The Red Mage's page

@ Red Mage:

Sure, refluffing is no big deal, but how would you handle things like a druid's restriction? No metal armor. Okay, so I say the breastplate is aqually a wood/leather armor?

My problem is that about 1/2 or maybe even 3/4 of the armor list isn't even used, because MECHANICALLY chain shirt/breastplate/full plate are simply superior. (especially Chain shirt was too good for LIGHT armor!)

So THAT's what I am trying to address.

With my armor list, the choice is simple. Since ALL armors sum up AC+DEX = 9, you'll go for that kind of armor that EXACTLY MATCHES your DEX.
Simply going for a bigger kind is no good anymore, since you would get a higher ACP (and ASF, but that's probably of no real interest).
Except you prefer higher "flat-footed AC" over "Touch AC".

Since all armor is now without an actual name (only simple/reinforced/fortified light/medium/heavy armor) you actually CAN describe it as you like.

In the case of a druid trying to wear mechanically prohibited armor, I would just handle it by reskinning dragonhide for that particular piece. He could pay double to make armor made of some sort of alchemically treated hardwood and call it a day. But that's a corner case, and I was more referring to reskinning within reason.

I disagree about chain shirts being too good and I'm really not sure why +4 is over the top, especially considering the fact that it's a much-needed asset for characters who want to move fast and might not want to dip for armor training/fast movement or something like that.

I'm also not sure how well this achieves your goal of allowing for variation in armor choices. Light armor users are going to choose fortified 90% of the time. It clearly offers the best blend of armor bonus and dexterity bonus to AC.

Really I'm mostly opposed to the idea that all armor/dex configurations need add up to +9. Why shouldn't there be a "last armor" for each category? Part of the fun of advancing at low levels is finally grabbing the best mundane armor you can get. Seeing your numbers go up is a good thing.

It's a good effort, but I'm not seeing the need for flatter armor mechanics just because players tend to eventually grab the mechanically strong ones.

I get your beef with that, but this seems more like a job for simple reskinning. I don't think any reasonable DM is going to lay down the hammer of justice if a player wants to call his breastplate a hauberk in a home game. PF doesn't account for how different armor styles hold up vs different damage types, which is a bit lame, but that makes it pretty easy to reskin as needed.

50% nature, 50% nurture. Whatever well-researched roadmap I start out with is inevitably doodled upon and altered to meet the needs of the party during the campaign.

i would like to add a few roles to the quoted list

"The Fanboi" they usually have an object of unhealthy obscession they channel through all of thier characters. some of them might seem to be creepy fetishes but this isn't always the case. this object of obscession can be anything from ninjas, to elves, or even fauxlitas. you can tell this is the case when the last 5 characters in a row played by the player in question. it's best not to ban this concept not matter how creepy it may seem, because it alienates that particular player. they typically embody some of the traits of the snowflake. only they are more predictable. female versions are called "the Fangirl"

Don't forget that the backstory of the fanboy's go-to-character is the epic saga, and your campaign is just the sequel. Also, you'd best not entertain thoughts of killing off that character, because he's DM'ing next and his character is the central NPC.

In my group, you don't need to choose an archetype at first level, but once you've gained a class feature, it's "locked in" for that character. Whether you consider this a bit tricksy or not is up to you, but you could always just say you were on the scout + knife master path the whole time. You won't gain anything from scout until 4th level anyway.

A few sessions ago we played bull rush pinball with a Derro, disarming it and then bouncing it back and forth between my character standing on a table and our fighter, who then slammed it against a wall, knocking it prone onto a grease trap. Our ranger/rogue took the opportunity for sneak attack bait and finished it off. No damage to the PCs.

That same session, we were faced with two enemy wizards, two alchemists, a horde of zombies and a greatsword fighter. The ranger/rogue tossed a fuse grenade at the two wizards, the largest threats, and I immediately yelled for our savage warrior/barbarian to use her acid breath. The breath melted the time-release casing on the grenade, causing it to immediately detonate rather than waiting for it to explode, and nuked the wizards into oblivion. I kept the greatsword guy on disarm lockdown for the rest of the fight and the others made short work of the rest.

Normal character build: Game mechanics, whether weak or strong, that support an initial or evolving character concept divorced from the game mechanics

Optimized cheese: A roleplaying persona and backstory shoehorned in to support broken or unusually strong mechanical synergy

The cheesiness of a build is something I can usually peg upon the genesis of a character's creation. It's the intention that matters more to me, not the result. If a player is gaming the system rather than playing a role, that annoys me. I have no problem at all with optimizing a character to suit that character's concept. We all do it to some extent. It's when the desire to optimize a sheet of mechanics outweighs the desire to mechanically represent an idea that the cheese factor comes in for me. Because at that point, players will start compromising or altering their initial creative concept to better suit game mechanics.

I can't stand shoehorning. That's also why I'm in favor of house ruling or reasonable reskinning of certain options. I prefer world mechanical consistency though, so it's a last resort.

A player in our group is starting on stalwart defender in two levels. His character was already a wall with a 15-foot move speed who draws in enemies rather than moving to them, so I suggested the PrC. It's really a niche class, as PrCs should be.

This looks like a job for a Warrior of the Holy Light. Rolling with one of these as my next character, with an Oath Against the Wyrm to top him off.

Do you have a link to the original picture or the archived thread?

Kali ma! Kali ma!

Definitely talk to him out of game, but make sure he knows you're not the only one annoyed with him. If he knows that this is causing problems for everyone, he's more likely to turn over a new leaf. If he responds with hostility, boot him, but if he does seem sincere, give him a last strike to shape up. I know how that goes, though. This is definitely not easy to deal with. Good luck.

For gluttony: screw with the party's level of hunger, which is so often handwaved in campaigns. Maybe have them fall prey to hunger and fatigue, requiring a much increased ration intake- or the desire to eat the flesh of the enemies they fight. And the more they succumb to this sin, the worse off they'll be (slowed down, sickened if feasting on demon-flesh, etc).

Sorc is better for a minmaxed fire blaster. Unfortunately, fire is an extremely common resistance and immunity, so you need backup spells and you want options in those cases. A sorc is not going to have much of a contingency plan. I'd go wizard.

Bestiary 2
Bestiary 3
Advanced Players Guide

A GM is pretty much good with these.

Really depends on the campaign. My current bard is a very competent tripper and disarmer, but as we've been going up against mainly vermin, no dice. Find out what sort of campaign you'll be playing. It's a good bet in a city campaign that you'll still be relevant most of the time.

Oh man, one of the best arcade beat em ups of all time. Bumping, keep it up.

Since the developers won't update the Summon Monster/Nature Ally lists with the creature from Bestiary 2 and 3, can anyone point me some good homebrew-updated lists? By searching the messageboard I found only a bunch of old links.

Dotting. Really surprised these lists weren't updated in the newer Bestiaries. More surprised they weren't updated at all.

No, they really arent. They are people who use great things but they are not superheroes in the same way that a mutant or someone that was changed in a manner that is science fiction. Why do you think that the gods are never statted?

You're right, they're not. The getup of the average tenth-level character looks even more ridiculous than a cape and tights.

Seriously, they have cosmic powers beyond our understanding, they can leap dimensions in a single bound, they can bend steel, have super speed, super strength and more. They adventure for a living, whatever that may mean. But it's pretty close to vigilantism/super-heroicness.

Beyond the lack of skintight spandex, I fail to see how Pathfinder characters can't easily be classified as medieval supers.

To be completely honest I feel the other way entirely I hate archetypes for the most part and like prestige classes because devs aren't afraid to give prestige classes something weird and different instead of the tiny variations that most of the archetypes consist of which I can find tiresome.

There are plenty of archetypes that give you something weird. Wizards that cast spells through their guns. Cavaliers that ride an allosaurus into battle. Bards that raise the dead through music. Archetypes run the gamut from big thematic changes (bordering on alternate classes) to little more than alternate class features, which are always welcome options as well.

An archetype just allows you to still do most of the things you're expected to do within your class as well.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/archetypes/paizo---wiza rd-archetypes/spellslinger

Spell slinger looks like your base class.

That would definitely be my first choice if guns were allowed.

I'm still at a loss as to how to replicate the linked portals theme. I think I remember reading something about linked gates, but the cost was prohibitive.

Seems more likely that a thug would forgo stuff like finding traps than evasion and uncanny dodge, doesn't it?

Right, but I don't care about that. Personally, there is almost no chance I'm going to buy this book if it is just a big list of magic items or oddball stuff like folding ladders and true strike ACOG sites. I enjoy material that helps me run a game right out of the box. I think a whole book of random equipment is a little pointless unless the book somehow facilitates running different kinds of games. I think this book would be best if it wasn't one setting specific, but multiple setting specific. Golarion, Bronze Age, Steam Punk, Warring States Period, Post Apocalyptic and so on.

To each there own. I just think a book full of generic Golarion stuff is a waste.

I wouldn't want a book full of random, oddball, unusual equipment either. I also think that the items you mention could be incorporated into one book without being separated into clearly defined "must use here" categories. Your mileage may vary, of course.

I'd prefer if they did. Not all players know off hand what qualifies as Bronze Age, so it would help if the Bronze Age gear was called that.

I'd rather that the items all be playable regardless of setting, as this is a non-setting-specific crunch book. Separate listings doesn't sound like a good idea if the purpose of the book is to increase the quantity of usable items.

Greek fire, how about Greek everything. I'd like to see a chapter or two devoted to specific settings that are borderline common: Bronze Age (Including Persian), Japanese, Steam Punk / Gaslight, and so on.

+1

As long as you don't call out which items are appropriate for which settings in the book.

It's not common to pass out items on request, no.

Are your players getting enough gold to afford these items themselves?

Prices for large mundane purchases (building materials or even entire building/room module types) are sorely needed, as are prices for plots of land.

Also, more personal hygiene items!

I second flaming arrows/Greek fire.

I totally disagree with this. I don't want the archetype better at anything than the base class. Cuter maybe, but not better. I hate screwing around with crunch and I don't want to effectively take a penalty just because I don't feel like reading splat books.

You're not taking a penalty if the archetype/PrC is only geared toward one niche- overall, your vanilla choice is better overall.

And even if you hate screwing around with crunch, why force the crunch-focused players to be satisfied with less options? Unless the CR system is rebalanced due to new stuff, you're not taking a penalty.

Better monsters-as-PCs rules.

And grays. Little green men are also acceptable.

The Red Mage wrote:

Sry bro

No worries. I totally agree that a PrC should be the best at "that specific thing". But if "that specific thing" is more like "the best at many things", I think that falls outside the boundary of what a PrC should be.

Attacking them while sleeping is a good one. Making it rain blood is a darker option. Swarm are very hard to deal with, so a city or town filled with fiendish rat swarms are really terrifying.

As a member of a party who recently had to deal with a large swarm encounter and had scarcely more than the ranger's splash weapons between life and a TPK, I fully endorse this approach.

Seriously though, I wholeheartedly support UltimaGabe's second approach. Highlight the implications of certain deaths. It increases verisimilitude and challenges the players with turning-point decisions.

How many encounters a day would you say is average for your group? If they're exploiting the five-minute workday, use ambushes, disadvantageous terrain and other tricks. Straight increases to enemy stats probably won't get the effect you want. I know some people shy away from "puzzle" encounters, but pitting your players against enemies with very unusual weaknesses, resistances and tactics will refresh them every once in a while. Also, I wouldn't underestimate the power of a large, mixed group of mooks, especially when buffed by one leader (who is being healed by another hidden 'leader').

The Red Mage wrote:

gnomersy wrote:

Why not just tell the player he's going to suck and call it a day? At least that way you're being honest about it.

Because suboptimal means less than optimal, not sucky. You know, like most of the archetypes and prestige classes.

Except most archetypes people take are optimal and prestige classes should be optimal that is to say that at the thing they do they should do better than the base class so two weapon warrior fighter archetype should be a better twf than a base fighter but he should also be less well rounded.

They're specialists or jack of all trades so arcane archers meld ranged combat and spells they can cover a broader spectrum but less effectively on the otherhand a two weapon warrior fighter archetype is a specialist he should beat the standard fighter at TWF but fall off in other areas to make up for it. But they should be optimal at something if they aren't again there's no reason to take the class.

Well, yeah, that's what I meant by suboptimal or niche. Part of an optimal character is being able to deal with any situation effectively (ie: a well-built wizard). More specialized means you'll be spending some fights or social encounters doing nothing. That's what I want out of a new PrC. You chose to specialize. You made a meaningful choice to increase your effectiveness in a narrow set of skills, and there should be implications to that.

Why not just tell the player he's going to suck and call it a day? At least that way you're being honest about it.

Because suboptimal means less than optimal, not sucky. You know, like most of the archetypes and prestige classes.

The minute you design something without the goal of aiming just under a base class, you've got a scene full of Fighter 10/Milkurian Goatshredder 10s.

So, after somehow not playing Portal for the first time until a few weeks ago, and replaying Half-Life 2, I have been inspired to make a bizarre Gordon Freeman/Chell mashup expy.

In short, I want to play a character who dual-wields the Gravity Gun and the Portal Gun.

They don't need to be guns, or even magic items. I just want to duplicate the effects of both of these pieces of equipment, and make that the primary schtick of this character. Class, race and flavor don't matter yet. I'm more interested in physics-manipulating awesomeness.

I was thinking something along the lines of a Generation school wizard to start, but truth be told, I don't even know how to approach this.

Is anyone up to the challenge of a possible build?

Edit: Stuff I'll need

* Immune to fall damage
* Able to create two-way portals at-will
* Has some sort of fast sprint ability and an at-will flashlight
* Can manipulate, propel and grab objects at a safe distance
* Can throw unattended objects at enemies as a staple means of attack
* At higher levels, can throw living beings around at-will
* Carries the closest weapon I can get to a crowbar as backup
* Some way of administering poison antidote at-will
* Decent AC

Murdering and pillaging.

As long as prestige classes are suboptimal, heavily niche, specialized options with very distinctive flavor, I'm all for more of them. Archetypes just can't cover the really bizarre stuff that inspires entire characters.

Ah, but even if there is no rolling, a person playing a low charisma character shouldn't be playing them as a high charisma character. That isn't accurate roleplaying.

Red mage, you have never had a player try to bluff another player or win an argument against another pc involving an npc or a crowd?

Hmm, maybe I am gaming with chaotics.

I'm not into roleplaying strictly according to stats. The mechanical effects of your ability scores already have impact, and I wouldn't want to limit someone's fun if they wanted to roleplay (in situations with no real mechanical effect) a 7 Int as a 9 Int. There is definitely a margin of acceptability and I think common sense tends to keep that in check. Playing a 7 Cha as an 18 Cha would raise more than a few eyebrows.

I have had players bluffing each other, trying to influence each other, trying to Charm each other, etc. It usually isn't fun in a heroic campaign, but your mileage may vary on that.

In an evil/heavily neutral campaign with lots of intra-party conflict? Bring it on.

A low charisma and no dip, bluff or intimidate or feats in those is a bad combination for being in a group. You can try to be a tough longer but here is the bad news:

1) you will never win an in party argument that comes down to a dice off (or just a disagreement) without force.
2) using force is dangerous, everyone may turn on you and you can't change their opinions.
3) your input is considered by the group as less important than the high charisma people, mechanically speaking if it comes down to any rolls. The high charisma folks easily determine the flow and what is to be discussed.
4) if it all goes bad, you will probably be on your own. An easy way to die in a dangerous area.
5) you have a difficulty in tricking any of your party members or hiding something from strong sense motive characters (where is thou bluff?)

Harsk is not cool. Harsk is not a stoic. He has real weaknesses.

I do have some social rolling in my games, influencing npcs and at times pcs, I want to know how good characters are at doing things.
I like putting a bit of social combat (Courtier verbally rages HRARRRGH!) into my games. It is only minor, but it can sometimes be very very important. I don't respect the courtiers of real life, but I know such people exist and how skilled they can be.

Those five points are indeed weaknesses in a campaign where intra-group social rolling even exists.

I ban it on the grounds that I don't think it should be a feat (in other words, a tax, because its crazy to not take Leadership in a game that allows it).

If a player wants a cohort or followers, I would allow that independent of the feat. Everyone just needs to be OK with it.

You can use this skill to frighten an opponent or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.

You can be scary, and also not use verbal threats and showboating to specifically get what you want. You can use Intimidate to frighten opponents, true, but this doesn't mean you also cannot be naturally fear-inducing. You just don't know how to use that to your advantage.

Edit: In other words, you can unnerve people without them being mechanically Shaken. They are just a bit more wary around you than normal.

I think we need an FAQ for this thread alone.

Having a Cha of 7 means you persuade and influence the average person less than half the time. I see no reason why this has to mean "disgusting, repulsive troll". You just don't get noticed much, aren't intuitive, aren't a very good liar, and lack the ability to get what you want through social avenues.

The Red Mage wrote:

Yeah, bit of a shame that the archaeologist was denied DD as a class skill and is still a far superior DD'er than the rogue by 6th level. Still can't imagine playing on over a vanilla bard. A bard who does not inspire is scarcely a bard at all.

You don't play one if you want to play a Bard. You play one (and take Vagabond Child) if you want to play a Rogue but would rather have Charisma-based spellcasting and high Knowledge skills than Sneak Attack. That's really their role, after all, and I say this having one in my current game.

I think the bottom line here is the fact that there is a bard archetype that is better at disarming traps and opening locks than the rogue. Both classes really fulfill the same role in the end. You can want to play a bard and not want to deal with the extra resource management of performance buffs. I just would prefer keeping the buffs.

Holy crap that generator is helpful. I must be sure he never finds about it.

Well, your secret is safe with me. Unless our very own resident annoying PC somehow knows him and lets him in on it. A player who, by the way, is also planning a campaign down the line, and a few of us are already thinking of excuses to skip it. Friendship can make outright rejection hard to pull off.

A current PC in our campaign was a sobering reminder of allowing too much homebrew. Still, fixing overpowered homebrew can really tighten up your ability to make balanced homebrew in the future.

Laziest solution possible: Enjoy

Just flesh out each result with a few sentences. If he gets suspicious or calls you out on using a generator, you then have even more proof that he's out to get you. If that's what you wanted, I guess. *shrug*

Credit goes to some guy named Scrasamax, I think. Just found this at random.

Anyway, as much as it pains me to know you've had to deal with this guy as a PC and a DM, this has been one of the most consistently entertaining threads I've seen. Kudos on that

Not as well as I could as a rogue with the same int score, but yes. The flavor would be different.

As for "playing it right", I have fun playing it, so by definition I'm playing it right. If you aren't having fun with it, play the fighter/expert/whatever instead.

Would you have less fun playing a rogue if rogues were mechanically stronger?

Word of dev is that Archaeologist's not having DD as a class skill is indeed intentional, obstensibly so the rogue still has some niche (it does not). It's possible to pick up DD as a class skill as a trait if you're really looking to get that check up there.

Yeah, bit of a shame that the archaeologist was denied DD as a class skill and is still a far superior DD'er than the rogue by 6th level. Still can't imagine playing on over a vanilla bard. A bard who does not inspire is scarcely a bard at all.

Cyberwolf2xs wrote:

TL;DR: The trip rules don't make sense.

Your opinion.

My opinion: trip rules didn't make sense in the first place. Where you couldn't use a weapon (like a quarterstaff) to trip someone at all. That makes sense right?

I have been an advocate for Trip weapons to confer an additional +2 to the attempt (like disarm weapons). Sean also said he is leaning that way so he and Jason are in the process of discussing possible trip property fixes for the upcoming Ultimate Equipment book.

I do agree it should be possible to trip with a quarterstaff. But compared to a guisarme or flail? It's much more difficult to trip someone with a straight rod than with a hook or chain. Or try cleanly tripping someone with a dagger in the middle of combat. That would require a bit of training.

What if the improved trip feat could "unlock" all melee weapons to allow trips, and confer the bonus only to those weapons with the Trip property? Best of both worlds.