Haagan's page

Ask your GM to pick one for you and not tell you what it is, only what the powers do when you get them. Sure, you'll be able to deduce it quick enough if you try, but if you resist the urge then you can get some good "what am i?" RP out of it.

Ashiel wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Someone in another thread is claim that someone can just use "Alter Self" or a "Hat of Disguise" to regrow that lost limb for the duration of the spell or as long as they wear the hat and I think this is bogus. I see nothing in the spell that says a lost limb is replaced, even temporarily.

Hopefully a designer could shed some light on this.

A hat of disguise could make it appear the limb wasn't lost. That's an illusion. Alter self can in fact grow limbs to make you match the creature that you turn into, and doesn't have any special checks for what sorts of limbs the base creature has. A woman could turn into a man, a man into a lizardfolk, a lizardfolk into a strix, a strix into a merfolk. You gain the gross physical characteristics of the new form, complete with natural attacks and movement forms.

It doesn't matter what your base form is. A merfolk druid for example could transform into a polar bear (no legs to 4 legs) with beast shape I via Wildshape. A strix has wings, but can transform into a human (no wings). A man could transform into a woman, or vice versa (they have slightly different extremities). A human could transform into a lizardfolk and get 2 claws and 1 bite attack.

Show me where it says you can grow lost limbs with Alter Self. I have read the description for the spell and the Polymorph section and it's not there.

Perhaps you could show us where it implies the condition of the target's base form is relevant to the effect of the spell. That's typically untrue of polymorph-esque spells considering it changes the base form into something else entirely. Where do the considerations end, for example if the base form has burn scars all over it's body does the altered form as well?

You could consistently act differently toward different things. Evil to Orcs, Good to Elves. If your interaction rate with each was moderately consistent you'd maintain a neutral alignment. If you dealt with one five or more times as much as the other you'd skew toward Good/Evil.

There should be a discovery to give bombs back in case you traded them out, but only (Int mod)/per day uses and 1d6 base damage. That way you could modify it with other bomb discoveries if you really want them and the damage would stack with Master Chymist if you went vivisectionist to start.

It all depends on what the definition of God is to the atheist. Gods in D&D are just extremely powerful entities, but lack the fun omni-traits like omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc.

If I made a sort of atheist character he'd be a magic user of some sort under the hypothesis that the planar landscapes and creatures and beings called Gods were created bottom up and not top down. If everyone manipulates magic subconsciously and enough got a unified idea of what an extraplanar person place or thing was like, they would conjure it into existence. Gods and devils and such exist because of the belief they do and the mind weaves the ambient magic of this plane to make it so. Sure, the wizard with his conscious control over magic can rain fiery death down, but the peasant farm-hand is the most dangerous magic user of all for he creates landscapes in other realms filled with the stuff of his nightmares, things that sometimes make it to the material plane.

Wow that would be a fun paladin to play, one who intends to destroy every evil outsider in existence by convincing people forge different, more noble, beliefs about the cosmos. Not that his hypothesis would be correct of course, but delusional characters are fun.

I reject the premise of the title. It's as though one is being asked which leg they'd rather have. I view this as a false dichotomy. Obviously, better mobility is preserved by using both legs well. One should try to do well with both concepts of role-play or roll-play, not pick one and condemn the other. They are not exclusive concepts. Sure, some might favor one of the other, but I tend to not respect characterless murder machines and ineffective drama seekers. It is in character for a person living in a fantastical setting that routinely encounters mortal peril to want to perfect their particular survival methods, but not so much to the point where they forget their origins or lack basic social interaction capabilities.

That said, I tend to be very creative with character concepts, then attempt to optimize them as much as possible while staying true to the concept. I will also deviate off of my mechanically envisioned path in terms of feats or levels in response to the events of the campaign.

I suppose one could give an intelligent item authoritative control over a non-intelligent golem then jam that item inside the golem's body and seal it up. Neat idea.

Blistering invective from ultimate combat is a great low level inquisitor spell as well, aoe intimidate that sets opponents on fire.

Gunslinger (Mysterious Stranger/Pistolero)5/Ninja X

Sneak sneak sneak... Bang! Bang! Bang!... *smoke bomb* Sneak Sneak Sneak...

Take two levels of ninja -- problem solved.

The bomb ninja tricks should be alchemist discoveries as well, minus the ki.

They really need to make a 1d6 bomb discovery so vivisects can get in on the fun too. It wont do the raw damage that an alchemist that studies bombs would, but it would open up the ability to use later discoveries like smoke bombs and such that directly aid sneak attacking.