|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Ah, that's a much better explanation, but the key that I get from it this...
James Jacobs wrote:
If among your deeds you regularly force intelligent creatures to live a lifestyle of your design and force them to breed with people you select and aren't afraid of breaking up and mixing up families so you can produce a "perfect race," then there's no way that I'll ever let you get published with ANY good alignment.
Seeing as how my views on human eugenics 100% match what JJ said in that post (thank you again for that by the way), even if James Sutter managed to get Mengkare published as Lawful Good, I'd be house ruling it without a second thought. I also should add, I mean no disrespect to James Sutter in saying that, I just cannot and never will see what Mengkare is doing as something a good person would be doing. In fact, one of my characters that is central to my personal stories in Golarion is a Changeling witch raised on Hermea (she was brought as a potential avenue for increased magical power) that passed her citizenship test with flying colors then gave Mengkare the finger and left the island.
Then as for the Takahasi thing, I had actually been thinking about having them be married (nothing says a paladin can't have a wife), but yes if they did they would very much NOT be into having children. But, if they were not a couple, then no I wouldn't have any silliness like that going on.
About the moral issues of being a pirate (and I can only speak from the AP, not the ACG here), I am really of the persuasion that while you CAN be good, it's more likely that you are neutral. That's what I made my character for when I was going to play it, and the first time I ran it I had two good players who very much were of the "I am GOOD I don't want to be a pirate" ideal, even though they both had agreed and so I thought understood this was a pirate campaign. Maybe I should have noticed that the player was a Lawful Good Samurai, but when the player in question is older than me and has been playing RPGs from a younger age than I, I wrongly trusted he would not make a character so blatantly anti-thesis to the campaign, but he did... including that his sense of honor meant that he had to stand up and FIGHT the Captain at the first sign of disrespect to him or the female members of the party. Then the other player was a Kitsune princess (her father was a famous pirate, that's the campaign trait she had) but he (male player) just played her as a super-finicky refusal to even give these filthy pirates the time of day. We didn't even get past the first 14 days before it all fell apart because it was just to a point of how do I not outright kill them because they are wanting to attack Captain Harrigan.
I would say that as a sorcerer ability, you change "bard" to "sorcerer" for purposes.
On a related note, I also note that while the feat is called "Spellsong" nowhere does it say one must actually sing. So, dance would be fine, would it not? Many of the abilities DO require sound-based performance, but some do not, as the feat doesn't mention sound other than the name.
Just noticed today that you are now selling Steve Jackson Games products (which is awesome, GURPS is one of my all time favorite games and in fact the first RPG I ever played) but I noticed that you only have physical products, no PDFs? Like, this for example is ONLY available as a PDF (as least last I checked at Warehouse 23)... so is it pending contract negotiations for selling Steve Jackson PDFs or will PDFs remain only available from Warehouse 23?
James Jacobs very much implied (if not outright said) awhile back he's be Lawful Evil. I tried to find the time I asked him so I could quote it, but all I could find was when someone else asked and he said he didn't want to say yet...
As for being serious, It's as serious as most any Golarion campaign, and... I have no idea what "takahasi-style" is.
Alright, thanks everyone I'm actually pretty much the GM in this case, these are potential NPCs in what is probably going to be a single player campaign. Just wanted to get some opinions before I decide if I want to make him a Paladin or a Dragon Slayer Ranger.
Now, something else I just thought of... what if he had eldritch heritage Silver Draconic? Would that negate him from being able to be a Wyrm Paladin, or would it just mean he doesn't LIKE his family (and would be not having kids more than likely, unless he only hated evil dragons), kind of like a tiefling paladin taking Oath against fiends?
Haha just had a funny thought... at level 20+... Raid on Hermea! Cause JJ pretty much said, if they stated out Mengkare, he'd be a LE Gold Dragon, not the usual LG.
Okay, the part that makes me question is the actual code of conduct...
Oath Against the Wyrm Code of Conduct wrote:
Slay evil dragons, as well as other dangerous dragons whether or not they are evil. Prevent the bloodlines of other creatures from being corrupted with draconic power. Protect the innocent against the predation of dragons.
So, while he might not KILL her, would he be okay to work with her if she's 'corrupted' and even more so a dragon blood drinking sorceress?
EDIT: Okay, got ninjaed a bit... so yeah might not like it if she has children, but otherwise could be friendly with her.
I am working on a sorceress (Dragon Drinker archetype, Silver Dragon Bloodline) who basically her MO is she hunts chromatic dragons (mostly), in fact she's herself Lawful Good (same as her silver dragon ancestor).
So, to team up with her I was thinking about making a Paladin who was Oath Against the Wyrm, but when I read the code of conduct it seems to suggest that he would be like "WTF you're a draconic sorceress? DIE, EVIL DRAGON CREATURE!" or at the very least "WTF you're a draconic sorceress? GTFO!"
Am I reading too much into it, or am I correct that he would not be able to work with her?
Okay, so in nearly every instance where it talks about drinking the blood of sentient creatures, it says this is an evil act. But the Dragonslayer's Handbook talks about how you can use Dragon Blood as healing, there is the Dragon Drinker sorcerer archetype, etc. So, does it say nothing about alignment? Can a Paladin drink dragon's blood cause the RAW doesn't say (that I can find at least) that drinking dragon blood is evil?
I will say I don't have the actual book yet, just read the crunch on Archives of Nethys and d20pfsrd (checked both, looking for anything about "drinking dragon blood is evil same as humanoids" and saw nothing.
Well, plus keep in mind... a cat doesn't just meow. It also swishes it's tail, flattens it's ears against it's head... animals speak more with body language than they do with actual vocalizations. I usually know what my cat wants... most of her meows sound the same, but it's the visual context of her body language that tells me she's hungry or wants the litter box cleaned NOW, or just wants some cuddles. So, just like I for the most part can understand my cat IRL from more than just the meows... I'm sure it's the same for a familiar, only easier due to the increased intelligence. The cat can flatten it's ears and widen it's eyes and hiss (which you can't hear but you can see) "OMFG there is a dragon behind you!!!!" and you'll know but everyone else will be like "What's wrong with your cat?"
Partially. Spell Combat still requires the free hand, even if the spell has no somatic components.
Okay, now see read this...
The question the first person poses, Spell Combat requires you to have a melee weapon in your main hand and nothing in your off-hand. It is unchanged by Card Caster. Then you use Harrowing Spellstrike... but if you can't draw your ranged weapon, that means you can use Spell Combat OR Harrowing Spellstrike in a round, but you cannot use BOTH in the same round?
Well, note it says DO NOT REQUIRE... then later says CANNOT BE HELD UNTIL A LATER TURN... so, that means that you could cast then draw... you just can't hold the charge past the end of your turn.
And yeah, it's pretty lame that an archetype built around throwing CARDS is better for throwing something else entirely.
Heck, maybe I'll just take Still Spell as my 3rd level feat. That would completely negate the entire problem. LOL
No, if you wield a two-handed weapon in one hand you do not get the extra damage for it being two-handed, because it's NOT two handed anymore. As for the bastard sword, it's a one-handed weapon if you have the exotic weapon proficiency, so yes IF you have 3 arms as you do from your vestigial arm and multiweapon fighting (and your GM gives permission, as MWF is a "Monster" feat which means it needs specific GM permission above and beyond the core rulebook's feats) then you can use three bastard swords.
Well, which is better if you have further questions/input? To necro a thread, or to create an entirely new one?
I have been to a forum where necroposting gets you in trouble, but so does creating a new thread about the same topic. So, if an existing thread that is older than the time frame the moderators think is too old, does not answer your question... TOO BAD.
That's why unless the site is like that one where they actually say "Do not necropost and do not make new threads on the same topic" then if you have something relevant to add, why make a new topic?
Okay, just looked it up,
Casting a spell wrote:
To cast a spell with a somatic (S) component, you must gesture freely with at least one hand. You can’t cast a spell of this type while bound, grappling, or with both your hands full or occupied (swimming, clinging to a cliff, or the like).
which means you can have a sword in your hand when casting the spell even normally, so you don't even NEED spell combat to use Harrowed Spellstrike with a sword in your hand as long as you are not using the melee attacks (even though you can) or are you saying that you must pull out the card... THEN start casting the spell... THEN throw the card?
I guess it comes down to what invest a single thrown weapon with a single touch or ranged spell as part of the spell’s normal casting time actually means as far as when you actually draw the thrown weapon.
Cause really, if it's "Stay out of melee or you are screwed" as it seems to be, then Card Caster is very much less appealing, nevermind pairing it with Kapenia Dancer.
Part of the reason is because of the context in which he said it, and how it applies to gaming. He said "Don't be a **** when you pwn them!" meaning pretty much telling GAMERS who can be the biggest ****s in the world sometimes (just play Call of Duty for 5 minutes and you'll quickly see), so while the saying might be older, it's relevant as "Wheaton's Law" because it's really the first time a high-profile gamer celebrity said "We are all gamers, we should all be friends, so don't be a ****" essentially.
Ahhhh, okay. So then again though, in the case of the Card Caster, forget kapenia dancer for a minute. The thing with spell combat is it lets you make melee attacks AND cast a spell. But, what if you have the sword in your hand, and just cast a spell? You need BOTH hands free to cast a spell? So then with Card Caster you cast the spell with your off-hand, then throw the card as part of the casting. As far as I understand it, as long as you aren't ATTACKING with the sword, doesn't matter if it's in your hand or not for normal casting... but then Spell Combat lets you cast and attack at the same time. SO you add Card Caster's Harrowed Spellstrike and it lets you throw a ranged weapon as part of the casting. Does that completely trump Spell Combat from working?
Well, SpellSTRIKE does not require a free hand the way I read it, because it says you get a FREE attack with the melee weapon as you cast the spell. Then Harrowed Spellstrike says it works exactly the same but with ranged... so I should be able to cast the spell and throw the card as part of the casting as that's how Spellstrike normal works. The reason I see it this way is there is at least one Archetype (Skirnir) that replaces Spell Combat. Yet, you are still able to use Spellstrike. So, the one does not rely on the other, because if Spellstrike required the rules of Spell Combat, the Skirnir archetype would be broken. Or, what you have to PUT AWAY your sword before you can bash with your shield using spellstrike because the rules for an ability you do not even have and therefore cannot even use still matter?
So then, by that reading, I should be able to toss a card and cast a spell onto it as part of the attack, regardless.
So then, the only question becomes my off-hand is free... I cast the spell with Spell Combat, I then get a free ranged attack, can I then throw the card as part of the spell casting? That is, do you have to draw the ranged weapon FIRST or do you draw it as part of the casting (which doesn't make sense to me to some extent, since that would mean a rogue with a +15/+10+5 BAB could only throw one dagger per round anyway?) But, even if I can't use Spell Combat in the same round I am throwing cards, I am okay with that. :P
Keep in mind you still can't use a ranged weapon with Spell Combat. If one hand is doing the casting and must remain free for the entire duration of the action, the other hand is holding the scarf; where's your third hand to throw a card? If you free up your scarf hand and use a weapon that leaves your hand free to throw a card (ie. Unarmed Strike, Spiked Gauntlet, etc), well, not much point to the dancer archetype now is there? While they technically don't conflict as far as archetype mixing goes, that doesn't necessarily mean they work well together. Or, in other words, just because you can mix the archetypes doesn't mean you should mix them.
That's true, although the way I see it, if she's in melee, she's not going to be throwing cards anyway. It's about versatility in that case, especially since even without the kapenia, she'd have the same problem with a longsword, and she can trip you with the kapenia then throw a card in your face, and you are prone so you get the -2 to your AoO! Harrowed Spellstrike she CAN use with the kapenia in one hand, unlike Spell Combat (though yes, I do understand she cannot deliver spells through the kapenia). But, I appreciate your comments, it's something to think about.
Brom the Obnoxiously Awesome wrote:
PFS legality doesn't matter to me. I don't play PFS. And yes, it's a bladed scarf, but the Varisians call it a kapenia.
As for mixing archetypes, as long as it's "legal" by the RAW and your GM doesn't mind (which for that, I know both of these archetypes are PFS legal and don't change or replace any of the same features, so yes it's PFS legal), there's nothing dangerous about it. You lose stuff, you get stuff in return. It's a matter of which options you find better for your concept.
Yeah, if you want to add spells not on your list, then you are getting into spell research territory. So, it's totally possible for a witch to have every single spell in the game. It's just going to cost her a few trillion gold and she better be immortal for all the time it will take (Baba Yaga has every spell in the game researched, says so in her Reign of Winter stat block)
Okay, so the reason for my question is I am thinking about making a Witch with the Fate patron and taking Harrower Prestige class, but I don't want to lose out on the higher level patron spells. SO when do they actually get added to the list? Is it only when they are added to spells known, or does a level 1 Fate witch have Wish on her spell list, even if she's not high enough level to cast it?
Arcane Pool Focus (Su): A card caster’s arcane pool can be used to augment only ranged weapons. At 5th level, a card caster can use his arcane pool to add the following weapon special abilities to ranged weapons: brilliant energy, distance, flaming, flaming burst, frost, icy burst, returning, seeking, shock, shocking burst, and speed. He can use his arcane pool to augment an entire harrow deck as if it were ammunition. All cards from a deck enhanced with a special ability, such as flaming, must share the same bonus.
So, that SEEMS to me to say that you could then keep your cards, same as any other ammunition.
I am looking at making a Magus with Card Caster and Kapenia Dancer archetypes, but I was wondering what others thought of this combination?
While I realize that it means I won't be able to augment my bladed scarf, do people think being able to throw and augment the harrow cards is a reasonable trade off?
Just wanting some other opinions before I make my final decision on this combo.
EDIT: If you need reference, here are links to Archives of Nethys' pages on the archetypes.
john ralls wrote:
anyone have a link for the cartomancer archtype? im intrigued at the prospect of playing my fav x-men.
Yep, I found it today at d20pfsrd and was like WHOA and added the new Harrow Handbook to my wishlist to buy next month. IN the mean time, here is the d20pfsrd link
Then I also had a question myself, so Deadly Dealer allows you to enchant a harrow deck as if it were ammunition. Would that also include the Cartomancer's deck? I don't see where it would not be allowed, but it doesn't specficially say that the Cartomancer's deck can be enchanted so I can't be sure.
Okay, so I looked and could not find any references on the rules for how this works, merely conflicting opinions between players, so since I can't find any official ruling, the next best thing for me to find out the answer is to ask if anyone can tell me how it's done in Pathfinder Society.
So, then... can a Hexcrafter Magus take a Hex at 3rd level, or must they take an arcana, since they do not get access to hexes until 4th level?
The reason its' a bit confusing is that Hex Magus says at 4th level you get access to hexes... then after that Hex Arcana says you can take a hex any time you qualify for an arcana, but doesn't mention a level... so I find it a bit confusing, and the conflicting opinions on the RAI tells me that others do too (giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are not "min-maxers" cheating the system without proof that they are.)
So, if I were to make a Hexcrafter in PFS, what would the ruling be?
Cap. Darling wrote:
I missed that part, it sounded like he was unable to use it because HE didn't own the book and it wasn't on the "PRD." (which as someone else pointed out, is and always has been HC books only, and not even all of them, just the non-Golarion specific stuff) If though the GM has said "Core and APG only" then I understand.
Hmm okay I did find this...
Which kind of seeing something spelled out on an official NPC actually helps me understand how the developers see it. It will take a bit of work, but I think I can figure it out... So, in a way I don't so mcuh need help anymore, but I'm posting this link in case anyone else finds this thread and maybe that link can help them as it helped me (somewhat).
Again, thank you to everyone who has replied (and hey if anyone wants to give examples of their longer-lived races backgrounds that still fit within the "rules" like Merisiel does, I'd love to read them!)
Changing the fundamental concepts of the system and making a 19 year old elf isn't something I'm really ready to do, and especially if I were to play an elf in a campaign where I am not the GM.
To me saying "ignore the starting ages" is the same as the people that say "Throw out alignment completely!" No I'm not doing that. You want to, great. But most players aren't going to completely rewrite the core system that has existed for 40 years.
A 60 year old human should, by the rules, having aging modifiers. Not something I'm wanting to do with these characters. On the other side of that coin, I'm not playing a child for many reasons, mainly because playing children in a game that isn't specifically "Hey, this campaign we are all playing children, a sort of "Monster Under the Bed" campaign" tends to make many players uncomfortable.
Now, as for the "done it all" part, the way I always understood it was that a 114 year old elf and a 16 year old human are about the same general mental/physical maturity and respect within the community. So, just as a 16 year old girl isn't going to have been a Pirate Queen for the past 5 years, so too is an elf not going to have been a Pirate Queen for the past 50.
Now, I HAVE considered having the starting ages be the same for all races as was suggested, but I've never played with another GM that agreed with that, and I've never really done it in an actual game. It WOULD solve a lot of problems, just again that's changing rules a bit more than I'm ready to do, at least for now.
Well, if your GM isn't allowing it that's one thing, but it's as much a part of the PRD as anything. It's posted on d20pfsrd and pretty sure on the main Pathfinder srd. It's also allowed as far as I know in PFS. So, not sure what you mean by "not part of the open PRD even"
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Ah, well yeah you could teleport outside the city in theory but how far outside you end up would be at the GMs whim due to large areas of dead magic across the Mana Wastes, and then you'd need to have another casting for when you leave... but honestly as long as you don't actually cast a spell in a primal magic storm you should be okay. Plus, traveling through the Mana Wastes you got mutants, and worse. Again, all assuming your GM even does any of this.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Ah, not sure your GM knows this, but it specifically says in the Alkenstar Gazetteer (appendix of Wardens of the Reborn Forge) that you cannot teleport to Alkenstar. Plus, Suppress Primal Magic wouldn't work, because that's only good if you are in a primal magic area/storm. Alkenstar IS a dead magic zone. The entire city. That's why you can't teleport there. The only reason SOME people have magic there is because part of the city the soil is infused with magic and so is the river so they can harness the magic from the river, but overall it's all still dead magic.
Again, overall this is really sounding like something better discussed with your GM, as I nor really anyone else knows what information your GM has access to.
Well, it partially depends on how your GM is running it and how much he wants to screw you over with dead magic zones (something I had trouble with a player who refused to continue my campaign that went there... I was like seriously, do you really think I am going to completely screw you over?)
As I understand it, the Mana Wastes is not completely dead magic, but has large areas that are. Primal magic AREAs are rare, but there are primal magic STORMS that will come through and then you are affected by the primal magic rules.
One of the biggest threats in the Mana Wastes is the "Mana Wastes Mutants" that have the Supernatural disease they can infect you with that makes you a mutant. But note what I just said... it's Supernatural. Which means that either it's as I said above, or the mutants know where the magic is so they can stay there.
Here is some official information you can read from the Paizo blog, and check with your GM to see if he/she has Wardens of the Reborn Forge, as that's an actual full adventure set in the Mana Wastes!
That should be spoiler free info that will give you some idea of what to expect (but also, as I said talking to your GM is most important, as he/she might not be aware of or be using the above blogs or the Wardens book)
Oh yeah, that's what I mean everything else about the Urban ranger I love... but that favored terrain GIMP is just like 'aaaaaargh' okay so um just cross Favored Terrain off my character completely for most campaigns...
Yeah, Paizo really dropped the ball, pulled out a gun and shot it with the Urban Ranger. They should have done something like you only get "Urban" favored terrain but you get twice the normal bonus you would at each level or something like that. As it is though, unless you are sure you will never leave the specific city you start in. Like, hey if you were playing the Neverwinter MMO? Awesome archetype cause you never leave Neverwinter (Well, you do go to the outlying coast a bit and Icewind Dale at 60, ut you still always come back to Neverwinter) World of Warcraft? Not so awesome cause you got 4+ cities and what 4 continents?
Okay, so today I realized how much I play humans, half-elves, aasimar (RotRL/BoF/BoA human lifespan, not the ARG lifespan that will be corrected next printing) and such, and very few if any elves, etc... I realized that coming up with a background for a character that is 114 years old MINIMUM by the rules... is a bit crazy.
I mean, we're talking about a character born before Aroden died, before Alkenstar was founded. When Cheliax was still devoted to Aroden and not Asmodeus. Before Elvanna was put on the throne of Irrisen.
My problem therefore is that so much has changed, I'm having a bit of trouble with some characters (at this time just "for fun" NPCs, but could potentially be PCs if I found a GM willing to let me run them together in a game with fewer players, I've played in and run myself games like that before) that at first I made them Aasimar but I was thinking of making them dhampir.
But that's the problem. As Aasimar (emberkin, scion of humanity) I had them growing up as Isger orphans,now 19 years old... but as dhampir... they are 114. I'm like O_o at what to do with that.
The difference between the Aasimar thing and the Paladin of Asmodeus is that they had already established in not only Rise of the Runelords but also in both Blood of Fiends and Blood of Angels that planetouched have human lifespans. So, when the Advanced Race Guide contradicted not one, not two, but THREE other books and totally messed up the entire backstory of an established NPC important to the history of the entire Golarion setting because the developer that wrote that section was not aware of the other books precedent and the others didn't notice it until players pointed it out, that's a big deal. Also kinda funny that you say "This PF developer" like the Creative Director is just some random guy.
That said, yes it will be corrected in the next printing of the Advanced Race Guide last I heard.
As for a Paladin of Asmodeus, if your GM thinks it works, go for it. But, Paizo as a whole decided that the entire idea was a mistake because a Paladin worshipping an evil deity would still be working toward the goals of an evil deity, even if he himself never did anything evil. It's a completely different scenario than what happened with the planetouched ages.
Mine is kind of long and very much not recent but it's memorable enough for me, that it trumps everything else I could post. We had a player known as "Evil Dave" because he always played Lawful Evil characters. Now, you might say "I wouldn't allow that, I don't allow evil characters in my games." and I say that if you knew Dave, he would have been your exception just like he was for us. We all knew and accepted no GM would let us play evil, but Dave? Yeah, Evil Dave gets to play Lawful Evil because he's so epic at it that even Paladins are his best friend (I heard he once went an entire campaign subtly manipulating to always make sure any time the paladin used Detect Evil there was a greater evil to scapegoat, and it was only at the end of the campaign when the players and the GM agreed to have Evil Dave betray the party did the paladin find out the truth... right before he died from the dagger (coup de grace) in his back from his best friend)
But what about Dave as GM? It was said that he tended to do TPKs, but they were always completely the player's fault. Intrigued, we younger gamers who had never played under him finally convinced him to run a game, so he agreed to a one shot where most of the party would get killed, and it would be totally our fault. Touche.
This was late 2nd edition (skills and powers) D&D and the story was to escort the princess (player named Leah) to her wedding in the neighboring country. Other players were me (a red wizard of Thay), a half-ogre fighter (player was Tom, he was also the princess' manservant), the cleric (played by Brett) and a few other characters that weren't memorable enough.
So entering a forest we see a sign by the path that says something like "Toll to enter forest. 1 gold. Leave by side of the road." So, we are like screw that, nobody's here. The princess has her manservant pay the toll for her and himself, and the cleric paid it, but I and all of the rest of us did not. We're miserly and leaving a gold by the side of the road for some silly bandits that think they own a forest? Please.
The rest of the night was pure ROLEPLAY no combat as we traveled through the forest, but every once in a while... something horrible happened to one character and they disappeared. Like for me a rope came down from the trees, around my neck and hung me. LOL. As I was the first to go, I didn't actually get any of the roleplay myself, but I was still having a blast watching everyone else as they chatted, wait where did the wizard go... chatted... hmm the rogue disappeared.. chatted...
At the end only the princess, the cleric, and the manservant were left as the princess made it safely to her wedding. Those 3 who paid the toll.
There was one other hilarious thing that happened along the way involving the cleric using Command on the half-ogre and telling him to do something, but it was sexual so I'll just let you use your imagination.
Overall, that really is one of my most memorable games, so much that the fact that we all died and couldn't stop it, pure GM fiat was fine with all of us, because as he said, it was our own fault. We didn't pay the toll.
Actually, I can use myself as an example. Now, first of all I've been playing RPGs for about 20 years (I am 36, started when I was around 16).
At first I was pretty creative. Then in early 2000's when I was playing a lot of White Wolf (Werewolf the Apocalypse and Mage the Ascension) I made a few characters, two of which dominate all the rest so I'll speak of them just to explain my "non-creative player" story
One was a werewolf (Lupus Glass Walker Ragabash) who was even as a lupus (born as a wolf and learned she was in fact a werewolf around two years old, if you don't know the game) fascinated by humans and their technology so she took to computer hacking like a duck to water. Her name was Ashley "Moongrrl" Jacobs (werewolves in that game take usually Native American style nicknames, but the tech-savvy Glass Walkers go for more modern names that do well as hacker handles)
The other was a mage (Order of Hermes House Flambeau, which again if you don't know the game, the Order of Hermes the best "quick" explanation is think D&D/Pathfinder sorcerers, in her case with a fire-related bloodline) who was very outgoing, cheerleader type but also very in with the geek crowd (after all, she was a frickin' D&D sorcerer in her real life, which even if they didn't know she could relate to them.) Her name was Jennica Sarah Carlson-Fortune bani Flambeau, Ninth Degree Magister Mundi, and a long line of other titles I could but will not type out (The Order of Hermes is like that, they love to pile on crazy title and such that usually make sense only to fellow Hermetics...)
Ever since then, I've made other characters but... in every game I always want to play them, and in a lot of games I do.
I know my friends get sick of them, but it's so hard to leave them behind... I don't know why. Most of my other characters that I can't leave behind though are friends, family, or enemies of them.
I think I am getting better, but sometimes it feels like I take one step forward with a new character, but then I go two steps back and toss Ashley and Jennica into a game.
Yeah, that's why I use alignments in D&D but I don't enforce them as strictly as many GMs. While I am not one of the "OMG I Hate alignments I throw that crap out" GMs, I can sort of understand why they feel that way and respect them (except those that come into a thread where someone is asking for alignment advice and just keep saying "Alignment sucks, get rid of it!" No, we choose to use it, we just need... "NO it sucks! Get rid of it!" Our GM chooses to us... "NO It SUCKS get rid of it!" like a broken record)
I came up with a better way to handle healing spells, and wanted to see what was thought of it by others.
First any lethal damage on the twin targeted is healed (which then heals the corresponding nonlethal on the other twin), and then any excess healing (if any) is then transferred to the other twin. The drawback comes if say Twin #1 has 30 HP and Twin #2 has 50 HP. Twin #2 takes a big hit of 35 lethal. She's fine, but her sister just went down, 30 nonlethal and 5 lethal. So, Twin #1 is now unconscious. If she's the healer, they're both screwed. Also, the same casting or channeling can't "double up". So, like if in the above example a cleric channeled and healed Twin #2 of 15 HP and then also healed Twin #1 of 15 HP, that extra 10 lethal healing is lost, it does NOT transfer.
As for the shared spells, for the most part it does mean that one casting of things like Guidance and such affects them both, but I feel that is balanced in that if they are victim to say Charm Person or a witch's Evil Eye hex, they both are affected and must make a saving throw (and for purposes of Evil Eye and similar "one use per person in 24 hours" caveats, only the twin specifically targeted counts for being able to use the hex again!) Then as for transmuation, I think the spellcaster makes all decisions but only once. So, if Beast Shape III is used to turn into a wolf, then both twins become a wolf.
Plus, imagine a fireball hitting them both... say you roll 35 damage to each of them, then that means another 35 nonlethal on top of that? Not pretty. Not pretty AT ALL.