Search Posts
I'm running KM for 2 players. Each has a principal PC and a loyal retainer. The former are gestalt characters, while the latter are NPC classes (but player-controlled). This arrangement seems to make the role-playing simple, since the retainers are meant to be very much like class features of the principal characters.
Thanks for the help, folks! Mad Dog would have been nice, but rage is central to my character build/concept/backstory. I have to have it. I know I could go 4 levels of barbarian to still get rage, but I want the build to ultimately gain level 9 spells. @ranmyaku262:
Thanks again!
In a home game, I have a half-elf lunar oracle 5/barbarian 2 who used 4 levels of favored class bonuses to raise his animal companion to be level-appropriate (i.e. 4 uses of the +1/2 to a revelation FCB that elves had access to). I just noticed that the bonus was changed to +1/6 in an errata to the Advanced Race Guide. I don't want to dedicate 8 more FCB to this, but I really want the animal companion to stay on track. I realize I could get Boon Companion, but feats are scarce. Are there any other ways to make this work? I could probably be grandfathered-in and just leave it as is, but I prefer to make the character legal by RAW. Thanks!
Varisians migrate there seasonally, so that might explain why their language is spoken there. Also thought I'd link this old thread, which includes the following quote from James Jacobs: "The majority of Brevoy is Taldan, or a mix of Taldan and Ulfen or even Kellid to the point where they're basically all Taldan now."
.
"Humans
If you go melee, the spell Divine Favor synergizes nicely with the Fate's Favored trait.
OK, just following up on these suggestions. Lastwall already has a place in my character's background story that requires that I not hail from there. Mendev is too close to the Worldwound for my background. I am considering the River Kingdoms and Brevoy. Either could work well. After reading more about Brevoy, I realize that Rostland is indeed quite different from Issia climatically, and the geography works very well with what I already had in mind. The fey connection and superstitious ways of House Medvyed do not really fit, but it's no big deal to be the exception to the rule. This is my frontrunner right now. I need to research the River Kingdoms before I make my final call, but I am confident that I have a good fit regardless of my ultimate choice. Thanks for the help!
Thanks for the suggestions thus far. I am at work now but will delve into those suggestions later. I'm still open to more suggestions as well. Thanks again!
Hi all, I've put together a background for my new PC for our home game, and the last bit I need to decide on is where in the Inner Sea region he is from. I'm leaving out character class as it is not relevant and I'd like the recommendations to center around geographical and political factors pertaining to his family, without being influenced by who he is becoming as an adventurer. However, his alignment is true neutral and that matches the alignment of his family. relevant portion of background:
Knox Tarnbridge Knox is from a noble house (think 2 out of 5 stars noble; truly respected but not inherently very powerful). It is at least 400 years old (anything up to 1200 years old would work). House Tarnbridge is known for its skill with diplomacy. They have a reputation as fair and talented mediators who can be called in to help settle disagreements, broker peace treaties, serve as ambassadors where others might fear to go, etc. They have carved out a niche and they work extremely hard and carefully to maintain their reputation and to hone their craft. Without their excellence, they would reduced to irrelevancy and serfdom. Their own landholdings are rather modest, not so much in size as in significance. Their one strategic asset is a mountain pass that is occasionally relied upon by the odd caravan or other traveling party. This also makes them the de facto protectors of the pass, although there has never been much armed conflict in the area. House Tarnbridge takes its name from the long stone "bridge" that crosses the high cold moor that makes up the pass and its surroundings. The entire area is stony, and is dotted with a vast network of tarns (pools formed when snowmelt collects in glacially-carved basins) that make it virtually unpassable without the use of the Tarn Bridge. House Tarnbridge is entirely half-elven. They scrupulously maintain their lineage, as they believe that their reputation for excellence in diplomacy owes in large part to their race's ability to navigate other cultures more nimbly than can others. All marriages are carefully arranged, with only other half-elves deemed suitable partners. His mother is from Cassomir, Taldor. I would like House Tarnbridge to be seated in a different nation. The first nation in the Inner Sea World Guide that caught my eye was Brevoy, but I'd really rather not choose a frozen northern nation. I'm also not thrilled with most of the nations in Garund, but let's not rule them out just yet.
Any recommendations?
There is a really useful guide to traits called Tips and Traits: A guide to Pathfinder Traits
While I prefer not to go the route of enforcing penalties for not having one, I do not begrudge any GM doing so. For my home game, I like the gentlemen's agreement that most characters should have one, and that not having one is the exception that requires some sort of in-character rationale. What makes it game-relevant to me is that it does weigh several pounds, and accounting for that will make some players think twice about dumping their strength stat. My witch is a tiny little female elf with in-character reasons to have a low strength score. Even so, I had to deliberate quite a bit when it came to how low a strength score I wanted to give her, and it was the bedroll and blanket specifically that tipped me into medium load territory.
This may not be the best place for this comment, but since I'm here, and since I think about this every time I read a thread about making hardcovers of the APs... I simply won't use a softcover version of the APs. It's not the cost; it's the construction. I understand that they are very high-quality publications for the price, but in my opinion they are not user-friendly for one simple reason: they won't stay open on their own during the game without me creasing the cover and the pages within. The hardcover RotR fixes that. Until another AP comes out in hardcover, I'm not an AP user. Probably seems petty, and nothing against Paizo, as I love Pathfinder in general, but there it is. Having said all that, I'd be an immediate buyer of almost any AP that was published in hardcover, even if it cost as much as all six softcovers combined, or more. We all have our quirks. If I still get a vote, I'd actually strongly prefer something that had zero ties to the Runelords. I'm more of the "been there, done that" mindset with them. But I'd take anything offered.
I received developer clarification on this issue. Here's my post in the product thread (which reproduces the developer's response to my PM).
I hope this is not considered bad form, but I thought I should acknowledge that Patrick Renie responded to a PM I sent him about these questions. He clarified the rage power quite well with his response, which I have copied below: Hey Gliz, The language of the Ferocious Beast rage power should change as follows (changes in bold): Ferocious Beast (Ex): While the barbarian is raging, her animal companion also gains the effects of rage (including greater rage, mighty rage, and tireless rage), though the barbarian must spend 1 additional round of rage per round if her companion begins or ends its turn adjacent to her, and 2 additional rounds of rage per round if not. She can elect not to pay this cost, in which case her animal companion does not rage. Regardless, the animal companion must remain within 30 feet of the barbarian to gain the effects of the barbarian's rage. Quote: The Ferocious Beast rage power does not state that its use is optional. This differs from the wording of Ferocious Mount. Was that an intentional design choice? Or should Ferocious Beast also be optional? This was not an intentional design choice; use of the Ferocious Beast feat should also be optional. Quote: If it is optional to activate the rage power, then is it safe to assume that it is a free action to toggle it on/off? I'd say that's safe to assume. Quote: The rage power also states that the animal companion gains the "benefits" of rage, but it does not mention the drawbacks (i.e. -2 to armor class, inability to use certain skills, fatigue). Is that part intentional? RAI, the animal should receive the penalties of raging as well. Changing "benefits" to "effects" clears up this. Quote: Finally, what should be the range limit of the companion's rage effect? 30 feet. Adding a sentence to the end of the feat fixes this. Hope this helps! P
Yes, I consider this every time I make a PC. I often wait for everybody else to choose their class before I proceed to fill in the gap, or to at least avoid too much role overlap. I don't play PFS, so I don't really have any experience with the whole "not being a drain on party resources" thing. My group is old friends, and it's about having fun with the group while staying true to the character. Having said that, I think most players are cognizant of the need to contribute, and I certainly am. In the end, my approach is usually to find a niche that hasn't been filled, and then fill it in a way that is fun, effective, and challenges my system mastery (both at character creation and tactically throughout the game). Sometimes that means creating background elements that essentially "prohibit" me from using certain obviously advantageous options. An example would be a wizard choosing two of the best schools as opposition schools, and not taking "opposition research" later on to mitigate it (and having a solid, believable background reason for that choice). To directly address the issue of "spotlight," maybe you show up with a versatile PC who can shine pretty well in three facets of the game. Then when you sit down with your presumably unfamiliar group of PFS players, you just ask them what they are most interested in getting from the session. You then choose to emphasize the facet of your PC that does the least amount of stepping on the other PCs' toes. A certain amount of your satisfaction with your PC will have to come from your "off-screen" imaginings of who the PC is and what s/he is capable of, as opposed to what s/he has actually accomplished in the on-screen moments. I find that more of my mental energy goes into between-game thoughts about my PCs than it does into actual gaming sessions. But then again, we only play every two weeks, and if my PC isn't interesting enough for me to daydream about, I'll lose steam over a two-week layoff. Anyway, that's how I try to approach it. I do claim ignorance about the specifics of PFS play, however.
Minor point: Divine Interference requires caster level 10.
The Ferocious Beast rage power does not state that its use is optional. This differs from the wording of Ferocious Mount. Was that an intentional design choice? Or should Ferocious Beast also be optional? What I want to do is dip 2 levels of barbarian with my lunar mystery oracle. My only rage power would be Ferocious Beast, which would allow the tiger companion gained from my mystery to rage along with me. But if Ferocious Beast is an "always-on" rage power, then I will burn through my rage rounds way too fast for my liking, even if I take the Extra Rage feat. If it is optional to activate the rage power, then is it safe to assume that it is a free action to toggle it on/off? The feat also states that the AC gains the benefits of rage, but it does not mention the drawbacks (i.e. -2 to armor class, inability to use certain skills, fatigue). Is that part intentional? Finally, what should be the range limit of the AC's rage effect? Thanks!
My first thought was gnolls.
Assuming a balanced/stereotypical party composition, it may be fine. The encounter design table calls that a "hard" encounter, not "epic." Seems appropriate for the end fight. First and foremost, be aware that the spriggans can use "scare" at-will. This has the potential to TPK the party. It is easy to imagine half the party fleeing while the spriggans gang up on the remaining PCs, especially if they cannot easily flee as well. That aside, some things to consider that may be even more important than the listed/apparent CR: How well-rested/prepared is the party? Are their resources drained? Do they know about the spriggans? Are there also bees there to fight, or is just the spriggans? Is there a chance for surprise on either side (maybe the spriggans are busy with their work and not expecting infiltrators)? Do the spriggans have standard gear, or is it lesser or greater? Is it equipped or at-hand, or again, are they not expecting trouble and busy at work? Can you devise terrain features that will advantage the PCs but not the spriggans? Sometimes having several terrain/environmental features available that are not obvious can be a good approach. That way if things look too difficult you can point out a potential advantage that the desperate player may have overlooked.
And I believe he meant Celestial Servant.
Lunar mystery is from Blood of the Moon.
WARNING: Thread Necro... I'm doing this with a half-elf oracle 18/barbarian 2 build. He takes barbarian at levels 2 and 5.
I have also seen references to that limitation. I forgot. Or got too lazy to remember. :) If it works at your table, however, then maybe it's still worth it if you can find a feasible means of grapple mitigation (a spell, a magic item, etc.).
I thought they'd stack since the revelation's bonus was in place of DEX. I can see what that might not be true, though.
Maybe Lunar mystery instead? Prophetic Armor revelation gives CHA to AC and Reflex (sacrificing Nature's CHA to CMD).
Thanks for that information, blahpers. I hadn't looked at Ferocious Mount. I, too, suspect it is a design oversight, for the very reason you name. I guess it's in the category of "Ask your GM."
I've never played a PF barbarian. If I don't want my animal companion to consume my rage rounds, can I turn the rage power on and off? If so, would both be free actions that I could perform multiple times per rage, or would I have to begin and end my rage each time I wanted to turn the power on and off? This rage power normally does not require an action to activate.
Any feedback at all? I'm not an artist by any stretch, so I can't really offer constructive feedback, per se. But if it helps at all, I think the paladin is by far the best drawing of the bunch. You would probably be better at drawing (no pun intended) conclusions from that than I would. Good for you for jumping in to this and putting yourself out there!
I'm being really lazy here, and I don't know FPS restrictions, but there is an ioun stone that grants an initiative bonus. I think it's a cracked or flawed one, and it's cheap.
Ferrous.
For traits, my first thoughts are 'Berserker of the Society' and 'Heavy Hitter.'
Wis is crucial. Since you can't opt for higher than 13, I would definitely go: Str 17, Dex 17, Con 14, Int 17, Wis 13, Cha 14 And put all stat bumps into Str/Wis.* I would aim to bump Wis with a headband as quickly and as often as possible. If you go human, I would also consider the Dual Talent option. If you take it, definitely go Str/Wis. Giving up the feat matters more than giving up Heart of the Fields, but both factors will be mitigated over time, as you gain more feats and as you gain immunity to fatigue from Martial Artist (which, when you get it, will make Heart of the Fields feel like a waste). It's a tough call, as the feat is a big reason to go human. If you don't go human, then dwarf is the way to go (of the core races). The stat bonuses in Con/Wis are the next best thing to a hypothetical Str/Wis. All favored class bonuses go to hit points. Start with the Urban Barbarian at level 1, so that you have +1 BAB at level 1 and qualify for the better feats like Power Attack right off the bat. I don't know anything about how the temple sword works with flurry of blows, so I can't comment. I'm still getting into my coffee, so I hope this was coherent and useful. * [EDIT: level 20 (if you get there) would go to Dex to keep stats even, assuming you don't acquire an inherent stat bonus along the way.]
[edited for spelling] Thanks for the input, folks. For what it's worth, I was mainly concerned with whether there was consensus that they would stack, and whether the time reductions were multiplicative. That's all confirmed, so thanks! In practice, the more likely route I'd take is to combine 2 of the 3 variables, but it's nice to know that any of them could be combined.
Given the following assumptions: 1) The Cooperative Crafting feat cuts crafting time for a specific category of magic items by 50%. 2) The accelerated crafting rules allow you to cut the time by 50%. 3) The Arcane Builder arcane discovery for wizards will cut it by 25%. Would the time required to craft such an item be (.50)x(.50)x(.75)=.1875, or 18.75% of the normally required crafting time (rounded up to the next full day, of course)? Thanks!
Another +1! Paizo's running up quite the untyped bonus here!
It also doesn't say they can wear clothes in the Rope Trick. Could a character lay out a bedroll in a Rope Trick? How about take off his armor in order to bed down? Can he bring his backpack? If so, can he remove items from it? If he's gargantuan, can he bring in his gargantuan backpack? Can he remove the medium anvil from his gargantuan backpack? Where do you draw the line, and how do you make that decision? Do you really believe there is some rules-based justification for asserting that the line is exactly here and not just over there? With the current RAW, it's never going to be better than a judgment call at each gaming table. Arguing that somebody is doing it wrong -- even that they are not following RAW -- just doesn't work in this particular matter.
That's just it though. You need to have "a heat source and some iron, wood, or leatherworking tools" as appropriate to the armor being made magic. You also have to have the breastplate already. The main inhibitor of crafting in a rope trick, is how do you have a heat source? And, for the table to come to agreement on, what is an "appropriate" heat source? Campfire? Forge? Torch? Yes, I agree, it does remain vague, and thus gameplay experiences around this mechanic will differ tremendously from one table to another. My essential point is simply that I have no trouble whatsoever selling everybody at my table on the idea that I can have a "heat source" in the Rope Trick, while I doubt I could sell a single person on the idea that I can have a full-on forge in the Rope Trick. I suspect my group is similar to many out there in terms of how they collectively rate whether something is "reasonable enough." And for those groups, the distinction I was making initially becomes salient. I was really hoping this whole magic item creation mess would get cleaned up in Ultimate Campaign, but from what I've read on the forums that did not happen. Too bad, as I would have paid up for just that one thing. Without that, my interest is tepid.
You're welcome! I'm glad to have been of assistance. Have fun!
@Tarantula: I may not have been clear (or I may have misunderstood or conflated some other posters' comments). I was aware of the equipment requirements for crafting various types of items. I meant to address the fact that for most magic item creation, the PC buys the masterwork item, rather than having to craft it himself, and thus the PC only needs the equipment you listed in your post, and not all of the equipment that is necessary to craft the masterwork item. In other words, I buy the breastplate, and all I need are the materials that are used to infuse magic into the breastplate. If I had to craft the breastplate myself, then the amount of equipment needed would be far greater. In the former case, it seems reasonable to me that one could do the work in a Rope Trick. In the latter case, it is somewhat less reasonable. Note that my language is vague in both cases; different people will judge for themselves what constitutes "reasonable enough." And to your other point, I routinely accept the +5 to DC for accelerated crafting, as well as for all the prerequisites that I routinely lack. Which gets at what is my biggest complaint with the magic item crafting system: it's too easy to make items that are pretty powerful for the character level. I do it anyway, since the GM runs it RAW, but I would actually prefer if they made it harder (or impossible) to avoid the prerequisites. As it is, the only real obstacles to crafting most items are money and time.
@LazarX: No offense taken nor intended, but what do you really know about what I want out of the arrangement? And come on, what use is there in words like "lopsided?" I mean, you already noted that you run magic item creation very strictly. That might well seem "lopsided" to some, but I wouldn't apply that term because I believe its only purpose in this kind of discussion is to be dismissive and to shut down a line of reasoning with which one disagrees. What's the point in that? I'm not trying to win any arguments here; I just thought discussion of some "middle ground" options might be more interesting than the continual back and forth about 8 hours of rest, fatigue, and wagons (again, no offense intended for those who enjoy those particular bits). Sometimes I think I'm not cut out for these forums... Happy gaming to all!
Note: This post does not specifically address the thread title nor the OP's initial post, but rather some of the points that arose throughout the thread. I have to admit that I gave up reading about 100-some posts into this, as frankly it got a bit redundant. One thing that I did not see was mention of the likelihood that in most cases of PC magic item crafting, the magic item crafter has already purchased the masterwork item (breastplate, necklace, longsword, etc.) and is merely working the magic enhancements into the item. In such cases, IMHO (and the rules are admittedly vague here), little in the way of large/heavy/bulky equipment would be needed. For me, and for my group, in our game, that makes it very easy to rule that this can happen in a Rope Trick. Also, for folks who see all this as too close a call, why not find a middle ground? I happen to be the crafter in my group, and I am fine with the compromise of garnering 6 hours of crafting per day instead of 8 hours. That comes from the 4 hours per adventuring day specified in the rules (netting 2 productive hours), plus an additional 4 hours (in a Rope Trick, with a Ring of Sustenance) that nets a full 4 hours productive time, leaving extra time in the day that I'm not trying to fill with some game mechanic. That way, I'm investing resources to gain an advantage, but I'm less productive than I would be if I were holed up in a full-on magic item crafting laboratory. I also made myself a bag of holding that contains several masterwork toolkits, and a masterwork portable laboratory, as part of the investment. And to those who complain about everything being on the crafter's terms, I'd say that my party is happy as can be that I invested all those feats into an endeavor that saves them so much money throughout their adventuring careers, and allows them to obtain exactly the items they want almost as soon as they can afford them. What's to complain about, as long as I'm still pulling my weight in tactical situations?
How about a faerie dragon? CR 2, tiny size, can fly, [no trained knowledge skills], has several good spells (casting as a Sorcerer 3). Also speaks 4 languages and has telepathy, has a breath weapon, and has SR.
Thanks for the input, Aberrant Templar. The fact that the levels stack makes it something to at least consider. I'm assuming some people have already considered this multiclass option, as it's pretty obvious. I have never considered a Pathfinder monk before, but the Martial Artist piqued my interest. Thing is, he's essentially a BSF-type, which I'm okay with, but I want to be able to fill that role reasonably well. That means hitting a lot and doing a lot of damage. I'm trying to assess whether the Brawler's bonuses to hit and damage (and bonus feats) outweigh what I lose by delaying my monk progression. I can do the math, but I figured some folks had already done so... Thanks again!
Hey all, Not intending to start one of THOSE monk threads, just some specific questions about Martial Artist monks. The archetype entry states, in part: Martial Arts Master (Ex) At 4th level, a martial artist may use his monk level to qualify for feats with a fighter level prerequisite when those feats are applied to unarmed strikes or weapons with the monk special quality. This ability replaces slow fall. Question: Do you read this to mean that those monk levels would STACK with fighter levels? So, for example would a Fighter (Brawler)4/Monk (Martial Artist)4 qualify for Greater Weapon Focus (unarmed attack)? Follow-up question: Is it worth doing this, or is better to just go straight Martial Artist? Clarification of purpose: What I'm aiming for is the Brawler's ability to get +1 to attack and +3 to damage at level 3, since my main concern is being able to do sufficient damage to be relevant in combat. However, the way I'm reading the Martial Arts Master ability makes me wonder if multi-classing this way would actually delay my ability to take "fighter-only" feats. Of course, the fighter bonus feats are also nice, as is the ability to have a +1 BAB at level 1 by starting out as fighter, since that means I can grab better feats at the beginning of the progression. Thanks!
Sure we can agree to disagree, but implying that your style of gaming is better than others is going way too far. Get off your high horse and we can talk. "evolved" "elitist""high horse" Preview post. Edit post.
I'm with Tiny on this one. People take the whole Batman thing way too far a lot of the time. It's cool to think of your wizard as always having the right tool on hand, but practically speaking you are part of a team with lots of options for overcoming challenges; you don't always have to have the solution yourself. Just prioritize so you get the spells you will actually prepare every day. It will likely not be a very long list at all.
Drat well at least that will free up a spell slot for other spells which will be greatly appreciated. think I'll pick up the wand, a spring loaded wrist sheath, and the morning star and see where the rest of my funds are sitting at. If most of your foes are evil, consider a wand of protection from evil instead (+2 deflection bonus to AC and +2 resistance bonus to saves), as it offers other applications as well (wards against evil summoned creatures and can help against enchantments).
What a mess. I'd just rule that armored kilts don't exist.
Huh. That's good. Do you recall where that is stated in the rules?
|
