Spell Sovereign

Mystically Inclined's page

Organized Play Member. 1,125 posts (1,147 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 10 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.



2/5

6 people marked this as a favorite.

WARNING! Minor spoiler for Eyes of the Ten. If this bothers you, please stop reading.

Spoiler:
I've recently played through Eyes of the Ten (thanks, TOZ!!!) The end of the series had a lot of emotional impact for me personally, and it's left me in a state of quiet contemplation about the Pathfinder Society as a whole. I'd always heard people on the forums saying 'if you've played Eyes of the Ten, you know that the Decemvirate are not what you would call good-aligned.' So I was already sort of expecting to find one or two questionable characters in leadership positions.

But there's a difference, I've discovered, between knowing about something and knowing about something. Now that I've had a character live through the experience and had a chance to see the world through his eyes, the statement has more impact. Seriously folks, the Decemvirate are not good people. They're not evil either, but they don't miss the mark by much. And the higher ranking members of the society are likely to know this. So how does the Decemvirate maintain their loyalty?

As I've learned, one of the desired traits in a Venture Captain is loyalty to the Ten above any other faction. (This kind of makes me laugh, because many of the faction leaders are themselves Venture Captains. But this leads to a related but off-topic discussion so we'll let that pass for now.) So you're a highly respected and/or well connected Pathfinder agent, and you're being considered for the position of Venture Captain. The Decemvirate wants someone who would be loyal to them. This makes sense. My question is... how would anyone actually remain loyal once they learned about the attitude and beliefs of the Ten?

As players, we've seen a number of venture captains. A lot of them seem to be motivated by self interest. But one thing I've never really questioned as a player before was that there were a number of Venture Captains who genuinely care about their subordinates. Sure, they can be incompetent when giving out information, but most of them don't give off the vibe that they genuinely don't care whether you live or die.

So how has the Society managed to get themselves a collection of mid-level managers who are for the most part decent people, while executive management is made up of corrupt, uncaring, jerkish individuals?

And yeah, okay... queue every joke there is about modern day corporate management. But there's still a sense of dissonance here, and the question seems worth asking. As things stand, I'm starting to think that the Shadow Lodge had a pretty good point.


Hello!

I decided to tackle DPR today. After doing so, I plugged the same numbers into a DPR calculator and got different numbers. I believe I'm making an error. Would someone mind reviewing my math?

(For Background, this is a level 12 ninja making a full round power attack with haste, an extra attack from ki, and sneak attack added in.)

Full round: 21/21/21/16 (1d10+19+6d6)
Assume CR 14, which means AC 29
In order to hit, I have to roll an 8 (13 for the iterative). That means chance to hit is 65% (40% for iterative).
The weapon is an Elven Curve Blade with the Keen enhancement

Rynjin wrote:

The damage formula is h(d+s)+tchd

h = Chance to hit, expressed in a decimal percentage
d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed
s = Precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit). Average damage is assumed
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a decimal percentage
c = Critical hit bonus - 1. For example, x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3

h = 0.65

d = 1d10+19 = 5.5 + 19 = 24.5
s = 6d6 = 6*3.5 = 21
t = 0.30 <--threat range of (15-20), at first I thought this was 0.25 but I corrected it later
c = 1

0.65(24.5+21) + (0.30*1*0.65*24.5) = 34.3525
0.40(24.5+21) + (0.30*1*0.40*24.5) = 21.14
34.3525 + 34.3525 + 34.3525 + 21.14 = 124.1975

Which, I am given to understand, means that if I took 1000 full round attacks vs an AC of 29, my average damage would be 124.1975.

...but I plugged the same numbers into BigDTBone's Online DPR Calculator and got a full round DPR of 106.93. Not sure where I've gone wrong.


One of the groups that I play in is a group of busy adults with families who still try to get together to game. Many of the attendees have young children, including the host. Therefore, it's not uncommon to have one or more of the players bring their kids to the game session. Part of me really admires these folks for both being a good parent (and they are all good parents who love their kids dearly) while also making some time for themselves and continuing to get together and play something that interests them. At the same time, having young kids around leads to all sorts of distractions at the table. More than one session has involved more time interacting with kids than time spent playing, and the time spent playing tends to be of lesser quality because there is banging, yelling, and all sorts of distracting activity going on in the background.

Personally, I am at a stage in life where I am single, childless, and deliriously happy to be so. I fully support my friends who are married with children, but that's not the right place for me to be right now. I also run a game in my home and invite players to come play in my house. Recently, my experiences at the kids-in-backround game have left a strong enough impression that I am considering what to do if someone asks if it's okay to bring a kid to one of my home games. On the one hand, I feel incredibly bad forbidding a parent from bringing their kid(s) to the game. On the other hand, I REALLY don't want the distraction around. Nor do I want to censor my group to make sure that everything said and done at our private home game is child friendly.

So what's the etiquette on this? Is a 'no young children' rule something that is common at gaming tables? Would such a request be considered rude? How is this issue handled in the world at large? Are there any forum goers with kids who can speak about their experiences?


There have been an unusually high amount of threads asking for archer advice lately. Would anyone be up for writing a guide that covers the gist of the archer build? Rather than being written in the typical class guide format, this guide would focus on giving one or more suggested builds for various classes. Readers would be introduced to the standard archer feats and get to compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of various classes to see which ones are the best fit for them.

Suggested classes include Fighter (Archer), Monk (Zen Archer), Ranger, Slayer, Paladin (Divine Hunter), Bard, and Inquisitor.

If there is no interest in this, I will eventually write one. I haven't played an archer yet or had very many as party members, so I would need to play through on one of the variations before I could reliably speak about it. :)


I'm building a Dervish Dancer and taking it into Skull & Shackles. Given that the campaign is based on a ship, I have a feeling that there are going to be at least a few underwater encounters. I'd like to not be totally useless for them.

Does anyone know how my dex based character can stay effective while underwater? It seems like my only two choices are to grab a piercing weapon (losing my dex bonus) or fire an underwater crossbow. I have a +1 strength modifier, so that either gives me 1d6+1 or 1d8. Neither option seems great.


I'm building a two handed fighter archetype that kind of stumbled into being a reach fighter. He took Cleave and Cleaving Finish, and (after some more important feats) I eventually intend to give him the improved versions of both. Yesterday I played a Season 1 scenario from PFS in higher tier (meaning there were mobs of low level mooks) and my reach fighter got to really stretch his legs. He was rediculously awesome in it. So awesome that I began to wonder if I was playing him wrong. I wanted to swing things by the forums to make sure I know what he can and can't do. I plan to take Lunge, so I've added that as well.

He's a level 3 two handed fighter. The reach questions assume he's using a Lucerne Hammer (his backup weapon). Question marks denote statements that I'm particularly shaky about.

-He cannot cleave and overhand chop.

-He can cleaving finish after killing with an overhand chop. He does not receive the overhand chop bonus on the cleaving finish. (?)

-He can use overhand chop on an attack of opportunity.

-He can cleaving finish after killing with an attack of opportunity, presuming he hasn't cleaving finished already in the round.

-He is allows to use cleaving finish in a round even if he hasn't used cleave.

-The Lunge feat adds 5 feet of 'natural' reach to a character. When using a reach weapon, this gives the Lucerne Hammer a reach of 10 to 20 feet. Meaning that in the following 'picture,' squares 1 and 2 are threatened by a spiked gauntlet and squared 3 and 4 are threatened by a reach weapon. x1234

-The 5 natural feet granted by Lunge is NOT doubled if under the effects of enlarge person. However, reach weapons double your character's natural reach. That means that the reach weapon of an enlarged creature using Lunge would be 15 to 30 feat, or squares 4 through 6 on the following 'picture' - x123456

-After using a (not englarged, non-lunged) reach weapon to kill a monster 10 feet away, he use cleaving finish to attack a creature 5 feet away using a separate weapon (spiked gauntlet, improved unarmed strike, etc). (?)

-Assuming he had a reach weapon, Improved Cleaving Finish, Combat Reflexes, and a high enough dex, he could attack and kill somebody on his turn, make an attack from cleaving finish, take attacks of opportunity as creatures provoked while moving through his range of threatened squares, and (presuming each AoO kills someone) make a Cleaving Finish attack after each AoO

(Writing that last made me realize how incredibly situational Improved Cleaving Finish is. By level 7-9 when I have time take the feats, it would take a rediculously fragile mook to go down in one hit.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm thinking of taking shadow strike for my Ninja, so I'm taking a long look at how smokesticks work. I'd always equated them to glow sticks- crack 'em and drop 'em. The description says burned though, which makes me wonder how fast they can be used during a fight.

A search of the rules forum turns up plenty of threads asking about the concealment aspect of smokesticks, but nothing concerning how to use them.

Smokestick from PRD:
Price 20 gp; Weight 1/2 lb.

This alchemically treated wooden stick instantly creates thick, opaque smoke when burned. The smoke fills a 10-foot cube (treat the effect as a fog cloud spell, except that a moderate or stronger wind dissipates the smoke in 1 round). The stick is consumed after 1 round, and the smoke dissipates naturally after 1 minute.

In practical terms, how many actions does it take to use a smokestick? Using a power or item is generally assumed to be a standard action unless the description says otherwise, but if you have to light it do you need to spend another round pulling and using a tindertwig?

Can a smokestick be lit on the run and dropped?

Is there a way - aside from a spring loaded wrist sheath - to pull a smokestick more quickly than a move action? (Sadly, my ninja does not have a tail so that option won't work.)

Once lit, the smokestick fills a 10-foot cube with smoke. That means the smoke forms a 'square' of 4 squares that would be 2 squares tall, right?


I'm a bit confused.

I had a character get permenant ability drain. The party had a cleric, so I bought a scroll of restoration and had the cleric cast it on me. The members of the table said it cost 2,175gp to buy the scroll because of material components. I was catching my character up in hero lab and it said the scroll cost 700gp. After closely reading the spell, I'm not seeing anything that indicates it would cost more than 100gp in material components to cast. I only see a higher cost if used to restore a permanent negative level, and that's just 1000. I'm seeing a cost of 700gp for the scroll and an extra 100gp for material components. Am I missing something?

Restoration:
School conjuration (healing); Level cleric 4, paladin 4
Casting Time 3 rounds
Components V, S, M (diamond dust worth 100 gp or 1,000 gp, see text)
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)

This spell functions like lesser restoration, except that it also dispels temporary negative levels or one permanent negative level. If this spell is used to dispel a permanent negative level, it has a material component of diamond dust worth 1,000 gp. This spell cannot be used to dispel more than one permanent negative level possessed by a target in a 1-week period.

Restoration cures all temporary ability damage, and it restores all points permanently drained from a single ability score (your choice if more than one is drained). It also eliminates any fatigue or exhaustion suffered by the target.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I was happily humming along, reading a thread, when suddenly the Player Entitlement argument rose its ugly head out of the murky depths of the Internet.

If you've been reading the Paizo Forums for very long, you've seen this argument said in one form or another. The GM shouldn't be the dictator of the rules, because the players are just as valuable to the game as the GM is. A game couldn't exist without the players, so the players should have some say over what happens in the game. This is just a general summary, and is my personal interpretation of the argument. For those of you who disagree with my definition, please understand that I'm not trying to "straw man" the other side- this is honestly how the logic is summarized in my mind.

And I agree with it- as far as I've laid the argument out so far. Players do participate in the game, and the story changes according to the choices and actions of the characters. The GM doesn't control everything, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Moreover, a GM who fails to take the desires and opinions of their players into consideration isn't being the best GM they could be.

What I occassionally see, and what this post is about, is that this logic is being used (again- an honest summary and not intended to be a straw man) to say that the GM should change a rule because the players are a participant in the game too. Usually, this line of idea is soon followed up by its cousin: the players put just as much effort into the game as the GM does, and so they have the right to have their voices heard.

They have the Right to have their voices heard.

The first time I saw someone on the boards giving this argument, I was amused. I laughed, shook my head, and moved on. But every time I see someone saying this... it gets less and less funny. It's gotten to the point where this argument grates on me like nails on a chalkboard.

I run a weekly home game, another bi-weekly home game, and GM for PFS once or twice a month. It used to be more but I had to step down the pace to keep from burning out. PFS is PFS, but in my home games I call the shots.

I have very few (if any) houserules. I regularly solicit players opinions on how I'm doing. All my players know that if they want to try something unusual, I will work with them so their character can be awesome while not overshadowing other characters. Everyone has fun, and I try to keep the spotlight moving enough that everyone gets a share. Long story short- it's close to straight Pathfinder rules (with some added traits to reward players for good backgrounds and roleplaying) and I'd discuss any rules changes with my players ahead of time.

BUT.

If I ever decided, for whatever reason, that I wanted to make some obscure houserule and one of my players tried to pull this "I'm a player and I add just as much to this campaign as you do" argument, I would be supremely unimpressed. Tell me you're uncomfortable with the rule because of X and would like it changed. I can work with that. Tell me it inhibits or encroaches on your character somehow. I can work with that. Heck, tell me it didn't work like that in 1st/2nd edition. I can at least have a friendly discussion with you about how things were and how they've changed over the years. Maybe at the end of it I'll be inspired to modify it into something else or reintroduce something from an older edition. Whatever. I'm flexible.

Do NOT tell me that you have the right to dictate to me how I run my game.

I put a great deal of effort into prepping. Honestly, I put more effort into it than I should, considering that I work a full time job and attend part time school in addition to running two home games and attending a third. There are some weeks that I literally do not have time to go grocery shopping because I'm prepping for a game. But I do it, because I have a passion for tabletop RPG's and I really really really want my players to have the deepest and most entertaining adventures that I can muster the energy to give them.

This whole line of logic (I call it the Player Entitlement Argument) says that players should have just as much (if not more) say overwhat happens in a game than the GM. Players get this not because they are friends coming together to play a game, but because they spend just as much time and effort into their characters as a GM does running the game.

More time and effort? Okie dokie. Let's put this to the test, shall we?

Spoiler:
I play PFS weekly. If I'm lucky, I'll play it twice a week. Every scenarios, one of my characters levels. Every once in a while, I get inspired to create a new one. I have 9 different characters, and one or two of them level up per month. So once a month I will take a Saturday to tend to my character issues. I level up my characters, scoure the books for available options, check the forums for suggested build ideas, scoure the books again for super-kewl magical items, finalize and update any chronicle sheets I have, fill out the GM credit chronicle sheets I have, print out the new character sheets for my binder, and scan all the paperwork into my computer so I have backups. Then I'll consider the latest character build I've been musing about, and spend several hours either comparing test builds or developing and solidifying the backstory for a character build I've previously developped. I know the backstory and "starter" personality (subject to evolve as the character goes on adventures) for every one of my characters.

All of this takes about a day, during which I do other stuff like eat and clean and sleep in on Saturday, my biggest day off in a week. It usually takes 8+ hours. Let's say I'm particularly ultra obsessive and I've spent 14 hours. That's 14 hours of outside-game-time that I've devoted to being a player in one month. For all the characters I play. They're mostly PFS games, so lets count them as one single campaign. 14 hours per month as a player. Fantastic.

Now let's look at my average GM prep time. It takes 45 to 60 minutes to read over the scenario, module, or section of AP that I'm using. During this sweep, I get an understanding of what's going on and how I want to apply it to my game. It takes 90 to 120 minutes to read them in detail, highlight and add notes, and develop any areas that the AP's and Modules skim over. Another 45 minutes to an hour is spent going through my token collection and finding the best tokens for the various creatures. I give myself another hour for maps. If I have to draw them all, this takes longer. If I can cheap out by printing full color or using flip mats, this can be shorter. Usually it's a mix of drawing and pregenerated stuff so an hour is about right. If my other committments are light and I have the time, I'll sort through my face-card collection and find approriate cards for each major NPC in the adventure. I'll make a few notes on the back (in pencil or on a separate piece of paper so I can reuse the card) about how each character speaks and any quarky personality traits. This takes 45 minutes to an hour. For my bi-weekly game, I'll stop here. For my weekly game, I'll next write up a prologue and/or mission briefing for the group and email it out to everyone. I got inspired by the PFS factions, so my weekly campaign also has 5 different custom factions that will alternate appearances, with each faction having an interest in the group for their own reason. I'll write up any faction missions that apply to the session (usually around 3) and either email them or print them out to present at the table. After the session, I'll write up an epilogue and post-event faction letters. The prologue/briefings and faction letters happening before the session takes me about 2 hours. The epiologue and after-letters takes me an hour to an hour and half.

Let's pick a month where I've been particularly obsessed in character creation, but had a 'light' GM prep load. I don't always get to do face cards, so let's assume I didn't do face cards for the whole month.
Total time as a player for 9 characters, at 4 to 6 sessions a month: 14 hours
Total time in a month as a GM for weekly game: 6 x 4 = 24 hours
Total time in a month as a GM for bi-weekly game: 3 x 2 = 6 hours
Total time in a month as a PFS GM: 3 hours per game

I GM more than I play, so let's compare 4-6 sessions of player prep to the 4 games of my main game. 14 hours maximum vs. 24 hours minimum.

Do not tell me that you spend more time and effort on this game as a player than I do as a GM.

But honestly? Even if one of my players could legitimately say this, it wouldn't matter. The time and effort you spend on the game is not what gives you the right to dictate the rules. It will always and forever be the GM's place to dictate the rules, because that's what the GM is there for. A group has come together to play the game. One of them has stepped up to be the worldbuilder and arbiter. Defining the rules is part of that.

So come to me with your concerns. Come to me with your questions. Come to me with your suggestions. Share these things with me, and I will respond with an attitude of mutual respect. I will do my best to make sure your character is awesome. I will do my best to make sure you're having fun. I will do my best to make sure that I'm telling a good story.

Come to me - after the session - with the rulebooks. Come to me - respectfully - with any corrections you feel I should make. Bring to me - for my consideration - FAQ entries and errata and forum posts. I will happily work with you as a friend and a fellow adult. I am not perfect and am willing to be corrected. Heck, most of the time I'll ask right there at the table if I'm a little unclear on how something works.

Do not come to me and tell me that you deserve to have your opinion overrule mine because you spend more effort on this game than I do. Do not threaten me by telling me that a GM is nothing without their players. Those arguments will get you nothing. Continued use of those arguments will get you disinvited.

I play this game with my friends. Treat me like your friend, and we'll have a great time. Treat me like your servant, and you can find another game.

The funny thing is that none of the people I play with would make this argument. I have only seen this sense of self entitlement on the boards. I don't know if people just talk the talk because it's the Internet, or if there are actually people like this out there. I'm just heartily thankful that they're here on the boards and not at my table.


The entry doesn't indicate that it's a single use item. Getting temporary wings to grant you flight seems too good to be true for 450gp.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So back in March of this year, I got involved in a Ninja build thread that convinced me to go with a strength based build for my first ever Ninja. I was reviewing some old private messages today and was reminded about it. This is my "how's that workin out for ya" update. It's a PFS character, but I haven't seen that make any difference in the build up to this point.

Kyras Mystborn:
Half Elf Ninja 7
Str 16(14+2), Dex 14, Con 14(13+1), Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 14
HP 52, AC 16, Init +8
Fort +6*, Ref +9*, Will +7* (*+2 against enchantment spells/SLA's)

Alternate Race Trait: Ancestral Arms (Elven Curve Blade)
Traits: Elven Reflexes (+2 Initiative), Indomitable Faith (+1 Will)

Feats and Ninja Tricks:
1. Improved Initiative (F)
2. Invisibility Trick (T)
3. Power Attack (F)
4. Weapon Training: Elven Curve Blade (T)
5. Extra Ki (F)
6. Flurry of Stars (T)
7. Iron Will (F)

Equipment of Note: +2 Elven Curve Blade (currently saving for +3), Adamantine Heavy Mace and Mithral Siangham (for DR), Masterwork Shuriken (with silver and cold iron shuriken for DR), MW Lamellar armor, Cloak of Resistance +2, Dayfinder, Shard of Greed (Haste 1/day), Gloves of Reconnaissance, Sleeves of Many Garments, assorted wands (CLW, Disguise Self, Magic Missile, Mirror Image) and wayfinder with Clear Spindle Ioun Stone slotted.

Kyras is designed as a master of disguise, party scout, and skirmisher. He can try disarming mechanical traps but it's probably not the party's best option. Occassionally Kyras teams up with another player's trap specialist Rogue, and the pair make a very good front end team, particularly if there's a barbarian along too. In battle, he's a skirmisher. If he wins initiative, he'll flurry of stars anyone within close range or possibly use his wand of magic missile for sneak attack if the opponent is 30 feet away. His primary form of attack is two hand power attacking with an elven curve blade. Once he gets flanking, he'll use a ki point to full attack with a second hit.

Melee: (Sneak Attack +4d6)
+2 Elven Curve Blade: +11 (1d10+6) / PA: +9 (1d10+12)
Adamantine Heavy Mace: +9 (1d8+4) / PA: +7 (1d8+10)
Mithral Siangham: +9 (1d6+3) / PA: +7 (1d6+7)
Ranged:
MW Shuriken: +8(1d2+3) / Flurried Sneak Attack: +6/+6/+6(1d2+3+4d6)
Wand of Magic Missile* with Sneak Attack: UMD(+12) DC20, - (1d6+4d6)
*Kept in a spring loaded wrist sheath and only used when initiative is won

The biggest lesson I've learned so far is that the strength build is a lot easier to play than the TWF build. Another player plays a TWF trap specialist rogue, and I've had the chance to compare. My ninja tends to get sneak attack slightly more often due to Invisibility Trick, but tends to do more damage overall. The TWF Rogue will tear a bad guy apart if he can get a full round action while flanking, but spends a round or two getting into position. My strength build gets the same damage the first turn as it does the second turn (assuming I have either flanking or surprise in the first round). The TWF build tends to murder enemies on round 2 then needs to reposition itself so it can do the same thing on round 4. By then, the fight's usually over. Having a strength build allows Kyras to move around a lot more while still getting good hits in. Since I can still contribute with an okay static damage, flanking becomes preferred but not essential. The entire playstyle feels easier and much more worry free.

The second biggest lesson, and one of the earliest I had to learn, is when not to use Invisibility trick. Unless you're playing some sort of tricked out Ki monster, the Ninja doesn't have enough Ki to use inivisibility for steady sneak attacks. The best use of Ki in a fight is getting a second hit in when you have a flanking on a full round action, or doing a flurry of stars when you win initiative. Invisibility trick tends to be more useful outside of battle than in it. It's a great last ditch defense, and a good way to get battlefield positioning - though I get spotted by perception more than I thought I would, and See Invisibility is becoming more common as the character levels up. Invisibility Trick's best use by far is for scouting. If you can get enough information to let your party ambush the bad guys, you've won three quarters of the fight already.

Another big lesson was that all characters - especially sneaky scouts with delusions of melee ability - need an "Oh Crap" button. In Kyras's case, it's a potion of gaseous form. He loves his potion of gaseous form. It's incredibly reassuring. The next time he's trapped in a narrow hallway between two large demons with 10 foot reach and See Invisibility at will, he can slam a fist down on the "Oh Crap" button and get out of there.

What I could have done better:
In low levels, Kyras picked up a wand of magic missile to use in surprise rounds, and would throw daggers as a backup. If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't have bought the wand. I almost never use it for its intended purpose. The first round is usually spent positioning for melee. I'd either charge or hold back and used a ranged attack while waiting for the fighter/barbarian to go first. In that situation, throwing daggers works almost as well. The wand mostly ended up as the weapon of last resort. If Kyras had nothing else to do in a fight, he'd throw a magic missile. With the possible exception of ethereal opponents, the damage was so low as to be insignificant. I don't think the wand was worth the expense. If I had it to do again, I would have picked up Flurry of Stars at level 4 (moving Weapon Training to level 6) and used daggers until I could flurry with shuriken. If Kyras was a human character, I would have taken Weapon Focus as the level 1 bonus feat and pick up the trick that extends thrown weapon range by 10 feet at level 6. As it is, I'm planning to take it at level 8. It would greatly help the flurry of stars.

Another thing I would have done as early as possible would have been to spend 2 prestige points to pick up a masterwork +3 composite longbow for a decent range option. Kyras is seriously short ranged, and that's bitten him a few times during his career. I'd have to check, but I think the reason I didn't was because he's not proficient. This reason alone is a strong argument for going full elf instead of half elf at character creation, though it would have thrown off the point buy spread. As it is, I've learned that I definitely need some form of medium to long range option and will be getting one ASAP.

Also, I'd have bought something other than a Siangham. I needed something for piercing and silver DR types, and the siangham seemed as good as any option and was flavorful to boot. Being a light weapon, I envisioned it as an ideal holdout/concealed weapon. I wasn't aware of silversheen at the time, and mithril is based on weapon weight so that was a concern as well. The minus to damage from not being able to two hand it has been an annoyance. Nowadays I'd definitely go with a silversheen version of something bigger.

When Kyras started, he had armor expert with the intent of getting an agile breastplate. I retrained this for Indomitable Faith at level 6. I realized that unless I committed a large amount of funds, Kyras's AC was not going to keep up. He bought a wand of mirror image sometime around level 4 and has been using it to great effect ever since. The money that would have gone to buffing AC has gone to higher priority things like improving chances to hit and will save. He carries a couple potions of shield and barkskin for when he needs it.

This was my first serious melee character, and one of the greatest lessons I learned from it is the importance of the Will save. Kyras has a great personal hatred for the Hold Person spell and similar paralyzing effects. I didn't do anything to address it early on, and his early levels consisted of a +1 or +2 will save. This led to me spending a surprising amount of fights either bored out of my mind from having a paralyzed character or (more recently) fighting against fellow party members. Trading Armor Expert for Indomitable Faith and picking up Iron Will has seriously helped. Since we're getting on in levels, I've picked up a clear spindle ioun stone to protect against domination as well.

What I like about the build:
His mobility and flexibility. Kyras isn't a one trick pony. He has several ways that he can contribute to a battle, and ends up cycling between them fairly often. In PFS, when you never know who your next companions are going to be, this is a pretty big deal. It also makes him a lot easier to play. I don't spend very many fights fuming because I'm not able to contribute due to terrain or tactics. Now that I've started paying careful attention to what higher level characters will face and what adventurers need to be prepared for, that number has dropped even lower. He's had enough moments of awesome on the battlefield that he's never boring to play. The master of disguise bit is occassionally useful, and the high bluff has led to some fantastic roleplay when he's had to step up as the party face.

The Ki is a pretty huge deal for this class. A lot of Kyras's heavy contributions have been from Ki use. It's made me wary of going straight Rogue. While not the most overpowered thing out there, the Ninja is definitely a class worth playing. The flavor is great, and I get plenty in battle and out of battle moments to shine.

I'm interested in seeing what happenes next level when Kyras gets iterative attacks. Full attack actions are going to be a much bigger deal. I'm not sure how it's going to effect the playstyle just yet. For the moment, I feel confident that the build will persevere. Kyras just needs to be on the lookout for magic items that will help him adapt to any situation. He has potions that cover a lot of possibilities, but still needs to find a way deal with ethereal and flying opponents. He has a couple potions of fly, but those are way too expensive for regular use.


So on the Brawler threads during the play test, folks talked about how one could already meet the brawler concept with the fighter archetype and a dip into many styles monk. I got all excited over the idea and decided my next PFS character would follow this path. While all those fancy new Brawlers hit the tables, I'd show them the old school way.

Today I sat down to build one. It's... not as easy as it was made to sound.

I really liked the idea of a full plate brawler pounding his enemies with gauntlets or some other close weapon, but that means two weapon fighting, and TWF seems a frivolous Dex expenditure in heavy armor. So you can either go TWF in light armor with the brawling enchantment, or single weapon in heavy armor. A single weapon wouldn't be practical for close weapons since you can't two hand a close weapon, so we are left with the light armor option.

Okay, let's roll with that then. I noticed war fans were in the close weapon group. A dual wielding war fan fighter is a great concept. Except there don't seem to be any good style feats that are usable with war fans.

Okay... unarmed then. We want to make use of the styles. Great. But now we run into every monk problem ever, the first of which is 'how do you get past DR?' So maybe a close weapon in one hand and unarmed strike in the other...

...and that just looks silly. I've talked myself around from "why play a Brawler when you can use the Fighter/Monk?" to "why play a Fighter/Monk when you can just go Brawler?"

So yeah. Can anyone post or link to a demonstration build so I can see how it's done?


I was glancing through a build thread and noticed that the character had high strength and low charisma. This made me reflect that charisma is often a dump stat for melee builds. I then reflected on the my personal experience with low charisma characters at the table. I usually see low charisma characters played as either obnoxious, anti-social, or hostile in some fashion.

This made me wonder- if your average person lived in a world where melee fighters (excepting certain classes like Paladins and Dragon Disciples) were not the easiest type of folk to get along with, wouldn't the citizenry start to generalize after a while?

As a player, I tend not to dump many stats if I can avoid it. I realize that not every melee character out there is going to have a charisma of 7 or 8. Further, I realize that having a Charisma of 7 or 8 doesn't automatically mean that a character is going to be unpersonable. Still, I imagine there'd be some sort of social response that would develop over time.

2/5

So I'm looking at gametime next Friday, and I've realized it's going to be Friday the 13th. Anyone have suggestions for thematically appropriate scenarios?

The two that come to mind are the Midnight Mauler (hunting a werewolf) and Voice in the Void (Chthulu's basement!) Unfortunately, the players at the table have played both already.

Any other thoughts?


Hi all!

I will be starting Rise of the Runelords (anniversary). I wanted to play a full Divine caster, and I settled on Druid. Our group is light on melee combat, so I thought I'd either play a caster Druid who focuses on summoning, or a melee shifter Druid.

We rolled for stats. I got: 17, 17, 14, 12, 12, 11.

I could make a *fantastic* caster druid with that. I'm wondering if I could build a workable melee shifter. One 17 would go to strength, and the 14 would have to go to Wisdom for spells, leaving a 17 and 12 for Dex and Con.

If I decide to go caster, I think I'll go with a Lion or Saurian shaman, for the summoning potential. I'm unsure if I should take an archetype for shifter, or what it should be.

I realize there are guides for this. I've read Treantmonk's, and I'm working through Peterrco's.


Inspired by a recent thread, I'd like to build a Magus for a shattered star campaign. I'm joining a few sessions in, and the characters are about to go to level 2. So I'm not sure if I'll be going through the full level 1 or quickly leveling up with the party.

I don't know anything about shattered star, but if you have experience in the campaign please keep it in mind. The group has a barbarian, a ninja, and a cleric (going mystic theurge).

I hadn't looked into the magus much before, and my research this morning has been a bit overwhelming. I'm looking for help in shaping the type/style of magus I want to play. I want to be able to both fight and cast. I'm leaving buffing and battlefield control to the cleric/MT character, which means that I'll probably seriously invest in either blasting or debuffing. I've been toying with the idea of playing a Hexcrafter, as the hexes will allow me to always have a caster-like alternative when my spells run out. Plus, my reading seems to indicate that they are pretty flexible. I like flexible, though I don't want to be okay at everything and not good at anything.

Another concern is that the game is starting at level 1, and this is a new group. I'd prefer a character that begins to shine as early as possible, rather than having to wait a bunch of levels for a payoff.

So, thoughts?


Does the Gifted Adept trait increase a spell's DC?

SRD wrote:

Gifted Adept

Benefit: Pick one spell when you choose this trait. Whenever you cast that spell, its effects manifest at +1 caster level.

Not sure if the +1 caster level is for DC as well.


Hi! Today I'm looking for help on a homebrew class alteration.

Ever since I read the Summoner class for the first time, I've wanted to play Yuna (from Final Fantasy X). Recently, I've realized that the Summoner isn't actually the best class to accomplish this.

Mechanically, I'm *really* just looking to play a cleric. This gives me the white and support magic that Yuna had, while also giving access to summon monster spells. The only alteration I need is the ability to summon as a standard action (to represent the same turn summoning that Yuna gets in FFX).

This is a pretty big boost to any summon focused character. I'm really not looking to powergame this build, so I'm looking for nerfs that will balance the new ability while also better representing Yuna's abilities.

My chief thought so far is to create a custom domain. The domain power would turn all summon monster spells into a standard action. However, all summon monsters can summon 1 monster only, instead of also having the multiple lower level monsters option.

An additional idea: to simulate Yuna's rather limited selection list, this class cannot have instant access to all summoned monsters upon learning a new summon monster spell. They get a small number of freebies decided by the GM, and have to earn the cooperation of the others. This could be done with a special low level planar communication spell, or perhaps a unique item. The character would have to negotiate with each summon and perhaps run missions to earn their consent. This simulates the 'questing for more powerful summons' aspect of FFX.

If the list ends up being a small number of creatures, perhaps lower level summons can be summoned as advanced creatures using higher level spells. Hopefully the list won't get too small though, as part of the strength of the Summon Monster line is the variety of possible summons.

This scheme allows the GM to control the power level of the character throughout the game. If it seems a little weak or too strong, new summons can be introduced, old summons can be made advanced, and too powerful summons can simply decide not to be summoned anymore.

Another thought: should this class spontaneously cast healing or summon spells?


27 people marked this as a favorite.

While responding to another post on another forum, this topic really crystallized for me.

In the relatively short time that I've been a member of these forums, I've across an underlying attitude that I just flat out disagree with. There seem to be a segment of people who get offended if their GM fudges a dice roll to help a player out. They'll say things like player choices don't matter if there aren't consequences or if there's not a chance of death, the game gets boring. A perfect example is the "instant death on three straight 20's" rule.

Meanwhile, there is a segment of GMs who view themselves as impartial arbiters. They are the judges between the players and the opposing forces. If the opposing force outwits the players, or the dice just flat out dictate the death of a character, then it was simply meant to be. The dice will dictate what the dice will dictate, and GMs are helpless to change that. Today I even learned the phrase "sanctity of the dice," which was certainly a new one on me.

I hear these points of view so often that I honestly feel that I'm in the minority because I disagree with them. Maybe it's a new player thing, and maybe I'll grow out of it, but these views are not fun to me.

There are GMs who view themselves as impartial judges between players and the opposing forces. To those GMs I say impartial? YOU designed the encounter! There are GMs who are helpless to change the dictates of the dice. To those GMs I say helpless? You are the one interpreting the dice. Those random numbers are without meaning or value. YOU give them value. The decision isn't out of your hands. You're the person who is making the decision.

There are players and GMs who think the game isn't fun without a chance of death. To them I say okay, I actually get this one. You've played the epic slayer of dragons and you've gotten bored with it. But I haven't slayed the dragon yet. My character hasn't been the invulnerable superman waltzing effortlessly through tribes of low level kobolds. I'm not bored with it. I'm actually looking forward to it. And meanwhile, having the character that I've lovingly crafted killed because someone got a lucky crit, or some low level peon rolled three 20's ISN'T fun to me. That's not a challenge. That's just cruel.

Am I saying that there should be no death in Pathfinder? No. That would actually be a fairly interesting campaign world, but no. That's not what I'm saying. My problem is with the sheer Randomness of these kinds of death.

A character dies because a player got stupid with them? The player learns better tactics. A character dies because a player didn't take slay living into account when they dumped Wisdom? The player learns how to design characters better. The player improves. The player grows. A character dies because the role playing demanded it? The player gets to tell the story of their character's epic death, or the fitting epilogue matched to their character's personality and choices. And in the end, the player chooses this death. They could have overridden their character's personality long enough to save the character's hide if the player had really wanted to.

A character dies because the bad guy got a critical and one-shotted them? Because the dice rolled a completely random number and the GM chooses to interpret this as "you're instantly dead even though you did nothing wrong"? Because the adventuring party is too low level to cast/purchase a Raise Dead spell?

No.

Just... no.

Please don't punish me for something I can't control. Take my character captive. Find a way to get the character Raised and hit me with some negative levels. Introduce a Deus Ex Machina for a last minute save. Set the character at 1 hp above death and stabilize them. Give me an alternate character to play until mine can get back in the game. Do whatever you have to do, but don't make me take the character that I've spent hours building/creating a backstory for and toss it in the trash.

I don't want to play my game on Hard Mode. It's not fun. It's not entertaining. It's not exciting. It just sucks.


13 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I played a PFS game recently in which a character used detect magic to isolate an imp under invisibility down to one particular square. He claimed that he'd still be able to see the aura of the creature.

In my primary game group, detect magic cannot pick up anything from invisibility. They are completely invisible. The senior player in our group puts it this way: "How stupid would it be a for a level 2 spell to be countered by a cantrip? No. Just no."

So when someone uses detect magic and looks for someone else under an invisibility spell, what's SUPPOSED to happen?


So after casting enlarge person on our front line fighter (a dual wielding ranger) tonight and watching him go from full health to -13 with a 14 con before he could even get an attack off, it strikes me that my use of the spell might have been a bit... tactically unsound.

So when should enlarge person be used, and when should it be avoided?

2/5

So way back when I first registered with the Paizo site, I used my internet pseudonym because 1. I prefer to keep my real life information to myself if possible and 2. I didn't think it would matter.

Today I joined Pathfinder Society. My ID card has my internet pseudonym on it.

Is this going to create a problem at the table?


Another thread got me thinking about unarmed strike ninjas. Assuming that a player had to play a ninja from level 1, is an unarmed strike build even playable (assuming you actually want to be effective)? Without multiclassing into monk?

If you were starting at level 10 or 12, I can see it. But not from level 1.

The ninja tricks dealing with unarmed strike feel incomplete to me. It's like someone laid half the groundwork needed for the build and then stopped. And the only serious option for merging a monk and ninja is getting the GM's permission to count the monk abilities as needed prereqs for the advanced ninja trick that lets you add ninja level -4 to the monk's damage table.

What would you need to do to actually make this idea work?


So I was passing the crux of my build plan for a new character by an experienced player before last night's game. I'm playing an Ifrit Oracle of Heavens, and I'm taking some options for when the traditional 'spam color spray or dazzle spell' doesn't work. I'm taking the Blackened curse to get a little blasting, I get either cure or harm spells free (I've chosen cure), and I intend to use my oracle spells known to concentrating on buffing.

The experienced player stopped me in the middle of all this. "Myst, the problem with your oracle is the exact same problem you're going to have with the sorcerer you're playing now: your spell selection is all over the place. Early on it looks really cool because you can do everything, but later on you'll suddenly realize that your character is gimped because he can do a lot of things okay but nothing great enough to actually be effective."

So here's the question: Does a spontaneous caster have to focus their spells known on one or at best two 'themes' (blasting/buffing/battlefield control) in order to be useful to the party?

And does my Oracle fall into this trap, since they get all those 'everything else' spells for free?


I'm going to be sitting down with an entirely new group on a bi-weekly basis. It's an on-going game of Shattered Star, but they haven't gotten very far yet. They've had two 5 hour sessions and the characters are about to hit level 2. The current party is composed of a front line fighter (I think a barbarian), a ninja, and a cleric who intends to multiclass into mystic theurge. Since I prefer to play caster classes and the MT will have the 'generalist' angle covered, I'm going to play an Oracle of Heavens.

The player's guide for Carrion Crown was incredibly helpful and made the personality creation and skill focus of my CC character very simple. By comparison, the Shattered Star guide is worthless. The entire book consisted of "knowledge (history) will be useful" and a rehash of pathfinder society. If anyone can give any spoiler free suggestions on how I can better mold my character for the campaign or advice on general spell and feat selection, I'd appreciate it.

Why I chose to play an Ifrit:
I really want my oracle to have the blackened curse, which led me to look at Aasimirs. From a role play angle, I think an Aasimir Azata-Blooded Oracle of Heavens would make a wonderful fit for a campaign about the Pathfinder Society. However, I'd prefer not to sit down with a new group trying to play what is possibly THE most cheese-filled race selection (for a Cha-based caster) in the game. Gnomes are the traditional choice for Oracles of Heaven, but I don't feel that the gnome race would have enough of a magical lineage to merit the blackened curse. It would be technically legal even in a PFS game, but the flavor would feel forced to me.

So I'm playing an Ifrit instead. They have enough of a connection to fire for 'blackened' to feel valid, while still being one of the better mechanical picks for the class. And once I made that decision, a lot of the character background began to write itself.

My character's name is Eylanti. I'm going for an almost supernaturally beautiful (charisma 17) and effeminate Ifrit male who has a lot of trouble projecting a forceful presence. His personality will be a little quiet and rather skittish, but with an inner strength that shines through more as the adventure progresses.

Character background:
Eylanti was raised alongside a much more traditional older brother who is basically a fire sorcerer. While both children took on magical powers from their Ifrit heritage, the older brother had all the traditional fire-related powers while Eylanti had stuff like changing a person's size and a penchant for releasing sparkles when he got upset. (Mechanically, this represents the Efreeti magic, Hypnotic, and Wildfire heart selections. The latter two are much more subtle than flashy fire traits.) The older brother became the favored child, and bullied Eylanti for his 'weaker magic.' This allows for the Reactionary trait, trite though it is.

The problems at home culminated when the older brother decided to 'help' by holding both of Eylanti's hands over a roaring fire. The brother's fire resistance mostly protected him, but Eylanti's hands and arms were just about roasted. In this moment of sheer panic, Eylanti's soul touched on a connection deep within and his magic broke free in full. He dazed his brother with a powerful light display and escaped. However, his arms have never fully healed and to this day he walks around in a full cloak to hide his hideously blackened hands and arms.

Eylanti's parents had thought that a little sibling rivalry wouldn't hurt, but were shocked and appalled to learn what was really going on. Relationships were changed forever. Eylanti would soon leave home to explore the world and develop his new powers, while his brother seethed in resentment and swore to one day seek vengeance.

Mechanically, I'm going for a caster that always goes first and either casts color spray or hypnotic pattern based on the situation. He'll also have spells from the 'blackened' curse for a little blasting and area denial. He gets the cure line for free, so I thought I'd fill the Oracle spells known with mostly buffs for when light based illusions won't work.

Here's what I'm thinking for stats:
20 point buy...
Str: 8
Dex: 16 (14 + 2)
Con: 12
Int: 10
Wis: 10 (12 - 2)
Cha: 19 (17 + 2)

Normally I'd be fine with a 16 (after race modifier) charisma, but since the Awesome Display revelation is so key to this build I bumped it up as high as I could stand to. I'd prefer the Con to be at 14 but came up 1 point short, and decided to equal Wisdom to 10 since I plan to have Wis based skills.

I know I'll want Improved Initiative as either a level 0 or 3 feat. Filling the rest with stuff that improves my illusion DC seems like a natural fit. I'm not sure what order to take the feats, though.

I get 4 skills. I'm not sure if an Oracle can get by without spellcraft or not, so I'm including it as standard. Eylanti's personality is much more inclined to watch for danger than to get talkative, so I'm going for perception and sense motive rather than charisma based skills. I thought the last skill slot might be knowledge (history) to explain his love for treasure hunting. I'm also considering either knowledge (arcane) or (religion), but I'm pretty much depending on the mystic theurge in the group to have those. Perception and sense motive are the only two that I'm reasonably certain about.

One of my traits is reactionary. I haven't decided on the other. Anything stand out, considering the build?

I'm pretty new to the divine spell list. Are there any must haves, or natural fits for my character concept?

2/5

Hello!

Just wondering, will there be any PFS games at RavenCon?

Thanks much.


Hi! I was just wondering if any of the third party companies had released a pathfinder-ized version of the Beguiler class, from 3.5's Player Handbook 2.


Greetings!

I'm a semi-new player, and I'm currently going through Carrion Crown book 1 as a player in a party of 4 characters. I'm a level 3 sorcerer (sage).

Spoiler:
In our last session, we left off with the Lopper charging strait at us. We're not maximized, though each of us are at least minimally prepared to fight ghosts and the like.

We've come across the cache of prisoner weapons, so my sorcerer has the Splatterman's spellbook, which has Summon Monster IV. My question is, if I use the spell (as a scroll- I'm a sorcerer not a wizard) to summon a celestial creature (probably the grizzly bear), would it be able to hit the Lopper?

I'm trying to play this spoiler free, but I know the Lopper is either a haunt or a ghost of some type, and I'm figuring he's a ghost-type. Either way, there's a very high chance that he's going to be incorporeal. I'm not sure if a summoned creature would count as a magic weapon, or if the celestial template would make a difference.

From prior experience with the campaign, I know that if he's a haunt, all bets are off on what will and won't hit him. So my follow up question is, can I use knowledge (arcane) or (religion) to determine what he is before I make my summon?

Thanks much,
-Mystically Inclined


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty new to Pathfinder, and a little less new to D&D in general. I've been keeping an eye on the advice board to get better acquainted with the community and ask a few newbie questions.

Recently, a discussion was minorly hijacked to discuss some 3rd party material and the company (and designer) that develops it. There were people who thought the stuff was overpowered, and people who thought it was remarkably balanced, and people who thought it was laughable that Paizo material was being held up as the standard of 'balance' to which everything else was being compared. That last line made me stop and think. I wondered if the core material of the game could even be considered 'balanced.'

Here is a game where you can choose between a variety of different classes. A player can choose between a wizard and (deliberately avoiding the 'M' word here) a rouge, and the central theme of the game says "these two classes do different things, but overall can be considered equal." Everyone in a party will bring something to the table, and somehow we'll all be 'balanced' with each other.

But the classes AREN'T balanced. That's not Paizo's fault- it's a deliberate function of the game that all these editions are based on. In fact, the struggle to 'balance' each of the classes was no doubt one of the driving forces behind 4th edition.

But really, how can a game be 'balanced' when the people that play it all want different things out of it? That's the difference between role-play and roll-play, right? There are 5 to 10 different motivations for people to play, and different people can have any combination of them. Some of these motivations directly contradict each other. How do you 'balance' between the guy who thinks he's a young Lord Byron, the reincarnation of Genghis Kahn, and the clown sitting between them who can't go 3 minutes without doing something silly?

And can a game be called 'balanced' when every DM/GM is going to describe it differently, and every group is going to come up with a different solution? When the same character classes are being used within an infinite number of imaginary worlds and cultures? How do you balance something meant to be an individual experience?

In watching the boards, I've seen an uncountable number of discussions involving cheese and power creep. Everyone has their own opinion on what's overpowered and what's not, and seemingly the only unifying opinion is 'the designers are doing it wrong' which really means 'they should be doing it My way.' And very little of this discussion would be going on if there weren't people looking through rules and items mostly intended for flavor and putting them all together in ways nobody could have possibly conceived of beforehand in order to get 'MAXIMUS THE INVINCIBLE!!!' And the designers just have to shrug and say "hey, what can I do? Those guys need to have fun too."

But really, how far does the duty of the game designer go? It's not like they can go off somewhere and use arcane mystic-designer rituals to bring us the game that Everyone can play, Everywhere, and is Fun All The Time. That's what Rule 0 is for, right? It's the GM's job to see to all that stuff for their particular group. And it's the GM's job to decide what to do with Maximus The Invincible.

The Quest for Balance is a lot like the Holy Grail- a made up construct that encapsulates an unreachable ideal. Yet so many posts that I've read here seem to have as an underlying theme an unspoken expectation. "I want you to continue to expand a growing library of options for my character, and ensure that it cannot be abused when used in combination with every small detail in every product that you've ever released, and ever WILL release. Also, take into account that I might combine it with every product these other guys have released. Oh, and it should be fun and interesting, and not a copy of something that's already been done."

Of course that expectation is ridiculous, and we all know it. It's not something we would ever verbalize, or even hold anyone to. But surely the designers should be responsible for SOME sense of 'balance' within the game, right? It is, after all, their game. So questioning this one small thing would be reasonable, right? And that one small, perfectly reasonable question leads to another until suddenly The Expectation is there again and someone is piping up to say "if you don't like it then don't use it." And you wonder if this particular shade of gray is more white or more black, and shouldn't it be someone else's job to clear up the confusion?

As a mostly new player, I haven't learned all the tricks to Pathfinder yet. I don't know the must-have spells, or which variant of warrior will yield the highest DPR, or which skills can be cleverly used both inside and outside of battle. None of the classes seem particularly overpowered to me, because the genius ideas that turn one spell/item/skill into that old classic that everyone uses haven't occurred to me yet. To me, a rouge looks just as useful as a fighter or wizard, or a vivisectionist or a samurai. And all of those classes are going to grow or diminish in usefulness depending on party construction and the GM. To the rookie, everything is still new and undiscovered. That's a kind of balance all on its own.

(And suddenly I realize that visiting the advice forum for tips is a lot like spoiling dinner, or a child trying to grow up too fast. Hmm...)

As for all you 'old hands' reading this, I can only say that Paizo seems to be doing a fine job from my angle. The line between 'cool enhancement' and 'easily abused' is going to be different for everyone. Is it really a rational thing to complain that some feature is overpowered when the guy down the virtual street thinks it's the perfect addition to his character? Maybe the board needs some clever phrase or acronym to remind us that it all boils down to Rule 0 in the end.


Hello everyone,

I've been interested in role-playing for 20 years but never had many chances to indulge. I've owned and read the 3.0 player guide, and I've seen lots of supplemental material, but I don't have a lot of practical experience.

I've recently gotten involved in a game as a sorcerer, in which I'm learning a lot but playing well enough. I've been invited to play in a new game, however, and I'm looking for advice on what to build.

The campaign is Carrion Crown. All I know about it is that it's 'an ordinary type of character's odyssey into Halloween.' I've availed myself of the Carrion Crown Player Guide, so I expect that will help. The DM for the game has said that there are certain things he's looking for in his characters that will make his life easier in regards to the campaign. One of them is someone with a lot of knowledge skills who can identify monsters and immunities. (I'm not sure how that works, but I'll no doubt find out soon.) He said some other things, but my predisposition towards arcane magic classes kind of zoned me out during the rest. I was too busy envisioning an elven wizard 'keeper of lore' to pay attention to the rest. Given the stats I rolled, I'm not sure that character will work.

Dice rolls: 15, 15, 14, 13, 12, 12

While it's nice not to have any negative stats, I'm not sure what I can or should do with rolls like this. My vision of the wizard attributes were high intelligence, good constitution, and who cares what else... I'm not sure what to do with 'okay in everything.'

The group will be 4 people, and we're starting the campaign at level 1. The other characters are a cleric, an inquisitor, and possibly a ranger (but the DM sounded iffy). The cleric's backstory involves being a fighter before losing everything and being devolved to nothing, only to start again as a cleric. The inquisitor's player has a strong penchant for trickery and sneaking types of characters. I know nothing about the possible ranger player.

I figure any class would be fun, for the novelty if nothing else. I would think that the melee classes lend themselves better to the dice rolls. Also, the DM sounded pretty iffy on whether we'd survive the first module. A melee class seems like it would be more useful to the party in the early levels, but that might leave our party without an arcane spellcaster and the associated knowledge skills.

So what classes would lend themselves well to the dice rolls, and which classes would be the most effective in Carrion Crown?

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>