Creativity required!


Advice

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

So my GM wants to run a mini-campaign in which is set in the Wild West. She has is set so that humans are equivilent to the historically accurate white people of the time. And the historical Mexicans are represented by orcs. Indians by elves. Ireland/Scottish by dwarves. She made it clear that if you didn't choose human it would have in-game negative effect. I think she wants everyone to go gunslinger or swashbuckler, but I want to do something outside of the box. I would like creative ideas on characters that I could work with. GM also said that melee weapons would be pretty useless.


"Melee weapons would be useless" sounds like a challenge to me. And would render the Swashbuckler moot, but that's a separate concern.

That said, the immediate question: what's the magic like?


Magic allowed. But a full spell aster might be too iffy


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Have gun, will travel. Or any of the other gun-themed archetypes of normal classes (for the most part they're worse than the regular ones who take proficiency with guns). If you really want to make melee weapons an option go cavalier (or any other mounted class) and be the cavalry. Melee weapons not being useful, meet triple damage lance charge from horseback. If you need to close distance go small cat for sprint and 1/hour 500 foot charge range.

Scarab Sages

A dual bull-whip wielding orc bard, because WHY NOT?


Spellslinger was my immediate thought. You get a gun, you get to shoot people with your gun, you get to shoot people with spells from your gun. Also you get, yanno, the full Wizard spell list (with four opposition schools, so you have to specialize, but that's far from impossible to manage).

Alternate option: since melee weapons are going to be "useless", see if she'll let you replace class features calling them out with the same feature but with "ranged weapon". I.E., "A kensai is proficient in simple weapons and in a single martial or exotic melee weapon of his choice." becomes "A kensai is proficient in simple weapons and in a single martial or exotic ranged weapon of his choice."

Then see if you can run the first ever actually fully functional ranged combat Magus. I recommend the Kensai, actually, because it scraps armor (not exactly useful with all the guns) for a dodge bonus (very useful with all the guns!)

If it's a gun-heavy world, are guns on everybody's weapon proficiencies list? If so, Investigator is a slow start, then pretty awesome. Run it as a lawman of some sorts maybe.

Part of me is trying to find an excuse to recommend the Samurai and I'm sad that I'm failing. That said, now I'm curious: who are the Asians here? Gnomes? Halflings? Half-Giants?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

you had me at non-whites not being human


I second the Holy Gun Paladin. You can be Frontier Preacher Man, complete with a gun with a Bible verse number on it.

If you're up for playing an Elf/Indian then Samurai would probably make a good bet for a mounted archer.

Also, what is the level of firearms you'll have available to you?


Monk like Cain in Kung Fu!

Sovereign Court

I find the whole premise unpalatable.

Scarab Sages

The entire premise is racist and offensive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, it is. I guess that's the point. To be historically accurate.


Could make a sorcerer and flavor it like a very talented stage magician.

Could make a bard and flavor it like a snake oil salesman OR as a wandering mariachi looking for new inspirations.

Perhaps an investigator and be a grizzled detective for hire with sherlockian skills.

If you wanted to go melee (despite it possibly being useless) perhaps pick a two handed warhammer, flavor it as a sledgehammer and you have yourself a railroad worker.

A talented pickpocket / lock-picker / liar generally has its uses.

Depending on level, could do a single person siege weapon build using a gunslinger. Carry around a double hackbut, get knocked prone, get up as free action (through build), continue.


Another setting specific stuff? Gods, availability of gear, settlement wealth (the actual Wild West is so not Hollywood), major forces in the world, etc.


I love how he doesn't include blacks or Asians - 'cause they totally weren't there or anything (they were... a LOT)

Go Half-breed Comanche/White (Half-Elf) with Ancestral Weapon to get EWP for a Firearm and go either Alchemist or Investigator.

Or, go Chinese with either Kitsune, Nezumi (Ratfolk), or Tengu, and play a Taoist mystic (a Magus).

Then there's always Musketeer, the Cavalier Archetype from Ultimate Combat.

Then again, there's always the good 'ol Barbarian or Bloodrager. Since Dwarves are good 'ol Paddies and Surly Glaswegians, this fits all the better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
The entire premise is racist and offensive.

I'm surprised you play Pathfinder. Or, do you not use the Golarion setting?


Giridan wrote:
Yes, it is. I guess that's the point. To be historically accurate.

This makes me sad. While racism certainly did exist it wasn't in our 21st century lense making it a different thing altogether. It also wasn't a dark vs. white issue. Irish had their own time basically being treated like blacks for a while, for example.


There were chainsaws all over in the Wild West, right?


Other races exist, I just didn't mention them as they are not playable. Via GM discretion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I smell flame bait.


Honestly, I've never seen a ton wrong with converting ethnicities/cultures to fantasy races—hell, a lot of kids' movies do the same with different types of animals. As long as you aren't playing with "always evil orcs", it doesn't seem inherently bigoted to me.

It is awful weird that african- and chinese-americans aren't available, though. Is this because they're "rare" in your GM's vision of the Wild West?


There are African Americans, they are the vanaran's (who knows why???). And the Asians are represented by the halflings/gnomes/rat folk


Maybe vanarans are from African mythology? Not really up-to-date on obscure Pathfinder monster races.

Anyways, I figured they existed, but are they playable without GM discretion? 'Cause like others have said, there were definitely blacks and chinese in the Wild West. It was a pretty surprisingly diverse place.


Giridan wrote:
There are African Americans, they are the vanaran's (who knows why???). And the Asians are represented by the halflings/gnomes/rat folk

Really... you have NO idea why he's having the MONKEY race represent Africans? I wasn't originally leaning toward blatant racism... but it's getting harder here...


Yes, they just aren'tl playable. There'll be NPC's im sure

Grand Lodge

Imbicatus wrote:
The entire premise is racist and offensive.
elminster55 wrote:
I find the whole premise unpalatable.
Secret Wizard wrote:
you had me at non-whites not being human
Giridan wrote:
Yes, it is. I guess that's the point. To be historically accurate.

Except where racism was based on wildly inaccurate testimonies of disgruntled, overprotective and insecure frightened settlers.

If I ever did something like this... I'd just make it Humans-Only, to be honest, without dragging in all the veiled insults that having the presented arrangement.

Also, lumping the Scottish and Irish together? That would be liable to get you punched in the throat if brought into a pub in either of those places.


Let's be fair, they are a mythological creature from...India. That's...kinda close to the African continent?

Yeah okay that's just disconcerting. The "charitable" view is he took them because they're a "foresty" race and elves were taken.

Scarab Sages

Personally, I consider not being Human a good thing. I've never wanted to be one.

If you want to be a little unusual within the logical range of your setting, how about a Gnome as one of the setting's equivalent of Jews? To go with a different 19th-Century Jewish stereotype, you also could go with Tieflings or Dhampirs (by the way folks, I'm half-Jewish, so nobody point fingers at me or whatever). In this context, I could see such a character lending itself well to one of the more 'bookish' Cleric or Inquisitor Archetypes, an Alchemist, or maybe you could take the opportunity to playtest an Occultist.

This setting quickly puts me in mind of the Shanghai Noon movies. If you wanted to try to make a "running gag" character, you could draw on that bit from the first movie where Jackie Chan's former associates from China hitch a lift with decent-hearted but clueless White pioneers who think they're either Indians or Jews, and play an as-yet-unaccounted-for race (Gnome, Halfling, planetouched, whatever) whom everybody in the game keeps misidentifying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
The entire premise is racist and offensive.
elminster55 wrote:
I find the whole premise unpalatable.
Secret Wizard wrote:
you had me at non-whites not being human
Giridan wrote:
Yes, it is. I guess that's the point. To be historically accurate.

Except where racism was based on wildly inaccurate testimonies of disgruntled, overprotective and insecure frightened settlers.

If I ever did something like this... I'd just make it Humans-Only, to be honest, without dragging in all the veiled insults that having the presented arrangement.

Also, lumping the Scottish and Irish together? That would be liable to get you punched in the throat if brought into a pub in either of those places.

Hey, give the GM some credit. Maybe they aren't totally lumped together—maybe it's, like, normal dwarves and duergar.

Yeah, is it too soon to ibtl? ;P


I plan to one day run an arcane/gothic horror old west style game using Pathfinder. The setting lies in an alternate SouthwestArizona Territory, in a region called Superstition Valley. I'm borrowing actual Arizona history and legends and renaming things and people to make something interesting. While there is an element of real history, there would be no intent to maintain any 19th century racism - we want to have a fun game and no need to make it too real, as its arcane/gothic horror afterall.

I even designed a custom magus archetype called the Shootist, who specializes in a pair of revolvers (has ranged spellstrike, but no standard spellstrike, unlike myrmidarch), uses a deck of cards as a spellbook, he can deflect bullets as if using deflect arrow with magic instead of his hand, has some basic deeds converted to magus arcana.

Some of the non-gunslinger class archetypes built to use guns like the holy gun wear armor, and armor doesn't fit my concept of emulating the old west, circa 1870. So I might create custom archetypes that are upgraded to fit revolvers and repeating rifles, and even including, but rarely encounter civil war artillery pieces and Gatling guns. Aside from fist and knife fights, and the rare Civil War cavalry sabre by actual cavalry or retired eccentrics, I want the bulk of melee combat to be a thing of the past - except perhaps encounters with natives, though they too have access to guns.

Since I'm using the American desert southwest as the background territory (at least emulating it), I want to create barbarian tribes for Chiraquahua Apache, Commanche, and perhaps a Navaho analog, insuring to include shaman, skalds and bloodragers in the mix. Also want to get more spiritual with the treatment and relationship with Southwest native beliefs and something different for divine magic.

I can easily see any core, base, alternate and hybrid class in PF being applicable at least via appropriate archetype available or created.

I might import some Cthulhu concepts, but I'm definitely not interested in steam punk, though with trains and some mining equipment steam power would be available.


We as people are very cool with races. We have only half our group even white! No one in the group is offended! I'm not asking if you guys are.


Yeah, sorry, we're totally assuming stuff here. It's just a pretty funny concept looking in. You have to keep in mind that we don't know your GM and aren't as inclined to give benefits of the doubt as you are. :P

Though I'm pretty sure your GM needs to brush up on his history a little. The Old West was not all that "white" a place.


i would go with an alchemist .you can totly pull the wandering miracle-man with weagon of CURE-ALL-IN-A-BOTTLE store. best part is. with the right infusions you acn actuly be less of a fake then the real one in the old west.


Honestly, Humans are a very... bland and under-powered race anyway. Them being white is kind of poetic - seems great, but is beaten to s!@+e by every other race out there when it comes to practicality.

There's another thread that's gone into detail explaining how the Racial Favored Class Abilities for classes that list Human as the best FCA option are, in fact, better off being taken by a Half-Elf, Half-Orc, or Aasimar. Because they receive all the bonuses of being a Human while also receiving their own racial abilities and then-some, the Human race is actually one of the worse options. The Half-Elf especially is just better in every way than the Human because it either gains Skill Focus or EWP for free at lv1, and can have TWO Favored Classes (meaning multiclassing is no problem at all for it).

Either that, or the FCAs of other non-human-blooded races, like the Dwarf, end up making up the difference in losing the Racial Bonus Feat in SPADES. For example, a Dwarf Barbarian receives 1 extra Rage per level, while the Human gets basically nothing - by lv6 the Dwarf's FCA basically means that it's received the Extra Rage feat for free, by lv12 it's received that feat TWICE, by lv18 it's received it THREE times. In other words, the human actually LOSES you effective feats in the long run.

Europeans being Human is really hilarious when you think about it - they think they're god's gift to the world, and it really looks it when you first glance at it, but then you realize that they just SUCK compared to every other option out there, and you're always better of being something else.

Grand Lodge

Giridan wrote:
We as people are very cool with races. We have only half our group even white! No one in the group is offended! I'm not asking if you guys are.

...

Just...

I...

I'm not going to bother, because this is too easy. The joke reference writes itself, and you did say you're not asking if we're offended.


Giridan wrote:
There are African Americans, they are the vanaran's (who knows why???).

Guys.

Guys.

He's trolling.


I didn't pick


I would like to point out that the races don't make a TON of sense in some instances.

Halfling = Chinese. Wut.
Orc = Mexican/South American. WUT.

---

Personally, I'd do 'em like this (although I'd keep the races as they are and just have them be stand-ins for their respective nationalities, instead of the thing your DM is doing):

English/Welsh - Human
Scottish - Dwarf
Irish - Halfling
French - Gnome
Spanish/Portuguese - Fetchling
Mediterranean - Gillmen
Germanic (Germany, Prussian, Austria) - Hobgoblin
Swiss - Goblin
Dutch - Drow, Duergar
Russian - Orc
Polish - Kobold
Hungarian/Romanian - Dhampir
Romani - Changeling
Canadian - Aasimar
French-Canadian - Gnoll
Cajun - Tiefling
North Native American - Elf
Central/South Native American - Catfolk, Grippli
Middle Eastern - Oread, Sylph, Ifrit, Undine, & Suli
African - Shabti
East Asian - Kitsune, Tengu
Indian - Vanara, Vishkanya, Nagaji, Samsaran
Pacific Islander - Wayang


Leaving out the kobolds, I see! Typical lizardpeople denial. They're out there, man.


Kobolds are Polish. Nobody likes Kobolds, and nobody likes Poland. Done.

Scarab Sages

*pouts* I like Poland...it gave us Zdzislaw Beksinski!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I updated my list to include Switzerland, Poland, Canada, French-Canada, and Cajun.

Gnolls are French-Canadian because BITE ME, Quebec.


Dot

I love when people get offended over stupid BS. Although, I can't really defend the choice for vanara. If I did this in my campaign I'd be teased out if the house!

Scarab Sages

Shane LeRose wrote:

Dot

I love when people get offended over stupid BS. Although, I can't really defend the choice for vanara. If I did this in my campaign I'd be teased out if the house!

Go to Ferguson, MO and say that black people are humaniod monkeys, and you'd be more than teased.

Real-world racism has no place in fantasy gaming.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:

I updated my list to include Switzerland, Poland, Canada, French-Canada, and Cajun.

Gnolls are French-Canadian because BITE ME, Quebec.

Born in Quebec. I approve this message. :D


Imbicatus wrote:
Shane LeRose wrote:

Dot

I love when people get offended over stupid BS. Although, I can't really defend the choice for vanara. If I did this in my campaign I'd be teased out if the house!

Go to Ferguson, MO and say that black people are humaniod monkeys, and you'd be more than teased.

Real-world racism has no place in fantasy gaming.

You got it wrong, the real world has no relation to fantasy gaming. He used the Wild West as inspiration, any interpretation of what that means is in your head, don't assume anything about the DM. There are different races in the game, he is using some of them. That is all.


I'm sorry, but this is really funny.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I don't care what race/class I'd have to be, but I'd so use a Hotchkiss Revolving Cannon


Giridan wrote:
... She has is set so that humans are equivilent to the historically accurate white people of the time. And the historical Mexicans are represented by orcs. Indians by elves. Ireland/Scottish by dwarves. She made it clear that if you didn't choose human it would have in-game negative effect. ...

This is going to offend a LOT of people.

Having said that, I would be tempted to try a switch hitter that uses a weapon that can be thrown or used in melee. Dagger, starknife, short spear, and trident could all be kinda fun and different.

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Creativity required! All Messageboards