Lincoln Hills wrote:
I like the sandbox approach (though I'm not a purist), so I'm a big fan of having monsters out there that are to be avoided until the party's ready. But there's a right way to do it. Step 1 you have completed - the GM warning the players that it can happen. Step 2 is to make sure there are signs, obvious signs, of all such monsters. This can be fearful peasants warning the PCs not to go near the lair, but I'm fond of the "show, don't tell" school of thought. If the PCs recently overcame an owlbear with difficulty, have them come across a cave mouth surrounded by four dead owlbears that seem to have been killed without laying a beak or claw on their unknown adversary. PCs like that sort of hint, because they're not being forbidden, just given a strong clue that they should probably not attempt an attack... at least, not yet.
In addition to what Lincoln said above, here are a couple other tricks that can be used:
1. Since it's so common to have dungeons with corridors narrower than the rooms they connect, it's possible to use that to allow the PCs a chance to escape if they encounter something way out of their league. If you put a big creature in a room - say size huge - but the corridor the PCs came from is only 10 ft wide, the creature would have to squeeze to chase the PCs, allowing them a chance to escape.
2. Constructs and certain undead that make good guardian monsters are also useful, because if they're protecting something it's logical that they'd have instructions/orders not to leave their charge in order to chase a bunch of fleeing PCs.
@Avatar: Yeah for a job that big you're looking at a team of people in order to avoid burnout and to get the project done in a reasonable timeframe. So in addition to direct compensation you have overhead costs as well.
Ellis Mirari wrote:
Sure, that's reasonable, but "PC" is a meta-game construct that has no actual meaning within the context of the game itself. It's not like the town guards would be saying, "Sure, even though our town's been subject to orcish raids we'll like Bob the Orc Barbarian in the city because we can tell he's a player character and therefore here to save the town from the nearby dragon."
Gobo Horde wrote:
Let's not forget how nice of a scout that little guy is.
No oddball races in my gameworld, thanks. It's not just a matter of telling the players they're not available as characters; they just straight up don't exist. This includes all of the anthropomorphic races, the elemental & planetouched races, and absolutely none of the real freaks such as wayangs, nagagi, gripplis and the like.
I'm still fully fleshing my gameworld out, so will likely come up with a custom version of aasimar/tiefling type races. I do have a few custom races of my own, such as the firlyth (dark elves) and Anselemish orcs. Will probably come up with more, but they're going to be variations of existing races most likely.
Espy Kismet wrote:
"A lot" =/= all. There are some archtypes many people find straight up better than the base class (Zen Archer, Invulnerable Rager), some that are better for what people are trying to do with their characters (many of the fighter archtypes, Stonelord, Urban Barbarian), and some that simply change some flavor without changing core mechanics (sorcerer wildblooded bloodlines). Simply stating that all archtypes are meant to be weaker than the base class is both wrong conceptually, and wrong empirically.
Yes, there's Frigid Touch, unfortunately. I don't mind when the magus in the group I'm running casts Shocking Grasp all the time; it's when he casts Frigid Touch that I get nervous. Nothing neuters a martial BBEG faster than being only able to take a standard or move action for a whole minute.
But what the hell, he's entitled to his fun. He just needs to keep in mind that if he's going to ride the same few tricks all the time he might be in for a rude awakening when he faces an opponent that's been able to study his tendencies and take measures to counter them.
@VRMH - Unfortunately they've already dealt with a couple of false leads so if the latest one turned out to be a dead end it wouldn't go over well with the players.
@Damien - I like this; I feel that the lord will initially be antagonistic toward the PCs because he's preparing for the spring battle and has no time to deal with a bunch of foreign adventurers. The orcs being in his employ will not work, however, as in-game events have determined that unless the PCs waste a ton of time, they'll reach the lord before the orcs will.
I guess my issue is that I'm having a hard time predicting what the PCs will do once they meet with the lord. It's very unlikely that they'll tell him the true nature of his axe, which will probably make it difficult to explain why some orcs from the other side of the continent would be after it.
(Ben and Galen, don't read any further!)
In the homebrew campaign I'm running the PCs have been running all over the continent trying to hunt down a particular band of orcs. They discovered that the orcs were after a particular artifact greataxe, and in the most recent sessions got a clue as to the greataxe's location.
The greataxe [unbeknownst to the PCs] is currently in the possession of a minor lord in a nearby country; the axe was given to this lord's house a couple generations ago as a gift. Neither the lord nor the dwarves who gifted his house the axe know of its true identity - it's just a magical greataxe to them.
Anyway, eventually the PCs will figure out this lord is in possession of the axe, which is where I'm getting stuck. I'm trying to conceptualize some interesting encounter ideas for when the PCs meet the lord; they may try to buy the axe, steal it, take it by force, simply warn the lord that orcs may be coming after him, or come up with some out of the blue plan I hadn't even considered, as PCs are wont to do. I do have two desires in mind though: 1) I want to give the subtle impression that the lord will not on his own be able to retain the axe should the orcs catch up with him and take it, and 2) I want the lord to be at least slightly antagonistic toward the party.
As far as some background, the country in which this lord resides is in the midst of being conquered by two neighboring countries; the north is more or less occupied by the invaders while the south prepared for invasion as soon as spring arrives (it's the middle of winter, so there isn't any large scale military action right now).
Toss your ideas my way please!
This is a homebrew world, but I don't follow how this makes things even easier for spellcasters - especially since the vast majority of the time it's a paladin or inquisitor using it because they get it as a class ability.
Consider the following two (extreme) individuals:
Bob is a 4th level rogue who happens to be a sadistic pedophile serial killer. He took levels in rogue to facilite being able to be successful with his depraved acts. So far he's abducted and murdered 23 children in his several years of activity.
Anthaldraxis is a great wyrm green dragon who spends most of his time holed up in his lair investigating various arcane persuits, as green dragons are wont to do. While he has no qualms with killing tresspassers in his territory, he would prefer to chase them away or get them to leave of their own volition as dead bodies have a habit of attracting further attention.
By RAW, Bob the sicko does not detect as evil at all while Anthal detects as strong evil.
What I'm strongly thinking of doing is including the relative "evilness" of creatures when someone uses detect evil on them. So in the example above Bob would detect as being very high in terms of evil intensity while being very feint on the existing chart, which I refer to as magnitude. While the dragon would be very strong on magnitude but low on intensity.
I don't think I need to create a mechanic for "evil intensity" since it's mostly a judgment call anyway, but I'm wondering if there are any unforseen conequences for including this information.
Another thing that contributes to this problem is the pricing of magic items. Things that give interesting abilities or cast spells or spell-like effects are extremely expensive, while the stat boosters are relatively cheap. Consider that a +3 Cloak of Resistance costs 9000 and gives a constant, solid bonus to all saves while a Cloak of Arachnidia costs nearly 50% more and gives spider climb and a situational bonus to poison saves.
If I were inclined to discourage the stat boosters I'd make them much more expensive, while the flavor items would be much cheaper.
My guess is that this is a reaction from all the years of the hobby being stereotypically male. Now, companies are trying to be extra careful to appear to be open to female gamers and one of the best ways (in their eyes) is to not only use a lot of female pronouns, but to then (in the case of mini companies) put out female miniatures as well.
Yet if you're trying to find a female figure in realistic looking armor and not a chainmail bikini or the equivalent you'll still be looking just as hard. I had to scour my FLGS plus several miniatures websites such as Reaper and Dark Sword before I found a dual-wielding female mine in something that approximated full plate.
There was a very heated thread about how a fighter had no class abilities that were worthwhile outside of combat. Your character, through the judicious application of feats, sounds like it completely dispels that notion. Kudos to you!
Thanks! The character gets 5 skill points per level and between feats and traits has Diplomacy, Perception, Knowledge: Planes, and UMD as class skills.
I should say that the stat array I have to work with is pretty generous: 18,17,16,12,11,10. I could do the same thing with a standard 20 point buy, but would just be a little less effective and would have to pick up a Headband of Charisma at some point.
Ok, Silence, I totally didn't think about that and it's awsome. Dimension Door and Fly are probably thinks I'd want to get a scrolls instead of wands; Dimension Door because it's situational and Fly because if I'm casting it enough to want a wand's worth of charges I figure I'm probably better off investing in Winged Boots.
Dervish of the Dawn is probably superior to the mobile fighter for a mobile TWF - same level 11 ability but get to keep weapon training.
I'd say they're equal overall - The Dervish of Dawn is more offensive while the mobile fighter more defensive. At 20th level I'd still take the mobile fighter - the ability to make a full attack with a standard action is incredibly good - but really who plays at 20th level.
Oh, I should have clarified - I'm only considering buff spells for wand purchase. Scrolls are different since at that level I'll be able to auto-succeed on any scroll that's CL 9th or lower. For example I bought a couple scrolls of Align Weapon since it's only situationally useful. Also definitely getting a scroll of See Invisibilty.
However I don't see the value of using the character's own funds to buy scrolls or wands for spells that are better off being cast by actual spellcasters.
Sweet, thanks for the progression info. I also agree on the buffing time; like I said in a previous post I really should only be spending one round of buffing so I can simply buff then move into position and be ready to unleash full attacks on my next turn.
Lead Blades + Enlarge Person on a Nodachi = death.
That sounds awsome. I know lead blades on a nodachi ups the damage to 2d8, so what would adding an enlarge spell change the damage to from there? (Especially since I gave this character the Eldritch Heritage: Orc Bloodline so he'll eventually be running around as large size all the time anyway.)
If you really want your party members to thank you, get a Wand of Compel Hostility or Knight's Calling, just have it higher caster level so it lasts a sufficient amount of rounds. Pulling a melee creature off your squishy party member is a very useful ability...
Unfortunately both those spells give a save so casting them from a wand will mostly be pointless since the save DC would be a laughably easy 11. Not worth it.
I was thinking shild could be useful because this character uses a two-handed weapon and it gives the best AC bonus for the buck.
Mirror Images is another thought, though it competes with Blur. I also can't be spending too much time buffing otherwise I'm not being effective. Per combat I figure I can spend one, maybe two actions buffing up before jumping into the fray. I'm also really only considering buff spells because the casters in the party can better handle battlefield control, healing, and utility.
Can you tell us more orless how is builded your fighter andyourparty composition?
Fighter is a two-handed fighter archtype who uses a nodachi. Since building an effective two-handed figher type is so light on feat requirements I had plenty of feats left over for fun stuff.
As far as party composition I don't know. This character would be for an upcoming RotRL campaign, but four of the five other players haven't decided what to play - only one other player has decided he's going to play a bard. But since everyone else hasn't made up their mind I keep getting ideas in my head on what I might want to play and have rolled up several different characters (see my other thread on a holy vindicator).
Lead Blades or Gravity Bow depending on whether you are melee or ranged.
Ooo, Lead Blades is a good idea. I'll have to add that to my arsenal.
If you use Advanced (Spell) Search on d20pfsrd.org, and search for "Range Personal" spells, you'll probably find quite a lot of things fighters aren't supposed to have. I kinda like Aspect of the Wolf; it isn't cheap at all, but it's a big buff and non-provoking Trip as a Swift Action is neat.
I'll check that search function out, thanks!
Heroism! Especially if you can get a bard to make it, but it's still worth it if it's coming from a wizard. It helps you hit your iteratives as well as make your saves, and it lasts for several encounters at a time. It's a bit over your current budget, but it's a huge boon.
I've been giving this some thought. Heroism is such a great buff and the bard version of the wand only costs 6000gp, which might very will be worth it.
I have a fighter I just built that has a +23 UMD check at level 11, so I'm trying to determine the best wands for him to get. So far I've come up with the following:
Wand of Longstrider
What other wands would be useful? For that matter are there other magic items besides wands I should be considering that can allow me to take advantage of my high UMD? I have 5500g left to spend.
BAB 30 does not give extra iteratives in 3.5. Pathfinder doesn't have rules for 21+ does it?
I don't have my books with me but Pathfinder does stick with 3.x on this issue - no more than 4 iteratives. I'm pretty sure it's mentioned in the Gamemastery Guide in the section about 21+ level characters.
Ok, derp, I forgot about furious focus. I'm also thinking I should probably get combat casting as well. So here are my feats so far:
1st - Combat Casting
As much as Sacred Summons appears to me I'm on the fence because I'm going to need to buff as well. I can't get too bogged down with casting spells every round. Also, I'm not sure what monsters qualify with that feat if my alignment is Lawful Neutral.
For an upcoming RotRL campaign I've decided to give the holy vindicator a try. Logically I'll be going cleric for 7/8 levels until I can start taking vindicator levels. Here's what I've come up with so far:
Dwarf cleric of Abadar, Travel & Protection(Defense) domains. Based on the strange stat generation method we used I ended up with an 18, 17, 16, 12, 11, 10, and have assigned them thusly:
I haven't decided if I want to do variant channeling or not, but the main thing I'm kind of stuck on is what feats to take. I have to take Alignment or Elemental Channeling (ugh) as a prerequisite for holy vindicator, so that will be one of my feats for my first 7 levels. For my remaining feat slots I want to concentrate on damage output and survivability [if necessary], so so far my feat selection will look like this:
1st - ??
I'm also concerned that people will see I'm playing a cleric and expect me to be the party healbot, but that's a separate issue I'll have to tackle.
Paladins don't get 4th level spells until 13th class level. Clerics and Wizards get 8th level spells at 15th class level. It's not as big of a disparity as the sell level numbers might lead you to believe.
That may be true, but should paladins be getting that powerful of spell to begin with? The fact they're getting it two levels before a full caster is even more troubling.
I'm undecided if the Greater version of this spell is overpowered or not. The amount of goodies you get is pretty substantial:
- low-light vision and 60ft darkvision
The big kicker to me is that it has a minute/level duration. The power seems about right for an 8th level spell, but too powerful for a paladin spell.
Wall of Stone wrote:
It is possible, but difficult, to trap mobile opponents within or under a wall of stone, provided the wall is shaped so it can hold the creatures. Creatures can avoid entrapment with successful Reflex saves
So what exactly are the conditions for entrapment? Full enclosure? Or am I fine as long as I shape the wall so that enemies can move out of it without breaking through. For example, can I make a Wall of Stone with the following shape without allowing my enemy a saving throw:
C = Caster
Also, how high is a Wall of Stone? The spell says one 5ft square/level, so I'm assuming that each section is 5 feet high unless I double up on the sections, correct?
Wait a minute. If we're having a debate about a 20th level wizard vs. a 20th level martial, why does the wizard get to be a lich on top of it? Doesn't he already have enough advantages just by being a wizard?
One thing I will say is that as powerful as magic is in Pathfinder, it's honestly pretty weak when it comes to actually doing [single target] damage - especially at high levels (compared to martials, that is). I have a 15th level sorcerer in a Kingmaker game I'm playing in and for the most part our party's strategy for battles boils down to my character using spells to control the battlefield so that the martial characters can get into position to actually kill our enemies.
The thing is what if the reason is purely aesthetic? I personally don't like furries - I just don't care for anthropomorphic races - so they don't exist in my gameworld. I can't give any more reason than that. So are you saying aesthetic reasons aren't valid?
A good GM should make it clear from the start which races are allowed and which ones are not. If the GM only has certain races in mind as acceptable, she should say, "In the game I'm running the only available races are A, B, C, D, and E." That way there's no confusion - the player knows right away that he has to pick a race from those five. Alternatively, the GM might say, "all races from the CRB and ARG are allowable except for X, Y, and Z," in which case the players can pick anything they want except for the disallowed races.
Depends on what the "no" is exactly toward. When it comes to the details of my homebrew gameworld, Mythralia, I don't feel I owe any justifications as to why something does or does not exist - and in Mythralia, furries don't exist. Does a writer owe people justifications on why things are or aren't the way they are in her/his creation?
On the other hand, if I was thinking about changing a rule or a mechanic about the game I'd definitely discuss it with the players before the campaign started.
If even considering permitting a non-standard race results in the inevitable destruction of all of your fun, I'd say your idea of "fun" is restrictive enough that you're maybe better off not playing with others at all, much less DMing them.
And considering what "you say" is agreed with by pretty much no one I've ever played with, I feel pretty safe in saying that you're wrong.
If such determinations remove the key component of the game (fun), then he/she has failed as DM.
That's not something that needs to be taken into consideration. If the game's not fun, people will stop playing.
But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about your belief that the GM has an obligation to sacrifice her/his fun to accomodate a single player. That's ridiculous and the very definition of player entitlement. And like I said before, like it or not, the GM is the most important player at the table. If a player isn't having fun he'll quit, but the game will likely go on. If the GM isn't having fun, then the game itself comes to an abrupt halt.
Because like it or not the GM is the most important player. The GM is pretty much the one player that, if missing, the game doesn't happen. The GM is also doing the most work in game preparation, especially if it's a custom game or game world. It's absolutely within reason for the GM to make these kinds of determinations. If the player doesn't like it, he's free to find a different game.
(I will admit that I approach the issue as someone who only runs in a homebrew world, which is why I feel strongly about it. If I were running a module or adventure path, I probably wouldn't make such a big deal out of it.)
Vod Canockers wrote:
I have not yet found a place for them.
For me personally it's an aesthetic choice. I don't like anthropomorphic animal races in my fantay games, so they don't exist. Since I run in my own game world, that's not a problem. I tell my players what races are available, and they have to abide by those constraints if they want to play in my game.
Using magical coercion to run a cult is the lazy and foolish way to do it. For starters, as your cult grows you'd have to spend more and more time maintaining your spells, which gets taxing. Furthermore, spells can be dispelled, leaving your efforts undone and more importantly someone who not only will renounce your cult but likely even turn around to oppose it.
It's much better to use mundane methods, which can't be undone with dispel magic, break enchantment, and the like. Furthermore, if you build your cult using mundane methods it's much easier to grow your cult because such methods can much more easily be put to use by the cult members themselves - you don't want to have to do all the recruiting yourself once your cult grows beyond a handful of members.
Magic is best used as an occasional aid once you already have your cult firmly established by traditional means.
I was reading the most recent module about the slavering and the cult of Lamashtu. In it one of the people is brainwashed by the cult. There is little discussion on how that happened. How would you emulate that in game terms? How would you emulate deprogramming?
Lots of Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate rolls, over an extended period of time. You'd be using Diplomacy to gain the victim's trust, Bluff to get the victim to believe in any falsehoods you want to instill, and Intimidate to make the victim afraid to try to escape your conditioning.