Killer Shrike's page

It pleasantly surprised me; very cool and unexpected. It raised the oracle in my estimation.

I sincerely hope to see more new mysteries like this introduced in future products.

Give a cookie to whoever came up with the idea.

For what it's worth, I agree with the OP. The use of Magus for a Spellsword type of character is confusing and misapplied.

Apparently it is too late to do anything about it, but it's unfortunate that a better and more thematic name could not be found.

Also, while a hidebound adherence to source material isn't worthwhile unto itself, if a concept simply doesn't exist and never did exist in non-D&D material then is it really an archetypal fantasy concept that requires a core class to properly model it?

Any sort of nature oriented character is going to do well in this AP. The survival skill is a big deal as well.

Also, an Inquisitor with the right spell picks is very advantaged.

Well...ok then. The message says:

"Should ship from our warehouse within 4 to 9 business days. Will ship via Standard Postal Delivery in 2 packages (estimated 4 to 10 business days in transit)"

If one package is coming from distribution and another isn't, and I've been charged for s/h appropriately, I guess it's not apparant to me why you wouldn't ship one package when it is available and ship the second package once it arrives via distribution (or whatever causes one package to not be available as rapidly as the other).

But nonetheless, I'll hold my horses a little longer.

I ordered this a week ago and it is still pending. Is there a problem?

Yeah, we used the term Blue Falcon in the buddy f-er sense in the Marines (93-98). It wasn't as common as FUBAR or some of the unprintables, but it was part of the vernacular.

Probably seemed cool to the game designer putting the AT together. I try not to make assumptions that things are always done "for a reason"; it doesn't pay to rule out the "it seemed cool at the time" factor.

Paizo is the best thing about Pathfinder.

Greyhawk Adventures by Jim Ward.

It was a pretty innovative book in its day...don't know how much value you'll get out of it now. Most of the flavor bits made it into later supplements, and a lot of the rules bits were obsoleted by later editions.

Working off of memory, we used it even into 2nd Edition. I recall using the specialty priest stuff (which wasn't really very balanced, but what did we know of or care about balance back then?). Some of the custom spells were cool. Several members of the Circle of 8 were effectively specialists (though technically just wizards), and their vanity spells were effectively a treasure trove of spells for an actual specialist with the same focus.

There was also some interesting background info about the Suel vs Bakluni war. Some interesting regional items.

Good stuff for a Greyhawk completist, but set your expectations to 1e standards. It was arguably one of the best 1e supplements, but it's thin, has black and white line art, and so forth.

Which is a good idea, IMO. I really like the re-focusing on the base classes.

snipped good observations

So, in another thread you said Alchemist > Bard. Where do Inquisitors fit into that for you?

Alchemist > Bard > Inquis
or Alchemist > Inquis > Bard
or Alchemist > Inquis ~ Bard
or Inquis > Alchemist > Bard
or Inquis ~ Alchemist > Bard

(~ = equivalent)

On that note...to make full use of their Throwing eliteness, what else could an Alchemist chuck down range for fame and fortune?

Lets compile a list...I'll start it off with the really obvious:

*Bombs
*Tanglefoot bags
*Holy Water
*Oil
*Acid Flasks
*Improvised Weapons
*Torches
*???

Maybe I'm just being dense...but:

(PRD)

Javelin 1 gp 1d4 1d6 ×2 30 ft. 2 lbs. P —
Short Spear 1 gp 1d4 1d6 ×2 20 ft. 3 lbs. P —
Spear 2 gp 1d6 1d8 ×3 20 ft. 6 lbs. P brace
Long Sword 15 gp 1d6 1d8 19–20/×2 — 4 lbs. S —

it just doesnt seem economical or practical to throw longswords vs a normal thrown weapon for such a marginal improvemment in damage. I mean, sure, in extremis, but not as an everyday tactic.

Also, it's pedantic, but technically ammunition such as sling stones don't do damage on the weapons chart; the device used to project the projectile has the listed damage and it's understood that you need the projectile weapon and ammunition to do the listed damage.

Sling — 1d3 1d4 ×2 50 ft. — B —
Bullets, sling (10) 1 sp — — — — 5 lbs. — —

Arrows and bolts specifically have a special entry detailing their use as an improvised weapon, but sling stones don't:

Arrows: An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (–4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (critical multiplier ×2). Arrows come in a leather quiver that holds 20 arrows.

Bullets, Sling: Bullets are shaped metal balls, designed to be used by a sling or halfling sling staff. Bullets come in a leather pouch that holds 10 bullets.

...so while by common sense throwing a rock at someone would do some minor damage, by RAW I don't think it would actually accomplish anything.

You actually throw longswords as a matter of course, like funny shaped javelins? Why longswords specifically? Why not spears or something designed to be thrown? How many can you carry around without being encumbered to a crawl?

RE:
I think what i like most is the ability to strike at an enemy with their weakness no matter what it is. A quiver full of arrows for every DR, a few different types of bombs, and the right infusion for any situation lets you pull exactly what you need out of you know where on a moments notice to save the day.

Am I missing something? What Alchemist ability would allow you to make Arrows for every DR?

The APG has weapon blanches (which work like silversheen, but for 1 hit) which are creatable with the alchemy skill. There's a cold iron, adamantite, and silver version. Technically anyone can buy them, but an alchemist can mass produce them.

Very nice! Thanks for pointing that out.

We included Knockback as a combat option in Lands of the Jade Oath. It's fun. After using it in some games though, I recommend limiting it to 15 feet max. This isn't Champions. ;)

Or Fantasy HERO, for that matter. But it could be...

The Alchemist, Bard, and Inquisitor are all hybrid tool-boxy classes with a little bit of a lot of things and a niche unique to them. How do they compare and contrast with each other?

Are they all roughly equivalent in raw capability or not?

Do they all scale equivalently or do some peak early or late?

Do they all work equally well in large or small parties or are some of them better off in smaller or larger groups?

Etc...how do they stack up when looked at side by side?

Thoughts?

RE: Alchemist > Bard: I've not heard anyone yet say that Alchemist is stronger than Bard. I see your points however. To my eye they look roughly comparable on paper, but I've seen some power-Bards in my day; it's a class that basically comes down to the player's skill.

A subject worth its own thread perhaps, to see what the general consensus of opinion is...

RE:
I think what i like most is the ability to strike at an enemy with their weakness no matter what it is. A quiver full of arrows for every DR, a few different types of bombs, and the right infusion for any situation lets you pull exactly what you need out of you know where on a moments notice to save the day.

Am I missing something? What Alchemist ability would allow you to make Arrows for every DR?

Killer Shrike wrote:

Cons: The U/I is clunky and functional...but it's a chargenerator so not a deal breaker. You have to buy each system's resource files separately, though you get one for free with initial purchase.

The thing about your statement above about having to buy the rest of the resource files is simply not a true one. You do NOT have to buy the other resources or datasets as you mention simply because they for one are not mandatory to own... and you can add the content manually instead of putting the money forth to buy them. The only different being is the time it will take to implement the data in to the system then.

I wish you luck. but I do not see the above as a con so to speak.

Not sure what the misunderstanding is.

You don't buy it for Pathfinder and also get Savage Worlds and the other games files for free. If you decided you wanted to use HL for Savage Worlds you would need to buy the Savage Worlds resource files to do so (and so forth). If you only use HL for one game system then it's a wash. If you happen to play more than one of the games it supports its an added expenditure.

I suppose you could create your own resource files if you wanted to (in fact, back when I was creating new Mordheim content I did do that for Army Builder), but I doubt many people would want to invest the time.

I used to use Army Builder for 40k, Mordheim, etc and had very favorable results, so I gave Hero Lab the benefit of the doubt and just bought it outright.

Pros: It gets the job done. It's pretty flexible. The journal and portfolio aspects are useful. If you run a laptop at the gaming table it's got very nice support for temporary effects. The U/I is fairly intuitive; a reasonable person can figure out what they need to do pretty quickly. The basic software is multi-system.

Cons: The character sheet output is serviceable but is not attractive, and also suffers from absolutely sized input boxes which cut off long output. If I could get it to print out ALL text for all abilities I could live with the cosmetics. The U/I is clunky and functional...but it's a chargenerator so not a deal breaker. You have to buy each system's resource files separately, though you get one for free with initial purchase.

What I would really like would be a character generator as sophisticated as Hero Designer (the HERO System character generator). Among other niceties it uses an export template model, so you can export characters to any open format. I use custom HTML outputs for maximum pretty-shiny, but text, rtf, and other formats exist. Baring that, Hero Lab is solid and IMO worth the money.

Good info. I really like the Alchemist and want it to be viable. I have some questions that maybe you can speak to:

Do you feel that the non-magic aspects of the class are worth it? The skill selection, d8 hd, two strong saves, 3/4 BAB, light armor prof, poison use, etc, compensate for the lack of high level spells?

Do you feel that the Alchemist is competitive with the Bard, to the point that they are more or less interchangeable in a party line-up?

Do you reap benefits from the Brew Potion feat and alchemy / poison creation aspect of the class?

Do you feel like you will take Alchemist all the way to 20, or are you eyeballing some multi-class options to branch out into other areas?

Are you competitive with other spell-casty PC's in the party (if any), or are you lagging behind and becoming irrelevant?

Do you have enough bombs to get through a full adventuring day, or do you run dry too soon?

Snarky response: Because it's "Wall" of force, and not "floor" of force.

(bows)

But would you consider making a "Arbitrarily Inclined Sheet...of FORCE" spell for elixiriszog's birthday?

I mean...you could make a spell like that but...why bother?

I see what you did there ;)

I had players in the past who would always try to choose Neutral alignment simply to avoid being affected by these spells.

The easiest fix that I determined was that true neutral were affected by BOTH spells.

Robert

We did TN takes half damage from all aligned types, which seems a bit more fair than full damage from all.

Because I can.

** spoiler omitted **...

Ok...credit where it's due, that's a well told story.

Still, I played a monk in 3e and he was pretty ridiculously awesome. I multiclassed around and maybe bent a rules intent or two, but he was pretty ridiculous even in a large group of pc's. So...I feel your pain but it sounds like you felt the sting of self-gimping and have some bitterness.

Surely you can find the humor in the situation and let it go?

wraithstrike wrote:

I think a lot of these assumptions are based on potential, and in that case they are right. I think we all know realistically you can't do 8 things at once, even if it gets lost in the discussion.

The back and forth of "Then I would have this" drives me crazy.

The point of the game is you walk into a situation with a specific skill set, and then have to adapt to what happens.

But on the boards it's "rebuild on the fly" to meet the specific criteria provided.

It's the Cowboy and Indian effect. "I shot you!", "No, you missed!".

I totally agree with you regarding argument from specifics vs generalized theoreticals. No model can be assessed in a vacuum; context, details, and relative comparisons matter greatly.

threadjack what?

How many of you run games for one player?

I have on a few occasions.

What are your campaign specifics?

Varied, but as a general statement some of the "campaigns" were much more focused. More like a typical story vs a gaming campaign as the spotlight was firmly on a single main protagonist.

If run like a typical D&D adventure it becomes much more like an arbitrated "choose your own adventure" for the one player, but you have to be careful to not overwhelm them. You'll also probably need to provide occasional in-setting support of some kind to keep them from getting one-shotted or chump dropped if a fight goes the wrong way.

Do you have the player run multiple characters?

Either way.

For a story-driven plot, I prefer one main protagonist. Even if the player does run more than one character, I'll encourage them to keep one more primary for a given story arc to prevent schizo scenarios.

Do you run NPC's along side the PC to help out?

Generally you'll have to provide a lot more NPC frontage to fill in the gaps, but I don't like to promote an NPC to such a point that they are a DMPC anymore.

Often what I'll do is allow the player to control a cohort or ally in combat situations, and I'll handle the roleplaying aspects and provide the "voice".

If you run for just one PC, what do you do to keep the game balanced and enjoyable for one player?

Scale back the opposition a bit. Keep the ratio more like 75% / 25% roleplaying / combat. Heavier use of out-of-combat abilities.

Unfortunately we don't all have large gaming groups. I do good to get more than two people together at a time. I'm wanting to start a new campaign for just my wife though. Anyway, there's the topic. Running for one player.

Let's discuss.

It's not the same as running a group as the social aspect is lacking. However, there is a potential to tell a collaborative story with your player much more coherently than with a more typical group.

Bottom line, it comes down to the relationship between the GM and the single player. If you are working together to make the format work it can be very rewarding.

I say go for it and give it three sessions. If after that its not working, its been a small investment and you can easily stop.

No mention of the Inquisitor, now that's a tough class. I'm playing one now and I have to say it surprised me how capable this class is. It's like the Bard with Arcane bend to it but way more combat oriented. I'm playing an Inquisitor of Mask and I'm totally not optimized at all and kicking butt! Well doing so when fully buffed. The skills make the Inquisitor a blast to play in non combat situations. My stealth is good enough to keep up with the rogue, the rogue of course is better but not by much. The rogue appreciates this as if thing get bad he's got someone to flank with. I've never made use of Intimidate like I have with this character. It's a blast.

Yeah, Inquisitors have lots of layered bennies and are solid.

I have not played with APG classes, but it is my impression from the ability descriptions, that they are more powerful, than the core classes.

Right or wrong?

Any specific things leaping out at you?

Several of the APG classes seem weaker to me than core classes.

Personally, I'm eyeballing some of the AT's in the APG as possible problems more so than most of the APG classes.

Brilliant.

I can't speak to the Witch first hand, but after a couple of attempts to make a decent one I'm unimpressed over all. I'm not liking the niche mechanics for the witch.

Wizard +1

Hi. I mentioned this in another thread where you linked the Inquisitor but I think he went a bit high on the Wisdom. Admittedly, as the only caster in the group, he's put a heavy load on himself but in my experience the Inquisitor is not well suited to trying to be a primary caster.

Fair enough; I'll mention it to the player. The character is getting some benefit out of that fat WIS bonus though, so I don't think it's necessarily just the spell casting.

I'm actually pretty hopeful for the Inquis in this; with only two characters a hybrid class should really have a chance to shine.

Also, the player is a "batman" type guy; he likes utility oriented jack of all trades generalists characters than can contribute to just about any situation vs specialists. The player is really amped up and excited, so hopefully it will go well.

The Rager is in pretty good shape. I might consider dumping a stat, probably Int, to boost Str a bit.

True enough. This guy is a meat shield / tank anyway. I'll mention it to the player.

I'm kind of concerned about the Invul Rager, actually. I did a progression up to level 20 just to get a feel for how ugly it can get, and after 10th level the character is pretty "wow". And he's survivable enough that it shouldn't be a problem to ride out the lower levels to get there unless the player does something really dumb or gets spectacularly unlucky. Now, of course, the players actual picks will likely vary widely from my secret extrapolation, but there's a lot of potential in the Invulnerable Rager AT.

Killer Shrike wrote:

mike check...is this thing on?

I probably would have taken a martial weapon such as a battleaxe for a barbarian, but everything else looks ok.

Yeah, funny you should mention; I recommended the same thing vis a vis a battle axe or something along those lines, but the player trumped me with "concept".

mike check...is this thing on?

Setting things up, I'm a pretty extreme, type-A guy; some kind of conflict is pretty much a given at some point in any group setting over a long enough period of time. I'm not prone to sitting around doing nothing, and I'm not prone to backing down. So, admittedly, I'm often part of the problem.

Having said that, I've learned to try to avoid scenarios that will bring me into conflict with the GM or other players. I've learned to not challenge the GM overly much even though I almost always have a better understanding of the rules. I've learned to not short circuit the adventure unduly even though I can usually see thru the plot and see a way to "skip to the end" or bypass inessentials.

I didn't learn these things by contemplating my navel. I learned them the hard way.

I've left several groups. I've been the reason other players have left groups. I've hijacked groups to my own ends. I've let out of game crap break up good groups. I've let DMPC's run rampant. I've had heated arguments over the GM's screen. I've lost my s~%*e and gone on diatribes. I've shown players the door mid-session. I've been unnecessarily hard on players. I've railroaded, and I've sandboxed, I've meddled in character designs, and I've tweaked probabilities; I've even employed a Deus Ex Machina or two.

In short, I've made my share of mistakes over the years. Fortunately I can say that I've trended in the right direction, and after 26 years of gaming I can look back on the ups and downs and all arounds and see that it's both the things I did right as well as the things I did wrong that made me the gamer I am today, and thankfully most of my mistakes were made from age 10 thru 25, and the last 11 years have been smoother sailing.

What I started doing was reflecting on what I wanted a session to accomplish (in broad strokes) before hand, and a lessons learned after each session to identify any mistakes I made or things that could have gone better, and how satisfied I was with the session overall. Takes 10, 15 minutes. By applying this method I became much more aware of things that worked (and thus should be retained) and things that did not (and thus should be avoided), and capitalized on opportunities to improve. I do this both as a player and as a GM.

My gaming enjoyment improved significantly thereafter.

*********************************************************

So, about 12.5 years ago, I was between groups. I had recently gotten out of the military and was at loose ends. Most of my old compadres had gotten out and gone home and the rest were on deployment.

I had started a new job as a shiny new civilian and it was going ok but I worked a lot of hours and traveled a lot. Thus I didn't have time to GM.

So, I went down to the local gaming store which was all in all a good place, and got into a AD&D 2e game, which was not my favorite system to be sure, but it was familiar and it was set in Greyhawk which was my setting of choice back then.

The group was largish, 7 players and a DM, and they played in the store which meant there was a lot of external distractions. All surmountable. The GM was good people and there were a few members of the group that were alright. Then there were the four dregs, the game store vegypygmies. Classic basement dwelling arrested development types. You would think that people whose entire existence revolved around gaming would be good at it, but alas and alack.

The campaign was in progress and the PC's were in the Principality of Ulek, and basically I'm not sure what the over all goal was as I didn't really get briefed. My character, a half-elven FMT who was a follower of Tritherion and was basically a Robin Hood CG sort of character, was passing thru town. An orc raid from the Pomarj was the catalyst for me and another new player to join up with the group. The raid was repulsed pretty quickly, but the orcs kidnapped some kids and women, who all happened to be human.

The Principality of Ulek is a Dwarven-run kingdom, though humans also live there. So, the town guard, all dwarves, opts not to pursue the orcs into the Pomarj to rescue the victims.

This was a problem for my character, being a devout follower of Trithereon. Surprisingly, the rest of the PC's don't seem concerned either and also don't intend to pursue, including the Paladin of Heironeous (god of honor and bravery and so forth).

Now, 1) I'm assuming this is the hook for the session, and 2) it pretty clearly caters specifically to my character's background as described to the GM prior to play (history of fighting against the Slavers of the Wild Coast, freeing the oppressed, fighting tyranny and so forth).

So, I do my duty and step up to the plate. I grandstand and inveigh the townspeople, the dwarven guard, and the PC's to gather supplies and form up a posse to run the orcs down and save the kidnapped populace (the townfolks wives, daughters, and children mind you).

Not really getting anywhere with it. The townsfolk are apathetic; basically their attitude is "this happens all the time". The dwarven captain of the guard says its impossible and everyone will die, so don't bother. The other PC's are mostly lumps. So I try a different tact; first I attempt to rile up the human populace pointing out that if a single Dwarven child had been kidnapped, the dwarven guard would have been halfway to the Pomarj already. That went nowhere.

So then I try to rile up the Paladin, pointing out how this is exactly the sort of thing that a paragon of Heironeous should be all over and quickly came to the realization that the player didn't actually know anything about Heironeous...including possibly how to say it; it was just a name on his character sheet.

Keep in mind, I'm doing this 100% in-character. A couple of the other players would switch in and out, and the GM rose to occasion and tried to do it before giving up and reverting back to "the townspeople say no way".

So, I'm frustrated. This is clearly not going to work out. The rest of the PC's, including the new guy who hasn't really been introduced yet or formally incorporated into the group, decide they are going to get their gear and go to the next town.

I opt to gather my books and head to the next game. The GM was surprised. He says to me "but you're so into the game!", to which I replied "yeah, but it's lonely in here all by myself". I tried to recruit away the one player who was decent, but he was old pals with the GM and invested. So, basically, a waste of an afternoon.

jemstone wrote:

My Plate Mail? Defense 4.

NPC Plate Mail? Defense 12.

I could not, with a 150 point character, with a 15 STR and a 1d6+1 sword (meaning I was doing, let's see... STR min 8 on the sword, one +5 STR increment over the STR min... that raised me to 1 1/2D6 on the sword for an average of 6 points of damage with a maximum of 9), ever, in my life, hope to penetrate that armor. Ever.

Just out of curiosity: What system is that?

Fantasy HERO; though the GM clearly was off her nut. Basically the poster is describing a situation where the antagonists had armor that was effectively immune to the damage the PC's could generate.

In D&D terms, the bad guys had DR 12/- and the good guys had 1d6+3 or less attacks. Slight caveat; most editions of HERO have a STUN mechanic on a 1d6-1 multiple for killing attacks, so you could still possibly subdue opponents by hitting and hopping for a high multiple. If hit locations were in use you could make head or vital called shots for extra BODY, but it sounds like the PC's were kept so gimped that such an approach would have a low probability of success.

Basically, the GM didn't understand how to balance her game. Again, in D&D terms, it sounds like she was running a group of 2nd level characters thru a CR 10+ meatgrinder of a setting.

As it turns out, the player opted for an Inquisitor instead of either a Cleric or Oracle (ah, players and their infinite fickleness), but the info provided is good and I appreciate the input.

To try out the PFRPG variants for the first time I'm going to run the Serpent's Skull Adventure Path with two PC's starting at level 3.

Here are the two PC's in their current state. I'm looking for feedback and insights. I'm not going to countermand a player's choices "just because" but feedback will be brought to their attention. If there is an actual rules gaffe or mistake, a correction will be made, of course.

Gorbelo Torlan (LN Male Human (Chelaxian) Inquisitor 3)

Sandis Brakul (CG Male Human Barbarian (Invulnerable Rager) 3)

Thanks in advance!

EDIT: FYI, I used the High Fantasy / 20 points point buy method for ability scores. I allowed each character a special non-magical item.

Apologies if this has been asked / answered before (a board search didn't find anything for me).

I'm about to start the Serpents Skull Adventure Path, and will be allowing the APG. There is interest in the new classes, but I've learned to tread carefully over the years when incorporating "kewl new stuff".

I'm basically comfortable with most of the new classes in the APG, though my instinct is that there are lurking balance issues in some of them in both directions.

However, I'm a little bit stymied on the Oracle. The overlap with Cleric seems high, and I'm not really 100% clear on the relative pros and cons between them. On the surface it looks like Wizard vs Sorcerer but not as clear cut.

Can anyone help educate me on the finer points of how the two compare? Knowledge based on actual in-play observations as well as high-level objective comparison are welcome.

Thanks!

Got my copy yesterday afternoon and haven't had time to give it the full once over (in fact, I just finished reading part 1 this morning), but I did read the fiction section. Good stuff!

Way over thinking things. Pathfinder is a game, similar to risk and monopoly, not a life altering decision. We're not even selecting college majors here. Play it once, twice, or a couple of times. If this experience is more enjoyable than 3.5 continue, if not stop. It's really that simple. What you purchased in the past is an irrelevant sunk cost.

Agreed, and quoted for effect.

Less Sturm and Drang, more dice and fun.

Play, don't play, 3.x, Pathfinder, 4e, whatever.

They're all just games, meant to facilitate the having of fun, not festering nerd range or angst.

Like everything else, take the things you like and dump the things you don't. You like the rules and books? Take em. Don't like the setting? Don't use it. Want to blend some new stuff with some old stuff? Do it. Want Eberron + Pathfinder? Roll your own.

Are there any plans to compile the Greyhawk related material from the Paizo era of Dragon into a compendium?

If not, is it even a possibility?

Thanks!