Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:
I think Tieflings could have Razortusk. They could also have Pass for Human. But not at the same time!
Well, speaking as a player and not a GM...
One thing I hate is another player who wastes everyone's time. Either by telling one story after another that has nothing to do with anything going on, or by arguing every point of the story and rules.
Another thing I hate is another player who is hyper-critical of the GM. Geez, it's a really tough job that hardly anyone wants, give 'em some slack folks!
What I love in other players is teamwork. Folks who are ready (even eager) to help others get them most of their characters and the time in the game. Thank the gods I have found a few ppl like that from time to time.
I think a great example of a low magic fantasy world is Tolkien's books. Yes, there are magic swords, but you could count them up pretty quickly. Their magic effects are quite subtle anyway. They are just really, really good swords that are really hard to break. Nothing flaming, or eating souls. Most "reputed" items could be masterwork items. There are only 5 wizards and at the time of the trilogy, there is only one working for the good guys. There is a reference to "conjurers of cheap tricks"... so perhaps there are partial casters. I really like that setting for a story, but I prefer the sort of world Pathfinder has described to play in.
Er, and because I didn't say it in the last post, well done on the class. At first glance, it looks well-balanced and very representative of both sides of the coin. I was worried that it was going to invalidate playing a fighter or a wizard or a prestige class somewhere, but it looks unique and interesting. Nice job.
+1I don't think it steps on the Eldritch Knight either, since that PrC will allow more customization.
Oh, of course this is not going to stop the people from complaining that there is no good fighter/mage class in the game... because this one is not full BAB, full spell progression! Ha!
I think it would be helpful to ask the player what types of characters she enjoys reading about in fiction. The archetypes are there even in popular TV shows.
Does she like Abby from NCIS? Then she probably wants a character with loads of knowledge skills... which would point to a bard.
Does she like Sabrina the Witch? Well, then a wizard or sorcerer... sorcerer is probably easier for someone new to the game.
Someone fierce and in charge? Ziva from NCIS would be a good example of a ranger or inquisitor.
There are a lot of decisions to make along the way of course, but holding onto the core concept and how she wants to deviate from it should help.
You could also explain a bit about the game and the world and ask how she would get by if she were thrust into it. Take one aspect of herself or her situation in life and extrapolate it. This is how I have come up with some of my favorite and most complex characters.
I see that their is a wide varity of opinions on which point buy should be used.
For those who use a high point buy, 20 or 25, do you "up" the CR of encounters to reflect the strength of the PC's? Do you "up" the requirements of feats that have attributes as prereq's... such as the two weapon fighting feat tree.
For those who use a lesser point buy, 10 or 15, do you do the opposite?
Russ Taylor wrote:
I agree, the ability to cast Heal, even limited to once a week. That pretty potent.
I have a dumb question on the Disruptive metamagic feat.
It says the concentration check is equal to the DC to save against the spell it was tied to. What if the spell does not allow a save? Magic Missile for example? I'm sure that it's intended that the DC of the concentration check would be equal to a spell of the same level Disruptive was applied to... but it doesn't say so... something else for the errata file I suppose.
+1! Cool ideas
Creeping Death 79 wrote:
And do we keep our interest during what could be a “boring” development period? All thoughts, ideas and input welcome!
Laugh a lot. Whoever decides to GM will make a lot of mistakes. If you can see the humor in them, then you'll enjoy the experience a lot more.As a player, I tend to enjoy the times when things go WRONG for my character as much as when they go right. I've had embarassing fumbles and bad decisions that absolutely humiliated me. I look back on those as moments as being as key to the character's storyline as when he did really cool stuff. Hopefully your crew will feel the same way.
Running an Adventure Path will make things easier to manage. Coming up with a whole new story and every encounter within it could be a whale of a job for someone just getting back into the game. After you feel more comfortable, you can put in your on sidebars... be they non-combat or combat. So long as the players don't progress too fast for the published material, I guess. But if they do, you can tweek that as well.
Anyway, good luck and keep it light. It's supposed to be fun afterall!
Sir Raymond Vorenthal wrote:
I am really intrigued by the sword cane... I think it would be really cool to have TWF and use the sword in one hand and the scabbard in the other.
In the campaign my friend is running, we recently had a neat scenario. Our sorcerer "levelled up" and chose fireball. We got into a big battle on a river where our boat was being closed on by warriors in dugout canoes. He pointed at the canoes and shot a fireball.
The reactions of the party were awesome. Several people turned and looked at Aramek (the sorcerer) and said "Since when can you do that??" or some thing like that. The Lawful annoying ranger started screaming at everyone to stop gawking keep firing arrows at the warriors, etc. It really was a huge moment for the party! Typically, we don't playout his new spells so dramatically, but fireball is a very dramatic spell!!
And FWIW I think the idea of the "Intelligent Ally" occasionally getting into trouble of it's own has real plot line hooks. I think it would be a real shame if a player gave up that opportunity for funny sideline adventures and memorable moments just for absolute control of another character. But that's just how I look at it.
Well, even if a GM was crazy enough to allow you to weild a large shield in two hands, it's definitely an improvised weapon and should require Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat to weild it that way.
I'm confused when you say you can get Shield Master at 6th level though. Shield Master is not a Combat Feat on the Ranger list, so you have to meet the prerequisites to choose it. And Shield Master has a lot of hefty prereqs.
Corey Paris wrote:
Yes, although that's an additional 2,000. All weapon enchantments must be added to masterwork weapons. So the total for the +1 longbow is 2,375.
Note that a magic weapon may also help overcome DR, which masterwork weapons do not.
32 Phylactery of Sending - these items come in pairs. They appear to be boxes with a string attached, the string ends in a plain cuff that fits over the wearers ear, from this a small post extends toward the wearer's mouth. They wearer of phylactery can contact the other so long as neither is blocked by a stone wall of 1' in thickness, lead or gold of 1" thickness or a mountain range. Activating the phylactery causes the target's item to make a musical tone lasting 30 seconds.
Just like the Paladin's Smite Evil, it depends on how many enemies you fight a day.
True. I'm playing a ranger, and having FE bonuses is awesome for mowing down hordes of minions. I wouldn't want to give that up. Especially since it's not like a paladin's smite evil.
I guess someone should do the DPR calculations but I don't see how it's equivelant
It may add to the chances to hit, but it does less damage and does not bypass DR.
Well, what ELSE are we going to discuss around here then?
LOL!! Too true!
But to the OP's point, yeah, I agree. When you see posts saying the (insert rule here) is too powerful and the next saying the same rule is totally nerfed you have to think they got it right.
Anyway, my friends and I have been playing Pathfinder for a couple years and we like it just fine. I think that's good enough for us.
If a PC outside the duel can shout advice, then a Ranger can use his Hunter's Bond to give half his favored enemy bonuses!
I think if you are trying to set up a dueling society, then you have to restrict the duels to certain weapons and tactics deemed "fair" by those that officiate the duels. That would limit the duels to certain classes that would do well with those restrictions.
If you want to set up solo combats between the characters irrespective of class, than anything the character normally "gets" or controls in combat should count. I'd hope that the terrain is more than just a 30' circle though.
Don't know if this is the right thread or if it's been brought up elsewhere, but...
Prices for cursed items would be very nice. You might really want a cursed magic to use in conjunction with the spell Beguiling Gift.
Also, the Monk variant class Ki Mystic allows rerolls for himself and allies with various powers. The typical boiler plate of whether the reroll can be called for before or after the result of the first roll is revealed is missing.
Well, you would apply those bonuses to all enemies NATIVE to that terrain. Creatures that have been summoned or that have travelled into the terrain, but are not native to it, would not be subject to the bonuses. So there are more drawbacks there too. :-(
I was just thinking today that he has a lot of work to do.
I think his guides are useful, in that he ranks the usefulness of class abilities. If something is rated Blue, and you are thinking of giving it up for an alternate ability... think twice and then think again. You don't always have to maximize your character. If you really want to build a concept, or you really like the alternate feature even though it is not as powerful than taking it is not "wrong". But his guide should give you an idea of what you are giving up.
Btw of all his guides, the ranger is the one I disagree with most. I suppose because his "Aragorn" build is not a maxxed out build. I and another player are playing rangers in a large party. I am playing a TWF ranger with sword and board feats. I'm regularly frustrating the heck out of the Treantmonk build. In a sense, it's not a fair comparison. We are regularly fighting creatures on my FE list and I am a specialist. So we are right in my wheelhouse. The other character is a very capable archer and a very capable melee fighter. Not stellar, but capable. That's pretty amazing to pull off, 'cause usually a build is great at one and horrible at the other. So consider using it, but realize you will never be AWESOME at either... but you will be capable at both.
I could be missing something, but I've never seen a "sticky fire" spell. I'm thinking of the spell Gandalf used against the wargs in The Hobbit.
I also don't know what spell Gandalf used on the bridge when he was facing down the balrog. It looked like he made the bridge fail under the balrog's feet, which is supported by the description in the book as well.
One that I really liked is when Dracula transforms himself into a swarm of rats. That's really cool, but I think the ability to transform into a swarm would be pretty high level.
How about a Ranger with a decent dex score and improved initiative in his favored terrains? When you start doubling up on FT's the initiative bonuses can get really crazy.
I'm getting back into gaming after a long hiatus.
For me, I think the magic comes when I try to see the game from the character's perspective. For instance, in a recent session, we encountered a monster than any one member of the party could have trashed in a round or two. We'd never encountered one before, and no one rolled a success on their knowledge skills to identify it. So we skirted it and avoided going anywhere near where we saw it. IMHO, that is as much a part of role playing as developing a big backstory for your character because here you are actually living your story. We put a lot of points into things like linguistics so that we can speak with and get information from allies and enemies. Sense motive is HUGE in our campaign, because you have to find things out not just read a guidebook or other materials.
Playing the game from the inside is a whole new experience.
I don't think that's incompatible with min-maxing or playing a concept.
Aah! The unreasonable GM arguement! I see your point. That still begs the question - if your GM makes you fight an Ancient Red Dragon to create a potion of Cure Moderate Wounds, why are you playing in his game?
Seriously, these are low level spells. Even when you are a low level character, you probably can't afford to craft more than a few of them between adventures, so this ability is hardly game breaking.
It might be cool to allow the characters to quest for their materials, rather than pay for them. Forcing them to is unreasonable. At low levels it could be realistic. At mid and high levels, it would just be a game killer. Even a sadistic GM would tire of that in short order.