|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Mixing 2-handed and dipping into knife master is probably going to make you too weak in either to be effective. I would focus either two handed or sneak attacking. Also the Accomplished Sneak Attacker feat can be used to increase your sneak attack damage as a slayer if you want to focus that. Its one of the few times that feat is useful. Natural Weapon is actually a really good Ranger Combat Style to supplement a sneaky slayer. It gives you Aspect of the Beast and Vital Strike.
I would stick to a pantheon that already exists. One of the biggest downsides of PF imo is that the gods were largely unknown to the players.
Starting with a pre-existing pantheon gives you players more familiarity with the gods from the start. Rick Riordan has made fiction books concerning Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Norse gods. At the end of each book is his glossary of gods from the pantheon the book is about. It's a good place to start, his early books were even really good, though his newer books have dropped in quality quite badly.
The beginning plot hooks are the most set in stone part of the story, and what the players have to adapt to the most. The players joined the campaign to be in the story, not apart from it. During my character building instructions to my PC's I tell them, they need to have a reason to want to be here written into there backstory. I usually give the story setup and a few specifics they need to work with. I'd tell him he has to make a PC that wants to participate, though he has complete freedom as the reasoning why he wants to participate.
You could think about Deities from other Pantheons. For example a character from Osirion could worship Ancient Osirion deities, or a Chelaxian could worship an Archdevil. You might look at Set a NE god of Darkness, Deserts, Storms, and Murder. Most of the Archdevils areas of concern are reasonable that a non-evil person would follow.
The only thing I would say balance wise is that an RP score of 15-20 is a little strong. But if that's how you're making your campaign you can balance it out with stronger enemies. Not every PF animal race has a high RP score, so if you allow PF races like Grippli or Kitsune, they'd need a buff to be equal to the races you've added.
After watching Zoopotia I made some homebrew animal classes for my little sister. They're all around 10 RP and balanced well. Here's a link to them
captain yesterday wrote:
I don't see a death spiral.
What you don't see can still be there. I'm trying to get 2 new people into PF right now. One of them played one campaign and being his first PF experience he didn't make a powerful build and had a terrible experience. You have to make a powerful build to play the canned campaigns right now. The second person saw the shear number of races/classes/archetypes, the size of the feat list and spellbooks and was overwhelmed and doesn't want to play. The work around for us was to use an early campaign before any expansion books came out, and use core rulebook only.
They were both experience DnD 3.5 players
Knight who says Meh wrote:
I'm saying regardless of what they do, people are going to complain because different people value different things differently. "Balance" is subjective.
Are you advocating against balance? Balance is subjective, but it should still be attempted. Ironically this game's death spiral of getting stronger and stronger came because they kept buffing classes to be more powerful than the enemies, then buffed the bestiary to be as powerful as the hero's, then rinsed and repeated a few times. So incorrectly attempting to balance is the source of my complaints about PF.
That being said what it did right was create so many options for character creation that you can build just exactly what you want to. Want to build Yoda, easy, want to build Gregor Clegane, done it. Other systems don't give so much control and so many options during creation.
That flavor about the Android isn't being inclusive, its actually being exclusive. Its implying if you want to be gendered don't be this race, and if you want to be androgynous you have to be this race (maybe they'll throw in another intentionally androgynous race). My supported plan of dropping all mention of identity politics is actually more inclusive because it allows any person to make any race without restriction. Rather than throwing a token race their way.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Dude, you're kinda being a yellow snowflake here. :(
Can I identify as a grumpy old codger to make it alright? Honestly I feel comfortable with that kind of joking here, because left or right the Paizo fan base is typically not the nutter extremist's but more reasonable. Paizo didn't just make android's androgynous, which is logical and reasonable, they took it a step further and strongly implied its something androids are proud of and identify as.
I'm just saying I get why Paizo worded it that way, and am not making a statement about gender identity. Only that I get tired of the overindulgence of political correctness.
For the record, I support no mention of any identity politics in the rules so that the gamers have more control over the identity of there character. If a PC in my game wanted an androgynous human or a gendered android I'd be ok with both.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
After reading through this thread, I didn't see any arguments that would actually be solved by a new edition and not just turned into new arguments.
If you're saying they could make the same mistakes over again, yes they could. But they could also do things differently, which is obviously what's being advocated for.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Lol that just seemed like something to throw at the special snowflakes so they don't complain that rules are disparaging some group or another. Similar to what they did in PF where they never say he, and always say she. If you don't do something along those lines the snowflakes will find an "ist" to call you.
This discussion has kinda gone off the rails, so in the interest of talking about if PF needs a 2.0 I would like to say this.
PF started out with races/classes being slightly stronger than 3.5, so naturally monsters were made a little stronger. Things kinda got off the rails once the other classes/races were added in, as well as archetypes, feats, and spells. The new additions were even stronger than Core PF. Once people started using those new feats/classes/spells, then stronger monsters had to be made. The end result is a balance clusterf%%+ that got a little silly.
Right now you could not take a core only party (that includes feats and spells along with classes/races) into any of the newer campaigns, those character would be weak and you couldn't form a team like that. Conversely if you took a party that had all rulebooks open to them into one of the early campaigns they would pound it to the ground and complain about how easy it is.
My assessment it that PF 2.0 is needed because balance has gone out the window. PF society has survived largely by throwing out most of the clusterf@!$ of imbalanced things.
So in ASOIAF several characters are Wargs, which at its most basic is a character that has a psychic link with an animal companion. Seems pretty straight forward, and something we have in PF already. I'm wondering if there is a class or archetype for a martial warg character. Full BAB, Full animal companion, no spellcasting.
Secondly, if no such class/archetype exists would it be terribly unbalanced to homebrew a ranger that gets there Animal Companion at level 1, and losses all casting ability?
I would suggest going with a small character for the +4 stealth, goblin's are typically the best. Then be the Rogue:Knife Master archetype. Knife Master makes any Dagger or Knife sneak attack damage D8's. Then take the rogue talents/feat chains to get all your knife throws as sneak attacks. Theres 2 ways to get there, one is going through improved feint, ranged feint, wave strike; lets you feint as a swift with ranged and lasts for an entire round. Or take the rogue talents and teamwork feats to get flanking with ranged.
Melee first characters have trouble straying relevant in later levels as it is. Guns are a substantial improvement to ranged combat. So if the campaign is going past level 5 I'd say Swords become irrelevant. If one person went dual tower shield heavy armor tank and the rest of the party stood behind him with precise shot that would be pretty freaking strong.
Eldritch Guardian, a Fighter with a Familiar? What the heck?
I just looked up Eldritch Guardian and found a hilarious build for it. Be a Tengu with any bird familiar (Hawk or Rhamphorhynchus if you want the strongest). Take the Feral Combat training feat, and the Tengu feat that makes your bite attack 1d6. Your familiar will then get the 1d6 bite, and you can add improved unarmed strike feats to your bites. Other good feats are available for this. Such as Eldritch Claws, treat natural weapons as magic and silver. Rat Catcher, lets you damage swarms with your natural attack.
Almost all fighter ATs as most lose armor and weapon training
Armor and weapon training for base fighters is very general and all purpose. The archetypes actually improve the fighter at the expense of making them specialize in something (mounted combat, two weapon, two-handed, etc). You should almost always take a fighter archetype instead of being a regular fighter.
I agree with Marius, Rangers are weak casters and full BAB fighters. Dex will serve you much better than Wis. Small rangers are exceptional at using there animals as mounts and through feats getting full attacks. Honestly, wisdom at 10 is fine, you'll want to get it to 14-16 with magic items, but it doesn't have to be immediately.
Intelligence and memory is completely up to the GM. Some things to keep in mind that Paizo has done in some AP's.
-Madness: Did whatever kill them drive them crazy? Did undeath drive them insane? They can have the memories of the past without the sanity to tell the PC's explicitly what they need to hear. How the madness manifests can also be used to tell a story.
-Guilt ridden: Are they so riddled with guilt over something that they repeat the act that caused the guilt over and over. In this case bringing closer would allow the undead to remember and communicate better.
-Partial or fading memories. Are their memories slowly going away? Are they blocking painful memories?
Starknives and Daggers are listed as light. Darts and Shurikens are tougher as the rules don't specifically say. Common sense would rule that thrown weapons that can't be used as melee would be light.
Though the ROI seems to be that the feat is meant for melee and not thrown, so I probably wouldn't allow the feat to apply
I've was reading through some Spooky flavored archetypes and found one that is awesome from a flavor POV, but vastly underwhelming and a large nerf from its parent. That is the Gravedigger archetype for Investigator. I kinda want to run a campaign designed for weak but fun archetypes. So what are some others that could be included? What's the weakest archetype available?
I personally like to allow Point Buy amounts base on Race. The core races I give 20 points to, Kobold (lowest rp) I give 25, All other races I allow, even monstrous, though if you're going to be a Svirfneblin, Centaur, or some other overly powerful race you'll only get a 5 point buy. Medium races, like Aasimar, get 15 point buys.
It doesn't matter exactly the numbers, I just like having a system that allows more and more races to be used.
The nice thing about doing everything in the Inner Sea Region, is how well made the maps are. It looks like Vauntil is the closest city to Caliphas, its in the Caliphas region, and even on the coast. So it could take them a little while to figure out they didn't reach their destination.
Bard, Investigator, Rogue/Ninja, Slayer, Cleric, Druid. With the exception of Slayer these are all not full BAB, not full Casters, who make up for it by being good at other things. Such as Skill monkeying, better support spells, etc (a Slayer is almost a better skill monkey than a rogue, he can take Disable Magical Device as well).
The Steel Refrain wrote:
I was leaning towards a 24 hour reset as it seemed the most logical to me. I was hoping there was something written in the rules though.
If it's not cursed then break enchantment won't do anything to it. It doesn't suppress the properties of normal magic items. That's a dispel magic thing.
First line of the spell is "This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses." So it works on more than curses, it was just made to help with anything that's a net negative.
@Azten, if the goes away immediately then what's the point of the spell?
How long does the effects of Break Enchantment last? I have a PC that wants to cast Break Enchantment on another PC, who's receiving Buffs from a powerful object. Once they hit him with the spell they're going to try and take it off of him. If the spell succeeds, but they fail to remove it and the original PC keeps the object, how long until the enchantments start working again?
That looks like a good idea if nothing else. I've already lowered the damage so I don't insta-gib the party
My PC's are going on a survival mission and will have random weather effects. The section on Tornado's says "characters in close proximity to a tornado who fail their Fortitude saves are sucked toward the tornado". But never says what the DC of the Fort save is. Can anybody elaborate? Also if they pass their strength checks (from the wind/blown away table) do they not need to pass their Fort saves?
Full Orc/ Goblin/ Kobold
Full Orc's makes great Full BAB no casting options. +4 to Str means the highest starting Str of any race.
Goblin's are to Dex what Orc's are to Str, +4 to Dex and +8 to Stealth leaves goblin's quite a few strong builds
Kobolds are the lowest RP score of any race which is what makes them fun to be. It is still possible to build them to be as strong as any other race
None of my level 8 PC have the stats you mention, one is a Dex build fighter so his strength is bad and the casters are only at 20 for there casting stats. You are assuming that the PC's are all power players who care more about optimized builds than fun builds, and who have access to every item in the game. When they go to a city I roll for what goods are for sale. They have created most of there best items. They all have a less than 50% chance of overcoming SR, yet you keep quoting SR spells as being good.
That one by D20 is pretty good for character creation. I usually tell new players to start with Core rulebook only so that its not overwhelming. If they still need something simpler and less complicated as a starting place try DnD 3.5. PF is a better version of DnD than 3.5 was but 3.5 is much simpler and more new user friendly.
I have a PC that is building towards crafting constructs, yet the rules about it are different depending on where you look. Ultimate Magic says the DC to create any construct is 5+CL, but if you look at specific constructs that were around before Ultimate Magic they have difference DC's to create. For example an Iron Cobra has a CL of 7, and listed DC to create of 15. So does my PC need a 12 or 15 to craft it?
I am trying to write a campaign were the PC's won't have access to purchase anything (prison island type of thing). What I did was add two elements.
Firstly, finding materials. Since a PC can't buy the components needed to make a sword they'll need to be able to find steel, leather, and wood. Make a list of basic crafting materials needed, and have them find these materials as loots, and have them scavenge for them. I list them by weight and use the weights of the materials as the "cost" needed for creation. So for example, a Longsword weights 4lbs in the SRD, I'll say they need 3lbs of steel and 1lb of leather (for handle and sheath). Don't sweat the small materials like the small amount of wood needed for the handle.
Secondly, I add the ability to reclaim material from an item. This destroys the item and gives 50% of the material back. So if they wanted to reclaim that sword they made, they'd get 1.5lbs of steel and 1/2lb of leather as usable material. This provides the same function as the buying and selling economy. Namely that the PC's will receive a net loss if they aren't finding and bringing in more materials.
Only being able to deal 10 damage a turn, X2 melee'ers is 20 damage after DR, that is about right for what they were doing. Meanwhile the Zelekhut regens 5 of that each rnd, and deals 6d6+14 for an average of 24.5 per turn. So the PC's are doing about half the damage the Zelekhut is. While the Zelekhut has much more health at the start of the fight.
I'm not saying any one thing about the Zelekhut makes him OP, rather that taken on a whole, he has no easily exploitable weakness that any group could handle. You're relying on some very specific spells or weapons to be on hand, that range from 50% chance that a group will have it, to 1% chance because its so freaking specialized nobody prepares for it.
Though you guys are giving me some good stuff to talk to my PC's about to help them be more prepared for anything.
CR should be based on the its a wondering monster, you know its coming should be for APL+4 and up, but CR should always be based on its a wondering monster. Also @bigrig107 they are all level 8, and there are 5 of them, not level 5 characters. @LuniasM, you say beat it down to 0 hp like that's easy. Glitterdust blinds him if he fails a will save, but he has +10 to his will save, so the chances of him failing are going to be below 50% for an 8th level caster.
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.