Dobneygrum's page

The vast majority of my experience comes from 3.5, and most of that experience was with me as DM. The vast majority of the time I didn't find that things worked. My party would get totally overpowered, and things would fall apart.

Then I did something that completely changed that around. I read and re-read the rules until I had a really firm grasp on things. When I went strictly by the book, things worked out fine. In my more limited experience with Pathfinder, things go better. They are more balanced, and there are more options without it being any more complicated.

I'm sure that the system could be improved, and I'm sure that there are arguably better systems out there, but it definitely works.

Speaking as one who has always rolled and made my players roll under every edition: They will learn to deal with it.

Seriously, this is something I think has been lost with newer and newer RPGs in general and the focus on point buy systems - not everyone should be equal in the game physically and mentally.

This is part of the reason I left 4th edition. I don't want everyone on an even keel to the point where even their ability scores are even or worth equal amounts. I like randomization, even in the character creation process. If you aren't going to go with what you roll, why use dice at all? Along the same line of thinking, I don't fudge rolls in combat. If I was going to do that, I just wouldn't use dice.

I'm not trying to say you are wrong, but I am just curious whether you have ever played in a game when your highest stat was 14 and another player's lowest stat was 12. Imagine what that is like when you are new to RPG's and the other person has been playing for over a decade.

That was an extreme example, and it only happened to me once (the second game I played in), but I did have the lowest stats in the party 3 games in a row. It is less fun than you would think being the party runt.

***On topic... Have you considered an Edritch Knight? That could be a lot of fun with those scores. And please do tell us what you ultimately decide!

I've tried that two times. The first time they burnt down the capitol city at level 1. (I now no longer allow people to have a Wisdom 6.) The second time I tried it, I got to about level 6 when it seemed like it was time for people to move on.

Midnightoker wrote:

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Dobneygrum wrote:

Detect magic... many players seem to think that they can help disarm a trap, have a conversation, identify and divvy up magic items, sneak up to a group of their enemies without being seen or hear, eavesdrop, and search their memories for things that they may have heard about a subject before... all without it breaking their concentration.

Actually it can do that. You use a combination of detect magic and the Spellcraft skill to identify items. The spell identify works as detect magic and gives you a +10 to the skill check.

He was implying you cant do all of that AND not break concentration to detect magic.

You're probably right, I read his post kind of funny.

But still, worth pointing out, as the way those spells work did change from 3.5 so folks new to PF may have missed it.

Yes, I was making the point that when you do something else that requires your concentration, you are no longer concentrating on detecting magic.

But I definitely agree it is worth pointing out the difference in the rules. I know that there are a lot of changes like that I've missed, and it is a thread about misusing spells after all.

Detect magic... many players seem to think that they can help disarm a trap, have a conversation, identify and divvy up magic items, sneak up to a group of their enemies without being seen or hear, eavesdrop, and search their memories for things that they may have heard about a subject before... all without it breaking their concentration.

Dobneygrum wrote:

I've seen people get around this with 2 large-sized long swords.

Same damage, falls within the feat. Sorta...

However, magical large longswords are not as easy to find than magical greatswords. :)

Sadly, they were very easy to find in the campaign I was in.

The Monkey Grip feat from 3.X.

It doesn't let you use a two-handed weapon in one hand, it only lets you use weapons of a superior size category.

To bad for the dual wielding greatswords and glaive + tower shield lovers. :P

I've seen people get around this with 2 large-sized long swords.

Same damage, falls within the feat. Sorta...

Message. Most people I've gamed with use it like it is telepathy, (without any perception checks from people close enough to hear or see).

Hi all,

I wanted to get some opinions on a situation I have as a GM. I have a great group of Role players and are competent at building their characters But I have one player, Although a great Role player himself Optimizes his character (within the rules) so well that in fights he just breeze trough the challenges while the others are appropriately threatened/challenged.

How do I make the game challenging for Him with out killing the rest of the group?

It really depends on the character. As the above posters mentioned, no one character can be good at everything.

What tactics does he employ and what kind of challenges does he breeze through? You don't necessarily need to make things harder, just change the types of encounters occasionally.

I always find slavery is great for a moral dilemma. In a town they visit, prisoners can be sold into slavery. Then they find out some of the laws. Not worshipping the town god is a major crime.

You have a party of good people, but some of them are breaking the law of the land by even carrying holy symbols of a different god.

What do you do? Leave town so no one finds out? Continue breaking the law but keep it a secret? Free the slaves who were imprisoned for worshipping the same god you do? For added dilemma, you should have the town god be the same god as at least one of the characters.

I am planning on running a campaign in the future & instead of starting at level 1 I will start at lev 2 but with 0 xp so they have to adventure the full amount of xp for both lev 1 & 2 before they advance to level 3 - this will make them more survivable & slightly better abilities

That's a great idea! Now I'm going to do that in my next campaign. I'm not too worried about things being survivable, but for most classes, that second level is where the fun really starts.

Just because you're starting a flame war,look further... you'll find plenty of "answers" which do not agree (i just did a quick search myself. This "random" is calling you a cheater because there was mention of your 4d6 in the first post, and your defensive nature kinda makes me more suspect. But I was incorrect on the 4d6, the average is lower (12.24), which makes your initial statement even more suspect.

That is all; hopefully you got the info you needed. Sounds like you're balancing your stats with a sub-optimal character to try to make up for them, that's a good way to do it.

Newsflash!!! He didn't start the flame war, you did. Calling someone a cheater = flaming.

In Pathfinder, the GM is allowed to change the rules in order to make it a better fit within his group. Unless you know what system was used to roll the dice, it is impossible to tell whether or not someone is cheating.

But let's play the game that he did roll 4d6... which he didn't. But since that is what you think he did, let's continue as if that were true:

I'm glad you found someone to give you the answer to what the expected average roll would be. Unfortunately, since you didn't do your own work, this next part will be harder to figure out.

So, not unexpectedly, a person who rolled those numbers on 4d6 would have done better than average. But before you go calling someone a cheater, we have to figure out whether the amount that they exceeded expectations was abnormal.

To do that, we need to look at the distribution. I'll let you get on that. Let us know when you are ready.

It's kind of a cheat... well, it is a cheat... but on the very rare times a first level character has died in our campaigns, we allowed the character's twin brother (or sister) to arrive on the scene and offer their services.

You do start your first level characters with full hit points, right? If you don't that would explain some of the danger from a one shot death. I've rarely had a character die in the fist level. (Not unheard of, but not common.)

I believe (?) I answers entirely the right question, and while I am a math major, for the 18 - 24 I am relying on the math shown on other threads here. Point being that the statistical anomaly IS high enough to call probable (but not 100%) BS.

But to answer the question, ranged bard or witch or cleric... Your party has a metric ton of front line, they need support. You could also make a hell of a zen archer "switch hitter" with high Str/Wis.

Let me refresh your memory oh math major (paraphrased for ease of reading)

You: You can't roll this high on 4d6 dropping 1. So you are cheating.
Me: What would you expect to get on 4d6 dropping 1?
You: Average point buys are 18-24
Me: That doesn't answer the question.
You: I'm a math major.

So... you've studied math, what is the average roll that you would expect on 4d6 if you drop the lowest die? How far off is his roll from that average?

(Of course, he never claimed to do that.)

Dobneygrum wrote:

Thalin wrote:

Depending on the source, the average for 4d6 is between 18 and 24 points; tending towards the higher. When you have 3 people all go not just over, but that far over, cheating happened. Now, he said there were multiple sets rolled, and maybe special rules (reroll 1s), so who knows. But yes, surfacewide I'm going to guess there is at least one, and probably more, cheats going on.

The average for 4d6 is between 18 and 24? You use numbers differently than I do. I don't have time right now, but check back in about 6 hours, and I'll run through a brief introduction to stats later on.

(N.B. You are saying that the average is in access of his highest roll. Ergo... he rolled lower than average in your calculation.)

He's talking about point buy totals for the entire stat-sheet.

Ooooh, so he is answering an entirely... unrelated... question. Got it.

Depending on the source, the average for 4d6 is between 18 and 24 points; tending towards the higher. When you have 3 people all go not just over, but that far over, cheating happened. Now, he said there were multiple sets rolled, and maybe special rules (reroll 1s), so who knows. But yes, surfacewide I'm going to guess there is at least one, and probably more, cheats going on.

The average for 4d6 is between 18 and 24? You use numbers differently than I do. I don't have time right now, but check back in about 6 hours, and I'll run through a brief introduction to stats later on.

(N.B. You are saying that the average is in access of his highest roll. Ergo... he rolled lower than average in your calculation.)

My question was more along the lines of, "I'm new to the system, I'm in this unfamiliar situation of actually having crazy good stats, here's what I'm thinking about doing... Thoughts / suggestions?"

The suggestions thus far have been very helpful. The options is opens for a melee character are vast and interesting. The Rage Prophet prc is absolutely awesome. I'm 99% sure I'm going to go with that. There are just so many crazy ways to build it, I'm having a blast exploring the options.

Another fun choice. Glad you are having a blast. That really is the point after all. :)

Druid seems easy, but it doesn't matter, those stats are reduce for anything. I'm calling "blatant cheating" on those point levels coming from 4d6 rolled once.

Really, how far above average are they?

Hmmm...?

Before accusing someone of cheating, you should have that number at your finger tips.

I wouldn't be afraid of playing a well-rounded druid. You might not be god-like in any one area, but you'll never be stuck without any options either.

You can make yourself small enough to hide in the rogue's equipment, you'll be able blend into a crowd, you'll be able to fly, you'll be the fastest member of the party by far. You will be able to make five attacks when pouncing, and grapple as a free action by level 8 I think, oh... and be able to cast some awesome spells.

It's a fun class. Not the strongest maybe, but really, really fun.

kroarty wrote:

Its not tweaked with an exact-o-knife

[...]

str: 14
dex: 13
con: 20
int: 13
wis: 7
cha: 7

TWO ultra-dump-stats and you call that not tweaked with an exact-o-knife? What do you call tweaking things to the hilt?

Because something like this would probably be an instant veto if presented to me, unless there is a really, really good reason he's dumb as wood and less popular than your pick of genocidal maniacs.

I would allow that character in my campaign, but the problem is that he would never get any good magic items unless he found them. This guy is Gomer Pyle with two more helpings of dimwitted and obnoxious.

"What do you mean that circlet of intelligence is cursed? It was perfectly fine when it left here, you &^(*%(^% half-wit! What? Oh, no, you misheard, I said it brings out your eyes. I can fix for another 200k, if you want." (Roll sense motive. Yep, he sounds totally legit.)

Your Right.... I am wrong.

What were you wrong about? I don't see you having made any mistakes in this thread.

From the description of the Polymorph subschool in the Magic section of the core rules:

"You can only be affected by one polymorph spell at a time. If a new polymorph spell is cast on you (or you activate a polymorph effect, such as wild shape), you can decide whether or not to allow it to affect you, taking the place of the old spell. In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell."

However, one could argue that Wildshape is a Supernatural ability and not a Spell. Regardless, I assume they intended for it to apply to similar effects.

I think it would be a tough sell considering that Wildshape is specifically mentioned as having the same properties. Another problem with that argument would be that in the description of Wildshape, it says that it operates as Beast Shape, or Elemental Shape, etc., "except as noted here", and the ability to size is not listed as an exception. Also, Animal Growth only affects animals, not humanoids (which Wildshaped Druid's still are). And finally... Animal Growth is a polymorph spell, not just a spell which changes size, which it specifically states can't be used at the same time as Wildshape.

So, yeah, the supernatural/spell-like distinction doesn't seem to be at play here.

That's pretty damn unlucky. I mean, I'm pretty sure if I picked up a stick and started swinging at a massive immobile target I'd hit it 20 times out of 20 without doing something stupid like throwing my weapon, or hitting myself. And I am not an optimized martial type by any stretch of the imagination. I'm also quite certain if I did start weapon training, I would not become even MORE likely to epic fail. That rather defeats the point, now doesn't it?

Hmm... that's a really good point. That's a little bit like me missing every 20th letter on the keyboard after I've learned to type 60 words a minute.

Or actually, it's more like me missing the keyboard every twentieth letter.

Something tells me it's time to drop this thread. It's not going anywhere, everybody's just arguing in circles. At this rate it'll hit 1,000 posts lol.

Very good point. I don't think the fighting would stop even if everyone agreed.

"Hello, I'm a level 17 Wizard. I regularly disable all of my own class abilities, leaving myself extremely vulnerable and weak for no apparent reason."

The only way the DM fiat could be any more obvious is if he were naked, tied up, and had a sign on his chest saying "Free experience here, just insert weapon!"

or play 17th level wizards like bumpkins with so much money that they commission or crafted items which don't even work* to have continual anti-me* fields around them, to make skills look good.

(*: An item that produces a continuous antimagic field would immediately shut off the moment it activates, so at best you might end up with an every-other-round antimagic field, or more likely a 198,000 gp paperweight.)

Did everyone miss where I said this:

Wait a minute... that can't be right... because I used wands on him and the traps were magical.

I dunno, he had something going on. We couldn't just pop in with teleport, I remember that much.

And the post where I finally agreed it didn't make any sense, but it would seem strange it was DM fiat considering that this was a guy who liked killing his players.

The whole point is, a clever rogue can be amazingly useful even into the high levels. And last point:

And seriously, four aliases?

"Hello, I'm a level 17 Wizard. I regularly disable all of my own class abilities, leaving myself extremely vulnerable and weak for no apparent reason."

The only way the DM fiat could be any more obvious is if he were naked, tied up, and had a sign on his chest saying "Free experience here, just insert weapon!"

Because Wizards never, ever use their actual spells, and they never, ever boost their Con even though it's the second most important stat for everyone, and they never, ever rely on items that make them more magic resistant (+saves) and they never put their prodigious intellect to the task of determining how they will not be snuffed out by Fortitude based spells from their peers.

Have you, in fact, played this game?

Did you notice any of the other posts I made after the one you are quoting? You might find them interesting reading.

Because the rules don't specifically say that you can replace a charisma check with a diplomacy check doesn't mean you can. In fact, since the rules are very explicit as to when and how you can make a diplomacy check, and what effects it will have on anyone who you make the check against, it pretty clearly says you can't use it in place of a charisma check.

Or to make pie.

No matter how delicious the pie may be.

I really want pie.

You are starting to win me over. Pie would really hit the spot right now.

But I seriously, I see what you mean. If I did well enough on a diplomacy check, then I should be able to convince you to have sex with me. But no matter how well I do on diplomacy check, I won't get you to enjoy it. (Not that I'm a 7 charisma mind you, but I am definitely more Robin Williams than Russel Crowe.)

Having a 7 charisma with diplomacy really shouldn't make you more likable than a first level fighter with at a 10 charisma.

Dobneygrum wrote:

Assuming your wizard writes in ink, and not watercolour, and doesn't run it through the washing machine, it should last a few decades, especially if he or she memorizes prestidigitation or mending on a daily basis.

I think it's reasonable to assume that part of the cost of scribing a spell is coating the pages with a thin, water-proof, vermin-repelling coating of some sort of clear varnish. After all, spell scribing still costs a bundle, even in Pathfinder, and wizard's aren't dumb. I'd assume scrolls get the same treatment. If you can waterproof leather, parchment shouldn't be a problem.

It makes sense that it would, but I've never heard someone playing a wizard actually say that they wanted to do it.

I know if that if a book was my key using fabulous power I would laminate it.

If a player ever mentioned wanting to protect it, then I would certainly include that in the price of the spell inscribing. Especially the higher level spells.

LOL

This actually did come up in a game I ran. Someone was in the ocean for 2 days (shipwreck) banging around on debris and washed up on shore.

They found their backpack (lucky them), and then we rolled to see if the spellbook was damaged (1st level character, couldn't afford a waterproof case for the book). It was, and I rolled a save for the book (open ended). It got a 16 for it's save, so I ruled it was damaged, but a few spells were readable. One of them wasn't Mend unfortunately. However, the player came up with the idea of using his bonded weapon (which he'd managed to hang on to) to cast MEND on the page with MEND on it (the spell was there, but unreadable). It was a novel enough idea I allowed it. Next morning, he memorized MEND and proceeded to cast it on each page of the book over the next 3-4 days, restoring his spellbook to full.

I like the bonded weapon idea.

Yeah, that makes sense that the book would be damaged. In that case it would be a little like it being run through a washing machine.

Sadly no, spells that affect size have no effect on creatures under polymorph spells, which includes druids in wildshape. You can find the rules on it in the magic section. Look for polymorph in the section called "spell descriptions".

Upon reading numerous posts and flipping through the books... I agree it is strange that he was hurt by the poison. There are numerous, fairly cheap, ways it could have been avoided.

Seeing as this was my third character, though, I doubt it was a deliberate attempt to keep me alive. This was a guy who put DC 30 traps in his dungeons at 4th level.

Maybe he didn't think of it. It's strange considering I was making poisons, but maybe it slipped his mind.

doctor_wu wrote:

Can't this be avoided if the wizard kept his spellbook in a waterproof backpack and isn't that what it is normally put in when adventurering. You could probably still read it but I might rule its harder to read so you take an extra 15 minutes preparing spells before it gets repaired. Now if you bullrush a wizard off a ship into the ocean is another story and could end badly.

There seems to be a disconnect between the 'Water does no harm' and the 'Water can do harm' camps.

Most of the 'Water does no harm' camp seems to be of the opinion that no amount of water can damage a spellbook. You can take it and dump it in pickle brine for 3 weeks, pull it out and use it.

Most of the 'Water can damage it' camp (myself included) seems to be of the opinion that rain doesn't bother it, nor will exposure to water for a short time (such as spilling ale on it, or falling in the river and getting out if it's not in a waterproof case), but that extended exposure (falling in the ocean or river and staying in there for a few days) is likely to damage it, if not actually destroy it.

Admittedly, there may be a very small camp of 'Any water exposure damages' but I haven't actually seen that in the thread that I noticed.

Okay put that way, I agree. If a wizard in my game was so careless with his book that he let it fall into the ocean... without having it protected in a bag... and didn't immediately risk life and limb to get it back... I'd probably rule that it had been... who am I kidding? I still wouldn't claim it had been damaged by water.

I would have a shark eat it.

Why is the wizard allowing some nobody to buddy up to him? I could see this happening over a long period of time, but not in a day or so. Even diplomacy has its limits. It is not a nonmagical mind control device. As an example I don't let anyone know my pin number for my ATM card, and there is not a diplomacy check high enough to get it from me. I am sure spellbooks are guarded just as closely if not closer.

Hello, I am a wealthy banker from Nigeria. I wish to leave the country, but my government won't allow me to transfer the funds...

Greed is a surprisingly effective motivator.

LilithsThrall wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Why is the wizard allowing some nobody to buddy up to him? I could see this happening over a long period of time, but not in a day or so. Even diplomacy has its limits. It is not a nonmagical mind control device. As an example I don't let anyone know my pin number for my ATM card, and there is not a diplomacy check high enough to get it from me. I am sure spellbooks are guarded just as closely if not closer.

Your position confuses me. There's a lot of things that happen in the game that have never happened in our real world experience. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that one of these things would be what a very good social character can persuade others of.

Social engineering yes. Instant trust that is better than what you give to life-long friends, no. If diplomacy were that strong you could just talk the bad guy down every time.

PC-Diplomancer: Look dude you don't really want to rule the world. People will start to depend on you, and blame you for problems. You have to deal with revolts, assassination attempts, and who knows what else. Really it is not as good as it sounds, and is nothing but a thankless job. You could have power, money, and pleasure with a lot less trouble through other means. What da ya say pal?

BBEG:Well since you put it that way I guess you're right.

That's why many people claim that diplomacy is broken, and they are right.

Dobneygrum wrote:

But please tell me how your saves get so much higher at 17th level. I like the idea of the druid I am playing becoming immortal in about 5 levels.

Have you, in fact, played this game?

In his world, all casters wear CON stat boosters, resistance items and have multiple group buffs (morale & luck bonuses to saves) up ALL THE TIME. He plays it alright, but with such razor-thin precision that it sounds more like a think-tank than it does a social game.

Look, I don't know what the guy's con bonus or his save was, but let's say I'm wrong, and it was +12 and not +7.

He fails the first time and takes 1d3 Con damage. No matter what the GM rolls, the wizard down by 1 on his bonus and possibly 2. Let's say he makes the second save, and flubs the third. If he rolls a 1 and 2 on his Con damage rolls, he is now at a +10 on his saves. He makes the 4th roll, and misses on the 5th for another 1 point of damage. He is still at a +10 and he makes his last roll.

In that scenario, he made worse than average saving rolls, but better than average rolls on resisting the damage. Neither of which were abnormally so. I'm not sure that every wizard is as designed to withstand poison to the degree you think they are. There are all sorts of other damage that he had to guard against.

Thanks for the anti-magic + armed guards details. It seems strange for a wizard to live/hang out in an anti-magic field where he can't use his vast power, but I suppose if he had some kind of device he could use to easily deactivate it in a pinch it might make a useful defensive mechanism.

Yeah, sorry, messed up on the antimagic thing. Like I said, I just remember we couldn't get in there magically.

He was sitting in an antimagic field, surrounded by traps, with two heavily armed guards on the other side of the door.

Wait a minute... that can't be right... because I used wands on him and the traps were magical.

I dunno, he had something going on. We couldn't just pop in with teleport, I remember that much.

Show me how to get a DC 40 poison, in a way a level 10 character can do, and that bypasses immunity to poison and we can talk about you poisoning level 17 characters in a manner that isn't blatant fiat.

I said DC 20. Not DC 40. I gave you the poison name. Look poisons on page 557. Dark Reaver Powder 800 GP.

In his defense, some GM's really don't think about keeping a Wizard on the defensive in his keep with his allies (example, lounging around in PJ robes and not having his resistance cloak and con belt on)

Mistake, fiat... you don't get to be a level 17 anything without due caution.

He was sitting in an antimagic field, surrounded by traps, with two heavily armed guards on the other side of the door.

His save is much higher, unless you either assume he's being dumb, or that DM fiat thing again.

Page number please! Wizard 17th level has a fortitude bonus of +5, and he had a constitution score of 14. That equals +7 in my world.

But please tell me how your saves get so much higher at 17th level. I like the idea of the druid I am playing becoming immortal in about 5 levels.

Have you, in fact, played this game?

Dobneygrum wrote:

CoDzilla wrote:

Just the fact you defeated a level 17 anything with poison screams DM fiat.

Dark Reaver Powder DC 18 * 2 doses = DC 20. Wizard 17th level with Con 14 saves at +7. 2 consecutive saves needed. Losing 1d3 Con per minute. Roll it.

*Edit -- I said "pretty close to death"

A DC 20 poison at level 17. And you had to artificially lower the Wizard's saves by at least a dozen points. I rest my case.

Show me how to get a DC 40 poison, in a way a level 10 character can do, and that bypasses immunity to poison and we can talk about you poisoning level 17 characters in a manner that isn't blatant fiat.

Artificially lower? Sorry, explain how you came to that conclusion?

Just the fact you defeated a level 17 anything with poison screams DM fiat.

Dark Reaver Powder DC 18 * 2 doses = DC 20. Wizard 17th level with Con 14 saves at +7. 2 consecutive saves needed. Losing 1d3 Con per minute. Roll it.

*Edit -- I said "pretty close to death"

Dobneygrum wrote:

CoDzilla wrote:

Being the best at something that is not that good isn't something to brag about. Most skills are either weak period, or stop being useful after level 5 or so. And of the handful that were good, two out of three got nerfed hard. Diplomacy and Tumbling, I'm looking at you. That just leaves UMD, which is certainly nice and all, but so is being an actual spellcaster. The fusing skills together thing helped some, but not enough.

Sorry, but what game are you playing?

I once single handedly took out a 17th level BBEG at 10th level using nothing but skills. Disguised myself and performed to get him to believe I was a wizard hired to take out his enemies, got on a good footing with him through diplomacy. Bluffed and used diplomacy on him to get him to use his spell book. Plied him with expensive wine I got for a song (with appraisal) poisoned it, stole his keys, slipped out while he was unaware, found his secret chamber, disabled the trap, picked the lock, stole his best stuff, and used it against him with my use magic device skill. He was pretty close to death at that point anyway.

Good thing I didn't know that my skills had stopped being useful 5 levels earlier.

You benefited from a triple dose of DM fiat, not skills.

Uhm... which one was DM fiat? Every one was according to RAW.

Being the best at something that is not that good isn't something to brag about. Most skills are either weak period, or stop being useful after level 5 or so. And of the handful that were good, two out of three got nerfed hard. Diplomacy and Tumbling, I'm looking at you. That just leaves UMD, which is certainly nice and all, but so is being an actual spellcaster. The fusing skills together thing helped some, but not enough.

Sorry, but what game are you playing?

I once single handedly took out a 17th level BBEG at 10th level using nothing but skills. Disguised myself and performed to get him to believe I was a wizard hired to take out his enemies, got on a good footing with him through diplomacy. Bluffed and used diplomacy on him to get him to use his spell book. Plied him with expensive wine I got for a song (with appraisal) poisoned it, stole his keys, slipped out while he was unaware, found his secret chamber, disabled the trap, picked the lock, stole his best stuff, and used it against him with my use magic device skill. He was pretty close to death at that point anyway.

Good thing I didn't know that my skills had stopped being useful 5 levels earlier.

I saw this thread and decided to run an experiment, I just took watercolour pencil (pencil designed to run when water is applied), wrote a few sentences on a wet newspaper, folded it over and pressed it firmly. Then I left it to soak in water for a couple of minutes. Next I dried it in the toaster oven before spreading it out again, and I was still able to read it.

Assuming your wizard writes in ink, and not watercolour, and doesn't run it through the washing machine, it should last a few decades, especially if he or she memorizes prestidigitation or mending on a daily basis.

I really don't understand the problem with someone saying that their character is attractive. Heck, anyone if anyone in one of my games said that they were the single most beautiful person in the entire world, I'd say, "Great, enjoy." If they had a 7 Charisma, I'd give them -2 to all their attempts at dealing with people.

They don't gain anything from in according to game mechanics. They can't role-play their appearance (I dare you... role-play being better looking than you are.) The only thing it affects is how much the player enjoys playing their character. I like my players enjoying playing their characters, so I let them be however pretty or ugly they choose.

I think this is the right place to ask, if not I apologize.

I have got a few questions about druids and using Wild Shape that have come up recently.

First, when a druid uses Wild Shape to turn into an animal, what is he considered? Is he an "animal" or a "magical beast"? Or is he simply an intelligent animal?

This leads to my next question, when a druid that is Wild Shaped into an animal encounters an enemy with an Unnatural Aura, will they be able to approach, or do they have to make a check of some kind.

And this last one I am pretty sure doesn't work, but I'll ask anyway. If a druid with Wild on his armour, took a level of monk, would he be considered wearing his armour while Wild Shaped and thus not get the monk's AC Bonus?

I couldn't find any place that this was spelled out, but I remember in 3.x you didn't change your type, just your form. So unless something has changed, the druid is still humanoid. So it should be no problem to approach someone with unnatural aura.

Yes, he would be considered armoured.

The point is that the example you gave is "unsettling to be around" at Charisma 8. I guess you can be hot as long as you are "unsettling to be around" which would functionally have the same effect on those interacting with you.

Oh... okay. That was the point I was trying to make. Never mind the other post then.

Like it or not, it's in the RAW.

When you choose to tank a skill, the rules are written for that to have a consequence. If your DM is "nice" and lets you not suffer any penalties for tanking a stat, that is between you and your DM. I find it boring when DM's allow players to push the "win" button by not holding them accountable for giving themselves weaknesses, but if it makes you happy, house rule it.

But RAW it effects "...a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance".

For comparison, Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition, and Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons.

Some people are combat based and some people are more role playing based. Everyone is entitled to have there own game they play. But the rules aren't unclear here.

Two questions:

1. How do you role play being good looking? No matter what character I play, they wind up looking, more or less, exactly like me. I can say, "I'm really good looking", but that's not really role playing.

2. What penalties am I dodging by saying my character is good looking?

Befriending people? Nope, diplomacy still has a penalty.
Intimidating? Nope, intimidate still has a penalty.
Wooing? Nope, still diplomacy, still a penalty.
Telling a good story? Nope, perform still has a penalty.
Bartering? Nope. (Why is barter not a skill?).
Performing? Nope, still a penalty.

Why would anyone care what someone else's mental image of who they are playing is? The only problem that I can see is people trying to fudge the score based on their looks. So just keep to the score and tell them that no one seems to care about their good looks. Problem solved and everyone can be happy.

I was just thinking about my current character and how it would likely drive some people on this thread crazy.

I'm playing a druid with 8 Charisma. He defecates in public and urinates on things to mark his territory. When he first meets people, he tries to smell them. His way of making friends is to offer people small dead animals or attempting to groom them. He wanders around in the nude when he isn't fighting, and he licks his crotch when he is feeling funky. He does rinse off with fresh water, but he is also likely to roll in the grass and dirt afterwards. If he doesn't like food, he spits it out or sniffs it in disdain. He has fed his lion companion bits of humans until his party made him stop,and he whimpers and hides when people get mad at him. When he does speak in full sentences, they make little sense.

Does anyone seriously think that this guy has to be bad or even plain in order to be an 8 charisma? I figure he has to be fabulously good looking, sweet, and loyal to even make it to an 8. Otherwise, he would be a 2 and driven out of town.

I'm definitely of the "do what you know and only what you know" school of thinking.

A big fighter is more dangerous than a small fighter- so attack the big guy.

Women are weaker than men - so attack the men.

Healers are good guys. That guy was healing someone - detect evil (that was a brilliant idea by the way. Kudos.)

Your job is to protect the weak, and help the sick- Help him first, finish of the BBEG later.

I've never seen a big glowing ball like that before- hold your action until someone else in your party reacts.

Pick one fighting style and stick with it. You were taught to be aggressive? Then don't take Combat Expertise or feats that focus on the defencive side of combat, or vice versa.

That kind of thing. Love the commitment to fighting in character, btw! It's inspirational, really.