Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Wolverine

pauljathome's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,162 posts. 19 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 41 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Petty Alchemy wrote:

One of the things I notice in most games I play in (and sometimes the ones I run) is that sometimes there'll be a thieves guild (usually to antagonize the PCs), a church (for the divine PCs to have meaningful interactions, provide restorative spells), often times a mage's guild (for the arcane PCs to have meaningful interactions, copy spells from). But it's hard to write in some sort of martial guild.

You can put in a mercenary group, but the PCs usually aren't looking to hire, they're the heroes of the story after all.

So what kind of organization would you like to encounter when you're playing a martial character (or have enjoyed encountering in games)? What quests could this guild/dojo offer?

What if you could broaden your skill at this organization, like Wizards can copy spells, a character with all martial weapons could spend some time (and gold) to learn an exotic weapon, or expand Weapon Focus to another weapon?

Some of the prestige classes require memberships in organized martial groups. If you're looking for mechanical aspects I'd start with them.

Silver Crusade

Uh, if the GM wants to win then "rocks fall. Everybody dies". Sounds like that was essentially what happened (assuming your account is basically accurate).

But the level of brutality is very much up to the participants (GM AND players). Different groups differ radically on what level they want.

If the group doesn't come to some agreement the group disbands.

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:


You laugh, but different philosophies on how to handle animal companions can get some wth moments when different camps meet.

Absolutely agreed. Which is why you can expect massive table variation whenever you go outside the normally defined tricks.

I mostly go by "If the situation is unclear in the rules I go by what makes sense to me, ie what I consider reasonable for an animal of the appropriate type".

Which sometimes means I'm quite liberal (I allow appropriate animals to climb things with no hassles) and sometimes quite conservative (cannot push an animal you can't communicate with to deliberately fail a saving throw).

If you're planning on doing something weird
1) Expect Table Variation
2) Tell the GM up front what you're planning on doing. You're MUCH more likely to get a result you'll like when the GM has time to consider your arguments
3) The GM IS right, even if you disagree with them
4) Expect Table Variation

Silver Crusade

BigDTBone wrote:

I think the worst (ie, most harsh) interpretation against you would to be require you to "push" (DC 25 handle animal) twice. One to fail the save, one to do whatever you had in mind. The second one may have a circumstance penalty attached depending on how you altered to environment with the spell.

Also, for emanations, the mount has a bit, bridle, and saddle, which could all function as "object touched."

Nope. I would NOT allow you to push the animal to fail a save. Not without some means of communication at the very least. How are you telling the animal to fail its will save?

Silver Crusade

I'd expect significant GM variation. Speaking for myself, I don't think that I'd ever let a mount voluntarily fail a save except for specifics!!y harmless spells unless it was magically controlled.

Silver Crusade ****

The PFS rules can be found in the guide to organized play.

http://paizo.com/products/btpy84k4

I believe that Ottawa runs fairly regular monthly games using warhorn.

https://warhorn.net/games?utf8=%E2%9C%93&f=ottawa&button=

Ottawa previously used the Ontario pathfinders site but I don't think they do any longer. But they may possibly monitor posts there.

http://www.ontariopathfinders.com

Also, this should probably be moved to one of the PFS forums.

Silver Crusade ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Brock wrote:
ScrollMasterRob wrote:
Every time the Society has to deal with Torch, Torch always finds a way to screw us and come out ahead.
Glad to hear this. He was ALWAYS supposed to be this guy since the start of the campaign. If the perception now that this is what he is, then Things are starting to balance out where they always were supposed to have been.

As long as the goal is to use him to show how SUPREMELY incompetent the Decemvirate and Venture Captains are you're succeeding.

I can't think off hand of a single scenario where he wins because he is smart. He wins because he is scripted to win and because the Society are idiots.

Silver Crusade ****

TetsujinOni wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I still feel weird about giving myself GM credit though.

I needed, can I give them credit, without giving myself credit?

You are NEVER obligated to take a chronicle for GMing.

While I wholeheartedly agree with Tetsuji I'd like to add that I don't think that anybody would fault you for taking a chronicle under these circumstances. You did all the prep work (generally the lions share of the work) and, through absolutely nobodies fault, failed to complete the scenario.

Silver Crusade

As well as ontariopathfinders.com you might want to try TAG (Toronto Area Gamers on meetup).

Silver Crusade

At higher levels the power difference between different characters becomes greater. The set of options becomes hugely greater. The effects of differences in play styles becomes greater. The number of broken rules combinations becomes greater ( no matter what your definition of "broken"). The time to resolve a combat becomes greater.

Essentially, the game changes drastically. Its a LOT harder to play and LOTS and LOTS harder to run.

I think the surprising thing is how many campaigns make it to and survive high levels :-).

For me, play past somewhere around level 10 starts to feel like superhero gaming. And I think there are better superhero games than Pathfinder.

I do like an occasional high level game but not a steady diet.

Silver Crusade

Thornborn wrote:
What would be wrong with a level one wall of force?

I think that this is one of the rare cases where "if you have to ask the question you won't understand the answer" applies.

Wall of Force is a very useful, powerful 5th level spell, one that can regularly trivialize many encounters at that level (usually by splitting an encounter into several much simpler encounters). At 1st level, just about no opponents will have counters.

Silver Crusade

I suspect that this has been answered in one of the innumerable threads but my search fu was weak today.

This is for PFS so I'm interested in the Rules As Written answer.

To give an example, Monks robe acts differently for Monks and other classes. Does an Unchained Monk count as a Monk ?

Obviously, they "Should" count as monks. But Hero Lab thinks they don't and if at all possible I wanted an official answer or a rules citation before submitting a bug report.

Silver Crusade ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm curious. Is this actually a problem in real life or is everybody just arguing theory?

Up here, our rule is simple. No PVP without permission. And that rule works VERY well.

I've seen fireballing of allies, I've seen opposed bluff and sense motive checks, I've seen characters knock each other out. What I have NOT seen is one player ever getting upset about it. Because the player Ok'ed it.

People only ask to do PVP when it is a really good idea or it would be amusing/in character. People generally agree because of that, only refusing when they know something the other player doesn't.

But we're Canadians :-). Our defining national character is supposed to be to be polite compromise :-) :-). Maybe it really IS different elsewhere. Hence my question

Silver Crusade

Dawnflower dervish bard seems perfect to me. Quite effective at low to medium levels, starts to drop behind at about L8-9

Silver Crusade

Writer wrote:

What do you have to support your claim?

Look at the table for advancing the familiar. Note that they never gain hit dice. Compare this to the table for advancing an Animal Companion which DOES gain hit dice.

Silver Crusade

Writer wrote:
Core Rulebook, p82 wrote:


Hit Dice: For the purpose of effects related to number of
Hit Dice, use the master’s character level or the familiar’s
normal HD total, whichever is higher.
Basically, when you get a feat, so does your familiar.

Unfortunately that is not the case. The section on familiars is referring to things like sleep spells etc. The familiar does NOT gain actual hit dice.

Silver Crusade

The phrase is "weapons or tools". To me a shield pretty clearly falls under that definition. It would be more than a lot silly to allow an ape to use a shield but to NOT let it use a fishing stick.

I wouldn't allow it at a PFS table. Which means that, at the very least, you can expect significant table variance.

Silver Crusade ****

Roleplay interesting characters who interact with my NPCs and the world as their characters would. If you let my NPCs talk a bunch I'll have fun.

Come up with truly unusual tactics which make me think about how to handle things. Unusual is NOT "take advantage of some rules loophole" but more thinking outside the box.

Have fun. Fun is contagious. If you're visibly enjoying yourself I likely will too

Silver Crusade ****

It varies somewhat by convention, but in general

1) every GM at a convention gets a boon
2) boons are available to players in a lottery method. No guarantees but if you play enough tables chances of getting at least 1 boon are good
3) conventions play the same scenarios as everybody else. Gencon and Paizocon are exceptions in that some of the scenarios will be exclusives
4) the exact boons available depends on the convention and when it is run
5) boons are tradeable so sometimes you can get the boon you want that way even if you've get a boon you don't really want

Silver Crusade ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't constantly rules lawyer, ESPECIALLY when it really isn't important. The GM needs to be given at least a little slack in their interpretation. Assume that he is trying to make the game better for you.

On a related note, if the GM makes a ruling that you believe to be incorrect, politely raise your objection and then accept the GMs ruling.

Please don't bring in a wildly overpowered character. Or, if you feel that you must do so, please underplay that character until necessary. Let the GM do at least a bit of damage to you and the party :-).

Keep your head in the game. Pay attention to what is happening, be ready when it is your turn, minimize extraneous conversation, etc.

Silver Crusade ****

RCW wrote:

While I generally agree with the post above, there are GM's that can run cold and do it well if needed. Especially the older scenarios. I will, if asked, run cold and usually the player's don't even notice.

It also depends a lot on what you mean by "cold". Like most GMs I've played and/or GMed a very large number of scenarios. Even if I've forgotten the details running one that I've run before is a long way from "cold".

And, of course, some scenarios can be run cold much easier than others.

Silver Crusade ****

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
I don't really think a refund is fair.

While I understand your position that seems unduly harsh to me. You're essentially punishing a player for lack of experience and knowledge.

He has ALREADY paid a price in that he was without better equipment for some scenarios. Making him continue to pay that price seems unfair.

Silver Crusade ****

I pretty much agree with trollbill.
But one thing to emphasize is that the reason why the GM is turning a player away matters a LOT. The more "reasonable" that seems then the more latitude the GM has in practice.

For example, it is considered nearly universally acceptable to turn away a player with a proven history of being disruptive, cheating, etc.

It is nearly universally considered very bad behaviour to turn away a player because he is playing a <insert class the GM doesn't like>.

The case of a player who refuses to tone down their over powerful character and ruins the fun for everybody else lies somewhere in between.

Other reasons vary greatly by the group, individuals involved, etc.

Silver Crusade

SultanOfAwesome wrote:

I use the term unjustified murder because most do not understand the difference between murder (Which is always evil and never justified, no matter how you look at it) and and other forms of killing, such as execution (Which is considered just retribution visited for murder and rape in older definitions in most of the Judeo-Christian world).

You seem to be using circular reasoning. Murder == "always evil" implies "There is objective reality because murder is always evil".

If by "objective evil" you mean "some external standard of evil that we do not understand or know anything about" then
1) that is, by definition, unfalsifiable and also pretty much uninteresting. "Well, there is this thing that exists. We don't know anything about it and there is no evidence for it but it exists. And you can't prove it doesn't."
2) There is arguably absolutely zero evidence that it exists and lots of evidence that it doesn't. Given that the claim is unfalisiable that does NOT disprove it but the vast preponderance of evidence shows that it is unlikely to exist.

If by "objective evil" you mean "universally or nearly universally accepted as evil" then there really isn't such a thing. There are cultures (historical and current) that accept what the vast majority of people reading this would consider to be rape, murder and pedophilia as not being evil.

Silver Crusade ****

That Crazy Alchemist wrote:


But a change like the one I'm suggesting is impossible to result in unforseen circumstances because nothing is actually changing.

That isn't correct.

Players can expend limited resources in earlier encounters thus making a later encounter harder. Or they could gain various negative conditions. Those are the most obvious ways that order of encounter s can matter but there are many other possibilities.

Silver Crusade

Meiliken wrote:
To be completely logical, there is no such thing as good and evil. They are false philosophical human constructs that have no place in the universe other than what mortals conjure from their imagination. The universe does not know good or evil, it only knows existence and non-existence. Logical fact.

To assert the non existance of something is most definitely NOT "completely logical".

Even if they are philosophical human constructs, that doesn't make them false nor does it mean that they have no place in the universe.

It is interesting that you think it a logical fact that universe knows things.

Note - The above is mostly my being pedantic. You'd be best to NOT assume that I hold any particular beliefs based upon it.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to start with two caveats.

1)Real world morality is far more complicated than Dnd and this makes all the real world questions essentially meaningless. Following answers are for campaign world only

2) The answer varies a lot by campaign, by player and by character. Following are the answers for most of my characters

Billybrainpan wrote:


1. Is there a direct correlation between good/evil and law/chaos?

Game world - Some correlation.

Quote:

2. Is anything inherently or irredeemably good/evil?

Game World - varies immensely by campaign.

Quote:

3. Can you know how good or bad an act is without exploring the whole scenario first?

Game World - With rare exceptions yes.

Quote:


4. Should the morality of a player affect their character?

In theory, no.

Quote:


5. Does the morality of a player affect their character?

Absolutely it does. Look at any discussion of alignment on the net and it is very clear that real world player morality affects what is seen as good, evil, etc.

Quote:


6. Does committing an evil act make you evil?

Game World - It depends on the act, the reason for the act, the repentance after the act and the particular campaign. In general, a single act will not make one evil.

Quote:


7. Committing several evil acts in pathfinder will change your alignment to evil. How does that relate to real life? Is that an accurate portrayal of morality?

It does not relate to real life in any way since morality in the real world is far more complicated

Silver Crusade ****

My biggest issue with the current rounding rules is when you start with a number that is clearly in the low subtier and end up in the other subtier due to rounding twice.

2.6 going to 3 going to subtier 4-5 is one example. If you combine this with 5 players the result can be very bad.

Silver Crusade ****

From the comments on the product page, it seems like there are many parts of the book that leave much to the interpretation of the GM. While this is absolutely the right way to go with a book of optional rules it would be highly problematic in PFS.

The variant multiclassing rules sound interesting but there are almost guaranteed to be significant balance issues (the combinations are so numerous that they can't possibly have all been play tested).

My guess is that the classes will be made legal and almost all of the rest of the book won't be. If the variant multiclassing is allowed I suspect the power creep will be quite significant over the next couple of months as new combinations are discovered.

I can't see the new summoner really coexisting with the old one. No idea how they'll handle that. I think the fairest solution would be to grandfather the old one but require new characters to use the new one.

Silver Crusade

This issue came up today in PFS. I'm interested in the RAW answer.

I'm not talking about the interaction of light and darkness spells, just asking about basic light from a sunrod (so, 30 ft bright light).

In the following example, how far would the light go? How far would the person P standing at the corner be able to see down the corridor? Would low light vision change that answer?

X - corridor
L - light source
P - Person

PXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
L

Silver Crusade

Shillelagh seems the obvious approach. Either as a druid or as a wand via Use Magic Device

Silver Crusade ****

kinevon wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
countchocula wrote:
I have a question when it says "Once per adventure that grants a Chronicle sheet and at least 1 XP" does this mean we do not get a check if we are going slow track? probably reading into it but thanks in advance.
I don't think that this got answered.
John Compton's answer

Thank you. I missed that one.

Silver Crusade ****

countchocula wrote:
I have a question when it says "Once per adventure that grants a Chronicle sheet and at least 1 XP" does this mean we do not get a check if we are going slow track? probably reading into it but thanks in advance.

I don't think that this got answered.

Silver Crusade ****

Michael Brock wrote:


No, they can't be applied retroactively.

Totally understood but man I REALLY wish these had been out a few weeks ago when I played Slave Masters Mirror (my character would have qualified for 4 of the 6 conditions) :-)

These look excellent. Lots of flavor, boons are useful, best of all the boon benefits the entire party. Suddenly all my characters will feel part of a faction again.

Congratulations on this, you have surpassed yourselves

Silver Crusade

Alexander Augunas wrote:
before slinging design insults at the PDT.

I most certainly wasn't slinging insults at the PDT, unless your definition of "insult" is "say anything critical of what they produce".

Silver Crusade

Am I the only one who thinks that this is likely to lead to a LOT of power creep?

Sure, beefing up the ftr is no huge deal. But do druids really need to be able to rage? Do wizards and clerics need more options?

ACG made it very clear that what Paizo considers balanced is very different from what I considered balanced (I think there's a lot of power creep in that book).

At the moment I'm hoping that little of this is made PFS legal. But I expect that the new classes, feats, multiclassing, etc will be legal. And the power level will be ratched up at least a couple more notches.

Silver Crusade

Unfortunately, I think not. If it had access to its masters feats, traits, magic items, masterpieces, etc it would say so. I interpret "just like its master" as meaning that it has its masters performances, it takes the appropriate action to start, etc.

Silver Crusade ****

I've run about 3 Core scenarios and played 1 module, 3 levels of Emerald Spire and 6 odd scenarios. The highest level thing I've played or run was subtier 4-5

I'm finding Core distinctly harder (both as a GM and a player). Its certainly still winnable but its harder. One death so far but that was partly aggressive play and largely bad luck (crit rolling above average against a favoured enemy). The subtier 4-5 could have been a TPK but the GM was softballing a little. One scenario I ran would have been a TPK but I softballed a little.

Core is definitely starting to cause better play to occur in general. People are actually caring about tactics. Poor tactics can doom you.

There is definitely less room for mismatched parties, parties playing up, characters who don't pull their weight, players who don't pull their weight, etc. One or more problems here can really be a problem.

Going through a LOT more expendables. Especially CLW charges.

Almost all of the Core that I've experienced has been with experienced players, not new players. With that group, I like the effect.

But I expect lots of later season higher level scenarios will be quite deadly, especially with a GM who doesn't like to pull punches.

Silver Crusade ****

BigNorseWolf wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
If you have a table of level 1s or 2s, common sense says you don't allow a level 4 pregen to play at that table.

No, it doesn't. If I want to allow a 4th level pregen in a party of 1s, I do. I've done it with regular PCs, I see no reason not to allow a pregen the same way.

Common sense tells you to do what is fun, and if three 1s and a 4th level pregen is fun, you are welcome to do it.

I might allow a level 4 pregen with 3 level 1s and 2s but only if ALL the players voted for it in a secret ballot. Even then, it would depend on the scenario. It would be more likely the more difficult the scenario.
Or there could be a confusion/dominate and turn the level 4 into an unstoppable engine of destruction.

I'm not sure a 4th level barbarian is much more dangerous than a first level barbarian to a L1 or 2 :-).

Joking aside, you're right. Hence my "might" above :-)

Silver Crusade ****

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
If you have a table of level 1s or 2s, common sense says you don't allow a level 4 pregen to play at that table.

No, it doesn't. If I want to allow a 4th level pregen in a party of 1s, I do. I've done it with regular PCs, I see no reason not to allow a pregen the same way.

Common sense tells you to do what is fun, and if three 1s and a 4th level pregen is fun, you are welcome to do it.

I might allow a level 4 pregen with 3 level 1s and 2s but only if ALL the players voted for it in a secret ballot. Even then, it would depend on the scenario. It would be more likely the more difficult the scenario.

Silver Crusade ****

Andrew Christian wrote:

It does not mean that, and lists aren't parsed that way.

No rebuild is allowed. There is no reason for Mike to comment.

Sorry, but making an emphatic statement does NOT change the fact that the sentence is ambiguous. English is a context sensitive language and a great many constructs are inherently ambiguous.

I suspect that we could find grammar guides that would state the sentence unambiguously meant one alternative or the other. They'd be wrong. It is ambiguous.

Silver Crusade ****

Walter Sheppard wrote:

A lot of core for us has been forcing us to use good teamwork and tactics. Get that flanking, deny that sneak attack by getting concealment, spread out if expecting a fireball, etc.

Which does open up one rather interesting issue. Those tactics largely rely on player ability. Having a smokestick to eliminate sneak attacks is pretty darn advanced (very well done, mind :-) ). Not all experienced players are that good and fairly few beginner players (one of the main targets for CORE) are.

If CORE requires good tactics and good item selection then it IS substantially harder.

Which is arguably a very good thing, mind.

Silver Crusade ****

Andrew Christian wrote:
No class, prestige class, or class feature dependent ability score was altered.

The wording in the guide is unclear.

"If a class, prestige class or class feature-dependent ability score is altered" can legitimately be parsed as "if a class is altered" or as "if a class feature-dependent ability score is altered". English is ambiguous that way.

The former makes more sense to me and so I think a rebuild is allowed.

I think we'd all agree that changing a wizard so that they threw cleric spells instead should allow a rebuild. With my interpretation of the above, that is guide approved. With yours, it is not.

Silver Crusade ****

andreww wrote:
Dave Setty wrote:
Don't expect much difference in challenge. The strong options are as strong as in Standard. Really the only exceptions are swarms.

I suspect that most of the challenge will come due to have a larger proportion of classes which struggle to contribute, especially in the higher tiers. A number of those classes also lose some important archetypes such as Quingong for Monk or Scout for Rogue.

A Fighter/Rogue/Bard/Monk group is likely to have a far rougher ride in 5-9 and 7-11 than Wizard/Druid/Cleric/Paladin.

Partly. But even the strong classes have lost lots of options. No Create Pit, snowball, Saurian Shamans, Aasimars, etc etc etc etc.

And at least the rogue has SOME use now (trapfinder and disabler). But I agree that the stronger classes lose less than some of the weaker classes

Silver Crusade ****

Generally, expect things to be harder. You'll need to play smart and not rely on the bad guy going down before his initiative comes up.

Defenses become more important, healing becomes a little more important.

You have fewer options and the options you do have are often going to be somewhat more expensive (in gold, feat cost, higher level spell, etc).

Definitely you should be a lot more careful about playing up, you should strive harder for a balanced party, season 4 and some 5 scenarios with unbalanced parties of 5 may well turn out to be killers.

But the game is still very, very playable. A barbarian was always close to the most powerful melee character (certainly, more than powerful enough), wizards are still very verstatile power houses, etc.

Silver Crusade ****

The reporting system is very very error prone. If any of your games had a single non core character you're now non core.

When reporting a game there is a warning when this happens but it is fairly well hidden and EXTREMELY easy to miss.

Its an INCREDIBLY bad user interface right now.

Silver Crusade ****

This should be moved to the PFS board

I'd be very surprised if it was made legal in the Core PFS Campaign. And probably be rather appalled (I am guessing that the power level will be comparable to recent material and NOT to the CRB).

As to the Regular Campaign, who knows? My vague guess is that it will either be nearly 100% legal or nearly 100% illegal. No idea which.

Silver Crusade

Most GMs allow an Animal Companion to start fully trained.

The most important tricks are Attack (make sure you take this twice), Down, Defend. At least 1 of Come or Heel. If you're using Animal Archive Flank is great.

The biggest advantage of raising intelligence isn't just extra tricks learned its the opening up of feats. This can be awesome if you have a particular plan in mind or just "meh". I doubt I'd bother for a snake.

Ask the GM how he wants to handle initiative. Many just have the AC go on the characters initiative as it simplifies a lot.

Assuming that the character puts max ranks into handle animal, buys a masterwork tool, and is NOT abusive the handle animal rules ARE gross overkill. A lot of GMs have a house rule something like "Don't abuse the animal and I'm not going to make you roll all the time for things it is trained to do".

One place that GMs differ a lot is on what the animal can "naturally" do. Some GMs allow a cat to climb but not a horse. Some GMs allow a dog to naturally flank but not a tiger.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
trik wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Now that we have acknowledgment, can we get to,"how can I move forward with this character?"
I think that's been addressed a few times. The general consensus is that unless you are willing/able to spend significant prestige on a rebuild, the best option is to throw it in the trash and start up a character you will enjoy. I think everyone can agree that it's not really worth investing large amounts of time into something that you don't think you'll enjoy. There's the possibility that you're wrong, but there's also a good possibility that you're right (as you probably know what you enjoy more than anyone else). May as well put that same time into something you are relatively certain you will enjoy.

For the record, I won't be trashcanning either of my affected characters.

I suspect they'll both end up primarily single classed with a somewhat strange dip class "for flavour". They'll both be a bit weaker than they could have been (weaker than either their prestige class would have been as well as weaker than the single classed version of themselves would have been). But they'll be a little different (which is always fun) and still quite viable at most levels. I'll probably have to be a little careful about playing up with them

Silver Crusade ****

Andrew Christian wrote:


The characters can still get into the prestige classes. That hasn't changed. It will just take two or three more levels than the player originally thought.

Since we're currently being pedantic that isn't actually true.

I have a Tengu rogue/brawler/cleric who was going for Arcane Trickster. He was planning on satisfying the arcane casting requirement via long nose which qualifies as Alter Self (note that while the entry requirements specify Arcane caster the class itself just gives you spell levels). He used a trait to get Mage Hand.

I refer to it as a divine trickster.

Given his Int and Cha are both 10 or less there really is no remotely viable way for him to get into Arcane Trickster.

Note : I'm not saying the character is now useless. Just saying that Arcane Trickster is no longer an option

1 to 50 of 1,162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.