I started with the 90s, read X-Men comics for over a decade and then went back to the Essential books. I really have to say that 80s group feels the most like the "real" X-Men to me. Claremont, Cockrum, and Byrne really defined the team and everyone else kind of followed that lead.
In terms of Psylocke, I have to say while I didn't get far with New Mutants, in the actual X-Men title I did not see much personality before her transformation. Certainly not a deeply layered personality like some people are saying here, but to be fair there were other comics featuring her at the time that I haven't read.
Hard to read the current comics, I love Marvel but I have event fatigue.
I just ended a campaign as GM, and now one of my friends wants to GM. He said he is running a Razor Coast campaign, which sounds cool. He said core races only, so I thought I would try building an arcane archer, which I have looked at since 3.0 but never made. We have 25 point buy, which is plenty to build most characters. We also start at 4th level. The players have so far said they are playing a rogue, a cleric, a witch, a fighter, and possibly a barbarian, so we're also pretty well covered in terms of party composition.
The current build I have is an elf ranger 2/wizard 2, with Str 14, Dex 18 (with racial and the point at 4th) Con 12, Int 16, Wis 13, and the charisma will be rolled later as the GM wants to roll the dump stats for some reason. (Guess people don't like dump stats, kind of a separate discussion.) I figured I would go ranger 4/wizard 4 before getting to arcane archer, which would likely be how I leveled the rest of the game. But then this nagging voice in my head started thinking this could be a weak character who is spread too thin. I
was considering focusing more on one side or the other rather than trying to balance them both equally but I'm not sure. I could go ranger 6/wizard 1 to get to arcane archer faster and be better in the archery department, or do ranger 1/wizard 5/eldritch knight 3 and basically be a caster with some archery. Not sure if I really want the second option, even though I'm sure it would eventually be the more powerful way to go. Our group is split between two GMs and we tend to level slowly as a result, so who knows if I would pay off. If I did the first option I would get more now, and could boost the weak con over the int I am currently pumping, but I would never be much of a caster.
I liked the freebooter archetype for ranger, since the pirate idea fits the campaign and the favored enemy and animal companion wouldn't really be leveling up once I went arcane archer. I didn't really have a specialization or archetype for wizard. Any advice would be welcome, even "arcane archer sucks, play a switch hitter." This may be my last character for a while since I have a baby on the way, so I am more indecisive than normal here.
My group is starting a side campaign and I want to give the one player who always plays the cleric a break. I wanted to do something different than the standard heavy armored cleric, so I thought I'd try an elf cleric. I would take dexterity as my second highest stat and take archery feats.
What would be the best way to do this well? Should I take a level of zen archer monk? Are there domains that would help?
Well, last summer I joined a D&D 3.5 game. I wanted to play a paladin, but the 3.5 paladin is weak as hell, so I asked if I could use the PF paladin since the GM had already allowed other house rules. The GM told me he hated Pathfinder and there was no way. I made a different character and still had fun.
To me, a custom campaign world sounds like a much better reason than "I hate that slightly different set of rules." I think gunslingers are a lot like psionics where you would see them used in some games and not in others.
Because it's not a video game where doing X gets you Y. It's a game run by a human computer, so that human computer will just make what he feels is the best decision at the table.
Honestly it seems like if you played first/second edition, you house ruled, and the younger generation of gamers starting with 3.x on all want RAW, and how dare anyone change anything.
Here's the deal, there are different styles of playing the game. One group might hack their way through monsters all day long, while another may be really into the story and have really developed characters. One group may know all the rules while another wings it a lot. There is not a right way as long as people have fun. Most of the time, you do not have a group that all likes the same things to the same degree. The GM may need to have social encounters for one player, fights for another player, and traps for another.
The thing to remember is that Pathfinder and tabletop rpgs are social games where the GM and players all need to respect one another. One player may be very quiet most of the time and while the GM might encourage them to speak up, they shouldn't force them. A player might be pretty ineffective in combat, and while the other players may recommend builds or tactics, it is their character and ultimately their decision. And while one player might have a novel length back story and speak with an accent and have a custom mini, he can't force the guy playing the generic dwarf fighter who never speaks in character to suddenly become his acting partner.
In short, until someone is being disruptive and being a dick and cutting into your fun, don't cut into theirs. If you want to roleplay why your rogue became a paladin and do a whole scene about seeing the light of the gods and the errors of his ways, that's awesome. However, when the barbarian takes a level of sorcerer, you don't get to demand an explanation why. You may ask and learn that she is taking rage mage, or that she thinks her barbarian should have draconic blood, but ultimately she doesn't owe you an explanation as to why she did something allowed by the rules that doesn't hurt your character or impact your fun.
I am ambivalent about this concept. On the one hand I've played with disruptive players, people who argued with the GM, who tried to cheat or otherwise bring down the game. I don't want to play with anyone like that again.
On the other hand, part of the appeal of the game is that I get to play a heroic character. In real life I am a pretty average person, working retail to pay the bills, but in the game I have an elf duskblade who can slice through the monsters like butter. I don't try to hog the spotlight, I follow the rules, and I get along with the group.
I have been GMing a Pathfinder Eberron game for a couple friends I used to work with whenever we get together. One of the players has a human bard. When the party fought a vampire that they had been chasing for a long time, the bard broke his lute to have a stake to finish the vampire. I thought this was dramatic (although if they'd thought about it, they would have brought a stake) and the player had been carrying the same instrument the whole campaign.
I thought it would be cool to work in a magical lute as treasure somewhere. Unfortunately I saw very few magical instruments in my books and no lutes. Would anyone know any good ones off the top of their heads? The party should be 7th level soon.
I like your thinking on this, but I think a power gamer could still take advantage of the extra feats. A wizard could take the item creation feats and say they are non-combat while still gaining a powerful advantage. Or even a more minor level, I could play a rogue taking "skill focus: acrobatics" and get a bonus to something that helps me in combat. The craft skills are the only ones that could never come up in some kind of life or death situation.
Social skills in Pathfinder: How many members of the party need to be good at it and any other social topics?
If you're in a wheelchair you can make a high strength, high constitution character. The fact that in real life you may not be able to lift much does not come into play as your goliath barbarian hurls boulders at people. If you're socially awkward you ought to be able to have a high wisdom and charisma and be good at talking to people and persuading them.You might still need to role play but I feel like you ought to be able to do it
Honestly, I was all set to call you a baby because you were upset that your character died. Having read this, though, I think you have a justifiable beef. First off, I don't think characters should face monsters they almost definitely can't beat. I don't like having an NPC swoop in to save the PCs, because I think the PCs should be the heroes. Finally, I don't see any reason your character had to die, even temporarily, just to have an NPC come in and save you guys. Swooping in to resurrect you just makes it seem like even more of a deus ex machina than it already was.
That said, your character is fine and you liked her, so I probably would stick with the campaign for now to see how it plays out. If you keep feeling like you're in a prewritten story, I might opt out.
I like this thread, this is an interesting concept to think about. Beats complaining about monks or something.
I might like a ranger for this concept. You grew up in the woods, learned to be track and move quietly and were more perceptive. You know how to use a bow and your knife, but you don't think of yourself as any kind of warrior.
If you look at some variants you could probably get rid of spellcasting and maybe the favored enemy. Of course by the time the casting comes in you're like 4th level anyway so you should be more heroic.
I once played a half-orc cleric of Tempus with the idea of being a war priest. I figured I would heal the party some but that wouldn't be the main focus of my character. The DM looked at me and saw hit points recharging. "The villagers come to you for healing." "Where am I during this important conversation with the king? Oh, you're healing people in town." Sure, you see a six and a half foot half-orc with heavy armor, a battle axe, and a symbol of the war god on him, and your first thought is "Man, I wonder if he can clear up this rash."
Okay, my D&D 3.5 DM said he needed a break one week of every month. I volunteered to DM provided I could run Pathfinder, which I figured would help introduce it to the group for future play. Even though I will not be GMing for a few more weeks I have already had many questions regarding what is allowed.
One player asked if he could play a Gunslinger. I am setting the campaign in Ptolus, where firearms exist, so I said yes. He asked if the gunslinger could be a Vanara. Odd combination, but the race doesn't seem overpowered, so sure. Then he asked if the vanara's prehensile tail could be used to reload. He said he knew it couldn't wield a weapon, but thought it could hold the gun while reloading with the other hand. This way he could fire with the right hand while holding the gun with the tail and loading with the left.
I did not anticipate this question. To some extent it seemed reasonable. However, it would make him significantly faster than a normal gunslinger. I also question the ambidexterity required in such an action, loading those old guns seems like it would be difficult to do while firing with another hand. Two weapon penalties should apply at the very least. What do you all think?
I am new to Pathfinder as a long time D&D 3.x player and I have mostly lurked on these boards. I noticed that rogues are being described as weak in PF. It seems like to me they lost nothing from 3.0, and gained many advantages, i.e. the new abilities they can pick from as they level, the condensed skill list, the bigger hit die, and the fact that sneak attack works on more monsters now. If rogues weren't regarded as terribly weak before, why would they be considered weak now?
Well, thanks for the answers, 3 in fact did happen last weekend, well, substitute "weapon rack" with "slime" and you'll get the idea.
One other question, were they supposed to get concentration as a class skill or not? They seem to be the only casting class that doesn't, even paladins and rangers get the skill. I sort of see it as maybe being undisciplined and not concentrating, but just in practical terms it sucks being a caster without that skill.
1)The Jester casts spells similiarly to the bard, but he doesn't seem to share the bard's ability to cast in light armor. Is this an omission or deliberate?
2) Similiarly, jesters have both search and disable device, but don't have trap finding. What good is disable device without trap finding? Again, was something left out?
3) Why are jesters the only class with hide and move silently but not spot and listen? That's sort of unusual, isn't it, I mean they can sneak past people, but not recognize it in others?
Anyway, it's still a cool class that I'm planning on playing, I'm just curious about this design decisions or whatever they are.
I really don't see the problem. They split their hit points, they don't get any extra abilities or classes, they can't cast more spells per round or prepare extra spells. I guess it's maybe an extra attack or some kind of extra action, like maybe if you're a cleric you can have one of yourself fight while the other one runs to the party member with cure wounds or something. Which is good, but not serious, I mean half my group gets cohorts and animal companions and crap and does the same thing.