My back of a napkin 10th level paladin, with modest magic items for level and moderate optimisation:
As so many others have said, your PC is a bit underpowered.
Edit: Changed doubleaxe to greataxe
The RPG 'Nephilim' had the PCs take on the role of ancient spirits that incarnate periodically into the bodies of humans, taking on their skills and memories as they do. There were rules for many time periods such as Ancient Egypt through the Roman Empire, the Middle Ages, the World Wars, the Renaissance and the modern era.
The game had lots of secret societies (like the Knights Templar) and manipulation of society behind the scenes.
It may not be exactly what you are looking for but would certainly have some decent ideas that could help.
When giving things to Fighters, I suggest asking yourself if it makes them more powerful than Wizards, Clerics or Druids.
I thought about this and I reckon you could give Fighters:
A bonus feat at every odd level and two bonus feats at every even level
and full casters would still be more powerful, though Fighters may start to hedge out Rangers and Barbarians.
I must say I find this debate quite unusual.
Magical Knack is designed to help multiclass casters approach or equal the caster level of single class casters. It is specifically not meant to increase caster level above hit dice and so the limitation is there.
However things like Spell Specialization are quite different and are designed to increase the caster level above and beyond a character’s hit dice.
Surely the most obvious thing to do is to add the bonus from Magical Knack up to the character’s hit dice, and then to add the bonuses that can take it above?
This is certainly the way it’s played in our games and makes the most sense to me.
Legalistic reading of the rules aside, isn’t this how most people play it?
I originally posted this in the identical thread - but, like poor old Tom Riker it was deemed to be a duplicate so I'm reposting here.
Bard would be my choice, for the social ability and magic (including a cure).
The thread inspired me to create a level 1 character adapted for the 21st century - I think this smart, charismatic fellow would do well at life.
Level 1 Human Bard
Profession (Musician): 1 (+4)
I think this smart, charismatic fellow would do well at life.
Level 1 Human Bard
Profession (Musician): 1 (+4)
Not so much impatient, more that this is a busy, active board and any rules question is normally answered within a few minutes.
In this case I had laready looked around and found nothing, but wanted to check if I'd missed anything. The lack of response confirmed for me that the answer was indeed 'no'.
In a way my 'impatience' was a compliment to the efficiency of the posters here! :)
I certainly like the idea of orcs being a threat to higher level characters.
In one of the adventure paths the PCs face groups of much lower level soldiers, but each group is statted as if a huge creature with multiple attacks and high damage/hit points. They are very vulnerable to area effects (like swarms).
Something like that could work, as could making the squad leader slightly higher level - maybe 4th level?
It might be useful to take a look at the dozens of luxury items that make modern life easier, and create magical versions.
Thinking about the average home or office, I can imagine magical versions of:
Characters who desire so may begin with a single item - magical, rare, anything - of their choice (subject to GM approval) for free, under the stipulation that the item carries some kind of curse. The character is unaware of this curse, and the nature of the curse is at the GM's discretion, though it will always be considered proportional to the item’s power. Will need at least a short explanation of how the item was acquired as part of the character's backstory.
It's a bit of a tangent, but this rule reminded me of the West End Games Star Wars character template 'smuggler', which had on his equipment list a Millennium Falcon style starship (yay!), then right below it a 25,000 credit debt to a crime lord (boo!).
Anyway the only house rules in my current campaign so far are no Summoners and no hero point feats or spells - we do use hero points.
It's not unreasonable for a GM to require some kind of roleplaying reason for certain multi-class options - If a character wants to take a level of wizard or cleric my own GM requires players either have some sort of appropriate backstory or make an attempt at seeking training.
This doesn't have to be a horrible thing - it can add to your character. You could have your dwarf announce that he has reached a landmark age and his culture demands that he must go on a pilgrimage to a sacred dwarven site. When he comes back he has begun a journey of enlightenment and has a level of cleric.
Of course a GM can go too far in this - I once had a GM that required 5 years training to take the first level of wizard.
Ciretose: Yes, those are all other examples of when you would use Charisma, not Diplomacy - though I wonder if it is intentional that a straight Charisma check can permanently change a creatures attitude, even if it is written that way.
Some really interesting issues about how NPCs view the world have come up in this thread.
Here's my thoughts on the starting attitude of NPCs. Let’s assume that the average NPC (10 Charisma)would be indifferent to the average stranger (10 Charisma). This means that if the stranger asked for directions (DC 10) they would be successful, but if they asked for 'simple aid' (DC 15) they would be refused. That seems fair enough.
But if you adjust that indifferent starting attitude with a charisma check, the average stranger (Charisma 10) will fail that DC 15 check, and they will fail it by 5 – adjusting the other's attitude down by one step.
So now we have the situation where if one completely average NPC approaches another in the street, the approachee immediately adopts an unfriendly attitude and will refuse to even give directions (DC 15).
I don’t think that sounds very realistic (except maybe in New York!) but unless I’m missing something this seems to be the unintended consequence of adjusting starting attitude with a Charisma check.
Charisma applies to checks that represent attempts to influence others.
Just for the exercise, can we think of what checks to influence others are explicitly in the rules but not covered by Diplomacy or Intimidate?
• You cannot use Diplomacy on a creature that doesn’t understand you (such as when there is no common language) or an intelligence of 3 or less (commonly but not exclusively animals. There will be some 3 Intelligence humanoids you cannot use Diplomacy on).
• Diplomacy is ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend you harm in the immediate future.
You could try to influence creatures in the above categories with Intimidate, but using this skill has its own problems.
So, when trying to influence creatures (without threatening them) that intend you harm, that don’t understand your language or have an Intelligence of 3 or less you use Charisma.
I think this covers the RAW “checks that represent attempts to influence others” that are separate from skills, so there is no need to create a “starting attitude check” to satisfy this piece of text.
In the Pathfinder setting, I believe it is the case that there is a single Prime Material Plane, containing many different life-bearing worlds, seperated by space - the great beyond.
Does this mean that 'alternative' worlds are not possible in this setting, i.e other dimensions with slight (or major) differences?
Also, as far as I know published pathfinder material places humans on two separate worlds - Golarion and Earth. Are humans everywhere throughput the universe, and if so, how did they get there?
Finally, since early 20th century Earth exists in the setting, does this mean that there is no world where Earth is in its 16th century? Or 21st?
The text of an efficient quiver reads:
This appears to be a typical arrow container capable of holding about 20 arrows. It has three distinct portions, each with a nondimensional space allowing it to store far more than would normally be possible.
The first and smallest one can contain up to 60 objects of the same general size and shape as an arrow. The second slightly longer compartment holds up to 18 objects of the same general size and shape As a javelin. The third and longest portion of the case contains as many as 6 objects of the same general size and shape as a bow (spears, staffs, or the like). Once the owner has filled it, the quiver can quickly produce any item she wishes that is within the quiver, as if from a regular quiver or scabbard. The efficient quiver weighs the same no matter what's placed inside it.
So my question is, what weapons would you consider to be the same general size and shape as arrows, javelins, spears, staves and bows?
Is a dagger the same general size and shape as an arrow? Is a rapier the same general size and shape as a javelin? A longsword a spear?
Would axes be ruled out because of the broad head?
Might it be easier to establish what weapons can't be stored in this very efficient quiver?
In the Star Wars universe the earliest Jedi (possibly before they were even called Jedi)used swords rather than lightsabers, which they would imbue with the power of the Force.
a qinggong monk with a Ki Focus weapon would fit this bill I think.
Appropriate Powers might be:
You could also add the Trifler trait (3/day Prestidigitation) for lots of weird jedi powers likes minor telekinesis.
Bit more info about proto-jedi:
You know, thinking about this either flurry or armor choice, it doesn't seem like much of a choice. In armor, a monk is a 3/4 BaB class with only a minor bonus to attack and damage rolls, while also rolling with a d8 HD, only 4+Int skills a level, and not much else going for you other than a really cool mount (if you buy one), and a high init.
I really don't understand the point in giving the sohei an armour proficiency if they can't use their monk abilities while wearing it.
Thanks everyone, I'm pretty sure myself that it can't be cast on someone else or made into a potion but the lack of 'Range: Personal' makes this up for debate.
It matters for a character with Spellcraft (to use Crafting feats, taken through a SLA) but lacks the spell and who wants to identify magic items.
This is the sort of ranger you can see in any number of westerns - the hardened scout and Indian fighter who nonetheless has a great respect for his enemy, often more than he does for his own, more 'civilised' side.