2nd edition Kingmaker AP.

I just hope they do away with multiple attacks that look like this: +13/+8/+3. You should gain momentum over the course of an attack in a heroic game, not lose it. It's one of the few things I never liked about 3e and its clones.

Easy, they just don't lead them so much.

I've played and/or run Lost Mines of Phandelver about a half dozen times since it was released. The last time being about 5 months ago.

I also run a regular 2e WHFRP game that consistently features goblins as an enemy.

Lastly, for Pathfinder, my current game is on hiatus (they're all 6th level) but they faced a goblin ambush early in their adventure about a year ago.

Goblin encounters are pretty common in my games.

Orthult became a close ally with the last Kingmaker AP party I GMed.
The party also allied early with the kobolds and a silver dragon from a random encounter, so they had a lot of scaly friends.

I used the Tree of Stars as a plot hook in the same game, but it never took hold with the player's Druid. Which surprised me, because she normally catches onto such things and strives to see them out.

I also took the Maw and altered it so that it was just a collection of seemingly random stone collossi that slept in a mountain pass and a lair of petrified dryads that were enemies of the main AP BBEG. The players ended up with some nice allies after they freed the dryads and learned the secrets of the stone guardians.

I never used Lostlarn or the Ford.

First Game as GM: Kestrel Point. (My mother's character's choice won.)

Second Game as GM: Haimsburg. (after a fallen PC dwarf ranger that perished in book 2.)

First Game as Player: Kestrel Point. (I liked the idea so much from GMing, that I voiced it as my option. It won.)

Third Game as GM: Mourningwood. (The players were a bunch of jokers)

Serpent's Skull is the only Pathfinder adventure I've had a TPK in.

Although that was mostly that dominate person can be brutal.

We've had some pretty close scrapes in Wrath of the Righteous. Mythic can make things swingy, but also make you more durable. I hear it gets easier near the end, but we haven't gotten that far yet.

I'm going to agree 100% with this.

Having played most of the APs through books 1-3, and RotRL, CC, SS, JR and Kingmaker all the way til the end. I find that Serpent's Skull has given my players (and myself as a player in 2 different games) the hardest time overall.

Especially the last fight in the first book. If the players rush to it, which they very well can, she will destroy them.

Bard.

Choose yourself which archtype, if any, feels like it will be the best fit for your playstyle and group.

Your group already has a Ranger and a Barbarian, so another fighter-type like the Cavalier may not be ideal. Its wholly up to you though.

The Alchemist, Slayer and Ninja are also good choices.

So I'm joining a game that some friends started last weekend. The party make up is currently a rouge/bard, a fighter and a wizard. The gm is 'encouraging' me to play a cleric or paladin.

I don't really want to play either of those classes, clerics confuse me and seem rather complicated and i don't want to play a lawful character. I would like to play a druid but the gm hates them for some reason that he can't explain. The setting is typical fantasy with a little urban. I think they want someone to play a healer, but I don't want to just be a bandaid the whole time. Any advice?

Play a Ranger if you want a "Druid-like" feel that's less complicated for your GM.

Looks like your party could benefit from an archer with a flanking pet later for the rogue.

See if he'll let you take the Boon Companion feat for a full level animal comanion.

Druid.

You start out with an animal companion, you can summon more allies on a whim, can heal and in a few levels, shapeshift.

If you're 100% committed to either cleric or wizard, I'd go cleric.

i'm unfamiliar with 4th edition, what races are in the PHB 3? why not allow them? (weird? unbalanced? lame?) I'm just curious, i've not seen 4th edition since i saw the Forgotten Realms massacre (what i call what they did to FR in 4th edition:)

Minotaurs and Githzerai.

Nobody has asked to play any of these races yet in my (anything goes) Pathfinder world, however, I have shoehorned in both the Dragonborn race from the 4e PHB and the Goliath race from the 4e PHB2 to fit both my own and my players creativity.
Surprisingly, nobody has ever asked to play a 4e PHB2 Shifter... I guess Catfolk, Kitsune, Vanara and the slew of other PF furry-type races fit the bill better.

I'd be interested in seeing a Wilden player though. Seems like an interesting concept.

lordfeint wrote:

Do people NOT play this game with family and friends anymore?
Or do some people legitimately have such horrible friends that they can't even decide on how to have fun together without a fight?

i play with my wife and kids exclusively (my few friends don't play RPGs) we don't fight, everyone has fun:)

Kinda spoils us, doesn't it?

My only question to this whole debate of Catfolk vs. No Catfolk and the growing distrust/hatred between GM and player is "Why in the Nine Hells are you even playing this game together?"
I have 4 friends/family who can and will GM and another 10 or so that are players only. So about 15 people total between us and I've never had an issue come up in 30+ years where one of us felt wronged by another one's desire to play something.
Sure, I get the "lol, catfolk are >insert homophobic slur< play a dwarf" but its all in jest and everyone plays what they want within the system of whatever we're playing at the time.
No hard feelings.
My sister gets to play her moody tiefling
My brother in law gets to play his weird elemental-race of the week spellslinger.
My son gets to play his kitsune magus.

Do people NOT play this game with family and friends anymore?
Or do some people legitimately have such horrible friends that they can't even decide on how to have fun together without a fight?

The precedent I put into place at my table almost 15 years ago is a simple one.
If its in the rules, I'll allow it.
I have absolutely no problem allowing Dhampir, Catfolk, Kitsune, Changelings, Kobolds, Aasimar, Teiflings... anything.
As long as you come to the table with a character built using the latest rules for the system we're playing, I'll welcome it.
I even allow EVIL characters with the single rule that if you do ONE SINGLE HOSTILE THING against the other players, you're permanently out of the game. (I've had one incident in 30 years)

Oh, that rule for characters is this; YOU play your character. If someone else at the table has a problem with someone else's Catfolk or Tiefling, they are free to find another game. We're all adults in my games and if you're upset that another person wants to be an anthropomorphic cat to the point that its actually ruining your own fun, then you should prioritize a bit before coming back to roleplay.

Players have died hundreds of times over the decades in my campaigns.
I've never specifically targeted a player or character for death, but it happens.
Back in 1e and 2e AD&D, it happened often.
Put on that strange cloak? Cloak of Poisonousness, You're Dead.
Death Spell? Dead.
Necklace of Strangulation? well, you're not dead now, but divide your HP by (x) and you'll be dead in that many rounds.
Got bit by that critter with Type E Poison? 20HP or Dead.

I find they die much less often in PF with its "You're not REALLY dead until you're at -CON." and fewer instant death effects. But it still happens. Especially when facing things like Shadows, which'll drop that 10STR Wizard down pretty fast.

I've been known to fudge rolls when it seems appropriate and have lessened the lethality of traps and hazards on the fly if they turn out too deadly.

3 Monks.
2 ea. Rogues, Druids, Rangers and Wizards.
1 ea. Fighter, Cleric, Paladin/Sorcerer, Witch, Magus, and Barbarian.
0 ea. Everything Else (so far).

So this kept coming up in another thread but I never got a good answer and it was slightly off-topic anyway. Many many people say that they would disallow stats to be dumped down to 7 under a point-buy system. If you're one of those people - why? What's so bad about dumping to 7 vs dumping to 8? I await your reply.

My hand-wave response to people whining about anything in Pathfinder is "Go play 1st or 2nd edition AD&D"

But in the end, its just my personal observation and opinion on the matter, as it is everyone else's and YMMV. I'm sure an opponent of stat dumping could spend a weekend on a fiery diatribe on the evils of it and compare those who do it to infamous dictators and/or special needs folks or spoiled brats... and that's fine too.

I'm going to build off what you said about hating magic classes and say "Go with a Ranger."
Has mad skills? Check.
Can fight without needing the whole party to commit to aiding you? Check.
Stealth? Check.
Robs from the rich and Pretty much keeps it? See Robin Hood.

You can probably work every ability the class has to your advantage without ever needing to multiclass or prestige. But you could dip into Rogue for a few levels to grab an earlier Evasion, a bit of extra situational damage and Sleight of Hand.

Use the Animal companion to get a tricksy pet. (or just take the "the party is my pet" bonus if you don't want to micromanage a pet)

Yeah, I know they get the "Hated Magic Spells" later but they're not that impressive and you could fluff them or not take them at all. There's likely some option that replaces them entirely in one of the 6 million additional core books and splats and online aids too.

Seeing posts like this makes me happy I've been gaming with pretty much the same group of people for 25+ years. (give or take the new boyfriend/girlfriend/wife)

I've had only a single incident with a truly BAD player, and that player's character was killed by a more experienced player's character (after said player tried to sneakily attack her)in the game and he was ejected from play permanently. When he "Cleaned up his act" and tried to rejoin months later, it was put to a group vote, and it was decided that we had much more fun playing without him and he pretty much had himself to blame.

Sometimes you have to be the "Bad Guy" and deal with the problem at its source, and this guy seems pretty useless at every aspect of team play.
Its time to send him packing.

Necromancers can be a load of fun to play.
Some things to consider before submitting your new Master of Darkness to your GM tho...
1) Most, if not all, of your Undead creation spells have the Evil descriptor. Your PC will probably be evil himself or be inclined to evil. This may cause problems for some GMs and Players.
2) A guy wandering around with mindless undead (or worse, Ghouls, Vampires and Mummies) will generally make a negative impact on practically every civilized NPC he meets. You might want to figure this out.
3) Do you want to control hordes of skeletons or do you prefer to animate/control several or a single more powerful minion? My favorite Necromancer had a mix of both. He kept several Crawling Claws on hand and usually had a buffed out skeletal giant or other monster.
4) As you progress in levels, more options open up which can really make your class pretty powerful. You might want to take this into consideration depending on the playstyles of your group.

Personally, I have a lot of fun with Necromancers in my groups. They tend to die more often than other characters due to the dark nature of their craft and the problems associated with it. That said, I do have a player currenly at 12th level who is trying to craft a flesh golem to go along with his minions.

What I would do, as a GM in this case is simply roll with it.
Take a look at it first from the player of the summoner's perspective. He's obviously having a ton of fun controlling his army of mini-minions and not looking to severely unbalance the game. There really isn't any reason to punish him, since there are quite literally a TON of ways you can limit his effectiveness or just shut him down outright.
Instead, maybe you should throw in a few encounters where his little guys actually get a chance to really shine instead of just being a swarm of nameless redshirts?
On the other hand, if his playstyle is bogging down the flow of combat overmuch, then it's less a player issue and more a mechanics problem. Waves of summoned monsters (as well as large numbers of player-controlled NPCs or any sort) can seriously affect the flow of any combat oriented game and should be adjusted as soon as it becomes a real problem at the table. If your players aren't having an issue with it, then it's really not a problem at all. Just discuss everything with the players out of game and see what everyone thinks.

Personally, I have never had a problem with masses of die rolls in a game. I mean I ran a several year long campaign where I GMed for 2 players who ran a total of between 18 and 30 characters for the entirety of the game, including high level Druids and Conjurers, and we still fondly remember the game 15 years+ later.

It is a situation most easily avoided by not allowing it in the first place.
If the player is willing to pull crap (and it IS crap) like saying that nobody will know until he betrays you, then the problem is really less an alignment issue and more a douchenozzle issue.

I almost always allow evil alignments in my campaigns, but I do so because my players are generally NOT out to ruin a night of fun by acting like spoiled children (even though some of them are spoiled children). Evil PCs can add a whole new aspect of flavor and fun to any campaign as long as you set ground rules ahead, mainly NO BETRAYING YOUR PARTY EVER!!! I usually allow a little extra loot grabbing, sneaky stuff and whatnot, but the line was drawn at stealing other players belongings and plotting violence against them a long time ago.

Whoah.

Is this traditional Golarion Ogre, or some other Campaign Setting?

I'm hoping its not one of the PF "Rise of the Runelords" type Ogres.

I'm really, REALLY hoping.

In this case, I would definitely impose an XP tax on the players while upping the encounter difficulty to match.
At level 2, having an ogre is a significant perk in a combat situation (and a downright liability everywhere else).
I'd add the ogre in as though he were an actual player character for XP division. At least until the players are level 4 or so, when having an ogre is like having a dumber (in some cases) fighter with less HP, a bigger (again, in most cases) appetite and a whole lot of general social stigma.

I came here hoping for a nice thread about <insert random wizard> being OP and how the others in the group aren't quite up to par, blah blah blah, and had a pretty good bunch of potential solutions that have worked wonders for me in the past...
... But its this again.

Ok, here's the deal with problem players of this specific breed.

1) I talk to the other players and get their input on the whole isue just to make sure I'm not the bad guy and don't realize it. (It happens)
2) They get "the talking to". This is done in private to avoid any uneeded drama.
3) We wait and see what happens.
3a) Oh look! He's all better! Yay!!! (Granted this rarely happens. It CAN, but don't hold your breath)
3b) Oh look! He decided he wasn't having fun and stopped playing on his own. Yay!!! (Also not likely, but moreso than 3a)
3c) Oh look! The talk had about as much impact as throwing a ping pong ball at a charging rhino. See 4.

4) Its been fun, but you're out.

Never let a BAD player ruin everyone elses fun. Sometimes the best friends and even otherwise awesome human beings can be BAD Players. It happens. I know some. Great guys and gals, just not the tabletop RPG type.

Yeah, I wouldn't try to get 7 players on board at once in that kind of environment.
Maybe offer them alternate spots in case a current player drops out or proves to be even more problematic than a player that "sucks", "is bad" and/or "holds up the game".

It looks as though the interest in this has about completely died off so I'll take it as a sign to fade quietly into the jungle with Kythas and Aerys.

It's been a fun trip guys and I hope to see you around.

Thanks for the ride Patch!

Cayden Cailean

After all Beer is liquid bread.

So the official answer is "Yes, they CAN be Hellknights and if you don't like it you can House-Rule it out?"

Awesome.

I'm about to have one happy Paladin player.

Some Ideas.

1) Use the harder random encounters from the APs as fixed encounters. (Take the trolls, will o wisp and shambling mounds from Kingmaker for instance)

2) The encounter calls for 4 kobolds? now it's 10 kobolds, 2 who are 3rd level warriors with masterwork gear and a 4th level Druid leading them.

3) Up the CRs of traps by boosting the DCs and damage dealt.

4) Include more skill-challenges.

5) Change monster types. The module calls for goblins? Make em Orcs or Hobgoblins instead. I switched a kobold tribe for a troglodyte tribe when my PCs ended up leveling faster than I expected and missed an early lair only to return to it at level 4.

6) Add more levels and gear to bosses and sub-bosses. Also give them more minions to help them out.

Druids get NATURE BOND
Ranger's get HUNTER'S BOND

They aren't even the same thing.
To put it in simpler terms.
They cannot stack.

Take a look:
Hunter's Bond. This ability functions like the druid animal companion ability (which is part of the Nature Bond class feature), except that the ranger's effective druid level is equal to his ranger level – 3.

His Ranger levels for Nature Bond and his Druid levels for Hunter's Bond don't mean CRAP.
They don't apply to each other any more than my Paladin levels stack for my Fighter class feats.

However, he DOES get 2 companions.
Its just his Druid companion is going to stagnate at level 1 until he takes more Druid levels.

ciretose wrote:

A lot of threads are talking about how overpowered wizards are, so I thought I would offer a few suggestions we use in our home game that seem to work pretty well.

First, I they need to pay to add spells to their spellbook beyond the two they get each level.

That's the standard rule, mate.

Well, this thread is now a success.

One of my Kingmaker players recently took Mikmek (a kobold NPC) as her primary cohort with her Leadership feat. (He's a Rogue 3 / Ranger 2)
He likes traps, but could care less about gnomes or halflings. In fact the Sootscales haven't had much of an issue with either race since there wasn't a settlement of either nearby for them to conflict with. They DO hate mites and most other fey though, and this has caused some minor issues.
In this particular game, the players have relocated the Sootscales to the gold mine and the kobolds are allowed to mine and trade directly with the PCs budding kingdom at the Stag Lord's old home and the nearby villages that have spawned. The villagers and guards know the black-scaled kobolds on sight and there isn't any hostility at all, but the kobolds are still a bit nervous around the big pinkskins.

A bit more on the kobold cohort, he was retooled with a slightly higher int and chr and is VERY interested in knowing about history and local customs as well as learning more about animals and nature. (The poor guy completely sucks at mining though.) He is LN, but has a bit of a temper and still likes to occasionally poke small things until they stop moving. Otherwise he is generally pleasant to be around.

This has been my take on monster races as PCs, from both a GM and Player of almost every one I've listed.

Kobolds: Outside Halfling and Gnome communities, and the occasional Fey settlement, these little guys aren't going to have too rough a time of it if they're travelling with a mixed group of "heroic" races. They're pretty unassuming. Even kids might follow these guys around and try to play with them.

Goblins: Same as Kobolds, but probably a bit more hated and laughed at. Especially so with Pathfinder goblins.

Orcs: OK, these guys are going to have it rough. Especially when dealing with elves, dwarves and frontier settlements that have suffered at Orc raids. If you roll an Orc, you should probably expect that your life will be miserable for a LONG time. Unlike the common conception of goblins and kobolds, an orc is actually dangerous BY ITSELF.

Hobgoblins: Similar to orcs, but less so. Hobgoblin mercenaries are likely common enough that they will be treated like especially crude regular mercenaries.

1/2 Orcs: Generally a mix of pity and distrust, but unless they look almost fully orcish, they're not going to have too hard a time of it.

Drow: Most common people aren't even aware they exist and are likely to mistake them as a really unusual elf. However in places where the race is known, they will be extremely fortunate not to be killed outright. When players ask to play this race, I let them know from the start that it is going to be VERY tough going.

Dhampir: Emo human, nothing to see here.

Elemental PC races: "Look Ma! That guys hair is on fire." Maybe a little scary to the commoners in small villages, but mostly people think "Look, another weird sorcerer!"

Grippli: LOL! Frog from Crono Trigger.

Aasimar: Nobody cares. Maybe you'll be pestered by the super gullible religious freaks for faith healing, but otherwise, you'll be left alone.

Tiefling: Outside Cheliax, you're not going to have a very good time. It'll be worse the more "Lower Plane" your look is. People will generally be afraid of you and you'll get blamed for everything bad that happens.

Now, these are MY PERSONAL takes on the races as PCs, and yes, I know Kobolds and Goblins CAN be dangerous, but in my worlds, they're generally chumps and commoners aren't REALLY that scared of them on an individual basis.

My group got the Sootscales as allies, avoided a few fights with the local wildlife, (a wolf pack and a lone grizzly) and managed to spare one of the bandits from the initial combat at Oleg's. But other than that, they've killed everything else.

I'd play it on the fly with redeeming the bandits.
Some will probably need to be incarcerated. Some may be beyond redemption. Or you may just decide that they are all just misunderstood and are varying shades of the darker side of Neutral.

Looking at Kressle's and Happ's backgrounds, it's easy to tweak it just a bit and get LN, N or CN NPCs out of them. (Same could be said of everyone) Maybe they're really evil, but hate themselves and want to change. Its really up to you, the rest of the players and your GM.

I played Kressle as the cruel b*!#@ she was written as and the players killed her outright. But yours may discover that she is more complicated than the one-dimensional portrayal in the AP.
I'd ask the GM to throw you a bone. Maybe some Knowledge: Local, Sense Motive, Intimidate, Diplomacy, etc. to reveal something in their past or some current aspect of their true nature that can be used to bring them to the Light. (so to speak)

I'd like to have gotten a chance to see Happs and/or Kressle in my players little sandbox kingdom (Just finished Rivers Run Red) but they're a bit of a bloodthirsty bunch. (The PCs that is)

What are the bad guys attacking with in this situation? Or are they using natural attacks?

3 orcs at the other end of the 3'x 3' tunnel, They're using a Meteor Hammer, a Whip and a Sling. All without penalty because they invested feats into those weapons and it would be an affront to make them switch to their daggers.

The part where you are on your hands and knees and trying to thrust straight forward with no leverage and no way to get in a proper gaurd.

A great sword is not a spear, thrusting with on is not the same. The concept that thrusting with on in such a confined area would have any hope of causing more damage than a dagger, which can actually be swung in such an area is silly.
THat an axe would be useful is even more so.

I might allow someone to halfsword a greatsword for 1d4 1 1/2 str. but no more than that, not in a space where the body could not be adequately used to give striking power.

You're more generous than I.

Now a Greataxe or Dire Flail would be even WORSE. (Possibly to the tune of 1 damage plus half, if any st. bonus or even outright unusable.)

Yes, I am a cruel DM and I love to see my melee fighters suffer in the face of caster disparity and... oh wait... The biggest thing I can stuff down a 3'x 3' tunnel is a Carrion Crawler, which doesn't even exist in PF!!! Those kobolds and mites are gonna just roll all over that Fighter 10 who was forced to draw a short sword to deal.

(Protip: No they're not)

You would have really liked Sleep back in 1E.
Now its 1 round to cast and affects 4HD worth of creatures who get a Will save to resist.
A lot of things are immune to it.
Its tough against what it should be tough against. Small groups of pushovers that its not worth to engage or for taking out small groups of tightly-packed monsters among a larger force.

Disagree on Shout. Its sonic damage. unless every group of monsters your party faces has a Bard with them, its a lot more useful than fire/lighting that every monster and their mother is DR/10 against. Fireball and Lightning Bolt (lol, Lightning Bolt) are barely worth the spell slot at 3rd as it is. Not saying that Shout is great by any stretch either. It probably wouldn't see any more use at 3rd though than it does at 4th.

Sort of agree with some of the other stuff (agree Aid is lame, has been since 1E UA.) Druids should still get Elementals IMO.

I'm impressed by how many natural 100's were being rolled.

Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Bro.

Lycanthropes are pretty lame in PF.

+1

Also agreed on the Hobgoblins.
So lame looking. They look like a bunch of grey skinned, hairless down's syndrome monkeys. Really terrible, especially when compared to the greatness of the 1e and 2e Hobgoblins. (heck even the 4e ones!)
They shouldn't look so mentally challenged for a bunch of elitist, militaristic war-mongers. (instead they look like Derps.)

Phase Spiders also = LOL.
They'd be infinitely cooler as spindly-looking ethereal giant spiders.
The human heads are beyond fail.

Oh well. Nice thing is, I can house-rule em to look however I want, and since my players remember the COOL-looking versions, its not even really a House Rule.

It wasn't all that uncommon to 1-round K-O enemies in 1E, even with the "pathetic" damage listed for various attacks. A Two-Handed Sword was 3d6 base vs. Large sized creatures back in the day. Coupled with +6 damage from 18/00 str., +3 Specialization and a +2 or better magic bonus for your average 7th level fighter, you're looking at 14-29 damage per swing. If 2 swings hit that's 28-58 damage.

These were the days where the BIGGEST Red Dragon had only 88hp.
Your average Ogre had a measly 4d8+1 HP. (That's 19 HP average)
Hill Giants were 8d8+1-2 (37-38 avg.)
Even the Big Bad Balor (aka Type VI Demon) had only 8+8 HD. (72 HP max!)

I very rarely fudge the dice, but when I've just hit with critical threat, confirmed, and one-shot a newly rolled level one PC that the player spent 3 hours writing a back-story for on his day off from work in the FIRST DAMN ENCOUNTER of the game, you can guarantee I just dropped him to -4 HP instead of -17. (Damn Greataxe wielding Orc)

If my players are being retarded or it's a climactic battle with the BBEG, you probably aren't going to get lucky in the way of me rolling in your favor behind the screen, but if you're in random encounter #1, 20 minutes into the game and trying to stay alert and out of the way but get charged by a monster who gets lucky, you will probably, as a player, be much happier in my games.

I know there are players who don't like this, but mine rarely figure out that I saved them, and instead think I brutalized them (heck being at -4 is still pretty bad, especially when you're an elf and a bloodthirsty orc is looming over your fallen form). But MY players tend to appreciate me not openly slaughtering a PC they worked hard on in 1/10th the time it took them to commit it to a character sheet.

AD&D was never very complicated.

If you want complicated, try Rolemaster.

+1

In fact I cannot + this enough.

Ah, the smell of desire to fly headlong into complicated combat rules, strict and precise interpretations of every action taken ever, and the headache inducing number of tables to keep up with the penalties and bonuses for a dude swinging a sword.

Smells like old school D&D.

In all it's Item Saving Throw, THAC0 and Weapon type vs. Armor type goodness!

Where do I sign up?

My custom DM screen was 7 panels across AND had 3 extra fold down panels too.

Epic times.

Paladin of Asmodeus you say? (not my story)

We had a campaign in D&D where we assembled a steampunk-ish time machine. After many sessions travelling through time, uncovering mysteries and learning harsh lessons about changing history, we had to stop a time-travelling cult from destroying the gods, and therefore the world. We failed.

They were killed by an orc army marching under the orders and banner of Asmodeus. Their deaths are what drove him to become an adventurer.

I don't do it.
It's far too easy to become too invested in that character and it becomes a Mary Sue. (ie Drizzt/Elminster)

As a DM, I have an entire cast of NPCs and monsters that I can flesh out and become attached to. Recurring villains, NPC love interests, the shadowy stalker that always manages to avoid the PCs perception rolls, the lovable but useless kobold porter...

If I ever need to fill out a party, I either have the players control a second character that is somehow attached to the story or character, or include some throwaway NPCs.

That said, I know DMs that do it, and personally, as long as everyone is having fun, I could really care less.

I know one guy who plays dwarf wizards almost to the exclusion of any other class/race.

I've always held that dwarves have a nearly perfect combination of abilities and traits for an adventuring race. As wizards, their CON bonus gives them a good boost to their weak Fort save, the WIS bonus can increase their already formidable Will and their resistance to poison and magic just adds to those defenses. The +4 dodge bonus against giants is circumstantial but awesome when you can use it.

I think Abjuration and Transmutation would be the most common specialties for dwarf wizards because of the race's focus on defense and craftsmanship. Past that, I imagine Divination would be a good fit for dwarves since the race has a healthy respect for knowledge, especially when it can be used to increase the safety or wealth of a clan.

+1

Dwarf wizards are pretty awesome.
Once you get past the whole Chain mail and Warhammer shtick (which I admittedly like too) they're a pretty well-rounded race.

The reason it's a punishment is this: Wealth by Level. At level 15, the caster needs one item for each slot he can hold. ONE. Marital classes already need to spread their wealth thinner, and already are outclassed. If you require terrain appropriate weapons, you need to toss out Wealth by Level, or the martial class gets even MORE hosed.

Aside from the few small (and usually trapped) tunnels and crawlspaces I have that lead to the actual fighting areas, I don't think I've had my players actually fighting in small places after level 4 or 5.

I had a Dwarf Abjurer player early after the core release. I think he dissed Necromancy and Illusion. Had a Raven familiar and an obscene Appraise skill as I recall.
I think he got killed by a trap or something at around level 5-6 and never got rezzed.

Ah well.

I have another player that has an active Dwarf Wizard in 4E, but thats another entity entirely.

lordfeint wrote:

I'm all for Magic 101 physics. I mean dragons can fly and giants can walk around despite comparative real-world gravity, but a cramped space is a cramped space.

This is something I just don't get. You're completely fine with things in a fantasy game defying gravity, but not a cramped space? What's valid fantasy physics and what isn't? When you have an attitude like yours, you end up needing to houserule every single thing in the universe in order to stay consistent, and don't expect your players to be able to keep track of it all. Why not just, you know, go by the rules and leave it at that? If something imposes a penalty, it imposes a penalty (like squeezing). If it doesn't, it doesn't.

Call it 30 years of playing almost exclusively with the same group of players. I've had TIME to refine house rules. It takes much more time to explain the new rules of each edition of D&D/Pathfinder then it does to carry over what I liked about other editions and just tack on new stuff.

So for me, at least, it's not about what this new rule set says, its about how much I like about this new rule set and what is going to make the cut.

I have the priveledge of playing with people that don't generally nitpick over not being able to swing a 12' polearm around a 3' passage.

It boils down to You do what YOU like, and I'll do what I like.