Very well, here he is: Sir Leander of Oak Hollow
Spoiler:
Human Paladin 10 LG Medium Humanoid (Human) Init +1; Senses, Perception +15 -------------
-------------
-------------
Skills: 3+1/lvl (favoured) Diplomacy +16(+10+3+3), Sense Motive +13(+10+0+3), Knowledge (Nobility) +14(+10+1+3), Perception +15(+10+0+0+5 (item)) Equipment: MW Full Plate (+3) (10650), MW Falchion (+3) (18375), Belt of Giant Strength (+4) (16000), Cloak of Resistance (+2) (4000), Amulet of Natural Armour (+1) (2000), Eyes of the Eagle (2500), Potion of Fly (2) (1500), Pearl of Power 1 (2) (2000), MW Composite Longbow (+1) (3000), Arrows (500) (25), Potion of Expeditious Retreat (4) (200) -- 60250 (Assume remaining cash spent on relatively mundane things, i.e. alt weapons, camping gear etc) -------------
-------------
Summary:
He can certainly be optimised further, but I don't like dumping mental stats with Paladins. He's no skill monkey but he can do things outside of combat. Spell choices are equal parts optimisation and "that would be really cool if he gets to use it". I'm open to any suggestions for improvements, but note that I'm staying clear of archetypes to stay fair to the criteria placed on Monks. I can build a two weapon Paladin or a sword and board Paladin for comparison if such would be useful.
Bobson wrote:
It looks like he's got a different version of the line which follows that quote: Quote: The character can also choose to use a double weapon two- handed, attacking with only one end of it. Not sure where from, has this changed from the original edition/3rd ed DnD perhaps?
Entilzha wrote:
Ah. Not a Don Quixote reference then. In any case not a film I am familiar with. The closest male noun is arguably "gigolo" although there are more colourful slang terms. Craft: Weapon is arguably appropriate given the wikipedia summary of the film. It also provides a lovely double entendre.
Entilzha wrote:
Are you sure you mean "courtesan"? 1) I'm having difficulty connecting the name Sancho to courtesan. I could see courtier possibly, or more likely squire. I assume this is a reference to a particular Sancho in history or fiction ... can you point me to which one?
Caliburn101 wrote:
Interesting ideas, thank you. Maybe I've missed something though. Where does the secondary class get used? It's not clear to me whether character progression occurs as in the standard rules i.e. taking levels in class of your choice, or whether you are required to alternate between the two classes? I think that the intent is to alternate between the two, or that some means of overlaying is applied but I'm not sure.
Could you clarify how this: Blue Star wrote: She was grabby for the boots and the headband, when I offered them later she was already going on about the sword. Honestly it seems like no one wants the portable hole, it is party loot, but no one wants to carry it. and this: Blue Star wrote: Not for a lack of trying. No one wanted the boots, which was mind-boggling, no one wanted the ax, \snip can both be true? Also I'm fairly confident that at some point earlier, when you were describing how the angel's loot was allocated, you mentioned no-one wanting the headband ... but I can't remember which page that was on.
Cold Napalm wrote: The only issue is with MCing. I get the feeling this will cause a lot of 1 level monk dip at level 1 for the stats...and I haven't figured out a good way to fix that other then to say monks can't MC... and to do something with anyone who may wanna play a MT as that is a MAD build but will have SAD stats (is that anyone?!?). Since all the SAD character are casters, there is no issue with them taking a level a MAD class for the stats because...well the loss of CL isn't really worth it unless your going with a full on MCed build in which case, your gonna become MAD anyways. OT I know but it's a nice idea so I thought I'd address the issue you raised with it. To my mind the easiest rule fix would be to have required stat minimums for certain classes at character creation. Two fourteens takes the available point pool down to 10 for 20 point builds. For fighters require 14's in Str and Dex.
For the monk require 14's in Str, Dex and Wis. Thus while you can get more points by taking a first level dip in a MAD class you can't put it where you (probably) wanted (Paladin/Sorceror might work) and you end up with fewer discretionary points. So unless you really wanted to play a strong wizard with a relatively low Int (compared to a 15 point buy with no restrictions) there's no gain in MCing for stats. Alternatively just tell the players that if they intend to put the majority of their levels in a MAD class they get the extra points. If at any point in the campaign they have more levels in a SAD class than they do in a MAD one you will reduce their stats back to a 15 point build in whatever way you feel is most appropriate. The first approach is less likely to generate tension between players and GM though.
Mike Schneider wrote:
According to my back of the envelope calculations these two scenarios give (slightly) different probabilities of a confirmed crit. 1) Perfect Strike as written: number of ways of getting a confirmed crit: 2*(20-X)+1 (where X is the target to hit, X not equal to 1).
P(confirmed crit) = (2*(20-X)+1)/400 Brief explanation: You get a confirmed crit if you roll a 20 and the other die hits. You can roll two 20s (that's the 1) or a 20 and any number less than 20 down to X in one of two ways (that's the 2*(20-X) term). 2) Perfect strike but confirm the critical separately: number of ways of getting a 20 on 2D20: 2*19+1 = 39.
P(confirmed crit) = 39*(21-X)/(400*20) Brief explanation: It doesn't matter what you roll on the first pair of dice as long as one's a 20. You can roll two 20s (that's the 1) or a 20 and any number less than 20, there are nineteen of those, in one of two ways (that's the 2*19 term). Probability of confirming a crit is (21-X)/20. We can multiply the two probabilities since they are independent. Comparing these two distributions we find that 39*(21-X) > 20*(2*(20-X)+1) for all X > 1. The difference becomes increasingly large as X increases. TLDR: The statement is necessary. It specifies a game mechanic to use which produces a slightly different probability distribution to that which would arise under the standard rules. |