Friend of the Dork's page

Hello, I play a Witch. I know a lot here things it's an OP class that can take down enemies left and right faster than anyone, but my experience has been the opposite lately.

Sure, around 10th level it was easy to Sleep giants and other brutes with low saves, but now at 15-16th level the enemies generally have either immunity to mind affecting or just very high will saves.

My current save DC for hexes is 25 - after trying to affect a creature with the Misfortune Hex, I realized that the DC was way too low.

What I did: Evil Eye hex (target was immune)
Quickened Ill Omen spell (worked, despite high SR)
Misfortune Hex: DM rolled low on a die, getting "only" 34 on the save.

Now that's just one encounter, but I notice that most of the time I am unable to affect creatures we encounter except for secondary effects, and I just have to assume they will save. This makes playing a witch becomes just the same routine: Quickened Haste for the group, use Evil eye to debuff, and cackle. Cleanse and repeat. It surely helps the party (unless the enemy is undead or otherwise immune to evil eye), but it also means that 80% of my abilities are unused.

Ok, that was a bit longer than intended. So back to the original question: How can I boost the will save for my hexes, and maybe spells?
- Ability focus is banned, as it is a monster only feat.
- Headband of Int is capped out.
- Inherent bonus to Int is way too expensive - I might get some, but so far nothing has been found either in loot or for sale.
Spell focus: These require two feats, and unfortunately don't work for Hexes, which are more useful.

So it seems to me there little I can do when the enemies have +25-+30 on will saves. Next level the DC will be 27 due to Int and half level for hexes, but thats as good as it gets. I would need about +5 more to be able to affect monsters about 50% of the time.

In comparison, the melee fighters in the group generally hits with multiple attacks, sometimes even all of them. They only miss on a 2-4 roll against high AC monsters.

There is nothing wrong to want a game with more organic PCs. Some people here think it's blasphemy to have a game where your character won't find the butterfly sword you want specialization in, or not being able to play any build in the minmax forums.

The trick is to tell the players beforehand to not rely on overspecialization, and that not all concepts will work ahead of time. Planning is allowed, but may be a waste of time. That way most players make chars that have more optiond - 13 int and dex fighters opens up a chain of feats that might be useful, rather than sinking everything in str. Taking feats and skills according to what one encounters can be helpful as recurring enemies can be dealth with more easily. My players usually mix it up.. plan a concept and needed feats, but change some and leave room for organic growth.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Gwen Smith wrote:

born_of_fire wrote:

AC 25 at level 3? That's a bit much unless the thing was hitting like a newborn kitten. A character or NPC should be sacrificing a lot of offense in order to pump their defense to such heights. That, or your DM is pretty vicious. If this is what you can look forward to in the future, I'd definitely go with Arcane Strike.

Yeah, AC 25 is high for level 5 (Monster Creation table suggests 21 at CR 6). I'm hoping it was a tiny or diminutive creature that did 1d3-1 on a hit...like a 3-week old kitten, maybe.

Or it was a well built NPC. It's not that hard. If you're using traits on NPCs, you can get it without magical gear.

Full plate
Heavy shield
Dex of 12
trait that gives +1 with heavy armor (forget what it's called)
shield focus feat

Heck - my bard hit AC25 by level 3 or 4. (forget which)

I didn't say it was impossible, I said he'd have to sacrifice offense in order to have an AC like that. Spending your limited resources on full plate, a trait on increasing your armour bonus, a feat on increasing your shield bonus (and two feats to get heavy armour proficiency for your bard) means that you've sacrificed your offense and should be hitting like a newborn kitten while sporting your 25 AC. You've invested all your resources into defense.

I doubt he meant his bard used full plate, he was pointing out how easy it is to build NPCs with high AC.

It's not even that much of a sacrfice: A CR 5 fighter level 6 (tough but appropriate challenge for a 3rd level party) can easily afford both a full plate and shield, and still have enough money for a +1 sword and potions. Traits are essentially free if the DM allows it for all, and using one out of the Figher's 7 feats or more is not that bad. The rest can still be used to buff damage etc.

However every monster and npc the party fights at level 3 should not be like that, if so the bard should use attack spells instead. AC 25? Sure, I struggle to hit. You don't have +15 Will saves? Guess this Hideous Laughter might work then.

Paladin of neutral? Try Druid. Want heavy armor and a code of conduct? Try cavalier(Samurai).

Other than that, I think they consisered neutral paladins, but didn't feel strongly about it either way.

Personally I never liked that concealement negates sneak attack. Luring someone into a dark alleyway to sneak attack them is a trope that becomes impossible.

The point is not how to prevent one from returning, but rather how the world would or would not adapt to it. I can see some assassins thinking they need to mutilate the body somehow to avoid it, but people are still going to be killed in accidents, and sometimes by having x arrows show through the throat.

The alignment thing isn't so much of a problem. First of all, that church may not know that the Baron is LE - people don't wear alignments on nametags, and detect evil doesn't work on everyone. Secondly, there is always the LE church who might just want a favor from said LE baron later, or payment in gold.

In my case it is an evil noble who got killed by the party and left behind. Her non-evil brother is still the heir, but he might or might not want her raised. While betrayed, he might still have feeling for his kin, although it could mean being raised just for being convicted of treason and locked away.

Still, it got me thinking about that society. If i was a noble there I would surely have a raise dead life insurance, probably prepaid to an acceptable church in cause of untimely death.

Hello everyone

I've been searching for threads on this issue, but most deal with the players, BBEGs, and mechanical effects.

What I want to know is that, how does the access to Raise dead magic affect society? Are Nobles and other with high wealth almost immune to violent or accidental death?

A 9th level Cleric might be needed to use this spell, and the costs are prohibitive for a normal person, but for a Noble who can afford to build and run a Castle, 5000-7000GP is hardly a fortune. In a world where people can sell magic items that costs 100,000GP in a city, there is a class of people other than adventurers who can afford this magic. And while such high level NPCs are uncommon, almost every major city will have one. Is it really a stretch for a Noble to be brough 500 miles in order to have a second chance at life? Will a father not do this for his child?

If you're playing in a game settings where NPCs over level 8 simply do not exist, things will be different of course. But most of us don't, even if we're not talking Elminsters on every corner. Even if there is only a handful of such people for every 50,000 people, they can be found, just people with money in the world can find medical experts on cancer.

So, what do you think?

Sometimes, we try too hard to equate something in a fantasy setting, to something in the real world.

It's understandable, but we need to allow ourselves some leeway, and accept that some things will simply not be equatable, at least, not wholly, and remain mostly fantastical.

Or just not use the completely fantasy stuff. Like the manga greatsword which looks like it should weigh 50 pounds. Or armor made out of lollypops.

Sarasmancer's suggestion is spot on. Re-flavoring game mechanics is good.

While not Golarion, I play a PF game where slavery exists and is tolerated in most parts of the world. The PCs, although not slave owners, come from an empire that condones slavery, yet outlaws enslaving citizens.

They grew up in a village where there was a single slave, a servant girl bought from soldiers passing through who was their spoils of war. While we did not go into detail about it, she was essentially no different than a normal serving girl - hard work, hard life, little pay or future, but not mistreated either.

The second incident was kind of special: The PCs were to escort a slave who had murdered her master to his son, who happened to be a Paladin. Long story short, she was evil and showed no mercy to other slaves in the household who would suffer because of this. The PCs agreed and did it, and the Paladin decided not to execute her or free her, but to keep her in service in order to attempt turn her towards good before releasing her.

Moral of the story? Slavery need not always be portrayed as the evil sadistic dehumanization it is often portrayed at. That kind does exist, and is undoubtedly evil, but that does not mean everyone involved in slavery is per definition evil - especially in a society where it is socially accepted. A good PC should strive to make sure people are treated fairly, that slaves are not abused - just like they would do serfs, who in some cases were historically treated worse than some slaves.

An example of a good character who keeps slaves is one that uses them out of need (say a farmer who needs help), treats them fairly, and rewards them with freedom whenever he can. Neutral ones are likely to use slaves as they are seen - livestock. They might make sure they are healthy, but for mostly selfish reasons. And they are unlikely to be unnecessary cruel. Evil slave owners are - well you should know this yourself.

Actually, it has come up before... and answered in the FAQ.

FAQ wrote:

As presented on page 549 of the Core Rulebook, there are no limitations other than (1) you have to have the item creation feat, and (2) you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites. So racial requirements, specific spell requirements, math requirements (such as "caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus"), and so on, are all subject to the +5 DC rule.

So this specifically to the questions about arms and armor, right? Not the general wondrous item rule.

In any case, sounds like I'm gonna have a house rule then. The requirements about specific spells seems reasonable to do away with, but the level requirements made perfect sense in 3.5 and I don't know why they did away with them. +5 to DC is nothing. At 5th level most wizards will have +11 Spellcraft without investing much, getting +15 is trivial.

Sanity seems to not be valued much.

Hello there. Can a wizard with Craft Magic arms and armor make a +5 weapon or armor at 5th level, by adding +5 to the DC to skip the level requirement, or can he only make +1 weapons at 5th level and +2 weapons at 6th level?

"Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met."

An interesting conversation I've started.

My dilemma (I know I promised to stop talking yesterday, but I can't help myself) is that the PC didn't want to shout and use that as his intimidation. Instead he wanted to deliberately draw the attention of the enemy and THEN initiate his intimidate. That was my point. The drawing of the attention was, in my mind, his surprise round action and the subsequent activity felt like a secondary act.

And was it enough to spoil the other PC's actions? If not - and I get the logic of the simultaneous actions - perhaps I was asking the wrong question. I now think my question should have been - can the PC fit exactly what he wants to do in a single round whilst the other PCs get on with their actions? With the benefit of this debate, I would lean towards giving him a choice - change his intimidation method to fit a single turn e.g. holler and run at the bad-guy - or take two turns to complete what he wants to do the way he wants to do it.

And I'm not really talking interpretation of rules here - just how it felt to GM that encounter. Cinematically the way he intimidated felt right and for that reason I allowed it to play out the way he wanted.

Thanks again everyone.

Sounds like you did it the right way, the way that your players and yourself enjoyed.

This is getting all too complicated. Here's a fix:

Mounted Combat: You can attack from a mount. You can charge your mount, using it's speed instead of your own. For purposes of being attacked, you are both considered charging, but either you or the mount can attack at the end of the charge, not both.

If you're not charging your mount, you can have it attack alongside you with a DC 10 ride check.

Now is there anything really unclear about the part above, unless you are TRYING to misunderstand or twist it? Does it work for reach weapons and swords?

I've already told this story, but this is the thread:

I joined a party mid-campaign as a negative-channeling cleric. Aasimar, death domain, spent all of my feats on better/ more channeling, the works. The other members of the party were another (less focused) negative channeling cleric, a wizard, and a bard. We step through a portal and suddenly all magic stops working. Upon discovering this, the wizard starts bawling for her intelligent starknife not to leave her. The GM has the item give her one last message: the god of magic is missing, possibly even dead.

In a party where everyone is a full caster, he pulls this. I'm probably unfairly bitter because my PC was built around channeling, but the other cleric was the only one in the party who really had any combat capability without magic.

This actually sounds interesting. The difference between your DM being a total dick or a good storyteller is whether the opposition you will face take this into account and how long it will last. Having a session where the wizard will have to use his dagger against 1st level warriors might be an interesting change of pace, and force you to deal with problems in a different manner. Of course, if it was permanent and you couldn't come back to a world of magic I would probably say, ok this game's over.

you are using video about medieval longbow warfare? or about people doing sports in modern times? because i feel we may be talking about different things here.

like, people doing this for fun versus people actually using it in combat situations versus a target that actively tries not to get hit? and as you said, those were mostly shortbows.
As for speed archery: Again: Quickly shooting against an immobile target is one thing. Against a armored person with a shield charging towards you, different thing.

I know the Daikyu, but i do hope you agree it's quite a unique variant of bow(and was, in the used form, developed before the advent of horse archery in japan) that is NOT generally represented by what a typical "Longbow" in the pathfinder setting should be, same as a typical "Longsword" would not be a Katana or Nodachi. The medieval Longbows used alongside Full Plates, Lances, Morning Stars and all the other fancy stuff were generally speaking of the british origin-variant, for foot archers.

As for the mongol's bows, even earlier steppe...

How much do you know about Japanese bows? And why do you think their long bows were inferior to the English/Welch one? First of all, the Japanese Samurai, much the equivalent of European knights, used the Daikyu. It was a weapon of great importance in medieval Japan, and not just a secondary or peasant weapon like in the West. Made of laminated bambo, it could store quite a bit of energy. Additionally, a new technique that started in the Civil War period increased the potential energy even more by twisting the bow and bowstring, and using the body to add additional energy. This revolutionized japanese archery, which kept using bows even after matchlock guns were used en masse.

Used with the right technique, the Daikyu would be able to shoot much farther and with more penetrative power than traditional bows. We should be looking at a bow with equal, if not more power than the English longbow. Japanese bows had varying draw pull, just like English ones. If you compare modern Kyudo bows made for sport shooting to medieval English longbows made for killing, of course the Longbows will have the advantage. But historically the Yumi were made for killing, often heavily armored Samurai.

Reducing the damage to 1d6 or less makes no sense anway - a typical D&D longbow is meant for someone with average strenght - that's not what the famous english longbowmen had. I would assume a str of 14 or higher, and Strength bows to mach.

As for what to make of Daikyu in D&D - if you don't make stats for a new weapon, the Composite Longbow actually does fit the bill. It's a long bow, it's recurved, and it's composite. It can be used on horseback, and has longer range than short bows.

And you could probably use Longsword stats for a Katana, or Bastard sword as they used before. Both can be used by one or two hands, have similar lengths, and primarily made for chopping. Being curve doesen't change it much in D&D terms, and katanas does not pierce plate armor any better than longswords.

No Dachi would be more similar to Greatswords, and could use those stats.

I agree that speed shooting is something different than battlefield archery speed. But it's kinda moot considering this is D&D, we have 4-5 attacks per round with melee weapons, which is also probably not realistic. If people want to play Legolas, let them. If people want to play a samurai hero, don't let their arrows do dagger damage. Really.

This is what I would do:

No alignment shift. Instead, since he is NG, I would have the character experience nightmares about the dying drow, lungs filling with burning gas. When he wakes up screaming and remains Fatigued hours after doing so, he might get the message.

Now if the player tries to act like he did the right thing, and that there is no need for regret, then the nightmares would stop and he could shift to Neutral alignment. If however he talked about it, maybe confessed to a member of his church or a good aligned one, then he could probably forgive himself. In any case I don't think he would do such a thing again too fast.

Since the Tiefling has Darkvision, and the area of darkness is only 20', he can see perfectly within it and up to 60'. Outside this area he is constrained by the light level like everyone else, so he can see the Elf 65' if he succeeds his Perception check (and the Elf can use Stealth). The Elf on the other hand can not see the Tiefling, only the suspicious darkness.

If there was a human within or behind the darkness area, he would not be able to see the Elf either, as the dark area blocks LoS.

If there was a second Tiefling 50' behind the first, he would not be able to see the elf as the darkness area would extend beyond his Darkvision range.

Sounds clear? Shadowy? Foggy?

Hello

One of my players acquired an Adamantium Full Plate armor. Full plate armors are stated to include gauntlets. Does this mean the character now has adamantium gauntlets that counts as weapons (1d3+str damage, ignores hardness)?

I am aware that enhancement bonus to armor does not apply to the gauntlets as weapons, but the material? Would be silly if they "counted as steel" on attack, but gave DR on defense.

I think you are much too focused on the Law of a certain nation. A good example of LE is the League of Shadows from Batman Begins (Ras al Ghoul etc). It consist of adherence to a strict code of conduct/morality/Law/belief to the detriment of everyone else, without concern of who gets hurt. A crusader out to slaughter heathens in the name of a god or a terrorist that martyrs himself while killing innocents might be LE.

It can also be one who works within a system to better himself at the expense of others, but still upholds the law/tells the truth/fights for honor. (Evil Baron, Sheriff of Nottingham etc.).

LG can just as well be Batman as superman, the point is adhere asnce to a code as well as concern for others.

Thats it for now.