ArtelSriven's page

I ran and reported The Confirmation (5-08) under PFS organized play back in January. The group I'm running for switched to Core so with all new characters I ran The Confirmation for them again but i'm getting a note that says

"Player has already run scenario at session # 3 of event # 37163 Pathfinder in The 'Cuse"

I was under the impression Core was separate from PFS with regards to tracking. The note only shows for that entry and not for In Service to Lore which the entire group ran as both PFS and Core.

Any thoughts?

Even after playing for years I feel intimidated grabbing a character sheet and filling it in from step 1. I usually grab a notepad and start jotting down notes on class, race, ability scores, skill selections... perhaps concept ideas in the margins. Once I get down to buying equipment I then usually start filling in the blanks on the character sheet. Not saying that will help everyone, but it helps me outline how my cluttered mind works.

Tricky has avoided 1 and a half rounds of BB attack at pretty much no cost.

At most pfs level, the big bad only has 1 attack.

Once you past thhose levels rocket tag sets in and combat only lasts 3 rounds tops

That is not taking into consideration all the other effects that have been brought up earlier in this thread such as pounce, haste etc.

Not disagreeing with either side of the discussion. It is a delicate topic that is more useful at lower levels as far as I am concerned. Yet at the same time its most useful assignment depends on winning initiative and being able to act in a surprise round. Even if surprise rounds only make up 10-15% of encounter rounds its still very possible the characters that use this tactic may not live to see or just be conscious come the first non-surprise round.

Going back to the 5' step discussion for a moment:

If "Tricky PC" decides to ready "attack and 5' step back when attacked" what is stopping the BBEG from moving (or double moving) up to base the PC and just not attack. The "TPC" then has to make the decision to either keep his readied action or do something else such as withdraw. If he maintains his readied action the BBEG then declares full attack... the first attack misses due to the "TPC" attacking and 5' step, but then the BBEG uses his 5' step and unleashing the rest of his full attack.

Just a thought.

Why not simplify things and just throw out the whole 'class skill' concept in general? Let people spend their skill points where they like, without penalization.

Its funny the timing of this. I was reading the section for skills over again and the real benefit of getting a +3 to "class skills" if the character has trained them isn't really overpowered if it applied to all skills the character has ranks in. Its a bigger and more noticeable effect at lower levels. A preliminary look at the numbers, by level 5 it doesn't seem overpowered at all.

Is this taking into account things like sorcerer bloodlines or cavalier orders which grant additional class skills?

Not trying to put you down, just pointing out how some min/maxers might use this to their advantage. Not a huge deal, but still something to keep in mind since there are more "must have" skill in PF that previous editions of D&D.

Also, this could negatively impact classes that typically start with a low intelligence, like fighters and clerics. They'd likely not have a high enough INT to break even on their number of class skills.

Conversely, wizards would be stepping on the "skilled" classes toes even more by being able to choose 14+INT class skills (unless you're counting all knowledge skills as one skill, but that doesn't seem right considering some classes have more knowledge skills than others).

I completely agree with what you are saying and to some point that is what I am expecting. To some degree the players will use this as a chance to min/max, but at the same time it allows a little more to background flavor in character development. Why shouldn't a fighter have Perception? Sleight of hand? I am imaging a fighter based around Bronn from Game of Thrones would use both those skills.

You are right that not having a 14+ Int would "hurt" the character by not having an equal number of skills as a base class, but they would be able to pick what skills they want. Would having Perception at 1st level for a fighter be worth missing 2 other class skills? Maybe at lower levels.

I haven't considered other features that give additional skills, I will have to look into that.

True Wizards would have a lot of class skills to start, but then I have always been of the opinion that Wizards should have a fair amount of Class Skills. They are the worst hit by the number of progression points that I think it balances. They have access to many skills through a life spent with their nose in books researching but with a focus on the magic arts their practice of those skills is limited.

What I have so far looks like this:

Alchemist (12+Int)
Barbarian (9+Int)
Bard (22+Int)
Cavalier (8+Int)
Cleric (11+Int)
Druid (11+Int)
Fighter (9+Int)
Inquisitor (18+Int)
Monk (13+Int)
Oracle (7+Int)
Paladin (8+Int)
Ranger (13+Int)
Rogue (19+Int)
Sorcerer (7+Int)
Summoner (16+Int)
Witch (9+Int)
Wizard (14+Int)

I guess I should clarify one thing. The bonus based on Intelligence is only that of the Attribute when the character is created. Once its put in play changing the Attribute doesn't change the number of class skills.

I have never been a fan on having a predetermined list of skills that a class can take. While it was far more harsh in 3.5 and lightened up some in the Pathfinder rule set, it still feels a little to constricting for me. One of the house rules I have used since the beginning of 3.0 was to allow each character no matter their class to pick their own class skills based on the number of skills listed in the class description. If the class had 8 skills listed then they could pick any 8 skills they wanted for their "class skills".

Now in Pathfinder I see some of the skills have been combined, removed, altered and even some added. With these changes I noticed some small changes to the skills listed in each of the class descriptions. I am going to be starting a new campaign this Friday and I was rewriting my house rule list and thought of this idea:

Each character begins with a number of "class skills" equal to the number of skills listed in the class description -2. They are allowed to pick additional skills to be added to the "class skill" list based on their Intelligence modifier. Penalties to this Attribute do NOT affect the number of skills taken.

I would be very interested in feedback from other GM's as well as players if they like or dislike this idea... or if anyone recommends an adjustment in some way.

One thing that was not touched on here is that NPC's are not in general stupid. Unless they have animal intelligence they should be able to pick out which enemy is the most dangerous. I know in my games at least casters often find themselves being swarmed as soon as they let it be known that they are casting spells. Why? Do you think goblins are just going to line up to go toe-to-toe with the fighter all the while getting pelted by magic missiles or scorching rays? All the while ignoring the cleric standing right behind the fighter continuously casting cure light wounds?

The OP is correct that Archery can get out of hand... that is why it was such a useful combat tactic in real life. Its easier to replace an arrow than it is a trained soldier. I would say the next time your group is in a mass battle, put the archer in a situation where he either is forced to switch to melee or let him take the AoO using the bow in melee.

A word of warning though... do not "punish" the player or make it so that he can never use the character as he built it, this will create undo tension. Its better to just tweak encounters from time to time giving the archer some difficulty. This goes for any build really. If you crush their spirit by making it impossible to do what the build was for, it takes away their enjoyment of the game.

Just my 2 cents

I believe i understand what you mean. While I would not call it nervous I sometimes have an issue when it comes to the initial description of important scenes. For myself its usually because I have spent so much time and effort trying to work through it in my head that when it comes time to talk I am flooded with a hundred different versions of what I want to say all at once. Just like you I tried writing things down and reading directly to the players but then I would focus too much on my own writing mistakes.

The one thing that I have found that works "better" but not a cure for the problem is to NOT be so specific and ultra detailed in the introductory description. Break it up into three... four or more smaller descriptions.

"As you turn another corner of the narrow winding passage leading ever deeper into the damp sandstone tunnels of the kobold lair the scenery changes, opening into a low cavernous chamber."

Take a moment to move miniatures or set up a new map and allow players to make any perception checks that they will undoubtedly ask for.

"The smell of rot and decay gets stronger the closer you get to the entrance. A faint chittering can be heard from the depths of the cavern."

Ask for clarification on who has light sources and take a moment to determine how far the PC's can see.

"As you bring your light sources up to get a better look you come to the conclusion this may very well be the source of the unusual dampness in the tunnels. Deposits of heavy minerals dripping from the ceiling of this chamber have begun forming stalactites and stalagmites... at least a dozen by your first guess."

Ask the players to take a single move action before you continue with your description...

I thank you all for your answers. Overall it has renewed a lot of the desire I had lost with continuing with Pathfinder. From what I have read of the rules, a lot of the House Rules I used to use have been adjusted and reworked... very similar to the build of the house rules I had made... Poisons for instance.

Anyway, back to the point. Thank you. I think my group is going to have a blast working through the Rise of the Runelords path. :)

ArtelSriven wrote:

"You need an 18 to make this work"

"Straight single class characters don't work"

"Bards and monks are useless through straight class progression"

Are these exact quotes or are they exaggerations? I've never seen the first two here and I've only rarely seen the bard called useless. When I have seen the bard called useless, there were plenty of responses disagreeing.

The first two were not copy + paste direct quotes but that is what was said. I will look back and try to find the thread relating to them shortly. The last one was paraphrased as the mention was more to making the Monk a Zen Archer and there was a mention to changing the monk to make an Arcana Archer build which would be "more useful".

Yeah I understand coming to an advice forum means you are looking for help and that help is obviously not going to be to build a useless character. I guess for the most part you guys are right, the help is mainly to show a better use or combination of skills and feats or class abilities. The part that was catching me off guard so much as the people making comments like

"You need an 18 to make this work"

"Straight single class characters don't work"

"Bards and monks are useless through straight class progression"

Obviously those are the persons opinions but I have seen that a lot and I just was curious if that is more than just an opinion. From what I have read so far I would disagree, but then again my experience with Pathfinder specific is limited. Just my opinion so far with the classes being more powerful than D&D 3.5 and the monsters not really being much more powerful scaled to the PCs... it seems like straight core classes should work out fine.

Thank you both for your input. I completely understand there is going to be a difference between what the game needs and what the players want. I just didn't want to put myself in a bad situation if I decided to help run PFS games or play in PFS games and am forced to build characters around numbers rather than around concept. As a GM I have always encouraged my players to build characters around a concept rather than number crunch simply because as an experience I have found that for the most part min/maxed number crunched characters tend to be more specialized in their fields... and once taken out of those fields the players tend to quickly become disinterested.

This is just my observation though. Thank you again for your input. :)

I have noticed on the Advice threads that there are A LOT of people who are either asking for "optimal" character builds or are being told that the builds they have require this or that to be effective. Now while I am new to Pathfinder I have many years experience with all the previous editions of D&D under my belt so my questions to the community are these:

Q: Has Pathfinder been written so that only the most optimal character builds will work in the long run?

~:: I have only really looked at the lower levels of the game right now having built a few 1st level characters and read over a few of the 1-3 level scenarios. While most if not all of the scenarios I have read so far could fairly easily be completed successfully with a 4 person party with an average 13 for stats...

Q: Is this just a foundation that gets progressively more difficult at higher levels?

~:: It has always been an ongoing challenge in D&D for the DM to sync his encounters with the ever changing power level of the characters, but not yet having in depth experience playing or running Pathfinder specific rules I just don't see how it could be so much different that starting characters would *NEED* to be min/maxed to the hilt.

Q: Does pathfinder run on the assumption that the average adult non-classes NPC would have between a 9 and 13 for most stats? Obviously there would be exceptions but does your average farmer NPC still have stats built like a 1st level character?

I am an experienced 3.5 GM looking to start up a group on Friday evenings or Saturday afternoons beginning early 2014. D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder is good. Considering running at Play the Game if there is room or another more central location depending on interest and players.

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 a player I can say there have been countless times I have not been fond of how things turned out in a game or a campaign and for the most part I have been good to just accept on faith that the GM knows what he is doing. Of course a little nudge of help with rules or style have been given to new GM's but over all its their style and their story to do with as they see fit.

More specific to the issue of the Original Poster... as a GM I have many house rules that I use in my campaign such as Paladins being a Prestige class requiring 1 level of fighter and 1 level of cleric. With that said banning a class isn't really all that "out there". Granted doing so for the reasons you gave seems silly to me but is there a chance he said that simply because the GM didn't want to discuss it for fear of giving something away in the story? Perhaps barbarians are banned because there was a recent culling of the barbarian tribes by the evil king?

One of the things I make very clear to my players before they play is that I do not subscribe to what i call the "Everquest style of play". You don't walk out of town and only fight creatures you stand a 99% chance of winning against. If you go looking for trouble you will most likely find it. With that said when I write adventures and scenarios i write them in the point of view of the bad guys. If its something they should know... they will use it. If there is magic treasure in their horde... they will use it. There will doubtfully be unguarded ways into their camp (without some reason for it)... etc. I have had several players take issue with my style and i have been happy to talk about it but ultimately there is a reason for everything I write so getting upset that creatures have powers not listed in the bestiary... too bad.

Players shouldn't know that information anyway unless they have done extensive fighting or research of the creatures.

Now I am not saying the GM is without fault here. It is after all his job to make the story fun for the players to be in, but Seto I ask you... why exactly are you upset with the GM? Is it because the GM isn't letting you have your way? Or is it because his style is making it impossible for players to have fun? I say this because it is often a misconception in the disagreement between the GM and player.

I will give you an example of one of the last group crushing arguments my table has had. The group had arrived at a small border town returning children they had rescued from a goblin encampment where they were being used as slave labor in mines. When they arrived the farmers were glad to have their children back and seeing these bigger than life hero's here in their town... asked them to help clear some ruins infested with lizardmen that had displaced the goblins that took the children (the PC's didn't know this fact yet). Without doing any research or investigating the PC's just charged into the ruins and proceeded to get arses handed to them in a very naught fashion. Three of the five members got mad and said that the fight was unfair and there was no way they could win. Most likely that was true considering their approach to the task.

The point is it was just one way of doing things and at that, the worst way since that is what the bad guys had anticipated. Sometimes the GM actually thinks ahead and gives detail to an adventure. Players cry foul... while the GM cries "willful ignorance"...

EDIT:

Before I forget. The going out of the way to kill one character over another... perhaps the bad guys are smart enough to pick out the biggest threat. In my scenarios if the enemies are intelligent they often take out spellcasters first knowing they include healing and mass damage support. Wizards in my games have learned to use tactics and positioning to better effect... which is ultimately something that has made them better players.