RunebladeX's page

So my players have gotten past the point where Nurah has planted the demon blood. Through interviews they have came to the conclusion that Nurah was probably behind it, but just don't have any evidence to prove it. Being a heavily good party they have just taken to keeping her close (taking her with them on every mission)and under close watch.

The thing is it seems that Nurah's treachery is supposed to be discovered and resolved at that point or soon after. I'm not seeing any more plots shes suppose to hatch after that point.I did have her ring the bell in the Chapel as she snuck off under stealth. The players suspect (incorrectly) she had something to do with Arles's freak out but still haven't taken any actions against her nor have they tried to redeem her. She hasn't helped them one bit in battles either. She's played it off as "i was guarding the rear, getting into position

Now this is where it gets complicated. Nurah isn't stupid and probably not suicidal. After she witnessed the PC's completely annihilate everything in the chapel, without so much as breaking a sweat, its pretty obvious the players are extremely powerful. Or watched over by the gods themselves. She knows they suspect and are watching her and she's no match for them, or even a lone PC, for when they tire of her. She suspects that not even the demons left in Drezen can stop them, especially with an Aasimar paladin of Iomodae leading them. His power attacking smite evil with radiance has just destroyed the opposition. She could easily sneak away, but she would have to face the party in drezen or at some point. She could Flee the war completely, but the demons would surely hunt her down.

The most logical coarse of action seems to be just stay with the PC's out of self preservation and avoid risk. I could have her attempt one last PLOY and make a run for Drezen. Then have her work against the players indirectly while retreating further into Drezen until she's forced to choose a side.

How would other GM's play this out? And what are some plots she could hatch without putting herself to much in harms way?

I see various NPC's add bonuses to there army. Since only one can lead why don't other PC's add bonuses to the army as well?

Mass Combat isn't a big enough thing in the AP overall that earning boons is really all that important. If you want to incorporate the earning of boons into the AP, though (keeping in mind that there's no further use of mass combat in the AP after book 2 unless you add more in yourself), feel free to allow a check of your own to determine if a boon is gained.

Or, since its a small role in this adventure,if your players are new to mass combat you could just award a boon for every victory. This would allow the players to get more familiar with mass combat and get to experience more familiar with mass combat. bonus tactics would be a good freebee to get used to more tactics.

This will be my first mass combat run since our kingmaker campaign ended before mass combat. I plan on judging the players reactions to mass combat and if they seem to like it i will add more mass combat and maybe adding some to the other books. The mongrel men can easily tire of underground life and reinforce drezen once recaptured, maybe even as a way to regain there heritage and prove themselves. The retaking of Drezen by mythic heroes might rally enough and boost moral to cause others to rush to the defense of drezen and join the fifth crusade.

Since the players dont have a kingdom, and hence BP to support an army, they could just attract enough followers for free. They are blessed by iomadae after all. Example, give the players 1BP per mythic tier per week for army upkeep. This could easily be explained as solders working for free because of there fame, donations from Churches, donations from Mendev or other countries- just to name a few. I plan on using the players old Kingmaker Kingdom as a sponsor. This will be really cool to make them see how they have effected Golarion and admire there adventures in Golarion thus far.

i wouldn't say handing them out. The feat is awarded by divine intervention, which doesn't come up a lot I'm sure. I don't think mythic feats are more powerful than non mythic feats. Actually i think they might even be weaker, since there more restrictive.

I decided to allow mythic feats, they still need to meet the requirements after all. Its a nice boost to players new to mythic rules who are having a hard time choosing between there first mythic feat. It also gave my players the chance to take an extra mythic feat that they otherwise wouldn't have taken because its not as powerful as others. none of them abused this. I also stated since the were awarded by a goddess they could never retrain it.

I'm curious how how James and others portray there demons death. I know, odd asking a dev for something un-rule related lmao. Just curious how things are run at those conventions and devs own tables.

I don't know why but I've always portrayed outsiders as melting, dissipating into smoke, exploding, and other dramatic ways not leaving a body behind. I don't know why I've always done this. I guess I just imagine an outsiders physical form is a result of the concentrated moral energy derived from souls. Once that soul is destroyed the essence that manifested is no longer there to bring it into existence and it fades from reality. Just curious if anyone else runs outsiders like this.

Claxon wrote:

Also, as a note, Wrath of the Righteous uses mythic rules which includes:

Quote:

DR/Epic: A type of damage reduction, DR/epic can be overcome only by a weapon with an enhancement bonus of +6 or greater. Weapons with special abilities also count as epic for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction if the total bonus value of all of their abilities (including the enhancement bonus) is +6 or greater.

So, if your amulet of mighty fists has an total +6 equivalent it counts. So a +5 flaming amulet of mighty fists bypasses DR/epic according to the mythic rules, which you all should be using.

Which makes abosolutely no sense as it creates instances where a weapon can bypass the EPIC DR of a mythic creature... but not something with "lesser" DR.

Even better, just look at the Golem conudrum. Per the mythic addendum to the DR rules a +6 equivilent weapon, lets say a +1 vorpal great axe, will slice through an Adamantine Golem (DR 15/Epic) like a hot knife through butter but will not mitigate in the slightest the damage to a... Wood Golem (DR 5/adamantine). Does that make sense?

...

not if it has the mythic subtype...

Mythic Subtype

Damage Reduction: A creature with 5 to 10 Hit Dice gains DR 5/epic. A creature with 11 or more Hit Dice gains DR 10/epic.

If the creature already has damage reduction, it adds epic to the qualities needed to bypass that reduction. If the damage reduction granted from this subtype has a larger numerical value than the creature's original damage reduction, increase the creature's original damage reduction to the amount of the epic DR. For example, a monster with DR 5/bludgeoning that gains DR 10/epic from the mythic subtype gains DR 10/bludgeoning and epic.

:D

Deleo:

you also have an easier option to get through DR/epic. Summon natures ally ;)

Mighty Summons (Su): Each creature you conjure with any summon spell gains DR 5/epic for the duration of the summoning. If you cast a summon spell to summon more than one creature, you summon one additional creature of the same type. If you cast a summon spell to summon just one creature, you can expend one use of mythic power to give it the agile or savage mythic simple template for the duration of the summoning.

and

Augment Summoning (Mythic)

Your summoning spells bring not mere ordinary beasts, but instead mythic creatures.

Prerequisite: Augment Summoning.

Benefit: Any creature you summon using a summon spell is considered mythic for the purpose of interacting with other mythic creatures. It doesn't gain any mythic abilities or power, but is affected by mythic spells and abilities as if it were a 1st-tier mythic creature. Additionally, if the creature summoned has damage reduction, its damage reduction becomes DR/epic.

Bestiary:

A few very powerful monsters are vulnerable only to epic weapons—that is, magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus. Such creatures' natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

Deleo according to the faq bane overcomes damage reduction.

The rules:

"Bane: A bane weapon excels against certain foes. Against a designated foe, the weapon's enhancement bonus is +2 better than its actual bonus. It also deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against the foe."

"Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction."

Core Rulebook FAQ:
Amulet of Mighty Fists: Does this allow a creature's natural attacks to bypass damage reduction if the enhancement bonus is high enough (as noted on page 562)?

Yes. If the amulet grants at least a +3 enhancement bonus it allows a creature's natural attacks to bypass cold iron and silver damage reduction. If it is +4, it allows them to bypass adamantine damage reduction (although not hardness), and if it is +5, it allows them to bypass alignment-based damage reduction.

Due to a quirk in how bane works, and the mythic epic DR rules, technically a +3 bane amulet will penetrate the DR/epic of the bane creature type:

+3 base enhancement
+2 enhancement from bane
bane is a +1 ability
=+6 equivalent

actually Ryric makes a very good point

DR/Epic: A type of damage reduction, DR/epic can be overcome only by a weapon with an enhancement bonus of +6 or greater. Weapons with special abilities also count as epic for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction if the total bonus value of all of their abilities (including the enhancement bonus) is +6 or greater.

Dr/epic is worded and functions completely differently than normal DR. And because bane is a +1 ability, that happens to increase enhancement as well,the way DR/epic is worded it counts twice. A +3 magical beast bane longsword would "count" as a +6 weapon versus an epic magic beasts DR/epic, although it would still be a +5 enhancement for all other purposes. Maybe not RAI but RAW the way its currently worded.

found this hidden in 3.5 under the animal subtype.

Proficient with no armor unless trained for war.

It Seems if as if animals were trained for war they gained armor proficiency.

I looked in PFPRD and it looks like this was carried over! i know i've seen it answered that animals trained for war DONT have proficiency in armor but thats not what the PRD says under animal type.

The thing i remember causing the most problems/confusion was charging in general. In 3.5 it simply said a mounted charge was just like a normal charge but the player used the mounts movement rate. First off a mounted charge isn't like a charge AT ALL. You have two separate beings with two separate action economies who happen to share one movement. What this inadvertently created (or maybe on purpose who the heck knows) in 3.5 you could have the following:

1) Rider on a charging mount: the mount is the one charging but the way mounted charge is worded is BOTH get the benefits/penalties of the charge. The rider also still got his own move action and could use it for a number of things and could take a standard action at the end of a charge. which also made vital strike and some other feats feasible at the end of the charge. This also created some wonky conditions because the rider technically would have moved but NOT taken a MOVE ACTION, like riding a vehicle.

2) Charging rider on a mount: This is where the rider takes the full round action using the mounts movement. The mount could take a standard action at the end of the charge or not. This is usually what my players did just because it was more believable. The rider held the lance and the mount simply ran forward and the rider struck. My players had a REALLY hard time excepting that for a mounted charge the horse had to rear and kick at the end of a charge, this goes against everything we've ever seen and would probably actually throw the rider.

3) Mounted charge: This is where the rider and the mount both charge and to what the PF errata has been changed too. The only problem with this is that if a player fails his DC10 check to "fight with mount" he can't actually perform this action.

Obviously if anything should be gained is that charging with a mount involved is NOT "just like" charging. With the above examples of charging involving a mount is also where a lot of mechanics break down. A lance for example is worded to function "from the back of a charging mount", example 1 OR example 3. Other feats are worded to work with other examples or simple state "while charging", while who is charging exactly? While it may be easy to rule that example 3 is a TRUE mounted charge some feats and class powers may have to be changed themselves to reflect this. And here is the real problem with example 3. That somehow if a your mount doesn't stop at the end of a charge and rear up and kick at the end its not a TRUE mounted charge and hence your lance wont do double damage....I know right?!

while we are at it its never stated how exactly an animal can charge to begin with since its a "special attack". It not a trick under handle animal. Does this mean my horse can disarm or sunder too? i would have preferred charge to be a trick as this would explain more. bull rush and other special attacks are later listed as expanded tricks in 3.5.

PFPRD: ride skill

Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.

i noticed this in a thread in the rules forum causing some confusion. it says you attack normally,but no mention why a check is even needed to do this which makes it confusing. in 3.5 it was listed under warhorse, yeah cause thats where cores rules should go, the monster manual... PF did away the warhorse and rebranded it.

PFPRD: Heavy Horse: A heavy horse gains the advanced simple template. In addition, it also gains a bite attack that inflicts 1d4 damage, and its hoof damage increases to 1d6. As with a light horse, a heavy horse can be specifically trained for combat with the Handle Animal skill.

HOWEVER something was not carried over that causes us to lose some understanding.

D&D 3.5-
A horse not trained for war does not normally use its hooves to attack. Its hoof attack is treated as a secondary attack and adds only half the horse’s Strength bonus to damage. (These secondary attacks are noted with an asterisk in the Attack and Full Attack entries for the heavy horse and the light horse.)

*A heavy warhorse can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds on a Ride check.*

In 3.5 a horse wasn't even able to attack AT ALL unless it was war trained and you had to make a DC 10 ride check. IF you failed the check the horse could attack but NOT the rider, hence the wording under "Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount". It refers to a rider being able to attack "normally". This causes a problem in PF because if this was left out on purpose it means "Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount" shouldn't even be in ride at all, you can just do it. Also it was never clarified in D&D, that im aware of, whether this applied to all mounts or just horse.

I just want to chime in as I've been on hiatus for a while. I missed the errata change(s) and all the excitement last couple weeks. It got brought up by a player i GM for last week.

I started playing D&D in 2nd edition and actually got to play up through 3rd and 3.5. I quit playing for years when a lot of the rules fell apart and splat books ate my house. I've been gaming in pathfinder for a couple years now. As I've been playing I've noticed some of the bugs still remain, but at least we have some new ones too ;) Hopefully players aren't too upset that mounted combat, and many things that revolve around it seem really confusing or overtly broken currently. Its been broken since 3rd edition and I'm sort of surprised this dead horse started getting kicked around again....

Maybe something good can come out of this if we start digging and sharing our findings. With more out in the open maybe some of this will resolve its self or help the devs identify where the real problem lies and what the best fixes could be. At the very least it may help GM's and players come to a conclusion themselves as maybe just one bit of info was overlooked and its the missing peace.

Some of the very things being discussed on the forums about mounted combat and feats have been the same problems with mounted combat since 3rd edition. Things were implied as being the "RULE" but never actually printed anywhere. Sections referred to terms that actually didn't exist except in passing. The rules were spread out all over and way worse than Paizo gets accused of i might add. And at times even flat out contradicted other parts of the mounted combat rules . There are a few spots mounted combat never even cover's or touches on, and honestly its probably a good thing. Im actually pretty surprised paizo didn't spend more effort on revising mounted combat in general and carried over as much as they did, being such a good sized portion of mechanics.

A lot of the problems in 3.0 if i recall correctly got twisted and seeded pretty deep into 3.5. It seemed as if designers misinterpreted, edited, misworded, revised, and developed new material with rules that they had slight variations about how they actually worked in game and rushed it to market. After a while it was impossible to actually tell what RAI was. Quite a few gamers in my area and those i spoke with at the time just adopted a lot of house rules, excepted some of the rules, and hand waved others. Over the years to current day, myself probably included,I've just excepted and remember how WE played as actual RAW. Im only human right? Anyway, i will try and post some of things i can remember that caused issues and maybe others can as well.

elemental:

Proficient with natural weapons only, unless generally humanoid in form, in which case proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.

soooo

Elemental, Earth

This hulking, roughly humanoid creature of dirt and stone explodes up from the earth, faceless save for two glowing gemstone eyes.

fluff says yes but then....

Earth elementals are plodding, stubborn creatures made of living stone or earth. When utterly still, they resemble a heap of stone or a small hill.

When an earth elemental lumbers into action, its actual appearance can vary, although its statistics remain identical to other elementals of its size. Most earth elementals look like terrestrial animals made out of rock, earth, or even crystal, with glowing gemstones for eyes. Larger earth elementals often have a stony humanoid appearance. Bits of vegetation frequently grow in the soil that makes up parts of an earth elemental's body.

they have no weapons mentioned in there entry so i would lean to they can't use weapons.

a little late to the party but my players are just getting ready to go mythic. if there rewarded an extra feat can they take a mythic feat? at first it seems so as it just says "feat" but it seems they could get hosed on account of technicality. do players aquire there ACTUAL mythic tier during the destruction or do they gain it after resting? if after resting it seems Iomadae visits them first and they have to choose there feat. Im inclined for simplicity to allow a mythic feat im just curious what others have done and how JJ would run it.

Well, I for one would rather have a optimizing rollplayer than a roleplayer like this one.

And keeping someone in the party that just drains their resources just because he's a player character is an epitome of metagaming.

i call it marriage.....:P

im a "traditional" old time gamer, so i guess im in the abnormal crowd. I dont get to play pc's anymore as i strictly Gm now. When i did i was probably more an oddity than leaning to either an optimizer or role player. meaning i wasn't really a good role player nor did i over optimize. i just played for fun and to be told the overall story of the quest. While i did roleplay from time to time i was more into hearing the overall story arc than actually playing out word for word what my character was saying. Usually i would get into character to move the rest of the party along just to progress the overall plot. I also at times avoided encounters altogether, to the ire GM and players,just to move the story along faster.

Optimize is also a relative term when it comes to RPG characters, you cant make a PC simply "optimized". Thats because each campaign, GM, player,adventure is different and everyone has there own idea what is considered optimized. Whats considered optimized in one persons campaign could be subpar in another. In example: a glass cannon could be considered optimized but would only be optimal for a pure combat scenario. On the other hand you could build your PC well rounded, combat/survival/skills, and be considered optimized to some and a weak link to others. i have no issue with optimizers nor low role players. The style i find boring and players i have the the most issues with is power gamers. Those who see table top gaming like FF tactics. Where battle is the only thing to build your character around and if it doesn't add to DPR, spell DC's, and overall combat power its a waste of a feat/skill/ or class ability and your "doing it wrong". From my experiences these types of players eventually cause problems for either myself, other players, or the overall game.

I can understand where he comes from I have a player that always argues rules but his basis is always trying to apply RL physics to how a rule is wrong. Obviously he's always wrong but it gets old.. as a gm I'm wrong on rules ALL the time. There's just so many that some hardly ever come up and when they do you realize your not really sure how it works. I'm pretty sure no one knows all the rules, including the devs, unless your rainman. Anyone claiming to I call BS on. I'm sure many GMs have made the wrong interpretation from time to time, I know I have. Sometimes GMs have to make a judgment call just to move the game along. In the end it just depends on how you handle itand correct it. I've been wrong and my players have too. But we all realize we're only human and shit happens, do it right the next time and move on. Sometimes I post in rules or advice cause me and the players really are not sure who is right or if the rule just isn't clear. But all we really expect is a larger majority of opinions to help us make our own ruling, because if your sure set to wait on a dev to rule it might be a long time or even never. Usually I try to rule IN FAVOR of the player because it streamlines the game and makes then happy. However you can bet at some point I will use that ruling for the enemy just to remind the players that it works BOTH ways ;)

I was gona bring up this exact example in the other thread but decided against it because of the whole "if its from a spell its treated as temporary etc" lol.

I think its stated somewhere that an effect has to last for 24 hours + to actually effect your stats as if it were permanent even if it isnt. As was mention ealier if it has been ruled that a magic item can qualify you for a feat then an ability penalty lasting 24+ hours can unqualify you for a feat I would say-you have to take the good with the bad. Guess the player has to keep that in mind if he's borderline feat qualifying and wants to change sizes permanently. Its not as if this would be an efficient strategy to force the effect on an unwilling character by a devious wizard....

The thing is in and of itself I say giving only a 40% discount "as apposed to taxing or cheating the party" is fair just because I would rather pay 600 gp for something than 1000. There's a lot of variables that come into play and obviously different players feel different ways on the matter. We honestly don't even know all the facts or anything about this wizard. He could be actually playing his character to how he envisions him, he could be trying to get more power creep, he could be setting the cash aside for something really expenisive he just wants for himself but can't afford yet- like a staff, the OP could very well be the only one disgruntled about the deal, the wizard may yet still be uber helpfull to the party ingame.

At the end of the day what it really comes down to is every player and character has flaws and minor anoyances but are hopefully still an asset to the party and worth having come back to the table. Somewhere a pally will get the evil eye for donating a magic item, a rogue will gladly loan his comrade money for a magic sword...for a price, a barb puts the pointy thing in the bag of holding , an unkown wizard keeps crafting for 60% cost and is still the best deal in the realm, and the party rallies on because there's grander problems for heroes to be solving and plenty of gold for everyone if you know where to look....

See, everybody is still forgetting a primary things: crafting feats ARE NOT MEANT TO GENERATE TREMENDOUS WEALTH. The guidelines for crafting state, a single crafting feat does not add more than 25% to WBL (and it scales down with more). Any economies COME OUT OF THE CRAFTERS POCKET. If the GM is following the WBL guidelines, the crafter absorbs all the "saved" gold, which does not leave a lot of wiggle room.

If folks want to play with houserules, great. But the system has safeguards in place that if you just ignore radically change the nature of the game.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items
Search "Adjusting Character Wealth by Level"

The GM isnt supposed to allow the WHOLE PARTY to double their gold. The crafter gets a bit extra, and the rest get the advantage of customisability. That's all. If the crafter has 12.5 k WBL, & you have 10k WBL, and you ask him to craft a 20k gp (price) item, THEY have to reabsorb 10 k GP, leaving them with a paltry 2.5 k gp. The advantage of the crafting feat is NOT meant to be money-saving, it's (mostly) meant to be CUSTOMISABILITY.

Here's the paizo example:
"Example: The Character Wealth by Level table states that an 8th-level character should have about 33,000 gp worth of items. Using the above 25% rule, Patrick's 8th-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item is allowed an additional 8,250 gp worth of crafted wondrous items. If he uses his feat to craft items for the rest of the party, any excess value the other PCs have because of those items should count toward Patrick's additional 8,250 gp worth of crafted items."

What your forgeting is those rules are from ultimate campaign- an OPTIONAL book, your shouting it like its core raw. Like you said there guidlines. I doubt if the OP's GM thinks downtime rules is to complex than wpl is probably too complex as well.

Honestly a lot of these posts just sound like children bickering. The guy is free to play his character however he feels just like everyone else. So he's playing a slightly frugal CN wizard. That's not only his choice its his right. Just as its everyone elses right to go to another wizard for crafting. He's not stealing from the party, he's being completly upfront and honest about his terms and your free to have your character except them or not. This is no where the same as CHARGING to have a fighter use power attack or a cleric to heal. It wouuld be more equal to someone else telling you when and who you your allowed to power atack or how many heals you can prepare and on who and when you can heal. Because that's what its seems everyone is implying about the wizards craft feat- the party decides who he crafts for, when he crafts, and how much he can charge or he's somehow not a team player and cheating the party. I would hate to play a paly with some of you guys cause I would get kicked out of the game for donating wealth to charity and cheat the party out of all that gold that could have been used for something else...but that some how different I suppose....

I'm not sold one way or the other quite yet. I believe temp ability damage from a spell wouldn't make you lose a feat per ability and drain rules as the the posted link. However, enlarge/reduce person simply state you physically change size catagories and then follow that statment by listing the effect of changing a size. No where in the link does it say treat size changes as ability damage, or ALL spells for that matter. The spell does not directly do damage to an ability score it simply changes your size catagory.

If you're human, you could take the feat that allows you to gain both an extra hit point and an extra skill rank as your favored class reward similtaneously.

What feat is that? That's better than toughness.

Why are you determined to nerf the witch? If she chose a sorcerer then she would have gotten to pick her spells. Downfall of a witch or wizard is they actually have to pay to learn there spells, if you only allowing spells you want her to have your nerfing a basic class feature and railroading her build for her. Items under 500gp are suppose to be readily available because there more necessity items than anything else. Like healing potions, cure scrolls, and scrolls to learn spells. She's free to learn a few spells as she levels up anyway so your just delaying the inevitable anyway, she's already free to pick a spell she really wants.

Being as she's a solo player anyway she going to need more options as she doesn't have a party to rely on.

I agree the 25 point buy is scewing a lot of things. My kingmaker campaign also used a 25 point buy. Magic items are a given in kingmaker, so much so that its not unheard of for players to basically get unlimited items through crafting during the app. With aps being based around 15 point buy that's the base points for creatures in the beastiary. Basically if you want it to be somewhat challenging your going to need to rebuild every monster stat with a 25 point buy with NO change to CR. More monsters just won't cut it outright-trust me. I found even adding the advanced template and class levels to all enemies pcs were still able to plow through encounters +3 and even +5! If you start rebuilding monster with a 25 point buy with no cr increase it then allows you to still add advanced template and class levels to even the turf. Its a lot of work but that method should put encounters back on par. You don't have to do it for every creature but a few built up random monsters stats can be reused and leutenants and bbeg should use this method.

Fizzygoo wrote:

Spook205 wrote:

Fizzygoo wrote:

Ahh, here I see the kiting. Opponent moves into 10 ft. reach and goes on total defense. Reach-attacker makes a standard attack and moves back more than 5 ft. or can make a full attack and take a 5 ft. step back (now 10 ft distance between the two of them). Then all the opponent can do is take a 5 ft. step into threatened area and go on total defense again (at which ranged attacker with rinse and repeat) or move 10 ft. in, be on the receiving end of an AoO, and get to attack...at which point the reach attacker has to decide whether to withdraw in order to set up the scenario again or just 5 ft. step back, attack, and start the dance.

Right! The pole-arm guy has the advantage up until the normal melee attacker takes the gamble to risk the trips, AoOs and whatever, to get adjacent. Then all the reach weapon guy can do is withdraw and hope.

Its the gamble thats the big deal. CMB vs CMD isn't perfect (especially when you realize who's doing the charging most of the time is another full bab class).

The pole-arm guy gambles on beating that CMD and getting a second attack off the trip, but if he trips successfully, he also earns a full attack on his next turn unless his opponent uses a move action to get up, and another move action to move in five feet to right in the guy's face.

Pole-arm fighters built around the AoO progression are 'I sacrifice effectiveness on my turn, to hurt you on yours when you try to hurt me.'

But a rogue who can slip in and sneak attack and rob their AoOs, or an archer, or a mage, can just laugh that all off.

Except your forgeting one thing. The none reach attacker doesn't have to take a 5' after getting up to just get in his face. He can get up as a move action, take a 5' step to close in and also attack. You can take a 5' step when you have not performed no other movement, this isn't the same as performing a move action.

A restorer would be a craft per say. A conservator would probably be more of a professsion. However a conservator could probably do some of repair work himself as I'm sure he's aquired some crafts over the years but would have an eye to realize what he could do himself or have to comssion out. In order to truly restore something correctly you need to be skilled in the craft used to create it. That's why the best restorers are skilled in multiple crafts irl. To restore an atique chair for example you would need someone skilled in woodworking, upholstery, and possibly metalargy OR you would need 3 people with those skills. You would also need a conservator to determine if a peace needs refinished here, replaced there, stripped, or just repainted. restoring is a trying to make everyone happy role, some collectors prefer an aged look, others prefer a truly functional antique, others want a like mint. Unless they have a specific buyer a conservator has to decide what work to do for overall value to a varied market standard.

With that said this is a game and rl doesn't translate well to crafts and professions, most people for example have more craft skills and profession than pcs get per level. A restorer really wouldn't be good for a pc imo as it requires a lot of skill and experiance. Its one of those things were it would be better left to an NPC who has the years to dedicate honing numerous skills and not something and adventurerer "does in his free time".

If your still insistant about letting your player do this you have to ask him what he's trying to achieve mechanically. If its just fluff for instance just let him take a craft or profession "conservator" and be done with it. On the other hand if his master plan is to restore antiquities to increase item value through the roof I would be very weary of this. In the latter case you could have him make profession:conservator checks for wages and simply add the value to the item restored. Or he could say use craft pottery to restore the same value as a profession to say an old vase but not a painting.

This isn't the first time I've heard of cramped space. Typically it seems most indoor caverns/rooms in advnetures I've noticed are TINY. From experiance I typically double the area and this has worked best almot every time. Not only does small space leave battle too static it doesn't leave any room for extra monsters if you use a higher point buy or larger party, doubling the areas solves most that.

Generally I would say the summoner shouldn't get any experiance for creatures defeated by her eidolon while seperated. This could raise concern for pcs with summoned monster however. Would a master summoner get xp for sending her summons ahead? What's the limit if no, line of sight?

In this case however I would probably take the total xp and just devide it evenly between all players. This is because it was a time issue and they DID overcome the dungeon as a party, regardless if they split up or not. This will also show no favortism and keep everyone at the same pace. Its just the easiest fair to everyone approach.

Also if you really think about this isn't a cheap way for the party to get extra xp- if they had the time they would have propably cleared the cave together in the end= same xp...

So is this supposed to help fight the magic wal mart syndrome?

No this is to help explain, visualize, and provide paizo support for for magic item shops in golarion down to sample shops and shopkeeper personality. It must be because so many gms, besides myself, have trouble visualizing in a world of fantasy that there actually ARE magic marts. Which is odd given the fact some of the things gms imagine into there worlds (g).

I myself always welcome more goodies to hand out...or sell.

One thing to keeps in mind I don't think swarms are effected by spells that that target a single individual, this would go for for self spells and abilities as well?

I don't think whether or not things ping on dectect evil should factor into the paladins moral choices at all. It's a really low level divination spell, and really easy to fool. And it takes the paladins own judgement out of the equation. In games I run, a paladin who thinks someone pinging on dectect evil means it's okay to kill them will be losing their powers quickly.

I disagree. Detect evil is a tool for a paladin. While it shouldn't be the ONLY factor in his decission making they should be free to use it as part of there judgment call. I think its important at lower level since DE was changed to only have higher level aligned npcs, clerics of evil dieties, or evil outsides to only ping in the first place. At level 1 if someone pings at all there probably not just organizing for a bake sale. Like I said it shouldn't be the only factor thoough. More like a peace of the evidence. As stated above though they player isn't killing anything that just pings, he took the evil cultists alive. But when you look at the evidence he was in the right to kill them. They were evil cultists, complete with unholy symbols, and they did try to kill him. With the theme of the ap and the location being a devil worshiping cleric in itself could be viewed as treason as well.

Wow thanks brad! Were did you find the Iomedae paladin code at?which sourcebook is it from?

I considered letting the player play a judge dred type role which seems to fit an Iomedae paladin fairly well. Redeption doesn't seem to be high on an iomedae paladins list though. I think with there HONOR and JUSTICE aspect this might be a good option for a medeival honor dual. A dual to the death to prove ones innocence or faith in the will of the gods. I'm not too sure an evil devil worshiping priest deserves such an honor though.

I guess that raises a good question. What are some imaganitive ideas for a paladin of iomedae to deliver a death sentance in and honorable and just way?

Ok first this is not one of those classic threads of straitjacketing the player paladin and stripping him of his powers. I have a newer(ish)player to PF and his first at running a paladin, of Iomedae. From what im seeing from him, previously an oracle of battle last campaign,is he's generally running a "find all evil and kill it philosophy". While this actually works out pretty well for say a pali of iomedae it might play out differently for say, a pali of Sarenrae.

Now the first issue popped up yesterday. WENDUAG was hiding in the refuse closet and popped out sniping the wizard. Everyone rushed in and WENDUAG was quickly brought down to dying. The wizard, smacked down a bit, for spite continued to just cast BLEED on her. The Pali let him do so, searched her, and then was going to kill her. He knew she didn't radiate evil- i wasn't sure she should even though she worships baphomet she has no spell power yet so is she really radiate the same evil as a cleric? I simply told him being a worshiper of Iomedae it might not be the most honorable thing to do. She's beaten, unconscious, and helpless. I wasn't going to strip him of his powers or anything but figured this was a good time to bring up (early)the whole paladin code and let him get a precursor to possible moral dilemmas that might or could arise later in his career. With some griping and moaning he decided to stabilize her and tie her up. He later also took prisoner 2 cultists (bapmomet and Deskari)and Hosilla, who did ping evil but were put to sleep. These i would have actually been ok with putting to death. I think he took my "not to honorable to kill a helpless person" to the extreme. while i think this would be perfect for a pali of sarenrae a pali of Iomedae..not so much.

So i guess what im asking is what would be a good code for a beginner pali of Iomedae to maintain giving were this campaign takes place- the worldwound,and given that the city isn't in much of a state to actually maintain much law and order for trials and such. Also what aspects would take precedence for a paladin of Iomedae- Valor, Rulership, Justice, Honor? Good before law? While im sure some code issues will pop up from time to time it probably wont be anything major because of the AP. I'm not a stringent GM but i do want the player to have a sense of SOME code and to experience it, since paladins do get some pretty good opportunities and powerful treasure this AP. I don't want him to have the mentality to ping evil and murder everything on the radar with no recourse, being a herald of JUSTICE after-all and that it could very well get him and the party killed in the final book.... Also i feel the paladin is no longer the absolute goodie two shoes he was in the earlier editions.

I'm a little confused on the actual bonding. The item description is kind of confusing. I'm on my phone on my way to my session. The weapon automatically bonds to a paladin but in the descprition it says this happens during a curtain fight. So how and what is this bond. Bond is used as fluff, the paladin bonded weapon class ability, or something else. I need a little help. How does the weapon function as soon as its found by a paly? What exactly else happens during the quoted battle? Was hoping to get a response befor my game as it will be found, or not this session.

Since I actually ran my last PF campaign with a 4d6 type method which equaled out to around a 28 pb in the end I can chime in with actual RL advice. Its not as simple as simply tossing on advanced templates or adding in extra monsters to BALANCE it out. In the end it just doesn't work out that way. What I found out was some encounters it worked out but more often then not they where eaither still to weak or just worked to well for some making them grossly overpowered. I also found that this works way better for melee types and underminds spellcasting. In example saves never seemed to scale right and seemed really wonky saves seemed to always be made on both fronts. I had to tailor EVERY single monster in an app, which is a lot of work for even a GM with 20 years in the field. I always found myself alwyas trying to find that sweet spot for moding npcs and monsters with adcanced templates, increased cr, extra class levels to the point it became rediculous. Advanced ogre barbarians, advanced fae rogues, half dragaon minotaur rangers. It got to the point yes I could hit it right a few times but players were always on edge and never really knew what they were truely fighting. Plus it was damn near a full time job doing all that modding, in the end it was just to much work and hell for me. Plus in the end if your just upping the enemy power level its basically just creating extra math. If players get a +4 then enemies get +4 for balance. Why not go with pcs get +1 so enemies get +1 so now the game moves faster cause there's less bloat to add up. Also if your players are new how are they supose to get used to pathfinder if the party wizard is as strong as the average ogre or the fighter is as smart as a naga, because monsters use a 15 point buy, which is exactly why the apps are written for a 15 pb. Another bad thing about rolling stats is players are very unequal. So even if a moded monster is just right for one player it will destroy another pc and makes tailoring encounters even harder. Now that I'm running a 20 pb no stat can go under 10 the game runs smoother and my prep time is reduced to a fraction, which is huge when you have... a job. Unless you plan on making gming your full time job then my best advice is to go 15 pb atleast untill you and your players learn and get used to PF.

Seems the more you read into fabricate its seems the answer is.... maybe. I guess its a good question. Its seems like the implied use is for cheap items that you need to make use of. Actually the more I read the spell I just don't like it and will probably just ban it. The spell is just to vague and left to too much interpretation. In the case of gem cutting its an art to turn a natural stone into a gem. While I think it would be reasonable to allow turning diamond dust into an equal value uncut stone that could then be refined with the skill using it as the base matieria,l this opens up a can of worms. I don't think the purpose of the spell is "I cast magic to gold". In the example about wool to clothes, could you turn wool into a royal outfit? 50 pounds of iron into fullplate?

[edited]

4. You don't CRAFT gems. That's why there's no craft (gem) skill. DnD / Pathfinder have never considered gems to be "crafted". From the RAW perspective, it makes no sense that a craft check would be needed to make a diamond. There is no craft (gem cutting) skill, nor has there ever been. Even in the real world, gem cutting involves removing the...

Actually your wrong on that one. this is from my ACTUAL 3.5 handbook. though this does not show on any of the website entries.

D&D 3.5 actual players handbook.

Craft:
You are trained in a craft, trade, or art, such as alchemy, armorsmithing, basketweaving, bookbinding, bowmaking, blacksmithing, calligraphy, carpentry, cobbling, gemcutting, leatherworking, locksmithing, painting, pottery, sculpting, shipmaking, stonemasonry, trapmaking, weaponsmithing, or weaving.

Gemcutting has been a stapple in D&D for quite some time now, and often used by rogues in my older campaigns. there where even races who got bonuses to gemcutting, svirneblin i believe...

as for the rules, there stated very clearly in craft.

i would say a diamond is a Complex or superior item because of its value relative to other items and therefor a DC 20.

*In some cases, the fabricate spell can be used to achieve the results of a Craft check with no actual check involved. You must still make an appropriate Craft check when using the spell to make articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship.

Since a gems requires a high degree of craftsmanship a check is still required.

1. Find the item's price in silver pieces (1 gp = 10 sp). a 25k diamond is 250,000 sp!

2. Find the item's DC from Table: Craft Skills. Superior= DC 20

3. Pay 1/3 of the item's price for the raw material cost. 25k diamond require a large hunk of uncut diamond valued at 8,334 gold.

4. Make an appropriate Craft check representing one week's worth of work. If the check succeeds, multiply your check result by the DC. If the result × the DC equals the price of the item in sp, then you have completed the item. (If the result × the DC equals double or triple the price of the item in silver pieces, then you've completed the task in one-half or one-third of the time. Other multiples of the DC reduce the time in the same manner.) If the result × the DC doesn't equal the price, then it represents the progress you've made this week. Record the result and make a new Craft check for the next week. Each week, you make more progress until your total reaches the price of the item in silver pieces.

obviously a diamond is not going to be created in a week. if we assume a check of 20 each week it will take 625 WEEKS to craft a beautiful 25k diamond and 8,334 in raw materials.

This is what im unsure about. i THINK a fabricate spell can only be used in PLACE of a weeks worth of work- since it requires a DC check a week. so a 25k diamond could be created with 625 casting of fabricate. basically either a player can play the game adventuring or retire and craft gems.

Back to the OP i dont think it's within the rules to use fabricate to craft diamond dust into a diamond as crafting a diamond requires raw material of an uncut gemstone ( a raw stone). HOWEVER with how long it would still take to craft the diamond i dont think it would be overpowered to allow diamond dust to be made into a diamond raw material, uncut stone, with make whole but this is not RAW. i think diamond dust is still treated as a gem though so you could possibly trade diamond dust for equal value uncut stones or cut stones at a 1:1 rate.

This was posted in the rules forum so instead of everyone jumping to conclusions and posting opinion the crafting rules should have been at least looked over before answering. i feel the rules are fairly clear and that my interpretation of the RAW is correct- this time lol. However im sure there will be some who will state how im wrong or just dont like the answer. In that case at least back up your claim with actual writing from the prd like i did. hope this helps.

I don't see anything wrong with the idea that players who play through the levels rather than start at a given level SHOULD have more wpl. The only issue I see is the disparity should be MORE. Players should be rewarded for sticking with there pcs from lower levels, and they shouldn't be expected tohave sub optimal items either. If there are no incentives to stick with a pc the players would simply retire and create new ones when convenient. Not only would custom equipment be a reward to do so but players could also phase out abilites that no longer are worth having at higher levels and have better pcs than those who stuck it out. These numbers also don't take into account slow progression, which gives way more wpl, and high fantasy campaigns. I think a math chart showing wpl for slow progression vs fast would raise some eyebrows and find more players excited to go that route.

As others have mentioned WPL is also the minimum and abstraction. WPL is like minimum wage. Just because that's how much everyone should atleast make per law doesn't mean that's what everyone should make period to make life enjoyable.

As a gm I only use wpl as a guide. I often use way more and it varies per character. Some classes are stronger than others. As a gm custom items give me a good way to help balance out pcs. Take the monk for instance. I think there weaker than most classes and a monk pc might have 2x the recomended wpl compared to other pcs in my games.

As a gm I think this is just bad gming. Yeah the players made some poor and inexperianced decessions but are they inexperianced players? Even if there vets most players will be under the impression that the encounters are winable. A cr 5 encounter over them is not generaly winable unless the party is overinflated powerwise, high point buy and high magic items. At level 1 players are extremely squishy and really shouldnt even be pited against an epic encounter until they level up and get more hp. While the players made some poor decissions I feel you made the poorest of them all. The CR is just way to high. You could have left better clues, a dead human patrol with obvious goblin tracks indicating 20 strong. An accurate count could have been made with a survival check. You could have split the warband up. A four member scout team sent ahead. And also the warband should be a mix of infantry and archers. Overall it just looks like your out to punish your players andnot really there to provide an enjoyable game, which reflects badly on all us GMs.

I was curious what apps people find most helpfull and actually use? As a gm I find the the pathfinderopen referance most usefull but on a players side I could see the character sheet apps most used.

Just wanted everyone to know that the number of pathfinder apps on the google store is getting up there. There getting quite pupolar with my players and even helping me as a gm. There's character sheet apps, rules apps, and more.

I just figured I would chime in as well. As an avid smart phone user I find the dolpin browser works well for me, and its free. I prefer a non mobile view and you can save your password too. Also it works well for the the prd.

There aren't any RAW on this, so by RAW you'd have to identify the creature to know it's type. I would however describe the creature and let the players assume what they will, and in most cases their assumptions will naturally be correct. This mimics real life rather well. If you aren't an expert on things you are going to assume stuff and most of the time on the easier questions you will be correct, but there will be exceptions.

THIS.

Knowledge is something you know or don't know based on the skill check. Without identifying the creature you can't be sure of anything. BUT your pc is free to assume what he wishes and properties of creature types would be common knowledge to adventures. Just because it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck doesn't make it a duck in pf. it could be anything. Now if the player chooses to assume its an animal because he feels it is, he's free for his pc to atack it as such without metagaming.

In my campaign I roll knowledge checks and other checks secretly. Though a player is also free to actively make a check himself.

If your so sure its a mushroom then attack it as a fungus. But don't be suprised sometime when it ends up being an outsider or say... an eidolon.

Repairing Magic Items Repairing a magic item requires material components equal to half the cost to create the item, and requires half the time. The make whole spell can also repair a damaged (or even a destroyed) magic items—if the caster is high enough level.

After reading this it apears a player can just pay a wizard 1/2 the price of creation (which around 1/4 purchase price minus the items material value) wait the required time and voila the item is fixed if you can't find a 20+ cl make whole spell. I'm not sure how it is achieved but since it refers to item creation cost and creation time I would assume items creation feats are used. The rules don't say but it seems to be implied. I could see 2 possiblilities.

1) a npc or pc can simply pay the gold and recraft the item back to normal at double pace. Since there is no mention of a DC ANYWHERE only time and money is needed and no check is made.

2) a normal craft check is made but failure just results in wasted gold and time.

I think I will use 1 and 2 in my games. 2 for if players want to repair really fast. I'm gona allow taking +5 on the DC to reduce the time to 1/4. Half the time for normal repair rules and another half for the +5.

Could the Ultimate Versatility general mythic power be used to change an archtype or to undo one? I'm thinking no as I don't think an archtype is a class feature but honestly I'm still getting used to archtypes. Since I created the thread though and I'm pretty sure the answer is no what are some class features that would be a good use of this power or what have others used it for?

As a gm all options are on the board. As a gm not only do I feel its my duty to tell a story but also to teach players the rules of the game, esecially new players. And most people learn best through example. If gms only use "swing your weapon and roll a d20". Then players may never realize there are other options available or if there effective in combat for a melee pc. I use sunder, disarm, bullrush, trip, grapples etc. And seeing them and now understanding the rules players do to. And now that my players have had a weapon destoyed they don't dump all there cash into one weapon. Same as different DR. My melee pc's almost always have backup weapons of B/S/P for more reasons than sundering and a ranged weapon as well. Also there likely to use cash for stat manuals, stat belts, resistance cloaks, etc than say dumping evrything towards that ONE magic +5 sword than can be lost,broken, stolen or other wise removed from the game.

On sundering, there are quite a few times that actually using it MAKE SENSE. I often have at least one player who maxes ac. Would any intelligent npc keep hammoring at a shell and missing while the party pepers him? Sometimes an enemy can't hit a pc but could if he cracks his shell first. My BBEG wizards OFTEN have guards instructed to sunder pc's, why wouldn't a genious? He cares not if his minions die. But he does care if he can prevent a well armored group of adventures from reaching him well armed.

The problem with not using all the rules available as a gm your effectively pulling punches and creating uninformed or mentally unprepared players. I like the "kids" statement. Your preatty much raising them in a vaccum. This can be a big problem at higher levels were tactics and planning play a bigger role. Or for other gms who take in new players who were babied in other campaigns. I prepare my "kids" for the "real" world. I teach them by letting them play in the mud, fall down, cry, not run out and replace broken toys, planning ahead, responsibilty, and learning from there mistakes. This makes stronger, better educated, and wiser players in the end and in the long run not only is it still fun but helps teach players valuable life skills for the real world.

well most have covered most things well enough but i will just address some "food for thought".

On the note of crafting, why DIDN'T the players take crafting feats? Does RotRL adventure path not allow the down time? Most APs aren't on a forced time frame but being the first AP and not running it i don't know. Were the players not made aware they would have the time to craft? OR, did the players simply choose power feats over crafting feats? If they chose not taking crafting feats for more powerful feats then i would say they chose feats over magical equipment and should have to accept it. They had feats they COULD have spent if magic items was more important than raw power. This route seems more like the players want to have there cake and eat it too.

As for just breaking the Town limit and giving the players what they want. You might want to be careful on this one. As the first time you do this for the players they will begin to expect it. And not just this campaign either! If this is the only path your planning on running these players through then it's less of a worry. BUT, if you have plans to run another BE PREPARED next run for.."but last campaign there was no town limit" or "how come come i can't buy mithral armor here in shanty town at lvl 3, last game we didn't use town value". just saying!

There's a few ways that you can give players what they want without explicitly catering to there every whim. Here's a list of some of things i do.

1) always have a wishlist from players. Ask them to update it every level. This gives you an idea of what exactly players want throughout there entire career. Usually i ask them to give me a list of 5 items within there range. while i might not throw in there first pick there's usually an item from there list in every adventure for each PC.

2) edit the items of NPC's and treasure to include items from the above lists. while this adds a little disbelief it's more believable then "Hi i'm random merchant bob. i happen to have everything you happen to want.."

3) Just because the town item lists says your SUPPOSE to roll for magic items doesn't mean you have to. Throw in an item or two from the players wish list. This is much easier believable if its a common or well known item such as a +3 cloak of resistance than say... a +2 agile elven curved blade with Toranis the brave engraved on it ;)

4) USE quests! Diplomacy and gather information are great ways not to award items but to find out how or where to find such items and open up side quests as well. In the above statement about teleporting to Absalom it could be played out. Ex: player gathers information: Shopkeeper- I don't have the item you seek but i DO know a wizard who can teleport you to Absalom without error. If you go there and retrieve an item for me i will pay for the trip and offer you a reward upon your return. As a bonus I'm sure you can find what you seek there. Old Kern might even be able to locate your item beforehand..."

Ex2: Kern the wise: "alas, there is no-one in the relms that i'm aware of that has such an item. BUT, in the cavern of the lost Idol, a forgotten place only known to myself, there is rumored to be a gem of immense magical power. If you help me retrieve this gem i will craft the exact item you desire! i will even let you keep any other treasure we may find. (unbeknownst to the players are a few other items lower on there list).

The possibilities for quests like this are only limited by your imagination!

just some food for thought.

well there's a lot of people freaking out over this so lets take a deep breath and chill...

Now, to answer the OP, according to RAW YES the dragons ability effects CATALYSTS. Some may not like that answer but it really only matters how you as a GM or your GM handles it.

Some of this has been addressed so i will reiterate some and bring up some other points. First as mentioned each vial does gets a saving throw per RAW. While that is a lot of rolls it's up to the player and GM whether he wants to play out each roll. You could agree on each or every 5, 10, or 20 vials etc. Or use a dice roller and insta role all at once and see how many are left.

Also it says right under the alchemist that he USUALLY prepares enough catalysts for each bomb. In this case i would say this is the norm UNLESS a players explicitly states otherwise.

I see a lot of freaking out about how this completely strips away all an alchemists class abilities but i think those who addressed such are WAY over reacting. The odds of all vials failing a save are very low. Even if the vials do fail all there saves the alchemist does not LOSE his bombs for the day, he only loses his catalyst- when he makes more catalyst he can use his remaining bombs for the day. Hopefully by the time the alchemist is high enough level to take on an ancient black dragon he's going to be wise/smart enough to keep some of his Catalyst and goodies in an extra-dimensional space such as a bag of holding or handy haversack, which will keep them safe from NUMEROUS other accidents. Worst case scenario (extremely low odds) the alchemist will lose all his catalysts and hence his bombs FOR AN ENCOUNTER and all his mutegens and magical potions for the day. Bad thing about a glass cannon is sometimes...they break like glass. I take that back, worst case scenario the dragon could slay him outright...

Best advice? everyone should learn from this and make a handy haversack or bag of holding a priority for an alchemist and problem solved! Hopefully Gm's are destroying a few vials during a players career so there made aware there not indestructible, you might not want to carry all your eggs in one basket.

slade867 wrote:

An INT of 7 is a -2. They are only 10% dumber than the average person. We are NOT in "Hulk smash puny human" territory.

A -7 CHA, even if we assume controls your physical appearance, is only 10% uglier than "average". So, not being able to even make the Diplomacy check is suspect, to me.

Finally, reason! :D

First off an INT of 7 is a -4 penalty. Second if 10 is average how is 7 only 10% less intelligent than average when the average is 10?? Ummmm This isn't reason at all its actually the quite opposite!!! So what score would be a character with a constant stutter or terets be? Or Int of a "hulk smasher". from what im hearing it would have to be a score of -3 or so. to each his own i guess.

like i said before if a player wants to play a strong champion tactician then i expect a positive STR and INT or WIS. If a player wants to play a gnome sexist racist i expect his chr to probably be on the low side. If a player describes his PC as wise as the gods i dont expect to to see a 7 wis. If a pc says he's going to play a leper who is constantly sick and has a constant snotty nose and drools he's more than welcome too, as long as his PC doesn't have a 16 CON and CHR. Maybe i'm alone in this but i've always played with some cohesion and sense of realism in all my campaigns and with most my players. If a player wants to make a 7 str Hercules,a 7 dex Flash, or 7 CON wolverine he's more than welcome to....take his absurdity to someone elses comedy campaign ;)

And to answer the OP- How Many People Are Legitimately Running These "Social Incompetent" Builds Real World?

NO ONE i know in RL as truly good players have no need to min/max :D

RunebladeX wrote:

if you have a 7 Chr your going to look or act like you belong in the movie the hills have eyes, not a boy band.

Citation, please? Also, Charisma =/= physical attractiveness and/or beauty. At least, I sure hope not.

Meanwhile, Amiri the barbarian is physically hot and tantalizing. Her Charisma is on the bottom side of average (10 vs 11).

I didnt say charisma = physical attractiveness and/ or beauty, see above. And that wasn't completely serious either the pun about the hills have eyes. Plus i dont have to cite anything cause i thought this was the general discussion not the RULES forum. Its of my Opinion and interpretation that charisma is a combination of many qualities-INCLUDING but not limited to BEAUTY. If you want a citation i suppose i can give you one...

My home dictionary:
1: a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (as a political leader)

2: a special magnetic charm or appeal <the charisma of a popular actor>

Synonym: allure, animal magnetism, appeal, ATTRACTIVENESS, captivation, charm, duende, enchantment, fascination...

See how attractiveness is a synonym for charisma? thats odd since charisma has nothing to do with physical attractiveness.