Follower of Shelyn

TheRedArmy's page

545 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, I'm not sure on Paizo's stance, but once upon a time, this thread was about a Ranger wanting a Warg companion. We have gone beyond off-topic. The discussion was interesting, at least.

Flagging for thread lock due to being miles off-topic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To Nargrakhan:
You get +47 permanently for referencing the Mammon Machine. I love Chrono Trigger. I'm also interested in those games your referencing that are more popular in the east - expect a PM at some point.

In PF, the 4 classes that I think are the most balanced against each other (that aren't full casters) - the Bard, Inquisitor, Paladin, and Ranger. These classes all have something in common. They are all either partial or half casters. Their spell lists are more limited than the Sorcerer or Cleric list. Their spells all have a particular "theme" to them. They all have a specialty they are the best at, but none are useless outside their particular niche.

To me, this party is ideal for each PC occasionally being the "king" of an encounter while always being useful and having a second or even third way to solve a problem. No one overshadows the others. It's great.

I like the idea presented above about removing the spells and leaving the slots - I would leave spells up to 6 and leave the slots for metamagic and the like.

I've been playing GURPS lately in a homebrew setting - despite a few of us being dedicated casters (my character included), the martials are never behind. It's partly because HP are always low - one good hit can drop anyone. It's also because spells are costly enough (in fatigue, typically) that you can't just throw them out willy-nilly.

Although I run the PF game for my group right now, I imagine that if I run a fantasy game again (as opposed to another kind of tabletop), I'll likely go to GURPS simply for the impressive balance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Words of Power allow you to summon as a standard action.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

With Zhayne on this one.

Take the halfling trait "cautious combatant", I believe it's called. When you use combat expertise, the penalty to hit is decreased by one. Nowhere in the description or the mechanics are halflings even referenced, except to say "halfling only". That baffled me.

Now "steel soul" which specifically increases bonuses that only dwarves get should be racially specific.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good catch. Thanks for the info.

Is there any information on the runelords prior to the final 7 (the ones we all know and love)?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

+1 to Tequila Sunrise. That was funny.

Off topic (forgive me), marginalizing the social skills in the name of "roleplaying" is not something I tolerate at tables I sit at (though I have far less say in the matter as a player). One should go by the character's skill, not the player's.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Feats have been added. Again, the link can be found just below this line.

Social Combat Mark 2

There are three feat choices to be made - The Negotiator feats (for the speaker, primarily), a feat for seconds, and a feat for other PCs who elect to serve as a guard and not participate.

The Negotiator feat line is pretty powerful, but the first feat is the only one required to be taken. I am a bit worried the feats are a bit strong, but you do eventually get them for free later on, so it's impossible to fall behind as long as you take the first one.

The feat for seconds is pretty straightforward - when you serve as a second, you give your speaker benefits and can aid his efforts more.

The guard feat is also easy to get - when you are protecting your speaker (typically another PC), you get a bonus should combat break out.

Feedback is welcome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've just completed a version two of my own - you can find it here: Social Combat version 2

Originally each side was limited to a "primary" and three "subordinates" (and only they could aid) - I elected to limit it to two subordinates, and limit the amount of times they can aid each debate (two for now).

Techniques have been improved to include more options and give them greater depth. You can also only use them once each - no spamming! Some include big bonuses or advantages, but also drawbacks if they fail. Others simply give a benefit if they succeed.

The feats were removed, but I intend to include some of my own, as well as a new NPC class - "Negotiator". I will also include a full social combat broken down to make sure users can understand.

EDIT: I should mention this drew heavily upon Da'ath's own Google Doc - I just made changes I thought were in the best interest of the system, by giving it more depth and clarification.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Phillips wrote:

Posters:

Please STOP saying anything about Pathfinder 1.5.

Why? Some of us are interested to hear Paizo's and others' takes on it. Some of us think it could improve the game. Just ignoring it doesn't do anyone any good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lots of comments, E.L.

Scenes and Acts:
I like the scene/act thing in theory, but I don't find it takes that much time to figure out how long it actually takes to search a room. Each 5x5 square is a round - if you know how big a room is (we always do, due to battle grid), figuring out that a 20x20 room (16 squares) takes 32 minutes if they take 20. When it comes to social encounters, I tend to find a decent balance between the amount of questions asked and how long it actually took in-game.

Abstract Wealth:
I really dislike this system, actually. Me and my group use a fair bit of utility items (and I include a lot of RP items outside of necessary gear - holy texts for non-clerics and the like), and the idea of entering a town and someone saying "That fight with the Basilisk was rough - let me get a mirror real quick" and not being able to get a 2 GP mirror at level 6 because of a roll is really dumb, in my eyes. I would be upset if I didn't have a minor but very useful item for a fight because of a simple roll when I had more than enough wealth to buy it. A settlement not having something is another matter - but if it's something a settle of that size should easily have with no trouble (mirror in a city), then it would really bother me. Does it work better than it reads in practice?

Enhancement Bonuses:
Love that they are out of gear, now. A few questions - Why this particular path? Is there no way to change it? Do you still get the standard +1 every fourth, or is that replaced with the stats on the table? Why would you ever get +1 to 4 stats instead of +2 to two stats? Why don't you consider letting people shuffle around the 3 non-stat boosters within each "grouping" of different items?

What I mean is, you get each increase once between 2nd and 5th levels. Why not keep the stats in at each 4th level (effectively making them "locked in"), but let players shuffle around the other three benefits as they choose for levels 2, 3, and 5? A barbarian may prefer a weapon bonus before an armor bonus, and someone who rarely uses weapons or shields (full arcane casters) has no use for the third level benefit.

Hell, in 3.5 I had a Cleric who used the exact same mace from level 1 to level 23. I had artifact-level armor, abilities not covered in any book, the ability to True Resurrection one a day for free (no GP or XP cost), and in my weapon slot it said "Mace, Heavy". No masterwork or anything. It's not really game-breaking if they get the saves earlier than the armor anyway - someone who wanted the bonus to saves more than the bonus to AC at that low a level would likely get the cloak before the AC boost anyway.

Feats:
No issues with Ambidexterity - can one not get precision damage with their off-hand, normally?

The Battle Adaption line is great. I'm surprised it's not Fighter-only, though. They need the love and it fits that class better than others. No INT pre-req was a smart move.

Heighten Spell is meh. It buffs casters overall, something that did not need to happen. I do like the basic idea of letting a spell stored in a higher slot count as a higher DC, but I would have it just be a base ability.

...I suppose as it is now, no one uses heighten. So I suppose it was a good choice if it means people take it.

Not much to say on Leadership. It's a good way to do it, and there are others. If it works for your group, go for it.

Projected Channeling is fine. Definitely not broken, and gives some options that were probably needed. Not much experience with channel energy in my game.

With Ride-By Attack, I thought that was the way it always worked. Instant houserule!

With Wealthy - I already said how I feel about the wealth system. Without game experience with it, I can't just the potency of the feat.

Hit Points:
I remember working on this with you a little right in the beginning. I still like it a ton. Do you find this also helps (besides the CLW Wand-a-thon) reduce the 15-minute workday. I have been having a rough time with that in my game. Can't seem to get them to fight more than once, maybe twice a day so far. Time-sensitive things will come up later on, but it seems hard to keep up all the time without it feeling contrived.

Maneuvers:
No issues with cling. Did you get inspired from Shadow of the Colossus like I did? I made up my own rules, using climb checks and gave special attacks to those that were mounted (may ignore natural armor for AC, may deal Sneak Attack damage if you have it, may hinder a movement speed, etc). I also included a feat that made it move effective. I disbanded the rules because one player insisted on making his caterpillar familiar climb on every monster and deliver touch spells. I just didn't want to deal with it. Like the change to the AoO. Don't know how it would fly with my group.

That's all I really have to say. Look forward to the replies.

Excellent work, by the way. They all seem well thought out - even wealth, though I hate what it does - and certain don't break the game in any way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

GURPS is king for realism, as far as I am aware. Loads and loads of optional rules for making as real as you want it. That and using 3d6 as the basic roll is awesome compared to the damn d20.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll touch on the two ideas presented:

Base Defense Bonus:

I had a GM who used this once - basically as you leveled up, you gained a static bonus to AC (dodge, I believe), based on class and level. Fighters and other "defensive" classes had the best of it, with mediums coming slower and wizards/sorcerers being in dead last. All I really remember is that at 7th level the bonuses were something between +3 and +1.

One thing you could try - a bit wordy though - is half your level to dodge AC, capped by half your BAB at that level.

Examples - A party just finished the dungeon and levels up their characters. The fighter hits 12th level and gets his new AC bonus - half his level (+6), capped by half his BAB (+6). Since the two are equal, there's no issue. The Wizard also hit level 12 and adds his new bonus (+6), but it's capped by half his BAB at this level (6/2 = 3), so his bonus is plus 3.

Personally, I wouldn't want it to be a dodge bonus, because I don't think it should apply to touch attacks. But on the other hand, casters use touch attacks, and they need a nerf. So dodge it is! A custom AC type (say, Parry) could give you whatever effects you want (Works like a dodge bonus EXCEPT against Spells). Since it would stack for being a different bonus and nothing in PF is a "Parry" type, no need to worry about it conflicting with anything.

Static Defense: This one is easier to say. Combat takes long enough as it is. An extra layer of rolling, even if it's only for PCs, just sounds like bad news to me. One idea is at the top of the round all the PCs roll their defense rolls and stick with it the whole round. Can't make the monsters target the poor guy who rolled "3", though.

Crap. I tried to nest spoilers. No dice. ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow. Surprising. Thank you for your time and effort PDT.

I wonder if I will houserule it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't get why people are down on the campaign. If the players don't want to play, they don't have to. If they do want to play, who are we to say whether the concept is good or bad?

"People with natural gifts, but no extraordinary talent take up sword and (in secret) spell to carve out their own path of glory". Sounds like the game I want to play, actually.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Well, the design team has resolved the issue. I won't try to pretend differently, even though I think it's not as good a way of running the retraining part.

Looks like I got this one wrong. : /

Too bad, too. Though I thought you were wrong the whole time, I agreed with your idea, and like it. Cut down on red tape. PF has way too much as it is. I may houserule it in the future. I was hoping they would go with you in the end, though I doubted it.

Uh...just to be clear, I agree with any combat feat being retrained, as long as it was gained from a level of fighter (not necessarily a bonus feat, just a feat gained at a level where you gained a level of fighter). Wouldn't want people getting Monk feats and then retraining those.

Good argument Malachi!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry, RTFM?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mirage Wolf wrote:
Odd, I never read hero builder guidebook but felt I've read similar material somewhere.

3.5 player's handbook. It included, among other things, a brief description of how classes generally feel about the other classes. The page long description of each.class was really good. Much better than this paragraph we have now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

CRB is the only necessary book. Bestiary is a great pickup. Everything else is by preference.

ARG is all right if you like the additional options for existing and new races. I do, but I rarely use the new races. My group is literally humans and elves right now. Like 8 characters, counting cohorts. Two Elves. Everyone else is human. We don't use the new races, like, at all. But I like the new options for the standard races.

UC is really meh in my opinion. The eastern stuff is OP junk (especially the armor - weapons not so much for the most part), and if you don't want firearms, you can just say "no firearms". It's really that simple. If you're running, that is. The perks of being a DM.

APG is pretty good. The classes are interesting enough (if complicated in the case of the Alchemist and Summoner), and the new feats, spells, and traits are all useful.

GMG wasn't great, in my opinion. The first few chapters are good (regarding players and the handing a group, etc), but the rest is all idea for running adventures and campaigns. That's not a bad thing, but it's kinda whatever for spending real money on. If you have a decent bit of cash, the PDF is probably worth it.

Equipment is the worst book ever. Cool new toys sounds great, until all the characters in your group have them, and it becomes an arms race between the PCs and the NPCs, and now everything in the world is a swift action (like drawing potions, wands, scrolls, etc), weird combinations you have to adjudicate, strange items you've never heard of before...ugh. I hate it. Others love it. Get a second opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:

Just because you don't have Int 28 shouldn't limit you as a player.

I have smart players, I have less-than-smart players. I have outgoing players, I have introverted players. Sometimes the smart players play stupid characters. Sometimes the introverted players play social characters. I refuse to force a player to only play character that are like him/her.

So.

If I have an introverted player who can't actually imagine HOW the character "schmoozes the guards somehow", that's what Diplomacy is for. Roll.

Same goes for sub-average players and wizards (for instance). Can't solve the puzzle yourself? Fine, your character can make an Int check or something similar.

I don't make my scrawny players literally lift weights before their barbarian can climb a wall. No, the barb gets a Climb check. Why should social skills be any different?

I say it again. Why should social skills be any different?

I get it there's a panacea, a hypothetical perfect role-play game where everyone IS their character and is always in-character and never metagames or applies real-world sensibilities or experience their character wouldn't have. I get it. But that doesn't necessarily make for FUN.

I encourage and I reward players who role-play and try to flesh out encounters, but only to a degree. I don't generally reward the goal... I reward via XP or story rewards.

Note: I also don't encourage my bright players to play their tree-stump-dumb characters smart. Sorry. "Really, Bob, you think Ungorthungor The Mighty would come up with that complicated plan? Really? With Int 7? Really? Fine. Roll an Int check and we'll see." Fair is fair.

Restatement of opening statement:
You play the character on the sheet, not yourself, even when you can't.

This, pretty much. I look at my players' character sheet like an order sheet. They're my patrons, I'm the restaurateur. They have given me their orders (their character sheets). So basically, they're all giving me an indication of what they want to be able to do.

People with ranks in climb, balance, and acrobatics want to be able to do cool movement-based maneuvers. Characters with Power Attack, Weapon Focus, and Improved Critical want to whoop up on baddies with their favorite weapon. Sorcerers with out of the blue spells like knock Analyze Dweomer clearly want to use them. Characters with social skills are the same. They want to be able to use those skills.

The skill of the player should have no bearing on their ability to perform their character's actions. When I run the game and someone is using a social skill, I usually say "OK, what do you say?" One of my players goes into a mini-speech. Another player usually just says "I want to make him/convince him/lie to him to do XYZ". I'm fine with it either way.

I mean, I get that people want to RP. What about the people that don't? Maybe they're there for the combat, or the magic, or just because all their friends are playing too (I have all of these in my group). I certainly don't want to force my play style onto anyone. I have no right. And neither does anyone else, for that matter.

No one penalizes a fighter for not going into detail into how he swings his sword. No one penalizes the mage for not saying some gibberish while he casts the spell. No one penalizes the rouge for not describing how he keeps himself quiet while he sneaks.

So why does anyone penalize the face for not going into detail into how he bluffs the guard?

Just as a final side note, I love playing the Paladin. It is, without doubt, my favorite class. One of the reasons is the third level ability "Aura of Courage". I consider myself kind of a coward in real life - being able to be immune to fear on friday nights is pretty damn cool. But do I lose that because of how I am, rather than how my character is?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
3.5loyalist wrote:

Yeah, you got it. The monk could be streamed into soft (ac, low damage, hinder and debilitate opponents) or hard styles (all that to hit and damage, strike through opponents, sunder like mad).

This is my 4000th post. So got to say, some good times and some bitter arguments. With good cheer I have got to add, still didn't read your recent posts Ashiel but I did see the bold bit on the end. Maybe type all in bold? :P

That would be really cool. If he could switch between them, it becomes even better. He delays an enemy (soft mode) while the party handles some other threat for a few rounds, then when they come over to help, he turns into whoopin' mode (hard style). That would make it fun to play. And break you off from the tyranny of the full attack a bit.

Congrats on 4k! I'm still in the triple digits, and not even to 500 yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Just to reiterate on the monk, they can do what they can do, skirmish, soak spells, be safe from poison, but what they need is to really depart from bonus feats entirely (and clutter).

Make the ki stuff strong, give the players choice (damn barbarians with all their special ability choice!), take it far far away from feats because monks should be really into the mysteries of ki, not a dab of ki, a bit of speed, make sure you choose your feats well young grasshopper.

I'm with that. You could describe the powers as Ki (or Chi, or whatever - inner strength is the idea) but make the feats just extra stuff. The Ranger and Paladin are kinda like that. The feat choices are important, but they don't define the class. When you think Paladin, you think Smite Evil, Lay on Hands, Mercies, Divine Bond...not Dodge. Same with Ranger.

The Monk needs to follow the same design idea - it needs to be defined by it's abilities and have the feats be icing on the cake.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Yeah, solid steps (a new monk power perhaps?). Give the monk players choice and prevent them from having to go and find feats to do what they want to do, and poach off old sources.

Clutter must be avoided, so much clutter in the tables. My eyes get sore reading that bunched up text.

Ashiel in the past has had some good suggestion on what could be done to the monk, as in merge them into spellcaster. I'd like ki kept away from spellcasting as there is so much they can do rather than make them just another spellcaster. Copy pasting 3.5 and messing with some of the numbers was a bit lazy. They get a lot, they can fulfill some roles, but I don't think they quite fit. In 3.5 this also came up.

Here is an idea, they can get deflect arrows no problem yeah? Well how about a special ki ability to ignore one attack a round--doesn't matter what they roll, like deflect arrows. Wow that would be good. You would want it a few levels in, and down a defensive ki ability tree as we are conceiving them, but you also want to give it moderately early, so that the monk gains coolness. :D

A 'coolness' factor should be involved. When I think Monk, I'm thinking of the movie IP man, and other films like that. It might get a bit into wuxia (which I don't mind, but am not a big fan of), but then Wizards are stopping time and Clerics are summoning volcanoes. It should be OK.

Deflecting attacks automatically is really strong, but then Crane style does it, and Ray Shield lets you deflect away a magical ray. Various offensive and defensive abilities would be nice. And I agree with the design concept of having it shaped like Barbarians - Pick a power every so often. And they could keep a good deal of what they have now (slow fall, fast movement, and AC bonuses are all very cool). Reducing the MAD problem is a tough one, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll try and stay on topic, then get to my thoughts as a GM.

I don't really see a ton of this 'entitlement' issue either way. As a GM, I basically allow everything my players ask for - mostly because they don't ask for ridiculous things. Everything is basically by RAW. One of my players mentioned he was taking improved familiar (you know the one - the fairy-thing with like 20 CHA and you replace her feats with Skill Focus: UMD and something else), and he said "On the forums, people are basically like 'Yeah, replace her feats, but run it by your GM first'". So I looked at it all, thought about it some, and eventually said he could replace one feat (Agile Maneuvers) since we combined that feat and Weapon Finesse into one (Weapon Finesse gives you AM). I could tell he was disappointed, but he accepted the ruling and hasn't brought it up sense.

Within that, there was an implicit understanding of trust. My group, for the most part, does not min-max as well as the people on these boards do. I balanced the new ability (Improved Familiar, which basically means "I get a free wand use every turn"), with the power level of the party, and did what I thought was best for the game. He understands that, and while he may not agree, he knows I'm doing the best I can, and that my decision is not arbitrary or random. It's thought out with the best interests of the group in mind. Of course, if someone wanted free skills (like the nobleman example), I would shoot him down quick in the name of game balance. I would help as much as I could, but ultimately, the onus to keep the game balanced falls on the DM. If I'm given little choice, I have to pick the one that benefits the majority of the group.

So I don't see the entitlement either way in my group, but I can see both sides of it. And both sides are ugly. I also feel a bit blessed to have who I have. Problems and all, they're good people. Usually. ;-)

On to the other issue everyone seems to be talking about - does a GM deserve any more say in matters (however small) than players?

This one is a far harder issue. During the game itself, I think absolutely. He's got a ton more responsibility than everyone else and has about a hundred things to think about, while PCs generally have about a dozen. I certainly don't expect my GM to get every call right. As long as it's not too important, I'll let it slide, even if I think it's a bad call.

When it comes to how they influence character creation, they also have a bit more say than others. But not much. If a GM is really uncomfortable with a certain class (say, Gunslinger) or certain concepts (like Eastern Weapons/Armor or evil characters), I think he's within his rights to say "None of this stuff, I'm not comfortable running it". If a player has a really intriguing idea though - say an evil character who will be compatible with the party for several levels, then leave without causing a PC death or some such at a critical moment in the story - that is something I would work with a player on. But in most cases, as long as it's not something extreme, the little problem areas individual DMs have should be respected.

Bring a DM to places and rules he's not familiar with is bad. So it's better for the game if a player can compromise with the DM and say "OK, I'll make do with another class".


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I suppose you just play evil characters then? Slavery (selling sentients) sure qualifies as evil.

I mean, that's fine if that's what you guys want to play. Your table. But suppose, at campaign character creation, the group said "We would like to try a heroic campaign, and John will play a paladin." Would you try to mesh with what they wamted, decline to play, or do something else?

Just curious.

EDIT: With you on that, Malachi.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aunt Tony wrote:
Garde Manger Guy wrote:
...

... "aggro"? The phrase "I refuse to heal stupidity"?

I smell the stench of a bad MMO. I think my advice, then, is to learn why a tabletop RPG is nothing like any MMO that has ever been made or is currently being made, nor any that are likely to be made for many many years yet.

Hint: it has to do with the interaction offered by the real, live humans at the table.

To be fair, this is somewhat possible with an MMO. I imagine there is at least a (very small) subset of gamers who engage in meaningful Role-Playing as part of their WoW (or any other MMO) experience.

Of course, you are limited by the restrictions of the programmers, but that's not too different from PF (most groups don't deviate too far from the RAW), doubly so if you play PFS (no houserules).

But a Tabletop is a far better method for doing it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

If they didn't, they would be acting unlawfully. Which is fine if you aren't playing a character that is the embodiment of law. But it is 100% correct that if a law changes, a lawful person would generally change with the law.

He may believe alcohol is ok, but that doesn't make it lawful. A Chaotic person establishes personal "right and wrong" a lawful person puts the good of society above any personal wishes.

The lawful person believes that everyone following the rules is good for society, even if they don't agree with every single law. That is the specific characteristic that separates them from a chaotic person, who believes laws that they don't agree with don't have to be followed.

Actually, this is probably the best point yet. Ciretose has made it quite a few times actually, and I'm surprised how much it gets glossed over.

A few situations in driving is a perfect example of this. Imagine it's something like 2 AM in the morning, you're going home and you come to a red light. There are no cars anywhere that you can see (easy viewing lanes, no blind curves), and because of the well-lit area, you can tell there are no cops or cameras on the lights. You can completely safely drive past the red light without fear of a ticket. Do you wait for it to turn green, or go?

I have this situation most every friday night (after PF, incidentally), coming home at 3 AM or so. No cops. No cameras. No traffic. Just me and a light. A lawful person - even though he could completely safely run the red light without fear of any repercussions - waits for it to turn green. A chaotic person might think "The point of lights is for safety and to make driving with traffic coming both ways easier, but since neither of those are a concern, I can run it, and not get a ticket too!" He then runs the light.

It's clear that even though the chaotic person broke the law, he did nothing that could be considered unsafe. It's likewise clear the lawful person also did nothing unsafe by following the law. They simply did it because of differing philosophical viewpoints.

Following this basic premise and moving it to a Paladin is simple enough and makes clear why - code and all - a Paladin must be LG, and why no other alignment will do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is...surprisingly well-balanced, suitably fluffy, and quite playable.

As a fan of a show that will remain nameless...>_>...I rather enjoy seeing the balance and fluff mix well here. It's easy to see that players can play whatever class they like (be it martial, caster, or even skill monkey) and be competent enough at it that they won't become a drain on the party.

Not suited for every campaign, but then what great transfer from whatever to PF is? I am impressed, and I mean that sincerely. I can actually envision different character types of all kinds with this race and it works.

Rarity is just the coolest, by the way. Just saying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A new game I am playing in, I was wondering if anyone would like to help me - full builds are not necessary, but if you like, by all means. Again, this is an intimidating-style Barbarian Build/

A few notes - For role-playing reasons, I am a Half-Orc and wielding a Falchion (a fun Orc-like weapon, and gives access to critical feats later if I like with a 15 threat range). Currently, I have this (Invulnerable Rager to level 20)-

Vital Statistics (20-point buy)

STR 18 (Racial +2)
DEX 12
CON 14
INT 12
WIS 13
CHA 8

Sacred Tattoo Replaces Ferocity

I realize INT 12 is very poor overall, but I like the idea of being more than a reckless brute. I may be convinced to drop it to 10. Particularly if rage rounds stop being an issue later on. I've never seen a high-level Barbarian in action. Do you find rage rounds to be an issue? If not, I can drop INT to 10 and take favored class in skills. Also, 7 CHA is not an option for me.

Feats and Rage Powers (Feats at odd level, Rage Powers at even)

Level 1 - Skill Focus (Intimidate)?
Level 2 - Intimidating Prowess (Pre-req for the cool one)
Level 3 - Power Attack
Level 4 - Beast Totem, Lesser
Level 5 - Keen Scent
Level 6 - Beast Totem
Level 7 - (At a loss here - Improved Sunder?)
Level 8 - Terrifying Howl

...That's really all I'm up to. I considered keeping Ferocity for the Ferocious Tenacity feat, but once a day is kinda meh. I'm also having trouble just finding stuff that scares people. Seems like after shaking them Terrifying Howl is the last step (though panicked is awesome). I also seem to remember a feat that let you intimidate enemies for free if you drop one - am I imagining things?

Thoughts and help are greatly appreciated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Boy, you're not kidding. Can I take Wizard Spellcasting as a feat? Yes, please! I'll take two - throw the cleric spells with it.

I haven't seen it too much on the forums, it's a fair point. I think the precedent probably began with Rouge Talents you could take feats with (and subsequent taking a ninja trick with a rouge trick you could take with a feat. Ugh) and so forth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any NPCs the party has gotten to liking? Kidnap them.

Ruin villages for no good reason. Speak in detail about the weeping women, orphaned children, and devastation and bodies.

Have the bad guy employ torture. Get a temporary stronghold after taking someone captive, and have him leave behind obvious clues that torture took place (including the disgusting body of the victim).

Target Good (aligned) people for no other reason than they're Good. Low-ranking members of a good church (particularly Sarenrae or Shelyn) are good choices.

Take hostages (preferably children) and when the party backs off, have him kill them and escape anyway. (For this one - don't cheat out the party, but have escape plans in mind based on their abilities. Always have a backup escape plan).

Have him leave behind cryptic clues that show that he knows who they are, down to details and secrets PCs have hidden away (he has several high-powered clerics aiding him).

Have him spread a rumor in a town the PCs have come to love and see as their home, and the town forces them to leave their home (or tries to arrest/hang them for some made-up crime).

Be as evil as you can be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
TheRedArmy wrote:

Interesting thread. I'm really saddened by the lack of maturity, primarily on the free-crafting side, but also on the profit-crafting side as well. Special props to Selgard for being a shining light on the side I initially disagreed with. For the record, I read every post, except a few of Adamantium Dragon's whose hateful language really hit me as over the top and excessively mean (and most recent post still does). Really, AD, if you don't like it, just say so. You are littering telling people they are playing inferior to you because you disagree. Stop.

Right. I, who have contributed a few posts originally, a few more around the 100 mark, and a few more around the 200 mark, and now this one, am the worst offender. Sure.

I am not telling anyone anything except what I think of the PCs they are creating Red. You, on the other hand, are attacking me personally, calling me immature and hateful.

Right. I'm the problem here Red.

Not you. Not at all.

Jeeez.... spare me the moral arbiters of the world and those who are so enamored of their wonderfulness that they feel obliged and justified in calling other people names in the name of righteousness.

You have a point. I take back most of what I said. Sorry.

But your posts are over the top. It it not hard to take a breath and scale it back a bit. At least a few have been too confrontational. Some tact would be nice.

It's at least somewhat my viewpoint too - I think one of the worst things to do to another player is to down him for the way he likes to play the game. I don't judge how other players play D&D. I don't think it's right.

Maybe this is just your big issue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Interesting thread. I'm really saddened by the lack of maturity, primarily on the free-crafting side, but also on the profit-crafting side as well. Special props to Selgard for being a shining light on the side I initially disagreed with. For the record, I read every post, except a few of Adamantium Dragon's whose hateful language really hit me as over the top and excessively mean (and most recent post still does). Really, AD, if you don't like it, just say so. You are littering telling people they are playing inferior to you because you disagree. Stop.

I came into this thinking - "The Crafter is sacrificing time and energy he could be using on other things - scribing scrolls, writing into his spellbook, crafting for himself, miscellaneous role-playing - for crafting for a friend. He has every right to ask for a small fee for his time."

Selgard I disagree with something you said a page or so ago - Opinions can change on the board. Mine has here, as it has in the past, admittedly on a far more important subject (the right of a nation to torture war criminals for information).

I no longer think the crafter's default position should be to charge. However, I also think party members can't really expect their items anytime soon unless they are willing to pitch in a bit more than necessary.

If I craft for the group, I won't ask for more money than necessary to craft. But that comes with the understanding that your crafting need has zero priority for me. Everything that takes precedence (scrolls, spellbook, research, items for me, items that are critical for next adventure, meaningful roleplaying, meaningless roleplaying) over that item you wanted to craft for me. Once I'm done with everything in my off-time (and I never am for lack of relaxation in-game), I'll get around to it - but it may take so long that you may decide to buy it yourself and get it sooner, or pay a bit more to get me to work on it now.

About my group - we play "Individuals first, group members second". My Paladin puts her goals above the groups' - should they ever become in conflict, she will follow her code before her friends (not all characters are like that, and that's fine). That being said, during a mission, we are all professionals. We all do what is necessary to survive and continue on to our goal. We know that when the chips are down is not the time to be petty. Loot is divided by useful items to who needs them most/can use them best, the rest is split evenly. Downtime is usually just that - downtime. There's not much to do until tomorrow comes and our meeting with the princess at noon. Until then, we relax and do our thing - if I want a crafter to make me something during that time, I'll say "Can you make me X? I'll give you a little extra for your time". If he refuses, he refuses. I move on. While he crafts my item (or doesn't), I go off and do my thing, the magus does his thing, the Bard tries to get laid, and we all relax and do a little jovial role-playing.

It works for us. And I don't think anyone would complain if I asked for a slight tip when I craft (though my character doesn't craft right now).

In other words - we are having fun, and so, I bequest these words upon thee (+42 if you know the reference) "I won Dungeons and Dragons, and it was advanced!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magikot wrote:

I play an arcane duelist (bard archetype) who believes she is a paladin of sheyln. She is devout, chooses to see the good and beauty in everyone, refuses to lie, and refuses to attack anyone that isn't directly hostile to her, her friends, innocents, or attempting to destroy art. She focuses on buffing her party and dispelling/countering harmful and negative emotions. Heirloom Weapon: Glaive makes for a perfect trait. The best part is, I don't have to be a lawful good stick in the mud and my character can do what she believes is right, even if it isn't exactly legal (there can be beauty in chaos after-all).

Aid Another actions I find are very thematic for Shelyn worshipers. They seek to bring out the inner beauty and talents of others and Aid Another directly represents that.

Cool concept on the character. I doubt I would have been that creative. Not quite for me, but seems like you enjoy it. And I agree on the chaos bit, but being a Paladin, I doubt my character would.

Totally agree on aid another. My character was hastily thrown together, so my DM won't mind me making a few changes - I took Bodyguard as a feat with the trait Helpful (Bodyguard lets me protect allies with an Aid Another action when they get attacked - Helpful makes my Aid Another +4 instead of +2) - and all that totally fits the theme of my character to "protect first, strike to kill as a final resort".

gluttony wrote:
She's also been putting ranks into Profession (Painter) at every level, with the character herself saying that any devoted follower of Shelyn could tell you that practising art of some kind is an important part of the relationship with the goddess.

Could not agree more. I had ranks in perform (Oratory) for poetry and craft (calligraphy), though I might switch those to perform (Dance) and craft (weaponsmithing) - dance so she can be beautiful even in battle (all fluff, though I am considering the Shelyn feat in Faiths of Purity) and weaponsmithing to make her weapons into works of art themselves - adorning the blade of her Glaive with flower motifs and the like.

I also intend to use Merciful from my weapon bond early and often.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just started a campaign last night in the Dragon Empire campaign setting (or some such thing). Currently playing a Human Paladin of Shelyn, 4th level.

Basically I would like some help role-playing this character correctly. My DM mentioned something about a Paladin-specific code based on your deity, but I could not find any such rules - is that just a houserule?

I took a few ranks in Perform (Oratory) and Craft (Calligraphy), as well as the racial heritage feat (Samarsan). I really liked the Samarsan fluff and all that, but I couldn't find any way to make the stats work, and most of the other abilities just turned me off.

I read up on Shelyn some earlier today and I really like the idea of playing a Paladin dedicated to her, but I want to make sure I get it right.

Can I get some suggestions for staying true to my deity?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And you shouldn't. It's a wonderful feat, full of excellent roleplaying opportunities. But there should be guidelines, and that's fine. Stipulating what you need to in order to keep things balanced, that's fine.

Cohorts must travel with the party at most, if not all, times.
Cohorts must have a legitimate reason to want to follow their leaders. A wizard need a good reason to follow a sorcerer. Sorcerer can't loan his apprentice a spellbook after all.

Ideas like these that give broad expectations but allow you to limit things that might be overpowered will result in happy times for you and your players. And as always, you have the final call.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
baron arem heshvaun wrote:
16. Your girlfriend wishes you were cheating on her with another girl because that would take less time away from her than PFS and Pathfinder campaigns do.

This one is win.

18. While fencing, you complain about not having Improved Disarm yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I live in Louisiana, and despite being born in Texas, can safely call Louisiana my home. How very cool to be doing a setting like this! I wish I was playing.

Alligators are common down here, and hunted on occasion (I think - I don't hunt). Even a regular animal alligator is tough (at best) if the party is waist-deep in water.

Large hogs also inhabit this state - a "Dire Boar" or some such would work.

Game animals you could include for fluff or food sources for long treks along the Bayou.

The Pelican is our state bird - maybe use a Roc as a large pelican?

Nothing else is coming to mind right off.

On a related note, I once played an RPGA (3.5 PFS) game that took place in Louisiana. We met some Cajun Halflings living down here on the Bayou. Take an hour to research some of our unique food - Boudin (pronounced boo-DAN), Cracklins, Gumbo (Chicken and Sausage gumbo is the best), Jambalaya, and loads of other stuff I can't remember right off.

Sugar Cane is our chief crop - it's possible (though not recommended) to eat cane right from the stalk and get the beneficial effects of sugar. Walking through a Sugar Cane field is a possible mid-adventure scenario, and when the plants are fully grown, you can't see over them or around them easily. Could make for interesting LOS battle scenario. Like most crops, they're arranged in lines and rows with ditches for irrigation lining the entire field.

Mosquitoes are ALL OVER. Every season but Winter. Maybe have some with infectious disease? They even spray for them during Summer - a magitech invention to help deal with that.

Humidity - 70% is low for us. Play that part of our weather system up - ladies in the party have trouble keeping their hair from frizzing, your body gets sweaty easily, and everything seems to stick to you. The weather here is really all over the place - Winter is around 32F for about 3/4 a month, and summer can easily hit 100F for a month and a half. Combined with the humidity, weather concerns can become troublesome for them, especially over a long period of time. Consider researching our weather too, and playing that up in the campaign.

If you have questions, feel free to ask. Hope I helped, and good luck!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Finn, I like you, but I find that post somewhat insulting. The whole Roll-Play versus Role-Play debate is a fallacy. Just because I like to have mechanically optimized characters doesn't mean I don't work with an eye towards motivation and personality, or that those things aren't important to me. Mechanical optimization and good roleplaying can exist side by side, and explaining every single build choice would be downright frustrating.

+42, Kelsey. Nice post.

I second her on all these counts. including the part about liking you. Never addressed you directly, Finn, but I've seen you around, and most of the time I agree with what you say. Regardless of if I agree, you are clearly thoughtful and open-minded (though maybe a little less so here, but overall better than most, and probably myself, too). And I appreciate those traits.

But I also have to say - I enjoy creating character backgrounds and personalities for my PCs (and love to see them change over time in game even more), but I keep an eye on optimization because playing a sucky PC is boring.

My 3.5 wizard had 18 INT. This was for optimization. To get that 18 INT, I dropped her CHA to 8, the only dump stat I had (should be noted, point-buy started at 8, not 10, in 3.5). But I played her like 8 Charisma - she was short, blunt, and grating with people. She irritated NPCs and Party members alike (but never players, only characters), but ultimately, the 8 CHA was for optimization.

My first level feats were Collegiate Wizard (she had been trained in a formal college, included in Background - I included that because it's both wizard fluff, and explanation for the feat), and Skill Focus: Spellcraft (because it was one of three prerequisite feats for a prestige class I wanted, and the most useful one at level one). If you ask me why I took the feat, the explanation is: "I need it for this PrC".

I mean, you say it works for you and your group, but I have so few players in my area that I can't be picky about who I play with. Some of us munchkin and some of us don't (me, anymore - used to power game 100%). Some of us like extremely serious games (me), and some of us like games that get wacky and ridiculous. We have struggled to find a way to balance all these tastes to make the game fun for all of us. I guess - I dunno. Make sure you're not grating your players, I guess. I've accidentally grated mine when I thought I was pleasing them.

Sorry for the rant. I just wanted to be clear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My most epic death was when I was a 5th level Paladin, and working with a group of guards who were thinking about revolting against their tyrannical lord who we had been taking out. I was alone from the party (it was only 2 of us), and the loyal guards caught wind of our plan and boarded the door to the basement (the only way out) and set it on fire.

So, I charge through the door, take the fire damage, and begin fighting 10 guards alone, telling my allies to stay back for now. When I started losing, I called for support, they came help, including the Captain of the Guard, only for us to all slowly fall, me last to a simple 1st level warrior. The DM was trying to save me (some nonsense about taking me prisoner or something) and I said "No! Why would they do that? I was instigating a rebellion. Hang me!", so he hung me.

The only other death I can remember off-hand is a first level druid in a 6th level adventure (RPGA, think PFS for 3.5, most of our group was higher level). So there's a bridge. And Gargoyle statues at the end of it. You expect the statues to animate and attack you. You don't expect the bridge itself to animate and attack you, though. I fell. And died on the stalagmite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finn K wrote:
TheRedArmy wrote:


Not at all. It's a mixed world that's probably pretty close to real-world standards. One time a friend of mine even made a joke about an hour into the adventure; "Well, we haven't met a major female character yet, so either one of the males is actually a girl, or the villain we haven't met yet is a chick."
Heh. Seen similar jokes made before in games I've been in... at least once, I was playing the cross-dressed female character that everyone else still thought was male.

Ha! One time, when I made my most recent Paladin, I mentioned he would be male, and the same friend I mentioned above said "WHAT!? You're playing a Paladin male? The idea of the heroic female warrior flying around kicking peoples' asses is so cool! Paladin is the only class I would play a female in, and you're gonna play a male?! YOU!?!"

Really made me think hard about it, and I bounced back and forth for several days. He's right though - particularly for me, the idea of the angelic warrior, her eyes shining brilliantly, sword in hand, ready to strike down evil-doers - is something that deeply appeals to me.

Like right here. Don't care for the skimpy outfit, though. Never liked that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One other thing I forgot: A true hero does not seek recognition for his deeds. Though willing to accept any that is given graciously, he should not actively seek benefits through the acts of good.

Words of wisdom from the brilliant Sheldon Cooper of The Big Bang Theory. What a great show!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tirq: My gut is "no". "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings."

Torture shows no respect for it's life, sanity, or dignity. On the flip side... "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others..."

I find it hard to think someone with any amount of compassion for others could actively torture somebody without qualms.

Quote:

1} Thall shall not be a dick to the other PCs. Many of you will be our arms and light on the Prime Material Plane, adventuring with PCs that aren't like you. Don't be a dick in your relationships with them. You will cause MORE problems than those you solve; in fact, you'll probably not solve any and create many.

2} Thall shall not be a dick to the DM and its campaign. Many of the DMs you will encounter will have slightly different views of Law and Good for its monsters and fiends and NPCs than you have. Be perceptive of those and do accordingly.

While true, the PCs and DM need to realize there are lines for them too. If a Paladin is an established member of the group, and you want to bring in a evil character, don't be surprised if your constant evil acts irritate the Paladin to the point of not wanting to play his character anymore (like what happened to me).

This is not me condoning Paladins "monitoring" and "controlling" other PCs, but when the group sits together and makes their character, if someone is wanting to be a Paladin (and clearly voices that), you should take note, and make a PC that can get along with such a character, and not make a CN Necromancer that focuses on raising the corpses of the dead you've killed to secretly steal for you at night.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tim tebow has got to be one of the greatest human beings on this planet. Man does his work, reveres his faith, takes time out to speak with kids with terrible illness...I can't believe people would disparage him for virtually anything he does. Peter King, of SI.com talked at length about his massive heart in one of his articles. Super good read.

Tebow's a level 8 fighter. Mostly because of bravery. Only 8 because he still has a long way to go - but he knows it, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Absolutely it can be used. Point Blank gives you +1 on attack and damage rolls within 30ft. It's a ranged attack, so you get the bonus. Makes sense to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I roll behind a screen, fudge when I feel I need to and feel no better or worse a DM for doing so.

I can't imagine rolling in front of my players openly. Big Bad Guy rolling bad tonight, making the "climactic" encounter a pushover? Time for some crits and stupid good rolls on spell damage to increase the tension. Lowly goblins rolling 20's left and right? That's OK, it's only 4 damage - making the fight what it should be, a non-event.

I would never want my DM to roll in front of me - being the most experienced player in my group, I taught the others to DM (no one had done it seriously before - just messing around), and said "You roll behind a screen so you can fudge if you need to. If you do, never let us in on the decision."

Let me give two examples...

I should have fudged:
First adventure, new group, no new players, level 1. Final fight - I give them some goblins, including a special one on a magic glyph that buffs his strength. The party dodges him most of the fight (he doesn't move off), until the Drow Wizard made a mistake in movement, and provoked an AoO from him. I hit and did exactly enough damage to kill him. A well-made, deep backstory character died from a magical ability not covered anywhere (I made it up), and the party lost a critical role-player because of it (the wizard). On the first quest. I wish I could have taken it back. I would now, in a heartbeat.

No fudge:
Young group, but made it to level 3 pretty well, and they have a rope bridge to cross. It calls for a DC 8 balance check, and a DC 18 reflex save to cach yourself if you fail. The acrobat-Rouge crosses first, making his Balance with no trouble. The full plate fighter crosses next, falls 130 feet into a raging river, dying instantly. They knew the balance check was there and had experience with near-death before. They could have prepared better (and the rest of the party did, ensuring they crossed safely). I feel fine in this instantance.

The players' fun is number one. The DM needs to be in control at all time (even over die rolls - except the players'), to ensure the players are having fun. Period.

In the second instance, I let him die because realism is part of the game, and me and those players acknowledged and accepted that and they said "We want the opportunity to be killed, but also the possibility to succeed". So I gave them that.

At least, that's how I see it.