Destrachan

Schmoe's page

198 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Malk_Content wrote:

Oh man seems you really need a no phones rule at your table or some other way of increasing player engagement.

I'll echo my style that people think is harsh but it really does keep people engaged and let's those weaker players flourish. When it's your turn it is only your turn and you have 30s to start doing things (which is 5x longer than the character would have) otherwise your action is "attack the nearest target."

I mean to be brutally honest board or card games might work better for the group because if 50%+ of the people at the table are serially disengaged there is something wrong.

I like the spirit of this, to encourage some urgency and speed to the game, but I would have the character delay instead. It's a 3e concept that I don't think transferred over to PF2, but it would be easy enough to add it. That basically sends the signal that this combat is moving on without the character, but as soon as they figure it out they can join back in.


Ravingdork wrote:

Reading the GMG has got me thinking about how I design challenges for my players.

In one section, it talks about the PCs performing research in a library, and how the GM should pick three or more skills for the PCs to roll to represent their studying various aspects of the desired topic.

My question, and today's topic of discussion is this: Do you design challenges for the PCs? Or do you design challenges for the world?

Allow me to elaborate. If I'm designing the library challenge for the PCs, I'm going to look at their character sheets, and pick three skills that make sense and that they have.

If I'm designing for the world, I'm going to pick skills that make the most sense, whether or not the PCs have them. This is also what happens when I run published adventures.

This leads to one of three possible challenges: one where the PCs have all the skills and success is essentially a foregone conclusion, one where they dont and success is impossible, and one where some skills are relevant and others aren't.

As a GM, on what side do you fall and why?

Is there another way for the PCs to succeed? Maybe they could hire a sage to do the research for them. Alternatively, is failure an option?

I tend to design for the world. For goals that are really important, I will then get flexible with alternate approaches if they seem promising. For goals that are purely optional, well, you can't win everything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:


As a monk, I'm fast. If I can have someone open the door for me, then I can dash in, snatch up the fighter, and dash out again before the enemy can react. The group seemed to be in agreement with the plan.

However, nobody opened the door for me. The GM also reminded me that, as an elf, I could not see in the dark. So I moved up to the door, pulled off my backpack, and got out a sunrod. All out of actions. Since I'm next to the door in a 5-foot wide hallway, with a closed door in front of me, and the GM ruled we never left initiative (he's secretly tracking how far away the undead have dragged our companion) nobody can get to the door to open it (as I'm occupying the space and per the rules, you can't normally stop in an allies space in encounter mode).

As a DM, this is where it went south for me. There is absolutely no benefit for being so strict with the rules as to disallow something like this. 5' is easily wide enough for two people to stand side-by-side. It is easily enough space for two people to coordinate someone opening the door just in time for another to burst through. Enforcing initiative order and grid-spacing for no good reason is poor DM'ing, IMO.

If I were you in another situation like this, I would simply tell the DM that you were going to do whatever you needed to do to make initiative order work out so that you could have someone open the door right ahead of you. Either let him tell you how it could work, or ask to wait until you're out of initiative. You shouldn't have to "solve" an initiative order puzzle. That just gets in the way of the game.


Joana wrote:
I *cleaned up* at the used book store with my 3.5 books when I took them in to sell them shortly after Pathfinder 1e launched. I heard one of the employees telling the other as I left the sell counter, "Get these on the shelves right away because they're going to go fast." Apparently, 3rd edition was popular in my area during the early 4e era.

In my area used 3.5e books still sell quite well. I have a recent group that just started playing 3.5e in the last year or so, and that's 7 people looking for used 3.5 PHBs now. I continually scan used bookstores for some of the gems I foolishly dumped some time ago.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Schmoe wrote:
Jester David wrote:


It's not remotely *that* bad with PF2. But there's still a lot of talk about the success of the edition. The small Reddit communities. The lack of games on Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds. But the fact it's even in question and there's any debate rather answers the question.

I'd like to point out that for the first year+ after 5e was released, there was a lot of debate on both sides about whether 5e was successful. The fact that people are discussing PF2's success just 5 months after release has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is actually successful.

I get the sense that Paizo is playing the long-game with PF2, and as long as they are still able to keep the business running they're comfortable with the way things are headed. I haven't seen any signs that they can't keep the business running.

For that matter, you still find people posting threads "autopsying" 5e, and people who want to work off the premise of "why it failed"

When its obviously a huge success.

Lol, that's a good point. The internet is a, ahem, wondrous place.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:


It's not remotely *that* bad with PF2. But there's still a lot of talk about the success of the edition. The small Reddit communities. The lack of games on Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds. But the fact it's even in question and there's any debate rather answers the question.

I'd like to point out that for the first year+ after 5e was released, there was a lot of debate on both sides about whether 5e was successful. The fact that people are discussing PF2's success just 5 months after release has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is actually successful.

I get the sense that Paizo is playing the long-game with PF2, and as long as they are still able to keep the business running they're comfortable with the way things are headed. I haven't seen any signs that they can't keep the business running.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Before 3e there were no attacks of opportunity. Protecting the squishies was all about chokepoints, battlefield control, and limiting exposure, and that still works just as well. Put the caster in a corner and have three melees surround him. Use pits, grease, walls, etc. to limit enemy access. Flight, levitation, corridors, shield walls, the list of options goes on. In many ways the ubiquity of AoOs really limited tactical options before. I'm personally not sorry to see fewer of them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm really stoked that it appears that non-casters are still viable and in fact vital at high levels.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone who doesn't have the books yet and hasn't played, I find this thread is incredibly useful.

I'm surprised at the tactical variety in PC actions, which largely seems to be driven by the 3 action economy. That seems like a big win to me.

I'm also pleasantly surprised at how often seemingly minor debuffs or buffs impacted the results even at level 20. That's a real problem with higher level play in other editions (3.5 for example), when the result of the d20 doesn't really matter.

Finally, there are a few things I've noticed that bug me for various reasons. Scaring a dragon to death just through intimidation is a stretch for me. The lack of some immunities is also jarring - I don't think you should be able to intimidate a fungus spore, for example.

All in all the play report is really encouraging and interesting, and it looks like high-level play might become much more fun, and much less rocket tag, than earlier versions.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I think "the search for reliability" describes it well. Players often want to be able to focus their characters in a way to be able to do *something* reliably. It's frustrating to always have a 50% failure rate even in something you envision being good at.


I, GROGNARD wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
But then again, there's always Xanesha :)
Very soon now the older fans can tell the newer fans, "back in my day Xanesha was a TPK machine, you kids have it soooo easy ...."

The real old-timers would probably say "Aushanna." ;)


Aaron Gillespie wrote:


I was interested in a campaign that had little RP oppurtunity (at least at first...since these players are completely new, I wanted to test the waters with them before seeing how they liked RP) and one that was full of classic monsters, locales, encounters, etc....

I'm sure you long ago made your decision, but I'll respond in case someone else might be faced with a similar choice. Given what you are looking for, I would recommend Age of Worms. It has tons of classic encounters, locations, and monsters. In fact, the designers at one point said that they wanted to use the adventure path to visit some of the iconic D&D lore.

Shackled City has the potential to be a great adventure, but it won't truly shine unless you work in the role-playing aspect and get the players involved with the city. For completely new players, this may not be an easy thing to do.

As for power level, both adventures can easily lead to a TPK. SCAP might even be more deadly than AoW, and that's saying something! I fall firmly into the camp of "let the dice fall where they may," but you should consider your players and what might happen to the campaign if the worst comes to pass.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lastspartacus wrote:

So, let me ask again. What are the simplest ways to power up a rogue?

Also, what are the easiest ways to power up Stealth, thus benefitting the Rogue?

I've always thought the hard counters to stealth were a poor design. I think the rogue should get the following ability (based off 3.5 design, as I'm not that familiar yet with Pathfinder):

Stealth Training (Ex): Your specialized training allows you to fool even non-standard senses. You gain the following benefits as you gain levels.

Hide Scent (3rd) - By rubbing yourself with special oils and herbs, you can mask your scent. When you have prepared yourself in this fashion, creatures with the Scent ability must make a Spot check to detect your scent. Preparing to do this requires 1 minute of preparation, and the effects last for 30 minutes.

Still Movement (9th) - You have learned to move without disturbing the ground beneath you. When you choose to use this benefit, creatures with Tremorsense must make a Listen check (opposed by your Move Silently) to detect you. You take a -5 penalty to any Hide rolls while moving in this fashion.

Vanishing Moves (15th) - You have learned mystical secrets of movement and concealment that allow you to fool even those with Blindsense. While using this benefit, creatures with Blindsense must make Spot and Listen rolls to detect you. Because of the difficulty of the movements and techniques, all Hide and Move Silently rolls you make while using this benefit suffer a -8 penalty.


It's clever :)

However, there are two possibilities that prevent this, either one of which must be true.

Either A.) archons don't sell themselves out like this in cheap commercial endeavors, or B.) every 7th level cleric can do this, so continual flame rocks should be a dime a dozen, so the price would plummet and barely be worth the time.


If you keep the current spell progression, you can't really go up any higher on the BAB/HD scales without overpowering the Inquisitor. I think that as long as the spellcasting remains the same, the HD/BAB should remain the same, too.


Nunspa wrote:
Schmoe wrote:


I think this gets down to the confusion I have with the class. Does the inquisitor prefer working with allies, or does he prefer to be solo? And to be frank, I don't think the flavor for the class specifies one...

Well it all depends on how you look at it…

On the flip side…

The inquisitor is ultimate judge of character; he sizes up his opponents as much as he sizes up his allies… Yes he needs them, for now, but they are expendable for the greater good of the church. His companions are not so much allies as they are tools to an end, and any master knows how to use those tools.
<snip>

Fair enough. That explanation makes sense, and it probably would have helped me to make sense of the character overall if this sort of description was included in the description of the class.


northbrb wrote:
I really like the idea of the Inquisitor but I’m not a fan of them gaining spells, I feel the class would work better if you give them more of an expert feel. Give them some spell-like abilities but not spells, I see them working more for a church than a god and I see them gaining training and power from that church than there own faith. I do like the other abilities though I don’t really like the tactical feats for them I find it odd that the same time they introduce the tactical feats they also introduce a class that gains an ability that allows them to use those feats without others having them, I find this very odd.

So, this gets down to the other thing that I find strange about the class. When I look at the class, I see middle-of-the-road BAB, spell-casting, and HP, poor weapons and armor, but strong skills. In addition, there is a vast realm of potential ways in which an "Inquisitor" might use skills, from intimidating and demoralizing enemies, to rooting out falsehoods and deception, to converting laypeople to the true faith. But the abilities for the class, except for Tracking and the minor ability of Monster Lore, completely ignore the skills! There is very little synergy between the class abilities and one of the strongest fundamental parts of the class.

Others have touched on this as well, and I agree, but I would really like to see the Inquisitor have some abilities that tie in with Sense Motive and Intimidate.

I generally think of two interpretations for the Inquisitor. One is someone who works behind the scenes to influence others, coerce confession, and mete out punishment on those who have been apprehended. The other is the pointy tip of the spear who uncovers heretical plots and destroys the blasphemers. But a big part of the job of this latter interpretation is the actual investigation and uncovering of blasphemous practices. And a big part of investigation relates to the skills. Without that, the character is reduced to being a hitman for the church.

I'm not saying that the class can't take on the investigatory role as it currently stands. With plentiful skill points and useful skills, he can, at least as well as any other class with similar skill sets (bard, rogue). But I guess my point is that the abilities for a class help to set expectations of the role for the class, and right now the abilities just seem to be trying to make the middle of the road BAB, armor, and HP character into a combat bad-ass. That seems... misleading?


Zurai wrote:


Keep in mind that monster lore, although it does have "monster" in the name, applies to any knowledge checks to identify the abilities or weaknesses of any creature. Even humans are creatures. A Knowledge: Nobility check to decide that Baron Harkess is overly fond of his whisky is within the mechanical purview of the Monster Lore ability.

Also note that, in D&D, religions are threatened or opposed to different things than they are in real life. Sure, in real life, religions are most threatened by people. In D&D, religions can be threatened by all sorts of nonhumans -- demons, devils, various humanoids worshiping different deities (Lamashtu being especially common among monstrous races), undead, etc etc -- in addition to the 'player races'.

Yeah. I felt that Monster Lore was one of the best abilities the class has simply in terms of how it meshes with the stated intent of the class to seek out and hunt down enemies of the faith.


Whoa! I take off for a few days, and the thread really picks up! First ,thanks for everyone's considered and thoughtful responses. I'll try to provide some of my thoughts where appropriate.

Nunspa wrote:
Schmoe wrote:

* Make judgments apply to team members

* Instead of bane applying to the Inquisitor's weapon, make it something he applies to a single foe, so that all weapons striking the foe are treated as Bane weapons.
* Increase number of spells known (maybe an extra 1/spell level)
* Remove Cunning Initiative
* Remove Evasion
* Allow domain spells as spells known

I don't see this at all..

An Inquisitor by its very nature is a lone wolf...

But, is that true? Solo Tactics is a sizable part the abilities, which implies that the Inquisitor wants allies around. He would be better off surrounding himself with those of true faith, and leading them to purge the heretics.

Nunspa wrote:

He would never form true, lasting connections with his allies…

Why?

because, in the back of his head he knows that one day he may be called upon to strike them down for the betterment of his faith.

What happens if one day they find the equivalent of the davinci code exposing something about the Inquisitor’s faith! He would have to find a way, not only to destroy the items in question, but to kill off or permanently silent anyone that can expose it.

What happens if one of the characters, a cleric of the same god, decides to change gods!!

The Inquisitor by its very nature is a lone wolf.

The recommendations you propose are more for a battle cleric… a leader of men! “Strike Down Our Foe! Now!! Strike at the Heart of darkness may my gods hand guide you!!”

Not a man that one day may be called upon to kill his best friend to protect his faith.

I think this gets down to the confusion I have with the class. Does the inquisitor prefer working with allies, or does he prefer to be solo? And to be frank, I don't think the flavor for the class specifies one direction or the other. There could be a very good case made that the Inquisitor should be a Divine Bard, inspiring his allies to root out enemies of the church. Same basic chassis (BAB, HD, saves), similar spell progression, similar skill points, and some abilities that work only with allies.

The difference right now is that, despite some "better with allies" abilities, the Inquisitor is predominantly a selfish character, and I'm not sure the abilities are enough to compensate for the Bard chassis to make the Inquisitor an effective solo character.


Kolokotroni wrote:

I dont know why you seem to think the inquisitor cannot be a primary melee combatant.

Divine Favor, Aid, Prayer, Bless, Divine power. All of these can easily make up for a 3/4 BAB and then some. The trick to a caster/martial mix is they shouldnt be primary melee combatants untill they are buffed. Round 1 cast buff spell get judgement going, round 2 start laying into things judgemet is in its second round. Use bane for a little added punch. You are doing plenty of damage there. If you are worried about lighter armor, make it a dex based character, and use protection or resiliency judgements.

No Bard casting progression class should have full BaB or HD, that would not be balanced because a full bab class with divine power up would be the best fighter in the game even without all the other extras the Inquisitor gets.

Well, Divine Favor is hard for anyone else to get, that's true. Aid, Prayer, and Bless can all be put on anyone, including your friendly fighter who's ready to go with full BAB, lots of strength, HP, and armor, and a big weapon. Divine Power doesn't do much for a full BAB class except provide +6 enhancement to strength, which can also be done with an item and is also just 2 more than Bull's Strength.

I guess I look at it this way. At 20th level, with 3/4 BAB, the Inquisitor spends rounds 1 and 2 casting Divine Favor and Divine Power to become a full BAB class with an additional +3 luck bonus to hit/to damage, while the fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger has already had two rounds of fighting with his innate bonuses to hit and damage (smites, specialization, favored enemy, rage, etc), and once he digs in, the Inquisitor dies faster than all but the ranger. I think the full BAB classes generally win out here.

If the Inquisitor were a full BAB class, he would need less time buffing for offense, though still squishy.

Maybe a better comparison is with an Eldritch Knight. I'll have to think about that one for a bit.


Caineach wrote:

1st. The Inquisitor is not a prepared caster, so his spells are a lot better.

2nd. The Inquisitor's spell list is huge and has almost every skill I can think of for it. What is it missing? I don't understand why you say he will be relegated to specific roles.

Yes, I agree that spontaneous casting will help. But when you only have, for example, two spells to chose from, it doesn't help that much. You have to choose spells carefully. At 1st level, you know 2 1st level spells. What do you pick?

If you pick a buff or healing spell, you know that you will pretty much always have an opportunity to use it. If you choose something like Detect Undead, you could go entire adventures where it doesn't come into play. A wizard could adjust his prepared spells to account for these situations, an inquisitor cannot, so the inquisitor will be pressured to choose buffs and heals in order to get the most use out of his spell list.

Another example. You've just gained 16th level as an Inquisitor, so you can choose 2 6th level spells. What do you choose? Picking something like Heal and Blade Barrier means you'll always have something to use, but picking Forbiddance and Legend Lore is likely to leave you with unused spell slots quite a bit of the time. The wizard can pick a couple spells, then enhance his selection with a couple of scrolls, and end up with a lot more variety and utility.

Like any other class with a very limited selection of known spells, the player has the incentive to choose the spells which are most widely applicable, which are generally buffs, healing, and a few key offensive/utility spells.


I'll preface this by saying I haven't had a chance to playtest. Unfortunately, I don't have the time for any table time right now, so playtesting is not possible. That being said, I still want to provide my thoughts on the inquisitor in the hope they will be useful or at least thought-provoking.

Overall, the class seems to be in a bit of an identity crisis. On one hand, many of the abilities want to contribute to individual combat ability, but limited armor, weapons, HP, and BAB make it unlikely for the inquisitor to make a meaningful contribution. On the other hand, some abilities contribute to spell casting, but limited casting progression relegates the class to a support role. In addition, the class has a decent number of skills, but his skill selection really only make him useful as a "front man" or tracker/skirmisher, and his class abilities only complement the tracker/skirmisher role. Finally, the interplay of judgements vs. solo tactics (oddly named, as it requires teammates around to receive benefits) confuses me as to whether the inquisitor wants to be self-sufficient or a good teammate.

I'd like to give some detailed feedback on some of the specific abilities.

Domain - I think this should grant domain spells as spells known. Even if this is accompanied by reducing the general number of spells known to compensate, doing so helps to tie the Inquisitor to his faith, and helps define his method of Inquisition. Wouldn't you think an Inquisitor with the Fire domain would use fire and brimstone in his techniques? I would.

Judgments - I see three problems with this ability. First, the benefits only apply to the Inquisitor, but the Inquisitor isn't good enough at either combat or spell casting to make them useful. Second, the benefits don't really kick in until the 3rd round, and by that time the fight will usually have been decided. If the fight is still evenly matched, the benefits are minor enough that they probably won't be the deciding factor. Finally, the Inquisitor has a very limited number of uses of the ability.

Monster Lore, Cunning Initiative, Track - These look good. Seems to want to make the Inquisitor a "monster hunter" role, despite what the skill list indicates. Shades of skirmisher here.

Solo Tactics + Tactical Feat - Aside from the confusing name (I would have expected that the Inquisitor could use these without anyone else around), this looks useful. Seems to want to make the Inquisitor a "works well with others" role.

Bane - A decent ability. There is some confusion in the wording. When the Inquisitor drops/sheathes the weapon, does the duration continue to expire? If so, there is no way for the non-consecutive rounds clause to apply. If not, there is no need for the limitation on returning the weapon before the duration expires. Reading this, I'm inclined to think it can only be used 1/day.

2nd Judgment - Here the judgments begin to become somewhat more useful, and 3/day at this level (8) is a decent number of uses. However, it still suffers from the problem that the Inquisitor is neither a primary combatant nor a primary spellcaster, and it still takes 3 rounds before full effect.

Evasion - A strong ability that arrives late. Puts the Inquisitor more firmly in the skirmisher role.

Greater Bane - Makes Bane even better. Makes the Inquisitor want to take a primary role in combat. This is a good upgrade and seems appropriately placed in the level progression.

Exploit Weakness - Seems to be a very weak and confusing ability. The first part only happens on a critical hit (which occurs infrequently enough) and only applies to either creatures with DR the Inquisitor can't already overcome (probably rare, given judgments and equipment) or regeneration that cannot be overcome (also rare). The inquisitor will not be dealing a lot of dice of energy damage, and there aren't many creatures with vulnerability to energy types, so the second part is extremely weak.

There are also two points of confusion with the wording of the ability. First, the phrase "if the creature's regeneration can be bypassed" has me completely stumped. I thought the creature didn't regenerate already because of the ability? I honestly don't know what that is referring to. Second, the placement of the energy damage description after the critical hit description could lead people to think the extra energy damage only applies after a critical hit. Or does it? This could be made more clear by either describing the extra energy damage first, or specifying the extra energy damage occurs in the round following a critical.

3rd Judgement - Just a minor upgrade to judgments. Previous criticisms still apply.

Slayer - While it begins to address the slow build-up problem of judgments, it comes very late. Judgments still have the problem that they are primary combat or caster buffs to a secondary combat or caster chassis.

True Judgment - If I read it right, this is a very strong ability and a fitting capstone. Basically, every three rounds the Inquisitor can get a free attack as a swift action that forces a save-or-die. If the attack is not a free attack and is part of a normal attack sequence (either one attack out of a full attack, or a standard action), that should be specified.

Spells - The spell list looks pretty useful. There is a good mix of buffing and blasting, with some utility thrown in. However, the Inquisitor will always feel like a distant second fiddle to a primary caster due to his limited number per day, limited known spells, and retarded progression. He will be able to contribute meaningfully at key times with proper selection, but not as often as he would like. His most powerful spells will have been in play already for several levels from the primary casters. The Inquisitor will get the most use from his spell list by primarily choosing buff and healing spells with a few key offensive and utility spells.

...

So, at the end of the day the Inquisitor looks like a skirmisher who wants other people around, that can provide a secondary role in combat or spellcasting but a primary role in neither, and yet whose abilities would most benefit a primary role. The most effective Inquisitor I can imagine is one who sneaks around, tracking down enemies, then using ranged combat and buffs (spells and bows) to support a battle. While it could be effective, that's definitely not what I pictured the class to be based on flavor text and my own imagination of what an Inquisitor would be like.

I think the class could be improved by deciding on whether the Inquisitor wants to be the lone ranger, or if he wants to lead the pitchfork-wielding mob. If the former, I might recommend something like the following:

* Increase to full BAB
* Make judgments take full effect sooner, or increase the effect
* Expand weapons available
* Decrease number of spells known (perhaps reduce the ceiling of known spells per level by one)
* Remove Solo Tactics
* Allow domain spells as spells known

If the latter, I would recommend changes along these lines:

* Make judgments apply to team members
* Instead of bane applying to the Inquisitor's weapon, make it something he applies to a single foe, so that all weapons striking the foe are treated as Bane weapons.
* Increase number of spells known (maybe an extra 1/spell level)
* Remove Cunning Initiative
* Remove Evasion
* Allow domain spells as spells known

Wow, that was a mouthful. I have some more general feedback on inquisitor vs. monster hunter, but I can save that for another post :)


Charlie Bell wrote:

EDIT: Also destrachans and yrthaks. Ooooo look we have a sonic energy type now, we need sonic monsters. Just cause it's there doesn't mean you should use it.

No way. The yrthak is awesome! There's definitely room in my campaign for an ungainly, flying behemoth that fires bolts of sonic destruction strong enough to pulverize the stone beneath your feet.


DM_Blake wrote:

Power attack defies logic, in either version.

On the one hand, we have a rule that says you add your STR modifier to your attack and damage rolls. This means that the stronger you are, the more powerful your attack is, the easier it is to hit and damage your target.

On the other hand, PA says that your attack is so powerful that it makes it harder to hit but easier to damage your opponent, if you hit.

I don't see the contradiction. Consider this example:

Assume Arnold Schwarzenneger and Wil Wheaton are both equally skilled with the longsword. They both move just as fast, they both know the same moves and counters, and they are both just as precise as each other with their attacks.

However, consider how difficult it would be to fight either one of them. If you parry a slash from Wil, no big deal, you recover and move on. If you parry a slash from Arnold, you are probably knocked backward and off balance, revealing an opening that Arnold uses to spill your entrails on the ground.

Hence, Arnold's strength makes it easier for him to hit his opponent.

Now consider how Power Attack applies. Instead of fighting with all of his skill and training, Arnold just decides to start hammering with all of his might. He forgoes skill for raw power and telegraphs his blows, which are now easier to avoid. But if one of those blows should connect, well, game over man, game over.


The Shadow Twin is genius, and I really like the Shadow Step and Shadow Ascension abilities, as well. I'm not personally a big fan of the Shadow Companion, especially if we go adding the Shadow Twin ability. I'd rather see things that further enhance the recon abilities of the SD.


Aargh, the Post Monster ate my post!!@%&*! Here's a brief recap.

The current SD is focused on recon, but can easily be surpassed at this by a few arcane spells (Invisibility, Dimension Door). In addition, recon by itself isn't a very exciting thing to specialize in. So, either make him better at recon (approach #1), or expand his abilities beyond recon (approach #2).

For approach #2, add things like sneak attack, a better shadow companion, maybe some illusion-making abilities with shadows, or something to do with his performance skills.

For approach #1, add things like the following:

Shadow Visions (Su): The Shadowdancer can see and hear all that transpires within the shadows. He can use this to gain the effects of Clairaudience/Clairvoyance in any shadowed area within 50'. The Shadowdancer can use this to learn about new and hidden shadowed areas. This can be used once per level per day, for up to 10 rounds at a time. A Shadowdancer can use Shadow Jump to move to an area he has only seen using this ability.

Shadow Sight (Ex): The Shadowdancer ignores all but total concealment from light conditions. In addition, the Shadowdancer can see invisible creatures and objects while they are in an area of shadows.

Shadow Whispers (Su): As a move action, the Shadowdancer can cause a visible creature standing in a shadowed area to hear faint, disturbing whispers in the darkness. A target that fails its Will save (DC 10 + level + CHA) is affected. An unfrightened target becomes shaken. A shaken target becomes frightened. A frightened target becomes panicked. These conditions persist as long as the target is in a shadowed area, and for 1d4 rounds thereafter. The SD can use this against a target that is only visible to him using Shadow Visions. The Shadowdancer can use this ability against 1 target per class level per day, but he can use it as many times as he likes against a particular target that day. Once a target successfully saves against this ability, he is immune to it until the next sunset.


I was extremely excited about this group:

Barbarian
Barbarian
Cleric
Necromancer
Conjurer

The idea was that the Necromancer had single-target disabling duties, the Conjurer had meat-shield duties, the Barbarians killed things dead, and the Cleric buffed and kept everyone healed. The two wizards would share in battlefield control and utility.

Unfortunately, the game broke up after our first session, but I'd love another try with this group.


I definitely think the assassin needs to be able to keep people dead. Here's my idea:

Soul Slayer (Su): At 6th level, the Assassin learns the ability to attune a weapon to a subject, such that the subject is more difficult to return from the dead if he is slain by the weapon. This process requires 1 day of uninterrupted work and 100 gp per HD of the target, as well as a piece of the target's body (hair, skin, fingernail, etc). When the process is completed, the weapon is attuned to the single subject. When the subject is targeted by the assassin's Death Attack and fails his save, the connection between the soul and the body is reaved, and any attempts to use Raise Dead or similar magic on the victim are more difficult. The caster must pass a caster level check, DC 20 + class level, or the spell fails.

A weapon can only be attuned to one target at a time.

An assassin can only have one weapon attuned at a time.

At 10th level, when an assassin uses a Death Attack with the attuned blade against the specified subject, the attack is considered a Death effect for the purposes of determining the success of resurrection magic.

This approach has several advantages.

1. The DC scales with assassin level, so it's harder to overcome the effect of a higher level assassin. Likewise, it's not a boolean can-or-can't ability, which I personally despise.

2. It's limited for targets you really want to stay dead, and has some measures to prevent you from using it against everyone you fight.

3. It's tied to the Death Attack, so regular combat doesn't trigger it.

4. It's not a poison, so poison immunity doesn't protect the victim.

5. It (obviously) still leaves open other options to prevent resurrection, such as decapitation, disintegration, etc, which can work around protections a victim might have (Anti-magic shell?).


FatR wrote:
Samuel Weiss wrote:

"Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.

You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile it can move regardless of the spell’s range."

That is absolutely different from "Target or Targets", which is a separate entry.

However, Contingency does not restrict itself to spells that define "target or targets". It says "The spell to be brought into effect by the contingency must be one that affects your person". Doesn't Resilient Sphere satifsy the condition of affecting caster's person, considering, that its effect is "globe of shimmering force encloses a creature", and said creature can be the caster, and it cannot be cast in empty space, like Walls of, and it even gives a personal saving throw, wheh used offensively? Sure it does. You have better case arguing, that Globe of Invulnerability cannot be contingencied.

I think your interpretation of "affects your person" is erroneous. The sphere simply occupies a space, it only affects someone when that someone attempts to interact with it. Whether you are inside or outside of the sphere is irrelevant, as it does not directly affect you. It is analogous to saying a tree in the forest affects your person, because it can block your movement.

The only tractable interpretation of "affects your person" is to mean something that directly acts upon you, such as Mage Armor, Teleport, Blink, etc.


Roman wrote:
Aarontendo wrote:
Call them something else besides feats heh, people would be a lot less caught up on it. Just call them class abilities or something, take away some of the fighter feats later on and just let em pick from the class abilities instead.
Yeah, this is probably the only problem some people have with it - the name. You could even have the class abilities for the fighter grant a choice: pick from the following abilities or forego them to gain a combat feat... and it would be exactly the same thing but with a different window dressing.

I think that's the solution right there:

Take every feat that is currently a Fighter-only feat and put it in a new list, called Fighter Tactics. They are no longer considered feats.

Then change the fighter's gain every other level from "Bonus Feat" to "Bonus Feat or Fighter Tactic".

Same mechanical effect, and all the people who complain that they can't take such-and-such a feat will be mollified.


Sean Mahoney wrote:

I only have two players (out of 5) who would recognize any of those things and then only a few. They would vaguely nod and say, I think I remember hearing about that.

Blasphemy!

Regardless of your players' indoctrination into the history of the game, many of the things on my list are there more for their sheer awesomeness rather than name recognition. Specifically things like Champion's Belt, Prince of Redhand and Whispering Cairn. Even if the players know nothing about Dragotha or Vecna's body parts or the sense of historical gravity when fighting a Titan, they should be suitably impressed by some of the adventures in the AoW. In fact, I would probably rank the three I've listed as being in the top 10 of adventures I've seen, all time.


I want to see a campaign that takes place in the frozen north with a heavily Norse-clansman influenced society. Adventures would include conflict with nearby clans, exploring ancient, icy cairns, battle with the Linnorm Kings, and missions to unite the clans to stand against a massing army of the dead.


Sean Mahoney wrote:

Well, it looks like I am all set to wrap up my SCAP camapaign next session.

I have decided that I am going to wrap up after the desctruction of the Tree of Shackled Souls. The players are currently about 1/2 way through the adventure now, I think we can wrap it up by the end of next session.

Now the big question is should I run Age of Worms, Savage Tide, Rise of the Runelords or Curse of the Crimson Throne next?!? (I think either AoW or RotRL... I am liking Golarion a lot but Greyhawk is sooo classic D&D)

Sean Mahoney

If I were in your shoes, I would go with AoW for the following reasons:

1. Diamond Lake and Whispering Cairn
2. Sons of Kyuss
3. THE dracolich
4. Prince of Redhand
5. Titans
6. The Hand of Vecna
7. The Champion's Belt

That's a nerdgasm right there.


Olaf the Stout wrote:
We are now 19 sessions in and I still haven't killed a single PC.

Take heart! Keep at it and I'm sure your critters will prevail. In fact, I believe there may be just such an opportunity waiting in yon Kuo-toan temple...


Wow, that sounds like a lot of fun! One thing I'd recommend is to make extensive use of expendable items like scrolls, potions, and wands. Since your spells per day are your most significant limitation, you want to make sure you can keep on going when the enemies just seem to keep coming and coming.

Also, try to pick your fights wisely. You should make sure that you have all divinations covered between you, and use them well. Coordinate spells to get group advantages that are otherwise prohibitive. For example, at 4th level you could easily make your entire party Invisible, which is a tactic not generally available to a standard party.

It goes without saying, but you'll get great mileage out of summoning spells and, when they're available, undead minions.


primemover003 wrote:
Which is why the numbers can't tell everything... in D&D math is not perfect, forumlas don't fit, and probability can be beaten. You actually have to play out the encounter and let the dice fall where they may!!!

Absolutely! My only point was that the PCs in the above playtest were unnecessarily weak, and it might be worthwhile to play out the encounter using more combat-oriented PCs. If the only thing that mattered were formulas and statistics, Paizo wouldn't be having this playtest at all :)


So, because I haven't spent time statting an NPC in quite a while, and I actually enjoy the mental exercise :), I decided to see what I could do with the two-weapon fighting barbarian. With D&D 3.5, my attempts at creating an effective two-weapon fighting barbarian were pretty frustrating. I was actually surprised, however, at just how effectively it could be done with a few new options from Pathfinder. Double Slice and Vital Strike make a huge difference in how well a dual-wielder performs. Combined with Elemental Rage, I can actually see a two-weapon fighting barbarian as a viable option. Don't get me wrong, there are still some tricky issues with dual wielding, such as the multiple ability dependency of strength and dexterity, and the dual weapon costs, but Pathfinder makes the situation considerably better.

On average, the barbarian shown below does reasonably well against the Marut of the original playtest. Against the Marut, using two-weapon fighting with Vital strike gives an average of 21 damage per hit, adjusted by DR to 6 damage per hit. For the Marut's AC of 34, the barbarian hits (.65 + .4 + .65 + .4) = 2.1 times per round, for an average of 12.6 damage per round. I don't know the Marut's resistances off-hand, but if we can use acid, cold, or fire, the barbarian can add elemental rage to give an additional 3.5 damage per hit, for an average of 19.9 or about 20 damage per round. Even if elemental damage won't work, the barbarian can use powerful blow once a round to add (.65 x 7) = 4.5 damage, to bring the total to 17 damage per round.

3 of these barbarians will do either 60 damage (if elemental rage works) or 51 damage (if elemental rage does not) per round, adjusted by Fast Healing to 50 or 41 damage per round, which means the Marut goes down, again, in less than 3 rounds.

This is using what has traditionally been one of the most challenging builds of the game. Strength is the forte of the barbarian, but two-weapon fighting minimizes the effects of strength. In addition, it's against an opponent specifically designed to penalize the two-weapon fighting strategy of multiple weak attacks. And again, I spent well under the allotted wealth for a 15th level PC. All in all, I was surprised by the effectiveness of the two-weapon fighting barbarian.

Half-Orc Barbarian 15
HD: 15d12+45+18 (HP: 166 average, 211 when raging)

AC: 25 , 23 when raging (+3 dex, +10 armor, +2 natural)

Initiative: +3

Abilities bought with 15-point buy
STR: 22 (28) = 14 base + 2 race + 2 levels + 4 enhancement (+ 6 rage)
INT: 8 = 10 base - 2 race
WIS: 12 = 10 base + 2 race
DEX: 17 = 16 base + 1 levels
CON: 16 (22)= 12 base + 4 enhancement (+ 6 rage)
CHA: 8 = 8 base

Fort: +14 = + 9 base + 1 con + 4 magic
Ref: +12 = + 5 base + 3 dex + 4 magic
Will: +10 (+13) = + 5 base + 1 wis + 4 magic (+ 3 rage)

Combat stats assume rage is in effect
BAB: +15/+10/+5
CMB: +24

Attack (Boots of Speed adds 1 attack at highest BAB):
Orc Double Axe (Raging, Two-Weapon Fighting): +26/+21/+16 and +26/+21, 1d8+12, 19-20/x3
Orc Double Axe (Raging, Two-handed): +28/+23/+18, 1d8+16, 19-20/x3
Orc Double Axe (Raging, Two-Weapon Fighting, Vital Strike): +26/+21 and +26/+21, 1d8+12+1d8, 19-20/x3
Orc Double Axe (Raging, Two-handed, Vital Strike): +28/+23, 1d8+16+1d8, 19-20/x3

Special:
Darkvision 60'
Weapon Familiarity (orc)
Orc Ferocity
Fast Movement (+10')
Rage (47 rage points)
Greater Rage (+6 Str, +6 Con, +3 Will)
Rage Power (x7: Strength Surge, Surprise Accuracy, Powerful Blow, Elemental Rage, Guarded Stance, Mighty Swing, Swift Foot)
Uncanny Dodge/Improved Uncanny Dodge
Trap Sense +5
Damage Reduction 3/-
Indomitable Will (+4 saves vs. Enchantment)

Skills (60 ranks = -1 int, +1 favored class, +4 class = 5/level):
Acrobatics +19 (15 ranks + 3 dex + 3 favored class - 2 armor check)
Climb +22 (15 ranks + 6 str + 3 favored class - 2 armor check)
Survival +19 (15 ranks + 1 wis + 3 favored class)
Swim +22 (15 ranks + 6 str + 3 favored class - 2 armor check)

Feats (8 base = 8): Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Critical (Orc Double Axe), Weapon Focus (Orc Double Axe), Double Slice, Two-Weapon Rend, Toughness, Vital Strike

Equipment: Belt of Physical Might (Str and Con, +4), Orc Double Axe +3/+3, +5 Breastplate, Amulet of Natural Armor +2, Boots of Speed, Cloak of Resistance +4

Total equipment value = 40 + 36 + 25 + 8 + 12 + 16 = 138k


Here's a 15th level fighter that I think is more representative of what can be done with Pathfinder. I tried to keep him true to the spirit of what the OP was trying to do (compensating for missing roles), but made sure that he played an effective primary role as well (in this case, meat shield). You'll note that I didn't agonize over any decisions or try to squeeze every last bonus out of him. Heck, I didn't even spend more than about 50% of the starting gold for a 15th level character, so there's plenty of room for customization.

The reason I'm posting this is that I think the conclusions drawn in your play-test are somewhat erroneous. In fact, after looking at the character below, I think a more typical 15th level party of barbarian, fighter, and ranger would have absolutely no problem overcoming a Marut.

Even 3 identical 15th level fighters, as shown below, without the use of the wand of align weapon, would have a trivially easy time with the Marut. Consider that with Vital Strike they are doing an average of 28 damage per hit, adjusted by DR for 13 damage per hit. Against the Marut's AC of 34 that works out to .85 + .6 = 1.45 hits per fighter per round. With three fighters, that would be 4.35 hits per round, for an average damage against the Marut of about 56 per round, adjusted by Fast Healing for 46 per round. The Marut in question would go down in 2.5 rounds. That's a far cry from the results you listed above, and it uses the "sub-optimal" sword-and-board build with a focus on Use Magic Device for fighters. Anyway, I just thought it was important to see both sides of this.

To the OP, please don't think I'm criticizing your play style. I realize you said "Make characters in the same way I would have made a D&D 3.5 character", and there are many, many ways of playing D&D, a large number of which don't focus on combat first. In my experience, a DM usually compensates for parties who don't focus on combat so that an appropriate level of challenge is presented in the game. I think when looking at generic examples in the absence of DM guidance, it's probably more useful to look at more combat-focused characters for a play-test, so that's what I've tried to give below.

Human Fighter 15
HD: 15d10+60+18 (HP: 165 average)

AC: 35 (+11 Armor, +5 Shield, +4 Armor Mastery, +3 Dex, +2 Deflection)
Conditional AC bonuses: +2 dodge from Dodge; +4 dodge from Mobility vs. AoO; +3 dodge from Fight Defensive; +6 dodge from Total Defense

Initiative: +3

Abilities bought with 15-point buy
STR: 24 = 15 base + 2 Race + 3 level + 4 enhancement (with Bull's Strength)
INT: 12 = 12 base
WIS: 10 = 10 base
DEX: 17 = 13 base + 4 enhancement
CON: 18 = 14 base + 4 enhancement
CHA: 8 = 8 base

Fort: +15 = + 9 base + 2 con + 4 magic
Ref: +12 = + 5 base + 3 dex + 4 magic
Will: +11 = + 5 base + 2 feat + 4 magic

BAB: +15/+10/+5
CMB: +22 (+2 for Bull Rush, +4 to resist opponent's maneuvers, so for example +28 to resist Bull Rush, +26 to resist grapple)

Attack:
Bastard Sword: +30/+25/+20, 1d10+17, 17-20/x2
Bastard Sword (with Vital Strike): +30/+25, 1d10+17+1d10, 17-20/x2
Throwing Axe: +21/+16/+11, 1d6+10, 20/x3
Flail: +24/+19/+14, 1d8+9, 20/x2
Flail (with Vital Strike): +24/+19, 1d8+9+1d8, 20/x2

Special:
Bonus Feats (x8)
Bravery (+4 bonus vs. Fear)
Armor Training (+4 AC, -4 Armor Check, +4 Max Dex bonus)
Weapon Training (to hit and damage, +3 Heavy Blades, +2 Axes, +1 Flails)

Skills (75 ranks = +1 race, +1 int, +1 favored class, +2 class = 5/level):
Intimidate +17 (15 ranks, -1 Cha, +3 favored class)
Swim +24 (15 ranks, +7 Str, +3 favored class, -1 Armor check)
UMD +20 (15 ranks -1 Cha, +6 Skill Focus)
Acrobatics +17 (15 ranks, +3 dex, -1 Armor check)
Knowledge [Dungeoneering] +19 (15 ranks, +1 Int, +3 favored class)

Feats (8 base, +1 race, +8 class bonus = 17): Exotic Weapon Prof (Bastard Sword), Weapon Focus (B Sword), G Weapon Focus (B Sword), Weapon Spec (B Sword), G Weapon Spec (B Sword), Imp. Critical (B Sword), Toughness, Blind-Fight, Defensive Combat Training, Power Attack, Cleave, Vital Strike, Improved Bull Rush, Dodge, Mobility, Iron Will, Skill Focus (UMD)

Equipment: +3 Adamantine Bastard Sword, +3 Full Plate, +3 Heavy Shield, Belt of Physical Might (Dex and Con, +4), Cloak of Resistance +4, +1 throwing axe of returning, +1 flail, dagger, Ring of Protection +2, Wand of Align Weapon (50 chg), Wand of Bull's Strength (50 chg), Wand of Cure Serious Wds (50 chg)

Total equipment value = 21 + 11 + 9 + 40 + 16 + 8 + 2 + 8 = 114k + wands


I think it's pretty clear that the reason the party had trouble is that they were relatively underpowered for their level. Without really trying, I can get a 15th level fighter with AC 35, HP 165, and attacks of +30/+25/+20 doing 1d10+17 and crit of 17-20/x2. I can post some more details tomorrow if you're interested, but it doesn't even take half of a 15th level character's allotted wealth (unless that's changed in Pathfinder, I couldn't find it).

Would you be interested in re-running the playtest with different characters?


This has been a very interesting thread. I do believe that the purpose of playtesting is to identify areas of the rules that are unclear, untenable, or easily exploited. So in that regard, it seems that the playtest has been a great success in identifying (IMO):

1. Cohorts need clarification
2. Ring gates need clarification and perhaps re-evaluation
3. Spell save DCs may need re-evaluation when compared to save bonuses (I say 'may' because the opponents were such a non-challenge it's difficult to assess)
4. Removing XP from crafting costs may need re-evaluation

It's unfortunate that the playtest was with such a poor example of a high-level module. I can't for the life of me understand how the author expected it to actually challenge a group of 15th level PCs. To a large extent, this became a playtest of a poorly designed module that exposed the weaknesses of the module, rather than the abilities of the character. This highlights one of the difficulties of playtesting, in that the scenario has a very large impact on the usefulness of the playtest.

I think it would be very interesting to re-engineer the adventure by giving the enemies access to and use of some of the resources that high-level opponents should have. Make the adventure a legitimate 15th-level challenge. Then re-run the playtest and compare results. In this way, you'd have two points of comparison and would be able to evaluate how the character can exploit glaring weaknesses (the original scenario) as well as how the character performs in the face of real opposition.

PS - Criticize the work, not the person. There are too many variables which you cannot know to make a valid judgment of a person, and it's just plain rude.


Shisumo wrote:
I'd be interested to see what you are thinkign about, but I didn't get exactly what you meant by "specialist" there. What would the fighter be a specialist in?

To elaborate a little more, many of the things that are lumped into Combat Advantage (prone, unarmed, etc) provide clear benefits. However, those benefits apply to everyone. There's nothing special about what a fighter can do with Combat Advantage that another PC cannot. A rogue gets the same +4 to hit a prone opponent as a fighter does. If we switch it around and design fighter options that build off of Combat Advantage, then the fighter begins to become a specialist in the area.


Shisumo wrote:
I'd be interested to see what you are thinkign about, but I didn't get exactly what you meant by "specialist" there. What would the fighter be a specialist in?

Gaining tactical advantage, and using it. Certainly, many feats relate to gaining or creating tactical advantage. But at the moment it's not the clear province of the fighter. In fact, if you look at feats and what the fighter is encouraged to take to remain competitive in effectiveness, most of the feats a fighter takes just do more damage.

Instead, the fighter should be able to take advantage of tactical advantage in a way others cannot. Introducing the concept of Combat Advantage (name shameless borrowed from 4e) allows designing further options to make the fighter more effective. It's very possible, but not necessary, that some of those options would be feats. But the important thing here is the idea of Combat Advantage and the notion that we can add things to make Fighters more effective when they have it.


Shisumo wrote:
Schmoe wrote:
I disagree. Perhaps re-writing feats should wait for the feats discussion, but making fighters stand out at fighting is not exclusive to re-writing feats.
I would've thought it was fairly obvious I was referring specifically to the feats that S W is offering, but regardless, I would agree. What other suggestions would you offer?

Oops, sorry. I must have misinterpreted your post. For ideas, I spelled out why I think a fighter should be treated as a specialist rather than a "default" a few posts above. Do you have any comments on that?


Shisumo wrote:
S W wrote:
This is an attempt to make the fighters stand out at fighting, and rewriting feats (for example weapon focus/weapon spec line) is a step towards doing that.

Which should wait for the feats discussion forum, as Jason has repeatedly said.

Improving feats as a means to boosting the fighter is absolutely on the menu - but it has to wait for a bit yet. If you want to go down that road now, make a thread in General Discussion.

I disagree. Perhaps re-writing feats should wait for the feats discussion, but making fighters stand out at fighting is not exclusive to re-writing feats.


I'd like to add that the idea of designing the fighter as the "default" best fighter that is surpassed in certain situations is fundamentally flawed. Let's compare a specialist performance to a fighter performance. You have a couple scenarios, outlined below. ">" indicates marginally better. ">>" indicates significantly better.

Scenario favoring specialist: Specialist >> Fighter
Default: Fighter >> Specialist
You take a huge gamble with a specialist, as he'll be virtually useless much of the time.

Scenario favoring specialist: Specialist > Fighter
Default: Fighter >> Specialist
Quite simply, there's no point in taking a specialist for this case.

Scenario favoring specialist: Specialist >> Fighter
Default: Fighter > Specialist
You'll never want a fighter here, as the performance gain you get from the specialist in some situations outweighs the marginal hit you'd otherwise see.

Scenario favoring specialist: Specialist > Fighter
Default: Fighter > Specialist
Here there's no clear preference for one over the other, but the differences are marginal to where no class really feels special or unique.

So by modeling the fighter as a default, you have the problem that he is either always preferred or never preferred. I would contend that it's better to model the fighter as a specialist, so that the scenario comparison is more along the lines of:

Scenario favoring specialist: Specialist >> Other
Default: Specialist = Other


Paul Watson wrote:
However Fighters should be the best all-round melee combatant, except when the other guy is in his element. A Ranger should be able to outshine a Fighter with his weapon style in his favoured terrain or against his favoured enemy. The Paladin should outshine fighters when fighting the forces of pure evil. Barbarians should outshine them when raging. But the rest of the time, Fighters should be the superior melee combatant.

The only problem is that it leaves the fighter with very few scenarios where he is preferred. Re-phrasing what you've said, the fighter is the superior melee combatant as long as:

- You're not fighting evil opponents
- The barbarian has used all of his rages
- The ranger isn't fighting in favored terrain or against a favored enemy

That isn't very often, and most of the time it's going to leave the party thinking, "Man, I wish we had an X instead of the fighter."

Adding cool tactical options unavailable to other classes helps the fighter stand out as being the best in some situations. Ideally, I'd like to see the fighter be given options to gain tactical advantage, and then given more combat power as he gains tactical advantage. Just brainstorming here, but what about something like this?

Combat Advantage
A fighter has combat advantage against any opponent that meets one or more of the following criteria:

- Flat footed
- Prone
- Fatigued or Exhausted
- Flanked (by the fighter)
- Unarmed
- Shaken, Afraid, or Panicked

You already have a series of feats that help create some of these situations, so add a few more that help create Flat-Footed and Fatigued advantages, or more ways to create the other advantages. Then you can add feats that improve the Fighter's effectiveness when he has combat advantage, such as these examples:

Tactical Opportunist
When an opponent acquires a condition that grants you Combat Advantage, you can make an immediate Attack of Opportunity against that opponent. If you are wielding a melee weapon, you must threaten the opponent to make the AoO.

Tactical Killer
You gain a +2 bonus to all damage rolls against opponents that grant you Combat Advantage.

Edit:
To be clear, the concept of Combat Advantage is not a feat, but a property that Fighters can exploit.


24 1/2 US!!!!!!

(what?)


neceros wrote:

Now we get into the mechanical issues of 3.5.

Since you can only have one class at first level it's extremely hard to justify a switch from level 1 to level 2.

It's hard to explain what I'm trying to say. If I were to want a character who was a barbaric sorcerer, as you described, I have to start with one class. Eventually, I can multi class into another class once I have the levels to do so.

That's the crux of the issue, as I see it. The player clearly wants to be a "barbarous sorcerer." However, because of the way D&D mechanics worked, he was forced to pick just one class at 1st level. In his mind, he's probably a "barbarous sorcerer" the whole time, even though his character sheet only says "sorcerer" at 1st level. I recommend that you don't force the mechanical limitations of D&D into some sort of flavorful limitation of the PC.


I think a campaign theme of betrayal and desperation can be a powerful one, but it can't stand alone. In order to work, the campaign also has to feature redemption and trust found in unexpected places. Not just the PCs giving their trust to (hopefully) allies, but the PCs being given the trust of others.

It's one thing to ask the PCs to repeatedly trust others, then repeatedly betray them and see what they do. Most likely, they'll say "Screw this" and go off to do selfish things.

It's another thing entirely to repeatedly betray the PCs, and then give the PCs the trust of someone vulnerable and innocent and see what they do.
And later on meet one of their betrayors who has had a change of heart, works to their advantage of his own free will, and throws himself on their mercy.

In the first example, the campaign repeatedly challenges the PC and player motivation and provides no deeper meaning. In the second example, the campaign challenges PC and player motivation but provides the context for a deeper and more meaningful experience. I can certainly see some players (including myself) finding this latter experience to be a compelling one.

I don't know enough about Second Darkness to comment on which sort of example it portrays, but hopefully authors of future adventures are reading this and thinking about which direction they want to go.


fray wrote:
How do you play low stats?

Verrrry carefully.

Ba-dump.

fray wrote:

I've been thinking about this after a conversation today.

Whenever I make a char I never have a negative modifier to any stat. I've only used point buy for stats.

I'm curious...
How do you role play:
-low Int, Wis, and/or Cha?
-low Int, high Wis, low Cha?
-high Int, low Wis, high Cha?
-some other combination

(High means a stat bonus, low means a negative bonus.)

Thanks.

On a serious note, those are all fun combinations. There are many ways to take each of them, but here are some of my ideas:

low Int, Wis, and Cha: A shy, not-so-bright person who always does foolish and embarrassing things.

low Int, high Wis, low Cha: A rude, boorish, ignorant person who's quick to point out the foolishness of others.

high Int, low Wis, high Cha: A charming professorial person who frequently misplaces his glasses and gets himself into trouble.

1 to 50 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>