Blymurkla's page

I've done this one ...

102. »The undead fey creature hits you with it slam. 7 damage and can I get a will save?«
»What, not fortitude?«
»No, will«
*player rolls* *fails*
*gets handed secret note that reads 'You feel that something's wrong. Your soul, it is somehow damaged, tainted'*
»Oh, f---«

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

102. GM: you all succumb to the confusing maddening scream of the otherworldly horror, everyone swap characters.

Ha! I'm running that right now. The PCs love it!

The PC's love that they're played by new players? Yeah, I'm just nitpicking ;)

102.

We found out the headquarters for the superhero team we're going to be playing soon is being funded by Kickstarter.

Kickstarter is all well and good, but surely the superheeo team use a Patreon campaign for running expenses?

But I agree with your players, you making up rules on the fly cause you think it should work a certain way would make me very upset. That's like playing a game of checkers with a 4 year old that makes up rules as they play. You expected a normal game of checkers, but what you got was just play time with a 4 year old.

As a GM, you're constantly designing encounter areas, unique monsters, new magic items and what not. Those aren't always going to follow the rules completely. And you can't share their rule with the players before the campaign starts, because the rules haven been made yet.

What is bad is to use made-up, new house rules as a sort of gotch moment. »Haha, you don't have your Dex to AC! Now I can hit you!«. That's very bad GMing.

Moorningstaar should inform the players before combat begins on what rules govern the encounter. Tell them what constitutes difficult terrain, what symbols mean etc. Tell them that anyone walking the ledge is flat-footed. If a player challenge Moorningstaar on this, fine, you could go looking for a rules quote. But it's equally fine that Moorningstaar says »I don't have a rules quote at the moment, we'll have to look it up afterwards. But this is how this encounter is going to work, it's what I've planed.« That is a strong cue that Moorningstaar has made an encounter with the PCs in mind, that it is balanced and intended to be challenging. If there's any trust between players and GM, the players should roll with it.

Now, roleplaying is hard. Maybe Moorningstaar, being a beginner GM, forgot to inform the player about the flat-footed rule. That happens. Even to experienced GMs. It should be handled by backing up. Rewinding. The player should be given the option to have the PC avoid the ledge, perhaps sniping from behind the corner instead. Or retreating to get the party to help (which would have accomplished what Moorningstaar set out to do - involve every player).

_____

It sounds to me, Moorningstaar, as if you've got a problematic player. Perhaps a beginner, like yourself? Though some never learn ... Throwing a hissy fit and threatening to leave because a single rule decision made it harder for his PC? That's not exactly good gaming. Now, I don't know how this played out. There might be mitigating circumstances, like if you didn't allow his PC to avoid the ledge once you informed him about the rule.

Out-of-character problems should always be handled as such. Talk to this player. Inform him about the fact that you're not out to get him, you're trying to create varied challenges that let every player shine. Remind him that most classes have weaknesses - wizards have spellbooks that can be taken away, most martials rely heavily on weapons that can be sundered, all spellcasters struggle in dead magic zones. It's dickish to overuse these tactics, but a good GM is well within her right to try them occasionally.

I also want to echo wraithstrike. The rogue class, or at least the core rogue (he isn't playing an unchained rogue, is he?) is considered a very weak class. A rogue needs sneak attack to deal relevant damage, but sneak attack is unreliable (you're not normally always able to flank, core rogue sneak attack doesn't work if the target has concealment and there are several monsters who are immune to sneak attacks, like elementals). Further, rogues have not-that-great-HP, bad Fort and Will saves and aren't known to have sky-high AC either. If a rogue is dominating your game, there might be something that's a bit off. Perhaps a faulty rules interpretation that has greatly increased the reliability of sneak attacks.

You're not the first to face difficulties with players who don't make it to every session (although the way this player acts is new to me). Paizo has offered a solution in the Scar of destiny. Not something for every type of campaign, but it might suit you.

No.

You count caster levels separately. A Druid 2/Wizard 2 would have two different caster levels, both at 2.

And spell levels are completely different from class levels (apparently, back when D&D emerged, thesauruses weren't available). As you can see in their respective tables, Druids and Wizards both learn to cast 2nd level spells when they reach level 3. When they're level 5, they can cast 3rd level spells, and at level 16 they get the final spell level - 9th. Sorcerers are a little behind, learning 2nd level spells at level 4 but then gain a spell level every other level. Bards are so called 6th level casters (or 6/9 casters) because their highest spell level is 6. Rangers are 4th level casters and start to be able to cast 1st level spells at level 4.

This is why multiclassing spellcasters is generally a bad idea - you loose a lot of power since you don't gain higher level spells (as quickly) - all you get is lots and lots of low-level spells (and those aren't that useful when facing higher-level enemies).

I'd rule that Sense motive, much like Perception, is most often passively noticing signs. From that follows that onlookers can't really see you doing it and that you can't cooperate.

Using Aid other for sense motive implies you're discussing clues on the subject. »Look, he trembled! Is he nervous?«. Without a way of concealing your disscussion, that would very much be noticeable by the subject.

You haven't factored in racial ability modifiers yet, have you? If you haven't it screams wizard (or Arcanist or Witch) even more. 21 Int is impressive.

Anyway, what about Alchemist? It's a prepared 'caster', which you don't like, but at least it's a 6th level rather than 9th level caster.

A racial bonus to Dex and you'd be all right. Dex 15 isn't impressive, but since you're hitting Touch AC it'll work. And even if you miss more often than most bombers, you're sort of making it up by having such high Int which increases (among other things) splash damage and the reflex save DC to halve it.

Blymurkla wrote:

Well, that was sort of my point. There's no need to use VMC on critters with racial HD, since there's several different ways to accomplish what one would want through different means.

you mean via the massivly more powerful than what the cr suggests class templates that the players can also take?

Okay, now we have to deal with this statement of yours:

gms shouldn't use things they have outright baned their players from using

This is absolutely ridiculous. Sure, its very bad GMing to say »The Oathbound Paladin archetype are banned in my game because they are overpowered« and then field a bunch of Oathbound paladins against the party. But of course GMs have options available to themself that aren't for PCs. The game is designed with this in mind in several places and the GM should feel free to add more restrictions if these bring additional fun to the game (for players and GM alike).

Most notably, templates are with very rare exceptions never intended for the PCs to have access to, ever. Many a campaign through the ages have been played where the PCs have a specific template or one of a select few (such as the Vampire template) to give the campaign a distinct flavor, but in the vast majority of campaigns templates are solely for the GM to modify monsters with.

Another I think fairly common rule is that on monster feats are for monsters only, not PCs. I don't enforce such a rule myself, but I sure can see why a GM would rule that way.

Races are often more restricted for the GM. »Core races only«, a common way of playing, does not imply that the world is empty of orcs and goblins - these races exists for the GM only. Similarly, a GM might rule for thematic reasons that a certain class or archetype exist in the game world but is beyond the reach of PCs.

I do not doubt that one could play with every option available to the GM to also be available to the GM, as you seem to play, but that play style is way beyond what the game ever intended.

they would also lock themselves into losing feats later on for much less useful abilities and as animal companions only get to 16 hit die without boosting them in some way they are locked out of the vmc capstones so it wouldn't get the greater rage

No. Animal companions are, to a much larger degree than PCs, expandable resources. A Druid can replace a dead companion or release and replace a live one only by expending 24 hours (tricky in some campaigns, but not even a speed bump in others). The new companion does not have to be a clone of the old one, meaning you're not tied down by VMC once it has lost its charm.

Why I need a backstory? Mostly to help the character come alive for me. My other characters (Human Cleric, Elven Alchemist in this campaign and Human Brawler in the other campaign) havent had backstories, I havent been able to realy think of anything other then "Joined the mercenary band to make money for drinks and to get people to fight" (That is what little I got for my brawler.. Not much to inspire me to play the character..)

So this time i decided to do it good, Make a backstory, Help me figure out the character and bring him alive, RP him better and figure out how he would act in diferent situations and what drives him and such.

Okay, great. You need some cues as to how to play your character at the table. While the character's previous life is important to explain how he behaves, you're probably more interested in personality rather than length back-story then?

Anyway, my favorite tip regarding developing characters is to keep it short. To for a concept that sums up everything important. You could start with the concept and then write additional, length backstory. Or you could start with one of those typical, 2-3 pages long descriptions of the character's upbringing and early life and summarize it with a concept once you're done. Or you just settle with the concept, it could be all you need.

So, what is a concept? To me, it should be a single sentence (or a handful, if you must) that describes the character in terms of class and race (actually, those are the least important bits), background, personality and appearance. Like this:

»Alyn Selwe is a good-looking, blue-haired half-elf swashbuckler who hides her insecurities, stemming from a harsh upbringing in an orphanage, behind a facade of daring bravado.«

That single (albeit fairly long) sentence tells us a little bit of everything about Alyn. How she looks, where she comes from. A bit about the first impression, the way she's likely to act when around strangers, and a bit of personality that will probably only be openly shown towards those she grows to trust (such as party members). What's missing is probably a goal or motivation - maybe one could be worked into the concept, maybe Alyn doesn't actually have one right now.

If you're not satisfied with only the single-sentence concept, it's fine to write more stuff. But since it should help you play the character at the table, it should be written with that in mind. Standard backstories are hard to reference during play, since they are often 2-3 pages long and written in first- or third-person prose without any meta (the backstories I've seen rarely acknowledge the fact that the character is a PC i an rpg, they're written 'in universe').

My favorite RPG, which really helps you develop an interesting character, is Mouse Guard (based on another game called Burning Wheel, but I haven't played that one yet). Mouse Guard makes you write down three things about your character on the sheet: Belief, Instinct and Goal. While they have mechanical meanings in Mouse Guard, they could be ported over to Pathfinder and used as guides.

Goal is short-term, sort of the 'quest' for the session. Only, normally only one PC has the actual mission as her goal - the other players choses goals for that develop their characters ('I want to learn to hunt') or develop their relationships with other PCs ('I will make Captain Sybel acknowledge that my eager and rapid decision-making is a boon to the patrol'). You could port Goal over to PF and make a small goal for your self each session. Perhaps to remind you to show different parts of your character ('this session, Alyn should tell the other PCs about what little she remembers of her parents').

Instinct is rather gimmicky, but actually says a lot about character. They can be something like 'I draw my sword at first sign of trouble', 'Always consult a mage when dark magic rears its ugly head', or 'Never delay when on a mission'. They should be something that you could mention/do almost every session.

Belief is perhaps the hardest to sum up. Its what your character believes in, perhaps what her motives or longterm goals are. 'I will make a name for myself' or 'No victory without sacrifice', 'Knowledge is a weapon'. Belief should influence your character's decisions. A character with the first belief should be on the lookout for ways to prove herself. A character with the second should be careful, anticipating what could be lost, what can be protected and then be ready to sacrifice what must be.'

Maybe Belief, Instinct and Goal isn't for you, but the gist of it is that you should have something at the table that reminds you of how to play your character.

Lastly, a tip on how to make your character's ..., well, character show in game. It's hard to convey large amounts of information in roleplay, nuances are often lost. Most of us aren't great actors and everyone is preoccupied with bashing goblins, which means that if you play with small clues to personality traits and hidden backstory chances are none will notice. You have to be open and direct.

Take my example, Alyn Selwe. She grew up on an orphanage, an experience which has scarred her with insecurities. She hides those behind daring bravado. But how would that upbringing and those insecurities show if she hides them? She'd come across exactly as every truly daring swashbuckler if you don't make an effort to show something more.

My favorite way of doing that is to describe my PC in third person. Most roleplayers have two ways of talking: they announce to the table what their character is doing ('I hit the orc' or 'I walk up to the baron to talk') and when their character is speaking, they speak as their character ('How do you do, baron? Do you know anything about these new orc raids?'). 'Roleplaying', as in showing who your character is, is thought to take place mostly in the second way of talking, when you talk as your character. That's when you use catch-phrases, disguise your voice with an accent and what not. All well and great, but the restrictions of information conveying built into roleplaying often means that you can't really show the full character that you want.

So lets focus on the first way of talking. When you say what your character do. Take these moments to also describe your character. 'I brush away a blue tress in my face and then hit the orc' (that one's important, a PC's appearance is often described at the start of the first session and then quickly forgotten by everyone involved). 'I slowly walk up to the baron, startled at first as for a moment he reminded me of the warden at the orphanage but then I put on my normal, brave and charming face'.

You can use this technique for dialogue, to describe how you speak as your character. '»How do you do, baron?« I say with my most honey-dripping voice, then I switch over to business and ask »Do you know anything about these new orc raids?«

sort of off topic, but did you know irl that the maximum range of a sling is longer than a bow.

Did you know that you replied to a thread from 2012!?

Anyway, cool fact. Do you have a source to back it up?

Blymurkla wrote:

Ancient Dragon Master wrote:

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

Hobgoblin is also not great because it makes them sound like nice goblins for some reason.

Really? Can you explain how?

Can't speak for SilvercatMoonpaw, but to me 'hobgoblin' sometimes makes me reminisce about the film Labyrinth with David Bowie where the rather loveable and loony character Hoggle is a hobgoblin.

I thought he was referred to as dwarf. ("the dwarf is taking her to the beginning of the labyrinth...")

Huh, maybe my mind has twisted things.

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

Hobgoblin is also not great because it makes them sound like nice goblins for some reason.

Really? Can you explain how?

Can't speak for SilvercatMoonpaw, but to me 'hobgoblin' sometimes makes me reminisce about the film Labyrinth with David Bowie where the rather loveable and loony character Hoggle is a hobgoblin.

Svirfneblin - presumably of Norse origin (see Svartalfar).

To the best of my knowledge, Svirfneblin isn't of Norse origin. It doesn't sound overtly Norse either. Nor is a Norse connection mentioned in the critters Wikipedia page either. I could be wrong, though.

And no comment on I'm Hiding In Your Closet's idea that they are a Yule pastry.

The spell is instantaneous so there's no time limit. Assuming the 'statue' does not succumb erosion, the subject can be brought back to life hundreds and thousands of years later.

Would be nice to know the type of stone it turns you into. Granite is a lot harder and more resilient than limestone or pumice. Since damages to the statue is carried over to the live person when Stone to Flesh is used, it's also rather painful to imagine what certain types of wear and tear could expose one to. Acidic erosion (such as that from car exhausts, but volcanic activity would result in the same thing) would basically eat away your skin fairly evenly across your entire body.

Spending a standard action to destroy an egg and a swift action to demoralize feels only marginally better than just using a full-round action to demoralize. And you had to spend a feat to do it.

Blymurkla wrote:

Oread. How do you pronounce that? I'm not overtly great at english and it has always confused me. I suppose that since they're earth elemental-descendants their name could be formed from the word 'ore', which would give a pronunciations like or-aad or or-add. But, in my eyes, it could also be oh-reed or oh-red.

It's Greek. Or Greek-derived Latin, depending on who you ask.

With my own indifference to other languages pronunciation rules (because English's lack of consistency makes it a horrible first language with lots of bad habits) I've always gone for O-re-ad, though the first two syllables tend to blur together. Like Oreo, but with ad rather than o at the end.

Blymurkla wrote:

Oread. How do you pronounce that? I'm not overtly great at english and it has always confused me. I suppose that since they're earth elemental-descendants their name could be formed from the word 'ore', which would give a pronunciations like or-aad or or-add. But, in my eyes, it could also be oh-reed or oh-red.

/ˈɔːriˌæd/ or /ˈɔːri.əd/ .It's from ancient Greek.

Thanks! Always good to learn something new.

Oread. How do you pronounce that? I'm not overtly great at english and it has always confused me. I suppose that since they're earth elemental-descendants their name could be formed from the word 'ore', which would give a pronunciations like or-aad or or-add. But, in my eyes, it could also be oh-reed or oh-red.

Shouldn't he be CR 12 because he has 13 character levels and heroic NPCs have a CR equal to their level minus one? That system is wonky at higher levels, but that goes for every NPC.

EDIT: Jeraa cleared that up.

Variant multiclass gives you an order, challange and eventually tactician.

Related question: Are there any prestige classes that, on original blush, were only okay, but later class/archetype options improved the possibility of them?

I think Dragon Disciple got a revival when the Bloodrager became a thing.

I think the battle herald is at least worth a look. I'm toying with the idea of entering it with a Brawler (Exemplar) VMC cavalier.

The go-to source is always Medieval demographics made easy.

There you can see that a square mile of settled land supports 180 people, so you'd need something like 8 square miles to support your town. That's pretty much all farmland.

Do, however, note that towns very seldom exist without a sizeable rural countryside. The whole point of a town is, after all, to stop self-sustainability and specialise in various professions. Therefore, I'd expect to find your 1500 people town as the center of a countryside with 15 000 or more people all in all.

Blymurkla wrote:

Mokshai wrote:

Imbicatus, where can I find the Arsenal Chaplain Warpriest ???

I notice it's not (yet) on Archives of Nethys, but you can the archetype here. It's from the Weapon Masters handbook.

incorrect.

Just that it's from molthune and srd doesn't do names. It's region specific.

You're absolutely right, thanks =)

i also have another question what criteria does a creature have to meet to be able to make attacks with their tail and wings?

I don't think there's any other criteria than »it says so in its bestiary entry«.

Arguably the trait makes you poisonous, it is not actively using poison. You should probably warn intelligent biting foes that you are bad to eat.

This is best accomplished by wearing a wasp costume.

I'd allow the trait/class combo. Paladins dressed as wasps is a great idea.

Of course I don't want a PC to die, but I do want to terrify them.

I suspect what you want is for the PCs actions to have consequences. They pissed of the wrong guys and should, in some way, pay for that. That's fine. No, it's great. It's what RPGs are for, it's what they do best.

But theatening the PCs with dead, especially if you don't actually threaten them but rather roll dice secretly and then just kill them off, is often rather boring. There's a reason why save-or-die traps are out of fashion. And an assassin can play out much like a living trap. Not the most of fun, I believe your players will think.

Yet you don't want the PCs to walk away scot free. So you need to threaten them and hound them. More fun consequences than dying would be, for example, being forced to flee the city.

Use an assassin, but make him easily thwarted. Hint that the powerful organization will try again, make the players worry for the safety of their PCs. But always keep in mind that it's not actually about trying to kill PCs.

Huh, I think the forum ate my post.

Do these guys have 5 levels already, gaining a 6th unique one?

The last of the guys obviously sounds like a Bard or Skald but Cha 8 makes that problematic. I'm thinking Brawler Examplar for bardic performance would be workable and reflect the poet background.

With decent Str and Dex, there can be both ranged and melee martials in the party. Magic will be harder, so you won't get a balanced party. I'd suggest that one of the guys takes levels in Magus so they get at least some magic.

That's the most impressive necro I've ever seen.

How do you target the targets? 2-5 enemies, is that caster level depended? Because it isn't an area effect, right?

It looks way to power. Waiting a while is not necessarily a substantial drawback.

You might add another drawback, like the spell fails if one intended target stops being valid (by moving away or dying, for example). Or the spell targets random valid targets (such as nearby PCs) if intended targets stop being valid.

Yes, I believe you can. The retraining rules does not mention that your new feat (class feature etc.) had to be available to you when you took the old one that you're replacing.

Or perhaps you're looking for undead who are amalgamations of multiple corpses?

You need more locals. Roads between cities aren't modern highways cutting through the landscape, they are part of a network of local roads that serves the rural population.

Thus, you're going to find herders with their obstructing animals, peasants going to and from fields, villagers walking to the next village for the weekly market and stuff like that.

There's a metamagic feat called selective spell that lets you exclude targets from area spells. You must be level 10 to take it.

Clerics can of course use Selective channelling to exclude targets from being hit by their channelled energy. I think its very popular among GMs to give evil clerics this feat. At least I use it.

There might of course be other methods too, but these were the ones I remembered.

EDIT: Wow, I'm slow =)

Blymurkla- Alright you have me here, I've never thought to write down the spells as note cards for reference. I wrote the spell itself down and what it does, but I think maybe having them as individual things could help my mental organization about it. I think for now I'll try this method out to see how it feels.

Apparently, I wasn't being clear =)

My idea was to print lists of prepared spells. Make choices before the session, then choosing one of a limited number of 'spell packs'. The thought was to limit the analysis paralysis that comes with choosing from dozens of spells to a handful of different levels.

However, having your spells on index cards or similar is great too. But that goes for spontaneous casters too.

In any case, prepared casters needs preparation. Find a method that works. An easier way of managing your character. It not so much about rules or even the game, but about the tools and tricks you bring to the table. It's something that's probably very personal, something that takes a bit of trial and error before it works for you.

The beauty of prepared casters is the versatility. But that's also their curse. You will come across a problem you could've solved if you just had prepared different spells that morning. That's annoying for your wizard (or cleric or what-ever) but you, the player, should find it at least a bit charming. If you don't think it's ever fun to fail something you could've overcome, then prepared casters isn't what you should play.

Anyway, back to making preparing easier.

I'm thinking a lot of trouble can be saved by preparations before a session. Go through your spell inventory and make a few different selections and print them on index cards.

Most of the time, you'll rely on a few spells. That's fine. Call it your 'average adventuring day pack' or something more catchy. Make a 'boss fight pack' which trades out area-blasts for save-or-suck spells.

Maybe you could have a 'downtime pack' which includes spells that augment crafting and diplomatic situations. Any combat you're likely to face whilst in resting in a town will probably be ambushes, so keep a few defensive spells and spells which helps you retreat. The ambushers will likely be humanoids, so you don't need that spell you use to deal with swarms.

Perhaps it's a good idea to make spell packs geared towards enemies with certain resistances. If you have a hunch that you're going up against undeads or plants, remove those mind-affecting spells of yours. That sort of thing.

Then, at the start of each day, you simply note which spell pack you'll be using.

Perhaps you can devise a clever way of using a pack of spells as a skeleton, then switching out one or a few spells if you feel the need.

I'm thinking it's easier playing a prepared caster if you're prepared yourself =)

Start/Complete Full-Round Action

The "start full-round action" standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.

So no, it's a standard action to start and another standard action to finish.

It doesn't really scream 'warlord', but I'd like to contest the idea that Swashbuckler is a bad class. At least for low-levels, it's very nice. Surprisingly good defenses for a martial, with both bonuses to saves and parry to avoid melee damage. Anyway ...

For that warlord feeling, you could aim for the Battle Herald prestige class. It's supposed to be one of few worthwhile prestige classes out there. Battle Herald has a nice guide.

I know you said you didn't want a Bard, but you can go 4 levels of Cavalier and just dip Bard for a single level. Or you can find another way to qualify for Battle Herald. There are several ways of getting Inspire Courage and a few for Challenge. The guide lists these.

One way to qualify for Battle Herald is to go Brawler (Exemplar) which grants you Inspire Courage. For Challenge, you go Variant Multiclass cavalier.

Raging Swan Press has a short PDF called Be awesome at dungeon design. Might not be perfectly adapted to complete beginners, but it's worth a read. After all, it's free!

I've found Odyssey: The Complete Game Master's Guide to Campaign Management by by Phil Vecchione and Walt Ciechanowski and Never Unprepared: The Complete Game Master's Guide to Session Prep by Phil Vecchione. They're available at DriveThruRPG among other places. These are short books, but they are books and they're not something you really need to start of GMing. See it as a tip for later, when you're hooked in the GMing sub-hobby.

Start of small. Be honest towards your self and your players: being a GM is a thing you learn. It won't be perfect from the beginning. Better begin with a one-shot adventure rather than a huge campaign.

Went session ideas here. You can probably get help help with rules, statblocks for monsters as well as plot lines and NPCs.

If you don't opt for a pre-written adventure but rather create something of your own, keep it simple. You need a villain and a reason for the PCs to get involved in defeating the villain and a way to "deliver" this reason to them. Then you need a few scenes and challenges on the way to the villain, some of which will probably be encounters (i.e. fights).

Here's my top tip:

Learn to differentiate between players and player characters. And teach your players the difference too.

As many has pointed out in this thread, a player keeping secrets from other players can lead to a lot of hurt feelings.

But the thieving rogue is a fantasy trope engrained in our minds. It is an interesting character to play. Yet, how to do it without causing arguments and trouble with your fellow players?

Well, you tell the table what you're doing. Loudly. »I loot the body, giving the sword to the fighter but hide the coins from her and my other companions!« Pathfinder is a coopetative game, and since you've talked to the other players beforehand they know that you're not actually being uncooperative. Your rogue is stealing those coins because you think it'll be interesting story and eventually the coins will wind their way into the party stash one way or another, so everyone follows Wealth by level and whatnot.

And then you roll Sleight of hand vs. Perception to find out if the theft is discovered right away or if you'll get to take that awesome scene where the PCs (but not their players) argue later.

This is how you make interesting PCs who has conflicts with other PCs in games like Apocalypse World. Most Pathfinder players, I dare guess, aren't used to this play style, but I have hopes the can learn =)

I don't know if you consider them "monsters", but I thought about humanoids with a tendency towards industry and experimentation. Gnomes/svirfneblins, dwarfs/duergar or just plain old humans. Maybe an alchemist has developed a new technique for mining or something more sinister, like a method for building undead-construct hybrids. Anyway, this (accidentally) pollutes the river.

An important question that arises in my mind is »Is the pollution an unintended side effect or is someone deliberately polluting the river to achieve some (likely evil) goal?«

James Risner wrote:

He can't move so does it matter?

So, an archer with 10 Strength (+0), can't even walk a straight line, is that what you're saying?

OH BOY! HAVE I BEEN PLAYING WRONG ALL THESE YEARS!

James Risner didn't read your post carefully enough, but you didn't word it perfectly either.

Carring capacity works of strength score, not strength bonus/modifer. A character with Str 11 can carry slight more than one with Str 10. Ciaran Barnes got it right in the post above.

I think you have a point, Llyr the Scoundrel.

So, when it comes to looking at characters builds, I have a rule of thumb. If I can't apply a feature in the adventure, it's a waste.

I think this is a good way of viewing character builds, and using it on the alchemist you sure get a fair share of waste.

Brew Potion is rather situational and might come up, as is Posion Resistance.

Poison Use, Swift Alchemy, Swift Poising and Instant Alchemy is near useless if you're not doing a very specific build. That's 4 class features which you could loose but never miss, even if you got nothing for it.

Many classes have class features that aren't very useful. Wild Empathy for Druids and Rangers is rather lackluster; there's seldom an opportunity to use it and even when there is, it's hard to succeed since Wild Emapthy uses your dump stat Cha ...

But the alchemist stands out with a whole heap of less-than-great class features. From a design perspective, this isn't optimal. It's cluttered and, to new players, a tad bit confusing.

However, it doesn't mean that the alchemist is a bad, non-competitive class. The remaining class features are great and it should be possible to make several substantially different alchemist builds without even going into archetypes.

Weapon mastery feats count as combat feats for all purposes, including which classes can select them as bonus feats, and you gain the benefits of a weapon mastery feat only while wielding a weapon that belongs to a fighter weapon group that you have selected with the fighter weapon training class feature (referred to hereafter as an “appropriate weapon”), and any effect of these feats related to attacks applies only to attacks from such weapons unless the feat specifies otherwise. Characters who lack the weapon training class feature can access weapon mastery feats by taking the Martial Focus feat below.

There's similar passages in the Armor Master's Handbook for Armor Mastery Feats and Shield Mastery feats at page 16 and 18, respectively.

Blymurkla wrote:

But, since two-handed fighters don't gain more than one weapon group,

Do they not? It says that it replaces weapon training 1, 2, 3 & 4 with an ability that functions: "As the fighter class feature, but the bonuses only apply when wielding two-handed melee weapons. " (Not getting weapon training in multiple groups is something i hadnt even considered)

Hm. I confused my self. Thought the bonuses only applied to the "two-handed weapon group", but there is no such group.

I retract my previous statement. You gain additional weapon groups, so you are eligible for advanced weapon training.

Medieval demographics is always of help.

City Size: Cities and towns of the Middle Ages cover about one square mile of land per 38,850 people, on average. This is a density of about 61 per acre or 150 per hectare, so the land within the walls of a typical city of 10,000 would be 165 acres - hardly a city by modern standards, in terms of population OR size. Some extraordinarily-dense supercities may have had densities up to 4x this high (but note that historians proposing those densities also propose higher populations for the cities themselves; it's an area where scholars disagree), and some sparse cities almost certainly had densities less than 100/ha. In general, the 150/ha average is a great place to focus, and let exceptions occur as needed.

Find your city population and calculate its area. Then calculate a diamater (for a fairly circular city) and you've got a ballpark.

I've got a metropolis of 60 000+ inhabitants. It's about 2km wide (that includes a 300m river through it).

Remember that travel times can be hard to be exact about. Nearly all streets will be small and winding, during peak they'll be cramped with people. Slums might be even more claustrophobic and harder to traverse, but in affluent districts shady looking adventures might be held up by suspicious city guards or forced to make away for a nobleman.

Ask the player in question for advice. Maybe he/she has a plan. Like wanting to retire the PC. Becoming mayor is a nice ending. Or if not, ask the player to solve the problem of a mayor setting out on an adventure.

This could be done in game, a NPC asks the PC about his plans. But it's probably better to (also) handle it by talking to the player before next session (or whenever a decision is due), giving you some time to plan your session.

An in game development could be that the PC allys himself with the favorite canditate, one of them becomming the running mate to the other. An election system with two (or more) rounds if no candidate gathers a majority lends itself well to such arrangement. If it's the PC who becomes the prime candidate and subsequently wins, he could easily leave his duties to the deputy mayor upon returning to adventuring.

Are the PCs heroes in the town? Involved in thwarting the dragon attack, perhaps? If so, any one of them should stand a reasonable chance of doing well in an election, if it was up to me.

You should perhaps not dissuade your player from participaing, just because his PC might lose. Losing is underrated in roleplaying. It might be a lot of fun, if the miner wins and the favourite candidate starts to resent the PC.

@Blymrkla - I've done more thinking and decided one thought is that the ruler of this Barony traditionally names his own heir. That gives the baron more freedom to manipulate the succession process - especially if it was he himself who started the tradition - but potentially creates other issues, such as individuals trying to position themselves to be named heir.

That's a nice solution. If it's custom to appoint heirs, it won't raise suspicion.

People trying to get appointed aren't that much of a trouble. They can be useful pawns. And if the baron is odd and a bit unpleasant, he might drive most of them away. It's even better if the barons is poor or apperes poor.

The switch becomes really easy with this method. The baron ventures off on a long journey. While he is away, a gallant knight arrives and charms the village. Does some mighty deed. The baron then return and learns about the knight. Impressed, the baron vows to travel to the distant land from which the knight came and meet him in person. Upon returning, the baron confirms that the knight is indeed gallant and names the knight as his heir, to be summoned after his death.

Of course, the baron is the knight all along.

Only a handful of servants who accompanies the baron on his travels needs to be privy of the secret. With some delicate choosing or a murder or too, some of those few servants might die while away or shortly after returning.

Alter Self requires a piece of the creature whose form you plan to assume. With that in mind, does he keep this piece(s) with him at all times, the spell only lasts a minute per level.

The Rakshasa bloodline grants Alter Self as a spell-like ability. You don't need material components for those.

I have an NPC - a baron in the northern hinterlands of the country - who happens to be immortal. That's his big secret. I've decided that he simply pretends to be his descendents in order to retain his position, using his ability to cast alter self at will for an indefinite duration (Raksasha bloodline via Eldritch Heritage) to change his appearance as necessary.

His majordomo is privy to his secret, but who else would need to be in on it in order to uphold the deception? To many and his secret would eventually get out, but too few and it strains credulity. He's been maintaining this deception for over 200 years, so I figure he'd have a pretty good system in place. Ideas?

There's a Lovecraft-novel about a guy like yours. The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. A decent read.

Anyway, there's two things to keep in mind:

First, us humans are pretty good at pretending that something isn't true. Many, maybe all of the barons subjects might know he's immortal. But they pretend he isn't. They play along in the charade, because facing the truth is too terrible. That's the Lovecraftian approach, anyway.

Second, there's degrees of privy to secrets. Maybe quite a few people know there's something fishy with the baron, but don't know what. Maybe dozens know enough to notice the baron and his father are eerily similar. The baron might need help upholding the charade, but everyone helping him might not need to know the truth or the entire truth.

I'm thinking the most important part of the charade is the switch. When the baron assumes the persona of his heir. The ageing stuff is normally a problem for immortals, but this Alter-self ability should allow the baron to grow a few new grey hairs each year.

But the switch is tricky, and probably involves several people. I have an idea. The baron fakes a birth of his an heir. So we need a wife, who to some degree plays along. I'm assuming the baron ain't brutally evil, so the heir will be allowed to live. If it isn't his own, a simple Disguise/Alter Self is all that's necessary when the baby is presented to important subjects (vassals, priests etc.) and guests.

Now, the baron sends the heir away. Maybe he's influential and clever enough to have made that a custom among nobility in the area, so it won't raise suspicion. Someone adopts the baby, and thus might know a bit about the barons secret. Maybe it's a wizard ally of the baron, who is in on the entire secret. Maybe it's a peasant couple who might not even know who their adopted son really is (but can guess, if they here about the baron).

If necessary, the heir occasionally visits the baron. This might be accomplished by the baron playing his heir - no-one ever sees them in the same room. But that's strange, and if the baron wants a spotless reputation it won't hold. So, an actor is needed. One under an alter self spell or other disguise.

The baron then fakes his death, allowing the son to return and claim the barony.

There might be need for a cover story for the son - what he was doing while growing up - and perhaps an ally to back it up.

I recommend these three name generators.

246. As the party approaches a village, they notice obvious signs of goblin presence. There are footprints, leftovers from foul snacks, acts of aggressions on local plant life and goblin-style markings on trees indicating trails and tribe boundaries. Upon reaching the village, the party finds it to be, well, maybe not thriving, but not burned to the ground either. The villagers are reluctant to talk about goblins, denying any signs of them the party has seen. If pressed on the issue, the villagers explain that the have entered an agreement with the local goblin tribe, exchanging in rather beneficial trade with them. Due to prejudices against goblins, they prefer not to speak of their trading parties fearing self-styled heroes might try to 'liberate' the village from goblin oppression. Bonus points if the trade agreement isn't as mutually beneficial as the villagers say, but rather a tribute imposed on the weaker part, with the stronger part threatening with annihilation if the tribute isn't paid or the true nature of the agreement is revealed to outsiders. Cookies if it's actually the village which is the stronger part.