Sean Mahoney's page

A Man In Black wrote:

damaged backwards compatibility,

...the hell? I'm going to regret asking this, but I'm masochistic: Where did you ever come up with that?

The poison does what? I can't really use that in my 3.5 game as I have no idea what it means. Perhaps the opposite is true and it is really easy to take 3.5 stuff and play it in Pathfinder, or maybe it is just easy for someone who knows both systems to convert, but someone with no frame of reference for what the changes are will find it difficult to just pick up a Pathfinder module and use it as is.

Sean Mahoney

KaeYoss wrote:

Well, if you count äöüß, we have 30 as well. There's a lot of normal letters with some mutations, like aäáàâ etc..

Yeeeeeeah. :P You suggest thist to our art directors who would then need to find fonts with those glyphs (hard enough to find ones with dashes and ellipses), our editors who then have to distinguish between names like "Rhoatgast" and "Rhoatgäst", and - heck - us, who would need to track down those bloody squiggles every time we need to spell a name via keyboard combinations and drop down menus. I understand the uses in the language such symbols originate from, but in our stuff it largely just gums up the works without a significant gain or feels like a ham handed attempt to be more "FaaaaNtAsY!". It's also why you don't see ANY (or very, very, very, very few) names with apostrophes or dashes in Golarion: they don't add much of anything, just confuss things on the editorial and design side, and - really - are pretty played out in RPGs.

Sean Mahoney

With a 17 Cha, Selective Channeling will be Profan Life Leech's best friend.

And, there is the fact that the OP does not seem to care if he is hitting his friends, so why bother?

Sean Mahoney

The feat I am taking is from Libris Mortis called "profane Life Leech" basically two turns attempts give me a D6 healing from EVERY living creature within 30 feet, no save,no spell resistance just HP drainage and a happy cleric.
I will have this at first level and be able to spend my spells to heal others but my turns to heal myself.

Has anyone else used this feat before with any of there charecters?

As another player in the group I would not like this at all. You are going to sucking HP from your own group to heal, and I can see them not being overly appreciative of that act. Don't kid yourself, you aren't getting away from your friends and just popping this off when there is only bad guys around. You will be wearing the heaviest armor you can to make sure things aren't chipping into that no Con bonus health pool, and that will give you a base 20 move. Unless you take two turns (double move the first, then pop this off the second), you aren't even able to get far enough away from them to keep from damaging them as well.

That said... I can see this being a great feat for an NPC who is fighting off a numerically superior foe. It will be interesting to see how long until your own party sees you are that NPC who needs smacking down because you keep damaging them more than some of the opponents.

Worst case scenario, you have them arrested and sentenced to head to the same place... either way it can logically move in that direction.

The wotci capitolized on the myth of the adversarial DM by marketing to players the need for character builds using so many products to survive their DM.

Further, its kind of sick that the rules and the company's obsession over them has transferred into the community a belief that excellence comes from twisting rules knowledge, rather than using critical thought or imagination.

I guess what I really don't get is why you seem to think that creativity of story and thinking can not co-exist very nicely with rules or the understanding of them. It has been my experience that the more the rules are understood and consistently applied by the GM and players the less time they take up around the game table so that far more time can be spent on the actual game and the story.

The rules are not the game, but they framework on which it operates. If that framework is solid and well understood then you don't really ever notice the frame and focus on what you are supposed to. If, though, the rules are not understood or followed consistently then they become jarring and are much more the focus of time around the table.

At least that has been my experience.

Additionally, the fact that there is a rules discussion in a thread on the boards does not mean that the people participating in that discussion only care about the rules... it just means that the rules are what that particular discussion is about.

You mention that being a munchkin, meta-gamer and rules lawyer does not make you a master of the game... and you are correct. But not having a decent understanding of the rules DOES detract from the game. If we have to pause a game to, once again, go over the grappeling rules for the same player who always asks, then there is less time to play and have fun.

Likewise, if the original poster or anyone else who is participating in this discussion were to pause their home game to have this discussion there instead of on the boards, then they would have less time to enjoy their game. Having it here helps solidify understanding and give more time for the game.

Coming in and saying that discussions like this are bad fun and are ruining the game is not helpful. This is a message board, if you don't like a particular type of discussion then don't read it. It is pretty rude though to go into discussions you don't enjoy and try to keep other people from having them or discouraging them from doing so.

There is NOT a shift to 100% rules discussion on these boards. There are threads with people looking for character ideas or ideas for a campaign or advice on their campaign. In the AP sections there are very few (relatively) discussions about rules with the exception of conversions and most of the questions are about how to deal with a specific situation or resolve a contradiction in the books. Sure... there are more rules discussions in D&D 3.5/D20/OGL section of the board... because that description denotes a rule set so that is the appropriate place for a discussion about those rules. You sure don't see many of them in the Campaign Journals section as it wouldn't make sense there.

Anyway... I will let this go now.

Sean Mahoney

To be clear, you can not choose ranged spell as a weapon focus, you can choose a Ray (which are spells, but not all ranged spells are rays). However, assuming that is what you meant in your question by ranged spell I will go on.

Choose one type of ranged weapon with which you are proficient.

Reading over the rules laid out in the Rules Compendium for Disarm, I don't see anything that would prevent a ray from being used the same as any other ranged attack.

You would need a ruling on the DM if the ray counted as two-handed, one-handed, or light for the penalty (I would suggest light, like an unarmed or natural strike) and if the size adjustment would be taken into account (since spell damage does not scale with size, I would suggest no).

Overall it seems like a really good use of 0-level spells or wands of low level rays. As you get to higher levels it would be much less useful a tactic though (as disarm is in general), but in a low level game you don't expect to progress real far this would be a option.

The downside with Ranged Disarm is that you don't get your str added to the roll as does the defendant and you have a poor BAB... the fact that the ray was a touch attack doesn't mean anything to the disarm attempt.

Sean Mahoney

I got into a chat with a fellow player and he was wondering how both our charecters had the same strength but my cleric was carring 140lbs as a light load with a 15 str. score.
I pointed out that I found a feat in the planular guide that lets you have double your carrying cap. It's called Heavy Weight, it doesnt help with attack or damage but for a heavy armor wearing class it's an indispensable feat to have.

As an aside, being size small effectively gives you a +50% carrying capacity for items sized for you. Since things that are size small weigh 1/4 their normal weight but being size small only reduces your carrying capacity by 50%.

If you really find the increased carrying capacity a big deal you could combine the two and have the equivalent of 4x normal carrying capacity (while really only having the normal carrying capacity).

Sean Mahoney

Stand Still from the Expanded Psionic Handbook

I am really enjoying Stone Power from Tome of Battle as well... not sure if it is necessary, but it sure gives me a whole ton of survivability.

I would not allow the use of Divine Metamagic with Sudden Metamagic feats in my game (or at least I would not allow it in a way that would be beneficial to use). My reasoning would follow several lines.

The first would be a pure RAW interpretation. By RAW the Sudden Metamagic feat can only be used once per day. Spending turn attempts through Divine Metamagic would not change this limitation of once per day. (The math that it would only take one turn attempt to do does work, but I don't know why you would do that instead of doing it that once for free... either way you only get it once per day).

I am a big believer in RAW, but there are certainly times where a pure RAW interpretation comes out with something very broken (though I don't think this is one of them due to the limitation on Sudden Metamagics to being usable only once per day)... so then I would go to a RAI or Rules as Intended.

I would venture a guess that the Divine Metamagic feat was not intended to combine with Sudden metamagics in a such a way as to give you 1 turn cost metamagics. It would seem clear by presenting an X+1 cost model they wanted to make sure it was more costly to use this than the feat itself. For this reason I do not believe that RAI is in support of the use of sudden metamagic with divine metamagic.

Finally I would ask myself what the effect in game would be... and this one would be a doozy. Sure it would take a lot of feats to get that Sudden Quicken but once you did it would one turn attempt to quicken any spell you have on the fly. That is crazy! Even maximize which is generally looked at as only a middlin' metamagic feat is only such because of the upgrade to the spell slot it gives balancing it back down. At the cost of 1 turn attempt this is too cheap. The previous poster who stated if you can do it so can the DM is right... and the DM would likely crush the party by making use of this.

Anyway... bottom line is that I feel there is little to no support that would suggest that this should be an allowable combination. I applaud the original poster for coming up with it (and the many others who have posted the same question on other boards), but I just don't see this one as doable.

Sean Mahoney

After reading DM_Blake's comments, I do not think I would continue the game. In both his comments in this thread and in others he has complained about how horribly long one part of the adventure path is taking. To me that is a clear sign that someone is not having fun... or at least has a bad attitude about the game.

Sean Mahoney

Good questions... I will do what I can to answer how we deal with them.

1) How do you handle getting people being permanently level drained, resurrected, etc? They lose levels, but the XP difference numerically between level 6 and 7 is less than at 14 and 15, for instance, meaning that eventually the lost level will be at least partly caught up later in the game. If I have to start a new PC when the party is 6th level, and the rest of the group is 7th, how would I ever catch up without a totally arbitrary "hey you level twice this time, while the rest get one."?

(we did the same thing for save or die mechanic which were not seen as very fun and changed them to put the person at -8 hp and bleeding).

2) XP is often seen as a bit of an incentive to have good attendance at games. We don't have an attendance issue in our group, but if you're not feeling terribly well one night and just don't feel like gaming for whatever reason, sometimes the thought of missing out on your xp for the night is enough to get your lazy @$$ going to the game. Missing games takes away some of the fun for everybody, so it's important that they show whenever possible. Is that a problem you see when you do it this way? If you do have people who consistently miss, do you "punish" them by not letting them level now and then, or through some other in-game mechanic?

Anyway, for use that means that the missing a session thing isn't an issue for XP.

I guess what I would recommend doing is talking to the group as a whole and look for a consensus on what is the most fun for them. If they are just likely to have fun with the story then the XP incentives and disincentives are not really necessary and you can keep everyone at the same level.

Sean Mahoney

A cleric that can cast limited wish?!?!

It's a MIRACLE!!!!

While I can't comment on most of this, I will say that I LOVE the idea of Shanwen climbing up to the crossbow and tossing the poor fellow who had been manning it out of the way after a missed shot or two (and him bouncing down the road in "oomphs" and "ooffs").

Sean Mahoney

My biggest advice would be to try and tie the character backgrounds into as much of the plot as possible.

Examples would be a fighter who has worked for the town guard and knows people there, or one of the PCs comes from one of the farm families hit by the ghouls in the second adventure (particularly effective if it is their father who rides into town all crazy eyed), etc.

Sean Mahoney

I have an elegant disproof of Pendagast's post, which unfortunately will not fit in this margin.

I personally DO wait until all of the supplements are out before starting an AP so that I can add in foreshadowing, deeper role-playing around those areas and characters that will have the most impact on the campaign, and integrate the players PCs into the world. I get the impression from his description of his group that I would not be adding value to their game experience if I were the DM. That's fine, to each their own.

As a result of being willing to wait, the delay isn't a big deal to me or my group. We take longer than a month to play through a module, so even we did start before they all came out we wouldn't have an issue.

I will concede that the delay is worrisome in that it could mean that in stretching themselves beyond their core mission (the APs) into the realm of game mechanics (Pathfinder system) that they are hurting their ability to do APs. I really hope that isn't the case and this is a one time thing. Frankly, they should have delayed the system rather than APs... but who knows if that was even a choice.

For what it is worth, I am fine with pocket dimensions and would not have an issue with them being used in each and every AP. However, I do think some care needs to be taken to make sure that PCs can sell, buy and repair things. I see this as a big issue with a long stretch of LoF, for example.

Sean Mahoney

Actually, I know it's a little off-topic, but I don't think the surgestion is even needed. Nammed bonuses do not stack, so if you get one ability saying "You add your Intellegence bonus to AC" and another ability saying the same, the intellgence bonus does not stack with itself.

Sean Mahoney

Keep in mind that you were not optimized to be the main damage dealer in the group. Your job is to keep things hitting you and then, and only then, dish out some decent hurt. Oh... and stay alive when they are hitting you.

You have high HP, a pool of damage reserve, and ways to heal yourself. You can do things like give the enemy a -4 to hit if they ignore you and they know it, so they stay on you. AFTER all that, you still have some pretty good options for doing damage, but if you get some bad die rolls... no worries, that wasn't your main job.

If everyone walks out of an encounter with very little hurt then you did a good job at what you were optimized for. Fortunately you can still have some fun laying down smack. (Nothing you can do about dice rolls)

Sean Mahoney

It's not the way I normally play, but all this talk of banning everything but core makes me want to bust out the brokenness that is the alter self through polymorph chain.

Sean Mahoney

I indeed had the horses (with the exception of the recovered warhorse who got away) eaten by the carrion swarms.

bwhahaha

So we have an Arabian (Qadira) and an Egyptian (Osirion) setting, any chance we'll see an Oriental setting in Pathfinder?

Sean Mahoney

I don't have a release order version of the list for the 3.0 stuff... I started working on dragon stuff after all the 3.5 stuff.

(creating a master list of all feats, magic items, etc.)

Sean Mahoney

That's logical, but it does keep monks from getting the benefit of other insight bonuses from magic items and group buffs. Optimized monks aside, the wisdom bonus to AC is less a perk than a necessity, since they can't use their abilities with armor.

Not RAW though, just a thought on a house rule.

Sean Mahoney

They are unnamed so they do stack

The sword sage ability reads that the Wis to AC is only applicable while wearing light armor, while the monk can only use it while unarmored.

However, the unarmed sword sage variant isn't actually a real thing but is instead lightly suggested in the "adaptation" section of the class. The adaptation specifically only says to give the ss the unarmed progression of the monk and remove the light armor proficiency, it doesn't say that the ability changes from while wearing light armor to not wearing armor (though such a call would make sense since the ss no longer has proficiency with light armor... it just isn't what it says).

Finally the way stacking works also would argue a bit against these stacking. In the Rules Compendium under stacking it indicates that unnamed bonuses stack unless they come from the same source. It could certainly be argued that these are indeed the same source (a class ability that gives Wis to AC when unarmored) and so overlap instead of stack.

It really comes down to a DM call because of all that... there isn't a crystal clear RAW ruling on this one. Well, I guess by RAW the ability doesn't change over and so you either have Wis to AC in light armor or unarmored but not both.

Sean Mahoney

I should clarify that my list isn't just a random jumble but was by release date. I did that so I could more easily try and figure out what books to look for spells and magic items in beyond the spell compendium and Magic item compendium.

I was not able to find one a while back when I went looking so I did my best to create one... this is what I came up with:

Player's Handbook
Dungeon Master's Guide
Dragonlance Campaign Setting
Miniatures Handbook
Monster Manual III
Underdark
Book of Exalted Deeds
Complete Warrior
Draconomicon
Unearthed Arcana
Player's Guide to Faerun
Expanded Psionics Handbook
Complete Divine
Eberron Campaign Setting
Serpent Kingdoms
Planar Handbook
Races of Stone
Frostburn
Shining South
Libris Mortis
Complete Arcane
Sharn: City of Towers
Races of Destiny
Complete Adventurer
Lost Empires of Faerun
Races of the Wild
Sandstorm
Races of Eberron
Lords of Madness
Heroes of Battle
Champions of Ruin
City of Splendors: Waterdeep
Dungeon Master's Guide II
Five Nations
Weapons of Legacy
Explorer's Handbook
Stormwrack
Magic of Incarnum
Magic of Eberron
Heroes of Horror
Champions of Valor
Spell Compendium
Player's Guide to Eberron
Races of the Dragon
Power of Faerun
Tome of Magic: Pact, Shadow
Complete Psionic
Players Handbook II
Mysteries of the Moonsea
Secrets of Xen'drik
Monster Manual IV
Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss
Dragons of Faerun
Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords
Faiths of Eberron
Dragon Magic
Complete Mage
Cityscape
Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells
Complete Scoundrel
Secrets of Sarlona
Dungeonscape
Magic Item Compendium
Cormyr: The Tearing of the Weave
Complete champion
Drow of the Underdark
The Forge of War
Shadowdale: The Scouring of the Land
Monster Manual V
Grand History of the Realms
Exemplars of Evil
Dungeon Survival Guide
Dragons of Eberron
Rules Compendium
Elder Evils
City of Stormreach
An Adventurer's Guide to Eberron

He had Vow of Peace at 2nd level? That's physically impossible since it requires two other feats to take, and even humans only have 2 feats by 2nd level.

I would very interested in going over this guys build though... I think he is doing some 'creative' math.

Sean Mahoney

The only real power level that matters is that between players. If one player is out shining the others, then there is a problem. If the whole group is overpowered compared to another group, then who cares, this is the only group playing.

From your description it sounds like the biggest issue is the disparity in levels between this PC and the others in the group (there is a HUGE power difference in lvl 2 and lvl 5 characters even when not optimized). You need to figure out how this happened and fix it. We would need more info to chime in.

The other two issues here are handled very well by the suggestions above.
-Talk to the player. Let him know your concerns and ask for his input, suggestions and cooperation.
-Review the character sheet. Make sure everything is actually what it is supposed to be. The player may be inadvertantly making errors in his favor. You also need to understand how all of his abilities work to properly adjudicate them.

You may also find ways to use the limitations of his build against him. (Power Gamers often become quite annoyed when the weeknesses of their Uberbuilds are highlighted.)

As someone who enjoys including all of the splatbooks from WotC in my game, I have yet to find them unbalancing. I have had to make some calls on things in RAW that vary from RAI in my opinion (like divine metamagic only working if the metamagic would bring the spell up to a level you could normally cast if it were applied normally or night sticks not stacking... right now I am considering changing psychoactive skin of armor to actually count as heavy armor when applied). Overall the important thing is that you as DM understand the rules as well as your players and that you work to make sure you players feel responsible for keeping the party balanced and everyone having fun.

Another suggestion might be to have this player help the others with character build ideas.

Sean Mahoney

The adventuers in Kingmaker, as a result, are going to be closer in size to "Howl of the Carrion King" and "Spires of Xin-Shalast" as a result, which does mean shorter support articles and fewer new monsters in each volume. We'll see how that pans out soon enough, I guess!

I know it is more work for you guys, but frankly the adventure does far more to translate into a good game than most of the background articles have. They are useful, but not so much that I think I would every prefer them to more adventure (with maybe the exception of city discriptions...)

Sean Mahoney

How about the size of their weapons? If one is carrying a rapier is it Large or Medium?

Sean Mahoney

It's a long running argument as to if non-detection will stop true seeing. The issue comes down to "is true seeing 'detecting' something or just seeing things as they are?"

Sean Mahoney

Well... the first thing that comes to mind is that they probably all liked the dispel magics to keep people from employing dirty little tricks.

Next, it is important to remember that there is a lot more to most schools than just one way of doing things. For example, in transmutation there are lots of spells that don't just transmute your enemy... transmute the things around them, yourself, etc.

Anyway... the first thing to do is look at the limitations of True Seeing. First thought that comes to mind is 'how would true seeing see a shadow spell that is in fact partially real?' The range is another factor. If someone keeps more than 120 ft from the seer, then they can't see through illusions. Use illusions to trap the seer, the illusion maker may know that it is likely someone would have true seeing and would set up situations in which seeing through the illusion is detrimental. Imagine a medusa chained up behind an illusory wall. Most people just walk on by, but woe to the poor true seer.

Spells that provide concealment seem to specifically foil this as well. Not sure how that works with illusions of fogs (likely sees through them), but it is worth a shot.

Looking at some of the higher level illusion spells (shades, wierd) it might be a detriment to not be able to see them as seeing through an illusion in no way protects you from the effects..

Imagine a projected image of the runelord. The true seer quickly can tell this is an illusion and dismisses it, only to have it start casting very real spells at them.

Perhaps the illusionist has had a great time blinding those he believes have true seeing (pump up that DC and take that guy out!).

Perhaps the runelord has researched a spell or metamagic feat akin to the spell misdirection that works to fool trueseeing specifically (would need to be higher level than trueseeing if a spell).

Anyway... just thoughts.

Sean Mahoney

Have you already fought her in your campaign? Basically I am asking if she will be getting a new spell list or if the spells she has memorized will form the core of the book.

Off the top of my head I think you would be giving up more in animals than you gain from vermin. I would need to look at it more I guess but conceptually I wouldn't have an issue with this as DM.

That said, what I would probably recommend is that you take the Vermin Shape feat out of the Eberron Campaign setting.

Requirements:
Druid 5th, nongood, Child of Winter

Benefit:
Wild Shape into vermin form

For the cost of two feats you would get what you are looking for. However the cost here is a bit hidden. First, there are two feats required to get what you want, though child of winter is likely to be right along the lines of the flavor you want with your druid anyway.

The hidden cost though is that the first time a druid could take this feat would be at 6th lvl (assuming they are straight druid with no multi-classing), which means that you are now making a choice between this feat and the ability to cast spells while wild shaped (something generally considered a given for druids at level 6).

Sean Mahoney

1) What's your favorite experience level?

2) Why is that your favorite experience level?

From a DMing perspective, I find the mid levels to be the easiest to predict the outcome of encounters and this means I don't have to worry as much in planning. I have a pretty good idea what the PCs capabilities are at this point and what they are likely to try. I am neither worried about a lucky roll on either sides part dropping someone (player or enemy) that changes how things progress nor am I dealing with so many capabilities that there is really a TON of ways the PCs could deal with the situation making it tough to plan in advance.

3) What's your favorite adventure, and what level was it for? Why is it your favorite adventure?

I think, though, if pressed I would settle on Seven Days to the Grave. I really like urban adventures, I LOVE the imagery of a plague in the background with scheming nobles, and I really like that someone finally made diseases scary in D&D. I also really like the fact that there are no real large dungeons but instead a series of encounters that can be played out differently for every group who plays it. Good stuff.

Sean Mahoney

I don't know that they do (at least not officially). I was able to attend the first magic the gathering world championships that were held at WotC and it was pretty darn cool... but I don't think they are in the same place.

They stopped having events there as things got larger both in the events and in their own operations.

Sean Mahoney

I sometimes find that clerics (and wizards) are looked on differently by players when compared to the other classes.

You hear phrases like "who's playing the healer?" There does seem to be a responsibility attached to the class, which often leads a lot of players to not want to be a cleric.

It's a bit like playing in goal in football (soccer). You are the last line of defence.

Anyone else get this?

Cheers

Sean Mahoney

You need to read Order ot the Stick and Looking for Group.

To get back on track, clerics can be very versatile. Decide what sort you prefer from a roleplay angle, then choose a god and domains to suit his role. Actively roleplay, and the rest of the party will see you as more than a "healing battery". Set clear expectations on how much you can help your party and how much of your effort will go toward directly opposing their foes.

Sean Mahoney

Then imagine the Lawful Good cleric telling the perpetrator to "deal with your own problems".

The problem in these types of scenarios seems to be expectations (and perhaps some player issues). I find it hard to buy into a lawful good cleric who keeps working with a group that does harm to others over and over.

On the flip side, if it is a predominately lawful or good group and you have that one guy who is always chaotic evil (stupid?) then why would he stay with these people?

There can be good answers to those questions I suppose, and that could even make for a good game, but is that the default? To me I would be upset if someone was using their character to tell me how to play unless it was a situation that was discussed when the group was forming.

"Hey, wouldn't it be a cool story to have a LG cleric in with a bunch of murderers that he is trying to reform?"

"Yeah, but why would they keep him around and put up with that?"

"Hrmm... good point, maybe they have no other form of healing ever available so they have to use him but try to go behind his back to appear good but are actually doing tough things."

"Sounds like a great story! It likely will end in conflict though as this type of thing probably can't go on forever, like if the cleric finds out what they have been doing behind his back, are we ok with a interparty brawl? If the cleric leaves does the story follow him and the rest of the group rolls up new characters or should the story stay with the evil guys?"

etc.

etc.

With a good conversation like that, this could be a great thing. But if it is just something someone is putting on the other players, then it could very well lead to player conflict which is generally considered a bad thing.

This is all my opinion of course, but if I had a guy who was always crazy evil in a group who wanted to play good guys, I would likely be having some talks with the guy outside the game and if it couldn't be fixed ask him to leave.

Sean Mahoney

Sean Mahoney wrote:

good role-playing

Not to come off like a jerk or anything, but who are you to decide if another peron's role-playing is good?

However, I do think there are definitive bars for 'good role-playing' and that it isn't just a subjective term that only a person can decide for themselves. For example, if you do something that makes the game less fun for one or more of the other people at the table, then it is not good role-playing. The 'role' part of the term is important but it shouldn't completely overshadow the 'playing' part of the term either.

Sean Mahoney

Imagine a fighter sheathing his weapon and standing aside at the beginning of a fight, watching the creatures they are fighting charge in at his squishier friends.

Imagine a rogue searching for traps, declaring the door safe and then allowing the cleric to walk through a trapped door.

Imagine the wizard allowing archers along the balconies to go unchallenged as he takes cover and lets them pelt their friends.

And then imagine that afterward they tried to act like it was them doing the party a favor because they didn't like that the cleric wouldn't allow them to take a reward for saving the orphans in the last adventure and the rest of the party had backed the decision up.

I can't imagine this being seen as good sportsmanship or good role-playing. Why is it acceptable, or even encouraged, when the cleric does it?

I don't think a cleric should be healing battery for the rest of the party, but if they are not going to play that role they should not build up expectations that they will and then yank the carpet out from under someone not acting as they want (unless they worship a god of betrayal or something).

If, on the other hand, the cleric explained that he sees it as more advantageous to fight in combat and down the enemy faster and that he would be using his spells to this end, then there is no miscommunication. If the party would like to purchase healing items for out of combat healing or emergency healing out of a group fund, then that would be fine too. He could even lead the way in showing them some good items to buy (and do so himself) like the healing belt (750 gp of pure healing joy) or an orb of mental renewal.

On yet another hand, if they party says they really want an in combat healer and someone brings in an cleric focused on cause wounds touch spells, then they are playing dirty pool as well... I am sure it is a fine character, but if you agreed to play a healer and don't you are being duplicitous.

Sean Mahoney

As a side note, I am still running this campaign for my group of 4 using 3.5 rules. I had decided to give experience points a try this time to give some chances for people to spend XP on things like crafting and apparently psychic reformation (or something... crazy psions). It seems to be working out VERY close to what I anticipated above.

I have had to hand out a few story awards here and there, but typically I am doing this more because they are within spitting distance of the next level when we end a gaming session and I would rather they use off time to level up instead of game time.

However, because it IS coming out so close, it makes me wonder if I shouldn't just go back to using the story driven method of levelling rather than XP. There isn't a ton of uses that my PCs have for spending the XP anyway. I will have to talk to them and see what they think.

It is also a lot easier to not worry about handing out XP after every fight, but that could just be a habit type thing.

Sean Mahoney

Gorbacz wrote:

This thread is excellent, helped me with some of my GM'ing dilemmas in RotRL. Thanks everybody !

And did I mention how cool is it to have the CEO chime in on *gaming* discussion ? Woot !

On this thread, I am wearing my GM hat and not my CEO hat. But the Woot is still appreciated. :)

-Lisa

Just kidding, I think it is fantastic that Lisa is 'eating her own dogfood' as they put it when I contracted with HP. To see the CEO here talking about her game that is running with the same products she is putting out really shows they care a lot and are gamers.

Sean Mahoney

The biggest detriment to playing a solo character rather than having a group isn't really any of the individual abilities so much as not having as many actions per round.

The bard is a very good choice here as combining summoning with inspire courage can really up your actions and abilities in combat. You will be able to heal yourself (and ignore healing your summons... they are just summons). Your social skills will be second to none, so you can avoid fights altogether... and of course you can still fight.

Yeah, bard is a good choice.

If, however, that doesn't strike your fancy, I would probably go with Cleric or Crusader for survivability, smack, and healing.

Sean Mahoney

Another option might be to get someone to play a crusader from Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords. They are what the paladin should have been and can lay out some decent combat healing while still laying down some smack.

Sean mahoney

My personal opinion is that someone playing a cleric shouldn't be stuck healing anyway. They are too full of awsomeness and power to waste their time on such things.

Healing belts are a must... if you want healed, do it yourself. You mentioned you have both a Paladin and Bard? There's some wands that need to be bought.

Honestly that right there is enough to keep most groups going most of the time.

Really my point is that it is the individual PCs who need to heal themselves... a cleric is just another way of kicking butt... and I think it deserves it place as one of the 3 most powerful classes alongside the wizard and druid.

(and other posters are right... divine metamagic: persist for the win!)

Sean Mahoney

In my mind the tanks role is not just to take damage but to have some way of encouraging the bad guys to swing at him instead of his friends.

Doing a bunch of melee damage is one way to do this. In my mind, a barbarian is a great option for a charger build.

Lion Totem Barbarian gives the character a full attack on charge.

Leap attack increases the multiplier for Power Attack if a jump is made as part of a charge.

Using the feat Shock Trooper to dump AC instead of BAB for Power Attack means you will have a chance to actually hit on that charge.

Having charged in and done a ton of initial damage will soften up the baddie and convince them you need to be the target. The idea here is that you d12 HD will sustain you while you party finishes him off.

Sean Mahoney

I think I would be tempted to allow a TPK this early. It doesn't really mess up the story at all since it really hasn't been told yet. I suppose if your players put a lot of time and effort into making the characters that is wasted, but they are also learning fear of the hellknights.

This is the type of thing that makes me worry about how "transparent" using the PFRPG rules are with 3.5 modules.

Sean Mahoney