CigarSmoker's page

CigarSmoker wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

CigarSmoker wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

CigarSmoker wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

stuff

So, you can sing two different words at the same time?

One of which is an arcane amalgam of consonants and vowels with odd inflections and tonal qualities, and the other is some single word that would inspire your comrades.
The mouth, tongue, and voice box...

more like his song now is being said in spell lingo, but keeping the tune, his dance changes to have the correct movements at the correct times.

Bardic performance is language dependent. So if you start saying weird words in your song you've stopped your performance and the bonuses for that end. Because what is says is important in the bardic performance, that's what is supposed to inspire this bonus in the other people around him.

spell words can still be in your language...

In fact the only language I think that is special is Draconic, in regards to magic, and can beat language dependent effects. fun combination.

I was under the impression that arcane spells had a 'language' all their own like the arcane writings made up in scrolls and spell books. Which is why you need a Read Magic spell to read a spell book or scroll.

But even still, if you're singing about the David killing the Giant and you throw in another verse of incantation words for your haste spell that's still going to break the performance while you cast.

And you're thinking Druidic not Draconic I think.

While I don't think that your argument is in any way illogical or wrong, I also think that it simply isn't supported by the rules (or at least my knowledge of the rules). In fact, somebody linked to a post by James Jacobs specifically saying, very clearly, that bardic performance does not interfere with spell casting of any kind.

I tend to think that bard spells and their components just work differently than with other arcane casters, such that they can be used at the same time as...

It doesn't say anything about casting just taking different kinds of actions. The issue I've pointed out is in the Spell Casting rules that say if you can't say the words of the spell or make the gestures you can't cast.

If you're performing and playing an instrument how are you to say the spell words or make the gestures without stopping the performance was my question. Or statement. Not sure which I made at this point but both are valid :D

CigarSmoker wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

CigarSmoker wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

stuff

So, you can sing two different words at the same time?

One of which is an arcane amalgam of consonants and vowels with odd inflections and tonal qualities, and the other is some single word that would inspire your comrades.
The mouth, tongue, and voice box...

more like his song now is being said in spell lingo, but keeping the tune, his dance changes to have the correct movements at the correct times.

Bardic performance is language dependent. So if you start saying weird words in your song you've stopped your performance and the bonuses for that end. Because what is says is important in the bardic performance, that's what is supposed to inspire this bonus in the other people around him.

SOME bardic performances are language dependent:

Quote:

If a bardic performance has audible components, the targets must be able to hear the bard for the performance to have any effect, and many such performances are language dependent (as noted in the description).

If it isn't in the description of the performance it isn't language dependent.

In fact the only language dependent for a core bard is suggestion and mass suggestion.

Actually if you choose singing as your bardic performance type then all the effects would be language dependent because they have an audible component.

And then if you are singing "The ballad of +2 buffs for my party" and want to cast a spell, the words of the spell are not going to provide the bonus that the song would. They are different. Performance does not equal Spell.

CigarSmoker wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

CigarSmoker wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

stuff

So, you can sing two different words at the same time?

One of which is an arcane amalgam of consonants and vowels with odd inflections and tonal qualities, and the other is some single word that would inspire your comrades.
The mouth, tongue, and voice box...

more like his song now is being said in spell lingo, but keeping the tune, his dance changes to have the correct movements at the correct times.

Bardic performance is language dependent. So if you start saying weird words in your song you've stopped your performance and the bonuses for that end. Because what is says is important in the bardic performance, that's what is supposed to inspire this bonus in the other people around him.

spell words can still be in your language...

In fact the only language I think that is special is Draconic, in regards to magic, and can beat language dependent effects. fun combination.

I was under the impression that arcane spells had a 'language' all their own like the arcane writings made up in scrolls and spell books. Which is why you need a Read Magic spell to read a spell book or scroll.

But even still, if you're singing about the David killing the Giant and you throw in another verse of incantation words for your haste spell that's still going to break the performance while you cast.

And you're thinking Druidic not Draconic I think.

CigarSmoker wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

stuff

So, you can sing two different words at the same time?

One of which is an arcane amalgam of consonants and vowels with odd inflections and tonal qualities, and the other is some single word that would inspire your comrades.
The mouth, tongue, and voice box...

more like his song now is being said in spell lingo, but keeping the tune, his dance changes to have the correct movements at the correct times.

Bardic performance is language dependent. So if you start saying weird words in your song you've stopped your performance and the bonuses for that end. Because what is says is important in the bardic performance, that's what is supposed to inspire this bonus in the other people around him.

CigarSmoker wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

CigarSmoker wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

The bard can cast while performing.

Also, you just listed two "pony tricks". The bard is also amazing at skills (tragically, better than even the rogue), makes an excellent archer, a skilled buffer (especially once you hit seventh level), and has a handy mix of utility spells. To say nothing of the varied applications of his performances.

Sure he can cast while he's performing provided the spell doesn't have a verbal component while he's singing. Or a somatic component while he's playing an instrument. Your voice and hands cannot be otherwise engaged to cast a spell.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. Look at the context of James Jacobs's post.

That's not taking into account the rules for spell casting. The rules for spell casting say that if you can't speak the words of the spell or perform the hand gestures for the spell you can't cast the spell.

Page 213 from the Core Rule Book:
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.

The assumption is that a bard can do things like weave spellcasting into his performance. Because, you know, performers can often do two things at once.

So, you can sing two different words at the same time?

And while you're doing that you've stopped playing your instrument, an integral part of your perform skill, to wave your hand about in the minute and intricate gestures of a spell.

I don't think so.

CigarSmoker wrote:

Sure he can cast while he's performing provided the spell doesn't have a verbal component while he's singing. Or a somatic component while he's playing an instrument. Your voice and hands cannot be otherwise engaged to cast a spell.

This is false. It's flatly stated and intended for the bard to be able to use spells while performing. James jacob even said so in the thread stating it.

Quote:

Sure your skills make sure you KNOW EVERYTHING, literally everything. There's not a knowledge check you can't make, but that doesn't help you nearly as much as you'd think in combat. Knowing the thing you're fighting take extra damage from X doesn't help unless you can cast something that does X. And if your Wizard is loaded up with different damage and utility spells? Guess you're doing it the hard way. If you as the bard were carrying those utility spells or some sort of typed damage spell to cover those areas the Wizard can't for whatever reason that helps the party a hell of a lot more than the tiny moral buff to attack and damage the bard gives.

Competence buff actually. Morale is a different bonus. The actual size of the bonus is relative to however many characters use it.

Also, it sounds less like a problem with the bard and more like a problem of not knowing what you're doing with him.

Sorry I thought I knew the buff type. I didn't double check in the book and I should have. My bad!

But seriously, my problem with the bard is still what I stated: The loss of spell casting versatility and damage from AD&D to 3.0 that was continued up through pathfinder.

CigarSmoker wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

The bard can cast while performing.

Also, you just listed two "pony tricks". The bard is also amazing at skills (tragically, better than even the rogue), makes an excellent archer, a skilled buffer (especially once you hit seventh level), and has a handy mix of utility spells. To say nothing of the varied applications of his performances.

Sure he can cast while he's performing provided the spell doesn't have a verbal component while he's singing. Or a somatic component while he's playing an instrument. Your voice and hands cannot be otherwise engaged to cast a spell.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. Look at the context of James Jacobs's post.

That's not taking into account the rules for spell casting. The rules for spell casting say that if you can't speak the words of the spell or perform the hand gestures for the spell you can't cast the spell.

Page 213 from the Core Rule Book:
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.

CigarSmoker wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Here I was assuming you were being a good party member and selling the stuff for them too. :)

Thinking about it a little more, a good part of it is "Cash in hand".
Unless you've got a lot of down time or you're selling things in high demand, you often won't have sold all your loot by the time you're ready to go off on your next adventure. Sure, you can leave your cohort to sell it, but you don't have the money to buy new stuff until he does. Given how fast WBL scales, you may wind up always behind, even if you do theoretically get more as you go along.
You're selling it cheap, so you can buy the gear you need for the next adventure, rather than risk going without until someone comes along who's willing to pay full price.

True enough, and for most players/characters that's what happens. But once in a while you get that Greedy Bastard who works with the party just to fill his own pockets, and if the party's stuff is in the shop then his stuff isn't selling as often meaning he's not making as much.

As for the second part, adventuring is usually taking a job off the board in the tavern. You go when you're ready so you've got time to sell your crap before you go look at the board. This is really true for the low and mid levels when you're not saving the world from those Elder Gods and Tarrasques going stompy stompy all over cities and such.

So okay, maybe later in your career when time is of the essence you're a bit put on to sell at a loss, but those mid levels? You've usually got the time, unless your GM is going to force the issue. Which is fine too of course :)

For the record, I've never played or wanted to play in a "take a job off the board in a tavern game", even at low levels. You may not be saving the world from Elder Gods or Tarrasques, but that doesn't mean lower level threats can't be just as urgent. Just smaller in scope.

I like the tavern wall game sometimes. It's uncomplicated. I do have to agree there is a truth to the small level threats can be just as urgent. Just as important.

The bard can cast while performing.

Also, you just listed two "pony tricks". The bard is also amazing at skills (tragically, better than even the rogue), makes an excellent archer, a skilled buffer (especially once you hit seventh level), and has a handy mix of utility spells. To say nothing of the varied applications of his performances.

Sure he can cast while he's performing provided the spell doesn't have a verbal component while he's singing. Or a somatic component while he's playing an instrument. Your voice and hands cannot be otherwise engaged to cast a spell.

Any class using Dex makes an excellent archer.

The issue is GETTING to 7th level. The players I've played with and myself included became very bored with combat as a bard.

Sure your skills make sure you KNOW EVERYTHING, literally everything. There's not a knowledge check you can't make, but that doesn't help you nearly as much as you'd think in combat. Knowing the thing you're fighting take extra damage from X doesn't help unless you can cast something that does X. And if your Wizard is loaded up with different damage and utility spells? Guess you're doing it the hard way. If you as the bard were carrying those utility spells or some sort of typed damage spell to cover those areas the Wizard can't for whatever reason that helps the party a hell of a lot more than the tiny moral buff to attack and damage the bard gives.

CigarSmoker wrote:

D&D the original D&D from the 1970's had bard as an odd sort of combination class. You would do X# of levels as a Thief, then as a Fighter and finally as a Druid. It was horrendously complex and a royal pain in the ass.

For AD&D they simplified the Bard to a single "Bard" class. It did a little of everything as I said and the spell casting was Wizard based with a max spell level of 6th. Because they could learn and cast any spell on the wizard list a bard was able to be more versatile in combat: filling a hole left by a downed party member or supplementing another party member's abilities in the field.

Yeah, I was thinking of the weird combo-class bard. Any idea why it was changed? Think it was it just the "increased combat versatility" you mention? Or do was it a flavour-thing (I don't remember specifically what the early druid was like)?

It was changed for ease of play, a first level bard under the old D&D system was effectively a 13+ level character but it had the Hit Dice of whatever level fighter you were, same with your attacks per round and THAC0. You cast as whatever level druid you were and the Thief skills were set at whatever level Thief you stopped at. It was a real mess.

When they did AD&D you got a single class with all the abilities neatly put together and easy to play. The druid casting was changed to wizard casting because I think it gave one more arcane caster. There was the Cleric/Druid/Paladin/Ranger divine camp and the Wizard/Bard arcane camp. Still way outnumbered, but at least there was another option.

By the way, there's a pretty simple fallacy here. I see it a lot.

The bard isn't just standing by and singing.

The bard is right in the fray, slashing and bashing and headbutting with the best of 'em. Or he's feathering the troll with arrows, or he's healing the fallen and sending them right back into battle.

All while singing his epic chorus-of-one, or mocking the enemies, or giving a rousing oratory to inspire his friends to new lengths of heroism.

Yes, but he's not casting spells. And that's supposed to be part of his repertoire. Previously he was able to dish out some damage with those spells maybe the final kick to lower the bad guy enough that he dies or the next attack from the fighter kills him.

Now the bard can't do that.

And what if you don't want your bard swing swords in the front line with the fighter? If you wanted that you'd play a fighter too! You play a bard, or at least used to play a bard, for the versatility. Now it's stand in the back and sing and heal or charge ahead and sing and swing your sword. No offensive casting at all. No utility spells.

The bard's become a one trick pony. And it shouldn't be.

Here I was assuming you were being a good party member and selling the stuff for them too. :)

Thinking about it a little more, a good part of it is "Cash in hand".
Unless you've got a lot of down time or you're selling things in high demand, you often won't have sold all your loot by the time you're ready to go off on your next adventure. Sure, you can leave your cohort to sell it, but you don't have the money to buy new stuff until he does. Given how fast WBL scales, you may wind up always behind, even if you do theoretically get more as you go along.
You're selling it cheap, so you can buy the gear you need for the next adventure, rather than risk going without until someone comes along who's willing to pay full price.

True enough, and for most players/characters that's what happens. But once in a while you get that Greedy Bastard who works with the party just to fill his own pockets, and if the party's stuff is in the shop then his stuff isn't selling as often meaning he's not making as much.

As for the second part, adventuring is usually taking a job off the board in the tavern. You go when you're ready so you've got time to sell your crap before you go look at the board. This is really true for the low and mid levels when you're not saving the world from those Elder Gods and Tarrasques going stompy stompy all over cities and such.

So okay, maybe later in your career when time is of the essence you're a bit put on to sell at a loss, but those mid levels? You've usually got the time, unless your GM is going to force the issue. Which is fine too of course :)

I believe the "profession = Shopkeeper" is if you're a general store shopkeep or the hired shopkeep of an artisan like a blacksmith or glass blower, not the owner of a shop selling magic items. There is a bit of a difference, and provided you've set up shop in a large metropolis like city (think Waterdeep / Calimport) there should be enough lower level adventurers walking around to make brisk trade.

I have thought this through ;)

And as to the bard casting as a wizard, I didn't think so. I thought he was originally based on the druid, which is why he still has cure light wounds on his list.

I don't have the books in front of me, but, yeah, I believe the casting was indeed based on the druid. It always seemed to evoke more of an arcane/wizard flavour for me, though. I actually think that the oratory/performance/music-magic thing suits more of a primalistic/druidic/nature-worship type of magic than a wizardy, arcane style. There are a lot of things I like about the 4e bard, but the implied emphasis on being wizard-like is not one of them. It doesn't bother me or wreck anything for me, though.

D&D the original D&D from the 1970's had bard as an odd sort of combination class. You would do X# of levels as a Thief, then as a Fighter and finally as a Druid. It was horrendously complex and a royal pain in the ass.

For AD&D they simplified the Bard to a single "Bard" class. It did a little of everything as I said and the spell casting was Wizard based with a max spell level of 6th. Because they could learn and cast any spell on the wizard list a bard was able to be more versatile in combat: filling a hole left by a downed party member or supplementing another party member's abilities in the field.

CigarSmoker wrote:

Now, inline with the actual thread.

I have problems with the bard but it has nothing to do with the performance issues everyone has been talking about.

I have issue with the bard spell list.

I know the "back in the day" argument is kind of crap, but here goes anyway.

The bard used to be a Jack-of-all-Trades, a little fighting ability, a little thief ability, and a little magic ability. Not really a powerhouse at anything but good support for any other class. With the d20 combat system they can still do a little bit of fighting, and the skill system allows them to do their little bit of thievery, but their casting got trashed.

When AD&D was updated to the new d20 system and everything got an overhaul they threw out the bard spell casting in favor of something useless. Bards used to cast like Wizards, need spell books, intelligence, but max out at 6th level spells. So if you were playing a bard you could replace a wizard's versatility in the party so long as you made good spell choices.

With the d20 system you were put on a spell list that does illusion and enchantment spells with a few healing spells thrown in for some reason I still cannot fathom.

The 'new' list does not offer the versatility that was the idea behind the previous edition of the bard. Most players that played bards now, even without having played the previous edition of the bard, that I have played with forgo nearly all spell casting because most of the spells are useless without the bang of higher BAB or AoE damaging spells. Usually they just fill all their slots with the cure spells and call it a day. Not really what I and the people I've played with would call a "Jack-of-all-Trades" anymore.

I'd hate to say anyone is playing the game wrong, but... seriously? Only heals? No haste or good hope? Those are some of the most important spells on the bard spell list in my little world where every bard's goal is to make the frontliners extra amazing.

I understand that, but to get to those spells you have to go through level after level of shyte spell casting and the people I've played with get tired of being half a character before those levels. 7th level to get haste or good hope.

Sure there are defensive spells, but the Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid or the Cleric are better casters of those. They get their spells sooner and then more of them. By the time the Bard can cast the defensive spells those other classes have them out stripped with higher level spells.

Bards don't even get the best offensive Illusion spell Phantasmal Killer! You would think the Bard being the Master of Illusions and performance and Enchantment would get Phantasmal Killer, but nope. Not on the list. Makes no sense.

CigarSmoker wrote:

My issue with economy is the selling your stuff for half price.

Looking at this from a couple of different angles there a few ways this goes:

I roll into town as the powerful adventurer who can decimate the populace with my farts and I can't even use that brute intimidation factor to get more than half price?

Make no sense.

OR

A fair chunk of your time is considered 'down time' why doesn't every adventurer set up a shop some where that's open when he's in town selling all the stuff he doesn't need anymore at full price.

Even if there's a fee to set up in the bazaar you'll make that back in the first transaction. And if the world you're playing in is consistent there are always low level adventurers looking to buy your throw away gear.

HELL! Take leadership and make your cohort your new storefront manager selling off your influx of magic crap to all those lower level adventurers who need that stuff. At full price.

"Because the rules say so" doesn't fly with me I want a good reason. Has anyone got one? :D

If you're going to intimidate the populace into giving you more than half price, just intimidate them into giving you the money in the first place. Except the people who have the cash to buy the stuff you've got to sell don't intimidate so easily and they've got the cash to hire bodyguards.

OR

Because you're an adventurer, not a merchant?
But go ahead if you really want to. If I was the GM, other than introducing complications centered around your shop, you'd also start finding less loot, so that your wealth stayed roughly on track.

Which is a DAMN good answer! lol :)

But how do you reconcile the whole party with the less treasure? It's not just my character Bob the Necromancer going out there and bringing back the magic goods and cash. There's Fred the Fighter, Clarence the Cleric, and Rachel the Rogue all going out together. Everyone is going to want their full share of loot to bring back and the GM has no real control over how the party splits said loot. Bob would continually get his full equal share, even if that share's total was reduced, on top of the money from the shop. The others would only get their reduced share without any bonus from the shop.

And there's the rub!
But I still love your answer.

Abraham spalding
I guess you could say every merchant in the game world is a pawn shop and that would work. But there should be some way to get more than half of the price for whatever. Even if you can't or don't get it all the time that small victory in the merchant's quarter can feel like killing the Tarrasque or an Elder God, just because we as players KNOW we're getting screwed every time we step up to the merchant's tent to sell our shyte.

My issue with economy is the selling your stuff for half price.

Looking at this from a couple of different angles there a few ways this goes:

I roll into town as the powerful adventurer who can decimate the populace with my farts and I can't even use that brute intimidation factor to get more than half price?

Make no sense.

OR

A fair chunk of your time is considered 'down time' why doesn't every adventurer set up a shop some where that's open when he's in town selling all the stuff he doesn't need anymore at full price.

Even if there's a fee to set up in the bazaar you'll make that back in the first transaction. And if the world you're playing in is consistent there are always low level adventurers looking to buy your throw away gear.

HELL! Take leadership and make your cohort your new storefront manager selling off your influx of magic crap to all those lower level adventurers who need that stuff. At full price.

"Because the rules say so" doesn't fly with me I want a good reason. Has anyone got one? :D

Now, inline with the actual thread.
I have problems with the bard but it has nothing to do with the performance issues everyone has been talking about.

I have issue with the bard spell list.

I know the "back in the day" argument is kind of crap, but here goes anyway.

The bard used to be a Jack-of-all-Trades, a little fighting ability, a little thief ability, and a little magic ability. Not really a powerhouse at anything but good support for any other class. With the d20 combat system they can still do a little bit of fighting, and the skill system allows them to do their little bit of thievery, but their casting got trashed.

When AD&D was updated to the new d20 system and everything got an overhaul they threw out the bard spell casting in favor of something useless. Bards used to cast like Wizards, need spell books, intelligence, but max out at 6th level spells. So if you were playing a bard you could replace a wizard's versatility in the party so long as you made good spell choices.

With the d20 system you were put on a spell list that does illusion and enchantment spells with a few healing spells thrown in for some reason I still cannot fathom.

The 'new' list does not offer the versatility that was the idea behind the previous edition of the bard. Most players that played bards now, even without having played the previous edition of the bard, that I have played with forgo nearly all spell casting because most of the spells are useless without the bang of higher BAB or AoE damaging spells. Usually they just fill all their slots with the cure spells and call it a day. Not really what I and the people I've played with would call a "Jack-of-all-Trades" anymore.

nope. :(
Damnit. It's funny as anything you've ever seen.

JoeJ wrote:

Bob Bob Bob wrote:

JoeJ wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

I'm saying that a Bard using Perform (Comedy) can be done just as seriously as those equally silly things. If one of them can be seriously, they all can.

Show me that it can.

Ciaphas Cain, holding off a monster he can't actually beat in combat while someone else lines up a kill shot:

Traitor's Hand wrote:

Cain: I thought the acolytes of Khorne were supposed to be warriors, not a bunch of pansies.

(a rather frustrated) Khorne Berserker: I'll feed you your own entrails!
Cain: Like I've never heard that one before...

And if you think that's not a serious story, you've never seen Warhammer 40k.

I'm sorry, I have no idea who that is. Was this doing something that could reasonably be considered a bardic performance in PF terms? You're certainly right about my not being familiar with Warhammer 40k. All I know is that it's a miniatures game with some (in my opinion) very silly figures.

Just to be clear, I don't agree with the OP. I like bards, I just expect player characters of any class to fit aesthetically into the world.

His role in the military is Commissar, morale officers outside the structure of the normal army and assigned to regiments to enforce discipline. Usually by murdering 10% of the regiment if they don't get in line fast enough. There's also ones that give inspiring speeches, threaten violence, etc. In this specific case he's using inspire courage so he doesn't flee in terror (he's kind of a coward) and so the rest of the unit sticks around and actually gets the kill on the Berzerker. He's presumably also helping them aim by keeping the Berzerker off-balance and angry.

All you need to know about Warhammer 40k is that the "nicest" race mass murders anyone who doesn't follow their religion, anyone who knows anything about other races, and most of their own people in suicidal charges. The rest are... worse. Much worse.

I don't know when this post was posted and I don't really care. I have but one thing to say:

Necrons with googly-eyes:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/p417x417/10 471086_348222108664087_2408099850191463322_n.jpg?oh=f7bc6dd44cbab5d8efbd610 cdbe6fa77&oe=549A90D6&__gda__=1417875430_02b432322e462a3519e4711131 298a6d

(hope this works)

If he needs to deal damage suggest an Evocation specialist dropping Enchantment and Illusion.

As long as he has a decent Int mod (and he should as a wizard) he could throw 1d4+1 magic missiles at 100 foot range up to 7 times a day. For a low level game that's a lot of magic missiles, AND he doesn't need to roll to hit, it's automatic.

If he takes point blank shot that's another +1 damage if he's within 30 feet with ranged spells. So when he runs out of magic missiles there's the Ray of Frost 0 level Evocation spell he can cast all day for 1d3+2 points of damage (+1 from point blank shot and +1 from the Evoker special).

I'm playing this Wizard for the first time now. It's actually a lot of fun doing the pew pew pew :D

CigarSmoker wrote:

Jeff Merola wrote:

Assuming you're not playing down constantly, in my experience a PFS character who doesn't end up spending money on consumables and spellcasting services ends up quite a bit ahead of WBL.

Also, for the most part, except for normally completely unavailable items, what items that are on your sheets don't really matter in the long run because of the Fame system.

You need to elaborate as I am unsure what you mean by both your statements and as such am unable to reply.

There isn't much to elaborate on. The gold you earn in PFS scenarios puts you ahead of the Wealth By Level guidelines that you quoted, because it includes some slop to cover consumables and spellcasting services (such as Raise Dead). Yes, if you're constantly dying you're going to fall behind, but if you're constantly dying you probably have a bigger issue than money.

As for the second bit, what's on your chronicle sheets doesn't really matter outside of items that you cannot purchase legally otherwise, because your Fame (which increases every time you don't fail a mission) unlocks access to more and more expensive items.

So with PFS characters you're always going to be overly wealthy and then on top of that you can just use your fame to get extra stuff?

Assuming you're not playing down constantly, in my experience a PFS character who doesn't end up spending money on consumables and spellcasting services ends up quite a bit ahead of WBL.

Also, for the most part, except for normally completely unavailable items, what items that are on your sheets don't really matter in the long run because of the Fame system.

You need to elaborate as I am unsure what you mean by both your statements and as such am unable to reply.

CigarSmoker wrote:

The books list X amount of gold per level in magic equipment, scrolls, wands, potions, etc. to survive an encounter of appropriate level. With the extremely limited list of level appropriate magic equipment available to the PCs they need to spend nearly every bit of gold just to survive the next scenario. Anyone who hasn't is a liability in that game and likely to be spending their hoarded gold on their own rez.

I have seen characters with 40k worth of gold unspent reach Seeker tier. I don't find your assessment to be the norm.

It's not my assessment it's Paizo's.

PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins.

So in general about 90% of the amount listed should be spent on keeping the character viable in encounters of appropriate level.

The player you mentioned still spent 68k of his 108k in gold on equpiment and gear. Well over half his allotment of gold for 12th level. Provided the game's sheets he received for playing had JUST what he was looking for on it for his character, he could spend under his level and be viable. But that is a matter of luck.

In response to OP:
I think you're going to lose loads of players. If you require every player at your table to own every book they use then you're probably going to lose 50-70% of the people playing society at your store.

People don't have the disposable income. Hell I know of a number of people selling their blood just to eat every week.

Think about that:
SELLING THEIR BLOOD JUST TO EAT.

No one doing that is going to waste money on a book when a basic need isn't met.

Maybe you should run some of the games as non-society *GASP* and let people play whatever they want. I'm thinking you might have more fun, even if you don't sell as many books.

Unless you're just all about the selling books. Then I guess keep doing what you're doing.

Surprised his friends aren't willing to help with the raise dead

I get the feeling a lot of players don't read the part about being able to help pay for raise dead costs and the like. Probably because you're not allowed to buy other characters permanent equipment, so they feel this is banned as well.

The books list X amount of gold per level in magic equipment, scrolls, wands, potions, etc. to survive an encounter of appropriate level. With the extremely limited list of level appropriate magic equipment available to the PCs they need to spend nearly every bit of gold just to survive the next scenario. Anyone who hasn't is a liability in that game and likely to be spending their hoarded gold on their own rez.

Even if the party as a whole can get one rez for one character what happens if there are two or more dead PCs? How do you decide among the living PCs who you rez knowing that the other guy is pretty much screwed? He can't play a 1st level in the 5th level game, can't just make a new 5th level character to play with his friends. So what do you do? What does he do?

If people are playing 3-4 or 4-5 you might consider playing a pregen PC and applying credit to your level 1. I recommend this to everyone who would otherwise risk their level 1 character in a higher level adventure.

A lot of players aren't interested in playing a pregen, and even if they are you can only apply the sheet to a level 1 character. That doesn't help if your friends are already level 4+. Sure you could play 3 different games and get your level 1 to level 2 but then you still need 9 games to be appropriate level to play with your friends.

How does that help? Do you just keep playing a different pregen for each game? Nope, it goes back to the GM once the game is over, you don't get to keep Bob the Necromancer's pregen sheet as your own, Because the character isn't yours, it doesn't level, there's no consistency for you between games and your participation doesn't really matter. That pregen (N)PC you played was going to be there even if you were not; sure he did more this time because a player was controlling him, but once that game is over he's gone and it doesn't matter if you were there or not in a character improvement for the next game way.

Also I've noticed the pregens are really badly built as far as characters go. Odd feat and spell selections or just illogical choices in general.

Death. And not in the 'oh s$&~ I'm dead, rez me quick' in-game death. More the 'f*+! I'm dead hand me the book I need a new character' after in-game kind of death.

Let me elaborate:
If you are playing at your local friendly game shop and have just started PFS play, meaning you have one character, and for whatever reason you die and can't get a rez you need to start a 1st level character.

This is complete crap if the party is anything over level 3 or 4. Your 1st level character will be ineffective against nearly any encounter in a game. Another death of that player's PC is only one attack, or AoE spell away.

To play again with his friends the player would need to find several games of appropriate levels and do nothing but play until his new character is of a level comparable to the other people in his home game.

For a 4th level party that's 12 games. If your home group plays every week (like mine does), when is anyone going to have time with work, school, and just life to play 12 games at about 8 hours apiece to get enough levels to be viable in Society Play with his friends?

Not to mention this can be impossible if you live in a small town with only one or two games shops or if the game at the other game shop is well above your 1st level character anyway.