Andarion's page
Organized Play Member. 63 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.
|
After reading over the archetype, you are correct and incorrect. Expanded Wishcraft does not modify the spells that a sorcerer gets normally. So at level 3 a sorcerer will have 3 1st level spells as noted on the class table.
However, Expanded Wishcraft does modify the BONUS spell the sorcerer gets from their bloodline. So at level 3 when they would normally get a specific 1st level spell they cannot choose, like Enlarge Person for the Abberant Bloodline or Mage Armor for Draconic, they get a 0 level spell of their choosing.
At lower level this can be kinda blah, but when you get access to a 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th level spell of your choice, it kinda works out.
So a 3rd level Sorcerer of normal variety will have:
5 0 level spells known
3 +1 1st level known (where the +1 is a predetermined bloodline spell)
A Wishcrafter Sorcerer will have:
5 +1 0 level spells known (where the +1 is a player chosen spell)
3 1st level spells
*Edit Ignore me, looks like I just explained what you already said.
I am not going into the house rules for damaging equipment outside of sunder and Nat 1s on reflex saves (I think that's a rule). I will note that if you have damage to armor based on hits "missing" the target, you also need to have equal rules for damage to weapons for not hitting flesh.
I will go into how I would determine for NARRATIVE how the blow missed.
In order:
Base 10 - They miss this, the blow was just wild and they are terrible at aiming
Dexterity/Dodge - You were able to move out of the way of the attack
Shield/Parry - You actively block the blow before it gets too close
Deflection (could be switched in order with Armor) - Magic forces the blow aside
Armor - The blow glances off or barely penetrates your armor
Natural Armor - The blow passed through all your other defenses but your hardened skin/hide dimpled slightly from the pressure.
After that we get to Damage Reduction and Hit Points since HP is an amalgamation of luck, endurance, and actual damage absorption.
DR - same description as Nat Armor
HP - Any damage done to the pool before you get to your HP max from level one are scratches and non damaging blows that wind you.
Again, this is all personal tastes. Nothing to do with actual rules.
If we are going for historical similarity, the Vikings were known as "The Scourge of God" among other names. They were feared because they were "large" groups of militaristic men who swiftly raided coastal towns and were gone before the local lords could respond.
Most villages might have 2 to three people who had at one time been conscripts, but that would be about it. So combat wise, there is realistically not going to be a way to make it a challenge.
Treasure wise, Vikings focused on gold and slaves. They raided villages for slaves and monasteries for gold.
To satiate the cry for "Let's go Viking!" set up easy village raids for slaves (if your group is cool with that) and transportable commodities (eg. grains, salted meats, cloth) that they can sell at full price.
For pure gold, art, and what not, set up information in the towns they are raiding or selling stock in about temples and monasteries that have some treasure.
Combat wise, have and random table that includes x number of commoners who fight, y number of warriors, and z number of military personnel. This table increases in difficulty and you roll what each village has. As they get more successful, they attract more attention from local lords and the difficulty gets higher.
So something like:
1 3 0 0
2 3 1 0
3 2 2 0
4 3 3 0
5 2 2 1
6 3 2 1
7 2 2 2
8 3 2 2
9 2 3 3
10 3 3 4
11 3 5 4
12 5 7 6
First column is dice result, second is commoners, third is warriors, and fourth is PC classed trained military response.
Obviously this is an example table to show the idea. So at the beginning roll a D6 and that's what they face. As the get more and more infamous, roll a D6 + 2, then +3 and so on until you are getting results of 6-12, or higher if you want more of a challenge.
Three natural 1s huh? Ouch.
You know your group better then I so if you say they are masochists, far be it from me to deny it.
As to how you can mess with them:
1. Violence perceived is more effective than violence committed. Do they have friends and loved ones? If so, have your villains drive home that they CAN get to them at any time they want. This will so fear.
1b. Have the Anti-Sedition Force make the names of known supporters public.
2. Target local businesses that may be helping them. Do they come to certain shops for supplies? The PCs now find that their favorite shop keep has been replaced by a Thrune loyalist who finds their purchasing of weapons questionable.
3. Do NOT take hostages. Seriously, hostage taking is a defensive move and puts you in a position of weakness. You (the hostage taker) now depend on the survival and well being of the hostages to keep you alive and safe. If you harm/kill them, the are guaranteed to be wiped out.
With that being said, refer to point 1 as to how to make the fear of hostages a thing.
Also, friends and families of NPC supports are easy targets.
4. Make their failures public. If your rebellion puts people in danger, the number of people who support it will drop. As above, if someone is found supporting the rebellion, the friends and families of those people pay.
5. Finally to really mess with them, if the PCs do not realize who the Anti-Sedition Force is, you can ignore point 1 and just target the families of support.
Think about it, the PCs think they and their friends/family are safe, the NPCs see that the PCs have not been targeted and begin to question whether or not the PCs have their best interest in mind. NPCs start leaving since the danger is too great. Then once the PCs have minimal support, the ASF goes after their friends and family. Now the PCs have no support and are in a place of weakness.
My suggestion is to be very careful going down this rabbit hole.
I know things like this are fun for a number of people, but it can lead to a whole mess of problems.
First problem is the derailment. If I was a PC, I would call for a hard stop on all our activities until we discover who is interfering so successfully with our efforts. Seriously, this campaign would go nowhere until the side quest was dealt with. And if we were pushed to continue the main story line, I would hate every second since it would be removing all semblance of player agency.
Second is a DM getting overly attached. It is easy to get attached to a plot device/villain and find yourself bending over backwards to get them involved in things or protect them. The main DM of my group has two characters that were involved in every single AP from Second Darkness to Jade Reagent. These guys were basically Dr Who and the Master (I think, I don't like Dr Who). They were not DMPCs they were just an added story line to each AP, and they pissed me off every time they appeared. Seriously, I hated every second they were involved. I understand he enjoyed them, but they got old fast.
Third problem is one of the most common problems that DMs face in these situations. You are the ones in charge of supplying the world to the PCs. A room doesn't exist to a PC if the DM does not tell them. The room does not have any furniture unless the DM tells them. The room does not look suspicious to a PC unless the DM gives them some reason to think this room, that has only a single wooden chair, is somehow suspicious.
Do not get me wrong, you do not need to kiddie gloves you PCs when it comes to them investigating, but you MUST remember this very important fact (all capping it cause seriously this is important):
YOU, THE DM, HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. YOU THE DM HAVE CONTROL OF ALL THE EVIDENCE.
Seriously, this point comes up all over the boards for different reasons.
Just remember to A. Have fun and B. Make sure you players are ACTUALLY having fun.
Don't let the last sentence in you post influence you if your players want to dedicate themselves to finding and wiping out this Anti-Sedition Force. Just because you want them to attack in book four, don't cripple you players agency so that it happens.
Not saying you will or won't, just giving a reminder that should be given a whole lot more on these boards.
1. Since there is no movement range given, it is basically an instant teleport. So it can be at the far end of the spell range and as a move action can be redirected to the far end of spell range the opposite direction.
2. Yes, you can redirect spiritual weapon as a move action, have it attack, and cast/attack something yourself in the same round.
3. They do not contradict each other, it is just how you are looking at the spell. When you first cast the spell, you direct it to attack a target. The next round, if that target is up still, you original directions remain in effect. If that target is gone, you must redirect it elsewhere. If you do not redirect it, it will then teleport back to you.
Spiritual Weapon is basically a minor summon creature.
You summon it and say, attack target A so that is what it does. It does so to the best of its abilities based on the spell description.
The next round you can either leave it be, in which case it follows the original directions (and is therefore being directed), change its target as a move action, or call it off (although some may disagree with that statement) as a move action.
This repeats until the fight is over or the spell duration ends.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
My problem is not that the FAQ has gone this long without being addressed, that is frustrating and disappointing but not a HUGE issue, my problem is that they keep adding to a "broken" feature.
If no one knows how exactly it operates then you should stop making it until it is solved.
It is a massive perception issue. Your company only comes off as incompetent when you keep doing this.
You have a problem, you acknowledge the problem., you say since there are so many masterpieces that work differently it is a complicated problem, and you continue to put out new masterpieces before addressing the problem. The only thing your customer sees is incompetence at best and great at worst.
It's almost like making a car that uses and engine that has a 95% failure rate within 10 miles of use. When it is brought to the attention of the company they acknowledge the problem, say they will address the problem and continue to make more cars using the same engine.
People buy the new cars thinking that the problem has been solved only to discover that no, no it has not. The customers then bring the issue up again with the company, and the company again responds with an acknowledgement of the problem and promise of a fix. They also say that since they have more cars on the road now then when the problem was first brought to their attention, the fix will be more complex.
The customers accept it, but then see the company continue to make and sell more cars with the same problem.
It just does not help your image.
*Edit* I love playing Bards. I want to look at using the masterpieces, but until this gets answered, I am not going to even bother touching them.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
A big reason for this problem is how we calculate HP and Damage during game play.
Almost everyone I meet, myself included, look at it this way:
34/34 HP
Take 4 HP Damage so we subtract 4 from the first 34 to get
30/34 HP
Max Hp Reduced by 5 so we subtract 5 from the second 34 which brings us to
30/29 HP
Well we took 4 points of damage earlier so we have to recalculate current HP and get
25/29
This is very convoluted and actually goes against how the system was written (I think)
The better way to do this is this:
We have 34 HP max
We take 4 points of damage so we record 4 on the sheet, we don't subtract from out max, we have a pool called damage it totals 4 so we get
4/34
Out HP is reduced by five so we subtract 5 from 34 giving us an end result of
4/29
So with using two pools, one for Hit Points and one for Damage we simplify the math to two steps.
Maybe explaining it to them that way will make it more clear.
Lemartes wrote: As I said above, what about cleave and great cleave with lunge?
Does this combo mitigate some of the failings of cleave(and great cleave) enough to make them worth it?
Absolutely not.
Cleave spreads damage around to multiple enemies, which past level 6 is not a good thing, at the cost of 2 AC.
Great Cleave spreads damage to even more enemies, for the cost of another feat.
Lunge extends reach by 5 feet at the cost of 2 AC.
Lunge has a prerequisite of +6 BAB making this a minimum level 6 build.
So for a build of three feats, that would be from 75% to 38% of available feats depending on class/race, you get a VERY situational set up.
IF you are lucky enough to get 2 enemies next to each other, you can use cleave to hit both.
IF you get REALLY lucky and get 3 enemies next to each other you can use
Great Cleave.
IF you get REALLY lucky and get three enemies next to each other, but they are for some reason just outside your reach, and you CAN'T move to them, you can use Lunge to use Great Cleave.
That is a bunch of IFs. One trick ponies are frowned upon; one trick ponies that are super situational are even more so.
A level six fighter is going to do around 22 points of damage per hit. This will kill SOME CR 3, FEWER CR 4, and really NOT ONE CR 5+. This only gets worse as the levels get higher.
Is cleave useful? Yes, at low levels it is super useful. It just does not scale well. As the levels get higher, it becomes less and less useful until it becomes a wasted line on your character sheet, and you forget you have it.
Yes, Weapon Focus and Dodge are underwhelming, but a +1 to Attack and AC is ALWAYS a +1 to Attack and AC. Yes they become less meaningful as the levels progress, but when you third attack hits the BBEG EXACTLY, confirming the critical that brings him down, or the disintegrate misses you by one, keeping you from turning to dust, you will be thankful you had it.
When you hit those two giants for 45 points of damage at the beginning of the fight since they had not had their turn to flank you yet, you will not be thankful you had Cleave. At best, you will be thankful you finally got to use that feat you took at first level and haven't had the opportunity to use for six levels.
That is the difference between a decent (not good DECENT) Feat and a bad Feat. A decent feat you are thankful you had at some point in time. A bad Feat makes you thankful that a SITUATION came up that allowed you to use the feat.
Good Feats are used all the time
Decent Feats are either used all the time but do not make an impact most of the time or they are useful most of the time
Bad Feats are useful only in certain situations
Terrible Feats are either useless or make you worse at something
Trap- any device, stratagem, trick, or the like for catching a person unawares.
Now, one of the many definitions of trap makes it seem like we are accusing the designers of intentionally trying to trick players into making sub-par characters; we are not. But, the feat is a trap.
At low levels, it is awesome. It is great for clearing goblins, kobolds, mites, gnolls, and all other manner or creatures with less than 30 hp. Then, we start seeing more and more hit points on monsters and more and more reliable iterative attacks. As this progresses, cleave becomes less useful to the point of near uselessness.
That is why it is a trap; when you take it, it seems like a really good idea at the time, but the game at low levels, is completely different from higher levels.
If you are fighting a group of enemies, a -2 to your AC is not detrimental, but is a hindrance, especially when you are looking at at least some of them will be flanking you, meaning that the -2 to AC is now paired with a +2 to their attacks. So we have monsters that are hitting at basically a +4 to attack against you. If you are not taking out one every round, you are wasting your parties resources.
Add to that at higher levels, monsters have iterative attacks as well. With the above mentioned situation, those monsters are going to rip you to shreds. If a monster is attacking you at +20/+15/+10 and it translates to a 80%/55%/30% hit normally, with the +4 from the cleave/flank bonus they are now at +24/+19/+14 or 100%/75%/50% chance to hit you. (This does not account for the Nat 20/1 rule.)
That is going to hurt, a lot.
To use cleave successfully, you have to put yourself in a bad situation.
Yes, there are situations where cleave can be useful, but as others have stated numerous times, it is few and far between.
I would argue that Vital Strike is a better feat for the times you can only take a standard action.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It is considered a trap option because it does not scale well at all.
From levels 1-5 it works well because you only have one attack.
From levels 6-8 it works decently because the second attack is unreliable, but you are not doing enough damage to each creature targeted by Cleave and them being adjacent becomes less common.
After this it becomes useless for the below reasons:
Higher CR monsters rarely bunch up because they have Reach, multiple movement options, spells and SLAs
Your extra attacks become more reliable and do more damage
MOST IMPORTANTLY- A monster with 1 hp fights just as well as a monster with 10,000 hp.
This CANNOT be reinforced enough, concentrate on one target. This is a game of statistics. If you have five monsters with 2 attacks that have a 25% chance to hit you, with a 5% chance to crit, you do not want to continue to allow your DM to roll tons of dice, it will NOT go in your favor.
Take out monster systematically. My own group is terrible at this, our wizards always go evocation because they like fireball and lightning bolt. Don't get me wrong, they are helpful when faced with a large number of weaker monsters, but a martial that takes out 1.5 monsters per turn is more efficient than a fireball that wounds 8.
Enjoyed the read, well done.
As you said in your last reply; intent is not brought up enough. Honestly this creature could be almost any evil alignment. It enjoys the carnage and death, but understands it can't just go out and be the aggressor so it intentionally puts itself in situations where it would be "forced" to defend itself, then revels in the slaughter. At least that is how I see it.
This creature is insidious and manipulative. Since it really has no communication in the story, we are left wondering; is it doing it with thoughtful intent or just by its own nature?
In fact, because the creature is so vague, it is almost as if it is not actually a creature, but and idea or thought. (My high school self who hated English class because of the constant analysis is screaming in my head to stop typing, but let's ignore him, he was an idiot.) I mean, we can consider the creature a small evil urge that latched onto our poor hero who instead of acknowledging it for what it was and squashing it, as his friend wished to, he secluded himself with only it for company. As he spent time contemplating upon it, it slowly gained influence over him.
When his friends and order returned to slay the creature, he allowed it to devour them, claiming that it was only defending itself. Instead of realizing his mistake, he saw the pain, suffering, and carnage this thing wrought and continued to deny its nature. So much so that he FOLLOWS it around and has come to the conclusion that the Paladin Order he used to belong to, who still have their divine power granted by either a god of Good or the very essence of Good I might add, are in the wrong.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmond Burke
I mean seriously, this is as an Anti-Paladin of an act as possible (not the class, just the idea of being in opposition to).
This former Paladin allowed for great evil to triumph because of his inaction, and as a result fell. Is the former paladin evil? I am not sure, at the beginning when he first fell, no; at the point the story ends, maybe.
I can do this all day it seems so kudos for a story well done, and also for being completely honest in your title.
Yeah, you did answer your own question and yes you did, and continue to, waste my time.
Not complaining.
Gah, my novel was eaten!
So short rewrite since I am not doing that again.
Question A: Initiative is rolled by all combatants THEN surprise is determined. A Surprise round turn is a turn, so it does not allow the ability to roll over as the ability does not say it does. Solution, stay hidden until first full round.
Question B2 and B3: An attack is an attack whether it be with a spell, weapon, unarmed strike, or natural weapon. If it requires an attack roll, it is an attack.
Question B1: Answer vague, expect variances as there is, as far as I know, no official answer on that.
Question B3a: There MAY be a FAQ on whether or not scorching ray (and similar spells) allow you to attack multiple targets from stealth/invisibility. I don't care enough to look, I hate the FAQ system and don't spend enough time on this site to get used to it. It might be a sneak attack question. If there is I think the FAQ said something about only the first ray being from stealth/invisibility then the others are normal. Don't quote me, do some homework.
Question B3b: Honestly, no clue, expect variance without an official answer. Except with AoE spells/SLAs like fireball, you are not targeting anyone with those so it would not work.
Question B4: Not sure what other offensive abilities there are that are not already covered by the above questions.
Question C: Assuming B3a and B3b are yes, then the answer here is yes. The ability does what it says it does.
Question D1: The sentence structure of the ability description is written so that any enemy within 10ft of the TARGET who can see the attack are subject to it.
Question D2: Again, requires B3a and B3b to be answered. Refer to Question C, except in the case of Fireball. Sadly, with fireball, and any other AoE spell/SLA, since you are not targeting anyone, none of these abilities apply.
I see only Question B3a and B3b as FAQ worthy questions. Get those answered and everything else is already covered in the rules.
I agree with nearly everything ShieldLawrence said above. Only thing different, I can see the possibility of letting things like Magic Missile work, but don't expect most people to go along with it. (I won't even argue to defend it, just see possibility. Only because you are a 3/4 BAB class who can cast a Touch Attack against a Flat Footed Touch AC. You want to hit things for 1d4+1 damage, be my guest, you can't sneak attack or surprise strike whatever it's called with it and you won't get an attack again except maybe an AoO.)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Can we get an official order of operations for rules interactions?
Hear me out. I know that general is overridden by specific. Simple enough in theory, but some rules debates make you wonder.
But what about when specific contradicts specific?
In the Smash from the air and disintegrate thread we see an example of this. Now it is not a great example, but it works for my purposes. Disintegrate says it effects the first object/being it touches and Smash From the Air allows you to deflect spells using an object.
I am not going into the debate here, that is what that thread is for, but if we had an official order of operations for rules interactions, we could nip these things in the bud quick fast and in a hurry...in theory because this is the internet.
So what exactly am I talking about by order of operations?
So instead of the very vague specific trumps general I am looking for something like this:
1. General Rules (ie. Environment, Combat, Magic (not spells just Magic), Equipment, and anything else I forgot
2. Spells
3. Classes
4. Feats
*Please do not debate the priority levels of each, this is just for explanation purposes.
So we start at level 1 and it is overridden by anything from level 2-4, and level 2 is overridden by anything from level 3-4.
With this, if we ever have a rules contradiction we can just look at what section the two contradicting/interacting rules come from and if they are from different priority levels, whichever is higher wins. End of discussion, again in theory.
Now I know this is not something that we can have thrown together in a day or two since the design philosophy of 3e to Pathfinder probably did not have this, but it would help immensely.
Society would run smoother by table because you could have an issue arise that would be solved very quickly. Let's use the SFtA and Disintegrate topic with the above priority listing.
Disintegrate says it effects the first object/being it touches and Smash From the Air allows you to deflect spells using an object. Player 1 argues that the object used to deflect the spell is damaged since it is an object, and Player 2 says it does not since the feat says the attack is deflected.
If we look at the priority levels, Spells are level 2, but Feats are level 4. Therefore, feat overrides spells, and player 2 is correct.
Is it a perfect system? No. But it would help.
I have stated my arguments so, not contributing any more to that.
But Mjolbeard, ChessPwn Consolidated made me chuckle.
Needed that, thanks.
Also, if we want a real answer, FAQ it.
Going to post closing argument since both sides are pretty entrenched in our positions and doing much else will devolve into a nu-uh style argument.
Balkoth asked if his player was correct in saying that the Pole Fighting ability of the Polearm Master archetype for Fighter, text will be included below, allowed for the use of reach weapons to attack targets both at the ten foot distance and adjacent target.
Pole Fighting (Ex): At 2nd level, as an immediate action, a polearm master can shorten the grip on his spear or polearm with reach and use it against adjacent targets . This action results in a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon until he spends another immediate action to return to the normal grip. The penalty is reduced by –1 for every four levels beyond 2nd. This ability replaces bravery.
Chess Pwn and those that agree with him, who I will just refer to as Chess Pwn from here on, believe that since the text in the ability says you shorten your grip and can now target adjacent targets, you lose your ability to utilize the reach ability of your weapon.
I, and those who agree with me, also just referred to in the first person, believe that since the ability does not specifically say you lose access to reach while using the ability, you do not use reach.
Chess Pwn and those that agree with him maintain that a common sense nontechnical reading of the ability supports the interpretation that since you shorten the grip on a reach weapon and can attack adjacent targets with it, naturally you would no longer have the ability to attack target at a longer distance. Every argument and counter argument made have centered around this one idea.
I find this argument lacking.
A common sense reading of shorten the grip on a polearm is not as straight forward as Chess Pwn believes. If these weapons were used in a style similar to baseball bats, yes, shortening the grip would shorten the reach as you are in essence, choking up on the bat, reducing distance from hands to weapon end. Unfortunately, since many polearms are not used primarily in a style similar to baseball bats, shortening the grip is a phrase that makes little sense.
Pathfinder is a rule set where the rules say what they say and mean what they mean. Yes common sense should be used when reading and understanding the rules. Except when they don't. Look at some of the old debates about unarmed strikes and whether they were one weapon only, or multiple body parts. Both options are eluded to at different points in the books.
Because of this disconnect, common place ambiguity, and changes via errata and FAQs, we have to work with what information we have until it is defined.
With that being said.
If we look at the whole of the ability description we see no mention of loss of reach.
The first half states the action being taken and the action required to activate it and the basic effect. In this case an immediate action is taken to shorten the grip and allow attacks on adjacent targets. No where in that statement is a mention of a loss of reach. Shorten the grip is not a phrase used anywhere else, so we cannot look else where in the rules to truly define this inexact phrase. The closest thing we have is a FAQ about changing you grip to make a spear a bludgeoning, improvised, non-reach weapon. As has been stated by the PDT; FAQs apply only to the very specific situation the FAQ is for. Even then, this FAQ is about a character with no special abilities to intentionally use a spear incorrectly.
Now we look at the second half. This section states "This action results in a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon until he spends another immediate action to return to the normal grip." Reading this line informs you that in exchange for being able to attack adjacent targets the fighter takes a -4 penalty on attacks with this weapon until the return their grip to normal. There is no mention of loss of reach being exchanged for the ability to attack adjacent targets.
The last section discusses how the penalty decreases and the fighter ability it replaces and is irrelevant to the conversation.
So we have an unclear phrase that is not defined followed by a set of specific and defined interactions with the rule set. In this specific explanation, a loss of reach is not once mentioned. In fact, other than saying a weapon has to have reach to be used with this ability, the word reach is never once mentioned again.
If the ability said the fighter shortened the reach of their weapon or that they lost the reach property while using the shortened grip, I would be right there with you.
Look, Pathfinder has some issues. All systems do, which is why we have the terms RAW and RAI. Perhaps the RAI of this ability was to do what Chess Pwn states. DMRrostarr said the writer of the archetype claimed so. No link was provided, but I have no reason not to believe him. But we have to remember sometimes what the auther intened and wrote, is not what the editorial staff intended and approved, it has happened before.
RAW does not state a loss of reach.
Since RAW does not say anything we need to ask ourselves, is it really necessary to make this ability weaker? Is there some overpowered option that will break the game, or will it at worst raise the level of fighters?
I do not think it will, it is a niche archetype that loses bravery. At one point that may have been considered an OP exchange, but, and I am not 100% on this, doesn't the new fighter feat that increases saving throws increase based on bravery?
So again, RAW has no loss of reach; RAI, maybe it was intended. It is an old archetype and new and fun toys for fighters have come out. In the grand scheme of things, does being able to threaten at both 5' and 10' break the game?
Okay, terribly text picture time.
I will be illustrating the grip on a longspear via text.
<<< is the spear head, for ease of illustration, we will say it is a foot in length
=== is haft section, every three = will denote a foot
X will be the hands, assumed width of 6"
so an spear will look like this
<<<=====================
Now I am going to assume that people think the default grip looks something like this
<<<============X===X===
So hands a clearly towards the back allowing for maximum reach.
To shorten grip are you saying it goes to something like this?
<<<=======X===X========
Much closer to the point so less reach.
Unfortunately the default grip on a spear is much closer to this:
<<<====X==========X====
Notice how short the distance is from either end?
With a grip like this, guess what? You can not only attack adjacent but targets out at the "10 foot" range. All you do is push the back hand forward propelling the point towards the target. For an adjacent foe you may only push forward six inches to a foot, for a longer range foe you might have to bring your back hand all the way to the lead hand. To attack continuously, repeat above simple process quickly adjusting back hand movement as necessary.
This does not include changing angle of attack.
Now, I know DnD/Pathfinder does a terrible job at realism because it really doesn't try for it, I accept it. However, when a rule states "can shorten the grip" and does not, in one single place define that phrase, nor does it state that it overrides a built in function of a weapon, we have to do two thing. Look at the logical closest real life situation ,thus the need to understand polearm fighting in real life at at least a simple level, and take the rules at face value.
Shorten grip in RL means maybe pulling back spear head closer to lead hand, more time required to travel to longer range targets but not prohibitive, and no mention of loss of reach in rule means no loss of reach.
Your comparison to dead characters being able to act is a blatant straw man.
On a more personal note, if you wish to continue with a civil discussion, I suggest you not imply that those who disagrees with you are quote "dumb people were trying to exploit and twist the rules".
But there is absolutely no bending of any wording. None.
Ability-
Pole Fighting (Ex): At 2nd level, as an immediate action, a polearm master can shorten the grip on his spear or polearm with reach and use it against adjacent targets . This action results in a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon until he spends another immediate action to return to the normal grip. The penalty is reduced by –1 for every four levels beyond 2nd. This ability replaces bravery.
Example weapon for ability:
Table Entry:
Longspear 5 gp 1d6 1d8 ×3 — 9 lbs. P brace, reach
Weapon Description
Longspear: A longspear is about 8 feet in length.
How is my grip initially? Am I shortening my grip by pulling my lead hand back 1 foot, 2 feet, 6 feet, 6 inches? Am I bringing my back hand up towards my lead hand?
Am I targeting my opponents chest, head, or feet?
The ability says shortening grip, it does not specify by how much. The ability does not specify a loss of reach.
The Lance PA FAQ is a FAQ that flies in the face of your argument. A lance is a 2 handed weapon. It can be wielded in 1 hand while mounted. Power attack does 50% extra damage with 2 handed weapons.
Your logic would dictate that since a lance is wielded in one hand in this situation, it counts as a one handed weapon and therefore does not get the 50% extra bonus from PA. The FAQ says the opposite of that. The FAQ basically says, yes it is a 2 handed weapon, the weapon specifically says it can be wielded in 1 hand while mounted. This ability from the weapon does not state it is no longer a 2-handed weapon, therefore it does in fact gain the 50% PA bonus.
I am using the exact same logic on Pole Fighting.
The weapons in question are reach weapons, reach weapons cannot be used to attack adjacent creatures, this ability allows for the use of a reach weapon to be used to attack adjacent creatures, the ability does not specify a loss of the reach property, therefore the reach property remains.
No bending of any reading, plain written English.
Shorten the grip is a vague undefined term. Search the PRD, there is not one other use of that wording (at least according to the search feature with the PRD). We do have a defined word in that ability though; Reach. The only time that word is used, is to describe what type of weapons are valid choices for use with the ability, that is it.
Again, I tend to agree, but a few outliers lend credibility to the exceptions.
The above mentioned FAQ is a good example. I know FAQs are for the specific question they address, and only that question, but this one in particular is almost an identical situation, almost.
Lances are 2-H weapons, but when mounted can be used in 1-H. If mounted and using as 1-H weapon it still counts as 2-H for the effects of Power Attack, because the weapon is still a 2-H weapon that in this situation is called out specifically to work this way and it does not specifically say it now counts as a 1-H weapon.
Polearms are reach weapons that cannot be used to attack adjacent creatures. Pole Fighting allows for polearms to be used to attack adjacent creatures at an incrementally decreasing penalty. Polearms are still reach weapons and the ability does not specifically say it is no longer a reach weapon.
I get that the ability can be read to change the weapon to non-reach for the time period the character chooses to use it, but you need to admit that it can also be read as NOT changing the weapon from reach to non-reach.
And since it can be read as just allowing attacks on both adjacent and non-adjacent targets, at a penalty, and such a situation is in fact not going to destroy any game as it is not over powered, letting it work more in the player's favor is not a bad thing.
Paizo may come out and say it works your way. I get that, and I might not agree with it, but I will get it.
I am not trying to prove anyone wrong. I did not write the ability and I obviously do not work for the Development Team. I can not judge intent nor decide what is the proper reading. All I can do is say, I can easily see this ability working either way and I have my opinion on how it should work.
Chess Pwn wrote: These were written in a non-technical and in a conversational tone. The basic impression would be, reach weapon, shorten reach to attack adjacent means no more reach.
So it's not about word count, but the style that the books are (unfortunately to the boards) written in.
While inclined to agree with you for the most part, things like the FAQ for Power Attack and Lances lead to other conclusions.
Rysky wrote: Andarion wrote: Rysky wrote: Andarion wrote: *snip Okay, that would allow you stab adjacent people, sorry for my question being vague, I meant can you use that to strike multiple adjacent and reach targets effortlessly doing that?
I can't really picture how feet placement would allow you more reach, short of just precariously leaning towards the target. Again, this is highly inefficient use of the weapon but it does the job.
Yes the above method does allow targeting of both adjacent an non-adjacent foes. Using only hands, to attack adjacent foes, you will bring the right hand forward only a foot or two. This results in a quick short "jab" as it were. This will hit adjacent foes.
To hit foes further away, you would bring you right hand as close to you left as possible without losing control of the point. It IS tricky, which can be explained by the -4 to attack rolls. Not tricky to do, but you do need practice to not just allow the point to drop into the ground.
On footwork, you obviously do not want to be precariously leaning; leaning bad, anyone who trains will tell you to never lead with you face, but weight pressed solidly forward and other tricks of body positioning can make weirdly impressive things happen.
Also consider that almost no person is a 5'x5'x5' cube, so if you need to attack a foe who is "10 feet" away from you, you target them when they are at the closest edge of their square while you are at the closest edge to their square.
I suggest you watch some YouTube videos of spear demonstrations. Not for the techniques, but just to see the mobility and range abilities of spears.
***DISCLAIMER*** I am not saying that all these techniques are usable. Many of them are form exercises only, and their spears are flimsy and "will break over my knee, like so". I just think that seeing the changes in grip and angle along with some of the more conservative footwork can shed light on what we are talking about.
SlimGauge wrote: Do you really want Paizo to waste word count on making "and use it against adjacent targets." into "and use it against adjacent targets [and ONLY adjacent targets]." ?. Yes, in a sense.
They could have used:
Pole Fighting (Ex): At 2nd level, as an immediate action, a polearm master can shorten the grip on his spear or polearm with reach and use it against adjacent targets . This action results in a –4 penalty on attack rolls and loss of reach until he spends another immediate action to return to the normal grip. The penalty is reduced by –1 for every four levels beyond 2nd. This ability replaces bravery.
Original "word" count 68, "word" count for above changed and clarified version, 69.
Rysky wrote: Andarion wrote: As to Rysky's common sense comment; as someone who has training in the use of certain polearm type weapons, it is near effortless to change your grip to allow close range attacks and you still have alot of extra reach with the weapon. So common sense would allow for vhok's scenario as well. Near effortless to change your grip to maintain reach and to be able to attack adjacent people with the pointy end still? Not the haft. Yep, no problem. In fact, you don't even need to change grip.
For right handed person, grip at base "near" counter weight with right hand, grip near "weapon" end with left. Use right hand as main force for weapon propulsion and left to control. Think pool cue motion for ease of imagery. If you need more reach and control than that, adjust foot placement. And yes, you can get AT LEAST 4 on target attacks in six seconds this way.
Not the most efficient use of weapon, but most polearms in real life are designed to use all parts of the weapon, which DnD in general (not just Pathfinder) can't seem to grasp.
In all honesty, if weapon can ONLY be used at a distance, they would not catch on in battle. There is a reason that Spears are the some of the oldest known weapons and continued to be used in battle until guns fully replaced everything.
Yes if you are fighting someone who has a spear and you have a sword you want to get in close. That is NOT because the spear user is at a disadvantage in close range, it is because YOU are screwed unless you get in close.
I am going to go with vhok on this one.
A strict RAW reading does indeed lack any mention of loss of reach. In fact, reach is specifically mentioned as a requirement for the ability to work, but no mention of loss of reach.
Pole Fighting (Ex): At 2nd level, as an immediate action, a polearm master can shorten the grip on his spear or polearm with reach and use it against adjacent targets . This action results in a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon until he spends another immediate action to return to the normal grip. The penalty is reduced by –1 for every four levels beyond 2nd. This ability replaces bravery.
*Bolding mine
The second bold section can be read two ways:
1. You ONLY threaten adjacent targets
2. You now threaten adjacent targets as well as targets at 10 feet
*leaving above section even though while typing just realized something.
No where in the ability does it say you change the space you threaten. So strictest reading, you can attack any target with two squares of you, but you cannot take AoO against targets next to you.
As to Rysky's common sense comment; as someone who has training in the use of certain polearm type weapons, it is near effortless to change your grip to allow close range attacks and you still have alot of extra reach with the weapon. So common sense would allow for vhok's scenario as well.
EDIT: So my personal reading of this ability, this turns reach weapons into something similar to a reverse whip only slightly better. You threaten out at 10', but not 5', but you can attack anything from 5'-10'.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Axial wrote:
Here's my question: how should I should depict CG paladins, what role they have in their religions, and how they might work in Kintargo? And what opportunities, missions, and quests can I offer to such paladins in the Hell's Rebels campaign?
So I wrote a huge response to discuss paladin alignments and realized it was a total thread derailment, which I started, apologies.
Anyways, to answer your direct; it's going to be tricky. You may have a CG Paladin who gets up in front of the people publicly and stirs them to action, you may have a CG Paladin that remains in the shadows stealthily taking out the cancer that infects his home, or you could have a CG Paladin that encourages calm and civility in the people since he realizes that directly opposing the Empire of Cheliax in open as a single city is madness that will end in the death of lots of people. At the end of the day, ANY paladin will be dedicated to doing good.
Really, it is wide open how to depict them. A Paladin of Cayden Cailean could provide a place for people to relax and forget the worries of the world for a time, a Desnan Paladin could take it upon themselves to ensure that people traveling within the city are safe and protected, and a Milani Paladin could be leading open revolt.
The churches of each of these gods would react differently to each individual paladin, and each individual priest of these religions would react differently to each paladin.
So specific examples:
John Gerald owns and operates a tavern known as The Lucky Beggar, as a paladin of Cayden Cailean, he ensures that the drink and company are the best in town. He allows the local Cult of Milani to meet in his basement, and if any Thrune agents try to work his establishment or harass his patrons; he reminds them that The Drunken God was a soldier.
Rachelle Benedicci is a Paladin of Milani and leads one of the cells within Kintargo. She and her supporters meet in The Lucky Beggar that is owned by her friend John. In her meetings she actively encourages actions against the Thrune and plans and takes part in some of the more daring raids. She understands that John is sticking his neck out for her and tries to be a secretive about her relationship as possible.
Tilitha, is a paladin of Desna and was brought to Kintargo by a dream sent by her goddess. As she is an outsider, she does not know much about Kintargo but can see the corruption and oppression. She has taken it upon herself to patrol the city streets at night and stop any Thrune agents from harassing those that walk the streets.
Each is different, each is motivated by a different reason, but at the end of the day, each one is trying to do the best good they can.
Hope it helps somewhat.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
As a fan of Paladins, and someone who fought for releasing them from the ridiculous shackles of LG since beta, this is actually super SUPER easy to do.
I would just say the Paladins just have to be good. That's right ANY good alignment. However, they must be completely dedicated to doing good.
The Law/Chaos alignment plane is so messed up that it contradicts itself all over the place. Example, Monks must be lawful since they dedicate them selves to their training, but Wizards can be any alignment although the dedicate themselves to the study of magic...whut???
Where i see CG paladins differing from LG paladins is planning. I see CG paladins being more, help the person in need in front of me right now ignoring future consequences while a LG will help if it does not interfere with the big picture. Again though, the Law/Chaos plane is vague.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
There is an anime for that, called "Gate: The JDSF Fought There" (or something VERY similar, I get name of anime, manga, and light novel confused).
IT is not so much that magic and monsters swarm the earth, so much as a fantasy world Romanesque Empire creates a gate and invades Japan with monsters and dragons etc... it does not end well for them. The rest of the series is about the Japanese going to the other side.
Not a perfect example but pretty close to what you are talking about.
I enjoyed the show immensely.
First, thanks for all the responses.
I had not even looked at the Kineticist since it looked, at first glance, like a weird 3/4 BAB Magus-esque class. Again, did not look closely. I also had not thought about using the social talents from Vigilante to generate "disposable" revenue.
It just frustrates me that it is so difficult to create a character who fights to help the downtrodden, but doesn't almost HAVE to walk past the poor beggars and orphans on the street while carrying 50,000 gp because it he doesn't have that, he can't get the Holy enchantment that allows him to bypass the DR 10/silver and good that the BBEG has.
I have had a number of characters by the end of campaign are decked in crazy expensive gear, because they had to have it to survive, but have less than 1000 gp in their pocket.
To Vatras: I guess altruism wasn't the BEST word, close enough to not be wrong, for: gives money generously either directly to the poor or by establishing a support system.
And Hell's Rebels is the "Chaotic Good" campaign path, Hell's Vengeance the Evil one.
So, I couldn't find anything with my admittedly weak Search-Fu, but what are the best classes for altruism?
More specifically, classes that will not be incredibly crippled by use of "large" sums of money for the welfare of others.
I know that there are the 9-level casters who look at gear and mostly laugh, and I know there are supplementary rules in the Unchained book that gets rid of gear dependency, but DM will not want to put the extra work in to adapt a campaign to them.
I also know that wealth was built into the CR system for 3.5/Pathfinder which casically actively discourages helping others with money.
But, I need some options for two upcoming urban campaigns (Hell's Rebels and CotCT).
In Hell's Rebels I am stuck being whatever I need to be to cover the weaknesses to a party of a Bard (Demagogue), Cleric (party buffing focused), and U-Rogue (will probably end up as a kamikaze play style).
In CotCT it is a bit more flexible, since that one is a ways off.
Anyways, I looking for classes that can cover the shortcomings of the party, do his job, and not have to hoard money to keep from joining the dead in the later parts of the campaign.
All Paizo book are options, DM does not do 3rd party stuff, hasn't for years so I am not going to try to bring it up.
****I should add that the members of my group often make very poor decisions on character build options, optimization wise. I don't fault them for it, just like to actually get through a campaign every now and again. We TPKed in RR, CotC (sort of, long story), SD, LoF, S&S.****
Every arcane caster in this group from 3.5 days to through WotR has been evocation focused. EVERY SINGLE ONE. I have seen haste cast in only one campaign I can think of, and even then it was rare.
I don't enjoy combat much, so I tend to build reasonably powerful characters to end combat as quickly as possible to get back to the RP.
So I am kind of confused. Are you trying to disarm BEFORE the attack is made or "disarm" the weapon as it pass by/hits you?
If it is the first, you can only disarm if you are threatening, which under most cases would mean that they would draw an attack of opportunity from you for making a ranged attack while in melee. So no need to ready a disarm.
If you are trying to "disarm" as it passes by/hits you, readied action sunder or steal maybe. Although how you would resolve that, no idea.
This is my suggestion, take it or leave it.
The thing that brings them back together is the child(ren) of a former member finding them after their parent has died.
This at least gives the option of having the martial character(s) starting at a younger age and not having a penalty, while also giving a story hook.
I can see this not being exactly what you are looking for since it sounds like you wanted an ALL older adventure party, but this is at least an option.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Can we please, please, PLEASE, stop bringing super heroes of any variety into this discussion!?
The problem with super heroes in an alignment discussion is that they are NOT logically based, and I do not mean that they are obviously fake.
What I mean is that the code of honor was designed in reverse.
Batman doesn't kill Joker because he CAN'T. Not from a logical choice, but because Joker sells comics.
If Joker dies, sales drop. If sales drop people lose their jobs.
Comics heroes are driven by profit, NOT morality.
Back on topic, people need to remember that this particular situation is an two option only scenario. It is fake, and it was created to breed discussion. There is no true situation where there is only two options. Sometimes we may only see two, but there is always at least one more.
The OP even said that this was a conversation between two characters around a campfire type deal.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Captain collateral damage wrote: Andarion: Good would never doom everyone. Certain evil people would kill both groups, because they like killing. Some neutral wouldn't care, but some (LN mostly would find it within their responsibility. First to respond to Captain Collateral; I never said a good PERSON would doom everyone, I said killing the innocent to save other innocents is not a good ACT. It is a very important difference.
Secondly let's address the elephant in the room; the conversation itself.
This conversation is the end result of an unstated previous conversation centuries before. This particular one evolved something like this:
Is it good to kill someone?
No
Is it evil to kill someone?
Yes
Is it evil to willingly let someone innocent die that you could have saved?
Yes
So you are saying it is Evil to kill an innocent and it is evil to willingly allow a saveable innocent to die?
Yes
So is it evil to kill one innocent person to save another innocent person?
Um, maybe?
What about killing one innocent to save two?
Not really, I don't think.
What bout if you had to kill 5 innocent people to save 2000, and if you didn't, they would all die?
The problem with this is we have gone from a 'What is good/evil action debate' to a 'Which of these two evils is more acceptable' conversation.
The OP's example exists within a vacuum, and in this vacuum we are given an evil choice and a more exaggerated evil choice that makes the first one look like a good choice (good in reference to alignment).
This is an 'I hate paladins so I will make this one fall' type scenario.
So to the OP, if you are still reading this, there is no reason to have distrusted the other character. He was given a choice between two great evils and chose the lesser. Not his fault, it was a trap conversation.
To everyone else, I am with Dastis and his break down above.
So amendment to my above statement. I listed the actions based on alignment, put what the good action was then promptly followed up with the way neutral and evil characters would act, whoops.
So to correct:
Good: Would NEVER sacrifice another innocent; would work as hard as possible for a third option; may fail and doom everyone (and would sacrifice themselves before the family)
Neutral: Do nothing (this one is tricky, since we have an option A and B, one could argue evil by inaction, but there really is no neutral action I can think of)
Evil: Sacrifice the innocent family
This particular situation is almost one of the dreaded message board should Paladin #455427843 fall situations.
First let me preface this with a statement: I LOATHE the alignment system. It contradicts itself and make little sense, imho.
Now that that is out of the way here are my thoughts on the topic.
This is an evil ACT. As said before by others, anytime the statement "for the greater good" is said, it is a justification for an evil, often times a great evil.
I emphasized act because the attitude of the PC before AND after the action would determine how much of a shift of alignment was warranted. If they were hesitant and remorseful, ping them and inform them they are on a slippery slope. If they are feeling justified and do not question later there action, shift them to a neutral alignment on the Good/Evil scale. If they enjoyed it, they were evil the whole time.
On the Good/Evil Scale the actions work out like this (remember, this is about the action ONLY not characters):
Good: Would NEVER sacrifice another innocent; would work as hard as possible for a third option; may fail and doom everyone (and would sacrifice themselves before the family)
Neutral: Would search for a better option, but if none were found, would sacrifice one family to save a village
Evil: Would readily sacrifice the innocent family and find a way to enjoy or profit from it
Situations like this are why I feel alignment should not be a mechanic. This one action may or may not cause a shift, it would be up to the DM, and if alignment was not a mechanic, shifts would not be considered by either side as a major issue thus leading to less of these debates.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think the main problem here is a basic misunderstanding of order of operations, and design philosophy of the CRB layout.
To address the CRB layout issue, it appears to be designed with an emphasis on character creation. It makes the book easier to pick up and go, but leads to issues like this.
If we emphasized rules understanding over character creation it would probably be designed in a pattern similar to this layout, we will call it The Rules First Core Rule Book (RFCRB):
Combat->Environment/Adventuring->Magic->Skills->Feats->Class es->Races
In this way the general rules are introduced FIRST then the specifics.
Now the order of operations on Knowledge checks is to set the DC then make the roll.
Do note that here is where the common order of operations issue comes up. MOST GMs do not let players know the check DC or even if it is above 10. So often anyone can roll, but those without the 1 rank fail automatically. This is incorrect by the rules. If they do not have at least 1 rank they cannot even MAKE (meaning no roll or taking 10/20, also read as: sit there and shut up) the check. So a GM must know/ask the players if they are trained in the skill, somewhat tipping their hand and giving the players some idea of what the DC is. Out of character knowledge in many opinions, and thus they let all players roll.
So with the two issues above in mind we can extrapolate how this is supposed to work.
GM needs a DC for a KNOW(Local) check, sets it at 15
GM refers to Skills Chapter in RFCRB (again, now listed BEFORE the Class Chapter) and sees the only those with 1 rank in KNOW(Local) can ATTEMPT the check
GM calls for rolls for check but reminds players of DC limit
Wizard (who is trained in KNOW(Local)) and Bard (who is not, Bard fail btw) characters make the roll
GM asks why Bard rolled and Bard Player points to Bardic Knowledge (BK) ability
GM goes to RFCRB and goes to Class Chapter where the SPECIFIC rules for how classes interact with the GENERAL rules written in previous section are and sees that BK ability allows for a Bard to make ALL Knowledge skill checks untrained
GM allows the skill check by the Bard
Bard succeeds and is given the information
So we see a problem that is caused by an order of operations error due to how Knowledge checks work compared to other skills, and an error because the CRB layout is designed in a specific rules section being listed BEFORE the general rules section format.
Also, I know that how things operated in 3.5 does not really matter much with Pathfinder rules, but we all need to remember how Bardic Knowledge worked back then. The untrained limit existed back then (I think, it has been awhile) and Bardic Knowledge ability basically gave the bard a second DC pool to check against.
So a bard could be either untrained in a skill and not be able to attempt the Knowledge check at all, and use Bardic Knowledge to try at a separate DC, or could have been trained in the skill, failed, and could then roll a Bardic Knowledge check to gain a second attempt.
It was weird and clunky and kind of made little sense.
TL;DR: DC above 10, only trained characters can attempt at all; Bardic Knowledge specifically overrides that.
I wasn't going to comment, but you made such a poorly built straw man that I just had to burn it.
Yes by the RULES a player can use the Knowledge Skill to identify every creature in a room they have not seen. This includes knowing all their weaknesses and strengths. Why? Because it is a check of what they KNOW about a creature.
I can personally in real life identify a werewolf, vampire, rakshasa(sp), dragon, demon, devil, any plant based creature, etc. etc. etc. even though none of them are in the room with me. (Thank god)
This has nothing, and I mean NOTHING, to do with your question.
Best way to think of armor interactions with the rules is the Final Fantasy system of armor. Yes your stats increase but the character model never changes. That is how the rules treat armor, weapons, and equipment. It only does what the rules say it does.
By rules you are a blank 5'x5'x5' cube and unless something says it specifically changes that, you are always a blank 5'x5'x5' cube.
Not pretty; boring actually, but that is how the rules work.
First of all thanks for the responses you two.
Second on the issue of DM info feeding, he is more likely to change the what is written for our stories, but I personally hate that so I try to avoid it as much as possible.
So on the orphanages, looks like I will go with a more, they do it when they have to, approach. They do not have a permanent infrastructure for it, but can make it work.
Looks like on the bard training I will go to the background generation ideas from ultimate campaign (I think) and either modify or shamelessly steal.
With Shensen, I was going to go with the campaign trait Diva in Training already, so will just treat her as a fellow actor with minimal information about her but a number run ins.
Obviously final version will require DM approval, but I have stuff to work with without changing set personalities and infrastructure now.
Again, thank you.
Working on character backstory for this campaign and have a few questions regarding the three above topics.
Player so obviously no spoilers please.
1. Are there any dedicated orphanages or should it be assumed that the Good aligned temples, like Shelyn's, run their own?
2. What exactly is the Alabaster Academy? Is it a bardic college, wizard academy, or something else?
3. Where can I find some background on Shensen? Is she a native of Kintargo or a transplant from somewhere else? If the Alabaster Academy is a bardic college, did she attend there? Things like that.
If I could get some places to look this information up with no fear of spoilers that would also be great.
All help is appreciated, Thank you.
*Edit
Guess I should add what I am planning thus far barring inaccuracies of assumptions.
1/2 Elf Bard (Chelish Diva) 22 years NG Following Shelyn
Raised in Temple of Shelyn as orphan (maybe)
Apprenticed at a Blacksmith
Voice was discovered and was recommended to attend Alabaster Academy
Had to save own money to attend so started as an older student
May or may not have had some run ins with Shensen
Okay, first things first. I am finding a hard time getting into the idea of this campaign because I find that Pathfinder is doing every genre but the kitchen sink on one world. I don't mind sci-fi in fantasy (I love the idea of Star Wars). I have a problem with it being paired with French Revolution, Colonial USA, Horror, Standard Fantasy, Egypt, Pirates, and Vikings as neighbors.
That being said, my group has a subscription and has the entire path and I have said I was not going to participate in a couple of the paths already. I do not want to be the reason that this one is not played.
So, I am looking at ideas for a character for this path. I enjoy story and creating a character to influence said story.
I have no clue where to even begin fitting a character into this campaign. What are you trying to accomplish? How does the story progress? What are goals that actually work for this path?
I do not want to experience the blindside that many people (not me thankfully) got hit with in Council of Thieves.
I don't even need to get class or race suggestions, just some ideas to work with to make an enjoyable character for this path.
Thanks for the help.
Just jumping in here with some advice from a player's point of view who went through something similar to this.
We are in Book 3 of Wrath of the Righteous and are in the all enjoyable hex exploration section. After two sessions of this, the GM decided that empty hexes were boring and started adding weather table rolls and bad luck rolls.
The first session of this, something bad happened EVERY DAY; whether it was bad weather or some sort of random thing like food poisoning or odd killer plant near by.
We play for about 5 to 6 hours every Saturday. We got through 4 hexes that night.
The next week, we got through ONE! One hex in five hours.
I am a story teller player by DM's Guide standards. I enjoy the story and seeing what comes next. I have a flushed out character with twelve page backstory, I enjoy roleplaying.
THIS DROVE ME NUTS!
Not saying don't do something, just be mindful of your players and their attitudes.
Maybe wrong section, but oh well.
Was feeling goofy a few days ago and started thinking of songs that made sense as religious hymns for the gods of Golarion. I will post what I thought of and let you guys contribute.
Rules: Any genre, any artist, any time, any god; the song itself needs to work, not just the title; needs to match the gods portfolio (eg All About the Benjamins may work for Abadar; White and Nerdy would not work for Nethys; do not get me wrong, Weird Al is fine)
List:
Cayden Cailean: Andrew WK- Party Hard
Calistra: In This Moment- Whore
Torag: 3 Inches of Blood- Kill the Orcs
Besmara: Alestorm- You are a Pirate
I will post more as I think of them.
The Ghost/Zombie/Demon Pirate LeChuck; seriously they have all the things necessary for you to create an undead recurring pirate villain. Give him a ghost ship and skele crew and you have awesomeness. The wasp is just a reagent.
Ok, so maybe Rogue/Alchemist (Internal Alchemist for breath holding, and perhaps Vivisectionist so Sneak attack does not suffer though I don't know), or Rogue/Fighter with 1 level dip into Alchemist for Internal Alchemist although the more we dip the more the build becomes useless.
Still, I am needing help on the actual build also. Alchemist works because anyone who has played the games knows, there is alot of mixing of stuff together that shouldn't work.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guybrush Threepwood, and I'm a Mighty Pirate!
If you thought I was doing a Princess Bride Character, you are not a film philistine, congratulations.
Anyways, I am looking at possibly making a character based off Guybrush Threepwood, of Monkey Island fame, for this campaign. I am looking for suggested classes/archetypes and builds for this idea.
Simple rules really:
Viable but not min/maxed (1 negative stat with a max of -1)
20 pt buy
Half Elf, Human or possibly some other Human-esque race (no Half Orcs)
2 non campaign traits
I am looking at Bard Arcane Duelist maybe sprinkle in Rogue/Ninja for Improved Feint (Insult Sword Fighting) but i am undecided.
Any help or ideas would be much appreciatted.
Simple solution, Moment of Clarity allows you to at least one time per rage drop the requirement that you resist all spells.
Also go human and take the alternate favored class bonus that ups superstition bonus by 1/3 per level. By level 20 have a +13 to ALL saves vs spells while raging. Combine with greater rage at 20 and you have a +17 to will saves....so, goodbye casters.
Made a Barbarian at lvl 20 optimized and while raging has a AC of 51 485 hp and saves as such:
Fortitude: +46
Reflex: 32
Will: 35
Debating whether or not to actually do this to my DM.
Back onto the original topic.
I am currently playing a paladin of Iomedae (sp maybe) in the Council of Theives path, and I beleive that this paladin's actions are enough cause for him to lose his powers, and here is why.
To start I will use both the given scenario and also make a very similar real world comparison.
Given: Paladin walking down a street in a town/city. Stranger who looks like a beggar approaches reaching out his hand. Paladin warns/intimidates stranger not to get closer. Stranger ignores threat and comes closer. Paladin draws sword, kills stranger.
Real life: A soldier on leave is in city. Stranger who looks homeless approaches with hand out. Soldier warns/intimidates stranger not to get closer. Stranger ignores threat and comes closer. Soldier pulls pistol, shoots stranger in the face, stranger dies.
Why is it that in the real life scenario the paladin is a soldier? Simple, he does NOT have jurisdiction to enforce the laws of this town. He is an adventurer, a vagrant. Now yes, since this is a fantasy setting he has more leeway on his actions, but he not a guard, and therefore is not to be compared to a police officer.
This brings us to the first reason he should lose his powers, he is not the lawful authority of this area. Taking law into your own hands to this extent, chaotic.
Second, striking down a person because you beleive they MAY be a threat, chaotic. Yes in a fantasy situation like pathfinder, that hand MAY be used to deliver an attack spell, BUT when one says you have to consider it being a fantasy setting and therefore different from RL (the spell) the reverse is true. It is a game and therefore that spell will more than likely not kill you. Yes, out of character knowledge but does need to be considered.
Third, Striking with lethal damage on an unarmed POSSIBLE opponent and hoping you are right, chaotic. A paladin's more likely proper course of action would be to either a. grapple this person and take them to the ground or b. use non-lethal damage. With these two options, the paladin is still defending himself, but has not caused undue damage if he is wrong.
Pretty obvious that even if we do not consider the good/evil spectrum of his actions; on the law/chaos spectrum he is grossly in error.
Two things should happen:
1. He loses his powers and class abilities
2. The actual law in the city arrests him for murder, since his reasoning will be hard to explain to the judge.
So maybe I am reading this wrong, or just trying to break the game, but can Vital Strike (and all it's better versions) be used at the same time as Many shot?
Vital Strike- when using an attack action you increase the die damage
Many shot- when making a full attack action you first shot fires 2 shots
so 1d8 goes to 2d8 goes to 4d8...but maybe I am misinterpreting this.
|
