ArkthePieKing's page

"I've got quite the knack for making people laugh. You might even say it's MAGIC!"

I'm so sorry for that. I'll see myself out...

Incidentally, how satisfying was the end of the episode last week? Poetic justice. Jotaro isn't my favorite JoJo, but he's certainly awesome. (Joseph Jostar is the man!)

Sadly, I'm not familiar enough with the game to really contribute anything relevant to the conversation, but I'm super interested in how this build turns out. I think some good ideas have been spit out so far. :D

I'd like to second Lathiira's post. Heck, that post made ME excited about doing some rescue work...when I can get a functioning gaming group together...sigh...

But back on topic, any or all of those things would be fantastic. Going out of your way to make the PCs feel accomplished is the best thing you can do. Celebrate their accomplishments, and allow them to have a real impact on the world around them.

I would also support a Bard. Vampires are crafty, charismatic buggers. Natural leaders, and talented. I'd support a gestalt Paladin/Bard. I think it would make a great fit for a Vampire Knight.

The answer is always a rubber chicken.

Sounds pretty overpowered, but meh? If it's not outright breaking the campaign, just let them houserule it the way they want to.

As others have said, GMs have a right to lay down ground rules. Players have a right to not play in the game. Maybe one party was unreasonable, maybe the other was. It sounds like it was a bad fit.

@Velix, it's funny. My first character was a Cleric, 3.5e. I was all about some greater good. That being said, yeah, basically every other teenager I've played with has been a rogue. Particularly girls. Literally every girl I've played with except for my girlfriend has rolled a rogue.

As someone who used to be a teenager (and still very much acts like one), I think I'm fairly qualified to answer this question.

Accept that they're going to be teenagers, and everything good and bad that goes with it. There will be rampant giggling, there will be a lack of attention span, and if you're lucky, there will also be a vast creative side that you haven't seen yet. Expect to keep things loose, and try to cater to their individual needs. When I started playing back when I was 16, I didn't know what to expect, so I approached it like a video game. Class, spells, levels, got it. Wait personality? What's that? I expect you'll probably get a lot of that. Try to rope them into the story. Don't expect huge backstory, but present them with a lot of moral choices that will help them forge who their characters actually are as the game goes by. And don't be afraid to show them consequences for their actions both good and bad.

Oh wow, we're still talking about this? I didn't quite expect this thread to blow up the way it did.

Yes, I'm always as transparent as possible with my builds. And I don't want to sound like I've never had a GM that hasn't been willing to give me a shot. I understand where a lot of you are coming from in coming up with a compromise and playing something simpler/more average. I also am more than willing to sit down with any GM and show him exact progression and how things work. My experience thusfar is that the GMs who aren't okay with frankenstein builds aren't very interested in BEING okay with them. I don't ever get the chance to show them. I know someone had said very slowly introduce more and more diverse characters over time and overa series of campaigns. That's not entirely feasable most of the time. You're talking about spending months, or years trying to gain trust to play a single character that I'm interested in.

That being said, I do agree that complromise is often the best solution. I just want the chance to show my character, show the numbers he can put out, or tricks he can do, and show that he's not going to be incredibly overpowered, and I don't always get that chance. I can absolutely create something more by the book, and do a simpler build to put the GM at ease. I also don't want to play something boring or simple. But I understand about finding a happy middle ground, and I'd be more than happy to accomidate and try to do that.

Are you positive it's the combat ability of your character that's the problem? I've seen few things more lethal to an AP than a bard/paladin combo, so I don't sweat odd builds much. For example, in Serpent's Skull I'm dealing with an aasimar Paladin/Zen Archer whose build is based on Smiting Evil with Flurry of Blows with a bow. Guess what? It's pretty crappy, and the barbarian outshines her in every fight.

However, I have a "problem child" player who isn't into "power gaming", but into "power roleplaying". For example, in Kingmaker he wanted a custom race that had Tongues as a spell-like ability once a day. (So much for having to overcome the language barrier in the early encounters.) He wanted to be a fey child, so familiar with all fey in the area as a free Knowledge skill, plus raised by River Kingdom nobility and thus familiar with all nobles in the surrounding kingdoms. For free.

In short, I could rewrite a significant portion of the AP to deal with the knowledge and abilities this player wanted "for his roleplaying", or I could say, "No."

And when I said, "No," he wouldn't budge, and we ended up shutting down Kingmaker because of him. (His attitude of, "I have to be better than all other PCs at all noncombat things at all times," has shut down two campaigns so far. Thankfully, our third GM has kicked him around a bit and he knows he's on his last gasp, so he's finally behaving.)

So be sure it's not the REST of your background that's the problem.

So many things to respond to, and I'm at work. I can't really get to them all. I apologize!

I suppose just by nature of enjoying the odd in general I'm prone to a tidbit of 'special snowflake' syndrome, but nothing to that extreme I promise. And it's never come up that my backstory was a problem. In fact most DMs love how much effort I put into it. It's when they start hearing about what I paln on building that they freak. I love to chit chat and make plans and just generally get excited about what I'm doing. So I'll start saying what I want to do, how I'm gonna build it, and then they get that deer in headhlights look and get kind of nervous. Which again, I totally, 100% understand the hesitation. And I empathize with them, and get that. Everyone is there to have fun. I do not want to step on anyone's toes, or impede anyone on the quest for good times. I just want the chance to prove I'm not doing said things.

And to someone else who had mentioned playing something straightforward (I forgot who it was, apologies) I agree that a basc fighter/wizard/whatever can be very flavorful and interesting as a person, but I just...love love love seeing unique interactions between mechanics and storyline, hence the Bladebound/Hexcrafter Magus who comes from a rich, cursed family. This is why he can fence with a rapier, knows a thing or three about spellcasting due to his schooling, and is harnessing his curse's energies into a unique weapon. (Also originally the sword was part of the curse, but my GM says he's really excited over some ideas he has for it so I left it to his devices).

Arachnofiend wrote:

Simon Legrande wrote:

Let me offer another point of view. Not every GM wants to spend the hours going through a library worth of books that you've spent to make sure that your character is not overpowered. Also, it is up to the GM as ref to make sure you're applying all of the rules properly.

Some GMs go over every book that ever comes out and will be fine with you bringing whatever you bring. Other GMs want more control over what the players are bringing.

I'm working under the assumption that he is providing these materials to the GM. I know I take the effort to provide SRD links to anything that I want to use that isn't part of the main line.

Nothing wrong with that, but it's not something that every GM will want to deal with. In my opinion it's much more polite to bring up your build to the GM ahead of time instead of just showing up with something. I get that players should be able to play what they want, but so should GMs.

No, I totally get that. I tried GMing a game once, and I did indeed have that guy that ruined the game via a power build. (4e Wizard who slowed/proned/slide 5 on an area at-will. It was horrifying). I get the concerns. And of course I talk to the GM about what I want to do, and do everything in my power to ease any concerns beforehand. This usually results in a frustrated GM who thinks he's being bullied into doing something he's not comfortable with, and then nobody wins due to creative differences.

So, little rant here. I have a history of terrifying DMs before I ever even get a chance to play, do the unique(?) way I approach character creation. I love roleplay, and I love roleplaying. I also love rollplay, and nothing makes me happier than seeing interesting mechanics represented by a characters backstory or lore. Sometimes I come up with something in my head for a backstory, and then pour over countless books to best represent what I thought of. Othertimes I do the opposite. I'll find a rally cool, off the wall concept in a book, and wonder to myself how that person might've ended up where they did.

My problem is, and this was mainly a problem with 3.5, and the countless books it had/the rampant unbalancedness of the system. When a DM would see me build a character with x prestige classes and y feats from z books, they'd freak and think I was out to break their campaign. Again, apologies for the 3.5 talk, but it's what I'm most familiar with. A great example is a 3.5 character that was a psychic warrior/battle dancer/pyrokinetisist/dervish with a feat that allowed unarmed strikes to do slashing damage. Who what that person? A gypsie, who performed exotic dances with her fire lash. Gypsies being traditionally psychic, and also performers. It was a fun, interesting, mechanically underpowered character I never got to toy with because the DM assumed I was building a super death machine that would ruin the campaign.

Now I would like to go forward and say my Pathfinder DM, though we haven't played yet, has been super understanding of my playstyle, and has even helped me come up with some story hooks (He's a bladebound/hexcrafter magus with a cursed family, hence the archtypes). And he's been amazing (Hi Bruce if you see this!). But seeing someone actually be understanding has kind of made me think about my past experiences.

So...advice?

Bump.

Knowing basically nothing about building fighters, or what constitutes fun, flavorful, or interesting, I'm going to put forward the suggestions Step Up, and Dazzling Display. Be the best flash dancing fighter you can be.

Fairly simple question. I'm going to be playing a Bladebound/Hexcrafter Magus, and level 5 is hitting an interesting gray area. I don't techincally get my first arcana until 6th, and I get my first Hex at 4th. If I understand correctly I don't actually qualify for Extra Hex, and I can't seem to take Extra Arcana because I don't get said Arcana class feature until 6th. So do I have any relevant options at 5th for getting another Hex at 5th level?

Since this is her first time, a little houseruling may be in order. My very first character was a 3.5e Cleric who was houseruled to just know and cast all the spells on the Cleric list (in truth we just had an enormously poor understanding of the rules) but point being it was fun, flashy, and above all easy to understand. I'd just let her pick a couple of spells and let her go to town. You can explain prepared casting later in life, but for now don't disuade her from Cleric. just tailor it to the experience.

Ahoy! I'm considering running a simple little 1 on 1 campaign with my girlfriend. She's played 4e before, and has a it of experience with 3.5e, so she's not entirely inexperienced. What I'd like to do for her is actually resurrect her old 4e character as best as I'm able to. For those of you familiar, she was a hybrid Invoker/Shaman. So essentially flashy, vaguely nature themed divine spells and a spirit companion. I figure a straight Druid would be able to fill in the niche nicely. The spirit companion could just be an animal companion. Especially nice since this is intended to be a prequel to the original story it took place in (Her character is old).

The only thing I can get around is Wild Shape. Her character was never a shapeshifter, and I know it's not something she would have any interest in dealing with it as a player. I also couldn't seem to find any archtypes that replace it,though I may have just overlooked it. Are there any? If not, suggestions on a simple houserule to replace it?

She'd never go for it. Plus she does work for a church of [x] good god in Forgotton Realms (we know jack all about the lore in FR), but she wants it to be a good god, that much is for certain.

Wow, the paladin build gets so much more in terms of gunpower. It's ridiculous. Still no gunslinger, but certainly better. Still, she wants to be an Inquisitor because she liked the holy investigator idea. The literal hunt part of huntering down her enemies, and the inquisitor gets some neat stuff in that regard.

She wanted to play an Inquisitor, and then saw the black powder option and decided that would be cool. It's absolutely Inquisitor first, guns second. Her original idea was to use a short bow.

Woof. But those are so...expensive. And so are firearms. She was wanting to do an Annie Oakley style riflewoman, but for the church. She liked the idea of being an investigator for the church, but man, 12gp for every shot fired. Even 6gp a pop is wallet murdering. Plus it would be a long while before she can afford the 5,000gp rifle. I didn't realize this stuff was so...out of budget. We're starting at level 1. And it doesn't seem nearly worth the investment. Before she knew guns were a thing she wanted to use a shortbow. I imagine after this she'll go back to wanting that.

Ah. Yeah, the Dex to damage hurts a lot. Or I guess I should say the lack of Dex doesn't hurt enough lol.

I'll talk to her about it. Doing literally half the damage of a bow user is a problem. She's not a min/maxer, and neither am I, but she does enjoy being effective and this will absolutely take away from her effectiveness. I didn't realize Firearms didn't get Dex to damage. That's...pretty awful.

Ahoy all! I'm helping to build an Inquisitor for my girlfriend, and we were looking through the guide and the Black Powder inquisition is listed as a red option. Now I don't know a ton about the game, though I am an old 3.5e vet. What makes that option so subpar? Are firearms just that bad? If so, why? Assuming she wants to keep it for fluff reasons, what feats or whatnot would you take to make it less terrible?

The help would be appreciated!!!

Well color me sold. That sounded awesome. I don't know what some of those things mean, but it all sounded impressive at least. I'm looking forward to this. I dunno how loot/money is gonna be handled, but I'm sure it'll be fine. I'm also looking forward to the extra layer of resource management. My spells, my arcane pool, and my sword's arcane pool. Should be good fun. And this gets me so many more BUTTONS to press. I really like having a lot of options, and I feel like this gives me a ton of options. :D

Yeah it's something I've discussed with him, and he seems to be fine with it. In fact when I told him about it his response was, "Awesome, I'm looking forward to playing your Black Blade." So I think he's excited too. And no, I was never planning on taking a familiar. I hate them overall. I'm planning on going a Dex build. The DM's making a semi-homebrewed feat that is essentially Dervish Dance, without the dance requirement and let's it work with anything that works with Weapon Finesse (I want to use a rapier). So most likely Human, Weapon Finesse/Homebrew Feat at 1, Arcane Strike at 3, and I dunno what past that. It sounds like it's not as crippling as it appeared at first, and more than makes up for any lost power with cool factor. I'm also a chronic dabbler. I love to multiclass, and prestige and all that, and this is the first class that makes me not want to do that. Then again, this may just be a Pathfinder thing. Straight Magus looks like a genuinely fun class to play from top to bottom.

Those are all very good points. It gets some pretty neat powers. The one thing I'm worried about is having a smaller Arcana pool, *and* being more strongly encouraged to use those on enhancements for my blade spreading me thinner. But I really did enjoy the selling points for Bladebound. All in all I think it's a dang neat concept. I think I'll most likely stick with it. Backstory can do a lot to make a character interesting, and this DM seems the type to make me think outside the box.

I'm nowhere close to first-time poster or first-time player, but I confess to being interested in this as well.

It doesn't look that bad to me - it has some interesting and weird abilities beyond being unbreakable (including the ability to offer a rude shock to most forms of damage reduction, and at the very highest levels, the ability to restore arcane points in the vampiric fashion, and you say that's where and how it "drops off"), and the Black Blade even has its own arcane pool (however small) to buttress your own. What are you giving up - a base arcane pool of 4 at 12th level rather then 6? Flexibility in exchange for power, perhaps? Alertness and a bit more in exchange for an Arcana (which the Extra Arcana feat demonstrates to be considered the equivalent of a feat - we all know The World Needs More Lerts)? It all sounds fair to me.

Now I was under the impression that you couldn't tap into the blade's arcane pool until later, and that involves a very specific action to do so. The rest of all of that sounds nice. I'm just worried about spreading myself thin. Running our of resources, etc.

@LoneKnave: We're starting at level 1, so I guess I have a bit of time to decide. It's going to be low level to start, for sure. It seems like it would be pretty good. How badly do I need my 3rd level arcana?

Hi there! First time poster here for a first time player. I played a metric ton of 3.5e, so I'm familiar with the basic rules of Pathfinder, but this is my first time delving into an actual game. I love the gish types, and I think magus does a splendid job of blending the two together. I also like the general theme of heirlooms, magic weapons, ad weapons that grow with you vs being pciked out at the magic mart, so the Bladebound archtype screamed out at me. it's oozing with flavor.

That being said, things that I've read about the Bladebound have been less than stellar. It seems like it takes a significant power drop for a subpar weapon that never breaks. So I ask you this: Is the build really *that* bad? Will the drop in arcane points and the loss of my level 3 arcana set me back that far? I realize there's a ton of hesitation since the Black Blade can't actually be enchanted with any permanent enchantments, and on top of that you're more limited by your arcane points so you can't even apply temporary enchantments as often. But it's so cool from a flavor perspective. I just want to make sure that I'm not going to ruin the class for myself in the process. Thank you for your time!