Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

Cubic Prism's page

Organized Play Member. 237 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 4 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't use the lich in actual combat. It may be around casting Gates, creating undead etc., but a party of level 19's should give it some concern. I like the idea of the wraiths and using gate to summon very powerful critters. You have multiple avenues of attack you should exploit. Attack the defenders. Attack the populace. Attack the rulers of the city. Attack the city itself. Attack the PC's. I'd look at doing all of that all the while not revealing the lich itself. The lich may want to focus on wearing out the PC's (no 5 minute workday encounters) before thinking of engaging the players.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A good GM will approach running a game like writing a story. Every character needs to have agency. Said good GM will write in scenes where the poor Aquaman will be able to shine and not feel like a sandwich maker. This might be backstory quests, roleplaying with certain NPC's, facing down a baddie in a duel, etc. The story needs to move forward without the player party's wizard's magic being the most pivotal thing. The emotions of the npc's and player characters should be defining, then the feelings of martial inadequacy are lessoned. Magic doesn't make a player heroic, what the player's doing that does. At the crux though, Pathfinder is a game about magic. It's everywhere. It's really hard to try and limit it/work around something that's inherent in the system and not cut large parts of the game out (e6/e8/spells).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No reason not to combine all of them together. Give the players the toolbox to make the super hero type character they want. There is no point I can see to divide the Vigilante up into 2-4+ "specializations". If the point of the class is the dual personality thing, make that shine. As it stands now, the "specializations" are what's shining. One class, open up the talents. Make dual personality awesome.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The population problem could be funny in a game.


Hey, you know what? There's another name you might know me by!

Starlord man. Legendary outlaw?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like all the talents to be available to the base Vigilante and let the players decide what kind of mish-mash they want.

Also the amount of talents you have to dedicate toward spell casting is a bit much if they are keeping specializations. You get talents every two levels and it takes five talents to get full casting? So half your progression goes to casting.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Remove the specializations and just have the vigilante pick what it wants to do.

What would the secret identity do in an AP that matters? This is a major class feature and seems to do nothing of substance except impose limitations. I feel a major class feature shouldn't limit players, it should give options thematic to the class.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some people are either intimidated by the amount of options, or not confident that everyone will be able to make sense of all of them (ala how people make mistakes all the time with creating a legal Summoner's Eidolon) is my interpretation.

My only concern is that due to the huge amount of options, some will be outright bad, others to good and some utterly niche that will never see use.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The spiritualist needs to be able to do more itself if the Phantom remains as it is. I love the flavor, however it feels like a Summoner Archetype, not its own class.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What are folks thoughts about the abilities that are pretty much mirrors of the Summoner's? I'd like the Spiritualist to have more unique abilities, not copies and close thematic mirrors to the Summoner. This isn't an archetype, it's meant to be a new class.

Shared with Summoner:

Bond Senses -> Bond Senses
Spiritual Interference -> Shield Ally (only +2 to will, not all saves like the Summoner)
Maker's Call -> Maker's Call
Greater Spiritual Interference -> Greater Shield Ally
Life Bond -> Life Bond

The Phantom is a weaker Eidolon. The Spiritualist is a 3/4 BAB class, why not put some abilities in there that make use of that? I like that the Phantom isn't a natural attacking Ginsu machine, however I think the Spiritualist itself could use some more unique, class/role defining abilities. Perhaps tied to the emotional focus the Phantom has. As the two grow together, they take on shared emotional traits perhaps.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have a question regarding the phantom residing on the ethereal plane. It states in the description that:

"The phantom forms a link with the spiritualist, who forever after either harbors the creature within her consciousness[b] or manifests it as ectoplasm or incorporeal essence." [...] "Fully
manifested phantoms are treated as summoned creatures from the Ethereal Plane, except that they are not sent back to the Ethereal Plane [b]until
reduced to a number of negative hit points equal to or greater than their Constitution scores."

So, really, where is the Phantom living? In the mind of the Spiritualist, or on a plane? If it's on the Ethereal, and the spiritualist is on the material plane, without the Phantom manifested and an enemy jumps to the ethereal, what happens? Is the Phantom hovering over the place/point where the Spiritualist is on the material plane? Is it targetable? Can it be destroyed now? Can it be interacted with if you use Blink?

I don't see how something can reside in the mind of a creature and reside on the ethereal at the same time. I'd pick one or the other. Use the ethereal as an origin, but do away with potential abuse by stating the Phantom is driven back to the mind of the Spiritualist, not sent back to the Ethereal. It's not a Summoner who specializes in planar stuffs There are a lot of ways for characters to reach the ethereal pretty easily and having to deal with an ethereal remora without clear rules could be a pain in the rear.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems like you are willing to look at abilities that inherently are limited and per effect/description data, give it more flexibility without doing the opposite. Taking an inherently flexible ability and limiting it based on effect/description.

If a (Su) ability states it's a cone, it inherits all benefits and limitations. As there (to the best of my knowledge) only 1 set of rules pertaining to cones, burst etc., it's logical that the ability must obey said rules.

You appear to want a blanket rule for (Su) abilities. These abilities are to me designed to do stuff spells don't/can't do, so by design and intent they don't all inherent the rules that spells are forced to obey. Some (Su) abilities will conform to LoE, some won't. Some will be unclear due to poor wording. In all cases one has to read the descriptions and effects to determine what does and does not apply. Also rules for Pathfibder are spread out, sometimes in multiple locations.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
yeti1069 wrote:

First, George, Rob, Andrew, Jon, Mike...get out of this thread!

Okay, so here's the background: the party has gone into a kobold lair (a city, even) in pursuit of retreating kobold troops that have recently raided the city in which the PCs were based. Their primary goal is to gather some intel--they've heard that there is a dragon governing the kobolds, spurring them to this uncharacteristic militarism. At least one member of the group wants to find and fight the dragon, while most of the rest are mortally terrified of that possibility. They DO have a ritual that they may perform that essentially hides them from being detected by dragons completely (invisibility, plus it masks their scent, etc...). They haven't used it, because it doesn't last long enough for them to make their way through the complex to the dragon, so they're holding that in reserve until they feel the time is right.

What I'm looking to do:

First, I want to give the players time to overhear a conversation among the kobold leadership and the black dragon, and to get into a storehouse of some of the dragon's hoard to investigate some items.

Somewhere in the middle of this, my plan is to have a dwarven attack squad break into the great assembly hall to confront the dragon, giving the players some allies that they may wish to join in fighting the dragon (making it appear doable to some of them anyway).

As I mentioned in the title, this is an E6 campaign, and the players are all level 6 at this point with some "epic" feats under their belts. My intent for the dragon is to make it huge, but to use the stats of a lower CR dragon: basically, I want the imposing grandeur of the enormous creature, but I don't want to throw a CR 14 at them. They don't have to know that it's been scaled down a bit, and, really, this works well enough for my vision of the world-->dragons aren't quite as restricted by the E6 nature of the campaign, but everything has been zeroed in at around that level of heroism, unless it is meant to be something only...

Hi Yeti,

Have you thought about having a larger force of Dwarves show up? You can add some really cool cinematic scenes to the battle if you have more canon fodder for the Dragon to lay waste too. Also, the more good guy mooks you have around, gives more opportunities for you to spare the PC's some insane dragon pain if they are getting wrecked (if you go for that style of game).

I'd also recommend having the players meet the dwarves before they attack the dragon. Give the players time to prepare for fighting one. That way you can feel a bit better about unloading on them and making the fight really challenging. Plus you would have the time to convince the players to help the Dwarves, possibly enough time to give the dwarves some unique names, traits etc to make their deaths feel like a loss when the dragon starts eating dwarf kabobs.

Cinematically, you could have the dragon chase small groups of dwarves through the lair, melting them with its breath, disappearing down a tunnel, and reappearing elsewhere to snatch a Dwarf up and eat it.

With the Witches Slumber Hex and access to Blindness/Deafness, they can technically end the fight immediately with a lucky roll. (That's how my group took out the Dragon's Demand module. I landed Blindness/Deafness. It felt a bit anti-climactic.) I'd try to find a way to keep the Dragon airborne, so if Slumber hits it, falling damage would wake it back up. An alternate sense (blind/tremor) would allow it to function if blinded. I would buff the dragons health up to an almost absurd level.

Environmental challenges could add a lot to the fight. Imagine if the players, or a player with a squad of dwarves caused the main gate to come down on the dragons head, pinning it for a round or two, giving the dwarves a chance to lay into it. Or having the dragon operate in a 3d arena.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rapanuii wrote:

I hate magic, and I hate unusual mechanics of the game, and more recently than ever I have entered the highway to the danger zone, which is more accurately described as arguing about abstract crazy things.

So, we have color spray. It's been argued to me that it "flashes" light when cast...

1. Provide me with proof this spell causes any sort of light to exist at all.

Now, arguments that you need light to have color spray to be put to use in the least must exist. Upon reading the illusion school of spell, and the sub PATTERN, I see that we have a mind effecting spell that relies on sight, or being "caught in it"

2. Provide me with proof/raw argument that says you need light to have this spell have use

So, color spray doesn't work on sightless creatures. Because I can't see at the moment, that doesn't count me as a sightless creature, right? Because I'm now permanently blind, and am a creature that normally could see doesn't count me as one either, right?

3. What exactly is a sightless creature, and how is it different than someone under the blind condition.


1. Spell descriptor does not include "light". Therefor no light is produced.
2. You don't need light for this to work. It's not listed as a requirement.
3. A sightless creature is one that has the Sightless SQ.

Personal Interpretation: (Biggdawg posted a good reply (#51 I believe).
2&3: A creature that is blind doesn't equal sightless in Pathfinder because it has the mechanics to interpret visual stimulus regardless of an interruption in that function. A Mind Affecting ability can be seen to magically implant the effect in the brain of the affected creature. That's why only those in the cone can "see" the spray. Go close your eyes, then press on them for 10 seconds. You'll "see" stars. But you're blind right, from closing your eyes? Brain can still process the stars and you're seeing them. AKA in Pathfinder you're not "sightless". Webster definitions doesn't always work for PF because A. magic breaks reality and B. PF has it's own sometimes messy definitions that trump real world ones.

RE: Raw, previous thread etc.
1. In my game if I want to change how the spell works, I'll change it. RAW doesn't = right. It's the baseline for the game. A GM can decide RAW is no longer RAW for that home game and make a house rule. That house rule is not predicated on a consensus among the players regarding the RAW. If you've had a discussion with the GM, and it's been ruled that Color Spray functions differently than the RAW of the spell, there you go.
2. You've argued so much that I had to re-read the whole thread(s) to stop myself from spinning in a circle. Playing these games isn't meant to be about winning rules discussions with your friends, which is what I am interpreting your unending dead horse beating as. Say your piece, move on. Play the game. Have fun.
3. If you hate magic, Pathfinder isn't the game for you. There are plenty of non-magic RPG's available.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rapanuii wrote:

William, I greatly respect how your directly addressing my problems, especially articulating things so well. You've been extremely helpful, and I feel copy and paste with your responses, for the most part.

I'm not seeing this fluff that implies light, and looking at pattern descriptor I'm also not helped (I know you didn't say it would exactly and I assumed).I'm fairness I'm not looking at the direct book source, so perhaps the online srd's lack this fluff. Within reason I am more than happy to accept reasonable interpretations of fluff, so if possible could you assist me to clarify this matter?

It's not fluff. RE: Light spell: School evocation [light]; Level bard 0, cleric/oracle 0, druid 0, inquisitor 0, magus 0, sorcerer/wizard 0, summoner 0, witch 0

Color Spray does not have light as a descriptor per the RAW, where the Light spell does per RAW.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Incubus is referencing Succubus under weapon and armor proficiency.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's also a skill that largely retains usefulness once magic nullifies other skills. If you want to lessen how "good" perception is, you need to ensure other skills are just as useful and not invalidated by a low level spell, and have players/dm's break away from the habit of hyper specializing. What I mean by that is players who build characters to get say, skill X into the possible 60-70 check zone by level 10 (as seen in PFS). Also, getting a handle on what appropriate DC's actually are for skill checks (no, seeing if someone sneaking a coffee during a speech is not a DC40 perception just because you're level 15).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Description of the monsters, setting and their behavior. Pretend you're writing a scene from a Stephen King novel. It's not the abilities or mechanics that make players feel creeped out, it's the images you put in their head.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is why most groups shouldn't play, or DM Paladins. Zero creativity comes to mind after reading this debacle of a thread. It seems most people believe that the box players willingly put around their character concept (Paladin rules) is in fact the entirety of the character. After reading 390 posts the overwhelming feeling I've gotten is that if you're playing a Paladin, you're stuck roleplaying the box, not the character.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, situations come about that you can't win. However, do you assume because you know the stats of a giant that you can't win? Or do you play the game and trust that your DM isn't a prick who's throwing encounters at you that are flat out impossible and only geared to kill you?

Look at clash of the titans. Kill the BBEG. Impossible, it's a CR 20 Kaiju! Wait, research and story happens. Ok, we kill the Medusa. Hmm, that's a CR 10 monster with a death attack! Impossible! Hmm, ok we go get a shield to counter the death attack. Toe to toe, character sheet to monster sheet, it's impossible. Playing the game, experiencing the story and using out of combat activities to supplement a combat made the encounters possible. Is that the story being told, or the DM saving the group?

Lets look at another farcical encounter. Our trusty rogue, after overcoming the giant through guile and some hard dwarven liquor feels invincible. Despite learning that he's needed to help so and so down in the kingdom from the bbeg that he's been fighting for 15 levels, he decides he wants to get rich. Filthy rich. So, he goes hunting for a great wyrm dragon to kill it and steal its horde. He leaves his group behind and goes & finds a dragon. Then, sneaking up on it, he stabs the dragon. Then he dies.

Both at first glance appear to be unwinnable situations. On the one hand, the first example would have the players and DM in harmony telling the cooperative story. Despite seemingly impossible challenges, they are overcome. The second example is a pretty black and white example of a player out of harmony with the group and DM, doing something absolutely dumb and dying for it.

My train of thought and comments come from assuming that the DM and players are in harmony, telling a cooperative story, and that the encounter IS balanced despite the mechanical disparity. So overcoming the challenges are not dependent on the DM hand waving and breaking story. It's based on creativity, paying attention, thinking outside the box etc in addition to mechanics. PnP RPGs aren't black and white stat block vs. stat block.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Castles were built at locations that were defensible. Meaning, terrain dictated design. Also the design lended itself to its purpose. Defend harbor? Defend surrounding towns?

Examples of different castle designs.

Castle 1

Castle 2

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It sure must be riveting to gather round the table to one shot Sauron. Darn that pesky 15 epic DR stopping 1/9000 of my damage. It sure ruined the campaign.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Infernal Healing is like cholesterol. It'll get you in the end. ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To me it sounds like you are frustrated with summoners as a class, and haven't broken down why yet. You're appearing to me as being all over the place on what you're not satisfied with. Stat allocation, spells, eidolons activity time, eidolon customization, feeling eidolons are better than other class abilities (which it is because it's a larger portion of the summoners ability than comparable class abilities on other classes) etc. It's not that your rationale is arcane, it's that you're not being specific in what you want to resolve as far as I can tell.

It's my opinion that the summoner isn't OP compared to other classes if you're looking at potential. It's that they don't require a great deal of system mastery to be really good, so you get more disparity in a group (I believe someone else mentioned this). Take a look what you can do with cleric summoners or wizard summoners and a single level of diabolist if you want an example. (If you're using inner sea magic, i'd never bother with a summoner over a core caster.)

All I can say is you can't look at the eidolon in a vacuum comparing it to other class abilities. It won't result in a fair comparison.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see the point of summoners without, or extremely limited uses of, Eidolons. Eidolons are the class feature, not the summons. Take eidolons away and you're just a crummy wizard that gets free summon monsters. I'd take a wizard or cleric over a summoner without the Eidolon.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Run the character as a cohort. Don't roll the combats for him, just deal w/his activities as a narrative if he's not there. If it's vital to the group that his character do something, then roll etc and quickly remove him from being the star. Focus on the players who are attending.

Don't award XP if he doesn't give ample warning that he won't attend.

When he doesn't attend, any chance you get to move the character to the background do so. Examples:
1 - say you're in a forest exploring for the session and he's a Ranger, he's off solo exploring.
2 - if you are in a city and need to talk to the head of the wizards guild, he's going to be in the bar waiting for the group
etc. etc.

Don't bring anything up to the other players until it's obviously something the group is concerned about. Drama is no bueno.

If he cheats (and you know it for certain) to excel and be the big man on campus, talk to him after the game one on one and deal with it factually and without emotions flaring.
During a session where he cheats, allow other players to get the spotlight. Nothing quite stinks more than a cheater always doing critical damage and ruling combat when you're honest and eating those 1's.