Lloyd Jackson wrote:
Somewhat related to that point I once again suggest this: http://seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/AlternativeLevelAdvancement.pdf
It won't get you to level two any faster, but it will break up the wait some.
DM Patcher wrote:
Human (or possible half-elf, but probably human) magus. :)
Actually I was just finishing writing up my backstory for submission. If I'm not too late I'll slide it in under the wire, otherwise I'll have to simply wish everyone else best of luck.
I nixed the summoner, in the end though it was mechanically very powerful, especially at this point buy level, I couldn't come up with a build that I found very exciting. To that end I had in mind a magus instead. I've not written up the character sheet yet, I'll do that tomorrow if you give me the go ahead, but he'll be pretty much a bog standard strength magus, likely going the the bladebound archetype.
Falger Ortio had grown up hearing his grandfather spin tales
Eventually Falger's forebearer had ended up in Brevoy, in
An expedition had been mounted to establish a settlement in
Such was Falger's life for quite some time, studying under
The night before they set off south, Falger's grandfather
It says each time you cast a summon spell that summons more than one creature, you can add an additional creature. So does this mean if you use a summoning spell that can summon 1d3 of a creature the possible outcomes are 1,3,4, or 2,3,4? I'm assuming the first one, but there is a little voice in the back of my head that keeps saying it doesn't feel right.
If you do have any extra spots, I'd be very happy to take a crack at one.
This character was for another Kingmaker game that died at only a couple of days out of Oleg's when the DM became overwhelmed with real life and running so many games at once and dropped it. He would need a few mechanical tweaks, but not much I'd imagine.
I don't know what classes you may already have, but I've been really wanting to do Kingmaker, and if making a character of a different class became absolutely necessary to have a chance, I would be willing to.
I am interested. It is quite late here, so I'll give you my basic idea and hopefully you'll be leaving this open long enough that I can come back and flesh it out better in the next 24hours or so.
I want to play Shalelu's younger sister. Though deep down she loves her sister she is also resentful of her talent and adventures. She views Shalelu as trying to hold her back, so she is very competitive with her, always wanting to prove herself or show Shalelu up. She tends to be rebellious towards Shalelu, and living in her shadow has left a dark cloud over her personality, leaving someone a little more concerned with winning than how she achieves the result. Little sis's talents lie in a different area, she has studied wizardry, though her rebelliousness has pushed her toward darker magics (strongly considering making her a necromancer). This has actually become a bone of contention between them, making the the relationship tenser than ever. The more Shalelu says she shouldn't the more rashly little sis plunges on ahead. Of course when she finds out that Shalelu has joined the caravan, little sis isn't going to let her have all the fun and adventures to herself this time, any protestations from Shalelu well, of course, only make little sis more insistent on going.
Obviously a little refinement is needed, but if you think the idea has legs I think it would be fun to flesh out.
Circle of life, buddy. Circle of life.
Seriously I'm sure with some effort you could come up with real life examples of people being forced to eat a beloved animal due to circumstances. I doubt most people would condemn them as evil if they made the choice of their own life over an animal's, even a well loved one.
I've though about this before, but a lot of the spells that seem very druid like in flavor are kind of situational.
It would take a little work, but something I've considered before is dividing the druid spell list in two. Some spells would become natural abilities of the druid, and other would become ones they could prep. In a way make them the inverse of the witch. More spontaneous abilities (like hexes) and fewer prepared spells.
For your purposes, you could make them spontaneous, but separate out some of the more iconic but situational spells and make them rituals that could be learned, but only able to be performed like once per day per spell level.
I don't think it's a terrible idea, in some ways I kind of like it because it encourages the wizard with great power, but who is frugal with hit. However on the flip side, it does seem to encourage the 15 minute adventuring day even more. Also I'm not sure about divine casters having such wide spell access, I think it might be better to give them a spellbook like mechanics (make them learn the appropriate rites), but give them a slightly increased number of cast per day to make up for the slots they have to give over to patching up other people in all the various ways that they have to.
And this assertion is based on what?
Still awaiting your explanation from earlier, BTW. Here is the post for easy reference.
If you want to emulate a specific anime/manga then Pathfinder/D&D is a poor choice, outside of a few series that are based on the game to start with, because Pathfinder/D&D simply has too many assumptions built into it to make it well suited to modeling a specific universe that isn't Pathfinder/D&D. However, if you're not trying to emulate a specific series, there isn't any reason that you bring an anime feel into your game. Adding anime to Pathfinder/D&D is infinitely doable as series like Record of Lodoss War, Slayers, et c. so ably demonstrate. Pathfinder/D&D only works for games that fall into a fairly narrow range of assumptions, if you want to work outside those assumptions you either need something that is generic (Pathfinder/D&D certainly isn't), or you need something built specifically to the assumptions you are trying to model.
Dexter's sanity (or lack of) is specifically called out as something that doesn'y matter in the alignment rules where it says "Being good or evil can be a conscious choice" in the Good/Evil section. I presume the law/chaos section has similar but lack access to the book/PDF right now, the nonchoice for Law/Chaos seems more applicable to someone like The Joker than Dexter though. It wasn't his "damaged" nature that led to him following The Code of Harry once that nature caused it to be introduced
Except it very well might as I pointed out on the first page of this thread. If his condition renders him incapable of understanding right and wrong, if it renders him incapable of moral action, then the rules in fact do specifically call that out as making him neutral. He's not making the conscious desicion to be good, he's making the decision to follow a set of rules that have been handing to him, it's just that in following those rules he takes on the appearance of moral action, the appearance of choosing to do good. But he's not, he's choosing to follow the rules that were handed to him.
You could limit those spells and abilities to supernatural incarnations of alignment and the game would work much smoother IMHO.
Sure there is, it helps determine wealth by level, it helps determine crafting times. It allows you to subtract gold from your PC's character sheets. Those things make the game easier to run.
While alignment has mechanical bits to it, I'm not really sure they actually enhance, or make the game easier to run. I mean when summoning celestial creatures to slay orphans is actually ever so slightly less evil than summoning demons to do the same thanks to the mechanics, then you kind of have to wonder.
Play by Post is very simple. Participants all post their actions and reactions. The players for their characters, the GM for the world around them. Resolving die rolls can be handled by the GM, the honor system, or by a impartial mediator like the board's die roller or something like Invisible Castle. PbP tends to have a much slower pace, as posting once a day per participant is a pretty common pace. This slow pacing does have its affect on the game. For instance there is much more opportunity to elaborate and convey mood. If you want it can allow for much greater exploration of a character's inner thoughts and motivations, that simply are much harder to get across in a more first person format like face to face gaming. Another thing because of the length of time it can take to resolve things mechanically, a lot of GM's may call for the dice a lot less, and resolution might become a little more storytelling focused.
If you want to check out what play is like in a play by post there is a for here on the boards dedicated to them. PbP Forum
First off let me say that I agree the way the alignment system is currently presented is dumb, though I think the two axises themselves are its tentpoles are pretty reasonable.
I'm not super familiar with Dexter but there are some things I think that might be worth considering.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.
Does Dexter's condition render him incapable of moral action? While some of his actions may appear to have a moral component, do they actually or are they just a result of his adherence to to the code that was given to him, his programming?
Secondly does Dexter actually have "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" or is that just a function of following his code. Especially if you accept the first argument that his condition makes him incapable of moral action then, it's not really much different than having commanding a skeleton or summoned monster to behave in certain ways that their alignment would normally preclude. According to a little research on the internet, one of the rules of the Code of Harry is as follows, "Fake emotion and normality to fit in."
Finally if we do accept that doing good actions regardless of motivation is objectively good, then perhaps the Code of Harry is meant to eventually make Dexter good. There isn't to my knowledge any indication in the rules of just how many good actions it takes to make someone good rather than whatever their currently alignment is. Perhaps it follows the notion that if you go through the motions enough times, it will eventually take hold and become the real thing. Just like if someone fakes a laugh or a smile enough it will eventually become the real deal, or repeat an affirmation enough and it begins to take on weight.
In order to flurry your opponent needs to be within your reach. High maneuverability allows you close faster and have the option to bring that flurry to bear on a greater number of possible targets. That might be the difference between getting hung up in the front line fighting hard targets versus getting to the back line and fighting soft targets. So while you might not use the high maneuverability and flurry at the exact same time, they do work together.
How many skills is auto-succeeding at really going to mess up your game? Besides that's a decent chunk of change to be super good at a skill, and a low level character isn't realistically going to have the means to do it financially. And really, just to compare, would you rather have a ring of freedom or a +30 bonus to escape artist?
And if we're not going to discuss the kinds of people that represent high int and high charisma, then there's no basis for discussing whether these beings would prefer, in general, characters with high int or high charisma to grant these incredible powers to. That is to say, there's no basis for saying that these beings should prefer high int characters (the kinds of characters that they do, in fact, prefer) - that the rules as they currently stand are entirely arbitrary.
All well and good, but I would dearly love to see the explanation of how you came to the conclusion that 4 out of 5 otherworldly beings prefer George W. Bush to Dick Cheney. I mean, what could you possibly be basing this on, and how does it actually prove you point? Literally all you did was make a list of people and then arbitrarily declared it somehow proved your point with not on jot logic or argument to bridge between the two.
Please explain how non-existent otherworldly beings prefer George W. Bush to Dick Cheney, and how you come to know this secret knowledge. They are your examples after all, so this should be no problem.
Butt kissing would probably be a function of diplomacy, which does make it fall under the umbrella of charisma.
People who get things done by getting other people to do them (ex. cult leaders, psychological warfare ops, grifters, terrorists, politicians, etc.) are high charisma types. Are these otherwrldly beings going to be more interested in james Dobson, Patricia Pulling, Jim Jones, etc. or in Stephen Hawking, John von Neumann, etc.? Is that being going to be more interested in Al Gore (high Int) or Bill Clinton (high charisma)? Ronald Reagan (high charisma) or George Bush Sr. (high int)? George Bush the lesser (high charisma) or Dick Chenney (high int)? Is that otherworldly being going to be more interested in leaders of men (high charisma) or political advisors (high int)? The otherworldly being is going to be more interested in the leaders of men.
I'm not even sure where to start...
Will not make Dick Cheney jokes. Will not make Dick Cheney jokes. Will not make Dick Cheney jokes.
Okay, what in the heck are these supposed example supposed to prove? I mean seriously, how do you know who has and hasn't made deals with the giant flying spaghetti monster. I feel like we're about one step away from this...
Johnnie Cochran wrote:
Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests
I mean in a reality where there were powerful beings that wanted to influence the world, wouldn't the attributes of the people they chose reflect what they they were trying to accomplish? And that is of course assuming that these beings are getting pick of the litter, that they're the ones getting to make the choice in the first place, that they weren't called upon themselves, or weren't simply just stuck with the person for any number of reasons.
You have yet to explain how understanding a contract and exploiting a loophole is a function of bluff or diplomacy, or even charisma in general. Manipulating a set of rules and clauses and manipulating another entity are two entirely different things. If something is bound to a set of rules and your figure out a run around using those set of rules it doesn't matter how charming you are, it must abide.
No, entering into a contract requires persuading the other party that you have something they want, or actually having something they want. You'll note the latter doesn't require any great personal magnetism. I work in a business were nearly everything is done in one year contracts, and believe me when I say that the most socially retarded and uncharismatic people get signed on regularly, because they have something the person offering the contract wants.
And if you have something a patron wants enough to offer you a pact (a soul, first born, championing their cause, the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop, et c.) , then that brings us full circle back to my original questions. So if you would like to actually address them now, by all means.
So, just to be clear, you are saying that force of personality is the best and only reason to enter a contract?
Because force of personality is the best and only reason to enter into a contract, right?
I'm sorry, rather than just shouting 'you're wrong', could you please explain then how charisma allows a person to understand a contract, how it makes a person better able to manipulate the wording of a contract (not bypassing it by manipulating the other party), or perhaps how charisma allows one to better know the procedures necessary for contacting the other party and establishing a contract in the first place. I mean if you don't know that you need to sacrifice a goat on the new moon in a circle of toadstools just to talk to the Dark Lord (or whoever else you're trying to ring up), or that you need need to sing his praises while walking backwards in a circle sprinkling ash to placate him, then no amount of batting your eyelashes and being winsome is going to help.
Aren't the people making pacts, and surviving them, going to be the ones that know the rules and how to manipulate them. That seems to me to be a function of intelligence. You don't come out on top of pact by being charming, you do it be being clever, that's holds true in pretty much any story I've ever seen concerning such. Now I'm not saying you can't make a perfectly reasonable case for another stat, but to just get locked into one and say it has to be that way is a bit silly IMHO.
Frankly, I'd like to see class abilities mostly divorced stats, or have the importance of stats greatly reduced, like in the oldest version of D&D. It would make it a lot easier to do things like the charming fighter, the sagely intelligent cleric, or whatever have you without the having to settle with being somewhere between subpar to completely undoable.
Anyway, as for the original post, the class with the most roleplaying potential and flavor is the one that works best with your concept. For some things the sorcerer will be better, for some things the wizard will be better, and for some things it might not even matter all that much.
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
Top of the page. Obviously not for actual use.
I think the tone of this AP tends to encourage human characters, even more so than some of others. Can't explain all the halflings though.
Anyway, regarding Peregrine. I suppose that you could say that Igorius is somewhat of a foil to Peregrine, though to be honest I think what is interesting is not so much the ways they differ, but rather the ways in which they are similar. Even though he detest his uncle, Peregrine has become quite a bit like him, he as a tendency to treat people the way he was treated to an extent. It is clear though that Igorius is definitely the far crueler man, though whether this is the result of his nature, or simply the passing of time is not clear. Of course, I don't think that Igorius hates his nephew, he views his own cruelties as practicalities. In fact, I think it is likely he sees himself as grooming Peregrine for what is to come. Igorius has no children, and with Peregrine's father missing, that makes Peregrine next in line after Igorius. I think Igorius once had a wife whom he loved very deeply, but who died very soon after their marriage, after that he simple devoted himself to furthering the House, it is all he lives for and deeply colours his world view.
Regarding lawfulness and House Fetch. The Fetches tend to favor discipline, keeping their word (which often leaves them hesitant to give it in the first place), tradition, and being backed by the strength of law. However there is a tendency to see things as being very open to interpretation and if push comes to shove, skirting the law isn't out of the question. Placing bribes to secure a charter is a good example of how House Fetch operates. Now that might be considered more neutral, but I see the law as an important starting point in the Fetches decision making process. For instance it would be highly unlikely for them to bribe a jailor to let someone escape, they would, for example, be much more likely to bribe a magistrate to declare a pardon. The reason I mention all this is because this is what I have in mind when I say lawful neutral as Peregrine's alignment.
I have to admit I am at a little of a loss as to what to do. Should I just assume that an acolyte will take me to the gravesite. I don't want to just commandeer an NPC. I kind of feel a little like I was written out of the scene before I had a chance to interact, to many interactions were laid out to roll things back a bit, and I don't want to make too many assumptions about the actions of NPC's.
Hah, learn something new every day. :)
Thanks for the link.
You can't speak when it's not your turn?
Let monk's enchant their own bodies (as one weapon) as though they had the Craft Arms and Armor feat, using their monk level as their spellcraft check. For each 1000gp in the enchantment cost they have to spend one day in a training montage.
Not if you take a level of a full spellcasting progression PrC as was suggested. Then your 11th level would be level 10 for a wizard so you get the level 10 bonus feat, but have a Caster level of 11 thus meeting the Pre-Req for Craft Staff, unfortunately you don't meet the Pre-req for Staff-like Wands because that requires Wizard level 11.
james maissen wrote:
But you only get your feats at odd levels. So you take Craft Staff at 11th level because you delayed the acquisition of the 10th level wizard bonus feat, but where do you get the next feat slot of Staff-like Wand at level 12?