Cornellius Aggredor's page

I am curious which polymorph spell I would use to turn in to a Wyvern.

A Wyvern is not a chromatic or metallic dragon, so that spell is out. Is there another spell out there that covers just a dragon of no other type like a wyvern is?

You'll need to have 5 levels of wizard (or able to cast 3rd level spells) and take Faith Magic arcane discovery, while worshipping a deity that offers one of the following domains: Agathion, Glory, Heroism, Honor, Hubris (Glory), or Legend.

This will let you prepare shield of faith as a divine spell in one of your 2nd level spell slots.

Thank you DeathlessOne! I knew there was something out there that would help. This is perfect. And playing a Shoanti Barbarian with the Spirit Totem for my rage power is perfectly in line with one of those domains. You cant ask for a better fit for a Shoanti than Glory, Heroism, Honor, and Legend!

All pqs other than the crafting feat can be skipped by adding 5 to the dc to craft the item.

Edit: that's +5 per individual pq skipped.

Then allow me to ask this, what is the DC for making wondrous items. the only thing on the d20pfsrd is this...

Using Spellcraft to Craft a magic item Varies by item. with no chart available, nor is there an entry in the magic item creation statblock.

Hey wondering any advice GM's who have run this can suggest. The group I'm running completely ignored Hosilla (and thus Radiance) in the Mongrelman lair--choosing to block the tunnel to her room instead of adventuring down. They are currently in Kenabres and have zero intention on going back down into the tunnels. Did this happen with anyone else and if so what did you do? I have some ideas but would like to hear on what worked or what did not. I'm inclined to have the sword corrupted and used against them at another point but that may be too extreme. Thoughts?

I know this is late, but I would gladly post for someone later to use. I used Hostilla in just such a way, having the PC's find the not crumpled next to a brazier as one piece of paper that did not get burned, along with the place she was going to (in kenebres) to be teleported away to safety (with the sword). I also had Anevia tell the PC's that the sword was her wife's sword (mistakenly thinking it was the sword that Irabeth had sold for Anevia's transformation potion). NPC's make mistakes right:? Sure they do.

So because they had Anevia as an NPC in the helpful mode, they pursued her story right after going to Blackwing for Arivashnial. Catching the inquisitor before she could teleport out was nice, and having the high level mage teleport himself at the sight of the crusaders instead of testing their mettle, left the poor hostilla all alone in a warehouse storage building with 5 angry pc's and a few seething npc's/ :D It worked out fine.

This sounds like a gaming group that has very little gaming experience, both players and GM.

The GM allowing a player to come in 2 levels higher, and players that have no idea of the mechanics behind the classes they are playing are just a few of the major glaring areas that have come to light in this conversation / discussion.

This is the kind of thing that happens in a game with an in-experienced GM.

If there had been an experienced player at this table, this would have already been taken care of by now.

Owen, remember, the players have the power. If all the other players are in agreement with the descriptions you have given on this messageboard, then stand up and tell the GM that this is not going to fly. Friends tell each other when the other is acting foolishly, stupidly, etc... This is one of those times for you to be a friend.

Let him know he has made an error with the samarai and to fix it pronto. It should be obvious that every other player in this group, including you, has been de-marginalized.

If your gm wont fix it, walk out. Start your own game with the other players, and get to know the rules, or at least the mechanics of the character classes you are playing. That will go a long way in you knowing exactly what to do when a samarai comes along and starts trying to kill off every player in the gaming group.

Don't tolerate this crap. You shouldn't. And you most certainly shouldn't just because it is the only game in town.

You and the other players have the power, not the GM. Without you and the other players, there is no game. There is no samarai of 5th level to wreak havoc on your friends. There is no conflict.

That is about as easy as it gets. Use your power to change this game or stop complaining.

Please...?

Atarlost wrote:

Anyone who uses the term roll player with a straight face defines them in such a way that they're exclusive. Roll-players are defined as people who don't play in the fashion approved by the person making the distinction. Role-players are defined as people who do play in the fashion approved by the people making the distinction.

Unfortunately, this is more often than not the case.

Tempest Stormwind wrote:

I still stand by the argument that this is a fundamental difference between old school (basic D&D: 1 race/class, AD&D: very limted multi-classing) vrs new school (I buy a book and there is a class in their and I want it gimmie gimmie). The trend I see is old school = roleplayers, new school = optomizers.

Note to New school people: Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much about optomizing.
Okay, that's it.
I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the

...

Sounds like Tempest Stormwind enjoys his philosophy courses. You don't see this kind of explanation out there very often. Most of the time, these boards are full of people offering Red Herrings to the OP's thread. Hehe. Nicely done Tempest. :D

What does "writing an awesome story" have to do with roleplaying?

What's the point of building an awesome character, if you're not going to bring the character to life at the table? If the character isn't going to face hard choices, triumphs and despair?

Roleplaying happens in the game, not the backstory.

I respectfully disagree with you on this point. The back story is the baseline for how your character makes choices in game. With a more detailed background, the easier it is to make proper character choices in game. And while you are correct in that the role=play occurs in game, discounting your character background, or not writing one at all, hinders role-play in game.

I find that the backgrounds I write help keep me focused on how my characters will act in most common situations and also some uncommon situations.

When those rare situations come up, where I can not instantly make a proper "in character" decision, I find that taking a moment to consider all my background, as well as character choices that have happened "in game" helps me greatly in deciding what to do.

Because of this, I feel that the character background is one of the most important parts of role-playing in game.

Anzyr wrote:

Serghar Cromwell wrote:

Fake Healer wrote:

People who look at the game and tend to be into number crunching and trying to "win" aren't usually putting the roleplaying in a high priority.

In my experience, people who don't care about the number crunching don't care enough about the game to put any effort into their roleplaying, either.

I was going to say this, but I guess the discussion was over before I got here.

What's the point of building an awesome character if you're not going to write an equally awesome story to tie all your choices together, am I right?

Amen

I am playing a Sea Singer Bard and want to increase the range of some of my 30ft. ranged Sea Songs. I could not find any feats that increased the range.

Does anyone know where I might find those feats or if they even exist?

I think I might have thought that a free action could be taken any time in the initiative, but that is an immediate action. I think I also was thinking of speaking out of your initiative as a free action.

It looks like that part of my question is easily answered and now I understand.

So... anyone know of a feat that lets you throw a shield as an immediate action at full BAB? Hehe!

And to think that all I wanted to do was have the option to throw my shield if an enemy tried to skirt around my threatened area so I could not get an AoO.

Hehe, I think we might be looking way to deeply on this.

I carry one shield, so loading myself down with three or four shields to take advantage of multiple free action attacks is not an issue.

(although, I can see how someone might do that if all his shields were modified with these exotic straps).

I simply wanted my character to have the option to make an attack (by losing my shield) when it was not my turn in the initiative. It looked like these exotic 50gp straps gave that option.

I can see how that would take an exotic weapon proficiency.

So, as it is written, I would get a single throw (20ft. range increment) with my large wooden shield (As a free action, meaning that I could take my regular attacks during my initiative and still get a throw off at any time during the round), doing 1d6pts of damage if I hit, at my full BAB, but at a -4 for not having that exotic weapon proficiency at this time?

Do I have the right of it here?

Thank you for pointing me to Ultimate Equipment for the range increment.

I was specifically looking for the information on the Free-Action attack of a shield that was modified by the 50gp adjustment to the straps.

In our game, I had thrown one of my light hammers during my turn in the initiative order (leaving my main hand free), then had an opportunity to throw the shield when an enemy tried to stay outside of my threatened space to get to my archer ally behind me.

We did not know what to do, so we stayed with the two-weapon fighting penalties (my shield was a large wooden shield), and I did not have TWF. So I was assessed a -10 penalty on that throw even though I did not have a second weapon in hand at the time of the throw.

Confusion, and not being able to find anything in the books in a timely fashion, brought me here.

Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction.

My question is, do I use my full BAB? Are there two weapon fighting penalties? and what is the range increment?

I have nothing to go on from this description...

THROWING SHIELD:
Benefit: You can throw the shield as a free action. Neither a shield’s enhancement bonus to AC nor its shield spikes apply to your attack or damage rolls.

Restriction: Tower shields cannot be throwing shields.

Yea Srtz, that build would be feat starved. I am curious what you did with this character. Did you get all your pre-req feats and craft construct all taken by 5th level? Or did you use your general feats at 1st/3rd/5th to take point blank / precise / and far shot and use your 5th/10th level bonus feats to take your crafting?

I am actually a fan of the spell slinger, but neither of my two builds veered off in to the construct arena.

One thing that is in your favor for this dragon fight... ranged touch against a big creature = easy hits.

Did you take the x3 critical single gun option?

Anyway, try to put these objections to your build out of your mind. I have had to do the same thing at my gaming table. There is nothing wrong with your spike. It happens with any build that you plan from level 1 (if you know what you are doing).

Good luck with that dragon!

There is a quote in parenthesis in the spell description that lists all projectiles that were available at the time the core was written. Bullets were not in that list.

that was why.

I know the spell was written well before the gunslinger was created, but it does state 50 projectiles (which are bullets).

It is vague enough not to be clear and I would love some verification.

Gluttony wrote:

If possible I'd like to find an actual rules-legal way of doing this rather than just saying "I'm the GM, so I can give him this ability if I want to".

Cap. Darling wrote:

If it is a NPC just let him do it more than once. Pehaps his mothers uncle was a Half giant.

ಠ_ಠ

Heart of the fields is a nice option. Unfortunately he's a minotaur.

Maybe there's a magic item for this...

You can easily make the case that you gave the npc barbarian a +1 cr. Of course, give that power 3/day and give him max hp or something else minor and you have your solution. Players understand this process and don't mind, especially if they see that cr change in the npc.

An excellent question Tarantula:

I would, as a gm, grant the orc an acrobatics check @ -2 to jump the pit.

The -2 would come from the fact that his charge was already started when the wizard cast the spell, thus his charge is made more difficult (and "more difficult" is the main wording here that falls under the rules for a character or npc being at a disadvantage that is not explained in any other ruling)

From the SRD - Pits: These are holes (covered or not) that characters can fall into, causing them to take damage. A pit needs no attack roll, but a successful Reflex save (DC set by the builder) avoids it. Other save-dependent mechanical traps also fall into this category. Falling into a pit deals 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet of depth.

I would assume the difficulty of the reflex save would be the dc of the spell, and I would make the orc get a -2 on that save if we are going to be rule lawyers and not go the acrobatics route.

I am thinking that the GM would pick what best suits the situation, but the charge is not stopped unless the reflex save / acrobatics check is failed.

If the bonuses are morale bonuses, then no even if they are the different abilities granting the same or different numerical bonuses. Only the highest one applies.

such as, bard1 grants a +4str as a morale bonus, while bard2 grants a +2str as a morale bonus using a different power/spell/spell like ability. Only the +4 applies.

Use this chart for further reference:

Bonus types

I was just looking up stacking of prefane and sacred bonuses from an evil and a good cleric. those stack, morale bonuses do not.

(I Wish they did however...)

Enlarge Person would be easy enough to get. Is there a way to go bigger (without dipping)? Not against multiclass afterwards, but I want Body Bludgeon at 10th.

My daughter put the enlarge spell on her armor (like fly on celestial armor) usable 4/day @ 2nd level caster. That gave her 2 minutes of enlarge (easily lasting through all combats - only once @ 11th level did we go more than 20 rounds). It was cheap enough, costing just over 1000gp (I cant remember the total cost, but it was well under 2k.)

It was quite helpful and it would definitely be a godsend to this build.

If I ever ran a campaign, in addition to some of the more standard bans (witch, summoner, gunslinger) for reasons mentioned before, I would ban Fighters.

Why? Because Fighters are boring; they don't have any class abilities that define them, and they can't participate in out of combat challenges since they bring NOTHING to the table with their meager selection of class skills and skill points. I'm not interested in people taking levels in a class that encourages someone to not participate in a game unless initiative gets called.

It is to bad that your experience with fighters makes you believe that combat is all they are good at. But to ban them for having low skill points? What about the cleric, or sorcerer, or any of the other 2pt skill classes that Int is not the #1 stat?

You know, (and I am not talking down to you), there are traits that give extra class skills. with the right trait you can have any skill be a class skill that is not on the fighter list. You could easily have a 4 trick skill pony with a 10 Int. Sure, you need to invest a general feat in a skill focus or two.

But what I think I am hearing you say is that your players don't choose this path. correct?

I think what you want to ban is a fighter with a low Intelligence and no creativity behind the fighter concept. (Some of the best fighters never even step on the intimidate skill/feat train).

If you are a GM, it is to bad that you only have players that reinforce this belief you have.

My personal taste don't make me ban things, well except for that antagonize feat.

The errata for Antagonize brings it back in line. It is much better now. But seriously, what made you specify that specific feat?

Thanks for those last two answers Potts and Claxon. I was figuring there had to be a mechanic in play, for balance purposes, to prevent bypassing the standard action to make a touch attack or an unarmed strike.

But you are right, the developers do need to strap this one down, and you think they would have once the Magus class was developed.

Once again, your input is appreciated.

Perhaps I need to better explain what I am thinking.

One of the main areas of this debate is based around the holding of a spell and the spell's discharge through an unarmed strike.

Example: If the rules state that an unarmed strike can be delivered by hand, foot, knee, head, elbow, and more... and a confirmed to hit roll with an unarmed strike also discharges the held melee touch spell, then wouldn't someone touching any of those areas (even by accident - according to the CRB) automatically discharge the spell without any to hit roll?

The exact wording in the CRB is " If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.

With this said, wouldn't a grapple induce a touching of some kind that would discharge the spell? I would say yes especially if I bumped elbows with my fellow wizard in the back line and discharged the 5d6 electricity jolt accidentally...

bump

Lets say you are a wizard that is grappled and you cast a shocking grasp while grappled. you obviously succeed at your concentration check to get it cast.

page 185-186 of the CRB states that the spell goes off even on an accidental touch by anyone once the spell is held.

It is at this point that my question is pertinent. In the CRB the wording of holding a spell states that once a melee touch spell is cast, if it is not discharged on that same round, the caster can hold it.

So does the shocking grasp go off on the initiative right after my wizard's turn is over? Does it wait to go off on the grappler's initiative? Does it not go off on my next turn or is it an immediate discharge with no melee touch required?

Thanks in advance

I agree with Thenobledrake re: making the Beast more sympathetic. My players *loved* TotB and still consider it one of the high points of the AP. The main reason for this was that I went all-out in playing the Beast as a sympathetic, child-like character who loved poetry, was scared of being locked up, and began to cry at the mention of the murdered children.

After a couple of meetings with him, he asked them if he could have a name, to which they christened him "Edward", and from then on, they fought tooth-and-nail to save him.

In the final confrontation, I had him actually be critically wounded, and they linked hands, forming a human (well, a half-orc-human-dhampir :) ) chain to conduct a lightning strike to try to revive him. They were very low on hit points, and I warned them of the danger, and they still did it.

That's how much my players loved Edward the Beast - they were *literally* willing to sacrifice their characters to save him.

But yeah, it all comes down to a sympathetic Beast. Win them over with that, and you'll have them eating out of your hand.

My GM did that same (as far as portraying the beast as a child at heart)

It did give us the motivation to save him, but we also had a PC who's background was being a lawyer, and being the non emotional type, took to defending the beast simply because he was going to be the underdog. So being a lawyer in a remote town to show off his Caliphas credentials and skills was all that character needed. The rest of us were more NG/CG types, so we took to the fens to track down every clue and prove the beast innocent.

I enjoyed the AP.

It is on the second page in the front of book 3 underneath all the credits for paizo publishing.

Open the cover and Turn that first crisp page and look in the bottom 25% of the text. It says that AP#3 is for a group of four adventurers @ level 7.

That is also (in case people are wondering) the same level you would be at the end of book 2. :D

I'm tooling up to start my next campaign soon, and debating switching over to PF from 3.5. I'm well versed in 3.5, and building up a decent knowledge of PF. This would be a home brew game with primarily core and a few house rules whichever way I go, players have a basic knowledge of both and will happily play either.

So, sell me on why putting in the work (enjoyable work) to do the conversion is worth it.

There are some awesome combo's using PF and 3.5 material. There should be no selling involved here! If you had it in your heart to do one final campaign/adventure path using both systems (3.5 and PF) before doing away with the 3.5, you would be doing an awesome service to your players. It would be a campaign for the ages and would be a prolonged 15-18 level farewell to the old system and a hearty 'good day' to the new. Your players would enjoy it (I feel that sincerely).

I also think it would fare much better than Star Trek Generations for sure!!!

I am not to familiar with the Shattered Star other than I read through it about a year ago. It was specifically designed to be a follow up to Rise of the Runelords, Second Darkness and Curse of the Crimson Throne.

That being said, The first and Second installments of Second Darkness are a perfect set up to almost any other homebrew or Paizo adventure/AP/campaign. After playing in Second Darkness, I will admit that I loved those first two books of the AP. You have a nasty villain, the set up for many more encounters in Riddleport, and a Launchpad into Varisia. Magnimar and Riddleport are a good distance away from eachother, but as GM, I am sure you could put the right NPC's, story elements, or plot hooks during the first 7 levels of your PC's lives, not to mention Riddleport is a port, so taking ship to Magnimar is very realistic and can add some fun ship based encounters!

I am actually running Curse right now and have plans on using Part 6 of Rise of the Runelords and Part 6 of Shattered Star before sending my PC's after Illeosa. Having Rune forged weapons to take out a mythic version of the evil queen will be quite fun for my pc's. (I do a lot of adjustments to my games so what you ask has crossed my mind several times, although not for the same AP's.) :D

Just a curiosity, but why do so many people swear by the Point-Buy system? I understand that it is THE system used in Pathfinder Society, but why would anyone use it outside of organized play?

In my experience (32 years of RPGs ranging from BECMI D&D to AD&D 1st Ed., 2nd Ed., D&D 3.X, Pathfinder, GURPS, White Wolf's Storyteller System, Champions, and Fuzion, among others) point buy systems only lead to Min-Maxing and Munchkinism, with ultimately low-balling of stats to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. It also encourages people to build to mechanics as opposed to character. (I cannot count the number of times when Charisma / whatever is the social ability of the system in question has become the "dump-stat" because too few GMs build social challenges into their games, and/or penalize players for RPing higher social ability that the character should have.)

My group uses Method one (4d6 drop the lowest) from the core rulebook, and has for years. We tried point buy when it was introduced in 3rd Ed. and didn't care for it, finding it far inferior to Method one, and (especially when I am DM, I admit to a certain level of harshness here) a far higher rate of character mortality.

The only thing we add to this system (4d6 and drop the lowest) is we roll two sets of stats and pick one. You never know when you might be born a runt instead of a hero.

I don't like banning anything, but if you want some guidelines on how to make things run smoother, try the following campaign restrictions:

Again, I always use "explicit GM permission after discussion" instead of a ban.

Also, If you have casters that seem overpowered (unlikely), throw more than 5 encounters at the group between rests. A wizard with no spells is a commoner in a nightgown.

This is why I allow the 3.5 reserve feats to all my casters. If they choose not to take them, its not my fault. :D

About the only Core Rulebook thing I'd ban, assuming you start at level 1, is custom magic items. There are plenty of good magic items printed in the book, enough even for item crafters to make. Custom items really take a certain amount of finesse and guesswork that can be tough for an inexperienced GM to estimate.

Remember anything you ban is something that you're not learning how to deal with.

I was playing a monk that had his MW robes infused with the ability to cast mage armor 2/day. When I wanted to add enlarge person 2/day on it, my GM stepped in and denied me that option.

I was a wrecking ball of a front line monk but it was mostly because I rolled good, not because 2/day I could give myself a +4 to AC for 3 hours. (yes, a 3rd lvl casting in the robes).

It was for balance purposes, or at least that is what he told me. But it is those custom magic items that really spark my creativity, even if it is adding 1/day fly to my celestial chain mail to where I can cast it twice instead of once. I think I like the option of being able to blow one use and still have that 2nd use in my back pocket... :D

I let my three players go gestalt. I am using med advancement track to hold off leveling for the Curse of the Crimson Throne. Up until now (9th level) everything has been smooth except for the rakshasa encounters at the end of book 3. But they are an evil group, so that was to be expected.

Daenar wrote:

.

Sorry, but Cleric, Druid, and Wizard are broken right out of the gate. Core is not even remotely balanced.

This is your opinion. Not mine.

But to the OP, there will be some classes that do better at lower levels and some that are better at higher. Don't be fooled into thinkng that cleric, Druid,and wizard are unbalanced.

There is no doubt that if I had that feat I would try to utilize it as much as possible. I will be playing a ninja, so light armor isn't really going to hurt me that much when I swim if I have that feat.

Breathing water doesn't concern me even though it would be cool.

If you really think about it, using the run feat while swimming will mean I could go 90ft swimming as a full round action. Makes me wish I was playing in some atlantis type adventure...

Cool, so book two and three swim speed could be good. I do appreciate the replies.

Thank you Mr. Downie. I will tow the rest of the group on a raft as I turn on my afterburners.

There is very little swimming. The resistance to cold would be more useful.

Thank you for the reply. That is helpful. The good thing is I get the resist cold 5 for this aberration feat...

Starspawn:

Benefit: You gain a fly speed (with average maneuverability)
equal to one-half your base land speed (round down to the
nearest 5-foot increment). You can use your flight for a number
of consecutive rounds equal to 1 + your Constitution modifier
(minimum 1 round); between these uses you cannot fly for 1
round.
You gain resistance to cold 5. You are immune to altitude
fatigue and altitude sickness.

I am considering playing an Elan Fighter Ninja and going down the feat path in Lords of Madness (the aberration blood feats).

One of the feats is called WATERSPAWN which does this..

Benefit: You gain a Swim speed equal to your land speed.
This also grants you a +8 racial bonus on Swim checks, the
ability to take 10 on any Swim check, and the ability to use
the run action while swimming.
You gain resistance to cold 5. You can breathe air and water
with equal ease.

What I need to know is if swimming comes into play during the adventure at all or would this be a wasted feat? I do not care about water breathing if there will be no adventuring in the water.

(and yes, I am taking the aberration feats to give the character some flavor and to get a few extra power points from...)

WARPED MIND:
Benefit: You gain a racial bonus on Will saves against mind affecting
spells and abilities equal to one-half the number of aberrant feats you possess.
You gain 1 psionic power point for each aberrant feat you
possess.

We use the 4d6 roll and re roll any 1's once. (if you get another 1, to bad). And we roll two sets of stats and have to take one of them no matter how good or bad they are. This is fair as everyone rolls infront of the GM and the other players.

I have had very good stats (Rio, a human monk from Second Darkness 16,16,16,14,18,11) (Hayman, a beta rules human bard from Rise of the Runelords 9,16,16,15,13,20)

And a not so great stat as compared to those above... (Cornelius, a dhampir Crusader/Ruby red knight from Carrion Crown 16,16,11(yes an 11 con),13,13,16

All these are after racial modifiers. I did not calculate what these would be in point buy, but they are way to high for 25 that is for sure.

Even with all these sets of rolls, I still don't have a 17 and only (1) 18 (yes, I put the +2 human bonus in wisdom on my monk).

I think the main reason I am so happy with all of these is that this system gives 2-3 (+3) modifier stats, insuring multiclass options are possible and giving the character great survivability. I have found a great group of people that share my perspective, so the games roll well.

The only True Power Creep in Pathfinder of any significant variety is Ninja > Rogue.

The rest is sidegrades or "Still not Wizard/Cleric/Quicken Spell/Flesh to Stone". Nowhere close to the 3.5's "I bought Tome of Battle, everybody remakes their martial characters because they're obsolete now".

But wasn't tome of battle one of the testing books for 4e with encounter based powers?

It sure was a huge power creep in 3.5, but with pathfinder classes, it is not so bad.

I am playing a Crusader/Oracle/Ruby red knight at this time, and the (melee build) Inquisitor that is my front line companion is now kicking my arse half the time in effectiveness and damage in melee.

Inquisitor 11
Crusader 7 / Oracle 1 / Ruby Red Knight 3

Before 10th level, there was no doubt that I was the master
Now, I am not. (I am greatly saddened...)

Since my DM is not allowing the 3rd party feat Touche! which gives a +1 to hit for every +1 damage sacrificed (kinda like a reverse power attack but better), my ability to hit can not be increased except by ability score increase, weapon enhancement bonuses, or conditional modifiers. And as we know, the Crusader is nothing if he cant hit.

Our group is a perfect mix of two female pc's and two males. Players are three guys and a girl. The guy player with a female pc got the lead role as his character had all the acting clout and skill focus. He had his pc cut her hair down to man length and tried to fill the role as a man. She is a barbarian, and thus, didn't have to much of a problem doing this.

It was a sexist play, especially when the GM had the director constantly throw jabs at the female pc's. The actual female player with a female character got the part of the insulter, and threw back so many awesome insults at the director, that the female barbarian didn't even have to lift a finger to help. She blistered that director and sent him home to mommy crying like a sissy.

She is my girlfriend and I now know not to try to get in to a tongue lashing contest with her.

My barbarian felt less pain from the whipping act...

Having read about some of the carrion crown boss encounters, there seems to be a big divide between the groups with gunslingers, paladins and a few other specific PC types and what I would describe as "normal parties".

Perhaps it would be worth including a side bar for some of the boss monsters noting what types of PCs will be very effective or not effective, and a quick note of how to change the encounter accordingly.

I can honestly say, having just completed the Headless Horseman encounter in part 5 of carrion crown, that every encounter is difficult, but the boss encounters ARE brutal.

18 rounds for the Headless Horseman, 3 of the 4 pc's down or paralyzed, and the DM saying after we barely got by, "Damn, I forgot about the fast healing 5!"

This seems to be the norm for our group right now, and we have 2 very experienced players, a novice and a noob. I have found Second Darkness, Legacy of fire, and Council of thieves much easier to get by. RotRL is in between these extremes.

I have played the token evil character in the Second Darkness AP. It was a LE monk, the type that is angry at the world for the way his lot in life had ended up, exiled from his homeland, and ending up in Riddleport practically pennyless.

There was no problem ever in the group other than some banter back and forth about how my choices seemed harsh, but all the pc's knew that I was loyal and had their back. so they let my brutality slide a few times. Of course, they all knew that my entire character arc was to finally accept myself and my fate, forgive those that had wronged me, and change from LE to LN.

It worked out great and is the most memorable of the AP's I have played to date.

(of course, I am a very experienced player, I know how to RP, and like I said, the players knew that they were not going to experience the evil of character wealth being stolen or being stabbed in the back.)

There was this battle in the underdark where we fought this duelist type drow noble. I dropped him down a pit (possibly bottomles) after knocking him unconcious.

I will always remember one of the players screaming out at the table... "Oh my GOD!!! His Loot!"

in character I simply said, "and you think I am nasty greedy bastard...?"

Makes me laugh everytime I think of it.

1d6 nonlethal

i'd treat it as an improvised weapon, equivalent to a sap.

if you hit them with a gold bar, i'd say lethal.

Hehe, a sap weighs 2 pounds, so 100gp in a sock would almost do it.

But it is an improvised weapon, so the appropriate feats should be taken to use it without (-)'s.

I would personally go to local wall mart and get a sap for 1gp.

I have been playing pathfinder for several years on and off. Two of my biggest issues (and in fact many of my co-players as well) have been.

1. Power level of the players.
2. Complexity of rules.

Without going into a bunch of details that have been outlined in countless other threads the basic theme of Pathfinder is make the characters very powerful and hard to defeat. For some this is great, for others it makes the game lose a lot of the element of danger and fear and even respect of the players. My group will walk into just about any encounter with almost not a care in the world. They fully expect to win and if they do end up seriously injured they furl their eyebrows in confusion. Gone are the old school days of the players arguing about who has to go first, now its a race to the front of the pack to be the one to slay the monsters. Like I said, some like this others miss the fear players used to have in older games. Btw, this is just from the Core Rules, we haven't tried adding Mythic powers. I can't imagine why you would need them. My players already feel like gods on earth. And yes, I know you can find ways to challenge them (Please spare me the posts explaining how you do it as I already have my own ways that work), but the game system is arguably designed with player power baked in and at the forefront. And it only continues to grow and grow and grow with each new release.

D&D Next seems to be trying to find more of a balance by lowering the power level of the players from the start. This I really like and look forward to seeing how it develops. But everything I have read I like so far, like lower Armor Classes for the characters.

As for complexity, lets face it we have a zillion feats, spells, class powers, archetypes, monsters, monster templates, conditions, prestige classes, race abilities...heck we even have story feats. I am all for options but after several years I have only used Core, Bestiary 1, 2, some adventure path stuff and some background stuff. That's it and we still haven't...

Arg, not another old school gamer complaining again...

I hope I don't offend you, but you complain about a zillion feats, spells, etc... yet you only use Core and Bestiary 1&2. What are you really complaining about here? Your exaggerations to try to prove your point are noted, but YOUR game IS basic.

We don't try to make you use the suppliments. So why complain on these forums about game content you don't even use?

I just don't get this rambling about to powerful of a core system.

But since you posted on these forums for me to read, I must post my disagreement of it for you to read.

You sound like an experienced gamer. if you played 2.0, 3.x, and now pathfinder (not counting any of the other systems out there) then you know that your complexity argument had no basis unless you think all the D^D rule systems were to complex.

I think you are grasping for reasons to complain to be honest (as most old school gamers did when 3.x came out). I can guarantee you wont find a system that does what you want unless you make the adjustments to it as GM.

That is what this game is all about. If you want your players to feel like they are in an old school game, then make the changes you need to make. As GM it is on your shoulders to make those changes, and by what you posted, your players want that right?

So do something about it rather than complain on these boards.

I don't want to be a stodgy, grognardian GM; which is why I'm opening this topic. I won't mince words, I cringe when a player tells me they want to play an exotic race.

What is so funny about this is that my group is pretty upset that I play humans 90% of the time. They keep asking me when am I going to do something different?

So I am playing a Dhampir in the carrion crown AP. This was not enough "off the beaten path" for them.

So I agree with you so very much. I think this is why RP suffers because it is difficult to RP when you have no frame of reference for an undead or half construct character.

And I am the one getting blamed for being a power gamer because humans get a +2 to an attribute and an extra feat.

Arg! Why do I even play with these guys anymore?

(As a reference, we have played 4 ap's, and this is the first one I am not fully human in. We also have had about 5 solo sessions doing the 32 page adventures from Paizo and I have been a human in all of those.)

Yeah, characters can work with evil characters but its hard for players to work with evil players. If a player wants to be evil only to betray his fellow tablemates that guy doesn't deserve to play an evil character.

+1

The player that wants an evil character responded that we wouldn't know they were evil until said character had used us for their own good and decided to part ways or betray us or simply steal the goods.

I will admit that this part of your statement concerns me (for you and your wife)

Creating a memorable evil character to play with a group of good aligned PC's is a very difficult task. My only question to you is, "do you think this guy (or gal) could pull it off.

The statement that I have quoted from your post screams "NO" to me.

It is selfish, it does not help the group in any way, and it is juvenile.

I have no idea what character your wife will play, but if you play this samarai and this guy's character does something to betray you or your lord (if you don't go ronin). What option do you have but to slay him on the spot.

This puts you in the horrible position of having to kill a pc to keep from losing your challenge class power for 24 hours game time. (which is your main power)

You cant gain resolve back if you have no challenge
Greater Resolve is useless
No honorable Stand or Demanding Challenge abilities
True resolve and last stand are also out the window (but that is at 17th and 20th level)

This is not even counting your Order abilities, which demand you have a strong sense of honor. If you have no honor, then those powers are gone as well, (but for sure, your extra challenge power for the order is stripped)

Just things to consider....