Search Posts
Can you tell me why exactly will I have to "transfer" to the full rules? What do I lose if I keep to the Beginner Box rules? Or does the adventure simply break down if I don't use the full rules? All of the APs are meant to go from level 1 to about 17. RotRL should hit 5/6 level in part 2 I think, which would be a third of the way into the new hardcover version. Carrying on after this would require HUGE changes to fit it to lower level characters, or to adapt the BB's classes to higher level play. The reason why I mentioned 0one's modules is because I think they're trying to make the equivalent of an AP for the BB. It might be preferable for the time being compared to Paizo's APs. As for when you'll hit level 5, that is entirely up to you and your family. If you play more than once a week, and depending on how level progression works in the BB, I would estimate that you would probably hit the cap in 3-6 months; it would take closer to a year otherwise.
Alright, I'll take a crack at this one. First off, for more adventures and the like you can check out the extra free stuff on the site: Paizo Beginner Box
*On second thought, I think you found these but I just want to make sure you have found the webpage.* Based on the age of the kids I would stay away from the Core Rulebook for now. The Beginner's Box offers a stripped down version of the rules in the Core, so anything else in there can be considered "extra" and can be really confusing. Also, any products beyond the Beginner's Box do rely on the Core Rules; however, since Core and the Box both run on the same basic ideas you could pick-up the Bestiaries and use the monsters in those, ignoring the stuff that doesn't fit in to the simplified Box's rules (it might take some effort, but it can be done). Okay, now for adventures. Rise of the Runelords is held up as one of the best of Paizo's Adventure Paths, if not the best period. It screams traditional D&D, has been updated for the current ruleset, and seems to be better for young kids. However, if you are avoiding the Core you'll get through 1/3 of the AP and then will have to transfer over to the full rules. That said, a company called 0one has actually started publishing adventures based on the BB's rules - you can find them here. It might be preferable to getting the full rules. I have two more ideas. First is taking the E6 system, essentially a game fixed at level 6, and adapting it for level 5 characters using the BB; make your own campaign and let the characters grow more slowly later on (the Bestiary would now come in handy). Second, just end the campaign there and start a new one, maybe giving the kids a chance to run it. A 9 year old can have a lot of imagination and it can be a cool outlet for it. You could also start using some self-made rules like these for the other classes. --- I hope that helps. I know that a lot of my suggestions are kinda heavy on the "you'll have to make it work" side, but adventures like 0one's seem like a good way to have fun with the kids and not worry about fitting pieces together. If you have any other questions or need more details (this was rushed) just let me know.
Our group currently uses Kyle Olsen's Combat Manager for our Pathfinder sessions, and it's been working well for us so far. It's been working so well, in fact, that one of our players wants to use it for their own campaign. However, this player uses a Mac, so he needs a different program to use. Does anyone know of any other good combat programs out there for Mac computers?
I agree with what's stated above. I've run many sessions of Pathfinder, and though it seems like it's fun to make a character to run with the party it can get really complicated really fast. That other problem arises is how it affects the party. Say that another player is having trouble rolling or gets locked out of the fight or just about anything else - if your character just demolishes everything, what's the players point in being there? Same thing with role-playing - if your character gets too involved in talking, you take away the opportunity for your players to do the same. It's a really hard line to walk between helping and stealing the show. As for your character idea, the oracle from the Advanced Player's Guide has a similar curse that renders the character Deaf. Since an oracle is a divine caster, it's not that different from a cleric, but if you really want to play a cleric look to adapt that ability, perhaps replacing a domain or taking up a feat.
This is a very cool idea. The only suggestion I have is "Inner Sea Magic" for either the oracle or wizard. There's lots of options for casters in the book and can give some flavour to the magic in Golarion. You could also get "Gods & Magic" from their 3.5 material in case your players want to know more about their deities. The Faith book may be enough, though.
My assumption always was that the swift action in Lay on Hands was because it's easier to reach yourself in the middle of combat than another ally - reaching out to touch someone dodging and trading blows is significantly different from moving your hand inward for a split second. So, yes, I would say using Touch of Corruption on yourself would be a swift action.
Edit: Ninja'd. Must be good advice if we're both giving it! Yep. The whole "sink or swim" approach really doesn't work well with people ever, and even if you learn something from it there's a good chance the person will hate you for it. If they're experienced players, I can see not holding your punches, but if they're new, they really won't learn anything. @Bobthepeanut - You can always add in some terrain to help the PCs out if you think they're walking into a snipe-fest. If this is a library, then maybe the shelves could be used as cover against their ammunition. There are always ways to make an encounter a bit simpler for the sake of the PCs.
Taking a look at what you have set-up, the overall encounter is roughly CR 4, which would be classified as an epic encounter for a 1st-level party. You would definitely help the players out by adding the fatigued condition, but it sounds like you want a way to teach players that rushing in doesn't always work so reducing the challenge may not help with that goal. Here's my suggestion: as the PCs are approaching the library, 3 of the thieves are asleep, one is lazily keeping a lookout, and the leader is off going through the loot. If the PCs aren't careful, the lazy guard will notice them, wake up his allies (say in 1 to 3 rounds depending on how nice you want to be), and then they get pounced on. This gives them a chance to use some strategy or retreat if things go wrong. Since it sounds like a new group, a brutal lesson isn't really called for yet and could ruin the mood for future sessions. This way gives them a chance to learn some tactics for themselves and if they get in over their heads, hey, that was their call. PCs being what they are, they might get through it too.
+1. I love the Red Mantis Assassins, even so far to make a character around them, but those masks just kill they're look in my eyes.
Sounds good. Thanks again Owen. I'll be sure to pick up more of your products in the future.
I have a question about one of the evolutions, but first of all I would like to mention how much I like this product. One of my players wanted to make an acidic snake eidolon, and this provided him with a lot more options to accomplish that goal. Keep up the good work! Back to my question: the same player took the Darts evolution, and I wasn't sure whether or not his acid energy damage would apply to them. I assume that the darts count as natural attacks, but I just wanted to make sure. Thanks in advance!
1) I can't see how it isn't centred on the Assassin. The mist does not take up more than their space and is created by them. It would be pretty useless if it couldn't move with them. 2) I don't think a Red Mantis Assassin would lose their abilities. The class is not divine in nature but instead empowers people through training and skill. However, the bigger issue is whether the organization would allow someone to defect. They aren't going to look too kindly on that.
If you want to buff up your players for the adventure, you could instead let them a level of an NPC class. It would help represent their careers before they became adventurers while giving them a bit of a boost but not as large of one as a base class (plus they wouldn't have to split their attentions if they don't want to). Now, if your players are so afraid of going down, why not just leave the encounters as they are? Maybe they lack the lethality they once did, but some groups like to feel like big fish. Doubling the damage each round, though, is not the best idea for boosting the difficulty.
True enough, but I never saw it as a simultaneous kind of thing. I honestly don't have an issue with it; I would point the wanting player to the Snap Kick feat.
Two-weapon fighting is not a house rule, no, but I honestly don't know how a person would manage to use two-weapon fighting while holding a heavy weapon that requires two hands on it to use. Unarmed strikes while dual-wielding? Perfectly fine. Greatsword while dual-wielding? Not normal.
Back to the OP...
To site a 3.5 precedent from Tome of Battle (yes, I know that it's really not a good example, but eh) they had a feat called Snap Kick that allowed a character to make an unarmed attack after the rest of their regular attacks, albeit with a -2 penalty to all attacks. It also has no two-weapon fighting prerequisite. In other words, I don't think that by the standard Core rules this is exactly possible. However, it is a pretty easy thing to house rule as shown by everyone above.
@Ross - Thanks for the tip. I am now even more enthused for Ultimate Combat, which I didn't think was really possible. @That Guy - Good points to bring up. As soon as I posted my idea I knew it was a little too much, but I wanted to try and see what people thought. I'll see if my players want to try it out.
Lately I've been seeing a lot about AD&D's critical system and how it was fairly simple to have a limb dismembered. I know that there are critical hit tables out there and critical hit cards that can do the same thing, but I was wondering if a combat system could be implemented to do the same thing without a critical. Sunder Limb
I honestly have no idea how well this would work, but I thought it would be interesting if a character could reduce a creature's natural attacks as well as their weapon attacks.
I would agree with you, and drop the skills to 5 ranks. However, is that going to mess up the Dragonmark Heir abilities? Actually, on second thought the six ranks make more sense. I don't think you can take a feat as you gain the requisite skill ranks. Instead, I increased the skill pre-req of Greater Dragonmark to 10 ranks instead of 9.
Well, if they honestly think a set of elephants strapped to gears are threats, they aren't really smart cookies. In other words, I would hope that the players would realize that the creatures are in the labyrinth for a reason other than murder. However, you need suggestions. I don't remember the encounter that well, but maybe a permanent wall of force would keep the creatures alive, and the PCs would have to figure out how to move them through that. If that isn't suitable, get rid of the elephants. It reduces the flavour of the dungeon somewhat, but it's a better option than having the PCs get stuck completely.
Hmm, the use of Action Points is interesting, but I was hoping to try and use the APG's Hero Points (which have more or less the same effect as Action Points, but eh). Thus, I have another proposal: Allow the extra dragonmark feats to add one CL to the spell-like abilities of the marks. These extra effects spend points from the pool just like the spells. Now, considering the increased number of feats a PC gets in Pathfinder, this will add a lot of points to the pool, and will mean that a player only has to keep track of one pool rather than two. It also gets refreshed everyday, so on average a character would get more uses out of their dragonmark pool than from the Action Points. It also gives a character choice in their actions, meaning that they have decide between their spell=like abilities or their feat bonuses. It would definitely be awesome for the House of Deneith paladin to use Dragonmark Smite all the time, but this pool method could also allow the character to use the lesser abilities of the feat by spending less points. What do you think?
That raises a question from me - can you cast multiple spells from a single dragonmark? I always assumed that you have to choose a spell when you take a dragonmark feat, but more choices would be a good idea. However, here's an even bigger question - if using Dragonmarked and taking feats from that book, how would the pool be affected? I am thinking that each extra dragonmark feat raises your CL by one, or perhaps ever two feats you take increases the CL by one instead. Something to ponder...
The group ritual makes more sense to me (and it would be a good explanation for the Aberrant House's tremendous release of powers in their last battle). Making it a trade secret also would work as a good plot device, prevent PCs from taking advantage of the ritual cost, and give the PCs a reason to go to the Houses if they really need too. I'm looking forward to trying this out.
I did see what you were going for with the swarmsuit - the dragonmarked Houses managed to achieve their power through the use of their unique gifts, and yet if they can only cast gust of wind once per day how did the House become so powerful? The rituals would help to explain this. That being said, the rituals as they are now seem too accessible. I prefer the Dragonmarked sourcebook's approach to explaining how the Houses got so powerful - the dragonmarks can do more than just cast spells (with the proper feats, of course). There's also the fact that if everyone in your House can use the marks, well, that's a lot of gust of wind spells that can be cast at once.
Ahhkay, that makes more sense, though I still don't think it quite fits the flavour of having a mark. I'll talk to my group and see what they think. Either way, I like what I see here. The pool is more versatile, yet manages to keep the character from using their dragonmark constantly. I'll have to give it a try.
4th ed. gave characters general bonuses (such as getting a +1 when attacking while hidden) along with the ability to cast a handful of rituals. I have no idea how well it works, though. I do like the looks of this. I'm going to be running a short Eberron campaign myself using PFRPG and I've been wondering what to do about the Dragonmarks. However, I'm not sure I understand the point of the ritual part of the feat. Do you mind expanding on your thoughts about it?
I honestly don't know for sure. I know nothing about Red Sonja specifically, so I'll take a guess. If you want to be able to brawl, Improved Grapple or Improved Unarmed Strike are going to be necessary. As Cheapy mentioned, take the Two-Weapon Fighting tree if you want to focus on melee, and definitely pick-up Mounted Combat. If you also want to be able to shoot a bow better, you can pick-up the Point-Blank Shot tree as well. As Utgardloki mentioned, it seems like Red Sonja works as a barbarian, but if you want to take it a different route then fighter or ranger will be your best bet. The fact that she has three or four distinct combat styles will leave you all over the place for feats, but the fighter or ranger bonus feats will help give you more coverage. There are also some archetypes that could help, but it would depend on what you really want to go for (the Mounted Fury Barbarian or Two-Weapon Fighter stand out in my mind right now).
If you're leaning toward a paladin that focuses more on their martial prowess than their divine abilities, the 18 STR may be more suitable. That being said, having a low CHA will weaken your saves, lower the number of times you can use Lay on Hands/Channel Energy, downgrade your spells, and lower your attack and AC bonus for Smite Evil, as Caius mentioned. If you think having an extra +1 STR mod. is worth the trade-of, go for it.
Serpent's Skull has a dungeon in almost every volume, but they tend to be small. Both Kingmaker and Serpent's Skull are very open to players, focusing on exploration, so it's a bit different from usual campaigns I've seen for sale. Carrion Crown and Council of Thieves are a bit more roleplay-oriented, though the very first Carrion Crown revolves around a large dungeon crawl.
I do not know about the grappling mechanics, but I do know that in order to cut your way out of a stomach you still need a light piercing/slashing weapon. "This hairpin is just such a great match with your eyes that it would be a shame if you didn't buy it. Oh! It says here that you can also use it to cut your way out of some creature's digestive tract. Who knew?"
+1 for this. I think balancing an encounter goes both ways, and a GM should realize that.
In return for the services and any income of the VoP participant, the church (aka the GM) provides the PC, and his party if necessary, with housing, mounts when needed, food and clothing, healing and any other service needed to maintain physical, emotional and spiritual health. The church can also "gift" a monk on the VoP with permanent spells cast on them. If you give a church 880,000 GP, they better have someone cast some Miracle spells and buff a stat or two IMO. Sorry, I forgot about this. This would be quite helpful, though I don't know how well that would scale. Would you have to wait to level 17 to get the benefit? But that is, admittedly, a minor nitpick, as manuals of gainful exercise could more or less do the same thing (even if it's essentially the same spell being cast).
I think we're on the same page here. I was considering a character that wasn't human, but your solution for a favoured class bonus works quite well. I really have nothing more to add.
Despite interspersed frustration in the post, never once did SKR publicly condemn, censure, or accuse players of wanting balanced rules to be wrong. I hope that this has shown that effectively. I agree with you on this point, and I am glad to hear that you are trying to defend what he said. I am relatively new to the whole forum thing, but discussion is discussion and when the people you are talking to are vicious in their responses it gets frustrating very quickly. Not all character options have been terrific choices (for good or ill), nor can they ever be, but sometimes that's just what a person wants to do.
I am glad that you see my point, but I would like to add some further thoughts. A character that has a deliberate weakness, for obvious reasons, should not be the pinnacle of their kind. Again, a blind swordsman should not be the most effective fighter in the world. However, the fact that they are still a warrior really shows a talent in their craft that makes up for their loss. Should Zatoichi get Blindsight? Definitely not. Should he get Blindfight as a trait or bonus? Perhaps. From a mechanical standpoint, it makes it less of a challenge for the character to participate effectively in battle, but arguing about mechanics isn't where I want to go with this. What I will say is that if you learned to train with a sword while blind there has to be something that you had to do to make up for it. Something as simple as a bonus on non-visual Perception checks can represent this, or even giving the character Blindfight as a background trait. I admit, it would be a nice bonus, but if you were so motivated to play such a character you would simply build around that. This is my interpretation of the Vow of Poverty, I could see myself playing a character with that characteristic without changing the RAW, but it would be nice if I could get something to help. The ki points are meant to represent the extra spiritual dedication, though I do think that, say, giving an extra +1 to a physical ability score every once in a while is both thematically appropriate and helpful to the player. It certainly isn't necessary and it shouldn't keep a player from using the class, but is an extra +1 to Str, Dex, or Con every five levels going to ruin the theme of this character? I doubt it.
It isn't required that he should get something in return for having a flaw because playing someone with a flaw is a choice, not a requirement. This right here? Yeah, this is a bad assumption. Rather than a flaw, let's consider the Vow of Poverty a challenge. To swear off the material trappings of a world is a big deal, but to consider that it's a flaw is a mistake in interpretation. A challenge creates growth, whereas a flaw cannot be dealt with. I mentioned this before, but a monk who refuses to rely on magical macguffins has to learn to rely on themselves, more-so than any other monk out there. Perhaps they won't ever be as powerful as a monk with fiery fists (nor should they be), but that doesn't mean that they're going to master their body in the same way that fiery-monk does. In fact, they're going to do it better. In a more literal context, do you know what happens when your body loses a perceptive sense? The others make up for it. If you're blind will you ever be able to see? No, you won't. However, you can learn to do things differently that better suit your unique situation. Vision loss is definitely a setback, but it can worked around. Consider Zatoichi the Blind Swordsman. He may be blind, but he can still manage to cutdown swaths of other samurai.
It's definitely more balanced now. I can't tell you whether that means it's balanced or not, but it is definitely more balanced than before. I don't have any more suggestions than what have been made other than to clarify that you only get elemental damage from your domain element and that your weapon's enhancement bonuses still apply when you use Elemental Weapon (your weapon would become pretty useless otherwise). Methinks it's time to try it out.
He might be better off with ToB. They don't do full round attacks nearly as well as fighters or the other melee types, but they do a lot of damage on standard actions or charging attacks. That is a thought. A swordsage focusing on the Desert Wind school would really fit this style of combat, and the element could easily be changed for the powers. I would also guess that the class would work reasonably well in Pathfinder without changing it much (mainly just the skills I would think). @Relgez - If you don't have the Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords or you really want to use this class, it seems like you're already on the way to get some balance into it. I don't know what to suggest without seeing an updated version of the class.
This is part of what I was trying to explain. There are different focuses for the two game systems. In pathfinder, if you take a vow of poverty, your character should actually feel impoverished. Having to pass on the gauntlets of monks being awesome is part of the feel. If you just got an inherent monks being awesome bonus to replace it, you as the player wouldn't feel the loss. There are players out there that want to play the 7 int rogue, or the 12 int wizard and work through that challenge in the game. If every option was perfectly balanced there would be no opportunity to do that. I don't disagree with that. The character should feel impoverished - it was their choice to go the route they did, and they did so for a reason. I'm just advocating that you *can* give them something to help a bit in the balance department. They shouldn't be as buffed up as your average monk of the same level, but even from a roleplaying perspective monk's that forego mortal trappings would have a better understanding of their own abilities because they have to rely more on themselves. I think the amount of party suffering can be alleviated by the VoP PC's ability to use effective class tactics in correlation with the rest of the party, with a dash of GM proficiency. Honestly, if the party as a whole is underpowered for an entire campaign, the GM should either a) scale back said encounters or change, say, one CR15 demon into multiple smaller CRs to equal a 15th level encounter b) give the PCs some downtime for crafting or c) just increase the CR difficulty on encounters to show the added challenge and award extra XP. Even if it's just 50xp per encounter, it's something and people like rewards. I agree with you on this as well. The monk's player should use their abilities better to make up for their deficit - it even makes sense from the roleplaying perspective, which is exactly the point of all this. However, you do have to ask what makes this different from another monk - a regular monk can disarm and trip as well. I'm not looking to reopen an old argument, and I do think that what Sean K. Reynolds was saying is a good thing. I just don't see why we can't do both at the same time.
|
