Jufo's page

My top 5 archetypes would be:

1. Skirmisher (Ranger) - Personally, I believe the base ranger should be spell-less, as magic doesn't really feel like a part of the core ranger fantasy. The ranger by all means is an enemy or terrain specialist - but why do you necessarily need magic to be able to be a specialist against Giants? The Skirmisher (and the Trapper) are both interesting variations on a spell-less ranger. I do however think there should be a spell-adding archetype for the ranger
2. Trapper (Ranger) - see above
3. Martial Artist (Monk) - unlike the Ranger, I do think the mystical Ki-powers are an essential part to differentiate the base Monk fantasy from an unarmed Fighter fantasy, but the martial artist allows players to really play their pure kung fu fantasy
4. Tyrant (Antipaladin) - When I read over this entry the first time, I actually kinda wondered why all Anti-paladins weren't LE. They aren't to make them a more obvious foil to the LG paladins, but there seems to be so much wonderful designspace for LE tyrants. Tyrants make fantastic and cool villains
5. Gray Paladin - I like my Paladins LG as high heaven, but sometimes its fun to throw a little gray area into it

Also, a slight sidetrack to the actual question, but should a class like the Hunter appear again, I would greatly appreciate a(t least) a spell-less archetype for it. All players I have had who wanted to play a Hunter has wanted to be the "Ultimate Animal Companion" guy - and most have not been interested in playing a druidic or even a religious character, so that has always been a character contraint for them.

Hello all

My party has switched mission, so instead of going to the treasure hoard I thought they were going to, they now seek out the hidden elemental altars. This also mean they are a bit behind loot-wise, so I am going to remedy that with a well placed abandoned temple that they just so happen to pass by (and hopefully will decide to enter), and I am in need of some feedback.

I have bought the Temple of Ivy map which fits nicely to my ideas.

The Temple is supposed to be to four long-dead and long-forgotten legendary warriors, whose remains are also preserved here. The idea is to have the party get into the final chamber and fight the four legendary warriors; who I have planned to be a level 5 Ranger, Rogue, Wizard and Alchemist. That party composition just so happen to align with equipment usable by my party.

The encounter plan was to have the alchemist, wizard and ranger in the boss room, with the rogue outside it (literally popping up of the ground), shooting in. The alchemist will on his first turn throw a bomb, and start a fire in the hallway, locking the party in with the three enemies in the room, with a wall of fire separating the party from the rogue shooting in.

My plan with this is to test their planning skills. While they can't get to the rogue before the fire is out, they can step out of the way of the hall, making the rogue incapable of hitting them. The wizard is up close, making them capable of taking his spell-component pouch, and disable his most dangerous abilities, leaving just the bomb-chucking alchemist and the two-weapon fighting Ranger to be dealt with.

It could be a tough fight, especially since my party is a bit undergeared - particularly in armor, but in my head that is a good plan to deal with these bosses, but does that seem reasonable to assume a similar plan in action?

Furthermore I have the following conundrums;

• With a possibly rather challenging bossfight, what other encounters can I present that would still make this dungeon fair? I was considering having the 8 alcoves in the courtyard each have (weakened) phantom armors in them, but that in itself might also be quite tough.
• If I put no encounters, allowing them to savor their strength for the boss fight, then what do I fill the temple rooms with? I could put more loot, but since most of the catch-up loot will be used by the bosses (to be taken afterwards), there doesn't seem to be much room for more loot WBL-wise, but putting nothing makes for 7 boring rooms

Thanks in advance

If you dump alignment for a set of allegiances, and encourage people to develop personalities for their characters (without reference to alignment), that helps a lot.

That's actually what we are doing for this game. We're using the "3 loyalties" suggestion from Pathfinder Unchained. It was the player herself who summed up her character as "lawful evil". Interestingly, just looking through my notes, I can see I don't know what her loyalties are - she apparently meant to come back to me, but never did. Must remember to get that next session

Hello all

It's not really a problem, but I have noticed something off about alignment, at least among my players, and was hoping to hear some other similar experiences.

I usually have players who shy away playing "lawful", and a few players avoiding "good". This usually seems to be because of a series of prejudices against those alignments, and though I make a point out of countering these my players still seem to stick to these prejudices as their reason to not play those alignments. (ex. "No, a lawful character doesn't have to follow EVERY and ALL laws. The character just adheres to a small set of self-chosen rules, such as a religion, discipline or it could be national laws, if you prefer")

More interestingly is the avoidance of being 'good'. There is absolutely nothing wrong with playing a neutral or even an evil character, it can be a lot of fun. But I have noticed something weird:

I currently have a player, who in my last campaign played a Chaotic Good dwarf ranger. As this character she never sought out to do good. She mostly just followed the group, and then made snarky jokes on their expense.

In this new campaign she is playing a lawful evil devil-spawn tiefling, though the lawful part seem to hinge on the usual alignments of devils. She has said multiple times during this campaign how much more enjoyable this character is to play rather than her "goody-good" dwarf.

What I have noticed however is; the characters are almost identical. Like the dwarf before her, the tiefling hasn't set out to do good, but she isn't doing any evil either. She adventures for gold (which the dwarf was also motivated by) and makes snarky jokes on the expense of her party members; which I wouldn't exactly call evil. I am not doubting for a second, that she probably feels a difference between the characters, but it isn't really being shown in play.

She isn't the only player I have had, who played like that, but she is the most recent example. What I have seen before however is the player, whose character was "evil in name only" during the entire campaign, suddenly crosses the line and murdering an entire town, and when asked by the somewhat surprised party members will exclaim "Well I was evil all along, it's in my character to do so".

I try to minimize the effects of alignment in this campaign, but I was wondering if any of you had had similar experiences with players labeling themselves as something other than what they played, and what, if anything, you did to address it?

Thanks both of you for the input :)

I'd suggest making sure each player gets a roughly equal number of plot hooks related to their backstory/character. [...] As long as you keep things relatively balanced, it should be all right even if the apocalypse is a "bigger" feeling plotline.

Also, if you want to make the apocalypse thing a big part of the campaign, maybe find a way to tie the other characters into that plot as well? That way they have a personal stake in it, too.

This is good. My worry was if a "bigger" plotline would make the others feel unnecessary for the world.

I have been thinking of making them a part of the story, but havn't yet been able to think of how to include them

Hunter or Rogue:

-Bastard child of a wealthy lord or possibly a king, making him a potential heir to the throne or large amount of land.

That could actually be a good idea for the Hunter! Thanks, I just might steal this

-Father is related to other character background plots? Evil guy trying to get heir killed, Cult leader trying to capture Oracle, leader of a Thieves Guild, etc.

Hm, this could be very fun. Probably not the "father", but could just as well be a close "friend"

Bear was actually Awakened and has been pretending to be a normal bear. Saved from slavery at a circus, he has been tagging along waiting for the right opportunity to reveal his true nature to his friend.

Could actually be really interesting, but I think the player is quite attached to her animal companion, so she might become slightly miffed if "taken away" from her

Thanks for suggestions both of you :)

Hello

Started a new campaign recently, and so far it's off to a good start. It's an open world campaign where the players decide on where they want to go from some adventure seeds.

I have been digging into character backgrounds for some personal adventure seeds and one of them seems quite obvious - but also one that could grow out of control if I'm not careful.

The player in question is a Devilspawn Tiefling Oracle with the Ancestor mystery and a 3pp curse giving her a large noticeable brand on her forearm. My idea was to have her be a harbinger of the apocalypse.

I thought of having the character be approached by occultists of fiends and/or evil gods and have them essentially say that they assume her to be this harbinger. This could open up for many adventure hooks and lot of stuff to do, but I don't want to accidentally force the other characters to become her side characters to her story.

The other characters are a Half-elf Roof Runner Hunter, who came from a circus and took a tame bear with her, when she left, and a Human Rogue, who left the tavern in the poor part of the city she came from, to travel with these two adventurers. Both of these have a relatively open for plot hooks. But none are as obvious for them, as the apocalypse bringer story for the Tiefling

So the question is: How do I avoid accidentally making the Hunter and Rogue sidekicks for the Oracle's story? And I could probably use a bit of brainstorming of suggestions for arcs for those character

Thanks in advance

Hello all

Been enjoying GM'ing Pathfinder and I wish to expand my collection of player companion and campaign setting books, but there are so many and unfortunately I cannot afford them all.

Currently own:

Player Companions

• Animal Archive
• Blood of the Beast
• Champions of Purity
• Curse of the Crimson Throne player's guide
• Dragon Slayer's Handbook
• Dungeoneer's Handbook
• Faiths of Balance
• Faiths of Corruption
• Faiths of Purity
• Healer's Handbook
• Heroes of the High Courts
• Kobold's of Golarion
• Paths of the Righteous
• People of the Stars
• Psychic Anthology
• Sargava The Lost Colony
• Weapon Master's Handbook

Campaign Setting books

• Book of the Damned 2: Lords of Chaos
• Distant Worlds
• Hell Unleashed
• Inner Sea World Guide
• Inner Sea Gods
• Lost Treasures
  
• Osirion, Legacy of Pharaos
• Technology Guide
• The Worldwound

As you can see I have a few already. I mostly use them for inspiration for encounters and settings as I predominantly play homebrew worlds and unfortunately I can't get my players to read them. Which can you recommend to add to my collection?

About 3 plot hooks at a time is right IMO. Rather than let them just hear them all I'd have them make some easy skill checks (diplomacy or knowledge [local]) to gather info and give a hook per success. That makes the players feel more like they own the situation - and if they don't like any of those they find they can spend another week or whatever in town to make more checks, losing money and perhaps getting some sort of encounter in town if you want to make one up.

I really like this idea, unfortunately my players are (self-admittedly) not the best at making their own goals, and they have asked for a bit more direct goals to persue. I was more thinking of presenting them with some ideas for a quick start. I do really like the gathering information part myself though

Some of the old plot hooks may vanish over time too, the trading company has hired someone to talk to the catfolk, the duergar have vanished w/o a trace etc.

This has been my plan all along. Time's always turning. Doing one thing will ensure that the other plans will go unimpeded

That said I'm not sure all those qualify as plot hooks, especially 'Druid Grove dedicated to ancient druid'. How does that require or inspire action?

True, maybe "plot hook is not the right word here. I think that was more of a worldbuilding thing to stake their curiosity, so they have an idea of what it is, when then happen to run into the grove later.

think that's a fine amount of plot hooks if you don't drop them all at once.

Important! I had almost forgot this wise rule myself

The party arrives in the town (or trading outpost, if you're aiming for that frontier feeling) and meets a frustrated trader trying to exploit an untapped market (catfolk, grippli). They hear some rumors about a dinosaur problem ("They almost seem organized!") in a recently-cleared pasture. They're also warned about the local snakemen and asked for help in the matter.

This is pretty good, and fits really well with what I had already planned. I may just end up stealing it ;)

Of course, this all depends on your players. Some appreciate "side-quests" while some like the direct route.

These players enjoy sidequests, that much I know. They have a curiousity for most they hear about

Thanks both of you for the help :)

Hello all

Gonna start up a new campaign this or next week. Gave my party a map with varied terrain and asked the party where they wanted to go; and they decided for the jungle, because it is filled with dinosaurs! I think everyone can get behind that.

Now I have been working on a bunch of different plot hooks for the jungle, and since my party starts in a nearby city, I planned on just letting them hear them all and then decide which they want to pursue (if any), but since every plot hook adds some more inhabitants to the jungle, how many are too many before the jungle won't feel... wild and unexplored?

Here's the map for reference

Current plot hooks:

• Trading Company wants to establish trade to a tribe of catfolk, and see if they can create a traderoute to the deeper Grippli tribes
• Duergar trading company is logging, enraging the treants of the jungle
• Vegepygmy tribe that has tamed carnivorous dinosaurs to protect them against herbivores
• Demon worshipping Drow temple
• Druid Grove dedicated to ancient druid
• Kobold tribe tending to a dragon nest
• Tribe of Snakemen performing sacrifices of the unfortunate explorers they meet

Are these too many plot hooks? How far would a jungle tribe realistically move into the jungle from their tribes-grounds? Am I missing any essential plothooks?

Thanks in advance

Hello all

So my Bard player found herself a small sidequest, that we took a one-on-one session to complete. She wants to find a thief, who in the past tricked her to steal a scroll, then ran off and left everyone knowing she did it. She is now traveling the world to retrieve the scroll, capture the man and restore her honor.

She found a smuggler in a small town, who said where she would be able to find more information, but as payment, she had to deliver a package for him to that location, which she agreed to.

When she finally made it to the smuggler's den where she was to hand in the package, she was greeded and let in to discuss details. However, when she said the name of the man she seeks, the room went silent. All the smugglers know who that is - it's one of the most notorious thieves in the land and leader of a powerful thieves guild to the north - and as the host she spoke with said to her: smugglers work with the thieves guilds; and whether through drunken banter, intimidation or just one of the smugglers being an agent placed by a thieves guild, a messenger would be sent to him before she would have the chance to leave the city. Despite this, she went on with her request, and said aloud that she has no intentions of hurting the Thief, just retrieve her scroll (item really, she didn't mention what she was seeking to the smugglers).

To end the meeting on a good note, she asked if there was anything in the smugglers possession that they would like to depart with, and they (naturally) told her, that everything in there was for sale - for the right price! The smugglers fetched a dagger, they thought she would like, and wanted to sell it for only 200 gp, which she bartered down to only 180! Only 180 for a +4 dagger, hot damn! As you may have guessed, it is cursed!

But I am missing the answer to two key components: What is the curse of the dagger, and how does the master thief respond to this revelation?

I rolled for the curse, which came up as a negative level to the wielder, but that doesn't seem all that impactful on a +4 dagger, so how could I spice it up more?

As for the thief, would a charismatic thief leader, who makes many of his crimes by convincing unwitting pawns to do the hard parts for him, respond to being told an old mark is there to look for him. Does he even remember the elven woman who stole a valuable scroll for the thrills?

I hope you can help me out here. Thanks in advance :)

Thanks all very much for the answers, they have been very helpful and good :)

Don't destroy equipment, as it would be bad

I agree, and it wasn't so much that I want to destroy their equipment, I just wanted to raise verisimilitude of the world and make them consider it to be a possibility. I was considering letting their new resistance allies give them a bag of holding with some equipment in it, and the "new guy" chose to throw in a dagger, which would then pierce the bag of holding and the supplies they were supposed to get in the process, thus not really stealing anything from them. Or something like that

Also, don't. Gear is a good 30% of any PCs power. Removing a huge chunk of it for no reason is a dick move.

I agree, and do not worry, I had not planned of robbing my players of their rightfully acquired spoils

Why do you need thievery to be a risk? PCs fight bandits all the time. Bandits try to waylay people and rob them. Ergo, they already know robbery is a risk.

Verisimilitude. Also, this particular party has been in a few powerful dungeons along the way, but have yet to actually encounter any bandits. I might throw some desperate bandits at them in the forest beyond the city, just to see how they react. But you are right in your point: Don't steal from the party just because!

I would have ended the session on arriving at the gates (it's a decent natural ending point)

That's what I noticed in hindsight too, but I was caught in the moment, where even the best laid plans becomes patchwork solutions.

I would actually play out some scenes from the week that passed

Why does it have to be in text? This honestly seems like a really good use of a session.

Actually, I might just have to go back on my decision there, because I think you are right! I had scheduled a one-on-one session with one of the players, because the bard currently carries contraband the others don't know about, but other than that, it can be played flashback/scene style

A final caveat: all of these suggestions are influenced by my GMing style. My GMing style is not for everyone.

Well I suppose you all are, and that is great. It takes quite specific circumstances before I would say someone is Gm'ing "wrong", and those are few. Any style is good to learn from, as any style brings something new with them.

Thanks all for the helpful answers :)

Hello all, I am a GM for a party of four, and I have some questions, that I haven't quite been able to work out myself, and that I hope you could help me with

1. For handy haversacks and bags of holding the entire contents disappears if the extra dimensional container is ruptured. Now my party tends to jump into fights with all their gear on. Pathfinder doesn't have a built in to-hit locations system, so in what situations (and how) would you make the bag rupture, without it seeming like I'm being unfair and just want to remove their stuff on purpose?

2. Speaking of taking their stuff. Early they found a large amount of treasure, that they have been keeping on their bodies. I did tell them back then, that carrying such amount of coinage makes a lot of noise, and thieves would probably take the chance and try to steal it. The ranger and druid both have a perception of +12, which makes pickpockets unlikely. How would I be able to make them feel that thievery is a risk, without having them come back to the inn one day with the note "Someone broke into your room and took all your stuff, too bad", as that doesn't feel all that fair.

3. The bard found a book of fables, which I gave her to act kinda like a bardic spellbook. She is able to decipher spells she can learn and some homebrewed masterpieces from the stories in it. I told her that one of the stories was written in dwarven, which she would like the dwarf in the party to translate. Though I am in need of a good moral for a dwarven fable/myth/fairy tale. What would a good dwarven fable moral be?

4. This is the big one: So my party is travelling in a devil-worshipping evil kingdom under a wizard tyrant, going towards the former elven territory. They have come to the city with the bridge to the elven territory, and my original plan was to have them come into the square, see a large public gathering where a town crier would inform of some standing bounties and side-quest plot hooks, chief among them being a large bounty on the murderer of a priest of Asmodeus, which the party had heard about before coming to the city. After that, they were meant to go and meet the resistance force, who they are to be allied with from this point forward, and then I would give them a week of downtime to settle in and explore the city.

Well, the traveling took a bit longer than anticipated, and once they got to the city gates, we had to end the session, so I ended up speeding it all along, skipping the town crier, and saying only "Your guide leads you to the tavern where the resistance is hiding. This is a good place to stop, next session a week will have passed, please write to me what you want to do in your downtime. I will write what happened in our group so you know what you have to react to"

So now I has to basically introduce a bunch of resistance fighters and a give bunch of information in a text blurb, in which they have limited means to ask questions or to make connections to these characters before a week has passed. I would like the resistance fighters to feel like characters that they can depend on and feel like are allies who they can call on in the oncoming adventures, but I am not quite sure how to do that in text. I could use some advice in how to introduce elements in what was supposed to be an in-universe info-dump, but now ended up having to be presented in text.

Thanks in advance

Thanks, that clears it up. I still think the trap is a little confusingly written, but that helps :)

Hey all

I was reading up on the ranger traps, and fell upon Spell-Stealing Trap and was slightly confused about its wording

it says:

The target loses 1d4+1 levels of spells (of its choice). A ranger may increase the number of spell levels lost by 1d4 for each additional daily use of his trap ability he spends when creating this trap.

So does that mean, that if a 7th level wizard (access to 4th level spells and below) stepped on the trap, and the trap rolled a 4 (total of 5 levels of spells lost), the Wizard would then lose access to every spell he can cast for the duration of the trap, or is it badly worded so as to him losing 5 individual spells?

Losing access to an entire level of spells seems strong, while losing access to individual spells (chosen by the victim, no less) seems really underwhelming.

Thanks in advance

Jufo wrote:

... and she returned to life, but with two negative levels - which removed her ability to cast 3rd level spells. Now we found out at the last session that they were less than a 1000 xp from level 7, where she would get them back.

Wait... there's something I'm not following here. Do you lads have a houserule where negative levels disappear when you advance to a new character level?

No, I meant like, as they are level 6 now, she is functionally 4, and when improved to 7, she will be functionally 5, which is where she gains 3rd level spells. She still has to get those two negative levels restored, to be at her actual level, where she incidentally will also get her 4th level spells - which she doesn't have yet.

I am not afraid of admitting my mistake, but more afraid of coming about seeming.. cheesy?

For context, The druid, the primary spellcaster of the group, died fighting the illusionist. She got rushed to and raised by a local cleric, whose town they saved, and she returned to life, but with two negative levels - which removed her ability to cast 3rd level spells. Now we found out at the last session that they were less than a 1000 xp from level 7, where she would get them back. If I just started next session saying telling them they got the extra XP, they might find it, not as a genuine math error, but as a way of cheesing the party stronger. They could get the xp for the level this next session, but they seemed pretty adamant about it being downtime to recuperate from three battle-heavy sessions.

So I led my level 6 party into a sidequest, where they went into a mysterious house - an elaborate illusion, made by a mad illusionist, who lure people in to kill them and take their stuff.

After 3 sessions trapped in this murderhouse, the party made their way to the mad wizard and slew him (in one blow even - lucky crit). I gave a ballpark of the xp I would guess they should have, and awarded them 3000 each.

When I ended up calculating it later, that turned out too low.. about half of what it probably should be actually. So, this is obviously a mistake on my part, but how would you go about fixing this mistake? Just say outright that you messed up at the next session? or could it be worked into the narrative?

The encounters the met in the house were:
2 Invisible Stalkers
3 Shadows (who turned out to be illusions)
4 Owlbears (3 of which were illusions)
3 mimic (that were real)
1 mad and well-equipped illusionist, who was behind it all

I may as well add a secondary question: how to XP count illusions? It was quite a while into the owlbear fight, befpre they realized they were illusions and the owlbears, real and not managed to do some damage, so I have counted them as good as real, but I am interested in hearing some other ways to do it for inspiration for future sessions.

Totally those monsters they fought (if all were real) would come to about 6000 for each and probably a bonus for completing the sidequest.

So how to go about such a GM mistake?

Thanks in advance :)

How about bloodrager for the druid's sister?

That is a good idea. This is definitely on my list of considerations now.

Why do you intend for your flashback scenes to be one-on-one? When I've run flashbacks, I've done it with the whole party present. Obviously, that puts some restrains on the scene - it can't be very long since that would be boring for the other players. But the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

I forgot to mention that the reason for it is that my party is currently at a very tense moment (betrayal, drama and such happening between the characters), but not all the players will be able to show for the next session. So I offered this as an alternative for the available players and they seem excited about it.

Sometimes the journey is more important than the outcome. Flashback scenes can be an opportunity to establish a character, develop her personality, motives and quirks. It's paramount to run such a scene with everyone present. Sure, the player can need a chance to flesh out her own image of the character, but those who really stands to benefit in their understanding of a fellow PC are the other players. Sure, you can tell everyone that you're looking for revenge for the murder of your brother. But show is better than tell.

Absolutetly, and many of those reasons are why I am going to do it. My players, new to PnP asked me to flesh out some details of the backstories they themselves wrote, and I saw this as an opportunity to include them in the process as well, since it is their backstories. I think a more accurate version of my question about tension would be: how do I keep the players engaged in the choices they make(made?) when they know the certain outcome? They could technically bee-line for the 'objective' because they can't fail, rather than play on the intelligence and abilities their characters otherwise posses. But now rereading that after I just wrote it, it does sound a little distrustful of my player's abilities to roleplay, and I know they are way better than that, so now I feel a little guilty and stupid for even asking (My apologies to my party, who I know do not visit these forums at all)

A flashback scene can be very short. They need not contain much action. They can be a single conversion, where an NPC, played by the GM or another player, makes inquiries about something...

I think you are completely right, I have just never used them before, but I think I might just try it sometimes now. Thanks for the good and thoughtful feedback :)

Bonus traits might also be a good reward for a flashback, or story feats

That's a fantastic idea! I only got books for that, and really got into how they worked ruleswise after we begun, so this would be a perfect time to bring them in. Great suggestion :D

Lucky for me the scenarios that I have to make flashbacks over is very open. And all of them has at least several years between then and present

For instance, the only things that are in the Elven Bard example is the man with different eyes, the scroll that gets stolen, and the man getting away, with it being blamed on the bard. Plenty of room for the details. Maybe it wasn't actually stolen by her, but she got framed and took the fall.

I am actually looking forward to this, like a lot :)

The only thing I still need to decide is what class the gnome druid's sister should be

Hello my fellow GMs

In my group, we have two new players, who really enjoy themselves in the game, which is great. Since they don't have the general knowledge of the standard RPG tropes, I have begun making them a compendium of common knowledge for their characters. They both asked, if it could include some additional info about their (self-written) backstories, as they weren't sure what they could put in it.

That's when I had an idea: Play key parts of their backstory in a one-on-one session. That would give them an opportunity to experience their backstory and be part in the creation of the additional details.

So I have two questions:

• Does anyone have experience with Flashback sessions? Can you keep it interesting when, it being a flashback, the outcome is already known?
  
• Any idea on how to give awards for such a session? XP and cool gear would then have to materialize in the 'present' day to be much of a reward, so what else could be rewards?

if relevant, these are the two particular scenarios I thought of running:

1) The Elven Bard lived a privileged life, making pranks on her community out of boredom. One day a man with two eye colors challenged her to steal a valuable scroll, which the man promptly left with. Ostracized by her community, she now travels to find the man who tricked her, and retrieve the scroll.
My plan was to play the original theft of the scroll, giving her some info on the man and how she would be able to find him in the future

2) The Gnome Druid, who was raised by panthers alongside her sister, is searching for her sister, who has been kidnapped by slavers.
I planned on playing through the events that led to her being separated from her sister, to establish some character traits of and relationship with the sister, to give some clues on how to search for her.

ADDED BONUS QUESTION: The Gnome player is a druid with a strength penalty, and what little she did write of the sister in her backstory is that the sister is the brawn to her brains. Then what would be more interesting to play the sister as? A barbarian, strong but untrained wilderness girl, or a monk, having her have martial enlightenment as a counterpoint the player's divine enlightenment? Or is there another option which would be more interesting/fitting for a brawny gnome raised by Panthers?

That was a lot of question, but I want to say thanks in advance for answering them ^^

Thanks for the answers all, they have been a help. Appreciate it :)

I don't know that there's a problem here

Well I wouldn't say problem myself, more of an oddity. Since they are so good at engaging with the setting and enviroment, it felt a little disengaging and broke the immersion when they suddenly just began copying my words to the rest of the party.

You should ask the player what they want their character to be able to do, how they want them to develop, what they want to be better at, etc. [...] Since they are new, instead of tossing a book full of feats and other options at them, ask them the above questions, then guide them toward options for that. They might also get ideas from things the other players do; "Oh, cool, I didn't know I could flourish my weapon in combat and distract and intimidate our enemies; I want to try that too!"

That was actually what I was trying to do, but I didn't do it all that well. I will do some preparation before next level up

1.- Let them try the new Feat for a couple of session then allow retrain at anytime for chosen feat.

I don't know why I didn't think of that. That is a good idea

2.- Have them roll an INT or SAB check for "general knowledge" or "memory recall" about something similar, past experiences, Insight or cunning. These could grant a small hint regarding the given situation, but not more than that, make them exercise the Pro and Con of each decision they take.

I may have missed to say that I have yet to actually provide information in such a case. My experienced players are actually very good at making up ideas and get the new players into the discussion, my wonder was more at the general speed at which my new players decided to ask me.

3.- Deliver some crucial and personal information to your new players about themselbes, something that may embarass them, or create a leverage for the other players against them, or, if they are good aligned, some secrets they have to keep in order to save the whole party. This way they will have to edit this information, and the more experienced players will have to roll a SM, which will make the whole situation more intense, which is always nice. If you want to add some flavor, give them some false information aswel.

This is what I am working on right now, and these are some good ideas, thanks for that

Thanks all for the answers. The help is much appreciated ^^

Hello all

I have run into a situation that confuses me as a GM, and I would like some input from others who might have met a similar situation.

So my current group consists of 4 players, two who are experienced and two who are completely new - this is their first campaign (not first session though, we are 20 sessions in now). Both of the new players were people I met in a theater group, so they both joined for (and are pretty good at) the roleplaying aspect, but with one peculiar exception:

I have noticed that my two new players have an odd tendency to ask me, the GM, for help, and then take my word as law.

Three moments come to mind:

1) The Bard wanted to take "improved unarmed strike" and asked me what I thought about that. Looking at her character and that she had been pretty attached to her Rapier I said "I would probably choose something I would get to use more often". Later I felt kinda bad about that, as I feel I might as well have said "You're doing it wrong" which wasn't my intention, and she did end up choosing another feat.

2)When in stressful situations, the new players ask me what I think the party should do. I don't really want to do this as I usually don't have an idea - and because I think part of the fun is in seeing what the party chooses to do.

3) When giving my new players information that only their character knows, they usually give this information to the other characters word-for-word to how I told them. They are usually good at roleplaying, but when it comes to GM-given information, it seems that they are careful not to "distort" or "defile" it, which I find a little odd.

This last point is something I would particularly like to know how to handle. Since my players don't spend all their freetime with their heads in the rulebooks, I have decided to make a sheet of paper for each of the players with "Common Knowledge" that they would know, based on their race and background, but would like for them to expand on it with their characters' own experiences and life, rather than just what I told them.

I hope that my question make sense to you, and thanks in advance

I wouldn't worry too much about having lost track of the combat. If the party had fun, they had fun. If you really made the party roll all those dice for however many hours it took to destroy all 9734 Skeletons, you would have had the grim satisfaction of knowing you accounted for every one of them, but is that really the point?

That is actually a good point, and I do think the party had fun. Well except for the fact that the combat left them severely injured, but they found their way out

If the only tank in the party wants to retire his character and if no one else wants to step up and be the tank by taking over that character instead of his own, perhaps switching characters, reconfiguring his character to be somehow more tanky, or rolling up a new tank character, then the party will have to rewrite its tactical doctrines. Leave it up to them for starters. They might adjust well. If they can't handle it, then punish them by giving them an NPC tank.

The party isn't really equipped currently to change to tank, but they have been pretty inventive, so they might make it regardless.

That depends primarily on your skill as a game master and on their skill as a player.

There's nothing (in theory) wrong with the idea that a party of 9th level characters are being overrun by 200 giant ants.

BUT, you'll need 200+ miniatures for the ants, and you'll need a way to move them around on the battlefield without knocking everything over and making a mess. You'll need a way to designate individual ants and keep track of individual effects -- "okay, the bard's glitterdust has blinded ants 16, 34, 35, 42, and 81; ants 1-12, and 28-34 are all entangled, and the alchemist's fire has done one hit point of splash damage to ants 43, 61,65,82,82, and 104. Now it's the archer's turn...."

It's primarily the miniature thing. I actually use a Whiteboard and colored Magnets rather than miniatures, but my problem actually was that I ran out of magnets to signify enemies, so I got quite confusing. As for the status effects; our two main spellcasters are also both kinda new players, so they mainly stick to direct damage and buffing allies, which is a bit easier to manage.

It would be even worse, of course, if it were a mixture of giant ants, giant spiders, giant centipedes, and skeletons.

I generally try to keep no more than about 6 opponents on the board at any one time, possibly more (like up to 12) if the monsters are very simple to run. But I also consider myself a better-than-average game master, so don't take those numbers as anything other than a rough guide to my experience.

Yea this might have been my mistake here; the undead were a mixture of Skeletons, Skeletal Champions, Zombies and some ghouls thrown in for good measure. But the 6-12 limit sounds reasonable - and they should probably be of the same kind next time ^^

Thank you both for the very good input :)

Hello all

I am GM'ing a party and so far, most of the combat has been fairly manageable, with the party and a 4-5 enemies in the fray.

Last session however I led them into a crypt, where dark magic had raised the inhabitants as undead - which turned out to be a lot of undead. They made their own advantage by fighting them in a narrow corridor, so they could limit the enemies' advantage, but I still felt that I lost track of the many enemies. I have read multiple times on forums that Pathfinder isn't ideal for large scale combat, but is there a usable limit for how many combatants are manageable in a fight?

Smaller side question; the party paladin, and only tank, wishes to retire his character to play a wizard, which makes the entire party quite squishy, would this limit the number of enemies I should reasonably assume them to be able to fight?

Hello all

Just a quick question, that I couldn't find an answer to.

If a monster has both SR and a Vulnerability (such as a Roper, which has SR 27 and vulnerability to Fire), does magic of the fitting vulnerability go through SR? Or would you still have to roll it normally?

Thanks in advance

How about this:

-A powerfull but old hero, tired of the war, retired into a pacific fishing town to past his last days in peace fishing and resting. When he died he left his axe to his family as a remember of his past glory days.

-Someone hidden there cause nobody will suspect that powerfull weapon was in the crypt of the local church.

-A town member gain that axe in a gamble with a drunken warrior.

any of this serves you?

All of these are great suggestions :)

Thanks, I was completely lost on this one

Hello all, I am GM'ing a wonderful campaign, but I have written myself into an unintended corner, and could use a suggestion.

THE STORY IN SHORT: BBEG Wizard conquered Daloria, a nation surrounded by mountains to all sides, so that he could further his plans in peace. Jump to present day and our heroes, four travelling non-Dalorians, has against their will been trapped inside the black gate with the only device to defeating the BBEG Wizard. Conveniently they have discovered that the things they were searching for are also to be found in Daloria!

So the ranger, who seeks the orc warband who killed her family and hometown, got a vision in a dream of one of the orcs from said warband delivering a greataxe to a Cyclops in the woods, which he said he got from the nearby town. After our heroes beat the cyclops, they are now dragging the axe towards the nearby town to hopefully get clues to the whereabouts of the orc warband.

Now I have some different ideas about what the warband could be doing in that town. The BBEG Wizard's army is mostly orcs, so orc bandits are not out of the ordinary for the local populace. But what I cannot figure out is; why did the small fishing town have a Large Greataxe of False Life that the orcs could acquire in the first place?

I was hoping that you fine storytellers of this here forum would be able to offer a suggestion as to why the town had this greataxe in their possession.

The Greataxe is large, and is enchanted with False Life. At the blade there is a carving of an eye, which the Paladin of the group noted may be a symbol of Lamashtu.

Thanks in advance :)

TL;DR: Why would a fishing town have a Large Greataxe with a possibly unholy symbol and the necromancy spell False Life in their possession?

I'd say you can recognize whether a spell is on your list intuitively once you know what the spell is (via whatever check). It feels right. Like something you could do if you really put your mind to it.

Otherwise a fair number of mechanics stop making sense. I mean, Rangers pick new spells every day. How do they do that if they don't know their options?

so that's how I'd handle it.

Obviously the Character knows the spell, if he can already cast it. The druid knows the spell she is capable of casting, even if the character senses it differently. A Cure Light Wounds might be phrased "oh dear nature, give me the power to cloase their wounds" and the player - out-of-game- phrases it like "I prepare one Cure Light Wounds" or similar.

The Question here, would a 1st level Sorcerer with fire powers pick up a Wand of Beast Shape and just know that he would be able to use it, since it is on the Sorcerer spell list? That, to me, doesn't make sense

I'd imagine the characters would try using the wand and, finding that the methods of activating it don't just come naturally to them, realize they have to use alternative methods (AKA Use Magic Device) in order to coax the wand into doing its thing.

Well that is the gist of it :)

The subject of whether or not someone is aware of what spells are on their spell list is something that's never been considered in a game I was in. That seems like the sort of knowledge that's too meta for characters to know about in-character, but what they can definitely know is whether or not a magic item works easily for them or if they have to try and force it. Otherwise, if you really wanted to have them actually roll something, a Knowledge skill of the appropriate type (Arcana for arcane, Religion for divine, Nature for druidic-divine) seems like it's fitting. I wouldn't make the check a difficult one, since this isn't the sort of thing I would want to pose a significant obstacle to the PCs.

Yes, those were my thoughts too. Classes doesn't actually exist in-game but is just a "Game-term" for ease of players, to choose a package for the character they play. I did allow them a Knowledge(arcana) and a Spellcraft check, but that still felt inelegant. I think I will try working on it

Part of the issue here is that it's fuzzy whether or not classes are even a concept in-setting. It's easy enough to say wizard and have that mean something specific in setting, but it's harder with classes like ranger. Yet, at the same time, anyone who identifies a wand with Spellcraft knows what classes are able to use that wand without UMD, so maybe the distinction between classes in-setting is pretty clear? Really, I suppose it comes down to what the setting in question is (usually Golarion, when it comes to Pathfinder) but I think most people like to assume most game mechanic terms aren't used in-setting.

I wouldn't use classes as terms ingame, as that would severily limit roleplaying, IE. every bard would be a wandering minstrel, when they could also be any of the following: Politician, Travelling Merchant, Archeaologist(Indiana Jones style), Army Lieutenant who learned simple magic to better understand his army's spellcasters.

My group recently got their hands on some nifty wands, which they identified. But how would they figure out if the spells of the wands are on their spell lists? My solution was to let them roll a Knowledge(arcana) and Spellcraft to figure it out, but that seems inelegant.

While the druid and paladin could be argued be a select and notable set of people, the Ranger and Bard can come from a bit more varied backgrounds, and can be a bit more difficult to classify when met out in the open. So how would they know if they themselves would be able to cast the spells other spellcasters use and those of the wands?

How would you handle such, and how would the players be able to figure such out in-game?

Thanks in advance

RAW my take would be that your Monk would have their Monk AC calculated as if they were 5 levels higher - and still not get it because they swapped it out for Ironskin Monk.

That would actually make sense, even if it is a little meh

That said, in any game I ran you'd be able to at least get the bonus as if you had no Monk levels.

That would be a decent houserule, I would probably allow this in my own game too.

Anyway, thanks for help :)

I am interested in rolling an Ironskin Monk, but I am confused about its interaction with the item Robe, Monk's.

From d20pfsrd about the Robe, Monk's:
When worn, this simple brown robe confers great ability in unarmed combat. If the wearer has levels in monk, her AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher. If donned by a character with the Stunning Fist feat, the robe lets her make one additional stunning attack per day. If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-Level monk (although she does not add her Wisdom bonus to her AC). This AC bonus functions just like the monk's AC bonus.

The unarmed damage is easy, but the Ironskin Monk replaces the AC bonus ability with Iron Skin (Ex), so how does the Robe, Monk's work?

Thanks in advance