I think you may be right about the Separatist archetype. That's an idea that I hadn't considered, and assuming it's allowed and everyone is comfortable with it.
I thought of something. Perhaps a cleric with the Community domain, who just wants to integrate monsters with everybody else? Or perhaps, less Lawfully, who wants to raise the status of monsters beyond...monsters, perhaps to elevate them to greater levels of civilization.
(for example, bringing cultivation and steel forging and such to gnolls).
In that case, I would likely want to play a more monstrous character (like a gnoll)...
I dunno.
I'm just throwing ideas around.
That's exactly where my thoughts ran as I've been mulling this idea over - a Lamashtan with the Strength and Community domains whose goal it would be to see monstrous creatures banded together in mutually beneficial... well, community. It'd certainly be a good fit for a gnoll or other monstrous humanoid to fill, but of the core races I think a half-orc could pull it off too. Seems neat!
I actually really like the idea, and was fairly unfamiliar with the separatist archetype. That said, she is still CE, meaning her clerics can only be CN or NE. Neither of which scream community of like-minded monsters working together or possibly with humans. I think maybe a CN, who is mildly monstrous (Tiefling, Half-Orc, or the sort) seeking more monster acceptance in communities (CN because you'd almost have to be crazy to try it).
Maybe he just doesn't agree that Lamashtu forces the monsters on people, and that she should ease them into the society.
Afterthought, you would still be stuck channeling neg energy and getting free inflict spell converting instead of cure spell converting. If you are the only cleric/healer type it could be more complicated.
I think I would actually be NE, only because if I played CN, it would end up being the "I wrote N on my character sheet but I really meant E".
I would be thinking Half-Orc, so that I could keep those weapon proficiencies. There's nothing wrong with NE people getting along. After all, I'm pretty sure that most Intellect Devourers are NE, and they have a massive underground community.
I think it would be more like...a person who believes that monsters are some sort of exploited minority and wants them to have their rights. Not only that, but he also would want them to DESERVE right rights, as he's not sure that they do right now, given how uncivilized they are.
It's an interesting and controversial character concept, and I need to know that all of you are comfortable with it before I mentally commit to it...I'm pretty sure that I can justify adventuring reasons under most circumstances.
Obviously my cleric's role in the party would not be the traditional cleric role. I would mostly prepare self-buff spells and go in there swinging a giant two-handed weapon.
I forgot about the variant channeling options. You could use your channeling for one of those instead. Oh, but looking over the rules for variants, the buffs would do half harm damage from neg to the living, and the debuffs would do half neg healing to undead.
So you could damage living while you buff them, or heal undead while you debuff them.
Thinking about this sepratist lamashtan cleric makes also think that a half-orc paladin with the redeemer archetype (advanced race guide) would be a lot of fun to play along side it. A paladin and evil cleric who have a surprising amount of philosophical common ground... man! Such fertile ground to play in there!
Regardless of what happens here, consider those two character concepts added to my notebook!
I think the variant channels don't pay attention to the type of energy channeled, but the end effect. So negative energy channeled to heal undead would do the buff side of it, while negative energy channeled to harm living would do the harm side.
I'm gunning for a more mysterious type of person myself. I'm thinking of someone rather shady, but not evil, just... shady. Sorcerer seems to still be open, from the looks of it, as no one's really made mention of arcane.
Background wise it entirely depends on the story, but I'd very much like the idea of a sorcerer/summoner but I can just as easily make a fighter mysterious.
Maybe even a wizard, really.
I actually stated that I was leaning towards a wizard.
Oh, you're very right. It would be a lot of fun to play alongside a paladin with that cleric, as long as I didn't go too far with the "being evil" thing.
I realized something. To be effective and true to my character concept, he'd need ridiculous ability scores.
High STR to be scary-looking and able to head monstrous tribes, DEX could be dump, medium CON to be alive more, good INT to represent his civilization, high WIS for spellcasting, and good CHA for his "leading people" shtick.
Can we have decided on an AP so we can start coordinating party dynamics and creating character backstories?
In the interest of fairness, I'm giving Furia 24 hrs from his last post to put his vote. 2hrs and 10 min from now.
We've got 5 people here, right? I'm sure a second arcane is more than reasonable. Primarily i'm looking to go into Sorcerer. The concept isn't very talkative, in fact.
That said, I've got an idea for a masked fighter as well, but in light of the fact that I'm currently playing.... Four fighters? I'd rather not play another.
There's a decent chance I'll end up being a rogue/sorcerer
I'm going to be melee no matter what, it just depends on the group dynamics and what I end up wanting.
I'm either going to play a Fighter/Inquisitor or a Ranger/Inquisitor for one character
or..
a Cleric/Barbarian.
With 5 players, and depending on how we do scores, there will be some leeway to be more creative with the builds. Concerns of making sure they are viable, by some forum standards, need not be all that prevalent.
That being said:
Point-buy or Rolled Stats?
I have been a fan of rolling stats since I first began playing (20 odd yrs ago), but because I am a stickler for balance I totally understand the level field offered by Point-buy.
If we go Point buy, it will be: 20 pts (no score below 8 before racial modifiers)
If we roll it will be: 4d6 (drop the lowest), 6 rolls placed as desired (If the total is below either a 15 pt buy or total ability modifier of +5 you may reroll)
What is the consensus on preferred method? Also, if you feel so strongly against 1 method that it makes it an 'absolutely will not play', let me know. I want this to be a joint experience that will be great for everyone involved.
My preferred method is to roll, as it can create characters with a lot more personality, or inspire quirks.
My best example of this is a S&S game I'm in now. One character rolled a bunch of 7s and decided to play an Orc that couldn't speak and had 5 Int. Another character rolled a 5, placed it in Wis, and is now completely insane.
This is not to say that low scores are preferable, but rather that more unique scores are preferable. If we were to do point buy, our characters would be so much more...designer, and I don't think I like that.
I'm a fair fan of fate shanking me, really. I'm not going to roll until we settle on that, however. I can just as easily do point buy, and, hell, I've already got that set up. I do prefer the rolling because of what Lein mentioned. Should we go ahead and roll? This is one of those unanimous things, most of the time.
I'd prefer that no rolling occur until after the decision. That way someone doesn't see good rolls and decide that's a better method, or bad rolls and decide 20 point buy is better.
My sentiments entirely. Character creation becomes a lot more... intrinsic , that is, whenever you have to build the character around the stats themselves. "I want a genius, but I've got a 7... I've got a skinny-ass genius."
Okay, I'm calling it.
We are going to be playing Shattered Star. Please download the player's guide and get familiar with the campaign concept and how you came to be a member of the Pathfinders (the backstory can wait until after we finalize Char gen rules).
I like the idea of a pair of Half-orcs (possibly related?) fighting for monster rights with two opposing ideologies on how to accomplish it (Paladin and NE Cleric, bound by cause or blood).
Alright, so shattered star it is then... The city of good ol' Magnimar, right? Monuments o'plenty and more Thassilonian runes than I care to shake a stick at. Yay :3
Exciting! I've been thinking of things to go with Shattered Star all along, so that's that.
So would the "monster rights" thing be the reason why we joined the pathfinders? To travel the world 'round and bring civilization to monsters?
I think if those characters were gonna get made, a blood bond would be important.
I'm also considering not making the character, and sticking with something close to my original idea because I realize how difficult it would become for you if we always tried to diplomatize with creatures we encountered.
Difficult choices, gah!
Could just make fervent use of Summon monster and make deals with fiendiesh/demonic lamashtu loving creatures.
"Alright, well, the good news Kevin, can I call you Kevin? Kevin, that's right. Kevin. Anyways, the good news is that we got that "No blood sacrifices" thing out of the shadow district. That's what you and your buddies wanted, right Kevin? Ok good. Anyways, care to help me out? I'm in a bit of a bind here. Oh and we're working on plunging the world into eternal darkness, but you have to start small. Easy with the claws Kevin, these ropes are silk."
Actually, I know for a fact that at least in the second book, it would actually come into play and possibly for the better (to include the moral dilemma at the same time). Great RP opportunity. There may be instances in the first book, but not on quite as big a scale.
I know Shalafi had concerns with the evil character. So, my only concern would be that it would be a big issue for him.
Shalafi, given the concept (and assuming it would most likely only be used if Dal Selpher wanted to play the other half of the two), would you have too great an issue with the character? The build isn't a murder innocents evil cleric, as much as I could see him being derogatory of the non-monster races. A monster elitist as it were.
If it's a concern, I want to make clear, that just because there is evil in the party, I do not ever condone PvP. If it ever gets to that point, I would like to think the Dream Team I gathered would be able to find another way to resolve their problems. I don't think there is ever room for PvP amongst a group of reasonable people. Sometimes you have to make and excuse for your character to go against their nature to prevent any incidents.
I'm gonna place one "Party member allowed to die" on an old fellow poster by the name of Viluki.
Long story short, showing up as a clown in Nidale in the middle of an important diplomatic moment with starving/ousted fetchlings is never a good idea.
Only a completely side note, am I the only one that is excited to see 75 posts already, in half as many hours since the thread opened? There is a lot of good discourse and give and take already with the group, and I can see some of this bleed over into the PC's to create a great party dynamic.
Actually, Duboris, in Viluki's case I still agree with how Fratman dealt with it by having the community resolve it. No PvP, just having the citizens take it into their own hands.
I have seen his submissions pop up in other recruitments, and almost every one has the same premise of sowing chaos, trickery, and confusion wherever they go. It goes back to that not quite a hero thing I was talking about before.
EDIT: HERE is a post I wrote about the only player in my entire gaming history I ever played with that I had wanted to PvP SO bad. I started the thread around this player.
I'm also excited to see this group's discussions. I like eagerness :D
Actually, I've had some...poor experiences with Viluki as well. He's in the S&S game and was not really very nice to me, and tried really hard to assume control over the group and just go out swinging, even though there was an adversary that was 15th level onboard the same ship. (and we were 1st level) He was, of course, the cleric of a demon lord.
You don't need to worry about PvP with me, nor do you need to worry about unpredictable and insane characters (thus why I very rarely make chaotic characters).
I am still concerned with the evil character especially an evil cleric. If that is what is decided then that is fine. I will find another group.
If everyone is cool with the idea, I'll go with the redeemer paladin to play off a separatist lamashtan. My idea for the two specifically would be for the paladin to really be driven by a Luke-Skywalker-I-know-there-is-good-in-him type of belief. I'd like the blood relation angle more if we both weren't divinely fueled magic users, but if we do go with it we could definitely lean on some Caramon/Raistlin vibes.
I have 2 other ideas:
1) a magus aiming for shadowdancer w/ the dimensional agility feat tree.
I see him as a good-natured thief of sorts. A bit Robin Hood and a bit Scarlet Pimpernel, making up for a lack of skill points with spells like vanish and knock and the like. Most magus arcana would probably be spent adding spells to his spell list to further diversify him. Intelligence would be his primary stat, with Dex and Cha his next two important. Would probably aim for a crit-machine in combat.
2) a witchguard ranger who adopts an arcane user in the group as his charge.
I need to check if the half-elf racial archetype of wild stalker would work with this, because I'd love that. Regardless, I'd probably steer for a switch-hitter to better support his adopted charge in combat, though it would depend on the caster's focus. If it's Duboris' shadow sorcerer or Shalafi's wizard, then probably more a focus on range; if the caster were a bard, synthesist summoner, or magus, then focus more on melee.
Edit: Shalafi slipped a post in like a ninja =)
I think we're creative enough to accommodate the group as a whole. I'm happy to focus on either of my alternate ideas. Something might strike as well once I brush up on the player's guide.
----
re: ability score generation
I love the risk, fear, and trepidation of rolling both for stats and for hp after 1st level. So fun!
Dal, if you played the Redeemer, who do you think you would have as a patron deity?
I love the idea of the two, but if it will be too much of a problem, I'm comforted to know that both of you are entertaining other options just in case. Sadly, all the talk of them has already really built up a compelling duo between the two in my head.
I would like that we could reach a mutually beneficial agreement for all of us.
While Desna is one of my favorites, for the half orc paladin I'd likely go with Sarenrae due to her heavy focus on redemption while at the same time acknowledging and sanctioning the use of violence when necessary. Sarenrae just seems like a perfect fit. Though if the counter-part cleric worshipped Zon-Kuthon, I'd *have* to go with Shelyn just for the swet irony.
Are there any NE dieties that might allow for a True Neutral, positive energy channeling cleric that'd fit with this idea?
As a frequent player of evil characters, I'm completely okay with it. Evil characters are rather easy to work with, but it entirely depends on the player's methods. As a person who prefers the free reign of it more than the application, evil is entirely possible.
I mean, I have a strong devotee in a game with Lein and Kori both where Lein is the DM, and as far as I can tell, no one's really opposed to him, I think.
Save for the whole "I'm going to go into the laboratory and drown in my own blood for about an hour." thing.
Side note: Wild Shadow and witchguard ranger archetypes overlap on 2 class abilities. Alas. Anyway, I'm going to go over the Player's Guide before I brainstorm any more. We'll see if anything pops.
Regarding evil characters, generally I don't even like having neutral ones unless they're serving as a deliberate foil for a character or theme in the story. I much prefer a group of genuine heroes to that of anti-heroes. There's certainly a place for varied points of view for the morality axis, but it's not for every player or every game. The biggest type of character I have difficulty with though are either the jarringly crazy type or the uncooperative kind. This is, by nature, a *group* activity - it's not a story about a one-person freak-show-diva, ya know what I mean?
Group activity yes, but that's all the more reason to hinge an evil character onto another party member. It was apparently Aard's "Koritylija" was going to make it in as he was pretty adept, judging from the background, and at least 1 woman was guaranteed to get in.
Hence the reason I made Dmitri, as with the majority of the Mavis family, so fixated on the opposite sex.
Evil is fine and dandy, so long as it has something beneficial for the party, in some form. I've played Paladins that forsook Sarenrae because they enjoyed hunting evil dragons far too much.
I'm more than content with evil, really. It just all determines on the player and the future, whether or not it's detrimental. More-so the player and other players, really. I can personally see Dmitri getting into problems in the future, but just because they're problems for only him, he might not consider things that happen to the good players bad problems at all.
Then again, he'd likely be polite for a while what with being 3 hp from death... I can't wait to have to explain that, really.
My character that I have planned is likely going to be someone who focuses on stealth and information, and witty to boot. Most likely, he'll be a rogue. Rather simple.
If it makes somebody uncomfortable, I would much prefer to go with my alternate idea than to alienate a member of the group.
That being said, if you venerate an evil diety, you cannot channel positive energy. You also cannot be evil and channel positive energy. Only in the case of a neutral diety and player do you get to choose.
I also can pretty much guarantee that my alternate idea will work both mechanically and with the group. He would be a ranger/inquisitor of Pharasma that's extremely blunt and up-front about things. He'll be the kind of guy that stands in the center of a battle and takes all of the hits, and the kind of guy that would rather kick down a door than knock on it.
I can also guarantee that I will never play a jarringly crazy type character, nor one who will unreasonably not cooperate. My evil characters are typically just cruel, sadistic, and dis-compassionate, not crazy.
And yeah, about Dmitri, I accepted him because there was an available group that would work with him. If I was gonna accept him, it was gonna be with a woman and with no paladins or clerics of good dieties, and Kori and the rest worked perfectly.
Also, I have 2cp to share on the subject of heroes vs. evil.
First of all, there's nothing saying that an evil character cannot be a hero.
Second of all, and this is the more salient point, but it's much more difficult to create a diverse cast of LG paladins than it is to create a diverse cast of many alignments and creeds. Heroes are all well and Good, but sometimes a person can't come up with an interesting hero that doesn't feel like copying a PC they've already seen or that is significantly different than an iconic or that doesn't step on the toes of another PC in the party.
That being said, with Shalafi's objection, I think it's about time to scratch the evil character idea.
Evil works if everyone is evil. At least then you know you will get stabbed in the back. Maybe if we get to know each other better I won't have the objection.
Then I won't be evil.
NG tough guy works just as well for me, and was my original concept. Now we just need to decide on character generation methods and we can get started on actual party formation.
OOPS, power is acting up. I was also going to say thanks to Lein.
Not a problem, I wasn't gonna be the one to break up the Dream Team. You must be good for some reason or other, no?
Party creation time, though!
I have one concern, and that's party balance. Seems we've got two martial concepts and two arcane concepts, and two people who are so far noncommital to an idea.
I can make up some of the divine/healing slack, but only after a level or two. I think we need a cleric, druid, oracle, or paladin.
How would the rolling method work as opposed to given stats that we can arrange? This is my 2nd play by post so I am kinda new to all of this.
rolling method works like this:
"Hey, I want some stats, let's roll."
= 14
= 11
= 16
"This is only three, but it doesn't matter because this is a sample".
So you use the dice roller on here, which you use by using the commands at the beginning or end of a dice statement. In this case, you're rolling 4d6 dice, and then discounting the lowest dice result and adding the remaining three for your total, as seen above.
The point buy method is where you buy your ability scores with a given number of this points, in this case 20.
use This Tool to play around with using point-buy.
Also, you can find the commands in the spoiler marked "How to format your text" below your text box. You put the dice expression in between the two dice commands.
Hi folks:
I'm late to the discussion show, but happy to be here. I'll pick my class last, so as to fill any holes in the party composition.
OK! Grazier voi sei molto gentile.
Ah! Welcome, ubertripp! That brings our merry band to six. Cool.
Well, I found the Shattered Star Player's Guide to be a bit, well, underwhelming. None of the campaign traits really grabbed me and the only real recommendations seemed to basically be "large mounts could be difficult and low-light and darkvision will be handy."
Are we committing to a character idea first or can we generate ability scores before settling on a concept?
Id personally like to go ahead and roll, myself. Also i agree about the underwhelming bits of the campaign preview but it sounds like my rogue will work fine. I just wish that i had something besides a shae to represent him.
You don't have to commit to the idea first. I've had many a PC come to life after I saw the stats I'd have to work with.
Here's what I'm thinking for stats. Roll for them if you want to roll, and for anyone that would much rather have point buy (again decided BFORE rolling for stats), they can have PB equal to the average point buy breakdown of those that rolled. Clear as mud?
So, say 4 people rolled, and if you turned their stats into point buy it would be 18 pts, 21 pts, 23 pts, and 24 pts. Then the 2 that chose point buy would get 21.5 (we'll even round up for good measure on this to 22)
Sound good?
Shalafi to roll, type the following
[dice]4d6[/ dice]
(without the space between the '/' and 'dice' of course)
Do that 6 times, and when the totals come up, it shows what each die rolled. That allows you to not count the lowest number.
If you use the 'preview' button near the submit button, it shows you what you rolled, so you can add text to the roll to adjust.
For example:
first I roll
-2 =10
then click preview before submit. When I preview, I see I rolled a 5, 2, 2, and 3.
So dropping the lowest, I can go back up to the original and modify the equation. Since I know I will drop the 2, I can add -2 to the original equation. I will roll again with the equation changed to reflect dropping the lowest.
after I previewed, I saw I had a 1, so the equation was changed, which gives me my total score.
If that's too much, you can always just roll and adjust with regular text outside the equation. like I did with the first roll.
Don't worry about people cheating via previewing the dice roller, the site does a very good job of making it so that it is harder to do than it is for people at the table who try to cheat on dice (unreadable numbers, picking it up before the roll is seen, or just rolling where no one sees their dice are some of the more common).