TheRedArmy's page

Sorry to necro.

I can't for the life of me figure out how the PCs get from level one to level two. Can I get some help? What am I missing?

EDIT: I see the staircase. Sorry to trouble everyone.

So, I'm not sure on Paizo's stance, but once upon a time, this thread was about a Ranger wanting a Warg companion. We have gone beyond off-topic. The discussion was interesting, at least.

Flagging for thread lock due to being miles off-topic.

In my younger years, before my girl and my job, I spent a great deal of time both playing and reading 3.5 material. 8 or so years of play will help you know the rules.

As for GM preparing, I also don't have the kind of time I would like. It's about using what time you do have wisely. Know what happens in the module, know the major encounters, and know where to reference weird abilities.

Basic reference tips help everyone. Write down page numbers of spells or maneuvers you use often. GMs should prepare ahead of time.

As you use the rules more, more and more will be committed to memory, whether you like it or not.

You hooked me, Marthkus. Dot.

EDIT: I hope you can prove Monks are viable, Marth. I'll be rooting for you.

While I disagree with BBT's position that it's irrelevant how they got the price, his use of commas is nearly flawless. Gotta separate those clauses.

While I understand RD's position and the want for consistent pricing, I just don't care enough to...well, care.

Yes. There is no caveat for size in the feat. Therefore it works as long as the two conditions - a free hand and a melee attack - are met.

I get to play PF so infrequently - I usually run games - I play a character I've already built. When I build PCs, it's about either concept or mechanics first. One gives me the spark, and the other half comes later.

Occasionally I worry about filling a role.

It should be made clear - this is a half-elf racial ability. It is not a trait.

...I'm not sure why, but this looks better to me than other defense roll systems, even though the actual rules are the same as others, just with more meat.

I don't really like the weapon clash (idea from Dynasty Warriors?), just because it's yet another round of rolling in an already long combat system. It might be better to just have the attack hit.

On a critical fail defense, make it a choice - attacker may take a critical hit, or attempt a combat maneuver of his choice as a free action.

I agree with Bard. In addition to the best knowledge skill in the game, they have the ability to learn things through their own spells, cleric spells through UMD, and diplomatic means with superior Charisma and the use of spells like Glibness.

Wiggz, the game you are talking about has been invented, and not just by you. GURPS is a full-on point buy system that is as complex as you want through the use of optional rules. It's really superb.

My group basically does what you're talking about, pending GM approval. It doesn't break the game. As long as all the players are on the same power level, there's no issue.

For what it's worth, I find Enchanter Tim's explanation to be correct.

As this is a rules question: Evasion always works as long as they are capable of making a reflex save.

I believe that is anytime you are not being forcably held by spell, grapple, or other means. Being unconscious should also prevent reflex saves, I believe.

revloc02 wrote:

Maybe I should take a different approach altogether, just let him have it (powers from both bloodlines) if he ever gets a wish. He's 9.

Go with this. 20 years from now he won't remember any of the rules and probably none of the adventures. He'll just remember how much fun he had with his Dad.

As a young man who should be a father within a few years and also lost his dad at a young age, this was very meaningful to me.

Pendragon is 100% spot on. Let it ride. Have fun.

If it's fun, just let it go, as long no-one feels overshadowed.

If you're worried about too much power, consider letting him have one bloodline power he qualifies for but didn't take with cross-blooded for each casting of wish.

Alternatively, work with him for a custom bloodline.

If you're going to give fiat bonuses, it's critical that everyone is in the same page. Your +2 description might be worthy of a +4 in that player's head.

If you want players to get into Role-Playing and description more, your best bet is to say "this is the kind of game I want to run." They'll either go for it, or they won't.

Raven gets the vote for standard familiars. Very cool, and talking ability right away. Ferret is an honorable mention.

Young Nymph sounds beyond cool, but outside the intended flavor. Lyrakin [sic] gets the improved familiar vote.

Rope of climbing is 3000, but is one of the most useful items for that cost.

Any Quaal's Feather Token.

Those boots of the Cat are awesome.

The base paladin code is more than adequate, especially when you add in the extras from "Faiths of Purity".

I think just talking out the base and extended code with the player and each individual Paladin deciding what each aspect means for him personally.

Legitimate Authority is a good one. Simply being the lawful ruler may not be enough if he's evil. Some Paladins may seek a rebellion, while others may not.

That's not bad, Ilja. Very nice. Spell Parry might be too strong - I can parry a dominate person? What about any spell requiring a reflex save?

(Thinks)

Maybe any spell is best. I don't know.

It's the way things have been since, what, third edition?

Casters get options. Martials get numbers. It's a dumb paradigm, but that's what it is.

I will say the game is fairly balanced if you play it the same at 20 as you did at 1. That is, get a quest, go to the dungeon, kill the monsters, get the treasure. When you start making your own quests, that's when casters take over.

...If you're determined to go with a parry system, I'll pitch ideas, but I need some time.

Inherent bonuses do not stack. You take the highest one. On phone, so cannot cite, but I am 99% certain.

Duelist is not hard to qualify for. One good feat - Dodge - two "meh" feats, and 4 skill ranks.

Duelist is fairly strong, as is parry, not to mention INT to AC, and +2d6+level damage permanently. Also lots of other neat abilities.

That said, I have no problem with your idea, but Pathfinder simply does not incorporate active defenses outside your turn well. Even Parry is clunky.

Parrying is nice, but if you really want mundane characters to have more in combat, they need to be able to ignore physics at higher levels like casters do. They need to be more like the characters in wuxia films like "Hero" and "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon".

Then they will gain some power and be able to do things casters can't replicate.

Skill tricks were fantastic. That alone would be super. While I didn't like all of them, the concept is solid; just make it possible at certain ranks.

I actually really liked prestige classes, and my groups rarely dipped. I liked being a "Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil" as opposed to an "Abjurer". It's unfortunate they're not quite as good, but they are still decent enough for my group, but I'm the only one who had interest.

Marthkus is right about feats. That "Unseat" feat was one of three parts of a "Tactical Feat" in 3.5. Those feats had neat abilities, but as they said in the book, "...individually not strong enough to justify a feat". So it came in a package of three abilities. I was stunned to see it alone in PF.

I don't have the knowledge to participate in the thread really, just wanted to stop in and say thank you for taking your fellow players' feelings into consideration.

I've known too many players who had "cool" character concepts that basically screwed over the rest of the players, and didn't care about that at all.

I am not against outlandish ideas, but I am one of those players that finds their fun ruined when my fellow players go with certain concepts, and it's wonderful to see that not everyone who enjoys such concepts is selfish about it at the same time.

I hope it works out, for you and your group. :)

I want to second Pendragon's sentiments. I've have my characters abused in more ways than one because when I mentioned the character to everyone they're like "That sounds cool" then when we start playing I suddenly become everyone's favorite PC to shit on.

Lavode - and you too, Pendragon - are always welcome as a guest player in my games. You ever find yourself in southern Louisiana, let me know.

EDIT: Forum auto-changes ones' profanity. Didn't know that.

Not each spell level, but one spell. You can swap out one spell, not one per level, at the indicated levels.

In PF, the 4 classes that I think are the most balanced against each other (that aren't full casters) - the Bard, Inquisitor, Paladin, and Ranger. These classes all have something in common. They are all either partial or half casters. Their spell lists are more limited than the Sorcerer or Cleric list. Their spells all have a particular "theme" to them. They all have a specialty they are the best at, but none are useless outside their particular niche.

To me, this party is ideal for each PC occasionally being the "king" of an encounter while always being useful and having a second or even third way to solve a problem. No one overshadows the others. It's great.

I like the idea presented above about removing the spells and leaving the slots - I would leave spells up to 6 and leave the slots for metamagic and the like.

I've been playing GURPS lately in a homebrew setting - despite a few of us being dedicated casters (my character included), the martials are never behind. It's partly because HP are always low - one good hit can drop anyone. It's also because spells are costly enough (in fatigue, typically) that you can't just throw them out willy-nilly.

Although I run the PF game for my group right now, I imagine that if I run a fantasy game again (as opposed to another kind of tabletop), I'll likely go to GURPS simply for the impressive balance.

I'll definitely pay attention to such a guide, cartmanbeck. This conversation is already very intriguing to me.

I have long been a proponent of overall wizard superiority in most campaigns. The sorcerer is just so much.cooler, though. I would love to play one that isn't locked into a few strategies.

I'm considering a guide myself for something similar. I think I will explore the possibilities of a Generalist sorcerer using Words of Power. The existing guide for WoP sorcerers is supremely good, but I think this niche could use some further exploring.

3.5 allowed "rushed" diplomacy checks. It was a full round action and you take a -10 penalty. I was surprised it wasn't added in PF.

Good post, Stabbitty.

I don't consider convincing the Queen that the Grand Vizier is evil, even as guards stand ready to throw us in jail "combat".

Usually combat at my table includes "intent to do harm through some method".

I don't think it's too bad. Even essentially works the same, so it's only a minor bookkeeping increase.

I've thought about something like this before, and had a similar system. I think this is probably a better way to go about it.

If your group is dissatisfied with odd numbers being so...useless, this is a capable system to fix the issue.

With Marthkus all the way. I would hate to be automatically inferior to another PC because of 6 die rolls.

Words actually work pretty well, especially for.spontaneous casters. Word casters lose out on a lot of spell effects that just aren't duplicated. On the other hand, it is incredibly flexible.

I find them no more powerful than normal casters. And they have less narrative power, so they end up being easier to handle than regular casters once you know the system (which does take some time and effort).

Parts of it is. I'm not very familiar with Sarenrae's. Shelyn also includes things like protecting art. Both being NG, they will share some things.

I find paladins of Sarenrae more militaristic then paladins of Shelyn.

Words of Power allow you to summon as a standard action.

Starting with monster manual there were quiet a few subraces, not just campaign settings. Personally I'd rather see more choice from the player as to what +/-'s you get. Mind you most of those races were just a different set of +/-. Could probably just skip most of the text and give players free reign out of the +/- and you wouldn't have to waste space on what +/- a race deserves.

I'm not familiar. We almost always stuck to core.

I do agree with the premise of "these are your choices, make a choice". Part of why I like the ARG for core races.

TheRedArmy wrote:

It's curious that after breaking racial barriers, they would turn around and build them back up again.

They also reinforced them by not allowing/creating subraces with different stat bonus/malus. At the moment only tiefling, assimar, and dhampir gain that benefit, and they have a limited selection. Not a big fan of needless racial restrictions myself.

You mean like Deep Gnomes or Sun Elves? I've never seen races like that outside a campaign setting.

It's true that a reprint would be undesirable. In the RP section, you could mention which ones are best for each type of paladin, color-code them based on how well they mesh, and give an overall assessment.

"For the merciful paladin, Shelyn's code is excellent. Preferring to kill only the irredeemable, her paladins seek peaceful solutions, encourage finding the best in people, and attempt to turn evil to the light."

Something like that?

You know, when they printed the core book, they did do away with some racial preferences.

The Arcane Archer used to be restricted to elves and half-elves. The Stalwart Defender was the Dwarven Defender in 3.5.

It's curious that after breaking racial barriers, they would turn around and build them back up again.

With Zhayne on this one.

Take the halfling trait "cautious combatant", I believe it's called. When you use combat expertise, the penalty to hit is decreased by one. Nowhere in the description or the mechanics are halflings even referenced, except to say "halfling only". That baffled me.

Now "steel soul" which specifically increases bonuses that only dwarves get should be racially specific.

No problem, Lincoln. You were close to the issue anyway. :-)

I...don't see much of a problem with the spell, actually. There's two saves, one to negate, and one for partial effect. Most people have one of Fortitude and Will good. If people like this, why aren't your players going nuts for Phantasmal Killer? More useful when it works, and you can still loot the Guy.

Enough. Back to baleful polymorph.

That's far harder, Karal. I suppose the individual will meed to change to meet the needs of the group.

Hard to say. Seems odd that it calls out arcane spells specifically for the increased level. Just by reading it, it seems to work fine.

EDIT: I mean fine for any spell, as cartmanbeck said.

@beej67 - last words from me, because we're off topic. I don't do it like in your experience. If the party earns an easy victory, I'm inclined to give it to them. It's when the d20 gets fickle that I step in. But your style is perfectly valid too. I don't think I'm nearly as transparent as in your experience. I try and keep it subtle.

On topic - I agree with Claxon and Krispy. A GM is a member of the group, too. He also has desires and preferences. As a player, I'm inclined to let DMs have their way. If I don't like it, I don't have to play.

Dot. I'll want to reference this.

Wiggz, have you considered writing a sorcerer guide? This is impressive. I was pretty strong in the Wizard camp, but I will reconsider following this. Thanks for your time and effort. Same to everyone else who has/will contribute.

That's a perfectly reasonable answer MrSin. I knew there was something I liked about you.;-)

Hope I didn't come off as confrontational. I didn't mean to.

Aye, but then the players discover what you've done and its very possible they feel cheated. When the GM rolls four fiat 20's in a row just to mitigate my character I feel pretty cheated personally. Similarly when the boss suddenly gains 200 hps.

How are players finding out? I fudge (and all my players know this, so yes, I can keep a group) when the situation calls for it. Keep the climactic encounter climactic. When I do fudge, I keep my.roll secret (all my rolls,.actually), NEVER tell my players, and make sure players are never penalized by my fudging.