|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Extra Lay on Hands helps...
Let's see. Starting Cha 20, +2 Item for a 22. 4th level...that's 8 right there. Extra Lay on Hands makes it 10 and doable. Greater Mercy can't be taken till 3rd level, though, which makes 5th the actual minimum.
Still, that does work, and is pretty powerful at that level. Of course that's a very specific build. Something like 8th or 9th level is much more likely. It remains an awesome Feat...but I'm really not seeing a problem here.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Well neutral can flip sides if the needs demand, neutral is good for mercenaries, neutrality works for druids or those with a druidic philosophy and neutral ideally presents you from siding with any of the fanatical sides if your game has extremist factions.
I don't consider 'being a generally nice, helpful, guy to random people' to be extremist behavior. But it's enough to make you Good aligned most times. And the kind of character I enjoy.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
So a neutral adventurer wouldn't entirely side with genocidal humans or elven terrorists.
...neither would good ones? Genocide and terrorism aren't generally Good actions.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
The sometimes vicious law or the wild barbarians of the frontier. Neutrality is the alignment of the wanderer and the vagabond (which leans to NE).
This is true...I just have no desire to play those characters (okay, I totally play wild barbarians, I just lay relatively nice and thus Good aligned ones).
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
For those that prepare to fight the warriors of good, such as your enemies, being neutral can protect you from some spell effects. Also, if you are neutral, detect evil and detect good don't ping for you, bloody fence-sitter.
Oh, there are certainly mechanical benefits. Those weren't what I was talking about, though.
I completely disagree with everything you just said in the strongest possible terms.
Firstly...why is the fact that the PC is female relevant in terms of asking them to go seduce someone? Men can do that too, you know.
Secondly, coercing a PC into having sex is perilously close to raping their character which is never something you should do casually or without discussing it with the player first. So...just a bad idea, there.
Thirdly, that leaves the other PCs entirely out of the adventure at a critical time (unless there's an orgy or something), which is bad adventure design.
Fourthly, why in the name of all that's Good and Holy would Calistria even ask that? First, she's not a big fan of rape, which runs back into my second reason above...but more importantly, from a purely practical perspective, she's got an entire priesthood of people who are likely going to better suited to that task than the PC, why wouldn't she use the best weapon in her arsenal for something requiring seduction? It makes no sense, and damages the verisimilitude of the whole situation.
Besides...why in the world would Calistria care how her revenge was achieved precisely? I mean a mission like 'kill this guy' makes sense, a mission of 'sleep with this guy, then kill them' doesn't at all, since the sleeping with them doesn't serve any of Calistria's goals (especially since the person doing the seducing isn't actually experiencing lust...her actual area). Calistria is also known for not making her worshipers into victims, which forcing them to have sex certainly entails.
Yep. Vengeance is definitely the route to go. Details could be anything from stealing some humiliating letters and using them to blackmail or ruin a guy, to a complex con game designed to steal all a guy's money, to straight up murder.
Being very smart, it's unlikely she'll pick a target the PC is likely to sympathize with at all. Considering the PC's power, she's very unlikely to waste the favor on taking down a trivial foe. It'll be someone meaningfuly powerful.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
That seems reasonable. I've always seen people do that with a diplomacy check. Knowledge Local was always used for what you somehow know.
It's actually pretty explicit that you can use either of those skills for that. Check out the Affable Trait, which grants both as Class Skills and a +2 when using either to do this.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
The specific 2 examples I was thinking about were ones that there is no reasonable way the PC's could have studied. The first was the group was sucked into another world-ish place. Think how people got pulled into Ravenloft in 3.x games. The other was the group going to an island that had been closed off from the rest of the world for centuries and was just recently rediscovered. They were the second group to arrive (just shortly after the re-discoverers) there is nothing for them to have learned from. The whole point of the adventure was learning about this new place that no one knows anything about.
It's perfectly legitimate to entirely ban the use of just about any appropriate skill in cases like this. Until they're familiar with the area, of course.
That costs a couple of Mythic Power, though. Not a negligible expense.
P Tigras wrote:
I believe that there are two smaller issues that together make a bigger issue with the NPC's in the early books of WotR. The first issue is the number of NPC's the PC's are forced to take along, and all the personal drama between them that isn't to everyone's taste. This I think holds for the first two books in the AP. In the first book the boatload of NPC's is required, in the second it is highly encouraged and the players are rewarded if they are taken along.
This is true to some extent. It is indeed an AP where you can wind up with a lot of NPCs tagging along, if you like.
P Tigras wrote:
Then there is the fact that one of those NPC's is Irabeth who starts out several levels ahead of the players, has a lover as another party NPC, and is eventually promoted to the nobility where she starts giving the pc's quests in book 3. She requires a bit of judicious handling on the part of the GM, so that the pc's don't feel outshined by her extra levels in book 1, don't feel like her sidekicks (if she is placed in charge of the troops as suggested) in book 2, and don't feel like her errand-boys and girls in book 3 when she is given command of the city the players liberated and starts sending them on quests.
Uh...by the time the PCs meet Irabeth they're one level behind her, and she has standard NPC stat distribution and wealth...so that doesn't exactly make her more powerful than them, IMO (both they and she would be the same CR, rules-wise). And then the PCs gain a level and become Mythic...while she does not.
The other issues are more legitimate, but I think overstated. At no point is she given authority over the PCs, not even if in charge of the army or the city. She's not able to give them orders, only make requests. Which should ameliorate that problem quite a bit.
P Tigras wrote:
I would not call Irabeth a Mary Sue, but I do think that depending on the party, she may require careful handling by the GM, because I -can- see how she could come across as a GMPC.
That's definitely possible, but doesn't seem especially common. I certainly haven't heard vast numbers of people complaining about that aspect of her character (there've been a couple of vocal ones, in this thread especially...but not any great number of people). Which seems to leave table variance/GMing style as at least as much the reason for that as the adventure itself.
If presented with rational thought and discourse, yes. That isn't the case with this thread. Discussing anything in this thread is a "sky-is-yellow/sky-is-blue" style of debate - with you being part of the yellow sky crowd.
Your refusal to define what you mean by the terms you use sorta belies this claim, since without defining your terms rational discourse tends to fall by the wayside in favor of biased rhetoric. Just for the record.
As does your repeated refusal to actually engage in a calm and reasoned discussion in favor of hurling sarcasm and condescension at anyone who disagrees with you.
In short, it's possible you have a point, even a very good point that I or others would agree with, but I can't tell because you've done an exceedingly poor job of presenting it (beyond "I don't like the APs and personally dislike anyone who does." which came through loud and clear).
I'd be overjoyed if you proved me wrong and proceeded to actually engage in reasoned discourse...but that seems somewhat unlikely at this juncture.
You want me to go back an cite examples that I paraphrased in the parentheses? You said or implied them just as much as the bad DM comments. LOL.
Since you 'paraphrased' them as things I'd basically never say...yeah, that'd be good. If you weren't leaving.
Perhaps if you'd actually continued to state and expound upon your position clearly and politely more people would've responded positively. Your initial post was much less vitriolic than later ones, and I simply asked for clarification in hopes of opening a dialogue, after all.
On more than one occasion you deflected any issue, concern or problem away from the AP (and pushing NPCs) on to the DM. AKA - blame the victim (which is the DM and players, if they don't have a good session).
Uh...are all GMs perfect now? And literally all problems the AP's fault? Because otherwise...that's an opinion and a criticism, not condescension. Sometimes, there are bad GMs, I've had them. When the players are getting on message boards and complaining about stuff you did (especially stuff that wasn't written into the AP) that's a pretty good sign of bad GMing, as is having NPCs micromanage your PCs...something else this GM was doing according to one of their own players.
Stating that they did some bad GMing isn't any more condescending than "That cake you made? It sucked, please don't ever use that recipe again." That's critical, not condescending.
Again....huh? Speculating that it's user error and not a hardware problem is not inherently condescending.
Because, again, criticism and condescension are not synonyms. The examples you list in parentheses? Those are indeed condescending. Which is why I don't say s%~~ like that, instead making reference to, very directly, the GM's behavior, not condescending assumptions about the reasons for it.
Killing people who've previously raped and murdered various people while they are in the process of trying to do it again (thus making their guilt indisputable)...is probably not full-on Evil. It's not Good, but I continue to maintain it's a Neutral act.
Not in most continuities. But that's a side-issue.
Ok I hadn't read the book in question so I didn't know she killed fleeing villains. THAT is a gray area. But is it gray enough to knock it outside of "good"? Debatable. They were no longer a threat to her... however they did remain a threat to all the other people in the community. They didn't surrender to be taken in for a trial did they?
Well, she didn't bother to ask...but yeah, they were still a threat to the community, and very bad people. Which is why I'd say it's Neutral and not remotely Evil.
BUT simply dressing nice and walking down the street IS NOT BAITING! This is the same logic as "blame the victim" and I reject it angrily. She shouldn't be attacked period. Why is how I dress as a woman relevant to ANY crime against me? What she did walking down a street dressed nice in an area where violent attacks are common is more akin to Rosa Parks staying in her seat. With the exception that Rosa wasn't going to be violent in defending herself. It should be everyones right to walk safely down any street.
Again, it's about intent. I'm not talking about her dressing a particular way, or going a particular place as baiting. That is indeed victim blaming, and I am similarly upset by it.
I'm talking about her going place X wearing outfit Y specifically to draw in criminals. The issue isn't what's being worn or the place gone, but why that outfit is worn and that place is visited.
You can walk out into an area that people are killing a particular group in, dressed very obviously as a member of that group, and not be responsible for being attacked. But if you dress up that way specifically to draw an attack...that's baiting.
Baiting would be offering to sell illegal guns or drugs to some bad guys and then arresting them when they take the deal.
No, that's entrapment. A legal concept, and not what I'm discussing at all.
You should invest in a mirror, or go back and read some of your posts.
Such as? I'll admit I've been a bit acerbic the last couple of posts before this one. Condescension does that to me.
Aside from that, I'd be pleased to listen to which precisely of my posts you felt were condescending, and to who. That certainly wasn't my intent.
Can't change the mind of fan-atics so why waste my time?
Way to assume facts not in evidence, there.
Several of us seem to be having one. Maybe the reason you can't has to do with, well, you. And that whole condescension thing.
Yes, because that's a polite way to respond to someone asking you for basic information.
And a great way to bring people around to your way of thinking! I mean, condescension is always such a wonderful way to win friends and influence people.
It seemed clear that wasn't the case to me, but ah well.
As for the post, I typically don't parse so it's easier for me to respond to one big statement rather than parses.
That gets...convoluted. At least for me. Feel free to respond in one block though, I think that works for most people.
Also I don't put spoilers normally out for no reason. I mean, if we get down to it, most of those that you list as romance options in the other thread, wouldn't really count as Romance options in what I regards as romance options...but I don't go into details or respond due to the parsing and long work on it.
That's unfortunate, your input would be appreciated over there.
Hmmm. What it looks like, is that the GM tried to use the NPCs to force you to follow the plot as presented when you went off the rails. Which is not an explicit part of the AP. At all.
Them having goals? Sure. Them talking to each other? Sure. Them pressuring the PCs to do the particular stuff you mention? Not so much. And there's certainly nothing anywhere indicating one of them should force you to take everyone with you.
That said...not giving a damn what the NPCs want, not caring when people are in trouble and in need of help...why the hell were you guys playing WotR?
It's the WE ARE GOOD adventure path and your characters do not sound like they fit that mold at all...which explains a lot of dissatisfaction and unhappiness, especially if the GM kept trying to desperately hammer a square peg into a round hole, using the NPCs as the hammer.
Why in the world did you pick that adventure path in the first place?
I bolded the incorrect part. Unless the criminal surrenders I fail to see how she is going to bring them in for justice. And if she kills a surrendered opponent then yes this becomes evil.
Well, in the actual book she kills all but the first as they flee in terror after she casually and brutally kills the first ie: they never had a chance, she casually could've captured them, and she killed them while they ran from her.
But what happened in the book doesn't even matter. It's about intent. If your plan is "I'm going to go out and troll for muggers and see what happens." that's potentially Good...but if, as in the OP, your plan is "I'm going to go kill some criminals." That's not Good any more.
BUT that isn't what I have read is happening here. If you kill someone in self defense that isn't evil. She isn't attacking them... they are attacking her.
True. But, again, intent. She baited them into attacking her specifically so she could kill them. Not fight, not capture, but kill. That was the plan. That...makes claims of self-defense legally valid, but morally not so much.
Or are you somehow suggesting that it IS non-good to leave yourself vulnerable?
No, it's non-Good to walk out your door planning to flat-out kill people, generally speaking. Planning to fight people? Sure, okay. Planning to defend yourself as necessary? Totally Good. Planning to lure people into attacking you and then kill them dead? Not so Good any more.
I don't know anything about the Punisher so using him as an example isn't effective in my case. She is targeting violent evil and that is good, as it makes society safer. If this Punisher is waiting till evil violently reveals itself and then defending against those evil people (lethally or not) then I guess he is good; but as I said I have no idea about this Punisher so he is a bad example.
The Punisher kills criminals. That's his mission in life. He absolutely might pretend to be a victim to lure them in...but that's far from his only methodology (others range from complicated manipulations, to a knife in an alley, to a sniper rifle).
As for Batman doesn't the Dark Knight kill people too? Unless they surrender? Maybe it depends on which version of Batman you are talking about?
Uh...no. Batman never kills. It's an ironclad rule. Superman is more likely to kill people than Batman.
I'm...just gonna stop the superhero analogies now.
On a related point; Can you do good and remain neutral? Yes. Your alignment is a big picture thing and one act or even a string of similar acts isn't necessarily going to shift that alignment. If doing good starts to define your character then a shift is warranted.
Right. Which is why I mentioned it becoming their primary goal and activity.
Finding him should be pretty easy with just a few things (Hunter's Eye, the spell that gives you +20 Perception to find somebody, comes to mind, as does Acute Senses for another +20...). As for the Stun Vials...they're DC 20, guys. That's great at low levels, but at 10th level? I can casually make characters who only fail that on a 1.
But really, for any duel, a save-or-die caster with maxed out Initiative and Save DCs is always the way to go.
Oracle of the Heavens built to abuse Color Spray with Noble Scion of War, Reactionary, and Improved Initiative comes to mind...That'd be, what, Cha 26 for a +14 Initiative (before Items or Eldritch Heritage...both of which are easy to take), and DC 25 Will Save to avoid being screwed with Spell Focuses and Heighten Spell.
Or go Synthesist Summoner/Paladin for pure cheesy ridiculusness. Or any one of a hundred other options.
Eh. Alignment isn't really necessary for PCs, I'll agree (Paladins aside..and their Code pretty well covers that aspect), though I disagree it's an impediment if handled properly (and thus keep it around, since it's easier that way).
Y'know what Alignment is great for? NPCs and monsters. If I want to know a rough outline of what kind of moral code a monster or NPC has, I can just look at their Alignment and there I am. Providing the kind of detailed moral stances you suggest (which, btw, I absolutely believe PCs and important NPCs should have) for every mook is too labor and space intensive to be a good plan. Saying "They're LN." is just so much quicker, easier, and gives an excellent basis for more detail if needed.
Heck, even for PCs, it's often a nice heads up to the GM what kind of general moral framework you're likely to be working with. At least IME. It doesn't give the details, but broad overviews are useful, too.
Jasnah isn't doing evil people. Really the hardest core good (Lawful Good) has been called the Crusader because they hunt down and destroy evil. This is merely an unusual tactic toward ridding the streets of violent criminals. Is it chaotic to use an unusual tactic as many here suggest? No. It is good as described. Could evil people use a similar tactic to prey upon other criminals for fun or profit? Yes. But in the case of this character who is doing this to rid the streets of violent criminals it is simply a good act.
Murdering people you could just as easily capture and bring in for trial is pretty clearly a slide in the Neutral direction, though. As is setting out to kill them, as opposed to just stopping them. That's an issue. It's not bad enough to ever make a Paladin fall, it's not enough to make a Good character stop being Good, not even if performed regularly (as long as they keep doing other Good stuff)...but neither is it an act that makes a Neutral character more Good.
A CN character who sets out to do this every night and does, making it his mission and primary goal in life, doesn't become CG. Indeed, the Punisher is a wonderful example of a guy who does precisely that. He is also rather definitively not Good aligned. Nor should he be. Which means, knda definitionally, that it can't be a Good act per se.
A Good version of this story involves more Batman, and less Punisher, IMO.
I don't find moral relativism a particularly convincing argument. Never have. Some things (torture, rape, and the abuse of children leap to mind) are categorically wrong. Full stop.
Pathfinder alignments are certainly an oversimplification of the way morality works, but they're a useful one (particularly for NPCs) for giving a quick shorthand for likely behaviors performed or condoned by the individuals in question. In my experience they only become problematic when the players and GM suffer a breakdown in communications...and those inevitably cause problems, Alignment system or no.
What in the heck is different about my style of play? Are you insinuating that we deserve to be bullied!? WTH!? I find that incredibly...I don't know what to say...
That's clearly not what he meant. His intent was to note that other GMs do not behave like yours does (and from your description his behavior sounds like bullying)...thus making generalizing your experience based on said GM's playstyle a bit less than useful for people with GMs who don't do that kind of thing.
Deserve's got nothing to do with it.
Also, on an entirely separate note, I did a huge post responding to you with several spoilered commentaries on WotR characters. You never responded back. Why not? I'm certainly curious which NPCs were ordering you around and so on, and I suspect others are as well. It might give us some insight into your perspective. Please, use spoiler tags and fill us in.
No. Not NPC Mary Sue allies at least.
Still not hearing any examples of these characters from actual APs...
I mean, I asked for precisely that politely, what's a guy gotta do?
All discussion of such characters is pretty meaningless unless you give some examples of what you're talking about.
The Ninja is like an archetype, but it is not an archetype. It's an alternate class, and a separate thing from the rogue. You could easily replace a Ninja's Poison Use and No Trace with Trapfinding and Trap Sense with a little house ruling, but this is because they are parallel features. You can apply any Rogue archetype to the Ninja so long as you can replace the appropriate features.
Okay, here's the thing, mechanically, there are two ways this can work:
#1: Ninja is basically an archetype, and thus follows the rules for one (at least a couple of devs, plus logic say this is the case).
#2: Ninja is an entirely new class, for archetype purposes.
In neither case does what you're talking about work, due to the paragraph I cite above in the case of #1, and because it can't use Rogue Archetypes at all in the case of #2.
Can you House Rule it to work? Yes, easily. Does that mean it works that way? No, it means you made a House Rule...and suggesting builds that rely on house rules without noting that that's what you're doing is bad policy, since you're effectively telling people the game works a different way from how it really does.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Been having some issues with these lately related to the logic discontinuity and differences in how a particular GM applies them.
Okay, let's hear 'em.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Knowledge local (also nobility, geography, history though these don't come up as often) - PC is in a new place that maybe he has never even heard of. But he can roll a DC=10 knowledge local check to know who is the local sheriff or a DC=20 to learn about the local thieves guild. That seems ridiculous even to me. But then another GM will say you've never been here you don't know anything. Now it is a useless skill.
Well, first I'd like to note that Knowledge (Local) is also the Knowledge skill for monster knowledge about humanoids, so that puts it into the second category as well. That said...it's a poorly named skill. What it really represents is knowledge about people and the civilized world in general. A guy with sky-high Knowledge (Local) is the one who knows the name of every every city in the Inner Sea and every major crime boss in all of them, not just the name of his home city and the nightlife there. And is similarly well informed on a lot of other subjects dealing with the basics of life and society, such as different countries' laws (though probably not details of governmental politics, which are more Knowledge - Nobility). It's also, as mentioned, a skill you can use to effectively gather information, which helps explain this.
Another way to look at it is that, as a monster knowledge skill, it tells you how humanoids and humanoid society works, making it somewhere between a psychology skill and anthropology skill, meaning that your character may not know the name of the local crime boss...but he knows where crime bosses tend to live and exactly where to go to find out that kind of information in more detail. He knows what kind of secrets powerful people hold, and can guess with eerie accuracy after hearing only a bit about one which they are hiding. All that kind of thing. Thought of this way, a lot of what Sherlock Holmes does with the classic 'Sherlock Scan' is probably just applied Knowledge (Local)...though his actual investigations are more Perception and Sense Motive.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Knowledge religion (also planes, dungeoneering, nature, and arcana) - PC can roll DC=15+CR check to learn about monsters weaknesses. How exactly is the PC supposed to know that this in particular is an advanced, feral, champion gray render with 8 levels of monk to know what abilities it has. I don't care that he rolled a 20 with a +27 skill modifier. It is a unique creature. That seems way too powerful. However, a different GM says all you can find out about it the base gray render abilities. Of course he doesn't use anything without a template and/or class levels. So it is again a virtually useless skill.
Again, these skills give in-depth knowledge about the creature in question. An advanced, feral, champion Grey Render is almost certainly not going to look like a normal grey render, nor will one who's a Monk move or act like a normal one. All those divergences from the norm are potentially obvious to someone with the skill who makes their Knowledge check.
Bear in mind also how Monster Knowledge checks actually work. If the creature in question is CR 17 (I'm not doing the math, this number is arbitrary) your DC is 32, and getting a 47 means you get 4 bits of useful information about the creature, not a full stat rundown or anything. That could easily be:
"This is a Grey Render, they are usually solitary predators, just intelligent enough to be able to speak, with most speaking Giant. Most are relatively peaceful unless provoked, and usually have a herd of herbivores they protect viciously. They're very nasty in melee combat, but have no particular defenses against spells. They are also notably and unusually good at destroying objects. This one in particular seems larger and more savage than usual and thus likely more dangerous, and, as a separate issue, it moves in a strangely studied manner."
That's actually debatably six or eight pieces of information, there, and nothing a sufficiently skilled observer couldn't perceive. And I can add a couple more in pretty readily, too.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
No one ever knows the wrong information. You either know the information with absolute certainty or you know nothing. Doesn't it seem more likely (especially with the fantastical and rare) that the legends or stories you read have the wrong information rather than nothing at all. This seems like a situation where the GM should role in secret and if the role fails by a bunch "You have heard in the legends that the Slurgimeisteesh are very resistant to all but silver weapons" (though it is really DR 10/cold iron). But I've never heard of any GM doing that. And every player I've talked to said that would be cheating, unfair, mean, offensive, etc... if the GM did that.
Honestly? It's only unfair if you don't warn them about it first...as long as you do it on a failed roll. A successful roll should never be worse than a failed one (which wrong information is)...but few players will object if you tell them, prior to starting a game (not game session, a new game) "If you fail a Knowledge roll by 5 or more, you'll not only know nothing, but get incorrect information." Few will object to that, and if you don't trust them not to metagame you can take over Monster Knowledge rolls just like you presumably have Perception rolls. It's a House Rule, but a perfectly reasonable one.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
No, I don't know how to resolve any of this. Any of you have headaches related to knowledge skill checks? What have you done?
Nah, I generally feel they work fine and make Knowledgeable characters feel useful and important, without notably breaking the game, which is a good place for them to be.
I'd personally be tempted to go Cavalier. The Horse Master Feat (taken as your 6th level Cavalier Feat right before going into Hellknight, or your 7th level Feat on your 2nd level of Hellknight depending on preference) lets you maintain Animal Companion progression, the skill set seems better, you'd get a couple of Challenges per day...
Go with the Gendarme Archetype for theme and a couple of bonus Feats, and maybe Beast Rider for a better Mount (this'd necessitate buying Heavy Armor Proficiency, but might be worth it anyway...Tiger riding Hellknight? Yeah, that sounds cool), and you seem pretty well set to mess people up.
Several of the Orders (Lion, Star, and Dragon leap to mind) are very solid thematically for a Hellknight as well.
Feats would probably mostly be the same, though a mounted combat Feat or two wouldn't hurt.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Just to be sure, what thread did the devs say that it would have all those fluff articles from the APs? That's the main selling point for me.
Well, Jessica Price just mentioned it in this one a few posts up. It's also stated several times in the product thread found under the link Are posted. Which is pretty well confirmed since people with a subscription have just gotten it in PDF and are talking about it.
Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. For mostly the same reasons everyone else gives. I dabble in Lawful good on occasion, too...but usually prefer something a little more flexible. So, basically, Good characters. Period.
I basically never play Neutral characters...I mean, Good characters can have goals that are selfish, as long as they aren't dicks about it and try to help people while they're at it. I like helping people...so why be Neutral? I just can't see the appeal.
I've actually only done one Evil character in Pathfinder (though I've dabbled in relatively Evil characters in other systems)...but unlike some other people here, I don't have a problem playing a legitimately Evil character. I've got enough of a dark side that my Evil characters are nasty pieces of work, actually. Makes a good change now and then...but Good characters are still generally more fun.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
sweeet... it will include all those articles in full? i mean some of these were like 5 pages... (I hope so)
The Paizo folks have said so, and it's a hardback, so yeah. Possibly even a bit longer. And with all the 3.5 stuff updated to Pathfinder. Plus a bunch of other cool stuff.
The full articles included will only be the ones on the core 20 deities, though. No full Besmara article like Skull and Shackles had or anything like that.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Inner Sea Gods is sorta this plus a bit of revision, among many other things. It's coming out imminently.
What? How in the world is having gay couples shown inherently exploitative? Or stereotypical? I wasn't aware badass Paladin or clever Rogue were, in fact, gay or transgender stereotypes. Or that including a variety of gay couples in a whole host of wildly different situations was somehow 'token gay couples'. That's...really not how that works, at all.
Especially considering the number of LGBT people (including writers) at Paizo. I think, generally speaking, the members of a particular group have more right to say whether something is tokenism or exploitative than you or I.
It's certainly possible to include LGBT people as tokenism or in an exploitative fashion...but that generally involves having only a single, usually one-dimensional and/or stereotypical example of said minority and then spending a fair amount of time trumpeting about it. Paizo has done none of the things I just listed. In fact, they've basically done the exact opposite of that on almost every level, actually. So...yeah.
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
I agree with deadman walking, they have really good synergy together with the additions of certain feats. I keep having to talk my self out of dipping ranger with my druid because I want the spells, but next level thats 3 favored enemies(one at +6 or two at +4) for a one level dip! I delay my casting (whichdoes suck) and my animal falls behind a level though. I think they can work very well together though doing exactly what deadman said.
Yeah, it's workable. Especially with certain other additions like the Magic Academy boon to get the caster level back or other such things.
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Its especially tempting in pfs where I have a pretty good chance of predicting whats goin to beencountered a good vchunk of the time. If only I could find a way to get instant enemy on my spell list...
Doable as a Samsaran with Mystic Past Life, though I don't know any other way to manage it.
Eh...Inquisitors get enough bonuses with Judgment + Bane + Divine Favor + other buffs that you don't really need to worry about that so much. By 12th that's +8 to hit from those three buffs alone while only suffering -5 from the two Feats you list, putting them at the equivalent of full BAB with no penalties and some serious damage boosts.
Now, melee's certainly viable...but so's ranged.
No problem, happy to be of assistance. :)
That's incorrect. Re-read it...just to start with the prerequisites are having the Animal Companion class feature, something the animal companion itself definitely lacks.
I'm pretty sure you can, yeah. I'm not an expert in PFS, though.
Otherwise I'll stick straight Ranger and hurry to Level 4 to get my AC, then I can use the feat from Animal Archive to make my AC level equal to my Ranger level, and have it at full power relative to a druid (right?).
This you can definitely do, but you only get the Feat at 5th since you don't get a Feat at 4th.
The Shaping Focus and Shapeshifting Hunter Feats combined actually make this...not necessarily a bad idea.
The two ways to do it are as follows:
Ranger 1/Druid X with Shapeshifting Hunter to basically be a Druid with Favored Enemy.
Ranger 1/Druid 4/Ranger X with Shaping Focus and Shapeshifting Hunter to be basically a Ranger with Wild Shape.
Neither's a real good idea as an Archery Ranger, though. And Urban Ranger is just better than multiclassing Ranger/Rogue.
I'd rather have more adventure content (plot, mystery, non-Mary Sue npcs) than detailed Mary Sue npcs to lead the players from point A, to B and C.
What do you consider a 'Mary Sue NPC'? I haven't noticed anything that would remotely qualify by my definition in any APs I've read. Spoilered examples would be good.
Because, frankly, I agree with everything you actually said...but have never seen anything remotely like what you're talking about in any AP, which leads me to believe that we are defining our terms significantly differently.
You can have tons of plot and mystery (and in many cases more) if you devote more to plot options and puzzles rather than a two to four page write up on an NPC and their history which most PC's won't ever see or use anyways unless it becomes a GMPC.
Plot and mystery ring hollow if the only fully realized characters are the PCs. And in CotCT and LoF (the two APs I've run) I found many NPCs backgrounds very useful indeed in terms of characterization, despite only one of them accompanying the PCs on their adventures (and thus becoming something even resembling a GMPC).
I'm not against the long page write up of NPC's (as long as it's for development and not to insert said NPC into adventure which indicates a GMPC even if it doesn't flat out state it)...but that doesn't necessarily develop the plot or make mysteries.
In my experience, good characterization is a necessary prerequisite to good plot. The plot falls flat and often fails to make sense without it.
In fact, with a majority of the NPC write up, unless that NPC is a major player (in which they interact all the time)...many times the PC's won't even have half of that information relayed to them.
They may not receive the information, but it informs the way the GM plays the character and, if they choose to, they can usually find out any or all such information, so it is highly useful to have such information when they ask. It also creates a more fully realized world, which is rather important to my enjoyment of the game, and that of many others.
In some instances, because of such an extensive write up, it portrays the NPC as being more important than they should be, to the point that perhaps the GM feels that part of the adventure should revolve around the NPC's (I mean, if you have 1/8 of the adventure with a few NPC write-ups, let's say five), since so much space is devoted to THEIR STORY instead of the PCs.
That's...a sign of bad GMing, not bad adventure design. If a GM doesn't know that, definitionally, the PCs are the most important characters in the game, things aren't gonna go well no matter how much or little there is in the way of character descriptions and backgrounds.
Having read the book the example is from...that's really not the motivation at all. Nor is it the motivation of most people who want to 'kill some criminals' to quote the OP. Most people who make a statement like that are doing it to get rid of criminals, which is a much more defensible rationale (though still not Good, IMO) than just to kill somebody.
If the motivation is just to kill? Yeah, then it's Evil. But that was very much not the assumption people were going with for the OP's example, nor the reason almost any character would have for doing that. Dexter's particular combination of sadism and a specific code involving killing criminals isn't precisely common.
So if i were going inquisitor, would you suggest vanilla inquisitor?
Grab the Preacher Archetype as a solo character unless you're taking an Animal Companion (and maybe even then). It replaces the Teamwork Feats, which are useless on your own.
Other than that, yeah, probably. Though the Infiltrator archetype is also very solid.
So, ranger>inquisitor? Also would something like the hateful rager archetype bed better, or something more holy esque? Is channeling very important?
Ranger's probably slightly better than Inquisitor offensively, but only slightly. Inquisitor has better spellcasting and social skills by quite a bit, though. Also a vastly better Will Save, which is very relevant vs. vampires (much more so than his lower Reflex save).
And channeling is...actually not that good at all vs. powerful undead like vampires. It's very good for whole party healing (except you lack a party) and for taking out things like mobs of zombies (ie: large numbers of weak undead).
Elrawien Lantherion wrote:
With the new evangelist class that came out in Gods of the Inner Sea would that be a good combination wizard/evangelist?
Don't have the book yet, but it sure sounds pretty awesome from what I've heard. Of course, you need to wait for 5th level before taking it, given prerequisites.
The ninja as an alternate class is an elaborate archetype of the rogue class. It replaces Trapfinding with Poison Use and replaces Trap Sense with No Trace. With this relation, you can take the Kitsune Trickster archetype by replacing Poison Use with Kitsune's Guile and replacing No Trace with Kitsune's Charm. You're effectively replacing the equivalent rogue class abilities in this way.
A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature. For example, a paladin could not be both a hospitaler and an undead scourge since they both modify the smite evil class feature and both replace the aura of justice class feature. A paladin could, however, be both an undead scourge and a warrior of the holy light, since none of their new class features replace the same core class feature.
The same can be said for the Anti-paladin alternate class and Paladin archetypes, and the Samurai alternate class and Cavalier archetypes. As long as the alternate class has abilities that have a class equivalent, you can reasonably take an archetype.
This is true, they are just big archetypes...but as listed above, you can't take two archetypes that modify the same class feature (such as two that replace Trapfinding). So...no Ninja Knife Masters.
Now, you wouldn't be able to take an archetype that swaps out Evasion on a ninja because the ninja class has no Evasion equivalent. But you can take an archetype that swaps out Trapfinding because the ninja's equivalent is Poison Use.
Once again, this does not work.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Also for battlefield control. Melee characters trap other characters in melee and serve as a bulwark between their own side's ranged characters and any melee inclined people on the other side. Their damage is often not quite as good (barring Pounce or the equivalent) but they're very nice to have around.
Dexter's Evil. It partially comes down to why you kill, and Dexter doesn't kill to protect people, or make the world a better place or anything like that. He kills people because he enjoys it. His target selection is 'killers'...but that's incidental to why he kills. Hell, he's been known to make sure evidence vanished so a killer was released just so he could kill them.
In other words, different situation.
The first save is the disbelief save, since only people who are trapped even see the web at all. You don't perceive it unless you're interacting with it. Besides, spells that get disbelief saves when interacted with are listed as such...and Phantasmal Web isn't.
I had a player ruin so many encounters with that spell...