Elven Wizard

Luthia's page

RPG Superstar 8 Season Dedicated Voter. Organized Play Member. 349 posts. 3 reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 14 Organized Play characters.




On behalf of more than one of my players (mostly one but two others have also expressed less-than-happiness)

One thing is the part where every last one of my players appear to have decided that high dex and studded leather is the universal only solution to AC that's worth it to them, and heavy armors are really much too bad to be considered.

Another is that they are currently refusing to consider special materials due to price scaling.

A third is that they are really, remarkably less than fond of noisy (I have yet to see ONE noisy armor in play, possibly because they like their stealth).

I'm sure all those things have been covered wall up and down (a solution soon would be appreciated, but alas, not the point here).

But the thing I am here to mention is the armor potency difference for heavy armors and all the other armors.
So what I have experienced is an enormous dissatisfaction with the part where heavy armor is one magic item level higher than all the other magic armors.

I think the point here is that the players don't really feel that the heavy armors are so much better for their AC that they are worth the higher level enchantment. Were their bonuses actually remarkably better than lighter armors, that would be a different case, but currently, the difference in heavy armors is causing enough anooyance that out of 5 sessions we have yet to have one where heavy armor was not the main point of complaint.

Dedicated Voter Season 8

I noticed quite a few places being called out for +10 bonuses to skill checks. I just wanted to notice that I've found at least one item in the CRB, which has a +10 (Elixir of Hiding, +10 to Stealth for no less than 1 hour, for only 250 gp). This has no relevance to me, personally, but I believe it should be mentioned that there is a reason to believe that +10 is perfectly okay, it being CRB and all.

That said, I perfectly understand them being called too high. I don't like them either. And I do think the majority of items has a +5 or less rather than a +10.

That said, if it's as strongly disapproved of as I seem to be getting a feeling of, I think it would be good to have that presented somewhere visible to make the mistep more avoidable, as there it exists in the CRB.

Just a loose thought...


So, I recently changed my kingmaker sessions from a weekly to monthly game, partly because of rising disinterest in the campaign, partly because of 2 new players who wanted to be introduced to Pathfinder on the day of my weekly games.

So, just to prove my increasing annoyance with a 6-player group, that didn't really work together right, utterly wrong, my players had one of the best session in a while over - hold on and sit down for disbelief - random encounters. Yes, indeed.

Now, why I have 3 Allosaurusses, being mounted

The background (with spoilers):
After cancelling af dysfunctional group of hired heroes (my players were having disbelief issues with the fact that the Duke, Duchess and several other importants went out exploring and fixing minor issues), the Leaders of the country of Tuskland returned to their adventuring careers, beginning with the slaying of Vordakai and his minions. They then proceeded to exploring the area around Varnhold, being more concerned with the safety of the villagers, than with the exploration.
The exploration proceeded with relative boredom, until I introduce the 6th or something more encounter of a session which took about 12 hours (4 pm. to 4 am.), introducing a Bestiary 2 monster, the Allosaurus, in a gruop of 3. The Ranger (guide)/General decided to approach these ferocious beasts, intending to befriend them. Note that this ranger is an ex-gnome, female and 50+, reincarnated as a human male teenager (oh yes, I rolled that randomly, aged included). I quickly decide that I want a Handle Animal check of serious DC, which, on a natural 20, the ranger makes smoothly. He/she (confusion not made smaller by the player being female) suceeded in taming the 3 dinosaurs, and went on to offer the bard (sandman), who was charmed with the Huge size dinosaurs, to ride one. They spent a full week bringing the dinosaurs to a measure of domestication (still dino-like, mind you). The bard and ranger now ride Allosaurus mounts and try to keep them from eating the horses (by now a rare species of mount for my group, though) and everything the players kill.

So, my little, big Allosaurus problem goes a little like this:

I have one player, the teams diplomat/bard/trap-stealth-person, deciding to take Handle Animal and Ride as skills on her next level, with the purpose of using a dinosaur as a diplomatic maneuver. And giving it Stealth-training, to stealth about on a Huge size dino.

The other dino-rider, the ranger, is even more charmed with the beasts and have so far several times sttod between an Allosaurus and its meal, successfully teaching them only to eat what they're given - or at least, so far. She/he really wants to use this Allosaurus in combat, to the point that I'm designing a person-enlarging magical Allosaurus saddle for her.

I expect my absentee player, a (semi-feminist) Fighter may also want an Allosaurus mount.

None of these players have a chance to acquire actual "animal companions" though, and can therefore not easily train and modify these Allosaurus (such as by giving them Armor Procifiency feats) to allow for barding. While Allosaurus mounts are surely hardy and more unlikely to die in combat than horses will ever be, especially the ranger does want to use her/his dino for a combat mount, meaning sometimes letting the Allosaurus attack. This has the player so excited about the game, that it even over-shadowed the dragon mount the Duke has been saving up for, taking extra feats for (on top of his Leadership) and finally got in that same session.

In other words, I couldn't possibly find it in me to deny my players their beloved dinos. This event gave the game some seriously needed enjoyment. But how do I handle 3 Allosaurus mounts, that the player not only want to ride, but want to use in combat and are willing to change and respecialize their entire characters for? Issues:

- Size (more or less handled by reach weapons (two players already use these) and enlarge person for the other)
- Dino Armor, or "My players want to protect their dear dinos". In other words, they are talking about seeking out dragons to make dragonhide armors or getting enormous chain shirts of even breastplates or full-plates for their Allosaurus "friends". Only, the dinos can't get proficiency, are enormous, and generally rules for "Allosaurus armor" seem more than slightly difficult to acquire/make up.
- The fact that these mounts are, in fact, formidable combatants, which my players are playing to have their marshal (a retired druid, who also did the reincarnation) awaken. They are even willing to use their Leadership feats on this...

Any tips? I am presently working through rules, item creation with the purpose of Allosaurus riding/fighting and looking through how I can let my players control these mounts etc., but any kind of idea/previous experience/anything else really to assist the situation would be very much welcome.

In a short summary, the one thing I won't do is remove the Allosaurus mounts, as they are becoming the new source of happiness and fun for my players, and it will really disappoint them to loose their hard-won dinos.

Dedicated Voter Season 8

So, not to ask for a repetition of a rule already debated, but after several days search for a total of at least some hours I have come to the conclusion that I need to hear even just a second opinion here.

I am in the situation of being - very - in favor of a particular item, which I've been toying around with for most of the last two months now. my main issue with this item is that it may touch mildly on some intellectual property, which I for reasons of far too obviously revealing my item will not say more of.

To keep it simple, my concern goes something like: "no matter how I change this, the moment I reduce on some of the factors which makes me concerned I may be too close to the source of inspiration, the item gets significiantly harder to describe, more boring and not truly worth my time".
To specify the problem is that the mechanic I'm looking at is in it's essence simple and (in my opinion) rather beautiful, but explained very carefully in the source of inspiration.
While I am, in no way I can think of, copying anything, and in fact taking several measures to remove myself from the source of inspiration, it remains to me and, I should think, anyone who knows the source somewhat - obvious where the inspiration is from.
To give further specifics, I have no owned names included, no direct copies or anything too close to this, but the very concept, is, in it's essence the same or rather similar.

So, the discussion/second opinion (or whichever else), I find myself fretting over the apparent lack of is this:
How close to the source is it wise to let inspiration from it go, and how can one more carefully decide when something is too close?

And before you give this particular piece of advice, trying another item doesn't seem to help. None of them have half the awesome of this item, and so every time I try to put my efforts to a different object, this returns to me, and carefully reminds just why it is so very much better than anything else, I seem to be able to come up with.

In advance, thank you most sincerely (in fact - just writing this seems to have cleared my mind on the matter) and good luck if you are participating in the competition.

A very Merry (although late) Christmas to all of you, and the best wishes for the new year,
Siv L. Strandberg


So, I'm looking through the PDF, feeling happy in general, a bit sad, but understanding at the point of only using two classes and most damage words.
And then... one of the Effect Families is called "Power"... and that had me disliking the entire thing a bit until I got rid of it. So here's to a deep hope that this name gets changed. I can see that the cover the "power word stun/blind/kill" spells, but to be quite honest about it having a character using the Word of Power Stun from the Power family, just feels vague and unclear. I can't see why exactly these spells are grouped together in name normally (okay sure, the blind and stun effect are debilitating, but why is kill in with them?), and to me this gets so much more relevant when grouping the Words of Power in families. When one of them is called "Power" does that one have more power than the other Words of Power.

Just the numbers of times I've had to use the words Power to express this should be annoying enough on it's own. Or I'm just being too much of language student with too much of a love for specifics, details and what-nots in the field of linguistics. I suppose, that is possible, but please, I will have to wonder if the name is final, and if I'm told "no, not final", I think, I'll sleep better.

Apart from that so far liking it.


This might be a bit of a Repetition Exercise. However, I'll beg it to be more than that.

I'll try to be objective about this.

All over this board I find myself looking at notes that the Eidolon is
1. A rather powerful (I refuse to say overpowered, I'm sure Eidolons CAN be made in a "just" powerful, but in no way unbalanced way even as the rules are.
2. Clearly the main feature of the Summoner, possible over-shadowing the Summoner. Whether desirable or not I would (Warning: Personal Opinion) consider it sad to play pet more than the character.

Purpose of Thread:
Instead of filing up agrees, points about how and diasgrees, I'm interested in constructive ideas concerning this. So basically, what I would like to see is not "You're wrong". I wouldn't mind a well reasoned "You're wrong, because...". However what I'm really interested in is "I agree, because... here's what I think might be done about ..."

Issues:
1. Is there possibilities for or maybe even inbuilt tendencies towards extreme power in the current Eidolon rules?
2. Clarifying which points of the Eidolon rules might open for/lead to mentioned possibility for high-poweredness.
3. How can each point best be dealt with? (Here multiple opinion is wanted way too badly) - This is the point were we try to tell the Paizo staff what we would like to see the Eidolon do. This is the point where we give them opur ideas to play with for the final product.
4. (Personal Interest Question) Would it be more interesting for the Summoner to have a severely (not removed, at all) Eidolon (still customizable, less power in the customization though) and more summons (maybe more powerful or long-termed)?
5. Is the Eidolon over-shadowing the Summoner as it is? Is this good or bad, and why so? (Opinions expcted and accepted, as usually for me I hope everyone will show that accept)
6. Slight detached from main subject: How can the Summoner seem more apparent in comparison to the Eidolon? Rules, flavor and other abilities in focus?
7. Slightly detached again: Is the Summoner perhaps a bit too much of a "Buffing" class? (Point here being: would more summoning ability, less ability to buff the Eidolon (not removing it, but leaving it more to other classes) be preferable) The why of it matters more than the Yes/No.
8. This is once again detached from the main theme: What do you see the Summoner as and how do you feel it could best be reflected in the rules? (Mainly because I'm interested in what people imagine when the hear about a "Summoner" as a class.)

So, I ask too many questions, most of them open for discussion. I look forward to a constructive discussion of the summoner/eidolon and evt. problems abot them.


My players and I were toying around with the Summoner, one of my players started toying around with the idea of a trip specialized Eidolon and after some min-maxing he created this monstrosity. It has been play tested under diffrent conditions 5 times with the same result each time.

Feel free to look it over and correct if you find any mistakes in the build.

Base creature

Level 20 Summoner's Eidolon
Huge Bipedal Eidolon
HD: 17d10+85 (187 hp)
Speed: 30ft

Unbuffed stats

Str 52 Dex 16 Con 21
Int 13 Wis 10 Cha 11
Fort: 15 Reflex: 8 Will: 10 Bab: +17 CMB:38 (trip: 48) CMD: 54
Ac: 42 Tch: 12 Ff: 37

+5 keen, frost, shock, Huge Guisarme +42/+37/+32/+27 (19-20x3 2d8+32+1d6 frost +1d6 electricity)

Evolutions: Ability Increase (Ex):4xstr(8), 3xint(6), Improved Natural Armor (Ex): x4(4), Gills (Ex)(1), Large (Ex)(3), Huge (Ex)(4)

Feats: level 1: Exotic Weapon Proficiency Guisarme, level 2: Weapon focus Guisarme level 5: Improved Initiative level 7: Power Attack level 10: Dodge level 12: Improved Critical Guisarme level 15: Combat Expertise level 17: Improved Trip level 20: Greater Trip

Now he decide to buff his pet a little and go kill the Tarrasque.

Buffs: Enlarge, Greater heroism, mage armor, haste, shield, displacement,

Equipment: Ring of regeneration, Ring of physical perfection +6, Amulet of Natural Armor +5, Manual of gainful exercise +4, Manual of bodily health +1, Tome of clear thought +2

Buffed stats:
Gargantuan Bipedal Eidolon
HD: 17d10+153 (255 hp)
Speed: 60ft

Str 64 Dex 22 Con 28
Int 13 Wis 10 Cha 11
Fort: 22 Reflex: 14 Will:14 Bab: +17 CMB:52 (trip: 62) CMD: 60
Ac: 56 Tch: 13 Ff: 50

+5 keen, frost, shock, Gargantuan Guisarme (+52) +52/+47/+42/+37 (19-20x3 4d6+49+1d6 frost +1d6 electricity)

Evolutions: Ability Increase (Ex):4xstr(8), 2xint(4),Flight (Ex)(2), Improved Natural Armor (Ex): x4(4), Gills (Ex)(1), Large (Ex)(3), Huge (Ex)(4)

Feats: level 1: Exotic Weapon Proficiency Guisarme, level 2: Weapon focus Guisarme level 5: Improved Initiative level 7: Power Attack level 10: Dodge level 12: Improved Critical Guisarme level 15: Combat Expertise level 17: Improved Trip level 20: Greater Trip

If you look at the trip CMB you can see that this Eidolon only needs a roll of 4 to trip the Tarrasque with reach on the Guisame it is possible to be outside melee range while the Tarrasque is prone, if the Tarrasque tries to get up the Eidolon can use the attack of opportunity to trip it again. Even with the Tarrasque’s tail attack it can only hit on a natural 20 and in return the Eidolon can inflict 30d6+245 (-75) damage on the Tarrasque each round. Even if you assume the damage rolls go bad and you miss some attacks, it will still only take the Eidolon 4 rounds to bash the Tarrasque into unconsciousness. After that it will be possible to inflict even more damage and finally drag the Tarrasque into a body of water large enough for it to drown in.

We assume that all buffs are cast with the Extend spell meta magic feat and that the summoner hides inside the Eidolon during the initial combat.

Also notice that the Tome of clear thought +2 allows us to get the flight evolution.

Gold spend on Eidolon equipment:
Ring of Regeneration 90,000 gp
Ring of physical perfection +6 144,000 gp
Manual of gainful exercise +4 110,000 gp
Manual of bodily health +1 27,500 gp
Tome of clear thought +2 55,000 gp
Guisame of Tarrasque owning 128,000 gp

Total 554500 gp

Equipment is obtainable by a level 19 character according to the PFRPG

They call their lovely creation Bob :(


So, I've just been through the Boneyard, hardly wounded my party due to 3 things
Very effective players
Very good perception (not lucky rolls, just sick bonuses)
Very effective team on range

The last thing in particular makes me rather worried that my players will have a much too easy time with Depora in the last part of Shadow in the Sky, which I'd rather avoid, since I want to give a really epic feel to the last sequences.
Knowing that many people out there are past this point I can't help wondering if anyone have some good ideas for how to improve the last encounter?

To give you as much information as possible I'm running PFRPG (which already makes me want to improve Depora by 1 level), I have 4 players, playing as follows:

Human Cleric of Sarenae (Healing and Fire domains makes him an effective healer and ranged spellcaster, while focus on wearing a full-plate and using a scimitar makes him good in melee and hard to get proper strikes to) NG (played as fanatic good doer and redemption by fire personificated)

Human Wizard (Generalist with very high focus on being the teams craftsman and planner - tends to go for well-planned over good, relatively weak (VERY low hit point due to poor Con and poor rolls)) LN

Elf (recently introduced) Sorcerer (Arcane Bloodline - goes for being renamed to "Artillery and Charm effects" - a very new character, so I don't really have any decisive notes on weaknesses/strengths and style yet) CG

Half-Elf Ranger (Archery Style - works with poisons and (thanks to the wizard) alchemical arrows, runs with a highly Calistria focused ideal and plays slightly Bounty Hunter style)

My initial plan is to get some good hits on "the weak point", that being the wizard, but my problem lies with the rest still being able to revive him or going on without, and not really being troubled by the loss.

Please give me some input to work with,
Thanks ahead for anything...