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

8,007 posts (8,035 including aliases). 17 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 8,007 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

WarColonel wrote:

Hi, I'm one of the players in this group and this is what I told yeti the other night. One of the crux of the issue was how the kitchen, for example, could be used to produce anything. my explanation was that we are specifying the kitchen was being used to supplement supplies for any troops we may acquire, and so was directly contributing to our organization. Because it is directly contributing to an organization that is in fact doing good for the community (ideally), there is no reason why its bonuses should not be contributing to anything we produce. it just makes sense that are paramilitary soldiers would be able to produce more of any kind of capital because they would be properly fed, cleaned, trained, and entertained, and would be able and inclined to work harder, perform acts of charity, maximize ability with minor jobs, and all around the better contributors to society. That directly equates influence, labor, and goods. everyday we would be able to come up with possible reasons for any good, telling them today refill the lauders, tomorrow help the poor, and the next day assist is road maintenance. we would be paying them for anything they do, but it is more efficient as we provide better perks for them.

The only room I admitted would be difficult to explain in the context of contributing to the organization were our personal quarters. Just about everything else either is directly supporting our paramilitary group or is being used in its most obvious role. just like in normal office buildings, a business would be inclined to create everything from a rec room, or kitchen, 2 private parking or just a park for employees to hangout, all of which is designed to increase productivity. Even research areas devoted to maximizing product placement can be equated on some level to magic research.

I think even personal quarters (bedrooms) could be explained in the context of 1: Saving the owners/leaders money on lodging ('earning' gp). And its similar to the 'prestige' of the 'corner office'(influence). The boss has the fancy comfortable bedroom, or office or what have you. Not to mention having the owner/manager of the business living on the premesis is bound to be a boon for any organization. You have the boss always within a short walk to the quarters (prior to the age of cell phones this is a big deal) even out of business hours.

As you mentioned, other then gp, no room/team 'produces' captial like a factory produces products. It makes them cheaper (allowing earned cost vs purchased cost) and allows them to be attained faster. I dont think its a big stretch the say that a fancy bedroom would assist in the gathering of influence.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
Coriat wrote:
If you want to houserule in some Influence as well (feeding people for free and therefore generating good feelings and favors owed about town), that seems fine as well.

No real need to do that, as it can be handled in the rules. You still generate goods with the kitchen, and you can then 'convert' those goods into influence. Base rule is 3 Goods can be traded for 1 influence. GM can allow a 2-for-1 if appropriate. This makes sense, as yes, a kitchen's donated food can build influence in this way, it doesn't make sense for it to be as good at making influence as it is at making goods.

The rules also state that you CAN mix and match what a building generates, so that common room can make Influence, while the kitchen makes goods. The problem is that there's a sort of 'bug' in the rules when doing this, because it doesn't describe how to handle he actual dice roll (or the take 10).

Example Building:
Common Room gp or Influence +7
Kitchen gp or Goods +4
Storage gp +2

The rules say you can split these up separately, and have the Kitchen earn Goods, and the Common Room earn Influence. However, if you just to this as written:

Kitchen 10+4 = 14 => 1 Goods
Common Room 10+7 = 17 => 1 Influence
Storage 10+2 = 12 => 1gp 2sp

the 10's get counted for multiple times, meaning you can earn MORE splitting the rooms than treating the building as a whole. Free extras.

The way I've houseruled this, is that you roll once for a building, and apply the results of the roll to the production you choose (splitting as necessary. In this case, taking 10, it could be done as follows:

Kitchen 6 + 4 = 10 => 1 Goods
Common Room 3+7 = 10 => 1 Influence
Storage 1+2 = 3 => 3sp

This limits it still to a single roll per building or organization, but allows the rooms to perform what they do best.

Quote:


If the room or team's Earnings entry says "capital" and a number, it can contribute a bonus on the building's or organization's skilled work check for any type of capital (gp, Goods, Influence, Labor, or Magic). If the Earnings entry lists specific types of capital, it can contribute a bonus on its building's or organization's skilled work checks only for capital of those types. You can apply each room's or team's bonus to any one listed type or capital each day or divide it among multiple listed types of capital. For example, an Alchemy Lab can generate only gp, Goods, or Magic, and not Influence or Labor. One day you could use all +10 of its bonus on the building's capital check to generate gp, on the next day you could use +5 on a check for generating gp and +5 on a check for generating Goods, and so on.

Most of the time, it's simplest and quickest to just apply all the gp bonuses from all the rooms in each of your buildings and take 10 on the roll. Other times, you might want to generate other types of capital to construct new rooms, recruit new teams, and make upgrades.

The rules state that most of the time it is easiest to make a single capital check, but that you may divide the bonuses by room or even within rooms for seperate checks.

This can potentially be 'munchkined' since for instance, if a room produces 6 gp, influence or goods, you could split it 2, 2, and 2, and get the d20 3 times. But remember a couple things. First of all you can only split within a building, so that is at most 5 checks, one for gp, one for goods, one for labor, one for influence and one for magic (assuming rooms or teams earn each of those kinds of capital). In addition, that 10 from the d20 represents exactly 1gp if you are talking earning gp, and at most 1 goods, labeor influence or magic (that you still nead to pay the earned cost to actually have). Even taking the time to 'game' the system to its maximum, yields negligable results. Hardly more then a simple profession role. And these buildings/organizations cost literally thousands of gp to build. No one is getting rich off the downtime rules.

The real befits in lie in the connection it creates to the game world (a player with a tavern in sandpoint has a much more personal reason to protect it). And with the fact that we are FINALLY offered a mechanical means by which non-skilled/non-magical characters can accomplish things in game. For instance, a fighter who has a successful inn can use his capital to boost social checks he normally isnt good at. The most famous merchant in town (lots of influence) can throw his name around town and get people to what he wants even if he is a bafoon and as diplomatic as a brick wall. These are things that happen in the real world and in fantasy worlds but up until now were next to impossible.


Quote:


Earnings: This entry indicates what bonuses the room or team gives to its building's or organization's checks made to generate capital. Buildings and organizations act like characters in that they can attempt a check each day to earn capital performing skilled work (without costing you any downtime). You must pay for capital earned in this way as normal.

If the room or team's Earnings entry says "capital" and a number, it can contribute a bonus on the building's or organization's skilled work check for any type of capital (gp, Goods, Influence, Labor, or Magic). If the Earnings entry lists specific types of capital, it can contribute a bonus on its building's or organization's skilled work checks only for capital of those types. You can apply each room's or team's bonus to any one listed type or capital each day or divide it among multiple listed types of capital. For example, an Alchemy Lab can generate only gp, Goods, or Magic, and not Influence or Labor. One day you could use all +10 of its bonus on the building's capital check to generate gp, on the next day you could use +5 on a check for generating gp and +5 on a check for generating Goods, and so on.

A room that is part of a building contributes that that buildings earnings. An owner can divide the earnings of the building into seperate checks, so for instance, one could have the kitchen producing goods and the storefront producing gp, but the justification need only be for the building as a whole to produce captial, not each individual room. All rooms contribute to the buildings earnings.

Keep in mind also that all rooms come with a staff of basic workers

Quote:


For a room, the Earnings amount already subtracts the cost of having unskilled employees to do the basic work for you. For example, the Earnings listed for having a Bar already account for the wages of a bartender and servers.

So there are people running the kitchen and bar automatically. Just because it serves the employees of an organization primarily, doesnt mean it isnt earning capital.

Think of the many 'cop bars' that are either officially or unofficially associated with police forces, and principally serve cops. Those places would still earn capital. So does the employee cafeteria on the 8th floor of my office. It serves food for which employess pay (albeit as a discount), which serves to make a modest profit directly, but it also shortens the breaks employees take for lunch (no travel time) improves employee morale (cheaper food) and makes catered events/meetings cheaper to manage. All of this contributes to the earnings of the company as whole, not directly (its a bank), but indirectly.


yeti1069 wrote:


Under the "Buildings" section, I don't see the output for each building listed, so, while those buildings DO have things like kitchens in them, there isn't any indication that I've seen that they should be counted in producing capital. From what I can tell, the buildings listed are there to give a sense of what one would expect in a typical version of that structure.

You wouldn't, for instance, build an academy without a kitchen, bedrooms, lavatory, etc...

My position (as Kolo's GM), is that, while a building can be oriented toward a particular capital-generating task, it doesn't necessarily do so for all included rooms. For instance, if you had a two story building, the bottom floor being a storefront for, say, textiles, and the upstairs your personal quarters, the rooms upstairs would have no bearing on your income from the shop.

Buildings dont list their earnings because they earn according to the rooms included. It would have been a waste of print space for paizo to do that as well. Rooms dont earn capital. Buildings do. The quote from Chemlak is where that is written.

A building must justify how it earns capital. A room merely has to support that effort to add its earnings to the building's total.

For instance:

Quote:

A Bedroom provides comfort and privacy for one to two people, and typically features one large bed or two smaller beds. Many also have furnishings or features, such as chairs, wardrobes, chests, tables, or small fireplaces. A Bedroom might be the sleeping place of a building's owner or a comfortable room for rent.

The first example of what a bedroom might be is the building owners bedroom. If a shopkeep has a bedroom attached to his shop, that bedroom adds to the shops capital checks. That isnt directly related to producing the stuff that the shop produces, but it offers the owner a place to rest, improving his ability to work, saving him money on rent, and allowing him to live closer to the shop.

Similarly, a mess hall for a barracks/police office would bring men in early, improve their work efforts, possibly save everyone money on food, assisiting in the building generating capital.

And just as an aside we wouldnt be using it as a soup kitchen, that was for the previous idea. The kitchen and bar would be solely to support the employees of the police force.

The reality is we wont be using the organization/building to earn gp much. Mostly it will be for influence and labor. Occasional earnings of gp would probably only be to cover the leutenants sallary. Goods would come in occasionally from the efforts of the alchemy lab. We arent trying to get rich here, that would be rather silly given the initial investment will be somewhere on the order of 15kgp, we will literally never earn that back (I think a solid business earns like 15gp a day). This is simply an attempt to use the so called 'reward' you gave the party (the kitchen, bar, and common room) to aid the idea we have (the police force).


Coriat wrote:

Does your GM think that ordinary kitchens are open to anyone who wants to wander in and wipe his nose on the dishcloths, or what?

They put those staff only signs on kitchen doors for a reason, it's to keep the public out.

What other downtime rooms must be left open for the typical village idiot to wander in and mess with? The Alchemist's Lab full of volatile chemicals? The prison Cells? The Crypt?

Based on the quoted text in my original post, he thinks a kitchen for a building that doesnt sell food, host parties, or something else overtly related to food isnt going to contribute to the capital earning of the building. So if carpenters guild has a kitchen and a bar for staff to use then they dont add to capital checks for the carpenters guild. I dont agree with that position, but the rules are so vaugue I cant find anything in the actual wording to counteract it without simply saying 'thats rediculous'.


Chemlak wrote:

Yep. Very vague.

My take on it (as a GM) is that if the building/organisation is intended to make money, then all of the rooms/teams can be used to generate capital. If not, then they don't.

For example, a mansion intended solely for the use of the PCs won't earn capital. Nor will the staff who are employed there. However, if you run it as a high-class hotel, they will.

A garrison to hold hired soldiers won't, in and of itself, nor will the troops housed there. But if those troops are being used as law enforcement (and thus fining criminals, taking possession of stolen goods, and so forth) then both the troops and the garrison which houses them will earn capital.

And the other thing to note is that rooms and teams to not individually earn capital: buildings and organisations do. If a building earns capital, then all of the rooms in that building can contribute. Likewise, if the organisation of law enforcers has a team that is a wizard back at base using divination magic, that wizard still helps the organisation earn capital.

That is my interpretation. The problem is finding support in the very vague rules to present my dm with.

I cant find any actual line in the rules that explains that its a building/organization that earns capital not rooms or teams. I also cant find any clear definition of what those things are.

For instance. Lets say you have a building that houses a bunk house, a dojo, and a common room for soldiers, but also an alchemist lab, a magic repository and a scriptorium. Can they be seperate 'buildings'? Can they work seperately, if say you wanted to gain influence and magic at the same time? Ive seen people mention you can split up bonuses to make seperate checks. I dont see where in the rules this is worked out, or how it works. I just see a lot of room for 'theres no rule that says a dog cant play basketball' which will be a real pain to work out game to game.


My dm and I disagree on what the following passage means:

Quote:


Restrictions on Earnings

Whether a unit generates its listed capital depends on your intentions for the building or organization, and should follow common sense. For example, if you construct a building with a Bar, Common Room, and Kitchen, you might want to use it as a tavern or a headquarters for your adventuring party. If it's a tavern, it's open to the public and generates capital. Otherwise, it's a private building and doesn't generate capital because it's used by only you and your friends. If you start your own cult with Acolytes and Priests, you might decide they sell healing and generate income. If your thieves' guild has Acolytes, you might decide they only heal members of your guild, and therefore don't generate income.

If you intend for your building or organization to generate capital, you must explain to the GM how it does so. You can change the purpose of your building or organization (for example, renovating an old military barracks into an inn or turning your greedy cult into a generous one) and in doing so change the capital it generates. You should choose one idea and stick to it, however, as a business that's open to the public on an irregular basis makes less money, as does a business that frequently changes its purpose. The GM might reduce the capital buildings generate in such situations.

The circumstances is effectively that we have received control of a former tavern, containing a kitchen, bar, common room and storage room. It is the party's intent to build up on this adding rooms and teams to create a law enforcement headquarters and organization, since we were given sort of US marshal style ranks in the same ceremony that gave us the tavern. We intend primarily to use it to earn influence within the city, but other forms of capital as well.

The issue is essentially if the former tavern rooms can be re purposed to support a different kind of organization and still earn their capital benefits. Given that many buildings have rooms that are not directly related to the primary purpose of the building but instead are used in a support fashion, it seems reasonable to have these elements as part of our organization, even if it does not expressly help with enforcing law and order.

He seems to think the quoted passage implies that for instance a kitchen in the garrison would not contribute its capital bonuses to the efforts of the garrison (assuming it was being used to house soldiers), since the kitchen itself would be closed to the public.

I guess what I am asking is what does the quoted statement actually mean. The whole thing is pretty vague, and honestly the downtime rules as a whole sit pretty much in the vague category. I am not trying to override my gm, in the end he can always houserule things to his interpretation, but I'd like to know the actual intent of the rules in this case for my own understanding at least.


DM Klumz wrote:

The original Tomb of Horrors (don't bother with the remake IMHO) is as nasty, vindictive and sadistic as they say. It really is DM vs. Party.

That said, after nearly 30+ years, it is the one dungeon we ALL still remember and ALL wish we could do over again.

Just because it is memorable or people still talk about it incredulously doesnt mean its a good thing. Bad things are often the most memorable.

I agree that it is the worst aspects of the game's history all rolled into one stupid adventure.


Jaçinto wrote:

Back when I played AD&D 2nd, we never had a fight take more than around ten minutes. They were challenging but not just busywork so we would gain experience and gold. Even boss fights took maybe half an hour at the most. Now, they take the majority of the session and we play from about 7PM to Midnight on Saturdays. I don't want an easy fight, but I don't one that just takes all day either.

See, there is a rule I tend to apply to action movies and would say it works with action focused APs and even some video games. Space out your fights and make them relatively short. Excitement doesn't last that long before the mind gets used to the situation and gets bored. Stacking long fight on top of long fight just makes the non-combat scenes what we look forward to as now you have made the dialog the interesting "rare" bit. Take a page from Die Hard 1. Space out the action and keep it short, and let there be character driven story to guide you from scene to scene. Just having an action scene link to another feels repetitive and lazy. If your brain goes on autopilot during a session, there is something wrong.

I am aware people say to find a new system. Problem is that this is a small town and we are the only group of adults that play anything. Quitting, like I did tonight, means I gave up all face to face role playing in this town.

Hope my paragraph spacing is better this time but I was probably still all over the place.

Pathfinder is definately a combat heavy game. But again what you are talking about is more encounter design then it is game system. And actually my guess is that this is more about your gm then the game or the adventure.

I am not familiar with the specific adventure, but generally paizo aps give GMs information and setup and its their job to fill in the blanks. They dont hand you boxed text or preset conversations. So if the gm doesnt emphasize roleplaying opportunities (which are almost always there except in very race circumstances) they get glossed over because the players dont realize or ignore the fact that there was an opporunity to roleplay.

In one pathfinder game I play in, there have been some action heavy sequences ( a kobold invasion of our city for instance, or a session that was mostly taken up by a protracted battle with a long set up dragon) but MOST sessions are far more roleplay then they are combat. That is something the GM has to do. He has to make npcs interesting, and the players then have to buy in and engage them. Paizo AP's have the foundation for that, but if the gm isnt working on it, it wont happen.

So while Pathfinder isnt great for the kind of narrative roleplaying you want, it can be done.

One of the way's i've encouraged it in the past is via adopting pieces of other game systems into the one we are playing. I did this with star wars saga edition, but you can do it with pathfinder using their hero points system. I included the fate concept of aspects. Each character had 2 or more 'aspects' that were double sided (both positive and negative). If the players used the aspects at appropriate times to 'complicate' their lives (read: Roleplay out an interesting situation) they could gain a fate point. They could then use those fate points (hero points in pathfinder) to do cool stuff.

I generally find in game rewards encouraging the kind of game I want works wonders in most groups.

If I were you I would run a more narative pathfinder game, using similar transplant ideas. I would be caution on changing existing rules. Like I know you dont like that you can level up and gain things you werent working on, but I would leave existing things alone (if you have a group that doesnt like change) and instead add things in ecouraging the kind of game you want.

I've played in pathfinder games that were almost all political intrigue and roleplay, the players just need to know ahead of time and create characters that conceptually and mechanically fit well in that system.


Torbyne wrote:
Jurassic Bard wrote:
From what I have read, the advanced classes seem to be very interesting but I can't help feel that they are edited and recycled concepts of the current classes. The warpreist, for example, comes across as a religious person who is better equipped to kick some backside (ie, hybridising a cleric with a fighter). So in conclusion, the advanced classes sound good but they lack imagination.
Eh, the Warpriest was best characterized in its own thread as being reduced to 3/4 BAB, D8 HP, Good Fort and Will save, low Skill Points and 6/9 levels of casting from the Cleric list. Compare that to a standard Cleric which gets: 3/4 BAB, D8 HP, Good Fort and Will save, low Skill Points and 9/9 levels of casting from the Cleric list. I dont see them kicking serious backside until i find the cool new ability in the book that they havent hinted at yet in any of these threads.

You mean besides having scaling damage on their weapon, the ability to swift action cast any buff spell on themselves and the ability to swift action enhance their weapon? Or the ability to swift action heal themselves OR cast any prepared healing/condition removal spells? You dont see how the warpriest might have some advantages over the cleric who has to take a standard action (read not attack) to do these things?


I actually like the concept of the hunter. Something actually designed to work WITH your animal companion. There is quite a bit in literature where the companion is more then just a buddy, but an integral part of a team. In the druid, the druid seriously overshadows his ac, cuz well druids are awesome. In the ranger, there isnt really alot of interaction in abilities. Its just a dude who is a ranger who also has a wolf, its not integral to the concept of the class (hence the ability for both druid and ranger to NOT have an animal companion). And even the summoner that focuses on the 'pet' still mostly has the sidekick mentality, just the other way around.

My hope for the hunter is that it will actually take the idea of someone working with an animal as a team to a better level then exists in current material. The teamwork feats thing is a great start. I just hope they get additional improvements in the final printing.


With a druid, bard, oracle, and alchemist magic is pretty solidly covered.

Your party really needs a frontliner, especially if the druid goes shark shaman. If you wont want to go pure marshal, what about a warpriest of besmara using the playtest rules for the advanced class guide? That should make a solid frontliner, fit the pirate theme ofcourse and it wouldnt be a pure marshal character.


Mulet wrote:
Claxon wrote:

Personally I think if you want to implement something make the player make a Know(nature) check against the DC to identify the creature to be able to turn into it.

...

For plants or elementals if you must make a requirement knowledge(nature) and knowledge(planes) as appropriate for the creature type.

Perfect.

He's a Druid from Orv, so becoming a Bear is actually sillier than becoming a Megaraptor.

Keep in mind that by level 3, if he puts a few ranks into the knowledges he's going to be able to identify most normal animals by taking 10. DC is just 5+creatures CR.

Also I would have these done ahead of time. Rather then in the middle of the session. IE at the start of the game have him make a knowledge check for a bunch of animals he wants to be able to turn into (make a list). Each time he gains a level, let him repeat for any that he missed.


Owen KC Stephens wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
You mean a summoner that summons things instead of being the eidolon's sidekick? Thats just rediculous. Also awesome and gimme gimme.
christos gurd wrote:
...damn you owen, now i want the alchemist. Bombless, mutagenless, alchemist as a viable option sounds great.

Hehehe...

That's what I hoped you folks would say.

I am really curious how something like an eidolon (or a druids animal companion) will fit into a talent/edge system. When a single ability scales that mutch it certainly seems like it should be more then one edge or what have you. Either way, I am very curious to find out.


Keep in mind if you want battlefield control the summoner is actually already pretty good at it all on its own. Several of the best battlefield control spells are on its list. You dont necessarily need to get your control casting from the other side of the gestalt. You could use that side to fill in the gaps of your party.

Honestly in a party of 2 gestalt game, where my partner was a barbarian wizard, I would play a summoner inquisitor. Adding some divine magic (remember the summoner can also use its summoner spells to heal the eidolon) and many of the social and stealth skills that no one currently has. Maybe summoner/ninja, but I definately think a 2 person party is one of the few places a summoner is a damned good idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Raymond Lambert wrote:

I think most parties would welcome a healer in their ranks.

It is not that we don't like healers. We just think most parties won't need healing after every fight so building someone who primary focus is healing is often not needed.

I would agree that I would encourage a player wanting to be a divine caster to be capable of more then just healing. But generally its almost no effort to also be a good buffer (memorize bless and sheild of faith, mission accomplished). Not to mention I personally dont like playing divine casters most of the time, so I am always happy when someone in my group says 'I'll play a cleric/oracle'. I just dont want them to think of themselves as nothing more then a giant bandaid.


tony gent wrote:

I'm always amazed when i here people say how a long combat for them is 3 or 4 rounds

To me that would be a quick to average combat as we find 6-8 rounds more the norm for my group .
And where not optermizers but our characters are good at there roles and we work well as a team so think there must be some combs of feats and spells that are just to OTT

It will always depend on the characters, player style and what each character chooses.

The game expects:
Guy who fights and does good damage - fighter
Guy who sort of fights and does some damage but mostly casts divine spells - cleric
Guy who sort of fights and sneaks about, does good damage but not all the time - rogue
Guy who mostly doesnt do damage - wizard

However that dynamic is no longer a requirement.

You could have:
Guy who does intense amounts of damage to one bad guy - paladin
Guy who can turn into a bear and eat your face and also has a bear buddy who eats face - druid
Guy who channels a whole heck of alot of electricity through a sword swing - magus
guy who fights pretty well himself and also buffs all those other guys at the same time - combat focused bard.

The second example also can do most or all of the things the first group can do, but will tear through encounters alot faster. The paladin and fighter are sort of a wash (paladin has higher peak damage, fighter has better average damage). The combat focused druid and his companion will do WAY more damage then anything but the most battle optimized cleric. The magus is going to do more damage then a wizard ever considered, and the bard will no only add a fair amount of damage themselves (more conistently then the rogue as well) but also greatly increase the effectiveness of everyone else.

The second party will probably kill all opponents in the same encounter twice as fast as the first party. Particularly if you account for things like the druid and his companion having pounce (full attack the first turn). Obviously environmental effects, and other circumstances will alter this, but if you are just facing a bunch of bad guys in open space, the paladin, druid, magus and combat bard will end encounters WAY faster then the traditional fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue.

Mind you this also doesnt include things like save or lose effects from optimized casters which can literally end encounters before they start.


Arakhor wrote:

So, maybe whilst ability scores can continue to increase, they are all capped at a maximum bonus of (say) +4. Each class would have two exceptions to this:

Bard: Dex & Cha
Barbarian: Str & Con
Cleric: Wis & Cha
Druid: Wis & Con
Fighter: Str & Con
Monk: Dex & Wis (alternatively, all stats capped at +5)
Paladin: Str & Cha
Ranger: Str & Wis
Rogue: Dex & Int
Sorcerer: Int & Cha
Wizard: Int & wis

What happens if soemone wants to play a dex based fighter or a strength based rogue? These concepts are no longer viable? That seems kind of arbitrary to me.

If you want lower stats start lower. I cap starting stats at 17 after racial bonuses. This means that though they will increase over the course of the game, they are well balanced with the basic assumptions of the math of the game.

But if they STAY that low, in particular dcs of abilities become easily overcome, espeically when considering non-humanoid opponents.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are a couple issues with the summoner.

1. They are complicated especially if you include certain archetypes like the synthesist. Its really easy to get things wrong, particularly players not familiar with their mechanics. You will need to look over their characters carefully. Might even want to have the boards proofread it for you.

2. Summoning in general can bog the game down, if a summoner (particularly the master summoner) has a bunch of summons out, their turn can take a long time, not so much of an issue for pbp though.

3. Summoners are hyper optimized with little to no effort. They get to pick and choose everything they get. Which means that if a player just picks what seems like a good choice each time, they will be WAAY more powerful then another character who has put in similar effort. If your group heaviliy optimizes then the summoner wont be more powerful then others. The problem generally comes from groups that dont normally optimize, so the summoner comes out beastly by comparison.

In a group that generally doesnt optimize, the summoner will need to deliberately take less then optimal choices for its eidolon to keep it even with the rest of the party. If the group puts significant effort into optimization, then chances are it wouldnt be any more of a problem then a druid or wizard.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure, thats part of the structure of any social group. Established group has some form of dynamic in place, your experience will likely differ. Eventually you meld in adopting some of their neuances and adding some of yours. This isnt really a gaming issue, its just a social one.


The well fed bonus is what we do with it. But in general, keep in mind that while some things are harder then others, pathfinder leaves actual human ability behind almost immediately.

Assuming a descent int score, by 6th level you are at the peak of human ability (in the real world). With 6 ranks, class skill bonus and skill focus you are better then the any chef on earth. Gordon Ramsey isnt a 20th level character. He's like a 2nd level expert. So keep that in mind when considering the 'dcs' for meals.


Zardnaar wrote:

1. The natural spell feat.

2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells.
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.
4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power.
5. Number bloat/complexity.
6/ +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me.
7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons.
8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves.
9. Spell DCs over 20.
10. Unlimited ability score progression.
11. Fighters with only 2 skill points (house ruled to 4 IMC)

1. Pretty essential to the concept of a caster druid a big part of what makes them a solid choice is the fact that they can use wild shape as a utility spell. This would pretty much make codzilla ubiquoutous for all druids.

2. So lets remove the positive team play aspects of the game and encourage people to play on their own? Buffs are a big way in which casters and martial characters work together. This would make most of the key buff spells pretty pointless.

3. Assuming there is another way to recover hit points between combats I could care less. If there isnt, then you would be hard pressed to find someone willing to be a divine caster and spend all of their resources being a giant bandaid for the day.

4. Generally dont like this, and have actually created a large set of house rules to replace the bulk of magic items in my game.

5. I dont honestly know what you mean by this or what you would change, so no comment.

6. Full attacks are already murder machines. The issues with martials has nothing to do with how many attacks they get when full attacking. I consider this a pointless change.

7. Why exactly is this an issue. There is actually an even mix of bunuses (assuming everything hits) between two weapon fighting and 2handed fighting. Why on earth would you nerf this?

8. I guess thats fair, though in general thats why cloaks of resistance exist.

9/10. The fundamental math the game is built on works with 9 and 10. Changing that and you are messing with a major portion of the game. Changing this is going to require as much work as writing a new system from scratch possibly more.

I know you mentioned you want save or die spells to be crappy at high levels, but keep in mind there are lots of no spell abilities build off the same concept of 10+1/2 level + ability score. All you are doing is making non-save spells the only spells in the game at higher levels, and they arent in the weak end. Things like energy drain, black tentacles, are still awesome. They wont be impacted by this change, and since buffs arent worth a damn without their scaling bonuses, and evocation becomes pretty worthless when everything passes its saves, the only meaningful magic that will remain in the game is the spells that dont use saves.

11. Agreed, though In general I think the fighter ultimately needs to be replaced with a class that is more in line with everything else in the game mechanically.


Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

Hey guys,

So I have this idea for a module that is based on the concept that the PCs go down into a catacomb that has been used by a town for centuries and find a necromancer raising the dead, or, more to the point, they see the effects of him doing so while he is invisible.

The PCs begin the module at level 6.

The PCs encounter 32 CR 1/3 human skeletons summoned by the Necromancer's Imp familiar casting Lesser, Animate Dead with Familiar Spell feat.

One defeating the skeletons the PCs are taunted by the voice that they believe is the necromancer. The voice goes deeper into the catacombs, and the PCs follow. Once they are all inside, and the imps is aware of this, he pulls the "graverobber's switch" which causes a massive stone door to cover the exit to the lower catacombs. Once this happens the Necromancer begins raising 208 1HD Burning Skeletons unbeknownst to the heroes who are pursuing his familiar.

DO your players come prepared? It sounds like this whole thing can be foiled with a see invisibility scroll (never leave home without it).

{Quote]

Since neither the Necromancer nor his familiar directly engage the PCs they do not give XP.

This is categorically false. Summoning creatures to attack the pcs be they animals, outsiders or undead is in fact engaging the pcs. If the party overcomes what the imp summons (who is acting as the necromancers famliliar and thus an extension of the necromancer himself) they deserve the xp for overcoming him. Its pretty obnoxious to have the npc acting in the situation and then try to pretend it doesnt count because they dont like swing a sword at the pcs. Summoning still counts

Quote:

Skeleton workflow:
1) Does the target's have an unlimited energy resistance to fire.
--No. Attack Normally.
--Yes. goto 2.
2) Does the target have an unlimited source of DR that the skeleton's attacks do not defeat?
--No. Attack Normally.
--Yes. Grapple => Pin => Tie Up => Coup de Grace.

The Skeletons all have the same initiative, thereby making this work in a PCs turn, then Skeletons turn.
The Skeletons do their movements en masse, then attack en masse. Effectively they all move and then hold their actions until all their comrades have moved. After this the above workflow plays out.

Exactly how to mindless undead know of any of these things? A skeleton literally doesnt have the means to sort something like this out.


When you say system, what do you mean?

The craft rules arent meant for just making a meal, its for trying to produce goods for profit. Are you trying to make a profit? Or just put together a nice meal for you party?

In one of my games my witch is actually the cook. The time is left ambiguous but effectively, once per day I can spend enough food resources to make a meal for the party and roll a craft or proffession check. If I beat a DC 20 then the party gets a 'well fed' bonus to xp gained equal to my total divided by 6 (rounded down).


Except some of the most powerful concepts/classes are also somewhat mad. Sure the straight wizard doesnt need alot of stats. But what about a battle cleric or a wildshaping druid? Both of these are somewhat mad. I am not saying the game should always be played low point buy, but I dont think its an effective balancing method.


fireater wrote:
Well it works while wild shaped so I was wondering if it would yield a higher affective AC. And if I take a one level dip I would not use armor.

For a caster druid I wouldnt do anything that interferes with your casting. In general you are going to want to be AWAY from combat as a caster. In kingmaker you will be able to do that most of the time (wild shape into a bird and cast from the air).

Though in a 3 person party I would probably consider you keeping the animal companion. I know you dont want to step on the synthesists toes, but its almost guaranteed the snythesist will be better at stomping face, and the extra actions will be a big help to a small group.

Keep in mind the summoner cannot use his spell like ability while his eidolon form is present. So he's be using his spells to summon. So he may summon less then you think (I'd talk to him about it). You could even go with a more support animal companion, something like a wolf that trips the enemy so the synthesist can clobber them more easily.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:


Ok, so you want to reserve healing in combat until there's a sitrep when the next hit from a foe will drop one of your party. True. Topping off isn't all that useful in combat (altho when you Channel, the other party members get topped off as a nice side benefit, and with the some healers, they get temp HP instead if they don't need healing).

So, then you have a choice:
1. Try to attack, with about a 50% chance of dropping the foe?
OR
2. Heal, with a 100% chance of keeping your buddy up- so HE can drop the foe with his next attack?

#2 is the sure thing. Works every time.

Not to mention, if you don't heal him, and your attack fails to drop the foe, there's a chance the foe's attack will be lucky and your buddy is now DEAD. That means a SIGNIFICANT loss of party resources bringing him back.

In the end all the math in the world probably doesnt matter. Because we arent playing against a computer, or a set environment (unless someone runs aps by the book with no alterations). You have to deal with the preconceptions and impressions of your dm.

And for many dms, 'hard' fights need to have in combat healing in them. What does this mean? Basically, many dms when they are looking for a fight to be 'challenging' the result they expect is for one or more members of the party to either drop to negative hit points or nearly drop to negative hit points.

If this is the case, then in combat healing is a necessity. Aside from it often being useful to say keep the party damage dealer 'up' for one more round, its the simple fact that if the party needs to heal in combat it satisfies the dms phsycological need to see the party 'struggle' with a 'difficult' challenge. An experienced dm that see's his party walk over an encounter without significant damage may very well simply ramp up the difficulty of the next one. Where as if the cleric had to spend half his actions keeping the fighter alive, he'll probably either leave it alone or possibly reduce it.

So since we are dealing with a human being setting the challenges, all the theorycrafting in the world is meaningless. The dm will adjust the encounters to meet what he is looking to do. For 'important'/'tough' fights that likely means in combat healing.

Does that mean someone needs to be the 'healer'. Probably not. But it does mean someone probably needs to be able to cast divine spells and have a cure or two handy in case of emergency. And it means if someone is particularly good at healing (see life oracle) then chances are in those 'tough' fights, the party will be under less actual threat.

Essentially, the game doesnt require in combat healing, but many gms do. Which is effectively the same thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been playing a witch for a while now, and the truth is, I've stopped going for the save or lose style of play. Its alot more fun to debuff/buff. I even went so far as to get my dm to let me trade out slumber for a different hex. I would much rather use my hexes and spells to aid my allies in taking out the enemy then try to do it myself.

No one has fun if a slumber hex succceeds. Not even me. I'd rather blind a bunch of enemies with glitterdust and let the rogue stab them in the kidneys, or tag them with a evil eye and misfortune. More fun for everyone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Coltron wrote:

Its nice to see that the community isn't as negative as the threads had made it seems. Thanks everyone for your comments and advice.

The negativity is usually not towards someone who wants to be a healer, but the idea that it is required. There is a long history in many groups of someone geting 'forced' into playing the 'cleric' because either the dm, or the group thing its an absolute necessity. And in general, pathfinder is a game where people shouldnt be forced into such strict 'roles'.

If you play a buffing/healing cleric, you would be welcome at just about every table that plays pathfinder. For example, I play a witch in one of my groups campaigns. Primarily he is a buff/debuff character. But I also took the healing hex, because sometimes, the best thing I can do is keep out barbarian up for one more round. The key is I dont JUST heal, its not possible for instance to come close to matching enemy's damage output with healing. But a few choice moments, its generally a good idea to have someone who can heal in combat (and certainly out of combat). The big thing for someone who wants to be in that kind of support role is to do more the just heal. As you mentioned, you can be a very good buffer as a cleric. And often buffing is among the best use of your actions as a caster.

Quote:

@WatersLethe: Kinda like house I guess, but far less confrontational. As far as the buffing over healing, I am fine with this but I still want to have all the healing stuff at the same time. Its a holdover from my 4e days of being able to buff and heal with the same powers most of the time. The trade off is hanging me up.

Well pathfinder has introduced a number of mechanisms that means you dont have to choose between the two in terms of character options. Particularly with channel, you have a pure healing resource, and you can prepare your spells with buffs, and if needed spontaneously cast them as cure spells.

You wont get the same kind of action economy you got in 4E. You have to choose between the two in most cases.

Quote:

@DevilKiller: I look at a lot of the ideas you suggested and I really like them but I was just told by my friend that I have to own the book in order to use the feats,spells, etc (which seems to negate him saying pathfinder was free, but I get that in order to make content paizo has to get paid)I already bought the core rulebook, and might buy ultimate magic or the apg, but thats a lot of money to put into something I am not sure of right now.

Unless you are playing pathfinder society, there is no requirement to own the book. The PRD is freely available to all. I assume this a is a home game. In which case unless the dm requires it, you dont need to have a physical copy with you.

Quote:


Am I setting myself up for failure only having the core book? I seem to need a least a few more to do most of the stuff people have suggested

A cleric is the core book is perfectly servicable. But in general more options to choose from mean its easier to get the things you want done done. For instance a lot of 'healer' characters are life oracles instead of clerics.


No you dont need to be a follower of Sarenrae though it makes sense thematically, the only requirements are those listed by the feat.

Also the reckless trait from ultimate capmaign gives you acrobatics as a class skill.


Kjeldor wrote:
When I create a char with a new player, generally I find that I end up badgering too much when I'm trying to get the character they want to play. Keeping to the base classes, stay away from too many options/variants, helps to keep focused. Thats how I learned to play.

I think this really depends on the person. I've seen new players get overwhelmed with options, but I've also seen new players get frustrated when their character doesnt turn out the way they wanted it to, where as one of those options/variants could have made that happen.


magrat4 wrote:

Thanks, Sehnder & Kolokotroni!

These are good points, and I shouldn't assume she'll be happiest playing a fighter just because there's less reading.

I will let her know what the class options are and ask her what ideas she has, if any, about what she wants to be able to excel at.

For myself I like starting with a character concept, personality, and backstory and then using the classes, skills, etc. to express that character's strengths.

I should definitely ask what character she imagines when she talks about playing, and I must use the idea of asking her to think of a book or movie character as inspiration. She's such a big fantasy movie buff that it's in her screenname (hplotrgal for Harry Potter/Lord of the Rings gal).

Well if she's a big harry potter fan, then I DEFINATELY recommend not limiting her to figher/rogue options. She probably wants to play a caster. Just remind her that a pathfinder wizard, isnt really a harry potter wizard. Thats the sorceror (Natural talent, spontaneous casting etc). Also, even though I generally dont introduce sub rules to new players there is one in particular that I think might be really important for a harry potter fan.

There is a 3rd party product called the genius guide to runestaves and wyrd wants by rogue genius games. It provides alternate rules for wands and staves as implements instead of spells in a can. They are kind of like magic weapons for casters, enhancing or altering their spells, and would provide the kind of benefit that someone like a harry potter fan might expect.

An arcane bloodline sorceror with a wand as a bonded object that she eventaully crafts into a wyrd wand would provide a very harry potter feel.

Quote:

She will have one frame of reference---the card game Munchkin, which she taught me and then bought me. ;)

Well then she knows the important parts ;). Kick in door, kill monsters, take stuff...maybe a lighthearted dungeon crawl is in order to start off.

Quote:


Also very good point that letting her choose what to do and teaching her as she goes will be more fun and a better teaching method.

Definately a good idea. Offer advise, guidance, but never lead her. Otherwise she wont learn the game.

Quote:

As far as other players, I already have two in mind (one is another sister) who have just a few short Pathfinder games under the belt and won't mind the pace or focus on teaching. I will find a fourth among my acquaintances, or just NPC one.

And I couldn't agree more with the importance of not quashing the first-timer's instincts or experimental choices and their fun. I always disliked that in my first group, and these days I try to experiment more.

I will have to investigate this Beginner's Box...but most of the game will be played online as play-by-post.

Another simplifier I have used before and probably will again is to borrow from 4th ed D&D to combine certain skills, e.g., "Bluff/Intimidate/Diplomacy" become the single skill "Persuasion" and a few physical skills become "Athletics."

I might recommend against this for a new player. It might seem counter intiutive, but the uncombined skills are often more descriptive. With the exception of gather information being part of diplomacy now, people can generally through common language look at skills to figure out which one is what they want to do.

If you start rolling them together, it gets a little less obvious.


Neronoxx wrote:

Thank you for everyone who has contributed to this thread, but i want to clear up a few misconceptions.

1. Setting. This campaign will take place in a setting where magic is extremely rare. The only people capable of performing magic are called 'Pact-makers' due to the fact that each has a ritual that must be enacted after having used said magic (if this sounds familiar, check out "Darker than Black.") The PC's will all be servants of a royal family currently trying to decide which son/daughter of the dying king will inherit the throne. This results in a large amount of intrigue, as each PC may be serving different members of the family.
The campaign starts as this, but eventually will grow into something i cannot discuss here (as my players frequent these boards.)
2. The party WANTS to play this style of campaign. To those who think i am 'forcing' it on them, you can probably take a hike; i doubt you have anything constructive to add past that i am a terrible DM.
3. Encounters. This is primarily a human inhabited world. Not a whole lot of monsters, just mainly people. The players are people. The bad guys are people. Therefor i am not really concerned about "balancing" encounters too much.
4.Healing. As stated above, i don't think that healing will be an issue.
With those clarifications, shall we continue?

If the vast majority of encounters are human, there wont be as much of a balance issue except in extreme cases, monks odly enough generally present a balance issue in low magic or no magic campaigns as they often perform best when lacking magical reasources.

In terms of healing, I am not sure what you have planned, but if the majority of it is about intrigue in civilized areas, it can work, just both you and the players need to understand potential pacing issues. If there is a 'combat encounter' where significant injury occurs, it will take at least several days for the party to recover. The story needs to be paced accordingly.


You also need to keep in mind the flip side of the issue. Yes dominate/enchantment can be extremely disruptive and trivialize challenges. But at the same time, LOTS of things are either highly resistant or completely immune to enchantment spells.

Make sure your player knows and understands this, and plans in alternatives. I've previously played a beguiler in 3.5, and one of the biggest issues with the character was just how many arbitrary bonuses there are to saves against enchantment spells, and how many things we faced were flat out immune to most of my abilities. That can be just as frustrating for a player, as having the bad guy dominated is for the DM.

In general I try to guide people away from focusing on spells of that sort. Having a charm or even dominate is handy, but if its your primary tactic then it it almost never makes for a good game unless the campaign is designed for it (some kind of intrigue/political campaign).


OWEN STEPHENS wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
the summoner himself not so much -- the class itself is very much a fixed progression.
That's sort of splitting hairs. The summoner is a fixed progression because of the huge amount of customizability of the eidolon.

Yeah... but what if I wanted to include options for summoners who didn't HAVE eidolons?

Because I do. :D

You mean a summoner that summons things instead of being the eidolon's sidekick? Thats just rediculous. Also awesome and gimme gimme.


LazarX wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:


It certainly isnt the worst system ever developed. But it represents a very specific view of magic. One that doesnt mesh with the overwhelming majority of fantasy, and requires whole host of setting specific elements that pathfinder/golarion dont have.

In dieing earth you literally have to learn the spell that a specific person came up with. (remember the named spells in 3rd edition thats every spell). You have to learn it from books, or from someone teaching it to you. You then copy it exactly into your own book for future reference. It requires an extremely talented wizard to make up his own spells(literally name in the history books sort of people).

Pathfinder does not in any way shape or form represent this reality. Sorceror pull spells out of their arse. Wizards still come up with spells every level, whether they are studying in their academy, or in the middle of the jungle or on another plane. A witch gets spells wispered into their ear by a familiar, a cleric gets his spells directly from a deity, or from worshiping an ideal. And yet, despite all of this, the spells are always the same, and behave precisely the same way every time.

What you need to understand that above all.... Pathfinder Magic isn't about writing great classic literature. It's about gaming. It's about producing a consistent set of rules, so that you can write adventures for wide variety of people and give them approximately the same level of challenge. As fine as a work of literature it is, (and it's nice part of my collection) There are reasons why Ars Magica, for instance hasn't swept the planet, and why Pathfinder's D20 based structure has persisted despite the arguably better written, more engrossing competitors that have come and gone since then. It's a consistent set of buildin blocks that are generally easy to understand, but don't have the homogenous feeling of GURPS 1d6 magic.

I am not interested in creating literature. I am interested in creating a world building tool. I also dont think its difficult to make magic both simple to use in game, and less irrational. Things like gurps and ars magica make changes to EVERYTHING making the entire game more consistent. I am simply talking about magic, and the vancian rules. In fact a simple change to spell points over spell slots not only is a big help, it also is generally much easier for players to understand in this day and age.

Simplicity and consistency are not mutually exclusive.


Mike J wrote:

Gestalts are a great option, but they can become wildly unbalanced, if you aren't very careful - like a dex-based elf ranger/guide/alchemist/mindchemist with an elven curved blade. At first, it seemed well rounded (good combat, AOE, spell support). It ended up being ridiculously overpowered.

Well this is why I meantioned that the emphasis should be on filling in gaps and not on enhancing specific abilities. If you have lots of stacking abilities it will be an issue. If you deliberately make an effort not to do this but instead go for versatility, it is hands down your best option, and it doesnt overpower anything (when compared to 2 characters that is)

Quote:

Another option that fits well with published adventures or adventure paths is having the player run a pair of characters and have a pair of DMPCs. Make each pair consist of a "primary" with a 25 point buy and a "sidekick" with a 20 point buy (or 20 and 15, if you like). Encourage the player to make characters that will be the primary focus (the "face", skill guy, god wizard, paladin, etc.) and then make the DMPCs the lumps that round out the group.

The advantage is that you end up with a true party of 4 (which is what published stuff tends to assume). But the player has only two characters to play and one is a sidekick (should be fairly easy). Likewise, the DMPCs should be tag-a-long characters who look to the group leader (player's primary) for direction and guidance. The trick with this method is to just make sure the DMPCs don't steal the PC's thunder and spotlight.

I am not a fan of players running more then one character, but that is mostly me. I find that sort of thing makes it hard to have depth in roleplaying and character development, though ultimately it works just fine for the mechanical side of things.


This has come up in my game, and the general ruling has been yes but its disgusting wall meat. Just because its flesh doesnt mean you WANT to eat it. It might still taste like rocks lol. I guess as mentioned magic can fix that by purifying it and flavoring it.


Cap. Darling wrote:

I dont undestand. Because rogues are different they should suck at all the Classic roles?

Dont you think that the rogue al least should have the option to excel at the " unseen burglar" role?

They do, its called the ninja. They are damned good unseen burglars. Each of the rogue's attempted 'roles' can and do work in a rogue-like class, they just cant all be rammed into the SAME class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:


Well, considering that I've done away with XP and use plot based leveling, and that I've done away with the standard treasure system and use a magical encumbrance system perhaps that changes things. There is no longer a specific reward system for based on the difficulty of what you're fighting. Rather, there is a plot and your level progresses based on the plot. And, as welath is a direct connection to power, I have fixed it to level. My intention is to challenge and create a memorable story. Not for players to fixate on how much xp or gold something is worth.

I also wouldn't arbitrarily add +10 NA to AC, so perhaps you point is moot because my method is more about adding unsual power and SLA...

Truth be told I dont use xp anymore either, or gold for that matter. So yea, I agree its not about the specific risk/reward, but more about appropriately assesing the level of risk. There is a general structure to things and just popping abilities in and out of a character violates that structure, and thus potentially violates what is or isnt an appropriate challenge. For instance, a 5th level fighter with npc gear is a CR 4 challenge. A 5th level fighter with npc gear who can cast haste as a spell like ability is not a CR 4 challenge.

And yes your method isnt as troublesome for me, though I do prefer that it be done via the rules then not. Nothing sucks more then the 'i can do it but you cant' nature of certain rulesets (this is of course my opinion). If the badguy fighter suddenly can throw fireballs, and the player fighter wants to do it too, he should have the option. Even if it isnt actually an option for his particular character (maybe you need to be a certain race) but it should be in the general pool of options for everyone.


One of the best part of pathfinder is the robust 3rd party publishing section. O a, Pretty sure Wilderness Dressings - Woodlands is precisely what you are looking for. A big table of minor encounters and features to either choose from or roll on if you want 'random'.


Scalling the encounters doesnt really work well. Even if the encounters are easier, there are fundamental things a single person party will lack.

I have run successful 1 on 1 campaigns. My strategy is thus.

Gestalt - the rules from unearthed arcana are perfect for these situations. Making the character higher level, or the encounters lower cr doesnt solve the fact that one character doesnt have all the abilities a typical adventure expects. Gestalt allows them to dramatically expand those abilities. Add in a higher point buy or a generous rolling method, and he can have a much more capable character so long as he chooses 2 classes to gestalt the compliment eachother instead of stack(so a paladin/bard, instead of a fighter/barbarian). This means more versatile characters without making them significantly more numerically powerful

DMPC
Normally I shy away from these. But if theres just 1 player, there is some serious oportunity for roleplay, bonding and character development. You can have the buddy cop movie or whatever. And you can tailor your dmnpc to complement whatever the player picks, filling in any gaps in the 'party'.

Encourage Action economy and multi role classes:

The two absolute best classes for this situation are the summoner, and the druid. Normally the fact that these classes are potent casters AND get a powerful combat pet is disruptive. In a 2 person party its a non-issue. Theres no spotlight to steal. A party of a gestalt Summoner/ninja and a Druid/magus is a complete party. 4 sets of actions every turn, plenty of utility casting, healing/condition removal, control casting, skills, and combat power.

The pets are important because they offer that extra set of actions. In a small party the biggest issure is action economy. Even if you are a cleric/wizard, you still only cast one spell per turn. But the pets mean that the 'character' can attack and cast a spell, or attack twice, or do whatever. It evens things out and allows for more normal challenges.

The other classes I encourage are those that have an action economy boost (magus and spell combat, inquisitor with swift action buffs), that sort of thing.

With all that combined, you really dont have the change a thing for published adventures, and can pretty much run normally. They ought to have all the requisite abilities if they were created well and with versatility in mind.


raven1272 wrote:

Rogue Genius Games, formerly Super Genius Games, has a fighter/mage class called the Archon that is full BAB, 6th level spells, and has abilities as well. You can buy it here on this site for $3. Or, you can probably see it for free on the open pathfinder SRD. Even though it is third party, it was made by designers who are now paizo staff.

The point is, I don't think full BAB and 6th level arcane spells are a deal breaker by themselves. But you do have to watch how powerful the spell list is, how much armor they can wear, and what the abilities are. If you plan to offer a weapon boosting ability, I would recommend 4th level spells instead.

I've used the archon in a campaign as mentioned. And the key thing to remember is that it has a very restricted spell list, and though it has lots of abilities, it doesnt mesh everything together particularly well. It certainly doesnt have anything on par with spell combat until it gets to very high levels. And thats sort of the point, it does have 6 level casting and full bab, but thats almost all it gets. It gets a few minor abilities, but they arent anything flashy. The archon in my game was never the best at anything, but he was among the more versatile characters.


The begginer box is probably the best possible resource for this sort of thing. THe visual way it presents the information for new players is truly invaluable to teaching new players.

That said, if you do go full rules first, I wouldnt stick to just fighter or rogue. She can just as easily play a sorceror or oracle if she has a different idea for what she wants to do. Is 'I stab it with my sword' really harder then 'I kill it with fire'? I think spontaneous casters if you help them with selection are just as easy to play as martial types for new players. After all, the thing that makes dnd fantasy is magic. Ask her questions about the kind of character she'd like to be. If she likes anything in fantasy literature/movies, she can use that. I wouldnt just hand her generic fighter guy and expect her to get into the game.

I also would avoid prepared casters, mostly because then the choices can truly be overwhelming for a new player.

Also, if you can get a friend or two to help that would be ideal. Pathfinder isnt a 1on1 game. If you can get 2 friends (yours or hers) to join, she will get a more genuine experience, and it will be easier to make the game work. Just make sure if those other people are experienced, they know the whole point of this game is to teach new players.


Phoebus Alexandros wrote:

Looks like limited BAB it is. I'll admit that one thing that I couldn't shake was that Spellstrike essentially added an extra attack at the highest BAB, which thanks to spellcasting can be brought up to Martial levels.

My main issue was that this class is akin to the Kensai in the sense that it focuses on a single "weapon of choice". Conceptually and thematically, I've always had trouble with someone who is a "weapon master" having less than full BAB.

Such is life!

Thanks for the input, everyone. That doesn't mean I'm not open to other suggestions, of course :)

Is there a fundamental difference between someone with full bab, and someone with full bab who adds +1/5 his level to his attacks via weapon ehancements? I mean shouldnt a portion of a fightermage's martial prowess come from magic? Why is that an issue?

I mean there is actually one class from a 3rd party publisher (rogue genius games) that I allow at my table that has full bab and a slightly reduced 6 level casting progression called the archon. But it also is a very lackluster class in terms of its abilities and doesnt mesh magic and fighing overly well. Its not a bad class, its just clunky (sort of how a fighter heavy eldritch knight turns out) and doesnt have features as elegant and potent as spell combat. I had a player play one in a previous campaign and it was functional, but never really shone because of its lack of cohesion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

Not really. One, most players I know are completely aware that there are abilities NPCs get that would be disruptive for PCs to have, and that NPC abilities are functions of plot.

If all else fails, just slap a +20 natural armor bonus on him and call it a day.

In my experience, this isn't true at all, and a large part of the difference in design philosophy between Pathfinder and 4E...Pathfinder doesn't actually build NPCs with different rules than PCs. And that's part of why Pathfinder is more popular, IMO.

It's certainly part of why I prefer Pathfinder.

Eh. That was one of the things I liked about 4e. It wasn't a colossal pain in the butt to GM because you had to do stuff like this.

And even in PF, you're completely authorized to do so, because you're the freakin' GM. 'These rules are just guidelines, break 'em if you need to' is a gaming truism from day 1.

Definitely agree with Zhayne. Plot armor (and everything else) are definitely NPC abilities that should be applied as necessary. Don't abuse the heck out of it, but if you want an NPC to have or be able to do something it does. You are the DM, you don't have to play by "the rules". Your jobs is to present a challenge to the PCs (not overwhelm them and kill, nor make it a cake walk). Sometimes, to make that more intertesting it is better to make a fighter that can use wands without needing UMD because you can.

I dont agree with this mentality, and I despise plot armor. The thing that appeals to me most about pathfinder is how internally consistent the rules are. I have a strong distaste for disassociative rules, and while I am all for house rules, thats not what 'plot armor' is. Its an arbitray and immersion breaking (for me) short cut, that makes it so the rules are no longer internally consistent.

Any time the dm simply fudges the numbers to suit his fancy without working within the system, he's removing player agency, making the choices his players unimportant. "Fighter have a high attack bonus? No big deal I'll arbitrarily add 10 to the bad guys ac, with no additional reward offered for the added difficulty, just a big middle finger to the fighter player who made his choices to make him good at hitting stuff. He might was well have put his feats into skillfocus basket weasving, then my bad guy wouldnt have needed the plot armor." Its almost uinversally something that will drive me away form a table.

Mind you I do want a challenge at the table, but when a dm increases difficulty it should be done within the system, because that increases the reward the players get (in the form of xp or treasure as either magic items, or a higher cr are responsible for the more difficult opponent).


Assuming I dont have a ready made npc handy (I keep a library of them from various sources available) that fits precisely with what I am going for, I will still take a premade npc as my basis. Making a level 12 wizard bad guy? Fine I take a level 12 wizard out of the npc codex, then modify him as needed. This saves me time on a lot of things. First off basic math. I can adjust stats, but I dont have to do the initial calculations. Just move things up or down as needed. I dont have to choose every skill point, just move some around, same thing with spells, feats, gear etc. It means I dont have to write in each and every thing, just what specifically is needed for the character I am going for.


Cutting out other abilities isnt going to help matters. A class shouldnt have more then 4 levels of casting (paladin style) and full BAB. Period. Full Stop. Magic is an extremely potent tool, particularly arcane magic. The thing I'd remove from the magus to accomodate full bab is the two highest levels of their spellcasting.

If you want a magicy fighter thats more fighter then magic I'd recommend taking a look at this homebrew class: The Iron Mage.


W E Ray wrote:

Yeah, I'm not too optimistic about "strong" growth in the US; I think, though, that a fan's perspective greatly depends on where in the US one lives. For me, the last 3 cities (2 FL, 1 NC) I've been in have had absolutely NO international football love. Real Madrid vs Atletico a month ago didn't even exist here. Not a single "Irish" Pub or sports bar (I called over 20, all I could find) even knew it was on or what it was. Same with all the other Champions' League games the last few years -- not to mention Premier League games. And no one on ESPN knows anything about football.

All american sports are regional. Obviously part of that will be the heritage of the populations. Places with a large 'ethnic'(anyone but 'mericans) population have soccer fans in droves. But like I said, international soccer fans isnt what's important to the american game. Its the mls. As that grows, we will get more talented american athletes in soccer, and more of the talented soccer players WILL end up playing pro soccer.

And as far as the pundits. That will come. Heck we had micheal strahan making comments about the world cup on espn recently. That is just going to take time. As more people start watching the mls, more sports writers/sports casters will know more about soccer. Again they might not know as much internationally, but that isnt all that important to the growth of the american game (in the terms of the national team and overall talent in the us).

And I would imagine, things will change slowly in florida soon, Orlando's getting an mls team in I think 2 years and the team might actually be successful. The semi pro team already pulls over 10k fans most games. Imgaine if they actually get a few names in house.

Quote:

But we are growing -- just not very fast.

Given the colapse of other leages that grew too fast, I'm ok with the mls' growth rate. I'd rather slow and steady without collapse then

And honestly, the growth has been faster then you think. Since 1994 the american team has gone from obscure also ran, to potential contender in the round of 16. That might not seem like much to us americans who are spoiled by teams like the steelers, patriots, or yankies, or other dynasties who dominate consistently.

But think about this for a moment. 20 years ago, (exactly 1 generation in soccer terms) the US UNEXPECTEDLY made the world cup, they actually won a few games and it was a complete surprise.

This year, it was expected that the US would make the world cup. They dominated a match against 4th ranked portugal. In fact fifa ranks them 13th. That might seem low. In a league of say 30 teams thats middle of the road. But we arent talking 30 teams.

There are 8 soveirgn states on the PLANET that dont have fifa membership. There are 209 members of fifa. The US is ranked 13th in a league of 209. And they have made the playoffs 7 straight times. By any measure of the word, that is a success. In 2002 we got as high as 7th in the fifa rankings, and if not for a missed goal line handball, they could have gone further. Think about that for a moment and tell me that the US mens national team hasnt grown.

You arent going to get a dynasty anymore. There is too much parity, the game is too fast, and so a single generation of players wont last long at their peak. Spain, one of the single most dominant teams in the sports history, had 3 major tournaments, 2 eurocups and 1 world cup. Now their key players are past their prime, and its time for a rebuilding cycle.

The US was by all rights a top 4 team in 2002. 2006 was a let down, 2010 was a bit of a climb back up. Now in 2014 we have a team that by all rights beat up on 4th ranked portugal and the Worlds best player in Ronaldo. Tommorrow they face powerhouse germanty (ranked 2nd at the moment), and they likely wont just play with 11 men behind the ball and hope for the best. They will PLAY. That in and of itself is something to be proud of.

Quote:


. . . .

Really, Spain are happy they won a game. Against Australia-

How the mighty have fallen. They were pathetic the whole tournament.
Question: Will Xavi, Iniesta, Xabi, Pique, Busquets, Sergio Ramos, Iker Cassilias or any of the other Barca/ Real players ever play for the Spain squad again?
They can't cut it.

It happens. They are a bit too old. People should have seen it with Barcelona falling from grace on the european stage. But no one wants to admit that a team that effectively spent 6 years dominating everything they saw might be past its prime. I imagine some of them might play again for spain, but not as the core of the team, and maybe not as starters.

Quote:

It seems as though Mata, Cazorla, Silva, Fabregas & DeGea, and young players I've not learned yet, should be the future of the club. What do the Spain followers say?

Like every team that makes if over the hump, soccer is a young mans game. They will find new players.

Quote:

I'm not convinced the Group draws are rigged at all. I revile FIFA as much as the next human with a beating heart and a soul -- but I don't see their motive for fixing the Groups.

They should be far more transparent in, well, in everything (if they should even exist as a governing body at all). But ultimately, the teams have to be rated (so that the A teams are in separate Groups) and you can only fairly rate them on performances. Switzerland isn't 1/100th a team as Germany, France, Argentina, Spain -- even Brasil. But based on their handful of games, they deserved to be one of the 8 "A" teams.

Did FIFA rig it so that France, on paper the 3rd or 4th best team in the world despite stinking up every football pitch they'd been on, humiliating their country and looking like asses since 2010, would be in the same Group as Switzerland so that the Group would have a legitimate contender (cuz the Swiss sure as heck ain't real contenders)?... I don't think so.

And I really don't believe that US and Ghana were matched together on purpose. Or anything else. FIFA, as corrupt, pathetic and soulless as they are, have no motive to do that.

I HATE fifa. Seriously, despite it being literally something I grew up with, fifa has the capacity to sour me on the sport as a whole. It wouldnt surprise me that they did anything corrupt. But I do think the ghana us thing is likely chance. There is always a group of death or two every world cup. Thats what happens when you cram the best 32 teams of 209 into groups of 4.

I do think fifa has biases. How they come out is hard to say. Ref assignments seems like the most obvious ones. But in terms of groups, I think that at least happens as it has been shown so far. I dont have a reason yet to believe the groups were 'fixed'.


David Neilson wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Which number of 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 does not belong with the others?

Thog the Barbarin "I would go with 9 it is the only non-prime number in that progression."

Which is why this is sort of silly. If thog the barbarian is being played by a mathmetician, and The 20 int wizard and 20 wisdom cleric are being played by people who dont know what prime numbers are, are we really saying the illiterate barbarian that counts with is tows is the one that comes up with the answer here?

1 to 50 of 8,007 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.