Bothaag the Bardbarian's page

I find it a little hard to gauge just how difficult a time my players will have with something. I can't tell how many times I've set up an "above-PC-level" boss that was supposed to be a suspenseful challenge, only to see them waste the thing. Maybe it's just me.

Would you recommend the bard to a first-time Pathfinder? I've always thought them to be a terrific choice for beginners, since they have a little bit of everything: they can fight, cast spells, use lots of skills and, of course, help buff the party. My experience with bards has been very pleasant. In fact, they might even be my favorite class.

I'm working on a rogue archetype right now that entirely replaces Sneak Attack.

Out of curiosity, what did you replace it with?

I'm playing a Batman type in Council of Thieves, and he's doing pretty well, so far. Plus, I once played a Two-Face style Inquisitor that was really fun.

This should be in Advice, so I've flagged it as such.

There are no classes or archetypes that purely focus on constructs.

A wizard is probably your best bet, due to all the bonus item creation feats they can get.

A cleric with the Artifice domain is also a decent fit.

An alchemist would be an amazing fit, if they could take item creation feats >:|

There are a number of homebrew classes that do this too.

Engineer thread by Hida, and eventually "taken over" by Anthony Kane.

Engineer by Christopher Delvo (I really like this one, except for the whole "living construct" thing.)

The Ardwright is a cool take on it too.

Hey, thanks! I'll definitely take a look at these. Sorry this was in the wrong place. :(

Is there a class or archetype that specializes in building constructs? If not, what would be the best way to build a character like that?

Bothaag the Bardbarian wrote:

A friend of mine and I have recently been discussing a "Mad Bomber"-esque archetype for the alchemist. I came up with the idea of giving him mobility bombs. Sorta like the Bob-ombs from the Mario games; you could wind one up, and it would head towards the nearest enemy and explode. Also, is there some type of explosive gel? Kind of like the stuff Batman had in Arkham Asylum (if you've played it).

This would work well with Remote Bomb feat (and delayed bomb), and a clockwork gnome (from 3.5) or other moving thing.

Interesting. I was also thinking about a bomb that emits a kind of "reverse mutagen" gas that mutates those who inhale it (like, the modifiers said mutagen gave you is reduced by half and taken as a negative, or something like that).

Artanthos wrote:

/sigh

Stuff like this is why I have a familiar, not an item. Something happens to the familiar, I can still cast.

Until he gets the curse removed, it should prove an interesting in-game problem though. I would say every time he reaches for his sword he's going to grab that pick instead.

All I can say is, it feels good to be right! Familiar's over bonded item!

Yeah, I can tell we've all read "Lord of the Rings".

It varies, for me. I play whatever character idea that most appeals to me at the time (though, when necessary, I'll go with whatever fits the party best). I usually think up a character and try to wrap a class around whatever I want him to do. In the two campaigns I'm in now (Council of Thieves; Rise of the Rune Lords), I'm playing a brooding rogue (CoT) and an obnoxious, little elf-boy wizard (RotRL, and he's the party leader).

You cleverly omitted the clause after that - "A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds."

The phrase "as if having studied it for 3 rounds" clearly indicates that the Paladin ability functions as the spell, with TWO EXCEPTIONS. ONE: the paladin need not actually study for 3 rounds, full "3-round-esque" knowledge appears immediately, ie aura strength, TWO: the paladin's ability is not a cone, it can be targeted to one object or individual, excluding all other sources of evil.

It functions in all other ways as the spell, meaning it still uses the chart to determine to strength of aura, and thus, babies would not register as having an evil aura. There is no other way to determine the strength of the aura without that chart, and the paladin ability does not get a different chart.

No Aura = alignment indeterminate. There is nothing in either rule about you getting to know anything except the strength of its aura. The clause you omit is a subordinate clause, explaining what "determine if it is evil" means in terms of game rules - it means you know the strength of its aura immediately. Without that clause - yes, you get the GM to read you the alignment entry. With that clause, you get the GM to tell you it's aura strength.

How long can a Paladin study an aura?

Meaning did I purposefully steer them away from draconic? Of course not. At character creation, if they get extra languages, I give them the list of available languages and they make their choice based on their own personal desire, and character back-story. BTW we didn't start with CotKK, we started with an apprentice level adventure of my creation, then moved to Hollow's Last Hope, and are now on CotKK. So draconic didn't even really become necessary until now. I'm guessing as soon as someone levels up they'll be taking linguistics: draconic. Depending on their choices in the adventure that could happen later than needed, though.

No, I meant "did any of the PCs purposely steer away from draconic for character/backstory-related reasons?", but what you posted explains everything.

There is the potential here for things to go fine. Some slaves have the potential to escape. The hatchery is actually "guarded" by a kobold midwife, but nobody in the party speaks draconic...

Wait, your playing Crown of the Kobold King, and no one thought to take draconic? Was that on purpose?

A friend of mine and I have recently been discussing a "Mad Bomber"-esque archetype for the alchemist. I came up with the idea of giving him mobility bombs. Sorta like the Bob-ombs from the Mario games; you could wind one up, and it would head towards the nearest enemy and explode. Also, is there some type of explosive gel? Kind of like the stuff Batman had in Arkham Asylum (if you've played it).

Here's how I've always fixed this problem: The character getting charmed (or enchanted) notices that something is different (I've always portrayed characters as being at least vaguely aware of being affected by magic regardless) and, regardless of whether or not the spell succeeds, must have some way of identifying what it is that's affecting him. He can now see the invisible character (after all, how can he be enchanted if he doesn't know to be enchanted by). The other players, however, don't see the invisible character until they are attacked by him in some way. This allows them to recognize a new threat and see through the illusion of the invisibility spell.

I don't actually use "Evil" in my campaigns. At first I was just going to drop the alignment altogether, but I've found something that works for me and my group. Instead of Good and Evil on the alignment, I use Altruistic and Selfish. Law and Chaos is also defined differently with Law representing being bound by a code versus Chaos which letting the end justifying the means.

In my campaigns, alignment is not directly detectable. However as far Paladins, Clerics, and Outsiders go, I use Holy and Taint to describe them and their Auras. In this way, I can have an altruistic demon who reeks of taint or a neutral aasimar who's still gives off a faint holy glow.

Clever. I sometimes enjoy playing the villain. Particularly wizards, as they have a tendency to monologue.

Maybe in your neck of the woods. We've got a flame druid whose eponymous saying is. "Never saw an opera house that was worth leaving standing." Several druid players here carry a button which reads. "Druids do it the hard way... it encourages natural selection." I have never ever run into a New Agey "Hippy" Druid in my entire d20 career. Knew another fellow who played his Druids traditional celtic like... particurlarly in the art of vengeance. Only it wasn't vengeance for some bush that got clipped that set that half-elf off, it was vengeance against the scientific cult that bottle him up for 500 years separating him from the Human woman he loved. Made it his personal dedication to wiping the techno group out of existence.

Neat! I guess there are all types. To be honest, I've never really played with many druids (at least not for very long), but the ones I did play with weren't very good representatives of the class, I suppose.

The Inquisitor was made for the player who wants to play a paladin, but doesn't want to have to hold back (think of the guy who wants to play a paladin-esque character, but wants him to act like the Punisher). They also make really cool detective-type characters, plus they can play the "bad cop" quite well.

Oh I want to play a Wizard now.

I'm currently playing one in RotRL and I'm in love with him. Wizards are a blast. Although I'm pretty much a fan of everything. Never tried druid, though. 'Least not that I recall...

Wondering what people's take is. I'm going to have a Paladin in my upcoming group, and there is a high likelihood that said Paladin will find a hatchery of a kobold tribe they will be dealing with. Kobold's are Lawful-Evil. So does the Paladin kill the entire hatchery, with the idea that the babies might one day hurt innocents? Or does he leave the eggs in peace, because they are defenseless creatures?

You might want to take into account the other players, as well. Is anyone else in the party who might not agree with murdering infant kobolds? Perhaps some bleeding-heart druid who considers all forms of life sacred? Or maybe a cavalier who feels such acts are beneath him and his team? Regardless, the Paladin might be persuaded by his party to spare (or slaughter) the hatch-lings.

If the player is truly ignorant, i would show him the feats AFTER the session.

Right, always do it AFTER the session. Otherwise, it's just an unnecessary interruption. IMO

Hi all and thanks in advance for your help.

I really enjoy making interesting NPCs for my games. Moreover, I like to create situations where certain players will shine, occassionally, this means other players don't do as well. In these situations, i have a few players who always stop to ask me how enemies do the things they do.

For example, one of my players is playing a barbian and he was in a boxing match with an NPC with Crane Wing and Crane ripost. These feats allowed the NPC to deflect one attack per round and make an AoO afterward provided that the NPC was fighting defensively.

Each time the NPC's turn came up I described his action as something akin to, "The man takes a defensive stance and waves you in: daring you to strike."

After being blocked and counter attacked twice, the player came whining to me about that not being possible per the rules, but admitted in the same sentence that he did not know all the rules.

Obviously, I don;t want to seem like I'm making things up, but neither do I want to hand over my notes whenever a player cries foul.

This is not the first time this has happened.

How far should I let my players question my NPC's and monsters?

I'd say it depends on what type of players you have. If they're the kind who wouldn't use out-of-character info during the session, go ahead and answer any questions they have pertaining to the rules. For the example you used, I'd say it would ok to explained to him just how his attacks were being deflected that way. As long as he's not using that information in-game.

I'm the GM. :) My stance is really non-committal. I can see a good person making a decision to kill them as a mercy (since he/she just killed all their relatives), or protecting them, and, as many have pointed out, making sure they are raised by an orphanage that will foster kindness and compassion. Honestly I like the possible role-playing potential of, not just a paladin, but any good character saying we need to save these eggs and get them some place they can be taken care of.

I once played a kobold ranger who had a similar backstory. He was taken as an egg by an adventuring party and raised by the party's ranger, who taught him the "tricks-of-the-trade".

I do not have my PDF available, but can link you to the PRD.

Under Perception, it states that the DC increases by one per 10 feet of distance. Thus, the furthest you can see is the maximum check you can achieve (20 + Perception modifier) times 10 feet.

20 + 0 Perception = 200ft.

20 + 20 Perception = 400ft.

So that is the limit of your ability to see.

Now, this check is opposed by the target's Stealth check. And Stealth checks are calculated by size modifiers. A mountain, being far larger than even Colossal (which is -16 to Stealth) has such a penalty that you can see it even further away than the limit of your Perception.

Edit: I'm not finding the 'Noticing Finer Details' mentioned, or where it grants +20 to the DC.

Huh. That's pretty cool; I'm gonna have to start taking advantage of that a little more.

20 + your Perception modifier X 10ft.

If your Perception check beats your targets Stealth check, you see it.

Is this in the Core Rulebook? Do you remember what page?

If the wizard does not have to go to X(the path) to get to Y(the destination) then why not just plan for Y? Once a wizard starts to use teleport I don't even plan road encounters. If they take the road they might get jumped, but...

Yeah, I agree. I mean, if one of your players has a skill like that, he's gonna use it; or his teammates are going to make him use it. That's one of his jobs, after all. Comes with the whole "Utility Caster" territory.

Misdirection: BBEG Bard, with lots and lots of Disguise, Bluff, glibness, and a hat of disguise gets to infiltrate the party's group pretty much with impunity. Play him super smart, and be friends with the heroes, get to know them, go on adventures with them, use them to crush your enemies and make BBEG Bard the ruler/landowner/etc or whatever he really wants.

[/ooc]

I've actually done this before. The badguy was a "volunteer medic" for the organization the party was working for. He was very kind to the PCs and would often try provide a bit of healing (he always feigned incompetence) and was even the brother of our alchemist's deceased wife. He even faked his own death at the hands of his trusted transvestite drow lieutenant (whom the party hated already hated) only to reveal, near the end of the game, that he was the one pulling the strings all along. Boy, were they pissed.

Well, my friends and I live in Mobile and we're ALWAYS on the lookout for good RPers (we're particularly fond of Pathfinder). Where do you hail from?