The problem with True Primitive is that it's illiterate and cannot EVER learn to read even after multiclassing. This is a pretty huge disadvantage in PFS scenarios, and from a RP perspective, it doesn't make sense that someone who is so superstitious that they will never learn to read or write would join an organization that purpose is to chronicle knowledge.
I was going to say something similar. PFS assumes working for a knowledge-gathering not-so-secret society. I'm interested to hear about the character angle that fits into this campaign premise.
well foxglove thanked the heros after the goblin attack and said he may have a reward for them and he staying at the rusty dragon. but on the rusty dragon page in 389 and in chapter 1 i don't see the conversation
As others have said, go check out that specific forum. But...
Foxglove is certifiably insane at this point, so strange behavior probably won't be noticed by the PCs. Just wing it.
So many points! All of them way off the original topic, but still...
First if you want Paladins to be LG Fighters, I'd suggest you roll up an LG Fighter. Or if you don't like the flavor of a code bound Paladin, perhaps you need to design an archetype that removes the code and replaces it with something else. The game has accommodations for the 'this class is not for me' problem already.
Next, if your paladin only falls during elaborate scenarios involving mittens then you're probably worrying too much. It isn't likely to occur during an actual game, unless your GM is a jerk.
Also, consider how much fun it might be to have to make a mitten style choice that occurred naturally (instead of one contrived by a jerk GM). You'd certainly have a war story to tell afterwards. And even if you retire the fallen Paladin instead of redeeming it, would this be any worse than the character deaths endured by thousands of players every day? So you need a new character, the books are over there...
Again, there's an opportunity to play within the straight jacket and be proud of what you did. If that's not for you, it probably isn't fair to blame the class.
K177Y C47 wrote:
If you really want to be cute, after taking 2 levels of MT, go into Evangelist. This gives you some sped up boons (which are actually kinda nice) and most importantly, you can do some really rediculous things with MT and Evangelist (liek having level 9 cleric and wizard spells)
I had that thought as well. I'm assuming your Evangelist linked class is MT, yeah?
Full disclosure - my son is high-functioning autistic.
That said, this route was the first thing I thought of with these stats. It's sort of a more extreme take on Sheldon. He'd be just plain different, like born on a different planet with different customs and different 'normal'. He doesn't influence people well because he fundamentally does not 'get' human interaction on a very basic level. Maybe he had to be taught what an angry face looks like, for example. But his CHA is higher than that because he has learned to 'fake it' with his powerful intellect.
Definitely run it by the GM and group if you're considering it, but it might make for a very unique character concept.
I'll be sure to inform the players that this is what I've done. If things do go a little awry, I'd probably hold back if things get too difficult, or have another way to end the combat than just killing everyone. I wouldn't let a monster kill the whole party unless they really deserve it. ;)
Well, I only mentioned it because there's a Pathfinder playerbase that would 'flip the table' if they knew their GM was pulling punches. Not knowing whether your players buy into that it may or may not be necessary...
I'll join the minority in supporting the GM - and the other players. Let's look back a second:
the LG members of the party refuse to enter a locked building on the basis `we would be breaking the law'. (all brilliantly roleplayed by the way - these arnt Lawful Stupid players).
So I'll step on the soap box just a moment to tell my peers in this thread - stop judging the way others play. They seem to like it, and your 'go find another GM' advice just might ruin their fun. ::endsoapbox
OP, I agree with the suggestion they appeal to an outside authority, for two reasons:
1) If the GM permits it, he can, through the voice of the Paladin's church outrightly say so. "In this instance, your goddess demands you investigate!"
2) If the GM wants to deny it, he can use the voice of that same NPC to provide another avenue.
In short, pick a method that lets the GM speak in character, and he can guide you in game to the path he thinks will work and/or fit the story.
I agree with the 'let them run multiples' advice. Either characters of their own, or prominent NPCs. I'd suggest, though, a table rule where players have full control of their primary PC only, and that a table consensus can override control of a secondary character. That way if someone goes way off the rails, the group can rein them back in.
I'd advise you to spend some time thinking of tangents and unrelated plots. So you're starting in Varisia, Sandpoint I assume, and that could include a trip to Magnimar. Start getting an idea in your head of what that would look like now, and even flesh out some basic plot points for such a trip. That way when a player up and decides to go to town, you flip through your notes and/or mental file drawer and pull those ideas out.
Also, be prepared to 'file the serial numbers off'. Say they don't go to Magnimar, but some other city instead. Use as many of those same plot points as you can, just reskin them to fit the new city.
Anything you can think of around the area that might be even remotely related probably deserves a line in your notebook. And who knows, you might wind up inventing something you really like that you can reskin back into the main plot.
Finally, as new GM advice goes, don't be afraid to ask your players for mercy. E.g.
"Guys, I don't have anything planned for your idea, but it does sound really cool. I can have something prepared for next week, but can we stay on track tonight?" And if they say 'no' be prepared to bust out the Munchkin cards or do some other group activity.
You'll want to decide up front - either with your players' consent or just informing them of your decision - how you'll handle any missteps. Say, for example, the 3.5 adventure has magic loot that isn't published in any of the Pathfinder products. How do you intend to adjust? Can the character keep the item, and you'll adjust the background? Do you plan to replace the item with a legal one of the same GP value? Or if you miscalculate a monster's strength, are you going to pull punches or fudge die rolls?
A typical table trusts their GM to use discretion about these kinds of things, but they'll occur more often using converted material.
If you're open to using tables and good at vamping content, I'd argue that sanboxes are actually easier to run. An AP can present a lot of info to try and keep straight.
But if you're the sort who wants everything planned out and consistent, then you're looking to be overwhelmed by the sandbox.
Also, ask those same introspective type questions about your group.
If we can set aside the exact situation for a second, it may help to understand there are multiple 'flavors' of conducting a game. Understand and communicating this *may* solve your problem all by itself.
Starting, if you will, on the left of the spectrum, some GMs are 'clockwork gods', particularly in the old school style. This method involves setting the barest possible world in front of the players and having them interact with it. Each action the players makes has a consequence - sometimes major sometimes minor. This is the maximum 'player agency' style, where the world is genuinely an open book for them to write their story.
On the other end of the spectrum are railroaders. These GMs organize detailed and intricate plots for the players to discover, witness, and participate in, but not so much influence or change.
Now, since you're running an AP, you're likely a lot closer to the right hand of that spectrum than the left. Could be your player is not.
So, in that light I have three suggestions -
1) Ask the player to get on the railroad. It can be as easy as "Hey, Jim, I know you have cool ideas and stuff on how to make this unique, but RoTL is a MONSTER AP. If we are going to finish it this year, we need to stay focused and try to keep the plot moving forward, together."
2) Deploy illusionism. (This has already been suggested above.) If the encounter is supposed to take place at X, reskin it to Y. Player goes off in random direction, they just so happen to meet up with the NPC you wanted them to go see. Or find a clue, etc. They're still on the railroad even when they think they're derailing it.
3) Make them special. Write them into the middle of the story and keep them there.
This could be as easy as making them the target of the affection.
I haven't ran a Pathfinder-rules game in about four years or so, but we're picking it back up for a summer campaign. I'm familiar with the setting because I have been using it off and on - just under different rules.
So, Pathfinders, what sorts of things have I probably forgotten? Any sort of primer you could point me to? Common mistakes, misconceptions, that sort of thing?
I could see a specialist being mitigated a bit by simply being wrong about some of his facts. Talk with your GM about making your understanding begin as incomplete but get more accurate over time.
And if you trust him or her, have them roll for you behind a screen. That way they can lie to you about the result and you can run with it. "This doesn't make any sense but the walls seem to have WRAITH written on them over and over."
Something that I failed to realize when asking this question myself:
APs assume you start off as a nobody and approach max level over the course of a year of real-life play.
In that light it may not make sense. For example...
How many characters actually survive those odds?
It might make more sense to approach each AP as a separate commitment.
But that's what I'm saying: What Ragathiel does or does not permit is irrelevant. The morality of your actions is not based on Ragathiel's code, but on a centralized code of alignment.
Because the entire world falls within that centralized code, so should the gods. When they don't, it means their fiction doesn't match the world. It's like fire being wet. It is obviously possible within the realm of imagination, just not in the ruleset we are all assumed to use.
Easiest fixes are along the lines of:
Change that god's alignment
But what you're describing is a flaw with the fiction surrounding the god, and not a flaw in the system itself. It doesn't require new rules to fix it, only more world-consistent fiction.
I don't want to dive too far into the deep end here, but isn't the stated purpose of the Pathfinders to go out and plunder other cultures? Comparisons to the Victoria era explorers are pretty apt. The problem being, most of that behavior was pretty evil. They profited off the ancestral relics of the people they were exploiting. Could they not have found as much gold in the tombs of their own ancestors?
Star Trek offers us a view of a more likeable PFS, because they don't loot and have a non-interference policy. They are a lot closer to neutral than Pathfinders are, and they are pretty benevolent. Unless I am missing something.
I think the "bring Sandpoint to life" stuff is a bit overstated, if you know how to read your players. It seems you're aware, but if they are bored they are NOT forming positive associations with the people in Sandpoint. In fact if they found certain people annoying, they may wind up rooting for the bad guys.
Go for a light touch. Introduce your NPC in a few phrases, dangle out the hook if you will, and if they don't bit3 just keep going. Then, later, assume these encounters registered with the players by 'reminding' them. "Remember, he's that guy who really wanted to go boar hunting with you after you saved his dog."
Another game system has shown me the value of letting the players run the extras. If you're worried about immersion, have them take turns, pass them around, etc. Have them drop in and out of the party. Shelilu (sp) works well for this. Finally, kill the NPCs off in a horrible fashion for that "that could have been me" effect.
I think this was handled fairly. A GM has the gift/responsibility of running the game and this requires judgement calls. Players can do, as your player did, ask for their GM to be fair and discuss things when it doesn't seem this is the case.
So that all seems pretty healthy.
I do, however, see an incompatibility between how the two of you view social skill checks. You want them to 'nudge' NPCs along a path they're already on, while he wants the rolls to 'matter'. So I would definitely discuss it further, and would even go so far as to allow the player to tweak their character.
One last bit of advice, going forward make sure you try to say 'yes'. Pause, take a breath and think, "is there any circumstances where I could see this happening?" If one never comes, just say so and keep on keeping on...
On the level track vs counting XP, one subtlety here - there's not effectively a difference. On the one hand you can count points and level up when they would naturally, and on the other you can level up when they would have anyway - had they resolved all the encounters, etc.
But in both cases, if they go the distance they will be retirement age (level 18+) by the end.
So it's really the journey that matters.
If it ever did get out of hand, you might lean on your players to do a bit of roleplaying, too. If, for example, the wizard couldn't identify it, would the fighter know he rolled too low? Or would he probably just think, "hmm that must be tough to identify"?
Try and think of your characters as people, if that helps.
Food for thought.
None that I could see, and I do own both.
I use the hardback at the table when I am running the game.
I use the pdfs when I am mobile (e.g. at work) or when I just want to search for something. I have also extracted images from the pdfs for handouts, display on my tablet ("she looks like this"), and printing out the maps.
I didn't see where he said how many HD the lawyer had.