John, don't bash Rysky for answering. Like in his original reply, I thought you were advocating removing those encounters entirely.
Letting players know that you expect skill checks to handle the things you listed is a good idea. It means spellcasters won't take those spells generally, so the skill monkey can continue to solve them.
Fly vs climb, on the other hand, will still get bypassed by casters.
At higher level, there is indeed an expectation that eg travel will be handled by teleport or other spells. This does not mean that it is a problem, but it does need to be planned for by the GM.
Setting specific rules should be just that. If you/your GM and players come up with your own rules for your games, go ahead.
My group use that sort of rule as a starting point for discussing what should be allowed, not as a fixed rule.
Eg almost all of my characters want Lessons of Chaldira, even though halflings don't exist in any game run by our GM (because he hates them).
We've just reached 16th level, and have made our own headbands and other magic items.
At low level, I was using ny oracle spells to buff/repair damaged allies and the wizard spells (only a few then) to Animate Dead for free with Blood Money.
At medium levels, I was spamming Haste and Fireball. Like being a Sorceror who also had healing abilities. And Confusion. And Fly.
Now, I have Limited Wish, Planar Binding, and other useful spells while still casting Haste in combat and using Heal and Harm quite often.
So, overall, these spells allowed me to operate as the sole primary caster when necessary, but the out-of-combat versatility has been the biggest advantage.
Expect table variance. My spirit guide oracle uses this hex. He has a fixed list of wizard spells which he casts using his oracle slots.
I can see it being declared that the hex does nothing for an oracle, or that a new selection of spells can be made every day.
Do the fused spell feats have level limits on when they kick in their improved bonuses? If not, I'd add them at 12th level.
I've long felt that the various fighter feats should be free as soon as the character qualifies for them - eg Improved Trip and Grapple and the rest, and then Greater versions, etc. So I think any house rule that helps with those is a good thing.
I'd go with the simplest changes that you can. So, as few rules for firearms that are different from the normal rules rather than starting with the Pathfinder rules for firearms - which are pretty terrible.
1) 'real' muskets could be fired about 3 times per minute, after quite a few months of specialised training (cf the Duke of Cumberland's army). So, I'd go with reloading taking about 6 rounds; knock off 2 rounds for the Rapid Reload feat (but let it apply to all black powder firearms); and knock off a further 2 rounds for using alchemical cartridges too. I'd make this the same for all muzzle-loaded guns, for simplicity.
Effectively, this means no characters will reload during a fight. Using double barrelled guns, or pepperboxes, or multiple guns would be necessary if someone wants more than one shot. Which is what happened, apparently. See various pirate-themed movies. And, yes, impose some penalty for being encumbered if anyone has too many! Eg -1 for all d20 rolls (except Intimidation) per gun after 2.
2) remove the whole 'hits touch AC' business. Normal AC. See all the threads about gunslingers killing dragons too easily. Plus it's simpler.
3) allow 'Dex to damage' for all firearms, so they are relevant. Allow an alternative for taking multiple rounds to line up a sniping shot, perhaps +2 damage per round. Don't let that stack with Dex though.
4) keep misfires, which then need the gun to be cleaned out. About 10 mins to do, but these will be less important because no-one will be reloading in combat anyway.
5) decide if you want guns to be entirely non-magical - ie incompatible with enchanting as magical items at all - or not.
6) you could make guns simple, or martial, or exotic. And you could make firing them be simple, but reloading them martial, or exotic.
Above all make them fun to use for your group, without making them too big a part of the story - unless you want them to be.
I wrote a guide to the Spellslinger, it's slightly out of date now (early entry shenanigans are barred now) however it should answer most of your questions about the archetype.
You can find the guide in the advice forum in Broken Zenith's guide to the guides post.
I didn't say that you can't damage a dead body: I said that I think that you can't do hit point damage. It's not the same thing.
And either ruling can result in odd effects, I personally think that allowing spells to persist is better than ending them on death.
I once hid a lich's phylactory inside a Black Reaver. For those fortunate souls who never played Rolemaster, a Black Reaver is a sort of construct made by combining the most powerful golem in the game system with the most powerful demon possible. It's officially the single most dangerous monster in Rolemaster.
And I also issued the party with a 'Destroy Black Reaver' scroll...which they decided was too valuable to actually use and tried fighting it. After resurrecting the fallen, they...
The big problems with this sort of logic puzzle are:
1) only use if your players actively enjoy this sort of thing;
Yes, you can target the familiar. Don't. Make it an actual plot point, needing a story if you really feel that you must do anything.
Sunder the spell component pouch if you want (it'll work once, then the player will buy two - or more), but not frequently.
If a player is using the familiar in combat, then it's fair to target them. If they aren't taking advantage of it, then don't penalise the character for keeping it safe.
Take a look at the threads about wand-wielding familiars and be thankful that your player is being reasonable.
The biggest problem I have had with Wish as a GM is the mistrust that almost all players show whenever they get access to one and therefore they avoid using it.
Too many GMs treat it as a trap where they try to ruin the player's day for daring to use one.
I prefer to use a Linguistic ability check so any phrasing or loopholes become a matter of the PC's ability rather than spending 3 hours plus while the players try to come up with some gibberish that works the way they intend.
This way, the games progresses and the meta gaming that some players are either afraid of or are too enamored of is avoided.
Kitty In A Fishbowl wrote:
Nobody has said nothing about sorcerers: aren't they ok to be necromancers? Why wizards are better?
Sorcerers aren't as effective at being an arcane caster if they are also trying to be a necromancer. Eg you reach 4th level, do you take Command Undead as your only 2nd level spell or something else? How many times per day will you actually cast it? Meanwhile the wizard got it at 3rd level and swaps it in and out as required, making scrolls so it's always available.
Some people prefer spontaneous casting, others don't. But spontaneous casters are best when you want to cast the same spell repeatedly each day and you just don't often do that as a necromancer.
Oracles suffer in a similar way, but can have a mystery that helps. I'm currently playing a spirit guide oracle of Lore who is a necromancer. I can use the wandering spirit to get the Bones spirit when I need to but most days I stick with the Lore spirit to have a selection of arcane spells available.
If you want to be an effective spellcaster with necromancy as a sideline, then wizard is the best. If you want to focus on necromancy and be less effective as a caster, then Gravewalker Witch is probably the best. If you prefer to be a divine caster, then go with cleric.
Kitty In A Fishbowl wrote:
No, Animated undead do not vanish; neither do Created undead, but those are less useful since it is very hard to retain control of them. In particular, Bloody Skeletons can repair themselves as long as they aren't destroyed by positive energy (eg channeling, or smite evil).
If your party doesn't need a divine caster, then I'd go with a wizard, or possibly a Gravewalker Witch. The witch will be better at being a necromancer; the wizard will simply be better overall.
Mystic Theurge, as written, is a trap - it ends up being ineffective at being either a wizard or a cleric, however there is one way to make it work. If your GM and group are using the optional Guild Rules, then achieving a high enough 'Fame' level allows you to regain casting levels. 3 levels (eventually) in one class plus one level in a 2nd class.
Derek, don't buy any Ring of Wizardy. Look at the price and compare with Pearls of Power, which also don't occupy any slots.
Kitty, the big choice between Arcane and Divine as a necromancer mostly depends on your party: do you need an arcane or divine spellcaster, since either can function as a necromancer?
The Wizard spell list is much better than a Clerics. (Oracles, being spontaneous casters have a different 'feel', so pick that if you prefer it.)
Do you see your Phaeroh Queen as someone in armour who wades into battle personally, or as a 'stay back and let your minions do the actual work' type?
Fruian, there's just one small problem with relying on a mephit for Blur at low levels - you need to be 7th level before you can take it.
Colour Spray is very useful, but there are alternatives. Burning Hands is not as good, but still effective. And I favour taking Evocation as an opposition school along with Divination since there are now so many alternative ways of doing damage.
Which means I still get Colour Spray, of course!
Sorry about the derail.
To address the actual topic:
Spirit Guide Oracle works well as a necromancer whilst still being able to do anything else. It's not as good as a dedicated necromancer, but the versatility is excellent.
'Today, I need Haste and Fireball'
Kirth Gersen wrote:
This is one of the house rules I've used, for the last 20-odd years - at least, once I realised that it made sense for the game world. I think I mentioned it earlier in this thread, or possibly in the teleport thread.
The Sword wrote:
Just clarify what do we mean by useless outside of combat. What do we expect fighters to be doing outside of combat?
An anecdote to exemplify my point: I played a barbarian, with a custom half-troll template. My Int, Wis and Cha were all 8 or less. At 4th level, I had 4 skill points. The only positive skill totals I had were Swim and Climb.I tried to role play my low mental abilities, which meant that my character didn't really contribute to any out-of-combat interactions between the party and NPC's, or help come up with ideas for the party to carry out other than 'hit it'.
As a player, I could have come up with stuff for the party to do, but my character shouldn't.
Compare this to a rogue, who has skill points, knowledges, is expected to have urban contacts, etc. (My barbarian had contacts with his tribe but we weren't in my homeland.) Even a rogue with low mental stats still has skill points, and a face rogue has far more options.
If you combine rogues and fighters, you don't become any more powerful. You become more versatile, with more options. Which is part of the point of this thread.
Prehensile tail is worth having, even if you only use it to hold a 2nd wand or rod in.
Your stats are fine. I personally would avoid having a 7 in strength, because it's embarrassing to need someone else carrying my backpack, but it's not important.
Too late for that, I just need to kill him now
If the campaign as a whole is lawful good, you need to retire your inappropriate character and play something that fits into the party and campaign.
If you continue with your current idea, you will end up without a party, without a campaign, and possibly without your (presumed) friends in real life too.
On the other hand, if all the players and the GM now want to end the game in a major intra-party battle, go ahead.
Well, then, could your undead perform a coup de grace or not? Actual empirical evidence trumps theorising, after all.
If the problem comes from them having such a wide range of spells, restrict them to a theme or school.
Eg Fire Wizards vs Ice Wizards; or Conjurers who can cast conjuration spells, cannot cast anything from eg Transmutation and need 2 slots for the remaining schools.
Do the same for the other full casters.
What is Josh's warpriest's deity?
Have an avatar of his current god turn up along with one of Saranrae's and reprimand him in character. If he persists in being awkward, see how much he enjoys having to seek atonement to regain his own divine benefits.
It'd be better if speaking with him out of character worked, but if not you do have access to anything you want to use.
It looks like the italic text for the buckler is rules, but the grenadier text is fluff.
Check the actual books.
Edit: Archives of Nethys isn't much help here, since it uses the same exact words, combining the buckler's italic bit into the main description (so it looks even more like actual rule text) but the Grenadier preamble is identical and lacks any mechanical justification in the actual abilities gained.
Most of the time the caster can easily avoid the area if the spell is not cast on him.
Replace 'most' with 'some' and omit the 'easily', and I agree with you. It's too dependent on the situation variables to make those claims - particularly about the space available.
Is silence a good spell? Yes. Is it still good with a Will save? Yes, but not guaranteed.
A deaf oracle is the only caster not greatly affected by Silence. At any level, expecting casters to have several 'Silent' spells available is unlikely unless the GM is metagaming to prevent Silence being useful.
At higher levels, shutting an enemy caster down, without stopping your own buff spells and magic weapons, is extremely potent. It doesn't stop your own casters either, since they will generally have given the Silenced Pebble to the fighter, who can follow the enemy caster, keeping him/her inside the silent field.
This is why I think it needs a Will save.
In a 'real' world, casters would have researched an 'Anti-Silence' spell which they would then use all the time as a pre-fight buff. Without that, Silence is too effective.
I've had a similar situation, but as the DM.
The player was very good at optimising his characters. He was also very good at interpreting every possible phrasing of a rule so it benefited his character.
He came up with very detailed backgrounds, with involved characterisation, and role-played his characters very well. And, because of his in-depth background, etc, he would also ask for a minor dispensation/rule interpretation allowing a particular concept to work better. Many times, I would allow this because it was justified and he would take a compensating weakness.
And then he'd make his next character, incorporating that rule dispensation again whilst asking for another one, specifically for his new character. Cumulatively, each of his characters wanted all of the previous characters' little bonuses, and he would get upset when I said no. 'But you let me have it before, why can't I have it now?'
But that wasn't the only, or even main problem I had with his characters - it was a matter of balance. His characters (even with other players with a lot of system mastery) would generally out-perform the rest of the party. I could either balance a campaign/encounter to his character, or to the rest of the group. Sometimes, they were happy to be his 'hangers-on', but mostly they wanted to have equal power/influence.
This resulted in him believing that I hated his characters and was always trying to nerf them. The former was false; the latter was true.
Eventually, we stopped playing in the same games.
My advice: consider carefully what your own character does to the party balance of power in encounters. Are you the most important, in terms of 'winning' the encounters? Not just in combat, but out of combat too? If you are in a party of 4, you should only be MVP in one out of 4 encounters. Are you?
Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:
Steadfast Personality is also good for a high Cha character, but only after Divine Protection & Interference.
In the real world, tridents were also used specifically because they were more effective at stabbing fish than a single- or double-tined spear.
I've never used one, but apparently having multiple heads meant you were more likely to actually hit when thrusting it through the surface of some water, into a fish. (Not that this is implemented mechanically in PF.)
Therefore Tritons (and Neptune/Poseidon, et al) were usually depicted with them, therefore PF needed stats for them.
Rather than trying to circumvent the PCs' cleverness, how about utilising those unholy symbols?
Whispers that are just on the cusp of hearing. One Will save per night. Are they trying to make out the words or trying to ignore them?
Play on the player paranoia that will result from this, even if nothing unpleasant actually happens. Or maybe one or more of them will start to gain access to eg a cantrip. And then to a 1st level spell from the unholy God's domains...
There are no limits to what you can do once the heroes start wearing the baddies' unholy symbols.
And if they remove them, it's easy to forget to put them back on when they next meet a juggernaut...
Heavens Oracle says:Coat of Many Stars (Su): You conjure a coat of starry radiance that grants you a +4 armor bonus. At 7th level, and every four levels thereafter, this bonus increases by +2. [etc]
Which slot does it occupy? Armour? Why?
Mage Armour specifies 'Unlike mundane armor, mage armor entails no armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, or speed reduction.'
The various oracle revelations do not specify these factors, one way or the other; physical armours do (of course).
I would like to see something that clearly states that the revelations count as actual armour (in which case they should have some sort of check penalty or max dex, weight, category for applying feats/traits/etc) and therefore magic vestment should apply - or a clear statement that they don't count, have no max dex, etc, like mage armour does.
As it stands, it is a leap of interpretation to be 'sure' either way. In a game, I'd have to ask my GM. That's not an ideal situation for a rule. I don't have an axe to grind here, I simply find it easy to see both viewpoints and would prefer some sort of clarification.
If you wanted to you could see, the 'armour' gained by these revelations as some sort of 'defending' armour bonus - the Bones (if you use that mystery) could be whirling around you, not occupying any slot, as physical objects. Since you don't seem to have to be actually wearing them, magic vestment can't apply. Thus, no armour check penalty, etc, no need to remove existing armour (and you'd then have to use whichever armour granted the higher bonus), and so on. Do I think that is what was intended? No, not really.
James Gibbons wrote:
Under optimised PCs should make your job easier because you might not have to boost the enemies as much. The AP assumes non-optimal PCs, rather than super powerful ones.Just watch out for the first few sections where the difference between a walk over and a TPK can be a handful of dice rolls. In particular at a certain fort and when fighting an annoying small creature whose name starts with E.
Check out the GM threads in the Runelords forum, there's lots of advice there.
You are correct, +2 it is. The other guy is being ingenuous.
Necromancy spell? +2 bonus.
Nothing says that those stack. However nothing explicitly says that they don't stack except the statement that stuff from the same source doesn't stack. All those plus 2s come from the same ability, therefore they don't stack.
Kasatha is indeed the best race, but can lead to accusations of being too cheesy. 4 arms allows them to wield 2 pistols and be able to reload both while also using eg a shield.
If you wouldn't let a player play one, I wouldn't use it.
Goblin gunslingers are excellent, or tieflings with a prehensile tail.
How do you intend to use this npc? As a hit and run sniper? As a leader of minions? If it's a lone enemy, it won't last long unless it has a way to keep melee types away from it.
Range of pistols becomes an issue if the gunslinger needs to survive more than one round. Even with a gun with the Distance enhancement, it might need to use a musket, which means no Up Close and Deadly.
You need level 5 in gunslinger (pistolero is best), to get Dex to damage (or go to level 11 for signature deed in Up Close and Deadly on a pistolero).
Then take levels of inquisitor.
You can get:
It's an 8th level spell. I'd say it makes you pretty damn familiar with the location.
I understand the counter argument, but I don't agree with it. If a GM wanted to apply it the way Diego says it works in his games, I'd be fine. It's just another way of playing the game.
However, if a GM wanted to make Scry and Fry harder, then I'd prefer what someone else suggested about making thick stone or underground or a particular cement or render block either or both Scrying and Teleportation.
There is another argument to make here.
Even if someone is evil, there is no obligation on even a Paladin to kill them. Not unless they actually do anything evil, or possibly unlawful.
Eg random person who is mean to strangers gets annoyed by one in particular and thinks 'I'm going to kill him'. While he's thinking that, he's likely to detect as evil. But if then he doesn't actually do anything about it, killing him would be murder not justice.
The vast majority of Evil humans probably just think nasty thoughts and refuse to return balls kicked into their back yards.
I'd be happy with updates or clarifications or errata to cover the rules that weren't worded very well. Eg double barrelled guns and their interactions with the various feats and actions. Spellslinger abilities: why do they have melee only enhancements for their gun barrels?
I agree that Sneak attack should be more effective when striking from the shadows.