Search Posts
Hi all, Has anyone had any experience with this archetype from Unearthed Arcana: Waterborne Adventures? I have a player using this one right now, seems quite good. It can be read on page three and four of this pdf: http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA_Waterborne_v3.pdf Thanks in advance for any feedback.
Hi, I have been noticing lately that there are certain sections of the site that have a lot of advertisements for RPG products. Sometimes these are ads from the creator of the product, other times they are reviews of a product encouraging people to buy them. Are there any rules regarding where these advertisements are allowed to appear?
Hello all, I've noticed a trend with 5e in which a lot of the players that are new are being introduced to the hobby by way of watching recorded / livestreamed games. The expectations that these new players and DMs seem to have is far different from what I am used to. The two expectations that stand out to me are high production values and a fairly railroaded type of game. Has anyone else noticed this or have any experience with the impact of these type of games on the player base?
Hi all, So I have noticed recently that there seems to be a real shortage of the number of people that are willing to GM. Looking at sites like Roll20, there seems to be somewhere between 5-10 times the number of people applying for the number of slots available. Is this a new trend, or has it always been this way? Why aren't more people willing to give GMing a chance? I'm curious to hear your opinions. Thanks.
Hi all, I was recently discussing with one of my players some of the funny metagaming incidents I've experienced throughout the years, so I figured others probably have funny stories like these as well. Goal for this thread - funny metagaming stories, not debates about what is or is not metagaming, thanks. My story: PCs are outside a cottage in the middle of nowhere. They discover this kindly old lady inside, and she indicates she'll share her words of wisdom with the PCs, individually. I ask the players if they're going to enter, they all say yes. Each player enters individually, and their character is knocked out (The lady was actually a hag of some type IIRC). When I get to the last player, I start explaining about how he enters, and he says no, he doesn't enter. I say why not? Keeping in mind that the cottage was under the effects of a silence spell, so no one could hear what happened inside. The player explains that his character saw a butterfly and he started chasing it around the woods. Looking forward to other people's funny metagame stories.
Hi all, Putting this in it's own thread so as not to get off-topic. I have two main queries I would like some feedback on:
For some context, assume a campaign has a non-harrassmemt clause or rule in affect. The GM describes a fantasy race as having a reputation as being rich and controlling things behind the scenes. One of the players says something to the effect of "Oh, you mean like x real-life race." If you were a player in this campaign, what would your expectations be as far as the response to the above, and who should make that response? Thanks.
Hi all, For starters, my goal for this thread is a discussion regarding people's experiences with the player population for 5e. I don't want this to devolve into people/experience/system bashing. So far I have had really good luck as far as the players I have interacted with for 5e. I'm in two campaigns currently, one where I DM and one where I am a player. The players in both groups contribute to the story, and several have very well-developed character personalities. As I'm getting more into VTTs, I had thought about running a short Pathfinder campaign, but I'm a bit apprehensive about the kind of players I would get for PF. What is everyone else's experience? Do you still play both 5e and PF? Similar players between the two or dramatically different? Thanks.
Hi all, If you've spent any significant amount of time playing PF, you've inevitably run into people that are very concerned about having weaker characters than their fellow players. This often results in these individuals having less fun, being unhappy, and sometimes quitting games. My theory is that this is a result of seeing the numbers. As in, if one character regularly deals 30 damage in a round, and another deals 15, the person that deals 15 starts to feel as if their character is inferior. For ease of reference, I'm calling this Mechanics Envy. My guess, based on previous experience, is that if the numbers are not visible to all players, and thus no player knows how much another adds to hit, damage, or how many HP they have, Mechanics Envy is reduced dramatically. If this is the case, then it would beg the question as to if it is the perception of having a weaker character that is really the concern rather than an actual character power disparity. I.e, ignorance is bliss. Does anyone have any experience with this? Observed any players that really enjoyed their character, but then when they measured their character's mechanics against another PC's mechanics, they suddenly weren't satisfied with their own character anymore? Thanks in advance.
Hi all, What are the making of a great Game Master? When you think back on the GMs that you thought were really great, what qualities do they have in common? What sets a great GM apart from an average GM?
Hi all, I'm late to the DM's Guild news - but I find it quite interesting. If I am understanding the rules correctly, the following items would be appropriate to create and upload: A book of NPCs with backstory/description/and stat blocks. A DM's tool for when they need an interesting character to insert into a campaign. A book of new races. A book of new monsters. It is also my understanding that anything I create and upload then becomes community property I.e. someone else can use the content I created in their own material and sell it. Any input as to if I understood the rules correctly or if any of my above thoughts would be particularly useful/worthwhile. Thanks.
Hello all, After seeing/participating in some recent threads, I'm curious how people envision leveling up. A first level character in most class-based systems has one class. To me that class represents the culmination of what the character has learned up until that point. When a character levels up, their existing skills/abilities improve. In the situation where a player plans to multiclass, their first level character is pursuing another skill set for a significant amount of time before they level up. In that situation, leveling up represents achieving some competency with the second skill set. This of course can be problematic when a first level wizard may have spent decades studying magic to become a first level wizard, whereas a character that did not study magic can multiclass into wizard at level two. I believe these kind of situations are best handled by the GM working with the player ahead of time to try to keep the versilimitude of the campaign world in tact. How do you view leveling up?
Howdy all, My current group is much more RP focused than most of my previous groups. We had one session which was somewhat of a typical dungeon delve. I received feedback from the players that they wanted more role-playing opportunities. So the PCs spent the second session completely in town speaking with various NPCs and each other. There were 0 combat encounters in the second session. After that session, the players stated that it was a lot of fun. As such, I'm trying to include more opportunities for the players to interact with one another and NPCs. I'm looking for any suggestions people may have to keep the RP fresh and exciting. Thanks in advance.
Hi all, I'm looking to put together a list as big as possible of encounters/events that can occur in my current sandbox campaign. The current campaign takes place on an accursed island. There aren't a lot of cities around, and the few that exist are hidden/reclusive. As such, I need help generating encounters/events that make sense for a mysterious island. As an example, here's a few I have:
Any and all additional suggestions/ideas are appreciated.
Created new thread as this topic has moved beyond the intent of the original thread. Response to Jiggy Spoiler:
You claim that you would never just call "common sense" and move on, but that's exactly what you did with (for example) why "maximum 20d6" doesn't really mean "maximum 20d6". You literally cited common sense and nothing but common sense as the reason the text doesn't mean what it says. This is again another case of reading words too literally. I stated that I/my players would never state common sense as a reason for something, then insult anyone that disagrees with them, and try to move on. This statement is made with the assumption of myself and my players sitting around the gaming table and a disagreement comes up. If one of my players cites common sense for a disagreement with a ruling, then I as the GM in that game with that player or another player in that game where I am GMing could ask for clarification from the person citing common sense. The person citing common sense as a disagreement with a ruling would then have the opportunity to explain why they feel common sense is a valid reason why the ruling should be changed. You claim that if someone disagrees with a ruling, you expect that they can explain why. And yet, in your own contesting of the "maximum 20d6" ruling (and others), you've offered no explanation. Merely "common sense". Right, because once again I'm referring to myself and my players sitting around the gaming table. The forums environment is completely different. In my experience, attempting to explain these things clearly on the forums requires posting multiple walls of text. In addition, the more text you post, the more likely that there will be confusion or people will not interpret your words as you intended them due to the medium (i.e. written words.) Do you actually have reasons beyond "common sense" for those rulings you rejected? Because if not, then your above-quoted claim is false, and you cannot consider yourself to be someone who "would never say 'Common sense, moving on.'" I do - the short version is that I believe that the mechanics are in place to support a certain type of game. I believe the mechanics should be read with that expectation. Where the mechanic proves to be unsuitable for fostering that type of game, then the mechanic should be altered or not used. As an example, I don't believe that the mechanics were designed with the idea of someone falling from 5000 feet to the ground in mind. As this is something that typically does not come up in your average game, there was no need to expand on the mechanics of falling damage to this extent. I think reading the mechanics with a mindset of "these are the rules, they explain how the world works in all cases and you can extrapolate other meaning from these rules using how they are literally written as a guide" causes some situations that don't fit into the style of play that the game system as a whole is trying to foster. Do you think that you need to apply common sense when reading rules/mechanics of a game system? Should you read the rules literally as they're written? Can you extrapolate other meanings or infer how a game world is supposed to work based on the mechanics (i.e. dragons can fly, therefore physics must be different in the game world.)
Hi all, I find often times that the problems or arguments people make on the forums don't occur in actual game play at my table. While this is of course anecdotal and doesn't mean these things aren't valid or actual problems, I'm curious if others find this to also be the case. So, post those things that you hear on the forums/elsewhere that don't actually end up being problems at your table. Please note - I'm sure for every one of these items listed, someone can come along and say that someone must be doing something wrong. Let's try to avoid telling other people that they're doing it wrong at their tables. 1.) Fighters are worthless. Players in my group often argue over being able to be the fighter (as we generally don't like class duplication.) 2.) Wizards are overpowered. Wizards and sorcerers seem to have an above average mortality rate in the games I've run or been in. 3.) In-combat healing is a bad idea. I've found that this is rarely the case - in-combat healing is virtually a necessity.
Hi all, I did this on a different site a few years back and it was fairly well received. Curious to see if there is any interest here. The basic principle is that forum members volunteer to partake in an audio interview. Other forum members can submit questions. The person to be interviewed will be given the questions beforehand and can reject any or all of them if they choose. Then at the arranged date/time, interview is undertaken via online voice software (ventrilo or similar) and recorded. The mp3 of the recording is then posted for others to listen to and comment on. So, first, gauging interest. Is anyone interested in hearing thoughts from some of the forum goers? Anyone who's opinion you find to be helpful that you'd like to ask more questions of? Secondly, assuming there is any interest in the idea, anyone interested in being interviewed in such a fashion? Thanks.
Hi all, As part of my current campaign, I created a system of character rewards for players that achieve their character goals. These goals are broken down as such:
I provided some example goals to the players, such as:
I would appreciate any additional goals anyone is willing to provide, as often my players struggle to come up with one that fits their character.
Hi, A post in the Advice section caused me to ponder if there would be a lot of interest in modules that could be played without a GM? I'm thinking something like short description of purpose of module, victory condition, any rules limitations, etc. Then various options are presented to the players of the module. Depending on the decisions that the players make, they may face encounters with enemies (with environment layout diagram, monster stat blocks, etc.), traps, puzzles, what have you. Things would be kept simple so as to keep interpretations down to a minimum. Think of like a Choose-your-own-adventure book, on steroids, using the Pathfinder rules. If this is something that you'd be interested in, let me know.
On the GM Pet Peeves thread, the thought of how much control a GM has over a PC's background came up, and garnered some debate, so I decided to start this thread. When a player creates a background for their PC, how much control or manipulation should the GM have over it? I'm assuming that the PC background fits with the campaign world, and the GM has reviewed it and accepted it. After those steps are completed, should the GM have free reign to affect a PC's background, alter events that the player wrote about, or should the GM get the player's consent before doing so? Example, a player writes in their back ground that their character has a wife and children. If the GM thinks its a good idea for the wife or children to be killed or kidnapped, is that fair game, or should the GM ask the player first?
Hi all, My group used to play Core only for quite a while, but now we've opened it up to basically anything here on the Paizo PRD (though the current GM doesn't like traits, so we don't use those.) I've noticed that often times when someone recommends a powerful option, it comes from beyond the Paizo PRD. Is the general consensus that material available beyond the Paizo PRD tends to be more powerful? When our current campaign ends, I'll probably end up GMing again, and while I like offering as many options as possible to the players, I don't want there to be a huge disparity between someone who makes a core-only or Paizo PRD-only character versus one that can use material from beyond the Paizo PRD. Do others notice this increase in power beyond the Paizo PRD? Do you place any restrictions on this additional material, allow everything, or allow nothing?
Hi all, So my goal is to maximize channeling, as was probably obvious from the class selection. I started with a Paladin 2/Oracle 2, and am fairly happy with that. However, now I'm thinking on it a bit more, and wondering if it makes sense to go Paladin 2/Cleric 1/Oracle 1? The additional 7 (3 + Cha bonus) channel attempts from 1 level of cleric is tempting, plus two domains. The loss of a level of spell advancement is the main negative from what I can see. Suggestions? FYI - I'm limited to material found on the official Paizo PRD. Thanks in advance.
Hi everyone, I'm theorycrafting a variety of back-up characters for my current campaign in case my character dies. One idea I had was doing 1 level of gunslinger, and all the rest rogue. The basic idea is a rogue that fights with a gun. We use a house rule that I think will make this combination very fun: HOUSE RULE:"Flanked" is a condition. If an opponent is flanked, he is flanked for anyone attacking him. Thus, a rogue can get sneak attacks more often, works even with ranged weapons. LIMITATIONS:Only things found on Paizo PRD. If there are any other ways of getting this same concept (rogue with a gun, sort of like a pirate I guess,) I'd be interested in hearing them. I'll probably focus on a one-handed firearm (start with pistol or pepperbox if starting level is high enough.) For race I'm leaning goblin, because it would be very cool and the +4 Dexterity definitely helps, but tengu also looks appealing. Other suggestions are also appreciated.
Hi all, After reading a few different threads, I'd like to delve deeper into this topic. Do you generally only play characters that are of your same race? Meaning that if you are black/brown/white in real life you tend to always play black/brown/white characters in game? If you are a male, do you only ever play male characters? And for female players, do you only ever play female characters? Related to that, if one of the other players create a character that crosses gender or racial boundaries from what they are in real life, does that make you uncomfortable?
Hi all, Some people have suggested building in the magical item bonuses people tend to get into level advancement to offset the effects of a low-magic world. What exactly would that look like? Could you do something as simple as every 3rd level characters receive a +1 hit/damage, +1 AC, +1 on all saves, and +2 to one stat? Call this a hero bonus or something, so that it stacks with everything? Then tone down the monsters that would be too powerful in situations without much magic (such a DR 10/magic.) Would that work, or is there something else better to represent the expected bonuses characters are supposed to have?
Hi all, I'm working on some adjustments to the Pathfinder rules for a primitive world campaign set roughly in the stone age. I want this to be a "before man" world, i.e., no humans. The main race is going to be elves, and there will be a few other options as well. I'm going to restrict classes based on what makes sense for the time period, and also no currency - only bartering. Any input that can be provided on things I'll need to take into consideration, or any resources of similar campaigns would be appreciated. This campaign won't be starting for quite a while so I have a lot of time to plan. Thanks.
Hi everyone, I've been in the process of creating my own TTRPG for several years, spending a lot of time on it some years, and then setting it aside for 6+ months, and then coming back to it. I'd like to try to brainstorm some additional ideas, and that's where you can help. What would you like to see in a new TTRPG? What do you consider to be innovative or key for a TTRPG? Here are some of the most important guidelines for my new system:
Spoiler:
Hi all, I use the term "old timer" loosely here - but this thread is mostly for people who have been gaming for a long time (I know there are a lot of you out there.) Mention your favorite moments at the gaming table from yester year. Also feel free to point out how you think gaming has changed from years past (please no edition wars.) I've been into table top rpgs for about twenty five years. I first learned to play Basic D&D (the red book.) My dad played back in the 70s, and he was excited to teach my brother and I and pass the game onto us (and we both play to this day.) The one big change that I've noticed through the years is how much longer battles take. When I was in my teens I had a group that loved to play - we'd play for 8+ hours at a time. We would be able to get through a couple dozen battles or more without difficulty. More recently, there are times where one battle can easily take an hour. Looking forward to hearing your stories.
Hi all, I've often wanted to include something more interesting into the battles, and so I've thrown in various environmental differences, some difficult terrain, etc. What I'd now like to do is find a way to make the tabletop map 3D so as to make even more interesting opportunities for battle. Does anyone have a good way of doing this for a live game?
Hi all, Had a recent session where there was some disagreement on how a spell works around corners and such, hoping for some clarification. The setup was as follows:
Red is the enemy, all other colors are PCs. The spell cast is cone of cold spell. The solid black border is a wall. The two smaller black rectangles are doors that were opened. The GM announced that the monster cast cone of cold, and declared that everyone was hit. Does the purple PC get partial cover against the spell?
Hi all, I'm considering some solutions to speed up combat. I've read several past threads on the forums here and gotten some other good ideas. Here's another one I'd like feedback on. For all martial type, non-classed opponents, I'm thinking of reducing their hitpoints by 50%, but increasing their hit modifier by 25% and increasing their damage output by 25% of max damage. Example:
Spoiler:
ANKHEG CR 3 hp Melee bite My thought is that this will allow the PCs to kill the enemies faster, while increasing the likelihood that the enemies will hit & damage the PCs. To make sure that AOE attacks aren't overpowered, I think I'd have to reduce all AOE damage done to these opponents by 50% (meaning AOE damage is exactly as effective is it was before.) Thoughts?
Hi all, Curious as to how difficult people like their campaigns to be. I've inferred from some posts that some people prefer that the PCs never die. Should the players have to pay attention to the descriptions and plan or strategize to survive, or should they be able to basically rush through the adventures without too much concern? Should the GM only ever offer CR appropriate encounters, or should the PCs be able to get in over their head if they ignore the warnings? While I understand some people may like one way one time, and another way another time, I'm asking what your preferred style is, if you could only pick one.
Hi all, If you could have the ability to use a first level wizard spell in real life at will, what would you take? How would you use it? Level 1 Spells:
Spoiler:
Alarm: Wards an area for 2 hours/level.
Animate Rope: Makes a rope move at your command. Burning Hands: 1d4/level fire damage (max 5d4). Cause Fear: One creature of 5 HD or less flees for 1d4 rounds. Charm Person: Makes one person your friend. Chill Touch: One touch/level deals 1d6 damage and possibly 1 Str damage. Color Spray: Knocks unconscious, blinds, and/or stuns weak creatures. Comprehend Languages: You understand all spoken and written languages. Detect Secret Doors: Reveals hidden doors within 60 ft. Detect Undead: Reveals undead within 60 ft. Disguise Self: Changes your appearance. Endure Elements: Exist comfortably in hot or cold regions. Enlarge Person: Humanoid creature doubles in size. Erase: Mundane or magical writing vanishes. Expeditious Retreat: Your base speed increases by 30 ft. Feather Fall: Objects or creatures fall slowly. Floating Disk: Creates 3-ft.-diameter horizontal disk that holds 100 lbs./level. Grease: Makes 10-ft. square or one object slippery. Hold Portal: Holds door shut. Hypnotism: Fascinates 2d4 HD of creatures. Identify: Gives +10 bonus to identify magic items. Jump: Subject gets bonus on Acrobatics checks. Mage Armor: Gives subject +4 armor bonus. Magic Aura: Alters object's magic aura. Magic Missile: 1d4+1 damage; +1 missile per two levels above 1st (max 5). Magic Weapon: Weapon gains +1 bonus. Mount: Summons riding horse for 2 hours/level. Obscuring Mist: Fog surrounds you. Protection from Chaos: +2 to AC and saves, plus additional protection against selected alignment. Protection from Evil: +2 to AC and saves, plus additional protection against selected alignment. Protection from Good: +2 to AC and saves, plus additional protection against selected alignment. Protection from Law: +2 to AC and saves, plus additional protection against selected alignment. Ray of Enfeeblement: Ray causes 1d6 Str penalty + 1 per 2 levels. Reduce Person: Humanoid creature halves in size. Shield: Invisible disc gives +4 to AC, blocks magic missiles. Shocking Grasp: Touch delivers 1d6/level electricity damage (max 5d6). Silent Image: Creates minor illusion of your design. Sleep: Puts 4 HD of creatures into magical slumber. Summon Monster I: Summons extraplanar creature to fight for you. True Strike: +20 on your next attack roll. Unseen Servant: Invisible force obeys your commands. Ventriloquism: Throws voice for 1 min./level. I'd probably go with Unseen Servant. It could do my laundry and clean the house while I prepped for gaming.
Hi all, As a GM, when you create content for your sessions, do you review all of the player's character sheets, and then only include challenges that the PCs are equipped to handle? Or do you create the sessions regardless of what the PC group make up is? Traps, for example. If no one in the party has the ability to deal with traps, do you not put any traps into the adventure? What about skills - if no one took Knowledge (Arcana), do you not have any ancient tomes or symbols that could be deciphered via the skill? Ditto for other skills and their uses. For combat encounters, if the enemies have special resistances or attacks that make the encounter much more difficult, but no PCs have the appropriate knowledge skill to learn this information, do you simply give that information to the players, or let them try to learn on their own?
Hi all, Alignment threads seem to generate a lot of opinions as people view the alignments completely different from one another. Some people think that the alignments don't really matter, some use them as a basic guideline, others try to enforce them strictly. I've always viewed alignments as a general guideline. I don't really worry about the players adhering to their alignment unless it is a really strong deviation from their alignment. Or a general pattern starts to develop of how they are playing it out, and it doesn't match what they have on their sheet. Keeping all of that in mind, I don't think a player can ever go against their alignment unintentionally. As an example, a party enters a dangerous cavern where they believe that monsters are lurking. They enter, and see a goblin off in the distance that does not see them. The party's rogue sneaks close to the goblin, and sneak attack kills it. If in a strange turn of events, the goblin was actually a good character and was there trying to defeat the evil goblins of its tribe, would this be an evil action for the rogue PC? I would say no, as the rogue PC was unaware that the goblin was not evil. Do other people play it this was as well, or does killing a good character, no matter the circumstances, count as an evil act?
Hi all, In reading a lot of threads, I'm seeing many people espousing a point of view that states that the PCs are incredibly heroic people just because they are the PCs. Instead of assuming that, I figured I would ask and get opinions. Are the PCs: 1.) Heroic because they are the PCs. Even at level 1, these PCs are special people above and beyond other level 1 people. 2.) Just like every other level 1 character with a PC class. PCs only become special or heroic based on their actions in the campaign world. 3.) Something in-between. Explain.
Hi, We used to play this way, and I'm wondering if anyone else did/does and has feedback. Instead of having two characters on opposite sides of an enemy granting flanking bonuses to those two characters, it applies the "Flanked" condition to the target. This means everyone gets the benefits of flanking against that target. This should boost rogues (easier to get sneak attacks), and make using smart tactics more beneficial. In addition, we also used "double-flanked", if 4 unique characters are all flanking the same character (2 sets of 2 characters flanking the target), the target gains the "Double-Flanked" condition - granting a +4 to hit that target. We also used triple and quadruple flank, but those basically never occurred. Adding in double or higher flanks means that hordes of lesser enemies can increase their chance of hitting a more powerful opponent by getting high bonuses to hit by multiple sets of flanking.
Hi all, Pondering a few simple changes for rogues: 1. A rogue using sneak attack(s) is treated as full BAB. 2. If a rogue attacks an opponent that any of his allies are threatening, that target become eligible for a sneak attack. In order for a ranged attack to qualify, the rogue must be within 10 ft. of the target. 3. If a rogue is able to strike an opponent that is not in combat and otherwise qualifies for a sneak attack, the rogue's sneak attack deals maximum damage. 1 because rogues should be adept at landing sneak attacks, this improves them a bit in this regard. 2 because a sneak attack should be able to occur anytime a rogue is able to attack a distracted opponent. If an opponent is engaged with any other combatant, they're going to have to take their eyes off of the rogue at some time. The 10 ft. requirement, because in order to take advantage of these split second moments, you have to be close. Flanking is still the preferred method (for the +2), but rogues will more reliably get their sneak attacks in. 3 because sneaking ahead and assassinating an opponent should be a possibility for a rogue rather than a bad idea. Thoughts?
VOID PORTAL
Spoiler:
Aura minor abjuration; CL 12 Slot shield; Price -; Weight 15 lb. Description This +1 light steel shield is a deep black, seemingly darker than anything it is close to. Every round that the wielder is in melee combat, there is a 10% chance that the shield’s special ability triggers. Roll this chance only when the wielder attacks an adjacent opponent. If the ability triggers, ghostly hands spring forth from the shield and attempt to pull the target into the void. Opponents receive a Reflex saving throw, DC 15. On a failed save, the victim is pulled into the void, utterly destroyed. Void Portal can only grab a creature of large size or smaller. GLASS GRIPPERS
Spoiler:
Aura major evocation; CL 12 Slot Hands; Price -; Weight 2 lb. Description These yellowish gloves have no affect if only one is worn. When both gloves are worn, glass shards manifest from them. When wielding these glass shards, the wearer of Glass Grippers is treated as having both the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and the Quick Draw feat. The shards deal 1d6+1 damage and have a range increment of 30 feet. As soon as the shards are thrown, new shards instantly manifest from the gloves, allowing the wearer to make multiple attacks per round. The shards are treated as daggers for the purposes of proficiencies, damage type, and feats. LIGHT HEAD
Spoiler:
Aura major evocation; CL 12 Slot none; Price -; Weight 1 lb. Description This pale +1 heavy mace is particularly light, with a blackstone handle. Each round the mace attempts to siphon a spell from a nearby spellcaster (within 30 feet., does not affect wielder) Light Head can only siphon spells of 3rd level or less, and will always attempt the highest level spell available. The closest caster is targeted. If one or more casters are equidistant, determine the target randomly. The target must succeed at a DC 15 Will save, or lose an unused spell slot, in a similar fashion as having cast the spell. Upon siphoning a spell, the head of the mace turns into energy (treat as brilliant energy, page 470) for a number of rounds equal to the level of spell siphoned. While in the brilliant energy state, the siphon ability is suppressed. AFTERBURNER
Spoiler: Aura minor evocation; CL 12 Slot none; Price -; Weight 1 lb. Description This black +1 dagger is very thin, with a redstone handle. Upon a successful melee attack, the victim is struck for 1d10 points of fire damage after 1d3 rounds have elapsed. This damage stacks with its self. If the victim dies before the flames have taken effect, they dissipate harmlessly.
As I read a lot of threads and people post "builds" I often see people specifying that the character would purchase certain items at certain levels. I know these are theoretical characters, but does anyone actually play like that? If you GM, do you allow characters to know what all of the magic items in the book(s) are, or do they have to learn about them in character? Once they know about an item, is it pretty routine for them to obtain the item at the price listed in the book? In all of the campaigns I have played in, there's never been a free-for-all attitude on magic items. You had to find the item in a treasure trove or get lucky enough to find a magic shop that had the item you wanted.
Hi all, Had a caster cast magic missile (3 missiles) at a dragon that was flying outside of all of the PCs vision except for the caster's. The caster struck the dragon and dealt damage, and another player stated that they would be able to see the magic missiles strike the dragon, and thus know where it is. Would this allow them to target the dragon even though they can't see it? If so, would concealment still apply?
Hi all, Just had a session today. The PCs ran into an enormous statue (100 ft. tall or so). One of the players wanted to cast light on it - does this illuminate the entire statue? The spell description states "shedding normal light in a 20 foot radius from the point touched." So my guess is that just the part of the statue that is touched becomes the emitter of light? How big is the light emitter? Second question - if a caster were to cast light on someone's helmet, for example, or someone's sword, how does that work? We've always assumed it simply covers a complete 20-foot radius, would it really only cast light out from the point touched (one direction?)
In an attempt to be able to re-create a multiclassing system similar to AD&D, here's a thought. I'm calling it split classing to hopefully not confuse it with other terminology. How it works If you choose to be a split class character, you select 2 classes that you want to level up. After selecting these classes, you're stuck with them. You cannot change classes, multiclass in the normal way, or adopt any prestige classes. There is a 1 HD (character level) penalty (similar to 3.5's Level adjustment). Ideally, the campaign would start at level 3. A split class character level 1|1 receives all of the benefits of both of their split classes. Upon gaining a level, the character becomes a level 2|2. At this point, and all further levels, they gain the following: +1 HD (roll HP for each split class individually, and then divide by the number of split classes & add together)
So as an example, a split class character Fighter 1|Rogue 1 would have: 2 HD (1d10 + con mod + 1d8 + con mod)
Upon gaining a level, and becoming a Fighter 2|Rogue 2, the character would receive: +1 HD ((1d10 + 1d8)/2 + con mod)
As this compares to a traditional class, a split class character will always be 1 hit die lower. This means less hit points, lower caster level, etc. As compared to class abilities, a split class character will always be 2 character levels lower. A split class character, Fighter 1|Rogue 1 is equivalent to a level 3 Fighter or level 3 Rogue. I think this system gives a character more flexibility, but at the expense of less total power. Would you consider this to be balanced with a traditional class? I'm only looking at core material here, so if you think it is unbalanced, please provide an example using 2 core classes so that I'll have a better understanding of why.
Not sure if something like this already exists, but what about a feat that allows you to maintain your full BAB for four levels of multiclassing? Prereq could be BAB+1. Feat description: As a skilled combatant, you've continued your strict martial training while exploring other options. For every level of barbarian, fighter, paladin, or ranger that you possess, you can swap out the base attack bonus from another class you possess and replace it with a +1, up to a maximum of 4 levels. This allows a full BAB class to multiclass to a limited degree without losing their good attack rating. So a Fighter 3 / Wizard 3 would normally have a BAB of +4 (3 from fighter, 1 from Wizard), this feat would give them a +6. It seems that multiclassing like this is not very effective, so I'm thinking the feat would make it a bit more attractive without unbalancing things. A Fighter 10 / Wizard 10 would normally have a BAB of +15, with this feat they'd have a BAB of +17 Thoughts?
Hi everyone, I've never been much of a fan of multiclassing, and in the rare times that I do it usually is a 1 class starter than change to long-term class to justify a story element. Like a character started off as one class, but by level two realized that the first class was not what he wanted to be, so continues leveling up as the second class. The other type of multiclassing that I like was true multiclassing from previous editions where you have two or three classes and you level them all up equally. So like:
With Pathfinder Core rules, are there any two or three classes that lend themselves well to this style of approach?
Hi everyone, I've got a replacement PC (Ranger, not sure of race) that is coming into the game to replace the player's previous character that died. The player character died 2 sessions ago, and last session he was unable to attend due to holiday plans. The situation right now is that the party is tracking down a young black dragon that they previously fought and almost killed before it fled. The group learned that some other adventurers spotted the dragon going into a large hole in the ground. The group descended into the hole with a grappling hook and discovered an entire underground world, so to speak. The underground world has glowing mushrooms, numerous different types of bugs, a few different terrain types, etc. I don't really want the new character to be from the underground world because that would give the group far too much information that I am hoping they discover on their own. Can anyone think of a creative way that I could get this character into the group? Thanks in advance.
Hi everyone, Long-time D&D DM, transitioned into Pathfinder about a year ago. I have a group that is made up of 5 players. We use only core material. I've noticed that sometimes the players make decisions that would very likely end in their character's dying. However, they seem to think that in certain of these situations it would be unfair if their characters died. So my question is, how much do you punish the players for their decisions? Example: 2 players strip off their armor and run full speed across open land in a very dangerous area. They then enter an even more dangerous swampy labyrinth. The players were doing so in order to un-petrify 2 of their groupmates (they had to get there quickly). In a setup such as this, would you allow the two players to get into the area without any chance of random encounters? Or do you let the dice fall where they lie? |
