wraithstrike's page

Ashiel wrote:

Incense of Asswhupping

Okay, so I'm sure by now, anyone who hasn't bothered to check is wondering what this incense of meditation is all about. Well my friends, it's a special wondrous item only allowed to divine casters. When the candle is burnt while you prepare your spells, all of your spells are maximized for free (no spell level increase). It's expensive though, costing 2,450 gp to create yourself. Personally, I think it's entirely worth it; especially if your party is willing to chip in. It affects all spells, so it maximizes any healing, summons, and/or blasting spells you use. If your entire party chips in (about 500 gp each, per adventure), you can burn one of these once per adventure at higher levels and rock socks with your auto-50 damage dazing lightning bolts.

Where can this be found, my GM dosent alow 3pp

It is in the core rulebook.

Is the player looking for the powers or is it just a fluff thing?

Using other people's souls is still a bad thing in D&D/Pathfinder.

Pinpointing a target only tells you what square they are in. What I would do to prevent metagaming is to have you roll the dice twice even if you swung into the wrong square. Even better I would roll behind the screen for you.

You can always make an attack roll on your turn, but there is no guarantee you are swinging at the correct area.

How would you handle boss fights? Would you be ok with one spell basically ending an encounter, even at high levels?

Most of this thread seems to be people telling each other "You're playing this game wrong". :-/

I'll refrain from adding my own version of it.

Not really. We are just giving different scenarios when X might be better than Y.

Killing a downed PC is an example. It is not right or wrong. It just depends on group playstyle. Does the group enjoy leniency or what is tactical. I have seen players get upset for being spared, and I have seen players get upset for not being spared.

If you are asking for advice I would say no. Some things are not meant for players even if you penalize them with levels.

Another note on killing a downed PC.

How many times have you seen a movie where a character falls and is about to be killed by the bad guy/monster/whatever, only to have the hero jump in front of that character to defend them?

Now, how often did the bad guy run around the hero and kill the downed character anyway just so they don't get back up?

I'm betting not very often (maybe in some of the darker movies).

Now, the Big Bad Evil Guy might be willing to sacrifice some minions to kill a PC or two, but, unless they are mindless or insanely fanatic, the minions will not be so willing to make that ultimate sacrifice.

In my games when the PCs are dealing with mindless/fanatic opponents they will pretty much know that in advance and protect downed companions that much harder. They are heroes after all, they are not going to just let their companions die because they can always get a replacement.

I think PC's would protect a downed ally, but if someone is going for a coup de grace normally the downed PC has been separated.

I also think that if one NPC is fighting two PC's at once he will take out the standing PC before he tries to finish the one on the ground.

Now if he is right beside a downed PC, and is not being threatened then killing that PC if a healer is in the party is not a bad idea, tactically speaking.

On hitting a downed character:
In my mind NPCs that waste time killing a character that is already down is meta-gaming. I play my NPCs with the intention of living through the combat. They know that if they win they can kill anybody that is already down at their leisure. Why waste a round killing someone that is no threat?

I think it is metagaming not to kill them, especially if the party has someone one can bring them back into the fight. If you go ahead and kill him the threat is completely neutralized. I know that when I use clerics as NPC's they often get targeted first for that very seem reason.

edit: Killing the cleric is also a good tactic. I often don't do it for the sake of fun, but it has been known to happen. :)

Removing negative conditions...

My main reason to have a cleric or other healer around. Being cursed or blinded is not cool at call.

wraithstrike wrote:

1. Nobody is saying never ever heal your buddy and/or let them die. That is ridiculous.

2. Nobody is saying you will never ever have to heal.
....

I'm not sure I saw the thread you are coming from, but some people are saying exactly that.

I have been told on these boards that I should:

Make my cleric or oracle a negative channeler so that no one can expect me to channel to heal them or to sacrifice a spell to heal them. If they can't survive until after the fight where someone can burn part of a CLW to bring them back up then they did it wrong.

Never build a life oracle because it will be a burden on the rest of the party.

Refuse to heal PC's until the other players learn better tactics.

Never need to heal in combat since if it seems like it was needed you are not playing right.

That was just 4 examples I could find quickly on my focus list. I think it is great, that most of you are not taking that absolute of a stance. But unfortunately some people are taking an absolute stance. And it is sometimes a bit difficult to tell which one is currently giving 'advice' on a build or situation.

That is different that what I was talking about, and people have a habit of speaking in absolutes as if the dice are always on their side.

As for the "Refuse to heal PC's until the other players learn better tactics." comment, I would need to see it in context.

As for the "Never need to heal in combat since if it seems like it was needed you are not playing right." I would call that poster out as lying or misusing an absolute. The only other option is a fudging GM.

The first poster just seems irritated. His group probably does silly things in combat because they know he will heal them. I would not heal them either, but I would not make a negative channeler as an excuse.

The following post is from another poster with a similar issue.

This is a difficult one without theoretically shafting the party, but I had a similar issue pre-Pathfinder. The cleric eventually snapped at the party and insulted their intelligence in the process - "I'm a warrior of my god, not a magical bandaid! I'm capable of tending to wounds after battles, or during in the case of extreme injuries, but I'm not running a nursery for children playing with knives! Sharpen your wits and stop leaving yourselves so open to attack, before my god decides you're not worth healing anymore..."

If a GM wants to nerf anything there is not much that can be done, but most GM's are fair.
I use Charm spells to get someone to not attack me.
I use dominate spells to get someone to attack to party, well depending on the situation anyway. If the bad guy know the PC's are very close he might just tell the PC to do <insert random task>?

Enchantment spells and necromancy spells often have monster that are flat out immune to them or the monsters have high will and fort saves because those 2 schools can end encounters, and that makes for anticlimactic boss fights. That is why I never really use them as a PC.

Enchantment is so restricted as a way to counter the power it has if it works. Dominate spells take an ally from the other team, and give you one. IIRC it last for days.

If you are opposed to him trying to kill your character then you should not do it since you already knew what his stance was.

I'm of the mind that if players are not healing in battle then the battle is too easy.

I enjoy healing in combat as a player and I enjoy pushing hard enough on players when GM'ing that they need to heal in combat. Frequent combat healing just adds a level of challenge and excitment to encounters.

I like hard battles too, but at the same time I hate to go down so I am more likely to build much more optimized characters. Yeah I know you can't win a weapons war with the GM, but I still get to increase my chances to live.

I generally mix it up though. Too many hard or easy battles, and people get bored or frustrated. <---I know this does not apply to everyone, but it does apply to a lot of people.

It is one of those things that varies by group. I don't see much difference than being killed when I am down, or taking a crit from a scythe when and dying. Many players however would feel resentful if they were killed when they were on the ground.

wraithstrike wrote:

The general rules says the ability in replaced. It need not be mentioned in the specific text. When it is mentioned, it is only a friendly reminder.

Quote:

A character who takes an alternate class feature does not count as having the class feature that was replaced when meeting any requirements or prerequisites.

Since extra hex requires the hex ability to be there that feat could not be taken.

Extra hex requires the hex ability. Having a hex requires the hex ability. Having the hex ability does not require having a hex.

The point still stands, that class features being replaced is a general rule and need not be repeated for every replacement.

I did use a bad example though. :)

If an archetype were to say it replaced Oracle's first revelation that does not mean all revelations are lost.<---I get your point.

I would take power attack. Lunge is more situational because you only get the extra reach when it is your turn, and if monsters have reach it can be negated.

As for improved iron will, that depends on your GM much like Lunge does.

I try not to waste spells. Casting for the sake of casting is not a good idea IMHO. You never know what is around the corner, and running into the boss* fight low on ammo/spells is not something I like to experience.

*or any other situation where I really need to cast a spell.

wraithstrike wrote:

Ahorsewithnoname wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

2. Most encounters will be APL=CR. Those fights are supposed to be easy. Even APL+1 fights are not that much harder and you can get by without healing mid-combat in most games.

Not that your point is invalid but I don't believe APL=CR should make for easy fights. I agree that a lot of the time combat can be ended with little healing to no healing during combat.

Difficulty....Challenge Rating Equals
Easy..............APL –1
Average........APL
Challenging...APL +1
Hard..............APL +2
Epic...............APL +3

That applies for average players and up to a certain level. As you level up you can take on APL +4 or higher as boss fights. With optimized players APL=CR is an easy fight, but for the sake of this discussion I guess I should assume average. So by the chart an APL+1 might require some sort of in combat healing.

It also depends a lot on how the encounter is designed. A AP+4 encounter of CR-1 foes is very different then a single APL+4 encounter of a single monster or of 1 CR+2 and and some =CR. This affects healing requirements quite a bit (along with monster type).

Big monsters are more likely to burst and require you to need big heals immediately or try to burst the enemy down, lower level heals are practically worthless.
Mobs of smaller monsters are more likely to widdle you down, so maintence healing is a decent strategy while your teammates reduce the enemy numbers. In this case, I prioritize CC avoidence early and heals come in the middle of the fight to reduce criticality in the later fight. A few well timed heals can really take the edge off the end of the fight.

Also, if your GM likes to chain fights together, combat healing can be an important factor. THere may not be an out of combat time to cast those spells. I've had GMs use enemy perception checks to cause the entire dungeon to respond to an alarm, causing a rolling fight of everything in the dungeon in the first few...

I agree that a fight against one monster is different than fighting several monsters with the same CR. If the multiple monsters are of a lower CR then a blasting spell is going to be useful. If it is one monster then buffing the front liners and/or debuffing the one monster is a good idea.

PS: Battlefield control also take care of enemies that try to swarm the
party

The general rules says the ability in replaced. It need not be mentioned in the specific text. When it is mentioned, it is only a friendly reminder.

A character who takes an alternate class feature does not count as having the class feature that was replaced when meeting any requirements or prerequisites.

Since extra hex requires the hex ability to be there that feat could not be taken.

wraithstrike wrote:

He does not have the ability to cast 1st level spells until he gets to level 4.

By your ruling I could apply for a PrC requiring me to be able to cast 2nd level spells because I will actually be able to do so one day if I live long enough.

Rangers have "-" 2nd level spells per day at 4th level. That means that they have NO 2nd-level spellcasting feature. At the same level, rangers are listed as having "0" 1st level spells per day. This means that they have spellcasting ability, they just don't gain any spells from their class level. It is the same with the witch and the archetype being discussed. A witch normally starts at 1st level with "1" hex. The archetype replace the first hex she gains. 1 - 1 = 0. A witch with the archetype starts at 1st level with "0" hexes. That means she still has the class feature, she just doesn't have an automatic hex. 1 - 1 != "-".

If the archetype said that she gained her hex class feature at 2nd level instead of 1st, that would be a whole nother story (see my discussion of druids and wild shape, above).

They don't get that 0 until level 4.

Before that it is a -

0's and -'s are not the same thing.

wraithstrike wrote:

With that said the NPC's follow the same rules as the PC's. :)

That is one rule I never ever have subscribed to no matter what game I GM.

One of the ways that many of my Big Bad Protagonists get to be Big Bad Protagonists are the access to Dark Powers beyond the ken of normal mortal, secret blood pacts, the whims of fate paying attention to a shouted oath... etc. Yes this means that sometimes NPC's DO break a rule.... or three.

That doesn't make my games unfair. It keeps players from thinking they know all the answers because they have the same access to the rules I do.

I understand that but when players try to cheese rules I remind them that the rules work both ways. They normally stop advocating silly rules interpretations.

I am not saying the NPC Lich actually has to roll spellcraft checks to make plot device X either. I just say he has it, and that is it.

In short my point was that generally speaking the NPC's get the same advantages the PC's do. If being dead does not matter to PC's then it won't matter to NPC's either.

wraithstrike wrote:

2. Most encounters will be APL=CR. Those fights are supposed to be easy. Even APL+1 fights are not that much harder and you can get by without healing mid-combat in most games.

Not that your point is invalid but I don't believe APL=CR should make for easy fights. I agree that a lot of the time combat can be ended with little healing to no healing during combat.

Difficulty....Challenge Rating Equals
Easy..............APL –1
Average........APL
Challenging...APL +1
Hard..............APL +2
Epic...............APL +3

That applies for average players and up to a certain level. As you level up you can take on APL +4 or higher as boss fights. With optimized players APL=CR is an easy fight, but for the sake of this discussion I guess I should assume average. So by the chart an APL+1 might require some sort of in combat healing.

Wraithstrike:

Definitely. I want to be clear that I'm not accusing you of anything, either. In fact, I'd originally posted because I'd hoped you'd nudge a bit on the language, too--more in terms of more forwardly setting an example for others to follow.

Am I making sense, here? I think language is part of the issue, different mindsets aside.

It took me a while, myself, to see beyond it and realize: oh, that person really /is/ trying to be helpful. It's just coming across...yeah. Perhaps not as intended? :)

Yet, I'll also be one of the first to admit that the guy with 4 hp charging to the fore really frustrates me, too.

No harm intended. I hope it wasn't taken that way. We're really on similar sides, here, and I appreciate you putting together this thread.

I wasn't offended. I just wanted to be clear. :)

wraithstrike wrote:

DeathSpot wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

1. It might not be your GM'ing, but how your group plays.

2. Most encounters will be APL=CR. Those fights are supposed to be easy. Even APL+1 fights are not that much harder and you can get by without healing mid-combat in most games.

Heh. My players are pretty good at optimization. Not perfect, mind...but pretty good. Gonna be fun to see how they do against the hordes of undead they're about to fight, considering that the first real fight they've had killed one of them...and it was an APL-1 encounter.

How did one of them die to an APL-1 encounter?

The party is a large group of 8th and 9th level characters, most of whom have cohorts. There were 9 total characters in the fight; five PCs and four cohorts. The combat was against a CR9 (witchfire) and some little stuff (a CR 3 sleletal champion and 4 CR 1/2 sleleton archers). The witchfire hit the 9th level ranger with it's 8d6 fire attack three times; with the ranger failing the first save (thus becoming vulnerable to fire and taking more damage on the second and third attacks. The equivalent was 32d6 of fire damage, and he never asked for healing (despite there being four or five other PCs/cohorts who could've healed him).

I see. I would put that under poor tactics.

I don't know if you allow players to say "I have X hit points" left, but even if not the ranger could have said, "heal me".

PS:I used a witchfire before with some other monster that uses fire. They are really good for their CR. :)

wraithstrike wrote:

...nobody is advocating allowing a PC to die...

I am!

But then, I'm the GM. And my bad guys despise the PCs in my campaign (grumble mumble stolen artifact grumble).

edit to last post:PC's are not advocating allowing other PC's to die. :)

wraithstrike wrote:

1. It might not be your GM'ing, but how your group plays.

2. Most encounters will be APL=CR. Those fights are supposed to be easy. Even APL+1 fights are not that much harder and you can get by without healing mid-combat in most games.

Heh. My players are pretty good at optimization. Not perfect, mind...but pretty good. Gonna be fun to see how they do against the hordes of undead they're about to fight, considering that the first real fight they've had killed one of them...and it was an APL-1 encounter.

How did one of them die to an APL-1 encounter?

I think the /intent/ is to be helpful. I think it does not always /come across/ that way, and therein lies the trouble. Does this make sense? That is, I may know that x, y, and z is the best way to do a thing--but I should not always go up to someone and say: hey, you should do it x, y, and z.

Now, this is different if they are looking for opinions. In which case--may I offer an idea?

Perhaps: "If you're concerned about being forced into a single role, why not speak with your group and spread it out? Here are some ideas for each member in your party: (discussion on mages using displacement, etc.)"

The tone here is slightly different. It doesn't say outright that "healing in combat is wrong" though it guides towards that point. Jiggy, I'm also not saying that you've never offered suggestions. I'm only providing an example of a way that it could be approached--which makes misperceptions less likely. I'm also saying that stating upfront that "x is wrong" tends to cause defenses to be thrown into place

Am I making sense? This is not to call out any one particular person--I'm not at all. I'm actually interested in fixing it. I value both "sides" and really would rather see a "coming to the table" than upset that can make playing less fun. I get the feeling that I'd enjoy being at the table with a number of you, and I'd hate to see something like this erupt.

I can understand the frustration, though. "But that way /doesn't work/!" It can be difficult to sit on the side lines, you know?

Some backgroud on how this started. I look in to another thread and saw this.

Yes, there’s a number of folks who think in-combat healing is a bad idea. But generally those are the kind of folks who think that PC’s are as disposable as Kleenex,...

Now these type of accusations have been tossed around before. As you can see nobody is advocating allowing a PC to die. I was basically trying to clear that up.

The premise of the post assumes the GM is not boosting encounters also to force them to heal. In such situations, the party should not be having to heal constantly if they use tactics(as presented in this thread), have decent builds, and the dice gods are not against them. <--That pretty much sums it up.

Nobody is saying healing in combat is bad, wrong fun. We are saying that generally speaking it is inefficient, and then we list ways to avoid being inefficient.

As to people getting upset-->Sometimes people will get upset no matter how nicely you say something. As long as you say what about trying ____ instead of ______ in a calm, and rational manner I see no reason to be upset.
Now if insults are thrown around or you try to command them to run their character a certain way that is another issue.

edit:grammar

I must be playing wrong. I GM a home game, and I can't remember more than a half-dozen fights in the last year where in-combat healing wasn't necessary to keep characters alive.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Unfortunately too many games are run in such a way that healing in combat does become necessary in spite of the party's best efforts to avoid it.

I'd counter with the comment that if in-combat healing isn't necessary a reasonable fraction of the time, you're playing below your APL. I would certainly get bored if every fight was a pushover - and a fight where you don't ever get hurt enough to worry about death is a pushover.

1. It might not be your GM'ing, but how your group plays.

2. Most encounters will be APL=CR. Those fights are supposed to be easy. Even APL+1 fights are not that much harder and you can get by without healing mid-combat in most games.

Gorbacz wrote:

jpomzz wrote:

I got a question. Are there any actual rules saying your character can't take any actions when it's dead? One of my players pointed this out to me.

Is this a serious question?

Yes. He pointed out to me that without houserules, there is nothing to stop him from continuing to play his character while dead.

I am sure you read my previous answer to this post. With that said the NPC's follow the same rules as the PC's. :)

With that having been said I suggest you refer to my last post and use RAI and/or common sense when RAW fails.

Assuming the GM follows the book's advice you have to do some evil things to become a lich. When someone tried to heal you and it does damage that will not be a good thing. IIRC Inquisitors can heal. There is also the fact that you are immune to certain things as an undead creature. When the party is hit with something and the lich has a big smile on his/her face it won't look good.

In short I agree with Mojorat.

The issue here mostly comes down to attitude. That is, telling someone that "if you heal during combat" is similar to saying: "you're playing wrong."

And it is, isn't it?

No one likes to be told, "you're playing wrong."

Wraithstrike, I am not saying this to be critical, but to point out a specific area that needs addressed.

This thread is a good start. It also needs to address how the suggestion of "don't heal during combat" is handled when it is made. That is, it must be made as a suggestion, not a law, and it should be made with politeness--not in a way that says: "don't do this, or you're an idiot." Or, "you're playing wrong."

So what if someone's playing in a way that's "inefficient"? It doesn't matter: it's that person's character. PFS is designed in a way for average characters, working together. It brings together a variety of playstyles, and play interests. Therefore, it cannot and should not cater to only one playstyle, but to a variety.

I'm sure that "you're playing wrong" isn't the perception anyone wants--however, given how these suggestions are phrased, that perception gets created, intended or not.

This is somewhat parallel to your point, Wraithstrike, though not entirely the same thing. I hope what I am saying makes sense--I'm aiming to be disrespectful at all, but address a more general concern. This concern should not be unfamiliar--it's one that often arises with the clash of mindsets, and has to be addressed from time to time.

Even though this thread is becoming a "how to" thread that was not the original premise. The only point of it was to clarify a position that was not true.

I would never tell someone how to play. :)

If I GM a group I and they keep getting their butts kicked I will suggest ______, but at the end of the day it is the group's characters that are on the line.

If I am a player in such a group I will build my character so as to not be victim(possibly die) of such tactics(issues).
Example:I was in a group with a rogue/monk that was not good at finding traps. I was playing a druid so I pumped my perception up really high. I would find the traps, and he would disable them. He did not like the fact that I was finding the traps that he could not, but my character should not be in danger because he chose to ignore perception. Well he did not really ignore it, but he did not make it high enough to find level appropriate traps.

wraithstrike wrote:

Did Wraithstrike get pranked? That link took me back to my FB page. Congrats Tom for doing well.

Burbles, Wraithstrike's soul can not be given way, at least unless some equally powerful being comes along, and I just don't see that taking place.

*gives away wraithstrike's soul*

Wishful thinking. :)

I see without Wraithstike's power to sustain them, Mr.Fishy's worshippers are lying dormant.

Actually this topic reminds me of the roleplay vs rollplay train of thought. Neither one has to exclude the other.

Aargh, no. You can’t move and take a full attack. You can make a 5’ step, without any terrain hindrance, and make a full attack. If you allow your players a full move and a full attack you are giving melee combatants a huge boost.

I did not even see that.

@ the OP:
That is a rule you learn at the beginning of the game since it encompasses learning about actions. If your player did that he is cheating.

It's not meant to be any kind of guide, but rather a place to discuss how to get the most out of your blasting.

...but it's not a guide right? ;)

In any event to get the most of something you must know the pros and cons of it, which is what Ashiel was trying to explain. <--Did I really have to type the portion of that sentence before the comma, really? SMH

Is this really a problem? I've never seen a cleric heal his companions unless they're at low hit points, as a player generally doesn't say "Hey, I need healing!" unless they're getting dangerously low.

In previous threads people have claimed you must have dedicated healer to heal you in the middle of fights. My position and many others is the same as yours.

The reason I created this thread was because people like us keep getting misrepresented. People are taking our opinion as "it is better to let a party member die than to heal them" among other things, which has never been advocated. I got tired of my points being misrepresented so I made this thread.

wraithstrike wrote:

I am assuming he meant broken in the sense of it breaks the way most rules are written.

As an example it never flat out says you can't die. It only says you ignore the penalties for aging and forces you to reference another class feature.

I would say that death is a penalty for aging and thus it could be ignored.

The book actually says "You discover a cure for aging, and from this point forward you take no penalty to your physical ability scores from advanced age. If you are already taking such penalties, they are removed at this time. You must be at least a 20th-level wizard to select this discovery."

Not taking penalties to your physical scores is not the same as not getting older. For the ability to work as written it would have to stop you from changing age categories.

I got a question. Are there any actual rules saying your character can't take any actions when it's dead? One of my players pointed this out to me.

He is correct. Unlike conditions such as paralyze, the dead condition does not say you can no longer take actions, and I often use it as a point when people say they play the game RAW, and/or when I want to point out the rules are not perfect and common sense has to step in at times.

Most of the time, if the group knows what they are doing, they won't need in-combat healing.

However, the problem isn in the time thats "most of the time". Its in the time that isn't "Most of the time" that the problem arises.

While you are making tactics and such to keep from dying, the DM is also making tactics and things to challenge and potentially kill you. This means that your well laid plans will sometimes fail. If you are 10th level and the best healing you have is a rogue with a CLW wand, then someone (or several someone's) is going to bite the dust.

Does a group need a dedciated, pure 100% healer? Not if the group is exercising good tactics.
Does the group need someone who can lay down some solid healing occasionally? Absolutely.

Just like melee folks need range weapons but don't use 'em all the time, you need someone who can lay down some big heals- even if its not something they do all the time.

Its about being prepared for the "Oh crap" moments, more so than needing someone to be a perpetual permanent bandaid all the time.

(though of course, if your group does need a band-aid all the time.. then thats what they need.)

-S

edit: too many "most of the times" I think.

I think we agree. Of course my premise also assumes the GM is not boosting encounters just to make sure you do heal. :)

I am assuming he meant broken in the sense of it breaks the way most rules are written.

As an example it never flat out says you can't die. It only says you ignore the penalties for aging and forces you to reference another class feature.

3.5 really can really unbalance Pathfinder. As a new GM I would make it Pathfinder only until your understanding of the system increases. Actually you should probably stick to the CRB until you get better.

As for making characters as a player coming here is a good idea. Yeah people disagree on certain things, but there is a lot of knowledge here. The important thing is to be able to separate what sounds cool in the book from what actually works.

After KM I suggest you go back to playing*. When you make a new character come back to the boards with a build. Tell us what you want to do, and most of us will recommend changes, and explain why we have those ideas.

*Learn the rules. As a player you will have much more free time to do so. I am not saying study the book like you are doing homework, but try to remember at least the rules you need to know about your character. Building different characters is also a good way to learn.

I often call for knowledge checks against certain monsters.

1. Nobody is saying never ever heal your buddy and/or let them die. That is ridiculous.
2. Nobody is saying you will never ever have to heal.
3. What is being said is that the bad guys can put out damage faster than you can heal so the best thing to do is kill bad guys. The less bad guys there are the less damage output there is.
4. Most of the time if you have decent characters and use good tactics you will not have to heal in combat.
5. Once again, most of the time does not mean never.
6. Bookmark this thread if you have too.

I'll be frank: Your players have piss-poor attitudes and are acting extremely immature. If I had a player at one of my tables harangue me like that, they would be ejected immediately. Remind them of rule zero: the GM is ALWAYS right when he wishes to be. If they complain, eject them for a session. If they whine about that, kick 'em out. My kingmaker group started with six players and is down to five because of one player's disruptive behavior.

The GM is not always right. With that said his players do need better attitudes. They also need to agree on what type of game they need to play. I would sit them down and make them make a decision.

At my table, my players constantly correct me on things, but they do it politely and are usually right. I frequently correct them on things as well. It is important to remember that the GM/player relationship should not be adversarial. This isn't a game with two sides where you play to win.

This gets a +1. Being a jerk is not cool.

Here there be dragons - your safety is not guaranteed.

For KM this is very important. Unlike most adventures you might run into something well beyond your APL if you go to the wrong place. I warned my players about that up front. KM due to its sandbox nature also requires more prep time than most AP's.

I would HIGHLY recommend that you ask each player to give you a copy of their character sheet. Post their characters here. We'll beat them back into the shape they should be in.

This 1000 times.

Selgard wrote:

The problem I see is that you are taking "meta-gaming" to such an extreme that the game becomes impossible to play due to circular reasoning.

Hold on a moment! I haven't stated anything that makes the game impossible. What I have stated actually makes sense.

If you approach a scroll vender and "you" the player start telling the DM that you would like to buy spells ABCDEF and G. Now the DM asks you how on earth do you know about these spells since you have never seen them in action nor have you ever mentioned them.

The player responds with a "Can I make a Knowledge Arcana check to see if my wizard will know about these spells?" DM responds with a no because that is not how the skill works.

The DM then tells you that you could talk with him after the game about maybe having another vender carry the spells that you would like to purchase and that vender offer them to you when you ask what spells do you carry.

It makes sense to you because what you call metagaming and what we call metagaming are not the same. I also applied your theory to other classes, and showed how it does not work with them either, but you did not reply. Maybe you did not see it though.

PS:It may have been in the other thread.

Atarlost wrote:

If you want to play a rogue go for fun. You're not going to get efficiency.

Not even TWF you mean?

Sneak Attack puts out decent damage. I think what Atarlost is getting at is that the ranger and bard both out-rogue the rogue in most cases.

That does not mean the rogue can't work though.

...I was going to check d20pfsrd to see when it changed, but it changed 4 minutes before I made my "guess they finally..." post.

I changed it. I am a collaborator over there. :)

I would ask your group. The less you do, the more they have to do, and that spring attack version won't do nearly as much damage as the twf version.

The "light" spell does not have the newest errata.

The lastest book printing says:
"This spell causes a touched object to glow like a torch, shedding
normal light in a 20-foot radius from the point touched, and
increasing the light level for an additional 20 feet by one step, up..."

The PRD has:
"This spell causes a touched object to glow like a torch, shedding normal light in a 20-foot radius, and increasing the light level for an additional 20 feet by one step, up to normal light (darkness becomes dim light, and dim light becomes normal light). In an area of normal or bright light, this spell has no effect. The effect is immobile, but it can be cast on a movable object."
----------------------------------
The bolded words are missing.

I blame MMO's. MMO's are the cause of all this "Everyone must be equal" crap. I have seen a big increase in Point buy and complaints that one person has an advantage over another because of BLA post after the popularity of MMO's spiked. Heck we had a few 1000+ post not to long ago. One was a guy complaining about a fellow party member getting extra Knowledge skill points. The other was about a party member charging for magic items he made so he had more gold then everyone else.... all I hear is.

WAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Seriously. Who cares if someone has better stats then you. Just roll with it... As for point buy. There is nothing wrong with it either. I just see both as being perfectly good options.

This has nothing to do with MMO's. Drop the atitude and either think about it calmly* or do some research. This question has been answered more than enough times.

*Hopefully you can think of at least 2 reasons.