|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does using the player's guides encourage meta-gaming? Is it better to have player's pick characters based on what they want to play rather than on what the Player's Guide tells them will be effective? I'm thinking that knowing that you're in a desert campaign [Legacy of Fire] might make your character choices warped, same thing goes with knowing that Carrion Crown will be jam packed with undead. Are the Player's Guides really the best starting place for the players? So I've been playing a rule, that I can't confirm in the Player's Rulebook, for like, forever. I picked up this rule from other players many many moons ago and haven't ever questioned it until a player asked me where in the rulebook it says this is possible.... I cast Lightning Bolt down a 10ft. wide corridor. I choose the corner of my square that runs down between the two rows of squares thus Bolting every square.
In the rulebook it does give examples of "line" attacks and none of them actually use this "getting two rows in one" tactic. Is that because I've had it wrong all this time, or can it be done? Hey, Do you, the DM's of planet Pathfinder, impose any penalties on your players for any reason? For example, if a player kept on changing his character, would you make them start at a lower level? Or with less starting cash? The problem with the above is that the knock on effects can potentially be bad for everyone - if the "tank" is a weakling, or has a useless weapon he could put the rest of the party in danger which doesn't seem fair. Other possible player issues would include tardiness, not showing up often enough, doing stupid things in the adventure - endangering others etc. So do you guys, and in what manner, penalise players for any reason? If you have a 30ft long corridor full of Gnolls [for example] and you cast one of the create pit spells in the middle....
Blue G's are where the Pit is. If all the Gnolls make their saves where do they all end up? Do they all shuffle along the corridor?, or fall regardless of save due to there being nowhere to go? I'm building an Evil [NE] Inquisitor character to join in a LoF campaign, with Lamashtu as his deity. I don't want to de-rail the campaign with silly in-party fighting about alignment so I'll probably hide my alignment from the other players. The problem is how to play an Evil dude. I don't know the whole LoF story [currently on book 2] but I get the impression that the overall campaign story isn't all that alignment biased so I should be good to go. My character is primarily adventuring for power and for the general enjoyment of killing stuff, because he is going to have a pretty low intelligence and isn't all that good with money, he'll probably give his cut of loot to one of the other party members to "look after". So, how do I play an Evil dude in a group of non-evil dudes without falling into the Evil-Stupid pit hole of wanting to kill other party members? So my Witch died and I'm going to play a level 3 Alchemist. I have 3k to spend but I'm not sure where to start. Nobzig Twiddlebits [Gnome Smokin' Alchemist 3]
I'm tempted to save as much as possible to save up for a Headband but I would also like to splash the lot now. Any ideas? Please cancel my Pathfinder Campaign Setting [Chronicles] subscription. Although there are a number of upcoming releases that I'll no doubt purchase, there are also too many "silly" books in this series, for example... Misfit Monsters, More Books of the Damned, Lost Cities, Rules of Fear, Dungeons etc etc. This line should focus on the Geography of the World, it's people and culture. Also, The Map folio's for the Adventure Paths should be included in the AP subscription not this one, imo. I thought Traits were suppose to be about half a Feat in value until I saw the "Adopted" Social trait which seems pretty Brok.., err overpowered [almost said it!] Why take a +1 trait bonus to Will saves when you can have... A Bonus Feat [assuming you're not human] Halfling Luck: +1 to all saves! Way more than a Feat Hardy: +2 racial bonus to saves vs. Poison, Spells, & Spell-like Abilities! [assuming you're not a Dwarf] Way more than a Feat Darkvision [assuming you're not a Dwarf or Half-Orc] Fantastic for certain builds, worth a Feat for those builds Elven Magic: +2 to overcome Spell Resistance! It's a whole Feat Am I missing something here or is this the only Trait? Back in 3.broken neutralize poison ended all poison affects. In PF we now have a better mechanic where caster level and severity of poison are taken into account. The problem to me is that now Poisons work round after round, you don't get the old 1 minute honeymoon period between failing your save and having to deal with it before you got hit a second time. Basically there was plenty of time to deal with the Poison. Baring in mind that we could be facing poisoning creatures from level 1 and neutralize poison isn't available to cast until level 7 for a Cleric [or 5 for a Druid], and that a scroll [if over-cast] would cost 700gp's. Is it time for neutralize poison to be looked at again? Do you prepare it? Do you think it's too high a level, especially now that you have to succeed on a caster level check and get to the victim pretty much immediately if you're going to bother at all. Or do you just ignore neutralize poison and just deal with the affects via lower level magic like restoration, lesser? Now I've had a chance to read through the book I have my favourite parts and wondered what others feel about the books contents? I really like the Alternate class features [was a big fan of Unearthed Arcana] as these give extra mileage to the existing classes with plenty of options to experiment with. Of the new Classes I really like the Oracle. It's a Favoured Soul done right, with many interesting class options. I think this class [with the Life Mystery] can easily replace the Cleric, and could do a pretty good job with any of the Mysteries. I also really like the Inquisitor, a divine Bard at last! Certainly a good 5th party member but I think this class could also take one of the first 4 "normal" roles to make an interesting change. Let's keep this thread for things you really like and not for things you don't like, please! [Think the Paizo team might like some positive feedback!] Caster level check: d20 + caster level + Ability mod vs. 15 + 2x spell level. Isn't that too easy? A couple of examples... 5th level caster with average +3 in his relevant ability is casting his highest level spell. d20 + 5 + 3 vs. 15 + 6
Chances are that the +3 is more likely to be +4 or +5 meaning you may only require an 11 without CC, 7 with. Let’s look at a meat and potatoes level 2 spell for this guy with a +4 ability mod.
Level 15 caster with +5 in his relevant ability is casting his highest level spell. d20 + 15 + 5 vs. 15 + 16
Chances are that ability mod will more likely be +6 or +7, so now he only needs 9 without CC, or 5 with. And the 5th level spell requires a 3 without, or 1 with. Anyhoo, you get the idea. I've noticed that in the games I run and play in, casting defensively almost never fails and that doesn't seem right somehow. Anyone else feels it's a bit too easy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
