Any thoughts on an interesting tanky PC for a Dark Sun campaign?
I am joining a group late, they're at 3rd level. I will be the 7th party member but with absences the average is 5. Only one other semi-tank and the rest are psionicish.
I am just getting into the setting and realize there are restrictions on class and race. But I have not yet absorbed the flavor. Any inspiration would be great. Thanks!
The FAQ makes sense to me for one ability of one class affecting an ability of another class. And in particular, sorceror/wizard spells are the same and are arcane.
But having something that makes divine "spells" and arcane "spells" interchangeable seems weird. Shouldn't source and type matter?
(Aside: Certainly it ruins the flavor)
Imagine if divine spells were called "deity mainfestations" instead of "spells" and they were "called" instead of "cast". The application of "Lose any [calling]" to "spells" would seem beyond absurd.
OTOH, psionics is framed in entirely different language yet the default is to treat powers like arcane. Still that doesn't lead to mixing, per se.
But I thought that if you get pushed back by a bull rush that you provoked an AoO? That would be as passive as traveling mounted. I may be misremembering.
For example, see the "Helpful Notes" box for polymorph. Gaining swim speed allows for water breathing. But it does not take away regular breathing.http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/p/polymorph
A player of mine has the trap spotter talent.....
Just saying, I like your setup/kobold defense. Both the cultural-martial guerrilla tactics of the kobolds and RPing aspect of making PCs realize they need to be deliberate and pay attention (e.g., "hurry up, it's just another shower curtain!").
Nothing to add on what others have said about rules. But for unsolicited advice: whatever types of rolls you decide on, try to desensitize the Ps to them so that their metagame instincts aren't aroused.
In case one more experience is valuable to the discussion...
As GM, I play like AD does, giving the benefit of the doubt for smoother play. I often also describe them being sneaky, detecting, etc. as I relay what they are experiencing.
I have a good poker face so they don't always know if their rolls were successful: e.g., "As you pad quietly up to the door and listen with held breath you hear only the ambient dripping from the cave walls around you." There are enough false negatives (and sometimes false positives) that it stays interesting and they keep the mood of being engaged in the mundane.
However, as a player (for either of the two GMs I play with), I like to roll my own dice constantly to stay engaged. Always perceiving, always sneaking. Over various segments, e.g., once per room, hallway, doorway, or 30 to 90 feet, mumbling the role playing part of it. It's fun because the GM sees the outcomes of the dice and it provides for opportunities to have unexpected failures that would have never happened otherwise.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Wow. Rarely do I "LOL" in real life, much less feel compelled to type "LOL". But man, this dialogue sketch cracked me up on so many levels. Not least of which, we must share the same group of friends.
Also, the Cheetos player vs the in-game character from above was transcendent and epic.
I think he was being sarcastic to point out previously evident logic fallacies.
But seriously, these are game rules, not science or theology; there's not "true truth" waiting to be revealed by the devs. Rules are constructed for 1) balanced but probablistic gameplay, 2) verisimilitude to improve the experience, 3) create opportunities for strategy, 4) and maybe to be interesting mechanics or even mechanics to inspire flavor on their own. I am sure there are more to be added to this list...
The rules are a starting place.
If your group or you agree to allow power attack with whirlwind, then try it experimentally. If it is terribly broken or imbalancing then decide whether that is ruining the game. If not, then enjoy it. If it is ruining the game for someone or everyone, then ditch it.
And ditching it is its own roleplaying opportunity: "Pedro the Giant San Franciscan Monk discovered that he could throw incredible sidearm curve balls that no batter could hit. But he also knew that the unnatural technique was wearing and tearing his elbow. He couldn't sustain the sweet move and switched back to his bread and butter pitches."
"A) the monsters aren't stupid"
+1 and amen.
sometimes they are but we err way too much on the side of seeing them as passive, static, red-shirt obstacles.
"If you give a sentry one stealth check per round of stealthing you basically ensure that the PC will eventually lose. Given enough rolls the player will roll bad and the NPC will roll good."
Although, 1) I like the dramatic effect of the second stealth check right before the character is "home free" at the door; and
2) Context is everything. Is there a reason the guards might be extra vigilant? Or is this 'ho-hum' security guard duty? If there had been a recent attack or theft in the area, I might give the guard one more chance as he scans the area again, and signal to the PCs that these guards are pretty serious. (Maybe even have the PCs roll a perception check to see if they notice the anxious darting eyes of an alert guard.)