Kolokotroni's page

You shoudlnt allow someone to take pieces of a paizo archetype without the whole. They aren't designed to be replacement class features. The designers have explicately said that sometimes a weaker ability is given at one level in exchange for a stronger ability at another.

The problem isn't the prestige class itself, it is the problem it tries to fix. Multiclassing spell casters. Without re-writing the magic system you cant fix this.

What you can do is play this 3rd party class. It is everything the MT ought to be, and it does so in a reasonably balanced and effective way. It is also available on the d20pfsrd(as the magister) website if you want to check out the details. But basically, you choose 2 spellcasting class spell lists, and take spells known from one normally and they other at one higher spell level then normal. You can from level 1 play the kind of character you want, and do it without jumping through the hoops that the system forces multiclass casters.

By all means flavor it however you wish. Just remember if you are only doing heroic distinctions it only covers a portion of the expected player wealth. Glad to be of service and I hope it works well for you.

rkraus2 wrote:

There's something to be said for actually earning your xp. That's how it was done, exclusively, back in the day. And it was very common to have PCs of different levels in the same group, for the same reason.

Maybe a lot of the posters above feel that this is WAY less fun. Maybe it is. But the definition of 'fun' is going to vary from group to group...

As I recall back in the dark ages of 1st edition DnD:

We could have a 4th level character in a 7th level group and he could still survive (as long as he wasn't a wizard) and contribute. It seemed to often be the case that there was a huge scatter in levels. For one thing the different classes leveled at different rates and got different experience for different things. The rogues seemed to be almost twice the level of the wizards for example.

I'm not sure exactly when that changed, but at some point it seems to have happened. Now if I try and have a level 4 PC in a level 7 group, he will probably die and is unlikely to contribute much of anything unless he is a buffing support character.
Example a level 4 bard can still use his group buff and cast some individual buffs that will help some even if not as much as a level 7 bard. But a level 4 monk that gets into melee with level 7 opps is probably going to be dead very shortly since his AC and hit points are probably not high enough. His BAB is too low to hit all that often. And his damage will be lower.

The structure of the game was different back then. If you remember in first edition, the 'classes' did not level at the same pace. Characters who did each and everything together were not expected to be the same 'level'. But in the current game, things are far more standardized. Hit points, saves, attack bonuses, armor classes are expected to be within certain norms at a certain level. Different specializations have variations, but there is still a 'normal' for a given level that is the basis for the current CR system. If you are outside the normal you create problems for the game, whether its too high or too low.

In 1E the wizards armor class was irrelevant, if he was getting attacked he was likely dead anyway (if the thing attacking was any threat). Today, its expected that the monsters get a few shots in even at the wizard who hides in the back, and that he has the tools to survive it most of the time

Any time the world punish comes to the mind or lips of a DM, he or she is wrong. Period. End of story. Whatever it was that you wanted to do, you are doing it wrong. By all means deal with issues at and away from the table, but do it like human beings dealing with other human beings. You are all there to have fun. There shouldnt be hard feelings over a game. If there are, you are doing it wrong. It might mean giving a player experience he didnt 'earn', or it may mean asking the player not to play as he cant make the game regularly. But regardless, the 'dont be a jerk' rule applies. If you feel the need to punish a player's character for something they did, you are being a jerk.

Personally I keep everyone at the same xp, and have removed wealth from being a major factor in the game. Mostly because revolving schedules and that pesky life thing mean that not all of my group will be at every session. I am out to have fun with my friends when i game. So I approach it from that way. It really troubles me how often people dont approach the game that way sometimes.

Updated Heroic Distinctions:

I am really intrigued by this idea!

But has it been further refined?
Is it really usable right now or are there still some problems to be fixed?
(Like picking Strong/etc. over Weapon Training...)

It is certainly usable right now, I am using it in my home game. As for picking strong over offensive training, what is the problem there exactly? It is the same as picking a belt of giant strength over a magic sword. Generally an offesnive martial character will want both anyway since the level restrictions prevent you from just taking a stat boost over and over.

The only changes I intend to make, is to tighten up the wording of offensive and defensive training (they should apply to a single kind of weapon or armor/sheild each like longswords, or chainshirts) and restrict how many natural weapons can benefit from offensive training.
I am also going to add a trio of distinctions in the same vein as the natural armor distinctions as a dodge bonus (same structure and level restrictions) to account for rings of protection.

And lastly I am going to update the high level capacity for distinctions, namely that from level 3to8 you get one distinction per level, from level 9 on you get 2 per level.

I give out wealth, but it cant be spent on non-consumable magic items. So only mundane, and alchemical gear, or scrolls/wands/potions. That is if you are using both the distinctions and the super genius archetypes.

If you are just using distinctions, you should probably give 40-70% wealth and allow purchase of non-big six items.

Kolokotroni wrote:

If you want a 'quick start guide' I strongly recommend the begginner box. Get a couple friends together, have someone be dm, and you ought to be playing in 20 minutes or less. Thats about as fast a start as I have ever heard from for a major rpg.

Is the speed due to pregen characters, or are the rules really that streamlined?

Combination of both. The characters arent just pregenerated, they are also presented in a way that they can be quickly understood and played within the rules.

If you want a 'quick start guide' I strongly recommend the begginner box. Get a couple friends together, have someone be dm, and you ought to be playing in 20 minutes or less. Thats about as fast a start as I have ever heard from for a major rpg.

If the Magister is anything like the other Genius Classes they are going to be pretty well balanced. None of the Genius Classes I've allowed have been overpowered. Godlings (Adept, Clever, Eldritch and Mighty), Time Thief, Time Warden, Vangard, Shadow Assassian, Deathmage, Dragon Rider, Death Knight, Templar, and Mosaic Mage. All of these seemed to fit in fairly well with no issues of being grossley overpowered compared to the Core Classes and the Base Classes from the APG, Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic books.

Indeed, though I have not yet gotten a chance to use the magus, I have had godlings, time thieves, vangard, shadow assasins, dragon riders, witch hunters, and templars in my game with no ill effects. Super Genius Game's base classes are top notch, and they really scratch my itch for new, and interesting ideas in game.

I should probably point out the first line of heroic distinctions indicates they do not stack with enhancement bonuses. This is intentional, so the Strong Distinction does not stack with bulls strength, and offensive training does not stack with the magic weapon spell.

Mind you some buff spells are still valuable (magic weapon for instance is useful to help with dr or incorperal creatures). But they dont stack with the training bonuses, or the resistance bonuses the heroic distinctions offer.

scary harpy wrote:

Balin wrote:

Hi,

I was looking at the Magister and wanted to know if anyone tried it and found it to be good, or over-powered? I was particularly interested in the Metamagic Magister.

I have a quick (but probably stupid) question:

On the spells known table, what does the (+2) and (+3) represent?

I thought it was domain spells but I was wrong.

No one knows?!?

Crud.

Essentially it is laying out the spell selection method. When you see 4+3 in the 2nd level column of the spell's known table it means you know 4 2nd level spells from your primary list, and 3 spells that can be from a different list OR from your primary list (because half of your spells known must be from your primary list).

Overall I dont find the class overpowered I think it fits well against prepared casters, and probably has a leg up on other spontaneous casters, but not a huge one. I really like the class and hope to get the chance to play one at some point in the future.

yeti1069 wrote:

Heck, you could probably just grant the numeric bonuses of the Vow of Poverty as well, though the removes options and does little for dedicated casters.

This seems like the easiest and most obvious option to me.

Vow of poverty is very specific for a very specific kind of character. It doesn't work for a whole host of character types. This system provides similar bonuses but allows a wide selection of choices for players to pick up depending on their character type.

Super Genius Guide to Feats of Battle has a feat called Web of Steel, which grants an armor bonus if you're wielding a chosen weapon while wear either light or no armor.

If you use 3rd party material this is your hands down best bet, though it has heavy requirements (dodge, weapon focus and combat expertise. But you get a scaling armor bonus, that can stack with any other kind of AC bonus you can manage from say the duelist prc, or with a level or two of monk.

Another option is also from super genius games, and that is the Yuxia Archetype from the Genius Guide to Martial Archetypes, which can be used with any base class, and offers a way to get a solid armor bonus when unarmored (as well as a bunch of other really cool abilities).

Top 10 of that list for me:
Fireball
Fly
Antimagic Field
Cure x wounds
Teleport
Time stop
Invisibility
Suggestion
Disintegrate
Explosive Runes

Player 3: 'I want to play a priestess with good social and lore skills, good casting but the fighting skills of a mage type.'

GM: 'No, sorry, can't do that. Every single divine caster in the history of the world is trained as a frontline fighter in metal armour and in bashing people's heads in with a heavy mace. You can _choose_ not to use them, but you're trained in doing that anyway, and your buddies will wonder why you aren't doing it'.

Just playing devil's advocate, I guess. Maybe I'll come across other basic concepts that don't fit. I remember a player in 4E who was annoyed he couldn't make a Conan-style warrior/rogue with a broadsword.

Seems to be one of those weird holdovers from D&D that 'divine caster' is inextricably linked with 'armoured mace guy'.

If you are ok with 3rd party material you have several options. First of all the supergenius games Magus/Magister is a powerful spellcaster that can mix divine and arcane magic. The reason this is important is you can choose the cleric spell list as your primary spell list, and then sprinkly arcane spells that would allow you to opperate without armor but still be relatively safe (mage armor, shield, mirror image etc).

This class is also at the d20pfsrd site under magister if you want to take a look at it.

There is also as mentioned the priest class from tome of secrets. And there is the super genius games Mosaic Mage which directly incorporates the concepts of the 'coloured' mages into pathfinder.

Thanks! I mean, I understand that stuff, I just don't actually understand the mechanics of sleep, food, travel, etc. some explanation would be nice, I can't seem to find anything on it in the rules.

Do you WANT rules on these? I guess it depends on how simulationish you want to be, but these sorts of things are kind of scattered around throught the core rules, and are excluded (I believe) from the begginner box to make things easier.

For instance, sleep. Technically there is no penalty for a mundane character for not sleeping. The good old fighter can get away with it. The casters (cleric, wizard etc) have to rest for 8 hours to be able to get their spells back. Usually dms also use this as the time for characters to get their 'per day' abilities back, like a barbarian's rage, or a cleric's domain abilities.

Food, also is sort of laid out in the core rules. There are rations you can by that are measured in days worth. And you can use the skill survival to forage for food in the wilderness. There are also prices for some kinds of prepared meals you could purchase in a tavern or inn.

Travel again is codified in the core rules in terms of walking/hustly/forced march speeds and their effects.

Basically these are all highly specific rules that are intentionally left out of the begginner box because many dms who have been dming for years simply ignore them, mostly ignore them. If you really want them, we can point you to the relavent sections of the PRD (an online reference document for the core rules). But I dont know how much they would add to a game filled with begginners.

In terms of animal companions/familiars I would say you would have to divert your distinctions to EITHER yourself or your animal companion, and that goes for eidolons, dragon mounts and other pets as well, anything that comes with your class.

I also think that 1 distinction per level has to be modified as you go up in level. I thin 1 per level from 3-8, 2 per level from 9 to 14 and 3 per level from 15 to 20.

Cheapy wrote:

Would these apply to animal companions and eidolons? And familiars.

And just a note, the +5 armor is less than 25% of your gold at level 12 if you don't buy any amulets of natural armor, rings of protections, or cloaks of resistances. That "25%" that the balanced method recommends includes all of those items or any other defensive items.

I never said it wasn't stupid. I said that you were limiting player choices and frankly that confirms that you are.

I am not applying any limits the core rules dont already assume are in place. Part of the inspiration for this rule system is the fact that the game itself does not assume players have the freedom to purchase whatever items they want. The magic mart mentality was never part of the core system.

That said, you are making some big assumptions about the system. You are missing a huge chunk of it. Mainly that the heroic distinctions are only a PART of what you would expect to get. A big part of the choice comes out of the super genius archetypes. Someone who wanted to 'blow their magic load' on offensive weapons, should take something like the weapon champion archetype from martial archetypes. By 15th level, you would then have:
-a +5 to attack and damage from heroic distinctions
-+4 to attack and daamge from weapon dominance from the archetype
and say +7 to disarm, sunder and trip attacks made with the weapon.

I won't say that limiting player capabilities to be stupid is bad. But generally the point of the game is you're free to build as you wish, regardless of how horrible it works in game or how obscenely stupidly the player spends their money. That's half the point of all d&d since all the way back in 1.0

They get to be what you want to make them.

And in most games, you now have MORE freedom, not less. In the base assumption of the game you are NOT free to get whatever magic item you want. It is entirely dependent on the dm, and the wealth guidelines actually provide rather stringent breakdowns. This gives you more direct choices akin to feats and class abilities, that are not dependent on the world, the magic level, or how much gold you have available.

I won't disagree that the 25% limitations that paizo put into place are wrong but if you want to go with this system, I suggest removing level limitations and going with % of points like paizo did so as to allow players more freedom to work within the training system.

Will some players spend their points in horribly idiotic ways? yes. But they did that with money too. the point of this thought exercise I thought was to get rid of player wealth as a major factor.

I am not out to replacate the complexity of the wealth system. I actively dislike the amout of arithmatic required with magic items and managing wealth. I dont intend to put that into my system. By all means use what you want for your game, but I wont be changing THIS system to replacate that kind of complexity.

BTW just realized this could work well with vow of poverty

Yes it does, and I have no problem with that. *pats the poor unloved monk on the head*

Yes which is exactly my point. The class that will benefit most from that boost is the summoner which is already one of if not the most powerful class in the game. You might want to do something about how it interacts with natural weapons because stacking claws on an eidolon is relatively easy.

Personally I find this a very good idea, I just want to work out the kinks before it sees play and unfortunately causing a major system shift usually has a lot of little kinks to work out

Animal companions and such I really need to look at it again. But specifically the summoner is going to be nearly impossible to fit neatly into the system. The class is too damned flexible. It can be bent around to take advantage no matter what unless there are specific summoner based exceptions put into the rules. I honestly think a dm has to take that into advisement, pay attention to your summoner and make sure he isnt diverting all his resources (evolutions, trainings or sgg archetypes) to any one thing. Because if he is, its a problem, magic items or no magic items.

Cheapy wrote:

1) Not really relevant, I don't think.

2) Magical Bonuses have an implied level requirement, based on the WBL guidelines. And it just happens to align with the level requirements for these in most cases :)

3) ...give them special magic items?

4) When you get them. There's no training time as far as I can tell. You're just working on them during the downtime, or even during combat, much like just about everything else in the game.

5) Be more awesome.

1) You don't think preserving balance by the WBL matters?

This system is specifically designed to invalidate wealth by level. I HATE the micromanaging you have to do to maintain wealth balance. This system (and concequently this thread) have 2 purposes. Make it so you can have rare magic items without screwing up game balance, AND divorcing player wealth and player power. In the normal game ofcourse WBL matters. This system however is intentionally designed to make it not matter.

2) They do not have a level requirement they have a cost requirement which allows you more freedom. Do I want to put some in offense and defense, or go straight offense? This removes that freedom by saying you can only add so much until a certain point.

There is however an implied level requirement. The game does not assume absolute freedom in magic item choice.

[From the core rules game mastering section]
"Characters should spend no more than half their total wealth on any single item. For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins. "

Based on this split, there are implied level requirements. If at 6th level I have approximately 16,000 gold in items, then somewhere around 4,000 gp in gold should be spent on offensive items. Obviously like the whole wealth system this is a guideline and not an abolute rule, but it is right there in the rules as written. So the 'freedom' to go straight offense was never really present in the rules as written.

Edit: Example Perfect Defense (+5 AC equivalent 25000 gold) requires you be 15th level. No one in their right mind would ever say that you need 15th level before you could get a +5 armor if you wanted one

3) are they still special then? At that point I'd claim its not special at all anymore its "ok who requires autoattacking here? Ok guys one for each of you" otherwise you're just straight up nerfing non casting characters even more.

This system still expects that the players will have some magic items. The fighter will still have a magic sword pretty early in his career, and keep it throughout. Now the +x bonuses overcoming other kinds of damage reduction (silver, cold iron etc) is not something the system addresses, and I'd say it should be addressed in game with special material weapons instead. It does change things a little and i look forward to seeing how much of a difference it would make.

4) Ok I'm fine with that. Old training as I recall took like 2 weeks for a feat so I thought I'd ask

None of these should require any specific amount of in game time to get, unless you already play with some sort of training house rule.

5) Ok though that might cause balance issues late game.

Slots are really a non-issue. One of the best parts of this system is that it frees up slots for more interesting items. Cloak of the montebank now seems like a much more useful item because you dont HAVE to have a cloak of resistance. I dont think there will be any slot issues in late game, though there are plenty of other issues out there.

Edit: one more thing to think about is what you want to include as "weapons" for the offensive bonus. Unarmed and natural weapons require amulet of mighty fists which is 5000XBonus squared instead of the regular 2000XBonus squared. While unarmed fighters (monks, etc etc) I would agree need it, you'd also be giving a substantial buff to already powerful classes (synthesist summoner, beast totem barbarian, mutagen focused alchemist, combat druids, etc)

Unarmed I think is fine, lord knows the monk could use the boost. Druid and barbarians are on their own not a huge problem, as the wording of offensive training is the same as weapon focus. So you can take Offensive Training Claw, but not offensive training natural weapons. Really the only thing that this is an issue with is if a character has more then 2 of the SAME type of natural weapon, like an eidolon with 4 claws. To my knowledge only the summoner can do this, the rest will have groups of 2 or less attacks of the same type, which I am ok with, though of course your milage may vary.

Cheapy wrote:

The math the game is based on assumes magic items.

That's like saying life is based on math. Sure, when you boil it down you're probably right. However it isn't static. The wonderful thing about D&D is how fluid and flexible it is because it has so much variation. Don't like that your party is defeating the monsters too fast? Add two or even three more antagonists to a fight. Party becoming overwhelmed by encounters designed for their level? Drop to a lower challenge rating but award the same XP. Simple.

Obviously the dm can compensate for just about anything, and they have to often. No 2 parties are precisely the same in terms of power and capability. So if the DM is willing and able to adjust encounters appropriately, then no they dont NEED magic items. The point of this thread is to explore ideas on how to keep players in the 'normal' realm of power and capability without being loaded down with magic items.

I don't really want to do the outside the game 'don't sleep all the time', its a sandbox and in my view, its my job to provide a world where if they wanted they could take a week off and vacation at a lake if they wanted to accept the consequences. My biggest problem is that I'm finding it difficult creating combat encounters that are exciting when the party is always at 100% strength.

One other thing I've done that I didn't mention was poison/disease/curses with attribute/level damage in encounters that surpassed their ability to heal.

This isnt a story problem or a mechanical problem, its a play style problem. The 15 minute workday is a very real problem, something even game designers addressed but has not completely removed. To think you can remove it from your game with simple story tweaks is foolish. All you end up with is players who think you are hounding them as the dm and it builds resentment. It is your job to provide a game world sure, but you cant put all the pressure on you to make the game work, that has to come from everyone. A conversation person to person will play a big part in that, and will go alot further to fix the problem.

If you insist on not talking to them, the thing you should do is give yourself time to consider consequences. The biggest problem for dms in this situation is you cant immediately sort out what the concequences are or how to handle them. My recomendation to you, is every time the players rest, stop the session. Either completely, or for a half hour to an hour so you can sit down and think about what SHOULD happen because the players are not chasing down the bad guy, or stoping the evil marauding army.

Make it clear in game and out of game, if they blow their wad, they wont get to rest at 10AM. Prepare additional 'random' encounters. If the plop down after one or two encounters, hit them at their camp a couple times in the night. You probably also want to favor wilderness advnetures that travel long distances so they cant just return to a safe home base.

But most of all, talk to you players. Say, hey the game isn't meant for you to do this, if you continue I am going to have to force you to start, but rather then a dm vs player situation, why dont we sit down and talk about how party resources ought to be managed.

You can run d20 modern without magic just fine...right?

Yes, but that also plays very differently then pathfinder. The classes are designed differently and the action works differently. You are taking a massive portion of the game out of pathfinder if you take out ALL magic. You have to reconsider literally every monster in the bestiary. And as you get to mid levels, the entire CR system is meaningless, because the game assumes the party access to all the crazy things magic can do. In d20 modern there are no such things baked in. In fact magic is an add on, not a core assumption.

I really like the Super Genius games shadow assassin. I have used it as an npc a couple times against my party and it is a great shift from the expected 'sneaky' types

Normally you cannot ride a construct. It has to be a mount which under the core rules no construct is. However there is a 3rd party product by super genius games engines of destruction that allows you to add the 'steed' template to a construct which would allow you to ride it. Not sure regarding sizes, but my understanding is that if it can hold your weight you can ride it so long as its at least your size.

When I am playing a primary spell caster, I expect to be casting spells. I dont use a crosbow except in dire emergencies (or if combat has already been won and its just winding down the last mook or so). That said, I always make sure my 1st level power is useful, so I have something to do that isnt a spell that also is better then plunking with a crossbow bolt.

That said I play alot of martial/magic uses mixed characters, so often my spells are intermixed with attacks of some sort.

Kolokotroni wrote:

If a dm wants every fight (or most fights) to 'push the characters to their limits' then in combat healing becomes a requirement

Even this statement is making assumptions. A party could be pushed to the limit without taking more than minimal damage. Throw them up against a group of clerics (or one big cleric) with hold person out the wazoo. They'll fear for their lives, but healing won't be the issue.

Really, any encounter where the hard part is the environment or situation has the potential to really push the PCs without making in-combat healing viable, let alone a requirement. Last time I was fighting for my life was against a pair of dark stalkers, spamming deeper darkness without being hindered at all themselves. In-combat healing was NOT what we were clamoring for as we struggled to come out alive.

The above-quoted statement is only true if the GM's only method of turning up the challenge is via raw numbers.

I disagree. What is the risk if those clerics hold the person? If the players just get hold and nothing happens, then there wont be fear, probably just annoyance. Its the crits that come off hitting helpless opponents thats scary. And if those dark stalkers never get any shots in in that darkness again the sense of difficulty will be very different then if they did.

My point is that alot of dms do in fact think it is important that actual damage is done for something to be considered 'hard'. And while I agree there are many ways to make encounters 'hard' and that 'hard' can mean alot of things there are certainly dms out there which equate tough fight with low hit point totals at the end of it. Saying there are other ways to do it doesnt make those dms not exist.

which book is it? Is this an adventure path? If so you might want to ask in the specific forums for that AP, since people who know the story of that adventure can give you better advice on how to fit new characters in at a given point.

DeathSpot wrote:

I'd counter with the comment that if in-combat healing isn't necessary a reasonable fraction of the time, you're playing below your APL. I would certainly get bored if every fight was a pushover - and a fight where you don't ever get hurt enough to worry about death is a pushover.

HP totals are not a measure of difficulty.

I think the issue people need to realize is there are different perceptions of difficult. There are dms that think every fight should bring the party bellow half health, and there are those that only throw CR = APL encounters at the party except 'boss' fights. How important in combat healing is, is heavily influenced by this factor.

If a dm wants every fight (or most fights) to 'push the characters to their limits' then in combat healing becomes a requirement, since the other methods of dealing with the situation will simply be (eventually) countered by the dm to keep up the level of 'difficulty'.

After posting that, my players noted a post of yours saying it would probably be necessary. So if we're going ahead with these, we'll be adding the SGG archetypes too.

I hope it goes well for you. I have truly enjoyed it using it in my games. I like the idea of being able to hand out wealth (in for form of money) and not worry about it shifting the balance of the game, or even more importantly, not having to keep as close track of it. I still give out magic items, but I do it when it's appropriate, and each item becomes meaningful (and hopefully interesting).

If you use the archetypes, make sure they look closely as it, as for various concepts some are way better then others. If the players arent sure, the ones I would point the hardest at are the weapon champion, and physical exemplar for martial characters and the Yuxia, for well just about everyone (including spell casters). The tempest and the spell bow are really good choices for any archer as well.

Kolokotroni wrote:

I was actually thinking about this the other day. There is one situation where healing in combat becomes a requirement. And its entirely down to the dm.

What I mean is, some dms are unsatisfied when combats end quickly. Or even if any particular opponent goes down too quickly. Many of them will make changes either before or during the encounter to extend them. In that case, killing the enemy first becomes a less effective tactic then healing, because the dm will percieve the fight as harder if you are forced to heal in combat, then if you won a game of rocket tag with the enemy.

True. The catch, though, is that unless the players enjoy that too, that's a sign of a really bad GM.

Sort of. If the change is made mid combat, then probably. But if it comes in the form of house rules, or tactics. Then its not really bad gming, its just a particular style.

I was actually thinking about this the other day. There is one situation where healing in combat becomes a requirement. And its entirely down to the dm.

What I mean is, some dms are unsatisfied when combats end quickly. Or even if any particular opponent goes down too quickly. Many of them will make changes either before or during the encounter to extend them. In that case, killing the enemy first becomes a less effective tactic then healing, because the dm will percieve the fight as harder if you are forced to heal in combat, then if you won a game of rocket tag with the enemy.

With just the heroic distinctions the party might still need SOME big six items, depending on the characters. It doesnt completely replace them on its own. Martial characters would still likely need one or two big six items as they wont be completely covered by heroice distinctions.

That said if you just wanted to use heroic distinctions, you could easily increase the number they can choose. Because for instance a sword and board fighter, would need armor, shield, weapon, strength, saves, and ac. You cant fill that out with just the heroic distinctions. The intent there was someone like that would take an achetype like the weapon champion or physical exemplar that translate very directly into big sixish bonuses since such a character would likely spend all or most of their wealth on big six items.

The class and everything that goes with it comes first when it comes to prerequisits.

You have to reach the level with the class first, then take the feat. This can be at the same level for the feats, but not for the class features.

For instance if a rogue talent requires the dodge feat as a prereq, you need to have that feat the level before. On the other hand, you can take a feat the same level you gain a class feature prereq. So in theory extra ki could be taken the same level a monk gains a ki pool though since this is normally at 4 you dont have a feat that level, but if you did fighter 1/monk4 at 5th level you could take extra ki having just gotten a ki pool.

A synthesist in fused form should have a significant effect on social encounters. You have a dude in a shimering image of a big stompy monster.

In a game session on saturday, my synthesist had a big impact on dealing with a group of satyrs we encounters in the fey lands. Sasha (my eidolon) was good for intimidation, not so much for diplomacy. I am sure most people would at the least react with concern, if not outright fear, as usually eidolons are bristling with claws, teeth, tentacles, stingers etc.

Did someone say low level magic items.

Seriously, the super genius games loot for less line is specifically made to provide interesting and permanent treasure to low level characters.

Edit: I also make use of 3.5 magic item compendium's weapon and armor augment crystals, which I really really like.

I strongly recommend you take a look at Anachronistic Adventures by super genius games. These 3 pdfs cover a very large portion of the kinds of mundane characters you would want to create for a modern style game already set up for pathfinder. At the very least there are alot of good ideas in there on how to proceed.

graypark wrote:

Can a Magus add multiple enhancements to his weapon from the expenditure of one point from his arcane pool?

For example: Could a 5th Level Magus with a +1 weapon expend one point from his arcane pool to add both the flaming and frost enhancements simultaneously, thereby granting said weapon an additional 2d6 points of elemental damage (1d6 fire/1d6 cold)?

No.

Quote:

At 1st level, a magus can expend 1 point from his arcane pool as a swift action to grant any weapon he is holding a +1 enhancement bonus for 1 minute.

It costs 1 point for each +1 enhancement you add to your weapon. In order to add Flaming and Frost he'd have to expend 2 points. Luckily you only get 1 swift per turn, but you'd have a layering type effect if you spent 1 per turn.

You should have quoted the rest of that paragraph.

"For every four levels beyond 1st, the weapon gains another +1 enhancement bonus, to a maximum of +5 at 17th level. These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5."

At fifth level for one arcane pool point you add +2, and it can be in the form of special abilities instead of +x if it is already a magic weapon.

Hmm, I see both of the points that you guys have, and they're valid ones.

Ok, I think that I'll do that with my spell casters from now on.

One last question, does anyone have some good tips on feats? I'm a bit stumped there, seeing as how I'm used to fighters and paladins.

And while we're on that thought; do metamagic feats have to be assigned a spell when selected, or are they like power attack in that they can be used when you like with whatever spell (that qualifies) you like?

Sorry for my many questions, I just really am new to the concept of being a caster.

Since you are going master summoner, DEFINATELY go spell focus conjuration and augment summoning. Summoning crittors is what you do, giving them +4 con and +4 str makes a big difference.

From ultimate magic, you might want to take a look at Extra Summon (giving you an additional use of your summon monster ability per day) and Superior summoning for when you want to swarm the battlefield with lots of beasties.

I started with ADnD back in junior high, and I can honestly say, pathfinder is now exactly as far from that as it was when the game launched. Pathfinder isn't leaving its roots. It is maintaining the same distance it's always had. It was never directly connected to first edition, or even second, its connected to 3rd edition. And its slightly further away from it's roots then 3.5 was.

If I wanted to I still have my ADnD books, and several adventures. I COULD play that if I wanted to. I choose to play pathfinder, but because it's the same as 1st edition, but because I consider it an improvement on that foundation.

This group is more or less all offense. The base CR vs level comparison is done with the assumption of a party of one guy who fights, one guy who kind of fights and has other skills he brings to the table, one guy who casts divine magic and one guy who casts arcane magic.

Your party has 4 characters capable of a lot of offense in combat. That means they will be able to fight more powerful enemies. Be careful though, you dont want any one creature with higher cr against a 1st level party. You should increase the number of enemies they would normally face, as much as double in most cases.

In the end the only thing that matters is the people in a group are in line with eachother. A deliberately weak character rollplayed well in a group of optimizers is as disruptive as a munchkined character in a roleplay group.

Ask, and understand what your group mates (in theory your friends) want out of the game, and come to some kind of arrangement, compromise, agreement, or convention that can keep your group at peace. In the end either extreme is bad for most tables, and everyone should be somewhere in the middle. A character who is capable of contributing to the goals of the group (be they killing a monster, sweet talking a princess or researching an ancient cult or something else) AND is interesting to talk to and interact with. One should not exclude the other, and to do one at the expense of the other is fall into folly that need not be at any table.

None, if I want to use a 3.5 prc I use it.

I think the most important objective for this kind of project is to make sure a given dm has control over his or her respective table the way they would at a home game. Organized play and living world dont have to be the same thing. I would drop the whole living world aspect of organized play, and focus on the idea that there are specific adventures set up by an organization. In this way you could reduce the required control over characters that organized play usually has to maintain.

Let the objective be the game itself and not some influence on a wider world. Whether its an ongoing game, or a convention one shot, let characters live and die at a single dm's table, based on what that dm wants to allow (within certain guidelines). No need to track character advancement, or wealth, or anything else.

Just organize play sessions and let the dms handle things the way they normally would for any old group. And if you want to bring a character to a new dm's table, require any needed conversion or alteration to that particular dm's requirements (or create standardized sets of materials allowed) for the level of what ever adventure is being run.

Characters who put an emphasis on defense are more survivable...that seems normal to me. If the challenge is enough to kill SOMOENE in the party it is most likely to be the people who get involved in fighting but are not as well defensed. Where as people with either very good defences (the paladin) or people who intentionally try to stay away from the fighting (casters) are more likely to get by without major injury. This just makes sense to me.

Depends on the adventure and what they are going to be doing and why. Usuaully I will present an overview of what they are trying to do when the adventure begins, and ask them to figure out why their characters are doing it. From that I can usually determine a good starting point. But in general, I start with the players already have established ties to eachother somehow.

fly. the image line of spells, teleport, black tentacles, disintegrate, dispell magic, meteor swarm, flesh to stone, divine might, cure x wounds, heal, banishment, charm person, suggestion, dominate x, scry

Laithoron wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

People don't seem to mind if a group of enemies or a BBEG focuses all their effort into killing a single PC and actually succeeding.

Did you know that if you have Mounted Combat and you make a ride check you can successfully negate an attack on your mount?

What does any of that have to do with what I said?

Laithoron (Cliff Notes version) wrote:

Roleplay enemies realistically and don't be a dick.

"Is when you focus all your efforts as GM on trying to screw the player over."

People don't seem to mind when their PC is targeted instead.

Its all about expectations. And obviously just from this thread, different people have different expectations. I have played in games where the wizards familiar popped in and out of existance order of the stick style (where it only exhisted when the player thought of a reason to exist otherwise it just stuck to the background and was completely ignored). I have also played in a game where the familiar was a part of the party, was roleplayed by the dm (much like later order of the stick issues actually), and was involved in major plot points. And thats fine too.

However as a player I would make different choices about my familiar if I expect it to be completely ignored (and thus little more then a skill bonus) or if I expect to have it roleplayed, and it actively involved in the adventure and in encounters.

A good dm, sets those expectations before the game starts. Thats all. The rules are there sure, but they are not set in stone, and dms make small changes, ommissions, adjustements so often, that certain parts are about as solid as water across gaming groups. And especially if someone is new to the game or to a specific group/dm, the dm should talk to them about what kind of game they run.