Quirken's page

Logging in to a specific forum page did the trick for me. I'm now able to log in via my PC. Thought it didn't work trying to login from the homepage. Seems like there's a serious issue, and this is a workaround.

This seems to be an ongoing issue. I noticed this a couple months ago when I was activating a Humble Bundle of PDFs. And again today, when I wanted to see if I would get a discount for the PF2 Beginner's Box Foundry VTT module.

Thankfully, I found this forum post and tried logging in here rather than from Paizo's main website.

I would like to invite all participants on this thread to a private-group on FaceBook where I am developing this and other ideas for my gaming blog.

For those interested, please click on the following link and identify yourselves with a FB chat to me. I am the group's only Admin listed.

As this is a development ground for future blogging and gaming products, certain common courtesy and common sense rules apply. Please identify yourself in a chat message or PM to me with your forum handle.

If you are interested, please go -here-.

Wow, didn't think I'd ever see this thread go anywhere :)

I tried to join that group but Facebook says the page isn't found.

I like it. Plausible as long as you don't take paladin codes too seriously (deception and ambush are not honorable).

Quirken wrote:

stuff about bacon and doing something ridiculous as a technique

Hahahaha! You, sir, are quite hilarious. I don't know if that level of insanity would really be fun for my group, but I've definitely had the experience where a silly decision led to awesome things happening in the game. I'll keep that in mind, Quirken :)

-Moox

Haha, yeah, I wouldn't expect anyone else to be so crazy :)

I think my real point is if you take story too far in the other direction (the non-bacon path ;)), sometimes it becomes more of a chore than an adventure to be a DM. I think it's nice when even the DM isn't entirely sure where things are going (although it's good to have a goal and things sketched in along the way)

In my experience, the big thing is to have an idea of where you want to end up, have some things sketched out, but expect your players to end up doing something entirely different. You can always guide them along and encourage a certain path, but players don't like being forced into a given path, they like to feel like they're in control. Whether or not they are.

Chances are you'll create some epic sidequests that nobody bothers with, and your PCs will go to the pub and start a fight instead. It'll happen, roll with it.

Also! And more importantly: in addition to knowing the rules, as brassbaboon said... if you don't know the rules, don't let people get into a big rules debate. Make up a provisional ruling for the session, and look it up outside of the game. There's nothing more boring for players for one person to get in an argument with the DM over some stupid rule while everyone waits.

I'm a pretty newbie DM. I honestly don't like DMing that much, and have a hell of a time keeping track of all the monsters players are fighting, which means combat usually ends up being tipped way more towards the players' favor than I anticipated.

Like you, I'm DMing because nobody else would fill the shoes. That's how I started... I wanted to be playing Pathfinder and nobody would DM.

One thing I did after I started getting really bored... is I shunted them into an alternate plane. Hilarity ensued. Not the best thing to do if everyone is taking the story really seriously, but as soon as you throw common sense out the window, fun stuff starts to happen.

Inspired by this thread on GiTP, I had the party come across a wagon filled with 1600 strips of bacon. There was a sign that said, "Do not touch."

Obviously one of my PCs touched it, I had them make saves, and they all popped over to a parallel universe called "Sir Francis' Plane." Which, unsurprisingly, was bacon-themed. Eventually they'll face off against a bacon dragon.

Plane mechanics are kind of wonky, and it's made it way more interesting both as a DM and for my players. Everything is bacon-related somehow. Grass is blades of bacon, etc. All the NPCs are significantly overweight and sweaty and smell like bacon. There's bacon-beer in the taverns.

Best of all, there's no such thing as good or evil in this plane, due to the morally ambiguous nature of bacon. The end result is the Paladin gets to use "Smite Bacon" on anything non-neutral.

Without planning it, I ended up sending a bacon-universe-version of the party to the tavern, and my players ended up slaughtering their overweight bacon doppelgangers.

So... long story short, I've found that when you get bored, do something ridiculous. Shenanigans you don't expect will occur, and your players can carry a lot of the weight. Makes it interesting because you really have no idea what will happen.

Inquisitor works too. You can get an animal companion at your level -4 by taking the right domain (Animal i think). Take boon companion, and you're set.

Well, Torture could be Lawful in some Evil nations. And Lawful just means you adhere to some code of conduct. I'd think zealots are pretty fanatical about following their belief's strictures.

Agreed that torture could be lawful. I think the bigger difference is whether "ends justify the means" or "means justify the ends." I see inquisitors as the former - no law or personal honor or code will stop them from doing what they see as necessary. If the means themselves matter, though, then you're following some sort of conduct, as you say.

I suppose an inquisitor could be either. In the right circumstances, the difference is somewhat negligible. (LE certainly makes more sense to me than LG)

Once either STR or DEX gets high enough, I don't really see the advantage of a DEX build (+scimitar) either. That is the real reason for the scimitar build (at least dervish)

Just looking at non-touch AC... (and assuming you have the magus heavy armor feature)

mithril full plate +5 gives you AC+14 with a max dex bonus of +3, for a max of +17.

If you have a really high dex, the only armor you're gonna wanna wear is either padded or quilted, since both offer a +8 max dex bonus. Either armor with a +5 bonus gives you only +6, with your +8 dex bonus, for a max of +14.

IMO, you're better off not wearing any armor at all if your dex is that high, versus getting an armor bonus from another source. putting everything into STR will give you more damage with more feat slots, and MORE AC, provided you can wait for the full plate to be viable.

That said, I'm starting my first magus next week, so we'll see how it is in practice.

What about combat applications?

A memphit can buff the melees (enlarge person), protect from summons (protection from evil), throw down some b/c(grease)

Is the cat so good it's worth not having thumbs (lay on hands is cool)? I can't see it contributing to combat as much as a mephit/imp with the right wands.

(F.y.i. I'm not just trying to be stuck in my ways or shoot every idea down. I hope it doesn't come across that way. I honestly don't see the advantage of some of these familiars, outside of niche circumstances, things other party members can usually do when they come up. I guess that could be said about ANY familiar. Never had one before so the possibilities are really not things I comprehend yet)

I guess I'm less interested in combat applications of a familiar than I am with just general utility out of combat. It boils down to us already having a pretty strong party and my role would likely be more one of tank. That and I don't want my action economy to make my turns last way longer than anyone else's.

Enlarge person is good, but increasing my damage die wouldn't make me do THAT much more damage, and when you consider my current primary stats are STR26 and INT28, I have a fair bit of raw melee damage to begin with (and high spell DCs). The other party members could perhaps use it, but we have two major min-maxers (which the DM is going to get them to tone it down), a powerful wizard, a cleric, and a monk. (Also a sentient floating book that casts spells...)

Far as the Lyrakien goes... the exhaustion/fatigue thing is definitely rock solid, but we can already handle that when it happens (which isn't that often). The daze and UMD are good, but my UMD is going to be maxed (planning on using the magus wand wielder/mastery arcanas), so I'm not sure how important that really is (never had a familiar before)

The cat not having thumbs... that could be a significant concern. Wands are nice.

The "figure out which your character would want" is good advice, but I always figure out the mechanics of my character first and then put together a backstory that fits it. So I don't know yet whether my character loves attention or not. Given his high strength (26) and comparatively low dex (16) and the fact he's decked out in full plate, he's probably not trying to be inconspicuous, though...

For some reasons, I see inquisitors more on the lawful side rather than chaotic. Probably because of their dedicated zealotry. But that's just me.

As chaotic, I'd probably go with the Oracle class, but again, that's just personal preference.

I think it makes sense. Their religious zeal pushes them to do things like torture... which may or may not be lawful, even in their own eyes. I think Inquisitors have a very "ends justify the means" mentality, which is NOT a rule-and-law way of thinking.

That said, I think it makes most sense for an inquisitor to be NG or NE, since behavior likely would depend on context more than a sense of justice.

I've been an Inquisitor in a Pathfinder game for a while that meets once a week for about 3-4 hours. Typically the DM says "OK you leveled up!" after each session, so we're leveling up way faster than usual.

At low levels, Inquisitor was great. Lots of fun, pretty straightforward.

(I also had 3 levels in the 3.5 Ordained Champion class, which lets you channel spells through a weapon, in a similar-ish fashion to the Magus)

If you've been playing D&D for a long time and are used to juggling LOTS of options, then you're probably set. However, once we got to higher levels, I started balking at the sheer number of choices.

Do I use bane? Do I use a judgment (which)? Do I cast a spell? Attack? Channel a spell and attack? Use vital strike? Power attack? What should I have my mount do? (If you took that domain) Do more than one of the above?

My damage output was great, my character flavor was great, but I just hated trying to figure out which combination of abilities to use in combat.

Eventually I rolled a new character because I got tired of having so much to keep track of.

Just my two cents.

Shocker Lizard for the win! No one expects to see the Shocker Lizard!

Though if you are dead set on one of the other two, go dragon. Spells will be handy.

The only thing I'm truly set on is a fly speed (and improved familiar). Those two just looked like the most interesting of the lot.

Where is this "Shocker lizard"? I don't see it on the D20PFSRD, which I think means it's not in the core, bestiary I/II/bonus? (I found it in 3.5 stuff, but not PF. In any case, it looks like you'd take shocker lizard exclusively for the 2d8 shock damage. While good, the DC is only 12, and it wouldn't have much other utility, far as I see.)

Earth elementals look kinda interesting because of earth glide, but they don't really get anything else

I'm rolling a level 15 magus character for a campaign I'm in. I'm planning on taking a familiar using one of the magus arcana, and then the improved familiar feat.

I can't make up my mind between two familiars. Links and what I see as the "big" differences:

Faerie Dragon:

• AC higher by 3
  
• immune to paralysis, sleep
  
• greater invisibility, grease, silent image, sleep, dancing lights, flare, ghost sound, mage hand, open/close
  
• languages: common, draconic, elven, sylvan, telepathy 100ft
  

Silvanshee Agathion

• DR/5evil or silver
  
• immune electricity, petrification, resist cold 10
  
• land speed is 20ft faster, air speed 30ft faster
  
• commune, dimension door, know direction, speak with animals, dancing lights, prestidigitation, stabilize
  
• adds CHA to saves, can share 1/day for 10min
  
• can gaseous form but keep DR, abilities, and speed 5min/day
  
• languages: celestrial, draconic, infernal, speak with animals, truespeech
  

All in all, it sounds like the Silvanshee is better. That DR probably makes a decent difference, it's faster, and can turn to gas, which would make it really useful as a spy.

Then again, the dragon has a host of extremely useful spell-like abilities / sorcerer spells.

Recommendations? I've perused through a number of threads similar to this one: but haven't found much about what people think of the silvanshee.

Yeah, I was assuming a human form, can turn into Eidolon form as often as wants but takes a 1 minute ritual.

Yup! That's why I put it in the .pdf :)

Given this is a group effort I'm gonna transfer that to a wiki page... probably on dnd wiki, since they do lots of homebrew stuff, and this is definitely a group effort!

Anyway, far as magic items... I think the idea of equipping in human form is the best way to do it. Having the number of slots change with your form could either be very broken or just tough to keep track of.

I'm wondering: would it work to give more evolution points, but set it up so they have to be a little more spread out? Most outsiders are impressive because they're diverse. They have decent to good stats, SLAs, good sensory packages, good movement modes, etc. Should we be trying to replicate that, with some flexibility?

We could separate evolutions into multiple categories, and then each level has a max you can spend in any given category. This would let us give more evolution points

I think that's a good start. Stripping out the spell casting and the str/dex bonus leaves it feeling weak though. I definitely agree that it needs some more... something.

Yeah. Something that screams, "Hey! This class is way badass!" I'm thinking we could probably take care of this by adding to the evolution options, but at the same time, it makes the class special list worse than cleric's :P

I think changing to a set of stat mods is probably the way to go for this version. I like your start, but I think we should keep the stat mods even, and maybe not penalize the mental stats at all.

I just looked at how they differered in the writeup from a base of 10. Don't think they're great for player balance either. A level 1 buff of +6 to a stat is insane!

Let's add Fly, Linguistics, and Profession to the skill list.

Done. Haven't re-uploaded since changes are minor, though.

What about only allowing spellcasting when the planar warrior is not morphed into his outsider form?

I'd added the ability to cast spells (basically the same as the Summoner Merge Forms) while in Eidolon form, mainly because someone might choose to multiclass. Saying, "You can't cast spells unless you don't want to use any of your class abilities" basically says, "Don't multiclass. Ever."

It'd be an interesting option if that only applied to Summoner spells, but that would feel weird to me.

Here's my current PDF. I made a few additions to what we've talked about so far, so please give me feedback.

The PDF is really just the "Planar Warrior" idea. I called it an Eidolon but it's easy to change.

I took out the vast majority of the abilities because almost all of them were related to the Eidolon/Summoner pair. The result is a pretty sparse looking "Special" column.

I added an "Earthly Form" ability which lets you temporarily give up all class benefits so that you can walk around in town without causing problems, as well as a descriptions allowing you to "talk" even if you wouldn't normally have the ability to. Finally, I added some basic description of how multiclassing would work (anything that still makes sense you can use, plus spells).

As it is right now, it feels like the class doesn't have enough "oomph" to it, at least to me. Yes, it'd be kickass in melee, but barely any class abilities.

I think the best way to balance out the class while adding abilities would be to change the way the base form works. Instead of having ability scores, it should have ability score mods. I did get rid of the +str/+dex thing, but if we decide it's a key feature, I can add it back.

Anyway, I think base forms should be modifiers rather than resetting your stats. that makes it look like this... which still feels iffy to me.

Quadruped form: +4 str, +4 dex, +3 con, -3 int, +1 cha
Biped form: +6str, +2dex, +3con, -3 int, +1 cha
Serpentine form: +2 str, +6 dex, +3 con, -3 int, +1cha

I haven't looked at how polymorph works in Pathfinder, but I know it changed and that's probably a good place to look.

I wasn't looking for descriptions of evolutions in general, but of the spell-like ability evolution, which kyrt-ryder is saying was in the playtest but not the APG.

Ah! Yeah, this sounds like it would be very useful for our purposes!

I found the book I was thinking of. It's the Complete Guide to Rakshasas by Goodman Games. It's not directly applicable, but I'm going to use it as an inspiration for some new evolutions I'll whip up.

I'm going to put together a .pdf with some possibilities for such a "Planar Warrior" class. Since it was your idea, Gauthok, would you mind if I posted this new class, based on the ideas in this thread, and kept it up to date as we made devolopments?

Edit (40 mins later, to avoid double-posting):
How do you think BAB/saves/armor bonus/str/dex bonus should be handled?

I figure we should use either the BAB of Monk or Fighter (+3/4 per level or +1 per level).

Saves should be as the Eidolon gets - 2 good saves, 1 bad.

Armor bonus... it makes sense to deny someone who has changed shape the ability to wear armor, so we could keep this as it is for the Eidolon.

Str/Dex bonus... probably ought to be omitted. Perhaps just toned down so that they can increase one ability score every 4 levels (offset from the normal increase, so levels 2/6/10/14/18)? As is, a level 20 Summoner's Eidolan can have up to 24 STR or DEX... higher than a player ever would get.

Damn, it looks like that one didn't make it into the PRD. Guess I'll have to pull out my APG for this one lol.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/summoner has them too!

The more I think about Guathok's idea, the more I like it. One book which might be good for inspiration (but is closed-source) is the 3.5e third-party book The Complete Guide to Rakshasas (goodman games). If you were a certain race, you could take feats that would give you stuff like extra arms.

I had thought cast spells as a summoner, but I'm not stuck on that. Really just a matter of less changes = less work = easier for GM to see link to summoner.

If we're talking dropping the spellcasting entirely, what sort of abilities would you propose? Mid tier spellcasting offers a lot, after all.

I'd suggest further Eidolan customization/evolution options, though this is likely more work than you want.

It would be cool to have mechanics that let you re-evolve more than once per level.

Another option might be to turn select spells into supernatural abilities with limited usage.

I don't think either of the first two make up for the loss of spells, but they'd definitely help

Edit:

EDIT: also, I'm not familiar with the spell like ability evolution. Just scanned my APG and didn't see it either.

Page 60 of the APG describes 'em.

And that's the beauty of it. It's such a simple change, but it's such a dramatically different character concept!

And that simple change makes me much more inclined to want to play it, too :)

I want to create some homebrewed feats that allow people who've only taken one level of Monk to use Flurry of Blows as a viable attack (primarily, I'm doing a Monk/Rogue), but I want to do so in a way that doesn't throw off game balance too much.

I've bolded the parts that actually have my questions... so if you're familiar with the mechanics, you can skim over the rest.

The first step seems to just allow the Ascetic Monk feat from 3.5's Complete Adventurer, which allows monk/rogue levels to stack for determining how much damage your unarmed strikes do. Easy. (Is it unbalanced to just say all classes stack for the Ascetic Monk feat? So that a 11 Rogue / 5 Barbarian / 1 Monk is treated as a 17 Monk for damage calculation? (2d8 unarmed damage, vs 2d6 as written))

Next, I made modified versions of Improved/Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, where the big difference is they only apply to unarmed attacks, and don't require TWF as a pre-req, since level 1 monk takes care of that.

The normal Pathfinder Monk rules state that a Monk should treat his BAB for Flurry of Blows as equal to his Monk level. (If you look at the Flurry of Blows column, they already subtracted -2 for two-weapon fighting).

According to the Pathfinder FAQ, you then add any other BAB bonus you have from other classes. So a 11 Rogue / 1Monk ends up a Flurry BAB of +9, while a 12 Monk would have a Flurry BAB of +12.

Given that to keep pace with the Monk, this is already using up 3 feats (one to stack monk/rogue levels for flurry damage, and two for TWF feats)...

Should I require yet another feat to treat your BAB for flurry attacks as equal to your character level? Or is it fair to roll that into Ascetic Rogue? Or into the Flurry of Blows mechanic itself?

Alternatively, it might be more fair to use the relationship of monk BAB with monk flurry BAB. I've noticed that if you ignore the flurry-BAB-equals-monk-level, every 4 levels, the monk gets +1 "bonus" to flurry BAB, vs regular BAB

That is... Take monk BAB for levels
1-4, 1 "bonus" compared to normal BAB for Flurry (then -2 for TWF).
5-8, 2 "bonus"
9-12, 3 "bonus"
13-16, 4 "bonus"
17-20, 5 "bonus"

It might be better to use this in feat mechanics?

Perhaps... "For each 4 character levels you have, add 1 to your BAB to get your flurry BAB (this replaces your flurry BAB progression received from Monk)"

This would give:
20 Monk: +18 flurry BAB (+15, +5 bonus, -2 TWF = +18, which is monk standard)
19 Rogue / 1 Monk: +17 flurry BAB (+14 BAB, +5 bonus, -2 TWF = +17)
11 Rogue / 8 Barbarian / 1 Monk: +19 flurry BAB (+8 rogue, +8 barbarian, +5 bonus, -2 TWF = +19)
19 Barbarian / 1 Monk = +22 (+19, +5 bonus, -2 TWF = +22!!!)

That last example seems like it might be worth putting a clause in there saying, "Your Flurry BAB cannot exceed that of a non-multiclass monk." Think that's necessary?

Any good ideas to these ends? Or feedback? Thanks in advance! :)

Just wanted to say thanks again Noteleks ^^ we got pretty far in in a 5ish hour session. Didn't need to scale back a whole lot, but "fudged" it a bit following some of your suggestions.

Best moment was when our dwarf cleric passed out just below the surface of the pool with the keys =]

I'm trying to get my change-resistant friend to like Pathfinder (so that he'll DM instead of me =P He's very hardcore-3.5-only-and-4.0-sucks-and-I-don't-like-change), and he's bored being a level 1 Paladin, so I think I'm going to try to rework the rest of the campaign (basically the lower level of the dungeon) to be a higher CR, and just retroactively raise the player level and XP gained so far.

That should give me some experience towards making my "own" campaign, too, and make me more comfortable with Pathfinder mechanics.

Thanks again for all the advice!

It seems that he got there by being able to differentiate between Character Level and Class Level, which is something that you are either unable or unwilling to do (because then you couldn't flurry worth a damn). Perhaps you're as genuinely puzzled as you pretend to be, but I doubt it.

The rules say: "At 8th level, the monk can" not "An 8th-level monk can" And yes, the difference in reading is a difference between Character Level and Class Level.

In any case, I found my answer by looking in the FAQ more carefully.

Q: Some of the class Powers/Abilities require the player to be a certain level. Is that the minimum class levels that the PC must be, or is that the minimum character level?

A: (Jason Bulmahn) Class abilities that refer to level always refer to your level in that class unless stated otherwise.

There's no reason to be snobby about it. I've played 0 games of pathfinder to date, and about 6 of 3.5. If I was trying to trick a DM, I wouldn't have come on the forums asking questions. In fact, I don't even have a DM at present (I am about to DM my first game), and so I was trying to clarify the rules. Your attitude only drives people away from pen-and-paper RPGs.

Everyone else, thank you for just clarifying the rules and not being condescending.

+6/+6/+1

Would you mind explaining how you got there? From a balance point, that makes sense, but from a strict rules point-of-view, it seems ambiguous to me.

I think it hinges on whether you take the extra attacks as being part of the Monk class, or as part of the Flurry of Blows ability.

Flurry of Blows is not re-listed at level 8 or 15 in the monk class's table under special, whereas with something like Rogue, extra sneak attack damage is always explicitly listed there, even though it's also in the sneak attack description.

I'm thinking of multiclassing rogue with 1 level of monk.

According to the FAQ...

A monk using flurry treats his BAB from monk levels as equal to his monk level. He still adds BAB from other sources (such as other classes or racial Hit Dice) normally to this total.

So a fighter 19/monk 1 has a normal BAB of +19. When he flurries, he treats his monk BAB as +1 (for his 1 level of monk) and still gets BAB +19 from his fighter levels, for a total flurry BAB of +20.

But according to monk...

At 8th level, the monk can make two additional attacks when he uses flurry of blows

...
At 15th level, the monk can make three additional attacks using flurry of blows

Using what the FAQ entry says, would a rogue/monk get the extra attacks at the corresponding BAB?

For example... at level 8 (when monk gains an extra attack), monk has flurry BAB of +6. A Rogue10/Monk1, you'd have a flurry BAB of +6. Does such a character get a flurry attack of +6/+6/+1/+1, or +6/+6/+1?

Well, withdraw lets you move double your speed. Fast Getaway doesn't.

So it seems the only additional thing you get is that you won't get attacks of opportunity against you in the square you are leaving?

It seems nearly the same as spring attack, except you could use it against someone you're next to at the start of your turn, and you can't move before attacking.

My understanding of the core rules is that if you make a standard attack action, you can use your move action after your attack.

So where does Fast Getaway come in? The description is "After successfully making a sneak attack or Sleight of Hand check, a rogue with this talent can spend a move action to take the withdraw action. She can move no more than her speed during this movement."

How is this any different than the normal rules? Or does that mean you can take a move action even after a full attack?

Hmm, you replied while I was posing another question...

Are you sure you'll have a chance to use mounted combat in the game? It's kinda hard to work that in, because most combat doesn't take place in wide open places.

That's very true. I hadn't thought about that.

Also, if I were DM, I'd rule that you can't deal sneak attack damage with mounted combat. Charging on a huge horse at someone is about the least subtle thing you could possibly do, and provides very little time to precisely aim.

Well, the scout's charge / skirmisher abilities aren't about catching someone flat footed... they just require that you move quickly, and they're treated as though flat-footed.

Dungeon crawl? Goodbye horse.

What if I switched to a small character and a wolf mount? Is that more viable in a dungeon?

Thanks!

One further question: Mounted Skirmisher ONLY says "If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action."

Does that mean if you do a charge, mounted skirmisher can take effect?

The main reason I ask is that Scout's Charge says that "whenever a scout makes a charge, her attacks deal sneak attack damage." Unlike Skirmisher, it doesn't specify that it only applies to the first attack.

So given my above build, if both could apply, at level 20, I could potentially charge, make 3 attacks with a lance, doing triple lance damage on each (lance + spirited charge), plus sneak attack (9d6 each).

Using just a basic lance, that's 1d8 damage (x3 from charge, + extra x3 on crit), plus strength mod, plus 9d6 sneak attack damage. And that's just one attack. Throw in deadly sneak, and it's almost ludicrous. Ignoring my strength bonus and all three attacks hitting, that'd be between 90-234 damage, not factoring in the crit hit.

Hrmm, so I've narrowed down my build a little bit, but like anything in pen-and-paper RPGs, that makes it more complicated =)

I've settled on the Mounted Scout idea (w/ Human). I'm thinking 3 levels of Cavalier (as Apethae had mentioned) is actually a phenomenal idea. You get a customizable mount and +4 bonus on a charge!

Likewise, considering using a lance, which is about the weirdest sneak-attack weapon I can think of =D Since it can be wielded in one hand on a mount, would probably have a light weapon in offhand. (Two weapon fighting sounds cool but wouldn't work because lance is a reach weapon) Or is the extra damage from the lance not be worth rounds I'd be unable to do a full attack when it'd make sense (like when I was flanking)? Should I use a shield?

Does this seem like a good build?

5 levels rogue (scout):
-feats: mounted combat, ride-by-attack, toughness, power attack
-talents: bleeding attack, powerful sneak

3 levels cavalier:
-feats: 1, unchosen as of yet
-tactician: precise strike
-order of the sword (+2 to will save)

rogue rest of the way:
-feats: trick riding, rest undecided (except mounted skirmisher @ 15)
-talents: trap spotter, rest undecided (except deadly sneak @ 13)

Combine this with a high dex, combat reflexes, combat patrol, and lunge and you got some real extra swings on you.

Don't forget the pathfinder Cleave! (That is as useful for this build as it sounds, right?)

Also you should look into the Following Step, it allows you to take a ten foot movement as an immediate action and keep your five foot for the next round

That sounds great!

scouts also synergize with spring attack. especially when you find a way to get a speed of 40 feet or better. 1 level of barbarian helps in this regard. as do certain homebrew/3rd party races

Hmmm... man, so many choices! That's what I love about pen & paper RPGs!

I also let my players know that this was designed for 4 characters and a balanced party which the party was far from being balanced. I warned them they may die and worked it into the story at the beginning to add flavor. It all worked out in the end.

I am sure you and your group will do fine.

Cool, thanks so much for all the tips ^^ It's making this a lot less intimidating, plus things will go more smoothly now!

k, I think I'm getting the hang of planning this stuff :) thanks again for the help!

One more question... say they're facing off against a single creature (like the CR3 Shadow on p12). If I want to make that a CR2 creature (or at least feel like one), should I just take off 1/3 the HP (or 1d8 I guess) or something? I don't see rules for that kind of thing.

Personally I only like two builds of combat rogue, a two-weapon fighter who dedicates everything (feats, talents, magic) to getting full round attacks, or a scout.

Yeah, it seems like if you try to really get the "best of both" worlds, you're not gonna do as well. I rather like the idea of a bladed scout. It's very badass, run-and-gun :)

Sneak attack is pretty epic though, I've seen some crazy damage happen due to multiple attacks.

Thanks :)

Ok, how they figured that out is on page 398 of the core rule book. They took the xp for one creature=135 and multiplied that by 6 to come up with 810. Then if you look on Table 12-2, in the 2nd column under xp, you go down to 800 then go across to the 1st column to get the CR which is CR 3.

Hope that helped.

Remember GM'ing isn't a science it is an art and takes practice. But to give you a clue how I would run this specific encounter, I would reduce the number of skeletons down from 6 to 4 and if it was too easy add more as they kill the skeletons off. If it seems to difficult then maybe have the skeletons just stop attacking, or walk away, or even fall animated.

This was designed for 4 1st level characters so if you cut the encounters in half then add one as a general guideline I think you will be ok. You will get a feel for it.

If it helps you any this module was also my first attempt at GMing and the players want me to continue with the next module. So I take that as a good sign.

I threw all the creatures at my group of 3 and they survived. Of course I threw in a few hints like for the encounter on page 12. I had them roll a perception check to see if they noticed anything. You could have your group stumble upon that and do the check before the creature appears to help them out.

Good luck hope this helps.

Ahh, so it's based on the XP given and not the CR (table 12-3 on the same page). That makes more sense!

Yeah, that helps a lot! Thanks a bunch :)

Do you have the module yet? For if not then I would definitely get it and read it before deciding how to approach this.

This is definitely a good module and I highly recommend it but for 2 characters you may need to tone it down some.

...

Here is what I suggest. Read module first, keep them 1st level, do it at medium progression, a lot of the encounters you can just reduce the number of creatures. Do the series.

Do all of this and I think your group will have a good time.

Hey! Thanks for the advice =)

Yeah, I have the module. I've read the first half and skimmed over the rest.

I've never DMed before so while I can definitely reduce the # of creatures (since the rulebook makes it simple to do), my goal isn't to continue the series. The three of us have never done a purchased module together - all of my friends make up their own campaigns. We're doing this because none of us have done Pathfinder and I've never DMed.

I suppose if they really like it we could continue the modules, though.

Reducing the # of monsters does seem like a good way to do it - should even out to the same amount of XP/person if done right, right?

Quick question... if the stat block (on p9) says 6 skeletons which are .3 CR each, that should make it CR 5.3... why is that section rated at CR3 then?

I have a Rogue (Scout) / Barbarian (Invulnerable Rager w/ Beast Totem Rage Power Chain) / Chevalier PrC character that works pretty well.

Hmm.

I'm pretty well known amongst my friends for min-maxing the hell out of a character to the point it actually hurts me (in terms of BaB/saves) while in theory making me rather OP otherwise. (I had made a 3.5e rogue that could burrow, take 2 5 foot steps in a turn, and do a bunch of other crazy stuff. But I had class levels in like 5 different classes, plus a +2 LA template)

Dipping into the Barbarian is tempting, but the Chevalier doesn't seem worth the extra complexity. Still, having to dip 10 levels to get pounce is a little too painful... we never get that far before rolling new characters =/

Thanks for the Barbarian tip, though!

Howdy-

I'm just about to start DMing my first game of any RPG. I've gone through about a dozen 3.5e/4e D&D sessions, so I don't think the Pathfinder rules will trip us up too much.

I've settled on Crypt of the Everflame because it seems pretty popular for getting the hang of Pathfinder.

Most of the "reviews" I've seen of it, however, have parties of 4-6 players, and we'll have just two.

I could ask my friends to each make two characters, but this might not be the best path, especially since this is my first time DMing.

Other things I've considered:

• start off characters at level 2 instead of level 1
  
• use the fast character progression, start at level 1
  

What would you guys suggest? My goal is to make this be fun and challenging without having a party wipe.

Thanks a ton Bob_Loblaw and Benchak!

Bob_Loblaw: Wow, I've only read half of those and already I can see how good this can get :)

Benchak: Hah, yeah, I'd kind of locked myself into that mindset. Thanks!

I'm completely new to Pathfinder, and am about to start my first game.

I'd like to roll a Rogue with the Scout Archetype. The biggest difference between Scouts in Pathfinder and in 3.5e seems to be that the Pathfinder doesn't get extra movement speed. OK, not a huge deal (fights are generally not in a huge space anyway).

Here's my concern though... Without dipping into 3.5e stuff, it seems like there's no way to give a scout a "pounce" attack. That is, doing a full attack after moving.

The best I've thought of would be using the revised Cleave to get a second attack, which is definitely pretty good.

But comparing a vanilla pathfinder Rogue, who at 15+ gets 3 attacks (all potentially sneak attacks), with a Scout, which would only get 1 (or two with cleave)... it seems like I'd be "shooting myself in the foot" to choose this path.

Are there some feats I don't see that would give me a full-round attack after a charge, etc? Or any other way to overcome the huge damage potential difference between the two?

Thanks!

I know this is an old thread, but after finding about Secrets of Pact Magic, I wondered if anyone had done something similar for Truenamer. I arrived here.

Extremely gratified by all the responses, guys.

I will be carefully compiling and going over the work I've done plus "con su permiso" your proposals. I may publish a web PDF with altered terminology as I believe sadly none of this stuff is SRD.

...

Again, the issues of intellectual property and etc yield their ugly head.

I believe the concept of truename magic is OGL, but the Truenamer is not. In the same way that Secrets of Pact Magic really is essentially an expansion of the Binder from ToM (and has nearly identical mechanics), it doesn't actually use ToM's material, so it's safe.

In any case, I registered for Paizo solely to get involved in this thread :)

Over at the Giant in the Playground forum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/), there are currently two reworked Truenamer classes available.

Of the two, my favorite is Kyeudo's work, so I went through a good deal of effort reformatting it into PDF form.

I'd recommend you check them both out, and ask permission to rework them into your own, expanded rather than reworked, system. If not, they'd at least be good for inspiration of where to start.

Neither of these convert Truename checks to be based on class level. I don't really like that idea, because the big idea behind Truenamer is that it's a skill check vs the way magic normally works. At least, that's how I see it. These both take different strikes at fixing the Truenamer DC problem.

Anyway, on to the links:

Kyeudo's Truename Magic, reformatted as PDF by me: http://www.scribd.com/doc/20615649/Truenamer-Homebrew
(Original thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120488 )

Kellus's The Way Words Work: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90961