Carnox's page

This isn't necessarily a need based decision, but I'll give you some colour on the party makeup, etc. In any build he probably fills one of the kingdom slots better than an existing npc,

Baron is Paladin (Divine Hunter) 2/Bard (Arcivist) 3/Dragon Disciple 1 so far.

Rest of party:

Paladin (Sacred Light or something)
Sorc [creating a full cleric of Desna cohort]
2 x Rogue
Cleric (mostly)/Ranger (1 or 2 level dip)

A non-spontaneous Arcanist give us the most flexibility. "Merlin" will natural be off camera much of the time. He will probably "justify" a caster tower build from a story stand point.

And thanks darkwarriorkarg, you got to it before I did. I don't need my GM to waive the rule. Character has not walked the straight and narrow of a typical paladin so I'm happy to play up an LG cohort to help keep him grounded.

There are good arguments to go with Bard, Druid, Oracle, Sorcerer, Witch, or Wizard.

What's most important to you, being accurate to the oldest "original" literature, being accurate to a particular vision of Merlin, or making a useful Pathfinder character who is Merlinesque?

useful Melrinesque.

I'd probably go with Druid for accuracy, since the oldest and most consistent power attributed to Merlin is the ability to change is shape. It also has the advantage of using wisdom (Merlin's primary attribute in the stories) and access to spells of healing & weather.

PC is Paldin (Erastil, btw) so druid is out.

Constraint: PC is a Paladin so cohort must be LG.

I'm not sure if a Merlin would be arcane, divine, or a mix.

On the leader board:

Collegiate Arcanist
Mystic Theurge

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Make at least some suggestions on crafting by cohorts. One leadership feat can effectively be turned into many creation feats,

Btw, anyone got a link to a thread on that topic?

So it looks as though my original assessment was correct. An AoO is an immediate action and not a full round action so, AoO is main-hand only. That's my final interpretation on this.

AoO

AoO is NOT an "immediate action." In fact, I don't think it technically fits into any of the action types.

Action Types

It probably should be explicitly defined in free actions

Free Actions

like "Speak":

In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.

Something like:

Attack of Opportunity: An AoO is a special type free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. See the rules for AoAs.

In any case, off-hand is really only defined in the context of making multiple attacks. If youa re only making a single attack--regardless of the action used--you can make it with any available weapon.

Carnox, a common writing mistake is to forget that "but" negates. Try replacing "but some" with "and some" and see how it reads. I think you'll find that it suddenly makes perfect sense.

That helps, but some more editing would help further. Either making the flavor text perfectly match the mechanic or match the mechanic to existing flavor text.

Consider either:

While all humans are skillful, some truly excel in a handful of skills. At 1st, 8th, and 16th level, such humans gain Skill Focus in a skill of their choice as a bonus feat. This racial trait replaces the bonus feat trait.

or

All humans are skillful, but some, rather than being generalists, tend to specialize in a handful of skills. At 1st, 8th, and 16th level, such humans gain Skill Focus in a skill of their choice as a bonus feat. This racial trait replaces the skilled trait.

With the mechanic as written I love this trait especial for fighters who get lots of feats and few skills.

You want a skill heavy fighter? I got what you want! Pathfinder Chronicles: Campaign Setting Page 45. You give up one initial bonus feat for a heap of skills and skill points! I mean a heap of points! I've looked up Lore Warden and they don't really impress me. Sorry if I offended anyone, but it is my opinion.

You mean the part about "Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int modifier) × 4." I'm thinking that in the 3.5 version and has probably changed in the PFRPG edition. Put I don't have it handy to double check.

Human Alternate Racial Trait
Focused Study reads as if it should replace Skilled:

All humans are skillful, but some, rather than being generalists, tend to specialize in a handful of skills. At 1st, 8th, and 16th level, such humans gain Skill Focus in a skill of their choice as a bonus feat.

But writes that it replaces Bonus feat.

This racial trait replaces the bonus feat trait.

So I am sold on the Ranger (Freebooter, Skirmisher). I like it.

That brings me to, what race? Obviously an Int penalty is counter indicated, but a bonus may not be required. 1 skill point more per level does not necessary offset just having a better attribute somewhere else.

Humans and half-humans are okay. A salt beard dwarf is surprisingly attractive. Elf, Catfolk, Sylph, Tiefling and Tengu are in the mix.

Ratfolk would be prime, but I think to stick to medium so they get ruled out along with kobolds, goblins, halflings, and gnomes. Also rule out the uncommon races as well as the Undine, Ifrit, Oreads, and Fetchlings.

Orcs are out based on the stats and Hobgoblins are out just because there isn't enough there to make me want to play a Hobgoblin.

I think part of the racial decision has to involve what sort of Combat Feat tree to take for a pirate. I would think that the one-handed fighter stuff would be ideal, but there isn't a ranger chain for that. :-(

So probably a two-weapon ranger becomes the default choice.

Oh, and since mentioned early, guns are essential not an option.

Thanks!

I don't think they made a complementary Elven feat. But then again, elves would just lump dwarfs in with orcs and apply bonus liberally.

Ha. There is EXACTLY that. Eternal Grudge.

Love the foehammer and the Forgemaster. Dwarves got a lot of love in this book.

My fav dwarf thingy--for flavor anyway--is:

Ancient Enmity: Dwarves have long been in conflict with elves, especially the hated drow. Dwarves with this racial trait receive a +1 racial bonus on attack rolls against humanoid creatures of the elf subtype. This racial trait replaces hatred.

I don't think they made a complementary Elven feat. But then again, elves would just lump dwarfs in with orcs and apply bonus liberally.

Why not just use the Freebooter Ranger ARchetype and combine it with Skirmisher? No spells, really AMAZING group oriented abilities, and no animal companion, plus you get a great bonus to swimming, which will likely come up a lot.

Freebooter Ranger Archetype

Its nice, but I wonder about giving up Favored Enemy (Human). It just seems like such a win, especially in a Shackles campaign.

Right. Skirmisher seems to be a great starting point. And I believe Hunters Bond with my "companions" eliminates the animal companion.

Lore wardens a nice options as is the Cosmopolitan

In truth I'm considering this as PC for Skull and Shackles and would use traits or alt racial traits to add sailor type skills or ship or water specific advantages. Skirmisher and Hunters Bond (Companions) do the trick. Several of the Combat Style chains are viable.

Urban Ranger is nice add as the favored communities could be major ports of call starting with Port Peril. Though I'm not sure that is mechanically superior to having Favored Terrain (Water then Urban then Jungle or Swamp.)

[EDIT: Ranger (Warden) has some nice features to it as well. A sea warden of sort. Falconer with Parrot? Or a sea hawk I suppose if I wanted to keep the animal bond.]

I have looked at the various pirate-esque archetypes and prestige classes and either they still are sneak attack or they don't solve the skill problems will enough.

Thanks for the help.

I don't want sneak attack or bardic music/spells or the ranger animal/wilderness stuff. I do want a fairly broad range of class skills and a goodly number of skill points.

I want to be an able melee combatant, so I don't want to have to run Int up to 16 or 18 to get all those extra skill points. Could be a light or heavy fighter, but thematically probably more light armor, one-handed weapon type.

Fighter (Tactician) is a step in the direction with 4 skill points, but class list is still pretty limited.

Bard (Archeologist) is nice for doing away with music and getting balanced stuff back, but it leaves you with spells. Dumping Charisma to 9 to eliminate casting doesn't feel like a good workaround.

A ranger that gives up animal stuff and divine casting might be okay, but I'm not sure which archetype that would be. Maybe aforementioned tactician with a Ranger 1 and/or Rogue 1 dips to gain class skills.

Tome of Secrets Swashbuckler class actually come pretty close, but I prefer Paizo material. A suppose a judicious mix of Rogue and Fighter levels might approximate that class.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

It wouldn't make the spell lower level. It's not very useful for that particular mystery. That happens sometimes. Some combinations just don't work out as very useful.

Except that spells do not have a inherent level. Spells have a level designated for each class that can cast them. So if I gain access from different class what rule governs the spell level?

Reverse gravity is only designated as wiz/sorc 7 and druid 8. Nothing in the oracle curse indicated what level spell it should be treated as.

I do not know of any rules that specifies the level for spells that don't have a specific level attached to them.

Normally spells are already on the class list, replace a spell of a particular level, or are treated as spell-like abilities so it isn't an issue.

This case is different, so I'm looking for a FAQ, semi-official ruling, previous discussion, anything.

Thanks.

I don't think it is quite that cut and dried and would like to know if there has been an official clarification.

Neither Reverse Gravity nor Telekinesis appear on the normal Oracle (cleric) spell list so they don't have a set level. Reverse Gravity is 7th for Wiz/Sorc and 8th for Druid. Why not X for an Oracle where X is the max level spell they gain when they gain access?

Alternate Building Strategies

Gamers agree that building a Casters Tower and push MIE right off the bat is you basic optimal plan to fund rapid expansion. As far as role playing, that sort of cheeze is distasteful.

It looks like a viable, though much slower strategy would be to tightly constraint hex expansion, building numerous small stat boost buildings to assure decent BP generation via income rolls. Assuming no particular time crunch on kingdom building, I suppose that's fine. Lots of brothels, smiths, tanneries, etc not as hard to stomach.

Other than that I see my PCs just sort of running amok in character trying to build a balanced, realistic sort of city and kingdom, but winding up the woeful victim of the rules and events.

Am I missing something?

Thanks.

And the links did work anymore.

Anyone suggest similar?

Perhaps Consider a Great Axe, but treat is as only having 1 Blade, Like a wood chopping axe, kinda like the one Harask(sp?) carries.

Harask?

I'm building a Paladin of Erastil for Kingmaker and he will be primarily an archer with with high Dex and Charisma. Strength will be 12-14.

I am having trouble deciding on a melee weapon.

My considerations:

Given Erastil portfolio, possibly some weapon with it roots in a farming implement.
Or maybe an axe of some sort if I take the woodsmen approach. Or something akin to a boor spear.
As an archer I may not want to carry a shield, so maybe a two handed weapon.
I do have some trouble envision running about the forest with bow out and a glaive strapped to my back. Easier to see if it on my horse, but that maybe leaves still the question of unmounted melee.

I suppose I am weighing thematic and mechanical considerations.

Thoughts?

Gareth-Michael Skarka wrote:

No, not recently. The errata PDF is our final official word. Any other questions we're considering a matter of individual interpretation for GMs in their own individual campaigns.

That's unfortunate.

There are more than a few questions that people have been awaiting some kind of "official answer" too.

I agree. Seems sort of a cop out. The book has good stuff, but you should clarify the intent where it is questionable. A prime example that was asked several time on the forum:

With regards to bonus feats, is the Swashbuckler meant to have some fighter-level equivalency for qualifying for certain combat feats, as several of the bonus feats in their list require certain levels in the fighter class, or are these feats included in the list for multiclass fighter/swashbucklers?

My party, having no rogue at the time, simply invested in a greataxe, handed it do the heavy-hitter, and proceeded to hack their way through each door, accepting the fact that without a rogue they simply had to deal with springing the traps each time.

I ruled that some of the traps don't activate if you just hack a hole in the middle of the door and squeeze through. I figure that doesn't necessary set off a trap because it the door doesn't really open as far as the frame is concerned. Some of the magic ones will probably still poof though.

This is probably picking a nit, but where does the initial encounter take place? When I read it I assumed that the party would likely have just left on the inns after an evening of socializing when the come across the beleaguered cleric. Of course, the cleric is returning to to the temple from the orphanage, so we know his path. Sadly, none of the named inns are any where near this path. Has anyone moved the inns? Added a different hook? Worried about this detail in the slightest?

Thanks.

This game is brilliant. One really can't compar it to any version of Risk. LoTR Risk is still a kids game. War of the Ring is an adult strategy game with enough flavor to satisfy any Tolkien fan. There are numerous articles, reviews, and player aids available at

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/9609

I don't claim any particular expertise in the Anatomy of the Hydra, but seems to me that while it may have 7 heads it doesn't necessary have 7 sets of lungs or "cold bladders." To me, this means when it breaths it breathes out of all its heads at once. I would rule that its onveaction, though the effect depends on which way he head are looking. Since its all at the same time, it would be one reflex save. So 4 heads might face one way, and 3 another. It would also recharge on one timer. I'd rationalize the variablw total bretah with the number of heads as reflecting the overall condition of the hydra.