LowRoller's page

Organized Play Member. 98 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I remember reading Belgariad and Mallorean twenty or so years ago. It took a long time before i even realised the angarak races were humans. I pictured them as some humanoid evil creatures like orcs.


I'm not sure how invisibility on items work but wouldn't the spell end as soon as you attacked with it just as if an invisible creature attacks? Greater invisibility could work though.


Ellis Mirari wrote:


If PCs are always the same alignment and have the same opinions on what is okay, it'll never happen. But I don't like to impose a way to play on my players. They decide what is acceptable for their party.

I was posting about my preference AS A PLAYER and the close-aligned group is exactly the kind of group i want.


First of all at lvl 3 you get 2d6 channel. When using traits/feats to gain caster level you dont actually get more levels. The only thing affected is spell variables and dispel difficulty. For example duration based on caster level will be longer. Healing for cure spells get +1 per caster level etc etc.

You dont get more channel energy since that is based on class level and the same is true for spells/day.

There is an item that gives you 2 extra d6 per channel. I think it's a head piece of some sort at around 10k gold.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

As a player i'm not interested in PvP at all. I never build a character with pvp in mind. No stealing-from-party rogues, no angry-at-everything barbarians.

If i found myself in a group with 'pvp on' i would just quit. It's simply not the kind of game i want to play.

I find it hard to understand why two characters that hate eachover enough to kill would stick together in the same group. The most probable action would be to leave the group long before it came to blows. If i went on a dangerous mission i sure as hell wouldn't want mortal enemies around.


A bit of meta-cheating sure but not overly serious in the situation you are in, under levled and under geared for the encounters you get.


http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magic.html#_teleportation


Cevah wrote:


So far they have earned 2345 XP as a group. 2nd level is 2000 XP, so 4 characters need a total of 8000 XP assuming medium progression.
If they only have a fight or two before reaching 2nd level, they need to make up 71% of their XP in those fights. That is a pair of CR 6 to CR 7 fights. I think you are missing some encounters, since APL +5 and APL +6 are going to be TPKs. Go re-read and see if you are either giving out too much XP, missing GP, and/or missing encounters.

Burnt offerings and the rest of RotRL uses fast xp progression. Level 2 is 1300XP per character.


The problem with your sunder->epic quest idea is that it contains a fair amount of GM fiat.

Letting the party find an amazing weapon is easy enough, though it requires some fairly powerful obstacle or it seems very arbitrary.

Your next step is to sunder it. Are you going to use an overly powerful enemy to do it to assure success? Will you simply fudge the roll? If you don't then will you keep sending sunder happy foes until one succeeds?

Either case might look a bit odd from the groups perspective.

You can make the same adventure by simply letting them find a broken weapon and hear legends about it's origins and a way to repair it. No sundering needed and thus no fudged combat rolls required.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So...a a speed of 240 would grant an acrobatics bonus of 88 for long jumps (4bonus x 21). On a roll of 1 you'd still make an 89' jump. If you're standing still and jump you only make it 44'.


Magic missile!

Fireball!

That's all a proper magic user needs. Remove all the other shenanigans they are up to these days and everything will be fine.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I love rolling for stats, i just don't like playing them if i roll low


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:

This thread reminds me of Ring of Sustenance discussions:

One group feels one way, another group feels the opposite, and there's no changing anyone's minds, so discussion just goes in a circle.

That's the nature of rings :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gotta love paladin threads :)

The written codes can be interpreted in such an hardline unforgiving way as to make the paladin completely unplayable.

Just decide if you want paladin to be playable at all or not. If you want it playable then make a list of no-no's and hand it to the player. If you don't want it to be playable then ban the class. Don't let someone make one and then depower him for silly stuff.


Gator the Unread wrote:


Tah dah; ya "met" one.

Duly noted :D

Gator the Unread wrote:


I'm not hardcore about it; I'm not reminding the players or looking over their shoulder, but I have honest (or those really good at acting honest) players, and I find running low on ammo an interesting problem. I have even saw an archer snatch arrows from the quiver on his buddy's back because his was empty.

But, like ya said, yer results may vary.

As a played i don't mind keeping an eye on ammo if i play an archer. It's usually the GM who can't be bothered.

I like taking the last shift on watch to mix up milk, flour, butter and baking soda, then heat up the waffle iron for breakfast.
Som think it's a waste of game time, some think it's fun rp. It's all up to personal preference, just like ammo tracking.


karossii wrote:
LowRoller wrote:

Most GM's i've played with ignore mundane ammo altogether.

Tracking also means that the GM has to make sure that ammo "drops" from enemies else the archer character is crippled in a similar way as a caster who doesn't get any chance to rest.

I'm not saying it's wrong to track ammo if you like that sort of thing. I just haven't met anyone who likes it once they tried it for a while.

So by that logic, wizards shouldn't have to track their spells cast, right? They just get crippled if they don't get a chance to rest, and it can get tiresome remembering which spells I memorized for the day, and which one I cast and all that...

That archer character is in many ways superior to the melee characters, mainly because they are not in the front lines worrying about taking hits, but also in the fact they can spam so many arrows in a round - more than any meleeer can swing his sword. Yes, running out of arrows will cripple that ability. It is why you must keep track of them.

If you like tracking arrows go ahead. I'm just saying i've never met anyone who likes doing it. YMMV


Most GM's i've played with ignore mundane ammo altogether.

Tracking also means that the GM has to make sure that ammo "drops" from enemies else the archer character is crippled in a similar way as a caster who doesn't get any chance to rest.

I'm not saying it's wrong to track ammo if you like that sort of thing. I just haven't met anyone who likes it once they tried it for a while.


Third Mind wrote:
Hey Lemmy quick question. How does one get +10 to bluff using forgery through linguistics? Is that just something a DM awards, or is there a ruling for it?

If you forge a document that supports your lie you get a bonus. It requires preparation though so it's only useful when you know you will try to convince someone of something.

For example you can forge a letter that will support your claim of being a diplomat of a foreign nation and thus gain you access to a rulers court.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd say there's a distinct difference between meeting a requirement and then adding further to the required stat vs gaining a higher then required ability without ever having the lower ones.

Not that anyone should care considering the weakness of most prestige classes.


It can also vary wildly depending on GM style.


Morgen wrote:

3d6 straight down the line is absolutely the only appropriate way for a character to be generated with dice. Anything else is for wimps and power gamers (who whine louder then wimps.)

It speeds up character creation a bit so long as your players understand that is how it is going to work and that every character deserves a fair chance. You could be extremely lenient and use the tavern/inn keeper rule form Hackmaster that allows particularly worthless characters to be named and then turned over to you to use as NPC's. Usually if everything is sub-10 would be fair enough without compromising to the wimps.

Using a lot of the ultimate campaign rules you could create quite the old style campaign which would could be tons of fun if everyone was up for it.

The wealth by level is more of a guideline for the GM to use rather then a hard rule to strictly follow. Something that says, "PC's should be about here for the CR system to work best at judging appropriate challenges."

You are right, it sucks when characters survive to level 2. Such high level characters are a clear sign of power gaming :P


The diceroll means that the characters are searching the room, using their perception score as a base for how clever/skilled they are at finding things.

Asking the players to be more specific means that the players are searching the room, disregarding any skill their characters have.


Lamontius wrote:
wait am I a PBer or a dice roller?

Yes

@Silentman73:

It only takes 15 as start value in your primary casting stat to reach 19 before you get 9th level spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's kinda obvious to me why you cant roll in a PB game. The purpose of PB is to get characters of an even level. Allowing one or more players to roll stats would defeat that purpose.


Ravingdork wrote:

No one has yet to answer the initial question. Why is it that people seem to be under the impression that stacking identical templates is both RAW and RAI?

If nothing else, surely it would break the "no stacking from the same source" general rule. What's more, with all the abuses and imbalances it opens up, it should be obvious that it isn't RAI.

Who are these "people"? Do you go to secret GM conventions and discuss these things?

A Gm can add any creature with any stats to his campaign so the whole point of the thread is moot. If the monsters are too strong the PC's die repeatedly and the game ends. If you are saying that "people" believe stacking templates work well with the CR system then again i have to ask who these "people" are.


I would like to sign up with a ranger. The party needs someone to find the way in the wilderness.


If they decided to go in naked and not defend themselves would you then equip your monsters with pillows for weapons?

They made a choice to have high armour because they like feeling unhittable. If you change the monsters to counter the players choices there is no point making choices, picking feats or getting equipment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

They do owe me an explanation if they're any sort of reasonable human being.

They are not in any sort of important position where I should follow their orders without question. I am not employed by them, and they are not my superior in any way. We have come together to PLAY A GAME.

And if you're on so much of a power trip from being in charge of running A GAME that you can't formulate a coherent reason for why you dislike something and think everyone should "Respect yo authoritay" because you sit at a different spot on the table, yes, I probably am better off finding someone I wouldn't want to punch after being in the same room for 5 minutes with them.

Thankfully, I only play with people I know, who are actual human beings who can communicate with each other, not the ego tripping aliens that everyone else plays with apparently.

Funny thing is that i could turn those exact arguments against you by simply asking why you must play that specific race/class/whatever.

Remember that 'i want to' i not a good enough answer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

ciretose wrote:
If the explanation is "I don't want 'X' in this campaign" that is a good enough answer

No.

This is the issue. That effectively defeats the purpose of asking why.

That's pretty much the equivalent of "Why?" "Because."

I don't let my little brother get away with that s*~$ and I certainly won't allow someone who's an adult to do so either.

This is the core of the discussion. I say it IS a good enough answer. Nobody is obligated to GM a game with [Insert race/class/whatever] if they don't want to. Not wanting to is sufficient reason not to run a game.

If you dont like it then find another GM. If all the players dislike it then the GM will have to find other players. Everybody has vetorights on what game they participate in.

Nobody owes you an explanation why they dont like things. You can moan and b%##% till the end of time but they still dont owe you that explanation. It's no different from not liking tomatoes.


ciretose wrote:
Kryptik wrote:
The level of miscommunication in this thread has reached epic proportions.
Not possible. That book isn't out yet :)

'The Book of Misscommunication'

This fabled and dreaded book has the reverse effect of the 'Point of View Gun'. No matter how hard you try people will just not get the point of what you are saying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:

The problem can be solved by playing with the kind of flavor that doesn't force you to suddenly ban things your players might happen to like.

It's worked for me as a DM every darn time, and a campaign can still be serious even if you have things that aren't human as playable characters.

This is a clear case of 'i don't have a problem with [insert thing] so i don't see why anyone else should have a problem with it'

Any GM has a right to refuse to run a game with races he does not like, just like players have every right to not play in games with rules they do not like.


Celestial heritage is not the same thing as powers granted to a cleric. The bloodlines represent an inborn power while clerics are granted powers from an outside source.


Another fun situation:

A cleric makes a wand from a domainspell, let's say 'shield' from the defense domain. It's allowed since it's a prepared spell.

Now the same cleric wants to use the wand he just made. Sadly 'shield' is not on the class spell list for clerics so it would require a DC20 Use Magic Device check according to the rules for using wands.

The cleric now mumbles angrily and hands the wand over to his wizard friend. The wizard sniffs the wand cautiously and says "this smells like divine magic, i cant use this!"


It's an odd call for a strength check indeed. Ropes and everyone pulling should should have solved it by just looking at the combined drag-weight ability of the party.


I would allow T10 in most out of combat situations. If someone was preparing an assault from a hidden position and had plenty of time to do it i would even allow T20 for that stealth, assuming the location offered good hiding places.


The only reference to presenting a holy symbol i can find is in the channel energy description in the cleric part of the CRB. It doesn't specify what presenting means.


I guess this is one of those rules that sound fun until you get killed by it.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
There was a scene in a video game where the characters subcontract something because it was beneath their abilities. It was very tongue-in-cheek amusing.

Perhaps it was Baldurs Gate 2? I remember a scene where some lowlevels are hired to get an item and when they come back they try to kill you, fail horribly, reload the game and give you the item.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The very concept of "earning your chops" and "standing the heat" in a pen and paper rpg is just silly.

You are not a special forces veteran of 20 years who's been on a hundred dangerous missions. Anyone who actually thinks that harsh rules in Pathfinder makes them badass really needs a serious reality check.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Now i understand why all of Piccolos opinions on this forum are based on low level characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

I'm afraid there will be a delay in our regularly-scheduled updates (and games) as the universe (i.e., the GM) has been bedridden for the last 48 hours with a particularly nasty virus.

Games did happen on Friday AND Saturday, and I'll post the updates as I become strong enough to sit upright for more than a few minutes... probably out to the group Thursday-ish, and up here Friday-ish. Sorry for the delay!

(And yes, I posted to the obits, and no, it had nothing to do with this group. What can I say? I love a spectacularly silly PC death as much as the next GM...)

Taking sickdays? The GM entitlement these days...


Clerics dont have damage cantrips tho so it's boring as hell at lower levels. X-bow is an option but will have trouble hitting. I guess there is the domain powers with 1d6 ranged touch attacks.


True, a SAD wizard is a better fit then the MAD cleric class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

With those stats i might be suicidal too, especially if everyone else got great rolls. This is the reason i prefer point buy. YMMV


Generally speaking it's usually more accepted to buff monster strength rather then lowering charcter strength. People hate losing what they have gained, be it gear, stats or levels.


Artanthos wrote:
LowRoller wrote:
The bigger question is why they are in the homebrew forum arguing about it. If they like things as they are just leave it.

Because dissenting opinions have no place in a rational discussion?

They would have if this was about changing the official game but it's not. This is about homebrew solutions for those of us that find the amount of skills lacking for a number of classes. If your stance is "everything is fine as it is" then you are clearly not interested in discussing solutions to a problem you dont see. You are just here to argue against any suggestion.

If you don't think there is a problem in the first place then just ignore the thread, nothing in it will ever affect the game you play.


I've read what you claim but from every single post you've made it looks to me like you came here with an agenda and i still believe that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

So Wizards get a free pass and **** the Fighters.

Yup, I think I've spent too much time in this thread, so I'm going to bow out now before I start getting really angry.

Good luck Abadar! Sorry we threadjacked you with this debate.

You make your choices; you live with the results.

I choose for my fighter to have skills.

If you're too busy trying to beat the barbarian at DPR to develop anything else, that is your decision, not something forced upon you by the rules.

And yet Barbarians get 4+int skill points per level. Why on earth are people so opposed to putting Fighters a little bit closer to the same level as Barbarians?

The bigger question is why they are in the homebrew forum arguing about it. If they like things as they are just leave it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to agree that chaotic alignment is not the same as total random behaviour. If that was true chaotic alignment would just mean insane.


Matthew Morris wrote:

Again it's the same thing though kyrt-ryder.

"The wizard's going to suck in melee, so I will dump strength."
"But if you dump strength, you can't hit anything! Look, I'll give you the BAB of a fighter, so you have a chance to hit in Melee if you don't dump strength."

And that still doesn't change that you penalize an archtype just because *gasp* he might have more skill points.

"We need to give the fighter more skill points, because he dumps intelligence."
"We need to take points away from the sage-sorcerer, because he uses intelligence."

Your argument is silly because high int shouldn't give skillpoints usable for swimming, climbing , acrobatics etc in the first place. It's just an arbitrary decision that makes no sense.

I agree that a low int fighter shouldn't get a lot of knowledge, but he should get points to put in physical skills, perception and handling the horse he rides every day.

1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>