Urist McFightingDwarf's page

Part of a conversation tonight involved the concept of "dump stats". One of the GMs I was talking to said, "If any of my players takes a dump stat, I will [figuratively subject the character in question to a rather painful and humiliating personal indignity]."

Examples were offered. It seems that one of this GM's players chose to play a dwarf with a dump stat Charisma. The GM decided that even though the party had a highly social leader, the antisocial dwarf was a millstone around their necks. Prices were raised to unbelievable levels. Serious social penalties were applied. Most of the time, the powers-that-be of any town or village they went to, were willing to (grudgingly) sell the party supplies -- so long as the dwarf wasn't in sight. (They'd heard about the social abomination the party insisted on dragging around with them, and the party got shunned by association.)

Another example was Strength. The GM in question scrupulously applies Encumbrance rules. And then loves to hit characters with low Strength values with Strength-draining attacks. The wizard, who had Strength as his dump stat, got nailed by a rogue who had coated his dagger with a Strength-draining poison -- and then later, in combat, hit him with a maximized Ray of Enfeeblement, which pretty much ended the wizard's usefulness to the party, as the opposition decided to start moving away from the wizard's position, and the poor wizard could only move 5 feet a round -- and that as a full-round action.

Now, this GM does allow players to rebuild characters within 3 sessions of the character joining his game, so it's not like you're stuck if you bring in your dump-statted Alchemist. (He uses a 20 point build base, so it's not like people have to rely on dump stats for points.) And he confided that he considered a 9 (adjusted by racial modifiers) to be the baseline score. So he discourages lower scores, unless the player role-plays the dump stat well, and it's not a cliched dump stat. Playing a dumb fighter, cliched. Playing a fighter with emphysema (low Constitution), not so cliched.

My questions are these:

1) If you discourage dump stats in your game, how do you do so?

2) How does the discouragement of dump stats affect your willingness to join a campaign, and your enjoyment of the game, as a player?

You may also want to comment on the above GM. Certainly it seems to me that singling out players who use dump stats as 'targets' is rather harsh, especially when such tactics affect the group as a whole, but this is not my game.

Okay, before we get into this: Yes, I understand that all the Open Game Content is located at http://paizo.com/prd/ and any player with internet access isn't actually limited to the core rulebook. But for the sake of argument, let's say that the player in question has no internet access (they live in farm country in Montana) and only access to the printed material.

If a player is restricted to the Core Rulebook content only, can he create a character comparable in effectiveness and power level to characters using other official source material? Can the player join a Pathfinder Society table and contribute, game mechanics wise, to the power level of the team?

Talking over a situation from another game makes me want to get y'all's opinions on the matter. A friend of a friend is running a Pathfinder game which is suffering what I call 'A Lack of Mikey'. This is when no one will play Class X. No one wants to be the (insert one: healer, talker, skills person, squishy, etc.). Discussions over this situation devolve into the script from the Life Cereal commercials with Mikey in it -- "I'm not gonna play that! You play it!" "I'm not gonna play it!"

In this case, they are lacking several Mikeys. The party consists of 2 Fighters (one Archer, one Big Stick Jock), a Ninja (who went with an 8 Charisma and does not know what the hell UMD is, so didn't bother getting it), a Barbarian, a Gunslinger and a Samurai.

That's right. No casters. No healers. No talkers. And the Ninja refuses to do anything but sneak around and leap out of shadows and backstab, so no skills guy.

The GM refuses to run an NPC healer, as he doesn't want to have to split his attention between an NPC helping the party, and the opposition the party is fighting. He suggested someone switch classes and was ignored. He suggested someone take a level in a class with CLW on the spell list, and the Life Cereal commercial started up again.

The GM is also refusing to alter the game world based on their choices. Their first adventure was an unmitigated disaster, as they had to return to town after the second encounter to rest and recuperate -- and the GM ruled that in the interim, someone else beat them to the prize. The second adventure was "interesting", I was told, as the group was out of money and resorted to banditry -- and ended up angering the local authorities. (Oh, and it ended up with two forced alignment changes, and the Samurai becoming a ronin.)

With what I've been told about the GM, I don't expect this group to last much longer. They already have powerful enemies on their trail, and these include spellcasters.

My question: How would you handle such a group? When no one wants to play a caster, and even incentives fail to change their minds?

EDIT: It's been pointed out to me that the GM is being a little bit of a dick. He could, after all, tailor the game to match the players' skills. He offered that option to the players, giving them opportunities that, while not as lucrative as adventuring, suited their group build, like guarding a fixed location or scouting a bandit camp. The group refused and went on an adventure to rescue a group of villagers from a cult. (This is the adventure that turned into an unmitigated disaster.)

I was recently asked to run a Pathfinder game. I acquiesced, but since I only have access to the Core Rulebook, I decided that I was only going to allow races, classes, feats, gear, spells and such, from that book. I also had two players who were supposedly "new" to Pathfinder, so I felt keeping the rules limited to the Core Rulebook was a good idea.

My players have rioted. They want to play using weird races. Weird classes. Weird stuff from books I do not have. Using rules I do not have access to.

Well, I put my foot down. I said either they can play with the Core Rulebook only, or they could find themselves another GM. And sure enough, they found themselves another GM.

Now, as I've said on this forum, I'm poor. I'm sorry, but I just cannot afford $60 game books for a game I only play once in a blue moon. I have enough problems budgeting for books for games I run regularly, like Shadowrun and now 5th Edition D&D. I know the PDFs are cheaper, but I have to go to other peoples' houses and apartments to run, and I can't take my computer with me when I go. So I can't rely on the SRD either.

I did tell these players that if they were willing to buy me the books, I'd allow them to use rules from those books. But until I had the books in my possession, I could not allow use of those books in the game. (Okay, it was kind of a jerk thing to ask, but insisting that I let players use rules I'm not familiar with is also kind of a jerk thing to ask, in my opinion.)

Was I right? Is it ethical to only allow the players to use rules the GM has access to? Or should I just decline all further requests to run Pathfinder because I can't buy the hardcopy books?

Earlier today I was informed by our city's Venture-Captain that "as far as [this city] is concerned", I am ejected from Society play. He cited past behavior problems (caused by mu bipolar disorder, for which I am considered disabled) as the reason for the ejection, and that 'several' persons have come forward to him stating that as long as I was present at any Society event, they would not be willing to play with me at the table or be willing to attend at all. I accepted the decision at the time, but have come to question it.

First of all, I know for a fact that there are Society players who will accept me and enjoy my presence at a table. Similarly, I know for a fact there are Society GMs willing to have me at their table, including our Venture-Lieutenant. When I brought this up to our Venture-Captain, he dismissed it by saying, "They don't know you like I do." This smacks of a personal vendetta against me. If an event is being coordinated by the Venture-Lieutenant, or another GM who is willing to let me play, I should be allowed to play.

If I am being ejected from the Society, then it should be from the Society in general, not just in this city. Also, I am taking steps to control my disorder (which, as I said, is a disabling condition for me), so events in the past should not reflect against my future behavior.

I enjoy Society play very much and have very few opportunities for social contact; depriving me of this activity would unfairly rob me of a necessary outlet for socialization with my peers. Is this judgement against me legal, by Society rules? And is there a higher authority that I can appeal to?

I recently had someone offer me a spot in their home game, but I had to turn them down. Why? Because the GM wanted me to play THE HEALER. The strong suggestion (well, more like 'If you don't play this I will make your life a living hell') was that I play a cleric, with an emphasis on healing, positive channeling and support. I don't play support. I play damage dealers.

The conversation went something like this:
Friend: "Hey, I hear you play Pathfinder now. We have a game going, you want in? They could really use a healer."
Me: "No thanks, I don't play healers. I could do a barbarian..."
Friend: "C'mon, man, they could really use a healer."
Me: "What level are they?"
Friend: "Uh, average sixth, why?"
Me: "Because if they've lasted this long without a cleric, then they don't need one. In my experience, having a healer in the party is only a license to play dumb and get into trouble. Players start doing dumb things with the mentality of 'Well, if I get into trouble, we have a healer!' Without a healer a party plays cautious and smart."
Friend: "Yeah, they got in trouble a few times the last game. That's why they could really use a healer."
Me: "There's also the fact that I play damage-dealers and tanks. I like being able to -hit- things. I don't like having to spend combat actions healing the mistakes of the party. Tell you what. I'll play an Inquisitor, and I can heal the party out of combat using a happy stick."
Friend: "No, that wouldn't work. They REALLY need someone to heal them in combat. You can play a cleric. I'll even let you start at 7th level."
Me: "I don't think I want to be in your game after all. Champions Online is looking more attractive..."

Yes, he was being a dick about it, but it's my right to play the character I want to play, right? If that means I don't play the game, then so be it, I have other things I could be doing with my time. Clerics are one of the weaker classes, IMO: Crap for skill points (and I'm all about the skills), good combat potential but not full BAB, spells I don't like using, and this reliance on the part of the other players to be the one who fixes THEIR mistakes. Hell no. Let someone else be the cleric.

A friend of mine is interested in playing Pathfinder, but there's a problem with what she wants to play. Basically, what she wants is the Hunter class from World of Warcraft. Now, were this my own game, I'd just crack the OGL World of Warcraft RPG and let her play that version, but it's for Pathfinder Society, so it's got to be legit.

What she wants:
-Ranged combat specialist using a bow as main focus for damage
-Tanking pet
-No spellcasting, or all casting delivered through bow -- she wants a DPS build, not a healer

What I can build for her:
1) Druid mixed with fighter or ranger. Start as an elf for the Longbow proficiencies. Problem is, she doesn't want to be THE HEALER. She had a bad experience with D&D 3.5 where her druid was told 'take healing spells' and she didn't want to, and it ended badly with hurt feelings.

2) Ranger. But she wants the pet from Day 1. Or at least as early as possible. Is there a ranger archetype that gets the pet early? Also, she wants the animal companion to be the tank, not the skirmisher -- and the level hit that ranger companions get doesn't seem conducive to making them the wall she wants her pet to be.

I don't know of anything else that would fit her preferences, and neither seem to work for what she wants. Is there a way to make this work, or do I just have to disappoint her?

What's the most effective martial character build for just flat-out putting the enemy down in the ground as fast and as hard as possible?

I'm sure everyone has their own favorite class/archetype build, and I'm sure I'll get a lot of people saying some sort of sorcerer. I want martial builds, as I'm a martial type. That means weapon use. No wand-wielders here.

A friend of mine -- we'll call him "Chuck" -- is a relative neophyte when it comes to building characters. I've gamed with him long enough to know what he likes when it comes to playing, but when it comes to building, I need some advice on making a character that would match his likes.

A few things to note:

1) He and I both play in Pathfinder Society. So any character build has to be PFS-legal. Also, don't expect that magic items or special materials will be available at any given moment. Purchasing anything more than normal equipment in PFS is dependent on getting Fame points with your chosen Faction, and it takes 27 points of Fame to get to the point of affording items costing 8,000 gp. With the way Chuck plays, that'll be around 9th level, so don't start saying 'pick up mithril heavy armor early' -- no, expect the earliest we'll be able to get it at 9th level.

2) Again, this is going to be a Pathfinder Society character. Skills are important -- no, let me rephrase that. Skills are MANDATORY. Any build needs at least 4 skill points per level, including points from class, race and favored class bonus.

3) "Chuck characters" (what Chuck likes to play) are NEVER SPELLCASTERS. Don't even suggest a spellcaster. Don't care how powerful it is; don't care how effective; I won't be able to get him to play a spellcaster. Any suggestions must be martial characters ONLY.

4) "Chuck characters" come in two flavors:

a) You have the damage dealer in which the primary focus is damage damage damage damage damage damage, all the live long day. Weapons wielded MUST do d10 damage MINIMUM. Falchion is right out. (Don't worry about crit range; I've never seen -anyone- roll more natural 20s than Chuck. He'll get them two in a row. He'll roll them for saves and turn around and roll a confirmed crit on his gunslinger. Don't feel you need to suggest a Falchion build; Chuck can get the same number of crits using a Greatsword.) (It's the gunslinger that prompted this query. He plays the character like a sniper. Walk in, start firing. Grit? What's that? He rolls crits and takes out things like mad and never even considers using Grit. There's gotta be a better way of doing this, thinks I.)

b) You have the tank. The tank's main focus is You Can't Hit Me, Therefore You Can't Hurt Me. AC must be as high as humanly possible, if not higher. This must be AC at all times, spells and temporary increases are nice but it's better to have a high AC all the time and not worry about spell durations. (Again, Chuck Does Not Play Spellcasters.) Weapon will invariably be a Bastard Sword. (Again, don't worry about crit range. Chuck rolls crits like the rest of us poor $%&^%%^s roll 1s.) The tank's second focus in You Can't Hit Me, So Now I Can Crush You. After maximizing armor and defenses, we must now maximize damage potential. The tank's third priority is You Might Have Hurt Me, But I Didn't Feel It. Maximize hit points. (Unfortunately skill points are necessary. Int cannot be a dump stat. Cha can.)

The problems:

a) Chuck ignores most classes' special abilities. He plays a Barbarian as a Tank, but doesn't understand that most of the Barbar's special abilities require light armor. (It's been suggested that he go for the Armored Hulk AT.)

b) Chuck ignores skills. If it's not mobility-oriented -- that is, enabling him to get into combat so he can Crush The Enemy, then he really doesn't care so much about it. Stealth? Not relevant. Survival? Bah. (He's learning that if he doesn't have at least some social skill capability, he's going to miss out on Faction missions and the Prestige/Fame awards that come from that.)

These two problems are why I'm thinking if Fighter isn't a better way to get Chuck to be what he wants to be. I know the Barbar gets Rage, but the Fighter gets the heavy armor, he learns how to deal with it better, and can start outputting some major major damage. Same with the Gunslinger -- one of the main points of the class is Grit and Deeds, and Chuck completely ignores that facet of the class.

What I'd like are suggestions towards classes and builds which might support Chuck's playstyle better. That way I can take those suggestions to him and see if he'd be willing to follow that advice. Right now Chuck plays a 7th level Barbar and a 4th level Gunslinger (and uses the playtest rules, NOT UC -- our Venture-Captain said it was all right, so whatever). I know he'll need skills -- Climb, Swim, Acrobatics (for jumping, he likes to jump), Intimidate, maybe Perception. (No, I am not giving him UMD, and I am not giving him Stealth -- Chuck doesn't do Stealth. Stealth to Chuck means not using the Fireball spells as we storm the gates in the direct assault.)

My tanking dwarf just hit 3rd level in PFS, and I need a little advice as to what I should do next.

What I'd like to do is build him into an all-around fighter, a good tank, a decent damage-dealer, not a heavy-hitter or a wall but someone who can do most things.

What I am not going to do is switch him to be any kind of spellcaster. Doesn't match the concept. Besides which, he doesn't qualify for any spellcasting class except maybe cleric. I am also not going TWF.

Here's his writeup:

Urist McFightingDwarf Male Dwarf Fighter 2 (Going to 3)
STR 18 DEX 14 CON 16 (14 +2) INT 8 WIS 12 CHA 5
Skills: Climb +2 (Armor Check -6), Craft (Stonemason) +3
*Swim will NOT be one of his skills. Urist is deathly afraid of water.
Feats: Power Attack, Toughness, Weapon Focus: Dwarven Waraxe
Traits: Courageous, Indomitable Faith
Weapons: Dwarven Waraxe, Light Crossbow, Dagger
Armor Worn: Heavy Wooden Shield, Breastplate

What I'm wondering is, should I take the next level as Fighter, or multiclass into Barbarian for a level for fast movement and rage? Barbar gives me additional offense, but Fighter gets me closer to Fighter 4 and weapon specialization. Or is there a better class to go to for a multiclass dip, like Cavalier?

I played 3.5e for a few years, mostly in Living Greyhawk and Living Arcanis. I've played Pathfinder for a few months. I must not be terribly intelligent or bright, because I can't figure out how some classes are inherently better than others. Apparently there are only certain classes which, according to some people, are complete wastes of time, and if someone were to want to play one, then these people would just refuse to play with the offender.

I don't get it. How does the rogue suck? How does the monk suck? Why does the paladin suck? I tried looking in the archives and got overloaded. The posts I read didn't cite reasons.

Please, tell me exactly why, in your opinion, these classes are so bad they shouldn't be included in the game -- and how you would fix them. And please, don't limit it to just the paladin, rogue, and monk. If you think any class is subpar, please, give a shout out -- and be sure to tell us how you would fix this inequity.

I've started a couple of threads asking for character build advice, and I've seen other people start more threads, and even when we say 'no spellcasting', people still suggest we play spellcasters.

Maybe when we say 'no spellcasters' we should be saying 'NO SPELLCASTERS AND WE FREAKIN' MEAN IT!!!'

What gives with all the pushing towards casters? I for one don't like playing them. I loathe the Vancian spell system for D&D and Pathfinder; I think that when 4e dropped that system, it was one of the best things to happen to a roleplaying game. As a caster, I hate having only a limited number of spells per day. Eventually you RUN OUT. Then you're hosed.

In my quest to find the atypical characters to play, I've realized that most Pathfinder characters will never have a quality very common to fantasy protagonists: The naive newbie, the hapless hero who is dragged into a greater world kicking and screaming and despite his complete ineptitude, manages to eke out a win for the good guys by the skin of his teeth and absolutely blind luck. Most Pathfinders seem to have a deliberateness to them that just wouldn't work for the accidental hero, a willingness to step into harm's way and a bit of malice aforethought as they brandish their weapons or spells. Not what I'm looking for.

What I want, can be best described with the following paragraph:

"Hello! This is a very strange world! I've never been out of the scullery before. This is all so new and strange! Oh hello! You're a gnoll, aren't you? Why are you pulling out your weapon? AHHHH!!! WHY ARE YOU ATTACKING ME?!? Run away! Run away! AHHH!! I didn't mean to do that to you! Please stop trying to hurt me! AAAGH God I did it again!! WHY DOES LIFE HATE ME?!?!?"

Anyway, I've been trying to wrap this concept into Pathfinder terms, but I can't figure out how... it's that deliberateness factor that has stymied me. Most actions in combat are deliberate actions to hinder or harm an enemy, and that just doesn't work for the accidental hero. Obviously, bluff is going to be a required skill.

Now, I could make a 'useless' character very easily... but I don't want to do that. I want to make a character who is an asset to the party... but one that isn't acting deliberately to be a hindrance to the enemy. This means, for one, no spellcasting. Yes, the 'hapless apprentice' is a time-honored aspect of this literary concept. But I feel that spellcasting breaks the 'deliberateness' barrier -- the hapless apprentice is trying to do something that will hinder the enemy or help the party. No, I want this guy's actions to appear (almost) completely random.

The best I can come up with is some kind of monk; the unarmed fighting style lends itself quite well to flailing your arms about in sheer panic, and bonus feats like Improved Trip and Improved Disarm would seem to fit well with this concept, as the accidental hero manages somehow to get his opponent's legs tangled or knocks a weapon away with his random actions. But, there's that deliberateness factor. I'd need a great bluff score, and monks don't get bluff as a class skill (meaning I'd need to waste a feat on skill training), and they tend to use Charisma as a dump stat.

That would imply a bard... but again, there's that 'no spellcasting' limitation. Plus, bard song seems like a pretty deliberate action taken to help the party. Plus, the combat style of the bard just doesn't fit well. Most advice I've seen for a disarm bard says 'get a whip', and a whip doesn't mesh well with the accidental hero. This is not the plucky professor; this is the guy who doesn't mean to be an adventurer in the first place. Getting a whip implies the intention to use it, which breaks the deliberateness factor.

Rogue? I dunno, I'm kind of leery of being a rogue. Though, bluff is a class skill, and you can get the Combat Expertise/Improved Disarm feat chain started fairly early if you go Human (which I intend to do). The requirement to go with weapon attacks kind of breaks the deliberateness factor, but after all, Golarion's a dangerous world, and the accidental hero can swing around blindly with his old table-leg (club). And sneak attack is just another thing the hapless hero accidentally manages to do while running around like a chicken with his head cut off. (Now, I know I mentioned not wanting a weapon in the paragraph above with the bard. There's a difference between grabbing an old table-leg to defend yourself, and getting a whip where you're going to be way over there striking an opponent 15 feet away. Deliberateness is the deciding factor.)

Maybe the rest of you have better ideas? I'm not looking for combat efficiency here; I'm looking for something fun to roleplay. (After all, this is a roleplaying game, not an arena combat game.) I'm working with the Core rules here, and there might be something in another book that I'm not familiar with. Plus another race might be more suited for the concept; there's always the classic halfing hapless hero, but with the impending release of a certain film, I don't want to be seen as a copycat (which is why I'm kind of leery about being a rogue). I don't want to be a millstone around the party's neck; I just don't want this guy to be taken seriously.

A couple of days ago, I posted my new paladin idea. Well, I think I'm missing something, because I can't figure out why I can't make him work. And then it hit me: I have absolutely no experience with Pathfinder, and my 3.5e days are a long, long time ago.

A little note here: Our local Venture-Captain has put a moratorium on books in that you can't use books you don't own, except for the Core book. So, this has to be a Core build. (However, if someone has ideas that could be used from those other books, I'd appreciate the advice -- just remember that I don't have those books.)

Now, here's what I want: a trip-master paladin. I don't need to do damage, this is for Pathfinder Society and I've never really seen a need to end battles quickly in PFS. There are some stipulations to the character which will sound odd, and I'm sure that some of you will say "Why don't you play a rogue instead?" No. I want a paladin. And he will stay a paladin for all 12 levels, so no multiclassing.

Stats: NO DUMP STATS. This is for roleplaying. No Wisdom 7; in fact, no stats below 10. PERIOD.

He'll be wearing studded leather and using a rapier; yes, I know Paladins normally tank up and do the smiting thing. Don't wanna tank up.

I want to not be a hindrance in battle, but I don't mind not doing damage. Trip, disarm, these things I like. Damage, smiting, not so much. I tried it myself but trying to figure out CMB and CMD made my eyes cross. Like I said, my 3.5e days are a long time ago -- I'm much more into 4e these days.

After playing PFS this last weekend (no, didn't make it to GenCon, sorry), I had an idea for a new character. Basically, he's a trip-master... paladin.

Who is a pimp. And a member of the Cheliax organization.

After all, prostitution is not illegal in Absalom; the religious order of the Goddess of Lust is allowed there. And as a pimp, the character provides people (both males and females, he is not a sexist pimp) with a roof over their heads (brothel), three meals a day (six if they're a halfling), clothes on their backs, warmth for their bodies, and even well-respected professions. He isn't exploiting them, by any stretch of the imagination.

And the possibilities for a paladin to be a lawful pimp are incredible. Just think of the use of mercies alone. Eliminating fatigue with a touch ("Yes, m'dear, I can go all night long."), and later eliminating disease (healthiest House in the red light district!)... and of course, immunity to disease for the paladin himself.

The only question I have is, can a paladin worship a non-good deity? The core rulebook doesn't say, and the information I have says that Calistria is Chaotic Neutral. Not your typical paladin-style deity, but I'm all about playing the weird and unusual (hey, I play an insane dwarf, who's deathly afraid of carp).

And I'm not worried about playing a less-than-optimized tanking character (in fact, he'll probably never wear anything more than studded leather, so I doubt he'll be tanking). I play PFS for fun, not for minmaxing.

Anyone got any ideas, by the by? Feel free to shout them out, and if they're from another book than Core, please tell me which book -- I probably don't own it.