Johnggernaut's page

Thanks :)

I've written out everyone's motivations which affect what their triggers are. Some are RP related, such as the alchemist they're going to meet before either the party or the alchemist realize their enemies. That interaction might affect him in battle. I just don't want battle to be A vs B. I want things that makes the NPCS possibly rethink their position.

Having said that, I really appreciate your input. The NPC that's travelling with the party is actually the antagonist and the players have already told me how they hope this ally doesn't die like the barbarian NPC earlier in the campaign.

So, for my first original campaign that I am running for a few friends, I have created about ten major enemies they will encourage ter, along with a final boss. Now, I know as a GM, you don't want to force too much in regards to player choice, so locations and other factors aren't set.

What I have added to these encounters are factors that could turn these enemies into allies. One example is a combat related one. The enemy is a gunslinger that believes bows are inferior in ranged combat. If he is hit 3 consecutive times during the battle, he will discontinue fighting and move to cover.

At this point, I will roll a d6 behind my screen. A 1-2 would mean he offers information that will be helpful to the group and depart. 3-4 would mean he offers to assist the group to take down the main antagonist, but will betray them at some point. And 5-6 would mean he would faithfully assist until either the antagonist is dead or he is.

Now, the players could of course ignore him and try to take him out, or they could consider taking whatever he offers. I just kind of feel like this could add a lot of flavor variables. I also feel like this will make it more fun to GM as well.

To prevent having too much clutter, once the players gain multiple allies this way, only one would accompany them at a time, each offering a certain benefit against the next 'mini boss.'

Looking for feedback on this idea. Is it too gimmicky? Too video gameish?

Yeah, cool. Sorry, new to PF and some of the wording gets me thinking I read something else wrong lol

Thanks :)

"Start/Complete Full-Round Action

The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can’t use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw."

Does this mean that using my multiple attacks (which, as I understand it, requires a full round) in a round where I didn't move or make any other action can't be made in a single round? As I understood it, having made no other actions, it took that full round to make my multiple attacks. The wording just made me question it. This almost sounds like my attacks won't be made until the following turn.

Even incomplete, this has helped my wife and I with some basic stuff getting started. Thank you! :)

Consider the existence of the Unchained Rogue. Even if you choose not to use Unchained initially, if you ever feel like your character deserves some boost in power, I would talk to your GM about using this class instead. Rebuilding from normal Rogue to Unchained Rogue should take little effort in case you decide you want to do this later.

I'll definitely keep that in mind, looks powerful at first glance.

If you go Sap Adept & non-lethal, look at the Enforcer feat. A free action intimidate when you deal non-lethal damage.

AKA The classic slap upside the head and "You're f***in' barred! And stay out!"

Love it.

I think from a design perspective, you want to avoid offering people options that they will later regret. If a player has the choice between two things, and one is amazing and the other is terrible then it's either really not a choice or it's something that people will later regret the "wrong" choice later on. So if you have a prestige class that's like "Amazing Archer" and if a player taking it ends up as no better than the fifth best option for archery (and inferior to just sticking with the previous class), then a few things have gone wrong here.

So options are good, but bad options maybe aren't.

Fair point. I just feel that one person's bad choice can be a good choice for another. I've known RPers that always min/max for combat on their characters. While I have done that a time or two, I tended to look for interesting ways to play character builds using some lesser used spells/feats/etc. (Back when I played D&D)

But yeah, if a prestige class is simply useless in all aspects, I can definitely see how it could be bad for the game as a whole.

iron will feat

indomitable faith trait
goodnight and good luck

Those will definitely help with my will issues.

The Sap Adept feat might be worth taking: "Whenever you use a bludgeoning weapon to deal nonlethal sneak attack damage, you gain a bonus on your damage roll equal to the number of sneak attack damage dice you rolled."

Idea being that a bartender sort is probably going to be used to using something like a sap to knock people out instead of murdering drunk brawlers. The Thug archetype might get you some mileage along the same lines.

I definitely want to play him as someone that has never killed. If he ends up in a place where he mist, he might, but I like these and will definitely look into thug.

I'm new to Pathfinder, but I'd have to say that as long as the options aren't breaking the game (overpowered), more options can't be a bad thing.

Whether it is always true or sometimes true, I think it indisputable that many people have had difficulty making the core rogue effective in combat. I have seen it personally with players in games I have run an participated in. Some of them had fun anyway, some found that they didn't enjoy it at all.

For a new player, making their 'first character' this is something to be aware of and to take in to account.

You can have a lot of fun playing a rogue, but knowing the potential downsides makes it more likely you will make a character you are happy with, and thus have a good experience.

I appreciate it. I'm sort of in a weird middle ground. I used to pnp RP at least 15 years ago, so I have some old experience, but this is my first pathfinder character. I'm more limited in specific knowledges regarding mechanics and other new things. I missed 3.5, so this feels fresh, while I still have experienced RP.

Isn't there a rogue archetype that lets a good activate any trap they've made go off as long as they are 10ft away or less? Maybe this guy doesn't stop brawls. His tavern does.

I like that.

One thing to be aware of, the core rogue is generally considered mechanically weak, especially in terms of being able to contribute to combat. There is nothing wrong with playing that class, and it can be a lot of fun, but if you feel you will have less fun if you aren't able to do much in a fight a lot of the time, you might think about other options.

For example, you could have exactly the same concept with a bard, and have more viable options of things to do in a fight. If you wanted to keep the ability to disarm traps and didn't want to have a perform skill, the archaeologist archetype works quite well.

I'm actually more comfortable with characters that aren't combat oriented. Part of me has always loved the deaths of my characters. Not that I would sabotage myself, but I enjoy being that character that is forced to cower and perhaps, if his attitude calls for it, state why his cowering pretty much won the fight.

Ha, that gives the idea that perhaps he is terrible at innkeeping because he's always getting into drunken bar brawls. This would certainly fit that!

So for my first character, I was only ever going to choose rogue, as that is by and far my favorite class when available in any setting. I have chosen a backstory involving my character owning and running an Inn. He has very low WIS, so while he has the profession skill as Innkeeper he is very poor at it.

His business had been doing very poorly until he got the idea in his head to burglarize patrons of all the neighboring inns. After some time, his inn became known for its security, however poorly it was run. He of course had gotten caught and was forced to flee his homeland, leading him to the beginning of his first adventure.

I have chosen the archetype burglar, skill in Innkeeper and the skills that would assist with burglary. With low WIS, are there any talent, feats or other options I may have overlooked that would support this character?

Not only did you answer my question, you've made my wife's day :) Thank you.

While I'm new to Pathfinder, I'm not necessarily new to RP. When everyone OOC seems to enjoy it, a good group tends to find reasons for the characters to maintain a working relationship. The lack of trust is due to a DM decision (the finding of the note with your name on it) and, most likely, at some point the DM may produce a means to exonerate your character. That's the beauty of RP imo.

So, I followed forum etiquette 101 and searched first, but could not find an answer. My wife recently showed interest in doing pen and paper RP and we decided on Pathfinder after some research.

I picked up the beginner box, core rulebook and advanced player guide. She was instantly excited about the Beast Master Archetype for Ranger, but I cannot seem to find out if archetypes can be chosen from level 1 or are simply supplemental classes to be added when they are feasible.

For animal companion, under Beast Master, it states the effective druid level is the Ranger level -3, not unlike the spells for ranger. Could one simply start out as a beast master that is RPing towards an animal companion, ignoring the animal companion ability until level 4, or should one wait until level 4. I know this kind of thing may also be up to the DM, which, for the purposes of learning the game, I am currently serving as between the two of us.

I'm leaning towards allowing her to RP a jungle adventure leading up to the gaining of an animal companion, just looking for advice on this.

Thanks in advance.