but theres a problem with that, if you choose not to allow all the books, the players feel let down, the newer books have more classes, more feats, more ability to crunch and master the system, saying "no" will get you labled as a "too controling" DM etc. but really what other alternative is there?
That can be true, but, again, while I am a fan of 2.0 also, I think you're romanticizing it and forgetting just how broken some of the late-era 2.0 materiel was ("allow all the books") as well as how breakable at least one of the 2.0 Psionics books was ("we didn't allow psionics" violates the "allow all the books" thesis).
Power creep in 2.0 was at least as bad as 3.x, and arguably worse than PF (so far at least). For one thing, little or no control was exercised on transformation spells - for either friend or foe. (These seem, on the surface, less broken in the pre-3.x era, but only because power terms were less clearly defined), for another the "Player's Options" books virtually re-invented each class - and character abilities as a whole - in ways that were often a) OP and b) confusing when it came to interoperability with the base rules, and thus tended to be broken/powergamed.
I mean, sure, if you separate out one aspect of 2.0 and compare it to a selected aspect of 3.x (kits vs. feats), you can create a comparison that seems to favor 2.0. But, really, 1) there ended up being tons of kits in 2.0, 2) it wasn't always clear what some of them did, 3) some of them were broken compared to others, 3) a better comparison between 2.0 and PF is Kits vs. Archetypes; in PF, Archetypes fill the role that kits filled in 2.0.
From a primarily GM perspective the character concept I least enjoy seeing across the table from me is the mind control variety. In PF esp with point buy its not particularly hard or creative to just stack DC modifiers to make it almost impossible to have normal CR encounters actually pass such saves.
The very existence of a powerful effect being PC controlled wipes out a large number of possible encounters that could be an interesting challenge. Nothing quite as fun as having built (which takes time and effort) a cool concept to have it turned into a PC plaything with a single failed save. Many GMs for story reasons and for personal fun reasons find it hard to avoid fudging rolls against such effects.
My advice then would be to be fair to the player from the beginning: any build-type (for example, reliant on save-or-lose/save-or-I-own-you effects) that you're going to fudge against whenever it matters should simply be disallowed, for reasons of candid honesty.
Spoiler:
(Personally I always like the "tacit mutual understanding" between player and DM: neither using such effects a lot. Save-or-die/save-or-controlled effects are a laser that points both ways and can end up sucking more for PCs. Save-or-Suck is usually treated a bit differently even if it is a road that leads to the same end - mainly because it isn't the anticlimax of everything resting on a single die roll, the saving throw. The problem from an optimization PoV is that mechanically it's often the same save, but with strictly superior results to use save-or-lose; after all, save to have -2 to hit/ac for the encounter, or save at the same DC to be Held and lose? The optimized character chooses the win-button. But for game fun reasons, well, the "tacit mutual understanding" may work best).
Sorcerer-types do tend to rely upon using basically the same sorts of spells; enchanter builds enchant. So if you'er going to cheat against ("fudge") a player who uses certain effects, then the honest thing to do is just to not allow them at all. For PC and NPC/monster alike.
Me personally I always like moar good books (moar - but under the shovelwear crap horizon). But that doesn't mean Aranna's point about how intimidating it can be to potential new gamers is wrong. Nor does it mean she's wrong about the inherent power-creep of moar options. But still nor does it mean I think they shouldn't publish new books (for one thing, the economics of gaming companies is "publish or perish"). And one thing that makes me reluctant to play a system is if support is dropped (where support inevitably means moar published materials).*
What it does mean is that life is full of tradeoffs and few goods are unqualified good.
*
gameworld support:
(The only area where this does not apply for me is gameworlds - loss of publisher support means they can no longer ruin it; but even that is not an unqualified good, because the best of all worlds is a supported gameworld which the publisher does not ruin and for which every published product for it is exactly as I would want it to be. Note that this ideal is never achieved and it is unachievable because other players/customers have different tastes on "what they want it to be" and any publisher must also cater to those nabs).
You are right that you don't NEED more than the core rulebook. But you are being disingenuous by pretending people won't see a library as vast as 3.5e to use one example and shy away from learning the system.
You're right about this, at least in my experience. It's been true since at least 2E: I've had friends, smart friends who I was certain (from knowing them) would like playing take one look at the sheer number of books and say they'll pass. Even though I assured them you didn't need to have, much less know, all of that to play and the basic system was very easy to learn.
I've asked them to just give it a try saying I'd help them make their first character and guide them through things, only to have them still say no thanks. They wouldn't even give it a try.
Only in recent times did it occur to me that the decision they were making was a form of rational ignorance - one I've done with other things (such as deciding not to read some author's immense book series that seems to go on and on, because suspecting I'd like it meant I'd end up wanting to read them all, and deciding not to invest a scarce resource - my time - in it).
I think a big reason why some of these friends didn't even want to try gaming is they suspected they would enjoy it, and then they'd want to go get all that stuff. . .so they decided to pass and continue to devote themselves to their current hobbies (such as MMOs; an IMO somewhat fun, but, IMO, inferior type of gaming; or MtG deck building & playing, which required an even greater investment of cash over time than RPG gaming). (At the time I played these others with them, which is one reason I thought they also might like real RPGs).
I have yet to try to get a friend to PF, in part 'cause I'm new to it myself, so I don't know what effect having all the rules free online might have.
Dumping your Str that low is going to hurt your damage output, at least until you get an agile weapon. Unless you're starting at a high enough level to start with agile magic weapons, this will be a big negative. Add to that 7 str makes it hard to wear even light armor + gear unencumbered; even with a Haversack, which, again, you won't have initially unless you're starting at a high enough level to be properly geared.
If you survive to 19th level without toughness you prolly won't need it there.
"Cooperative" is a two way street, sometimes the players need to relent as well as the GM.
If I didn't emphasize it enough, I agree with this, too. Not just as DM, but as player. The DMs fun counts too. It's neither "DM dictat" nor "Player dictat/gets everything they want, no questions or limitations."
This is one reason I do agree with some of what Aranna has said - as well as some of what those disagreeing with her have said.
No wait there are NO specific adventures in Sandbox. It is the very opposite of an adventure path. I like making an adventure path for you and then adapting it as needed. It doesn't sound like you were in a true sandbox campaign. But rather some combination of adventure path (or story path as I prefer) and sandbox.
I used the term that is now used, for shorthand, because my posts are long enough as it is.
What I mean is both players and their characters had a wide range of choice to do what they want. Including simply leave whatever they were doing at the time (including an adventure) or detour onto something else that piqued their interest, and other "unplanned" things.
(I will admit that from a DM's standpoint this was a lot easier to run pre-3E; 3E NPC/monster builds are more complex and less amenable to free-wheeling them. But there are ways of dealing with this, too, and I digress).
Spoiler:
Strangely, I'm a Lawful type at heart, but, then, of the sort that associates rule of law with true liberty; so, IMO, insuring players have freedom, within non-arbitrary and commonly accepted rules and decisions, doesn't contradict this, IMO. But I digress again
Anyhow, I knew I prolly shouldn't stick myself back into this discussion; emotions on both sides are far to high for give-and-take. I think if Aranna looked at what I wrote dispassionately, there'd be a lot in it she agrees with (thus, for example, not even citing the fact that it is the PCs who are protagonists in the story, not DM-run characters), just as I don't disagree with everything Aranna said. It's just the "DM's Story"/"Storyteller" way of framing it is a pet peeve of mine.
As for everything else, back to your previously scheduled heated disputatiousness, already in progress. I'll try to grow quiet again. I'm trying to disengage from heated disputatiousness not because I'm above it all but because I too easily get heated about things myself. last thing this thread needs is one more person throwing logs onto the bonfire.
Maybe I have never seen a good "sandbox" style GM yet. But so far to date every time a GM says they want to run sandbox style it means they have NO ideas on what to run and are expecting the players to write the story themselves. It always ends with people all going off and doing their own thing and the games usually die quick deaths since the GM has no real interest in running anyway.
That's your misfortune. Perhaps you thrive and your players thrive on the more top-down dictatorial style you describe. But I've run and been in epic-length campaigns of this ("sandbox" for lack of a better word) style, with marathon sessions. This didn't mean we didn't play through specific adventures - but it was because everyone involved expressed interest (like I said, collaborative), not because the DM said so by fiat.
I've kept reading this thread even after I stopped participating in it seriously, and while I think Aranna has made some good points (as too have those who disagree with her), at least until things got heated again, I do want to chime in on the "DM's story" thing.
Even when DMing I think the outlook of "DM as Storyteller" is a pernicious one, frought with peril, that can lead to justifying railroading and excessive (unnecessary) fiat.
While the DM is the final judge on rules, they should not be an arbitrary one. Sometimes you do have to rule out certain character options or feats but in the interest of everyone's fun* (not "control over my story"), and in the interest of keeping to the campaign concept everyone already agreed upon. (and, IMO, disallowing options should be rare, and limited).
From the point of the campaign story, it's always - done rightly - a collaborative project. From the "meta" standpoint of when the group discusses what kind of game they'd like ("We could run this AP, or I have this other idea for a campaign." "Hmn, I dunno, what about X?" "Well, we could mix in part of that" "Ok, sounds fun") to the story itself: every good story has protagonists. In RPGs, the DM does not run the protagonists. The players do.
But, then, I've always preferred a style closer to what is now called 'sandbox' style - even when we ran published adventures it was because OOC the players were interested, and IC that's where they decided to go and what they decided to do. The PCs could, if they so choose, walk away from it at any time and do something else - naturally with in-game consequences, but they wouldn't be placed "back on track" (which is always "back on the railroad tracks") of an adventure they decided to leave in order to do some other thing (note: simply walking away from an adventure rarely happened; I can't recall a specific instance. But part of this is because they had the freedom to do so, so that helped them maintain interest - they were determining their fates, not being told what their fates were to be. Much less, ug, being the innocent bystanders in someone else's story, a la the "adventure" "modules" of the Avatar series).
Sorry; I probably shouldn't even dip my toe into this thread again. But the whole "Storyteller" concept of DMing/GMing is a pet peeve of mine. Even from the PoV as the DM, much less player.
*Everyone's fun *does* include the DM's ability to enjoy the game. But, again, this is not carte blanche authoritah. It remains a collaborative situation.
1) Modules are one-offs to be inserted into an ongoing (or starting) campaign, not nearly all for starting characters. Adventure-paths are meant to be the core of an ongoing campaign (from early levels straight to upper levels). Box-Bash Demos are essentially tactical exercises, I gather. society scenarios are meant for PFS play but can be used outside it.
2) I dunno, it probably depends on your group's preferences. Plus, I simply dunno.
3) well, the characters from the BB will probably be compatable with a bit of tweeking but the main reason to "scrap" them is that so many more options open up once you'er playing the "full" game that it makes sense to rebuild. One option would be to let the players keep the character's personalities, ability scores (with a few tweeks if needed), class (or general class concept), but let them rebuild the crunch details on the basis of the new options in ways that fit what they envision the character to be. This then is both "scrapping" and "not scrapping."
OtoH once they see the full game some of them might get excited about a whole different character concept and want to completely rebuild. Anyhow low-level characters played by inexperienced players can have a high casualty rate; my suggestion is to not worry about that and encourage people to have fun without getting overly attached to early characters too soon. Of course, if they do, that's great too, but the funs!
I'll never ask for more than you'd freely give. I'm EXTREMELY new to pathfinder so I can tell you two things.
I'm fairly newb to PF, but quite familiar with it's ancestor. The differences & nuances still trip me up some.
TarkXT wrote:
Porphyrogenitus wrote:
A nicely built PF Bard can give the party boosts in and out of combat; a lot of people pooh-pooh the Bard's Inspire Competence because it can't help the Bard itself, but that contributes to making everyone else better.
You actually count as your own ally. So yes the bard can inspire his own courage. Been like that for a while now.
I know the general rule is you count as your own ally,* but I was going off the description here:
Quote:
Inspire Competence (Su): A bard of 3rd level or higher can use his performance to help an ally succeed at a task. The ally must be within 30 feet and able to see and hear the bard. The ally gets a +2 competence bonus on skill checks with a particular skill as long as she continues to hear the bard’s performance. This bonus increases by +1 for every four levels the bard has attained beyond 3rd (+3 at 7th, +4 at 11th, +5 at 15th, and +6 at 19th).
Certain uses of this ability are infeasible, such as Stealth, and may be disallowed at the GM's discretion. A bard can't inspire competence in himself. inspire competence relies on audible components.
(Emphasis added to the bold italic part).
Since it's a wiki I guess I wouldn't be surprised if that's been superseded by more recent errata, but whomever the contributors to that one seem to be on the ball (kudos to them btw if any read this).
Edit: The same stipulation is in the Paizo online description of the class & ability, here.
*P.S. I didn't say the Bard couldn't benefit from his own Inspire Courage.
A nicely built PF Bard can give the party boosts in and out of combat; a lot of people pooh-pooh the Bard's Inspire Competence because it can't help the Bard itself, but that contributes to making everyone else better.
In combat, Discordant Voice gives everyone +1d6 sonic damage, and relatively few critters have sonic resistances. Then there's all the usual spell buffs (Haste), roll-boosting spells (avoid failing more often), enemy-nerfing spells (slow), enemy-obstructing spells, and the like. Relatively few direct damage spells compared to other casters but a lot of party-enhancing and enemy-nerfing capabilities.
Probably other party-force-multiplier classes can provide greater specific spikes, but the bonuses Bards can grant are well-rounded: they can be applied to the full range of situations a party might face, both in and beyond combat.
(Are you looking for full builds? I prolly can't attempt to post a full build till the weekend. Also, my initial builds are rarely the most optimal).
Actually you would be, if you're using the Bestiary Eagle.
I suppose strictly speaking it would be. But "IRL" there are a variety of eagles, and in PF some versions of critters are smaller than normal versions (compare the Roc a Druid can get at low levels, with what it can grow into at mid levels, with Roc in the beastiary).
So the solution here would be to have an Eagle who is smaller than the "normal" one (which is actually a fairly large eagle, if it's as big as a halfling); size = Tiny. Stats then = Hawk (named "The Slayer"). Done.
Here it's just reskinning/reflavoring the Hawk as an "Eagle." Which I think is all the player really wants.
Can't we just derail this thread into a great discussion on chocolate and cheese again? I miss all the talk of delicious food...
What about caek? Then we could have a discussion of how to overcome the pit-traps filled with gem-encrusted spikes that stand between you and the delicious chocolate cheesecaek (you must eat it).
All of them are good; #4 is a good special case of #5, but I personally like #5. I like my characters to be prepared for anything (an ideal I'm sure everyone likes and is rarely achieved). But it doesn't mean nova every encounter even if it were possible. For one thing it's inefficient and for another it just attracts extra grief (either from fellow PCs, 'cause you're overshadowing them, or from the DM, who now feels the need to build more challenging encounters, producing an escalation that no player can win, or from NPCs in-character who would naturally feel the need to respond in kind).
Contribute all the time but only bring out the big guns when needed. There's no need for overkill, but of course means having the big guns *so* you can bring them out when needed. If you build sub-par on purpose, you won't have the big guns if and when you need it.
Spoiler:
{I'm also not gonna lie - I'm not great at uber builds. At least not as a sit-down exercise. It usually takes me quite awhile, of incorporating ideas, tricks, and stuff over time into a character to get them up to 'pro' level. But the points remain because, when a plan comes together. . .}
Edit: I'll add....
6) Help: if you know you're good at builds, give helpful tips and ideas for character concepts of your fellow players, in a non-condescending manner. Ideas on feat choices, suggestions for spell selection and creative use of them, equipment ideas, all that kind of stuff - when not overdone or done obnoxiously - can prevent getting the reputation of being a "selfish power-gamer" wanting to have THE stand-out character and instead earning the reputation of a helpful friend wanting a stronger party overall rather than a dominant character. (Of course it goes without saying don't be pushy about it if your advice, once offered, is rejected as not fitting the other person's character concept, or whatnot. The idea is to offer advice, not impose your idea of what the character should be on theirs).
I'll note that for Animal Companion (Druid), they put Eagle and Hawk both in the same category: Bird.
Technically there are differences between them, as Mighty Squash posted. So I suppose you couldn't use an Eagle as a Familiar in a PFS campaign. But probably outside of sanctioned/organized play,* 90% of DMs are going to let you have an Eagle familiar instead of a Hawk one and treat it as cosmetically different.
It's not like you're powergaming with the choice.
*Where they have to be sticklers otherwise cats and dogs will end up living together.
If you have a nice GM you might could either get a special enchantment made to autoload the crossbow or even a crossbow that fabricates bolts as needed. Though I am just thinking... I am not sure if there are any enchantments like this or not.
There was one in 3x; I've looked for one in PF but haven't found one.
There's also the potential problem of not getting to use specialized bolts for each situation. But that's a relatively small problem compared with only ever getting 1 attack/round.
I'd just like to mention, Ashiel, that while I wholeheartedly share your view of summoning, binding, and possibly other spells with the [Evil] descriptor, I've found that the one area where Pathfinder seems to be rather narrow-minded is that repeatedly casting spells with the [Evil] descriptor makes you evil, regardless of what you do with that spell. I actually debated James Jacobs over this about Infernal Healing and Paladins (specifically an example of a Paladin with no healing left but a scroll of Infernal Healing and a dying child), and he was unwavering on the issue, which I always found somewhat absurd.
If this were enforced evenly, that would mean an evil summoner using the strategy Ashiel suggests - to summon beings from the upper plains (thus giving the spell the [good] descriptor), would eventually turn the summoner good.
The possibilities of which only make me go this: A summoner could go on an evil-good-evil-good cycle!
Now, a possible rejoinder to this is "Well, if you summon good critters and have them do evil, that's evil behavior, so you stay evil." - but that's bringing behavior back into the picture, and it was just ruled irrelevant, above (using spells with the [evil] descriptor will turn you evil, regardless of your actual actions/what you use them for - even if you're doing nothing but good deeds like healing the sick and protecting the good weak from the evil strong).
Now, a rejoinder to that could be of the "narrow is the path of righteousness" sort. But lets simplify things further: perhaps you summon but simply do it for "scholarly" purposes; you don't force the summoned entity to do anything (other than the initial summoning), you just chat with it and ask it about it's homeland, life, and so on; to gather data. Arguably neutral. For some months, all you summon are beings from the lower planes. Every day. This, apparently, turns you evil because the summoning acquires the [evil] descriptor.
Then you do the same for some months summoning critters from the upper plains, treating them well, having nice, cordial discussions over tea about their lives and duties. Again for the researches. If you then become good because [good] spell descriptor, well we've established actual behavior is completely irrelevant.
School Conjuration [not-quite-evil, pain]; Level sorcerer/wizard 5,
CASTING
Components V, S, M (Chipped glass and phosphorus, plus badger hair and a bad attitude)
Thanks! *scribes it*
Quote:
Edit: Yeah, I'm a bad person.
Does scribing it make me a bad person, too? It's "not-quite-evil"
Useless Off-Topic Blither:
I need to know 'cause I was disapoint to read today that just by casting spells with [evil] descriptor (such as Animate Dead Animals), I'll turn evil. Even if, other than animating these buggers, I never do anything, well, you know, evil.
Well that might make me two-dimensional, though: I can become evil just by casting summonings with the [evil] descriptor, so I could become good just by casting summons with the [good] descriptor. The "one day a diamond, one day a stone" cycle, lets call it. I could then be a useful addition to any one-dimensional party, by automatically giving them multiple dimensions, including of kinds they might not want!
Since you mentioned Dodge as compared with Toughness, thematically I'm usually more attracted to Dodge, and it helps with such things as touch attack.
I'm far more likely to think of adding the Dodge Feat to PC or NPC alike than I am Toughness, 'cause I find Toughness dull.
Note that's not a good reason: Mechanically, Toughness is better, because HP are more universally useful (there are plenty of attacks where HP don't matter because they aren't targeted. But there are more attacks where HP matters, but dodge bonuses don't apply, or AC either doesn't apply, or may be overcome fairly easily).
And it is true that for NPCs passive feats that help them but which doesn't leave you forgetting all the options they may have had are good. That said, the more important an NPC is (and by that I mean the longer I expect that NPC to be around, and thus the greater range of possibilities they might encounter), the greater the variety of abilities I want them to have.
I play a male human expert 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Try new things.
NO U!
More seriously: for a lot of people, playing a human anything in PF would be the new thing. So this is a non-answer.
However, it does help support a refutation of OP's original post. Humans really aren't the be all/end all best race evah in PF (or 3.5E, or 3E, &tc).
It depends on what you want to play, and for any class, there are other races that are mechanically approximately as effective as a human would be, if not more.
It used to be humans were "meh," once the level caps were removed from non-human races. Mechanically they were an "underdog" to play, in some ways.
3E changed that, humans came into their own and there was much gnashing of teeth in some quarters. But then over time there were 56 flavors of elves (again), one (or more) for every type of build anyone would want to make, for example. Dwarf variants, ditto (but less talked about), and so on.
PF Core humans came back into their own again; other races are still also mechanically good for individual classes, but what makes humans special is that mechanically they could be good in any class. It doesn't mean they were the only good race for every class - they were just special because, while other races were blue choices in some classes, humans were in all of them.
It meant though, that if you wanted to play an elf, mechanically[ your "optimal choices" of classes to play were constrained, relative to humans. It didn't mean you couldn't play any class you wanted, though.
IMO, having just read it, the ARG starts to return things back again to midlife 3E/most of 2E AD&D: humans are endangered of going back to meh, because now every race has alternate racial ability possibilities that will let them have the flexibility and versatility that were the main (not sole) attraction of being a human (again, from a mechanical standpoint; the only thing that matters for this question, because from an RPing standpoint, the best race is the one you want to play and have fun playing and all of them are equally good and also equally capable of being messed up by poor RPing).
If they're in Kingmaker and they're The Leaders of The Kingdom, the AP gives them various opportunities to pick up stray NPCs, if really needed.
One or some of these (don't go overboard) could become a Cohort, or if you'd rather avoid the whole Leadership Feat thing, a battle buddy NPC.
I believe in letting the dice fall where they may and whatever happens, happens but to have that happen and be fun the PCs need to be setup for success ahead of time so the campaign doesn't just implode or need to be "fixed" after the fact. Unless you really want it to implode. Or they need to see it implode.
One support NPC that accompanies the Great Leaders of the Realm is easy to justify. That guy can participate in battles but hang back and be overshadowed (He's just there to support his/her betters, not to do their job). Then if they do die anyway, well, whatever happens, happens.
Anyhow a fair amount of helpful entourage is justifiable for characters who are basically rulers. The main problem might be keeping it from getting out of hand. But as DM you can contain that, too.
IMPORTANT NOTE! -- if you are using music off of youtube, ALWAYS start with the music on your delivery OFF... NOTHING breaks atmosphere more than a SHOE COMMERCIAL you can only skip after 5 seconds.
Firefox + Adblocker Plus = What commercials?
I'm always surprised when I have to open a youtube (or whatever else) in IE that I've already watched sometime on FF w/Adblocker. I'm all, like "wut, this thing had commercials?"
Firefox + Adblocker + NoScript = Total Win.
(you then just allow whatever scripts you actually want and need to get what you want to run, but not all that other trash many websites embed into their code).
Freedom of movement is nice, unless you have it via an item or friend in the party.
If you don't like that one, Dance of a Hundred Cuts could be good, or Greater Invisibility.
If you're a ranged/archer Paladin, Tiny Hut is just mean. Otherwise Haste, Slow, or perhaps Displacement.
Versatile Weapon could help you overcome DR. Tongues could help you use your Diplo skill on critters you otherwise can't talk to. Or perhaps Glitterdust or Mirror Image.
At 1st level, Expeditious Retreat (to close with enemies) and Silent Image are both useful.
Note I suggested Arcane (Bard) spells, because Paladins already have pretty good access to Divine spells.
I think having a cohort who is a warrior of only one level behind or so should be an asset, not a liability.
It depends on what you want out of life, but I'll note that, for example, there are few 17th level warriors in published materiels, because, frankly, NPC classes are not used beyond low/modest levels. Not that everyone with the Leadership Feat is high level.
But also note that it's clearly not the intent of the Feat that you only get a Cohort with levels in NPC classes (Warrior, Adept, Expert); Followers, that's another matter. But they wouldn't even bother with the "monsters at cohorts" thing (not that, IMO, most of them are "worth it," but again one's milage may vary - depending on what one wants out of a Cohort).
But this is one of the things where 1) the Feat is open to interpretation and 2) IMO it's entirely appropriate for a DM to say "in my campaign, if you take the Leadership Feat, your Cohort's levels will be in one of the NPC Classes - Adept, Expert, Warrior, or Aristocrat - period;" as long as they tell the player beforehand.
And, yes, Players shouldn't be designing their Cohort as if it were a 2nd PC; it should be a collaborative process with heavy DM input (a Cohort is, after all, an NPC). And IMO, with rare exceptions*, any Cohort should either already be a friendly associate of the PC, or be "found" in the course of a campaign (I.E. just as if someone wants a Unicorn Cohort, they should find one and "recruit" it - it doesn't just show up on their doorstep the second they choose the Feat. Likewise if you want a specific class/race/type of Cohort, it does need to be found. This shouldn't be something that puts the whole campaign on hold, but it shouldn't be waved away, either). (Followers are a bit of a different matter - presumably they flock to the PC the same way followers used to when characters reached "Name Level," attracted by their renown. But Cohorts are different from Followers because. . .they are different from Followers).
*
Spoiler:
A few weeks ago I suggested that a player whose character had lost all his spellcasting ability, due to a Disjunction, take the Leadership Feat and get as a Cohort a 17th level Wizard - who, in that case, I suggested he work with the DM to come up with a good in-character/in-game reason for said Cohort to show up basically immediately. This was an exception to what I think should be normal practice for acquiring Cohorts, which I thought and still think would have been acceptable - speaking from a DM's perspective here - given the specific circumstances. 1) The PC had just done something of great heroism. 2) the Party was under severe time constraints (hours) 3) the world literally stood in the balance (yes, not uncommon at high levels) and, perhaps most importantly 4) they were prepping for what would be the last heroic climactic encounter/battle of that campaign, after which the campaign was wrapped up. Normally I think things should go as I recommended above: Cohorts should be acquired as an in-game process, which can take anywhere from in-game day/weeks/perhaps even month - as long as people are having fun with it and it's not disrupting the campaign/fun of the players as a whole. Players will want a special cohort - be it monstrous, or "just" a sidekick with class-levels in a class they'd like. The DM can and should work with them to get something that will satisfy their desire, make them happy, but not be disruptive of the campaign. Or simply disallow the Feat. Anyhow, that's how I do it, of course others can do otherwise - including, as I said, saying "the cohort you get has levels in an NPC class, period, and is run by me, the DM, period" or "all Cohorts are Warriors and nothing otherwise." It is a Feat that's open to a range of interpretation, which is why a lot of people want to constrain it. If your campaign has a large enough number of players, heck, simply disallow it as unnecessary.
Quote:
The way this game functions though, being a 10th level fighter with a keep is meaningless. I mean a company with 20 level one warriors with a fourth level leader is almost useless to you, whereas in past editions it was invaluable.
Yeah, I do miss that. When I have Followers now, too, I tend to make them "staff" and not combat-types (a Chamberlain/Butler, a Chef, a couple other specialists - these are the senior followers - and then household staff, and/or people out in the city with their ear to the ground or who run shops around my home so they can warn me of things if someone in the neighborhood is makin a move on me). I might have them use Perception to give the alarm. But putting them at risk? Not so much.
One 3E publication I liked was the "Stronghold Builder's Handbook" that recaptured, a bit, those early-edition spirit of building a keep. But things got expensive, fast, with that.
Another side-game I play is Birthright, where you are a Regent (a ruler of something, be it lands, temples, guilds, or magical sources), and can Recruit a Louie (and, if you're creative, have Vassalouies), along with having skilled advisors and the like.
Odraude wrote:
I actually disagree. Having all of those followers proved invaluable for making a great deal of income and actually helped us start our own colony. With their Profession Checks and trading and such, we always had a good income to come back home to in addition to what we found out in the world. Definitely as useful as having a cohort that builds magic items.
This can work depending on how the DM rules it. I usually say that whatever followers produce ends up roughly equal to maintaining your household. So they earn enough to pay the upkeep and maint on your home and where they live and all the chow they and you eat and the clothes they wear and the like.
But there are certainly money-making opportunities depending on how you pimp them out (skill wise, I mean. I'm not suggesting you turn your followers into courtesans and concubines. No, really, I'm not. I don't remember the "Wanton Wench Table" from the old DMG at all. . .stop looking at me like that).
Leadership -- If this is causing problems, you are doing it wrong. This should *NOT* be the "get an extra character" feat. At best, its the "get a NPC to boss around" feat. Big difference.
I think this one is considered broken because most of the time in forum-builds when it is included, it is so the build can include a second character that is built from the ground up to be just perfectly synergetic for that particular build.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, the DM imposes a NPC with Warrior Class levels on the player, just to nerf it.
But there is a golden mean between "Player gets to design a Cohort from scratch, as if the character built it in a laboratory, and impose it on a happless DM" and "DM picks a Cohort for the player designed to be as useless as possible because the DM hates the feat but didn't ban it."
Leadership is abusable as-written, because it's potentially very flexible and open to interpretation. But Cohort choice should be more of a collaborative project than "PC gets to have whatever he wants, as long as it fits the level limit."
Me, when I've had that Feat for a Cohort, it's usually because my player made an NPC buddy/pal in the campaign and they got to be my Cohort; some of these can be pretty badarse (at high levels), but none of them were designed by me or given without DM approval and in-character RPing. ("one day, out of the blue, the perfect 17th level guy shows up and pledges his absolute loyalty to you, because you took the feat.")
It also works best in campaigns with relatively few players. (Oh, but for the old days when I could have 25 Henchies at my beck and call...*sighs*)
That said, while I agree with defending the Feat, I also agree with placing it on the list of Feats here, because it is abuseable in a way that a lot of Feats aren't, and is more open-ended, open to interpretation, and depending on the Cohort, you can get a lot more out of it than from any other single Feat. In fact, you're quite likely to get a lot more out of a Cohort than from any other single Feat.
Do Feats that are basically useless or which no player would willingly choose count as "broken"?
Anyhow people also keep saying Arcane Heritage is, well, if not broken, abused. so I'll toss that out before someone else does. Then others can say it's not broken at all. Which is fine. I'm only tossing it on the pile because I've seen it complained about a fair amount.
Well if the whole idea is to have an intelligent item that was cooperative with the NPC(s) who formerly wielded it but is at perpetual odds with its PC wielder, then Feeblemind and Dominate Person are good abilities.
Have him roll Perception checks at odd times, with arbitrary DCs.
If he fails one, just say "hmmmn. . .ok."
If he succeeds, he hears chittering noises in the other room, or off in the distance. Or sees vague movement out of the corner of his eye. In either case, causing the hairs on the back of his neck to stand up and a sense of foreboding menace.
If he goes to check - whatever it was, is gone.
If he searches for clues, again, arbitrary DCs. Perhaps he finds. . .something - nothing concrete and physical, just a sign or a smell or a whisper in the wind. Only no one else can detect it (roll Perception checks for them too, with arbitrarily high DCs. Whatever it is, is beyond their perception, so they fail unless. . .If they roll a natural twenty, perhaps they get a hint of. . .something, but mainly it's a clue about their friend, and a sense of "wrongness." Roll again; unless it's another 20, the "wrongness" is gone. If they get another 20 - congratulations, they now join in attracting the attentions of the Great Old Ones.)
For no good reason I feel the need to comment on this thread, with the high-level campaign & summons nerf.
I think it is part of a theme that touches on this topic, too. Not criticizing RD's playstyle, I think perhaps his expectations - and that of his fellow players (I note that in that campaign, pretty much every player had similar expectations and got thrown a curve-ball) might be what throws things for a kilter.
1) His experience in the high-level one-off is why, as a player, when I make casters, I don't like Sorcerers. Particularly for high-level stuff (as a DM though, I love Sorcerers - they're great NPC builds). Wizard means you can swap out things that don't work, but Sorcerer (and similar casters) means being shackled to spells that, woops, may not be as useful as you think because. . .
2) IMO the DM in that occasion did nothing wrong. Indeed, a lot of the tropes go back to the early days of gaming at high levels. Q1, say: visit the Demonweb Pits as high-level PCs and all the sudden your summon spells are wack, Divinations only return the results the Demonqueen wants them to return (*bwahahahahaha*), a bunch of other spells don't work right/have unexpected results, and some things/critters are immune to things they normally aren't. Likewise, WG6, Isle of the Ape. Likewise The Dragon #63, the Baba Yaga's Hut adventure (3K year old lich is a functional equivalent of a Baba Yaga); no doubt Paizo's upcoming version will have something similar - entire lists of spells/categories of spells and magic that do not function normally in the hut for anyone but Baba Yaga herself and maybe her minions. (Watch out if you are suddenly stamped with invisible chickentrack marks on your forehead! Trust me, I know!)
When an exchange reaches this state, where substance has entirely been replaced with scoring rhetorical points and "counting coup," the best thing I can do is withdraw from the thread.
Spoiler:
Feel free to reply to this however you want; I won't see it. Not because of you, but on account of me; while I have remained substantive up till now, this post contains no substance and I have a character flaw that I will continue the exchange, replying to your every kind remark with one of my own, unless I depart "cold turkey." So that's what I'll do. This is not an attempt on my part to "have the last word" or anything. Feel free to have that. The only thing I ask not to take my lack of future contribution to this thread as implying anything one way or another, and to not have this exchange carry over to other threads or into PMs.
See, you say I'm taking offense when none has been taken. Your own perception has given it that color.
I supoose, given the tone of your overall post, this was meant favorably? Do please be more explicit, then about it:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The responses illustrate the responders in interesting ways.
Now, btw, my first reply that people objected to said:
Quote:
Now, I know people don't mean something like this. . .I doubt any of the people making that retort really have absolutely nothing in mind regarding where - at least in general terms - their character may have grown up, why they worship the diety you chose for them (or why they worship none at all, or several), at least a vague idea of how they might have acquired their basic class skills, if not an idea of who might have mentored them.
So, then you write a post devoted entirely to accusing me of being the one twisting words, only to now say:
Quote:
But enough threadjacking, eh?
Making no insinuations about anyone else, I've been on topic. Even this reply to you contains (quoted) substantive remarks on-topic for this thread (to the effect that yes, I bet even those who are, if one were to take their words literally, saying 'no backstory' really don't mean 'none whatsoever," but have at least a sketchy initial concept, which is all I can claim to accomplish at first, - even if others are capable of more but choose not to have more than a sketchy minimal initial background, at first, for good reasons, several of which I listed in other posts - not claiming I might have overlooked other good reasons).
As I see it, you chose to take my words literally and twist them around to your own idea of my opinion.
I apologize for taking your words at face value.
Of course, "taking them literally" is - literally - incomparable with "twisting them around" but I see that rhetorical flourishes are de rigur.
Note also if you weren't so busy taking offense where none was meant, I gave you (and the others) credit for not meaning it literally, and, again, the only person who I slighted, openly or otherwise - while other people here are taking not-so-veiled shots at me - was myself (the only person I have said has a poor ability to come up with backgrounds, or even names, for characters was myself).
Spoiler:
I hesitate to put this in here, because it will no doubt be taken the wrong way and used against me, but I do know there are people on these boards - from observing behavior in other threads - who would infer from the "no need for a backstory, we're making the backstory" that the people saying that do so because they lack the ability to come up with one. I do not believe this is the case, and did not say so. What I do say is that a minimal background is effectively unavoidable if you're actually roleplaying, and that even the people whose posts are suggesting otherwise, in practice I believe - I give you credit for - having a minimal background for all your characters, which I have said is all that is needed at first anyhow. In other words, I'm being charged with "taking literally" something I explicitly did not take literally, and was myself pointing out should not be taken at face value, because no one literally has no idea whatsoever about their character's personality and background. But I suppose I should keep taking this twisting of my post and words with good humor, even as others react in high dugeon as if they've been slighted, and thus are free to respond with hardly-veiled-not-really-subtle jabs at my. . .character.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Those dirty mutant Commies...
*Goes and asks five Red Suits, emphasizing what will happen if they fail to give the correct answer*
100% contradict you so far. Notify Friend Computer!
They've been directed to the Food Vats for resource reassignment duty!
So you're saying if I searched the entire world, I'd not find a single person who wants a long backstory about my character early on?
Yes.
Please conduct a through global research* and report back your findings to Friend Computer.
Note that if anyone claims to want a long backstory about your character early on that is obviously evidence they are a mutant member of a secret society. Which of course is treason. Which of course is punishable by. . .well, you know.
*:
*Without going "Outside" - there is nothing "Outside." Claims to the contrary are. . .
That isn't to say that they're "incompetent," only that they don't view another approach as "viable" because they don't see the numerical return.
Well they do but I get you're point: it's a secondary-effect, displaced.
For example, the extra attack from Haste. It's easy for PCs to then have the mindset that it's them doing the extra damage - after all, they're making the attack, hitting (or not), and rolling damage.
The fact that they would have fewer attacks and thus do less damage (perhaps considerably less damage, depending on how many members of the party are conducting hasted attacks) without the spell tends to become secondary in their minds.
They also naturally see themselves as taking the risks - after all, they're the ones in the monster's reach. But that's a function of the builds they chose as much as the build the control-caster chose.
The caster, in this case, is a combat multiplier; but the people on the front line might be thinking that if RD brought another front-line DDer to the table, he'd be "contributing as much as he is now, but also sharing the risk." However the party would lose a lot of flexibility if he "joined their style" (it seems everyone else at the table - who indeed might be very capable players - prefers to build characters that are "in the thick of things").
That last part perhaps being key: it may very well be that neither is RD being some kind of jerk, as some have inferred, nor are the rest of the players especially incompetent. It really is a styalistic difference but one where the others lack respect for the contributions of a character who isn't "out up front with us." Taking what RD said at face value, if he doesn't bring this different (for this group) character to the table, no one will. Doesn't at all mean their builds are bad for the roles they choose, or they don't know how to play those characters.
But it does then seem to be that they don't have a lot of respect for a character that's not "up-and-at-them, cutting and being cut" instead of staying in the back and contributing-by-casting.
I said that the idea that unless otherwise stated the character was not created in a laboratory by a computer should be obvious to. . .wait! nobody. . .please don't report me to Friend Computer for Treason.
Oh, and by the way, I didn't say the advice was obvious. I said that the idea that unless otherwise stated the character was not created in a laboratory by a computer should be obvious to anybody who wants to take the advice at all seriously, instead of poke holes by taking it as literally as possible. :33
It's not really serious advice then; except if we step back and find out that, since it's not meant literally and cannot be plausibly meant literally (you said it's "obviously" not meant literally), we don't actually disagree: substantively what is meant is go with a short background early on, don't feel the need to flesh it out in detail: because 1) it's too much work early on 2) it's not necessary early on 3) you won't even have decided on everything about your character early on 4) nobody's going to want a long backstory about your character early on.
This however is not at all the same as saying "don't bother with one at all." Because: as a RPG, you'll want to have some idea about your character, even early on and people at the gaming table will want a "short in-character introductory summary" - which might include why they're all adventuring together (even if the campaign backstory is they never met each other until the first session, and are all thrown together to go do X); a short paragraph summary ("Fred the fighter is from Andoran where he learned how to be. . .a fighter. . .from. . .one o the freedom-fighters. he wanted to become a heroic adventurer, inspired by the usual blather of going to help free all the orcs from enslavement at the hands of their overlords, so said orcs can be free. Oh yeah he does this 'cause Fred is a half-orc, I forgot to tell you. Fred's mother was liberated from spinsterhood by a orc one day and nine months later Fred was born." - there, done, and done on the spot by someone who sucxorz at it - as you can tell 'cause, wtf, Fred the fighter?).
Spoiler:
P.S. where do people think half-orcs come from? I mean, generally? True love?
How you respond to those statements says more about your mindset than the mindset of those who write them.
Actually, the converse is true in this case.
Now this statement is one that could be made about a number of posters in, say, RavingDork's recent thread. But I've contributed more than a few helpful tips in this one - and haven't gotten as nasty and personal as a lot of the people posting un-necessary snark about RD in his thread.
I've been substantive even in my critique of the people asserting "don't bother with background" - and given them credit for not really meaning it (and this is why they shouldn't say it) literally.
Indeed, the only person I've slighted is myself - because I know my weakness (and I'm not making up how very bad I am at coming up with backgrounds - or even names for characters).
Anyhow, TOZ, if you want to take people to task and post things like that, I could give you some helpful suggestions of a few people in other threads it might be more appropriately aimed at. So far I've had the good grace to keep myself out of those exchanges, but if you're up for it PM me and I'll give you a list of names.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The background is the one thing you don't NEED to start the campaign.
Porphyrogenitus wrote:
Now, of course you do need a character as a precondition to play, while, in theory, you can look at the game as an entirely tactical wargaming exercise and not need a personality for said character at all.
I like discovering those reasons in-game, rather than making them up beforehand. That doesn't mean I don't think about them. I wrote up a one-page story for my character in Rise of the Runelords explaining his attraction to Shalelu.
And then we never played that game, and it was wasted.
So then to the same extent was the entire rest of the character-creation process and whatever other setup went into planning that campaign, but for some reason people only seem to focus on backrground as the 'you know, if you do one, it might end up being wasted 'cause you might never play.'
Now, of course you do need a character as a precondition to play, while, in theory, you can look at the game as an entirely tactical wargaming exercise and not need a personality for said character at all.
But that's really just a good reason for not fully-fleshing out a background right at the beginning. In a role-playing game, it's not a good reason for having nothing whatsoever; or pretending to for the purpose of posting in this thread.
