Diminutive Titan's page

Instead of making a super tactically appropriate character and casually rolling with that, you could also try to figure out what 'fun' really means to you in a PF game in general, and then build a spellcaster that sort of creates 'fun moments' for you as much as possible. Although that sounds like 'Arcane Clown' to some... that's not necessarily what I mean.

In my personal experience, playing a highly mechanically effective character is only 25% of the fun. So what defines 'fun' the other 75%? Well, it's hard to define. In my mind, the ideal 'fun' position while playing PF is a position where you are actively contributing to the progress of the game and the campaign, and do your best in and out of combat, but still have fun when you fail at it.

If you're just going to play a 'battlefield-control optimized spellcaster' you're going to expect your character to succeed most of the time. But what if you're simply having bad luck and have a session filled with bad rolls? What if your GM has an unfortunate taste in enemy creatures and characters that happen to have a lot of magic resistance? Poop happens sometimes, but you might end up sobbing that your uber optimized character just ain't cutting it.

So I always try to figure out for myself what "kind" of character I'd want to play and what "kind of stuff" it would be cool to have him do and be good at as much as possible. For me, that's step 1. Numbercrunching is step 2.

Not too long ago I made a Dwarven Wizard called 'Rustbeard' who had a Goat Familiar named 'Gertrude Ophelia Ann Theodora". He used the Improved Spell Sharing teamwork feat to make himself and the goat both shoot fire from their eyes (very satanically of course) with the Burning Gaze spell, or send enemies flying with the Force Punch spell. His craft skills were so amazing that he could make rare masterwork goat cheese and cashmere and sell it for stupendous amounts to aristocrats. He'd also take spells like Strangling Hair but instead call it 'Strangling Beard'. Meanwhile, he cast a lot of [earth] descriptor spells, which I thought was flavourful for a dwarven wizard, and even if there aren't many spells in that category, there are enough good choices like Tremor Blast, Shifting Sands, Transmute Rock to Mud / Mud to Rock, to make it fun and worthwhile.

Even if sometimes I failed to strangle a creature to death with my beard, I was definitely having fun trying. Even if the goat sometimes couldn't burn down a bad guy by staring at them very angrily, I still had fun imagining the situation. When I was busy crafting magic arms and armour with aid of my familiar, I imagined the goat would headbutt the armourplates into shape. I had fun when I saw the look on the face of my GM and party members when the goat sent a BBEG flying into a crevasse with a Force Punch.

Well, even in case they agree, they might not be totally aware of the consequences. It's an interesting idea for sure, but I'd add a safety mechanism: If the player is really unhappy with his character, he is free to replace him once, keeping his XP and wealth (with different items).

You're right.

I still think Valandil Ancalime's system is most interesting when considering 'random vs. balance' and still allows for both (usually) MAD and (sometimes) SAD characters.

Let's say I would use that system, with a few adjustments. To summarize:

*edited*

There are 18 paper cards, each contains a single number from 1 to 6.
The total of the cards is always a certain number, so every player has an equal amount of points spread out over his/her ability scores, just like with a point-buy system.

Let's say the available cards come in the following frequencies:

[1] ×1
[2] ×2
[3] ×3
[4] ×3
[5] ×4
[6] ×6

With that particular setup, that amounts to a total of 82 points. That is an average of 82/6 = 13.667 for each stat.

A player distributes these cards blindly over their six stats. Three cards for each stat.
Then reveal their contents. That results in their initial Stat array, before racials.

To be a sweet GM, let's say they

A) need to have at least one 16 for the stat array to be legal
B) can swap one pair of stats around
C) are allowed to put a +1 in one of the stats at first level, like when you reach 4th level.

I think that is both random and fair.

With this system, I just got the following three stat arrays in a row:

A)

Str 9
Dex 11
Con 12
Int 16
Wis 14
Cha 15

With a free +1 to put on any one stat and the choice to swap one pair around, before racials or age modifiers.

B)
First, I got two illegal stat arrays that were too spread out and had no 16 or higher.

Str 8
Dex 11
Con 15
Int 17
Wis 12
Cha 15

With a free +1 to put on any one stat and the choice to swap one pair around, before racials or age modifiers.

C)
Str 15
Dex 11
Con 15
Int 6
Wis 13
Cha 17

With a free +1 to put on any one stat and the choice to swap one pair around, before racials or age modifiers.

My two cents: Actually quite a lot of viable options with every stat array, thanks to the ability to swap a pair around, and being able to choose race. If I would add the ability to let players also swap complete stat arrays with each other, that should probably mitigate any remaining issues and make everyone happy I think. Perhaps none of these stat arrays are optimal for regular builds, but then again that's also sort of the point to trigger the creativity.

I still think Valandil Ancalime's system is most interesting when considering 'random vs. balance' and still allows for both (usually) MAD and (sometimes) SAD characters.

Let's say I would use that system, with a few adjustments. To summarize:

*edited*

There are 18 paper cards, each contains a single number from 1 to 6.
The total of the cards is always a certain number, so every player has an equal amount of points spread out over his/her ability scores, just like with a point-buy system.

Let's say the available cards come in the following frequencies:

[1] ×1
[2] ×2
[3] ×3
[4] ×3
[5] ×4
[6] ×6

With that particular setup, that amounts to a total of 82 points. That is an average of 82/6 = 13.667 for each stat.

A player distributes these cards blindly over their six stats. Three cards for each stat.
Then reveal their contents. That results in their initial Stat array, before racials.

To be a sweet GM, let's say they

A) need to have at least one 16 for the stat array to be legal
B) can swap one pair of stats around
C) are allowed to put a +1 in one of the stats at first level, like when you reach 4th level.

I think that is both random and fair.

I would politely decline to play in that campaign. My idea of fun does not include re-rolling multiple times to get a viable character, only to not be able to play the type of character I wanted.

I think it's very important for this reason that players need to be informed beforehand and wholeheartedly agree to it. A lot of players have a preferred playstyle and I realize that this system simply wouldn't work out for that type of player.

Couldn't resist:

Variant/blooded Aasimar, whom has a 2nd level spell as a SLA, can become a Mystic Theurge at level 5, because:

The racial SLA counts as a 2nd level arcane spell

You'll still need 3 ranks in Kn(religion) and Kn(arcane) but that'll only take 3 levels of Cleric.
And sadly you'll still have to take a level of sorcerer or wizard because otherwise you won't have a class to progress in during MT. So Clr3/Wiz1 it is.

There ya go, MT at lvl5
That means at lvl 8 this character is a
lvl 7 cleric and lvl 5 wizard in terms of spellcasting

okay that means, assuming school spec. and bonded object and high stat:

lvl0 - 4 + 1
lvl1 - 3 + 1 + 1
lvl2 - 2 + 1 + 1
lvl3 - 1 + 1 + 1
+ 1 bonded object = 5 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 1 = 18 wizard spells per day

and

lvl0 - 4
lvl1 - 4 + 1 + 1
lvl2 - 3 + 1 + 1
lvl3 - 2 + 1 + 1
lvl4 - 1 + 1 + 1

= 4 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 = 22 cleric spells per day

That totals 40 spells per day

A level 8 full wizard has only 26 spells per day, assuming school specialization and bonded object, maybe 28 if he has superduper high Int.

And so they say:
Yeah but the full wiz can cast 2 more 4th level spells,
Yeah but the full wiz gets to cast 5th level spells the next level.
Yeah but the full wiz gets an extra feat and a nifty minor class feature.

And I will say:

Sure, i'll trade my cleric spell level progression for a sorcerer progression any day if it gives me A 5TH-LEVEL-WIZARD WORTH OF SPELLS IN MY BACK POCKET.

HELLO??! Why am I still shouting in the dark alone on this matter??!

Early entry Mystic Theurge it's what makes it not a dowgrade. Remember that you still lose class features for it

Yes! You give up some mostly minor class features, but what do you get in return?

You get twice as many spells known and have almost twice the amount daily spells to cast and have access to both the biggest/baddest spell-lists. You can use more slots from one class or the other as you like. I think being one or more spell levels behind in each class is completely fair for what you get in return.

Even if your spells are weaker and have a lower DC than a full-level character, you'll hardly ever run out of spells. You'll be casting 1st to 3rd level spells most of the time anyway... and there's plenty of good spells in that range for every spellcasting class, considering even the lowered efficiency and hit-potency of each spell.

The extra spells you can prepare per day should be able to make up for the loss of class features like Channel Energy and one or two wizard bonus feats. If you pick your domains and wizard school wisely you'll actually still have some good class abilities and you won't be needing the 8th level school/domain powers.

Mystic Theurge is all about spells, spells, spells. You have to know all the spells and find the best combinations. Focus on spells that either buff your allies or that have no saves, and get some Metamagic Rods for when you really need them.

Like I said before, being spell levels behind is only fair.

An early entry mystic theurge abusing the FAQ is just broken compared to a single class full spellcaster. Not only that, they can only be done with silly race and domain combinations that make for really stupid characters. You can try to justify them all you want by roleplaying but everyone knows the character was built by a munchkin. Maybe that's a bit harsh but I think it's true.

I can imagine banning the Leadership feat since it's a hassle, as has been said. But it's probably best, as has also been said, just to try different stuff out and see how it works out. It takes time and effort to learn tricks in this game.

Now...
Please forgive me for my tone in the following text:

The guy who came up with the suggestion to ban the wizard, druid and cleric should probably stop playing Pathfinder RPG altogether.
I'm sorry but I cannot believe I read that.
At first I thought it was a joke but this particular individual felt obligated to repeat himself to emphasize the gravity of this ridiculous statement.
What surprises me even more is that his comments are being favorited by people. What the blue backflip fudge is up with you people?

Obviously the classes have a difference in raw power measure but you guys are really pushing it...
The idea of banning three core classes just because they are slightly less or more powerful than the others is touching skyhigh levels of stupid that I cannot describe. What in the why how do you guys come up with this unnerving stuff? What kind of nihilistic view of the world does one need to have to think that up?

If balancing issues in core Pathfinder are this grave of an issue to some people then you really desperately need to get into D&D4e. Fix the balancing, and it will fix having fun; Because having fun is not what we're trying to do here apparently.

Please forgive me for this potential ad hominem but I have... limits!
Thought I'd cool down by typing this but I am royally flabbergasted.

To the OP: Take the wise advice from other people in this thread to heart, who have commented that it's a dangerous thing to get advice from people on this forum. I initially thought that was a bit harsh but right now I cannot agree more.

Back on the real topic, just experiment and have fun! My personal experience is to watch out for the Leadership feat and for misinterpretation of rules, or players trying to trick you in believing that rules work differently in their favor.

-DT

Alright, I'm going for javelins and the shield. The shield feats are probably quite useful, and will encourage my allies to fight next to me in battle or their animal companions (since we have 2 rangers and a druid in the party).
I feel I could endlessly iterate on tactics and which combat method to pursue.
I will mostly be doing bardic performance and Feinting my enemies probably, since I'm good at Bluff and I don't necessarily need Improved Feint since I won't be short on actions. If I can use my versatile performance at lvl2 to intimidate the enemy, that'd be great as well.
Other useful actions around low level is throwing self-made alchemists' fire and tanglefoot bags around the field, in addition to things like caltrops. At higher levels I will be able to rely more on spells since I'll know more and have more daily spells to cast.

I may need to find a way to get special material javelins or to enchant them in a cheap way.

As for versatile performance, I can see how Sense Motive would be a very useful skill, so I'm taking Perform (Sing), or maybe (Oratory), it doesn't matter much really...

Any of you guys have experience roleplaying the Perform (sing) or (oratory) skills? :P I think I could use some advice for when the other players in my group go: "Go on then! SING IT!" XD

We will be playing either through Roll20 or tabletop so I might need some way to play it convincingly.

Obvious picks:
Point Blank Shot
Precise Shot
Rapid Shot
Deadly Aim

Recommended for throwing:
Quick Draw
Distance Thrower
Close Quarters Thrower
Clustered Shots
Charging Hurler (and Improved Charging Hurler)
Two-Handed Thrower
Shot on the Run

some of these feats need some other prerequisites like Dodge, Mobility etc... so make sure you check them out.

I tend to agree with the OP.
I actually don't think this is overreacting.
Options bloat is bad. It kind of pushes regular players away, and appeals most to the munchkins/powerplayers/metagamers.

The problem is psychological.

Whenever something 'new' is published, it takes away the attention from the core stuff.

This is where Snowflake-Syndrome kicks in.

Some players just don't want to play the standard races, because they feel that a dwarf or an elf is too common compared to the exotic (and let's admit it, much more powerful) aasimar and tieflings. If the expansion books that introduced these exotic races never existed, than the dwarf or the elf would have been considered exotic by most players. This interpretation however is lost, because what we initially feel is exotic is replaced by the even-more-exotic.

And that is the reason why bloat is bad. The bloat creates a general lack of interest in non-bloat material, and it gets worse with each expansion.

The early material is designed in such a way that it provides so much freedom and interpretation. The new stuff is more specific in that it's related to specific races or settings etc. It either lacks flavour or is too specific in flavour.

Another problem is game balance, but in this case, bad playtesting is probably the cause. (I personally ban the Summoner and all of its archetypes in all of my games)

I understand the counter-argument that you could also choose to not use certain material. This however, is not true for play-by-post players.
It is also straining/frustrating for GMs who have players that are lured by the exotic/overpowered stuff, and have to tell them why they don't allow this stuff in their games and such.

All in all, some additional stuff by Paizo has been great, and some of it has been bad. I think the Witch is a fantastic and flavourful addition to the standard classes. On the other hand, I think the Summoner is terrible. The Magus is okay but could have used some more flavour.

At this point in time, it has become a necessity to homebrew a couple of things in order to still make the game work, which is especialy problematic for rookie GMs.

I'd recommend creating a bard who sees 'stealing' as a form of art. Take the Sandman archetype. Take Improved Steal and Improved Disarm.
Take Improved Dirty Trick as well. Your Sandman abilities will help you be a great thief-ish bard with trapfinding and disabling and you can just about literally rob your enemies of their loot mid-combat. Even if you can't steal their loot mid-combat, you can always steal it while they're asleep (slumber song)

You can:
Steal items and weapons from enemies mid combat
Steal their spells (Spellsteal)
Steal their breath (literally with the Steal Breath lvl2 spell)
You can use Dirty Trick maneuvers to blind your enemies... then sneak attack them!

You can even steal stuff from a distance with a whip (you are proficient!) albeit at a -4 penalty.

You can consider going Arcane Trickster after lvl10 without multiclassing if you can afford missing out on greater stealspell (i'd wait until level 15 before I went AT personally)

I have to admit that halflings have little strength and are not great with combat maneuvers so if this build appeals you might want to consider a medium sized race such as human or half-elf.

You guys are amazing! Thanks for your comments I had the best time reading :P This is going to be crazy amounts of fun! All of your advice have been splendid!

In addition, I am considering using a lot of 'personal' range spells like Burning Gaze and/or Fire Sneeze... and touch spells like Force Punch and Vampiric Touch... is this worth it when performed by a goat?

The idea is that I just want to baffle my GM with this character, just to show everyone how badass a terribly silly dwarf with a goat can be.

Hello all,

How would you rebuild the Summoner class, in a balanced way, if you were to take away his Summon Monster I-IX spell-like-ability? I've never really designed my own class before, so I need some help.

Anyway, here's the deal:

I was thinking about the Summoner Class for a while, because there was something about it that I just didn't like and seemed really strange.
Finally, I realized that it is due to his Summon Monster ability in conjunction with his Eidolon class feature.

My main problem is, that I think the class was designed in an attempt to fit two quite different stereotypes into one class. The first one being the summoner that can summon a multitude of different creatures, and the second type being a summoner that has a bond with one particular creature. These two types of summoner just seem a bit too different, in my personal opinion, to be condensed into one.

Looking at the Summoner as a class, I prefer the second aforementioned stereotype. The Eidolon is what makes the class very special, and I feel it should focus more on the Eidolon, rather than having a seemingly redundant Summon Monster ability because...
Why would you want to summon all these random Pokémon, when you want to play with your special badass Charizard for 90% of the time?

If a player wants to specialize in summoning a multitude of creatures and objects, then why not play a conjurist wizard, or maybe a cleric or druid that focuses on summoning? They get great summoning abilities and spells and you get a whole lot of extra's too. So what I'm getting at is...

I'm trying to figure out a way to give my players the option of playing a Summoner, but one that is really focused on the Eidolon, and does away with summoning pretty much anything else. I actually like the Synthesist archetype as well, but that archetype pretty much replaces all the regular Eidolon abilities the Summoner has...

I was thinking of somehow combining the standard Eidolon class features with the Synthesist ones? But how should I do that properly?

Any advice on where to start with this thing?

I have to agree with Bill to some degree.

Although the book is probably going to be a great source of inspiration (especially due to the random tables),this kind of ruleset is only going to further complicate an, in my opinion, already far too complicated character creation process.
We have racial features,
We have alternative racial features,
We have favored class bonuses,
We have feats, racial feats, class features, class archtypes with alternative class features... skill points and skill selection.

Who in the world even wants to consider background bonuses and feats, when we have all the above. And don't forget there's always something called 'homebrew' or 'GM's discretion'. If your GM was a nice guy, he'd given you a skill bonus just to reward you for the effort of coming up with a background story.

It only becomes harder and harder to make a particular fun character concept worthwhile because there will always be some other player who goes:
"But if you had chosen this and that background, and would vow to do this and that in your roleplaying, then you would have been a more ideal character with this and that bonus."
Which is only going to dishearten the player that was enjoying his self-made character concept, albeit being a suboptimal one. But that player wouldn't care because he wouldn't know. This kind of ruleset destroys that sense of power through storytelling and imagination.
There are also players who want to develop their roleplaying during play, as in, they don't have a particular idea of what their player characters are like before they start playing them.