|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
One of the players in my group loves the power A Thousand Faces for the druid, but doesn't like any other aspect of that class.
Ausk, I like the fluff for your character, I may have to steal that in the future.
I agree with Imbicatus though, you don't need to multi-class to change the way the character acts/ responds.
Another option to the Lore Warden is to play the bard, as they are good fighters, and also gives you other options if you want to move outside the normal comfort zone.
To transition from braggart to fighter, you can even use a feat to add a weapon proficiency or weapon focus to get the +1 to hit. That would be enough to show he is now a fighting mentality.
As for other feats, gnomes while awesome suck in damage as they use small weapons, and have minuses to strength. Instead I would consider the Butterfly Sting feat which adds to the overall annoyance of the character.
I feel your pain. I consistently when rolling the d20 get between 2 and 6. In 20 recorded swings, I rolled 14 or higher twice. And this has been my curse for years, and with 6 different d20s.
As for what spells are worth the trouble of rolling a d20 to hit... other than enervation, bestow cure, blindness and a few other necromancy spells that don't come to mind, I never bother. There are too many great spells that don't require it.
The general Gnome mindset is that everyone has more in common than not in common. So, from a Gnomish point of view, it's hard to not be "normal". A Gnome that thinks he is an Orc wouldn't be considered much different than a Gnome that thinks he's a Gnome from the viewpoint of the average Gnome.
Bravo. The fact I had to read it twice to ensure I understood it meant it was a perfect description of a gnomish mentality.
It all depends on what you want the character to be and how restrictive your imagination wants to make the character.
I have a friend who views barbarians as roid machines, who are illiterate, and smash things. I view them as people who have channeled their inner rage to accomplish incredible feats. I thoroughly enjoyed playing one that quoted Sung Tzu's Art of War, and exerts out of my philosophy books. Could he have been a successful King? Sure why not.
While some are easier to fill the role, I think all classes can fit, and if its not a smooth fit, it makes the role playing even more enjoyable.
In my opinion, only thing that is a must to be decent king is an Intelligence and Charisma over 7. :)
We won initiative and everyone failed their saves (no one rolled higher than a 4).
Played it that the sorceror took his time as he was glotting, and 2 of the 4 broke out of it. They failed the color spray save.
At this point we all decided the characters deserved to die and bourbon was passed to all in toast of the fallen heroes.
I would lean towards an inquisitor.
Also if you want to have fun, take a musical instrument, some points in diplomacy, the trade sub-domain and you have what looks to be the stereotypical bard. That is until you declare a bane and unleash an inquisition on the poor fellow.
No one suspects the inquisition!
A small group of us were planning on playing Kingmaker and having Mythic characters.
Would Gestalt characters be a better option? I have never tried Gestalt, so I don't knw if I woul dbe replacing one broken OP way with another.
The reason why I ask is this has come up in our gaming group a few times when a player wants to crew/gang/pose/or mob of completly loyal goons. I am of the opinion that other than the orginal cohort, the rest are free for the DM to go all Game of Thrones and have them plot the death of the player.
This thread has made me think of another question regarding this. There is a bloodline that fits every school of magic to make that school more effective.
But there is nothing for Illusions. So while illusions are great in the fact they can be applied in any way you can imagine, they are also very limited in regards to who you use them on.
Have I missed an optimized way to make Illusionists effective at high levels, is there a need for this, or is it a way to balance them (being powerful at lower levels)?
One of my players has asked me to post this and see what is the general consensus of this idea.
He proposes that he gets these bonus while on foot also, so he will be the master of the charge.
The advantage on horse will be the damage the lance does.
As I have not spent that much time looking at the cavalier, and try to keep the players somewhat happy, would this modification be a good idea?
I need opinions from other martial players if this modification is needed for the cavalier.
Your party doesn't have a skill monkey.
Last time I read Am Barbarian, it wasn't a dragon he rode.
It was an awesome excercise in breaking ... no... obliterating the game.
One of my players wants to use a heavens Oracle but with Arcane magic.
I was thinking about the conversion, and do not know if a straight swap of divine for arcane is equal. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
p.s. He wants Arcane so he can focus his spells on Illusion and Enchantment, which are seriously lacking in the divine list.
Tetori as of level 9 negate any freedom of movement by spending 1 Ki point.
I used a Samsaran Synthesist. The Synthesist gives me the evolving armor, and the ability to turn an ordinary guy into a tank (both str and HP.
take 1 level or Heavens Oracle and add awesome display so I can use illsuion spells like color spray.
This gives me the options of making a crowd control or direct damage style character.
It would be very difficult to make RAW. A bad touch is a de-buffer and the best debuffing abilities in my opinion are from the domains like madness and chaos.
If it is a house game, I can't see any negatives to swappring the prepared speel casting ability for spontanous casting. Just give te cleric the spell charts of the Oracle and call it a day.
The other options if you want to play RAW are 1)suggesting a witch. Its still a prepared list, but the list is much smaller and easier to use, and they have hexes.
I love the alchemist, inquisitor, and oracle. Frankly the first 2 chapters of the APG are fabulous and only the ARG rivals it for my favorite book.
As for the Summoner, I think its is wonderful class. BUT in my game its never used because of we do not allow anyone to use books in the game, as it slows down the game. So when someone summons a creature, they better have the stats in front of them. Also the only other problem I see is the overall enjoyment of the group. IF a person is looking at books to determine which creature to summon, plus they have to then roll for their 7 eagles and, and and, I feel the other players are getting bored. Sure I could get them to roll for the eagles, but they did not come to play an eagle, they wanted to play their character. If I trusted a player to alleviate these two concerns, then I am happy to have them run around with the other characters.
In the long run this character is ruined. If by breaking the system he means having a character that will not live past 3rd level, then he has succeeded.
I am more concerned about comments about him pouting over pathfinder and wanting to play 4E. You can live with a poor characters, but poor players is another thing.
If other members of the group are also interested in 4E, you might want to alternate between the two with the agreement that he plays PF with as much zeal as 4E.
Compromise sometimes works better than a big stick (less blood and screaming).
This isn't a Kitsune /racial problem. Its a player problem that can /will occur regardless of which race he is.
We are getting ready to have a power gamer campaign where we start at lvl 15 and are making characters that are as tough as possible.
I usually play Oracles and Clerics normally as the idea of being to cosmic power always appealed to me.
But in this game I am thinking of breaking away from my norm. I need to know how Monks, and/or Magus can hang with Wizards,Sorcerers and an Oracle at 20+ lvl?
If they would be the weak link, what would you suggest?
How about 1 lvl monk to get WIS to AC
combined with Bracers of defense, Ring of Protection, etc will give an effective AC and still be able to attack.
If you DM allows it, a blade on the boot, or using the Monk hand to hand damage (in kicking)will allow you to use 2 weapons and still have a hand free.
As written above he has -2 str for the race, and he would get another -2 for being small, so a -4 penalty is huge. He needs to have some strength to carry the alchemy set. If the -2 to strength is for the size, then its a bit unbalanced. In either case i would suggest reducing the INT bonus to +2 and have the strength capped at only a -2 and remove the CHA bonus.
BUT if he really wants it this way, you and the group are fine with it, then (shrug)go for it. Your there to have fun.
I used the synthesist with a Samsaran. The bonus spells were all blasting as the summoner lacks them.
The only problem I ran into was keeping it interesting. I had more hit points then anyone. The AC was incredible. Versatility was amazing. I could sit back, flying and shooting. I could stroll into hand to hand with confidence no one could damage me. And if there was an enemy age, I was on top of it with flight and evolution points in speed.
The ZAM is better IMO than the any non Ranger or Fighter as those three can shoot while in base contact with an enemy and not provoke AoO.
The ZAM (assuming you don't mind struggling at 1st and 2nd level) really only need 1 stat to be effective. (wisdom)
As for feats, the thing that impressed me is that the feats are given as a part of the leel progression, or as bonus feats. This means the 10 feats you get from 1st to 20th can be spent on anything else you want. It can be combat feats (e.g Snake Combat Style) or something strictly for fluff. Only the fighter can get enough feats to be able to throw some away like this, and they suffer from poor saves, few class skills and no cool special abilities. Its this flexility to make a well rounded character that makes the ZAM the best archer "Character", In the game. IMO.