Bonekeep 2 and an extremely problematic build


GM Discussion

51 to 100 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge 5/5

so a quick answer for Skinsend Duration issue
Rod of Lesser extend ... that 7 hours becomes 14 hours that is More than enough time to go from Absalom to bonekeep lvl 2 and back Twice over

and as for the Skin Dying bit Cost of a Regenerate Spell is 3PP which is a way to get your skin back

I guess I don't see the problem with the mechanics of the character

the argumentative bit is something else tho

The Exchange 4/5 5/5

Wraith235 wrote:

so a quick answer for Skinsend Duration issue

Rod of Lesser extend ... that 7 hours becomes 14 hours that is More than enough time to go from Absalom to bonekeep lvl 2 and back Twice over

It's an alchemist extract, so there's no way to extend it.

Quote:
and as for the Skin Dying bit Cost of a Regenerate Spell is 3PP which is a way to get your skin back
The problem is that given that they will spend 6 hours each way traveling to Bonekeep he has to leave his body somewhere outside the city. If the party wipes how will his body get back to Absalom?

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Kevin Willis wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:

so a quick answer for Skinsend Duration issue

Rod of Lesser extend ... that 7 hours becomes 14 hours that is More than enough time to go from Absalom to bonekeep lvl 2 and back Twice over
It's an alchemist extract, so there's no way to extend it.

Dont play alchemists so this is my mistake ...Learn something new every day

Kevin Willis wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:
and as for the Skin Dying bit Cost of a Regenerate Spell is 3PP which is a way to get your skin back
The problem is that given that they will spend 6 hours each way traveling to Bonekeep he has to leave his body somewhere outside the city. If the party wipes how will his body get back to Absalom?

Each way wont matter ... however yes that travel could be an issue but is another easy thing to fix - 2 PA for a Wand of Mount or 2 Scrolls of Communal Mount at and have it Hustle (~10 miles in an hour ) leaving 5hrs+ Change(Im shorting the overland movment of the mount spell for saftey)

Now Granted if hes NOT Taking time to Consider the issues then ya sure ...and it sounds like he is keeping the duration accounted for

one other thing to think of - Rounds are 6 Seconds in game time and Most times a Round takes 5+ Minutes to complete Real time so you have to look at the amount of time spent in Combat During bonekeep .. and by my estimation its about 75% having run it 2x and played once so the 5 hours of Play time is condensed into 1 hour 15 min Actual time (pushing that up to 2 hours would make sense)
so once you start looking at things like that suddenly your duration is Not really an issue

Again I am only looking at the Mechanical Issues of this

Scarab Sages 5/5

there are certainly ways to mitigate the duration problems.

But if they start the adventure and those duration issues weren't mitigated, then there becomes a major problem for the character.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

and I actually Just found a way to extend extracts ... its a 3rd level Extract but it works

Amplitfy Elixer

and if this is his Main Schtik then it would become a necessary thing

3/5

And again, I would point out that I'm not sure exactly what he's trying to achieve with this character. If his goal is 'not die', there are better, more party friendly ways to do exactly that.

If is goal is to bring a subpar character into any scenario (not just bonekeep) then....I'm not sure what to say to that. You're doing yourself and your group a disservice.

The Exchange 4/5 5/5

Wraith235 wrote:

and I actually Just found a way to extend extracts ... its a 3rd level Extract but it works

Amplitfy Elixer

and if this is his Main Schtik then it would become a necessary thing

Sadly that extract only works for potions and elixirs, not for other extracts. (I do play alchemists a lot) :)

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Kevin Willis wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:

and I actually Just found a way to extend extracts ... its a 3rd level Extract but it works

Amplitfy Elixer

and if this is his Main Schtik then it would become a necessary thing

Sadly that extract only works for potions and elixirs, not for other extracts.

Like I say I don't play alchemists but unless your playing a rapid bomb alchemist I am starting to wonder why I ever would

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Wraith235 wrote:
Like I say I don't play alchemists but unless your playing a rapid bomb alchemist I am starting to wonder why I ever would

Because the spell list is amazing, and Mutagen is a phenomenal buff.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Vrog Skyreaver wrote:

And again, I would point out that I'm not sure exactly what he's trying to achieve with this character. If his goal is 'not die', there are better, more party friendly ways to do exactly that.

If is goal is to bring a subpar character into any scenario (not just bonekeep) then....I'm not sure what to say to that. You're doing yourself and your group a disservice.

my guess is "Play by Proxy" its the same Idea as Magic Jar only less powerful

Second Seekers (Roheas) 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia

For the question at hand, I don't see why the answer to this isn't "if he wipes or the he dies and the party doesn't elect to recover his body, he owes 5 PP for a body recovery in addition to the other costs of being raised".

But it sounds like his build is the least of your problems.

4/5 5/5

This character is using skinsend to create a magical creature, then sending that magical creature along on an adventure with his homunculus, while leaving his body behind elsewhere, yes? How is he controlling the homunculus in this situation? And doesn't controlling both the magical creature created by skinsend and the homunculus exceed the limit on the number of combat creatures one can control in an encounter?

If you make the argument that the skinsend isn't taking actions in combat, an argument could be made that the homunculus isn't under the character's control and could be controlled as an NPC by the GM.

If you make the argument that the skinsend can take any actions the character could take, including controlling the homunculus, and it does so, that player is now controlling two creatures in each encounter... neither of which are his character.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

The skinsend is his character.

4/5 5/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
The skinsend is his character.

My mistake. I was confused by the first line of that spell's description:

Quote:
You cause your own skin to peel off your body and animate as a magical creature you control.

My original understanding was that the skinsend's magical creature was not the character, but rather a separate entity under the character's control.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Controlled by the characters consciousness. I suppose that is a distinction.

Scarab Sages 4/5 5/55/5 *

Have an enemy creature wear his skin if possible. Hot damn that is one sexy spell.

Dark Archive 4/5 owner - Redcap's Corner, Owner - Redcap's Corner

To return to the original question, you're not really empowered to offer any sort of box-text-consequences, nor do you really have to offer the player any explanation about how his character preferences interface with that box text. The box text tells him what happened, and he can fill in the details to himself if he needs to. Bonekeep adventures are strictly timed, and there's no need to instigate an argument with a player you know is prone to arguing, since it will only be at the other players' expense. Hand-wave it, and start at the dungeon doors, after a brief conversation about how he wants to handle the duration on skinsend.

As for this player being a problem in general, just send it up the VO chain for advice. I will say, though (and this is not aimed at the OP, specifically; just mentioned in response to much of the tone of this thread), that a GM trying to find in-game ways to punish a player for any reason (up to and including having a powerful character) is both grossly unacceptable in PFS, and makes that GM look like just as just as much of a jerk as this player is being made out to be.

4/5

I'm not trying to punish him, though I can certainly understand how you might think so; while I do personally have some issues with aspects of his build, those are rightly addressed by campaign leadership by means of the additional resources list.

The original purpose of this post was asking what I can do to address the fact that the stated intro to part 2 makes no sense for his character, for the reasons given.

I don't like ignoring the consequences of player choice merely because of the needs of plot.

I also am quite aware that given the argumentative nature of this particular player, that I would get a huge argument from him if I were to tell him that he had no memory of what happened the first time they went in.

I don't think just saying "because I said so" is good GMing.

Merely saying that the plot demands it would not avoid that fight.

I do understand run as written, however, and am going to go with Andrew's suggestion for handling the plot backstory, should it matter.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Bob Jonquet wrote:


I disagree with doing anything punitive to counter a player's OP build. You may not like it, but if it has been properly vetted (audited) and is legal, forcing said player to pay additional fines/fees like body recovery simply because you do not like the build is not embracing the cooperate portion of our tenets. IME, sometimes its better to just let the player have their curb-stomping fun and move on.

There is a difference between punishing a character for their build, and targeting the weakness created by a build.

Skinsend is a powerful spell with a very powerful drawback. The drawback is *intended* to balance the spell itself. If you are ignoring the drawback, you are making the spell far too powerful for it's level.

Without seeing the rest of the extracts he is buffing the construct with, I can't be certain, but honestly, this thing should be dying a lot. If the player has a history of cheating, I would strongly consider the possibility that the reason his homoculous is so OP is not that he has come up with a clever build, but that he is fudging dice rolls...

2/5

Jared,
The construct could be quite durable:
Mithral Breastplate +2 (w/ Additional Traits, to get ACP to 0): +8 AC
Dodge +1
Shield Extract +4
Barkskin Extract +3
Natural Armor +2
Dex 13 +1 (Maybe +2 with stat bump)
Potion (or wand w/ UMD & key) of Shield of Faith +2

32 AC with only one notable purchase (and mid-30s with more money, or special items on chronicle sheets).
Pretty good AC for a flying critter at 7th.

Also
Extra 5 h.p./level via Ablative Barrier (converts to nonlethal, which it is immune to).

Of course, this burns up many of the extracts (and two out of three feats). In nova mode, he could take other 1 min/level buffs (Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace).
The Alchemist could use Spontaneous Healing with Healing Touch (name?) on it to speed up recovery time. (That is, if Skinsend thing could do that.)

Despite Evasion, I think AoEs would totally destroy it (and the Skinsend) because it has a horrible Reflex save (+3, maybe +6 w/ stat bump & Cat's Grace, +9 with good cloak, and still 50/50 to save after all that investment).

What I'm not seeing is a game-changing offense.

As somebody mentioned earlier, the bread & butter for my team in Bonekeep, Heroism, wouldn't work because while the construct can be counted as humanoid for extracts, that doesn't make the "immune to mind-affecting" trait go away. So I really don't know where it'd get a boost (that it could afford).

Base: 3d6+6 (in 3 attacks)
Power Attack (which is iffy with its low attack) +12
Enlarge, 3d8 now and +3 more
Bull's Strength +6
So 3d8+21, which is solid, but at attack +8 net, which is poor.
It'd have an iffy time dropping an Ogre in two rounds.

Even with a +2 equivalent on his Amulet of Mighty Fists (elemental damage, vicious, merciful, et al), I don't see his damage output as Bonekeep breaking, especially when certain monsters will be immune to such things (or have ACs he can't hit). And he'd need to use another extract to get through DR/magic. (Unless constructs can be retrained, and he spends a feat.)

I'd be more worried he'd be playing cheesy, letting others bear the burden when a different PC would actually be contributing.

Of course, that answer was merely for the mental exercise.
My actual answer is why is such a disruptive person, arguably volatile, being allowed in such a high profile game where time is so tight and teamwork essential? And that's just to survive...

4/5

I got a copy of his character. He failed the audit, badly. He was upgrading his homonculus per the craft construct rules.

There were several other issues.

Silver Crusade

And this is why you audit.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Jeffrey Reed wrote:
I got a copy of his character. He failed the audit, badly. He was upgrading his homonculus per the craft construct rules.

Holy...

Well, that'll do it.

Scarab Sages 2/5

Jeffrey Reed wrote:

I got a copy of his character. He failed the audit, badly. He was upgrading his homonculus per the craft construct rules.

There were several other issues.

Was he using the homunculus construct advancement rules, which are legal, or some other construct advancement rules?

While the homunculus companion is not a valid construct to be advanced by the craft homunculus rules I can see it as an understandable mistake.


Im not familiar with PFS rules, but does it not have random encounters?

Because if it does, hes leaving his body in the woods for hours at a time. Thats effectively sleeping. There should be random encounters (encounters he cant fight off)

Pretty sure a wolf coming across a skinless unconscious body could make quick work of it.

That should dissuade this tactic pretty quickly.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Baval wrote:
Im not familiar with PFS rules, but does it not have random encounters?

Correct. Scenarios have specified encounters, and GMs are not allowed to add extra ones just to murder PCs. Or even not to murder PCs. No extra encounters, that's all.


TOZ wrote:
Baval wrote:
Im not familiar with PFS rules, but does it not have random encounters?
Correct. Scenarios have specified encounters, and GMs are not allowed to add extra ones just to murder PCs. Or even not to murder PCs. No extra encounters, that's all.

well that should be addressed. Random Encounters are one of the main balances for cheese tactics like this. Still I understand why its in place, so you dont get a murder hungry DM. All well.

4/5

He was adding hit die to his homonculus.

There's a lot of other really dubious stuff, but that's the source of it being OP.

He was also using the celestial servant feat to add the celestial template, which doesn't actually seem to apply to the promethean alchemist's homonculus, but combined with the increased hit die (he had boosted it to an 11 HD creature) gave it cold, acid, and electricity resist 15 and DR/10 evil.

Scarab Sages 2/5

Jeffrey Reed wrote:

He was adding hit die to his homonculus.

There's a lot of other really dubious stuff, but that's the source of it being OP.

He was also using the celestial servant feat to add the celestial template, which doesn't actually seem to apply to the promethean alchemist's homonculus, but combined with the increased hit die (he had boosted it to an 11 HD creature) gave it cold, acid, and electricity resist 15 and DR/10 evil.

Ah, yes, celestial servant would not be a valid feat for the Homunculus Companion class feature as it is not an animal companion nor a familiar.

But, I can see how easy it would be to believe that the Homunculus Companion could be advanced using the homunculus crafting rules(which, again, are legal). In fact, it is a tiny bit of a gray area. The Homunculus Companion is a homunculus... but I think RAI would be that the two are seperate as the Homunculus Companion is a unique style of homunculus. Especially since the rules for the two do not match well.

PFS FAQ wrote:

"Can a character have a homunculus created as a familiar?

A character must have the Improved Familiar feat to select a homunculus as a familiar. Since crafting is not allowed in Pathfinder Society, the character must hire an NPC to craft the homunculus on her behalf. Usually, an NPC can not craft a custom item for a PC but this is an exception to the rule.

Per the homunculus entry in the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, a baseline homunculus costs 2,050 gp. If a PC wishes to purchase a homunculus with more than 2 Hit Dice, each additional Hit Dice adds 4,000 gp to the total price. Consider, however, that there is little need to advance a homunculus familiar in this manner, since the familiar's hit points and abilities are based on the character's stats rather than its own Hit Dice."

4/5

Lorewalker wrote:
Jeffrey Reed wrote:

He was adding hit die to his homonculus.

There's a lot of other really dubious stuff, but that's the source of it being OP.

He was also using the celestial servant feat to add the celestial template, which doesn't actually seem to apply to the promethean alchemist's homonculus, but combined with the increased hit die (he had boosted it to an 11 HD creature) gave it cold, acid, and electricity resist 15 and DR/10 evil.

Ah, yes, celestial servant would not be a valid feat for the Homunculus Companion class feature as it is not an animal companion nor a familiar.

But, I can see how easy it would be to believe that the Homunculus Companion could be advanced using the homunculus crafting rules(which, again, are legal). In fact, it is a tiny bit of a gray area. The Homunculus Companion is a homunculus... but I think RAI would be that the two are seperate as the Homunculus Companion is a unique style of homunculus. Especially since the rules for the two do not match well.

PFS FAQ wrote:

"Can a character have a homunculus created as a familiar?

A character must have the Improved Familiar feat to select a homunculus as a familiar. Since crafting is not allowed in Pathfinder Society, the character must hire an NPC to craft the homunculus on her behalf. Usually, an NPC can not craft a custom item for a PC but this is an exception to the rule.

Per the homunculus entry in the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, a baseline homunculus costs 2,050 gp. If a PC wishes to purchase a homunculus with more than 2 Hit Dice, each additional Hit Dice adds 4,000 gp to the total price. Consider, however, that there is little need to advance a homunculus familiar in this manner, since the familiar's hit points and abilities are based on the character's stats rather than its own Hit Dice."

Note the language in that FAQ that explicitly calls out the improved familiar feat. That is not how the promethean alchemist gets their homonculus.

Scarab Sages 2/5

Jeffrey Reed wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:


Ah, yes, celestial servant would not be a valid feat for the Homunculus Companion class feature as it is not an animal companion nor a familiar.

But, I can see how easy it would be to believe that the Homunculus Companion could be advanced using the homunculus crafting rules(which, again, are legal). In fact, it is a tiny bit of a gray area. The Homunculus Companion is a homunculus... but I think RAI would be that the two are seperate as the Homunculus Companion is a unique style of homunculus. Especially since the rules for the two do not match well.

PFS FAQ wrote:

"Can a character have a homunculus created as a familiar?

A character must have the Improved Familiar feat to select a homunculus as a familiar. Since crafting is not allowed in Pathfinder Society, the character must hire an NPC to craft the homunculus on her behalf. Usually, an NPC can not craft a custom item for a PC but this is an exception to the rule.

Per the homunculus entry in the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, a baseline homunculus costs 2,050 gp. If a PC wishes to purchase a homunculus with more than 2 Hit Dice, each additional Hit Dice adds 4,000 gp to the total price. Consider, however, that there is little need to advance a homunculus familiar in this manner, since the familiar's hit points and abilities are based on the character's stats rather than its own Hit Dice."

Note the language in that FAQ that explicitly calls out the improved familiar feat. That is not how the promethean alchemist gets their homonculus.

Yes, it limits having a homunculus as a familiar to only those with the feat Improved Familiar. But this homunculus is not a familiar and thus that line does not apply. The FAQ explains how to get a homunculus despite not having access to the construction feats. That part actually does apply to the archetype and means the archetype is not the constructor of their companion. What could apply though is the legalization of the homunculus construction rules.

The FAQ was from before a homunculus which is not a familiar became legal and so would of course mention familiar. It also does not limit the construction rules to familiars for the same reason.

I do not mean to say that the homunculus construction ruling should apply here. Only to explain why someone could believe that it does and to show how it can be seen as a gray area, just not a big one. I believe that it should not apply, though.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Baval wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Baval wrote:
Im not familiar with PFS rules, but does it not have random encounters?
Correct. Scenarios have specified encounters, and GMs are not allowed to add extra ones just to murder PCs. Or even not to murder PCs. No extra encounters, that's all.
well that should be addressed. Random Encounters are one of the main balances for cheese tactics like this. Still I understand why its in place, so you dont get a murder hungry DM. All well.

You cannot add *unprovoked* random encounters. (For a lot of really good reasons.) You explicitly *can* add provoked encounters (per post by Mike Brock) but it is supposed to be a last resort when people are being stupid and ignoring warnings. And you absolutely can impose consequences for poor decisions.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
If his goal is 'not die', there are better, more party friendly ways to do exactly that.

His goal was to physically design Spawn.

Second Seekers (Roheas) 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia

The Arcane Heirophant (a prestige class that allowed your Animal Companion to also be your familiar) in 3.5 was the most busted thing in existence back when I was involved in GMing for Living Greyhawk back in the stone ages.

I have since seen PFSs leadership ban literally every attempt and close every loophole to do the same and so even if he is taking advantage of SOME not quite explicit language, the rules as intended here are amazingly clear.

Silver Crusade 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey guys, at this point the topic is pretty much settled. It seems to me that we should put this topic to bed. Let's not air this dirty laundry anymore?

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Mitch Mutrux wrote:
Hey guys, at this point the topic is pretty much settled. It seems to me that we should put this topic to bed. Let's not air this dirty laundry anymore?

Probably correct, but it was an interesting read nonetheless as an academic exercise - there was a problem, it was raised with a bunch of very avid hobbyists, analysed, the problems found, and the problem solved.

And everyone stayed pretty positive.

Silver Crusade 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree for the most part, Shifty. Just the last few posts were starting to give off the whole "public shaming" vibe, which is why I'm just piping up now.


i agree its settled, and dont mean to bring this topic up again, but where/how can i read this audit? Im curious as to just what he did

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mitch Mutrux wrote:
I agree for the most part, Shifty. Just the last few posts were starting to give off the whole "public shaming" vibe, which is why I'm just piping up now.

Except to be "public shaming", the individual in question must be named to be shamed, which has never happened.

My commentary were direct responses to:

a) Responses to "I don't understand why this is so powerful" questions. That was my initial thought over and over when discussed locally until I saw the sheet. I never expected to see anything so far into left field.

b) A direct response to "what was being created". Knowing that the player is not trying to something that "just couldn't die" that there was a theme to what caused the cheating.

c) A clarification to to the "I can see how this can be misconstrued, the rules are tough" comments. When i did my audit I broke everything into "man, if you don't read that one rule, I can see why you did this" and "Hero Labs makes this red with the words "Not Pathfinder Legal". Again, knowing this nips the continued, "it was an honest mistake" discussion in the bud.

You may not like my responses, but my responses were all factual, poignant, and never once called out the individual. If anything, this completely outlines the value of a character audit in certain cases.

Baval wrote:
i agree its settled, and dont mean to bring this topic up again, but where/how can i read this audit? Im curious as to just what he did

Baval, you cannot read the audit. The full audit isn't a public document and I doubt it will be.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
MisterSlanky wrote:
Mitch Mutrux wrote:
I agree for the most part, Shifty. Just the last few posts were starting to give off the whole "public shaming" vibe, which is why I'm just piping up now.
Except to be "public shaming", the individual in question must be named to be shamed, which has never happened.

However, I was able to track them down thanks to the posts here.

Dark Archive 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mitch Mutrux wrote:
Hey guys, at this point the topic is pretty much settled. It seems to me that we should put this topic to bed. Let's not air this dirty laundry anymore?

This.

The issue is being handled internally.

The audit will not be made public.

Silver Crusade 5/5

MisterSlanky wrote:
Mitch Mutrux wrote:
I agree for the most part, Shifty. Just the last few posts were starting to give off the whole "public shaming" vibe, which is why I'm just piping up now.

Except to be "public shaming", the individual in question must be named to be shamed, which has never happened.

You may not like my responses, but my responses were all factual, poignant, and never once called out the individual. If anything, this completely outlines the value of a character audit in certain cases.

Except by pulling a direct quote from the person in question, you did actually make his identity public. It took me maybe five seconds to plug some keywords from his post into a search and come up with his post. Please be checking yourself.

4/5 Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts involving identifying details and one self-flagged.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Thanks Mark!

Scarab Sages 3/5 5/5 *

I didn't think anyone else played a Promethean Alchemist. I was confused as to why it appeared to be broken since mine is pretty underpowered and just for fun. But the whole audit stuff made sense.

That said, I didn't realize there was a grey area on the Alchemy Manual use for the Homonculus, so this has been informative. I'll have to ask around with local GMs before looking to use any of that, because I had wanted to give mine the ability to spit.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

TOZ wrote:
Baval wrote:
Im not familiar with PFS rules, but does it not have random encounters?
Correct. Scenarios have specified encounters, and GMs are not allowed to add extra ones just to murder PCs. Or even not to murder PCs. No extra encounters, that's all.

That isn't quite correct. GMs are specifically empowered to add encounters where player action dictates.

The classic example is when the player openly breaks the law. The GM is allowed to have the character be arrested (by fiat or by dice rolling).

Leaving ones body unprotected in the wilderness seems to me to fall into the same category.

I'd WARN the player first, of course, but then would have no problem at all with just killing his body if some made up random roll dictated

51 to 100 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / Bonekeep 2 and an extremely problematic build All Messageboards