From my experience, they ALWAYS move away from you. So, using my wizard I'll hit them with Chain Lightning until they pause, then get on the far side of them forcing them back to an area I've cleared to not aggro a huge group of enemies. This is important on Nightmare and above. Then I just burn them down using Disintegrate or Archon skills. However, any spell can be used to kill them. That's my strategy with a wizard anyway.
j maissen - I understand your point fully. Pathfinder just offers so many options (one could argue too many too a new player) that it is almost overwhelming. Guess I was just looking for advice as I'd rather not put several levels into a character and find I've taken choices which make that character not effective. Or worse, end up with a character nothing like I envisioned.
Kamelguru - that is an interesting proposal. Not at all what I had in mind, but sounds like it would be a great option for the future.
Thanks again to all. I really appreciate all the guidance, suggestions and support.
So, was just scanning http://www.d20pfsrd.com/. (Thanks again Aelryinth.
The Corsair fighter archetype seems like an appropriate route for the back-story I have in mind. Is that allowed in PFS? I'm not really sure what sources are fair game. Granted, I have no idea how well it will work, but I sort of like it.
Where do I find the Loreguard archetype? Currently all I have at my for reference is the Core Rulebook & APG.
Actually, do you mean Lore Warden?
I thought duelists had to use a piercing weapon. Isn't the Aldori considered a slashing weapon or is this considered an exception?
OK, I’m new to Pathfinder and PFS. I’ll be playing in my first PFS game in a week or so and I’ve decided on what I want to play. I just feel drawn to the Duelist and have an image of the character in mind.
To meet my vision of his background, I like the idea of taking a little bit in both, but not sure how best to do it. Looks like I’ll need 3 levels rogue and 4 levels fighter or 2 levels rogue and 5 levels fighter.
Got a few questions and any help you can offer is much appreciated.
1. Good idea to mix fighter & rogue, or just stick to one class?
2. If I go 3 rogue & 4 fighter, should I do 4 & 4? Or, given that, should I just go 8 levels of rogue.
3. If mixing classes, can one use an archetype from each class (i.e. mobile-fighter & swashbuckler-rogue)?
4. If one has two classes, do benefits from different feats & abilities stack? For instance, if one takes Power Attack & has Sneak Attack, can they both be applied?
5. Do Prestige Classes continue to gain feats every other level like base classes or do they only get their PrC class benefits?
6. Is there something else that would meet my character concept easier?
What flavor of elves do you dislike? Knowing that might help someone point you in another direction or something different for you to focus on to overcome your dislike of elves.
Personally, I've always like all the races. Well, except for halflings. Drawing from the original source, Lord of the Rings, they're like little humans but more innocent, gentile and peaceful. Umm..how weren't they already conquered?
Granted, they've come a long way since those days, but still not crazy about them myself.
Thanks all. LOL - this is what I sort of expected. Everyone has a different suggestion. Well, at least it does tell me they are all useful and fun.
Pan - I like your idea. I think I might make one of each so I can offer what a group doesn't have, especially to start.
Thanks all, Ope
Sort of a rhetorical question. There seems to be so many good choices for a character. I'm interested in learning more about Pathfinder and how the core rules work. I've played through the Beginner Box and have a background in 1e/2e D&D but no experience with 3e or 3.5. So, now looking to join some local PFS games to see the full rule set.
I've narrowed it down to a few choices.
1. Fighter or rogue to duelist. I always liked that concept for a warrior instead of the heavy weapon/armor fighter. This is the one I'm leaning towards out of concept.
2. Cleric (likely of Sarenae)
3. Ranger (seems like this could be a flexible character)
4. Wizard (always liked em and curious how a caster works in Pathfinder)
Like I said, there just seems to be so many good choices. I've only got the Core Rulebook and would like to stay with that for my first character.
Thanks for the tips. I may check those out. I'm also looking into the Malazan Books of the Fallen and The Night Angel Trilogy. Considering I'm working and going to school, books on CD are best right now as I don't really have time nor the inclination to read for pleasure. However, I've got plenty of car time, so listening to a book is perfect.
Rereading (well, actually listening to this time) Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss. There are some really wonderful phrases and passages. Can't wait for the 3rd book. Unfortunately, he and George R. R. Martin seem to write at the same speed. I'm ready for book 6 of A Song of Ice and Fire NOW!
It depends. How big is the city and the city guard? 100 orcs wouldn't really be a sufficient threat to a large city. A small, undefended city on the other hand, it would be. Normally, a horde of orcs 10,000 strong would normally have to be gathered by some greater force as orcs tend to fight between themselves and certainly between clans and may not be able to self-organize into such a large horde.
Another thing to consider, even though a city may have a standing guard, they may be preoccupied with other responsibilities and are currently unable to address the threat even though normally they could normally handle it.
I like your idea of a healer being more of a battle field medic. That would be fun for role-playing purposes and for the setting. For sever injuries like limb removal, critical organ damage, I make players make a healing skill check then cast a healing spell. Depending on the wound, the character healed may be alive, but certainly not in fighting condition until he has had time to rest and regain his/her strength. They basically are in a time out. Time needed for rest depends on the injury and flow of campaign.
Does your setting have a god of the dead/death? If so, perhaps every time a character is brought back they are in essence pushing their luck to incur his wrath.
I've got multiple thoughts, some of which has been used in games I've played. If it is PC death, I see no problem allowing resurrection with penalties if you as GM prefer. I'm an old school 1e/2e player and feel being brought back should have a penalty. Yet, players do get attached to characters as they should. Giving a chance to be brought back from an unfortunate circumstance gives a little leeway, though a foolish PC will still end up with a dead character.
If it is an NPC, perhaps they "fail" their resurrection chance and it isn't successful. Alternatively, what if a soul doesn't want to come back? Speak with dead could be used to ascertain this before or after the resurrection attempt. If they have been judged worthy and have already arrived in their heaven, some folks won't want to rejoin the world of the living. Also, if the would be recipient is a devout follower of another god than the cleric attempting to perform the resurrection, that god may not allow the soul to be returned as he or she has plans for that soul.
In game death of PCs and NPCs is part of what creates a living world and adds value to PC actions. It is a valuable tool to establish the importance of why PCs are trying to be heroes, to save lives, both their own and those who can't defend themselves.
I think Sauron's ring was more like a Horcrux (yes, Harry Potter reference). He in essence split his soul so he could not be permanently killed unless the ring was destroyed. The portion of his soul within the ring influenced the greed and desires within those who came into contact with it.
Best advice I can give is to talk to your players and get their input as to what they would like to see offered from critical strikes. Each game table is different, so someone else's suggestions may not work for your group.
Also, be sure your players know crits will be used against them too. They will be less likely to ask for instant death or disfiguring rolls. Keep in mind, it may be an iterative process where your first version is the final version.
Well, considering they are rookies, they obviously need to learn how not to do foolish things. Obviously, someone has to teach them. If you have a more experienced player willing to sit in and help them, that might help. Otherwise, it is up to you as the GM to educate them. You can't expect rookies to know how or what to do without explaining options to them to prevent them from making foolish mistakes. RPGs have a lot of rules for new players and it can take more time for some folks to learn than others. As long as they are having fun, I don't see a problem, though with multiple TPKs, I doubt they will for long.
Allow them to take a mulligan if things go south next time to learn from their mistakes. You may need to instruct them in various tactics, especially how to avoid bad tactics.
I like fumbles. They add another random, chaotic element to combat. I use my own custom fumble table which does not often cause severe consequences. Normally, just a -1 to -4 for remaining attacks.
The way we do it, you can only fumble on your first attack in a round. Any attacks made after the first where a 1 is rolled is simply an auto miss. Works well for our group.
I look at it this way. If you allow the presence and possibility of critical strikes, then the counter, fumbles, should be included.
Well, for some creatures (giants) I always pictured it as a blow to the leg which brings him down to one knee granting access to his torso and more critical areas. One could even imagine the first several hits are to its legs and you bring it down slowly in hit points and literally.
For larger opponents, you pose an interesting idea. One could imagine a character striking at a dragon's legs and or underside. One also has to keep in mind, when the dragon attacks (especially bites) it opens itself up to attacks by a character to the head and neck. So, a character doesn't necessarily have to climb atop a dragon to deal significant damage to it. However, if a character wanted to use climb to get on top, I'd allow it. Although, climbing up a living creature would not be easy.
It can be done and no, you're character doesn't have to be mute. Granted, you can't be the person to make final decisions, but you can use your character to be the one who says something like, "Well, I see the following options, what do you think we should do?" Also, you can't be the one to suggest "looking for something/perception rolls" but after suggested by the other player, you can roll for yours as well for an added chance of success.
In some ways, combat can be more of a challenge. Do you place your character in an area which you know will be dangerous in the next round or do you keep him safe? How do you decide who the enemies attack? I advise a blend of enemy intelligence and some randomness. Yes, you may end up killing your own character. I've seen it happen and I've done it.
It can be done and is quite fun, though at first a bit of a challenge. Give it a try and in a couple sessions, I bet you'll find a method which works for you. At the very least, it is a good exercise to learn how to differentiate between personal knowledge and character knowledge.
Nope. This is the standard fallacy of trying to solve a OOC problem IC. By putting bounties on their heads and whatnot, you are just giving them the spotlight, which is exactly what they want. They WANT to be 'wanted' if you know what I mean.
Note that these players ALWAYS run the same sort of PC's. They are not the normal sort of players who decided one time to try a evil PC just for fun to see what would happen. Those Players can learn thru what happens to their PC's. These guys can't - in fact by doing this sort of thing you're just playing the game their way.
The OP is the DM. He just needs to talk with them OOC, like adults. There's no IC way of fixing this.
I see your point. I suppose I missed the aspect that they always play characters this way. My thoughts were along the lines of a players trying out an evil character or playing one for the first time. There are or should be consequences for evil acts within a game.
I think you are correct, this would be best handled OOC. It makes me wonder if their actions are why the other players drop in an out and not stay as consistent players.
There are so many ways to deal with evil characters, especially if they go out on their own. They are making themselves targets for the nefarious activities of other individuals/groups. You've got stolen from, mugged, assassinated. In doing their own underhanded dealings, observed by a local thieve's guild and they become the target, or a witness observed them and the law comes after them. A bounty is placed upon their heads.
Make the world seem alive. Just as most folks who have been playing D&D/Pathfinder for years fight against the evil forces, players who play evil characters must learn their are consequences to taking such action. The game allows folks to play an evil character (though that is up to DM discretion too), however, it does not force the world to take it easy upon those characters.
You're Sheldon from Big Bang Theory, but without the genius level intelligence. Okay, maybe not. If one accepts Charisma is a person's strength of personality in terms of leadership and being liked, a low charisma could be either quite unnoticed or abrasive.
This is actually an interesting dilemma; a person wanting to properly role-play a low charisma. I find most folks tend to role-play high wisdom, intelligence or charisma as low unintentionally.
I agree with Talonhawke. The cleric is channeling positive energy through himself to others. There's no expectation of feedback to know what happened to said energy.
Taken a step further, if a cleric is invisible or similarly unknown to a cleric, I would say a cleric would not be able to use selective channeling to avoid healing that character.
I've got a few ideas. I would simply explain to them that they didn't HAVE to do any of the actions they took. As for the fire leading one path, tell them you determined how the fire spread randomly and that's how it turned out.
Personally, I find it hard not to railroad players to some degree during an adventure. As a GM, one can only prepare so many paths/options/encounters of quality ahead of time. Between adventures, I try to pose several different options to my players and let them pick which direction they will take. You can also, ask your players if they have any ideas as what they would like to do. This could open up ideas you wouldn't think of and involves the players in a way which prevents them from accusing you of railroading them
If the above options fail, let someone else GM and as a player intentionally "unrailroad" their planned adventure and see how well they handle it. Perhaps they will understand things a bit more.
The object is to have fun. If you aren't having fun, shake things up a bit or take a break. I had a DM in the past who would constantly railroad us into world-saving quests. It does get old when you build a town only to have it destroyed 3 sessions later. We had it happen 3 times. What's the point?