Anyone of the OSR who read the previous post by Obiri on his Magus (Bladebound-Kensai) build has probably had all their suspicions about the complexity of D&D 3.x/Pathfinder chargen confirmed. I confess, it made me blink a few times since I rarely utilize a lot of the supplemental material that went into that build. Having said that, there's nothing forcing players to use all that stuff or DMs to allow it. However, as I read up on the Magus base class, I came to the conclusion that Pathfinder may be in danger of "jumping the shark". Now, don't get me wrong, the Magus is cool. Indeed, I intend to play one next time. In fact, my next few characters may be Magi as there are several options I'd like to try. However, one of the first impressions I got of the Magus class is how many things you have to keep track of, even at low levels. A third-level fighter, for example, will typically have two options, attack with melee weapon or attack with ranged weapon. Maybe he'll have to decide whether or not to use Power Attack, but that's it. A third-level wizard will have a handful of spells to choose from, usually magic missile or sleep, or maybe a bull's strength to buff the fighter. In any case, the choices are limited and typically easy to make. Then I read the Magus. The first class feature of the class is this:
Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.
Ok, that's freakin' cool! I can whack a bad guy with my sword and then peg him with a magic missile in the same round!...at first level!! Then I read the next class feature on the list:
Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon's critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.
I had to read that one a few times. My first thought is "Why would anyone want to tie a touch attack in to a normal melee attack when the previous class feature permits you to do both a spell attack and a melee attack in the same round anyway?" Then I figured it was all about using the weapon's critical range. Ok, I guess. It makes the scimitar the go-to weapon for the Magus class, but is, otherwise, pretty marginal as far as class features go.
By third level, things really start to get complicated. First off is the class feature, Magus Arcana. There are several different types of Magus Arcana to choose from, much like Rogue Talents in that regard. A likely first choice, however, is Arcane Accuracy. It allows you as a swift action, to use a point from your Arcane Pool (a pool of points that fuel various Magus abilities) and add your Int modifier to your attack rolls for one round. However, I haven't even talked about feats yet. In the first build I made of a base Magus, I chose a human with Combat Casting and Weapon Focus (scimitar) as first level feats and Arcane Strike as my third level feat. So now I have to choose whether to use Arcane Accuracy or Arcane Strike since both require a swift action and, of course, I only get one.
So, I'm a lowly third-level Magus and I already have to decide on whether to attack, cast a spell or both, which spell to cast, whether to use Spellstrike or not and whether to use Arcane Accuracy or Arcane Strike. To paraphrase the old US Army recruiting slogan, "The Magus, we do more in the first round than an AD&D Wizard does all day".
-Rognar-
Showing posts with label chargen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chargen. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Monday, April 09, 2012
Building a sorcerer the right way
I would have to say, my favourite class in Pathfinder is the Sorcerer. For the benefit of the uninitiated, sorcerers differ from wizards in that they derive their spellcasting abilities from a bloodline they inherited from a magical ancestor such as a demon or dragon, rather than through scholarly pursuits. In game terms, this difference means they can cast more spells per day, but are more limited in the number of spells they know. They also receive certain magical abilities such as energy resistances or claw and bite attacks, but are hampered somewhat in their use of meta-magic feats (i.e. special abilities that allow spellcasters to alter certain aspects of spells such as duration, range, damage, etc.)
I play sorcerers a lot. In fact, I'd guess that roughly half the characters I've played, including my current character, have been sorcerers. One constant that applies to all the sorcerers I've built is that they have all been underpowered. The sorcerer class offers more options for character design than just about any other class and most of those options are bad from the perspective of optimization. Why? Because most of the bloodline powers encourage you to create a character that resembles a spellcasting rogue or melee fighter. Let me tell you, if you want to be a fighter in Pathfinder, be a fighter (or a paladin, maybe). Anything else is the very definition of suck in this game. Sure, it sounds cool to create a character who can launch a fireball, then charge in and lay a beatdown. Unfortunately, Pathfinder doesn't reward versatility. While the sorcerer is buffing himself, the fighter and the wizard have already killed every living thing within a half mile radius. High-level Pathfinder combat is a lot like the last two minutes of a football game. It seems to take forever, but in game time, it's only a couple of rounds at most. So to be effective, a character has to be able to contribute something substantial immediately and most sorcerer builds can't do that.
Notice, I said most. If you can pry yourself away from all the superficial coolness of the Abyssal or Draconic bloodlines and play to the strengths of the class, it is possible to be effective. First and foremost, the sorcerer is an arcane spellcaster and not surprisingly, the best bloodline for optimizing that role is Arcane. The bonus spells are all excellent, there's a nice selection of bonus feats and the Metamagic Adept bloodline power is quite handy when you really want to maximise that fireball and still run behind cover.
Sadly, I think I will always be attracted to the idea of a sorcerer who sprouts poison fangs and jumps into combat only to get promptly mauled because he has half the hp and AC of a real fighter. Like the scorpion who stings the toad, it's in my nature.
-Rognar-
I play sorcerers a lot. In fact, I'd guess that roughly half the characters I've played, including my current character, have been sorcerers. One constant that applies to all the sorcerers I've built is that they have all been underpowered. The sorcerer class offers more options for character design than just about any other class and most of those options are bad from the perspective of optimization. Why? Because most of the bloodline powers encourage you to create a character that resembles a spellcasting rogue or melee fighter. Let me tell you, if you want to be a fighter in Pathfinder, be a fighter (or a paladin, maybe). Anything else is the very definition of suck in this game. Sure, it sounds cool to create a character who can launch a fireball, then charge in and lay a beatdown. Unfortunately, Pathfinder doesn't reward versatility. While the sorcerer is buffing himself, the fighter and the wizard have already killed every living thing within a half mile radius. High-level Pathfinder combat is a lot like the last two minutes of a football game. It seems to take forever, but in game time, it's only a couple of rounds at most. So to be effective, a character has to be able to contribute something substantial immediately and most sorcerer builds can't do that.
Notice, I said most. If you can pry yourself away from all the superficial coolness of the Abyssal or Draconic bloodlines and play to the strengths of the class, it is possible to be effective. First and foremost, the sorcerer is an arcane spellcaster and not surprisingly, the best bloodline for optimizing that role is Arcane. The bonus spells are all excellent, there's a nice selection of bonus feats and the Metamagic Adept bloodline power is quite handy when you really want to maximise that fireball and still run behind cover.
Sadly, I think I will always be attracted to the idea of a sorcerer who sprouts poison fangs and jumps into combat only to get promptly mauled because he has half the hp and AC of a real fighter. Like the scorpion who stings the toad, it's in my nature.
-Rognar-
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Pathfinder preparation....it's not that tough, really!
I was checking out the forum over at rpg.net and ran across one of the typical 4E v. Pathfinder threads that pops over there from time to time. I don't want to get into the edition wars again, since I feel such posts are just a cheap way for bloggers to up their posting numbers without having anything interesting to say. I do take exception, however, to some of the posts which describe preparation time for DM's running 3.x/Pathfinder as especially onerous. One commentor even describes a situation in which his DM spent two hours on an NPC wizard who was subsequently defeated in a single round. TWO HOURS! I could generate a whole adventuring party of high-level characters in two hours and still have time to grab a sandwich and watch the third period of the game.
The key to NPC generation in 3.x/Pathfinder is to know what the purpose of the NPC is and what relevent information needs to be included to fulfil that purpose. Obviously, if an NPC is supposed to a major player in a campaign, more effort should be put into its design, including ample abilities to escape, since some players consider it a challenge to kill every important NPC that crosses their paths. However, if the NPC is just intended to be cannon fodder, it is a piece of cake to produce even spellcasters in a hurry. Here is my approach:
Ability scores: For low-level characters (level 1-5), make the primary ability score 16, give them Con 12 and make everything else 10. For mid-level (level 6-10), give them 18 for the primary ability and everything else the same as low-level. For high-level (11+), 20 for the primary ability, Con 14, everything else 10. In other words, 1-5 level: +3 modifier for primary and +1 hp per die; 6-10 level: +4 modifier and +1 hp per die; 11+ level: +5 modifier and +2 hp per die.
Feats: Don't sweat this one. It doesn't matter if there are a couple of hundred to chose from, there are only about 20 that are worth a damn for NPCs. Honestly, nobody cares if the enemy wizard has the Forge Ring feat, it won't come into play. If you are rolling up a non-fighter, you won't have very many feats anyway and assuming at least a couple will be non-combat feats, you typically only have to assign 3 or 4 feats to your NPC. For spellcasters, you are looking at Spell Penetration, Combat Casting, Improved Initiative and maybe Empower Spell. There, done. A similar list can be easily thrown together for any other character type. Obviously, you will spend a bit more time on fighters since they are all about feats, but then you don't have to worry about spell selection, so it all balances out.
Skills: Perception, Stealth, Spellcraft and Acrobatics are the only skills that matter in combat. Don't worry about the rest.
Spells: Again, feel free to cut corners. A high-level wizard may have dozens of spells, but chances are he won't be around more than five rounds. He'll either be dead or he will have bugged out. So, pick a half dozen offensive spells and a Teleport, give him Mage Armour and Resist Energy (fire)(already cast) and be done with it. Your players will not notice how little effort you put into a wizard that they kill in three rounds.
Magic Items: The core rule book has a nice section on equipping NPCs. It's fast and easy. Use it.
With a little experience, it is possible to generate NPC combatants in a minute or two. The complete rules for character generation are only necessary for player characters.
-Rognar-
The key to NPC generation in 3.x/Pathfinder is to know what the purpose of the NPC is and what relevent information needs to be included to fulfil that purpose. Obviously, if an NPC is supposed to a major player in a campaign, more effort should be put into its design, including ample abilities to escape, since some players consider it a challenge to kill every important NPC that crosses their paths. However, if the NPC is just intended to be cannon fodder, it is a piece of cake to produce even spellcasters in a hurry. Here is my approach:
Ability scores: For low-level characters (level 1-5), make the primary ability score 16, give them Con 12 and make everything else 10. For mid-level (level 6-10), give them 18 for the primary ability and everything else the same as low-level. For high-level (11+), 20 for the primary ability, Con 14, everything else 10. In other words, 1-5 level: +3 modifier for primary and +1 hp per die; 6-10 level: +4 modifier and +1 hp per die; 11+ level: +5 modifier and +2 hp per die.
Feats: Don't sweat this one. It doesn't matter if there are a couple of hundred to chose from, there are only about 20 that are worth a damn for NPCs. Honestly, nobody cares if the enemy wizard has the Forge Ring feat, it won't come into play. If you are rolling up a non-fighter, you won't have very many feats anyway and assuming at least a couple will be non-combat feats, you typically only have to assign 3 or 4 feats to your NPC. For spellcasters, you are looking at Spell Penetration, Combat Casting, Improved Initiative and maybe Empower Spell. There, done. A similar list can be easily thrown together for any other character type. Obviously, you will spend a bit more time on fighters since they are all about feats, but then you don't have to worry about spell selection, so it all balances out.
Skills: Perception, Stealth, Spellcraft and Acrobatics are the only skills that matter in combat. Don't worry about the rest.
Spells: Again, feel free to cut corners. A high-level wizard may have dozens of spells, but chances are he won't be around more than five rounds. He'll either be dead or he will have bugged out. So, pick a half dozen offensive spells and a Teleport, give him Mage Armour and Resist Energy (fire)(already cast) and be done with it. Your players will not notice how little effort you put into a wizard that they kill in three rounds.
Magic Items: The core rule book has a nice section on equipping NPCs. It's fast and easy. Use it.
With a little experience, it is possible to generate NPC combatants in a minute or two. The complete rules for character generation are only necessary for player characters.
-Rognar-
Friday, September 10, 2010
Pathfinder Inquisitor: cool, oh wait, ok yeah, cool
Over the last few weeks, I have had an opportunity to assess the new base classes in the Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide. My favourite is without doubt, the Alchemist. It offers interesting new capabilities to the game instead of simply repackaging options that already exist from other classes. I am also intrigued by the Summoner class, but I will reserve judgement until I see one in play. The Witch seems to be a fairly effective choice. The hex abilities are decent and the spell selection is nice, but I can't get past the feeling that the Witch is just a slightly different version of the Sorcerer with a bit of healing ability thrown in. A playable class, but not one that inspires me. The Oracle has a similar problem, it's a Sorcerer except it uses divine magic rather than arcane. Again, playable, but not especially interesting. The Cavalier is simpy boring, a fighter who rides a horse. The class features of the Cavalier are nowhere near as useful as the bonus feats of the actual Fighter class.
That leaves the Inquisitor class. This one has a lot to recommend it. The Judgment class feature is excellent and useful in a lot of different situations. There are lots of skills and lots of nice utilitarian capabilities like Track and Monster Lore. The true killer ability of the class, however, is Bane. The inquisitor can, as a swift action, imbue his weapon with the bane special ability, selecting whatever creature type he wants. Damn! He can even change the creature type as a swift action. The only restriction is that the ability can only be used for a number of rounds per day equal to the inquisitor's level. Still, that's awesome and at 12th level, the Greater Bane class feature doubles the bonus damage. The Inquisitor even has a unique feature called Stalwart. It's sort of like Evasion, but it applies to spells that require a Fort or Will save instead. A spell like disintegrate, which still causes damage with a successful Fort save, would instead do no damage if the saving throw was made. Yet, despite all this juicy goodness, I had one of those "aw hell!" moments when I noticed the Inquisitor gets a bunch of teamwork feats. I hate teamwork feats. In my experience, most gamers are lone wolf types. Sure, they can work together if the situation demands it, but they sure as heck aren't going to design their characters with cooperation as the central theme. After all, your teamwork feats are useless if you can't get some other guys in the group to commit to taking them as well. Happily, I noticed the Solo Tactics class feature of the Inquisitor, which allows him to derive benefit from his teamwork feats even if his fellow party members don't have them, as long as the other requirements are met. Since the other requirements are situational and not hardwired into the character design, they are easy to meet. So, with that poison pill thoroughly neutralized, I am happy to put the Inquisitor class near the top of my list of base classes. I still like the Alchemist a bit more, but the Inquisitor rocks. I might even start multiclassing my current cleric character.
-Rognar-
That leaves the Inquisitor class. This one has a lot to recommend it. The Judgment class feature is excellent and useful in a lot of different situations. There are lots of skills and lots of nice utilitarian capabilities like Track and Monster Lore. The true killer ability of the class, however, is Bane. The inquisitor can, as a swift action, imbue his weapon with the bane special ability, selecting whatever creature type he wants. Damn! He can even change the creature type as a swift action. The only restriction is that the ability can only be used for a number of rounds per day equal to the inquisitor's level. Still, that's awesome and at 12th level, the Greater Bane class feature doubles the bonus damage. The Inquisitor even has a unique feature called Stalwart. It's sort of like Evasion, but it applies to spells that require a Fort or Will save instead. A spell like disintegrate, which still causes damage with a successful Fort save, would instead do no damage if the saving throw was made. Yet, despite all this juicy goodness, I had one of those "aw hell!" moments when I noticed the Inquisitor gets a bunch of teamwork feats. I hate teamwork feats. In my experience, most gamers are lone wolf types. Sure, they can work together if the situation demands it, but they sure as heck aren't going to design their characters with cooperation as the central theme. After all, your teamwork feats are useless if you can't get some other guys in the group to commit to taking them as well. Happily, I noticed the Solo Tactics class feature of the Inquisitor, which allows him to derive benefit from his teamwork feats even if his fellow party members don't have them, as long as the other requirements are met. Since the other requirements are situational and not hardwired into the character design, they are easy to meet. So, with that poison pill thoroughly neutralized, I am happy to put the Inquisitor class near the top of my list of base classes. I still like the Alchemist a bit more, but the Inquisitor rocks. I might even start multiclassing my current cleric character.
-Rognar-
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
A look back at Space Opera, pt.1
In my early days of tabletop rpging, I always played with the same group of guys. We went to school together, we were friends from a time before we had ever heard of D&D and as far as we knew, the only company that made games was TSR. Now, that's not to say we only played Dungeons & Dragons. We had a spirited Star Frontiers campaign going for awhile and even gave Gamma World a try (although we found that one a bit silly). Anyway, my gaming horizons began to expand after my first gaming convention. It was Halcon, in Halifax, Nova Scotia and it was probably around 1983. I decided to run a Gamma World game at the convention (after extirpating all the talking chickens and other annoying aspects of the game setting). I had a group of guys sign up for my game who were already playing together. It was like I was a guest GM at their home game. They completely destroyed my game, but I learned a lot about running a tournament game and it turned out, these guys were pretty cool. They even invited me to join their group. Now, my regular group of guys were playing pretty sporadically at this time, so I decided to take them up on the offer. I was a student and a nerd, so I had all the time in the world for gaming. Heck, I probably could have participated in half a dozen different games at the same time back then. Anyway, these guys played a foreign game from an unheard-of publisher. That game was Space Opera and the publisher was Fantasy Games Unlimited. It was like a whole new world had opened up for me. Then I started reading the rules and it was like "What the F...! You guys play this?!" So, without further ado, let me introduce you to the most complicated game system I have ever played (and yes, I did play it, for months).
Part 1 - Character Generation
Chargen starts out pretty straightforward with the selection of character class. There are only six classes and this will be the last time I will ever have to use the word "only". The classes are Armsman, Tech, Research Scientist, Medical Scientist, Engineering Scientist and Astronaut. The Astronaut is sort of a jack-of-all-trades type of character which incorporates combat and technical skills sets together. The others are fairly self-explanatory. Your choice of class gives you a number of points that you can use to top up some of your rolls in the next stage, which is the generation of personal characteristics (i.e. attributes). There are 14 such characteristics. Yes, 14. They are Physique, Strength, Constitution, Agility, Dexterity, Empathy, Intelligence, Psionics, Intuition, Bravery, Leadership, General Technical Aptitude (GTA), Mechanical Aptitude (MechA) and Electronics Aptitude (ElecA). Each is determined by a percentile roll which is then converted to a value between 1 and 19 using a table. For some stats, bonus points provided by the character class are needed to get the highest scores.
After generating personal characteristics, homeworld characteristics are generated and these can result in further adjustments to personal characteristics. For example, high gravity worlds give bonuses to strength and agility, while simultaneously reducing physique. Planets with extreme climates tend to give constitution bonuses.
Next comes the determination of the character's race. It is a veritable parade of furries, as a variety of manimals (Canines, Felines, Ursoids, Saurians, Avians, Pithecines) stand shoulder-to-shoulder with humans and humanoids to defend the galaxy from the various evil squid-people, crab-people and bug-people. Of course, this being Space Opera, one doesn't simply choose a race, one must qualify by having suitable personal characteristics. Humans and Avians have no prerequisites, so lousy dice-rollers always have a refuge, but if you have the stats, you can play the awesome Ursoids (bear-people) or most desired of all, Transhumans (supermen that resemble Vulcans). The more difficult a race is to qualify for, the more benefits one derives from it. Thus, a player lucky enough to have rolled great personal characteristics will be rewarded with even more benefits. Although it is nearly impossible to achieve, if a player is lucky enough to qualify for a Transhuman, he will truly dominate.
Calculation of the various derived characteristics is next. These include carrying capacity (Transhumans are nearly as strong as Ursoids), damage factors (i.e. hit points, Transhumans rule), stamina factor (again, Transhumans have the advantage) and movement (Transhumans can run as fast as the cat-people and for as long as the dog-people). There are also a ton of other things like shock resistance, fatigue, wind, balance and initiative, but you get the idea.
Career experience is determined next and this is somewhat reminiscent of Traveller, although with far fewer steps. The number of tours is determined by a single roll and any service may be selected if the PC has the required personal characteristics. A roll is made for each tour to determine promotions and then severence benefits are calculated.
Finally, skills are purchased. Each character receives a certain number of skill points determined by his personal characteristics and the duration of his service as well as a small number of randomly-rolled general skill points. These may be used to purchase skills, most of which have 10 levels each and some have prerequisites. For example, taking a level in Hyper-Dimensional Physics requires equivalent levels in both Nuclear Physics and Force Field Physics as well as a minimum intelligence of 13.
Watch for my next post as I describe Space Opera combat. You will not believe it.
-Rognar-
Thursday, April 22, 2010
A 1st level eidolon build
Let's see what we can come up with that can survive as the main meat shield.
Base: Biped; Evolutions: Improved Damage, Con +2; Feat: Toughness
Eidolon 1
Str:16 Dex:12 Con:15 Int:7 Wis:10 Cha:11
AC:13 HP:10 Fort:+4 Ref:+1 Will:+2
Attacks: 2 claws melee +4 (1d6+3/x2)
Skills: Perception +4, Climb +7, Stealth +5, Acrobatics +5
The summoner could share a mage armour spell with the eidolon, giving it an AC:17, that would help.
-Rognar-
Base: Biped; Evolutions: Improved Damage, Con +2; Feat: Toughness
Eidolon 1
Str:16 Dex:12 Con:15 Int:7 Wis:10 Cha:11
AC:13 HP:10 Fort:+4 Ref:+1 Will:+2
Attacks: 2 claws melee +4 (1d6+3/x2)
Skills: Perception +4, Climb +7, Stealth +5, Acrobatics +5
The summoner could share a mage armour spell with the eidolon, giving it an AC:17, that would help.
-Rognar-
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
New eidolon build
After reviewing the comments, I have made some changes. Although it goes against my instinct to avoid wandering around with a giant monster in tow, I have gone with Obiri's suggestion of making the eidolon large. I dropped one pair of arms, so it has fewer attacks, but better attack and damage and more hps (due to higher Con). The AC ends up being the same, despite the larger size. It also has 10 ft. reach.
Base:
Biped: AC:+2 natural, Str:16 Dex:12, Free evolutions: Limbs (arms), Limbs (legs), Claws
Evolutions:
Limbs (arms)
Str +2
Simple Weapon Proficiency
Martial Weapon Proficiency
Resistance (fire) 5
Large size
Feats:
Lightning Reflexes, Multiweapon Fighting, Imp. Natural Armour (x2)
Level benefits:
Str/Dex:+4, AC bonus:+8, BAB:+8
Ability score increase: Str:+2
The total Str is 32, +11 bonus
AC:25 (+14 natural armour, -1 size, +2 Dex)
Attacks:
lg longsword +1 [+17 melee (2d6+12)] and 3x lg shortsword +1 [+17 melee (1d8+6)]
-Rognar-
Base:
Biped: AC:+2 natural, Str:16 Dex:12, Free evolutions: Limbs (arms), Limbs (legs), Claws
Evolutions:
Limbs (arms)
Str +2
Simple Weapon Proficiency
Martial Weapon Proficiency
Resistance (fire) 5
Large size
Feats:
Lightning Reflexes, Multiweapon Fighting, Imp. Natural Armour (x2)
Level benefits:
Str/Dex:+4, AC bonus:+8, BAB:+8
Ability score increase: Str:+2
The total Str is 32, +11 bonus
AC:25 (+14 natural armour, -1 size, +2 Dex)
Attacks:
lg longsword +1 [+17 melee (2d6+12)] and 3x lg shortsword +1 [+17 melee (1d8+6)]
-Rognar-
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Critique this eidolon build
I've been looking at the new Summoner class in Pathfinder lately and the prominent feature of the class is the eidolon, a summoned monster companion that can be customized by the summoner with a variety of design features. The main strength of the eidolon appears to be multiple attacks. It can be designed to have claw, bite, slam and/or tail slap attacks which can be given further abilities such as bonus energy damage or the ability to overcome various forms of DR.
Having said all that, I have designed a 10th level eidolon with an emphasis on using weapons. Let me know what you think.
Base:
Biped: AC:+2 natural, Str:16 Dex:12, Free evolutions: Limbs (arms), Limbs (legs), Claws
Evolutions:
Limbs (arms) (x2)
Simple Weapon Proficiency
Martial Weapon Proficiency
Resistance (fire) 5
Str +2 (x2)
Feats:
Lightning Reflexes, Multiweapon Fighting, Imp. Natural Armour (x2)
Level benefits:
Str/Dex:+4, AC bonus:+8, BAB:+8/+3
Ability score increase: Str:+2
The total Str is 26, +8 bonus
Now, this build has six arms total, so I arm the eidolon with a +1 longsword (primary hand) and five +1 shortswords (off-hands). It has a total of seven attacks per round as follows:
longsword melee +15/+10 (d8+9)
5x shortsword melee +15 (d6+5)
It also ends up with AC:25
Now, as far as I can tell, it's all legal, although I'm not sure about the total no. of attacks. At 10th level, the Max. Attacks for the eidolon is 5, but it says that applies to natural attacks. So, by the letter of the rule, using weapons should exempt it from that limit, but perhaps the spirit of the rule is being broken. If the DM decided to apply the maximum to all sorts of attacks, I would change one of the Improved Natural Armour feats to a Shield Proficiency feat and change one of the +1 shortswords to a +1 heavy shield. This would reduce one of the attacks, but increase the AC to 27. I believe the second longsword attack should still apply since it is derived from high BAB, rather than multiple limbs. Thoughts?
-Rognar-
Having said all that, I have designed a 10th level eidolon with an emphasis on using weapons. Let me know what you think.
Base:
Biped: AC:+2 natural, Str:16 Dex:12, Free evolutions: Limbs (arms), Limbs (legs), Claws
Evolutions:
Limbs (arms) (x2)
Simple Weapon Proficiency
Martial Weapon Proficiency
Resistance (fire) 5
Str +2 (x2)
Feats:
Lightning Reflexes, Multiweapon Fighting, Imp. Natural Armour (x2)
Level benefits:
Str/Dex:+4, AC bonus:+8, BAB:+8/+3
Ability score increase: Str:+2
The total Str is 26, +8 bonus
Now, this build has six arms total, so I arm the eidolon with a +1 longsword (primary hand) and five +1 shortswords (off-hands). It has a total of seven attacks per round as follows:
longsword melee +15/+10 (d8+9)
5x shortsword melee +15 (d6+5)
It also ends up with AC:25
Now, as far as I can tell, it's all legal, although I'm not sure about the total no. of attacks. At 10th level, the Max. Attacks for the eidolon is 5, but it says that applies to natural attacks. So, by the letter of the rule, using weapons should exempt it from that limit, but perhaps the spirit of the rule is being broken. If the DM decided to apply the maximum to all sorts of attacks, I would change one of the Improved Natural Armour feats to a Shield Proficiency feat and change one of the +1 shortswords to a +1 heavy shield. This would reduce one of the attacks, but increase the AC to 27. I believe the second longsword attack should still apply since it is derived from high BAB, rather than multiple limbs. Thoughts?
-Rognar-
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Random chargen? I hate it.
Hot topics in the RPG blogosphere always seem to start with something James Maliszewski has to say. Suddenly, his post on the unforgiving nature of Traveller character generation, something of which I have very painful memories, has spawned other posts, rebuttals and comments. I don't really know if any insight can be drawn from all this discussion, but I can tell you why I hate random chargen, because I am a monumentally lousy dice-roller. It's absolutely true. In AD&D, I was almost never able to roll minimum stats for any class at all. Literally, even getting a single 9 on 6 rolls of 3d6 was only achieved after multiple attempts. We had to house rule the chargen process to allow me to play the class I wanted because actually getting a 9 on the appropriate roll to play a wizard or a fighter was astronomically unlikely for me. For all you old school guys who insist the old dice-rolling approach was best, try this, instead of rolling 3d6 for your next character, just roll 2d6+1. That way, you will get a distribution closer to my rolls for the two decades I spent playing AD&D 1e/2e.
-Rognar-
-Rognar-
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Another "New School" myth
Wouldn't you know it, just when I start talking about what I consider to be misconceptions about modern versions of D&D within the "old school" community, the Grand Poobah of that community, James Maliszewski of Grognardia, starts talking ability scores and what role they should play in D&D. I have never played the original game called D&D. In fact, I have never even seen a copy in person (although I've heard there is a complete set in the special collections of the Miskatonic University library). So imagine my surprise to learn that once upon a time, Str meant nothing in the game. That's right, if Conan the Barbarian and Wesley Crusher both whacked you with a sword in OD&D, the result would be the same. Now, JM has some issues with OD&D and ability scores (though oddly not with the aforementioned), but he doesn't want ability score benefits to dominate level benefits as he apparently believes to be the case with newer editions of D&D. I will concede, this was the case to some extent with AD&D, although I don't personally take issue with fighters having exceptional strength benefits other classes don't. Still, this discrimination has been addressed to a significant degree in 3.5/Pathfinder, both through the use of multiclassing and feats. For example, you have a wizard and you want him to be a passable swordsman. Obviously, he won't be on par with a dedicated fighter of similar level, but that doesn't mean he can't hold his own against a few orcs. He can take a level of fighter. It costs him a bit in terms of casting ability, but he gains proficiency with a whole slew of weapons. Maybe he's not very strong, but maybe he has a high Dex. Ok, take the weapon finesse feat and use a light weapon such as a short sword or rapier. Voila! Now he can use his Dex bonus instead of this Str bonus on attack rolls. Of course, I haven't even touched on the spells the wizard has at his disposal to improve his combat prowess, such as bull's strength, cat's grace, heroism, haste and rage. With so many options, there is virtually no character concept that can't be accommodated using the 3.5/Pathfinder ruleset.
-Rognar-
-Rognar-
"New School" myths
The tabletop RPG blogosphere seems to be dominated by proponents of "old school" gaming. I have a theory about this. First of all, WotC and Paizo provide online forums for fans of 4e and 3.5/Pathfinder respectively, thus diminishing the need for fan sites to provide that sense of community. Secondly, the demographic of old-school fans is probably older than the average of the rpg community and in the age of Twitter and Facebook, weblogs are probably seen as a bit old-fashioned. Younger gamers probably prefer these more up-to-date social networking options.
Now, since I am a "new school" greybeard, I have a foot in both worlds. I like to read what the old-timers have to say (cuz I was there, man!), but the games themselves have limited appeal. I'm a bit of a power gamer. I freely admit it and I don't apologize for it. Old school gaming just doesn't offer the cornucopia of chargen options that I can get with 3.5/Pathfinder and there is nothing a power gamer loves more than character options. Now, I don't begrudge the old-school folks their preferences, but I have noticed some misconceptions circulating within their community that may be colouring their opinions. I don't seek to change anyone's mind, I'm just telling it like it is.
First off, not putting any ranks into a particular skill doesn't mean you can't use said skill. There are exceptions (mainly knowledge skills), but most skills, such as Swim, Climb, Stealth, Bluff, Intimidate and Diplomacy, can be used untrained. Of course, an untrained character will be less skilled than a trained one, but that is how it works in the real world, so why should it be any different in the game world? Also, being required to use a skill untrained encourages creativity on the part of the character because they will seek out ways to improve their chances of success. For example, someone untrained in Diplomacy might offer a gift or favour to an NPC in hopes that will improve his chance of success. Another character unskilled in Climb will make a habit of carrying around a knotted rope or a hammer and spikes.
Another criticism I read recently is that characters cannot be generated on the fly. Now it's true that guys like me spend a fair amount of time on character generation, but that's because it's fun and challenging, not because it's necessary. It is entirely possible for a veteran player to create a character in 5 or 10 minutes, after making a couple of decisions on your character concept. For example, I want to create a 5th level melee fighter. Okay, first is ability scores. In 3.5/Pathfinder, there are several options for generating ability scores, but your DM has already made that decision. If he makes you roll them, then roll. It's the same as older versions of D&D. On the other hand, if he wants a point buy system (which is what we use), chances are you've already got a favourite set of numbers. 20 point buy? I like 16,14,12,12,11,10. The 16 goes on Str, the 14 on Con, the 12s on Dex and Wis and the 10 and 11 on Int and Cha. Saves and attack bonuses take a few seconds to look up. Feats may seem daunting, but after playing the game for awhile, you learn which ones are worth it and which ones aren't. I give my fighter weapon focus, power attack, cleave, weapon specialization, iron will, toughness and blind-fight. Are these the feats I would select if I spent more time on the character? Not necessarily, but they are commonly known to be good choices for my character concept, so they can be chosen quickly. Skills are easy, since fighters have few skill points and few choices anyway. I'll take Climb, Swim and Intimidate, maximum ranks. All I have left to do is equip my character. Sure, this part takes a bit of time, but it takes time in every version of D&D I've ever played. Of course, spellcasters will need a bit more time, due to spell selection, but again, this is no different from older versions of D&D.
-Rognar-
Now, since I am a "new school" greybeard, I have a foot in both worlds. I like to read what the old-timers have to say (cuz I was there, man!), but the games themselves have limited appeal. I'm a bit of a power gamer. I freely admit it and I don't apologize for it. Old school gaming just doesn't offer the cornucopia of chargen options that I can get with 3.5/Pathfinder and there is nothing a power gamer loves more than character options. Now, I don't begrudge the old-school folks their preferences, but I have noticed some misconceptions circulating within their community that may be colouring their opinions. I don't seek to change anyone's mind, I'm just telling it like it is.
First off, not putting any ranks into a particular skill doesn't mean you can't use said skill. There are exceptions (mainly knowledge skills), but most skills, such as Swim, Climb, Stealth, Bluff, Intimidate and Diplomacy, can be used untrained. Of course, an untrained character will be less skilled than a trained one, but that is how it works in the real world, so why should it be any different in the game world? Also, being required to use a skill untrained encourages creativity on the part of the character because they will seek out ways to improve their chances of success. For example, someone untrained in Diplomacy might offer a gift or favour to an NPC in hopes that will improve his chance of success. Another character unskilled in Climb will make a habit of carrying around a knotted rope or a hammer and spikes.
Another criticism I read recently is that characters cannot be generated on the fly. Now it's true that guys like me spend a fair amount of time on character generation, but that's because it's fun and challenging, not because it's necessary. It is entirely possible for a veteran player to create a character in 5 or 10 minutes, after making a couple of decisions on your character concept. For example, I want to create a 5th level melee fighter. Okay, first is ability scores. In 3.5/Pathfinder, there are several options for generating ability scores, but your DM has already made that decision. If he makes you roll them, then roll. It's the same as older versions of D&D. On the other hand, if he wants a point buy system (which is what we use), chances are you've already got a favourite set of numbers. 20 point buy? I like 16,14,12,12,11,10. The 16 goes on Str, the 14 on Con, the 12s on Dex and Wis and the 10 and 11 on Int and Cha. Saves and attack bonuses take a few seconds to look up. Feats may seem daunting, but after playing the game for awhile, you learn which ones are worth it and which ones aren't. I give my fighter weapon focus, power attack, cleave, weapon specialization, iron will, toughness and blind-fight. Are these the feats I would select if I spent more time on the character? Not necessarily, but they are commonly known to be good choices for my character concept, so they can be chosen quickly. Skills are easy, since fighters have few skill points and few choices anyway. I'll take Climb, Swim and Intimidate, maximum ranks. All I have left to do is equip my character. Sure, this part takes a bit of time, but it takes time in every version of D&D I've ever played. Of course, spellcasters will need a bit more time, due to spell selection, but again, this is no different from older versions of D&D.
-Rognar-
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Eclipse Phase chargen - third stage
As noted in the previous post, Ravel is sleeved in an Exalt morph. Basically, he is a genetically-modified human. His morph gives him +5 COG as well as +5 in three other aptitudes chosen by the player. I will increase his SAV, REF and COO by +5 each. All skills based on the improved aptitudes are also increased by +5. As an aside, it is helpful to keep track of what aptitude and skill bonuses you received from your morph, since at a later time you may be resleeved into another morph which may provide different bonuses.
Ravel has a total of 270 Rep points (50 for free, 220 purchased with CPs) to divide up among his reputation networks. He divides them up as follows:
Hypercorps (c-Rep) 80
Autonomists (@-Rep) 80
Firewall (i-Rep) 80
Criminal (g-Rep) 30
At this point, all that remains is to purchase equipment, including upgrades to the morph.
-Rognar-
Ravel has a total of 270 Rep points (50 for free, 220 purchased with CPs) to divide up among his reputation networks. He divides them up as follows:
Hypercorps (c-Rep) 80
Autonomists (@-Rep) 80
Firewall (i-Rep) 80
Criminal (g-Rep) 30
At this point, all that remains is to purchase equipment, including upgrades to the morph.
-Rognar-
Monday, October 26, 2009
Eclipse Phase chargen - second stage
Characters get 1000 customization points (CPs) to spend on skills and other character aspects, such as morph, starting wealth and reputation. A minimum of 400 must be spent on active skills and 300 on knowledge skills, but I will spend 500 on active skills. Skills can be bought up at a cost of 1 CP per point up to 60 and 2 CP per point from 61 to 80 (the starting maximum). The base level for each skill is the relevent aptitude plus any bonuses derived from background and morph. So, from the list of active skills, 500 CPs buys the following:
Networking: Hypercorps 70
Networking: Autonomists 60
Networking: Firewall 60
Networking: Criminals 40
Persuasion 70
Infosec 65
Infiltration 65
Interfacing 60
Pilot: groundcraft 40
Fray 45
Perception 80
Freefall 30
Freerunning 30
Investigation 70
Protocol 30
Beam weapons 30
Kinetic weapons 30
From this, you can see Ravel places a high priority on interpersonal skills. In particular, his networking and persuasion skills are quite impressive. He's also quite skilled at dealing with information systems and computer security and is a very perceptive person. On the other hand, his combat skills are not impressive, so he tends to keep his head down when the bullets start flying.
From the list of knowledge skills, the following:
Language: English 85 (native speaker)
Language: Mandarin 70
Language: Russian 50
Art: writing 50
Academics: computer science 60
Academics: cryptography 50
Academics: psychology 60
Academics: mathematics 45
Profession: security ops 50
Ravel is a native English-speaker, although his Mandarin is nearly flawless and he's quite fluent in Russian. He also has a background in several fields related to his professional competencies and he dabbles in a bit of creative writing from time to time.
I spend the remaining 200 CPs as follows:
Morph:
Exalt (30 CPs)
Positive Traits:
Adaptability (20 CPs)
Fast Learner (10 CPs)
First Impression (10 CPs)
Situational Awareness (10 CPs)
220 Rep points (22 CPs)
5 Moxie points (75 CPs)
23,000 credits (23 CPs)
-Rognar-
Networking: Hypercorps 70
Networking: Autonomists 60
Networking: Firewall 60
Networking: Criminals 40
Persuasion 70
Infosec 65
Infiltration 65
Interfacing 60
Pilot: groundcraft 40
Fray 45
Perception 80
Freefall 30
Freerunning 30
Investigation 70
Protocol 30
Beam weapons 30
Kinetic weapons 30
From this, you can see Ravel places a high priority on interpersonal skills. In particular, his networking and persuasion skills are quite impressive. He's also quite skilled at dealing with information systems and computer security and is a very perceptive person. On the other hand, his combat skills are not impressive, so he tends to keep his head down when the bullets start flying.
From the list of knowledge skills, the following:
Language: English 85 (native speaker)
Language: Mandarin 70
Language: Russian 50
Art: writing 50
Academics: computer science 60
Academics: cryptography 50
Academics: psychology 60
Academics: mathematics 45
Profession: security ops 50
Ravel is a native English-speaker, although his Mandarin is nearly flawless and he's quite fluent in Russian. He also has a background in several fields related to his professional competencies and he dabbles in a bit of creative writing from time to time.
I spend the remaining 200 CPs as follows:
Morph:
Exalt (30 CPs)
Positive Traits:
Adaptability (20 CPs)
Fast Learner (10 CPs)
First Impression (10 CPs)
Situational Awareness (10 CPs)
220 Rep points (22 CPs)
5 Moxie points (75 CPs)
23,000 credits (23 CPs)
-Rognar-
Eclipse Phase chargen - first stage
Character generation in Eclipse Phase is no trivial undertaking, so it is fortunate that character death is rarely permanent. Throwing together a character on the fly is simply not an option. I decided to share my first chargen experience to illustrate the process.
The character's name is Ravel Pasternak, he is a spy working on behalf of Extropian interests in a Hypercorp city-state on Mars. He is also an agent of Firewall.
The first step is selection of a background. I have chosen to make Ravel a native-born Martian. This gives him a +10 Pilot: Groundcraft, +20 Networking: Hypercorps and +10 to any technical, academic or profession skill. I chose Infosec. As stated previously, Ravel serves the Extropian faction, which gives +10 Persuasion, +10 Networking: Hypercorps and +10 Networking: Autonomists.
The next step, I have 105 points to divide up among 7 aptitudes, which are cognition (COG), coordination (COO), intuition (INT), reflexes (REF), savvy (SAV), somatics (SOM) and willpower (WIL). The default for each is 15 points, but Ravel is involved in information gathering, so he needs an edge in interpersonal skills and information technology. I make his SAV and COG 20 each. As a trade off, I drop his COO and REF by 5 each. He's not quite as naturally agile and dextrous as the average transhuman, but he will be able to compensate with his skill selection and benefits derived from his morph.
My base aptitude scores are: COG 20, COO 10, INT 15, REF 10, SAV 20, SOM 15, WIL 15.
-Rognar-
The character's name is Ravel Pasternak, he is a spy working on behalf of Extropian interests in a Hypercorp city-state on Mars. He is also an agent of Firewall.
The first step is selection of a background. I have chosen to make Ravel a native-born Martian. This gives him a +10 Pilot: Groundcraft, +20 Networking: Hypercorps and +10 to any technical, academic or profession skill. I chose Infosec. As stated previously, Ravel serves the Extropian faction, which gives +10 Persuasion, +10 Networking: Hypercorps and +10 Networking: Autonomists.
The next step, I have 105 points to divide up among 7 aptitudes, which are cognition (COG), coordination (COO), intuition (INT), reflexes (REF), savvy (SAV), somatics (SOM) and willpower (WIL). The default for each is 15 points, but Ravel is involved in information gathering, so he needs an edge in interpersonal skills and information technology. I make his SAV and COG 20 each. As a trade off, I drop his COO and REF by 5 each. He's not quite as naturally agile and dextrous as the average transhuman, but he will be able to compensate with his skill selection and benefits derived from his morph.
My base aptitude scores are: COG 20, COO 10, INT 15, REF 10, SAV 20, SOM 15, WIL 15.
-Rognar-
Monday, October 19, 2009
Still more on the "Gish"
Derobane-bane offered up quite a comment to my most recent post on this subject (perhaps it should have been a new post). I will endeavor to address some of his points. First of all, there is this:
I'm not sure if one could make a 'gish' as effective (in terms of game combat mechanics)as Vendalin in Pathfinder. 3.5 was pretty easy to manipulate with all the extra sources out there. Still, I'm sure that one could make a PC that is almost as awesome as a fighter and spellcaster of equal level, given enough time and thought.
There is something to consider about Pathfinder that is different from D&D 3.5 which tends to work in favour of the gish concept at the expense of straight up melee classes and that is the relative availability of magic items for purchase. In Pathfinder, the maximum value of items available for purchase in a metropolis is 16,000 gp. That is equivalent to a +4 armour bonus before adding in the cost of the armour itself. Therefore, high-level fighters will have to find their magic weapons and armour in the treasure hoards of defeated foes or cajole their spellcasting comrades to make them. For this reason, I think the fighter with the +5 full plate, +5 heavy shield, +5 ring of protection and +5 amulet of natural armour is probably a thing of the past. So, the difference in AC between a gish and a fighter of equal level will probably not be as great. Of course, the fighter will still have a ton of hps, but he also has that low Will save and as we all know, smart opponents will always try to charm or dominate the enemy meat shield.
Another issue in gish creation is which sort of arcane spellcaster to chose. I have gone with sorcerer for one main reason, the bloodline benefits. Abyssal and Draconic bloodlines both provide some very useful benefits for a melee fighter. I chose Abyssal mainly because the bonus spells at lower level were more appealing, especially bull's strength, rage and stoneskin. At higher levels, the Draconic bloodline gives you the various form of the dragon spells, but getting there basically means you have to go with the sorcerer class all the way (in which case, you aren't really a gish).
The main drawback of choosing sorcerer is that there are effectively no dump stats. First of all, you need Cha since your spellcasting is based on it. Some of your bloodline bennies also use Cha. Of course, you need Str, Con and Dex for their combat benefits. That leaves Int (which you need for the Spellcraft skill to make magic items) and Wis (for Will saves). Int probably comes closest to being a dump stat in this case, but you will soon find yourself wishing it was at least 10. A wizard could choose Cha as his dump stat, but as handy as that might be, it doesn't come close to counterbalancing bloodline benefits. Sorcerer is the way to go.
-Rognar-
I'm not sure if one could make a 'gish' as effective (in terms of game combat mechanics)as Vendalin in Pathfinder. 3.5 was pretty easy to manipulate with all the extra sources out there. Still, I'm sure that one could make a PC that is almost as awesome as a fighter and spellcaster of equal level, given enough time and thought.
There is something to consider about Pathfinder that is different from D&D 3.5 which tends to work in favour of the gish concept at the expense of straight up melee classes and that is the relative availability of magic items for purchase. In Pathfinder, the maximum value of items available for purchase in a metropolis is 16,000 gp. That is equivalent to a +4 armour bonus before adding in the cost of the armour itself. Therefore, high-level fighters will have to find their magic weapons and armour in the treasure hoards of defeated foes or cajole their spellcasting comrades to make them. For this reason, I think the fighter with the +5 full plate, +5 heavy shield, +5 ring of protection and +5 amulet of natural armour is probably a thing of the past. So, the difference in AC between a gish and a fighter of equal level will probably not be as great. Of course, the fighter will still have a ton of hps, but he also has that low Will save and as we all know, smart opponents will always try to charm or dominate the enemy meat shield.
Another issue in gish creation is which sort of arcane spellcaster to chose. I have gone with sorcerer for one main reason, the bloodline benefits. Abyssal and Draconic bloodlines both provide some very useful benefits for a melee fighter. I chose Abyssal mainly because the bonus spells at lower level were more appealing, especially bull's strength, rage and stoneskin. At higher levels, the Draconic bloodline gives you the various form of the dragon spells, but getting there basically means you have to go with the sorcerer class all the way (in which case, you aren't really a gish).
The main drawback of choosing sorcerer is that there are effectively no dump stats. First of all, you need Cha since your spellcasting is based on it. Some of your bloodline bennies also use Cha. Of course, you need Str, Con and Dex for their combat benefits. That leaves Int (which you need for the Spellcraft skill to make magic items) and Wis (for Will saves). Int probably comes closest to being a dump stat in this case, but you will soon find yourself wishing it was at least 10. A wizard could choose Cha as his dump stat, but as handy as that might be, it doesn't come close to counterbalancing bloodline benefits. Sorcerer is the way to go.
-Rognar-
Thursday, October 08, 2009
More thoughts on the "Gish"
In my opinion, the key to building a gish in D&D 3.5/Pathfinder is to concentrate on creating a melee fighter. There are three basic approaches, creating a range combatant, a melee combatant or a balanced fighter-mage similar to the old elf class from Basic D&D. I think most people would agree the last option is the worst since it fails to generate any synergy between the two classes, in effect, creating a lousy fighter and an ineffective spellcaster in one character.
The ranged combatant approach is not bad, especially if the character concentrates on using ray spells. The fighter has several feats that can be applied to ray attacks, including weapon focus, improved critical and point blank shot. Also, the increased BAB is always handy even if most of the attacks are ranged touch. Having said that, the loss of a couple of caster levels to gain a modest increase in BAB and a couple of useful feats is not really that great of a trade-off. I would say the result would be quite inferior to a warmage.
So, how about the melee fighter? Well, obviously a gish is going to be less effective as a front-line combatant than a pure fighter or even a ranger or paladin. However, with the right choice of spells and feats, it can certainly hold its own. You really want to get rid of your arcane spell failure as much as possible, so arcane armour training and arcane armour mastery are essential, especially when combined with mithral armour. Oh, pretty, pretty mithral. Another sweet little feat is arcane strike, just an extra little bonus to your damage since you won't be able to dedicate as many points to Str as you might like.
On the spell side, the gish is going to want to stack up the buffing and defensive spells; bull's strength, bear's endurance, shield, heroism, alter self, rage and stoneskin are all great choices. A few offensive ranged spells are also a must, but since you will be down a couple of caster levels and also won't have many feat slots available for metamagic or spell penetration, you will want to take ones that either don't have saving throws or are not affected by spell resistance.
-Rognar-
The ranged combatant approach is not bad, especially if the character concentrates on using ray spells. The fighter has several feats that can be applied to ray attacks, including weapon focus, improved critical and point blank shot. Also, the increased BAB is always handy even if most of the attacks are ranged touch. Having said that, the loss of a couple of caster levels to gain a modest increase in BAB and a couple of useful feats is not really that great of a trade-off. I would say the result would be quite inferior to a warmage.
So, how about the melee fighter? Well, obviously a gish is going to be less effective as a front-line combatant than a pure fighter or even a ranger or paladin. However, with the right choice of spells and feats, it can certainly hold its own. You really want to get rid of your arcane spell failure as much as possible, so arcane armour training and arcane armour mastery are essential, especially when combined with mithral armour. Oh, pretty, pretty mithral. Another sweet little feat is arcane strike, just an extra little bonus to your damage since you won't be able to dedicate as many points to Str as you might like.
On the spell side, the gish is going to want to stack up the buffing and defensive spells; bull's strength, bear's endurance, shield, heroism, alter self, rage and stoneskin are all great choices. A few offensive ranged spells are also a must, but since you will be down a couple of caster levels and also won't have many feat slots available for metamagic or spell penetration, you will want to take ones that either don't have saving throws or are not affected by spell resistance.
-Rognar-
Monday, June 15, 2009
Character Generator - Pathfinder
I've played with this before and thought it was great and the guy has been tweaking it and keeping it up to date. Definitely something to keep your eye on.
Here
Here
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Character Creation Theory
We often argue around the table about how good certain classes are and why some suck. The hottest arguments always seem to develop around the bard. So today I'm going to explain what makes for a good* character (in my opinion).
*By good I don't mean fun, I mean effective
1. Spells. Most classes that can cast spells are better then those that cannot. With the right selection of spells you can accomplish just about any task. Wizards are the best example. By 5th level +, wizards are walking swiss army knives that have the ability to solve just about any problem. Can they do it all? No, but if they can't fix a problem today they can usually come back tommorrow and fix it.
2. Specialization. A careful balance has to be achieved here. Over specialize and your character will have glaring weakness or won't be usefull 80% of the time. The biggest divide is combat vs non-combat. Ideally your character won't be completely useless in either scenario (especially combat which chews up the majority of game time). The trick is to pick something and make your character really good at it. Spells need high DCs to be effective and melee characters need a to be able to hit to do damage. Ideally an adventuring party are all really good at different things.
3. Synergy. I am a sorceror and my Cha is really high. Great! now look around for other things that play off your charisma. Pick up some talky skills, pick up feats that allow you to add your Cha bonus to saves. These things require some research can can have a huge payoff.
4. Flexibility. As I mentioned in Specialization, having one trick is good, having many is better. The game is designed to require a wide variety of solutions and if you can only do one thing you'll find yourself standing in the back twiddling your thumbs often.
Now I admit playing a wizard all of the times gets a little boring and sometimes its fun to slum it with "lesser classes" but some of the same rules still apply. If you are going to do something you might as well do it well. If you want to be an archer, don't pick a bard (ranger, fighter, and yes even cleric are all better choices). If you want to be a blaster don't pick a warmage. Sure they can blast alright but a sorceror can do it almost as well and still has a massive spell list letting them teleport around, scry, conjure monsters, etc. Warmages are over specialized with no flexibility. Bards are the opposite. They can a little bit of everything but don't do anything particularly well. They are good buffers but if all you want to do is hide in the back and sing then why bother playing? Other classes can buff just as well and still be very good at other things.
I'm sure lots of people won't fully agree with this post and I welcome any comments.
*By good I don't mean fun, I mean effective
1. Spells. Most classes that can cast spells are better then those that cannot. With the right selection of spells you can accomplish just about any task. Wizards are the best example. By 5th level +, wizards are walking swiss army knives that have the ability to solve just about any problem. Can they do it all? No, but if they can't fix a problem today they can usually come back tommorrow and fix it.
2. Specialization. A careful balance has to be achieved here. Over specialize and your character will have glaring weakness or won't be usefull 80% of the time. The biggest divide is combat vs non-combat. Ideally your character won't be completely useless in either scenario (especially combat which chews up the majority of game time). The trick is to pick something and make your character really good at it. Spells need high DCs to be effective and melee characters need a to be able to hit to do damage. Ideally an adventuring party are all really good at different things.
3. Synergy. I am a sorceror and my Cha is really high. Great! now look around for other things that play off your charisma. Pick up some talky skills, pick up feats that allow you to add your Cha bonus to saves. These things require some research can can have a huge payoff.
4. Flexibility. As I mentioned in Specialization, having one trick is good, having many is better. The game is designed to require a wide variety of solutions and if you can only do one thing you'll find yourself standing in the back twiddling your thumbs often.
Now I admit playing a wizard all of the times gets a little boring and sometimes its fun to slum it with "lesser classes" but some of the same rules still apply. If you are going to do something you might as well do it well. If you want to be an archer, don't pick a bard (ranger, fighter, and yes even cleric are all better choices). If you want to be a blaster don't pick a warmage. Sure they can blast alright but a sorceror can do it almost as well and still has a massive spell list letting them teleport around, scry, conjure monsters, etc. Warmages are over specialized with no flexibility. Bards are the opposite. They can a little bit of everything but don't do anything particularly well. They are good buffers but if all you want to do is hide in the back and sing then why bother playing? Other classes can buff just as well and still be very good at other things.
I'm sure lots of people won't fully agree with this post and I welcome any comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)