he relies on his polearm to get a few extra attacks of opportunity to make up for it.
I would be willing take one attack of opportunity to trap someone. If I(as the NPC) did not have another person to help me trap the barbarian I would try to tumble or I would move away from the barbarian and use ranged attacks. Either he comes to me or I kill him from a distance.
It is good that the party has a cleric, but if you(barbarian really) only live because of the cleric something is wrong. It is better to not get hit so you can kill the monsters faster. If the cleric started healing I would focus fire on the cleric. No point in beating on someone just to see the cleric undo all of the work. If all or at least half(the cleric would not have fun if he died) of the enemies focused on the cleric he should go down. After that you go after target which would be Hama or the archer if I can get past the barbarian which depends on a lot of factors. Now if Hama really takes no action in combat then it is really 3 against the bad guys since Hama is not participating. If Hama becomes useful at she gets at least on playmate(enemy). Invisibility is also not hard to foil at this level by monsters or humanoids. I would not foil it all the time(takes away from the fun), but it would not work every time.
It is very rare that Hama does nothing. It might take a round or two to start since she starts with defense, but she does participate in combat.
During the fight in the narrow dungeon halls against the archers, knights, and right after, their druid leaders, it was Hama who wanted the party to stay long enough to slay the druids (she knew they would hound us forever if left alive and, being in narrow halls and having powerful wands of healing at the time, this was the best time to take them on).
Sadly, she was outvoted and the party retreated after having routed the knights and archers, and slaying one of the four druids. I just know that they will be back, ready to face us on THEIR terms rather than ours.
It's a good thing our next mission took us out of the country. We may need to lay low for a while while we gain levels away from the holier-than-thou swamp city and its druidic rulers. When those goody-two-shoes do come after us (and I just know they will) maybe we will be ready to handle them in mass.
I would be willing take one attack of opportunity to trap someone. If I(as the NPC) did not have another person to help me trap the barbarian I would try to tumble or I would move away from the barbarian and use ranged attacks. Either he comes to me or I kill him from a distance.
Short of using magic, how would you propose trapping him? Even if ranged attacks were used, many combats will still put the enemy within Spring Attack range. Being able to jump in and out of total cover will foil ranged attacks pretty readily.
It is very rare that Hama does nothing.
That is good. I remember when I started playing I had a coward for a character, and there were times, to many times, I did nothing. Looking back on it I am surprised they kept me in the group.
How do you guys keep escaping full casters. I would just shape/influence the terrain to keep you trapped.
It is very rare that Hama does nothing.
That is good. I remember when I started playing I had a coward for a character, and there were times, to many times, I did nothing. Looking back on it I am surprised they kept me in the group.
How do you guys keep escaping full casters. I would just shape/influence the terrain to keep you trapped.
Actually, we've run into very few full casters. There was the dragon (which was mostly a roleplaying encounter) and then the druids (who tried to kill us outright with save or dies or high damage spells, but we kept making our saves or else had evasion). The only reason we managed to kill the one druid was because we separated her from her three friends (literally closing a [very strong] door in their faces) buying us a round of full cover in order to gang up on the lone caster.
I suppose it was lucky for us that the hallway we were in was too narrow for her to turn into some really nasty wildshape form.
Most encounters in this campaign have been with warriors or monsters.
|
Oftentimes, he will Spring in 5 or 10 feet, attack with his guisarme, then spring back behind some cover (so as to spoil an enemy's charge). Though he usually only makes one attack, he relies on his polearm to get a few extra attacks of opportunity to make up for it. If the target is small enough, or if an opportunity arises, he sometimes grapples. His high strength and reach weapon also allow him to deter possible enemies by putting the hurt on all his own.He may have invested in Vital Strike by now, but much to my surprise he just learned of its existence a few days ago.
You do know you can't do that right? You can't spring attack something that is already next to you and you must move at least 10 feet before you make your attack. So if they are within 5 feet, no spring attack for you. 10 feet with a guisarm...once again no spring attack for you. So barbarin spring attacks, giant walks up and whallops the barbarian one. He can move and draw an AoO or he can full attack. Since he will draw an AoO, he might as well attack before moving back...so they end up trading one blow for one blow. With 17 ac trading any ammount of even blows = death. Trading full attacks = faster death.
And you can't vital strike with spring attack (although one of the developer may have said otherwise and changed their minds and changed it back again...I hate that, we need a FAQ)...in any case, spring attack lets you attack between movements, not take standard actions. Vital strike is a standard action.
So you keep getting encounters with few casters and lots of cover? And the enemy doesn't focus on your healer or caster? And your enemies don't fight smart, or abilities they should fully have?
I think there's a song about that...
You do know you can't do that right? You can't spring attack something that is already next to you and you must move at least 10 feet before you make your attack.
We didn't know that Pathfinder had added a minimum 10 foot movement restriction to the feat (used to be 5 ft. in v3.5). Still, I think you misunderstood me a bit. He moves into melee range, attacks, and then moves out. We are well aware of Spring Attack's other restrictions. I've not seen him use it while already within 5 feet of an opponent. If he starts a turn that close, its because he is going to grapple and pin, or attempt to finish the foe off with a flurry. Otherwise, if he isn't Spring Attacking, then he is using his reach from a flanking position (to help out the cleric or former rogue/arcane trickster).
So barbarin spring attacks, giant walks up and whallops the barbarian one. He can move and draw an AoO or he can full attack. Since he will draw an AoO, he might as well attack before moving back...so they end up trading one blow for one blow. With 17 ac trading any ammount of even blows = death. Trading full attacks = faster death.
It's a good thing he doesn't fight like the moron you describe. You've probably noticed that most giants aren't very fast on their feet. The party orc will usually spring attack and end his movement behind cover or some other obstacle, so that giants and similar bruisers either can't get to him at all, or at least can't charge.
And you can't vital strike with spring attack (although one of the developer may have said otherwise and changed their minds and changed it back again...I hate that, we need a FAQ)...in any case, spring attack lets you attack between movements, not take standard actions. Vital strike is a standard action.
Whether or not Vital Strike works with Spring Attack is highly debatable. As you said yourself, even the game designers are split on the matter. Our group is aware of this debate and chooses to believe that they can be used as a combo.
So you keep getting encounters with few casters and lots of cover? And the enemy doesn't focus on your healer or caster? And your enemies don't fight smart, or abilities they should fully have?
I think there's a song about that...
It's true we don't face many casters. As for environment, our GM has taken us through dungeons, plains, swamps, urban settings, and now we are treking through a desert. All but two of those environs generally have lots of features to use in combat.
Does your GM always pit you against your enemies in a featureless Matrix-like white room or similar environ?
The enemy DOES focus on the healer when they realize he's a healer rather than a warrior. They DO focus on Hama when they realize she is a spellcaster rather than a noncombatant.
As for fighting smart, or using their abilities: Their have been a few tactical errors (see above with the narrow hallway full of archers), but for the most part enemies fight like real people might using real tactics. Monsters, to my knowledge, use their abilities to their fullest in our games.
|
|
It's a good thing he doesn't fight like the moron you describe. You've probably noticed that most giants aren't very fast on their feet. The party orc will usually spring attack and end his movement behind cover or some other obstacle, so that giants and similar bruisers either can't get to him at all, or at least can't charge.
Umm...WHAT?!? Giants move at 40 ft for large ones. If you gonna spring attack out of the range of that, you need a move of at least 55 ft...and that is if your starting 10 feet away. Using cover, once again, same issue...you need to be able to move at least 55 ft...and that is IF the cover is in PERFECT location for such action. If the barbian is getting away all the time via spring attack, either the monsters aren't moving tactically...or your breaking some rules. And with that AC, all he need is one to catch up to tuen him into paste.
Didn't we go over this whole your DM is probably not playing enemies smart so you all don't die bit though?
*yawn. This thread has lasted way too long
*yawn. This thread has lasted way too long
I appreciate that there are SO MANY people willing to offer such thorough advice and opinions on the matter.
Though this community has its faults like all others, the inability to find good help is not one of them.
Umm...WHAT?!? Giants move at 40 ft for large ones. If you gonna spring attack out of the range of that, you need a move of at least 55 ft...and that is if your starting 10 feet away.
A 2nd level, Barbarian/Monk, can have a move of 60' if they spend a Ki point.
I'm not sure what level they are, but with haste or 9 Monk levels, you'd be sitting pretty with 90' movement when using a Ki point. That's not counting things like a Monk's robe or an ally casting Enlarge for extra reach, etc.
It's not inconceivable. There's a reason Monks like the spring attack feat.
|
|
Umm...WHAT?!? Giants move at 40 ft for large ones. If you gonna spring attack out of the range of that, you need a move of at least 55 ft...and that is if your starting 10 feet away.A 2nd level, Barbarian/Monk, can have a move of 60' if they spend a Ki point.
I'm not sure what level they are, but with haste or 9 Monk levels, you'd be sitting pretty with 90' movement when using a Ki point. That's not counting things like a Monk's robe or an ally casting Enlarge for extra reach, etc.
It's not inconceivable. There's a reason Monks like the spring attack feat.
except of course the 55 assumes starting 10 feet away. The further away they start, th more the monk needs.
The party doesn't have access to a ready supply of haste. Otherwise, yes that is quite viable.
Okay, I feel like doing a thought experiment...
How much would it cost to "emulate" being a Lich?
Darkvision That's easy, goggles of night, 12kgp.
Natural Armor Technically it would stack with the item, but we'll ignore that for now. 50kgp.
Hitpoints It's hard to say how much extra hitpoints you'll get, as it depends on your Charisma. Let's assume you'll eventually be getting at least a +10 modifier, so 200 extra hitpoints over if you used your Constitution.
That's some serious hitpoints. It's the equivalent of +20 Con, 10 Toughness feats, or 7 stacking empowered and maximized False Life spells.
There's no real way to make a magic item that does this.
+2 to mental stats In this situation, we have ioun stones to help us. Three stones that give +2 each would be 12kgp to make, however I'd allow a slotless item having all three at a discount (since it's easier to take away all bonuses at once), so it reduces the cost down to 9kgp.
+8 to three skills I'd say we can slap these into the Darkvision ability, and only multiply the costs by 75% for one and 50% for the other two. This totals 11,200gp for adding these abilities.
We will ignore the class skills thing for the moment.
Fear Aura Basically a slightly more effective than cause fear effect. Bump it to 2nd level to allow shake effects on higher than 5HD creatures and affecting multiple creatures, and we have a 12kgp effect.
Paralyzing Touch Okay, this one had me thinking a bit. It's like Ghoul Touch, only permanent until broken, but no stench. Ghoul Touch is 2nd level.
Bestow Curse is something that is exactly as hard to remove as this ability (since it's a curse). It's 4th level arcane, 3rd level cleric.
Since being paralyzed is worse than the effects in the spell Bestow Curse, I'm going to go with 4th level spell effect if cast by a cleric.
As a use-activated effect, it costs 56kgp (note that this is probably the most conservative pricing for this).
Negative Energy Touch Effectively an inflict wounds with a slightly higher cap. I'll be generous here and simply call it a 1st level spell, but it still needs to be cast at minimum 10th caster level to equate to how much it'll give at 20th level. What I give in spell level, I take way in assuming the worst in caster level.
Once again, use activated, so 20kgp.
Damage Reduction Hoo-boy. DR 15/bludgeoning and magic. That's better than the +3 Invulnerability enhancement for armor, which grants only DR 5/magic.
It's better than a permanent Stoneskin effect at DR 10/adamantine (which is in the 60kgp+ range).
I'm probably going to have to call this one "another pile of money" to add at the end.
Cold/Electricity Immunity A permanent effect of a 10th level casted protection from energy, would be 60kgp for each effect.
Yet another "pile of money" to add on at the end.
Undead Benefits Here's that grocery list:
Immune to mind affecting effects: If we had 3.5's version of Mind Blank, we'd be looking at part of the 240kgp cost to make such a permanent, slotless item. Even counting out the anti-scrying effect to reduce this down to only half, we are still looking at 120kgp alone.
Immunity to bleed, death effects, disease, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning: I don't even know where to begin on this one. Make it another "pile of money".
Immunity to nonlethal damage, ability damage, fatigue, and energy drain: Once again, another pile of money.
Immunity to most things that require Fortitude saves: Welcome to the land of only fearing the Disintegrate spell. Makes for easy spell turning choices.
Another pile of money.
Don't need to breathe, eat or sleep: This one is mostly covered by the sustenance ring and that ioun stone. About another 15kgp or so (2 hours vs no sleep at all is negligible, but there is a difference).
Affected by an additional set of spells: You are now affected by all those "affects undead" spells. Granted, you lost access to a few good "affected humanoids", but you've got a number of new ways to be taken down.
I *might* consider removing "a pile of money" to counter balance this.
Whew, that was a lot of stuff. On to the last one...
Rejuvenation Like someone said, it's a contingency + raise dead (or breath of life, 5th level spell regardless), and a contingency + teleport. Since it works across planes, I'm going to consider it a 7th level spell.
Since this is tied to an item, I'm going to divide the pricing in half, which is generous since it's not even a slotted item really.
Contingency costs 66kgp each.
Raise Dead costs 45kgp.
Teleporting costs 91kgp.
Totaling a whopping 268kgp if made on your own. That's a value of over half a million.
Now you can maybe reduce that because it takes a week to come back to life, but even going a VERY generous 50% reduction, we are still looking at 134kgp.
.
So what's our total after everything is figured out?
Just slightly under 450kgp, and 5 piles of money (things that couldn't be counted normally). Note this was being generous in my pricing, in favour of making it cheaper.
Note that this assumes you can make all this stuff yourself, and have the time. It's valued at around a million gold pieces before you take into account the piles of money.
.
This is why Liches have adjustments. In 3.5e, you had to give up four effective class levels to gain the template. That 11th level caster is getting experience as a 15th level character.
In Pathfinder, the most open rules you can find still require at least the CR to be added, so at least a +2 level adjustment. Either that, or it's not playable as a PC.
I'd be very interested to hear what people might consider an appropriately different cost other than a level adjustment, to keep things even across the players.
If you denied the Lich from using any magical equipment at all, then things might start to even out around epic levels.
maybe they want to kill Hama because she is an evil bloodbender scorned by the fire nation? :P
Short of using magic, how would you propose trapping him? Even if ranged attacks were used, many combats will still put the enemy within Spring Attack range. Being able to jump in and out of total cover will foil ranged attacks pretty readily.
Spring Attack only allows you to avoid AoO's from one opponent. Putting two at strategic locations depending on the battle field stops that reaching cover, and returning idea. At least it eats up movement since the barbarian has to take the long way around. It also forces him to split his one attack from spring attack between two people or try to stand and deliver with a 17 AC.
If the barbarian is only using Spring Attack then my focus on Hama. When you mentioned an orc bearing down on an archer I assumed you meant a full attack. If the archer is wide open to a barbarian attack without any backup I did something wrong. I keep my squishy casters and archers in the back(behind meatshields just like you do with Hama) if possible. Spring Attack with vital strike still should not out damage a dedicated archer. Even if the archer can't get a full round attack in deadly aim, and vital strike make the barbarian with no armor on, a tempting target. Against two archers(using readied actions) to tag him as soon as he steps out of cover he should be toast.
I've yet to agree with any of the prices listed for the lich emulation. Maybe I'll do my own calculations if I have the time.
Spring Attack only allows you to avoid AoO's from one opponent. Putting two at strategic locations depending on the battle field stops that reaching cover, and returning idea. At least it eats up movement since the barbarian has to take the long way around. It also forces him to split his one attack from spring attack between two people or try to stand and deliver with a 17 AC.
If the barbarian is only using Spring Attack then my focus on Hama. When you mentioned an orc bearing down on an archer I assumed you meant a full attack. If the archer is wide open to a barbarian attack without any backup I did something wrong. I keep my squishy casters and archers in the back(behind meatshields just like you do with Hama) if possible. Spring Attack with vital strike still should not out damage a dedicated archer. Even if the archer can't get a full round attack in deadly aim, and vital strike make the barbarian with no armor on, a tempting target. Against two archers(using readied actions) to tag him as soon as he steps out of cover he should be toast.
All the archer encounters we've done so far took place in v3.5, where many of your feats didn't exist. Still, the ability to prepare actions is a good point. I don't recall the archers doing that.
I've yet to agree with any of the prices listed for the lich emulation. Maybe I'll do my own calculations if I have the time.
All the archer encounters we've done so far took place in v3.5, where many of your feats didn't exist. Still, the ability to prepare actions is a good point. I don't recall the archers doing that.Spring Attack only allows you to avoid AoO's from one opponent. Putting two at strategic locations depending on the battle field stops that reaching cover, and returning idea. At least it eats up movement since the barbarian has to take the long way around. It also forces him to split his one attack from spring attack between two people or try to stand and deliver with a 17 AC.
If the barbarian is only using Spring Attack then my focus on Hama. When you mentioned an orc bearing down on an archer I assumed you meant a full attack. If the archer is wide open to a barbarian attack without any backup I did something wrong. I keep my squishy casters and archers in the back(behind meatshields just like you do with Hama) if possible. Spring Attack with vital strike still should not out damage a dedicated archer. Even if the archer can't get a full round attack in deadly aim, and vital strike make the barbarian with no armor on, a tempting target. Against two archers(using readied actions) to tag him as soon as he steps out of cover he should be toast.
I forgot you said it was 3.5 earlier. I would have probably given them fly or made a scout/ranger if I was the DM. 3.5 archers were pretty weak unless you were a good optimizer.
|
|
I forgot you said it was 3.5 earlier. I would have probably given them fly or made a scout/ranger if I was the DM. 3.5 archers were pretty weak unless you were a good optimizer.I've yet to agree with any of the prices listed for the lich emulation. Maybe I'll do my own calculations if I have the time.
All the archer encounters we've done so far took place in v3.5, where many of your feats didn't exist. Still, the ability to prepare actions is a good point. I don't recall the archers doing that.Spring Attack only allows you to avoid AoO's from one opponent. Putting two at strategic locations depending on the battle field stops that reaching cover, and returning idea. At least it eats up movement since the barbarian has to take the long way around. It also forces him to split his one attack from spring attack between two people or try to stand and deliver with a 17 AC.
If the barbarian is only using Spring Attack then my focus on Hama. When you mentioned an orc bearing down on an archer I assumed you meant a full attack. If the archer is wide open to a barbarian attack without any backup I did something wrong. I keep my squishy casters and archers in the back(behind meatshields just like you do with Hama) if possible. Spring Attack with vital strike still should not out damage a dedicated archer. Even if the archer can't get a full round attack in deadly aim, and vital strike make the barbarian with no armor on, a tempting target. Against two archers(using readied actions) to tag him as soon as he steps out of cover he should be toast.
Well they DID have fly...they just didn't use it right because the DM made them fly low so the PC don't get killed by just some archers play intelligently. The canapoy reason is BS.
Well they DID have fly...they just didn't use it right because the DM made them fly low so the PC don't get killed by just some archers play intelligently. The canapoy reason is BS.
Ever been to a swamp? Large trees often encroach upon the waterways, creating overhangs. Sure the archers could have flown over the canopy, but then they wouldn't be able to shoot the characters effectively. Even with the canopy there, many of them were able to fly out of reach (even when jumping). Those archers were targeted and killed with spells or ranged attacks. If I recall correctly, only two or three actually stayed on the ground, and they only did so to benefit from the cover and concealment of the brush that the swamp provided (environment can work both ways as you well know).
I don't see why having an interesting, interactive environment to keep encounters from being bland is BS.
|
|
Well they DID have fly...they just didn't use it right because the DM made them fly low so the PC don't get killed by just some archers play intelligently. The canapoy reason is BS.Ever been to a swamp? Large trees often encroach upon the waterways, creating overhangs. Sure the archers could have flown over the canopy, but then they wouldn't be able to shoot the characters effectively. Even with the canopy there, many of them were able to fly out of reach (even when jumping). Those archers were targeted and killed with spells or ranged attacks. If I recall correctly, only two or three actually stayed on the ground, and they only did so to benefit from the cover and concealment of the brush that the swamp provided (environment can work both ways as you well know).
I don't see why having an interesting, interactive environment to keep encounters from being bland is BS.
Yes I have been in a swamp...and it can be an issue at around 20-30 feet. That is NOT a jumpable range. In fact that makes it even better for the archers as they are within point blank range. Even at the lowest, your looking at 10 feet. Using 3.5 rules that is a DC 60 jump check for a standing high jump. So yeah unless the canapoy is like 2 feet above the boat (not even REMOTELY realistic mind you...but hey it's a fantasy game, we can ignore the realism...but you also have to realize that in that case, it is the DM taking it easy on you guys so you can live and not anything else), then jumping and grabbing the archers is out.
The DM is coddling you all...that means the DM is doing her job since a TPK will end the game. Pretty much NONE of your characters would do well in a "standard" game. If your really curious, try this, take your characters, make them level 1 again and run kingmaker or council of theives...as written. I think your group will TPK pretty quickly. APs are in the range of what is considered standard difficulty.
Yes I have been in a swamp...and it can be an issue at around 20-30 feet. That is NOT a jumpable range. In fact that makes it even better for the archers as they are within point blank range. Even at the lowest, your looking at 10 feet. Using 3.5 rules that is a DC 60 jump check for a standing high jump. So yeah unless the canapoy is like 2 feet above the boat (not even REMOTELY realistic mind you...but hey it's a fantasy game, we can ignore the realism...
Our games are quite realistic (at least in the way NPCs act, in the tactics they use, and the types of environments we find ourselves in). The only archers who were really "jumped" were the two or three on the ground. When the barbarian came out of the water and came at them, they put a little distance between them with their flight. That's when he jumped--before they could get too high.
Also, if you recall, in v3.5 jumping took into account one's vertical reach. A successful jump check would tell you how high the BOTTOM OF YOUR FEET were. Tack on another 8 feet for a medium creature's vertical reach, and another 10 feet for the guisarme, and you can hit something fairly high up.
With around a +30 modifier (give or take), the orc could easily make it 10 feet high with a running start or 5 feet high without (on an average d20 roll). So we have 10 feet high, 8 feet for vertical reach, and another 10 feet for the polarm. That's 28 feet that the barbarian could attack something. The overhang was pretty high, but not THAT high.
|
|
Yes I have been in a swamp...and it can be an issue at around 20-30 feet. That is NOT a jumpable range. In fact that makes it even better for the archers as they are within point blank range. Even at the lowest, your looking at 10 feet. Using 3.5 rules that is a DC 60 jump check for a standing high jump. So yeah unless the canapoy is like 2 feet above the boat (not even REMOTELY realistic mind you...but hey it's a fantasy game, we can ignore the realism...Our games are quite realistic (at least in the way NPCs act, in the tactics they use, and the types of environments we find ourselves in). The only archers who were really "jumped" were the two or three on the ground. When the barbarian came out of the water and came at them, they put a little distance between them with their flight. That's when he jumped--before they could get too high.
Also, if you recall, in v3.5 jumping took into account one's vertical reach. A successful jump check would tell you how high the BOTTOM OF YOUR FEET were. Tack on another 8 feet for a medium creature's vertical reach, and another 10 feet for the guisarme, and you can hit something fairly high up.
With around a +30 modifier (give or take), the orc could easily make it 10 feet high with a running start or 5 feet high without (on an average d20 roll). So we have 10 feet high, 8 feet for vertical reach, and another 10 feet for the polarm. That's 28 feet that the barbarian could attack something. The overhang was pretty high, but not THAT high.
The point was that they should ALL have been up in the air raining arrow down above your boat. The barbarian should not have been on dry ground but jumping from the boat. And yes if he jumped 10 feet he could attack with his polearm IF the canopy started 20 feet up. I did the math wrong, so that 10 feet jump is a DC 80 check. If he was gonna grapple them, then it is a DC 120 check to jump up 15 feet to get within grapple range. If the area had canopys that was 10 feet up...WTF?!? Why are flying critters setting up an ambush in an area that is so freaking detrimental to their abilities?!? That would be playing enemies dumb. Ambush should be set up in an area that FAVORS their abilities...and as such they should have had the full 30 feet of flight room IF they were gonna be played smart in a realistic environment. And you'd all be dead.
So you are proposing you should gain ALL of those benefits, the HUGE bump in hp (conveniently working around the low CON score for your character), the natural armor, stat bonuses, DR, and other special abilities at no level adjustment? That's ridiculous.
As for the 120,000 gp spent on the phylactery, how much would you have to spend to duplicate the benefits of lichdom?
Amulet of Natural Armor +5 = 50K
Headband of Mental Superiorty +2 = 16K
Energy Resistance Greater (cold) = 66K (still not as good as cold immunity)
Energy Resistance Greater (electricity) = 66KSo I'm barely into the lich template and you've already blown past the 120K spent on the phylactery.
Okay, so Wasteland Knight said this WAAAAAAAY back on page 2. I've read most of this thread, but not all of it, so please forgive me if I'm repeating something someone else said.
Anyway, this is an awesome point and brings up an alternative solution to Level Adjustment. CR adjustment is fine for NPCs. The GM handwaves the route the NPC took to get to lichdom. For players, more care is needed.
If a player wants an extraordinary template or set of special abilities, why not work out what it would cost in magic items, spells, feats and skills to do it without the template, then require the equivalent in resources. The player may be a higher level than 11 before achieving lichdom, but you can be assured that he's at approximately the same power level as the other players, depending on optimization. It just seems like the fairest, most balanced solution.
I realize that some of the lich abilities have no existing equivalent in magic items, but a GM could figure rough equivalencies like Wasteland Knight did above.
|
|
So you are proposing you should gain ALL of those benefits, the HUGE bump in hp (conveniently working around the low CON score for your character), the natural armor, stat bonuses, DR, and other special abilities at no level adjustment? That's ridiculous.
As for the 120,000 gp spent on the phylactery, how much would you have to spend to duplicate the benefits of lichdom?
Amulet of Natural Armor +5 = 50K
Headband of Mental Superiorty +2 = 16K
Energy Resistance Greater (cold) = 66K (still not as good as cold immunity)
Energy Resistance Greater (electricity) = 66KSo I'm barely into the lich template and you've already blown past the 120K spent on the phylactery.
Okay, so Wasteland Knight said this WAAAAAAAY back on page 2. I've read most of this thread, but not all of it, so please forgive me if I'm repeating something someone else said.
Anyway, this is an awesome point and brings up an alternative solution to Level Adjustment. CR adjustment is fine for NPCs. The GM handwaves the route the NPC took to get to lichdom. For players, more care is needed.
If a player wants an extraordinary template or set of special abilities, why not work out what it would cost in magic items, spells, feats and skills to do it without the template, then require the equivalent in resources. The player may be a higher level than 11 before achieving lichdom, but you can be assured that he's at approximately the same power level as the other players, depending on optimization. It just seems like the fairest, most balanced solution.
I realize that some of the lich abilities have no existing equivalent in magic items, but a GM could figure rough equivalencies like Wasteland Knight did above.
See I have no problem with that solution...course the cost will probably be pretty much all the treasure of a level 20 character...or more. Now if we used some feats and/or reduced casting on top...now we're cooking.
I would suggest creating a prestige class, based on the level adjustment. That's kind of what the dragon disciple is (that is, its a prestige class that slowly grants abilities of a template on the character). The player takes 1 level of it and becomes a demi-lich, granting some benefits, and allows the character to slowly become undead. You would probably lose a few caster levels, just like the DD, on your way to 20th but you gain the template eventually and become a full fledged lich.
I agree, it's the solution I would use ... I did one for vampires that seemed to work OK. One for a lich would likewise be relatively straightforward.
|
|
I agree, it's the solution I would use ... I did one for vampires that seemed to work OK. One for a lich would likewise be relatively straightforward.
Yeah PrCs can be good for some things ;) . Honestly I think PrC that are used for templates and MC shouldn't really be called prestige classes...they are base options that you need to make some concepts just work.
The point was that they should ALL have been up in the air raining arrow down above your boat.
Those in the air died the quickest because they had no defenses against OUT archer or the cleric's spells. It makes perfect sense that some of them started behind concealment and cover in order to avoid ranged retaliation.
As for it not making sense that they ambushed us in a suboptimal setting...it's their home, and they were boarder guards or something similar that had been stationed there. It's not like they were wizards who made a tactical error in casting fly in an area where it does no good. They were BORN with their ability to fly. They can't help that any more than they can help the fact that their territory happens to be in a swamp.
|
The point was that they should ALL have been up in the air raining arrow down above your boat. The barbarian should not have been on dry ground but jumping from the boat. And yes if he jumped 10 feet he could attack with his polearm IF the canopy started 20 feet up. I did the math wrong, so that 10 feet jump is a DC 80 check. If he was gonna grapple them, then it is a DC 120 check to jump up 15 feet to get within grapple range. If the area had canopys that was 10...Yes I have been in a swamp...and it can be an issue at around 20-30 feet. That is NOT a jumpable range. In fact that makes it even better for the archers as they are within point blank range. Even at the lowest, your looking at 10 feet. Using 3.5 rules that is a DC 60 jump check for a standing high jump. So yeah unless the canapoy is like 2 feet above the boat (not even REMOTELY realistic mind you...but hey it's a fantasy game, we can ignore the realism...Our games are quite realistic (at least in the way NPCs act, in the tactics they use, and the types of environments we find ourselves in). The only archers who were really "jumped" were the two or three on the ground. When the barbarian came out of the water and came at them, they put a little distance between them with their flight. That's when he jumped--before they could get too high.
Also, if you recall, in v3.5 jumping took into account one's vertical reach. A successful jump check would tell you how high the BOTTOM OF YOUR FEET were. Tack on another 8 feet for a medium creature's vertical reach, and another 10 feet for the guisarme, and you can hit something fairly high up.
With around a +30 modifier (give or take), the orc could easily make it 10 feet high with a running start or 5 feet high without (on an average d20 roll). So we have 10 feet high, 8 feet for vertical reach, and another 10 feet for the polarm. That's 28 feet that the barbarian could attack something. The overhang was pretty high, but not THAT high.
Napalm, you seem incredibly irritated from someone who is experiencing a scenario second-hand.
Are you implying that the only characters who deserve to be high level - in a game you're not even playing in - are those who survive optimized combat situations? It's a story, an adventure: if the DM wants them to fight flying swamp archers, they fight flying swamp archers.
...The point was that they should ALL have been up in the air raining arrow down above your boat. The barbarian should not have been on dry ground but jumping from the boat. And yes if he jumped 10 feet he could attack with his polearm IF the canopy started 20 feet up. I did the math wrong, so that 10 feet jump is a DC 80 check. If he was gonna grapple them, then it is a DC 120 check to jump up 15 feet to get within grapple range. If the areaYes I have been in a swamp...and it can be an issue at around 20-30 feet. That is NOT a jumpable range. In fact that makes it even better for the archers as they are within point blank range. Even at the lowest, your looking at 10 feet. Using 3.5 rules that is a DC 60 jump check for a standing high jump. So yeah unless the canapoy is like 2 feet above the boat (not even REMOTELY realistic mind you...but hey it's a fantasy game, we can ignore the realism...Our games are quite realistic (at least in the way NPCs act, in the tactics they use, and the types of environments we find ourselves in). The only archers who were really "jumped" were the two or three on the ground. When the barbarian came out of the water and came at them, they put a little distance between them with their flight. That's when he jumped--before they could get too high.
Also, if you recall, in v3.5 jumping took into account one's vertical reach. A successful jump check would tell you how high the BOTTOM OF YOUR FEET were. Tack on another 8 feet for a medium creature's vertical reach, and another 10 feet for the guisarme, and you can hit something fairly high up.
With around a +30 modifier (give or take), the orc could easily make it 10 feet high with a running start or 5 feet high without (on an average d20 roll). So we have 10 feet high, 8 feet for vertical reach, and another 10 feet for the polarm. That's 28 feet that the barbarian could attack something. The overhang was pretty high, but not THAT high.
I think the issue is that RD wont admit to being coddled, and Napalm wants him to see that in a standard game his party will die. Neither side wants to budge. Looking at the barbarian/monk and the Hama I would not see them surviving anything I ran either, but I am waiting for all the information to be presented before I post anything to RD again. It seems the ambush selection site was not in the ambushers' favor though, which does not make much sense to me.
|
|
The point was that they should ALL have been up in the air raining arrow down above your boat.Those in the air died the quickest because they had no defenses against OUT archer or the cleric's spells. It makes perfect sense that some of them started behind concealment and cover in order to avoid ranged retaliation.
As for it not making sense that they ambushed us in a suboptimal setting...it's their home, and they were boarder guards or something similar that had been stationed there. It's not like they were wizards who made a tactical error in casting fly in an area where it does no good. They were BORN with their ability to fly. They can't help that any more than they can help the fact that their territory happens to be in a swamp.
You had ONE archery type to their 10. I'm sorry, but as a group they should have taken to the air, focus fired, killed the ranger, then cleric and then taken their time with everyone else. Assuming the canopy in the area wasn't hanging 10 feet above the boat...in which case, it's their home turf and they can't find a better spot to deal with border incursions? Really? That's your idea of realistic and intelligently played enemies? An area where the canopy goes to the 20-30 feet range makes your all dead. The issue isn't the swamp...the issue is that either they pick a REALLY stupid area to set up a guard station as flying creatures...or they did not make proper use of their flight abilities.
|
|
Napalm, you seem incredibly irritated from someone who is experiencing a scenario second-hand.
Are you implying that the only characters who deserve to be high level - in a game you're not even playing in - are those who survive optimized combat situations? It's a story, an adventure: if the DM wants them to fight flying swamp archers, they fight flying swamp archers.
The issue isn't the scenerio...the issue is that RD keeps defending stupidly played enemies as realistic and intelligently played. Hell I coddle some of my players when they mess up so the game doesn't come to an end. My players make mistakes (like leaving the casters alone to deal with the meat shields) which means I need to start fudging and playing dumb or the WILL die. This means RD's DM is actually doing a GOOD job in this part...but lets not kid ourselves, that example was pure DM playing dumb to let them live.
In fact, my party is learning the pain that can be archers and focused fire. The sorcerer thought dragon form would make him impervious to low level archers...yeah he was wrong. I really had to play stupid for the party to survive that idiocy.
This thread has gotten way off track.
Ravingdork asked about other players (possibly) planning to kill his character, and what to do about it.
Not whether his mage should be able to become a lich and what penalties said mage should or should not suffer.
Not whether the DM treats the party with kid gloves.
So, to try to get us back on topic.
I think the best thing to do is discuss your concerns with the DM first. If she can deal with it, especially without the campaign self destructing, that's the best course.
Else, you should either find a way to head off the murder yourself (preferred, imo) or protect yourself in case they do try to make good on their threats.
This thread has gotten way off track.
Ravingdork asked about other players (possibly) planning to kill his character, and what to do about it.
Not whether his mage should be able to become a lich and what penalties said mage should or should not suffer.
Not whether the DM treats the party with kid gloves.
So, to try to get us back on topic.
I think the best thing to do is discuss your concerns with the DM first. If she can deal with it, especially without the campaign self destructing, that's the best course.
Else, you should either find a way to head off the murder yourself (preferred, imo) or protect yourself in case they do try to make good on their threats.
The original topic has been over. The sub-topics are the topics now.
I think the issue is that RD wont admit to being coddled, and Napalm wants him to see that in a standard game his party will die.
That's exactly right. As far as I'm concerned, our games ARE standard games.
If he had simply said, Hama would never make it in his games then that would have been fine, but he seems hellbent on changing the way I view/believe something. That's just not going to happen. The way he implies that his games never have anything but optimized enemies with perfect ambushes makes me think that his games are rather FAR from normal (ruthlessly aggressive maybe) since not even published modules have optimized NPCs in an optimized setting very often.
It's a story, an adventure: if the DM wants them to fight flying swamp archers, they fight flying swamp archers.
This is pretty much what I've been trying to say from the start.
The GM makes sure that her "world" works independently of the PCs. There isn't any "CR encounters scales as you level" type of coddling going on in her games. If you go to a dragon's cave or an archmages tower, you are going to find something you aren't ready to deal with. If your liege lord sends you to negotiate a treatise with a trio of powerful hags and you are 1st-level, you best hope they aren't in the mood to eat you.
In fact, my party is learning the pain that can be archers and focused fire.
Focused fire is something players do in games because they know taking down one enemy is better than spreading fire out among multiple enemies who will still be 100% effective despite hit points.
You don't often see focused fire in real world tactics (where marines and SWAT teams assign targets to take out whole groups quickly and efficiently), only in games.
As I've said, our GM makes the enemy responses and tactics seem very realistic. You, my friend, are often speak of game tactics, not real tactics. I think that's part of why we have trouble agreeing (but see below).
I think the issue is that RD wont admit to being coddled, and Napalm wants him to see that in a standard game his party will die.That's exactly right. As far as I'm concerned, our games ARE standard games.
If he had simply said, Hama would never make it in his games then that would have been fine, but he seems hellbent on changing the way I view/believe something. That's just not going to happen. The way he implies that his games never have anything but optimized enemies with perfect ambushes makes me think that his games are rather FAR from normal (ruthlessly aggressive maybe) since not even published modules have optimized NPCs in an optimized setting very often.
So first we would have to agree on what standard is. I think Paizo's AP have some good battles. I have not tried any of their stand alone adventures yet.
I don't think Napalm has to have optimized characters, but he expects them to be competent. Having an ambush where you cant use your abilities is not competent, but maybe the DM wanted you to run away. Considering what he used it should have been a TPK, which is why I think making you run was the goal.
|
|
The GM makes sure that her "world" works independently of the PCs. There isn't any "CR encounters scales as you level" type of coddling going on in her games. If you go to a dragon's cave or an archmages tower, you are going to find something you aren't ready to deal with. If your liege lord sends you to negotiate a treatise with a trio of powerful hags and you are 1st-level, you best hope they aren't in the mood to eat you.
Except that it's not. If the DM chooses to have the hag eat you, the game ends...so if the liege sends you deal with the hags, you are guranteed they wont just straight out attack you as then the game ends.
Same with the swamp archers...if they were played itelligently and ruthlessly as they should be realistically, you all die and the game ends.
She is allowing you to run into big things...but she is also playing them down so you all don't die and the game ends. I'm not knocking her for doing that either...I think she is doing a pretty damn good job of it for the group. But that monk or hama is made with SOOOO much glaring weaknesses that they would die in most standard (read AP level of difficulty) games. Yes having a weakness is one thing...but the two of you aren't min/max (minimize weakness/maximize strengths)...your max/maxing (maximize weakness/maximize strengths). Such characters ONLY survive with the grace of god...aka the DM.
So first we would have to agree on what standard is. I think Paizo's AP have some good battles. I have not tried any of their stand alone adventures yet.
I don't think Napalm has to have optimized characters, but he expects them to be competent. Having an ambush where you cant use your abilities is not competent, but maybe the DM wanted you to run away. Considering what he used it should have been a TPK, which is why I think making you run was the goal.
Another thing to keep in mind, is none of us know what those archers look like stat-wise. I said they were high level, but I think anything above 6th is high level for an unnamed NPC. All I know is that they could fly (with wings), could smite once each, and I could only effect one at a time with my deep slumber spell. That lead me to believe, out of game, that they were paladins (at first) and then later I found that half celestials fit better.
I think maybe Cold Napalm must of had a different idea of the archers' level and capabilities from the beginning.
The original topic has been over. The sub-topics are the topics now.
It certainly seems that way.
|
|
Focused fire is something players do in games because they know taking down one enemy is better than spreading fire out among multiple enemies who will still be 100% effective despite hit points.You don't often see focused fire in real world tactics (where marines and SWAT teams assign targets to take out whole groups quickly and efficiently), only in games.
As I've said, our GM makes the enemy responses and tactics seem very realistic. You, my friend, are often speak of game tactics, not real tactics. I think that's part of why we have trouble agreeing (but see below).
If players do it, monsters should be doing it too.
And in REAL combat a single hit kills so you don't need to focus fire. One arrow kills just as well as 10 arrows in real life. Don't try to bring in real life again. D&D and real life combat is about .00000001% accurate. And I'm being generous.
Real tactics used in a game like D&D IS playing stupid and dumb because the combat system for D&D is NOTHING like real life.
Focused fire is something players do in games because they know taking down one enemy is better than spreading fire out among multiple enemies who will still be 100% effective despite hit points.You don't often see focused fire in real world tactics (where marines and SWAT teams assign targets to take out whole groups quickly and efficiently), only in games.
As I've said, our GM makes the enemy responses and tactics seem very realistic. You, my friend, are often speak of game tactics, not real tactics. I think that's part of why we have trouble agreeing (but see below).
If players do it, monsters should be doing it too.
And in REAL combat a single hit kills so you don't need to focus fire. One arrow kills just as well as 10 arrows in real life. Don't try to bring in real life again. D&D and real life combat is about .00000001% accurate. And I'm being generous.
Real tactics used in a game like D&D IS playing stupid and dumb because the combat system for D&D is NOTHING like real life.
I agree. If you are playing in the game world then use game world tactics. Using real life tactics in the game would not work because if those monsters were real they would only need one hit to take you out of a fight meaning, but since that does not work in the game world they should keep hitting you until you die.
|
|
So first we would have to agree on what standard is. I think Paizo's AP have some good battles. I have not tried any of their stand alone adventures yet.I don't think Napalm has to have optimized characters, but he expects them to be competent. Having an ambush where you cant use your abilities is not competent, but maybe the DM wanted you to run away. Considering what he used it should have been a TPK, which is why I think making you run was the goal.
Yep.
But as I said, even I play down encounters to prevent TPKs myself so I'm not even saying that doing so is a BAD thing myself.
That said, anyone have a boss encounter for an AP or adventure at level 9? Why not try a PbP of that encounter with RD's 4 party members and see how well they end up? I'm guessing a pretty quick TPK personally.
I agree. If you are playing in the game world then use game world tactics. Using real life tactics in the game would not work because if those monsters were real they would only need one hit to take you out of a fight meaning, but since that does not work in the game world they should keep hitting you until you die.
But a monster in the game really would only need one hit to kill Hama. Seems real enough to me.
Yep.
But as I said, even I play down encounters to prevent TPKs myself so I'm not even saying that doing so is a BAD thing myself.
That said, anyone have a boss encounter for an AP or adventure at level 9? Why not try a PbP of that encounter with RD's 4 party members and see how well they end up? I'm guessing a pretty quick TPK personally.
I'm game. Win or loose it sounds like fun. However, I don't think I'd be able to get the other players involved (I've made a point of not showing them this thread for obvious reasons).
If you ARE serious about that, please don't use anything from Kingmaker or Legacy of Fire if you don't mind--we are currently going through those modules.
So first we would have to agree on what standard is. I think Paizo's AP have some good battles. I have not tried any of their stand alone adventures yet.I don't think Napalm has to have optimized characters, but he expects them to be competent. Having an ambush where you cant use your abilities is not competent, but maybe the DM wanted you to run away. Considering what he used it should have been a TPK, which is why I think making you run was the goal.
Yep.
But as I said, even I play down encounters to prevent TPKs myself so I'm not even saying that doing so is a BAD thing myself.
That said, anyone have a boss encounter for an AP or adventure at level 9? Why not try a PbP of that encounter with RD's 4 party members and see how well they end up? I'm guessing a pretty quick TPK personally.
Personally, I think RD's GM was probably being fair and that you may not have the full stats on those enemies. But anyways, try this--
Our group had a pretty challenging time with the following encounter that nearly wiped them--they were mostly level 8 with two level 9s, but they had 5 characters plus an NPC that the AP sends with you who's pretty terrible for that area (she's a favoured enemy goblin Ranger, and there's no goblins). The stats for the NPCs are all in Hook Mountain Massacre (AP#3) except for one from the end of Skinsaw Murders AP#2.
If RD can win this with his four PCs, I'd say they could take pretty much anything level appropriate easily.
Personally, I think RD's GM was probably being fair and that you may not have the full stats on those enemies. But anyways, try this--
Our group had a pretty challenging time with the following encounter that nearly wiped them--they were mostly level 8 with two level 9s, but they had 5 characters plus an NPC that the AP sends with you who's pretty terrible for that area (she's a favoured enemy goblin Ranger, and there's no goblins). The stats for the NPCs are all in Hook Mountain Massacre (AP#3) except for one from the end of Skinsaw Murders AP#2.
If RD can win this with his four PCs, I'd say they could take pretty much anything level appropriate easily.
** spoiler omitted **
Ooh. I've got something to do tonight, then. If anyone asks me what I'm doing, I'll say, "Being a huge nerd."
|
|
Yep.
But as I said, even I play down encounters to prevent TPKs myself so I'm not even saying that doing so is a BAD thing myself.
That said, anyone have a boss encounter for an AP or adventure at level 9? Why not try a PbP of that encounter with RD's 4 party members and see how well they end up? I'm guessing a pretty quick TPK personally.
I'm game. Win or loose it sounds like fun. However, I don't think I'd be able to get the other players involved (I've made a point of not showing them this thread for obvious reasons).
If you ARE serious about that, please don't use anything from Kingmaker or Legacy of Fire if you don't mind--we are currently going through those modules.
Next time I go to game store, I'll browse through the APs and single adventures to try to find one for level 9 and using PF system. You can just play all 4 characters if you don't wanna get the other players involved (love the dice option in this forum :) ). I will avoid those two APs...besides which kingmaker is pretty brutal for an AP anyways so I would have stayed away from that anyways and legacy of fire is 3.5. If not i'll just convert one of the rise of the runelord encounter as that AP seemed the most average in difficulty of all the paizo AP I have run/played through.
So first we would have to agree on what standard is. I think Paizo's AP have some good battles. I have not tried any of their stand alone adventures yet.I don't think Napalm has to have optimized characters, but he expects them to be competent. Having an ambush where you cant use your abilities is not competent, but maybe the DM wanted you to run away. Considering what he used it should have been a TPK, which is why I think making you run was the goal.
Yep.
But as I said, even I play down encounters to prevent TPKs myself so I'm not even saying that doing so is a BAD thing myself.
That said, anyone have a boss encounter for an AP or adventure at level 9? Why not try a PbP of that encounter with RD's 4 party members and see how well they end up? I'm guessing a pretty quick TPK personally.
Most likely it would be an EL 12 encounter.
Age of Worms:CR 11 Mindflayer with 7 levels of sorcerer SR 32, made for grappling so it can suck brains out.
CR 8 Erinyes with 4 levels of scout Link
2 CR 4 Dolguants with levels of monk(specialized in (CMB/CMD)