Sysryke's page

Thanks Doc! Entobians is 3pp, but that's the race I was thinking of. They're kinda awesome.

As usual, this all comes down to preference. I'm an O.C.D., follow directions, order of operations type player. I enjoy level 1, and I often do play casters. However, I also play in bigger groups, we are generous with stat generation, and we always have eager/willing healers in the party.
I enjoy playing the "entirety" of my character's adventuring life. As far as backstory options go, most classes imply some level of training or experience to aquire the power and features of a level one character, so I see numerous options as still open. The truly new/raw/green character to me, is if you run the "level 0" session.
I tend to make themed characters. Not necessarily min/max, but certainly somewhat focused or specialized. Cantrips are actually part of this flavor to me. I like the "small" spells. The accuracy of cantrips helps offset the low damage for me, and I'm okay with not being a damage powerhouse at low levels, even if I am working towards being a blaster caster. As mentioned above, class features fill out enough, that a caster can do something magical every turn, even at level 1. However, if your game focuses more heavily to combat, I can see the desire to forgo the lowest levels.

Thank you to everybody for their responses. I'm always touched by the spirit of sharing, creativity, and goodwill that comes from this community. (Yes, even when there is heated and sometimes contentious debate :p)

I think the purpose of this thread is pretty well wrapped, though I'm open if folks find new, free, and functional options. I will start a fresh thread of what I'm looking for in NPC's for those who might wish to share and/or show off :)

Thanks again.

Get Combat Manager. You can create NPC's and monsters in 30sec to 3-5 mins, depending on how many you need. And then you can instantly level them up, add HD, templates, etc., whatever you need to customize the monster/NPC.

Fantasy Name Generators is a great site for naming them if they're going to stick around for a while.

Hmmmm. Five bucks is certainly reasonable, though I'm usually adverse to spending money on anything "frivolous" for myself. Will Combat Manager actually let me build characters inside of it, or is it just for tracking information I plug in? Either way, thanks for the responses.

Hi folks. Been a while since I've been here. Still plugging away at working on my part of my group's ongoing shared campaign.

I was wondering if any of you can point me to a reliable character generating app or site. The way I build my characters is a long and tedious process due to my O.C.D. I'm looking for a way to churn out some quick NPC's with character levels for some of my encounters, and I need something where I can just scroll through options on a menu, plug in choices/numbers, and play. I'm not too tech savvy, and my laptop is becoming more and more woefully out of date, so something free/cheap, basic, and simple to download/access would be helpful. Thanks in advance folks.

p.s. (I did try and search first, but everything I could find was 7+ years out of date.)

Big respect normally to Chell, but I will have to second that that's all wrong. You absolutely can use a gore and bite on the same turn at level 1 if you had the ability. The only hinky spot comes with claws/pincers/slams if/when they are on the same limb.

As to the OP: BAB on characters in relation to number of attacks per turn affects Iterative attacks. Iterative attacks explicitly are those made with a forged/manufactured/crafted weapon. (Technically unarmed strikes fall here too, but let's not confuse the issue) So, with your BAB at 7, you are entitled to two attacks (at +7, and +2) with your greatsword, when taking a full attack action. During this full attack action, you may also include any Natural weapon attacks you may have. However, all Natural attacks when combined with forged weapon attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks. That means you can use the bite, but only with your BAB -5 (+2, in this case). Secondary Natural weapons also only add half your Str mod on damage. These restrictions reflect the difficulty/awkwardness of combing weapon attacks with Natural weapons.

So, TLDR: Full attack with Greatsword and Bite at BAB +7 ---> one sword at +7, one sword at +2, and one bite at +2.

P.S.: For other options or confusion :p . . . . If you had multiple Natural attacks, let's say claw, bite, slam. You could do all three of those as a full attack action at level one, and each would be at full strength.

The dEVIL is in the details. There's nothing new under the sun. What makes something original is how you put pieces together. The conversation partner of the OP mostly sounds like a hipster or a nihilist without any additional context. However, for that individual, or any group really, I find the best way to present an engaging or compelling evil is to tap dance on the line of your real-world players' fears and ethics. Obviously this requires trust/consent on the part of all parties, as well as a relatively intimate knowledge of your players. If you threaten kids for the players who are parents, or subvert faith for those who are devout, or whatever, you're going to get that visceral feel that some players want.

However, like others have said, this type of thing should be done sparingly. Variety is the spice and all that. You need the bad guys with bad guy signs to make a contrast for those more involved villains. The tropes you use, or that your players respond to, also help you to set the tone or theme of your campaign.

Hear, hear! Always happy to see some undiluted positivity coming out. I will second these kudos.

I'd like to also respectfully add DungeonMasterCal, Set, Quixote, and Mr. Charisma to this list of worthies. I'm sure there are others I have favorited over the last few years; but all of these names, above and here, have provided many laughs and wonderful ideas.

Thanks to you all!

I love character concepts like this! I would tend to agree with most of the pairings above, but I also like to mix and match against type sometimes.

For me, the most fun would be mixing and matching the various beastial races with the elements. Really, any combo could be justified, but at first thought:

Vanarran = Wood
Ratfolk = Earth
Tengu = Air
Kitsune = Aether
Grippli = Water
Samsarran = Fire
Catfolk = Void

I was already debating with myself as I typed those out. I can see many alternate combos there. As there are many more animal kin races, I'd also want to dip toes into the 3rd party elements; or at least break the elements down between their physical and energetic manifestations.

Big ol' Tyger themed catfolk, with a giant crystaline hammer, using Earth magics for my personal favorite.

I don't have an immediate example of the party doing the obviously dumb thing, but instead something I feel better matches the cartoon you linked.

In our current story arc, the GM went out of her way to emphasize how dangerous and monster infested the seas were between where we started and the island we needed to get to. The entire first third of her story has revolve around us getting hired on as guards to a flying vessel, and avoiding the water at all costs.

When we arrived near the coast of the island, of course the docks had been destroyed, and the ship had taken damage from storms and encounters along the way. So, naturally, it was necessary for us to have to leave the ship and guide it in to moor amongst some small islets off the shore.

Fast forward, these "small" landmasses were actually gargantuan or colossal hippo type beasts. We later discovered that this was meant to have been a simple combat encounter. However, from all the effort we'd made to avoid all the sea monsters, we were conditioned to fear anything coming out of those waters. We all scrambled and bailed for shore, and basically just waited for the behemoths to move on.

Point is, not sure where the balance is, but sometimes the warnings are too effective.

Still can't think of a great dragon encounter I've played at the table, but if it's not too much against the spirit of the thread, I do have a strong favorite from fiction.

I believe the name was Fyrentennemar, but regardless, the ancient red dragon from book four of R.A. Salvatore's Cleric Quintet, stands out as an amazing encounter in my mind. He is actually in several scenes, but the climactic fight in the canyon is perhaps my favorite part.

I know I'm quite junior to some players, but in nearly 14 years of gaming, I can't think of one really awesome dragon encounter. I know we've faced a few, even a few CR appropriate wyrmlings (which satisfied my beastiary nerd itch). I'm truly hard pressed to think of an encounter that stood out though.

I'll ponder, but in the spirit of the thread, I'll posit an encounter I hope to run in the next few months that I hope goes well.

I intend to shrink my party down using the rules from Microsized Adventures. Whilst adventuring in these dimensions (and hopefully being clueless) I intend to take the party into the lair of a youngish fairy dragon; still in the pinkish red faze of developement. From the party perspective this normally tiny beast should appear as a Colossal 3 sized Ancient Wyrm. As we will only be 5th level, I'm hoping an appropriate amount of panic ensues, before we engage the dragon. There are meant to be clues that will push this towards a social and/or skills encounter, hopefully with the party finally realizing they've been shrunk. I'm not above going a few rounds though, if my more impetuous players decide to push the big red button. :p

We scrapped confirmation rolls for critical hits a long time ago. For instance, it takes all of the excitement out of rolling a Natural 20 when a confirmation roll shows it's not a critical hit after all.

We also added in something if you or your foe fumbles. The one who rolls a fumble is subject to an AoO by the opponent. Yeah, it's an extra roll in combat but it's not that big a difference with the dropped confirmation roll. And my players enjoy the extra drop of danger into the combat mix.

That is an excellent idea! I like random fumble rules normally, but when you played with sharing GM's creativity and consistency vary a fair bit. Having a fumble provoke an AoO, is a wonderful way to normalize this, and a good GM can still describe the how/why of the fumble for proper excitement or hilarity. Cheers for this!

Sysryke wrote:

I'm with you on the gunslingers, but I'm a total critter lover. If you're saying no furry as in the dress up community, I'd have to agree. No disrespect, just not my thing. If you're saying none of the critter races, then I have to rail. I love my ratfolk, catfolk, and kitsune characters. Anthro PCs matter! :P

Yeah, I meant the critter races. They just never fit the feel of our setting. If someone wants to dress up like a kitsune or armadillo or whatever and play then sure, bring 'em on...lol

@Mark Hoover

No one in my group, going back as far as I can remember, has ever played a Gnome. I've used them as NPCs plenty, with a couple of storylines revolving around one in particular.

To be clear, we actually have played with a dress up type furry in our group before. The outfit was neat, and she was a great story-teller type player. Trying to combine the two hobbies on a regular basis is just a bit much for my brain to process. Plus, my friends house is really warm. Too long in one of the suits and I'm pretty sure I'd pass out. I love a good costume party, but the rest of the time I'll stick to some ears or a tiger tail if I'm feeling the fuzzy.

I would 100% be ok with furry characters, whether the races or the lifestyle. Or players for that matter. One of the "iconics" for my homebrew is a grippili ranger called Niblix; I've also had a kitsune character played in one of my games, though the campaign only made it to 3rd level.

The only race I disallow are gnomes. I've seen them exploited into oblivion and one player decades ago took the combination of Gnome and Chaotic Neutral to grandstand and hijack the game SO HARD that it soured me on several things, including the race.

I am trying this new thing where I ask my players to make characters with some element of "good" in their alignment. I've got 2 games going, and only one of these is all good, but here are my reasons: I wanted PCs specifically interested in being heroes on some level, not just murderhobos only concerned with personal power and secondly, I planned on using monsters with protection vs good spells/abilities, templates that grant smite good and so on.

Oh, and I also do the gunslinger thing. Ironically, not a single player has ever challenged me on this restriction. I have endured hours of lobbying for GNOMES... but no one seems to care if their character uses guns.

The only race I can think of that any group I've played in has collectively banned were Warforged in 4E. Just felt wrong for the games we played. I did have a GM who absolutely hated halflings, because to him ALL halflings were Kinder, but oddly he didn't ban. He just tartgeted any of us who dared to play one. Joke's on him; I played an uber healing halfling cleric. All the monsters tried to get to me through our defensive types. I stayed up with heals, and had enough left over to keep our crew alive while they ginsued the baddies.

Not sure what spells a 15 hd gold dragon comes with, but keep in mind that the beastiary stat blocks are generic examples of the creature. It would be entirely legitimate to swap some of the spells the dragon comes with for some of the players spells known. That way, the power boost is present, but not overwhelming, and he still retains some of who he was pre wish.

I put very few limits on players compared to a lot GMs I know. My setting is a cooperative homebrew but I originated it so I run things via benevolent dictatorship. I'll allow them to do a lot of stuff by bending rules or using an "at that moment use of the Rule of Cool" but I have final say over things. No gunslingers and no "furry" races are the two biggest that jump to mind immediately.

I'm with you on the gunslingers, but I'm a total critter lover. If you're saying no furry as in the dress up community, I'd have to agree. No disrespect, just not my thing. If you're saying none of the critter races, then I have to rail. I love my ratfolk, catfolk, and kitsune characters. Anthro PCs matter! :P

We collectively GM in my group, so we set any restrictions during the world building sessions. We're pretty open, but usually it's just creating a line of how far into 3pp we're willing to go. We usually stick to Paizo races, but will make group voted case by case exceptions. All 3pp spells are available, but we stick to the Paizo classes excepting archetypes. Generally we all avoid gunslingers, but the option does exist in our current world. Similarly, I do think we avoid all/any of the android/robot type races. Living constructs okay, but we try to stick to a "pure" fantasy setting.

The only other time that I've ever played long term with restrictions is if we do what we call a "challenge" game. Then we as a group call out people's playing habits/styles, and each of us has to build something outside of our typical wheelhouse.

I've been inspired by song lyrics, random movie quotes, the plethora of characters from other games, plays, and film, and various board games, but I don't know that I've ever taken inspiration directly from a piece of art.

I'll have to ponder on this, but if nothing else, this might be a fun way for me to create my next character. Cheers for the idea!

Stumble Tooth Gap

"Paizo, in all its infinite wisdom, made the Daylight spell"

WoTC, actually. It's a direct transplant from 3.5.

Maybe do some research before huffing and puffing?

There's a complete sentence there beyond what you snipped. Quoting out of context so you can snark at people accomplishes nothing. When you look at the whole sentence

"Paizo, in all its infinite wisdom, made the Daylight spell, and actual-kill-vampires-light-of-day two different things.." ,

the implication is not that Paizo made the spell, but that they made (or possibly just continued/enforced) a difference between the spell and actual environmental daylight. That is a case of poor naming conventions and/or poor use of terminology that causes confusion. Not saying V-Monk is right or wrong (opinions can't really be either), but taking things out of context isn't useful to the conversation either.

Happy New Year!

Only have one character and campaign I've played in this past year, but we're having a blast.

Homebrew world in a sandbox style campaign.

My character is a Ratflolk merchant prince with a penchant for travel, trade, currency, and cuisine.

Gestalt Pestilence Sorcerer/Dimensional Excavator, Blacksnake, Plague Bringer Alchemist Level 4.

There have been many adventures and laughs along the way. Perhaps the coolest thing though, is that the wife half of the couple that hosts our game has stepped up into the GM role for the first time ever. She's amazing. Completely surprised herself with how good she is, and how much she's enjoying running the game. She's a great role-player and amazing storyteller. Seeing her find this new joy in the hobby has been a real treat.

My aptitude is that I know that there are optimal probability-grounded solutions and I kind of know how to go about figure them out, but I'm too lazy to do so. Also, sometimes I just think of something more funny. What's my build?

Bard with a Jester theme? Ultimately it's for you to say. I guess what I took to many words to say is, what class/character would you play if you were put into the game world?

Not what skills you actually have IRL, but what class mechanics make sense for you on an intuitive level. If the horde of orcs is approaching, are you picking up the sword, the bow, the wand? Or, are you digging a pit, wrapping bandages, waving a flag, or crawling into the shadows?

So, I was reading another thread, and had one of my stray thoughts dance across my mind.

What if a group built their characters based upon how their brains work? I'm probably phrasing this terribly, but I'll try to explain what I mean.

The example given in the other thread, was talking about how some players at higher level play may need to do a lot of math and account for many variables before declaring their actions on a turn. Totally reasonable and a valid way to play. But that got me thinking about players who just decide what they want to do, and just go for it. Sometimes this can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, if not outright disasters. For other players though, they seem to just intuit how the system works. That sort of player almost always make the "best" tactical decision with seemingly no time spent doing the math.

By extension of this, I jump to player aptitudes. We all bring different skills and life experiences to the table, but there are also those inherent talents or strengths within us. I'm pretty good a quick basic math, but no so hot at visualizing spatial relationships for example.

So, taking those innate talents into account, what if a group builds their party around those aptitudes. This is a bit different from building a character who IS you, but there are similarities. The question you would have to ask yourself is, if someone with my mind was in this world, what type of adventurer would I be?

You don't need to duplicate or stick to your own real world stats and skills. This is still a fantasy game, but instead, put yourself into a character who thinks/acts/responds/strategizes in a way that is organic to the real you. So, instead of the "balanced" party, you might end up with a crew of all casters and one rogue. Or nothing but fighters/martials, all bards, cavaliers and monks, etc, etc. I guess I'm just curious if anybody has ever built a group like this. Has anyone tried this, or maybe do you play that way all the time? What kind of group composition did this create? How did the game play go?

For a further example/clarification. Most of my early gaming friends were the classic brainy/academic geek types. Casters were a natural fit for most of us (though not everyone played those classes). As I've met other players over the years, I've met folks who's natural tendencies when declaring actions would indicate rogue, or "healer", bard, "face", "tactician", whatever. Not all of these are going to be specific classes obviously, but also/or style/jobs/roles that you fit into. The way my brain works, I'm not the most tactically savvy or quick on my feet. So fighter or ranger isn't necessarily the best choice for me; at least within the context of this discussion.

Eager to hear folks thoughts and experiences. Cheers all.

A Sorcerer would suffer from not being able to affect creatures immune to mind affecting effects, Unlike the mesmerist, But would still just like the mesmerist ahve a very limited ammount of spells known so they couldn't diversify out of Enchantment too much.. So they couldn't do too much if they come up aainst undead or other creatures immune to mind affecting..

Maybe I'm just overcomplicating things... I wanna try more casters, But at the same time every time I try to work on a full arcane caster, or class that focuses on their spells I end up with the feeling that I cant handle it...

Maybe i'm just intended to stick to the martials and 6th level casters...

I tend to favor spontaneous casters, though I've played and enjoyed both. Something to remember about the Sorcerer though, with the right bloodlines (and maybe some feats) you can use mind affecting spells on vermin, undead, constructs, and/or other normally immune creature categories. Mesmerist might have a slight edge on this, but not a huge one. The rest of the advice others have given you is all super solid.

If you're feeling overwhelmed by full caster, then spontaneous is a good way to ease yourself into that realm.

All that said, Mesmerist is built exactly for the concept you're describing. You just need to decide how dedicated to the concept you wish to be. Your race, feat, trait, skill, and gear selections can all give you some options for when your main shtick doesn't work.

And, I'll try and Ninja Mark a tiny bit. Don't forget/neglect/underestimate the value of UMD and consumables.

Don't know that I can add too much to this conversation. We all have our creative (and not so creative) answers to this issue. One other thing to consider would be the length of combat. Even the most seasoned of players can lose perspective of this, because real world time for game combats takes sooooo much play time. But, even if you have a combat that drags on for 20 rounds, that's still only 2 minutes in game time. The explanation could be as simple as the time it takes for the combat to resolve is matched by the guards hearing the fight, shushing up their comrades so they can identify the noise, discussing how to proceed, gathering their gear, and setting up a plan of action. By the time all that listening, discussing, and shuffling is resolved, the fight may be over, and the party is already on its way towards the next encounter.

I'd let the player choose at the start of the campaign, but then the choice is set, like eye color. Just a bit of something fun/flavorful. If the player ever wants the color to change, magic or some story factor should be involved.

Free form color shifting could lead to coded messages or minor disguise benefits. Certainly not game breaking, but the GM and players would all need to be on board with a small mechanical "freebie".

I tried a Web spell a couple levels ago; everyone made their save. Last session I tried a Thorny Entangle spell during an outdoor mission; again, most everyone made their save and while the cohort cleric who failed took some damage and got slowed down, the effect was dispelled by the wizard PC next round anyway.

Don't give up on those AoE control spells. Maybe add some extra harassing features or enemies to keep your caster from succeeding at dispelling. If the effect can stick around for multiple rounds and/or fill the engagement area, then your players will have to make multiple saves over the combat. In theory somebody has to fail at least once, and in the meantime they're at least encumbered by the static penalties of those spells. Having other enemy characters spamming other debuff spells and attacks can also make this more effective. If all else fails, cast the web, then AoE burn it up before your PCs can get out of the way.

I like to see them summarized. If I'm looking at a printed book like a Monster Manual, then I can enjoy them. Here on the boards though, I have to confess my eyes glaze somewhat. The inconsistency of formats, the lack of varied fonts, and the whole wall of text thing overwhelms my poor little eyes.

Azothath wrote:

this is an overly simplistic question.

Well the actual question is even simpler than you think. This thread isn't about the Best weapon, it's about your Favourite weapon.

A lot of people have been justifying their favourites using the stats, but that doesn't have to be your reason.

Ah Mr. C, you get me. Thanks for getting to this before I could.

Incidentally, I love your mathy brain, but I'm on the opposite side of the crit subject. I can't seem to roll high to save my life; so while the super rare crit can be exciting for me, they don't occur frequently enough for me to think of them as fun. When it comes to weapons, I'm looking at basic utility and/or aesthetics.

Sysryke wrote:

Hugo Rune wrote:

For me it's less about the cool class features and more about the concept. The GM could deliver truck loads of barn-door sized clues and the players will fail to associate the likeable scamp chatting to them in the bar with the BBEG they've been hunting down. Why, because of their preconceived notion that BBEG's aren't chatty halflings.

I think you hit the wrong thread. I'm reading the one where this response makes sense, but this thread was asking about rarely seen enemy races/monsters to use.

A clear explanation.

My bad. The phrasing threw me a bit when you mentioned the BBEG. This post of yours would also seem to fit in the thread about how you show the party the BBEG is evil/the villain. Sorry for the confusion.

For me it's less about the cool class features and more about the concept. The GM could deliver truck loads of barn-door sized clues and the players will fail to associate the likeable scamp chatting to them in the bar with the BBEG they've been hunting down. Why, because of their preconceived notion that BBEG's aren't chatty halflings.

I think you hit the wrong thread. I'm reading the one where this response makes sense, but this thread was asking about rarely seen enemy races/monsters to use.

The Chef: Catch Off Guard, Throw Anything, and Shikigami Style to start. They carry heavy ladles, traveling kettles, cast iron skillets, and a collection of cleavers, knives and forks. They should also dabble in alchemy. Their armor is light, preferably an apron, with the words "Kiss the Cook" emblazoned on the front. Optionally their helmet is a tall, padded white hat rising off the top of the head. You might even give them Improved Dirty Trick for using spices to the eyes or up the nose, forking a piece of an enemy's clothing to a doorframe, etc.

I love this! Best way I've seen to convert the March Hare from Burton's take on Alice in Wonderland.

Ok, even dropping either Paladin or Warpriest, that's still 4 divine casters and one arcane caster. What's another decent arcane caster that can fit into the 'tribal' theme?

Witch

I recall something like this, but I think you may want to go hunting in 4e D&D. What you're describing sounds very familiar. I believe that what your talking about is one of the build types of the psychic class, either in the Player's Handbook 3, or possibly the Psionic Powers book.

If not that, then this may have been something from White Wolf's Mage games. Either way, I know I've seen the exact mechanics you're describing.

Good luck.

I'd recommend Fetchling as your seventh race for this crew, unless you start combing through 3rd party.

If Oracle makes you happy, go for it. However, if it's just the pets issue, both druids and rangers have good alternate class features to their ACs, so only the Hunter really "has to" have a pet.

If the tribal idea appeals to you, somehaman and witch are good options too. I could also see using one or both of those as a background for the shared parent. I'm imagining some ritual or plan where the mother or father channeled or communed with various spirits during the conception of each sibling in order to fulfill some prophecy, or pay some otherworldly debt. Quite literally "planned" children.

I don't know if there's a build for it, but to your last I would add a cast iron skillet.

I've aways loved earthbreakers, but i don't know why. Maybe the name? Maybe its more fun to imagine smashing someone with a massive hammer/club. Earthbreaker has always been my fave though.

Thematically I completely agree. I love me a big smashy hammer, and I always associate them elementally with earth.

Mechanically, I've seen some good recommendations for mauls or sledgehammers being bigger/smashier though.

Aside from my aesthetic preference though, the only justification I have for my hammers, is that I like reliable base damage over theoretical maxes and/or crit fishing. Swords have the better crit chance, and axes the better crit max, but the multiple dice of hammers ensures that I get a decent minimum damage, while still have a shot a comparable non-crit maximums. I don't roll crits often enough for me to care to try and build around them.

If you get a nomadic, gypsy, and/or tribal theme going, then barbarian, bloodrager, and skald all could be appropriate. Druid, Hunter, Ranger, and Shifter could also fit a more primal/tribal type family. Your rogue doesn't have to stand out, they can fit anywhere, especially if you look into the scout or skirmisher type builds.

Nothing wrong with leaning in to stereotypes. How many siblings were you considering this time?

It could be interesting is they all had the same two parents, but there's just A LOT of baggage in the family tree.

Not sure if they're just alternates or 3pp, but there are chaotic and lawful outsider ancestor equivalents to Aasimars and Tieflings. Can't recall the names, and the current computer I'm on is not multi-tab search friendly.

Obviously you have all four of the elemental races, and then chuck in the Fetchlings for shadow elemental types. That gets you to as many as 9 right there, so again, how big is this family?

I think I may see the answer. The duration of light is better than dancing lights, right?

Any thing else to favor light over dancing?

If you want multi-colored lights for multiple sources, may I introduce to you Dancing Lights

Dancing Lights wrote:

Depending on the version selected, you create up to four lights that resemble lanterns or torches (and cast that amount of light), or up to four glowing spheres of light (which look like will-o’-wisps), or one faintly glowing, vaguely humanoid shape. The dancing lights must stay within a 10-foot-radius area in relation to each other but otherwise move as you desire (no concentration required): forward or back, up or down, straight or turning corners, or the like. The lights can move up to 100 feet per round. A light winks out if the distance between you and it exceeds the spell’s range.

You can only have one dancing lights spell active at any one time. If you cast this spell while another casting is still in effect, the previous casting is dispelled. If you make this spell permanent, it does not count against this limit.

Dancing lights can be made permanent with a permanency spell.

As you can clearly see here, this spell creates up to 4 light globes that must remain in a 10' radius from one another but may otherwise be moved to the range of the spell. From the descriptive fluff under Will-o'-Wisp:

Will-o'-Wisp wrote:

Will-o’-wisps can glow any color they choose, but are most frequently yellow, white, green, or blue.

Now, I don't know if the multiple colors are indeed RAW here, since that's not explicitly called out in the spell, but it IS stated in the spell that they can resemble Will-o'-Wisps and in that creature's entry they can achieve many colors, so that is how I and many other GMs I've played with have ruled it.

Because of all of this, several players running Arcane casters in my games have used Dancing Lights as a kind of non-verbal code: if said caster is separated from their group for any reason, by choice or by happenstance, Green might indicate a safe passage, Yellow to say...

Not to thread hijack, but this raises the question, why ever take the light spell instead of dancing lights?

ErichAD wrote:

People who aren't interested in playing: anyone who's just there for the social aspect, or who's there because their romantic partner is there. I lost too many games to breakups and too many hours to disruptive party people, and now I'm too old for that nonsense.

So, what if it's reversed? People who are only interested in mechanically playing the game but for whom the social aspect is virtually non-existent?

I vent on these boards. A lot. Last session of my megadungeon game, I had a couple scenes that were very much intel gathering and talking to an NPC. I had only 2 of 4 players participate in any of the dialogue, and amid the 2 non-participants one of them made one Knowledge check. That's it.

I talked to the players afterwards and the 2 non-participants said they don't really like the "talking" encounters, preferring to resolve everything by die rolls. Now, this isn't a social anxiety thing; both of them socialize during breaks in the game and have no issues being verbose when they're comfortable. For them, the game is just simply a mechanical exercise; when the session is running, their job is to roll dice, calculate math and deliver results. Period.

I'm wondering if a ban against purely social players that aren't interested in the game would work the opposite with players that aren't interested in any of the social aspects of a session and just want to roll dice like a board game.

"MUST HAVE BALANCE!" --Mr. Miyagi

Whiners, gossips, bullies, and everyone else who prefers endurance antagonism to conversation as their primary method of coercion. This sort of thing is too time consuming. If you can't convince people with reasoned debate, and won't accept that you could be wrong, and instead drag everything down with you, then I'm happy to drink with you, or go on a walk through the park, but I'm not wasting a table full of people's time on you.

People who aren't interested in playing: anyone who's just there for the social aspect, or who's there because their romantic partner is there. I lost too many games to breakups and too many hours to disruptive party people, and now I'm too old for that nonsense.

Very much agree, with a small caveat. I'm totally fine with folks who come for the social element, IF they're up front about it from the beginning, AND they just come to observe. Have had one or two players over the years who would have probably had more fun just watching, and have had a couple of watcher who just liked to hear/"see" the story.

As for the couples, unless both are enthusiastic players, "Honey, just stay home!" (Funnily enough a couple hosts our games at their house, and I play with my husband ;p )

"There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch."

"Eh! Dutch Hater!" . . . . "Oooh, that's a nice flake. Save me from myself."

Aside from curiosity, the other goal of this thread is to provide a place where players looking for ideas for a new weapon can see a quick breakdown of the pros and cons of choices they may not have played before.

Ooops. Hit enter and started with a blank post I think. Anyway . . . . . . .

Nobody actually has to justify themselves. We all have things we like for one reason or another, and opinions can't really be wrong.

What I'd like to discuss here, is a meeting of the minds between those who choose their weapon for aesthetic or flavor, and those who choose for mechanics. I'm not super good at the crunch, but I know there are certain weapons out there that are just held up as superior. What I'm looking for are examples of the ideas, builds, and corner cases where your favorite weapon really gets to shine. Probably difficult to do this with simples, but kudos to those who take the challenge.

So when is a morningstar the best choice? What about the old trust dagger, or a trident? The star knife? Maul? Longspear? etc.

Why does the weapon you choose belong on the table? What are the features that make it meet your characters goals/needs?

Belafon wrote:

Melkiador wrote:

Because of iterative attacks, attack penalties are almost always a bad thing, no matter how high your attack bonus. You'd have to be in some real super minmax territory for a -1 to attack to not be meaningfully detrimental.

Or be a character whose purpose isn't really to do damage in which case the likelihood of hitting isn't a consideration. The 41 AC character I mentioned above was a concept that worked well but isn't for every group. Great skills, tons and tons of long-duration buffs to hand out to the party, and at 11th level could attack for 1d6-1 damage. Once combat started he had a couple of in-combat buffs to hand out but mainly would wander around eating up AoOs and providing flanks. Fun fact: you can take an ineffectual swing at the NPC next to you while using Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively. Then make your movement with a higher AC.

The problem is there's no "taunt" so when an enemy realizes they can't hit you they just go after someone else.

I know "marking" enemies was a mechanic from 4E. It was the staple of what made defender classes defenders. However, aren't there some feats that allow a character to make bluff, or intimidate checks to encourage enemies to fixate on them? Even if you can't straight up force an enemy to attack you, if you can impose enough penalties to their actions when you aren't the primary target, they may turn their focus back to you, just because you're that much of a stumbling block.

A few thoughts, and sorry if any redundancies.

Firstly, consider subbing out some of the animals pre-set feats. There are plenty of combat feats that make sense for animals to utilize, especially apex predators, herd leaders, and animals that fill the protector/sentry role for their species. The more you know about an animal in the real world, the more you can hunt for feats or traits or maneuvers to add that reflect animals' special abilities and hunting tactics.

To that last point, I will also second those who mentioned looking into the more "natural" of the magical beasts. And with that, also keep in mind that the "intelligence" we attribute to or observe in animals in the real world can more accurately be reflected by the wisdom stat in game. Instincts, pack hunting, tricks and tool usage can all be covered under the "intelligence" of wisdom. Intelligence in the game is more about book learning, communication, and "higher" reasoning skills.

Also in favor of adding templates. I don't know all of the proper names, but things like dire, greater, enlarged, primordial, legendary, and others can all supe up an animal without losing the idea of "Nature is P!$$3D".

Last bit, my group recently dabbled with the called shots mechanics. Now, we may have been a bit fast and loose with this, but I think we kept pretty close to the RAI if not the RAW. There are all sorts of bonuses and penalties you can gain/inflict when you start determining exactly where a hit took place. Thinking of big cats in particular; tigers have a special sensory gland that helps them lock in on the major blood vessels of their prey (when they go for the throat, they sever the artery and bleed their prey out almost instantly), lions I believe go for the spine bite at the back of the throat to paralyze/kill their prey, and leopards crush the airway if I remember correctly. The point is, all go for the throat, but accomplish their kill shots by affecting different systems. So too, with wolves bleeding and hamstringing their prey, etc. etc. You start having your animals capitalize on what they are built to do, they become a lot more scary.

"My heart is in the Highlands"

I immediately went to my Scottish roots. I picture mist and fog billowing around hillocks and sinking into valleys. I hear a bull elk snorting and whistling somewhere off to the side, with maybe just a brief flash of a glorious wrack of antlers. Approaching dawn or dusk seems best here.

I'll second V-Monk on the ghostly feel of things, but you could also go fey. Have the party harassed by trickster types, only to be herded into an encounter with a horned lord of some sort. This could be a good or bad thing depending on whether it's a protector or a wrathful champion type (descriptive language, I'm not talking archetypes).

Drawing from the Highlands, the group getting caught up in some clan skirmishes that they happen to stumble into could also be cool. Screaming, painted warriors in various states of kilt, kit, or undress popping up out of the mists could be quite alarming/entertaining. Choose whatever races or cultures you feel are most appropriate here.