Grogtard's page

24 posts (32 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


Dark_Mistress wrote:

Not to derail the topic, but if anyone does use the suggestion I mentioned for their games. i would love to hear how they went and what all problems came up and how balanced it felt.

I only have our group and our play style, so have limited experience on how the rule works. Beyond how it works for us.

It's been many many months since I've posted over here at the Paizo forums but yes, our group has been using a very similar house rule through Curse of the Crimson Throne and we're using it for Legacy of Fire using the Beta rules. There were a couple of additional caveats the DM added, Practiced Spell Caster and Mystic Theurge were out. Also, multi-class casters gain the class benefits like domain, channeling energy, school or bloodline powers based on their actual class level. They only gain extra spells and caster level. In both cases, I was the multi-class caster.

Our Party for Crimson Throne:
Sorcerer (with Fighter cohort)
Cleric of Calistria/Rogue (me)
We made through fine. The AP was challenging and my character really didn't feel over powered.
A better analysis is the party for our Legacy of Fire Campaign:
Cleric of Sarenrae
Cleric of Asmodeus/Sorcerer (me again)
Compared to the straight class casters they have much more powerful spells than me. What I ended up with is versatility. It's sort of like the old sorcerer vs wizard debate. We really don't have that much extra healing in this case.
BTW, in case any one was wondering how those two clerics could manage to work on the same side. We manage with some good natured in character bickering ("That's Evil." "No, it's not. If it was Evil then it wouldn't be legal.") Don't want to do any spoilers but it kind of makes sense (so far) in Legacy of Fire if you look at Golarian mythology.

Our current party:
Dwarf Monk (9)
Sorcerer (9)
Bard (9)
Cleric/Rogue (5/4)
We've had two PC's die so far. My cleric in the first adventure. Darned gators! And the Paladin died last session due to a bad case of poison combined with getting thoroughly thrashed. We've been lucky and took some round a bout ways through the adventures. We're pretty much sticking just to Pathfinder without dipping deeply into the splat books.

We're also doing the opposite. I'm playing a cleric/rogue in our Crimson Throne game and so far things have gone well. I agree that there needs to some more non-combat Rogue Talents.

JoelF847 wrote:

On a side note, am I the only one who thinks "caltrops" every time they see the phrase "feat tax"?

Good one.

Looks like the consensus is to keep it a feat. Here's the good part. We discussed. We disagreed and we kept it civil. I'm still not convinced but I can live with it.

Brett Blackwell wrote:

OK, so I'm one of the minority. I'm cool with that :) It's not the first time....

While we are on the topic of selective channeling, has anyone else had the opinion that the number is too low? Possibly something more like 3 + CHR mod maybe? Unless you really focus on boosting your Charisma, that is a big area of effect that would likely encompass several more opponents than your average cleric Charisma score would handle.

Adding an additional feat to exclude more targets makes perfect sense.

I know it's only the first of the month, but any idea when in October this will be available?

I guess, I'm in the minority on this one. But my opinion is that the base Channel Energy ability should allow the cleric to exclude a few targets without taking a feat. Like the OP said, why would god want his/her clerics healing their enemies? I don't want to start any blasphemous rumors but maybe the gods have a sick sense of humor.
Basically, like the current Selective Channeling feat. I'm all for a new feat, we'll call it Improved Selective Channeling that allows the cleric to exclude even more targets. Just my opinion.

If you are focused on healing and turning then yes take the feats to improve those abilities and the Selective Channeling feat should remain as an improvement (just not as written). My main contention is that the ability to exclude a few targets from Channel Energy should be part of the base ability and shouldn't take a feat.

Yeah, I know we aren't on Feats yet but this is one gripe on clerics. If you're playing a cleric, you need to take this feat. It doesn't matter if you're channeling positive energy and don't want to heal your opponents. Or if you're evil and channeling negative energy and want your living minions around for another round or so. You still need it, IMO.
My suggestion. Just make this part of Channel Energy with the ability to exclude a number of targets equal to Cha bonus.
However, still keep the feat in order to gain the ability to exclude more opponents like adding your Cha bonus again or make it 1/2 your class level or Cha Bonus whichever is greater.

PS board ate original post. If ends up duplicating it.

Hi! And I'm one the players from the Friday Group. There's a very brief description of the characters over here. We used the same build options and points. The Friday Gang voted for a much shorter list of splat books and two of us (the cleric/rogue and the sorcerer) have decided to use just the Pathfinder rules.
As far as the first level domain powers being lame. I disagree (being the Cleric of Calistra). The Domain tricks for Chaos (shhh! Don't tell the Paladin.) and Luck have been pretty handy. But I do think that Selective Channeling is a Feat Tax on Clerics. But I'll rant more about that when we get to that point in the play test schedule.

And a brief outline of my character:
Cleric of Calistra 2/Rogue 2 (Favored Class)
Female Half-Elf
STR 14 +2
DEX 16 +3
CON 13 +1
INT 10
WIS 16 +3
CHA 14 +2

Reflex SV 6
Fort SV 4
Will SV 6

BAB +2

Skill Focus: Escape Artist
Selective Channeling

Domains: Chaos and Luck

Traits: Addicted Friend, Charming

Once our scribe gets the session summaries done for the Sunday Gang, I'm planning on posting a few notes on how the two groups handled the same encounters differently.

A not very bright Grognard. That's me.

mordulin wrote:
I'm still waiting for them to finish releasing all the adventures before I attempt to run DoD again. I ran it through the 5th adventure but got tired of having to stop game for months at a time while we waited for the next adventure to come out. That being said, once the final adventure is released I will be restarting a DoD game.

I'm currently running DoD for my group and am in the same situation. Basically, been throwing in side adventures into the campaign. On the bright side it is fun and wish you guys have a blast like we are.

I think it boils down to what is the tolerance of the gaming group. Know the players and the GM's. Be upfront at the beginning of any campaign on how dark it's going to be. Also, it goes back to the previous posts that the darkness needs to be relevant to the story.
I'd say our games run a strong PG-13. The darker elements happen off camera and left to the imaginations of the players.

We're using the beta for Crimson Throne too. (I'm playing not DMing) We just finished the first chapter last week. We have four players and using the Epic point buy. Our party
Half-Elf Bard
Half-Elf Paladin
Half-Elf Cleric/Rogue
Human Sorcerer
All the Half-Elves were just a coincidence. We've had one character death. And the DM hasn't tweaked any of the encounters (or so he says) but there had been some bad player dice karma....

Keep it dark. It's one of the things that sets Paizo a part. Our group enjoys the AP's but then we're a sick bunch.

Yipppeee! Got my Beta book today! No more paging thru the PDF on my clunky laptop!

Could you tell us everything, Sean? Please....
But seriously, wondering how the church interacts with the local politics? I think the coffers of the Church of Calistria are filled thru not only the obvious "services" but things like blackmail and assassination.

And there's nothing to say that Paizo has to stick to Golarion. Another world for Pathfinder. New cultures. New geographies. New AP's.

Sweetness! Mine is on the way too. Just in time too. Our group is starting Curse of the Crimson Throne on Friday with the Pathfinder rules. Please let the PDF be up up and ready tomorrow! If not we'll just use the Alpha 3 rules.

You'd be surprised how many industry folks are over LJ.
And even some of the forum goers too.

underling wrote:
I preordered the beta and will buy the final next year.

Ditto here. I don't why I've gotten so excited with Pathfinder. Maybe there are subliminal messages on the Paizo site.

What can I say? I've lurked around here a long time. Grabbed a few PDf's and that was about it until...Our DM ran Age of Worms and now we're finishing up with Rise of the Runelords and gearing up to start Crimson Throne using the Pathfinder Rules (Already got my beta book on pre-order). And well, bought the 4E core books and really wasn't all that impressed. So y'all will probably seeing me pop in much more often.

Paizo is my master now!

James Jacobs wrote:
Jason_Langlois wrote:

I'm wondering what impact the GSL has on posting 4e conversions of the Pathfinder stuff on here? Or posting character stat blocs or discussing how to build characters or ....

Does the GSL impact our ability to discuss 4e on these forums... or does our discussion of it open up Paizo to legal action if materials covered by the SRD and the GSL are posted?

It won't impact the ability to discuss 4E on any forums, any more than we can or can't talk about Star Wars or Venture Brothers or Cujo on public boards.

It MIGHT impact posting conversions of other edition products to 4th edition to fan sites... WotC hasn't yet released its fan site rules yet, so we don't know.

It certainly prevents us from doing any official 4th edition conversion stuff on paizo.com, but that's not unexpected at all.

After reading the GSL and the Gleemax terms, I'm crafting a larger tinfoil hat when the fan site policy is released.

Sweet, Thanks Paizo gang! I've been ghosting here for months waiting for the decision. It sounds like a good one. August 2009 seems so very very far away.