The Gaming Den

Does anyone know a (3rd party) feat, that let's a cleric use channel energy based off of wisdom?

I'm building an Arcane Savant as a new character for a high-level, anything-goes campaign. I'm not sure what to grab with all my 6 Esoteric Magic slots, though. Current levels are wizard (Void) 6 / Arcane Savant 7. I'm considering switching to Conjuration (teleportation), though.

Here's what I've got so far:
- Death Ward, Level 5 spell
- Freedom of Movement, level 5
- Summon Monster VIII, level 6
- Greater Planar Binding, level 6
- Silence, level 3
- [last slot]

I've got overpowered summoned and bound monsters, plus the ability to toggle on immunity to various hindrances. Not so sure about Silence, since my UMD and Scroll Mastery abilities would let me be just as effective casting from scrolls. Any tips?

Rawbeard wrote:

For starters, Bioware had actual game designers

Fixed.

Maybe he just like big boats, and he cannot lie.

MGuy wrote:

Dogbert wrote: Paizo APs, on the other hand, are written by self-indulgent hacks who scrabble a story that, regardless of quality, serves no purpose other than giving MC something to fap about because players never interact with it. I vastly prefer a canned adventure that only has a dungeon, critters, and no other motivation than "there's treasure inside" because at least that's more honest and players don't get shoved the idiot ball up their assess with cheap railroading and lazy scenario design while MC faps and thinks "oh I'm so clever."

dogbert... are you complaining that there are background elements at all that players may not interact with? If so, why? Why the hell would you care if there are elements players 'may' or may not be curious enough to find. If not, what exactly is your problem with it?

The adventure path has limited word count, so every word devoted to background details that the PCs will not interact with is a word not used to provide more GM advice, suggested alternate paths, tactical advice for running encounters, or ideas on how to tailor the adventure to a specific group.

So if there's a column and a half devoted to the background and life story of the NPC opponent that the PCs will murder in 3 rounds, I get angry and frustrated with Paizo for not condensing that to a paragraph and using the rest of the space to give me more advice on how to make sure that the PCs like the NPCs that they're supposed to like.

On the other hand, if the NPC survives, back story elements help the GM decide where to go from there. In my experience, the APs have about 75% of what they need to make sense - maybe a little better in the low level modules and a little worse in the high level ones. Usually a little added material to make transitions between adventures smoother helps a lot, as well as some side-treks (either an expansion related to the overall AP or a change of pace while other leads develop).

The big issue with most APs is how little game time actually passes from start to finish. Expanding some of the material (without increasing XP awards) can .are them more enjoyable and less of a railroad.

mlangsdorf wrote: So if there's a column and a half devoted to the background and life story of the NPC opponent that the PCs will murder in 3 rounds, I get angry and frustrated with Paizo for not condensing that to a paragraph and using the rest of the space to give me more advice on how to make sure that the PCs like the NPCs that they're supposed to like.

Shouldn't you know how to make your party like or hate someone better than the author? I get what you are saying, but it seems unreasonable to ask for pages dedicated on how to keep murder hobo parties from killing key NPCs that will be applicable to only a small segment of the player base. Also most of the "your party will like this NPC because he saved a squirrel" or "give him a funny voice," is both niche and stupid.

Knowing backstory and motivation can let DMs build on elements and villains the party likes. Sure out of six books you might only be able to use stuff from one, but I'm confused as to what you would rather have.

Pathfinder adventure paths have a terrible habit of making the plot details that tie the campaign together visible only to the DM. Kingmaker is a blatant example of this. From the DM's perspective, the end of the second book is an agent of the BBEG harassing the party while the BBEG stays out of sight, building her power. From the player's perspective, it's an owlbear out of nowhere that has no connection to anything prior or after.

It gets worse. The PCs can find a ring on the BBEG's agent. It's made of the BBEG's hair. But if the party tries to use it for scrying or anything like that, the book says to have it explode, dealing 5d6 electric damage or something like that. Even trying to investigate the plot is cockblocked by the adventure path.

mlangsdorf wrote:

MGuy wrote:

Dogbert wrote: Paizo APs, on the other hand, are written by self-indulgent hacks who scrabble a story that, regardless of quality, serves no purpose other than giving MC something to fap about because players never interact with it. I vastly prefer a canned adventure that only has a dungeon, critters, and no other motivation than "there's treasure inside" because at least that's more honest and players don't get shoved the idiot ball up their assess with cheap railroading and lazy scenario design while MC faps and thinks "oh I'm so clever."

dogbert... are you complaining that there are background elements at all that players may not interact with? If so, why? Why the hell would you care if there are elements players 'may' or may not be curious enough to find. If not, what exactly is your problem with it?

The adventure path has limited word count, so every word devoted to background details that the PCs will not interact with is a word not used to provide more GM advice, suggested alternate paths, tactical advice for running encounters, or ideas on how to tailor the adventure to a specific group.

So if there's a column and a half devoted to the background and life story of the NPC opponent that the PCs will murder in 3 rounds, I get angry and frustrated with Paizo for not condensing that to a paragraph and using the rest of the space to give me more advice on how to make sure that the PCs like the NPCs that they're supposed to like.

That is an odd thing to get angry about. You simply can't know whether or not players will kill named NPC number 4 and you can't know whether or not they will go along whatever Railroad the adventure tries to set up. I can't get mad at them for spending time fleshing out a character the players might or might not kill. It is not as though they write the stuff in and then NOT write what you need to run the encounter into their APs. If they did that, I could understand that kind of view but since they give you all that + extra I find it confusing to get mad at them adding extra.

Amalie Gaston wrote:Pathfinder adventure paths have a terrible habit of making the plot details that tie the campaign together visible only to the DM. Kingmaker is a blatant example of this. From the DM's perspective, the end of the second book is an agent of the BBEG harassing the party while the BBEG stays out of sight, building her power. From the player's perspective, it's an owlbear out of nowhere that has no connection to anything prior or after.

The entire 6th book of Kingmaker comes out of nowhere.

MGuy wrote:

mlangsdorf wrote: The adventure path has limited word count, so every word devoted to background details that the PCs will not interact with is a word not used to provide more GM advice, suggested alternate paths, tactical advice for running encounters, or ideas on how to tailor the adventure to a specific group.

So if there's a column and a half devoted to the background and life story of the NPC opponent that the PCs will murder in 3 rounds, I get angry and frustrated with Paizo for not condensing that to a paragraph and using the rest of the space to give me more advice on how to make sure that the PCs like the NPCs that they're supposed to like.

That is an odd thing to get angry about. You simply can't know whether or not players will kill named NPC number 4 and you can't know whether or not they will go along whatever Railroad the adventure tries to set up. I can't get mad at them for spending time fleshing out a character the players might or might not kill. It is not as though they write the stuff in and then NOT write what you need to run the encounter into their APs. If they did that, I could understand that kind of view but since they give you all that + extra I find it confusing to get mad at them adding extra.

Ideally, the adventure should have been playtested by multiple groups after the first draft was completed, and feedback from those playtests encorporated in the final draft. I'd rather have suggestions based on experience that you shouldn't be too overbearing with NPC A or that you really have to play up NPC B's kindness and admiration of the PCs because otherwise some of the stuff she does for plot reasons becomes really annoying than the in depth history of NPC C's interactions with NPCs D and E in a city that the PCs won't visit for another 3 installments of the adventure path.

I don't think it's wrong to give some backstory to the villains, but the priorities are really horrible. Kingmaker spends more than half a column on the Stag Lord's backstory, and most of it stuff the PCs will never know or be able to interact with. It's just wordy filler that could be cut down to a paragraph or two and replaced with more information on how to handle the PCs' attempts to infiltrate his fort and cause dissension among the bandits there.

Keep in mind that they need to print that stuff in APs in order to have items to reprint in their inevitable hardcover compilations. (e.g. Inner Sea Gods)

The fact that Paizo print lots of stuff into their adventures that nobody will ever experience or find out about in a real game is not really surprising since there are lots of people who read materials as you would a novel, without even the intent of using it at a table or anything. Paizo has even officially acknowlegded this to be a fact, so in a way they're just catering their customers.

@ mlangsdorf
Would you please be so kind as to unfuck your tags?
I think you have one too many close-quotes.

Antariuk wrote:The fact that Paizo print lots of stuff into their adventures that nobody will ever experience or find out about in a real game is not really surprising since there are lots of people who read materials as you would a novel, without even the intent of using it at a table or anything. Paizo has even officially acknowlegded this to be a fact, so in a way they're just catering their customers.

I'm of the opinion that these people should just read actual novels. As a GM I'm fine with getting lots of background information in an AP, but it should designed to be used. At the very least, there should a knowledge check to find out what's going on. When something happens the PCs need to know the reason, or they might as well be playing through a random encounter table.

LeadPal wrote:

Antariuk wrote:The fact that Paizo print lots of stuff into their adventures that nobody will ever experience or find out about in a real game is not really surprising since there are lots of people who read materials as you would a novel, without even the intent of using it at a table or anything. Paizo has even officially acknowlegded this to be a fact, so in a way they're just catering their customers.

I'm of the opinion that these people should just read actual novels. As a GM I'm fine with getting lots of background information in an AP, but it should designed to be used. At the very least, there should a knowledge check to find out what's going on. When something happens the PCs need to know the reason, or they might as well be playing through a random encounter table.

I have to admit that I'm not familiar with the most recent APs, so it is possible that things have changed. From the beginning, there was very little that was not useful - the closest I think that would match was when a 'red herring' was presented... Information about what the PCs might investigate but was ultimately unconnected to the larger plot. But then again, if it isn't a railroad, that information actually matters.

Further, if run 'exactly as written', some of this wouldn't be helpful - bad guys might appear and their motivations or connections are never known. Shackled City really struggled with this - every time they introduced a 'new villain', it felt a little forced. That said, if you have the whole AP and as the GM you know that a particular villain is going to feature prominently in the 5th installment, you can start hinting at them earlier.

Generally speaking, the APs are a pretty solid framework, but to get the most out of them, a DM is going to have to add some extra material. This wouldn't be quite as much the case if they weren't so focused on going from 1st to 20th level in 6 adventures...

deaddmwalking wrote:

LeadPal wrote:

Antariuk wrote:The fact that Paizo print lots of stuff into their adventures that nobody will ever experience or find out about in a real game is not really surprising since there are lots of people who read materials as you would a novel, without even the intent of using it at a table or anything. Paizo has even officially acknowlegded this to be a fact, so in a way they're just catering their customers.

I'm of the opinion that these people should just read actual novels. As a GM I'm fine with getting lots of background information in an AP, but it should designed to be used. At the very least, there should a knowledge check to find out what's going on. When something happens the PCs need to know the reason, or they might as well be playing through a random encounter table.

I have to admit that I'm not familiar with the most recent APs, so it is possible that things have changed. From the beginning, there was very little that was not useful - the closest I think that would match was when a 'red herring' was presented... Information about what the PCs might investigate but was ultimately unconnected to the larger plot. But then again, if it isn't a railroad, that information actually matters.

It's common for APs to have monsters with long backgrounds that the PCs have no incentive to learn, much less any way to do so. And while it's nice when you can use these backgrounds to inform the actions of these monsters, if the PCs have no way of knowing about it, the result from their perspective isn't any different from if the monsters acted randomly. Kingmaker's owlbear from nowhere (above) is a great example.

Another example: Near the end of the first book of Jade Regent, there's a strange monster spawned from a demon lord in the laboratory of an ancient civilization ten thousand years ago as a terrible war machine. That's very impressive and all, but ultimately it's just a tough fight in a small room. The information isn't applicable to anything.

I'm indifferent about toilet reading, it's when they specifically write an idiot plot where I draw the line:

1) The BBEG is That Guy.
2) That Guy plans to do This Thing.
3) He'll enact This Thing by means of These Other Things.
4) These Other Things are to be carried out by These Other Guys.
5) These Other Guys DO HAVE contact with the PCs, and it's totally possible for the PCs to get in on the whole BBEG's plot and throw a monkey wrench in it, but the GM is tasked with stonewalling the PCs, because fuck you.

This is insulting on several levels, and the reason why I spit on Paizo's GM Wank pieces Adventure Paths.

1) The BBEG is That Guy.

BBEG is Ahab

2) That Guy plans to do This Thing.

Ahab plans to kill the white whale

3) He'll enact This Thing by means of These Other Things.

He will kill the white whale by securing a crew and changing his stated goal.

4) These Other Things are to be carried out by These Other Guys.

He needs to have Starbuck and the other mates run the ship and handle keep the crew in line while he ignores easy profit.

5) These Other Guys DO HAVE contact with the PCs, and it's totally possible for the PCs to get in on the whole BBEG's plot and throw a monkey wrench in it, but the GM is tasked with stonewalling the PCs, because fuck you.

Ishmael has almost no contact with Ahab throughout most of the book and yet his presence is felt through the actions of others and signs of his movement. Ishmael and Quequeg do not mutiny even though Ahab's plot is clear because fuck you.

Your definition of an idiot plot is bad. It's okay not to like the products, but why the hate? Could you give us an example of an RPG plot you don't find insulting?

(On a side note your idiot plot definition fits the plot of the 5th element perfectly, even to the point that Zorg never meets Bruce Willis, and that was a fun movie.)

Presumably though, Ishmael could have mutinied but chose not to, instead of some invisible asshole forcing them not to. And 5th element is fun, but it's also kind of dumb.

Also, Fifth Element does not maintain close 3rd person storytelling on Bruce Willis the entire time and is thus in no way analogous.

-Username17

Scrievener wrote:Your definition of an idiot plot is bad. It's okay not to like the products, but why the hate?

An idiot plot for a predetermined narrative and an idiot plot that's supposed to set up a cooperative storytelling session are not the same thing. I love Ace Attorney but if someone tried to pull some of the shit they tried in those games in a game of Discourse and Dragons: Courtroom Edition, I'd punch my GM in the junk.

Dogbert is too vague on the details for me to agree with him that the Adventure Path is an idiot plot, but I don't agree with your counter-example.

And fifth element and Moby Dick aren't TTRPGs where player choices are supposed to matter.

Yeah, I'm with Maxus.

Moby Dick is a great novel but a really horrible RPG module.

Lago PARANOIA wrote: Dogbert is too vague on the details for me to agree with him that the Adventure Path is an idiot plot, but I don't agree with your counter-example.

And

Maxus wrote:Moby and 5th element aren't TTRPGs

Absolutely. These are fair criticisms. I just want to know what dogbert wants from a plot. While neither fit exactly, being different forms of media, they both have the same basic structure. I was trying to point out that Dogbert's criteria of what constitutes an idiot plot and a GM wankfest fails spectacularly when used on not TTRPG products.

I don't feel that the APs are the greatest thing to ever happen to RPGs, but as I have less and less time to devote to a game, I find they can be useful, even more useful than stand alone modules. I don't understand Dogberts hatred and find his example to goofy.

I think the big issue is people see it as a rail road while they complain about being given backstory and information that would allow the GM to create content if the party goes off the rails.

Dogbert wrote:I'm indifferent about toilet reading, it's when they specifically write an idiot plot where I draw the line:

1) The BBEG is That Guy.
2) That Guy plans to do This Thing.
3) He'll enact This Thing by means of These Other Things.
4) These Other Things are to be carried out by These Other Guys.
5) These Other Guys DO HAVE contact with the PCs, and it's totally possible for the PCs to get in on the whole BBEG's plot and throw a monkey wrench in it, but the GM is tasked with stonewalling the PCs, because fuck you.

This is insulting on several levels, and the reason why I spit on Paizo's GM Wank pieces Adventure Paths.

About the only part of it that's agreeable at all is probably half of the 5th one because that involves actual railroading for questionable benefit. Even then, that's only the latter half of the complaint and I can see situations where it would probably be necessary to do that if you wanted to get your money's worth out of the AP or you wanted to prevent TPK. However, the rest of your list doesn't make sense to me. If your complaint is that, at times, APs tell the GM to make sure the players don't ruin future events that, I can agree with. It hasn't been a problem for me thus far but I can understand not liking it. The rest... I can't understand your complaint at all. Can you explain how 1 through 5 is actually an insult?