I like the suggestion of Arioch, obviously (given my username), but I am not sure that it is super appropriate for a deity of death and/or magic. Arioch would probably have a porfolio of something like: swords, destruction, dooms, and chaos.
Whatever you choose, my experience in playing clerics is that its a lot more fun if you really grok what your diety is about.
Here are a few other suggestions:
Hecate, from Greek mythology definitely a deity with the domains of death and magic, she is also associated with witchcraft, poisons, hell hounds, the moon, and spheres of annihilation (as per 1st edition deities and demigods).
Vecna (everyone knows Vecna) is a god of secrets and magic, and being a lich as a death aspect to him, or at least a necromancy aspect.
I.like this character idea a lot. Selective channeling is a good feat at first level. It lets you heal when there are living enemies around. To take it, swap con or dex for char. I would do dex, bexause it more fun to be a charismatic cleric than a dexterous one, even if you are very slightly less effective at combat. Besides, this cleric is about being able to carouse, gamble, and drink. You don't need dex for those things.
Having a lot of wands can be very useful. Craft wands therefore can be good. Wand of haste, wand of empowered magic missile at 9th level, wand of empowered scorching ray is a great weapon at 11th level (72.points of fire damage if all 3 rays hit), wand of detect secret doors, wand of invisibility, wand of shield, etc.
I once created a race o fierce reptilian humanoids called lizard mongers. Which would be silly enough, implying that they sold lizards, but then the players started calling the, lizard bongers. I was trying for a name that implied barbaric Mongol types along with hybrid mongrels.
Stick with Mage armor. You can put it on a scroll, cast it on friends, etc. burning hands is not as good as grease. Get rid of resistance, in favor of something like Mage hand, ( you don't have to take an abjuration cantrip)
Cool stats. None the less one could still have mighty crossbows.
I don't have data on the medieval stuff, but for modern crossbows vs. modern compound bows, crossbows have more kinetic energy.
There is a lot of debate as to the longbow (not a mighty compound bow, but still) vs. the cross bow. One interesting argument is that the kinetic energy can't be greater than the stroke that pulled the bow (NSTAAFL). The arguments would certainly make for a good mythbusters/deadliest warrior episode...
It does not make sense that crossbows can't also be mighty and provide a strength bonus to damage. In real life, you can have crossbows with an extremely high draw weight, such that it would take a strong person to load them in the normal manner. Of course, you could also have tools like the prod goats foot that would let anyone load a mighty crossbow, but it would take longer-- say 2 full rounds.
Unleash the might of the crossbow!
You want abjurations for dispel magic, greater dispel magic, shield, prismatic sphere, disjunction, mind blank, etc. there really is no substitute. Illusion is mostly about invisibility, and you can use a wand for that, but illusions in general are good, flexible spells.
So, we're running through Crown of the Kobold King with some "special" characters. One PC is a CN Kobold Rogue who left his tribe for several reasons. In the first dungeon room with kids, one of the Baddy Kobolds stabbed Kimi Eavewalker for 2 points of damage then ran. At that point, the kobold PC SLIT HER THROAT. Evil act? (He seems to think, "Not so much...")
It's an evil act, but it shouldn't make the kobold evil right away. Its a chaotic neutral kobold. It will take several evil acts and no countervailing good acts, for the kobold to become evil.
If specialized in conjuration or evocation, then necromancy and enchantment is a good opposition school combo. Those schools provide mostly good debuff, or control spells, and you have got that covered. You don't want o lose illusions (invisibility), or abjurations (resist energy, protection from evil, etc), or transmutations (fly)
You only get the +1. Receiving a +2 instead is a good house rule, but if that is not in place, just select a different trait. Note that technically you can have any number of traits, but you only get the benefits from 2 of them. Traits are great ways to develop the background of a character. I would suggest using that trait just for character background and then picking a trait that is more useful.
I read in a "lesser known rules" thread that creatures that are immune to fire are automatically also vulnerable to cold and visa versa. I can't find a reference for this in the actual rules, however. Does anyone know where in the rules this comes from? It's not under universal monster rules, nor is it under special abilities. Is it even really a rule? It seems dumb to me and impossible to me. If it where a rule, there would be exceptions to it, but I have never seen a monster that was written with "immune fire, cold affects normally"
At the mid point of a long jump you reach a height 1/4 of the distance jumped. So if they wanted to clear a 5 foot high fence, the mount would need to make a DC 20 long jump.
The rules for ride say that you need to make a DC 15 ride check to leap. If you make that check, you can then take the lower of your ride skill, or your mounts jump modifier and try that long jump.
Note that if you fail the DC 15 ride check to leap, you fall off the mount as it leaps and take 1d6 damage. The mount still tries,to jump, and you are lying on the ground watching as it leaves you behind.
Now note that even if the mount clears someone who is 6 feet in height with a DC 24 check, ifnthenperson is hostile, they get an attack of opportunity. A rider with mounted combat could attempt to negate the hit. Of course that attack of opportunity might well be directed at the rider instead.
Also note that you could not jump over someone during a charge. The obstacle interferes with the charge.
Also note that you don't normally need to jump over allies, who are presumed to get out of your way willingly, but those allies would still interfere with your charge.
There are no rules for tumbling through an opponents space on a mount. You can't normally do it, war trained, tumbling pack apes aside.
There is a great book by Steven Presfield. called 'Amazon'. It deals with amazons as Presfield imagines would have been like in ancient Greece. (Prefielda also wrote the excellent book Gates of Fire, about Sparta vs the Perrsian empire at the battle of thermopylae .)
Long ago I wrote up an amazon race for my campaign. I like them a lot. I don't care about historical accuracy, especially since there is little good historical data on real amazons. Besides, are dwarves historically accurate?!?!?
The 3 coolest things about my amazons are:
1. They are a female dominated society that takes males from nearby city-states as slaves and chooses the toughest and most athletic (as determined by gladiatorial duels, and the like) for mating.
2. They are proficient with amazon bracers, chakra, bows, and bolas. Amazon bracers are a form of exotic armor that you can wear to get an armor bonus (as long as you are not flat footed) while still being considered to be unarmored, and if one wishes, scantily clad.
3. Most of their country is run by in the style of feudal japan with warlords that owe at least nominal allegiance to an amazon queen. But there is a country of rebellious, amazon pirates.
it limits the casters actions because they have to attack a single creature with out attacking any others each round. At 20th level, it could do 5d6 +1d4 per round, but by then you would be way better off with a clenched fist, hord of fiendish trexes or the like. You know, a fiendish trex can also flank.
Compare this spell to glitter dust, mirror image, or invisibility.
Given that spiritual weapon does pretty much the same thing, but better, for clerics one spell level lower, why on earth is twilight weapon level 3? Seriously, 1d4, no damage bonus, can't flank/sneak attack on its own, and doesn't attack its target unless you actually attack it again? Why is this thing higher than 2nd level?
It is good at flanking, but limits the casters actions if they want to actually get some use out of it. I agree that it would have made a been better as a 2nd level spell.
Actually the wording of the share spells feature seems to say that share spells does 2 things.
1. The wizards may cast a spell with a target of you on their familiar as a touch spell.
2. The wizard may cast spells on their familiar even if ht e spell doesn't affect the familiar's type.
So I would say that ireduce person does change the familiar from tiny to diminuative.
I don't think that Pathfinder/3.5 really does this. There are just too many options. It ends up that you have to think carefully and have an understanding of all of the possible builds to create something that synergies well.
What there would need to be would be a set of builds for some of the classes with potential for simplicity (sorcerer, fighter, maybe barbarian, maybe paladin, maybe rogue) that were both powerful and straight forward to run.
W. Kristoph Nolen wrote:
The only real use is against things with DR/bludgeoning. Then you can flurry and do OK damage. That's assuming you are using cesti. Best if they are +1 bane vs oozes and/or aberrations and/or plants cesti.
Find a awhile to grant your wolf flight. Perhaps It could sprout wings. Wolf wings! Or upgrade your mount to one with flight, like a shedu, dragon, griffon, or the like. Ten you can use your mounted combat abilities. You will also want some flying capacity for those situations where your mount is not available.
pH unbalanced wrote:
Well here is James affirming that half orcs are subtype Orc. I can't find any semi-official statements that half or s would not count as or s for feats, or archetypes.
You know that half orcs, via their orc-blooded racial ability, can be scarred witch doctors.
Also, the scarred witch docter absolutely can use their constitution for both hexes and spells:
"Constitution Dependent: A scarred witch doctor uses
One would be hard pressed to say that the save DC was not an effect of the hex.
Throwing a dagger should be worse than using a multi hundred pound pull composite long bow.
What is cool about dagger throwing is that you can be two weapon fighting (in melee) and can, in a pinch, throw your dagger. Also, for a rogue, you can throw that dagger as your single action on the surprise round, do sneak attack damage, then when you win initiative, you do sneak attack damage again. Ouch (plus bleed, etc.).
It's ok to explain to the players (as opposed to their characters) how a new rule mechanic is going to work. So, for the first few games tell the players that they need to figure out what motivates NPCs x, y, and z and use that knowledge to get boons that will, say, help them find a gang of cut throats to man the ship that they will (with the help of a boon) steal, and with the help of another boon, use to attack the renegade admiral's fortress.
Kitsune are definitely cool. I especially like the tail mechanic, which is in line with the folklore. Kitsune with many tails are supposed to be magically powerful.
I didn't like the rogue tricks though. Too many circumstial tricks regarding a particular, rarely made kind of bluff check. It's bad design in the same way that the witch hex smell children was bad design. Note that folklore has never limited the bluff abilities of Kitsune, nor the olfactory capabilities of witches.
I have always liked ratfolk and vanara, and was happy to have the race guide provide some good options for the, and some great illustrations. The gulchgunner is a pretty cool gunslinger archetype for ratfolk, and I like their tail blade. I would have liked to see a feat that gave rat folk a prehinsile tail, however.
There were also a couple of races that surprised me with their coolness.
Orcs are very cool indeed. I especially like the scarred witch (or whatever its called) archetype. They use masks instead of familiars, and have constitution as a primary spell casting/hex stat.
The fetchling shadow summoner is always very very cool, and makes it totally worth running around in daylight being dazzeled.
I was not particularly impressed with the material for the core races, but liked the extra feats and items that were listed for dwarves. A dwarven fighter can go total cleaverama, and the long axe and long hammer are a good addition for the stocky giant slayers.
This is really more a question of semantics than of Asian vs. non-Asian monks. Most Buddhist and Shinto monks don't train in the marital arts. But in 1st edition D&D (actually in the supplements to the basic books), a monk class was created that was based on Shaolin monks and that had martial powers.
Since its a fantasy game, one could certainly have the monk class represent any sort of weird, martial ascetic.
Non-martial ascetics existed (exist) in a a variety of cultures. See the wikipedia article for more info.
Non-martial ascetic characters could be represented by clerics, druids, or oracles. A person could write up an even more non-martial class, but since this is a class for adventurers, it seems somewhat dumb to even bother.
You can take weapon focus as a rouge talent. Also, note that only 1 in 20 attacks will it actually matter. I think you will be happier with improved initiative as a feat. Also consider point blank attack.
Also, with a high wisdom and dex you really have the perfect stats for a gunslinger--a great class for a sky pirate.
The only thing better would be to summon a swarm of screeching, mischievous, *flying* monkeys.
Imagine the despairing face of a character who watches a treasured magic item being carried away into the sunset.
But then, familiars should probably have an enhanced charisma, given that they are magical beasts with all sorts of communication abilities and enhanced intelligence.
I don't think it would be unreasonable to give a familiar a charisma score equal to its intelligence score.