Sir Jerden's page

I like undead that really confront you with how unnatural and wrong they are. Zombies and skeleton do that, but they're a little too familiar. One could reanimate more unusual creatures though. A zombie angel, or other traditionally good creature, would be unexpected.

The blog mentioned beheaded, crawling hands and isitoqs (flying eyeballs!), and the shredskin is similar - a hollow shell that can take over new bodies. You could even combine them all into a single encounter, implying that a hapless victim was disassembled and then reanimated by a creative necromancer, which is always the worst kind to fight.

Necrocrafts are an interesting alternative to a horde of zombies, since they're easy to customise and pretty disturbing if you get descriptive. Perhaps they're what necromancers do with the rest of the corpse after they've reanimated the head and hands?

For bosses, a zombie lord would be interesting, especially because hiding that they're undead is possible with enough makeup and perfume, adding an element of intrigue. It allows us to have a necromancer boss that isn't another lich, which is nice, since everyone knows that liches have phylacteries.
And if we want to get silly, there's always a humungous necrocraft mecha, aka finally a reason to climb up a monster to reach a vulnerable weakspot (the necromancer at the top). I'm not sure how such an encounter would work, but I'd love to find out.

I feel like chromatic dragons probably hate each other about the same.
The metallic dragons are the worst, since they're always stopping you from feasting on princesses and adding to your hoard, but other chromatic dragons are nearly as bad. Most chromatic dragons are likely going to be rivals with whichever dragon is nearest to them, since that'll be their competition for food and gold. You can write any two evil dragons as arch enemies and it'll make sense, since dragon personalities can vary just like any other monster.

Unfortunately for transmuters, but fortunately for everyone else, extra limbs do not grant extra attacks of opportunity. Your 30 ft reach as a giant octopus would give you many more opportunities to make attacks of opportunity since enemies will provoke when they try to get close, but to make the most of this you'd need a high dexterity score to compensate for the penalty due to the size increase. That's how to make the best use of combat reflexes, as there are very few other ways to get extra AoOs.

You don't get to choose after the form is allocated - that's why it's a (fun, in my opinion) risk. Remember that even -4 to a stat is manageable. You might need to be creative or multiclass to make the most of it, but if you're not willing to accept the result of reincarnation you shouldn't choose it in the first place.

That's all from the players perspective. From the character's perspective, rage is a perfectly reasonable response. I wouldn't recommend suicide, but perhaps the character gradually realises that their previous prejudices were wrong and learns to live with it? Perhaps they become a little more reckless, trying to "earn" another reincarnation. Perhaps they even decide to embrace their new body, playing up all the sterotypes? It's up to the player.

My dwarven monk decided to accept his reincarnation into a female gnome with a surly resignation. We had runelords to fight, it made no sense to dwell on it too much.

It happens. That's why people like these sorts of spells, they're very good for taking out lots of enemies at once.
Fireball is less good against a single stronger enemy (like, say, an orc chief with lots of HP and better saves), or against lots of very spread out enemies (like a group of orc archers), so I'd recommend using more variety in your encounters if this seems like a problem. Energy immunity and resistance can limit the power of spells, but as you said there's a fine line between making something challenging again and just making the game boring.

However, I'd say the best advice to give you is just to not worry too much if the PCs do better than you expect them to. Also, punctuate more, it makes text easier to read.

I think the "reason" undead are evil is because, in general, they're motivated by a hatred of life and a hunger for the blood brains, flesh souls or spinal fluids of the living. Even the mindless undead like zombies and skeletons will attack the living if given nothing else to do, at least that's how I'd expect them to act. There's also the way that becoming undead defies the natural order of the universe, the soul cycle if you will, which is generally considered to be wrong.

The real reason for all this is that this is the story the writers chose to tell. Undead = Evil makes things simpler and, as mentioned, prevents PCs from just becoming undead for the stat benefits (which is evil because you can get away with dumping con, the primary evil in Pathfinder) and raising undead as minions (which is an inherently evil act because it slows down combat).

However, if you want to do something different as a GM there's no reason why you can't make exceptions. I'd be interested in a campaign with non-evil undead, but I feel that they should still remain an exception to the norm because otherwise you lose the novelty of them in the first place.

I simply say don't dump intelligence and charisma, and maybe take some traits (or even the cosmopolitan feat) to give you more skill options.
Really, rage allows you to get away with lower strength and con scores and still be effective, so I can see this working. It's mostly just about roleplay, and it'll certainly be more interesting than a barbarian that just speaks in all caps.

Can't you just get them made so that they don't take up a slot?

True, custom magic items are the easiest way to allow this.

I'd second the idea of a proposing a quest first. Presumably you want them to fight it later so why not direct them in that direction.
There is a tendency to assume that the GM has put it there for you to fight so a hint to the contrary should be enough.

I would say that mind swapping into an orc is not going to be a huge problem. You get a strength upgrade and ferocity, but at 18th level for 10,000 gp that's not going to be a huge problem.
Swapping into a dragon is a GM discretion kind of thing.
Of course, with 18th level casters, who really cares? Why not do it! If nothing else it's an entertaining idea for an NPC.

I feel like an antipaladin could choose either evil or chaos, as long as it is for the greater good of bad. Evil and chaos are (practically by definition) much more flexible than good and law.

For example, I think that crushing a good rebellion could be an option, particularly if the antipaladin gets paid for it, but equally valid would be supporting the good rebellion, gaining their trust, becoming their hero, and ensuring that their struggle to overthrow the oppressive evil government succeeds.

Because revolutions are so easily corrupted. You can't just kill the leader, you have to kill all of his family, and all of his supporters, and any traitors to the revolution, and anyone else you feel like, and the best part is you can pretend to be good the whole time, and your allies might even believe you!

So for an antipaladin, there rarely is a truly irreconcilable conflict. In the worst case scenario, if your allies seem too incorruptibly lawful or good, you just cut your losses, stab them all in the back and then find somebody worse to associate with.

Why not just completely get rid of multiple attacks altogether?

I'm serious, there are already rules for it that may appeal to you: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/unchained-rules/removing- iterative-attacks

I've never used them, but they look like they'll work. Natural weapons are very nice to have with these rules, because if you have two you hit for double damage, although it my be less good when you're fighting a hydra. It does decrease the value of high crit ranges (at most, you crit twice per full attack) and abilities like flurry and haste are less good if your attack bonus is bad.

It seems to do what you want, although don't spring it on players unexpectedly.

Trap the Soul works better if you say their name, but that's very high level.

A magic item can be crafted for half price. So if it normally costs 2000 gp, you can graft it for 1000 gp.

I remember one battle in Rise of the Runelords, which features a fight on top of a dam. One bullrush later and an ogre is very, very dead.

Righteous might, since it isn't a polymorph effect, can increase you from Huge humanoid (via giant form II) to gargantuan.
Colossal, sadly, is right out. Still, you can at least become gargantuan.

As far as I know, you still get the +3 bonus for class skills even if you have already put ranks into it. So I'm not sure why you'd feel the need to save up skill ranks.

It depends on what you want. Soul Forger Magus looks good, although a full BAB class could be better if you want it mainly to deal a lot of damage. Unchained Monk or even just fighter would both work well.
The key thing to remember is that it will have the spellcasting of a first level character and so it won't be very good when it comes to saves or overcoming spell resistance. That doesn't rule out magus, but it does mean you need to choose spells carefully. The 1st level spells a first level character should choose are very different to the spells an (effectively) 8th level character should choose.

Unfortunately, no.
They have 2 claws (1d4) and unarmed strike (1d6).
Claws are natural weapons, not unarmed strikes.
They can attack with an unarmed strike (1d6) and then the claws (1d4), of they're willing to take a -5 penalty on the claw attacks.
However, changing the unarmed strike has no effect on claws. Ironically, their claws are now the least deadliest part of their body.

This generally does just depend on the champaign and its requirements. After all, the more experience the army gets, the more powerful they'll become.

While the rule of halves is probably a good rough guide, I think every army is going to have at least a few high level characters that could take on a big threat. These would be the hardened veterans, the legendary generals, and maybe a few retired adventurers, who've mostly settled down but can show up to take down any big threats like dragons and mid level spellcasters. Sure, you can make a name for yourself hurling a couple of fireballs around the battlefield, but the same wizard is not going to do so well if a group of higher level enemies wait for him to get close before attacking.

As for how monsters don't just rule everything, I guess it's because they tend not to join forces into big armies, or if they do then they must spend too much time fighting each other.

A lot of monsters get teleport and unless you have dimensional anchor you will struggle to stop them from leaving.

That's only a problem if you really need to kill the monster though. If monsters run away, then you win.

Even if they use hit and run tactics the PCs can just damage them when they do appear.

Damage reduction generally can be quite difficult if they can't be overcome, although by the time you get DR adamantine and DR alignment you can usually deal enough damage that DR 10 doesn't completely negate you.

I'm not sure that it would work. I've only played to 16th (when most adventure paths end, and I think that level is a fun place to stop) but generally you use a variety of different buff spells with varying durations.
I played a very buffing focused summoner and I really don't think it would have limited me to "only hold one same-duration spell of each school of magic at the same time". It might make things slightly different but it just adds more to keep track of, and you can always just drop the low level spells and keep the really good ones.

You could achieve the same effect with a level 8 cleric/wizard with communal protection (and possibly also communal resistance) to fire and acid.

It's difficult to deal 92 points of fire or acid damage without giving up and trying something else.

As for why the wizard/cleric is with the trolls? I like the idea that he/she has convinced the trolls to join a cause by demonstrating that neither fire nor acid can harm those protected by his/her magic, and so they are truly invincible.

Give the cleric the fire domain or make the wizard an evoker to really rub it in. Nothing quite as fun as melee with trolls while fireballs and burning hands are thrown at you.

Even potions would do, although that would tell the PCs what's going on if the trolls drink a couple of potion before attacking.

It isn't really what you want, but Magical Child Vigilante gets Change shape on her familiar with at least 4 forms, and you can get a shapeshifting improved familiar to have at least 5. Or contingency beast shape on your familiar for when you get really angry!

(This reminds me of when my table optimised a raptor for perform: dance, to be honest. We didn't do it in the end, but it would have been amazing but also useless.)

You could ask your GM for it as a feat, although you may not want it to stabilise. Maybe just designate a form for different moods, it's not too powerful as it's a familiar.

Or just homebrew up a Golden Compass setting! Everyone gets a familiar!

Jabbing style definitely makes you never want to power attack. It's not worth losing that 5th attack! The damage die are insane!

Let me just say that, if you want to make death more meaningful, only allow Reincarnate.

Of course, the only advantage of it is that death is hilarious when you come back as a gnome but were hoping for bugbear.

You can always make the trip to a high level cleric dramatic - big cathedral, RP it out a little, maybe have to pay them back afterwards, so it's less of a "quick shopping trip" and more of a "dramatic and expensive ritual", but that said, you could RP out any shopping trip to make it more dramatic. It just takes time.

At low levels, the same problem exists for blindness or ability drain. They happen, and somebody else has to sort them for the party. How do we make those dramatic? Or do we not care about making every inconvenience significant?

If a death occurs at a dramatic time, then it's worrying no matter what the level - a PC has to sit out and their allies have to reconsider their plans.

Death must either mean something (no resurrection, make a new character) or be a small inconvenience, or be a huge inconvenience that makes all the other players wish that the dead guy had just made a new character instead of creating a boring and unnecessary sidequest for them to do.

I will say that in both campaigns I've been in, few deaths are dramatic. It's usually the mooks that kill you, because you prepare for the bosses. So far, I remember that a character died from provoking an AoO from a Faceless Stalker while next to a 300 ft drop, 2 characters died from mummy coup de graces (we hate mummies), a magus died because she got driven insane and then got left in the dungeon when the party fled from the boss, my summoner died because he failed 3 saves in a row against a rather weak devil, and we lost our sorceress in the final boss fight of Crimson Throne.

Ileosa cast dispel magic on a dominated Red Mantas Assassin. One full round of greater invisibility sneak attacks later and the PC formerly in charge was very, very dead. It was very funny, but a little anti climatic, especially because that was the only PC death in a room containing a final boss and two very high CR fiends.

Keep that in mind before you decide to make death meaningful. It usually isn't.

There may be a tabletop gaming club near to you - my university has one that's open to anyone and Pathfinder Societies are also a thing that exists. I'd look into things like that if you haven't already, as it's a fun way to meet people, and tabletop gaming nerds are an interesting bunch. Basically, don't play with 2 if you don't have to.

If that's not an option because of where you live, I guess you could play on your own, possibly with multiple characters. A fighter and a sorcerer wouldn't really be much harder to run than an unchained summoner or a druid, or anyone with the leadership feat, which have 2 characters to run anyway. For beginners it would be challenging, but on the other hand you'll learn twice as fast! I'm just not sure if it would be much fun, I'd probably prefer doing something else.

A one person or two person champaign would be difficult, because I think most adventures assume that at least one player will get taken down at some point. In a group of 6, that's nothing, in a group of 4 it's a survivable problem, in a group of 2 you've lost half the players (and half the options) and in a group of 1 it's game over. For one off adventures, a high chance of failure isn't too bad, but it's annoying if you want to tell a story. However, a GMPC could work in this situation.

The problem with using gestalt or over leveled characters or really high point buy is simple - things have to challenge you or they get boring. Challenge generally involves threat, threat generally involves possible defeat.

I've played an unchained monk (as my first character) and I definitely agree that STR>WIS. It sounds like you'd rather be the kung-fu master monk than a wise teacher kind of monk (although there is an archetype for that) and the unchained monk is much better at being the monk you want.

Also, while a lot of people recommend Dragon Style (and it is very good for a high strength build), I enjoyed Jabbing style. It takes advantage of the fact that you get a lot of attacks, gives you some extra mobility, and there's something very satisfying about rolling huge numbers of d6s on melee attack. Style feats are definitely nice to have, so check them out.

The one thing I will say is that unchained monk full attacks take a while, due to all the optional extras. Be very careful when considering getting things that can be activated with a swift action. You only get 1 per round, so a lot of my abilities never got used.

Yeah, I think you'd probably just want to replace regeneration with bonuses to stabilise and recover with rest. Maybe give fast healing and regeneration through feats at higher levels, as once other players start getting raise dead and giant form it isn't going to be so much of a problem. I still think they'd make interesting PCs. It's fun to play something that isn't just a variation on "hairless ape".

Intelligence isn't their casting stat, they gain their powers regardless of how well they are at studying. They also can be found in cultures that do not have strict teaching regimes and someone can become a cleric without specific teachings, they simply have to believe very strictly in their gods words and teachings. their trained age, might as much be about gods not willing to give powers to younger individuals, who are still trying to figure out what alignment they really are.

However, wisdom, not charisma, is their casting stat. For me, that implies some sort of deeper understanding of their own power than a charisma based character, who relies on sheer force of faith or personality.

I think that clerics have to spend a long time studying holy texts, or meditating on their gods teachings, or preaching to followers, before they understand their god enough to use divine magic.

However, all the game really tells us is that wisdom is "willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition." So maybe anyone who's spent a lot of time thinking deeply about the world can become a cleric. All it takes is a bit of worldly experience - and so the learned starting age.

It depends on the player and what they want their cleric to be.

So, these trolls could either be humanoid (giant)s or monstrous humanoids. If you want to play up the troll part and not confuse players too much, go giant. Sure, they have tails and horns, but I think regular trolls are so beastial that they should all be monstrous humanoids, so go with either. Or fey, but fey are d6 half bab creatures and so you'd have to give them a lot of HD to make them challenging.

Norwegian trolls would be the classic evil Tolkien troll, with DR or regeneration to make them hard to kill, but obviously they turn to stone in natural sunlight. Give them a keen sense of smell, and if you want to really mine the myths, give them a constant detect the faithful (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/detect-the-faithful) style effect, but for followers of good gods (or potentially for followers of all gods?). I actually like the idea of this ability, it makes them interesting as some sort of blasphemous giant. Maybe they worship things older than gods, and that could give them protection from divine magic and some nature shaman style abilities. They'd fill the classic troll role regardless, and they'd be great as the allies of ancient evils like aboleths, quippoleths and Great Old Ones. I just love the idea of a troll inhaling deeply, and then turning to his allies. "I smell gods. Let's eat."

Icelandic trolls are similar, and seem to be the kind of generic giant that D&D giants are built on. They don't even have tails! There is something delightfully macabre about giving monsters a preference for children, but we all knew that already. Compared to the Christian eating norse troll they're rather dull. However, apparently some are nice - do they only eat bad people? If so, are they mocked like vegetarians by all the other trolls?

Swedish trolls could be a less powerful but more intelligent version, and they would be less evil, or possibly just more reasonable. They'd be less affected by sunlight though, but would still try to sty out of it, so they'd make good miners or traders, swapping ores or lumber or furs for jewelry. In an adventure, perhaps a group of them possesses a rare and shiny magical item that the players need - but they'll be surprised to discover that the "trolls" they've been warned about are happy to hand it over - for the right price. "Do you think that looking this amazing is easy? We need that +2 minotaur bane hairbrush to manage these luscious locks!"

Danish trolls are a potential PC race (regeneration 1 or less would hardly be game breaking - maybe they just recover more with rest), or at least a low HD creature that could feature in a social encounter, possibly directing players towards a more dangerous troll nearby. They could be rather secretive though, with racial illusion spells to hide their location, perhaps. The legend that they raise abandoned children is fascinating, particularly in a game if somebody gets the wrong idea and thinks they're stealing babies, and sends the PCs after them. If nothing else, "Raised by trolls" would be an amazing trait to have on your character sheet. I don't care what it does, I just write to write it.

(That valravn is interesting as a monster as well. We already have carrionstorms, but maybe a more powerful corpse could generate this undead raven, which then must seek a babies heart to regain it's former power. By transforming into a knight or a... wereravenwolf?)

I looked up trolls on wikipedia, and apparently lightning is the reason you don't see them in scandinavia today, so if you give them regeneration, use electricity to negate it. That on it's own gives them something interesting to challenge PCs.

Wow, thanks for linking this, it's always entertaining thinking of weird ideas, and you don't get much stranger than myth.

Castles are definitely fun to visit, although there's a reason that most are in ruins these days - they don't hold up well against modern technology (or fantasy magic). It's still fun to visit castles and cathedrals to get a feel for how grand and imposing they are, although that's easier for us Europeans.

Caves and mines are really fun to visit - particularly places that feature both. Mining tunnels often open up into natural caves, or become more natural over time as stalactites and pools of water begin to form.

At my table, people have taken leadership just because they like an NPC. In Curse of the Crimson Throne, Trinia the bard eventually joined our party after we saved her from execution.

Personally, I feel like I want my turns to be as short as possible, so I took a summoner archetype that loses Summon Monster, as I didn't want to slow everything down as soon as I lost my eidolon. It's bad enough rolling full attacks with 6 natural weapons.

Next champaign I'm going for a nice, simple full caster.

Action economy is nice, but you have to remember that combat is long enough as it is.

I feel like it's similar to a lot of other abilities in non prestige classes, and maybe even better, as regular classes use half level plus stat. After a certain point a monk just accepts that stunning fist will only work on things that you could probably kill without it. Still, it's nice to have when it does work.

I think I prefer one or two real challenges per session, although my group does seem to do very long sessions - we nearly approach 12 hours now that we're doing it over Roll 20 for the summer! Although that is including breaks.

However, challenges don't have to be life threatening. You can certainly have a lot of fun with incorporeal creatures, particularly in a crowded room. Even with ghost touch, the fact that they can walk and attack through walls means that nobody feels safe, and strength drain on strength dumped characters is hilarious.

In my small amount of experience, few deaths are dramatic. It's usually "Er... I don't think my constitution is high enough to survive that failed save."

I feel that the main reason I enjoy Pathfinder is because I occasionally fear for my character's life. All of the most memorable and exciting battles are the ones in which we came close to a TPK.

It's not even about CR (although that helps). Recently my group of level 12s was half killed by http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/devil/nihil. We did some poor planning but half the party dying to a CR 13 monster was very surprising for the GM.

I clearly love the high difficulty fights, and I probably wouldn't mind if every fight was like that, but it would make it impossible to tell much of a story. I feel that I'd probably be a bad GM because I'd be likely to escalate the difficulty until everyone dies. I'm just wondering, what level of difficulty do people prefer?

Hmm. It's very farmer-centric. What about the beggars, shopkeepers, wenches, and errand boys?

MORE Archetypes!

I've been wondering... Is there any reason for a Druid to not be Wild Shaped all the time once you get to level 8 or so?

Because if you want to, you can cast spells and even talk while shapeshifted, with a couple of feats. Sure, sometimes there are doors to open, and talking to be done, but then the rest of the party could probably handle that better than you. I guess it depends on what you want your character to do.

I do like the idea of the Inventor. The class would end up as the Pathfinder equivalent of Iron man or Batman - you're not the most powerful caster or the best fighter, but you have lots of tricks up your sleeves.

They could get free Item Crafting Feats, and the ability to charge spells into objects. I think you'd get to craft a limited number of magic items for free, and each item you makes would fill up one or more "spell slots". So you could have lots of minor gadgets, and be prepared for every situation, or you could put all your eggs into one badass suit of armour or rod of power that gives you a few really powerful abilities. Even without archetypes, this class would have a lot of different possibilities. The creation of these items could take longer than preparing spells does, but less time than normal item creation, in order to balance it out?

The construct-companion idea would be a fun archetype as well, and maybe it could be a bit like an eidolon, because you choose which upgrades it gets? So you could make it stronger, or you could install a breath weapon or a pair of wings. That sort of thing.

Damn it, now I'm excited about this entirely imaginary class!

Combat manoeuvres in general are pretty good for not killing people. If somebody's prone or disarmed, they're a lot less likely to try to fight on.

Bolas are an exotic non-lethal thrown weapon that allow you to trip people over while standing on the other side of the room. That could be fun.
Tanglefoot bags are alchemical items that allow you to entangle your enemies.

Bludgeoner allows you to deal non lethal damage, with no penalty, when using bludgeoning weapons like clubs.
If you really want to focus on non lethal damage, then Bludgeoner qualifies you for Cudgeler Style, and the sequels, Sweep and Takedown, which basically make you very good at charging at people and bringing them down without killing them.

There are also a lot of spells that don't do damage, even without Merciful spell. Glitterdust, Grease, Wall of [Solid Material] and so on.

I was actually just thinking that a non-lethal campaign could be quite entertaining. Maybe the PCs are in law enforcement or something similar, and so you're expected to bring in the villains alive. It could be very different. Plus there's something amusing about the idea of a group of PCs that defeat a dragon, tie it up and then take it to court to face justice for its crimes.

I personally would direct a new player to http://www.d20pfsrd.com/, because it has it nicely laid out to browse through the classes. (I've wasted so much time on that website!) Still, I'd already learned quite a lot about roleplaying through cultural osmosis, it was just a matter of time before I got the chance to play, so I'm probably atypical.

My first character was a monk, because I liked the idea of punching things. Fortunately, I was told about the unchained version by the DM, and that's not a bad a class for a new player. No spells to worry about, but enough abilities that it stays interesting.

The main problem with a fighter is that it won't take you long to learn the rules, and then what do you do for the rest of the campaign? Envy the casters for their cool abilities? Ranger seems like it might be a good class, with a bit of help from other players and the DM. Just don't choose the animal companion and it's pretty simple.

I'd never recommend a Paladin to anyone. That's a roleplaying challenge for the more experienced, and it could limit you too much. What if you want to... not be lawful good?

I have a couple of fun Gestalt ideas:

Druid/Barbarian (Beastrager):

The general appeal of this is that you get full BAB and Wild Shape, a combination that has always appealed to me (As well as others, it seems). Sure, you could go fighter/druid, or ranger/Druid, but if you start raging while transformed, that's a combination that's both powerful and also quite thematic - who feels like personifying the wrath of nature, in the form of a very angry dire tiger?
There are a lot of rage powers that could really supplement this combination, for example taking the powers that give your animal companion access to your rage. Although ignore anything that gives you natural attacks or new movement speeds while raging, as you really don't need those!
Basically, they've fought bears, they've fought barbarians, but just wait until they get flanked by TWO barbarian bears!

You're never going to be an amazing spell caster, so I'd recommend Wisdom 12 (obviously boosting it with items later), and then maximise STR and CON. I'm thinking I'd go with a half-Orc - raised by druids, he was taught to live a contemplative life, appreciating the beauty of nature - however, the raw power and ferocity of the natural world has always been the aspect that really speaks to him. If anyone ever suggests a Gestalt game, this is what I'm bringing.

Ranger/Paladin (Hunter of Evil):

This one is perhaps not as optimised, but it would be a great way to have an archery focused paladin. Obviously you'd select undead, evil outsiders and dragons as favoured enemies. The spells would give you quite a bit of versatility, and it could be fun.

OK, I promised myself I'll get back to revision after this:

Strength: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 6, 6) = 17 +2
Dexterity: 3d6 ⇒ (4, 6, 1) = 11
Constitution: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 5, 5) = 12
Intelligence: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 6, 5) = 12
Wisdom: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 4, 6) = 11
Charisma: 3d6 ⇒ (4, 1, 2) = 7

Fighty Redblade the Human Fighter is strong but otherwise average, and so he specialises in one thing only: Slicing things up with his longsword. He set out to travel the world and prove his valour. The usual.

Strength: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 2, 3) = 6
Dexterity: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 2, 3) = 6 +2
Constitution: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 1, 2) = 5 -2
Intelligence: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 4, 3) = 13 +2
Wisdom: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 1, 1) = 8
Charisma: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 5, 1) = 11

Physically, Tymothy is a pathetic elf. However, he's mentally above average, and so resorted to the arcane arts. He focuses on evocation, conjuration and illusion, hoping to distract people from his feeble frame with flashy magic spells. He joined forces with Redblade to avoid having to carry his own luggage, because the contents of his spell component pouch are about all he can lift.

Strength: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 1, 2) = 6
Dexterity: 3d6 ⇒ (4, 1, 4) = 9
Constitution: 3d6 ⇒ (4, 5, 3) = 12 +2
Intelligence: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 5, 2) = 13
Wisdom: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 6, 1) = 12 +2
Charisma: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 4, 4) = 10 -2

Here we have a rather average dwarf, known as Weedy. By multiclassing wizard/cleric and then going into mystic theurge, Weedy hopes to compensate for his physical weakness by throwing around magic to make other people more impressive. By buffing the melee and then positioning himself between Tymothy and the danger (e.g. a stiff breeze, a 1HD housecat), he manages to be a useful member of the party. And when Tymothy stubs his toe and drops into negative HP, Weedy is there to save the day with Cure Light Wounds!

Strength: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 5) = 14 +2
Dexterity: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 2, 5) = 12
Constitution: 3d6 ⇒ (4, 5, 6) = 15
Intelligence: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 2, 1) = 8
Wisdom: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 6, 2) = 9
Charisma: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 5, 2) = 12

And finally, we have Fyrun, the half-orc bloodrager. He's actually pretty competent, adding a bit of extra magic and a lot of extra rage into the equation. He joined the party after Fighty beat him in an arm wrestling competition, seeking to prove his strength.

I quite like this party, actually. They have a nice synergy, with two casters and two front line fighters. I think they'll do quite well, until poor Tymothy gets killed by an arrow or a magic missile. Given that 1d6-4 is not much of a health gain per level, it'll probably only take one, and then they might have some trouble...

I'd say don't worry. As long as you keep an eye on the time you can basically stop an adventure whenever you need to, except for in the middle of combat. Even if one person really has to go halfway through an encounter because of Real Life things, everyone else can just finish it without them and then pack up. If it's only 1 round of combat, you really don't miss much.

That's what my group does, and cliffhangers certainly don't make it any less fun. Although some days we do just keep going until they kick us out of the building...

My Turn. Probably not optimal, this is just what I'd do:

Strength: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 3, 4) = 8
Dexterity: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 5, 1) = 8
Constitution: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 5) = 14
Wisdom: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 1, 6) = 12
Intelligence: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 6, 5) = 14 +2
Charisma: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 5, 5) = 13

Ok, so I don't think she'll be going into melee and doing damage... I'm thinking that this could be a decent wizard. Maybe she'll specialise in enchantments to utilise that charisma, but she certainly won't be squishy! Human to boost the intelligence a little higher.

Strength: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 5, 6) = 13
Dexterity: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 4, 6) = 16 +2
Constitution: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 4, 6) = 15
Wisdom: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 6, 6) = 18
Intelligence: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 6, 2) = 9
Charisma: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 2, 1) = 9

This is pretty decent for any Wisdom based caster. I'm thinking ranged cleric, but not afraid to charge into battle wielding a mace if necessary. Let's go half elf, use a race trait to get longbow proficiency and a Dex boost and you're good to go!

Strength: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 6, 5) = 16
Dexterity: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 1, 3) = 5
Constitution: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 5, 2) = 13 +2
Wisdom: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 6, 1) = 9
Intelligence: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 4, 1) = 6
Charisma: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 3, 4) = 9

Look at those stats! Clearly a Barbarian, relying on the cleric to heal him up after every battle, because his AC is unlikely to be much higher than 10. I'd go half Orc and boost the Con a little.

Strength: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 3, 1) = 6
Dexterity: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 1) = 10 +2
Constitution: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 5, 5) = 12 -2
Wisdom: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 1, 2) = 8
Intelligence: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 2, 6) = 10 +2
Charisma: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 4, 2) = 8

And finally, the weak link of the party. The one that the rest must carry the burden of. Maybe an elf rogue? With a bonus to Intelligence he'd have loads of skill points, and with those stats skill checks are all he's good for.

So, the party is:
Sabine, a human wizard. Physically weak but surprisingly resilient, she relies on her magic and her charms to win her battles.
Melior, a half elf cleric who deals death from afar. The obvious leader of the group, he is both physically impressive and wise beyond his years.
Boris, a brawny half orc but also a moronic klutz, even by barbarian standards. His frustration at his inability to master simple tasks fuels his rage. Sabine decided they needed a front line, and so recruited the best idiot she knew. He owes Melior his life, after every single battle.
And finally, Malior, Melior's incompetent half brother. Full elf and almost fully useless, the party only keeps him around because he's Melior's brother, and because Disable Device and Linguistics occasionally come in handy.

You know, this is actually kind of fun! If I ever run out of character ideas(unlikely, I may be new to Pathfinder but I have SO MANY plans), this is one way to generate some new ones!
Anyway, the rest of this thread has been very entertaining.

I personally like the idea of the summons enjoying spending time in the Material Plane. After all, it's probably much more interesting than the Elemental Plane of Fire.