Derek Weil's page

Hi!

I am very interested - but wondering what the group's current makeup is like? I am thinking of some kind of cleric or inquisitor depending on what roles are already covered.

Ok, I have been working on a concept for the Storm Druid I mentioned before. He would be a very caster-focused character, and would sacrifice the Animal Companion for a few extra spells. (So a very different sort of character than what Reksew is considering).

But I'd be focusing on control spells, summoning and to a lesser extent damage spells, etc.

I can get the crunch together, but I didn't want to go to the trouble if the team is looking for something else.

I have worked up a background, so see what you think:

I've been very interested in playing this AP - and a Storm Druid seems pretty thematic. I'll get details up later today.

With only 16 HP left, it becomes a moot point.

Mavario'ns blast strikes the robot, and the resulting jolt sends gears and bits of metal flying as the construct collapses in a ruined heap.

The guard steps back and tries to hit Skug with his flail.

Attack: 1d20 + 8 ⇒ (6) + 8 = 14

The attack misses badly.

Round 3:

Mavarion
Human guard (-7)
Van Potter
Iso (-2)
Belvica (-15)
Skug (-2)
Man
Mylvwara

Hi Shifty, I just wanted to post in here because I didn't want to clutter signups too much.

I have signed up for an 8-9 table with my Battle Herald. But If there is a need to get an extra person to make a table fire, I have characters available in every tier.

For example, I have a Cleric 11 if the high tier is still left with only 3 players.

That is good enough for me. Thanks for sharing!

Maybe my question got buried in my last post:

What level does this module end at?

Thanks!

I see up-thread that this module can be used as a potential sequel to Ire of the Storm.

I am trying to pick out possible adventures for a gaming group I may be joining, so I was wondering how many levels this one covered.

I think an AP might be a tad too long for us, but if the two paired together got us to 9th or 10th level, that could be pretty cool.

Thanks for taking the time to reply!

Obviously most of this will be up to me to figure out with the group assuming we move ahead.

Their current campaign will have covered 2 years, so they are used to sticking with a longer time commitment (and they have been gaming for much longer than this). I think I could make the commitment as well, but I hate the idea of leaving things hanging partway through if life gets in the way. Obviously you can't plan for everything.

I am a bit nervous jumping in as a GM with an established group. I'll have to see if I can sit in on a play session or two first to get a feel for the players. Any other suggestions on that front?

I was talking to a co-worker today about my experience at a recent PFS gameday and RPGs in general. The result of this was that I was invited to GM for his gaming group.

Some background information:

The group is pretty well-established and meets once per month for 4-5 hours each time. They have been playing D&D 3.5 for some time now. They are finishing a campaign this December, just before one of the group members moves away. My co-worker has been GMing for some time and would like to play, and I have just enough experience GMing that I feel comfortable in that role. I have never played any version of D&D, but he tells me that the group's main goal is first to play (system is not super-important to them), and 3.5 is not too far off, especially if we start with CRB and APG or similar.

My co-worker and I work at a CPA firm and have, at the very least, 2-3 months each year when gaming simply cannot happen.

Our plan would be to begin after the 2017 spring tax filing season (late April or early May next year).

With a once-per-month schedule we would have at best 9 sessions between tax seasons. I don't necessarily need to try to cram a whole campaign into this time, but this leads into my questions:

I own a couple nice adventures, The Dragon's Demand (Level 1-7 module) and the Mummy's Mask AP. I've already GM'ed the former, but not the latter.

1) On average, how many gaming sessions would it take to complete an entire AP? It seems like with the schedule above, it would be a 2-year commitment.

I liked Dragon's Demand, but I like running new stuff too. There's another multi-level module, Ire of the Storm, that covers levels 1-6 with the very next module to come out being a great fit for a sequel.

2) Would it be better to start a bit smaller, tackling something we could reasonably play through next year? I'd love to run an AP, but it is a big commitment.

3) Am I maybe better off going out and trying something new for everyone like 5th edition? A major advantage of PF is that the players can access the rules online for free, and I'm experienced with the system. I'm not terribly fond of the power creep, but it seems to bother me less when I'm GMing than playing. But maybe other systems have less of an issue here?

Thanks for any and all comments. I appreciate your input!

Oh man... Given the Rogue-bashing posts that have crept in, I totally need to do a Two Weapon Fighting Rogue now. Core-only Eyes of the Ten, here I come! Thanks, guys!

-Matt

Mine is doing fine so far, albeit only at level 3. (OK, he does wield gladii form UC). Most rogue hate seems to apply at higher levels where their BAB discrepancy shows most.

To Lamplighter: I wasn't trying to be a jerk. I missed the context of your earlier posts about pets. I agree that summoned critters, in particular, slow down games quite a bit. My 6th-level wizard doesn't have a single summoning spell in his book. And he's still pretty useful.

I'm personally excited by this announcement. Every time I consider an RPG purchase I have to justify if the added enjoyment outweighs the cost. Most of the time it does not. Paying $10 or more just to access a feat? Just not worth it to me. So now I have an excuse to stop buying as many rules. There, I said it. But now I can divert those funds to adventures, or pawns, or maps which make my GM presentation so much better!

I'm no graybeard, but I've played over a third of the scenarios, and having a chance to replay sounds cool. Many scenarios get repeated with regularity. Core still lets me try things out that are new to me. Been wanting to do a druid for a while. And I really dig Amiri. I might have to build a level-one clone and see how it goes. And maybe that "vanilla" bard I've been toying with.

Lamplighter, don't you count animal companions as pets? Because they are still legal. And Mike said that anything in the CRB that referenced another source could still be used if you owned that source. So I think summon monster spells still work as worded in the CRB too.

That last thread wasn't locked due to subject matter, per se. It got pretty nasty along the way. I haven't seen that tone here (yet).

I have a dog in this race. Last time I played at a LGS, I had forgotten to print my sheet. I store all character details in my Paizo profiles (since I do a lot of play-by-post as well). So I just accessed that via my phone. My GM had no problem with it. But if campaign leadership is not OK with it, I would like to know.

Character audits should not be viewed as this supremely negative thing. In theory you should expect it of every GM at every game.

I do taxes for a living. I don't file a return that I feel will not stand up under audit or review by the IRS. Sure, very few are audited or reviewed, but almost EVERY tax return is spot-checked by the IRS computers. And I can't tell them "that's what the computer put down". I need to be able to figure out where every number came from if it's challenged.

Sorry to get a bit off this thread's topic, but the point is, to me, that each player should attempt to have a legal and accurate character "sheet" at every game, that stands up to review. I have only done sheet audits a few times. Mostly it's to learn about the PC's and double check to see if they have shorted themselves on ability scores and skill points. I usually ask for a description of how they arrive at their largest bonus. Most are proud to tell me how they twinked out their PC. There's no need to make it adversarial.

I am currently playing a musket master, and compare him frequently to my archer ranger in terms of what they can do in combat. Now, this is only at low levels so far, but he's hardly been an unstoppable force of destruction. Heck, the one time he's rolled a crit the enemy had Deflect Arrows, which apparently allows him to catch a bullet with his hand.

A lot of the realism issues deal with the fact that "Emerging guns" could cover a real broad range of firearms. Take a "musket". You could mean an arquebus, matchlock, flintlock, or even rifled percussion-cap weapon.

There's no way in heck "normal" medieval armor would have stopped a minie ball from a model 1853 Enfield at 40 FEET when it could kill an unarmored person at over 250 YARDS. I'm quite sure even a Brown Bess from the mid 18th century could do it at 40'. Those guns were not accurate past 50-75 yards, but that's more than 3 times the first range increment. I am not sure about earlier firearms, as I have little education or experience relating to them.

I envision my gunslinger as using a kind of flintlock not dissimilar to those employed in the American War for Independence. So I have issues about breaking versimilitude personally.

* Earn my 3rd star, and be on the way to my fourth

* Get a character to level 12
* Not create any new characters, and play the ones I have

Another poster above had similar goals, and it's the same for me. I have about 15 tables to go for star #3, and that's about all I can shoot for this year, if I want to play at all.

As of last night, my -1 character is 1 XP from 12th. He's going to make it this year, darn it!

And with with 11 PFS characters (1 technically, though not legally dead), I really have no need for more. I want to just enjoy the ones I have and see where they take me.

Your point is well-taken. I've GM'ed a few other scenarios that really are hard on level 1's (even more so on those fresh PC's) and read a few spoilers on others that I wouldn't even run at the 1-2 subtier.

And I've played in some where the dice just didn't break the wrong way, or things could have gone bad. I mean, the last encounter of First Steps I can be deadly if your party fails a spell save, or if a particualr NPC crits. a x3 crit weapon in a 1-2 game is brutal, but there are other offenders.

Darkness and save-or-suck effects, I'm looking at you.

Your best bet with a fresh PC is to play The Confirmation, or perhaps the newest scenario, The Wounded Wisp.

David Bowles wrote:

Anti-plague would have been much cheaper. Justy sayin.

Try affording any utility items on just a 150 gold budget. Everybody seems to forget just how crippling starting wealth is in this game when you have no idea what cockamaney out-of-the-blue challenge the scenario writers are going to decide is the "Thrill of the Week!" to use against groups of people in their first scenario who just want to get to the real content where death is a result of bad tactics, not one lousy or lucky roll. I spend enough gold just making sure I have silver and cold iron weapons for the next time I face something in my first scenario that flies, has fast healing canceled by silver, acid or fire, and DR 5/Cold Iron, all in an AC 21 package.

It's easy to blithely ignore this little detail when one can use GM credit to start with a shiny, already-online build, but at least try and remember the full set of character creation rules from start to finish and some of the things Tier 1-2 tries to pass off as not something to scoff at.

So you played

Or something very similar? It was a nasty one, and took just a hint of GM fiat for us to pull through. Had to retreat, start a fire, apply silver weapon blanch, etc. Thankfully none of us were fresh characters! Yeah, some scenarios give 0 XP folks barely a chance.

Thank you - the rule appeared a bit ambiguous. It says the higher of the two requirements. Wasn't sure if that meant the higher of the base enhancement and the special ability, or the higher of the base enhancement compared to the total imputed bonus, which is +4 in this case.

So the cost here would be (12x2) x 2 x 10, or 480 GP? Assuming the caster really needs to be 24th level to do it and make whole isn't somehow changed from being a 2nd level spell?

Many thanks! I was reading the wrong part of the Guide - I tracked down the CRB thing.

And it's funny you mention the +2 holy composite longbow, John! It's as if most good-aligned archers have them once they can afford it...

So, what is the CL of a given weapon?

From the CRB:

Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met. A magic weapon must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to have any melee or ranged special weapon abilities.

So the required CL for a +2 holy weapon would be 7? Since it's higher than the 6 required for the +2 base enhancement bonus?

Interesting reading!

It would be wise for my ranger to have some cash on hand. He already carries 2 bows and is likely to get a 3rd.

How do you determine the cost of a make whole spell? Can't see a formula in the guide or a quick search of the CRB. I'm guessing it's not simply 60 GP x required caster level? Maybe it is?

I have this boon and haven't stuck it on my ranger yet. Ten +1 holy arrows would be 18,302.5 divided by 5. It's so useful, it probably is just worth putting on your bow. As soon as you shoot arrow 51 at an evil foe, you save money. With my level 11 archer that would take about 10 rounds if hasted.

Seeking seems incredibly useful when you need it. So does merciful.

Mutli-classing gunslinger with a number of classes can be very powerful, especially at higher levels of play.

Gunslinger 5/ Inquisitor 5: Dex to damage plus bane against Touch AC? Yes, please.

Gunslinger 5/ Paladin anything: Dex to damage plus SMITE v. Touch. Amaze-balls!

Multiclass with bard: Buff, face, shoot the crap out of things. Seems pretty versatile.

Multiclass with ranger: guns and favored enemy!

The list goes on.

Now, maybe you don't like guns in your fantasy, or something similar. In some regions gunslingers are pretty rare, making actually playing one somewhat unique.

I'll be keeping my eyes on this one, especially if it gets sanctioned for PFS.

I'm not experienced with high-level play, as my highest PFS character is just one game into 11th level, and he's a ranger (so not very complicated to play at all). But I'd love more options as he gets close to the end for scenarios.

And I don't know about high-level math, but I talked to one of our local GM's who has been running the high-level modules for our local group, and she's getting burned out due to the slower gameplay and lack of challenge for the PC's. Here's hoping this one provides everyone a more positive experience!

The store's been less welcoming since D&D 5th came out, as we don't actually buy much from them.

I see this as a sometimes "unspoken" issue in different situations. And sometimes it's clearly voiced.

I have personally spent very little money at any game store I've played at, besides some snacks and drinks. Most of the minis I've bought have been from another store altogether.

In some locations, PFS is a good revenue generator for the stores. In others not so much. We generally don't compete with Magic or Pokemon in sheer dollars, just because of the nature of TCG's.

I'm also not in the position to treat the store as a charity and spend more on an item than I would elsewhere. $1 for a candy bar or can of soda is perfectly reasonable, but for hardbacks I can usually get them at a 40% discount online.

I'm not looking for extra rewards to GM. But when a payer offers to buy me a drink, I never turn it down. And I never turn down free scenarios. I don't like having to PAY to GM, basically.

Derek Weil wrote:

Still, multiclassing isn't a right, nor is it some sacred cow that can't be questioned, even if it's been part of the D&D way for as long as I can remember.

How is it not a right?

Well, in my mind it's different than something that we are philosophically entitled to (as human beings/citizens/etc. - but I rarely think of games in those terms).

That said, I agree with you.

As long as it's part of the core rules, I think that multi-classing should NOT be banned for PFS. Full stop. That's why I threw it out here, instead of on the "what you want banned" thread.

And I also agree that it rarely is MORE powerful than following certain classes through every level. There are many reason for doing it, and I am certainly a player who enjoys using it on at least 1/3 of my PFS characters.

For the record, I really have no interest in seeing current options banned. If players want a harder game experience, I expect them to build characters appropriate for this.

Most of my PFS characters are 90%+ Core Rulebook. I would really like to buy certain books for access to an odd item or Feat here or there (not even obscure ones, since I only own CRB, APG, UC and Animal Archive).

But I can't justify spending even $10 for a pdf for something that I'll use in a game that I play less than twice per month on average.

Hey, I only threw it out there as crazy speculation.

I have 4 characters who are currently or planned for multiclassing.

Some are more stylistic, like the Fighter/Rogue and my current Battle Herald.

My Lore Warden predates the Swashbuckler and will go Duelist to make him a competent combatant.

But my gunslinger/inquisitor? Pure power cheese. Bane bullets against touch AC at 10th level? But he's got to make it there.

Still, multiclassing isn't a right, nor is it some sacred cow that can't be questioned, even if it's been part of the D&D way for as long as I can remember.

Strictly per RAW, you need the Technologist Feat to even attempt knowledge checks on technology.

No, you're right. The wizard in your example could not earn a chronicle for that game.

Role, yes. They don't need to know that my swordsman is actually an 11th-level sorcerer built for melee tanking with a scimitar.

But why not? Really, why? I don't need to know the details of other player's character sheets, but I also don't feel like it's a secret?

I could make a number of assumptions about your reasoning, but I would prefer to hear your side first.

Additionally, I am not necessarily against you. I have tried to describe my character's abilities using in-game language. I.e. my ranger is a "hunter and tracker with a big wolf at his side". Some players have said "So you're a ranger." To which I just reply "yes" rather than worry about the fact that I could be a druid, hunter, animal domain cleric, summoner, etc.

Wild speculation due to another post I saw awhile back.

Ban. Multi-classing.

It would be pretty crazy!

If I had a character die in the second encounter of a scenario, do I still get GP and Prestige for the mission if the rest of the team finished it?

The 10 point buy is in the Core Rulebook. It is suitable for Pathfinder.

Options, choices, stifling. Not everyone wants to spend all day on the prd or spend their money on rules. Some do.

Some folks want to be Zorro, or Rand Al'thor, etc. as soon as possible. Some want to play a grittier game. Maybe it's EASIER to see themselves in the heroes this way.

I just skimmed the Song off Ice and Fire book today. Talk about low powered. NO spell magic. Very very little healing. All social encounters and combat.

Some folks just don't want that extreme either.

I'm not sure about the rules offhand, but as for the flavor: If it's good enough for the Bayeux Tapestry, it's good enough for me.

Of course, they didn't charge with couched lances in 1066. (That didn't really become a thing until they learned about stirrups from the Huns or someone.) The Maciejowski Bible is from 1240, when they definitely _did_ charge with couched lances. (See! Stirrups! Pennons are in the upper left corner, kinda cut off in that picture.) But I'm not certain if those lances are meant for combat or for parade.

I have no idea what the provenance of this page or image are, but it looks like it's more or less in period, and those are definitely pennons. On lances. In combat.

So, I wouldn't let a pennon on my character's lance kick me out of my suspension of disbelief while he's charging a flying dragon on a dinosaur using a lance that smites evil enemies with holy magic and has a tip made of metal that cuts steel like butter. Oh, and he's singing a song that makes all his friends better fighters while he's at it. Pennon? No problem.

(If you're worried about overpenetration, just say it has lugs to prevent that. The lugs may or may not have been for that, and they weren't used on lances that were used by heavy cavalry making charges anyway, but hey, we're playing a game not publishing a peer...

+1 for the Bayuex Tapestry reference. +5 for the Maciejowski Bible.

Either of those alone makes it more than good enough for me, at the very least for mounted knights.

I got an M.A. in history, so I understand all too well the deal with peer reviewed papers...

Nevertheless, my focus was on late-19th and early 20th century history. The way most people today expect military figures from that time to act is very different. I'm not sure how American Civil War soldiers would have felt about using their "colors" to strike anyone.

But I have always been understood that lancers flew pennons.

I'm thinking of the standard bearer archetype, and not taking enough levels to get a mount.

And Gunnarr, that DYRE WULF banner does sound awfully metal!

Anyway, thanks to all of you for the rules help as well! Still mulling over some of my choices. I own neither the Inner Sea World guide nor the Lands of the Linnorm Kings, so Flagbearer and BAK are mostly academic questions right now. Probably can't justify at least $24 of real money for a few game options.

Not sure if I want to go bard 4/cav 1 or cav 4/bard 1. I know it's silly, but my the image of such characters in my mind is very different.

I have a character that just hit 6th level due to a pile of GM credits.

He started as a cavalier, and I am taking the path to Battle Herald.

Now, there has been some debate about the Flagbearer feat from ISWG. First, is it still PFS legal. I cant download Addl Resources presently.

If so, must my character actually hold the cloth of the flag in their hand, or can it be mounted on a polearm and still count. If so, which polearms are legal to use in this way?

I know about Banner of the Ancient Kings. Not able to afford it yet, plus I don't own the book to make it legal.

I know the Flagbearer bonus does not stack with the cavalier banner ability. Still, having a standing bonus to all attacks is powerful.

If you do mount your banner to a longspear or lance, how do you justify swinging it around at enemies? What if you stabbed too hard and the flag itself entered the wound?

Just thinking about flavor on that last item. I don't want to take an option that isn't at least somewhat logically consistent.

Ok, I am wondering what you all think of this:

I was playing in a PBP. It was a sanctioned module that died after two encounters. GM disappeared, last posted Oct. 17.

I completed an in person campaign mode of Dragon's Demand as a GM on Oct 16.

Can I apply those sheets to my above PC?

If a PBP dies, is it treated as though it never happened?

A problem with a single sheet is that new PFS legal sources are added nearly every month. Many AP books contain a legal feat or spell, for example.

And what if you later buy a book that a GM had crossed out on that first signing? Make the next GM fill out the whole bloody form again? That would be inefficient.

Really, the best way I see to do this would be to include or create an Ownership Chronicle for each and every book. Get it signed once, and it stays with you. And ALL you characters.

But currently a Chronicle Sheet must be applied to a specific character, not PFS root number. And I don't know that John wants to crank out those extra chronicles.

I still need to see a Paizo source for rules text, though...

Derek Weil wrote:

Yes, I've played that scenario. It will no doubt continue to cause players to weep. Well done again, Mr. Baird.

I used my first-ever re-roll this past Monday night during a run of Thornkeep. Energy Drain at the 1-2 Tier is nasty. Thankfully I was level 2, so it wouldn't have killed my PC outright.

My GM actually revealed the result and let me use a borrowed folio to do the re-roll. I failed by 1, until he reminded me to add my GM stars. It was an incredibly tense moment for our group.

And my 99% Core-only rogue gets to live on!

But I can appreciate Mike's perspective. The game would seem a bit more risky/dangerous without that safety net.

Except energy drain doesn't give you a save until the following day, which is why this particular encounter is so lethal.

Interesting! I've never used the ability as a GM, so I relied on his understanding. Good to know.

Yes, I've played that scenario. It will no doubt continue to cause players to weep. Well done again, Mr. Baird.

I used my first-ever re-roll this past Monday night during a run of Thornkeep. Energy Drain at the 1-2 Tier is nasty. Thankfully I was level 2, so it wouldn't have killed my PC outright.

My GM actually revealed the result and let me use a borrowed folio to do the re-roll. I failed by 1, until he reminded me to add my GM stars. It was an incredibly tense moment for our group.

And my 99% Core-only rogue gets to live on!

But I can appreciate Mike's perspective. The game would seem a bit more risky/dangerous without that safety net.

Hi! I've been in Game Grid before, seems pretty nice. I've played with a group at HaJoMaJe in Kaysville most often. They play on Mondays, so another night might grab some of the players there. Personally only Wednesdays are bad for me.

Are you part of the Wasatch Front PFS Facebook group? Thats another great place to get the word out.

Thanks for the feedback everyone. In the end, just getting my thoughts out here expelled some pent up bile. And it is interesting to hear about how the term originated. Makes me feel like part of the convention-going club, in a small way.

Honestly, I was afraid it had its origins at Wizards, so hearing that it doesn't makes me feel much better.

And I have nothing against other RPGS or their titles, but I don't play them. I can barely afford time or money to play the one game, let alone several (Though I've tried a few over the years).

So go on using whatever term makes you happy, and I won't take offense, as I might have before. But I will still use Gamemaster or GM.

Thanks for the input thus far. I have not attended many conventions, and. if the term originated in that setting, that easily explains why it's new to me.

I agree with other comments above in that the GM's role goes far beyond that of an impartial arbiter.

We're there to tell a story, to share the lore of the Golarion setting and the Pathfinder Society, to help new players learn the game, and more as other have noted above.

And yes, we must also adjudicate the rules.

But if that's my number one job I, for some irrational reason, feel like I need to catch my players in breaking rules and shut them down when they do.

OK, so I have seen a great many posts that refer to PFS gamemasters as "judges". I personally have never seen this term for a GM used in any official Paizo document. I am still new, with only about one year in Society play. Is the term a holdover from earlier seasons? Or common jargon because of its use in other organized play campaigns that-will-not-be-named.

See, I applaud the official discontinuation of the term "judge". I am not a judge. As a PFS GM I may do things that a real-life judge does, such as facilitate and adjudicate. But to me the term engenders an adversarial relationship between players and the person running the game. It does not, for me, foster an atmosphere of cooperation that is essential to a good gaming experience.

But maybe the term "gamemaster" or "GM" is just as bad.

Can anyone provide insight on how the term judge came to be used? I am just as curious about the history of the company and the PFS campaign itself as the in-game story, so I will read your replies!

I completely forgot about the ring and statue! I certainly hope you can at least get the backpack for them!

I didn't mean to contribute to any de-railing. I do appreciate your answers Owen and James!

I never actually played or read Undermountain (though I did read the novel). I think it is important to understand the difference, because it's what first came to my mind when I read about the product.

That said, I am still really intrigued about *this* Module.

Can you tell me more about cohesion between floors? With one author to write each, is each floor truly "modular", or is there an overarching connection?

It would seem likely that given this a really big tower/fortress (not a whole underground realm) that it would be controlled by a single entity/faction. Any hints?

My ranger and his wolf are both 9th level, since I took the Boon Companion feat. The wolf has proven powerful so far (hadn't been used much, and only took BC at 9th level). But I'd like to give him an option against incorporeal foes, and maybe even to beat DR.

Since an amulet of mighty fists can be enchanted with a special weapon property without the +1 enhancement bonus, can it still count as magic?

I.e. A holy amulet of mighty fist (16,000 GP) would bypass DR/evil. But could it also strike ghosts/wraiths/etc. Or does it need to be +1 holy for that?

If the latter is true, I'm a long way off on a +3 enchanted AoMF. Would it be better to grab a ghost touch amulet or a straight +1 in that case?

Forgive my lack of understanding, but what *is* the difference between a "Megadungeon" and this?

I never played any prewritten D&D stuff. I have a feeling it's connected somehow.

Yes - I would have a specific recommendation - play #5-13: Weapon in the Rift. I am currently wrapping up that game as a play-by-post with my 7th level Iomedean cleric. Absolutely a must-play for any of her followers, in my opinion. And you're even in-tier! (it's a 5-9).

I'll agree with the others here too. Though I think taking humans was a bit too cheesy for me, maybe your character has a reason for it. My ranger (9th level currently) took undead first then evil outsiders (without even seeking the advice of others). He started life as a cleric for 2 scenarios and is part of the Silver Crusade. Made perfect sense, in character and out of it.

Came in handy recently, because I haven't done the holy enchantment on my bow yet. No oil of bless weapon, either (my own forgetfulness). In a recent game the only way I was getting past some demons' DR was via Deadly Aim and favored enemy bonuses.

I forgot about the other guy's name UE. And I totally agree with your prediction. I thought this was going to be a Tier 7-11 for some reason. No way you'd face the actual recurring villains in a 3-7, right?

If one of them isn't