I think it is mostly a matter of terrain. The underdark doesn't have that much open space, and even when it is most creatures have limited vision ranges in it. It should also be easier to conceal, which can be very important in a society as paranoid and focused on subterfuge as the drow one.
Plus, there is the legacy of previous editions there. 3E/PF rules allow for a lot more damage on bows, but I think the difference wasn't nearly as pronounced in previous editions.
I have always been under the impression the Red Mantis Assassins would be against anyone ascending to godhood,but this still makes the
The RMA prestige class is interesting. In general, if you want a character with TWF you want to look at classes with at least decent BAB and some bonus feats or similar abilities - so for a base classes like the rogue, ninja, monk, (urban) ranger and some fighter archetypes etc are not so bad. I'd give the psionic classes a look for a slightly different supernatural abilities. Psychic warriors, soulknives and even wilders can all be decent combatants with some pretty nifty tricks up their sleeves.
I´d have to agree with the before. Even if the cleric is honest, the fact is... how does he know for sure? on top of that, I think most good characters might balk at killing people for what they might eventually do - even if it were true, an asylum or jail might be more appropriate.
Plus, considering the impact of the decision, I think calling on a better expert is also warranted. What level are the characters? Depending on the level, Augury, Divination and Commune are all spells that might come in handy here, as they allow you to gain insight into the future - and in the case of commune, actually ask your deity or his/her chosen representatives.
I´d allow it, frankly. Unless your class features are tied to a conscious third party - as is the case with most divine casters - your personal views on morality, societz and politics probably should not impact them.
Lawful characters are supposed to respect traditions, institutions and codes of conduct, but that does not preclude getting temporarily lost in emotion - and a state that gives the same bonuses need not stem from rage.
Well, the witch has a patron and somewhat different spells, but nothing says she can´t be a witch that effectively acts as a cleric. Devotion is not limited to divine casters, and she may even be recognized and accepted in the church hierarchy (or not). The cleric is an ok option, but they tend to be a bit short on skill points for the job. Oracles would work better, but I´m not sure there is a nice mystery for the job... life feels a bit weird her, and bones tends to be a bit too focused on raising undead, not preventing them.
I would have gone with an alchemist, but I am not sure they can get gentle repose and the other staple anti-undead measures on their list without some houseruling.
To me it looks like a mostly ceremonial weapon, by stats. Sure, it is a thrown version of the punch dagger, but at higher levels that is just one attack per round. It definitely isn't something most warriors (or anyone else with the martial weapon proficiency) would care much about.
It is fun on a cleric or some other zealot, but it tends to do notably worse than most other weapons in the category it is put in.
Detect Magic wrote:
Further, an evil character that claims to have surrendered is still a threat.
Not necessarily true. Just because they don't value other people's lives doesn't mean they don't value theirs - in fact, most evil characters tend to value their own skins quite highly. If they believe they can't get away with it and think captivity beats the alternative, they have as good reason to play nice as everyone.
You might find the cutthroat archetype for soulknives quite interesting. You get a bit more skill points (6+int), a bonus to 2 useful skills when focused, and sneak attack in case you need the extra help. It definitely feels like more of an assassin than trapspringer or smooth talker, though it could fit the roles somewhat.
If this person is a mortal enemy, perhaps, but it sounded like those guys were some flunkies working for that enemy. When you killed their boss, they stopped having any beef with you and tried to give up. As you stated, they had the numerical superiority, which would normally be a bad thing for you. You had won, they didn´t want to fight even though they had some advantages on their side.
The way I am seeing it, it wasn´t fitting for good characters, whether it´s enough to merit an alignment change itself is for your DM to decide. Most real people vacillate in their beliefs from time to time /shrug.
Corragh Bearson wrote:
The slave owners John Brown killed (and the government that protected them whose soldiers he killed) used torture and murder to brutalize and enslave people. That's about as evil as it's possible to get. Brown saw that evil, faced it, recognized it, and killed and was killed trying to stop it. That's about as Palladin as you can get in my book.
Presuming his own methods were not themselves brutal enough not to push him into non-good territory (not everyone killing people for a noble cause is good), wouldn´t his armed rebellion against an established and legal tradition leave him as chaotic instead?
Anyhow, I agree, paladins can make interesting foils for a chaotic or neutral party. However, by the current code a knight templar (as the trope) paladin will have a seious problem - a paladin who puts order over good might have a hard time staying a paladin for long.
Part of why I don't like Paladins is because they're basically glorifying the image of the Crusader. Historically Crusaders were right bastards and undeserving of such idealization.
Historically, most everyone was a t..t. However, the concept of a noble and just warrior acting with the support of God, gods, spirits etc is about as old and common as muck. Noble warriors, in particular, were pretty common, as in most cultures warriors either formed or were part of the nobility, and they would try to propagate codes that justified their elite position. Plus, many cultures attributed supernatural powers to their greatest heroes, who also tended to act as moral guidelines as the society understood it. The paladin might be one of the narrower class archetypes, but is certainly adjustable if you want to play with it.
Also being so tied in with the European tradition is rather limiting. Most every other class concept can be applied to pretty well any culture from Ireland to Japan with a simple name change and some minor tweaks (ie. Druid/Shaman, Cavalier/Samurai, etc). I'm not a fan of Monks and Gunslingers for basically the same reasons.
I think monks can work reasonably well as a more esoteric kind of fighters. I can agree with you on gunslingers, though the problem with gunslingers is imo that they are tied to a particular weapon that comes with its own requirements more than a specific culture. I think they would work better as an archetype for fighters or alchemists.
Mea culpa, I was under the impression elephants were domesticated. However, it doesn't mean much in that particular case - the paladin mount is an intelligent creature whose service the paladin gains. It does not - and probably can not - be trained in the usual way.
Even if it were a normal companion, I am aware that a lot of animal training involved abuse, but we ARE playing fantasy where a ranger or druid can have a near-perfectly trained tiger, alligator or even giant spider. It is a world with magical and incredibly skilled characters, where a lot of the thorny issues may well just be handwaved.
The horse is traditional, the elk certainly deserves a thumbs-up - it is a majestic, tough animal with a fair amount of positive associations (nobility, virility, hardiness), but there is one other animal I'd like to suggest: the elephant. It is not a typical paladin companion due to the association of paladins with more European stereotypes, but an elephant can probably suit an India-themed paladin quite well. It is very physically impressive, tends to be associated with nobles (as mount of royalty), and also usually with positive qualities like memory, nobility and perseverance. Unlike most large animals, it tends reasonably well to domestication and is often seen as a kind giant of sorts - and yet extremely dangerous if pushed too far.
As an animal companion, it sort of gives off the same vibe about its master: normally good-natured and noble, but also a force that is not to be trifled with.
Thank Dog, the 2nd quote is to add the group of spells you can make permanent on other creatures/objects, since the 1st group is only for yourself. I am not sure it would invalidate the requirement that you cast both spells. I´d check with your DM, though, since he or she would probably be ok with it.
For the GMF, all that matters is whether a PC or NPC casts it.
Hmm, I thought the cost was for the permancency spell. Nowhere does it sy that the cost increases with the CL of the other spell, that is just the minimum spell level the wizard or sorcerer must be, and the materials s/he must expend, to do it.
Mind you, the text of the permancy spell - "You first cast the desired spell and then follow it with the permanency spell" implies that the caster of the permanency must also be the caster of the other spell as well. Not sure how that works, but it might be a problem for you unless the wizard somehow learns magic fang.
Wilders (the psionic class) are also a decent option for a player who goes without armor. They CAN wear armor, but you may just as well learn inertial armor and overcharge the stuffing out of it. They don´t know many powers, but they can pump a lot of juice in them, and have medium BAB and decent HD as base. You can add in a level or two of barbarian or paladin, although one of the surging types already sort of mimics rage.
I think there is an armor enchantment that improves stealth - shadow, iirc. I think you can enchant clothes (i.e. robes) as light armor, but don´t quote me on that .
Edit: and if you are lvl 2 anyway, why don´t you take the 2nd level as a zen archer? You get a free weapon focus plus another bonus feat so you will actually be more accurate, and you are one level closer to your zen archery feature.
I am a bit worried Ameiko may come off as a damsel in distress for this adventure, btw, given how various baddies may target her at times. It might not be a problem, but any ideas what I could do in case my players decide to see her as the "escorted NPC that always gets in trouble" a la Ashley from RE 4?
Well, they come with the Dragon bloodline, and to be a DD sorcerer you have to take that bloodline. You also get some Form of the Dragon spell-likes from your DD levels (personally, since you get them on your list as a sorc I´d rather you became a full half-dragon like in 3.5, but that is for your DM to do).
BTW, if you are full sorcerer it is debatable if you want to go for all 10 levels of the PrC - you may decide to do less to lose less caster levels.
Make sure the shield is spiked, that is an easy bit of extra damage. TBH I am not sold on the falcata - rangers and other skillful characters can do perfectly will with skill focus, i.e. in perception - with the racial bonus you will probably have an insane roll - or the extra bonus to will saves.
How are you feeling about generic useful feats such as toughness, iron will, etc, and what other characters are there in the party?
Well, as long as you are not prevented from taking a 5-foot step, you can just use the glaive as a pretty decent two-handed weapon. Anyone who gets in close gets a gauntlet to the face (and those come free with near-any medium or heavy armor). The glaive is still one of the better favored weapons you can get.
Hi, I was looking for some nice pictures of Ameiko for my Jade Regent campaign, and noticed a really nice one at deviantart (http://www.deviantart.com/art/Commission-Ameiko-Kaijitsu-396093939) . However, it seems to depict her a bit older than the pictures in the campaign guide. This made me wonder - do we have any confirmation on Ameiko´s likely age at the start of the campaign? She has held the Rusty Dragon for a while in the start of the first adventure path, so I´d imagine she´d be in her late 20s at best. Still, I´m curious if there was something more concrete.
Well, their shape is defined by the summoner´s conscious and subconscious. The summoner can influence how they look, but it takes a lot of self-discipline and practice to master that ability. You may want yours to look like a dragon, but it will take a lot of experience getting it right - at first it might look like a komodo dragon with a fancier head :) .
I spoke of the natural order of the setting, and none of these is the deity of death and the dead or have any legitimate authority over such matters, which can be important to a lawful character. Sure, many necromancers follow their way of thinking, but they aren´t exactly great role models for a LG character.
@ Adun: I guess a big question is whether animating magic call the original soul of the body or just something the necromancer controls. Sure, putting the original soul back with its express permission is probably ok, but I am not sure that is how those spells actually work.
"My (admittedly very rusty) understanding is that in addition to the Tolkien reference, elves in previous editions were thematically associated with faerie creatures. Just as gnomes are Golarion."
Wait, don´t Golarion elves also have some (though possibly weaker) connection with fae creatures and the like?
Why do people have to equate necromancy with reanimated hordes? Yes, it is one of its aspects, and definitely iconic, but it is not necessary for a necromancer. Necromancy literally means speaking to the dead, not ordering them around.
Personally, if your DM approves the idea of using spells with the evil descriptor without being evil (or heck, neutral), that's his right and you can go wild on it. Alignments are game constructs anyway, and unless the player is a divine caster or otherwise beholden to a higher power are mostly descriptive. However, by the book, spells with the evil descriptor draw on evil powers or conjure creatures that are either innately evil or from evil planes. From a metaphysical perspective, whatever is animating undead is, therefore, an evil power - presumably (in the case of necromancy spells with that descriptor) that is innately more harmful and dangerous than the raw elements of most evocation spells . To be aware of that and still use it is morally challenging and possibly damning - but again, that is metaphysics.
Do note that in the "natural order" as exemplified by the world and the gods, reanimation effectively contradicts how life and death work in the setting. In most places on Golarion, this means the user of such effects shows that he puts his/her own judgement over, say, natural or divine law (as exemplified by the Pharasmin dogma) and everything else society has to say on the topic. That might not in itself be evil, but it shows an unhealthy amount of hubris and disregard for any traditions or conventions.
None of this means this character HAS to be evil, or even non-good. It does, however, mean that in the setting, reanimating necromancy spells have some implications most just and good characters should find disturbing at best.
Perhaps the op can make it work. I would definitely be very careful and sparing in any undead created, though, and a skeletal companion seems a bit too flippant a disregard of mores and ethics for a LG character.
Have you considered a few levels of the martial artist monk archetype? It is not limited in alignment, and at level 5, you get immunity to fatigue. It also has a feature where on a decent roll you ignore an object or creature's DR, though as it is keyed off your monk level it might not be the best option. It does lose still mind, though, so you can't get the monastic legacy feat for scaling unarmed damage, but you still have some weight behind your punch. Unless you are a monk in flurry, though, an unarmed strike still is a light weapon.
A lot of things are carryovers from previous editions where they made sense (or not, even then). Dwarves got a save vs spell because they were inherently unable to use arcane magic and iirc there was even a chance that an arcane item misfunctioned when they handled it, but now they still rock that sweet +2 to saves vs all spells even if the dwarf in question is a wizard.
Feel free to modify if you want it. Personally, i am mostly ok with it - elves tend to be innately magical, and some minor quirks like that don´t bother me too much. Better ask why a race that tends to live in the forests and most of its communities aren´t, shall we say, famous for their higher education, gets a penalty to constitution and a bonus to intelligence.
It would seem to be. However, it was closely tied to the Githzerai, which WotC has under license and thus are some of the monsters that Paizo hasn´t brought into Pathfinder (same as Beholders, Illithids and a few others), so I don´t expect to see it updated. Generally, Paizo hasn´t been that keen on updating 3.5 psionics, but a 3rd party publisher called Dreamscarred Press handled that pretty well.
I´d suggest using the psychic fist and taking the right powers. You can find it at the d20pfsrd.com site.
Monk-ranger works out decently, espeically with monastic legacy (which requires 3+ levels in monk), but not incredibly so. A monk archetype without flurry can still use TWF with the ranger feats. I would use mostly ranger levels - with monastic legacy, your unarmed damage will still be fairly decent.
I would give her some advice about summoner not being very simple, but if she is set on it, let her. She is there to have fun, and enthusiasm helps a lot in overcoming whatever hurdles she will face.
Rangers are nice, and if she gets an animal companion I´d suggest something that can work both at sea and on land (there is a fair bit of that too). Birds can be interesting companions... so would apes, if you let her have an ape companion as a ranger. Orangutans can be mean seamen - ok, seamonk... oh c..p.
Personally, I´d hope she picks a sea singer bard and gets a parrot and a tricorne hat. Can´t beat that for a sea campaign :P .