You have 2 9th level divine casters, a 9th level arcane caster, a trapfinder, and melee. You seem to be missing a face and a skill monkey. Why don't you play a bard?
Why would someone use Kraken Throttle over Sleeper Hold or Chokehold? Chokehold:
While you have an opponent up to one size category larger than you grappled, you can attempt a grapple combat maneuver with a –5 penalty on the check. If you succeed, you have pinned your opponent and hold the opponent in a chokehold. When you maintain the grapple, you also maintain the chokehold. A creature in a chokehold cannot breathe or speak, and thus cannot cast spells that have a verbal component. An opponent you have in a chokehold has to hold his breath or begin suffocating. Any creature that does not breathe, is immune to bleed damage, or is immune to critical hits is immune to the effects of your chokehold. When the grapple is ended, so is the chokehold. Kraken Throttle:
"The damage that you deal with the Kraken Style feat on a successful grapple combat maneuver check increases to an amount equal to your Wisdom bonus + 2.
While using this style, you can choke your opponent when you successfully maintain a grapple instead of choosing to damage, move, pin, or tie up your opponent. This suffocates your opponent. The grappled opponent can take a breath during any round in which you do not maintain the grapple." Sleeper Hold: You must declare that you are using this feat before you make a combat maneuver check to maintain a grapple (thus a failed check to maintain the grapple ruins the attempt). If you maintain a grapple for a number of consecutive rounds equal to your opponent’s Constitution bonus (minimum 1 round), you can attempt to knock out your opponent. The victim must succeed at a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Str modifier) or else it falls unconscious for 1d4 rounds. Each successive round you attempt this, the target takes a cumulative –1 penalty on its saving throw. When you use this feat, you take an additional –2 penalty to your AC. Creatures that are immune to bleed damage, stunning, or critical hits are immune to this ability.
That is literally the funniest thing I have read today.
Yes. Virtually every weapon can be used for an SA. Even an earth breaker.
I usually bring a bottle of bourbon to the session.
Not every paladin is going to be nice, kind, or lawful stupid. Heck, you couldn't make me play one even if you offered to pay me. Different from Lancelot doesn't necessarily mean bad wrong. Ref: Sparhawk and Bazhell Bahnakson
This is a classic example of how some GM's can't handle having a paladin at the table. In all fairness, that player should be advised to reroll another class before he becomes attached to his character.
Trying to suggest Rage doesn't imply anger is asinine. They could have called it "Class Ability B". Having a fluffy name does not require every barbarian to be a mindless berserker.
I find that funny. Barbarian: "I'm level 17! I can rage cycle now!" Wizard: "I'm level 17, I can cast Wish and change the way the universe works..." Cleric: "Me too!" <casts Miracle>
Rage cycling is as cheap as 15k gp (or 7.5k go if you know a crafter). Cord of Stubborn Resolve:
Aura moderate transmutation; CL 8th Slot belt; Price 15,000 gp; Weight 1 lb. When fastened about the waist, this stout length of rope grants a +2 enhancement bonus to Constitution along with prodigious stamina. Treat the enhancement bonus to Constitution as a temporary ability bonus for the first 24 hours the belt is worn. Any effect which would cause the wearer to become fatigued deals an additional 1d6 points of nonlethal damage instead. Any effect that would cause exhaustion likewise causes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and leaves the wearer fatigued instead of exhausted. Given the low cost and ease of availability, I'd say that it's not at all overpowered.
Surrender doesn't necessarily mean a person gets to live. Sometimes it just means a quick merciful death.
Sure. You just need to find a way to be proficient. For example, worship this guy:
And if d8,really is too squishy, both the abilities above come at level 1. You could just use it as a dip and go barbarian or something else big for the rest.
Class: Inquisitor
Leave cha low, pump wis and make use of: Stern Gaze (Ex): Inquisitors are skilled at sensing deception and intimidating their foes. An inquisitor receives a morale bonus on all Intimidate and Sense Motive checks equal to 1/2 her inquisitor level (minimum +1). Charm of Wisdom (Ex): You use your Wisdom modifier instead of your Charisma modifier when making Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate checks. Even when your are nice, you're scary.
Your sense of entitlement to the benefits of other peoples' feats and personal character investment is astounding. Why do you get to be offended by not getting a 50% discount off of someone else's investment? How is not acceding to your demands of free labor stealing from you? Does he become your indentured servant the moment he chooses a crafting feat?
Likewise, the lucky guy who gets an 18 roll can be asked to make some concessions. Hmm, perhaps I am cynical or something, but my expected answer on that request after a "fair" roll would be a resounding, "No, I don't think so Tim."
This is exactly the opposite of my experience. Common rolling methods end up with some people rolling til they get a set they like and then rearranging them to suit their wants. Min-Maxers min-max regardless of which system is used. At least with a stat array or point buy, there is some assurance that the characters are somewhat on a level playing field.
If you do not like him benefiting from his feats, why don't you sacrifice some combat abilities & spend your feats on crafting? That'll show him.
Quite possibly. I'm not saying you're going to walk in and he's going to let you pass without any concern, but the chances that you (as a paladin) can find a way to peacefully gain access to the mcguffin by convincing the angel of your need, and of his gods desire, for you to access the item...it's seems far more likely than a paladin walking into the room with the angel and just deciding that "Hey, that angel wont let me prance on it to what I want so I'm going to kill him!". What if the paladin serves Torag and the angel serves Sarenrae? Are you sure that the Paladin will be seeing eye to eye with the angel then?
I would not allow a paladin to engage an angel in combat with one exception: if the angel were placed as a guard to test the worthiness of people trying to enter the room then there could be a combat, but it would not be to the death. Why not? There is nothing evil or code breaking in engaging in combat with an angel. What if conditions were such that the paladin might fall if he fails to engage?
F = (C * 9/5) + 32 Also, volumetric measures do not have corresponding weights unless a mass, density, or material is defined.
Wouldn't it be safe to say that spellcaster classes all include Class Feature (Spells)?
Confidence doesn't mean much if you're wrong though. A rules lawyer is gonna know either way. Oh, and rules matter for everyone at the table. Not just when it's convenient for the GM.
I love the setting and fluff that it provides. However, I would really like to see the fluff and setting specific rules decoupled from the mechanics of the game.
Vivisectionist Alchemist
So you want to penalize a person for trying to be sneakier (using stealth) while invisible?
I'd probably be looking at something like: 1. Dodge or Toughness
Hard to know though without more info.
Wait. So a cleric of the god of battle got miffed when a fighter went into battle? Then acted petty about it after the foe was defeated... REALLY???
How about, if my character concept makes sense and all the abilities work within that scope, what difference does the build I used to make that happen matter? Why can't my character be organic within his own concept?
It's OK for an adventuring group to have weaknesses. It's not really OK to expect me to take levels in classes that radically alter my character's concept.
Why would it?
You might consider a Qlippoth-Spawn Teifling. Or if you want to make your DM cry....a dwarf.
I'd just say ok and build something else. Your DM seems biased against the race. You can't be sure it won't continue to manifest later.
The compromise is a good decision. On BOTH sides. Frankly given the extra information about the circumstances of the death of the kobold, it may have been evil (stress may). However, the real lesson (that I got) is that in this world taking prisoners at all will lead to your paladin committing an evil act. Waste time dealing with your prisoner while the kids die → evil
Follow the redemption part of your code → fall for not punishing evil who threaten or harm innocents. Follow the punishing evil who threaten or harm innocents part of your code → fall for not redeeming the evil. Requiring a paladin to always show kindness, charity and mercy without defining those terms → fall.
A non-asian monk would look like a cleric or a paladin depending on whether they were militant (The Knights Templar, The Knights of St John, The Teutonic Knights) or not.
White eurocentric racism upsets me much more than the inclusion of monks or asiatic flavored material. (Sure, this might get censored, but you know thats all the original post is. Frankly, censoring the replies to the OP without censoring the OP is a little frustrating too.)
You should request that all house rules be explained up front.
Oh, yeah, punishment will make the game funner.
Rolling is great if you are lucky, a cheater or like playing the chump when you roll it. Also, it's nice to be able to plan a character concept out in advance without having a bad set of rolls mucking things up. For example, I just went here and rolled it 2 times. Got this: __________1______2______3______4______5______6_____Total
__________1______2______3______4______5______6_____Total
I know I wouldn't be happy with the first set of rolls if I had to play with a guy getting the second. The first will, also, make many concepts hard (if not flat out impossible) to play.
I take it back. Here's what your should do. Tell the player that you will drop the issue as long as the entire party will help you atone for the act after you fall for letting the abonination "live". Then when you do fall, because letting it be will cause it to happen, force them to follow their word. This will waste plenty of group resources and lots of in game time. When you get to your temple and ask for an atonement, make sure you mention to your senior priests and assorted clergy just why you fell. Don't leave out the part of how your group mate brought the offending undead thing with him. Let the GM handle it from there...
Or if you really really want to show your belly, just ask them straight out: "Do you want me to kill the horse or roll a new character?"
How can you not destroy it?
3 Martial Artist Monk: any alignment, free improved unarmed strike, 1d6 unarmed dmg, evasion, Fast Movement
Potentially useful:
Rage Powers:
Feats:
You could just tell the caster to roll another character since you plan on punishing the him for trying to be less squishy instead of being more offensive or using his FCB for skills. Question: Why shouldn't the witch get a tangible benefit from prioritizing his resources towards his goal for his character instead of yours?
Nope, only when you take the extra attack. Iterative attacks have no issues regardless of which hand or weapon you use.
My goal here is to impress upon the PCs that not everything is cut and dried regarding these matters and if they plow blindly ahead making assumptions they may come to regret doing so. And by extension, in the future the PC's should either not accept bounties (since the spoils are stolen by the authorities) or should kill the fugitive thereby not leaving him the option of crying foul about losing his weapons/etc. I would be very upset if I played a game and was not notified of this expectation upfront.
"Operating expenses." Most of my characters would laugh at you for suggesting that they give up the loot.
Why are you still riding?And round and round she goes.It's like a Derpy-Go-Round I once watched a car attempt to cross a set of train tacks in the face of a oncoming train. You know how it is, I could not look away. This has been kinda like that. Yes, the car got hit.
Tell them both to grow up? Interesting, that's what I was thinking while reading a thread telling me to ignore the math in a game chock full of numbers and probabilities. ;)
Deleveling and having no catch up mechanism = Suck & Not Fun Therefore it was horrible... and good riddance. May it never return.
Personally, I will play both levels. I just want to be sure that I am not playing the ordinary commoner forced into adventure while my neighbor gets to play Beowulf in the same game. Wildly disparate levels of power within a group tends to cause issues and general dissatisfaction for both the players and the poor GM that tries to balance it all.
|
