The Steel Refrain's page

I really like the idea of a Cleric of Erastil with the Feather domain to get an animal companion, with Boon Companion to boost its effectiveness. The domain also grants some other nice benefits, including a Perception boost, and Fly as a 3rd level domain spell.

I've been toying with a way to use the deity-specific WIS-to-hit with longbows feat (name escapes me right now) to reduce the MADness of the build, but it's hard to get online early as I'd like (the BAB requirement for Weapon Focus delaying that being the biggest issue) and there is the additional problem of DEX being a required stat for several archery related feats. (Then again, this build is meant to mix full level casting with archery and a companion, so it only really needs to be an effective archer , not an amazing one).

Ranged inquisitor perhaps? Drop the 19 in Dexterity, use th racial bonus to boost Wisdom perhaps (or alternatively Strength). Then use level boosts to convert odd numbers into even ones over the course of the campaign?

I feel like the obvious familiar choice is... octopus.

Either it's sort of a "Mini Me" situation, or even maybe some family connection (from pre-awakened days), but I love the visual of this smaller octopus just bobbing along after the larger one.

The Steel Refrain wrote:

Some great advice in here. I'd been intending to suggest Massacre, but Rysky beat me to it.

Time Stop is certainly great for setting up the battlefield with summons and ongoing area effects.

Spellbane is especially great if the liches are aware of the party tactics, as a means of countering some key spell choices. Spell Immunity and Greater Spell Immunity, as well, assuming one of the liches skews towards being a divine caster.

You will also want to consider how to maximize use of the terrain, as well as the liches' undead immunities. So stuff like (Persistent?) Cloudkill through the area can be helpful, especially if the liches are using things like Echolocation to continue to see. I expect several of your players can easily deal with the vision issues, but perhaps not all, and having to deal with an ongoing Cloudkill effect may become quite challenging (especially since the CON damage will make future saves even harder).

I kinda hate Dazing spell, but if it's something the PCs use, definitely use it back against them in turn.

Life Bubble completely destroys that strategy, as communal delay poison, so it all depends on whether your players usually prepare it and use it. I definitely would and if they know they are going to face the final boss you can expect them to be ready with a lot of protection spells.

Don't only think what the BBEG can do to the players to completely mess with them, but also try to foresee what your players would try to do to avoid the BBEG messing with them.

Also, making the BBEG a Bard with offensive stuff would be soooo ironic (you know why) xD

I faced a Dirge Bard as an high level enemy on my last campaign and even though we managed to cut her from her minions she gave a tough fight (the key spell that she used to screw us up was Silence!)

Of course, probably a Wizard would be more powerful but a bard would be so ironic.

Good points about predicting and addressing the PC's counters/defences.

If the liches know much about the PCs' tactics and capabilities, they likely have some sense of what the PCs might be doing to prepare/buff, and work around that. Since they know they're fighting liches/high level casters, they should be buffed to the max with things like Death Ward, Freedom of Movement, Life Bubble, etc.
That's where things like Mage's Disjunction and the Symbol of Dispelling or even Wall of Suppression come in, to strip those things away and make them vulnerable.

I *really* like Kalindlara's suggestion of a dedicated dispeller/counterspeller amongst Team Lich. There are tons of shenanigans such a caster could use to boost their effective caster level for Greater Dispel Magic (feats like Dispel Focus/Greater Dispel Focus, Spell Specialization, Spell Perfection, and spells like Cleromancy and Grand Destiny, to name a few). Obviously Destructive Dispel could be great for the chance of stacking some stun on top of the dispel itself (or at least sickened, making the enemy a little bit weaker versus allied lich spells). I like the Arcanist for this lich, because of the action economy of the Counterspell exploit to counter the PCs spells as an immediate action, while using Greater Dispel on his/her own turn to strip away any buffs, or ready a further counterspell as a standard. The ability to use the Potent Magic exploit to further boost caster level checks doesn't hurt either.

EDIT: The combination of something like Wall of Suppression or Anti Magic Field and Spellbane seems like a fun possibility. Haven't really considered the finer details, but the idea of being able to ignore the downsides of such spells while leveraging their obvious advantages is neat. (Can you tell this topic has me really thinking? Every time I think of an idea and post, a bunch of other ideas pop into my brain -- hence all the edits.)

Some great advice in here. I'd been intending to suggest Massacre, but Rysky beat me to it.

Time Stop is certainly great for setting up the battlefield with summons and ongoing area effects.

Spellbane is especially great if the liches are aware of the party tactics, as a means of countering some key spell choices. Spell Immunity and Greater Spell Immunity, as well, assuming one of the liches skews towards being a divine caster.*

You will also want to consider how to maximize use of the terrain, as well as the liches' undead immunities. So stuff like (Persistent?) Cloudkill through the area can be helpful, especially if the liches are using things like Echolocation to continue to see. I expect several of your players can easily deal with the vision issues, but perhaps not all, and having to deal with an ongoing Cloudkill effect may become quite challenging (especially since the CON damage will make future saves even harder).

I kinda hate Dazing spell, but if it's something the PCs use, definitely use it back against them in turn.

*Edit 1: Actually, I highly recommend you make at least one of the liches a cleric, and set him/her up with a bunch of the channeling feats, so you can drop a series of quickened channels to harm the PCs and heal the liches, along with your other tactics.

Edit 2: For NPC enemies, the Symbol spells are pretty clutch. In particular, Symbol of Dispelling right before the PCs enter combat can be a brutal way to strip away some of their key buffs and leave them feeling vulnerable.

Edit 3: For evil necromancer liches, I also love the Death Clutch spell. Wait until a PC is obviously injured, and then hammer them with it.

Add me to the list of voices saying this is an OOC problem involving a player who doesn't seem to respect you or the other members of your group, and is prioritizing his own interests over the group's fun.

Personally, I would not hesitate for a second to boot him out at this stage. The interventions to date have been unsuccessful, and he is clearly the type to leverage any advantage he can against you -- I suspect he knows you are keeping him around so the game does not collapse, and relying on that when issuing his ultimatums of 'evil character or nothing'. He also seems highly immature and incapable of seeing things from any perspective but his own (as evidenced by his many complaints of feeling picked on and taking in-character actions personally while expecting others not to do the same).

If there are valid reasons for not kicking him out (which I think is something only you can really determine), I still think resolution starts at an OOC level. I think you need to decide on what kind of game you want to run and the group wants to play (which sound to be in alignment), and take the time to inform him and the other players that they will all be expected to work within that. If that means no evil characters, so be it. If that means realistic consequences to player actions, so be it. After directly communicating that, your job is then to consistently enforce those rules and expectations, regardless of how he acts out in response.

Maybe -- just maybe -- he will eventually take the hint and start acting (more) appropriately. I find it unlikely given his stated history and lack of improvement to date, and personally would have neither the time nor patience for the attempt, but I do wish you well if this is the path you end up taking.

Another option might be for them to go looking for the legend, but to instead encounter one of its stunted spawn. Make this creature more to their CR so they can beat it, but with the need for them to basically use all their resources to do so.

Then make it clear that this creature they could barely beat was a pale shadow of its progenitor. That should give them the appropriate caution.

Really cool idea, overall. The concept that pretty much every full caster is a Big Deal (tm) is interesting. Should let you create some dynamic NPCs. A 20th level wizard in that sort of world would be pretty godly.

Should be a source of some good plot points, too (namely that these sorts of high level casters must be constantly striving to secure their own share of the declining amount of magic in the world). I can imagine pogroms in certain places where any current or potential magic users are destroyed to limit any future drains on the magic pool, or a powerful magic user who makes deals with otherworldly forces (demonic/devilish/whatever) to keep his magic juice flowing. Maybe a cabal of mid-level wizards/arcanists who hunt down other casters and use rituals to steal their power (one might even call them "mage hunters" -- see what I did there?). So many cool adversary ideas that can flow from the concept...

Mechanically, I agree with avr that condition removal stuff could be the biggest nuisance, but its something you can probably mitigate as need be. You'll just have to be mindful of that when choosing enemies (and their spell loadouts). It may also restrict the scope of access of certain common utility spells (at least until higher levels). One good example is Teleportation, which is accessible by wziards at 9th level, but as a 5th level spell for the 6th level casters that get access, it won't come online for the PCs until fairly late game. That might actually be more helpful than hurtful for you, of course, as being able to blip around the world at a whim can easily wreck certain plots. And if only their enemies have such power... well, that could be an interesting dynamic too.

I might be a bit biased in favour of the idea because I really like a lot of the 3/4 BAB and 6th level casting type classes. I find they tend to be the most balanced as a whole, and they tend to be a lot of fun to play. So even as a player I think I'd be super into this idea.

It's a joke, but yeah sorry. Just wanted to see what you guys thought, to be honest. Idk. Bump.

If you actually want a constructive response, you'll need to expand on your idea. Otherwise, you're really just wasting people's time, including those who come to the Advice forum in the interests of genuinely trying to assist fellow Pathfinder players (I count myself in that camp).

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but a thread without any bona fide request for advice probably ought to have been posted somewhere different.

It seems to me that Gobo Horde is clearly correct about the damage. His result is also logical, insofar as the damage equates to getting hacked with a greatsword, as opposed to being rendered into ash by the most powerful magics in the land (with damage in the original post exceeding what massive monsters can achieve with their natural attacks).

Given you are content on the issue of suicidal summons, the last issue is the attach or save mechanic. To me, the simplest (and best) approach is the charge + high ground bonuses to a regular attack.

Nice and simple and consistent with the rule set.

I think it's great to encourage player creativity (and kudos for how you do that) , but athe end of the day your job is also to implement a level of balance. I think someone else said it first, but a good question to ask is how your players would react if you used this tactic against them first. I can't imagine they'd be thrilled to get TPK'd by divebombong eagles (as they very well might be via the original iteration of the idea).

If you guys are going to do it, I would suggest a short campaign arc at higher levels, with everyone getting to grab a fun template of some kind. Go all-in for an overpowered game, but don't plan on playing it all too long or I expect it will get old quick.

This sort of approach will let your friend 'scratch the itch' without tying up your game with OP stuff for an extended campaign.

My two cents, OP: you built a character you knew would be overpowered and disruptive and took advantage (whether knowingly or not) of your DM's inexperience and relaxed approach. That is on you.

The DM seems to have a poor grasp of the rules and is mixing editions willy-nilly with little control or handle on things, and when presented with your latest unexpected ability, he/she lost control and just did away with your character. That is on him/her.

So, as others have said, there are problems on both sides, and it would seem like the lines of appropriate adult communication are closed (and may never have been open to start). Realistically, I don't see the situation ending well, and think you should move on, for everyone's sake.

Just my two cents. I'd also add that you may as well stop seeking endorsement and justification for your approach, as you're obviously not getting a lot of positive feedback on your play style here. You can keep repeating yourself, but the responses aren't going to suddenly change.

Best of luck, and hopefully you can find a group that you mesh with better.

I think it is great, but in a fun and useful way, not an OP way.

It has lots of generally useful revelations, so you're not stuck picking anything terrible for lack of choices. On the other hand, the low level spells aren't great, though they improve at higher levels, and Time Stop at 9th is just dandy.

As a player I like it a lot, and as a DM I would have no problem with a player taking it. The one thing you may need to turn your mind to is how Time Sight works when you get the later abilities beyond True Seeing (I think the intent is clearly to give additional abilities rather than to take something away and substitute something else, but the wording is unclear. That is a higher level problem than you need to deal with right now, however).

If you want a character with healing potential, but who will remain a decent physical combatant, I can vouch for a Shaman with the Speaker for the Past archetype suggested above. It is well-suited to a 'battle shaman' type character.

I am currently playing a Shaman with the Battle spirit and Speaker for the Past, using reach tactics in combat to be a capable frontliner, spells for buffing, utility and status condition removal (and other fun stuff), and then rounding things out with hexes and revelations. Certainly not a 'primary' healer, but has been primarily responsible for status condition removal, and can use a wand of CLW. Gets access to Restoration spells, Breath of Life, Raise Dead/etc, and Heal.

Easily the most versatile character I have ever played -- now at 13th level in ROTR. You do lose the versatility of Wandering Hex and access to Arcane Enlightenment, but for a character with melee ambitions rather than a desire to be a primary caster, Speaker for the Past more than makes up for it (check out those Time and Ancestor revelations).

The nice thing for you is that Speaker for the Past works well from a flavour standpoint with the ancestor-focus, and you can use the Battle Spirit to help with combat ability. For a reach build, there is a hex which grants an extra AOO that stacks with Combat Reflexes (amongst other things).

Charisma is not essential with this build at all, though you may want to at least get it up to 10 by Level 8, to ensure you get a decent number of uses of the Bane ability from Battle spirit at that level. You can therefore drop the 9 into CHA, and just bump it to 10 via leveling which you hit 8th.

With your rolls and stated preference not to drop INT (I'd normally suggest putting the 9 there and using the Human Skilled racial trait to make up for it), I'd suggest a stat allocation as follows before racial adjustments:

STR 15
DEX 14
CON 13
INT 13
WIS 15
CHA 9

Then you can bump STR at 4th, CHA at 8th and CON at 12th. Alternatively, if you felt you need the extra HP and Fortitude save over AC, Reflex, Initiative and an extra AOO with Combat Reflexes, you could swap CON and DEX.

I kinda feel like a true Paladin should always try to make decisions based upon what is 'right' (in their moral worldview), rather than getting caught up in the personal consequences, including whether it might cause them to Fall. Indeed, it could be argued that focusing on whether an action will cause one to Fall seems inherently inwardly focused.

Maybe they will be wrong, will make mistakes, and will Fall -- but at least they will have acted in accordance with what is right. I cannot see how any righteous god would deny atonement to a well-intentioned and repentant follower in that situation.

Of course, that sort of takes the perspective of a 'Paladin-as-a-force-for-good' versus the 'Paladin-as-a-servant-of-their-good-aligned-deity'.

Anyways, that's all a long-winded way of saying I agree with the suggestion of doing what you felt your character would feel was right and proper, regardless of the consequences outlined by the DM, and then seeking atonement afterwards if necessary. If there is an out-of-game issue in terms of DM conduct, you can look to deal with that post-session through the proper channels.

In terms of Oracle spells, decent options include:

Barbed Chains (1st) - options for attack and tripping, combined with shaken condition

Command (1st) - very useful control spell when it sticks, maybe to get enemies to go prone, or run away and trigger AOOs

Shadow Trap (1st) - cool flavour and can restrict enemy movement-- classic control stuff

Admonishing Ray (2nd) - not control exactly, but decent damage potential if you don't mind non lethal

Burst of Radiance (2nd) - good option for some damage and a possible debuff against evil enemies

Cloud of Seasickness (2nd) - decent little option to apply some cover and possibly a debuff (though this might have some race or religion restrictions as I recall)

Darkness (2nd) - can be a good control spell in the right circumstances and possibly 'on theme' for you

Hold Person (2nd) - limited, but very effective when it works (especially if you have an ally ready to coup de gras)

Oracle's Burden (2nd) - a neat trick potentially, depending on your chosen curse

Silence (2nd) - strong anti caster potential

Sound Burst (2nd) - minor damage (though bypasses a lot of resistances), but a chance to stun which is something (especially against foes who might also drop their weapon)

Archon's Aura (3rd) - I like the constant debuffs an aura can provide (esp on a more martial oracle or cleric) but this has limitations and may make you a bigger target than you'd prefer

Bestow Curse (3rd) - not control exactly and requires touch but such an amazing Debuff when it sticks

Chain of Perdition (3rd) - can be useful for some combat maneuvers but I don't think it scales all that well into higher levels (though you could always swap it out)

Deeper Darkness (3rd) - see Darkness above, but it is both more effective and mole as likely to be compatible with your allies

Draconic Malice (3rd) - a nice spell if you want I use a fear inducing effects (see Aura of Doom at 4th, which I really like)

Aura of Doom (4th) - did I mention I really like this? Long duration, wide aura and can trigger multiple saves. It will make other spells easier to land if you get enemies shaken, and could be combined with other fear effects to make them frightened (my read is that this includes Intimidate, which is something you could be quite good at as a CHA based caster)

Okay, once again I have to tap out without going through all levels, but I think you'll find that you have multiple options at every level. Maybe not quite the same multiplicity of great options as a wizard or sorcerer, but the advantage is that you can leverage the conditional removal and healing stuff in a pinch, if necessary, which a sorcerer cannot readily do.

Combining reach tactics with Combat Reflexes can also allow you to control a large area (especially if you can increase the reach further, such as by getting Large sized). This allows you to position yourself in a way that it becomes difficult for enemies to get past you and to your squishier allies without provoking an AOO.

I'm currently playing a Shaman using a reach weapon, and the combination of reach, Combat Reflexes and his ability to get Large sized has been a real asset. He has also enchanted his weapon with Fortuitous, which helps generate extra AOOs.

In a recent game the group was being attacked by six yeth hounds, and I burned through his AOOs pretty quickly on their approach, taking one down entirely and badly injuring two others, all before he even got his own turn.

Like anything, reach tactics require some level of investment, but they can be quite useful. In my opinion, they are especially useful for 3/4 BAB casters like Clerics, Oracles and Shamans (the latter two of which can particularly leverage different class abilities to boost their combat effectiveness with reach). It allows such characters the ability to get off attacks, while preserving their standard actions to cast spells if they want.

To me it seems like something that would offensive to most in Golarion, and definitely bordering on evil. I mean, they presumably killed the poachers for killing the unicorn in the first place, but now they're going to hunker down and gnaw on the poor creature's leg?

As you say, they have other food, so it seems to me that they are really just doing this "for the LOLs". Of course, if that's the sort of absurdist tone you're looking to strike in the game, that's totally fine and I can see how that would be entertaining for many (though it sounds like at least one player/party member was unimpressed).

If you want a more serious tone, I'd suggest hitting them with the consequences of their actions. For me, I think I'd have the unicorn's mate appear before them all... not as a vengeful presence, but one completely beset by grief. Let them feel the mate's anguish at not only finding his or her life partner dead, but being consumed by the very people who he/she thought to be the dead unicorn's avengers. (One monstrosity replaced by another, and all that.)

The goal wouldn't be to penalize them mechanically, or even to give them another encounter to fight (which could be fun and indirectly encourage the behaviour), but to roleplay that they exist in a world where actions have consequences, and where their choices matter (for good or ill).

The Steel Refrain wrote:

The point about trust is an important one, and I agree that there are a number of concerning elements about this particular build that suggest a willingness to abuse the rules. The spell resistance check is an obvious one, but for me it is using the Samsaran Mystic Life feature to backdoor in Overwhelming Presence that really stands out.

We can't check stats without knowing the build, but I'm hesitant to blame this one solely on Overwhelming Presence. If all of the plusses check out, why would't Greater Illusion of Trickery, Greater Claim Identity, Gaes-Quest, Cloak of Dreams, Phobia, or Dominate Person have the same effect or close enough to the effect to not make a difference? If the player does remove Overwhelming Presense, are we also going to say he or she can't take any other "yeah, this fight is pretty much over..." spells?

That's not sarcasm. If the idea is to tell the player to move the line in the sand, how far do you tell him or her to go?

Fair point. I guess I was pointing out the player's inclusion of Overwhelming Presence via Mystic Past Life as an indicator that this player is quite willing to use some aggressive cheese to boost the power of his build, which signals that the DM may need to be especially careful of the player using similar tricks in the future.

I wasn't necessarily saying Overwhelming Presence was itself the problem, but rather the method by which the player got it signals an aggressive level fo min-maxing (to me). In fact, I think we agree that the problem is bigger than inclusion of one particular spell.

For me, it's a problem of different approaches to the game. It sounds like the DM and the majority of the group want a more casual approach to optimization, whereas this player has given every sign that he wants to min-max to the hilt. Neither is right or wrong. It's the divergence in these approaches that is the issue to be dealt with, and I only see it being successfully resolved if the player is genuinely willing to significantly scale back his optimization and play in line with the others.

If not, he should probably move on to a different group, for everyone's sake.

Some good advice here already, and kudos for you for taking the mature approach of trying to rein in this situation for the greater good of your group, without alienating the player in question..

I've said before that optimization is neither good nor bad on its own -- instead, it's all about having the right level of optimization for your group, to ensure you don't have one or two OP characters, and then a bunch of others feeling like sidekicks. So I think you're doing the right thing to try to bring the outlier back in line with the relative level of group optimization.

Apart from talking to the player respectfully about these things, I also like BadBird's suggestion of trying to get him to play a build which isn't normally super optimal, or Mysterious Stranger's idea of focusing his optimization talents towards helping you up your system mastery. But those things alone won't stop his powergaming -- he really needs to understand and accept that this style of play isn't a good fit for your group and that he can't build characters in the way he might normally prefer.

One cautionary note: some players can't seem to get away from optimizing, even when they initially intend to, so be on the lookout for behaviours like agreeing to tone it down then just trotting out a *different* build which also ends up being OP, or choosing a single sub-optimal 'flavour' feat or option to show just how commttied they are to not powergaming... and then using the rest of their feats and abilities to keep doing what they were doing before.

Also, there is a chance the player won't react well when you speak to him about this, and may become hostile to the idea of being forced to 'play down' to the rest of the group (I've seen this before). I'd recommend being prepared for that, and to remain firm, knowing that you're not being unfair to him, but are instead looking out for the best interests of the group as a whole. Ultimately, if the player is unwilling to play in a manner consistent with the larger group, he might be better off seeking a different group to play with.

Lastly, I don't endorse the idea of having him continue to play the same character and trying to get him to play 'safety net' for the group (ie holding back for a few rounds so the other characters get to do stuff, then stepping in), as I don;t really think it solves the under;lying issue. While the other characters might not catch on right away, I expect it will eventually become obvious that your wizard still remains capable of singlehandedly ending encounters. Then you're back to a situation where your other players feel like sidekicks.

Hope this helps, and best of luck!

I'm just f@+*ing done, this whole experience is just ruined DND for me. I quit

I was going to weigh in to agree with many of the others about the implicit balance of sorcerers having more spells slots as opposed to the versatility of wizards knowing more spells, and how altyering that too much one way or the other disrupts the balance. I also likely would have commented that your intent focus on spell research as an avenue to get more spells known was blinding you to the myriad helpful options others have taken the time from their day to outline for you (not to mention that it was also explained by several others that you *could* use spell research to learn new spells under the rules, but not to augment the *number* of spells known).

It seems like those comments are now moot, however, and that rather than trying to work through your concerns constructively with your current DM and group or to look for a different group to play with where you don't feel pigeon-holed into a class you don't want, you've just elected to give up playing.

That's definitely a valid choice, as this game isn't for everyone, particularly if you find the nature of the rules to be constraining. I certainly wouldn't recommend continuing to spend your time on something you find frustrating and not particularly fun. I just hope that you have better luck with your next venture!

2) What spells and hexes would you recommend for a witch who buffs the party? (Level 12)

Mighty Glacier hooked you up on Question 1, so I will try to help with Question 2.

-- HEXES --

In terms of Hexes, Fortune and Soothsayer are two strong buffing options. The benefits of Fortune (along with Cackle) are obvious and should likely be an early pick for a buffing-focused Witch, whereas the benefits of Soothsayer are a little less obvious, but rely on action economy and getting that Fortune going quicker than you'd otherwise be able.

You might have a hard time convincing your companiuons to accept it, but Scar can also be a decent way to help bypass the typically very short range of your other Hexes.

Ward is bad, IMO, though I suppose its arguably okay-ish at early levels. For me, the problem is that not only are its benefits quickly outpaced by common magic items (or Automatic Bonus Progression, if you're using that), but the contingent duration thing is pretty weak, at least for the AC bonus. Combine that with the fact you can't even have more than one active at a time, and I'd call it a hard pass.

Just looked at Aura of Purity, too, and while it could be great when you need it, it seems far too situational to merit being chosen as a permanent Hex for me.

For Major hexes, Cook People is a wonderful buffing tool... if your party is okay with cannibalism. For a less-horribly-evil crowd, Witch's Charge could also be helpful for buffing a single ally, though it seems a little underwhelming for the level where you get it.

-- SPELLS --

Putting aside anything you might get from your Patron (a topic mentioned further below), I would consider the following buff spells (assuming you've already picked lower levl spells, and are considering higher level stuff now):

4th: Death Ward (clutch against the right enemies), Greater False Life (temp HP are always nice), Named Bullet (a hyper-buff to a single missile, but best used for high crit mod weapons, esp guns)

5th: Overland Flight (self-buff, but a good one, esp if you didn't pick Flight hex), Telepathic Bond (so you can discuss tactics with allies without enemies hearing, without metagaming)

6th: Greater Heroism (great buff, though duration isn't as long as regualr Heroism), True Seeing (excellent counter to illusionists or just those using Mirror Image and the like, though the component cost limits spamming this)

Overall, there aren't as many buff spells on the Witch list as you might have hoped. The list is much more debuff-focused. One way to supplement this is via Patron, but I'm assuming that's already set in stone.

If not, you might consider the following options:

- Agility for Cat's Grace, Haste and Freedom of Movement (top pick for me for buffing)
- Ancestors for Prayer and Blessing of Fervor
- Devotion for Divine Favor, Magic Vestment and Greater Magic Weapon
- Endurance for Bear's Endurance, Protection from Energy, Spell Immunity and Spell Resistance
- Time for Haste (plus some decent non-buff spells)
- Wisdom for Shield of Faith, Owl's Wisdom, Magic Vestment

Hope this is helpful!

Frankly, she sounds like someone who doesn't respect your time or that of the other players (I am assuming you are the DM).

Pathfinder is a cooperative game, premised on the idea of a bunch of like minded people coming together to tell a story and have some fun. For her to show no interest in investing time into learning how to play her character or advancing it, that signals a certain level of disrespect. But to fall asleep mid-session takes to to a whole other level...

Is there some non-game-related reason why you feel the need to keep her around? Because for me, this behaviour would warrant a polite but firm invitation to look for a different game.

I agree that the situation is very clear for a Shaman (ie there is no issue there), but less clear for an Oracle with the Spirit Guide archetype. There is the obvious problem that the hex language references preparation of spells (which an Oracle does not do), but for me it also comes with a possible balance problem.

Though it isn't clear from the language, I think I could get my head around the idea that a logical reading of the Arcane Enlightnment hex when taken by a Spirit Guide Oracle is to add the spells chosen to the Oracle class spell list (based on the idea that adding spells to the list of those that can be prepared by a shaman is effectively the same as adding it to the Shaman spell list). However, I don't think it is appropriate for them to also be automatically added to the Oracle's spells known.

That's where the balance issue arises.

Typically, 'spells known' is a key restriction on the power and flexibility of a spontaneous caster, and so I tend to think it should not be so easily bypassed. If the hex allowed for not just adding arcane spells to the Oracle list, but also added them to the Oracle's spells known that seems overly powerful to me, and unbalanced in the sense that it is considerably more powerful in the hands of the Spirit Guide than for a Shaman. It also does not seem to be contemplated anywhere in the language of the hex, and would require that we "read in" quite a bit.

@ James Risner: Regarding the Spells Known FAq, I'm not sure it has application here. Assuming we're talking about the same FAQ, it says:

New Spells Known: If I gain the ability to add a spell that is not on my spell list to my list of spells known, without adding it to my spell list, can I cast it?

No. Adding a spell to your list of spells known does not add it to the spell list of that class unless they are added by a class feature of that same class. For example, sorcerers add their bloodline spells to their sorcerer spell list and oracles add their mystery spells to their oracle spell list. The spell slots of a class can only be used to cast spells that appear on the spell list of that class.

The question addressed in that FAQ deals with abilities which add a spell to a character's list of spells known. There is nothing in the language of Arcane Enlightenment that speaks to adding spells to "spells known" (which is a specific term for spontaneous casters). Instead, it speaks to adding to the list of spells that a Shaman can prepare. While I can logically see how that could be likened to adding it to the class spell list, that's entirely different than "spells known".

In summary, I agree that this is an unclear interaction for a Spirit Guide Oracle, and significant table variance can reasonably be expected barring a FAQ (which I think would have to be specifically directed to this unique interaction).

I played an Oread Zen Archer that was very effective. Beyond the fact he did not need to move around so much as an archer, he also ended up getting speed boosts from class, so that offsets your concern.

I also played him as a loner from the mountains who grew to have extremely strong bonds to his few friends/allies, which I think plays to racial characteristics. I think being an archer goes against type a bit though, so I liked that.

...

I, as an example, am completely unsurprised if a level one character gets killed. They're only just more effective than common folk. I am lot more surprised if level 8 characters die. But again, I am happy enough to,just run with things no create a new character and keep,telling the story.

I'm thinking the guy in this scenario isn't the same though. He's more invested in the character, I'm more invested in the plot.

At the risk of going off topic a bit, I just wanted to comment on the idea of character vs plot.

While not so much at 1st level (especially first session!), I have found that over the course of a long campaign or AP, the plot actually becomes inextricably meshed in with the characters themselves. At a certain point, if there is a TPK it becomes really hard to justify re-creating a whole new group of characters to continue the plot, as they lack the same connection to the setting, the NPCs and the story.

While killing off individual characters has a much lesser effect, it can definitely have negative impacts on the overall narrative, as newly created characters rarely have the same connection. I'm currently playing through an AP where one player went through something like 5 or 6 characters, and none of them have ever really made a strong connection with the rest of the party or to the plot. Fortunately we otherwise have a strong core of 'original' characters, but I can imagine it would really detract from the overall narrative if one or more of those characters died (and couldn't be brought back somehow).

All of which goes to say that, for me, I tend to favour the idea of a DM 'staying their hand' where a PC's life is at stake and where such mercy is reasonably justifiable in the circumstances. I feel it serves both character AND plot in most cases. (Though, again, this has less bearing at 1st level/1st session, as in the present case.)

Consider the following language from the description:

"An erlking is a blur of motion on or off the battlefield, using his powers to coordinate attacks against despoilers, manipulate terrain to his side's advantage, and call in reinforcements when his forces would be overwhelmed. When his services are not needed, an erlking retires to the realm of the fey."

To me, it sounds like the Erlking would avoid directly engaging your PCs unless absolutely necessary, and would instead coordinate the attacks on them via area control and summoning reinforcements. I can see this being a nice setup for a Wild Hunt sort of event (which fits conceptually with the Erlking mythology).

So maybe have him arrive with a large centaur war party and make an impressive entrance as per one of GypsyMischief's suggestions. Then "let the hunt begin".

Instead of having him attack the PCs directly, have him use Plant Growth to shape the battlefield and create an obvious escape route (along which the PCs will be hunted and harried by the Centaurs). He can also use Black Tentacles and Animate Plants for battlefield control, to keep the PCs moving along the intended route, or else extremely inconvenient to deviate from it.

If flying PCs are an issue (and not getting pushed around by the other area control spells), maybe have him summon 1d3 Elder Air Elementals via SNA IX to create whirlwinds and drive them from the skies.

If the PCs don't flee, another good option is to use SNA VI to summon a bunch of Tigers to harass your PCs, and/or Satyrs to spam Fear and Suggestion ('flee!'). Also, Treants, who then use Animate Trees to create even more allies to harass and harry the PCs. It should soon become extremely obvious to them that they are overmatched.

In the event a PC has the temerity to try to strike out at the Erlking, have him simply drop Finger of Death on him or her, then take the next round to Repel Metal or Stone to prevent any other interlopers from daring to test his majesty. Another fun idea (on theme) would be for him to shoot at PCs, but aim to do non-lethal only... but still inflicting the bleed damage to slowly weaken them for the Hunt.

What happens at the end of the Hunt is up to you. Perhaps the idea is to drive the PCs to the edge of the Fey realm and maybe into a portal elsewhere (I like the idea that the Erlking not only drives them out of his lands, but perhaps uses one enemy against another by driving them into the realm of his enemy). Or perhaps the idea is simply to corner them (with another, larger centaur war party awaiting them, or some other fey group) and once they are trapped, seek their surrender and then negotiate some demands from them from a position of power.

I suspect part of the issue here relates to the unusual dynamic of running a 1-on-1 game with your husband, where you are also simultaneously running multiple DMPCs. It must be very hard to balance ensuring the 'true' PC gets enough spotlight without overly favouring his character.

Having said that, remember that as DM, you always have control over whether or not to include all of the listed loot, so you can consider whether to include everything else that pops up. If you feel your PCs are overly wealthy, maybe shave off some of the non-essential loot included in the module, until things even out a bit.

Also, while I see the out-of-character logic in your husband taking the lion's share as the only 'true' PC, I don't imagine all the GMPCs would feel the same. It would be entirely natural for them to take some issue with one of their party members taking extra loot, given they are all taking risks in the adventure.

... Besides, in the sister thread, we have a link to James Jacobs asserting that rays DO affect swarms.

To be fair, James Jacobs works on the creative side and has been very clear that whenever he weighs in on the rules, he is not making any official or semi-official ruling, and is instead indicating how he would rule on it personally as a DM. He is obviously very hesitant to even comment on such things for fear of them being relied upon as evidence of the way things are 'meant' to work.

His comments are therefore equally valid to yours or mine or those of any other poster, but not any more so in this context.

It seems that that discussion has reached the point where there is little if anything new to be said, so in the interests of avoiding any digression into 'sniping' or other rudeness over a disagreement in position, I'm hopeful that perhaps the thread will die down or be locked soon.

The powers that be can then determine whether or not this issue requires clarification via FAQ.

Shaman! Sort of shocked no one has suggested it yet.

Super flexible and capable of lots of different approaches. Like Oracles, they can be tweaked to go melee, healer or caster, plus they have good options to be a buffer, debuffer, and even have options to pull key spells from the cleric list (human FCB) and/or to add arcane spells (via Arcane Enlightenment hex).

Thanks BretI. After posting above I saw and read over the other thread in its entirety.

I think I now have a better understanding of the argument in favour of rays affecting swarms, though for the reasons posted over there, I have concluded that I do not agree with it.

Also, because I think the intent behind the swarm immunity language is unambiguous on a close reading, I will not flag for FAQ'ing.

Somewhat against my better judgment, I read through the entirety of this thread to try to better understand why someone might feel that rays affect swarms (which had previously seemed self-evidently wrong to me).

I think I understand the argument now, which seems based primarily on the notion that rays are not "Target" spells (per their descriptions) and so do not meet the restrictive language of swarms dealing with immunity to spells or effects targeting a specific number of creatures. As Link2000 did a credible job of arguing: rays, like weapons, target the swarm, rather than an individual creature within the swarm.

While I think I understand the basis for this argument, I don't agree with it.

I know people tend to get fixated on RAW or on a strict reading of the language in isolation, but to me it is always necessary to consider the intention behind the rules to really understand how they should work together (but on the basis that this understanding has to be assessed in the context of how the rules are written).

So I ask myself: did the drafters of the rules intend that swarms be affected by ray spells?

I don't think they did, and here is why:

I think they wanted swarms to be primarily affected by things which affect an area (hence the bonus to that sort of damage) and to limit or prevent the effectiveness of things which typically only affect a single target within the roiling mass of rats/bats/wasps/spiders/whatever. Hence their inclusion of this language:

"A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate), with the exception of mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms) if the swarm has an Intelligence score and a hive mind."

Getting caught up on the inclusion of disintegrate as an example of the things swarms are immune to doesn't really help the discussion in my view. The drafters wrote "including single-target spells such as disintegrate", but that does not in any way limit the prior language about swarms being immune to "any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures". That language is very broad and, I believe, should be interpreted that way.

Turning to look at how rays work, while I appreciate they don't necessarily have the "target" wording in their descriptions, it seems quite clear that a single ray only ever affects one target. This distinguishes it from a "line" effect spell, for example.

So to summarize from my perspective, the language used by the drafters indicates they wanted swarms to be immune to things which only affect one target/creature. Rays fit in that category, so I cast my 'vote' towards the notion that rays do not affect swarms.

I'm having difficulty seeing the argument *for* rays affecting swarms.
To me, it seems pretty self-evident that rays target individual targets, which falls outside the scope of what works against a swarm.

Am I missing something here?

You went quite a bit away from the domains you were previously looking at. What prompted that?

If you are having trouble getting spells to stick, maybe start looking at Spell Focus in whatever school you use most (maybe Necromancy), and also consider Persistent metamagic. Those can both help.

As for debuff-oriented spells, perhaps look at the following options:

- Barbed Chains (1st level, best at lower/mid levels before enemy CMD gets out of hand, this spell has some flexibility in terms of allowing either an attack or trip attempt, along with a further debuff rider if the attack/trip hits)

- Command/Forbid Action (1st level, two sides of the same coin in some ways, though Command is probably better -- can temproarily lock down an enemy if they work, and possibly make them provoke AOOs via movement, etc)

- Murderous Command (1st level, and a very nice effect when it sticks, not only for whatever damage is done, but also for possible confusion in the enemy ranks if they dont recognize the spell)

- Shadow Trap (1st level, can really mess with an enemy's movement, and while it probably won't last long if they choose to keep retrying saves every round, it can tie up their economy with them taking full round actions to escape its effect)

- Touch of Bloodletting (1st level, where the Bleed damage isn't important so much as the Exhausted effect is -- most useful vs enemies with no easy healing options)

- Burst of Radiance (2nd level, debuff with damage rider vs evil, at least some effect even when saved against)

- Compassionate Ally (2nd level, a debuff in the sense that it can occupy an enemy who might otherwise be doing something harmful, and is especially useful against enemies who don't really have great healing options)

- Bestow Curse (3rd level, obvious choice as you've mentioned and a good candididate for Persistent spell later)

- Blindness/Deafness (3rd level, can really mess up someone's day when it sticks, and is useable at range -- but not my favorite)

- Monstrous Extremities (3rd level, meant as a buff spell, but I've wondered what might happen if you turned an enemy's leg into a wing -- spell also says it takes 10 minutes for them to get used to using it -- with an open-minded DM this could be a fun debuff)

- Sands of Time (3rd level, debuffs STR, DEX and CON for most enemies, or damages undead/constructs -- not a major debuff, but it comes with NO SAVE, so that's pretty nice if you're having trouble getting your spells to stick)

- Screaming Flames (3rd level, works as a damage + debuff in the form of WIS damage, which could soften targets for later spells -- however, it is an Evil spell, so may not be suitable)

- Vision of Hell (3rd level, nice debuff aura, but it is another Evil spell, so may not be suitable for you)

It is an illegal move. From the PRD

Take 5-Foot Step

You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance.

And

Abundant Step (Su): At 12th level or higher, a monk can slip magically between spaces, as if using the spell dimension door. Using this ability is a move action that consumes 2 points from his ki pool. His caster level for this effect is equal to his monk level. He cannot take other creatures with him when he uses this ability.

I get the sense you may not have read the extensive discussion of this very point above.

The action type is not relevant to this question.

As much as they may sound similar, a move action does not equate with "movement". There are many move actions that don't involve actual movement, and the rules are quite clear that nothing prohibits a character from combining a move action and a 5 ft step.

The only prohibition on taking a 5 ft step in a round is that the character cannot combine it with actual movement. Some people argue that teleportation *is* movement. However, the larger consensus is that a closer consideration of how the term "movement" is used in the rules leads to the conclusion that teleportation is *not* movement.

To create the sense of abominable, redundant bureaucracy, think about creating labrynthine, multi-tiered positions (lots of extra adjectives like "Senior", "Junior", "Executive", "Associate"), as well as bizarre and unnecessary reporting structures.

So something like a Senior Associate Director of Soul Review, who reports to the Junior Executive Director of Soul Review.

He, of course, reports to the Senior Executive Director of Soul Review -- except when dealing with non-humanoid souls, in which case he reports to the Assistant Executive Administrator of Non-Standard Souls (Review Division). Who in turn reports onto the Senior Executive Director of Soul Review (obviously), but also copying the Principal Administrator (Executive) of Non-Standard Souls (Review Division) for information purposes only.

Well, except in cases where the soul is from a worshiper of Sarenrae, Shelyn or Desna. In that case, the Assistant Executive Administrator of Non-Standard Souls (Review Division) re-directs the referral back down to the Senior Associate Director of Soul Review with an annotation for special processing.

The Senior Associate Director of Soul Review then prepares a Special Report (Form XXXIV - Non-Standard Soul, Special Processing), which is reviewed by the Junior Executive Director of Soul Review, and the Executive Oversight Officer (Non-Standard Souls) -- who is a real jerk, by the way, even by Hellish standards. If they sign off, the Special Report is forwarded onto the Senior Executive Director of Soul Review. If not, the form is referred back to the Assistant Executive Administrator of Non-Standard Souls (Review Division) for inclusion in the Quarterly Oversight Roundtable.

Got it? Good. Because once that initial intake process is completed, things start to get a *lot* more complicated...

Apart from the skull thing (which I feel most good-sligned goods would find distasteful, at the very least!), I agree that simply being lustful probably doesn't *strictly* violate the Iomedean paladin code, though it might earn him some hard looks from more traditional members of the faith -- and it might run against this tenet:

"I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior. I will strive to emulate Iomedae’s perfection."

All-in-all, it's probably not how *I* would play a Paladian of Iomedae, but I can't really advocate for him to fall because of it.

In the circumstances, I think it might actually be fun to slow play this. Let him get his lust on, and maybe even contrive for him to engage in intercourse with one or more ladies in Sadnpoint. No need to make a big deal of it -- until several months later the young lady (or, even better, ladies) come to visit him, obviously with child. Surprise, surprise -- he's the dad!

And like many new mothers, they are not entirely keen to have the father of the child leaving them behind to go off and put themselves at risk. And, of course, one or more of them might press him to get married -- so as not to bring her shame.

Beyond nthe simple 'fun' factor, I think this sort of situation would bring home the consequences of the earlier behaviour and put the character in a situation where his obligations vis-a-vis honour are put squarely in issue.

Dwarven Warpriest of Torag? You could run a two-handed build, maybe go reach, focusing on a Dwarven long hammer?

Maybe grab the Arsenal Chaplain archetype to boost the melee side.

I don't know a ton about the AP, but seems like this would probably fit conceptually and mechanically against giants.

I'm not surprised that your players acted a little 'neutral' on whether to boot the problem player, as no one really wants to own such an uncomfortable decision. Unfortunately, as DM, that difficult responsibility falls on you in appropriate cases.

I think you've been taking a very balanced and careful approach to the situation, which is definitely to be commended.

Based on the limited info I have, I suspect she is probably a little immature in her approach to the game and doesn't recognize the implied expectation that the PCs work together.

Hopefully your discussion helps shape her towards a more appropriate way of playing with your group.

Just be on the lookout for a temporary improvement, followed by an eventual return to form. If that happens, I'd probably recommend booting her,as another warning will probably only trigger another temporary improvement (at best). The truth is, you're doing your campaign, your players and your own time a disservice if you keep someone around who has proven to be incapable of working within the expectations of the game.

Best of luck!!

Good comments, gentlemen!

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

I'm glad it's a story element you were clearly meant to overcome and not the quite distressing idea it was at first glance.

I think was just a bit taken aback from this happening right after falling for a flimsy reason.

I just feel bad for all the abuse your DM has taken in this thread. It seemed a little unfair to me (though I agree that his prior call on your Paladin falling was an error in judgment).

Sounds to me like he had a fun and engaging plotline set up for your characters from the outset of this particular arc. Hopefully this re-establishes your faith in him as a DM.

Happy gaming!

Gisher:

...

Third, there's a critical line in the feat that you're missing:
You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or *any time another hand is otherwise occupied.*

Under literally any other circumstance, you'd be right. But my hands aren't occupied. But this is the only way to get a slashing attack that qualifies this way. More over, I could take Slashing grace for claws, bite, and any other number natural attacks that are slashing and this would still apply... so my DM and I said that, if I can apply it to a claw and a bite, why can't we do it to two claws?

...

Unfortunately, I think your reading of the feat does not align with the generally accepted understanding, including developer remarks.

See the following THREAD. Gisher is actually somewhat of an expert on this point.

I don't think you're at any risk of being OP with this combination. It can certainly be effective, but by no means game-breaking (though you may want to consider avoiding Dazing spell metamagic -- it *can* be cheesy when spammed).

Have fun with the character -- I like the concept a lot!

I was also going to weigh in on Dervish Bard, but see I've been beaten to the punch. Really like the concept though, both mechanically and flavour-wise.

I feel your pain, OP. I'm pretty scrupulous about ensuring that I follow the rules, and expect the same of my party-mates. If I do something against the rules by mistake and realize it later, I'd be the first one to point it out to the DM.

Not everyone feels the same, however, and I've had several co-players take liberties with the rules at times, or just make honest mistakes about how things work. The DM often catches and corrects these things, but he/she often has a lot on the go, so things slip by.

That puts me in the awkward position of whether to call the rule-fudging/mistake out (which somehow feels rude, or confrontational), or to let it go. I tend to deal with it on a case-by-case basis, but because we use Roll20 + Skype, my most frequent move is to privately message the player who is 'breaking' the rules to advise them, and then let them determine whether or not they want to flag it for the DM to consider.

Feels a little less confrontational that way, and even if they choose not to say anything (which happens with a distressing frequency with certain players -- probably the ones who know they are fudging the rules), at least I've got it off my conscience without causing any significant in-group conflict.

As DM, I would be reluctant to open Pandora's Box on items like these. Once you start allowing relatively easy access to some of the best spells on a given class list to any joker with some coin you will risk introducing some power imbalances.

Having said all that, if you're the DM, or the DM is fine with the latter risk, the magic item creation guidelines found HERE suggest a price of 4,320gp (ie. spell level 2 x caster level 3 x 1,800gp, divided by 2.5 for the 2 charges/day). If it doesn't use an item slot, you'd double that cost, as I understand it (so 8,640gp).

Ferious Thune wrote:

It also overcomes DR/Adamantine, which includes things like Stoneskin, a 4th level spell. You need a +4 magic weapon to achieve the same thing (at a cost of 32,000+ gold). That's pretty amazing. Even moreso in a world where Adamantine is rare.

(Yes, there are other ways around it now through spells and blanches. Power creep is a thing.)

a +4 sword also has an extra +3 to hit +4 dmg and also bypasses cold iron silver and magical dr compared to the adamantine weapon

plus what barbarian or fighter doesnt want to reenact the seen were liam nesan cuts through a giant metal door with his sword and i would have to disagree with the op on how adamantine =/= light saber they both function in the same manner they cut through everything thats not made of the same material or stronger adamantine cant cut through adamantine and light saber cant cut through light sabers ect.

Apart from the silliness of likening the physical properties of a really hard metal object to a beam of energy -- if you want to re-enact a scene from a Star Wars movie, maybe play a Star Wars game?

Seems like a really unnecessary resurrection of a 10 month old thread...

Doomed Hero wrote:

Assuming that all summoning circles must be made of powdered silver, can the powder be protected without disrupting the circle?

Could the carved floor have powdered silver poured into it, and then covered by glass? Or a Wall of Force? (A vertical summoning circle set into a wall would be pretty neat).

Could you put the powdered silver into some kind of tube?

The glass could work if you poke holes in it so you don't block line of effect.

you could also glue the silver powder to the floor.

So perhaps carve the circle into the floor, pour Sovereign Glue into the resulting crevice, and then pour silver powder over the glue to create a nigh-unbreakable bond...?

You'd need to be super careful not to mess it up, but a wizard with high INT and a dedication to detail should have no problem.

I definitely think the notion of having a permanent summoning circle is both iconic and cool. It doesn't remove the risks associated with summoning, but would be a very practical endeavour for a home-based wizard who does a lot of this stuff.

I agreenwith Claxon that ABP covers the 'necessary' magical items, but it does assume access to basic mundane gear like weapons and armor, so you should ensure they have those.

If A were you, I would figure out the 'best' weapons and armor for each player (according to their playstyle and proficiencies) and ensure that they have mundane versions of them at the very least, and perhaps versions made with special materials like mithral if you want to give them an extra boost.

Otherwise, you could pepper in some useful, but relatively minor magic items. Healing seems to be a key party 'need', so a nearly fully charged wand of cure light wounds and some potions could be handy.

Other items could include things to amplify existing abilities. For example, if the hunter/ranger like to use buff spells, maybe drop a Pearl of Power or a Lesser Rod of Extend metamagic to allow extra castings/extra duration.

As a player, it is also fun to get items that grant minor additional abilities or creative roleplay/problem solving options. Maybe something that gives the Mage Hand cantrip 5x a day, or even the ever-popular Robe of Useful Items.

If the PCs are going to be relying on ranged attacks, Fickle Winds is an excellent defensive countermeasure.

If the PCs have a paladin, Unholy Ward might be a good counter to Smite Evil.

Resist Energy/Protection from Energy would obviously be handy against any energy damage the PCs like to rely upon.

Freedom of Movement is essential if the party likes to use grapple or any movement-restricting spells or abilities.

A personal favorite tactic is having Spell-Storing armor containing something like Stricken Heart, to be used at the beginning of a PC's full attack routine to make them auto-staggered, and disrupt the full attack. Also combines extremely well with Bestow Curse if the DC is reasonably high (I like the one where the target only gets to act, at all, 50% of the time -- real day-ruiner).