HappyWalrus's page

Real quick note:

The Divine v Arcane setup has no underlying meaning to it. It's a dumb fun "who would win in a fight?" style setup.
The conflict comes from a situation comparable to
Goblins + Goblin Dogs vs Dogs + "Pale imitation"
where you replace "Goblins"/"Goblin Dogs" with Divine/Divine Magic, and "Dogs" with Arcane. Making it:
Divine + Divine Magic vs. Arcane + "Pale Imitation"

The Divine hate the Arcane because they see the arcane magic as sort of a "pale imitation" of their divine magic. The Arcane hate the Divine in retaliation. Neither side has any sort of "moral high-ground," but that's not for you to worry about.

I love the enthusiasm. However, my main problem was a lack of a history, for the world. The goal was to get your ideas of lore, not your ideas on how the dynamic between nations should be changed. I appreciate these opinions. It's just that I think they've distracted from the original intent.

This, by the way, is why I figured I wouldn't get this many responses. Because I don't expect this many people to be as enthusiastic about going with what I've already made, and adding on to it.

Oh and by-the-way, I'm working on a schedule here, so any advice on making my own lore can take itself somewhere that has more time for that sort of thing.

Really great insight, guys. Thanks for all your thoughts, it's been a real help.

Now, I understand that the "Divine v Arcane" could be a touchy concept, but I also find that it creates a great way to design an easily interpreted world, ie
"What's this place over here?"
"Well that's a Divine civilization"
No more characterization needed. It's a great way to make an incomplete world seem a lot more complete. It also makes for an easy way to create relationships between civilizations, ie
"What do they think of this place?"
"Well they hate them, of course"
"Why?"
"Because they're a divine nation and they're an Arcane nation"
"Oh... okay."

I am making a Pathfinder world, for a school project. Yes, it's true, Pathfinder can/could've decide/decided the biggest grade of your entire Freshman year! My school proudly totes a class-wide "Freedom Project" that grades you based on your ability to BS a few connections to school topics and "new skills," into a (usually) completely unrelated personal project.
So, with that, I present the problem:
I suck at getting original ideas, or more precisely, original lore ideas. All I know is that the present of the campaign is split between two main factions: The pious Divine Casters against the scholarly Arcane.
These guys hate each-other, and, although both sides sit on all sides of the alignment spectrum, they cannot abide the well-being of the other.

If it helps to know:
Divine and Arcane influence almost all of the globe, but the largest faction of neutrals is in the center, and possesses exotic resources, both in application and in methods of quality preservation.
Basically, losing contact with them would result in catastrophic losses for either side. The neutral party uses the conflict to bolster their economy, and changes deals and products to keep both sides at a stalemate.

Besides that:
Everything is open. When, how, and in what state, the three factions meet or rise is entirely up to you. (Except not really, I'm picking the best suggestion from the one person who can be bothered to indulge me.)

I'm making a gladiator build, that focuses on performance combat. So far, I know that they will be using perform, and intimidate, to make the enemy nigh incapable of fighting back. They're using the Gladiator archetype, from the fighter, and are a Half-Orc. Varaint multiclass, Barbarian. Advice? Issues? General gripes? Let's start a coneversation.

Oh, and the build is for not-necessarily serialized combat.

I'll probably go the route of a free feat. They'll likely never use it again, and it allows the others to try the challenge, as well.

So, I am about to run We be Goblins. One of the players is an oversized goblin cavalier. They are the only one with ranks in ride, and will probably be interested in dancing with the Sqealy Nord. The original challenge was made with small goblins in mind, so is there any way to let the Cavalier ride it? Of course there is the Undersized Mount feat, but they're riding a large mount (the specifics of which are what meke the character fun), so it would be best not to have to waste their limmited number of feats. Also, is the rule juts that they can't ride innaproprately sized mounts? Because if not, a penalty might be the easiest option.

Within pathfinder I believe all undead are evil by default.

However all you need to do is house rule 2 things: 1. no spells have inherent alignments
2. Undead are not default evil

The biggest issue there is the fact that that rule could cause a lot of different, unforseen, side effects. I have no issue with the fact that undead are evil, as long as they remain under my controll. Zombies eat people, that's how it is. I fully acknowledge that that is, morally, wrong, and therefore evil. Although I do believe that undead, created by good characters, should not appear as "evil", but simply neutral (1 step closer to evil than the alignment of the caster, to account for the use of negative energy). I also believe that, if the player can justify resurrecting the dead, they should be given a pass (as with morally ambiguous actions in roleplay). If you want to take the alignment shift as more of the idea that they are being corrupted, then I suppose you could let them make a will save.

So, I'm going into a "good" aligned campaign, run by a friend, and I'm playing an occultist. I've decided I want to have my character focus on using necromancy for a platoon of flaming skeletons, to fight, and using illusion to keep to the shadows, while he casts transmutation spells on his minions, and skeletal allies. Of course, the whole build requires minions summoned with necromany, for the focus on numbers. I don't want make my GM house rule much, just to suit my convenience. So. Does anybody know any good ways to summon undead, without it being an evil act? Please note that we start at first level, and my use of illusion and transmutation are irrelevant except to the full build concept, as just using the implement gets me everything I'll need for those two.

Are you looking for new stuff or stuff from the race builder that fits?

Ideally elements of race builder that fit.

I want to create a better version of the Gnoll, to work with a party that isn't just Gnolls. If you have advice for making it work without changing the character, that's fine, but I mainly want advice on how to make Gnoll adventurers different, by adding things to them. (note: they are CP 6, unless I'm using that wrong, and the core PC races are CP 10, I want CP 8-10 Gnolls) I want Gnolls who have some feature(s) that sets them apart from the average Gnoll.

Ps. I am DM so anything I say goes; and if you want to comment about this being stupid, please don't waste either of our time, after all, yours could be precious.

Ok cool, thanks.

Actually, they do. Check the Ranger archetype section of the Advanced Class Guide.

it doesn't matter, I still can't get ricochet toss with that.

"Ranger Combat Style" is an option for a Slayer Talent. In that, it says you pick a combat style from the ranger, such as Thrown or Two-Weapon Combat, then you pick a feat from the first feat list of that style. "He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites." So, looks like it says something about bypassing prerequisites to me. In fact, it's worded oddly enough (maybe just transfer error to d20?) that I almost interpret it as "any time you choose a feat from the selected combat style, for any reason, you do not have to have the normal prerequisites", as it doesn't have the "no prerequisites" clause tied directly to the feat that is being chosen with the talent. It just seems to imply, in general, that you can ignore the prerequisites of feats on that list, meaning you could takes those feats as your normal odd-level feats and ignore the prerequisites then too. I don't think that's the intention, and that's kind of a purposely misleading reading of that sentence, but I think it's badly constructed and could be interpreted that way.

The ranger combat styles don't include throwing weapons...

HappyWalrus wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

Since Throwing Axes are light weapons, dual-wielding them might not be a bad idea for your build, since more attacks mean more extra damage from Studied Target and Sneak Attack. And fortunately for you, Slayers have access to the Two-Weapon Ranger Fighting Style through their talents.

Or... Combat feats... as dictated by the Slayer talent that gives me a combat feat, instead of a talent... that one works too, y'know.

Not sure if it's applicable but I think picking it up as a talent lets you bypass prerequisites. Also, I think you can only take combat trick once.

It seems you are sadly correct, in regards to combat trick. The other talents however, say nothing about bypassing prerequisites.

Since Throwing Axes are light weapons, dual-wielding them might not be a bad idea for your build, since more attacks mean more extra damage from Studied Target and Sneak Attack. And fortunately for you, Slayers have access to the Two-Weapon Ranger Fighting Style through their talents.

Or... Combat feats... as dictated by the Slayer talent that gives me a combat feat, instead of a talent... that one works too, y'know.

I am HARE!

RaizielDragon wrote:

Slayer Camouflage says nothing about foliage. And even if it did, I feel like "sand" should qualify as natural foliage. And if not, you just disguise yourself as a cactus or some scrub brush.

HappyWalrus isn't talking about Slayer Camoflauge. Regular camoflauge (a rogue talent that slayers can take), does need foliage. But, there are plants and light undergrowth in deserts, so you could just use that.

Ah, I see my mistake, slayer camouflage is an advanced talent, and is therefore inaccessible until 10th level.

Brew Bird wrote:

You might then consider picking up the Slayer Camouflage talent.

The Startoss line of feats also gives you a huge damage boost, both in melee and at a range, regardless of whether or not you're actually using the special abilities of the style.

I considered the camouflage, but it won't be much of a priority, seeing as how I would prefer to be able to easily and quickly recover my weapons before I go into anything else. Although we are starting at 5th level, so I'll probably use that slayer talent for camouflage. (The two I have are going towards weapon finesse and quick draw, for ricochet toss)

Upon further consideration, I realized that Camouflage requires natural foliage, and will therefore be useless in a dessert.

You might then consider picking up the Slayer Camouflage talent.

The Startoss line of feats also gives you a huge damage boost, both in melee and at a range, regardless of whether or not you're actually using the special abilities of the style.

I considered the camouflage, but it won't be much of a priority, seeing as how I would prefer to be able to easily and quickly recover my weapons before I go into anything else. Although we are starting at 5th level, so I'll probably use that slayer talent for camouflage. (The two I have are going towards weapon finesse and quick draw, for ricochet toss)

Thank you very much. Since I'm using only throwing weapons, I should have no trouble having dexterity as my main stat, however I have weapon finesse (or more accurately Finesse Rogue) because they work in melee distance.

Thank you for the feats, although I am going more towards the stealth route.

The title says it all, is there any advice that any of you wonderful chaps of the internet could provide to my beautiful character (PS. he is level 5, and has weapon finesse)

Incarcerated rope
Cause Peer
Remote Beer
Silent Grimace
Summon Mobster, Fun!
Altar Shelf
Animated Messager
Cure Moderate Foods
Date Monster
Glitterdust... ;)