snejjj's page

This sort of thing is why I prefer to rename Charisma to Willpower. (And Wisdom to Awareness. And switch which one adds to Will saves.)

Even with this renaming (which I like, btw), I still think it's fitting to add wisdom/awareness to your will save. Making your save then means that you noticed that you become aware that 1) your actions are being influenced/controlled by someone else and 2) noticing a way to get rid of that influence.

snejjj wrote:

They're really good when your group's tactics exists and considers them. If your group is like mine and simply rushes in and everyone hits the enemy closest to him/her, most of them are probably (at least) a step worse than treantmonk rated them.

If your Fighter is stupid enough to charge into a mass of evil-looking black tentacles instead of walking around them, he's going to get killed in short order. Probably the first time he runs into an evil Wizard.

if only it were just the fighter, but it's also the rogue and the ranger...

They're really good when your group's tactics exists and considers them. If your group is like mine and simply rushes in and everyone hits the enemy closest to him/her, most of them are probably (at least) a step worse than treantmonk rated them.

Guns are really really expensive. Every shot you take can cost you 10gp upwards and the weapons themselves are nothing you could afford at lvl 1 (except if you're a gunslinger and get your first one free).

Guns are also more complicated than bows or crossbows, because there are additional rules covering misfires (jamming, exploding, etc.) among other things.

I'd stay away from them, at leat for the beginning.

Aemesh wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

There are already some pretty reasonable rules for low intelligence reducing your skills too.

mostly - for classes like fighters, or barbs, with only 2-4 skillpoints perlevel, low int reeeeeally sucks. But I've seen some pretty ridiculous rogue/ranger builds that were still viable even with the int penalty, because those classes get enough to make up for the int loss. Pcs drop a few favored class bonuses into their mix, and they're fine. Obviously not for knowledge checks or spellcraft- but since they're uber stealth snipers or dualwield-o-maniacs, they didn't care about that anyway, they just really wanted that extra 2 damage or whatever./QUOTE]

I'd consider any skill points granted by class over 2 (the lowest pic class bonus) to be a class feature (almost definitionally). I'd be very careful about changing that as it may unbalance classes, unless you plan to start ripping away class features from other classes for dropping stats.

Based on the race builder (flawed as it is) each flexible skill point per level is worth 4 race points. Greater than darkvision 120 ft., equal to +2 racial bonus to all saves.

Yeah, ultimately I have to consider the fact that if I'm getting this much flak on the boards, my players may not agree with my distaste for the stat dumping/int penalty rules, even if they'll never say so to my face. For the most part they seem to be running parallel in my feelings for our trouble player (the guy with the super-optimized characters) but I'm gonna have to bend the knee here - the problem isn't the int rules, rather the attitude of one (two, sorta) players that don't really seem to care about the same game elements as the others.

Ah well, can't penalize everyone for the actions of a few.

If you want to penalize stat dumping more, you could require an DC10 INT check in some situations where taking 10 is possible (but taking 20 is not). Everyone who didn't dump INT can simply take 10, all others are stuck with failing half the time.

Your farts smell like candy and flowers.

And here I am, sitting on the toilet while reading this... Thanks for the laugh though

On topic:
You could have actual butterfly wings. Obviously useless, but look pretty (especially when not covered by clothing). They also come in different sizes, from barely noticeable to unrealistically large.

Just FYI, Belkar is a ranger. He just ACTS roguish. :)

Oops, of course you're right. That's what I get, writing a post "real quick" on my mobile xD

he's not a character that was actually played, but take a look at Belkar from the order of the stick. He's a CE halfling rogue whose favorite pastime is to stab people with his daggers. He's with the group mainly because they provide him ample opportunity to do so without landing in prison.
OOTS also does a good job in showing that all characters can be disruptive regardless of alignment.

You could create a map with different challenges surrounding the dragon's lair. then the players can decide which path they want to take and you aren't railroading them, even if 2 of 3 challenges are basically the same on every path.

edit: oh, or course only the challenges the players (or the map maker) know about are on the map. so a seemingly easy path could be a nasty surprise.

It's a nice idea, but really dependent on your players. If they enjoy it, definitely go for it. If they don't, you're gonna have a baaaad time.

Also, you need to create a robust ruleset for the world building game. This could be much work, even if you can incorporate the existing systems like race builder and the kingdom building system.

I'll be playing a tiefling wizard in an upcoming RotRL game with friends and I'm unsure with my feat selection.

He'll be a conjuration (teleportation) specialist. I'm loosely following Treantmonks/Prof. Q's guide, so I will focus on summoning, buffing and battlefield control.
Since our party has only 3 PCs, I expect summoning to be extra useful (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

Things I want to keep:
- Tiefling, both mechanically (darkvision, resistances, prehensile tail) and because it's more fitting for his background
- the skill selection (except the 20 INT choice)
- one item creation feat at level 5 (or earlier) for downtime use
- Improved Familiar

Things I'm not sure about:
- Spell Focus + Augment Summon. It's definitely a boost to my summons, but at lvl 5 it comes fairly late to the party. Should I scrap it and use the feats for other things (suggestions?)?
- Quicken Spell. I know I need this sooner or later, but I'm not sure when to take it...
- Fast Study. More or less a placeholder for if something comes up during play.
- Enchantment as opposition school. I know it's generally rather weak, but I'll be missing sleep during the first few levels.

Things I thought about but couldn't fit in:
- Superior summoning. Should I switch Fast study out for this one? Should I push some feats around to get it even earlier? Or should I leave it out altogether?
- armor of the pit. could be another good choice for my first level feat. Should I swap improved initative out with this?
- more metamagic feats (e.g. dazing spell). I figured I can get rods for them as well.
- preferred spell/greater spell specialization. I'll probably take one of them post lvl 10.
- opposition research. I can always pick it up if I'm seriously starting to miss some spell from my opposition schools.

So, what's your advice? should I leave the build as it is now, or should I change something?
Thanks for your help!

I second Otherwhere. Express that you really like his story, but his GMing skills need work. Tell him it's okay, since almost nobody is a great GM from the start.
Lend him your copy of the Gamemaster Manual and/or point him to the GM-chapter of the Players' Handbook (also the online guides Castilonium mentioned).

If he hasn't a firm grasp on the rules yet, volunteer to be the (neutral) rules lawyer, with him having the final say. I'll do the same when my girlfriend starts DMing next month.

Tell him something like this:
GMing isn't like writing a book. You don't have a linear story that your characters experience. It's more like Skyrim: You create the quests and set the players free to complete them. Maybe they'll stay on the road, maybe they abandon a quest halfway through because something more interesting came along, probably they won't stay on the road but try to shave a few minutes off by trying to glitch over that mountain. Watching the players get creative is half the fun.

I'd probably handle it like this:

In Character, tell the PCs that they got back sooner than expected and the money simply isn't completely available yet. Give them some more appropriate sum (e.g. 2k each) and promise them the rest will trickle in as soon as possible (probably another 2k per level).

If the Players complain OOC, tell them that you expected them to complete this challenge much later, so the reward will screw up your next encounters.

Then find some way to bring the new players up to a comparable level of wealth without giving them stuff for free.

A Combo of overland flight and invisibility could do the trick, if they're not too far out and you have some means of pinpointing their location.

About the strength of the hunger/rage:
I'll probably run them as intelligent carnivores/predators, since I'm no big fan of the usual evil lycantrhope that mindlessly go on killing sprees for no reason. So if they're hungry, they'll feast on the party, else they'll want to get out of the hut and roam around until they get hungry.
If they get threatened by someone, that's a whole other story though...

About the behaviour:
I'd say that depends on the personality of the PCs in question and their relationship.
If they're close friends or lovers, they'll probably cooperate and hunt together, but if they usually don't get along, they'll fight each other, till either is dead or flees.

I'll leave the mechanical questions to someone more experienced. But iirc, the constant boni from magic items should continue to function, as do the feats of the characters (though they may not be able to use them for things like point-blank-shot).

Mark Hoover wrote:

{...}

Confessions of an organization prisoner::

{. . .} When you look around Almas you see the faces of the common folk. Our leaders saw the demons lurking under the surface. This is not a lie or some metaphoric debate. Demons ride the souls of the citizens and our organization was founded to cast them out. {. . .}
The Devil's Horde that you hate us for is a necessary evil. {. . .}

Spoiler:

And if you try to follow up on their claims, you find that indeed, the common folk are being taken over by Demons, but if you manage to take one of pi]those[/i] prisoner, you find that they insist that they are doing this as but a necessary evil to free the populace from Infernal domination.

I think Perfection's Key could be quite fitting for an archaeologist.

Any other things you could tell us about the character and/or the campaign will also help finding something fitting.

Does it need to be an artifact, that's published somewhere or are you looking for ideas to create a new one?
Are there any restrictions/guidelines?

You might also try to hire an extra fighter, or recruit one of the Sandpoint NPCs to help.

Thanks for the hint! I'll probably take leadership, then. It would even fit quite nicely with my character concept of wanting to create a large open-for-all library (basically a medieval Wikipedia), since the low level followers could be scribes/librarians.

As the wizard, be sure to scribe extra scrolls and use summon monster to beef up your group whenever possible.

Since I'm already planning to focus on summoning and battlefield control, that'll be no problem.

I had 5 players

Okay, thanks! Let's see how we fare with three players then...

The Slayer is actually a great idea! I don't own the Advanced Class Guide yet, so I didn't know about him.
Thank you for that!

May I ask how many players you had?
It's good to know that we'll probably manage. I suppose the increased treasure per person will aid with that after the first few levels. I'll suggest to my GM to leave it as is but keep it in mind if we run into trouble.

I'll be starting Rise of the Runelords with a group of friends soon.

Our group will consist of only 3 players (+ the GM of course), with the other two players being fairly new to Pathfinder (they've played the Beginner Box and 1-2 homebrew adventures).
I'll most certainly play a Wizard loosely based on Treantmonks guide. One of the other players will probably play a TWF Ranger. The third one has played too much Assassins Creed and will probably play some sort of Rogue.

Our GM has played a few more games than the other players, but it will be her first big adventure as GM, since she only GMed the Beginners Box before.

1) Will our group composition do well in RotRL? I'm a bit worried about the lack of in combat healing (for out of combat healing we can stick a CLW-wand on the Ranger) combined with our overall squishiness. Will this be a problem?

2) How hard/deadly is RotRL? Does our GM have to adjust things for the fact that we're only three players? Or is the AP already on the easy side?

3) Any other advice (RotRL specific or general) for our novice GM?

Thanks for your answers!

1) I usually give the players what (I think) could be useful to them and/or know they could enjoy. I don't cater to wishlists, but include some "cash" into the loot, so they can go and hire someone who makes that custom item. If you add some roleplaying to that and describe the forging/crafting/enchanting, it's so much more satisfying for the players, if they finally get "their" item.
I mix things with and without charges, but with a strong preference for things without charges (mainly because I as a player would want that).

2) As a player, I prefer things that don't get used up, so I'd rather have a staff or something with x/day than a wand. But the best things are those that work constantly or at will.
I usually like "special effects" like darkvision or fly better than flat stat boni.
I also like finding consumables I definitely need, so I can spend the money I have on something permanent, because I always feel like wasting money when I buy consumables.

3) Why not Both? A weapon with some standard stats gets much more interesting when you add some backstory to it. The swords from Lord Of The Rings are a perfect example for that. Noone would look twice at Anduril, but with that backstory, it's a famous sword that everyone wants.
Unique effects are always great, just make sure that their rules are clear and they're actually useful.

147. Suddenly vanish, only to reappear at a later point, knowing everything as if they had been there all along.

148. Not noticing the sudden vanishing/reappearing of their friends.

After that much bashing, I'll have to defend the series somewhat.

Yes, it's definitely not the best series in the EU, and Yes, it differs strongly from your average Star Wars thematics.
But that doesn't make it a bad series. It's just different (a bit like Star Trek TNG vs. Star Trek DS9 different).
And it wins hands down in almost all aspects against the "Darth Caedus" series that came afterwards.

I really loved the first book, as well as the Anakin Solo story arc and I found it nice to see the Force-trumps-anything system turned upside down, at least for a while.

So if your're looking for a looong story arc with Jedi action but are tired of always the same enemy (Sith), it's definitely worth a try.
If you're looking for something closer to the "classic" Star Wars, you could look towards the "Fate of the Jedi" series (I love Vestara), even though that one has quite an unsatisfactory ending, or check out the Darth Bane books (probably even better than FotJ, but without Jedi).

Thanks! Sounds like it's about right for the group to refresh their knowledge on the basics and then quickly move one to a full module, probably crypt of the everflame, but I'll have a look at the other one you mentioned in that other post.

Thank you all for your answers! You've helped very much with our decision (and probably helped in making her first attempt at DMing a better experience for all of us).

We both know that there will be much preparation work for her, until she is ready to run her first adventure, but now I'm quite sure, she'll be up to the task if she takes her preparation seriously.

I think we'll have a go with the beginners box, then. Does it have the full rules in it , or are they simplified somehow? (And if yes, is there something an experienced player will definitely miss?)

25 point buy is actually a great idea, since it also fits the players demand for powerful characters :-)

Hi to all experienced players & DMs out there,

I've already read several of the "new DM needs help"-threads, but since our situation is fairly unique, I need your advice for our upcoming group:

We are 5 people, I have quite a bit experience with D&D and pathfinder, mostly as a player, but I successfully DMed a handful Adventures (homebrew) for this Group. One of the others (let's call her Alice) has also some experience playing, but she focused on the RP aspect till now, asking about rules as she needed them (sometimes over and over again). The others have no experience except for the few adventures I DMed for them.

Now, as one of the other players will be absent for a while, we want to start a new group, and since I haven't played for a while, Alice is thinking about taking the DM-chair for this group and running an adventure path. I myself would love to play Kingmaker, but I heard that Rise of the Runelords would be particularly beginner-friendly.

So, here are my questions to you:
1.) Is it feasible to run an adventure path with only 3PCs, and which (if any) adjustments should be made?
2.) Which AP would you recommend for a first-time DM with a mostly inexperienced group?
3.) Which rules and/or knowlege are/is most important for Alice to successfully DM?
4.) Is there any other advice you can give us?

Also feel free to post your thoughts about our group and situation. We're happy about everything that will potentially make this more fun for everyone.

Thank you for your replies!

Was my comment above just unbelievable stupid, or why did everyone ignore it? (If yes, please tell me, why, since I'm new here)

The move-action-sentence worded as it is, I still think it is possible RAW, to use the move action for a (less time consuming) swift action, even if it isn't explicitly stated.

Probably this would be a good FAQ-candidate.

Is it possible to use a move action to execute a swift action?

The PRD says: "A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time." (note the second part). Since a Swift action needs "a very small amount of time", I think I can safely assume that you can use the move action to carry out the swift action veeeery slowly.

I've got a question regarding the alignment of a future character.

(He'll be a Tiefling(infernal) Wizard, but that's largely unimportant)
I'm planning his personality as following:
- He doesn't concern himself with charity or general do-good-for-the-sake-of-good, if he can't benefit from it himself. (so he isn't good)
- But he also isn't ruthlessly trying to maximize his own power on the expense of everyone else. (so probably also not evil)

No problems till now, he is probably neutral on the good-evil scale.

- He only makes promises he can keep and always keeps those. The only reasons not to keep a promise, would be certain (or near certain) death, or because it's out of his power. (that would probably make him lawful)
- But he doesn't respect traditions in any way, except if there's a good reason he sees (e.g. tradition: putting a sheep a week in front of the dragon's lair, so he wouldn't come out and destroy the village). That's because most tradition he encountered shunned him from society. (This contradicts the lawful alignment somewhat)
- He usually keeps to the law, meaning, he pays his taxes and wouldn't steal, murder, deal with prohibited substances, but also uses the law to further his goals. (that would probably also make him lawful)

So my best guess for his alignment would be lawful neutral, but I'm not sure if he can be lawful, with this "tradition is crap"-attitude.
What do you think?

Why does everyone associate evocation only with blast-spells? Yes, many blasts (and most of the famous, like fireball) are evocation, but there is more in that school than that. Darkness, Ice Wall, all the "Hand" spells, are also in the evocation-school.

I'd say, if you want to go controller, choose cojuration. If you want to go controller/blaster hybrid, go evocation. If you want to go buffer, choose transmutation.

You could also always read Treantmonk's guide to the "god"-wizard, or KaptainKrunch/Professor Q's guide (which is based on treantmonk's, but contains more material and thinks different of some spells/abilities).

Now we've got nearly a page of replies and the best one is still

Get a shovel.

40 point buy?

man that's insane... you're basically playing god...

I'd say, if he has tucked a flaming Weapon in his belt, you could try to touch it and activate the flaming,
but using a wand, no chance (as the people before me have already stated.

I'll make the following assumptions:

• Str (at least)18 (since optimized for melee)
  
• Dex 14 (else, you'd totally neglect your AC, which you need for meelee)
  
• Weapon Training 1: any meelee weapon of your choice
  
• Weapon Training 2: Longbow (since you already have your meelee weapon training)
  
• no feats of any kind put into ranged combat
  
• +1 composite longbow with Str adjustment +4 (since 2800gp are peanuts for level 10 characters)
  

second attack:
+5(BAB)+1(WT)+2(Dex)+1(Bow) = 9 ==> hit with 15+ ==> 30% hit chance for 2nd attack.

Damage:
1W8+1(Bow)+4(Str)+1(Weapon Training)=1W8+6 ==> avg. 10.5 Damage per attack.

Critical hit:
chance: 5%*2(attacks) = 10% Multiplier: x3 ==> 10.5*3-10.5=21 additional average damage on critical hit. ==> 10%*21=2,1 average additional damage per round.

==> 11,025 Dmg/round on average.

So, even without any significant investment, you'll kill that average CR10 monster in 11 rounds if you are alone. That's pretty awesome, I'd say, since that would be 3 rounds for a party of 4 melee-fighters, that are actually optimized for other situaitons.

edit: sorry for double-post, but I had to get this off my chest...

I just checked the Bestiary 2 Monster-by-CR-table. If I count every monster that I don't know as one with flight, I'm getting to slightly above 50%. I'm too lazy to check the besiary 3, since the OP was clearly proven wrong often enough.

To deuxhero:

If you want us to see your point you will have to do the following:

1) prove (not merely state) that 50% of the monsters have flight and ranged abilities. Just sayint "that's obvious, check for yourselves" isn't proving anything.

2) show a (your) fighter-build, that's optimized for melee and calculate the DPR for ranged and melee in a transparent way.

3) compare that build with those other builds/classes, that (as you say) have the innate ability to fly and thus are superior in your opinion. And compare all of them, not just 1 or 2 of them, that actually are better against flying opponents than your fighter.

hmpf... I feared that would be the answer.
So, once again, I'm back to create my Characters using the good old pen&paper.

is there some way to include the ARG material in PCGen?

I think we should shoot for an even thousand. Since deuxhero hasn't been around for a while I'll keep up the conversation:

Fighters are intrinsically broken because some enemies are invisible but the fighter has no way to see invisible creatures without resorting to magic of some kind. Therefore Paizo should fix the fighter class by allowing them to see invisible as well as fly. Discuss.

That's not the problem Humphrey.

EDIT: Oh, and he also can't fight ethereal creatures without huge amounts of money put in a special weapon.

So then there's another question that answers the original one:

Why should a fighter need flight, if he has a bow?

Because dispel magic doesn't work that way anymore?

Okay, I had something wrong there. But according to the PFSRD, you can still dispel the flight.

To Baka Nikujaga:
So you're saying that a character always has to be able to stand on his own?
Yes, then a fighter without ranged weapon (which is btw a defining feature of the base class) having to go against a flying enemy with ranged combat is screwed.
But so is a wizard against any foe in an antimagic field.
Take an important class feature away and every character/class is screwed.

So yes, a fighter can't fly. If you see that as a flaw, simply don't play fighter.
If you're just interested in being able to hit flying foes, then you shouldn't neglect the main class feature built in to accomplish that!

Baka Nikujaga: With your logic I could also say, the Wizard is crap, because it has low Hitpoints and can wear no Armor. Or the Paladin is bad, because it can't turn invisible.

You say, that you have to specialize in order to become good: Just as I said in my last post, if you're specializing while totally neglecting everything you don't specialize into, it's your fault, not that of the game.
That would be the same as a Wizard, who specializes into the Sloth-school of the Thassilonian (hope i did spell it right) schools to get maximum performance out of it and then complaining because he can't cast Invisibility (because it's in his prohibited schools). It's not the fault of the Wizard class, but of the build the player chose.

As a GM, I'd allow it for raw gems, but I'd make sure to limit their supply.
As a Player, I probably wouldn't use this, but use the time to make my own items.

Because fly is min/level, too short to be applied in anything short of an ambush that "speak in a firm voice" will blow.

So if you are ambushing the flying creature, why didn't you consider this before making the ambush and preparing accordingly? Just drop a net on the creature, or let your Wizard (who should have prepared spells for that ambush) dispel the flight-spell (and every other buff at the same time) of the enemy? Or simply why didn't the wizard bring a silent-rod so he can send you flying without that "Firm voice", if dispelling flight is no option.

If you're just too stupid to play a BSF, don't do it. Play one of those über-super-fancy-flying-classes you love and leave the fighter to someone who actually likes the versatility of ranged AND melee combat.

And when you're purposefully neglecting any ranged combat ability to maximize your melee, then that's your problem, not that of the game, and it even is fairly balanced overall, because for every encounter you excel at, there's one you in which you suck. (going with your assumption of 50% flying enemies, which was already proven wrong earlier).

So answer the following:
1) Why is it the fault of the fighter class, if you are just ignoring half of its abilities with your build? (i.e. ranged combat)
2) Why is it the fault of the fighter class, if you and your teammates are not thinking ahead and preparing for the situation?
3) Why is it the fault of the fighter class, if your DM is a <isert bad word of your choice here> and always throws flying enemies in an open field at you, that appear out of thin air, so you don't see them coming?

As an addendum, it is generally a poor idea to ask a physicist to explain a mathematical concept and an even worse idea to ask a mathematician to explain a physical concept.

Yep, and since I'm a phisicist...(still studying)

You've got 8 planes at your disposal. Use them.
Send in everything that can't use wish to occupy Lucifers Army.

Use everything that can cast wish (or cast as a Wizard/Sorcerer) to use it to cast an empowered maximized enlarged Magic Missile against Lucifer. (Didn't check the spell level for that one. If necessary, use rods for the metamagic or just drop some of the damage enhancing metamagic, just keep enlarged so you can get enough casters in range).
Magic missile isn't subject to SR, so you don't have to worry about that (on top of the auto-hit).
You'd only need about 54 casters (level 9 or higher) to drop him to 0, even if you don't use maximize or empower.
If you'd get about say 500 solar angels, this alone should probably be enough.
Oh, you should probably have some of them cast dimensional anchor to keep lucy where he is.

Never underestimate the small spells ;-)

To the matter of 0 being no number: 0 is indeed a number. It just is no "natural" number. There's a huge difference between "there are no sheeps on the meadow" and "you can't count the sheeps, because the meadow doesn't exist alltogether" (first would be associated with 0, second with an empty set, I think. Not completely sure with the second example...).

About whether or not concentration is required to get the extra-rounds, I'd just look at spells without extra duration after concentration. What would happen, if you didn't concentrate in the round after casting? The spell would be active for the time between casting and your next turn. So effectively he had a duration of 1 round. Since the duration-entry in his description stated "concentration", and the spell did last at least some time, there has to have happened some sort of concentration. So the spell would qualify for the extra-rounds after concentration.

Long story short: I'd say the initial round of casting the spell qualifies as concentrating on the spell for that round, thus granting the extra rounds.

I'd say, if he creates those Wands himself, he has to create the 50 charges variant. (He can keep the remaining charges for the next session with that character, doesn't he?)

On the other hand, you could simply drop some half-used wands (thus with only half the charges left) in the treasure, your party finds. I'd simply calculate them as value=((normal price)/(normal uses))*(uses left)

sounds like an idea, but then someone would have to help her donning them every time she changes to animal-form, which can probably be quite annoying.