PK the Dragon's page

So I feel like the logic of some of these arguments is something like "Social Skills (and other similar non-mechanical concepts) are important to pathfinder, probably more important than mechanical knowledge, therefore Social skills are part of system mastery".

I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth, but this is the gist of what I'm getting from some of these arguments.

If so... I want to clarify. I don't consider System Mastery to be an inherently positive thing. I don't consider System Mastery to equal "Being Good At Pathfinder" (as a whole). It just means "Good at Pathfinder Mechanics". Someone with a strong grasp of Pathfinder mechanics can be an awful Pathfinder player, if they lack social skills and common sense. But I wouldn't consider that person to lack system mastery... just that they lack other things.

Because of this, I don't really think that just because Social Skills are important they're part of System Mastery. All that says to me is that, yes, Social Skills are important. Vital, even. System Mastery is purely about the mechanical system. Social Interactions are the context that uses the mechanical system. They're connected in that sense, but still two different concepts.

So my point: when I say I don't consider Social Skills to be part of System Mastery, that's not a judgement on the value of Social Interactions. It simply means that I don't think the two are the same.

Hopefully that made sense. Given that there's no real definition of System Mastery, any discussion of it is a bit difficult (and is entirely my opinion and nothing more!)

EDIT: After rereading this post... this was definitely not a particularly well written post, lol. I was struggling to put some concepts into words that I don't usually put into words. Still, I stand by my ultimate point, if not the presentation of it.

Another pitfall, IMO, is defining yourself by the ways you differ from your race. Not quite as dangerous, but still not terribly interesting.

By this I mean, if the *only* defining part of your character is that you're a Dwarf that drinks tea and lives above ground, that's not particularly interesting either, by itself. What makes Harsk fun is the complete package.

The way I see it, a "normal" version of the race can be interesting if they have an interesting character (character meaning goals, dreams, personality, motivations, which can be informed by race, but shouldn't just be the stereotype of the race). A "rebel" version of the race can be boring if they lack an interesting character. And vice versa, of course.

So the tl;dr is to play a character. You can let the race be an important part of the character, or play a "human with elf ears", all that matters is that the character is interesting. This is also why I don't mind all human parties- if that's the story we want to tell, so be it.

An assassin isn't truly a combat encounter per se. Instead, it's a highly lethal social encounter.

In order to assassinate the PCs, an assassin has to find them. This usually means questioning people who have seen the PCs- unless the players are high enough level to be famous no matter who you ask, and live in a known location. Assuming this isn't the case, this is the first step where an assassin can be discovered- word could reach them that someone was asking questions about them (whether this is likely or not depends on the connections the PCs have made).

Next, they need to scope out the PCs, as Kileanna said. Only an arrogant assassin is going to attempt to do it without scoping out the PCs first, there's too much at risk.

Finally, they have to carry out the operation. If the PCs keep proper watches and have high Perception, there's so many ways this can go wrong.

That's two to three different places for failure to occur. Ideally, the assassin is not minmaxed and the party has a decent chance to discover it, at which point it becomes a game of cat and mouse between the two parties.

That said, if it's higher level, maybe it's not the end of the world if a character gets assassinated. After all, raise dead spells exist. This complicates the would-be assassin's job greatly. He has to kill the PC, ensure there are no witnesses, and ensure that the PC cannot talk or be revived, and not all assassins will be willing to go for that final step (they might not be used to dealing with higher powered targets).

At each point in this process, there's a chance for the PCs to figure out what's going on and launch a counterattack. If they don't, that's their problem.

Granted, this is mostly considering mundane assassinations. If the assassin is a wizard, all bets are off.

I'd honestly argue that until the Drake companion gets a few size increases, it's actually worse than a familiar. The familiar at least has some utility in terms of skills, empathetic link, share spells, etc. The drake is a bit more durable in combat than most familiars, but this is offset by how much it sucks if the drake dies.

As it gets bigger and starts getting Drake powers, it starts getting usable (as in, it's now not completely worthless in combat and is starting to be able to compete with the weaker animal companions), but the drake has too few powers and has at least one ridiculous power tax (Not even allowing the thing to glide without spending a power is a crime. The fact that you need to use four out of five of your powers in order to have a smoothly flying mount is also a crime).

I think it eventually becomes better than a normal animal companion, but only if you don't try to turn it into a flying mount and instead focus on making it independently functional. Of course, by the time this starts happening, animal companions are falling off...

And this isn't going into the fact that you have to sacrifice most of your class features for this scrawny thing.

I wish I could love the Drake Companion, but as it is, it's one of the most disappointing things I've ever seen.

(Since this topic is about frustratingly weak things, I don't apologize for this mini-rant!)

I honestly find that 6th level casters can still use offensive spells, they just have to be a bit more vigilant about targeting weak saves, or else accept that their spells aren't always going to work. I don't particularly minmax my full casters either, so this is nothing new. The only real differences in DC is that a full caster can probably afford a +5 at start while most half casters are more MAD and I find they usually can only afford a +3, and their top level spells are 1-3 levels lower than a full caster's, which also reduces the DC. It's not insignificant, but it's not a deal breaker for me.

Also, I consider the fact that they aren't quite as good as 9th level casters to be something of a perk. It lets you enjoy using magic without feeling dirty about it XD

Bloodrager is a weird case because the spell progression is just so painfully slow for offensive spells, but as noted, you can make the build work. Just because it's not the best way to do things doesn't mean it's not a valid playstyle.

I don't suppose we can all just agree that the Terrasque is basically a stupid concept--the fantasy RPG equivalent of a pissing contest that seemingly escalates with every revision--and that we're better off focusing on game elements that are actually playable?

No? OK. Carry on, then.

See, I like the Tarrasque. It's a big nasty monster that can't be killed (at least by conventional methods). Like Pyramid Head. Except you can't plane shift pyramid head, or summon endless monsters to delay him, or any of the other ways to negate the Tarrasque. Never the less, the extreme strength of magic in D&D aside, it's still a cool concept and should you ever have a game get to the point where the big T shows up, it should make for an entertaining evening. Possibly a tad anticlimatic if you have a high level caster in the party, but it should still be fun while it lasts. It's not in the fight itself, it's in the dramatic flourishes as the creature rises from it's sleep, and slowly meanders towards the party, the party's reactions as they realize the time is here, they're fighting one of the iconic D&D monsters, FINALLY.

It only becomes problematic, a pissing contest, if you will, when people start to argue about the nitty gritty of what "unkillable" means. That isn't the fault of the Tarrasque, though, just a side effect of human nature. You could say the same about Paladins, for having arguable moral quandaries built into the definition of the class, and we like Paladins right? (and I swear, if this turns into an argument about Alignment morality just because I mentioned the P word, I will brood. Loudly.)

For the record, I've got nothing against having a pleasant discussion about whether the Tarrasque can be killed, and how to do so. The only problem is when it turns nasty.

As I said before, in my case the player had more experience that I did. He was just like that. I'd be more lenient with a new player.

You realize the GM of the game we are talking about is here in the thread right? And that they explicitly tried to help fire obsessed player and explicitly are okay with re-flavoring.

Furthermore they didn't have to guess immunities would come up they were told that they would and they were told they were going into a volcano. If new players aren't putting those facts together and getting fire immunity that is no-one else's fault.

I think we have pretty reasonable expectations of new players.

Okay, I think there's a misunderstanding here. I was at no point actually talking about Kileanna's player, outside of the line "I mean, it sounds like your guy goes above and beyond by blaming the GM" in my first post. In all other cases I was purely talking about my experience with new players, and when I was responding it had nothing to do with that particular example. I took you three to be talking about new players, because the subject of reflavoring was in response to my post about new players.

If you weren't talking about new players but were talking about players in general, or that particular guy in specific, then I apologize. I also did not at any time mean for this to be a criticism of what you posted, Kileanna. It was simply an aside, and then a slight defense of my aside.

Anyway, Nitro, it's cool to know that you've got a pretty good grip of the finer points of tabletop gaming, it's just in my experience new players normally just don't understand that concept. You wrote like someone with a lot of experience with Pathfinder, tbqh, and I mean that as a compliment!

I don't mind this. My logic is, characters are smarter than we are, better than navigating their world due to being citizens of their world, while we have a level of removal. The group-mind helps to reduce that level of removal. Discussing tactics before a fight reduces the chance of making bonehead decisions that our characters, being fighting experts after all, would never do. If some guy happens to know a lot more about castle design than most of us, fantastic, that balances out the fact that chances are the rest of the party knows far less about it than our characters probably should. (that said, if a plan is reliant on a ***really** obscure detail of castle design, then yeah, I'd tell players to roll knowledge engineering- but allow it to be rolled unskilled due to them figuring it out by player skill).

What this is, is allowing and rewarding Player skill instead of Character skill. That is an important part of the game, just as important as the stats you have written down.

That said, ultimately a face shouldn't feel useless because they don't get an opportunity to roll because other players made a good diplomatic argument. Diplomacy, Bluff, etc, those cover the DELIVERY of an argument, so even if other players come up with a good argument, they still need the skill to convey it.

Same with knowledge skills against monsters. There's very strict rules on just how much knowledge characters have on monsters, and while I've got nothing against using common sense, if people want to know exact details about what a monster does, they've got to roll. This is where metagaming can really be problematic, because there ARE mechanics here.

At the same time, though, I wouldn't rule that someone has no idea what an orc is, in a world where orcs are super common, just because they lack the right knowledge skill. Otherwise you run into a problem where characters are unrealistically stupid unless they've got the right knowledge skills. And this is where player skill can be allowed to come in- if a player figures out what it is, and it's common enough that it would make sense for characters to know what it is, then there's no harm in confirming it.

Anyway, amazing things happen in this game when 4 or 5 brains combine to work on a problem. It's one of the reasons I GM, to watch the process. So I like to encourage it where I can. That's what makes PF different from a video game, or a board game, is that level of player engagement and creativity.

I'd sum it up as " I want to be the flame dude and use exclusively flame spells, oh cool this helps me still be a thing in battles against enemies with immunities"

We may scoff at loading up exclusively on one damage type, but for new players and RP purists who want a *very* thematic character, spells like these help.

Being that guy on high school: it's OK.

Being him at a job where you work with human lifes: not so much.

Yeah, no doubt. Heck, even if human lives aren't involved, if you're accepting a pay check for something, then you should *probably* treat it seriously and get help if you are having trouble. I was just recounting that story because of SUDDEN MEMORIES, lol.

I will say, I question how your example still has a job. I mean, I wouldn't hire myself for anything lab-related, and I at least know what a periodic table is.

(Thankfully, Pathfinder isn't nearly as high stakes, so I still say it's worthwhile to talk over problems before going straight to dropping the person from a group- if ONLY for the sake of avoiding needless drama and hurt feelings, if nothing else. )

Tableflip McRagequit wrote:

"I'm at my wit's end here, and I hope someone has some advice. There's this guy in our lab who can't even remember the periodic table. Every morning, I set out his test tubes, light his burner, and carefully label the chemicals we need him to mix. I'm really trying to get him interested. He does like it when things turn different colors, and seems pretty engaged at that point. What can I do to make him stop mixing up vials at random, before something explodes?"

I know this person. She works with me. She doesn't make things explode but I had to work extra time because she ruined her work and left early so someone else fixed her errors. She has been responsible of many very sick people to have to get their tests made again.

So yes, I can tell that this happens everywhere.

Correction: she doesn't know what a periodic table is.

I was this guy in high school chemistry. It was awful. It was the first class in the morning and my brain wasn't fully awake, and I struggled understanding the math and concepts behind the lab concepts while everyone else got to work on the lab. My lab partner was constantly finishing the labs before I even understood what we were doing, leaving me scrambling to figure what exactly he just did, what the results were, and what they meant. There was a lot of frantic copying as the class ended.

Unfortunately, being the youngster I was at that time, I wasn't emotionally mature enough to admit that I needed help and a slower pace, and just barely made it through that class with a C or a D. I'm sure it looked like I was taking advantage of my lab partner to coast through the class, too.

Of course, this was required, as opposed to something I did for fun or as a career path. Still, those posts brought back memories. Bad, repressed memories, lol.

idk about torture but i do know that necroing paladin alignment discussions should count as an evil act.

This is ultimately very simple:

- Does he contribute to a positive social atmosphere?

If so, there isn't much of a problem.

- Does he negatively affect the social atmosphere due to his inability to play the game?

If so, talk to him and discuss the problem and potential ways to fix it. If that doesn't work, then you should let him go.

Recycling some previous low level creatures as minions greatly reduces the necessary work for the GM. Players are usally quite occupied with themselves and do notice only a few things about their foes anyway. Hence you can get away with an interesting boss - minions can be repetitions without a problem.

Yeah, this is some great advice. Heck, APs often do this anyway- there's often a few "generic mook" statblocks that get reused. Just use those.

Or, pull a relevant bestiary monster. Those are also pretty easy.

Another addition to my earlier suggestion of "make intelligent boss monsters act intelligently" is to have the boss attack in the middle of a battle against otherwise minor mooks. Combat is loud, and if there's a miniboss a couple rooms from combat, it's not strange that they'd want to check it out. The result is a battle that the PCs were not expecting.

Just don't use this trick TOO often. Used once, it's a memorable twist. Used over and over, it's a dick GM move.

Magical Child's problem isn't that it's too anime, it's that it's not anime enough.

I mean, I think it would work for some of the easier magical girls (I could probably make Precure and Utena work with this), but for any with memorable finishing moves, or summoned weapons like Nanoha, it falls short.

I mean, I don't disagree with that, I just put more stress on the importance of the lower levels, and I also stress that despite all that, the Druid is still a full prepared caster, it just has a weaker spell list. I think it's still pretty competitive until level 13 (and even then is still an overwhelming force in most games, just a little less so than the other casters).

I'm not saying that the Druid is better than Wizard, or a well played Cleric. Again, I do consider it a tad better than Sorcerers and Oracles though, who don't get to benefit as much from their superior spell lists.

And again, on the usability front, the Druid always has a fallback strategy of "melee things to death", even if he prepares the wrong spells for the scenario. If he gets surprised, Wild Shape, no need to worry about rogues with step up starting the combat next to you, you can handle that. He always has a meat shield willing to be between him and the enemy. And then when the opportunity presents itself, caster them all to death as usual. This may not be pure power levels in it's traditional sense, but for a player like me it's significant. I don't always prepare the right spells for the right occasion, sometimes my spell picks for spontaneous casters are awful, so it's nice to play a caster with a strong fall back strategy.

@ PK Ok, I do all of those things as a long time player almost exactly as you note them...get outa my brain with your telepathy....FOIL I need FOIL...!

In all seriousness, all of PK's points are excellent points, common sense among adventures is not always common after all...bravado and a % of reckless is required for the job, but preparation is key! :)

Yeah, I specifically mention them because I had to learn every single one of them from experience. It may seem common sense to use a wand of Cure Light Wounds, but in the beginning it isn't obvious! And nothing is more embarrassing than heading into dungeon without a light source.

And sometimes it's easy to get so caught up in how to make the perfect fighting master that you forget how to deal with situations that can't be solved with a simple 1v1 trading of blows.

The single best question to ask yourself is "How do I deal with situations out of my character's comfort zone".

And truth is, no character is prepared for everything. That's why you have a party. But everyone should be able to at least fight flying enemies, swarms, and aquatic enemies at some level, or else your inability will make a fight harder.

Oh, I forgot another biggie. Swimming. Make sure you can swim. The best way to avoid water difficulties is to avoid water, but that isn't always an option. Swimming is something every character should be able to do at a basic level. I've seen a fight turn lethal because only one character in the party could swim, and when that character got attacked underwater by a kelpie (failed a will save, lol), half the party stared blankly, not sure what to do.

Ok, here are the lessons I learned as I graduated from basic PF to more advanced games:

- Make sure you have a source of vision in dark places.

- Always have a way to deal with flying enemies, AKA always carry a ranged weapon. Even spellcasters should have a light crossbow at low levels.

- In general, carrying backup weapons is great. Try to have a Slashing, Piercing, and Bludgeoning weapon if possible. Also try to have a Cold Iron or Silver weapon (archers can use Cold Iron/Silver ammo so they don't usually have to worry quite so much). Having one of these weapons with reach is nice too. You don't have to keep them completely up to date, but having even masterwork versions of these weapons on hand is good in a pinch.

- Healing: Use wands of cure light wounds instead of vital spells per day when you can. Condition removal is generally more important than health healing. Because anyone can use a wand with Use Magic Device, anyone with that skill can be an hp healer, just have a plan for dealing with conditions.

- Always remember your basic items. Never leave home without Alchemist's Fire for swarms if you lack other AoE. 10 ft poles are a classic for a reason. Pickaxes, shovels, and crowbars are all useful. I enjoy using Bags of Flour to fight invisible enemies, even if there are more practical ways to do it.

- If your GM makes you track weight, well, Handy Haversacks are great. Before that, remember that donkeys exist, as well as hired hands. Not all GMs will allow a squire- type hired hand without leadership, but most will allow pack animals- and will probably be delighted, because pack animals add some texture to a party.

- Connections. This isn't useful with all GMs, but I treat every NPC as a potential resource- wizards and clerics are of particular value, but almost every NPC has the potential to be useful. If you encounter a swarm that's just too strong for your 1 AoE guy + alchemist fire users to handle? Time to contact that wizard you met. NPCs can also help you with knowledge- both general knowledge skills, and regional knowledge. Maybe you can find an NPC that knows something about the upcoming dungeon, so you don't have to go in blind!

- Never forget you can retreat. Now, there's some enemies that are difficult to get away from, but a lot of enemies can be disengaged from, or will give up. Retreating isn't always free, but it's better than a wipe, and if you can gather some NPC help and return better prepared, it might make a difference.

One thing that draws me towards a more imperfect hero than a Superman is skill ranks.

A paladin excels at fighting evil, healing, even using a bit of divine magic... but for day to day activities, the paladin is significantly weaker due to only having 2 + INT skill ranks. Paladins end up, in my experience, either with only a few really good skills, or a decent amount of mediocre skills.

So the mechanics of the Paladin seem to pull towards a character that excels in specific situations (places where the awesome paladin abilities are helpful, like combat), but then has trouble outside of those specific situations. Which seems like a great fit for a troubled hero who is only human but trying to be the best person he can be, less great for trying to be a superman who is awesome at everything.

Glorf Fei-Hung wrote:

Then... even IF we assume Conscription is evil (which I personally am nowhere near), merely saying it may be necessary is not performing an evil act. If the Paladin is actually the one conscripting people, then THAT would be the paladin committing an evil act.

That's a slippery slope I'm not willing to go down.

"I didn't torture and kill the prisoners myself. I just told the others it was necessary."

Of course, I don't actually think conscription is necessarily evil, so I don't think that comparison holds.

I almost feel it'd be better if the Paladin was doing it himself. That makes sure it's done as humane as possible.

I'd also probably have any paladin I had back this plan personally ensure the conscripts are well treated and considered to not be canon fodder.

And, to be quite honest, I'd probably attempt to come up with a heroic plan that only requires the appearance of numbers, as opposed to actual numbers, so that all the conscripts have to do is show up to the battle and act intimidating, while a small group of heroes perform most of the heavy lifting.

Because that's how we do it in Pathfinder.

Lack of communication is the biggest cause of problems in RPGs. Second is lack of maturity to handle communication.

Lack of rules mastery is like, way down on the list.

Knight who says Meh wrote:

I'm oddly reminded of high school.

Tequila doesn't taste bad.
Provided you lick some salt beforehand, suck on a lemon afterwards, and don't keep it in your mouth any longer than the fraction of a second it takes to swallow it.
Then it tastes just fine...

Or neutral if you want.

Just keep saying "I'm doing it for the greater good!" It makes every act good, or at least tolerable, no matter how vile.

Doing something for the greater good does in fact have a tendency to make an action morally neutral in pathfinder, provided the action is not objectively evil.

Which conscription isn't, because it's not the same as slavery.

If you disagree that's fine, but that's where your problem is.

^ Favorited that post because I actually learned something from this topic. Good job.

I think there's two seperate discussions going on here.

- Is Conscription evil in the real world, with real world morality applying.

- Is Conscription evil in Pathfinder, under the Pathfinder alignment system, in scenarios that have never occurred in the real world, like fighting evil invading demon armies.

The first is difficult to argue about. It's a complicated subject that strongly relies on personal ethics.

The second isn't easy to argue about either, but at least the definitions of alignment are concrete, if imperfect.

"Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should"

"Neutral People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

These definitions are taken from the SRD.

This seems very Lawful Neutral to me. Neutral will never actively kill the innocent, but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect others.

On a large scale, weakening a country's potential defense against a significant enemy would be a sacrifice. Closed mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self righteousness, and a lack of adaptability can all play into this as well. If you see these as negative traits, they are, but they're negative Lawful traits, not negative Evil traits.

In the end, Pathfinder isn't about your personal ethics, whatever they may be. Definitions are defined and entire societies are given labels with these definitions. And Evil in the Pathfinder context is actually really extreme and should not be given lightly!

What isn't Good isn't Evil, it's Neutral (and what isn't Evil isn't Good, it's Neutral). Shades of Grey ARE in play here, despite the fact that Pathfinder itself has the concept of Objective Good and Objective Evil- it also has the concept of Neutrality. And that, to me, is where this falls.

One of my player's characters is dimensionally and temporally challenged after a bad encounter with the outer planes. This is because he's particularly likely to not be able to make it, so his character is liable just to poof out of existence at any time : )

For mid battle additions I like to have them appear as if they were Fire Emblem reinforcements, appearing in a corner of the map in a diagonal formation. My players immediately caught on to what I was doing, and by linking it to a game where that sort of thing is common, I feel it feels a tad less artificial.

PK the Dragon wrote:

Whose saying Conscription is followed with death?

If it's Conscription-or-death, then sure it's probably leaning evil if not full evil.

But if it's Conscription-or-pay-a-fine, that's very much in the line of Lawful Neutral- it's not good, but to call it evil is very much an exaggeration. Conscription or go to jail is somewhere in between, generally.

Coercing people isn't a bad thing in itself. People need to be coerced sometimes. It's how you do it that determines whether it's bad or not.

If we're looking at historical times, "paying a fine" wasn't often a common option. You didn't get to pay a fine if you fought off the press gang :)

Even with that - now the poor common folk are forced to fight and the well-off can avoid the risk by paying the fine. Is that actually less evil?
I mentioned above the common practice of paying someone else to serve for you. How about that?

Most often, historically, it wasn't even "Conscription or death". It was just conscription. They didn't send you a polite letter asking you to report, they pulled you off the street and dragged you off to training if you were lucky. Just put a spear in your hands with better armed professionals at your backs if you weren't.

In the town defense/militia kind of cases, you'd likely be automatically considered to be in the militia and required to do the (minimal) training. If...

Pathfinder in general tends to be more progressive than actual history. I mean, at least in countries that aren't Cheliax and similar places. In a gritty realistic game, the conscription is probably going to be heavy handed leaning evil if not evil. But I honestly can't assume that about normal Pathfinder- too many good leaning nations and towns in existence, which is horribly unrealistic ; )

If it is pay a fine or go die then that makes it rich mans war but a poor mans fight.

That is absolutely a possibility! Which is totally the kind of awkward abuse that tends to be common in Lawful Neutral societies!

Remember, guys. Neutral isn't Good. Otherwise, Good wouldn't have much meaning, it would just be a "better" Good. Something doesn't have to be 100% positive and loophole free to be Neutral. Neutral is anything within the morally gray spaces between Good and Evil. Yeah, a fine that wasn't income-based would be horrible for the poor and likely would result in a poor man's war. On the other hand, it's still arguably better than outright killing people for refusing to serve (the "arguable" is a good sign we're dealing with Neutral here) That's Shades of Grey. That's Lawful Neutral in all of it's glory. Bureaucratic decisions that miss the finer points of human nuance is almost textbook LN.

I am of the firm belief that all alignments are playable. However, not all alignments are playable by all people, and not all players are mature enough to judge a character by their actions and not by the alignment on their sheet.

The specific problem of Chaotic Evil is that CE is the most selfish alignment possible. It is the combination of Individualism with Negativity, and the result is an alignment that leans towards self-centered badness. And that's a very problematic thing to have with a player in a team oriented game.

Two ways to deal with this for the CE character. One is to have a player that knows what he's doing and keeps his excesses in check. The second is to have an overwhelming need for the CE character to work with the team if he wants to be able to survive to indulge his glee in the future. A Geas, quite frankly, works well enough here. I don't normally use such heavy handed methods, but if I had a player I didn't trust who wanted to play a CE character, I'd explain the challenges, and then explain that to get around these challenges the easiest way is to put a hefty Geas on the character- if the player didn't agree, we need to seriously brainstorm a better way, or else play something else.

That still doesn't solve the fact that a CE character can be on his best behavior, and if the other players see the sheet they may still interpret his actions in the most negative way possible, even when they do good things. I've seen this happen, and it is by far the most killer to having a group with an Evil character work together. At that point, the only thing you can do is try to open up communication all around and hope that your players are mature enough to recognize they aren't being fair.

Quote:

"Because if we all go to the walls and fight the raiders we'll likely mostly survive, but if half of us hide in our homes the rest will be slaughtered and the town will be sacked and the survivors dragged off into slavery."

Yes, exactly. Great example of convincing people to do something in their common interest without forcing them to via conscription. The boundary between good and evil lies whether this bit of logic and inspiration stands on it's own, or is followed up by: "and so, I'll just kill any man who won't fight here and now and save you the trouble, coward!"

Whose saying Conscription is followed with death?

If it's Conscription-or-death, then sure it's probably leaning evil if not full evil.

But if it's Conscription-or-pay-a-fine, that's very much in the line of Lawful Neutral- it's not good, but to call it evil is very much an exaggeration. Conscription or go to jail is somewhere in between, generally.

Coercing people isn't a bad thing in itself. People need to be coerced sometimes. It's how you do it that determines whether it's bad or not.

Lorewalker wrote:

Conscription is literally a form of slavery.

Slavery is not merely being forced to do something you don't want to do. If it were, then parents would be enslaving their children for making them clean their room.

Parenting is literally a form of slavery!

The question that comes to my mind: How experienced is the player asking the Paladin to fall? While that's a big ! to experienced players, I can safely say as someone who has had experience being new to D&D in the last decade, you don't truly know how awful it is to be a paladin that falls until you play one.

I mean, I thought at first that Paladins that fell became Antipaladins. As it turns out, they just lose class features. Much less cool.

I actually really like that they get + DEX and + CON.

It makes it clear that no, these are not yet another breed of orcs. They're a tough group of monsters, but they're no supersoldiers- nor are they are scrawny stealthy goblins. They're something in between- solid warriors that rely on a mixture of finesse, brute force, and staying power. I feel that is perfect for a militaristic, warlike, yet *lawful leaning* race.

But I mean, no STR bonus just means your typical warrior type have 14-16 STR instead of 16-18. That doesn't make them weak, they're still stronger than most people, they only really lag behind minmaxed adventurers. They just aren't abnormally strong. The stats for the actual hobgoblin monster support this, with a 15 STR. It does mean that hobgoblins can see a bit more variance in class than orcs normally do- they don't have to go into STR based classes, they can pretty much excel at any combat style. I consider that a perk, not a flaw.

As for keen intellects, I think that's strictly comparative. Hobgoblins are tactical geniuses compared to goblins, orcs, ogres, etc. That doesn't mean they are smart enough for a +2 INT- giving them that would suggest that Hobgoblins are smarter than most humans, halflings, dwarves, and any other creature that doesn't get a +2 to INT, on a racial level, across the board. I don't think that's what they're going for with that line. It just means that in general, they aren't stupid, and shouldn't be treated as such.

(And the monster stats once again support this. They have a 10 INT. Strictly average, but higher than Gnolls, Orcs, Ogres, Lizardmen, and most of the other similar enemies. Goblins actually match their 10 INT, but those definitely have a different sort of intelligence. In any case, perfectly average for normal people, but above average for their monster type)

My opinion on the topic:

The party is definitely under no obligation to adventure with you- as this topic has illuminated with quite a few examples. However, I do want to point out that if a player DOES make a reasonable attempt to make a character that is compatible with the party, even if not 100% what the party would like, it's best if the party would compromise a bit. If nothing else, a new player can add texture to the story.

If the new guy wants to play a Paladin, for example. Let's use Paladins. A Paladin usually wants to work with a party, but may not gel 100% with that party's playstyle if they, uh, lean towards the murderhobo. Nevertheless, there is potential here, and if both sides are willing to communicate, discuss RP difficulties and how to maneuver around them, this can be a rich rp experience. But if the party recoils and attempts to alienate the paladin, and by extension the player, that's going to lead only to pain. Especially if the group decides to passive aggressively harass the character until he leaves (don't do this. ever. if you're going to drop a character from the group, do it and get it over with.) Or maybe in bringing up the difficulties, the new player decides to play something else -which is preferable to being forced to play another character, either directly or indirectly.

The way I see it, if the new player rejects the group's advice and opportunities to discuss the situation, and plays in an antisocial fashion, no problem, get rid of him. But if the new player is open to discussion, then it's much better for the party to work with said player than to seek to drop the character from the party, or harass the character until they leave.

I'm sure most people here agree- willingness for compromise is often considered an important quality for a group to have on this forum. However the topic has been a tad one sided in it's construction, so I wanted to make sure this was brought up- it's a two way street.

You're also missing a big point here: RPGs are not books or other passive media. If your character is an a#@$~#@, everyone at the table has to deal with you acting like a jackass for 4-7 hours at a time every week. It grates. It gets old. It really doesn't add as much to the story as you think it does.

Characters can have conflicts without a player going out of his way to make everybody miserable at the table week in and week out to make the story "better". The BEST CASE SCENARIO is this kind of character gets a quick comeuppance and is either replaced or learns their lesson...as all of my AND your examples do. This either results in an isolated incident or a revolving door character. In either case, it's just as well handled by an NPC.

The healthier conflicts (and more interesting ones) are all represented in those same media. Gimli and Legolas have a rivalry, but neither would ever betray the other. Roy and Haley conflict...but Haley also has the best interests of the party in mind, just like the rest of them do. And so on, and so on.

Ideological conflicts add more to the game without being a betrayal of trust.

Why are you assuming that people are making each other miserable?

If someone is acting like an a+!!!## because their character is an a+&*~!*, that is a problem with the person, not the character.

A vital part of group storytelling is that people are mature enough to actually tell the story in a manner that isn't awful. If they aren't, yeah, they need to tone it down.

(Note, of course, that I am in favor of the party responding to violations of trust in a way that makes sense. Having a character kicked out of the group when the group discovers they've been stealing stuff is fine by me. But for the general idea of significant conflict, betrayal, and having characters that are a#~%~*#s makes everyone miserable and don't work... that's what I don't agree with.)

Someone mentioned above about the Cyphers from Moonte Cook games, they are cool one shots that are effective and you just use them.

Sometimes I feel like magic items are like Rocket rounds in video games, you horde them till the end and never use them because "there is always the BBEG" that needs this specific weapon. Cyphers are meant to be used.

Also about the cost, everything is over costed and WBL is a funny thing that makes no sense if you build beyond 1st level.

Yeah, Cyphers are excellent. Since playing Numenera, I've been treating consumables in Pathfinder like I would treat Cyphers in Numenera, and I've been enjoying the game more overall.

Also, just throwing a vote for Automated Bonus Progression. It's not perfect, but since using it I've found there's been an emphasis on using more interesting items. There's certainly some balance issues, but the benefits have outweighed the costs in my experience.

On Scrolls and Wands: I find the general rule of thumb that all Scrolls and Wands are the lowest CL they could be hurts their use. I prefer to give custom CLs and DCs to wands I drop, and even wands I scatter in the stores. I make sure to make this known to the players. This helps item usability.

So, I did some basic building of a level 12 Fighter. With a +2 Greatsword, 20 STR, and the feats Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, and Devastating Strike, I was able to get a respectable 30 damage per round (using Donjon's Power Attack calculator) against an average enemy of that CR (AC 27), which meets orange DPR benchmarks for that level- above 25% of an appropriately CR'd enemy's HP (if the rest of the team chipped in that damage, it would be dead and a CR + 0 enemy would be defeated in one turn.). Note that this is extremely conservative, given that you can easily have a +4 weapon, more than 20 STR, Weapon Specialization, but I wanted to take the worst case scenario. With a better build I could get 45+ DPR, which is quite happy.

My takeaway is that this Vital Strike build is perfectly playable. I'm pretty sure a Ranger build could get similar numbers with Lead Blades or Gravity Bow, same with the Warpriest build, or even a Rogue build with Sneak Attack.

I'm posting this because this is the sort of analysis I do when deciding whether to play a build. I'm not an expert. This is not a comparative analysis about what is the "best" or even "better", it's just "will this build work? Will it deal out decent damage and break through DR, while allowing room for further customization". That's all I care about. If a build meets those requirements, then it's good enough.

(oh, and why level 12? I like testing builds at level 8 or level 12 because in my experience these are the levels most likely to be the end of the game. that's all. I'm sure Vital Strike will still continue to just barely hang in there as the levels get higher.)

Honestly I think there's two situations where Cthulhu would be fought:

- An epic lovecraftian campaign, in which case the GM can lovingly set up the Cthulhu encounter the way he wants to in order to provide the experience he wants to provide. In this sort of campaign, a full battle against Cthulhu probably isn't going to happen.

- An "lol let's kill Cthulhu" beer and pretzels session. Probably a one shot, or a generally less serious campaign. In which case his stats are fine.

The problem then, would be inexperienced GMs seeing the stats and thinking that they should use Cthulhu as the final boss of a Lovecraftian themed campaign. In that sense, it's definitely a trap option. But as someone familiar with Lovecraftian works, my thoughts on seeing Cthulhu went immediately to the second type of encounter, because that's the only type of session where a full slug out with Cthulhu remotely makes sense.

In other words, my reaction to Paizo Cthulhu was "lol, sweet!"

Do they keep dropping a level per death? Because it sounds like a good way for a death spiral. Or, once they die they've 'paid the piper', so once everyone dies once, there is no more level penalty?

The latter. I don't allow characters to drop more than 1 level from repeated death- the worst it can do is slow a player's development after that. I don't want there to be a level difference between any two characters beyond 1 level's difference. Note that I do give replacement characters that have died a slight (10%) XP boost while underleveled. So if they survive at an underleveled state, they will catch up eventually.

I was very aware that this rule could lead to a death spiral so I took precautions against it.

Note that this campaign is a sandbox (albeit a sandbox centered around a megadungeon), so if players are having trouble with an enemy they can always do something else and come back later. It's also a campaign that rewards smart thinking and clever ideas, and outwitting a challenge isn't based on character stats. So 1 level isn't the end of the world. I've made the players aware of how it works from the beginning, too.

I allow characters to be a level behind, but only because of death and rerolling characters. I want death to be a real danger that means something in my Rappan Athuk game.

Using XP also allows me to customize rewards slightly, which is important when there's puzzles that occasionally reward one character with bonus XP. Which there are in Rappan Athuk, though they're fairly rare.

That said, I don't penalize XP for not showing up. That just seems counter productive.

Also:

Pathfinder mechanics are biased towards combat. Combat mechanics are more fleshed out than non combat encounters (BAB, saves, weapons, armor, etc vs rolling skill checks and the occasional spell), and most of what the player defines on their character sheet refers to combat situations. Even skills often have significant combat uses.

As such, there's a bias towards combat, people expect combat to happen unless told otherwise, so adventures get made with a heavy emphasis on combat. Because combat is going to happen often, there is a need to have a purpose. Otherwise combat will get dull or even depressing if there isn't a purpose to it. A Big Bad Evil Guy makes for a great purpose. At least for Good aligned characters.

Systems with less emphasis on combat will have less emphasis on saving the world (or at least stopping BBEGs who wish they could destroy the world).

-Solve a land dispute between a settlement and a nearby tribe. preferably in a more positive way than how it usually happened historically.

-Accompany FAMOUS EUROPEAN EXPLORER as he explores the rest of the country

-start the war of american independence several decades early (expect this one to happen no matter what you do)

- fight a dragon, just because.

I feel the fact that someone is arguing that Robin Hood, the guy who Steals From The Rich and Gives To The Poor, the almost textbook Chaotic Good, is actually Lawful Neutral says a lot about the futility of alignment discussions in general.

I'm not even saying you're wrong. I disagree, but I can see where you are coming from. Just... the extreme difference in interpretation here...

These benchmarks are my go-to resource for figuring this out. I go for the green numbers, which is ~ 1/4 of an average monster's HP. The orange numbers are perfectly fine for a more laid back game, or for a character where damage is the fallback strategy- but I find even in laid back games, if the GM throws something harder than the party is used to dealing with, if characters don't at least meet orange benchmarks then the party might fall apart. Ignore the blue benchmarks, those simply serve as a good sign you may be optimizing *too* much :)

Beyond that, my rule of thumb is that you want to be able to break through 2 DR consistently at level 1, 5 DR consistently by level 3, and 10 DR as early as level 5. The green benchmarks will serve you well here.

Good is benevolence, Law is tradition. What is benevolent is not always what is traditional, and this is where problems occur.

Evil is selfishness, Chaos is individuality. Selfishness and Individuality often get along just fine. Note that the two aren't the same- Selfishness means doing what's best for yourself, while Individuality means sticking to your core values that make you unique. Where these conflict, then, is when Individuality interferes with Selfishness.

A classic example is when a villain's desire for bloodshed gets the best of them and they do something stupid that gets them caught. In those cases, there was a conflict between Evil and Chaos, and they ended up going with Chaos. Burning down the city when it's in your best interest to hide from the heroes that are onto you, for example.

The AntiPaladin's code, then, by this interpretation, is slightly biased towards Evil. The only thing that can screw an Antipaladin up is if they do something self-destructive that works against their goals, which, let's face it, is usually going to be when the Chaos Impulse overrides the Evil Impulse.

Note that this is NOT a typical 100% canon reading of the Pathfinder alignments, but I find these are the elements of alignment that are most interesting for storytelling so I end up focusing on them.

PVP isn't necessarily a bad thing if you have a group that enjoys it- or a group that enjoys storytelling and view PVP as a means to that end, which sounds like it's the case here.

This game actually sounds very interesting. I've been considering similar setups recently, like a Battle Royale type game where each player has multiple characters and some of those characters are likely to die, I just haven't really figured out the right way to actually run such a game. Yet.

My thought is "wait they have sun and moon giants?"

As far as wealth by level goes, the problem is less the significatly reduced WBL, but the fact that this is combined with low stats combined with tactics designed to counter the character. Any of these by themselves would be livable, but all three combined sounds like an extremely unfun time.

RE: Melee Alchemist

Barkskin. Cast Barkskin, it's a 10 min/level buff. There's no excuse to not have it up. That gives you +4 to your AC. Combined with your natural armor from Mutagen (+2), and a Chain Shirt(+4), that's 20 AC. If we assume you reach the max DEX a chain shirt allows (+4, if you were a bomber this should be possible with 14 DEX and +4 DEX mutagen), you can have 24 AC without items. This... actually perfectly meets the general guideline of 15+level AC for level 9. Carry a buckler to push it to 25, which should keep you ok until you get Greater Mutagen at level 12. Now, for most melee characters I prefer 20+level AC if I can get it, but the fact that this is without any gear at all outside of a MWK Buckler and basic chain shirt, means that this is actually really good AC. If you can score a few enchanted items then you may be able to front line. Oh, and if you get Mithral equipment you can push the AC even further, but I'm not assuming Mithral is a possibility.

If you go full Melee Natural Weapon Build like I suggested earlier, you'll probably have less DEX but the Master Chymist has a pretty amazing AC bonus (+Master Chymist level to AC). Alternatively, you can go Dwarf to push the Mutagen AC higher.

Then there's HP. d8s are as good as what the Magus has, who is also a frontliner. It's about 1 less hp per level than a fighter. If you shoot for 14 CON, then you'll be about as tanky as most fighters I build. With this GM, I actually recommend taking toughness instead of Dodge. It's an extra 9 HP at level 9... which may just be enough to save your life.

You can achieve a 10/14/14/14/12/7 (move the 14 in DEX to STR for a melee alchemist) on a 10 Point Buy (this is after a racial bonus), so even with conservative stats and no wealth you should be able to build an alchemist that can survive melee even with your GM. If you roll, the best way to deal with rolling stats is to suicide subpar characters until you get a good roll. ;)

TL;DR: In a low stat, low wealth game the Alchemist is actually able to be tanky enough to survive. Possibly tankier than most martials.

Ouch, this is just brutal to read. Sounds like super low point buy (or a really bad mix of stats), low WBL, and a GM that likes to screw you over.

I mean, theoretically I might be able to pull off some of these tricks if I were behind the meat shields, but we all know game masters! By fourth level, half the encounters have invisible or flying (or invisible flying!) threats that are just going to pop up next to me and ruin my day. And that's if the situation isn't a straight up ambush that begins with me being sneak attacked out of the gate!

This is not normal. I mean, yeah, many fights are going to have some sort of tricky gimmick, that keeps things interesting. But if all of the encounters are invisibility, flight, and/or constant sneak attack ambushes even if you make your perception checks, then the GM is screwing with you. And a class that revolves around taking it slow and smart and not being on the frontline will have problems.

I mean, under these rules, I think most characters would suffer. I can't think of a single class that isn't screwed over in some way, either by unavoidable sneak attacks or being MAD and/or gear dependent. Barbarian is probably fine. STR, CON, and a 2hander seems the way to go in this setup. (Carrying lots of flour for invisible enemies and lots of Acrobatics for jumping onto flying enemies :P)

yeah that is rather irresponsible of them not to have that sticker XD

I use open rolling on most things (bluff checks, stealth checks, and other enemy checks the players shouldn't be allowed to observe for drama's sake are hidden) and have never fudged and likely never will- if a die is being rolled it's usually being rolled for a reason, and that reason is because I want to say what chance has to say upon the game. I feel like if I were to fudge the dice the game itself would lose legitimacy.

That said, I strongly dislike the argument that fudging is always cheating, that's an extreme argument because, as people have stated, cheating has a negative us vs them connotation, and dictionary definition aside, the word simply doesn't really cover the truth of what's happening. So I find those who argue it is [always] cheating have taken up an extreme position that I find hard to agree with.

... I was going to write a point about Hero Points but it seems as though the conversation has shifted in that direction already, so I'll just say that I too love Hero Points and similar rules. It's much better to empower players to be able to mechanically save themselves from bad rolls, than to do it based on fiat behind their back.