Kolokotroni's page

What is wrong with a 20th level barbarian being able to sing? Nothing is broken you just don't understand what high levels means. High level pathfinder characters are friggan bad asses. Something that was hard for a 1st level character shouldn't be hard for them, regardless if they specialize in that thing anymore. A 20th level character inst Aragorn, he's batman, or superman, or the hulk. And I can think of one scene in particular from a dc animated film that explains my feelings on your issue. Search for batman sings in the old justice league cartoon.

This fixes way more problems then it caused. Such as for instance a 20th level wizard being more afraid of falling into a pond, then facing down a red dragon.

Not at all broad. I started exactly what I ment. The focus of this game seems to have shifted from role-playing into the realms of number-crunch-o-mania where everything is min-maxing your characters combat abilities. They attempted to streamline skills (and failed in my opinion) and bloated feats beyond comprehension. They cut down arcane casters, killed class abilities that use to be awesome and focused on bringing in new players. No awesome sideline classes made it into the book, just Alchemist (rolling eyes)

I stated exactly what I ment.
All my favorite things from PF1, ARE GONE.

Did you play a different version of pf1? There is not any more focus on crunch in pf2 then pf1, and if you think you couldnt minmax pf1 you clearly didnt visit the forums. Again, rather then being general please point out specifics. What elements are too crunchy that used to be flavorful. What feats are too 'bloated'. How are class abilities no good. Its not useful to speak so generally when your objective is to explain your position. List the feats, say why they are bad, give us a comparison of class abilities that were good and are not good now. That is literally what a playtest is for.

Moving on...

No skill points
The old system at least made it possible for degrees of success and error and margins of sills to be more than 5... freaking... points...

There is a method to this madness. They are bounding the math. That is among one of the most popular aspects of 5e. And while you dont like it, it makes a lot of sense in terms of system design. Also, no the old system didnt allo for degrees of success. It was purely binary, you fail or you succeed. This is the first introduction of degrees of success (where succeeding or failing most checks by 10 changes the effect). Your complaint isn't based in reality or you mean something other then what you said. Also, the difference isnt 5 points. Because you are ingoring all the ways you can alter that number. You are taking it in isolation because its different and you liked what came before. Its fine you liked skill points. But the difference between a high level rogues acrobatics check and a bumbling fighter in full plate of the same level wont be 5. It will be far higher. Stats, equipment and other abilities will divide people who focus on a thing and those who dont by far more then 5.

And what is wrong with hyper-speculation of a skill? If a player wants to dump that many resources into a skill, or multiple, LET THEM. What I find day more detrimental to a game isn't having players auto-succeed in a silly balance check, but is incentivizing them to choose background stories by giving them in-game rewards!

Then why do you like pathfinder? Abilities that come from character background are a staple of paizos work. Its how they tie pcs into their adventure path line. Its literally key to their flagship product. Traits are a big part of pf1. So....whats your point here?

I can tell you in my experience traits did WAY more for encouraging backgrounds and character development then they hurt it. Players who are inclined to roleplay still roleplayed, and those that struggle with it used it as a basis to do a little roleplaying and eventually get used to it.

The concept of 'eventually there is going to be a list of special actions that you can take for being skilled in this!' Is ridiculous. Nuts. If I want to hyper customize my skills, then that's what I want to do with PF1. At least that's more of an RP element, and mechanically more balanced than the stuff in PF2. Seriously? You throw stones at PF1 for balance when talking about PF2? Are yo blind?

I have YET to see a single thing in the new ed that actually encourages RP above crunch.

What rule in pf1 does this? I think you have blinders on. There is basically nothing in the pathfinder rulebook or any dnd book that has really does this. Roleplaying has always been something you do around the rules, and with the right dm and group, no amount of codification interferes with that. Literally none. PF is crunchy as hell, it always has been, and i have played with roleplay groups, and with groups that play it like a board game. And the system had little to do with it. The latter would play fate like a board game too.

4. Your just a caster hater I see. Why is it that people can't appreciate that caters have their own checks and balances? I had this argument out years ago with a friend that boldly stated that a lvl 20 wizard (3.5 D&D) could kill any non-caster. It took me about a week to prove him wrong. If you would like I'm sure I can rebuild the character for you to see.

This argument is as old as time at this point, but usually people are arguing past eachother. Being able to kill someone has nothing to do with the martial caster disparity. Narrative power is the issue. Not ability to do harm to things.

In regards to your original point. Have you playtest this? Do you actually have evidence the power levels are off? Show evidence, again that is something provable. Play an encounter with a barbarian turns into a dinosaur. What problems did it cause? How was that character superior in an unreasonable way to the rest of his party.

5... Okay then. Not worth the time. The RP element seems to be lost on you.

So is your problem the terminology? That what used to be bardic performance is now a spell that requires the bard to perform? Because thats all it is. In PF1, inspire courage was for all intents and purposes magic. Heck it could be used to counterspell. It just came from a different source then the bards actual spells. Now its just called a spell that doesnt draw from the bards spell slots. This doesnt change the rp at all if you actually sit down and think about it.

6. Now is where you offend me. I am MOSTLY a DM sir. My concern with my players feeling that they must build their character background from a list of pre-determined, run-of-the-mill, old soup CRUD is my concern. Keeping up with the Jones's, or simple competitiveness can lead players into bad character building methods. Good games start with good players. Good players make good characters. New players will be tempted as always to focus on the mechanics, being inexperienced with role-playing, building bad habits and bad future games. And if your players are given the option of being handed free candy, you think they won't opt for it?

So again, why did you like pf1? This isn't new. It has been a staple of pathfinder since before it was a game system. Background traits and campaign traits have ALWAYS been a thing for pathfinder. And they have been important. And there are some that have always been strictly better then others. So if this ruins character building and roleplaying how have you been having fun for the last 10 years?

REWARDING players for good RP is the JOB of the DM and should not be arbitrarily handled by a broken system made to reward cookie cutter characters that all choose the same background characteristics to make their characters crunchie.

How does getting a feat from a background mean you as the dm cannot reward players for good roleplay? What exactly is stoping you? Because I choose Acrobat as my background does that mean i cant spend time and energy on fleshing out who my character is besides a circus performer? Is Dick Grayson JUST an acrobat? And you are again ignoring the fact that for lots of groups this will encourage more character development then they would have done. Groups that are not yours exist. Things like this help them. And nothing is stoping a 'good dm' from having players create their backgrounds and then creating new backgrounds or adapting existing ones to fit the characters. Again in pf1 i did this all the time, creating new traits for people if one didnt suit the character they had in mind. This isnt new, handle it like you have been for the last decade or more.

I understand that Paizo is not purposefully trying to De-RP it's system. I know that they want to produce a good product that is balanced and appealing. My only problem is that in MY OPINION, that would require them cutting about 70% of the current book.

Since you havent mentioned 70% of the book, please mention it. There are lots of places for the game to be improved, participate rather then throwing your hands in the air. The reality is this version of the game is no more crunchy or anti rp then pf1. It is possible you had been ignoring elements of the original pathfinder. Which may be an issue for you, but that doesnt mean this is actually a change in focus. Pathfinder and 3.x in general has ALWAYS been crunchy as heck, and basically never had a single rule in the book that was about rp directly. Not one. Its always been up to us at our table to make that happen. That hasnt changed. You can rp a literal board game if you want to, and it can be fun. You can do the same with this.

Senkon wrote:

Yeah I just realized we've been talking over each others head all this time lol. Like we thought we were on the same page with parlance but we weren't. Glad that got cleared up :D

Yes!! So building upon that success, that's all I'm saying about the other ones too. Include the approach. And make sure the approach makes sense in fiction. And if the approach doesn't make sense, make it legendary. (Or make it magic, which is just the fixall "because". But that's okay because "magic" has already been balanced into the system.)

Low level medics, healing people without magic, without tools(!), without limit, in two seconds flat(!!), doesn't make sense.

So require tools. Make it take a believable length of time. Make it get faster as you get better, I don't care. Let legendary bandage your wounds in two seconds. Let the first level guy take a minute. As-is, it feels like a math block to fix a balance problem. (We need nonmagical low level healing.) Fine. Come up with an in fiction explanation that works.

Same with crafting. Same with a few other odd spots. It's just a few odd spots that need grounding. And they're easy to ground. So let's just ground them in the playtest! (It's these very things that end up errata'd anyway!)

I am glad you noticed this. One word of caution, dont confuse dis associative with unrealistic. They are not the same thing. The action needs to make sense in the game world. Not in the real world. In the game world, until i get to 0HP I havent really taken anything that would in the real world be considered a wound. I have been worn down. The reason I say this is because regardless of toughness if hit point loss actually meant stab wounds, you would not be unaffected until the final blow. The only in universe actual wound is the one that brings you to 0. Its in that context where we should consider what combat medic actually means. That said, I would agree it should require access to healers tools.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1. Yes

A player in my game does the same. In general I always assume there is something about to throw unless there are very specific reasons why there are no such things. IE you are in a prison cell or a deliberately empty room. Its not like its some kind of high powered ability that needs limitation.

Again, a few society NPCs, a keep where 17 of them do menial labor, and not being killed on sight, but still hated, in 2 monsters cities. Not nearly enough, especially in comparison to the material available for other races.

Where was all the detail for the good and neutral goblins in Goblins of Golarion?

I suspect it will be in material published after v2. Or do you feel that a new edition of the game can make NO changes to the lore? Those few npcs planted the seed, the popularity of things like we be goblins fertilized it, and we will see it bloom in 2.0. Where paizo feels free enough not to have to tie themselves to how things were in 3.5. There is definately a progression here. Its not out of no where.

captain yesterday wrote:

Goblins aren't monsters anymore, they're an icon of the game now, just as much as anything else, the popularity of the We Be Goblins line is proof enough of that.

So, it's about time, if you ask me.

So the popularity of Drow, Kobolds, and Tieflings mean they should also be core then?

Would be fine by me.

Goblins being a pc race is only as much of a problem as you and your players make it. Heck ultimately if its a problem dont allow it. People disallow things in the core rules all the time. Or have we forgotten that Leadership was in the core pathfinder book, I know tons of dms who dont allow that, specific core spells, all sorts of stuff.

Paizo made a choice because though they originally portrayed them as psychopaths in Runelords, they morphed into something different over the years. Are people going to honestly try to sit here and tell me they didnt have fun playing we be golbins? Did everyone play that game as if the goblins were baby eating evil? I know my group didnt, and I love the idea of one of the weirder races being core. I am tired of it always being the same halfing, elf, human, halforc, dwarf gnome list. Something fresh is fantastic, and there isnt a paizo race more iconic then their takes on Goblins. And while yes there needs to be a little handwavium to get them sorted out, what game is lacking in handwavium? Does everyone play their heroes as having severe ptsd by 6th level? Because given the literal horrors parties deal with on a regular basis, they would be a mess mentally a fraction of the way through a typical adventure path.

Are we really going to have an edition war with ourselves people? There are lots of reasons for a new edition, and they are giving us a ton of lead time, as much as I didnt want to personally see a new edition, I think its fair to say it's time. They have done about as much as they could have with the 3.x ruleset. Its time to break the chains and start fresh. They have given us a literal decade of stories and fun, it boggles my mind that fans would loose faith now. Will pathfinder 2 be perfect? No obviously not, I don't think a perfect roleplaying game exists theres way too much that is subjective in there. But I bet it will be fun, and there will be cool adventures, and great art, and all sorts of fun support products. Which ultimately is what i want from paizo.

This is something I use custom traits and feats for.

Work out what the player actually expects out of their nobility. As mentioned they might via their backstory expect little to no actual gain from their nobility.

You might actually want to take a look at the fame and prestige system from ultimate campaign. That sort of gives a codification of what kind of things being a prominent noble might get you, even if you don't want to actually use the system it puts it into context. A noble from Taldor would obviously have clout in and around Taldor, but outside of their sphere of influence, there would be almost no impact. So a simple solution is they are simply a noble from Somewhere else, that the local nobility feels no major obligation to treat differently. And being so far from home they don't have direct access to their families wealth and resources.

If the player wants an actual impact, I'll usually have them spend traits or possibly a first level feat for it. Using the Reputation and Fame rules as a kind of measuring stick for what they might gain. There is also always the wealthy parent trait.

The thing you are describing (adding narrative power to characters who don't have it) doesn't require paragon paths. It requires adding narrative power to classes without significant supernatural abilities.

The most straight forward example I can think of is in one of my games my rogue has a network of contacts and underlings in the region the party is operating in. This allows her to make skill checks at a distance with a bonus based on how influence her network has in the region. So as an example, the party was pulling into a port looking for a traitorous noble the party was tasked with finding, before they docked as they were in character discussing their plan, she was able to after receiving a bird (that's the element we describe for her being able to send messages by mundane means, ala Game of thrones style ravens), the ship the noble arrived at, where he was staying and who he had seen (after making a number of relevant skill checks by proxy through her network).

Paragon paths that are designed to fit within the framework of existing pathfinder abilities don't fix the issue of narrative power. Changing the framework for mundane classes does that.

Are attributes really that important in the end?

In many cases yes they matter. And its usually in fairly subtle ways. Having more points for con so your fort is higher or wisdom for your will save, etc etc. It means you don't have to make as many difficult choices as to where to take from to increase your chances at whatever your thing is. And it makes a huge difference for MAD characters.

To the OP, one thing to keep in mind is that the game is actually balanced around that set of stats you find 'unheroic'. 15 point buy is the default assumption of the Rise of the Runelords and all other APs. And that is worth noting.

Personally I have gone a different route, because I like the idea of making characters more well rounded and not have every non sorcerer/bard be a socialially innept misfit (Dumping Charisma), while not making it even easier for SAD characters. I do a 25 point buy, but cap on Ability scores after racial bonus at 17 at level 1. I have found it keeps the success rates about where it is supposed to be (at low levels, at high levels everything else starts to matter a lot more) and means you can make more well rounded characters if that's what you are looking for.

So a couple important things.

The game is actually balanced around 4 players, that are not particularly optimized, use a 15 point buy and are composed roughly of the classic 4 party structure. That means in combat you have the guy good at fighting (fighter), the guy who sort of fights and has skills (rogue), the guy who sort of fights and casts divine spells (cleric) and the guy who casts arcane spells (wizards).

However pathfinder has transitioned a long way from that classic party, and you have keep in mind, if you have a party of 4 players all good at fighting, then that is way more offensive combat then is normally expected. IE a party of a combat druid, a summoner, a warpriest, and dawnflower dervish bard can fight a lot more then the classic 4 can.

Add in additional people and optimization and you again have skewed the numbers.

My rule of thumb Is as follows, for each of the following things, raise the APL by 1.
1. Each person over 4 (yes I know the game says 4-5, but there is a difference between 4 players and 5 players and its silly to just assume its the same).
2. If your stat generation is more generous then a 15 point buy.
3. For each 2 characters that are particularly optimized.
4. If more then half of your party is very good at combat.

The key though, is don't increase CRs by enhancing monsters/enemies, but by adding more.

My guess is you probably hit each of these with your party, so a 6 person party, with better then 15 point buy stats, 2 characters that are optimized and is combat heavy, I would peg at +4 or 5 apl, and add additional monsters to encounters to beef up encounters accordingly. So if I had an ecounter with 4 wolves normally a CR 5 encounter, I would probably make it around 12-16 wolves bringing it up to CR 8 or CR 9 (this takes a bit of judgement based on what your party seems capable of, start by adding 3 to CR then go to 4, then 5 until you hit a comfortable spot.

Remember this is more art then science. CR is not a perfect measure of how much a given encounter will threaten your specific party, but in time you will learn to better figure that out for yourself.

This was something I looked at in the VERY early days of pathfinder. I remember a homebrew archetype.

A simple way to do it would be to use rogue genius games' Talented Monk. This is a 3rd party product that turns basically all the monk archetypes to that point into optional talents, and the big benefit is you can turn anything into your 'monk weapon'. So you choose fire arms, get a pistol, rapid reload and some alchemical cartridges and you are ready to go.

If you are the kind of person that likes multiclassing I could see a ranger/unchained rogue making for some pretty interesting combinations.

Personally I prefer to find a class that just fits my theme/concept myself.

I feel I saw a post that said if a creature was say 50 away and 30 up that you ignored the height when figuring distance. or basically use the higher of the two? I'm not sure now.

You figure distance to the target using the normal rules, the squares of space are three dimentional. Calculate it the same way you would a target that is 50 feet in front of and 30 feet to the right of a shooter.

Edit:

OP what you might be thinking of is that you ignore the height(how tall it is) of the target itself. IE if cthulu is 30ft away, he is no further away for range purposes then a Halfling 30ft away (you don't need to aim for center of mass, the closest occupied space is sufficient). The fact that a monster might be 100feet tall doesn't factor into how far the range is to shoot at them.

True, but it also represents a significant penalty if you realize that you really need the money you invested to be liquid (I know, don't invest unless you don't need it for living right now, but life happens). That means it's harder for young people to dip their toes in before they have much of their finances squared away.

Whether that's a serious problem or just discouraging people from making a bad decision is in the eye of the beholder, but I think it's important consequence to consider.

Edit: also, thejeff's point was that it makes tweaking investment profiles expensive. Because shifting from 50% stocks now to 20% to reduce market exposure would mean taking a 3% haircut on your investment unless you leave it in cash. Probably not worth purchasing bonds unless they're exempted from the sales tax we're talking about here.

Transactional Tax on investments probably doesn't make a lot of sense. What needs to be taxed is the profits from those transactions. Because that what makes sense and doesn't actually do the kind of harm that sense markets tanking. The same way you don't tax a writer based on how many books/stories he wrote, but how much he made from those books.

Granted it would increate the appeal of long term government bonds, which I guess wouldn't be bad for managing our debt.

Raving Nerd wrote:

There are plenty of ways that you can fail if you don't optimize properly.

• Attack bonus is too low to hit high ACs.
• Damage is too low to effectively reduce high HP values.
• Save DCs are too low to reliably affect enemies.
• Saving throw values are too low to reliably resist enemy attacks.
• Inability to meaningfully impact combat in another way (buffs/debuffs, for instance).

While this can be a problem, it doesn't have to. If the players don't optimize (assuming they know what they are doing), they do it probably because they want to have a harder challenge. Or they do so because they are not interested in a game where those opponents who would pose such problems play a large role. I'm sure there are other reasons.

Take, just as an example, any of the official APs: None of them needs much optimization on the player characters' side to be played through successfully. On the contrary, too much optimization might take the challenge out of the AP (and thereby force the GM to adapt the Encounters).

On the other hand, the GM has every tool he needs to tone down encounters if they would be to difficult for a given group. It's basically the same as changing the encounters for an optimized group of PCs, just in the other direction.

And that's the whole thing. You don't need to optimize to have a competent character able to play through most official adventures. Optimizing might be fun for those who are inclined to do so, and as long as everyone is on the same page, there's nothing harmful in it.

But the system is flexible enough that you don't need to optimize for the system to function. In the end it's a matter of taste and not of doing it right or wrong.

I would say its always harder to scale down then it is to scale up as a GM. Scaling up can literally be a simple as adding 2 of everything in an encounter. Scaling down is never that simple.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

doc roc wrote:

Income inequality is a fact of life... I find it bizarre that people always rage about it. And this is coming from someone that will in all probability never be a millionaire!

The problem is not, never has been, about inequality itself. It's the LEVELS of inequality that we haven't seen since before the end of the Gilded Age, and the creation of the modern middle class.

And as in most things, there's probably a desirable Goldilocks zone. (This chair is too hard, this chair is too soft, but this one is just right....) If your body temperature is too high, you will die of heat stroke, but if your body temperature is too low, you will die of hypothermia. If you have too much potassium in your blood (hyperkalemia), bad things happen -- but hypokalemia isn't good for you, either. Too much inflation will destroy the economy, but so will too little.

... and similarly, too little inequality is a problem, but so is too much inequality. But when someone is rolled into the emergency room with the classic symptoms of heat stroke, I'm not going to waste a lot of time worrying about them freezing to death. Similarly, I'm not actually worried about too little income inequality in the modern United States.

If you want the correct example you only have to look at the united states. In the 60s and early 70s. There was no shortage of wealthy people in that time. The difference is, the burdon of the funding of the nation was far more heavily skewed towards those that were benefiting the most of it. Since about 1920 the US has collected roughly the same percentage of its GDP in taxes. The difference is, since the 1980s, where that money has been coming from is from the lower and middle classes more and more.

The reason this is a problem is because we are a consumer economy. The economy grows when people spend. By definition, people who are wealth, and corporations that make heavy profits SAVE their money. They wouldn't be wealthy if they spent it all. Normal people spend their money, and save less. By shifting the burdeon of tax to the middle and lower class, you effectively reduce spending which is what fuels our economy. The greater the income inequality, though, the less overall spending there is. Because as mentioned, wealthy people by definition, spend less of the money they earn then average people.

50 years ago, this sort of wasn't an issue. If a wealthy person wanted to make money, usually they either had to invest in a business, or loan money to someone for either a business or to purchase something. With the cluster that the financial market has become, that's no longer actually the case. You can make money without ever giving any of it to someone who is trying to make something, do something, or buy something.

So short of literally setting fire to the financial system (which in and of itself would be really volatile and probably as catastrophic as America trying to 'renegotiate' its debt), your choices are limited. Do nothing, and what the wheel spin down, or actively fight income inequality with tax policy, that deliberately takes from those who have benefited most from society, to pay for all the things that keep it moving.

So true Kolokotroni. I personally have never really seen the Caster/Martial disparity people tout. I mean, sure casters can get really powerful at high levels. But then so are martial types if you think about it. And as a game master there's something to remember... You DO actually control what spells the player gets access to over the course of the campaign. Don't want the wizard teleporting everywhere? Then they just don't find a copy of the teleport spell. Want things like Wish and Limited Wish to be rare and valuable? Then make it so.

That doesn't work for divine casters. And all casters get at least some spells they choose (and for those with spells known that's all of them.

That said it isn't really a matter of specific spells. It is the nature of them. And many people will go through gaming for years without seeing direct evidence of the disparity because it isn't actually about power. Not in the traditional sense. Both martial characters and casters can contribute to ending encounters within their area of expertise. But only magical characters (it isn't just spells that do this) can change the nature of that encounter. That's what magic does differently and its narrative power. Many people would rather toss fireballs then exercise narrative power. Which is of course completely ok, but it means you aren't using the thing that most people either know directly or know instinctively that color their opinion about the whole martial/caster thing.

But yes, as I mentioned. The bar for what's needed to be effective isn't that high. The average encounter in a given adventure will be CR=APL. The 'boss' type encounters may be APL+2 or +3. But those are the fights which are suppose to be difficult. And it's been my experience that the party wipe caused by one person getting Dominated tends to happen because someone felt the need to push things as far as they can when building their character.

APL and CR are hardly perfect measures. There is waaay too much variation to simply say X 4th level characters have Y power, and the loose grouping of monsters of roughly similar power that make up a CR add up to a threat to them of the same value.

What actually matters is 'Is the GM satisfied with the encounters difficulty'. The most optimized party possible with all the 'perfect' choices, and you wont have more power then the GM. He or she will keep adding to the difficulty until they feel satisfied. Baring the few that play published adventures purely by the book with no alterations, its really a matter of meeting expectations, not of hiting some kind of universal bar.

Which is why I always say play with your actual friends, who like you, and want to have fun. In my group, we know, Jon is a free wheeling seat of the pants kind of gm. Pull out your crazy and maybe not so effective character ideas. Matt is the one who really wants to get into his homebrew world, and ever so often throws a threat at the party he totally didn't realize was as dangerous as it is. Make a character that fits the world neatly and is survivable. Its all about matching player and gm expectations to be 'effective enough'.

The guy who gleefully brags about how he has a +12 attack and deals 15-20 damage with each attack at level one is also the same guy who kills the party because he failed a will save. Not the person who does 1d8+3 damage with a +3 or +4 attack bonus at level 1.

Not all optimization is minmaxing. I generally optimize, but I usually optimize towards well rounded characters. Which often requires a level of optimization to have strengths in multiple areas without being superman in any one.

Also if its actually a trope in your group for the dm to throw save or lose spells at the party, you probably need to talk with the gm. Someone is unhappy about something. Maybe he is tired of the level of optimization so he feels he needs to exploit weaknesses, or what have you but something is up if that happens regularly enough to be your general impression of things.

Ultimately this isn't a game question, this is a people question. The game works best when you sit at a table of your friends, (presumably people you already get along with) who not only are looking to have fun, but enjoy having fun together. If that isn't the case, you don't have the foundation of a good table.

Optimization, power gaming whatever you want to call it is only bad if its disruptive. There are lots of ways to be disruptive at the table, including ways that have nothing to do with how much damage your character does.

Unfortunately a lot of people have created opinions on this and many subjects that have little foundation in reality. But again, that's them, the people. A book from paizo isn't going to resolve this conflict, people at a table have that opportunity (though they may well not succeed).

People who have different opinions on what is best in an area like optimization can in fact co-exist. I know because I have seen it happen. But it can only come from a place of understanding and actual communication. And it works because we all genuinely liked each other. If you have that, whether or not the druid or the rogue is better at perception is sort of silly. And usually, you aren't walking around with bruised egos over how encounters went. Mostly we are just telling stories about the amusing times when encounters went spectacularly wrong.

After the release of the Advanced Players guide, pathfinder was its own game, and far more then a single creative step away form 3.5. In the intervening years, particularly with things like the Mythic rules, occult adventures, and Pathfinder Unchained, it would be silly to say its just 3.75.

And its sort of insane to say Pathfinder was doomed from the start. It has been wildly successful by basically any measure. Even if their sales fall off a cliff in the near future (which is unlikely) they have had a huge amount of success for 7+ years.

It's not as if D20pfsrd doesn't label it's third-party content accordingly. For the most part, it's all in it's own section on the site.

That isn't actually true. Plenty of 3rd party material is linked via sections that aren't labeled 3rd party. Its mostly quite logical the way information is laid out, but isn't always simple to figure out the source of the material. Particularly if you are looking through a lot of stuff at once. In addition they do virtually nothing to distinguish between material that appears in the rpg line and that which appears in the setting line. And there are broad differences in the design philosophy between those areas. If you are concerned with how much you want to let into your game, the pfsrd isn't really a good tool to use. Its a great reference if you already know whats in and what isn't, but if there is any question, it gets confusing.

leadership exists ad an attempt to allow the 1st edition cohorts that some classes got automatically to still be available in later editions. Its probably fine for some games and not others id say just let your players know if your ok with it or not for your games. hmm giving the fighter per day abilities seems like a logic gap. so you can't attack that one particular way again but your still good every other way? one of the reasons i didn't like 4th edition.

Its not a logic gap. You just need to frame it in the context of fatigue. And you don't make it you can do each move x times a day. But that you know X moves and you can do them Y times a day. How many races do you think usain bolt can run in a day? Every watch a distance runner, who is running the entire race (basic competence at their physical activity of choice) but only has a handful of moments when they can get an extra burst and they have to time that for the moments when it is most advantageous to use them? If they mistime it or don't get into the lead, they don't stop running afterwards, heck they don't even stop running fast (relative to most people ofc) they just aren't outpacing the other exceptional athletes.

They can still do basic stuff, but the truly exceptional feats of strength speed and skill (the maneuvers) can only be done a certain number of times. Because human (or elf, orc, Halfling etc) bodies only have so many complete bursts of energy at a time. If you abstract that into fatigue points between rests sufficient to completely recharge (which in the game is 8 hours), then it makes complete logical sense to have certain special actions that use up a points pool until you have rested.

As for leadership. Sure, some people don't like that kind of narrative power in the hands of players. But they left it in the hands of magic. If you are uncomfortable with your players having an army of cohorts, how are you comfortable with the gate spell, or planar ally, or miracle, or wish or any number of spells that have narrative power?

I actually kind of agree with what your saying about Vancian magic. From what I've heard about Spheres of power I would actually probably like it. To me wizards have always felt meh like if i make a wizard I pretty well have one way to play them and it feels like the same character. specializations and arch-types help but doesn't change what your doing that much. The idea of being a firemage and being rewarded for following the path closely actually sounds cool I need to check out spheres of power.

See your idea would work for a new class with the concept of compartmentalization of learned techniques so you can basically change which compartmentalized part of your brain is holding a certain tactic, you have to do it that way otherwise where does the sudden knowledge of the new feats come from?
but then how do I play a character that learns his stuff the traditional way. One that learns how traditionally most soldiers and martial artists have done it for centuries. Your telling me there is not a way to make That work?

I do like feats that represent a character trait a way of doing things. i take a bunch of speed and movement based feats to make my character seem dodgy or a bunch of hard brutal feats to make him seem viscous I focus on armor and shield stuff for when I want him to feel classic sword and board. Spreading out is fine for some but sometimes the best tactic in combat is complete specialization you get so fast and adept at your technique that It works every time (practically the DBZ method)

The idea of vancian fighter sounds fine for its own arch-type or class but I personally want to have the option to play the martial who gets good at what he does and just continues to refine his fighting style.

kryt-ryder you could always house-rule the time down on retraining if it bothers you that much unless your a pfs kind of guy and would you require someone to train you the new techniques or would you just know them for out of game reasons?

Personally I would move in the direction of the Tome of Battle/Paths of War. Feats shouldn't be there for specific tricks and traits. They should be for very general things. Two weapon fighting, sure. Toughness, Sure. Dragon Style, no. And I would completely toss the fighter class. They are the biggest problem for feats. Feats have to be both the primary source of the interesting the fighter AND ok for literally every other class to take.

I would replace it with classes like those from the Paths of war. They get similar amounts of feats as everyone else, and instead they get maneuvers. And this doesn't preclude the concept of focusing on an area and getting better, because those maneuvers/stances are grouped into schools/fighting styles. Its not quite vancian, but its WAY more flexible then feats are. You can have it be akin to spells known, rather then memorized as new ones every day. I know x maneuvers, most of them are form my specialized school of maneuvers that share a common theme of combat. I have the stamina and strength to execute them a certain number of times per day or per encounter.

Non-magic: Does unchained monk count? if so, that.
Arcane: This ones tough, assuming no 3rd party material, witch.
Divine: Inquisitor, I truly love this class and I think paizo nailed the sweet spot with 6 level 3/4 bab classes.
Nature: Hunter. I like the druid but there was always something about it that just wasn't right. Hunter is almost perfect in my mind.

There may be a tabletop gaming club near to you - my university has one that's open to anyone and Pathfinder Societies are also a thing that exists. I'd look into things like that if you haven't already, as it's a fun way to meet people, and tabletop gaming nerds are an interesting bunch. Basically, don't play with 2 if you don't have to.

If that's not an option because of where you live, I guess you could play on your own, possibly with multiple characters. A fighter and a sorcerer wouldn't really be much harder to run than an unchained summoner or a druid, or anyone with the leadership feat, which have 2 characters to run anyway. For beginners it would be challenging, but on the other hand you'll learn twice as fast! I'm just not sure if it would be much fun, I'd probably prefer doing something else.

A one person or two person champaign would be difficult, because I think most adventures assume that at least one player will get taken down at some point. In a group of 6, that's nothing, in a group of 4 it's a survivable problem, in a group of 2 you've lost half the players (and half the options) and in a group of 1 it's game over. For one off adventures, a high chance of failure isn't too bad, but it's annoying if you want to tell a story. However, a GMPC could work in this situation.

The problem with using gestalt or over leveled characters or really high point buy is simple - things have to challenge you or they get boring. Challenge generally involves threat, threat generally involves possible defeat.

So long as you use the higher point buy to spread out instead of focus on a single thing its actually not a problem. A gestalt druid/ranger is not more powerful or less vulnerable then a druid AND a ranger. That's why this works for a small party. And as mentioned using classes that have action economy boosts, particularly companions helps a lot with the risk of losing a single character being a deathknell for the party.

I do however agree that having a character whose level is too high for the challenges presented is a problem. And that is mostly because the math breaks down when you do that. 4 1st levels characters is not the same as 1 4th level character. And no amount of tweaking will even that out. That's why I suggest pc and gmpc with gestalt rules, and an emphasis on covering multiple roles within the party rather then enhancing a single role. IE don't gestalt a fighter/barbarian, that just makes a better front liner, play a combination that compliments rather then overlaps.

Ideal for me in what I consider the games core rules (core rulebook and Advanced players guide) is something like Summoner/bard and druid/ranger.

Also the reason I advocate against one player running multiple pcs is not in regards to complexity, but instead of immersion. Players rarely get as invested in their characters when they are running more then one. A companion usually doesn't create that problem, but more then one pc almost always does. You end up with something that is far less of the role playing game experience and something far more akin to a wargame. That isn't bad, but it isn't the goal of introducing someone to pathfinder.

I just want to add, when I say 2 players, I mean 2 players total. There's just me and my wife, no "GM" (is that like a "DM" in D&D?)

Yes GM and DM are the same thing. It GM is just a more generic term since technically this isn't "Dungeons and Dragons". GM means Game master as opposed to Dungeon Master. There isn't any actual difference.

Now. In terms of playing the game one on one. Yes, it can be done, but it is going to be difficult for people completely new to the game. The game can be scaled for any amount of players really but it takes some knowledge and experience on the part of the game and is more art then science.

Unfortunately the game has a sort of fundamental assumption of abilities that will be present within the 'party' (the group of characters undergoing the adventure). Someone who fights (the classic fighter), someone with a lot of skills (the classic rogue), someone who casts arcane spells (classic wizard) and someone who casts divine spells (the classic cleric).

Today, in pathfinder there are lots of classes that blur those lines rather aggressively. For example, within even just the core rulebook, the druid can obviously cast divine spells, but also can have a companion who can be a solid melee combatant. The Bard casts arcane spells but is also a rather skilled character. The paladin is an excellent melee combatant and also has access, eventually to some divine casting. Additional books in the game (you can have a glance at the prd linked here on paizo's site that will show you everything in the rpg line so far) have far more blurring of those four basic roles. But in general, a 'typical' adventure requires all those bases to be covered to some degree. A small party will not have an easy time of that.

In addition there is a thing called action economy. In this game, each character acts in turn during encounters. What this means is that more characters on a side gets more 'stuff' done. The game is based around the idea that the party will have 4 or so turns every round. And that is important. Because for instance if you only have one character, you would get your one set of actions, then ALL of your enemies would get to act before you were again able to respond. Even if you are stronger then all of your enemies individually, their combination of actions is more dangerous then your single set of actions.

I know this is a lot for a new player to digest, but if you are going to attempt to run a game with just you and your wife its pretty important you understand this.

There are ways to work around this. I have in fact run published adventures (paizo makes some pretty great ones) with one on one games.

The things I do are as follows:

1. Have a GMPC. This means that the player controls their character, and the GM also runs a character that is the constant companion of the player. One of the great things about a one on one game is you have lots of face time, there is after all just 2 of you, and you can really work out character relationships. This adds a bit of burdeon to the GM to have to run the extra character but I strongly recommend it. One player character on their own will not work in the way the game means a party to work pretty much without exception, and I have found this is a far better solution then a player running 2 characters. In the latter case the player never gets as invested in their character and it becomes far more of a wargame then a roleplaying game.

2. Gestalt characters with generous ability scores. When you create characters, if you are rolling, give lots of rerolls, if you use points, give lots of points. With a 2 person party you will have lots of bases to cover and will need lots of good stats.

Gestalt is again sort of a difficult thing to explain to a new player but basically, each PC (the normal player character and the GMPC) pick 2 classes instead of one. And they get the abilities from both classes, and the best of the other statistics. So for instance, if you were a gestalt paladin/bard (an excellent combo by the way), you would get all the abilities of both classes (smite evil, bardic performance, spells etc), plus the paladins base attack bonus and hit dies (full BAB and d10 hd), the Paladins fortitude save, the bards reflex save, the will save from either (both are strong) and skill points from the bard.

This allows you to have more of the needed abilities covered along the lines of what a 4 person party would have.

3. Pick classes that give an action economy bonus and have a mix of abilities. In the core rules, the big ones that give an action economy bonus are the druid with his animal companion, the paladin who can do certain things like lay on hands as a swift action, and eventually the ranger who can also get an animal companion later on. In terms of mixed abilities, the druid, bard, paladin, and ranger are your best bets. A Bard/Paladin and Druid/Ranger can actually make a party that can just about function like a normal 4 person party.

This works even better if you add in the advance class guide as it adds more mixed classes. Particularly the summoner, alchemist and witch.

If you do the above, you can run a pretty normal game one on one. But as you obviously have noticed, its fairly complicated for 2 people who are completely new to the game. As other have mentioned, the GM can tailor the adventure to even a single player. The issue there is it takes an experienced and pretty talented gm to pull that off. Which is why I recommend my method. Once you get past creating the characters, you can use published adventures from paizo and elsewhere to get you started and introduced to the game and how adventures are put together before possibly branching out into creating your own adventures.

Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

If you want to see an end to the two-party system in the U.S., you need to accept that short of either 1) rewriting the founding documents, or 2) full-scale burning-in-the-streets, thousands-of innocents-dying revolution, it ain't going to happen.

That's not quite true. Something could be done at the level of individual states, for example. Right now, all the Constitution says about state-level representations is how many each state gets. All the other rules are set by the state. Even the existence of districts is a state-level decision. New York could decide that all representatives are elected on a statewide basis, and that the top N vote getters (currently 27) get seated. This would make third-parties competitive in New York State, even if they weren't competitive in Alabama (and it wouldn't do anything at all for Wyoming, which would still be a winner-take-all state with only one representative).

The issue here of course, is that if this is done piece meal (rather then all states at once) you would just be helping a specific party win control of congress. And it would be the opposite of the one that currently controls that state. IE democratic leaning New York, (but by no means universally democratic) would be helping the republican party gain control of the house if they did this. If Texas did this they would be helping the democrats gain control. It would make congress more representative for their state, but also take power away from their voters effectively.

Similarly, New York could decide that presidential electors are elected individually (which is how they were supposed to be elected back in 1789) and in a nonpartisan fashion (ditto). Right now, I'll be honest, I don't even know who I would actually be voting for if/when I vote for Clinton, because the electors themselves are meaningless, chosen to be party hacks, and required by (state) law to vote for the candidate whose slate they appear on. But, of course, since the Presidency is still a winner-take all election, I'd still be better off voting for a bloc pledged to a single candidate (rather than splitting my support), and I'd be better off voting for one of the top two candidates -- and again, this is just math, not propaganda.

The electoral congress is an entirely different kind of garbage fire. And ultimately the president isn't the way you build 3rd parties anyway. We give WAAAY to much attention to the president, and forget that again besides appointing a supreme court justice, and occasionally veto a bill, its congress that writes the laws and set the taxes that the president must then enforce and collect. President Obama didn't make 'Obamacare'. He championed it, but the senate and house actually passed passed it.

3rd parties are totally viable as dozens of foreign countries have already proven. Enough with the fear-mongering because all these parties trying to do is prop up this broken binary party system.

These two establishment parties are just trying to lock people into believing that if you don't cast a vote for the big two that your somehow wasting your vote or empowering the "other party".

Standard fear mongering rhetoric that ensures nothing changes and power stays exactly where its at (with the big 2 parties). It's a broken system that only exists to maintain the status quo of existing power.

The only way to beat the game is not to play it. And don't try and say these two candidates aren't the establishment status quo.

Other countries have very different structures of the government. This has literally nothing to do with fearmongering. I am not advocating FOR anyone. I am not advocating for any party, policy or anything else. I am telling you, fundamentally, objectively, until we change the way we elect and run our government, 'not playing the game' can literally only hurt you.

One foreign country (one that rather closely lines up with the US in terms of divides and is closest but still parliamentary instead of having a president and a congress) is the UK. Their last election was literally the most unrepresentative (meaning the division of parliament did not represent the way the individual voters voted) election in the history of modern representative democracies specifically because people continued to vote for 3rd parties despite having a first past the post system. This literally, gave complete control of the parliament to the Conservative party (great if you are conservative, bad for basically everyone else) because they aligned themselves with the UKIP party and became a single entity.

I don't disagree with you that the system is broken, and needs to be changed. But to ignore the reality of it while its still there is flat out stupid.

I want change, I want the status quo to be altered. But that doesn't happen by literally giving complete control to people you most don't want to have it without accomplishing any actual change. This goes regardless of your beliefs.

By all means advocate for change. But our system of government is designed to require consensus. You need to get people together to make changes before you try to buck the system or else you just end up screwing yourself and not making any change.

The reason I tell you our system OBJECTIVELY pushes to 2 parties and FORCES people to pick among those 2 parties is not because I want you to be afraid and vote for 'my guy'. I don't have 'my guy'. What I want is for you and others to be INFORMED. And for that you have to understand how the system actually works and why what I am saying isn't my opinion or my belief but the literal, factual, objective truth. I'll gladly explain it to you though a guy on youtube called CGP grey does it way better (and funnier) then I ever could. Look up his videos on 'the problem with first past the post voting'. Then if you are free look up his video on the electoral college. He gives a rather solid explanation of the problem you are facing when you walk into that ballot box.

What actually needs to happens is there needs to be a bipartisan effort, among ALL Americans to push for a change to the voting system. And this has to happen OUTSIDE of an election year. For instance, you need in December of this year, after the election, gather a massive letter writing campaign, and get everyone to write to their congressman and say if you do not push for change to a system that actually works, we wont vote for you in the next election. Then hold them to it if they don't. I guarantee with popular support specific leaders in congress will push the legislation. And then every single representative who votes against it (because they will) has to be voted out in the next 2 elections.

That's what you need to do. Its a monumental task, but its literally your only option if you want change. And it will require a lot of people who have spent years spewing venom at each other from a far while sitting in their own echo chambers and soaking up spin media to work together. Its not a great chance, but its what we got.

Take half elf (not unchained) synthesist summoner.

Base land speed of the quadraped eidolon is 40ft.

26 ep from level 20. 5 additional EP from favored class options

Extra evolution 5 times. Total Evolution Pool is 36 points.

2 points for flight at Base Speed +20ft per extra point spent.

Take the run feat and fleet 4 times.

Base speed when in eidolon form is 60ft.

Flight is 60ft+680ft if you spend all points enhancing flight speed.

Flight at 740ft. If you 'run' while flying, at x5 you move 3700ft per round.

If you add in mythic:
As mentioned above, mythic champion 10,

Impossible speed +30ft

Extra mythic feat 5 times.

9 mythic fleets

Mythic run.

Base speed becomes 125ft, 225ft with activation of impossible speed.

Add in haste, and boots of striding and sprining plus the above mentioned 680ft bonus on flight speed.

You fly at 695ft. If you mythic run at 7 times that, 6755ft in one round. Which roughly 768mph. Which is just enough to break the sound barrier.

I have it, I like it. Its the adventure card game. If you like the adventure card game you will like it.

Okay, okay, I want all of you to stop what you're doing and realize that this is a passionate argument on a forum that has gone on for at least three days...about backpacks.

Are you somehow implying we cannot have extended passionate arguments about innocuous minute details in the rules? Because if so, welcome to the internet, and this forum.

Now what if we put spikes on the masterwork backpack and use it for an extra attack?

So I am guessing most people are not familiar with what a good, structured backpack can do. If it is set up right, an item doesn't actually have to go IN the backpack to benefit from it. If for instance, your belt that your weapons are connected to is also hooked to the backpack, or anything strapped to it on the outside, or really anything you are carrying is connected to it in some way, it makes a significant difference in how much you can carry because of the way it balances and spreads out the load. Obviously we can all think of cases where its silly, but they aren't as extreme as you might think. And lets just say thank goodness the rules don't require that kind of detail tracking of materials to for instance decide which pouch on which side of the pack, your belt or pouches you have things in to keep track of encumbrance.

Lets just be honest and say our packs of murder hobos are not short on body count. The world of the fantasy rpg is outrageously violent... I was watching a video the other day on youtube that talked about the escalation of violence in rpgs and he mentioned that almost all rpg characters are the pyscopath that goes from name calling to a murder in zero seconds. Theres never any actual escalation that sane real human beings would have to an altercation. You don't shout, posture, maybe push and shove, you almost always skip straight to your most lethal means of engagement immediately.

I always allow oddball races, and by far I prefer to play them.

As a player I generally find some inspiration in the mechanical side of my character for their roleplay. Class often plays a big role in this, but race definitely does. And one of the biggest things in my mind and especially in my group that has been playing dnd together for more then 2 decades now (wow hard to believe that), is that the nature and flavor of the core races is really well established. We have a strong inclination for dwarves to be a certain way, elves to be another, etc etc. Humans are more of a blank slate, but blank slates don't work for me. If you give me a blank canvas I stare blankly.

Less common races give me more room to try out new ideas. They also give me an opportunity to establish things in Table cannon that were not there before. For instance one of my all time favorite characters was a wayang witch I played in a friends campaign. Because no one had any set ideas of how wayang should be and there was no established practice with them I felt free to go wild with both the character and the background information on the wayang themselves. It was a ton of fun.

Ive had similar experiences with things like changelings, gripplis, and other 'odd ball' races. They inspire me to put more life in my characters and give me a framework to do something fun and interesting. When I play a core race I often struggle to make them anything but dull and 'normal'.

If you roleplay out going to different shops, haggling with merchants, and then picking out specific goods that the GM randomly determines if are in or are not in stock. Absolutely. It can definitely take that long.

That is among the reasons why all 'shopping' is handled away from the table via email in my games. Because it can take up a huge amount of time. And while I like roleplaying out situations like that, the trade off just isn't worth it. I would rather roleplay plot relevant moments then encounters with shop owners for insignificant purchases. But this is just my feelings on the matter.

As others have stated, talk to your GM and the rest of the players and figure out something that works for everyone. Its ok to handwave the purchasing of mundane gear to save time at the table. At the very least have players show up to the table with a pre gm approved list of things they are going to buy and their cost and roleplay it immediately without people needing to look up prices and such.

Until relatively recently I would lay out index cards of events starting with whatever the starting condition of the adventure/campaign is. IE Sandpoint is attacked by goblins while players are at a festival. Then I add additional events leading towards the conclusion of the adventure/campaign.

Then I take different colored index cards and mark down paths that the players could take to get from one event to the other. IE: 1. Players search goblin bodies, find coins with mysterious symbols on them. 2. Players follow/track retreating goblins back to lair. 3. Players gather information in town and try to find out who might have a grudge against the town.

Then I would lay out all these connecting index cards between the event cards. Once I had that mapped out I would start writing encounters descriptions, detailing npcs.

Now adays I use software for creating flowcharts. WAAAY easier then using the index cards. Same idea though. I also follow the rule of 3. Always include at least 3 ways for players to find a vital piece of information. And if the players think of something I didn't, I can add it in, and figure out a way to map it back to the events that I wanted to happen. So maybe the players hunt for the goblins down by the docks instead of at the caverns under the mayors office. So I transplant the Mayors office encounter to the Docks on the fly where possible to keep things moving towards what I was working for.

As someone who plays several characters that walk that line on the edge of evil, I don't really think he was too far off in his roleplay. Of course, you have to try to get along with other players, but it is not always necessary to get along with other characters. For instance, I play a LN monk who is dedicated to Zon-Kuthon, and I routinely play at a table with a player you is playing a CG cleric of Desna*. While we butt heads on many things, we both are still working towards the ends of the Pathfinder Society, even if we may have different views on how to accomplish those ends. I also have a cleric of Asmodeus/hellknight who just ran a game with a paladin of Iomedae. They did not like each other at first sight, and I happily pointed out how I (in character) thought slavery was perfectly fine, as "All men build themselves up on the backs of others." If played right it can be very entertaining to have different viewpoints stuck together. Read the short story [u]Noble Sacrifice[/u]. However, if you cannot make it work as players, try to find a way to limit that kind of interaction. I like playing characters at all points of the compass, so to speak, and you can't expect everyone to get along with everyone else in character, as long as you work together, and you know, report cooperate and whatnot. That all being said, if the player is being too much of a jerk, then something can, and should be done about it.

TLDR; You don't have to all get along, in game. Small conflict between characters can be fun, just keep it small and in character.

*The monk does have the vow of silence, so it makes things easier.

I strongly disagree in the context of organized play. In a home game, with people you know, and like sure. Push the boundaries of roleplay go nuts. But in a PFS game, there is literally no way this isn't a Jerk move. You KNOW they cant stop you. You KNOW you can say and do basically anything you want short of attacking a player. And you DONT KNOW how the other players will take that. It might be fun for some, but that kind of conflict is definitely not fun for others. And in particular because they CANT roleplay their characters, because of the restrictions of organized play.

Like I said, having inter party conflict can make for a great story, in a game where you are friends with the people you are playing with and in which both the players and GM are not restricted with how they can react to that conflict. Personally I think its completely unacceptable for someone to take this route and in all honesty a similar experience is why I will never touch Organized play with an 11 foot pole.

Nicos wrote:

Kolokotroni wrote:

Really there ought to be a different combat maneuver that helps bring a flyer to the ground. Tripping a creature with legs is not the same thing as bringing down a flyer, winged or not. The problem ofc is we now have years of legacy of it being comparably difficult to bring a flyer down to earth (the gunslingers targeted shot at wings for instance) and it being comparably easy to say aloft (the non scaling fly check dc to stay in the air after being attacked for instance).

The other problem is the associated pile of feat you would need to take in order to not suck at such maneuver.

I so rarely see combat maneuvers done at my table, it would preferable to just remove the "Improved" versions of feats and just make maneuvers not provoke. Upgrade the "Greater" versions of the feats to give a +4 bonus to the maneuver and sometimes cause it to provoke from allies (depending on the normal greater version). Also remove stupid Combat Expertise as a requirement for them, damn feat tax.

This is part of a fundamental flaw in the system. The opportunity cost of mundane options is WAAAY too high. It shouldn't take so much investment to do combat maneuvers.

A halfway descent start is to set combat expertise and power attack on fire and push them over a cliff and ditch the improved feats, but its only a start. A systemic change is really whats needed.

Really there ought to be a different combat maneuver that helps bring a flyer to the ground. Tripping a creature with legs is not the same thing as bringing down a flyer, winged or not. The problem ofc is we now have years of legacy of it being comparably difficult to bring a flyer down to earth (the gunslingers targeted shot at wings for instance) and it being comparably easy to say aloft (the non scaling fly check dc to stay in the air after being attacked for instance).

RDM42 wrote:

So a couple feats and say less than five percent of the content changing renders the books worthless? I still don't see it.

You don't need to see it. The value proposition for me as a consumer simply isn't there. So, I only buy the PDFs. With content subject to change as it is, that's about all I value Pathfinder's content to be worth.

So then what is the problem? You are given an option as a consumer to purchase something that suits your tastes and values? Heck you literally don't have to buy them and get most of their value by using the prd or srd. So where exactly is paizo screwing over their consumers? Like I said, the fact that they might errata away certain options has been there since literally the second printing of the core rulebook years ago.

I won't likely be getting the 4th level, so really all I'm getting then is the Hex, which I have 5 to choose from: Curse of Suffering, Deny Succor, Enhanced Cures, Life Link and Life Sight. And this is in exchange for a Revelation, which is fairly similar in function. The difference being that, as pointed out, I can change which of the 5 I have each day. Fair enough. I also lose Handle Animal and Survival as class skills, and gain all Knowledge skills I didn't already have instead.

You get way more choices then that. You can choose which SPIRIT you want each day. You can in theory take ANY shaman hex you qualify for each day. Its actually more flexible then the normal wandering spirit ability of the shaman which doesn't give you a choice of hexes until 6th level.

However, bringing up "double dipping" in Channel isn't a thing, because you don't get Channel as a Spirit Guide until 7th level.

The Spirit Guide Oracle only makes sense if you single class. If you are multiclassing it isnt the best combination. Personally I think with very few exceptions, long term multiclass characters are inferior to single class characters. And since you are 6th level now, presumably it wouldn't be too long before you got to 7th level.

With all of that being said, is there any reason (other than Wis vs Cha) to use Oracle over a Shaman, if I can gain access to the main abilities I'm interested in (Life Link) with the Shaman AND get Channel? I ask because we have a pretty generous ability score rolling system, so I won't likely need to tank Wis, and if I only need a 12 to make 3 levels of Shaman work, that may be doable.

I would have to really sit down and look at it but my instinct is the cleric/oracle list is better for your purposes then the shaman list. I don't have concrete examples to back up that impression. In addition one of the big class abilities that I think is ideal for your stated goal is the combat healer revelation.

Also the presumption is that only needing charisma will give you better spells, more spells and more channels. Again the recommendation comes primarily from being single classed, not from a multiclass concept. And obviously what stats you have modifies how good the single ability score focus of an oracle is or isnt. But I still think for your stated purpose its superior.

What is the "one feat" for a tanky Oracle? Also, I think a d8 HD vs a d10 means the Paladin can be a little more tanky than an Oracle.

I meant heavy armor proficiency. They can already wear medium armor, which depending on your stats may be sufficient, but you can take heavy armor prof to clunk around in full plate with a shield of that suits your needs. In terms of HD I promise being a full oracle with all of its healing and buff abilities VASTLY out weights an average of 3-5 hit points extra at 6th level (depending on how you split the multiclass). Remember having more healing is practically like having extra hit points if your focus is being the combat medic. Having a sift action cure serious wounds (life oracle with combat healer) is FAR superior to having 3d10s instead of d8s for HD.

A paladin is a better idea if you want to make a true frontliner who hits as hard as he is well defended/tough. If as you stated you are only concerned with being able to take hits and heal/buff, a full oracle (or shaman for that matter) is vastly superior.

I'm not spending money to buy feat x only to have it fundamentally changed. It takes the hardbacks and turns them into, essentially, an admissions fee of sorts that just keeps the club named Pathfinder going. They have little value in and of themselves since they're not portable to other games. This makes them, by definition, useless. I'm not dropping $40 on a book that I might not get a good long bit of usage out of it. That's a s+@+ty deal for the consumer.

How is it that an errata that affects at most like a single page of materal of your hardcover book makes it useless? In addition to that, excepting pfs, why does it matter at all? Keep using your book. I am reasonably confident paizo does not recall every copy of the book to white out feat x that you love so much.

Your book is not ruined. Even if you are playing in a game that uses the latest updates, you can do what everyone else does as far back as 3.5. Print out the errata, fold it and slip it into the back of your book. You book is now just fine because unlike your implication, the errata changes a tiny fraction of the actual content in your book, the overwhelming majority is just fine.

This also isn't new. Paizo has been providing errata that has altered their material since the game began. If having errata is a deal breaker for you, how is it you have not already picked up on the practice and changed your consumer practices?

I think the intent of including a tanky Paladin side to the build was because we don't have many front-liners currently. We have an Archer Paladin, a Pyrokineticist, and an Unchained Rogue.

Thing is an oracle can be just as 'tanky' as a paladin with one feat. Since you are not concerned with dealing out damage you don't need a paladin for defense. In addition it will be far superior at the 'emergency healing' aspect of the goal. And he'll have access to all the requisite condition removal spells which is super important for the divine caster of the party to carry with them in any normal adventure.

If you really want to in combat emergency healing like rory I suggest against multiclassing. Your ability get people back from the brink or keep them up is already completely outclassed by the damage foes do, splitting your levels, no matter what nifty abilities you get is just going to make that worse.

I think a straight life oracle is a good path. The ability to swift action heal (even at the cost of 2 spell slots) is fantastic in an emergency. A few channel energy feats and you have about the best healer pathfinder has to offer. You already have medium armor and shields and its possible to take heavy armor with a feat if that makes sense for the character to get it nice and tanky. A Spirit guide life oracle with some descent armor and a shield sounds like precisely what your player is looking for to me.

If you include material from the more prominent 3rd party publishers, I am pretty sure there literally isn't anything you cant to. Certainly no fantasy tropes I can think of.

Just to avoid confusion from the above sarcastic comment

A summoner can summon his eidolon in a ritual that takes 1 minute to perform. When summoned in this way, the eidolon hit points are unchanged from the last time it was summoned. The only exception to this is if the eidolon was slain, in which case it returns with half its normal hit points.

If the eidolon didn't get taken out, it will have exactly as many hit points when re-summoned as it did when it was sent back to its home plane regardless of how long you wait.

That said as mentioned normal magic works on eidolons unless you are a synthesist.

Evening all,

I have a couple of basic GM questions I am hoping the great minds of this forum may be able to help me with.

1 - currently prepping ROTR, is there a resource I can use to 'stock' the various shops, weapons, armour, magic items, prices etc - or shall I stop being lazy and do it manually?

2 - Gameplay question. I have run this group through Crypt of the Everflame and they are extremely defensive to the extent that I can't get actually get them to go in a room half the time and any combat tends to take place in door ways. What mechanics can I use to try and force their hands to take the battle to the baddies - so I get the -4 into melee and LOS cover (I think). Is that it? If the party are three deep in the corridor or whatever, I don't see that it's possible to have a monster charge into them to try and flank. Believe me, these guys are happy to sit and take the minuses to their attack rolls all night.

Ta!

1. Don't do this. Its not worth it. It is way too much work for literally no gain. And it is counter to the design of the game (in so much as the game expects character to eventually be able to get equipment useful to their purpose). As Bart mentioned, look at the value that should be available in your town or city, the base value means that anything that value or less should have a 75% chance of being available. Let your players roll a diplomacy or knowledge local to find out who might have it (if its available). I don't have my copy of the adventure handy but as its a small town I imagine sandpoint is around 1000gp.

2. Step one, every single hallway in every adventure is actually at least 10 feet wide not 5, regardless of what is in a published adventure map. In addition, every single door of any consequence is a double door that is 10 feet wide (2 squares). Is this unrealistic? Yup. But it REALLY helps with the press in dungeons and buildings and such.

Step 2. Make it so more monsters/enemies do not make themselves known until the party is in the room. They can easily have taken 20 on a stealth check and chosen really good hiding spots. You can also have enemies come up behind them in hallways if they are being unreasonably hesitant to enter a room. You are the gm after all. If you want to insert a secret door that lets an extra bad guy get in behind them you may.

The other thing you can and should do is explain you will be enforcing distance penalties on perception checks. If the player refuse to enter a room the dc to spot something goes up by 1 for every 10 feet the item is into a room. In a largish room that can make a very big difference. You can even impose an additional +2 penalty for unfavorable conditions (everyone trying to peak through a doorway is less then ideal circumstances to spot something important). Explain that if they refuse to enter rooms the WILL miss things, including treasure, plot points and more.

Side note: Often its a good idea to just talk to your group if something about their behavior is a problem.

Also as mentioned you can have your baddies equipped with alchemical splash weapons, (bottled lightning works really well for players lined up in a door/hall) like alchemist fires or bottled lighting as cheap low level way to encourage your party to spread out.

Is there some reason guards cant carry a custom magic item that identifies the school of a spell being cast and observed by the wearer/user of that item? If a city/kingdom is going through the amount of trouble required to manage this regulation surely they could provide tools to aid the process?

Another option is to add a regional trait -
PlaceLandia City Guard. A guard of Placelandia is trained in regulating magic. He gains a +2 trait bonus to spellcraft checks to identify the subschool of magic of a spell being cast, but not the spell itself (IE your reduced dc of identifying the school, not the spell). In addition spellcraft is always a class skill.

Hard to tell, though I own all the hardcover books, I don't really use them very often. Unless for some reason I don't have access to the internet, I use the prd or d20pfsrd. In the rare case something isn't on d20pfsrd its generally in a soft cover book.

But I definitely use a wide variety of sourcebooks in my campaigns. Particularly over the course of it.