Names: Gus, Havik, Catullus, Vors (TPK)
Investigator was able to open the Break DC 50 doors with a Knowledge Engineering check against the Break DC with Applied Engineering + Eidetic Recollection. They negated the radiation with spells and defeated the warsworns. They had not yet earned any victory points as they just began the module. They had to face Unity and all its minions. Vorpal battleaxe took out their main weapon, the Brawler. With Unity's duel initiatives and minions, they could not escape. Even the Contingency+Teleport failed.
I agree with Chess Pwn, 20 point buy, core races (maybe others, but definitely the core ones can keep stats sane), and I recommend Automatic Bonus Progression, Unchained pg 156. This eliminates the need for all these stat boosting items (the items are not in the game with this system) because it gives the PCs the bonus from those items automatically. This is good because modules and Challenge Ratings assume that your PCs have the items which characters are supposed to have (roughly) at whatever level they are (Core Rulebook, Table 12-4, pg 399, Character Wealth by Level).Auto Bonus Prog prevents situations where a PC just saves up all their money and buys the best +6 stat thing way earlier than the challenges faced anticipate. Which could be good or bad, but the Auto Bonus Prog is fair to all the PCs. Any stat above 25 (with or without Auto Bonus) just seems a bit extreme for characters under 14th level to me.
Yes, VMC has helped my group a lot. We often do not have anyone who can disable magical traps (they can usually find them with Detect Magic or locate normal ones with Perception. We like that more characters can locate and bypass traps in Pathfinder, but it's nice not to burn all your Dispel Magic's on magical traps. So VMC, Arcane Duelist took variant rogue (so he feels kind of ranger-like) in the Nirmathas campaign, and the Cleric of Erastil took variant rogue (so she feels kind of trapper-like, which fits her hunter-ish backstory) in our Dragon's Demand module.
I agree with the, what I call "balance issues", though parallelism does sound better. We may be focusing on the wrong things here. This vigilante system seems to be bringing us one step closer to a backwards compatible Pathfinder system that is classless, and you simply pick your class abilities, HD, BAB, skill points, etc. If you pick something that makes you sub-par, well, you picked it. However, Yes, I didn't like that I could not find a way to get a full BAB build with the Avenger spc, the warpriest mechanic is the perfect fix!
We've just cleared the ground floor of Citadel Drezen:
-human (chelaxian) male cleric 8 (ragathiel)/ hierophant 2
-elf male magus 8/ duel archmage/champion 2
-human (chelaxian) male ranger 8 (trapper)/ champion 2
-elf female fighter 7/ champion 1
-human (chelaxian) male paladin 7 (damerrich)/ champion 2
-human (keleshite) male wizard 7/ archmage 2
Good, good, Prof (Lawyer), St. Cuthbert had that maxed for a reason! As to replacing Prof with other skills, I will try it, but only for PC, npc's will still use it, I just want to see how that plays out. Lawyer, Knowledge (Local/Nobility), Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, Linguistics. So yeah, Prof Lawyer could save you on a lot of skill points, but I still want to try it.
It's a legitimate complaint about their channeling only insofar as it relates to past editions, which may have the paladin's turn undead/ channel energy wrong. As, in fact, pathfinder is saying those editions were incorrect, the paladin should channel as a cleric of the same level. The deal with a paladin's caster level and channeling level being lower than his class level just always struck me as reasonable, as those weren't his focus, more martial, less magical. But i can see the general sentiment is that it's not really a big deal. Had pathfinder been all I've ever known, it wouldn't be, I imagine.
"Not every call for init needs to be for combat" !!! I like that, Stranger. I used to just take the flat-footed thing as purely a game mechanic and applied no real-life thinking to it, just an abstract thing, but some of these posts have actually made it a little clearer, to me, about what that represents. If I'm ready to dodge vs not expecting the guy to swing on me, I can see it that way.
"At the start of a battle, before you have had a
I usually straight up tell the PC who takes fighter that at later levels, his comrades are going to have a bunch of limited use wiz-bang-pow flashy stuff, but, so long as the party uses the fighter to kill the enemy by maneuvering the fighter to the enemy and controlling how many enemies he faces at a time, etc, they start to see the fighter's great worth (uses up way less resources to win the day, generally, not always, but). But I see people's issue, like I said, our only fighter since the conversion is in an 8th level group and I don't want to see him feel sub-par and not having a good time. I lose players this way, why would they play something that isn't very fun, they could do video games or something.
I don't know what it will look like at higher levels (fighter in the group) and was wondering if anyone had taken a straight fighter into the higher levels and how that worked within the team.
First of all, the point of this thread is one's opinion on paladins. From AD&D 2nd to v3.5, the paladin has never turn undead/ channeled energy as well as a cleric, now we're in pathfinder and they actually channel better, as their charisma is generally higher, making the DC higher. I was just a but of a shock coming in from those other editions. But the consensus seems to be that the channeling aspect of the paladin is legit, and it's other issues that make the class unbalanced.
I feel the paladin' s channel energy should be level-3, and would be more of an out of combat thing to heal multiple allies at once, that way his lay on hands would be stronger. In our group, every time the paladin gives off a channel energy and destroys all the undead, I see the cleric player standing there like "thanks, guy, my one chance to do something", the cleric is a good sport about it, but i want to see that player having a good time, too, not getting his thunder stolen.
I have a player, 13th level paladin, in the group i gm, pathfinder rules, of course. He serves as the front line warrior. My only complaint about the class is how he can channel energy as a cleric of the same level, often better than his lay on hands. We look it up every time, as it doesn't feel right, I'm used to paladin level -3 or something, but No. I haven't seen an errata on that, though i haven't look in a long time, I would like to see errata on that. I hate it.
Hmm. The highest level fighter we have is in our 8th level campaign.... so far, no complaints or any feeling of uselessness, with traits we are able to add some class skills, so that's working, the +3 to class skills, and the combat expertise chain, our elven curve blade fighter gave himself a 14 int.
OP, you bring up a good point. I have several ranks in profession soldier, and i considered using it in some large scale battle stuff, to give the troops some kind of bonus or something, mostly for background reasons though.
Yet my magus player with cure wands is able to hold his own, as the magus is what he knows, his skills are diverse enough, he can't disable most traps, but he can usually find them and dispel them if the trap is magic. Plus with stealth/Dex, high ac from said dex, good with range too, but again, he is Very familiar with the magus class, hand me the character sheet and I'd lose the character in the first fight.
A lot of good ideas here, and most sound very reasonable, too, as any class that could heal itself and fight seems like it could hold its own (cleric, paladin, bard ranger, inquisitor, etc), but we must not forget that different folks may be better using different classes.
"If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attack" Pg 10, ultimate magic. -that is from the Spellstrike (su) description, which tells us it can indeed be used with spell combat. Yes, it seems to good to be true. But, it is a full round action, requires a concentration check if cast defensively, and both swings of the weapon (the normal melee attack and the Spellstrike, which i would have to think would be your last swing, but perhaps not necessarily) are at a -2, like two weapon fighting. I believe this was also a FAQ.
(thinking of the meme where the guy raises his finger to make a point but then withdraws) PG 214 Core Rule-book does indeed say "away from you", good eye anthonydido, and it's very reasonable to say, given the spell diagrams on page 215 core rule-book, that the intent here is that a cone or line does not include yourself. So yes, I am inclined to go with anthonydido on this now.
Though I would not find it unreasonable to allow someone to use, say, Burning Hands, on themselves, this would have to be on a case-by-case basis.
Just seems as a general rule, with feats or spells or what-have-you, if it seems to good to be true, it probably is (with DnD/Pathfinder), which is exactly why we take the Simple/Martial/Exotic weapon feat to mean just 1 weapon per feat, though the Armor Prof feats give you access to all the armor in the group!
Yes, yes, to Squirrel Dude, you listen! But, our Life Oracle is an amazingly ridiculous healer. I mean, wow! We saved up and bought ours a cloak of charisma +6, and if he's human, extra Spells Known at each level. The reason seems to be, and I find the term distasteful but it works, he can spam spells, such as status removal and buffs, as well as cures, with great proficiency. A cleric is much more than that. But you asked for a healer, and I say Life Oracle.
Just to throw that out there, his Spells per Day are; orisons/8/8/8/8/6/4 at level 12. It's pretty insane, but, all by himself with no teammates, he's nothing to write home about, he's just good at his job.
On the official Pathfinder Sheet, I put my domain powers under "Special Abilities" and I only use the Spell List area to write in my two domain names and then the domain spell from the different spell level.
I put a "t" on the left side of the spell's name that I am selecting that day, then an "x" next to that domain spell when I've used it. All other spells per day, separate sheet we made in house.
So if you look at the back of my character sheet, you'll only see the two domain spells for Law and Glory written in for each spell level with a "t" in front of the one I've taken for the day.
Temporary Hit Points: Do temporary hit point from the same source stack?
No. Generally, effects do not stack if they are from the same source (Core Rulebook page 208, Combining Magical Effects). Although temporary hit points are not a "bonus," the principle still applies.
This prevents a creature with energy drain (which grants the creature 5 temporary hit points when used) from draining an entire village of 100 people in order to gain 500 temporary hit points before the PCs arrive to fight it.
Temporary hit points from different sources (such as an aid spell, a use of energy drain, and a vampiric touch spell) still stack with each other.
This was from the Pathfinder Design Team.
I like where you're going with this! But I would have to say, that unless you want to make a massive potion, I'd have to rule that, yes, you can, but it would take two standard actions to drink it, as it would have to be more liquid. But this is creative and I like the thought, though I don't see anything explicitly on it other than the rules you quoted on multiple ability items.
Snowleopard does offer a solution, you use the ride skill to tell your mount to charge an enemy, while holding your lance attack to hit as soon as you are 10ft from the enemy then the horse gets adjacent to the enemy and hits with its hoof charge attack. I wouldn't give you the +2 if you attack with your lance while the horse is in the process of charging, but I would multiply the damage from your lance, and a +1 to AT for higher ground, if applies, as the core rulebook says "when charging" pg 202, rather than "after your mount has charged". If you attack with your sword at the end of the horse's charge, then I would give you a +2 to hit (the horse hits first most likely), as the movement part of the charge is complete.
Or, we could not let the horse attack on a charge while it is carrying a rider that is using a 10ft reach weapon, "Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move." pg 201 core, saying, "sorry, Mr. Horse, but you have simply become my new movement rate or speed, and you must use your turn to move me around, though I can, as a free action, use the ride skill to direct you to attack if there is someone you can hit with your 5ft reach."
Core Rulebook pg 202 "If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty
There are several places throughout the core rulebook that elude to a large creature being able to initiate an attack from any square it that touches its space "If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking." and "Unlike when someone uses a reach weapon, a creature with greater than normal natural reach (more than 5 feet) still threatens squares adjacent to it. A creature with greater than normal natural reach usually gets an attack of opportunity against you if you approach it, because you must enter and move within the range of its reach before you can attack it. This attack of opportunity is not provoked if you take a 5-foot step. Large or larger creatures using reach weapons can strike up to double their natural reach but can’t strike at their natural reach or less." pg 195 core rulebook.
Yes, I agree with James Risner, along the same lines, a dragon using it's 10ft reach bite on a medium opponent and fly-by-attack made the players sad, as they readied actions to strike the dragon as it came by, but it had a reach of 10ft, they only had 5ft. It gets more pronounced with Reach Weapons!
I searched the rules forums, didn't really find what I was looking for, situation: Gulthius, wizard 13, has multiple spells active on him all at his caster level. Gulthius attacks a group of 11th level players. Life Oracle successfully hits Gulthius with Dimensional Anchor so he can't flee. Later the Life Oracle decides to remove any buffs from Gulthius he can, so he targets Gulthius with Dispel Magic, needs a 24 to remove any one of Gulthius' spells, but gets a 23, which IS enough to end Dimensional Anchor (cast by the Life Oracle (11th) earlier).
Against my better judgement, I let the dimensional anchor remain in place, as it does seem counter intuitive to remove your own spells when trying to remove buffs, but when simply targeting a creature, rather than the buff spell itself, I'm pretty sure the rules side on my first thought that it would indeed have ended dimensional anchor (caster level 11th) with a dispel roll of 23, since no specific spell was targeted, it's just going to break the first thing it can. (yes, I'm just looking for confirmation is my original decision so I can so "Never Again!") thank you.
Yes, Gargantuan and Colossal pawns would really enhance my game! I love my pawns (though bestiary page number would be nice on the pawn instead of whatever number that is on the bottom) but all in all, they work. Monsters and NPCs are clearly distinct from the PCs and that is a good thing. Often time with minis you end up using the same five all night because it's a medium creature and you need one. I can't tell you how many roles my gargantuan black dragon has had to play "alright, now, in this scene you are a creature called an Overworm, think you can do that?"
Hi, I'm a new convert to Pathfinder RPG from 3.5, old thread, but I found the stat block template you made very useful, thank you.