Llyr the Scoundrel's page

Llyr the Scoundrel wrote:

Strength doesn't help one block a blow against them unless that's how the individual is choose to weather a strike; a thousand times more important is a sense of timing, balance, and coordination... i.e. Dexterity. There are entire martial arts forms based on this theory. Strength only helps when the shield is already set and squared to the blow. Dexterity is making sure your feet are properly set and you've moved the shield in the proper trajectory to intercept the incoming strike.

The mechanical reason that Dexterity isn't included in damage and attack bonus is in part because then you virtually make Dex a key ability score for every character. It then helps determine that you move first in combat, that you're harder to be hit, that you hit more frequently, and that your hits do more damage. The majority of warrior types would then be Dex oriented. It unbalances the game. Now, that's not to say that I totally disagree that Dex could be used to imply that a person's strikes are more accurate. The problem is, the d20 system doesn't have a correlation between how accurate a hit is and its damage... EXCEPT where it concerns critical hits. Which sounds to emulate the scenario you're trying to argue for. My personal suggestion if that's what you want to bring about? Perhaps allow that the Dex bonus is added to the confirmation roll of a critical rather than Strength. Showing that the critical is more about a good aim than a strong arm. I say "rather than" because otherwise you're increasing the chances that every confirmation roll is increased. It's better to keep some sense of balance in the mechanics of the system.

A thousand times more important is the strength of your lower body, none of your timing, set feet, knowing where to move your shield matters at all without the strength to maintain your footing, and ability to move/angle the heavy piece of metal into the way of the other heavy piece of metal fast enough.

Every single martial art intended for fighting rather than performance begins with having a baseline level of strength. Even in modern times when everyone is fighting with guns soldiers pt is aimed at strength and endurance.

A modicum of strength is required when one actively blocks, yes. However,you know what is even better than blocking a strike someone aims at you? Not being there at all, side-stepping (or similar maneuver) the attack completely. Because this system has to take into consideration that not every opponent is going to have a heavy piece of metal. Some might be a flying pixie, zipping out of the way of a hit. It simply doesn't work if you try to take that baseline of strength concept of what a human or human-similar race would require and expect other beings to operate in that same framework. Str and Dex are abstracts that have to be able to apply to other creatures in the game and the mechanics of combat as well. If you make too many rules to point out exceptions, then you clog down the system and make it clunky to run every combat.

Strength doesn't help one block a blow against them unless that's how the individual is choose to weather a strike; a thousand times more important is a sense of timing, balance, and coordination... i.e. Dexterity. There are entire martial arts forms based on this theory. Strength only helps when the shield is already set and squared to the blow. Dexterity is making sure your feet are properly set and you've moved the shield in the proper trajectory to intercept the incoming strike.

The mechanical reason that Dexterity isn't included in damage and attack bonus is in part because then you virtually make Dex a key ability score for every character. It then helps determine that you move first in combat, that you're harder to be hit, that you hit more frequently, and that your hits do more damage. The majority of warrior types would then be Dex oriented. It unbalances the game. Now, that's not to say that I totally disagree that Dex could be used to imply that a person's strikes are more accurate. The problem is, the d20 system doesn't have a correlation between how accurate a hit is and its damage... EXCEPT where it concerns critical hits. Which sounds to emulate the scenario you're trying to argue for. My personal suggestion if that's what you want to bring about? Perhaps allow that the Dex bonus is added to the confirmation roll of a critical rather than Strength. Showing that the critical is more about a good aim than a strong arm. I say "rather than" because otherwise you're increasing the chances that every confirmation roll is increased. It's better to keep some sense of balance in the mechanics of the system.

I'd go for the simplest solution... if they can't see you, they can't target you. Imitate Batman and stay to the shadows. ^-^

There's that guy in every gaming group, that when there's a creature with a tentacle ALWAYS makes the comment "I've seen enough hentai to know where this is going!"

...

I am that guy. :D

So am I the only one who used to play Star Frontiers, TSR's outer space sci-fi RPG in the 80s?

HA! I was JUST about to make a Star Frontiers related suggestion. I really liked the idea of the Sathar as an alien threat... beings like giant earthworms, so foreign to all other forms of life they wanted nothing more than to see their destruction. I could see a good campaign could be made from them, as they were always poised on trying to invade while simultaneously using deep cover agents to cause all sorts of problems.

I could see coupling the strangeness of the Sathar along with some of the odd creepiness of some Lovecraftian threats that have been recently introduced to Pathfinder. There was often enough an association with the vastness of space to many of the Cthulhu mythos. A slowly infiltrating corruption that seeks to destabilize a region of space prior to a full scale assault?

Depending on the game world we play in, sometimes my group use the availability of "fluff magic items" give use a direct sense of how prevalent magic is in the game world. We're encouraged to come up with something original each time to give a bit of flavor, and often I would look to real world equivalents to inspire me. Like a "rainslick cloak" that kept the wearer dry in any normal rain situation, or the "magic thermos" that held a larger quantity of liquid that it seemed and kept the contents appropriately hot or cold. We knew that when we were encouraged to come up with a fluff magic item, we were more than likely going to adventure in a high magic setting.

Now, with this increase of very minor magic items, it means that there's obviously going to be an increase of magical spellcasters. Perhaps not many of them not raising to a very high level (or using the NPC adept class), but it would imply that more people have that magical knack. The best craftsmen hiring on apprentices with a little spark of arcane skill to fiddle with those non-mechanical elements. It might cause a mild perceived elitism between those common folk born without that talent and those with, a means to increase one's station in life.

TL;DR - more magic items, even minor ones, will create ripples in the society.

My 2¢ on this issue, both personal and anecdotal...

It's my observation that in Pathfinder and many RPG games, versatility is underrated vs. specialization. Some people say that one weapon is "better" than another... but that's very subjective because not every weapon is best in every situation. Think of it this way; in real life would you want a greatsword in an alley too narrow to get a full swing in, or would you want a weapon of more manageable length? Certainly, in situations of formation warfare some weapons were favored for mass combat, but that didn't mean they were "better" than those favored for duels.

Now, the anecdote for which I will apologize because this was a story I read over a decade ago and I can't recall the specific names. There was a classic disagreement between some Japanese martial artists of which was the superior weapon, the katana or the quarterstaff (bo stick). Two masters of each weapon decided on trying to settle this disagreement by having a personal contest between the both of them, and the wielder of the katana was agreed between them as the winner. However, after the match the master who used the bo stick made an observation, and after some time he asked for a rematch which was granted. However, he'd made an alteration to his stick and cut about a full foot off of its length, so it was only about five feet long (a jo stick). They competed again, and this time the master who used the jo stick was agreed to have won. The reason? By making his weapon slightly shorter, he'd made it so that it was able to use movements that were not only complimentary for the staff, but also for the sword. And that versatility gave him the edge.

Now, my personal account. Years ago when I began to study swordplay with a friend of mine teaching me, he asked me whether I wanted to wished to learn to use a weapon in my off hand or not. I thought on it for a while because it was already uncommon that I was using a rapier in my left hand, but the more I thought on it I realized that with a free hand if I were to clinch up with an opponent I would like to take advantage of my martial arts training in ways that might be unexpected. Take hold of cloth and pull them off balance, that sort of thing. When I explained my thinking he commended me, because he admitted too many people thought "more blades are better!" when that isn't always the truth. (Although privately he wanted to joke about me using a main gauche in my right hand being inherently wrong... language pun.) The point being, again - versatility is a good thing.

The spear is a wonderfully versatile weapon, a jo stick with a metal point. Unfortunately as I said, Pathfinder and several other game systems don't like to work in versatility as a virtue because it becomes overly complicated in the mechanics. Picture this in your head; two combatants face one another, one with a greatsword and one with a spear. By Pathfinder, the fellow with the spear is woefully outmatched. When the reality is that while the fellow with the greatsword is winding up for a big swing, he's been jabbed maybe twice by the fellow with the spear. Weapon speeds play a very important part in a real fight, but it isn't properly represented in most game systems, either.

In my own gaming group, we made the following concession. The standard, simple weapon grade spear was what any peasant could cobble together and use. True combatant types preferred a higher grade of spear, with a heavier spearhead of metal that could be used for both piercing and incidental slashing. It did 1d10 damage but required a martial weapon proficiency. It felt more appropriate for the sort of weapon Odin or Cú Chulainn would favor.

Llyr the Scoundrel wrote:

So, when it comes to looking at characters builds, I have a rule of thumb. If I can't apply a feature in the adventure, it's a waste.

That hardly sounds like you, Llyr. The last 2 threads you started you were all about making your characters interesting and nevermind optimization.

I'm not being judgemental or anything, but it sounds like you had a change in heart, or maybe I was misunderstanding you.

Not a change in heart, but perhaps a clarification of my meaning. Yes, I absolutely am tired of optimization. However, there is a grand difference between optimization and a feature not being useful. I like a variety of tricks and nifty options, but simply having them if they can't ever help offers no benefits. Kinda like putting a spoiler on a golf cart.

Example... I've run a character that through a little racial twist had a 1/day stoneshape ability. And then for the next 8 levels we were constantly traveling over earthen ground covered in snow with nothing rocky nearby to use this ability. Making this little trick useless.

It's not enough to have a variety of facets to one's character and their class, but you want them to have a purpose as well.

All right, I think I've got it guys. Thanks for the input. The main thing I've concluded is the concepts both me and my game master had are quite off the mark from how the mechanics of the class truly work. Mutagen as more of a band aid feature than starring, the alchemical bomb being their prime aspect and every last element of the character building to improve that. Gotcha loud and clear.

Actually, your mention of a mutagen makes me wonder after a hybrid of any class that has both the Bloodline aspect and the Alchemists' mutagen. A class that taps into their existing recessed traits for a short time, shifting to a nature that belonged to one of their forebearers. However, working that out it sounds like something that would be better factored in as an Alchemist's archetype rather than a separate hybrid class. Still... neat idea.

Masterwork bucklers have 0 armor check penalty so you dont need proficiency. Mithril shields too.

Alchemists aren't proficient in shields.

Light shields are only -1 ACP, so a masterwork shield is ACP 0.

Magic shields are cheap, magic armor is cheap even if you can't get celestial.

Mithril chain shirt or elven chainmail +3, shield +3.

Again, Alchemists aren't proficient in shields. Also, as I mentioned before, our game master was a bit stingy with the magic items and I wasn't permitted to be outfitted with magical armor, much less a +3 anything.

Edit: Also, what's your intelligence? If you're at least 16, you should be getting an extra extract per day...and it really should be as high as possible to boost your damage and bomb DCs.

My Intelligence score is the character's highest stat, but that's an element I don't want to dwell on. If a class is a good class, you shouldn't only value it at its most min/max'ed. That way, you can measure it against another class without presuming what ability scores it may have.

Llyr the Scoundrel wrote:

I'd also like something of a hybrid of the Occultist and the Summoner. Consider it in the vein of a Lovecraftian ideal; an individual who's power resides in these little baubles and items, even as he can call these nasty beasties from other planes to fight his physical confrontations for him. There's a case to be made either for an eidolon, or for the summon monster ability inherent to the Summoner. It makes for an individual who may seem fairly harmless one moment, and the next they're grasping at a glowing amulet while two or three beings from another plane spring up to block your path towards them.

In my mind, occultists/summoner would be based around binding outsiders to his will considering occultist has magic circle powers.

That's definitely one angle to take it at... and you could easily say that is the nature of the summon monster ability. Also, if the character in question is a bit more of a good sort, they're calling down aid from divine hosts. Of course, in answering your question I was wondering about the particular mechanics of what you were meaning by "binding", and it suggested a potential archetype off of this hypothetical hybrid. One that uses a binding that de-buffs the target, not unlike some of the Witch's hex. I hadn't originally thought of a hex in that fashion, and I rather like it.

I didn't mention the Alchemist / Gunslinger though I've had the idea several times... and looking back on this thread, I'm not the only one. Also have to say the idea of the Alchemist / Druid has a great flavor as well.

I'd also like something of a hybrid of the Occultist and the Summoner. Consider it in the vein of a Lovecraftian ideal; an individual who's power resides in these little baubles and items, even as he can call these nasty beasties from other planes to fight his physical confrontations for him. There's a case to be made either for an eidolon, or for the summon monster ability inherent to the Summoner. It makes for an individual who may seem fairly harmless one moment, and the next they're grasping at a glowing amulet while two or three beings from another plane spring up to block your path towards them.

Sounds like your GM isn't giving you guys a proper chance. You do get a perception check to spot an ambush.

Oh, we get a perception check... but you should know that game masters can easily maneuver an encounter so that even if you spot that sneaky fella, they're positioned so that when you spot them they're already close enough that they'll be right next to you by the end of their first turn. And, more often than not they'll have these really high initiative rolls so they're moving first anyway.

If you have celestial armor: BAM, you're flying. Have your tumor familiar buff you up, say dex mutagen+reduce person, activate your armor and fly up. Take the AoO, given your boosted AC (just got boosted by +6), you should be missed.

What's your AC? Alchemists can get pretty nuts AC for the typical CR.

Dex 20ish with belt, 24ish with mutagen +7AC
mutagen natural armor +2AC
reduce person +2AC
Barkskin +4AC
Deflection +2AC at the minimum
celestial armor +9AC
shield +4AC

That's 40 AC. That's nuts.

Yeah... this a LOT more gold worth in magic items than anything we were given access to. I specifically pushed for a magical suit of armor for my Alchemist, and my game master didn't want everyone to have it as the bricks were already pretty stacked in that department. I actually see a lot of people on the message boards suggesting that my alchemist fly around, and the only way I'm getting that is if I cast it on myself. And I only have three 3rd level spells a day at 9th. Do I lock them all up on fly? Because I assure you I'm getting involved in more than three encounters in a day. Also, concerning the shield...

...you're better off carrying a buckler/shield in your offhand.

Alchemists aren't proficient in shields.

But as a general shout out... yes, every combat it constructed to frustrate our group. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. I've voiced my complaints, but both of my game masters fall back on the mantra, "Don't you want it to be challenging? Do you just want a cake walk where you stroll through the adventure?" </condescending voice> So, it doesn't matter how smart we try to take on our situation, we're foiled before the first die roll. I just sigh, grumble under my breath, and put a little extra adult beverage in my soda.

Why are you in close quarters instead of flying around the battlefield raining down destruction?

As I mention in my little hyperbole example... the vast majority of encounters are usually ones in which the characters are immediately put on their heels. They don't get to determine when a fight happens, and it's usually due to an ambush. So before anything, first round, BAM! You're pinned by a melee attacker. This is easily the case in about 75% of every combat round I play in.

You don't need dodge and weapon focus, you're hitting touch AC.

Those two feats are prerequisites to get Close Quarters Throwers, so the Alchemist can actually throw their bombs once they're already challenged by a melee fighter.

If you are concerned about weapon and armor proficiencies, take 1 level of a full-bab class.

It's less of a concern, and more of a "well if my mutagen doesn't really help me like how it's supposed to work, then why give it the class feature" issue. Like I said in the second line... if I can't apply a feature in the adventure, it's a waste. I suppose perhaps I could amend that to "If I can't apply a feature in the adventure because there's always a more advantageous option, it's a waste."

You do not need those five feats. You choose to take them.

That's kinda like saying an wizard doesn't need combat casting. Yeah, they can skip taking the feat, but when their main ability relies on it to prevent spells from fizzling in combat, it's simply too important to deny. No, I don't need them. However, to apply the alchemical bomb ability to proper effect, they're fairly necessary.

-Combat Casting doesn't help an alchemist any because they're not spellcasters. They never make concentration checks to cast a spell. It's not a feat the alchemist 'needs' because it gives them zero benefits. Yes, drinking your extracts provokes-- but they also can't be interrupted. All that happens when you get hit is damage, you don't lose the "spell" (because it's not a spell).

I truly appreciate this rules clarification... and it makes sense. Thank you. I mean, it still stinks that you draw an attack of opportunity, but thanks for clearing that up.

Also, you get See Invisibility as a 10/min level extract, so you shouldn't be worrying about invisible foes surprising you anyway at 9th level.

Sadly, it always seems convenient that every time we have an encounter with an invisible foe, I'll cast see invisibility and that will be the last time we fight an invisible attacker for a couple hours. Oh, there will be a dungeon delve with maybe one encounter, perhaps a bit of a villain monologuing situation, but no real use for it. Funny how it always seems to work out that way.

Now, the most important line in everything that's been said... and thank you all for your feedback.

Here is the things about alchemists. You look over the class features and go "wow they can do so much!", but it turns out its nearly impossible to use them all. Mutagen takes time, bombs come with liabilities, the spell list isn't everything you want it to be, alchemical items are not so goof after low level, and using poison is not player-friendly in this game.

I won't use my line again, but I'll rephrase it... if it's a feature you can't use, then what use is it? Like a mobile home that sits in the same spot for its entire life, it's not exactly making use of its potential. And that's the key. Potential is no good unless you can explore it. And we're just finding the Alchemist can't tap into that potential.

So, when it comes to looking at characters builds, I have a rule of thumb. If I can't apply a feature in the adventure, it's a waste. Like trying to run a character reliant on their precision damage in encounters where there is a magical darkness situation so the concealment chance nixes your class feature, it's not that the ability is a bad idea... it's just made in such a way that the mechanics are broken against you.

The reason I bring this up is because my group decided to take a small break from our current campaign to run a little one-shot adventure of 9th level characters. Some major hitters with a bit of swagger to them. I see this is a good chance to try out the Alchemist for the first time. I'm a sucker for the Victorian-esque steampunk influence, and I decide rather than clunk it up with an archetype to just run a straight Alchemist. Try to take the best advantages of the little tricks and abilities it has. However, after two encounters that were deliberately crafted by our game master to see how the group dynamic worked out by more or less throwing a variety of challenges at us, we quickly saw a problem in how the Alchemist functioned. So, we looked over the build together, tried to tweak it to run smoother. And, breaking it down, these were the problems we saw.

○ While a mutagen might give a little boost to a single ability score and add 2 points to their armor class, the fact that they're limited to light armor, simple weapons, have the middle attack value, and d8 hit points makes them unfit to do more than plug up a hole in a melee conflict.
○ While they have extracts that are prime to "buff" themselves for conflict on top of their mutagens, that's more or less saying they need to use two standard actions simply to engage an enemy. This is tantamount to having to bundle on your snowgear while a snowball fight is already going on... most often, by the time you're ready it's already dwindled down or it's finished.
○ Melee attacks of opportunity makes them vulnerable to more or less do what they're built to do... be it throw a bomb or use an extract.

We looked at the feats that were needed to smooth out some of these problems, and this is what we came up with. At 9th level, a character has five feats from raising levels. JUST to make their alchemical bombs work, well, they needed all five of those feats at 9th level.

○ Point Blank Shot so he could in turn get Precise Shot so that they could throw a bomb into melee without a penalty.
○ Dodge and Weapon Focus (bombs) so he could in turn get Close Quarters Thrower and be able to use his alchemical bombs while threatened by a melee fighter and not provoke an attack of opportunity.

This is a 9th level character, people! They haven't even gotten a spare feat to get Combat Casting to use their extracts, much less anything that permits them a feat to allow any flavor or originality. When you have this many complications SIMPLY to use the basic features of your class, there's not other way to label it as anything but a Feat Tax. No class should be built in such as way that it's only after 11th level you're going, "Whew! I've picked up everything I need to be involved in an adventure and not be hacked at every time I try to do something that is among my primary purposes... I mean, theoretically I might be able to pull off some of these tricks if I were behind the meat shields, but we all know game masters! By fourth level, half the encounters have invisible or flying (or invisible flying!) threats that are just going to pop up next to me and ruin my day. And that's if the situation isn't a straight up ambush that begins with me being sneak attacked out of the gate! Still, here I am... 11th level, and FINALLY able to look forwards to a feat next level that gives me any individual identity!" (Yes, this is hyperbole, but the point is valid.)

However, this is what my game master and myself have seen as an inherent problem in the Alchemist. And it's true, it's also my first time running the class. However, I was sorta hoping that by 9th level most of the class glitches would've smoothed themselves out to simply enjoy a character that had a different style from most. Are we that terribly wrong? Is there something we're missing about the mechanics that eliminates half the feats required so maybe I could take Extra Discovery or Arcane Strike or... well, anything? Or is the Alchemist truly that broken?

Now that I'm thinking about it, I'd really like to see a Bard / Sorcerer hybrid class. The combination of music and magic has always appealed to me, and there are a few interesting ways in which they could be combined. I mean, one option would be to simply combine the Bloodline aspect of the Sorcerer in there. However, I'm more inclined to be interested in how the bardic performances might create a stronger magical effect to those of his group that are able to hear it. A Mass Bear's Strength, See Invisibility, or even Cure Light Wounds? And it would also be great if their spell list wasn't cut down to the bone (or deeper), allowing them a few more offensive spells. The thematic beauty of a "Spellsinger" (or similar name) singing an operatic stanza that calls forth an Ice Storm is rather pleasant. Think of it as the more magical, less martial version of the Skald.

Llyr the Scoundrel wrote:

If it has a non-Vancian magic system

How are you defining Vancian? I'm using the existing spell catalog nut include Spontaneous and Mana options in addition to Preparation.

Ah... the existing spell catalogue is part of what I have the problem with. It's always a Fireball, never a Frostball or an Acidball. Or rather, it can be if you spend feats to achieve the effect... not that it will make it a more powerful effect. It's always a Hold Person, not a more powerful Sleep spell. I'd like a system where some customization and personalization of spells was possible. I'm also not a fan of the current memorization method that hamstrings too many spellcasters so they have to parcel their efforts out so cautiously in encounters, as there are typically more rounds of combat within a day than there are spells offered to a spellcaster. Having a class where the character has rounds where they can do nothing that focuses on their class strength never seemed like a good idea to me.

If it has a non-Vancian magic system and a rules set that doesn't favor the brute warrior as the end-all be-all of fighting types... perhaps. But then, I've cranked up nearly my own system before as well and came up against the problem that in my group of players it's tough to tell what they will and won't take a risk on.

1 - If you fail on the re-roll you get to keep your Hero Point for future use.

I won't lie, I actually really like this idea as an alternative.

I have played/GMed for ~25 years and I don't believe in luck, only statistics.

You brought up "I've played X amount of years" comment, so I'll respond that I've played for 38 years myself. Used to have 1st Editions of all the original AD&D books, I'm no wet behind the ears new to the game guy here. I make strong characters (if not always compulsively optimized) and my tactics are solid. You say you believe in statistics, so look at it this way... the "average" roll makes the assumption that there's an infinite number of rolls being made. Since I've lived a finite lifetime (So Far! Mwuh-ha-ha-ha!) the number of rolls that I've made are limited. It's well within the realm of probability that the average of my rolls is far below what one might expect without being "impossible"... just simply unlikely. You can say you don't believe in luck, but just because you dress it up in a different hat and call it by a different name doesn't mean it doesn't add up to the same thing.

Do your rolls even out closer to that perfect 10.5 on a d20? Then I'm very happy for you, you're fortunate. (See, it works it way into our language even there... fortunate, relating to one's fortune.) However, there are still people such as myself who manage such feats as my infamous start to a gaming session in which I had the following results for my first five d20 rolls: 1, 1, 1, 3, and 1. I considered taking that d20 and seeing how long it could survive in a microwave.

I will not disagree, this houserule (not even suggested by me, but rather by our current game master) favors success, but does not guarantee it. That was sort of the idea. Too many times there would be a key roll that was failed in which failure meant character death... I'm side-eyeing every class that has to find traps specifically here. We did try the +8 to the called before roll and the +4 on the reroll, and there were still too many failures. Mostly by myself, but not exclusively. It frustrated the players and made the experience unpleasant rather than challenging. Plus, it lends well towards the more cinematic heroic themes. It's down to the wire, everything hinges on this one moment or everything falls apart. I will accept that it's very possible the two standard game masters we play with in our group may simply be more ruthless and taking our group to the verge of what they can accomplish in every single encounter than most.

As for your crappy dice rolling prowess, it sounds like you need new dice. This is always the answer.

I actually posted a different thread not that long ago concerning just HOW bad my luck is... there hasn't been a set of dice made that are both balanced and can counter this jinx.

As for your note to other GMs a out rewarding hero points, I will say that my players have to earn them by actually behaving in an heroic manner. That doesn't mean just killing everything so the bodies can be looted, butthrough acts of compassion or self sacrifice. There as times that this seems to be a lost concept.

We do much the same in our group. Heroic action, innovative thinking, and behaving strongly in character despite the "smart" choice seeming to lay in another direction.

In the books, he was more of a warrior-type than anything. This brute that cut a swath across the land, so I'd tend towards the book version being a Barbarian.

In the movies, he was more about the powers of magic and what the cauldron could do for him. Yet, based on the sort of setting that it was, I don't see the Horned King being a class that couldn't defend itself. I might consider him a Cavalier who followed the Order of the Tome so he was familiar with knowledge aracana and religion, and with the cavalier's tactician ability he would do well directing his flunkies. Depending on what sort of level you might want to build him up to, he could have a few levels of Summoner and building towards Eldritch Knight?

...

On an aside, I was very fortunate that before he passed I actually had a chance to meet Lloyd Alexander. He was funny and warm, and I considered it fortunate that I had a chance to tell him in person how much his books meant to me growing up.

So, there's another houserule our gaming group has included specifically for me, involving the hero point reroll. You see I have horrid luck when rolling dice. Plus, frequently that misfortune will hit me for long spells when I can't roll anything above a 10 on a d20 for ages. I was finding myself in a few really frustrating situations where I'd fail a saving throw so obviously I don't even need to tell the game master my result, spend my hero point for a reroll, and then roll so poorly once more that I felt as though I wasted this precious asset. Especially because I would horde these hero points until it was a "make this saving throw or have some condition that removes you from the combat" situations. This happened to me perhaps five times straight when the game master came up with an idea.

We put in place a rule inspired by the Mutants & Masterminds game in which the reroll result was calculated so that any roll of 1 through 10 had 10 added to the result. This was the show the proper heroic effort put behind any reroll. Let's face it... if you were in a situation where you needed to roll a 17 or better on d20, you might not feel that's worth the chance. That's only 20%, not good odds. However, if instead you could roll a 7-10 or a 17-20 and succeed, you've doubled your chances to 40%. And really, no one likes to feel like their best effort has been wasted.

Now, because different game masters play with different styles, their input into rewarding hero points plays a big role in this houserule. My game masters like to keep us on our heels all through the campaign, we're always just a couple of bad rolls from a TPK. In our case, these hero points are vital. We need them to continue playing. However, if you're in a game a bit more lax of threat and your players start using them on attack rolls against the big boss... I suggest one of two things.

Firstly, you should perhaps be a bit more moderate in your hero point rewarding. That way, it truly feels like a close call - skin of your teeth situation.

The other suggestion is to start making large booming sounds with your mouth before slamming down a Demogorgon figurine onto the board in the vein of 'Stranger Things'. Yeah, I know Pathfinder is a different game system, but it'll straighten out those cocky players faster than anything. :D

As someone currently playing through the Reign of Winter, my suggestions are less involved with the nature of your build and more with an overall direction of your group... without giving any spoilers, of course.

MAKE SURE YOU ALL HAVE A MEANS OF ATTACKING AT A RANGE.

I cannot stress this enough. I am so frustrated by this campaign because usually I'm the guy who takes the archer role, but for a change I decided to take a Bloodrager. I'm very unhappy, because there are simply too many encounters where I'm virtually ineffective because I'm nowhere near as capable with a bow as the other warriors. I'm a melee fighter build, and I'm wishing I wasn't. So, mention this to your friends when they consider their characters, learn from my mistake.

If a rogue multi-classes they known they will lose some sneak attack, just the same a sorcerer that multi-classes will lose some of their bloodline powers.

What would make a Magus 2/Fighter 18 stronger than a Fighter 20?

It's a matter of versatility. The 20th level Fighter is going to be limited to rather direct forms of combat (not fumbling around with magical items on this point), your usual sword & bow combo typically. The 2nd level Magus / 18th level Fighter if allowed to increase in their Magus spellcasting will only lose +1 BAB, a bonus feat, weapon mastery, and armor mastery... but will have no less than five 6th level spells to bear. Chain Lightning and Disintegrate can make for a bad day. Otherwise, he can do everything the 20th level Fighter can do as well (except as I mentioned before), and that's unbalancing.

Llyr the Scoundrel wrote:

... both the process of role playing and the results of this play are separate but both have value in contributing to your enjoyment of the game. You can enjoy the process but find the results less than satisfactory. This is what myself and Bober are expressing. We like our process, but we want better results in comparison to the results of our peers.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand a word of this. It just makes me scratch my head and try to figure out what it's supposed to mean.

I'll use a comic book analogy, because both in comic book stories and in Pathfinder you're dealing with heroes. My friend the min-max'er likes Wolverine. He's a bad mutha (shut yo mouth). He's one of the most impossible to stop heroes in the Marvel universe. His powers combine to make him one of the most perfect killers. The way he goes about being a hero has had a great effect on the grand scale of the super hero-ing world than most.

Me, I like his teammate Nightcrawler far more. I find him a fascinatingly complex character. His powers are... a bit more all over the place. They don't make him a perfect anything, they're all quite quirky. And not that Nightcrawler hasn't had his impact on the super hero-ing world, but perhaps not a tenth of what Wolverine has accomplished. Yet they're supposed to be peers.

Both of them go about being a hero in their own way, and left to their own path they might feel good about their accomplishments. This is that "process" I was talking about. How they go about their role. However, if you measure the good that each of them has done, even though Wolverine's done more than his fair share of horrible things, it's still far more than the good that Nightcrawler has accomplished. This is the result part of things. And while these two are best friends, there are very few situations with the two of them are going to play out where Wolvie doesn't look like the big hero and Nightcrawler is the sidekick. Hopefully, this clears up my point.

When you role play, you want to feel like you're pulling your weight in the group. You're contributing an equal amount to accomplishing your goals. It might be fun to play the quirky one, the one with some interesting and unconventional facets, but when you have other players more intent on optimizing their builds your find you're not making the same contribution. Your value as a hero is less.

Humorously enough, I just posted my own little houserule on the subject the other day about the effective caster level in effect. As for spell progression... that I think would quickly prove to be unbalancing. It would be a bit like allowing a character who had been a Rogue to continue to increase their sneak attack while not increasing levels in Rogue... but with even a greater impact. A Wizard especially is nothing more than an empty shell of a class with spellcasting.

The most obvious point was the one that Gallant Armor pointed out above... take a single token level of Wizard, then continue to raise in Fighter so you essentially become a defacto Eldritch Knight and kneecap the Magus class concept. Another example would be an Investigator with the Sleuth archetype that loses their alchemy (and thus their access to spells), but then takes a level of a spell casting class such as Wizard and gains superior spell casting as well as far more access to spells than he ever would had he stayed a regular Investigator.

It's not that I don't understand your plight... Pathfinder simply isn't built in such a way as to allow a character who's main strength to be a spellcasting class to take levels in another class without severely impeding their advancement. Of course, I'm not a fan of the Vancian magic system they use, but that's another argument all-together.

A controversial house rule our group uses (that I'm strongly on the fence about) is to have a character spend a feat to continue their spellcasting advancement. We came about this suggestion by an old 3.5 prestige class that allowed the character to advance in their spellcasting if one previously had spellcasting... but if not, they got a feat. It was argued that the opposite could be held true, and though that's what we play with I've seen it almost too effective at times.

Llyr the Scoundrel wrote:

The main problem is in the fact that all of his characters of the same class are statistically the same. Carbon copies that he gives a different name and sometimes a different appearance, but they're the same individual. Nothing that makes them unique, though I've urged him on several occasions to change things up

I don't think his problem here is that he's a minmaxer. His problem is that he's stuck. There are lots of ways to really creatively make really powerful character combinations. And if you let them you can let these ideas blossom into rich characters to roleplay.

I've offered him suggestions, but they don't appeal to him. He's a terribly competitive person and doesn't know any other way to be. He never plays support characters, ever. Sadly, this is the sort of person he is, and I've known him for too many years to expect him to change. He's also one of my two best friends so I'm not going to throw him under a bus completely, but that's not to say that I'm not terribly frustrated on frequent occasions when we game together. And when I've expressed my displeasure of always being the sidekick, he deflects it by saying it has to do more with my poor dice rolls (I DO have abysmal luck) than his characters.

I have an idea for you. Ask your friend to design a seriously minmaxed character for you. Give him a rough idea of what you want, and let him fit together his wicked combinations of this and that that will turn your cool idea into a devastating character.

Then let him watch you roleplay with his creation. Let him see you take his intricate paper cut snowflake of rules-bending swirl into a blizzard of personal depth and roleplaying awesomeness. You might develop more appreciation for each other.

Good TTRPG is supposed to be a collaboration. Why wait till page 1 to collaborate? Start on page 0?

I don't do this for a few reasons... but firstly, this player doesn't consider themselves a min/max'er or a power gamer. They simply see it as taking the best advantage of the rules provided. The main problem is in the fact that all of his characters of the same class are statistically the same. Carbon copies that he gives a different name and sometimes a different appearance, but they're the same individual. Nothing that makes them unique, though I've urged him on several occasions to change things up. If I were to take one of his builds, maybe I could slap a new coat of paint on them, but it's still the same mass produced model. Nothing at the core to make them different, and that doesn't appeal to me. In this, I might be able to make this a Nicholas Cage from 'Matchstick Men', but it's STILL going to be Nick Cage.

Blah blah Stormwind Fallacy blah blah.

The Stormwind Fallacy is in fact itself guilty of a logical fallacy, guilty of the false dilemma among others. This happens because both the process of role playing and the results of this play are separate but both have value in contributing to your enjoyment of the game. You can enjoy the process but find the results less than satisfactory. This is what myself and Bober are expressing. We like our process, but we want better results in comparison to the results of our peers.

One thing we noticed in the gaming group was how only non-spellcasting classes were the ones that picked up a level here or there of another class except where it might be needed for a prestige class. And we were all of a consensus; it just hurt the class otherwise if you were reliant on your spellcasting. Not only did it stunt your spell casting progression, but also your effectiveness as it changed your caster level. So, I came up with a proposition that has given a little nudge of assistance.

Rather than having a spell rely on the character's effective caster level, we simply have it based off their level. The result? Nothing big, but it does help the classes with limited spellcasting a touch more and makes some multi-classing less reluctant. Let's say you have a 4th Bard who took a fondness of firearms later and switched to Gunslinger for another 6 levels. Even though he's casting as a 10th level character, he's still limited to the three 1st level spells and the lone 2nd level spell. So, it might buff up a Cure Light Wounds and make his Hold Person last a bit longer. But when you consider these are the lone differences in a group of 10th levelers, it's not really that much as the DC stays the same. If anything, it makes that spellcasting of the Bard a bit less wasted and relevant, because they might actually have a chance to use it once in a while instead of feeling like it was a wasted facet of the class.

My group has been playing with this minor change to the rules for almost two years, and it's not ruffled a single feather. Now, if I could only get them to even give a try to my alternate dice rolling system of rolling 2d12 and increasing the DC of everything by +2 instead of a singular d20...

You guys could just average them so take very class get a approximate of their stat priorities and assign a rating then average them out. I'm gonna say Con cause I don't think it ever drops below 3rd priority unless you just like to liver dangerously.

"Liver" dangerously? Ah, for those times post-quest when your adventuring group goes to the tavern and celebrates. Gotcha. ;)

Okay, okay. Let's crunch the numbers. First, we have to make some general rules of thumb. Let's take a warrior, not taking any feats or whatnot into consideration. Just your average brute with a greatsword and 16 strength. Let's say at 5th level he's doing 2d6+3 damage with a x2 19-20 critical modifier. Over twenty rolls, he would normally hit 10 times... but that +3 makes him hit three more times. So, out of twenty rolls and including two potential criticals he'll deal on average 144 points of damage. Pretty sweet.

Let's look at our wizard. At 5th level and a 16 Intelligence score, he's got himself two 3rd level spells. I don't know about you, but I like both Lightning Bolt and Fireball. Good, steady damaging spells that at this level will do 5d6 damage. And they're area effect, so you can catch more than one creature in it. Myself, I'm lucky to get three bad guys in at any time, so let's work with this concept. At 16 intelligence the DC of this is normally 13, but his bonus raises it to a 16. So, let's figure out the average effect here. The average of 5d6 is 17.5, so we have our spell damage. Now, since the game is fairly balanced so your base attempts usually have a 50-50 result or else I'd start throwing in the fighter's base to hit chance. So if a 13 is the usual saving throw DC, a 16 has an effect three times more frequently, and if a 20 sided die has a 5% chance of rolling any result that's a +15% efficacy. If both 3rd level spells did an average of 17.5 damage, and on average one would result in a failed saving throw but the other a success, but you have a +15% result, your result comes to look like 17.5 + [(17.5 / 2) + (17.5 * .15)]. The final result is 28.875 points of damage with both spells, worked over three targets, is 86.625 damage overall.

Which isn't to say that the Wizard only ever has those two spells in their repertoire. However, it shows that in the other 18 rounds of combat, a Wizard would have to manage 57.357 points of damage to equal the effectiveness of the warrior. Now, that's only averaging 3.1875 points of damage each round... except the Wizard doesn't have have the resources of the warrior. Is there some wiggle room for argument? Certainly. However, I still think that the strength stat improves the most important aspect of the fighter more than intelligence improves the most important aspect of the wizard. It's not clear cut, but there's a decent argument to be made.

Actually, I would welcome a Monk/Magus hybrid that isn't underwhelming. Somebody made an Arcane Fist Magus archetype that seemed pretty good, but now I can't find it. (Google comes up with several hits, but none of them match what I am thinking of, which was on a web site in a section named something like "Hybrid Archetypes" or "Multiclass archetypes", although the www.pathfindercommunity.net page section of the latter name doesn't have it.)

Not the only underwhelming effort, either. I'd like this option better if it lowered the unarmed damage for minor spellcasting.

I'll give you that having a 16 in your Intelligence stat does improve the DC of your spells (and likewise for the Cleric, having a 16 will increase the DC of their spells as well). As for the Rogue... I'll be honest, I haven't had a chance to run a Rogue since the Unchained version was released. I wasn't aware of the new Finesse Training. Hmmmm. I'll have to give that a try. My argument was based primarily on the direct impact of your most valuable ability to your class and how your ability score improves that. For the warrior types, that's strength, because they hit stuff.

Mind you, perhaps another time I'll crunch the numbers as how a high DC influences damage potentials of a spell versus a warrior's consistent damage.

Hey, I'm up for a challenge. Let's crunch some numbers!

Let's say that you have two individuals, both of them with improved critical AND keen on their weapons. One has a greatsword, the other has a greataxe. Going through the 20 rolls concept again, in which you hit on an 11 or higher, the greatsword will still have an average hit of 7 on 2d6 but with a critical range of x2 on 17-20. The total comes to be 98 points of damage on average. Compare that to the greataxe, doing 1d12 with an average roll of 6.5 but with a critical range of x3 on 18-20. Their total damage after 20 rolls is 110.5. You know what, you're right. I wasn't even thinking of the rolls that keen and improved critical might play. Good catch!

I'm curious now, let's look a the longsword / rapier comparison. A longsword has an average roll of 4.5 on 1d8, with a critical modifier of x2 17-20. After 20 rolls, that figures to be 63 average damage. The rapier does 3.5 average damage on 1d6, with a critical of x2 16-20. The result of that is 52.5. So, it's still not quite up to snuff. However, it makes me want to take a look at a weapon like the battleaxe. Usually 1d8 with x3 criticals, so it does an average damage of 4.5 each roll. In my above sums, a longsword pre-feat and keens does a final result of 54 damage. A battleaxe will do exactly the same on average. However, if you figure in the improved critical and the keen property, that same battleaxe does 72 damage over 20 rolls. Not bad at all.

So, I guess it goes to show you that there are extenuating circumstances where depending on your build (and your game masters allowing you to choose the magical natures of your weapons), the choices of you weapons might shift from one to another. However, if there's one constant, it's that the weapon choice is always going to one of the choices that does the most damage regardless of the critical.

I'd say that Strength is the best stat in the Pathfinder system, and here's why. Let's say you had a choice of a character with straight 10's in all their ability scores... but one 16 to place. You're free to make them any class, so this placement determines their very nature. When you look at the game mechanics, placing it in Strength and making them some sort of warrior helps them the best. Why? Because of all the ability scores, Strength has the most immediate benefit of "doubling down" on its influence.

Think of a warrior, 16 strength. That's a +3 to damage AND to hit. Your better strength helps you in the two most direct ways. Let's say you were a wizard and put that 16 into your intelligence. Sure, you might get 1 additional spell for a couple of levels, but it doesn't increase the effectiveness of your spells. Clerics don't heal better with a high wisdom score. Rogues don't do more sneak attack with a high dexterity score. When you look at the ability scores, and you think of which when optimized give the greatest benefit to a class' primary role, strength is the one that stands out.

Here's my input as someone who's been through the same dilemma. I used to think, "Oh, I have this great idea... it might not be the perfect build by the numbers, but I think they'll be a memorable character!" I did this for many years, and it's not that I DIDN'T enjoy playing the character. However, what I didn't enjoy was being overshadowed by the accomplishments of the other players. I started to feel less like one of the heroes that was a peer to all the members of my group, to the quirky sidekick who was really good on their own but just not the ace who was going to save the day. Now, it wasn't all bad. From time to time, my unconventional concepts would be able to do things the more straightforwards character's couldn't, and in those few moments I shined. It just felt to me that they were too infrequent... so of late, I've gone to the dark side. I crunch through the numbers, I figure probability on weapon damages and utilization of feats. I don't quite min/max... but I'm a step closer than I ever thought I would be.

I would say, for yourself, you have to ask the question "What makes me enjoy the game the most?" Will you have fun running a character that might not be as perfectly crafted for the numbers of the game for the best result? If you are, I applaud you. I prefer creativity and originality, the sake of trying something different because you can. However, if you're feeling a bit weary of being half a step behind the rest of the members of your group, you're like me and you want to feel that sense of personal accomplishment.

Sadly, I play with a serious min/max'er with some of the flattest personality characters. It feels a bit like putting Nick Cage in a film roll... no matter who you want his character to be, it's obviously just Nicholas Cage being Nicholas Cage. I work hard to give my characters more personality, but I no longer feel free to explore some of the more quirky ideas like I used to. One of my favorite characters of all time was a rogue archer with the nickname of 'Ghost'. Ghost was a fantastic character, very complex and deep and played in the Eberron game world. Because Ghost had a secret that even his childhood friends didn't know... Ghost was a Changeling. His entire nature was shaped by a racial choice that didn't give me any advantages because he wanted so desperately to just be like everyone else and not show off his abilities. No one knew until he was killed in an adventure, and there was this big reveal gasp... which was great. Then, when they resurrected him, he had to have some heart to heart talks with his oldest friends. They were great dramatic moments. However, because I essentially wasted the benefits of his race, Ghost also was always the second fiddle through the campaign. And because I liked him so much, I was always a bit resentful that his contributions were less when he was such an interesting character.

I'd also offer that most weapon choices are hamstrung aside from others that are numerically superior. There's a reason why the weapons of choice for a group aren't going to vary too greatly unless they're forced to by conventions of their class or feats (the cleric's favored weapon, the selections available to the swashbuckler to benefit from panache).

Let's look at warriors who choose a weapon that uses two hands. More often than not, for the sake of simplicity they're going to use a greatsword. It doesn't require an extra feet to use to the best of its ability, works in close, and has very good steady damage. Take a peek at that critical modifier; x2 on a 19 or 20. Let's propose that through 20 rolls a player hits on an eleven or higher, and we tally up the total. We can say by the numbers that since 2d6 rolls an average of 7 each time, and doubling the damage dice for criticals, through 20 rolls a greatsword on average does a total of 84 points of damage. Not too shabby. Let's compared that to greataxe at 1d12 with an average roll of 6.5 and a x3 multiple. Through 20 rolls that figures out to be 78 points of damage on average. Not bad, but mathematically not as good a result. Who doesn't like a scythe wielding character? I know I do! Great imagery, all dramatic. However, with 2d4 damage the average roll is going to be a 5, and with a x4 critical the average roll after 20 rolls comes to be 65. Hmmmm. Lacks a bit of punch, doesn't it? Doesn't make it half as appealing.

You experience a similar problem when you look at one handed weapons, there are clear choices that will just be better. A longsword through 20 rolls will do an average of 54 damage. A rapier or scimitar might look tempting with that increased critical range, but their average damage through 20 rolls comes to be 45.5.

Now, I'm not just throwing this out there as a way to complain without offering a solution. You see, in a real fight you don't simply chose a weapon because it gives you the biggest hit. How fast you can maneuver a weapon matters quite a bit, too. If in real life I had to defend myself and I had a choice between an arming sword (a longsword by Pathfinder standards) and a rapier, I'd choose the rapier against most opponents. It's faster to strike with, faster to pull back into a guard posture and parry an incoming blow. However, this is an element that Pathfinder doesn't include in their combat mechanics. I suggest bringing back the attribute of weapon speeds. Think about how it will affect game play. No longer are those brutish tanks just charging off into the middle of the fray because they rolled well on their d20. Now, their heavy greatsword slows down their initiative so the spellcasters and the lighter weapon combatants act first with greater frequency. They're not domineering the combat because they do the most damage, more often reacting than dictating the flow of a fight.

I would propose an optional combat rule that would have weapon speeds effect initiatives. You could even have similar rules for armor, make their Dex penalties inclusive to their initiative roll. You'd suddenly see advantages that weren't present before to the lightly armored, lighter armed warrior who favors speed and maneuverability in a fight. And it doesn't suddenly invalidate those combatants that arm up with their greatswords and heavy plate, but rather adds a complicating wrinkle.

Shadowborn wrote:

Is there a reason she doesn't just pick up a club?

I dunno. When she first created the character she had this CG idea that she'd not kill her marks when she was robbing them or if she had to get into a scrap. But the game has changed and there are more lethal things going on and she's pretty attached to the idea of using the sap. I've suggested a club or similar weapon but it doesn't fit her vision of the character.

I would suggest to the player that this is an opportunity for character growth. On the streets, it might be fine and dandy to be the "merciful thug". When you're in a goblin camp with a dozen of those buggers coming at you with their piecemeal weapons and perhaps a goblin alchemist throwing stuff that blows up (since goblins like to burn stuff), having something more substantial than a sap is a necessity. Plant that seed in her head, see if it looks like it might grow to the point where the character realizes that a rapier is still a classy weapon. If not so much, I would suggest that you suggest to her a quarterstaff. The sort of item that proves quite useful to a roguish type for tumbling / balance / vaults, while still not being so threatening as a sword.

Cu Chulainn

I would argue that Cú Chulainn with his berserking style of fighting would fall under Barbarian.

My friend and myself have always felt that there was a definite lack of blending magic and nature, such as might be seen with the elves. Rangers with arcane spells instead of divine, perhaps Wizards with favored terrain and wild empathy. That sort of thing.

A character that has a themed magical style... fire, cold, lightning, etc. Why should one have to spend extra feats for what is essentially an energy descriptor? Stories seem to enjoy having Fire Wizards and Ice Witches and the like.

Any magic caster that uses something other than the Vancian magic system that is currently in place. The 'Word of Power' magic system is under-powered in comparison.

A Gunslinger archetype for the Alchemist. There seems to be a gun toting variety of nearly every other class, except the Alchemist. When it feels like to me they would be exceptionally complimentary. Bombs and guns? There's definitely a common thread there.

I'm going to directly address the example of the goblin dilemma as I see it. My first question would be... what is the standing law of the land when it comes to goblins? In the land where the encounter transpires, do goblins bear a "kill on sight" order? Because then and only then is the Paladin obligated to kill the goblin in obeyance with the law, and even then they have their own personal latitude (depending on their nature) to interpret what may constitute an extenuating circumstance. In addition, only when they can conduct such actions without putting themselves and others in undo harm's way.

Then, we get into the really big philosophical point of this argument. Because we have to define what is good, and what is evil? This isn't as simple a question as you might suspect, and it's one that theologians and philosophers have wondered over for centuries. You see, one of the most classic views of good and evil is that they are opposite forces in constant conflict. Likes values on a number line, moving from the positive to the negative depending on intensity. This is often called the Manichean view of evil, and the struggle of good vs. evil is the point of most standard stories.

However, that isn't the only point of view of good and evil. Another (in very short summary) is frequently called the Augustinian view, and it alludes to another way of seeing both. What if evil was not an opposite of good, but rather a corruption of good? A sickness of the spirit that one who is good would rather see cured than eliminated if possible? This is the point of view that stresses redemption and compassion, and it's certainly the more difficult and challenging to carry out... but then, isn't good supposed to be about taking the more difficult but right way and evil is about taking the short cuts?

If any good character is faced with a circumstance where they have goblin captives and have to puzzle over what to do with them, those that subscribe to the Manichean view might see it as a matter of "I'm good, they are evil, and for good to win there need to be fewer evil things so I should kill them." The Augustinian view would be to judge their nature, and to consider if any amount of compassion would sway them to not be evil. Whether the corruption of their souls was too far gone to return towards goodness, or whether that one kind act of mercy might be the proper action that would put them on the path towards a better life; or risk more innocents to suffer harm at their hands. Which will require some input on the game master's part, whether they see certain creatures of certain alignments impossibly bound to their nature or whether they have sufficient sentience to rise above their bestial impulses to change and grow. Or, as might be the case of beings such as demons and devils, anchored towards their nature by forces greater than their own will?

Which is not to say that should the decision to not kill them be the final one that they would be permitted to carry on without some form of punishment. Even then, if there is to be punishment or execution of these goblins, it should never be carried out in a method that would be considered cruel. Goodness not only in result, but also in action.

Now, here's an interesting dilemma to consider. Let's say you have a helmet of opposite alignment. You might consider that to forcibly change the nature of another creature against their will is an evil act, as free will is valued and important. Ah, but if you view evil as a corruption of good, does this constitute a curative measure? An interesting topic to consider, don't you think?

Maybe we can help sooner. What is your character like: how many levels in which classes does he/she/it have? What are your character's Feats? How is your character equipped?

How is your character supposed to work, and how has your character been frustrating?

I consider myself an sophisticated min/maxer, and I suspect I'm not the only one with further advice.

I'm not poor at building the characters I have, it's more the circumstances I seem to find myself in combined with poor dice rolls at inopportune moments. For example, in the current campaign of Reign of Winter (which the gamemaster has admittedly customized to include more encounters and what encounters we've had so it could very well be fairly different from the existing source material), I've notice there are a LOT of encounters that do not suit a melee combatant. An inordinate percentage of the encounters take place with flying opponents that can target us at a range, sometimes turning invisible immediately after they attack, or they have a ranged option from a distance with difficult terrain between my Bloodrager and themselves so my progress is slow at best. Or such as in this weekend's session when I went against a creature that was sedentary that had a paralysis effect... and though the save was against Fortitude (my best save), the save DC was of such a high value that no one who was struck by it saved and I was removed from the combat before I even got in a single swing.

Or in the campaign before this, I had a Rogue who was built towards being an archer. Only to find that there were mists that prevailed all through the land, limiting sight distances so both he and the mages were always at a disadvantage. And in those instances when we finally got away from those mists, we were involved in a dungeon crawl in tight quarters so I was unable to use the benefits of being at a range.

I think something I may have to incorporate in the next campaign would be a discussion with the gamemaster to find out what avenues might be considered a more "challenging build" for their campaign concept. You don't want to run an Enchanter Wizard specialist and find yourself in an undead themed adventure. I know when I'm the game master I'll give them a bit of warning when their idea might not be the strongest with the manner of trouble they have ahead, so perhaps it might serve me well if I turn the tables and actively have a bit of a tête-à-tête with them prior to starting for their input towards my idea; and see if they don't give a little bit of a slip for something that might actively do well in their scenarios.

Some more good suggestions, thank you all. Yes, there was a degree of venting in this post, but another aspect of it was that there are now so many archetypes and specific combinations that I haven't explored each and every permutation and then sifted through them for the best combination. In particular, I hadn't considered the Grenadier Alchemist, and looking a bit closer at the Investigator there are some intriguing archetypes as well. Reading the Steel Hound Investigator and their access to both firearms as well as the rapier made me imagine one of those Renaissance ideals of heroes... the sort who uses their intellect and skills in the midst of a fight as much as their brawn. I've only ever given the Arcanist a singular try, when the book first came out, and I realized shortly after the campaign started that I perhaps hadn't taken the best options for that level; and it was a game in which there were CONSTANT impediments to your sight through supernatural fog which will hurt any ranged combatant in their ability to take care of anything except what's right in front of them.

My group is only half way through the Reign of Winter campaign at the moment, so it'll be a bit of time before I have a chance to use any of these suggestions. However, I'll definitely refer back to this thread when I have the next chance to make a new character.

It can be fun to complain about “bad luck” or “The Fates” and cultivate a reputation for complaining and being a whiner to gain sympathy or to help fill your friends with joyful schadenfreude (perhaps both)....

- Adopt a confident attitude...

CONGRATULATIONS! You, Devilkiller, have taking a commanding lead in the most condescending post in this thread. I sure you're Momma's proud of you. Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you weren't meaning to talk down to a fellow gamer, but you did. And it wasn't well received. So, for the sake of progress I'm just going to be ignoring any posts from you from this point forwards on this matter so not give you any chance to threadjack.

Second; have somebody else roll your dice.

No offense on the "high school jock with a C average" comment, but I think you knew the point I was going for. And secondly... participation is kind of half the fun. If I'm not rolling my own dice, my own level of participation has diminished. Which makes me less engaged.

Trade dice with someone just in case.

This has been attempted, with no better result than buying a new set of dice.

Instead of Wizards and Clerics try Sorcs and Oracles since you don't like the prepared casting and have no luck with it. Also they're CHA classes which lends itself to being the party face, so you'll be a shining star out of combat.

I have to admit, I really liked the Sorcerer in principle when the class was first introduced. Thematically, the idea is closer to the whole "you have a special gift", which is always cool. Mechanically, however... the lack of access to higher level spells compared to the wizard really feels like an unfair trade off. Compared to the wizard which gets increased spells known for a high ability score and an inability to swap out spells until two levels have passed, I simply don't see the bloodline abilities as a fair trade off. For example, you could have a 5th lvl Sorcerer who has a singular 2nd level spell they know that they can cast four times a day at best. A 5th lvl Wizard can have one 3rd level spell, and if they're using a bonded item they could have a secondary version of the same spell saved up in there. That faster advancement is too advantageous compared to the spontaneous casting of the sorcerer.

It sounds like you want to be the obvious hero this time around, rather than the 'unsung' hero, so I won;t suggest support characters like life oracles, bards, evangelist clerics, etc. (notwitstanding that I really like those sorts of characters).

Yes! This fellow gets it! Well, this part of it at least.

Next time your dice roll a 1, line them up then summary execute the offender by smashing it with a hammer in front of them. Muttering "you have failed me for the last time" is optional, but appropriate.

While a cathartic answer, it would eventually prove to be an expensive one. And wouldn't improve my results.

Do you mainly only roll low on d20s, or on other kinds of dice too?

I roll poorly on all dice. I think sometimes I need to blame my no-good-dirty-rotten pig-stealing-great-great-grandfather for not carrying Madam Zeroni up the mountain to drink.

I agree that this is often the case, but it doesn't have to be, and that might be something to talk to your GM about. Failing a social event might not be a TPK, but it might mean you're all thrown in jail for a crime you didn't commit, or fail to unmask the corrupt baron behind the whole scheme. Maybe the magic treasure you're seeking is protected not by a powerful monster, but a series of Indiana Jones-like traps that your rogue is best suited to get through. In other words, in most campaigns the DM can create situations that let less combat-oriented characters be the star sometimes.

I appreciate the suggestions, but sadly my game master isn't the sort who listens to suggestions. In any aspect of his life. I've known him for 28 years, he's as flexible in his ways as a rock. I've been telling him for over a decade that not all campaigns have to end with a planned need for one of the characters to sacrifice themselves and half of the remaining members to be burdened with joyless responsibilities that are contrary to their natures. Yet, he won't plot his stories in any other way. Still, it was a good suggestion.

... and talking to the min/max'er doesn't work, either. I've tried to convey to him, "Maybe you could try a more challenging concept? Something a bit more unique and off kilter, maybe? A warrior who isn't human so you don't grab up that extra feat, or a wizard who isn't this perfect combination of Dex and Int?" He just looks at me like I've grown two heads, and makes it clear that he simply doesn't find the idea the least bit interesting (in his words). As I said before, if it isn't the ULTIMATE combination possible, he doesn't find it appealing.

A quick word about summoning-type characters... sadly, no matter the level or the buffs you can push into them, the creatures you summon are never equal to the team tank. Even when you augment their summoning, they're still a far cry from that brute warrior. I often consider summoning as a way to delay an attack or two against you, which for most spell levels is worth the price. However, as an offensive option, it's simply not an efficient one.

Thank you all for your input... and I'll confess, I wrote this post up more as a vent than actually hoping for some successful answers. Still, I think it's a good idea to address some of the suggestions that were offered.

○ I have purchased new dice several times over the years. Nothing has improved by taking this measure.

○ The other gamers in our group are resistant to suggestions that would alter the straightforwards use of how dice are currently used... so, no declaring that 1's are the best results and such. Sadly, it seems that in other game systems where rolling low is better, I will then tend to roll high. I've even gone so far as to suggest an alternate rolling system that instead of rolling 1d20 you roll 2d12 and increase the DC of every result by +2. I've showed them the math of how this only minorly increases probability of successes, while creating a bell curve of results that makes criticals and critical failures less common. Naturally, the friend who min/max's and rolls 20's rather frequently objected the loudest to this idea, and even when I game master the group as a whole are unwilling to even give it a chance.

○ I like the idea of spellcasters, and I've tried them on occasion to mixed success. They don't die off as frequently as my rogues do (a class that in my opinion is always two mediocre rolls away from dying due to a failed perception check and saving throw), but they don't exactly fair too well either. I despise the Vancian magic system used by Pathfinder and similar games, as I always seem to have prepared the spell that's the most useless to the scenario. Oh, we're facing a horde of creatures packed closely together and perfect for my fireball? Guess what, they're immune to fire and now that spell has been wasted! My most powerful spell is Lightning Bolt and I only have one of them, but I get my shot off before the rest of the group can act? Well, of COURSE it's an illusion and I just threw away my best chance of making an impact in that encounter. Variations of these situations seem to happen to me all the time. Then, there's the fact that your efforts are too limited in times per day. It always seems there are more encounters than you have spells, and you'll have encountered the really important combat of the day AFTER you've used up all your most useful spells.

○ I am actually quite good at the support character. However, it's the classic theme that defense may win the game, but offense gets the glory. Numerous times it's been that a bard of mine's buffing (and bluffing) are the reasons we won, or that my cleric's channeling are the sole reason our group were still on their feet after an encounter. However, it lacks that appreciation of being the hero who's blade is the direct cause the big bad's head goes flying through the air. It's more fun to be the wide receiver who catches the touchdown that wins the game than the safety who's coverage prevented the other team from scoring. As I said in my main post, at the end of the day the story is primarily about who can kill the creepy thing. You may want to make it about you, but the game master is the one who directs the focus of the action regardless of what you want.

○ For those that don't believe in luck... well, I say sometimes it's a term used for consistent results. It's mathematically possible that one individual over the course of their role playing career statistically rolls lower on both mean, median, and mode than the average predicted by the nature of sides on the dice. Reword it however you want, but all of my friends widely and openly recognize that probability moves in such a way as giving the appearance of actively disliking me. I'm not a superstitious individual, I like to make decisions based on factual evidence and remain objective while making them. It's simply easier to say that I have bad luck, and my friends all agree on it.

Still, there have been some interesting suggestions that I will look into. Thank you for your advice, as it's clear by my verbose reply all the points have been given quite a bit of thought. Now, I just have to hope that I can find some fashion of improving my results in game.

We had split up the party... as you can guess, it got worse from there. It was myself (the bard), the fighter, and an NPC mage who were suddenly set on by the WHOLE Thieves Guild. Well, maybe not all of them, but a very large group of them. What we didn't know was that the goal of the encounter was for us to fail, be captured, and talk to the High Thief. So, we were fighting like our lives depended on it. The Mage, down to single digit hit points and a somewhat disposable NPC, takes his staff of power and snaps it. The resulting explosion takes him out, as well as a full quarter of the remaining thieves because they were quite injured. It's enough to make everyone pause.

My bard thinking fast, reaches for a recently recovered treasure of a magical rod that hasn't been identified and holds it out before him with both hands and shouts. "I may die, but I'm taking as many of you (expletive deleted) with me!" Rolling his bluff check, he got a natural 20. The Thieves got wide eyed, none of them wanting to be blown up, and backed away. With an opening from being surrounded available, my bard and the fighter took off to rejoin the rest of the group.

As a humorous post-script, the mage didn't die, either. The game master had rolled the results of breaking the staff and he had been transported to another plane of existence. Not that we ever saw him again.

So, I'm in a bit of a quandry, and I'm curious as to the feed back of fellow gamers here. For a little background, it should be known that I have HORRID luck. No, worse than that. No, worse than THAT. In one infamous game session, I started off by rolling four 1's and a 3 in my first five rolls. If there is ever a time that I absolutely need to roll well, I am guaranteed to flub it up. I am jinxed. I am hexed. I am cursed though I cannot in my life imagine what has brought me to this position in life.

The second piece of background information that I wish to offer is that one of my best friends and long time fellow gamer is an obsessive power gamer. If it isn't min/max'ed, he isn't happy. He exclusively plays warriors and mages, and he rolls quite well on an average basis. So, every campaign we play, he's always this shining star within our group and I'm the sidekick who humorously died a few times through the adventure in some really unexpected ways. As you can imagine, no one enters into a campaign with the goal of being the sidekick, and it's a role that's gotten quite old.

Unfortunately, I'm drawn to characters that have a bit of depth to their personality. My pal in the above paragraph is happy enough to have a character with a personality like wet cardboard and put straight 10's in all of his mental stats so that every one of his characters has the complexity of a high school jock that earns C's in his classes. Me, I'm drawn towards the more complex personalities. A character that has a few quirks, some strengths and flaws. Which sounds like the more interesting individual, but let's face it... the majority of Pathfinder is a combat game. You can throw in plenty of little side events as much as you want, but in the end it's about how well you can squash the creepy thing. If you fail in a social event, you always get a second chance down the line. If you fail to kill the creepy beastie, it's a TPK.

I'm curious as to what advice this community would offer an unlucky, rogue-inclined player who always seems to exclusively play second fiddle to his friend that always plays a character that is like Conan or Merlin in all but name.

And in preparation for certain suggestions... yes, I've tried my hand at playing the tank from time to time. Firstly, they feel far too "direct" to me. They're very "from point A to point B" sorts of characters, both in playing style and in nature as decided by their ability scores. I'm actually playing one now, and that friend who usually plays them is game mastering for a change. Except, by coincidence we're playing the Reign of Winter campaign, and for once ranged attackers are at a premium in this campaign. Two out of every three combats my Bloodrager is either out of range or he's had every effort concentrated on him and he's knocked unconscious before the combat finishes. That's not much fun, either.

My gamemaster runs every single encounter like the creatures we're facing are brilliant military strategists who were allowed days to set up every ambush. Which is unpleasant enough on its own... except that for one of the few times we've played together, I'm playing the party's heavy hitter (a bloodrager) and he focuses the overwhelming effort of every assault on me. Meaning that roughly 1 out of every 2 combats we're involved in, my character goes unconscious in the first three rounds. Or, the encounters are primarily bested by our range combatants, and my character can't close the distance fast enough to be effective.

The flip side of this is when someone else is gamemastering, this is the same person who habitually power games and creates these min/max'ed powerhouses that tear through the ranks of enemies. This, because our other steady gamemaster doesn't try to perfectly shape each encounter as though the opponent has perfect forethought for planning and irrational understanding before the encounter of the strengths and weaknesses of each member of our party.

You have no idea how much I wanted this campaign. Especially the Lantern King... have you ever encountered a sideways mention with too little detail that grabbed your attention in a way that you couldn't describe? That was me with this individual. All of the Eldest and the First Realm really draw my attention, too. I look forwards to this campaign setting, and I'm curious to see what twists and turns it provides.

I have to admit, I'm a bit relieved to hear that my group isn't the only one having issues with this module. I'm a player in a small group that started this up, we're near the end of what seems to be the next chapter of this first module from where you're at... and by Cthulhu's tentacles, are we having a pain of every single encounter!

Our own group consists of a Cleric of Cayden Cailean, a Witch, a Ranger with the Hooded Champion archetype, a Rogue, and a Bloodrager. We're all fairly well built individually... but I can honestly say it's mostly because our Cleric has selective channeling and extra channeling for feats that we've survive most encounters. It feels as though one out of every three encounters is built very specifically to prevent the heroes from even attacking their adversary. Between the environmental conditions, racial abilities that don't provoke attacks of opportunity, and the ability to -perfectly- set ambushes that simply can't be avoided, it's a harrowing grind that has passed "frustrating" and is quickly approaching "unenjoyable game play".

I can say that while in most campaigns it feels as though the ranged attacker is an afterthought, his is VITAL in this campaign so far. The Bloodrager (controlled by me) is thwarted at every turn from even being able to reach his opponent, while the Ranger is the one who keeps us alive by reaching the many attackers who simply cannot be approached by any of our melee fighters or even our Witch as they consistently stay out of reach of her spells. I find this personally upsetting because I've often played the archer in many of our past groups and been made inconsequential, but this time I wanted to play something with a bit more punch and now I'm unable to even act in about half the conflicts.

... of course, we also have what I would characterize as an "adversarial game master", the sort who isn't looking to tell a good story but to see if he can't at least knock out one character in every fight. He might be manipulating every encounter to his best tactical advantage beyond what the book is offering without fudging numbers.

Moving purely from the description of the encounter you described... whomever this GM was, they stunk. I don't just mean they were bad, but they were truly horrible. You could have been playing a 4th level Barbarian - if you're solo adventuring and you have Hold Person cast on you, you could be the victim of a coup de grace. The ONLY reason a GM would have of using this tactic would be to capture the character for a plot point.

Now, I'm uncertain if the individual was supposed to be the mother of your character or if they really were... but I can say that you would have had to have had some pretty horrible family problems if they felt that even under a Charm Person spell that it was okay to put you in a position where it was possible for you to be killed. Whether it broke the Charm Person or not, the spell does not command 100% mindless loyalty. It also does not erase cues of deceptiveness that would have been noticed by Sense Motive.

Plus... let's be honest. A 4th level Specialist Wizard Necromancer on a solo adventure? While they do know a bit of magic, when it comes to physical confrontations this is a combination that's barely above a milk maid. Actually, the milk maid might have actually developed some muscles in her forearms for grip strength, so I'd give her the edge in a fight. If your GM couldn't adapt his gaming style to the appropriate challenge, they have no right to complain if you don't want to play with them.

To see the GM as a rival makes about as much sense as trying to play a competitive sport where your opponent is the referee. Like the ref, they should keep the play fair and keep the game moving. This person strikes me as someone you probably doesn't even know the rules well.