Runelords spell caster only thread for Kyrt Ryder

Game Master Wrath

this is where we discuss stuff.

Dotting to follow or if you allow join in on the experiment

Dot

Hey, this is the profile I'll be using for the challenge. I'll be editing the characters into its profile over the next 2-3 hours.

I'm hoping I'll also get a post in tonight, but no guarantees.

Cool. Post when you're ready Kyrt.

As for input, it's fine. I'll be running this like all my campaigns so far. The world responds to the PCs both in positive and negative ways as I deem would match based on what's presented in the APs.

No idea how familiar Kyrt is with the AP so no spoilers. I'd like to think he keeps player knowledge and PC knowledge separate anyway. This is only really an issue in terms spell prep or use really (in this case). Not knowing what's coming up or why things are happening is a challenge, for prepared casters in particular.

As I make DM calls, I'll explain my reasoning in here. I'll use consistent in world logic for my calls. I'll not be using house rules but using the rules and AP background to make the decisions. I'll be making them the same as I would for the home games and other PbP I've run.

This is the part where I see most discussion occurring. Because the game,and in particular many spells, require DMs to make a call, we'll have disagreements. As long as they're civil and we abide by my final decision consistently then it should be fine. I do take opinions into account and do modify my choices when shown better options. Particularly if it makes for a cooler story.

Since you're active here right now Wrath I do have a question for you.

How do you feel about a Wallaby [being a familiar to a Spirit Binder Wizard, having once been a Paladin bodyguard, bear in mind familiars all have sentient levels of Intelligence] gaining Martial Weapon Proficiency for its feat? Wallabies are bipedal creatures with fairly reasonable hands, but they don't actually have opposable thumbs so I had to check.

Familiars become sentient through the process of the magic ritual. If your suggesting he's a reincarnated Palladin then that's ok, but it's going to be following Paladins codes. If it's part of the spirit binder thing I haven't read it

You could polymorph it for useable hands I guess, but until then it can't manipulate weapons or use fine motor skills with their hands (I live with Wallabies in vision of my house, they are not nimble but they are quick).

Apart from that you can take whatever feats are normally open to familiars.

Spirit Binder it can take any feat it is capable of using.

Ooooooh, nice. What a great little concept.

Still an issue with wallabies hands. I could see it working with monkeys though. Maybe you can find a specialist smith during the campaign who jig up some masterwork weapon that slings to the feet. Bladed gauntlet types of things. It'll need to be during play though, something you resolve in game.

Heh, I could totally give him a bladed boot if it were simply a matter of arming him. I had hoped to give him a small-sized Lucern Hammer, but as you've ruled against that I'll have to take a different route with the Spirit Binder's familiar.

EDIT! Locking Gauntlets! What if the Wallaby wore a small sized Locking Gauntlet?

I can totally picture a monkey running around with a Lucern hammer. If it was small sized weapon, he'd need the feat that allows oversized weapons though (most familiars are tiny I believe).

Wallabies fight with their feet. However, give me a night to think it through. I'm digging this idea of an animal that was once a loved one fighting in its new form to keep protecting the wizard it loved.

No problem.

As for the story, my plan is a female Wizard who- after finally graduating her apprenticeship- went on a quest with her elder brother Paladin [named Wallace] who wound up falling into lava.

With no way to recover his body and no pieces available [and figuring his temple wouldn't be willing to pay the cost required of a true resurrection] she panicked and bound his soul to her familiar, a Wallaby- so chosen as in part as a bit of a joke between the two because of her brother's name, and in part as a memento of big bro while she was stuck up in that musty wizard's tower studying with her mentor.

The Lucerne Hammer he wields is the Small one he used while training as a child.

Ok, let's do it.

However, I think it needs to lose the kick attack to balance it out. Let's assume Wallaces spirit had forced to body to adapt to his fighting style. Don't bother with locking gauntlets, just lose the kick.

Everything else is fine in it though.

I was kind of hoping to keep the kick [after all Lucern Hammer is reach, the kick wouldn't be compatible with the Lucern Hammer in the same Full Attack Routine]

EDIT: besides, the awesome awesome visual of a Wallaby using a Lucern Hammer as a prop to kick an Orc [or Troll or whatever] in the face is too awesome to pass up :P

Hmmmmm....it really needs to be balanced mate. We can always just drop back to default which is it can't wield weapons since its hands don't work that way.

This is something I'm always careful of when people want to stretch the boundaries. Sometimes what seems cool at first gives a fairly large advantage. For example, this allows a two hand reach weapon user to also have a close in weapon without penalty. That is a very big advantage in early game levels.

Perhaps feat choice later on allows it back (two weapon fighter seems appropriate). It gives you the advantage but means you paid the cost to get it, which is what pathfinder is all about.

This is already a powerful combination without trying to squeeze more into it.

Fair enough Wrath, no sweat. I had to try to get my preferred options into place but I can work with the limitation presented.

There is also the spell Anthropomophic Animal You can get as a wizard when you get 3rd level spells.

If you want help with the characters I am more than willing. ^.^

Talk to Kyrt about that I reckon. I'm just throwing the challenges at him.

This won't be like a standard PbP though. Not lots of roleplay between things at this point. We kind of want to see how the all wizard/caster party handles this AP. IT's a "typical" old school type adventure, with multiple opponent types etc.

It really showcases the different areas of Pathfinder so should be awesome. I'm very interested to see how it plays out. This might be the turning point for me in the whole martial caster thing.

Roleplaying is kind of my thing [play by post is actually my original background as a roleplayer] but given that I hold control over all of the player-characters I should be able to move roleplay through quite quickly compared to other PbPs.

Hey Wrath, I noticed a comment you made in the thread about Alter Summons and responded to it in-thread.

I figure we may need to take that discussion here rather than clutter that thread with it.

Here is the link to that post

Yeah mate, saw that. The rules allow you to make mounts attack untrained, if you PUSH them using handle animal.

That requires your action to do so, which for me is a great balancing factor.

Also, I'm not running this thing to swing the ban hammer. We discussed why casters in my games die when in yours they don't. I actually want this to be a bit of fun.

The last week I've been struggling with my meds and moods, so I've been "Feisty". Normally I stay out of threads like that, but if I'm in the mood for some good robust discussion, I'll chip in with my view and then defend it robustly. :)

Since our little challenge is likely to go for a few months at least, lets make it as fun as possible while we're at it.

This section is where we can discuss how things might have gone if rules decisions were otherwise played.

Yeah, I've Always been under the impression animals will attack, when attacked, or run.

Horses even untrained will bite and stomp at things on their own. (Personal experience).

If cornered or there young are threatened, horses will attack. Stallions will attack in mating season. Females will attack to defend offspring.

Other than that, nearly every animal will run if hurt and given the room to do so.

I have trained in animal behaviour at both Uni and as further study as a High school science teacher.

Having said that- note that horses, mules, ponies etc will try and run of scared and threatened. If however, you're riding a large lion, it will absolutely lash out if threatened.

So, just so you understand my interpretation, I will make calls based on my knowledge of animal behaviour. Spelling it out above hopefully clears that up.

Oh, one more point - Riding dogs. Dogs are territorial and pack animals. They will absolutely bark and threaten anything that threatens the pack or their territory. However, they won't actually attack something unless specifically trained to do so. With dogs, I will allow you to get the assist another benefit while in combat, as they'll be yapping and snarling and generally running to the feet of your attacker

Edit - If your mount is tethered, they'll defend themselves while trying to break free. It would be completely petty of me to have your mounts killed while you're adventuring in a dungeon somewhere. Generally if the adventure calls for that kind of thing, I have the mounts scatter and run. More a nuisance than an expensive problem.

Ok, something else to take into consideration here.

I believe that the balance in the game comes from the setting itself. I'm a very permissive DM in general. I'll let people try their tricks, but will also have one or two ways to limit their abuse that make sense in the game world.

This means in general that folks love my DMing, because they get to try lots of stuff, but they also know some of it comes with risks. They always need to weigh up the risk vs the benefit.

Keep that in mind.

It's one of the reasons I think there needs to be a high level game play book. Something that compiles a number of the trouble spots with high level and gives advice to DM's on how to allow it but keep it controlled.

Kyrt - Looking forward to seeing the submissions. Please ask anything you're concerned about and we can make a decision early on.

Cheers guys.

Yeah mate, saw that. The rules allow you to make mounts attack untrained, if you PUSH them using handle animal.

That requires your action to do so, which for me is a great balancing factor.

Also, I'm not running this thing to swing the ban hammer. We discussed why casters in my games die when in yours they don't. I actually want this to be a bit of fun.

The last week I've been struggling with my meds and moods, so I've been "Feisty". Normally I stay out of threads like that, but if I'm in the mood for some good robust discussion, I'll chip in with my view and then defend it robustly. :)

Makes sense ^_^ And I totally agree that's exactly how it goes for mounts who aren't suited to combat.

As for your comments about a mount hating its situation and rebelling against the most explicit of tasks, I'd like to take this opportunity to parse a very specific sentence out of the Mount Spell.

The steed serves willingly and well. Now, this is prefaced by the statement that it is summoned to serve as a mount, but what is 'well' for a given mount differs from creature to creature.

For an untrained horse or pony, that means carrying its rider to the best of its ability [unless it gets spooked by something that terrifies it beyond its ability to willpower on.] For a Combat Trained Mount, that means fighting alongside its rider.

Now what about these creatures on the Summon Monster List? A Goblin Dog, for example, is expected to fight alongside its master.

What about a Griffin steed? Would not a Griffin Steed who serves well swoop to his rider's rescue, or perhaps work together with his rider to carry out aerial harrasment whilst his rider shoots or casts the enemies being harassed?

I could go on and on, but the point is that a 'Steed who serves well' is in many cases more of a partner than simple transportation- dependent on the steed in question being capable of such support.

'War Training' as such, is a bandaid with a steed of Animal Intelligence and not one relevant to a mount that can think for itself.

I raised horses and trained them for racing with my dad. We came under attack from a cougar and dogs that were not ours. and both times the horse attacked back while I held on. So I guess that means I was considered young.

My husky is odd. He doesn't bark or growl he just bares teeth and launches at people that threaten me.

Jazzai, fair points. Hmmm...maybe we take it as it comes.

Kyrt - Griffons are in the mount section of the PFSRD. You can get just a mount griffon, or a war trained one. That speaks volumes about what the intent is, and what the rules are allowing.

I know it says willing. In this case, willing to let you ride it, and well means it will make the ride really good.

However, since that particular spell is already really contentious, lets just not use it for the challenge.

Also, if you're on a mount and it's defending itself, without you using the handle animal skill. Would you say that is working with you (so you are not distracted and can indeed still act), or would say it was instinctive and unpredictable, requiring all your training and skill just to stay mounted.

I think the wartraining in particular lets you work WITH the animal, otherwise its just trying to control it so its nature is directed more than random.

Thoughts?

I would treat the rider as distracted, if a mount is fighting on its own independent of its rider without training. I believe this is a -2.

Having been on a horse that went to do its own thing against the dogs while I was trying to shooting a crossbow was distracting. I missed horribly myself. Had actually been delivering the crossbow out to my dad so he could target practice.

First, sorry for the very slow reply, that comment about Griffons needing to be Combat Trained despite sentience really threw me for a loop and plunged me into some deep deep research.

It stands to reason that for practical purposes Wrath's interpretation of Template Animals Summoned-through-mount requiring Handle Animal to do anything other than carry a rider is acceptable to me.

This spell combo sort of pieces together the functionality of one of my characters from 3rd level through 5th or so and I'd really rather not lose it entirely.

As for you Jazzai, I wasn't referring to the mount 'going wild' but rather the rider directing it via the ride skill.

As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.

However in my research almost everyone has come to the conclusion that that particular action doesn't direct the mount to attack and just keeps it 'under control' aka not going wild.

Ahh, yeah. The whole keep it from running and where you want it.

To me it all depends on how a horse, since I know them well, are trained. The horses reigned trained I can see that. Those knee trained I could argue it doesnt. Unless it's a snake. Only met one horse that would go after them. The others would get skittish so those would be a move action or more to keep under control

Kyrt, don't let it destroy a concept completely. In my home games, I would allow something like this to function more like gate. You'll need to negotiate with what your newly summoned beast on whether it will serve in the capacity outside its magical compulsion.

For me as DM, I like to let clever combinations work out. However I also balance them in game as I need to.

I'll write a little story I thought up to demonstrate what I mean. It will need to be later on though.

Alright, while you're picking away at that story I'll buckle down and finish these characters.

Just to confirm, this is set in bog standard Golarion, not adapted to a homeworld?

Yep. It's in Varisia specifically. Now I gotta sign out for the day. Got a nasty flu and I'm getting the aches and shakes.

So are we using the original or the anniversary edition? There's a separate Player's Guide to each of them and given that a new PG was printed for the new one I'm assuming there are some changes between them.

On another note, does Consecrated Weapon apply to ammunition? On the one hand it says it functions 'like Channel Smite' (which normally only works on melee weapons)... while on the other hand, it's charged with channel energy before-hand [up to 24 hours before] and it makes a point of emphasizing how it works with 'weapons of any type.'

A story for you. Heavily contrived but it least it shows how I would run such things. IT allows you to try it, but demonstrates the limitations that this combination would bring.

NO Kyrt, I don't think it does. The spell is intended to work for one strike. I would allow it on a bow but not ammunition. Technically ammunition isn't a weapon, though some would argue against that.

The other way of reading it is that the ammunition (20 arrows say) maintains the charge until the first hit, at which point the entire ammunition loses the charge.

I guess you could cast it multiple times to gain multiple strikes with different clusters of arrows. I see that as ok since it means your investing spells into more effectiveness, just like casting it onto multiple weapons.

Indeed, I was envisioning a cluster of 20 bolts were crafted with the property as a single event- but each one requires a separate Channel Energy invested into it.

Also, should I be downloading the Original or Anniversary Edition Rise of the Runelords Player's Guide?

Anniversary edition. It was rebuilt for Pathfinder specifically and modified based on feedback. Less work for me, better balanced adventure.

Make sure your guys have one trait from the campaign, and one from any Paizo source that's not a campaign specific trait.

You got it. Is the Consecrated Bolts thing ok then?

And it's mandatory to have a campaign trait on each character huh... that makes things a bit more challenging, but alright I'll reshuffel things a bit to make it happen.

EDIT: my ninja was kind of dependent on a different campaign trait in order to fulfill the trap-detector role. If you feel that isn't that important it won't be a big deal to drop it for one from the guide.

You going from the one in the Osirion AP? Meh, go for it on that trait.

Are you still doing an all caster party?

Also, yep bolts are fine. Just remember, if you want three effects though, you have to have cast it three times, on different groups of bolts.

Once one bolt from a group hits, the spell goes off and the rest lose their charge from that group.

That way it's the same as if you'd cast it three times on three weapons.

I think that's a fair and good allocation of spell use to be honest.

I thought the way we were doing it was each bolt required a separate channeling, for its own charge?

And yeah, 4 Wizards. Originally it was going to be all Spellcasters of varying classes but somehow the original conversation got warped into all Wizards and I'm going with that. Lacking certain spells on the cleric list REALLY hurts my personal sense of paranoia [and has resulted in one of the Wizard's being a Samsaraan for the expanded spell list option, thankfully Witches carry many of the spells I want.]

EDIT: on rereading your last post I see you talking spell in regards to the Consecrated Bolts? They're Channel Focuses, objects which absorb a Channel Energy from a Cleric for some effect.

Ah yeah, I see my mistake.

I still think it works like we said. My way is better for you actually. If you put a channel into each bolt, then if it misses the bolt has 50% of breaking wasting the charge any way.

If you spend the +150 gold on the 20 bolts, then split them into 4 groups of five. Then you can spend four channel energies on the groups. This gives you 5 shots to set off a channel, and if you miss, even if the bolt breaks you've got four more with that charge still intact.

I reckon the idea is to give you a stored charge to make sure at least one hit per channel gets the extra damage. I see no issue with letting that work for crossbows as well. Seems like a clever use of gear and abilities in fact.

As for the caster thing, I don't mind what caster class you used. However, since you've gone all wizards already, that's cool too.

If one dies, feel free to swap them out for a different casting class as well. I'm really interested in seeing how this works out.

PS my home group recently decided to quit pathfinder completely after playing this system since it was actually 3.0. This will be my last Pathfinder foray. Thank you for giving me the chance to do it :)

Not a problem Wrath, I'm glad you were willing to go with a system you're retiring for the sake of an experiment.

As for your idea, it is true that missing with the bolt in question wastes the opportunity to use it in that combat, if all of the bolts in question are Durable then they can still be recovered after the fight [unless they can't, but at least at low levels those sorts of scenarios don't come up terribly often.] But it does save on space and weight.

Incidentally now that I've read your story I've got to say I rather agree with you... in that instance.

If a mage is going to be glouting about his power and glory and all that BS I'd totally understand the intelligent creature rebuffing him.

Now on the other hand if the mage had cast a few protections on himself and the angel and treated it with some dignity "Please endure the shame, the people who live in the town I shepherd are in grave danger, and through a quirk of the laws of magic I've been able to bring you to aid us in our time of need for an extended period. I've collected several suits of gear in my travels that you are welcome to use, though none of it of terribly potent magic."

When the Angel was suited up, the Wizard would ask the Angel how he wished to carry him and travel in that manner- with the insistence that it be a fairly dignified one [on the angel's back as in your story, or perhaps carried in his arms in some method but not sack-of-potatoes-over-the-shoulder style.]

From there the two progress to deal with the dragon however they see fit.

I suppose my views on the spell are at least partly tainted by my view of what a mount is and how it should be treated. There are some people who abuse a mount, but in my opinion a mount should be a trusted and valued companion.

One thing though, the way you wrote that and given a few of the posts I've seen you make it seems you're equating this tactic with Gate. I can assure you my friend there isn't anything close to a Planetar in Summon Monster. With Gate a Mage could Call [big difference there too, putting the Called creature into mortal danger] and control a Planetar, meanwhile with this the most powerful angel he could call is a Deva, which are messengers or perhaps low-mid grade officers rather than generals.

Yeah, it was a contrived story.

I'm willing to try it out to see how it plays, but I'll be roleplaying like the situation. Convincing it work for you could be diplomacy, or it might just go with your plans. It's a case by case thing really. Let's try it and see.

Kyrt, we kinda need to get the ball rolling on this or I'll end up losing interest I'm afraid. How close are you to getting things sorted?

I owe you a huge apology Wrath, I've been crazy busy lately and only had sporadic moments to pop online and do stuff.

The good news is, I am prepared to complete this and make my initial post tonight. [We're in a sort of RP mode right now so I assume I can introduce the characters (as personalities) even if their abilities require some adjustment.?]