lokidr's page

lokidr wrote:

AwesomenessDog wrote:

For my players, I give Animal Companions but not familiars ABP at effective druid level -2. The idea is that an animal companion is about the power level of a cohort NPC, who should have some wealth of their own. Obviously when the NPC comes in, they're coming in with gear, and then they start sucking party resources so the idea sorta loosely applies, if anything the NPC/AC equivalent is getting slightly more, but animal companions tend to fall off later anyway. Familiars of course do not deserve any of the free stuff because very rarely do you see them getting anything in the first place, but also if they were to get it, it can just come from the PC's. Additionally, Eidolons do not get their own ABP and similarly pull from the PC because they come with the restriction that a slot occupied by one is occupied for both (e.g. they can't both wear a belt of strength).

In most games I've played, cohorts take from the leadship character's money for gear, not an even share with the PCs.

It seems strange to treat the different kinds of personal allies differently. A guardian architype familiar or an improved familar could get good use of the ABP. An Eidolon sharing slots with the summoner doesn't seem to change the need for additional items or permanent spells. Even the animal companions that don't get all the slots get more out of the ABP than others. Why wouldn't it make more sense to to treat them all the same and share/split ABP like the eidolon?

In theory that is true, but whenever the player gets their frist/a new cohort, that cohort isn't coming in naked and unarmed; they will have some gear and the amount is as a heroic NPC of the PC's level -2 (assuming your GM isn't gimping you and giving you an even further reduced cohort). This would encourage high turn over of your cohorts or other immersion breaking chicanery to counter said turnover, and as the ABP system is designed to in a way simplify WBL and gear, making it more complicated seem...

I think we play in different syles of games. Leadership is already the strongest feat in the game, just to have a spellcaster in the back to help out. My tables have always played cohorts with NPC wealth to start, not heroic and there has never been a replacement because that would strike us as wrong.

As for the difference of Eidolons and AC/Familiars, the matter is mostly to do with power level and intended usefulness. A guardian familiar is at best just a HP sponge to distract a low intelligence enemy from the owner of said familiar; the remaining 99% of the time they just sit in your pocket and give you some minor stat boosts making ABP pointless. Animal Companions have a tendency to massively fall off in offensive capability, even with wealth investment (their AC usually is fine though), and while on one hand they can use the boost, on the other not giving them is a bit of a similar gimp to pet classes, as for example a druid likely would not buy a belt of phys perfection but they would buy a weaker one themselves and another for the pet (which is also more cost efficient). Eidolons on the other hand need no help being viable at all levels. You have to try to build an ineffective eidolon, and that's on top of the hinderances that they can't wear armor at all and can't use slots taken by the PC; my method tries to preserve that, even if you can have ABP's physical prowess on either the PC/eidolon and also a belt on top of that.

It sounds as if you are trying to balance different followers based on their utility as you see them. That isn't exactly my experience, I've made some nearly game-breaking animal companions with just buff spells and selective items in the middle levels. I've also seen players with relatively useless eidolons but that was at least partially on purpose.

Assuming animals need the boost, which compared to what eidolons can be makes some sense, compare ABP for druid-2 to HD of animal: druid-2 loses out until 11th level where it evens out and then kicks ahead by 15th. Animals definately need more at later levels where they drop off so druid-2 seems like the better option.

No one so far has said "animals get nothing", so it seems like there needs to be an option for something. I think I'm going to try split bonuses with animal and see how it goes. Giving boosts later is always better than taking them away.

For my players, I give Animal Companions but not familiars ABP at effective druid level -2. The idea is that an animal companion is about the power level of a cohort NPC, who should have some wealth of their own. Obviously when the NPC comes in, they're coming in with gear, and then they start sucking party resources so the idea sorta loosely applies, if anything the NPC/AC equivalent is getting slightly more, but animal companions tend to fall off later anyway. Familiars of course do not deserve any of the free stuff because very rarely do you see them getting anything in the first place, but also if they were to get it, it can just come from the PC's. Additionally, Eidolons do not get their own ABP and similarly pull from the PC because they come with the restriction that a slot occupied by one is occupied for both (e.g. they can't both wear a belt of strength).

In most games I've played, cohorts take from the leadship character's money for gear, not an even share with the PCs.

It seems strange to treat the different kinds of personal allies differently. A guardian architype familiar or an improved familar could get good use of the ABP. An Eidolon sharing slots with the summoner doesn't seem to change the need for additional items or permanent spells. Even the animal companions that don't get all the slots get more out of the ABP than others. Why wouldn't it make more sense to to treat them all the same and share/split ABP like the eidolon?

Sorry to necromancy this post, but it's come up at my table.

I think it's clear you can split your bonus with your animal companion, like +1/+1 attunement. That would leave on vunerable or just a few points below the rest of the party.

Another alternative from Redit was allow all the items to purchase, but only for companions. At half money, it would keep them down, but it seems to defeat the point of "skip the basic stuff" that the system was inteneded to support.

Anyone have experience?

An quasit familiar would have the change shape ability and telepathy and empathy with the caster. Imps would have more forms available.

Since you honestly seem to be trying to understand my viewpoint, I'll try once more...

lokidr wrote:

So players are expected to ask if each option is OK. Is there no 'open' list just to cut time?

I don't see how, "I'm taking Power Attack this level, OK?" "OK." takes any time at all. Our level-ups usually take under 10 minutes per PC, with the exception of Mr. "I have to read and ponder every possible option before I pick", and it's a lot faster for me to be there, helping him choose, rather than have him show up at the next game totally unprepared.

There are 92 spells in Paizo for a 11'th level wizard to choose, and that assumes he is taking a 6th level spell. Every spell has it's own details such as SR and range that aren't obvious. This does not include the choice of a feat. It seems strange to me that players who are putting in effort would pick through that quickly. Most characters are more complicated than a low level fighter of your example.

lokidr wrote:

You add the restriction that players sit with all the other players...

No. I add the restriction that I'm going to review their level-ups before the next session, and I'm going to make a certain amount of time open so they can all get together and discuss what they're doing. Mr. "3-hour level-up" usually does his stuff at home, e-mails me what he wants to do, and I'll e-mail back the "OK" or "Not OK".

Ah, so you don't all level characters together. That explains a lot.

lokidr wrote:

Cooperative means operate together. If I'm the tank, I don't need to discuss taking options to better tank to cooperate: it's my job and I should do it well.

Sounds much more like a PFS table than a homebrew.

You don't consider PFS a valid campaign? Do you assume most home games are significantly different than PFS?

lokidr wrote:

I don't ask each round what I should do...

Please don't troll. You know darned well I never suggested such a thing.

It looks like you took the argument personally. I was making point about cooperative gaming. You agree it's silly ask each round how to play. I take that same view of leveling. Are your players primarily young or inexperienced that you feel you need to more involved?

Since you're obsessed with the gnome illusionist with Color Spray...

Hmm, that sounds like a troll :)

Now, suppose someone came to me with the same gnome illusionist and had some bizarre assortment of traits and feats that raised the DC from around 15 to over 20 and made it an at-will ability, and at that point I'd put my foot down.

A charisma 20 gnome sorcerer with spell focus can cast five DC 18 color-sprays a day which can royally screw over 1st level encounters. Is that an unforgivable sin? Maybe you are just prone to the hyperbole.

Having hard and fast concrete rules may be "easier", but if it's a whitelist you'll miss interesting character choices. I had a character take the whole series of drow noble feats and she ended up being the best PC I've ever run for. If I were just whitelisting, there's no way I would have ever allowed those feats. If it's a blacklist, you prevent people with perfectly valid build concepts from taking something that fits in perfectly.

Perhaps you missed the opening of the thread:

archetypes/builds/feats that just stick out as too unwieldy or just too good to allow casually into a game.

I'm not banning drow nobles but it is certainly something I would want to discuss up front. Power attack-Why even mention it?

CWheezy wrote:

I don't believe anyone actually allowes simulacrum in their game

I do. For both NPC's and PC's. One of my players actually had a "Copy in every material city" at one stage, cool campaign.

I've had Simulacrum banned from games I've played but I've never considered banning it personally. I've never considered casting it actually, it always felt like an NPC spell to me, like guards and wards. I also assumed you needed the creature you were duplicating present for the casting, but that's not a requirement either. How would you even take half the special abilities of pit fiend? All round, it's problematic.

On the other hand, I love the idea of having a copy of my character in every city and being a spymaster of a guild of clones.

You can ban after someone takes something. If it is the first time you've encountered it, then it is fully within your rights as the GM to do so.

You just say, "Ok, that is broken and I don't want it in my game, so I'm not going to have it in my game. Rebuild the character or bring a different character in, you're allowed a free rebuild (Class, Race and Talents) with WBL up to the wealth you've accrued thus far.

You're happy, the player gets to try something new so he is happy.

I've ran into a few players who complain about this, but they are few and far between. In most cases they go in thinking the trait or feat is overpowered, so they are not surprised when it gets the ban hammer. At the end of the day, if the player is not going to back down on not being allowed to use the now banned piece of content, they can always leave to use it in a different game. I'd rather have players who realize that certain combinations can be banned and that if they are taking advantage of it when it is banned they'll be offered a rebuild, instead of players who want to try and boss the GM around.

This seems confrontational and apparently leads to complaints. Isn't it better to be proactive and know the problematic combinations up front? I think this why many DMs have an "approved" list of books they understand fairly well with options they don't like taken out, like PFS and the additional resources.

I agree, if everything is open and then a player shows up with a broken combination you didn't think of up-front it can be banned retroactively. But realize you must first take something away from that person, something they liked enough to take it over all the other options. Taking things from players is not a happy time, even if you give them some alternative. The player at least lost the time they put into the character and the time it takes to make a new one. It's an old psychology concept: loss aversion. Humans don't like to give up anything unless they are getting something they think is better.

Can I assume you keep a list of these options so a different player doesn't take the same thing again? What characters have bothered you enough that you make the player start over?

lokidr wrote:

There may be a style difference here I'm not thinking about.

Definitely different, then. We have "leveling-up" sessions where we all do it together and the players and GM are involved, so during the level up the player asks, "Is it OK for me to take this?" and I can quickly think about it and say, "Yes" or "No", depending on the circumstances.

So players are expected to ask if each option is OK. Is there no 'open' list just to cut time?

lokidr wrote:

Do most DMs run the other way around: nothing is open unless you get permission first?

I'd say that's a little extreme. We just do level-ups together so we're all on the same page.

I don't know if it's extreme, but it seems to describe your method. You add the restriction that players sit with all the other players and you when they level. If someone has to leave early or can't make it to the game that week, do they level alone or have their own leveling session?

Maybe I'm slow, but I take a lot of time to consider options. My paladin/oracle has a lot of odd options to weigh. The straight barbarian, not so much. Group leveling will lead to a lot of snap decisions and all that implies for both DM and players.

In my mind, it IS a cooperative game.

Cooperative means operate together. If I'm the tank, I don't need to discuss taking options to better tank to cooperate: it's my job and I should do it well. I don't ask each round what I should do, even as I consider other players in my decisions. If this IS a role playing game, the players need to play their own role.

lokidr wrote:

So you ban gnome illusionists with colorspray in the first two levels? How about witches with slumber hex? One quick cut and those are instant kills.

Not against undead, which are a very common creature type in low-level AP modules. And since I've already said I judge things on a case-by-case, player-by-player basis, it's rather silly to clog up the thread with, "Well, what about THIS?" situations.

This isn't a question of specific abilities. You said:

Unforgivable sin #2: Optimizing to the point that you can single-handedly annihilate CR-appropriate encounters in a single round.

A gnome illusionist with colorspray can do just that to many if not all encounters in first couple levels. I want to understand what you think the line should be since you called it unforgivable to cross. At least one other player at my table tends to get annoyed when I deal more than half the damage in a combat. Yet I have never been asked to change, go figure. ;)

lokidr wrote:

I assumed most DMs run with open character advancement, i.e. everything is available unless stated otherwise. I want players to make interesting characters for themselves first so they can enjoy playing.

Do most DMs run the other way around: nothing is open unless you get permission first?

This is a problem I've struggled with. It's a side-effect of options-bloat. There are too many things in the game now for me to pre-ban every potentially overpowered option. So my current rule is to list a few banned things, ask the players to try to avoid being significantly more powerful than the group average, and hope I don't have to ban things retrospectively once they've been chosen.

I'm pretty much in the same place. Options bloat is the reason I started this thread: looking for easily broken and ban-worthy bits. It's a credit to Paizo that the new options themselves aren't just plain better than the earlier choices after APG. We've had three books since with full classes yet they're hardly mentioned here.

There may be a style difference here I'm not thinking about.

I banned Leadership because the player in question wanted to abuse it. Not only to gain more spotlight and more power, but also as helper to enforce his kind of quite aggressive RP.

Quick example: In my 3-player roleplay-heavy group, I'd be perfectly happy if one of them took leadership so I didn't have to run a GMNPC. In my 7-player "problem" group, one player asked for Leadership and I out-and-out banned it because I knew he wouldn't be able to manage it, and because it's unfair to add any more nonsense to an already-crowded table.

Same feat. Same GM. Different players, different table, different outcome.

You can't "ban" after a player has taken an option, you can only remove it and all the annoyance all around that this applies. But I assumed most DMs run with open character advancement, i.e. everything is available unless stated otherwise. I want players to make interesting characters for themselves first so they can enjoy playing.

Do most DMs run the other way around: nothing is open unless you get permission first? It would force the conversation on every single character option that could be overpowered. It also seems like a lot of time and effort that annoys more players than it keeps in check. There isn't agreement here on even the CRB as leadership and item creation are problematic at times so you can't even really say "all of book X, Y, Z". So do you check every barbarian who wants to take power attack to see if they are outpacing the rest of the party?

Unforgivable sin #2: Optimizing to the point that you can single-handedly annihilate CR-appropriate encounters in a single round.

So you ban gnome illusionists with colorspray in the first two levels? How about witches with slumber hex? One quick cut and those are instant kills.

Ettercap bard with alternate class feature to affect only vermin. The normally weak giant spiders aren't just attacking randomly any more, they are coordinated, boosted and...dancing?

They're also generally very good about self-regulating. We had a summoner who just wrecked everything with a bite-grab combo. The player eventually became self-conscious and stepped away from the character for a different one. I trust them to know what they find fun.

Self regulating is important, after all if a player is trying to be annoying no ban list will stop them. But isn't walking away from a character disruptive itself? I want players to be able to play through a campaign with one character so we have story continuity.

Fun is also relative. The character who is tearing it up might have had a lot of fun, even if the other players were annoyed. Now the player has to walk away from something fun for the sake of others. This list is about avoiding that conversation up front.

With ALL of that said, the only thing my group seems to universally despise or resent are pistoleros, and I can understand why. When at level 10 you can deal 200+ damage on a full round attack and leaves no one with any chance to do anything, some restrictions should apply. Even then, the pistolero is not banned, just strongly frowned upon.

I was running Skull and Shackles where the would-be captain was a pistolero. He easily put out the most damage and was the most annoyed with the game: Underwater he was useless, early levels the constant rain was problematic, and enemies would key in on him when he let them have it leading to the most deaths in the campaign. I didn't modify any encounters specifically for him but when the enemy see you one-shot one of their number they either charge you or run. The player toughed it out and eventually understood how drawing agro worked against him and played down his abilities. In retrospect, I should have said no pistolero and/or no double barreled pistols.

We basically had French Deadpool.

I approve. How do you say chimichanga in french?

I ban most of the 9 level casters. Cleric, Oracle, Druid,, Shaman and Witch all get cut to 6 levels since they have enough other toys to play with to make a decent go of it even without their full casting.

That is hard-core. Banning two of the most iconic classes of D&D, cleric and wizard, seems like it makes the game almost unrecognizable. Do you just cap casting after 6th level spells, mostly telling players to go elsewhere?

Rather than having a specific list, I think the best is to have a conversation with the players when you're starting the campaign, and have everyone agree on what kind of game you want. This should happen even before the GM sets the tone on what kind of campaign it is, thematically.

The problem in question is not theme, it's manageability. Most people understand that ninja (or even monk) doesn't fit in a world with no asian flavor. They might not understand that the Master Summoner is problematic. Hey, there are summon spells, right? Even if a given game element can be used responsibly, it's good to have a general idea of the most commonly abused elements before players take them so you don't have the pain of taking something away.

@Theos, the point of a do not use list is to prevent the need for explicitly customized adventures. I know I can defeat any character who shows up at my table but if I do so over and over, it is not a roleplaying game with a world but just a game of brinksmanship with the players. Opposing players directly is bad plan.

For crafting feats, it makes little sense in many games to say "you have no significant time to yourself". Houseruling them out of usability is the same a banning them.

On leadership, just making the option useless/annoying by taking control of the cohort is functionally the same as taking over summoned creatures or having weapons refuse to fight. If you are going to pull a jerk move, just avoid it in the first place.

Master Summoner: I'm glad you agree only some players handle it well. Those players can ask for the privilege.

Gunslingers do have misfire, but both pistolero and musket master start ignoring it entirely. Base gunslingers get dex to damage, which is bad enough. We don't need archetypes that ignore misfire as well.

Protection from arrows gives DR 10/magic. You don't think an archer would have a magic bow? Fickle winds instead turns archers into warriors, essentially telling that player not to bother against that enemy. Very few combats should tell a valid concept "you just don't matter".

Slumber Hex: some enemies are immune, most are not. If all you fight are elves, dragons and undead, it will be useless. Against anything else, it's a killer. The fact that you suggest giving powerful enemies an optional game element like hero points should show how disruptive it can be.

I'd never heard the Cornugon Smash/Hurtful combo but I like it. Hurtful is from Monster Codex. Like bestiary, it's may not be for players. One extra attack is damn nice, but not more than 3rd level spell powerful and you risk your demoralize. Also, there are a lot of immune enemies.

Goliath Druid: is being a giant really better than all animals? You lose the option to be immune to crits/sneak attack with elemental form.

Damnation feats do look powerful, but even energy immunity for three feats isn't that good. Leadership give me protection from any element. It's not quite the same scale.

Save or suck spells (one roll) are something that should be revised out of the game, but that's not a simple matter to address.

Thanks for the input.

Most game groups have at least an unofficial "do not use" list. In Pathfinder Society, you cannot be a vivisectionist for example. Some of these are thematic: assassins don't fit in a "heroic, open and for the people" style game, at least without a strong justification.

I'm considering the more general options; those archetypes/builds/feats that just stick out as too unwieldy or just too good to allow casually into a game. To me, these options should be heavily justified before being taken and the DM should reserve the right to say "that's enough".

Craft Wondrous Item: just about everything fits into this category and extensive use (in a campaign with any significant downtime) hurt the wealth by level curve. Unlike weapons or armor, there are always more wondrous trinkets you want. The caster/normal divide doesn't need any help.
Invulnerable Rager: I'm less sure of this but the DR combined with high hitpoints seem overpowering.
Leadership: it is functionally a second character. Just a caster performing buffs is major change in power level of the party. Then there is the spotlight problem.
Master Summoner: too many actions in a longer combat for one player, too much tracking, too much headache
Musket Master: See pistolero
Non-Unchained Summoner: eidolons were given too much latitude and are too easy to break
Pistolero: they only do one thing, but that thing is win combats. The game devolves into "kill the gunslinger" which isn't fun for the DM or the player. Double barreled pistols on a pistolero just throw out too much damage or are useless and invalidate the character concept (underwater combat).
Ranger Improved Precise Shot: see Zen Archer
Sap Master: sneak attack does not need to be doubled plus twice the number of dice rolled
Slumber Hex: one save, most dangerous monster is done. It makes the game boring
Zen Archer: flurry of arrows with improved precise shot at half the normal level. Like the pistolero they either win or magic renders them entirely inert, either way is not very fun.

What is your list? Are any of these overblown?

Challenging a group has more to do with how enemies are used than what enemies are. Guns are close to useless underwater, bludgeoning attacks roll at half damage with -2 attack. The Sahuagin of Mancatcher Cove know their lair and how to use it. If they focus on one character at a time, probably that undine, they should be able to overwhelm them. If the first group runs, they stack up in the next group. With their speed and the size of those caverns, they should be able to alpha-strike and take someone down. Remember that the adventures were officially written for 4 characters so adding 50% monsters is appropriate (with equivalent treasure).

On the other hand, are the players happy? Many people don't want much challenge much of the time. As a GM, you see how fast the monsters HP goes down but those players see only their own damage. As long as the players FEEL like they are in danger there is probably enough of a challenge.

I'm currently playing a rogue/wizard/assassin/arcane trickster. From an optimization point of view, it was a bad choice. Keeping up with spells are expensive, SR is very hard to deal with and failing ranged sneak attack makes the character useless. Our loremaster has the same issue of spell cost. For this reason alone I feel wizards and witches should never multiclass.

From my observation of Pathfinder Society and the characters I've built, multiclassing past a single dip for any extended period makes a weaker character. I've seen many players in love with combining this feature with that ability but they usually seem blind to the more basic (and powerful) options.

Paizo re-designed 3.5 to make staying in your core class a good option. I think they succeeded.

From your Blog" wrote:

He says that it does not feel like "D&D" to him.

Companion Set. Green Box. Primarily rules for dominion management and mass combat. You know, with that stronghold that you're supposed to get as right at 9th level. But I digress...

I agree, D&D has done this sort of thing before. Wasn't this the whole point of the Birthright campaign setting? Then again, Birthright was never the most popular....

Sounds like he's a Major D-Bag. If he won't specify what he doesn't like about them and offer a constructive alternative, I would tell him to find another game. The kingdom building and mass combat rules are a team effort anyway, so it isn't as if his character is losing anything from a bad economy roll.

I think you are judging too fast. If I buy a Madden game, I expect to move characters around a football field. If the game is actually a combination of spreadsheets and rhythm game, I would be pissed. That rhythm/spreadsheet game could be very popular but it isn't what I thought I was getting. There are a lot of players who just want to kick in doors and fight bad guys. There's nothing wrong with that unless others want something else. Either compromise, change games or change players. Just because the player doesn't like the new thing doesn't mean he is bad person. He could be but you don't know enough.

I would call him one of the loudest voices in the room. But when he goes on about how he is not excited about X or Y or whatever and the rest of the group disagrees, the rest of the group gets real quiet.

It seems you have touchy player. I've run into this in more general ways with players who don't like the "talky bits". Robin D. Laws has some good advice on this issue. See Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering.

First off, is the game fun for the other players? If Lou the Loud hates the kingdom building and no one else actually likes it all that much you probably shouldn't continue. It's not worth playing if no one is going to have fun. There are other adventure paths.

If Lou is against the other players, change up the schedule. I'm sure Lou will like more XP and a share of money you take out of the kingdom. Just do these things before he shows up or after he leaves. Announce "Ok, it's kingdom building time" and that's Lou's cue to groan and leave. Maybe you can do it all by email. Just make sure the time during the non-kingdom building Lou gets a chance to shine.

If Lou insists on sticking around and grumbling loudly, you have a bigger problem: spotlight hog. This may take a conversation to clear up that other players like this kingdom building and he will get XP. You can also point that he will get XP (and prestige) for doing nothing. If he insists on personal encounters all the time, you are back to a more traditional AP or asking Lou to come back when you do the other campaign.

I personally LOVED Blood Pig for letting characters use their skills in more interesting ways. It helps that I was playing a monk. By the sounds of it your group is more traditional. Maybe this kind extension of D&D isn't for you.

A little history on this spell.

In 3.0 D&D, darkness made an area completely dark and even darkvision didn't work. That was clear, but it made a 2nd level spell very powerful for dragons and others with area attacks as it became "mass blind". It also made combats drag as everyone moved at half speed and all direct attacks missed half the time if you could even find your enemy. It also made deeper darkness useless except duration and level. The only reason to choose deeper darkness was that daylight was third level.

3.5 came along and the spell got an upgrade: it radiated shadowy illumination. That closed the speed problem as you could target and only missed 20% for most attacks but it still had issues. The sun went directly from bright to shadowy, the same as a torch, implying the sun was no better than a torch. More importantly, if a space was already completely dark, darkness would illuminate it. Awfully strange for a spell called darkness.

Paizo's authors saw these problems and tried to move forward. They defined 4 levels: dark, dim, normal and bright. That made darkness's effect clear, light level down by 1. Fine but what about this strange wording:

Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness. Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.

I propose a simple explanation: "increase the light level" means "not ambient". All light sources are light sources but they are all decreased as per darkness unless they are a higher level spell. Now darkness is useful spell (dim light is still 20% miss for most) but not overpowered such as making a light spell heightened to 4th level ineffective.

My dm rules as such:

Daylight increases the light level by one UNLESS its cast as a counter ie: both darkness and daylight disappear when cast this way.

You rule a 2nd level spell has it's full effect over an opposing 3rd level spell? That doesn't seem a bit odd to you?

We do agree that darkness is powerful though for a level 2 spell thats for sure.

Oh, I guess it does.

Darkness is pretty clear in it's description: lower light level. Normal light goes down to dim light. If it were not for the unfortunate wording of pg 264, there wouldn't be any real question.

Making the non-magical sun unable to pierce the 2nd level darkness spell in any way if the darkness is cast first seems quite silly. Why not a simple solution:

Darkness reduces light levels (see description) unless the light source is a higher level spell such as daylight.

Who casts first is irrelevant, the torch is dim in the darkness no matter what. Darkness dims the suns rays to normal light no matter who is first. It's less book keeping and fits the spells use.

IS anybody else out there bothered by the behavior of the vampires at the end of this adventure?

It seems plain old stupid for the vampires to wait for the PCs to come to them. Knowing my group, they'd seek them out anyway, if only because they tend to want to explore every nook and cranie in a dungeon, but I intend to implement a bit more interesting of tactics, based on the vampires' personalities.

I ran this phase a bit differently.

This was an epic fight that used the vampires to draw the party in but was very dangerous. A few rolls different and this might have been a TPK. I liked the way it turned out but I'm not certain others should follow this as a plan.

The group I run went for The Redeemers to show they are up-beat and looking to make the town better.

I think the difficulty is high, but I really didn't like the Thrax encounter as it was written. The group either has the option of letting a single caster have all the fun, or let a single "champion" have all the fun. Neither option seemed all that entertaining (or impressive) for me trying to run the year's biggest event, The Hellcaller's Cup. Turning Thrax into a summoner who fights in traditional matches as he was presented in the original module, but going off the handle and using his summons when he loses it what made the fight more memorable. It also let me run a bet of seven tournament style where each player got a chance to shine in the ring instead of running it as it was (which really wasn't that exciting).

I agree the 1-character option is fairly boring, but the other characters can provide assistance through the cage. I like the idea of a summoner using spells like wall of fire and stinking cloud to engage the whole party in the cage. My problem was the power of the eidolon, not the idea of using the class. Thrax as written could have done more to engage the whole group, such as an elemental gem as a last resort after he decides to break the rules.

I'm going to agree with the OP here. There really should be more 'resolutions'. It would have been better to give West Crown a few more issues in order to have the players solve them.

Essentially the problem boils down to the players by this point really needing to be rewarded with a cookie.

I don't think What Lies in Dust should have resolved the shadows, but I would have liked to see whole story presented more clearly to the party. It is a major step in the larger plot but it may feel like a false ending to the players.

I am going to make the NPCs more chatty.

If you know at least some of the larger plot, you can see the progress you are making.

I started playing in a (PbP) Council of Thieves game, but I dropped out halfway through the first adventure. I had a few problems with the plot of Bastards of Erebus:

• Your PC really has to be ready to jump into a revolutionary group right off the bat, and I didn't realise that when I was creating a character.
  
• Not only do you have to be a revolutionary, but you have to be willing to immediately break a stranger out of the custody of the Hellknights. I thought it would be very odd for a 1st level character to be willing to openly defy a powerful organisation.
  
• I built a PC eager to face off against shadow beasts, but we ended up fighting (wannabe) Hellknights, Hellknights and more Hellknights instead. And some torbles. That didn't really excite me as far as variety goes.

There were other issues with the game, but those three plot details were a bit of an immediate turn-off for me.

I saw those problems before I started running the game, but I think the solutions are pretty easy:

Before character creation, I told the players to make characters willing to join a rebellion. It's on the back of the first adventure, after all. As Makarnak said, investing the characters in the city is good rout. The background traits help as well. Being a shadow hunter means you are willing to fight unknown evils in the night who plagued the city for 30 years. Fighting Hellknights shouldn't be that scary at that point.

In the series of sewer encounters, there were a number of encounters that could be random. I chose my encounters to prevent the same thing happening over and over. The adventure also says the DM should go as long as the party is having fun. I think the PbP might have been the problem here: the DM can't hear you sighing at another Hellknight-wanabe encounter.

CoT can get lost in random tables and a lack of direction. I don't recommend it for a first-time DM.

Deidre Tiriel wrote:

And this is why the new APG classes are stronger than the core classes.

Eidolans, fiendish rhinos, and more!?! that's a bit more than just lemures and a couple spells!

Switching Thrax over to a summoner did turn the Thrax encounter from kind of a snooze-fest to something quite epic though.

I've found the difficulty of this adventure path is already high enough. The summoner was over-powered for my party and that just gets frustrating. I don't think APG as a whole is all that powerful. Cavalier is nothing a paladin can't already do.

Are there any discussions on this forum on the summoner class as a whole? The final playtest had some features weakened from the first playtest but I'm curious at what others think of this class.

lokidr wrote:

I rebuilt Thrax as a summoner. I killed two characters between the eidolon and summons. I could have easily killed more if I wanted. Killing characters with custom built encounters is really not hard, so why did you bother?

Simple -** spoiler omitted **

I used Thrax as an 8th level Summoner with Eidolon as well, and my group schooled it PDQ. I would counter that it was the the combination of dice, the players' tactics and Thrax's tactics that dictated the flow of events that slew two characters in your campaign. Based on the intent of the Thrax encounter being that a single champion be used by him, combined with Thrax's arrogance, why did your Thrax throw summoned critters in on top of the Eidolon?

I am basing this on your "eidelon and summons" statement, quoted above.

I don't know - that was your campaign, your Thrax and...

Thrax followed form for the first two rounds of combat in the format of "champion vs. summons". The champion destroyed the lemures on AoOs. Thrax knew he lost the competition so he attacked with wall of fire and stinking cloud, calling to his eidolon. Since I built the eidolon from scratch I had AC 27, 4 claw attacks at +14 for 3d6+8 damage. That kills 6th level characters and was within what summoner of 8 level could dish out. The summons were almost incidental.

Thrax is not the point, killing PCs is:

Any DM can create killer encounters. I know 16th level parties that would have died to your assassin and I'm sure your party had no chance if they did take standard precautions like a watch. It was not in the adventure path, which makes it arbitrary. My question is why you decided to willfully kill the PCs. Do you want them to be more paranoid? Do they enjoy the challenge?

DM's and players [what are you doing here!] what's it like as a whole compared to, say, RotRL and CotCT?

Edit: Where are the bad bits? What needs some DM work prior to playing?

Is it good? Yes. It is also experimental which might require more work at least to understand and I've found it deadly.

Being single-city focused, as opposed to running off into the wilderness for half the path like CotCT or RotRL gives more continuity. Chelax is more detailed in books than Korvosa or Sandpoint so there is more you can do if you like. Any are better than Second Darkness which is positively schizophrenic in execution.

I'm through the first two adventures and I have to say I enjoy the open nature of the path but it does require work, especially up-front. There are three optional encounters you need to write from whole-cloth to maximize the fame of the group. Several NPCs can really benefit from being fleshed out and leveled as you advance but that isn't strictly necessary. I suggest creating "background" encounters, just brief scenes showing how the city of Westcrown can be improved based on the background traits.

Problem areas for us have been money in the first two adventures, which is pretty low. Also, check the obituaries for encounters that may be too difficult. There are 3-4 tough spots, especially early. The meta-plot is hard for the players to see, if that is a concern for them. Some NPCs can benefit from cameos early to get the players used to them so they don't seem to come out of left-field.

All in all, this is a great adventure path if you want to expand the story. If you are looking for a path to just pick up and play, I'd suggest RotRL, if for no other reason than difficulty. If you want a good framework, go with CoT. If you want really open adventure path, take a look at Kingmaker.

I stated my own version of Thrax and it went very badly.

I don't suggest others do this.

Ice Titan wrote:

... That's probably one of the most remarkably petty and arbitrary series of deaths I've ever read.

Until you can be bothered to inquire as to the full reasoning behind the spoiler, please be so kind as to refrain from slinging mud.

I rebuilt Thrax as a summoner. I killed two characters between the eidelon and summons. I could have easily killed more if I wanted. Killing characters with custom built encounters is really not hard, so why did you bother?

In the Casting section, specifically Casting Tybain, it calls for the PCs to make a Reflex Save, but doesn't specify what the DC is. Anyone have some insight on that.

** spoiler omitted **

Trav

Given this damage can be slept off over night, I just used other player's attack rolls.

I've racked up three so far with several close calls:

Name: Losha Provendy
Race: Human
Classes/Levels: Cleric of Lamashtu/2
Adventure: The Bastards of Erebus
Location: Catacombs
Catalyst: arrogance and poor planning
Gory Details: Losha is annoyed that the rest of the party is battling skeletal wolves with bladed weapons when she has a perfectly serviceable morning star. Failing to command the undead, she rushes forward at the first chance yelling "Let me show you how it's done!". She hits but is promptly tripped afterward. Next turn, deciding she is done, she crawls away provoking 2 AoOs. Max damage hit and nearly max crit means Losha definitely showed them how to die.

Name: Garadel
Race: Elf
Classes/Levels: Ranger/5
Adventure: What Lies in Dust
Location: Streets of Westcrown
Catalyst: insulting NPCs
Gory Details: Garadel is alone with one other character as they scope out what looks like a thieves den. I wanted them to know some of the NPCs coming in the future so Stiglor of Mother of Flies spots them spying. Unhappy, he climbs up to the roof, wolverine style. Garadel decides to throw a glib comment about a boil on his rear before jumping off the building. Stiglor doesn't approve and follows them battle-ax first and crits. Garadel still doesn't learn and throws one more insult before standing to leave. From the ground, Stiglor takes another swing for another crit. Garadel is saved by DM fiat but an enemy is made. Good thing they have favored enemy of each other.

Name: Martine
Race: Human
Classes/Levels: bard/3 rogue/2
Adventure: What Lies in Dust
Location: thieves den
Catalyst: just bad luck
Gory Details: The heroes wanted to find the Council of Thieves (along with more money) so a side-adventure was arranged. The den was basically a holding area for whatever the Council needed to move. The bank director: a dark naga. First Martine falls to the sleep poison tail. When she wakes she looks to be going for a flank so the naga tosses a pair of scorching rays. Two good damage rolls later, Martine is no more. Thankfully the adoring public donated for the raise dead of the actress who played Larazod. Obviously, she was just practicing for her next part.

1: Cyclops

2: Tiefling
3: Chimera
4: Hellcat
5: Pentagram
6: A fiendish wasp
7: A rune signifying Hell (7 layers)
8: Spider
9: ??
10:??
11:??
12: 12 Headed Hydra

Help me fill in the blanks!

I would go for an otyugh for 3 a retriever for 8. It seems more in-theme.

For the others, how about
9: 3 cerebus hounds
10: Holy symbol of Asmodeus in a pentagram
11: Maralith stabbed by 5 swords

To keep the other Children of Westcrown as viable characters, I created a player hand-out, just a list of names and simple character qualities. Some players took note and found their own friends. The half-orc gangster took the would-be monk and would-be barbarian out for "public relations training", acting as local hired muscle. As the campaign is low on money, I allowed this to be a "profession" check with untrained assistance for a little extra gold. While the PCs are acting, the crew continues to work. Some of the NPCs have their own goals, like learning magic or helping halflings so they work on their own.

This lets me address low gold in the game and explain how the group keeps working, it seems more like a real organization. It also allows for the fame of the Children of Westcrown to be separate from the PCs as they want to keep a low profile for themselves. It makes sense the group is still gaining fame as the other Children are out doing good deeds. These are good hooks for future adventures and I can explain how the NPCs gain levels for the time when the PCs gain leadership.

If no NPC ever acts outside the players sight, the game world will seem pretty flat.