kputnam's page

What pronouns to use for a Shirren host (or any other shirren): whichever pronouns that Shirren identifies with. While the Shirren language may well have three gendered pronouns, I'm guessing each Shirren would translate those pronouns into Common individually. A Shirren "male" might still prefer they/them pronouns in Common, or might prefer to be referred to exclusively by their name/nickname, or might use he/him. Furthermore, as Shirrens communicate with each other telepathically, "gender" might simply be an abstract idea they convey with their thoughts, and might not even have a word or pronouns.

Now on the flip side, I could definitely see other species whose idea of gender is/used to be binary adopting a third gendered pronoun from Shirren on an individual basis.

Thanks so much!

I never received an email, so hopefully that's what happened.

Same exact thing happened to me. I sent an email about 2 hours ago, when I realized I'd been charged. I'm going to call on Monday if it isn't resolved by then.

I attempted to buy the PDF of the Starfinder Core Rulebook. It didn't seem to be working, so I attempted to purchase it multiple times. I have not received a confirmation email, and the product has not appeared in my downloads. In addition, four authorization holds were placed on my bank account. I know people are having similar issues. My main concern at the moment is removing three of the authorization holds and cancelling three of the four orders.

Having a similar problem. Make sure to check your bank account, I tried four times and have been billed four times

Exact same thing, thinking it didn't work I tried again, resulting in multiple authorization holds on my bank account. No email, nor has it shown up in my downloads, and my account doesn't even say I have any pending orders. Furthermore, the Starfinder Core Rulebook still shows up in my cart (which is why I believed the transaction didn't go through). The website does seem to be slow in general today, but I "purchased" and downloaded the free Starfinder: First Contact pdf earlier with no issues. I also sent an email about the multiple charges, I'll let you know if I get a response!

So, I'm probably going to be running the Wrath of the Righteous adventure path soon, and I know that one of the players will probably want to play a summoner. So, I've read the Mythic Adventures book cover to cover, and I cannot find anywhere something about rebuild rules for animal companions, eidolons, and whatnot. It seems to be that if an animal companion using base rules was thrust into a mythic game, it would be crushed. So, was there something in the book that I just missed? If not, any suggestions on how to handle the rebuild?

So, the rules state that "A scarred witch doctor uses Constitution instead of Intelligence when determining the highest level of spells she can cast, her spell save DCs, number of spells known at 1st level, and any effects of her hexes normally determined by her Intelligence."

This does not state that a scarred witch doctor gains bonus spells per day based on constitution. Has there been any sort of official ruling on whether or not spells per day are determined by intelligence or constitution?

So in at least one of the games I play in, we have too many people. By "too many" I mean that our last game had something in the area of 8 or 9 players. That number may go down to 7 or 8 in the future, which is still, imho, too many. So I have two basic concerns.

1) Should I offer to run a second game in the same time slot? The game runs at my local gaming store, so people can keep coming to the same place. I do enjoy playing in that particular game, but I am enjoying less due to overpopulation. I also wouldn't mind running something, as I haven't had the chance to in some time. That game should be running this Saturday, so I suppose I can see how crowded it is then.

2) If I run a game, I'll probably make up my own campaign. It may be set in Golarion, or not. I would like to run an urban adventure, where a significant portion of the action would take place in a small city, although I haven't really though out a long-term campaign. So my second concern is how to plan out an urban campaign setting (how detailed should the city be, etc), and thoughts on ideas for a general campaign theme (note--I am not running a horror game. If I wanted to do that, I'd be posting on a Call of Cthulhu message board).

If I were looking at this from the angle of the PC, I would have a few questions to ask: what race are the slavers, predominantly? Does their camp, such as it is, have fortifications? Is there any way for me to do this other than what the DM has provided?

The first question would be to establish whether or not the enemies had darkvision. The second would be to decide how good or bad an idea sneaking in or slashing in would be. The third is because I don't want to walk into a trap (which is what I, as a player, would immediately suspect).

If I were one of your players, my first instinct would be to hack my way in. Once that was shown to be a bad idea (perhaps in a previous combat with the same slavers), I would attempt to sneak in. Talking my way in would be a last resort.

As such, it would probably be a good idea to plan for that. Bear this in mind--if the PCs sneak in, they might get away with it without any witnesses whatsoever.

Yeah, I felt pretty much the same when I started playing. I had no idea what I was getting into. I didn't own any of the books. I'd never played before. When I first sat down at that table, I didn't know what a "d20" was. I just learned about the game, and figured it might be fun to try. And I was right.

This is all good advice. If there's one thing I'd like to add, it's this: don't be afraid to ask for help. Try and be independent, but if you don't know what to do, just ask one of the other players what they think.

You have a few options:

1: Forget revenge, leave, and go on with your life. Find a different group to play with if you can.

2: Start your own game, and try and draw all the players away from this GM's game.

3: Vivesectionist alchemist with a few levels in Barbarian. Mutagen+Invisibility+Bull strength+Rage+sneak attack=dead enemies.

4: Undead Lord Cleric, or anyone else who makes a ton of undead. Have your minions swarm the enemy and tear him to shreds, while you and the rest of the party sit back and relax.

5: Two-handed-weapon fighter. Just kill everything in sight.

6: Elf wizard, max int and go. For flavor, you can specialize in cold spells. After all--revenge is a dish best served cold. Or just cast phantasmal killer.

7: Witch. Slumber hex everything and then coup de grace it all.

If you like the monk, you could make a monk into a decent battlefield controller with manuevers, especially if you use one of the monk weapons with reach. Hungry Ghost doesn't specify you have to use an unarmed strike to steal ki, so you can still do that at reach if you want.

Other problem I realized with hungry ghost--the Undead Lord's flaming skeletons are our front line. So he's go up like a torch if he was in the thick of the battle. I can give my eidolon fire resistance, and summoned monsters are disposable.

I hate to ask a possibly painful question, but...

Is it possible (or desirable?) for the Undead Lord cleric to take control of your new wraith, and forcibly turn him into a new PC, despite his desires?? Cause that is a somewhat cool idea to me...Potentially, you could rebuild your character to continue in some semblance of his old class on top of being a wraith...

I would love to keep playing as a wraith. The Undead Lord's player would love for me to hang around as a wraith. The Undead Lord as character would love it. The Magus/Fighter would love it.

And then we come to the cleric of Saranrae...she's stressed enough by the Undead Lord, so I can't blame her for not wanting an undead PC. The Wraith and the Undead Lord did agree, though, that if the Undead Lord were to ever complete the Test of the Starstone and become a god, the wraith could be his emissary.

Right now, leaning towards a Fetchling summoner, shadow caller archetype. I'll give my eidolon fire resistance (so it can safely fight alongside the Undead Lord's flaming skeletons), and trip (all thos AoOs...).

Druid I did look at, but I've never really liked the flavor of the druid. All that nature stuff has never really spoken to me. And beyond entangle, Druids don't get a lot of the great control spells (grease, web, the create pit spells, black tentacles, etc). That said, some of the archetype abilities can be neat (the Saurian Shaman, at high levels, can summon 2-5 gargantuan creatures as a standard action).

So where are the rules for making a normal construct? The only set of rules I could find governing construct making was UM.

Tengu is a good choice for maxing Dex and Wis, but the penalty to Con can be bad for a tank.

Unless they changed it, Aasimars get Wis and Cha, not Wis and Dex, according the the Advanced Race Guide.

Summoner is a d8, and you won't be vulnerable at all with a good eidolon.

Didn't actually see the summoner. They don't get web, but they do still get black tentacles and the pit creation spells. They can also cast summon monster (as regular spells) and still have they're eidolon going. Thank you very much, sir.

In terms of number of actions and simultaneously denying your opponent actions, especially at lower levels, the Hungry Ghost Monk is very good.

You get punishing kick for free (knock opponents prone). Then you pick up combat reflexes and vicious stomp. Vicious stomp lets you take attacks of opportunity when opponents fall prone, so your flurry looks something like: attack (w/punishing kick), attack of opportunity, the rest of your attacks (with your opponent prone), then another AoO when your opponent stands up (using their move action).

You effectively get 2 extra standards (AoOs), and your opponent loses his move and can't full attack (or takes a hefty penalty if he does).

Okay, so I consider myself a fairly experienced player (been playing for at least 2 or 3 years now). For the longest time, I stuck to paladins, with a few brief steps into fighter, cavalier, or a very martial cleric. Recently, I've been branching out a bit more (a ranger, an inquisitor, a barbarian, a bard), and I thought it might be interesting to play a construct crafter. So, I dusted off my Ultimate Magic and read through the construct creation sections. And then reread them. And reread them again.

I recognized all the words, but I have no idea what they're saying. I kind of get the idea, but I feel as they they're missing several steps somewhere. I don't know. Are the rules unintentionally vague, or am I just missing something? If the rules in the book are vague, have they been redefined somewhere else? I would really like to play the construct crafter, but the rules just seem too convoluted.

kputnam wrote:

A general question about the mythic rules--will there be guidelines for rebuilding animal companion/eidolon/mount stats? Because while my mythic druid/cavalier/whatever may, as a member of a party of mythic heroes, be able to take on a powerful demon lord, I feel that his animal buddy might get swatted aside like a fly.

The Mythic Rules do indeed have options for animal companions and mounts and eidolons to gain some measure of mythic power along with you. That's covered in Mythic Adventures, though, not in the Wrath of the Righteous Adventure Path.

Thanks very much, and thanks for the quick response. Now I won't be nearly as hesitant to play a saurian shaman and flood the universe with dinosaurs!

So my character recently died and became a wraith. Presumably he will now go on a killing spree and attempt to turn all of the citizens of Katapesh into wraith spawn and from there expand his grasp to the rest of the world. That aside, I now need a new character.

Game is at 6th level. Here is the party:

Undead Lord Cleric
Oracle/Cleric of Sarenrae (yeah, there's some tension there)
Magus/Fighter (might be another multiclass, but I'm not sure)
Me.

I like the Hungry Ghost Monk archetype, and was considering that, but I also feel that the party could use a dedicated battlefield controller. The only problem with that is that the best controller classes (seem) to be the d6 hit die classes. And I really don't like playing d6 hit die classes, because I always feel weak and vulnerable. So, if there's any way to make a beefier witch/sorcerer/wizard, let me know, and if there's any other good controller classes, I would love to know what they are. I have the monk built pretty well, so that's my default.

kputnam wrote:

In my mind, he's something like: "Sir Brutus the Defiler, Bringer of Darkness and Dispenser of Dread, Corrupter of Souls and Purveyor of Damnation!"

But you may call him "Tim".

Maybe the evil outsider companion he can get at fifth level is a small white rabbit, and he tricks knights into fighting it?

A general question about the mythic rules--will there be guidelines for rebuilding animal companion/eidolon/mount stats? Because while my mythic druid/cavalier/whatever may, as a member of a party of mythic heroes, be able to take on a powerful demon lord, I feel that his animal buddy might get swatted aside like a fly.

Whoever said Brutus earlier, I like that one.

So I'd put Brutus at number one.

The runners up (in no particular order) would be:

Lucian
Tarquin
Prexus
Garnath
Gregar

A list of titles:

"He Who Brings the Darkness"
"The Defiler"
"The Fallen"
"The Destroyer"

In my mind, he's something like: "Sir Brutus the Defiler, Bringer of Darkness and Dispenser of Dread, Corrupter of Souls and Purveyor of Damnation!"

And when he gets powerful enough, I definitely imagine him living in a castle made entirely of bone, bathing daily in the blood of slain peasants (or, if possible, adventurers), and leading armies of demons/undead.

Which raises another question, perhaps a little off topic. Do you imagine him leading hosts of demons or leading hosts of undead?

A few things I'd like to see as an AP.

Vikings (full-on viking, not just the brief little interlude like in Jade Regent). Maybe it could end with the PCs having to avert Ragnarok and the destruction of the world. It could also provide an opportunity to use the ship-based combat rules outside of Pirates.

New world idea sounds really great, but it seems like it could be a lot like Kingmaker.

Alternate new world concept--the PCs are natives, and trying to repel these foreigners from their shores. Could make great use of the primitive weapons etc given in Ultimate Combat.

And a few historical APs. Catapult the PCs into Golarion's history. It would be a great opportunity to learn more about the world, and another great opportunity to make use of the primitive weapons and materials (the PCs could be Greek-style heroes who use bronze, etc). Also, combined with the Mythic rules, the PCs could effectively make ancient Greek heroes.

Lastly, I would LOVE to see an AP that went all the way to 20th level. At this point, they've all dropped off around 16th. I see no reason why an AP take the PCs to the pinnacle of their ability (assuming they haven't multi-classed).

A mythic AP is coming out with Wrath of the Righteous.

An Epic level AP would be neat, but it takes so long to build a character from scratch above 20th level, that would work much better if it began at a lower level and ended in epic levels.

Well right now the party's level 6. The group does have a bard, but it's the normal, core rule book bard. I've looked at the witch doctor and it seems fairly solid, but I'll hold off on deciding just yet.

As far as I remember, the party make up is: Strix fighter (archer), human ranger/cleric/barbarian, half orc cleric/fighter (only 1 level in fighter), grippli ranger, halfling cleric, half-elf bard, human fighter (runs away a lot, but could do some decent damage if he didn't), human paladin (the other main tank), and a dwarven stonelord paladin (that's me). I have AC 32 most of the time and 34 if I'm using defensive stance. The other paladin has a 27, I think.

I've also been looking at the inquisitor (I recently started playing one in a different game, and he's pretty decent thusfar). If my interpretation is correct, an inquisitor who drops a level into barbarian and worships anyone who gets the travel domain could have a 50' base move speed?

So I have a bit of a problem. I've been playing pathfinder for a few years now, but I've mostly stuck with tanky and damage dealing melee types. This is mostly because we play in a large group (there's some fluctuation, but our record is 12 people at the table), and there's only one other person who plays tanks ever. Everyone else is either too horribly multi-classed to be effective at anything (ranger 3 [ranged combat style]/cleric 1/barbarian 1), simply poorly built, or just a coward (there is actually one other fighter in the group, but he just runs away ALL THE TIME). After this long of playing tanks, I am simply sick and tired of it, and I'm considering changing to some other role, any other role. Under other circumstances, the other tank might be able to pick up some of the slack, especially if I played a support role, but he's also tired of playing the tank.

So I guess I have to questions.

1) Will the party survive losing its only decent tanks at around the same time?

2) If/when I do switch to a different role, what class would you recommend? I'd prefer something that can still deal damage, and I'd rather not go full spell-caster. I have considered the court bard archetype (giving minuses to enemies instead of pluses to allies).

That's what I was thinking as well. The only one with healing in the party is the bard and...well let's just say that, although god knows that the player is great, she just doesn't play the best spell casters.

I'm playing in a sort of arena-style game with absolutely no roleplaying whatsoever. There are four players, the DM wants us all to have two characters. He's giving us the stats of :16 16 14 14 14 10. He's allowing psionics. Right now, we have a two weapon fighter, who wields kukris. He follows Desna and has Butterfly Sting--that's one of my characters. Then my friend (who currently only has one character) is playing a two weapon fighter with a scythe. My other character is a soulknife, who dual wields and tends to throw his weapons. The third player is running a sword and board fighter and a halfling bard. The fourth player will be joining us next game. Knowing him, he'll end up playing a full-plate wizard with an 18 or 20 Con (don't know how, but he makes it work), and I don't know what else. So here's our group:

2 weapon human fighter, wielding kukris, who lets other people crit the enemies
2 handed human fighter, with a scythe, who, optimally, follows up on my crit threats with his scythe.
2 weapon human soulknife who throws his weapons
Sword and board human fighter (yawn)
Vanilla halfling bard
20 Con full-plate wizard
?
?

So I was wondering if anyone had suggestions on what the 2 question marks should be.

It is my general impression that an optimized fighter can out-damage almost anything of equal level. I haven't done out any of the math for an eidolon yet, but I know that a 9th level fighter with a greatsword can get 100 damage by hitting twice rolling a four on one damage role and a three on the other.

What about the blue rose order do you like? There's a trait that gets rid of the penalty for using non-lethal hits with slashing weapons.

The Blue Rose ability gets rid of the -4 for dealing non-lethal with ALL weapons. Yes, it's called, "Flat of the Blade," but in the description it does not specify a certain weapon type, ergo it is applicable to all weapons. Also, what trait is this, I am not aware of it?

Elven paladins work fine. Fine, I tell you. Use that dex bonus to wear slightly lighter armor and then stand firm in melee and watch everything miss you. I have a female elf paladin, 7th level, no archetypes that I'm playing now. Worships Iomedae and goes around with a +2 corrosive longsword and a +2 light steel shield that reflects all gaze attacks. She has +3 mithral chain mail and a +3 ring of protection. With dodge and shield focus, her AC is 31. Her flat footed is 26 and her touch is 18. Due to magic and an incredibly generous DM, I've managed to get her strength to a 26. Her other stats are as follows: 18 DEX, 12 CON, 14 INT, 13 WIS, and 16 CHA. She has weapon focus with the longsword, dodge, shield focus, and step up. LoH makes up for the low con. Swift action--3d6 hit points. She has a +18/+13 to hit with her longsword, which does 1d8 + 1d6 + 10 damage. Especially at higher levels, paladins are incredibly strong when it comes to having a well-rounded party. They have weak healing and good attacks. I play this character in a group that can have anywhere from 4 to 12 people in it. That's not including the DM. Two of the regulars (meaning two of the four that are always there)have cohorts so our party is, at its smallest, as follows: Sorcerer/dragon disciple (total character level 8, not sure how many levels in dragon disciple though, and I don't know the race), level eight human cavalier (order of the dragon) with a level six human fighter cohort, level seven human hospitaller paladin with a level five human cleric (one of her domains is healing, I forget the other) cohort, and me, the level seven elf paladin.

In my opinion, paladins are strong with pretty much any of the core rulebook races, and a lot of the stuff from the bestiaries, too. You want to play a standard sword & shield elf paladin? Go ahead, the role potential is great and the character holds up well in combat.

Remove Disease and Remove Curse now require caster level checks to overcome the disease. They are no longer automatically overcome.

That's why I love the good old paladin. Sixth level...oh, what's that, a disease...cure disease mercy...

I ended up arguing for over two hours about whether the monk should lose all her class abilities for joining a rebellion. There was an NPC Paladin a while back who asked the party not to execute prisoners after a battle, and that provoked another argument about why the Paladin should lose all class abilities for not executing all loyalists in view. There was another argument (started by the same people) about why the Paladin should lose all powers for not supporting the loyalists. The rogue starts a rules argument half the time anyone else succeeds on a save, skill check, or attack roll, and whenever he fails one. The barbarian is obsessed with smashing the sorcerer. The entire party is good aligned while acting in manners best described as either neutral or evil, and yet they start alignment arguments over NPC actions all the time.

In the, "Ex-monk," section of the monk class description, it says, and I quote, "A monk who becomes nonlawful cannot gain new levels as a monk but retains all monk abilities."

A paladin's code of conduct says NOTHING about law. She loses all class abilities etc etc if he/she ever commits and EVIL act. Paladins only become ex-paladins if they commit an EVIL act.

Now, rebellion is not really breaking the law, so much as rejecting it in favor of a new one. Paladins are lawful good, but if the law is evil, then most paladins (at least all of the ones I played--I always play paladins) will have a moral obligation to break and overthrow those laws.

Players should try looking up the rules they love so well. I myself am a bit of a rules lawyer at times, but I've learned that a good way to not let it slow down the game. A good way to do this is to suggest that they simply look things up when it's not their turn, then share it (politely) with the rest of the group when it's their turn again.

If you really want payback, killing them isn't the way to go. Punish them by making stuff extremely difficult, not rewarding them for success, taking their magic, etc. You could secretly pass the barbarian a magic item that reflects area of effect spells cast by the sorcerer. Let the rogue steal something shiny, then make it either an intelligent object that takes him/her over and bends the character to your will, or have it ground-zero fireball him right when he's trying to be sneaky. Send them against some vampires, level-drain the hell out of them, but let them get away somehow. If they ask you why you're tormenting them so, explain it to them.