psi_overtake's page

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

As far as the "tent, flint and tinder" discussion, the best way to deal with that is the way most RPGs do. With the inclusion of an "adventurers kit" that is expected to have all that stuff without all the bookkeeping, much like a spell component pouch.

Pathfinder's kit.

I just checked pg 155+ for kits and didn't find anything like that. Is there one in the CRB, or maybe it's in Ultimate Equipment?

I've participated in many threads about "best items" or "best magic items" etc.

In the end though, I'm afraid these sorts of discussions really tend to support the trend towards similarity in character creation.

When there is general agreement in what the top six items a character needs are, that, to me, is really an indictment of the game design. If the goal of the game is to create unique and interesting characters, then the answer to these questions should end up all over the map, not "yeah, you just have to get a ring of protection and a cloak of resistance dude."

I can agree to an extent, but I'm just looking for what's useful or even nearly necessary. I don't think that if everyone buys a tent and rations that there's a problem with the system, likewise if most parties pitch in for a bag of holding. They're just items that are so generally useful that they're generally bought by most parties (generally).

smelling salts

air crystals
weapon blanches
bladeguard
1st-level potions (50g)
oils and elixirs
antivenom
antiplague
vermin repellent
crowbar
compass
spring-loaded wrist sheaths
clw wand

Thanks for more goodies!! I'm glad to know that we at least did the Wand of CLW xD

Are all of these in the core rulebook, or also in the APG/etc.?

you might want to have a look at this great stuff from Ashiel...

Forum
Google Doc

I believe I'm in love <3 Thank you so much! Lots of great info here ^_^

EWHM wrote:

Horseshoes of speed are also surprisingly cheap.

Unfortunately, they can only be used in sets of 4, so tieflings with hooves can't wear them.

Though centaurs...?

10-ft pole.

low levels

(Spiked) Gloves/Cestus : always-ready weapons (worn) that cover your bludgeoning and/or piercing needs.

A light melee weapon for ranged characters. You'll regret not having one, the day your DM throws fogs/grapplers/... at you (gloves are great).

A ranged weapon for melee characters. Because sometimes it's best not to get hit in the first place (shoot through bars/arrow slits, hit'n'run, ...).

rope, 10ft-pole, mirror, torch (if noone has light-giving cantrips)

fishing net + hammer + pitons (watching my DMs face was glorious, when I pulled that one out to climb up a chimney that had spikes at it's bottom, also great for making your own ambush traps or hide in weird places)

flour : to pinpoint/detect invisible creatures (depends on dm ruling though)

higher levels

Muleback Cords / Handy Haversack
Immovable Rods (x2)
Ring of Forcefangs (imho better then brooch of shielding)
Seducer's Bane (vs enchanter-loving DMs)
Ring of Invisibility
Necklace of Adaptation
Metamagic Rods (Enlarge Spell, Silent Spell, Empower Spell, Maximize Spell, ...)

WOW, thanks so much for the great list!! I haven't even heard of some of these before, and the others have great versatility and utility. I'll make sure to look them up =D And I'd definitely rule that flour can let you outline a normal invisible creature - I like to reward players for creativity like that ^^

Yeah, that's what I've mainly come to learn was those main 6, but nothing really outside of that (other than a bag of holding xD). Having excess scrolls is a good suggestion, thanks! I can see a lot of those coming in handy for the non-spontaneous spellcasters. I think it's sometimes hard for my friends and I to get out of the mindset of "be as frugal as possible to get the big stuff earlier." Sounds like we need to, though!

Hey all, I'm new to the PF forums and noticed a trend in the experienced players' posts - magical items that every player should have (or at least be aware of).

I've DM'd a few homebrew campaigns, but they usually ended early (12th level was my highest) due to moving, graduating, etc. I don't have great knowledge in the way of magic or common items, so I was hoping for some help.

What items should all players know about? General ones (rope, bedrolls (is there a point in using/not using them?)), magical ones (handy haversack?), class-specific (thieve's tools), whatever. I didn't know about weapon oils until today, and didn't know the PCs should generally have a big bag o' weapons during the earlier levels to overcome the odd DR monster out. What items would you recommend, from level 1-10 perhaps? I already know about the +enhancement and cloak of resistance magic items, but not too much else.

Gotchya. I think that at levels 1-3 the assumption is probably that you're using about 1 non cantrip/orison spell per encounter (maybe more if you're a spontaneous caster) and then scaling up at a rate of about 1-2 spells per encounter per 2-3 levels.

Alrighty. I don't have the DMG downloaded on this PC, so I was trying to scour the net for what 3.5 recommended for encounters per day, but came up empty. I think that's what it was going over, and then my friend extrapolated from it a relative correlation between that and a caster's resources.

psi_overtake wrote:

Actually, isn't there a blurb in D&D that wrote something like "a day's encounters shouldn't typically go over a magic-user's resources," or something?

That would be ridiculous and completely fly in the face of the whole principle of resource management. Spellcasters should be carefully weighing whether or not it's a good idea to use their more spells in a given fight, or if they should conserve them for future challenges. This is and always has been a normal part of the game, and a playstyle that assumes otherwise, while just as valid as anyone else's, does not reflect the balance the game is designed to, nor the majority of published adventures that provide an example of what gameplay should look like.

If your version of resource management is blowing all of your spells in 1-3 encounters and then taking an 8 hour nap, you are not playing the same game the designers are using as a baseline for the rules and the assumed concept of balance.

I wasn't saying that you should be able to throw out your top-level spells every encounter - it's just something that a friend told me back when I was learning how to play (in 3.5), and I thought I had read it in the DMG, but I couldn't remember. I agree that going hands-a-wavin'/guns-a-blazin' every encounter is against the spirit of resource management, but if you only use 1-4 (depending on level) spells per encounter, and you run out... I thought that's what it was addressing.

Ssalarn wrote:

The argument that "Resource doesn't matter because everyone will rest when the wizard's out of spells anyway" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That's a sign of a player with a push-over GM who has never actually put them in a position where taking an hour rest means that their objective fails completely.

The thing is the game isn't fun at all when you run out of spells as a caster. Watch me fire my crossbow for pidly damage? No thanks. Its boring, and terribly balanced.

Which makes it sound like either the spellcaster needs to contribute in other ways (knowledge checks, party face, something), or learn to use his spells more conservatively. There's a certain satisfaction in knowing "wow, I'm glad I didn't use up all my spells early." Alternatively, is there a PF version of the warlock?

Actually, isn't there a blurb in D&D that wrote something like "a day's encounters shouldn't typically go over a magic-user's resources," or something?

I'd say that powergaming is when you can breeze through an encounter or overcome an important challenge with such a low chance of failure or with such a minimal loss to resources that you can very reliably repeat it under most/normal circumstances. The encounter or challenge should be at least a fairly common occurrence in the gaming sessions played.

I wanted to re-defend some of the things that I see people consistently want out of fighters.

1) A second good save.
2) Better feats.
3) More than 2 skill ranks per level.
4) Do something (not combat)

I'm in favor of all of these suggestions. I'd also elaborate that (2) should be "better fighter feats," specifically. Though, because that buffs other classes who can pseudo-claim fighter levels, is that the best fix for the class?

EDIT: Marthkus beat me to it, but the question should go to him, too =)

If your friends think patgfonder wizards and clerics are more powerful than 3.5 versions, then they don't optimize as well as they think. We cannot Pun-Pun or CoDzilla anymore, and we cannot do 4000+damage per round with magic missiles that drain levels.

There's a difference between optimization and exploitation. I couldn't say with a straight face that those 3.5 experiments were "working as intended."

Giving fighters more feats isn't the best fix imo. They then have to somehow find an intuitive way to use them to plug in the weaknesses. That's not a garuntee. Feats also don't do the best job of filling in for 2 skill points per level, and might possibly just be used for more deeps or something like that.

Well, they buffed casters by increasing their hit die from a d4 to a d6. Do you think they should buff the 2+int classes? They can do that by:

1) Combining skills (but that helps everyone rather than just the fighters). I actually already do this by combining Climb and Swim into just "Athletics."
2) Giving the fighter 4+int per level.

I know that's not going to fix the "omg now they're viable!" complaint, but it sounds good, seeing as how they buffed a combat feature of the mage but not the out of combat features of the fighter.

In my experience, any time the situation at a table moves beyond 'I hit it in the head with my hammer', a player with a fighter character will inevitably be stuck saying something to the effect of '..uh, yeah, I can't do that.' (sneak/bluff/talk nice), or 'I rolled a 17, is 18 high enough?' or just sitting on his hands waiting for another chance to hit something.

When it comes to figuring out the puzzle, or travelling from point A to point B, or convincing the NPC to do something other than laugh in your face, or, in fact, do ANYTHING outside of 'hit it in the head with my hammer', the fighter's PLAYER is at best, second best, and more often completely useless.

There are lots of threads talking about how a fighter has extra feats so that he can shore up those weaknesses, but I've seldom seen it done and the effectiveness was questionable (yeah, getting a reroll on a will save is great, but when your base save is +3 vs DC 14+, the odds are still stacked against you... and that DC is low for a non-optimized caster with first level spells, again, IME).

I did not like Kirth's suggestion either, but as a means of making the fighter someone who could fill the shoes of a person so incredibly BadASS that he could even sway the minions of the bad guys and make the waters part...or had the reputation to give a strong force of personality something to work with...I couldn't do better. His stated goal (give the fighter some abilities which could mimic the crazy power and versatility of the planar binding chain) was met. If you don't think that's a viable starting point, suggest a different one, perhaps?

Let me preface this by saying I don't have experience in high-level play.

The only two things that come to mind are 1) give the fighter more bonus feats, and 2) give the fighter a chance to shine. For a few reasons:

1) Give the fighter more bonus feats. Like you said, they can be used to plug up weaknesses, and are pretty much the only thing in game (aside from magical items) that make you versatile both in and out of combat. You can use them to get more skills so you can interact better, or more varied combat abilities so you don't feel like you're doing nothing but full-round attacking each turn. Every class is supposed to have weaknesses, so if you feel that the fighter has too many, throwing more feats should help.

2) Give the fighter a chance to shine. A lot of power comes from both the power and versatility from high-level spells, but they don't mean much in a place where magic doesn't work. Making sure that this is included in high-level play lets the fighter use his (Ex) abilities to their fullest extent.

Sorry if that wasn't much help =/

that won't happen. The devs don't think there's martial/caster disparity, and we are people with agenda

I think they know that there's disparity, but have loosely designed it to keep it that way.

Adding the "improve upon its effects" undercuts, because the point is to get better.

OtoH, a Cleric with the Nobility domain gets Leadership at 8th level, and can Call Planar Ally, eventually Call Greater Planar Ally.

A Wizard with Truename can get an 18HD critter who probably has more abilities than any Cohort will ever have. Of course he probably needs to keep said critter happy with gifts, and it's subject to DM whim, but anyone with a Cohort has to keep the Cohort's equipment up to snuff, and Cohorts are as subject to DM whim as Truenamed or Called critters.

Now, I'm not saying a Fighter should be able to do exactly those things. But neither is it unreasonable for a Fighter to scale his followers, his ability to influence soldiery, etc (just as other classes with abilities that influence NPCs have those abilities scale as they level).

Kirth's ideas may not be perfect - IMO they probably aren't, they're a starting point that probably need refinement (as I think he would agree to), but simply rejecting them, scorning them, repeatedly saying they are problematic - that does nothing to improve on the initial idea whatsoever.

Thoughtful consideration of how to refine them or what alternatives to them that Archetypes might get would contribute more to the thread than arguing in circles against them.

Thanks! I wasn't aware of those abilities. It provides some good precedence upon which to add things to the fighter. Your point reaffirms my initial thought that it sounds better for an option for that class, rather than just an outright gimme. I'm sorry if you viewed my modification as a rejection - I never intended it to sound like a flat-out "no."

I've given up the idea of refining the archetype because they're looking for suggestions to improve the overall base class, to which my archetype idea doesn't satisfy. I'll be trying other things =) (EDIT: but adding some portion of your fighter level to your leadership score does sound sensical for that proposed archetype)

In terms of making social impacts I do think that more fighter friendly feats similar to dazzling display or the Boar Style chain is more appropriate because the flavor of a fighter either is a weapon/armor/combat expert or a badass normal and in the flavor of badass normal it would be nice if he could get some diplomacy or intimidate perks for being a guy without magic, hulking out or kung-fu mysticism and still going straight into a fire-breathing monster's face swinging a sword.

I had started Rise of the Runlords recently and because all the other players were noobs I wanted to make something a bit simple and made a dwarf barbarian. After going through the one of the first encounters enraged because I was disturbed in my ribs eating the DM had the NPCs praise the PCs for their heroism and bravery individually but when he got to me he said "and you... behaved exactly like a dwarf, so it's no very remarkable but hey you saved us too. " which was just a funny little commentary but I think it reflects the Fighter's plight. He has nothing but twice as many feats as a caster. If a wizard exploded a group of orcs its just business as usual, but the Fighter? one guy with an sword in hand decided to get in a fight against multiple guys that are bigger than him with giant teeth of which they are armed to. He has balls.

And really I think that should be a class feature. He already kinda has it, as far as Bravery goes but I think he has more balls than a bonus to his weak will saves, and I think he should have more abilities that recognize the shear size of his balls, either by scaring the poop out of his enemies or impressing the local bar-wenches. Now some of this is a bit selfish; I have to dump charisma to be effective at all in combat but I think I deserve some bar wenches as it is my iconic duty as a Fighter. That Bard only sat in the back encouraging me and he gets all the bar wenches.

I really like the idea of the fighter gaining social perks like that. It adds flavor, has an impact in the world outside of killin' stuff, and makes sense for most to all archetypes too along with the base class. Sounds like a great start!

Anyone can take leadership

And improve upon its effects with specific class features? Please take my entire response into consideration.

I would argue that's not a ' helpful modification'(s) 'to this idea', since the problem lies in the base class. Removing it or relegating it to the realm of archetype still leaves the fighter with an inability to influence the narrative of the game that many other base classes enjoy.

I suggested a, in my opinion, more appropriate place for such a feature that would expand its creativity and options. I would deem that as helpful...

But you're right, it doesn't outright "fix" the overall class in every playable way. I would say to have a closer look at its archetypes, though. I didn't like the Vitalist (DSP) class much until I saw its archetypes. Fighter has a great general foundation, but for actually picking the kind of fighter you'd really like to play (influencing things in the game in a particular way), I think archetypes serve that pretty well.

What ways would you like to influence the game that you feel the fighter currently doesn't? I'm sorry if you mentioned it before, but I just don't have the time to read all of the 2k+ posts (and I doubt the devs would venture to do so as well). I'll try to provide some ideas.

psi_overtake wrote:

For one, I suggested turning the army class feature idea into an optional feature, like creating an archetype out of it rather than forcing it upon the base class.

so you mean leaving it as it is now

I'm not aware of any archetypes that have built-in leadership and improve upon its effects, but then again I haven't really scoured fighter archetypes. It'd be pretty interesting, I bet.

If you have, I didn't notice them.

For one, I suggested turning the army class feature idea into an optional feature, like creating an archetype out of it rather than forcing it upon the base class.

psi_overtake wrote:

Just because it's unhelpful to you doesn't make it irrelevant. I do not need to provide an answer in order to point out the wrongness of another posited answer.

Then we have no reason to consider your response anything other than noise.

Because THAT was helpful. >_>

Look, you can decide how you like for yourself. Stop acting like you speak for everyone, or that providing commentary on modifying an idea is somehow less worthy than creating brand-new ideas. It's arrogant and offensive. I've already provided helpful modifications to this idea.

psi_overtake wrote:

Because when such an outside influence-dependent feature is forced on a base class, it hurts the class and the game in terms of freedom. Make it optional, like an archetype or something similar.

So what other option are going to give the fighter than gives him equal narrative power to the wizard?

Saying 'you can't do that' without saying 'this might work instead' is singularly unhelpful.

Just because it's unhelpful to you doesn't make it irrelevant. I do not need to provide an answer in order to point out the wrongness of another posited answer.

You can use your head, you can use your butt, you can use pelvic thrusts. All are valid uses of IUS.

Best imagery ever xD

psi_overtake wrote:

Correct, because taking a feat means you are expending time and effort into gaining said army.

And gaining a level doesn't because...?

What is the difference between choosing the Leadership feat and choosing the Gain An Army class feature?

Because when such an outside influence-dependent feature is forced on a base class, it hurts the class and the game in terms of freedom. Make it optional, like an archetype or something similar.

So make it a bonus feat and now it's kosher?

Pending GM discretion. See below.

leadership is the only feat that is called as optional in the book.

Otherwise, just make that slot a bonus feat, or something similar that isn't as crazy.

But if it's a feat it's A-OK?

so getting an army couse you are a high level fighter = nonsensical. But getting an army because of you spent a feat is ok

Correct, because taking a feat means you are expending time and effort into gaining said army. You don't become an army magnet just because you dinged a level. I would hope you could follow that logic...

ujjjjjjjjjj wrote:

Unless NOW your rules would prevent anybody from getting an army except a fighter?

Not my rules; Gygax's. Fighters getting the title "lord" at 9th level, and an army of followers, is part of the 1st edition rules. The fighter automatically had an army -- he could leave them at home or take him along with thim and use them as cannon fodder, or whatever he wanted to do with them. The wizard, at 10th level, got a single 1st level apprentice or something; he was allowed to have hirelings (a staff of paid mundane NPCs with no particular loyalty), but could not have actual followers past the apprentice. So, yeah, the wizard could totally hire an army, but they'd desert at the first taste of battle.

As far as a low-Cha fighter, the usual Cha penalties applied.

Trying to reinstate most rules from that far back in nonsensical, given today's format. They're fine for flavor, but mechanics-wise simply do not work.

Insinuating that any NPC would do anything automatically by virtue of someone's CLASS is actually ridiculous.

Also, there's a clear difference between "people revere you, and are more likely to aid your cause" / "you gain a bonus to leadership" and "you gain an army" just because of your level. Trying to correlate this de facto condition to wizards casting magic does not make any sense to me. The wizards are outwardly changing things, and the fighter is being forced-upon by NPCs.

[MATH!!!]

Kudos for a great mathematical undertaking. Always liked you kinds of guys =)

I'm addressing the nerd-rage attacks on the GM, in which they apparently didn't consider the other side of the coin.

Because the GM is drawing a conclusion based on the false premise that a barbarian cannot inflict non-lethal damage while raging. It would have been more correct to say "well, actually, you can still do lethal damage, but I'm okay if you want to role-play it so that you can't," rather than "yup."

And really, the basic meaning of the word 'patience' does indicate that the period of time is relevant

Not in the definitions I see...

Hey there, I love rules arguments, so I thought I'd step in here =)

Just to recap:

While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.

Alrighty, so let's look at the parts up for interpretation - patience and concentration:

patience - bearing provocation, annoyance, misfortune, delay, hardship, pain, etc., with fortitude and calm and without complaint, anger, or the like.

So let's say a baddie punches the barbarian in the face, and he rages. If he responds with anger, or in a way that isn't calm, he's good. I'm sure that dealing damage to your opponent, even if it's non-lethal, can be done in an angry manner, so we're good there. I'd probably say that if he, say, strikes twice and misses because of the -4, he would become impatient with that method.

concentrate - to come or cause to come to a single purpose or aim.

Well that's unfortunate. By that ruling, the barbarian wouldn't be able to do much of anything then! Since that definition wouldn't make any sense, we'll look at another definition.

concentrate - think intensely (about).

To whack someone in the head with the shaft of your weapon, does that require intense thinking? Keeping precedence in mind, I'd say no. If you can perform tasks like riding a horse and tumbling deftly to avoid enemy attacks, I believe you can perform tasks like hitting someone with something other than the pointy end of your weapon.

Is there anything unclear or should be disputed about that?

Incredibly interested in your developments, Dabbler! I've always liked Monk but felt like it needed too much. My groups in the past say that they HATE point-buy, so I've learned and have grown with just rolling, which they've even modified so we usually roll higher. It lets monks shine for us, but also really shows its limits once it's taken away.

I'd love to, next campaign, take on your monk's changes for my next character (playing a Vitalist [life leech]/[sadist] for a new campaign tonight) and see how it does! =D

Killing them because you decided they are better dead than locked up? That's quite possible CE (though an interesting twist on it).

Actually reminds me of a PETA-related story I read a bit ago...

There’s no time to check for magic, better kill them all and burn the bodies? You, as the GM, are calling them bandits, but I doubt the men who attacked them had that as a battlecry, “For profit! Die, so that we may become wealthy!” ... and anyone with a sense of justice must surely at least ask before executing them all!

I couldn't stop laughing!! xD I just HAD to make an account just so I could reply to this!