What Lau said. I think going for a 20 at level 1 is just sacrificing too much. I've tried going with a Strength of 16 for a frontliner and it just doesn't cut it, but 20 is overkill as well. 18 is the sweet spot. A 20 in a stat also leads to way lopsided builds that just sacrifice too much, I think.
An example: a guy in my lodge made a Kineticist with a 20 in both Dex and Con, and the rest is pretty much 7, except for Wis, which is an 8. He has no real skillpoints and can barely contribute outside of combat, but he's a passive player, so he's okay with it. But it also effectively removes one person from doing the challenges. Everything that's not Dexterity based, he sucks at. Investigative scenarios, survival scenarios, social scenarios, he's pretty much dead weight. In a balanced party, that can be overcome, but there will be a time where the party's wishing they had at least a somewhat capable person on hands.
Second example, from myself: I made a Cleric that's incredibly MAD. I had to dump Dex and INT, because I pretty much needed all other stats. As I dumped INT, I realised that it didn't matter whether I had 9 INT or 7, as I got 1 skill point per level either way. So I dumped it to 7, and chose Nagaji as its race, dumping it even lower to 5. My first PFS character was also a Cleric with dumped INT, and I spread his skill points around, thinking that I'd be good at everything, but around level 6 I realised I'm actually crap at everything, so I experimented further with my Nagaji Cleric. I put every single skill point I had in Diplomacy (he has a Cha of 16). My reasoning being, I can spread it around, doing maybe 50/50 in Diplo and say, Sense Motive, but that means I'm watering down what I'm good at. So my derpy little Nagaji is the dumbest, nicest guy you'll ever meet. I've missed several faction-specific boons because they called for skills I didn't have, but I'm okay with that, because that's the risk I'm taking. But every time I play him, I feel a little bit guilty when we're doing skillchecks, as I suck at 95% of all skills. I'm effectively dead weight at anything that isn't Diplomacy-related. Again, so far, that hasn't been an issue, but I fear the day I'm involved in a chase scene and I need to cross a bridge with my Dex of 8 and an armor check penalty of 5...
Ran this earlier, only now really questioning the Zey's Gratitude boon: Do you select from the spell-likes available to you when you played the scenario, or from the spell-likes available to you from your current level/subtier you're playing? So, if a level 7 played this scenario in subtier 7-8, but decides to use it when he's level 11, can he select Chain Lightning? Since the boon specifically states subtier, I'm leaning towards the spell-likes from the tier you played at.
"Go down swinging" indeed. Of the five times (I think, might be four) I've played The Confirmation, at least three times she ate a crit from that thing and went down hard. She's a crit-magnet.
Since Goblins are usually portrayed as sadistic little buggers, I'd say most of the time they'd kill (and probably eat) the party. If they're following orders, maybe they'll keep them alive for interrogation. If you put the name of the scenario in spoiler tags, we'll take a look which case would be the most likely.
How detrimental do you think a low DEX score will be?
It's not that detrimental. However, you don't save much by keeping it at 10 either. Dex 12 is cheap (assuming point-buy), and the upgrade to Dex 14 is nearly as cheap - you get a bunch of small boosts for little investment.
Quote:
INT 12 (13 at 4th lvl for Spell Specialization)
Usually it's a good idea to add the ability score increases only to the highest score. That allows you to keep the highest score a bit lower at level 1, saving a lot of points for other scores.
If you shuffle it around a bit, you get the following:
STR 7
DEX 13
CON 14
INT 13 (as nicholas supposed)
WIS 10
CHA 17+2
At level 4, your CHA will catch up with the original plan.
If you follow SheepishEidolon's advice (or Nicholas', for that matter), maybe I'd shuffle stats a bit more, depending on what you want to do. You now have four odd stats, of which you'll boost two in your PFS career (assuming no post-11 play). Assuming your level 4 bonus goes to CHA, level 8 can go to either DEX or INT. If you don't feel like boosting DEX, dropping it down to 12 allows you to boost WIS to 11 (or hell, just plain swap DEX and INT). Still four odd stats, but now your level 8 boost can go to WIS as well. Overall, your physical stats and skills are going to suck (and you'll have spells to circumvent those. No need for Climb or Acrobatics checks when you can cast Fly). Boosting Wisdom or Intelligence still has merit, IMHO. You get crap skill points anyway, and that boost to Will saves and Perception might come in handy. Will is your strong save, but if it starts out low, it's still not amazing.
Personally, I'd go with either of two builds:
STR 7
DEX 12
CON 14
INT 13
WIS 11
CHA 17+2
Or
STR 7
DEX 10
CON 14
INT 13
WIS 13
CHA 17+2
Boost CHA at 4, depending on whether you need more skills or want slightly better saves INT or WIS at 8. Or hell, you're a d6 class, try to boost CON:
STR 7
DEX 10
CON 15
INT 13
WIS 11
CHA 17
Boost CHA at 4, CON at 8. You're most likely out of harm's reach most of the time, but there are moments where you will be surprised, or caught in an AoE, or whatever, and you'll be happy with your HP buffer.
I disagree, I think it'll be fine. Not ideal, but fine. As you said, there's tons of spells to choose from, avoiding the (ranged) touch attacks should be easy. Yes, the low AC will hurt, but I don't think touch 10 or touch 12 will make a huge difference (or AC 14 or 16 with Mage Armor). I play in a Crimson Throne campaign with someone who has a Dexterity of 8, and he's resigned himself to just getting hit a lot. But there's ways around that, as well. Miss chance, boosting Constitution, Stoneskin, and so on, so it's not a huge loss.
I do agree though on the fact that 20 Charisma is on the high side. You can obviously make it work, but it leads to lopsided builds, in my experience. It's your choice, obviously, but I'm personally not a big fan of it.
This is the sub-forum for organised play, the Rules forum might be more appropriate, but I see why you'd post in the GM section.
Basically, if there's a mini on the map, you should roll initiative for it. Or, if you're playing without a map, anyone specifically pointed out as being present should roll initiative. Even if people aren't necessarily aware of combat breaking out, if there's a reasonable chance they might join at some point (they're at negative HP, far away but in telepathic contact with someone and capable of teleporting, and so on), roll initiative for them. You can abstract big crowds as being on the same initiative (so you don't have to roll separately for a crowd of 50 people, for instance). If people get added into a fight later on (someone says "I'll yell out for help," for instance), roll initiative and someone appears on that initiative.
In this case, it sounds like your friend is right. Even though the NPCs weren't an immediate threat, they could become one. As they were being fascinated, they would've skipped their turn until someone snaps them out of it. Or, in this case, roll initiative for them as soon as they snap out of it.
I do want to commend you for not wanting to stop the game for a rules discussion. You did what you thought was right and everyone had fun. Not everyone does that, so props to you.
The fact that there's a specific rule for what state you're in when you're at exactly 0 hit points.
It's always seemed ridiculous that there's a rule for being at an exact hit point number.
Or that when you've lost 3 hit points, you're technically "fighting off death." Yeah, the level 20 Barbarian with 200 HP stubbed his toe and now he's fighting off death...
ryric wrote:
I dislike how readied actions create time paradox shenanigans. Your readied action goes off before the trigger but the opponent is still committed to performing the triggering action, even if your readied action makes it impossible. This leads to nonsensical results from readying movement in response to attacks where you can completely negate attacks just by 5' stepping in mid-swing.
Yeah, those are stupid. I've seen charges go horribly awry by getting tripped after 10 feet, and since it's a full-round action, he can't get up again until next turn... Sometimes the rules are a little too prohibitive for my liking.
I see Quentin has never run afoul of shatter or a well-timed sunder maneuver (or has run afoul of them and doesn't want to repeat the experience). Sometimes bad stuff happens to your stuff.
Fair enough, indeed not run into Shatter yet, but I did meet sunder builds. But those are legitimate tactics. Rolling a 1 on a Fireball is just dumb luck and adds needless complications.
The rule I have the most problems with is the fact that rolling a natural 1 on a save versus energy damage also damages an item. I've never seen anyone enforce it. It's niche, needlessly punitive, and stupid. I guess it's in line with the "critical fumble" expectations, but it just adds insult to injury. You've already failed a save against a Fireball, I don't want to randomly have my gear breaking as well.
Attended items wrote:
Unless the descriptive text for a spell (or attack) specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks to determine order in which items are affected. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack dealt. If the selected item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It simply is dealt the appropriate damage.
I have two further problems with this. First of all, there's a 50% chance it'll target you armour or weapon. Having your armour fall off in the middle of a dungeon is terrible and not fun. Realistic, yes, but needlessly complicated. Second of all, if your weapon or armour is magical, it's almost moot anyway. A chain shirt has about hardness 10 and 20 HP, so it needs to receive at least 20 damage to count as broken. On average, a Fireball deals 3.5 damage per level. A sixth-level Fireball will break a chain shirt. But by that level, you'll probably have found (or bought) a +1 version. And magical enhancements give another +10 HP (and 2 hardness).
So now you have to track your chain shirt is banged up and have another stat to keep track of. Either you fail another save in the future, forgot your armour already had damage, and it breaks, or you'll have to keep in mind to fix it once you have the time. That's needless busywork and brainspace I'd rather spend on other stuff.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I don't see a point in having "To Hit" and "Armor Class" along with "CMB" and "CMD".
I'm currently reading another system called 13th Age, which folds a lot of things into each other. Everyone has an AC, but also PD (physical defense) and MD (mental defense). PD and MD acts as saves the opponent has to overcome, as well as CMD and the like. Poisons and area attacks have to roll versus PD to stick, much like rolling a Fortitude or Reflex, and some monsters can bull rush people if they exceed their PD, for instance. And MD works like Will saves. Now you've reduced four different stats to two, and they all work the same: the GM rolls to see if something works or not, instead of rolling vs CMD and having the players roll saves. It really streamlines things. On the GM's turn, only the GM needs to roll, on the players' turn, only they need to roll. That's elegant, IMHO.
The Realm of the Mammoth Lords has pockets where tribes are deeply suspicious of magic. It's not necessarily illegal, but using magic powers (or even Supernatural abilities) might get you into trouble.
Sniper in the Deep caused a near-TPK a while ago when I played it.
Final combat:
The two people that got Confused were an Alchemist and a Summoner. They pretty much immediately went into a deadlock between those two. They both had crap AC, but also crap to hit, so they kept missing each other for pretty much the entirety of the confusion. Meanwhile, someone decided to steal the enemy Cleric's holy symbol so he/she couldn't channel to harm anymore. GM looked at his spells, and it actually made it worse, because now he had voided his tactics and a lot of nasty spells that didn't require a divine focus. Two people were down and bleeding out, the other two (tank and someone else) were frantically trying to fend off the attacks, healing the tank with a CLW wand, and then a ghost decided to possess the Eidolon, causing even more trouble. It was utter chaos. We eventually won because the Confusion ran out, the Summoner banished the Eidolon, and managed to gain control of the situation. It was one of the most chaotic fights I'd ever seen.
As a GM, are the boons mutually exclusive? Normally, if you GM an adventure, you can cross off negative boons and keep positive boons (if I recall correctly), but while this scenario has three boons that are narratively speaking "worse" or "better," they aren't necessarily bad boons. Do I as a GM pick one boon and cross off the rest, or do I somehow apply for all of the boons simultaneously? I'm inclined to go for the first option (choose one you like, cross off the rest), but I'm asking just in case.
I'll chime in and say the scenario runs very short. Barely 3 hours with a lot of banter, but I had to say, there were only three people and a pregen present. No real complaints from me, except that it's shorter than expected. The scenario works and does what it's supposed to do.
I'm running into the same problem, but I've made an agreement with my player. He'll only scout one room ahead, encounter whatever is in there, and then he scouts ahead more. For me it's probably a little easier, as I'm running Wrath of the Righteous, and I've threatened people with See Invisibility before. Basically, if enemies notice the sensor, they can prepare for the party. As I've said, I'm running Wrath of the Righteous, and a lot of demons have See Invisibility, but you can probably do something similar. This way, my party can only scout two or three rooms at a time before it expires, and I think that's a pretty fair deal for one focus point.
Personally, I'd have a talk with the player, or perhaps with the entire group and say what's on your mind. They'll probably understand. My players have picked powers that seemed cool and were later shocked at how effective they were before. Taking the fun out of the game, on either side of the screen, is a real possibility, and clear communication can solve that very easily.
This happened last night: We fought a creature that could shapeshift into small items, and we had reason to believe it had mind-controlled an NPC. One of us grappled the thing, pinned it, and didn't know what to do with it. He wanted to grab a bag to put it in, but didn't have his hands free. So I got it for him, grabbed his Handy Haversack, and he threw it in there. Then, we were scared for a moment that it would try to damage it to get out and get lost forever. But instead, nothing happened. We took it for granted and focused on the charmed person, and suddenly I had a flash of insight. We put a creature that could transform into small items in a bag full of crap the player didn't want to carry. Things like a shovel, eating utensils, a tent, and so on. Talk about finding a needle in a haystack. It took the other players a little longer to catch on, but we essentially dealt with it "offscreen."
We don't get to decide or tell people how to identify themselves. If they wish to use gender neutral terms, then it is up to us to make that work within our own paradigm.
I am not saying we get to decide. I am saying that choosing something that avoids confusion behooves their cause.
It's not really as confusing as all that. People use They for gender neutral binary all the time.
For Example, Car pulls in front of you. You cuss, your passenger who was not paying attention says "Whats wrong" and you say "They cut me off!"
I assume you are not thinking the car was driven by multiple people.
Other examples:
"Somebody left their umbrella in the office. Would they please collect it?"
"The patient should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay."
"But a journalist should not be forced to reveal their sources."
This is pretty interesting. As a non-native speaker of English, most of these have me scratching my head going "is that really how it's done?"
A bit of a tangent, but I only learned this year that Dutch and (British) English use opposite rules when it comes to collective nouns. See this link for what I mean. Basically, Dutch people treat a group of people as a single entity ("my family is crazy"), British people are still individuals ("my family are crazy"). Which really threw me for a loop.
I simply meant "politics" in the sense of political correctness.
You’re not helping yourself. When you use the phrase “political correctness”, what the rest of us hear is “I find it inconvienent to give people basic respect.” I obviously don’t know how you personally feel about trans people, but I do get a sense that you’re honestly trying to learn how to navigate when trans and nonbinary characters show up in RPG. The problem is, IRL trans rights are under attack, and you keep using the language of people who are trying to attack those rights. It’s not doing you any favors.
I am very sorry if I offended you or anyone else. I really do try to be polite, but while I am trying my best, I'm only an interested amateur, not fully in the know yet. I'm sorry if I perpetuated any stereotypes or wrong ideas. I live in an open community and have several friends who identify as asexual or are trans/nonbinary (including a roommate), so I know what they're going through. And because of that I try to be as inclusive as possible, but as many people can attest to, I'm not the best with words. >_>
And yeah, I guess I use that language because those are the articles I read the most, so I guess I absorbed the wrong lingo. My apologies for that.
I'll just shut up now before I stick my foot up my mouth any further. >_> But thanks for correcting me and your honesty. I really appreciate it.
NPCs are just a vessel for the story, and unless their sexual orientation, mental problems, or what have you are relevant, I don't care one way or another. Being confronted with politics in-game when I don't have to just occupies more brain space than I'd like at that moment.
Be very careful. These sentences imply that existing as a trans person is a political stance. It's not. It only becomes political when people try to deny us our personhood.
As for the "where do we draw the line" argument - when all those who are seriously looking for representation can find themselves in the game. This will never end. This is okay. We will never be perfect, but we can always strive to be better.
Oops, I am very sorry if you felt misrepresented or anything like that. I simply meant "politics" in the sense of political correctness. It was late, and I was fuzzy.
As for representation, I recently ran Down the Verdant Path, and no one commented on that specific NPC. I tried to keep the pronouns correct, which I flubbed once or twice, but overall I kept referring to them as "them." But I also didn't spell out their situation. To me, what Rigby said, "you see a nonbinary person," is quite weird. You can tell a mental state? You can see if someone is male or female, of colour or of a certain age, but not if they have mental issues, identify differently, has a different sexual orientation, and so on. To me, that is putting unnecessary focus on it. But then again, as I said, my players didn't pick up on it, so I'm not sure if there's a better course of action.
I'll go on a tangent and probably hit a few sore spots here and there. Feel free to mod this post if it offends anyone, but I'm genuinely curious. Do note that while I'm a white cis male (and therefore don't have much to complain about), I am on the autism spectrum, so I do belong to a minority that also likes to be acknowledged.
How far should inclusivity go? From talking to other people I've learned that representation is an acknowledgement. People in a fantasy world are just as complex as in the real world, and can have mental problems or differences from the standard. Representing that in the narrative is an acknowledgement that your subgroup is heard, understood, and catered to. You acknowledge they exist, which is something a lot of companies have difficulty doing. Gay/trans/autistic/and so on people want to be heard. Putting them in your game tells them "you're not weird, you're also featured in our game," which is a confidence boost.
But here's the problem: Personally, I like fantasy stories because they're simplified versions of reality I can escape to when I've had enough of the real world. NPCs are just a vessel for the story, and unless their sexual orientation, mental problems, or what have you are relevant, I don't care one way or another. Being confronted with politics in-game when I don't have to just occupies more brain space than I'd like at that moment. As I said, I ping on the autism spectrum. Do I personally want an autistic person featured in a scenario, just to cater to me? No. But do I want to take that pleasure away from people who do care? Also no. But where do we stop? At some point, it feels to me less like acknowledging subgroups and more like pandering. We've had Venture-Captains of all races, shapes, sizes, and coulouration, a blind one, a deaf one, a nonbinary NPC, a trans person/person in drag (which I've never seen someone react badly towards), and probably a lot more I'm forgetting. And there are lots more options. But where do we draw the line (all assuming they're portrayed with respect, of course)? Or do we need to, at all? In a fantasy setting, anything is possible. Otherkin might be possible (people who identify as something outside their race), but how far do you go with that? A person who thinks he's an Ooze sounds ridiculous, but there are actual people who think they're a wolf, for example, so this doesn't sound too far off.
Anyway, what it comes down to for me is this: It's not my cup of tea, but I'm open to it if it's done in moderation and with respect.
Yeah, thing is that good villain needs two things: screen time and personality.
This, but I'd also like to add an understandable motivation. The best example I can think of is Handsome Jack, from Borderlands 2. He's the last boss in the game, but he keeps in contact with you through voice clips. That way, you're reminded why you hate him every 30 minutes or so. And he has some great voice lines. The inclusion of that character elevated the game from great to fantastic. As for his motivation, he truly thinks he's doing it for a good cause, and roughly three-quarters into the game, you do something that angers him. From that point on, you notice a change in him. He was just toying with you up to that point. Now it's personal. And he loses himself in that rage. The angrier he gets, the more I feel for him. And that's what so great.
Okay, I've had a chat with my RVC, and I need to stress that in my example the GM might've been just a jerk in general, not specifically towards women. Said GM has been jerky towards me as well, so it might just have been a case of him being himself, rather than being misogynistic. Not sure if that helps or not, but yeah.
I'm afraid so. Not often, but I've seen it happen. I was at a table with a woman (early-mid 20s) with her level 2 character, and because she was low-level, the GM assumed she didn't know much about the system and used a really condescending tone to her, as if she was 12. During a break I got to chat with her and she said she'd been in a home campaign for 2-3 years now, and she definitely knew the rules.
Something similar happens with Magic: the Gathering. Also a male-dominated hobby, I've seen men get beaten by women purely because they underestimated them. I know by now that age and gender are no indication of capabilities. I've been beaten by kids still in primary school. It's just a bit sad that just because of gender, people don't give you a chance at proving yourself.
I wanted to add platitudes like "only jerks do that," and "if you look around for a bit, you'll find people who aren't like that," but that's no help to you. But then again, neither is clamming up. But yeah, even though I didn't say anything in my example, there are people who look out for this sort of stuff, and there will be consequences. I just hope it doesn't happen to you.
The scenario provides 7 potions, and the party knows what they're up against. If your party composition is right, you might not even need to spend money on scrolls.
Actually, I like this. Maybe not at level 4, but a slight boost might be nice. As you said, levels 1-2 are a bit of a slog and characters rarely have interesting abilities. And especially when you've made several characters already, finding new adventures gets tricky. I'm up to my 22nd character right now, and I only managed to get that many out of the 1-5 range is because I GM a lot and can apply module credit to them. But now, I'm really feeling the pinch. Getting a head start would mean having access to tier 3-7 immediately.
I'm not sure how to implement this, but something like if you have at least 7 characters of at least level 5, you've shown a commitment and the fact that you're capable of understanding how low-levels work. Levels 1 through 3 are important for beginners to see where they went wrong, and even if they can't course-correct anymore, they can start afresh with a new character. But for the people who've been gaming for a while, levels 1-2 are boring and want to get to the exciting part. This serves two purposes: first, low-level scenarios don't run out as much, and people can get to higher-level scenarios faster.
I just thought of something else. How about scalable boons? The past few seasons have messed with "if you're in a higher subtier, also gain X effect"-type things, and I'd like to see more of that happening. There are a lot of good situational boons that become obsolete when you reach level 6 or so, so I'd like to give those low-level boons a bit of love.
Also, maybe items you can upgrade? I love finding unique items on your sheet, but again, they eventually get outdated. For example, The Sun Orchid Scheme has an item that's pretty cool at low level, but eventually your own magic will become better. A line of text saying "once you reach level X, you may pay Y amount of gold (similar to how you can upgrade your armour) to buy an upgraded version of the item that does Z instead" would be great. That way, items and boons you acquire at level 3 will still be relevant at level 9.
I played this yesterday, and I didn't get the impression there was a time limit. Most adventures are assumed to be completed in one day, but there are several that define no time limit. Hell, the author of the Tome of Righteous Repose has explicitly stated in the forums that taking several days isn't an issue (especially considering you're already taking several days getting there). Unless explicitly stated time is of the essence (other people racing to get the object as well, the objective moves or expires, and so on), theoretically you can take as long as you want.
The only thing is that PFS sorta works on the honour system and assumes you do it in one day. As long as you don't abuse that trust (the "15-minute working day," where you do one encounter each day), I see no issue in taking longer. Especially since this scenario is pretty harsh.
The most important thing here is that deities can revoke their magic. Paladins, Inquisitors, and Clerics can fall if they don't obey their deity. Spirits don't have that clause. Technically, I guess a 20th-level Shaman can grant other Shamans their spellcasting abilities, but they don't get anything for it in return. Also, there are many spirits of <theme>, so that's why they can't revoke your power. Or if they can, there are enough similar spirits that will grant their power, instead.
The main problem is that the term "spirit" isn't as well-defined as a deity. Deities have gotten lore about them, but what constitutes a spirit is up to the GM to decide. If you roleplay that your grandmother is your spirit of Ancestors, displeasing her could cause her to stop giving you spells. But surely there'll be someone in your family tree that is willing to pick up the slack and grant you their power instead. Thematically, something has changed, but mechanically nothing has.
Also, one more thing: how do you, as a player or GM, define "spirit"? I've always seen them as dead creature's souls, hanging around and bothering people, sort of like elementally themed ghosts. But obviously, at 20th level, a Shaman doesn't die, so the term "spirit" isn't 100% correct here. A different explanation is that a spirit is the living embodiment of something. But then again, how smart are they? Shamans seem to have an empathetic link with them, so either they're not that smart, or can't fully manifest in this world. While you, as a Shaman, exist fully in this world, and are sapient.
TL;DR: I think it's mainly an issue of using the same word for different things. A 20th-level Shaman is a "spirit" inasmuch as you are a walking avatar of the thing you represent. Like the Oracle at level 20, you don't become the thing your mystery represents, but a walking embodiment of it. Meanwhile, the spirit that grants you hexes and spells is (IMHO) the soul of something that's passed away, but lingers in this world somehow.
That would sound cool, but remember that it has to correspond to Pathfinder lore. Pathfinder 2.0 will probably be set in stone as far as lore goes sometime soon (if it isn't already). When (not if, I'm sure we'll get one) we get a scenario where we deal with Torch sometime during this season, I'm afraid it'll be too late for it to impact his involvement in 2.0
Maybe I'm overestimating time schedules. Maybe Paizo has some backup plans in case this does happen, but I don't really see a chance of us feasibly making an impact on this short a notice (remember, the scenario has to be released, and we need to be given a decent enough time window to play it. Leaving it open for only a few months seems rather short, not everyone has a chance to play regularly. And then, Paizo needs to process the results. Unless they've planned this in advance and it's simply a case of switching him out for someone else).
As the title says, I'm thinking of doing weird stuff with a Spellstoring weapon or armour. Not the standard stuff everyone uses, like Shocking Grasp and the like, but things that border on the silly. Can you help me find stuff?
- First off, Disguise Other. No save, no spell resistance. Can you imagine if a group of thugs mobbed you, one of them hits you, and gets turned into a girl? Won't work on that person, but his allies might react to it. Or turn him into an identical copy of you.
- Similarly, Vanish or Invisibility. A bit counterproductive to slap that on the enemy, but imagine giving a big speech, like saying "anyone who dares to hit me I will remove from this world." Again, big scare-factor for onlookers.
- Compulsive Liar is interesting. Let someone hit you, let him get away, and he can't speak the truth for several hours. And the best thing is, he won't even know why.
- Every "Touch of..." spell ever. Touch of Blindness. Hit me, and you'll go blind.
- Voluminous Vocabulary. Target suddenly realises he can understand Abyssal. What will he do with that knowledge? No idea, but it's interesting.
- Claim Identity. You suddenly become a copy of the attacker, and he loses his identity.
I just took the Bard spell list because they have the funniest things, but I'm sure there are more. Thanks for the help!
Barbarian wants to become more civilised, ironically grows more monstrous instead.
This was my PFS experiment that went remarkably well. I started with a level of Barbarian, then went into Alchemist. I originally only wanted to dip, but Alchemist became sweeter and sweeter. Eventually it became an Alchemist with a Barbarian dip, rather than the other way around. Anyway, the backstory I made was that she wants to join civilisation and distances herself from her Barbarian roots by picking up levels of Alchemist. Then I gave her extra arms and a second head, and started using Monstrous Physique. I like the irony at work.
I'd like to see a Samurai-type character that isn't just a differently flavoured Cavalier. Maybe make him Wisdom-based, as I envision them as battle-hardened warriors giving sage advice. A killing machine that fights with a combination of instinct and technique. A combination of Monk and Slayer or something. Mister Miyagi meets Agent 47.
Maybe "Mary Sue" is a bit of a misnomer, but Torch does always seem to pop up and gets the biggest slice of the pie whenever he's around. I can imagine how some people want to put him in his place.
But yeah, I agree with Mike, Osprey needs more time in the limelight.
Well, first of all, what's your gut feeling? It's your campaign, so do whatever you think feels right.
If you want to get really nitpicky, Smite sticks until it is dead. If it falls unconscious and is reborn, it's obviously not dead. If it actually dies, I might need to see the exact example to understand the context. Could you put the exact boss (and book) in a spoiler tag? That way I can take a look myself. If you're a stickler for the rules, I'd say you have to Smite again. But, keeping in the spirit of the game, the threat is obviously not vanquished, so the Smite would linger. I once GMed a game where a creature popped out of the boss, chestburster-style. That's obviously a different creature, and would be able to be Smite'd again (if the boss was controlled by it, that might be a different question), for example.
What's your real motive for asking this? Are you worried about the Paladin running out of Smites, or are you afraid that re-Smiting will deal extra damage? As a GM, you're not supposed to be "against" the players. You can challenge them, but it's not your job to kill them (unless you have certain rules in place). You're supposed to facilitate the players, not throw obstacles at them. In the first example, running out of Smites will cause a bad feeling for the player. In the second example, not allowing him to Smite again (if it's an evil outsider, dragon, or undead) takes away part of his damage output. Either way, you're causing a feel-bad for the player. Sometimes that's okay, but you're supposed to provide entertainment. I'd say don't make a decision yet and see which of the two becomes relevant. If you want to be a hardass GM, take the least favourable result. If you want to provide a cool story, the most favourable result.
I said I wanted to join, but as you can see, I haven't posted yet in the gameplay thread. I'm afraid I just don't have the mental space for it right now, sorry. I'll officially drop out now. I'm the fifth player, so you should be able to play without me.
Oh, and while we're on the subject of important NPCs: it's been mentioned earlier, but I want some conclusion on Drandle Dreng. Some scenarios paint him as a weird goofball, some as a kind grandfather figure, and some as a senile old man. And then School of Spirits happened. I want to know the real Dreng.
But if PFS 2 is a continuation of PFS 1, won't he still be there, personality intact to kick a new generation of Pathfinders out of bed at 3am and send them off to the museum?
[If I ever get round to running a scenario where he's the brief my go-to image is Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Homes disguised as a layabout. Because in my head canon Dreng is a high level investigator.]*
* yeah, I know that's not what his stats say. But if I were ever creating the character in a home game...
There's a difference between deleting/altering some of PF1's history and expanding upon it. People saying "I want to blow up the Blakros Museum" miss the point. As much as you hate the place, it's still a good source of lore and adventure. On the other hand, I could see an evolution of most of the NPCs happening. There's been 10 years of stories happening, the writeup for all Venture-Captains should be different. I can see some Captains being replaced or killed off, but keeping Dreng exactly the same as he is now is just a waste of potential.
(For what it's worth, I've always suspected Dreng of faking his age, even before School of Spirits. He seems like the trickster kinda guy.)
Also, I just remembered. Amenopheus has a weird history with the Society. He's up to something, and I want to know what. He appears as a semi-antagonist in Echoes of the Everwar without explanation, and there's one or two more times I forgot where he's being shady.
Oh, and while we're on the subject of important NPCs: it's been mentioned earlier, but I want some conclusion on Drandle Dreng. Some scenarios paint him as a weird goofball, some as a kind grandfather figure, and some as a senile old man. And then School of Spirits happened. I want to know the real Dreng.
Anyway, any good writer should know that a character that the audience loves to hate so much, you do not kill off.
... until the grand finale, which is fast approaching.
There is no "finale." Pathfinder Society 1.0 will end, maybe with a cool climax to commemorate, but don't expect to fundamentally change Pathfinder as we know it (unless of course it's planned by developers). As far as I understand, what's happened so far is canon in Pathfinder, and will continue to have taken place in 2.0. There might be some reimaginings or retcons, but don't expect to wipe several places off the map that'll still exist in 2.0.
Can you tell us more about this 'Monk/Id Rager/Druid' build you encountered?
Because it certainly does not sound overpowered to me.
Granted at low levels it might be powerful, but I am struggling to envision it being overpowered.
I'm not 100% on the exact statistics, but it basically boils down to the following:
Starting as Druid so he can be a large Earth Elemental pretty much all the time.
Then going Monk for Flurry of Blows, Wisdom to AC, and a whole lot more.
A few levels of Id Rager (maybe just one) to have his damage dice go up, and of course, all the bonuses Rage gives.
Again, I'm not sure about the build, he obviously has a lot of magic items that boost him, but he has four or five attacks that each deal 60 static damage (including Power Attack), before damage dice are rolled. He has great saves and AC through Monk levels, Evasion, spells to buff himself, and so on. As a GM, he was frustrating to play for, because he had no weak point. Everything just died around him. This might just as much be a fault of the equipment as it is of multiclassing, but you see where I'm going with this. And this was for Society, where you go to level 11.
Except that you can still boost those first-level powers. There are a lot of feats or items that grant extra rage rounds or boosts to certain powers. Dipping one level of Barbarian and the Extra Rage class feature allows you to rage for 10+ rounds a day, enough for 2 or 3 combats. Yeah, Rage doesn't turn into Greater Rage, but that +4 is already a lot. Swashbuckler dips get free Weapon Finesse, skips some prerequisites, gets some Panache and deeds, and so on. There's a lot of reasons why one level of something else can really boost your effectiveness, especially if you're not a caster-type.
Yes, multiclassing can be good, and you can pick options that complement or enhance your multiclassing decisions. Again, why is this a bad thing? You're still making sacrifices to gain these benefits, and the result characters are comparable to single-class builds. Sometimes better, sometimes worse, depends on exactly which builds we're comparing.
And this one:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Quentin Coldwater wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
Why is dipping a bad thing? Your new level 1 ability never improves, and your main class abilities are slowed by a level.
Except that you can still boost those first-level powers. There are a lot of feats or items that grant extra rage rounds or boosts to certain powers. Dipping one level of Barbarian and the Extra Rage class feature allows you to rage for 10+ rounds a day, enough for 2 or 3 combats. Yeah, Rage doesn't turn into Greater Rage, but that +4 is already a lot. Swashbuckler dips get free Weapon Finesse, skips some prerequisites, gets some Panache and deeds, and so on. There's a lot of reasons why one level of something else can really boost your effectiveness, especially if you're not a caster-type.
Remind us why you care?
Why should I care? Well, I mostly care because I play a lot of PFS, where I've seen some absolute bonkers builds, where people squeeze every last bonus into their character. I've seen one guy roflstomp several scenarios, basically soloing every encounter, with us merely as backup. Monk/Id Rager/Druid is a crazy powerful build. I might just be whining, but I've heard several people complain they feel useless next to these people. This is also partly an OOC problem, not an IC problem, as the player wants to dominate everything and show off, but it's indicative of the problem. If people want, they can break the game beyond what the system meant for the player to do. Multiclassing for more abilities is good, as long as the overall power level doesn't exceed its intended maximum. But it does, and for Society play, that can be a problem.
I agree though that for non-Society play, this is less of an issue, where you as a GM can have more control over the power level of your players.
Why is dipping a bad thing? Your new level 1 ability never improves, and your main class abilities are slowed by a level.
Except that you can still boost those first-level powers. There are a lot of feats or items that grant extra rage rounds or boosts to certain powers. Dipping one level of Barbarian and the Extra Rage class feature allows you to rage for 10+ rounds a day, enough for 2 or 3 combats. Yeah, Rage doesn't turn into Greater Rage, but that +4 is already a lot. Swashbuckler dips get free Weapon Finesse, skips some prerequisites, gets some Panache and deeds, and so on. There's a lot of reasons why one level of something else can really boost your effectiveness, especially if you're not a caster-type.
I honestly think some kind of variant multiclassing-like implementation could work, but I see Planpanther already beat me to the punch. But still, to to illustrate my point:
I'm not sure if pure VMC will be the best way to go (I'm guessing it'll lead to too powerful characters), but something like it could be helpful. I'm doing a quick sketch here, not very well thought out, but suppose the following. I'm a Cleric and I want to dip in Barbarian for a Strength boost. Say I want to dip into that at level 5, since I got an item or a story-related reason to dip. First level would grant me a minor "iconic" power, such as Rage, but not named as such, so the "Extra class feature" feats won't cheese it (or make it a rule that you can't get "extra class feature" feats if it isn't your primary class). In this instance, maybe a +2 STR/CON for 3 rounds per day. In addition, I get Barbarian progression in BAB, saves, HP, and so on. Two levels later, I unlock the "real" class feature, with all the features working as true class features. That means you can still basically act as that class if you want, but it's harder to cheese. Then, if you're fully committed, you unlock the "true" potential. That means dedicated people can multiclass and still profit up-front without being stupidly powerful, and min-maxers can't profit from it without really investing in it.
I just gave one example with one class feature, but I'm sure more class features can be implemented just as elegantly.
Or go with the Starfinder route and massively decrease the amount of bonuses you can collect. Getting to stack Morale with Enhancement, Luck, and so on only invites people to seek them all out. Get two or three total types of bonuses and multiple ways to get to them. That way, they overlap easier and people have to make a choice. It might lead to bad gameplay when you keep finding items that don't stack, but you can work around that, I think. Or give bonuses "slots," where you can only carry X amounts of bonuses at a time (either scalable with level, or a static amount). That prevents self-buffing monstrosities from existing, and buffing one direction means you neglect other aspects.
Hooray! One question: What happens with spells you get that you normally aren't supposed to get? As far as I know, Mudball is a Goblin-only spell, but the Geomancer Occultist gets it on his spell list (p. 66). Does he instead not get that spell? Does he get a replacement? Or is this a weird enough exception that allows you to have it? I believe I've seen things like this in domains and the like, but I'm not 100%, I just know of this example.
