|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Recent Posts
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. It could be done through the use of flaws in the SRD or Unearthed Arcana easily enough... of course, that means he has yet another (on top of the draw backs from the vows) flaw that you should be aware of and imposing fully. 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.
Umm... I am hoping the goal is not to annoy your players but to make sure they are ALL having fun (including this one). I would recommend against doing things to specifically target the weaknesses of one character on a regular basis (individual encounters certainly could be made this way to keep things interesting, but don't repeatedly target one player). 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! Hooray! 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
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
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:
Benefit:
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? As a player I LOVE 1st lvl. As a DM I prefer 8 or so. 2) Why is that your favorite experience level? I love the potential of a new story, I love starting things. Yes ending and wrapping things up are good too, but the shear number of ways the beginning can go always make it fun for me. (I tend to always like the first book or movie in a series the best for the same reason). 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? Yikes... this is a tough one because there is a ton of good adventures that I have read. For what it is worth almost all have been from either Dungeon or Pathfinder under Paizo, (with the notable exception of Red Hand of Doom, which obviously has strong ties to Paizo folks). 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 completely agree, that is why I am trying to hammer (and others are also bringing up) the importance of making sure that there are clear expectations set. If the group just wants the cleric as a heal battery and that is not what the player wants to play or finds fun then it shouldn't come up mid-way through a game. Sean Mahoney
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. This is fantastic advice and very on point. Sean Mahoney
Then imagine the Lawful Good cleric telling the perpetrator to "deal with your own problems". Why would the lawful good cleric continue to adventure with 'bad guys,' aren't these the people who he is trying to stop? 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
good role-playingNot to come off like a jerk or anything, but who are you to decide if another peron's role-playing is good? I guess that is exactly my point though. In the cleric deciding when to play their part or not play their part based on others actions they are passing judgement on someone else's character. 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
Oh sure, I start a thread with some good info and all the credit goes to Lisa... I see how it is... start one really awsome gaming company that brings the fans who are looking for this information tons of good times and suddenly you are 'all that'. 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
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
DETAILS, please. Is it the power of the spells? The number of spells? Combo of both? Generally it is the power of the spells when compared against the power of the melee types. The power of spells scales up at a regular rate, but that darn longsword is just picking up an extra point or two of damage each level... sure you can swing it all day, but the encounter was over on round two. Throw in the save or die (or save or suck) spells and that makes things over pretty darn quick as well. A creature with a high AC and DR still goes down like a chump to some touch attacking spell. SR doesn't really stop enough to make a huge difference, but rather seems an annoyance in most cases. At least that is my experience at the higher levels. Sean Mahoney
While I certainly can't disagree with James, I do think that the new Pathfinder rules actually help give you this opportunity as well. If you take the slower XP route then you will have a lot of XP that needs to be filled in order for the adventures as written to be run. If your players are up to the sandboxy nature of things, this would be a great way to provide room for both the AP and the sandboxy stuff. All that said, while I would love to do that kind of thing myself, my groups greatest struggle is having someone decide to do something. They simply wouldn't do anything in a sandbox environment (tough enough in an adventure path to get them to make the decision afforded them). Sean Mahoney
Keep in mind that druids are not only non-proficient, but they are also restricted to non-metal. Additionally, you may want the hand slot open for magic items that use the hands (typically gloves or gauntlets) and so might not have the space available. All that said, not a bad backup for a melee type. Sean Mahoney
Since I run APs, it normally is ending around 14-16. However, I can say that level 12 is where there is a big shift toward the spellcasters as just dominating things. Non-spellcasters are much less useful at this point and encounters start becoming either a breeze or someone dies with little in between. Sean Mahoney
"Rise of the Runelords" would be a bigger change-up, cibet44. There's no planes traveling at all. Well... there is a little planes hoping, but it is an artificial plane... not like in those other adventures. I would agree that RotRL is further away from the other two that you mentioned. Though fankly any of the current Pathfinder aps would be different enough I think (with the exception perhaps of Second Darkness). Sean Mahoney
I know this is not a popular change, but the weapon was just too good. I haven't seen the new pathfinder rules yet, but I can tell you that the spiked chain is considered THE weapon in optimization threads. You just can't beat the control it can bring to a battlefield. That said, it sound like in Pathfinder you will just have to work with the 'almost as good as spiked chain 'cause I was feat starved' option which is to use a reach weapon that allows tripping and either spiked gauntlets, spiked armor, or some other method of getting a 5' threat zone at the same time as the 10' threat zone (like unarmed attack if you have a level of monk). Changing the one weapon won't really change the tactics it was used for... it just kind of ganks the priests of Zon-Kuthon... but they were jerks anyway. Sean Mahoney
My personal one was in the Conspiracy Hunter trait where there was a question "Could the fabled Council of Thieves, said to have been purged from the city ages ago, have somehow survived or reformed?" Can it really be in doubt after that question? I know the AP is called "Council of Thieves", but that seems a little too much info too early for me. I like the players to feel that they've discovered the main plot, not have it handed to them quite that easily. I think it is fair to say that players will have a good idea that the Council of Thieves will be involved due to the name of the AP. That said, their characters do not. The key to making this trait successful then would be to give them a BUNCH of conspiracies that they are looking out for and blaming things on. All the rest turn out to be false but the Council of Thieves turns out to be real. The player really will be playing along here, but I can see this one being a lot of fun to play out. As for what those conspiracies are though... not sure... I figured I would read the rest of the AP (I won't be running it prior to it all being out) and see if anything pops, and if not hit these boards for inspiration. Sean Mahoney
Another thought on Dispel Magic is that it is most useful in "boss" fights, but the boss is likely 3-4 levels higher than the caster of Dispel Magic. As a result you aren't that likely to take down a bunch of protections. In order for it to be a good tactic you really do have to put some time and effort into pumping up the dispel check higher than just a caster level check. Sean Mahoney
A bunch of really good points Your right, of course. I guess I am looking at it more from a DM of Paizo adventure paths stand point. After the first adventure you really do want someone to open up with dispelling attack on the first round in order to debuff the opponent. A lot of the more difficult encounters would be a LOT easier if this were done more often. Of course, it isn't done more often. Most people just go on ignoring it. And your right, the second level dispel that only functions as a targeted dispel is great for this. Throw in some stuff to buff up your caster level check on dispels (dispelling cord, etc.) and this is a pretty darn good way to do things (one spell takes out many is always very nice). The group I run tends to not ever use it even when it would have been extremely useful for them to do so. Xenesha in RotRL is a good example. It is tough to make call to keep a whole school for one series of spells though, so I agree it is a valid option. Sean Mahoney
Abjuration... IF you can live without Dispel Magic, drop it. Dispel, and to some resist energy, is about the only spell in it you will really _need_. Live without Dispel Magic?!?! <cough> <sputter> This is unheard of!!! Ok, with that out of my system... it really is a valid option as long as someone else in your party (like the cleric) is taking on dispelling duty. Some have said that any wizard that is casting a spell that appears on the cleric list is being a chump. If you agree, then Abjuration is a valid drop. Mage Armour becomes redundant in the later game anyway (when bracers of armour start appearing) and shield is a useful substitute anyway. Unless they changed this in Pathfinder, Mage Armor is a conjuration, so dropping Abjuration would not even mean you loose that. If they did change it, then Abjurant Champion just got a lot more powerful (mage armor provides +9 AC and Shield +9 AC). Sean Mahoney
Complete Mage splatbook says dump transmutation and necromancy; keep conjuration to combine real objects with illusions to create maximum confusion. I have to strongly caution against ever dumping transmutation. Unless Pathfinder has changed the spell line up significantly, there is just too much in there you don't want to loose. Be a little cautious of dumping evocation unless you are still allowed spells from other sources (like the spell compendium, in which case the orbs give you wonderful blasting power with no SR). I do agree that conjuration is a very strong ally to illusion though. If you summon some real creatures one round and then make an illusion of summoning more the next, it is unlikely that anyone would question this. More fun is to summon a wall of fire or stone as an illusion and once they know they can ignore it summon a real one and watch them run into it. However, all that is really (once again) dependent on your DM. If he is the type who has 'all-knowing' NPCs who are magically only suspicious when you cast illusions, then you will have less utility with them. Sean Mahoney
I didn't really know beta at all either... I browsed through it but since, as you know, I like to delve deeply into the nuances of the rules I didn't want to do so and have them changed on me (I am guessing it would feel like the change from 3.0 to 3.5). I can tell you in general that illusion is either very powerful or very weak and it all depends on the DM. I would have a talk about what you can and can not do with illusion spells (specifically the more open ones) to find out how you will fair as an illusionist under this DM. It is similar to enchantment this way in that I have seen a lot of DMs rule very differently on Charm Person from game to game (from giving you control of a charmed creature in combat to just saying they like you but you chose the wrong side of the fight so they look sad as they keep hitting you). HERE is a link to a discussion on the uses of illusions to give you some ideas of what type of things you should be asking if you can do with illusions. The few DMs I have run under while trying to use them have been more of the mind of gimping anything I tried so I haven't really delved to deeply into illusions, but every game is different. You will need a good understanding of the one you are in when making choices. Now... all that said, even if your DM is a hard nosed, anti-illusionist in his interpretations of your creativity, you can still play an effective illusionist. You just have to know that your focus just changed from battlefield control and warping peoples perception of reality to buffer. Sorry no specifics to go on this time. Sean Mahoney
It's interesting, I have not seen the faction considerations that are mentioned by others, but then I am just purchasing and using the the Adventure Paths rather than any of the organized play stuff (where factions come from). One of the core concepts with Golarion was the intention to build the world up through the adventures rather than through source books. I believe this was one of the things that many of the key authors loved about Greyhawk back in the day. In contrast, Forgotten Realms (and this is coming from a former Forgotten Realms junky) seemed to be built by source books. I don't know that I personally feel this is 'better' just a stylistic difference. I think it does certainly make things more approachable for someone just wanting to get into it. On the other hand, Paizo is kicking out adventures at a crazy rate, so only the really invested are going to be able to afford the subscriptions to the adventure paths, game mastery modules, and all the convention level modules that are being put out. What's more is that the longer someone takes to "get on board" the further out ahead the adventures get, and older ones (the ones introducing the world being built through adventures) go out of print after a while. This also means that there has not been a lot of crunch that has been added to the game through all of the supplements. A FR book would come out and have many new feats and prestige classes to help flavor the characters to the area, and there is a lot less of that in the Pathfinder stuff to date (and what has been released is generally severely underbalanced to the point that most people look at it and just walk away), with the occasional gem here or there. Despite many of the designers love for Grey Hawk, the core idea that they would like any type of game to fit somewhere into Golarion does give it a feel that is closer to Forgotten Realms than Grey Hawk (this was also a core concept in designing FR). I don't know that it really does compare to Eberron as they are just very different. Eberron has a very different feel, purposefully, than other fantasy games that sets it apart. For good or bad it is unique. I suppose another inescapable factor would be that Golarion continued to have 3.5 support while FR and Eberron changed to 4E. Of course, now it depends on your preference between 4E and Pathfinder to determine if the continued support thing is a factor (personally I am still on the fence as to moving to PRPG or if converting will be worth my time, or if I am converting anyway should I just move to 4E). Another point for an FR fan would be some of the talent they have on board here at Paizo. For example, Sean K Reynolds is one of the major people doing write ups for the gods of Golarion (and a lot of other things) on a regular basis, and you will see he had a major stamp on fleshing out the gods of Forgotten Realms as well. Long time Grey Hawk fans will see the same thing with names here. Anyway... for me the big thing is that Paizo seems better at telling the stories in adventure form than does WotC so far. If you want to make up and run your own campaigns, I think you would find less with Paizo. If you like taking a pre-published adventure or adventure path and customizing it to fit your players and make an indepth and interesting story, then Paizo is making the products that you want. Sean Mahoney
I suppose if you had a lvl 20 character with full BAB who was using rapid shot with a splitting enchantment on the bow you could get a tremendous amount of shots in. It would look like: +18/+18/+18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3 That is only 10 shots though, rather than a dozen... I am sure that more could be squeezed out though through spells or polymorphing into an arrow demon or something. Sean Mahoney
I can't see Cheliax looking at it that much differently than any other form of summoning and binding magic. That said, perhaps the school he was a part of would discredit him and this would bring a large amount of shame on his family. It then could be family politics and societal pressure (even in his own head) that he is fearful of being exposed for. Sean Mahoney
While I am not a large fan of the PDF only version either, I really don't think it did it's job when it was a part of the companion line. I really want a short, concise amount of information that the players ALL need when starting the campaign. Something that gives them some guidance on how the different races and classes fit into things here and then just public knowledge on things. Anything longer and you get one player who reads it and the rest just flip through, say it is cool, then set it aside. That is the fate of the companion version in my experience. Sean Mahoney
Many of these GMs are complete 3.0 holdovers too, no plans of converting to Pathfinder RPG or 4e. I geuss they fear change, and thus shall keep their bushes. For right now I think I fall into the camp of people planning on staying with 3.5. I will buy PRPG and see if it will be possible to convert my 3.5 splat books very easily or if it will be a pain. If a pain, I think I will either just stick with 3.5 for a long time or look into switching to 4E. We'll see... Sean
It looks like you still have (assuming your DM ignores the sidebar giving seeds for further non-stated encounters): EL 2 - 1
Several of those could considered as much of 'big bads' as the folks we have talked about so far, if not more so. It is also likely that you will level again before you hit those 10's. For a party of 5 who are 5th level and make six during the move to the finale, yes this is doable, but it is possible you will have a death. That is always the possibility though. It is very common in an adventure to see the final encounter be average party level +4 for the EL. Sean Mahoney
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
