Search Posts
Hi, I am currently going through the core book, and I am a bit confused just what you can take with the general feats. I expected it to be any feat you qualify for - after all, they include skill feats, which you specifically get from your class. Does that mean you can also take the general feats to get more class or multiclass feats - and if no, why shouldn't they, since you can use them to take more skill feats?
Hi, I have been a ranger fan for a while now, and I have always been sad that there I could not find any ranger archetypes that let you gain (limited) wildshape - something that to me, the class has always been close to due to its links to animals and nature in general. Is there a way to get wildshape on a single-class ranger or get its effects in any other way,such as beast shape as a spell (ideally 1 level lower)? I had high hopes for Ultimate Wilderness, but as far as I understand while a few other classes got archetypes that give them this feature, rangers did not.
Hi, I am interested in getting a relatively early draconic shapeshifting on a medium BAB class,ideally a druid. Apart from the draconic druid - which I am not a huge fan of - I see that Form of the Dragon is a level 6 dragon subdomain spell. Is there any way that a druid can take this domain, perhaps through its parent serpentkind domain? The Dragon Shaman sadly does not get it, maybe because it is an older archetype.
Hi, I am pondering a character concept - a surprisingly dangerous courtier using fighting fans as weapons (possibly somehow disguised as regular fans). I am not sure how best to make it happen, though, so I am looking for ideas. My overall idea is to make him/her a dex-heavy mobile fighter who does not need heavy armor and has little to no magic. My first idea was making a brawler, using traits and a bit of intelligence to make him/her a capable courtier, and making the most out of maneuver training and the extra damage for close weapons (alternatively, using snakebite striker for the sneak attack and feint).The idea of making a noble brawler and making use of the fighting fan proficiency just appealed to me. The monk is also proficient, but the base weapon damage is a bit low. However, other classes like the vigilante (lethal grace), slayer (studied strike + sneak attack) or unchained rogue (sneak attack + finesse training + debilitating injury) also sound like a good base, though I may have to get fan proficiency in other methods. What do you think? How would you make a fan fighter?
Hi, I remember seeing a mythos-related feat that let a divine caster cast an arcane spell, iirc at the cost of some wisdom damage, but I cannot remember how it was called. I wanted to pick for an oracle or inquisitor of Yig.
Hello, I saw that a vampire does energy drain with their slam and natural attacks. Does the energy drain trigger when the vampire grapples a character to do damage or to bite them for blood drain?
I recently found out with some amusement that unchained agathion eidolons can have the aberrant type. The amusement bit was because I set out to check the allowed types because of a "how do you build a mahou shoujo character" thread. You can imagine my surprise when I found out that you can have angelic tentacle monsters. Well, I say tentacle monsters, but how would an aberrant agathion look like, actually? I know there are some strange shapes that biblical angels were described as having, but still, agathions are all supposed to be very "natural" looking. Yet despite not being able to be serpentine they can be a tentacled mass - so at best a land squid/kraken. What gives? Also, if you have tried playing with one, how do you deal with its rather... unusual look?
I am thinking of making a mostly stable and party-friendly mythos cultist, probably one of Yig, so I have been mulling over the character options for him or her. Is there a way to put a venomous bite on a constrictor snake? I want something bigger and still poisonous. So far all I can think of is using the primal companion hunter for evolutions (or naturally the summoner, but I want a more divine-focused build). I was hoping for a way to do it with a zealot vigilante, inquisitor or a serpent shaman druid, but another similar character like a hunter is also an option. I thought about getting evolved animal companion twice for the poison evolution, but I think it only gives several 1-point evolutions if you take it multiple times. So, any advice on how to get the best pet or any other mechanical or roleplaying tips on playing a discrete, yet efficient servant of the Father or Serpents? P.S.: To play something vaguely off the norm, and because I have a difficult time playing a good CN character, I was considering a neutral or chaotic good alignment. The first would probably play not unlike a druid, the latter... maybe a hidden protector and avenger of the community?
Hello, I have been meaning to test some of the Unchained rules in my next game, and I was thinking that the automatic bonus progression fits RoW fairly well due to the PCs assuming the mantle of Black Midnight and thus becoming supernatural creatures in their own right. However, I have not used this rule before and I am not sure how much it impacts the items that should be available in an AP. Has anyone used this rule in this AP (or another one) and do you have any tips?
Hi, I have been considering making an inquisitor or a zealot of Irori for an upcoming Hell's Rebels campaign (or just a generic campaign if I need a martial investigator sort of character) and link them to the order of archivist, and I have been looking for ways to make them better at fighting barehanded. I thought there would be a feat, inquisition or the like to improve their unarmed damage without relying only on equipment or spells, but I cannot find anything that I can take without multiclassing or houseruling. I am specifically looking for something an inquisitor or zealot can take. So far, my best bet appears to be multiclassing with unchained monk and taking monastic legacy, but I was hoping for something that would require as little multiclassing and come online as quickly as possible. So far, I have considered the following: Focused weapon via warpriest or the fighter advanced weapon training - different classes
Is there anything else?
((Sorry if this is the wrong forum, I expect that variant rules can also be discussed here)) I have been thinking of using the grouped skill variant rule for a future campaign, but I have not seen much comment about it. Has anyone tried it out and how does it work with the Paizo APs? I have also thought about using the background skills rule, either giving everyone one free background specialty or giving 2 to the 2+ and 4+ skill point classes and 1 to those with 6+ and 8+.
Hi, I am planning to use the following houserules for a campaign I may (or may not) run in the near future. I would like to ask for some feedback - what do you think? GENERAL: Background skills are in. 2+ int and 4+ int classes get 2 per level, 6+int and 8+ int get 1.
Alignment restrictions are only for classes with a specific code and an active entity granting them powers (i.e. paladins, clerics, etc). All spell-less full BAB classes get combat stamina as a bonus feat. All casters cap out at 1 less spell slot per level from their max - i.e 3+specialization for wizards, 4 for bards, 5 for sorcerers. CLASS: Barbarian: Use the unchained barbarian version, but a barbarian can assume a known stance know as an immediate action upon entering rage.
Cleric: All cleric use the variant channeling rules. Fighter: Bravery is +1 to saves vs fear, DC to intimidate and combat stamina per 2 levels. As an immediate action, a fighter can burn stamina up to his bravery bonus to get the bonus to any save. This cannot be done if the fighter is flat-footed. Archetypes that lose bravery instead get it at half the rate. Armor mastery – a character can elect to take a flat +1 to armor class when wearing armor as an advanced armor training Weapon mastery: the bonus also applies to any CMD roll when armed with this weapon and as an insight bonus to AC against attacks with such weapon (defensive weapon training lets you use the AC bonus of a fighter of your level or gives +2 to fighters). The bonus to damage rolls is doubled. Weaponmaster gloves give you +4 to your level for all bonuses Heroic effort: at level 8, a fighter can burn 10 stamina points to get one of the effects of a hero point. This can be done once per day, plus once more at level 16 Kineticist: Kineticists get a d10 HD.
Monk: Use the unchained monk version, but with the HD and saves of the standard monks (d8, good will save).
Rogue: We are using the unchained rogue as the rogue/ninja with the following change: At level 2, rogues get a luck pool that functions as the ninja ki pool with the following changes
Ninjas are a rogue archetype with different talents and trading trapfinding and danger sense for poison use, no trace and light steps Summoner: By player choice, a player can use either the pre-unchained eidolon and the unchained spell-list or vice versa. Swashbuckler: Charmed life does not take an action.
FEATS: Critical feat giving you +1 to stamina on a crit, +2 for x3 weapons,+3 for x4 weapons.
WEAPONS:
Hello fellow forumites, I have been considering building a gnome barbarian or bloodrager, but I do not want to feel too weak - I somehow both like playing relatively nontraditional picks and dislike feeling underpowered. I noticed that halflings have some interesting options for being better in melee, in particular via risky striker. Is there something like that for gnomes? I do not want to be reliant on a GM, although I imagine most would not have a huge issue with extending the feat to other small races.
Hi, I am considering trying out a shield user, probably a fighter, once I get the Armor Master Handbook. I was hoping to find a way to get the shield bonus to my touch attack (or at least against some spells such as rays) and I thought there might have been feats for that, but I cannot find them. All I can find are the shielded fighter and tower shield fighter archetypes, and I am not particularly fond of either. Am I missing something, like maybe a particular feat, enhancement for shields or a named magic item?
Hi, I have been doing some exercises statting Laori Vaus as a Warpriestfor my CoCT campaign and I was wondering if there was a way for her to heal herself with negative energy via Fervor. I thought there was an item that allows you to do that, but I cannot find it. Any idea what it was called or if there is a cleric spell that can do that?
Hi, a player in my game and I (as a GM) are having an argument regarding how the Conceal Thoughts power interacts with the rules for suggesting a course of action (from the Giant Hunter´s Handbook). Here is what we have from the SRD: "Check: You can gradually coax a target into thinking a suggestion is entirely its own idea, making the creature more likely to act on the idea than if you had suggested it outright. You discuss topics subtly relevant to the request, asking leading questions and narrowing the scope of the conversation so that the target eventually decides to take a specific action you have led it to. You first attempt a Bluff check to convince the target that your request was actually its idea. This is always treated as far-fetched circumstances, resulting in a –10 penalty on the check. If successful, you then attempt a Diplomacy check to make the request of the creature, treating its attitude toward you as indifferent for this single request (regardless of its actual attitude)." The player believes that the bonus from the power would apply here and negate the penalty from the innate difficulty. My reading of the power would be that it is meant to be purely defensive, giving you a "poker face" when someone tries to actively use sense motive to try to get an idea about your motivation or thoughts. In this case, you are the one trying to steer the conversation and suggest something to them, so I am not sure if the power is meant to apply. I have looked for an errata, but could not find any - can you give me your opinion and possibly a link to where the limits of this power were officially clarified?
Hi, I was checking the rules for variant multiclassing, and I noticed some of the oracle revelations that form armor were included in the list you can take. Am I right in thinking a monk PC can use them to get the AC bonuses without losing the monk features that are normally lost in armor?
Hi, I have been toying with an idea about a staff-using rogue (the unchained version) in the vein of the old thief-acrobat and maybe with a bit of Gambit as an inspiration. The new unchained rogue has a very nifty ability that lets him or her use dexterity for attack and damage with a finessable weapon, is there a way to make this work with a quarterstaff and if no, what would you suggest for such a character?
As a fan of the old 3.5 Binder, I was quite interested in the Medium class from Occult Adventures, and I am thinking of either running or playing this path. I am a bit worried that it might be a bit of a spotlight hog, especially in the first adventure. Has anyone either played as a medium, or had one in their games?
I was checking through some feats mentioned on the forums and I came across "Horn of the Cryosphinx". Now, being able to add twice rather than 1.5 times the strength bonus to damage on a two-handed weapon sounds nice in certain cases, but then I saw this: "A monk can use this feat as long as he is wielding a two-handed weapon or both his hands are empty." So, two questions. First, if a monk has both hands empty, s/he is probably fighting unarmed, and the fists are counted as light weapons iirc. So what does HotC do in that case? Second, if a monk is using a two-handed monk weapon (i.e. seven-brached sword or even a staff), does s/he get any benefit from the feat if s/he flurries with it? I think in a flurry the monk only gets the standard one-time bonus from high strength despite effectively using the two-weapon fighting rules. Or am I wrong here and a monk flurrying with, say, a seven-branched sword makes all flurry attacks with 1.5x the strength bonus to damage, 2x with this feat?
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.
Hi, I am planning to run a PF campaign for some friends soon (Jade Regent, most likely) and I’ve been thinking of various tweaks I can make in the game. Some of them are overall changes, some are limited to certain classes or feats. I’d like to have your opinion both on whether you like those changes and on whether I’m setting some obvious traps for myself. Some things I am not certain on and have variants in parenthesis. Ok, so here goes: - All non-Intelligence based classes get a minimum of 4+int skill points.
Cleric: all clerics have variant channeling by default . In general, a cleric (or druid or inquisitor) can expect to fall for the same reasons a paladin does, except their code is their dogma, and instead of evil acts they can fall automatically for conscious acts against their god or his/her highest servants (i.e. heralds). This is just to clarify the mechanic, instead of having it one way for paladins, another way for clerics, third for druids etc Fighter:
Monk:
Rogue:
Paladin:
Feats: I’d like to change several feats, including some that I try to improve by scaling them and removing their upgraded versions.
Equipment:
Hi, I am planning to start a game next month, and I have been thinking about possible house rules to help with the biggest balance offenders. I have often heard it said that fighters, monks and rogues are generally the three classes most in need of a buff, and I do think they seem a bit lacking compared to some of the others - so I'd like to hear from everyone if they have tried doing something about them and how it worked. So far, I have the following ideas: Fighters:
Rogues:
Possible uses of the pool: bonus to skills, using touch AC for an attack, ignoring DR for one round, dodge bonus to AC for one round, "empowering" a sneak attack (50% more, like the spell), +1 use of a limited per-day ability, and so on. Monk: Sadly, I am a bit out of ideas here apart from using some of the psionic material, such as incorporating the psychic fist or the unarmed soulknife.Giving monks full BAB is an option, although I am trying to shy away from it - perhaps having an ability to move and use their furry to a reduced effect, the way the Mobile Fighter archetype can.
The idea that rogues aren´t really up to par has been floating here for a while, and I definitely believe there is something to it. The rogue does need something extra, and while the ninja archetype isn´t quite what I was looking for, it sounds like a solid start. The thing is, the ki mechanic feels a bit supernatural, and I´d rather rogues had something to do with opportunism, creative solutions, or just plain luck. So my idea is, 3.5 introduced a similar mechanic for the Factotum class in dungeonscape with the inspiration points. They allow the character to use a certain amount of points (recharged per encounter, I think) to receive momentary boosts - to attack, defense, damage, bypass defenses, etc. The idea seems to suit the rogue just fine. So my question is, do you like the idea of giving the rogue inspiration points or something like it, and how do you think it would work best? The Factotum, unlike the ninja, gets his mojo on an encounter basis, and it is based off intelligence rather than charisma. I am tempted to take the mechanic wholesale (except the spells - the IPs can be tied in the minor/major magic talents instead), but it seems like it may be a bit too much boost. Or am I wrong? P.S.: Since the mechanics are detailed in WotC book, I am not sure just how much detail I can give about them here. Would giving actual figures be ok?
Hi, I was reading some material for a 3.5 game that never materialized, and I was reminded of some of the more interesting base classes that weren't part of the OGL. I started thinking about the binder and how it would fit it. I have this weird idea of having the binder as a bardic archetype, trading spells for binding. The bard having full-on magic struck me as a bit iffy depending on how magic works in the setting, but binding is a source of power that does not require divine blessing, arcane blood or the long, nearly scientific rituals that wizards make. All you need is some obscure, forgotten lore, force of will, and the desire to have a bring back a shade of a legendary hero, villain or creature to the world through yourself. To me, that sounds like the sort of supernatural power that may fit a bard. Well, some bards, at least. Have you ever tried something like that, and how do you think it could work? I've wondered about simply importing binding as is instead of the bards' current magic system and possibly versatile performance (which they handle via binding rather than performance) but maybe keep the bardic music. Would you consider it balanced or would you remove something else as well?
Hello, Back in 3.5 day, one of the splatbooks (Complete Arcana, I believe), talked about variant looks for magic items - i.e. magically treated fruits, blessed wafers, talismans etc that function as potions, wands that are in form of charms, and so on - basically the idea is that as long as it works the same way, it can look however you want it to. I'd like to introduce something like that - I would imagine that if a ranger, wizard and an inquisitor made wands, they won't necessarily look the same. The question is, do you think that another class should have a bigger problem identifying or using such an item than one made from one of their own kind? For example, should a wizard have a harder time identifying a wand with a spell s/he can use if it's made by a divine caster or has a particularly exotic form (i.e. a cleric from the Mwangi trying to figure out an Irrisen hex-net)?
Hey everyone, I've recently moved back to my hometown and I'm planning on starting a game next month. I have tried to fire up a few friends with no PnP RPG experience whatsoever, and hope to get a few more from the local MtG/D&D community (or whatever form of it exists). I want to try running an AP with them, and I can find several threads of people's opinions about them, but I'd like to check with the players what kind of adventure they want to run. I'm not very confident in my abilities in running a freeform game (and the player's abilities to go with it, especially if all of them end up with little or no RP experience), so I would rather avoid Kingmaker. I'm looking the most at RotRL, Crimson Throne, Carrion Crown or Jade Regent, but depending on what theme they'd like may put some of the other ones in. So, how would you describe each AP in a sentence or two (more in terms of theme and setting, no big spoilers, and what would you tell newbies about them? Here are some ideas I have atm: Rise of the Runelords: standard fantasy, with you being heroes who have to oppose epic mages from long ago. Legacy of Fire: more of a 1001 Nights adventure with deserts, genies, and the like. Bring extra water. Carrion Crown: a more horror-oriented adventure with ghosts, zombies, werewolves, vampires and all manner of undead baddies. Gotta Kill'em All! Jade Regent: You travel across the world with a caravan to put the rightful heir on the throne of not-Japan. Lots of oriental elements later on. Skulls and Shackles: Ya be pirates, arrgh! Get a ship, then go forth, adventure, and prove yourself the greatest pirates of the southern seas! Glory, gold, and wenches/(what'd be the male equivalent of a wench?) await! P.S.: I like CoCT, but I'm totally bushed in finding a cool way to describe it in a few sentences without spoiling the stuffing from it.
Half-elves have gone some way to rectify the red-headed stepchild image they imo had in 3.x, but there's one thing about them that bothers me in PF: the multitalented trait. It's fine when you want it, but I usually don't - and there's very little I can do about it. So far, the only other option that I know of (that doesn't also remove adaptability) is arcane training, and I was looking for something that isn't only for arcanists. Are there other options in some other book, and would it be ok to trade it where adaptability is traded?
Hello, I wanted to check one idea I had for a build, involving the Aldori Swordlord fighter archetype and the Crane Style from UC. At level 7, the swordlord gets the "steel net" ability instead of the second armor training, and it states that when s/he fights defensively as a full-round action (as in, during a full attack), the penalty to attack is decreased by two, and the bonus to AC is increased by the same amount. Now, the crane style feat states that when fighting defensively, you only get a -2 penalty to attack, and your dodge bonus increases by +1. As I am reading it, this implies that when an aldori swordlord with steel net and the crane style feat fights defensively as a full-round action, s/he gets no penalty to attack, and +5 AC bonus to defense. The penalties' reduction might stack as crane style sets them at -2, while steel net reduces them by two. The bonuses to AC are dodge bonuses, ergo they stack. It strikes me as quite powerful, but legal by the rules. Note the character must not carry anything in his off hand as per the swordlord archetype, so he would be missing on a shield (but arguably could use the sword two-handed).
I was checking Ultimate Combat and noticed the Tactician archetype, which among other things gets a fighter more skill points and more class skills. That reminded me of another option for fighters to get more skills - the variant they were offered in the Pathfinder Chronicles setting book. Is it still a valid choice for a Pathfinder game? I think the book came out before the Pathfinder system was finalized and 3.5 rules were still being used.
Hi, I was checking some of the more unusual builds, and I was interested in making an aldori duelist. Now, the Duelist PrC states that for precise strike you need to have a light/one-handed piercing weapon (Aldori Dueling Mastery takes care of that), and you must not wear a shield or attack with another weapon. However, there's nothing that says you need to hold the weapon in one hand - ergo, if I'm reading it right, a duelist can hold the sword in both hands for better strength/damage and power attack ratio. Right? Then I went back to the Aldori Swordlord archetype and I saw that it said the fighter must be "carrying nothing in his other hand". Again, it says nothing about having the hand free - so I presume it is also fine to use the sword two-handed. Am I reading this right? That way, the only thing you lose is +1 shield bonus to AC from the dueling mastery feat, but the bonuses to damage should be significant.
Now, we all have our weapons of choice - swords, axes, guns, BFGs, catapult-launched gnomes (I'm told those are illegal by the 4165 Taldan Declaration of Demihuman Rights, unfortunately), and so on. It's usually a matter of style. As it happens, I've wanted to try a martial character focusing on the staff for some time, and I'm wondering how to do it best. As I see it, the staff is pretty much the simplest and most humble weapon (except for possibly fists), and in a world of larger-than-life hams and anti/super/megaheroes I wouldn't mind playing a bloke who wants to be more low-key, unassuming, and generally not look like he** can unleash a Jumbo*ton of canned and seasoned whupass right until, well, he does just that. Now, the question is, how can I best do that? So far, I'm looking at various combinations, but not really seeing a clear winner. I'd the character to be more martially oriented, if possible, so at least medium BAB is a must. In terms of a role within the party, dealing damage and maneuvers would be my priorities... but from there on, I draw a blank. In general, the staff is a bit too humble when it comes to damage and critical hits, so I'm not sure just how effective such a warrior would be - after all, cool is good, but cool and effective is better. Any advice? So far I'm considering monks, fighters (or monk-fighter multiclass characters), paladins, maybe rangers and druids. I know of the staff magi, but they strike me as a bit more caster-oriented. *: Jumbo (pref): prefix, signifying "10 to the WTF-th" **: Probably a "he", since I'm less comfortable at playing female characters. However, there is something inherently awesome in the "staff chick" being the chief combatmeister of the party.
I was rummaging for ideas for a future character, and I am interested in a draconic-theme character. A (multiclass?) sorcerer aiming for Dragon Disciple sounded appealing, but something has been irking me for a while about the PrC - the capstone seems unimpressive. Form of the Dragon 2? Thanks, but a sorcerer will likely be close to casting that on their own by then if they didn't just dip in sorcerer before entering the PrC. I've often enough heard the opinion that the last two levels of the PrC just aren't worth it - and I wanted to do something about it. So instead of getting a rather unimpressive spell-like, why not get the half-dragon template like in 3.5? I realize that would be a significant power increase, but most classes and PrCs already have impressive capstone abilities - and this would certainly be one well worth the lost caster level. I am a bit worried if it won't be a bit too good, though, and if whether an additional lost spellcasting level (i.e. no new casting at levels 1,4,7,10) won't be necessary to offset it. What do you think? Has anyone tweaked the PrC like that before?
((I think this should be the right forum, if not lmk)) I am planning to go to the SPIEL con in Essen this autumn, is anyone else thinking of attending? I realize it might be a bit far to most people in America, but it's absolutely stunning - especially for board games fans. The biggest game fair in the world alongside a comic convention - what else do you need :) ?
Hello everyone, I am starting to plan for a new campaign, and there are some things that nag at me about the current settings. I'd probably go with Golarion or FR anyway, but there are some ideas in my head I'd like some feedback on. First of all, most settings that I've come across tend to be quite anthropocentric - as in, humans are the dominant (PC, non-monster) race and have the largest variety, and most likely focus. Other races tend to be integrated and/or have a few separate territories. In a way, it's fated to be, almost like a manifest destiny of mankind. Now, I realize that this is partly because we are all humans, and our own experience as the players behind the characters is of a world where we are the dominant species. Still, it sounds like an interesting idea - if it can be done. Has anyone here run a homebrew campaign setting where humans are a minority, or another of the core races - dwarves, elves, gnomes - is the main power of the world and holds the majority of territories. My idea is of a world (or at least part of it) where the superpower - a mostly human empire has fallen apart due to a vicious civil war. Most remaining communities are fairly insular, with the "demihuman" races moving back in on territories they had lost - or just seeking to expand their borders. Strangely enough, halflings have risen to power in the old imperial holdings, having taken on the role of traders, merchants, and mediators between the insular communities. In effect, this has allowed them to obtain a position of power not unlike merchant princes, having both a hold on intercommunity commerce and enough favors and funds to call in a large army when they want to. As part of this, I'd prefer to see more variety in the "demihuman races." So far, elves are the only race for which we have variants, and I'd much prefer more options for dwarves, goblins, halflings or gnomes. Here is what I have for now, and I'd welcome feedback. Halflings, as mentioned above, thrive as the leaders and merchants in the formal Imperial lands, but live elsewhere as well, having a tribal confederacy in the Darthin marshes and present in some of the other countries, which has helped their former Imperial kin establish trade and diplomatic relations. Part of the Imperial halflings retreated into what used to be thier homeland and founded a very xenophobic, secluded country, trying to readopt the traditions of their race. Relations with the rest of their race are somewhat strained (not that their relations with everyone else are better), and the halflings had almost come to war with each other. Most outsiders are unaware of the true extent of the strife between the wee ones, but are aware that Vastar is a city that does not accept outsiders. Elves in the traditional PF sense are what is called sky, star or "high" elves, a fairly rare and mostly secluded people who seem to have a connection with magic and the heavens. It is theorized that both they and the "low" elves have some fey or outsider blood, and what led to the split between the two is not quite known. Their high and thin forms are easily recognized anywhere, and they are often given a wide berth - their magical abilities and lore command respect (and in most cultures, their extremely long lives are considered an object of awe in its own), but most members of other races consider them too alien to befriend. Traditionalist and conservative, the star elves used to mostly keep away from the Empire in their small states, although a population existed within the Imperial lands, mostly in enclaves that paid tribute to retain some authonomy. With the dissolution of the superpower have taken steps to expand them somewhat, mostly via tributary relations with neighboring states. One of the largest enclaves has risen to prominence in the former province of Xallos, where one of the most famous mage academy still stands, becoming a power in its own right. I'm planning to use the half-elf template as a "low elf" race, relatively common creatures with a bit of fey blood (as is presumed) that grants them longevity (less so than the star elves, but still a bit more than dwarves) and uncanny adaptability to any setting they spend more time in. Mostly called "earth elves" or occasionally "low elves", many occupy some of their forest domains, but some have settled in plains, hills, and practically anywhere else. Second only to halflings, they maintain a web of connections in the imperial lands, but often work alongside the little ones as part of an informal agreement reached shortly after the fall of the empire. They have several realms of their own both in the old borders and without, which can be starkly different from each other. This differentiation often leads to cultural differences, and despite their shared heritage low elves can be just as prone to infighting as humans or orks - although their wandering kin and the halflings often act as emissaries. By the way - the term "half-elf" is considered an insult to low elves, used both from the "star" elves and outsiders, to denote their inferior talent - bonding with the land instead of the sky and stars. Needless to say, it is not appreciated anywhere in low elf company. There are few actual half-elves. Interbreeding with other races (humans, often enough, although dwarves are also not rare) happens often enough, but since they are different species birth complications are common, offspring are few, and very few are fertile without divine intervention. Children usually exhibit traits from both parents when it comes to appearance, but mostly the "half-elf" ones mechanically - the adaptability of their blood is retained even when it is merged with other. Pairings with "high" elves have much lower risk of problems at first, but is considered taboo due to events in the past, and children often have mental issues or magic-related diseases. More later
I'm playing a rogue in a pathfinder module campaign, and I have been thinking about multiclassing into alchemist. My character is an acrobatics/stealth-oriented rogue, and I want to give him a bit more skill in using poisons which he (as a former pest-hunter) should be familiar with. However, despite sharing some skills and a liking for poisons, the two classes don't work quite well - and I would like to use a hybrid prestige class. Is there one, or do I need to homebrew? If there is no class at present, my concept is of a rogue using alchemy to boost his/her skills as a "shortcut" - using extracts, mutagens and other tricks in order to improve upon their thieving abilities. Here are some of the mechanical basics I have in mind: BAB: medium (both classes have it)
When it comes to abilities, it's a bit trickier. I'm basing it very loosely on the arcane trickster, in that it has a bit of both. I'm interested in keeping partial SA and rogue talents progression - 3 or 4 SA dice and 3 rogue skills, for example. Trap sense probably wouldn't increase, but uncanny dodge may. On the alchemy side, bomb damage wouldn't advance. I'm considering if possibly levels won't count for bombs/day as well, although I'm interested in tricks such as smoke bombs, flashbangs or the like. Mutagen and special bomb discoveries would advance, as would extracts - at rate between full and 7/10 . Overall, if we go by the trickster, arcane magic is stronger than alchemy so full or near-full progression should be ok. So, would that work (as in, be balanced) and what other abilities can I add? I thought about advancing poison resistance and maybe a capstone to show the character's body has advanced beyond regular abilities - perhaps their anatomy changed to the point it protects against critical hits, or they get a permanent bonus to a physical attribute.
Hi, I intend to start playing in an online campaign soon, and we would start at level one. I had the idea of trying a halfling rogue who focuses on archery, and between halflings not being particularly strong and it being an urban character I thought crossbow would be an interesting choice thematically. However, I am not sure how good a crossbow is for a rogue mechanically. I would win a point or two of damage over a shortbow (depending if I go with light or heavy crossbow), and a bit of range, but it seems to me I'd need a couple of feats just to get rid of the penalties crossbows have in reloading and AoOs, and feats are something rogues don't have that much of, especially at low levels. I checked a few other threads, but in general I think they focused more on fighters than rogues. The APG is allowed as far as I know... the Crossbow Sniper feat from PHB II might eventually help if the DM allows it, but it requires a few other feats first. Have people here tried similar characters, and how do they work at low levels?
Hello, I recently saw the Nature Warden PrC, and thought it might make a good PrC for a animal-companion-oriented ranger. However, I checked it, and it seemed rather underwhelming. As far as I understand it, it is a PrC for rangers or multiclass rangers, as that - and the horizon walker PrC - is how you would meet the favoured terain prerequisites. Yet it has lower HD, BAB and skills than the ranger, and druids lose out on some casting and polymorph. It gives some terrain-related bonuses, some spell-like abilities and a few companion-related ones, but it seemed like a rather poor trade. What do you think?
Hello all, I have recently got my grubby mitts on the PF RPG, and after I wrap up a game I was running with the PF Beta rules (with some small changes), I intend to run the next one with the regular pathfinder rules. It would be a low-to-mid game in FR, with mostly new players. Here are some of the house rules I intend to have, and some reasons for them - please let me know what you think: - Races with a racial weapon proficiency should have an advantage with these weapons for all classes, not just the non-warrior ones. Wen you get proficiency with some weapon from both your race and your class levels, you get weapon focus for it. - Half-orcs were better in beta imo, and I intend to use the PF Beta stat modifiers. I would rather not have a third race with a +2 to a stat of their choice; the half-orcs had a good shtick in the beta. - Elven, dwarven etc subraces should be represented. Halflings and dwarves are fairly easy, but I'm kinda bushed on elves. The PF statline works ok for sun elves, but definitely not for woods/wilds. I'm not much of a fan of the elven penalty to constitution - art and literature shows them as wiry and lean, but no more susceptible to fatigue, illness or poison than humans. What do you think about a penalty to strength for moons and suns, and to intelligence (with bonus to wisdom, possibly) for woods and wilds? - Fighter armor training has been reverted back to the beta version, which also gives a straight AC bonus Right now it is of little use to any fighter that does not have more than 14 dexterity (the necessary for a MW full plate). Maybe remove the reduction to armor check penalty to balance things out? - Paladins and rangers have extended spell lists. Rangers should imo get some of the druid's spells, and high-level rangers should have some animal polymorph spells - i.e. beast shape I and II as a level 3/4 spell, with longer casting time and duration. High-level paladins should imo have summon monster (lesser) planar ally - calling allies in their service to the forces of good. - Rangers: Instead of sharing your FE bonuses as a move action (imo fairly laughable) they have the option of having a sudden strike progression (7d6, +1d6 per 3 levels) as a hunter's bond or instead of the bonus feats. I never liked the skirmish mechanics much, but ambush seems to be the right up their alley. - Most sorcerers/clerics/wizards that had an at-will ability that is now limited can spend a feat to make it at will. Seriously, what was the problem with a sorcerer growing claws or an elemental cleric having a short-range elemental ray? Sorcerers should also get the choice of more feats (from the complete books and others) for their bloodline - right now there are many that are poor choice) - If you have high enough BAB, you can use power attack, combat expertise, or deadly aim for less than the maximum bonus/penalty. - Jump, climb and swim are covered by an athletics skill that is based on strength. - Monks, barbarians and bards can be of any alignment. Among the base classes, only that have features directly tied to external entities - paladins, clerics, warlocks if I have them - have fixed alignment restrictions. Well, that's pretty much all I can think of right now. Any critiques? Suggestions? General advice? Thank you in advance. 
Hello everyone, I'm planning a new D&D game, and I'd like to give Pathfinder a try. However, while I think that it's definitely a move in the right direction (and I liked 3.5 more than 4), I'm not sure if it's completely balanced yet. Are there any houserules that you use in your games and would recommend for mine? Here are some preliminary ideas that I have: - partial BAB and save progression for multiclassing
Any comments, please? |
