Kobold

Shady314's page

97 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Elias Alexander wrote:
I really want to hammer the dichotomy home with this next adventure... I haven't gotten many ideas yet, but i know i want it to be dark, unforgiving and claustrophobic. so far, the only Concrete concept that i have is that the entrance to the dungeon in this adventure is in a well.... it will be dark and wet, and not many ( if any) direct combat encounters. so then friends, Have any ideas for me?

Are you truly married to the well as the entrance? I think that should be how they get out not get in. An exit reaching up towards the sky and light plays nicely with the desire to escape the tight, dark confines underground. Though an exit and entrance is just a matter of direction.

I'd play with the whole above/underground thing you have going and put them underground unexpectedly when they are radically unprepared for it.
Like have the earth swallow them. Or even an entire building they are in.

It'd help to know things like what level? How well equipped etc. Do you want a HORROR game or just a dark scary place? There's a big difference. I don't find heroic fantasy lends itself well to actual horror.


FiddlersGreen wrote:
More like because any character able to cast invisibility, or for that matter any character with a ring of invisibility can become an "invisible stalker". ;)

So all PCs beware.


FiddlersGreen wrote:
Shady314 wrote:
Invisible Stalker..... just the name is pretty terrifying. Think about it.
Voyeurism? Female PCs beware!

Because Male PCs love being watched unawares by creepy creatures?


Invisible Stalker..... just the name is pretty terrifying. Think about it.


PCs ARE too powerful. They win so frequently. Totally OP and broken.


Got it days ago.


Kamelguru wrote:
Can we have retraining of skills back in core plz?

Or just ask your DM. It's perfectly reasonable and I allow bards to freely remove skill ranks from the appropriate skills each time they get it.


The Weave05 wrote:

Or can you? After the recent release of the APG, one of my players has shown clear interest in playing a paladin. As many could guess, the issue is that my campaign world doesn't (and never has before) taken alignment into consideration. It hasn't been an issue in the many years we've been playing, and we've simply avoided spells like "Protection from ______." I personally never liked the concept of it, so I ditched it early on. Unfortunately, the Paladin seems to be totally interwoven into the concept of alignment, and I know there are other DMs out there who play alignmentless games, so I was looking for some advice.

Paladins don't really need alignment anyways. It's a legacy. It has nothing to do with their balance. The only trouble is reflavoring the abilities like detect evil.

Quote:


I once before had a player who wanted to play a paladin, but since there was no alignment, I simply let him smite anything except truly neutral creatures, like animals. I soon realized that was a foolish mistake, and the class dominated most everything. Luckily for me, that campaign ended quickly, and we moved on. Now I'm back looking to see if anyone has any suggestions/experience with this kind of situation, and if they could offer any helpful advice. Also, I don't intend to start a debate about alignment, I'm just looking for alternatives is all.

Thanks!

I'm not sure how the paladin ended up owning. 90% of the creatures you fight are usually evil aligned anyways.

Make the paladin come up with a code appropriate to his beliefs. Let smite only work on clear enemies of that code.
A paladin of "freedom" for example (which was a variant in 3.5) can only use smite on someone clearly fighting for tyranny. A servant for a corrupt king. A slaver etc.

The other option is the player makes a religious fighter and you call him a paladin.


GreatNagai wrote:

Just curious ; do you think wishes are really useful ?

I mean, i've had this problem since the first Wish spell i saw during a session of the old D&D basic. A badly wounded lvl 9 or so cleric had used up all his spells, and since the GM was in the "let's give away wish-granting rings for free" period,he said he'd use a wish to cure himself. I panicked, than the GM asked "how do you spell the wish ?" and the guy "i want to have my starting HP"
Resulting in a lvl 9 cleric with the hit pnts of a lvl 1 cleric.
Since then i tried to avoid Wishes like a plague, and the situation even got worse with 3 and 3,5 in which Wishes can only be used to duplicate lesser lvl spells, but use up a 9th lvl spell slot ( yes i know the saving DC is also that of a lvl 9 spell, but don't think that is worth the effort ).
Definitively , do you need to hire a lawyer to tell you how to correctly pronounce a Wish spell if you want to use it i other ways , or you simply duplicate lesser spells ( effectively wasting the wish ) ?
Or maybe i was unlucky and got the wrong GM ?

While I love twisting wishes as much as the next guy the Wish is supposed to not have a problem fulfilling a function covered by an actual spell. Using Wish to cast Heal should be perfectly fine. I would consider it much more difficult for a wish to alter maximum HP permanently than mimic a cure spell.

DMs are only supposed to have fun screwing you when you wish for treasure, immortality etc.


Just relax.
If it's a hopeless disaster you just go back to being a player. There should be zero reason to feel stress about a game of any kind.


You could convert a Cannith Wand Adept. (Sharn: City of Towers Book) I recommend replacing Dual-Wield Wands the class feature with the Double Wand Wielder feat from Complete Arcane. Also add Two Weapon Fighting or replace Quickdraw Wands with TWF.


They roleplay if it seems like something that will be fun or the player wants to but but then roll to see how effective they are. If I need to speed things up and/or it's something minor they roll and I narrate briefly what they came up with. Especially with bluff rolls. All my players come up with the worst lies so it's in their best interest to let the dice decide.


Eberron.


Ravingdork wrote:
I was learning towards a vulture animal companion or something with pounce, but the GM made it clear that I have a history of slowing the game down with animal companions/eidolons/familiars/guard dogs/summons/etc. He has accused me of always having a companion creature at hand for no other reason than to maximize my "economy of actions" each round (which he views as munchkinism).

Why don't you let the GM run your animal companion in combat then?


Quote:
Raw, you'd have to concentrate for 18 seconds to find out that there is a magic aura there. If it's a dagger, lucky charm, or his familiar you can't know. You'd only know there's a faint magic aura.

?? First round. PRESENSE of magical auras. That's the tip off. Granted it depends on the circumstance but when the assassin enters the room and poof suddenly there's a new magic aura there the idea it'd take 3 rounds to figure it out is stupid. Don't forget it's a cone effect as well. You know the aura is coming from where you're looking. The problem is seeing it on him at all. Not that you can pinpoint where under his jacket it is. As for whether or not it's faint that depends on the dagger.

Oh right the paranoid PCs won't know if it's his lucky charm. I'm sure because they're total idiots they won't do anything at all and completely ignore it.... that was sarcasm. I know tone is hard to read via text. It puts them on guard.

It works against PCs too. You want to use your sleight of hand to sneak that weapon in? Too bad it lights up like a christmas tree to any decent security.

18 seconds is plenty of time if the assassin was going to bide his time like a real assassin would and not attack the instant he enters the room like an idiot.

Anyways disregarding that specific example x-ray vision of magical effects is stupidly useful for an at will cantrip. It also means every meaningful stone wall is built with a thin sheet of lead mostly to defeat a cantrip. A single cantrip affects the construction of every secure building in the world. That's too powerful.

P.S. Yes I know there's magic aura. That should exist to defeat things like arcane sight not a cantrip!


You want to nerf linguistics?! HEHE Now I've heard everything.


Personal Houserule? Illusions auto-beat detect magic. I've also said detect magic can NOT see through anything. You cannot see the hidden magic dagger's aura concealed under the assassin's jacket you g*#!#@n ridiculous useful cantrip! You hear me!

I think detect magic can detect meld into stone. It is a functioning spell BUT the magic is arguably hidden behind the face of the stone (since the spell states "Nothing that goes on outside the stone can be seen" so I'd interpret that to mean you can't be seen either) and I don't let detect magic see through walls or anything. So if you as GM REALLY wanted meld into stone to be undetectable I wouldn't find it outrageous.

In game I have let detect magic see the aura from meld into stone. Though the person within the stone was casting magic every round also. It was funny seeing the reaction from the players. They thought the stone was magical lol. It seemed especially fair since the wizard was wasting time with a concentration spell and not buffing. Meld into stone is usually a precursor to an ambush not a good way to hide.

Perhaps it should remain invisible to detect magic so long as the person in the stone takes no other magical actions.

Definitely the aura from the spell should be detected as a dim aura for 1d6 rounds after casting outside the stone so if the PCs get there fast enough detect magic should be a viable strategy.


Can a halfling ride a dinosaur? ... That means yes.


Don't forget that a sorcerer still must take a full-round action when using a metamagic rod, just as if using a metamagic feat he possesses (except for quicken metamagic rods, which can be used as a swift action).


Ravingdork wrote:
Of course they won't be worded like that. A guy with a 34 Charisma is going to say exactly what he wants. Since I'm a normal guy I will never be able to say it quite as well as the character, and it's not expected of me. So long as I can clearly convey to the GM what I want, the rest is represented by the Charisma check et al.

Wow that's extremely generous. I had no idea charisma got to double for intelligence. And 34 that's extremely specific.... Sure this is not for your character...?

Charisma just makes your arguments convincing not smart. I'd say the demon finds your argument so enticing because you worded it poorly and it sees an opportunity to have fun.

Quote:
Don't all fiends love to kill and wreak havoc?

To an extent but open combat is not every demons raison d'etre. And FAIR combat is definitely not to most of their liking. If a powerful sorceror needs a demonic bodyguard even a low int character can surmise they've got powerful enemies. If I was a demon and you just wanted to send me on a rampage against some tiny village all right kewl. A few minutes of my time is more than fair. 15 days where I may have to fight the people that scare YOU? No matter how you word it I'm not an idiot. (Not with 16 int. Out of curiousity how high is this sorcerors Int? Is the Glabrezu smarter?) The Glabrezu is clearly written to not spend it's time going around killing people. It goes around tempting people and ruining their lives or at best using your wish to ruin other people's lives. Killing is for the lesser demons that lack true skill.

Quote:
Sure some are predisposed towards doing it in certain fashions, but that doesn't change the fact that they are CE fiends out for blood.

Where does the Glabrezu write up mention killing?

Quote:
Also, I originally chose the Glabrazu because it was the only fiend I found to have a good selection of useful abilities AND have 12 HD.

There are useful monsters with less HD. Maybe the new Bestiary will fix this ... issue?

Quote:
The wish wasn't my original question, merely a part of it. It was used simply as an example of a possible request to show how broken the spell could...

Very well I have not read every comment. I was only commenting on the OP.

The spell is only broken if a GM is terrible and allows simplistic negotiations with beings alien to any mortal and for charisma to double as intelligence when working out a service contract.


Phasics wrote:

My first thought is yes, since it says the spell is treated as a higher level for all relevant effects.

but figured it worth checking

e.g.
Burning Hands level 1 spell heightened to level 5
cast defensively is it 15+1x2 or 15+5+5

I guess the same could be asked of any meta magic spell would you use the spell slot level or the natural spell level ?

ALL relevant effects means it is a 5th level spell in every way.


Ravingdork wrote:
You're right about that. The spell description is clear on the matter. And perhaps "lap dog" was the wrong choice of words. It sure seems to drive you up the wall for some reason.

Not perhaps.

No I'm not up the wall.

Quote:
Still, it doesn't change that, that "one thing" could be "be my bodyguard for the next 15 days" or "assist me in destroying all my enemies in yonder castle" or "track down the wizard who scarred me with fireball and make him suffer tenfold what I did."

But you're demands are actually better worded than that right? Remember compel is not compulsion. The demon is going to perform the service it promised but it's going to do the bare minimum and a glabrezu is especially going to try and work in some treachery. How does the demon define being your bodyguard? What if it for example demands an hour break once a day whenever it wants? What if the demon decides to be very pro active in bodyguarding you and just kill everybody?

Quote:
These are all perfectly reasonable things to request. There is literally nothing you can't ask for (though you likely won't get it if you ask for too much).

According to you maybe. I wouldn't consider 15 days of protecting someone I hate 24/7 from enemies that might end up killing me to be some sort of super awesome (PERFECTLY reasonable being as usual a rather gross mischaracterization. It MAY be reasonable to certain creatures) deal I just have to jump at because in return he'll let me loose on the material plane. The Glabrezu doesn't live for combat. If you want a protector summon a creature that likes protecting things. If you want someone that loves the idea of wading into a castle full of enemies and slaughtering stuff summon a creature that loves to fight. Glabrezu's love to screw over mortals through temptation.

I also don't see how any of those requests involve the Glabrezu using its wish ability. Have you already forgotten your original question or are you just trying to "win" the argument?

It's not LIKELY you won't get it if you ask for too much. The spell says you will NOT get it. Obviously "too much" falls under unreasonable.

Quote:
I imagine calling spells in your games are either worthless due to the limitations you put on them, or they are so costly to use as to make most any other method preferable. If that is the case, than it's a shame. They add a lot of fun and flavor to the game.

No I love summoning spells of all kinds I just strive for verisimilitude. Calling spells are dangerous and are to be used out of necessity not whimsy. They also have to be used intelligently. You call the right creature for the task and have an actual bargaining chip. (I play in Eberron where even good outsiders prefer to be back home) Summoning a glabrezu, rolling your super optimisedintimidate check and declaring the demon to now be your lapdog that HAS to grant you a wish that won't at all hurt your character isn't going to cut it. That's what a lazy stupid spellcaster does that dies. They teach you how to do it correctly in wizardry academies.

You get what you ask for. And trying to get a loyal hireling out of a demon formed from souls literally defined by treachery is one of the dumbest most unrealistic ideas I've ever heard.

If a PC tried I would cackle with glee for a full minute before I could compose myself and say are you sure?

Quote:
In any case, we obviously don't see eye to eye on a number of issues. It's just a difference of play styles I guess. Nevertheless, that is not a good reason to get so up in arms over the whole affair. Take the night off, calm down a bit, and if you want to continue discussing it tomorrow than we can. Just dial it down a notch.

Don't worry yourself. I've never gotten worked up about anything on a forum and I didn't start now. That's just my acerbic personality. I thought you of all people would understand.

(Is it the caps? I'm not yelling just attempting to get an emphasis across without tone to do it)


Ravingdork wrote:
What do you think COMPEL means?

1 : to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly <hunger compelled him to eat>

2 : to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure <public opinion compelled her to sign the bill>
3 archaic : to drive together

None of those makes someone your "lap dog." You got them to do one thing for you. Wow. The demon licks at your bootheels and pleads for mercy. Eyeroll here. It will surely never seek revenge with a host of fellow glabrezu because you have the all mighty banishment spell which forces them to... go home. And you can cast that like 6 times per day so they're just helpless against you. How could any reasonably intelligent creature with a 16 int ever figure out a way to get vengeance on you?

Also you declaring the compulsion is magical is not stated anywhere in the spell so as you frequently do you read something that is not stated anywhere and decide it to be fact. Compel =/= compulsion. IE the creature is going to look for anyway it can to do the bare minimum of what you've CONVINCED it to do.

My argument there was not that the demon didn't/wouln't do it once you made the check but calling it your lap dog is a gross mischaracterization. Something I notice is very common with you.

My post may have been highly negative but it was also correct so I'm not surprised you'd fail to respond. The important part is that with what you're trying to do you should never even make it to the Charisma check. How stupid would a GM have to be to consider asking the treachery demon "I'll release you if you use your greatest power on me in such a way that does not ultimately betray/hurt me. It's not like treachery is in your very nature or anything right?" as a reasonable offer.


Quote:
You just proved me right. It specifically says that "it ALWAYS fulfills the wisher's need." You and others keep taking the "most destructive way possible" out of context. If you actually read and quote the wish examples right after your quoted text, then you would see that the wishes actually do what they are meant to do:

No you're just trying to interpret it a way it clearly was not written. I left off the part that came after because those were EXAMPLES. As in how it could work not the way it always does. Notice the word MIGHT.

I went with the definitive. Yeah the PC will get what they wanted but the cost is always higher than what they wanted to pay so only an idiot would try to use a Glabrezu's wish even if they were EEEEEEEVIL. The cost should always be too high.

You are the one attempting to take it hilariously out of context. To paraphrase "Yeah the Glabrezu will twist my wish to cause as much harm as possible. But surely he'll do it in such a way the wisher won't come to any real harm. See in these two specific examples regarding other charcters MY PC wouldn't really care" Disregarding the fact that the Glabrezu will tailor the destruction of the wish to fit the wisher. As if the Glabrezu has to choose between hurting others OR the PC. He'll happily and easily do BOTH.

Quote:
A wish granted by a glabrezu always fulfills the wisher's need in the most destructive way possible—although such methods might not be immediately apparent. A struggling weaponsmith might wish for fame and skill at his craft, only to find that his best patron is a cruel and sadistic murderer who uses the weapons to further his destructive desires. A lonely man who wishes for a companion might have his wish granted in the form of a lost love returned to “life” as a vampire, and so on—the glabrezu is nothing if not creative in addressing a mortal's desires.

Nowhere there does it say a wish is always granted. It says a wish is always granted IN the most destructive way possible. The idea that this sentence states a wish is always granted is fallacious. All one can logically interpret it to say is that in the case a wish is granted it will be twisted for maximum destruction.

Quote:

In both cases, the wishers get exactly what they want. If the strugglin weaponsmith is indifferent to who uses his weapons and on whom, then he got exactly what he asked for. If the lonely man gets turned into a vampire and he and his love can spend eternity together, he actually likely got more than what he wished for.

Notice how the wishes don't screw the wisher so much as cause "the most destruction possible."

Excuse me while I slam my head against this wall because I think you are serious.

You actually think a wish doing the most destruction possible will ever spare the wisher? That a Glabrezu is just a chump? If the blacksmith doesn't care who uses his weapons that won't be the part that hurts him. That part that hurts him is when some robber or assassin kills him with one of his own weapons because they got sold to ANYbody. Oh your PC is a vampire now? Great hand me your character sheet since I never gave anyone permission to play undead in my campaign.

This isn't fiat it's just common sense. You started off by asking how can a GM reasonably stop abuse of calling Glabrezu's but rather than accept the most reasonable explanations you turn around to defend what would be a hilariously amateur attempt at munchkinin.

Be honest. You're trying to get a GM to accept one of your PCs doing this. No GM is this dense. Only a desperate player is.

Quote:

I am inclined to agree. However, it might grant a wish EXACTLY as desired by the wisher if doing so would cause the most destruction.

And again such a GM fails at imagination 101. It's not an either/or situation. The Glabrezu can do both.

In a purely theoretical situation ANYthing is possible. In the real world it's not going to happen. The Demon wants to bring mortals into sin while ultimately giving nothing in return that doesn't result in it's delight. If the wisher gained what they really wanted from a wish that's a truly patheticly run demon whose sole existence is treachery.

Quote:
They don't have a choice in the matter.

That was my idea. That it's perfectly reasonable that a Glabrezu simply CAN'T grant a wish it can't twist.

Quote:


The rules are absolutely clear.

Then go away. Seriously why are you asking if it's SOOOOO clear? I guess if a player tried to do this the Gm is just totally helpless outside fiat.

Quote:
If I make my intimidate check, or if they fail their Charisma check, they are my lap dogs...if only for a short time. They have effectively been pressed into service.

So much for the rules being expressly clear. I guess you didn't actually read planar binding.

Nowhere does it say anything close to the creature becoming your lap dog. Pure wishful thinking.
First off in regards to commands it says this. "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to." Yeah what a lap dog. Some commands it can directly look at you and just flatly say no. What constitutes an unreasonable demand or an impossible demand is left up to the GM. Whatever they decide is not fiat. The spell clearly leaves that up to GM interpretation no matter what that may be. Don't even try to argue the PC should decide what's unreasonable.

In regards to failing it's Charisma Check it says you compel them to perform one service. Compel does not equal quivering lap dog. It means you convinced them to do ONE thing for you provided it was not unreasonable. Finally the spell text specifically says the creature may seek revenge. I'm guessing the MAY part is if the creature is ultimately unhappy with the way things turned out. I'm really failing to see the whole "lapdog" aspect.

Read Cartigan's post for a reminder on how Intimidate actually works according to RAW. It does not reduce demons to quivering balls of fear just because it's real high.

Quote:
I agree.

Then your question is answered and munchkin abuse has been reasonably prevented. No point to any further asinine arguments.

Quote:
I'll agree insofar that it may vary from campaign to campaign. For standard D&D/Pathfinder cosmology, however, the Monster Manual/Bestiary make it pretty clear that the fiends live to cause trouble for mortals on the Material Plane.

Yet you constantly argue that a string of Glabrezu happily/powerlessly fulfills a mortal PCs wishes endlessly at no real cost to the PC.

Someone may really LOVE their work. Doesn't mean they never want to go home. Otherwise the planes would be empty.


Warforged Gardener wrote:
Shady314 wrote:
I've been toying with the idea of abstracting this sort of thing. Basically telling my players that "one" of these enemies is actually 2 or 3 warriors fighting as one and treated as a single creature because I'm not going to try and move around 15 individual units.
That's an interesting idea.

As a bonus killing "one" means I get to describe them killing 3 people rapidly. They feel more bad ass while still fighting something appropriately challenging.


The Bestiary says "A wish granted
by a glabrezu always fulfills the wisher’s need in the most
destructive way possible—although such methods might
not be immediately apparent."
Note the use of the word always. NOT always unless made friendly or afraid for it's life or in exchange for something it want or unless the wish asked for is within the guidelines of the wish spell. That's RAW. NO GM Fiat so you can sleep easy at night lol.

I don't think the demon can help not twisting the spell even if it was helpful towards your character. It's just not in it's chaotic evil nature.
Note: These treacherous demons form from the souls
of the treasonous, the false, and the subversive—souls of
mortals who, in life, bore false witness or used treachery
and deceit to ruin the lives of others.
So yeah you totally reason with these things and expect them to uphold their bargains because they're so afraid of you. Can you see my eyes rolling?

And if your player is "wording the wish in such a way it can't be twisted" which is really not possible then the wish should simply fail despite the glabrezu's best efforts. The Glabrezu's wish is supposed to represent it's supernatural ability to tempt the wisher with whatever it desires. Not it's mad magical skillz.

I would also seriously question the idea that the material plane is "paradise" for an outsider. I like buffets but I'm not going to call Fresh Choice nirvana but I'm not familiar with Golarion so can't really comment. In other settings, like Eberron, Outsiders from other planes (as opposed to native outsiders) generally don't want to be here.


I've been toying with the idea of abstracting this sort of thing. Basically telling my players that "one" of these enemies is actually 2 or 3 warriors fighting as one and treated as a single creature because I'm not going to try and move around 15 individual units.


PathfinderEspañol wrote:
Characters should be balanced every level, "lower level suffering" isn't doesn't imply high level overpowering in this game. It just implies that the class is poorly designed and needs some love. Furthermore, a wise character will wait till high level to get feats that are good at those levels, as usual.

I agree they should be but I think we all know they aren't. How many campaigns make it to those high levels anyways? Most play is going to low to mid. I don't think the monk is overpowered because eventually his

attacks are slightly stronger than everyone else. He still has a myriad of weaknesses but at least he does get better at striking.

Shady314 wrote:


Spring attacks allows you to make an attack, not an standard attack action. Many times discussed and clarified by designers. However as said a generous DM would allow to use both feats together (also designers words).

I had no idea there was a difference between an attack and using a standard action to make an attack. I thought attacks required standard actions or full round actions. So people believed Spring Attack gave you some sort of magical attack that wasn't a standard action? That'd be pretty awesome. So I can still take a standard action like drinking a potion???? That's non-sensical. A single attack is an attack which is a standard action.

Shady314 wrote:


It doesn't matter if FoB outdamaged this method, it outdamages most oponents.

It does matter because the monks job is still going to be that of a striker and FoB will remain the superior option. This would only give monks another viable option if the circumstances were right. Options are good.

Quote:
Spring attack + Vital Strike allows you to make a powerfull blow against someone, and the foe can then move and make a single attack that will be worse of that of the Monk even if that foe has Vital Strike

I guess if all your opponents are fodder that don't try to lock down the battlefield just like PCs do or that don't use magic and ranged attacks in conjunction with melee. I don't consider a class overpowered because it can own in specialized situations.

You seem really hung up on the vital strike spring attack combo. I hear there is apparently some confusion on whether or not you can combine the two. Maybe just don't be a generous DM and say they can't be used together. Solve the problem?

Quote:
(furthermore, the Monk has the advantage of striking first), if the foe didn't take Vital Strike feats or something useful for that situation then he is as good as dead.

How is this different from ANYTHING that leads to a dead enemy? Oh man that guy was totally not prepared for that spell and now he's dead. So broken!

Also why is the monk going first a given?

Quote:
Now take in account the speed of the monk and other abilites as dimension door, which allow him to run circles around most opponents at high levels.

MOST opponents? What are you fighting at high levels that isn't doing the same or better?

Again the monk running circles around people is not OP. That's what he should be doing with level based bonuses to land speed and jump and dimension door. The monk is OP because he's got one truly great class ability (Dimension Door)?

Quote:


As I said I have seen how it works, and even with low and mid level Monks it is dangerous, to say the least.

And some of us believe monks should be dangerous because as it stands they pale in comparison to every other melee class. You keep saying "dangerous" but that is incredibly vague and subjective. You saw the monk completely overpower monsters beyond appropriate CR with regularity? You saw him outperform every other character in damage output? What does dangerous mean?

Quote:
It also gives the Monks an ability they never had. When a Monk has to do a single attack he usually tries a Combat Maneuver, that's ok, but is almost useless against some enemies that have insane CMDs. Dealing...

Yeah which has always been great fun for monk players. Get yourself into position for FoB or be useless except for that once in awhile you manage to grapple a squishier enemy. Usually a spellcaster. Maybe a rogue.

Quote:
Dealing damage isn't a good option either, as they doesn't have a high attack. Now you want to get rid of that disadvantage, that's power creep afaik. It may be ok if you think that monks are underpowered, but if the problem is just that the current rules for Monk BAB are far too weird you would need a solution a bit more elaborated than just giving the full BAB to monks for free, that's why a feat/trait/many feats/whatever looks nice to me.

Monks are definitely underpowered. Yes the monk rules for BAB are weird. I would personally say ridiculous. It's solved quite easily by just giving them full BAB and something to replace combat maneuvers. A simple solution to replace something convoluted. Making the monk take a feat is not a solution to anything.

Quote:


What I said about power creep vs improving the class design.

I don't see the power creep. Monks will still FoB whenever possible and IF they take Spring Attack and Vital Strike they may also skirmish effectively. The Horror?

Quote:
Btw, barbarians get an ability that impoves their hitpoints... but they can't make good use of it at mid and high levels because if they drop to -1 hp they die instantly.

Yeah barbarians have some stupid issues too. We should try to fix them not throw out hands up in the air.

Quote:
And I guess we can find other class features that come with serious drawbacks and limitations.

Lets find flaws instead. Drawbacks and limitations are fine. Limitations are things like uses per day or round, prepared spells vs. spontaneous etc. Drawbacks are abilities you only want to use in specific situations.

What we should find are flaws in classes and try to fix those flaws.

Quote:
Btw Monks are prolly the best in defenses against magic: one of the higher SRs of the game plus the best Saving Throws of the game, and Evasion.

Yeah they're generally better at taking on mages than other melee classes. Doesn't mean they aren't still wonky as hell. And they do not own against mages. Most dedicated spellcasters will still get through that SR. Evasion? A blaster wizard was never a real threat to begin with but it's nice. Helps him move around the battlefield...

Saving Throws are awesome. Not sure I see the point. The class being good at something doesn't mean it's perfectly balanced.


PathfinderEspañol wrote:

Just an advice about giving Monks full BAB when using the standard action attack.

With an unarmed weapon that deals as much as 2d8 at high levels (2d10 at level 20, or using the Monk Vestment, or whatever that magic object is named), giving them full BAB would make them to use the Vital Strike feats better than anyone else. Not that it is going to make the core rulebook explode, but that's what would happen. If you also allow the use of Vital Strike and Spring attack at the same time the outcome can be dangerous (a friend has been experimenting with Monks as PCs and NPCs in our campaign, plus weird interpretations of the rules, so I have that unpleasant experience with modified Monks)

IMO a feat that gives them that advantage they currently haven't is a good and fair idea, specially if that's a Monk's bonus feat.

First off I have no idea why doing 2d8 at high levels matter. After all the suffering at lower ones where fighters probably had a 2d6 greatsword the entire time.

I don't like that there are feats that HAVE to be taken to be effective. Every monk will take this feat. Before you ask yes things like power attack/deadly aim bother me too. I think those should just be options automatically gained at the appropriate BAB but that's a different discussion.

That sounds great to me. I think monks should be the best at using spring attack and vital strike. The monk the best at something? Finally! ;-) J/K I know they're the best grapplers but that's so situational. Also how could vital strike and spring attack not be used together? Vital strike is a standard action and spring attack affects move actions. How is this outcome "dangerous"? Because FoB and Full Attack actions are still going to dramatically outdamage this method. Because the monk will be able to run circles around some opponents?

Monks are given fantastic land speed and then punished for trying to make use of it. Does any other class suffer in this way? All I can think of is bard at low levels having to use a standard action to use Inspire Courage but that's fixed at mid level where it only gets worse for the monk. In my mind Monks should be better skirmishers than they are currently where they are forced to stand in place and flurry repeatedly to be effective.


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:

I recently got converted to PF through playing Master of the Fallen Fortress during Free RPG Day. I converted my Scarred Lands game to the PF system and went about getting my first adventure in the new campaign ready. Our game had fallen apart due to a disastrous Total Party Kill and I found it necessary to lull my players out of their sulk.

In so doing, I had to agree to one of my players being a gnomish artificer. I don't know much about Eberron but I have flipped through the books and it looked okay, at least for the low levels.

Anyway, I looked at the archives and there was so much information that I thought I'd just be lazy and start a new thread. I was wondering if there was any advice or pointers anyone out there could offer or if there were any particular pratfalls that need to be avoided. What I'd really like is a link to the perfect artificer conversion, but that might be asking a lot.

Thanks in advance for any help!

Maybe this could be that thread.

The artificer takes more work than the other classes because crafting got a big overhaul.

Just skimming the class I'd let artificer knowledge work like identify seeing as how any wizard or sorc casts detect magic at will now artificer knowledge is just stupid and useless.

Make craft reserve give gp rather than xp for crafting purposes only. Maybe increase the amount. Double it perhaps. The XP was more precious in 3.5

Retain essence is tougher. Maybe 1/2 or 3/4 of the cost can be recovered
(basically breaking the magic item down into useful components and later using those parts in the construction of new items)

Action points are necessary in the game if you allow the artificer. Or some other method where the artificer can make some of his infusions not take 10 rounds to cast.


Kierato wrote:
In Forgotten Realms, they came from another plane.

Never played in FR. Like I said. Many settings. Not all or even most. Eberron for example makes them a natural part of the world who have been around since the beginning of time. It was even a Dragon that taught the secrets of druidic magic to the lesser races.

Quote:
Their bodies are to heavy to lift with their wings yet they can fly, the older ones have pure elemental energy running through their veins, They can breed with anything, They live for thousands of years, they inherit most of their knowledge from their parents, what about them is natural?

In a world of magic being magical is not inherently unnatural. What's natural about a summon nature's ally spell?

Speaking of Summon Nature's Ally the spell description just makes this whole idea even funnier. I quote "This spell summons to your side a natural creature (typically an animal, fey, magical beast, outsider with the elemental subtype, or a giant)." I guess in Golarion natural includes elemental energy things and any creature that lives and procreates in the world.

Does their type in FR change to Outsider? Humans seem to be able to breed with anything. Genetic memory is hardly unnatural and is something I'd never even heard of till I started playing 3.5 DnD.

Anyways I was only teasing you because of your excellent hyperbole. "In NO SENSE OF THE WORD" hehe. Just pointing out depending on the setting he's in Dragons can be perfectly natural and are not anathema to druids.


LoreKeeper wrote:

I think the easiest way to fix this is to simply introduce a feat:

Monk Combat Training (General)
Prerequisite: Flurry of Blows class ability
Benefit: The monk uses her class level as BAB for all attacks
Special: This feat is added to the list of monk bonus feats at level 1

This way the choice to have full BAB is just one feat away.

Technically the "easiest" is to just give them full BAB. Making up a new monk bonus feat is fractionally more work.


Kierato wrote:
That would definitely be a house rule, but Dragons are not natural by any sense of the word

nat·u·ral (nchr-l, nchrl)

adj.
1. Present in or produced by nature

So maybe by one sense. ;-)

I don't think dragons are unnatural. Not the way aberrations or undead are. Not even in the way magical beasts are. It would depend on your setting of course but in many settings Dragons have always been around and are not the result of something extraplanar or due to magical creation etc. The fact they can perform magic is also not anymore unnatural than a druid using magic.

Anyways to the OP the answer is NO. That would be a very powerful animal companion. The stat boosts alone are around what you'd get over 20 levels of druid.

Work with your DM to flavor your animal companion. As it grows in level you could start mimicking something partially draconic. As natural armor bonus increases it's scales can get thicker and harder.

There's always leadership. Wyvern at level 10.


Doresh wrote:
I guess their normal BAB is 3/4 to discourage them from using non-monk weapons.

The non-proficiency penalty isn't enough? ;-)


Mudscale wrote:


A level 10 Monk with +2 Str.
Flurry of Blows +10/+10/+5/+5

Unarmed attack +9/+4

Oh wait...looks like it fixed itself...

What in the world are you talking about? The problem you originally posted about was the fact that a monk using a slower standard attack was less accurate than when using a FLURRY.

Quote:
And I mean't, maybe you want to use 3 Levels of Monk for the mobility and high saving throws, toss in some wisedom based spell caster as a main class and you have an interesting character.

Yes an interesting character. But not a broken one.

Quote:
Allowing that caster-monk, say level 8, to use full BAB for FoB is retarded. Quicken Shocking Grasp + FoB as an example.

All right I think I finally understand what the hell you were talking about and you completely misunderstood.

No one is saying Flurry of Blows should progress at Full BAB as a class feature of the monk. FoB remains tied to class level. We're just talking about standard attacks.


jasin wrote:


On one hand I agree, but on the other, I want them to confront enemies, talk them down, cut them up, and take their treasure, not just sit in their castle and plot their Economy, Loyalty and Stability modifiers so that they can't fail a check.

If that makes your players happy then let them do that.

Player's don't want what you want exactly. They just want to kick ass. Their kingdom is an extension of their character. Building a great kingdom that laughs at Econ, Loyalty and Stability checks makes players feel good just like making a powerful characters that kills a bunch of monsters and takes their loot. If your characters are really putting that much work into it then their reward IS a happy, prosperous, stable kingdom and everything that entails.

If you're finding simple rolls to be too boring then try to spice them up with more description or interactivity. Make sure the PC's are aware that Grigori is harmless mechanically because their kingdom is so great and people are so happy and not because he's supposed to be a joke. If mechanically he's generating zero unrest and just basically being nothing but a pest describe a jeering crowd running him out of town pelting him with rotten fruit.

If the PC's want to outlast him that's a valid tactic. Grigori isn't getting paid to stand around forever and produce no results.

Maybe the PC's turn Grigori around. Maybe he's actually impressed by their reaction. I am. It's certainly unexpected.

Quote:

I'm not sure which of these three things would be most fun:

1) reward their players for their good planning by letting them ignore Grigori as he powerlessly rails against them for as long as they want
2) escalate Grigori's Unrest generation, from 2 to 1d3+1 to 1d4+1 to 1d6+1 every month to prod the PCs into taking action
3) the trolls return! some year and a half ago, the PCs killed off most of Hargulka's trolls, several levels sooner than they were expected; Hargulka himself and the rock troll fought them to a standoff and departed to parts unknown with the Stag Helm and the paladin's ancestral sword, so they're bound to show up eventually; why not now, to give some extra weight to Grigori's rants?

In my experience 2 and 3 are more fun for GM's. Though both are just a form of railroading. The PCs are not affected by my encounter the way I thought they would so I will automatically change it till they are forced to. 3 is good railroading though since it's got story history and like you said it's gotta happen eventually.

2 is bad. Very bad.

1 is more fun for players. Do with that what you will.


Mudscale wrote:


A Level 1 Monk with a +2 Str.
Flurry of Blows +1/+1
Unarmed attack +2
Slower seems more accurate to me.

The problem does not come at level 1. Most problems don't.

Quote:
The point with Monk level allows for multiclassing better. If they start being a class with a higher BAB then their non-Flurry of Blows attacks still rise without buffing the Flurry of Blows, which would be broke

In what universe?

Or are you suggesting full BAB would discourage using FoB? Which is simply not the case. I have a monk player and she always chooses to use FoB and a point of ki for yet another attack even though we made the monk Full BAB.


I've yet to meet the PC that could ignore a character hurling insults at them for any length of time. Let alone publicly and to a crowd.

Let them ignore the unrest. Good planning should always be rewarded.

If you want Grigori's death could make him a martyr. Justifying a greater generation of unrest. Does the PC's kingdom carry the death penalty for sedition? In a good PC's kingdom I saw the Royal Assassin reducing unrest by taking out dangerous criminals/enemies/monsters etc. not political agitators.


These people do not like you.


Ravingdork wrote:

I've decided to make a Dr. Doom styled character based off of this picture.

How can I best represent his Pathfinder counterpart using only core rules and 25-point buy?

A Wizard or Sorceror with all the item creation feats and more money than god.

Nearly all of Doom's power comes from his inventions.


I hope someone has great knowledge engineering to keep things from collapsing on their heads.


wraithstrike wrote:
What I mean is they have not done anything until the background story is written up to achieve any type of notice.

Ok so maybe one of the PCs will totally take care of this for you then. :)

Quote:
He is not doing well, and he probably does not have the money to go around to support anyone that decides to claim to be have a nation.

Yeah but how much support exactly is he giving? Since I don't know how much you've changed I can only go off the Ap itself imagining Sebastian in the place of Lord Mayor of Restov. The support given is miniscule. A few guards at Oleg's and some cash when the PCs do exactly what you want them to do and prove themselves. So yeah he's not really giving them anything except for when they do something to deserve it. It's easy to make the cash rewards from sidequests come from wherever you like also.

Quote:
The other issue is that the Valenar elves, and certain lizardfolk tribes may interfere if they notice he is making any real progress.

I'm not sure I understand. They'd interfere with the PCs. Which is just more adventure for them.

If they'd somehow interfere with Sebastian because the PCs are doing well then he's kind of screwed isn't he? Either they fail or their success just brings him new problems.
Their personal feelings towards Sebastian won't really matter when it comes to how efficiently and discreetly they operate.

Quote:
Some else could come into Qbarra, but the previous settlers came as a group, not just 4 people.

But settlers come to Q'barra all the time! It's not just 4 people making up the whole kingdom. The PCs are just the 4 people that will end up heading the government. That's what I'm saying. Yes it's a nation .... barely. It's mostly frontier though and people come to a frontier to settle and civilize it. Others will follow in the PC's wake.

Quote:
It would probably take 100 years for them to build a nation. The king is putting things in fast forward. The trust issue is also a part of them being quiet about how they managed to build up so fast. I am sure not all the settlers will be from Qbarra but a number of them will be at first.

100 years? I guess it depends how you define nation.

Ok well I don't know all the details of the backstory you've got going for your conversion so I'll just stick with my original advice. The PCs form a party. They have a lot of money for some reason. Maybe it's treasure they obtained illegally during the Last War or something. They debate buying an airship or something and eventually settle on buying a charter from Sebastian. The possibility is too great to pass up. The amount of coin they drop convinces Sebastian these are people worth noticing that could serve him well.

Quote:
The real reason for the DMPC is in case someone can't make it to a session. It makes more sense to drag along someone they can trust.

AH that's unfortunate. I've been lucky to rarely have that problem.

Quote:
PS: The elves and lizard folk are taking the place of Rostland in the sense of becoming aggressive if the secret leaks out. Pitax will be replaced by the nation of one of the other adventuring parties that does not care about that fact that King Sebastian helped get them started. They plan to take out the PC's, and then move on to take over the rest of Qbarra.

Hehe the Valenar are always aggressve aren't they? ;) But yeah aren't the Valenar and Lizardfolk always attacking him anyways?

I'm a little confused now. Rostland is the one sending the PCs in the AP. If the land of Q'barra is the River Kingdoms... I don't really know Golarion though.

Don't be too surprised if the PC's end up not caring much at all either (that Sebastian got them started). PC's really love being in charge.


yarb wrote:

What would you do?

party build suggestions?

1. Optimize

2. Play with players that are good
3. Make sure none of the players CHARACTERS was stupid. IE the characters act like they want to live and not die and know what the better part of valor is.
4. You need versatility for the party.
Elven Wizard (Either Diviner or Conjurer) Diviner played well is going to let you know what's coming. Conjurer is going to summon so your party suddenly will have 4 members. At least for awhile. I'd also seriously consider going for a bonded object (a ring) something I usually would not consider but you might need the versatility it brings. Plus you just always need a wizard.

Human Ranger. Favored Terrain Forest Favored Enemy Human Rangers can be built to melee and ranged well plus an animal companion eventually brings you to sort of 4.

Half-Orc Cleric of Desna. This is obvious right? Buffs and can eventually tank. Forget healing. You must kill as fast as possible so you don't even need to heal.

Actually so long as you don't change the AP and award the appropriate amount of treasure this party could end up very powerful. Treasure for 4 people split 3 ways can be very nice.


wraithstrike wrote:
I am about to start running Kingmaker soon. My issue is that I need a reason as to why the PC's were the ones given the charter. I am sure a lot of people would jump at the chance to have their own Kingdom.

Just let your players come up with why. It is easier for you and will make them more involved.

Quote:
As written these guys are first level,

You're metagaming? In Eberron first level PCs are somebodies.

Quote:
and probably have not done much to earn a name for themselves. I would have people or agents loyal to me(the king), but not officially a part of the government trying to settle the land, which is why the suspension of belief is not going over too well.

I don't recall Sebastian doing so well he could afford to be choosy. Default Eberron has Sebastian doing so poorly he's sort of become Riedra's chump reliant on them for support.

I don't understand why you feel it's so impossible for anyone to have gained a charter that isn't loyal to Sebastian. Look how Q'barra was even founded to begin with.... In fact you could even mirror Q'barra's founding with the PCs charter.

Quote:

I am trying to think of something the PC's could have done to gain the opportunity, or maybe they got lucky and did something really incredible, which makes the king have more faith in them than he really should have.

As for the king trusting them, I currently have a DMPC as the middle man(person the king trust), but that idea can be done away with if I get a plausible reason to have them obtain the charter by other means.
PS: I am running it in Qbarra(Eberron).

I always recommend ditching DMPCs and middlemen. Especially in a sandbox campaign. Just embrace the fact that Q'barra is a frontier and the PCs are the settlers!

You're right that there are plenty of people that would jump at the opportunity to claim land for themselves. That's why corpses should litter the Stolen Lands. Sebastian should sell charters to anyone that can pay because he needs the money. The PCs should have received an enormous windfall and bought a charter from Sebastian. They should be one of many people/groups to do so. All of those people have and will fail. Only the PCs being PCs may actually succeed. Have buying a charter include loyalty oaths/pledges etc. to Sebastian if it bothers you so much.


Alignment is stupid.

What exactly does it add to the game? Mechanically they make it very important due to spells and things but aside from that I've never seen it affect a game in any way besides causing arguments which is not exactly a benefit. Sometimes people end up roleplaying alignments rather than PEOPLE which is just another drawback.

You can't act that way because your character sheet says X. Change what it says to Y.... and keep playing exactly the way you've been playing except it may affect your spells and magic items. WTF? Really? What would really be better? A magic item that knows your "lawful evil" so you get a negative level? Or a magic item that decides your too cruel to wield it and bestows a negative level on you despite what you may think of yourself?

If it wasn't so tied to the mechanics I'd just cut it out completely. As is they're best used as guidelines.


Warforged Gardener wrote:

When my gaming group's Druid left about a month ago, we arranged a little backstory for the occasion. Her ex-fiancé, a very high-level and dangerous Elven prince(think a cross between Prince Humperdinck and Count Rugen), had tracked her down and staying with the group was going to endanger them. The plan was for her to eventually return with a plan to defeat the prince, a plan that would require the group's help and that obviously we haven't worked out quite yet.

With an AC that borders on untouchable and fighting skill that would likely drop any member of the party in two rounds, how does the group defeat a much more dangerous foe?

Usually lotsa Tanglefoot bags, Summon Monsters, and save/die or save/lose spells plus ranged attacks. especially ranged touch attacks. But since it sounds like you're looking for a story reason we'd need more info. Maybe she's found a way to sneak him some poison. Maybe she's learned he's going to be somewhere alone and you can ambush him then use the above strategy.


All children should detect as evil to a paladin.


Corky Thatcher wrote:

I did a search and found some references to the fact that a Bard's "Inspire Courage" ability doesn't stack with "Heroism" because they are both 'morale bonuses'.

YET

According to the handbook, "Inspire Courage" is a 'morale bonus' w/r/t saving throws but a 'competence bonus' w/r/t attack and dmg rolls.

Also, according to Treantmonk's guide, they do stack.

So which is right? Do they stack or not?

In Pathfinder they stack.


Brendan Flood wrote:

Hi, I am a rather green GM and I am getting together a group to run my first Pathfinder campaign. After looking over the main book and explaining how this system is an improvement over our bread & butter (D&D 3.5) my players have done the inevitable...started to ask for rule changes even before the game has started.

The major source of contention amongst them is that they are worried that magic users, primarily the sorcerer and wizard, will run out of spells too fast and be left to their unlimited, but weak, 0 level spells. The fighter and other melee can keep fighting on with their weapons that are often higher than a D6 and gain multiple attacks per round. Magic users are limited to base D6 through their progression and have limited uses of the higher spell levels per day.

Having never played Pathfinder, I am left without a good answer on this subject. Should I allow my players to refresh their spell count more than once per in-game day? Or do wizards and sorcerers rarely find themselves in a lurch spell-wise (I know they got a boost in hit die, but they really can't do much weapon damage, especially up close). How do you guys think these two classes play?

I am tempted to just say no to all requests for house rules, especially before we even begin, since I am new to the system and don't want my players decimating everything in the game. I am looking to run the first adventure in the Rise of the Runelords adventure path (Burnt Offerings) but I haven't read it all yet to know if there will be times through that adventure/campaign when players have a real chance of running out of spells and become less involved in the combat, if not altogether useless.

Please let me know what you think about all this, I can use any help I can get as I get ready to run my first game!!!!

Just like in 3.5 pure casters start out weaker but by mid levels and definitely at high levels they pretty much own if you know what you're doing. Wizards are not useless in Pathfinder when they run out of spells. See that special ability you get at level 1 in your school? That's what you do when you run out of spells (usually) instead of pulling out the crossbow. You're right they don't do as much damage especially up close.... That's not their point. The other classes need to be good at SOMETHING. Geez.

If they're worried about running out of spells tell them to play a specialist wizard and make sure their INT/CHA is nice and high. A bonded object is another option.

Finally even a 1st level wizard can start play with a couple scrolls. He doesn't have to waste his money on armor or weapons.


What? No suggestions of arena combat against failed suitors to both prove his love/devotion and ability to provide/protect her?

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>