Grifter's page

After reading through this forum I have to take the opposite stance. While I hope that PF remains true to the d20 core mechanics I hope that PF 2.0 comes much sooner than later.

It appears that the majority agree that the d20 system is a good fit for their gaming groups and I would agree; but as far as the system is concerned it needs to have a complete mathematical overhaul. I understand that PF wanted to appeal to disenfranchised gamers who felt abandoned when D&D moved to 4th edition so they tried to keep things the same while moving the system forward. Unfortunately in doing so they failed to tackle the underlying mathematical problems beginning with 3.0 and growing substantially with every new book released and Pathfinder doubled down on this.

The next move forward needs to have a complete review/revision of the underlying math of the game as well as a streamlining of some of the rules; the bonus system is an example that immediately come to mind. I agree that the overall core of the game needs to remain the same but the balancing issues with the math needs to be addressed. I am not a developer so I do not suggest to have the answers or pretend this challenge will be easy but it is necessary to make the product stronger moving forward.

Are you sure he was not giving out gold or platinum when he was suppose to give out silver or copper?

It staggers me that you claim these people have been playing for 20 years and they did not have red flags being thrown all over by at least half the people on how absurdly overpowered the gear was.

Well the majority of the group has been, the DM has about 4 years under his belt. We were on pace fairly well till 2 games ago when at lv 8 we pulled a 100k haul. That made us somewhat uneasy but last Saturday we hit the dragons horde, some cult of Orcus and a wizard that had waaay too much loot. We ended with 350k and started the discussion that lead to this reset. (I should mention that the +7 weapon and +5 armor/shield were the night our total haul was 350k). After discussing with the DM I'm pretty sure he got stuck on running, "by the book," hadn't reviewed the upcoming loot prior to the nights games and as he was handing it out we all started to realize that there was a huge problem.

I think we all were really excited the night when we first hauled 20k per player and got a nice boost to gear (I took my revolver from +3 to +4 and bane bauldric) but we were only slightly OP per the loot rules for lv 9 party at that time. This last haul threw us off the rails and did raise the red flags as you stated.

Also your condescending tone in both of your posts is unnecessary and unhelpful.

Good idea. I'm glad for you that you're all working to keep the campaign from running too far off the rails.

Yes, I did get it that he's running it out of the book, but my guess is that he should not have been. If the loot is THAT overwhelming, then it's time for the DM to step in and fix it, hopefully before it gets so far out of reach, such as a 9th level character with the equivalent of a +6 weapon, for one example.

Either that or step up the encounters.

Whichever is done, it sounds like the adventure cannot be run exactly "by the book".

For me, since I'm running it too, I will prefer to adjust the loot down because that's an easy adjustment with specific guidelines in the CRB. The alternative, leave the loot alone and adjust the encounters up is a more complex adjustment, resulting in extra XP and more work, without specific guidelines since there is no rule (or set of rules) about how much up-adjusting to do to match people with excessive gear.

Solid advice and much appreciated. I think using the guide for character wealth will help balance things back to where they should be. Everyone is on board so hopefully by next game we will be adjusted and ready for adventure. Thanks again everyone for the input.

My guess is that he's being one of those "nice guy" DMs who let the players survive, fudge the killing die rolls, won't let the monsters kill of the PCs.

CR14 monsters against level 9 characters, even so obviously overgeared, means a good crit from a monster will kill some PCs. If you're consistently fighting battles 5 CRs above you, your ridiculous gear should make it possible to kill them, ESPECIALLY when it's one BBG (instead of multiple smaller BBGs - much harder to crit them out of the fight), but they should be doing ridiculous amounts of damage back to you guys. Sometimes that might mean crits that blast someone into the dead zone.

That's a lot of buffing you do before every fight. I suspect you're only have one or two of those fully buffed encounters every day, then camping to regain the buffs for a couple encounters tomorrow. How many fights are you having per day? Is your DM being too nice to attack you in your sleep? Too nice to send wandering monsters to harass you when you're out of spells/buffs? All he has to do is hit you with a couple CR14 battles during the day and then when you withdraw to camp, have another CR 14 battle catch you in your sleep, without your armor, without time to recover spells. TPK. If he doesn't want a TPK, he can send a weaker battle at night. Kill only one or two PCs and make you pay for resurrections, eat up a little of your loot.

More importantly, doing that will make you think about not using EVERY BUFF YOU HAVE for every fight. If you're less buffed because you're saving some for possible unplanned encounters, maybe you won't steamroll the enemy so fast in every fight.

Finally, 3 fights for 350,000 GP? If they were all CR 14, they should have totaled about 45,000 GP. That's total, not each. He is giving out nearly 8x the recommended loot? I think it's time for him to "hit the reset button", dial you guys back to normal amounts of gear. Me, I'd have a level 20ish adventuring party scry and fry you. Pop in, give you a little taste of your own...

Actually he's not at all he's just running by the book. there have been multiple deaths over the levels just recently we got showered in loot. Everyone needs to realize that this is straight out of the book, he didn't write any of this... no random rolls, no fudging anything they just give you a ton of loot.

Anyhow we talked it out and were gonna sit the group down and look at reviewing equipment to be in line with reality. We have been gaming nearly 20 years so this isn't the most enjoyable for any of us. Will reset ourselves to a reasonable level and he will start holding back to be more in line with the standard treasure.

Believe me when I tell you that the loot is waaaay too much. Like I said he's running straight out of the Rappan Athuk book so hes not adding or removing anything. Rest of the group is equally equipped if not more heavily. In fact i'm likely the lowest man on the totem pole.

I have made a bunch of suggestions but last night after the dragon horde plus 2 other significant encounters we hauled 350k... thats in addition to what we already have. The book itself seems poorly designed to offer up loot like that. he just feels like he's in a bind. I offered up we could give him an idea what direction we wanted to go so he could pre-plan and adjust encounters but he feels like he can't do that, he doesn't want to adjust anything.

Perhaps the game coming to an end may be the best thing. Just sucks since we have invested so much time into game.

To preface this post I am a long time DM and due to life changes have handed off DM duties to a good friend a little more than a year ago, so he is relatively new as a DM but has been running consistently.

Anyhow He bought the Pathfinder Rappan Athuk book on kickstarter and we were all excited. He wanted to see more of the newer classes in action so I decided to make a gunslinger/inquisitor. He agreed to advanced weapons and within 5 levels we agreed that gunslinger with advanced firearms was too powerful. We agreed to nerf the revolver and removed the touch attack quality and the misfire making it an exotic longbow with x4 critical. We also agreed to scale the character back so I dumped gunslinger and currently I am Inquisitor/Fighter 6/4 respectively. Here is a breakdown of my character:

Level Class BAB Feats/Abilities

1 Inq (1) 0 Inquisition: B. powder, judgement 1/day, monster lore, orisons, stern gaze,
*exotic weapon prof: firearms, *gunsmith, point blank shot, precise shot
2 Fight (1) +1 Rapid shot
3 Fight (2) +2 Deadly aim, weapon focus (firearms), bravery
4 Fight (3) +3 Armor training 1
5 Fight (4) +4 Weapon specilization (firearms), quick draw
6 Inq (2) +5 Cunning iniative, detect alignment, track
7 Inq (3) +6/+1 Solo tactics, *target of opportunity, rapid reload (revolver)
8 Inq (4) +7+2 Judgement 2/day
9 Inq (5) +7/+2 Bane, discern lies, improved critical
10 Inq (6) +8/+3 *Enfilading fire

Because the dungeon provides us with unusual amounts of wealth I currently have a +4 revolver of speed, +4 belt of dex, +4 headband of wisdom, bane bauldric, ring of evasion, endless bandoleer +5 mithril breastplate, +5 buckler and some odds and ends. Most of this was possible because we have an item creation specialist wizard in the group to tailor our gear.

This is the issue; the DM is getting very frustrated because I am doing very high damage output. Any time we have an opportunity to prepare for a fight and get the jump on them I put up my spells (divine favor, wrath, weapon of awe, flames of the faithful, my judgement and bane and I am getting something like +22/+22/+22/+17 while using rapid shot and deadly aim doing 1d8 +21 +3d6 and crits are x4. Assuming everthing works.

Last night we tracked down the adult red dragon CR 14 with our lv 9 group and smoked him round 3 when I critted for over 1/2 his HP in a single shot. He got visibly upset and as a DM I understand his frustration. He seems upset that I built a heavy DPS character and that every BIG boss just gets obliterated because I do alot of damage and crit quite a bit. I don't want to have the game end because of this... Do I dump the character or what? Help please.

According to the FAQ

Crafting and Bypassing Requirements: What crafting requirements can you bypass by adding +5 to the DC of your Spellcraft check?

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.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 02/21/13

So yes, you can craft a +5 weapon at level 5 if you have the money, time, and can make the skill check.

I appreciate, group has been limiting itself for some time.

I'm resurrecting this thread because I have a questions regarding level restrictions and crafting.

The rules for crafting state:

"Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites."

The rules for creation of magic weapons state:

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. A magic weapon must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to have any melee or ranged special weapon abilities

**So does this mean that a crafter could ignore the level restriction for a total of +5 to the dc and craft a +5 weapon at lv 5, assuming he had the money?

Also the rules don’t place any level requirement on crafting wondrous items with stat enhancement. So can I craft a belt of giant strength +6 at lv 3?

**Please skip all the answers about how there shouldn't be that amount of money in the game at low levels or how you would have one huge item and a gimped party. I just really need the RAW, thank you.**

To preface these questions my players are going to be heading into a volcano in the next leg of adventure. I want the place to be crawling with Salamanders, Fire Elementals, Fire Giant(s), etc.

1. How do I translate having an environment that is 500 degrees or hotter into game mechanics? The rules only outline 1d6 damage at 140+ but this will be far hotter than that.

2. What spells/items are available to allow them to actually complete the adventure? Endure elements just ain't going to cut it.

Appreciate the insight.

We just dealt with this in the last session I ran. The Sorcerer was invisible and an ogre moved through his square to attack the paladin. We ruled that if you are invisible and something attempts to move through your square you can just choose to avoid it. If there is nowhere to move you can attempt an acrobatics to avoid collision. If you fail to avoid or choose not to move the creature bumps into you and realizes you are there, it can then stop and attack you with all relevant modifiers for being invisible.

Grifter wrote:

Being that it is a huge creature how does it only have a 17 str? Based on size bonus alone it should be getting a +16 strength? Realistically shouldn't it be looking at a 26 strength or higher?

One of the things we wanted to do as much as possible in those early days was remain as compatible as possible with the previous edition of the game, in order to ease transitions. One of the things I found while developing the monsters for the bestiary was that a lot of them were WOEFULLY under-CRd for what they were supposed to do. Particularly, big creatures with lots of attacks.

When you have a creature of Large or larger size, it makes sense that the monster would and should be stronger, if not MUCH stronger than a human. Note: It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that a Strength of 18 or 20 is not high enough for this kind of situation... since those are scores that a starting human could technically begin play with, but remember that most humans have a Strength of 10 or 11.

ANYWAY.

The hydra's strength is only 17 because that's as high as I felt comfortable pushing it while keeping it at a CR of 4, which is what the baseline hydra was in 3.5 D&D. Even then, with five attacks, it's doing an average of 37.5 points of damage per round, which is INCREDIBLY high for a CR 4 creature (normally, a CR 4 creature should be doing a high average damage of only 16 points).

So even at a Strength of 17, the hydra's doing well over twice the average damage a high-damage CR 4 monster should be doing. It's a very strong CR 4 monster, especially against players who don't know how to fight them.

I appreciate the insight. I would say that rather then increasing the strength I would reduce the monster one size category to a large creature and make the appropriate changes to dex, natural AC while keep strength and con the same. Looking at the creature closely it appears that it is suffering from the penalty's of being huge but gaining few of the advantages. Its stats are off and even it's bite damage is one category too small. I am not arguing that the monster is not an efficient build and it absolutely is a killer at CR4 but mathematically it's just a large creature incorrectly sized as a huge creature.

That being said I understand the smooth transition aspect and respect your decision to do what you did. My concerns would be with whomever originally designed the monster not for the Pathfinder conversion.

I agree with your assessments, yes if it had a 26 strength CR 4 would be inappropriate. It seems like the creature is one size category too large. It would fit perfectly if it were large creature rather than huge with the stats presented.

I guess if I were building it from scratch the CR4 hydra would be reduced to a large creature and a huge hydra would be at 26 Str but taken to CR6.

Being that it is a huge creature how does it only have a 17 str? Based on size bonus alone it should be getting a +16 strength? Realistically shouldn't it be looking at a 26 strength or higher?

I have encountered this problem from time to time over the years. Typically the player is new to gaming looking only at numbers on a page and not intangibles in the game. Generally I have a strong roleplaying incentive in game not to die. Like your character has been recognized and has stature in a town. He is a hero and that comes with inherent bonuses that a fresh PC has not earned. This typically leads the PC's to want to remain with characters because they grow attached.

But when it happens, or when a player just does not like his character at all, I typically let them rebuild but make sure that they are not over optimized with feats (Ex. Skill Focus was great at low level but now that my character is level 10 will a +25 I'll skip that and just take all power chain feats)and they are never allowed to spend more than 50% of there loot on any one item which typically ends up being there main weapon.

Lastly my players know that if I suspect someone is doing this or any time people start acting stupid for any reason other than getting very tired I punish them. I always reward well made plans and always punish blatant stupidity. Game I'm running now the group went into a spider infested dungeon thinking they were all cool with there shiny +1 swords and neglected to consider other gear (antitoxins and extra potions) and 2 of 5 didn't make it out.

I always ditched the rules and allowed for lawful paladins of all 3 alignments.

I like the idea of the caster rolling just so we could give them a fumble possibility.

There is always things like "you rolled a 1, you dropped your sword", so a "you rolled a you, the spell exploded in your face" would be ineresting. And maybe make casters slightly less powerful, while making magic more unpredictable and interesting...

The conversion is simple enough, but I'm too lazy to make it with every ability ever and I'm not sure if my gaming group would like the idea.

It also left options open for critical's with spells that normally wouldn't be able to crit with. I like that the system added options for critting with ranged touch spells and this opens options to expanding on that.

I appreciate the input so far. Again this is not me trying to say one is better than the other. Just that my group and I felt it was a better fit for us.

This has always been a bother for me as well. I have been with by group nearly 20 years and at this point I spend a great deal of time creating new monsters because they have seen darn near everything.

I have always felt that the monsters should have a small chart to give players a knowledge DC for what they know about the monster with the relevant knowledge skill, having to determine how much info to give them stinks. But simply other then typical animals that live in areas that the characters would be familiar with, such as homeland, they must use knowledge checks. Even if they know its a grizzly bear without know nature they wouldn't know specifics.

To answer you last question the knowledge skill spells it out. If the monster is very common DC would be like 5 + HD uncommon 10 + HD, rare 15 + HD etc. You could know pretty much any monster but as a DM you can keep a monster secret say it's unique or unknown.

I'm not sure if this is the right section of the forum but here goes.

When 4th edition was introduced my group picked it up hoping for the best. Unfortunately after about 4 game sessions we decided to abandon the system because it did not provide what we were looking for. A member suggested PF and the rest is history. One mechanic from 4th edition that we did like was the saves. Rather than rolling a saving throw vs a spell the caster rolled vs your save which was presented as a static number much like armor class. (Ie. Rather than roll a reflex save d20 + 5 vs breath weapon DC:16 the breath weapon rolls vs you d20 + 6 vs Reflex 15)

My players enjoyed it more because as a caster they liked to feel as though success was up to them rather than the monster rolling to defeat the spell. I have mulled over just switching saves around because it is a simple conversion. Either way is effective but as a player it feels great to hit that success, and the opposite side of the coin it stinks when a low level monster hits that 19-20 and resists your powerful spell. If they roll a one there's much less grumbling than if I hit a few 20's vs spells in an encounter.

Just wanted to know what everyone's feelings the static saves system are.

Play Warhammer some time and PF will look like the poor mans hobby.

I have a level 7 party and decided I would like to run them against a Mountain Giant that I created by increasing the size of a hill giant by 1 step but keeping him the same beyond that. The giant is part of a tribe of orcs & ogres that are being supplied by a fire giant in a volcano deep in the heart of the hills they infest.

Anyhow I took the Hill Giant and stepped him up one size category from large to huge. The template rebuild rules state add +4 str and con but the table under that says a step from large to huge is +8 str and +4 con so I'm a bit confused on that, please help.

Beyond that I added a +1 Breastplate and +1 Maul and he will likely come out with stoneskin on from an 7th level orc caster. I also rebuilt his feats as follows; Martial Weapon Proficiency, Power Attack, Furious Focus, Imp. Bulls Rush and Awesome Blow.

The party has a paladin, who will hopefully still have a smite available, and the ranger has a stash of adamantine arrows so stoneskin should not be too powerful. Please let me know if you would consider this a CR 8 or 9?

It doesn't violate the wording of the feat at all. I would only say that if you are fighting with it in one hand and the reach weapon in the other it begs the question of needing to have 2 weapon fighting. Does it incur those penalties and could a monk flurry like this. If only holding it I would say it was fine, if trying to sneak in the extra attack...

Grifter wrote:

Funky Badger wrote:

The question is back-to-front - if the character concept is "mounted warrior", they the question should be, why aren't you using a cavalier/ranger/druid or similar?

A modified Cavalier code would be less clunky than a new companion feat, I would have thought?

Because as players we should have more options? We shouldn't have to awkwardly recreate an entire class. Besides what if your a cleric or a bard or even a wizard. Seems odd but if I really want to play a wizard who is riding into combat shouldn't I have the option if I'm willing to sacrifice in other areas?

Sounds like you're after a points based system, rather than a class based one.

If I was trying to create feats that allowed my character to have the smite ability, a rangers favored enemy, clerics spells and a summoners Eidolon I would agree but having a mount that grows is hardly unique to the cavalier. The druid, ranger, sylvan bloodline sorcerer and any character who takes leadership at level 7 can accomplish a mount that progresses. This simply makes it a bit more streamlined. Cavalier still benefits from class features that make him a superior mounted character. The suggestion that I should play GURPS seems off since the whole concept of feats was to add flexibility to a class based game.

Grifter wrote:

...[]...

Master Trainer:
Prerequisite: Handle Animal 3 ranks.
Benefit: The character gains the service of a loyal and trustworthy steed to carry him into battle. This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the characters handle animal rank -2 as his effective druid level. The creature must be one that is capable of riding as a suitable as a mount.
...[]... Thoughts?

I really like your adaptation of Trogdar's suggestion, but I don't like a couple of the aspects you changed.

The prerequisites are much lower than the "eldritch" heritage route & the companion's level is better than the original version. Add to that, it really needs to be spelled out that certain traits of said animal companion are removed. The ranks I list below are debatable, as this is off the cuff and not compared to anything save a quick glance over other "mount-related" feats.

This is my opinion, of course, so take it for what it is.

I would suggest the following changes (changes are bolded):

Master Trainer:
Prerequisite: Handle Animal 1 rank, Ride 1 rank, Skill Focus (Handle Animal).
Benefit: Upon selecting this feat, you gain an animal companion in the form of a loyal and trustworthy steed to carry you into battle. Your effective druid level for this ability is equal to your character level – 3 (minimum 1st). The creature selected must be one that is capable of serving riding as a mount, subject to the GM's discretion.
Special: A mount gained in this fashion does not gain the link or share spells attribute of a druid's animal companion. Should a character’s mount die, the character may find another mount to serve him after 1 week of mourning. The new mount does not gain the evasion, devotion, or improved evasion special abilities until the next time the character gains a level.

Edited: I added in the mount death clause to the "special". A character taking this as a feat shouldn't get off without the penalties a character with this as a class feature get...

I am cool with your ideas except I would leave out the skill focus only for the fact that using the Eldritch Heritage chain would be identical without the penalties so since its one less feat you add the penalty if the mount dies, also my options are limited to only mount. But you are correct I would take it to level -3, remove the shared spells and link because the feat is not supernatural in any way. But I really like this version.

The question is back-to-front - if the character concept is "mounted warrior", they the question should be, why aren't you using a cavalier/ranger/druid or similar?

A modified Cavalier code would be less clunky than a new companion feat, I would have thought?

Because as players we should have more options? We shouldn't have to awkwardly recreate an entire class. Besides what if your a cleric or a bard or even a wizard. Seems odd but if I really want to play a wizard who is riding into combat shouldn't I have the option if I'm willing to sacrifice in other areas?

Ok so after looking at the rules for Eldritch Heritage that will allow you to have a druid pet at character level -2 with the prerequisites of Cha 13 and skill focus it is apparent that this feat would be completely reasonable.

Instead of having a sorcerer’s bloodline you are simply a master trainer.

Master Trainer:
Prerequisite: Handle Animal 3 ranks.
Benefit: The character gains the service of a loyal and trustworthy steed to carry him into battle. This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the characters handle animal rank -2 as his effective druid level. The creature must be one that is capable of riding as a suitable as a mount.

I switched it to handle animal because you would be training the animal to become better and now you can use the boon companion feat to get it to max level.

This should add some balance. You now need to spend a feat, or 2 to have a lv appropriate mount, and one of your skill points at every level to level your mount. It eliminates the need for skill focus but restricts your options to mount options as opposed to any animal companion. You also still take armor check penaltys unlike the cavalier. Thoughts?

I don't see any issues with having a feat that allows a character to let a pet level. I do however have an issue with it replicating a major class feature of a class. I don't think it's necessary to limit it to mounts, as character might want to have other pets.

I think this would be better (and is meant to stack with boon companion):
Improved Pet:
Prerequisite: Hande Animal 2 ranks
Benefit: The character forms a special bond with one of it's pets. This pet gains power as the character does. If taken by a character that does not have an animal companion, the pet gains powers as if it was a companion of a druid of half the characters level. If taken by a character that does have an animal companion, it instead increases the effective level of the animal companion ability by 1 for every two character levels that do not grant animal companions.

This otherwise functions as the druid's animal companion ability. Showing disrespect for the animals well-being means you may lose the benefit of this feat.

I agree that the feat should not replicate the ability, its not about stealing other classes thunder just making a character with a typical mount realistic after lv 5. I appreciate everyones suggestions.

Also consider that what this feat is trying to accomplish is to be able to get a mount that paces with your character instead of being static. A feat that allows you to train a mount beyond just a trained warhorse.

Feats help bend rules to allow better options, what about Master Craftsman that allows fighers to craft magic items? With your logic that makes no sense because fighters don't have the ability to cast spells.

Grifter wrote:

Kolokotroni wrote:

Grifter wrote:

Yes to reiterate it’s not about gaming the system it’s about having a realistic mount as you adventure. If I want to be a dragoon archetype fighter by lv 20 I have an average of 174 hit points and saves to match, my horse has 19 hit points. 1st dragons breath weapon and my trusty steed gets obliterated even on a successful save and the mount is an essential part of my class. Arguably that is the fault of not designing the class with a mount but a good feat would solve all these problems.

Sure, I could just keep trading up as I level and I suspect that’s what most do but what if I really just want a horse?

Take a level in cavalier and the boon companion feat. You now have a 5th level mount. I would probably agree with something like an 'improved boon companion' feat to bump it up again. But the fighter should actually have to invest to get a major class feature. It shouldnt be given for what is essentially no investment for a fighter.

Having to multiclass one lv of cavalier and then use every other bonus fighter feat just to keep a mount leveled is awful and doesn't address the issue if I am any class other than a fighter. Besides fighter or not when was the last time you were sitting around with extra feats to spend and couldn't find anything you wanted? Having to deviate even a single feat is a sacrifice to any class.

It does address the issue because some classes are better at some things then others. Fighers get lots of feats. Something that requires feats SHOULD be better for a fighter then other classes. And yes its a sacrifice. Its also a powerful boon, hence the cost.

Quote:

How do you reconcile that I can accomplish this and then some with leadership? Doesn't it seem more appropriate that there be a way to address the disparity with mounts between some classes and others? If im a cavalier my horse gets 15 HD if im a rough rider fighter 2?

First of all leadership is its...

I agree that if you look to take a mount that will fight on its own you could be looking at an overpowered feat but reviewing the druid companions you have the option of a camel or a horse because the beast needs to be a suitable mount and the cats and other creatures are too small. I get that the mount is part of the class and yes it would be foolish to give smite or lay on hands as a feat but what this is trying to accomplish is get a mount that can be used at higher levels without having to upgrade a monstrous creature or play a class that you don’t want to play. Pathfinder worked hard to eliminate the need to constantly multiclass or house rule to get classes to work outside the box.

Grifter wrote:

Yes to reiterate it’s not about gaming the system it’s about having a realistic mount as you adventure. If I want to be a dragoon archetype fighter by lv 20 I have an average of 174 hit points and saves to match, my horse has 19 hit points. 1st dragons breath weapon and my trusty steed gets obliterated even on a successful save and the mount is an essential part of my class. Arguably that is the fault of not designing the class with a mount but a good feat would solve all these problems.

Sure, I could just keep trading up as I level and I suspect that’s what most do but what if I really just want a horse?

Take a level in cavalier and the boon companion feat. You now have a 5th level mount. I would probably agree with something like an 'improved boon companion' feat to bump it up again. But the fighter should actually have to invest to get a major class feature. It shouldnt be given for what is essentially no investment for a fighter.

Having to multiclass one lv of cavalier and then use every other bonus fighter feat just to keep a mount leveled is awful and doesn't address the issue if I am any class other than a fighter. Besides fighter or not when was the last time you were sitting around with extra feats to spend and couldn't find anything you wanted? Having to deviate even a single feat is a sacrifice to any class.

How do you reconcile that I can accomplish this and then some with leadership? Doesn't it seem more appropriate that there be a way to address the disparity with mounts between some classes and others? If im a cavalier my horse gets 15 HD if im a rough rider fighter 2?

Also the argument that the fighter gets the mount for no investment is not really true. Sure if I want to spend a feat to get a mount that levels with me that’s fine but if I'm not interested in being a mounted fighter why would I spend a feat to get it? Also I have to spend one of my 2 skills per level on ride to keep the mount advancing and I need handle animal leveled as well. Also I need to take feats that correspond with the mount so the investment is clear.

Yes to reiterate it’s not about gaming the system it’s about having a realistic mount as you adventure. If I want to be a dragoon archetype fighter by lv 20 I have an average of 174 hit points and saves to match, my horse has 19 hit points. 1st dragons breath weapon and my trusty steed gets obliterated even on a successful save and the mount is an essential part of my class. Arguably that is the fault of not designing the class with a mount but a good feat would solve all these problems.

Sure, I could just keep trading up as I level and I suspect that’s what most do but what if I really just want a horse?

D&D v3.5 had a feat called "Wild Cohort". It can still be found here.

Stea er Borrow it, then convert it to Pathfinder.

Decide if you want to let "Boon Companion" stack with it.

Thank you sir that is pretty much exactly what I was looking for. Where is the boon companion?

My thoughts are the mount ability is WAY to powerful to be given away as a single feat. It should be weaker then both the druid/cavalier mount and a ranger's companion, after all it is just a feat and not a significant class feature. You wouldnt give smite evil as a feat would you?

Honestly I think it shouldnt be a feat at all, they should have to take a level (or 5) of those classes, and if they want it to progress they take the boon companion feat to bump it up. But otherwise they shouldnt be able to pick up major class features so easily.

I appreciate the input and am not trying to be argumentative but If I could simply use leadership at 7th level that would allow me a cohort who could be any creature including a dragon that is not outside my alignment that could conceivably be used as a mount as well as a group of followers then how is it that the idea if using a feat to get a horse mount that can level with me "WAY" too powerful?

Yes taking leadership is a workaround but it seems perfectly plausible that I could take a slightly less powerful feat that simply allows for a chance to have a mounted character with a mount that doesn't get outpaced by lv 5 making the classes indicated the only realistic option for a truly mounted character. Plus you can't even cherry pick a level of cavalier since the ability states based on your cavalier level.

Why not make the feat where your mount receives a level of protection based on your Hit Dice?

Just doing this from the top of my head so you will need to adjust to make sense but, Mount recieves 2 additional Hit Points for every level of the rider?

or make some kind of "Improved Mounted Combat" feat where the outcome is additional hit negations or a bonus to your ride check to negate the attacks etc.

Also the problem is that if I am a lv 2 fighter with a heavy trained warhorse the thing is as effective in combat as I am. By level 10 its just a way for me to charge. I'm thinking of a way to keep the mount competitive without having to trade it in every so often with another better mount. I'm really not looking to game the system or take anything away from the cavalier or pally.

How about instead of progressing as a druids companion it progresses as a druids companion less the special powers. So simply it moves along with you. Otherwise I just take leadership and use my cohort as a mount that levels even more quickly.

You could adjust it to be weaker like rankl -4 but my issue is I like the mounted figher classes like Roughrider or Dragoon but do not want all the trappings of the Cavailer. I understand not wanting to give away an overpowered mount but you still have to dedicate to mounted combat, have all the appropriate ranks etc.

You also still take armor check penalties on the ride checks unlike cavailer.

Heck I dont even care ambout any special abilities just a mount that levels with you so at higher levels my horse doesnt get obliterated by one dragons breathweapon attack.

Very simply what are your thoughts on a feat to allow characters other than the Cavalier, Samurai or Paladin to get a mount that progresses with the character? Here is my concept:

Improved Mount:
Prerequisite: Ride 4 ranks
Benefit: The character gains the service of a loyal and trustworthy steed to carry him into battle. This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the characters ride rank as his effective druid level. The creature must be one that is capable of riding as a suitable as a mount.

Looks fun but based on the checks required a typical 1st level party will likely be washing up on shore. This is well thought out but a first level party is a bunch of blundering idiots for the most part.

You obviously know the party better than I do but my 1st level players would fail this 9 out of 10 times.

I have been playing Pathfinder for a while now (and D&D for many years before that), but I've never played an arcane caster (and strangely, other players in my gaming group haven't played one either, so I have no reference). However, I'm thinking that I may play one in the future, as I'd never read the class description before now and didn't realise they now get some interesting extra abilities, eg from school specialisation etc. But I'm a bit concerned about what to do when they run out of spells. For example, assuming a 1st level wizard, with 20 int and a bonded item, you'll have 4 level 1 spells and three level 0 spells (I think). But I guess that in a typical day of game time, you'd be very likely to run our of resources quite quickly.

My question is, what does a wizard typically do to make sure that they have things to contribute to the party at all times? I don't want to play a character that's going to spend large amounts of time in each encounter doing nothing because I've either used up all my daily spells, or not doing anything because I want to save spells for later. And entering melee clearly isn't an option ;-). And things like the acid dart from the conjuration school is also limited.

So, does anyone have any suggestions / thoughts / ideas on what to do to make sure a wizard has plenty to do at all times?

Thanks :-).

Edit: wanted to add, I've had a quick look at the excellent wizard guides, but they don't appear to address this particular issue...?

Scrolls. There fairly cheap 12.5g for you to scribe lv 1. Just keep a stash of scrolls after you complete your first outing and pull in some gold.

As a tank character you do exactly what you should stand as a bulwark against monsters. a 23 AC is pretty much right where you should be, besides you are still vulnerable to shield sunders, area attacks, flanking, monsters that do aura type damage, grappling, etc...

Your really good at absorbing hits, that's what you are designed for. If your DM wants to get frustrated run a Synthesist Summoner some time, don't even get me started.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1513061270/reaper-miniatures-bones-an-e volution-of-gaming-min?ref=live

My jaw dropped for everything you get if you sign up for the $100 vampire pledge. With all the minis you get you can kickstart any PF group for what looks like $.60 a model. Take a look for yourself!

Most of the classes can be overbearingly powerful at high levels it just depends on what you want. If you want min/maxed characters with feat trees specifically tailored to make you uber god like your characters can border on insane. My group and myself started early in 2nd edition and I have found that we like really unique and cool characters more than super characters.

So to answer your question the 1-2nd edition wizard was overpowered at high levels but I always felt that was your reward for surviving the low levels... remember 1d4+2 max HP... ouch. So yes wizard is powerful in PF also but no more powerful than he was before.

Put the gaming on hold for 6 months or so and they'll get hungry again. That's been my pattern every few years.

Grifter wrote:

So what happens if you use a +1 bow to shoot a +1 arrow?

Enhancement bonuses don't stack. However, if you used a +2 Flaming Bow to shoot a +1 Undead Bane Arrow, you would get +2 Flaming Undead Bane. That is, the effects of the bow stack with the effects of the arrow, following normal stacking rules (i.e. like bonuses don't stack)

Thank's for the input.

I had this problem when I was reviewing the gnoll as well. Based on what is presented he should be 1/2 CR. Basic med creature with +1 nat armor, darkvision and average stats is 1/3, 2 HD takes him to 1/2.

So what happens if you use a +1 bow to shoot a +1 arrow?

Thank you for the input... I worked out the math and you are correct that a comparison between a lv 20 monk using weapons vs unarmed reveals a large difference. This model assumes the monk has an 18 strength. Using the numerical averages...

Unarmed: 10 unarmed damage + 4 str = 14 x 7 attacks = 98

+5 Keen, Flaming Kama of Speed: 3.5 weapon + 4 str + 5 magical + 3.5 flaming = 16 x 8 attacks = 128

Beyond the +30 damage per round on average the +5 weapon hits 25% more often and with Keen will critical x2 as often.

Thank you for the help, this helped me better understand this rule. Still hard to flash 2d10 and expect my players to get confused/frustrated.

Please help me with this. I have seen a number of posts on this subject but there seems to be no solid consensus on this question.

Does a monks weapon damage scale with the monk unarmed damage? From the rules it appears that they do not but please help me understand how that makes a bit of sense. How is Bruce Lee any less deadly with nunchucks than with his fists/feet? It is fairly easy to make the argument that he is more deadly but he's at least equally as dangerous.

If they do not scale then it seems likely that most monks would abandon there weapons at a relatively low level and always go unarmed but this is lame because the monk weapons add flavor to a character. I understand the argument about enchantment and damage type, slashing/piercing vs bludgeoning, but this is a fruitless argument when a level 20 monk's base damage is 2d10 vs 1d6 for most weapons. Not to mention a monk can't use stun and his fists are magical/lawful/adamantite.

Additionally it appears that a monk can just enchant his unarmed strikes, "A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

Please let me know if this has been settled of if this is the most poorly thought out set of rules in D20.

This is a question that a fellow DM posed to me as well but statistically speaking its not the case at all. Sure if you use Monk or Rogue as your example every acrobatics, climb, etc check appears to be super easy... But these are lightly armored characters that lend themselves to skills.

Ask the Paladin wearing full plate and rocking the tower shield how that swim check feels.

What has been said before is true if a character takes a bunch of points in a skill then he should be good at it. But for most physical skills those armor check penalty's coupled with low skills and little to no intelligence makes even simple checks very difficult.

Oh sure, go fighter with x2 short swords. That way when you take weapon focus and weapon spec it works for both. No need for dex with that build.

You have 2 options. You can either create your own basic "adventure pack" tell the PC's that they have to carry it any time they are traveling and endure all the under the breath comments or just forget about all that stuff like I did forever ago. The game already gets hung up from time to time on things, unless my players are going somewhere like an icy wasteland I just ignore such trivial things and everyone seems to have much more fun.