TheRedArmy's page

I'm currently working on a Monk build - the bug to create a martial arts bad-ass hit me. I read up on the Qinggong Monk and loved it, and I wanted to combine it with the Master of Many Styles, who is just so cool. I've also been considering the Drunken Master as a third archetype for extra drunken Ki.

The only real issue is, I'm not the best cruncher when it comes to builds. Hoping for a little help for effectiveness here. After reading the two relevant guides on these forums (and one was Treantmonk's Core only guide), both advocate strength-based monks, eschewing some AC in favor of more damage. With the MoMS, this would seem to give good synergy with Crane Style, Wing, and Riposte, along with Snake Style and Fang working together for attacking awesomeness.

My initial build took a different approach - going in favor of AC, and taking styles that let me take advantage of my opponent's misses (Panther, Crane Riposte, and Snake Fang in particular), and dealing low, but (hopefully) fairly regular damage.

I'm not sure which would be more effective in the long run. And Drunken Master is an archetype that can still be added to this build. The temporary Ki functions like normal Ki, correct? There's nothing the Drunken Master gives up that I had other plans for with the Qinggong portion of the build. Also, Vow of Silence for the RP (ironically enough - I RP by not talking at all!)

So Paizo, I entreat ye - help me build a Monk worthy of being in a foreign wuxia film! ;-)

20 point-buy. I prefer human and human-like races. No Kitsunes please!

My initial build was like this:

Monk Master of Many Styles/Qinggong 1

STR: 10
DEX: 18 (Racial +2 included)
CON: 12
INT: 12
WIS: 16
CHA: 7

Feats: Weapon Finesse (we houserule this also includes Agile Maneuvers), Crane Style, Snapping Turtle Style (I would rather this be Snake style, or possibly Dragon style if the build has more strength in it).

Traits: Threatening Defender (reduce the penalty for fighting defensively by one - with Crane Wing it becomes +2 AC, -1 to hit and with Riposte it becomes +2 AC, -0 to hit, and it increases with Acrobatics ranks). Second Trait: Unknown

This build: With this build including Snapping Turtle, I have 20 AC at level one (4 Dex, 3 Wis, 1 Shield, 2 Defensive), with +3 to hit. Damage is a piddling 1D6, but hopefully an Amulet of Mighty Fists (Agile Property), a belt of Dex and possibly buffs from casters would help it out once it hit level 4 or so. With barkskin from Qinggong, the AC would be great for several levels, leaving only the damage problem to solve. I planned on investing in weapons like the Sai to perform combat maneuvers as well as provide materials for penetrating DR. No plans to take the combat maneuver feats at this time. If you think it's for the best - convince me!

In my group right now (I'm GM), my players are basically combating an evil druidic organization hell-bent on killing off the civilized races. The party is planning to assault a stronghold of theirs, and one of the players had the idea buying several pairs of gauntlets for the purpose of slipping onto the hands of any druids they encounter to negate their powers.

At the time, I thought about it some, looked at both the Druid code, gauntlets in the equipment section, and considered game balance. I ruled against him during the game. Nor he or anyone else has brought it up sense (though to be fair, we haven't played another session since then).

It should be noted that they have done this tactic before, but with a breastplate (which is definitely armor), as opposed to the gauntlets (which is a little ambiguous in my opinion).

But now I'm re-thinking that decision. Since the party hasn't actually left Riddleport yet, they could still buy the gauntlets before leaving.

On the one hand, it makes sense - Druids are natural by choice, and so avoid worked metal. But they can use worked metal weapons just fine. And any tool or the like that's worked metal as well. And a gauntlet could also be used as a weapon - a druid wearing hide armor and metal gauntlets, does he fall?

While a RAW ruling would be helpful in this decision, I'm more looking for the RAI here. There are no druids in the party, and I don't think anyone is interested in playing one for this campaign.

So opinions would be helpful here. Thanks!

A new game I am playing in, I was wondering if anyone would like to help me - full builds are not necessary, but if you like, by all means. Again, this is an intimidating-style Barbarian Build/

A few notes - For role-playing reasons, I am a Half-Orc and wielding a Falchion (a fun Orc-like weapon, and gives access to critical feats later if I like with a 15 threat range). Currently, I have this (Invulnerable Rager to level 20)-

Vital Statistics (20-point buy)

STR 18 (Racial +2)
DEX 12
CON 14
INT 12
WIS 13
CHA 8

Sacred Tattoo Replaces Ferocity

I realize INT 12 is very poor overall, but I like the idea of being more than a reckless brute. I may be convinced to drop it to 10. Particularly if rage rounds stop being an issue later on. I've never seen a high-level Barbarian in action. Do you find rage rounds to be an issue? If not, I can drop INT to 10 and take favored class in skills. Also, 7 CHA is not an option for me.

Feats and Rage Powers (Feats at odd level, Rage Powers at even)

Level 1 - Skill Focus (Intimidate)?
Level 2 - Intimidating Prowess (Pre-req for the cool one)
Level 3 - Power Attack
Level 4 - Beast Totem, Lesser
Level 5 - Keen Scent
Level 6 - Beast Totem
Level 7 - (At a loss here - Improved Sunder?)
Level 8 - Terrifying Howl

...That's really all I'm up to. I considered keeping Ferocity for the Ferocious Tenacity feat, but once a day is kinda meh. I'm also having trouble just finding stuff that scares people. Seems like after shaking them Terrifying Howl is the last step (though panicked is awesome). I also seem to remember a feat that let you intimidate enemies for free if you drop one - am I imagining things?

Thoughts and help are greatly appreciated.

While working on a way to be (as much as possible) a Paladin that kills far less often than she incapacitates (in the hope of redeeming her enemy), I noticed just how hard it is to deal non-lethal damage. Higher-level characters can rely on the merciful trait for weapons (and I intend to), but until you can afford that (or use your weapon bond liberally), there's almost no recourse for lower-level characters to not kill their enemies.

The only real options I see are using a Sap all the time or taking that hefty -4 penalty all the time. Ideally you would alternate between the two to maximize your chances of being successful, but it's a big hassle to do all that. One could argue that to take that path a Paladin should be willing to make such sacrifices, but that's not the point here.

The point is, why is a largely inferior way of dealing damage to enemies so much harder to execute for most characters?

Can someone help me out here, explain to me why a rule simply letting characters deal lethal or non-lethal damage at will would be unbalancing (if it would be), and whether or not the following feat is balanced.

Just started a campaign last night in the Dragon Empire campaign setting (or some such thing). Currently playing a Human Paladin of Shelyn, 4th level.

Basically I would like some help role-playing this character correctly. My DM mentioned something about a Paladin-specific code based on your deity, but I could not find any such rules - is that just a houserule?

I took a few ranks in Perform (Oratory) and Craft (Calligraphy), as well as the racial heritage feat (Samarsan). I really liked the Samarsan fluff and all that, but I couldn't find any way to make the stats work, and most of the other abilities just turned me off.

I read up on Shelyn some earlier today and I really like the idea of playing a Paladin dedicated to her, but I want to make sure I get it right.

Can I get some suggestions for staying true to my deity?

The purpose of this thread is to analyze (in a not that in-depth analysis) how playing a different gender can change a character and how you act with her, even if the character is (mostly) the same.

Let me provide my example - since I think it's relevant, let me say I'm a 23-year old male who has been playing since 3.5. I started in...oh...'05, I think.

I enjoy playing Paladins, and love the changes made from 3.5 during the conversion into Pathfinder. When I look at a Paladin build, I notice how I role-play that Paladin changes based on the character's sex.

With a female Paladin, I look at the Orders and find myself liking the ideas of the Order of Chastity, even if I hate the benefits (I love Divine Grace, and it's a big deal to me to lose that). So I take the order, ignore the things I'm supposed to trade for it, and simply add the fluff to my Paladin Oath. As such, I cannot even imagine engaging in a romantic act with my female Paladin.

When I play a male Paladin, I like the over-arching theme of the Oath (never putting one person above your never-ending mission), but I also enjoy a Paladin who can enjoy the finer things in life - drinking fine wine (never to drunkenness), sleeping in fine inns, and enjoying the occasional fling (which he is 100% clear about before anything happens - this is one night, nothing more) with the beautiful bar maid at the local tavern before heading out the next morning.

Maybe it's just me. Does anyone else encounter similar situations when they play characters of different genders, even when the concepts are similar?

Many people have issues with the classic dump stat, Charisma. If you're not a class that need Charisma for abilities or intend to be a face, there's little in-game reason to keep a decent Charisma score at the expense of other things. But if those players like to Role-Play, they don't see any downsides until they actually need a check of some kind (which some players know how to avoid in a conversation - beating around the bush and then letting the face handle the dirty work).

The following is a simple solution to that problem. The NPC's mood never actually changes from this idea, (so indifferent people are still indifferent, regardless of the roll) but it causes some problems for low charisma.

Anytime a character begins talking to an NPC, roll a d6.

1 or less: Angry
2: Upset
3: Indifferent (leaning toward upset)
4: Indifferent (leaning toward pleasant)
5: Pleasant
6 or more: Happy

The only modifier on the roll is the character's Charisma modifier. Characters who like to role-play can still do so, but find that 7 charisma makes people treat them poorly while the beautiful 15 Charisma elf has an easy time with it.

I wonder what others' thoughts are and how they handle this issue (if at all).

I started playing the D&D ruleset about...oh, I suppose 6 years ago now. Since then, I've played strictly 3.5 on and off during that time. I grew up with 3.5, disliked 4th edition and never played it once. I continued to play on and off until I recently switched to Pathfinder with my current group.

While I adore most of the changes (especially the changes to classes, most races, and skills), there are still a few things that bug me about the system - namely, the removal of XP penalties for item crafting, certain spells, and the removal of a level loss for death.

The new item crafting rules require you to simply pay half the cost of the item in gold (as opposed to half the cost and 1/25 the cost in XP). This allows casters to create items virtually at will for little more than time and gold. He can even extend this to the rest of the party, allowing the party to get items that should empty to bank for half cost. The easier solution is to simply throw the PCs into adventures after a short crafting break, but PCs that lean more toward neutral may very well say "This town is doomed, then, let's head for the next one", or even say "Let's get the supplies and then bring the lab into that Tomb we just cleared out - if we board up the doors, we should have plenty of time".

Following that, there is now no spell that causes any XP penalty for it's casting, not even the mighty Wish and Miracle spells. Gold is a decent deterrent for over-casting such spells, but in time, the PCs can effectively cast it as many times as they want. XP penalties, on the other hand, always hurt. There is little, other than finding the material components, that stands in the way of casting anything they feel like as much as they want.

Finally, my biggest beef, the lack of a level loss when you die. Now there is only a "permanently drained level" which is not really a level loss at all (Raise Dead and Reincarnate have 2 such level drains), which can be instantly restored for nothing more than a casting of Restoration, or 2 if you use the two weaker raising spells. In 3.5, this was an actual level loss - you lose a character level, and any benefits that came from it. Nothing short of a Deities' direct intervention could bring it back.

This all leads to the crux of the thread - is Pathfinder too soft on PCs? I say yes. Crafting could be excused. Spells, I can live with but don't really agree with. I think the lack of a real penalty for dying is over the line, though. There's not much stopping a high-level party (say, 13th level) from simply charging the fighter into God knows what, then having a Contingency on him that teleports him to the Cleric if he dies. The Cleric takes up 10 minutes and some gold, and raises the fighter, and he reports what's in there. That's a poor way of doing it, but the point is still valid.

So, what do others think? Is Pathfinder, compared to 3.5, too soft on the PCs?

Light Shields and Bucklers come standard with a -1 armor check penalty that applies to lots of stuff if you are not proficient with them (namely, any skill check involving moving and attack rolls). However, making a shield masterwork drops that penalty by 1, making the penalty 0.

This effectively means any character can use a masterwork buckler (or light shield, if so inclined) with no penalty whatsoever, other than the weight and arcane spell failure (if they cast arcane spells). Rouges, and other classes that typically wield one-handed weapons (or even spellcasters that choose to make such a shield out of mithral) can use such items, despite being not proficient, and with no penalties to boot!

Therefore, I propose a minor change to the wording of Masterwork on Armor and Shields: Namely, simply stipulating that any reduction in armor class from being masterwork (and by extension, mithral and darkwood, which must always be masterwork, I believe) is only gained if you are proficient with that shield.

Thoughts?

EDIT: For wrongness.

In movies or games, you often see instances of the epic fight between good and evil. At the end of the fight, one or the other is successful in clearly winning the fight, without killing or incapacitating the other person. Often what follows is a dramatic sequence of plot of some kind that is often compelling to watch. The most well-known instance of this is Star Wars Episode V.

But in D&D/PF, there is no way to emulate this. You are either fine (1 or more HP), in trouble (0 HP), incapacitated (-1 through -X HP), or dead (X or more HP).

I am considering proposing the following rule to my DM, and in the games I run from now on:

Victorious Blow (It doesn't really need a name, it's just cool).

Whenever a character (PC or NPC) reduces an enemy to -1 or less HP with an attack (be it mundane or magical), he may instead choose to use this rule. The enemy counts as at 0 HP (for rules such as taking actions, when he takes damage from actions, etc.), but is utterly defeated and incapable of normal combat, even more than normal. He immediately drops to some non-threatening position (determined by the GM), drops any held items, and will provoke an Attack of Opportunity for any action that is a move or standard action. He also loses the bonus granted from his Base Attack Bonus and Strength Modifiers (mundane or magical) for all purposes. He is also considered helpless for the purposes of performing a Coup de Grace upon him. The target of a Coup de Grace in this manner may make a reflex save (DC = attacker's level + BAB) to dodge if he wishes. This save does not cause damage from being at 0 HP.

This is intended to be primarily used as a tool to encourage dramatic dialogue between PCs and important NPCs in the campaign world (such as a PC who wants revenge, a NPC who is simply too powerful for the PCs at this point in time (and you want to show that without killing them), or a final encounter that has the villain drawing divine power to try and kill the PCs in a final desperate act (from which they must escape).

All the rules are only really necessary if the PC is subject to this and chooses to try and be heroic at the last minute (which could also be very cool).

Thoughts?

So I want to play a Paladin in my group. I have a backstory worked out and have my progression for several levels playing around in my head.

My friend, also playing, wants to play a Bard. He is using a WoTC book called "The Book of Vile Darkness", which includes, among other things, a number of evil spells he wants to cast (note that he is not evil, and I haven't read the book).

I'm somewhat of the opinion that, as a Paladin, I should make an effort to stop the casting of evil spells (an evil act), if I'm capable of it at the time (IE, within arm's reach, not in combat, etc). This upsets him, and I'm worried about our bickering disrupting the group quite often, as he wants to play an evil bard, but evil is forbidden for PCs in our campaign (a trend I started as a GM, that the new GM has decided to continue). So the idea is to be a neutral bard that is as evil as he can be without changing alignments.

Obviously this creates a problem. He doesn't feel the problem is big at all, and I shouldn't "force" my alignment onto him, and not worry about what he does. I think playing the Paladin is more than just words on a paper - I think it's about an ideal one must uphold with difficult role-playing that is part of the class.

The question is - are these two different character concepts reconcilable within the same group? Or should one of us change classes for the good of the group? Or should I go with secret answer 3, and find a new group (which I was considering anyway, primarily for the reason stated above)?