Clockstomper's page

@Randarak - Yes, I meant how often are the fights that difficult. I've heard GMs say that they're not having fun unless at least one PC goes unconscious every fight. I would hate a game like that. But I do like the idea of some fights being hard. :) (Yet, interestingly, the fights I have the fondest memories of have generally been the ones my tablemates and I have completely trounced, not the narrow victories.)

I agree. I've played with an (admittedly very creative GM) who told me he didn't think he was doing his job unless, at least once per session, the PCs all thought they were going to die. I don't play in that game anymore, because, to say it nicely: that focus is too narrow.

I'm not adverse to challenging encounters, in fact, I prefer them to be challenging because of the usual time constraints on gaming - having a couple of "easy" encounters just eats up time - but as Jiggy says - easy can sometimes be fun, too. That's a funny calculus there because you can easily get in the trap where you create a cycle where difficulty-as-interest makes the players want or need to nova, so you up the difficulty to keep it interesting, etc., etc. An easy encounter can be great strategy - because players use a resource feeling superior, and then in the very next encounter they wish they still had that point/spell/daily etc.

That's why it's key to realize that, despite the fact that there is fun to be had in the difficulty of an encounter in the pure mechanics, that's not *all the fun that can be had*. If difficulty makes players focus only on that aspect, then the others dim a little (or a lot). My best solution, and the most fun for me (and I hope my players), is to make the difficulty come from complications, options, etc. When players have lots of choices to make, the difficulty gets subsumed in the choices.

tl/dr: IMHO, the most fun "difficulty" comes from the GM creating an encounter that presents the players with lots of choices; these don't all have to be mechanical.

-cs

(1) I specifically ask players to create backstories that (a) connect with each other and that I know (b) somehow connect to the overarching theme/plot.

(2) In your example, you say the "brothers" thing isn't helping - but that's literally players deciding that one part of their character choice is more important - that "brothers" isn't as important as the other stuff... but that's the drama you've picked. Play it out, but don't expect it to be like a band-aid. The real solution is that it's not a band-aid.

(3) Players shouldn't need to find "a method" to keep them from being in constant conflict. They should have fun playing the amount of conflict that is fun, and then moving on. I've played and GMd with wildly different party members - and in the end *you play out the scene*. And that's it. Your characters have to find a way through and that's part of the fun. If it isn't fun... then I think the players are expecting too much of others and not of themselves. "the play is the thing"...

tl/dr: if the players in the game can't have fun playing characters of disparate goals/alignments/what have you because they can't "play the conflict" and get through it "as play", then they shouldn't play a group of characters that are that disparate.

- cs

(Disclaimer: I'm not the guy with the same icon up there)

A good and very classic way is to cause someone else to cause the murder, or at least to mess up the evidence in some way by being part of the events leading up to it.

For instance, there's a certain now famous (fictional) murder in which someone is tricked into very publicly wearing the murder weapon and then snuck out during the commotion. Even a lot of magic is fooled by these kind of tricks: "whose weapon is this?" etc. "Who was the last person to touch this?" etc.

But the best way is to remove the "guilty party" from the actual murder. I.e., the players can catch "the guy who stabbed Bob" almost immediately. Maybe it's the plan that he gets caught. It's much harder to find out who hired that guy.

Yah,

The fights in Flash always make me cringe. I think the show is fun but the writers don't really seem to get this part. And at the end of the day, there are ways.

For instance, fighting a guy with sonic gloves? Let his power surround him in an expanding sphere. No matter where you go, you're getting hit.

Of course, in that case "he wanted to lose" both times. That's also valid, i.e., get the Flash to touch the bad tech. Effect happens.

Also,

I'd like to point out that the problem is really hard in this case, since technically it seems the Flash could just go super speed, run in circles, and be able to treat each "combat round" the way a PC* does, thinking about it FOREVER.

(or a member of the TV audience, for that matter)

I'm reading this thread for actual "in my circles people frown upon X", but in the meantime, I'm zombied, so:

1) Slumber Hex witch: Perfectly viable and reasonable. But have something else to do. If the only action you ever take is 'Slumber Hex' you will get bored and the others will get annoyed. I saw one a few months ago that when the encounter was a bunch of undead, he literally did absolutely nothing for the entire combat. He was practically pouting because there was an opponent against which he couldn't use slumber hex.

Did someone point out to the pouter he's a full caster? Jeez.

Big Idea 1:
Don't nuke what you don't have to nuke. Let the game play. It's sort f metagamey, but true. In the case of the Slumber Hex - don't Hex everything. There may be more interesting actions for you take for the table.

Big Idea 2:
When your build isn't up against its ideal opponent, or whatever, roll with it. In the case of the Slumber Hex - you should probably have Misfortune, oh, and some spells, or a cure wand, anything...

Big Idea 3:
Play it through. Everyone is there to play, so if something is working, you don't know this or that part of how your character works - take that as a note to be better and concede the field. Make a choice that speeds/eases play or let the GM make a call and let the other players get on with it. But get to know how to your character works and be prepared for table-variation stuff not to go your way.

Not if you want the meat to stay tender and juicy.

Wing Buffet sounds like a delicious choice.

Not if he takes toughness.

SteeleC has it right - be proactive.

Also, momentum is a big factor. When some people drop it makes it more likely other people will drop.

Double also - some of it you can't do anything about. You just can't. No matter how selective you are, stuff happens. One of the better "role" players in my current group sometimes just can't make it because of work. And if there' medical stuff and kids - those things aren't things that "making gaming a priority" can fix.

Our game's rule of thumb is if one player can't make it, we play. If more than one can't make it, we shift the day. If we can't shift the day - we don't play. The people who can sometimes get together to play other games. Seems to work for us.

(Edit, sorry, I forgot to put what I was really going to say: run shorter campaigns for awhile. Things that will be finished in four or six sessions. Maybe that'll help you feel that not everything ends badly).

My version of 31 (was 29 when I was typing): Backstory Benefits (and bonus skills)! Everyone gets +3 to start in any profession or craft skill (that is not Craft:Alchemy), plus an extra 2 Skill points to start at 1st level. Simple and boring idea, but I think it helps characters feel "more real" from the outset.

(ah, ninja'd!)

Guild is fine; or any reason for them to have a loose association to a set of plot hooks. Look, it's okay to say, "hey guys, I didn't really prepare anything for that idea," and suggest you'll prepare something for next time. You can build up to being comfortable "winging it".

It's also fine to just "jump to the meat" if you're worried about the rotating players, just let the players know it's that kind of game right now. Just start with a summary of what wasn't important to play out: "Jim the Wizard had to do research, so when you guys decided to go after the bounty on Evil Bob, he stayed behind and you teamed up with Ranger Steve. You've been tracking Bob for a week, and you hear he's hiding out north of Mill Town, where you'll arrive at noon today. What's your plan when you get there?"

As for putting together "hooks and missions", when I GM, I try to plan "events", too. Let's say you've based your team in a small town, like some have suggested above. Perhaps you've mapped the town in order to be able to answer roleplaying questions like where to shop, what's good at the tavern, and where to take the mayor's son or daughter on a date.

If you've got that map, there's no reason not to use it. Plot hooks don't have just be "go fix the goblin problem". You can plan to have events happen right in town. For instance, a wagon rolls into town, and the fidgety merchant wants to know where to set up his wares. As the guard is talking to him, (baddie) in wagon grapples guard and takes off. Town guards go galumphing after him, leaving the town wide open for (the moneychanger to be robbed? the local wizard to be kidnapped for ransom? the mayor's daughter to be whisked away by her secret paramour?).

All you have to do is wait for a moment when the players are doing something else in town to fire it off. If the PCs don't want to get involved, let it play out and use the stats you've prepared for something else (say now the baddies are embolded to ambush the PCs next time they leave town, use any road map you have; or the mayor's daughter returns to kidnap the mayor in order to pay for the remove disease spell she and her paramour need).

I was going with just expend the charges; in one version of the write-up, I made it change the casting from the staff to a full-round action.

I also noticed the new "Mirror" spells in the ACG recently, and wondered about rewriting the staff to use that instead of "Rope Trick" as the base. It could work thematically with the idea that the "Spectral Hand" version of the familiar is a "Reflection". Thinking it through.

I liked the idea that the crossbow is still usable as a crossbow because this makes it a multi-class weapon, i.e., it's great for a wizard who can't really use a heavy crossbow turn by turn, just in case she needs one physical shot - but also great for a fighter who wants to get off one shot before they can close, but in a ranged skirmish could recall the crossbow and use it as a normal; but great point on the surprise. I thought about including something like the gunslinger's pistol whip language, that allows you to get in a surprise attack, etc., but I felt the entry was already too long. Worth reconsidering!

On the staff - I was specifically trying to help the wizard avoid putting the familiar in danger while giving them an opportunity to use something like that effect (with an appropriate cost. I thought 2 charges was worth getting a limited quickened spectral hand, but maybe it's not enough?)

Hello All:

Thanks for the notes. I agree scales is a little short on the explanation.

And I debated the standard action bit a lot for the crossbow... I feel that saying "as if from the crossbow" is pretty clear, but I wanted to make sure that the attraction of the item wouldn't be "action abuse". Maybe I should look again at the language for "as if from the crossbow" to make sure it looks less like fluff and more like a mechanical rule?

For the spell list on the staff, I went with a set of different touch attacks with various outcomes: one elemental attack, one "status" attack, one ability damage attack. Pilfering hand I liked because it felt thematic, and I wanted the staff to have one spell that the "spectral familiar" wouldn't be needed for.

Oh, and for the record, my familiar almost died in tonight's game. She got slowed, two negative levels, and even with Improved Evasion, she took a beating.

I went back and forth on which will saves the ring should help on. I ended up guessing it would be too powerful if it was all will saves, but I'm always willing to concede "it's simpler without that condition".

I would think that the "just as if you had cast it" part would be the part that says you lose the standard action that you would have lost if "you had cast it."

... and I think it's trying to be clear about the difference between losing "that casting" of the spell and actually losing the spell so you can't cast it again. The point, for me, is that the rule isn't clearly stating in plain language "you lose your standard action", but that is what we understand to have happened.

Move actions seem messier because there's some precedent for changing them for changing circumstances... The point of the Bob and Jane example is to look at what mechanics would have to be settled to deal with the iterations of reactions. It seems clear to me that Bob shouldn't get to change his action to an overrun of Jane. But can he change his path once her action is complete? I don't see why not. But in the case where she acts before he moves at all, I can't see letting him change his action from move to a move equivalent (i.e., crap, she blocked me, I draw my shield instead!)

For instance, Bob wants to hit Diana, 30' away, so he starts moving in. He gets stopped by an invisible wall after moving 10'. Does he still have 20' of "reactive movement" to go along the wall? He certainly doesn't get a new move action, so in the case where he "doesn't leave his square" because the wall is only 5' away, he can't take a different move action...

If you can stop a full attack because someone is dead after one shot and take your move action instead, I don't see why you can't react enough in this situation to alter your path. But that's a special case of what we don't have for move actions, i.e., it's spelled out that we can change between those actions. I don't think that's ever spelled out for move actions, except in the rule we've already discussed, which is that interruptions allow you to keep doing the action you're currently doing *if you are able*.

(remember, this is a game where flying objects that are constantly in motion have their range to target "fixed" in place for a whole round in which they are actually moving.)

TL/DR: At some point, making it simpler - your move action is incomplete, but used - is cleaner and faster.

AND:

In addition, you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics. When moving in this way, you move at half speed. You can move at full speed by increasing the DC of the check by 10. You cannot use Acrobatics to move past foes if your speed is reduced due to carrying a medium or heavy load or wearing medium or heavy armor. If an ability allows you to move at full speed under such conditions, you can use Acrobatics to move past foes. You can use Acrobatics in this way while prone, but doing so requires a full-round action to move 5 feet, and the DC is increased by 5. If you attempt to move through an enemy’s space and fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an attack of opportunity.

... and I'm corrected here. You know I've been playing my misreading of "an enemy's space" for "a space threatened by the enemy" for awhile now. Bad me!

Here's a case where the wealth by level table could help, because the problem is that items in Pathfinder are "leveled by price"... and assigning some other variable to them - I don't wanna do.

Look up the price of the item you are trying to buy and find the ratio of that price to your current wealth by level.

Then make a table of ratios to set the DC for "Resources". You can either make this a skill or make it a separate stat that the DM can modify (after that last hoard, everyone gets a +4 to their next resources roll! Gee, merchants have heard that fire was all your fault, take a -2 to resource checks until you've made 3 successful purchases, etc.).

-cs

Just saying no results in two things (IMHO):

1) It makes the trip lock possible. This was such a huge misconception in 3.5 that even licensed D&D video games had this as one valid tactic.

I'm afraid I disagree. Refusing to grant a tripped character a new move action to crawl away is not the same thing as allowing the character standing up to continue standing up after a trip attempt provoked by standing up.

Just to run through the logic: prone guy uses move action to stand up, provokes attack. Mean guy coverts AoO to trip. Since the AoO interrupts the action, even if he succeeds, he makes a prone guy prone. Prone guy is interrupted, but is "capable of continuing his action" which is standing up.

So... we don't need to grant prone guy another action. If you need the quote, it's the one you referred to (and it's quoted below).

2) If Jane can "check" Bob, it creates a world where all reactions are faster than actual actions.

I understand your concern, but disagree. Readied actions represent someone putting their energy into interrupting something they expect. This is the mechanic of the game - otherwise characters would have to do initiative checks every time someone wanted to try to prevent someone from doing something.

Plus, that's the opportunity cost of readying.

In your "Same" example, you do get to smack him. The AoO does not preclude you from hitting him. Even if he knocks you on your butt with trip, you can hit him. As such, I do not understand the argument.

Apologies if I was unclear. The point is, you don't get another standard action to do with whatever you want. You can't say: oh, I got hit by that AoO for trying to punch him, since I was interrupted, instead I use a move and a standard to drink this potion in my pocket! And he already used his AoO on my punch attempt if he doesn't have combat reflexes he can't take an AoO on my potion drinking! Yah!

I would rule that Bob is clearly allowed to walk around Jane. In the Readied rules it states that the original character can continue with their actions. Why wouldn't Bob be able to walk around her?

I think Bob can go around her, if Jane's an idiot... But he isn't granted another action, and it doesn't have anything to do with what he declared. I'd use the full attack rule here as precedent, i.e., you can 5' in the middle of a full attack depending on the outcome of your attacks, etc. In this case, Bob can alter his path, until another rule intervenes (like he leaves a square Jane threatens).

The thing is that we don't want trees of readied actions. If Jane's character says, I ready to charge in front of him as soon as he reaches square X, that's how it goes down. We can't say that 5' into Jane's charge, Bob gets to decide not to keep moving or to use his fly speed to go straight up...

That's the strength of readied actions. Otherwise, there be dragons...

As to the trip, can they continue their move action as long as they do not have to stand up to do so? Is that the defining factor? Could the character that got tripped burrow, crawl, fly, climb, or swim? Consider the previous to all be available with appropriate movement speeds, not move actions.

I think the trip lock thing is taken care of in another way. And characters who can fly who have been tripped are doing it wrong ;)

The rule that says you lose the standard action is:

CRB p206 Concentration wrote:

If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect.

Ah. The quoted rule there just defines what it means to lose the spell. It doesn't say you've lost the action, which is what I'm trying to say. The books don't spell out "you lose your standard action", but it makes sense.

And the hitting example is also about actions. Do I get a new standard action every time my punch is interrupted?

You reference this:

If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.

"he is still capable of doing so"... there's nothing keeping the prone guy who was tripped while prone from continuing to stand up because nothing has happened to him. It's silly, but that's how the fix works.

Look, it makes no sense to me that when you Acrobatics to AoO and you fail, you get the AoO and you get stopped, whereas if you just move through the space, you take the hit and keep going...

(in re: your comments about "Breakaway Sword of Beguiling")

All sound comments, thanks! At one point in the short drafting period, the Breakaway Sword actually was a +1 sword that, on command, did as described.

I liked the "stage prop" flavor too much and that ended up making my choices mechanically unsound, gamewise. Ah, live and learn!

(1) So what if the spell is lost? That's what I get for cutting for space... Where's the rule that says the standard action has been lost? The point is to give a clear example of an action being lost by interruption to illustrate that "partial but incomplete actions cost nothing" is not a good assumption.

Same: I use unarmed strike without the super-duper feat. Guy smacks me. Do I still get to punch him again? I mean, my action wasn't complete, so...

(2) I don't agree with the declared action language.

If there's a question here, it's whether you can use movement in discrete chunks if your movement is interrupted.

Bob is moving 30' forward to attack Fred. Jane readies an action to move 10' in front of Bob with her tower shield as soon as he moves toward Fred. Bob moves, Jane steps in his way.

Is Bob free to now walk around Jane? Can he choose to tumble past her, decide to overrun Jane? One of these is about changing how he uses movement in discrete chunks. The last is changing the type of action.

This is like the intent of your pit example, I think.

I'd avoid all of that mess and just go with no. The game happens in discrete chunks. The movement that happened here is Bob moved forward, and Jane used her turn to "check" him. He doesn't get to use the "rest of his movement", or trade it in for something else.

tl/dr: The character in OP's post used their move action and was tripped. They don't have another move action to crawl because having 30' of movement is not the same as "5 discrete move actions".

(edit: dog sent post while I was in the laundry room)

mplindustries: in your case, I would have gone with your "throws a shadow of itself" idea, but clearly make the wielder throw the shadows. This has flavor and instead of doing a "daily" limit you could introduce a limit with the shadow effect, i.e., the damage can be partially disbelieved like shadow conjurations, etc.

James Casey: neat thread. I'm in a similar boat, in that I felt like a doofus with my goofy entry, so I did some "penance" and wrote some new items. For one thing, I did better research on the pricing. I put my penance up in another thread if you're into trading critiques.

In the case of your two, if I was "in the room" on these ideas, I would have said about the sword to ditch the template and focus on the real meat, which is protecting the summoner during a full-round cast. For thorn and thicket, I would have suggested making the item a sword that added a shield bonus along the theme you suggested. Perhaps when fighting defensively with the sword (or a quarterstaff or a spiked mace of some kind), it sprouted a thicket that added to your defense (like the basket of a rapier getting larger and protecting all of you, not just your hand). My two cents.

Ashamed by my performance in round one, I assigned myself the task of designing an item for each category. In case anyone has run out of items to critique elsewhere before it’s all maps - feel free to bash on these a bit!

**

Staff of the Hostile Haven
Aura strong conjuration and necromancy; CL 11th
Slot none; Price 26,500 gp; Weight 5 lbs.

Description
This staff is topped with a jagged, opaque stone that reshapes to match the wielder’s familiar. While touching the stone, the wielder’s familiar can enter the extradimensional space within as a move action. The haven contains one hour of air once entered, and no spells, abilities or effects can cross in or out of the haven except those already affecting the familiar or listed below. Only the familiar and up to 5 lbs. of carried or worn items may pass into the haven. Familiars in the haven can see, but not hear or smell, as if perched atop the staff. If capable of speech, familiars can telepathically communicate from the haven with anyone holding the staff. The haven is considered within arm’s reach of the staff’s wielder, who may recall a familiar from the haven with a command word. If the staff gains the broken condition, a familiar in the haven is expelled in a random adjacent square and takes 2d6 force damage, no save.

While a familiar is in the haven, a ghostly image of the familiar can deliver ranged touch attacks for spells cast from the staff, as if the wielder had previously cast spectral hand. This effect costs two additional charges, and the 1d4 hit points are deducted from the familiar.

This staff allows the use of the following spells:

Ghoul touch (1 charge)
Pilfering hand (1 charge)
Shocking grasp (1 charge)
Touch of idiocy (1 charge)

Construction
Requirements Craft Staff, ghoul touch, pilfering hand, rope trick, shocking grasp, spectral hand, stone shape, touch of idiocy, creator must have the familiar class feature; Cost 13,250 gp

**

Ring of Furious Resolve
Aura moderate abjuration; CL 7th
Slot ring; Price 10,000 gp; Weight -

Description
For each successful melee attack by the wielder, this ring grants a temporary +1 sacred bonus to the wearer’s will saves against fear, charm and compulsion effects, up to a total possible +4. This bonus always resets to +0 after one round, counting from when the first +1 bonus was granted.

Construction
Requirements Forge Ring, word of resolve; Cost 5,000 gp

**

Vanishing Crossbow
Aura moderate conjuration; CL 9th
Slot none; Price 7,380 gp; Weight 8 lbs.

Description
This +1 heavy crossbow fires normally when loaded, but when cocked, aimed and fired without any ammunition, it disappears. During the next 24 hours, whoever fired the vanished crossbow may launch one bolt from her hand as if from the crossbow, without having the crossbow in hand. This requires a standard action and provokes an attack of opportunity. Only one attack is granted until the crossbow is dry-fired again. A command word recalls the crossbow to hand. After 24 hours in its ethereal hiding place, the crossbow returns unbidden, performing a disarm combat maneuver (CMB 15) if necessary to replace anything held by the hands that fired it.

Construction
Requirements Craft Arms and Armor, secret chest; Cost 3,850 gp

**

Rod of Stagecraft
Aura strong illusion; CL 9th
Slot none; Price 16,200 gp; Weight 5 lbs.

Description
This hollow brass rod with lenses on each end has five small buttons and functions as a mundane telescope. Prized by theatre producers and despised by stage illusionists’ guilds, rods of stagecraft can store and replicate powerful images. Pressing the small circular button captures the likeness of one object or creature of huge size or less currently in view, replacing whatever likeness was held by the rod previously. Pressing the small triangular button creates a matching persistent image. Whoever holds the rod may direct or program the image. Pressing the large circular button captures the likeness of the rod’s surroundings, while pressing the larger triangular button creates a matching mirage arcana centered on the rod. The square button turns the rod invisible. The rod is continually protected with a mask dweomer effect, which if dispelled, reasserts itself after 10 minutes.

Construction
Requirements Craft Rod, invisibility, persistent image, mask dweomer, mirage arcana; Cost 8,100 gp

**

Scales of Equality
Aura moderate transmutation; CL 7th
Slot armor; Price 25,200 gp; Weight 35 lbs.

Description
Wearers of this +2 scale mail always apply the size bonus or penalty to CMD of the opponent attempting a combat maneuver against them. In addition, once the wearer has defended against a combat maneuver, successfully or not, the same bonus or penalty applies to the next combat maneuver against that opponent.

Construction
Requirements Craft Arms and Armor, enlarge person, reduce person; Cost 12,700 gp

Readied actions interrupt actions; but the assertion that an action must be complete in order to have been spent is spurious.

I've scanned the thread and I didn't see this example: if you ready an action to interrupt a spell, and succeed, does the spellcaster simply get to cast again? If a new move action is granted because the first move action wasn't "actually used", then why wouldn't this wizard get to cast another spell because he didn't "actually use" his standard action.

Or simply: if you are facing an opponent with infinite AoOs, can you keep attempting to leave a threatened square for as many times as it takes for you to succeed or die?

For instance (assumes 30' movement): Charging someone 40' away.

The player declares a charge and moves 20' when,
the GM says, "now that you are closer, a readied action spell goes off and you see an obscured pit 10' in front of you."
The player stops his charge.

My line:
I would allow the player to convert the charge (full round action) into a move action and finish out his turn.

Your line: (Please correct if I am mistaken)
You would allow the player to stop the charge, but they have lost their full round action.

If the pit spell was readied to cast against the charging character at some point in their movement, the game mechanics give them a saving throw to avoid falling in. Neither action above is how I would rule. The charging character rolls a save. If they do, they avoid the pit and get to pick where they leaped to avoid it, per the spell. If they don't, they couldn't stop in time and fell in.

Both "my line" or "your line" are the same as saying a character gets to change their move action after a trap goes off to not set off the trap.

My gut reaction is: You need more GMs so that players can feel important in their own story, rather than just background in a huge group (where the stars are the "core party").

-> I know the pricing is awful... and the CL typo below is inexcusable...

Breakaway Sword of Beguiling
Aura Moderate Enchantment; CL ZZth
Slot none; Price 350 gp; Weight 2 lbs.

Description
This sword is a fragile, gaudy stage prop until an opponent attempts to strike the wielder. Such opponents must make a DC 11 Will save or believe the sword is a powerful artifact linked to their personal heritage, religion or family. Failed saves cause the attack to be converted to a steal manuever, dropping held objects if necessary. This manuever provokes an attack of opportunity as normal (if the theif does not have Improved Steal and the wielder of the sword otherwise threatens, such as by holding a dagger or the held charge of a touch spell in their other hand).

The attacker must attempt to use the sword on their next turn, with the penalty of an improvised weapon applied to their attack roll. If the sword hits, it gains the broken condition and does 1d2 non-lethal damage with no strength bonus applied. The delusion only persists for one attack, and the sword may be dropped as a free action immediately afterward. After 24 hours, the sword automatically mends.

If the owner has the Hex class feature, they may substitute their Hex DC for the Will save above. If the owner has ranks in Perform (Acting), the base DC rises to a 14 Will save and adds the wielder's Charisma modifier as a bonus. This effect is a mind-affecting compulsion.

Construction
Requirements Construct Arms and Armor, Beguiling Gift, Disguise Self; Mending Cost 175 gp

I'm playing with a Ratling familiar and to be honest, my number one strategy in this regard is - avoid AOE spells. I'm currently playing a 10th level Witch, so far more often than not I'm flying (and maybe invisible) and not within 30' of any AOE target.

I also make it a priority to target enemies capable of AOE effects and somehow shut them down... if I can't directly stop them, I'll do so indirectly, by blocking line of sight or line of effect.

When I GM, I don't allow players or enemies to visually pinpoint AOE effects when they don't have line-of-sight - so a caster in a fog can't "be smart" about an AOE target it can't see, trying to capture multiple characters, etc., it can only do things like target sounds or make guesses at targets (50' thataway)... I've played with people who don't realize they are metagaming away these problems and try to gently remind them. It encourages more tactical play.

That being said, I also will send the familiar away from me if I need to (the Ratling's own invisibility and dimension door abilities come in handy here)... but there's almost no situations in which I want to remain a target, so...

(1) Carrion Crown features a lot of undead. If you as GM run a cleric in the party, which is the usual advice, you may actually outshine the players as the one who can deal with stuff. You want to avoid "playing with yourself".

(2) I dislike GMPC as a term because it's silly. You are the GM, you are not a PC. You can play an NPC that is helping the party... but that's part of your job, you play all the NPCs. If the party is small, then that's going to be rough - but you should still play the NPC like an NPC. You shouldn't have "the initiative" - you're helping the heroes, but you aren't a hero.

(3)To be honest, I'd prefer to have two players run two characters ... than run a *constant* party member. Having different NPCs for different parts is fine, though. Consider adding different characters the PCs can recruit for different sections, and then quickly retiring them to avoid "GMPC" problems.

(4) Consider doing something like adding an NPC for each player that they run with you and your approval (i.e., the NPCs are taking orders from the players, but you control whether they do what they are told, talk back, fail moral checks, etc.).

(54) Curse of Unwarranted Advice: Every time an ally takes a turn, the target has a 15% chance of wasting their next turn explaining to the ally what they *should* have done instead. Multiple allies acting in a round all cause checks, up to 3 allies.

Malag has a good point (and if he were my GM, I would totally accept that as a defensible ruling)... I'd say that Illusory Wall is a 4th level spell - and compared to lots of other spells that might give you similar concealment effects - the real point of this one is this non-disappearance clause and I'd prefer to let it stand as a physical illusion that you can't see through even with true seeing.

Why? Because imagine a spell called "Wall of Light" (or if you prefer, "Wall of Two-Way Fog"). The point of the spell is that it creates a wall of light that characters on one side can see through, but enemies on the other side cannot. For "how it works", consider that it actually is creating light. What level would this spell be?

For comparison, "Tiny Hut" is a third level spell that has a similar effect to concealment (plus other effects!) True Seeing cannot penetrate a Tiny Hut, as it isn't an illusion (although I'm sure there are GMs who would rule otherwise, under the "magic effects" part of the line, but I digress).

TL/DR: for a 4th level spell, this concealment should stand; True Seeing can't beat concealment from 1st level spell effects, and the point of this 4th level spell is how much stronger it is than those in terms of control (thin effect, can be seen through by caster only).

(And arguing against myself - the permanent duration - meaning this could hide traps and secret doors, makes me want to say I'm wrong! This is one reason why my wizards always create a spell to create this kind of concealment without dealing with these issues: my "Wall of Light")

A soliloquy of bards

So I axed the whole story arc and brought them back above ground, and continued from there.

I'm totally with you here. If you've prepared something that isn't flying, you've got to adapt.

F'rinstance, I've abandoned a whole dungeon, too. I try to plan smarter than that (i.e., knowing what my player's character goals are and working those in). When I misstep, I try to find ways to work parts of maps or monsters or items into new plots.

Clockstomper wrote:

When playing the AP (or the GM's homebrew), try not to say "no"... unless you're good enough at improv/roleplaying to say the kind of "no" that is really a "yes, and..."

(snip) For more experienced GMs, however, a character of mine may say "no" to a plot hook if it doesn't match up with the character's personality. For example, work for some criminal organization when the character hates criminal organizations.

An experienced GM will either have an alternative plot hook, or will find a way to convince my character to undertake the mission anyway (though this...

When I say don't say "no"... I don't mean that you always have to do GM plan A. "Yes, and..." means taking something on the table and doing something with it. In this example, you don't want to work for the criminal organization. That's great, because you have a reason and you've expressed it... You don't work for criminals (so I've messed up if I'm the GM, because I should have known this... unless you just made this up, in which case...). You just need to go further to make it a "Yes, and..." - say you're interested in stopping these criminals, interfering with them, competing, who knows (hopefully in game, talking with the PCs and NPCs in the story). It's important to play back with the GM (inexperienced or no) - just saying "no" until the GM comes up with something you like is, well, less than the spirit of the game, I'd say.

Maybe you don't know the specifics of where you want to go - and a good GM will help you there by trying to bring in what they know about your character to help you "Yes, and...". You're hinting at that at the end of your post - find a way. But for me it's all one thing. Maybe I know you're real interest is (defending veterans of the campaign your father was injured in). Now I've got something to work in. If I don't remember that, I need some help at the table.

Maybe I'll come up with this: Just as you're putting your foot down and telling the party you won't help, you recognize one of the old thieves. He's one of your dad's old buddies. Now we've got the "one last job" story going (or some variant, whatever). If I didn't come up with that, I may need a little reminder of what's up with you (perhaps as you debate with the other PCs I'll hear it).

The point is, the meat and potatoes of the encounter are going to give me enough to work with if we can create story together. Maybe I'll switch out one of the baddies to match someone in your backstory, maybe there's now an added complication - your character has to get the blackmail item from so-and-so that will help the old thief quit the organization for good. Or maybe you think you have to help him regain his honor and help him kill the mastermind down at the docks - and you and the other PCs have to figure out a way to achieve that and the other goal you aren't into.

That's the fun, but it takes your character's participation in turning the "No", into a "Yes, and..."

During last night's game, an interesting question came up regarding something very similar to this.

If a witch with the Flight hex is using flight and activates winged boots, would the effective boosts to her Fly skill check (+4 for the boots, 1/2 level for the hex) stack, or would they overlap? Or would it, as I suspect, be entirely redundant to have both the hex and the boots activated at the same time?

Rules=blah,

But since the Witch's flight hex is fluffed as their becoming "lighter", and the boots are for rocketing around people of normal weight, I would have gone straight ACME with this one.

Orfamay Quest wrote:

And if I don't want to stop Karzoug?

Well, in the AP realm, you're kind of stuck. Luckily, in homebrew games, assuming the rest of the party agrees with you and wants to change direction, you can do that.

Even in a sandboxy homebrew game, I find it's still best to have some kind of basic agreement, on the meta-level, not to completely make it impossible for the GM to use the resources he's got... Even if it's just the idea that the party is going to help out with each other's character's extremely diverse goals. If the GM describes the world and the players always go "no" to every hook in the bag (assuming the GM isn't taunting the players with nonsense) ... there's the random encounter table, I guess...

And if you don't want to stop Karzoug, great. Play that character. Maybe it'll make the team dynamics fun... But do you want not to stop Karzoug because you have an interesting roleplay idea ... or because you need to prove the world should be built to bend for you? Going along, at least in a general way, with the *resources* of the AP is going to make it so the GM can give you a great game. Derail to your heart's content, as long as it's worth playing out. But once it's not, find a way to play through.

tl/dr: it's like the rule against saying "no" in improv. You should be saying "yes, and". When playing the AP (or the GM's homebrew), try not to say "no"... unless you're good enough at improv/roleplaying to say the kind of "no" that is really a "yes, and..."

I think he means that as a DM he does not already have the story planned out and expects the player characters to following along as he tells it, but instead (*as I do) he presents a situation, a setting, and the story is created by the participation of all the players, including himself.

Yes - but planning is a part of that "non-planning", I think. A good hero needs a good villain to be his best - to be challenged! I find when I'm GM'ing, the villains are more interesting if the PCs are. My last "big bad" definitely changed her plans because of PC actions. The plot in that game got way more interesting than my "first draft" because of how PCs interacted (some much smarter than I'd anticipated - some not - but all fun).

But I needed to have lots of plans so I knew what I was changing and why. Often the same for player characters - having a good plan means you know exactly what you're changing. There's no sense in making a "character decision" that sounds like a great story but makes your character unable to accomplish things in game.

(edit - blah)

Okay,

So fail a fly check for going straight up, fall at feet of bad guy...

Seems like the mechanic we really needed here was attack of opportunity, because it sounds like he started in a space next to the bad guy.

Just because you're leaving a threatened space going up doesn't mean you aren't leaving a threatened space.

Ya?

(PS Magical flight is awesome.)

(PS, I ignore fly checks unless the flier has taken damage or etc., that's because "it's not fun that for some reason you can fly but you are randomly bad at it").

You don't have to be difficult about it, but you know, give a man a fish...

When he doesn't know the answers to something within a fair time frame, just make a ruling. He can't remember if a spell is Close or Medium? Then it's Close, moving on. He can't remember if it's minutes or rounds? Then it's rounds, moving on.

It's not a penalty, it's just for ease of play for everyone else (can't remember the DC for your fireballs? Base DC for a 3rd level spell is 14, that's what we'll call it, moving on). If he wants to figure it out, he can. If you keep doing it for him...

Luke Skywalker did not know he was going to be a Jedi knight when he was shooting Wamprats with Bigs at Beggers canyon. Young Skywalker had not planned out his future beyond going to Tashi station to pick up those damn power converters. He got caught up in the story and adapted to the events that unfolded.

Here's the thing, if being a Wamprat Pilot 3/Jedi 3 makes Luke *significantly* weaker than being either Wamprat Pilot 6 or Jedi 6 (or realizing all your Wamprat Pilot feats are useless now, etc.) then Luke's player is likely going to have a lot less fun - unless there's something to mitigate that (awesome opportunities for RP, retraining to fix power level, GM mitigating some of the "weaker" skills are really coming in helpful, etc.)...

Same deal if the player envisioned played a scoundrel who piloted ships, and the GM keeps hinting that he'd better listen to the goofy old man's mysticism or else... that player wants to play Han Solo, not Luke. Maybe that player would get excited about jumping paths to Jedi - or becoming a Bounty Hunter - but why get upset at that player if they don't? Changing paths isn't the only way to be creative and roleplay.

--> Regarding some of your other posts here, Muad'Dib, look, I agree to a certain extent: I'm currently playing a Witch who envisioned himself as an ex-thief doing lots of illusions - and I accidentally set off a trap, an illusion really backfired - so that character made some other choices. I didn't take Spell Focus: Illusion for one thing. He also recently had a "spiritual" encounter that made him take a feat choice that wasn't on my plan. One of our most experienced players, whose character is a Skald who loved fire magic, is now obsessed with electricity because he drained the soul of a mad storm wizard into his sword and had an awful dream encounter with him. That player has made ability choices since then based on that. But it would have been equally valid for him to "redouble" his obsession with fire and continue on whatever his plan was.

Oh, and my awesome GM still managed to have me end up in a death feud with the local thieves' guild, with me having to face the leader, who it turns out, was an illusionist all along! Did he get frustrated with me, that I changed my focus away from illusion, even though he planned that plot levels back? No! That's why I agree that the OP's problem is silly - being frustrated about this is useless. Use what people bring to the game and play.

(1) - some great advice here from everyone above - remember the "unique" thing that's special about Warpriest is the swift actions - fervor lets you cast a buff spell on yourself as a swift action and still take all your other actions - that's a big deal. Clerics would need two turns to do what you can do in one. Your sacred weapon is also not something to ignore - it's a swift action that gives you a lot of flexibility!

(2) - when comparing how much damage you're doing to everyone else, just remember that tactics on the field are important, too! Sometimes where you are standing is much more important than how much damage you are doing (blocking a charge lane to a caster, providing flanking to the ninja, etc.). It's not a race to see who can kill the baddies the fastest (I don't know your game, so I can't fairly criticize, but in general, if combat feels like a race to see who kills the baddies the fastest, the team isn't really being strategically challenged).

(3) - your "rpg" is what you make it. Do you have to be beating the Fighter's damage to roleplay calling upon the power of your deity, waging in to midst of battle and reveling in the defeat of your enemies?

Wow, I feel like I just stepped on a venemous snake.

Clockstomper, what then would you suggest in a campaign to increase the value of having characters with genuine investment in skills that very often can be sidelined by spells?

I certainly wasn't trying to hiss... I was simply saying that I don't think this is so much a problem of what spells are available in the game as to how players are challenged.

The easy magic is in the word "often". In the same way that a wizard can blow out a room of mooks with one spell (one action), and a fighter cannot - it's balanced by the fact that there's that spell and that's it. The fighter can keep swinging that sword on the other room. So if there's only room, the fighter doesn't get to play.

It's the same thing with skills. Sure, many skills can be replaced, but that doesn't mean that any one wizard in any one game can replace all of them.... if they can, then the problem is likely that the wizard player, for some reason, isn't being challenged to make choices. If there's a rogue, the wizard shouldn't be being a rogue. He should be doing something else.

I've GMd for lots of different party make ups (and I've made my share of mistakes trying to challenge them appropriately, believe me). I've prepared huge trap heavy dungeons and not have the rogue player show up. You know what I do in that case? I pretend some of the traps aren't there and I make complex tricks I've invented rely on some other checks (like intelligence checks or etc.) that the party can somehow figure out/etc...

But here's my strategy: look at the character sheets, see what players invest in and build those things into encounters. I had a Zen Archer monk who put a lot in Acrobatics (for jump checks). Many maps specifically had outcroppings, chasms, platforms, partial roofs, etc., so that this character could jump over or onto things as part of his tactical positioning. Someone having "Fly" in the party didn't matter because that character couldn't cast it on that Monk every fight all the time - so that skill was useful and flavorful to him a lot.

I put a lot of character interactions into adventures that don't make them straight fights. Fight four monsters? Boring. Fight four monsters in the middle of town, while they have a hostage, and you're trying to keep the tavern from sliding into a pit, etc. - that's going to take skills (anyone with Kn: Engineering, got a rope and block? Wedge that Earth Elemental in there...)

Worried your wizard can charm too many people? Well, he can't charm that whole angry mob outside. Your character with high diplomacy is going to do that (maybe the wizard or the bard has a fascinate that helps calm a few angry protestors - but the real check is on that diplomacy).

Worried your wizard can do all the traps? Well, you're in a malfunctioning laboratory, and the wizard is busy counterspelling all the wild magic with Spellcraft checks - but the only person who can stop that clockwork monstrosity of planar nonsense is the rogue - start disabling device - and if anyone in the party not fighting the monsters could please pick up that book and give me a linguistics check to get a +2 on my next disable...!

tl/dr: throw a complicated, difficult world at your players... give them chances to use those skills a lot, and make sure the players have enough to do that no one character - even the all powerful wizard - can hope to do (action economy!) Be creative, ask for lots of checks...Just make sure that one failed skill check isn't going to kill everybody... (which is the key to making traps interesting).

Please ignore me, because I'm not answering the question.

But, as a player: utility is one of the primary reasons to play a wizard (and one of the fun things about it). I like having a scroll of comprehend languages, detect traps, knock, fly, that's part of the fun. Those are options I have, choices I can make.

Does a player successfully climbing down a pit grumble if my witch can feather fall down it without a climb check? Maybe. If he grumbles in character, and I snark back in character, then fun was had. And in the middle of a fight, sure, I could fly around, but does it matter if I can skip that climb check and get to that upper level? Maybe not. Maybe the player doing the climbing needs to do it and I'm doing something else. I can't be everywhere at once (at least not at this level, mu-hu-hahahah!)

If he genuinely feels cheated as a player, and we change the game to fix that, we'll run into another problem. Will my witch be able to climb that wall without falling to his death? Maybe not. Of course, I could play a small race and make the big, strong fighter carry me on his back, but now I still don't have to make the climb check and we have the same scene. He grumbles, I snark, fun is had.

To answer the question, sure, there's lots of spells that negate other choices. For instance, several crowd control spells negate the need to have the fighter wade in and cleave a bunch of mooks. Do we need to take away that option for the fighter to have fun?

Case(s) in point, last weekend, fighting a souped-up GM goblinoid race in a fort, they have the high ground, cover, artillery and magic. At one point, a group storms our "front line". It's my witch's turn. Should I cast cloudkill on the approaching squad of (souped-up) goblins? No. Our new player, the Warpriest, will hold the line. He'll get to use his position, his cleave feat, and he can ding his weapon with that neat power Warpriests get to make sure he hits and kills. I will do something else (like attack the artillery or the wizards...) In the other case, maybe the Warpriest needs to be tanking somewhere else and I need to stop a wave of enemies from flanking our position - that's what the spell is for. It's not a question of *replacing*, it's a question of using resources well.

Later, the new trapfinder (Slayer! Go ACG!) did the trap sweep. I do have Find Traps prepared - because ever since the last rogue died (not in a trap) I've felt it was my duty to have a backup. Did I use it? No. I was busy examining a portal. She was being careful and taking 20 on some parts of a ruined fort. The spell would have run out before I could check half of them (and didn't I say: I was busy doing knowledge checks on interesting holes in reality). Now, with that same witch, while we were trapfinderless, I cast Find Traps two times over the course of three sessions. There were still traps I didn't find that went off (because I'm not a dedicated trapfinder, and I was busy doing something else when someone touched something they shouldn't have!).

tl/dr: the existence of utility spells allow wizards to play useful when needed, but they are no substitute for actually skilled characters using skills in a well-designed adventure. If you reduce magic in this way, eh, I'd rather play a rogue.

Maybe I'm crazy - because I wasn't gun twirling and using weapon cords and etc. (I was also trying not to upset the party balance, just be effective)... I like to "optimize" enough to be effective, but after a certain point, enough is enough.

But, for instance, I was always worried I wouldn't have the right ammo for DR. Having to reload, or carrying back-up pistols with different shots loaded. I had a sword (actually a really awesome sword beyond my level that was evil and slowly eating my soul, which was fun), but even with the GM gift, that was just a holding-pattern weapon, something to wield if I absolutely had to stand still and couldn't go for my guns.

Wizards with mirror image! Yikes, let's blow some expensive ammo softening up that spell! Miss chance spells! Losing line of sight on a complex battlefield, environmental factors that reduce vision...

But most of all - and I can't stress this enough - how OP a character is in (theoretical) straight up damage numbers matters less and less the more interesting the encounter design is, especially if those options are tailored to what characters can do "storywise". If characters have strategic choices to make that aren't always "stand still, hit hard", then how you make that number huge all the time matters a lot less.

Example: a great fight put together by my GM kept me from targeting the bigbad since it was strategically smarter for me to use my rifle to do trick shots that set off "traps" in the environment (shooting out a wall support to make that rubble fall on the troublesome spellslingers under cover below). That let my character do something awesome and yet gave the "mainstage" of that battle to another character (whose backstory that bigbad came from). He managed to make it so that I, as a player, discovered that possibility, rather than feeling shoe-horned into it. The other character got to face that bigbad without me shooting it in the back continually... We all remember that encounter...

Here's the deal: each player character only has so many resources. If in order to stay viable as a hero, with those resources, they may want (or need) to specialize.

If you want player characters abilities to be more fluid, you really can only do one thing, and that's make the challenges which the players face balance with characters who use resources in non-optimal ways (well, you can also force everyone to be non-optimal - see below). If a Rogue 1/Monk 1/Wizard 1 is fun to play on the battle-mat in your world, then people may go with it...

The problem with this strategy is that it only takes one player to make a more optimal choice, and the balance is gone. Now that hero is the best at what they do, and everyone else is meh, but is also barely meh at something else.

In game design terms, you want something where specialization is balanced ("punished"), i.e., getting better at something you're already good at costs more.

Now, this wouldn't really work with Path because of how the BAB and Saves math works, but imagine if taking a level in your highest class cost two levels. Imagine if once you were tenth level, you could take take three levels in another class instead of taking your eleventh level. What will work better with Path is doing something like putting a ceiling on class levels (say somewhere 8-12) and then forcing players to multiclass after that (but you better tell players that ahead of time - some of them may even like the idea because their build falls apart at X level, who knows?)

snip

... in encounters, a map is used which shows where all the difficult terrain is. In reality, you can't always see where difficult terrain is since there is always a patch of mud to slip on, a hidden tree root or some other obstacle that you can't see if you go rushing off. You might see that there is some brush between you and your destination, but you don't usually try and run around it in the dark because of the hidden dangers. PC's however, seem to have perfect knowledge and happily run around difficult terrain because it is not hidden. That needs to change.

1 - Players are heroes, who don't enjoy being told they tripped on a stick - they also aren't "reality TV" people attempting to create drama.

2 - If you want the environment to be more difficult, make it more difficult. There are plenty of game mechanics for that. "That brush is difficult terrain, you'll move at half-speed." Tell them they'll have to make an Acrobatics check or a Reflex save to avoid the obstacle. If you want, you can treat terrain obstacles like traps. For instance, a loose section of soil that is about to give way on a hill is essentially a pit trap. Set a reasonable DC to notice the dangerous terrain and a DC to avoid falling when it goes off. Maybe characters with Survival or Kn:Nature get a bonus to notice them. Etc.

3 - Encounters don't have to be roll-init-go-nukes. One thing I like to do is keep things in non-init, but limit the amount of action each character can take. In this situation, characters can take/make strategic choices that up the drama and give the GM chances to describe what's happening. "Fighty McSpellsword hustles around the ridge. Sneaky O'Bowman, you see the beast follow your friend's noise. It looks like it's trying to sneak around behind him... It doesn't seem to hear you as you clamber up over the boulder." It's more fun. In my experience, once you roll initiative, players sort of go "the jig is up!" and start charging and shooting, but by having your beasts and baddies act strategically in encounters, you will encourage players to do the same.

Norrmally damage reduction and hardness apply to each hit in a full attack or flurry. So totaling all the damage a series of hits might make into one hit makes it so that the DR only applies once, rather than multiple times. That can make a huge difference. Plus other stuff as above.

(ninja'd!)

I played a Gunslinger in a high-point buy campaign, and the GM even let me have advanced firearms. I was rocking the revolvers, with a rifle backup for big maps - but let me tell you - despite the GM saying after that campaign that he won't allow gunslingers anymore because of the touch AC thing - the barbarian in that party could easily do more damage than I could, and often did.

The mechanic may seem unfair because of how other characters work, but it's really not that bad, I think it's just easy to keep reinforcing that idea because of what you see. Other stuff works in other ways (and I didn't prioritize optimizing how many shots I could take in a round with exploits, etc.). I was still in danger of being surrounded and taking AoOs, etc., I had to prioritize targets (ready action to shoot wizard instead of taking full attack on other targets, etc.). And like I said, the barbarian with the two-handed reach weapon and cleave and crazy strength and massive hit points was the real damage dude.

For a home game, let your GM know you're attached to your current weapon and are looking for an upgrade rather than a replacement. As a GM I'm always looking for plot fun for characters, and a GM that I play with is particularly good at this kind of plot reward - it can be a lot more fun, getting an "upgrade" instead of random treasure, etc.

My house rules favor maneuvers heavily - but in this case I would say that by the book there's nothing in Dirty Trick that says you can't do it with a weapon, and therefore you could use Weapon Finesse for the check instead of requiring Agile M, depending on what you imagined you were doing.

For instance, the examples in Dirty Trick are: kick sand in face, pull opponents pants down. So let the character imagine something they could do similarly with a finesseable weapon: use a dagger to loosen/cut a the buckle so the target's legs get tangled by a belt - use a rapier to whip someone's cloak up over their helmet, etc.

Dirty Trick is already not affecting the baddies as much as a trip or grapple, so I wouldn't worry about game balance getting out of whack here - and letting your players imagine these kinds of interactions, especially if they include the environment - is a lot of fun.

In my recent pathfinder groups, I've played with a new player who went rogue and didn't really understand the mechanics - he was often less effective than just not being in the way of my Witch's control plans/needing healing. The player is playing a new class now and he's much more effective because he has a better grasp of the actions he needs to take (more direct damage, tanking, bull rushes, etc.)

But a few games back, a player with fairly good mastery played a two-weapon fighting rogue who did a good job keeping up with the Paladin in terms of damage. As a wizard in that game, I spent a lot of my time strategically helping out whichever of those two's abilities didn't best match the enemies/situation. Like helping the rogue get flank with a summon or casting fly on the armored dwarf so he could get into the fight faster. Even though I was the primary scout (Diviner wizard, improved familiar, etc.), that didn't mean the rogue's job as "stealthy vanguard" wasn't extremely helpful. More squishy than Paladin, but less squishy than me - and that's important. We were a smart party that burned consumables strategically. That was also a very trap-heavy campaign and he pulled his weight. He was also the party face that campaign, as the player with the Paladin didn't like playing the face, and his skills were a big boon. The GM played to a lot of those needs. In a different campaign without a rogue I've seen that GM put in less traps or need to do S-of-H or etc. for plot points (but we almost always have lots of need for Diplo/Bluff).

Game I just finished GM'ing had a good Ninja... She was very effective, a new player to the game, and probably would have been the same as a Rogue of that level - her build wasn't super optimized. Part of that character's effectiveness, and I don't mean to toot my own horn, is that I consciously design encounter spaces with strategic placement in mind - and that gives rogues/ninjas more chances to shine. In one fight she was able to use Fast Sneak to make it across the ceiling of a covered hallway and get an amazing set of attacks off the back rank of the baddies (who were focused on using crossbows against the party who were fighting their way up the hill the covered area overlooked). I wasn't cheating to let her do anything, she took a lot of risk, used her character's abilities and rolled well. When things turned against her in a few rounds, she was able to tumble to cover and wait for her next opportunity (sneaking around the side of a building, re-attacking, etc.). If she hadn't been so active, the Fighter would have been hit more on his way up the hill. And when her actions made some of the crossbowmen leave cover, the Zen Archer Monk on her team was able to pick them off. There was some encounter design there - not just a golem in a 40' room that they have to beat down.

How did a thread about the most useless spells become a discussion centered about what some people don't like about some of the best spells in the game?

True Strike: I play a lot of wizards and I almost never prepare this, but when I do, I have a reason (like, I must-must land this Ray attack on that high-Dex Baddie!). It's actually very useful. It's just not useful if your yardstick for useful is "do X damage per turn, in the smallest amount of turns possible".

To answer the OP's question, I've always felt that Hold Portal was rather silly. It should really be called "Moderate Reinforcement of Portal".

The table is there for one purpose: to give you the same rough number that "standard" game balance uses for character wealth.

This number is super-duper abstract and can't possible account for everything. It even tells you, on the page, that different campaigns will do things differently. And even if you're in an AP, character choices and needs - and GM style - change a lot. So, you really need to ask yourself just one question:

Do the players have enough wealth that meeting challenges is still fun?

This number gives you a nice, objective reference point, but it's less important that answering that question thoughtfully, based on the detail of the game you are in.

Have the friendly dragon tell them there is something powerful hidden under the gazebo. After numerous take 20 checks on the (nonexistent) mystery, inform the players that they have starved to death.

Nickolas Floyd wrote:

And then another wondrous item. Sorry, but that is not a weapon just because it can be used as one and you say it is a weapon...

I wish I could talk with you about some of these wondrous items turned weapons. I am curious what criteria you are using to determine if an item was previously a wondrous item prior to the competition. Don't get me wrong, I have seen some weapons and armor that I think were wondrous items prior to the competition.

I am curious because I have a feeling some people might think my entry was a Wondrous Item prior to the competition and it most certainly was not. It was always the type of item it ended up being from the start.

So I guess my question is what makes a weapon/armor appear to be a wondrous item in a previous incarnation?

Me three. All totally abstractly he says: I see how I may be in the same boat, and I see why.

To answer the question: if it's primary function is smacking things around, it's a weapon. If it looks like a weapon, but you really use it for (list of whatever awesome you're looking for), then it's going to feel shoehorned. You know, like a dagger of shoehorning. That probably started life as a shoehorn.