Count Vasquez's page

I often read advices on character builds which are something like: uh, dervish Dance, agile weapon - for rogue-like charakters especially - and again in this thread.

I agree I don't like to take a feat which is linked to a specific culture for someone from the northern regions for example. Playing an Eroll Flynn pirate-charakter with, ahem, dervish dance? No way...

BUT.

What really amazes me is the fact that most GM's do allow every obscure feat which are mentioned in some campaign settings. I do not find any reference of a dervish dance feat in any of the RULEBOOKS other than the bard variant. Same goes for agile weapons. There are no agile weapons (even in UE!!!). Same for guided weapons by the way...

My experience is that no GM I know (including myself) would freely allow such rule/equipment additions - possibly after discussing, but never ever as given.

Advices building on concepts of obscurity are at least questionable.

By the way, I do foresee the creation of an enchantment which will allow charisma based damage, maybe to give bards/sorcerers some extra edge. Anyway, I do not want to discuss the tendency of power creeping in rule-/sourcebook additions. As long as such errors - namely breaking the game system: here do damage without STR - live only in specific campaigns I do not mind.

To consider these feats/enchantments whatever common stuff I disgree.

So for this discussion, you can take dervish dance and buy agile weapons to do damage as purely DEX- based fighter IF you can convince your GM to allow these obsceneties...

:-)

No. Yes.

Martyr's Bargain DELAYS the effects of Blood of the Martyr. Compare to Delay Poison. The (maximised) effect would start after rds./lvl.

As for Martyr's Blood covers bleed EFFECTS such as ability damage and so on, not bleed damage as such. But maybe as RAI?

By the way, martyrs by definition suffer and die for their cause, so they shouldn't be immune to - uh - bleeding and pain...

This is, why playing a Paladin can suck - it is often a question of DM style and, in my opinion, best avoided by them. Well, in itself the question is really simple as PF provides us with a clear Alignment code: Goblins=evil so there is no question that killing one could be wrong even by a Paladin's higher standards. He would not listen to the pleas of a demon, would he?

If at all possible I suggest that he capture the creature and let it be justied by a proper court, but that's more for performance reasons as the verdict is totally clear and therefore the responsibility for a certain death (sentence) lies by the Paladin.

I myself loathe the idea of a whole sentient race being "evil" as racist, so I prefer a more realsitic view: even if goblins, orcs etc. pp for example are mostly "evil" (no more than huns but i digress) a Paladin should have proof of their evildoings before bringing them to justice. This can only be ok if law institutions would not hang a goblin for being one of course.

So in this example, on the assumption of laws who would only punish for crimes (and not for race, color, religious beliefs...), the Paladin should capture the goblin and let justice have its way. For practical reasons - we are talking medieval here - he could even set him free if there are no evidences for this goblin to have done evil acts - and defending his comrades could hardly be count as such.

In any case, the DM has to make clear how certain actions are viewed in his world, so the player can make a thorogh decision (and has not to guess what his DM might want). This is extremely neccessary for moral questions in a fantasy/medieval world with players and a modern view on things.

In no way is the personal view of the Paladin a measure for "right" and "wrong" as this is totally for his god(dess) / DM to decide. It is of course easy to force a Paladin to commit evil acts so unless player and master are agreeing on such dilemmas I would rather not implement them.

Wild Shape (Su): ... This ability functions like the beast shape I spell, except as noted here.

See: Druid.

Beast Shape II: Large animal: If the form you take is that of a Large animal, you gain a +4 size bonus to your Strength, a –2 penalty to your Dexterity, and a +4 natural armor bonus.

Polymorph: ... While these spells make you appear to be the creature, granting you a +10 bonus on Disguise skill checks, they do not grant you all of the abilities and powers of the creature...

... In addition to these benefits, you gain any of the natural attacks of the base creature, including proficiency in those attacks. These attacks are based on your base attack bonus, modified by your Strength or Dexterity as appropriate, and use your Strength modifier for determining damage bonuses...

I do not read that the druid gets the base-damage of the new Form (4d8), but I would possibly allow it, unless he sucks completely in the STR department (Megafauna, Arsinoitherium has 28 STR). So if the druid STR 10 plus 4 to amazing 14 he should get heavy Penalties...

But unless the druid is not from the Lost World he wouldn't Know something like this to exist.

A druid Level 7 can not have Vital Strike as it needs BAB +6 as Prerequisite...

By the way, Beast Shape does give the druid a STR Bonus ands some such, it does not transform him in the real animal (Special Attacks, Damage etc. he does not get).

Nice try...

:-)

Are you sure the problem is your fellow player?

If I understand correctly he is constantly annoying everyone around him and puting the party success in danger, so this character (and possibly player, too) should be the hate-object of all. Well, then get rid of him and tell him to leave the party. This can be supported by talking about Off-Game (nice, of course).

As he seems to be new to your group (it is his first character) and maybe also new to roleplaying in general talking about group harmony could be very helpful. Since this guy puts a lot of efforts in characterplay which in itself is a good thing and often neglected for efficiency reasons maybe all he needs is good advice.

The best thing to do would be a player & gm meeting at the local pub or something (neutral zone) and a discussion about your (ie: all of you) preferred game-/characterplay. Could be interesting to know if your fellow players are fine with your character, too?

If, on the other hand, your gm and group are ok by his character-actions leave the group because your style of play differs currently too much - later rejoin should always be an option.

Never, ever do kill a fellow player, this can only lead to trouble and very probably might break the group altogether. Also I find threats and other ingame not-niceties rather irritating (as player), because it forces the group to side with one or the other and result in a breakup .

Ingame I see a problem in murdering as your character is LE, which in itself is not an excuse in killing annoying people (See also: CE), in fact that is the way a lawful character certainly won't choose. More the like in tipping of the local authorities and give him fair warning in advance so he can (barely) flee for good [couldn' resist]; or would if your warning were only be in time, but alas!, mail delivery is not as it used to be...

But all depends very much on your exact group situation and as it is sometimes difficult to see things unbiased the best idea is a group sit-in to sort things out and to get the right picture of how your fellow players (plus gm) respond to your uneasiness.

As I understand the pfsrd fluff-text the intention is to enhance the specialization, so instead of 1 spell they get the same 2 times plus specialist school power but cannot cast spells of their opposite schools.

Better than 3.0 anyway.

Insanely powerful? Yes.
But at least still not a dex-based caster...

Personnaly I side with Selgard. This isn't a question of errata yes or no, but of how to handle a too-good-to-be-true character feature.

Well, as this campaign is about to end there should be no need to compromise especially because the player seems to feel uneasy with it.
As DM you should have planned accordingly, so encounters so far had this feat considered, yes?

That argument to check out erratas immediately and constantly (as player and/or as control-freaked DM) and to change rules on the fly might be acceptable IF all players are internet-junkies.

BUT: There are such things as written Rulebooks, so in my experience players are mostly still relying on these. And I may add that paizo make it not very easy to find erratas (why no direct link on these?)...

So I would rather not punish a player for an errataed feature unless it is utterly broken and surely not at the end of a campaign. As DM I feel free to righten any stuff I don't like errataed or not if the players agree of course (house-ruling). Most players are willing to argue and listen so compromising is rarely an issue.

My advice: let it be as it is and increase CR or enconter tactics slightly.

Note: these are all not core material...

I personally disdain the idea of dex to hit and/or damage as dex would be a much too powerful stat. I wait for the first dex-based caster class, though.

:-(

Weapon Finesse (Rapier, Light Weapon) is acceptable IF NOT for a dervish "I can wield a Scimitar, what noone else can!" dance feat.

@weables

Hm, interesting idea, but as I read it not viable.

To use Crane-Style you have to use a swift action, ok. But to switch to 2-Hand-Overkill Damage you would also need a swift action. So, unless I miss something this technique works only every other round. I do see Two-Hander fighting as stance, but maybe this is disputable.

Another downside is the fact, that crane wing lets you "deflect" only melee WEAPON attacks. Still sweet, but not against monstertypes.