Abdénago's page

Organized Play Member. 35 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Organized Play characters.


Neither FAQ directly addresses the question at hand. Those FAQs, as written, no more force you to choose between threatening with a spiked gauntlet and a two handed reach weapon than this FAQ says that you can't use armour spikes to make attacks on a turn in which you make attacks with a two handed weapon.

The first is explicitly about using that hand to perform a standard action that requires a free hand. There's nothing in RAW that says or implies that you need your hand free to make an attack with a spiked gauntlet--there are other "gauntlet" type weapons that explicitly forbid wielding weapons in that hand if it's not permitted, so the implication is actually that it's allowed with gauntlets, spiked and unspiked. And the same developer whose comment was turned into that official ruling has said that he would permit attacks with a gauntlet even if you're holding a weapon, albeit at a penalty. I linked to it already, but nobody addressed it. If you can attack into a square, you threaten it.

The second is about using the haft of your weapon as an improvised weapon, allowing you to ignore the "doughnut" with the same weapon. It only really applies if you insist that you need to adjust your grip to hit with the gauntlet.

If you want to read that interpretation into those FAQs for whatever reason, that's your prerogative and it's none of my business how you choose to play the game, but it's not a settled question and nobody must play the game that way in order to play by the rules. Repeating the same interpretation again and again doesn't make that interpretation any more definitive than the last--literal--hundred times it was repeated on the boards. I'm asking for you to give me a real ruling, since you're convinced that it works the way you say it does.

So, I ask again: show me where, please.

Magda Luckbender wrote:

This issue has been thoroughly resolved and put to bed by the Devs. However, the discussions are many and messy, and it's really tough to find a single clear, concise explanation. It's not worth wading through again. Really, Chess Pwn's post above, and mine, is how it works.

Show me where.

You've linked to a thread that links to a thread where the question is left unresolved, with no official FAQ or ruling. The only dev comments on the issue have been from James Jacobs who a) doesn't like people taking his statements as official Paizo rulings and b) also says that if it were his table, he'd allow attacks with a spiked gauntlet at a -2 if the hand were currently on a weapon. It doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things, but none of the three GMs I regularly play with accepts the interpretation you three seem to talk about as official (for good reason, IMO, but it's what I know, so I'm surely biased). I'll voice my objections in a more appropriate space, but you all shouldn't talk like it's a "resolved" question rather than GM call when it's clearly not.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Abdénago wrote:
Eh, gauntlets are still better. They cost 1/10th as much, weigh 1/10th as much, you're not going to get rid of them every time you get better armour, and you could actually use them to hit things if you wanted. I actually get good use out of them during early levels to hassle spellcasters. Attack at 10', 5' step adjacent, then they are guaranteed to have to cast while in a threatened square under normal circumstances.
Except you don't. If you have the reach you can't also have the gauntlets. If you threaten with gauntlets then you don't threaten with your reach. It's clarified that this is the rule in one of the recent FAQs.

Huh, I see this FAQ about not being able to use armour spikes as an offhand attack while using a two handed weapon and this one about not being able to use your reach weapon as an improvised weapon to threaten adjacent squares but nothing about threatening with (spiked) gauntlets. Were you thinking of one of those? If not, could you point me in the right direction?

Caltrops, oil, tindertwigs, fireworks, acid, tanglefoot bags, holy water...

Setting up flanks, using aid another in combat, being the guy with the rope who aids the grappler and actually makes use of the tie up option...

Demoralizing everybody, everywhere, thanks to your Bruising Intellect trait...

Seeing how awful you are with nets...

I dunno, none of this stuff will make you a powerhouse, but it's all potentially useful.

Eh, gauntlets are still better. They cost 1/10th as much, weigh 1/10th as much, you're not going to get rid of them every time you get better armour, and you could actually use them to hit things if you wanted. I actually get good use out of them during early levels to hassle spellcasters. Attack at 10', 5' step adjacent, then they are guaranteed to have to cast while in a threatened square under normal circumstances.

Keep in mind that spiked armour counts as a martial weapon, so it may be an inferior option for a cleric trying to threaten adjacent spaces. Also, spiked gauntlets are a good way to ensure you've got a cold iron and a silver weapon handy without worrying too much about fumbling for weapons.

It's fun to be able to threaten adjacent with a reach build, especially if you want to get up in a spellcaster's business.

There's nothing inherently wrong with trying to kill characters often. I like that style of GM, so long as he plays "fair". But it's supposed to be fun for you and if your gut is telling you that you won't like it, you should probably listen. I would suggest giving it a try, though.

They're free.

First, check out this page for some good reach templates. They're at the bottom.

So, enlarged, you can hit squares three and four, counting from you, but not one and two. You have a 10' "doughnut".

HOWEVER you will absolutely have spiked gauntlets or a natural attack. No ifs, buts or ands. So you will always threaten those close squares, albeit with a worse weapon.

Feat wise, there are few absolute must haves. You're going to be relatively feat starved, but I think the ideal list would be:

Power Attack
Pushing Assault
Combat Reflexes

I like Cleave on this build, but YMMV and it may not be worth it for a cleric.

What do you do with this? Well, if you can swing it at first level, you should be attacking enemies from 10' away, using Pushing Assault to push them back to 15', and then letting them try to move up to attack you, provoking an AoO.

Combat Reflexes lets you do it to more people.

Lunge lets you extend your reach by 5', meaning that you threaten squares two and three with your reach weapon and square one with your spiked gauntlet. When you get big, you threaten squares three, four and five with your reach weapon and squares one and two with your spiked gauntlet.

Fun feats that you may or may not have space for include:
Combat Patrol (requires Dodge and Mobility) to let you threaten obscene areas
Improved Trip (Combat Expertise) to keep people from moving past you--since you can't get Pin Down, this is a good option, IMO. Consider taking the Threatening Defender trait if you want to get any use out of Combat Expertise (can help compensate for the penalty Lunge imposes).
Weapon Focus because you'll want it as a 3/4 BAB class that might use Power Attack and Combat Expertise

Anastasius Brightstar wrote:
Abdénago wrote:
The reluctant, absent minded magician who forgets how his own spells work is a great character for the right player, you know.
Yeah, but the PLAYER should know his stuff, even if the character doesn't. That's the problem we're ultimately having.

Oh, I get that. It also sounds like you like having him around in spite of this, if I didn't misread your post. I think you could turn the fact that you guys play for him into a positive, to a certain extent. Shouting spell requests in combat, trying to turn making him learning the ropes of being effective into a IC process (that may serve to make the player more engaged in learning), and so forth. We have a player who's very much like this in one of my groups (playing a paladin, granted, not a magus, and with five total players, not four) and we end up building his character for him and suggesting the best course of action in combat. It'd be cooler if he were more engaged, but we like having him around, so the important factor is everybody's attitude, you know? And I guess that if he feels you're frustrated with him, he would have even less incentive to study up and show up, right?

So my suggestion was serious... I'd try looking for ways to make this situation part of the game and his character.

That said, I second the "play without him" approach. I know it may feel a little artificial, but having a GMPC or a PC cohort that fills his role when he's not around might make everybody's lives a bit easier.

Saving Cap'n Crunch wrote:
He also managed to fit inside of a holy relic of his deity, Cayden Cailean, with an Escape Artist check just to see if he could during a mission...

I misread this in the worst possible way. The WORST.

Are you closing your spoiler tags correctly with a / ?

The reluctant, absent minded magician who forgets how his own spells work is a great character for the right player, you know.

Well, removing the tongue and jaw would help against the most common form of speaking with the dead.. Honestly, your best bet is probably to play murderer and destroy the body and hide whatever remnants you can't destroy, hoping nobody is even sure he's dead. You'd need some high level magic to really prevent a high level caster from finding some way of speaking with that person.

This is a really gross topic.

Well, Mirror Image is missing from your list. AFAIK it should stack with concealment, though I invite second opinions.

Oh man, let me tell you about my whole party running through Dragon's Demand!

The cleric insists on poking everything. He hates closed doors and unexplored rooms. He consistently has us run elaborate experiments on mechanisms we come across--there was this hidden lever which we heard change something elsewhere in the dungeon, but we couldn't figure out where. He convinced us to stand around in differnt parts of the dungeon while he pulled the lever so that we could triangulate on the source of the sound. He also consistently manages to get us into fights by entering rooms we *know* have monsters but that we have successfully bypassed simply to poke around. He pokes the statues, pokes the water, jumps over all the things... He often plays dwarf wrangler.

The fighter licks rocks when we're not looking. He also sunders the horns off of all horned enemies because, I dunno, neuroses. We try not to bring up his behaviour with him because we assume it's weird dwarf cultural stuff. He's also pathologically cagey about everything and has attempted to lie to NPCs, with his 5 charisma, for no real gain other than to throw them off. This has, of course, led to combat. He likes destroying things when he gets bored, which is often.

The ratfolk is a supposedly serene monk who actually has a massive chip on his shoulder about everything. He really wishes he were a dwarf. He thinks he's best friends with the dwarf, because they come from the same kingdom, but it's clear that the dwarf sees him as a second-class citizen. He insists that all humans are evil racists.

The wizard (me) is a racist human, at least when it comes to short races. A courtly scholar type who bizarrely has become the party spokesperson (seriously, a +4 to diplomacy is the best this party can scrape together) and collects the corpses of interesting foes for dissection in the name of science, a foreign word to the rest of the party. Is usually prudently around the corner from the party when they insist on triggering obvious traps and pissing off extraplanar creatures, though actually the one who tries to keep the party on task and moving along when the ostensibly LG cleric and paladin face off against the ostensibly LN and CN ratfolk and dwarf.

The paladin is Seelah the narcoleptic.

And our mascot is my familiar Tim the weasel. He's officially smarter than 40% of the party now, and counting. We've kitted him out with a Cloak of the Bat, Amulet of Mighty Fists, Goggles of Minute Seeing, and masterwork thieves' tools on a utility belt as well as tiny gloves and mask. He's the party scout and lockpicker, billionaire playboy by day, caped crusader by night. Has an unspoken rivalry with the ratfolk to be the team's Most Valuable Rodent.

You know, Fly is a great skill for your Headband of Vast Intellect.

Are we talking about cheap in terms of gold or character build? I'm kinda partial to Arcane Talent if you qualify. I also wonder whether a 375gp wand of Detect Magic might not be the best route. Use Perception for potions, use wands for other stuff, get 150 castings for 1125gp. If you're just using it for identifying stuff, I think that'll last you a very long time.

1) The alchemist can currently use the infusion discovery to allow team members to drink his extracts, including those with the range of personal. I don't think that mirror image is on the alchemist's list, though. Here's a pretty full list, though. It's possible that this isn't RAI.

I *think* that the cleric spell Imbue with Spell Ability will allow you to give party members the ability to cast certain personal spells on themselves, but there are pretty strict limitations and you still won't be able to get Mirror Image without shenanigans.

2) The Echoing Spell metamagic feat won't let you increase the number of targets in a single casting, but it will allow you to cast a spell twice using the same slot.

I don't know of ways to make single target spells truly multi-target.

kestral287 wrote:
Kaouse wrote:
How does the Wizard have better casting than the Arcanist? They both have 9 level spellcasting. As for combining the Wizard with a martial, the Wizard doesn't get access to Spellstrike.
Getting spells earlier + more spells per day thanks to the school + gets better use of most casting-boosting items. I'm also personally not a fan of the Arcanist's mixed casting setup because it seems like you're just saddling yourself with the weaknesses of both, but I freely admit that that's a personal dislike.

If it's not too much of a derail, I wanted to address the "more spells per day" claim here. TL;DR: School Savant arcanist is the way to go if you want to maximise the number of spells you get per day and the standard arcanist matches the wizard for spells over the first couple of levels, falling far behind only in the mid- to upper levels.


Not taking into account bonus spells, because high intelligence benefits them both equally and lumping spells of all levels together (not including cantrips), the columns are "standard" arcanist with a bonded item, a wizard with school specialization and bonded item, and a School Savant arcanist that takes a bonded item (through the extra exploit feat, if necessary):

Lvl1: AR 3, WZ 3, SS 4
Lvl2: AR 4, WZ 4, SS 5
Lvl3: AR 5, WZ 6, SS 6
Lvl4: AR 7, WZ 8, SS 9
Lvl5: AR 8, WZ 10, SS 10
Lvl6: AR 11, WZ 12, SS 14
Lvl7: AR 12, WZ 15, SS 15
Lvl8: AR 15, WZ 17, SS 19
Lvl9: AR 16, WZ 20, SS 20
Lvl10: AR 19, WZ 22, SS 24
LVl11: AR 20, WZ 25, SS 25
Lvl12: AR 23, WZ 27, SS 29
LVl13: AR 24, WZ 30, SS 30
Lvl14: AR 27, WZ 32, SS 34
Lvl15: AR 28, WZ 35, SS 35
Lvl16: AR 31, WZ 37, SS 39
Lvl17: AR 32, WZ 40, SS 40
Lvl18: AR 35, WZ 42, SS 44
Lvl19: AR 36, WZ 43, SS 45
Lvl20: AR 37, WZ 44, SS 46

So the standard arcanist only really starts to get outdistanced in total number of spells by the wizard around, I guess, level 9 and actually keeps up at the beginning. The School Savant arcanist is always going to have the most spells, though on odd levels it ties with the wizard due to the wizard's early access.

The early access is nothing to sneeze at, but one other important observation: Wizards get 1 2nd level spell at third level and the arcanist gets none. But at fourth level, the arcanist has just as many and by fifth level has more. So the wizard gets early access, but the arcanist gets more at the new level within two levels of getting access, meaning it can make more of them.

That said, I love wizards too much to convert.

I don't know. A smart wizard isn't going to just teleport a few feet away if he can help it. He'd go to the other side of a wall or up a ledge or (most probable) behind a beefy polearm user who's already closed with the grappler. Grappling wizards is an amazing option, but it's not an encounter ender unless the wizard is already out of allies on disadvantageous ground within striking distance of the grappler, i.e. already screwed.

It seems to me that the logical modification to make to the tank barbarian builds here for Society play is:

Dwarven Barbarian (Invulnerable Rager/Urban) 11/Fighter (Unbreakable) 1

Racial Traits: Perhaps Xenophobic for the extra +1 vs. mind effecting

Traits: Threatening Defender, Glory of Old (+1 vs. spells, SLA, and poison)

STR 15
DEX 14
CON 17
INT 13
WIS 14

B1: Combat Expertise
B2: (Superstition)
B3: Steel Soul
B4: +STR, (Lesser Beast Totem)
F1: Diehard, Endurance, Stalwart
B6: Power Attack, (Beast Totem)
B7: +CON
B8: ERP: Reckless Abandon, (Increased Damage Reduction)
B10: Improved Stalwart, (Increased Damage Reduction)
B11: +STR

Saves will be 13/5/5, but 21/14/14 vs. spells and SLAs, which, if my math is right, is 2 points higher at that point than the standard 20 level build. This also sacrifices Deadly Aim and Combat Reflexes for the extra point of DR early--I don't know if that's necessarily optimal, but it's fun to have DR15/-- while raging at level 12.

A halfway compromise would be to make a half-orc with the Sacred Tattoo racial trait and Fate's Favoured trait to get across the board flat +2 luck bonuses to saves while being able to use the human FCB. But those FCBs won't match the dwarf approach until level 16.

Saving Cap'n Crunch wrote:

I would keep going with Investigator for Inspiration and talents to let you apply Inspiration to other important skills, plus extra alchemy awesome for Day Job checks.

Saving throws, skill ranks, and BAB are better on an Investigator. Also, I would maybe go with a Carnivalist Rogue dip instead of Wizard unless you really want Knowledge is Power, which I can't seem to find. What does it do?

Knowledge is Power is an arcane discovery that lets you add your intelligence to combat maneuver checks and CMD, as well as strength checks to break things.

...You mean like Diehard...?

FYI, there's a whole chain of feats available to half-orcs with Diehard. Look up the Deathless Initiate chain.

Bonus feat of potential interest:
Ferocious Action

Gwen Smith wrote:

If you're throwing anything into melee, you want Precise Shot.

All ranged attacks take -4 if your target is in melee. And unless you don't have any other party members, 80% of the time, you will have at least a -2 cover penalty (usually -4).

Taking -8 to hit is extremely painful. At 2nd level, your wizard needs a 20 to hit against AC 15; you need a 16 or higher if you can avoid cover or if you take Precise Shot (with no cover AND Precise Shot, you can hit on a 12). Throwing spells into melee is a little less painful because you target their touch AC. But without Precise Shot, don't count on hitting very often.

Splash weapons are ranged touch attacks.. You can also target a grid intersection for AC 5 if you only want to hit with your splash damage. Although that's not very effective, you avoid throwing into melee (and hitting your ally with the splash damage) and can target corners that you have a direct line to more often. Precise Shot is probably not very useful unless you plan on using a lot of ranged touch attack spells later in your wizarding career.

Also, N.B.: Wizards use crossbows because bows deal reduced damage when you have a negative strength modifier; crossbows do not. It also helps that the primary disadvantages of a light crossbow--no iterative attacks and reduced mobility--don't really affect low-level wizards too much. They don't get iterative attacks and they are rarely going to miss the added mobility of the bow. And for starting wizards, with their piddly 70gp average, a longbow's simply too expensive for the first adventure (and probably not worth giving up three scrolls to purchase later, either).

So even if you have access to longbows, it's not a foregone conclusion that they're better than light crossbows.

Wheldrake wrote:

Yes, I've thought about that, although currently this character is blowing his wealth primarily on scrolls.

The problem with alchemy is the time factor. With a +9 in craft (alchemy) and taking ten, he can craft an acid flask in 2.45 days costing 3.34gp. Currently he has no alchemist lab, so no bonus there.

Most alchemical items are DC 20, so he'll need at least a portable lab for the +1 bonus to succeed taking ten. Then a smokestick would require 3.5 days and cost 6.67 gold.

Once our caravan gets rolling, it is possible I'll have more days to work with. Although then I wouldn't have 8-hour workdays either.

Scribing scrolls is so much less problematic, since I can squeeze in the 2-hour time slot into our camping time easily, being an elf and requiring less sleep.

Alchemy, like any form of mundane crafting, takes loads of time. So it's very dependent on the DM's campaign plans.

Very true comment about the time. If you don't have it, you don't, and scrolls are valuable. But, just to keep in mind:

You might consider using Crafter's Fortune to boost your take ten check to 24, putting more items within easier reach and making it possible to put out an acid every two days (or an alchemist's fire in three). Once you do get that portable lab up and running, you'll be able to hit those DC25 checks pretty easily, enough for a tanglefoot bag in six days or six acids in a week with accelerated crafting.

Of course, that might be sub-optimal, depending on how your GM interprets the spell.

Yeah, it'll require some investment. But both GP and downtime are cheaper to come by than character options that might lose their usefulness.

So, have you taken a hard look at the alchemy items available to you? You can achieve some of the BC that you'll eventually provide with spells via alchemy. Tanglefoot bags and the old oil + spark combo (to avoid/compensate for oil's standard 50% ignite chance) can work, especially because you're going to be targeting touch AC. Smoke sticks can be your friend for when there are rogues about or you're getting targeted by archers. Though not alchemical, caltrops can help you control the field when you're out of grease spells (shard gel is the pricier option). They're not terribly effective, but a thunderstone's better than nothing against an enemy caster you can't shut down fast enough. Even acid and alchemist's fire are going to be pretty good damage options when you're reduced to optimizing acid splash and ray of frost for damage options.

I mean, you're going to be burning money on these things, but you'll get them cheaper if you craft them and many of the effects are going to be more useful than a ray of frost, even with the +1 or +2 from foci, no?

Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
...and if you're an evoker, you can add another +1 round for being an evoker.

I think given that acid splash is a conjuration spell, it doesn't benefit from the school specialization, unfortunately.

So, there are a couple of concepts I had that I think are best served by fighters and rogues. My caveat is that I don't own the ACG, so I'm sure somebody is going to pop by to tell me about the wonderful super powers of the gestalt classes that I missed by only skimming the PFSRD.

One character concept I'm really interested in making is a light cavalry skirmisher--definitely something that fits into the Pathfinder setting, but I'm thinking akin to an Apache warrior or Steppes horseman. He'd be proficient at least with lances and a bow (or even a firearm), probably a sword or handaxe (or cavalry sabre, if I go for a more modern take) for close engagements, and carrying a shield. Ranger seemed logical, mostly for the opportunity to skip steps in feat chains, allowing me to take mounted combat and archery feats, but too many of their class features don't apply very well. Horselord is the closest, but it's still kind of a MLP class. I looked at barbarians and cavaliers* (another MLP class), but I think either the dragoon is the best fit if I want to focus on the lance, due to the feat economy and some of the unique uses of the lance the archetype opens up, or base fighter, using weapon training to become skilled in the mixed arms that are necessary for the concept.

*So, I know cavaliers are supposed to be mounted gods. The fact is that the challenge ability doesn't really appeal to me--a few, oddly, seem to actually impossible to use effectively as a mounted character. Besides that, they have pretty heavy investment in things like tactician and the banner, it seems. While useful, they have a definite "upper-class commander of plebs" vibe to me. They imply a military structure of some sort and have explicit structure in the form of orders The idea of a nomad society producing a cavalier character is risible. So they just don't fit this concept. Besides that, they don't get all the delicious extra feats that make a character that allows the kind of split focus/varied tactics that this concept entails. Also, to those people saying "Order of the Knight Errant!": introducing fluff to make the fluff you fluffed more fluffy is fluffing stupid. At that point, just hand wave away the order and give your particular cavalier the powers you like.

I've also been thinking about an actual bounty hunting team after seeing a post somewhere about taking a party captive. A ranger is a natural tracker and a good combatant (I really like rangers, actually), but I think a sap wielding rogue and a lore warden fighter who specializes in snag nets are necessary parts of a team built for non-lethal capture.

I've been wanting to play a knife master rogue in a social type campaign that uses disguise, diplomacy and bluff in conjunction with the Betrayer feat and the Underhanded rogue talent to infiltrate areas, gain a target's trust, then use Betrayer to get a free maximised d8 sneak attack dice on an attack (before initiating the surprise round?). Mixed with surprise round shenanigans, critical focus, and debilitating sneak attacks, I think this would just be a cool character to play in the right setting. Obviously, the assassin prestige class seems like a good fit here. The investigator has some merit--poison use and inspiration come to mind--but much worse damage dice, no underhanded, and overall few advantages to this build that a rogue couldn't bring to the table.

A rogue's also the only class for the character who is a professional tomb raider, followed only by, potentially, the fighter. These are the guys that crack vaults, climb up sheer walls, have pockets full of marbles for checking the slope of a dungeon floor, and string and a bell for improvised alarms, and bolts for throwing down suspicious hallways, and a wooden cup for listening through doors, and hammers and crowbars for busting through locks that can't be picked... Can you imagine a damned paladin taking a folding ten-foot pole out of his backpack and carefully testing the way ahead?

Other concepts that probably only fighters or rogues could do justice to:

-Indiana Jones (don't say bard, you know that's a lie)
-Geonese crossbowman
-Swiss pikeman
-Sniper assassin (too feat intensive for anybody but possibly rangers to compete)
-Tinker/inventor (okay, okay, the investigator steps on this one a little bit, but in any case: I honestly suspect the rogue would make a better construct maker than any of the caster classes, except for an optimized wizard...but why would a wizard bother?)

The overarching theme I'd like to point out here is that what appears to be the "standard" Pathfinder game doesn't make a lot of room for these characters.

Running skirmishes in wide open spaces on horseback? Nope, get a dog riding halfling so you can fight mounted in corridors!

Non-lethal capture focused playstyle? And do what? What are the rules for transporting prisoners and who're you turning them over to? Also, lol, don't you know that after level six you should be fighting 57.8% non-lethal damage immune enemies, what are you retarded?

Social setting assassinations? Group combat where people play discrete martial roles instead of tank/dps/buffs/BC roles? Slow, thoughtful dungeon exploration?

I just think that the problem most people have is that they don't play campaigns where these types would shine. And that's okay, people should play what makes everybody happy. But it seems like the impact of the style of the campaign or module on the utility of certain classes or the appeal of certain concepts is being underestimated here.

Great, thanks!

Helcack wrote:
If you want a trick to boost damage more then make your own acid and go acid splash, then use sulfur and acid as a material component along with using another flask of acid as a focus component to bring your damage to 2d3+4 over 2 rounds(with crafting it's costing you 4 GP 3 Silver 4 Copper about each time you use this trick.)

Hey, sorry for the noobish question, but do the rules dealing with using alchemical items as components/foci come from the Alchemy Manual? Just want to confirm, because I'm interested in reading more about them.

Dafydd wrote:
On a similar vein, hirelings. They make good guards, lookout, mules etc.

Sounds like a fun hiring process.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Stronghold Builder's Guide!

Hey, is there any chance any of you are still looking for a player or game in the South Bend area? I'm looking to join or put together a group.

I'm new to the area and looking for a private Pathfinder campaign, either by joining one or helping to create. I've recently begun playing PFS at the Griffon, but I'm also interested in a longer-form campaign, preferably from first level. The caveat is that I'm not an experienced enough player to comfortably and entertainingly GM a campaign.

Is there anybody else in the area interested in finding a group or a group with openings?