|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'm not familiar with any of the lore of Ustalav that makes them particularly hostile to half-orcs, other than their proximity to the Hold. Even still, you're a skillful character (6+INT/level) and with your stats, you didn't take a hit to CHA like most inquisitors. A simple trait to bump your Disguise checks would probably be a lot easier than taking a whole feat dedicated to replicating the 1st level spell "Disguise Self", which you also have access to.
Unless there is a specific reason to be suspicious, most people don't even get a check to notice according to the Disguise Skill in the CRB, and even then it's assumed they're just taking a 10, so you're looking at something roughly about a 15-16.
I'd find a different feat.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
So it's for hipster clerics?
"Yes, I cast divine spells, but I only derive divine spell casting ability ironically."
I believe I know the exact module this comes from:
this was level 5 of the Emerald Spire, innit?
I played it just a few weeks ago with my monk. I used the reposition combat maneuver to get a squishy gnome out of the line of the great cleave chain.
The question comes down to- can you target an ally as if they were an enemy?
Well, of course you can. What constitutes an ally versus a foe is inherently subjective, and can change based on circumstances. If the party fighter fails a save versus confusion, is he an ally or a foe? Bable incoherently- probably still an ally. Attack nearest creature? If that's his party member, then probably counts as a foe. Likewise, in home campaigns, sometimes the LG Paladin and the CN Fighter may have to have a "Come to Iomedae meeting" that could end in a fight. They were allies, they're foes for that duration.
Long story short, there's no PvP in PFS, but there are always exceptions to the rule. The GM ruled I had to ask the player if he was okay being the target of the maneuver. He said "Of course" since he was getting destroyed. I rolled, I succeeded, the gnome was saved, and I had spent my standard action for the round and couldn't attack the elemental.
I'm going to agree with this. Don't worry too much about AoE. The party is going to love Haste and Heroism and Inspire Courage.
Either this or an Evangelist Cleric (if you're worried about conditions and don't want to invest in scrolls/umd).
But as you note, it is not just one single option. It's 1/3rd of the alignments available, and with those alignments come additional thousands of choices down the line.
With respect, it is different. The distinction is "if". You assume the agency of certain players will interfere with the overall enjoyment of the game. That's not terribly fair to players who have not demonstrated they cannot be trusted with that agency. You're operating exclusively on your beliefs, and reducing agency because of it.
I must have misunderstood your initial point. When you said "4) Say I'm the GM that doesn't handle it well. The campaign is on fire and to try and put it out I take away the evil PC's. Now I am the bad guy for taking away their toys because I blame the players for me being a bad GM." I guess I just misunderstood, because if the players are enjoying themselves, and no one is objecting to this (the GM is the only one with a problem) how is everything on fire? And why would you take away something that everyone is capable of doing and enjoying?
I looked again. You said, and I quote: If I don't allow it I will not be a bad guy and we all have fun.
Perhaps what you intended to convey was different than what you chose to write. What you wrote is a fallacy that underpins your entire argument- that but for the inclusion of this option, everyone will have fun and you won't be a "bad guy". This is simply not the case, and you know it as well as everyone else.
What then about this specific option is demonstrably more toxic to enjoyment than any of the other potential barriers I listed? I'll save you time: there's nothing about it. For every anecdote you bring that it is more toxic, others have anecdotes that it isn't, or that the God-Wizard was more of a PITA than the evil rogue, or that some people who play LN like it was CE or LG like LE and so the difference is minimal, or that mechanical imbalances render the game not enjoyable far more frequently than alignemnt, etc.
Given that, the decision to strip options from players who have yet to demonstrate they cannot be trusted to exercise those options with consideration to the other players is arbitrary and capricious.
Absolutely that's the goal. But it sounds like you're saying, when you get right down to it, that you don't trust your friends to be decent to each other, or that should they upset one another, that they wouldn't be able to reason/talk it out and come to terms with one another. That's rough.
If you aren't willing to give them the chance to demonstrate that they are capable of handling what "your experiences" tell you they are not, then it has everything to do with your personal beliefs. If you have already tried and failed with these players, that's one thing. To hold them to account for things they did not do is entirely another. One is a consequence of their actions, the other is a consequence of your beliefs about actions they did not take.
No one is mandating you make them play evil characters. That's akin to saying if we make gay marriage legal, then we have to all get gay married. But if you give them the option, and they take it, then you are in effect encouraging them to play new and different perspectives by giving them a chance you otherwise have not.
You may not find these reasons compelling, and that's fine, but I find that games are enriched by a diversity of players and a diversity of characters.
Never tell me the odds!
Sorry, I've always wanted to say that. But to answer your questions:
1- Yes, absolutely. Any time as a GM you can maximize player choice and agency, it is all that much better.
But what I take most issue with is the fallacy you premise your argument on. Your biggest logical error is that you can't guarantee that "you won't be the badguy and everyone will have fun." I've been in plenty of games where there were stringent alignment restrictions, and interpersonal friction/GM mismanagement still managed to derail and/or detract from the game.
Can differing alignments contribute to that? Absolutely they can. But they do not, in and of themselves, derail or detract from a game any more than does the existence (or lack thereof) of the caster/martial disparity, the Stormwind fallacy, the summoner/gunslinger/headless clown class, or simple interpersonal friction from having different personalities at the table.
The incentive to allow evil players in your game include, but are not limited to:
Give evil a chance.
First and only experience, apparently.
It seems a downright shame that you rule out allowing your players to try their hands at something new because someone "long ago" couldn't do it.
This thread needs more evil.
What about an affably evil necromancer? Someone who, for whatever reason, has no idea that his behavior is rubbing people the wrong way?
Like the party is standing around the butchered corpses of their enemies, breathing hard after a difficult fight and rummaging for loot, when in walks Mr. Necro,
"You... you don't, uh, perchance, need that arm, do you?" *points*
"Cuz if you're not using it..." *hopeful look*
Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:
Dude. What is it with you and fey fondling? This is a family board, you know.
For my Mummy's Mask game, I have the intention of introducing a magic sword that I want to custom make. I'm modeling it on the Beaststrike Club.
I'm calling it Sobek's Jaw. It's a +1 Falchion with crocodile teeth set into the blade. Upon command, the damage changes from Slashing to Piercing. I want the weapon to function as a natural bite attack for the purposes of feats and spells as well.
How much do you guys figure such a weapon would cost, and what would the crafting requirements be? What spell would you base it off?
Any help would be appreciated, this is my first magic item I've designed.
This is truth. In my Jade Regent campaign, we were hot on the trail (in book two) of Asvig Longthews. Of course, with the way his name is pronounced it took very little prompting for the halfling cleric to kick the door in and demand to know which of the people inside was "butt fruit."
The gnome was in the employ of a powerful force of some kind, who wanted his construct army for their own nefarious purposes. The PCs must climb the ladder to deal with this newly emerged threat?
A rancid swamp? Sounds like prime Black dragon real estate.
The golems he had created were the only things keeping a local threat in check (hobgoblin tibe/Cadre of dark wizards from whom the gnome stole many of his necromantic secrets/Undead creature who was going to be using many of the raw materials of the biotech critters for food and/or progent)?
That said, the cleric can do any of these as necessary. The mild mannered support cleric can buff himself into a combatant, the bad-touch debuffer can repair damage and lift conditions...
Many classes can perform the individual tasks as well or better, but none can take 15 minutes of prayer and fill a totally different role as required.
What do i do?
You seem to ask a question and dismiss the entirety of the responses for some reason or other.
You are pigeonholing yourself unnecessarily by being "The skill guy." There is no skill in the game that can't be overcome by creativity, blunt force trauma, or magic. And you have magic, too.
Combat is a major part of the game. Learn to contribute in it or make sure the other players are fine dragging around a non-contributor. Can't contribute to damage in combat? Cast grease on the badguy's sword, or on the floor. Grab a longspear and make attacks of opportunity, or use the aid another action. Hell, maybe just don't contribute at all. That can be an enjoyable RP decision- maybe your guy is a total coward, or a pacifist, or has some other foible about participating in combat?
It seems like you're really upset that the GM isn't letting you utilize your skills. Talk to him. Maybe see if he won't replace "simple doors" with "strong doors." Work in more social encounters, or traps.
You have ridiculous stats- the equivalent of a 45 point buy. You can find a way to make it work.
Hilariously bad rolls all night nearly killed my party a few different times. Believe it or not, the dolls were the most dangerous critters.
We have at the table:
A Div-Spawn Tiefling Rogue (later going to Sorcerer)
They're going by the name "The True Seekers."
It's a good group, but they rolled for absolute crap last night. We did the lottery and the first tomb pretty quickly, and they looted most everything they could.
Kysus Arelius wrote:
You may not have noticed, but you can't get Eldritch Claws at level 7 since you won't have +6 BAB. That may impact your decision making.
I think you're not getting the advice you're looking for because of how you phrased the question. Most people think of tarzan as being loin-cloth clad and grappling/pummeling/stabbing with his knife, not as a creature that grew claws and fangs.
There are a number of very good options in the Advanced Class Guide for what you're trying to accomplish. The Mad Dog Barbarian is probably the best option from what you've got this far, with Beast Totem, but you'll be relying on weapons and your base stats until you get to rage at 4th level.
Concealment usually negates the ability to inflict precision damage. Shadow strike allows for you to continue to get precision damage (like sneak attack or swashbuckler damage) when your opponent has concealment. It does not grant any precision damage in and of itself.
Your tiger should probably have power attack, improved natural attack, light armor proficiency, and weapon focus (claws). Toughness and Combat Reflexes would also be good.