Aelfborn's page

Squiggit, Teridax, Dragonchess Player,
Thanks for the replies

Hi all,
I am returning to the forums for the first time since before the switch to 2e and am looking for advice for people experienced with Pathfinder 2e/Remastered as I just got several books and, immediately, want to make two changes to the Witch. The desired changes are simply based on my personal preference for a Witch class.

So, I would like to know What mechanical changes would need to be made to the Witch class if I would like to make the class a spontaneous caster with Wisdom as the Key Attribute?

Thank you for any advice

(note: I posted this a few hours earlier in Advice, but it was recommended I post it here).

Adjust the encounter to the party.

Yep. This is the advice in the Gamemastering section of the core book when dealing with published adventures and adventure paths. The same advice was given in the 3.0 DMG (I don't own the 3.5 DMG so I cannot comment regarding it). The authors of both books state that the designers cannot know the players at the table, the style and preferences, or their characters and,therefore, GMs should adjust things as needed to take into account the players at the table and their characters.

How exactly do you perceive adventurers Simon?

I've always seen them as serious mercenary treasure hunter types who take the job professionally.

I am not Simon, but in my gaming circles characters are rarely, if ever, mercenary treasure hunters. Dungeon crawls and treasure raids on monster lairs are almost,if not entirely, non-existent. In my own games, it is ,usually, a bunch of people with skills and abilities thrown together by circumstances or uniting against some evil. My last campaign involved the following:

I used the above backgrounds to build the party's first adventure which centered on the rescue of the noblewoman while incorporating everyone else's backgrounds. The results of the first adventure and other characters' backgrounds/goals became the basis of the campaign's direction.

However, that is not how the gods of Golarion are portrayed.

While Golarion might be the default setting for Pathfinder, a third party product does not need to work with either the Golarion setting or its default pantheon in mind (My own preference is that they do not).

For myself, unless we are talking about a setting based on legendary/mythological real world cultures (e.g. Arabian, African, Asian), it is seeing anything other than core races*. If I see changelings, dragon people (with breath weapons), dhampir, drow, tieflings, etc. as PC races that is my red flag with regards to races.

* Centaurs, Goblins, Gnolls, Half-Ogres, Kobolds, Lizardmen, Minotaurs, Orcs,and Sylphs are acceptable additions/replacements for PC races provided only one or two are added. Otherwise, a 1 for 1 replacement for other non-human PC races is fine.

Personally I think a lot of the issues that ever arise between player and GM tend to revolve around the fact the players "forget" that its the GM's job to tell a story. It is after-all their story to tell and the players are the characters in the story. In the last nearly three decades of gaming I have seen more than my fair share of players and GM's who nit pick at each others roles and its just absurd. The players should focus on playing and the GM focus on story telling. Simply put if either party doesn't like the way things are going then there is the door.

As someone that GM's about 95% of the time, I don't consider it my job to tell a story. If I want to tell a story, I will write a story. The story, when I run, emerges from play.

My role as GM is to create the setting (deities, races, cultures, nations, organizations, NPCs, history) and parameters (e.g., style, tone, house rules/variant rules, campaign rules (e.g. which classes are found in the setting), acceptable degree of optimization). The role of the players is to create characters accordingly (including providing backgrounds or goals). Once I have accepted characters and their backgrounds/goals, I set up a situation based on those backgrounds and goals to bring the players together and set them loose.

From there, we "collaborate" to "create" a story. I will provide hooks (and, occasionally, situations) based on the backgrounds and goals of the PCs, where the PCs go and what they done. Players are free to grab hooks or go in their own direction. Sometimes, the players suggest the focus for the evening, because they want to "explore" some aspect a PC or of the setting itself.

For myself, the two questions that need to be asked are 1) Why are you optimizing and 2) To what degree. For myself, optimization is simply a tool used to meet some particular goal. It is also not all or nothing. It is on a continuum. Furthermore, unless you are creating a character entirely randomly or randomly assigning things, you are engaging in some degree of optimization by assigning resources to meet your concept.

The issue to me is why are you optimizing? Is it for Butt-kicking? Power Gaming? To best represent a concept requiring compromise between several requirements (e.g, the farm boy that loved to race horses and hunt in the woods before enlisting as a military scout).

Butt-Kicking is one's focus on combat. It is an axis with a continuum separate from Optimization. Some people are more focused than others on combat, but playing with an interest for butt-kicking does not require an ability to optimize. Optimization is simply a tool employed by many people to increase efficiency in this area.

Power Gaming is focused on playing a powerful character and/or the mechanical benefits as defined/rewarded in the game (leveling, big numbers, feats, treasure, and/or spells). Again this is another axis and continuum and does not require knowing how to optimize. It is simply where someone's focus is. Many people play because they are interested in the carrot of bigger numbers and acquiring more powerful treasure or spells that help make them more powerful. This does not involve knowing how to optimize as it is motivational. Simply wanting to level to gain new skill points and skills, because characters grow would be low level power gaming as higher bonuses represent the growth mechanically which is done by higher numbers.
Optimizing for Power Gaming is optimizing to accumulate/emphasize power as defined/rewarded by the system.

Unlike Butt Kicking or Power Gaming which tend to be concerned with maximum efficiency. The third example is interested in a different form of optimization- compromise among several requirements to best represent the different aspects of the character mechanically. A character growing up on a farm would have certain skills. He or she would pick up different skills through hunting and additional skills as a military scout. For someone engaged in this type of optimization, all these different aspects need to be represented mechanically and to the appropriate degree (e.g., novice, expert, master). Furthermore, new skills acquired need to be accounted for as do skills that would have grown from use while those not used do not increase.

The other consideration in addition to why is the degree or optimization.

The problems that arise are conflicts arising from both the why and degree of optimization. The guy optimizing for combat and power is going to view the guy optimizing for the third reason to be non optimized for not optimizing to their focus. The third guy is going to be looking down on both the Butt-Kicker and Power Gamer, because they are not approaching from the character first. The Power gamer is going to look down not just on the third person, but the butt kicker, because focusing on combat and ignoring other things leaves holes to be exploited.
On top of the different focus, you have people with different tolerances for how far to carry the optimization. Butt Kickers and Power Gamers engaging in optimization tend to be more prone to look for benefits to squeeze out efficiency in order to achieve bigger bonuses. However, not everyone shares the same tolerance for degree. The threshold of what is appropriate is some arbitrary line of tolerance rather than some universal standard. When that arbitrary level is crossed, labels like Power Gamer, Munchkin, Min-Maxer (a more extreme form of Optimization) get applied.

I have a small problem with my dm. He has gotten real comfortable with the stance that he is the dm and there is always right and word is absolute. He has made at least a few questionable calls and the just rubber stamps it with I'm the dm conversation over. I will provide a few examples.

DM's word is final is the prerogative of the DM. If players don't like the rulings, they are free to find another game or start one of their own.

Banned barbarians cause they aren't fun for him to kill.

Banning a class is fine. DMs ban for all types of reasons including not liking a class conceptually or mechanically, a class being inappropriate for a setting. My concern is the "aren't fun for him to kill" qualifier. It sounds as if he views the game as GM vs. players or is a killer DM.

Didn't alot us exp for an encounter we stratgicly avoided ie: bribed our way through instead of fighting.

Many DM's only give XP for killing things. Not my preference, but it is legitimate.

Decided for his convince to add spell like abilities to a enemy who didn't have them ie: drow can levitate at will.

The DM is not required to have characters/creatures be a carbon copy out of a Bestiary. It can be an ability of the creature type in the DMs world, it can be a unique creature with a template or class.

Picking on a character ie: If he doesn't like someones character goes out of his way to kill it, like making it the first and primary center of all attacks.

This is just being a jerk and abusing the position.

This guy is a friend my group has been together for almost 8 years we play 2-36 times a month for about 8-10 hours a session, so we have logged some game time. We don't want to run him out of the group cause we like him a lot and these problems haven't arisen til lately about 3-4 months ago. Basicly just seeing if anyone has had the same type of issue and how they addressed and handled it.

Talk to him. If the problem just started up, something may have happened in his personal life. If talking doesn't work and the group is not happy, have somebody else run.

By the way, how do you play 36 times a month for 8-10 hours a session?

Here's the other side of the coin.

Let's say we're having a campaign that takes place in Medieval England. Now yes, I can pull out my Earth Gazetteer, and talk about the nomadic empire of Genghis Khan, the samurai of Japan, Arab traders vying for mercantile superiority over the Indian Ocean. I can talk about the Aztec Empire, of Great Zimbabwe, the caste system in India.

But we're in Medieval England. You're not going to be playing any of those characters.

I have no problem with that. If we are playing in Medieval England, that tells me a lot of what I need to know regarding the things I listed. I may wonder why characters from nearby cultures are not allowed/included, but it would not be a big deal.

My issue is with homebrew settings without defined cultures and thought regarding basic cultural information. It makes it impossible to make meaningful decisions to choose a concept and ground the character into the setting. It also means that I cannot determine if the campaign setting will be one that interests me (based on setting and game elements).

Psychic's Handbook*: In my opinion, still the best d20 treatment for mental powers.

Shaman's Handbook*, because I think it is a better treatment than we are getting with the playtest version. I would also like to see several of the PrCs converted to archetypes

Witch's Handbook*, because I think it is better treatment than the existing class. Again, I would also like to see several of the PrCs converted to archetypes.

Unholy Warrior's Handbook

Book of Fiends: excellent book and I like the Thaumaturge class.

Book of the Righteous: Great book and I would love to see the Holy Warrior class updated.

Hamaunaptra

Eternal Rome

*Books I would like to see Steve Kenson update as he was the original author.

DM:"A cutpurse has stolen your pouch of moss! You see him dart off through the crowd."

Me:"Okay." *beat* "Boy, is he in for a surprise."

DM:"Aren't you gonna chase him down?"

Me:"For a pouch of moss? Why would I bother?"

DM: *headdesk*

That was great. Funniest thing that I have heard all day!

Seriously people, this is the first lesson that children are taught in kindergarten. It really, really is.

Actually, it is taught in pre-school.

"Does an individual player (or GM) have any obligation or responsibility to recognize the preferences of the majority of players when they game?"

I cut GM's more slack. They need to be able to run a game in a way and style that they find enjoyable and keeps their enthusiasm. If it is not enjoyable and they are not enthusiastic, the game suffers, burnout sets in, and/or the game dies. And, really, the GM just needs one or two other people having fun (if communication with the others results in an impasse) to have an enjoyable game whereas no GM means no game.

On the flip side, if the players are unhappy, they have free will and the ability to walk and/or start a new game (if someone else is willing to run). If it results in the GM having no players, he or she needs to reevaluate, look for new players that share the same style outlook, or find something else (even if as a player).

If a player becomes emotionally invested in something, how does it not add to the game?

Just because a player becomes emotionally invested in something does not mean that it is, necessarily, a) good for or b)appropriate at a given table.

Then again, I am for communication between the GM and player

1. ahead of time, the GM should inform players of
a. house rules (standard rules from campaign to campaign)
b. setting and setting rules specific for this campaign including available races, classes, archetypes, variant rules, deities and domains etc. (assuming that the GM has a setting built or using a specific published campaign setting)
c. degree of "optimization"
d. preplanned builds vs. organic growth
e. amount of combat vs. noncombat.
f. amount of "dungeon crawling"
g. banned supplements
The above gets people on the same page and allows players to back out if their play style preferences are incompatible

2. Character creation
a. discuss concepts and background with the GM for the GM to approve, make suggestions to fit the campaign and setting, or reject.
b. discuss the mechanical build
c. present the character for review.
This ensures players create appropriate characters for the setting and table. If appropriate for the game, it allows the GM to work in backgrounds and goals.

Another idea that I came up with while walking the dog this morning is The Genius Guide to 80's Fantasy. Cull through 80's fantasy tv shows and movies for new archetypes, classes, class abilities/talents, items, spell casting methods, monsters and other oddities (all with serial numbers filed off of course). Some possibilities:

Archer: Fugitive From the Empire (a.k.a Archer and the Sorceress). If one gets past the first 30 minutes, it is a decent fantasy tv movie with cool ideas. The Heart Bow, the Sorceress's necklace of summoning (horse, panther, snake, bird). The sorceress herself is the daughter and oracle of a deity (Would she be a Godling Oracle? If so, what curse and mystery?)

Beastmaster: His ability to have multiple Animal Companions and his caber

Dragonslayer: Galen's spellcasting.

Hawk the Slayer: The Mind Sword

Ladyhawke: how to handle the curse plauging Etienne Nevarre and and Isabeau

Sword and the Sorcerer: Talon's three bladed sword.

I just picked up Talented Rogue, Talented Monk, More Rogue Talents, and more Monk Talents at RPGNow. They are very nicely done!

P.S. Owen, if either of my suggestions earn me a book, I guess my preferences can, now, be narrowed down to Talented Fighter or Talented Cavalier given my above purchases :)

This sounds more like you're doing a Knight class which subsumes Cavalier, rather than expanding the Cavalier. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I agree. I am not sure why it wasn't done this way in the first place. It sounds as if Talented Monk, Talented Rogue, Talented Monk and, now, Talented Cavalier (which I have also been eyeing) are all must buys.

It looks like Rogue Genius will be my go to third party for Pathfinder much like Green Ronin was my primary third party for 3e... Oh, wait, Owen is now doing Pathfinder for Green Ronin as well. All the better for me!

Another supplement that I would like to see is a Genius Guide to the Talented Sorcerers with Bloodline Powers handled similar to 3e style Heritage Feats so that a bloodines do not force transformation upon the sorcerer, but becomes an option. Also, it would be nice to see alternate abilities included for the bloodlines as well.

In the majority of stories and media that I grew up with, bloodlines were reasons for innate magic casting. Sometimes, they made a character extremely beautiful/handsome or even perfect physically. Sometimes a character could flash red or snakelike eyes or even a thunder clap to intimidate. Others could move objects or even transform themselves into other humanoids. Slowly taking on the form of the creature, not so much. Others at ENWorld have stated the same was true with the stories they grew up on
A supplement that helped make bloodline transformations optional would be a great tool for DMs wanting a tool for capturing a particular flavor for sorcerer in their campaign and/or for players that don't want their character going through full transformations, because a particular transformation feature does not fit their view.

Wasn't the skald largely a oral tradition? Maybe I'm confusing this with something else....

According to Wikipedia and sites on Skaldic poetry that I have seen, the skald was, originally, a type of Icelandic and Scandinavian poet skilled in skaldic poetry which was one of the two major forms of poetry in those cultures. Eventually, they became oral historians and this led them to them being in demand by Icelandic and Scandinavia leaders as a way for the leader's legacy to live on. Apparently, many kings and leaders were also skilled in skaldic poetry and some skalds became prominent leaders (e.g, Snorri Sturluson)