Ingenwulf's page

"We don't approve of you having fun the way you do. You need to have fun a way we approve of, even if it isn't fun for you."

Gaming involves a social contract. If one player is upsetting the the rest of the group, and has been doing so for months it is more than an in game issue. If someone cannot have fun without upsetting the rest of the group perhaps they need to find a new group.

The needs of the many....

In previous posts I have seen that you often argue with or upset the GM, now you say you are upsetting your fellow players. If they can see a pattern that upsets them then there is a pattern. Can you see a pattern in your behaviour? Is that wrongbadfun?

I don't see how the OP is any sort of useful to the playtest. The hybrid classes exist, and aren't going away, so complaining that you don't like them acomplishes nothing.

If you don't like them, don't use them, and stop wasting space in the playtest forum.

Or... it being a playtest it is a chance for the developers to see that hybrid classes are also a chance to bolster previously released classes, and that there is a section of the buying public would like to see this. Try not to be too dismissive of other peoples opinions.

If it's based on the WoT then it will still be going into next century, but the PC's charaterisations will stretch credulity.

Who wrote the Emissary Archetype? Is the new TV Dracula closer to Bram Stokers original concept than the cheap paperback published all those years ago?

Ingenwulf: The problem is that gear IS an integral part of your abilities.

This isn't an issue if you're a wizard: A full caster has ALL his class abilities even if naked - gear is just boosters to them. Yay class balance huh.

This is NOT the case for, say, a Fighter or Barbarian or Rogue - non-casters are completely dependent on their gear. They cannot keep up. If you don't have that +5 sword, you're not just +5 damage down. Your accuracy just got shot, your damage is down way more [as suddenly DR actually works like you were some hapless town guard against that dragon] than just by that, and you've probably lost one or two special abilities.

So keep that in mind; the amount of extra work they need to do to get back to how they were is no different from all the questing you hopefully also expect from that mage to get his spellcasting back.

You DID also have the cleric's god tell the cleric to go f*** himself as a result of someone else's curse or something at some point too, right?

Right?

I think you put too much stress on "keeping up" with the spell users. Each class has it's niche, area of expertise, or just plain fun bits (else we would all play spell users) . If you are of a level that has the wherewithall to own a +5 sword then they would likely be able to scrape together enough for a +3 replacement.....now he's only +2 out.

As for Clerics, you seem to have your own particular axe to grind, I can't see how to sunder one but am willing to try.

@TheBlackRaven "Come to think of it, that is a great way to support the Monk as an efficient martial ;-)"

No need for the smiley, it's part of the point of a Monk.

Also a build that relies on one special item in a rule set that allows for the damage of gear is not builing a character in the "best possible way according to the system's mechanisms". I realise that Weslocke has already pointed this out but thought it best to let you know that they are right.

I still find the idea of "compensation" odd. If a PC wants something, or wants something replaced, I expect them to work for it. If they feel they cannot go into full battle without their "whip of whippery" then they can get a couple of extra jobs to earn the money to get it.

I also feel WBL is a GM tool, not a players "right". If they want more cash then negotiate harder or get a job. These extra efforts by the PC's tend to lead to more interesting RP experiences.

So, sunder away, if appropriate. Most creatures will still go for the soft and tastey bit of the PC though won't they?

Ah, so we shoud ban fantasy heroes, super spies and super heroes because they are an edited form of reality that is unatainable then?

The girl was a litte out of shape before the photoshop. The lack of muscle tone or ribs was a give away for alteration. I worry that some people think a body size that is achievable through diet and exercise is a bad thing. Being overweight is neither "normal" nor healthy. More people die from complications of obesity than from anorexia. Aspiration is no bad thing. Would you ban the olympics because most people would find that level of perfection impossible?

Does any other archetype not get a capstone ability? I can't see erratic charge as a 20th level power. Can you?

Demonique wrote:

If its taken as written you actually get a 1st level power instead of a 17th level one then get no 20th level power atall.Either someone really hates cavalier emissaries or this is an error. Have to agree it would be nice to confirm either way.

Another way to look at it would be to say that for swapping his 17th level power for a 1st level power he gets his 20th level power early (at level 17).

I can understand it if you do not like the higher abilities, but apart from that there is no problem.

Not really.

..bump.. while America is awake.

Does anyone know who actually wrote the Emissary archetype?

Gauss wrote:

The Master Tactician ability should be replaced by something.

There is a rule that if an archetype replaces a base class ability but not a higher ability they get the base form instead of the higher version.

As written this archetype should simply get tactician at level 17.
That might not be RAI but without errata it seems RAW.

This would mean replacing a level 17 class feature with a level 1 class feature. To me that makes even less sense. It may well be Rules As Written but I am trying to find out the Rules As Intended. Hence trying to FAQ. Hence asking for Errata.

If it is intended then I would like confirmation of that.

Bill Dunn wrote:

And for that matter, 3rd edition D&D in general was an updated version of 2nd edition D&D that can still play a lot like that edition - it was designed to do so in many ways but with a more advanced game rule engine.

For you maybe. In my opinion, it plays much differently, and the engine is not more advanced, but instead more clunky. It also manages to take the biggest criticism of prior editions, the fact that spell-casters were more powerful at the high levels, and exacerbate it greatly, by removing most of the spell-caster's weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

True. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons was less clunky, limited spell users by requiring them to earn more experience, actually train under someone and fit into a particular hierarchy. They had to own spell ingredients and some had to kill their boss to progress. I miss the good old days.

A third party setting which incorperated all this would appeal to me greatly. Although probably would sell only two copies (I like to buy a spare).

Call of Cthulhu is practically perfect as games go... if only they had kobolds and bards.

There's nothing wrong with an archetype shifting the loaf of abilities from certain levels to others on its own. However, this seems to be an especially odd case.

I wouldn't have blinked if it made any sense. It has however surprised me that nobody has cleared this up before now, or (as far as I can tell) raised the question in the forums. Perhaps not many people have played the Emissary.

I guess most folks haven't taken an Emissary up past 17th level, however if you want to dual archetype Emissary and Luring Cavalier it becomes an issue from level one. If it's a mistake then you can do it, or is it done on purpose to specifically stop it?

As for powers, spells and balance I think you need to play it yourself. It may seem like a cop out but seldom will you find a bunch of folks agreeing. I feel that there is enough interesting and unique stuff each class (or mix of classes) can do to make everything worth playing.

4th Edition D&D was designed to be more in line with Computer RPGs whereas Pathfinder allows more complex interactions. This, for me, makes Pathfinder a game which supports greater roleplaying opportunities. It does however make it more complex and leads to differing opinions on the use and intent of many of the rules (hence if you look at these boards for a while you will see many...ehem... debates.).

I find Pathfinder harder to run, I am consistently having to cross reference rules, but more rewarding for myself and my players.

The issue has been resolved. Thank you everyone for the input. And so we are clear it wasn't strictly me having issue with the character, mainly the entire party thought the character was a D*ck.

So, how did you resolve it?

I always thought the same thing but have never seen any errata or clarification

I searched a while but found nothing either. It would be nice to get an "official" answer. If anyone else wants to help out with the FAQ button, or if the writer who designed the Emissary happends to drop by...

Any chance of moving this to the Rules section?

The Cavalier archetype Emissary replaces Tactition special abilities at 1st and 9th level, however at 17th level instead of replacing Master Tactitian (a 17th level ability) Erratic Charge replaces Supreme Charge (a 20th level ability). Otherwise the Emissary gets all other charge abilities. Would it not be correct to continue to replace the tacitian tree?

What is really needed is more roleplaying time between adventures. Too many of these adventures are one bad thing right after the last. There is no time between adventures to deal with other things.

Yeah, my group went 1st to 14th in a few weeks in the Council of Thieves AP. The wizard didn't even have time to transfer the spell he found into his spellbook.

Ok, so when the Zen Archer starts flurry of blows at d12 right from level one, adds his wisdom bonus to hit at 3rd level, addsstrength bonus with a composite longbow you think the melee characters are going to take it laying down? Power creep is a great way to spoil a good game.

Are the "new throwers" feats?

As for the trait, surely the whole point of the sling is that it is a simple weapon anyone can pick up. Sure in real life it's a bit tricky to start with,but because all you need is a bit of leather the sling is something that anyone could have learned since childhood.

As the GM you should know the NPC's motivations in any scene and play their responses appropriately. I only ever roll dice in a "social" interaction if the player brings game mechanics into the equation (bluff, intimidate etc). I do try to bare in mind the characters charisma, race, sex and previous demeanor and current approach. To randomly roll a reaction negates a player's choices.

Two elements to this discussion - weapon rules and available feats.

Weapon rules we could argue is relatively balanced and should have some basis on our 'relative' world.

Feats however are the RPG's opportunity to explore the 'possibilities' of the weapon.

I personally almost ever use a bow (1 character in my last 7 and that a shortbow), I find their popularity with other players means I steer clear of them in order to be different. So does the game benefit from having (in terms of flavour) unique paths for different weapon types? Yes I think it does.

There are already numerous 'paths' for the bow (feat chains and archetypes like the Zen Archer, Paladin, Ranger and Fighter archer sub-types), less so for the crossbow (Fighter and few feats to speed it up), but there are no archetypes for the sling (despite them being a specialist unit in classical warfare) and a few feats that allow a couple of minor abilities to use the sling in hand to hand or to be fired faster.

In terms of game 'flavour' I would like to see a dedicated archetype.

And/or a few dedicated sling feats made official in the Pathfinder rules so it doesn't have to be a complete lifestyle choice.

@Rynjin.....you just scored a whole lot of wooshes.

Ingenwulf wrote:

It is a matter of choice and flavour. If everything does the same then choice becomes redundant and flavour just "topping". Don't you think flavour should be integral? Just think of a well cooked meal rather than noodles with a sachet of beef/chicken/bbq flavour powder.

As rinyns stated, things can be optimal without being the same. Particulary I do not undestand why an optimal choise woudl do th esamas another optimal choise.

For example, if you go THF you go for offensive if you go Sord and boar you go for defensive, sadly the game do not have much good support for non.twf sword and board guys, and the stye is just meh.
If paizo release some material to make non-twf sword and board better that style then becomes good without being the same as THF.

Look up the word "optimal" then come back to me if you like.

Aelrynth. You seem to be missing the point. If you work hard at something (spend a feat point) then you become much better than average with it. Some things do have their limits (It would have to be a very heavy wet sponge to damage a rock giant) but some dangerous things, in the right hands, are even more lethal.

That us why I see nothing wrong with adding feats to slings, daggers or even rocks. While the average bloke would still do better with a shortsword, the specialist could take your tonsils out with a penknife

@Mark I couldn't agree more. The feats I mentioned from Zobec are sling specific and similar in concept....bouncing stones etc. And make the sling a more appealing option.

Ingenwulf wrote:

Not all things can be optimal, if they were then there would be no optimal, there would be bland.

This idea seems to be a pretty popular one and I still have no idea why.

Uniqueness and balance have nothing to do with each other. The hallmark of a well balanced game is that ALL of the options are optimal and worthwhile without sacrificing those differences.

If TWFing was as effective as 2H combat was as effective as sword and board, that would not be bland. All 3 are very different fighting styles and work differently from each other

If they were all optimal all the time, then the net result would be the same, therefore the only difference would be the words on the character sheet. Each of your examples is optimal in particular situations. As is the sling for ranged combat for a non martial character with no money.

It is a matter of choice and flavour. If everything does the same then choice becomes redundant and flavour just "topping". Don't you think flavour should be integral? Just think of a well cooked meal rather than noodles with a sachet of beef/chicken/bbq flavour powder.

Streets of Zobeck, part of the Pathfinder compatible Midgard setting has three excellent sling Feats. Bank shot, Improved bank shot and Sling anything. They help the sling have a unique character.

A little word on uniqueness and optimal. Not all things can be optimal, if they were then there would be no optimal, there would be bland.

The reason I play Pathfinder is that I became jaded with 4th edition. You could move your opponent and do damage OR do damage then move your opponent. (Simplified but you know what I mean). Choices should mean something.

Resurrection in my games is the exception rather than the rule. I leave it up to the survivors and their budget. If a player is going to be characterless for more than an hour or so, real time, I will get them to stat up a susuitable replacement. I certainly don't give then extra benefits for having lost a character.

This seems to give my players an appreciation of the dangers of the gameworld, and a proper appreciation of the need to have friends who are willing to go the extra mile for them.

Of course all these arguments are dependent upon enforcement of encumberance rules. If you don't care how much space or weight things the characters are carrying then ignore counting arrows. A Fighter should also be able to carry a golf bag of weapons for all occaisions. All those pesky coins are fine too. In fact if the maths of counting arrows is a chore then keeping track of coins isn't fun either. You may as well just assume you are able to buy whatever you like. In fact as maths is so dull, and the rules are entirely optional you really shouldn't have to be made to keep track of Stats or Skills, AC or attack bonusrs, initiative or rounds. It's all optional but the more you ignore the less you are playing the same game as everyone else.

As to the original post. I would get one of those abundant ammunition thingies. It would save a lot of arguments.

MrSin "well that didn't seem necessary to say.". As you obviously knew I meant fighter sub types or "martials" and you felt the need to list them and play devils advocate then your sarcasm was noted and returned.

What the Monk does have is a measure of self reliance. They need minimal gear (can fight weaponless and armour free), they have 3 good saves, evasion, they get to heal themselves, immunity to diseases then poisons not to mention Ki abilities to mimic fighter BAB or ensure strikes.

I personally find them quite selfish in outlook, it's all about self buffing and survival, but that doesn't make them too strong nor too weak, they have their niche.

Malwing... so it's not the BAB that bothers you it's the maths that gives the Monk a fighterlike BAB (when doing Monk stuff) that sucks?

MrSin... to me those are all still fighter sub types. What I'm saying is, and I can't believe I have to clear this up for you, if you want a fighter (or fighter subtype) then play a fighter (or fighter subtype).If you want something with other interesting or cool powers then choose that. Don't then whine that it doesn't do the job that the class you chose not to play does. My previous post was more a more elegant and economical use of language.

I vote full BAB, for flavor it makes no real sense for it not to.

I also vote for more selectable ki powers given it's kind of the monk's thing. I'd settle for ki being tied to feats like stunning fist or elemental fist, it's ridiculous to keep track of too many 'per day' abilities.

If you want fighter BAB play a fighter. Even if you shave his head and give him a philosophy.

Monk has its own things going. Wisdom based AC and attacks mean perception and sense motive tend to be high and in most games I play in that alone can be worth its weight in GP for a combat based character. There are other little bits and peices that make monks different. The class us not all about hitting hard and that is reflected in the lower BAB.

If they come up with really good tactics you would have used, what should I do?

I would describe how it effected the tide of battle for a short time and give XP as a reward for good thinking or rolepaying. You could think of it as a joint storytelling venture of a doomed defence or thwarted escape. Try to make it clear you just want the highlights though because some may be tempted to bog you down in a round by round slog.

Don't do it. Players can see through a railroad like that. It's easier and ceaner to start the narrative after the capture. Describing events as they ay have unfolded. Ask them to describe any powers, feats abilities or tactics they may have shown before being overwhelmed. Don't make them roll dice when it is obviously futile to swim against the plot, it leads to resentment and lack of trust in the GM.

While I agree that intimidate and diplomacy are discretionary I would suggest that the player would find it fairer if you tell them before hand that "this is going to be really hard (or impossible)". Part of the skill of intimidating is picking your targets. It also stops your players feeling hosed. Just my 2 cents.

I must remember to firmly and strongly but silently mouth the verbal component. Or I could buy the silent spell doohicky.

The soundtrack from 28 Days Later should keep you sorted.

Ranger. Favoured enemy: Human.
.
..
...Or whatever you like really.

(Edit: The main "face" gets to play "King" ^pronounced Tah-GET^)
So high CHA characters can be fun later.

Hello James, long time listener, first time caller:

Could a Magi use a shield as his weapon to deliver spells? (Given shield proficiency and no weapon in his other hand). Also would it havd to count as an off-hand weapon?

Will there be an AP based on the "Mountains of Maddness", or will I have to write it myself?

Finally...a red one or a blue one? Which will go fastest?

Well, Duergar, that's a -4 to charisma, so that would require an 11 prior to adjustments, and with a 15 point buy, there is very little wiggle room.

Which is probably why there are so few (none so far) Duergar adventurers in core race adventuring parties. There would be even fewer minimum charisma party members. Who would train such a revolting creature? Who would hang around them long enough to listen to their wisdom?

Remember that low charisma is NOT socially neutral and forgettable (that would be CHR 10). CHR 3 would be activrly disliked, probably from birth, even by its own race.

If you have enough time and energy to equip every "monster" individually then that's great. I don't. I do use the stats direct from the Bestiary. I also enjoy the wandering monster charts in PF AP's as they give local flavour and an idea of the flora and fauna of a particular area. Most wandering creatures don't carry much with them, so that also saves me time working out treasure.

I also don't adhere to WBL, especially when running AP's. They seem to have about the right amount of reward without adding anything for extra/random encounters. As many people have stated AP difficulty levels are a little weak for tactical/thoughtful players, so a little cash starvation tends to add to the drama.

Unless I've missed it, perfectly possible, nobody seems to have asked where monstrous, albeit intelligent, creatures are supposed to shop for their magic armour, weapons and scrolls. If they make them or have workshops that make magic items for them then enterprising player may choose to track back to this base, thereby making the GM stat out a whole area and equip the NPC's therein ( not to mention theWBL implications.)

Or do you decide that they found the items and are now utilising them? In which case you know the random chance of finding exactly the right gear, in the right size? Just think back to the last time you went clothes shopping, and those guys are supposed to stock everything you want . The chances of a group of creatures randomly finding the same gear is slight, so do you stat every single creature in every single encounter individually? Or did they target people equipped with the items they need? A difficult task considering that the prey would be using the items in defence. Would these battles then up the creatures own XP? (which could be used as an excuse to up the CR on well equipped monsters).

These are all questions which deserve some thought and time to implement, and if you have that amount of time and energy, while juggling RL concerns and taxes, then great. However I would ask that you keep in mind that some people don't. Try not to dismiss entirely those folk who see the entry "2d6 Centaurs Bestiary 42" and then just turn to the page.

I've got to book 4 of council of theives with 2 PC's. We'll have to see if they make it the whole way. As it's gone so far it might have been designed for the Bard and Summoner combo. It also has the advantage of readily available npc's.

Localised and short term npc's work well for my group
and create a more diverse and believable world.

I have also played and run games we're there have been GM run PC's. They can be fun and valuable if they are given enough personality to inform their decisions and the GM can compartmentalise. They are especially good if you take turns to GM. If done badly they hog the limelight, destroy the trust of the players and unbalance the game. Avoid an ego trip.

Alignment would probably be evil. From what RD has been saying race would be at least half troll :)