Me and my group aren't quite focused on optimization, flavor is much more important for us. For example, one of the players has a ninja with STR 12 that uses shurikens in time to time just because he's a ninja and ninjas use shurikens (of course he has a shortbow too).
I believe your monk is a good playable and versatile option. He has decent melee attack and damage, a viable ranged attack, not too bad AC.
According to the rules for Lay On Hands a paladin that's healed by negative energy and hurt by positive energy can still heal themselves. They straight up heal wounds, and can alternatively deal damage to undead creatures.
There is a FAQ that clarifies that Lay on Hands uses positive energy so I don't think the dhampir can use it to cure himself.
One of my friends is going to play a Dhampir Paladin in our new campaign (Carrion Crown) starting next saturday. Since a Dhampir functions like an undead regarding positive/negative energy, I was thinking to allow him to switch Lay on Hands/Touch of Corruption (Antipaladin's) in case he needs to cure himself, he would lose his paladin abilities if use it to harm anybody.
I also will include the cause wounds line on his spell list in order to allow him to prepare/use wand these spells, again it would be an evil act to use those to hurt anybody else.
I won't include the chanel negative energy.
What do you think, it's overpowered or not?
Regarding the Paladin's code I think it can not be problem if he limits the use of these evel spells/abilities on himsef or over a friendly undead (maybe it won't happen at all).
Sinde both feats (Power Attack and Deadly Aim) are described based on the type of attack (melee or ranged) and do not mention the type of weapon (ranged, single, martial, etc. or even melee) it seems to me that in RAI or RAW its clear that ranged attack can be combined with deadly aim always and never with power attack.
However, it is not common for us to create TPK because of some problem. In Japan, it is said that character should not be died and GM should avoid character's death.
I totally agree with this statement, as a GM I try to tell a story, I usually plan the final comfrontation since the begining and usually try to lead the players to additional personal motivations on the PC's (revenge, sense of honor, a debt) to try to stop the main villian.
The death of a PC is not a desirable situation for me but if it occours it can be explained on the continuity of the story if someone else takes his place, if the entire party is killed its a bit more defficult to explain why a totally new party is trying to take their place, and the personal motivation are just lost, it would see as a different story.
Well, iron armor definitely provides protection against iron weapons, not in the form of DR but provides protection.
As for the DR entry the "-" means that there is no way for a weapon to overpass the DR, no matters his material or his magical bonus, so the adamantium armor still keeps the DR 3 against an adamantium weapon.
I'm our last campaign I builded a table of attacks for each of the characters in the back of their character sheets, the barbarian table was something like this (not the real stats, just and example):
Normal +15/+10 (2d6+8)
And added as many entries as possible combinations, it's a bit large but it worked perfectly for them, helping them to track their modifiers and remember their attack options.
For the fighter I added one column for one handed attacks and another for two handed, you also can include a column tracking the AC (specially for the barbarian).
5E is a love letter to Old School crowd with some 3E/4E innovations thrown in. WotC is going after all those folks who play OSRIC/C&C/S&W/T&T/X&Y and have no strong brand holding them. Smart move, but is it enough to satisfy the Corporate Overbeast?
That's why they need to go after Pathfinder folk as well, here is were most of the people are.
I readed the last articles on wizard's website and depiste I found most of their content quite interesting, (it seemed to be similar with 3.x/Pathfinder, i.e. class hit dice were the same, fighter d10, cleric and rogue d8, and wizard d6), right now I really don't see the need of try another system when I feel really comfortable with the on I'm playing right now for high fantasy, of course Pathfinder.
Wizards need to make a really really great game if they want the people playing Pathfinder back.
Right now I want to avoid non PFRPG APs (like Rise of the Runelords) because I don't want to spend time making conversions from 3.5.
Regarding our regular game speed, we usually take 3 or 4 sessions per level and since APs seems to have 3 levels per booklet I assume we will take something like 80 sessions (2 years for us).
I'll give them the options of City (Council of Thieves), Horror (Carrion Crown) or Oriental (Jade Regent).
Thanks to everyone for the advice.
As DM I'm about to finish my actual Pathfinder campaign and since I usually don't have enough time to prepare sessions I'm seriously thinking to run an Adventure Path.
Can you people give me some advice regarding which AP is good to start?
I also want to know which is the usual rate of advance, I mean how many sessions per booklet can we take? we usually take 4 hours sessions.
I agree with LN for Death. He plays no favorites and he gets very cranky when people break the only law he cares about.
If there are in the setting a lot of sentient undead out there not being chased by death, I see no reason to believe the god of death is feeling cranky. In this case I go for the true neutral
On the contrary if in the setting the sentient undead are chased by the god of death or his worshipers then he would be lawful neutral.
If you have no problem painting minis you can get some good fighter kind miniatures from DDM.
Two of them come to my mind right now and none of these is rare so they won't be expensive:
Regdar, Adventurer (Giants of Legend - Uncommon): Just need some dark color in his armor.
That is an ability damage effect so it's also a damage effect.
Quite different here, I've readed LOTR three times and I will certainly read those at least one more time in the future.
I'm happy to not be playing with this guy in my RPG games, he read the rules and he assumes no one else has the right about those.
I really do not see the problem with the gunslinger, he doesn't seem overpowered at all. In fact he brings again one of the things I most love from 3.x/PF, the different mechanics between classes.
Talking about flavor, I really love to play a Roland Deschain's character.
I'm not a vet player, I have just 10 years in RPG world. I even started to play a bit late, that happened in college.
I started with D&D 3.0 and when 3.5 arrived all my group moved to this as well, we explored Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms and in time to time some other systems (Call of Cthulhu, Mutants & Masterminds, World of Darkness) but none of them catched us like D&D 3.5. At some point in 2006 my original group was dissolved and I looked for new players and started DMing.
When 4E arrived we gave a try to it but after about a year I dropped it and stopped to play mainly because that wasn't funny anymore (at least for me).
I was heard about Pathfinder a couple of times but never gave a try until january this year, at first glance I felt that was as good as D&D 3.5 was for me at some point. I looked for my old crew again and started to play. This is definitely the game I want to play right.
The reason: after trying a bunch of systems 3.x/Pathfinder is the kind of game that has the right balance in roleplaying, combat mechanics, and rules wich I feel comfortable with.
By the way I like in general the changes that Paizo crew made over 3.5 on skills, combat manauvers, and classes.