|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
well... this is how I look at it, complicated builds normally stem from two schools of thought, you either come up with a really cool concept that you want to make work in the game like a guy who grapples dragons with a crank crossbow/barbed arrow combo and so you look though all of the books available to you to build this concept the best you can. the other alternative is to think of the mechanics first, you may have noticed that the martial artist monk archetype isn't required to be lawful, which means you that fatigued is no longer an issue.
nothing is wrong with either of these approaches but the drawback to both of them is that you end up with characters who start to look a little contrived in most campaign settings. I think one way to look at it is to not worry about optimisation, I think after a while the gamer mentality kicks in and people try to build the best possible version of the concept they have instead of just playing the concept. I myself am guilty of this, I had this concept of a rogue that uses shocking grasp a lot. super easy, just pick up the major magic rogue talent and pick it up. simple, but thats no way good enough for me, I want to Intensify my shocking grasp. so then try out the green sting slayer magus archtype, which has some flaws in its own that I ask to house rule/ fix with my gm. I then take it upon myself to build a class that does exactly what i want and yeah, I've ended up chasing the rabbit down the rabbit hole.
now, I think the reason why me and others try to multi class to get the combo we want etc. is because we want to create the concept we have in the game but were worried its gonna suck in game and we're just going to get outshined all the time. which happens a lot. we kind of find ourselves in this mechanical arms race with other players because we don't want to be the one contributing the least.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Magus Archtype, The Greensting Slayer.
The issue is with The Modified Arcane pool ability.
Normally magus have get this ability called arcane pool. where they can spend an arcane point as a swift action to give there weapon a +1 enchantment for 10 rounds. then at level 5 this enhances to +2 and every 4 levels it goes up by one. at level 5 magus can also give there weapon Shocking, Flaming, Keen, Vorple ect. needless to say, this is a really powerful ability.
what the green sting slayer does is replaces the enchantment with sneak attack, but the major problem is that you still have to spend an arcane point (you don’t get many and other things cost them as well) to give your next attack sneak attack. as you can see the problem. its way better to have a +1 weapon for 10 rounds than it is to get sneak attack on one attack that might not even hit.
and at level 5 when you can make your weapon flaming. so you can have a +1 flaming attack for 10 rounds, or you can get 2d6 sneak attack for one attack that might miss.
so what I’m proposing is that the Magus can spend an arcane point as a swift action to gain the sneak attack ability for 10 rounds with the same die progression. So a level 5 magus can spend one arcane point as a swift action to gain 2D6 sneak attack for the next 10 rounds.
Hi all, I've recently been playing the Magus Archetype the Greensting Slayer Archetype from Bastards of Galorion and from looking at this Archetype, it has one very very big flaw that I'm attempting to fix and suggest to everyone.
The issue is with The Modified Arcane pool ability.
Normally magus have get this ability called arcane pool. where they can spend an arcane point as a swift action to give there weapon a +1 enchantment for 10 rounds. then at level 5 this enhances to +2 and every 4 levels it goes up by one. at level 5 magus can also give there weapon Shocking, Flaming, Keen, Vorple ect. needless to say, this is a really powerful ability.
now the archetype that I want to play is the Greensting Slayer.
what the green sting slayer does is replaces the enchantment with sneak attack, but the major problem is that you still have to spend an arcane point (you don’t get many and other things cost them as well) to give your next attack sneak attack. as you can see the problem. its way better to have a +1 weapon for 10 rounds than it is to get sneak attack on one attack that might not even hit.
and at level 5 when you can make your weapon flaming. so you can have a +1 flaming attack for 10 rounds, or you can get 2d6 sneak attack for one attack that might miss.
so what I’m proposing is that the Magus can spend an arcane point as a swift action to gain the sneak attack ability for 10 rounds with the same die progression. So a level 5 magus can spend one arcane point as a swift action to gain 2D6 sneak attack for the next 10 rounds.
There are some other Perks I think This archtype should get. I think it should get 4 skill points + Int mod per level and gain Acrobatics, Perception, Sense Motive, Slight of Hand and Stealth as Class Skills.
So this is a house rule I would suggest, Please let me know what you think.
Craig Logan 597 wrote: BlackJack Weasel wrote: Blave wrote: Templates are your friend.
Zombies and Skeletons of huge creatures are usually quite a bit easier to handle than the "original".
You can also apply the giant template to any large creature without making it much more dangerous.
Running into a Giant Dire Boar Skeleton would look terrifying but it's just a CR 3 encounter. Hits hard but goes down relatively fast, especially compared to the Con 17 + thoughness + ferocity original.
thanks, I'll definitely look into the giant and skeleton templates. Later on in your game or when the players face a boss type creature you can apply the Giant Template more than one, each time applying all the bonuses/ penalties and increasing the size category by one step. Yeah, I was just looking at that. you can get some really weird creatures out of it.
like a Huge raven. I've swapped weapon finesse for skill focus fly. does the rest of the stats seem right. and would you say this would make for a good CR 1 or CR 2 encounter?
HP 20
Str 22, Dex 7, Con 18, Int 2, Wis 15, Cha 7
AC 11, Flat footed,11, Touch 6. (-2 Dex, -2 Size +5 NA)
Feats. Skill Focus Perception, Skill Focus Fly
Skills Perception +6, Fly +2
Offence
Bite +6, 4d4+6
Blave wrote: Templates are your friend.
Zombies and Skeletons of huge creatures are usually quite a bit easier to handle than the "original".
You can also apply the giant template to any large creature without making it much more dangerous.
Running into a Giant Dire Boar Skeleton would look terrifying but it's just a CR 3 encounter. Hits hard but goes down relatively fast, especially compared to the Con 17 + thoughness + ferocity original.
thanks, I'll definitely look into the giant and skeleton templates.
Ectar wrote: Megafauna.
Archelon, kaprosuchus, and megatherium are each CR 5 huge guys. Should fit the kind of theme, too. Gigantic animals and such.
Sea turtle, land crocodile, and sloth.
thats awesome. thank you.
hello everyone, I should be dming my first game soon and I'd like my party to fight some big mean beasties at low levels, monsters in the Huge size category, somewhat monster hunter style. is there anything out there that looks big and scary that isn't too much of a challenge mechanically?
I don't know much about the campaign but you could always send them on a bit of an errand run.
go to the library to gain information, find out about a map maker.
go to the map makers house, find out that he's missing and has a gambling problem.
go to the casino and discover the map maker is forced to work there until he pays of his debt
the map maker is unavailable to help unless the players strike a deal with the casino owner
the deal is to escort and bod guard the boss's daughter to a fancy nobleman's ball
discover and thwart an assassination attempt, become heroes in the eyes of the nobles....
I've kind of just run out of steam but you get the idea, its a way for the players to have to mingle with all walks of life of the city and its a great way to get across how the city works.
Wonderstell wrote: So. Since the Natural Jouster Feat isn't a prerequisite for anything, you simply want to gain the benefits of being mounted without actually having a mount?
I'm guessing you're playing a class which isn't granted an animal companion. So while you want to use a lance, you don't want to buy a new horse everytime it gets killed. Correct?
So either get animal companion through an archetype, buy lots of (expendable) horses, or buy the Talisman of the Summoned Steed (or 2-3 of em).
no, I just think it'll be fun to wield a lance and be good with it without the need to be mounted.
Booster Stad? its an anagram of Totes Adorbs
lots and lots of gargoyles?
Marc Radle wrote: Another option to consider is the The Trickster from Kobold Press
The Trickster class is essentially an arcane rogue type of class that has built in customization through its Forte class feature, which include Acrobatics, Arcane Accomplice, Spell Pilfer and Beguile!
From the store text ...
"Most tricksters are always two steps ahead of the competition. A few know how to win before the race even begins!
The trickster is a new Pathfinder Roleplaying Game compatible class which combines arcane magic with roguish skills. Use your Forte ability to perform incredible acrobatics, summon a magical familiar to act as an accomplice, beguile enemies, or steal spells as they’re being cast!"
Might be just what you are looking for! :)
thanks for the suggestion and it sounds perfect but I'm not interesting in buying anything.
Dasrak wrote: ... first of all, thank you so much for the work you've put into this. the player I'm talking about is a complete newbie to the game and my initial thought was to just build a base class, making this an archetype hadn't even crossed my mind. its great advice for making a home-brew class so thank you for that.
I'll have to have a serious think about what to give the class at level 9, 17,19 and 20.
to be honest, I don't want the magic item to turn a player into a centaur. and I was thinking about maybe splitting into two slot items instead of one.
Glove of piercing strike; You can wield a lance one-handed as if you were mounted. And Boots of the Rocket; You deal double damage with a lance when charging.
maybe downgrading it into two slot items will be more appropriate.
hi all, I might be gming a game soon and one player described the type of character they'd like to play and my mind went straight to the arcane trickster. I was wondering whether anyone out there has ever converted the prestige class into a base class. I've had a go at it but its my first time doing anything like this and so I may have created an unbalanced mess for all I know. I know this is a lot to go through so I really appreciate your time.
Hit Die: d6
The Eldritch Trickster’s class skills are Acrobatics (Dex), Appraise (Int), Bluff (Cha), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Disable Device (Dex), Disguise (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (Arcana) (Int), Knowledge (local) (Int), Linguistics (Int), Perception (Wis), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Stealth (Dex), Spellcraft (Int), Swim (Str), and Use Magic Device (Cha).
Skill Ranks per Level: 4 + Int modifier.
Level 1
BAB +0, Fort 0, Ref 1, Will 1
Cantrips, Arcane Bond - Familiar only, Sneak attack +1d6
Level 2
BAB +1, Fort 1, Ref 1, Will 1
Evasion, Ranged legerdemain
Level 3
BAB +1, Fort 1, Ref 2, Will 2
Sneak attack +2d6
Level 4
BAB +2, Fort 1, Ref 2, Will 2
uncanny dodge, Impromptu sneak attack 1/day
Level 5
BAB +2, Fort 2, Ref 3, Will 3
Sneak attack +3d6
Level 6
BAB +3, Fort 2, Ref 3, Will 3
Tricky spells 3/day
Level 7
BAB +3, Fort 2, Ref 4, Will 4
Sneak attack +4d6
Level 8
BAB +4, Fort 3, Ref 4, Will 4
Improved uncanny dodge
Level 9
BAB +4, Fort 3, Ref 5, Will 5
Sneak attack +5d6
Level 10
BAB +5, Fort 3, Ref 5, Will 5
Tricky spells 4/day, Impromptu sneak attack 2/day
Level 11
BAB +5, Fort 4, Ref 6, Will 6
Sneak attack +6d6
Level 12
BAB +6/+1, Fort 4, Ref 6, Will 6
Bonus Feat - Improved Familiar
Level 13
BAB +6/+1, Fort 4, Ref 7, Will 7
Sneak attack +7d6
Level 14
BAB +7/+2, Fort 5, Ref 7, Will 7
Tricky spells 5/day
Level 15
BAB +7/+2, Fort 5, Ref 8, Will 8
Sneak attack +8d6
Level 16
BAB +8/+3, Fort 5, Ref 8, Will 8
Impromptu sneak attack 3/day
Level 17
BAB +8/+3, Fort 6, Ref 9, Will 9
Sneak attack +9d6
Level 18
BAB +9/+4, Fort 6, Ref 9, Will 9
Invisible Thief
Level 19
BAB +9/+4, Fort 6, Ref 10, Will 10
Sneak attack +10d6
Level 20
BAB +10/+5, Fort 6, Ref 10, Will 10
Surprise Spell
Weapon and Armour proficiency
Eldritch Tricksters are proficient with all simple weapons plus the hand crossbow, rapier, sap, shortbow, and short sword. They are not proficient with any type of armor or shield. Armor interferes with a Eldritch Trickster's gestures, which can cause her spells with somatic components to fail (see Arcane Spells and Armor).
Spells
An Eldritch Trickster casts arcane spells drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. She can cast any spell she knows without preparing it ahead of time. To learn or cast a spell, an Eldritch Trickster must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a sorcerer's spell is 10 + the spell level + the Eldritch Trickster's Charisma modifier.
Like other spellcasters, an Eldritch Trickster can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table: Sorcerer. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Charisma score (see Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells).
An Eldritch Trickster's selection of spells is extremely limited. An Eldritch Trickster begins play knowing four 0-level spells and two 1st-level spells of her choice. At each new Eldritch Trickster level, she gains one or more new spells, as indicated on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known. (Unlike spells per day, the number of spells a sorcerer knows is not affected by her Charisma score; the numbers on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known are fixed.) These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the Eldritch Trickster has gained some understanding of through study.
Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered Eldritch Trickster level after that (6th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer can choose to learn a new spell in place of one she already knows. In effect, the Eldritch Trickster loses the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell's level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged. An Eldritch Trickster may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that she gains new spells known for the level.
Unlike a wizard or a cleric an Eldritch Trickster need not prepare her spells in advance. She can cast any spell she knows at any time, assuming she has not yet used up her spells per day for that spell level.
hi all, I have this idea for a magical Slot item that whilst worn grant the wearer the Natural Jouster Feat, even if they don't meet the prerequisites.
Haven't decided on which item slot yet so any advice would be appreciated.
Deadmanwalking wrote: BlackJack Weasel wrote: what about the example the op gave with infernal healing? how could a spell that heals people be inherently evil? I was talking about killing orc babies being Good. Which there's no evidence of being a thing. Not every possible reason you could object to Alignment. That was my primary point there.
But if you want to talk about Infernal Healing being Evil, though, I have a simple answer:
If you use an Evil spell to save a life when there was no other way to save them, then you've performed two deeds, one minor Evil act and a major Good act. You therefore, if anything, move your Alignment toward Good.
If you had other ways to save them, why'd you use the Evil spell? Was it cheaper and more efficient? Then you're probably in a little more trouble Alignment-wise.
Who was it you saved and why? A random stranger out of charity and kindness? You're still Good (and becoming more so) then, I mean, you're saving strangers even if you're doing it a bit wrongly.
Was it a close friend because you care for them? Now we're getting into the realm where you might be in trouble. Helping your friends is a Good act...but not a very Good one. Even Evil people do it pretty regularly, after all. Still, probably evens out at Neutral at worst.
Was it an ally who you do not consider a friend purely because you needed his aid to accomplish a goal? Now we're into the realm of a Neutral act done with an Evil spell when other options were available...and a little bit Evil. Not alot, certainly not enough to change alignments, but a little bit.
And then of course there's using a Wand of Infernal Healing rather than one of Cure Light Wounds purely as a cost-cutting measure and mostly because people are down some HP, not because anyone's dying. That's choosing the Evil option out of pure expedience and saves nobody who wouldn't be saved the other way. And that's when it starts being a real issue. When you do it constantly out of expedience.
And even then, you're fine unless... even if I admit I gave a bad example so what? its like you want to argue my example instead of my point. besides. You still have addressed the core problem here. Why is Infernal Healing considered Evil.
I'm not raising the question of whether the ends justify the means. I'm posing the question, how do you determine that the means are evil. why is infernal healing an evil spell? how can a spell that heals people be inherently evil. thats the problem with good/evil in pathfinder, its not a descriptor of an act based on the detrimental or positive consequences to society of said act like in real life. in pathfinder good and evil are magical and seemingly arbitrary forces of nature.
a character who dedicates there life to healing the sick via infernal healing wouldn't be a morally grey character based on that alone. but the pathfinder rule system would have us treat them as such.
Deadmanwalking wrote: BlackJack Weasel wrote: Deadmanwalking wrote: BlackJack Weasel wrote: your quote doesn't contradict what I said. the book states they are evil but there are exceptions. them being infants isn't listed under the exceptions and is thus up to GM discretion. It contradicts that you must kill all orcs to kill all evil things. Which, as thejeff notes isn't actually something the book says you need to do either...
Indeed, most things less than 5 HD (including orcs) cannot be detected as Evil even with magic...so killing them 'for being Evil' is impossible. You can only kill them for having done (presumably Evil) stuff. Babies have not committed any crimes, and are at less than 5 HD (well, Orc babies anyway).
Killing babies because 'they might be Evil' seems pretty Evil by all reasonable definitions. were talking at cross purposes here. I'm talking about good and evil as the game defines them which are very different from the concept of good and evil in reality. my point is that good and evil in pathfinder are inherent unlike real life. and its because of this, you can end up with absurd scenarios where it can be the 'good' thing to kill a horde of orc babies. Literally everything in the post you responded to was either game rules, or a direct logical inference from said rules.
So...no. The rules do not in fact lead to killing orc babies as a good thing. They pretty explicitly don't.
The Alignment rules actually pretty consistent with most modern real world morality (at least, as applied in a situation like adventurers often find themselves in) if you actually read them. They're intentionally vague on the details, but the general thrust? Pretty consistent with the moral codes of most reasonable people I know. what about the example the op gave with infernal healing? how could a spell that heals people be inherently evil?
Deadmanwalking wrote: BlackJack Weasel wrote: your quote doesn't contradict what I said. the book states they are evil but there are exceptions. them being infants isn't listed under the exceptions and is thus up to GM discretion. It contradicts that you must kill all orcs to kill all evil things. Which, as thejeff notes isn't actually something the book says you need to do either...
Indeed, most things less than 5 HD (including orcs) cannot be detected as Evil even with magic...so killing them 'for being Evil' is impossible. You can only kill them for having done (presumably Evil) stuff. Babies have not committed any crimes, and are at less than 5 HD (well, Orc babies anyway).
Killing babies because 'they might be Evil' seems pretty Evil by all reasonable definitions. were talking at cross purposes here. I'm talking about good and evil as the game defines them which are very different from the concept of good and evil in reality. my point is that good and evil in pathfinder are inherent unlike real life. and its because of this, you can end up with absurd scenarios where it can be the 'good' thing to kill a horde of orc babies.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: BlackJack Weasel wrote: Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: BlackJack Weasel wrote: the reason people debate and rebel against what the book states is a good act and an evil act is because what the book states as good and evil acts can and often does make for absolutely terrible stories. its the orc baby dilemma all over again. the book states that orcs are evil and if its your heroes mission to wipe out all evil it must then follow that you must kill every baby. Roleplaying games were never intended to be a vehicle for story writing. They're essentially designed to be four to eight hour excursions in fantasy gaming.
There may be DMs out there who want to make orc or goblin babies the central moral issue of their campaigns. Those aren't campaigns that I'm interested in playing, nor do I think that they should be the central paradigms on how you design a game whose aim is heroic fantasy roleplaying.
And quite frankly the main reason people argue these things is to look for another way to make Paladins fall. If that class had never existed, neither would most of these threads. you're assuming the role of a character in a fantasy story setting. so I don't know what you mean.
and I agree that it would suck to play in a game where a gm forced players into a moral dilemma that the players aren't comfortable in. but its a hypothetical scenario that can happen in the galorian setting.
and yeah, to an extent I agree with you about paladins. but paladins are the quintessential hero revered by all, it shouldn't be easy being a paladin. I never said it should, but quite frankly if your primary idea of testing a Paladin is mainly this sort of thing, I have no interest in playing one in your campaign. ...its not.
BlackJack Weasel wrote: thejeff wrote: BlackJack Weasel wrote: Deadmanwalking wrote: BlackJack Weasel wrote: the reason people debate and rebel against what the book states is a good act and an evil act is because what the book states as good and evil acts can and often does make for absolutely terrible stories. its the orc baby dilemma all over again. the book states that orcs are evil and if its your heroes mission to wipe out all evil it must then follow that you must kill every baby. Uh...what? The book says nothing of the kind. At all. the book says orcs are chaotic evil. The book also says that monster alignments are tendencies, not absolutes.
Nor does the book say your mission is "wipe out all evil". I never stated that the book states that the heroic mission is to wipe out all evil. I said if its your goal. not your goal as defined by the book.
and okay, the book says that orcs tend to be evil. it doesn't state what makes them evil. tends to be evil implies that the majority are evil. does that mean smite evil would work on 9/10 orc babies?
anyway, I'm getting the feeling that people are missing my point. I'm not saying that what I'm saying is the ideal way to play, I'm pointing out the problems inherent in the games system. I never stated that you 'have' to go out and kill evil things. I said that if that was your characters mission.
thejeff wrote: BlackJack Weasel wrote: Deadmanwalking wrote: BlackJack Weasel wrote: the reason people debate and rebel against what the book states is a good act and an evil act is because what the book states as good and evil acts can and often does make for absolutely terrible stories. its the orc baby dilemma all over again. the book states that orcs are evil and if its your heroes mission to wipe out all evil it must then follow that you must kill every baby. Uh...what? The book says nothing of the kind. At all. the book says orcs are chaotic evil. The book also says that monster alignments are tendencies, not absolutes.
Nor does the book say your mission is "wipe out all evil". I never stated that the book states that the heroic mission is to wipe out all evil. I said if its your goal. not your goal as defined by the book.
and okay, the book says that orcs tend to be evil. it doesn't state what makes them evil. tends to be evil implies that the majority are evil. does that mean smite evil would work on 9/10 orc babies?
anyway, I'm getting the feeling that people are missing my point. I'm not saying that what I'm saying is the ideal way to play, I'm pointing out the problems inherent in the games system.
Deadmanwalking wrote: BlackJack Weasel wrote: Deadmanwalking wrote: BlackJack Weasel wrote: the reason people debate and rebel against what the book states is a good act and an evil act is because what the book states as good and evil acts can and often does make for absolutely terrible stories. its the orc baby dilemma all over again. the book states that orcs are evil and if its your heroes mission to wipe out all evil it must then follow that you must kill every baby. Uh...what? The book says nothing of the kind. At all. the book says orcs are chaotic evil. To quote the book:
Bestiary wrote: While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable. So...no. Not to the extent of being born Evil so you should kill babies it doesn't. your quote doesn't contradict what I said. the book states they are evil but there are exceptions. them being infants isn't listed under the exceptions and is thus up to GM discretion.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: BlackJack Weasel wrote: the reason people debate and rebel against what the book states is a good act and an evil act is because what the book states as good and evil acts can and often does make for absolutely terrible stories. its the orc baby dilemma all over again. the book states that orcs are evil and if its your heroes mission to wipe out all evil it must then follow that you must kill every baby. Roleplaying games were never intended to be a vehicle for story writing. They're essentially designed to be four to eight hour excursions in fantasy gaming.
There may be DMs out there who want to make orc or goblin babies the central moral issue of their campaigns. Those aren't campaigns that I'm interested in playing, nor do I think that they should be the central paradigms on how you design a game whose aim is heroic fantasy roleplaying.
And quite frankly the main reason people argue these things is to look for another way to make Paladins fall. If that class had never existed, neither would most of these threads. you're assuming the role of a character in a fantasy story setting. so I don't know what you mean.
and I agree that it would suck to play in a game where a gm forced players into a moral dilemma that the players aren't comfortable in. but its a hypothetical scenario that can happen in the galorian setting.
and yeah, to an extent I agree with you about paladins. but paladins are the quintessential hero revered by all, it shouldn't be easy being a paladin.
Deadmanwalking wrote: BlackJack Weasel wrote: the reason people debate and rebel against what the book states is a good act and an evil act is because what the book states as good and evil acts can and often does make for absolutely terrible stories. its the orc baby dilemma all over again. the book states that orcs are evil and if its your heroes mission to wipe out all evil it must then follow that you must kill every baby. Uh...what? The book says nothing of the kind. At all. the book says orcs are chaotic evil.
the reason people debate and rebel against what the book states is a good act and an evil act is because what the book states as good and evil acts can and often does make for absolutely terrible stories. its the orc baby dilemma all over again. the book states that orcs are evil and if its your heroes mission to wipe out all evil it must then follow that you must kill every baby.
theres a trait called blade of mercy. what it does is remove the -4 penalty and grants you a +1 to hit when dealing non-lethal.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think in order to make the Shield Champion work, the shield in question really needs to be a Quick Draw Throwing Shield.
Hi, I have a question which i hope you guys can help me out with.
here is what elven battle focus does. emphasis mine.
"Benefit(s): While using Elven Battle Style, you can add your Intelligence modifier to that weapon's damage (instead of any other ability bonus or modifier you can add to your weapon damage). The weapon must be one appropriate for your size."
does that mean that you can only gain the int to damage when making an attack of opportunity.
heres what the Elven battle style says.
"While wielding a longsword, a rapier, or any melee weapon that has “elven” in its name, combat maneuver checks attempted with that weapon as attacks of opportunity don't themselves provoke attacks of opportunity."
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think maybe you're overthinking it. I mean, lets take batman for example. in his bat cave he has a giant penny, a robot t-rex, mr freeze's ray gun, a kryptonite ring etc. its practically a museum of villainy, and this doesn't make batman a villain. I mean in the game theres a weapon called a klar which is literally a giant lizard skull, plus all of the stuff in the game that dragon parts are used for.
so yeah, don't think of it as a demon castle, think of it as a heroes trophy room.
damn, makes it hard to hit anything with that kind of penalty.
hi everoyone.
A titan fighter's Giant weapon wielder ability lets it wield two-handed weapons of one size category higher. so a human titan fighter can wield a large great sword. it says at an additional -2 penalty. when it says additional, does it mean -2 along with the -2 penalty one would normally have from wielding inappropriate sized weapons? or is this a rewording of the same penalty because you wouldn't normally be able to wield a large great sword with a -2 penalty.
"Giant Weapon Wielder (Ex)
At 1st level, a titan fighter can wield two-handed melee weapons intended for creatures one size category larger than himself, treating them as two-handed weapons. He takes an additional –2 penalty on attack rolls when using an over-sized two-handed weapon.
This ability replaces the fighter's 1st level bonus feat."
so yeah, would a level 1 human titan fighter wielding a large great sword be at -2 or -4?
Torbyne wrote: Vee8 wrote: Okay...
So I guess this is how the Kusarigama is supposed to work...
The Sickle end functions the same as a Kama.
And the chain end is a reach weapon.
When used as a double weapon, you essentially need to divide your attacks between two targets.
The Kama attacks a target 5' away and the chain hits a target 10' away.
The chain end is also useful for attacks of opportunity at reach as well.
I think we're all mostly in agreement yea?
I am not sure the ball and chain cant be used adjacently. By RAW it cant but then again, by RAW neither can the kama just because the weapon has the Reach property and no special clause allowing use in adjacent spaces. The intent may have been for the ball and chain to function something like the whip where it can attack at 0-10' and allow it to actually be used as a double weapon in melee. Otherwise it is barely worthwhile to call it a double weapon for all the rare chances to attack one opponent at 5' from you and a separate target at 10'. It would have been better to just call it a two handed weapon that does 1D3 B at 10' and 1D6 S against adjacent foes and drop the double property all together. I'd have to double check the rules. but couldn't you just attack with the reach end, move 5 foot forward and then attack with the sickle?
this is my own interpretation of how the weapon works in game based on my understanding of how the weapon works in real life.
the blunt end has reach but the bladed end doesn't.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
CWheezy wrote: The Sword wrote: A God specific feat is there to simulate a behavior that the God encourages in her worshippers - in this case guzzling potions. A DM may well extend that to worshippers of other gods. Speak to your GM. As it stands now worshipping Urgathoa is a limitation.
I would find a worshipper of an evil god distasteful if I played a good character. It would have an in game effect on that character. As a GM I would have NPCs react similarly. Worshipping Demon lords would have an in game impact in our game.
two things
I thought good characters wouldnt be so judgemental
How do you tell what god someone worships by looking at them since when does good mean uncritical? good people can think poorly of others for who they decide to venerate.
GM Rednal wrote: If it helps, you can also talk to your GM about creating a custom Paladin code that better matches your deity or your character's worldview. For example, I once wrote an expansion to the main code that was specifically designed to be as Anti-Lawful-Stupid as possible, and it included things like "My way is not the only way things can be done, and I will thoughtfully consider the ideas of others", "I'll be fair when it is possible to do so, and otherwise I'll be practical", and my personal favorite, "Doing good is more important to me than any of my other oaths, so if there's ever a conflict between my oaths and doing what's right, I am free to ignore my oaths until they once again support good". no offence but I'd hate to see a paladin oath like that in any of my games. just sounds like somebody wants all the benefits of being a paladin without any of the drawbacks. an oath that lets you break it under certain circumstances without any kind of punishment isn't really an oath.
Urtar Mythstone wrote: BlackJack Weasel wrote: You can't force somebody to play any alignment they don't want to. I mean he puts the helm on and the character acts no different than he did before. what are you gonna do about it? complain that he doesn't lie enough? complain that he doesn't kill enough, complain that he doesn't play his character in a way that you think he should? you might as well take his character sheet and tell him to go home if you're going to pull a move like this. The way we play is that we don't play the game we play the characters and if his character is now one who is now an organized evil he'll play it that way. will he? how will you enforce this? the player wants to play a chaotic good character, you can't make him play a character alignment he doesn't want to. like I said, he's wearing the helm and his alignment as far as the rules are concerned is LE. but you can't expect or force him to play the character any different and if you could enforce it all you'd do is remove agency from the player. raising a flag every time he pets the dog instead of kicking it? every time he helps the old lady cross the street instead of robbing her blind? forcing him to do things that he doesn't want to do. you'd essentially be removing that players input in the game. you might as well tell them to go home whilst you take control of their character.
and on the other side if you can't enforce it, you can't force him to do anything because you don't have that power as a fellow player and as a fellow player you shouldn't. he'll play his character the way he wants to regardless of helm and you'd just have to suck it up. If he doesn't want to play a character who kicks dogs and robs old ladies you can't make him play one.
You can't force somebody to play any alignment they don't want to. I mean he puts the helm on and the character acts no different than he did before. what are you gonna do about it? complain that he doesn't lie enough? complain that he doesn't kill enough, complain that he doesn't play his character in a way that you think he should? you might as well take his character sheet and tell him to go home if you're going to pull a move like this.
I just saw the item, Scabbard of many blades and it got me thinking how cool it would be to play a character that has a sword for every occasion. A rust monster appears? I'll use my Ironwood Longsword. A skeleton appears? I'll use my... hammer I guess... I think you're stating to see the issue.
it seems to me that the system rewards sticking to one weapon and just getting a version of that one weapon that does more and more damage as you level up.
this made me think about classes like the fighter with his all martial weapon proficiency. and all armour proficiency etc. whats the point in being able to have axes to all these different kinds of armour and weapons when the game encourages you to pick one and stick with it.
do you think there is anyway you can have a character who has a sword for every occasion and an armour for every situation and still make a character thats functional? just seems like a character concept thats dead in the water.
A Bard and a Rogue. I watched Road to El Dorado the other night, worked out okay for those two.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Scavion wrote: BlackJack Weasel wrote:
and to really stretch this. say both have an alliance of convenience. working together to kill the big bad. upon there travels they come across another evil that the paladin decides must be stopped. the assassin has no dog in this fight. could the paladin hire an assassin to aid in his quest to kill a villain?
Sure. Seems fine to me.
"Under exceptional circumstances a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good."
But your assassin doesn't sound Chaotic Evil to me.
He has a code of ethics. He won't hurt his friends, puppies, beautiful women, and probably has compunctions against harming children. This is indicative of a more Lawful/Neutral mindset than Chaotic.
He kills for money but why does he kill for money? Is he greedy? Is he doing it to survive? Was he indoctrinated in his skills by his assassin order and has only recently been cut free to do as he wishes? Is killing all he knows?
Being EVIL is a hugely meaningful thing. It means that somewhere in his core, that assassin enjoys killing others or lacks compassion in other human beings seeing them as nothing but stepping stones for his own path.
The reason I ask...is because these are questions the Paladin should ask.
There is no such thing as an "Evil character but he's not really all that Evil man." Either he's EVIL and the Paladin should absolutely Smite the dude to kingdom come or he's not really evil to begin with.
You can be an Assassin without being evil...just not the prestige class. There are probably tons of Slayers who are assassins that aren't necessarily evil. I wouldn't really call what I described to be a code of ethics. he does and doesn't do things because he doesn't want to do them. its not like batman, and how the batman actually wants to kill the joker but refuses because it breaks his code of ethics.
I'd say having a code of ethics is to do good for goods sake, not cause you want to. I know it can get really confusing and meta and you could bring up the point that person a does good for good's sake because he wants to but yeah...
personally I think we disagree on what being evil is. I don't think evil characters have to be psychopaths or sociopaths or actively enjoy hurting people, Evil people in real life don't tend to think that way. I'm sure most people would agree that if we had to put Hitler on an alignment scale he'd be in the Evil category, but it doesn't mean he's more likely to kick a dog than to pet it.
Deadmanwalking wrote: BlackJack Weasel wrote: you make some good points. do you think a paladin would team up if their interests aligned. the paladin wants to kill the big bad evil cause he's a big bad evil, and the assassin wants to do it cause he's paid to. can paladin's form alliances with evil people? I mean, an alliance of convenience sounds like it make for some interesting role-play. but can a paladin actually form such alliances or would it break the paladin code to align oneself with an evil person. They can explicitly do the 'alliance of convenience' version in their Code of Conduct. So yeah, that works fine.
As for an alliance that wasn't of convenience? What kind of alliance? Why are they making it? Is the assassin still killing people for money during this alliance?
That last one's the most important, really. No Paladin can put up with their allies murdering innocent people without doing things to stop it. Even in the 'alliance of convenience' version, they're gonna have to demand the assassin not take outside work while they're allied. well yeah, I would imagine that the assassin would agree to not take on any more jobs whilst he's partnered with the paladin. but you mentioned the term 'innocent' and thats something else I'd like to talk on. I mean the alliance of convenience was that both are targeting the same person albeit due to very different reasons. what if the assassin wanted to take on another job, and the other job in question wasn't an innocent person but another evil villain.
and to really stretch this. say both have an alliance of convenience. working together to kill the big bad. upon there travels they come across another evil that the paladin decides must be stopped. the assassin has no dog in this fight. could the paladin hire an assassin to aid in his quest to kill a villain?
Deadmanwalking wrote:
So...what would a Paladin do with the Assassin in the first post? Well, where are they, what options does he have? He sure can't let 'em go...but if he has the option of having them arrested and sent to trial, he'd probably be inclined to take that rather than killing them. Of course, if they escape a couple of times, the Paladin is gonna need to start thinking real hard about the people who'll die if they escape again...
Also, for the record, in many ways...
you make some good points. do you think a paladin would team up if their interests aligned. the paladin wants to kill the big bad evil cause he's a big bad evil, and the assassin wants to do it cause he's paid to. can paladin's form alliances with evil people? I mean, an alliance of convenience sounds like it make for some interesting role-play. but can a paladin actually form such alliances or would it break the paladin code to align oneself with an evil person.
Hubaris wrote: Step 1: Step away from the thread.
I jest but not really.
On topic, my answer to Paladin threads is 'check what their god values' and adjust accordingly. Some gods believe in redemption (Serenrae) and some in lawful executions (Damerrich), so their stances are completely different.
Remember, Good is your worldview. Lawful is how you enact it.
If all else fails, just turn it into a wacky sitcom.
good = worldview, lawful = execution. thats a good way to think of it, thanks for that.
I understand that different gods have different values. but it seems kind of weird to me that a good god places a higher moral value on killing somebody than aiding them redeem themselves. that seems... well, not good. I mean if it was a utilitarian situation I could understand i.e "were killing him so he can't kill them" but not as a form of punishment. although, maybe there being a definite afterlife in golorian skews beliefs if redemption is possible after death if the punishments aren't eternal.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Guru-Meditation wrote: Paladins dont go around "killing anything that is evil", because that also includes minor evil people who do mundane evil things, like bullying or wife-beating.
No "I walk down the street, activate Detect Evil, and start the slaughter of anyone who pings". This behavior is the caricature of a Paladin. Nor do you have to play him Lawful Stupid.
P.S.
The Punisher is Something Evil. Captain America is how a Paladin would behave.
personally I wouldn't call wife-beating a minor evil but I digress.
the issue I have with comparing the paladin to captain america though is that, most superheroes default is to deal non-leathal damage, whist the default in pathfinder is lethal to the point that to deal non-leathal damage means taking on a penalty to hit. I mean the thing that separates The Punisher from Captain america is that Captain America, Batman, Spider-man and Superman actively try to do non-leathal damage, at there own risk. and most people wouldn't play a paladin that way.
Gorbacz wrote: I think the Paladin would fall in love with the Assassin and have a tragic love/hate relationship where one tries to kill the other but can't because quitting the ones you love is so hard.
Sorry, it's the only way to handle this thread before it goes bananas.
that actually sounds like a pretty good read haha.
So, I'm sure everyone has seen threads like this a million times and are sick to death of them. but I'm hoping to open up some discussion here to better help my understanding.
Paladin's are champion's of justice whose primary job description is to smite evil in the name of there god. but really, that doesn't sound particularly just or even particularly good. I mean there is a reason why The Punisher isn't in the Avengers.
I was thinking of a scenario that involved an assassin and a paladin in the same party. lets say LG pally and CE Assassin.
now if I were to play a chaotic evil assassin, I wouldn't just make him a psycho who kills anyone for s~&@s and giggles. but rather a guy who kills people for money. he doesn't kill anyone for the right price, wouldn't kill his best friend or a puppy or that potential hit cause he thinks she's kinda hot. but generally, if some gangster payed him to take out some perfect stranger for the right price he'd do it and this is enough in my book to make him evil. he still has his humanity, or elfanity or whatever race he is. his alignment is evil but he's not relishing in world domination.
now, if a person did this kind of thing in our world, the rightful punishment would be inprisonment. but would a paladin be justified in strait up killing a guy? it seems to me that paladin's behave a lot more like the punisher than they do batman. killing anything thats evil and it kinda makes me question. are paladin's even good? i mean it may say so on the character sheet but are they really?
maybe I'm just misunderstanding how a paladin ideally should be played. if you were a paladin who upon first meeting the character I described, realised he had an evil alignment how would a paladin react? would a paladin draw his sword and kill as soon as he saw that purpley black aura or would a paladin try and save a soul instead of just taking one?
also, sorry for the ramble.
if your concerned about the the mount there is a samurai archetype called Swordsaint that replaces the mount. If you didn't mind a little bit of house ruling you could allow the cavalier to take that archetype, call it a sword master or something.
as for gunslingers, I don't think you have to worry about them to much in rise of the rune lords. hitting touch on goblins isn't that big of a deal, its only against the real big scary stuff where it becomes an issue. also, if you or you're players aren't complexity comfortable with firearms. there is an archetype called bolt ace that replaces it with a crossbow and is one of my favourite classes to play.
|
