Search Posts
I think I largely did this to myself in some respect because we rolled for stats (4d6 drop, reroll 1's) and they rolled moderately high. I fudged their final numbers a tad (much to the chagrin of the players) cause they had multiple 18's and no scores below a 15. I know that's a dick move, I shoulda done point buy, however I asked permission of the players prior to changing the stats and everyone was cool with it. Moral of the story is going forward I will always do point buy. I don't particularly like it as a player, but I am learning the difficulty in not having a sure-fire way to balance everyone at character creation.
A semi-related question: Do you feel that if the party is steamrolling encounters and just rolling through the AP that its A) On the DM for not making the campaign challenging or B) Not something to worry about because it's the PC's prerogative to do what they wanna do? I admit that DMing isn't my strong suit, but I'm the only one in my group willing to try. I certainly don't want to railroad the campaign, but I also feel like there's a rich story to be told and want them to get the most out of it that they can instead of "encounter hopping". If that makes sense...
Thanks for the responses. I see the merit of your guys' input. It's very much appreciated. I definitely shouldn't have done that to the Paladin. I obviously overdid it and need to make some adjustments. I let my DM meta get the best of me and I should find other ways to make the haunts more story-oriented in their display and not mechanical. I thank you for your honesty. Gives me an answer to something that's been eating away at my mind this week. Thanks guys! :)
Hello everyone! I'm currently running ROTR:AE for a group of 4 friends, and am running into a slight dilemma. My party consists of the following (all at level 4/5, with their relative saving throws) Race and Class - Fort, Ref, Will
Situation is this: Spoiler Alert!!:
In the Aldern Estate, I've had to buff some of the DC's of the haunts and such, as they tend to save on anything more than an 8 or 9 on the die. DC's for the haunts are anywhere from 10-14 and without failing some of those DC's the horror-esque nature of the house encounter is sadly lacking and, I find, not as enjoyable. However I may have gone overboard. The main problem is the Paladin, however I think I've got a counter that's been semi-working out. Immune to fear effects and high as hell saves. The counter to this I've put in place is that instead of fear, he's left shaken for a very short period of time any time a haunt has a fear effect. His aura still grants full bonus to himself and his followers because I don't want to quash the Paladin's moment to shine with his abilities. In exchange I've given a bonus to using channel to dispel some of the haunts. Up until this point the entire party has pretty much beaten every saving throw in the game. They have been, until now, unstoppable.
I guess my real question is am I going too far? Am I buffing the house too much? The caster level of the Foxglove necromancer was 15,
I feel guilty, but I just want them to experience it. I accidently outright killed a player with Phantasmal Killer even though his saving throw roll was extremely high. TL;DR: how far should one go in buffing DC's for the pure motive of allowing the players to experience the full horror and evil of the location's encounter?
20 charge wand of Lesser Restoration is a 300 GP wand, as being a Level 1 Paladin spell. Makes full wand 750 and 20 charges 300. Yeah, action economy is going to be hideous no matter what I do. If I scrap the Lesser Res and go with 20 charge of Bless and 10 charge of Sound Burst, that leaves me with no other money left for scrolls, potions, etc. It's doable, but I think I'm in for a rough ride trying to do what I'm trying to do.
Weapon Finesse is basically free due to the feat tax ruling so my touch attacks should be decent, but it seems like my options are pretty slim if I'm not pure cast. I like the spiked gauntlet idea, and it's true that it's not for damage, really. So I'll ditch the other stuff. Seems like if I don't have at least a ranged weapon, I'll blow through all my spells and such in the first combat of the day or sit on my thumbs. Could invest in more wands, but I really don't have THAT much money to play around with.
I suppose another way to theme it would be that Cause Fear imparts brief glimpses of their bodies' eventual and inevitable decay, which is pretty creepy.
Another concern I have with Cause Fear over Doom is that after 6HD it becomes useless. Isn't that some wasted mileage for limited spell selection or should I really not be worried about that?Definitely. That is specifically why I suggested to swap it out at level 4 to the Command Spell. Command can wreck a foe long after level 6 just due to forcing foes to give AOOs to your beefy warriors. OH! I forgot that I could do that.
My plan was to mold spell effect flavor the way you are suggestion, so I do like that alot. Things like Cause Fear are a little more difficult to bend that way but I can live with it. :) I did consider dual-cursed, but it seemed like alot of detriment. The disadvantages seemed incredibly heavy. What would be the best way to do that? Which curses are most beneficial? They just seem to hurt.
Another concern I have with Cause Fear over Doom is that after 6HD it becomes useless. Isn't that some wasted mileage for limited spell selection or should I really not be worried about that?
Thanks guys! Just a few clarifications. Ultimately the goal is to focus on things that have to do with time, time displacement, divination, and so forth. Even if not mechanically superior, I want to stay as close to flavor as I can on that point. Alot of the revelations that appeal to me are debuffs to enemies, placing them out of time or causing them to age etc. I'll definitely play around with the stats as suggested, I'll see which is better. I put the 11 into Int cause I don't like having all even numbers. lol. I should probably just get over that one. I was under the impression that some of the revelations required higher Wis to up their DC's, but I may have misread. I'll have to look. This character is still in planning so I can swap out equipment and spells however I need to. I'll definitely swap out Doom for Cause Fear, as the flavor of both spells is relatively the same, but your suggestion as to it's functionality are valid. Thanks! I went with Sanctuary cause it can be cast on allies as a rescue button. Ultimately, I would like to focus on debuffs, but early game save DC's for enemies are always a little on the high side, so save or suck doesn't seem to work so well until higher level. I could be wrong, I mean my starting Cha seems pretty high. Plus the early game debuffs don't really seem to fit flavor, but I may be overly married to the concept and just need to get over it. I picked Deaf because silent spelling for free seemed like a pretty good benefit. I considered blind, but it seemed more detrimental. Is there any in particular you would go with that tends to go better?
Hello, friendly brain trust! I'm building out a concept that I am having trouble reconciling. Hoping to get some help. I'd like to build a time oracle. Combat role is a buffer/debuffer, role play as a seer and fortune teller. Below is what I have so far Rules:
Level 3 Oracle of Time
Attributes:
AC: 20, T-13, F-18
Mystery: Time
Feats:
Traits:
Weapons:
Armor:
Magic Gear:
Misc gear is what you'd expect, plus a Harrow Deck Spells:
I'm iffy on the spell selection, progression of spells, and weapons/alternatives to spellcasting in battle. Overall concept is one that is gifted with the manipulation of time and space. Eventually will have Haste/Slow, Hold spells, etc. Some of the special abilities require melee touch, which means I have to have a high enough AC to not die miserably up close. Help? :)
The fun of the many outweighs the fun of the one. This. Everyone should be brought into consideration, not alienated because they aren't having as much fun as everyone else. Even if the guy is being an asshat, he should be considered. GM should take a step back and figure out what made that guy an asshat. Simply looking for different gaming experiences is not a bad thing, and players shouldn't be alienated for that because they are the one vs many. It is, ultimately, a cooperative experience. A discussion should be had, and possibly a shift to the way the rest of whole is running things. Compromise isn't THAT hard. Those unwilling to bend to better the experience of the group is only out for themselves and should be playing something like an MMO or some other RPG in which that kind of attitude is perfectly well accepted and they can actually have fun with it. Playing Pathfinder, or any tabletop, isn't worth the mass hatred and raging and frustration. No GAME should be something that continually pisses you off. Once it becomes something you HAVE to do, I feel, it's not a game anymore, it's a job. If you enjoy that, good for you, that's perfectly fine, nothing wrong with that. But don't play cooperative games if you aren't willing to COOPERATE, COMMUNICATE, AND CONTRIBUTE. My two cents.
Clearly, fudging rolls upsets a whole lot of people, so maybe GMs should consider not doing it. +1 I feel the over-reaching failure here is not that the DM is "cheating" or "fudging" but that people really just don't know how to communicate. If you have a problem, be an adult and have a rational conversation. Don't be a child and pout that things aren't going your way an blame everyone else. I had one guy who pretended everything was fine at the table and then sent a flaming and aggressive email about how we were all a@*!&&#s for making a party decision he didn't like and that he wouldn't be coming back. I mean, really? An email? What are we, 14 year-old jr. high school kids? For christ's sake, talk it out it's alot easier and more constructive.
Yea, if he can't accept that the monsters stats will not match up with the MM entries. And this has been made abundantly clear, yet he still chooses to play and complain then he's being a jerk for placing what he wants over the collective enjoyment of the group.Every group gets its black pit of fun destruction at one point or another.Everytime, he was also the type who would suddenly get upset when all trolls have 22 AC and his roll of a 22 missed.I had a guy who was #1 could tell if the GM adjusted anything if the monster had 1 more hp than the MM entry he would ask why it wasn't dying.Would a response of "this one's tougher" elicit protest? I completely agree with this. Overall, cheating or no, fudging or no, "rocks fall" or not, as long as the COLLECTIVE experience is positive and people keep coming back for more, then everybody wins REGARDLESS. The experience of the whole group, DM and Party, is paramount to any tabletop game.
Everytime, he was also the type who would suddenly get upset when all trolls have 22 AC and his roll of a 22 missed.I had a guy who was #1 could tell if the GM adjusted anything if the monster had 1 more hp than the MM entry he would ask why it wasn't dying.Would a response of "this one's tougher" elicit protest? Sounds like a serious metagamer. Maybe the Dm was trying to quash that?
Which is still Pathfinder. Yay! We agree.The moment you alter the base rules in any way it's not Pathfinder. It's Pathfinder with House Rules. We could change the OP to say "tabletop" and the argument about fudging still applies. It doesn't matter if it's pathfinder or setting else. If your character sheet says pathfinder, your material says pathfinder, and your group says "we getting together for Pathfinder?" Then you're playing pathfinder.
Well reasoned but there's... Yes I agree, and I believe part of the point I was trying to make. It's a two-way street. Not every player is meant to jive with every DM and vice versa. I feel that a frequent failing is forgetting that there are millions of players and GM's out there, and people for that matter. Not everyone is meant to get along well with everyone ever. Don't get frustrated by people you can't stand and find a group that jives with what you want. Yeah, it's work, but it beats being pissed over a game.
Allot of good arguments to be had here. Interesting to see howany people fall on both sides. I find it interesting, however, that everyone assumes that the GM is always on the side of the player experience. When there's an even bigger issue at play: is the GM fudging rolls because he is attempting to better the experience of players, or is he fudging it to have his own way? I submit that it's the GM's game and he can do what he wants with it. But I never agree with the GM vs Players mindset, as it only focuses on the GM's enjoyment and is abusing the players time by simply playing god. It's all situational, though, but in my experience DM's range from all sides and players should always keep an open line of communication so they know who they're dealing with. If players are fine with DM vs player punishment, expect fudging. If they're not, find another DM. In any of these cases, I wouldn't call fudging cheating, I think people that gripe about their DM not using values as rolled are typically not in the game they think they signed up for, but want to blame the DM. All tabletop is a shared experience and should be treated as such. If you've got problems, voice them, and if you don't get what you think you need, have the decency to consider your own actions and find for yourself what works for you in a different group. I had a recent experience with a Shadowrun DM who was basically telling a story and if the players tried anything that deviated from it he used obviously ridiculous values to negate his unwanted outcomes. His dice pools were obviously made up and he lied about the rolls we could actually see on the table, turning failures into successes for himself. Player choice didn't matter. Not fun for the rest of the players at the table. So we had a talk and we went our separate ways. Simple as that. The only way to cheat is to steal the group experience away from the group and DM for only yourself. Just an opinion among many.
So I've sorted awhile for an answer regarding this, and while there doesn't seem to be anything in the RAW, there's a lot of debate over the answer. And that is should taking damage while in a chokehold, or otherwise suffocating, make it more difficult to keep your breath held? It seems to me like it should be difficult to hold ones breath while being strangled and someone taking an earthbreaker to your ribs. And it's entirely possible that including such further complication to grappling and strangulation would only serve to OVERcomplicate the system. Just makes me wonder why anyone would ever take the chokehold feat if it takes 2 whole minutes to bring someone down by chokehold. Things like jawbreaker seem much more useful for locking out spellcasters unarmed.
So I've had this idea for awhile to do a Tiefling sorceror of the Infernal bloodline. Building this character I'm not quite sure about it's effectiveness. Mostly because of the hit to CHA. Sorc features are supposed to be treated as being 2 higher, but does that also get calculated into spells known/per day and caster level? And the more important question: is this even viable? I'm not expecting to be super effective in combat per se, just not useless. More of a controller role. Thoughts?
I've run into a bit of a snag in my run of ROTR. I had several problems with the final encounter, both mechanical and plot. Spoilers follow. The Aldern Foxglove encounter was not only a complete steamroll for the party, but they cut him off early before he could reveal any information. What's more, they burned everything on the table including the letter from Xanesha. The first problem: Aldern Foxglove was murdered in less than 5 rounds or so. Round 1 consisted of the mage casting Spiked Pit right behind Aldern, which he succeeded in avoiding with his good Reflex save. Before anything else happened, the fighter bullrushed him into the pit like a sparta kick from 300. This was handled by a CMB check vs his CMD and once that was done the encounter was basically over. Since he gets no additional save from a bullrush, he was instantly caught in the pit, unable to climb out and unable to jump out, regardless of his ring of jumping (30ft deep pit). They picked him off from a distance with spells and ranged weapons as he tried to climb. It was awful and anticlimactic. Did I miss something in the calculations or is it just a powerful tactic that ended in a steamroll? Also, this all occurred before Aldern could say a word to reveal any plot items. What's more, they torched the table for some reason. I offered several perception checks which were responded to with "Don't care, burn the **** it's creepy." Needless to say, the party was determined to destroy all evidence to the plot and now have nothing to go on. Any thoughts?
So I've searched high and low but can't really find a definitive answer for this. Rules for drowning are pretty straightforward. My question is what if someone were choking you while holding your head under water? Obviously this would require a grapple, and possible a pin. But would this increase the DC of the check vs drowning or shorten the duration for which one can hold their breath? Obviously the stress from the grapple and the struggle would consume more oxygen per a logical standpoint, but is there a rule out there for this kind of thing?
So I've been going over this time and time again in my mind trying to view it from a logical and objective angle, but I just can't wrap my head around this one. In our Council of Thieves game we have only 3 players and a cohort. A Dwarven Two-Handed fighter (kind of a glass cannon) a Paladin and a Scout Rogue with a Scorpion Whip. The cohort is a pretty basic level 10 Bard. We're currently level 12. I refuse to go looking for stat blocks or forums for GM's to figure out how this encounter was SUPPOSED to have gone, but we got nailed to the wall. We prepped with the Rogue and Fighter downing potions of Shield to gain shield bonuses to AC and Magic Circle Against Evil potions. The Bard cast Greater Invis on the Rogue for added sneak attacks. This all appeared to be for naught, however. The Bard supported from outside the room while the others stormed in. She tried to use the Morrowfall to SunBeam Ilnerik, who my DM told me would have to roll a nat 1 to receive any effect at all from due to evasion and his high reflex save. Granted, I mean this would've been a one-hit-kill otherwise, and what's the fun in that? The rogue couldn't sneak attack Ilnerik because he was not more than 5 levels of rogue higher than him. Without sneak attack his attacks against Ilnerik were futile. He couldn't hit on anything lower than a 35. Before the battle even began the vamps were Hasted, Bardsonged, and Ilnerik was invisible. Only the rogue could see him with the goggles found in Walcourt. The vamps aside from Ilnerik himself were a challenge but manageable, but after they were gone, Ilnerik had True Seeing cast on him, revealing the invisible rogue to him. He was hitting for enough damage to halve the Paladin's hit points and drop her effective level by 6 before the end of the 3rd round of combat. The fighter was able to hold his own against the vampire barbarian in the room, but was then punished by a round or two of Ilnerik WhirlWind attacking everyone. Amidst all of this the unseen servant kept flipping the switch to drown the captives in the room, whilst the Rogue kept flipping it back to keep them from dying while trying fruitlessly to attack with his other attacks against Ilnerik. It just seems like an impossible challenge when the little damage you deal is being fast healed while the enemy is invisible and sapping the levels from your characters with AC's of around 32 after the buffs were made. His saves had to have been in the med to high teens making any offensive spells difficult to use especially when Evasion is involved causing him to take no damage at all. Detect evil to locate Ilnerik resulted in the characters casting it being stunned. I may be just ranting and sound like a huge baby here, but the session had to end with Ilnerik being barely touched, even by smites because of the 6 neg levels on the Paladin, the fighter being dropped and then restored to about 10% health and prone, with the morrowfall stolen by the invisible Ilnerik. I'm just frustrated because it seems like no matter what I chose to do to get around the difficulties, my decisions were being thrown back into my face totally useless. I know it's supposed to be difficult, but is it supposed to be THIS difficult? I'm thinking this is because we have 3 PC's and the campaign is built for 4-5. I may be completely wrong, so if so correct me. If nothing else, give me some ideas on how to deal with Ilnerik cause he seems like a "rocks fall" kind of encounter. Especially on top of trying to keep the other captives from drowning in the locked coffins.
No, our group has used APG alot. I'm unsure as to his reasons, to be honest. He's currently running two games at the moment, one of which is using anything we can pull that's Paizo material. I'm thinking APG just might not be fitting for this particular run, could be wrong. I'll have to ask. Didn't give it a second thought, really.
I know this has been brought up several times, but it seems there's more disagreement then anything regarding the best way to build this kind of hero. Several likenesses have been referenced (Achilles from the movie Troy, Spartans like unto the movie 300, etc) but I haven't really seen anything that will fit my situation. My DM is doing a combat intensive short campaign in which he has openly stated that the goal is for him to TPK the party. Well, more power to him but I'm aiming to make it tough on him. :P I'd like to get advice on a shield and spear build that can hold their own on the battlefield. Now I've already decided to go Trident since it's favorable to the shortspear. I'm limited to Vanilla PF for rules and feats so no monkey grip conversion from 3.5 or APG variants. If I have to go sword and board then so be it, as long as I give my DM a run for his money haha. I've examined several ways of doing this with either a Pally or Fighter, but am unsure which is the optimum. Any help is appreciated. (Yes I know if he wants to TPK he will, he's the DM, but still I can pretend I stand half a chance :P ) Edit: Clarifying information - Starting level is 9, only core rulebook for character creation. Stat method is 2d6+8 for each which I rolled the stats below on an online roller. I just copied and pasted the values cause I'm lazy that way. Not sure about starting wealth for gear yet, but basics first anyway. Stat rolls: Roll set 1
Roll set 2
Roll set 3
Roll set 4
Roll set 5
Roll set 6
I currently have two of these kinds of builds in progress in games at the moment. One is a Arcane Duelist/Rogue/Arcane Trickster - With arcane strike and the right buffs you've got yourself a decent swashbuckler type. The other is a weird one, and probably not what you're lookin' for - Infiltrator 3/Sorc 2/Dragon Disciple - With natural claw and bite attacks at full bab every round, it's looking promising.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Wild Shape is useless. It just didn't fit the flavor of the character. I'm weird that way, even though it cripples my characters.
I'm currently running a Sorc/Druid/Mystic Theurge that NEVER wildshapes. A good option, if your DM allows, is a feat that I think is called Animal Hide which spends a Wild Shape use for increased nat armor for a number of rounds. Can't remember the resource, though...It's old 3.5 I think and I don't have the reference material in front of me.
+1 on the Conjuration Aside from free dimension door at higher levels, some of the best offensive spells (Not the most powerful, mind you, but IMO best useful) are conjuration, as they are not subject to spell resistance most of the time. The pit spells were a great addition, and in general summoning creatures is always a nice fallback for crowd control. Two words: Celestial Rhino :P
Only negative about the spell expertise is that Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus wouldnt apply to them as Spell-like abilities. :(I wouldn't be so sure about that. Some time ago, a developer stated very clearly that a spell-like ability was treated as a spell in every way except where noted, even going so far as to say that normal metamagic feats would work with them if only they had spell slots. Really? That's odd...them why do they have feats like Empower and Quicken spell-like ability when a normal Empower or Quicken metamagic feat would work? Is there a reference you can point to for this? PS: I'm not saying I disbelieve your claim, would simply like to confirm for my own curiosity's sake :)
Another option would be to defer to group majority decision with the players and let them figure it out amongst themselves. After all, it's the other PC's that are in danger of being outshined, not the DM for creating a difficult challenge for which he has unlimited resources and no restrictions for which to do so (to a degree). And ultimately it's the other players who run the risk of being upset about it, so let them handle it :)
For these kinds of situations I usually use this handy dandy website. All in all, it's not really about not trusting someone. It's more on the lines of keeping everyone to the same standard. But there is always that one exception, such as a two-hour drive. I Have to agree with everyone on the opinion that explaining the situation as a party dynamics thing. I truly think that's the next best option in this case.
The interesting thing I'm finding with this whole debacle is that people are trying so hard to read between the line for what "assumed" and "roll" and yadda yadda semantically means, but nobody has taken heed to read between the line of why stat blocks in the Bestiary have two representations of HP. If it was madatory to have an average then they would list a flat HP value, not both. What's the point of putting the total dice if you have the CR staring you in the face and can just list that the creature gets 10 hp's per CR or something abridged of that nature. It's funny which lines people choose to read between....
On that note I think we can all agree that Straight AC is over-rated and other concerns should be addressed such as low Touch and HP totals. I'd almost venture to say that Touch and HP is more important, as physical damage can often be far less of an issue than spell damage and effects. Or maybe we can't and we'll beat a dead horse 'till the end of time. Either way, we're repeating ourselves. Mmm..cookies...nomnomnom
I think the problem stems from the age-old predicament that what is thematically intriguing is not always feasable in an executable sense for the current RAW. Due to all the exceptions and differences between Eidolon's and other creatures of their type, it gets to be one of those things where DM's just take it at face value, which is NOT something you can do in this case. Then half-way through the campaign they realize "Why can't I balance this crap?" and thus the neverending cycle of Eidolon's are Broken threads. Bottom line, DM's. Learn to read. It is a skill that will enrich your lives! :D I'm only half-kidding.... |
