Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Angvar Thestlecrit

Kolokotroni's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. 8,511 posts (8,539 including aliases). 18 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 8,511 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Xexyz wrote:
I can't remember if coup de grace worked differently in 3.0/3.5, because my players continually insist that you can't coup de grace a helpless opponent who is adjacent to an ally.

I am pretty sure this was never the case, however I do believe it provokes. Thats about it. I think most people just dont like the idea of not being able to intervene in that situation.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Xexyz wrote:

Couple of things:

1. I will say that I find these boards have a fairly strong anti-GM attitude.

2. The most annoying thing about these boards is when people don't bother to listen. I see lots of posts where people are looking for advice within the context of some guidelines or constraints (such as wanting to play a certain race or be a certain class) and people will skip right by that and offer useless suggestions as a result.

1. If by anti gm, you mean gms are not treated as unapproachable infallible gods...then yea I guess you are right. The paizo boards are actually fairly balanced in the overall opinion. The thing is, by now MOST experience gamers have been on both sides of the screen. And a great deal of the entitlement on both sides (as a player and a gm) gets mitigated by the universal experience.

In the end there is an Anti Jerk sentiment. If you are being a jerk, whether a player or gm, you get called out on in these boards. For the most part, gms have the most influence over a game, so they have the most opportunity to be a jerk. Chances are thats why you have your impression. Either that or you think gms are still infallible, unquestionable demigods whose every whim needs to be catered to. Then I've got nothing for you.

2. I can agree here. In the end, everyone plays their own way. And there are so many uncontrolled factors in a given game/group for there to be some kind of universal consensus. It's important to listen to the OP when trying to help them. Because often, our assumptions on what works within a given situation will be altered by the poster's game group.

Simplest example is the whole rogue thing. Without question, the rogues potential ability to do stuff is less then every other class. But that is only an issue if other classes are meeting their potential or close to it. If the optimization of a group is low, then there isn't a need to say 'rogues suck dont play them' because it isn't an issue. It is often worthwhile to point out alternatives within the same theme just so the poster can make an informed choice, but the truth is, there are no universal truths of gaming. Group adopted conventions can change every single factor we hold sacred in our insulated world of forum discussions. We talk, debate, and theorize in what amounts to giant gaming clean room. The actual world of gaming (besides possibly pfs) is contaminated (this isnt meant to be a negative, just an extension of the clean room metaphor) with all sorts of factors that alter what we can talk about here.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
lemeres wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
Casting comes online faster than wildshape for a druid
While this is true - you have no wildshape abilities at all for three levels - a druid with maxed out physical stats can make a competent melee fighter (with an animal companion and some utility spells) during this time.
and what kind of casting can a blaster druid do at the low levels anyway?

Snowball (also staggers), flurry of snow balls, thundercloud, flame sphere, flame strike, etc., etc.

But as always, their spell list seems more about control than direct damage. So there are plenty of debilitating spells they get early on.

I was actually thinking about this a bit. Snowball if allowed definately amps up the druids blasting ability. I would almost certainly take magical lineage with it, and just make snowball your go to spell until significantly later in levels. Ofcourse many people arent a fan of snowball, since its better then other low level blasting spells by a significant margin, but then again, I think thats probably ok since blasting is on the weak side of casting anyway.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It sort of falls back to why so much discussion on the boards is mechanical instead of on flavor/roleplay things. We dont have a universal experience on such things. We can give advice on how to handle the mechanical side of things, because we share that. But much of what makes a 'great' gm is intangible things.

For some that might be funny voices, props and elaborate maps/3d terrain for encounters. Other people might find one or all of those things obnoxious and immersion breaking. Some people want the gm to be an enabler, fascilitating a player guided story, where the truely fun moments come from players creativity as opposed to an in depth pre-planned story, others want a detailed focused story that tells like a grand epic novel, with the players acting as characters in, as opposed to drivers of, the plot.

Alot of it is probably natural charisma and speaking/acting skills, the ability to improvise, and the ability to tell a good story. You cant really teach those things outside of something like formal acting classes.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Captain Marsh wrote:


Maybe so. I'm open to the idea of a community effort.

On the other hand, if the folks at Paizo thought this through they might say, "Huh. We're trying to market a game that requires on a good table experience and word of mouth to build fan base and the primary portal for that is great DMing. We better help make sure we have awesome DMs out there."

They might then say, "Look, the truth is, we don't have the right people on staff right now to lead this effort. We need one person in our organized play department who is a) interested in elevating the art of DMing to a consistent good level, b) is a good teacher with a strong ability to use the message boards and other tools, and c) is a well-known talented DM with a reputation for wowing people at the table."

Seems like that would be a good hire to make.


There is sort of a problem with the entire premise of organized dm training. The same attributes wont be positive in every group. Gaming is very much a case of different strokes for different folks. Depending on your style and preferences, different traits or behaviors will have different impacts on a group. You cant teach 'good dming' because there is no universal thing for good gming.

The only thing you can do is be prepared, pay attention, learn how the game works and establish open communication with your players on what produces a fun time and what doesnt.

In order to teach waht a good dm is, you have to define what a good dm is. And baring, knowing the rules, being prepared and being enthusiastic about what he is running, I doubt you are going to get any kind of universal agreement on what behaviors/traits make for a 'great' dm.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just to give an idea, the firarm rules basically classive each category of fire armo (revolver, automatic pistol, rifle, carbines and shotguns into light, heavy and massive categories. Thus keeping things generic enough to not need to define the difference between a Glock and a Barretta 9mil. The heavy and massive weapons deal more damage, but most also have a +x value. So like the base damage ofa heavy revolver is 1d8+2. This damage is basically an addition to the weapon die, but also is a strength rating, you take a penalty to attack if you dont have strength enough to deal with the weapon's 'kick'.

The also have a new combat maneuver for automatic weapons, called burst: If you beat the cmd of a target you hit, for every 5 you beat it by, you get an additional hit on the target. It doesnt attack touch ac because in a world of balistic armors that isnt necessary and you dont want to throw the math of the game on its head like ultimate combat firearms did.

For armor, they have given specific armors, that have a normal AC rating, and then a rating specifically against firearms. So for instance a balistic vest gives a +3 armor bonus, but gives +6 vs firearms., where as reinforced balistic armor (hard plate armor) the difference is less (+6 for everything else and +8 vs firearms). This is because different armors will be more or less effective against different weapons. Remember that not all modern armor is like the body armor regular patrol cops wear, some of it is more then effective against blades and blunt weapons (look at what swat cops wear for instance).

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Are you familiar with the Anachronistic Adventures by Rogue Genius Games? The are a set of modern slanted classes that fill out much of the traditional archetypes of character (besides magical characters) and the enforcer has some pretty good rules for modern firearms that doesnt invalidate non-firearm combat styles. In addition they have a bullet point with modern armors.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This feels like the domain of an archetype or maybe a chain of feats. If the player has to invest class resources in order to do it, it can be balanced. The 3.5 feat is a good starting point, a feat lets you activate the 2 wands as a full round action. I think there should also probably be limitations on the caster level of the wand. This shouldnt be a way to back into more powerful spells then a caster of your level could normally cast without considerable investment. For instance, a 7th level caster can cast magic missile with 4 missiles. With the metamagic feat empower (certainly duable on a 1st level spell at that level) it can have 6 missiles. So set up your archetype or feat chain with similar limitations. If you do that I think there isnt a reason why this cant be kept balanced. I mean, in the end its still just magic missiles. Sure they hit automatically, but they are just 1d4+1 damage. 6 missiles is an average of 21 damage. At 7th level, an archer can dish out 3 times that pretty easily.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

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

I am not sure its a flaw. Its just human psychology. People want the next new thing. They look forward to it, they think about it, they plan for it. Then they get it, and its awesome, and then they want the next one. Thats why I like things like adventure paths. I would rather the pace of advancement be tied to a story. Then when that larger story is finished, time to move on to something new.

The kind of advancement that comes from levels is important to me at least because its alot of what we do. Without the new cool thing to play with, eventually a character gets stale, doing similar if not the same things over and over (in terms of mechanics).

In a long running e6 game my group is playing, we certainly have a lot of roleplay. But by simple measure of how long it takes, combat is still a big part of what we do. And most of the time for my natural weapon ranger, that is approach, then start clawing things. It gets old after a while. And because the game is E6, not a whole lot of that is going to change over the long term. Thats alot of time (in real life) doing something that becomes less and less interesting each time I do it.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

as stated if the spell does hit point damage and requires a ranged attack (including ranged touch attacks) then yes, it works.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Assuming we want campaigns to run about the same way, 100 levels would just mean more granularity in abilities. We could easily split up hp, skill points, saves, attack bonus and class abilities into different 'levels' but at that point, you start stretching the value of a 'level'. It would be impractical for levels to continue scaling as they do now, even in the current system, high level play becomes problematic. I am playing in a wrath of the righteous game, we are level 14 tier 6 and I'll be honest, the power isnt even fun anymore. The numbers are so absurdley inflated that its more or less silly. You would go way beyond that if you did the normal scaling of levels up to 100.

So really, the question wouldn't be can you, it would be why? All it could possibly do is stretch out existing content, and we can do that with slow progression of xp. 20 is certainly an arbitrary number, but it works as well as any other.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
lemeres wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
I dont think druids actually make good blasters do they? They have a relatively limited selection of blasting spells, and virtually nothing that adds to it. What options actually help a druid blaster?

Well, domains for one. They could just grab the fire domain and grab all the usual culprits.

But helping blasting spells directly? No, not really as far as I am aware. They can turn into elementals though, which can be a massive defensive boost. A wind elemental with flight, bonus to dex and natural armor, and DR5/- seems like it would be rather nice for a caster, no?

I mean sure, those buffs are great, but they dont really make you a good blaster. And yes with domains you can pick up a few blast spells, but still, all your class abilities tend in a different direction. You are sort of fighting the tide instead of going with it. Blasting in and of itself isnt particularly effective unless you focus on it, and the druid doesnt really give you any options to do that. Yes you can multiclass to get the damage boost, but just doesnt seem worthwhile to me. If you want to be a blaster, play a class that is good at blasting. That isnt really the druid.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I dont think druids actually make good blasters do they? They have a relatively limited selection of blasting spells, and virtually nothing that adds to it. What options actually help a druid blaster?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bsctgod wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Oracles are like one of those flashy sports cars with no back seat and a boot the size of a wellington. You struggle to carry groceries, can't carry more than one passenger, can't carry groceries and a passenger at the same time, and get lousy gas mileage. They're powerful, but a sedan or van or wagon of pickup/ute is able to actually fill the purposes for which people own motor vehicles. An oracle is the class you tack on when you already have all the roles filled.

Roles are overrated.

Roles are overrated in the strictest definition. But at the end of the day, SOMEONE needs to do each of those things, at least at the basic level. If the divine caster isnt the guy capable of removing diseases, curses, negative levels, ability damage etc, then someone else has to do it. Same thing for all the other basic roles. In a large party that matters less, but in a campaign that includes a wide variety of challenges, and is not more then 4 people, being able to do the basic thing that is needed of your 'category', is important.

And if the oracle wants to fill a role, he has to devote a lot of resources to it, really the super oracle that some people consider the standard, isnt going to be the reality for a lot of actual groups where the divine caster needs to be able to be the divine caster.

The oracle sort of has the opposite problem of the summoner. The summoner is too easy to optimize. The oracle, while powerful when optimized, has a very low optimization floor compared to most other classes.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Physically Unfeasible wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Without them, its not pathfinder, its 3.75.
Triphoppenskip wrote:
As someone stated above that's what made Pathfinder really start to feel like it's own system rather than D&D 3.75.
I find these two comments rather odd, as the overwhelming selling point of Pathfinder is that it's a continuation of 3.5.

I'd argue is was a selling point. Definitely is no longer. Sure, compatibility is still there but the game is just its own recognizable beast. It has a large swathe of features all its own.

As has been pointed out, the APG came with a set of new classes. Classes that while not turfing over all the mechanics of 3.5, introduced new ways to play in the system.

For me it being a continuation of 3.5 was important in lots of ways. First and foremost, it was the same style of game. I like that style game. Early on, it was important to be able to use my 3.5 stuff to augment what I had for pf. That is ofcourse less of an issue now, mostly because I like the space that paizo forged with pathfinder even more then I did in 3.5.

And thats sort of the point, starting with the APG, paizo began to forge their own path. It was still the same style game as I wanted, but it was something new also. They showed they werent just going to go through the motions of retreading the 3.x ground we had effectively seen twice before. They did things their own way, and I liked that. For me, the flagship of 'their own way' were the 6 base classes introduced in the APG.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well basically what paizo said, was its not viable to do compliations of all their adventures, or do it with any kind of regularity. But theres a reasonable chance we could get another hardcover for certain special events in an irregular fashion. People cant be 'expecting' all their favorite adventures will eventually come out in hardcover or they wont buy them as they come out. But its fairly likely we will eventually see another hardcover.

Crimson throne is probably the most likely, but I personally would love kingmaker. I would buy that in a heartbeat without skipping a beat on my ap subscription. Particularly if it included some updates and fleshing out. I think kingmaker, despite its use of subsystems and non-traditional format has become the second most popular ap (after RotRL ofcourse). Would be a fitting 10 year anniverary hardcover I think.

I also wouldnt mind another kingdom building ap but thats another conversation entirely

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Buri Reborn wrote:

I can understand the thought behind Core. I'm just curious why they didn't open it up to let groups create their own leagues rather than forcing a literal "all or one" bisection.

The whole point of pfs is that anyone can sit down and play with the same rules anywhere. If like individual venture officers could create their own set of 'acceptable material' that falls apart pretty fast. You couldnt bring your pfs character from one group to another.


In response to the OP, base classes released since the apg. Particularly the Alchemist, Inquisitor, Oracle, Summoner, Samurai, Witch. For me the APG is what made pathfinder actually its own game, and the 6 base classes were (in my opinion) it's flagship. Without them, its not pathfinder, its 3.75.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Buri Reborn wrote:

If it in fact was a b#@!@ fest, then calling it such is perfectly fine. They were bickering at each other. It wasn't just him or his player. They were both at fault. There was nothing wrong with that phrasing.

This isn't some public flogging arena where you can freely "correct" someone either.

I am not trying to flog anyone. My point is that if one wishes to prevent problems in any social interaction you have to actually own your mistakes. Calling it a b**** fest regardless of what actually occured is deflecting blame. Mind you, its completely fine if you want to blame the other person. But that isnt taking responsibility for your own mistake. You cant be defensive AND take responsibility at the same time.

If you want to resolve the conflict, and you genuinely feel you were in error, then step one is to stop criticizing the other party's reaction to your error. Thats basically conflict resolution 101. You cant say "you know im really sorry about what I did, but also, you are totally out of line being upset about that thing i did. I mean i was wrong, but you shouldn't be upset." That doesn't work.

The player was clearly upset by the OP's actions. And I think probably not unduely so. Exactly what constitutes a b**** fest is sort of impossible to sort out short of getting a trascript of the conversation and somehow coming to a consensus of what kind of reaction is appropriate in a rules dispute(effectively impossible). If the OP wants to either A, get the rules right/make an informed pre-game houserule on witch hexes in his game, or B get the player back into the game/smooth over any issues, then the simple act of calling the reaction of the player something obviously inteded to paint the player in a bad light is a step in the wrong direction.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yea i dont find this overly cheesey if the players actually set up for it. Have them get a custom saddle for hodor style riding, and I dont see why it should be any different then any other kind of mount. If the ratfolk was on a pony he could do the same thing. He wouldnt even need to reduce himself. Maybe slightly increase the difficulty of ride checks due to the humanoid form...thats about it I think.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
McDeadeye Jones wrote:

that is correct, i did not say "Sure it works, we'll look it up later"

I discussed with him in skype, which then moved into our game chat, which upset me, because i prefer players keep arguments out of open mic. Afterwhich, i said your right for now, i will look it up later. so please stop b@%%$ing. (because by then, it was a b&$*@ fest, ruining everyone's fun, not just his and mine)

I take complete responsibility for not handling it better, as well as not knowing the rules of his class better before allowing a high level witch into my campaign.

I am not completely sure you are taking responsibility for it. People who take responsibility for something they handle badly generaly accept that the other party had reason to be upset. Calling it a b**** fest isnt acknowledging that.

And this is sort of the point, you did something that was objectively wrong (namely houseruled a non-ambiguous ability on the fly based on a gut reaction to something you didnt completely understand). You can take responsibility for that, and own your mistake or not. But you cant say my bad, and then be annoyed that your bad caused a negative reaction.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
McDeadeye Jones wrote:
Appreciate the information everyone. I'm not looking to "Shut Down" the Witch, just ran a game last night in which i was under the belief that certain creatures were immune to compulsions and mind effects. I was told that it would say under the description of the spell if that was so. When I tried to make a ruling of 0 for the time being so that we could move on, he became extremely nasty, and started acting horridly in the party, even after i had ruled that his way was right for the time being, until i could get more info on the matter. He left the game.

While he certainly shouldn't have been nasty, its pretty understandable for a player to be upset when a dm tries to re-write rules in the middle of a session to a players disadvantage. This wasnt a ruling, this was a house rule. That should always be presented before the game. If you want to make all witch hexes compulsions that is your business as dm (they are not in the rules as written, only specific ones are), but a player should know that upon character creation, and if its a change during a campaign, he should have the option of altering a character appropriately.

Particularly in this case, constructs are immune to just about everything a witch can do, as they are principally debuffers, with very few spells without spell resistance. Misfortune is probably the only thing the player could have actually used during a conflict with one or more constructs. In essense, you were houseruling away, on the fly, his ability to participate in the encounter. I can definately see being upset about that. And if the dm wasnt apologetic about doing so later on, I probably wouldn't play in that game.

The one thing I always say about rule zero is it should NEVER be applied in a way that prevents a player from meaningfully participating in a significant portion of the game. No matter how much something doesn't make sense to you as dm, the time to reconcile that is not in the middle of the game, especially if it means the player effectively sitting out an encounter or two. Your job as dm is to fascillitate a fun and interesting game. Telling a player he cant use the one abilitiy he has that actually works in a given situation isnt doing that.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
chaoseffect wrote:
One thing that disappointed me with what you have here is that it doesn't address the fundamental problem with throwing builds: Mandatory Blinkback Belt or you need as many +X expensive magic daggers as you have attacks. Perhaps in place of Thrown Weapon Training a mechanic to that applies the enhancement and magic item abilities of the first weapon thrown to the others that follow it, with the flavor being that the blades are coming so fast that they almost blend together. That way only one pricey weapon would be needed and the rest can just be whatever. If a limit is needed you could make it so only a number of attacks per round can benefit from this effect and have that number scale as per the weapon training you currently have, but also have a grit use to apply it to all attacks for a round.

Another option might be to have an enhancement pool similar to the magus but one that applies to every weapon you throw?

Its one of the reasons I dont think a gunslinger archetype is the way to go. In order to account for the needs of the thrown weapon master, you probably need a bit more design space then one for one trades with the gunslinger.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Elder Basilisk wrote:

I suppose the question would be two-fold:

1. How many options are there for the Sword of Uberness to be truly Uber when the standard numerical +X options (and presumably DR penetration as a function of that +X) are off the table?

Presumably at least some of the other party members are going to want some nifty weapons throughout the course of the campaign. And the sword swinger probably would like one too--"I'm the paladin, so I don't get any special weapon until 75% of the way through when I find the holy avenger" doesn't sound like a terribly attractive option. But if the rogue has a +0 keen rapier, the cleric has a +0 axiomatic mace, and the paladin was wielding a +0 flaming sword in the interim, what do you have to give to the sword of Uberness in order for it to seem Uber? The normal holy avenger is +5 in the hands of the paladin, sheds a magic circle against evil, and grants dispel magic at will. That serves to distinguish it from the +1 axiomatic mace that the cleric has, but the big difference is the +5. The magic circle and dispel magic are relatively minor abilities since they are easily duplicated by abilities that the party has possessed for seven to ten levels. So in order for the +0 holy avenger to not be underwhelming compared to the other options, it seems like it will need more special powers than it normally has in order to be uber.

In my game at least, the keen rapier or the holy mace IS the sword of awesomeness. The bulk of awesome comes from the character themselves, and the simple abilities on a weapon would be the unique thing in the world. Aquiring every magic item in my game is a plot point, or a significant event in a characters story. It is also unlikely for everyone in the party to have a magic weapon, unless i had 4 fighter types. Generally I include items tailored to the character. As an example, in my rise of the runelords, after the first adventure, the fighter had a keen rapier (he was a duelist type), the inquisitor exorcist had a rod which aided in the exicing of possed peoples, the rogue had a robe that produced an infinite supply of small throwing weapons. And the alchemist had a special beaker that allowed him to combine two alchemical weapons into one.

Each had a name, artwork, and a history. I created item cards for each. It was a long time before they encountered any other permanent magical items.


The other alternative has traditionally been to rely on the numerical plus in order to represent Uberness. The sword of Kas, for example, was +6. Since you normally can't get there, it represented uberness even if it was not really that big a deal. But that option would seem to be completely closed off in the no numerical plusses system.

The mechanical +x was necessary to represent uberness because the default was already magical items. If mundane items are the default, lesser magical items befome the uber item.


2. If you do significantly expand the powers, is there enough design space to be Uber without being overpowered?

Well yes there is. If for instance there was a holy mace, that also added 1 to your level with cure spells, and allowed to cast augury once per day, then its not really adding lots of power in any one place. It does a lot, but it isnt overpowered because each thing affects a different aspect of the game.


When dealing with a sword of uberness, those two factors are ordinarily rather challenging (witness the abject failure of at least two legacy weapon design systems--I lost track and stopped paying attention after that). Do you think you have an answer with the reduced design space you have created?

Yes, see above.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Hoover wrote:

Basically 1st level, 1st adventure, players don't want to think, use skills or do anything overly hard. They want the combat intro, they want to explode into violence and see what their party is made of in a softball encounter so they can gauge how well their powers work together.

There is a reason for the convention that most 1st level encounters are softballs. 1st level characters are exceptionally fragile. A single critical hit from a bow can outright kill some characters at first level, from full health to -con in one shot. They also have far fewer resources to undo what is done to them. Where a cure light wounds spell is hardly a worry at say 3rd level. At 1st level that might be one of two spells the divine caster can cast that day.

So yes, tactically complex encounters at 1st level are fairly rare. That is, with the assumption that you DONT want characters do die. If character death is a non-issue, then no big deal. But for many, that want a coherent story with character development, and intertwining plots, you need consistent characters. Given how easy it is for 1st level characters to die, it makes sense to employ softball encounters in the beggining.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:


In my general experience it boils down to "We roll some Sense Motive checks and ask it some questions" not "We all murder each other" but maybe my experience is atypical.

Any other fine folks who have binary games where the alternative to "Follow everything that even vaguely looks like a plot hook without question" is "Game collapses on itself instantly" every time?

One of the dms in my group has this problem. Often if we roleplay even a little rational doubt, the tenous excuse he comes up with to get us to do something seems completely absurd. His hooks are often fairly weak, and attempts at a pseudo sandbox game. The end result is often a lot of faffing about (as in 8 real world hours worth in one marathon session) where nothing gets done, if we dont latch hard onto any hooks we actually notice.

I find that sandbox type games, or investigative type games have this problem pretty frequently.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The biggest single issue is the value of armor and natural armor going down dramatically. This messes with alot of the fundamentals of the game, which is why i really didnt like that aspect of the firearms rules even if its historically accurate.

I dont really agree that modern tech is any more dangerous then magic, an explosive isnt much different then a fireball spell in the grand scheme of things. If you can dodge that, you can dodge the bomb. But the firearms and touch ac thing is a big deal. And adding spells and enchantments that repel it is sort of just a tug of war kind of thing and wont end up with a balanced game.

If you are going to have firearms be common, I think the best route is to simply assume everyone will be without armor. Talk to your players about it. If desired there are a few 3rd party options you can dig up to help with non-armored defense. So that everyone and there mother isnt attacking a perpetual 10AC or everyone doesn't have to be a monk or something similar.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cuup wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Everybody seem to be saying the only alternative to "Follow the unknown, dangerous creature into its cave without even questioning its motives after it conveniently shows up to lead them along in a forest where they're investigating disappearances" MUST be "Kill everything in sight".

I posit that the far more logical alternative for most intelligent beings is simply "DON'T Follow the unknown, dangerous creature into its cave without even questioning its motives after it conveniently shows up to lead you along in a forest where you're investigating disappearances" or at least "show caution while doing the above".

"Not automatically assuming everything that doesn't try to gank them immediately is friendly" is not the same as "Being a murderhobo".


Of course my plan wasn't for the PC's to kill the first Vegepygmy on sight. In fact, my plan was for them to do exactly what they did - follow the Vegepygmy to the cave. If they did attack it, I had a plan for that. My expectation was for them to question the creature's motives when it brought them to a dark cave with its friends guarding the entrance, and not allowing them to use torches. If they hesitated to go into the cave, the Vegepygmies would have begun acting much more hostile, and the true nature of the situation would have revealed itself organically. While the last thing I expected was for them to follow their new best friend into a dark cave with bells on their toes, I also planned for that.
My concern on this thread is whether or not I gave them enough information to suspect something was wrong. I do like the suggestions that I should have left some evidence outside the cave (there's plenty inside). Leaving dozens of trails of footprints from others doing exactly what the PC's did was a good idea too.

All you told them was that the vegepygmies dont like light, and that they guard their home. That isnt threatening. There are dozens of light sensative creatures that are completely civilized. And living in caves is hardly an odd thing in a fantasy world. Dwarves live in caves.

If you want there to be evidence of something sinister there has to be actual evidence of something sinister.

Edit: Remember you are the dm. Your perspective is basically useless to figuring out how much is enough evidence for players to figure something out. You already know the solution, theres no way for you to know what clues players will notice and which they will shrug off. Its why mystery type adventures are extremely hard to pull off in any kind of non-mechanical (skill check) way. Again unless one of your players is ACTUALLY a detective, or some other kind of investigator, theres no telling how good they actually are at that sort of thing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

For the most part, if the players arent picking up on the tone you want for the game, the only way to fix it without risking blowing up your game is to talk to them about it. As if you were trying to play a game, meant to be fun, with your friends.

There are lots of impressions players bring to games. What seems obvious to you might not seem obvious to them. I've played games where things like kobolds are murderous pyschopaths, trusted allies, harmless tricksters, or dangerous but reasonable enemies. That means its not a simple matter for me when encountering a kobold in the first session of a game in a setting/campaign im not sure of to judge how to take a kobold offering what appears to be a peaceful alternative to open violence.

Talk to the players about how you envision the game going. Maybe try to come up with a hint system. Something as simple as letting players mvoe skills around to up sense motive, bluff, and knowledges might do the trick. For instance a good knowledge role might have given the players information on how vegepygmies are formed via russetmold, and that following them to their lair, is probably not a good idea.

Players are not trained investigators (unless they are ofcourse), picking up subtle cluse without prompting may not be something they are easily able to pick up, and doing so with years of playstyle baggage from other games could make things even harder.

Wanting players to 'play smart' is fine. But just remember, you probably dont want them to turn into insane paranoid murderers. If they feel like they can never trust the impression they get from you, the game will cease to function smoothly. I cant tell you how many games have simply stopped, because hte party literally felt like they had to search every 5ft of a dungeon for traps or risk horrible death.

Consider in the future, prompting skill checks, letting them take 10 on simple checks. That sense motive was important, why not let him take 10, and give some minor description. Important details players need to figure out the course of action you expect (like the cheif probably has an alterior motive) isnt something that should be left to chance, or to players recognition skills for that matter.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have a question for you. Is there a particular reason you are basing this on the gunslinger? I ask because I made a very effective thrown weapon character with a slightly different theme using the Talented Monk from rogue genius games.

Basically, the talented monk lets you pick a weapon group (including thrown weapons) to get the expanding damage, flurry and full bab with. It even has rules to combine it with the talented rogue (including the ninja) so it could be charisma based for ki, wear light armor, have good skills, and flurry with thrown weapons that all scale in damage as if they were the normal monks unarmed strike (note the only limitation is you cant combine both the offensive options of the monk and the rogue, so no sneak attack and flurry).

Not saying this is a bad idea. Was just wondering if maybe that might be a better base to make a thrown weapon master.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

One option that a gm in my group went with to give some of the mythic feel but not go overboard was to give specific mythic abilities peicemeal out to the party.

He chose specific mythic abilities and powers to give out to each character that suited them. Basically we got surge, mythic power and one of the chosen 1st level abilities for a relavent path. But we didnt get all the hp, mythic feats etc. You could give out a few specific things that offer options instead of just extra numbers, and it will have less of an impact on players steamrolling normal encounters.

For instance the fighter being able to jump in the air and attack the dragon isnt really going to be all that different to ending the encounter then him pulling out a bow (all things being equal ofcourse) but it does give that mythic feel. You can trickle in certain abilities as you see fit, that way you can keep things roughly at the power level you would like.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If you primarily want to be ranged, then i would make dex your best stat

Str 14
Dex 18
Con 14
Int 13
Wis 16
Cha 11

In terms of feats, as (I assume) an archer, point blank shot, precise shot, and rapid shot are must haves. The remaing feat (or two if you are human) can be something else, but those 3 are more or less required for an archer.

In terms of your companion, in general the big cat is probably the best choice, in terms of a combination of effective and not completely outrageous.

For teamwork feats, coordinated shot, and distracting charge are great to work with your companion, with the companion going into the fray and giving you advantages on your attack.

Another thing people are not always aware of, you can give your animal companion custom barding. (Its described near the end of the equipment section of the core rulebook) and you can give them the armor proficiency feats. This can be a massive boon to their defenses and really make them a tough nut to crack (dont want your animal buddy getting killed right?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cinderfist wrote:

Do you all as DMs, really have this much trouble balancing encounters if you don't slave yourself to the wealth by level tables? I'm genuinely curious because i've never had this problem, or never to the extent that adding in an extra monster doesn't cure any balance issue.

If you insist on the existence of the big six as absolute must haves and a pc uses all of their wealth to acquire them... does your campaign really go all to crap if they get a pair of magic boots on top of it? or an adamantite dagger and a cache of potions?

I've seen a lot of posts about this, but I'm just not getting how it's such a dilemma for other Dms if they deviate from the WBL table.

A little above or bellow, no its not a problem. Its when you significantly diverge, or a significant portion of that wealth doesnt go into useful items that there is a problem. Mind you this problem only starts getting particularly problematic around mid levels and only gets severe at high levels, where items can make a dramatic difference in the ability of a character to function.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Elder Basilisk wrote:

The items still affect the power curve if they are useful. The +0 keen rapier is a lot better than a +0 normal rapier--especially for a duelist. The cloak of the arachnida still confers a number of useful abilities and immunities that make a character with one more powerful than a character without such a magic cloak. Adventure long enough and your characters will still look like a Christmas tree even if their items a brooch of shielding, a cloak of the bat, and a +0 rapier rather than an amulet of natural armor, a cloak of resistance and a +3 rapier. And most players will still ditch the +0 keen rapier if the opportunity to get a +0 vorpal rapier pops up.

True, but its not the same core need in order to remain competant at your job that hte +x items represent. In addition, as mentioned, once they have them in my system, thats it, there isnt a new thing to get, they arent there to get. And there is a difference between power and versatility. My concern is that the math pans out. The +x items represnt someone's chances of success or failure. A clock of the arachnid doesnt affect that, it just offers other options. Its nice to have but it isnt neccesary.

And again you are sort of missing the point of rarity. There isnt going to BE a a succession of more powerful items. The party in my game is only going to encounter a handful of items over their entire career. They wont light up like a christmas tree because they wont have access to the number of magic items that would permit it. Someone that has 4 magic items at mid to high levels, isnt going to light up. They will instead have a few magical tricks up their sleave, but the remainder of their ability comes from the character themselves. That is what is important to me.


As to monetary wealth, even without the ability to buy magic plusses, I'd be disappointed in any player who can roleplay "the wealthiest guy in town" without actually managing to get a mechanical benefit out of it. What, he doesn't want to bribe anyone, threaten people (do you know who I am?) hire an army, or build a castle? So, what does he have the gold for then?

First of all they can, there is even a system to manage it. Its in ultimate campaign called the downtime system. Want to bribe someone? No problem. Buy or earn influence, spend it as mentioned in the rules. Poof, mechnical, and meaningful benefit in place.

What it wont do is determine your combat power. A bonus on some skill checks related to your position in the local city, not a problem, being measurably better able to stab/shoot/blast things because you have more money is the problem. Bill gates shouldnt be the worlds best soldier on account of his wealth.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Elder Basilisk wrote:

Wealth and power cannot be decoupled unless wealth/power are effectively destroyed.

If your character gets a bunch of gold or magic items, do you really want the result to be, "great, now I've got some flavor, but I can't spend this gold or use this magic item to actually do anything in game?"*

Things can do something in game without being a directly numerically beneficial item. For instance, a cloak of the arachnid is both flavorful and meaningful. In addition, if you decouple magic items and wealth, you can make each individual item meaningful. Frodo didnt turn sting in half way through his adventure for a sting +2. Its all about how you use those items. And if they are appropriately rare, you then only need to include items that would actually serve a purpose. You also dont have to destroy the power aspect, if you replace that power with something else (inherent bonuses players can choose from as they level), so the power curve remains untouched.


Recognize that complaining about the Christmas tree effect is actually complaining about the presence of useful and effective magic items in the game. There are only two options to eliminate that:
1. Don't have any useful magic items. "You find a +3 backscratcher. No, you can't use it to kill more orcs, but it does scratch an itch really well."

That isnt true at all. For instance, a free hand fighter in one of my games, discovered a magical sword, that sword was a rapier with the keen property. It had not +x attatched to it because that +x comes from elsewhere. But a keen rapier is still useful to a duelist stuff. And it was all the more meaningful because he kept it. For the whole campaign. And it remained useful.

Most people who want to deal with the christmas tree remove +x items entirely. They instead have items like a brooch of sheilding, a cloak of the bat, and all those other items that normally get completely ignored if they are in the belt, shoulders, head, amulet or ring slots.

It is possible to be useful without giving a numerical bonus to a specific statistic.


2. Useful magic items do exist but the PCs can't get any of them. "You defeat the evil lich king, and get a few copper coins, and a pair of rotten boots. With luck, you won't starve to death before you reach level 19."

Actually this frees dms to give as much or as little wealth as they like. Someon can be wealthy as a story element without having an actual mechanical advantage. If I want to be the adventurer son of the richest man in town, my dm has to explain how those millions of gp I have access to dont translate into powerful magical items in the normal rules. In a decoupled game, I can gain as much wealth as I want without throwing off the game. GMs can actually be more generous, and let players live lavish lives if the story calls for it, without players turning around and using that wealth to throw off the power curve.


Now, you can make the game playable using either of those options by adopting a numeric bonus system as some others have suggested, however, as long as there are useful magic items in the world and players can obtain them with wealth or violence, you will still have the Christmas tree effect. The fighter who gets his +5 "items" from level based "no magic items" adjustment is still going to be stronger if he has a cape of the Montebank, a ring of freedom of movement, a helm of brilliance, a rod of rulership, a sash of the war champion, boots of speed, a ring of wishes, and a potion collection than if he doesn't have those items. And if he gets an item or two every time he adventures, he'll still acquire quite a collection of items by the time he's got a dozen adventures under his belt.

Thats why items are not purchasable, and are rare, priceless and hard to get. In my system, a player can expect only a handful of items over the entire course of his career. And they will all be story appropriate, and generally designed with a specific character in mind.

If the players only encounter a handful of items over the course of their career, then no one will be loaded up with them. I think in my last game each player had 4-5 items by the end of their career, and many had a specific purpose, and consequently werent always in use.


The reason that the Christmas Tree effect has been present in every edition of D&D is that getting cool magic treasure is actually a part of the fun of the game. The Christmas Tree effect is just a derogatory name that people coined to describe the results of that fun.

It results in a certain kind of fun for some, and not fun for others. Obviously it is not for everyone, but it is not outrageous to wish that hte bulk of many characters ability did not come from their gear. And you can still offer rewards and treasure that has meaning via non-numerical items, that while useful, dont directly contribute to power.

And I have found at least, that the reduced frequency with which items appear has lead to the receit of each item to be all the more fun and exciting. Ofcourse everyone is entitled to play how they want, but the christmas tree effect isnt some kind of attempt to take away fun from some, it is an attempt to improve it for others.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In this particular case, any libertarian who isnt completely blinded by a hatred of the existance of government should support the outcome. If you believe in free industry, then it is necessary that the government protect the means by which people interact with that industry. The internet is in some ways more vital then our roads at this point in terms of innovation and industry. A very small group of companies control the bulk of that vital infrastructure. The purpose of this ruling is to prevent those companies from picking and choosing who can use that infrastructure and for what purpose.

Imagine if all roads in the country were toll roads. We all paid a certain amount to drive on those roads, interact, travel, conduct business. What was being proposed by telecom companies was akin to ford and general motors dictating who could drive on those roads, and installing, Ford only lanes, while every other type of vehicle crammed into the space that remains.

I cant imagine a greater nightmare for someone who believes in free industry then to have a small group of people dictating who can or cannot travel freely. The policies the telecom companies were beggining to enact, and were proposing, were exactly that. They wanted to dictate who could or could not effectively do business on the internet. And while you may not trust government to act completely in your best interest, you cant honestly tell me you trust comcast or time warner more can you?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ramlatus wrote:

The local shops only have organized play on Wednesdays and Saturdays, both days I work and thus can't participate. The days I do have off the shops are dead. I mean that I have sat in the shop hoping other gamers will come in for 4-6 hours in hopes of finding a game and no one comes in. Not sure how the shops stay open. I am new to online gaming, but willing to play online even with my hatred for electronic dice rollers.

It is unfortunate but more and more local stores are no longer a meetingplace for gamers to find eachother. I would recommend looking through things like meetup, or here on the gamer connection forums. Alternatively, for pfs specifically you might want to lookup and contact your local venture officer to see if there is any way to get an organized game on a different date, that you are actually free. The benefit there, is in theory, whoever played that day would likely be able to game with you regularly. At the very least the venture officer might have knowledge of different groups in the area that might be looking for new players.


I not sure if I want to continue with Pathfinder. It take soooo much work just to make a character. At present I spend between 15-20 hours making a nonspellcaster character. Add another 10-12 hours for a spellcaster. Part of this is that I just take a long time to make a character, but the shear volume of material I have to sift through when making a character is massive.

Step one, if you are just starting out, dont plan a character from 1-20. Plan like 1-6 (unless a game is starting at a high level). You really arent meant to plan a character all the way through, and often characters are more interesting if they develop organically, as you play. A non caster should take literally minutes to put together at low levels, and many casters hsould only take a little more then that. Dont drive yourself crazy looking through every bit of material. Stick to a few sources close to your concept. (Ultimate magic for casters, ultimate combat for fighter types for instance).


I play RPGs for the social aspect of the game. I want to meet people and make friends. A weekly game would be my preference, but some short games would work for everyone to get to know each other. Organized play will have to do if that is all I can find, but don't like the generic nature of the games. I also am not a fan of always playing with new people never really getting to know any of them.

Thoughts, Suggestions, Help?

Personally I always prefer a home game to organized play. As you say, I like the social aspect of gaming, and that is hard with a rotating group of pfs. But, pfs can help you meet gamers in your area. Many of them also have home games running, in addition to pfs. Basically you just need to get your foot in the door. Try the gamer connection section of these forums, and also contact your local pfs venture officer. There are people out there that want to help you get in a game, trust me, you just have to make that initial contact.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
chaoseffect wrote:

Would you happen to have a write up for the system you use? I'd be interested in seeing another take on the idea to maybe steal for my own game.

I do in fact, though its an earlier draft. Not much but a few specific exclusions have been altered. It can be found here

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ive also used a sort of innate bonus system in my games. Almost all magical items are tied to choices characters make as they level with more powerful ones being available later. This keeps all the customization more or less in tact. And even offers a few additional options.

In addition the only items that can be crafted by normal means are potions, wands and scrolls. Permanent magical items are rare, and effectively priceless.

Magic items appear where it makes sense in the story, and are generally something a player keeps for their entire career. Money is almost entirely a story element, since while useful, scrolls/potions/wands are not a major portion of a characters power.

I am very happy with the results.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Dervish dance and slashing grace both require you to use the least effective combat method (one weapon, nothing in off hand). Agile drastically increases the cost of your weapon over time. There are significant downsides to using it. If deadly agility were the norm, that changes rather drastically.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Is there a reason you want it to be random as opposed to planning a couple cave ins/mud slides/earthquakes/sudden rain downpours?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
alexd1976 wrote:

Making the summons take a standard action AND giving extra hitpoints adds a powerful feature to an already powerful class. Having thousand faces be the thing being replaced seems a bit... cheesy.

Adding the ability to apply templates brings this ability right to the brink of broken.

Not game breaking, but makes me nervous. I wouldn't allow this as a DM, but that's mainly cause it isn't Paizo.

That being said, looks like a very cool archetype. Would consider playing.

Again this functions identically to the archetypes in the Advanced Players guide excpet its a type of elemental instead of bears or felines or whatever.

Basically the point is to allow the player to summon a single creature at any level of summon natures ally. Though the creator here tried to be clever and screwed it up. It should be changing the size of elemental to move it up or down one spell level, it should be applying the giant or young templates to move it up or down one level.

It should read:

Totemic Summons (Su): At 5th level, an air shaman may cast summon nature’s ally as a standard action when summoning air elementals. Summoned elementals gain temporary hp equal to her druid level. She can reduce the level of the summoning spell by applying the young template to an air elemental. She can also increase the level of the summoning required by one by applying the giant or advanced templates to a summoned elemental. She may increase the spell level by two to apply the giant and advanced templates at the same time.
This ability replaces a thousand faces.

So you can summon a small elemental with the young template applied as a Summon natures ally 1 spell (instead of SNA 2). Or you can summon an elder elemental with the giant and advanced templates as a summon natures ally 9 spell instead of SNA 7.

You arent gaining anything there, the higher level spells summon more powerful creatures.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
JonathonWilder wrote:

@Cap. Darling

I believe elemental empathy and elemental transformation replace the spellcasting that is lost for 'specializing' in a single element. I would rule that Elemental Shamans can only cast elemental related spells of the element they specialize in. At least, as the DM that is what I assume.

As a Fire Shaman you can cast only elemental spells with the fire descriptor and summon fire elementals, as a Water Shaman you can cast only elemental spells with the water descriptor and summon water elementals, exc. Perhaps though it only applies to summoning, that could be out it balances out. That is how I would rule it.

As written, theres no requirement to only cast spells of their prefered element, they are just BETTER at certain things with that element. These are all effectively identical to the other shaman archetypes for the druid (starting with the bear shaman in the apg).

Theres no restriction on only casting spells with your chosen totem or only summoning your chosen totem.

The balancing factor here is, first, that you lose options in natures bond (in terms of power, the animal comapion is leaps and bounds ahead of the domain). And your wild shaping is less effective except when turning into your totem. The 2 most potent class features of the druid are reduced in capability. Thats more then enough to balance out some minor transformations (all of which are more or less replaced once you can wild shape) and standard action summons of 1 thing. In the hierarchy of druids being baddass, this is down pretty far on the list.

Edit: I wouldn't allow the feat though. There is already an elemental focus feat. It only adds +1.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
claudekennilol wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Aside from the whole size thing, the thing I find the biggest problem about bringing mounts, specifically a horse into a dungeon is hooves. I remember one game where we literally spent 20 actual minutes in a low level game figuring out how to get a players horse out of a put trap. It was a dc 10 climb to get out (just meant as a minor inconvenience during a fight), but the horse simply couldnt climb out. Mind you, the dm could have handwaved it after the combat, and instead chose to turn it into a problem solving test, but there are lots of such situations in dungeons where not being able to climb is a serious problem.
A single rope would have solved that problem.
Funny thing, no one in the party was very strong, all were small sized. We had rope. It didnt help. No one could lift the horse.
You can drag 5x your maximum load. Step on top of the horse ('cause it's only a 10' pit and it's a horse) tie then rope around the horse. Then drag, don't lift. Between all of you small sized, if four of you have dead average strength you can drag a total of 1500 lbs. If there were less of you, someone had to have had a higher str than 10. Horses top out at 1500 lbs. And if your entire party was large, what were you doing with a full size (large) horse? And if it was a medium mount, you would have actually had way less trouble.

In this particular case, the person who had the horse had (with the dms permission) decided to go with a horse despite being a halfling. Was based on some character he had read of in a book? Not really sure. And the dm ruled (not unreasonably I think) that it wasnt push/drag weight, but lift off ground weight that mattered when pulling something up with a rope (so only 2x maximum load). It was a party of 4, all small sized 3 characters had a negative strength, and one had slightly above average. All were dex based or casters. Ended up with like 600ish in lift capacity I think?

Obviously this was pretty uniquely inconvenient, but the problem is still relavent. Even if you could tie a rope to it and haul it up, that loss of independant mobility can be a serious problem in certain encounters.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
claudekennilol wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Aside from the whole size thing, the thing I find the biggest problem about bringing mounts, specifically a horse into a dungeon is hooves. I remember one game where we literally spent 20 actual minutes in a low level game figuring out how to get a players horse out of a put trap. It was a dc 10 climb to get out (just meant as a minor inconvenience during a fight), but the horse simply couldnt climb out. Mind you, the dm could have handwaved it after the combat, and instead chose to turn it into a problem solving test, but there are lots of such situations in dungeons where not being able to climb is a serious problem.
A single rope would have solved that problem.

Funny thing, no one in the party was very strong, all were small sized. We had rope. It didnt help. No one could lift the horse.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just a bit of reference for those that normally dont like conversions but dont mind painting, Reapers new bones line is amazing for customization. Plastic is soooo much easier to convert then metal. I wanted a natural weapon human ranger, and it took about 30 seconds to take a harpy's claws and glue them onto a 2 weapon fighting warrior with a bow (valeros' bones pathfinder iconic). Weapon swaps are literally trivial with that plastic, and if you are careful you dont even need to green stuff gaps.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Aside from the whole size thing, the thing I find the biggest problem about bringing mounts, specifically a horse into a dungeon is hooves. I remember one game where we literally spent 20 actual minutes in a low level game figuring out how to get a players horse out of a put trap. It was a dc 10 climb to get out (just meant as a minor inconvenience during a fight), but the horse simply couldnt climb out. Mind you, the dm could have handwaved it after the combat, and instead chose to turn it into a problem solving test, but there are lots of such situations in dungeons where not being able to climb is a serious problem.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

YOINK! Thank you for this. Cant wait to see what goodies my inquisitor can pick up on my next tier.... I reading Mythic Bane correctly? Should there be a 'While using the bane class feature' in there? Or does this actually intend to make a mythic inquisitor an always awesome death machine?

Either way...thank you for this, I appreciate the quick turn around since the core mythic class features. My mythic inquisitor will use them well to push back the hordes into the worldwound!

And yes I would definately buy a hybric class mychic options product. Mostly because I like completeness (I am still waiting for that upgraded/updated favored class options product :P) and would want to have it available for all the classes if its available for any. There arent any hybrid classes in my current mythic game, but that is more a function of the fact that most of them were made before the book came out then anything else. I'd definately want to have it for future use.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malwing wrote:
The Golux wrote:
Out of curiosity, for those who think this is overpowered, how would you feel if it was not compatible with Power AttacK? Since, you know, you're not getting your damage from power.

I think its overpowered in a vacuum. Dex does a lot of things and even if it's not doing as much damage as Str builds dex to damage still makes dex too versatile considering everything else it contributes to. In the context of more feats existing that depend on Str so that it can do more things than just damage. I allow it and a plethora of other dex build support in my games only because I give Str builds some more versatility as well so you could reasonably dump either or at least not have to rely so heavily on both.

But its not terribly compatible in the first place. You still need 13 Str for Power Attack and even with Piranha Strike in the situation you still don't have the ability to get extra damage from two handing it. But I don't think anyone that things its overpowered are arguing that dex to damage outdamages str builds. (well except for the case of the Magus. I tried it out twice and Magus is really really good with dex to damage.)

I dont really even think its overpowered at all. I just dont like that it devalues strength as a viable stat. The main drawback of being dex based as a combatant is the loss of damage. If 2 feats effectively mitigate that to the point where you are an effective (meaning you do enough damage well enough to be the combat guy in a normal party of 4), then the fact that a 2handed strength build does a little more damage is irrelevant. The target is 'enough damage to do your job' everything past that is just gravy (and a function optimization, and modified by lots of difficult to isolate issues revolving individual games).

On the other hand, particularly at lower levels (where the martial characters generally shine the most), being the heavy armor guy often is a disadvantage. Until you find a way around it your lack of mobility makes a difference. I remember 1 game where the party had a stealthy witch, a rogue, and a stealthy barbarian (kinda odd but stick with me on this) and 2 paladins. The first 3 often scouted ahead with the paladins following from out of sightlines. More then half the time, the encounters were nearlly finished by the time the paladins clunked their way to catch up.

I also cant count how many times a simple dc 10-15 climb or acrobatics or swim check, which is either completely irrelevant or nearly so to a dex based character was a 20 minute (in game) stoppage for the heavy armor person as they took off their armor, attempted the check, put their armor back on.

Yes certain magic items can eventually mitigate this to a degree, but there are so many limiting factors there, including not the least of which that tons of tables play without a large degree of freedom in choosing items (go look and see how many 'low magic item' or anti magic mart threads there are...i'll wait). It just isnt the same as having a feat to sure up a primary disadvantage. Not even close.

As a result, I do think the benefits will outweight the costs to the point where we will see strength go the way of charisma. If you really want it, you can take it, but unless its specifically tied to your class/concept, you are going to mostly ignore it.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:

Nobody in heavy armor cares about skills.

Ok, you're THAT kind of player.

The kind of player that suggests a heavily armored knight is not the usual archetype to be flipping cartwheels or picking pockets and locks?

How scandalous.

By that same token, its rediculous to think that a tiny waify guy with a pair of butter knives can do comparable damage to someone like the mountain from game of thrones with an unreasonably large sword.

The 'this doesnt fit' comment works both ways.

The comment about strength feats is basically saying that if you are going to give 2 feats that let dex to strength's thing, then there should be feats that lets strength do dex's thing. Though honestly, I'd be satisfied with a feat that removes the armor check and speed penalties for armor and one that lets you add str to dex skills.

And no magic items dont fix this any more then the agile enhancement fixes dex to damage. Not all games have free access to various magic items, or has them at all. If feats do it for dex, they should do it for strength.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Despite the fact that is used often I am pretty sure Unholy isnt actually a game term in the context of spells and effects. The term you are looking for is profane. As in a profane vs sacred bonus. Or Negative energy vs positive energy. Unholy is literally just a descriptive word here. That said, either its a badly placed descriptive word, or they did indeed drop the ball when writing it.

If you took out the word unholy, the spell would be an interesting if somewhat lackluster evocation spell, but would still make sense.

If you look at actual evil spells. They have far more in them then a single descriptive world to make them evil. Take this example.


Unholy Blight:

You call up unholy power to smite your enemies. The power takes the form of a cold, cloying miasma of greasy darkness. Only good and neutral (not evil) creatures are harmed by the spell.

The spell deals 1d8 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 5d8) to a good creature (or 1d6 per caster level, maximum 10d6, to a good outsider) and causes it to be sickened for 1d4 rounds. A successful Will save reduces damage to half and negates the sickened effect. The effects cannot be negated by remove disease or heal, but remove curse is effective.

The spell deals only half damage to creatures who are neither evil nor good, and they are not sickened. Such a creature can reduce the damage by half again (down to one-quarter) with a successful Will save.

If you take the word unholy out of there, it still seems like an evil spell doesnt it? Aside from the additional description of 'cold cloying miasma of greasy darkness, the actual spell does evil sounding things, that are worse to good characters. That is an evil spell.

Honestly, if I were the gm I'd say cross the word unholy out of the description and move on.

1 to 50 of 8,511 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.