|
Rescue Toaster posted:Well I was going to start a pathfinder game but now I'm all pissed off. After getting the group all squared away, the guy playing the cleric (an old 3.5 player) changed his mind 1 day before the game starts because "they're no fun now." I figured he was talking about the spell nerfs or heavy armor or something, but no... he was upset that the War Domain no longer grants a martial weapon proficiency. Concerning the cleric... That sounds like a very flimsy reason. I've had players use similar arguments a few times and what it usually boiled down to, was that they simply didn't want to play at all. Either the game, or the setting in question. So we talked about it and took a vote. If everyone agreed with the guy or gal, we went with something else. If there was disagreement we talked about the problem and how to solve it. It's important to be flexible, like you were with the choice of the PCs deity. I have to say, though, that last sentence implies that things aren't that solid between the players and you to begin with. I'm not accusing anyone of you, but can't help thinking there might be a problem that goes beyond whatever particular gaming systems you guys are trying out. If they don't understand or appreciate the work that goes into running *any* game, then maybe it's time to circulate GMs? As long as you guys are on friendly terms, have everyone run a short game in a supportive enviroment. It does wonders. Anyway, is running a 'meatgrinder' really your only option? Because I can say from experience that even 4E hasn't fixed the problem regarding the lack of certain roles in the party, while going through premade adventures. A second wind only goes so far.
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2010 10:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 07:41 |
|
|
Obviously the dudes just pulled a quick one and stole away with the lizard shamans holy thingamabob trinket. Adventurers got Feather Fall. They'll be fine.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2010 21:57
|
|
|
mixitwithblop posted:Maybe not. That's not a wizard, but an oracle. New divine class. Yes, I know. Doesn't every single adventurer have a keychain full of magical rings though? And a golfbag of staves? Sleeves full of wands? Scrolls up the rear end! Adventurer supremacy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2010 11:52
|
|
|
Bruce Boxliker posted:I got invited to play in a Pathfinder game this weekend. I'm a pretty big 4e fan but I'm kind of hurting for a regular game and I don't believe in knocking something until you try it. Sounds good. If you're playing in the Golarion campaign setting, there's actually a deity called Irori that promotes similar ideals. Might have an additional hook there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2010 15:06
|
|
|
Tactical Bonnet posted:Trip report: Playing a summoner... I'm curious, how did you spend the evolution points?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2010 10:00
|
|
|
Tactical Bonnet posted:Base form Biped. (arms, claws, legs. base strength 16) I see. Are you using some earlier version of rules for the class? Because going by the final version I come up with different numbers. According to the new book that eidolon would get the maximum allowed four claw attacks at a +10, assuming you took the Weapon Focus feat, and each hit would deal 1d6+d6+3 slashing damage. Then again maybe there's something I'm missing. It's still a good warrior though. Tactical Bonnet posted:edit: the eidolon and the summoner share magic item slots, that is, between us we can only wear magic items that a single character could wear, that said, I'm pretty sure if I wanted to I could make the eidolon way more horrible(ex: I could make it large all the time instead of having to burn a spell), so I'm pretty sure in a 1-on-1 fight the fighter would lose, but it could go either way since my eidolon, at least, has rather low hp, because I suck at rolling hp. Increasing its size to Large, or Huge will have it's own problems, since it can't change size at will. The bonuses are really nice, but having to summon that huge lump of flesh into close quarters will be impossible. Its weight could pose an issue as well, even if it can fly. As to comparing it to an equal level fighter, well the eidolon can never get those nifty fighter feats, for one thing. Also, although the eidolon gets natural armor and can wear things like amulets and rings, it can't wear armor of any kind. Getting it trained to use regular weapons would take an additional investment in evolution points as well. Just a few things to think about.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2010 22:48
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:If it is actually legally doing d8+d6+18 per, regular weapons would be a total waste. Flying and large size are also awful nice. I wonder if the extra health from size increases (thats still in right?) Would outweigh the AC loss? I don't think there's any legal way to get the damage that high at level 8. Natural weapons have the downside that you have to physically touch the enemy, which in some cases is an incredibly bad idea, even for an eidolon. Also, I just checked the book again and I think that the second pair of claws would get a -5 penalty to attacks (lowered to -2 at 9th level by Multiattack). Not sure about that one, since it's worded kinda strange and I'm too tired to decrypt the meaning (english isn't my native language). Anyway. You were asking about the stats, so here they be. A Large eidolon would get +8 Str, +4 Con, -2 Dex, +2 Natural Armor, -1 Armor Class, -1 attack rolls, +1 CMB, +1 CMD, -2 Fly checks, -4 Stealth checks. A biped eidolon would also get 10ft reach. A summoner could get this evolution for his eidolon at level 8 for 4 evolution points. Any evolutions that affect reach would still be in place, but the natural attack damage dice would not go up with the size. So a d6 would not become d8. Damage has to be evolved separately. If you look at the stats of that eidolon and compare it to some of the CR 8 monsters in the Bestiary, it's pretty clear that if you want the eidolon to survive, you can't just focus on damage dealing. Luckily D&D has always been a group oriented game, so someone else's character could step into the front line and lend a hand.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2010 23:26
|
|
|
Tactical Bonnet posted:edit: also gently caress your DM for not telling you about the lack of magic/making all of your casters useless, presumably without telling you before hand. Exactly. That's just bad DMing, no matter what the game system is. The players need to be clued in if there will be severe restrictions on certain type of characters. Also, this; Swags posted:According to him, he really wanted to, but almost the entire rest of the module is based around us not having magic, then suddenly having it right at the end. is a sure sign of a poorly planned module. Changing gears drastically like that right at the end does gently caress all for players enjoyment. Did he write it himself, or is it actually published?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2010 15:25
|
|
|
I think the general rule is, if you need to make an attack roll with a spell that deals hitpoint damage, then you get to add sneak attack to it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2011 07:33
|
|
|
Regarding undead minions, or minions in general, I would recommend making a gentleman's agreement with the GM not to have more than one actively take part in normal combat. That way your turn goes by way faster and the others players won't start to hate you. Of course the additional minions could still come into play if a big mêlée mess breaks out and there are dozens of combatants (or more) on either side, or if a monster jumps in front of your face and Zed the Zombie is right beside you as a meatshield. I played an osirian necromancer in one game and this worked wonderfully. I had one skeleton taking hits on the front lines and if it went down, one of my pack mules would step up in its place. Meanwhile I could do my spellcasting from a distance and it never felt like I was actually "holding back." Something to consider.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2011 10:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 07:41 |
|
|
Ballpoint Penguin posted:Seconding the use of the critical hit and miss decks. Plus, they’ve got an app for both now! I've been using the following houserule: A natural 20 is always a critical, no confirmation roll required. If you threaten a critical on any other number, for example a roll of 19 on the die with a sword that has a 19-20 threat range, you will need to confirm it. As for fumbles, a roll of natural 1 is always a fumble, but only on your very first attack that round. If you roll a 1 on any of the following attacks you may have they are simply misses. This way characters with several attacks no longer have a higher chance to make catastrophic mistakes. Of course what goes for the PCs, goes for the opposition.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2011 21:02
|
|
Oh, wait, no it didn’t.
”