|
Books most Game Masters will find useful in a Pathfinder Setting for a Desert campaign:
Bestiary's [Best to make your own custom list of desert dwelling creatures]
People Of the Sand [Really helpful for building up the setting]
Legacy Of Fire [Okay technically not a book, but has a great deal more on the desert hazards complete with Fort DC's for how long they're out in the desert before they start suffering for Water/Food and Heat]
QADIRA Jewel of the East & Osirion, Legacy Of Pharaohs {Both books have great adventure/campaign ideas and even ideas for cities/towns, and magical items for the desert (and survival within it)}
Dark Markets, Guide To Katapesh (specifically Page 50 - Adventure Just in case the other books didn't give enough ideas)
AP- Legacy Of Fire (will need to update it to pathfinder or add toughness to all the enemies)
AP- Mummy's Mask (No converting to Pathfinder needed)
So now that I've confirmed there's plenty of books on the campaign type.
Anyone else ever have that group, that some how, after you told them your running a desert Adventure Path.
Every player came in with a character that wouldn't normally survive being in the desert?
This is an old group and I likely will run the Mummy Mask again at some point, and I have to admit, Paizo has done a few bait and switch adventures, nothing horrible. Just a Surprise chapter or creature off the beaten trail, usually before going back to the main AP. Alot of fun, to throw in something your players aren't expecting. Like the Fire Immune creature in Reign of Winter.
This group created:
Merfolk Sea Witch
Aquatic Elf Pirate [Rogue]
Gillman Barbarian
Grippli Elemental Cleric [Toxic Skin Trait, and Domains: Protection & Water]
Seems one of them had told the others, that they had seen me days ago buying the Aqautic Adventures book and so, they figured I was going to throw a twist into the Adventure Path of my own.
I blame one of my players that always throws in Faeries into a game, even ones with a lack of reason to be there. [I felt really bad for the Redcap that was put into the Prison of Harrowstone]
It was a good laugh and we spent night making new characters.
This proved to me, always have a session 0 to build characters, anyone else have an amusing moment like this?
(we did do a bit of role playing that night, letting the Aquatic characters loose in the Mummy Mask game...and yes, things both went horrid and funny at the same time)
Feeling kinda reviewie on old games while I write another desert game to continue the Heist night (everyone loved it, and now I have to build on the Rogue campaign now XD )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of like the idea of rolling with a desert campaign with all aquatic focused characters.
When I joined a new group running Rise of the Runelords, and turned up a session late to find one player playing a Wayang Shadow Oracle who would only stealth, and talk about mutter about some Clockwork Apocalypse.
I asked if there was a session 0, to which the response was "What's a Session 0?"
That's when I knew we needed one
|
|
When I joined a new group running Rise of the Runelords, and turned up a session late to find one player playing a Wayang Shadow Oracle who would only stealth, and talk about mutter about some Clockwork Apocalypse.
I asked if there was a session 0, to which the response was "What's a Session 0?"
That's when I knew we needed one
to that, I must certainly say, that requires one O.o
A session zero might have been useful in our current homebrew / free-form campaign.
PERHAPS it would have stopped a certain player from playing a GRIPPLI VIGILANTE. Actually, the table bans Vigilantes, so the Grippli is mechanically a bard, but still absolutely a Vigilante in RP terms.
He despises nobles. It started with indignation that nobles flaunted wealth instead of donating to the poor; then he decided to steal a large gem from a noble and anonymously donate it to the orphanage where he (somehow?) lived. To say the least, the noble wasn't particularly grateful for the help, and sent goons to track it down. The orphanage met with critical existence failure.
In short, he fully justifies his own crimes as "for a good motive" and doubles down on them, indiscriminately targeting nobles in order to "help them be more generous to orphans"... and some god help them if they ever choose to retaliate again.
Maybe an awesome concept?
...until you realize that the party's first adventure is set in the middle of a five-way struggle among Barons to be named the heir to a dying Count, and the characters are being hired to hunt the Hydra whose scaly pelt is the MacGuffin for the war of succession.
Ok, no spoilers please as we just finished book 1 of Runelords, but what is the problem with Wayang shadow oracle in that AP?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, no spoilers please as we just finished book 1 of Runelords, but what is the problem with Wayang shadow oracle in that AP?
There is nothing wrong with a Shadow Oracle per say.
A Wayang is a little out of place in RotRL, they descend from the Plane of Shadows. It is not to say they cannot fit but, you will have to put a lot of effort in to tie them to Thistletop in my opinion.
Then the character came with all "that guy" stuff. Always stealthing, even from his own party. We didn't know anything about him. His character would just turn up, doing something stupid, then hide again. What he did constantly keep saying is "when he moves away you hear him muttering about cogs, and gears, and some sort of coming apocalypse". The AP is not a steampunk game. He basically wanted his own AP revolving around some Clockwork inspired Apocalypse.
*Not Thistletop, that would be stupid. Sandpoint is what I was referring too
... Actually, the table bans Vigilantes ...
Do you can vigilantes specifically for that player misusing them, or another reason?
I feel like a rogue, slayer, or ranger would make a better vigilante than a bard mechanically unless you're going for the daring and popular aspect, in such case I'd go swashbuckler.
|
|
I knew I needed a session 0 when, as a little kid, I used to have my friends and older brother get together and make up characters and I liked it. Ever since, time and resources permitting, I either have people roll up characters with me (and yeah, roll up; I prefer rolled stats, I'm old, sue me) or we coordinate through technology to create a group of characters.
On a couple rare occasions I've had players make up characters in a vacuum. I nearly always homebrew my own stuff and have a custom setting. Despite sending out setting docs, maps, and players' guides in those instances I either have inappropriate characters for the campaign such as intrigue/social/urban types for wilderness games, or else I have multiples of the same character.
For example the last time I did this I had 4 players, all making characters for an overland hexcrawl game. I had 2 druids and a hunter. Sure, lots of wilderness skills and multiples of the same character taken in different directions can be cool right? Except I had: Druid with a wolf, medium sized (human), ranged attacker with summoning spell focus; Druid with a warcat, medium sized (half-elf), ranged attacker with a summoning spell focus; hunter with a warcat and a focus on ranged attacks.
And a barbarian.
I shrugged and ran with it; these were the characters they WANTED to play right? After one game where Summon Nature's Ally didn't cast fast enough for 2 people to use it in the same round and the barbarian nearly died trying to hold the front line, the players themselves committed to 2 different characters to replace one of the druids and the hunter.
Session 0's are a social event, a good excuse to get friends together and throw some dice around. Even if the characters created have no relation to one another and there's class overlap, a Session 0 helps smooth out wrinkles and gives a cohesive vision to where the game will start, how the first few games will go.
I like rolling as well, but if people want to create characters away from the table I tell them it has to be built on 20 Character points. I also make the offer to roll or buy stats at Session 0, but once the choice is made, no changing it. One of my player's picked rolling declaring he'd do far better that way. 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 12 (I love keeping notes, and I did let them re-roll the 7, which ended up being another 11)
That and with a session 0 I can custom build encounters for the characters, or even using the dice rolls to create "rival" NPC's
Mark Hoover 330
You are not that old, I started from the original pamphlets before the first boxed edition came out which I still have.Seems like we need one every time a expansion came out with new classes. Now it is more to sat we are not using these expansions.
You too?
... Actually, the table bans Vigilantes ...
Do you can vigilantes specifically for that player misusing them, or another reason?
I feel like a rogue, slayer, or ranger would make a better vigilante than a bard mechanically unless you're going for the daring and popular aspect, in such case I'd go swashbuckler.
So the GM is a first-timer behind the screen, and most of the other players (including the grippli) are first-time players (though we've played ACG together extensively.) I suspect the Vigilante class is banned because the player would simply do what the player is actually doing as a bard.
It's something we're not sure about how to curtail, but at least once a session he'll find some way to create a solo encounter without any other character having a chance to know he's doing it - and tends to want those encounters RP'd.
The worst case of this was last week. After he and the paladin were almost killed in a street fight against four members of the local tiefling-dominant thieves guild, the six of us made a pact to STICK TOGETHER to protect those two. Naturally, the bard bought Sleeves of Many Garments using the paladin's money, stealthed off on his own, and attempted to infiltrate that very thieves guild. Again, grippli. So even in-character "dood, don't go off on your own because WE CAN'T PROTECT YOU!" is not enough to stop him from going off on his own and straight toward the immediate threat.
----
As for why bard rather than the others... in short, because he didn't understand that I was ok with filling in any role gap (in the classic martial / skill / divine / arcane sense.) Since a skill gap was left for me in arcane, I rolled an earth sorcerer.
He had been looking at swashbuckler, but changed to bard in order to let me not be limited to an arcane class (again, despite me being absolutely fine with this.) We already have a rogue; and I suspect Aragorn and Ezio aren't foppish enough for his needs.
|
|
... Actually, the table bans Vigilantes ...
Do you can vigilantes specifically for that player misusing them, or another reason?
I feel like a rogue, slayer, or ranger would make a better vigilante than a bard mechanically unless you're going for the daring and popular aspect, in such case I'd go swashbuckler.
So the GM is a first-timer behind the screen, and most of the other players (including the grippli) are first-time players (though we've played ACG together extensively.) I suspect the Vigilante class is banned because the player would simply do what the player is actually doing as a bard.
It's something we're not sure about how to curtail, but at least once a session he'll find some way to create a solo encounter without any other character having a chance to know he's doing it - and tends to want those encounters RP'd.
The worst case of this was last week. After he and the paladin were almost killed in a street fight against four members of the local tiefling-dominant thieves guild, the six of us made a pact to STICK TOGETHER to protect those two. Naturally, the bard bought Sleeves of Many Garments using the paladin's money, stealthed off on his own, and attempted to infiltrate that very thieves guild. Again, grippli. So even in-character "dood, don't go off on your own because WE CAN'T PROTECT YOU!" is not enough to stop him from going off on his own and straight toward the immediate threat.
----
As for why bard rather than the others... in short, because he didn't understand that I was ok with filling in any role gap (in the classic martial / skill / divine / arcane sense.) Since a skill gap was left for me in arcane, I rolled an earth sorcerer.
He had been looking at swashbuckler, but changed to bard in order to let me not be limited to an arcane class (again, despite me being absolutely fine with this.) We already have a rogue; and I suspect Aragorn and Ezio aren't foppish enough for his needs.
I have to admit that player seems a bit reckless, wonder why his character is such an enemy of the Noble Class (and other PC's it seems) I want to give advice, but as you said your one of the players. I am wondering what his needs are, but I assume from this conversation he believes he is Chaotic Neutral
I have to admit that player seems a bit reckless, wonder why his character is such an enemy of the Noble Class (and other PC's it seems) I want to give advice, but as you said your one of the players. I am wondering what his needs are, but I assume from this conversation he believes he is Chaotic Neutral
Advice is welcome. Our GM is experienced as a player, but this is his first time behind the screen. (:
Well, he has an edgy backstory that goes like this - and he has revealed this to us in character (as he walked into a drink-and-storytime session I was having with most of the others, after a social encounter had me extra curious about the paladin's troubles with the local thieves guild).
- He was an orphan from a poor orphanage;
- Got indignant at nobles having / flaunting wealth that could have been used to support poor orphans;
- Stole a large gem from a noble, which was donated anonymously to his "family" so that they could live a bit better.
- Noble tracked it (not to the bard, but to the orphanage,) had the place destroyed.
The bard refuses to see that his act of stealing **set events into motion** that led to the destruction; I asked him point blank about why he keeps stealing if it could put orphans in danger like that again, and he deflected it by focusing on the relative value of the gem and the lost lives.
He believes himself to be pure corner-of-grid CG. I think he's that certain kind of CN.
|
|
Hmmm The Game master should create a story flow NPC that comes from the same Orphanage as the Bard. Use it as a Story arc, to steal from a local noble. The NPC should in the course of this arc try to become the best friend of the Bard, The Arc would end with this Lesser noble, the only noble in the region that was helping ALL the orphanages within the area, to make it worse, the NPC should also do so with the bard publicly so that all the commoners can see who it was that made their lives that much harder.
It's the trope of too much a good thing, before the twist that he was actually helping someone harmful to the city in general and will create a divide among others he might have been able to go to for help, this will of course help the more evil Barons the group aren't working with and should get him back on track on helping the group get the Hydra Pelt to bring in a noble/baron that should be trying to help everyone of the common class not just the wealthy.
It is something that has blown up in my face as a plan before, but generally speaking players that like Role play will actually move and flow with the story.
The ones that this tends to fail against where more number crunchers instead of story players. I have other advice if this doesn't seem helpful to your game master.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These types of session 0 games never worked for me or my group. People would still just make whatever they felt like with no cohesion or party balance. What I think does help is giving the players a primer, like the player guides for paizo's APs. I've also ran prequels as a session 0. I gave everyone a pregen and ran them through a short scenario that set up the story for the upcoming game.
For example, the last game I did that with the players took control of a party of local heroes sent by the king to rescue some kidnapped villagers. The heroes saved the villagers from being sacrificed by demon worshiping cultists. At the end of the scenario, I told the players that the campaign was set 10 years later and their PCs were some of the people saved from sacrifice. The heroes who saved them have disappeared, and the PCs are gathered together to investigate...
I found that session 0 worked great. The players then had a taste of the setting, what the campaign would be about, and they all came back for session 1 with characters that fit in to the story. Unfortunately it still did nothing for party balance, but eh, pathfinder doesn't really require that.
|
|
These types of session 0 games never worked for me or my group. People would still just make whatever they felt like with no cohesion or party balance. What I think does help is giving the players a primer, like the player guides for paizo's APs. I've also ran prequels as a session 0. I gave everyone a pregen and ran them through a short scenario that set up the story for the upcoming game.
For example, the last game I did that with the players took control of a party of local heroes sent by the king to rescue some kidnapped villagers. The heroes saved the villagers from being sacrificed by demon worshiping cultists. At the end of the scenario, I told the players that the campaign was set 10 years later and their PCs were some of the people saved from sacrifice. The heroes who saved them have disappeared, and the PCs are gathered together to investigate...
I found that session 0 worked great. The players then had a taste of the setting, what the campaign would be about, and they all came back for session 1 with characters that fit in to the story. Unfortunately it still did nothing for party balance, but eh, pathfinder doesn't really require that.
Sounds like lots of fun, I might have to try this indeed. Do you do much with creating Rival NPC as enemies?
|
|
In that particular game, the leader of the cultists was a lich that the prequel heroes killed, but didn't find his phylactery. The PCs were present when the lich was slain, so they knew about him, and knew that he would eventually return, but obviously they wouldn't be strong enough to face him for a while. (the prequel pregen heroes were 8th level, and the pcs started the actual game at 1st).
It's something we're not sure about how to curtail, but at least once a session he'll find some way to create a solo encounter without any other character having a chance to know he's doing it - and tends to want those encounters RP'd.
That has absolutely nothing to do with that class, and everything to do with the character. It's an out-of-game issue that best recieves an out-of-game solution, namely that the other players tells him that they all get together to play a team game, and not to watch him do his solo s@!+ while everyone else is bored. Also talk to the GM that this guy hogging the spotlight to an extreme degree is diminishing the fun of the others - it's super easy for a GM to prevent solo stuff. The easiest and best solution would of course be for the GM to say "no solo encounters/missions at my table, period.", but it's even possible for the GM to make it clear via in-game:
GM: "So you sneak away from the party. What's your total HP?"
Player: "65."
GM: "You feel a staggering pain in your back before the world turns to black and you lose consciousness. Take 70 damage and make a check to stabilize."
Player: "What hit me?"
GM: "You don't know, because there was no one watching your back. Roll that stabilizy check, please."
There. If the player doesn't learn from that, the next damage is instantly fatal. Maybe the next character will be more of a team player!
As for why bard rather than the others... in short, because he didn't understand that I was ok with filling in any role gap (in the classic martial / skill / divine / arcane sense.) Since a skill gap was left for me in arcane, I rolled an earth sorcerer.
I just want to point out that this concept doesn't really exist in Pathfinder. You don't need dedicated character for these things, and it's indeed usually best to have multiple character each cover a part of the "role".
Since a skill gap was left for me in arcane, I rolled an earth sorcerer.I just want to point out that this concept doesn't really exist in Pathfinder.
There are some key abilities that it's hard for a party to acquire without an arcane caster. Flight, invisibility, teleportation, area damage, etc. (A Bard, though arcane, doesn't cover this area particularly well.)
Similarly, having a divine caster is the easiest way to gain access to the condition removal spells you're likely to need at some point.
Traditional party roles still have value, even if expert players can do without them.
|
There are some key abilities that it's hard for a party to acquire without an arcane caster. Flight, invisibility, teleportation, area damage, etc.
A Shaman has access to most of these, and Travel Domain Clerics have the flight/teleportation angle covered. It's quite possible to do without an arcane caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are some key abilities that it's hard for a party to acquire without an arcane caster. Flight, invisibility, teleportation, area damage, etc.
Not that hard to aquire, actually. Fly, Invis and Teleport are on most psychic lists, Invis is on the Alchemist and Inquisitor lists, Druid has a bunch of AoE damage spells, a Shaman can basically grab any Wizard spells and has Fly on the list, a Cleric can grab the spells with the right domain, Air Walk works just as well as Fly, Cloud Walk or Shadow Walk can subsitute for Teleport; the list goes on.
But do you honestly need all of that in every group? Are they actually "key abilities"? Isn't it more fun to not have an easy, perfect spell solution to every problem?
Similarly, having a divine caster is the easiest way to gain access to the condition removal spells you're likely to need at some point.
You said it, easiest way. Do we play to have the easiest way? Do we play to never struggle? Do we play to never have to overcome (in-game) hardships?
Also, you aren't actually talking about divine casters, you're talking about Clerics and Shamans. Alchemists and Witches have access to more condition removal stuff than a Druid (Spiritualists too when it comes to scrolls), and an Oracle has the spells on the list but likely doesn't know them. A Skald can use Spell Kenning to cast any Cleric Spell (of up to 6th level).
UMD and Scrolls are a thing. Hired spellcasting is a thing. You don't need to be an expert to come up with solutions.
How can you say that you should have an Arcane Caster when a physic caster fulfills the actual job you want done better than e.g. a Bard? How can you say you should have a divine caster when a Witch or Alchemist fulfills the actual job you want done better than e.g. a Druid? Seriously, this isn't AD&D. This isn't even 3rd Edition. There is no real distinction between arcane and divine casting, and the "role list" is completly ignoring psychic casting and alchemy.
Having a divine caster was never the actual goal. The goal was always to have condition removal. It's not a role you need filled, it's a job you want done. And it's utterly irrelevant if the job gets done by one character alone, or if multiple characters complement each other to do the job.
Likewise, it's not the goal to have a dedicated character that handles skill challenges. The goal is to overcome skill challenges. It's not a role you need filled, it's a job you want done. It doesn't matter if every challenge gets handled by one character, or if each character does soem of it, or if the party uses spells insteada of skills to overcome the challenges.
Just the same, you don't care to have a pure martial. What most people want one for is the to stand in front and prevent enemies from aproaching the squishies. But once again you don't care how that's done - summoned creatures, pets/eidolons, battlefield controll spells, or gishes with defensive boosts (e.g. an Alchemist with Mutagen and Barkskin or a Magus with Mirror Image) do the job just as well.
That Bard "doesn't cover this area particularly well" perfectly shows that arcane casting isn't a party role needed, and that again it's about jobs you want done, with party transportation being probably the biggest one. Most of the rest is actually problem solving, something that is allegedly covered by the "skills" party role - because what else is Invisibility if not a tool to overcome a skill challenge? And what else is a battlefield controll spell if not what you allegedly need the "martial" party role for?
Traditional party roles still have value, even if expert players can do without them.
Their value is that people who're mentally stuck in the 70's or 80's don't have to accept the reality that the game has changed. They do not make for a good, well-rounded group. They produce in-party imbalances, characters that are usuelss a lot of time, and make players play characters they don't want to play. It's especially the non-experts they hurt, because the literally worst thing you can make a beginner play is a skill-Rogue or S&B-Fighter that the player is not interested in playing and only picked because people have told them that it's a necessary component to make a functional party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
people who're mentally stuck in the 70's or 80's
I'm more stuck in 2014 or so, when I stopped trying to keep up with new Pathfinder classes unless I had some compelling reason to do so. I've no idea how psychic classes work. I've never seen a Shaman in play, but I have it mentally pigeonholed as 'some kind of arcane/divine hybrid class; has been called overpowered'.
|
|
I knew I needed a session 0 when, as a little kid, I used to have my friends and older brother get together and make up characters and I liked it. Ever since, time and resources permitting, I either have people roll up characters with me (and yeah, roll up; I prefer rolled stats, I'm old, sue me) or we coordinate through technology to create a group of characters.
You’ll be hearing from my lawyer sir! He’s a toothy bag.
There are some key abilities that it's hard for a party to acquire without an arcane caster. Flight, invisibility, teleportation, area damage, etc.A Shaman has access to most of these, and Travel Domain Clerics have the flight/teleportation angle covered. It's quite possible to do without an arcane caster.
Travel domain doesn’t get you nearly as far as a full arcane caster however.
Travel domain doesn’t get you nearly as far as a full arcane caster however.
Domain Spells: 1st—longstrider, 2nd—locate object, 3rd—fly, 4th—dimension door, 5th—teleport, 6th—find the path, 7th—teleport (greater), 8th—phase door, 9th—astral projection.
Greater Teleport doesn't go far enough for you?
|
|
If adding Wizard/Sorcerer Spells is what you want.
Skill Focus [Knowledge of Choice]
Eldritch Heritage - Arcane Bloodline 3rd Level
Improved Eldritch Heritage - Arcane Bloodline 11th Level
Need at least a 15 Charisma
Get a Familiar or a Bonded Item
Then Get One Wiz/Sor Spells of choice added to your spell list Via New Arcana Ability, and again at Level 15 and 19th
Not as great as a Domain, but this adds the spell of choice to a Spell List which means you can use Scrolls or Wands without a UMD check
Although... Magical Aptitude and Skill Focus {Use Magic Device}
Do make it easier to use Scrolls & Wands for non-casters that want to use such items (Ya'know… incase no one is playing a caster class... which has happened a few times, they're rather amusing to be in)
people who're mentally stuck in the 70's or 80'sI'm more stuck in 2014 or so, when I stopped trying to keep up with new Pathfinder classes unless I had some compelling reason to do so.
Respectfully, no. The concept of "traditional party roles" was nonsense back in 2014. It was nonsense back in 2010. Hell, it never really existed in Pathfinder at all! I'd even wager it didn't exist in 3.5, either, but I lack the experience with that to make a definite statement.
All the things in my last post about party roles vs. jobs was always true in Pathfinder, even in CRB only times. You never needed or even really wanted a dedicated skill character or pure martial. The "divine caster" slot was never that, as of the four divine casters in the CRB, only one did what you actually wanted getting done; and Scrolls, UMD, and hired spellcasting already existed. Pathfinders second PC-centric book (APG) killed any credibility to the claim that you need some divine spells at all for condition removal, with the advent of Alchemist and Witch. It also did the same to the claim that you need a dedicated martial, what with Alchemist and Inquisitor adding even more options to the martial/caster-hybrid pool, and the Summoner's Eidolon being actually better than most martial classes.
Yes, I see the value in some pre-campaign-talk to the other players to avoid having characters that are too similar. But not because you can't make the game work if they are, but because it can diminish fun when you step on each others toes too much. Note that I'm talking about specific character concepts, not classes - a party with three Druids is no issue at all as long as they don't focus on the same thing.
The core concept of the game is that "the Pathfinder RPG allows you to make the character you want to play" (CRB pg. 14). Not the character the other group members want to force upon you based on some outdated concept form a different game.
I've no idea how psychic classes work.
Like all other classes. They aren't notably different, except for Kineticist (which is based on the Words of Power concept from 2011's Ultimate Magic), and you don't have to alter the tone of your game for these classes. The same is true for all the other "later" classes (hybrid classes, Vigilante, and Shifter).
Travel domain doesn’t get you nearly as far as a full arcane caster however.
Do you need to have (multiple daily uses of) teleport in your party to be considered a functional group?
If adding Wizard/Sorcerer Spells is what you want.
Skill Focus [Knowledge of Choice]
Eldritch Heritage - Arcane Bloodline 3rd Level
Improved Eldritch Heritage - Arcane Bloodline 11th Level
Need at least a 15 CharismaGet a Familiar or a Bonded Item
Then Get One Wiz/Sor Spells of choice added to your spell list Via New Arcana Ability, and again at Level 15 and 19th
Not as great as a Domain, but this adds the spell of choice to a Spell List which means you can use Scrolls or Wands without a UMD check
It's my understanding that this FAQ broke that option. Since it calls out that adding to spells known =/= adding to your class list.
There are other options however that work quite well. My cleric became the party's "wizard" by taking levels in pathfinder savant. The class not only lets you grab spells from other class lists but it explicitly lets you always take 10 on UMD.
|
|
If adding Wizard/Sorcerer Spells is what you want.
Skill Focus [Knowledge of Choice]
Eldritch Heritage - Arcane Bloodline 3rd Level
Improved Eldritch Heritage - Arcane Bloodline 11th Level
Need at least a 15 CharismaGet a Familiar or a Bonded Item
Then Get One Wiz/Sor Spells of choice added to your spell list Via New Arcana Ability, and again at Level 15 and 19th
Not as great as a Domain, but this adds the spell of choice to a Spell List which means you can use Scrolls or Wands without a UMD check
It's my understanding that this FAQ broke that option. Since it calls out that adding to spells known =/= adding to your class list.
There are other options however that work quite well. My cleric became the party's "wizard" by taking levels in pathfinder savant. The class not only lets you grab spells from other class lists but it explicitly lets you always take 10 on UMD.
huh. Never read the FAQ page before :3 Wonder why they'd make it an option then, Well I suppose for some it's still a bonus to cast the spell, but I guess Items are still cheaper in some cases then
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Respectfully, no. The concept of "traditional party roles" was nonsense back in 2014. It was nonsense back in 2010. Hell, it never really existed in Pathfinder at all! I'd even wager it didn't exist in 3.5, either, but I lack the experience with that to make a definite statement.people who're mentally stuck in the 70's or 80'sI'm more stuck in 2014 or so, when I stopped trying to keep up with new Pathfinder classes unless I had some compelling reason to do so.
Fighters (later, other martial characters) being unnecessary is a thought that dates to AD&D 1e if not earlier, rogues being replaceable by spellcasters with invisibility and blink etc. has been an issue in any D&D games which get past 5th level, and getting around no one wanting to play the cleric has been in the game forever too. We've never had a lack of wizards to consider.
A session zero is good for connecting up characters before the game and finding out variant rules (or which actual RPG is in use) before you need to commit to ideas, and I'd call it normal. Someone who skips it is more likely to come in with a character which doesn't fit the game and which you can't visualise as easily. It's a good idea but I'm not sure I'd call it needed.