SquirrelyOgre's page

If the intent is to make the game reflect reality by multiplying material costs, then masterwork cost ought to be lumped in there as well.

This ruling also seems to the door to a lot of minmaxing, rules arguments, and yet more searching in obscure rulebooks, so I'm not ...really looking forward to dealing with that.

Things like this make me wish for a 2.0. ...Make some flat costs, etc. Make special materials a little more uniform, and so on. Address it from the bottom up, instead. Just make it cleaner.

Wow, that's a pretty powerful backstory, and it seems to me that it points plainly to Avenger Vigilante as his class.

I am all for that! These are off the top of my head. Sort of roughs and tending towards the epic, I guess. They could easily be less epic.

I removed the sand-crust from my eyes, and looked upon the destruction of my people. Smoking ruins is all they had left us. The sharp-eared creatures had come to us, seeking water and shelter from the waste's heat-sun.

They had stood with their faces covered, and eyes downcast. Modesty, the eldest had whispered, though our druids felt there was a taint to the wind that came from them. We should have listened, but we too, knew starvation in the waste. The sharp-ears had had children among them. Who can say no to a child, or the sacred traditions of our clans--traditions which kept us alive for generations more numerous than the sands?

My people lie in ash.

As we offered them the gift of shelter, the sharp-ear'd clan struck. I ripped one's mask with my ferrah-blade, and saw the scars of Sherraq, the Hated One. What we had thought were children ripped away their cloth before our eyes. Spikes covered their hands, and the heat of the Hells, not the desert, burned upon their skin.

I say my clan is ash. I am of the few that is left.

I remember the touch of kindness from family, the tears of my kindred. I would give everything I had to bring them back again. I know though, that my clan were not the first to be hit.

That the clan who had come to us, masked, were Sherraq's first victims.

I do not work for vengeance, but for salvation and the preservation of our clans. There is another of my cousin out there, another of my husband and child. They do not deserve Sharraq's twisting, and one day I will find life among them, again.

Today, I walk among the few remnants of the sharp-ear clan, and a few stragglers from mine. Some of them have turned the darker path, and for them I must be also strong, and remind them that there is also light.

Together, we hunt the taint that would destroy us. And then, we will rebuild.

I see this one as something of a war-priest. They remember the sacred, and their life before--but know that the problem lies in the corruption of the Hated One. They must be a beacon to their remaining people, and protect those who still exist--while hunting down the source of Evil.

At my mother's feat I learned to weave the kvorra. She sang to me the ancient songs, and I would lean against her legs. The kvorra would dance in front of us like a lazy thing, filled with colors and light.

Sometimes, I would laugh and reach out my hands towards it. It seemed alive to me. Over time, my mother's kvorra split and its smaller piece entered my service. My mother cried, and held me, she was so joyous.

Later, I would enter temple among my peers. I worked hard, and though we advanced in our learning and knowledge, that time with my mother and our two kvorra, one-now-two, I will never forget.

When we graduated, my peers and I, we set out upon the world to see its vastness. It is everything my teachers had said, and everything mother whispered to me when I was a child.

What they did not teach us was the suffering. Oh, I knew it in abstract, but I never knew how fortunate I was until I saw a beggar for the first time, with dust in his cup.

I called upon my magic to refill it, and found ten, then twenty of them set upon me.

Some of my peers have grown haughty and returned to the higher places. Perhaps they were afraid of the beggars, but so many of them never made it a mile past the temple gates.

I have made up my mind to stay here, to help. The kvorra within me sings for gladness, but also anticipation. Perhaps some fear.

Perhaps next time, there will be only two beggars, not twenty.

Here is the start of a hero, who among her people, others have turned away. They've forgotten the purpose of their original gift.

I feel like it was always possible to have "gritty anti-heroes" without actually devolving into "outright evil". You just have to maintain lines of conduct that you're unwilling to cross (e.g. most versions of Batman eschew guns and refuse to kill.) I feel like an anti-hero should always have something heroic about them to counterbalance the flaws that make them a non-traditional hero.

But I don't know if we really ever needed to do "evil" to do "gritty". Just consider that the internal morality of your character, as afflicted with cynicism as they are, does draw some lines somewhere.

We don't, no.

Kicking things off. Here's a heroic twist on a classic adventuring backstory. I've kept some of the gritty elements, but turned it around.

By thirteen, I knew the feel of the lash. By fifteen, I knew what it was like to snap its length across my master's throat. I knew the feel of death, and I knew the feeling of relief as the other slaves rushed forward, taking the freedom I'd given them. That we'd given them.

I know some men are evil, but I know that many men are good. It isn't true that no one hears you cry in the slave pens...the other slaves do, and we helped one another. The kind woman who stopped by to give us bread, heard, and helped. Without them, I would have had no freedom and without me, they would not have lived to see the light of a new dawn.

We fled the streets after our master died, and took refuge with good people. Some were weak and terrified, but others took us in despite their fear. This gave us hope. This was a terrifying thing for them, but they did. I, who knew the evil man's lash, understood their risk in a way they did not yet, and in a way I hoped they never would.

I stand here today as living testament to the power of strength in the face of fear. What compassion we were given, and gave to one another as brother to brother, I will give to others tenfold. I will embrace the slave as I free him, and remind him that there is good in the world...

...and that I am part of it, and that I will stand for him. I have faced fear, and the strength of evil's lash, and I am afraid. But I will stand, and so must you.

Not sure what class he is, yet. Maybe y'all have ideas. :D

This article got me thinking:

That has more to do with theme than it does with any specific character. Wonder Woman is optimistic. Gal Godot’s Diana wants to be a hero. She leaves Themyscira to be a hero, and while her faith is tested, her resolve ultimately holds. She climbs out of the trenches in WWI because there are human lives at stake and she’s going to protect them. Hers is a movie about a superhero making the choice to be a superhero, without any expectation of praise or reward.

That’s more or less the elevator pitch for superheroes as a concept, but it’s strangely at odds with everything we’ve seen from the DCEU thus far. Prior to Wonder Woman, DC’s output included two grim deconstructions of Superman and a third film about supervillains. All three have been skeptical of altruism as a concept, as if the most implausible thing about superhero movies is the hero’s willingness to help other people.

Source

What if there's a thirst out there for real heroes, who want to do the right thing? Good doesn't mean Nice, but for the sake of this thread, let's say that Good means wanting to do altruistic things. It's the journey there and the character themselves that is the challenge.

Writing Challenge!

If you like, create a HERO. Let's flesh out their backstory, toss in some stats if you like. They can be gritty or bright, but at their core give them that classic "hero quality" of wanting to the right thing. Give them some altruism. Give them some flaws.

I'd love to see what you come up with!

Aside: Evil has too often been seen as a replacement word for "gritty" but we may be seeing a pushback.

https://www.polygon.com/2017/6/17/15821584/wonder-woman-justice-league

From the article: That has more to do with theme than it does with any specific character. Wonder Woman is optimistic. Gal Godot’s Diana wants to be a hero. She leaves Themyscira to be a hero, and while her faith is tested, her resolve ultimately holds. She climbs out of the trenches in WWI because there are human lives at stake and she’s going to protect them. Hers is a movie about a superhero making the choice to be a superhero, without any expectation of praise or reward.

That’s more or less the elevator pitch for superheroes as a concept, but it’s strangely at odds with everything we’ve seen from the DCEU thus far. Prior to Wonder Woman, DC’s output included two grim deconstructions of Superman and a third film about supervillains. All three have been skeptical of altruism as a concept, as if the most implausible thing about superhero movies is the hero’s willingness to help other people.

If we're to believe the article (and similar ones published in places like Atlantic or comic review sites), we're seeing a thirst for heroes who genuinely...want to be heroes.

Evil doesn't have to be a replacement word for "Gritty" or "Badass." It gets used that way because in part, when we played as kids, we didn't understand what Real Evil was. We understood it meant kicking down buildings and taking names, and who wouldn't want to do that?

Good doesn't mean nice. But maybe as the gaming community ages, we're getting tired of those early, childhood assumptions that it has to be, and that the only way to be Badass is to be Evil.

That may be assuming too much. Either way, let's see how it rides out, eh?

We all started playing as kids, most of us. A kid isn't really going to understand "Evil" in the sense that an adult would. A kid's just going to want to be "that badass dude."

SNL gives us a pretty good parody of it.

I usually try an experiment. Replace "Evil" on the character sheet with "Badass."

If you could do that, it's more about wanting to be badass than wanting to be Evil. Evil is an entirely separate thing, and you'd probably need a solid group to handle it.

I've never advocated a character's alignment dramatically changing just by walking across a border.

Crunch/fluff annoys me, because I made the mistake of mentioning these terms to a friend, who then proceeded to explain what 'fluffing' was in the porn industry.

Cannot. Get. Image out of. Head.

Here is another method: Basically, instead of assuming an agendered person likes knitting or sports, ask what their interests are instead of assigning a template.

In a lump sum, that's what they're asking you to do. Granted, that's what more men and women are doing these days, so in the larger scope, it is less of a deal.

Tossing a proposal out there: the agendered person probably knows who they are at this point. They're...Sam, or Giana, or whatever. When an agendered tells you, "I am Sam" or "I am Giana," that is what they mean.

The only confusion would be on the parts of other people, and that is where the drama comes in, if any. Since Golarion isn't gender-unfriendly, it's not that big of an issue. So yeah, some confusion might arise, but a simple correction would do.

In the real world, the hardest thing to communicate is that from the agendered's view: "I am me, myself." From THEIR point, it is the outside world who makes too big a deal about gender.

So their response could be: "Just let me be me. I'm a doctor, a lawyer." For a binary person, they're a "male doctor or a female lawyer" and gender is intrinsically part of that makeup. In contrast, the agendered is saying, "...let me be that doctor or that lawyer, instead of saying I must be a female doctor, or female lawyer."

Ofc, on Golarion, we don't have to worry about that. I suspect it'll be less of a thing with the millineal generation coming forward, too.

I'm more facepalming that a thread intended to be about tropish characters turned into a debate about the semantics of what tropism, Mary Sues, and Gary Stus meant or qualified as.

1. Echoing the add diverse XP awards.
2. Research and look into adding an old-school Morale check. There are different systems out there. Adding a Morale system changes combat amazingly. Suddenly, it can be about intimidating or breaking the enemy's will to continue, instead of hit points v hit points.

It makes undead more terrifying.

The other players still get their thrill, but you get more of the dynamics you are looking for. If an enemy routes--the fun is in making then route say. ...unless they really, really want a chase scene.

Marculus wrote:

I guess what I am really hoping for, other than a moment to generally rant, is if there are any tips on how to handle the rules-lawyering at conventions. I have one this Friday and am both excited and dreading this weekend.

In order to deal with a rules lawyer you must first know the rules lawyer. Or more importantly the rules lawyerS, as the different species are not the same.*

The collector: Has all sorts of weird things from obscure sources. The character may not be particularly powerful but you wonder if they were high when they came up with the idea.

The Minmaxer: Knows the rules, uses them to make powerful characters but colors within the lines. You wonder if it SHOULD be legal but after the 5th time you ask around it surprisingly is.

Enyclopedia Brown: Knows all the rules. Insists the game be played exactly by the rules.

The Munchkin: Knows what the rules are and tries to take the most advantageous reading of every obscure or poorly worded rule in the game often to inane levels. They will try to handle animal the oppositions pet at dc 10 to make it attack their owner, stealth in the middle of a well lit room, take a monks arm off by disarming them, wield two greatswords with vestigial arms, ready an action to be automatically missed, etc.

The cheater: Much rarer than people think, but they're making stuff up and they know it.

Collector: Ask them "how the heck are you doing THAT?" they'll probably be happy to show you what weird combination it is you're using. Or just smile and nod if you want to keep your sanity.

"... You're wild empathying an ooze?
"Eyup! I even cast acid resistance on the way in so i could belly rub him!
"...HOW? Fast empathy from ultimate magic, ooze whisperer from dungeons denizens revisited

The minmaxer: Smile. think of england. Them killing the monster in 1 round gives you more time to role play. Tell yourself that 50 times.

Encyclopedia brown: Do not engage whether or something is the rule or not if you...

There are many species, aye. The other thing to remember is, the rulebook is huge and even developers can misunderstand particular points of it. So to can rules lawyers. I've found that a rules lawyer mindset can lend itself to misunderstanding.

That is, the same focus that has them so intently delving into the rules also drives their conviction. Conviction in this case can also lead to large blind spots.

So, be polite and see if things can be worked out. Anything outside of direct survival, if it cannot be determined with sources in under a minute, can be discussed afterwards, in order to keep things moving. If they get too intense and become so to the point of being antisocial--you are there to have fun with your kid.

I'll just echo the approach of what other people have said. When I GM, I ask the players before hand to fill out a little card with some basics about their characters and to specifically note if they do any "weird or obscure" things as a part of their character concepts. Then as I read through I go around the table and if they are playing a class or archetype that I'm not familiar with, I ask them to explain.

It's not going to solve all issues, but in PFS it is the responsibility of the player to have their source material available. When I play a class which has mechanical oddities (Alchemist, for instance) I print out and have handy every FAQ and clarification I'm using in my playstyle for easy reference. Not everyone's going to do that, but it is on the player to show what they can do or how something works for the exact reason you are here: no GM can know all the rules and this is ultimately a collaborative hobby.

I wanted to echo this, as well as offer a bit more. Fewer folks are asked to leave the games I run other than rules lawyers. This is not because of their enthusiasm for the rules, but for loudness and antisocialness that irritates other players to an extreme degree. While we try to work with everyone, now and then, the regrettable happens and a person may be asked to leave.

For example, I had one guy follow me around with CHARTS. He did not understand what he was doing wrong--he was so wrapped up in making his point that he did not understand when I told him that he was no longer welcome at my and others' tables.

I had another incident where someone would spam an email account with thesis-length essays on rules clarifications. When a ruling did not go their way, they tried spamming other people, as well. He would then take to tables and attempt to begin shouting matches between himself and the GM or himself and other players.

I do understand you.

If the cavernshark's idea does not work, it may be possible to establish a "working things out later, in order to keep things running smoothly" policy. I am not sure if PFS allows this, but it is one time-honored way of keeping a game moving along, without things getting sidelined overmuch.

In the end though, there are always going to be some folks who will just irritate the tarnation out of people no matter what. It is not your job to teach these folks how to behave around others--instead, it is within reason as an adult, to have the expectation that they will behave as another adult.

Also, if they are upsetting your game, they are likely upsetting others at the table as well. This means that other GMs and so forth have probably had experience with them. It may be possible to speak with a local captain or so on, and discover if this person's behavior is a known, local issue. They may be able to offer you advice on how they have handled it at their table in a way that is beneficial to everyone.

My least favorite is tied:
* 2+Int skills per level really bog down some classes, but also roleplay. It reinforces the dumb fighter stereotype, and can unintentionally encourage 'outside of combat, I will sit here and do nothing'.
* The rogue's sneak attack. This might be an issue with the rogue in general--which is themed as a solo class, but teamwork is a teamwork mechanic. It is a case of mechanics not matching flavor. Investigator's approach to this is much nicer.

Favorite is also tied:
* I love the new smite. So nice!
* 4 level and 6 level casting classes are great.

The problem is that SO MUCH says, reference grappling page 232 of core rulebook. This functions as a cleric's domain, see page 116 of core rulebook. Etc.

So if they were to change the core rulebook all the other books that reference it would have their references be off. And they wont do that. So you'd need a rules reference book that isn't supposed to replace the core rulebook to have any hope of this being done.

Man, I would be willing to put up with that. A cleric domain is still a domain for example. Specific references would work out fine, but overall the rules would be clearer and better-presented.

The inherited murk is, I imagine, Pathfinder's Achilles' Heel. With the number of times I have heard "I would like Pathfinder 2.0 just to be a streamlined version of Pathfinder," I imagine it to be doubly true. It is not Paizo's fault, to reiterate. The conversion was hell on their staff, and there was just no time to do so.

Yet, it would be wonderful to go in there with a rake. It would make life better for old and especially new, players alike.

And @JN, good to know. Thank you!

What is the possibility of the CRB getting a technical writing reform, on par with the Beginner Box?

One of the greater obstacles in joining a PF game for the first time is the amount of text and organizational murk in the CRB that Pathfinder inherited. This is NOT Paizo's fault--that they produced Pathfinder on the schedule they did is nothing short of amazing. Heaven knows the toll it took on their staff.

Cleaning up the language, format, and streamlining where rules are located would be a great help. I'm reminded of how d20srd.org became such a mainstay of the 3.0-3.5 days. Many users on the forums have also wished for a "Pathfinder 2.0" to just be a cleaned-up version of the CRB.

Alternately, is there a crowd source for this, or a 3PP?

HWalsh wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

Why redeem evil? It is evil. It will inevitably take advantage of your kindness to stab you in the back.

Evil is evil. It can only ever be evil. There is no redemption to one who believes in black-and-white morality. You walk a straight and narrow path, and if you deviate from it, you can never return.

If a person kills an innocent, then they are now and forever evil. Nothing they do can ever absolve them of that. Their motivation does not matter. Their circumstance does not matter. All that matters is that they did the deed. All they will ever be from that point on is a murderer.

Well you redeem evil because doing so destroys evil and births good.

You don't understand black and white morality if you think redemption isn't possible. Just as good can fall to evil, evil can ascend to good.

All black and white morality means is that evil is evil and good is good.

Where you seem to not understand is that ACTIONS are good or evil. People can choose to change. Acts aren't mutable.

I do understand. Black-and-white morality is about absolutes. It is binary, an either-or way of looking at the world. Things are clearly categorized. There is no ambiguity. Evil is evil. There is no little evil. There is no big evil. There is only evil. If you look at it any other way, it is not black-and-white any more.

If some acts are "more" evil than others, then that necessitates that moral absolutism is the way the world works. That some evil acts are a lighter shade of grey than others. But if you believe that, then you cannot believe that "evil is evil," because then evil can be defined in more than one way.

I am not sure you do. Think of it this way: they are saying that an act which is evil cannot be NOT evil. There are still different sizes of evil, but it does not change that they are evil, and not neutral or good. They're not actually arguing that there are not DEGREES of evil, just that evil cannot be well, not-evil.

A good analogy could be French fries. For example, you can have a small, medium, or super-sized bag of French fries served to you at McDonald's. Yet, B&W morality states that they're ALL French fries.

...just in different sizes, but that they are French fries does not change. It's part of the nature of fries too, that there can be a bunch of them or just a few.

Gray morality though, is like the dieter who looks at the different sizes available to them at McDonald's. They consider that because it is a SMALL sack of French fries after all, and that since the fries are made out of potatoes, you really could consider them a vegetable and therefore healthy.

I would look at the Medium class, which is centrally built around spirit possession.

If you're focusing on class design, you might want to design new spirits for it to use, which would probably find popular reception.

I would echo the possession aspect. Also, you might want to clarify if you are looking for more camp/Hollywood, or actual vodou. I'm assuming the latter, based on comments.

I used to have a host of resources on the subject that I'd scrounged for my RPGs, but they're off in a shelf somewhere. One in particular that I remember was Mama Lola: A Vodou Priestess in Brooklyn.

Roll up something else, this is never going to work.

I almost have to agree here. Sounds like very different playstyles.

It is possible--possible--that you could bring in something from an external source such as the United States' IHL Guidelines that lists acceptable and unacceptable means of combat between countries, definition of civilians, what is and is appropriate in terms of tactics against the enemy, and discuss having your PC use that as a guideline.

If that source does not work, peruse the others and see if any speak to you and your table. In any case, an outside source may help your argument. Also, treating ooc issues as ooc issues--which it sounds like this is. You need to discuss playstyle and preferences. Alignment and character actions are just a symptom of that, not the source.

Because:

* Law is an outdated name. For today's geeks, "Order" would make more sense. In popular fiction, we read about arcane forces of chaos, or order. We don't read about law so much.

* It becomes tied to political/ethical stances. Communism v. capitalism, anarchy v. everything else, and so on.

...but really the first one. I believe we could clean up so much just by bringing the language into the common era.

If it doesn't state it, then the Bloodrager is CL4. Not sure why.

They were trying this to see if it would work. In theory, then, the CLs for Ranger and Paladin should also have the -3 removed (if this experiment was successful), but I have not seen an update for that.

It is probably reasonable enough to house rule though.

Atarlost wrote:

Your law/chaos rather fails to match lawful and chaotic deities because non-evil deities written by Americans (and probably to some extent people of other nations with English legal traditions) tend to value some degree of individualism. Abadar, for instance, is well to the individualistic side of economics, but values order and is thus lawful.

Law/chaos terminology really needs to be discarded. Law and Order aren't the same thing and pretending they are is one of the major sources of alignment confusion.

I will admit that the standard D&D/Pathfinder Law vs. Chaos terminology isn't helpful and is generally poorly thought out. But don't blame me, I wasn't the one who picked those two names, that happened long ago in TSR under Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. As for most non-Evil deities tending towards Chaos under this definition, that's understandable. That and much of our concept of human rights is focused on the rights of individuals. I say it would be hard, but not inherently impossible to come out with a Good aligned focused more on the needs of the group than on the rights of the individuals within it, just take care to remember that Lawful Goods place less emphasis personal right then Chaotic Goods, they don't disregard the concept entirely. So let's make a list and see which ones make the most sense as Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic, and see which Lawful Good/Neutral gods can remain Lawful without having to become oppressive.

What could work is to look at different cultural models, as well.

Certain Eastern cultures can place greater emphasis on group harmony, and American values had more "group values" emphasis, historically speaking. When you saw this begin to change is in the 1940s.

Alternately, transform the "placing the greater good of the whole" phrasing into "care for others," which is seen in many charity organizations, such as those that care for the poor. To do so, they are more effective through organization, and are able to use those resources to aid those less fortunate. If you take this concept and make it wider, you have an argument for good governance, which is at the heart of many philosophical doctrines.

Aligning Chaos with American-style Freedom is going to create fewer options for players, because it casts anything opposite it into Totalitarianism. I know someone might read this and go, "but why would anyone do that? It's a fantasy game!" I am not the only one who sees this (re: Chaos == American Freedom), and it's something that once you DO see, it's almost impossible to UNsee.

I find myself wishing more than once that Paizo could have renamed "Law" to "Order." It's better terminology, provides a clearer image, better options, fewer arguments about "you must do everything the law says" and provides a more colorful balance to Chaos with greater options for the player.

It also seems to fit the OP's post a bit well, better.

SquirrelyOgre wrote:

It might offer an opportunity then, for a less 'US-centric' version of the gods. One of the things I have never enjoyed is how Chaos = American Freedom. Or, it could just offer an opportunity to go back to the roots.

The greater part of the audience is American and most of the rest is British Commonwealth or former British Commonwealth, which where the American ideal of freedom came from in the first place.

Oppressive totalitarian gods billed as "good" won't sell in a mainstream RPG on the English market. You can go to something like Warhammer where the only alignments are Chaotic Evil, Lawful Evil, and Gratuitous Evil, but then the two axis alignment grid is moot anyways.

I thought you might respond with something like this. The idea that because Paizo is based in the US, that Chaos should == American Freedom.

I'm glad someone other than me sees the Chaos == America! though. It can be frustrating! Seeing Chaos == America tends towards redefining it as the Ultimate Good, and can quickly run into political views. Chaos == America! then repaints Law as, to borrow your phrasing, Totalitarianism. That is, if Chaos is American Freedom, then Law must be its opposite.

Chaos == America can easily limit choices in this way, rather than expanding on them. It can also bring in undesired political overtones to what should be a fun, fantasy game.

Myself, the America! overtones of Chaos is one reason to clarify it in my own games to something that more clearly says, 'This is a fantasy game.' Or, one that offers benefits to either side of the scale, and encourages a choice and perhaps, debate that doesn't center on real life politics.

I appreciate the OP's work in that regard, as well as the nod towards 1e. There are some wonderful elements in our older systems (and their share of toads, too).

His Law-Chaos and Good-Evil is pretty much Verbatim from the AD&D 1st Edition Dungeon Master Guide.

As mentioned it's much narrower then more recent edition's interpretation and that why it's the one I use regardless of the setting or editon I play as I find it's much easier to understandand play correctly.

Obviously other people might have different experience.

Love it.

Your law/chaos rather fails to match lawful and chaotic deities because non-evil deities written by Americans (and probably to some extent people of other nations with English legal traditions) tend to value some degree of individualism. Abadar, for instance, is well to the individualistic side of economics, but values order and is thus lawful.

Law/chaos terminology really needs to be discarded. Law and Order aren't the same thing and pretending they are is one of the major sources of alignment confusion.

It might offer an opportunity then, for a less 'US-centric' version of the gods. One of the things I have never enjoyed is how Chaos = American Freedom. Or, it could just offer an opportunity to go back to the roots.

To the OP: Love what you're doing. Thank you for sharing.

1. All unchained classes applicable.
2. Minimum 4 skill/level.
3. Craft and Profession skills are knowledge and social checks (where applicable--think of being respected within your field)
4. Encumbrance is generalized.
5. No evil PCs unless it's an evil campaign.
6. Miniscule items are assumed, such as 50' rope.
7. No Leadership, and a small number of problematic spells, items, and feats of similar flavor removed (such as Paragon Surge, Blood Money).
8. Feats that seem to duplicate existing mechanics removed (I'm considering taking some feats and just expanding certain areas of the combat rules; for example, Strike Back could be a maneuver anyone could do versus a natural weapon at a -4).
9. Ingame rewards for being awesome, showing up, and otherwise contributing.
10. No creep concepts, such as halflings that look like children, and are somehow sexy and perform exotic dancing. Nope. Basic expectation of don't be a That Guy.
11. No PvP unless it's that kind of game.

...I'd like to roll in the automatic bonus progression, but I'm not yet prepared to address all of those price adjustments, since I have a long list of allowed MIs.

This is one of those things where no one can really know for sure, but many have strong opinions. So it typically ends in flames.

Fun side note: whether or not the klar attack counts as a shield bash, it can still benefit from the bashing enchant because of its loose language.

Part of this dovetails into "how do enchantments on shields work pricewise, when you can enchant a shield as both a weapon and a shield?" ...which I have never found a consensus on.

SquirrelyOgre wrote:

CN_Minus wrote:

Quote wrote:

Aside from verbal and mental actions, the only action a pinned creature can usually take is to attempt to free itself. Attacks are not listed as an action they can take.

Awesome. I'll be happy to tell my friend his grapple-based character is safe from most GMs saying their monsters can attack while grappled. He was already safe from me, as this has always been my interpretation.

Grapples isn't the same as Pinned. A creature can attack when only Grappled (and not Pinned) IF:

* They are using a one-handed or natural weapon
* They attack at -2

So, a creature with natural attacks could use all of them at -2. Likewise, a guy with a dagger can stab away at -2, but the greatsword user is out of luck.

This is from: "In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform."

And: "A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple."

Thanks, I think. I thought that much was obvious, though. edit: I see why you posted what you did. I meant pinned. I took the post explaining the grappled condition as a provocation. My fault. On a related note, however, those that are grappled are able to make full attacks.

The misinterpretation doesn't come from failing to understand the clearly laid out, easy to read and impossible to misinterpret grapple rules, it comes from the vague and difficult-to-pin-down pinning rules.

The important thing is that people don't view the pinned condition as a slightly increased penalty version of a normal grapple. I've seen it described that way often and from various sources, which is why it's necessary to clear up the ambiguity.

Sorry. Never meant it that way. I just get stuck in robot mode after dealing with rulesmurk and forget to be a real person.

Quote wrote:

Aside from verbal and mental actions, the only action a pinned creature can usually take is to attempt to free itself. Attacks are not listed as an action they can take.

Awesome. I'll be happy to tell my friend his grapple-based character is safe from most GMs saying their monsters can attack while grappled. He was already safe from me, as this has always been my interpretation.

Grapples isn't the same as Pinned. A creature can attack when only Grappled (and not Pinned) IF:

So, a creature with natural attacks could use all of them at -2. Likewise, a guy with a dagger can stab away at -2, but the greatsword user is out of luck.

This is from: "In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform."

And: "A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple."

SquirrelyOgre wrote:

The list of what you are able to do while pinned is deliberately restrictive. The subject may be forced onto their face and arms twisted behind their back. It is more severe than grappled.

You are able to use a Supernatural ability if it is purely a mental or verbal action. Not all are (see discussion and last post). It depends on the description of the ability, and GM interpretation.

Other than that, I believe you are restricted to the list given. That is, for each action that is not a spell or SLA, you must ask: is the action purely mental or verbal? Attacking is physical, and does not fall into this category.

For spells and SLAs, you follow the rules given.

PRD wrote:

A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions...A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.

Casting Spells while Pinned: The only spells which can be cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a concentration check (DC 10 + the grappler's CMB + the level of the spell you're casting) or lose the spell.

It really does need a line of text that says something along the lines of "this list of actions is exhaustive". As it stands, many people interpret it differently and allow attacks and many other actions that are allowed during a grapple, but with the increased penalties imposed by pin.

When considering any action, you are required to ask if it is purely mental or verbal, or if it falls under the spells or SLA ruling. It's permissive in that sense.

A Su ability that involves a touch attack for example, is obviously not going to be only a mental or a verbal action. It involves a physical action, so therefore is not available to the pinned creature, as SKR's post says.

Since he was the Paizo "rules guy" at the time of the posting, I am inclined to go with him.

EDIT:

From a thread in 2013:

Drakkiel, your rational is completely wrong. If pinned does not say you cannot attack, and conditions that give you the pinned condition do not say you cannot or can attack, but assume you to be able to... you don't immediately leap to "you cannot attack" as you have done. If the property of substitution can hold, you can use it.

However, I did get two emails that put this neatly to bed for me and my players.

Quote:

Sent 26 minutes ago

From Stephen Radney-MacFarland Add to Contacts
To lantzkev
Subject Re: one of my players, grappled
That is not the total answer I gave him. I referred him to the pinned condition on page 568 of the Core Rulebook and noted that the condition limits your actions with the following exceptions:

1) Escape
2) Mental actions (such as cast spell-like abilities)
3) Verbal actions (such as cast a V component only spell)

Pinned is not the same as helpless. Pinned is its own condition. You can do more things and suffer fewer penalties when your are pinned.

I hope that helps.

(he did the last Grapple FAQ, player sent me an email stating an answer from him so I sent a confirm, prior to that I had sent one to Jason Buhlman)

Quote:

Aside from verbal and mental actions, the only action a pinned creature can usually take is to attempt to free itself. Attacks are not listed as an action they can take.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

So now they just need to put this into FAQ form and a problem is set to bed.

The list of what you are able to do while pinned is deliberately restrictive. The subject may be forced onto their face and arms twisted behind their back. It is more severe than grappled.

You are able to use a Supernatural ability if it is purely a mental or verbal action. Not all are (see discussion and last post). It depends on the description of the ability, and GM interpretation.

Other than that, I believe you are restricted to the list given. That is, for each action that is not a spell or SLA, you must ask: is the action purely mental or verbal? Attacking is physical, and does not fall into this category.

For spells and SLAs, you follow the rules given.

A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions...A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.

Casting Spells while Pinned: The only spells which can be cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a concentration check (DC 10 + the grappler's CMB + the level of the spell you're casting) or lose the spell.

Klara Meison wrote:

And what if they don't want your freedom? People growing up in the modern world often forget that for a long, long time serfdom was a thing, and nobody complained.

Sorry, but...

Bwahahahaha - "nobody complained"!? - hahahahaha

Yeah... you haven't studied a lot of history.

The entire French Revolution was people complaining about it. (Admittedly - there weren't officially a lot of serfs by then, but France had kept a sort of semi-serf class.) As was the Polish revolt (which was basically put down by Russia because they didn't want a bunch of freed serfs giving their own serfs uppity ideas). And many X many more times.

Yeah... no.

Were there some people who didn't want freedom? Sure. After the civil war some ex-slaves stuck around and worked on the plantations too. But they were a minority.

One of the reasons that Russia eventually abolished serfdom (1860's) was to cut off the fomenting rebellion. Of course - the Marxists did it anyway a half century later, but that's a whole different ball of wax.

...pretty much this. I'm going to go ahead and include this as well:

Consider your table.

Slavery as a topic in RPGs can quickly veer into Creepy Guy territory. I've had to boot at least two guys when they started going on about the virtues of slavery, how Roman slavery was honorable, how most slaves LIKED their get, and by the way could one of them have a female slave?

Did I mention the women at the table, and many of the men, were creeped out?

Be careful with this topic. Even if you don't see it as creepy, arguing passionately for it at the table can easily label you as That Creepy Guy that No One Wants to Invite Back.

Quark Blast wrote:

Hrothdane wrote:

Hitdice wrote:

That's true Quark, but when you add "everyone's human" to a bulky legal code, you get federally recognized same-sex marriage a century and some odd number of years later.

I'm not seeing a problem here.

I am.

Polygamy - fine "as advertised", never really works out that way.

polygamy and marrying someone who is the same sex or gender as you are concepts that are in different boxes.

This is very true. Polygymy is also a means of SOCIAL CONTROL, not only of women but also young males. If the Authority has control over who, when, and how many you can marry, they have control over the young males. Females become a form of currency/control.

There are some fascinating essays on this.

More attempts to pin this down, haha. Suffocation would appear to work due to exhale being specificity called out. However, supernatural abilities in general are not so clear.

The pinned condition states that the creature is limited to mental and verbal actions, and non somatic spells. The text is a little hard to quote on a phone.

Apparently some supernatural abilities qualify as purely mental and verbal, but not a all. skr reply here.

Translation : the use of a su ability while pinned will rely on the description of the ability and gm call. Supernatural abilities are also not clear cut. Cackle requires a verbal component for example -- it does not work in silence. Other supernatural abilities require a touch attack or presenting a holy symbol.

In a pin, your face could be forced against the ground and your arms twisted painfully behind you. That is why the list is so narrowly defined.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

The big issue I see with most of the classes in a primitive setting is, literally, calories. As in, who the hell feeds the person who is going to grow up to be a wizard or a paladin?

All of the "primitive" groups we know about are generally only a few meals away from starvation all the time, which means that hunting and gathering are a full-time job for anyone who wants to be a full-time eater. What does a wizard-in-training offer the rest of the group that's as valuable as the 1500 calories a day she's eating but not finding?

It depends on how you define primitive.

Hunter-gatherer.

Since the OP is defining "advanced" as Aztec-level technology,.... well, the Incas you mentioned weren't actually "primitive" in comparison; in fact, the Incas were better at metalworking than the Aztecs, and still were largely working native metals like copper nuggets with hammers. (The height of American metallurgy was basically smelting metallic copper from its sulphide. No one managed bronze before the arrival of the Europeans.) So anything substantially less sophisticated than the Aztecs is basically neolithic, and probably hunter-gatherer.

Look up the Maasai as well. Pretty healthy folk. "This close to starving" isn't that true everywhere. Granted, in the US we may be biased in our outlook--we shoved them from lands where they knew how to adjust and get food readily, and from good lands, to the starving outbacks, basically.

You might check this out. While not a PF source, by reports it is well-researched.

A few more sources:

* List of facts on the Aztec
* Aztec society and family (men and women owned property, men could have more than one wife, but the primary wife had the final say--interestingly, one of the things the conquerors were horrified at was the relative independence many women in the new world enjoyed, though this is not universal. The Cherokee for example, had to change the status of their women in order to not be seen as barbarians, and the Cherokee tradition of the War Woman was horrifyingly awesome)
* Aztec mathematics and the woes of tax time
* The tribal conflicts were geopolitical, too
* Aztec religion
* Songs of the ancient Aztec (translated)

More...

As an aside, the Conquistadors make great inspirations for evil villains and PCs. We are talking, "pull a small boy of under the age of 4 aside, cut off a slice of his flesh to test your knife and for funsies, then watch him run screaming and laugh, then record it in bragging terms in your journal" Evil.

It was bad enough that it pit them against the Jesuits, who would work to salvage native peoples from their cruelty. They were not without fault themselves, of course.

...but, you are talking evil in the sense of cutting off childrens' hands, cutting out a pound of flesh, and then laughing as they run away, the turning tribe-against-tribe, and the deliberate spread of sickness with the intent to kill, sexual assault, subjugation and slavery, and perhaps just for giggles. Mothers at the time were not unknown to drown their children rather than risk such a fate. Reading their journals is a good source for inspiration on "how to play evil" although I suggest chugging some Mylanta along with portions of them.

If you want "primitive" in general, I would suggest checking out the anthropology section of a book store (esp one near a campus) and seeing what you can pick up for a few bucks. Great stuff there.

What you might do is start with their faith and lifestyle, and just "see how that makes them a people."

I'm still hoping for a blog post on grapple and pinned. Some day...! It is a complex enough topic involving many, many flow charts, custom writeups, and more.

In the meantime, suffocation effects should prevent any use of breath weapon:

Breath weapon: Some creatures can exhale a cone, line, or cloud of energy or other magical effects. A breath weapon attack usually deals damage and is often based on some type of energy. Breath weapons allow a Reflex save for half damage (DC 10 + 1/2 breathing creature's racial HD + breathing creature's Con modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature's descriptive text). A creature is immune to its own breath weapon unless otherwise noted. Some breath weapons allow a Fortitude save or a Will save instead of a Reflex save. Each breath weapon also includes notes on how often it can be used, even if this number is limited in times per day.

If nothing can be inhaled either through natural lungs or some sort of internal bellows system, it cannot be exhaled.

Here is what I can tell you from experience, after Unchained was published:

o I now recommend the monk to new players. It is solid, and well-crafted. The mechanics better match its theme. New and old players alike will have trouble going wrong. With the old monk, new players would read the theme, pile dex...

o The new barbarian has a stronger, more well-built chassis. The play is smoother. Barbarians join the ranks of swashbuckler and paladin for martial classes that have some form of damage mitigation. Most complaints about them can easily be fixed through the addition of more rage powers.

o The original summoner was an interesting class that broke new ground in a lot of ways. It always needed a 2.0.

NobodysHome wrote:

Ah, I see. This is an experiment in, "I am going to take every post and interpret in the most negative possible manner."

It did kind of feel that way for a while, didn't it? Quite overtly, in some cases. The first section worked out amazingly well (although the fact that it means I was right from the get-go still puzzles me, because it fails to explain my subsequent experiences)...but Jesus H. Kryten, I did NOT bargain for that second half.

SquirrelyOgre wrote:

Dear Hiding,

Often it isn't "optimization" but the perceived attitude that comes from how the demand for optimization is handled, socially. For example, the phrases:

* You're responsible for our party's TPK if you don't make x, y, or z as choices
* Let me make your character for you; you'll have more fun that way

...are off-putting. These and similar phrases are often given with honest sincerity by the individual giving them. I repeat: honest sincerity.

With autism, it is very possible to get caught up in the numerical details and a perceived goal of the game. The idea of making someone's character for them so it's "done right, so they will have more fun" can seem logically helpful. Emotionally, it fails to take into account the other person's feelings.

This...puzzles me. I'm the admitted autist, and this is the kind of stuff (particularly that first example of yours, which was rabidly thrown at me in that "Inquisitor feat" thread of mine that I linked to on the 1st or 2nd page) that gave me the impression that "optimization" was an idea to fear. I've run into this misunderstanding before, and it's distressing for multiple reasons. Autistic =/= unimaginative. It just doesn't. Quite the opposite (and I don't believe I've ever heard of anyone pitching that second example, at least not in that spirit)....

I get you. Yeah, I never meant to come across that you were uncreative. Anyone involved in RPGs is going to be, and I suspect you have creativity in spades. I may have misread part of your post, too. I really apologize for that.

What I am trying to say is that the pushback you received about optimization is often related to how optimization-related arguments and statements have been presented in the past.

While some optimizers give good, kind and well-worded advice. ...there tend to be a set who push too far, unintentionally. I have encountered the second example in that list I gave many times and the first many more often than that. As often as not, the statements were well-intended. The optimizers in question were trying to help and were honestly puzzled why others rejected their help, or why the pro-optimizing statements were seen as offensive.

As a coder friend once explained to me: "It's obvious. Why WOULDN'T you want to do that?" They went on to say that of course someone would want the optimal build in order to have the most fun because it was the logical thing to do. He would get caught up in the details, and 3E encourages a sort of mathematical character-building game as well as the traditional adventure module. It is easy to get caught up in that and admittedly, can be a lot of fun. It can also be very creative.

It took a long time before he was able to sit back and say, "I understand that others don't want the most optimal build. It isn't logical to me, but I have to be okay with that." Many times, we would need to take him aside at the table and explain why steam was coming out of someone's ears.

He was a genuinely good and creative person. He volunteered to bring snacks if people requested it, or if someone said "can I get help with X?" However, he would get caught up in character optimization and was unable to understand others' emotional reactions. He genuinely thought he was helping them. To be fair, it took me a while to see this as well because I too, would be angry because I thought he was being condescending, insulting, or so on.

It turns out that he was trying to be forthright and honest.

He is not the only person who "gets caught up" that I have met or had at the table, and I suspect he is far from the last. He himself later told me he was along the spectrum, and many of the optimizers I knew who tended to "get into trouble" were as well.

However, not all. Others were not on the spectrum, but were just so focused that they missed social cues entirely. It is possible to do that.

I suspect the kind of focus that it takes to get into that level of character optimization encourages that "so caught up I forget to read why others get upset" mindset because boy do I run into it a lot.

Much of the advice may be well-intended. I would go with a polite but clear: "no thank you" or "thank you for the advice, but I would like to focus on something else" or "thank you, but my goal is different" and move on. In the case of the coder friend, if you engaged him on a point of argument, he would become concerned that you were not seeing his point at ALL and he must convince you. It was very important to him.

He was also concerned that you would not have as much fun as you could. The result of this is that the argument will ESCALATE. It will escalate out of well-meaning intentions and a wont to be understood.

Basically, if that sort of "escalation" happens to you, express your gratitude, politely let them know that you'll consider their advice but that your goal/etc. is probably different, and then move on.

I have had way too many conversations like this in the past several months...into the past several decades. The bottom line is: a number of the more driven pro-optimizers end up missing social cues. Some are along spectrum (and have told me so) but not all are. They just for one reason or another, get so caught up that they fail to see the hurt and frustration coming from someone else.

When cues like that are missed, it tends to leave a feeling of anger or upset behind. Because, I suspect, this situation happens more often with pro-optimization mindsets/discussions, that anger and upset becomes associated with optimization in general.

Again, these honestly good and damn creative people who are trying to help. It just comes across not as they'd intended.

Dear Hiding,

Often it isn't "optimization" but the perceived attitude that comes from how the demand for optimization is handled, socially. For example, the phrases:

* You're responsible for our party's TPK if you don't make x, y, or z as choices
* Let me make your character for you; you'll have more fun that way

...are off-putting. These and similar phrases are often given with honest sincerity by the individual giving them. I repeat: honest sincerity.

With autism, it is very possible to get caught up in the numerical details and a perceived goal of the game. The idea of making someone's character for them so it's "done right, so they will have more fun" can seem logically helpful. Emotionally, it fails to take into account the other person's feelings.

I suspect that disconnect may play a role here. It may also play a role with many conversations about optimization where they have seemed to go off the rails. I have had many, many conversations into the night where I have had to sit aside with someone with autism and explain why they need to let others make their own choices, or learn to phrase things in a different way.

I would estimate that this has happened at least three times in the last two months. These are brilliant, kind people. There is however, that disconnect that can put them at odds unintentionally.

What I WOULD suggest is stepping away from "optimizing" and anything else for a while, and to give this a read. It may give you a better way to approach these conversations. It may also give you a better measure. For example, the book outlines several rules for social interaction, that were written by someone with autism. If you see someone arguing for optimization and see that they are violating these rules, you can be sure that the audience will become upset or even angry.

It may be worth noting what Gary Gygax had to say about paladins

Nice. That's a more proactive take on them than I have seen in a while. Good to hear from Gygax in this area.

I've been interested in a good, open conversion of this class for some time. The link didn't work for me, but that isn't surprising given it's a few years late!

Here's an initial attempt. The idea is that the spirit guide for these shamans could be ancestral, or tied to their homeland or tribe--hence the bloodline angle.

Granted, it is more of a hybrid conversion and likely needs some powering-down, but it is a start.

The Great and Mighty

Bonus if it sings opera.

Chess Pwn wrote:

A)

should isn't a suggestion. Should = correct way, wrong if not.

"Could" is a suggestion. "Maybe" is a suggestion. "Something else you could do/try" is a suggestion.

"Should" isn't a suggestion.

Jumping in on this tangent while it's going: Interpretation can and will vary. For example, in the engineering field, the convention is as follows:

Should: A course of action that is recommended, but not mandatory. Aka Optional and subject to discretion.
Shall: A course of action that is a mandatory requirement

Of course, when talking about how to build pressure vessels that don't explode or bridges that don't collapse, stronger language is to be expected compared to when discussing a roleplay game. And I am digressing.

~~~~~~

I still maintain that, regardless of whether the player is trying to roleplay a priest of a church (if that is their groups preferred playstyle) or simply use the class mechanics to overcome obstacles (if that is their groups preferred playstyle), the aversion that many people have towards the cleric is not based off their 3.5/PF mechanics** and how they rank up to what the player wants to do with the character. The expectations of the other players, in my experience, is what creates and drives the aversion to playing clerics, because it creates an environment where some or all of the others at the table are telling a player how they should play their character (referencing 3.5 a lot here):

• "Dude, I'm under half hit points. Can you heal me please?"
  
• "We need you cast bless as we go into the dungeon, as +1 to hit is great for everyone."
  
• "We need you to cast recitation when the combat starts, as giving everyone +2 to attack, saves and AC is amazing."
  
• "Dude, why are you casting bull's strength on yourself? Cast it on the fighter!"
  
• "Hey, can you put resist energy on everyone before we head into this fire themed dungeon? We should keep the wizard's spell

...

I would have to agree with this summary, in general. It isn't as much about "healbot" as it is being asked to be a nursemaid.

In one of the worst cases of it, I had a player try cussing me out once because I wouldn't heal them. Well, they were also cussing out my PC's deity...but the basic "you're here to support me" mindset was there.

That is &$$&$%^$!!! It's one thing if a GM for the story fudge die rolls. I have as have other GMs I play with. It's on thing to bend the rules so a villain you want to build up escapes again and again. Mot of the group I play with uses every resource to keep any enemy they fight escape.

But that is cheating and no one I know tolerates that well. We have had issues of that insisting everyone rolls dice in front of everyone including the GM. I do having a set of dice I use just for bad guys. I roll secretly on some things but overall they see the rolls of the bad guys.
The other issue I'm seeing is favoritism. It happens a lot in some cases it becomes a major problem. We had a GM who hated me for whatever reason but loved his buddy. He often did two things which pissed me and the other players off to no end. The first was when he ran a campaign he wouldn't tell us anything about the campaign except his buddy. The second was his buddy often a level or even two in one case higher then the rest of the PCs. I don't mind a GM keeping his campaign a secret except I'd like to know enough to not play a character who will end up being useless and hated. Example a Dessert warrior running around in the frozen north.
Now to the main issue of MinMaxing our group has a tendency to do it. Not always but in general yes. Half our group also played first ed D&D and you needed to MinMax just to stay alive. Now in some cases our characters are more powerful then others but we have all played together for years so we compliment each other well. We have discovered while our characters are MinMaxed that doesn't make them boring at all. Had an evil fighter in our group once he was very memorable more for what he did outside of combat then the damage he did in combat. Some players would rather Role Play then focus on combat we as a group have no issue with this. Our issue is some players focus so much on the RP aspect that they tend to make useless characters. I'm not talking about a Faceman with a exceedingly high Chr and...

Hey, there. Are you sure you are not reading your own experiences into the OP's question? Or that you are not answering a "to Minmax or not Minmax" argument instead of providing help?

At the moment, I am reading that things are coming down to: Him vs Him, Him, Her, Her, and Him, with the one person causing disruption at the table and arguing with the DM--even breaking the game to do so.

Hey, Alia.

I'm sorry you have a player who feels he has to corner/challenge the GM. That's no fun. Even less fun is play being bogged down by rules arguments when you'd like to focus on the game. Even less fun is when those rules arguments are slowing down play for four other players, and yourself. It boils down to: Him vs Him, Him, Her, Her, and Him.

I'd suggest taking this to the rpg.net forums or a different site. I love Paizo to pieces. Their forums tend to be crunchier than most, though. This has its strengths. If you're looking for more management advice, it can be found here, but will often get bogged down with the classic minmaxers aren't bad! versus yes they are! versus Let's qualify that. That's what is happening above, and "let's qualify what minmaxing is" is really tangential to your question.

So I'd head there, or perhaps a different forum and frame your question as a social and group issue at the table. There's no need to even bring up the system really, as this sounds firmly like a player issue.

GMs have been handling issues like these since time immortal. It's group management.

So, I'm going to be running a game in a couple weeks (rappan athuk) and some of my players seem to be expecting downtime for magic item creation. I am fine with that. However, I'd like to make sure they don't go overboard with it, and am hoping for advice and suggestions on how to get them back into the adventure / dungeons in an in-game "organic" feeling way.

Like I said, I'm fine with them doing some crafting, I just don't want it breaking up the flow / action too much.

Any ideas?

IIRC, there are rules for lessening the crafting time via a Spellcraft check. It's been a while since I looked at them, though.

I suppose it depends on your interpretation of things. I've played a paladin who did something like that, with the purpose of intimidating his primary foes (demons).

...in order to keep them out of a vulnerable area. It was very much like marking territory, so that he didn't have to work as hard.

Now, they weren't on pikes out at the village square. He just collected now and then, and let natural gossips do the rest. That what gossip do.

Now, that might not fly at all tables. I probably wouldn't play at those tables.

Greetings,

Does anyone know of non-feat alternatives to the Boon Companion feat? Rangers are feat-starved as it is (compared to fighters), and I was wondering if there was any alternative I might take advantage of to level up my animal companion.

Thanks!

This will not help with PFS, but from what I recall, one of the developers house-ruled the -3 away for rangers in his home campaigns. He said it worked out fairly well.

The various -3s are something I'd have loved to see addressed in Unchained, too! Maybe next time?