Alienfreak's page

Mist:

I believe that the profiteering crowd is not understanding the arguments.

I don't have any problem with someone taking a magic item crafting feat to profit from it.

But not by profiting from the other party members.

Make and sell all you want, but when you charge the party for it, you are adjusting the party loot to your benefit simply because you chose a non-combat feat.

As I have said repeatedly... If you want to play a profiteer who makes money from the players, then you better be prepared to be seen as a profit center for the other party members too.

In certain neutral and most evil parties, this is fine.

In a party that is supposed to be heroically good, this is not fine.

If you charge me for a magic sword, then don't be surprised when I ask for gold for a heal. You profit from providing what I need. I profit from providing what you need.

It's just that simple.

Even with evil parties that is not an argument. Even evil people have friends. Things they care for. And most important: common sense.

The system just gets horrible once everyone charges each other money. And the OUT OF COMBAT argument is really a strawman here.
Fighters are not meant to be useful out of combat: Hence 2+int skillpoints, no abilities
Bards and almost all full spellcasters are good out of combat.

So it means if you take a Fighter you suck because noone takes it because you can't make additional $$$$$ while all the other guys are ripping you off for each teleport, cure, using diplomacy out of encounters?
Especially considering the horrendous pricing of spellcasting compared to diplomacy being worth nothing at all because no wealth is generated and there are no tables for it?

I mean its OBVIOUS it was never meant to be like this and it gets all up to a clustershi... if you start it.
Its surely possible to do and balance. But this means A LOT of work for the DM to lay out his adventure so that the fighter is also useful out of combat (make him a noble the others need) and working out pricing tables which give every class about the same money.

Wearing metal isn't reverent towards nature. Its blatantly disregarding the rules of the druidic right for your own benefit...the druid way is to NOT wear metal.

Wearing metal armour is clearly an evil act, I might add.

The only time a DM of mine has allowed Leadership, he grinned evilly and said "but of course you'll have to do the recruiting" implying that other than the passive choice from a select group of NPC's he'd let me interview, i get very little say as to who I end up working for me. Knowing my DM, the cohort will either be utterly mad, or a secret mole working for some antagonist for some side quest done to mock our hubris for attempting to outmaneuver the DM in such a simplistic fashion...

Just the same as your Weapon Focus strangles you in the night.

Or your Animal Companion is secretly working for the BBEG and will coup de grace you in the sleep.
Getting Coup de Graced by a Tiger/T-Rex? That will definatly hurt.

Why can't I be that smart and come up with such GREAT and GAME IMPROVING ideas?

Alienfreak wrote:

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

Alienfreak wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Alienfreak wrote:

Sean K Reynolds says you are wrong.

Sean K never said anything of the sort. He is a kind gentleman who knows better than to make a habit of spuriously telling people they are wrong.

He and the other developers simply give their opinions, thoughts, house rules, and official FAQ and errata.

They do not generally tell people they are "wrong." That's bad form, would limit a supposedly limitless game, and may cost them business.

You mean the really old lazy diplomatic "DM will fix it approach"? Yeah.

But unless you can prove him wrong with that the effects of a class feature or feat are chosen by the player you are wrong.
Or do you seriously argue that a player cannot choose the feats of his AC or the weapon of his Weapon Focus?

That's not the same thing. One is purely a mechanical benefit the other is a complete creature with a mind of its own who has actually chosen to follow the PC. There isn't anything that suggests that the PC should be able to create and control the NPC. It can easily be read as "you attract an NPC that already exists in the game to be a loyal follower."

This is also why I suggested using the SSG's Bullet Points: Leadership. It addresses the problems the OP is having while still giving the players what they want.

So a Animal Companion or (Improved) Familiar is not a creature with a mind of its own?

Both an Cohort as an AC or Familiar are pure mechanical benefits.

The familiar works differently than the animal companion. Note that those with animal companions need to train them and use Handle Animal checks to control them. So there you go. Not all class features or feats are in complete control of the player.

4th HD ability up on Intelligence or a headband of vast intellect +2 (he now even got a new skill...cool).

Doesn't EVERY druid out there do it like this?

And now where is the difference between a Familiar and an AC again? Maybe the AC is a bit less intelligent, sure. But I fail to see the vast difference in what they are.

Quote:

And no matter who controls it. It still is still a LOYAL Cohort who will do almost everything you want from him because he is your LOYAL guy after all.
They are loyal companions. They aren't mindless slaves. Are you loyal to your friends? Do you do everything they tell you? Nope. Neither will the cohorts.

Most people aren't advocating not allowing the player to have a cohort that can craft. They are saying that this NPC will not be a mindless automaton that will just do whatever the player wants. He can be influenced, but he isn't a factory.

You are forgetting a major part here. My friends are just my friends. Friends give back each other as much as they take.

A Cohort is somebody that devotes his life to me. Works for me for free. Fights for me for free. Dies for me for free.
He gives up everything he knows. Family. Friends. Maybe his Girlfriend. Just to be with me and help me with my adventures. For free.

And now here I stand as a fool and even helped my friend's dad in his business sometimes if he got a big order that he can't handle alone.
Is he my friend? Nope. So why am I helping him? Is my time worth nothing? Do I have no self-esteem? Nope. Maybe its not as obvious to Hardwurster as it is to others but: helping people your friend likes and stands close to on the plea of a friend is just the same as helping this friend personally.

In all your Hardwursten you turn back your own argument on yourself by not having the person behave like a person would behave in a position like his and turn them into GM Machines and justify everything with GOOD ROLEPLAYING (the good old hit it with a stick and show it you are superior) argument.

Here's something my GM did for my character in a game. It's a good twist of the leadership feat into it's own plot device.

I asked him for an alchemy business, so main cohort was a high lvl alchemist that was to be my second in command, followed by a handful of lower lvl alchemists to work in the labs.

Everything was fine and dandy, I even hired a quirky gnome engineer to design a new airship schematic from some advance stuff my guy stole from a genius pirate. Long story short, the guy who I thought was my main cohort and buddy ran off with all of my airship plans because he was part of the pirate crew in disguise to get them back. My main cohort actually turned out to be the gnome. Added to that is a lvl 0 sorceror newborn and a half cloud-dragon blink dog security friend/pet, it makes for fun times in the lab.

The next time you attack someone or cast a spell on him insist that you deal 1000d10 damage.

If your DM doesn't stick to the rules, why should you?

I mean all that blabla about LOYAL cohorts and DEVOTED followers. Surly someone devoted and loyal can just as well be a mole, an assassin killing you in the sleep, a polymorphed Cornugon, a pirate stealing off your property...
I can't possibly see this contradict with DEVOTED and LOYAL.

"Cohort: 8d8(first HD full)+8*con+8*1(fav class)" - Alienfreak

The first hit die at maximum value only applies to PCs.

(Official FAQ 9/3/10) Creatures whose first Hit Die is from a PC-appropriate character class gain max hit points for that Hit Die. The current list of PC-appropriate character classes is alchemist, barbarian, bard, cavalier, cleric, druid, fighter, inquisitor, monk, oracle, paladin, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, summoner, witch, and wizard (including archetypes, subclasses, and other variants of these classes).

Alienfreak wrote:

And I don't wanna nitpick. But the dude in the group is creating an item and selling it to someone else. Wouldn't that mean half price because he is selling the stuff he just made?

So his time is worth nothing? Because that's what you're saying here. You're saying that the cohort's time is worth a big, fat, zero. I disagree and that goes back to the whole self-worth thing that I was talking about earlier.

Kingmaker campaign:

Well... 0.
So yes, his time is effectively worth NOTHING.

Alienfreak wrote:

wrote lots of crap about how a high-level party member needs a price break and by God the other character's cohort should be happily presenting his services at half-price...

Cry me a river; now pay the man.

How is he in for the money if the group has collected several MILLIONS worth in loot while he was with them and he never wanted even one gp?

And I don't wanna nitpick. But the dude in the group is creating an item and selling it to someone else. Wouldn't that mean half price because he is selling the stuff he just made?
Can I make my Cohort create items and then sell them off for the full price to random people, too? And since he doesn't want any money the group makes he will surely even give it to me for free?
Even if he keeps the money he makes with it it means for every day I let him work he will make 500gp. So after a few month he will surely have a lot of fancy equipment I don't have to pay!

Alienfreak wrote:

And no matter who controls it. It still is still a LOYAL Cohort who will do almost everything you want from him because he is your LOYAL guy after all.

I chose this one sentence from the above drivel because it illustrates my point perfectly - the PC's cohort is loyal to the individual, as you have said so yourself. That's individual, as in one person, not as in one group. There is nothing in the Leadership feat that says the cohort is loyal to your party companions.

If you command your cohort to service the other party members, for half-off no less, then you're no better than a pimp. I don't think they quite had that sort of master/servant relationship in mind when they developed this feat. Rather I think they were thinking of the stalwart man-at-arms, ever watching his master's back etc, etc.

But again - you look at Leadership as nothing more than a vehicle for creating custom-order magic items for the party, half-off!

Rock on with your bad-self.

So we have that really cool guy who is a badass Wizard who has been to Hell, Heaven and went back to tell the tale and is afraid of nothing.

Now Mr. badass Wizard asks his most loyal person to please make a Headband of Vast Intellect +2 for the Cleric so he the Cleric has ranks in a skill your group REALLY needs in order to be more successful. Which is a group he is a member of, too. He is now with them for YEARS without getting ANYTHING for it and he knows it is pretty much essential for the survival out there in the harsh world to be as much powered up as you can be. If you are not you can end up unlucky, just like the myriads of other groups before you, and cease to exist in the next big battle to come. And if the group dies he will die, too.
Nobody will be there to resurrect him, because the Cleric just died as well. Unlike the times before when he was unlucky and got a killing blow and the Cleric just had his Breath of Life ready to get him back on the bright side of existence he will just be dead. Permanently. Even worse their mission will fail and everything that is at stake will perish with them. Probably thousands of innocents will die.

.

Yeah you got me here. He has no reason at all to help the buddy of the guy he adores so much that he works for him for free.

.
.
.

Btw.: Didn't you read my posts? I would NEVER use the powerhouse of a Cohort that bad and make him a magic item crafting gimp that can do nothing besides making shiny items.

Alienfreak wrote:

But surely if the level 8 sorcerer Cohort of the Ranger (he has an AC, dumped charisma, travels alot and stuff...) is supposed to make a Brooch of Shielding for the 18th level Wizard, while he is hanging out in the fanciest place he has ever been in, he has no self esteem and will not do this.

The cohort would surely make that item, for the right amount of cash (which isn't half-off.) Why would the Ranger's cohort give preferential pricing to someone who isn't his Master? I mean, is he just stupid or something? The Master's party companion is already getting the advantage of having access to a skilled magical craftsman (the cohort) who takes custom orders. But that's not enough for you, oh no. You want more! It needs to be half-off or you're just being a mean DM who doesn't respect RAW!

Kinda funny, really.

Why does the Wizard make an item for the Ranger's Animal Companion who is no party member!?

Alienfreak wrote:

It is? How so?

Did you ever see any cohort of mine? I bet most party members are easier to kill than those. Because they specialize on good saves with high AC and spend their rounds on...

Obviously I have never seen one of your PCs or even your Cohorts. They sound uber, just like you.

Down here, in the less-rare air, it has been my experience that a Cohort rolls out with a serious disadvantage in terms of combat-prowess. Even though he'll manage to gain levels and narrow the gap a bit, well-designed encounters that challange the party will likely be lethal for him (if he's allowed to fight as a full-party member.)

Ah okay. Now lets stop with those assumptions and get some numbers going.

I have a cohort and you have an animal companion as a Ranger.

My cohort is level 8 and and your AC is 7th level.

Cohort:
8d8(first HD full)+8*con+8*1(fav class)
AC: 29+
Can heal himself and others
Can cast buffs
Can dispel debuffs
Can stay out of melee and be useful

Wolf Companion:
6d8+6*con
AC: 24+
Can trip people in melee

Yeah sure. That Cohort is REALLY going down all the time because he is not viable at all while other people's class features are really worth their money. He would even fare better in combat than the companion of a Druid.

The Leadership Feat doesn't come with a lot of detailed info it, at least in terms of cohort motivation. As an NPC, it's really up to the DM to take the reigns and keep the player from abusing the resource.

Benefits: This feat enables you to attract a loyal cohort and a number of devoted subordinates who assist you. A cohort is generally an NPC with class levels, while followers are typically lower level NPCs.

It is a LOYAL person. And if you do not give a LOYAL person a self harming order he will do it. The best way of getting people to put themselves in danger of dying for you and not having them run away is not paying them money it still is having their LOYALTY.

This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the druid on her adventures.

And you wouldn't argue that the AC of the Druid is not pretty loyal to the Druid, would you?

By the way: Where is it stated that a DM controls ALL NPCs? Probably I just overlook that passage but I just can't find it.
Do you really take away the control of the Familiar of your Wizard from him as DM? Because he is a NPC? Do you really take away the control of the Animal Cohort of the Druid because it is a NPC?

And no matter who controls it. It still is still a LOYAL Cohort who will do almost everything you want from him because he is your LOYAL guy after all.

Alienfreak wrote:

So I don't give my party member's Cohort or Animal Companion items at the price I craft them as the party's Wizard. Why? Otherwise I would be a tool and have no self worth.

What do you mean by "I"? Are you playing a Wizard character in the party? If you are, then you can do whatever you want with your Feat selections and you can charge whatever you like for any magic items you might choose to create.

But we're not not talking about a PC, are we?

We're talking about a PC's cohort, who is not a party tool. He's a "little" NPC that has chosen to follow one particular PC. Do you see the difference now?

Ah okay. So if a full blown epic Wizard level 18 makes a Headband of Vast Intellect for the Small Cat Companion of the Ranger its not a problem of self esteem.

Got it!

Alienfreak wrote:

So the DM just meta games and kills the cohort without anybody being to influence it

My don't you just have a problem with reading comprehension...

Killing a character that's 2 or 3 levels behind the party is very easy to do. If the Cohort's master doesn't look out for his companion during battle, and if the little guy starts popping off effective spells, then he becomes a very soft target indeed.

So many people seem to view Leadership as an extra Party Member / Indentured Servant, all for the price of a sinlge Feat slot. That dog simply won't hunt, as they say. A good DM balances the huge benefits of the Feat with some very real disadvantages.

It is? How so?

The Leadership feat comes with NO DISADVANTAGES. Period.
Everything else is a house rule and belongs to the house rules forum and not here.

Renvale987 wrote:

Okay, so here is my situation. I have a player who took the Leadership feat. After doing so, he made a cohort, who was a wizard with every single item creation feat. After doing so, they put her to work making them item after item after item for half price.

In this example, the cohort is being used as a party tool, not the loyal companion of one party member.

Renvale987 wrote:

I believe this to be a broken use of Leadership.

It is indeed not how Leadership should be used. The Wizard cohort might give preferential pricing to his master, but Master's friends pay full-price. That's just plain having a sense of self-worth, which a cohort (or anyone, really) should have.

Renvale987 wrote:

I have a problem with a player taking a single feat and then having access to 6-7 feats ALL THE TIME afterwards. This is wrong to me. She has no other feats then item creation and all her skill points are put into crafting skills.

Kill the cohort, it's that simple. And don't let the player insist that the party has to pay to raise the guy. Make him do that with his cut of the loot. The cohort is not a full party member, he should never receive a cut of any treasure whatsoever. All cohort loot should come out of the master's cut.

So I don't give my party member's Cohort or Animal Companion items at the price I craft them as the party's Wizard. Why? Otherwise I would be a tool and have no self worth.

So the DM just meta games and kills the cohort without anybody being to influence it and feels COOL afterwards because he is so mighty?

Srsly. Either don't allow Leadership at all or play it like it was meant to be.
Don't always turn around a thing the Player likes with your Hardwursten into a device to torture the player and steal his fun. Like killing his cohort all the time on purpose and wasting his items. Or like turning the cohort into the tool of the BBEG that sells him out. Seriosuly. ITS HIS FREAKING COHORT.

You guys are really some spiteful DMs loving their might and loving to crush the fun your players could probably have. Well done. Go on Hardwursten.

When players believe they are smart by exploiting what they believe is a weakness in the RAW, I really enjoy showing them how much smarter I am.

In this case, it is quite easy. Give the PC his cohort and let him craft the magic items that the party wants. You will then count these items at full value against their WBL and adjust the loot they receive accordingly.

Thus the only real value of the feat is that they can get the magic items they really want, which is not so bad for a feat but does not really make it broken.

Of course, you can still take advantage of the fact that they now have a dependent NPC who can be kidnapped, killed, ransomed, corrupted and so on. You can also have him be a really obnoxious jerk with outrageous demands for his wages, quarters, laboratories, whatever.

Better than refusing something to a player, it is much more satisfying to make him regret ever wishing for it.

You Sir are really smarter than anybody I ever met and smarter than I could ever be. This solution is that cunning. I am left speechless.

Crafting Magic Items never allows anyone to increase their character wealth noticably above what they should have in our groups.
Also cohorts NEVER want wages.

And invoking rule 0 to screw around with player's is not smartness but you being the DM. Anybody can be the DM and so ANYTHING in his world.

puksone wrote:

the David wrote:

...Or, alternatively, drop his leadership score. That schould teach him.

this is so wrong. dont abuse your power as a gm. the players will just loose their fun to play the game...

If you don't present it as stated "I'm teaching you a lesson" then it will probably be ok.

Say something more like, "Reginald joined you to journey and see the world. He is unhappy being slave labor for the last 13 weeks. His resistance to this treatment is equivalent to a drop in you cohort leadership of 2 points."

There is a penalty for the Leader moving around a lot.

Everything above that is punishment by the GM.

What is so wrong about using some Wizard to craft items?
Would it be better to get a free Bard that is your buff B1tch?
Would it be better to get a free Cleric that is your Healbot?
Would it be better to ge a free Hound Archon and adding class levels so you have your Meatshield?

I mean isn't the whole purpose of Leadership to get a cool Cohort that adds to your power?

Huh, funny. Any time anyone in my party is wearing a ring of mind shielding, I just assume they are evil and act accordingly.

So freedom of thoughts and privacy is clearly evil.

Got this.

Its always nice to see how alignment works out it D&D.

Do you mean two exact named abilities in the same book that work differently.

A few examples i can think of right now.

Ranger hide in plain sight vs shadow dancer.
One works in shadows the other in any terrain you have favored terrain

Fighter weapon training vs rogue weapon training.
One makes you better with a group of weapons the other gives you weapon focus with one weapon.

Barbarian fast movement vs monk
One gets a single bonus that stacks with most things the other several increases that are enhancement and dont stack with much.

I retract any previous statement and point out that they are bad game designers destroying any possibility of having correct RAI out of RAW.

But at least I can make a kick a$$ skeletal mount of that dead Unicorn in Kingmaker. It can teleport around in that forest and heal me, neutralize poison and has a magic circle against evil on me all day. Win.

Is it just me or is this thread getting more and more a farce?

The above comparison is crap.

A Barbarian without any feats put on combat is worth nothing.

Compare a Fighter that has Weapon Training 6, WF, GWF, WS, GWS, PA, Furious Focus and Improved Critical against a Barbarian that has his Rage.
Without mentioning that for the 40 skill points you highly advertise we would need at least 8 int while our fighter can safely dump it to 7, saving him two points and giving him a higher stat elsewhere.

Fighter has (lets say) 28 Str and a straight +5 weapon with speed boots for 60ft movement in his heavy armour. That means he ends up with +43/+43/+38/+33/+28 to hit and 2d6+28 dmg (17-20 x3 automatic confirm).
With PA & FF that is +43/+37/+32/+27/+22 to hit and 2d6+46 dmg (17-20 x3 automatic confirm)
Now our Barbarian has 28 Str and a furious weapon so it ends up at +6 and speed boots for 50ft movement in his medium armour. So in Rage he has 36 Str.
Ends up with +40/+40/+35/+30/+25 and 2d6+25 dmg (19-20 x2).

.
.
.

Lets look outside of the combat. What you guys falsely advertise as the problem of the fighter:
Both are equal
Lets look inside the combat:
Fighter is better

So we just have proven that the fighter is as good as the barbarian in non combat situations while having a higher AC, faster movement, better to hit and more damage in combat.
The Barbarian has the problem not the Fighter. The Fighter is just fine here. And we only used 7 out of his 11 combat feats!

And every time the Barbarian takes a combat feat you can easily counter that with your last 4 feats and he gets worse in your beloved OUT OF COMBAT COMMONER STATISTICS (seriously who came up with that crap) while you come out ahead or if you decide to be equal you have another feat to spend on fancy feats.

The statement that nobody is forced to take combat feats and thus the fighter isn't better is an aweful bad strawman argument. Play someone in an official Pazio AP and you WILL TAKE COMBAT RELEVANT FEATS. The fighter can easily spend 5 feats on non combat relevant stuff and still have everything he needs. Your Barbarian or Paladin? I wanna see him being good with spending half of his feats on out of combat things.
Did I already say aweful bad strawman argument? Because it is... seriously... stop that kindergarden arguments niveau just to look as you were right.

.
.
.
.

The fighter doesn't lack anything out of combat what you wrongly state. What the fighter lacks is shiney specials that he can pull off:
Summoning Barriers
Flying around without items
Teleporting around
Save or Sucks
etc pp.

Its just disappointing standing in front of your enemy for the 5th round dishing out another 100 damage while everyone else can do fancy stuff that actually changes things unlike increasing a single "damage taken" bar.

Core Rulebook
Advanced Player's Guide
Bestiary
Ultimate Combat
Ultimate Magic

I have never tried to get a +4 weapon at level 12 or anything else that takes up half of my WBL.

I think the point on the boards is that you can't always depend on a balanced party. Normally that is what you get, but I have had people play all casters, parties with no skilled guys, parties with no dedicated melee types, and so on.
In a game where the party is balanced, and everyone plays together neither the monk nor the TWF guy has to spend as much money.

A balanced party has no TWF :P

Okay, Alienfreak, here is what we need to do. You go to charge these archers, and they will try to shoot a bunch of arrows at you. We'll then see how many arrows they hit you with per six seconds.

It also like the point out that for many of the reasons you said archery isn't "realistic" that melee combat is either. Cause now you are in melee with the thing that wants to eat you, still trying to go for those tiny openings in his armor, while he is now completely and actively trying to hit you. PF takes in no account for weapon parries unless he is using two weapons.

Again thats wrong.

The thing we would be simulating here would not be hitting someone. Merely connecting the arrow.
Lets say I have an Dex of probably 12 plus I have no deflection magic or any dodge skills. That means hitting me would mean rolling a 11 on the attack roll.
HITTING someone and DEALING DAMAGE (what is the thing we are talking about with archers) is bypassing my Armour.

The best way to simulate that would be like the US Military started doing. You have to use moving targets (Segways or such) and then put a doll on them with Armour equipped. Then we place that in an Enviroment that isn't a clean hall for example putting there friendly segways and enemy segways that go against each other and cross each others moving paths. And finnaly we put some pressure on the archer with maybe shooting on him with paintball guns (not constantly but every now and then) and he is supposed not to get hit.

Let this commence for about a minute and then look how many arrows have been able to penetrate INTO the doll material.

.
.
.

Archers weren't the battlefield killers people make them to be. Archers were never used alone until they had rifles which had enough punching power to allow them to operate alone and be successful.
Bows were made obsolete even by pipes with sticks at the end (not sure how to call it). Those were akwardly looking and firing slow but the point is that anybody could use them and they had enough power to penetrate armour even at medium distances.
If Bows would have been so awesome why were there so many other rather questionable ranged weapon systems that came up after the bow and even replaced them. It would be stupid to replace a killer bow with something more complicated, more expensive and slower firing...

There is a point why the Brits won no wars after Agincourt. And contrary to what people believe those two victories did not end the era of heavy cavalry but started it.
They were the end to the glory hogging "swordlords" (dunno the name for it in english) Knights that disliked having the Infantry taking the victory and thus lead to major tactical errors which gave those two battles the grave results they had.

The same as why there is Fireball, but there's no Frostball or Acidball: because somebody said so.

Which is still a major point of annoyance for many people on the boards.

They just copied the basic D&D Vanciant Spellcasting System into their new system without giving it any love even as WotC obviously was working at alternatives for it...

Alienfreak wrote:

This assumption is unlogical. If you don't have a patron deity you must worship a CONCEPT. Neither of the two gods are concepts but one god that died and one that never existed. In Greyhawk you can be a cleric of a concept but if your god dies you get no more spells from him (because he is dead).

What you describe is more or less exactly what an oracle does. Since oracles work that way, clerics should not.

So the answer to the matter is that philosophies can grant spells but can't.

Oracles obviously get divine spells (the same ones that clerics get) granted by a philosophy but its impossible for Clerics to pray to an philosophy because gods are personally present in Golarion (like in Fâerun) and thus it is impossible for an philosophy to grant spells.

Sounds alot like: All undead are purely evil, an abomination to everything living, but Ghosts can be neutral Good and have to haunt in their form until every last abducted (on the planet) child has been returned to its parents.
Or we are Juju Zombies who are Undead but also not evil. Because.... they are not.

.
.

What is the difference between Clerics having a cult of Aroden (name?) and casting fluffy divine cleric spells in his name or Oracles having a cult of Aroden (name?) and casting fluffy divine cleric spells in his name?
You might say there is no difference between those two and they are indistinguishable for everyone who uses spellcraft on a casting character of Aroden... (oh one has no channel energy...)

So why is the first highly impossible in Golarion while the second one is day to day business?

Alienfreak wrote:

Nobody likes my suggestion :(

Yet everyone who had that book loved the melees in it...

No offense directed at you but I hated that book.

The one good thing I can say is that it was an attempt to fix the disparity between casters and fighters, but the philosophy of giving one side more was a feeble & uneven attempt at best.

At that point in the game scaling back power would have been met with too much resistance, so I can understand the need to "give moar" as a splat vs. fixing issues in the game.

I didn't like the heavy anime/wuxia influenced themes in the book, and in the end it still didn't address the powers of casters. Just a bad attempt at catch-up for martials.

Spellcasting in 3.5 should have been nerfed/checked or better assessed in a risk-reward paradigm and we may have gotten a 4e that was different from what was put out.

If the book works for you (and it works for those who may want to preserve casters power) then by all means convert it to PF.

Spellcasters aren't better per se anymore than melees. They only excel at variety and utility stuff.

3) If you resist arrest and kill the guards because you don't feel like being arrested, then you are EVIL. See quote above about Evil. Evil kills out of convenience.

Just a quick question:

Scenery:

You are arriving on Baator in a big city and suddenly the guards want to arrest you on charges of being mortal and the punishment for that is being executed and converted into a Larva.

Does this make my Chaotic Good character evil if I resist?
I mean they are guards and resisting arrest by guards is clearly evil as you pointed out...

Shudder....I recall old iron man dice rolling from back in the day. No thanks.

No sane person will ever miss the "3d6, you may roll 3 times and then take which block you want" madness.

Being a 14 13 10 8 6 5 right next to a 18 17 16 16 14 8 guy was no fun at all...

This stat rolling is so 1990...

Wow, I am impressed that this has gone on so long. I have never required or been required to do 15 point buy. The groups I play with like to feel a little powerful.

@auticus I am glad your rules work for you and your group. I am surprised you have had to defend house rules for so long. It is not like we are talking RAW.

I give bonus XP for one game for writing a background or a journal entry for the last game. Players who are involved just tend to level up faster.

Dear Diary,

BROKE SOME BONES AND SMASHED SOME SKULLS!!!111

Love, BARBARIAN

/me writes down his earned bonus XP :D

Matthew Morris wrote:

Um, 15 points isn't 'normal person' it's 'normal hero'.

Boromir, Farimir, the dwarves (except Thorin) in The Hobbit etc.

Now I can see Aragorn being 20 point, but then he's not as human as the others. Think of him as a 'true Azlantan' if you want to Golarion him.

I'll admit I'm torn with teaching the kids. Do I teach them 15 points so they learn an 8 doesn't 'suck' and a 14 is good? Or do I teach them 20 points, so they learn on par with PFS characters?

You sound like a veteran gamer. I've seen the game since 2nd ed. I would recommend teaching them from the 2nd ed perspective that an 18 stat is close to amazing, 14 is exceptionally good etc. It allows them to appreciate the 16s and 18s alot as opposed to 16s at level one being somewhat common.

So 25 is still max and you throw dinosaurs over continents with it?

No?

Then why compare it.

20 Str was GODLIKE in D&D 2nd. Now 20 Str is medicore. In 2nd an ancient Red Dragon had also... 20? (I think) Now he has 39!!!!!!!1111
So why do you try to keep people at 2nd edition stat levels when we aren't in 2nd anymore...

Icyshadow wrote:

mishima wrote:

Talonhawke, you need to try it sometime so you can discover that what you said is not the case.

"I am right and you are wrong" is the wrong attitude on the internet.

And just a couple post later:

Quote:

I'll like to prove you wrong

seems to be contradictory.

That said: I'm currently playing a 15 point buy Paladin in Kingmaker. He's a human, and the starting stats, including human bonuses, are:
Str 18
Dex 10
Con 12
Int 10
Wis 8
Cha 14

It's a decent character. At level 8, with two bumps, and a headband of charisma and a belt of strength, it stats are:
Str 22
dex 10
Con 12
Int 10
Wis 8
Cha 16

Why is that character unplayable or boring?

Dex 10? Not even 12? You lose out 1 AC with your fullplate while having that Con? Holy...

And you can't even viably boost Con and Dex much with Statboosters because they each will cost 50% more just out of the reason you will have to buff Str to be good at all..

And tell me:

If your char is well build... how did you kill the Tendriculos with 3 buddies? What class are they? What were your tactics? What level were you?

Gotta admit, it may be my over-bearing amount of free time, my long history with RPGs in every form, or just the sheer amount of books I've read, but I almost never encounter anything that I don't have a prepared weapon for. Hell I had a barbarian once who had a adamantine +1 furious holy weapon that allowed me to bypass pretty much everythings DR. (+3 enhancement when raging so counts as cold iron, silver, adamantine, magic and good aligned for the purposes of bypassing dr) and that's only a total +4 weapon.

So what did you do with the lawful, chaotic, evil, artifact DRs? You at least need a +5 weapon for the former 3.

Not playing a Paladin in an AP (unmodified) is kinda dumb because they are so good. And take the Archer Way and you'll let your teammates look like peons.

Alienfreak wrote:

Because I think the buffs the Cleric can cast on his ACo

Armor Class Zero?

Listen, I'm pretty sure the AC will have an armor class higher than zero. Especially if you buff the AC of the AC.

Or are you thinking of previous editions...THAC0?

...excuse me, I must fall off the fence again...

Jesus stop b+**&&~%in' the Thread already.

People knew what I meant the first time and I even changed it because someone can't grasp several messages that have the same context will most likely use the same acronyms and that it is in the nature of acronyms that there are billions of them with the same letters but different meanings.

You guys might have misinterpreted my post; I'm not looking for help with Pathfinder the MMORPG/video game, I'm looking for help with Pathfinder the roleplaying game. I don't need my character optimized to the point of godliness (let alone optimized 10 levels in advance). I just needed a starting feat that was thematic and somewhat effective.

If you don't want to plan ahead and don't want to optimize maybe just point your finger to a random feat you like the name of and the fluff text. I assume that you can read through the 100 feats of CRB and just take one. Since you dont wanna plan ahead or use chains or anything because its so unroleplayish it doesn't matter which one. All feats are somewhat effective.

Unlike what you think we are too playing PF the Roleplaying Game. But you can play a Roleplaying Game and have fun with the character because it is well made and doesn't suck.

I never realized I played in such hardcore games, but after reading this thread I feel like most people play games with way, way more training wheels than we do.

Just the idea that the GM should enforce the idea of no intraparty conflicts seems so ridiculous to me that the first couple times I read it, I assumed y'all were being sarcastic.

We always had that rule but it never had to be enforced... because players always fairly shared the loot...

I of course read the invisibility spell. You didn't quote all of the relevant sections:

Invisibility wrote:

Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth.

Sleet storm causes no direct harm. It has no attack, save or spell resistance. In fact, it is more innocent than having a monster attack or cutting a rope bridge. In contrast, fireball most assuredly causes harm. It involves a save and imposes HP damage.

As for the sound of casting and invisibility, the rules are at war with themselves. These are unforeseen consequences of merging the detection and stealth skills together. They are so screwed up that Paizo is in the process of play-testing a new stealth system.

The current invisibility spell gives you a +20 to stealth if you move. Moving involves making sound. It used to fall under "move silently" skill. So right there it gives the precedent of invisibility giving you a bonus on being quiet.

Next, it contradicts itself saying that sound can cancel it. A conservative middle ground is to grant a +20 to stealth for standing still casting a spell (instead of the +40). Even with only a +20 that wizard will be hard to find.

here is the important part:

The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. (Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions.) Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.

Especially not the bless example which implies that for example prayer would end invisibility because it affects foes.

And it doesn't have to deal damage or anything because it is especially written out that "an attack includes ANY spell targeting a foe or whose are of effect includes a foe". Sleet Storm is a spell (thats for sure), it affects an AoE (thats for sure, too) and as soon as anyone enters your spell (or was there from the beginning) the condition that the AoE includes a foe (and the spell affects him) is also given then. So it is considered to be an attack (at least regarding this spell).