I'd probably want to investigate who is arming goblinoids and ogres in the area. Are hobgoblins building a fort from which to attack? A new warlord moved in?

Those are where my thoughts would go before I was doubting the possibility of expert monster fighters.

I agree with pretty much all of what you've pointed out to Ashiel, even if I think it is aside from the point. Clearly some people actually just enjoy playing the game, regardless of no challenge. I'm not one of them, and such a game would be very foreign to me...I would probably lose interest. I don't think I agree a single bit with anything the OP said, beyond the fact that triple 20 insta-death is a bad rule. I might have something drastic happen for triple 20 (like an attack that leaves an unhealable scar or such) but immediate death is hardly fun for anyone. That said, I have to scoff at the suggestion that it was invented solely for the purpose of ruining the game for the PCs.

Vaziir Jivaan wrote:

As can be said for 99% of the other threads...

Whatever works for you and your group.

-Vaz

Yep, exactly. If you want to play "Candyland" and call it Pathfinder and your group is happy with that, hey, it's all about your group having the most fun.

Sometimes my group just plays "Twister" and calls it a night. It's all good.

One point upon which we agree. Different strokes for different folks.

Glad I amuse you. You'd still get kicked from the game for acting like that, and I don't care if your 'greater context' displays this is an appropriate social interaction for your group. Your original post displayed a player who refused his DM information to which the DM is entitled. I'm not here commenting on your game, I'm here sharing about mine. That sort of "nuh uh" attitude isn't ok at my table. It's ok at yours, or it's a in-joke at yours, or some other such that makes it acceptable. Fantastic. May sharing our differing experiences and approaches better the gaming community at large.

Even if it's just a few chuckles on your side of the computer.

Edit: Also, I agree with Ashiel. Possibly a first.

See, I'm hearing the reason to do a hit point check is to cheat for the players, and not kill them. when I call for a hit point check, I could be doing any of the following.

1. Reaffirming my picture of the scenario is correct to my NPCs. Do they see bloody ragged heroes? Fresh unwounded warriors, despite having been in fierce melee?

2. Choosing my next target. Are the PCs fighting a merciful swordsman, or someone trying to teach them a lesson rather than kill? He's going for the stronger looking ones. Are the PCs fighting someone ruthless and bastardish? He's going for the guy at 2hp.

3. Making sure the players are paying attention. I let players track a lot of information on their own without looking over their shoulders. If they aren't producing that information when I ask for it, they need to know that they have a responsibility to the game.

4. Probably going to kill someone, and want to describe their falling in heroic terms, or call for massive damage checks, or whatever else is based on their hit points remaining.

What I'm not doing is going to put up with players stalling the game to try to power struggle. Either you trust me to run the game fairly, or you don't. If you don't, then find a DM you do trust, because I don't want you there. It will lessen both of our fun, which is the exact opposite of what this game is supposed to be.

A player who told me they would not tell me their hit point total upon being asked for it would be told to leave the game. I don't have time to play stupid power games with my players, and even if I was inclined to cheat for them, they aren't going to change that by 'hiding' information to which I am entitled as the arbiter of the game.

That said, I don't cheat for my players. Most of them still have their original characters. All of them have in some fashion or another, played a different character at some point in the game. Not a single one of them thinks that their character is somehow sacrosanct to me, even if the loss of that character would cause them to leave the game. Ultimately, we're playing a game, and one that has possible long reaching consequences within the game. If someone can't handle dealing with those consequences, then there are other games we might be able to play together, but RPGs don't seem to be one they're cut out for.

I don't consider that 'hard' mode.

5 years Active Army, mighty fine 14J. Air assault qualified, Recondo schooled and NBC trained as hobbies.

Dating an Air Force brat. Her pops is whatever you flyboys call the sergeant majors there. Air Master Chief Squadron Sergeant, or something.

I'm not sure I'd be any keener on rerolling at the table, and it certainly doesn't expedite high level gameplay.

Longer turns, complicated mechanics and anything that increases cross-referencing are antithetical to that goal.

Man, I keep falling for this stuff. Read the bit of story, get hooked, have to buy the book.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought there was a woman possessing "at least the powers of a 20th level witch/wizard" who sometimes shows up in the Dancing Hut.

I figured it was Tashanna/Iggwilv/Louhi

I'd love to see stats for Golarion deities, or their avatars. Not sure about the other pantheons though. Eric Mona has said he doesn't want to rehash DnD with Pathfinder.

Other than that, maybe divine servitors? Heralds, that sort of thing? I thought The Divine and the Defeated by Sword and Sorcery was fantastic. The Book of the Righteous by Green Ronin was another marvelous (even though stat free) book on deities and a pantheon. Anything of that level of detail would be fantastic.

The point of limiting it to 1/2 lowest class level is to discourage the dips for a purely mechanical advantage, and to support someone who is using serious multiclassing. If your character concept is a barbarian with a dip of sorcerer, you already are doing just fine within the PF multiclassing system, but if you wanted to be a real barbarian/sorcerer, the system tends to let you down. (Those who disagree should compare the pure fighter to the multiclass barb/sorc in the Rival Guide)

The 1/2 cap is the second mechanic I introduced to modify the "add 1/2 non class levels to your class". Before I mandated that your class levels had to be within 1 level of each other if you took the feat, or you'd suffer mechanical and in character punishment. But that excluded dippers from the benefits entirely, and I wanted both serious and casual multiclassing to be valid.

So your rogue 8/sorcerer 2 has 9th level rogue abilities and 3rd level sorcerer abilities, as a 10th level character. A more even split, rogue 5/sorc 5, has 7th level abilities in both classes. The sorcerer dip isn't useless, but neither does it advance much from a dip. A dedicated multiclass character gains more benefit, but at the same time, they have more delayed access to the highest level abilities.

Now, Pete Stewart's character actually doesn't have the 1/2 class level cap. I removed it just to see what would happen if a dipped class was allowed to advance. So far it hasn't proven problematic, although that might be due to the dipped class (sorcerer) highly overlapping with the main class (wizard). On the other hand, the game is fairly high powered, even for its level, and Pete's character would probably be game breaking at a different table. The cap keeps those things from happening.

I don't usually agree with Ashiel. He's almost 100% right about flight though. IC, it is fairly balanced against its drawbacks. Sometimes it is the right idea, sometimes it isn't, and casting fly is not "I win" in a game that has evolved beyond forcing the PCs to fix the bridge to cross the river.

On the other hand, I do find flight frequently game breaking. I use Maptool (we play online), and 3-D combat isn't well supported, making fly a bit of a pain in the arse to adjudicate. Anyone have any help for that?

Most of the time, the abilities that disrupt the game for me are the ones that force me to slow everything down. Detect magic, for instance, if I didn't think to provide myself with a list of all the magic auras in a given area. (Later arcane sight provides the same problem, only it is constant rather than with a 3 round delay) Or breaking through a wall that I didn't think to qualify as reinforced masonry or hewn stone.

Players 'beating' encounters is pretty low down on the list. It's there, especially if they aren't having fun because the encounters are too easy, but it isn't the meat by any means.

Kain Darkwind wrote:

My problem with fighters is that two of them dealt over 1000 points of damage to AC 50+ at 15th level, in a couple rounds. It makes it fairly difficult to have meaningful melee threats without suping them up beyond expectations as a result.

High level play turns into rocket tag with many classes. At this point, the wizard/sorcerer can one shot enemies with save or sucks.

Fighters aren't hard to beat(a lot of high level monsters have save or suck will save auras). The hard part is creating a challenging, fun encounter.

The encounter wasn't rocket tag, it stood up to the 1000+ damage through a combination of damage reduction and other damage reducing abilities. Neither the wizard nor the sorcerer in the party was able to one shot it at all. And will saves along with debuffs to save bonuses were employed, and the fighters still will saved through it.

The issue there is that it happened at all...pretty much keeps me from using the tarrasque out of the book, for example. Makes pretty much any NPC either dog meat or a walking treasure trove of even more unbalancing abilities.

I can deal with it, it isn't impossible, but it definitely makes encounter design tougher when one class can deal out so much damage in a single go. To me, that's the problem with fighters.

The difference is that once the cleric picks their deity, they must abide by the restriction. There is not a restriction on the creation of the character (unlike a paladin), but there is one on the playing of the character.

And I've found that in actual games played, character creation takes up much less time than the rest of the playing/campaign. As opposed to theorycrafting/internet games, where thinking up the character and backstory and statting it out might actually involve more work than any gameplay the character gets to see. That's just my experience, others may find it different, but a cleric's restrictions in play are just as real as a paladin's.

My problem with fighters is that two of them dealt over 1000 points of damage to AC 50+ at 15th level, in a couple rounds. It makes it fairly difficult to have meaningful melee threats without suping them up beyond expectations as a result.

I level them by age. My base line assumptions are as follows for my campaign world. This is for humans, not longer lived races.

+1 level = 10 years past starting age.
Highly ambitious (also high danger areas) = 1 level per 5 years.
Less ambitious (also low danger areas) = 1 level per 20 years.

So you've got most folks in their mid-20s as 2nd level, right on up to your 8th level 80 year old coot.

I posted about this over here on DF. Including stats for my 80 year old coot.

I've never actually seen a katana fanboy. I've seen plenty of anti-katana people, and plenty of accusations about 12d6 tank cutting power, but I've never actually seen a katana fanboy on any DnD boards, from WotC to Paizo.

The most I've seen are the people who argue, probably reasonably, for Japanese weapons/fighters to not be considered worthless and crap, against ARMA-type folks who argue that the European fighting dominance equates to rendering all other styles obsolete.

Euro-fanbois actually exist, but no katana fanbois. I wonder why that is, and why the perception is the reverse.

I might be thinking of the Heroic Array... Sorry.

& He is fairly strong and resilient. I mean he is broken through a door weekly and can grapple Bart pretty well.

He once fought Mike Tyson. (or some caricature thereof) His Strength isn't likely to be 8, and his Con is definitely higher than that. He got to the title fight by being simply too tough for his opponents to knock out, and then easily knocking them over once they were exhausted from hitting him.

Kain Darkwind wrote:

In Freeport, the 15th level commoner runs the Last Resort, a swanky hotel. Probably the highest level canon NPC I've seen.

Wait so there is a 15th level commoner in print.... what book is that in??

I want to say Freeport Companion? It is either that or Freeport: City of Adventure.

In Freeport, the 15th level commoner runs the Last Resort, a swanky hotel. Probably the highest level canon NPC I've seen.

Spoilers about Baba Yaga's daughters.

What implications does this have for Tashana's career and what does she do with her grandchildren?

I honestly thought that was a bit of a bummer, to be honest. Turning them into a world-plane spanning army seemed more interesting than the reality.

Does anyone else think that accurately doing those would require mythic rules or something of the sort to be finalized?

Paizo has an irrational love of fiction in the APs. It's not going away.

Irrational? The thread is filled with folks who really like it. Their customers, really like the fiction (the way they are doing a product) in the APs (their product the customers buy)

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Count me in as +1 to BP's idea. Half of my players are really interested in all of these things, and PF support for them would be most welcomed.

Question came up in my game, and I'm curious. Is the intent of the rogue advanced talent 'redirect attack' to allow it to only redirect a damaging hit, or does a 'melee attack' include making use of a combat maneuver, like disarm, grapple or sunder?

It has been two years since we wished you a happy birthday. I hope the boss gave you the day off! Thanks for everything and I hope it's really special for you, Lisa. It isn't every day a girl turns 30!

Sounds like a great idea. Surely believers in other gods will likewise resist the application of positive energy channeled by clerics of those faiths. Irori isn't going to heal the followers of Erastil.