Ogre Mancatcher

EntrerisShadow's page

Organized Play Member. 844 posts (884 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters. 3 aliases.

So we have largely switched to 5E at my table, but Pathfinder is still my first love and I would like to get at it again someday. That being said, there are some things I will definitely be instituting in any future games:

SNEAK ATTACK - I have mentioned elsewhere how much better 5E sneak attack is. I'll definitely be ditching 30 ft limits, the flanking complications, and will double dice on a crit. (Undecided on whether to limit it to once per turn with the changes? Open to suggestions.)

TWO HANDED POWER ATTACK - I am ditching the STR+1/2 and bonus PA damage for two handed weapons. I never realized how much it locks players in until I played without it.

Any of you bringing some rules back to your PF games?

I am finally taking the 5E Barbarian for a test run, and with the 2nd rung of the Bear Totem and a caster kind enough to prepare Enlarge/Reduce regularly I can rock a carrying capacity of 600 lbs (1200 when enlarged) which gives me a Lift overhead of 1200/2400 lbs!

Now I am faced with a very important dilemma - what ridiculous common large objects should I use this ability on in combat? Some items that have occurred to me so far:

-Cannon ~1000 lbs(Ship/battlefield)
-Carriage ~600 lbs(Town square)
-Throne ~300-~1000 lbs(Dungeon/Castle)
-Grand Dining Table ~1200-~2400 lbs(Dungeon/Castle)

Yeah it's a fairly short list unfortunately. Which is why I am hoping some of the more creative and/or ridiculous posters here can drum up some ideas for Barbarian shenanigans.

Forgive the brevity of this post - trying to do this on my smart phone, which does not make it easy.

But just out of curiosity, since 5E removed the "evil/good" descriptions from spells and one of the major Wizard schools' abilities are seriously gimped by banning undead, I am just curious how other DM's handle Necromancy in their games.

Do you still tag it as always evil even though it's not mandated in the mechanics any longer? Do you allow players to roll up necromancers in nonevil games? Do you slam down raising undead?

So I'm making a Rogue 1/Barbarian 5 to replace a fallen character in a friend's game. They have a Ranger and Rogue who both dish out pretty good damage and a Druid with the Magic Initiate Feat who fills the caster role pretty nicely, so I figured they could use a good tank/controller.

Here's how he's looking so far - I rolled REALLY well:


Rogue 1/Barbarian 5

STR: 18
CON: 18
DEX: 16
INT: 10
WIS: 12
CHA: 12

Class Features: Reckless Attack, Rage, Sneak Attack +1d6 with range or finesse weapon, Expertise (Athletics, Intimidate), Bear Totem (Resistance to all damage except Psychic when raging), Unarmored Defense

FEAT: (Level 1 Human Alternate) Tough (+2 HP/level)

Melee: Greatsword +7/+7 2d6+4 (Not really the style I'm going for - but it's an inherited magical weapon from the fallen character and magical weapons in this game are rare and sort of mythic, so I'm not going to drop or sell it.)
Melee: Warhammer +7/+7 1d8/1d10+4
Ranged: Longbow +6/+6 1d8+3

The thought behind the character is to be a grapple machine who wades in unarmored and soaks damage - hence the Tough feat and Bear totem - while repositioning foes where his allies can do the most damage. (This will be especially good for the Rogue.) So the Barbarian's advantage on Athletics coupled with the Rogue's expertise should make him pretty good at it . . . but, just two questions regarding the 4th level Feat choices:

1. There's a Grappler Feat in the PHB that seems to do . . . well, nothing? Besides grant advantage on attacks when you're grappling, but I plan on reckless attacking all the time anyway, so-yeah. Is there any reason at all to take this feat? Especially when I'm more impressed by -

2. Tavern Brawler, which seems pretty good, but is it good enough to forego the +2 STR at Level 4 and get the +5?

Are there any other feats that I should be considering that maybe I glossed over? And is there any other good advice beyond the obvious to make a strong grappler in 5E? Another class dip I should consider perhaps?

Grand Lodge

I'm going to be starting a new, brief campaign shortly that finds the PCs infiltrating the tower of a powerful undead whose taint is damaging the lands around it. It's very much designed to be a dungeon crawl with the PC's starting in the . . . well, dungeon and making their way up. The only encounters they are going to have after a brief introduction at a church in the beginning is with the hostile denizens of this tower.

But rather than just a go here-kill this straightforward dungeon crawl, I have a fairly in-depth backstory and world built I'd like the PC's to explore. In particular, there are hints about the BBEG's motivations and history that will completely change the way the last battle should play out - IF the players figure it out.

So my challenge is I want to create a story driven campaign that plays out entirely in the context of a dungeon crawl. That being said, there are two things I am trying to avoid:

1. Journal Entries. It's trite and overdone. I may use a couple, but I do not want them giving away the plot and, since it's such a cliche, I want to limit them to a last resort when I can think of no better way to convey backstory.

2. Helpful or way too knowledgeable NPC's. This is a dungeon crawl, after all, so the sense of danger should be everywhere. The only noncombatants they are going to encounter will still be Lawful Evil and untrustworthy monsters - they simply won't pose much of a physical threat.

So my question is what devices do you use to give your PC's the lore and history without just leaving conveniently-relevant journal entries lying around or speaking as know-it-all innkeepers?

Grand Lodge

So I know this isn't precisely new, BUT there is a certain alignment - and I'm sure you've all guessed what it is even though I haven't put it in the title. At my table (and many others I'm told) it's known, colloquially, as chaotic bull@#%% - or, chaotic stupid if you're squeamish.

Players who choose this forbidden alignment are almost always to a T confrontational. They seem to choose it just for the opportunity to make action happen by acting impulsively and without thought. If they're not taking the most ridiculous course of action possible, they're arguing with the level heads in the party about why they need to dispense with the diplomacy and stab the king in his stupid, kingly face.

And worse than that, they use the "chaotic" portion of their alignment to justify that most disgusting atrocities - deception, torture, thuggery and worse are all justifiable as long as you're only doing it to the enemies. It doesn't make them evil, after all, because they only do it to evil NPCs.

Man, I hate Chaotic Good characters.

For all of the complaints about Chaotic Neutral, my problem players have almost always steered clear of the dreaded 'no-no' alignment. It's a personal favorite and one I've seen attached to the more well thought out characters in games I've ran. But Chaotic Good? C/G on a character sheet makes me nervous.

Anyone else have a Scrappy alignment at their table that's not Chaotic Neutral?

Grand Lodge

So, now that 5E has been out for some time and we've all probably had a reasonable opportunity to test out the classes, it's time for our favorite TTRPG past-time:


OK, seriously though, I'm curious to get people's opinions on the individual classes and see how 5E's class list compares to the PF class list. Obviously, in PF, the generally agreed upon order (core) is something like:

Wizard >>>>>>>> Cleric/Druid > Sorcerer > Barbarian/Bard/Paladin/Ranger > Fighter/Monk/Rogue (Slashed out classes that are comparable in strength, although the lists might vary a bit. One person might says Barbarian above Bard and another not, for instance.)

So looking at 5E, here's how I've pegged it:

TIER 1 (Godlike):

Wizard: Duh. Some of the power has been reigned in by including the Concentration mechanic and save-every-round, but it's still far and away the show stopper. Throw in some of the most powerful school-dependent abilities in the current game, and you've got a class that's still king of the hill.

Druid: Wildshape is in some ways less ridiculous than Pathfinder, and in some ways way more. With rolled stats, they're damn good - with point buy, they're freaking unstoppable. In some ways even better than a Wizard since they get a lot more buff spells and less save-every-round options.

TIER 2 (Powerful):

Bard: Once again, the Bard is the queen of versatility. And still stepping on the poor rogue's toes a bit, but the rogue gets a little bit more to keep them from languishing like they did in 3.PF. But the Valor Bard is a capable combatant, and the Lore bard is a pretty awesome spellcaster. And as always, makes everyone around her better.

Cleric: This is a high Tier 2, approaching Tier 1 with the correct Domain choices. Not quite as breakable as Druids or Wizards, but always powerful, and occasionally ungodly so.

Sorcerer: I wasn't really sold on the Sorcerer at first, but upon further consideration, this gets a big boost from now being the only class that does metamagic. I would honestly probably put the Dragon Blooded here and the Wild Mage at Tier 3, but it'd be a high Tier 3, so it averages out. What keeps it from hitting Tier 1 is that the new spellcasting rules steps on its schtick a little and its list is more limited than the wizard's.

TIER 3 (Good):

Fighter: Fighters got a lot of love from WotC this version. With enchantments like "Keen" and feats like Improved Critical gone, only fighters can expand their range. Fighters are the undisputed masters of maneuvers and get more attacks than any class aside from monk - and thanks to the new movement/action rules, no more Full Attack issue. Eldritch Knight is now an archetype that ties into it, which gives it another boost. The big complaints about fighters have always been that they are only good for hitting things and that they're not even the best option to do so. Well, WotC improved the Fighter in that regard --- unfortunately, just not both things at the same time.

Monk: Never thought I'd see the day. But Monks are now a solid, viable class with Dex-based everything and some really cool, effective archetypes. No class benefited more from the new movement rules than the Monk, either.

Paladin: The Paladin has been changed greatly from 3.PF. It's lost some of its attack ability (which was approaching absurd in PF, anyway) but retained most of its defensive capability. Unfortunately, the replacements for Detect/Smite Evil are much weaker and far more situational in addition to being limited. However, allies will still be grateful to have you around when you're adding your Charisma bonus to their saves.

Rogue: Nope, that's not a typo. New critical, poison, and stealth rules finally make it a viable option. Honestly with the Bard still stepping on its toes a bit, it won't quite reach Tier 2, but for once it can actually do something the Bard can't - and that is damage, damage, damage. Assassin auto-crit with a Shortbow at Level 3 = 6d6 + Dex damage. Roll up a Lightfoot halfling and fell ECL-CR foes in one hit.

Warlock: Hands down the best blaster. You can blast to your hearts content from 300 feet away at Level 2. Unfortunately, the limited spell list holds it back a bit. It can be a low Tier-2 or mid Tier-3 depending on the Pact chosen, but it ultimately sits comfortably here.

TIER 4 (Mediocre or Pointless):

Barbarian: Oh, how the mighty have fallen. There are some good options here, but not enough to justify it at all. It just needs to be said --- Rage sucks. It doesn't last nearly long enough and the benefits aren't nearly good enough for the penalties you incur using it. A few minutes +proficiency bonus to damage and advantage on STR checks is nothing compared to the constant +2 damage a fighter can get or a Druid getting her advantage by transforming into a large creature for HOURS. (That's hours, not minutes.) It seems like it gets crappier versions of things other classes do, but with the added suckage of imposing a penalty to use it. (Reckless attack, unarmored defense.) Just a waste.

Ranger: For the first few levels, Beast Master is so weak it may as well be Tier 5 - but once it picks up, it's okay. The Hunter starts slightly stronger but doesn't get much better. The spell list is 'meh', the abilities are 'meh', it's just all around a giant meh. The Ranger gets NOTHING over the other martial classes fight wise, and nothing over the other spellcasting classes magic wise. I've been trying to find a reason to use it beyond flavor's sake, and I just can't. Favored Enemy has possibly the WORST revision I have ever seen --- it makes the Paladin's Smite Evil replacement look positively overpowered.

Obviously, there's a lot more 5E to play and the list might change over time. But I'm very curious for the others how your experience stacks up. How would you rate the classes in the PHB? Favorite/least favorite and so on?

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

OK, so in a respectful enough way as not to have this thread locked, this is a semi-related thread to the "Will You Be Switching?" topic. But whereas many of those posts answered with a brief yes or no, I wanted to delve a little deeper.

Now that the PHB and Monster Manual are out, in comparison to PF, what do you think of 5th Ed? As objectively as possible (A completely positive/negative comparison is fine, as long as you reason why and don't just say "D&D/PF sucks and only tools would play it"):

Stylistically (the art, race and class descriptions, etc.), do you prefer the 5th Ed. style or the Pathfinder style?

Mechanically, what did it do better than Pathfinder?

Mechanically, what did it do worse than Pathfinder?

Among those things it did better, can or should any of them be translated to the PF system?

Among those things it did worse, was the PF mechanic the clearly superior option, or could they be fixed with small tweaks?

I'm sure there are more questions to be asked, these are just the first four that popped into my head. Feel free to add more.

Grand Lodge

Yeah, there's a ton of these, aren't there? But I couldn't find this one, so here it is - and I suppose this is a more general syntax question in relation to feats, anyway, though I couldn't think of how to word it for a search.

In the Pummeling Bully feat it lists the prerequisites as this:

Improved Reposition, Improved Trip, Improved Unarmed Strike, Pummeling Style; base attack bonus +9, brawler level 5th, or monk level 5th.

So if I'm reading that correctly, for a straight Brawler to take Pummeling Bully after grabbing Pummeling Style, s/he will also need to take Improved Trip and Improved Reposition? Just need to know to see if it would be worth taking the MoMs dip to avoid it.

Grand Lodge

I'm going to be running a one-shot very soon, and thought to mix it up a little I'd do a Steampunk-esque setting with the only "magic" in the world being alchemy. (Magic items would be a mix of slchemical reaction and sci-fi technology.)

That being the case, I need to restrict to specifically mundane classes - so that means, even though Barbarian isn't technically a spellcaster, it's still out on grounds of having mystical powers.

I think I have a pretty thorough list here, but wanted some help filling in the gaps. Here's what I've got:

Martial Artist (Monk)
Rogue (No Ninja - still too mystic)
Skirmisher (Ranger)
Trapper (Ranger)

Are there any archetypes or alternates I've missed that replace the core build's spellcasting/other mystic abilities with more mundane things?

Grand Lodge

25 people marked this as a favorite.

Fair warning, this is going to get rather maudlin.

Lately, it seems like there has been an uptick in threads blasting Paizo for the editorial decisions they've made. I won't be too specific here, but let's just say there have been complaints levied about the insulting lack of eye candy, or Paizo menacingly pushing the so-called 'gay agenda'. And to the credit of the posters here - and the human race - most of the community has rushed to Paizo's defense.

But I'm tired of waiting an reacting to negativity. Too often those of us who are impressed by the decisions a company makes are content to say 'Oh, that's nice' to ourselves and move on, while the bitter and angry minority tries to drown out the rest to sound bigger than they are.

So, apropos of no (specific) complaint:

Thank you, Paizo, for making a dedicated effort to include LGBTQ individuals - who have made up a large part of the human experience, but who have been relegated to obscurity bordering on invisibility.

Thank you for writing well-rounded female characters that are not relegated to damsels in distress and trophies to be won. For not treating female sexuality as something sinful or shameful, or as something that exists for men and male players.

Thank you for presenting humanity as a wide range of ethnicity and body types, and creating a human 'culture' that is as varied as our experiences in the real world. We are not uniform as a species - our art should reflect that.

Thank you for being accessible to your consumers. Far more often than not it feels as though companies are an unknown entity, rather than actual organization made of up of living people. Many companies, especially the larger ones, are content to allow third party intermediaries handle any direct public interaction and remain hidden behind official press releases.

Does Paizo achieve these things 100% of the time? No. Nobody does. But they are perhaps the most consistently thoughtful of any major tabletop or fantasy publisher on the market today. That they strive to reach a goal that is ultimately impossible, while managing to get a little closer at every opportunity, is something most of us appreciate - even if we do not say it often enough.

I started playing Pathfinder because I love role-playing and I love fantasy. It could have been any fantasy TTRPG, but with nearly every decision that Paizo makes in its materials and as a company in general, I feel more confident about that decision. There are very few companies I will gladly give my hard earned money to without a bit of ethical trepidation, and Paizo is chief among them. Thank you for being that, especially in an industry that desperately NEEDS a company like that.

Grand Lodge

After perusing the General Discussion forum and reading about classes still desired after the ACG*, it seemed like the most common one was a shapeshifting class. Instead of reinventing the wheel, I decided to just try doing a Ranger/Druid hybrid that ditched the animal companion to focus on the shapeshifting abilities.

So here is the basic chassis for The Shifter homebrew class.** I have the mechanics written, although I've not quite figured out how to word the fluff.

I was hoping for some feedback - obviously it's unfinished, and I wanted to see if anybody might have some good suggestions to rearrange the totems or to fill in the gaps where I've not been able to select abilities yet.

The other half of the issue is balance. Because I'm eliminating perhaps the most powerful abilities of both classes (The spontaneous summoning, Nature/Hunter's Bond animal companion, and favored enemy) to preserve a more authentic flavor, I tried to make its replacement - the Totemic Shift ability - suitably powerful. I just want to make sure I didn't go overboard - or perhaps even not go far enough.

*Original thread can be found here.

**Right now it's an open office document. You can download the software for free from http://www.openoffice.org. I'm working on getting it into drive, but unfortunately the formatting goes crazy and I'll have to figure out another way to include the table.

Grand Lodge

So, I've been going over and over the Cavalier entries in the APG and UC books. For a moment I was actually kind of intrigued by it, but the more I consider it, the more I have to wonder: aside from taking a different alignment, would there ever be any reason to take a Cavalier over a Paladin for a mounted combatant? I mean, let's compare the two:


Cavalier: Gets mount at level 1. Gets some pretty nice bonus feats and also can charge without penalty. (Mount gives up the Share Spells ability, which seems unnecessary.)
Paladin: Gets mount at level 5. Mount eventually acquires the Celestial template with all of the goodies that provides.

Cavalier seems like the clear winner in this scenario, BUT level 5 is still pretty low (When is the last time your game didn't get to at least Level 5?) and the Pally pretty much gets Boon Companion for free. If you were going to focus on mounted combat, you'll probably take the best mounted feats anyway.

Ultimately, with just a minor bit of digging, it suddenly seems like the Paladin has it all over the Cavalier.


Cavalier: Challenge x/day depending on level.
Paladin: Smite Evil x/day depending on level.

The Cavalier's challenge works on everything, so that's great and all I guess. But most of what you're going to fight is evil, anyway. And the Challenge damage is pathetic, and can only get slight situational bonuses depending on the order s/he takes. Even if you take, say, Order of the Cockatrice, the Paladin's smite will still be twice as effective. (And good luck getting a boost to attack AND damage)

This is the closest I'd say to being a draw, but only if you fight a lot of animals and other mindless creatures in your game.


Cavalier: Gets a Tactician ability that functions x/uses per day. Has a banner ability that functions x/uses per day.
Paladin: Several passive buffs that remain active all the time. Can share smite ability at higher levels.

This one is no contest. Tactician is HORRIBLE. I remember reading a Cavalier guide that ranked the Gendarme as "red" for trading out Teamwork bonus feats for regular ol' Bonus Feats. Except those bonus feats are ALWAYS ON and also, am I the only one who thinks all of the Teamwork feats suck ogre droppings? Like, for something that either A) requires multiple members of the party to take it, B) Only works in specific situations, and C) They've designated important enough to limit to an x/uses per day ability, I expect some major bang for my buck. But Teamwork feats are, to a one, not nearly as good as regular feats. (With the exception, perhaps, of Outflank and Butterfly's Sting - but one of those isn't even core.)

I don't want it to sound like a foregone conclusion - what I'm wondering is there perhaps something I'm missing about Cavaliers that makes them better than I can see? My first impressions of Inquisitors weren't really that good either, but after seeing some Inquisitor builds in play I am now definitely a true believer. I'd like to think the Cavalier is something more than a crappy Paladin-wannabe, but if they're the ultimate mounted class, I'm just struggling to find what makes them so . . . well, ultimate.

Grand Lodge

(See what I did there?)

ANYWAY . . .

Something I've wanted to try for a while is a maneuver-focused martial that eschews direct damage dealing for non-violent resolution. (But with violent capability should it come down to it) Problem is I've always envisioned this character as a finesse style whip combatant, which offered a great flavor but also seemed almost impossible to build.

A fighter would have the feats, but I have a serious problem playing any class with a low Will save. Usually this is no problem since most of the builds I'm interested in don't need the number of feats a fighter provides, so I can go with a Paladin or Barbarian or battle Cleric and get roughly the same effect.

The Warpriest seems to offer the goodies I need and possibly make this workable, but I can't seem to get the finesse part down. Should I give it up or is there a way to do this?

Where I'm at so far. I'm coming in at level 7. I don't think it's terrible per se, but it's definitely not optimized:


Tavien Windcaller
Level 7 CG Aasimar (Plumekin) Warpriest of [God from my friend's homebrew campaign. A NG God of Travelers, Wanderers, and Emigrants. Typically his favored weapon is a Quarterstaff, but I've been given some leeway to pick any weapon with a nonlethal quality.)
Blessings: Protection (+2 to AC or Saves), Travel (Ignore difficult terrain as a free action)

Stats: (Rolled, but used a 25 point buy to simulate 4d6 drop 1s and 2s)

STR: 12
DEX: 20 (+2 racial, 4th level bump, +2 belt)
CON: 14 (8th level bump)
INT: 13 (for Combat Expertise - can I reiterate how frustrating that is?)
WIS: 16 (+2 racial)
CHA: 14

HP: 49 (7d8 + 21)
FORT: +9 REF: +9 WILL: +10
AC: 23 FF: 18 T: 17 (+6 Armor, +5 DEX, +2 Deflection)
Melee: +1 Agile Whip +14/+9 (1d8 + 5) or
Ranged: +1 Composite Longbow +13/+8 (1d8 + 1)
CMB: +10 (+12 w/ Whip, +14 on Trip or Disarm), CMD: 16, BAB +5 (+7/+2 w/ whip)
Special: Fervor 5/day (2d6), Channel Energy, Orisons, Sacred Weapon


WP 1: Weapon Finesse
WP 1B: Weapon Focus (Whip)
WP 3: Whip Mastery
WP 3B: Combat Expertise
WP 5: Improved Trip
WP 6B: Agile Maneuvers
WP 7: Weapon Focus (Longbow)

Gear: +2 Cloak of Resistance, Mithral Breastplate, +1 Agile Whip, Composite Longbow +1, +2 Ring of Protection, +2 Belt of Incredible Dexterity, assorted gear

Spells Prepared:
Orisons: Create Water, Detect Magic, Read Magic, Light, Resistance
Level 1: Divine Favor, Protection from Evil x 2, Liberating Command, Bless Water
Level 2: Protection from Evil, Communal, Restoration x 2
Level 3: Channel Vigor

Essentially, he would be a panache fighter who begins trying to trip or disarm his opponents. If the opponent is irredeemably evil or something that cannot be reasoned with (say, an animal) he switches to lethal damage with his Sacred Weapon bond. For flying opponents, he switches it up to archery - he's not the greatest at it, but we've already got an archer and I don't mind letting him shine.

A couple of questions: If I'm using a Weapon with Trip or Disarm features and the Agile enchantment, do I need Agile Maneuvers to get the DEX to replace the STR bonus to CMB? It would be nice if I could skip that and replace it with a different feat. Also, with the Sacred Weapon I know you have full BAB for qualifying for feats, but does that also apply to iterative attacks or do you have to wait until his actual BAB qualifies?

As always, I suppose I'm not married to the Warpriest, but it seems like no other class will offer the Feats, a good Will save, and proficiency.

Grand Lodge

I've been kicking around an idea for a while for a Gentleman Assassin-type who fought with a dirk-and-dagger style. Style-wise, he would be like V from "V for Vendetta".

I always knew Rogue would be a terrible idea, and Ranger would come with too much baggage to fit my theme. I could've made it workable with an Inquisitor or Bard, but I really wanted to avoid a magical class.

It seems like the ACG had answered my prayers with the Slayer, but I am not sure if it is possible to make a good 2WF slayer. I'm about to enter a low-magic midlevel game and would really like to take this guy for a test run, so I'd be grateful for any notes or assistance.

Spoilered for Brevity


We rolled stats and I did pretty well: 16, 16, 14, 12, 11, 10

Slayer Stabbyface
LN Human Slayer 7
AC: 20 FF: 19 T: 13 (+7 Armor, +1 Dex, +2 Deflection)
HP: 56 (7d10 + 21)
MELEE: +1 Kukri/+1 Kukri +11/+11/+6/+6 (1d4+9 or 1d4+11 vs FT)
RANGED: +4 Composite Longbow +8/+3 (1d8 + 4)
SPECIAL: Favored Target 1 (+2 Attack & Damage), Sneak Attack +3d6 + 3
Traits: Blade of the Society (+1 to Sneak Attack dice), Clever Wordplay: Diplomacy (Class skill; use INT instead of CHA)

STR: 18 (16+2)
DEX: 12
CON: 14
INT: 16
WIS: 12 (Bump at 4th level)
CHA: 10

L1: 1st Favored Target, Track,
F1: Weapon Focus (Kukri), BONUS: Power Attack
L2: Slayer Talent (Ranger Style: Two Weapon Fighting)
L3: Sneak Attack +1d6
F2: ???
L4: Slayer Talent (Ranger Style: Double Slice)
L5: Sneak Attack +2d6, 2nd Favored Target
F3: ???
L6: Slayer Talent (Ranger Style: Improved Two Weapon Fighting)
L7: FT as Swift Action, Sneak attack +3d6
F4: ???

So, best case scenario we're looking at 4 hits or 1d4+11+3d6+3 damage each, for an average damage of 100. At level 8, I was going to take the Improved Critical Feat by way of Slayer Talent: Combat Trick, which I figure is cheaper than putting the Keen enchantment on 2 kukris. Level 10 I'll pick up Two-Weapon Rend for an additional 1d10+8 (I'm hoping to get a Belt of Physical Perfection by then for + to DEX and STR.)

Since CHA is not a huge boon to a Slayer build, I took the trait to make Diplomacy based on INT and hoped to represent most of his 'charm' on judicious use of the more-than-enough skill points I'll have. (10/level with human 'Skilled' trait.)

I'm trying to figure out the best course of action to take to maximize my damage without turning him into a simple brute. The damage output right now is . . . well, 'respectable', I suppose, but I'm wondering if there's a better way.

I'd considered taking the Combat Expertise line so I can grab Butterfly's Sting and use my Crit Fishing Kukris to pass on to our party's pick wielding fighter. But ultimately, am I chasing after a fool's errand? Or is there a better way to build this guy?

Thanks for the help!

Grand Lodge

So I have a homebrew campaign with two BBEG's, each one leading a side in a brutal civil war that has essentially served as a cover for a personal vendetta against one another. The PC's will essentially be given a chance to choose sides so they can eliminate one more easily or take the high road and have a much more uphill battle in returning peace to the land.

The first was easy. He was a repurposed PC I'd been fond of and wanted to take further - a vampiric Enchanter Wizard. An affably evil Decadent Noble, hands-off sort. He got where he was through bribery and trickery, and true to the nature of an Enchanter, prefers not to get his hands dirty - using lackeys and minions to do his bidding.

As a counterpart to that, I drafted the other BBEG as a hands-on heavily-armored former general wielding a vicious axe. He's huge, menacing, and a tactical genius. I had initially drafted this character as a fighter, but then it hit me that if I have two BBEG's facing against one another, there's a serious power discrepancy when facing a martial against a caster - in particular, one who specializes in attacking his weakest save.

So the typical tactically-minded martial suspects would be out - Fighter, Cavalier, and of course Paladin is eliminated on alignment grounds. I'm looking at a 12th level build for a heavily-armored martial with decent skill points and some sort of protection against mind-control. I'm not necessarily married to the idea of a full-BAB class, but he definitely has to be able to go toe-to-toe in melee combat.

So, good posters of the boards, any suggestions?

Grand Lodge

I won't waste too much time with the fluff or details, but the gist is I've had a character in my head for some time I've been wanting to try out: A Gnome Cavalier with a Paladin dip. (I really want to use that CHA bonus and Cavaliers sort of waste it unless you're playing to really high levels). Well a friend finally invited me to play in a game he's running that would be a perfect fit for my diminutive hero so I've set about building him.

We'll be rolling stats, but I've set it up with a 25 point-buy to mimic the typical allocation of stats:

Ser Humphrey


Level 4 LG Gnome Order of the Sword Cavalier (Gendarme)

STR: 16 (17-2, 4th level increase)
DEX: 10
CON: 14 (12+2)
INT: 10
WIS: 14
CHA: 16 (14+2)

Fort: +6 Ref: +1 Will: +5 <---(Order of the Sword +2 as long as LG)
AC: 20 (+0 Dex, +9 Armor, +1 Size) T: 11 FF: 20
Melee: Lance +9 (1d6+5) OR Lance +8 w/ P.A. (1d6+8) OR Lance +14 (2d6+15) when charging.
Ranged: +3 Composite Longbow +4 (1d8+3)
Feats: Power Attack, Ride-By-Attack, Mounted Combat
Gear: +1 Lance, +3 Masterwork Composite Longbow, Masterwork Full-Plate Armor, Potion of CLW, Potion of CMW, adventuring gear



N Medium Animal (Dog)

STR: 18
DEX: 16
CON: 17
INT: 2
WIS: 12
CHA: 6

AC: 21 (+4 Armor, +4 Natural, +3 Dex) FF: 18 T: 13
Melee: Bite (1d6+6)
SQ: Low-light vision, scent
Feats: Combat Trained, Light Armor Proficiency

The goal, obviously, is for the gnome to be the melee beast and have the dog function entirely as a mount and companion. (I'm aware there are stronger options if I want the beasty doing all the damage.) In particular, I want to keep the mount medium so that I can have use of it indoors and during dungeon crawls. We already have a Ranger/Paladin in our party who has gone almost entirely ranged, so I am trying to avoid putting too much stock into that.

Two questions: When would be the best time to multiclass into Paladin?


Any other suggestions on how to get my melee damage up? Obviously I'll be investing in a Belt of Giant Strength as soon as I have the gold, but I'm wondering if there are some less obvious tricks or trinkets I'm missing. I'm in love with the concept of this character, but I'm very aware he's going to be a one trick pony. That being the case, I want it to be the best trick possible.

Grand Lodge

The "Log Line" as defined by Wikipedia:

"A log line or logline is a brief summary of a television program, film, or motion picture often providing both a synopsis of the program's plot, and an emotional "hook" to stimulate interest."

Unofficially most log lines are under 25 words. So, in one line and less than 25 words, sum up a campaign idea you have/had.

The PC's are thrust into the middle of a civil war, when a powerful - and evil - third faction joins the fray,

Grand Lodge

So I have a friend starting a Pathfinder game soon with a party of 6, including myself. So far we have:

A Catfolk Barbarian
A Catfolk Rogue
A Hobgoblin Fighter
A Dwarven Druid
A Human Divine Hunter Paladin

I know the answer would seem obvious here, but there are 3 caveats, 2 because of the GM and one my issue.

1. Wizards and Sorcerers are BANNED. Yup, I know, but they are out. The GM said he would discuss others, but any full casters are probably going to be too close to allow. So in all likelihood Witches and Magi are out, too.
2. My initial character was going to be an Oracle, but then I was informed any Divine casters will probably be losing their power at some point. The Paladin will still be able to smite, but spell casting will be shut down. That is going to hurt a Cleric or Oracle a lot more.
3. Before anyone points it out, I know a Bard would be great in this group. But for one thing, the Catfolk Rogue is going party face and I don't want to muscle in on her territory. For another, my last 3 characters have been Bards and I really don't want to get shoehorned into that role again.

So now I am at a loss, and wondering if someone here might have a useful suggestion?

Grand Lodge

So I have a friend starting a Pathfinder game soon with a party of 6, including myself. So far we have:

A Catfolk Barbarian
A Catfolk Rogue
A Hobgoblin Fighter
A Dwarven Druid
A Human Divine Hunter Paladin

I know the answer would seem obvious here, but there are 3 caveats, 2 because of the GM and one my issue.

1. Wizards and Sorcerers are BANNED. Yup, I know, but they are out. The GM said he would discuss others, but any full casters are probably going to be too close to allow. So in all likelihood Witches and Magi are out, too.
2. My initial character was going to be an Oracle, but then I was informed any Divine casters will probably be losing their power at some point. The Paladin will still be able to smite, but spell casting will be shut down. That is going to hurt a Cleric or Oracle a lot more.
3. Before anyone points it out, I know a Bard would be great in this group. But for one thing, the Catfolk Rogue is going party face and I don't want to muscle in on her territory. For another, my last 3 characters have been Bards and I really don't want to get shoehorned into that role again.

So now I am at a loss, and wondering if someone here might have a useful suggestion?

Grand Lodge

So I have a friend starting a Pathfinder game soon with a party of 6, including myself. So far we have:

A Catfolk Barbarian
A Catfolk Rogue
A Hobgoblin Fighter
A Dwarven Druid
A Human Divine Hunter Paladin

I know the answer would seem obvious here, but there are 3 caveats, 2 because of the GM and one my issue.

1. Wizards and Sorcerers are BANNED. Yup, I know, but they are out. The GM said he would discuss others, but any full casters are probably going to be too close to allow. So in all likelihood Witches and Magi are out, too.
2. My initial character was going to be an Oracle, but then I was informed any Divine casters will probably be losing their power at some point. The Paladin will still be able to smite, but spell casting will be shut down. That is going to hurt a Cleric or Oracle a lot more.
3. Before anyone points it out, I know a Bard would be great in this group. But for one thing, the Catfolk Rogue is going party face and I don't want to muscle in on her territory. For another, my last 3 characters have been Bards and I really don't want to get shoehorned into that role again.

So now I am at a loss, and wondering if someone here might have a useful suggestion?

Grand Lodge

So in another thread (I forget which one, but I think it was one of the countless fighter argument threads) somebody mentioned that with a 2-handed weapon they would get a +4 on their CMB for trip attempts? I can't find this rule anywhere. Is this an actual thing or was somebody just mistaken?

Grand Lodge

So this thread had a discussion about why powerful outsiders don't simply overrun the material plane, and somebody mentioned that part of an explanation may be the Great Old Ones wouldn't allow it.

But I've always been under the impression that even the Outer Gods weren't nearly as powerful as a true deity? So while Azathoth will ruin everybody's day on the prime material, if Iomedae---or a born deity like Sarenrae---were to get involved, it wouldn't stand a chance.

Am I mistaken in this? Are the Outer Gods supposed to be as powerful as the canon pantheon?

Grand Lodge

So in my current game I am playing an evil character who has also been planted as a mole. (Now, I know how people are about PvP, but understand this isn't chronic backstabbing disorder, we're at the end of the game and this has been planned out from the beginning. Up until this point, and for the next few sessions, I'm absolutely a team player.) I'm not quite the Big Bad, but I intend to give them a good challenge and play the 'dragon'.

Luckily, my character is completely non-lethal, and all about subterfuge and control. (He's a caster with a focus on Enchantment and Transmutation spells.) So even if I do happen to defeat the party, although there will be consequences, it is not the end of the line.

I really want this fight to be a memorable and challenging battle for everybody else. I've made plans for just about everybody, but here is the problem. We have a Monk.

Now, monks generally suck as a PC class, and baddies can just ignore them. But that is not an option for me. There's no ignoring her and walking away because she has something I need.

I've been racking my brain how to shut her down, but it is so difficult. She has insanely high AC, touch AC, and Flat-Footed AC so touch spells are almost a guaranteed no-go and summoned baddies will just generally whiff on her. All good saves and immunity to Poison and Disease, so save or suck won't work.

So, when just ignoring them is not an option, how on earth do you shut down a monk?

Grand Lodge

So, I'll be joining a friend's campaign after one of my current two ends, but I got a late seat so everybody else's classes have been chosen. So far we will for sure have:

-Two rogues, one a Catfolk and one a Kitsune
-An Elven Barbarian
-A Boar Shaman Druid (I forget which race.)

Typically if I come in as the 5th man in a 5 man band I go Bard without a second thought. (Especially in a party of all martials. Even the Druid is going to be melee focused.) But unfortunately with this make-up we already have two CHA-heavy skill monkeys, and I think that would just up the redundancy redundancy quotient a bit too high for anybody at the table's liking.

I notice we're lacking in magic, of both the divine and arcane variety. So maybe a Life Oracle? Or a Wizard of some kind? The important thing here is that if I do go caster I really need one that will complement the party---not overshadow it.

Grand Lodge

I have a friend starting a new campaign soon, which finally gave me a chance to play a character I've been batting around in my head for a while; a brash derring-do who was slight cocked and absolutely convinced he was in a story being told. There was no question in my mind that this character would have to be a Bard (thematically it is just too perfect) but unfortunately, while I have the characterization and class fleshed out, my real issue is trying to make him combat effective.

You folks seem to know how to get the most bang for your buck with builds and so-forth, so I was hoping you could critique and offer some suggestions to improve on the design. (As an aside, I'm not married to the idea of an Arcane Duelist, it just seemed like the best initial fit to the character. I am WAY open to suggestions.)

We're starting 5th level, heroic rolling for stats (I rolled pretty well), standard WBL, and no traits:


Ferlain Lamendir
Lv 5 Elven Arcane Duelist
Str: 12
Dex: 20
Con: 12
Int: 15
Wis: 10
Cha: 16
AC: 17 (19 w/ Cat's Grace), Touch: 15, FF: 12
Fort: +2, Ref +9, Will +5
Melee: +1 Agile Elven Curve Blade +10(+9 w/ Piranha Strike) for 1d10+7 (1d10+9)
Ranged: +1 Mighty Longbow +8 1d8+1
Feats: Arcane Strike, Weapon Finesse, Piranha Strike, Martial Weapon Proficience ECB
Cantrips: Detect Magic, Read Magic, Prestidigitation, Message, Resistance, Light
Lv 1 Spells (5/day): Expeditious Retreat, Feather Fall, Saving Finale
Lv 2 Spells (3/day): Mirror Image, Cat's Grace, Allegro

I went Dex based to handle the MADness. The Elf gave me the bonuses to the two stats that mattered most to me, though the con hit hurt a bit. I took a lower Charisma and am trying to avoid Save or Suck spells. The way I see it going is he will start major combats by using Mirror Image, Cat's Grace and Allegro (Haste at higher levels) and next level start using the Bladethirst ability to make his weapon keen. So attacking +12/+12 for 1d10+11 (Thanks to the Cat's Grace) and critting on a 15-20. I know it won't quite outpace a fighter damage wise, but I think that will at least make him useful to the party.

Grand Lodge

So, something I've always loved is the idea of the chain fighter. I know in 3.5 it was a popular choice with munchkins and power-gamers, but I've always had this idea in my head of a character who was a slave, bound by contract, whose weapons were his chains. Well, Paizo has been kind enough to provide me the perfect fluff for that!

Chain Fighter Some half-orcs have escaped from slavery and reforged the chains of their imprisonment into deadly weapons. Half-orcs with this racial trait are proficient with flails and heavy flails, and treat dire flails and spiked chains as martial weapons. This racial trait replaces weapon familiarity.

I'm still not quite sure whether the traditional fighter or the Two Handed Fighter is the superior build, but since "Two Handed Fighter" seems custom made for this, I decided to start with that, though I am open to other suggestions. I figured I'd start with a Trip Build and work into upping damage and attack in the later levels when tripping becomes less viable.


Hurgorath the Loyal
Level 1 Half-Orc Two Handed Fighter

Str: 19 (Bump at 4th Level)
Dex: 14
Con: 13 (8th Level Bump Goes Here)
Int: 13 (For Combat Expertise Chain)
Wis: 10
Cha: 7

Fort +4 Reflex +3 Will +1
AC:15 FF:13 Touch:12 (+3 Armor, +2 Dexterity)

Melee: Spiked Chain +5 (2d4+6)
Ranged: Sling +3 (1d4+4)

Traits and Abilities
Darkvision 60ft
Weapon Familiarity (Spiked chain)
Sacred Tattoo (+1 to all saves)
Orc Blood

1(a). Combat Expertise, 1(b). Improved Trip
2. Power Attack
3. Weapon Focus (Spiked Chain)
4. Weapon Specialization (Spiked Chain)
5. Iron Will

Grand Lodge

So, after being scolded for again for using my roommate's laptop, now that I actually have some cash about to come in, I figure it is time to get one of my own. But laptops are so 2008. What I want is a tablet.

So there are two major competitor, the Kindle Fire and the iPad(n). (What is it? iPad4 right now?) I've been looking up all the technical specs online, but honestly, I'm not as technologically literate as I lead my parents to believe when I hooked up their wireless router. Frankly, I don't know the difference between a XTCDKFJ3093583 video processor and a SGKGSJSI309358 video processor. Is it better if they have more letters?

Anyway, I was hoping maybe some tech savvy person here might be able to explain it in layman's terms.

And just to relate this back to gaming, I do have several of the Paizo PDFs on my dusty old PC and would like to be able to transfer them to the tablet for use at our games. Also, I was wondering if anybody here has compared and knows which app store offers more of interest to role-players? (Since my understanding is you'll either be limited to the Apple store or the Amazon store.)

Grand Lodge

After some consideration, I'm wondering about house-ruling Wisdom completely out of my games. There are a few reasons for this:

1) The definition of "Wisdom" seems very confused. It's used at once to describe a character's common sense, intuition, interpersonal abilities, and attention to detail. Each of these things seems like it could more effectively be rolled into another stat.

"Perception" seems as though it would fit better with Constitution, particularly since all spells rendering a character blind/deaf target Fortitude saves.

"Sense Motive" would work better rolled into Charisma. Seriously, you could have an expert diplomat/liar who has NO IDEA what somebody else is ever thinking. Do you know anybody like that? Me neither. Really, any measure of common sense or intuition could be rolled into intelligence, or charisma of the "ineffable force of the universe" variety.

2) On that same theme of being ill-defined, WIS is the hardest dump stat to play because of this confusion. We have very clear images of what a low-INT or low-CHA character is like, but low WIS? Ask three people, you'll have three different definitions.

3) It's too vital a stat, hitting a lot of already MAD-classes pretty hard. Pathfinder already greatly improved upon this by rolling the Paladin's spell-casting into Charisma, so why not solve the problem for everybody?

4) I already here of a lot of people rolling Will-saves into Charisma, which flavor-wise makes a LOT more sense, being as Charisma is your FORCE of personality. Fluff-wise, it makes a lot more sense.

So my question now is, what is the detriment to ditching the stat? Why, aside from familiarity, would be a good reason to hold onto it?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I'm currently playing as a Chaotic Evil sorcerer in an ongoing campaign. Problem is that, despite my ministrations to prevent it, the party Paladin was able to catch on and while we are going to be role-playing it out, there's a good chance that one of us will have to leave the party. As evil is harder to keep in check with good and neutral (the rest of the party is LG, VERY TN, TN-leaning-NG, LN), I volunteered that should it come down to a him or me situation, I would allow my character to be killed/incarcerated/split from the group.

It saddens me, because I loves this character, but it does provide an opportunity to bolster the party with something it desperately needs: range. We've got a couple of decent melee combatants and a battlefield controller, but once the target pulls away we're screwed.

I know I don't want to do a straight Fighter. (The poor saves and lack of skill points are going to hurt badly.) I'm thinking Human Ranger (Only problem is don't want to deal with an animal companion, and the alternative nature's bond ability S-U-C-K-S.), Human Paladin, or Half-Orc Inquisitor but am open if there are better suggestions out there. The rest of the party make-up:

LG Half-Elf CHA focused Aegis Paladin
TN Human Longsword Wielding Magus
LN Half-Orc Dex Based Monk
TN/NG Halfling Rogue
CG Human Greatsword Wielding Battle-Cleric (Good STR, but WIS highest)

Mostly have to stick to Core and APG, but alternative feats and builds allowed with DM approval.

Grand Lodge

So I understand some of the denigration of certain classes and combos due to mechanical issues. (e.g., The MAD Monk and its already paltry powers being nerfed into unplayability.) But there are two things I notice get a lot of hatred, not just on these boards, but across wide swaths of d20/D&D/Pathfinder/etc. fandom: Gnomes and Bards. I'm just curious as to why? I always thought Bard was considered a decent class---not as good as a Cleric or Druid, not as bad as a Rogue or Fighter. Maybe nothing to write home about, but certainly useful and playable. Yet it seems like Bards put a lot of people off.

As for gnomes? I just don't get it at all. I love the little buggers.

Grand Lodge

I posted earlier about a chaotic evil bard I wanted to run, and this Tuesday we're doing character creation. Problem was, as somebody pointed out to me, the concept tried to do too many things at once. But after some deliberation, I realized what I really want to go for was an Enchantment specialist. I know it is suboptimal compared to Conjurers or Transmuters, but it fits the flavor really well. Our DM said he'd prefer to stick to Core if possible; but may allow APG/UC/UM if we go over it with him.

So right now I'm thinking Crossblooded Fey/Infernal Sorcerer (+2 to all Enchantments, -2 to my highest save that can be offset with a Feat? Yeah, I can deal with that. They do get spells slower, but that could also be offset by the Human favored-class bonus from APG.) but there is a chance he might nix the idea. So, if that happens, two questions:

1) Which is the better bloodline for this build, Fey or Infernal? It seems like there are a LOT more Compulsion than Charm spells in the game, but I keep hearing Charm is a better sub-school. Why?

2) Is Multiclassing worth it? It seems like this is the sort of build that would synergize very well with Bard, but I'm not quite sure if that would just be a waste of spells and time/energy?

Grand Lodge

A little while ago I had had an idea for a Chaotic Evil bard. Essentially, I wanted to create an intelligent Chaotic Evil character who defied typical RPG conventions. Instead of being a disorganized mess that slaughtered indiscriminately, I wanted to create a cruel manipulator who refused to get his hands dirty. He would plot and trick, but instead of using these ends to gain control or wealth, he simply liked to sew as much disaster and destruction as possible. My DM initially said no Evil character so I scrapped the concept and made an Unarmed Fighter build instead.

Well, oh happy day, he said I could play the character after all! Just so long as I don't do that other typical RPG convention and use a Chaotic Evil alignment as an excuse to screw the party over.

After reading Treantmonk's guide I realized his controller bard build would be perfect for the concept--in fact, the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Net) even fit my back story of being the child of an honest, but struggling, fisherman perfectly; the only problem is I can't quite take Weapon Focus (Whip) at Level 1. I took Combat Expertise instead, and am now trying to figure out what the best chain to follow-up with would be. Tripping or Feinting? Also open to feat suggestions in the later levels, for a campaign that will be capping between Levels 10-12.

Here's the build, if it helps (25 point buy):

Fayrre Dorian
Male Chaotic Evil Human Bard, Level 1, Init +2, HP 8/8, Speed
AC 17, Touch 12, Flat-footed 15, Fort +0, Ref +4, Will +2, Base Attack Bonus 0
Trip Whip +3 (1d3+3, x2)
Touch Attack, Entangle Net +2 (-, -)
Nonlethal Sap +3 (1d4+3, x2)
Chain Shirt, Buckler (+4 Armor, +1 Shield, +2 Dex)
Abilities Str 16, Dex 14, Con 10, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 17
Condition None
Feats Combat Expertise, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Net)

Lv 0 Spells (At will, DC 13) - Ghost Sound, Mage Hand, Mending, Detect Magic

Lv 1 Spells (2/day, DC 14) - Charm Person, Hideous Laughter

Grand Lodge

So I have been tossing around a character I've wanted to do for a while; basically a bare-knuckle bruiser. I like the idea of bare fists, but the Monk's flavor didn't appeal to the concept, and besides, I needed him to be Chaotic. The Martial Artist was a consideration, but a d8 hit die and 3/4 BAB are just not going to cut it for me. Also I wanted the ability to wear some armor.

So there are 3 non-monk Hand-to-Hand combatants (that I can see): Brutal Pugilist (Barb archetype), Brawler (Fighter archetype), or Unarmed Fighter (self explanatory).

I'm leaning toward the Brawler, as it seems to have the highest DPR potential, but I'm wondering if I might be giving up better abilities mechanically from the Pug or UAF archetypes? I know going barehanded isn't optimal, but I'd really like to pick the class that gives me the most bang for my buck.

Grand Lodge

So for our next campaign I wanted to make an intelligent chaotic evil build. Essentially, he would be a sociopath with a case of interminable boredom who amuses himself by ruining others' lives. (I wasn't sure whether NE or CE fit better, but since the only thing he would technically be getting out of it is a good show, I thought CE was a bit more fitting. Also fits the theme of somebody likely to throw a wrench in the works because things were getting a bit too predictable.) The typical MO would be to charm his way into somebody's good graces, pose as their friend, and then subversively destroy them. In role-play heavy areas, it would play with a lot of charming and buffing his way, and in combat a lot of tactical maneuvers and enchantment spells.

So my inclination for this was to go with a Bard (natch) with a heavy emphasis on casting and controlling. But then one of my fellow players mentioned that Ultimate Magic introduced the Rakshasa bloodline Sorcerer, an absolute beast when it comes to enchantment-style shenanigans. And now I'm not so sure. Which would be a better build for this style of play? Is there a bard archetype that would serve even better? Or a class I hadn't even thought of?

Grand Lodge

So for skills that cannot be used untrained, can a character pick that skill up by simply puttinv ranks in it? Or would they have to multiclass in order to do it?

Grand Lodge

Among the level 2 summons is a horse. Is this a normal horse, with the docile quality? Or wartrained? I ask because horses serve really two purposes in Pathfinder, mount or combat, and since this spell will only function at most for 2 minutes at 20th level, it being a mount is obviously out of the question.

Grand Lodge

I was kind of wishy-washy on whether I should post this as a new thread or in the "Tarrasque+Magic Jar=Instant Apotheosis?" thread, but when in doubt, always start a new thread.

I'm running a game that is meant to reach epic levels. To give you the basic gist of the story, the continent the players live on is home to a very large forest that is unspeakably tainted by a "rift" in the astral plane that caused aspects of other planes to warp it. Eventually the players will come to find that the cause of this was when other heroes eons ago attempted to save the world from the tarrasque's destruction by 'sealing' it in a pocket dimension. But because the tarrasque is so powerful, the magicks necessary to do so were so volatile that a rift occurred.

Obviously, this somewhat rules out any "Plane Shift" methods of defeating the tarrasque. Which is fine; I felt the "Plane Shift" idea was a bit cheap.

But it does leave me in a bit of a bind. I'm looking for some way that it might be possible to defeat the tarrasque RAW, without having to invent some ridiculous macguffin or be reduced to a convenient Deus Ex Machina.

I'm hoping my players will figure out something pretty clever on their own, but in case they can't, I need a back-up plan. Something they can discover to make it possible. Any ideas?

Grand Lodge

So, in my last campaign one of our players had a 6 Wisdom score. I offered to let him reroll the stat, but since he was playing a Sorcerer it was an (arguably) unimportant ability, and he thought it would be fun to play the negative.

But he was also quite intelligent. It was his second highest stat (after Charisma, of course) so the character wouldn't outwardly appear stupid.

Now, low intelligence to me seems pretty easy to play. Act dumb as a box of rocks. Low Charisma? There's a couple of different ways to go with it, but it's easy enough to accomplish when you have the character design down.

But Wisdom is so much more subtle. So, how would you properly play a character with a high Intelligence yet low Wisdom score? What would be different in their interactions?

Grand Lodge

OK, so yet another question about animals, this one to do with animal companions.

In the Core book, when given the stat blocks for animal companions it says at 9th Level, your animal companion gets multiattack as a bonus feat if it doesn't currently have it. As far as I can tell, my druid's ape companion does not have this feat and has two attacks---a bite and two claws.

So does this mean when I use the full-round action for him to attack with his two claws that I should be applying a -5 penalty?

Grand Lodge

So, I've checked both the core rulebook and the bestiary trying to find something to settle this, but I can't, so I'll just ask you guys.

In the bestiary, several monsters (mainly animals) have a melee attack that is listed as 2 Claws/2 Talons/2 etc. followed by the damage. Example:

Ape, Dire
N Large Animal
Melee bite +6 (1d6+4), 2 claws +6 (1d4+4)

Now, in these instances, does that mean that each claw is doing 1d4+4 or the two claws combined do that amount of damage?