Mad Alchemist's page

I would prefer the races were not concentrated in the groups of players who go to conventions. Some people don't like conventions or are in remote areas where conventions are less accessible. A person in the Bay Area could easily have 2-3 racial boons without making a lot of effort, while a people in Fresno or Bakersfield would have to either put on a beginner's bash (no longer available) or travel 3-4 hours to get to a convention. Others just don't have the money or inclination to attend a crowded convention.

I don't like the idea of having them as an always available option either, I would just like to see the boons distributed in a more democratic way.

.

Star Wars

The thing that drives me nuts (in the case of the changes of heart on intelligent animal companions and weapon-using monks) is when people say "it's always worked that way" even when there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Sigh...

Because the authors of the adventures haven't made mistakes in the stat blocks before? I have read numerous times how the people who write the adventures are not the people who make the Pathfinder rules, and how there have been communication errors in the past. If this is, in fact the case, then the adventure writers have been running with the 3.5 assumption in error the whole time. Maybe you should be pissed at them instead.

If AN author makes a mistake, the author didn't read the rules correctly. If nearly everyone else, including most people writing the adventures, archetypes, and examples in the books, don't read it correctly then there is a legitimate disconnect between the intent and the words as written.

Barbarian: RAGELANCEPOUNCE!

"Now, the sanctioned modules must be played by a character within one level of the module’s starting level. I know this is not a popular decision for some. However, campaign leadership feels this change is what is best for the campaign. Death and use of consumables now have consequences."

THANK YOU. Sanctioned modules just went from "why bother" to a vibrant, exciting part of the campaign.

And, oddly enough, given the dynamics, at present, of the local area, it feels just the opposite to me.

Indeed, of the general crop of local players, I think I am one of the few who has a character in the right level range to play the capstone module for Season 3. Indeed, I think I may have the highest level character in my local area.

And, now, I have to rethink on which f my PCs is going to get credit for the module I am running this coming Saturday, since it is no longer legal to credit to the PC I wanted to give the credit to.

Maybe, someday, I will be able to run something besides Tier 1 and subtier 1-2 scenarios & modules....

Hulk refers to Hulk in third person because it makes Hulk feel like princess.

There is also the Iberian Wolf from the Arcane Legions set.

One note about this miniature, it sits on a base with two pegs. You'll probably want to put it on another base to make it more stable (Arcane Legions uses cards that you put the miniatures in). If you just glue the base that it already has to another base, this will leave you a bit of a slot between the two bases due to the pegs. The great thing about this is you can stick another miniature's base into this slot and you can have the "mounted" character attached.

Screw shooting 13 arrows.

This is my next Zen Archer Monk!

I agree, these are great. My only request is that you start including the flavor text that appears in the blog in the pdf along with the chronicle, much like how the chronicles for the sanctioned modules include the module specific rules.

By including the flavor text, you will have more people reading it (probably, anyway), which is kinda the point of the whole thing, right?

heretic,

As soon as you give players the option to play something other than their own character for credit, you have undermined the integrity of organized play. The players are playing a pickup game and getting PFS rewards for doing so. They aren't accepting any greater risks than reading one of the Pathfinder Tales books so their rewards should be commensurate with that.

I like Mike's solution but I would be open to other ideas so long as they incorporate the idea that character advancement should be tied to actual character accomplishments and risks characters have taken. The current system (and most proposed alternatives) fail miserably with regards to this.

That is why I suggested to still allow people to use the old Module system of making your own PC but the new system for Linking the risks to one of your PCs like the new Pre-Gen system. This gets around the whole Pre-Gen issue adding more risk then needed but still links a "real" pc to all the risk of the Module.

I was shot down by everyone, but it seems like a great option for those of us that still want the Modules for play fo everyone and for those that want the Risk as part of the modules.

Edit: This would fix the majority of the complaints by those who don't like the new system fully and at the same time everyone else who wants the Risk still there.

Disclaimer: OK, I haven't read everything, but here's my two copper.

I played Iron Medusa (part of) at GenCon. I was able to build and run a 14th level character, something I'd never get to do outside a module in PFS. We played two midnight madness's and I had a lot of fun (but too little sleep for an old fart). I don't want to lose the option of building a high level PFS character for a high level module. I had as much fun creating the character and trying out some new things as I did playing him. That's one of the cool things about high level modules that I don't want to lose. I don't see the 'building high level character' in Mike's 3 options.

-Swiftbrook

If module play isn't for you, I hope you will enjoy scenario play then as that is still our focus for PFS.

Part of the problem is some of us feel like it was for us but now it is not.

We very much enjoyed running it the way it was but don't see that as the case as it will be.

My complaint is related.

Right now, module play is the only way a PFS player can fix a broken character. (If the person also GMs, he could apply GM-credit to the character, but that's a much larger investment for a lot of players.)

By this, I mean that things can go bad for a character, leaving her disabled in some way (a witch with a dead familiar can't prepare spells; a fighter with four permanent negative levels can't compete effectively in a party; characters can be permanently blinded) without the resources necessary to get back on her feet.

(This isn't a problem outside of organized play, because the party can chip in to buy a new familiar or pay for the restoration spells, but player characters aren't allowed to buy stuff for one another like that in PFS.)

Show of hands: if you were getting ready to go on a notoriously deadly scenario, would you object if I brought a crippled PC to the table, knowing I couldn't pull my weight, and was just raisng the APL?

So, right now, the player's best option is to play a module. She plays a version of her character, raised to the appropriate level and fixed. Then she returns to her PC, with experience, prestige, and gold enough to call a new familiar or get a couple of restoration spells.

The proposal on the table eliminates this. She won't be able to play a levelled-up version of her PC, and if the pre-gen does swimmingly, she won't be able to apply any of the benefits to her PC until she plays enough scenarios with her crippled PC to reach that level.

---+---

"Well, that player should just volunteer to GM until she gets enough GM credit to fix the PC. That's easy."

That's easy for a venture-captain and a bunch of multiple-star GMs to say. It's not so easy for a player who has never GMed before, or hates to GM, or for whom there aren't easy GM opportunities.

---+---

One of the strongest positive aspects of module play is it serving as a means to help players who have beloved PCs who are really down on their luck. Losing that aspect would be a negative change to the PFS community.

I will go into more detail after work, But I will give you a Hint. I hate the changes. This removes all the reasons I was willing to run such a long Module in the first place and if these rules go into affect It will at least kill Module play here.

My reasons I will explain later.

Edit: I do like the 12+ rules.

I like the current policy.

New players can try builds out while experiencing high level play.

More experienced players can gather their PFS friends and play a mod for credit easily.

Sure their they have their promblems, mainly time constraints but more pathfinder products should help grow PFS base.

Last week I ran From Sea to Shore half the players that showed came from the begginers box bash. I think they enjoyed it, for instance one tried a magus another tried a leveled up version of her character while the next tried a collosus styled summoner. I think that build and trial were great.

I don't know what changes could be added to make this situation more balanced, with the exception of making level 12+ mods for retired characters only, that is another issue, I would also think that limiting gold to zero would be a decent change but don't think it is needed. I think the best part(most valuable) of these chronicles is a lengthy equipment selection.

With the exception of one item, I cannot remember an item I bought from a society scenario. While I know the mod sheets have allot of useful equipment.

But Set, you're punishing all the good people who want to roleplay 'real' characters in a 'real' world with 'real' dangers and threats that can happen any time, and the ability to respond to situations in character without running into situations like the following.

I'm not punishing anyone.

A) They can have their own servers.

B) They can RP to their heart's content in the PVP areas.

C) They can RP *with people who want to RP with them* and not spend their evenings making other people's evenings miserable. If they want to do that, they can go post mean things on little kid's Facebook pages or something. It's not like the world is lacking for ways to get one's mean kicks.

D) RVR or PVP zones with level restrictions are *way* more fun, IMO. I have vastly enjoyed PVP with people who were actually threats to me, and never understood the pleasure in ganking people who were grey. Even in PVP zones, if I see a lowbie doing a quest, I just leave them alone. Where's the honor and glory in kicking puppies? Ooh, fear my might, 16 hit point newb in his starting tabard!

I might sound like a 'carebear,' but, cripes, I was in Ebonlore (in EQ, on Erollisi Marr). Our guild got perma-banned en masse after they player-killed that GM and looted her stuff. I'm no stranger to the epic dickishness that bad coding can encourage.

The same kind of player that does it for pure Lulz.

My only question is this:

Why would this be fun to play?

Because you are selfish and want to hog all the spotlight, marginalizing everyone else in the party.

I may have exaggerated my statement of it being amazingly fun to play for emphasis on the following points.

I'm just trying to imagine that has to fly around invisibly and mind blanked in constant fear for his life.

Honestly if I were that casty I'd be reassesing my life considering that it might have been simpler to locate off-plane where a wizard can freely frolic in meadows without suddenly being splattered into a fine mist by barbarians that crash like thunder and go to technical school.

Honestly though the real victim here is the synthesists being reduced to pack animals.

Please.

Think of the synthesists.

BARBARIAN NOTE CASTY HAVE NO ACTUAL EXAMPLES, ONLY 'CAN TOTALLY DO THIS.' SCHRODINGER CASTY AM ABOUT TO MEET LANCE OF OBSERVED STATE.

BARBARIAN PUT MONEY ON LANCE. AM SMART BET.

I think some of the posters are getting out of line here....

I like the part where you tell us we have no right to judge him and then immediately proceed to judge us and his players.

It's hard to imagine so much wrong can be crammed into such a short post.

What I've gotten from this thread:

If you're a player, then saying "but the rules don't say I can't do X!" doesn't mean you can. You have to follow what is written.

If you're a GM, then saying "but the rules don't say I can't impose X penalty!" means you're doing your job as a GM. You don't have to follow what's written if what you'd rather do instead isn't explicitly forbidden.

Alright, good to know. I'll keep it in mind.

I just want to point out for the future that horses should absolutely be common and with multiple sculpts to boot. Might be nice if they had flat-ish saddles as well, so you could stack riders on them without requiring a special rider mini!

I hate three-player tables.

There seems to be a lot of "I dont like 7 player tables/GMing" and just about as many "meh, ain't no big deal" back and forth.

The simple fix is to leave it up to the GM Coordinator.

There is no reason for a "crutch" ruling.

If as a GM/Coordinator you do not want to run a 7 man table, say nope so sorry have a biscuit and go home.

If as a player you don't want to play a 7 man game, get up, grab a biscuit and go home.

But to make this a hard and fast rule is pointless and more than a bit obnoxious IMHO, and really doesn't promote the "anyone is welcome" kind of atmosphere necessary for potential first time players and onlookers. Strictly enforcing the 6 man table limit reeks of airs of exclusivity to me, and isn't a good thing.

I am against requiring a table limit of 6 at most, and would recommend avoiding turning away players if at all possible.

Alright, let's review a couple of things here:

1) This is the "Rules Questions" board. That means we're supposed to be talking about how the rules work. Acceptable answers are "legal", "not legal", or "unsure" - and you can make logical cases to lead up to those conclusions. But keep your judgmental condemnation of the people interested in the query at hand to yourself. None of you are better than the people who want to shield bash two-handed, so stop making accusations and calling them stupid, etc.

2) This is the "Rules Questions" board. That means any "I wouldn't allow that at MY table" statements (or similar) belong elsewhere (like, say, the houserule section, or even the general discussion forum). If you want to point out that, based on your keen GMing instincts, it seems iffy and therefore people should check with their own GMs, fine. "Unsure" is an acceptable answer, as I stated above. But back it up with a reason to be unsure. "I don't like it", "I think it's stupid", and so forth are perfectly valid reasons for houserules, but not for answers in this section of the forum. Leave your personal preferences out of it - there are entire sections of the forums devoted to your preferences, so keep them there.

All animals have a +2 Wisdom modifier. I'm pretty sure that combined with the awaken spell is plenty fuel for some odd fetishes. As noted by another poster earlier, an awakened squid or octopus would be high octane fetish fuel, and probably very popular in the lands of the Ogre Magi and Samurai.

I can't help but to imagine what qualifies as masterwork tools for this profession either, but I'd be curious enough to at least take a cursory glance into the toolbox.

While not technically a matter of courtesan professionalism, kinks of all kinds are probably related. Thus it might be worth noting that a wizard, sorcerer, or witch can have relations with their familiar since they can cast alter self on their familiar to transform them into humanoids. I've had at least one NPC whose soulmate/lover was also their familiar (much to the party's surprise when the familiar's true form was discovered).

Animated objects have pretty crappy Wisdom and no skill points, but the general utility of having an animated tool is undeniable. This might be what is inside the toolbox I mentioned earlier.

Random Trivia: Gnolls make poor courtesans. Their wisdom doesn't stand out and their Charisma is pretty poor for scrounging up folks with Diplomacy and the like. Plus, there is only really one style they're proficient in, and it's not kitty style.

Azers are smokin' hot! Just make sure to use protection; and by protection of course I mean resist energy!

I personally have something of a fetish for mariliths. I dunno what it is. A really strong, sexy woman with six arms and a sensual serpentine tail? Not sure exactly which part of that combination clogs my cogs but it seems amazingly awesome. Probably the six arms since I'm also a fan of Spinerette...

If you have a bit of extra cash, a wizard can actually create any lover for you via simulacrum. Very useful spell, and exceptionally good for those lonely wizards who can't find anyone who they can have an intellectual conversation with. Simulacrum also probably qualifies for self-cest when used in this way, but who knows what you like better than yourself (or yourself as the opposite gender)?

Not for the faint of heart, but I believe Mammy Graul was familiar with how the undead don't tire out, no matter what sort of tasks you command your zombies to preform. Such things are probably left to the minds of the deranged or those who have fetishes for sparkly dead things.

Sirens on the other hand are naturally gifted in such things with a +8 Wisdom and +10 Charisma, but they tend to get attached easily, as some of then die of broken hearts when their chosen males leave. There's also a rather disturbing note that sirens possess the bodies of large predatory birds but have to mate with humanoid men. Err...maybe we should turn off the camera, or sell the video to Unnatural Geographic!

No matter how good their offer sounds, and their +2 Wisdom be darned, do not consider Xill when picking your escorts for the evening. Especially don't accept any drinks you didn't order yourself. If you have to ask why, just take a look at how Xill do their thing...

While not Pathfinder, mind flayers have the option of making excellent lovers. They have amazing Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, come built in with tentacle fetish fuel, and probably want you for your mind more than your body.

Remember what they say in the nine yells. It's Erin-yes, not Erin-no.

Contrary to popular belief, invisible stalkers were around before the movie Hollow Man. However, Kevin Bacon probably is probably a 3rd level Bard, which means he probably doesn't need to do too much stalking (though I do believe Jack stalked him on Will & Grace, the irony).

One of the first things that they teach you in cleric school is how to use the spell Command responsibly. Yes you can force someone to do something with a 1 word command for 1 round, but some commands are probably not appropriate for public use.

It's late and I can't help but be a little silly and share a few laughs.

and the end result is, you get grit back roughly as fast as you spend it. You can do yourself a favor by filling up to your max before going to town, however.

How does one 'fill up' with grit?

Hiding in an alley, shooting drunks in the back of the head, as they stumble out of the tavern?

"Good shot, Your Holiness!"

"Let us scarper, young squire, and try behind The Lusty Duck. One more inebriated sot should see me ready to go forth on my goodly quest!"

I'd like to see your input in creating a character focused on shapeshifting with or without other magical ability.

Related Prcs would be Master of Many Forms and Warshaper Prcs, possibly as a base class, but not something I want to frontload with goodies.

Stuff about shields being off-hand weapons

FAQ!

Pathfinder Rules: 1
Failing to stay up to date: 0

;)

How can I tell that this spell functions differently with respect to the duration of the effect than Awaken?

Why would you think that soaring, which lasts 1 minute/level, would somehow last forever and be undispellable if combined with an instantaneous cure spell?

It's clear to you that if you cast a regular soaring spell, that its duration will eventually run out and you won't be able to fly anymore. Yes?
It's clear to you that if you cast a regular soaring spell, that if dispelled before that duration, you won't be able to fly any more. Yes?
So why, if you link soaring to another spell that happens to have an instantaneous duration, would you think that the soaring spell suddenly becomes forever and nondispellable, even though *nothing* in soaring's description would indicate that and none of the component words of selected soaring lesser cure spells say anything about *increasing* its duration?

Are you a robot? No. Then stop trying to parse this with robot-logic and admit that combining a flash-bang consequences-are-forever spell with a duration-based buff spell DOES NOT result in a consequences-are-forever buff spell, and that trying to interpret it that way is being dishonest.

The rules lay in those of instantaneous durations. The magic from fireballs creates fire and then quickly dissipates. The burns the fire creates, however, do not go away with the magic. The magic of an instantaneous bull's strength would increase strength, then the magic would go away, leaving behind the result of increased strength.

The logic between the two examples is identical.

Except

"there is no magic here anymore, but the burns from the magic fire somehow still persists"
and
"there is no magic here anymore, but the enhanced strength from your magic strength spell somehow still persists"
require different levels of logic--the second one requires you to be incredibly obtuse as to how magic works.

Core Rulebook, Magic chapter:
Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.

"Might" meaning "we can't detail every example of instantaneous magic and say whether or not it is long-lasting, mainly because we have a limited amount of space and we expect the GM is not a robot and has a reasonable idea of whether or not the consequences of a particular instantaneous spell should be long-lasting."

Other than damage-causing spells and cure spells, here's a selection of instantaneous-duration spells from the Core Rulebook. Do some of these have long-lasting consequences? Yes. Is it obvious that those consequences are not ongoing magical effects that can be dispelled? Yes.

animate dead: the spell creates a new monster, and that monster doesn't instantly revert to a corpse once the spell is done, and can't be dispelled
atonement: spell removes an existing penalty, and there isn't an ongoing "I removed your penalty" effect on the target that you could dispel
augury: the spell gives you information and that info isn't magically stored in your brain as a magical "data chunk," it's just like any other memory, and trying to dispel it has no effect
banishment: the spell sends a creature away, there is no lingering "I have been sent away" debuff on the monster that you can dispel
bless water: the spell creates a nonmagical object (holy water), which can't be dispelled.
break enchantment: similar to atonement, this instantly ends an effect, and while "I no longer have a curse or enchantment on me" persists, without a duration, that's not a magical effect you can dispel
contagion: the target contracts a (nonmagical) disease that persists as if the target had contracted it nonmagically, there's nothing to dispel on the target
dimension door: the target is transported and the magic then ends, there isn't a "I was in Magnimar a minute ago but now I'm in Sandpoint" lingering effect on the target that can be dispelled
dispel magic: the spell destroys an existing magical effect and then it's done, it isn't an ongoing "I'm a specialized antimagic field that only works on one specific magical effect on this dude" debuff that could be dispelled.

For the specific example of the enhance body word of power, it has a duration (1 round/level), so clearly it's intended to be a *temporary* buffing spell. Why, if you linked it to an instantaneous spell, would you think a *temporary* buffing spell would last forever and be undispellable because "instantaneous" can sometimes mean "creates a forever alteration to a creature or object that persists without magic and can't be dispelled"? Why would linking a *temporary* buffing spell to an instantaneous spell make the *temporary* buff become better than a permanent (dispellable) buffing spell? Why would you think sticking a low-level instantaneous word onto a 2nd-level round-based buffing word would let you create a permanent, undispellable buff?

It's a deliberate misinterpretation of how effects do work and should work. Stop it.

You can't just add weapons to other weapons, that isn't creativity it is just crazy.

No. In every way no. This goes against actually human history. Adding a battleaxe to the end of your rapier is retarded but adding a dagger at the end of your rifle is ingenious. Adding more weapons to weapons is something we actually do in reality. Like...a lot. Adding hooks to swords makes hook-swords. Adding axes to spears makes halberds. Adding daggers to guns makes bayonets. Adding a long chain to an Asian sickle makes a Kusari-gama. Spring loaded triple daggers and gun shields aren't a work of fiction.

Combining weapons is also a regularly occurring trope in fantasy. Adding a gun to a sword makes a weapon that makes Final Fantasy fans giggle like idiots. Adding a sword to a whip has help make Ivy a house hold name (her giant boobs helped too). The rifle mounted chainsaw is Gears of War's most iconic weapon. So Squall, Lightning, Ivy, and Marcus would all have words with you. And when their done Kratos, Renji, Wizards of the Coast, Wolfwood, Monte Cook, the Predator, Archer, and the Batman also might have something to say as well. For started.

TL;DR: Learn to weapon history and fantasy trope.

A bunch of absurd (if amusing) non-sense.

Wow. You really like logical fallacies. A Non Sequitur combo-ed with Reductio ad absurdum and just the lightest hint of condescension, in a long and pointless string of Strawman comparisons that basically just translates to "I don't like it". Well, boo hoo.

I'll mirror the previous posts, but with a bit of bite too.

Since the Society rules are meant to produce a level playing field (EX: no crafting skills, and much tighter purchasing guidelines), your minor errors may have repercussions to players months from your actual game play. You state "The reason is that I haven't read the PF RPG rule book, and honestly can't see myself doing so", and frankly that seems a bit elitist. 3.5 isn't PFS - plain and simple. No one should expect you to recite rules as scripture, but honestly if I sat in on a game and the GM said they had no intention of reading the rule book, I would politely leave the table and contact the session organizer to have them removed from the active roster. IMHO, this is akin to trying to play Baseball after only playing Softball - first time you pitch underhand, okay we're all human. But then you tell the coach you don't want to read the rules... off the grass! As long as you give an honest effort, no one should be upset about you trying.

That being said, I applaud that you're willing to GM in the first place. It take a considerable amount of time to properly prepare to run a game well, and good GM's are in short supply in any game environment. And in general, folks will be willing to help out a GM new to the rule set when, as you pointed out in your example, you stated up front that you might have trouble with the finer differences between 3.5 and PFS. I myself have made some mistakes at the tables, and my players were kind enough to point them out so they could be corrected. This is a game, meant to be enjoyed by all. If we all act like adults, and kill/loot/subdue everything the GM can throw at us, we all win!

Cosmo:

OMG, Becky, LOOK at her Order. IT is soooo big...

♩ ♪
♫ ♬

I like big orders and I cannot lie
You other gamers can't deny
when a package shows up with a paizo golem
and an address label in your face
you get sprung...

♩ ♪
♫ ♬

I don't mind the devs fixing mistakes or closing unintentional loopholes, but sometimes they take it too far, over-nerfing things to the point where they just aren't good options anymore, or actively interfere with an ongoing game should they be implemented.

Examples of going too far include the Vital Strike/Spring Attack nerfs (which were actually more balanced when they were allowed to work together).

An example of it actively interfering with people's games (if implemented) is the Heirloom errata which, though justified, puts a whole lot of players in an awkward position (namely all those who chose exotic weapons who have to now change, in some cases, the entire character concept).

Times where fixing was definitely needed (and was implemented properly) include closing the infinite spell loophole of Echo Spell or making Selective Spell only apply to instantaneous effects.

Vital Strike/Spring Attack DID need clarification, but it did NOT need nerfing. It would have been fine left alone. The changes to Heirloom are good for the most part, but they should have left the option to choose an exotic weapon.

I don't think druids would consider wearing metal armor to be ethically wrong any more than Samson would have considered barbers to be servants of the devil. At least in my campaign they wouldn't.

The sheer courage of putting the monk on the top of any list regarding a positive element (as in, not a "most suckish" list) deserves a cookie. Or to be tied to a rock and thrown into the ocean. Both work adequately.

He's right, though. On the basis of saves and "run like hell" capabilities alone.

Because they are desperate to prove their own intellect to themselves by arguing about it on an internet forum.

I'm not sure of any errata, but....
As per print rules, when u select summoner as favored class for 1/2elf, technically you qualify for the cumulative rule.You actually recieve for 1/4pt per lvl x20= 5/level. after 20 levels it comes to 100 pts bonus on top of the 26 on the class table. for a grand total of 126 evolution points!
Why does this not stack like the gents above stated? Well mainly because the paragraph talking about the stacking, the way they say to do it, specifically states these rules are for dice rolling. Summoners do not roll dice for evo points, therefor their stacking rules for this ability are in line with the example of the paladin for the accumulative.
I dont know if these rules have been erratad or not, they should be. By the print rules bard and barby, could have 400+ rds of song/rage per day. As well a a ranger with dodge to favored enemy at 1/3 lvls, after 18 lvls he cummulative adds 108 dodge bonus to AC vs favored enemy.
Also dont forget just because a summoner pet cant wear armor.. doesnt mean it cant wear bracer of defense like a monk :D

Sincerely,

Bruno "Leg Snapper" Scarpachi

Paizo hates any (choose one or more) class, trait, ability, feat, spell, item, etc. that is much better than others (in terms of raw power), forcing powergamers down one path.

Amateurs. Good powergamers can take bards and monks and make their GM cry like a little girl.

You can't? And you call yourself powergamer? Go home and train. :P

Lots of good advice, but also...

why not let him just be crazy good? At least some of the time.

Upthread there are plenty of iconic barbarian weaknesses you may exploit, but sometimes an unstoppable barbarian is good for the story. The player obviously wants to be a machine of death.

Switch it up a bit, give the party problems that can't be solved with death-machine alone. Then, fairly often, throw waves of dudes at the, and watch the barbarian have fun. Employ enough of the tricks from this thread to keep it interesting for his friends.

But sometimes, having an effective PC just isn't cause for direct punishment!

Morgen wrote:

If your DM is allowing you to use Vital Strike on a charge, your damage would be

Most won't allow it since, they are not allowed by the rules.

And thank you for contributing.

Anyway to the OP:
Morgen is right, those are your damage dice.
I can understand why you have a problem and let me tell you why this is happening:
because the vital strike doesn't normally work in a charge so there is no way to interact with feats like spirited charge and thus there is no problem.
Now since your group decided to house rule vital strike to work the way you want it to you also have to house rule how vital strike interacts with feats like spirited charge.

This thread is unnecessary at this point. Pathfinder is what it is. We're not going to revise it or release a new edition anytime soon. If somebody thinks they can make a more balanced game, there's the PRD. It's OGL. Go for it.

"The way that the Paizo development team and the community disregard mathematical analysis, constructive criticism, and rational discussion in favor of emotional discourse based on perceptions of "fun" has pushed me to my breaking point. I'm picking up D&D Essentials and not Ultimate Magic.

In before "don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!" I won't."

Hi Tom,

That last "I wont", I mean what happened to that..? Sounded a bit like a promise.

Have fun, if you can,
GRU

If they were to make a 'second class' with a young Storm, I'd love to see her in the role.