I see 10 Loot 4 Less plus one about explosions. Is there any recommends or "skip it" for the line? My personal favorite was 'Fezzes are Cool' but they pretty much all have some good items and fun ideas. If you are looking for something that can be a 'prize' for the whole parts and won't take up slots, Crazy Kragnar's Used Chariots is pretty fun.
I highly recommend the Rogue Genius Games loot 4 less line.
I would think that anyone could hate the undead.
Once again, that isn't what anyone has said. Mages would be present in a high seas encounter about like they would in any other encounter. For example, if a treasure ship of a kingdom is transporting something of enough value, a powerful spell caster might very well accompany it. A naval ship dedicated to hunting pirates might have a mage as part of the ships company. A mage might choose to become a pirate captain (or crew) for lots of reasons, just like they might choose to adventure in caverns underground. What they probably wouldn't be is simple hirelings employed for a fairly low amount. I would say that it would be rare for a ship to have a mage without having cannons etc. unless that mage was a pirate that was just starting out or something similar. So ships in order of power would most commonly go something like this: Lowe: Just crew with personal weapons
Obviously there would be exceptions, but that is what I would most commonly expect to see.
No one is saying there are no casters who are pirates or no casters who aren't engaged in protecting ships from pirates. They are just saying you can't buy them for a few thousand gold a year. Also, alchemists are technically not casters, which creates all sorts of problems for alchemists that want to craft magical items.
First thing I would say is that the ship-to-ship combat rules in Pathfinder and Scull and Shackles are not great. I'd strongly recommend the Razor Coast Fire as She Bears supplement as an alternative. Leaving that aside for now, I think you are missing a few things about Pirates. While Pirates may occasionally buy things for their ships, they are usually more interested in stealing them, and the ships themselves of course. If you manage to take a board a ship with cannons, then you don't have to buy them. I suppose you could try enslaving mages as an alternative, but that is somewhat problematic even if the moral issues don't bother that particular band of cut throats. I also think you underestimate the cost of hiring mages. Yes, their are rates for spell casting services, but those rates generally assume the spell caster is staying home in comfort and safety, not living on a pirate ship. And as others have mentioned, even with the Pathfinder rules magic is not as impressive in a ship-to-ship battle as you seem to think. In our group, the focus was always getting in close as quickly as possible and boarding in any event. We didn't want to destroy the other ship, we wanted to take it intact and sell it (or keep it).
What I would probably do is buy a couple of foam boards (like these) and some super glue. One board could be the cliff, and the other cut out to make platforms etc. It wouldn't have a grid on it unless you drew it yourself, but it should be workable.
The Remorhaz's secret is that it's always angry.
All I know is I want to play a bloodsweeper. I picture a really pissed off Dick Van D!@&.
The single sentence Java Man is refering to is: "Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage caused by such a weapon." Granted, immunity and DR are different, but immunity could also be considered DR infinite and, as we have established the sorcerer DR is not presented as normal DR, so we have to interpret to some degree. So we have a morning star that deals 5 points of bludgeoning and piercing. A creature with Immunity to piercing damage would take 5 points of damage. A creature with DR 5/slashing or bludgeoning (the standard way DR is presented for something that had protection from just piercing damage) would take 5 points. I find it difficult to come up with a logical reason why the weirdly presented sorcerer DR 5/only piercing would not be the same and the sorcerer would take 5 points of damage.
I would discount the 'carrying stuff' need. Beyond options like ant haul, baggage isn't normally carried by either a majordomo or a bodyguard. Pack animals or low status portals are more likely. If you are strong and want to carry stuff, you can, but I certainly wouldn't make it a character criteria. I'd think about whether I needed to be great at things like diplomacy or just competent. If you think you need to be great, then a CHR based class is probably going to be the best. If just competent (able to find out pretty basic stuff like where the best Inn is, but not necessary convince the townsfolk to follow you into revolt) then as long as you don't have a negative CHR, can put skill points into the necessary skills you should be ok, especially if they are, or can be made via a trait, class skills. Baring information about others in the party, I might think about a cleric. They have some pretty good spells for the protector aspect, have decent martial abilities, benefit from a minor investment in CHR and magic helps out a lot if you have to fight without normal weapons and armor. Really though, I could make such a character with just about any of the 3/4 BaB classes.
I find that the extra bookkeeping of keeping track of all this sort of valuables and how to convert it into cash is more trouble then it is worth. It also tends to slow down the game dramatically and players ask about if/how literally everything in their environment can be converted to cash. When I want to add flavor to treasure of an encounter would describe it (a beautiful painting of the Count's grandmother, rumored to have been part fey) but I'd just have the players record it a $500 gp (or whatever) and move on. No bothering with trying to appraise it, or searching for a buyer or anything like that. Insert the flavor when they find it, but after that it is effectively just coins. Obviously this is just a matter of taste and there isn't necessarily a 'right' way, but I have seen you complain about your party moving 'slowly' before, and I can't imagine that having to figure out if a Minotaur's spleen has any value and where the best market for it might be doesn't contribute to a slower paced game.
Kill the proposed victim yourself first, thus completely foiling the crime!
You seem to understand the rules...so it seems you aren't asking a rules question, but more of a rationalization to make sense 'in the world' of how the rules work in this particular case. In some cases it would be pretty obvious. If a bite with the grab ability didn't do damage, it makes sense that the teeth didn't stick in and so the grab doesn't work. Your tendril is less obvious, but similar explanation seems reasonable, in that something needs to 'stick' to the target (barbs, suckers, something) for the grab to work, without damage the 'sticking' doesn't happen. If that doesn't work for you, perhaps you can think of something else, but as far as how the rules work it doesn't really matter.
How many of the great chase scenes in cinema are simple comparison of speed? Zero? A chase scene that is interesting isn't about how fast one can move on an open field, but different exercises in skills, sometimes vastly different skills between the two parties (perhaps the chasee is leaping over and around obstacles, while the chaser is just plowing through them.) The point though is that it is tests of skill and variations of the challenges that make them interesting. I don't know that there is 'one system' that makes this work, although multiple skill tests with x out of y conditions for 'winning' isn't a bad place to start. I think a great chase is going to have to be pretty customized though, in relation to the campaign and the purpose of the chase, in the abilities of the parties involved, and in relation to the environment. I will say though that as a general rule I find it easier to make a chase 'work' when the PCs are doing the chasing rather than the reverse.
There are quite a few rings that have spell effects. Rings of elemental commands have several spell effects and ring of spell storing, especially if they have someone else who can recharge it, would be great for this. Personally, I'd probably start with a cloak of the hedge wizard though. One thing to keep in mind is that is isn't exactly obvious how easy (or hard) it is to tell if someone is casting spell normally or using a magic item to create a spell effect or using a magic item to cast a spell. Is it totally obvious? Is it a perception or knowledge check? The point of this is, if the GM and the players don't have the same understanding about how this bit of the rules works, it could lead to players feeling 'cheated' if the GM uses this to 'fool' them.
I would imagine that if I were someone who 'insisted' on realism, I wouldn't allow 125' land speed.
'Hammers' or I prefer 'Strikers' don't have to be either melee or even physical attacks. A blaster druid is a striker. Of course classes alone don't tell us anything about the roles a character is built to play, let alone what role they will actually play as. I could certainly build a party of nothing but strikers with the 4 character's mentioned above. Clerics though are often support, and arcanists and witches both can be great battlefield controllers. Bards can certainly be built to stand in the front line and fight just fine. I wouldn't be inclined to a Dervish Dancer with this group, particularly if the druid has an animal companion because the reach cleric could really benefit from a buff, not being full BaB either. Duettist Bard, particularly with a mauler familiar, would be better in my opinion. A reach or ranged build would be things I would look at, with inspire courage and arcane strike you should be able to dish out pretty good damage. Every class there can have either an animal companion or familiar (which is the character is small and the familiar is a mauler can serve as a mount) an all mounted party whose primary defense is keeping at range with a reach defender or two (druid and cleric can do this) can be quite effective. Throw in some summons from any of the 5 classes you have that can cast them, and you have great defense. Then I'd have the bard be a ranged combatant.
'Either' in the sentence is a pronoun, rather than an adjective (the definitions listed are for either as an adjective.) Either as a pronoun can only mean 'the one or the other'
It isn't my job to play their characters, teach them about tactics or any of that. Let them do what they want to do.
Campaign traits are specific to a campaign, a campaign trait published for an AP is not a campaign trait for any other campaign, essentially it doesn't exist. Of course, as you note, the GM can make a campaign trait published elsewhere as either a campaign trait or another type of trait for their game. I think it is questionable whether a non-character without traits can gain a trait through the additional traits feature. It is written with the assumption that anyone who could take it would already have traits (either the campaign uses traits or it doesn't, if it doesn't additional traits would not be available as feat) so it doesn't have any prerequisites. Of course I have seen many people do exactly what your player wants to do, and there isn't any strict wording that requires you to already have traits to take the additional traits feat. My personal solution would probably be to meet him in the middle, I'd allow him to have trapfinding, but it would take an entire feat, not be just one of two traits that he could get for a feat.
First rule: Fun is the goal. If what you think should happen in the game world won't make the game more fun for the group, then absolutely don't do that thing. This is subjective. Some groups are going to find living with the consequence of their actions and being hunted down by a major religion for their actions to be a lot of fun, others would find that a total drag and not be what they come to the table to do. Second rule. You don't punish players for what characters do and you don't punish characters for what players do. Example 1: The party breaks a law in the game world. They are should face consequences in game that reflect that. The players shouldn't face consequences (such as the GM taking away loot from future encounters because he is mad.) Example 2: A players says something inappropriate to the GM or a fellow player. The GM should talk to the player, perhaps even going so far as to asking them to leave the group. The GM should not retaliate in game by doing things to the character. It seems to me that you are pissed at your players for their characters actions. You need to take a breath, realize that this is a game and your anger is probably going to be counter productive to your goals and then focus on what do to make the game the best experience it can be. It is also possible that you and the group have different visions for what sort of game this should be and it might benefit your table if you all discussed that.
Are you looking to be an evil enchanter but convince others that you aren't, or are you looking to only use enchantment in the most ethical way possible? The two are very different.
I decided to not show up to this Friday's game. If anyone contacts me I will explain my issue. I know this GM and he honestly does not care if people leave his game for not having fun. He is firmly in the philosophy that players can vote with their feet if they do not like what the GM has done. So no amount of my talking to him will change that. It is sad because it feels like he is allowing these two new players a lot of leeway even though he has only known them for a year. Despite the fact that you have been treated badly, I think you should still at the minimum let the GM know you won't be playing anymore. That is just common courtesy, and doesn't cost you anything. A simple email saying that the game isn't fun for you so you won't be participating anymore is all that is required. You don't have to (and probably shouldn't) go into any details or justify your decision, but just informing him not to expect you is polite.
Balancing a Lich character with other PC characters can be trickly, leaving aside any conflicts that the other characters might have about running around with an evil undead. My first option would be to talk to the player and see if they are heartset on playing a lich, or would be satisified to have that be a goal their character is working toward, but would be ok with during the actual play of the campaign it is just an adventure hook (i.e. they will be able to find information on the process, providing motivation and progress toward their goal) but they won't actually reach their goal during the campaign (or possibly right before the end, adding something in like that for the climax of the campaign isn't so bad.) If they were really set on playing a lich, and if the other players characters would go along with it, then I would look at something to balance it so that all the PCs would get similar benefits to try and keep some degree of balance.
Since you indicate that you would like to continue the subscription, except for the problem of not having anyone interested in playing PF2, I think a better question might be if anyone has suggestions on convincing a 5E group to go with PF2 and what benefits (and to be fair drawbacks) such a group might see from a switch. If the subscription is worth keeping, PF2 fans should be able to come up with some pretty good answers. Unfortunately, have not yet made the jump to PF2, I can't personally help with this, but I would also be interested in what people have to say.
There isn't a right answer. You have to know the player (and other players at the table) well enough to be able to walk the line between portraying fictional prejudice and offending real people. My best bet is to talk about it with you group and discuss how you as a table want to deal with this issue and what would be too much.
I don't think you understand what a strawman is. I also think you are assuming a lot about me, without any merit. There is a huge difference between making people feel uncomfortable by forcing them to confront things you feel are problematic, and making everyone feel comfortable. The idea that you can only achieve the later via the former seems unlikely to me. That said, we are probably veering too far afield for this post, and I won't be commenting on it further.
The fantasy genre has a long tradition of being a racist genre, perhaps inherently so, and I see no reason to let people feel comfortable with it.One reason might be that sometimes people just want to enjoy gaming and not deal with real world issues. Thank you for the excellent construction of a straw man! Of course everyone is welcome in my games. In fact, I want everyone to feel comfortable. I have indeed played and run games that deal with heavy real world issues. That can be fun. I have also, probably more, just played games that are designed to be fun, where everyone can relax and where the game makes no attempt to confront any long traditions of racism or anything else of a similar weighty manner. In my post, I merely said that one reason I could see (where Scott apparently couldn't see any) to let people feel comfortable with traditional fantasy is because however worthy confronting those things are some of the time, it is not necessary to make everything so serious. Sometimes I just want to relax, roll some dice and make bad puns, and in my experience I am not alone in that.
I believe it was related to a grappling succubus.
I see no reason to let people feel comfortable with it. One reason might be that sometimes people just want to enjoy gaming and not deal with real world issues.
I think there are several questions here: The first is can the game system handle fairly radical reskinning, and the answer to that is that it 100% can. Your elves can have orange skin, droopy ears and pig noses and the system won't care at all. The second is how much re-skinning can you do in a particular setting, and a lot of that comes down to communication. If I tell you your enter a village of orange skinned, droopy eared creatures with pig noses and then refer to them as elves, you are going to be confused if that reskinning hasn't been explained before. Certainly the 'skin' of things is important, and contributes to the perceptions of the game world. The above 'elves' wouldn't feel like elves to me, and I wouldn't make that choice. If everyone at the table knows about the reskinning, and is cool with it though, it isn't a problem. If you are a player obviously you need to work with your GM and make sure your vision of the race will work with his vision of the world. In a setting like PFS, just stick with what is published. When I say 'elf' that very short word conveys a lot of information based on experiences in the game and other influence from our culture. The more my vision of 'elf' departs from that norm (and fairly enough, there is a lot of variation already Keebler and Tolkien are quite different) the more confused others are going to be when I use that word, obviously they can adapt with time, but doing that sort of thing, especially a lot, might make the came less fun.
Appreciate all those who helped clarify my point from that old thread.
The entire point of my post there was that that wasn't an appropriate scale, but if you were to insist that superman was a human paladin and was appropriately represented by that, then Batman being a human wizard isn't completely out of the question. In any event, I take exception to being characterized as someone who "acts like BaB is what would separate superman and batman."
Well, I think your first step is to talk to the Inquisitors player and see what he is planning on. If he is planning on melee, one thing to remember is that he will have teamwork feats (unless he took an archetype that takes them out.) With solo tactics, he doesn't need you to have them, but since he will have them anyway, you taking them might make a lot of sense. One pretty good option if you are going to be the only melee guy is to have NO melee guys. If the inquisitor goes for sacred huntsmaster and you also take an animal companion class then every one of your party could be mounted (on an animal companion by 4th level), gaining quite a bit of mobility. That combined with some summon monsters can be a very powerful option. Personally, with that option I'd be looking at Evangelist cleric with animal domain (for the mount) and sacred summons feat. That would also give the party some condition removal that the druid won't have. As other's have noted, that doesn't give you any arcane casting, but I don't really believe that the 'flavor' of casting is a big deal and between them a druid and a cleric have plenty of magic.
I'd want more information on the 'no so melee' inquisitor. Is it a ranged inquisitor? Is it a melee inquisitor that isn't really good at his job? The two are quite different. If it is the first you need something that can take all the melee hits for the party, if it is the second, you can share out taking the hits, but you need to provide support to help out. Paladin would be pretty good if you are going to be the sole melee guy. Bloodrager with a mauler familiar as a mount could work out pretty well too. If you are going to be working with the inquisitor in melee, I'd be looking at Bard. Arcane Duelist perhaps.
Stormbringer in the Elric stories was actually a demon, although what particular type would be represent that in Pathfinder I don't know. "Farewell, friend. I was a thousand times more evil than thou!"
3 massive damage dealing characters with bad will saves? Sounds like dominate person is called for.
I have always thought that letting the players know the themes of the proposed campaign, including at least enough information to derive things like favored enemies and favored terrain was GM 101.
It is of course quite possible to be good natured and not be of a good alignment. A very evil person can be quite pleasant and companionable even though they have a very skewed mentality. I don't agree that the core rulebook 'waffles' on the issue of alignment and alignment descriptors. It quite clearly states that the spell descriptors interact with alignment among other things. Exactly how that should be adjudicated wasn't spelled out until Horror Adventures (and I agree that it was done quite poorly there) but that it does interact in unambiguous. Without the Horror adventures rule it was left up to the GM, like everything else that interacts with alignment. If you want to be neutral or good and also make a habit of raising undead you will need to talk to your GM ahead of time, and see how he feels about that. Personally, I could certainly see a neutral as a viable possibility, but good would be a stretch. There is obviously a wide range of opinions on the matter though.
I'm looking for the perfect mix between the two. My dm is allowing me to take Guided Hand and add wisdom to attack and damage but not adding the two-handed 1.5% bonus. Also, we start with 16,000gp. With 25 point buy unless I really wanted to focus on Save-or-Lose Spells I'd just go with STR. I'd be perfectly happy with a 16 WIS to start.
Vulnerabilities (Ex or Su)
I don't think there is a 'right' answer, although there often is a right answer for a specific group. If your group has been enjoying the way you have been running it, basically making sure they are victorious then that is the right answer, if they want it to be more challenging, uncompromising, then that is the right answer. I would caution against suddenly switching styles without warning. You have essentially trained your players to take risks by making those risks not very risky. A sudden change could be quite a shock and leave players dissatisfied. Talking to the players about your concerns and getting feedback from them is probably more useful then asking that question here, and gives them a warning if you decide to change things up.
Just write your character out and move on. Tell the story of the party and your new character, rather than wasting time on a character that is just going away.
Use Magic device and a wand is cheaper (per casting). Or the wand and having someone else activate it for you. Custom magic items are a possibility, but that depends a lot on your GM.
They have to buy the latest splatbook.
Paladins are not empowered to murder petty bureaucrats who skim from the petty cash box and take an unhealthy pleasure in making people fill out forms in triplicate. They certainly are in my world! On a more serious note:
if your DM is going to penalize you for killing an obviously evil creature, i think you & him would benefit from reading this;** spoiler omitted **... Personally I've never liked this as an example of how a Paladin should be played. It is a perfectly valid interpretation, and some good role playing and obviously enjoyed by everyone which are all good things. That said, I think most Paladins would, and should, honestly believe that being good and supporting lawful behavior is the best way to combat evil. The notion that Paladin's should really believe that chaotic good morals are superior, but are willing to follow rules in exchange for super powers strikes me as profoundly mistaken.
First off, this has nothing to do with class at all. It is a question of your role in the party and what it takes to accomplish that. Pathfinder is a team game. And like a lot of team games, the team is more effective if they play specific positions rather than all just try and mob the ball. Ideally, you and everyone else in the party should know what position you are playing (of course there are plenty of parties that don't do this, and the result is usually not dissimilar to a soccer game of 5 year olds and just like that soccer game, it can be fun which is the ultimate goal.) If your position is 'support' then you should be casting a lot of buffs. If it isn't, you probably shouldn't be casting any.
specifically taking a level in wizard to craft magic items at half cost then respec'ing back to barbarian) Would yall allow this? Absolutely. I'd even work into it a nice backstory where his crafting wizard, tired of being beaten up and having all the stuff he made stolen by bullies became consumed with rage, began working out, and abandoned his mystical studies for more martial endeavors. Of course the result of this theft by bullies means that he starts out with the same starting wealth as everyone else. If you don't have a feat that gives you extra WBL when the game starts, you don't get to take advantage of it for your starting equipment. You benefit from what you have, not what you theoretically had at some point in the past.
Your players don't trust you. That is a real issue. And I think they have some good reasons for that ('railroad','imprison','force'.) Who knows what will happen to their poor characters if they venture out of their safe tavern? When the one win is from being 'forced' it is easy to see why they don't feel super empowered. What you need to do is first off, think about your GM style and what is working and what isn't. Second, and most importantly, you need to have an honest discussion with your players about what kind of game they would like, what would motivate them, and what makes it fun for them, and really listen to them. I kind of feel that you like complex story lines and very serious opposition, and there is nothing wrong with that sort of game, but there is also nothing wrong with a game where you primarily beat up on monsters and take their stuff and everything is basic and straightforward. Where there is a problem is when the players want one thing, and the GM runs another. Usually there is some middle ground where everyone can be happy and have a good time.
|
