The black raven wrote:
I play and GM so I have to disagree with you here.
The problem arises when players think that they should know everything about anything that they fight. The game doesn't always work like. Sure they may have felt overwhelmed not knowing how many invisible creatures they were facing, but that's precisely the point. There are times players can brute force bust faces and times when they have to be more tactical and know when to back off and come back another day to play.
When I GM I tell my players up front that there are areas in the world where they can get TPK'd pretty easily such as them knowing the location of an ancient red dragon that has been on a rampage. They can choose to try their luck at any time, but they know they will die unless they are prepared.
The problem here is that with this level of encounter players know enough about the world to be more prepared to face invisible foes. The fault does not lie with the GM and the game he has prepared, it moves into the players' corner and them going in with enough spells or not even having something as simple flour to toss out on the ground.
Read the first couple of posts, but my 2 coppers is that your player needs to grow up. That's a very immature way of looking at this encounter. Nobody died, it wasn't a TPK and just because he wasn't the star of the show the first time around doesn't make it an unfair encounter. You played it perfectly with your hit and run tactics against a party that SHOULD have been better prepared for invisible creatures, especially at their level.
Quoted for absolute truth. I could not have said it any better.
Actually with the Noble Scion PrC you get:
Greater Leadership (Ex)
At 2nd level, a noble scion gains the Leadership feat as a bonus feat. He can recruit a cohort up to one level lower than himself. At 10th level, he can recruit a cohort of the same level as himself.
At 7th level, a noble scion gains a faithful NPC servitor of the same level as his cohort granted by the Leadership feat. This servitor can only have levels in NPC classes and comes equipped with gear appropriate for a character 1 level lower than the servitor's actual level. The servitor does not follow the noble scion as would a cohort or follower, but instead can run various errands for his master while the noble scion is adventuring, such as delivering messages or maintaining the scion's manor in his stead.
What I'd say is that he has a slight green or grey tint to his skin naturally, maybe his ears are a little bit pointed and he's got a bigger build than a normal human. The reason to take the feat is to DISGUISE himself as a full human by using make-up, hats, and clothing to hide that he's a half-orc. Otherwise there is definitely something that others recognize in him that tips them off to his mixed heritage.
Spastic Puma wrote:
I haven't read though the entire thread, but I still want to give my 2 coppers here.
The problem here isn't the "OP MONK" it's your thinking that he's OP. Now before you get offended let me explain why I say this.
First off the only thing this PC is good for is being a punching bag, he is all bark without any bite whatsoever. You as the GM need to think up other things that will challenge him. Examples are things like introducing high AC minions into the game that do static damage and only have 1 hit point, have them run around keeping the monk occupied while the other members of the party deal with the real threats. Ignore him completely as he doesn't have any real power behind his hits so everyone will just sit there and laugh at him as he flails about and spins about like a ballerina. Use skill challenges that work against his weaker areas that he isn't trained in, use snipers and sharp shooters to target him from afar. Go after his Touch AC instead of his normal AC, things that deny his dexterity bonus and make him flat footed. Use invisible foes.
The point is, YOU need to think outside the box here my friend. You are the one in control of the game world and it is up to you to become a better GM and challenge your players. This is a three dimensional game and the more you think outside the stat blocks the better it will be fore everyone who plays.
I just backed this project on KS called Map Flats and thought I'd share with my fellow RPG enthusiasts. It ends at 12:51 pm PST today (12/4/13) so less than an hour when I'm posting this, but for $60 you get over 40 double-sided pre-printed vinyl maps like the chessex battle mats we all use and are wet-erase.
To each their own I say. Ultimately there is Rule 0 where the GM can make any call that they want at their table. My main point is more that there isn't really a need to nerf the casters in that manner, there are plenty of other options available to someone who understands the mechanics of the game and has a good imagination.
I'd allow it just like the GM in your game. There is nothing wrong with worshiping more than 1 god in Pathfinder. Heck even the ancient Greeks and Romans worshiped more than 1 god.
The player doesn't get any extra powers or unfair advantage for doing so. Leave him alone, you are another player and the GM has already ruled on it. In your games that you run you make the decisions, but in this instance you need to let it slide.
@Nathanael - I wouldn't say so. You made good, sound, and tactical decisions regarding the cohort. You didn't make her your slave to sit around and make you things, you took her along on expeditions and you relied upon her (and her crew) to get you safely from point A to point B on the ship where you and your fellow PCs may have failed.
I think of the cohort as being a follower of the PC, I as the GM, will pick a random follower for the PC and I will assign half of feats that they will find useful. The Player can then assign the other half of the feats however they want whether it's item creation or otherwise.
I do not allow the PC to put the cohort on the sidelines to be a crafting machine only, the cohort didn't join the PC to be their slave, they joined to follow that PC into battle and earn some fame of their own.
I role-play as the cohort, meaning that they will follow the PC wherever, but they DO have a mind of their own and won't be the sacrificial lamb for no reason whatsoever.
The PC can control them in battle and roll for them, but again I'm not going to allow them to say something like, "I'm leaving the cohort to take on that ancient red dragon we stumbled upon while me and the others run off..."
The reasons are as you stated, if you allow a PC to dictate everything for a cohort they will abuse it, by doing it my way they don't get to abuse that poor cohort and make them into their own personal item creation slave.
What did I walk into? Guess maybe I should've read a little of the thread lol.
People get so upset at each other here.
How about this folks: take a step back, breathe, realize that your opinion isn't the only right one, respect the other posters and just agree to disagree.
Fighting here makes no sense, people will troll just to troll and laugh at you for getting upset. You will never ever play at a table with the others, each table is different and each table has their own ways of doing things that someone else on the interwebs will find abhorrent. By the time a thread gets this long, your arguments have gone around and around and around in circles and you are now just re-re-re-repeating yourselves.
I'm not going to read through this whole thread to see if my opinion has been stated by others, but I do want to put in my 2 coppers.
The problem with most of these games is the higher the level the longer the combat takes so you see people wanting to speed up combat by optimizing their characters to deal more damage faster and be able to soak up damage that comes at them. Combat is a huge part of the game.
Personally, I like a good balance between combat optimization, skill optimization, and role playing. The game shouldn't just be about 1 thing, it should be about all of them as they all play a part in my enjoyment.
I don't like people who optimize to the point of being 1-trick ponies or who tread in the grey areas to exploit loopholes, but I respect people who make a survivable character.
Each group/table has different opinions on what is fun to play and what is badwrongfun. If you have a problem with the over optimization you need to talk to your fellow players/GM's about it. Open communication is key to everyone having fun and most people are willing to negotiate and compromise so that everyone does enjoy themselves. If you have a group that doesn't want to work with you, then my suggestion is to either stop complaining and keep playing or move on to another group that enjoys your style of play.
I posted a very similar thread a while back (probably 3+ months ago now) where I was asking people what they thought of a house-rule of allowing more than just the LG Paladin and CE Anti-Paladin.
The reason for me was that I'm a fan of Paladins and Anti-Paladins, I feel that the two alignments are way too restrictive and that they get their powers from the divine. Basically if you look at the Paizo books such as Faiths of Purity and Faiths of Corruption you will see all sorts of dogma and codes that the followers of specific deities should adhere to so that they keep their paladin powers and follow their paths.
For example a LG paladin doesn't get his powers from following the laws of the land made by man, he gets his powers from the divine being he follows and if his god's interests are different from those of mortal man, the paladin should always take the road that his god would approve of.
My caveats for my players were that they needed to follow a god that is represented in the books and read up on their codes/dogma, that way they are a true paladin of said deity.
I've felt the same way as you do Crank on many occasions prior to my current group. My advice is that if your friends are not really interested in actually playing the game then you do as you did and start playing instead, but I feel you'll still be frustrated in the end as their attitudes and habits at the table will continue no matter who is GM'ing the game. You will end up being the only one who plays and actually gets into the game with the new GM.
I'd really consider paring down the group to the people who actually want to play and find a few others to come join a more serious group whether it's by finding some new players through other people you know, at a FLGS, or even online. I've had great success finding people online to come join my group.
I've not played a tiefling in any game yet as a PC, but I've run games with them in and have no qualms. They are an interesting and fun race to me. I'm a very liberal GM when it comes to races in my games so I don't say any race is a bad race to have in and I hardly ever (if ever) say no when someone wants to play a new character concept. The whole point of this hobby is to have fun and if having fun is playing a Tiefling or a Kitsune, I'm all for it.
As I said, I don't think it's OP, it's just less fun. A boss using it is a fun possibly but not necessarily a challenging encounter, but if it's common, it takes the fun out of feat trees like vital strike. Giving an instant "+20 on Ac, natural 20 not autohit" on one attack per round still gives you the same effect, but still renders you defenseless against truly epic characters. Or add your attack bonus to ac or twice your level or whatever high number. Any effect like this should in my opinion allow for a d20.
The problem with this is that you are thinking of only having a 1-hit (only in melee) attack. There are many many many ways to get around this as a GM. Think outside the box. It only deflects 1 attack per round, YOU know this as a GM. Toss a couple of mooks at him, delay with your big bad, he deflects, you vital strike and bam! He can't deflect it anymore.
I would be very sad if I got a true strike and a fortune hex on my Greater Vital strike, I throw a natural twenty for 60+ attack roll, and then the potential crit just fizzles because of the melee attack immunity of this lvl 5 monk. It does not make sense to me, and I don't think it fits the style of the pathfinder system, I think it's broken, but for most general use not over powered.
Again, ways around this. You don't play your BBEG as stupid automatons, they got to be high level big bads for a reason, they know tactics. They will stand back and see the strengths/weaknesses of their foes and react accordingly. Even a level 5 bandit leader would have a few guys following him. He will put them in danger before he goes in and he will study his foes. He sees this monk deflecting attacks and attacking he will flank and wait until someone has attacked then hit. Simple simple simple.
People tend to over-think a lot of the things in the game. I try to keep is simple and move on. I don't whine or moan over something that is different, I don't complain something is OP because nothing is really OP if you think about it, just work with what you have, play smart and have fun.
The earliest even a monk can get the Crane Style feat Crane Wing to just deflect is level 5 as a monk or BAB +5. The earliest you can get Crane Riposte is level 7. This is the one that deflects and allows for an attack.
SMDH :/ I will never understand the people in these forums whining over every little thing and not even trying to think of other things that can overcome what they perceive as OP.
I like looking up different languages, particularly Latin. For this I'd recommend you use Letifera which translates from Latin to English as "Lady Death"
The truth of the matter of people thinking a single melee class feat or ability being OP is that they really don't understand the mechanics of the game. There are plenty of ways to skin a cat so to speak and something like Crane Style being unbalanced is laughable at best and outright being totally clueless at worst.
It's funny because there are so many people on these forums who immerse themselves in the rules and do know the truth of this. We get too many trolls on the forums and too many people who are too proud to admit when they are wrong that they hang on and supply unsound arguments to the contrary even though 99% of the others agree they are wrong.
Definitely NOT OP. This doesn't make them hit harder or kill better than a PC optimized to do so. So what if they can deflect an attack and hit for a 1d10+7 one time per round? That's child's play dude.
You think that's strong? Look at a dazing assault barbarian at level 12-13 who has the Come and Get Me rage power with combat reflexes. THAT is a much more powerful build which some could genuinely call OP.
Now compare any melee class vs a spellcaster at higher levels. You think that one deflect with an immediate piddly 1d10+10 even compares to the the dreaded 20d6 fireball, disintegrate, or power-word kill?
I always find it soo funny what people find OP in this game, especially when you have god-wizards out there and someone complains about a lowly monk being OP. Nope, they are actually underpowered when compared to some of the other classes out there. Period.
Okay hold on here, @Dread Knight, you are asserting...
Because of the NEA of the Dhampir, they are HARMED in situations where the good cleric channels positive energy to HEAL even though the cleric has targeted LIVING creatures to heal rather than choosing UNDEAD creatures (like the Dhamphir with their NEA) to HARM?
IF that's what you are saying, you are wrong. If I'm misunderstanding you, I apologize.
Channeling Scourge only increases your ability to Harm, not to heal.
So the question here is: What are you channeling? Negative or Positive Energy?
If you are channeling negative energy, you are going to be able to harm the living an additional amount because you count your Inquisitor levels for channeling.
If you are channeling positive energy (I really hope you aren't if you are a dhampir), then you are adding your levels of inquisitor to HARM undead (which would mean you are going to harm yourself here).
This doesn't help you with healing as the feat only says "harm".
Dread Knight wrote:
Do they have Negative Energy Affinity? If not then you're correct they aren't harmed by positive energy to heal but if they do based on the FAQ the intent doesn't matter it's automatic negative heals and positive harms.
It all comes down to this:
Is the cleric healing OR harming with his channeling of positive energy?
Healing - He is targeting the living in the group and channeling to HEAL them, he has picked "living" in the "living OR undead" part.
Harming - He is targeting the undead in the group and channeling to HARM them, he has picked "undead" in the "living OR undead" part.
So in or out of combat, the cleric can only heal his living friends OR harm the undead (friend or foe), not both at the same time. He has picked a target group in the living OR undead.
This right here is 100% correct. Pretend the dhamphir is just a friendly undead in your party for the purposes of what you want to do. You will never be able to heal them with your positive energy, only harm if they get out of line :P
1) Your dhampir is considered an undead for purposes of positive/negative energy and they have the negative energy affinity. We have that figured out right? Harmed by positive healed by negative.
2) The heal/harm are one in the same as the living/undead, you HEAL LIVING with Positive OR you HARM UNDEAD with Positive.
Dread Knight wrote:
Wrong, plain and simple.
When you play and your cleric channels positive energy to heal the party who is completely surrounded by undead do the undead ALSO take damage?
No, this is an OR situation. The cleric can channel positive energy to heal OR harm. Not BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.
Right here: Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot radius centered on the cleric. See the "or" and "one type"? This is part of the RAW, you do NOT get both at the same time.
Yes, it's the wording. You can DO only 1 at a time, so you pick to heal OR harm with your positive energy. So as a good cleric you can't heal your dhampir member, but as an evil cleric you could since they can channel negative to heal undead and negative to harm the living, neutral must choose a side whether to channel positive or negative.
1) You channel negative energy to HEAL your dhampir, this will NOT harm your party of living creatures.
2) If you channel positive to HEAL your party, your dhampir is NOT effected whatsoever.
Look at the previous post where I put the channel energy spoiler in.
Let me make even more simple with a scenario.
I'm a cleric, I decide that my party needs to be healed with positive energy one of the party is a dhampir, but we are facing undead that are pounding on most of the party who are normal humans/elves/dwarves.
I channel to heal, this heals all of the living, but does NOT harm the dead or the dhampir.
Subsequently, I channel to HARM the undead in the area using my positive energy, this harms ALL the undead AND the dhampir, but it does not harm the living in the party.
So yes, it does matter what you want to do. You have 2 options whenever you channel, you can channel to harm or to heal. You cannot do BOTH at the same time.
Channel Energy (Su):
Regardless of alignment, any cleric can release a wave of energy by channeling the power of her faith through her holy (or unholy) symbol. This energy can be used to cause or heal damage, depending on the type of energy channeled and the creatures targeted.
A good cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships a good deity) channels positive energy and can choose to deal damage to undead creatures or to heal living creatures. An evil cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships an evil deity) channels negative energy and can choose to deal damage to living creatures or to heal undead creatures. A neutral cleric of a neutral deity (or one who is not devoted to a particular deity) must choose whether she channels positive or negative energy. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed. This decision also determines whether the cleric can cast spontaneous cure or inflict spells (see spontaneous casting).
Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot radius centered on the cleric. The amount of damage dealt or healed is equal to 1d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage for every two cleric levels beyond 1st (2d6 at 3rd, 3d6 at 5th, and so on). Creatures that take damage from channeled energy receive a Will save to halve the damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the cleric's level + the cleric's Charisma modifier. Creatures healed by channel energy cannot exceed their maximum hit point total—all excess healing is lost. A cleric may channel energy a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Charisma modifier. This is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. A cleric can choose whether or not to include herself in this effect.
A cleric must be able to present her holy symbol to use this ability.
Inside the spoiler, bold emphasis mine, notice there are numerous places where it says "OR" and "can choose". The end.
Okay let me make this simple:
1) Channel negative to heal (undead or dhamphir because of their racial trait) - Negative Energy Affinity: Dhampires are alive, but are healed by negative energy and harmed by positive energy, as if they were an undead creature.
2) So when someone channels negative to heal, you and any other undead are healed by the negative, but NO ONE is harmed.
3) When someone channels positive energy to heal, you and any other undead are NOT healed and are NOT harmed.
4) When someone channels negative energy to harm, only the living are harmed and you are not harmed or healed.
5) When someone channels positive energy to harm, only undead and you are harmed, but the living are not harmed or healed.
Pretty simple, it is based on the type of energy and what the person channeling is trying to do. Of course with different feats that can exclude you and only target enemies of the party things will change, but these are the default rules.
The monk class description tells you exactly what happens if you turn non-lawful. You lose nothing except the ability to gain more monk levels.
I see that now in the Monk description and RAW if he changes alignment he could go into a barbarian class, but it's still pretty cheesy to me and changing of alignment in PFS is up to the GM to decide on how to go about it whether they are using the Ultimate Campaign rules or not.
In a home game, I'd be much more strict on this and would actually disallow a monk from becoming a barbarian and keeping the class abilities unless there was really good story to go along with the why/how, it wouldn't be up to that player to arbitrarily insert the cheese into my game.
Monks (except for the one archetype) must be Any Lawful per RAW, I'd say that he wouldn't be able to do his monk stuff if he was unlawful just like if he was a barbarian who went into monk instead and became lawful he wouldn't be able to rage or use rage powers. To me, the build is utter cheese and there are some real easy ways to make this a viable build and follow RAI/RAW while doing so. The ways could also make it a more powerful character to play and still get the flavor that the OP wants.
The Crane Stance feat tree sounds awesome! I had not read about them until I heard them mentioned in this thread. After reading what they do, I have convinced myself that my next character MUST be a Monk to make use of these feats!
You do NOT have to be a monk to use or qualify for the Crane Style feats. You just need the Improved Unarmed Strike, Dodge, and BAB +2.
Sure monks pre-qualify for it, but you could just as easily be an unarmed fighter.
Not a big fan of that many dips to be honest, they make for a much weaker character in the end. I think 1 or 2 classes should be it with a 1-2 level dip in what you want for flavor or special ability, the rest for what class you truly want to be.
Now as far as the build goes I don't think it's legal with your barbarian(s) and monk(s). Barbarians need to be any non-lawful to keep their rage powers and monks need to be any lawful for their abilities (except for the Martial Artist Monk Archetype which can be any alignment).
Maybe try for something along the lines of an alchemist/barbarian/martial artist?
@Willamoak - I hope you find those kind of players as well. My group has been together for a bit over two years now and we've been lucky that we have had quite a bit of turnover due to some people moving away, but we always seem to find another really good and mature player to take their place.
Anyhow, I highly recommend this method to at least try out and see if your group can handle it. With great power comes great responsibility.
Yep, it takes a group of players who are mature enough to understand it's not about the power of levels, I have a couple players that will argue against leveling up at all for 3-4 sessions at a time so I never really worry about them wanting to level up every session. It gives them the power, removes some bookkeeping on my end, and allows everyone a chance to have fun w/o worrying about killing X amount of kobolds or having to even do too much combat if they rather roleplay more often.
Matt Thomason wrote:
It really keeps things interesting I think. It puts the ball in the players' court to decide what they want to do. All I do is tweak the encounters and treasure at that point without having to worry about how to award XP or when "I" think it's time to level them up. Really, it comes down to them having fun and if my players have fun leveling fast that's up to them or if they rather take a long leisurely stroll through a few levels, that's perfectly fine as well. Less stress for me!
My player seem to be enjoying it. A tied vote of 3-3 fails and they stay their current level, everyone has equal voting and they will discuss whether they think they "deserve it" or not. It makes me sit back and chuckle a little bit as they argue the merits of leveling up or staying their current level for another session.
I started doing something more player-centric for experience in my games. I let the PLAYERS decide when they want to level up. I told them they vote at the end of each session and the majority wins out so with 6 players they need at least 4 voting for the level up.
I know some people think this might be silly, but hear me out. My players are all very mature and not power-gamers in any sense of the word so they usually level themselves up every 2-4 sessions. We game 2x/month for 6 hours each session so they level up every month to month and a half and I don't have to keep track of any experience points or tell people that they are missing xp if they miss a session.
To me it's all the same, I can run a level 1 campaign for 10 weeks or run a fast paced campaign that hits level 10 in 10 weeks, it's no more work for me other than to make sure the CR of the encounters is set up correctly for the group.