Lex Talinis's page

Players don't argue because they need discipline, they argue because they want something.

Do you mean to say that because the want something that they are entitled? Even if it is unbalanced or not inline with RAW/RAI?

Just thought I'd clarify the intention behind the assertion before I respond to it.

A Man In Black wrote:

Players don't get into arguments because they're naughty children who aren't disciplined well enough. They get into arguments because they are unhappy, and grinding them under your heel as GM isn't going to make them any happier.

Be careful with your absolute statements here, AMiB.

Some of the people arguing here are hearkening back to actual incidents with naughty children, I'm sure. Both players AND GMs. That's part of the problem.

You're describing an ideal situation I agree with, but unfortunately a lot of personal immaturity has convinced 50% of us that the GM can't be trusted with absolute power, and convinced the other 50% that the GM must have absolute power.

100% of us are claiming the other person must be wrong, and that the game will degenerate into a horrible experience.

But clearly, 100% of us have also had at least one good game experience, or we wouldn't be here.

Just food for thought.

This is a false dichotomy - several here have asserted that it is more likely somewhere in the middle and that both of the opposing arguments hold merits and weaknesses.

Actually I never called 'you' or 'your group' out as anything. I was generalizing. Go back and check the context of my prose if you so wish.

I was simply pointing out how mechanically easier the game systems made it to 'munchikin' from 3rd ed and beyond. I also pointed out that its human nature to to take advantage of that and then justify choices and that I think ignorning those simple truths is naive.

You took it personally for some reason. I'll leave that up to you as to why there is significant percieved persecution and a need to defend yourself from a generalization.

You admit to generalizing and then imply that your sweeping generalizations were in no way directed at me despite being in direct response to me. Generalizations are by definition inclusive and not concerned with actuality as opposed to exclusive and concerned with specificity. Surely you don't expect people to assume exclusion from stated sweeping generalizations, unless of course you are trying to tell me that your choice of words and choice to generalize was unintentionally done. But somehow I get the impression it was very deliberate.

Defective induction is still a fallacy last time I checked. Just saying.

I think what you intended to say (see above quoted text) is far different then what you said via generalizing. Yes it is mechanically easier - and yes many do take advantage of that. But not all and perhaps not even most. Assuming that the sample group of the posters on forums is reflective of the greater base of players is still and always will be faulty reasoning.

My initial response to you was one of specificity (I was not ignoring anything simply pointing out that not everyone approches the game the way you seem to think most do and that I have and entire group of people who look for different things out of their RPGs) - and you respond with a dismissive generalization - that in and of itself is enough discourtesy to "strike a nerve."

GM = Referee isn't bad - but a referee is bound by RAW and does not have the authority to abridge the rulebook or even add to it. Pathfinder has given GM's the authority to abridge or add as they see fit.

I think when players understand that and GM's communicate clearly what they have abridged or added to the rules and provides a written reference to this a mutual respect is far easier to come by.

In the end we are all supposed to be friends sitting around a table spending time together enjoying each other and a game we love. If respect is lacking from either GM or players - then there is usually something much bigger going on.

Maxx - Thank you for continuing to work on this :) I for one appreciate it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander and a polished document introducing the nature of the player and GM responsibilities to each-other with input from multiple GMs is a noble and good undertaking. I do suggest that when, in your document, you advise a course of action that has proven to be debatable or controversial here that you include their perspectives as alternatives to the primary advice and state why it is given. :)

Ephesians 4:32 is advice to men, not advice to God about dealing with men.

Your excerpt about Yoga is pretty much the same thing.

These are examples of religion promoting unity among it's followers, not how the god must adhere to the wishes of its people.

Another analogy that can be used, the elected sheriff. You're there to enforce the rules and you get a lot of power from that, but if you abuse it you might just lose the next election.

I like the analogy of the Sharif it is much more applicable to the role of the GM IMHO then Gygax's natural law analogy. However as stated by a poster above - if you run in a homebrew world that was created by the DM - natural law by definition would make the GM the God of that world.

I think in spirit we agree here - but I fear you are still looking at the trees and missing the forest.

Good Stuff

This sir was an excellent study and explanation. +1

It should always come down to playing what you want and running with a concept that you will enjoy. The staff magus with Dimensional Dervish could potentially be an interesting study of a magus controller. :)

I think I may have to play-test that combination now :P

This is why I encourage all players to err on the side of concept then power gaming or min/maxing. It leads to a much more enjoyable role playing experiences.

...Just because a lot of stuff on these boards is all about the DPR, it does not mean that his how most play.

Yes, most want to make good chars, but that does not mean they must all pick a cookie cutter build to do so. Is the staff magus inferior to the scimitar wielding Magus? DPR wise no doubt, but that does not make it a bad char. The build posted above is a very viable staff Magus and would be a lot of fun and very powerful AND it fits the style and concept of the player.

Any build can be optimized to work well, it's only the munchkins who care if there are better builds that can be done.

Just because you are playing with munchkins it does not mean it is the norm nor does it mean the system is the problem.

Exactly. In fact we can take this further - some groups even prefer low combat quests because they can focus more on the character and mental and/or skill challenges. RPGs appeal to a great diverse group of people for very different reasons.

Sounds like I struck a nerve. Must have been food for thought. Natural reaction really.

You did - but not for the reasons you hoped for. Your discourtesy in telling me why I and my players play this game and how we go about character conception and how I was dishonest in my statements of what we focus on was the only thing I gave thought too. And yes - it is my natural reaction to not silently stand by while my integrity is impugned without basis.

If you want to sidestep all of those discussions about whether a GM can/should be authoritarian, I suggest this rule:

Game with people you would enjoy spending an evening with even if there was no gaming going on.

This has already been stated - and by myself several times in the thread that spawned this and in others.

The idea of a GM as a tyrant is a foreign concept to me and generally inconceivable in my experiences since I play with friends and all but one of us have been friends for 15 years or longer.

If you don't enjoy your company - why keep it.

Lex Talinis wrote:

Furthermore it seems as though you may be missing the many times he encourages DM's and players to have an open and honest dialogue - but if it is not longer a value added dialogue then instead of yelling at your DM - understand that they are the final say. Sure it could be more eloquently worded - but eloquence is just as subjective from one person to the next as what people consider "good art."

This is quite on topic.

The rest really wasn't though, ergo the spoiler ;)

He encourages a GM to assert control of the group, then entertain a dialogue with the players within that framework of absolute control. The GM is in charge, and cedes control at his whim to the players, and their recourse if they disagree is to leave. That's better than the attitudes of the ironfisted my-way-or-the-highway types, but it's not the only framework or relationship to have. It's not even a healthy framework: it only functions when the GM is a dominant person willing to do most of the work or take on the job of delegating the work, and when the players are willing to be subject to that dominance. That doesn't describe all players or GMs; I would submit that it doesn't even describe most players or GMs.

I agree that it is not the only way. However, there are many ways to assert control - many are very peaceful and interpersonally correct - not draconian as so many here have assumed it to be. But at the same time it is the GM's responsibility to keep things on point so entertaining constant rules lawyering from players can and does take away from other players enjoyment of the sessions. An agreement must be made in advance of how the group will discuss disagreements and how much time will be dedicated to it. A GM should have the fortitude and humility to admit if they misunderstood a rule or misapplied a rule if presented with a proper (read respectful and accurate) challenge to the ruling. Likewise it is also imperative that players respect that the GM may have their valid reasons for a ruling or interpretation of a rule and that simply disagreeing with the GM and arguing ad nauseum is not value added and will most likely result in the loss of a GM (and for some groups this may mean the loss of a regular game) or not being invited back to play.

In all my years of playing and DMing/GMing I have only ever ended one game prematurely and by vote of the rest of the group not invited a person back. Nine times out of ten respectful discourse will solve any issue. Sometimes people will still disagree - but so long as it is not a deal breaker - people need to learn to let those things go.

I assume the thread that spawned this is the "How do I discourage dipping?" thread? Because that is just a dysfunctional group. If one player was the problem, everyone can eject that player; you don't need an all-powerful GM exercising jus divinum to do that. If everyone was the problem and bullying a GM who was made uncomfortable, that GM needed to just leave, because that group was treating him like crap. Bullying the group right back wasn't going to fix that dysfunctional group, just perpetuate the same problems.

You're assumption is correct. However, if you read the entirety of that thread you see that this was not the first group to have the same set of issues with that GM at the helm. So yes I fully agree that group of players was an unfixable situation - there were some issues that repeated themselves from different groups towards the same GM. And one of the major contributors was a lack of respectful discourse, social contract regarding rules debate, and table rules easily and clearly accessed. Also since the GM is relatively new to the role - their ignorance of many rules was taken advantage of. It was a worst case senario and one that is still infuriating on many levels for me.

Again I agree about it only working if the GM is the primary workhorse - but a table where that is not the case is unappealing to me as a player - so you can infer where I stand on that. As a GM - receive a lot of personal enjoyment from preparing the sessions and presenting them. So while I delegate one task (usually initiative tracking), I simply wouldn't enjoy it as much if I didn't shoulder most of the work so that the players could focus on playing. I know it is old school - perhaps that is not what players look for now days - but it is what my group enjoys, and I'm sure many others do too.

He does encourage GM's and players to work out their issues. Gods don't do that though. Gods make decree's from on high and punish people when they don't follow them.

This is an entirely unsupported statement based upon a false premise (explained below), and is fallacious in the fact that it is a sweeping/hasty generalization. To defeat your assertion here all one needs to do is provide one example of a God encouraging people to work out/resolve/fix their interpersonal problems with each other.

I have provided examples from two major religions (Christianity and Hinduism) when all I needed was one singular example to expose the assertion as uncogent.

Now - instead of focusing on the age old phrase "DM is God of the table" move past it. As you admit your self the GM should be the final arbiter of the rules in almost all cases (exceptions may include a band new GM who needs to defer to a more experience player who is assisting them). The point of the guide and the original statement made so many decades ago:

Most aspects of the game can be expressed numerically, from attributes like strength and health and intelligence to the power of a weapon and the probability that it will successfully connect with an enemy and the amount of damage it would inflict. But one player has to paint a picture with words: That person assumes the role of the dungeon master and describes for other players what they see and hear in this imaginary world, and what effects their actions have.

In other words, the dungeon master is God while the other players are mortals subject to natural law.

If you take exception to the phrase - blame Gygax and not the OP. It is a very old school line of thought - when SRDs were not readily on hand and it was the GM who held all the rules for reference - while the players only held one third of them.

If you focus on the trees you will miss the forest - so look at the intention and meaning of the guide instead of the entomology of a word or intention of a singular phrase used as an example to reference the views of one of the originators of our system (let's face it - no D&D no Pathfinder).

In the end I agree that a source link should have been given to the thread that started this in the original post as a prologue as it has relevance in context - but this is a rough rough rough draft by any standards - and not intended to be a final version of anything. Otherwise it would be consolidated into one post - or a PDF document on Google Docs like every-other finished guide out there.

Solution - we all work together to help the OP achieve a final and polished version, building him up and thanking him for taking the time to undertake a project we have been unwilling to do ourselves by offering suggestions based in reasoning that can be supported.

Or for those who disagree with the majority of what is said in this guide - simply write your own. Certainly there are multiple philosophies about what a GM is - some believe the GM to hold no authority at the table and must acquiesce to all player whims - even if they are disruptive on not according to RAI. Some believe the GM has total authority and can/should tell player's "no" from time to time, and many theories in-between. Each holds merit in their own right - but none are exclusively "correct" since the table is a collaborative effort. In the end - the intention was to find the most common answers to these questions and issues and provide them. With the caveat to new players that the GMs rulings are to be respected and not to detract by persistency in argumentation. That if it is truly disagreed with - respectfully talk away from the table after the game - but still be willing to accept that the GM may still not agree with your interpretation.

Lex Talinis wrote:

wordswordswords about God

I don't know about you, but I find being told to "deal with it" amid a profanity-laced tirade the objectionable part.

I take no offense to it, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Reasons included below.

Reality is reality. People will always look for more synergistic combinations and then try and justify choices via background and story. I think feigning altruism is not being honest with the system and human nature.

That is a lot of presumption considering you don't know me or anyone sitting at my table. Until you are actually sitting at my table - I suggest you refrain from accusing me of feigning altruism.

Your opinion is one that is not accepted by the players at my table. They (and I) play this game for very different reasons then it seems you view it to be played for.

However, they would not harp on anyone for making such a character - but that person probably wouldn't last long in our group as they wouldn't fit in and find that the adventures I run have far more intrigue and non-combat (and role playing - as in not resolvable by the role of a die) challenges then they are looking for in a game.

Good day to you.

I thought the original post was very good and didnt see the same problems others did.

I havent read the other threads about GM shenanigans.

Re the Gm as god issue- I dont equate god with tyrant.

The fact that in many games the referee is the final arbiter of whether or not you committed a foul, scored a goal or hit the ball out or whatever doesnt mean that he is a tyrant. It is just a construct of the rules and the way it is played to resolve disputes.

sure in rpgs the role of referee is combined with the role of narrator, npc tactician etc but to me the gm is still the referee and deserves the same respect for that aspect of the game as any referee.

the advice to the gm to respect the players, that their job is to facilitate fun, talk to each other etc made it pretty clear imo that the intent of the advice wasnt to suggest the gm should behave like a tyrant- anymore than the advice in many games to the effect "the decision of the umpire is final" isn't intended to convey that the umpire should act like a tyrant.

Perhaps anyone who read the whole advice and took from it that when they gm'ed they were entitled to be a tyrant and stuff people around would be mischeiviously misinterpreting the post as a whole- and yes these people do exist but even if the god comment wasnt included they would probably behave the same way.

In other words saying the GM is God isnt what makes them act like a tool, anymore than it makes them act like a benevolent overseer of the world.

This is important - and the crux of the matter IMHO.

I guess it comes down to God concepts and how people view what a God is like or should be like. To me any God that is worthy of attention is just and benevolent. So when the statement the "GM is God of the game/table" is made - I infer that they should hold the above stated qualities.

YMMV.

To each their own - but:

Haskul wrote:

When did D&D become a game about DPR and not role playing...

3rd edition and beyond. I thought it was obvious.

That is sad. It never became that way at my table, fortunately. But we are all old-school players most of us hailing from first edition and the youngest from 2e.

My advice - don't let optimization be a driving force in determining what to play or how to build/advance your character. This is first and foremost a roleplaying game - if your backstory or concept means choosing less "optimal" feats or weapons - do it and do so unrepentantly. It is better for your character to be what you WANT it to be then what others think it should be or want it to be.

I would rather play a character that makes me think, that I enjoy playing, and is original then something canned and labeled as "the best way to go." Because in the end - the best way to go is what you are going to have fun with while being challenged.

Maxx - to be fair - when you first wrote this we were all a little up in arms about the shenanigans being pulled at a DM's table and posted about here on the forums.

I think that without context - the passion with which you posted is lost and therefore your intent is misunderstood.

For those who can look at the intention - and not word lawyer over what you intend to say versus weather or not they would express it in such a way - will try to add to this thread and clarify. The others will only try to detract. Astonishing how similar it is to the gaming table ;)

I simply recommend clarifications and letting those hellbent on disagreeing (even though they are saying the exact same things, just with different words) to disagree.

Your should ALWAYS have your players's character sheet accessible both in paper, and numerical form to check on when needed.

Awesome - I highly recommend DMs use Google Docs or another form of cloud sharing to make these available to players. It is as simple as adding your players e-mail to the share settings and viola - instant access. They can print them out and have them at the first session.

I know that if there is a new revision - I have them bring it - point it out, talk about it and answer questions if there are any (usually there are not because we don't up-rev the table rules unless the table is under complete agreement or understanding.

This would also be a great thread to copy and paste (with a link to this thread) as a prologue to the table rules.

+1 and great thread - I listed it :)

A third of the way through reading it - so far I'm enjoying it. Of special note: Majooja = awesome :P

Downloaded - I decided after the teaser this was a must have. I will read it over later tonight and give it a review :)

Yup those are hook swords :)

This was similarly discussed in this link >>>HERE<<<

Here ya go - a link that works: (click me I'm a link!)

Soullos wrote:

I wonder why it got delayed?

Changes to printing schedule is my guess. We use the same printer for all our books, and if we hit them with something unexpected, like a reprint or an extra product... or if some OTHER company does the same, then their print schedules change. Sometimes for the good, sometimes not. Delays in customs and delays to the boat's travel across the ocean can mess with things too... I'm constantly paranoid about having one of those boats sink halfway across the Pacific...

It's okay - if this installment is even half as good as the last I don't care about waiting. :)

Any thoughts about how this could slot in to the Carrion Crown Campaign both geographically and from a plot p.o.v?

Cheers

Richard

Well geographically... "Bards and oracles often assert that it [Silvermote] lays buried beneath blackened earth, perhaps near a dead volcano, somewhere in the middle of a ruined and forgotten stump country once known as the Terlyck." My thoughts here are probably somewhere in the Hungry Mountains. This would probably be best achieved In the Shadows of Gallowspires installment - minus the fact that the PC are in a hurry at the point. Another problem is that IF they defeat Silvermote and it's master... they will be OP'd for the conclusion of the AP.

So my recommendation it to run it as a followup to the AP - as they are celebrating their big win and just scale it to level 16.

I fully intend to take you up on that offer - and have bookmarked the website :)

My players expressed interest a few weeks back in an old school terrifying adventure that is just as likely to, and I quote, "grind them to paste" as it is flavorful...

So I have decided that after the AP I'm running - I'm going to set this in Ustalav and bait them along with a couple of werewolf and undead adventures to get them up to level 7 or 8 and then hit them with this.

I know two of my players in particular are going to eat this up as they have been playing at my table since 2e. :P

Lex Talinis wrote:

You know - I just want to express how proud I am of this community for how supportive and candid you have been regarding this. It is yet another validation as to why I choose Paizo. :)

No problem, we're paid by Paizo after all !

LOL yeah - I want to believe too :P

You know - I just want to express how proud I am of this community for how supportive and candid you have been regarding this. It is yet another validation as to why I choose Paizo. :)

I have the Temerlyth the Undying and was plotting a means to throw him at my PCs - then I saw this. After downloading the teaser I'm excited. This is going to be pure awesome - looking forward to the release!

Good Stuff

You know - I still find myself adhering to the 2e version of dual classing - old habits die really hard and even though I can dip - I try to plan in a more story friendly manner. It's just one of those things I liked about that edition. YMMV.

Kelsey - don't get so down on yourself - those players are total tools. You have gotten a ton of good advice on this thread so I say that we move on to mocking these jerks or helping you find a group to chat play with (with or without a VTT. I know some groups even have Vent or TeamSpeak servers so it makes it easy as pie. :)

Pendagast wrote:

Stuff.

Players don't tell DMs the rules. It just doesnt work that way.

Actually DM's don't tell player's the rules either.

Seriously it's not like there are no options for people outside of playing games with DMs and the more you issue random rulings without talking to your players about it the more likely your players will either

A) Leave while telling you to go f* yourself.

B) Beat you with the heavy ass rulebooks that they bought to play the game.

C) Decide RPing is pointless since they have no say in it and go read a book or play video games which are essentially as interactive.

If you want to have a perfect world of your own design where you never have to deal with other people having ideas of how things ought to play out go write a book. If you want to DM work with your players and don't be a dick.

False - the GMG clearly encourages and outlines ways to create your own world and how to change things to how you the GM want them to be in YOUR world.

If a GM doesn't want something in their game - they have ALWAYS been encouraged to either fix it or exclude it. The CRB and all other supplements can be cherry picked so long as there is a clear written set of Table rules to explain where things differ from the books.

Pixel Cube wrote:

The problem is that your players are munchkins.

No, the problem is that they have no respect for her.

Precisely.

As for the flurry of blows thing, I was roundly beaten in the rules argument we had over that. They can yell longer and louder than I can.

Yelling louder and longer does not make one right.

There is always some mix blame - weather the majority lays with you or the players - well - you're here trying to find a solution.

There is good news then Kelsey - we can always fix ourselves and hope what we fix helps others to fix themselves :)

You were in the Navy, do you remember those things called SOPs? Every gaming table should have something similar. It is effectively a contract between DM and player as to how you run your game. It can and should include any table rules (variations from RAW/RAI) and things like how to arbitrate a rules issue (e.g. after the session has ended - if they are ultimately correct you will reward them in game somehow - xp - gp - [insert anything]).

If you are unfamiliar with writing an SOP (I don't know how long you were in) then I am willing to help you outline one so that you can sit down and hand a copy to each player and go over it. You also must adress any questions and concerns they may have before moving forward. But this gives you a good way to communicate what you expect and what they should expect.

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

My tabletop groups won't let me do anything without a three page legalese essay about what it is I'm doing.

In the players' defense, they have every right to expect you to make the rules clear before they inadvertently break them. A GM can get away with fudging things during play, but should never make contradictory rulings mid-session. Having the houserules written down prevents you from making this GM no-no.

I have literally hundreds of pages of house rules for my home game. All of them are provided to the players in writing. All of them are subject to discussion and a vote.

Kirth - She has had multiple issues with her group over an extended period of time over things like enforcing RAW or in some cases players stopping the game to argue a spell effect, look it up, etc. They have talked and argued about the core of the problems already.

The problem is pretty complex here, and does not seem to be getting better - yet the solution is simple: Kelsey, for the sake of your friendship or continued friendship with these people, find another group. This game is supposed to be fun for everyone involved - including the DM. There is enmity and animosity between you and your friends. In a previous thread you wanted to kill the party off for their behavior as players. The dynamic here is not healthy - cut your losses - save your friendships and either form another group or just use the PBP function as you mentioned earlier. Your gaming should relieve stress not cause it.

Well, aside from a few combinations (like anything that involves dipping into Monk), yes. The issue is that the PC's house rules force me to justify the decision in very specific terms, and I need to figure out how to do that.

What if they started out level one as a monk and took it to say level two or three and then explained (could be through exposure to magical energies - a blessing from divinity - or simple latent bloodline finally coming to the surface) how they became a sorcerer? I know reversing the order of the classes may seem trivial to some, but when it comes to storyline it can make all the difference.

Jiggy wrote:

Just for my own curiosity, why is it you don't want people multiclassing? (Or is it just one- or two-level dips?)

Multiclassing is fine. One or two level dips aren't. Why do I hate them? It gives characters stuff they really shouldn't have, like a Wisdom Sorcerer or Druid with a Monk's AC bonuses or a Wizard with a Crossblooded Sorcerer's bloodline powers. Plus, it just screams munchkinism to me, and makes no sense storywise (as was mentioned above, precisely how and why did the Sorcerer get that Monk training, and why so little)?

I like the idea of making the players justify it, but how do I write it out in such away that my players won't toss it out for being too vague or open to GM whims?

What I'm hearing here is that so long as your players can justify it in their story lines and in game role playing - you won't have a problem with it. I don't think it needs much more explanation to your players then that. But a unsolicited word of advice and caution - don't squish their creativity if they come up with something good and explainable simply because you don't like the flavor of it. As DMs we have a responsibility to maintain balance yes, but to also provide an enjoyable game where creative roleplaying can be had and enjoyed. /cautionary advice.

those abilities seem a little useless... the only time I can see it being useful is when your stacked up in a dungeon of some sort and only the first 1 or two people in the stack are able to melee.

sure there are a few bonuses like the mercy arrow or something... but other than that the class seems week.... then again I play rangers almost exclusively so i may try some other ranged classes in order to shake things up.

Our group runs modules and APs - which means rarely are we in open spaces and regularly in more confined areas for battles.

Even with that the group likes to set up ambushes where the "snipers" are off and hidden together and the magic users in another area to provide interlinking zones of fire.

So it has proven to be very useful in ever campaign that a Divine hunter has been in. The value is found more in how the group likes to play, as is any archetype. :)

Fortunately if you are just testing the waters all you need is this link right here in addition to a module. If you and your group decide that Pathfinder is the system for you. :)

This is what I love about Pathfinder - the system is strong enough to say try us in full for free and still sell books. At the end of the day all of the books have great print quality and are well laid out. When I first bought the CRB and GMG, I was hesitant because of the price. When they showed up, I thought maybe I didn't pay enough.... So yeah - while the PDFs are great - the hard copies are fantastic to have and pass around the table too. And worth every penny.

Thanks for the help, all. The monk and paladin options look interesting, though it would be toug to play a monk who gives up evasion. All of the play experience anecdotes are

Helpful. I usually GM for our group, and I haven't played a ranger since early 3.0. I think the ability to participate reasonably well in combat combined with the skills is going to be good. Healing is a great bonus, and some of the pathfinder ranger spells seem like a lot of fun. I'll post a build here for critique.

The Divine Hunter Paladin has become one of my favorites. What I like best is that my aura gives any ally within ten feet of me free use of the precise shot and improved precise shot feat. This helps any and all other ranged folks immensely and even helps the casters shooting into combat :) It has the feel of the teamwork feats, but doesn't require anyone else to take the feats :P

Anyways - I look forward to seeing your Ranger build.

Okay, I know the original options are fighter vs ranger, and restricted to only those two I push ranger everyday of the week and here's why: as someone said above you are useful outside of combat and thus nota one trick pony. Your party will thank you for this. But if your party is a more hack and slash party and the DM caters to that, go fighter.

Now branching out, I know the monk was brought up, but frankly I'm surprised the divine hunter paladin archetype has not. You get a free precise and improved precise shot feat plus the ability to buff your weapon AND smite evil. You get spells and three great saves thanks to the charisma bonus. You get some skills that can help the party out of combat too, diplomacy and knowledge nobility (situational on the campaign, I know, but it has save my parties butts in SoCal encounters too many times for me to ignore).

Another one to consider is the elf bard/arcane archer build. Arcane archers are just brutal, and the bard give you use multiple role options in the party with your massive skill list and buffing abilities. And outside of combat you become one of the most usefull party members if not the most.

Food for thought.

What I mean is, the character would have the same STATS as a paladin, but would be a fighter, since Hellknights are basically law-oriented paladins. I was thinking Fighter 5/Hellknight 4.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the same - but similar - Charisma would definitely not be a dump stat - but there is no need to pump it up as high as a Paladin.

Dazzling Display is a complete and utter waste of time (literally) unless you have some other exploit to play off it (like Shatter Defenses, and you have rogue levels, and you got DD from Cavalier/cockatrice so it's a standard rather than full-round).

Yup - SD as reflected in my post as the level 9 feat and a few others, but those are further downline then fifth level and he asked for something at fifth. It is also for flavor as HK tends to be an intimidating force in combat. It is a tax and flavor feat.

Okay, so I'm DESPERATELY trying to make the Duelist prestige class work, and I think this may help. (It may be an exercise in futility, but dangit, I gotta try!)

Monk 8/Duelist 10/Monk 2. I prefer Unarmed Strikes, so I'd probably go straight Monk and take Monastic Tradition, but if you wanted to use a piercing weapon, Sohei would work nicely as well. Definitely take Hamatulatsu (turns unarmed strikes to Piercing damage).

Two routes I'm looking at. The first is going Kirin Style. Normally the Int. bonus is POINTLESS, but when you're looking at it basically applying to your AC, the style becomes a good bit more useful. 2xInt to one attack per round? An extra 10-14 damage isn't GREAT, but it's not bad, either.

Alternatively, take dragon style, monastic tradition, and combine with Duelist to get a REALLY nice chunk of damage per hit. Plus, you get enough attacks to sacrifice for Parry if you need to, and all of your attacks are made with the same weapon.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Snake style gives you the piecing bonus and for the cost of three feats - you can basically replace your AC with a sense motive check in your duels and get to "repost" if they miss! And if you use the flowing monk Archetype.... well - this could get ugly :P

On a flavor note Paladins are generally mocked and distrusted in Cheliax as fools... so if you did go the paladin route - some of your duties to enforce the laws of the land might not fit well with your code of conduct... nothing in RAW of course prohibits you of course from going this route but flavor wise it would be.... complicated at best.

If you are considering running a Hell Knight I recommend Cheliax Empire of Devils .

Off hand - I would probably go for a human Fighter (this is a starting point)

1. Power attack, weapon focus, Iron Will
2. Dazzling Display
3. Cleave
4. Weapon Specialization
5. Great Cleave
7. Cornugon Smash
9. Shattered Defenses

This would have you at FTR5/HK4. Take your weapon focus and weapon specialization in the order's signature weapon that you will signing on to.

Remember - Hellknights reputation and ability to invoke fear into the hearts of the citizens is part of what makes them so effective. Their Charter is to the Queen and they answer to their order and then to her. So max your ranks in Intimidate, I would also pick up some ranks in sense motive depending on what order you go with.

Another option would to go Cavalier for five or six levels (you get a bonus feat at sixth - it's your call if you want it or not) and then HK. Order of the Pike would be interesting for that build.

http://www.pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Category:Hellknights/Orders

True, Andrew. Also important to remember: she's playing in an Eberron-inspired home-brew, not Golarion. We don't know the deities or facets of the home brew other than: "it's inspired by Eberron" and "it's got black dragons that conform more to normative Bestiary than Eberron".

And Lex, re: high STR =/= large muscles, I'm not sure I'd agree with your interpretation, especially given someone like Bruce Lee, who had rather impressive strength and endurance. I'd generally make a comparison between strength and dexterity to determine how lithe someone is. That said, I generally have the derivative stats at my table (when I GM) that tells me how I'm perceived (though, by RAW, Charisma does that - house rules for the win!).

I could buy the STR reconciled by DEX. RE: House-rules - this is why I support the appearance stat ;)

Furthermore - your initial post cites an example. If the paladin [i]knew[i/] the BBEGs guilt and was there to bring them to "justice" I question why they would need to cite self defense. Surely ridding the region of such a vile presence is justification enough - also if the paladin was one of Gorum - I would consider this a trial by fighting and the compulsion is more of a "less talking" and let's get down to brass tacks type of situation. So to answer effectively to your situation as it is very situational probably requires more information.

What did the BBGE do? Did he confess in his monologue? Is he resistant to arrest? What deity does the paladin serve? The last one is probably the most important as many deities might not look favorably on the actions describe, but some may.

EDIT - I just thought I'd add in that the Oath of Vengeance illustrates that some deities desire or even mandate that their paladins act in a similar capacity or even assist inquisitors.

Zeph - beat me to the punch here, but to follow up on your follow up - I think the sanctity of the mind and how the paladin views such things would depend on the religion they served... for example - Arshea, Cayden Cailean, Shelyn, Bolka, and Naderi all have the charm domain and the capability of employing Paladins.... They surely have no problem with mind-affecting spells used to further their cause.

Re: The STR issue - I'm not sure high strength equals "buff."

I would think that high STR and high CON would probably indicate something closer to that - but high STR alone could be explained by pointing to a body type like bruce lee - who was quite strong, and very fit - but not arnold buff or WSM big. If CHA is not tied to looks then why must we look to SRT to determine muscle size? Surely the extra damage bonus could be explained by technique, and the carry capacity, well in the army I have seen skinny young men ruck a lot of weight and not be buff. Just saying.

EDIT: Also - "sexy" is far more a matter of personality and behavior then it is physical beauty. Since physical beauty and personality are not entirely defined (only partially explained by and even then you have to stretch) the stat box - I think it is unfair to determine how sexy this character may or may not be.

bigkilla wrote:

The thing that I find funny about this whole thing from reading it is, that if this was a male playing the same character as a male a lot of people would probably think, wow this guys is a douchebag, but since it is assumed that this is a female running the character it is cute and exciting.

In some cases, yeah. It's a case of moderation versus extreme behavior. A guy playing a hyper-sexualized female-on-female PC runs the risk of his friends at the table wanting to say, "Dude, get a room, and take your character sheet with you!"

I mean, really. It's kind of gross, isn't it?

Being socially aware enough and capable enough of handling these things in an adult manner is part of overall maturity at the gaming table. It's an overall mark of being able to work socially with other people.

This "check-maybe-I-should-ask-first" trait is not something everyone has. To put it in a more base manner...

The hyper-sexualized, female-on-female PC is likely something someone would store in a private hard drive. When played at the gaming table, that fantasy is now brought out in front of everyone. That right there? That is what makes others uncomfortable.

In other words, playing a hyper concept involves being an adult about the concept. It involves making sure your friends are comfortable with what you're doing. A player at the table should only push as far as others are comfortable with. They might also try playing it with a sense of humor.

If you're uncertain what does make a female friend at the table uncomfortable?

Approach her and ask her.

Respecting, communicating with one another is paramount. If she wants to play the reverse, she might ask you and the best thing you can do is offer honest, good feedback. You might find you're more open to certain concepts. You might find this to be less true. Communication, especially where comfort levels are concerned, is never a bad thing.

As for it being more a male trope than a female one, yeah, I could see that. It is not...

You get a really big +1 for this post. If the laws of plussing would allow me to give it a +3 I would .

Frankly I don't care if a player brings these things to my table so long as it is not divisive to the group or story, does not cause unreasonable offense, and is played maturely.

I have a player at my table who in real life is attracted to their own gender - and I would never dream of telling them they can't have a character with non-traditional values at the table. Frankly they have awesome characters and back stories and their characters and role playing only enriches the gaming experience at the table. Their character's preferences are not a central focus or major definer of who they are - it is just part of who they are.

Paizo has regularly included same sex relationships in their campaigns. In fact Jade Regent is a great example (as is Rise of the Rune-lords) of particular note here in the fact that they refuse to define the preferences of the NPCs - and outright say - they are considered bi-sexual. Paizo has made a game that largely targets the adult audience, and open communication and mature handeling of these topics is essential. No one is forced to use what Paizo includes - but for the DMs with groups that can handle it - it does make for good gaming :) This is of course not just limited to sexuality and gender issues - but it expands into how evil is the BBEG and cannibalism, etc. Paizo is far more adult in all of these areas.

Which is why yet again - I applaud this character build for it's break from the traditional Paladin concept. I wouldn't hold a different view if it was a male paladin or a male playing a female so long as it was approached in the same manner the OP has approached it, with maturity. So i fail to see the double standard.

You know if you did the Oathbound AND the Sacred Servent Archetype combined with unsanctioned knowledge you'd be getting two additional spells a level.

1 from SS (domain)
1 from your oath(s)
Then unsanctioned broadens your spell selection further. :)

The tax for this is a few less smites a day - but nothing an extra smite feat couldn't fix ;)

Just a thought.

This is my non-traditional Paladin.

Agda Haskell

There are some odd similarities - female paladin, two handed weapon doing x4 crit multipliers.

She's going from Paladin to Shadowdancer. At 1st level, her highest level skill is Disable Device...and I loved the vocal inflections when I said "Agda will pick the lock..."

"Why is the Paladin picking the lock?"

"Law abiding people need locksmiths too."

Technically, after she was built, her choice of deity (Pharasma) became illegal. Since I mostly play PFS online, I don't let this bother me that much, and I'd tell a GM about it at a con game before playing her - and say "It won't make ANY difference at the table, other than me saying a few things in character."

I do like the Unsanctioned Knowledge feat. Sadly, she'll never have the INT to pick it up...

+1 for creativity - seriously.

This makes me think of an ethical and accountable inquisitor in flavor only.

Re: Unsanctioned knowledge - for a casty type of paladin - it is uh-MAZING. It is probably my favorite part of the above build - mechanically speaking.

Lex Talinis wrote:

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

I have a character build for you guys to critique:

** spoiler omitted **

I do highly suggest including a ranged weapon in the build - otherwise there will be times when you're really up a certain creek. Consider a composite longbow to take advantage of your STR bonus.

All right. Masterwork +4 strength?

Yup - anything more is really not needed - unless you WANT that +1 enhancement - I'd also invest in some ghost touch arrows (+1 enhancement), some silvered arrows, and some adamantium arrows (5-10 of each) for conditional enemies. Be prepared :)

I have a character build for you guys to critique:

** spoiler omitted **

I do highly suggest including a ranged weapon in the build - otherwise there will be times when you're really up a certain creek. Consider a composite longbow to take advantage of your STR bonus.