So it's wielded in some cases, and is not wielded in other? How in all 666 infinite layer of the abyss is someone supposed to arbitrate with such contrieved and literally opposite rules? Coin flip?
I heard emotions are hard to read on paper so let me explicitly state that i'm quite pissed.
It's because they're drawing a line between what they consider "letting it be useful" and "letting it be abused."
Mind you, I'm not saying any given example would or wouldn't be abusive, in my own opinion (reserving judgment there). But from a game design standpoint, you tend to want to let some stuff go through (e.g. Kineticists aren't likely to use STR at all, so not allowing Weapon Finesse means Kinetic Blade gets dumpstered). While also remembering that you usually can't let *everything* through (e.g. It's probably not a great idea in the long run to let Kinetic Blade qualify for things like Weapon Training, Weapon Versatility, etc).
Minor edit: I was referring mainly to a more vanilla blast-you-all-day Kineticist when I mentioned that they aren't likely to use STR - though, one certainly can play a STR-heavy Kineticist.
Honestly, let me start off by saying that I personally don't take much issue with Dazing Spell metamagic. To briefly explain why...
Spoiler:
1) It's not something that a really low-level magic user will ever gain access to, unless the DM (foolishly) hands him a rod of it during an adventure.
2) High-level wizards and sorcerers already have a billion other ways to break an encounter. Is one more really changing the game that much? Hell, even a level one wizard can break a level-appropriate encounter by just casting Color Spray.
3) It lets casters with less direct control be able to hold a candle against wizards and sorcerers in that department, thus opening up and expanding the role to other classes... which is probably a balance concern to some, but I never minded it all that much. Why let the kingpin arcane casters have all the fun?
4) I gave up on the idea of any game built from the 3.5 ruleset ever being balanced a long time ago. The core of the system is just too broken by its own inherent mechanics, and explaining why would take more effort than I plan to give today. Pathfinder is leaps and bounds better than 3.5, but it can't patch every hole. There's just too many. One has to accept a certain number of them to actually enjoy playing it. That's not to say that I don't still want balance wherever it's possible to achieve it, just that I've learned to accept that the system is hilariously far from ever being perfect.
With that said... Dazing Spell is pretty high on the power curve, and this is undeniable. As such, its found itself in a troublesome spot at our table. Some of our DMs don't mind if it's used (such as myself), others are in a tricky spot where they kind of don't want to ban it, but feel it's a bit too good as it is.
So, I'm proposing a house rule for that particular metamagic feat -- and by extension, the appropriate metamagic rods. I want to allow the feat to still grow into a powerful ability, but limit how powerful it can become, especially in the earlier levels. I believe that it's fine for Dazing Spell to wreck a few creatures, but perhaps we should consider how many a "few" is.
Spoiler:
Dazing Spell (Metamagic)
You can daze creatures with the power of your spells.
Benefit:
You can modify a spell to daze a creature damaged by the spell. When a creature takes damage from this spell, they become dazed for a number of rounds equal to the original level of the spell. If the spell allows a saving throw, a successful save negates the daze effect. If the spell does not allow a save, the target can make a Will save to negate the daze effect. If the spell effect also causes the creature to become dazed, the duration of this metamagic effect is added to the duration of the spell. Spells that do not deal damage do not benefit from this feat. This feat adjusts the spells total level by +3.
Addition:
This metamagic feat can only affect a maximum number of creatures equal to the original level of the spell. For example, a Dazing Fireball can only daze up to 3 creatures that were affected by the Fireball.
In the case of spells that apply damage across a duration, you may choose which moments to apply the dazing effect, up to the maximum allowed. For example, when using Call Lightning, you may choose which lightning strikes will apply Dazing Spell, bearing in mind that no more than 3 total creatures can be affected by this use of Dazing Spell (because Call Lightning is originally a 3rd level spell). This feat does not allow you to modify a spell after it was already cast.
I feel the best way to weaken the feat, without making it useless, is to address the number of uses you get out of the effect in a single cast. Though, I do fear that my given example may cause the feat to be too weak to be worth taking when it initially becomes usable.
So, if anyone has any feedback on this idea, or other ideas for it, by all means, reply and let me know.
Question from my home table. Maybe we have an older print of Ultimate Combat, but I don't see anything in the FAQ about it, so I'll go ahead and ask.
Ultimate Combat, page 67 wrote:
Distract (DC 20; bird only): The animal companion flutters wildly around any enemy it would normally attack with the attack trick. It makes an attack roll against that enemy. On a hit, the enemy is shaken.
I'm actually one of the members of Idward's playing group. We're very long time table-top players. Many of us have played since D&D 3.5 was still current, and some of us go back as far as AD&D. The point here being, we've been around the block a few times at our table. We're also experienced DM's and players, as we frequently rotate who DM's what.
Id asked me to have a look at the thread because he's added a few things that we haven't discussed before, and wanted my input, as well as the input from our fellow Pathfinder players.
So Id, here's my input:
How I feel about the feat-tax issue:
I wholeheartedly agree that one of Pathfinder's fundamental weaknesses as a system is how feat chains are set up. Way too many potential builds are hampered by the number of feats required, and really, all this does is enforce the "best feat build for my character" issue. You know, the one where you have to pick an exact sequence of feats to make your build effective. (Looking at you, archer builds). More required feats equals less freedom in how you spend your feats. Less feat freedom will then equal less build diversity. Less build diversity hurts the game mechanics, and produces that "samey" feel between what would otherwise have been different characters.
How I feel about Id's inherent feats:
However, even with the previous section being said, I'm kind of against inherent feats. I don't really think that giving Power Attack for free when you gain 13 STR is necessary. I do think that removing it as a pre-requisite for certain other feats is a good idea, though. This goes into an area that a friend of ours came up with. See below
Another consideration:
It makes sense that a feat like Furious Focus would require Power Attack, because the two feats are linked mechanically. One depends on the other. It does not, however, make a great deal of sense to require Power Attack before you can take Cleave. Aside from an extremely weak connection in the flavor of the feats, the two aren't related at all. "But, you have to swing really hard to cleave through a person, right?" That kind of weak connection isn't enough to enforce mechanics around.
You don't have to use Power Attack to use Cleave, and Cleave isn't so groundbreakingly powerful that it would require an extra feat just for balance reasons. If you want to take Cleave, but don't want to take Power Attack, you should be allowed to.
This is just the tip of the iceberg though. Pathfinder has a lot of nonsensical feat requirements, many of which are archaic copypasta from 3.5 (where some of them still didn't make a lot of sense). Many others make sense mechanically, but simply take too long to be viable for a lot of classes. Some of them are long enough to make a Fighter have second thoughts, and that's just a damn shame.
Id, I may end up making a thread of my own on the issue, because our philosophies seem to diverge a bit, though we both agree that the feat taxes are problematic.
==============================================================
Also, a side-note,
Idward Evanhand wrote:
I don't allow Greater Two-Weapon Fighting to be taken if you have to use a Belt of Incredible Dexterity to get it since if you lose the belt you lose the feat.
I actually find it funny that you point that out, Id, because the last time we had that discussion (which was ages ago), you agreed to start allowing it.
After I showed you a post where SKR stated that he felt players should be allowed to do exactly that; and also agrees that players can take feats that they "sometimes qualify for" provided that they only benefit from that feat during the times they do qualify. (Such as a druid taking improved natural attack for one of his wild shapes). Hence the reason why belts and headbands are specifically noted as being permanent bonuses after the 24 hour mark. You are meant to be able to use them that way. The rules were specifically written to allow it.
Again, what, exactly, is that plain/common-sense reading? Does Spell Combat allow for Iterative Attacks even without utilizing full-attack as a sub-component of the Spell Combat full-round action and Haste is being changed to work with Iterative Attacks rather than Full-Attack? Or is Spell Combat being changed to allow for Full-Attack as a sub-component so that Haste, along with fight defensively, flurry of blows, and any other ability that comes into play when making a Full-Attack, is remaining the same but now works with Spell Combat because Spell Combat is being changed?
It means that Spell Combat is functionally equivalent to a full-attack action, with the addendum being that you also cast a spell. (Provided that the spell would have normally used a standard action).
This means that if you have a +6 BAB, then you are allowed to make both of your main-hand attacks (one at +6, and the second at +1), in addition to casting a spell (and that spell can potentially grant one more attack via Spellstrike, for example, if you cast Shocking Grasp).
Technically, yes, because it is being treated as a full-attack action, you SHOULD be allowed to fight defensively, or use Combat Expertise, and the like.
Because it's being treated as a full-attack action, Haste now interacts with it, the way it always should have. One extra attack at full BAB, and the other side benefits that haste gives.
You absolutely cannot combine Spell Combat with Flurry of Blows, for the same reason that you cannot combine Flurry of Blows with the Two-weapon Fighting feat. By the written rule, you're already (technically) two-weapon fighting when you use Spell Combat, and your "off-hand" is reserved for the act of casting a spell -- thus it cannot also be used for the purpose of an entirely separate mechanic.
Edit: In regards to natural attacks, that is indeed a bit unclear. I'm of the opinion that adding natural attacks to Spell Combat should work, similarly to adding them to TWF. (As it doesn't specifically exclude them, like FoB does).
You've essentially stumbled on the precise reason why spellcasting in 3rd edition (and by extension, PF) is irredeemably broken, at least from a mechanics perspective. The upper limit of what is possible is just too high. As a result, many monsters are built in ways to specifically negate or hamper a lot of the better spells (for example: the hundred thousand high-fort monsters, and the tons with immunity to mind-affecting). Which results in specialists having to go out of their way to make the tactic work; but then you have the problem of the spellcaster who's too good at what he/she does. The middle-ground is almost non-existant, because if you're "in the middle" when it comes to making your spells work, you're probably not very good at your job. Such is the unbalanced magic system we've grown to love and hate. It's almost a necessary evil at this point.
Knowing this, I generally feel that you've either got to disallow some things from the get-go, or relax and let the player have their fun.
For the purpose of keeping spoilers unspoiled, I second the idea of the mooks not knowing a great deal about what's actually happening. How many evil masterminds are actually honest to all of their minions? Many lie to their own second-in-command people.
The RAI on that is extremely questionable, even though the RAW doesn't replace it. I've houseruled that it does replace it, and will continue to houserule it because I see no need to let guns benefit from dex to damage twice. They already do insane damage.
Keep in mind One applies to Reflex and the other Applies to CMD another Reason why the Original Question was Brought up
That's the other reason for why I'm pretty sure the "max dex" limit still applies. Both abilities seem to be intended to give two benefits with the same drawbacks. It's a classic editing mistake for our beloved Paizo.
Generally speaking, though, when you use one ability score in place of another, all the same restrictions of the original still apply -- you're just substituting the relevant modifier; for example, when you use an ability that lets you substitute Wis in place of Dex for skills (there's a trait that does this), the armor check penalty on that skill still applies even though the modifiers were swapped. Unless it specifically states that a pre-existing restriction no longer applies you're usually supposed to assume the restriction is still there. As with everything else: exceptions do exist, but in this case I do believe this was the intent. Hence, at my table I'd still enforce the max dex limit.
Considering Paizo's editing habits, I'd say that the intent was for all the normal rules of dex to apply, just to cha instead. Meaning maximum dex bonus of your armor still applies. Could use a clarification, though.
Flavor-wise, the reason why it still applies is because you're not actually using your "force of personality" to deflect the attacks. (The attack doesn't miss just because you willed it to). The idea is that you're using cha because you're so in tune to your surroundings, that you can feel the right time to dodge an attack, as opposed to simply reacting to it. That feeling does not, however, allow you to ignore the restrictions of your armor. Your body doesn't become less restricted just because you have a sixth sense about incoming attacks.
Another thing to note is that you can that the Extra Hex feat once you get your first hex.
Not quite; you're partially incorrect.
Hexcrafter does not have the Hex class feature, and therefore does not qualify for the Extra Hex feat. (Hex Magus and Hex Arcana class features do not equal Hex class feature; similar but not the same).
However, as written, Hex Arcana states that anytime you would gain a new Arcana, you may gain a new Hex instead. Therefore, you can use the Extra Arcana feat for the same end result. ;) Splitting hairs? Probably, but if you're gonna do it, do it the way the rules support.
Lets not overreact now. I usually summon a bit before and buff them but then again a conjuration + extend MM rod makes that nice and long (1 round/caster level * 1.5 * 2).
Only problem is, how often you actually have the "summon and buff up before combat" advantage will vary extremely wildly, based on the campaign, and more importantly: the GM. I'm going to tell you from experience: when a GM (who is apt at playing monsters to their fullest) loves to shove fights in your face often without warning, any round spent needing to cast buffs on a summon, of all things is likely a waste of a round. Including the full-round used to summon in the first place, the time consumed adds up when the GM knows how to kill you. (AoE buffs are en exception, of course since the whole party benefits too). That's why Augment Summoning is such a popular feat. It helps saves you a bit on your action economy, which is crucial to many. Also, it only burns 2 feats to take Augment Summoning, not 3.
Individual mileage will vary, but remember that not everyone plays in the same group as you.
Grayfeather wrote:
But honestly MT is not great for summoning badassertry (yeap thats a word now, coining it).
People already say "badassery" but if you really want to put the extra "tr" in there, help yourself. ;)
In any case, though, I agree. Summoning is one of those things you really need to be right on level for. Delaying access to the summon spells by taking MT (or any prestige that results in a net-loss of caster levels) is going to really hurt.
Semi-on-topic Tangent:
Spoiler:
It's a shame that the Tatooed Mystic (Paths of Prestige book) gives up 3 caster levels, otherwise that Pouncing Beasts ability would make them excellent for summoning builds. Want to buy: prestige class focused on summoning in Pathfinder. (Not that it's needed, just would be nice to have).
Grayfeather wrote:
But its rare you make a class that can summon a T-rex, strong jaw + animal growth it then haste and Call the Void/silence/darkness centered on them. I can tell you thats a frightning combo.
That's a whole lot of required set-up. Too much to be practical unless done before combat. Neat if you pull it off, though.
It's no offense to the Bard; they are still fun characters, especially when bubbling a smoke pipe in hand while laughing at all the enemies that are uncontrollably crying when the big bad frontliners go and beat them senseless. That's definitely a character I'd enjoy playing for sure, but the issue is that they must focus one or the other, and the Bard's casting capabilities (and Bardic Performance features) are one of a kind, whereas being a frontliner ignores such powerful and useful capabilities, and the party (as well as the character, especially if poorly played) suffers as a whole because of it.
The logic of "Magus does melee caster better" isn't much of a point. Wizard does caster better, so does that also mean that bards shouldn't try to be good casters?
There's nothing about the Bard's spellcasting that's unique, aside from the spells that directly relate to Bardic Performance (I'll come back to that). Wizard has been a superior spellcaster from day one, and Witch is hot on his heels for the "arcane buffer" spot, and already surpasses him in numerous ways. So, no, a Bard need not concern himself with being the best caster he can be to stand out. (I'm not saying no one should play caster bards. I'm just saying your statements about a melee bard are rather misguided. "Magus does melee caster better," true, but Wizard and Witch do stay-back-and-focus-on-casting better.)
Next point: being a frontliner doesn't ignore the thing that actually separates the Bard from his contemporaries: Bardic Performance. Being in melee doesn't hurt this at all.
Next, experience teaches one the finer points of playing a "flank buddy" role. Having an extra melee presence is more than just "I do damage." Proper positioning leads to the establishment of meta-control over enemy positioning and movement. Bards may not be full-on tanks, but they can still hold their own quite well if they need to; enough to be a solid skirmisher, and that's all that's needed here.
Lastly, there are ways to achieve other sources of control without even needing to focus on saving throw DCs, however this often requires creativity. The classic example is using the spell Silence. Don't cast it on an enemy caster, because he gets a Will save, and his Will is most likely his best save. Don't cast it on an area near the enemy caster, because he'll just leave the area. Cast it on the Fighter, and let him get in the caster's face. Doing this effectively silences the caster, and circumvents the saving throw.
There are other examples of how to use soft-control and meta-control to turn the tide in a fight, but I'd have to be writing a guide to really go into great detail about it. Point here being, there's nothing suboptimal about a Bard who doesn't focus fully on casting. You just have to know what you're doing.
Despite the disgusting habit of mounting his own tumor, Skivven can be quite scary for a host of other reasons. First and foremost, he is an apt poisoner, carrying a variety of deadly doses at any given time, many of which cannot be cured naturally.
He even possesses some amazing tools of manufacture which allow him to rapidly create 5 doses of poison in only half an hour (1 hour per the item's description, then cut in half due to swift alchemy, multiplied by his Intelligence modifier in doses thanks to his Master Alchemist feat).
He also specializes in "biological warfare" utilizing a variety of poison gas attacks to ensure that his enemies either die quickly, or suffer for lengthy periods of time.
He also excels at infiltrating locations using his small size, stealth skill, unassuming cap of human guise (posing as a servant or army laborer), and/or gaseous form spell (to sneak past guards and to get into secure areas) in order to wreak havoc with siege engines, weapons, or steeds/vehicles via his disable device skill.
If he has his way, the enemy forces will be absolutely crippled before they even realize there's a threat about them.
You may have given birth to a new NPC in my home campaign...
Instead of burning a feat on Tower Shield Proficiency, take Shield Focus and use a heavy shield. Net loss of 1 AC, but gain +2 to hit by avoiding the extra attack penalty that tower shields give you. Tower Shields aren't worth it for any Oracle. Shield Focus is still a debatable value compared to certain other feats, but its leagues above trying to force a tower shield on yourself.
I personally hate both Instant Enemy and Pearls of Power. I hate Instant Enemy because every Ranger uses it. It's a silly reason, but anytime you talk about rangers, you talk about a spell that's not even in the Core RB, combined with expensive Pearls of Power. It's never even been used in one of my campaigns, but I still hate hearing about it as much as I hate seeing Egzimora avatars. I don't even think it's broken (unless a character can somehow afford more than one Pearl of Power), I just don't like it. I hate it as much as I hate every caster in any campaign I'm a part of having Glitterdust and casting it more than twice a combat.
You must really hate Haste then. Every Wizard, Sorcerer, Magus, Summoner, Alchemist and Bard takes it. Even certain Witch builds have it.
I wouldn't advise combat maneuvers if you're not playing a class with a full base attack bonus. High level monsters have ridiculous CMD's, to the point where even the full BABers can have problems landing them, not to mention that a lot of the better maneuvers flat-out don't work on a lot of high level stuff. (Can't trip the flyer, can't disarm the demon who uses a crazy number of natural attacks, etc). They do become more valuable if your GM has a habit of only throwing medium-sized humanoids at you; but most GM's I've seen don't do a lot of that at the upper levels.
Gunslingers are in a tricky spot, balance-wise. The general problem with gun builds in Pathfinder is that the line between the build sucking and being extremely powerful is razor thin. The very moment the gun becomes perfectly viable as a main weapon is the same moment it starts topping the DPR charts. Essentially, you either don't build it right, or you build it to wreck everything. The middle-ground is almost non-existent (unless it's just a back-up weapon for a build).
Flavor is always key to roleplay, so do what works for you. I do want to point out, though, that Inspire Courage does wonders for the entire group's combat ability (including your own), so full Bard would actually still fit pretty well into your group. Adding feats like Arcane Strike and Power Attack (or Deadly Aim, if you're archery based) can make a Bard a pretty solid damage dealer, in addition to having spells and such.
But yeah, flavor > mechanics, as long as you build it well enough to do your part in the group. Having fun takes precedence over everything else.
Hey all; if you're here to say bards suck i know lol,
Since when did bards suck? This is news to me. Unless you meant, "only having 4 levels of bard sucks," then I might be able to agree.
I'm a little curious why your warrior poet couldn't be a single-classed Arcane Duelist Bard, but I won't go into all those details. (Just a suggestion).
As for your actual question, Vital Strike will always be inferior to any equally optimized full-attacking build, if you're looking for high damage. Go crits.
Regarding the whole "new content should be tested first" thing, it bares repeating that Snowball is not a broken spell. It bares repeating that this spell is not the source of the conjuration > evocation issue.
It is, however, a case of "rich getting richer." As in, the best school of magic getting another one of the best spells for its level. You people's rage is rather misguided, however. With or without this spell, evocation would still be the weakest school because the mechanics of spells in 3rd edition (and by extension, Pathfinder) just don't favor it. It could also be seen as a power creep, but one of the most harmless creeps I've seen thus far.
Redirect that fanrage towards getting new evocation toys, not complaining when the rich conjurers get a new one. Removing this one spell doesn't fix the problem that already existed years ago. All this school vs. school crap is starting to remind me of the caster-martial disparity arguments.
The solution is quite simple. If you aren't comfortable with the spell, don't allow it in your games. It doesn't phase me, personally. Level one blasts suck (except for corner-cases, like a Magus using Shocking Grasp). If a caster at my table wants one that isn't crap, he's welcome to it. It's not going to have a gigantic impact at low levels, and at higher levels he has better options anyway. It's not allowing him to do much that he wasn't already capable of by other means. Just my two cents.
So who's correct in interpreting the intent of the people who wrote the content? You? Me? Baring some kind of official FAQ from the actual rules people (as was the case with the full-attack sunder question), we have no reliable way to determine intent; therefore, logically, you must default to RAW.
Statements like these are the reason rules-lawyers have bad reputations.
1.) I would say no. Basically, you are using the same ability and like abilities don't stack. That said, I can see the argument that they are different effects. In my home game, we said no.
Evil Eye doesn't stack for the same penalty (meaning multiple Evil Eyes can't all be targeting AC, for example), but you are allowed to give multiple Evil Eyes to the same target as long as they are debuffing different statistics. It's in the FAQ for the Advanced Player's Guide, question answered by Sean K. Reynolds.
It might sound broken at first glance, but you have to consider how many rounds of setup it takes to get numerous Evil Eye's off. For the time investment (and remembering that said witch is spending all this time on one enemy), it's perfectly fine balance wise.
-------------
As for healing, you do not want a witch as the primary healer unless you have access to Ultimate Magic. The Hedge Witch archetype plus the Healing Patron from that book makes primary healer witches very much viable. But with APG only, I'd stick with secondary "pinch" healing. The Healing Hex is still a good investment either way, though. A free, essentially spontaneous heal for each party member goes a long ways, even if it is once per person per day.
For Sorc Bloodline, I'd either go Elemental or Marid. Being able to turn any spell to cold, on the fly, will help versatility. Allowing you to take up some spells that aren't traditionally cold-based (just in case you come across that white dragon which may or may not have blue eyes), without breaking the character theme.
Make sure you get Icy Prison when you, eventually, get 5th level spells. Elemental Focus (Cold) should be a no-brainer here. As with any type of energy blasting tactics, Dazing Spell is always a nice pick-up.
Fnipernackle wrote:
...anyone in that cone is entangled for two rounds unless they make their save AND have evasion.
Or a good amount of cold resistance. Or immunity. Keep an eye on those too.
Important Caveat, the game in question is a first level only game. Characters will not advance from level one until many many sessions in at the earliest.
I'm considering making a bard, I link my GM to the dancing dervish going "Hey, this is cool, should I make this variant of a bard?"
and he says. "A bard that only boosts himself and nobody else? And retains spellcasting, that's OP. No, core only!"
I realize the GM is the ultimate authority, I just felt like I should probably get a second opinion, since I think the dervish is actually something of a step backwards from regular bard in terms of raw power.
Your GM strikes me as the kind of GM who calls something broken on principles, rather than mechanics. Meaning he'll probably be giving you the eye anytime you have a build that goes too far outside of the expected normalcy of a class. Which, consequently, is the mark of an inexperienced GM. I may be wrong though. But still, anyone who applies analysis of the mechanical ability, as opposed to the concept, can see that bard archetype isn't overpowered. I'd much rather play vanilla bard over the D-Dancer any day.
* People denigrate the Elements patron because it's all about blasty spells, and "blasty is bad". Witches have lots of save-or-lose, and great ways to target willpower and fortitude saves with their hexes and core spell list, but adding a single direct damage spell at each level really rounds out their choice of weapons.
Depends on the goal, really. Unless you're hard-pressed to do damage right now when your turn comes up, you're better off using Summon Monster spells if you want to provide extra damage output to the party. A spell that continues offering damage + extra utility every round for several rounds will almost always beat casting something like Fireball in terms of damage output; unless you intend to bump it with maximize and empower, that is.
But, that being said... A very good way to make the Elements patron very useful is a little thing called Dazing Spell metamagic. A regular Fireball is lackluster. But a Dazing Fireball is something that rocks the battlefield pretty hard. It helps provide the witch with ways to dish out several reflex-based SoL's, in addition to all the will and fortitude SoL's they already possess. If that's the plan, then the Elements patron gains a lot of weight.
Low levels, Slumber hex first, then everything else. Slumber never gets old or useless. It is so much better than the spell:
I'm just going to say, it's okay to not have Slumber at levels 1-2, but it's a great pick-up at 3rd (via Extra Hex) or 4th level, and beyond.
At level 1, Slumber is a single-round SoL, which is useful, but not outstanding. The spell is just better here (one round versus one minute). At level 2, the spell is still relevant, and still has the same save DC. Level 3 and beyond, though, is where you'd want to make that tactical switch. Being a pseudo-spellbook caster, using a spell known on a HD limited spell doesn't hurt nearly as much as it would a Sorcerer, for example. If you really need a single-round SoL at level 1 (or 2), use Daze. The HD limit is, again, quite workable at levels 1 and 2.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I have to say that I generally dislike any gender-specific items that push players to conform to outdated stereotypical gender roles. My witch is male, and I don't think he's going to want to wear the corset. Yes, I can flavor it as something else, but I shouldn't have to. The items should just be generic items that provide a mechanical benefit and the player should decide the gender and the fluff.
I get enough sexist silly jokes as it is.
Is re-flavoring something really that much of a hindrance? Paizo doesn't make books with mechanical crunch without putting their own flavor to it. Flavor-adjusting should be a regular consideration for any table-top RPGer in my opinion, as you can't expect every item to be a generic item, or every feat to be a generic feat, etc etc.
This loose-fitting blouse is adorned with grotesque fetishes and trophies, granting the wearer a +2 competence bonus on Intimidate checks. If the wearer is a witch, she gains the cackle hex. If the wearer already has the cackle hex, twice per day she can use her cackle ability as a swift action instead of a move action.
In a high-level game, you can use it to gain easy access to Cackle without needing to take it manually. However, Cackle is so useful that most witches would probably still take it manually regardless. In which case, you gain the ability to use it as a swift action twice per day. Can be helpful in situations where the action economy is tight.
Corset of Dire Witchcraft:
Spoiler:
This slimming garment is fastened with laces, buckles, and buttons and reinforced with ribs of leather or bone. A corset of dire witchcraft grants a +4 armor bonus to AC. If the wearer is a witch, each day when she communes with her familiar to prepare spells, she may enhance one hex she knows, increasing its caster level by +2 for 24 hours. This enhancement ends if the corset is is removed or if she uses it to enhance a different hex.
What's hotter than a witch with high charisma? One who wears a corset. This little beauty is a great way to put a little extra oomph behind a hex, and the awesome thing is that you can change which hex you apply it to each day. The wording in the description is questionable, since most hexes aren't based on "caster level." My interpretation is that it was meant to say class level, because well, the alternative is far too restricted to be worth the gold (only a few hexes are based directly on spells, many of which just aren't worth a CL bump at this price). Consult your GM, but if he makes the same ruling I do, then this little gem becomes a fantastic pick-up. Skip it if he stays RAW. Oh, and you'll never need to cast Mage Armor again, if that matters to you at all.
I certainly love it when folks get into the game and post character builds on these forums. I don't read them as a general rule, since I'm not really into character optimization for the sake of optimizing... but by all means, carry on!
And to Lune (spoilered to try to keep the thread somewhat on track):
** spoiler omitted **
I would like to say, for the record, that my Shoanti character has a backstory explaining how he came to favor defensive tactics, and eventually turned his defensive prowess into an offensive style involving two Klars.
Ventnor wrote:
Honestly, I think a dual-klar wielding Shoanti Ranger could be a pretty fun character to play.
I've been gaming for 28 years now and in all those years min/maxing almost always leads to DM vs Players. This happens because each side keeps upgrading their optimization to keep up with one another.
Not really. The only fights that need to be directly challenging are boss fights, and that alone hardly counts as "DM vs players." If your GMs are egotists who can't stand being one-upped by their players, they should consider retiring from GM status. It's not a crime to be happy for your players if they find ways, mechanical or otherwise, to get through your encounter with minimal damage taken; nor is it a crime for them to do so. 3.5 and PF can often turn into battles of resources; as many items and abilities are limited by daily use. It simply makes sense that you find ways to proceed without having to blow half of your loadout in every fight.
shallowsoul wrote:
I don't run cake walk games, period. If I am not having fun in a game then I won't bother running. It's as simple as that.
I find this statement intriguing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every encounter of every campaign should be a cakewalk. But you seem to be implying that your fun stops the very moment your party finds a way to blow through an encounter. Not to be offensive, but this is entirely the wrong mentality to have when you run a table. That is what causes GM vs. Players Syndrome in the first place.
A conceptual Phalanx fighter/Skirnir. Which REALLY won't do what you are hoping it to do.
and a player who wanted to play a character based on Allevrah Azrinae (saw the pic)
Shield and whip Magus.
In that case it didn't do what she wanted it to do. as she wanted to spell combat/spell strike with the whip and have the shield AC. But it wont work unless you lose the shield AC or use a buckler.... her vision of the character (based on the pic) didnt have a buckler, and she didn't want to wait until 8th level to do it , which can take a while, pretty much the third AP.
She was really keen on spell combat , spell strike and a shield with a whip.
It also wouldnt mesh with hex crafter, and she wanted hexes and I think she wanted a familiar at some point as well...
So again it wouldnt let her do what she wanted it to.
So that's batting 1000 (atm) for not doing what you think it will.
Which prompted me to think about a Skirnir to make on purpose, but havent found a scenario where it would work how Id like it to. (so actually three times)
It's not that it's sub optimal. unless you're speaking strictly from a concept point of view.
Please don't take this the wrong way but... All this really shows is that you both went in with the wrong expectations, and blamed the archetype for not meeting them. Your friend is trying to combine an awful lot of stuff there.
By the way, here's some roleplaying advice: just because the stat sheet says "buckler" doesn't mean you have to roleplay it as one. You can pretend the shield is any kind of shield you want, you just have to treat it mechanically as a buckler. The rules only limit mechanics and suggest roles, but it's up to you how you actually roleplay it out.
I wouldn't call Mystic Theurge a "bad idea" it's just a path that can't be built on assumptions of raw power. It's not a power build path. It's a versatile path for the right kind of role, but not one for raw might.
With that being said, having beyond a certain amount of versatility becomes moot for a large number of builds. Having options is nice, but when a noticeable amount of them are already significantly stronger options than others, the reward of extra options starts to diminish, very quickly.
The only hard advantage that I'd say the MT has at the end of the day is a greater number of total spells per day... most of which he'd probably still not need at the upper levels if he's optimized. MT is a great idea, it's just not executed well.
A druid doesn't 'look like an archer' but we've seen an example of a good archer build.
A Lore Warden doesn't look like it is a good JOAT.
But they can be.
Trying to make a class be something is isn't designed to be, can be suboptinal (a core only fighter can make for a poor swashbuckler, especially if you decide to never go duelist). But again, the D-archer we've seen isn't 'designed' to be an archer, and is effective.
You missed his point. He's not saying those concepts aren't possible, he's saying those concepts must be optimized for that concept. When a class isn't created in a way that makes the concept viable from the get-go, you must then make the proper choices to create the needed viability. I.e. optimizing.
Druid Archer is still an optimized character. He's still going to pick the correct archery related feats, and make build decisions to make the concept work. That is what character optimization is. Take a concept (even if its a wildball concept), and use one's understanding of the rules to make it work. It doesn't have to be the best of the best top tier character. We're not making "maximized" characters; we're making "optimized" ones.
Gustavo is saying that knowing how to optimize makes a broader span of concepts become viable. And I agree wholeheartedly. The Druid Archer is a great example.
No. Skirnir isn't a sub optimal choice, it just doesn't do what it look like it does at first glance.
If you really like spell combat, the classes main feature, this archetype isnt for you.
Skirnir gets to use Spell Combat at level 8. It's late access, but it's still there... just try not to get your Bonded Shield sundered. Which, honestly, is somewhat easy to avoid if you keep it well enchanted. If the enhancement of your magic item is higher than the enhancement of the weapon that strikes it, that weapon cannot damage it (and you don't often see NPCs with super high enhancements). Since Magus can step up the enhancement of his weapon or shield on the fly, with a swift action... Shouldn't get stolen either, if you know what spells to protect it with when you're sleeping. The archetype works, you just have to be on your toes. As long as your DM isn't intentionally trying to ruin you, that is.
Why no Druid ... The lost of class abitly and pet not advanceing is to much for small gain of spells.
No Druid? Pet not advancing? Heaven forbid that a Druid takes a domain instead, and not have to deal with that problem. Heaven also forbid acknowledging that the Druid spell list is actually pretty darn good, so using this strategy is quite valid if you want your MT to be able to use the nicer Druid spells. Sheesh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
@Rumpus: Why are you still arguing with Greyfeather? He's only going to ignore the points that he can't argue against while continuing to assert false statements. I still laugh every time he says a Witch can't cast Heal or Harm. Just let him be the one person in the entire community who has absolutely no idea how the class works.
skirnir magus is interesting but it "pays" too much for the shield even when you do get spell combat and spell strike and catch up to a regular magus it doesn't work the same... it's really kinda blah.... I wish it had had some tweaking better.
In other words: it's a suboptimal choice compared to other magus builds.
And heaven forbid that we evil optimizers ever make a suboptimal choice for... -gasp- FLAVOR REASONS! (-Hears the apocalypse approaching in the background-)
It's not as bad as you think, considering the feat tax involved. If a person is willing to pay the feats just to make the build viable in the first place, there's no reason to then tell them "guess what? you're still MAD and you hit like a child." We're not giving them dex to damage for free, we're giving it them in feat form. Not every class has enough bonus feats to do it without putting thought into it first, and it's even worse on TWF. Count up all those feats, and tell me how many non-fighters will make the full investment before hitting the double-digits. Meanwhile, the 2hander is viable all across the board.
Edit: I'm including Improved TWF and the like when I said "full investment."
The question I think is whether or not it would be unreasonable to allow such a feat to apply dexterity to damage if you are dual wielding; I personally don't think so as long as the offhand attack did diminished damage like normal (which could then be mitigated by the feat that I can't recall the name of that let's you deal your full str mod in damage for your offhand).
I'd allow it, personally. The game is too firm against dexterity-based melee characters, (and kind of hard on two-weapon builds for that matter) and there's really no reason for it mechanically. It won't be the end of the world to let the finesse people have nice things too.
Theres's a reason, though. Dex is better than STR in anything but damage. If you add DEX to damage in any circumstance through a feat, then STR is obsolete as a stat. DEX gives you AC, Initiative, REF and a few good skills, plus to hit and damage. STR gives you to hit and damage. Oh, and encumbrance. At least until you use handy haversack, muleback cord, and portable hole.
Dex to damage with a condition (such as single hand weapon) is ok. If you can use it in every situation, then STR is useless. Unless you rebuild the game to allow STR being used in saves (like 4e Fortitude) or AC (Parry, like Conan d20 RPG)
I'm aware of the advantags of using a dex character, however to say STR is useless in that case is hyperbole. STR builds are still favorable for damage (because dex damage doesn't, and shouldn't ever benefit from two-handing.) That's before counting the feat tax involved in making dex builds. What I meant was, finesse builds have to invest more in feats or other resources, and then still meet the short end of the stick in any DPR race. Letting them have dex to damage (in exchange for more feat investment) isn't going to break anything. Hence: Greater Weapon Finesse.
The question I think is whether or not it would be unreasonable to allow such a feat to apply dexterity to damage if you are dual wielding; I personally don't think so as long as the offhand attack did diminished damage like normal (which could then be mitigated by the feat that I can't recall the name of that let's you deal your full str mod in damage for your offhand).
I'd allow it, personally. The game is too firm against dexterity-based melee characters, (and kind of hard on two-weapon builds for that matter) and there's really no reason for it mechanically. It won't be the end of the world to let the finesse people have nice things too.
I haven't commented so much about my witch. Perhaps I focused too much on role playing optimization for my witch. His build is primarily focused on social skills and potion making (he's only level 3). Of course he has hexes, but I have deliberately avoided taking the more commonly acknowledged overpowered hexes (no slumber). He has virtually zero combat oriented optimizations. He has average strength and con, so his hit points are not that great. I've put his favored class bonus into skills because there are so many social skills (and UMD) that he needs.
Now, is he "dead weight?" By some definitions I see on this thread, he absolutely would qualify as "dead weight". He does piddly damage with either a dagger or crossbow. In fact his "prehensile hair" is his most powerful melee attack, and that's d3 based I believe. In combat he typically sort of cowers in the back and uses "ill omen" and "misfortune" on the enemy. It's hard to tell sometimes how effective those are since the GM rolls behind a screen. On rare occasions he might fire his...
That doesn't meet anyone's definitions of "dead weight" from what I'm seeing. Misfortune is one of the most powerful hexes the witch has, and by itself contributes a lot if the enemy doesn't make the save. No one expects the witch to do damage, it's not his/her job. You found a fun way to play one, but you're still very much doing what people might expect of one.
A witch can have 10's or below in all three physical scores, be built without any source of damage, and still contribute meaningfully; I think we all know this. People were saying a fighter with those low physical scores would probably be dead weight. If we assume that fighter was intended to be a front-line combatant then, yeah, he'd be a contender for the "dead weight" title, specifically in combat. No one said he couldn't make a good party face, or provide other contributions to the game at large.
In any case, your post was a good read. Just wanted to give a little more clarity to how people actually perceive "dead weight" characters. It's more about the planned role vs. the implemented role.
@Matthew: That's perfectly reasonable. I disagreed with you earlier in the thread because I disagree that the concept of using dexterity over strength should be prohibited that strictly. It's one thing to say Dervish Dance doesn't exist in a world, because this world doesn't have spinning dancing zealots that serve Sarenrae (who may not exist in that world either). But it's a different matter to say, "no one, anywhere, ever, in this entire world is capable of conceiving the idea of using their skill at finesse to strike better." Hence re-flavoring, or even redesigning the feat entirely. And, of course, talking with the GM before making any assumptions.
(Greater Weapon Finesse needs to be a thing. Seriously.)
As I discussed, in a prior campaign one player built that invincible combat machine, but no one else did. The solo artist carried the party (they would have gotten by, challenged, without being carried. The other players weren't making stupid characters). My observation is that no one wants to be "in the shadow" to a perfectly optimized character who has all the synergistic feats and so forth, so they react in kind. I don't want to address this in-game by upping the challenges (which is what I did last campaign, a mistake), or taking options away. ** spoiler omitted **
Did you try talking to that person about their character?
I think he meant things like "If I cast Charm Person, do I know if it worked, or if the person is just pretending to be friendlier?"
(...Yes they could attempt a Sense Motive check in that specific case, but I'm just giving a generic example here.)
To which, it's really up to the GM to decide if players should or shouldn't know whether their enemies made the save or not. It's worth noting that some spells are made useless (or close to it) if you don't know when they are, or aren't, successful. It is, however, bordering on metagame knowledge which not everyone is comfortable with.
I think it needs to be pointed out that you can't "limit" min-maxing by rules alone; not without addressing the intention that causes it. If you're just going to enforce stricter rules, under the impression that you're fixing the problem, you're just going to make it worse; and it starts with the point-buy. Lower point-buy games are just an excuse to min-max harder because it became harder to get the desired stats. Suddenly the person now has an excuse to abuse more unusual combinations of tactics, because he still wants the same end result. How he gets it isn't the problem, it's the fact that he wants it.
You have to address the intent, not the method. Which is just another way of saying talk to your players about it. People seem to be afraid of some big bag evil villainous powergamer who intentionally cheeses everything he does, but they forget that this person is a person, and might just need to asked to tone it down.
I don't see the problem with Magi using the Dervish Dancer feat. It's pretty much designed to shore up their weaknesses, and you can just as easily fluff it as how Magi are trained to fight. It's not "Dawnflower Dancer" or "Saranraen Disciple of How To Hit Things With a Scimitar" so the only reason to argue IT'S AGAINST THE FLUFF is if you've got a big ol' stick up your ass about changing fluff. And 3.X/PF is practically DESIGNED to LET you change the fluff as you please. As long as the crunch is the same, who cares if you learned to use speed over brute strength with a scimitar from a tanned guy in a turban or a mage-warrior?
We may disagree, but I read this as an argument that the feat is legal and take it automatically.
I read that as him attempting to give examples of how the feat could simply be re-flavored to fit in different settings. He was a bit aggressive about his point, though, so I see where you're coming from.
The concept of using one's dexterity, speed, and/or precision is hardly campaign-specific, so putting your own flavor to it is rather easy. (The feat may be specifically flavored, but the general concept is not, a generic concept can be applied to anything). The feat need not even be called "Dervish Dance" in your setting, and it need not even be for a scimitar. You could homebrew a feat called "Greater Weapon Finesse" that uses the normal Weapon Finesse as a prereq, and follows all the same rules as Weapon Finesse, save for also now adding DEX to damage instead of STR. I doubt anyone would have a problem with using that instead. Again, though, I'm just tossing suggestions.
Matthew Morris wrote:
If I'm running/playing in Golarion, then you have to learn it from a 'tanned guy in a turban' (or if I introduce someone you can learn it from, he learned it from said turban guy) Just like you're not going to find hunga munga in Irressen, or Katana in Mwangi, except in exceptional cases.
If I were in this game, I'd be perfectly fine with that. In fact, I'd have been talking to you about it before the first die even hit the table.
Seriously, I've not met these gamers that just assume they can do whatever without making some attempt to talk it over first. I guess they exist, somewhere, but I'm pretty sure they're a rare minority.
and it becomes cheese when everybody and their brother wants to use it
Is it cheese when every two-weapon ranger chooses to take Two-Weapon Fighting?
Pendagast wrote:
and push it because it's real goal is a optimization thing and I can get more bang for my buck by dropping my STR to 7 and pumping my int and dex and yadayda.
Still waiting for my answer, is it cheese when a Fighter takes 7 CHA? Is it cheese if the Wizard has 7 STR? If you say "yes" that's perfectly reasonable. A lot of GM's don't like stat dumping, as a universal rule. But if you allow the Fighter to dump CHA, then you're literally saying "he gets to dump, but you don't." If you don't allow anyone to dump, then it's silly to blame one feat for a gaming practice that existed long before the feat was ever written. So which is it?
Pendagast wrote:
It's not cheese when you come with .... I got this idea for an Kosac from Irrisien wastes.... And you want to play it in SS? Yes... ok.... why is in the jungle. I dunno, he's lost, finds himself on the ship.... ship wreck, blah blah blah.... Ok
In this case you would have a PC who is (initially at least) stated out etc from...
I don't recall anyone in this thread asserting (or even suggesting) that someone was just supposed to assume the feat was legal and take it automatically. Even optimization guides are nothing but guidelines and suggestions. That isn't the reason people are challenging you about your statements, we know damn well that players and GM's are supposed to discuss ideas first. People are challenging you because you've (seemed to be) asserting that the feat is cheese, period.
What gaming table do you people go to where the group apparently doesn't have any discussion about what everyone wants to play, backstories, reasonings, etc? I was under the impression that group discussions were a standard practice at any reasonable table.
The consortium's half-elf recruiter has a stack of applications on his table when the line has at last died down. Should anyone have the bright idea of trying to make more conversation with the man to improve their odds, a cold look over the top rim of his glasses sends them back to wherever in the Salt Cellar they have managed to find a seat-- if they managed to find a seat. The common room is fuller than it's been in years.
Many villagers are here to apply for work; others to watch and gossip. The ranks are also swelled by new faces: a dozen or so of GMC's indentured laborers are here, and a few brawnier sorts whose nicer gear and visible weapons indicate they are not mere laborers. Villagers nudge and whisper each other. Look, he's got a real sword... Hey, that woman there, she's got a crossbow! D'you suppose they have to fight off bandits?
Though the residents of Salt Spire attempt to hide their interest and carry on normal conversation, the air in the room is tensely expectant. Villagers keep throwing glances at the half-elf, who carries on making his notes as if he were not currently the focus of interest of at least thirty sets of eyes.
The process is interrupted by the arrival of Sholy, the mayor of Salt Spire, even if the title is a mere formality. Civic council meetings, such as they are, take place right here in the Salt Cellar's common room. Sholy is a woman of some fifty years, short and compact, her greying hair pulled back into a practical braid. She joins Jalynor Brazali at his table and the two immediately fall into low conversation, punctuated with looks around the room for this or that villager.
Sense Motive DC 10; Indentured Laborer bonus applies:
Though Jalynor smiles perfunctorily at Sholy, and you can occasionally catch enough dialogue to know that his words are respectful, it only takes a little observation to determine who's leading this conversation, and it's not the mayor. Jalynor peppers Sholy with enquiries about the applicants, and the mayor is dutifully spilling villager's life stories within a few minutes.
Eventually, the half-elf seems satisfied. He makes a few more decisive notes in his books while Sholy stands and clears her throat.
"Friends," she says, "I, um, well, we're all very glad to be welcoming this wonderful opportunity to our little town! The Goldenscale Consortium promises a breath of, umm, economic fresh air for all our young folk and even some of our older folk. I don't need to tell you all we've seen more boats at our docks this last month then the whole year before that. We have coin coming in again, and stayin' right here, in Salt Spire, and we're mighty glad of it, aren't we all!"
There are a few smatters of tentative applause from those assembled. Sholy smiles and continues, "The council's been happy to offer exploratory rights to the Consortium in exchange for the trade and business this will bring to Salt Spire. Just like in days before, when ore comes out of the mines, money comes in to our town, and that means better food, better jobs, better lives. I have Mr. Brazali's promise that the young folk who show they're good with sums and such can even get free schoolin', become engineers and things down the line. It's wonderful. It's, you know, it's just wonderful."
A bit more applause. Sholy seems to founder a bit, not sure what to say next, but the half-elf smoothly takes over the conversation.
"Thank you so much, Mayor Sholy. We trust it will be a successful partnership for both your town and the Consortium. I personally want to express our gratitude for all the ways you and the rest of the council have made conditions favorable for us, it won't be forgotten."
"GET TO THE JOBS ALREADY!" someone bellows from back in a corner-- Sholy shoots the offender a glare, though Brazali is unruffled. The half-elf smiles fractionally.
"Enthusiasm! We like that. I am pleased to invite the following residents to meet with me to sign your contract: Brosker, Xiramona Salpashti, Druv, Phantrel Springleaf, Em Salt, Raka, Sulianna, Gunder Varys, Colin Bazelgette...." The half-elf drones another dozen names at least, then gestures to his table. "Please form a queue. To everyone else, we do thank you for your interest; your applications will be kept on file for six months in case of another opening arising. You may continue to enjoy the house wine tonight, with our compliments."
Brosker looks delighted, and claps one of his fellow fisherfolk, Sulianna, heartily on her shoulder. Druv, a scrawny teenager with a bad case of acne, lets out a little whoop and rushes to be the first in line at the table. Eska's son Gunder shoots his mother a big smile then hurries to get in the queue.
Jalynor consults his notes and glances around for Argatha and Brimble. "The two of you - let's see, I already discussed Mister Palescale's situation; Argatha, if you want to ask any questions about your remaining contract time, just join the line."
With that said, the half-elf resumes his seat. Villagers queue up, drift out, or return to their drinks and fish stew.
Welcome to Salt Spire, a village wedged between the mountains and the sea in the north of Varisia. Though small, it once bustled with a productive mine and a healthy fishing trade, and served as a stopping point for sailors rounding the peninsula on their way north. But some twenty years ago the mine petered out, the fishing began to fail, and the sailors found other ports. So did half the village, trickling away over the years in search of better prospects. Those who remain have little to work with but continue to scratch out a meager living from the rocks and the ocean. The only thing that brings visitors (and their coin) to the village is a strange sealed door down in the mine shafts– the old stories say it’s of dwarven make, if you can believe that. Occasionally, adventurers and their ilk trickle to Salt Spire and from thence into the mines, but ultimately they all leave with nothing to show for it: the door has never yielded its secrets or been breached.
Until last month.
Newcomers arrived in Salt Spire with tools and explosives. They had no more luck with the door than anyone before them, but the rock surrounding it? That proved more vulnerable. The Goldenscale Mining Consortium drilled and blasted a hole into the chambers beyond the door, and now they need bodies to do the grunt work of getting rubble out. The pay is better than the villagers have seen in years.
Don’t worry. It’s not likely to be dangerous. The GMC’s mercenaries and engineers are sweeping the rooms and caves for risks before you enter– you’re just there to shlep and haul. It’s hard, dull, backbreaking work, but safe enough. Just sign here– standard one-year contract– and a GMC agent will issue you your gear and tools.
Some OOC Expectations, for both me and you!:
This will be a highly atmospheric game with some elements of: dungeon crawl, survival, horror, mystery, and exploration. It will also require placing some trust in your GM as we work to tell a story together. Right now you will not really be able to perfectly plan out your character due to twists I have in mind, but I assure you, my goal as a GM is not to be your adversary, but to set up interesting questions for you/your characters to explore. Come prepared to roleplay– not just with NPCs, but with each other, as you will need to work with the other PCs to stay alive.
To that end, we will have a campaign Discord server to talk OOCly and help inter-party bonding. Maps will be handled via Google Slides.
I will attempt at least one post daily on weekdays, one on weekends, and would like players to try and aim for the same, with the understanding that life certainly does happen at times.
Setting:
This is set in Golarion but with a bit of a twist. It is perhaps a slightly parallel universe to regular Golarion, with the main difference being: the dwarves.
Nobody on Golarion, or at least nobody you know, has ever seen a live dwarf. (Or, for that matter, a dead one.) There’s a lot of supposedly dwarven ruins in the world (many now inhabited by goblins, orcs, etc), but dwarves themselves are a long-vanished race, with only their handiworks left as clues as to who they were. Dwarven history is a bit of a niche scholarly subject. (Should be obvious by now, but: you cannot play as a dwarf.)
As for the town itself:
Salt Spire is less grandiose than the name suggests. At one time, 300 souls lived here, but now the population is no more than a hundred– and many of those hundred are aging. Few children roam Salt Spire’s gravel roads, these days, and enterprising young adults often leave on the first boat that will carry them to somewhere else– anywhere else. The old-timers sit in the village’s only remaining inn and pub, the Salt Cellar, and bemoan the good old days.
Of the other buildings in town: Half of them are abandoned, and many are in the process of being reclaimed by the sea and the winter storms. Even the inhabited ones are getting shabbier. Lumber is somewhat scarce in Salt Spire, as the easily accessible trees on the mountainside were cut down years ago to provide fuel for the smithy and wood for the boats. Obtaining more of the remaining wood is labor intensive and usually reserved for boat repair, so buildings often are patched with planks or stones taken from the abandoned structures– but the salt corrosion of the sea makes inroads on everything. Metal is rusting, paint is peeling, glass windows that break cannot be replaced… the town is slowly but steadily decaying.
Or it was. The GMC promises an influx of new resources, people, and trade. Things are looking up for Salt Spire!
Mechanics/Applying:
You start the game as a level 1 NPC class (adept, commoner, expert, or warrior [no aristocrats]) with a 10 pt buy. YA, RLY. It won’t stay that way forever, but be prepared to spend some time at first with the stats and abilities of an NPC, and for mere survival to be a challenge.
I am selecting here for player vibes and concepts much more than for mechanical characters. That said, I know that everyone still wants to know the rules for the game itself, so they are included below– but at this point your mechanical build is the least interesting thing about your character. I mean, you are level 1 NPC classes with a ten point spread, nobody is managing anything clever in that sense. You can include your stats/build as part of your application if you like, but I’m honestly not gonna look too close at it. You can include a mention of what class(es) you might ultimately like to pursue, though it might be helpful if you think more in terms of ‘role’ than exact class. Like: ‘Jessik is going to focus on ranged attacks and skills’ rather than ‘Jessik will be an archery style ranger 4/fighter 2’.
Further character building deets:
--- Allowed classes: Adept, Commoner, Expert, Warrior for now. Down the road you will be able to pick from any Paizo-published class.
--- Background skills will be used
--- 10 GP starting gold
--- Your character is either a resident of Salt Spire or can be an indentured worker brought in by the GMC to supplement the local labor pool. Salt Spire is predominantly human, with a scant handful of the other common ancestries (except dwarves, as mentioned in the setting details). The indentured workers brought in are somewhat more varied, and include goblins and kobolds in their number, so these are also playable ancestries.
--- Traits: two, one of which is a campaign trait from the following. (For the other, any non-campaign trait is fine, and you can ignore regional requirements for them.) You may take a drawback for another (non-campaign) trait, if you want.
----- Fisherfolk of Salt Spire: You have spent much of your life trying to coax the remaining fish to go from the sea into the nets of your boat. You gain a +1 trait bonus on Profession: Fisherman or Profession: Sailor checks (or a related Profession skill) and to Swim. You can hold your breath twice as long as normal.
----- Miner of Salt Spire: You have spent much of your life trying to find remnants of semi-precious metals and stones in the defunct mine shafts. You gain a +1 trait bonus on Profession: Miner (or a related Profession skill) and gain a +2 trait bonus on Perception to notice mining hazards such as foul air, unstable surfaces, and so forth. You gain a +1 trait bonus on saves vs the same sorts of hazards.
----- Artisan of Salt Spire: Whether you cook, brew, mend shoes, or craft fishing poles, you have useful skills in making something. You gain a +1 trait bonus on a Craft or Profession skill of your choice, 1 extra background skill point per level, and you start with an extra 5 gp to reflect previous sales of your crafted goods.
----- Scrounger of Salt Spire: When there’s not much to go around, making do is a valuable skill. You gain a +1 trait bonus to Survival checks to find food/water, a +1 trait bonus to attacks with improvised weapons, and a +1 trait bonus to Perception to notice items of possible value.
----- Scholar of Salt Spire: The Door has always fascinated you and you snuck away often to look at it, or tagged along with one of the adventurer groups... You gain a +1 trait bonus on Linguistics and Lore: Dwarven (which is a class skill for you and you get one free rank each level to put into it). You also gain a +1 trait bonus on another knowledge skill of your choice.
----- Indentured Servant, Property of GMC: Whether by hook or by crook, you are in debt to the GMC and you must pay it off with hard labor. You’ve already worked several long months in warehouses, docks, and other mines. Avoiding workplace hazards has made you more nimble (+1 trait to Reflex), or the long hours have made you hardier (+1 trait to Fortitude), or you’ve got a lot of practice resisting the urge to throttle one of your employers (+1 trait to Will). Pick one. You also gain a +1 trait bonus to a Craft or Profession Skill of your choice. Also, due to your prior experience with the GMC you gain a +2 trait bonus to Perception, Sense Motive, and Initiative* checks against any employee of GMC who outranks you. (*Should it come to combat. Which surely won’t happen. As you are a good and obedient employee.)
If you’ve read all this and are still interested in taking a chance on this weirdo game, great! Please fill out, in-character, the “application” in the next post. You are welcome (indeed, encouraged) to include a little bit of roleplay with it – perhaps narrating your character’s thoughts as they read the questions, that sort of thing. Applications will close June 4th. I have three players who already have guaranteed spots and am recruiting for 2-3 more.
You arrive outside of Venture Captain Ambrus Valsin's office. There are comfortable benches and chairs as you wait. Ambrus Valsin sticks his head out once, regards those of who are present, counting to himself, then says, "I'll wait til you're all here-- no point rehashing the mission more than once..."
During the minutes you wait outside his office, you have a chance to assess your fellow agents, and make introductions, if you're the talkative sort.
The next time Valsin looks out, he counts again, then nods, satisfied, and steps back to gesture you into his office. "Come on in. Tea?"
Couches before the Captain's desk offer a place to sit, and a bright-eyed halfling secretary serves you mugs of hot tea as Valsin sits heavily back behind his desk, looking gloomier than usual. Two objects sit on his desk-- a patchwork hide bag, and a rock that is vaguely egg-shaped, but about ten inches tall, and glowing redly.
"Thank you all for coming to my summons. I hope you got to know each other out in the waiting room. I'll get right to it: the Society has received a summons asking-- nay, demanding-- representation from the Society's agents at a meeting of Shoanti quah leaders." Valsin's thick, callused fingers tap a piece of parchment against his desk.
"We're being invited to a feast, but the dish being served is crow, I'm afraid.
"Let me explain. Some years ago, a solo Pathfinder field agent, a gnome named Lumketel Simset, returned to Absalom crowing about his discovery of a long-lost Thassilonian ruin in a remote section of Varisia. He had all manner of items recovered from the site, and all sorts of stories to tell. It was duly written up and entered into the Pathfinder Chronicles.
"The issue is that what Lumketel found was not a ruin of a long-vanished civilization, but rather, the burial grounds-- still in use-- of Shoanti tribal peoples.
"I don't know if Lumketel ignorantly believed his relics were truly Thassilonian, or whether his pride wouldn't let him admit to his error. I'd ask him, but the Society lost contact with Lumketel over a year ago. Trust me, if I could get my hands on him, I'd be sending him to answer for this embarrassment.
"The Shoanti tribespeople have discovered that one of their sacred sites was trespassed upon, damaged, and looted-- by us. They're demanding we account for what happened, and I'm sending you, as skilled agents with numerous accomplishments each to your names.
"This bag contains four relics-- carved, wooden items that Lumketel brought back. We're returning them to their proper owners. The stone is a handy little item called a scavenger's stone-- it can cast restorative magic upon damaged objects and items. Fixing whatever damage our lone agent caused-- and giving back what he stole-- is the least we can do.
"We do have some allies among the quahs, thankfully, but it'll be an uphill battle. The Shoanti are notoriously distrustful of outsiders... with good reason. Your mission is to try and make things right with these people... keep in mind that this is not just a religious issue for them, but may be deeply personal-- some of the leaders you are going to meet with may have parents or grandparents interred in the tomb that this fool Lumketel traipsed through. Be tactful. Be sincere with our apologies. Ask them for the chance to be allowed to make right the damage and the trespass.
"But I'd also be aware that Shoanti justice can be harsh, so don't assume this will be all chit-chatting. If they decide that the only suitable price is a blood price-- defend yourselves, obviously, I'm not sending you out to be killed as compensation. Try to extricate yourselves with as little bloodshed as possible, though. If we alienate the Shoanti as a whole, they may well decide Pathfinders shouldn't be allowed to travel through their territories at all-- making any further missions we do in Varisia, indeed, the north in general-- that much more complicated.
"Even if they do let you make things right, that may involve its own hazards, as per Lumketel's notes..."
Valsin straightens a stack of papers and sets them next to the bag and items. "I have Lumketel's original notes here, as well as the Chronicles entry he wrote about it. I'd suggest reviewing them before you enter the site-- IF you're granted permission.
"Any questions?"
Handout #1 (An excerpt from Lumketel's Chronicles entry):
My foray into the heart of the Iron Peaks led me to a sealed entry etched with strange runes, hidden on the banks of the Muschkal River. Upon breaking the seal, to my surprise, I discovered what doubtless was an ancient Thassilonian ruin—a rare and worthy find for the Pathfinder Society. I entered without hesitation.
Much to my shock and dismay, I was met with a towering monstrosity entirely made of glowing bone and decaying flesh, lurching from the darkness! From the bones leapt two alien canids, seemingly comprised of pure energy. Retreat was not an option. Quickly thinking, I dashed into the darkness toward a narrower passage, hoping to avoid engaging the fell beasts in the open. Where the skeletal monster couldn’t follow, the lightning creatures could, with fierce jaws snapping as I ran into the darkness. I found myself in a bizarre maze, unable to see and surrounded by twisting passages that boggled the mind. The wolves were on my heels. Darting through passageways and walls, I summoned the intestinal fortitude and magical might vested in me and dispatched the canids back to the unfathomable reality from whence they came. With the wolves gone, it was a duel between me and the bone beast. Needless to say, I wouldn’t be penning this Chronicle if I had lost! With a few choice spells and nimble dodging, I dispatched the monster, its bones and viscera scattering throughout the hall....
Alrighty! So now that that we have people, let's get to the fun part we're all here for: creating our characters.
Stats: Based on what was shaping up in the discussion, looks like there's some nostalgia/excitement over the idea of getting to roll stats. I'm not opposed, there's something about rolling dice that's just plain fun. I propose the following: 4d6 6 times, drop 1, arrange your scores where you like. If anyone winds up with something that's a less than 15-point buy, they can either increase a stat freely until it hits a 15-pt buy, or just build fresh using 15 pt buy. Thoughts?
Skills: Unchained skills/background skills seems to have no objections, so let's say that yep, go for it.
Alignments; I'm not gonna outright bar evil, but don't play stupid evil. Your character should be able to at least pretend to play nice with others and have a reason they wouldn't screw the rest of the party over, etc.
Traits: 2, ignore regional requirements if you see a trait that appeals to you. If you feel like taking a drawback to get an extra trait, I'll allow it. I'll also look for ways to make your drawback relevant.
Races: I'm just gonna nix anything TOO exotic right off the bat. Core races are encouraged; races like the elementals, tieflings/aasimars, etc on a tentative basis. If it was something that was only allowed via a specific boon in PFS (like a dhampir or wayang) I'm gonna just say no; if it was one of those that was allowed open access in specific seasons, then .... maybe. Essentially, is it really important to your concept that the character be an X? Exotic races start to feel a lot LESS exotic when half the party is comprised of things that supposedly are very rare, so I personally prefer them to be used sparingly in parties.
Feat taxes: People made a good point in discussion on how really that means giving monsters more feats too, so I think we'll just leave that off the table and if you want Power Attack or PBS or whatever you'll have to earn it the old-fashioned way.
Starting gold: 150 across the board, I dislike class differentials for starting gold.
Classes: Published Paizo only, no 3pp
HP: Full at level 1, for further levels I'm open to either PFS rules (half rounded up) or roll-for-it if people like to live dangerously. Thoughts?
I'm likely forgetting some other aspects of character creation. Let me know if you notice what I missed.
***
Gallows of Madness starts out in Saringallow. It's too short a module to have a Player's Guide, so I can't suggest people look at that, but we are set in Isger, and you can read more about Isger and Saringallow on the wiki linked if you want. The cliff's notes is that Isger is a vassal state of Cheliax, but Saringallow in particular is a rather anti-diabolist town, inasmuch as it's possible to be one while being in Isger, and also fairly anti-nobility.
Characters being from Saringallow is fine and a nice touch-- it's a town of 2000ish people, so not a tiny hamlet, and not a giant metropolis either-- just enough room where your character could be as known or unknown as you'd like. Of course, if your character is traveling through Saringallow, that works too.
Creating possible backstory bonds between characters is also always welcome, though certainly not required.
You awaken from the strangest dream. A ... tavern? Of sorts? Where every doorway led somewhere else? That wasn't even the strangest part of it. In the dream you were... somebody else. There was a ship? No, that's not right. There were all these little windows made of glass and light, on which people showed magical paintings, and text from books... no, no, surely not it... there was a city, a city where every building stood taller than any tower you've ever seen, and...
...the odd dream seems laughable, by dawn's light, as the intensity of it ebbs and you remember who you are and get your bearings. You're not on a sailing ship, nor in a city of steel towers, nor surrounded by little magic windows you could hold in your hand.
Where you are is on the last leg of travel to the village called Etran's Folly. The caravan should arrive today. Birds are chirping, the morning's campfire is crackling, and others of the caravan are already awake, packing up items just like they do every morning. There's the scent of frybread and bacon being cooked, and the sound of others yawning, grunting, and stretching themselves awake.
The ground was its usual lumpy self, but just think-- tonight you'll sleep in a bed. In an inn.
The dream is already forgotten by the time you kick out of your bedroll and get to your feet.
Welcome to Fall of Plaguestone! Feel free to describe your character's early morning thoughts, routine, and otherwise introduce them. You're part of a traveling caravan, and you'll meet the other people in that caravan shortly.
As I think everyone frequenting the boards knows, the GM to player imbalance ratio is HUGE. It makes it pretty hard to get into a game. I'm itching to play, doing plenty of regular GMing as it is, but I'm willing to compromise if I can get a group of a few together who don't mind rotating GM duties.
Essentially it'd work like this: I'll GM the 1e module Gallows of Madness, which takes PCs from level 1 to level 3 by the end of it. At that point, another player steps up to run the next module, something level 3s can do (there's various options that could be discussed as possibilities). After that, another player GMS, etc. The current GM's character would fade to the background between scenarios, but level appropriately to keep up with the party.
Given the attrition and death rate in PBPs, it's also possible that the campaign might die before we ever get that far. It's a risk I'm willing to take, though.
Right now, I'm looking for 4-6 players/potential GMs who are on board with the idea that in exchange for playing now, you'd be GMing down the road. Prior experiencing GMing PBP is a plus, but not required-- I always like to give people a chance.
This is not (yet) a thread to pitch character concepts for the game; this is just to get some players together.
My overall rules/whatnot for this quasi-campaign would be:
1) Paizo published material only
2) One spot is probably reserved for a new player friend of mine, who likely wouldn't be GMing, unless/until they felt comfortable doing so
3) 1st Edition, play-by-post, Discord possibly to be created for communication purposes (but not used as the play platform)
4) Maps probably through Google slides or drawings, if a majority of accepted players want to use Roll20 I'll cope. I have no experience with other platforms for mapping and don't want to learn a new one because I'm a crotchety old goblin.
5) All players grasp the fact that keeping momentum going is a mingled responsibility of everyone in the group, both players and GM. Obviously life happens sometimes, but if people spend too much time waiting on everyone else to post, the game dies. People should be aiming for one post per day during the week. Even if you don't have anything mechanical to post, post! Give people things to respond to! It's an endless game of improv, but it only works if everyone keeps adding fresh things to react to and to keep things moving.
I've been in enough PBPs to fully know that enthusiasm goes in cycles, and that everyone will join with the best of intentions of posting regularly, but things will cycle and peter out. Life is especially chaotic right now, there are circumstances beyond our control stressing us all out.
But to have some pleasant escapism that can help us fight that does require making time for it and posting regularly. This is a long-term commitment. Gallows of Madness alone might run a PBP group a year of RL time. So please, just be aware that we'll need regular momentum and engagement from players to keep things active.
If this sounds like something you'd be down for, toss me your hat! (Not too hard though, my RL Dex is like 8.)
-If you've GMd PBP before, a link to an example is nice.
-Relevant amount of experience with commitment to long term PBPs is good information as well, though just because you don't have that experience yet doesn't mean you won't be considered
-Anything you want to add about your general play and/or GM philosophy that would make me think you were a great fit, please do.
I'll leave this up through October 7 before moving on to selection, unless I get way more interested people than I know what to do with before then, and can pick earlier.
It says in the Core, under the Formula rules, that reverse-engineering "...uses the Craft activity and takes the same amount of time as creating the item from a formula would."
But how long precisely is that? As an alchemist, I craft over a dozen items from formula when I rest/study/etc. In the craft rules, it says that crafting an item takes 4 hours. Which is the correct time frame to use for reverse-engineering items?
West coast Pathfinder agents! January 12-15 will see the debut of Pacificon Central Valley in Fresno, CA. On Martin Luther King Jr. weekend, there will be four days of gaming, gaming, and more gaming! We have lots of Pathfinder (and Starfinder) planned, with a total of thirty tables over four days. Additionally, for Pathfinder we're going to try and run a multi-table special, the Solstice Scar (version B). As the version B Solstice Scar will have only been available for two weeks at the time of the convention, this is (probably) your first chance in the new year to play it!
Aside from this, we have lots of Season 9 scheduled, an all-day module, and a few season 8s as well. There's also going to be a lot of D&D AL and other systems on offer.
GM attendance is free at four slots GMd (of the ten scheduled). If you intend to qualify for a GM badge, talk to me (PM here is fine, or email at fragilion at gmail dot com). Tickets are $50 otherwise if you get them early. Pre-reg is encouraged.
Heya,
I'm the Venture Lieutenant for Fresno and surrounding regions, but I have two people who want to get into PFS and who are in Modesto. 1.5 hours is a biiiitt of a drive unfortunately for me; is anyone locally looking to play so I can connect y'all? Feel free to PM me to get contact details.
Discussion and hammering-out post for a wacky little idea I've had...
I've played through the vast majority of regular PFS scenarios at this point, with just a handful prior to Season 8 I still need to play. I've also known the mild frustration of experiencing them in completely non-chronological order, or playing part of an arc only to never get a chance to pick up the other parts in the series. And of course, there's the slight bummer of the innate lack of continuity in PFS, where you wind up adventuring with, and playing, different characters week to week and the chance to build any sort of contiguous narrative is like a wild and elusive wildebeest. Or something.
It'd be really neat to experience, say, one or two seasons of PFS 'in order', with the same characters, working through the story organically. But that's definitely impossible in Classic, given how many I've played.
Core, on the other hand, is still fairly new territory to me.
So the premise is this: a group of 6-7 dedicated players, each playing the same characters through as much of set arc as we can get through (maybe a focus on season 4? Open to opinions). We'd rotate out GM duties, and we'd have essentially the same party for the entire "campaign," short of whoever was 'absent' that scenario in order to GM it.
Things we'd really need for this to work:
-Commitment, obviously. Both as players and when it's your turn to GM. If someone drops out mid-scenario, it's not as easy to find replacement CORE players as it is for classic, and of course, if someone does drop out permanently, that makes the whole 'PFS campaign' thing somewhat less workable (though if we start with a group of 7, we can at least weather some attrition). I know that life certainly does happen, and someone might need to skip a scenario or two here and there, but ideally everyone would be with this for the long haul.
-Willingness to GM when it's your turn, i.e., once every six or seven scenarios. If you want to run a multipart you could potentially get your "GMing duties" for quite some time taken care of in one fell swoop.
-Coordination - approaching this to some extent as a teamwork exercise. A certain amount of willingness to contribute towards group costs for needed resurrections, etc, and a certain amount of planning out build ideas together, so that we really mesh as a team of badass specialist Pathfinder Field Agents who leave no man behind!
-A badass guitar solo? I dunno?
Good afternoon, agents! Welcome to the discussion thread for Tide of Morning. As mentioned in recruitment, this game is intended to help teach the ropes somewhat for those who are beginners to PBP. While there's no hard and fast standard that every PBP GM adheres to, so I can't claim that everyone will do things 'my way,' these are some of the practices I adhere to for GMing PBP:
1) Please make sure your character sheet is up to date and visible on your profile, and that it is formatted something like this. It doesn't have to be exactly identical to that, but that's the format that Paizo more or less publishes their stat blocks in, and it's therefore the format that I and most PBP GMs are most familiar with. If you're using a format like that, it means I instantly know where to find all the information I need, instead of having to hunt through an unconventionally-formatted sheet looking for a save, or your base statistics, or your languages, or to figure out if you're some strange archetype that changes how a class normally operates, or something like that.
2) Similarly, please make sure your tagline is up-to-date for your character. If you don't know what I mean by 'tagline', it's a super-short summary of the basic statistics for your character. On your profile, put the following information into the 'Race' line for your character:
*RACE* *CLASS* *LEVEL* | AC X-T X-FF X | HP X/X | F+X R+X W+X | Init +X Per +X
Example:Gnome Paladin 5 | AC24-T16-FF19 | HP 46/46 | F+11 R+9 W+10 (special modifiers apply) | Init +3 Per +1
3) I ask that you post once a day during the week (I slow down over the weekends and generally expect my players may do the same). I reserve the right to put your character on delay or narrate their actions if we're waiting on you. If you know you're going to be busy for a few days, please just let me know in the OOC!
4) If you have something unusual or complicated about your character that I should keep in mind, please tell me now. This is a low-level game so I don't expect too many shenanigans, but, hey, I've been surprised before.
5) The strength of PBP is the ability to really get into the narrative and explore your character's personality, inner thoughts, dialogue, etc. I don't expect every post to be a novel, but please post more than just (DICE ROLL) (DICE ROLL) in your posts. Posts should be in third person, and general formatting standards for PBP often include bolding spoken dialogue, italicized dialogue for thoughts, and making sure you put anything out of character in OOC script.
Example Post wrote:
Thargaz winced as his fellow agent got brutally attacked. "Hang on, Arista! I can help!" he shouted. As he raced forward with his holy symbol raised high, he said an internal prayer to his god. Abadar, don't let me be too late!
GM, can I reach Arista from my location?
6) Not every GM will ask this of you, but in combat I prefer that you break down your bonuses for me (at least for the first round of combat). This helps both you and me make sure we're keeping in mind any bonuses or penalties you're currently subject to. At low level, there hopefully won't be too many convolutions, but at high level, when five or six different bonuses may be in play, this is a lifesaver.
If you find that your attacks look really cluttered and clunky, feel free to stick them behind a spoiler (I do this on some of my high level characters that have five attacks a round or the like), but just show me your math, so to speak. It helps us both out!
I think that's it for my rules and expectations. I will roll initative when combats happen, so please make sure your initiatives are up to date. I will post maps and anything else like handouts via Google Drawings; the responsibility is on you as players to move your tokens in combat situations/etc. If you can't move your token, I am happy to move it for you, but let me know you need that!
At this point, if everyone can post the following information for me here:
Player name
Character name
PFS #
Faction
and a day job roll, if applicable.
I'm looking forward to the game, and we'll get officially started tomorrow! You can 'dot' the gameplay thread now if you like (if you don't know what dotting means, it just means posting something, anything, to the gameplay thread (often a 'dot'), so that the campaign registers in your active campaigns).
Any questions, go! This table is likely to be a low tier 1-2, as we have multiple level 1 characters signed up and no 4s or 5s.
For people in the Central California region (or anywhere, but it's unlikely that people will be coming from out of state to our mini-con!) :
Fresno, CA will be hosting a FREE minicon called BookWyrm on April 1-2, in conjunction with our local public library. A number of gaming systems will be offered, including lots of indie games. We also have 12 tables of PFS scheduled, with an emphasis on offering good introductory games for first-time players and being friendly to walk-ins. But we would love more pre-committed interest, so if you're in the Central Valley and have the weekend free, please consider coming down and having a great time supporting both our local library system and gaming in the Valley. Our current PFS schedule is as follows, with full details on our Warhorn.
#0-01: Silent Tide
#1-45: Delirium's Tangle
#6-05: Slave Ships of Absalom
#6-17: Fires of Karamoss
#7-17: Thralls of the Shattered God
#7-24: Dead Man's Debt
#7-25: Orders from the Gate
#8-07: From the Tome of Righteous Repose
As well as:
Pathfinder Quests Phantom Phenomena and Honor's Echo!
ZappCon returns for a triumphant third year! We're a Central California con with a LOT of awesome cosplayers. Last year we had about 2,000 people turn out and we hope to break that this year!
PFS-wise, we'll be offering 12 slots of PFS over 4 slots.
Specific scenarios we'll be offering:
#0-08: Slave Pits of Absalom (1-5)
#6-05: Slave Ships of Absalom (1-5)
#6-10: The Wounded Wisp (1-2)
#7-03: The Bronze House Reprisal (5-9)
#7-09: The Blakros Connection (5-9)
#7-10: The Consortium Compact (1-2)
#7-19: Labyrinth of Hungry Ghosts (3-7)
#7-21: The Sun Orchid Scheme (1-5)
#8-01: Portent's Peril (1-5)
#8-02: Ward Asunder (3-7)
...as well as tables of the Pathfinder Quests, for new interested players!
Many things sleep, beneath the forests and mountains of Varisia... many are the ruins of a lost age which dot its rugged land, voiceless speakers to a bygone time-- a time of giants and of those more powerful than giants. Eroded stones, monuments crumbled to shapeless lumps, the foundations of once-mighty towers...
I started a campaign last night and put up a placeholder post in the gameplay thread just to get things started, and then deleted said placeholder post, which went fine.
Now I can't seem to post to the gameplay thread at all. I've tried posting with multiple of my aliases. I receive no error messages-- I click submit and it goes through loading the page as normal, but nothing has shown up as a result.
Let us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a corpse upon the necromancer's table;
Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of thugs and gangs in one-night cheap taverns
And sawdust feast-halls with painted slatterns:
Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insiduous intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question ...
Oh, do not ask, "Have we leveled?"
Or be by CR 10s bedeviled.
In the room the goblins come and go
Talking of how to stab you so it shows.
For people in the Central California region (or anywhere, but it's unlikely that people will be coming from out of state to our mini-con!) :
Fresno, CA will be hosting a minicon called BookWyrm on April 16-17, in conjunction with our local public library. A number of gaming systems will be offered, including lots of indie games. We also have 12 tables of PFS scheduled, with an emphasis on offering good introductory games for first-time players and being friendly to walk-ins. But we would love more pre-committed interest, so if you're in the Central Valley and have the weekend free, please consider coming down and having a great time supporting both our local library system and gaming in the Valley. Our current PFS schedule is as follows, with full details on our Warhorn.
- PFS0-27: Our Lady of Silver - Table will fire; still open slots
- PFS1-33: Assault on the Kingdom of the Impossible - Table needs a GM and more players!
- PFS5-08: The Confirmation - Table needs a GM and more players!
- PFS4-18: The Veteran's Vault - Table needs a GM and more players!
- PFS7-10: The Consortium Compact - Table needs more players!
- PFS7-15: The Deepmarket Deception - Table needs more players!
- PFS5-19: The Horn of Aroden - Table needs more players!
- PFS6-19: Test of Tar Kuata - Table is FULL! Yay!
- Pathfinder Module: We Be Goblins! - Table needs more players!
- PFS1-56: The Jester's Fraud - Table will fire; one slot left
- PFS3-19: The Icebound Outpost - Table needs more players!
- Pathfinder Module: We Be Goblins Too! - Table needs more players!
Full details are in the linked Warhorn. Attendance is FREE!
I'm Dien! I'll be your captain for this flight. Remember to buckle up and follow the instructions of a flight attendant. In the event of a TPK please see to your own PP first!
A few things:
-Maps will be handled using Google Drawings. If you cannot normally access Google Drawings, PLEASE TELL ME NOW. It seems like there's always someone who halfway into the first combat tells me "I can't use the map." It's one thing if you can't access it at work or something but can check it later and just need someone to move you in the moment, but it's not fun for the whole scenario.
-I will roll initiatives for you, occasionally perception, and usually saves; please make sure you have any unusual bonuses/etc clearly listed on your sheets.
-This is a Season 0, so yeah, y'all prolly gonna curbstomp it.
Given this is a relatively low-level game, I doubt anybody has anything too weird, but, standard disclaimer; If you have any cool, unusual, bizarre, complicated, or strange abilities or senses, lemme know now. This would be things like 'immediate actions to force rerolls' (actually immediate actions in general since they can be complicated in PBP), special senses like tremorsense or other weird stuff, aaaaand anything else you think worth mentioning.
-Gameplay will start sometime in the next few days, once I'm satisfied I've prepped sufficiently. The table mustered pretty quick, so we'll likely begin before the original date of Friday.
-I try to ask for a post a day, with acceptable slow-downs over the weekend. As the GM, I will try and keep things moving, of course, but I'm no particular rush to get it done, either. If you need to be done with this by [some important date], I'd suggest you either pick a different character or yield your spot to another player or the like, because I don't really enjoy having to rush through a PBP, as I like building atmosphere and exploring RP. If you haven't posted in 24 hours (48 on weekends), I reserve the right to bot you if we're waiting on you.
Go ahead and post your PFS #, faction, player and character name, and, if you like, your day job check. I know lots of people like to use re-rolls on those if not used in the scenario itself, so if you roll it now but don't use the re-roll in the course of the scenario you may still roll it again at the end.
Any questions?
(Oh, we are playing 4-5, but GM V, if you want to bring your Level 3 Wizard that should be fine. The party is all solidly in tier aside from that and.... it's Season 0, so yeah.)
I'm Dien! I'll be your captain for this flight. Remember to buckle up and follow the instructions of a flight attendant. In the event of a TPK please see to your own PP first!
A few things:
-Maps will be handled using Google Drawings. If you cannot normally access Google Drawings, PLEASE TELL ME NOW. It seems like there's always someone who halfway into the first combat tells me "I can't use the map." It's one thing if you can't access it at work or something but can check it later and just need someone to move you in the moment, but it's not fun for the whole scenario.
-I will roll initiatives for you, occasionally perception, and usually saves; please make sure you have any unusual bonuses/etc clearly listed on your sheets.
-This is a Season 0, so yeah, y'all prolly gonna curbstomp it.
Given this is a relatively low-level game, I doubt anybody has anything too weird, but, standard disclaimer; If you have any cool, unusual, bizarre, complicated, or strange abilities or senses, lemme know now. This would be things like 'immediate actions to force rerolls' (actually immediate actions in general since they can be complicated in PBP), special senses like tremorsense or other weird stuff, aaaaand anything else you think worth mentioning.
-Gameplay will start sometime in the next few days, once I'm satisfied I've prepped sufficiently. The table mustered pretty quick, so we'll likely begin before the original date of Friday.
-I try to ask for a post a day, with acceptable slow-downs over the weekend. As the GM, I will try and keep things moving, of course, but I'm no particular rush to get it done, either. If you need to be done with this by [some important date], I'd suggest you either pick a different character or yield your spot to another player or the like, because I don't really enjoy having to rush through a PBP, as I like building atmosphere and exploring RP. If you haven't posted in 24 hours (48 on weekends), I reserve the right to bot you if we're waiting on you.
Go ahead and post your PFS #, faction, player and character name, and, if you like, your day job check. I know lots of people like to use re-rolls on those if not used in the scenario itself, so if you roll it now but don't use the re-roll in the course of the scenario you may still roll it again at the end.
Any questions?
(Oh, we are playing 4-5, but GM V, if you want to bring your Level 3 Wizard that should be fine. The party is all solidly in tier aside from that and.... it's Season 0, so yeah.)
I'm Dien! I'll be your captain for this flight. Remember to buckle up and follow the instructions of a flight attendant. In the event of a TPK please see to your own PP first!
A few things:
-Maps will be handled using Google Drawings. If you cannot normally access Google Drawings, PLEASE TELL ME NOW. It seems like there's always someone who halfway into the first combat tells me "I can't use the map." It's one thing if you can't access it at work or something but can check it later and just need someone to move you in the moment, but it's not fun for the whole campaign.
-I will roll initiatives for you, occasionally perception, and usually saves; please make sure you have any unusual bonuses/etc clearly listed on your sheets.
-This is a Season 0, with all the occasional swinginess of balance issues that sometimes happened in Season 0.
-We will be playing the 7-8 tier, unless people drastically change their signups or anything.
If you have any cool, unusual, bizarre, complicated, or strange abilities or senses, lemme know now. This would be things like 'immediate actions to force rerolls' (actually immediate actions in general since they can be complicated in PBP), special senses like tremorsense or other weird stuff, aaaaand anything else you think worth mentioning.
-Gameplay will start the 30th or so, maybe a little earlier if everyone's ready to go and I'm satisfied I've prepped sufficiently. I'm running a module this Sunday, so I won't likely devote time to prepping for this until Monday.
-I try to ask for a post a day, with acceptable slow-downs over the weekend. I will try and keep things moving, of course, but I'm no particular rush to get it done, either. If you need to be done with this by [some important date], I'd suggest you either pick a different character or yield your spot to another player or the like, because I don't really enjoy having to rush through a PBP, as I like building atmosphere and exploring RP. If you haven't posted in 24 hours (not including weekends), I reserve the right to bot you.
We have a brand new player who just started with us at our local PFS. The day he came, we were running Level 2 of Thornkeep, so he wound up playing Iconic Valeros (at level 4).
From the Roleplaying Guild Guide section on playing pregenerated characters in modules (pg. 31):
PFSRGG wrote:
If you play a non-1st-level pregenerated character, you may apply credit from the pregenerated character to one of your 1st-level characters, with the gp gained reduced to 1,398 gp (or 699 gp for slow advancement track characters).
What about XP? Does the new player get the 3 XP the module grants, or just 1 XP?
Hey California gamers! (and anyone else who wants to come!)
ZappCon Year 2 is taking place in Fresno, California, on October 17-18. We're a small, friendly con that saw about 1500 people come out last year (our first year), and we want to keep it growing. I'm organizing PFS specifically for the con, but we have plenty of other gaming systems on offer if PFS isn't your speed.
If you'd like to see the schedule of activities, check us out on Sched! The convention's main site is Zappcon.com.
Come on down! We have plenty of open space still at our PFS tables!
So, having previously played through it myself, I'm now running through Thornkeep for my local PFS group, and one of the things that struck me during prep is the fact that the book does a pretty good job of detailing out a nice, contained, mini-campaign setting with a lot of plot hooks, NPCs, and local color within the Thornkeep town and region...
....none of which you are likely to get to do anything with in a PFS-setting, given the fact that you only get to give out PFS credit for the actual dungeon delve itself. So, missing farmer's daughters, gang tensions, a werewolf baron, a d20 rumor chart, and spooky noises from the old abandoned house are all things that I can't do anything with because they have almost zero effect on the PFS-legal portions of the module, and I also do not usually have the time, when running this in my local PFS, to let the PCs dally around chasing red-herring rumors in town for a half-hour or more, as we need to get to the credit-legal stuff and finish in a timely fashion.
This depresses me. This is a great setting for a mini-campaign going from levels 1-7, which could easily lead into the PCs taking out the baron and becoming the new town bosses (or various other outcomes). There's many intriguing plothooks to help the PCs level up and loot up in between the actual dungeon delve levels (which is necessary, since if you run a party straight through Thornkeep and don't allow any XP but what each level gives you, you quickly wind up with a party that is on the low-end of power curve for levels 2 and 3, and is not even minimum level for for level 4 and 5). If I run this strictly PFS, I can't take advantage of any of this Other Stuff, and I'm left with just a dungeon delve, that I have to pad with other PFS scenarios to allow the PCs to be the appropriate level for the later Thornkeep levels.
I'd like to run a PBP mini-campaign set in the Thornkeep region, so that I take out the time constraint issue and can let the PCs get attached to and interested in the region itself. I'd like to let them go chase down those sidequest rumors, have some adventures on the side, then come back to their big dungeon.
But how can I do this while preserving the PFS-legal portion and letting people get credit accordingly?
I can't give them PFS-applicable XP for the non-dungeon portions, so they can't actually 'level up' with PFS characters doing these sidequests. I can't give them resources/treasure outside of the dungeon that they could then use in the dungeon. It creates a conundrum.
Of course, the simplest option would just be to run this as a home campaign, no PFS credit, period; but that means writing off potential PFS credit for players, which seems a shame. (I don't care about my own GM credit for this, since I'm going to have already run through it at my local PFS.)
Option 2 would be to do this the way PFS credit and APs mesh-- you don't need to run them with a PFS character, you can run them as an actual campaign, but the PFS-credit gets applied to your PFS character of the appropriate levels. However, I don't know if this is legal to do for the Thornkeep modules. Can anyone weigh in on that?
Option 3 would be sort of a nightmarish dual bookkeeping thing: where the PCs would basically have to keep two sets of records, one to keep track of their PFS-legal resources, treasure, and XP, and the other one to keep track of all the side-adventuring they do in the local region, but which has no bearing on their actual dungeon delving, or any other PFS scenarios they play with the character. In this option, characters would advance as heroes in a purely-narrative sense in the Thornkeep sidequests, but their players would meanwhile get to play other PFS scenarios with the characters, leveling up until they're ready to tackle the next dungeon aspect. Obviously, this would necessitate players on board with this extra level of book-keeping, and I'm not crazy about it, but if Option 2 isn't legal I'm not sure there's a better way to try and combine the for-credit and not-for-credit elements of Thornkeep. :-\
Has anyone tried anything similar to this, whether with Thornkeep or something else? Can anyone suggest solutions I'm not seeing?
Dana Huber
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
,
Marathon Voter Season 8, Dedicated Voter Season 9 aka dien
9 people marked this as a favorite.
Much as I love the snark thread, I remember last season we had a compliments thread too, and I'd like to get it going again.
Two items I've seen so far-- one a bit chilly, one a bit heavenly-- (Really hope I'm not being too specific with that, as I've seen numerous items that I could be describing with those vague terms) do nothing that original with mechanics. In fact, mechanically I'd even say they are treading overworn territory-- but where they brought a smile to my face, and earned my vote, was in their beautiful descriptive text and imagery. Sometimes it's possible to polish up an old concept with a rocking visual. Good work, Mystery Designers.
What it says on the tin! PFS-legal characters levels 1-2, playing an oldie but goodie in the form of Murder on the Silken Caravan. First come, first served.
As this is part of the Gameday, the game will officially start on 9/19/15.
I will handle maps either through Roll20 or Google Drawings, if Roll20 is a problem for any of my confirmed players.
That's five consecutive 3s, on 5 consecutive d20s. (Yeah, a 4 on a d8 snuck in there, but the d20s did a solid progression of suck... For the ten d20 rolls I made in that post, we have a: 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 6, 2, 19, 16, and a nat 1. For a net average of slightly less than 6.)
How am I supposed to kill any PCs like that?*
*somewhat tongue-in-cheek, since I'm GMPCing half the party right now, so my bad dice are also their bad dice
I'm sure we all have the stories of the ridiculous string of bad (or good) rolls (usually we remember the bad ones more...).
I had a brief, glorious period where when I looked at my PBPs over the last week, almost 1/3 of my dice rolls had been natural 20s. Alas, it couldn't last.
I mean it as a serious question, though, and I suppose it's worth clarifying by what I mean by 'overpowered' in this context. Many spells are potentially very powerful. But after several years of playing Pathfinder, I've noticed that my spellcasters all tend to hit commonalities of 'must have' spells. As an arcane caster, I can't imagine not picking up, say, glitterdust, and haste, because those spells are so good for their level that it feels like an intentionally sub-par choice if I don't learn them. As a divine caster, burst of radiance feels similarly so good (guaranteed auto-damage against evil foes? a chance to blind anyone? hell yes...). (Noting it's available as a wizard/sorc spell too. Yeesh.)
These three spells hit my personal criteria for: 'spells I really have to talk myself out of, otherwise every caster I play will feel like a carbon copy of my last caster'. That's what I mean by 'overpowered' in this particular sense: the spells that beat out their competition by such a substantial margin, that you feel like you're crippling yourself/your party if you don't take them.
I'm curious to know if anyone else feels this way about these, or other, spells in the game.
----- Defense ----- AC 19, touch 6, flat-footed 19 (-2 Dex, +12 natural, -2 size)
hp 94 (9d10+45)
Fort +11, Ref +1, Will +9
Defensive Abilities blightburn sickness; DR 5/adamantine; Immune acid, radiation; Resist electricity 10
Weaknesses vulnerability to sonic
----- Offense ----- Speed 30 ft., burrow 20 ft.
Melee bite +15 (2d6+8 plus grab), slam +15 (1d8+8 plus blightburn sickness)
Space 15 ft.; Reach 10 ft.
Special Attacks blightburn sickness (DC 17), breath weapon (30-foot cone, blightburn vapor, DC 17), grab, swallow whole (3d6 acid damage, blightburn sickness, AC 16, 9 HP)
----- Statistics ----- Str 26, Dex 6, Con 20, Int 5, Wis 13, Cha 7
Base Atk +9; CMB +19 (+23 grapple); CMD 26 (cannot be tripped)
Feats Alertness, Deepsight, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Power Attack
Skills Climb +16, Intimidate +5, Perception +15, Sense Motive +8, Survival +6, Swim +16
Languages Terran
----- Ecology ----- Environment Plane of Earth, underground
Organization solitary
Treasure standard (gemstones, metals, and ores only; see text)
----- Special Abilities ----- Blightburn Sickness (Ex) Weakened blightburn crystals decorate a blightbore's body. Any creature hit by its slam attack or swallowed whole risks contracting a mild form of blightburn sickness (Into the Darklands, p. 16). (Fort DC 17; onset immediate; frequency 1/day; effect 1d6 Con/1d6 Cha damage; cure 2 consecutive saves.) This also applies to creatures who hit a blightbore with a natural weapon or unarmed strike.
Creatures who contract blightburn sickness cannot teleport or be teleported until cured.
Blightburn Vapor (Ex) Once every 1d4+1 rounds, the blightbore can spew blightburn vapor in a 30-ft cone, exposing targets to blightburn sickness.
Scent Minerals (Ex) Similar to a rust monster's scent metals, a blightbore can sense ores, metals, and gemstones.
Despite their horrific appearance-- enormous maws and radioactive carapaces-- blightbores aren’t inherently malicious. A blightbore is indifferent to other creatures... unless they’re carrying materials the blightbore desires.
Originally from the Plane of Earth, blightbores burrow through the Material Plane seeking ores, crystals, and especially blightburn. Immune to the crystal's radiation, blightbores 'consume' it along with everything from granite to gold. A blightbore derives no nourishment from these inorganics, but processes them and excretes them into complex patterns on its skin, with blightburn chunks featured prominently. The deliberate designs indicate intelligence, but their purpose is unknown to any but the blightbores. It is also unknown why blightbores prize blightburn, but some scholars theorize the worms may be an engineered species, designed as collectors/disposers of hazardous materials.
Though a mature blightbore is a living treasure trove, these riches come with a risk: lingering radiation. Many have killed blightbores and harvested their riches only to succumb days later to brittle bones and open sores, leading to superstitious rumors of a 'death curse.'
In combat, a blightbore uses its breath weapon, then seeks to swallow the creature it deems most dangerous (or tastiest). While blightbores are not highly intelligent, they understand their lack of ranged offense, and will burrow away from a foe they cannot attack.
Blightbores are solitary creatures who meet only for mating. Once every decade, a female deposits a single, metallic egg, then moves on. The newborn consumes the egg on hatching and starts growing its unique armor.
An adult blightbore is 15 feet long but its dense, mineral-rich body can weigh up to 15 tons.
Description
This small wooden ring resembles a serpent with tiny gemstone eyes coiling around the wearer's finger. The wearer's skin manifests a faint, diamond-shaped pattern of scales, and the pupils of the wearer's eyes become vertical, as a snake's. The wearer grows a pair of fangs, gaining a bite attack as a primary natural attack. This attack deals 1d4 points of piercing damage for a Medium wearer or 1d3 points of damage for a Small wearer.
Three times per day as a free action, the wearer of the ring may cause her fangs to drip with venom, making her bite attack poisonous for 1 round. This poison has a DC of 10 + the wearer's Con modifier, but otherwise acts as black adder venom. If the wearer rolls a natural one on an attack with her poisonous bite, she is exposed to the poison.
Once per day as a standard action, the wearer may command her tongue to lengthen and become forked for one minute, during which she gains the scent special ability. While this ability is active, the wearer has a 20% chance of failure when casting any spell with a verbal component, as the tongue makes it difficult to speak.
The ring makes its wearer more sensitive to cold. She takes a -2 penalty to saves versus cold spells, weather, and effects. Additionally, if the wearer is successfully affected by a spell with the cold descriptor, she is slowed for 1 round.
Construction Requirements Forge Ring, beast shape I, magic fang, poison; Cost 5,000 gp
Let's say we have an old green dragon that decides, for purposes of wanting to talk to the PCs in a 'civil' fashion/otherwise not reveal its draconian self, to use its alter self spell to take on the form of a human.
What will its stat block be like while under the effects of the spell?
Base Stats after size modifications are made:
Str = 19
Dex = 12
Con = 17
Int = 18
Wis = 19
Cha = 18
AC = ?
This one depends on whether or not the dragon's natural armor bonus goes away. "While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form." Is the dragon's +25 NA considered to be an extraordinary or supernatural ability depending on its original form? Because if not, then the dragon's AC actually goes UP while in human form, to a crazy AC 36... and if not, the dragon drops to a painful AC 11.
HP: Remain the same, I believe, as I see nothing about HP or hit dice changing.
Base speed is 30, loses flight, blah blah.
BaB = +19, + STR 4 = +23 to hit, but, what are the attacks? The dragon loses its bite, claw, and tail attacks, and has no weapon proficiencies. So... the humanized dragon could attack with a non-proficient weapon at a +19, I suppose.
The big question, though, is spellcasting. A dragon's spells are not born of taking class levels in sorceror; they are born of being, you know, a freakin' dragon. Does anything change regarding the green dragon's abilities to cast spells, given that it is no longer a dragon at the moment? What about spell resistance-- also something innate to being a dragon?
Hey! If you're looking to get in on some gaming goodness (Pathfinder and many other systems) this month, and you're in California, please check out ZAPP CON, a convention taking place for the first time this year in Fresno, CA.
We want a lot of players filling the gaming tables so we can prove it's viable to have this again next year. But there's more than just gaming-- we have the usual broad spectrum of geek experience on display, from panels and vendors to comic books and SF/F and cosplaying.
Please help make our local con a success! Come out for the Pathfinder Society-- perhaps you haven't yet gotten a chance to play Legacy of the Stonelords? Or perhaps you're a gamer wanting to meet some more people playing Savage Worlds, or Fate, or any of a dozen other systems? Or perhaps you just want some Doctor Who socks? Either way, we want you, so c'mon down!
