I think for players that have trouble being creative you can come up with rp/storytelling excersizes to warm up the creative muscles. Card games like werewolf or once upon a time are great examples of relatively free form games that just involve making up a story. Maybe playing a couple rounds of those games before a character creation session might help.
I recently had a player who was one of my regular player's girlfriends join my game for a while. She was into fantasy literature and such and wanted to get into gaming but whenever it came for her character to act or speak she just couldnt imagine herself as the character and think of what to do. So I ran through an excersize i got from the podcast narrative control, that had a few simple excersizes for roleplay in it. It actually helped alot. After that she really opened up.
I think for some Pathfinder or something similar is big and scary. People show up to games with in depth backgrounds, and complex character mechanics, and for someone new, or someone who has never really done a full background before it can be intimidating. So something that kind of breaks it down into parts so that the player can get a feel for it can be really helpful. And then it is really important that if the player does open up and start being creative that you reward that creativity in game by incorporating what they come up with.
This captures my experience pretty well. I just joined my first RP group last year, and I wanted to have characters with unique personalities and backgrounds, but I often found myself writing one up then being unsure how to translate it to RPing at the table. Especially if your character has *any* secrets or private embarrassments at all. I'm not talking about being a completely blank slate or super-mysterious lone wolf. I just mean: you planned your character to feel hesitant about X or to need to grow up a little with regard to Y. It's not always easy to know how to play that at the table.
Additionally, I struggled to figure out what *kind* of backstory would be cooperative with the GM's vision / the expectations of the rest of the players. My first character was a level 1 gnome rogue. I did not build her well, but I didn't know that at the time. I didn't even really understand what a Rogue is for. (I thought my goal for the game should be to acquire as many of the abilities the other characters had that I had started out lacking, rather than to embrace my specialization. I have no idea where I got this notion).
I knew I was supposed to create a back story for my character, and the way my GM described a Rogue to me, it seemed like I was going to be some kind of Master Criminal! So I tried to create a back story that said, 'Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!' or 'Moriarty, King of Crime!'
First, I said I thought she was an undercover cop. I was - sensibly and justifiably - talked down from that one.
Then I came up with this story about how rank in gnome society is recognized by fanciness of gnome hat, and my character had stolen another gnome's hat and identity and was on the run from the police.
I think at that point they gave up on me coming up with something helpful, so they let me run with it. But I never really used the bg, because it so quickly became clear that I wasn't the right sort of character to fit in the overall story. It's taken me a couple of times through starting a new campaign and coming up with characters to feel like I come up with a kind of character that works for RP.
We call our Kingdom 'Vadember,' a word we found by Google translator, though I can't remember the language of origin off the top of my head. It means 'savage.'
Our city names are currently in flux- we're adding some new cities and haven't decided what to call them just yet - but our GM cringes every time the, uh, working title of our capitol comes up. One of the guys called it 'Staggle Rock' as a joke one night, and let's just say that was far more memorable than whatever other serious names we were thinking about at the time. Whatever the real name of the city was supposed to be, we can't remember it now, and Staggle Rock has stuck, for better or for worse. (We've come down somewhat from our giggles and are thinking of giving the place a real name. But 'Staggle Rock' is a tough act to follow!)
We have just one other hypothetical building with a funny name. (Though I tell you what: I will be working on castle names starting now!) I've done a little bit of city planning over the last couple of weeks, so that our future cities can be more orderly than our first efforts, and I thought about what buildings or monuments each of the other PCs would want to be built in his honor. We have a Barbarian who rides a jack mule instead of a horse. I thought he might like for a pub to be named after his beloved mule, Vidunder. And thus the Half-Assed Tavern was born. :o)
I wanted to help, because I identified so much with Newbiegirl's situation, but I'm too new and uninformed myself to have anything to add. I learned a lot from the explanations people posted, too!
It's probably not the most optimal-uber-leet build ever (since optimization says don't lose caster levels and focus on casting over melee if your class offers such), but I am in a group with a guy who plays a Oracle/Barbarian heading into Rage Prophet.
Holy crap.
His character is not only fun to watch him play, but seems incredibly awesome from about every perspective. He went with an Oracle of Battle, grabbed the Weapon and Heavy armor proficiency at 1st, uses a Great Axe and Full Plate. Also, his Barb style is based on the "drinking" line of options I believe, as he is constantly extending Rages and beefing himself up by pounding flasks of booze during fights, screaming for a while, and then spending a couple of rounds vomiting when combat is over. It's as funny and ridiculous and cool as it sounds.
He took the cloudy vision Oracle option, though, for his specific build I would have taken the one where you speak in some random language while in combat...just cause it would be extremely funny with the rest of his build. I would have picked Celestial.
Anyhow, I don't have an exact build for you per se, but I'm sure you can put it together to your taste. If it wasn't total copycatting, it would absolutely be the next build I play.
Actually, although it's not one of the four Oracle builds I'm actively working on right now, I've really been wanting to make a Rage Prophet - it just sounds like SO MUCH fun to play. (Uh, not that I typically get to play these multiple hypothetical characters I make; I'm in two long-term campaigns right now and, barring character death, probably won't have use for a new PC anytime soon!)
I'll admit I'm a little stymied by multiclassing - especially magic-users with melee. I can work out which levels in what I'd need to qualify for Rage Prophet, but how do I know what order to take the levels? Do I take more levels in Oracle than necessary before going Rage Prophet, in order to collect additional revelations?
Anyone have an opinion on the Oracle? FOr some reason, I'm finding myself strangely drawn to it...
I am sort of hypothetically in love with the Oracle class, but I've never actually played one. I've been given permission by my GM to build a Life Oracle cohort to marry my Kingmaker character (she rules the Kingdom, and ruling jointly will grant the kingdom bonuses), but he has yet to see action. I'm also working on no fewer than four hypothetical spare Oracles, just for fun. When it came to the Mystery, I couldn't pick just one!
My favorite things about the class are:
1. Limited spell list, but it's pretty easy to find spells on the Cleric list that will never go out of style, even if you do miss out on some of the more circumstantial choices a Cleric might use.
2. Every single Mystery has a totally different flavor, and there's no such thing as a single optimal build that would suit all Oracles, so I could theoretically play a bunch of different ones and have a new experience every time.
3. Some of the Revelations just sound *so cool* that I'd have to restrain myself from taking Extra Revelation each time I got to take a feat.
4. Oracle's curses are fascinating flavor and some of them make me giggle - the Haunted curse, in particular.
Possible disadvantages?
1. Lack of versatility is a bigger deal in some parties than others. Scrupulous, scrupulous strategic choices are probably sufficient to play an Oracle as the party's primary caster, but I personally don't feel ready to attempt this feat.
2. Several of the mysteries have super cool revelations, but their bonus spells known seem so circumstantial that if I chose that Mystery, I'd pretty much resign myself to never using them. (Except, no doubt, in some bizarre circumstance down the line, where my jaw would drop, and I'd be all, 'OMG, I have a spell for that!!!')
3. Hard to explain, but... what draws me to the various Mysteries might turn out to be exactly what would make playing an Oracle as a group's primary caster difficult: they just suggest some extremely odd - truly distinct - builds. Not a problem, but if you're looking to fill a very traditional role, 'odd' might not be the easiest route from which to do it. (Of course, this problem, if a problem at all, is completely predicated on the assumption that your group looks to fulfill traditional roles).
Some of my favorite Mysteries?
1. The Life mystery lends itself easily to producing a healbot like nothing you've ever seen before. (Just the visual of a dude using Energy Body fascinates me; and the utility applications of the Elemental Subtype are promising). Our GM's rule is that cohorts be constructed on a point-buy five points lower than that used by the PCs, so I only had enough resources to give my cohort high CHA, good CON and decent everything else. (Since he's supposed to be King, I figured: no dump stats). But it would be easy to create a Life Oracle that heals exceptionally well and does at least one other thing: debuffing, stealth, melee or ranged combat. With enough Life Links active, a Life Oracle can tank from the back row! (General versatility? Probably not the most versatile Oracle, since his Revelations and bonus spells all tend toward the same product - unconventional and expedient healing).
2. The Heavens Oracle is highly regarded, to judge by the messageboards, and it's one of the Mysteries that has worthwhile bonus spells. (Knowing Color Spray at 2nd level is not a bad deal, especially when it wouldn't even ordinarily be on your spell list; and the Heavens Oracle has access to a Revelation that keeps Color Spray useful much longer). But the Heavens Mystery tends to be celebrated for its battlefield control potential, and I'd want to talk to my GM about the interpretation of some of the Revelations (like the celestial bridge-thing; what does that even look like --> how can it legally be used?) before committing to it. Additionally, my particular gaming group tends to see battlefield control as interference more than assistance, so the worth of the options, however powerful, could be context-dependent. (And speaking of context, at least some of the Heavens Oracle's Revelations work best out under the night sky - which is circumstantial).
3. The Winds Oracle lends itself nicely - in my mind - to a super-agile, stealthy party member, maybe with a bow and arrows. Invisibility - and several other useful options - available at-will starting as early as 3rd level! (If you take Extra Revelation). Wings at seventh! Plus, whether it works all that well or not, I love the option that starts with bonuses to Perception, then develops into clairvoyance/clairaudience into any place the wind can reach, at seventh level. This mystery sounds great for spying!
4. The Nature Oracle, like the Druid, seems best off outside in a campaign where animals are about. Probably not as versatile as the Druid, but some of the Revelations are deeply intriguing. I personally love all the divination flavor you can get without spending spell slots or irritating the GM. (Reading entrails to get insight bonuses, talking to animals or plants, throwing dirt in the air and reading the wind. Fun! Vaguely creepy!) :o) You can also substitute your CHA modifier for your DEX modifier when calculating your armor class, which lends itself to the ultra-rare option of dumping your DEX.
5. The Lore Oracle is probably, perhaps strangely, the character I'd have the least clear, practical idea of what to *do* with, but that's not because the Revelations don't sound exciting. I have a picture of a Lore Oracle in my mind, and I'm working on her, but I don't know exactly what she'd do within a party. (Of course, in my big group, that's not such a big deal!)
6. I lack your melee expertise, so so far I can't figure out how to make a Battle Oracle work well, but it seems to be an option many people on the messageboards have found attractive.
Anyway, at the end of the day, I think it's about whether any of the Oracle Mysteries suits what you want - and possibly also what your group most needs. I love that they suggest quite specialized characters - really unforgettable, unique characters - but I don't think I could very effectively force an Oracle to do something it wasn't designed to do. Does that make sense?
On a final, practical note: what I've done as I've been working on my spare Oracle characters, just for fun, is start a Word document where I track the available Revelations through all twenty levels. To help me decide what to choose and when to adopt each option, I've made a list, starting with level 1, of what Oracle revelations are available to the Oracle with X Mystery. Then, as each Revelation scales with level, I add entries at the later levels showing how the powers have increased. That way, I can pick the most important options first, then revisit other options as they become more attractive down the line.
I've been working on some Oracle characters for fun (that's right, a plurality of Oracles, hee), and I'd like to read an optimization guide on the class, if there's one out there.
I haven't found anything on this messageboard or by googling, but earlier today I happened upon a link from here to a Summoner Handbook on another forum. It was awesome. (Now I'm making an extraneous Summoner, too).
So I thought I'd ask: is anybody here aware of a Pathfinder Oracle Guide available anywhere on the internets? Ftr, I am not so much committed to optimization as a concept as I am interested in reading about good options that I may not have considered on my own. Optimization guides have been really good for providing that!
Absolutely my only reservation regarding starting with the Sorcerer class - which I did, and which, as suggested above, at least kept me from spending all night looking things up in a panic! - is that you begin with so very few spells known and have to wait more than one level before you can even learn a new first level spell. Even if you choose very very well, that's *two* first level spells. Two! To last you almost a whole module of an average AP, because you won't get to learn a single new first level spell until Sorcerer Level 3. Depending on your group's cash flow and access to shops, you may not even be able to afford or to purchase a few emergency utility scrolls during that versatility dry spell. (My sorcerer has just now reached seventh level, and I'm only just starting to feel well-equipped to deal with the requisite variety of situations - and our group has a wizard, so I'm just back-up).
One reason I've ended up preferring Divine casters like Clerics and Druids as first casters is that they automatically gain access to their entire spell lists.* Which sounds daunting, but the thing is: on a day to day basis, you don't *have to* sift through all the options. Pick a couple of spells from your list that sound universally useful. (Optimization guides exist for prepared casters as well as sorcerers, so you can find lots of advice to help you at this stage). Then pick a couple of spells that sound awesome to you or suit your character's theme or with which you just want to experiment. Learn about that handful of spells, just as if you were a spontaneous caster with a limited spell list. Bam! Your preps are done! Then, if some of the spells turn out not to be fun, or if you happen to know on a certain day that you're going into a den of undead, you can just change to a new, small set of spells - studying between sessions, maybe.
There's nothing wrong with a prepared caster who returns time and time again to a handful of well-beloved spells. (If there were such things as prepared casters in real life, I bet most of them would do exactly that). But especially if you are the primary source of magic for your group, you don't want to get stuck with an extremely limited spell list that includes spells you regret picking or can't use.
I don't know what campaign setting you're expecting, but if it's going to be outdoorsy, my personal pick for you would be Druid. Druid, druid, druid! I *looove* Druids, because the spell list includes a little bit of almost everything you need - healing, utility, buffs for your team members and animal companion (if any) and a few direct attacks. There are even a few silly weapon enhancers that aren't super-great but can keep you busy in melee or ranged combat during very early levels. (Then, as soon as you no longer need them, you just stop using them, a luxury the spontaneous caster doesn't have - not with more than one retrained spell at a time, anyway). A druid, with or without an animal companion, has the potential versatility to be awesome for your group, but also affords you time to learn by trial and error.
Plus - and here's what makes Druids sort of easy to learn your way around - YOU CAN'T CHOOSE BAD PREPS AS A DRUID. If you guess wrong and prepare something you end up unable to use on a given day - or if you're sticking to your three or four favorites, and they aren't helpful to you in a given situation - you can convert *any* spell slot to a Summon Nature's Ally spell of that level. Past second or third level (once the spell duration isn't so punishing), that's pretty much always a great option. And while the list of summonable nature's allies may *seem* long, the rule is the same as with the entirety of the spell list. You don't have to use or know about all of them. Pick a couple of favorite summons, know their stats, and go back for them as often as you like. My personal favorite are Stirges! (Not even on the Summon Monster list, ha!) I like to use higher level SNA spells to summon small groups of lower-level Stirges. They get +7 to attack touch armor class, then they attach to their victims and drain CON round after round. Muahaha! It comes in handy quite frequently. :o)
When I'm not a Druid, oh, I miss those Stirges...
Anyhoo, another long post. (Sorry). But at the risk of running counter to many more experienced players, I think the easiest way to begin casting is to gradually master a more versatile class (maybe using trial and error), rather than bind yourself to the handful of possibly frustrating options offered by a more focused class. Is a druid or cleric harder to play optimally? Maybe? Probably? But if the question is: which full casting class is easiest to *start* playing and least likely to find you bashing your head against a wall in frustration, I'd say the divine caster.
*Even wizards have to pay to acquire new spells, so there's still some pressure related to making strategic choices.
I'd really like to go ahead and take the plunge and play a full on caster, but do you think one of the "hybrid" casters (ranger...paladin...inquisitor...etc come to mind) first? Seems like if I'm going to play a caster, it would be easier/better to go ahead and go full caster and not have to worry about feats, etc. to try to keep my melee ability up. Seems simpler that way.
I think another thing to consider is what responsibilities you'd be covering within the group. Is it a larger or a smaller party? I'm new to Pathfinder, too, but I've had the luxury of playing, building and observing a bunch of different casters since I got started about a year ago. Our group typically has five or six party members, so most of what I've tried has worked out reasonably well, even with zero experience, just taking advice from these messageboards. But that was at least in part because in every circumstance I could afford to be a support caster, always helping in some small way but sort of figuring things out as I went.
My impressions so far: If you're used to melee and know your way around the weapons and such, a Bard might be a good choice for a first caster. There's never a time when the party will want to turn down Inspire Courage or Inspire Competence, so you'll always be contributing something. And if you can flank and land hits, you'll still have something to do, even when your spells known list is very short and the spells in question might not be just what you need that day.
I also love, love, love Druids. I went with a domain instead of an animal companion, but if you build more of a melee Druid, you can employ what you already know while learning your way around a spell list that is (imho) wonderfully flexible without being overwhelmingly so.
Oracles are another good option, though so far I've only built theoretical Oracles. Each individual Oracle build is defined by abilities selected from a list of optional Revelations. Almost all Revelations seem like good things to have, and some are reeeally cool. Best of all, many of the cool ones are available starting at low level, scale as your character advances, and are extremely simple to use. Just add what you like best, and as long as you think it will be fun to do that thing over and over again, you're set. Additionally, Oracle spells come from the Cleric spell list, and so far I've found it less heart-breaking to choose spells known from the Cleric list than from the Sorcerer/Wizard list. (I have played a Sorcerer, and I found the early levels confusing and frustrating at times). I think if I had it to do over again, I'd make my first caster one who primarily cast helping spells - buffs and magic weapon spells and whatnot. It's easier to pick buffs that will be widely applicable, because you know your allies, so you know what works for them. (And when your allies outgrow your spells known, then you can retrain). But you don't know your enemies ahead of time, and predicting what will work for all or most of them can be a headache.
Of course, all this depends on whether or not you have the luxury of adopting the support caster's role. It would have driven me mad to play a Wizard my first time out, *and* it would have driven me mad to try to do everything the Wizard (or even the standard Cleric) is expected to do while playing a class that doesn't quite do it. (I don't mean to imply that Wizards and Clerics are obligatory; just that it's harder to sub for them when you don't yet know what to expect!)
If you can't play a bonus caster or are a member of a very small group, one of the magic/melee hybrids - like the Paladin or the Ranger - might be a way to play with magic while still filling a more traditional role in the party, thus relieving some of the pressure.
Anyway, that's the best advice I can come up with. Good luck!
The word on the street is that Fighters are easy for beginners to build. But every time I try to figure out how to make a satisfactory melee character, I get overwhelmed by multiple ability dependency and choices between feats. Playing support casters (my experience thusfar) may involve knowing a lot of different individual spells, but if something isn't working for one of my casters, it's relatively easy for me to change tactics by choosing different spells.
So far, melee builds strike me as *harder* to make, because early choices can continue to affect your character, level after level. Efficient melee characters, it seems, typically need to be specialized, and I'm never sure what type of specialization to choose.
Still, I like statting characters for fun, and lately I've had an idea for a melee character that I'd like to try out. It's just an intellectual exercise at present, since I have no immediate need for a replacement character. But I figure that educating myself on melee builds (and/or keeping the melee character of my dreams stored up for a rainy day) could come in handy.
.
.
.
When it comes to warrior women, my two biggest girl-crushes, without doubt, are Flying Snow from the Jet Li film Hero, and Balsa from the anime Seirei No Moribito. Flying Snow is a swordswoman of the wire fu persuasion. At one point, she memorably deflects an army's worth of arrows using only a kind of fierce martial dance and her long, whirling sleeves. Balsa is a disciplined, fair-minded female bodyguard who fights with a spear.
Neither woman is the equivalent of a first level character, LOL, and I accept that both probably have abilities which cannot be duplicated by any available Pathfinder class. But I'd love to make a character inspired by either or both of them.
Since we don't know anything about the composition of the hypothetical party this character would be joining, let's assume she might be the primary or only melee character. My GMs typically grant 25 point buy, which might help to make that goal plausible. At the moment, I am picturing this character as Human, but I'm open to other suggestions.
.
.
.
My questions:
Should I make a Monk or a Fighter? (I've read Treantmonk's Guide to Monks, and they sound appealing to me, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to conclusively choose between the two classes). What can I accomplish with one class but not with the other?
Can I make an effective Monk or Fighter without dump stats? This character doesn't need a lot of skills, but she should definitely be sensible, perceptive and not-unintelligent. (Average INT would be fine). I am not as sure about her relationship to CHA, because I'm less clear on just how much unlikability a minor CHA penalty entails. Flying Snow might be considered uncharismatic, because she is fierce and brusque. But she is also beautiful and intimidating which could just as easily be signs of high CHA. Balsa sometimes offends with her honesty and does not always show affection openly, but people listen to her. She commands attention and respect. My character need not be beautiful, but I don't want her to be repellent, either.
What are my options and limitations where weapons are concerned? I'm assuming the same character will have difficulty wielding, say, a sword and a spear. How viable is a reach weapon as a specialty? What feats are good for reach-fighters? We've never had one in my group, so I don't know much about how that would work.
What feats do you consider indispensable for a melee character with a martial arts flavor?
I'm interested in all sorts of input, lengthy or brief, from suggested builds to warnings to anecdotes about your own similar favorite characters. :o)
1: your melee wants to full attack something every round
2: your melee is functioning optimally if they have a single 5' square to worry about, or an arc in front of them (dependent on build, look into their feats).
3: your melee needs to generally let you do this at a distance, before they act, which makes initiative bonuses pretty good for a spellcaster.
For a single target, debuff the bad guy or buff your melee. You don't have to think too hard about this one, because a single creature is overwhelmingly favorable to the party in action economy. Get behind the fighter and let him eat the charge so he can full attack the monster. Hinder movement so the flank can stay in place. Perhaps make some sandwiches. The melee's got this unless the monster is of a significantly higher CR than the group.
Crowds are where you shine. Summon something mean-spirited and sick it on enemy casters (I like swarms for this. Om nom nom nom). Create difficult/impassible terrtain so the fighter doesn't eat multiple charges and can't get flanked while he murder stuff with full attacks. Use party buffs or debuffs/SoS spells to minimize enemy DPR machines (these tend to be fragile).
Spell selection is secondary to just having a purpose for your spells. entangle, summoned monsters, or a rolling ball of fire can all serve the same basic purpose in a pinch.
Be very familiar with your summon list and how abilities work. One of my favorite dirty caster tricks was destroying a flying spellcaster with a dire bat. Baddy was flying over molten tar to avoid direct melee engagements. Bat grapples baddy, overburderns him, and the two sink into the molten tar.
One dirty trick can turn an entire fight around.
This is awesome advice! Thank you so much.
One thing I hadn't really grasped before is that the type of encounters we're seeing might be different from the sort of stuff the optimization guides aim at. We do typically only have one monster at a time, and the exceptions have been my favorite fights; I just hadn't thought that hard about why.
Core questions (because, being me, I am going to supply long-winded context):
What are your secrets for battlefield control without being a nuisance to your fellow party members?
Especially when spells affect a sizeable area, how do you place them so as to make the battlefield a space conducive to your allies' efforts, without hampering them along with the baddies?
Context: I'm sorry if I've posted somewhat similar threads in the past, but this general field of inquiry is an ongoing source of both curiosity and frustration for me. (Heh).
This morning I noticed the new thread on 'How to play a Druid.' I currently play a Druid in our group's Kingmaker campaign, and I'm always looking for input, so I read the new thread. It was full of excellent advice, especially so far as I can tell from my position of very limited experience. But though I've heard similar recommendations before, I never seem to get to put such tactics into action, and this saddens me.
In another thread on these messageboards, I recently found a link to a blog post on Individualist / Collective / Competitive-Collective play styles. The post argued that most group problems come from one group member whose style doesn't match the others. The focus of the post was on players more competitive and individualistic than their collectively-minded friends, but I think I may be the problem player in my game, because I'm not Individualistic or Competitive *enough.* It's my natural inclination to play a cooperative character, so the game is less fun for me when no one is interested in collaboration.
When it comes to Druids' battlefield controls, I hardly ever get to get to use my best stuff, because the other group members don't *want* me to alter the battlefield or interfere with their direct, immediate melee engagement in any way. I dutifully prepare at least one Entangle, Sleet Storm, Wind Wall, etc., per day, and I always have Fog Clouds and Obscuring Mists on account of my domain. But (aside from the domain spells, which can't be exchanged), I always seem to end up exchanging these spells for SNAs, if I use them at all.
By way of example, last week a dangerous animal was charging toward us; the GM said it would reach us in two rounds. In order to give us more time to buff and summon, I filled up the area between the creature and ourselves with a Stone Call (from the APG). But our melee guys were all, 'What did you do that for?' and left to go meet up with the creature in the middle. I had intended to buff their Strength, Dex, etc. I had also intended to lay down a few squares of Persistent Spike Growth so as to possibly limit our opponent's base speed by way of foot injuries, but you can't do that (or Entangle or Sleet Storm) once your own party members are crowded around the target of your efforts.
They were also irritated at me when I threw up a Wind Wall to create a space protected from poison gas. They didn't have to stay inside it - are big enough to just walk on through - but they couldn't understand why I bothered. I was concerned about the more vulnerable members of the group, who can't afford to lose six hit points/round.
And those are examples where I had *some* opportunity to influence the playing field. More often, there's no time or no space to do so at all.
I realize that some of the problem comes from differing values within the group, but there are a lot of different groups out there who all seem to value battlefield control. I'm convinced I'm misunderstanding something important about these magic effects (I only recently discovered the 'Ds' in the spell descriptions that mean they can be dismissed), or that I'm not thinking creatively enough about how to use them. Many of you claim to use a Fog Cloud *every day*! How??? If I used a turn to make one, my group would just leave it, complaining that it blocked their shots. (Which is, after all, true).
Everybody loves these spells!!! So how do you use them without getting on your fellow party members' nerves?
I need scenarios! I need inspiration!
Boast to me about all your mightiest exploits in Battlefield Control, so that I can be like you when I grow up!
This is awesome! I am a no0b who happens to be helping an even no0ber friend build an Alchemist (Strangelob model) right now! I'm excited to see that so many of my suggestions for her weren't completely wrong-headed, but I also gained many new insights from your guide. Like, I hadn't thought about Haste depleting my friend's bombs faster than a bomb/round.
My friend's character will be joining us at Level Six, which means she'll be able to choose a fair few of her feats at once. I had been thinking that despite the ideally-aligned bonuses, my friend ought to choose Human over Elf (setting aside any role-playing preferences which would, of course, take precedence), because she might want that fourth feat *just that badly.*
I had been thinking: Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Extra Revelation and Quick Draw. (Precise shot is probably more important in our group than in some others, because the melee players don't like to strategize around ranged combat or casters, and missing with a splash weapon could be potentially punishing).
But I just looked and Quick Draw is said not to work for 'Alchemical Items,' anyway. How can my friend make multiple attacks per round if she must expend a move action to retrieve each bomb? (Even from a Handy Haversack?)
I'm new to Pathfinder and RPing, but I've read my way around a good bit. My RP group alternates between two games.
In one game, I get to play a Druid. I wasn't sure it was a very 'me' sort of class - I recycle, and I like animals, but I'm not what you'd call preoccupied with Nature - but it is AWESOME. The spell list may not be extensive, but it's full of fun options, and I can trade every day. I can be CREATIVE, but I don't seem to get in other people's way, either. (Perhaps because I can always swap a prepared Entangle for a SNA, so I never have to 'sit out,' just because my preps would trip up allies, too).
In the other game, I play an aberrant Sorceress. Initially, I was way more excited about this character than the Druid, and I obsessed over my list of spells-known, well, *obsessively.* I had grandiose plans about Battlefield Control and synergizing with my friend the Bard and enabling my friend the Rogue and choosing spells that fit my character concept. It was going to be AWESOME. But although I think I've generally been a help to the group, it's not working out the way I pictured.
When I first told our GM, in casual conversation, that I had now read all the classes and had decided I wanted to be a Sorcerer, he got very excited and told me how I'd be spamming Fireballs all the live-long day. This was not what I had in mind, at all. I tried to tell him, but he kind of wouldn't listen to me. To this day, he still says, 'Wait until you can cast Fireball!' When Fireball comes, everything changes, apparently.
But I wanted to be a weirdo Battlefield Controller. (Grease! Web! Walls! Spider Climb!) And perhaps, in part, *because* of my GM's insistence that Sorcerers exist to burn people alive, I've so far resisted direct damage.
Now I'm not so sure. My fellow PCs and I are at level 4. I've just developed the ability to retrain spells every other level. If I want to change horses in midstream, now is the time.
It's not that I doubt Battlefield Control is important - I don't - it's my very limited number of choices combined with a group that a) needs doesn't seem to like my interference, and b) might need somebody to dish out punishment more than, well, do clever, fun things.
Consider:
1. Battlefield Controls typically impose potential inconveniences on allies as well as the intended inconveniences on enemies. I take care to place my spells as carefully as I can (and have learned to avoid awesome-sounding spells with huge range, because I know my allies don't like the idea of hanging back, letting me soften up their opponents for them), but characters move around, and I can't always ensure that the Grease spell I laid down to stop some phalanx of baddies skewering my friend isn't going to get in my friend's way a few rounds later. So far, my friends have been hesitant to accept that slight inconvenience is part of the package deal, and that they're getting benefits out of my actions, as well as possible detriments. Plus, when I cast a spell like Grease that gives bonuses to attack affected targets - prone targets, targets that lose their Dex bonus to armor class while trying to move across the space - my friends tend to ignore the opportunities and hit whatever they like instead. I refuse to boss my friends around and tell them how to play (they already *know* they would get a bonus if they did hit the prone guy) but I can't say it's especially gratifying for me.
2. On account of a relatively large party, our GM has decided to avoid plotting battles on squares. It's supposed to create more descriptive, freeform conflicts, but it also means that some of the spells I took in order to help, say, the Rogue achieve sneak-attack are now redundant. The Rogue can just say: 'I stand somewhere that I am flanking him and shoot him in the face,' and it hardly matters whether I made him Invisible or not. Creating or mitigating against difficult terrain now seems moot. I'd like to make Webs when I finally get to Level 3 spells, but finding the anchor points and specifying the exact extent of the Web will be very difficult to do without squares and pictures.
3. Knowing so few spells means sometimes I feel like I've nothing to contribute at all. Even the most versatile Battlefield Controls depend on setting and circumstance (and your enemies' good saves). Learning only one spell at a time with a Sorcerer's staggered spell progression means I often *can't* have several available spells with diversified saves. Right now, I know Grease, Mage Armor, Enlarge Person (bloodline spell), Ray of Enfeeblement (retrained from Color Spray), and Invisibility. Ray of Enfeeblement wasn't in my original plan, but it made me feel less useless. I have scrolls of other Battlefield Controls - like Obscuring Mist, Gust of Wind and my new favorite (though I haven't got to use it yet) Create Pit.
4. I am interested in Touch attacks on account of my bloodline, though I haven't encountered any very thrilling ones at my level. Buffing spells are almost always useful, but as I can't retrain more than one spell every two levels, I can't take on too many spells that will shortly become obsolete.
5. I won't go into detail, but so far our group seems to fail to bring the pain. We're all still alive, which is certainly a good sign, but we don't have anybody that does truly explosive damage - arcane, divine or melee.
My questions, therefore:
1. Is it time to become a Glass Cannon? If I hang in there and take the kinds of spells I originally wanted, will it get more fun as I get to higher levels?
2. Is there life after Fireball? Can being a Glass Cannon be better than spamming Fireball all day? What 'blast' spells are fun to use? Will I have the same problems with energy resistance and lack of versatility that I've been having with saves and lack of versatility?
3. Can a sorcerer ever be a good Battlefield Controller? I'm not excited by the flavor of wizards, though I'd be hard-pressed to explain my disinterest. I like the wackiness of Sorcerers, but I want to be useful, too. Is a Sorcerer just too limited a class to be good at more strategic casting? Should I just not play one next time, regardless of exciting flavor, if I want to be an effective support caster?
Well, that will have to do. (Too long, already!) Many thanks for any input...
if you read the new Orcs of Golarion they really are portrayed as raving monsters.
I'm kind of disappointed to hear that. I've been looking forward to getting Orcs of Golarion just as soon as I could afford it, and I was hoping the Half-Orc material would suggest a variety of ways to interpret the 'race.'
I'm new to RP and the first involved character I ever created for myself was a Half-Orc aberrant sorceress (with a not-uncomplicated but atypically peaceful pastoral upbringing). I really liked the idea that she'd be physically striking and imposing in a way her naivete wouldn't fully permit her to understand - at least not at first. (She's growing into her Charisma over time). I also liked the idea that she wouldn't fit in easily, even with other Half-Orcs.
I went with this idea before I had any idea that it was so entirely contrary to the traditional Half-Orc rules, but I still like it, even if it is some kind of abomination. I actually think it makes more sense that Half-Orcs would be extremely varied - in appearance, physical and mental stats - because they're not even examples of a single race, they're the product of two races, one of which is already especially noted for its variety. I think it just makes sense that at least a few Half-Orcs would take after their human parent more than their orc parent, and I was hoping that would be reflected in the guide.
Typically, I can just sit and string syllables together - call it free-wheeling mumbling of the brain - and come up with a few reasonably original words or names that appeal to me aesthetically. But since my own tastes seem to land somewhere in between Latin, Tolkien and Swedish (I don't even know Swedish, but since fiddling around with some Swedish words - see below - I've realized my made-up words sound a lot like it), I have to go an alternate route if I want something with a different feel. Here are some methods my friends and I have used:
1. A friend of mine was in the shower, staring at his wife's Waterlily Shampoo, and he ended up making his character's name from a few letters of each word: Terli Ampo.
2. Later, this same friend and I were working together on a joint back story. (Our characters are family members). I made up a few names, but we needed a lot of names, and they needed to have a similar feel. So he introduced me to Google Translate. I spent a whole night plugging in English nouns and adjectives that made me think of our characters/culture, translating the words into several languages and noting the words that appealed to me. Then I sent him all the original words, along with suggestions for shortening, anglicizing or - for lack of a better word - fantasy-izing them, so that they'd be easy to use. We're the only ones who know the root meanings from which our names derive. (And I've been using the same method to make Druid spell incantations).
3. Another friend, recalling the Waterlily Shampoo story, named his character 'Edanam,' from 'I need a name.'
How about a Fey bloodline Sorcerer(Gnome if you really want to play up the Fey blood). Take a level in Ranger if you think you'll need the +3 to Survival.
Or you could play a Cleric with the Animal and Plant domains.
I'm playing a Druid in Kingmaker right now, and it's a fantastic class for the setting. So far, I've had plenty to keep me busy across a wide variety of encounters, and the wilderness setting makes excellent use of my Druid skills.
But my first choice for the setting (before we started playing) would probably have been a Fey Sorceress. (Decided against it, because my group is alternating between two campaigns, and I was already an Aberrant Sorceress in the other campaign). High CHA characters may well be valuable to the group in this setting, as discussed in the players' guide!
You simply level up separately, level by level, and add it all together.
So, a sixth level character could be:
- Monk6
- Monk1/Ranger5
- Monk2/Ranger2/Sorcerer2
And he'd have all of the relevant class abilities. There is no skipping levels with multiclasses, you take them as normal and add them together. A Monk3/Ranger3 has all the abilities of a Monk3 or a Ranger3, though due to being level 6, he will naturally have a higher combined save/base attack/hitpoint pool, and possibly access to higher level feats.
Ooh! Ooh! I'm also a multiclassing no0b thinking about trying this for the first time.
My additional question (and hopefully this helps the OP, too): Suppose I am multiclassing Cleric and Rogue. Both classes have the same BAB progression, but their good saves are opposite one another. I take a level of Rogue, then I add a level of Cleric. Does my BAB now reflect the number on the second level line of the Cleric chart, because it would be the same number as the number on the second level line of the Rogue chart? Or do I simply write down whatever BAB number is specified for the character level I just took? I.e. the BAB# for a first level cleric? What if I start off with two levels of Fighter and then take a level of Wizard? Do I keep the BAB I earned in my first two levels and just add nothing as I become a third level character (because level 1 of Wizard = BAB +0)? Or does my Fighter 2/Wizard 1 now have a BAB of zero, because I just write down the number that appears in the chart for whatever level I just took?
And do saves work the same way? Does being a Cleric with one or two levels of Rogue mean I have good Will and Fort saves (though one or two levels behind most other Clerics), with a Reflex save sliiiightly better than the average Cleric, or do my Will and Fort bonuses disappear off my character sheet whenever I take a level dip into Rogue, and vice versa? Like, suppose (hugely hypothetical; I don't think I would do this) I'm now a Rogue 2/Cleric 8, and I decide I would like to take one more dip into Rogue for the 2d6 sneak attack. I was a 10th level character, with at least the BAB and saves of an 8th level Cleric (possibly slightly more, if BAB and saves from other classes are at all additive), do I now have the BAB and saves of a 3rd level Rogue?
I haven't done it yet, but I'd consider swapping a spell for SNA now that I'm second level.
You don't have to memorize summons as a druid. You can turn any memorized spell (such as that entangle before you realize you're in a building the whole fight) into a summon of the appropriate level, in the same way clerics can turn spells into healing (or harming for negative)
Yeah, that's what I meant - swapping a prepared spell for a spontaneous casting of SNA.
It can definately be viable, but what it means is you are focusing on your casting instead of combat. Your spells are your weapon, and generally wild shape becomes more utilitarion then to get into the thick of things and claw enemies to death. It also means you are more vulnerable at lower levels, but a druid still has a fairly effective low level spell list, and it gets better as you level up.
@but i'm just a gnome - why do you feel the first level summon natures ally isnt viable? I have always found summons to be great additions in any combat, and they can often prove useful out of combat as well.
Oh, whoops. Not the first level spell, the spell at first level - as a first level character. On account of the duration. I haven't done it yet, but I'd consider swapping a spell for SNA now that I'm second level. And I'll definitely be summoning by the time I'm a third level character, at which point I'll also have Augment Summoning, which will make it even more fun!
How viable is a Druid who ops to ditch the Animal Companion in favor of a Clerical Domain in the long run? The loss of the damage/spell link from a Companion seem rather harsh, but does the Domain ability and bonus spells really make up for the trade off in your opinion?
I'm just trying to work the math out in my head for future potential Druid builds.
(The concept of a Fire Druid facinates me.)
I'm playing such a character right now. Honestly, I can't be a big help, because we're still at low levels (and circumstances are such that so far I've never played past level 4), but I'll tell you what I can:
-We used 25 point buy to create our characters, and I had a hard time choosing between two builds. One would have given me 18 WIS and more well-rounded stats, the other makes me somewhat fragile, but gets me a 20 WIS. One of my fellow PCs (and our some-time GM) is a bit of a powergamer and convinced me to buy the highest WIS possible (after racial modifiers). I hope I don't die as a result of this decision, but I really enjoy the *two* bonus castings, plus domain spell, that I got at first level. That has made my initial lack of resources a little more bearable. (It's pretty awesome; the chart shows you getting just 1 first level spell per day, but you can boost it all the way to four with a high WIS and a domain!)
-From what I can see when I look at the Druid spell list, I expect this character to get better and better. It's the lower levels that have been a little bit painful. You have great first level spells, but even if you're out in the woods, sometimes they just don't come up, and spontaneous summoning has yet to become viable as a replacement. There have definitely been encounters where my preps just wouldn't have helped anybody, so I spent the rounds using my tiny buff-orisons and my first level weather-domain power. I've been rolling comically low damage on that domain power, so it often makes me feel a little silly (especially next to our juggernaut of a barbarian) - but on the other hand, it's not just damage, it's a debuff. Who knows how many times -2 to attack has prevented that barbarian from having his head taken off his shoulders?)
-There were a couple of sessions where I went home afterwards feeling I'd been a bit useless in combat, but you know what has been incredibly cheering? My skills! Druid skills are outta sight. You get four+INT ranks/level, which is fairly generous, and the extra bonuses to nature knowledge and survival mean that I've been a big help to our wandering-around-in-the-wilderness Kingmaker campaign. But what I looove about Druid class skills is that they tend to make use of my best modifiers, too - unlike, say, Cleric class skills. (Right now, I am making a cleric as a back-up character, but when I looked at the class skills I was like, 'Augh! Noooo!' Almost nothing would couple with my WIS mod, no perception, and none of the DEX-based skills I was hoping would go with this particular build). With my current character, however - only at level 2 - when I make a bad perception roll, I'm like, 'Awww, I only made it into the teens!' It's been great for surprise rounds and discovering hidden features of the landscape.
-Two reasons I think this character has been so satisfying, even if I am really looking forward to higher levels: wilderness exploration campaign (Kingmaker) + my group *really* needs a support caster. We have a wizard, but so far it looks like he wants to use his wizardry to super-buff himself, then shoot people with arrows. We have a bard, but his character also yearns for melee. Would a beastly animal companion/melee druid combo be more powerful than my character? Maybe. But debuffing/battlefield control is a huge vacuum in my group so far, and a domain druid fits well in that niche. If I had made this same character for our Council of Thieves group - which had casters of all stripes coming out the wazoo, and no plants to speak of - I'd be weeping right now.
Anyway, probably you know a lot of this already. I just thought I'd try to help in any way I could. :o)
I will be playing a Druid for the first time in a Kingmaker campaign starting soon, and I find that I have a lot of annoying, miscellaneous questions about Druid's abilities with animals.
I usually like to do as much of my own homework as I can before starting a thread, but I don't have a Bestiary of my own, and I haven't been finding answers to my questions in the places I've looked so far, so try to forgive me if this is all very obvious stuff!
1. Monster summons come from other planes, and if they get reduced to 0 hitpoints they go back where they came from, only to reconstitute 24 hrs later. Where do animal summons come from? Are they ordinary animals? Or extra-planar magic animals that can't die? My new character is neutral-aligned with goodish leanings, so she's willing to do a necessary unkindness on occasion - but it seems counter to veneration of nature to summon animals to die for one's cause, if that cause is not specifically related to protecting Nature.
2. Treantmonk's guide to Druids suggests taking Undercommon and Fey in order to be able to communicate with the most summons. But how much do summons understand, assuming we do speak the same language? Do I need to cast Talk to Animals, then speak, say, Undercommon, to give my summons instructions? How intelligent does a summon need to be to know not to attack my allies? In the levels before I acquire wildshape, if I send a summoned eagle to scout ahead, will I be able to ask him what he saw, and will he be able to tell me?
3. I gave up my animal companion in order to have more castings/day; my group needs a viable caster way more than it needs another tank. But if I max skill in Handle Animal, how plausible is it that I could simply charm/raise wild pets that, while not magically bonded to me, would still accompany me and protect me? I don't know if/when my friends and I will need to build a castle, but I have a picture in my mind of a garden courtyard full of stalking, roaming wild animals, who all love me! Muahaha! That's probably over the top. But will it be effective for me, given downtime, to raise some wild animals for protection / companionship?
4. A campaign trait would allow me to start play with a horse, and our gm has said she'll allow three weeks of prep / downtime before we leave on our adventure for Handle Animal checks to teach the horse tricks. I had assumed this horse (the guide doesn't describe it; it just says 'a horse') would be one sturdy enough to ride, and that if I successfully taught it to be a mount, I could use it to get from place to place, and it'd be just combat-competent enough to not buck me off when it gets scared. I was not picturing a fancy warhorse - the kind you would need for attacks and charging. Just a faithful steed to ride around on. But the gm says this is probably a third, cheaper kind of horse, maybe even too light to be burdened by a rider + gear; I could use it as a pack animal. That's what the wizard is going to do with his.
I am somewhat disappointed by this revelation, because I wanted the horse so my Druid would have an animal to relate to and look after. She comes from a somewhat barbaric background, and riding horses fit really well, in my mind. (I'm probably being 100% derivative from the Lord of the Rings, but still...) I still like that picture, but now I have some decisions to make. I don't know if my Druid cares that much about having a mere pack animal, even if her strength is low enough that it'd make a difference. If she acquires the horse anyway, but it's not fit to ride, what tricks should she teach it instead? And is it worth continuing to want a Real Horse as soon as she can afford it at later levels, when she might just be wildshaped a lot of the time? How much use would a casting Druid get out of a decently-trained riding horse? Are there any advantages/disadvantages to being mounted (off to the side) in combat that I don't know about yet? If we get attacked and I get down off my horse to go wildshape, can I tell my horse to hide and stay out of trouble? Or will it need supervision, LOL?
5. Final question: what is the likelihood of finding a baby [exotic creature] and hand-raising it to be a mount? Is anything fancier than a horse implausible? Can Charm or Dominate animal be used to tame them, or will any Charmed and Dominated animals revert to hostility as soon as the spell wears off, regardless of your Handle Animal skill?
FYI, the reason I suggested Perform: Oratory is that it works really well in my mind for "giving the kinds of orders people listen to." Well, that and having Sense Motive based off of Charisma instead of Wisdom would really, really help this guy out.
Like, 'Perform: Drill Sergeant'! That would be hilarious and potentially awesome!
Just to clarify in case it's needed, according to this array he won't have a STR penalty, he'll just have to buy a high STR and not get to use it all (because he'll lose 2 for being a Gnome). But perhaps you are referring to the built-in Gnome penalty that results in an only medium-ish STR? I'm probably not using all the right terms, because everything I know about RPG jargon I've picked up by listening in around here!
I meant the racial penalty, not your array. (I missed that you said it was point buy, sorry!) And Str 14 is roughly where I would expect someone in his position to be, but you could definitely go higher if you wanted. A bard doesn't really need Cha 18; Cha 16 is plenty, and you could probably shuffle those points around somewhere else. I'd probably go for (final stats here) Str 15, Dex 14, Con 15, Int 13, Wis 7*, Cha 16. The odd scores give some options for advancement at 4th and 8th levels.
If he starts as a fighter, I'd recommend beginning with Power Attack. If he begins as a bard, he can start with a longsword (used two-handed) and trade up when he does take his fighter level (probably wouldn't wait much past 3rd level) and go for Arcane Strike. Future feats should probably be martial in nature (likely choices include Weapon Focus, Toughness, Improved Initiative, and others depending on the fighting style he wants), for concept reasons; if he plans to use some spells for dominating people, Spell Focus (enchantment) is an option, if a risky one. On the other hand, if he wants self-buffs, Combat Casting can be very helpful at low levels (though it gets less so as the levels go up).
*I wouldn't normally suggest starting with a Wisdom anywhere near this low, but it really seems to fit the character you've described...
This is really good detail, especially as to the stats and combat feats. I am terrible at combat feats!
Bard, Perform: Oratory, splash of fighter, then step into ElKn at level 8 (bard 7/fighter 1). If he wants to be serious in melee, he's going to working uphill with the Str penalty, but the Con bonus will help and if he takes the fighter level early (possibly even at 1st leve) he can get a greatsword or similar and do fairly well with it even so. Rolled scores, or point buy?
25 point buy. I came up with that array myself, and I have no experience with fighters - or bards, for that matter - so feel free to propose an alternative! I've just been playing around.
Just to clarify in case it's needed, according to this array he won't have a STR penalty, he'll just have to buy a high STR and not get to use it all (because he'll lose 2 for being a Gnome). But perhaps you are referring to the built-in Gnome penalty that results in an only medium-ish STR? I'm probably not using all the right terms, because everything I know about RPG jargon I've picked up by listening in around here!
Crappity crap, another thing I forgot to say: No APG classes allowed. Otherwise I'd probably be an Oracle. Good idea, though. A Summoner or an Alchemist would be awesome for the group.
With his criteria, I'd say go bard, but I think a fighter/rogue would work well with the rest of the party.
Oh, yeah. Other thing I forgot to say: this guy plays the Rogue in our other campaign, which is the only reason we're not nudging him that way here, LOL. I'm not sure he'd mind being a multi-classed Rogue here, too, but we - uh - made the Paladin choose a new class, so it might make us hypocrites. Hee hee.
My RP group and I have been playing Council of Thieves, and last week we found out that we will be adding a Kingmaker campaign to our gaming schedule, so that we can alternate GMs. We have read the Kingmaker players' guide and begun tossing build ideas around via email. Most of us have settled on something pretty firmly, but the last I heard from my friend, he sounded a little stuck. He has a vision; he's just not sure what class he should pick in order to realize it. For my own curiosity as much as for his edification (just being honest, C!), I thought I'd ask the boards for advice on his behalf.
Ftr, our group is looking a little lopsided. It's pretty hilarious, actually. In Council of Thieves, we ended up with buffers and debuffers and support casters out the wazoo, with almost nobody interested in doing any *hitting.* Probably because our group members want to make new builds that contrast with their CoT characters, we are now finding ourselves in the opposite situation. It's not dire, but it is a little unbalanced. So far, we have:
-A relatively fragile Transmuter with a very high Intelligence, quite good Dexterity, dumped Strength, and no significant penalties or bonuses to Charisma or Wisdom. The Wizard is played by an experienced player aiming for Loremaster. He'll get pretty decent numbers of skills/level, but he's going to put most of them into knowledges.
-A well-rounded Ranger with 18 STR, no dump stats and modest bonuses to DEX, CON, INT, and WIS. The Ranger is going to emphasize ranged combat but be prepared to do some melee, as well. He has committed to putting ranks in Disable Device, because we do not have a Rogue at this time.
-A Barbarian with excellent STR, DEX and CON, but dumped everything else. This isn't an optimized build, but rather the result of my friend's RP concept. He wants to play half of a Dumb Barbarian/Wise Druid pair. I am the Druid. We haven't defined our bg yet, but we are going to be family members.
- A quite Wise, no-animal-companion (sob!) Weather Domain Druid, built primarily for battlefield control casting, not for hack and slash melee. They're not required by my class, but I gave myself decently high INT and CHA in addition to the high WIS, because we need skills and the campaign setting seems like it's going to call for Charisma. (Which none of us have, LOL). This has meant my STR is dumped, my CON is average, and my DEX is not as high of a bonus as I'd like. But hopefully several beefy fighting guys and some animal summons will be enough to keep me away from the action. Eep! Also, I am currently the only party member with Cure or Heal spells on her spell list.
Probably optimizers can find plenty to quibble with on our list, but most of us are new to RPing, and we're all of the mindset that we let each other play what we really want to play and go from there. At least we're becoming more mindful of the need to talk about things like what skills and stats everybody has. (Hey, guys, remember that time when we realized that *nobody* had Disable Device?)
Now for my friend: he reports that he would like to play a Gnome, obsessed with power in all its forms. In his mind, says my friend, this Gnome wants to be a fighter but his Small size and Gnome stats aren't especially well-suited to the purpose. My friend doesn't want to make a Small fighter if it will hold the group back, however. I've been trying to figure out what class he could play that would a) fulfill his vision of a small Napolean, perpetually grasping for power, and b) possibly shore up some of the party's weaknesses.
We don't obviously need another good hitter, but we could *really* use a wheeler and dealer with a high CHA and some of the more civilized skills. (My CHA is only 14, and so far that is the best in the entire group). If my friend were to play a caster, not a fighter, though, he could in theory focus on using his magic to buff himself up for battle, then go to town. A CHA-based caster would plug the group's yawning personality hole and benefit from that high CHA score at the same time. He'll need a better BAB and hit dice than a Sorcerer, however, and a Paladin would be too moral, with casting benefits too delayed.
So I have been thinking (perhaps counter-intuitively, as to flavor): Bard?
With a high Charisma and a mix of buff and mind-control spells, this Gnome can be powerful and grasping, while serving the group's interests just as long as he benefits from them. He can affably ingratiate himself to the group members in power, moving ever closer to the throne. He can also make himself a somewhat better hitter in order to play out his combat fantasy. (Disadvantage: Enlarge Person and Bull's Strength won't be on his spell list, which both seem like natural choices for this character. I guess he could acquire the cooperation of the Transmuter for those, or max UMD?)
The performance aspect of Bard isn't an obvious fit for my friend's character, but maybe he could pick a really unpredictable style of Perform (he is a Gnome, after all; Gnomes are weird), or maybe he could have a bg with classical performance training, which he is willing to use to his advantage but not-so-secretly hates.
We have 25-point buy with which to create our characters. I was thinking something like STR 14 (16, -2 Gnome, 10 points) DEX 14 (5 points) CON 14 (12, +2 Gnome, 2 points) INT 12 (2 points, wish this were higher) WIS 7 (-4 points) CHA 18 (16, +2 Gnome, 10 points)
So, questions: What about this won't work? (I'm a total no0b). It's not optimized, but is it playable? What other class options are there for this Gnome? Bard wouldn't be the easiest route to Eldritch Knight, but how doable would that be for my friend? Would it be worth it? How else would you suggest synching the power hungry gnome with the rest of our Kingmaker group?
Stuff like that. Very interested in what everyone has to say!
*Forgot to say, early indications are that the Charisma-only feature for Ruler skill-checks will likely be house-ruled away. Will probably be Charisma or Wisdom, perhaps Charisma, Wisdom or Intelligence.
In an attempt to salvage a deteriorating thread (and might I suggest some of you pause from your posting now and again to get some sleep, you're getting testy), let me rephrase the original intent with some specific questions, since it should be abundantly obvious that people will continue to disagree with each other about the merits of a sorcerer vs. a wizard. Let's look at some classic situations, and give our opinions as to which they would prefer to have with their party for each situation. I would be surprised if anyone can honestly say sorcerer or wizard straight across the board.
1. The party is jumped while traveling through the dark woods by unknown assailants. They are surprised and have no time to prepare before being thrown instantly into combat.
2. The party is preparing to infiltrate the stronghold of the Great and Evil Magus Magoo, an arcane spellcaster of great renown and proficiency.
3. The party must defend a small village from assault by a horde of humanoids, including some tougher guys and minor spellcasters. They have some limited time to prepare.
4. The party is about to enter a huge and unexplored tomb complex, where unknown dangers await. The expedition will likely take several days at least and require sleeping inside the complex.
5. The party must penetrate an ancient sage's abandoned sanctum sanctorum. It is not only laden with traps, but contains a wide variety of puzzles and intellectual challenges that will test the parties ingenuity and knowledge...
My first thought when I looked at this list of scenarios (no, second thought; the first thought was, 'Yay! Cool scenarios!) was that I wished I knew what level my sorcerer and a comparable wizard would be at in each one. Because the lower my Sorcerer level, the more that even my spontaneous access to all my spells-known will avail me fairly little - because I won't know very many spells at all. (Spontaneous choice...! of almost no choices...?)
The middler to higher my level, the more the balance tips in my favor, I think, when it comes to tough challenges involving lots and lots of enemies and unforeseen circumstances. (Not so much in the Plan Assault Like Clockwork scenarios; those go to the Wizard every time). My reason is not that I get *more* spells per day. I think it's already been well established that sorcerers having more castings is largely a myth. But because I can decide on the fly what's worth trying more than once. And not just to spam for greater effect, but to try again, if the first attempt should fail. If a spell fails to take effect, we all lose a spell slot. The sorcerer, so long as he's had enough levels to accumulate a decent number of choices, doesn't have to predict ahead of time which spells he can repeat. Which is handy whenever you have enemies with unknown numbers and unknown properties. (But not nearly as good when you want to spy out the fortress, plan something complicated, and then carry out the plan systematically).
Anyway, I think this is going to be the thing I keep reminding myself, whenever I feel depressed about my Sorcerer getting coal from Santa, when the Wizard gets a bike with a bell. (I am hyperbolizing the disparity to maximum, LOL, because I overestimate the effectiveness of my sense of humor, but despite my love of the Sorcerer - esp. the fun of bloodlines - I do think the Wizard is more powerful and much luckier when it comes to resources he can use to augment his powers). Maybe you don't have to be able to do some one thing that absolutely no other class can do, if the slightly-redundant things you can do can be combined to good effect. Not having to decide at prep time how many times you want to attempt something in a single day is a very modest advantage, but it is something from which the team may often benefit.
Think about this. What can a sorcerer do that no other class can? Every other class. Every. Single. Class. Has something unique about it that no one else can do.
I'd really like to build a flying wuxia swordswoman, with exceptional grace and gravity-defying agility. I think maybe many of the individual features I have in mind could be cobbled together, but I think the result would look very piecemeal and probably not very playable, on account of any necessary feats and class-dips not being intended to work together.
ETA: whoops, somebody just got to this, above. Heh.
Also, as to Trout's ideas about Gravity, above, it might be kind of cool to see classes with limited elemental control. No spells, as such. Just SLAs to manipulate some particular force or substance. Like gravity or light or water. You could try to create such a character from a full caster, but I think they'd probably just end up being a caster with an unversatile and possibly ineffective (since you'd presumably have to take the bad elemental spells along with the good ones in order to maintain the flavor) list of spells.
4. Janiven's first want isn't to overthrow the House of Thrune, it's to get rid of the Shadow Beasts and remove the oppression.
That may well be, but when I was playing it, it wasn't immediately obvious to me how attacking a group of Hellknights and breaking a complete stranger out of jail was the quickest and/or smartest way to get rid of the Shadow Beasts.
Yeah, dude. I would just kill me some Shadow Beasts! I kind of wish that had been the first thing I had been invited to do. My character would have been nervous at the prospect, but there's no moral compunction involved in agreeing to cooperate against an unnatural creature that eats people at night. And if you're more neutralish, you'd probably still be happy to do it for the excitement. And/or to save your own life.
3. The Sandbox, only without sand. Part 5 of the adventure assumes some kind of downtime, except it doesn't give much meat to play with in that downtime. I buy Paizo adventures in order to minimize the amount of GM work I have to do, and I am not really fond of anything that increases my workload. At least the Set Pieces are gone, phew.
If anybody has a minute, could he/she tell me what does happen at the end of the first module? The 'sandbox with no sand,' if you will? I'm reasonably sure that my group is now past module 1 and into module 2 - we're beginning to plan for the play - but I'm very curious about what it is that the published materials specify for the end of BoE.
Here's what our group did:
BoE spoilers:
The GM gave us a week off to craft, shop, and pursue any entrepreneurial endeavors. It was kind of fun to have a whole week's activity that I could narrate as I saw fit. I fulfilled a long-time dream shared by the Cleric and I and bought a small flock of sheep. (We are talking about starting a petting zoo. No, seriously). I took a grain offering to the desecrated church of Erastil (the deity of my character's rural upbringing, though she has no authority or anything within the faith - she's just an ordinary believer). I stocked up on scrolls. I tried to bond with some of the NPCs in our movement. (I would really like to go on a spontaneous hobbit-smuggling mission with Fiosa one of these days). I set up a functioning kitchen in the shrine of Aroden, bought a little nice wine, and cooked meals for anybody living there/anybody who saw fit to come over. I tried to be a consolation to our Tiefling bard, who is feeling very resentful about how many Tieflings we had to... neutralize over the course of the module. And a few of my fellow PCs and I decided that on days off - when we haven't used up our spells - we patrol the streets at night and kill Shadow Beasts, though we don't actually play out these encounters or bother with XP.
At the end of our week, one of the NPCs came and told us that (he? she? I can't remember whether Tarvi is a he or a she!) had seen a ruined manor with a library that appeared to be intact, though guarded by some kind of fearsome presence. Naturally, the party wizard *really* wanted these books. We explored the mansion, solved puzzles, found a few interesting things - including a large cache of valuable alcohols - and eventually acquired the books, which will probably prove very helpful but weren't magic, to the wizard's disappointment.
I had assumed that the modest mansion adventure was the first little event of the second module and was part of the published materials. But is it from the end of the first? Or something our GM just made up? What is the 'sandbox with no sand,' as written? I'm very curious.
I must say though, both groups tend to run in Gun Teams. Heck, in the high level game I give them a situational bonus if they are within 10' of each other of +1 Int, +1 AC, +1 To Hit because they have worked together for 17+ levels in some cases!
I think that any class caught alone is in beeg trouble in most games as you just can't handle everything that comes at you.
Now, which TWO classes do you think work the best together?
Cleric / Fighter in my book.
Discuss!
Have Fun out there!!
~ W ~
I speak from almost zero experience, but I'm presently playing a sorcerer, and I'm very excited by the opportunities presented by sorcerer / rogue. Since I can only know so many spells, if I collect a few things that create constant opportunities for my friend to do sneak attack damage, well... I don't know if it works out to the most effect numerically, but it sure is fun to watch.
Wizards are much better suited to artificing. There is a wizard in my party right now who has decided to manufacture pearls of power like there's no tomorrow, selling the ones she makes in order to acquire the money to make more. We're both at third level, (I'm the sorcerer), and she already has four pearls of power to carry around with her. She also knows two free second level spells, and (of course) I know none.
You can't do that. By RAW, you spend half market value to make the pearl and get half the market value when you sell the pearl. If the DM is allowing you to sell at anything above half market value, the craft feats WILL cause problems. At best, the only thing that should be allowed is for a profession shopkeep roll to augment the sell price after the time needed for a profesion roll has passed for you to find a buyer. This would be the problem going the OTHER way from LT's premise...in this case, houserules are making the wizard much stronger.
Hmm... I didn't realize it was a house rule, but the GM is the wizard's husband, so it's not likely to change. (And I don't want to rain on my friend's parade, either, even if it does make me feel behind the curve. She's having a lot of fun). He says if she makes and sells too many of any one thing, he'll make her cut back, on account of flooding the market. But I don't think he knows she's only supposed to be selling her items half-price, not retail...
If you don't mind my asking: if it's so obvious that sorcerers are disadvantaged as compared to wizards, then why are the class features of both groups arranged the way they are?
Wizards are much better suited to artificing. There is a wizard in my party right now who has decided to manufacture pearls of power like there's no tomorrow, selling the ones she makes in order to acquire the money to make more. We're both at third level, (I'm the sorcerer), and she already has four pearls of power to carry around with her. She also knows two free second level spells, and (of course) I know none.
Given enough time and cash, I can buy scrolls, staves and wands to try to compensate for my lack of versatility - I can even, as has been actively discussed, take a cohort to do these tasks for me, (though I'm not sure my character actually wants one...) But whereas my wizard friend can easily make up for her 'weakness' (castings/day), simply by having an Intelligence modifier as high as my Charisma modifier, choosing a school, and crafting items at half-price that I am not equally well-suited to craft, I can do nothing whatsoever about my weakness - spells known. No matter how high my Charisma modifier gets, I won't get to know any more spells or gain access to spells any sooner. I can't buy anything that will augment my ability to learn spells. I can't make anything that will help me learn more spells. I can't even get a bonus from the personal choice not to dump Intelligence. (I don't like to keep my mouth shut during strategy sessions, so I insist on playing reasonably smart characters, heh). It would be kind of nice if there were an option for high Cha and high Int sorcerers to be able to learn without multi-classing.
Next level, I will get my first 2nd level spell. But by then my wizard friend will know 4 2nd level spells for free, and she will know them in time for the levels at which they will be most appropriate to cast. She'll be able to cast 2nd level spells as often or even more often than I can, because of her Pearl of Power farm. If the wizard's 'disadvantage' as compared to the sorcerer is so superficial, what is the rationale for keeping me a level behind in spell acquisition? Does anybody know? The wizard doesn't seem to need to be a level ahead in order for the two of us to be on par.
Ftr, I really like the Sorcerer class for flavor. My bloodline craziness makes me really happy, and I don't mind playing a class that has serious limitations (though the degree of those limitations seems curious, when comparisons between Sorcerers and Wizards are so inevitable). I'll probably want to play Wizards, too, though I expect daily spell prep to drive me nuts. Given the degree to which I obsess about my Sorcerer spell list, which I only have to rethink every other level, I'd rather spend my day wracking my brains for unusual spell uses than trying to guess what we're up against that day.
I just wish there were some options I could be working toward that would open up new possibilities for my character, the way my wizard friend can work to overcome her weaknesses. And it would be so cool if there were a feat tree intended for sorcerers as natural magic-users - something that synergizes with my way of using magic instead of working against it. Metamagic is like the wizard's hand-me-down shoes. I'm allowed to clomp around in them, but they don't really fit me.
For the record, best multi-use first level spells include: silent image, magic missile, color spray, and grease. The best buff is Enlarge Person and I always take mage armor.
For second level try glitterdust, invisibility and resistance to energy. Gust of wind, web and mirror image are cool too.
Third level: Fly, haste and slow are fantastic. The once mighty dispel magic is still useful, I like major image, and how could i forget summon monster 3 (the first really good one, update when you can, Summon monster VIII is lame but the rest are solid I usually take summon monster 3/5/7/9 if I don't have something else in mind.)
Fourth: Enervation, Black tentacles and Dimension Door. Then Confusion polymorph and if you have a rogue friend, greater invisibility.
Fifth: Telekinesis, feeble mind and one of the walls- stone or force. Persistent image is nice and you might want to try an enchantment- like dominate person or hold monster- either can be...
Wow, that sounds eerily like my own projected spell list, so I take it I'm on something like the right track. I'm additionally determined to rock Stone Shape and Shrink Item. I know Shrink Item is usually treated as too circumstancial, but I just can't resist the thought of packing siege weapons and other crazy-giant stuff along in my pack. Like giant rocks! For Stone Shaping! It's just going to be so hard to wait and take all my favorite spells only one at a time!
I didn't mean to be ungrateful, btw, and I'm sorry if I sounded like I was. I read this guide eagerly while first working up my character. I really meant only to state my intense interest in further guidance. I fully support (and share) your commitment to laziness!
First of all, I want to give a shout out to all the husbands, fiancés, boyfriends and significant others out there who patiently support our hobby even though they may or may not understand it. We women realize that there is a certain social stigma attached by the wider world to those of us that openly proclaim to be table-top role-players, and that you men bear it with a somewhat forced yet patient smile. For that, I say thank you.
Now on to the topic at hand. Namely, why don't you like this game? And more importantly, what can we women do to garner your interest? We, as your loving spouses, love to see you happy, and having fun. We also love slaying monsters, finding sweet loot, becoming heroes, and discussing the finer points of gnome tossing with mid-air enlarge person. Why can't these two things we love co-exist?
I realize that my target audience is not likely to be lurking these forums anytime soon, so I turn my question over to the greater Pathfinder and rpg community.
Fellow GMs,what have you noticed that works/doesn't work to incorporate your more hesitant male players?
Guy players, what first enticed you to the game, and what keeps you playing now?
Perhaps we can gain some enlightenment into this age old question.
Everything you need to know about "getting women into Pathfinder" can be understood in the paragraphs above, if your Wisdom score is high enough.
** spoiler omitted **
I heart you, owl-faced wisdom guy. (ETA: Or owl-faced wisdom female? Forgot I don't actually know which). This is a good post.
I also heart Mr. Fishy, but I respect his Trollop too much to make a move.
I tried sticking my Core Rulebook inside of her Louis Vuitton purse. I felt they complemented each other well, and that upon looking to see what was in her bag, the appearance of such a large, beautiful book, unexpectedly, could not but help draw her gamewards. Instead, she said something most unlady-like about putting my "stupid" game books in her purse. Please advise.
Signed,
Subtly hinting in Big D
Man, I wish large, beautiful books would unexpectedly appear in my purse. Of course, even if they did, I might not do what they said.
And more importantly, what can we men do to garner your interest?
Stop making gender an issue.
I tell this to my female friends and they b#~~% at me and tell me I'm sexist for not recognising the years of discrimination they have faced... You can't win.
This is very true.
On one hand, we're told not to treat them any different from everybody else.
On the other hand, you can't treat most women as 'one of the guys' or you'll run into a whole different slew of problems.
I've been blessed in that the most of the women who've gamed with me have already considered themselves 'one of the guys' (so far in a feminine way, not in a "I want to be a man instead" way, although I'm sure those would fit in just as well) so it hasn't really been an issue, but there have been a few exceptions, and it never ends well.
I don't think I understand why the distinction between the two contexts is so mystifying. On the one hand, most people, women included, would like to be treated as equals and individuals first, not as Interchangeable Members of a Socially Disadvantaged (or Rarely Spotted Around the Gaming Table) Group. This is the sense in which we want to be treated the same. On the other hand, affording everyone equal consideration doesn't actually eliminate the social disadvantages and indignities some people experience. This is the sense in which we may want the particular facets of our experience as women to be taken into account. If you had a friend who was, say, a war refugee, you'd want to show respect for his individuality, his intelligence, his adulthood *and* his past experience.
Not all women are anything like refugees, of course, and probably many of us experience sexism in a kind of casual, accustomed, day-to-day, we're-used-to-it kind of way that doesn't always deal blunt force psychological trauma. But we totally may have experiences, as women, that continue to be relevant facts to those that wish to befriend us.
Speaking for myself alone, that last bit is actually an important consideration. So far, I game with my friends. I started to game because my friends were going to game. Now I like to game for itself in addition to enjoying my friends' company, but if I were to move and needed a new group, I would still make friends first and suggest gaming with them second. I'm sure this isn't any kind of a general rule for all women - especially since it seems like plenty of women volunteer for spontaneous games at Cons or over the internet - but so far I am only willing to role play within an existing bond of friendship and trust. This is partly because I have the most fun with my friends, but also partly because... well, my favorite time to be around lots of men is not always when they are competing with one another. There are competitive persons across genders, of course, but I've had more unpleasant experiences with men jockeying for recognition than I have while among women. If I can trust my friends to foster a spirit of teamwork at the table, I'm much more likely to be willing to join in. But I'm going to get bored really fast if guys are bragging about their (imaginary!) attributes. If I am concerned that contention and machismo may define the scene, I am more likely to stay away, lest I should commit to joining an activity that ultimately distresses and bothers me. (And it may seem unfair to judge prematurely, but it's not always easy to explain that you think a behavior is impolite and counter-productive, when the others around you have a different perspective and see it as normal. It can be kinder just to stay away and let your boyfriend behave the way he wants to around his own friends).
So, yeah. I think it's probably the case that every person wants to game with people he/she trusts to some degree. But the parameters of that trust are probably different for different people and established in different ways. Maybe that's what's missing some of the times that women say, 'No, thanks.'
Also, earlier posters have mentioned objectification in role-playing art. The fact that Seoni wears clothes designed to appeal mainly to male readers, rather than clothes designed to survive the elements/melee combat, is not itself enough to keep me away from the game, LOL. (As a noob, my final decision to purchase the Core Rulebook, not just borrow it at intervals, was influenced by the overall beauty of the art. I felt that it would be a book I'd enjoy looking at, not just a book that would tell me lots of rules). I am used to women's bodies being used to sell all manner of things; role playing is just one more. But speaking as just one woman, that art does sometimes rather send me a message that the product is not really intended to invite me in.
It's not a deficiency in counter-objectification to which I refer. (Valeros can be hot all he wants to be; I don't think it actually changes much about gender roles in fantasy context). What I have in mind is more the following: the Core Rulebook has male characters that are old, ugly, stocky, wizened, short, ecccentric-looking, be-tuskened, and, for lack of a better word, dwarves. All of these characters look like they'd be fun to play. The female characters are all young and conventionally attractive (though I do rather like that they are diverse in their attractiveness). Some of them also look fun to play, but it seems like the first thought was that they be fun to look at. I'd really like to see female dwarves, halflings and half-orcs, not just the so-called 'pretty races' (am super excited to see the final Inquisitor for the APG!) because, well, a) I actually think drawings of odd-looking women *can* be enjoyable to look at, and b) it sends the message that female characters bring a lot to the game, even if they lack sex appeal. If I imagine the fantasy world of gamers as one where the women are primarily valued as eye candy, well, I feel a little out of place. I don't look like that. And even if I did, I wouldn't want that to be the governing fact of my relationship with my gaming pals. I'm not saying it would be, or that the Pathfinder Core Rulebook actually says GIRLS KEEP OUT ('SPECIALLY UGLY ONES!!!1!1). Of course it doesn't. I'm sure the fine folks at Paizo respect women and want them to feel included. But the fantasy tradition at large is saying, 'Look at Harsk's badass scowl; he seems like a really memorable character!' 'Look at Lem's about-fifty awesome belts! What an eccentric, belt-wearing guy, that Lem!' And then... 'Look at Seoni's boobies, what a memorable... boobies!'
It is simply not true that Treantmonk's spell guide is all a Sorcerer needs. Sorcerers are not Wizards. They have a different set of priorities for which spells are optimal. Wizards don't have to sacrifice versatility for bang since they have no limit on how many spells they can learn. Sorcerers must always be interested in selecting spells which are applicable in the widest possible number of scenarios.
+1
1) Just chiming in to say that I'd reeeeally like to read a complete spell guide written with the Sorcerer in mind. Or even a couple of sample spell-lists that include information on order of adoption/retraining. (I thought knowing only 3-6 spells per level was cruel even *before* I noticed how long it would take me to even assemble those 3 to 6. You have to wait a long time for your 3 to 6 spells, and everybody talks as if spells at any level lower than the highest level you can cast are more or less useless against your opponents). Thoughts on optimized wand and scroll use would be valuable, too. I've spent a lot of time reading spell descriptions and taking notes, but I'm sure there are good wand/scroll spells I've missed. Plus, it would be nice to hear from experienced Sorcerers about the relative dangers/benefits of, say, casting attack spells from scrolls. It hardly sounds ideal, but is it better than not knowing enough spells to get by?
2) On a wholly related note, I'm a noob playing my first Sorcerer, and I just got to third level. (Finally I can learn a new first level spell!!! Yaaay!!!) If it just is the cast that the first couple of Sorcerer levels are going to be hard to get through, then I can take the bad news. But I'd be interested in any insights about getting through low-level Sorcerer play.
As a random example of a question from my own context, I get to take my first Level 2 spell at 4th level, and the Wizard in the group will already know several Level 2 spells by then. On the one hand, I can see where invisibility is probably the biggest game-changer at Level 2, and our party might benefit by it being cast several times/day. But since my spell list will still be so short at Level 4, I'm hesitant to take Invisibility first and just be... bored? I'd rather have Web, or alternately collect wand/scrolls of Web and take the mostly-low-rated Spider Climb. (Uh, not because they're both spider-themed. My character is supposed to be a little weird, but she's not a spider lady. They're just both spells that interest me). We could use Spider Climb for stealth, to circumvent and flank enemies in small spaces, and to give our Rogue additional ways to sneak up on people. And if I acquire a touch attack before too long (am waiting for a really good one to become available), I can combine Spider Climb with my extra long Aberrant extendo-arms to deliver humorous debuffs. But even though I *think* I can see potential in my plan, I won't do it if the party's need to acquire multiple castings of invisibility is too great. This is where experienced advice could really help. Are there any spells so good for a Sorcerer as to be almost obligatory?
There's a distinction to be made between parlor philosophy and dialectic philosophy. The former is for students (idle nobles perhaps) who are interested in adding some color to their conversation. They want to sound smart, and a little trivia is all they need. The latter is for people who intend to sharpen their cognitive and oratory abilities: politicians, military leaders, bards, wizards, etc. These types would have philosophy as the backbone of a serious education and would pay well for it, for them and their wards.
In a world where the gods existence is a given and magic is omnipresent, philosophers would probably focus on a some odd matters:
- What is natural and what is magical, and how does one become the other.
- With Aroden's death, has destiny abandoned Golarion? Who controls destiny if not the gods?
- In a land where monsters and beasts can reason and possess souls, what gives man (and elves, and dwarves...) the right to treat them as vermin?
- Should you not eat a pig that can talk or a cow that can sing?
- Are clerics intermediaries to the gods (old Catholic style), or can a common man pray alone and be heard? If so, why are only clerics granted divine magics?
- If a cleric of good asks you to break allegiance to your lord, can you? Must you?
- What is the just punishment for a starving man who steals a loaf of bread?
- Are the gods perfect?
-...
Absolutely! This thread has been mostly about whether Golarion needs philosophy to, say, prove the existence of gods and extraordinary phenomena, or whether a Cleric would have any reason to pose philosophical questions, when he's seemingly already made up his mind about what he believes. But philosophy is about a lot more than just what does or doesn't exist, what can or can't be proven, and whether or not one loses one's faith.
1) Persons of conviction, whether religious or determinedly irreligious, have often looked to philosophy to help refine, interpret and understand their ideals, not just to demonstrate them to others.
2) Many devoutly religious philosophers remain very interested in questioning the order of things or examining other belief systems - and not necessarily only because they wish to show that their way of thinking is best. I love the idea of a Cleric-Socrates, say, who believes in the divine but also engages the youth with his elenchus.
3) Even if we assume that every person on Golarion knows exactly what does and does not exist, we still have plenty of philosophy to do. Ethical questions don't go away, even if you already adhere to religious principles and have faith-based values. Also, there are abstract philosophical problems to be examined that probably get even more complicated once a pantheon of extremely diverse, rather demonstrably accessible gods is introduced. (Like the Euthyphro problem. Didn't that one just get a whole lot *more* complicated?) And epistemic views are going to differ widely between individuals, as well. What does a character think is the best way to acquire knowledge? What kind of evidential standards does he/she consider appropriate? What counts as truth? Above all: what does a character think it means to live well?
There's plenty of philosophizing left to be done in Golarion. (Heck, if we were in the same city, my character might want to take this fellow's character's course. She could benefit from a little instruction!)
On the other hand, the question of how much he would make is a dismal one...
Next time everyone's doing character creation, go through the process of character generation from Minimus
(Full disclaimer - I wrote Minimus. I get a trickle of revenue from it.)
Minimus is a light enough rules system that it can easily be layered on to other d20 based games. The character generation process is excellent for coming up with group back stories that everyone cares about.
Beyond that - try to put incentives on roleplaying. Minimus has a few, but there are plenty of others. (One of my favorites is in Minimus - the XP reward for describing failures.)
Thanks a lot! I'm definitely going to work on this!
I used 'magic words' when casting spells. Foreign languages work great here, [if you are not multilingual just grab a phrasebook].
Oh man, I'm glad I'm not the only one who likes this idea! I actually came up with verbal components for about thirty spells - just made up-words I liked. My GM totally thought it was creepy. (What's creepy about 'hundulum maydar' or 'viz ortalis untergammadon'?) But I might go ahead and use them, anyway. He can deal. :o)
Kolokotroni wrote:
I would shout curses, insults or quips at my enemies, encouragement to my allies. Dont just say 'i cast magic missile on that goblin'. Describe it. 'I conjure the arcane energies into a bolt of energy [magic words here with some kind of hand motions] and send it hurtling for the scrawny looking greenskin on the left'. Develop favorite insults or sayings for your character to use in the heat of battle. Being descriptive and in character will likely eventually rub off on your party mates.
Improving my use of descriptions is about to become my primary, immediate goal. I think it might make a big difference in the amount of fun I have, and narration seems a bit lower pressure for me than dialog so far.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Ask questions of the npc. Ask them how they are, how the family is, whatever. Just start a conversation with the npc before the dice get thrown.
Asking questions! That should be so obvious, but it honestly had not occurred to me! Well, unless the topic of the scene is asking a source questions. But when bluffing or diplomatizing, I tend to get caught up thinking about whether I'm giving the right *answers.* All thought of asking questions and shifting the locus of attention onto the NPC's responses completely escapes me. I'm definitely going to work on this.
