CECShocktrooper's page

Hey guys!
Haven't been on in an age and half. Just started up a campaign with some friends on Saturdays using tabletop simulator and it's been pretty fun.

Unfortunately, one of the members has already died and wants to make a character. His last character (though I was begrudge against it) was a psionic.
This time around he wants to do Warlord,buy after reading through he seems incredibly powerful and scales extremely well. I'm not a fan of his Gambit system, and I (personally) feel that the penalty is barely anything to penalize a player on a failed action. You get -2 on your rolls until next round but you still get a maneuver; versus the bonus of 2 and buffs.

I'm not listing all the good stuff, abd maybe I'm not seeing what makes this class have weaknesses like others since I can't pull up enough discussions on it.

Can someone give me a reason why this isn't overpowered overall, or why it is?

**edited for clarity: on my phone

Please, just end the thread. It's getting kind of out of hand...

Looks like a usual forum thread to me. Hopefully you checked out each response, I saw a couple that had some good links/examples!

Yes, which is why historically they were lawful and Gary Gygax made them good. That's my point about how paladins as a trope are representative of the highest honor bound codes that were ever made. The sense of morality in 1115 was strongly based in "the law is good, and the church (which had a major stake in the law) was good" which in today's gaming table is more likely going to be presented as lawful evil than lawful good....

Thaaaaank you. I should've used this but my history has been a bit lacking!

HWalsh wrote:

Vutava wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

So in the case of a LE...

"You see someone being mugged, the mugger asks you to help him."

You're done.

You fall.

There is no way out.

You have to follow the law, so you can't help the mugger. However you cannot perform a non-evil act. So you can't do nothing (that's good as you are refusing to help a criminal) you can't save the civilian (that's good) you can't demand the victim to promise to pay you to help (that's blackmail and is non-lawful) and you can't help the mugger because while that's evil, its not Lawful.

You have no real option here.

You could kill the mugger for breaking the law (assuming in your example that mugging is illegal) and then arrest the victim for disturbing the peace.

Doesn't work. In killing the mugger, for breaking the law, you performed a good act because you still saved the victim. Instant fall. It doesn't matter that you arrest the other guy, you still have to run, shell out a ton of GP to get the atonement.

No disrespect but I wouldn't touch a game like that with a twenty foot pole. I am here to have fun, and that seems a rather pointlessly restrictive setup just waiting to punish someone just for trying to play the concept they have in their head.

For the record I believe the Anti-Paladin class also includes a clause stating that evil does not care about the method, only the result. An Anti-Paladin is fully capable of committing a "good" act in the pursuit of greater evil. This clause is in reference only to the good/evil axis, not the Law/chaos axis, so I don't see why a Lawful Evil Anti-Paladin would be incapable of committing a good act while pursuing a greater evil, or indeed holding up the Laws or Oaths they are sworn to regardless of their good/evil ramifications.

In the end the game is only what you make of it. If you are enjoying such a restrictive setup for Paladins, then great for you. Dont go judging people on how they enjoy playing a less restrictive version...

Exactly... or you know if he is going to make up rules saying Anti-Paladin-esque characters can't do something good, he can just murder the mugger and loot him himself. Personal gain + evil act = win.

CECShocktrooper wrote:

A campaign I have for my friends is an Emperor who was chosen by the gods to lead, while casting his twin (just post birth) to the infernal regions as part of an underlying pact. Turns out that the Emperor is insane with his power, believing all who aren't on the same page his deities are impure and must be converted or "purged" fore the good of the world. So any paladins who are in service to the said same deities/Emperor would pretty much be automatically fallen. (1) Paladins would fall because if they were to champion for the emperor, they would be committing/allowing for mass genocide of innocent lives. Not really good right? It would be lawful to carry out said laws/crusade, however according to you they would be out of alignment and fail. (2) If they opposed such a sanctioned leader, much less "purge/crusade", then though they may be a champion of defending innocent people, they would be breaking the laws of the chosen leader and their deities. Now they aren't pure Lawful Good.

Actually... There is a way out...

Paladins only fall if the commit an evil act. They can perform unlawful acts until they alignment shift.

Lawful doesn't mean the laws of the kingdom, it means the code they swore to uphold.

So here is what would happen:

The God/Emperor says, "Kill all those who refuse to convert!"

The Paladin says, "No, this command is unlawful." Then begins to protect the innocent. They could avoid the fall easily. This falls largely into the whole unlawful order.

Now, if the Deity suffered an alignment shift then the Paladins would most likely fall anyway as they aren't in-line with the Deity's alignment anymore.

What would most likely happen in this situation is as follows:

The Paladins, who no longer agree with the ideals of their God as the God has changed alignment, abandon the God and go to a different God and swear fealty to that God. That deity gives them power and now that God has a whole slew of Paladins who are now equipped to battle it....

Well first off a couple things.

Firstly you yourself said that decisions for Paladins are black and white, and that there are no neutral decisions for them. So either you make a good decision, or you fall. That is black and white.

Second, it is completely lawful because said ruler is the RULER of said kingdom. His word is law, and as appointed by the gods his words may as well be from the deities themselves and they define the code. Left to his own devices, they can retain their alignment while he can go on his zealout ways yet still represent them.

Thirdly, as you mentioned

"a Paladin has to be wholly invested in their God or Cause to the point that they give themselves up"

So if one were to devote themselves entirely WITHOUT ANY QUESTION to said deities, then they wouldn't just simply covert. By your own reasoning in several posts on this thread, they serve their deities without any question, and if they had any or performed any they would fall. Furthermore if by some abstract way that a Paladin DID convert, he would lose all his strengths (in this case levels/abilities) as a Paladin because he was granted those powers by his deity. He'd essentially have to start over. Additionally what good will a "whole slew of Paladins" if they are all practically so much weaker. (If you were to rule that they would get the same levels and abilities as the former deity, then you just against yourself two ways. One the point of Paladins existing for other deities of another alignment being granted similar/same powers existing, and second Paladins (and arguably the stronger point) aren't beholden to serve a specific, unquestioning purpose which makes them not unique, not directly exclusive, and gives room for paladins to be able to interpret what THEY believe is good and lawful, not just the deity. Plus how can a "slew of paladins" exist if they are so rare?

Fourthly good/evil are merely relative. One persons good can be anothers evil.

Lastly you never answered my last scenario.

Prince Yyrkoon wrote:

"Paladin" refers to one of the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne. Little is known of the historical figures, other than that Paladin comes from Palatinus, an official in the Roman empire connected to the Palatine Hill which later became a catch all term for high ranking court officials. They were made famous by the Medieval Chivalric Romance "The Song of Roland". That, in turn, would form the background for Poul Anderson's seminal fantasy novel "Three Hearts and Three Lions". That's where "Paladin" enters the fantasy lexicon, and the book's protagonist does act in a manner that would generally be considered Lawful Good. That book was one of several such novels that highly influenced Gary Gygax when he was developing Dungeons and Dragons, and when combined with his love of Arthurian mythology lead to the development of the Paladin class.

The class wasn't meant to simply be the champion of a god, it was meant to be a modern recreation of that idealized perfectly virtuous chivalric Christian knight who never existed outside of fantasy anyway. The divine empowerment was likely meant to as a nod to the chivarlic ideal of God granting victory to the just and righteous, as well as Gygax's own religious beliefs. Same thing with the LG requirement (also, Law was Good in, I believe it was OD&D?)

Now, you can feel free to do anything you like with Paladins, it's your game after all. But that is where the name, and alignment restriction, actually comes from.

Just to preempt a 50 page argument over what a Paladin is supposed to be.

Agreed.

That is the inspiration for the Paladin.

I will state, however, that the real issue here isn't the Paladin. The real issue is with the disturbing modern trend that, for some reason, Good is no longer considered "cool" as the kiddies would say.

The modern audience wants evil to be better. They want evil to be "good" so they don't feel bad about playing an evil character. They want freedom from restriction and rules, they want to do as they...

I think it's pretty cool when people are passionate about something so I honestly applaud you for that.

Buuuuut maybe just a few things. Yes, a Paladin (IMO is the key thing here) is an individual of almost if not complete dedication to their deity. However, saying that anything they do that isn't "good" would make a Paladin fall is completely ridiculous.

A campaign I have for my friends is an Emperor who was chosen by the gods to lead, while casting his twin (just post birth) to the infernal regions as part of an underlying pact. Turns out that the Emperor is insane with his power, believing all who aren't on the same page his deities are impure and must be converted or "purged" fore the good of the world. So any paladins who are in service to the said same deities/Emperor would pretty much be automatically fallen. (1) Paladins would fall because if they were to champion for the emperor, they would be committing/allowing for mass genocide of innocent lives. Not really good right? It would be lawful to carry out said laws/crusade, however according to you they would be out of alignment and fail. (2) If they opposed such a sanctioned leader, much less "purge/crusade", then though they may be a champion of defending innocent people, they would be breaking the laws of the chosen leader and their deities. Now they aren't pure Lawful Good.

Or to make it simpler we'll Batman vs Joker this. Two people are about to have their lives tragically cut short, and you have no personal information about them. You can ONLY save one no matter what you do. If you choose one, then the other dies, allowing someone to die isn't really a "good" thing a champion of truth and justice is and is as guilty as the ones pulling the trigger. If you do nothing, you just made it twice as bad because you CHOSE to let both die. It's a lose-lose situation with no real "good" option, so by your strict "code" or "opinion" (not hardcore by the book fact) a paladin would fall. That is how You would play, not how others HAVE to play.

In summary yes, ideally Paladins are beacons of light and are the mortal representations, but even the gods (stated in their lore) are prone to faltering. It doesn't mean EVERY time they fall in grace and are no longer considered worthy. But that is mine and others opinions, take it how you see fit.

BONUS: Plus about the evil part, you sound incredibly condescending.

I will state, however, that the real issue here isn't the Paladin. The real issue is with the disturbing modern trend that, for some reason, Good is no longer considered "cool" as the kiddies would say.

I've rooted for the villain/anti-heroes since i was a very very young boy. Does that make me a "kiddie"? Really... Disturbing? So what if more people like to play the badder guys? No one says you have to, it's a Role-Playing Game. Not "Hwalshfinder". Good for you you found a way to Role-play passionately about something, honestly. Don't railroad others or make them feel like what they choose to play is idiotic because they like something different than what your tunnel-visioned, hipster mindset is.

To the OP, if your GM will flex and houserule, just ask to be a lawful-evil anti Paladin. It's not like your asking for something of an incredible amount. Just slightly change your code requirements. Or be Chaotic Evil, it can actually give you a lot of flex. PM me and I'll send you an example bio of a CE character I made that can party with even LG heroes. :D

I know it might sound odd, but if you guys use the Mythic Adventures rules you could become immortal that way. Could also be used to give yourself the ability to grant spellcasting to your followers and basically become a Demi-God that way.

Aside from that, Warpriest could do what you want if you build towards it, letting you be effective in combat while still retaining some spellcasting abilities (mostly focused towards self-buffing or healing).

I'm sure we'll at some point (probably several times) run mythic. I had glanced at the warpriest, I'll look a bit further at it thanks! My usual go to melee/caster is bloodrager.

Wow, I was under the assumption that this character would be true neutral from the very beginning (or maybe lawful/neutral, I guess). I mean, the description given just screams that particular alignment. A chaotic/evil Reaper wouldn't even begin to do the concept justice.

Oh yeah he's pure neutral, but he'll lean towards each alignment a bit at times to accomplish what he needs done. We're just discussing other fluff at this point, which I'm enjoying!

Edit:it was my friend who did the chaotic evil btw

Ya but there is still nothing saying undead have to be evil. it's the necromancer who raised them that was evil. do the sins of the father carry over to the son? they shouldnt but thats the judgemental world we live unfortunately. Lol.

Awesome glad I could help.

To play devils advocate here, raising the dead in-it-of itself is evil. The caster is committing a heinous act, as well as all the spells raising the dead are categorized as evil. It can be argues the undead themselves aren't evil as they don't have there own motivation (with exceptions of course) to be around, but the being who raised them is committing the act. Even if it weren't evil (which the spells categorized are), as far as Pharasma is concerned, "As the goddess of death and rebirth, she abhors the undead and considers them a perversion."

As a reminder I'm just playing the advocate here, I'm just pointing out the reason as to why I'm choosing her domains, but not 100% her philosophy, ergo why I'm not directly worshiping her with this cleric.

First off who said the Reaper was Chaotic Evil in the first place? I have always seen him as being True Neutral, only doing his Job and judging who deserves Death.

to that effect I created a Reaperesque character a while ago too. He was a Cleric 1/Inquisitor X of Appollyon (you could change this to Urgathoa and still be True Neutral). I chose Negative Energy Channel and went Channel Smite, Channeling Scourge, then took the Trip Feat path. The Judgements work well for boosting Trip. This will still work well with wanting to summon psychopomps, but without access to the healing domain you lack the Life part.

I suppose if I went true neutral though I can achieve the results of both domains. So problem solved thanks for the help!

First off who said the Reaper was Chaotic Evil in the first place? I have always seen him as being True Neutral, only doing his Job and judging who deserves Death.

As do I, unfortunately Reaper Minors are considered undead, which is pretty taboo for Pharasma* as are all undead. Also there are multiple Grim Reapers from the Negative energy plane. We might gloss* over some of these technicalities but usually we don't.

*Damn phone lol

How about a psychopomp theme? Their flavor seems to match up really well with what you have going there.

There's a feat and a ring that allow you to summon them, and there's even a psychopomp subdomain.

Not a bad idea, I looked at that and it definitely looks right up my alley. I guess what's left is to choose the other domain which would be healing. Then even though my character doesn't follow a specific deity, they would technically be under Pharasma.

Which totally works, but I personally think daggers blow and I'm not a fan. Also I wouldn't be able to summon Reapers without breaking my domain. Any way out of that by chance?

So back in one of my early games I GMd, I had a friend who wanted to be "Death's Apprentice," however it proved difficult to pair him up with the party as he was not only obscenely Chaotic Evil, but incredibly overt and was quickly slain by the rest of the party before the second game session was over.

I was thinking of (one of many) a PC concept after I GM and finish my current campaign. Role play is more important to me though viability is also wanted. A PC who's theme revolved around Death and Life, probably going to be ran as a Cleric with maybe the hidden priest archetype.

A very long story here so feel free to skim.
He will have had a person(s) stripped away from him via death, while he and the offenders yet live. He grows to believe there is an order and balance as to what lives and dies, along with when is the right time for things to happen. As such he pursues the power to grant life to those who deserve to continue living but had their lives cut short; or deal death to those who HE deems is necessary, such as those that have plagued mortal existence, like daemons or those who have abused the wretched undead. He has little to no qualms about summoning the undead himself, however he is quick to dispose of/release them when the task is completed. He hopes if he can persevere through his personal quest he can become as powerful as the Grim Reapers themselves, but exercise the proper judgement to take and additionally restore life. His own mortality concerns him, as he realizes that in order to properly perform the role he wishes permanently, he will need to become immortal (and refuses to become a lich, as that would grossly hypocrtical) via some deep magic, or (and incredibly unlikely) become a deity. Lastly he realizes that many may not understand/appreciate his beliefs (to which he has no proper deity, but can agree with ideals on), and so he hides his true intent via personality and hidden actions.

There's more, however I'm sure many of you are quite tired of the read, so my only questions I have regarding this is alignment factor/most beneficial Domains. I have a particular leaning towards being able to summon Minor Reapers and/or True Resurrection by the end.

Thanks for plodding through this post and thanks for any advice!

Right, just clarifying it for you or others that using large bastard swords was already allowed. So you're not getting any advantage from the barbs new ability. And since this thread has been talking about the new ability people might think "large bastard" means "larger bastard"

well I mean, you do benefit from Jotungrip right unlike other classes? so youd be getting 2d8 (large bastard) damage instead of 2d6 (medium greatsword)? or am I reading this wrong.

One thing to note, as worded the barbs ability.

"She can use two-handed weapons meant for creatures one size category larger, but the penalty for doing so is increased by 4."
You can't use huge bastard swords.
A bastard sword is a 1handed with the feat, which becomes a 2handed for a medium if you wield a large one. You could do this before the barbs ability. The barb can't use a huge bastard sword since it's not a 2handed meant for large creature. So the only thing this new ability does is allow you to wield a large greatsword instead of a large bastard sword but you take an additional -4 to your attacks.

I didn't say huge, I said large?

so the wielding of larger 2handed weapons is as a 2handed weapon. Thus you can't 2wf with them. so a medium person could wield a large greatsword. Then enlarge to make it huge, then lead blades to make it gargantuan I think.

Also officially wielding larger weapons don't give you increased range. So a medium person wielding a colossal greatsword would still only have 5ft reach.

Guess I'll just substitute them for Large bastard swords, with exotic proficiency. Sizing up still helps those.

It's just odd that size increase to weapons doesn't extend their range. That just seems... weird. If somehow you did have a colossal sword, you can only hit directly in front of you despite how massive the weapon is.

so the wielding of larger 2handed weapons is as a 2handed weapon. Thus you can't 2wf with them. so a medium person could wield a large greatsword. Then enlarge to make it huge, then lead blades to make it gargantuan I think.

Also officially wielding larger weapons don't give you increased range. So a medium person wielding a colossal greatsword would still only have 5ft reach.

Awww man, I could've dreamed a little longer lol

Sooo.. given medium sized weapon damage dice, this lets you take a -6 penalty to gain an additional 2-3 damage ON AVERAGE**

The turn by turn actual bonus damage could be as little as 0 or as much as 6, depending on the roll.

Alternatively, Power Attack allows you to take -1 penalty to hit, and get a consistent +3 damage when using a properly sized 2 handed weapon...

a level after the Titan Mauler gets the ability to use size category larger 2-handed weapons, Power attack lets you take just a -2 penalty to hit, in exchange for a static +6 damage...

hmmm.... so the choice is -6 to hit in exchange for between 0 an 6 bonus damage, or -2 to hit in exchange for +6 bonus damage.... let me think....

... yeah - this is a HORRIBLE ability.... But at least I figured out why a titan mauler might actually use it: They've traded away the reflex bonus Barbarians typically get on saves against traps!!!

:)

That m ight be true, but this class gives me personally a lot of flavor, plus, if enlarged via enlarge person 2, I can be wielding 2 Gargantuan two handed weapons, and if allowed (which I'm sure will be) Strong arm bracers, you'd be wielding 2 colossal sized two handed weapons. Definitely worth it to me. (that's 6d6 x 10 attacks if built right, brutality with a 80ft(?) reach.

Edit: was corrected, dreams are still dreams lol

Chess Pwn wrote:

Since it was printed up until like 2 weeks ago the titan mauler didn't have the line "She can use two-handed weapons meant for creatures one size category larger, but the penalty for doing so is increased by 4." in that ability. Thus up until like 2 weeks ago you couldn't but like 2 weeks ago Paizo issued an errata that added it and now it can.

*head spinning* So... we can do what for what penalty now?

Use two handed weapons that are one size category larger for a -6 penalty... The dream is real.

Since it was printed up until like 2 weeks ago the titan mauler didn't have the line "She can use two-handed weapons meant for creatures one size category larger, but the penalty for doing so is increased by 4." in that ability. Thus up until like 2 weeks ago you couldn't but like 2 weeks ago Paizo issued an errata that added it and now it can.

Thank you! I thought it looked really odd. Well maybe someone who's a member can update this link then. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/archetypes/paizo---b arbarian-archetypes/titan-mauler

Thanks again!

So a PC can use a weapon a category higher in size, but there is a -2 penalty, and it handling it goes up a category(longsword>two handed). Makes sense. I've also read through many forums about the Titan Mauler, and how you can't use two-handed weapons of a category larger than said character. However the wording on Massive Weapons (Ex) is the opposite of that statement.

"She can use two-handed weapons meant for creatures one size category larger, but the penalty for doing so is increased by 4."

Ok. Makes perfect sense. For an increased penalty, you WOULD supposedly be able to wield a two handed weapon for a larger category at a -6 penalty.

But on every forum and side note, it reflects this statement.

"Can a Medium titan mauler wield a Large two-handed weapon, such as a Large greatsword?

No. The "Inappropriately Sized Weapons" rule says (in summary) that a creature can't wield an inappropriately-sized weapon if the size difference would increase it one or more "steps" beyond "two-handed." None of the titan mauler's abilities say the character can break the "steps" part of the "Inappropriately Sized Weapons" rule, so the character still has to follow that rule."

So why does this ability even exist? It makes no sense at all. Can someone please break this down and explain it? You Literally can't even use the ability at all then.

Small Ibelieve. What kind of details?

Like do automatons cost resources/gold to produce each day after his prep? Do you get to choose to select it's features like if it walks or rolls around (I can see this could cause issues)? Are there any Tinker specific Feats or are the feats all from other PF sources? Lastly, I'm assuming that crafting is a MAJOR part of being a Tinker, unless I'm missing something? I feel like it's almost a cross of Summoner/Alchemist/Wizard, would that be an accurate determination?

Sorry for the wall of text.

Are you referring to interjection games tinker? Anyways, my suggestion is going with a clockwork theme, let whoever this is be the beginning of a new breed, taking his art above and beyond what others do.

Actually, and I hate to trouble you for this, could you post some details of your character or one you would make at either level 1 or 5? I know its a hassle but we could really use that as a template.

Are you referring to interjection games tinker? Anyways, my suggestion is going with a clockwork theme, let whoever this is be the beginning of a new breed, taking his art above and beyond what others do.

One of the things I'm trying to find is size and starting stats. We are probably going to use clockwerk style machines, but we cant find out any details about the starting limits of automatons here: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/interjection-games/tinker

It's a fun class from the read but it feels like it's missing a lot of information on starting out.

For the past year i've been playing in a campaign as a construct crafter, and have taken a look into the 3p Tinker class.

Theres multiple ways to incorporate it, but thats not really worth addressing yet. Keep in mind balance. I dont know how familiar you are with construct crafting rules, and since this guy seems to be wanting to go that direction, theres some decision to be made as a GM. Theres several levels when it comes to making them that can really impact the balance of using something like that.

As much as I've read over Pathfinder, I haven't really hosted a campaign that was too long, so I'll be relearning a lot on the way. I've read over the material, and I'm curious. Does the class need balance as in it's over powered or underwhelming? I can't seem to find information in the class info determining the constrtucts appearance, is there anything along the lines of eidolons creation?

I am pretty un-learned on the subject so anything you know and more would be of great assistance!

Long story short, spinning up a new campaign, saw this class and myself and friends are in love with it and one wants to play it. Problem is we are in a dark ages time period. To incorporate it, I was thinking of adding something like the Dwemer Ruins in Skyrim. He'll have to go to ruins in order to find out about automatons, and begins to replicate and create his own constructs. Several visits (dungeon crawls) can be made with the party to get new materials, among other things and will be the only being alive that can use them. We don't mind adjusting a few things to balance it out. Thoughts? Thanks!

Hmm why can't you give those powers to a caster type? and by caster do you mean 9th level spells or does that include 6th level spells? Because inquisitor/ warpriest/ hunter (refluffed) could all fit that concept (in addition to magus which was mentioned earlier). Inquisitor could fit pretty well since the class abilities are focused on killing things (like bane and most judgments) or on protecting yourself (healing or protection judgments) which could easily come from an evil source but be re-purposed for neutral or even good uses. Another potential option is the synthesis summoner. I mean you are literally calling on the power of outsiders to boost your combat abilities. With the unchained summoner's rules on eidolons you actually have a difference between the celestial and fiendish backstorys.

My friend pointed out giving mostly unholy spells would take away from the unique points that clerics and paladins have. I'll have to look at the unchained summoner rules thanks!

You could add templates to them:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/celestial-creat ure-cr-special
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/fiendish

The stronger versions of these templates are:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/half-celestial
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/half-fiend

Keep in mind each of these templates increases power in battles, so you will need slightly stronger monsters for challenging encounters.

This will be a huge help thanks!

There is actually a really cool Tiefling racial archetype for Magus that could fit the feel of "casting and fighting," if you want. If you want to focus on more of the fighting part, I would also suggest combining it with Kensai or Myrmidarch.

Thanks!

Make the twins into Tiefling/Asimar. Both get powers. They are actually human, but their upbringing infused infernal/celestial power into them so that they become Tiefling/Asimar equivalent. Perhaps even to having [evil]/[good] subtypes and vulnerabilities to aligned stuff. However, they are human and do not react to specific metals in any notable way.

Both races have plenty of SLAs, and could even have some custom ones if you want. Use the ARG race-builder to add SLAs and drawbacks to even them out race point wise. If both are truly NPCs, you can skip the drawbacks. This gets your special powers independent of class.

You are now free to select class. The tiefling can go slayer/rogue/sorcerer/etc., and the asimar can go cleric/fighter/magus/etc. The class would reflect the kind of training they were given by infernal/celestial "parents".

I would not go wizard for either one, as they define order within their sphere ruining the "cause chaos" of the one, and they are too unworldly to be understood for "lead your people" of the other.

/cevah

I had actually thought of a couple of those things, and I do like the additional ideas!The only reason I mentioned Ant-Paladin as a first was because I have been really trying to make a class fit the character, since he is both supposed to get directly in the fight and yet still have the ability to cast unholy abilities/spells. I'll go with the subtype/vulnerability you mentioned, but the only other class I can think of he would fit is Bloodrager. And even with that he still can't access unholy spells/abilities, unless I make completely custom spells and/or subclass.

I appreciate the responses!

Haven't posted or been doing Pathfinder in quite some time. My friends and I are going to kick one off soon, and really just looking for some advice. We mostly focus on the rpg experience, not so much as min-maxing our characters. Essentially I will have a PC/NPC who has the make of an anti hero. Instead of listing this characters life story and such, I'll just break it down Barney style. Was born to a royal family but was given to infernals as part of standing pact to maintain balance between good vs evil blah blah blah. Raised by infernals, cast into the world to wreak havoc and is guided to be on a mission to slay twin brother who got the good life as a king. However plot twist is he is a good(ish) guy at heart meanwhile his twin was raised by celestials, but becomes king with holy powers but is a pretty messed up guy. So I want to give the PC/NPC unholy themed powers, but being a cleric doesnt seem to fit. It was brought up by an old friend of mine (not in my games) that I can't give those powers to a bloodrager or other casters, so I was thinking of an anti-Paladin, as he only exists to serve himself. Would it be fit to tweak his Code of Conduct enough to allow him to be doable? I could list some references of similar anti heroes if needed. Thanks!

I guess I should reiterate, unlike people on here who thrive of playing Pathfinder, for many years, My friends and I do it on our spare time. So I'd like my original question looked at again please, because everyone here clearly read what they wanted to read, not the topic. Not to sound "snarky," but we're playing this casually, not crunching numbers to min/max.

Thank you.

Magus//Rogue is on the OP list? Why?

'Cause I'm going to be honest... if that one is, you probably won't like gestalt.

Just read trough with this forum, I guess it's about chaining sneak attack to everything.

I'm going to be pretty straight too the point on this topic. Looked into Gestalt style campaigns, and I like the concept, so i wanted to introduce the idea to my next campaign, but with a twist.

Certain classes cant be combined to prevent OP play, like magus/rogue or fighter/rogue etc.

If players chose to play as gestalt, they are on the slow level progression track.

If players want to play as standard characters in a gestalt game, their exp progression would be on the easy - medium progression, along with a bonus or two regarding items, feats, loot income, role play elements etc.

Thoughts?

Currently I've been working on two campaigns at once and having a bit of a creationist/writers block, but is there already a class listed above that has/works with constructs and their related abilities? If not is there a class that would be best suited to fit with that, and lastly would that be a class I would create if neither of those apply. If so anyone have any cool ideas I might not have thought of?

would going straight brawler to 20th level be any good? because that 20th ability looks pretty awesome.

Brawler and barbarian are both good.

One is more about getting high bonuses to damage, the other about getting a high damage die.

Barbarian: Can get IUS and unarmed two-weapon fighting via rage powers (needs a backup when not raging. But by having IUS as feat and as rage power you increase the damage die). Can add natural attacks to taste. With extra rage power and/or the right race choice you can have a lot of attacks at low levels.
Later you can add rage powers to become good at CMs like savage dirty trick. Small damage die but big bonuses. Later very versatile because there are rage powers for crazy stuff. Even for flying. Can get pounce or pummeling charge.

Brawler: free IUS, free brawler's flurry, scaling damage die. Bonuses to CMs. Probably easier to build as an unarmed combatant but more restricted in what he can do. This is the more mundane approach. Natural weapons don't work with brawler's flurry. Can get pummeling charge.

I will add one:
Primal Blood Conduit Bloodrager:
Can do some of the things the barbarian can do because he can exchange bloodrager powers for rage powers. Depending on bloodline gets claws and/or gets large when raging. Or other neat things. Can cast spells later on. Some as part of a combat maneuver or unarmed strike. can get pummeling charge or pounce.

Awesome thanks! What about multicasting? I was hoping for a weapon-free Hand to hand kinda guy, or is a weapon besides natural/gauntlets always going to win out?

As the title states, I'm looking for a build to make an unarmed specialist not only competent, but a straight up beast at unarmed melee. I've searched through countless forums listing the barbarian, brawler, fighter, bloodrager and lastly monk for these roles, but none actually stating which onewould break faces the hardest or can guide me on using CMs effectively.

If anyone could help that would be great! I'm not partial to monk as I've been reading through and he seems kinda meh along with his required alignment, mostly it's between choosing between Brawler or Barbarian. The character rp wise wants to prove he can be as good if not better in the fight as any other non caster.

Lastly if you could list feats separately from items (if you choose to use them) that would be great thanks!

I'm not quite familiar with the class, despite reading through it (it's a bit dry when you're tired). Is there a way to do a Bioshock power kind of Alchemists? Just curious.

CECShocktrooper wrote:

Understandably that's true, but that doesn't dispel the fact the GM homebrewed a counter race based campaign. He could pick anything and it wouldn't have mattered.

Possibly. Did the GM actually do that, or is the player misunderstanding his motives? We don't know. If the GM did, did he do it because the PC was reaching a level where it was possible to trivialize any other kind of opposition? Because of a personal grudge? Or as part of a master plan to negate all the abilities of all the PCs? I would speculate that it did matter what he picked, and unfortunately he picked something that the GM found he hated when he saw it in actual play.

I definitely understand where you're coming from, and you make some valid points. However, we should be responding based on how he presented the situation to us on this forum, not any what ifs and just because a Game Master hates a certain aspect, doesn't mean they need to make it completely useless. For example, I hate orcs, but should that mean I make every weapon that the enemy wields magical with a bane specifically targeting orcs? or let's say I hate magic users, specifically people who use enchantment spells. Should I make a home brew race of creatures that are immune to that specific school of spells? Or should I just make it so they are more resistant to them like a 50/50 coin toss unless they are the bosses? The problem I'm having is it shows an unreasonable way to deal with this player. I, have run into players who also min max their characters making them unbelievably durable or powerful. You know how I deal with that? I change the enemy statistics, I've vary how they play, if someone is good in a certain aspect I make it more challenging for them, but I do not make them completely worthless just to prove that I destroy a character concept I don't like because I'm the game master and I can do whatever I want. Maybe everyone I play with enjoys playing games with me as a game master because I'm harsh but fair.but maybe it's because I don't Railroad them when I see something I don't like. I just think it's pretty sad, & I see it a lot, when gamemasters seize control by treating their players like he/she is all that matters in the game, and not the players interacting and traveling through it. I might just be crazy thinking that making small adjustments is better than making broad adjustments crippling a player.

as a summary, there is nothing wrong with making things more challenging for a player or group to try and think outside of the box. There's nothing wrong with creating a higher probable chance of failure with PROPER scaling. it is wrong however, to make it literally impossible for them to play the character. if you think about it like this, it would be the same as somebody playing a fighter that focused on melee. And then you make an entire campaign with a homebrew race, that is completely immune to physical attacks, completely negating all the player has invested in their character.

CECShocktrooper wrote:

Fergie wrote:

Making many opponents immune to mind affecting stuff is a requirement for running a mid-high level campaign.

Since when was that a requirement?

It's a requirement if (a) you want to have a fun campaign, (b) you have a caster who likes to use Dominate Monster, and (c) the group as a whole don't think it's fun if every enemy either gets dominated or dies at the hands of other dominated enemies while the rest of the party is rendered worthless.

CECShocktrooper wrote:

As a "counterpoint" i guess enemies should have DR30/- at engame content.

At level 20? Sounds about right. You might get an enemy surviving for two or three rounds with that.

You know what? Just have every monster be Cthuhlu. Problem solved. Starting at level 10. That's fun. And yeah DR30/- with Immunity to all spells is fun for everyone :)

CECShocktrooper wrote:

So you highly recommend he doesn't play as the character he wants to play?

It's possible that the character he wants to play (depending on the character build and how much the GM builds the adventure around him), will most of the time either completely dominate play (making things not fun for the other players) or be completely worthless (making the player unhappy).

Ultra-specialized characters often sound fun, but usually they aren't.

Understandably that's true, but that doesn't dispel the fact the GM homebrewed a counter race based campaign. He could pick anything and it wouldn't have mattered. Yes everything has it's weaknesses, enchanted not excluded, but that is where other players can fill in for weaknesses and not railroad the players for their choices. If everyone wanted to play as an Elemental Sorcerer, ice, fire, acid, lightning respectively, he should give some flex and realize the adventure is theirs to explore, not to exploit them with immunities only after saying it was a cool idea. If you say "Oh well they'll learn to vary their spells" just stop. You clearly have no sense of RP and are the kind of gm to railroad players with your own concepts.

EDIT: ^^^ Counterpoint to above ^^^

PS A "dick move" would be for the GM to let you keep casting the spells, but not tell you that he is fudging the dice behind the screen. Making many opponents immune to mind affecting stuff is a requirement for running a mid-high level campaign. Perhaps both of you should have known that before you made your character, but at this point the best option is to talk it over like adults, and not throw blame around.

Since when was that a requirement? Please. Please cite your source. I'm VERY curious. As a "counterpoint" i guess enemies should have DR30/- at engame content.

Zippomcfry wrote:

I'm playing an enchanter in his homebrew campaign and have deliberately chosen nothing, but Enchantment spells. I discussed this with him before we started and agreed that it would be entertaining to do something other than stereotype Sorcerer.

I highly recommend NOT specializing in enchantment. It wrecks up game balance too easily. Select a different type of focus, or at least do something that really branches out from typical sleep, charm, hold stuff.

So you highly recommend he doesn't play as the character he wants to play?

So in essence with enchantment, it shouldn't exist in this game? Or anything else that you specifically deem too good.

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but I thought as more experienced players, you guys realized this game is first and foremost about having fun, roleplaying as PCs that players want to, and that the game can be flexible to players who choose their favored routes. Even in the Sacred Core Rulebook it states on 396 that it's the GM's job to make the experience flexible, fun, and fair. Which none of these things he's accomplishing. What's the point of playing a game if you're GM is bent on nullifying your very existence? That's not being a GM who "teaches" to be better. That's a GM being malicious.

As I'm a bit newer, a lot of points made are very valid here.

The only suggestion I can recommend in here is to ask for maybe on or two monsters in encounters to give your chatacter some use. I realize that expanding your list dilute the flavor, but if you two agreed on the character being enchamtment only I feel it's a bit underhanded.

Lastly I'm doubting you guys are playing a min/max style game, so I feel many veterans of PF tend to overlook style vs functionality, no offense to them. Not EVERY game should be about being a perfect build.I mean c'mon.

*using a phone so typos WILL happen

So as a new Gm to Pathfinder, I bought the rise of runelords anniversary edition, and am currently using this campaign to buy time and level our group up a bit. It states at the end of THIS adventure pc's should be 17+. Should I throw in my campaigns side-ish quests, or wait until the end as not to over level the players? I plan to drag out these characters awhile even at 20th level, with spontaneous mythic power gains/losses. I KNOW it's all up to my discretion as a Gm, but balance wise I'm askign for advice, as my campaign will very easily outreach the rorl. Additionally there any complete campaigns designed for level 20? Because I'm not going to lie, there's some wicked looking campaigns, in which case if not, would I just adjust the levels/enemy count? I'll be honest, I'm feeling a bit lazy since planning out this other campaign is draining a lot of time since I'm working nights -soon to be days and will be stuck in the desert 2nd-16 April to blow stuff up. Thanks guys!

I appreciate all the feed back guys!

In games I run I wouldn't say I encourage it, but I do favor neutral to play with good alignments, as running just one alignment has possibilities to still create unique characters, it still doesn't allow as much friction I prefer between players and their character ideals. Games typically are smooth but allow more depth to the characters in their relationships.

I don't like it when 3 moral alignments are present. Because it literally grinds the campaign to a halt. "Final Breath" has a habit of doing these kinds of things, so I'll deal with him specifically instead of punishing the whole group, as this will likely happen AGAIN whether or not I change the alignment ruling or new characters for everyone.

Thanls again guys! Ill probably keep posting many more obvious/derpy questions in the future!

Just as a note, the Paladin can be pretty flexible on modifying the character, our perception (the group) is that a Paladin wouldn't bend to or tolerate the consumption/damnatik of souls.

I forgot to mention that the paladin player is very shy about being himself, so it was the intention to give him a stronger willed character to help his self esteem in real life, along with creating some comical moments! As I'm gm-ing and at times assuming a pc for certain occasions, I'm very flexible with altering perpspectives/objectives for a more suitable goal. Im just asking you guys on ideas how to flex the campaigns, as we all WANT this to work and will compromise, except mostly for "Final Breath."

Now, this isn't NECESSARILY bad or disruptive i would like to point out, i havve a similar character (though alot less cheesy) that is an inquisitor of Charon, he is very nice and basically runs off a combination of Pragmatic Evil and Affably Evil

I totally agree with your character concept, I was hoping he'd go along those Lines and not be so overt with his character, like along the lines of making his mission to contact death and then told to harvest his "friends" souls when the time was right. Not be so OBVIOUS. Maybe i can swing him that way still..

I know here on the boards, time, space, physics, rules limitations, story, GM, and everything must bow before the mighty character concept, but seriously, there's billions of possibilities, how hard is it to come up with a handful that won't hate each other?

I get where you're coming from, as much as it seems like I dislike his character concept, I actually was the first to support it. Sarcasm is duly noted in showing you're more interested on making people in these forums feel stupid for asking for additional advice.thanks buddy.