Gulrokkius's page

A friend of mine is starting up a new campaign and he wants us to make up some PCs. He has said it will be a low magic campaign (so i'm thinking more middle ages than middle earth). He shot down my alchemist and gunslinger ideas already because he doesn't like the feel(damn, I really want to try those classes one day) and warned us that magical mounts (paladin) and sparkling gear won't be just appearing.

So, it is looking like a definite martial slant will be the direction to take. He is comfortable with the core rulebook (he is new to pathfinder but has played D&D over the years) and may let some PC's and things slide in from APG, UC, but likely not UM (so no magus).

I would have taken a rogue but i believe somebody already has one. I think the party so far stands at a rogue, cleric, bard, and ranger (but ranger is unconfirmed). I've played a monk a few times before and do not really want a fighter or barbarian. Getting picky, I know.

I'm leaning towards either a human pally (never played one before - could be fun) or a ranger (urban) BUT I am open to other ideas (but as I said, 'magicky' PCs will be a tough sell, I think). Just not sure which direction to go. Don't know if the setting is Golarion or homebrew, let alone where we would be starting off in the world.

To those whom have played both, either, or just want to weigh in - send me your thoughts. thx

Hey all,
Was just reviewing combat rules and an optional/houserule idea came into my head. What are your thoughts on having a kind of disabled/hurt condition applied (say only a standard or move action allowed) if hit points are below 50%? (Monsters too)
I would just like to simulate a real struggle a bit better rather than being at full strength one round and dying the next. This might also make in combat healing a more strategic option. I already use EL's strain/injury option and thought about adding this too. Any comments welcome.

Hey all, long long time gamer, fairly recent messageboard lurker.

First, just wanted to offer a corny 'thanks' to all who post both their questions and responses. It's been great looking at gaming concerns from others' perspectives and getting interesting insight from those who favour roleplay, combat, or a combo of both.

So, here is/are my questions to consider: Since the monster stat blocks (including NPC's) often include skills like bluffing and intimidate, how can you or how do you, incorporate them into the your game without controlling a players PC? I see how intimidate can demoralize your opponent (giving the shaken condition) -but is this limited to just one PC being targeted by the creature's attack? I can see this if it's an ogre trying to intimidate a PC, but what about a dragon roaring a threat at the group? I'm thinking RAW says only one target but RAI may suggest otherwise.
Now I'm also wondering about bluffing/lying to a PC/PC's. For example, picture an orc, evil noble, werewolf ... dropping their weapon to 'surrender'. Their intent is to live to fight another day. Players metagaming know it, GM knows it - but the PC's don't necessarily of course. Here comes the true roleplaying. Can the combatant, bluff his way out of it? ("I totally promise I'll be good from now on"). How would you handle it? 'cuz you know some players are going to yell 'I kill him' no matter what. lol PC's can (and likely will) do a sense motive, of course. But let's say they all fail and are 'bluffed'. A player controls his PC. If somebody wants to rip the guy up, hard to redirect that sword, arrow, disintegrate spell without 'controlling' the PC (eg. "No, you failed your sense motive so you believe the drow is going to lead a peaceful life now;)" ). Heck, what might happen if some of the party are bluffed and some aren't in the situation?

Anyway, something to consider. Any ideas, comments, feedback is cool.