HP: 14/17 | AC: 15, 10, 15 | CMD: 15 | F: 4, R: 0, W: -1 | Init: +0 | Perc.: +3
Easily blocking one attack with his shield, Geoffrey left an opening for the second attacker, which allowed him to strike a vital spot under the arm. Veins sprouted across his body as he dropped both sword and shield, and roared with bestial fury upon drawing his massive hammer. With a swing powered by rapidly-enlarging muscles, Geoffrey bashed at the bandit in front of him.
Rage: Str+4 1|7
Power Attack
+1 atk/+1 Dodge, Crowd Control
Earthbreaker: 1d20 + 7 ⇒ (6) + 7 = 13
Damage: 2d6 + 11 ⇒ (6, 5) + 11 = 22
HP: 14/17 | AC: 15, 10, 15 | CMD: 15 | F: 4, R: 0, W: -1 | Init: +0 | Perc.: +3
I went with normal Barb for the Urban archetype; if it ends up being an invalid selection, I'll gladly change him.
HP: 14/17 | AC: 15, 10, 15 | CMD: 15 | F: 4, R: 0, W: -1 | Init: +0 | Perc.: +3
Initiative: 1d20 ⇒ 9
Geoffrey surveys the scene, putting weapon in hand.
Hey there! Barrister here. As per your note in the main thread, I thought I'd pop this guy in!
There is literally nothing on him yet; as soon as I hear whether Ill be using Barb or uBarb, it's all done though! I mean, it is just a level of Barb...but, I did want to go ahead and pop in (and pop my init off) before you got further.
And thank you!
Oh, and also:
"Wait! Take my wife, please! Just leave my money!" Maybe then I'll get to keep some of it...
GM Smashomancer wrote: Well, I did happen to recommend a feat or two from it in this thread already, so I'd say yes. You did! I went back and clicked through the links. I wasn't familiar with the feats you mentioned, and I usually try to avoid reading specifics regarding build suggestions directed at others; until after I've put mine together. I wouldn't want to copy anyone, intentionally or not.
GM Smashomancer wrote: Pathfinder has a particular habit of adding "new" options that paradoxically limit how things were done previously. But yes, PM's please. We did; I honestly hadn't meant for it to go to such lengths, but finding things like that in PF always tend to get to me. It hearkens back to the splat from 3.5, wherein it was almost like a completely different team wrote them with little consideration for the original.
GM Smashomancer wrote: go space Broncos!
Ha! I thought he looked like a sane Ash Williams; I'm still working on what I want to do with him, but I'm leaning towards Monk, and that avatar hardly works!
I have another one for you; stuff from the Weapons Master's Handbook allowed, particularly the feats?
Johnnycat93 wrote: Even by the strictest reading of the rules there are still a few different ways that a character may identify a specific piece of gear. Such as? Give me another RAW example for identifying a composite bow by sight, and I'll agree it's a moot point.
I don't disagree with you; it is invalid, and wholly the fault of the person making the call. That does little to negate the existence of those who would make that call, or that the chart in question provides fuel for their arguments.
I also dislike how they made Blacksmith a Craft skill over a Profession; but none of this has anything to do with the campaign thread I hijacked, aside from the inclusion of Background skills.
Because now there is a RAW section for those items listed.
There are those (and just browse the Paizo forums, particularly instances of rule questions) who believe that if something is written, that is the only way said thing can be performed.
It's similar to your Rumormonger example. It could easily (if one simply chooses not to critically think) be stated that because that talent exists, then the implication is correct, and a PC can not otherwise spread rumors (or, at a slightly more liberal interpretation, can not do so effectively).
So a chart stating that Craft(Bow) is what is used to identify Composite/Masterwork bows on sight, by that same tier of thinking, means that no other method can be used to do so, and my Int-dumped fighter has to roll a 17 or greater to be able to identify the weapon he's spent his career (and mechanical points) focused on.

GM Smashomancer wrote: ...
We'd be using background skills.
...
Does that include the "Expanded Skill Uses" block? I'm asking just out of innate curiosity, and because I'd honestly never read that far down before. I'm led down an interesting line of thinking because of the inclusion of this table in the mechanics.
Before I get that far and ramble for way too long to hold interest:
Craft: Clockwork I assume is going to be important in Calweld's society? And is there a "new" Knowledge skill for steampunk, or would it just fall under Engineering?
Back to the rant, I don't understand what necessitated the addition of this bit into an official rule book. PFS play doesn't use it; everything else is home-based, and so all of that is up to the GM to determine, and clever players to propose. And while I do appreciate a list of DCs, they've almost eliminated creative play by including some of these.
Example: I would let a PC with Weapon Focus: Longbow sorting through loot tell the difference immediately between a non-composite and composite longbow. They've spent the better part of their lives using that weapon; they're undoubtedly familiar with it. He's got Weapon Specialization, too? He can tell you if it's a +0 or a +5 strength bonus. But by putting Craft: Bows on that chart to identify just like that, how many people do you think would disagree with my approach, because it's written down differently?
Both D&D and Pathfinder give guidelines for a GM to generate an entire world for themselves; new classes, new races, new spells, everything. I remember reading thorough the 3.0 DMG the summer before 7th grade, and even at that age, I never felt like I was being forced to do something one way or another; the basis of the book itself was to give you means of doing whatever you wanted. It was beautiful.
The game's evolved over the years, largely for the better, but it seems like more and more, the ideas of critical thinking, roleplaying, and problem solving are being removed with a slow, steady hand incorporating charts like that into the game. Paizo people read these boards; they have to know how that's going to be interpreted by a large part of the community. It just astounds me.
...and sorry for all that. /rant.
^^Those beautiful ideas make me wish I'd waited until I got home rather than rushing out the 'shroom picking up my kid.
I'm proud of Paizo's and WotC's attempts to capture nature as more than male and female, but both still put the deity in Humanoid form.
Mycosriel - Deity of Nature, Plants, Darkness and Storms. TN electric blue mushroom. The cap has frilled spore tendrils by the hundreds hanging from it, and similar pseudopods crawl along the ground. The main form is surrounded by at least a dozen slightly smaller variations on the theme; the mass moves together, and although the deity is typically taken as the largest body, the satellites are probably attached as well.
There are a number of items (particularly special materials) found on the SRD that come from a 3PP "Pure Steam Campaign Setting;" do you know anything about that? It sounds like something that might interest you, particularly for this campaign.
On the note of deities, you can allow each submitted character to generate their own deity (whether divine-oriented or not), and compile the list from those.
Also, I'll echo everyone else with the 25 point buy. It's like asking a kid if he wants two popsicles instead of one.
|