So...I haven't posted here in...what, years? I think it's been at least one year. Maybe two. There are many reasons for that, but none of them matter. I remember the strong discussions that were had on these boards, and I was hoping to get some feedback on a topic that's been perplexing me, lately.
How do you, as players and GMs, like to handle magic items awarded in your games? This is kind of a three-part question, though, so I'll write each part individually, below. Do you prefer your items to have charges, or to grant passive/at-will bonuses?
1.) As a GM, what kind of magic items do you usually award to your players (consumables, weapons, wands, etc.), and how often do you usually award them magic items? Do you prefer your items to have charges, or to grant passive/at-will bonuses?
2.) As a player, what kind of magic items do you LIKE being awarded with (consumables, weapons, wands, etc.)? And how often do you like gaining new magic items?
3.) Would you prefer unique magic items that have a story/history to them (I.E. A sword forged by an ancient dwarven smith that can cleave through stone as if it were paper), or magic items with definitive rules that are easier to understand (+1 keen vicious longsword).
There is no right answer to any of these questions. I'm just looking to collect information, as I'm working on a blog post regarding this topic, and it's become a bit of an annoyance since I don't really know how the people at large feel about it.
I'm currently in the process of overhauling many classes in the game.
HOO BOY!! HERE WE GO!
Inspired Bard v1.2: This is pretty close to a complete overhaul for the bard. It's a prepared caster (still using charisma as its primary casting score), and bardic performances have been replaced with an "Inspiration" pool which it can use to activate its Inspire Courage ability and various "Muses" (which effectively replace bardic performance. It still gains the versatile performance ability, but it has been concentrated into one class ability so it's, you know, useful. Overall, I wanted to change the bard from a Travelling Minstrel class that also has magic to more of an Adventuring Artist that draws inspiration from the world and people around him.
Mystic Monk v1.2: So...no lies here. This is pretty much a modified rip-off of Ashiel's Heroes of Alvena Monk. It's psionic (6th-level manifester), medium BAB, and gains Monk Secrets as it levels. It does, however, possess a re-tooled flurry of blows class feature, increased movement speed, and AC Bonus to fit with the new skeleton. Overall, I feel it's a much more versatile monk that can fill many roles.
Trained Fighter v1.1: This one's actually pretty simple. Bonus feats have been replaced with special "Combat Arts", essentially fighter talents. Armor and Weapon Training have been replaced with Martial Training, which includes armor and weapon training (though armor has been changed slightly, granting DR in place of increased Dex), along with several others (Swift training, tactical training, etc.). Bravery has been replaced with Bonus Feats, as-presented in the standard fighter. Bravery itself is now a combat art.
You should note that this one is still in the process of being completed, as I'm currently transitioning various fighter archetype class abilities into combat arts and forms of martial training.
Tricky Rogue v1.3: This is actually more of a template added onto the rogue than a class re-build. Tricky rogues gain a pool of Guile, which functions similarly to grit. They can spend Guile to use Skill Tricks, which emulate spells (they have "casting" up to 6th level, as a bard), and can also spend guile at 4th level to gain sneak attack die on any attack.
In addition to those fleshed-out class alterations, I've also made minor alterations to the following classes:
Barbarian: I tend to call them berserkers, since I've always hated the thematic corner that the word "barbarian" paints the class into. In addition, instead of a boost to Constitution, I give them a delayed damage pool equal to the amount of bonus HP they would have gained.
Magus: Spell combat, instead of being overly complicated and tied to two-weapon fighting and stuff, now just allows you to cast a single spell for free at the beginning or end of a full-attack. It's more powerful, but I don't think it breaks the game.
Gunslinger: I am not a big fan of this class, and generally discourage its use. When it is used, however, I have altered guns to function like normal ranged weapons, eschewing the touch AC rule, granting decent range increments, and either doing away with misfires altogether or only having them affect the gun on a 1 (also, a fouled barrel can be cleared by anyone as a full-round action).
And finally, I'm working on altering the following:
Sorcerer: I'm working on making this one a bit more like the oracle, in that I'm consolidating bloodlines (Devil, Demon, and Daemon are compressed into "Damned", for example), and allowing the sorcerer to choose its bloodline powers as it increases in level, instead of gaining automatic powers.
Wizard: Mostly, I'm working on an evoker mod, though I may continue this and modify other schools. Evokers, instead of gaining +1/2 their level on damage spells, instead gain +1 damage on each die of an evocation spell that deals damage at level 1. At levels 8 and 15, this increases to +2 damage and +3 damage per die. This boosts their damage output significantly, making them actually useful at higher levels.
At this point, I basically run exclusively E7 games, with a few caveats.
Re: Spells: I don't allow 4th-level spells except as "ritual" spells, gained through an "epic" feat (I call them capstone feats in my system). 4th-level spell slots are still gained, and can be used to cast metamagic-modified spells (and every caster gains "heighten spell" for free).
Re: Class Features: I'm currently developing a full E7 document, which will include some re-balanced classes, but in general I choose 7 because there are several classes that gain something special at 7th level which feels like a capstone-light (DR for barbarians, woodland stride for rangers, access to 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level spell slots for various casters, knowledge pool/medium armor for magi). Granted, there are others whose boons at that level are a bit underwhelming (additional d6 for bombs and sneak attack, additional challenge/judgment/smite per day, etc.), but that's why I'm rebalancing some of the classes.
Re: # of attacks: Generally, I use the Trailblazer style of iterative attacks (2 attacks at +x-2, rather than +x/+x-5), and E7 does effectively the same job as E6. Full-BAB attackers can make multiple attacks without two-weapon fighting. Others cannot. Plain and simple. I feel it is a strong representation of fighting skill amongst classes.
Re: Ease of Play: By disallowing 4th-level spells except as rituals, the game remains very easy to play. Monsters never get out of hand (even at max player CR--roughly 10 after 15 feats or so--the game is still pretty simple. Games never devolve into the "rocket-tag" of high-level play, and certain relatively-powerful options of high-level play (the ever-popular scry-and-fry) are not available. In addition, stopping around level 7 allows for the utility of spellcasters and other classes to be relatively balanced. A 7d6 fireball is still pretty effective around level 7, as opposed to high-level play, where blasting becomes effectively useless.
Overall, I feel like 7 is a good place to stop. Using the beginner box and stopping at 5, however, is also an interesting idea. It really makes the game much simpler, removing iterative attacks entirely. The only problem I have with it is that, personally, I feel that the extra 2 levels add a level of "heroic-ness" to the game that stopping at 5 wouldn't provide.
RE: Arcanist: Honestly, I really like this idea, and dependent on flavor, I might just replace wizards and sorcerers in my home game. If it can prepare a number of spells, and then cast them with slots, that basically makes it easier to use (and potentially better) than the sorcerer and wizard.
Honestly...not sure how I feel about this. Part of me says "yay! New stuff to play with!" But another part asks "why?"
This feels like a weaksauce "official" version of the Multiclass Archetypes (which is a great system in its own right). And adding 10 of these new hybrid classes feels like a arbitrary number. I would have rather seen a book with 1-3 methodically-designed, interesting classes than 10 "hybrid" classes.
And, I mean...warpriest? Really? Bloodrager and Hunter feel like an attempt to fill mechanical holes. Shaman and Swashbuckler feel like actual, interesting thematic concepts. And the Slayer feels like a combative rogue fix.
But why is the warpriest even there? We have a cleric, we have a paladin, we have an inquisitor. It's supposed to be a cleric/fighter blend. What? Is it a fighter with domains? A cleric with weapon training? Bonus feats somewhere? I really want to know what makes the warpriest different from what we already have; and what makes it SO different that it justifies a new class, and not just an archetype.
That got a little ranty, but my point is that it feels very uninspired, and that makes me worried about the other 4 yet to come, rather than excited.
I just picked up the Mythic Adventures PDF, and was going through it when I wondered: would mythic be a strong aid for an E6/E7 game? One of the issues I've seen with E6/E7 is that, after 15-20 additional feats or so, there isn't much room for growth and expansion. Understandably, the goal of E6/E7 is to keep players in the "sweet spot" of 3.5/PF, letting them be powerful but keeping them mortal.
But would Adding 1-3 Mythic tiers after the 7 levels (not through xp) affect the game in a terrible way? Characters would retain their lower BABs, saves, spells, etc., but would effectively gain access to new, superior abilities. This obviously makes them more powerful, but I'm wondering if it completely breaks the game in the same way as allowing higher level spells and magic items.
Just a thought that came to mind, and a proposition to the masses. What do you think? Can mythic be an appropriate aid to E6/E7? Or would it make things just a bit too broken for that style of play?
This is really cool. I've only checked out your two original classes thus far, but I really like 'em both. The sentinel has a really neat flavor to it that makes it feel different from a magus, which is something I've found lacking in other 3rd party/homebrew gish base classes.
Just a question...is the reasoning behind the engineer's death ray only adding 1/2 int bonus to damage that this is because it's an infinite resource, unlike the grenades which are limited like an alchemist's bombs? Merely curious, as I'm trying to figure out how to balance my own homebrew stuff.
Great stuff. Will probably try to nag my GM into letting me play an engineer in an upcoming campaign that starts in a few weeks. Cheers!
First, thank you for the feedback!
Next: yes. The reason the engineer's death ray only adds half his Intelligence bonus to the damage is due to its "all day long" factor. Do keep in mind that an engineer can spend an artifice point to add energy damage to his death ray attacks, as he can with any other weapon, if he wants a little more oomph.
Sphen wrote:
IMOP, the Sentinel is overpowered. Full BAB, d12 hit die and spells. It's like a over balanced Paladin.
But other than that, it the Stalwart ability, I would change the wording to "If he succeeds a saving throw" instead of "if he makes a saving throw". That's all. It is cool.
Thank you for the feedback!
The sentinel is on the lower end of the "playtested" gauge, so it is one of the ones I worry about more than others. That said, I think it's currently balanced in the right direction as a heavily defensive class, even if it's not spot-on balanced overall.
Re: Stalwart: The wording is exactly the same as the Inquisitor ability of the same name (barring the word "inquisitor"). That said, I do see that the wording, interpreted the wrong way, would imply that if you made a Fort or Will saving throw AT ALL against certain effects, you would take no detrimental effects.
I've been taking a look at my homebrew base classes lately, revising them and tweaking them here and there, and I decided that it might be nice to share them with everyone. I've put them out before, one at a time, but this will be the first time I post all of them at once.
Just a note: this is not necessarily a "read and critique" thread. I'm posting 6 classes, and to ask for feedback on all of them would be more than asking too much. This is just me deciding to share what I've put together with everyone.
Love them. Hate them. Use them or don't. Steal shamelessly (lord knows I have).
NOTE 1: I wouldn't consider any of these classes to be "complete." They still need playtesting to varying degrees. The most-playtested would likely be the Engineer, with the least being the Rogue.
NOTE 2: Google Drive appears to mess with the art, removing colors. If you download the file, however, it does not have this same problem.
Revised Core Classes
These are my revised versions of some core classes: The Bard, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue.
Bard (Link)
This one wasn't really designed to fix any perceived flaws in the class (aside from versatile performance) so much as it was an intent to fix the flavor and overall design of the class. I never liked the idea of the bard actually performing during combat with instruments and the like, and always thought their spontaneous casting felt a bit off and un-earned. This version of the bard is more of an inspired artist than a performer, but still fulfills a lot of the bard's traditional role.
Fighter (Link)
The intent of this revision was to add some spice and variety to the traditional fighter, and maybe add a little oomph. I really like the fighter as a concept class, but I've always felt that it was a little dull. Every fighter feels the same, and this class is an attempt to add some much-needed spice to the good-old flavor.
Monk (Link)
This one...well, let's just admit it. This one was HEAVILY influenced by Ashiel's Revised Monk. You could call it a rip-off, and I wouldn't blame you. It's essentially a ground-up psionic rebuild of the class (using Dreamscarred Press's Psionics Unleashed rules). New flurry rules. New Wis-to-AC rules. New superspeed rules. It's all in there, making what I believe to be a must more balanced and interesting class.
Rogue (Link)
Four words. Skill Tricks and Guile. This rogue is extremely similar to the core rulebook rogue, but gains a point system called Guile (similar to grit) which it can spend on Skill Tricks (which are essentially ripped off from Kirth Gersen's own rogue, in Kirthfinder), basically transforming this rogue into a variant spellcaster. People have complained a lot about the rogue's weakness. Like most other "this class is weak" debates, my answer is versatility, which is what I try to bring to this variation of the rogue.
Also included are the alternate stealth rules proposed by the Paizo staff on the blog.
Homebrew Base Classes
These classes are all my own, and were designed to fill niches that, I felt, weren't covered by the traditional rules. They are: The Engineer and Sentinel.
Engineer (Link)
People are always clamoring for an artificer, or some kind of technology-based class. This was my attempt at assuaging some of that demand. The class is built around a special item the engineer possesses, known as the Omni-Tool, which gains functions as the class increases in level. He also gains a large number of gadgets which he can use, as well as a walking automaton to help him fight his battles.
Sentinel (Link)
When the Magus was announced, and the first playtest hit the internet, one of the first comments was "this should have a full base attack bonus!" Of course, the Magus does not have that full BAB, and Paizo has not come out with an answer to that request (though many third party publishers have). So I decided to take a whack at it, and the result was the Sentinel. Its initial build is a bit of an arcane paladin, but with its own twist. It inflicts penalties on single opponents, and can cast arcane spells in medium (and potentially heavy) armor. Overall, it is designed to take on the big bads of the game, and make them a bit easier to kill.
--
I hope you all enjoy! And if you don't, then please, be constructive below. I'm always looking to improve my work, and feedback from viewers like you is a big part of that.
I recently picked up Dragon's Demand, and was planning on starting a new campaign using it in the coming weeks. And, seeing as how the module is supposed to get a party to level 7, I thought "Hey! This would be a great opportunity to use E7!"
Essentially, Dragon's Demand would get the party to the point where they're "serious adventurers" with a serious mission under their belt, and they would then be able to do things like join a league of heroes or travel the globe from there, letting power come from a more narratively focused point of view from there on out, rather than a numerical point of view.
So, in the spirit of such an idea, I would like to know:
What, if at all, is the definitive E7 ruleset?
What are the ins and outs? How much experience does it cost to buy a feat? Are there normally other purchasable abilities, or just feats? How does CR normally fluctuate as feats are earned?
I just want to know how all of this works, so I'm going into this with an entire tool set, not a box that has whatever tools I could remember to bring with me from 3.5's E6.
If you're going to do this, I'd recommend using Trailblazer.
Yes, it's 3.5, but it is a product that basically improves the "spine" of 3.5/d20 games - which Pathfinder is based on. One of the rules modules is around removing iterative attacks, without nerfing the fighting classes.
Hooray for $5 pdfs! Scooped up Trailblazer, really like a lot of what it has to offer. Definitely porting over their iterative attack system. It's very strongly designed, and definitely fixes some of the issues I have with the standard system. In addition, since I'm only running a game for two people, I think I might steal the 10-minute rest and action point system as well.
My plan for TWF builds was to allow them to make a single attack at a penalty, and deal damage with both weapons if they hit.
The idea behind removing full attacks and adding in the stunt/vital strike system was to create more active and exciting combats by adding some incomparables to the players' toolbox. I note that too often, combat becomes a war of attrition with the opponents, as martial characters are encouraged to do nothing but full-attack, as are many enemies.
RE: Vital Strike and Devastating Strike: Yes, vital strike is gained for free based on BAB. Adding devastating strike for free (and its improved version) isn't a terrible idea, either. I agree.
RE: Casters: I agree that this does become a problem. One of the bonuses is that neither player is playing a caster. However, NPCs do present an issue, though one I think can be mitigated. The stunt system favors martial characters, for example. Other systems can potentially be put in place as well, but I don't think this is the place to discuss it, as I don't want to get too far into homebrew territory.
Apologies if this belongs in the Suggestions/Homebrew forum, but I'm looking specifically for advice on this topic.
I'm planning on running a small game with a couple of friends soon, and I wanted to make a couple of changes. One of these changes is removing full attacks from the game (while adding a stunt system to keep things interesting).
I'm planning on effectively giving everyone vital strike for free at appropriate levels, and I think my stunts will create enough variety and power that characters won't feel too weak against enemies.
However, I'm not sure what to do about monsters. Certain monsters (pouncing tigers, dragons) rely pretty heavily on the number of natural attacks they have when engaged in combat. How do I remove this factor while still maintaining their ferocity? In addition, I feel like it kind of ruins the fluff a bit if a tiger that's leaping at you only plans on using its teeth as a weapon.
Note that most enemies, aside from major foes, will likely not utilize the stunt system, as it would be rather difficult to keep track of it for larger masses of foes. This would lower their power if they also cannot use full attacks.
So what do I do with the monsters? Should they just keep full-attacks with natural weapons? Or should I do something else?
Thanks, and again, apologies if this is in the wrong forum.
...But at the same time, one that gets to choose which gadgets they can specialize in, in the vein of an alchemist's discoveries or rogue talents, would be pretty awesome, and this is a method that a lot of people have taken in their homebrew versions of the Artificer class. Including yours!
I wasn't going to mention it...but y'all should totally check out my Engineer. Link in my profile.
On a less chest-puffing note, I think the trick to a unique artificer or technomancer-type class is going to be not the simple fact that it can make magic items. Any caster (and non-casters who spend a couple of feats) can do that. The trick, I think, to a class like that is giving it unique abilities that focus around magic items (or, as you mentioned, abilities that grant them gadgets to manipulate that have their own powers).
One of the big, potentially overlooked issues that might face Paizo (should they decide to even create such a class) is that, like you said, there are TONS of homebrew and 3pp artificers out there. And while it might not be such a big deal to shift away from the 3pp classes, establishing some ideas that are wildly different from the homebrew classes might piss some people off. In addition, the sheer amount of homebrew classes means that there's likely to be some overlap with an official class, which might also piss some people off. It's such a widely-desired class that touching it is, in and of itself, a touchy subject, and one that should be handled with care.
That being said, I think Paizo's design team could pull it off.
So I've been working on this alternate spell system for a little while, and while I have most of the ideas well-processed, there's still a few spots where I'm having trouble.
It's called Signature Spells, and it goes a little like this...
Signature Spells
In the standard spell system for pathfinder, characters utilize spell lists composing of up to hundreds of spells, all pre-designed and pre-arranged for their convenience. Alternately, thanks to the Words of Power system, characters are able to create a wider variety of spells by combining differing effects for various bonuses. The Signature spell system hopes to literally combine these systems into one overarching concept.
In terms of flavor, characters that use this system normally utilize the basic building blocks of magic when preparing or spontaneously casting spells. Rather than memorize spells, a wizard or witch might craft metaphysical constructs or matrices that represent her spells. A cleric, rather than praying for specific spells, might simply envision the effects she would like when she prepares her spells, and the wordspells prepared would represent the manifestation of these desired effects. Signature spells themselves represent exceptionally focused spells born of heavily-researched formulae, a deity’s will, or perhaps the power of a character’s ancestors.
In the Signature spell system, characters normally utilize the Words of Power spell system. They do not cast pre-built spells such as magic missile or fireball, but rather combine the building blocks of magic in order to cast spells. They all begin as wordcasters, and cast wordspells as-directed in the Words of Power rules located in Ultimate Magic.
However, in this system, spellcasters also gain access to special “signature spells” which they can cast in addition to their wordspells. For several spellcasters, such as clerics or sorcerers, this is already built into their class in the form of domain spells, bloodline spells, or some other form of spells that they would normally be able to cast in spite of the Words of Power system. For some classes, however, the system differs.
Classes gain signature spells in the following ways, based on class:
Cleric: A cleric’s domain spells are considered signature spells for the purpose of this system. If a cleric selects an archetype that removes her domain spells, then she no longer gains access to signature spells.
Oracle: An oracle’s mystery spells are considered signature spells for the purpose of this system. If an oracle selects an archetype that removes her bloodline spells, then she no longer gains access to signature spells.
Sorcerer: A sorcerer’s bloodline spells are considered signature spells for the purpose of this system. If a sorcerer selects an archetype that removes her bloodline spells, then she no longer gains access to signature spells.
Summoner: At 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, and 17th level, the summoner may select a single signature spell in place of a word he would learn at that level. Signature spells for the summoner must be on the summoner’s spell list, and must be of the Conjuration school.
Witch: A witch’s patron spells are considered signature spells for the purpose of this system. If a witch selects an archetype that removes her patron, then she no longer gains access to signature spells.
Wizard: At every even level except 20, a wizard gains access to a single signature spell and adds it to his spellbook. This replaces one of the two spells he would normally learn upon gaining that level. A wizard’s signature spells must be of a level which he can cast, and must be selected from his specialty school. A universalist wizard’s signature spells may be from any school, but must be one level lower than the highest level spell he can cast. If a wizard selects an archetype that removes his arcane school, he does not gain access to signature spells.
--
As you can hopefully see, the intent here was to allow characters access to signature spells without increasing the number of spells they would otherwise know. Summoners and wizards must add these spells within the boundaries of the spells they would normally learn at a given level, rather than adding them to their spell list in addition to the spells they would normally learn.
You will also likely notice that there are several classes missing from the above list. These are classes wherein I need help. The above classes made their signature spell assignment relatively easy through pre-established systems or ideas. However, the rest of the spellcasters lack an easy-cheat way to assign signature spells (a wizard's school, a summoner's innate connection to the conjuration school). In addition, druids, paladins, and rangers present a particular problem in that they are divine casters. They do not "learn" spells, like other casters. They simply have access to a whole list, so there's no easy replacement system to use.
So, I ask you, the people of the Paizo messageboards, to help me out here. I need to figure out a way to grant these missing classes signature spells. If you have any ideas, please post them.
The classes currently missing signature spell assignment are as-follows: Alchemist, Bard, Druid, Inquisitor, Magus, Paladin, and Ranger.
I'll throw my vote in as well. I'd love to see two separate classes, honestly. Or one class and an alternate for it. I'd love an engineer/technologist class that focuses on non-firearm high-technology and gadgetry, but I'd also love to see a true artificer that is more of a master craftsman that can do new and unique things with magic items.
Honestly, the only problem I see with building a magic-item-artificer is simply that PF, as a system, already heavily leans on magic items. I'm not sure what a "super-craftsman" could really bring to the table. If it were something that functioned, mechanically, closer to the Incarnum classes of 3.5, or a class that was able to utilize magic items in different ways (maybe he can cause them to intentionally fail and explode or something), then you might have something. But if you did a strict "magic smith with magic devices"-style class, I really don't see room.
Additionally, I thought the artificer would have been a great addition to Ultimate Equipment. But alas, we still wait. Maybe the Ultimate Advanced Player's Guide 3 will have something.
Hey there! I finally made another Carpe DM video. This time, instead of being about something big and all-inclusive, I decided I just wanted to talk about dragons.
I'm pretty sure the answer to this question is "no," but I thought I'd ask anyway. Do caster levels from separate classes stack for the purpose of spell strength if the classes use the same type of magic?
I.E. A sorcerer 5/Wizard 5 casts fireball from his wizard list. Would his caster level be treated as 5 (because his wizard CL is 5), or 10 (because he possesses a total of 10 arcane caster levels)?
Again, pretty sure I know the answer, but thought I'd ask anyway.
I very much fit into the role of Good GM, Bad Player.
I love being a GM. LOVE IT! I adore knowing everything that's going on, maneuvering NPCs and monsters both on the battle-mat and off, and just generally watching to see what my players are going to do next. I love designing characters and plots and game mechanics. I love world-building. I love surprising and even scaring my players with a twist that nobody saw coming.
Being a GM rocks.
Being a player blows.
I hate the idea of coming up with a character that I have to stick with session after session after session. I hate being walled into my character's constraints. If I'm a fighter, I can't use awesome spells. If I'm a wizard, I can't beat things to death with a stick. I always tend to play alchemists, bards, magi, or inquisitors; something in that vein of "I can do most things pretty well" because I hate not having access to things. My characters also tend to fall into the thematic category of either "epicly awesome and important so I can do things that matter and remain entertained" or "exceptionally boring and beat-sticky so I can sit back and work on other things while everyone else has fun." I also tend to hate other GMs when I'm a player. I always nitpick the hell out of their GMing style. They reveal too much out of character, or they don't reveal enough. They make things too easy, or too difficult. I hate not knowing what's going on behind the screen.
I love getting my ass handed to me by a particularly awesome strategy that my players come up with when I'm the GM. It acts as a learning experience, so that I can prepare for such a thing next time.
I can't stand getting my ass handed to me when I'm a player, because then I get to sit around and roll stabilization checks while everyone else has fun. As a player, I take getting KO'd very personally, and all of my characters tend to turn into murderous psychopaths out to get revenge on the GM who dared assault them.
Ugh, sounds like you had a really rough time there. A couple of comments that may be spoilers for you, but it sounds like you are already familiar with the encounters so...regarding the Shadows - this is where you learn sometimes it is okay to run away. They do not pursue beyond the doorway.
You mention the final boss of this book being CR7. Correct, but you can apply the lesson learned with the Shadows here as well.
And your thought about future expectations...probably should be something you work together with your GM about. I am currently running this for my group. We just finished Book 2 and it's been fun so far.
Best of luck!
Seems it was a bit of bad luck, when we discussed it. He was to roll to determine how many rounds it took until the shadows came after us. He rolled 1, which apparently meant that they attacked immediately. And since the Paladin was the only one in the room at the time, he got swarmed, dropping him to 1 str after the first round. Since he couldn't move, he couldn't run. We desperately tried to get him out, but a second round of touches killed him. Our rogue eventually dragged his body out of the room, whereupon they returned to their sarcophagi. We thought all was well, until a shadow rose from his body and proceeded to kill our rogue. The rest of us ran, and the entire group got pissed.
The problem was that it was the first encounter. The FIRST one. The 3 players who made new characters (including me) spent DAYS coming up with cool new PCs who were in an adventuring band together (in-character, we had just come from overcoming the first book of Carrion Crown). We had developed backstories. The paladin and the sorceress were married. We had fun personalities and were going to bring a new mindset to the game. Then the paladin died. Just like that. 2 turns.
We decided that, at that point, we were no longer the heroes of Sandpoint. Only 1 member of the original party (the cleric) was still around, and the new guys had not only proven useless, but close to a liability.
We're starting a new game. The cleric and sorceress will be joining, having fled Sandpoint.
So...we went into Thistletop in order to kill Nualia. We were level 3, which is the appropriate level in order to delve deep into the dungeon.
Well, we delved into the dungeon, and got through the glaive-pit combo trap. Then, Nualia appeared, her Yeth hound howled, and overall, we got smashed by Nualia and 3 of our five-man party died.
Okay, fine. So we dealt with that, rolled up new characters, and went down once more. Nualia was gone, apparently fleeing elsewhere with her hound. But we went through some double-doors and our paladin (one of our new characters) died in 2 rounds. They resisted our channel energy attempts, dodged our fireballs (necklace), and the only way we were able to kill ONE of them (replaced by the spawn from the paladin's body) was with a magic missile.
The point I'm getting at is...this was a regular encounter. It was a group of shadows. Nothing special. No boss status. It was a standard encounter. A standard CR 6 encounter with a party of level 3 characters. Against Shadows...one of the ONLY creatures that can kill with strength damage. And they swarmed our paladin. And killed him. In 2 turns.
In our first encounter of the day.
Is this right? Is this an appropriate difficulty level? Apparently, the final boss of this dungeon is CR 7. WHAT?
Please, I'd like to know what the hell is going on. Is this right? Because we're seriously considering dropping the campaign if this is the kind of thing we can expect.
Now don't get me wrong. I understand the concept of a challenging encounter. However, this just seems over the top and ridiculous.
Again, is this right? Is this what we can expect for the rest of the game? Because, if Yes, then I think this game is done and we're moving on.
Thank you for your patronage. Remember: Shop smart. Shop S-Mart!
...Groovy,
-Chris
NOTE: The quality of this video might be a little less than the quality of the first 2 episodes. I rendered it twice, in order to "bleep" some naughty words (it was brought to my attention that CHILDREN watch this show).
I'm gonna be honest and I zoned out after like the third minute and went to other videos, but I like the catchy series name 'Carpe DM' and that the lighting is decent and you don't do the annoying video blogger thing of being WAY too close to the camera. You're the right distance from the camera. my advice is to have a series of things you'd like to say written out ahead of time so you can get to the point and make the video shorter.
First, thank you for the feedback.
I'm sorry you zoned out. The intent of the series is to be fairly low-key and discussion-y, with little editing. I will say that part of the problem might be the topic. "What makes a good DM" is a fairly large topic to cover (all in all, I probably sat in front of the camera for about an hour) and doesn't really lend itself to brevity.
All excuses aside, the series likely hasn't found its "voice" yet, and I'll keep trying until I find a winning formula.
Thanks again for the feedback, and for the complements regarding framing.
Episode 2 of my new youtube series: Carpe DM, is now available for you viewing pleasure (or pain, I don't really care which). Like the title says, it's part 2 of my What makes a Good DM series, wherein I discuss my personal feelings toward what makes a solid Dungeon Master.
Thankee, Vincent, for the feedback. I do agree, the term "punish" does have some negative qualities and connotations to it. The 'put 'em in their place' mentality isn't the best to have (though I have been guilty of it on occasion), and I probably shouldn't have included it. But, what's done is done, and while I do believe that these sorts of conflicts should be resolved out-of-game, talking with your players, I think that utilizing these tactics to get things back on the rails again isn't necessarily a bad thing.
And as I stated in my previous response, I think I over-used the 'raid' example. Having an interruption when a player is taking too long chatting up an NPC is just as valid a strategy, I think, as a patrol coming along when the players take 2 hours to plan a basic raid. It's more about keeping things moving and making sure everyone can have fun than looking down upon the players as some kind of nuisance, which, I would propose, is a God DM way looking at the situation.
Can't really clarify that in the video as it currently stands. However, I will make a note to take some time and shoot a video at some point going in-depth on some of the issues raised here.
Thanks again to everyone. Constructive criticism always helps, in one way or another.
watched it, liked it and subbed. good lighting and sound (very important imo). i agree with a lot of points you bring up, especially the god dm. looking forward to part 2.
Thanks so much for the like and the sub.
I'm lucky with the lighting and sound. Basically using an overhead light and an old lamp (both with fluorescent bulbs, though, which helps). And my camera's a $300 handy-cam that just happens to have a decent mic.
Glad to hear you enjoy watching, as I enjoy making.
First, thank you very much for the feedback. I believe that, regarding some of your questions and complaints, the fault lies with me not being clear enough.
Re: Rules Lawyers: I do believe that a GM should KNOW the rules. However, I do not feel that they should feel totally BOUND by them. Certain rulings should be made based upon the situation. I also agree that you should keep a list of rules on which you improvised and should research the rules after the game. But, again, while most rules with most games should be applied as-intended, I think a DM should always be willing to fudge and improvise if the situation calls for it.
Re: Storyteller/God GM: I didn't say that a game should have no story. I try to chock my games full of story and flavor. However, I try to keep that story flexible, and allow it to evolve based on the actions of the players.
What I meant by Storyteller/God DM is that you shouldn't expect to assume total and complete control over the game (and I thought I conveyed that rather well). The players have the ability to take action and do what they want, not necessarily what YOU want them to do. As a DM, you should have a goal-point in mind (battle atop a volcano, confrontation in the throne room, etc.) but I think the route by which the players get there should be kept rather viscous. It's okay to guide them, but not to force their hand. As I stated, the DM is still, essentially, a player. He's a player with a LOT more characters, and the ability to craft the world, but the one thing that the DM does not control are the other players and their characters.
A DM should be allowed to craft a story. However, he should be willing to let the players help.
Re: Open Mind: I have no response here. I agree with your perspective that everyone should be included, and one player shouldn't necessarily feel like his character is the MAIN character.
Re: God DM tactics/punishment: I think this is where I failed most in explaining myself, and part of that was me referencing the same encounter (raiding a bandit camp) over and over, when the intended idea was to lightly punish players who are being disruptive in any way. I also think I engaged in a bit of hyperbole (giving everyone potions of fire resistance is a bit overkill, I agree). The intended idea I was trying to get across was that action should be taken if this becomes consistent, flow-interrupting behavior.
However, I will admit that even then, so long as everyone's having fun, players shouldn't be punished. However, if even one person is really not enjoying themselves, I think action should be taken. And again, the DM is another player. You, as a DM, have just as much right to have fun as the other players. Granted, in this situation, you should probably just talk to your players (which I cover in part 2 or 3, can't remember).
Sometimes, however, it's just more fun to be a sadistic butt-hole.
Thank you to everyone for watching, and thanks for the feedback. I'll try to clarify my statements a bit more in future videos.
...Catch Phrase,
-Chris
P.S. - I'm working on ep 2 now, so it should be up in a day or so.
Hey amigos and amigettes. I've started a youtube series about RPGs on my channel, NerdTypeZ! I'm calling it Carpe DM.
The general idea is that it'll be a lightly-edited series wherein I discuss different topics within the overall scope of Tabletop RPGs. I hope to post a new video 1-2 times each week.
Today's inaugural video is part 1 of a question I've seen fairly often on these boards and others:
What makes a good DM?
I encourage you to check it out and please give me your feedback. Hopefully, you enjoy what you see!
I noticed the prices of the Adventure Paths seem to have gone up a few dollars. Is this a permanent increase? Is it due to inflation, or increased quality, or something else?
So, did a little research as of late for my home game, and came across the "Aberrant" archetype for Dreamscarred Press's Aegis class (both in their Advanced Psionics Guide) and it is pretty much exactly what I've been looking for in a Shapeshifter class.
Cheapy wrote:
I'd like a class that I couldn't think to ask for. I want to be surprised by something new. Looking at the Advanced Player's Guide classes when they first came out, and realizing none of them had 3.5 equivalents was the most excited I've been for a product in a while. Even now, the classes I'm most excited to play are the Gypsy for Dreadfox Games and the Luckbringer from Rite Publishing because they are classes unlike any other I've read.
This was how I felt when I first read SGG's Time Thief. I get that it was initially made to capitalize on the Prince of Persia movie, but when I read it, I was like "Whoa! This is totally awesome!" and I never would have thought to ask for it.
An alternate nice option is the MachineSmith by LPJr publishing (PDF available on this site).
I've also seen various full-BAB arcane casters floating around the Homebrew forums, including the Electus (which feels a little Magus-y to me) or the Arcane Legionary. I made my own, called the Sentinel, but it's thus-far untested.
Dreamscarred Press has produced some of the most thorough and awesome psionics rules I've seen to date, including all the awesome stuff in their Advanced Psionics Guide.
The War Master from SGG really is a good option for a Warlord/Marshal-style class.
I can't speak to shaman classes, as I've never been too interested in them.
Shapeshifters...always seem to be difficult. At the moment, skinning the synthesist seems to be the best choice.
Paizo has been pretty vocal about not making any more classes (at least for a while). So the best you're likely to get is with 3pp or homebrewed content.
So, I hate the current weapon proficiency system. And while I do love what some people have done with the concept of altering weapon proficiency (Kirth's proficiency system, Weapon Proficiency as a skill), I've been toying with the idea of just using weapon groups.
I recall that Unearthed Arcana had a Weapon Group system, wherein classes got proficiency with a set number of weapon groups instead of proficiencies with "simple" and "martial" weapons. I always liked that idea, and considering that Pathfinder already has weapon groups for the Fighter, I thought...why not?
Essentially, my idea is to take the concept from Unearthed Arcana, except replace all weapon proficiency feats with this one:
Weapon Proficiency
You gain proficiency with a group of similar weapons, and can use them without penalty.
Benefit: Select one weapon group with which you do not have proficiency. You gain proficiency with all of the weapons in that weapon group.
Normal: You take a -4 on all attack rolls when wielding a weapon with which you do not have proficiency.
Thoughts? I think it would work fine with a standard campaign, but I'd love to hear the thoughts of others.
Our group recently started Rise of the Runelords, and we had our second session today. Well, after quite a bit of sitting around town, doing some minor things but otherwise going a bit stir-crazy, we met Shalelu, who told us about the various goblin tribes around town.
We were supposed to stick around town, maintaining a presence as the town heroes. But...I mean, there are three goblin tribes in the area. How could we resist not going out there and slaughtering them? So our first move, we decide, is to go take out the Licktoads in the marshes.
One of our players is a GM who is currently running his other group through Jade Regent, and he just happened to have the first book on him...which just so happens to contain the Licktoad camp. So our GM gives the encounter a quick once-over, and we proceed to head out and, at level 1, take out the entire Licktoad camp. That was over 25 goblins, slain by a Hellknight-in-training, a not-Harsk dwarven ranger, a spelldancer magus, a brutish half-orc rogue, a halfling cleric of Desna, and a male Witch who INSISTS he's a Warlock (ME!). Much blood was shed, and many rockets were fired from goblin hands, but eventually we were victorious, taking home the gold, the magic arrows, and around 900 xp each. Also, we lit the whole damn thing on fire so that no one else could take over the encampment.
Did we completely remove an entire encounter from Jade Regent, should we attempt it at a later date? Maybe. Was it worth it? Hell yes.
We have yet to return to Sandpoint, but I have the feeling that we'll be double-heroes. Plus, there was a piggy at the camp that we took home. I think I'll take him home, name him, and then feed him to the people in a feast celebrating our victory.
I once named an NPC bard "Felecio." I didn't realize what I had done until it was far, FAR too late.
I now think hard about what I name objects and people in my games, and say the names out loud several times, in several different ways, before I decide on something.
1: No spell resistance for disbelief. That's some Sword of Truth malarkey, and I see no reason for it.
2: Even if a character is an atheist, that simply means that they lack belief in the gods themselves. That does NOT mean that they do not recognize that divine casters are using magic. Magic is something demonstrably real within PF. An atheist/skeptic is very unlikely to care where the deluded fool using it thinks it comes from.
If you want to deal with a character resisting divine magic, Black Raven mentioned the Disbeliever trait. But even then, that would likely be more of an anti-theist: someone who doesn't want ANYTHING to do with these freaky people and their so-called "gods," and resists everything they claim comes from their faith.
3: When dealing with a world like Golarion, the word "Atheist" takes on a very different meaning. Gods demonstrably exist in Golarion. You can talk to them with high-level magic. You can travel to their home planes and play parcheesi with them. An atheist is not a non-believer in the same way that they are in the real world. More likely, an atheist in Golarion is someone who simply subscribes to no religion, and finds the concept of worshiping these admittedly-powerful beings rather pointless. They are likely scientists and wizards, finding no place in their lives for faith and reliance on an outside force for aid. Think Gregory House as a wizard or alchemist. It's not that they deny existence, but rather see no room for belief.
I've been reading a lot of Iron Heroes lately, and really enjoy a lot of what the system has to offer. One of the things I'm debating right now is adopting the Iron Heroes Armor and Defense systems into my homebrew pathfinder game.
For those unversed, here are the basics:
Defense:
In Iron Heroes, characters use "defense," instead of Armor Class. The reason for this is purely thematic, as armor does not provide a bonus in Iron Heroes. Instead, a character's defense is equal to 10 + any passive bonuses they gain (natural armor, shield, size, etc.) + any active bonuses they gain (dex, dodge, class defense bonus).
Classes, similarly to d20 modern, gain a class defense bonus, representing their natural ability to dodge, parry, and deflect attacks. This bonus starts at +0 to +1 and ends at +15 to +17.
A character caught flat-footed loses their entire active defense bonus to AC.
Armor:
In Iron Heroes, Armor does not provide a bonus to defense. Instead, it absorbs damage, granting a variable amount of damage reduction against attacks, bypassed by magic (for example, it would grant DR 1d6/magic).
Keep in mind that Iron Heroes does not use magic items at all, so if one were to adapt the defense/armor system from it to a game like pathfinder, certain alterations would have to be made to the amount of defense gained via class bonus and what magic armor does, exactly.
In addition, Iron Heroes states flat-out that most heroes do not use more than light armor, unless they specialize in it, so adapting such a system might require certain thematic caveats as well.
Proposition: Essentially, my idea would be rather simple.
The basic direction of the system would be taking defense and armor whole-hog from Iron Heroes, and lowering the amount given by class bonuses to something that takes into account magic items such as rings of protection and amulets of natural armor (maybe having the highest bonus granted be around the +15 mark).
An easy way to integrate it is to create 3 defense progressions, similar to the Base Attack Bonus progressions. The lowest (essentially delegated to full casters) could start at +0 and increase over time to +5 (every 4 levels is easy). The medium progression would increase at the same rate as the low BAB (+0 to +10) and could apply to Barbarians, Bards, Gunslingers, Paladins, Rangers, Alchemists, Inquisitors, Magi and Summoners (potentially also to full divine casters, though I think that’s a matter of taste and flavor). The high progression could follow the medium BAB progression (+0 to +15) and apply to fighters, monks (I could see this replacing their normal AC bonus), rogues, and cavaliers.
Armor effectively gives damage reduction based on its bonus, rounded down to the nearest die size (so chain shirt would grand 1d4, breastplate 1d6, and full plate 1d8), and it's bypassed by magic or adamantine. This DR stacks with other damage reductions, as written in the Armor as DR section of Ultimate Combat.
I would also include the Iron Heroes rule regarding armor that medium armor reduces your speed by ¼, and heavy reduces it by half. This discourages exploitation of heavy armor with high class defense bonuses.
Magic armor grants a passive bonus to defense (armor bonus) equal to the enhancement bonus, and the DR is now bypassed only by adamantine. Adamantine armor is bypassed only by magic. Magical adamantine armor is DR/-.
Obviously, I’m not totally sure how balanced this would all be. I can definitely see issues at low levels, where you would have a very low defense, though that might be mitigated by the DR. But I definitely like the idea, and it makes possible character concepts that would otherwise be impossible, such as effective unarmored fighters (such as gladiators, or oily comic-book Spartans, or robed blademasters). In addition, I think it could help to mitigate some of the weaknesses of certain classes (rogues are a bit too squishy for their own good, and denying the ENTIRE active defense when flat-footed severely helps with sneak attacks.
What does the populace think? Is it balanced? Would it function well, or make pathfinder totally broked? I’d love to hear. I’ll probably write something a bit more official up and post it later, if people are interested.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the firearms as-presented in PF, either. But that's more of a thematic thing. I don't like the Touch AC bit, I don't like the division of "One handed" and "Two handed" firearms. I don't like the overblown prices. I don't like the misfires. It's all just over-thought hogwash put into the system for the near-sole purpose of making firearms "different".
Balderdash. Firearms don't need to be different from other weapons. For my home games I've simplified the crap out of it. Pistols are mechanically equivalent to light crossbows. Rifles are mechanically equivalent to heavy crossbows. Revolvers (or magazine-based pistols, or pepperbox pistols, etc.) are mechanically equivalent to light repeating crossbows. Multi-shot rifles are mechanically equivalent to heavy repeating crossbows. Coat pistols or derringers? Hand Crossbows.
Double-barrel weapons are mechanically the same as their single-barrel brethren, except they cost twice as much and can fire 2 shots.
Scatterguns? Dragon Pistols or sawed-offs are light crossbows with half range and can scatter for 20 feet. Shotguns and blunderbusses are heavies with half range and scatter for 30.
Ta-freaking-da.
And how to make them mechanically viable? Dead Shot (or Pickle Shot, if you prefer) is now just a thing that anyone can do with crossbows, firearms and slings.
Also, all crossbows are simple weapons. All firearms are martial.
And I've also eliminated the gunslinger from my games, distributing many of its abilities to other classes as talents or feats. Don't like the idea of a base class that is dedicated to a single weapon-type. Classes in PF are supposed to be modular. Gunslinger isn't.
And for those of you who have read all my gunslinger and firearm documents I've written before: These "mechanically-a-crossbow" developments are rather recent.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to figure out how to mechanically include a class defense bonus into Pathfinder without breaking the system.
In my opinion, the Versatile Performance was one of the better things they added to the bard. The ability to effectively raise three skills for the price of one frees up a lot of skill points so the bard isn't forced to dump points into their social skills.
Understood. If I might explain my position a bit better:
As a bard, I found that a lot of my skill points were going to go into social skills anyway. Now, at early levels, that's not a problem. Putting ranks in Perform (Act, Comedy, Etc.) is definitely nice when your first versatile performance comes up. But when you get into higher levels, I start looking at the versatile performance as a bit of a hindrance. Oh, I can put ranks into Perform (Oratory, Wind, String) to get a bonus on diplomacy! Except...I'm a bard. I've likely already put ranks into diplomacy. And bluff, and intimidate. Likely handle animal and acrobatics, too. In fact, everything offered through Versatile Performance but Fly seems pretty standard for a bard. So, effectively, the ability would do nothing for me, becoming a dead level.
Now, this wouldn't be a huge problem if it was just one ability that applied to all perform skills at once. BAM, suddenly you get the option to diversify. However, the fact that you only get ONE each time effectively makes you choose between specializing in the actual skills you want early on, or waiting to specialize in these skills at 10th, 14th, 18th level, when you FINALLY get around to versatile performance. Up until that point, you're just putting ranks into a perform skill, which, practically, does the exact same thing as the other 4 perform skills in which you put ranks. The only time it becomes special is 4 levels after your last perform skill became special. 4 levels is a long time.
So, again, I think there's definitely some cool stuff in Versatile Performance on paper, and I think if it was an All-In-One ability, where all 9 perform skills became special all at once, I could definitely dig it. But in practice, I find it's far less interesting and useful than many people believe. In fact, if my bard was still focused around performing, I likely would have kept that in.
Hey there folks! I'm back! And this time, I brought a bard!
But why? For all the folks out there clamouring for monk fixes and rogue fixes and fighter and wizard and gunslinger fixes, why the bard? The bard's not broken, is it? It doesn't have some glaring fault or failing, right?
Well, yeah. The bard, as it exists in the Core Rulebook, is a pretty solid class. However, it's not really what I'm looking for in a bard, so I decided to use it as a template and make a new one.
My problems with the bard are as follows:
Bardic Performance just feels wrong to me. I just can't picture a character busting out a lute and playing an inspiring ballad while his allies are cutting things to pieces (or being cut to pieces) when he could be doing other, much more useful and interesting things.
Versatile Performance is effectively useless and misleading. The skills it grants you are almost all skills that the bard is going to invest points in anyway, effectively making you waste skill points as you go. Additionally, the skills covered by each performance often overlap, meaning that the ability is effectively self-defeating.
The bard is one of the least-customizeable classes in the game. All of its performances are set in stone without archetypes, and its spells are spontaneous, meaning its list is incredibly short. For a class that's supposed to be about surprises and vibrancy, it's kind of dull.
So, I changed the class...
...in the following ways:
Inspiration Pool: An idea half-stolen from the 3.5 factotum, the bard can use the inspiration pool to gain temporary class abilities, such as Sneak Attack or Smite Evil, bringing a whole new meaning to "Jack of all Trades".
Spells: The bard now uses a spellbook and prepares its spells ahead of time, still using its Charisma modifier as its casting stat.
Versatile Performance: Gone. Moving on.
Muses: Replacing performances is the concept of muses. Effectively performances with the "performance" fluff removed, they're fueled by the inspiration pool in a manner similar to the bardic music of 3.5, lasting a number of rounds equal to the bard's level+1 after you activate them.
Divine Inspiration: A new capstone tops off this bard, giving the bard a +2 bonus on Charisma, as well as the ability to take 20 with any skill check as a standard action.
In essence, I tried to make a more neutral bard that focuses less on dancing or playing music to buff their allies, and more on the concept of inspiration and being inspired by the world/people around you, and then using those muses to improve yourself and your allies.
The class is in google doc form. Feedback, both positive and negative, is encouraged. May I just ask, though, that if you have something negative to say, make it constructive criticism. "You suck" should always be followed by "here's why" and "here's how you can fix it". This is effectively an Alpha build of the class, and I'm always looking to improve my work.
I actually thought about this recently, as I was contemplating running a zelda-themed campaign. I came to the conclusion that Link would be a Half-Elf Fighter 9/Magus (Myrmidarch) 4.
Fighter 9 gives him weapon training in 2 areas: Heavy Blades and Bows. It also gives him Armor Training 2, and as Link is usually designed (in more modern games, anyway) wearing either a chain shirt or chainmail, I felt that this fit well enough. Feats could include the Whirlwind chain, mounted combat, shield focus, throw anything, point-blank shot, and other appropriate feats.
Magus (Myrmidarch) gives him a couple iconic abilities. Spending arcane points to increase his weapon's enhancement is quite akin to "charging" his sword, as is spellstrike. In addition, Ranged Spellstrike allows him to use fire/ice/light arrows (you will recall that, in the game, the fire/ice/light arrows were an ABILITY, not a special item, as they drained your mana bar).
When it comes to Link's musical magic, I don't think something like bard would cut it. This guy speeds up the passage of TIME. He teleports all over the place with his ocarina. In wind waker, he controls the weather and conjures tornadoes. These are not the powers of a bard. It's obvious that whatever instrument he might be using (as he has not always had one in the games), it's an artifact.
In terms of bombs, I think alchemist's fire works a bit better than dipping alchemist for bombs. Not only do alchemist's bombs not really fit the flavor, but Link stocks up on bombs by either finding them or purchasing them. He doesn't craft his own equipment.
And that's about it. I also think that PF is a great system for Link, as it so heavily focuses on magic items, and most of Link's iconic powers come from his magical equipment.
I've been thinking about this for a while. Are the extra spells/day and the ability to cast them spontaneously really such an advantage to sorcerers/oracles that they get so many disadvantages when compared to prepared casters?
.
..
I mean, come on:
Very limited spells known.
Extended casting time when using metamagic feats.
and, of course...
Late spell progression (2nd-level spells at 4th level, instead of 3rd).
Is this trade off really worth it? Would it be so bad if spontaneous full casters got the same progression as prepared full casters?
I was glancing through the document today, and noted that while the Guardian, Marshal and Trickster have an "additional x" path ability, allowing an extra tier 1 ability, the Archmage, Champion, and Hierophant do not.
Just wondering why this might be. Are Archmage Arcanas, Champion Strikes and Hierophant Surges considered too powerful for a character to have 2? If so, what makes them better than the Guardian Calls, Marshal Orders and Trickster Attacks?
Any and all consideration and discussion is most appreciated.
Regarding the original topic, I've been through something similar before, and have even been the man-child before.
I'll start with the latter, as I believe it gives me the best insight as to what's going on. When I acted the man-child (just this last monday, in fact), I feel that what I did was potentially more distracting. The GM was quite soft-spoken, and so I (and other players) were missing key bits of information as I would play music or funny videos on my laptop, and actually started looking up porn to prove a point to another player mid-game. Realizing what a douche I had been, I promptly apologized after the game and promised to not let it happen again.
The reason for my ass-hattedness was simply that I was bored. Out of my mind. And I expect that might be part of what's happening with your man-child. Doing things like sharing a funny story, drumming on a dice tin, and smashing minis together in "play-fighting" just screams of him trying to occupy himself because he's bored. As does the sleeping. Obviously, I cannot confirm that this is the case. But based on my experience, I'd say it's more likely than not.
Regarding my experience with a disruptive player, it was a bit different. He had a license, and a car, but refused to drive himself because he "doesn't like driving." This led to him begging a ride home after we'd gamed, while the rest of the group shot the sh!t on the back patio, which was quite annoying to the rest of us.
He would also consistently dispute game rules. Not in a normal rules-lawyer way, though, but rather through his own personal interpretation of events.
Quote:
GM: "All Right. You see the spirit rise from the grave. Make a will save."
Player: (Rolls.) "I got a seven."
GM: "As you see the spirit rise, you're overcome with supernatural terror. You become frightened for 4 rounds."
Player: "No. I'm a half-orc! And a fighter! I wouldn't be scared of a ghost."
Thus ensues a stupidly long conversation on how the freaking game works, after which said player folds his arms and remains grumpy for the rest of the game.
He was also often quite loud, and considering that we were in an apartment, we'd tell him to keep it down, even going so far as to tell him to use an "inside voice". He then screamed "THIS IS MY INSIDE VOICE!" and complained--loudly--about us telling him what to do.
How did we attempt to solve this problem? Diplomatically. We sat down with him, relayed our problems, and he shrunk back into his chair and said "okay" a lot.
The problems persisted, so one of our players--the one who knew this player for the longest time--sat him down alone and told him that he was basically on gaming-group suspension for a month. If, after that time, he felt he could be mature and come back, he was to contact us and let us know.
He never contacted us.
Conclusion
Overall, my suggestion would be to handle this diplomatically. If you're the newest guy, and you don't know everybody too well, you can't really get rid of man-child yourself. Generally, The Decision in these situations goes to the GM or the Host. Talk to them. You mentioned that the GM's new-ish, and isn't really into confrontation. Offer to confront this player together. As far as what to say, treat him like an adult. Outline what he's doing wrong, and outline consequences if these behaviors persist. Also ask if he's bored or tired or anything, though don't let it turn into a ranting session for him, as that could potentially just reinforce the problem.
If they do persist, then I'd either get the rest of the group to nut up and kick him, or, if you're okay with losing this group, let them know you can't deal with his crap anymore and leave. You've already mentioned that you have a much more interesting and pleasurable group that you also game with. I'd say stick to them.
