Scott Wilhelm's page

Organized Play Member. 8,305 posts (8,309 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 7 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 8,305 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

MrCharisma wrote:
VoodistMonk wrote:
Maybe an Eldritch Archer/Hexcrafter Magus [bVMC Witch[/b] with Slumber Hex arrows? Slumber Hex can be boring effective... so can archery... sleep arrows... not damage, but down and out...
What does VMC Witch get you there? You already have Hexes as a Hexcrafter ...?

If I VMC'd Witch and Hexcrafter, I'd be a White Haired Witch, that gets that Hair Attack instead of Hexes.

Let us play Goblins in PFS!

Your race seems eminently playable. I would add more flavor: work in something about Probes and cattle mutilation, maybe some crop circles, play it up. Maybe something so that no one believes the stories?

Is there any alien tech? Ray guns, flying saucers?

yukongil wrote:
I find it best to roll afterwards, especially when they crit and confirm. Then roll that miss chance and snatch the fun right out of their hands. Then mop up their tears with their character sheets!

I was going to say that resolving a Miss Chance first makes for more streamlined combats, but you make a good point.

zza ni wrote:

i would like to point out one major problem with any one shot per round build - the 'Deflect Arrows' feat can be a real buzz killer. (also the similar feats like 'missile shield' and 'cut from the air chain')

-"i can deal a godzilion damage with only one arrow"
-'im a first level monk and guess what i go for free?..."

I was just looking at Deflect Arrows. It's not just Monks who can get it. It's just a Combat Feat that only prerequires a Dex of 13. Fighters can get it as a Bonus Feat, too.

So, it's important that your characters are not 1-trick ponies. If you fire multiple arrows that do less damage, you are more vulnerable to DR. If you are dedicated archer, what happens when you are in melee or if a high-level Ninja just steals your bow, or an NPC build around Sundering gets to you in melee?

The build I posted on this thread actually has unspecified Feats and Discoveries that can be used to diversify the character. He has Arcane Training, so he could use a Wand of Scorching Ray instead of a Bow. One of the variants discussed was the use of Ninja Vanishing Trick to turn invisible to lock in Sneak Attack Damage: that probably means your level 1 Monk would not "be aware of the attack."

Still: pretty sneaky, sis!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, how would you feel if you were using 2 Sledge Hammers instead of 2 Butchering Axes? A Sledge Hammer is an Improvised Weapon that does damage like an Earthbreaker: 2d6. Because it's an Improvised Weapon, you can use Shikigami Style Feats. Each one of the 3 Feats make your Improvised Weapon Inflict Damage as if it were 1 Size bigger. As a Titan Fighter Fighter, you can use a Size Large Sledge Hammer to star with. As a Titan Mauler Barbarian, you can use 2. Add that to Enlarge Person, like 5 Size Increases, 3 Virtual, 1 Actual, and 1 because you are allowed to start with a bigger one (two!) to begin with.

If we can fit all that together, that's 10d6 Damage/weapon. Honestly, I suspect Great Cleave, Vital Strike, and Attacks of Opportunity with a single weapon would work better than 2WF with 2 of them, but if you want maximum ridiculosity with 2 Weapon Fighting, I think that's the way to go.

MrCharisma wrote:
Of course then you're taking -4 (Titan Mauler), -4 (Two--Weapon-Fighting), -2 (Titan Fighter) for a total of -10 to hit on all attacks. Reckless Abandon helps but ... you need a lot of help for that.

Continued levels in Titan Fighter Fighter will reduce the oversized weapon penalties.

There are traits. Giant Blooded--I think--reduces by half the penalty for oversized weapons. Surprise Weapon--again, I think--gives you a +2 on attack rolls with Improvised Weapons. Those penalties will still be too big for what I think is an optimized character, but that doesn't exactly seem to be rorek55's goal.

Hugo Rune wrote:
When I mentioned metagaming, I meant GM metagaming rather than player metahaming.

GM Metagaming is a sticky wicket. A GM is supposed to create situations and events for his players that are challenging for his players. By definition, he is supposed to take advantage of his knowledge of his players and their characters to play to their strengths and weaknesses so that his PCs overcome obstacles and grow through great struggle. And the result is supposed to be a good time.

That being said,

I have had the experience of a GM metagaming to undermine the players' good time. One of his favorite tropes is the bad guy always knows where we are and can always hear our plans. That is problematic because he runs his games in gaming stores and a lot of his players don't know each other. And knowing you can't speak freely undermines group cohesion. And already-established group would be able to handle that from time to time.

One time, he told me the mechanism by which the BBEG always knew. There was an item in the party that served as a beacon to her Scrying. The only official item I found does that is the target of a Symbol of Scrying Spell. Symbol is a Level 8 Spell. That means that the BBEG had to be at least a Level 16 Cleric or Wizard. The item must have been planted in our party by the time we were level 3.


Realizing that we were bugged, it should have been a fairly easy matter for each party member to have Detect Magic and Identify cast on all of our equipment lists, find the bad one, then dispose of that item, but the GM also took advantage of one of his own house rules.

Because he was playing at a public table, players would come and go, and the party was a sort of Ship of Theseus. He realized that certain items would come into the party's possession that would be important to the advancement of the story arc, so he contrived a conceit of Party Property of Unspecified Placement, reckoning that certain important items, especially McGuffins, were in some PC's backpack. Well, that Symbol of Scrying was "stolen" by a PC Rogue early in the game, and then that player left the table early-on in the way that one does. And that means the item was not on any single player's equipment list, but rather on a the GM's list that none of us knew about, but we thought we did.

On another occasion, to save time, that GM stipulated that our party had been mapping as we had been adventuring overland. He said at some point, we would show us the overland map of where we'd been. But before he showed us, another player and I got into a big argument about which way to go next, and it turned out that we both wanted to go in the same direction. The argument happened at least in part because the GM withheld information from the players that the characters knew. And the fact that he refused to acknowledge any part in that fight, means he was metagaming to create party conflict. Although, admittedly--if you'll pardon my French--that other player was being an ass, and I was being a douche. Asses and douches don't go together. They go with other things.

Anyway, Hugo, while I do suspect you of oversimplifying about the problem of GM metagaming to hurt the players, I also take your point and have had experiences like what you are saying.

Agénor wrote:
One day, as I announced I pulled out of my backpack a mundane object that happened to trivially solve a problem in a way the G.M. didn't expect, he told me that I didn't have it because I hadn't provided him with the updated inventory. I pushed back knowing he wouldn't like it that I was still waiting for his rules about encumbrance, as my high-Wisdom character lived in his universe so would know how much would have him encumbered but that in the meanwhile, I was going with the standard rules.

One day, I had a PFSGM accuse me of metagaming because I told him I switched to Cold Iron Arrows. He said my character wouldn't know that Cold Iron bypasses the DR of Atomies. I told him that I didn't know I was dealing with Atomies and didn't know what one was: I just figured mischievous little people in the forest undergrowth, so they're probably fairies, so cold iron. He challenged me on that, too, demanding to know if my character had ever encountered fairies. I said to him that Cold Iron Arrows are all over the markets of Golorion, and only cost 2X the price of regular arrows, and since Cold Iron Arrows were on my character's equipment list, it would be very reasonable to know why she was paying double the price for them.

Meanwhile, the world I live in doesn't even have real fairies, but it's even common knowledge: Silver for Dracula and the Wolfman, Adamantine for robots, iron for fairies.

In all fairness, it's not that I never metagame, but I wasn't in those instances.

I had another problem with a GM who accused me of metagaming when I started throwing Acid at a Troll. I pointed out that I did not in fact remember about Trolls and Acid, only Trolls and Fire, and that from 1st edition: I never read up on Pathfinder Trolls, meanwhile, he told the party that we see him Regenerating, so it just made sense to switch tactics and try something different.

So, another option I was thinking would be Arcane Archer. Arcane Archers can Imbue their Arrows with Spells, and that can come out to lots of Damage. The traditional way to become an Arcane Archer would be something like 6 levels in Fighter, a level in Wizard, and then the rest in AA. Another thought I had would be 1 level in Fighter, 5 levels in Wizard, then levels in Eldritch Knight and/or Living Monolith until your BAB gets up to +6, then Arcane Archer. I've never been super excited about any of my builds, but I think this would be a very powerful character.

Name Violation wrote:

@scott can a swarm wield weapons?

Vermin Aspect (Su)
As a swift action, a swarm shifter can transform into a swarm of vermin.

I think so: I don't see any rule that says that Polymorphing into a Swarm makes you lose your ability to use normal gear. But,

Polymorph wrote:
When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body.

, and

Swarm Shifter wrote:
a swarm shifter can transform into a swarm of vermin.

So, it is fair to say that this character would need to drop his bow and his arrows before Enlarging, and take 2 Move Actions to recover them. That's a problem,


Swarm Shifter wrote:
She must still attack a target as normal, even if occupying the same space as her target.

It would be a hell of a thing if you are required to make normal attacks but also can't make normal attacks.

Still, it might be better to go with Living Monolith or Alchemist-with-Potion Glutton.

Belafon wrote:

Tiefling Rogue (underground chemist) 4 / Alchemist (Vivisectionist) X

Basic Shenanigan - Take "bomber" as your second level rogue talent. You do damage with bombs equal to your sneak attack damage, and can deal sneak attack damage with splash weapons. The vivisectionist sneak attack damage stacks with the rogue's. Make alchemist your favored class and take the alternate FCB (+1/2 point to bomb damage). Take the "explosive missile" discovery. Have Deadly Aim. Using a hornbow, at 9th level, you'll do 2d6 (weapon) + 5d6 (sneak) + 5d6 (bomb) + 2 (FCB) + 4 (deadly aim) + Int mod + Str Mod + Enhancement.

That's f@$!ing Brilliant!

Belafon wrote:
Assuming you are in sneak attack range.

Well, how about be a Ninja instead of a Rogue, and then you can use Ninja Vanishing Trick to turn Invisible. In the first Round of Combat, you turn Invisible and then use Stealth as a Move Action to find a hidy hole. Then on subsequent rounds you shoot while Invisible, locking in your Sneak Attack Damage. Normally, you need to make a Stealth Check at a -20 to stay Invisible, but you could take the False Attacker Rogue Talent to allow you to make a simple Bluff Check as an Immediate Action, and if either the Bluff or the Stealth succeeds, you stay in Stealth.

Another thing you could do is dip 3 levels in Bard with the Flame Dancer Archetype. Song of Fiery Gaze lets you and all your allies see through fire and smoke. So then you get yourself an Eversmoking Bottle.

Belafon wrote:
Mythic Vital Strike is still going to be the best, but this is kinda fun.

This character can still take Vital Strike Feats.

Trisagon wrote:
I am trying to build a character that is focused to do the most possible damage with a a single arrow.... How would you build such a character?

I like Alchemists: exploding arrows are cool.

I consider Precise Shot to be essential, so I would always start off as a Human or a Fighter.

Trisagon wrote:
Everything is allowed, even mythic, and 3pp but GM might want to check first.

I'm not really familiar with 3rd party stuff, my advice won't include that initially, not because I think it's bad, but because I don't know much.

Trisagon wrote:
Is there a way to increase the dice damage of an hornbow permanently, like impact does for melee weapons?

So, I like Half Orcs and Half Elves. Half Elves can get proficiency with the Orc Hornbow as an Alternate Racial Trait called Ancestral Arms.

Even 1 level in Ranger or something will allow you to use any Wand, and I do like Gravity Bow, which has been mentioned. As a Half Elf with the Arcane Training Alternate Racial Trait, you can use the Magic Wands of any one Arcane spellcasting class. Gravity Bow is also a Wizard Spell.

I also like Enlarge Person. A problem with EP is that even though your arrows grow with you, they shrink again after they are loosed from the bow and leave your person. Mark Seifter devised a solution: you carry around a quiver of Size Large Arrows. You Drop them as a Free Action. You Enlarge, then pick them back up as a Move Action.

Another problem with Enlarge Person is it has a Full Round Casting Time. Alchemists can Enlarge as a Standard Action. Alchemists who worship Uragothoa and take the Potion Glutton Feat can Enlarge (and do just about anything!) as a Swift Action (This was made illegal, but just for Pathfinder Society Play, afaIk.). Living Monoliths can Enlarge as a Swift Action, requiring only a 1 level dip in the Prestige Class. Living Monolith pre-requires the Iron Will Feat--not a terrible Feat anyway: Will Saves are the most important Saves--and the Endurance Feat, which you can get via a Half-Orc Alternate Racial Trait. Endurance is also a nice Feat. It lets you sleep in Medium Armor without waking up Fatigued. Still another way to get Enlarge Person as a Swift Action would be to dip a level in Shifter with the Swarm Shifter Archetype. This adds a very different flavor to your character, of course.

So, with an Orc Hornbow, Enlarge Person, and Gravity Bow, your arrows will inflict 4d6 Damage. Since you want to shoot 1 arrow at a time, I recommend Vital Strike Feats and the Devastating Strike Feat. With V.S, I.V.S, and G.V.S., the Damage/Arrow goes up from 4d6-> 8d6 -> 12d6, and Devastating Strike adds +6 Damage.

So Alchemist. For an Alchemist archer, I love the Grenadier Archetype. At level 2, Grenadiers get to add an Alchemal Weapon such as Alchemist Fire, Lamp Oil, or Acid as a Move Action, leaving your Standard Action to shoot with Vital Strike Feats. The Explosive Missile Discovery lets you attach Bombs to your Arrows and shoot them as a Standard Action.

So, what's this look like?

Half Elf, Ancestral Arms, Arcane Training
1Fighter1: Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, BAB+1

With Arcane Training, you can use your Wand of Gravity Bow, and make your 2d6 Arrows do 3d6.

2F1Shifter1: Vermin Aspect (Enlarge Person), BAB+2

Now you can do your Enlarge Person Trick, and your arrows do 4d6.

3F1S1Alchemist1: Bombs 1d6, Mutagens, Extracts, Throw Anything, Brew Potion, Deadly Aim
4F1S1A2: Alchemal Weapon, Discovery, Precise Bombs, BAB+3

Now you can add a flask of Alchemist Fire or something, and your arrows do 5d6, one of those d6s being Fire Damage or something.

5F1S1A3: Bombs 2d6, Feat, BAB+4
6F1S1A4: Explosive Missile, BAB+5

Now your arrows do 7d6 Damage: 4d6 from the 2-Size-bumped Orc' Arrows, 1d6 from Alchemal Weapon, and 2d6 of Bomb Damage.

7F2S1A4: Vital Strike, Feat, BAB+6

Vital Strike won't double the Bomb or Alchemal Weapon damage, of course, but the base Damage of the arrows jumps from 4d6 to 8D6, with 3d6 of Bombs and Alchemist Fire for 11d6 Damage/Arrow. Meanwhile, there are 2 Feats and a Discovery I left open.

From here I guess you could just keep taking levels in Alchemist gaining 1d6 Bomb Damage every other level, starting with level 8. And you have a lot of other ways to add on to this character.

Another variant you could go with would be to use Marker Dye Arrows. They do no Damage on their own, but they still explode, and they hit as Ranged Touch Attacks.

Dox of the ParaDox twins wrote:

Telepathy is exactly what it sounds like. The ability to communicate silently with anyone which shares a language. Probably worded that horribly. But yeah.

Arcane trickster is something I never would have thought of. That's really cool

So, it allows voluntary communication, not mind reading, and it's 1 power, not a family of powers. Can you use it as often as you want? Does it have a range? It sounds like the ideal complement to the powers of a magic invisible ninja sniper.

Dox of the ParaDox twins wrote:
Hi all. So I want to build a heavy armor using gun user. Specifically I want to use a dragon pistol and tower shield. I was thinking either gun tank 5/fighter (maybe something else) X. That gets me dex to damage and armor training 1. The other idea I had is trench fighter 3 (maybe more?) Then something else. But I'm really not sure how to go about this. Any ideas or advice is welcome. I posed this question to Reddit and the only.real advice I got was to add scatter gunner to gun tank. And one guy suggested dropping the tower shield for a heavy shield and TWFing via savage technologist. I'd really like to keep the tower shield but I can be persuaded otherwise. Dragon pistol is locked though. Thanks all

This doesn't seem all that hard. A level in Fighter gives you Heavy Armor proficiency. The Slumbering Armor Modification lets you sleep in Heavy Armor as if it were Medium Armor. The Endurance Feat lets you Sleep in Medium Armor without waking up Fatigued. Tower Shield takes a Feat. I like Gunchemist and Grenadier Alchemists. In either case, take the Explosive Missile Discovery. That lets you load Bombs into your bullets. Gunchemists can do that already, but Explosive Bullets lets you effectively load 2 bombs/round. Exploding bullets are cool.

I have an invisible Ninja sniper this would be good for.

1Fighter: Precise Shot
2F1Ninja1: Sneak Attack 1d6
3F1N2: Ki Pool, Ninja Vanishing Trick, Extra Trick: Rogue Talent: False Attacker

So this character can turn Invisible as a Swift Action then shoot you, as a Standard Action because he is Invisible, and that means your targets don't get their Dex Mods against you. You become visible again immediately, so what you do is instead of shooting on your first round, you use Stealth to find a hidy-hole to shoot from. Maintaining Stealth under those circumstances imposes a -20 on your check, but with False Attacker, you automatically succeed if you make a simple Stealth Check; your opponent thinks the attack came from somewhere else.

The question is where to go next with this character. With even 1 level in Sorcerer, Wizard, or Arcanist, you can use Magic Wands such a a Wand of Scorching Ray, so you make Ranged Touch Attacks vs Flatfooted AC that lock in your Sneak Attack Damage. If you take 3 levels in Wizard and another level in Ninja, you can start taking levels in Arcane Trickster.

5F1N3W1: Deadly Aim, Sneak Attack 2d6
7F1N3W3: Accomplished Sneak Attacker, Sneak Attack 3d6
8F1N3W3Arcane Trickster...

Another way to go to be a magic thief might be Vivisectionist Alchemist. You might dip a level in Snakebite Striker Brawler to get an extra +1d6 SA Damage and +1 BAB. You might get your Ranged Touch Attacks with a level in Gunslinger or Arcanist.

Sandal Fury wrote:
Well... what is the race?

It might inform my advice to know that as well.

For instance, what is Telepathy? You know, in game terms.

Quixote wrote:

But what about the musketeer-style guy who wants to tumble around and swing on chandeliers, and fights with a rapier and main gauche? The system's interpretation of two weapon fighting with "stand your ground and do more damage" definitely doesn't support his style.

Has anyone seen or come up with anything that feels a little more like that second example?

Well, one thing to bear in mind is that your heavier armors limit your ability to enjoy your maximum benefit of Dex to AC.

There are certain Class Features, old school ones. When Fighting Unarmored, Monks get to add their Wisdom Modifiers to AC. Duelists get to add their Int Modifiers to AC. Also, that's kind the Swashbuckler's whole bag, isn't it?

Halflings get special abilities when fighting defensively.

There is Crane Style.

There are Flowing Monks.

There is the 2 weapon defense feat.

There are weapons that give you +2 on Disarm Checks.

There are weapons that give you bonuses on Performance Checks.

There is the Blocking Weapon Quality: +1 Shield Bonus to AC when you are fighting defensively.

There is the Distracting Weapon Quality: +2 on Bluff Checks to Feint

Also, there are just circumstances: in a campaign with a lot of guns, Fighters might as well abandon their heavy armor. In cramped conditions, your lighter weapons just make more sense.

Has anyone experimented with Living Steel Armor? I've always gone for battlefield prowess: the most protection for the least weight, but I've been intrigued by the potential of gear that just repairs itself.

Ventnor wrote:
My favorite is the Armored Jacket. I just think it's neat.

On and off as a Move Action: solid choice.

Along that line, Folding Plate deserves a mention. It's +1 Full Plate, a +10 Armor Bonus instead of +4, but it activates as a Standard Action (Command Word) instead of a Move Action, and it's an expensive magic item.

An in-between option would be to get a Wand of Swift Girding which lets you don any suit of armor as a Standard Action.

Stone Plate is a worthy consideration for a Druidzilla character.

Java Man wrote:
Scott, you are responding to a spam-necro, FYI.

Oh, whoops. Thank you.

You should encourage your players to make books like that on their own, and collect them after every gaming session. When the adventure if over, save them, and when you are running for some other group, use your old players' notes as lost journal fragments.

I was the mapmaker of the party in an enormous dungeon crawl. The underworld map covered like 10 sheets of graph paper taped together, some of them flipped upon higher dungeon levels. I met that GM years later to tell me he still had the map I made and used it just the way I described. I have daydreams about joining his group and seeing that map again, and having the other players watch in amazement as I piece it back together...

Honestly, I have had that experience before, relating an anecdote of some silly thing I was involved with or another, and the person's eyes popped and they exclaimed, "THAT WAS YOU?"

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sysryke wrote:
Just as one's personal experience of inclusivity is not data across the board, neither are anecdotes of prejudice or exclusion. Anecdotal evidence cuts both ways. To say that something is pervasive or systemic without actual statistical data to back it up, is a failing argument in either direction. Discrimination exists, fact. Random conjectures about its percentage of occurance does little to help solve the issue. I prefer to focus on the positives, and stamp out the ugly bits when and where they rear their heads.

I appreciate the idea of anecdotal evidence being bad evidence and the fair-minded attitude of the fallacy of anecdotal evidence "cutting both ways." But in this case, I disagree with you. When it comes to people being made to feel unwelcome, anecdotal evidence carries weight.

If there is a bar you might go to, how many times do you need to be beaten up before you no longer feel welcome there? What if I were to tell you that in reality, only a small percentage of the patrons were of the beating-people-up mentality? And out of that small percentage, only a small percentage of those would beat you up simply because you were a ________ person?

What numbers would those percentages have to be before you would feel unwelcome? I think for most people, those numbers would be small because I think for most people, the answer to my first question is "one." Less than one. I think it would take a bar very few fights before it gets a reputation of a bar where fights happen.

That's an extreme example. In all my years of gaming, I was only targeted with physical violence once. It was during a Munchkin tournament. I played a bookmark that required a dance around a table to activate it, and the MiB presiding gave the other players permission to physically restrain me in my attempt to do so. I have a thick skin. I tend to wear such things as a badges of honor.

There was another incident where, at someone's house, one of the members of the group (who also lived there) thought it would be awesome to show off his new gun. That was not a propos of any threat or voice of disapproval, but I felt decidedly less comfortable.

But back to anecdotal evidence: I do believe, if you really wanted me to, I could go through just These Pathfinder Forums and bury a person in my "badges of honor." I guess you could argue that my body of anecdotes has aggregated into such a mass that it can no longer be called anecdotal evidence, and that would be fair to say.

But it would not be fair to say that my experience is not indicative of everyone's experience. I am telling you, as the target of hostility, that the tabletop roleplaying community is not a welcoming community. I know that because I am not welcome by some members of your community. You can argue that it has not been many, but it doesn't take many.

I invite you now to acknowledge this and

Sysryke wrote:
stamp out the ugly bits when and where they rear their heads.

or I dare you to join with the other gatekeepers and just try to keep this troll from passing into your gated community.

But I warn you, those munchkins failed to keep me from dancing around the table.

Java Man wrote:
Thread Necromancers' Guild wrote:
Can robots be undead?
Well, Short Circuit taught us that they can be alive, so.I'm going to extrapolate and say yes.

And there is a Robotics company called Vecna.

I see Andoran; I see Cheliax.

I see a little....

Sysryke wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Lemartes wrote:
Artofregicide wrote:

It may be worth mention the hobby was historically pretty unwelcoming to people who weren't straight cis white males, despite some of the fundamental forerunners being very much not male, not straight, not cis, and not white.

Never ever have I found this to be even remotely true.

Every group I've been in has never discriminated on anything but is this person going to be good to play with or not.

Not that I want to get into an argument about it or to have it derail the thread. Just my experience over a life time of gaming.

Lemartes, I'm really glad your experiences with and of the hobby have been pleasurable and fair.

I consider the hobby to be unwelcoming, and I am a cis, white male.

I'll ride the derail train a bit. You're entitled to your opinions and experiences of course, but as another white male, who just happens to be gay, I've also not witnessed the exclusive or unwelcoming nature of the hobby. Have you actually witnessed, participated in, or felt this exclusion, or are you just accepting the guilt that too many wish to blanket apply to all white men? (Some of them/us, do suck, but certainly not all.)

I am speaking of my own experiences of being made to feel most unwelcome.

Lemartes wrote:
Artofregicide wrote:

It may be worth mention the hobby was historically pretty unwelcoming to people who weren't straight cis white males, despite some of the fundamental forerunners being very much not male, not straight, not cis, and not white.

Never ever have I found this to be even remotely true.

Every group I've been in has never discriminated on anything but is this person going to be good to play with or not.

Not that I want to get into an argument about it or to have it derail the thread. Just my experience over a life time of gaming.

Lemartes, I'm really glad your experiences with and of the hobby have been pleasurable and fair.

I consider the hobby to be unwelcoming, and I am a cis, white male.

Name Violation wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
You can use Fervor to cast Lesser Restoration on yourself as a Swift Action to remove Barbarian Fatigue.

that is blatantly incorrect

fervor wrote:
As a swift action, a warpriest can expend one use of this ability to cast any one warpriest spell he has prepared with a casting time of 1 round or shorter
lesser restoration wrote:
Casting Time 3 rounds

Oh. Whoops.

Still, the ability to cast Lessor Restoration on yourself immediately after combat and remove post-rage Fatigue is still really good, even if it is not as good as during combat. And Fervor is still good for Bull Strength, and a lot of other self-buffing things that you can do as a swift action, right in the middle of melee.

Albion, The Eye wrote:
@Scott: Thanks a LOT for such a detailed feedback. I will need to look into it in more detail but, and I hope you understand where I am coming from here, there are some things which though mechanically impressive, unfortunately simply do not add up with the character...

So you're saying you want to build your character, not mine?

Albion, The Eye wrote:
Being a natural attack build is a solid idea, even more so if coupled with Warpriest - but the Tengu race... a few notches off as far as the visual and concept of the character.... I honestly like the idea a lot, but would like to see it put into practice toward the concept I have in mind. A natural attacking Minotaur Warpriest :D

I'm thinking that as a Minotaur, Your character probably already has a Gore Attack and maybe a Bite Attack. The idea of taking a 2-4 levels in Barbarian to get Claws and maybe a bite should work for a Minotaur: you just take Lesser Beast Totem for the Claws and Animal Fury for the Bite. If you want to get to minimize the levels in Barbarian to maximize the levels in Warpriest, remember that after level 2, you can take Rage Powers as the Feat Extra Rage Power. Or you could get a Ring of Ratfangs or an Animal Mask for the Bite Attack.

Albion, The Eye wrote:
and White Haired Witch are a few notches off as far as the visual and concept of the character.

Well, I'm thinking a 1 level dip for an extra attack/round is good, but if you don't want to do it, don't do it. Build your character, not mine.

You also don't include the price of the nonmagical item before enchantment.

I know this because a Maul of the Titans costs 25,305 gp. It is a reduced price magic item: you can't use it unless you have an 18 Strength or higher. It is treated as a +3 Masterwork Greatclub that does triple damage vs. inanimate objects. That 18 Strength requirement means it costs 10% less than it otherwise would.

Well, a nonmagical Masterwork Greatclub costs 305 gp. That means the 10% dicaount can't have included the initial 305gp for a Masterwork Greatclub. That means the price of creating a Maul of the Titans without that 18 Strength limitation must be 25,000gp X 10 / 9 = 27,777gp, 7sp, and 8cp.

Likewise a Shatterspike is a +1 longsword that does an extra +3 Attack and Damage when used to Sunder, but you have to have Improved Sunder to use that feature. It costs 4315gp, and a nonmagical masterwork long sword costs 315gp. So a Shatterspike that does not require the wielder to have Improved Sunder costs 4000 X 10/9 = 4444gp, 4sp, and 4cp.

Because sure, those number say loud and clear that the Paizo Design Team pays attention to their own rules!

FamiliarMask wrote:
Sysryke wrote:

So, in the process of posting on a different thread, I had one of my random thoughts.

In my current game group, everyone is part of a couple. There's my husband and I, the married couple who host, and our other two friends (formerly married, now divorced).

As gamers our community has come a long way, but the old stereotypes do still crop up. The old stereotype of a gamer is the socially awkward, single, young guy, and a female at the table was practically rarer than a unicorn. Obviously, for those of us who've played for years (or decades) we know this cliché is overstated, but we all also knew (or were) some of those guys.

Now, none of my group is super young any more. We're not elderly either, but all in our 30's to 40's. Is this just a symptom of where we are all at in our lives, or is our group odd? I doubt there are any studies out there, so this is mostly looking for anecdotal insights. How common is it to see couples at the gaming table, much less an entire group of couples?

In my experience, once you get older than college-age, couples become fairly common.

My wife and I are in the 30s & 40s range also. We game together, and most of the table top groups we've been in in the last decade or so had at least one other married couple in them.

Other players were mostly single guys, but there has been a single woman or two also.

Yeah, I think it is fairly common that your friends are in similar places in their lives as you are in yours.

You don't need Improved Shield Bash, and we're getting more than 1 Trick.

1 trick is the ability to 2 weapon fight with an Earthbreaker and a Shield.

Another trick is the ability to Bull Rush with every Full Attack.

Another trick is giving all your allies Attacks of Opportunity with every Bull Rush.

And yet another Trick is the ability to get AoOs for yourself.

Anyway, the OP is thinking in terms of Shield Slam anyway. I'm just talking about building on what he already wants to do.

If you want Shield Slam, you should consider a Thunder and Fang build. If you Thunder and Fang is Feat-expensive, but the ability to wield an Earthbreaker 1 handed is awesome, and you get to bash with the Klar without taking Shield Bash and still get the Shield Bonus to AC.

Also, if you are taking Shield Slam, you should really take Greater Bull Rush and give your allies Attacks of Opportunity. I like achieving that via levels in Inquisitor and also take Paired Opportunist, so I get an Attack of Opportunity for every Bull Rush which is trigger with every Shield Attack.

Albion, The Eye wrote:

@Scott Wilhelm: It is indeed a thematic, flavor thing. Many times I tend to think about my characters crunch before the fluff, but this time I did it the other way around - one of the first ideas which popped into my head was of this divine purposed minotaur (yep, the game has that kind of variability, so that is what I am playing - how cool is that?) fighting with bare hands, and standing in harm's way for his companions in the name of courage and justice.

Admittedly, when trying to put down the crunch to match the concept I had some doubts on the best path to take - namely which class or classes combination, and the 15point stat spread. Flat out, the Sacred Fist should be what I am intent on creating, but I have heard so many awkward things about it it made me hesitate.

I have played more cookie-cutter Warpriests before - wielding a BFW and going to town, and have never been disappointed by it (except for the 2+Int skills per level... I have a very hard time coping with that one...) - they perform very well as divine combatants, resourceful and versatile (that spell list), resilient, and strong as heck.

For the current role I expect to play in the group (the frontliner), a cookie cutter build would also probably be the best option - again BFW + Full Plate, or even Sword and Board - should pack a better AC, better damage, etc. than the unarmed one. But... I really would like to try something different this time around. Granted, it does not actually need to be a Warpriest - just seemed like the most obvious choice for such a concept.

So I am currently inclined to play a UC monk lvl1/Warpriest (not Sacred Fist) levelX. I still have some concerns on how it will pan out as we level up, so any advice is welcome of course ;)

What I'm thinking of is a Natural Attack Build. I like Tengu because Tengu have a Bite Attack and can get 2 Claws as an Alternate Racial Trait. I'm thinking you dip 2 levels in Barbarian and also get a Gore Attack and a level in White Haired Witch and get a Hair Attack, then take the rest of your levels in Warpriest, replacing the lesser Natural Attack Damage with the better Warpriest Sacred Weapon Damage.

You can use Fervor to cast Lesser Restoration on yourself as a Swift Action to remove Barbarian Fatigue. You can also cast Bull Strength on yourself as a Swift Action which stacks with Barbarian Rage. Righteous Might gives your Attacks a Size bump, and if you can find a magic item that gives you Strong Jaw, that gives you 2 more. I also like the Lesser Blessing of Destruction which gives you +1 Damage for every (one of your many, many) attack per 2 Warpriest levels.

You'd have to take Weapon Focus a bunch of times, but that is not as bad as it sounds. If you worship a deity whose Favored Weapon is a Natural Attack, you don't have to take WF for that one, and anyway, the Tengu Bite already does 1d6, so there's no hurry to take WF bite until you are a level 5 Warpriest. The Gore Attack from a Helm of the Mammoth Lord or the Lesser Fiend Totem Rage Power does 1d8, so there's no hurry to take WF Gore before level 10.

You were thinking you wanted to be a Minotaur, so you have a Gore Attack? You could take a few levels in Barbarian to take the the Rage Powers Animal Fury (Bite Attack) and Lesser Beast Totem (2 Claws), or else not: after your first Rage Power, you can take the Extra Rage Power Feat.

I think you will find a well-planned Natural Attack Wapriest will have a formidable DPR compared with an Flurry of Blows melee character.

The way I was thinking would be something like

Tengu, Claws
1Barbarian1: Rage, Feat
2B1Warpriest1: Weapon Focus Claws, Worships Dahak: Favored Weapon Bite, Lesser Blessing of Destruction
3B1W1Witch1: White Haired Witch, Weapon Focus Hair, Feat
4B2W1H1: Lesser Fiend Totem (Gore Attack)

The +2 BAB at level 4 is bad, but that will be offset by the fact that you have Weapon Focus for your Hair and Claws. But at this point, you have Bite, Hair, Gore, and 2 Claws for 5 Attacks/round, the Gore doing 1d8, and the rest doing 1d6, all augmented by your +4 Strength due to Rage. You get another Attack: every successful Hair Attack comes with a Free Grapple, and if you are wearing Armor Spikes, every successful Grapple Attack does Armor Spike Damage, which you can also take Weapon Focus for and inflict Sacred Weapon Damage.

I'm thinking you keep taking levels in Warpriest after that, When you hit level 4 Warpriest, you get Level 2 Spells. When you hit level 5, your Hair and Claws do 1d8, so that is a good target level for Weapon Focus Armor Spikes and Weapon Focus Bite.

So, as a Minotaur, you don't take Lesser Fiend Totem, since you have a Gore Attack already. You take Lesser Beast Totem for the 2 Claws and/or Animal Fury for the Bite. I guess you could dip a couple of levels in Alchemist and take the Feral Mutagen Discovery, which also gives you 2 Claws and a Bite. And the Strength Bonus from the Mutagen stacks with both Barbarian Rage and Bull Strength. If you did that, you'd only need 1 level in Barbarian. for the Rage Strength, if you wanted it.

Albion, how important is it that you you have an Unarmed combatant, and not just a combatant that fights without manufactured weapons?

Is there a special theme or flavor you are going for, or are you just trying to fill a great, big can of melee Warpriest Whoopass?

TxSam88 wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
In general, my preferences of homespun vs. published adventures and campaigns are the opposite of Sam's, but Sam might be right in that the OP's problems are likely an inevitable result of homespun campaigns. Although I think it's more likely the result of an inexperienced GMing rather than original worldbuilding.
Agreed, a good Experienced GM can create awesome original worlds, sadly, many try it way before they have enough experience to do it correctly, and even experienced ones sometimes lack the time to do it sufficiently.

Correct, incorrect, we're playing fantasy make-believe, and the GM is axiomatically always right.

The real question is is the GM really so bad that you are having less fun? And if the answer is no, well, can you be patient with the GM? How will he ever become a good and experienced GM if people like you and me aren't willing to be his learning experience?

I've had highly experienced GMs who were terrible, and I had a GM who hit it out of the park on literally her first try. What made a terrible GM was gate-keeping and inflexible thinking, being unable to adapt or accept the ideas that I was bringing. I had one that was like, "You can't take levels in that if that's your character's name! There's only one place in the world where you could get training in that class, and they would refuse your training!" So he made me change my character's name, switch levels in one class for another, and I didn't come back to his table. He just had no respect for the effort and careful consideration I put into my character.

I had another situation where I had my true neutral Arcane Trickster try to surreptitiously cast Blood Transcription on the body of the slain evil wizard. And when we started mapping the area (Kingmaker Campaign), I said, "I cast Commune with Birds to get the lay of the land." He was dumbfounded and didn't know how to handle that. He was like a 4 Star PFS GM, but he could not handle thinking that was even a little out-of-the box. I just stopped coming back.

On the other hand, sometimes conflicts with my GM resulted in some awesome gaming experiences.

Something else I've experienced. Sometimes, it looks like the GM is favoring one player over another, but it's because the GM is trying to sucker that player and the party into a trap.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not in competition with my players. I don't worry that much if another player is being favorited, and if I'm being singled out for harsher treatment, I usually take that as a compliment of my playing skills.

There was a time when the cute chicks at the table seemed to resent the fact that I was the only one who wasn't flirting with them.

But there was also a time when one of the players was new, and she was just not that good at building a melee character, and rather than being outclassed in melee by my cleric, I was the one that suggested to the GM that the novice character be allowed to character levels and options from the Book of Nine Swords. That seemed to work well all around.

I guess I try not to sweat it if someone else is being singled out for better treatment or if I'm being singled out for worse. I just try to be a good player for myself and my fellows, have my fun, and help everyone else have theirs.

Ryze Kuja wrote:
Not trying to flex, but I've pinned a lot of people in wrestling. As the one doing the pinning, with very few exceptions your movement is not inhibited, you definitely retain your dex bonus, because 1) you can circle/move around the target you're pinning while maintaining the hold, and 2) you can release the pin at any time you want. There are certain holds where this is not true however, such as cradles and guillotines. But if you're doing Head-and-arm, Japanese Wizzer, arm-bars, butchers, 1/4-1/2-3/4 nelsons, etc., your movement while pinning is not inhibited. You can circle around the target as much as you want, or release the hold near-instantaneously.

Maybe, but we're talking about what the game rules are, not criticizing the realism of that game.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RAWmonger wrote:

Remembered why I come here so rarely now. Absolute delusion to think you keep Dex to CMD while blinded/pinned, whatever it is just because they didn’t write the rules perfectly worded or come to your homegame and stamp it on your forehead for you. Just use general common sense, we don’t need a “ruling from on high,” we’re not 6 year olds. If you are blind and someone attempts to sweep your leg, you’re not going to be able to react prior to being hit. It is no longer your dex that can save you, you’re relying on your own brawn (str) and combat training (BAB) to keep you from losing. You definitely are not meant to maintain dex to CMD when blinded.

If you are pinned you obv lose dex to CMD, you’re pinned. If you’re the one pinning, you obviously lose dex to CMD, because *in order to pin someone, your own movement also has to be very limited.* Watch an MMA fight, they get them in a submission hold, translate over to pathfinder: does either fighter get their dex bonus to CMD, or would you say that’s out of the picture by this point?

Buffoonery, guys. Buffoonery.

Is there a point you are trying to make her, um, RAWmonger?

Agénor wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Maybe, but Sam is making a soft argument to begin with. He's just saying he likes publish modules better than homespun adventurers, and he's saying that the OP's GM's problems are a direct result of not using a published module. He might have a point.

I didn't read it the way you did. I didn't understand the following

TxSam88 wrote:
Most GM's don't know enough about the game to create well written, balanced, level appropriate encounters.
to be a soft point at all. This statement isn't presented as an informed opinion, this is a hasty generalisation.

In general, my preferences of homespun vs. published adventures and campaigns are the opposite of Sam's, but Sam might be right in that the OP's problems are likely an inevitable result of homespun campaigns. Although I think it's more likely the result of an inexperienced GMing rather than original worldbuilding.

My advice is to the OP is to handle the situation with cunning, verve, and patience. Be forgiving and allow the GM to grow, and make no apologies for his own gaming style.

Name Violation wrote:
But weapon focus REQUIRES proficiency.

I'm not suggesting the character is taking weapon focus for a weapon he doesn't have proficiency in. The OP is taking Weapon Focus Unarmed, and his character will be proficient with Unarmed Strikes.

Name Violation wrote:
Is there wording to bypass the requirement?

The text of the Martial Versatility Feat bypasses this requirement.

Martial Versatility wrote:
You can use that feat with any weapon within the same weapon group.

Unarmed Strikes and Urumi are both in the same weapon group: the Monk Weapon Group.

Incidentally, I believe the OP intends to use Martial Versatility to apply Weapon Focus to weapons his is proficient with: Unarmed Strikes, Natural Attacks, and Armor Spikes.

Artificial 20 wrote:

Hey this is a nice party, I want to add a present.

Pin wrote:
You can give your opponent the pinned condition (see Appendix 2). Despite pinning your opponent, you still only have the grappled condition, but you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC.
So if pinning your opponent means you lose your dex to AC, does your CMD also lose dex, making the check to break the pin vs. your CMD get easier?

That's my take on it.

Combat, Special Attacks, Combat Maneuvers, Combat Maneuver Defense, Miscellaneous Modifiers wrote:
Any penalties to a creature’s AC also apply to its CMD.

It's not rock solid.

Combat Maneuver Defense wrote:
CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier + miscellaneous modifiers

That doesn't say "Dexterity Modifier to Armor Class;" it just says Dexterity Modifier. Pinned doesn't say you lose your Dexterity Modifier; only your Dexterity Modifier to AC.

I think that losing your Dex mod to AC constitutes an AC Penalty.

gnoams wrote:
Good GMs don't run other people's campaigns. Even when they are running a published module, they are still running their own campaign. A good GM takes responsibility. If something doesn't make sense to them, they change it. You don't have to know what the original author intended because it's not their game you are running, it's yours.

Pathfinder Society GMs are running someone else's campaign.

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I don't understand any GM trying to defend or even opine on the intention of an adventure or campaign world they didn't even create.
Are you saying that people can't have opinions about things they didn't create? Or that GMs can't have accurate understanding of a product they didn't have a hand in making?

No, people can have opinions about anything.

I'm saying people's opinions about the intentions of others have no weight most of the time. Unless you are actually the author or something, your opinion mere speculation, possibly rising to the level of inference.

And I'm saying that being a GM running somebody else's campaign gives you no more authority to presume upon the intent of the author than anybody else has. Less authority than the players' unless they are using pregens. I am almost always playing with characters I actually created, and if the GM isn't playing with something he actually created, he is merely a referee, and the players are the artists.

Jointly, we are all consumers of the same piece of artwork: the published module, but my interpretation of artwork is as good as anybody else's. Presumably, the GM has read the module in advance, and I haven't, that counts for something. But your authority over mine on the subject of a painting that you have seen and I haven't ends when I have seen the painting too. We will then be on equal footing unless of course, you are the artist or something.

But in terms of narrative, motivation, subtext, and meaning, authority comes from authorship.

Agénor wrote:

However, it seems the Game Master has only little grasp over Pathfinder combat between the party and monsters. A few +1 or +2 here and there that ABP would bring wouldn't solve much. The issue lies with the G.M. making the effort of undertaking reading Pathfinder then coming back to his table and being open about what he modifies. Him justifying the way he runs things with «low gold/few magic items» is inconsistent with what O.P. describes as «embarrassing, either TPK or cake walk».

One should understand before one modifies so that the modifications make sense with the bulk of the corpus.

I think what the GM should do is collect copies of all the character record sheets and get each player to explain how their character "works," how they are meant act in combat, how the weapons, feats, spells, and other gear and talents are meant to work together, both as individuals and as members of a team. The GM should crunch some numbers and come up with DPRs

The GM should then design encounters based on a combination of his numbers and his narrative. You can't bring all the rulebooks to every encounter. A GM needs to just make decisions in real-time. He needs to reduce all the rules into a few numbers he can recognize at a glance, and keep the action going. The GM should think about how he hopes the party will handle each problem, and arrange those numbers to hopefully nudge the players accordingly. Nudge, not push. Everybody needs to make room for the disconnect of expectations.

Matthew Downie wrote:
Pootisman wrote:

What advice can i give to him?


I showed him this very simple table for the character wealth and explained him that CR is based also on the PC equipment and he said "i don't care, my campaign is low gold" and that's it.

i tried to explain him that a Newbie DM can't really balance encounters just using his instinct, he needs a guideline but he refuses to follow any.

I doubt he'd take any advice.

You should probably be GMing the game yourself.

It makes sense for a group to alternate GMing amongst them; take turns.

Agénor wrote:
TxSam88 wrote:
When you don't have data/evidence you can use to prove a point, you then rely on people who have experienced the situations in question.
When one doesn't have reliable data, one doesn't make strong affirmative statements as if they were self-evident truths.

People do that all the time. They do that more when they don't have good data than when they do. I wish they wouldn't, but they do.

Agénor wrote:

Literally, you don't know enough hence you don't know. You didn't state an opinion or a personal experience, you've stated a fact. You didn't leave open the possibility of someone answering «Well, I've had a different experience.» but left open the possible answer of «No, TxSam88, you are wrong.»

When you don't have evidence to prove a point, you can't prove it.

Maybe, but Sam is making a soft argument to begin with. He's just saying he likes publish modules better than homespun adventurers, and he's saying that the OP's GM's problems are a direct result of not using a published module. He might have a point.

Agénor wrote:

...nothing to do with reality.

Ever done science before?^^

I was just saying that he invited you attack him personally, but that doesn't mean you should be rude. That kinda sounds like you're accusing him of having no objective grasp on reality.

TxSam88 wrote:

this is one of the reasons why I hate Home brew. Most GM's don't know enough about the game to create well written, balanced, level appropriate encounters. my advice is to start over with 1st level characters and have your GM run one of the prewritten Adventure Paths.

I always prefer a homebrewed campaign over a published module. Almost every problem an inexperienced GM will have with his own campaign he will also have with a module. But when I play in a world created by the GM, I am connecting with someone personally, getting to know their mind, sharing their vision.

When the GM is being a gate-keeping, bullying jerk like so many GMs are, when that GM actually created the world he is running, he at least has something meaningful to say about the intent of the rules, at least it's actually his own artistic vision he is defending.

I don't understand any GM trying to defend or even opine on the intention of an adventure or campaign world they didn't even create.

If you don't feel like putting the work in to create the adventure or the world yourself, that's fine. I get it. Creating a campaign setting is hard work.

But I will always appreciate that hard work.

TxSam88 wrote:
ever been on a jury before? Quite often things are decided upon purely based upon someone's word and their credentials are how you decide on how much weight their word has.

There is a problem with offering your person as evidence. All evidence offered invites cross-examination. When you offer your person as evidence, you are offering yourself for personal attack.

And so...

TxSam88 wrote:
I've played since 1983, even done some work for WOTC

So it sounds like you have a dog in this fight. It sounds like you are a published writer and homespinning GMs somehow insult your craft and maybe undermine your livelihood. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm somewhat sympathetic. Sometimes, watching people do things badly that I am passionate about can be almost physically painful. But just because I live on the same planet that Bobby Fisher lived on, I still will play the occasional chess game. I suck at chess. My opponent may be worse, but we'll have our fun anyway.

You know my opinion, and I believe you correctly quoted the text of Martial Versatility.

You take Weapon Focus Unarmed.

You take Martial Versatility Weapon Focus.

You want to use a Klar. Do you get to use Weapon Focus with a Klar?

Klar is in the Close Weapon Group.

Unarmed Strike is in the Close Weapon Group, so yes, you can.

You want to use an Urumi.

Urumi and and Unarmed Strike are both in the Monk Weapon Group.

If you aren't proficient with Urumi (an Exotic Weapon), you still suffer the -4 penalty for fighting with a weapon you aren't proficient with, but you also get that +1 for Weapon Focus.

My opinion is based on a literal interpretation of the rules-as-written.

Pootisman wrote:

In this case you're right, he didn't read the book at all.

He didn't even know what metamagic is or the immediate action rules.

Well then, what game was he running?

Pootisman wrote:
He calls me a rule lawyer and a min maxer because i take the right feats and read and understand the rules.

Not Pathfinder. Nothing D20. D20 is the most baroque gaming system there is, and Pathfinder is the most baroque version of D20 there is! If you don't like min-maxing, rules-lawyering players, then don't play Pathfinder. The game is obviously designed to be exploited through system mastery.

Pootisman wrote:
I showed him this very simple table for the character wealth and explained him that CR is based also on the PC equipment and he said "i don't care, my campaign is low gold" and that's it.

I hope you didn't show him the Wealth based on level chart at his gaming table! Most GMs don't appreciate being challenged at their tables. You should restrict table-challenges to things that are crucial to the gaming experience in the moment, and you should be brief, stopping when you think you have been heard.

It's fine to point out to your GM that he is going against guidelines, but it's also fine for your GM to go against the guidelines. It's also fine if he intentionally makes things hard on you.

Pootisman wrote:
i tried to explain him that a Newbie DM can't really balance encounters just using his instinct, he needs a guideline but he refuses to follow any.

That argument is terrible even if it is true. He can't create balanced encounters unless you let him, and balance is overrated.

Is he creating fun encounters?

Pootisman wrote:

The encounters the DM throws at us are embarrassing, they either TPK without a plot armor or are way too easy...

So he resorted to throw at us 5 CL monsters or less so we don't die, but the spellcasters just use them to mop up the floor and kill them almost instantly with a fireball

These are your good arguments. Your combats are all catastrophic: catastrophically easy or catastrophically difficult.

Pootisman wrote:
What advice can i give to him?

Not much. You have observed to him that he has elected to go against the guidelines for wealth-based on level, and you seem to have communicated that his combats all end catastrophically, for one side or the other, and none of the combats are balanced, and that seems to be a direct result of his decision to go against the guidelines.

Plot Armor is not necessarily a bad thing. Lots of combats are more like puzzles to solve. That can be fine, even incredible.

I think there are 2 problems here. There may be a disconnect of expectations, and your GM hasn't found his sea legs, yet. In both cases, you need to do some soul-searching. Ask the GM what kind of experience he wants you to have, and ask yourself if you have the patience to let him learn how to give that to you?

Pootisman wrote:
What can i do to improve the economy?

I've pretty much given you this advice already. Engage with his world, and exploit every opportunity to strip every encounter of everything of any conceivable value. When you get past the heavy, carved-oaken doors and go into the room with the beautiful marble statue. Did you remove those doors from the hinges? Did you take down the marble statue and bring that home to sell? I'm guessing the answer to that is "no."

Surely your characters have sufficient ranks in Knowledge and Appraise to recognize when you kill or capture a monster which body parts have a good market value: the skins of this, the brains of that, the heart of the other? If you capture a camp of bandits, are you collecting the equipment? What about the livestock? Are you getting that?

When your party goes to a town, take a survey of the items for sale, and which items are the really big ticket items. Look for those items as you adventure.

If he complains about your gaming style, explain to him that you are just trying to survive in the world he created. If he complains about you being a rules-lawyering jerk, then then explain to him that this is Pathfinder, and if he doesn't like rules-lawyering, maybe he should play a nice game of Connect Four.

He shouldn't complain, though. You'll be communicating what you want without any complaining, but by giving him what he wants: a player engaging with his game world.

1 to 50 of 8,305 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>