Geno's page

Organized Play Member. 68 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Kalindlara wrote:

Neither philosophies (such as the Green Faith or the Whispering Way) nor pantheons can have clerics in Golarion. See here.

Fair enough; What about other non-traditional deities? Why does a clearly defined divine source of power have to have a name and a face for a cleric to be able to worship and gain spells from it?

To clarify a point; When I say 'follows the Green Faith' I meant more than just living by that philosophy. I meant that the cleric would worship, venerate, and pray to nature itself in the same way another cleric might do to, say, Torag.

Also, the other half of my question remains. Why not?

It just makes no sense to me that a cleric could not gain spells from worshiping something another class can worship and gain spells from.

The way I see it, there are two options;

1.) Classes are an abstraction of the game's mechanics, and have no actual bearing on the in-game setting. In which case, which of the rule sets of the various classes I pick to represent a character should be based entirely on which mechanics best reflect that character. If so, then the Golarian setting should allow for people to play clerics that worship non-traditional deities, even if the title they go by in the game isn't 'cleric.'

2.) What a character's class is is actually relevant to the in-game setting, from a narrative stand point. In which case, the rules for clerics in Golarion make no sense at all. A character who calls themselves a druid, and worships the sun, is completely acceptable; worshiping the sun can grant you divine magic. However, if that same character declared that they were a "Cleric" of the sun... well, then there divine magic just stops working. Why? Because James Jacobs doesn't like clerics that worship the sun. Because it's easier to say, "No, clerics can only get magic from it if it has a name and a face," than "clerics can gain divine magic by worshiping anything that qualifies as a source of divine magic. The sources of divine magic in Golarion are..." and then just highlight that Razmir isn't one.

James Jacobs wrote:

Clerics in Golarion must select a patron deity.

Oracles are the class that primarily fills the role of a divine spellcaster who doesn't serve a specific deity.

I am curious about something; When you say they must have a patron deity, would that include or exclude worship of a primal force? For example, could a Cleric be a follower of the Green Faith and still get spells? If not, why? And what about the worship of specific Pantheons? Would a dwarven cleric be granted spells if he worships all the dwarf gods, or would that also not work?

I'm confused, because you point out the Golarion setting breaks when Clerics don't have to worship a specific deity, because there is a false deity, which the worship of would not grant spells. Fair enough, but does that mean a cleric would not be granted spells for worshiping concepts which, while not necessarily deities in the traditional sense, are still sources of divine power in their own right?
I ask, because it just does not make a great deal of sense to me that clerics could not draw on power from, say, the aligned planes, or even the power of nature as a primal force, when other classes have the ability to do so. So, I'd see no reason not to allow it.

Honestly, with all the limitations, I'm not entirely sure if it's something that is worth an entire campaign. However, I know that it's been done, if not in Pathfinder then at least in 3.X, and I'm honestly wondering why it isn't attempted more often. Yea, there are a lot of rules restrictions, but considering the number of things that are obviously made for that game type only, I don't see why it's not at least been attempted more often.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been playing Pathfinder since it came out, and so far I've yet to meet anyone who has ever used the system to play a completely Aquatic (read: underwater) campaign, myself included.

I can understand why. After all, until the stats for Merfolk were released, there weren't any races that could potentially live underwater. Even with the release of the Advanced Race Guide, I can only think of three races that are/can be amphibious, not including custom races.

Add in the fact that the rules for playing underwater are more geared towards explaining the obstacle going underwater would be for the average adventuring party, as opposed to a system designed around the concept of being underwater, and it becomes obvious why it's not a common thing.

So, I'm curious: What's it like to play an Aquatic campaign? Is it a completely different experience, or the same thing with more rules? Is it something that should be done often, never, or just once? What funny stories do you have about those campaigns? Would anyone say that their favorite game was an Aquatic campaign?

I run in a group that occasionally plays core rule-book only. It's fun, but I enjoy playing the monk class, and the core version of the monk has always seemed a bit under powered to me.

So, I was thinking about trying to talk the GM into letting me run it with fast BAB and d10 hit-die.

What's the opinion on this? Has it been tried? Obviously it can only serve to make the class more potent, but does anyone think it would make the class broken?

In my group, we have a house-rule that makes the use of Zone of Truth a bit more... useful, for lack of a better word.

The rule is as follows: Successfully making the save against Zone of Truth does not allow the person who made the save to ignore the effects; it only makes them aware of the effect, thus allowing them to refuse to answer or to phrase their sentences less directly to avoid deliberate false-hoods while still not speaking clearly. If the save is failed, then the person finds her/himself unable to prevent her/himself from speaking anything but the most direct truth possible.

My question is: For people that fail the save, what is a good way to depict them not realizing they're being forced to speak the truth? It would quickly become obvious after they begin speaking, of course, but the main issue is the first few sentences, when they've yet to become aware of it. Does anyone else use a similar rule, or have any experience with a similar situation?

Torger Miltenberger wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

With the questionable command Geno gave he is not controlling her, he is giving her yes or not replies.

The command was: "you need a 'yes' or 'no' from me before you do anything." so saying "yes" or "no" is still maintaining the original command, not changing it.
On the other side of the coin, with that command she should not even be capable to walking around, buy a beer or speak with a passerby to ask questions. It wouldn't be a DC 15 sense motive to notice her odd behavior, it would be 5 at most.

Point conceded. It sounds like there was some GM mismanagement of the sense motive DCs

- Torger

Okay, to clear up something. It wasn't that the DM wasn't allowing sense motive checks for everyone to notice her acting weird. He did. However, no one else in the party cared that she was acting odd. Even though the spells says that just a sense motive check tells you the person is under an enchantment, no one in my group has ever believed that succeeding the check should tell you anything beyond "_____ is acting Very weird. I now have reason to believe something is amiss." We allow a Very low intelligence check to figure out what's going on, but no one else in the group cared to take it. I had told them, before hand, that I would talk to her and she'd start acting right. She did, and they were too focused on the whole 'save the world' thing to care to question what I had done to get her to do so. She didn't seem to be distraught at all, nor did she ever make an objection to whatever it was I had done, so they just assumed that it was something magic and that she had agreed to it.

ciretose wrote:

Anyone else notice how the spell works exactly as best preserves the argument the person is making.

It's like...well magic.

Point out to me were Dominate Person describes, in detail, what the order can be, and I'll take your sarcasm as a valid counter-argument, and not just mud slinging from someone who can't think of anything relevant to the conversation.

DrDeth wrote:

And as far as her ‘agreeing” the Op has contradicted himself “Except her. She got horribly upset, claiming that she should be the only one who can control her character, and that if she wants to be chaotic then she should be allowed to.”

And you’re all also forgetting that the DM specifically encouraged her to play that sort of PC. “We all knew going in that she was going to be a problem. The DM explained that the point of the game was social issues, and allowed her character Specifically because he thought that she would pose an issue for the group.”

So the DM approved her ‘disruptive” PC, and so did the other players. Thus the player wasn’t being a “Richard”.

First off, "she got Upset", doesn't mean she disagreed with it. You can get pissed off that someone shoots you, doesn't mean that you'll disagree with what they did if you were shooting at them first. Yes, she was Mad at. However, she admitted that she agreed that it was something my character would have done, she just wasn't happy that it happened.

And, yes, the DM did encourage it... however, he hadn't planned on it going as far as it had. She was supposed to be an issue exactly Once, then we were supposed to figure out how to 'fix' her. She knew this, but being her, she was dead-set on exactly One method being used to 'fix' her character, and none of us had thought of it, nor would she tell us. The DM allowed her to continue playing her character as she say fit, because our DMs Always allow players to continue playing their characters as they see fit.

And, just because we agreed that she could be disruptive, doesn't mean we were happy about it. We all agreed that the DM could use Rust Monsters from his old 3.0 MMs, doesn't mean any of us liked that he did (especially when he threw close to twenty at us, and my character being the only one Not using metal openly was the only one unaffected).

DrDeth wrote:
Geno wrote:
Yea, the part where we were brought together by Apsu the Waybringer, by way of his chosen champion (the bugbear paladin), to each fulfill our specific roll in saving the entirety of reality from imploding... Which, we each ended up doing Something important (the DM had set the game up to work that way), but that wasn't until after all this happened.

How did you know that *HER* “chosen role” wasn’t being disruptive?

And it’s not only doing a Dominate, it’s doing a rather cheating method of dominate where she had no way of breaking it that was so unfair.

Because, our 'chosen roles' were very clearly stated as being things we would need to do, After we gathered our allies. As I've said, we each ended up doing Something (not going to go into detail, most of it only makes sense in-context), and we were all aware that that Something would come After the first part of the campaign (which, according to the DM, wasn't supposed to last as long as it did, and Only did because of the barbarian.)

As for the 'cheating' method, Dominate Person doesn't have a requirement for how complex the order can be. As stated, my character had an intelligence score of over 40. The command I gave, as I stated it, was a very simple "you need a 'yes' or 'no' from me before you do anything." Nothing in dominate person restricts what the command can be, nor does it defines what 'going against a characters nature' entails. As doing something you were already going to do, even though someone else tells you to do it, isn't directly against the nature of a CN character (it's not directly in line with it, but it's not completely opposite of it, either) she only got the new save whenever I told her Not to do something... the bonus +2 isn't cumulative, and even with it she still had to nat. 20, and then do so again (as persistent metamagic applies to all saves granted by the spell). She basically couldn't, and never did. She Got many saving throws, she just never succeeded.

DrDeth wrote:
BetaSprite wrote:
*shrug* The domination seems fine to me, given that PvP was allowed and the target was still given most control over their character. The barbarian should have gotten a +2 for every time that they were stopped from doing something, and the caster would probably have ended up dead one day when the domination broke and the barbarian figured out what was going on.

No, PvP was not allowed, except one way. Yes, the snake guy could dominate the Bbn, but the BBn could not kill the snake guy.

Next it was a special Dominate that somehow lasted for a week per casting, with only one chance at a save, and that required two natural 20’s in a row. Which is pretty much cheating.

As I explained, it's not cheating at all. Anyone can use a metamagic rod to apply Persistent to a spell, the duration of Dominate Person is a day per level (being a tenth level witch, it lasts a Long time), and like I said she Got many saves... she just didn't make any of them.

However, had she managed to make the save (fully possible, just very unlikely) then yes, she would have attacked me, meaning that PvP was allowed for her as well. It was allowed, she just wasn't able to take advantage of it. She optimized for physical combat, I optimized to F*$% over things that focus on physical combat. It's a tried-and-true method.

Buri wrote:
It's got to sound like something. I don't speak as an expert. I don't go around forming telepathic bonds to me but whenever I think of a passage of text or recalling a request it's always in some voice and if it was from someone talking to me it's in that person's voice.

Actually, like I said, she Did end up figuring out it was me. I told her myself. When I said, "she didn't know it was me who cast the spell," I meant that I had tricked her into letting me cast it on her in the first place, so she hadn't got a chance to attack me when I first tried to cast it. Maybe a poor choice of words, I admit, but that was my implication. Sorry for any confusion.

Buri wrote:
Was there something preventing the group from simply being like "away with you, demon!"?

Yea, the part where we were brought together by Apsu the Waybringer, by way of his chosen champion (the bugbear paladin), to each fulfill our specific roll in saving the entirety of reality from imploding... Which, we each ended up doing Something important (the DM had set the game up to work that way), but that wasn't until after all this happened.

iLaifire wrote:
Buri wrote:
That's hardly the only option. He could talk to the group and the group could eject the character. That's probably the best way to deal with it. If you can't get group consensus then obviously it not as big of a deal as you thought. Instead, you're just a guy who's being a jerk yourself trying to dick over another player's concept.

So there seem to be a bunch of assumptions being made about Geno's actions by most of the people replying (myself included), that upon rereading Geno's posts I don't see mentioned at all.

So please answer these questions Geno.
1) Was the were tiger's behavior actually a problem (was the DM actively punishing the entire group by making them fail)?

2) Did the other players have a problem with the were tiger's actions?

3) What steps in and out of character were taken to try and fix the situation before you dominated her?

My assumptions have been that 1) yes the DM was punishing the entire group instead of just the were-tiger, 2) yes the rest of the group was displeased with the were-tiger's behavior, and that 3) the entire group tried talking to the player and no solution was possible (player refused to play differently, refused to create a new character...) and as such the dominate was in fact a last resort.

1.) Actually, yes and no. As our goal was to convince people to become our allies, her behavior Was a problem, but other than simply Not accomplishing our goals, and thus being forced to move on to the next objective having failed the previous, we weren't actively being punished. She was less of a net-loss to the party, as opposed to a severe hindrance. We weren't attacked, or any such thing, and she never hindered us so greatly that the lives of the party were threatened, but ultimately she kept of from our goal... over the course of the first four sessions, in a game that only lasted for close to twelve.

2.)The players were against it because their characters were against it. None of us actually looked at her and said, 'quit it, you're being an a@$+@&!.' We all just kept getting annoyed because we'd spend the entire session RPing our way into the local courts good-graces, only to have her do something to completely destroy all of our progress, each time resulting in us being forced to leave town. Eventually, everyone started looking at her like most groups would look at the rogue who can't help herself around shiny things... even the ones with the neon "It's a trap!!!" sign hanging over them.

3.)In character: we asked her not to take part, she refused, her pride was on the line; we asked her to try acting differently, she "tried" to, then did something horribly disrespectful that she blamed on her lack of knowledge of social protocol; we tried to teach her social protocol, and her character refused to learn because "it makes no sense," and swore that she'd just take matters into her own hands... and she failed miserably; finally, she just gave up, and during the forth attempt, she threatened a king's life if he refused to do as we say... which was when my character had to throw around a LOT of magic to not get us killed.

Out of Character: We all knew going in that she was going to be a problem. The DM explained that the point of the game was social issues, and allowed her character Specifically because he thought that she would pose an issue for the group. We agreed, knowing only that we had to do Something to get her to go along with us, with no idea as to what. (The DM didn't know either, as he had expected her to stop being a problem after the first session. However, he decided to 'roll' with it, and see what happened. His own words. He wasn't the most experienced DM.)

After the third session, I explained to both her and the DM that, if her character messed up our next attempt (at the time, we weren't sure it wouldn't be our last) that my character would feel it necessary to resort to drastic measures, in order to preserve the good of the world (yes, it was one of those "the world will end if you fail" quests). She wasn't concerned, as she figured I meant open combat. She welcomed me to try, and that was the end of it. After the last attempt failed, well, I've already said what happened after that. Honestly, the whole issue was in-character, and she wasn't mad at me for doing it (she actually agreed that it made sense for my character to do what he did) she was just pissed at the DM for letting it happen, because it meant that she lost the 'absolute control' over her character she focuses on so much.

Avatar-1 wrote:
Unfortunately the situation sounds a bit biased towards you, it'd be good to hear the other side. Everyone is right about how mind control can hurt groups though - OOC, you are making a player sit there and watch instead of playing, unless she can roleplay her mind controlled character well.

Well, actually, that's the thing. In-game, her character had to get the mental OK to do anything, but my character was so fast at giving it that there was no delay in her actions. So, for OOC purposes, the only time she was effected was when she said, "I'm going to ____" and I replied, "No. No, you're not." Which happened very rarely, often no more than once a session.

P33J wrote:

I'm going to disagree with everyone here.

Did you ask the GM in front of everyone: "If Were-Tiger doesn't stop messing things up for us to fulfill our quest may I dominate them?"

Did the Player hear your question and have an opportunity to change her behavior?

Did the GM tell her than you could dominate her if she didn't stop derailing the campaign?

If the answer is "yes" to all three of these questions. Then she's in the wrong. She had someone voice their displeasure with her actions OOC and the entire group agreed she was being a pain, she should have GTFU (Grown the...) and changed her behavior.

She didn't, you carried out with your promise and everyone but her was happy.

She needs to deal with it.

And a Lawful Good character can most definitely dominate a CN character and still be Good, especially if that CN character's actions were selfishly going to lead to the suffering of others. Is a doctor having a violent schizophrenic committed an evil act? No, it's a good act, you're protecting others and that's what your character was doing.

Once again, in order;

I did not ask that specific question. I told the GM that I cast dominate person on her, and because we granted total control over our characters, he did not stop me.

She knew ahead of time that I was going to do Something. I had told her: If you don't stop, then my character is going to make you. She assumed that the "squishy little spellcaster" wouldn't be able to do any such thing.

When I gave her my warning, the DM said that he would allow the confrontation to occur. Specifically, it amounted to me taking her off to a side ally and tricking her into letting me cast the spell on her, followed by me convincing my allies that I had talked her into changing her ways.

Something of note; the campaign was geared more towards dealing with social issues. The DM allowed her character because he felt that convincing her to act 'normal' would represent a social challenge to the rest of the group, and one that he would not have to fabricate. Yes, combat was involved, but mostly he threw challenges at us that would be difficult for 10th level characters, purposely not taking into account the potency of our monstrous attributes.

TimD wrote:

So, a few assumptions seem to have been made by posters above me which may or not be accurate for your group…

Is your game a PvP active game? In other words, is everyone (you, the barbarian’s player, and the DM specifically) ok if her character does end up killing your if she finds out that it is you who have been Dominating her? If so, cool deal – play on and expect an axe in the face some night when she’s on watch or while you’re in the midst of trying to re-prepare spells. If not, you are definitely in the wrong for engaging in a PvP action (even if it is for the benefit of the party) when the other PC has no in-game recourse (other than to maybe hire an NPC to find out why she keeps getting controlled and maybe hire some assassins to do something about it) and the DM is wrong for letting you get away with it.

I’ve gotta echo the concerns about alignment, I can’t see you maintaining an LG alignment by Dominating your allies on a regular basis. The “good of the party” excuse may keep you from going evil, but probably not from going to LN.

Also, keep in mind each time you compel her to act “against her nature” she gets a new save at a +2 bonus, which ends the entire Dominate Effect if made. This is for each instance you compel her to act against her nature.

You may also want to consider that she’s aware of the Domination and should be doing everything in her power to get it to end and find ways to circumvent or backtrack it. Unless her character is slightly dumber than a stump, even if she knows little to nothing about magic, eventually she’s going to figure out that it’s you given that you only take over when it would be convenient / possible for you to intervene. Expect lots of raging coup de grace on you while you sleep or are otherwise distracted at that point.


To respond, in order;

Yes, PvP is allowed. It's not common (unless we're playing in an evil campaign) but, because the group is so dead-set on everyone having the freedom to play their characters as they see fit, it is accepted practice to attack fellow characters, even with the intent to kill. However, it's generally not a problem, as we rarely give each other cause to do so. However, yes, everyone would be fine with her attacking me for dominating her (OOC, anyway. IC, no one else in the group knew I had dominated her. Generally, no one cared to question her odd behavior, and I was able to dissuade them from that conclusion if they did.)

The alignment issue is the same as alignment issues have always been. Everyone has different views on the subject, but ultimately it comes down to what the DM in question allows. In this case, the DM allowed it, because my character used it as a last-resort when faced with what he felt was no other option. They had to include her in the party for the sake of the world, but she was actively preventing them from allowing them to do what they had to, so he infringed upon the freedom of one individual to protect the lives of many. Similar to locking a murderer in prison, in his way of thinking.

Her making the save was never a problem. My exact command to her was 'You must be given permission, by me, to perform any task that is not absolutely necessary for your continued physical well-being.' As my character was telepathic by nature, and had an intelligence of over 40, the GM said that it would be completely possible for me to effectively 'pilot' two distinct individuals (myself and her) in real-time, so long as she was within range of my telepathy.

She eventually became aware of it, but I did not give her permission to attack me, nor to inform the others of what I had done. As the save was well over 30, and her will save was only 10, she had to roll a natural twenty to make the save; and, thanks to some optimizing on my part, I ensured that the spell was persistent, effectively making her chances of overcoming the effect nonexistent. As the duration of the spell was ten days, I only ended up having to cast it on her four times over the entire campaign. (IC, the adventure only lasted a month.)

LowRoller wrote:
Sounds like a player issue that started when you created your charachters. A chaotic neutral were-tiger barbarian is exactly the monster she seems to be, there's no way to prove that she is not what she is.

I agree; however, we play in a group where people are allowed to run their characters as they see fit.

Diego Rossi wrote:

It wouldn't be simpler to exclude her from the meetings with the authorities?

Or it was her behavior in cities and every time she encounter some government member or authority figure the problem?

It was her behavior, period. I did not give specific examples because they are too numerous, but the main issue was that we, as a group, had to prove that we were not the monsters we seemed; she never did anything to further this goal, which we allowed, but often did things that drove use further from said goal.

She would steal from people, randomly assume her alternate form, give in to base instincts, and generally act in an uncivilized and brutish manner, when we were trying to convince those around us that we were capable of becoming more than what we appeared to be.

In a recent game of 10th level characters, we had a small issue in the group. To set the scene, my character was a serpantfolk witch, specializing in enchantment and specifically mind-magic. We had a were-tiger barbarian, a half-dragon bugbear paladin (worshiped Apsu the Waybringer), and a dark stalker rogue. (It was a master campaign, in case that wasn't obvious).

Well, the focus of the campaign was supposed to be monstrous entities overcoming social taboos in order to aid a kingdom from a threat that only they would have the power to overcome. The problem was, while the majority of the group was good-aligned, the barbarian was chaotic neutral.

My character, on the other hand, was lawful good, and worshiped Abadar. Specifically, being raised in a caste-system, he was of the belief that the most good came from conforming to the law.

So, when the chaotic barbarian continuously thwarted our attempts to negotiate with the local royalty (with the gods on high who had bid us to complete the mission continuously saying that All of us were needed) I decided to dominate her.

It worked. She stopped being chaotic, at least at the times we needed her to be. Also, having no knowledge of spellcasting, she had no idea it was me who had done it. The game continued, the GM agreed that it was within reason for my character to do this, and everyone had fun.

Except her. She got horribly upset, claiming that she should be the only one who can control her character, and that if she wants to be chaotic then she should be allowed to. No one disagreed, because we play that the player has complete control of the character, so long as the player can give some kind of reason why the character would act that way (which only really prevents characters from acting completely insane.)

So, here's my question; [b]Was what I did wrong?[b/] I broke no rules, no one else in the group blames me (except her, and she's less mad at me and more mad at the DM for letting me do it) and I never abused the ability. All I did was keep her from being chaotic at important moments.

To put it another way: [i]Is controlling another player's character, specifically through rules allowed in the game, acceptable behavior?[i/]

All of the comments so far seem to be in agreement; a player controls the character.

However, I've played in games where that isn't the case. Specifically, I've played in games where, if you wanted to play, you had to agree to portray your character in-game as the GM feels you portrayed him in your back story, alignment, and class combined.

Basically, unless you presented a reason why your character would do something the GM did not feel that character would do, the player was not allowed to do it. It made playing a paladin, and other alignment-restricted classes, somewhat of a challenge. However, ultimately, I enjoyed it.

There were several reasons why:
It kept people in-character, and reduced meta-gaming.
It made it a Lot easier to keep people from trolling.
Ultimately, it made roleplaying easier, as everyone could count on everyone else to play their character a certain way. Paladins were holy warriors, rogues were sneak-thieves, and barbarians were murderous rage-junkies.

It made for surprisingly deep campaigns, and everyone who was their was their to play the game, and not to just goof-off... which I've found tends to happen a lot more, now that I play with people who demands absolute control of their characters. I think it's just a difference in the atmosphere the two styles create that I've noticed.

Since I've started posting in this forum, I've noticed something; quite a lot of people on here are of the opinion that they should have absolute control over their characters, especially where things like back-story and alignment are concerned.

I find that odd because, when I first began playing table-top RPGs, the rule was always the same: You have NO control, because it's the DM's game. The only power you have is to Not Play.

And, for the most part, that system worked. Good DMs that granted character freedom and ran fun campaigns generally got plenty of interest in those campaigns, and they usually lasted a long time. Bad DMs would have their fair shake, but if no one else wanted to play their game then they stepped down.

The main differences between these two ideals-that a player is sovereign over his character regardless of the GM, versus a GM having complete control over his game, including all characters in it-(so far as I can see) is that, in the prior, a character's alignment, back-story, and actions made are all completely up to the player controlling that character. In the latter, if any of those things don't fit into the GMs grand-design for his world, they are subject to his control.

I've played in groups that use both ideals, and honestly I can't understand why absolute control over your own character is such a big deal to people.

At the same time, though, I understand that, as a DM, if I don't allow my players enough control over their characters, they won't want to play.

So, I'm wondering; How much control is too much? Where should the line be drawn, between what freedoms the GM should allow within his campaigns, and what hard-rules he should be allowed to make to shape his world as he sees fit?

Weirdo wrote:

Googleshng, I agree with you on pretty much all of that. However, I have seen frequent posts on the forums saying that the paladin's code absolutely would cause them to fall if they lie about harboring fugitives because as written a single violation is sufficient.

Some think that this indicates the code needs fixing, possibly a reversion to the 3.5 version which read "a paladin falls for gross violations of the code of conduct." Some people think that it is right and proper for a paladin to fall for the tiniest fault.

I'm in agreement, to an extent. A paladin should be held to that higher standard, and that even breaking her code for a good cause is wrong. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." That's pretty much the defining ideal behind being a paladin. The 'better way' is just that; not some times, not when it's convenient, but All the time.

For the given example of harboring fugitives, though... well, that wouldn't happen. A paladin isn't the type to Hide from a dictator, and safe-guard innocents from the "law." A paladin would be searching out that dictator, and taking steps to see that he is removed from power. Yes, innocents will die in the process, but not so many as would die if the paladin protects the few instead of the many. Good tells a paladin to protect people; Law tells a paladin to protect as many people as possible.

Weirdo wrote:

The CN paladin falls for apologizing for a lie, judging others for their dishonesty, or recounting a story of their exploits without embellishment or fabrication.

A CN paladin falls for using a title of authority (Lord, Sir, Your Honour) or accepting an argument that is based solely on an appeal to authority or conformity. Note this doesn't require a CN paladin to abandon rational thought.
A CN paladin does not have habits.

I see one inherent problem with this. Basically, it's the same problem I see with a chaotic Samurai/cavalier.

How, exactly, can you be a chaotic character, when everything you do is because it's part of a code?
Or, even if you Don't do it because it's part of a code, if you disrespect any type of authority, then wouldn't you go out of your way to blatantly ignore the rules of any entity that would grant you power because you adhere to their particular form of chaos?
Either you're so chaotic that you'd fall just to so you could piss off the authority figure that is the thing giving you your power, or you Only act chaotic because your code requires it... thus being lawful.

The way I see it, you either Are chaotic because you want the power, thus you follow rules, or you're chaotic because you're just chaotic, and something is rewarding you for that quality by giving you power... in which case, why wouldn't every truly-chaotic entity on the planet just Have those powers?

An anti-paladin, I can understand. They're not Just chaotic, they're evil. They do what they do out of fear, or a lust for power, which overrides their personal want of freedom. They're anti-paladins Because they're evil, and follow the doctrines of chaotic/evil gods because those are the only ones whose doctrines are close enough to their own desires that they can stomach being told what to do by them.

Laithoron wrote:
This is where it pays to have NPCs that are well-liked by the party. :)

Probably, but in this specific situation (and there have been several similar since) there aren't always NPCs around to play. The group has a habit of chatting while they're walking from place to place, and will often spend the time it takes to make and break camp in real-time, so they can chat.

I enjoy hearing their conversations, but as I can't be part of them, it does leave me somewhat high-and-dry, so to speak.

So, recently, I had something happen that I had mixed feelings about. In a game I've been DMing, the group spent nearly two hours on non-stop, in-character conversation. Everyone involved was enjoying themselves, and as a DM this made me feel like the game world was really coming alive, something I always strive for in my campaigns.

That said, there was one inescapable truth that prevented me from fully enjoying this conversation; I wasn't part of it. For two hours straight, I was completely and totally without anything to do but listen. In other words, I, the DM, was bored. That in and of itself was new to me, but I just did not know what to do. I didn't want to interrupt, and in-game there was no good reason to do so anyway. They were all just meeting for the first time, basically explaining their back-stories to each other, with the first fight several NPC meetings away.

So, my question; How much in-character talk is too much? Has anyone else had this problem? Is there a good way to mitigate it? Or, perhaps, is it better to just avoid situations where it could happen altogether?

rangerjeff wrote:

Alright this is crazy but:

1: Barb
2: Bard
3: Sorc
4: Ninja
5: Ninja
6: Cleric
7: Barb
8: Ninja

Str 14
Dex 14
Con 12
Int 8
Wis 14
Cha 18 (+1 at 4, +1 at 8)

Multi-talent mastery Half Elf, Urban Barb Archetype

Stupid amount of special abilities, including:
Auspicious Mark
Bard Know
Bard Perform 8r/day
Channel 1d6 x8
Controlled Rage
Crowd Control
Door Sight x5
Elysium's Call
Ki Attack Speed
Ki Jump
Ki Movement
Ki Stealth
Laughing Touch
Poison Use
Poison Variant Channeling
Rage 7r/day
Sneak 2d6
Uncanny Dodge
Vanishing Trick

Sounds like fun to me.

It does sound like fun... However, at this point, you'd truly start becoming a jack-of-all-trades. The negative Int modifier would also make being a skill-monkey a pain, so skill allocation would be very important... Also, I have no idea where you'd go from here.

Rynjin wrote:
Geno wrote:


Race: Half Orc
Favored Class: Barbarian (extra rage rounds)
Rogue talents to get Weapon Focus(great axe/great sword) and Dazzling Display; Use Shatter Defenses to get sneak attack while raging/power attacking

Two words: Scout. Archetype.

Charge people, Power Attack, loads of Sneak Attack Dice.

I could see that, but uncanny dodge stacks with both classes, and charging would really only be a once a combat thing. I'd prefer to start out with an intimidating glare to get shatter defences, or even make it into a cleave build incase I get surrounded. It wouldn't kick the first turn, but the second turn I'd be sneak-attacking everything around me I hit the first time. That would be awesome.

nate lange wrote:
i didn't mean to dip 2 levels of melee instead of DD, i meant drop to Archaeologist 4 and pick up 2 levels of melee (i really like barbarian for that cause you can use luck while raging but that will cause fatigue issues... really any full-BAB class that fits your RP/backstory would work)

I'm still not sure about that. Int is basically a dump stat for this build, and you need as many skill ranks as you can get from archaeologist to take advantage of that classes large variety of class skills. Not to mention, it would ultimately decrease my caster level, as DD doesn't give a boost to it at every level. Bards aren't exactly great casters to begin with (they can't even learn bull's strength or bear's endurance) and most of their better spells come at higher levels.

nate lange wrote:
i like them and they all seem pretty functional. personally, i'd suggest a 2 level dip in a full-BAB class for the bard/DD- he sounds like primarily a melee guy, so it makes sense (you'll get an extra +1 BAB plus other benefits, like feats/rage/favored enemy, without changing the top spell level you can access).

I could see that, but not until later levels. D. Disciple is pretty good about BAB, and the other bonuses you get from it are kind of awesome for combat.

Seranov wrote:

It's generally suggested to go to level 7 as a Bard, if you intend to become a Dragon Disciple. Something about a new level of spells and Inspire Courage as a swift(?) action, iirc.

I have seen a concept for a Half-orc Barbarian 2/Rogue X that uses an Earthbreaker and Bludgeoner/Sap Adept line to do crazy amounts of nonlethal damage.

I went with the extra level of Dragon disciple because it unlocks the second str. boost, and you end up at the same caster level either way. By tenth level, that is.

I'll have to look into that other build, though for nonlethal I usually go with a martial-artist/rogue combo; I call it the Judo-Chop style.

MC Templar wrote:
Geno wrote:


Race:Either Human for bonus feat, or dwarf for stat bonuses
Use Wild Shape to increase physical stats, spells to buff stats further/heal, flurry while in wild shape for large sized damage

This one is a tough sell, as I understand flurry is nearly useless in wildshape without the Feral Combat Training Feat for each type of natural attack.

I figure this would not work out as well as you hope.

I've actually made another thread where I asked about that. From that I figured out that anything can use an unarmed strike, so he'd be using the large size monk unarmed damage for it. If you have monk's vestments on, he'd be hitting for 2d8 at that point. From that level forward, he'd take two more levels of druid, to unlock huge size wild shape, then finish out with levels in monk.

First off, I'm not looking for min-max advice, or even optimized character builds. I want feed-back on a few character concepts I had that I've not yet had a chance to try. I think they might be interesting.

Assuming level ten, here are the concepts;

Race: Half Orc
Favored Class: Barbarian (extra rage rounds)
Rogue talents to get Weapon Focus(great axe/great sword) and Dazzling Display; Use Shatter Defenses to get sneak attack while raging/power attacking

Bard(Archaeologist)(6)/Dragon Disciple (4):
Race: Half Orc or Half Elf to get weapon proficiency w/ two hand weapon
Use spells to buff physical stats and increase skills/abilities
Use Archaeologist's Luck/Stat Boost/Arcane Strike to increase damage

Race:Either Human for bonus feat, or dwarf for stat bonuses
Use Wild Shape to increase physical stats, spells to buff stats further/heal, flurry while in wild shape for large sized damage
-Could potentially take Master of Many Styles, and two-weapon feats instead of flurry, but would decrease to-hit slightly.

I may add more concepts in later posts, but for right now I'd just like suggestions to make these ideas as effective as I can, because all of them are tied to RP-ideas I'd like to try out as much as the actual build.

Icyshadow wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
My personal definition would be "a combination of abilities which, if used by a player with the right amount of system mastery, can trivialize the vast majority of encounters and make the other player characters seem superfluous during an entire campaign".
This seems like a fitting definition.

It seems to me a bit more like a good definition for min-maxing. If it's something anyone can do just by using the right build, then it's not really broken, it's just a good build. If I make an elf-fighter with the right character traits, he can end up with enough skill points, feats, and access to magic items that will allow him to do pretty much anything, and still be good in combat. He's not broken; he's optimized.

Stome wrote:
I have to disagree with you definition. While your example is spot on the definition is way to vague. One could apply that to a trip build and call it broken when it is very much not the case. A trip build is useless on a lot of things but one could still say "A trip build forces a DM to use flying, Larger creatures, or Many legged creatures" and it still fits by your definition.

Yes, and no. A trip build does not Force the DM to work around it, as for one thing being tripped is not that big of a negative, and for another it only really matters in combat. Specifically, what I'm referring to are things that are so potent, they actually force the DM to change the game as it otherwise would be in a flow-breaking fashion. In my example, the question was constantly, "Where is all the Adamantine coming from?"

Stome wrote:
As to what I think is broken or makes something broken? Well there is very little that's full on broken in PF imo but something that makes it so one PC can fill all/most party roles and therefor be a party unto himself.

So, a universalist wizard? Considering the range of things magic allows one to do, a high enough level wizard (about level 15) can be a tank, a healer, a skill-monkey, and a damage dealer all in one. According to your definition, a standard-class at a high enough level is broken.

Simply put, what does everyone think makes a character/creature/item/build/etc., broken? I'm not asking for specific examples of these, though of course people are going to give and use them in their arguments. What I'm looking for is a generalized way of defining exactly what makes something broken/over powered.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that something is broken when it forces the GM (assuming the GM doesn't abuse rule zero)to fit the game around it. As an example, I was once allowed to play an Ogre with the Advanced template. Thanks to his insane strength score and adamantine great axe, it quickly became common for him to get around every puzzle by simply smashing everything in his way. So, to make up for this, the GM had the next dungeon made of pure adamantine, which had been enchanted to be for all intents and purposes indestructible.

In other words, the GM had been forced to strain the willing suspension of disbelief in order to accomodate for my character's ludicrous strength score.

Also, something I'd like to point out. Min-Maxing, in and of itself, does not make something broken. You can min-max anything. Unless something has the potential to be, or already Is, broken, then min-maxing will simply let shine that fact.

Roberta Yang wrote:
I'm sure if it weren't already printed in the rulebook I'd have looked at the Drunken Master and thought, "Yeah, this guy had better be Lawful or the game is ruined."

And if there had never been a drunken-master class? Or a monk-class? Or any version of pathfinder at all?

See, this is why we 'need' a book of alternative rules; We really don't, but there are a lot of people who play Pathfinder who would like to see different, non-fluff restricted rules, and I'm just a big enough fan of Paizo that I'd like to see them profit by giving those people what they want.

Umbral Reaver wrote:
Why do we need rules for it?

Why did we need rules for playing the game in the first place? (via the core rulebook)

Why did we need more rules for playing the game after it came out? (via the advanced players guide)

Why did we need even more, though optional, rules after that? (via... pretty much every other book that has come out)

The answer to all these questions? We don't, it's just easier than making them up ourselves, and usually gives us better results.

Hmm.... I think I'm noticing a pattern here.

Some people want the alignment-restricted classes to either not be alignment-restricted, or for there to be alternative versions that allow any alignment. These people accept that these restrictions exist, and either play the game as it is in spite of them, or house-rule around them.

Some people, on the other hand, enjoy the alignment restrictions, and would prefer that they not be removed. They are not opposed to the existence of alternative rules, but would prefer to play without allowing them.

So, basically... Paizo is passing up a HUGE chance for profit by not catering to the first group in some manner.

With this in mind, I propose a new book for future release;

The Pathfinder Book of Alternative Rules.

Want rules for a non-lawful Monk? This book has a section for that!

Want rules for a lawful Barbarian? This book has a section for that!

Want rules for an extremist-aligned druid? Yep, this book has a section for that, too!

Want rules to play any flavor of Paladin? This book has a whole chapter for that!

And, best of all, it spends three whole chapters explaining alternative alignment-systems!
Rules to play with the current system perfectly defined, rules to play with a completely different alignment system, and rules for playing without an alignment system at all!

Anyone else think they'd spend money on something like this? Because, I know I would.

I would say this is grounds for a warning, not an out-right fall.

As many people have pointed out, not everyone shares the same beliefs about what each alignment represents, what any individual paladin's code is, or exactly why a paladin would fall.

Personally, I would tell him that he feels his god's displeasure with him. If he continues to do these types of things after a warning, then either you need to sit down with him and have him explain why he thinks these things aren't evil and (by extension) why his character feels the same way. Explain to him why you see it differently, and come to an understanding.

It's your world, after all, and while he has control of his character, you have control of his god, his code, and his alignment. If he continuously acts in a manner you say is outside of his alignment, then you, as the DM, have every right to tell him he falls. If he disagrees, then maybe he shouldn't play a paladin in your games.

Quatar wrote:

Well, Paladins are lawful, because among other things they're pretty strict about following a certain code.

You can't do that with a chaotic character. They're a lot more about doing what the heck they just feel like.
Mind you chaotic does not mean "has to do everything against the law" because that's just following a code too. A code that happens to be opposite of the other code, but still practically a code.

So a "CG Paladin" would promote goodness, but wouldn't really be bound by any specific code. They'd do the work of their god, but kinda decide themselves how they go about it.

The problem there is... the Inquisitor is pretty much that already too, just that he's also a bit more flexible on the good/evil axis.
Or a CG fighter or cavalier wouldn't be much different.

So sure you can go and call it an RP reason. Mechanically I see no reason for it, I agree with you there. But why is an RP reason bad?

I didn't say an RP reason is bad. Personally, I'm all for certain things being restricted in the game due solely to RP reasons. For me, it's just one of the ways the game makes you role play as opposed to being just table-top World of Warcraft.

But, there are some people that LIKE playing table-top World of Warcraft... and those kinds of people dislike being forced to play an alignment they don't like playing, simply because a class with mechanics they like requires it.

The Drunken Dragon wrote:
That'll work I suppose. You'd have to call it a Templar or something, since that's vastly different from being a paladin. Paladins were never about extremes, they were about epitomizing goodness. So, i guess the answer to your question is tradition, probably.

Wouldn't 'epitomizing' anything mean taking it to the extreme? That's what being a paladin was supposed to be about; taking good to the extreme. Just like being an anti-paladin meant taking evil to the extreme.

But, yea, a different name would probably be appropriate. The lay on hands ability would probably have to work like channel energy, and the rules for the divine bond already have the perfect system built in; your mount gains whatever template is appropriate, or your weapon can become whatever alignment is appropriate.

The Drunken Dragon wrote:

Well, the alignment restriction for the good alignment would be necessary at the very least for the benefit of smite evil, detect evil, and his aura of good and whatnot. Law, on the other hand...well, paladins are traditionally knights (being named for an order of knights in Charlemagne's court), which are usually considered Lawful. So, LG. Doesn't really make them more or less powerful, its just playing a cleric with a very specific alignment.

As for druids and whatnot, their alignment restrictions are entirely flavour-based. They wouldn't be stronger or weaker with the restrictions removed. For monks, its just for the purpose of logical consistency (the lawful alignment is best suited for the rigorous self-discipline needed to make your body into a weapon), for barbarians, I think its silly, but, what the hey. As for druids, being partly neutral never hurt anyone, so...why not?

But paladins do still have a reason to be LG, if anything, because of their class abilities. The rest is mostly tradition. Paladins are strong, but no more or less than other classes.

Okay, then why not make up a system similar to that of the Cleric? Quite a few of their class options depend on their alignment; what spells they can cast, what their channel ability does, what domains they can choose (indirect, because this is more based on deity than alignment, but alignment does come into play). So, why not do something similar for paladins? If they're LG, they can choose smite good or smite chaos. If they're just good, it's smite evil. If they're CG, smite law or smite evil, etc.

In that case, the only alignment restriction would be non-true neutral. Basically, you'd be saying that Paladin is a class of extremes, and that to be one you have to have some kind of clear focus for your paladin-hood, and by extension anyone of a pure-neutral alignment isn't focused enough on any one extreme to gain the benefits of being a paladin.

In response to OP:

Yes, a healer is necessary; in the same sense that a trap-monkey is necessary. No, you don't 'need' one, but if there are traps that you need to get past (especially ones that are potentially lethal) you're going to benefit greatly from having one.

I played in a campaign without a healer once. We had a Barbarian (me), a Fighter, a Rogue, and a Sorcerer. Not a one of us had thought to buy a wand of CLW, or any other healing item, for that matter.

What happened? We started the game in the middle of an out of the way town in the middle of nowhere, that we all just happened to be staying in when the local fanatic decided he wanted to try Dinosaur meat. The first fight was easy enough; we found a stegosaurus, beat it until it stopped moving, then brought it back and let the psycho have his fill. He ate it, liked it, and payed us very well... then he asked if we'd be willing to go after a different species, for an even bigger reward.

Well, we all wanted to. However, the first fight had left the fighter with half his health bar, me with even less (I had taken a tale spike to the torso), the rogue with a limp, and the group sorcerer... untouched, but still unable to help us get back on our feet.

Being a small town, there was no one to hire to heal us, and the dino we were supposed to go after was even bigger than the last one.

It took the group four days of nothing but resting (with a doctor providing heal checks to speed the process) before we were back to full. We were fifth level, and my character had had 70 hit points, all of which had been lost in the battle (The dino crit. on me). That left me in a hospital bed, while the other three party members went around town RPing... not their fault, not the DMs fault, simply something that happened because we didn't have someone who could poke me and have me back at full health in minutes instead of hours.

In conclusion: Is someone devoted to healing necessary? No, as long as you have someone who Can heal.
Is a healer necessary? In battle; no. Out of battle; No, but recommended.
Should you have some type of healer in the party? So long as that's not the only thing they do, then yes. If it is the only thing they do, well... guess no one else is going to need to waste time or money on something to heal them.

A lot of people on here argue about what is and what isn't an appropriate action for a paladin to take. I have many of my own views, and as paladin is actually my favorite class, for both RP and mechanic reasons, I am one of those people who is very opinionated about the topic.

However, lately, I've been wondering something; Is Paladin really such a strong class that it needs what literally seems like a built-in self-destruct button?

Originally, in the earlier versions of D&D a Paladin was an incredibly potent class. If I'm not mistaken, the stat requirements to be a paladin in AD&D 2nd ed. were so strict that meeting them through standard methods was next to impossible. The abilities they gained, however, were equally potent by contrast.

But now? Is the paladin class really so powerful in Pathfinder, as compared to every other class, that an alignment restriction is necessary? Would a CN paladin really be some kind of game-breaker, or is the alignment restriction simply a leftover from previous version of the game?

And what about other classes? Would a Monk be any more powerful if it wasn't restricted to lawful alignments? Or would the Barbarian class become more powerful if they could be lawful? How about druids and their neutral restriction?

Yes, the alignment restrictions make a certain sense from a role playing aspect, but are they necessary? Has anyone every tried running a non-alignment restricted campaign? If so, how did it go? If not, why?

I'm not leaning towards one side or the other on this one. From the role play perspective, the alignment restrictions make a lot of sense to me, and I'd prefer that they stay there. But, from a mechanical standpoint, I don't really see a necessity for them.

I've noticed that quite a few people that play pathfinder and games like it tend to notice something about the system: some builds are more powerful, versatile, or just generally more helpful to a group than others.

For example: not long ago, a friend of mine pointed out that he could use a combination of feats and the alchemist class to produce a character capable of making a fortune in practically no time at all, assuming he could just find the right place (which, for him, would be any large city) to set up shop.
He then pointed out that this character, while very interesting and with plenty of chance for role playing opportunities, would be hard pressed to carry his own weight in a group of adventurers. So, basically, while the character would have made a great NPC, and the feats and options were obviously there to make the character, as a PC he would more likely hold back the group than push it forward, especially as many of the feats and traits that would need to be taken would suggest a character very unlikely to want a life of adventure in the first place.

Considering this, I got to thinking; What's wrong with playing an adventurer? After all, if you're going to be taking up with a group of people to go on an adventure, isn't that what you ultimately are? So, when building the character, is it too much to ask that you keep in mind that, whatever kind of character you make, ultimately they're going to want to be (or become anyway) an adventurer?
For example, in the Skulls and Shackles adventure path, it is suggested for players to make characters that, while not necessarily pirates or possessing the nature of pirates, to at least be comfortable with sailing and water-based adventures. I see the purposes of this quite clearly: If you're a water-hating, land-loving dwarf with only a mind to get off that infernal boat as fast as possible, then you're hardly going to be making things easy for the DM, let alone the other players who have to deal with your constant escape attempts. After all, let's face it; If a PC would want to escape, either the DM has to take time to constantly prevent the PC from doing so, or he has to simply let the PC escape, forcing the player to role up a new character anyway.

But, at the same time, I realized that not every character has to be an adventurer by nature. Taking that same example, a character who hates the high seas at first might grow to love them, and prove to be an invaluable asset at times when a sailor's skills aren't sufficient to solving a problem.

This reminded me of a book I read, when I was younger, about a rather odd little fellow who took up with a group of dwarves-at the behest of a close, wizardly friend-to help them reclaim lost treasure. Certainly, he wasn't the most consistently helpful member of the party, but he did turn out to be the one who was most valuable to the team.

In the end, I think that focusing the creation of a character on role-playing purposes is fine, so long as the player isn't intent on pursuing that build any further, or at least willing to begin gaining abilities that will be useful to the team.

Thoughts? Anyone?

TheJayde wrote:
Why would you call this min/max -ing when there is no min? Sure you have some 10's which isn't minimum in my eyes... but that aside- there are no other minimum.s No reasonable boundaries with which you are working in.

He min-maxes because he doesn't compensate for many things a normal character would, such as out-of-combat play, and the ability to fight less conventional enemies.

For example: look at his will and reflex saves, they're terrible.

Covent wrote:

Just to be clear this is ridiculous.

** spoiler omitted **...

You, sir, have my respects. That is both ridiculous, and exactly what I was looking for.

*slow clap*

Ilja wrote:
You can if the DM allows you, just like you can play an ogre if the DM allows you.

Not following the rules as stated in the core rulebook, you can't.

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

I'm not going to get into the weeds on all the other stuff--it's not a character I'd want to play, but I realize YMMV--but there is one problem with this build I haven't noticed anyone else point out.

Your feats aren't additive. That is, they don't work together. I'm not addressing whether or not Vital Strike and/or Improved Vital Strike are good feats (I personally happen to like them on some ranged attack builds), but even if we assume that they are good for Mr. Charming here they don't synergize with Cleave and Great Cleave. Cleaves are standard actions. Vital Strikes work on attack actions, which are also standard actions. So you cannot Vital Strike on a Cleave (although if you had the feat you could Cleaving Finish on a Vital Strike). Now if you are already aware of this and have spread your feats out so you can do okay damage to groups and to individuals, fine. But you had indicated this is supposed to be a min/max build, not a real build that can actually function in multiple circumstances. That being the case, you could have easily gotten more damage with a more focused feat selection.

The example I gave was one of a character I've actually played. It was my personal favorite min-max build, and I was allowed to play it only because the DM told us going in that it would be a hack-and-slash campaign against nothing but the most straight-forward battle-focused monsters in the book.

The point of cleave/great cleave was, like you say, just so he could fight multiple opponents. They don't stack with vital strike, but they worked great against horde battles with a 15-foot reach, a ridiculous strength score, and a huge sized weapon.

Ilja wrote:
Geno wrote:
Seranov wrote:
18/18/18/10/10/10 is hardly "ideal stats" for most classes.
For the purposes of min-maxing damage, exactly what class are you playing that need more than 3 18s to accomplish their build?
18/18/18/18/18/18 before race is far preferable. Add to that a great wyrms adjustments of +32, Dex -4, Con +18, Int +12, Wis +12, Cha +12 and you have pretty decent stats for a 10th level character.

Save for the part where you're not following the rules. You can't play a CR 18 monster in a 10th level campaign. A CR 4 ogre? Yes, that's acceptable. Sure, it abuses the rules, but it doesn't break them.

And CR 25 tarrasque would be right out.

Seranov wrote:
18/18/18/10/10/10 is hardly "ideal stats" for most classes.

For the purposes of min-maxing damage, exactly what class are you playing that need more than 3 18s to accomplish their build?

Covent wrote:

Geno, If you could would you please clarify the below.

I believe these are the rules you wish:

1.) Stats are 18,18,18,10,10,10

2.) Level is 10th

Geno wrote:

Use Core rules when playing a Monstrous race (meaning, 4 levels buys you Ogre, including hit dices+etc., and gain extra level for every three levels gained by party)

Could you please explain the above or if it is in a Paizo book please give us either a book and page number or PRD link?

Geno wrote:
Buy enchantments on items based off of individual level enchantment price, not off total price of item

I believe the above means that you buy magic weapons/armor in the following manner please correct me and explain if I am wrong.

Normal CRB rules:

+1 weapon = 2,000 GP + weapon cost

+1 Keen weapon = 8,000 GP + weapon cost

House rule:

+1 Weapon = 2,000 GP + weapon cost

+1 Keen weapon = (2,000 GP + 2,000 GP) + weapon cost

Also, do you still use the max of +10 to weapons/armor bonuses?

The stats are accurate. The rule for monstrous races I'm using is found in the core rulebook, I'm not sure what page, but here's the rule , it's under Monsters as PCs.

And yes, you're using the house rule right. And yes, we still use the +10 max.

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>