Starfell's page

Hello,

I am working diligently to prepare for a pathfinder 2e adventure within the Iron Kingdoms. Many may know of it via older materials published for DnD 3.x, Warmachine/Hordes or even the IKRPG. I am trying to convert things from the 3.x version over (as it appears to be the easiest to transfer) for use as Pathfinder 2e. Fortunately, gunslinger and inventor fit extremely well into the setting flavor-wise and Magus can cover the "Gun Mage" feel quite well.

Currently I have the following:
Warcaster Archetype

Ogrun Ancestry
I pulled the majority of my info here from the Orc Ancestry as it seemed to have the closest feel.

Trollkin Ancestry
I obtained most of this idea from the person who posted their work on Reddit with some adjustments: Reddit Post. I wanted to make sure to give them full credit for what they did.

I am considering how I want to have Arcane Mechaniks, Bodgers and may be Mage Hunters, if at all - into my conversions. Any critiques and advice would be very much appreciated!

Hello,

I wanted to reach out for ideas to build an exorcist, or priest that is anti-evil supernatural beings. The flavor I was going for would be similar to the priest from Helsing - who has what appears to be holy powers with significant martial capabilities to fight. It's for a future campaign a friend of mine is running and he will certainly be having fiends and evil-denizens showing up. The problem for me is that Cleric tends to be more centered around anti-undead.

I've been beating myself over the head of doing Champion/Cleric, Cleric/Champion, Fighter/Cleric, Champion/Other but it seems like there is very little that I can take advantage of as anti-evil as I'd like. Cleric would be the ideal simply for Holy Castigation for flavor but that comes a bit later. Nothing seems to quite "click".

I am also ok with this character being so specialized that he may be sub-par against anything else. If he is a skill or knowledge guy in addition to just being really good at beating fiends or the like, I am ok with that.

Hello everyone! I wanted to get some suggestions and insight from the great minds here to piece together a world concept I have. First a bit of background:

The world was initially Rhydin (for those of you who participated in the AOL days, you got a jist) - a portal world to other dimensions and planes. It often was a world in which beings could traverse from one world to another. Weird combinations of creatures (again, if you were there during the AOL chatrooms...) existed and all levels of technology were present. One day, the portals closed. The powers that be quickly turned on one another, laying blame and attempting to seize some form of dominion. This war tore the world apart - literally.

It was a pantheon of deities that showed up to put the world back together with whatever survivors there were. Time was short because the atmosphere was falling apart and the earth literally shattered to pieces. A new world was reborn out of the remnants of the old one. This new world would be renamed __(Not yet named)____.

The key points of this historical blueprint is that a stolen adventure idea was during the last days of the catastrophic war had heroes fighting for their lives. In their final moments they were turned into stone. Fast forward into the future they were released from their stone state in a whole different world and existence. Worshiped as gods due to their realistic look, they quickly ascertained the situation of the world.

The major players in the war that tore the world apart, at least that survived and were significant in the battle and reparation were chromatic dragons. In the setting there are no metallic dragons. The "brood lords" or "primarchs" of the various chromatic lines were named: Magdela (Green Dragon, from a friend's idea); Behemoth (White Dragon); Leviathan (Blue Dragon), Apollyon (Black Dragon) and finally Jormangandr (Red Dragon). These dragons would make colossal or gigantic dragons look like ants. The two largest being Behemoth and Jormangandr. The finally battle was an attempt to bring down Jormangandr and his plans to become a deity by eating the core of the world. It was the other Chromatic's betrayal of him that ultimately brought about his defeat.

When the pantheon of deities arrived to restore the world, Jormangandr was actually placed under the largest continent as his prison. His body and soul were separated and his body became dormant rock. His soul in the body of a fat, televangelist type swindler who actually lead the "worship" of the statues that were the people put into stone. (This was all a previous Pathfinder game). The other chromatics were placed in charge of defending Jormangandr's prison. Various continents and races associated with them fell under one of the chromatics and Magdela set up a veil to prevent passage between the locations.

Jormangandr used the newly released "heroes" from their stone prisons and manipulated them to believe these overlord dragons were oppressing the world. First to fall by their hands was Magdela, and the other Chromatics turned to hunt down these would-be heroes. Jormangandr used this opportunity to undo the prison that kept his body and soul separate. Eventually, the final Chromatic lord was killed. The heroes of this story learned of Jormangandr's trickery taking place the entirety of their adventure and a race to his body commenced.

Jormangandr's mortal body jumped in a suicidal way into his body's mouth and the soul and body were once again reunited. The continent was split apart as he broke himself free of his underground prison. He gathered easily manipulated followers to himself to once again reach for transendance - this time by eating the celestial sun that acted as a gateway and conduit between the pantheon and the world.

The heroes and their followers fought with Jormangandr and his armies as he prepared for his ascent into the sky. In his final hours Jormangandr made one last ditch effort to reach the sun with the heroes on his body doing all they could to stop him. The end of the story? They failed. The sun was devoured by Jormangandr and his deification took place. He isolated the world he was entrapped within out of spite of the previous Pantheon (similar to war of souls in Dragonlance).

He took pleasure in slowly and excruciatingly eradicating the elven races. Except for his personal domain of residence, Jormangandr made the world a desolate horror. His "glory" is the light of the world - such as movies that emphasize a colorless hue effect like the world being seen gray color, for instance. Monsters that would have otherwise feared being outside could freely move about during the day as well as night. Many areas outright dieing and being haunted by all manner of monsters.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, with that backstory laid out - how would you populate such as world that is still livable but terrible. Horrific, but survivable for the inhabitants? I am looking for a way to portray a feeling of dread and hopelessness.

I want to introduce the characters as commoners the come into contact with *a* pantheon outside of Jormangandr's reach that receive blessings (character classes) to eventually defeat him. I am simply here to pick everyone's brains to make a fantastic campaign for my future players! Thanks for any assistance I receive. I hope you also got some enjoyment reading my homebrew campaign's backstory!

I've read a bit about Sakamoto. I wouldn't make him a Gunslinger. (You don't need the class to be proficient with guns.)

I would go all fighter (or samurai) and spend a feat or two on being proficient in guns. Or maybe the swashbuckler (Sakamoto was supposed to be a genius). There were ashigaru who would be far better with guns. (Actually, I thought ashigaru didn't exist in his time period, but a few sources suggest they made a comback.)

Spring Attack doesn't really belong to a "tank". In fact, given the time period, this guy was a "bathrobe samurai" and so couldn't be a tank. He's more of a skirmisher. That would make Spring Attack a good feat choice, but it also means you're not a tank.

I agree with tactician feat choices. I've only read two stories about him, but in at least one he was a competent combat leader (and his background showed the same thing).

Kimera = The Sakamoto I would be based off is specifically the Peace Maker anime version of him where he does tote a gun. Became very western (I know this is probably very far off but has great flavor) and had his own motives for things. I wanted to keep him very much a skirmish for the spring attack side of things for flavor certainly. The idea would be I take swings at the mooks on the way to the big guy.

I did not necessarily want a big brute samurai who trugs into melee and sits there with mooks because he'd be ineffective making it to the big bad. This isn't set in stone, obviously.

BBT = I wouldn't be against an alternate class to get the specific flavor I am going for. I like the resolve and various aspects the Ronin school and samurai class give that is more directly built to be "samurai" but I am not tied to it in total.

KrythePhreak = A mixture of sword play and a pistol, though not necessarily requiring uber ability with the pistol side of things. The restriction that multiclassing must be the same level as often as possible (therefore, having to be samurai 4, gunslinger 4, for instance due to the restrictions). Otherwise I would have done it much differently.

So I recently came upon an opportunity to make a new character for a adventure path campaign (Skull and Shackles). Having re-watched an old series of mine "Peace Maker", I got the idea to base the character off the gentleman named Ryoma Sakamoto in the series. He's effectively a highly skilled samurai (or ronin, more specifically) that once was a dojo master (if I recall correctly) within his clan that was highly respected. That was true, until he left to see the world and came back with a more western mentality and intention for Japan. He was proficient with both pistols and his katana / wakazashi. For my post this is using Sakamoto's name until I come up with a more suitable name for my character.

To make things interesting I went through Ultimate Campaign and rolled up all relevant information for his starting traits and back story. My intention is an effective character for the role he'll play (front line tank type - though with his own flavor). I chose Tactician and Grief-filled traits respectively out of the myriad of results I got. The overall story from the charts is below.

I've played with two different builds so far - one with dual wielding sword and pistol. The other, going for spring attack and vital strike. However, I know that I have more options(both that I can use for RP and combat effectiveness) and there are some ideas I haven't come up with yet. For this purpose I request assistance coming up with some fun builds to enjoy. The only requirement the GM appears to be giving me is no 3rd party, and multi-classing requires that the different levels (if not going for a prestige class) must be equal as often as possible. He is very much against the min-maxing idea (as I argued that it was a silly stance, but it is what he decided) of dipping into a single level of a class and no more.

Also, traveling kimono is a +2 Parade armor (+3 AC on its own) renamed in Hero Lab to allow me to make full use of my +5 dex modifier and not sound so goofy on the character sheet.

Another fun idea: A monk wearing wizardy looking gear that bluffs to "cast stuff" so that he catches most of the heat for the spellcaster in question.

Never played a Bard OR a Cavalier, and Battle Herald seems to be a combination of both and may fill a role in our party later on, also being different enough from the class Im currently playing to peak my interest.

Given that Ive never played either of the two classes combining into the prestige class (I love doing new things), what would you, the general forum populace suggest for a build for the thing lol

Try a buffer battle herald build I've posted quite some time ago: The passive buffer. It allows you to substitute cleric with the evangelist archetype for the bard side of things. Opens your options a bit more.

Is this Golarion(default Pathfinder campaign setting)?

Is this some sort of custom campaign setting?

This is a custom setting. Though feel free to use the idea in your campaigns!! I wanted to have a different flavor of adventure that was truly different.

It isn't a reservation - just a retirement community :-)

I do like the idea of the desire to "feel young again".

Any test with ogres should be strength related.. even an old retired ogre should feel up to any strength based test...

- knocking a pole into the ground, using bare hands while naked
- Eating 1 whole Bison quickest
- Simple Armwrestling
- selfinflicting damage test
- weightlifting
- who can impregnate the most female trolls in 1 week (the answer wont come for a few months...)
- drinking contest

Do you use standart alignment??? if so, ogres are CE, and will humiliate the players as much as possible b4 using strengt to kill them...

but do remember that Oni's (ogre mage) are LE, and a bit harder to kill....

I love some of those ideas! (Not so much the impregnation idea).

What about with trolls? It'll be a mixed community.

Hello once again Paizo community! After a severe car accident I am slowly getting back into the swing of things. Today I seek advice on a simple topic as you see.

Reason: A witch character within my campaign is seeking various elemental books (as required by her elemental "patron") each a spin of book of earth/fire/water/wind etc.

Besides the patron giving her the mission to collect all the books and feed them to her familiar (whose appearance changes depending on the book and how many so far has been eaten), she needs their power to face off with an enemy coven. A coven that arm-twisted her into joining them with the intent to rip her away from her elemental patron and realign her with their Shadow patron instead. They also will be holding the final book.

I want a hearty RP session involving a Troll and Ogre retirement community that happens to be in possession of one of the books (Book of Air).

So the request is simple - what circumstances can be going on that challenges the PCs in some way? Even if it's a goofy contest or request by the members of the retirement community :) Thanks ahead of time, and have fun!

I thank everyone who has joined into the conversation so far for a fantastic thread. Giving future GMs or any who want more info to have something to come to and chew on in their minds for their games. I'm pleased it's turned into a rather educational thread for the most part.

Perhaps the next step in the conversation may be to define what 'GM takes control of the cohort' portion of my post (though is already being touched upon by others). I will do that next time I make a reply - I promise!

LowRoller, I want to thank you for your response with more information on how you'd handle leadership. I was wanting to squeeze out solutions from you and was really happy with what you posted. Disagreeing with me is fine, I just wanted more than simply "I don't like it - won't play with it." post that didn't help anyone. I would have been sad if that was all it came to.

Blueluck,
1) We agree some form of house-ruling will probably end up taking place. I've no disagreement with your response.

2) You are right on point two. mdt corrected me on that point and I admitted it in one of my previous posts (though I am unsure if you read it so I concede the point here).

3) I generally assume hand me downs to the cohort to a large capacity with a few direct upgrades from time to time. You are assuming that it will generally come from the PC who took the feat for it. As a game master I certainly would be working to make sure the cohort isn't lagging behind too bad in some form of manner. I try to direct things to make it enjoyable to have a cohort instead of being a stickler that ruins the fun.

Not sure exactly if we'll end up truly agreeing on how things will be played out. I think our debate stems more from what is assumed through rules versus ideas on how to make leadership doable for a GM without ruining their game. Perhaps I think the miscommunication is more the angle on which we approach leadership instead of any specific written rule.

I mean the previous comment in the sense that you assume: Cohort = NPC, therefore, go to NPC section to develop NPC; Then assume that PC with feat is the be-all-end-all for gear and necessities for that NPC.

It isn't an incorrect assumption of the rules at all. I as a player can agree with you on those points if my GM had no experience or ideas on how they wanted to handle leadership. As a game master, I have a plethora of ideas how I handle the feat personally and wouldn't necessarily subscribe (except maybe to be lazy integrating it) to that way of thinking.

The ultimate goal of me as the game master is to make the game as enjoyable as possible for everyone. I would direct to my earlier mention that I intend to post clarifying more ideas and intentions concerning the GM taking control of the cohort to flesh that out more. I think that may be what is needed in this thread/discussion most.

So we have two options from here.
1)You continue responding to my comments and as "iron sharpens iron", we work things through a bit at a time.
2) I would like to ask you what you would do to allow the leadership feat to work. You've pointed out you disagree with my methods, how would you handle it that would allow other GMs to consider unbanning it for their games?

Ravingdork - I would direct you to the #2 option just above this sentence I directed to Blueluck, since you've entered into the arena after not reading the entirety of everything. I notice a lot of people gladly bash but many don't bother to come up with their own solutions to the problem. I've read plenty of your posts and know you are very logical and do like to think things through.

So problem: Many GMs Ban Leadership Feat outright which I think is a shame to an extent.

In the military, I was always forced to come up with at least 3 solutions before I was allowed to complain about a problem. In this thread I gave several and more pop up that I never thought of as the thread develops. Some parts (particularly the GM running/creating it idea) are obviously unpopular. What would you do to make things workable even for those who are apprehensive about the feat?

Starfell wrote:

2) Per cohort level you can not first attract (recruit) a cohort more than two levels below you. Per the last paragraph concerning the cohort level in the core book and SRD - your cohort is limited to being a single level behind you after they join you. The two level limit does not infringe at any time after they've joined - one level lower is the accurate number once they've adventured with you. The difference, between 1 and 2 levels can be very drastic.

This isn't going to change your opinion or anything, but the cohort does max out at two levels below you. If they ever get to the point where they would level up to your level minus one, they just stop gaining XP and become stuck right on the cusp of that level.

Leadership wrote:

If a cohort gains enough XP to bring it to a level one lower than your level, the cohort does not gain the new level—its new XP total is 1 less than the amount needed to attain the next level.

I actually will concede this point. I was trying to a quick-through (as you can see - didn't work very well) on my second post. For that, I myself am guilty in that regard of not reading the leadership feat in point 2 of my own post. My hats off to you, and concession to Blueluck on that point. Thanks for correcting me!

Sean Reynolds says the OP is wrong about who designs the cohort.

/thread

You did get a great response by mdt that still Rule 0 applies even though he is a developer. He doesn't say, though it may have been implied, on whom designs the cohort. He merely asks the question in such a way as to make us think on exactly how it all works out.

Why it would detract from the fun?

It's quite simple. A side charachter that i dont get to build or control in any way is not my cohort, it's just another NPC the GM uses.
You can write as many walls of text you like but in the end your suggestion is not a solution to allowing the feat, it's just a concealed way of dissallowing it.

I don't know if you know what the definition of a cohort is, but you got it entirely wrong. Allow me to fix it for you:

A side charachter that i dont get to build or control in any way is not my animal companion, it's just another NPC the GM uses.

My cohorts in real life are not some people I've created because they suit me. Just correcting that point. Then, you get back to the point that it's simply an NPC (which ultimately it is - shock!) that appears out of nowhere when the feat is taken. Have you played in a campaign with the leadership feat or has the GM banned it in your game as well?

Since you are on to something I would like to ask - exactly how do you propose making the leadership feat work that would change the minds of hundreds of GMs to let it be used? Clearly, my way of tying the character to story significance isn't the way - according to you. But I argue clearly the reasoning you are working with leads to the very reason the leadership feat is banned in most games. So, what do we do with both of our approaches that is helpful rather than not? Give some meat other than, "I just won't take it or enjoy it." Let's get some meat to the discussion because you aren't giving any kind of solution to the problem.

I can also make the case that no one makes you take the leadership feat. I agree to Blueluck that is reasonable and responsible of me to make it clear how I handle leadership in the games I run.

Also, no one that has made the statement of how my reasoning is bad has given ANY explanation as to how leadership is handled (if not outright banned) in their games that makes it enjoyable for them. Either I've made an argument you can't really argue against, or you've never truly experienced the leadership feat to have any idea how many different methods it can be handled. As a good friend of mine would say: Can't knock it till you rock it.

I wish to thank everyone for their replies to my post. Now I think is a great time to add more meat to it in response to those who have responded. That meat coming in the form of other thoughts added to the discussion that I believe this thread has easily become one of the more useful leadership feat threads - if not the top one based off what I've searched for already on these forums. As such, I won't rehash what you amazing people have already touched upon (or at least not at this point in time).

Many of you have amazing feedback that explains your reasoning so much clearer than I could ever hope to touch. However, I have noticed horrendous reasoning skills on the part of some that I see being a key problem for introducing the leadership feat into a game. You have two problem children when it comes to Leadership feat issues: Those who want uber; and those who don't read the feat properly. The feat gives amazing leeway to the game master as to what can be done.

Point 1: Those who want uber

If my GM made me a crappy 3 Fighter, 2 Expert and told me this was my cohort, I'd look that character in the eye and say "You're fired." The I'd go find someone USEFUL.

If it's a feat the player buys, then it should be the player in charge.

If the GM is going to put an NPC in the party according to his own specifications and machinations, he shouldn't be charging the PC a feat for it.

This was a somewhat amusing read. So the solution for GM's to allow the feat is to take away any possible use or fun the player could have from the feat..

You may argue these aren't wanting uber, but I am using that as the catch all term that players will complain when they don't get their way. You can already see the negativity and problems stemming from their comments already. Though Ascalaphus has to his credit given more details on how he'd handle the leadership feat.

Response of Slade's post - I would count that in the same category of a follower dieing on the leadership feat grid. Though other GMs may rule it differently and that is their prerogative. I'd say you can't kick people out willy nilly without it somehow negatively affecting you. The intention is not to bully you as the game master but that in real life you can't always know the fully potential of someone.

This is a player breaking the 4th wall because the character isn't "uber" or useful enough. Your character knows nothing, or should know nothing in terms of levels or character information besides what is role-played. The failure is now on the player's part due to meta gaming - not the game master.

Response of Ascalaphus's post - That's weak reasoning for the value of a feat. It's already commonly accepted that leadership is one of the most - if not the most - powerful feat in pathfinder. Most feats involve a couple + bonuses to something such as weapon focus giving a +1 to hit (not even damage!), or even a more respectable +2 to some sort of save. But these bonuses are too low, let's not charge a feat for them!

In light of that argument you'd think me nuts to even compare! But let's assume that weapon focus is a good feat charge while leadership isn't per your observation. I'd easily blow that out of the water if my cohort can buff, then Bull's strength beats out (when it matters) the +1 to hit. On top of that, the buff can be extended to other PCs and even stack with other buffs such as magic weapon, enlarge person to get an ever increasing value from it.

A feat is extremely inexpensive for the leadership ability, if allowed to abuse it or get decent mileage (not just via combat or crafting) out of it. If you have a terrible game master that doesn't make it work in the story (through being enjoyable to have in some manner), then I would agree it's a waste. I would direct you to Mystically Incline's comments on the matter that puts it more succinctly than I can:

I think this runs into the player/GM trust issue.

If a GM doesn't trust their player to abuse the Cohort, don't allow Leadership.

If a player doesn't trust their GM to turn the cohort into a waste of a feat, don't take Leadership.

If the player and GM can communicate and mutually come up with a Cohort that they're both satisfied with, then Leadership is a go.

Response to LowRoller - I thank you for your comment of it being an amusing read. It is better than it being nail on chalkboard at least. But this thread is primarily how to make the leadership feat usable by even game masters who ban it normally. Therefore, while I would normally consider your post bordering on trolling - I think we can use this as a teachable moment for everyone and be mutually beneficial! I will lead this to all those I have responded to thus far:

Please give more information as to why it would detract from your fun instead of simply that it will. Let's bring your complaints out fully to examine how we can overcome perceived problems. Though it falls into three categories: You will never be pleased except with a broken sidekick somehow; there is miscommunication as to what I am trying to portray; or that it's merely a matter of preference on handling that is different.

Point 2: Those who don't read the feat properly.

I have noticed a fair bit of angst over often misconstrued due to a couple of things: They don't read and understand the feat in it's entirety or get a different thought on how things are supposed to work. This can come from some bulb in their head lighting up or seeing how it was done by someone else.

For the best example I will direct you to:

I hope you tell your players all of this, in writing, before they build characters for your game. Personally, after reading it carefully, I would simply never take Leadership in a game you run, and I would advice my fellow players to skip it as well.

I first want to thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. In fact, for those that may be seen as negative, yours at least has some thought and reasoning to it. I simply want to state I am responding as a teachable moment for those who may want to dabble with the leadership feat. A friendly debate if you will.

Cohorts don't make a character, "twice or more powerful". First, cohorts are built on the Elite Array, which is a 13 point-buy with no customization. Second, they're always at least two levels weaker than the PC. Third, they'll never have as much equipment as the party members because their equipment comes out of their PC's budget. (That is, unless the PC somehow manages to con the players into cutting his cohort in for a share.) So, a cohort is a character with poor ability scores, poor gear, and -2 levels.

I am enthusiastic that we can discuss an integral part of the game so in depth thanks to the time you put into your post. It allows us to come on the same field of reasoning to make clear a few key points. I would be curious to know what you are referencing specifically to make your points.

Having read and re-read the leadership feat, of which you certainly challenged me to do, I believe you are merely on a different line of reasoning.
1) No where in the feat itself does it limit the cohort to the Elite array or how the ability scores are customized. This would mean you are using the creating NPC section to make it - or have some self imposed limitations on doing such a thing. This is also something that Buri has mentioned as well. As a game master, I use Rule 0 to improve enjoyment of the players.

2) Per cohort level you can not first attract (recruit) a cohort more than two levels below you. Per the last paragraph concerning the cohort level in the core book and SRD - your cohort is limited to being a single level behind you after they join you. The two level limit does not infringe at any time after they've joined - one level lower is the accurate number once they've adventured with you. The difference, between 1 and 2 levels can be very drastic.

3)No where in the feat does it say that the gear is from the PC's budget. This is merely commonly accepted reasoning that may be a stigma to the leadership feat. As with anything, I would personally expect hand me downs from PCs to the cohort or those odd items no one else can use to best effect. Lesser gear? Sure I'll give you that. The rest of your reasoning is coming from where exactly? It's certainly no where in the leadership feat text.

To wrap up in response to your final conclusion in this section: None of the comments concerning ability scores and gear are covered at all in the leadership text. How you as a game master wish to handle it is between you and the players or vice versa. Though you are outright wrong on the -2 level.

Then you intentionally build poorly. On top of all those disadvantages, you're going to look for a "agreed upon" weak build, like a bad prestige class, or a Witch/Oracle - two casting classes, each casting with the other's worst ability? Your attitude seems to be, "Try something fun for the GM, and avoid anything that functions well." Which is like saying, "Screw the players, the GM's gonna have a good time!"

I had to think on how to respond to this. It seemed very aggressive to what I wrote. I don't think doing a prestige class is 'building poorly' in any sense. It is generally perceived as weaker for a PC to multi-class. Though it's not for the PC to play as their main character - so why should it be 'optimized'? Do you or your GM not use flavor or story telling to make things happen? Do the NPCs have life to them or are you the kind that dungeon crawls, gets loot and makes money - rinse and repeat? I personally like characters (PC and NPC) in my game with some dimension to them.

I would direct you to Point 1 about making an uber character. You've not made any point different than the others concerning this.

As for the GM wanting to have fun - they are players in the game too, last I checked. Often times the feat is banned for the very reason they aren't having any fun with that feat being used. So what you are proposing is that me attempting to make a feat playable for the enjoyment of all is bad because I am attempting to make the feat playable for the enjoyment of all - to include the game master?

Also, if I make a decent multi-class character for story purposes and even the feat - what does it matter to you? Again, we end up breaking the 4th wall. I never would want an NPC to be showing up the PCs as the star of the show. You either see the NPC as a character or you see the NPC as a character sheet - which is a failure on the part of the game master if they allow the latter to happen.

Then, after making really crappy cohorts, you're going to control all of them as the GM? So, with 5 players, if each has a cohort, you're going to take 5 turns each round of combat plus all of the enemies' turns, while your players each take one turn each? That sounds like a recipe for extremely bored players.

Most of the time? Sure. Combat? I don't see any issues with the players running them - personally. Though if the players are slow on the ball and the combat begins to drag because of it? Heck yes I will take control to keep things moving. There are plenty of players that take a long time to figure out what their PC is going to do - It is my job as the GM to ensure fun for all, which can include speeding combat up. If a player wants to control two people, they better be able to handle it in a timely manner. There isn't anything in the feat to determine that I can't do that and the discussion on how to speed things up can very easily be a different thread entirely.

I love the 'what if..' things to try to disprove a point. So 'what if I have 5 players that have a cohort'.... concerning combat I would direct you to:

During combat, the player controls the NPC because it's following orders (and it acts on his initiative)

Suddenly the game isn't as bogged down anymore. There isn't anything that says you can't combine their initiative with the PC - an extra perk for having the feat. After all, there seems to be a LOT of people that feel it would be underpowered how I present it otherwise.

So as a game master, I am doing and would handle things as I posted. I believe you (the reader) can ascertain what methods I use when making the cohorts myself based off the responses I am posting now. As you can see, the problems become workable as we work through the potential issues together. Though to be honest, a team of 5 PCs all with leadership feat becomes an entirely different beast of a storyline and campaign! I think it would be rather fun. Two seperate teams the players can play for co-op dungeon exploring anyone? No more would there be an issue of "which tunnel path should we follow"!

Remember that this treatise is an overall usage to make the leadership feat more enjoyable for everyone. If you require an uber cohort to enjoy the feat, want one that is tied to the story, that emphasizes something tied to your character, talk to your GM. I am not saying this is the only way to handle leadership that everyone will enjoy. I do believe the advice on this forum will be immensely useful for those who read it in the future. Knowledge = Power. Just like everything in the core books and beyond, you take what you like, leave the rest in the dust!

-----------Response to other posts---------------

Googleshng - I believed I covered most of what you were pointing out in the previous section as far as slowing the game down. To respond directly to you forcing the feat onto someone: I disagree unless you are going to award it for free as a reward of some sort. It could be that the leadership feat in that instance is allowing them to keep a specific NPC they've met. Without it, they only adventure with it maybe once or twice or a level or two - very temporarily. It's a way they can keep their favorite character around more or less permanently if you so chose to do it that way.

Lord Foul II - I'd honestly have to read up on Thrallherd before I could go into more depth relating to that.

Byrdology - I actually like using Heroic stat array when making cohorts or "named characters". I create it as a full character on Hero Lab. I'm the game master but I do make the cohorts with the various quirks of my personal campaign and the PC class/abilities in mind.

KutuluKultist - Why yes, yes I do use the concepts presented here to great success.

To everyone else with positive and thoughtful responses: I thank you VERY much for making this thread more substantive than previous leadership feat threads. It gives others a chance to see the other side of the spectrum as to what can be done!

Preface
Leadership is one of the most debated feats within Pathfinder as to the level of power it holds. New game masters often find difficulty handling players who take this feat to detriment of their game. Often times the feat is banned in many games due to improper handling of it in the past or fear of what it may end up creating in the future. I write this treatise in hopes to aid in handling this often ignored feat by game masters and players alike. Though be aware, this treatise written with the game master as the intended audience!
I hope that once you’ve had a chance to read through my treatise on leadership, that you may include it for the enjoyment of all in your games. Ultimately, it is up to you – the GM – whether or not I made a case to allow it and embrace it. This is less opinion that you should use it, but how to handle it if you do allow it.
Leadership as I intend to present it can be both NPCs helping the party, or the feat itself being involved in your game. The feat is more a power gauge guideline, I believe, on where the cohorts should be in relation to the party. Even if you decided not to allow the feat, allowing side-kick NPCs can easily follow the same guidelines in the background to keep any of the players from being overshadowed. Thus, the “Game Master PC” problem can also be solved this way if done properly. Remember Rule 0 applies!

How to not make having cohorts too strong.
The primary fear of having cohorts and followers is the dreaded idea that one player becomes twice or more powerful due to action economy. Instead of a challenge, the extra set of hands simply makes your puzzle that much easier to overcome. But is it truly the extra character that is the problem or where the character comes from?
If you allow any NPC or Cohort to assist the party: always generate that character yourself!
If the power to generate the cohort or character is placed in the player’s hands – it will give them more room to take advantage of it. Unless you absolutely trust the player making the cohort to not go overboard and/or metagame just don’t do it! They will most assuredly design it to squeeze the most of it that they can.
Instead use this as a chance to help them out without going over the top. When generating a cohort it is a great chance to try out different prestige class setups! Ever wanted to see how a pathfinder chronicler would do? The cohort can have some splash of classes to try it out! Mystic Theurge? Well, my PC is a witch apart of a coven – I think a cohort who is both a witch (evil-ish feel to its build) and an oracle (goodish feel to this side of the build) would be fantastic role playing opportunity! It can be enjoyable to try something different, but also that the cohort themselves aren’t nearly as potent while still being helpful in some form. This case is made due to the universal agreement, even on the paizo forums, that prestige classes are not near as “optimized” or “powerful” as straight levels would be. Heck, some folks on these very forums have commented that some archetypes are meant for NPCs! Cloistered cleric anyone?
In addition, make the cohort/NPC based off their position, personality and experiences. So a retired fighter could dabble with some levels of expert as a farmer or blacksmith. Could technically be a certain level to satisfy leadership feat requirements without them being “full power”.
Concerning combat actions – let’s continue with the thought that the character is multi-classed towards a specific prestige class. A mystic theurge (played by the game master) would use their actions to ‘buff’ the party. This takes away their action economy to bring down your BBEG as fast but still feeling useful enough to keep around. It keeps the PCs as the stars of the show. Keep in mind thatthe game master should be taking the actions on behalf of the cohort as much as possible!
The leadership feat is best used as a plot-device to assist the players along the story points instead of being an additional PC. The role play aspect usage can be the feat is spent to open up an NPC to fall in love and marry the PC! Not a character that stays back and slaves away for the party for meager rations. The players must take into consideration rations, water and loot priority with the cohort involved as well. As joked about often in some circles and comics, the cohort is a ‘named character and therefore doesn’t die willy-nilly’. Keep the character as someone significant and with their own agenda like any other significant NPC in your game and you’ll do fine.
Recap:
1) Don’t let the player determine what the cohort is or how it is built.
2) You the game master always or almost always should remain in control of the character for leveling, combat and role play agenda. Let the players fret over rations and loot or pay.
3) Have fun with the build of the cohort to try different things and support the party in other ways in combat than being a mere super beat stick or glass cannon to make the party uber.
4) Make the character significant to the story, or at least the PC’s story of whom they are tied to.
5) The characters don’t have to be the result of the leadership feat to show up and have an impact.

Different uses for leadership
Plot Points
The characters meet an NPC who eventually becomes significant and joins the party! But – what does the new addition bring in baggage? An angry spouse they left? A Lord whom they owe money seeking to collect? A spy in the midst who secretly works for the BBEG that eventually changes their ways as they adventure with the party? Use your imagination!

A Pirate’s Life!
What better way to use the leadership feat than to use it to ensure you’re the undisputed captain of your pirate ship? The cohort can be your first mate, while the followers are your pirate crew! What if the cohort is the butler of your mansion/castle while the followers are the various servants whom you give QUESTS to? They could alter the campaign’s story arch in some way depending on success and failure. Means you, the PC, are not always doing the legwork. It would certainly make the world feel more alive that you got peons to handle the goblins this time around!
Perhaps a diplomatic game requires a decent following – your power within the courts of the kingdom being dependent on the size of your following. The possibilities are large indeed.
Leadership as a means to make the “Low Magic Campaign” work!
Of all the different avenues one can take advantage of the leadership feat, the low magic setting lends itself best. Often players on the paizo forums argue that without proper equipment player characters are left in the dust when facing higher CR beings. Enter leadership or NPCs that make up for actual or perceived lack of magical equipment! The magical buffs that equipment are normally given can be granted during combat to the party to bring them up to snuff! The extra attacks can also be handy to even things out a bit. Stories don’t always have a single hero or heroine – they often do have a troupe that gets them through when things get rough.

FAQ?
What is defined as a special power for the +1 benefit?
I would recommend looking at this old and rather short post on the forums that dabbles in it. I don't think you'd want me to write another huge post on what it could mean.

Should I allow the cohort to also take the leadership feat?
This post on cohorts with leadership should help when determining this. I would personally say no.

I thank you for reading this short essay on my personal thoughts on the leadership feat. It isn't the answer to everything but can help those with little experience with it. I want this to be helpful or clarify things a bit. If I missed anything that you think would be great to add, feel free to respond and let me know! It is a collection of thoughts I came up with, confirmed based off other threads and more or less compiled for this post.

Perhaps should have named the thread the Pure-buffer or something besides passive.

After speaking with my Skulls and Shackles GM, he has ruled that additional supplements are not allowed. Mostly due to him not owning them and being able to 'verify' that they are legit. However, any 'hard back' put out by Paizo is fair game. (Core, APG, Ult Combat & Magic, Inner World Sea Guide)

So I won't have access to Freebooter ranger. Though that would have been fun! Instead I came up with this while thinking about the flagbearer feat Kiinyan and Cao mentioned.

As he levels through cleric, I will add a level of Cavalier @ level 6 then at level 7 pick up Battle Herald.

If I were to play with the order of feats - I may drop Extra Performance at level 7 to pick up Leadership instead. At which point I will have +3 from CHA, +2 from Nobility Domain, +1 from Natural Born Leader trait and the various additional bonuses to get a decent Cohort and number of followers.

The followers + my massive buffs + Party members benefiting from me? Yes, please!

Feel free to rip this apart. But I think the various buffs I can do and give is more beneficial than merely high AC. Thanks!

Hello everyone!

Recent days of trying to come up with the most enjoyable "Pirate Captain" build I could from a different thread with ideas I came to an idea that I wish to try.

Moving away from necessarily the feeling of being a pirate or pirate captain, I want to make a character that highly emphasizes buffs in any manner I can obtain them. The concept is simple: The more "passive-like" buffs I can use the better. I want my very presence on the battlefield or anywhere to be felt by the party. This can be accomplished in various ways: Some type of bard, Evangelist cleric with luck domain, Honor guard archetype with Order of the Dragon for Cavalier.

But I know my knowledge of everything is still limited and come to the boards for yet more ideas to fulfill this passive roll. I mean passive in that I don't necessarily "cast" spells (though I am not adverse to having to do that.) Like bard/evangelist cleric I could simply inspire everyone with some good words and it lingers from there. Paladin's auras are another method too (though in Skull and Shackles would be very... difficult for me I'd imagine.) Cavalier, Order of the Dragon or otherwise can be useful with the banners.

In short, I am looking for an idiotic (as in amazingly fun) build to buff my party. I could have one or two levels for every single class if that was what is necessary. The idea of getting a prestige class that further assists is an idea as well.

As of right now, if a single class - Evangelist Cleric appears to be the winner. Though being uber in an of myself isn't required. If I can do a secondary thing well such as healing or pew-pewing, then so be it.

Hello everyone. Long story short:
Will be starting Skull and Shackles soon - I don't know much of what to expect in the adventure path. I want to make a character who aspires to become Captain of the ship he is on, eventually. I simply don't know if it ever comes up or not.

If it does, honorable community members I ask, please assist me in making a character worthy of being a pirate captain. If it does not, I want to make a character who is out of the limelight, extremely useful, and generally left alone to his own plots.

We will have access only to the core set of hardbacks to delve through. This includes Core, Advanced, Ult Magic and Combat - a big maybe on Inner Sea World Guide.

What I am thinking of currently is a plotting LE character that is the mastermind-type of person. Not necessarily the strongest, but takes advantage of situations to fit his agenda. A dab of firearms with the intention of sword in one hand and a pistol in another. If firearms is not doable, a crossbow is fine as well. Less emphasis on heavy armor also - prestige classes I am open to as well. I don't need a full build but just some ideas, thanks!

I thank you all for your replies! This has been a fruitful discussion I believe not in proving me right or wrong, but a change from various other things we repeatedly talk about.

Now, as far as "Learn to play n00b!" comment, it was in jest. I'm not the kind of guy to be a complete jerk like that. If I am going to give anyone a hard time it's AFTER they complain and then refuse any assistance.

The druid deal was more that he was so adamant on the animal companion being so pivotal to the druid class that it is unplayable without. It goes to the con issue in this: Instead of saying, "Oh I've had bad experiences with GMs that seem to kill my low-con sorcerer. Therefore, I've had to rely on higher CON to work.." I hear "Oh no! You MUST!!!!1! have a high CON score to be viable!".

I could fall in the same category as them, in that I strongly favor my opinion obviously. However, these are the types that tend to have the mentality they are right almost all the time.

------------
As far as the rolling that my friends tend to do, generally they expect roll 3 (Yes THREE) sets of 7 stats, 4d6 with rolls of 1s. It's not rolling down the line for each stat or just a single set of stats that can be placed anywhere. So when we talk high-powered 'heroic', clearly you can see how this can easily get out of hand!

Hi everyone. Haven't done much posting as of late but an interesting 'debate' between me and some good friends came up about a proper Pathfinder character. I wanted to hear about your opinions on this aboard the topic I am about to broach (I haven't tried my search-fu to find a topic similar nor do I care to). The discussions we've had has nothing to do with any specific game that has taken place or characters that have been made. It is all theory-craft such as what we find on these boards which I think fits it well. These 'debates' tend to have multiple facets with them but I'll try to break it down as best as I can so we can focus on differing parts easier.

For a quick background these friends are used to playing in the 'high powered' campaigns where you regularly see 18, 17, 16 stats in at least three stat boxes. They are very much set in their ways (as I am) in how things are supposed to be and anyone who argues otherwise (as with me) just don't know what their talking about. Of all the games we've played, except for when one friend made a ranger/rogue character, each of my characters (without trying!) end up being stars of the show. What I mean by this is not me tooting my horn, but just by a few basic choices I end up with characters that easily over-shadow others in abilities. This ends up with my perception that these friends are over-emphasizing certain things that I believe they don't need to be (not even for optimization purposes either, just principle).

Multiple Ability Dependency (MAD)

Friend's Argument:High constitution is required to play a playable character. The character is unplayable if it does not have at least a +2 in Con. This makes even casters MAD. Low con will equal death and short survival life span. Required for casters as much as a fighter type character. Claims his characters constantly die if they don't have the higher con and therefore it is mandatory.

My Argument: High constitution is only required for a specific style of play. If you expect to play a fighter type or one that is constantly up in the front. For casters a high constitution is quite lovely but not mandatory as is suggested. Having a -1 in the stat is certainly not preferable, but not near as damaging as to a front line fighter. A single stat (the casting stat) is the primary focus of a caster and con is secondary for any kind of efficiency. A caster getting constantly killed is either a GM intentional deal or poor play choices on the caster's part.

Point Buy vs Rolling Dice

Friend's Argument: Rolling dice makes 'heroic characters' and therefore more fun to play. Point buy makes characters that are average. Point Buy is no fun at all (Yes, I realize this is relative).

My Argument: Point buy makes characters have to rely more on one another; instead of having the solo player that does what he wants because he always roll amazing somehow. The game becomes grittier and more realistic instead of steam-rolling of obstacles. The game is designed with 15 point buy as the standard, therefore fewer balance issues when closer to this.

Druids and Animal Companions
Friend's Argument:Druids are unplayable without animal companions.

My Argument: Learn to play noob!!

Well, there ya have it. I'm curious to hear who beats me over the head with a rod or how people present the arguments (for/against) in a more reasonable manner.

For the first guy, my best idea is that he actually has two AC's-- his after-image has an AC of about 13 and his actual AC is like 24. If a PC hits the after-image but not him, he "teleports". If a PC actually beats his real Ac, they land an actual hit.

I think the best way to balance this would be to make his "teleportation" random-- he can't bounce into a tactically advantageous position every time. Area of Effect attacks like fireball will help too, though I think this guy needs to be a monk and would thus have good saves.

For the second guy, make sure that when the PC's meet this guy you take extra pains to describe exactly how many weapons there are in the room, and what kind they are, and which racks they're on. That'll at least get the message through that it's important to know that. Maybe the PCs will start wielding some of his weapons themselves? Of course, my biggest concern is that this Invincible Warrior will, upon losing all his weapons, try to steal the PC's. Are the players going to be forced to sunder their own weapons?

Concerning the first guy, I do like the suggestion of having two different ACs and random location. Probably roll a d6 to figure how many squares away he ends up and a d10 or so to determine which squire in that "circle" of squares he may be in. I disagree it needs to be a monk though for some campaigns it makes more thematic sense. I wanted to tack it to Spring attack to make the feat more interesting and give BBEG martial types something neat.

For your second suggestion I do agree with taking pains to mention all that. I had not considered him attempting to take the PC's weapons at all. That makes it a very different fight that I think would be great to be honest! Though generally people bring one uber weapon or two and the rest mundane to cover situations ala ghost touch. Hard to sunder a magical sword with a mundane weapon.

This also brings people to using disarm maneuver in the fight which would be an amusing twist. Besides sundering the weapons the PCs may have to team up to 'pin' the guy and probably get their weapons back that way. I don't want to say that I'd make him have greater disarm so even the BBEG gets attacks of opportunity trying to take the PC's weapons.

For using the BBEG's weapons it would take away the guy's arsenal and 'hp' albeit unknowingly. They both become very creative and thought provoking fights requiring everyone to work as a team against one person. I wouldn't do anything cheesy like giving him a rock or stick being the equivalent of a sword for his invincibility either.

I think these 'abilities' you could say, can make for a single BBEG that is scary, different, not necessarily overpowered and forces the PCs to certainly work together.

Think of anything else that can be covered?

While reading the advice boards as the lurker I am, I came up with some interesting ideas for bad guys that you Game Masters may enjoy using at some point. I know I certainly intend to do so.

First: The Anime Uber Fighter
I've been watching some Anime so the sense of speed has been in my mind when the idea came up. In other posts you find many people asking how to make a BBEG not die in a few rounds of combat. This in the vein of making them truly terrifying without being godly.

So I came up with a simple idea to make it happen. I'd suggest not doing this in the first couple of levels for effect. The recommendation would only start having these kind of guys at level 5+ of any adventure probably. So what am I suggesting? Simple - The kind of anime characters that not only hit like trucks but move almost too fast for the untrained eye to see them.

Effectively the BBEG would most likely have spring attack somewhere in his build. Now what the PCs see is that he moves up and does a simple attack that may hurt via Vital strike or just a basic one. When the PCs first attack (to represent never facing a foe like this) they can hit rather easily but realize that they are simply swinging through air. A sort of image of the person is cut through but for all intents and purposes appears to still remain there as if he never moved ala silent image possibly. At this point a perception check for those *after* that first attack is made with a relatively moderate to high DC to see where the bad guy REALLY is.

So after the attack the bad guy is actually 15 feet away or even in the middle of everyone. This is what they'd see if they made their perception checks and those who notice may attempt to get after him for that round.

That is my idea, though I want to get ideas on the ways PCs can not be overwhelmed by such an opponent and more ways than simply perception to figure things out. To keep perception from being the ONLY thing able to follow an elite guy that moves so fast. Blind fight I'd think may have a shot if the person is adjacent at the end of the BBEG's move?

Some may ask if the PCs could eventually do the same and I think if allowed it at all, it would be through the Spring Attack feat and house ruled to be as above. Now I don't know if I'd necessarily tell any PC until someone bothers to obtain it by that point or gets some mentoring from an in-game NPC to give away the secret.

---------------------

Second: The Invincible Warrior

This can go for almost any class and not a fighter specific type of BBEG. Some have come up with the concept that an intelligent weapon controls a body moreso than a person wielding an intelligent weapon. I didn't want to limit this BBEG to simply an intelligent weapon or magic weapons at all. It could go a number of ways in so much that he is invincible as long as he has a weapon in hand. Obviously his fight would most likely be near a weapon rack of some sort.

The fight I'd envision would be some form of weapons armory and his HP is counted as the weapons on the wall and in his hands. To hurt him is effectively to sunder them all somehow. The things that I would be curious about here is:

1) How, in a not in your face obvious fashion, do I give hints to this method of beating the bad guy to make them figure it out and get the satisfaction of doing so?

2) What limitations of attacks would be necessary once they do figure it out to make it a decent fight afterwards? i.e. fireball wouldn't destroy the weapons but shatter certainly would speed things up! Also, hammers would be more effective in sundering the weapons over piercing or slashing since they aren't being wielded and being forced against said blades.

Thanks for the advice and feel free to use these ideas for your games ^_^

For my little situations on running effective combat is:

1) Talking in Combat – Talking is no longer a “free” action in combat. You can only talk during your turn. You cannot speak more than a few sentences. - No discussions. Also do not to be surprised if the enemy overhears your discussion and acts upon it.

2) If you don't have a plan on what to do for your turn, with the mindset of the above rule that no one else can talk to you on YOUR turn, you have a few short moments to decide or you "hesitate" and lose your turn. In short, while combat is happening you figure out what you are going to do on the other player's turns. If you are dinking off on side topics (which is fine from time to time) it's your own fault.

The above rule, however, is primarily for the extraordinary sized groups that number 6+ generally when I employ it. Much easier to be more lenient in groups of 5 or less.

Try including some special areas where the channel abilities of the various clerics alternate? To give an example let's name our 4 clerics: A, B, C and D.

In Area 1, A & B's channel abilities act normally and use positive. By design or random chance C & D's become Negative Energy.

In Area 2, A & D's channel abilities are not positive or negative but Fire! While B & C channel Water.

In area 3, All cleric's channels act normally.

In area 4, All cleric's channels act opposite to their normal one (Negative channels positive, vice versa).

In area 5, each rolls a dice that determines their channels (i.e. d6 would be 1 = negative, 2 = fire, 3 = water, 6= positive)

In area 6, enemies manipulate who is affected by the channels as if they had the selective channel ability (using the PC's stats etc.)

Make it very wonky and they will have a blast. To provide interesting events while not letting them overrun a potentially undead-heavy campaign.

Alitan wrote:

I'd recommend, rather than a point system, that each instance of divine favor should be selected immediately, from a list of advantages you feel is appropriate for the heroics involved; no saving up, no bookkeeping.

You can include (x) bonus XP, for that catch-up problem, as a reward.

But I think if you give players the option to save up points, you're going to have the problem of hoarding. And the gods don't like bookkeeping; they smile upon the valor of their favored heroes at once and go back to whatever it is gods do. [Purely opinion/speculation; I haven't talked to any gods lately.]

I do like the basic idea of alternate rewards like this; more valuable than XP, since you can't add from that list in the normal order of things.

To counter this: some players do like getting points. An alternate system like this isn't bad for that reason--the rewards are just going to need to be carefully balanced against one another. That is, spends should be nail-bitingly difficult to choose from, and fall in that realm of "ossum." :3

Keep in mind, not all point-spend rewards need be new abilities, they could be expendables. What if they were, say, a custom, limited MI that allowed a single reroll of a d20?

What if they allowed a reroll of a 1 or 2 on a HP die?

You would need to balance these against other abilities. If your players want them, and "want to collect them all," then you're headed in a good direction.

I'm working on a similar system, myself--just haven't gotten the bugs worked out, yet, and I suspect that even once implemented, it will need adjusted just based on feedback, impact, and conversations.

In regards to this "Divine Favor" stuff I always picture an hour glass and "sands of fate" being placed in for each favor.

Going along to what is suggested, each deed can stack for a very very special purpose: Deck of many things. There a few possibilities for this, for each deed the deck slowly comes into existence (Deed A = X cards inserted into the deck for instance). Another option would be that the characters, when the time is right, can only draw as many cards as the deeds they've done. Lastly, a mighty heroic deed could allow them to reshuffle or "mulligan" in case of a bad draw. This could involve the card(s) that are detrimental or the whole hand of cards drawn must be reshuffled.

I don't think there is any better way to make the deeds worthwhile than simply having it allow for or effect the results of drawing from the legendary deck of many things!

Ultima Online was not a good game. Saying Ultima Online was a good game is a concession of nostalgia. It was only played because it was the only option. When other MMOs were released, users fled like the world was burning. It was unfun, overly-complex, ugly, and completely inaccessible to anyone who hadn't been playing for years. If you weren't already at the top, there was essentially no reason to play.

Devs, if you are going to look at UO, look at it as an example of what not to do. Thank you.

I don't know what they teach people in school these days but how can you expect to be taken seriously with a statement like this? Too general and provides for nothing constructive. Your claims have potential merit but the generality prevents anyone from taking your comments seriously. If we want to make this the best game it can be, then you need to provide more than what you've provided. So if you wish to be taken seriously by development then provide something substantial and measurable.

I'm trying to clarify that emulating Ultima Online is precisely what Goblinworks needs to do. Both combatant and none combatant paths of progression, player driven economies, integrated player crafting, a persistent world free from instances, an authentic and rich geography etc etc etc etc etc.

If you think for a moment that I am suggesting a 800x600 isometric view, low quality textures, double click combat mechanics, a lack of GUI, a poorly coded client and an open environment for unrelenting PKing, griefing and scamming... then we're not understanding one another. To put the ball in your court, if Goblinworks does not emulate fundamental elements of Ultima Online, then it has already failed at becoming a 'sandbox' game.

You probably would be better off not bothering further as you are arguing against the wind. Until they can give examples they won't be taken seriously. If Alouicious wishes to debate how good of a game Ultima Online was, I will certainly comply. But as of yet I've posted several things showing the good things about UO while he simply states "It is unfun, overly-complex, ugly ..." etc. etc.

You can get more headway making a political debate than what he has offered. I can go into a big essay on what UO has done good and what it has done bad. Move along to the discussions that the Devs can actually take something away from. This will only turn into a troll cave if you throw them a bone. However, if they start to give something more than "it was a terrible game", then reconsider. Move along now.

Well, I realize that I keep harping throughout these forums about the greatness of Ultima Online and it's more they covered a lot of things no other MMOs have.

While for 3D collison I am not sure how that would work besides how it is in Skyrim. Now, how Ultima Online did it was each person had a form of stamina (I believe it was HP, Mana, Stamina). When you went through someone you reduced your stamina pool for a short time. You could go through but generally you had to have enough stamina to get past. This prevented being blocked for long periods but also that in tactical situations (dungeons or pvp) you could set up the specific defenses or formations. Those AoE spells like firewall could be used if you had a way to trap people!

Also lowered the desire to be in a grouped up situation that newer MMOs don't have. Grouped up into one spot or spread out was more a matter of being in distance to healing eachother than any tactical advantage.

But there, easy solution.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

"MMO" does not mean "WoW and clones".

True, but you may add "and predecessors" as Meridian59, Asherons Call Everquest and DAoC were of the same Theme Park style and thus the sandbox style could be considered a niche so far, at least for fantasy MMOs.

One of the games I had the highest hopes for was Shadowbane, which was very sandboxy. Alas they never managed to iron out the bugs and quirks in the system that made the game frustrating to play.

So, where is a successful classic fantasy sandbox MMO?

Asheron's Call is the epitome of the skill based level system. It was ok, I believe the company who handled that game was great with doing events that were ever changing. Though ultimately it was simply that - level based. I don't want them to go about that system and I believe most people are afraid of skill based simply because that is what they are most familiar with.

You want a successful classic fantasy sandbox MMO? Ultima Online. It's outdated in graphics and the companies who developed it over time ran it into the ground (particularly at the start of the world split that was in regards to PvP and PvE zones).

But during the 96-98 era prior to that split Ultima Online I still see as the best Sandbox and overall MMO experience even to World of Warcraft. I had fun with both, but UO definitely set a high standard that no other MMOs have been able to properly replicate for community and freedom.

I emphasize in all my posts concerning this MMO is that gear during the 96-98 timeframe was not as panamount to anything else in UO. A store bought item carried you anywhere you needed to go. Players could make masterwork stuff that was a bit better but not world shattering. Then EA came out with the various tiers and mineral types that changed the whole game to something not as fun.

Again, I haven't played EVE so I don't know comparatively what the differences would be as they sound quite similar besides being Sci-fi and fantasy. But there you go, Ultima Online as your fantasy based example.

errmm hate to be barer of bade news but...

Skill based is 1990's and out dated...sorry but it just will not fly with current mmo market. Is not ONE AAA mmo has a skill based system that was made in last 10 years did anything but tank. You have to understand as an avid mmo player are integral issues with Skill based system and biggest of them being balance. It is impossible to balance a system like this with out limiting points you can have which in turn ends up like talent points...

I was kind of excited about this project but i realize immediatly that sandbox is just dated... and tend to require teidious endless grinding that ends up kill 1000 monsters here, go kill 100 of these now go kill these... and in a round about way that ends up so tedious and unfun...

Bioware has the right idea when comes to mmo's and they are setting a new standard in mmo's. If you guys are SERIOUS about making a paizo mmo i suggest you go look at TOR. Even if you opt for an action oriented mmo over traditional hotkey mmo look at how they presented the game. Because presentation means alot!

Finally... research research research! because what was in 20 years ago is not in now. Things worked in SWG or EQ do not fly in the present market... so if your set on sandbox that is fine but, your going to have to make it appeal to general population! Sandbox when it comes to end game=good idea, sandbox while leveling not so much. In general skill based systems suck something fierce and you have great foundation is pathfinder rpg...use it!

-Lokai-

You are going off the idea that everyone is absolutely trying to overthrow World of Warcraft from it's seat of popularity. On the same basis of your comments I can say *Leveling* systems aren't as popular anymore due to the fact that most are burned out on such systems. It's all about the end game. The fact that I have to wait a month or two at best (going hardcore for some) to be able to play with my friends is absolutely stupid.

Most games going leveling now are simply dropping the veneer of having a great leveling experience (I am looking at RIFT) because no one pays much attention to the level 1 to level 50 (or whatever the last level is) because people just want to be at the end game.

The best way to make it viable that you can start adventuring with your buddies without holding anyone back is a skill based system. UO was amazing in it's time - the first MMO (not MUD)! They had it down until they started adding all the new power-up adamantine armor or whatnot. You could out of the gate go ANYWHERE in the world and still have a chance to survive. Granted at low skill combat you wouldn't do much or be able to take much punishment, but you could still adventure with friends.

Once everyone and their mother hit that final level, other than leveling up alts to have other options to play most people will. be. done. with the leveling grind. I mean seriously, at this point Blizzard can remove the whole level 1-84 leveling process and NO ONE would cry over it. Maybe twinks who PvP or those who actually worked to get there, but the leveling process is mundane now.

It isn't because the trend of MMOs has something right, it's the fact that most skill based systems you've seen done were most likely not well thought out or done. I honestly don't know of any "skill based" games after UO. People throw out EVE so I can only take their words for it. Beyond EVE, I am willing to bet any "skill based systems" you've mentioned were some hybrid of the level/skill system like WoW is. They were NOT pure-skill based like UO which was a dang fine game back in it's time.

It also doesn't help that in leveling games that once you hit a certain level you generally don't return to most areas for any practical purposes anymore. You stay in the big cities except to travel to PvP or do dungeons. Once you've passed the level 20 area, you have no dang reason to go back to it except maybe for achievements.

Then, once you hit that max level it's the grind for better gear. This is why in another thread I suggested making store bought items more than enough to do anything so we don't need to do the gear grind. The idea I need to grind past 8 "tiers" of gear to be useful is *stupid*.

Here's another concept to try out
Have TWO systems. The skill based system for general online and world play. Then have the traditional Core RPG level system for special adventure paths that can be opted for. So you can do an adventure path at level 17 today, then tomorrow do an level 4 adventure path. You set up your levels at the time you begin the adventure paths specifically (kind of like dungeons or instances in other games) and can have the skill based stuff for the online specific game.

You hold the flavor of the skill system changing the world and making it better. You also hold the traditional RPG flavor of levels doing adventure paths that you don't have to make new characters for but simply set the necessary levels prior to doing them. It takes the level grind out of the way while allowing you to keep that level flavor.

Another idea is when you do specific type quests it helps with the skill system. Example, doing blacksmith quests reward you with freebie "blacksmith skill points". So you aren't simply doing the same action over and over. It could be a whole quest line indoctrinating you into the Order of the Hammer or something, most of which introduces you to important NPCs or has you travel around to various places to keep the economy fluctuating outside of an Auction House.

Lastly, your argument that skill based MMOs fail because of the current trend is flawed.

The reason I state this is because you would be hard pressed to show me these truly skill based systems that failed. Chances are if you could, no one really heard of them in the first place due to not being from a reputable company. Secondly, we could look at their marketing scheme and see that most likely they dealt with more of the underground market than the mainstream.
Third and finally, all the companies I am aware of now have been doing leveling based systems. After Ultima Online there never was a true skill based system to try. - Again never played EVE so I can't comment on that game specifically. It isn't they failed, it's that players in recent years weren't given the opportunity to play a genuine one that wasn't some hybrid of the level system.

The key to this is because they can make preset content by which they can fire and forget and the game generally runs itself. Leaving the developer's focus to be solely on end game content. Whereas UO had a volunteer team that had GM-type powers or connections to truly immerse people into the world without the need to "go to that dungeon or level to 80". Another key issue with skill based is that since it's not level based we need to avoid making 20 levels of uber gear that are obsolete as soon as people start accessing the end stuff. UO had it where store-bought gear was all you needed, if that. You buy the gear and good to go for adventuring. A PC blacksmith could make you a masterwork sword that was better than the store bought stuff and was plenty for anything you wanted to do - even kill Balrons(balrog equivalent in UO).

With a level system you need those uber items to continue being up to snuff, but a skill base system tends to hurt more because of uber items. Yes, UO had it's magical weapons that were better than normal items but not so much that you had to spend hours to grind for that one weapon or item. [Prior to EA adding special metals to make gear with or stats into the items]

Don't forget to bring the pie! Can't go on a proper adventure without some pie.

I want to begin that I am very thrilled with the idea that there may be a Pathfinder MMO in the future. Being that this is still at such an early stage the more input of ideas you at Paizo and Goblinworks have access to I believe can drastically improve the game to something everyone can enjoy. Being from several different MMOs myself I'd like to suggest a simple critique of past games and what was not liked and what was for the friendly staff to observe.

It will go simply as such:
Choose the ONE favorite MMO you've played.
Explain no more than five reasons why you greatly enjoyed it.
Explain no more than five reasons why you got bored with it / didn't like about it / thought could be done better.
Give one or two specific and major things you are most afraid of seeing take place or implemented in this potential MMO and why. Does not have to relate to your favorite MMO.

I will go first.

My most favorite, in the early days of MMOs, would be Ultima Online.
What I enjoyed about it:
1) Skill based system to allow flexibility and immersion not seen in MMOs these days. Yes, I get that the Core game of Pathfinder is a level based game itself. However, if for some reason that specific system is problematic in conversion over to a computer platform, at least consider this.

2) I could explore the world and surroundings irregardless of my "level/skills".

3) Store bought items were good enough for majority of my gaming experience. I did not need the new epic item or magic items to compete or participate in anything.

4) Guild stone system: I personally enjoyed the fact you could buy a tent or house and place a guild stone inside it that people's names would be inscribed to. The myriad of options to declare faction alliances or friend/enemy guilds for PvP without involving in game guards to kill us for fighting.

5) Seers: At one point early on the initial owners had a volunteer group of roleplayers called Seers whom were green robed game masters essentially. They did server-specific story lines to involve players and give special in-game benefits to roleplaying groups. Example: I was apart of a guild known as the Shadowclan who were simply a group of us who threw on Orc attire and had a roleplay system to be the "bad guy orcs" for "human roleplayers". The seers at one point saw the dedication and awarded a simple note declaring a specific orc fort as the Shadowclan's. Nothing amazing - but enough of an acknowledgement to those of us who made the game something more.

What I didn't enjoy or thought could be improved:
1) The trammel / felucca split. I understand PvP could get tedious for many but the threat grew communities for self-preservation. If you are going to do something so big, simply integrate it early and not later.

2) They made it where special ore had to be mined to make that epic gear that was necessary to be competitive or able to participate in things. Store bought stuff, when EA took over, became obsolete. If that is the case save us all the time and don't have vendors selling basic armor and weapons.

3) Houses upon houses kept getting in the way. You sometimes had to go a ways around to venture to that single dungeon because jimjoebob placed a castle right in front of it's entrance. I honestly don't know what the best way to handle this would be. In game taxes so if they aren't paid due to inactivity the house goes away?

4) Horses were way to darn common. You could tame or buy a horse, but early on it was too much of a hassle to get one that none really had them except those who really took the time. They normally died too easy. The moment that horses and mounts became super-easy to obtain, everyone used them. The point here is that they used horses in combat as well as for travel. Other than improved speed there was no difference in how a person played on horseback than on foot. I don't know how you can improve upon this if you include mount classes. Possibly have the mounts have a cooldown to do their charging or harder to maneuver?

That is all I can think of concerning UO that I liked and disliked. Now for the next point of what I am afraid of seeing that killed MMOs for me in the recent games using World of Warcraft and RIFT as examples.

1) The grind. zomg the grind. Please do either a skill system like UO where you can go anywhere and able to do SOMETHING (Skyrim probably would be the 3d version of this). I always hated coming in and doing the whole "Get livers from the boars over there so I can make some stew". But killing and killing some more. If at all possible make any grind that has to happen as painless as possible. RIFT had me hooked for a bit simply due to their RIFT invasions. But outside of those it is the same grind where I don't even have to bother reading the story to do the quest. I simply want to get past that leveling grind to get to the end game where my buddies are waiting so I can play with them.

2) Roleplaying Servers' Terms of Use rarely, if ever, being enforced. If you have a Role-play server with special naming rules and guidelines - please have a staff to observe and maintain those guidelines. I hated being in rp servers where roleplayers were mocked, harassed and dealing with stupidly named Parizbehot avatars that ruined the experience. Or you have the Goldshire situation on Moonguard (I think that was the rp server's name) where you had tons of nude avatars dancing and acting stupid. If you dedicate a server to RP, PLEASE help make it a RP friendly atmosphere.

Well, that was my two coppers. Your turn!

I'll join your adventuring party in this most dangerous of adventure paths.

Starfell wrote:

As for the grouchy veteran type, he doesn't go out particularly trying to scare people. More of a down the earth and blunt with information (take it or leave it, like it or hate it but it's there kind). He will tell you what you want to hear, won't sugar coat it but won't try to push you into anything either.

Doesn't really sound like someone who'd be investing in Diplomacy. Especially if he never talks any way other than with a blunt tongue.

It's more of a mechanical standpoint that would make it hard to fit in anywhere else. Give him a social skill of sorts I suppose. I don't think a blunt tongue would fit better as intimidate or bluff. That and from his experiences he would at least know the right words to say even if he doesn't butter them up for everyone to be all hunky-dory.

Example, he wouldn't brown nose to a high official or ruler but knows well enough to give proper respect where it is due. Thoughts? If diplomacy wouldn't work would you think simply placing the skill points elsewhere would be better to fit the concept?

You need Weapon Focus (Feat).

There's also a Feat called Furious Focus in the APG that I'd suggest taking a serious look at.

Curious, why does your grouchy veteran have Diplomacy and Knowledge: Nobility ranks? Seems Intimidate would be more apropos.

Later on you may look at the Vital Strike feat tree. And of course, Combat Reflexes, Cleave, Critical Focus and Improved Critical.

BTW, I like the fiancee died and he was discharged and hospitalized at the Abbey backstory.
Kudos.

Thank you for the compliment on the backstory. I figured the high and mighty, lawful stupid, or things always go good deal for paladins was old. I wanted to keep within the Lawful Good alignment as best I could but give him more flavor than simply being that pain in the rear most groups hate. Also went with the idea that he may not have been "fearless" by that point. The fearlessness he currently has is more numbness than anything I think.

I've pondered Furious Focus, would that be something I'd want right away or down the line?

As for the grouchy veteran type, he doesn't go out particularly trying to scare people. More of a down the earth and blunt with information (take it or leave it, like it or hate it but it's there kind). He will tell you what you want to hear, won't sugar coat it but won't try to push you into anything either.

More his training as a militant that gives him the ability to be firm (which not only is it a class skill but fits diplomacy more than intimidate I'd think). This same experience with the military would give some understanding of decorum concerning the noble caste I'd think.

My guess for Vital Strike is that due to the fact my character isn't an archer I need to make the most of what I got especially if I have to run from target to target - yes? Sounds like a great idea to me. Critical line of feats would be good with the respectable 19-20 crit range on the Greatsword. Would fit the militant half better I agree.

Cleave and combat reflexes would very much reflect militant training. Would there be a specific feat or set of feats that you are thinking of that may follow that line of training?

First, you're stats are amazing, good rolls.

Second, skills. Having so many players means overlap, so I would drop spellcraft. I would dump those points into Ride and max all your other skills.

Third, feats. My personal opinion is to drop Alertness, and Improved Initiative. Pick up Furious Focus, and either Toughness or Cleave.

Other than that, have fun and enjoy killing anything remotely evil :)

*Partially ninja'd by W E Ray*

Thanks - It was rough trying to decide a setup for the paladin as I could have done ranged well or anything well for that matter!

I have considered your suggestion for the skills and I think I shall do that. Improving my knowledges first (as they are +3,2 respectively) should do the trick unless you think Handle Animal or heal are more important?

Feats - Your suggestions intersected with W E Ray and I appreciate them! I don't know if I would drop Alertness or Improved Initiative to replace them. I may pick the suggestions up moreso than replace as my intention now. His backstory of him being somewhat paranoid explains the Alertness and improved initiative was more so he wasn't always last. Would kind of suck to come save someone and have to wait for everyone ELSE to do things. That and my initiative will kinda stink for the most part otherwise :P Though if I could give up something specifically it would be improved init, so I shall consider it. Which would you suggest as the feat to replace it specifically?

I thought about it and didn't really touch on this so forgive me - He will be tankish for the most part. The group entails a spellthief (3.5), Dusk blade, Wu Jen (I know, WTF - right? If this char dies the player will bust out a fighter), Druid (wild shape based - tanks if necessary), Cleric (Super-Heals!!!) and the guy who isn't normally around is a goliath fighter who tends to be played rather unintelligently.

A lot of support characters so I do expect somewhat to be taking hits (though LoH offsets that) as a "tank" when it's truly needed. Just a heads up on all that :)

Hi there all!

Here's the situation at hand that I've decided to take upon myself. I have been given the opportunity to make a new character for a group of 7-8 (depending on the night if all of us show or not). A custom campaign meant for a large group of players and the GM is very good about allowing us to do things. We are currently in the process of transferring things from DnD 3.5 to full Pathfinder.

With this in mind I wanted to make a Paladin character made solely of Pathfinder rules. We rolled for stats, lots of evil critters galore.

Overall he's based off the two-handed stereotype. My request is based off his story, what exactly would fit with him (both combat oriented or not feats).

My initial intention besides being an expert veteran type himself, that he'd be a good tactician or battlefield leader as well. We are starting level 5 and I am looking for ideas for and beyond that.

My intention is to play him as the bum who orders and directs others into combat for best effect. If any of them are in dire trouble he would be the first (though always being sort of a jerk about it) to help and defend them as necessary.
He is not Lawful Stupid. He may take care of those in his envoy but he won't babysit them. He is perceptive at what he does. Think of him as the grumpy old man who gives everyone a hard time but comes to their aid when it truly matters.
He is no mindless crusader who must always throw himself at something "to be heroic" and understands that you don't go around executing people just because.

So for someone like this what should be future considerations (namely feats) that I should consider for this man? Clearly as you can see, I don't choose all the "optimal DPS" feats - simply things I feel him as a veteran would be more likely to be capable of. Leadership is a feat I am considering but want other ideas as the GM may be giving that to me for free as RP it. Skill Focus: Perception to stack with Alertness at higher levels to make him extremely perceptive for a paladin!
Lances are what the kingdom's equivalent of a modern day military company would be. The idea obviously being that they are horsemen who handle lances. I do carry a basic lance in the Efficient Quiver but the character favors the Greatsword more due to him not always riding a horse or liking to use a shield often. In this regard I am considering extra lay on hands feat or maybe Greater mercy to increase the healing done by his LoH.

Thanks in advance!

So in my normal fantasy world in my head I came to interesting ideas that sound fun. Such as having to train to advance a level or pick up secondary classes or prestige classes. As I going through some posted it dawned on me, rather than doing it specifically for classes (or in addition to) have a special setup for Archetypes - special training to pick them up.

Many Archetypes are useful only or starting at level 1, but some don't kick in till much later due to what they replace. Though what if people had to seek out or befriend NPCs who would train their minds to forget old teachings (remove class abilities learned) and give them new prespective (Gaining the Archetype abilities) instead?

It wouldn't hinder their ability to pick up new classes nor would it require they pick the archetype at level one either. It gives the players a chance to develop their character or get a feel for the campaign to see where they may grow to.

It wouldn't be the same rut that having to "train/practice/learn under a mentor" to progress would be. The question could be if the Archetype in full is learned or just the abilities replaced; I personally would say that everything in an Archetype would be learned at once. The full mastery of the archetype isn't developed until they reach the level necessary to have the teachings "click" in their minds.

Would be interested to hear what people think of the idea (I didn't read up on anyone else mentioning the idea). Afterall, it allows a form of "training to improve one's character" without limiting progression through the levels.

Checked it out. Looks like you may want to add a "Total" column for skills. Was the main thing I saw while skimming it.

Using my search-fu I've found a discussion dating back in 2005 concerning thoughts of people who ran their own custom worlds. Most people tend to take a previous setting a tweak it. Others start from scratch and build up. I've found that in my workings of making a setting for players I can run into road blocks quite a bit when designing things. So to get over that writer's block of sorts I decided to do something fun and discuss other people's methods of world / setting creation.

This discussion while focusing on world creation, easily fits into adventure creation as well. Why Bad guys do what they do and how PCs intersect with those events and plans. The easiest type of adventure to make is the dungeon crawl. Give a reason for the BBEG to be there and populate it.

The more intricate adventures are further reaching and would love to hear people's thoughts on them as well!

Some methods or at linear reasoning I've seen are these:

1) Make a random town, populate it and build outwards as the PCs adventure.
The GMs I know who do this tend to make things between sessions and many times on the fly. Building the world as a adventure progresses.

2) Build a world, moving from a macro view to a micro view to the area the PCs are at.
I've seen this done with quite a bit of plotting. Can easily be overwhelming but keeps coherency much easier rather than a smattering of random things that don't seem to make sense.

3) Tweak what exists.
Golarion, Greyhawk, Faerun, Eberron - Taking what you like about it and making your own universe. Most common.
People tend to like what they see or don't want to do the macro world building. They tweak it enough to keep it seperate ala alternate dimension or timeline.

When you develop a setting or even an adventure, how do you go about it? Move from the small to big? Big to small? Or just a big mish-mash to make things interesting? Do you write the events and fill things in as they come to mind (using say... history or BBEG actions to build a world instead of making it as the PCs adventure).

Why not use traits to emphasize preferred stereotypes? I.e. those who "break the mold" and do something outside of what you are suggesting get nothing. But those who fall into the stereotypical Half-Orc Barbarian get an additional mechanical benefit of traits. Maybe even 3-4 of them if you are so inclined.

It may skew things a bit. But it'd give some added incentive to enjoy said stereotypes rather than simply giving them a list to choose from.