MechE_'s page

well, augment summoning applies so I don't see why others should not.

I'll second this.

I would expect anyone who goes to the expense of a serious magical trap (permanent, self resetting etc.) would make sure to cover it with a thin sheet of lead.

This is one possible "in game" answer to the situation, and makes a decent amount of sense. Thus, detect magic might find some traps (such as an alarm spell, etc.), but would not find more complicated traps.

Personally, I've just houseruled the detect magic spell to be Touch range. I find that it puts a bit of the mystery and danger back into basic exploration and interaction with the world. It also has the side effect of making illusions and traps more difficult to deal with, which sort of multiplies the additional mystery and danger. This may not be for every group of players, but I like it a lot.

So, considering chain challenge is a thing, and mid-high level cavaliers can challenge nearly everything they fight, do you also have a feat to allow inquisitors to chain their judgements?

I personally like classes that are more versatile than just a fighter or a wizard, but that's not everyone's cup of tea. Many new players enjoy those classes or even *gasp* a rogue! But in my opinion, the Inquisitor has a bit too much packed into it.

It is on occasion necessary for a GM to mediate such issues - this is an unfortunate requirement of us. In your specific case, I can see both parties concerns here and without personally experiencing it, I can't say to what extent each player is in the right and in the wrong. (Though generally in these situations, each player is wrong to some extent.)

My advice
Sit them down outside of a game session, just you and the two of them and have an honest conversation, starting it off by telling each of them to explain how they "feel" about the recent tension in their friendship. If necessary, begin by sharing how the tensions during the gaming session have made you "feel". Continue asking them "feel" questions and try to open a dialogue. (This sounds ultra cheesy, but neither person can argue how the other "feels", so using that word reduces the experience from argument to sharing of emotions... It's a standard move in relationship counseling.) If your group is the kind that doesn't mind a few libations, I suggest starting the conversation off with a single cool drink in each person's hand to relax the mood just a bit.

After some (hopefully positive) conversation between the three of you, simply explain to them that the tension between the two of them is unsustainable and if it continues, you will be forced to remove one of them. Stress that this is NOT the desired outcome and that you enjoy playing with each of them and would like to continue doing so. But also raise the point that the current situation is sapping the fun from the game and that is unfair to the group as a whole. Conclude this brief warning by pointing out that you're sorry to see their friendship deteriorate, but that being friends is not necessary for both of them to continue playing, they just need to dial the tension way down and take it easy on each other.

20) Realizing that Golarion is not Earth and that Golarion need not have suffered a cataclysm (meteor) that wiped out the dinosaurs.

Agreed. Though, Golarion did suffer at least on cataclysm, (a meteor, I think) referred to as "Earthfall", which was the undoing of ancient Thassilonian society. The exact scale and consequences of this impact outside of Varisia is not defined to my knowledge, so perhaps one can be led to believe that it's impact elsewhere was significantly less severe.

Of course, this event could be responsible for the death of a great number of dinosaurs, except that they were able to survive in some regions - namely the Mwangi Expanse. Of course if you take this to the earth extreme of dinosaurs roaming and ruling the planet, then the fact that Earthfall happened only 10,000 years ago makes the evolution of diverse species such as modern mammals and humans HIGHLY unlikely, unless this was somehow aided by magic... But I digress...

It's a common house rule to have feats select weapon groups instead of specific weapons.

I have also added this to my list of houesrules.

I hate playing a fighter, taking weapon focus in a longsword and then having a cool magical short sword drop and not getting my feat bonus to it because they are not identical.

Did anyone else catch this Unchained Spoiler in the FAQs?

I love it - Rogues should be able to more reliably get sneak attack, even if other classes that have access to sneak attack cannot. Hopefully there's more stuff in Unchained to help Rogues be more consistent.

I'm also very excited for the Full Attack replacement alternative rules. I had thought up a houserule that I'm considering using, but I'll see what Unchained has to offer first.

Well... I'll gladly give the book a chance, but I certainly won't preorder it. I'd advise everyone else to do the same.

Your advice seem solid, but I like to live dangerously! Also, who doesn't like hearing "I told you so!" from time to time...?

I am not sure how one would combine spell casting with weird words other than a quicken spell, since the new weird words retains the text about the performance being used no quicker than a standard action. Perhaps I'm missing something?

EDIT: Also, the Spellsong feat technically wouldn't work with weird words, since it isn't a spell but a performance. Admittedly, I think that is less of a problem than the fact that someone is getting blasted by rays of sonic damage from your performance, lol. Your GM may rule this any number of ways.

DO 20/- From a Demilich comes to mind immediately. I can't think of any DR higher than that.

Devilkiller wrote:

Has Paizo actually revealed any details about the new Summoner, or is the idea that they're limiting the eidolon to a menu of a few choices purely conjecture?

No one from Paizo has stated that. In fact, as a rogue eidolon myself, if evolutions no longer existed and you were unable to customize your eidolon at all beyond selecting from a menu of a few choices, I would be pretty shocked at this point. I know this is just one post, though, and the common wisdom on the internet holds the opposite view, but I would urge you to consider that I am pretty likely to be correct, as a rogue eidolon.

"Never mind that I'm also a Paizo Designer and that Unchained is the first major project I've worked on." lol

The witch in my old Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign tied some straw to the end of her Staff of Necromancy and flew around with it between her legs. Good stuff.

Much appreciated, PDT.

My druid has found Aqueous Orb to be a fantastic "pirate / weather" themed spell. Pick up those stupid enough to step foot on your ship deck uninvited and when you've got a full orb, drop them over the side.

Can't find the link from my phone at work, but a Paizo rep (I want to say a PFS one, specifically) stated that he had asked the rules team about this item, they had agreed it was under priced, that it required errata, and that was the reason it is currently banned in PFS.

In accordance with that, I have adjusted the price for my home game - 12 out something along those lines. Even at that price it has still been purchased by both archers in 2 years of play, so I see nothing wrong with the adjustment.

@James - The idea of confusion was to allow you to do something other than dealing damage with it if you wanted. Scorching Ray allows you to hit 2 and 3 targets in time which is intentionally less than 10 targets. I'm not sure I like the idea of being able to divide the damage in your ability James and then the creatures being immune for a day seems rough. Flavor-wise, why would a Sound Striker get such an ability that just deals damage when they already get a very similar ability without the limitation that fires a growing number of rays? I get that this one is limited to hitting a target once, but it seems a bit "gamey" to me. (Side note: perhaps a Will save should negate the suggested confusion effect of Wierd Words - that would overall make the ability better since more monsters have poor Will saves than Fort saves.)

@Devilkiller - Perhaps I'm missing some ability, but doesn't the verbiage following verbiage prevent a Sound Striker from using these inspires more than once per round? "A sound striker gains the following type of bardic performance. Neither performance can be performed more quickly than a standard action." Also, I had recalled seeing the idea basing the ability on Scorching Ray tossed around a while back - Thanks.

@mplindustries - Granted SKR is no longer employed by Paizo, I would not be surprised if some of the other rules guys shared his sentiment that the Tundercaller requires errata.

@Devilkiller - If I am missing something that allows one to bipass the "no faster than a standard action" restriction, then add my name to the list of people who agree that activating it 3 times in a single round is over the top. As is, at level 7 you could start this performance as a standard action, then start another performance as a move action to help your allies. But you'd be consuming 3 round of performance to accomplish that, so that seems fine.

A good idea indeed - I'll take the first crack at it.

They say that words can cut deeper than any blade, and the sound striker proves this true. Using music and words as a weapon, he can focus his performances into a deadly delivery.

Bardic Performance: A sound striker gains the following type of bardic performance. Neither performance can be performed more quickly than a standard action.
Wordstrike (Su): At 3rd level, the sound striker bard can spend 1 round of bardic performance as a standard action to direct a burst of sonically charged words at a creature or object. This performance deals 1d4 points of damage plus the bard's level to an object, or half this damage to a living creature. This performance replaces inspire competence.
Weird Words (Su): At 6th level, a sound striker can start a performance as a standard action, lashing out with 1 potent sound per bard level (maximum 10), each sound affecting one target within 30 feet. These are ranged touch attacks. Each weird word deals 1d8 points of damage plus the bard's Charisma bonus (Fortitude half), and the bard chooses whether it deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage for each word. This performance replaces suggestion.

Total character count: 1141 (including spaces, excluding the archetype title block).

First attempt at a replacement:
Wordstrike (Su): At 3rd level, the sound striker bard can spend 2 rounds of bardic performance as a standard action to direct bursts of sonically charged words at creatures or object. This performance acts as the scorching ray spell but deals sonic damage instead of fire damage and uses the bard class level as the caster level. This performance replaces inspire competence.
Weird Words (Su): At 6th level, a sound striker may confound the targets of his Wordstrike rather than damaging them. This ability functions as Wordstrike except that enemies struck by Weird Words are confused for 1 round per Weird Word they are struck by (Fortitude negates). This is a mind affecting effect. This performance replaces suggestion.

Wordstrike + Wierd Words character count: 722

I like that it has precedent, comes online & progresses the same as the Scorching Ray spell would for a full caster, and feels familiar. Being sonic damage, it fits thematically and both replacement abilities seem to fit the "Sound Striker" theme without having to change the name. The ability to use it for a second function seems cool to me, but also keeps the character count low by referencing the first ability. =) This ability may be a bit weak, but at least it gives another option. I think consuming 2 rounds for the performance is a fair price to pay for what it does, but I'm admittedly very conservative when it comes to writing new material.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with the idea for the 15 minutes of thought I put into it. Anyone have any critiques, modifications, or suggestions of their own?

Yeah, I don't really like that detect magic is a cantrip which reveals all magical auras (disguises, fake walls, magical traps etc.) That said, invisibility isn't the one I really worry about. Unless an invisible creature stupidly stands in your cone for a full 18 seconds, you won't be able to verify the spell or pinpoin it's exact location. If you know it's an invisible creature, you MAY be able to determine which of 3 hallways it moved down, but maintaining concentration on Detect Magic each round requires spending a standard action, so unless the creature is moving slowly (and why would he - the jig is up from detect magic), you won't be able to keep up with him.

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

Saying that traits break the game is silly.

Saying that is silly is much more silly.

The traits you mentioned are more powerful than many feats.

Saying that anything "breaks the game" is silly. Pathfinder is a huge system used differently by each and every person and group that plays. Traits as currently written are very easily used for optimization and with certain builds they are more important than feats. For those of us who want to keep Pathfinder from creeping up in power with each new source of material, taking traits out of the equation is often just one of many steps. Does this mean that I think there's anything wrong with using traits? Of course not, some people just prefer to play a different game of Pathfinder.

1) DR/Magic being related to age has nothing to do with it being EX or SU. After all, a Dragon has other age related abilities which are clearly SU (such as a Breath Weapon).

As to whether it is EX or SU. Back in 3.5 they had that clearly defined but it was another thing that Pathfinder doesn't clearly define. 3.5 Rules Compendium p41 had it defined as:
Supernatural: Aligned (Good etc), Magic, Cold Iron, Silver, and Epic
Extraordinary: Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing, and DR/-

While Pathfinder is not 3.5 there is nothing in PF to contradict this information and with no other information being provided it is the only guideline we have.

Good points here - I agree, it should not work. Whether Thanks for the citation.

4) I would say Spell Sunder does not work, for a couple reasons.

One, in order to sunder the creature's spell effect you have to be able to attack the creature and this means attacking into the AMF. The SU ability wont work inside the AMF.
Two, Spell Sunder uses the word "dispelled" and AMF cannot be dispelled.

Good points here too and with my complete ignorance of spell sunder, I'll agree to this.

1) Normally DR/magic would be bypassed by Arcane Strike but DR 20/Magic is SU so is gone in an AMF.

Can you give a citing for this? In the Universal Monster Rules, damage reduction is listed as "(Ex or Su)". The additional dragon rules list a dragon's damage reducion as "Damage Reduction: Dragons gain damage reduction as they age..." So why would it be Su as opposed to Ex? Not that I have a good reason to make it Ex...

With that said, while not explicitly stated I would also rule Arcane Strike to be magic so wouldn't work in an AMF.

I think RAW Arcane Strike would work, but RAI, probably not.

3) Aroden's Spellbane is a 9th level spell that provides immunity to AMF. (Inner Sea Magic p52)

Good to know, thanks.

4) Spell Sunder is (su) so will not work.

But what if the Spell Sunder is used against the barrier when you encounter it, rather than entering it? I honestly have no clue how to rule this.

6) No, there are no rules in the game to model your 'bodypart' being X distance from your area. The GM shouldn't house rule something like this either since it is an attempt to bypass the intent of the AMF.

I agree with you about houseruling, I'm just trying to make sure that I'm understanding the RAW/RAI of Antimagic Field.

9) No, it is SU.

I just wasn't sure if an ability that could be projected outward could be sustained after Antimagic Field was cast.

In short, the dragon has no special abilities and is reduced to being a very heavily armored flying death machine.

Of course it's still deadly - Greater Vital Strike is nasty for dragons.

The biggest problem for PCs is going to be overcoming it's very high AC (natural armor is still a thing) and doing damage to it without the use of weapon enhancement bonuses, buffs, or spells.

Yeah, but a Dragon who just jumps in the middle and full attacks doesn't sound like a very interesting encounter.

If the player has a reach of 15' or greater then they should be able to retain most of their bonuses (weapon bonuses could be argued either way).

This would indeed help - I wouldn't let them use the weapon bonuses, but other buffs would help as normal.

So in an upcoming session, my party will run into a gargantuan sized dragon capable of casting 6th level spells. I have yet to redo the dragon's spell list, but with the recent Big Creatures and "Centered on You" FAQ, I'm most likely going to give the dragon the Antimagic field spell and having not used it before, I seek a number of clarifications/confirmations from my fellow forum users. I recognize that a dragon with DR 20/magic who eliminates all magical properties from attacks before they strike him it going to be nasty! But depending on what of his own abilities he can still use, it may not be that bad. (Also, this will be the last dragon that the party fights in this adventure, even the last one they fight with me as GM. I'll be moving away for a new job in 5 months, so let's go out with a bang!)

1) The Arcane Strike feat should overcome the dragon's DR XX/magic, right?
2) Are there any other means are there by which to overcome this DR?
3) The Mage's Disjunction spell references having a chance to destroy an Antimagic Field. There are no other spells that overcome an Antimagic Field, correct?
4) A Barbarian's Spell Sunder rage power should work, right? (By a strictly RAW reading, one could argue that since an Antimagic Field is on a creature, the Barbarian must close within reach, which likely brings him into the antimagic field and thus suppresses the rage power... I probably wouldn't make that ruling, but bonus points for discussing this corner case.)
5) Are there any other class features or abilities that could unexpectedly bipass/eliminate/adversely effect an Antimagic Field or the occupant of it?
(The next series of questions tries to clear up exactly what a Dragon can or cannot do while the Antimagic Field is active.)
6) Can a dragon use ANY of his normally supernatural abilties and have their effects extend out of his Antimagic Field?
7) His breath weapon, for example? (If not, could the dragon extend it's head outside of the Antimagic Field and throw the breath weapon or would the Antimagic Field "centered on him" follow his head and thus always be within the area of his own Antimagic Field?)
8) What about an ability such as a Blue Dragon's Storm Breath? Could the dragon create the cloud with the Antimagic Field up and then call down bolts?
9) How about the same Blue Dragon's Mirage ability?

Note that I'm specifically interested in answers to the above questions that are not class specific, save spellcasting, let's assume we have access to the Wizard List and the Cleric list. I'm also more interested in answers and ideas that come from the core line of rulebooks (excluding Mythic Adventures). All that said, feel free to give answers that go beyond these restrictions - I am certainly not the first person to think of Dragons and Antimagic Fields and certainly won't be the last GM to throw one at a party, so it's likely this thread will be found in the future with some people having the same questions as myself.

Chess Pwn - Very good point and one I hadn't considered. Still could be a bit confusing and ideally would be worded a bit differently, but perhaps not enough of a problem to issue errata for.

Mark - With this change it would probably be a good idea to remove the last line in the Antimagic Field spell text.
"Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field."

Doesn't the Archaeologist Bard do a rather decent job of being an arcane trickster base class?

I was never a fan of the original ruling Paizo made, but as with everything, I spoke with my group about it so that we're all on the same page about how the rules work. It was then that I knew this ruling was a poor idea. Tt took me 10 minutes of explaining it for the more experienced guys to understand it and their response was "You're pulling our chain, right? That is the silliest rule I've ever heard."

Had the original ruling been what it is now, the response from most people would have been "Duh, it's been that way for ~14 years of 3.Xe." Instead, a ruling was made that required a much higher than average level of system mastery and changed many of the subtly accepted "rules" of the game. (Spell-like abilities normally aren't super valuable unless it's a decent spell, Prestige classes required 5-6 levels of a base class, etc.)

The real misstep Paizo made in this whole ordeal was ruling the way they did on the original FAQ a year and a half ago.

MechE_ wrote:

Good suggestions - for my next game I plan to allow characters to add 2 skill so their list of class skills and give them 2 bonus skill ranks at first level in lieu of traits.

It would be more "flavorful" if you chopped down the list of traits to include only those you wanted to use. Many traits offer the +1rank, +list of class skills for one or more skills.

IMHO the "fluff" part of the trait description can help players imagine who their PC was before beginning their adventuring career.

YMMV.

See, I read the traits and think "Why does my character need THAT background when I could instead use THIS background." Nothing about giving two equivalent skill use traits removes flavor, it just allows for more flexibility. Think of it as a DM approved "reflavor as needed, however needed". If a player wants to put one rank into heal and make it a class skills and claim to be a Caretaker, they are free to do that. They could also have been a combat medic, or perhaps a surgeon, etc. For new players who might have a hard time coming up with their own background, I recommend perusing the traits and advise them to use their bonus skill ranks to do something similar. The real goal here is to keep "traits" focused on character development rather than combat abilities.

The CR system is already designed for PCs to succeed. It has been my experience that traits (as written) are just one more tool that gets used differently by players with varying degrees of system mastery, contributing to the overall gap in PC effectiveness.

YMMV.

Nimoot wrote:

I have a DM that won't allow traits at all because they can "break the game"... Is this something that'll ruin character customization, or is this not a huge deal?

I do this myself. Most traits are pretty mediocre little bonuses that don't add much but flavor. Unfortunately there's a small handful that don't look like much to the untrained eye but basically just more tools to make casters nutso tough and they don't need anymore.

I have however added a houserule that at character creation everyone gets to pick a skill to make a class skill regardless of their classes skill list. The house rule's actually older than traits. I highly recommend it to anyone who gets rid of traits across the board.

- Torger

Good suggestions - for my next game I plan to allow characters to add 2 skill so their list of class skills and give them 2 bonus skill ranks at first level in lieu of traits.

if you're the GM just mark off uses per day when it's used in combat, if it never comes up, then it never comes up.

Agreed. There's no reason to deny a player the flavor they're looking for. If you want some silly justification, just say that he claws are only strong enough to strike for damage X times per day before the character breaks a nail (lol).

Minor thread jack here, so forgive me in advance...

Has anyone here been able to make a good brawler that wasn't totally outclassed by a monk of similar build? If so, how did you manage it?

As someone who hasn't played around with the Brawler, the above quote confuses me... For years the (hyperbolic & overstated) position was that the monk was terrible. Many people suggested giving it full BAB as a (partial) solution.

So I guess my question is, what does the Monk have that the Brawler does not? Is it the archetypes? Is it Flurry of Blows? How many levels of Monk are you comparatively better builds taking? Do your findings (possibly opinions) have any implications for the full BAB Monk in Unchained? Just curious to hear your thoughts Ravingdork.

Welcome back again Mr. Fishy. Glad to see they finally got you a computer in your GM interment camp. =)

So this just turned into another Player vs GM thread, eh?

It's been debated as often as Alignment and Paladin Codes, guys.

Can't we just agree to disagree and get back to the original topic at hand?

In general, this thread has been civil and the varying philosophies behind different opinions on which sourcebooks to use is absolutely pertinent to the original discussion. It just happens that players and GMs (frequently) tend to fall on opposite ends of the philosophy spectrum which result in competing interests. Having a discussion about what expectations are reasonable from both sides and where middle ground can be found is hardly a Player vs GM thread.

Oly wrote:

I personally think, though, that GM's should voluntarily start with the default as "all Paizo material is allowed" and then only disallow material if they have a real problem with it. If someone wants to use 3rd party material, I think a GM should at least look it over before saying no, but it shouldn't have the same presumption.

With that logic, you're including both Mythic Adventures, and the Occult Playtest, which aren't necessarily items that should be considered go to by default.

I don't think that a GM should be obligated to start out with any material they are not comfortable with. What the GM should do is state what materials he or she is going to support. Players can surredly ask about additional items, but should not push past the first "No."

It is often clear from reading these boards who is a GM first and who is a player first. Not that either side is right or wrong, but this is a prime example of that. Different perspectives are fine and even good when you consider how boring life would be if we were all the same.

What I've been doing recently (and plan to continue doing) is allow a list of core rulebooks (CRB, APG, UM, UC, ARG, ACG) minus a few bits (no uncommon races, no gunslingers or summoners), and adding in a bit of homebrew (I have created 3 classes so far). I then informing players I will normally approve on additional piece of material from another source - be it a single feat, an archetype, or a spell. Most frequently, I say yes to Paizo created content and most frequently, I say no to 3 pp content.

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

MechE_ wrote:

havoc xiii wrote:

Herolab allows you to toggle what it shows.

Thanks guys, this is good to know. (I did say that I wasn't familiar with Herolab.) Though with this knowledge, I can safely say that it was much more willful ignorance on the part of my player(s)... Ugh, infuriating...

On a side note, another reason I'm feeling cooler and cooler towards Herolab is that I have a growing number of houserules, which players seem to forget more frequently when using herolab. (However, this may also be willful.) Of course, is not a negative reflection on herolab, but more of a "the tool doesn't necessarily work well for me".
** spoiler omitted **

HL allows you to use house rules.

HL also has a community that will give you suggestions and tips on how to implement them.

I have always been able to figure it out, but this is nice to know in case I ever get stumped.

All great things to know, thanks guys.

Back on Topic: With so many source books coming out that my group doesn't use, I am finding my interest in these forums waning. (To be clear, I prefer not to use every book, so I'm good with this part.) It used to be that every time I read through a thread I would find at least one or two bits of information I didn't know. (Disintegrate wrecks most undead, you actually have to count the weight of your clothes in PF, creatures can still fly per RAW with a medium or heavy load in PF, etc.) But more and more, I find that the same amount of time spent on the forums is proving less and less productive. Sure, part of this is that I've learned a lot of the "low hanging fruits" and can now share some back with others, but more and more, I find the discussion moving to things that are not relevant to the game of Pathfinder that I play. It's a bit saddening to me, that's all.

Kryzbyn - I'd like to believe they don't purposefully publish crappy and/or broken options, but stuff like Sacred Geometry, Blood Money, extra make it hard. I find it difficult to believe that at least a fair amount of Paizo's designers don't ascribe to the philosophy of Timmy Cards.

Blood Money & Sacred Geometry were both published in settings books, where the focus of the authors was in building a fun and creative world. In the very limited context of the original RotRL campgin books, and in the 3.5e publishing context, Blood Money was fine as it was used by a creative author to make for an interesting story. (Sure, it has since been republished, but I doubt that it was given much balance thought at that point.) I have a great deal of respect for the setting team and James Jacobs in particular. I absolutely love Golarion! However, when it comes to rules text and balance, this is not their forte. This is a fact of having multiple teams with multiple focuses and is a necessary part of Paizo's current (profitable) business model. This is not to say that everything in the Core line or Rulebooks is perfect. It is, however, my opinion that when mechanics are the focus, they are gotten right a much higher amount of the time. (And for this, I greatly respect Jason Bulmahn and the rest of the rules guys.)

On the topic of "trap options", I want to point out that the designers have said a number of times that they try to avoid power creep - and they have done a relatively good job of that by most people's approximation. This means that the target for each individual feat, archetype, spell, or class is not the top end of the optimization scale, but rather the middle of the road. Thus, if you play in a game where high optimization is the normal (90% optimized or higher, for example), then it is a good guess that unless you're willing to take less optimal choices than "normal", only X% (10%) of the options in any new book will be "worthwhile" and the rest will be "trap options". If, however, you play in a more casual group of gamers where the rogue is not dead and someone actually played the core monk one time and didn't feel completely worthless, then I'm sure a lot more of the options in any new book would seem worthwhile.

One man's trap feat is another's obvious choice for flavor reasons.

BADWRONGFUN.

I have to agree with this position. Remember that everyone plays the game differently. Just because something doesn't work for you or your group doesn't mean there isn't another person or group out there who loves it.

Herolab allows you to toggle what it shows.

Thanks guys, this is good to know. (I did say that I wasn't familiar with Herolab.) Though with this knowledge, I can safely say that it was much more willful ignorance on the part of my player(s)... Ugh, infuriating...

On a side note, another reason I'm feeling cooler and cooler towards Herolab is that I have a growing number of houserules, which players seem to forget more frequently when using herolab. (However, this may also be willful.) Of course, is not a negative reflection on herolab, but more of a "the tool doesn't necessarily work well for me".

To be fair, if you're a player, you want to be able to look through the menu of what's available when thinking about your character. Sites like the PRD and ArchivesOfNethys make this even easier. If the GM has set out ahead of time what's legal, that's fine. If it's "on a case-by-case basis", it becomes much more cumbersome to make a character, as every thing you think about you have to ask about.

As GM, the larger the rules base gets, the heavier the burden of figuring out what's allowed. Once upon a time, a GM could say "everything Paizo", and have a chance of having some sense of what all of it was. Now, the burden on the GM is higher to select out the things he wants. Sure, you could just select individual books, that makes it easier -- but in reality, you probably want bits and pieces of everything. So, either you have a huge task of vetting stuff ahead of time, or you have to do "on a case-by-case" basis. In that latter case, even if you do have amenable players who agree with you that it's OK to ban some things, when a player asks for something, you're going to be tempted to want to let them have it.

So, while everybody seems to say "just disallow the things you don't like! what's the big deal?", as the base of mechanics (including classes, class abilities, archetypes, feats, spells, etc.) grows and grows, it gets tougher and tougher for the GM to have a handle on enough of it to actually do that.

I'm not saying that added options are bad. All I'm saying is that they do add a burden of things to keep track of in any event, and it's unrealistic to deny that, or to insist that it won't be a problem if you just have the right players.

rknop does a great job here of summarizing the majority of my concerns as a GM. Another thing I've had problems with is resources like the d20pfsrd and herolab make it very easy for some (more appropriately certain) players to accidentally (or "accidentally" on occasion) start grabbing feats, archetypes, and spells that aren't on the list of allowed source materials. So even if a GM does his homework ahead of time to lay out a list of allowable source materials, he may STILL be stuck policing character sheets on a regular basis. While I am not familiar with herolab, d20pfsrd at least lists the source material at the bottom of the page.

It's gotten to the point that enough stuff was done wrong with enough character over the years made using herolab that I plan to say "no herolab" the next time I start up a game. My hope is that having players write up their character sheets by hand will prevent them from making so many source material errors. Of course, they'll probably make other errors this way, but I don't mind helping a newer player write character sheets out up front as this helps build positive relationships between GM and player.

Monster design is within the DM's purview and as such, there are not really any hard rules. Sure, you can do it if you want. I'm not sure I'd recommend it though, but I don't know what monster you're looking at and what you plan to use it for. I would see if there are any other options first - perhaps another monster that you could only apply the young template to a single time, etc. But if you can't find what you want, then go for it.

@Skylancer4 - Yeah, I like the idea of playing a Gnome better. The final decision will probably depend on how the rest of the party shapes up. If we lack much melee damage, then perhaps the longspear/longsword half-elf will have to be played. Only thing I'm not sure about is how to play a LE Gnome... Every Gnome I've every played has been CG or CN, lol. Perhaps he looks down on other Gnomes of their foolhardy nature to the point of preferring to attack Gnome in combat first. I'm glad to hear that damage isn't the primary focus of the adventure path.

@Insain Dragoon - Thanks for the tip. I probably won't ask the DM if he will allow the feat, but rather point to it as an interesting way to handle leadership scores and the outlook of cohorts/minions in an evil game. Our group's houserule on Leadership is that the DM gets to make the character initially with a heavy amount of input from the character. But cohorts are almost never "optimally built" - they usually have a skill focus feat laying around and their stats aren't perfectly placed. But it never really hinders them from being helpful, we just try to keep cohorts & followers in the background of the game to allow the PCs to shine.

@Renegadeshepherd - I really like the Breadth of Knowledge feat, I'm using it on my Druid in Skull & Shackles right now. It's true that Half-Elf can take fast learner, but Gnomes get a +2 con bonus which is better, unless I'm missing something else.

I'm currently comparing two Archaeologist Bard builds. One a Dex based Scimitar wielding Gnome and the second a Str based longsword or longspear wielding Half-Elf. Each would take Lingering Performance, Arcane Strike, Weapon Focus, Trap Spotter, Spell Focus - Enchantment & Greater Spell Focus - Echantment, & Toughness by level 11. (Str build would take Power Attack & Dex build would take Weapon Finesse, obviously.) Use of Half-Elf & Gnome is fairly set in order to gain access to extra bardic performance rounds as favored class bonus for the first maybe 5 or 6 levels, ensuring that the Luck based performance bonus is active 90+% of the time during combat.

Sum total:
• Dex based Gnome build deals 30% less damage (across levels 1 to 20) than the Str based Half-Elf.
• Dex based Gnome will have 4 to 8 points higher armor class (size, dex, shield use) and some more HP.
• Dex based Gnome will have better "roguey skills", due to a higher Dex. Also +4 to stealth from size is nice.
• Dex based Gnome will have a higher Charisma modifier - +3 vs +4.

Note: There are a few house rules in play here. ..
• All weapons crit only on a 20/x2 with no confirmation rolls.
• Power attack (and deadly aim) have BAB requirement(s) of +5 and advanced at +10, +15, & +20 only.

Am I missing any good feats/build strategies? Note that the list of source materials includes only the CRB, APG, UM, UC, & UE. The ARG & ACG are not available. Neither are any softcover books. Is the (30%) reduction in damage worth the benefits

What are the other pcs? have you already an idea on them?

The discussion is still relatively fresh. One guy expressed interest in an Antipaladin or a Cleric and another guy mentioned a Witch, but I think both of those are "the first evil thing that jumped into my mind" sort of ideas.

In that case be the support. None of them know how to make a decent Cleric, Oracle, Bard, or Wizard.

Honestly I suggest Bard since just giving them straight pluses will be easy for them to grasp. Bard Archer works pretty well for limiting the Fort saves you'll take and giving you decent damage. Additionally your strong knowledge, social, and stealth skills will keep you relevant in all situations.

Well it's not that the other players aren't experienced, it's just that they don't build optimized characters in the PF system. They've all got 10 + years of 3.5e/PF experience and one of them has been playing in 1e, they just don't get into the nitty gritty of going through books or forums and looking for every mechanical advantage. They're the kind of guys who will play a rogue/wizard arcane trickster, still enjoy it, and make it reasonably effective by smart use of spell, good positioning, etc.

That said, a bard isn't an awful idea. I'm not completely sure I could get behind a bard though. I tend to like playing good martial characters or good casters - rogues & bards don't really appeal to me for some reason. (See earlier comment about me being the more mechanically inclined player at the table.) I can always put together a good character concept or two and see if they grab me - Any suggestions for bard archetypes? We just had a bard archer in our previous campaign, so I really hate the idea of going archery, but it seems that any other bard option is so far behind that it's almost not worthwhile... Ugh.

Since rolling in order will determine what you may be good at I would suggest you roll first, and choose a class second. If you try to be a barbarian and roll a 9 constitution or strength then you might be in trouble.

I've pointed this out as a primary concern and informed the DM that if we get 18, ?, ?, ?, ?, 8 and the ? marks are locked into position, I will be playing a wizard, witch, sorcerer, or oracle. He came around to seeing it my way and is reconsidering the stat generation method. Right now, he's thinking about using a standard array of 16, 15, 14, 13, 10, 8. This makes something like an Antipaladin much more attractive.

I also probably should have mentioned that the DM is limiting sourcebooks to - CRB, APG, UM, UC, UE. ARG & ACG are off the table. He could perhaps be convinced to allow single pieces of the ARG or ACG, but the justifications would need to be story/flavor reasons rather than power reasons. As is, I'm the player with the most system mastery by quite a long shot and the DM wants to keep the PCs on even footing as much as possible.

@Code 415 - Yes, Antipaladin is a good option also - Knight of the Sepulcher looks like a very fun archetype! (Updated OP to clarify that Antipaladin is most likely an option.) Being the disgraced son of noble would be fun, but might make infiltration or hiding yourself more difficult. Of course, that might be an incentive for piling ranks into the disguise skill, which is probably a good thing. And yes, Asmodeus is certainly an awesome deity choice. Any LE character I built would likely worship Asmodeus.

@Renegradeshepherd - I'm a bit worried about the stats myself too. The GM said he would set a minimum for combined rolls, so that might help. Still though, ending up with poor stat placement would be harsh (9 con on an elf... ugh) While Tiefling might be good mechanically, the GM is asking us to stick with core races for roleplay reasons (I updated the OP to indicate this). Perhaps instead of Elf for some choices, I should go Half-Elf or Human - I'll give it some thought. The GM does have some houserules to increase the strength or rogues (they get a good fort save, etc.) so that would help a bit, but I get the concern over playing a rogue into the high levels.

@Some Other Guy - Yeah, I am guessing the AP will be rough, so survivability and versatility are strong considerations. That said, being too versatile leads to a lack of specialization and I have good reason to trust my party, so if I play a full Wizard, I'm ok with relying on the party to protect me rather well.

I may have an opportunity coming up to play in a Way of the Wicked game over Roll20. For those of you who don't know, Way of the Wicked is an all evil campaign (suggested alignment is Lawful Evil) where the PCs work to undermine and eventually overthrow a strongly lawful good government. The DM tells me the adventure path will run up to 19th or 20th level. Stats will be 18, 4x (1d8+8 in order), 8.

So I'm working up evil character concepts right now. So far, I've got concepts (of varying depth) for a LE Arrogant Elf Transmuter Wizard, a NE "Wrath of the Land" Brute Barbarian, a LE Elf Rogue / Assassin, a NE Human Curse Witch, and a LE Cleric of Asmodeus.

I'm open to any advice, regarding the above concepts or other concepts. If anyone has played through Way of the Wicked, I value your thoughts as long as they don't contain spoilers. I'm not out to make the most powerful character, but since we will only have 4 players, it would be good if it was average or above average mechanically. Also, I prefer my characters to fill one of the old school standard themes "fighter", "cleric", "rogue", or "wizard".

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Edits:
• The Way of the Wicked Players Guide Link
• According to the player's guide the Antipaladin can be LE with GM approval (likely)
• Characters start at first level with ZERO gear.
• AP strongly suggests core races as infiltration is more difficult otherwise.

As a DM, I normally bake 3 weeks to a month of downtime into intermissions between each adventure path book (book 1 to book 2, book 2 to book 3, etc.). This time can be used to accomplish personal character objectives or to upgrade your magical items, normally done by hiring an NPC crafter.

When the samurai found an Elven Blade of historical make (+1 Elven Cured Blade) at level 3, she waited until level 7 to upgrade that same sword to a +2 bonus, then at level 11 she upgraded it to a +2 holy blade. She still remembers where it came from, and the fact that it was finely crafted by her ancestors 10 Elven generations ago is still in the character's mind, but it now provides the benefits she needs for it to "keep up".

Similarly, the Warpriest just found an ancient Thassilonian purple cloak which seems to slip out of your grasp (a cloak of minor displacement). When they get done with this AP book, I fully expect him to pay an extra 50% to add the effects of a cloak of resistance +2 or +3 to the cloak of displacement. This will allow him to keep the cool bonus and the ancient, mysterious nature of the cloak, while also getting the bonuses he "mechanically needs".

T;DR - With some baked in downtime and DM allowances for combined items (at the suggested 50% markup) you can add mechanical "big six bonuses" to acquired "cool, flavorful items" and get the best of both worlds.

Euphoric Tranquility. It's an 8th level spell, so it take a bit to come online, but it takes a single creature (character) out of the combat without a save. If you get attacked (enemy strikes you or an ally slaps you to snap you out of it), then you get a will save and if you make it, you're free - for a single round. Real nasty spell - Dispel magic is about the only counter.

People love necroing threads about necromancy, I suppose.

Yo dawg, I heard you like nec... ...

Sorry, I'll show myself out.

As other has said, the Swashbuckler is fine as is, even behind if compared to a number of other builds available from the core rulebook & advanced players guide. Now, if your DM is comparing the swashbuckler class to the rogue class, then yes, there is a discrepancy. But that's not the swashbuckler's fault - the rogue is weak and many of the classes in the advanced class guide step on the rogue to the point that it seems almost intentional. All this said, none of us on the boards are familiar with your gaming group, your DM, his campaign, or the power level of the other characters...

If I could give your DM one piece of advice, I'd recommend avoiding house rules without actual play experience with the specific rules to be modified - the Swashbuckler class in this instance. (Mind you, this comes from a guy who has going on 80 house rules himself.) With the exception of a few commonly agreed upon slip ups (divine protection, etc.), the hard cover core rulebooks provide relatively balanced material. The bigger cause for table variation than different rulebook sources is different levels of system mastery between players and in this case, house rules can only have so much of an impact.

What I've done in the past when I had concerns about party balance is record the damage numbers of each and every character by action and tally it up for the course of a few levels. At least then you and your DM can have a conversation based on data rather than just on theory. (Of course, this is a lot a work, but I'm a math guy, so it worked out for me.)