After finding my old caculations, I soon realized it was listed with the intent for a "Disciple of Dispater" prestige class. I was comparing a 17-20x4 crit range Scythe, 13-20x2 Greatsword, or 9-20x2 Falchion over 400 swings (to get one result of each dice roll per threat, 20 per threat)
At such insane crit ranges thought out all of the test, the Scythe appeared the better option. The Falchion was 2nd best until the 50/50 hit chance mark. At that point, the Greatsword's damage was doing more than the increased threat of the Falchion.
Since I've got nothing better to do, and I can't sleep I'll go ahead and re-do the test using a Greatsword and Greataxe with and without improved crit for those who may be curious.
There are many factors that will determine what weapon is better for your character. Personally I tend to go with whatever weapon I think fits the character personality. Uncivilized fighters usually wield axes, more civilized fighters use long/short/great swords based on there fighting styles, while Finesse type characters tend to run rapiers/shortswords. Fire themed characters usually get scimitars/falcons, Earthy characters get hammers/picks ect.
However when optimizing your threat ranges, you have TONS of variables to take into account. Years ago, I actually went though and typed up some tables to compare some of these factors. I'll dig though my old files and see if I can find something to post with it later tonight.
First I would like to thank everyone who took the time to respond.
Second, I'm not planning on the villain committing suicide. The reason for the self-inflicted damage is they are a follower of a demented cult that delights in spreading suffering, pain and death. They will use 2 methods to do this.
The first is to create a 'link' between themselves and there victim so when they are wounded, so is there victim. In this manner, they can feel the suffering of there target.
The second is to 'share' the pain and suffering they have already experienced by spells/abilities that do hp damage to there target to heal themselves by an equal amount. Note, if they are not wounded, this kind of thing will have no effect.
Without the ability to wound itself, this villain will only have a mediocre melee attack/thrown weapons to threaten with if no link exist, and/or if they are only inflicted with non-lethal damaged.
I would also like to note, non-lethal damage will not work for any of the spells/abilities I plan to use.
Crazy? Gimmicky? Absolutely. But I feel like such an encounter will be more memorable than another crazy wizard trying to cast suggestion on the big strong dumb looking guy to "Give your caster/roguish looking buddy over there a big manly hug" followed up with nice aoe blasting or snaring type of spell.
Sorry if this has come up before, but I can't for the life of me find any rules on it.
Are there rules to cover hitting or even intentionally crit-hitting yourself with a weapon?
The reason I ask such a crazy question is this:
I'm currently pondering a villain (or maybe even a character) that uses abilities similar to Unwilling Shield, Bestow Wounds (3.5), and gains temporary hit points to help offset the damage.
If you can auto-crit yourself as a standard action, I can get away with using a smaller, less common weapon like a katar or something but still have a threatening but rewarding encounter.
where do people get this rule that you cannot make magic items over 200,000g? i have never seen it. there is the rule for magic weapons that they cannot have more than a +10 total bonus, which equates to 200k, but as far as wondrous items(or anything other than enhancement caps), there is no listed cap. where are you getting this?
In 3.5 D&d, items over 200k gp count as 'Epic' items and require Epic item creation feats to make. It was in either the DMG or Epic level handbook, honestly I can't remember right off hand.
The monk getting a fine and being forgotten about kinda makes sense to me in such a situation. An 'Archer' with a magic bow who shows remorse and turns them self in after accidentally killing over a dozen people would appear far less a threat than the wizard who just slaughtered the town market and shrugs it off as 'Acceptable losses'.
I can see the wizard trying to pay off the local officials to cover the loss of civilians, or even offering to 'bring them back from the dead' and raise them all as zombies/skeletons 'workers' for the town. Now, it may be that nobody can control these 'workers' so they run free killing even more townsfolk but that's not the fault of the wizard (from my point of view as LE anyhow).
Just up and leaving though doesn't really fit 'lawful evil' imo. On the other hand, if the wizard discusses compensation with the local officials for some time and they cannot reach an agreement, then I can see making some small gesture of penance to the town and leaving.
This is assuming they don't try to spin the whole situation around and blame the local guard for failing there duties by allowing the cultist to start the fight and demanding compensation themselves. Selfish and unrealistic? Sure, but we are talking about an evil character.
I would have to agree with the bounty hunter idea now though, since the wizard did flee. Perhaps making a note of some alignment shift away from lawful too.
One I've always enjoyed was a Tengu Cleric/Shadow dancer with Channeling Smite. Either evil or neutral with the ability to channel negative energy of course.
One way you can look at it is this:
The character may know it's not supposed to be real, but they might not have the will to compleatly convince themselves of that.
On top of that it's a spell like ability. No verbal, somatic, or material components are involved so there is no way to know for sure it is a shadow conjuration effect.
If the shadow dancer used this ability out of sight of a character, they also have no way to know the shadow dancer didn't just use a wand of summon monster.
(CL x spell level x 2,000)gp / (5/charges) = (9 * 5 * 2,000)/(5/1) = 18,000 gp
But the item must then be compared to similar items so it isn't too cheap or too expensive. I believe that is how it goes IIRC.
I would have to say this as well. Honestly, true strike once per day as a swift action doesn't seem like it would be a problem at the levels you could craft it at.
Magicdealer wrote:
Amulet of Continuous True Strike:
Spell level x caster level x 2000gp
1x1x2000 = 2000
Additionally, due to the effects duration measured in rounds, price is x4
2000 x 4 =8000g
So, 8k for a constant +20 to attack rolls. This is one of the best-known examples of why dm's have to adjudicate and evaluate custom magical items, adjusting the price as necessary, before allowing them in the game.
If you wanted to make an amulet of constant true strike, pricing would fall under 'attack bonus' rather than as a spell. At least it did in 3.5.
Treated as a +10 should be pretty fair since it does not add damage but it will ignore concealment.
The price would land around 200,000 gp, but I'm not too sure on the caster level. It would be at least 9th. My knowledge was always based around price, and I haven't been playing pathfinder long enough to adjust to all of the little changes it's made without having to reference the book.
Honestly I'm still getting used to not having to spend XP on crafting stuff.
Copied right from my 3.5 PH
I would guess it works the same in pathfinder.
Sleep
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area: One or more living creatures within a 10-ft.-radius burst
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
A sleep spell causes a magical slumber to come upon 4 Hit Dice of creatures. Creatures with the fewest HD are affected first. Among creatures with equal HD, those who are closest to the spell’s point of
origin are affected first. Hit Dice that are not sufficient to affect a creature are wasted.
For example, Mialee casts sleep at one rat (1/4 HD), one kobold (1 HD), two gnolls (2 HD), and an ogre (4 HD). The rat, the kobold, and one gnoll are affected (1/4 + 1 + 2 = 3-1/4 HD). The remaining 3/4 HD is not enough to affect the last gnoll or the ogre. Mialee can’t choose to have sleep affect the ogre or the two gnolls.
Sleeping creatures are helpless. Slapping or wounding awakens an affected creature, but normal noise does not. Awakening a creature is a standard action (an application of the aid another action). Sleep does not target unconscious creatures, constructs, or undead creatures.
Material Component: A pinch of fine sand, rose petals, or a live cricket.
I feel your pain. We have a player in my saterday night group that will sometimes mess up his math some. When I mention to him that he can't reach the number he just gave me, he usually replys with "well I got a nat 20". After every such roll, he'd quickly ninja the dice.
(I have everyone's stats on a sepreate paper so I can secreatly roll for hidden doors, random saves, and other dm stuff.)
far_wanderer wrote:
- my various games back in college neatly sidestepped this issue by having a gaming culture where everyone was interested and paying attention to everyone else's actions. So it didn't matter if the GM could see the roll, because all of the players were watching just to see what happened.
In my experience this is a good way to reduce cheating.
Name Violation wrote:
the last time i accused a player of cheating(while rolling stats), i made him reroll stats. They actually rolled all 18's on the rerolls, in front of me, using MY dice....
Same player also rolled natural 20's like no tomorrow. I couldn't hate on him, but it was nearly game breaking
We have one of these guys in our group too. I'm always watching 19-20 roll across the table in front of him, except when he really needs it.
It's like he's got magic dice hands. I'll save this story for another thread though, too off topic.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
I'm sorry cheating really says something about a persons character, and it usually isn't good. IMHO anyway.
I have to agree with this.
As far as the DM being allowed to fudge rolls but the player not:
The dm's job is to balance the game to be fun for everyone. Sometimes that means that 20 didn't confirm, other times it means that third 1 was a 20. More or less balancing out the dice rolls, and helping prevent boring fluke deaths.
On occasion if a player has been getting screwed by there low rolls the dm will intervene. On rolls that really matter "Are you sure? I didn't see that. can you roll again for me?" is the most common way to go about this.
On the other side of things I've played in a campaign that the DM didn't hold back any rolls, including the random monster tables. Out of 5 players, every night at least 2 would die.
In the end, over 20 characters met there deaths, before he lost the folder that contained everything we needed.
This is all I'm going to mention on the topic, because I don't want to further degenerate into another player vs dm thread.
Ever since I started playing 3.5, I had been tinkering with character sheets to better fit my needs and style. In the end I created a 5 page character sheet that turned out to be overkill. I'd like to try to avoid that fate again, and these are the results.
I'm working on another version with color, however I like this one because it saves on printer ink.
Any criticism or input is appreciated.
Also, I haven't used photobucket in a while, and the quality dropped dramatically. If anyone could direct me to a site I could upload stuff to without the decrease in quality I'd be grateful.
Looking at it from core only, it looks pretty solid. Yeah your will saves will be terrible but you can't always have everything. It's up to you to decide if you think it's worth the risk or not.
The fighter levels do add a nice bonus in feats, though you could get by without them. As for switching your str and int, be careful of running out of skill points. I myself have found the more skill points I have, the more I end up needing. If you do swap your int and str, I would probably drop fighter. If you do decide to go pure elf, then I would suggest switching stats around to keep at least a 10 con.
If I may ask, what books are allowed/ do you have access to for this character? Recently I've made a similar rogue, (level 8) using the Drow of the Underdark book.
If you can, take a look at the 'Terrifying Strike' ambush feat. -1d6 sneak attack to make your opponent shaken for 1 round combined with shatter defenses might be more than your DM wants to deal with though. The fearsome armor enchantment is great as well. +5 enhancement to intimidate, armor spikes and move action to demoralize rather than a standard are the benefits you get form this 5,000 gp armor enhancement.
First and foremost, I apologize for taking so long to respond to you guys. I had a busy weekend, and this is the first chance I got to post.
For anyone who wanted to know how the fight actually went, here it is:
bard went first, playing his inspire courage song. Second, cleric fires a firebolt (fire domain power) and does 6 damage. Sorcerer goes next, firing an acidic ray doing 5 damage. Paladin moves forward, taking AoO from anklyosaurus (who missed), and he also misses. Fighter/Barbarian attacks, crits, does 60 damage. Dino attacks, hitting F/B, doing a little damage, and next round is killed by cleric.
For his actual build, i dont have his char sheet in front of me, so i can't give exact numbers. But when he rages and is large, i think he has 24 Str. And of course, he has power attack and other feats like that.
Ah, that changes things a little. If the crit multiply on his weapon is X3, then this sounds more like a lucky hit rather than a real problem.
If it's only X2, then you might have a problem, but it could be pretty easy to deal with if it is.
Perhaps setup some encounters more range oriented to let the other players have a chance to shine. That or as others have suggested, a few RP based encounters. That way, the fighter can get his charge in and smash fights in, while your other players can still be useful in other situations. Also you should talk to the player if you fear his character will cause issues. Politely asking him to save gold by not buying potions of enlarge potion would be the first place I'd go.
Also, be sure to make sure your using the right power attack. It got changed in pathfinder, so it's not as painful as before.
zero effect wrote:
How did he get large size and a strength of 24 at level 3? If he got those through buffs from another party member, then there's no problem. If it's from something else, that might be a bit of a problem.
Base of 16, +2 racial, +4 rage and another +2 from potion of enlarge person is my guess. If he had an 18, and was orc, a str of 28 would be compleatly possable in this situation. 32 if you add bull's strenth from one of the casters.
Thanks for the reply's everyone, lots of great ideas and stuff.
I think I know what to make next.
Demoyn wrote:
Judging by the way all of your characters died I'm going to suggest either something specializing in long-ranged weapons (bard archer, ranger), something with a lot of hit points (dwarven two-handed barbarian), or something with a lot of armor (dwarven axe and board fighter).
Indeed a good path to go down.
Eric Mason 37 wrote:
Drill sergeant bard
This one is too good to pass up.
Goliath bard/fighter.
Stats will be focused on str, con and wis.
He will act a drill sergent, and focus in the bone bow (from Frostburn) using zen archery with next to no dex.
Perform Oritary, Comedy, and Weapon drill are a must.
Fullplate armor to help negate the lack of dex, though spells will be failing often. That's ok though, it shall only help to fuel his anger.
Perhaps in a few levels I'll even throw in some levels in barbarian, (if he survives that long).
Anyhow, thanks again for all the reply's. I should start writing this down on paper before I forget.
Given the history of your characters, I'd suggest a Bard who specializes in Perfom: Percussion instruments.
Bobbodagreen wrote:
How about trying some race/ class combos that used to make no sense in 3.5... like a half-orc wizard :D
Ayu Orcfella, the famous orcish bard. Everyone knows his name so he knows he's famous. He plays the gong, (really, really poorly.) as well as the bells (skill focus and max ranks for bells) though he thinks his gong playing is better. He also uses the gong as his main weapon.
He can't cast spells, and the way he inspires his allies is to make them end the fight so he will stop singing playing his gong.
Sadly, I've got him setup for another campaign.
Another side note: I don't like the half-orc in pathfinder. I enjoyed having the -cha, -int and +str. Pathfinder' half-orc just doesnt feel 'orc' enough for me, so I go full orc.
Recently another character of mine has met it's demise, and I'm just about out of ideas for anything new to try.
I have the freedom of pretty much any 3.5 book (mostly non-third party books preferably) as well as most pathfinder stuff. Preferably non-evil, but race isn't really an issue. The character will be either 6th or 7th depending on how generous the dm feels, and what level the average turns out to be.
I'm not asking for a full character build. Just some basic ideas of stuff that sounds fun.
I'm already pondering a swashbuckler/dusklblade/blade singer, but I've already played such a character. Sadly, he died because he wouldn't stop taunting a juvenile/young adult green dragon while fighting it. I did soak up few full rounds of attacks though, so it was good for the party in the end.
Past characters I've played (and can remember) in this include the following: (in order of most recent to oldest.)
Chuck, an orc fighter 5 Master thrower 1, who specializes in Harpoons. His death was due to terrible rolls, no good range past 30 feet, and overall bad luck.
Heu'mon, a tengu cleric 5 Shadow Dancer 1. He channeled negative energy, running channeling smite with spring attack. He died from getting too close to 3 fighters and not knowing when to withdraw.
A short lived human pyro sorcerer of 6th level, who lived long enough to craft "Beads of Burning Hands" that served the party well. That is after he was grappled on a surprise round, and dead on the second. Sadly he didn't live long enough for me to remember his name.
'Tweek', another character I made when I was out of ideas. He had one level in: Ranger, Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, Sorcerer, Duskblade, Shadow Dancer, and Fighter.
He sorta wondered off with the other gnome when we converted over to pathfinder.
A human fighter2 cleric 4 who was based on tripping people with a chain, and then using two weapon fighting to smack them around with it. He died when he cast shield other on a party member, who proceeded to get crit for more health than I had left. Said party member didn't really need the help though due to vampuric touch, cure wands and tons of hp anyhow.
A level 5 human rogue bureaucrat who always got stuck with the paperwork. Death by 1 on a reflex save of all things.
A level 4 kobold sorcerer, who got eaten by a giant frog.
A 4th level barbarian who got mauled after charging into combat. This one was ironic as well because I had tried to base this guy off having lots of hp.
Gix, a 4th level kobold variant ranger (racial variants) who survived longer than any other in this party, except maybe tweek. This was the character I started this campaign in, and he met his death by a giant frog.
Hey, just writing a new character, thinking about taking Monk 1/Sorcerer X build. Gonna take Ascetic Mage feat. Any ideas for optimization?
Playing Pathfinder RPG. Allowed books are PathFinder Core plus 3.5 Completes, ToB, XPH.
Party includes rogue, cleric/crusader, fighter. 6th lvl party.
Stats:
Str - 10
Dex -16
Con -14
Wis -12
Int - 12
Cha -18
I'm still not 100% on this build. I'll either play a aasimar or elf (if i end up with a wizard) pumping my primary stat to 20 - headband of +4 with crafting will make it 24. Going 1 lvl of monk improves my AC by 8 and it keeps going. Is it worth it tho? My other consideration is a gish with (close to) max CL. Thoughts?
I've actually tried this once, though I used the Battle Sorcerer variant from the Unearthed Aracana. You learn 1 less spell per spell level, and can cast 1 less spell per spell level, but you gain a d8 hit dice and a cleric base attack. (i did this back in 3.5 so the hit dice was a huge increase). Also, I went 2nd level of monk for evasion.
Over all, I had pretty ok casting abilities while still being viable in melee. I was also able to pick up Arcane Strike out of the complete warrior, but in the end I burned spells a lot faster than I had planned. It was fun to play though and it's defiantly worth giving it a try.
The only problem I could see with a base sorcerer would be having a little trouble hitting things in melee, but weapon finesse should pick up some of the slack there.
lost of stuff about talking to the player and ways to do it.
What Abraham said. Should that fail, start putting in more encounters not solved by violence or strength alone, and/or what others have suggested about "removing" the character.
Thanks for the replys everyone. Outside opinions almost always help when hitting 'gray' areas such as this. Also, I hate to admit it but lately I have been becoming less sure of myself as a DM.
As far as the "Sign away your soul or people die" thing, I'm not gonna put my players in that position. Well, not unless they've earned it anyhow, and I don't see that as too likely.
What's probably going to happen, is a number of possible contracts will be offered to the pally, from request to kill evil people, 'retrieval' of powerful items that will help slay these demons, to a number of other deeds that in and of themselves will not appear evil. However in the long run, these seemingly trivial acts will result in the future corruption of souls, or something you would expect from devils.
The deal with the erinyes letting them live if they go after those responsible for her imprisonment was a verbal agreement, so I don't see any threat to there souls or alignment on that one.
Also I would like to note, this paladin is currently seeking guidance from a cleric of Moradin. (we still use 3.5 deities)
Another side note: if the pally does indeed fall, my group is re-working the blackguard to be pathfinder compatible, so that option will be open. However if that were to happen and the party doesn't turn against them, I'll have to make some npc 'heros' to come after them from time to time.
RizzotheRat wrote:
I'm a bit confused. Were the high ranking Erinyes also fighting the cultists to release the Devil? Why were they fighting against the party who was battling their demon worshipping enemies?
That is a good question, and I apologize for forgetting to put the reasoning in.
A very high level sorcerer (one of the cult leader's personal minions or something, haven't gotten into much detail yet) had called the erinyes in a magic circle against law. He added dimensional anchor, as well as a few other things to keep the whole thing in place over a long period of time. Why you ask? Well, I haven't worked out the details yet but it will have something to do with the blood war and the fact this guy is pretty much insane.
After a time the sorcerer had decided to move on leaving a simulacrum of himself, some minions, and hordes of zombies to look over the place.
The PC's had destroyed all the zombies, simulacrum and minions while on a quest to find why people were disappearing in or around these sewers, when they came across a hidden room. This was the room that held the devil, as well as the most recent kidnapping.
The back story:
The pc's in my campaign have been battling a cult of demon worshipers who have been causing all kinds of misery for them and there friends/family. Recently in there fight against these cultist, the pc's have encountered a high ranking erinyes who almost killed 1/2 the party in one round. The devil was being held captive by he same cultist, and the players accidentally released it. Rather than kill everyone, it decided to use the players for revenge. The deal was, the erinyes would spare the pc's lives. In exchange the pc's would hunt down the cultist responsible for imprisoning the erinyes. Most of the party agreed but they made a point that it was for there own reasons, not the devil's. There is a paladin in the party, but he acknowledged that the erinyes could/would probably kill everyone unless they agreed to talk rather than fight.
Here is where the problem starts.
The paladin of the party was originally a male dwarf, who after an unfortunate turn of events was reincarnated as a female gnome. The erinyes has found out about this, and has sent a Falxugon (Harvester devil) to attempt to corrupt the paladin. The opening deal was the paladins soul to become a male dwarf again, (pact certain) to which the paladin flat out refused. I'm sure he would have attempted to slay the harvester, but I think he's worried if he does the erinyes will return to kill them all in retaliation. The paladin is also the harvester's only target as of right now. I get the feeling that he's also trying to keep the devil focused on him, rather than his companions. Another problem to worry about, is the paladin is convinced they will end up facing off against a demon lord, and thinks they might need the extra help.
So my question is this: At what point, given the situation would the paladin lose his pallyhood?
Further more, would the paladin be able to sign a pact insidious (to help exterminate this demonic cult) without losing his pallyhood right away? Of course, he would not know what he is really signing, and would also lose all his abilities once he did something evil.
For those who don't know: A pact insidious is a pact in which a devil grants a mortal a string of benefits in exchange for favors. The mortal must continue to do these 'favors' to continue to gain more benefits, or all benefits are revoked. It does not bind a mortal's soul to baator, nore does it require any statement of allegiance to any archdevil. The purpose of this pact is to slowly corrupt the mortal before they realize it's happened.
I also feel dragons got nerfed some compared to 3.5
How so?
They took a big hit in hit dice reduction per CR for one. A lot of them had access to some divine spells in addition to there arcane spells. That got taken away from them as well. I haven't gotten to make a lot of dragons in pathfinder, but the ones I've converted to use don't feel up to there former CR. While it's true the weaker dragons don't feel as week as they did, the stronger dragons don't feel as strong either.
I admit though it could just be a dislike of the new method they have you use to make a dragon in pathfinder. All dragons getting the same stat bonuses, size bonuses and extra HD at X age just doesn't sit well with me.
Also, sorry for the slow reply. I tend to type slow at times. Really, really slow, especially when trying to avoid typos.
We use pretty much all the 3.5 material we have access to.
The only exceptions are things that don't translate well, then we just work to try and house rule it in if someone wants to use it. Being able to use our 3.5 books is the only reason we even considered switching to pathfinder.
tried to post this once, but it disappeared on me so I'm trying again.
Recently my Wednesday night group has been reduced to 3 people so we've started a mini-campaign based on being members/gaining membership to an assassins guild. My last character in this was a duel kukri wielding rogue 2/swashbuckler 3/assassin 5 (pathfinder) human, but met a painful demise at the hands of the city guard during an assassination attempt. Long story short, the invisibility that was on me were off and I couldn't re-apply it myself in time to escape so I chose to fight. Many fail rolls followed, and my red mantas assassin partner wasn't able to do much to help from his position. (we allow pretty much all 3.5 material, so we've got a lot of freedom to work with)
For my replacement character, I'm going for a slightly more versatile approach. My plan is rogue 5/ assassin 5 (3.5) tiefling. I really feel the spells are much better than the options the pathfinder assassin gives. My feat selection is currently Combat Reflexes, Two weapon fighting, Dodge, Mobility, EWP: Kasari-gama, Spring attack and Elusive Target. I've taken 2 flaws (unearthed arcana) Meger Fort, and Shaky (-3 fort save, -2 range attack) to gain access to 2 more feats, and used one rogue talent on weapon finesse. The other rogue talent is fast stealth.
For those who don't know: The Kasari-gama (Oriental Adventures) is basically a kama with a weighted chain attached. It can be treated as a double weapon or reach, determined at the start of your round. It is also a trip weapon. If you get the chance, look up some videos of this thing in action irl. It's really interesting.
My main concern is the feat Elusive Target. It pretty much negates power attack against me, and gives me a free trip if someone takes an aoo on me and misses. There other part of this tactical feat is if I'm flanked and attacked, I can have one attack target the flanking opponent rather than myself. Since this only works if I'm flanked it's pretty much nil. I would like to pick up lunge eventually, but I'm pondering dropping elusive target for it now. I also plan on picking up Quickdraw sometime soon, maybe even just give up combat reflexes for it but I'm not sure.
I'd like to hold on to Spring Attack for it's versatility (move, trip, move to escape, or move strike move to avoid lots of full round attacks on me) and it will be getting a lot of mileage due to boots of striding and springing, as well as the quick trait giving me a speed of 50. I've also got the up the walls skill trick to 'run' up walls, spending 20 feet of movement per 5 feet up I go with no climb check needed. I'd also like to keep Two Weapon fighting for when I've singled out an opponent with my partner, or the shadow double spell (gives me a flanking partner that deals STR damage, 1 round/level)
Anyhow, any advice or tips on feat choice would be appreciated. Now my second dilemma- Poisons
My current picks in poisons are Purple Worm Poison and decent DC as well as needing 2 saves, and Shadow Essense for it's afford (and to keep with the STR dmg theme). This would be more for keeping me alive rather than out-right killing. I'm thinking of even picking up a toxic weapon (+1 bonus, holds poisons for 2 hits rather than just 1) but I'm not sure if poisons will be useful enough to warrant this.
Any input would be greatly appreciated, especially since I've never really gotten into using poisons before
I assume there is some reason the dragon chose to go toe-to-toe with a PC who did that much damage in the first round instead of taking flight and recharging it's breath weapon?
The only problem there is you can still use a bow with smite evil. I have to say, I too am a little worried about smite evil being a little too powerful, but in my games I'm not going to do anything but watch it right now. I also feel dragons got nerfed some compared to 3.5
The way my group handles crit misses involves a reflex save (though I like the sound of a dex check better). Typically they will fall prone, drop there weapon, or something annoying like that on a fail. However, if you crit fail that check, you'll usually end up hurting the party or yourself. Sometimes though the DM will just throw out something comical to happen to you no matter how bad you fail.
Regardless of the outcome, your turn ends.
I've got a ton of them but only a few stand out in my mind/memory.
One of the craziest ones was a guy we just called "Tweek" (think southpark for the personality).
The campaign he was in, I had lost a character almost every session and I couldn't decide what class I wanted to play next, so I thought "Hey, why not one of each?".
In the end he was a gnome with one level in:
Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, Sorcerer, Ranger, Duskblade, Shadow Dancer, and Fighter.
His favored enemy from ranger was fey, because the underpants gnomes had to be fey rather than gnomes. He also had a +1 Fey bane Greatsword.
The best part was, when another gnome in the party named Domo (self proclaimed 'King Domo') felt he was the target of an assassination attempt and came up with a crazy plan to keep himself alive. I had foolishly (in character) responded with "O good. I was afraid that we were going to have to disguise ourselves as each other so they would try and kill me, not you" to that he responded "That's not a bad idea, lets do that instead!". The best part was we went so far as to swap everything we had down to our skivvies, and even limited our spell casting to spells we knew the other one knew. The downside, was that he was based on two weapon fighting, and couldn't use a greatsword for crap. so we were both pretty worthless in combat. That being said, a full night of combat went by before we realized (in character) that nobody believed our disguises.
Break Enchantment and Remove Curse are probably the best 2 I can recommend, aside than that the more effective spells have been mentioned above.
However, other interesting spells could include:
False Life
Water Breathing
Fire Shield
Rage
Protection From Energy
Notice: I'm posting this after being sick for a few days and getting 0 hours of sleep so the following might not be possible/sane.
If you really want to confuse people, you can try some of the following spells:
Contagion: "You want to bite me? Fine! Have a taste of plague! Uh... Guys, I don't feel so good..."
Blind/Deafness: "Hey guys, isn't that a medus-AHHHH!!! I'm Blind!"
Suggestion: (there are just too many fun things here to list just on)
Animate Dead: free pack muel for the party after your gone. results may vary, assuming you can even do this.
Hideous Laughter: For those times when the king tells a joke and it's either you rolling on the floor or your head.
Bleed: for the true emo caster
Honestly I would switch your STR and CHA, take power attack at level 3 rather than force of personality, and at 5 take Divine Might form the complete warrior. Though, it also depends on how your DM interprets how the feat works.
Even if you don't mess with divine might, I'd still focus on CHA over STR. The extra lay on hands can save your life, especially if you plan on soaking up lots of damage. Not to mention the higher dc's to your abilities, increased saves, and bonus spells you'll get.
The pally I currently run is really the only real healer in the party (of 3 people, level 6), as well as the primary meat shield so that's kind of skewed how I view paladins now. Especially since he's still holding up with over 12 points of ability drain spread over various abilities, and using all his spells on endure elements so the party doesn't freeze to death.
Personally I too am a little disappointed with the barbarian in pathfinder. At first I was kinda excited about some of the rage powers, but as pointed out a lot of powers are usable once per rage, or take a move action to use. Over all, it just feels like the barbarian got the short end of the stick.
Another thing to point out is that a morale bonus is still classified as mind effecting, so this does have a greater effect than that which has been brought up here. Anything immunity to mind-affecting effects for example, really can't take levels in barbarian without them pretty much being worthless levels.
Converting isn't too hard for most characters. I have to agree though, trying to slowly get into pathfinder isn't a good way to go.
Something you really need to note is XP changes. you need a different amount to level, and you now get an amount of XP based only on the CR, not it's CR vs. your ECL on a chart. When you kill a standard CR 1/2 zombie, you will get 200XP no matter if your level 1 or level 20.
A lot of feats and spells had minor changes you'll need to look up as well.
Multiclassing is also less appealing now than it ever was in 3.5, thus making it a more difficult choice on weather or not you take a prestige class.
I would recommend letting them re-build there character a little while still remaining true to who they were suppose to be.
KaeYoss wrote:
Well, one big thing is missing: The art. And Pathfinder art is gorgeous. You can look at some of it on the blog - or, if you get the books, you get it all.
I honestly don't understand why everyone talks so much over the pathfinder art. Personally I enjoyed the 3.5 art in the PH more, especially when it comes to the gear. Sure you get more color now, but color =/= better imho.
Thanks for the feed back Beorn. I'll be throwing them against 3 level 8's and a level 10 so I'm pretty sure they'll be able to handle 4 to 6 of them at a time a few times before they risk getting into trouble.
What I think I'm gonna do, is drop 12 to 20 of them in the center of town and have them part off in packs of 4 to 6 and go from there. (depending on how it looks the pc's can handle them.)
This will basically be an unscaled version of how the whole campaign started.
Pre-pathfinder, tons of zombies that gave you a disease and turned you into zombies. The entire town was afflicted and they literally killed off hundreds of zombies before they could escape by level 5. Only this time, I'll give them a chance to stop the damage before everyone is dead.
I'm really looking forward to it, but it will be a few more weeks before they get to that point.
In my group, our players will loot other players if they cannot get them at least a raise dead. If they can get them a raise dead, they will pay for it with the fallen characters gold/valuables, or at least as much as the dead character could afford. Unless were really broke, we do not sell the fallen characters armor/weapons or other items they depend on for this raise.
However if a resurrection is not an option it's pretty much fair game as far as the morals of the party goes. A paladin for example would not take stuff with the intent to sell, but would take it if that would help further the parties cause. On the other hand, evil characters would loot as much as possible. This can actually come in handy with the encumbrance rules, (for the DM that is) even with bags of holding. (We go by 50gp being equal to one pound, as on page 140 it states that one pound of gold is 50 gp in value.)
Quote:
An easy solution is only to use T-Rex' as monsters. Then the characters die from swallow whole, and their items are destroy by the stomach acid!
This happened to some characters recently, so we took a list of all the magic items that might survive in it's stomach to use as loot for later should we encounter that T-rex again.
Currently my campaign is about to take another turn, involving the destruction of the current home of the PC's by a group of demon worshiping cultist. This creature is what I plan to use to make it happen. I'm not sure if I have the appropriate CR though.
Entropic Locust:
Medium Outsider (Evil, Chaotic, Demon, Extraplaner)
CR: 6
HP: 68 (8d10+24)
Speed: 40, Fly 60, (average)
Initiative: +6
Str: 18
Dex: 15
Con: 16
Int: 14
Wis: 14
Cha: 17
Fort: 8 Ref: 4 Will: 7
AC: 19 =(10+2 dex +7 natural)
Base Att: +8
CMB: 12 CMD: 24
Full Attack:
2 Claws [+12] for 1d4+4,
1 Bite [+12] for 1d6+4
Special Attacks:
Reverberation (EX) -Standard Action: Deals 3d6 sonic damage to all creatures within 30 feet Fort save for 1/2. DC: 19 (1/2HD+10+Cha)
Maddening Chirp (SU) -Standard Action: As confusion spell centered on the Locust CL 8. Will save Dc: 17 (cha based) usable once per hour.
This is a Sonic, Enchantment (compulsion)[mind-affecting] effect.
+8 racial on acrobatics for jump
+ 4 racial on Perception
Feats-
Ability Focus: Reverberation
Power Attack
Improved Initiative
Blind-fight
Spell Like Abilities:
At will- Caster level 8
Cause Fear
Contagion
Desecrate
Detect Good
Detect Magic
Teleport (self + 50lbs only)
Telepathy
Once per day-
Summon (Entropic Locust, 50% chance) 3rd level
Special Abilities:
Darkvision 60 ft.
Immune to Sonic, Poison, Electricity
Resist- Acid, Cold, Fire 10
SR: 17 DR 10/cold iron or good
Consume Flesh:EX: As a full round action, an Entropic Locust may consume a corps of medium size. In doing so, the locust gains 5 temporary hit points that last for up to 1 hour. It may consume a corps greater than medium size, but it takes extra time, consuming the equivalence of medium size every round, and gaining 5 temporary hit points each round it spends eating. A locust may not gain more than 40 temporary hit points in this way.
Spawn: If the locust reaches 40 temporary hit points in this way, it will regurgitate the contents of it's stomach to become a larva losing all temporary hit points. Treat this larva as Entropic Locust in all respects, except it is helpless and does not gain the natural armor bonus. In 1d4 rounds, this larva will grow into a full grown Entropic Locust. with the normal stat block above.
The basic concept of the creature is a giant demonic insect that feeds on flesh and vomits up more of it's kind. It would also travel in packs of no less than 4. I was originally thinking crickets when I started making this creature, but demon crickets just don't sound threatening enough. Cicada's were my next choice, but I decided locust would be more fitting based on there habits.
I'm not completely sure on the temporary hit point limit for the consume flesh or spawn abilities but it's close enough to test.
A good archer can shoot an arrow, what, 1,100 feet away? A long range spell maxes out at 1,200 feet at 20th-level. What is the point of having such a long range attack form if you will never be able to use it at those ranges?
A 20th-level cleric/archer min/maxed to the teeth can only see as far as 650 feet in ideal conditions.
Assuming a colossal creature standing 1,000 feet away on an open plain in broad daylight, you are looking at a DC of 98 (0 base DC for not trying to hide, +100 DC for distance, -2 DC for favorable conditions).
Let's see how close we can get:
20 Perception ranks
20 Max possible die roll
10 Wisdom of 30
06 Skill Focus
04 Alertness
03 Class skill
63 x 10 = 630 feet; The total distance anyone can see a visible creature (+20 additional feet with favorable conditions).
Furthermore, most adventures are held in dungeons and other close areas to begin with. Even in wide open areas, encounters rarely ever start hundreds of feet apart.
So with all of this, what is the point of long range spells and weapons even existing? Why would anyone ever bother to use them (for range) when they can't even see their targets at said ranges?
I submit to you that the rules interactions I present here are FUBAR.
Regarding something using stealth:
A creature larger or smaller than Medium takes a size bonus or penalty on Stealth checks depending on its size category: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large –4, Huge –8, Gargantuan –12, Colossal –16.
So assuming a colossal creature is hiding form you and failing horribly, 630 feet away is not difficult in this example.
Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment. The DC to notice such details varies depending upon distance, the environment, and how noticeable the detail is.
So unless your trying to determine if it has a comb over or wearing a colossal toupee, I don't think spotting the thing will be an issue.
I would like to point out that positioning is everything if a rogue wants to sneak attack more than once a round. I admit I'm a long time rogue player,(Starting in 2nd edition using back stab) however I've DM'ed for a lot of rogues too so I've seen it form both sides of the fence. While it may seem really powerful to add that many dice, it's not hard to negate the threat. Any kind of concealment, Improved uncanny dodge, moving to avoid being flanked, creatures that are flat out immune, armor with Fortification, and high ac's that just make it difficult to hit with more than your main attack can negate any threat of more than 1 or 2 in one round, if any.
Furthermore, if you don't want your rogues dealing tons of sneak attack's in one round, you can always ask your players nicely to not focus on building there character to abuse it. Any character can get pretty insane when they are built to optimize one trick.
Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
Rogues should be skill-based characters. They should be the ones sneaking around, disarming traps, picking locks, etc. They should not be front-line fighters. The whole idea behind rogues being able to sneak attack is silly.
It makes prefect sense, to me at least. "O look, you left yourself exposed to a dagger in your spleen... Let me help you with that. -stabs-". Tell me that isn't being sneaky.
I was "condemned to hell" long before I started playing D&d. I started playing 'Magic the gathering' back about 96, and after some friends and I tried to hold a tournament here in town the religious group freaked the f*** out.
As I see it, playing pathfinder isn't "salvation" these kinds of people. It's just another game not as mainstream as D&d (yet anyhow) so they haven't gotten around to attacking it yet. As far as the main question:
Decrept DM wrote:
Now that I'm thinking about it, do any of you feel any holier now that you play pathfinder?
Nope. The only thing I feel is another book in my bag.
DoctorRomulus wrote:
As as for trying to convert everyone we come across?? What would you do if you believed in something that could not only help people but save their very souls. What good is it claiming to believe in something that benefits all mankind and claiming to love humanity and then selfishly keeping it to yourself. Would you do that?
Not everyone wants to be "saved" you know. If you try to force your belief upon others, it can only end badly.
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Organized religion is the root of alot of modern problems IMO. A removal of emphasis on organized religion and a refocus on spiritualism would do the world alot of good. That's not to say that everybody who follows a large religion is bad, but i have seen enough of them that are to sour me on the whole prospect.
Gotta agree with you here.
Billzabub wrote:
and let's all agree that Mazes & Monsters should be required viewing for all gamers, if only because it's such a good bad movie.
I never saw the movie but I read the book, and it made me depressed how it focused the blame on gaming rather than mental instability.
I'm afraid I can't post anymore on the topic at the risk of getting sucked into a religious/political discussion.
Who says barring psionic rules are a smaller deal? That's entirely relative. If a player despises Vancian with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns, and cannot have fun playing it, while psionics actually allow them to play mystic-type characters they can actually enjoy, banning psionics is a huge deal. Meanwhile, with the Rogue nerf, the Factotums and Beguilers of the world are still at full force for thiefing, and if no one wanted to play a Rogue to begin with, it amounts to trivia. Core holds no special place. The core classes are no more or less important than any other class in the game. The significance of a ruling is entirely dependent on the wants and needs of everyone in the group.
What if the DM feels the same way about DMing for the psionics mechanics as you feel about playing with a Vancian caster? By making the DM include these supplemental rules, your ruining his/her gaming experience by making them adjust to accommodate this system.
viletta Vandim wrote:
If nobody in the group cares about something, it isn't important. If the Rogue nerf passes and no one cares, then the Rogue nerf is irrelevant.
From what I've read, most people would strongly disagree with the DM's decision in this situation, but they could understand why a DM would feel that strongly against a mechanic.
In all of your examples of "no psionics" you have used the argument "the DM said no psionics because of fluff" so the player requested to use the mechanics for casting arcane spells. The DM still said no, and the player continued to argue about the issue saying "It's not psionics, its just the psionic mechanics".
Had the thought to ask "is it just the fluff your opposed to or are the mechanics an issue too?" even come to mind? If the DM says the mechanics are not an issue, then your free to try to convince them to let you setup alternative casting rules for your character, assuming this is not eating up everyone elses time as well. However if the DM says the mechanics are an issue, then let them know that they told you the wrong information, and they should be a little more clear about the issue next time.
Mirror, Mirror wrote:
I intend soon to challenge a party of 8 pseudo-gestalt characters with kobolds.
Pseudo-gestalt since they will be starting at -1000xp and 4 levels of any NPC class they wish. They then progress into 1st lvl PC's and go from there, using gestalt rules for the first 4 levels.
Kobolds, dire rats, dire bats, boars(common, not dire) and, of course, traps. Lots of traps. I am confident in my ability to challenge them.
Honestly I would be sad if you came back and said the kobolds didn't provide a good challenge. They are one of my favorite monsters, right up there with shocker lizards. Both of which I have been banned from using at one point in time or another. (a good example of how players grant the dm power, as Frerezar stated earlier)
Chaotic Evil Campaigns never work. CE is simply destruction and slaughter for it's own sake - which *may* be fun for a one shot, but really gets old fast (not to say it plays havoc with the headcount).
Neutral Evil campaigns are difficult as well because NE is the ultimate selfish "I don't care if any of you life or die" alignment with no holds barred. Sooner rather than later you will have backstabbing UNLESS you prevent that by implementing a strong "we" concept (f.i. by putting a curse on the PCs that when one dies and still is dead a day later, the others die as well). Which only serves to simulate a Lawful Evil environment.
The leaves Lawful Evil, the only real evil campaign alignment.
I disagree. Just because someone is CE, it does not mean they are completely insane. Expect them to lie cheat and steal, but if they rely on the help of the rest of the party it would be a foolish move to betray them without gain. In addition if there fellow party members are very important to them, (yes, CE people do have things they care about) they could be even more zealous in protecting them than a pally.
The old "positivist/negativist" argument won't work unless the basic parameters are agreed upon, and the parameters are the source of the continued argument.
To test, what would LilithsThrall and SeekerofShadowLight say to the following:
"My DM has a rule that rogues can only sneak attack once a round, no more. He says it's because he does not want to see the cheesy TWF SA flanking rogue because he thinks they are broken. I tried explaining that I am not even interested in the TWF chain, but he said those are his rules."
Here is a basic violation of the core RAW for a demonstratively false reason, nerfing a player's character for no game reason whatsoever, since he is not going to be using the "exploit" the rule is intended to prevent.
Is the DM acting like a jerk? Is what he is doing just fine? Let's get away from the psionics issue, since that has external framework at play.
Interesting you should bring this particular example up, because it actually happened with my old DM in 3.0 though two weapon fighting didn't even come up. This is also the same guy that we were lucky to get master work weapons from. Was he being a jerk? I think so, mostly because every game he ran he tried to kill someone off. A trap that a rogue couldn't find because it was "magical", but didn't radiate magic so detect magic couldn't pick it up? Not only that, we weren't even allowed a save when it triggered a force cage (windowless cell) capturing 1/2 the party, holding them there for 2 weeks while they suffocate to death... We couldn't even teleport out or dispel the f-ing thing for reasons we were never told even after our characters died.
If your allowed to use races out of the pathfinder bestiary, Tengu could prove to be a very interesting path to go. I myself have a level 5 cleric level 1 shadow dancer tengu for a friends campaign that I'm 95% sure I'll need the replacement character for.
I personally would go with a good Dex, then Cha, then Wis. Charisma over wisdom for for better diplomacy, buff, and more channeling to heal allies. If you channel negative energy, Channeling smite would be great too for a damage boost.
This is assuming your going more rogue than cleric, and that your spells would be more for healing and utility than combat.
Btw, how are you set for domains if I may ask? Trickery and Liberation would make wonderful domains if you don't worship any deity in particular.
This thread would make a great set of movies... first "Rise of the Thread" where an innocent DM makes a reasonable inquiry, to which he gets some answers. Suddenly, the thread mutates and morphs into a hideous monstrosity that is a pointless argument! Then the Haiku monster, Smurfs, and other valiant heroes band together to fight the thread. After a long and bloody battle the heroes are victorious and celebrate in their victory after burying the thread.
Which is where we go into the sequel "Thread Vengeance: The Return" where the thread rises from its grave to cause havok on the forums!
We'll make millions!
What... What have I done? I've created a monster! I'm so sorry! Wait what are you doing? wait... WAIT!! NOOOOOO!!!!!!! Don't send me back to the warcraft rogue forums! Anything but that! I promise to never let this happen again! NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi I ask this because the online Game Reference Document: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ doesn't have any information of the Scimitar (or the falchion).
It does however for the Elven Curved blade, which is described as a longer thinner scimitar, and that allows Weapon finesse.
I had the old Beta-version of the rules set lying around and there is no text for the Scimitar or Falchion in that either.
So first off... can I use Weapon finesse with it?
Secondly, why is the descriptive text for these two weapons missing?
Thirdly. If I wanted TWF with two Scimitars (the iconic Qadira symbol), are there any way to get that without -4/-4?
Nope. It's not listed under one of the non-light weapons you can use under weapon finesse.
I have no idea, I'm going to guess a typo/oversight.
Yes, there is a feat called "Oversized Two Weapon Fighting" in the Complete Adventurer. Prerequisites are a Str of 13 and Two Weapon Fighting. You take penaties as if your offhand was a light weapon.
I hate to say this your player was right on this one...But since there is an option in the expanded psionics handbook and your Dming it was your call
"Psionics–Magic Transparency: Though not explicitly called out in the spell descriptions in the Player’s Handbook or the magic item descriptions in the Dungeon Master’s Guide, spells, spell-like abilities, and magic items that could potentially affect psionics do affect psionics (unless the DM uses the Psionics Is Different option). When the rule about psionics–magic transparency is in effect, it has the following ramifi cations. Spell resistance is effective against powers, using the same mechanics. Likewise, power resistance is effective against spells, using the same mechanics as spell resistance. If a creature has one kind of resistance, it is assumed to have the other. (The effects have similar ends despite having been brought about by different means.) All spells that dispel magic have equal effect against powers of the same level using the same mechanics, and vice versa."
These are the default psionic/magic rules that I was going by.
I can understand his view but with one psionic book among the 6 of us, to me it was simply not reasonable to re-work and special tailor so much stuff when this simple rule would fix. I've played 1 book 6 players before and it is not fun.
Kuma wrote:
What are psionics supposed to be more vulnerable to?
Psionic stuff mostly. Things that drain power points and stuff.
This topic has been one of much dismay among our group. We had a player (one we lost to the military) who loved psionics. However, he would always fight about the way psionics and magic worked during games.
His argument was that psionic users were more venerable to stuff than magic users, and that the 2 should be treated in all ways diffrently. Power resist only working on psionics, spell resist only working on spells, dispel psionics only on psionic effects, and dispel magic only on magic effects ect.
My argument was he's the only guy who uses psionics, so in favor of balance we should use the base psionic/magic transparency rules in the expanded psionic handbook.
It started out as a 30 minutes of discussion, then turned into an hour long argument. In the end, the only way we could come to an agreement was when I finally stated "I'm the DM, this is how it's going to work when I DM. When you run something, do it your way but for now were doing it my way."
The issue still came up from time to time, but only outside of game play.
