Polytropos's page

Thanks for the advice, all.

Due to COVID my regular group has been playing pathfinder 1E lately. Most of the group are relatively new to pathfinder, including the DM, who is more story focused.

In our latest adventure, my 3rd level monk tanked some spider monstrosity and was killed by a random critical hit. The DM then declared that because of local metaphysics, my spirit could reanimate my body. So I am back, but undeadish. As the session ended, the plan is just to meet and figure out what that means mechanically.

All of the undead templates, heck even the undead type look ludicrously good. So, any ideas on how to mechanically represent such a change without straying too far into the cheese?

Depending on your party, Diamond Soul is either stellar or terrible. It can be a very nice extra layer of spell protection. However, in a party with casters who buff you, its kind of a pain. Having to stand around like an idiot to make sure strong jaws, haste, and whatever other goodies your friends have to wind you up with stick is annoying. Combined with your good saves and evasion, that SR becomes very situational. It does not help that when you most want it, against that nasty high level caster, is when it is least effective. Still, there is almost certain to be that one time that SR saves your hide.

As for damage. Do not take a full round attack from a level 20 PC. You will die. Synergy from build, items, and buffs is so intense that a ceature of standard defenses and hit points for up to CR +5 may last a round, but will rarely last two. Similarly, arcane casters at that level have serious DCs on save or die or terrible debuffs that instantly end fights. Those are again in the realm of a round, maybe two to take about just about anything at CR appropriate numbers.

I indeed run that swarms take no damage from the initial impact of a splash weapon, but take 1 point of damage from the splash. 1 point is infintely more than 0 points.

Speaking of zero, 0 is a finite number. A ray fired at no target would target 0 targets, and thus be targeting a finite number of targets.

This is the argument, and I still don't see it refuted:

A spell that produces a ray doesn't have a Target, it has an Effect.

Stop here. The ray is an effect. Our friendly swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures. If the line were instead any spell effect that targets a specific number of creatures you might have an interesting example of bizzarre rules physics. As is, the conjunction is lethal to the argument. The swarm might indeed not be immune to the spell, but it is immune to the spell's effect. See all the helpfully bolded targets in the spell descriptions quoted above.

I run for a group of 7. We have a few esoteric theory crafters and a couple very basic players. I am mean. I have them on slow, so that their lower levels counteract their greater numbers. Doesn't slow them down much. Biggest problem they have is the control wizard's save DCs are too high, and he is too fast. Some untimely and misplaced stinking clouds have led to trouble. Mantle of the Black Rider spread over the group is providing a fair bit of oomph. I have actually tweaked an encounter here and there with a quick extra scrub or advanced template to add some tension.

My players also talked me into giving them an 18 point build. Sounds like yours can roll and then default to that. I would expect at least one person to have much better stats. All told, I do not expect them to be hurting for power.

I agree that their is a slight amount of power creep. I am not worried about it very much. The vast range of options in 3.5 already meant there is a large gap between the people who spend a lot of time with the rules and those who don't. The former Wizards employee in my game who has been playing iterations of D&D for 30 years and loves to poor over books is always going to be more effective than my wife the social gamer. Base class power creep doesn't help the former much at all. He still has much better options. But my wife gets better without having to do a lot of work. The gap narrows.

Pathfinder's setting moves the gnomes more towards the fey. Bard is a nice fit for that idea. Certainly better than sticking people with a single subset of one class. Helps that the bard is awe inspiringly good. Not on their own, sure, but there's a reason they are noted being possibly the most udeful fifth party member.

I like the +2 Charisma for Gnomes as well. It helps to futher differentiate them from Dwarves.

Some people have also commented in this thread that Elves should have a +2 to Charisma. I disagree. Elves amy be pretty, but they don't neccesarily have oomph because of it. A line of Elrond's guards don't individually stand out. Much like models on a catwalk, a surfeit of beauty only results in a new level of bland. True Charisma should stand out anywhere.

I agree that the rogue might have too many skill points now. Back in the old days there were eight thief abilities: Climb Walls, Find/Remove Traps, Hear Noises, Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, Open Locks, Pick Pockets, Read Languages. Those translated into eight base thief abilities in 2nd edition and into eight skill points in 3rd. But now, the same classic skills would be covered by Climb, Linguistics, Perception, Stealth, and Theft. With Int and possibly racial modifiers, a rogue can have all the calssic abilities and still have quite a few skills to pick. This is problematic in larger groups, where skill selection allows differentiation. My wife's rogue is an acrobat, with lots of balance and jump and tumble. Her friend is the rogue classic, with the sneaking and the lock picking. If they both have Acrobatics, Stealth, and Theft, then they are both less interesting.

I recommend cutting the total skill points down just a bit. Six poitns would still allow for all the old classic skills plus one "hobby." It would also prevent bards from complaing that rogues are suddenly the better linguists.