Search Posts
Was looking at the Sylvan Trickster who gets witch hexes and Rose Warden, who is Roguey but also gets a lot of Int based abilities. So my thought is, how practical is an Int based build based on this? I'm thinking an 18 on a 20 point build.
Funny, I came to this thread, not recognising the necromancy until I saw my long dead post. I was going to suggest Nushiwa (Coyote People) using the same feats and archetypes as Kitsume, only with +2 Int, +2 Dex, -2 Wis to reflect Wile E. Coyote. Roadrunner could be do with Tengu with some home brew speed buffs.
3) Perform: Singing, My Oracle met Zyphus at the Opera.
I think a good example of this is Utred of Bebbenberg in The Last Kingdom. Utred may hate the Church, but he two of his best friends are a Priest and Abbess because they are friends. He doesn't like the LN Alfred but he sees value in working with him. He marries and loves his wife, but he married to prevent the social structures from being used against her and would happily continued informally. After his wife dies, he eventually begins a relationship with the Alfred's married daughter, not something a Lawful person would do.
Chosen One Paladin, having a familar is fun and useful.
Because in myth and legend as well as real life there is a tradition of figures giving up normal attributes or coming from unusual backgrounds in order to tap into divine power. Good examples--- Moses having a stutter (something removed from movie versions) could be seen as a Oracle "Curse". Simularly, The great peacemaker of the Iroqious Confederacy is said to have a stutter. Odin giving an eye for wisdom. Tiresias loosing his sight but also having the experince of living life both as a man and woman. Joan of Arc could be considered to have a campaign specific "wrong gender" curse. Francis of Assisi's voluntary poverty could be seen as tied to his holiness. The Itako, blind Japanese mediums. Beserkers, loosing themselves in frenzy to tap into Odin's magic. Yes, it is the Barbarian's class but it is also a "divine madness". Many cultures consider madmen to be holy. Cassandra, being cursed to never being believed. Now you may not see all these characters as Oracles, but you can see why all of these could be inspirations for an Oracle Curse. I think these experiences collectively are what the curse mechanic is trying to emulate.
No wonder no one is doing cool stuff with this. One sentence in Legacy of First World and I could have my way. Curses! Twinned Eidolon is still one of the best Summoner Archetypes out there and it might be cool to do a "Muse" summoner who is always giving their summoner cool abilities.
Take a Figment Familar, who starting at 3rd level gains evolution points that are changeable each day (1 at 3rd, 2 at 7th, 3 at 13th) and more often with a feat but cannot be the source of spells like a witch's or shaman's familar. Use the Evolved Familar feat to get:
Select a 1-point or 2-point evolution the eidolon has. As a standard action, the eidolon can touch the summoner and transfer the selected evolution to him. This functions as the summoner’s aspect ability, and the same limitations apply. The summoner can touch the eidolon as a standard action to return the evolution. The evolution returns to the eidolon automatically if the eidolon is dismissed by the summoner or sent back to its home plane. Essentially, you can provide the character with whichever 1-2 point eidolon evolution they want. My question is, which kinda character would benefit most from this type of combo? I'm thinking things like Carnivalist Rogues, Eldritch Guardian Fighters, or some kinda cleric, might be fun on the otherwise wimpy magical child vigilante. But I'm wondering what others think.
Creative solutions are solutions for solving a problem in the scenario, like in this case if there was something 9 feet off the ground or to have the barbarian get the gnome across freezing water. They are not for empowering general munchkinry, which is something this can fall into feasibly. Letting them try reasonably weird stuff is not the same thing as letting them always succeed.
I was looking at the Monk rules and noticed there wasn't an alignment restriction (and they had gotten tougher on other alignment questions). So, I thought, gee, let's make it a CG "bar fighter" and screw the RP suggestions, multiclass into rogue at second level. And she's so totally a Cayden Cailyn fangirl. Seriously, I want to make a HtH character and have always hated monk fluff (no better reason than it's not to my taste). So my question to you: Is this idea something that will be killed because I just pointed it out? Have anyone else any cool and interesting twists in the play tests?
The one thing I like about the 1E half elves and orcs (and why I play them a lot) is that they feel distinctly between the races i.e. something distinct. You can see a half elf become a summoner because as a child she longed for friends her age and getting a distinct advantage to be summoner. You can see a half orc shaman take up calling upon spirits because they can't compete physically with your full orc peers. That is what is cool in 1e and is likely to be lost if the half races are not distinct. Half elf/orc will likely be ignored as more Human-ish options are added with a 2e APG and Ultimate Books and there are less options for half races, who are essentially ignored/forgotten. It encourages the game to return to the bad days of 3.0-3.5 DnD when the half elf/orc were such poor options that they seldom if ever saw play.
To me a cleric seeks out the gods or the institional church and if they are inspired or feel guided, they feel guided to go to seminary. An Oracle feels or is touched by something they cannot deny, the "still small voice" of intensely personal life changing vision that makes them who they are. Joan of Arc (assuming she's not a paladin) is an Oracle with a campaign specific "wrong gender" curse, not a cleric. Odin (looking at him as potential PC, not a god) gives his eye at the well of knowledge to know all. Most people will not remove an eye for ultimate knowledge. That sets him apart. Moses with a "studdering" curse and an encounter with on Mt Sinai is an Oracle while his brother becomes a cleric. So in game, do something weird like have dead saints come and talk to you or inflict the blindness curse on yourself in game and roleplay it out, and go hiking and meet a diety. This is also why, in my "headcannon" more oracles are Chaotic and more clerics are lawful.
For awhile I had a job where I was on the road a lot and I found that community variation was a big thing. I played with supportive and friendly people in most places, but sometimes I did sit at a table where it was not so welcoming, snide or whatever. I had a 5e player who I was asking for directions give me the exact same treatment you describe. I remember one game session years ago where two players were planning on killing off an absent player's character in the next session when one would be GMing because he was playing an f---ing Summoner. I winced because my favorite character was a Summoner. I then went to the local pfs website. I was in the city for another 2 months but I never went back. Hearing Henry's version (and living in his community) rings true. Unfortunately so does your experience.
Suggestion: go anti hero I have a pre vigilante class "vigilante' that might give some ideas. Character started out as my summoner's herold vanity/daughter (other "twin" daughter was my squire) who adventured in the summer to to pay for his daughters first class Taldan Education. My character "played hooky" in the fall and joined the Silver Crusade (rather than Daddy's Soverign Court) because Paladins are naive and a little unskilled in figuring things out, and she could beg forgiveness if they did figured it out (some of the values have since stuck) and with an 8 wis, this seemed like a great idea. Besides, going on adventures let her earn money for really awesome shoes and a great wardrobe! If I were to do a variation of this as a real vigilante, I'd do a NG "good girl" social identity and a CN vigilante identity. I might buy her as a vanity another PC. This could be really twisted with something like a splinter soul social gray paladin ID and CN Callistran Zealot vigilante id (and if anyone knows how to make that work for PFS, I'm impressed). I could come up with a lot of variations of this type of anti hero vigilante.
Some work arounds for a melee character. Always have a composite long bow as a backup, even if you have no feats to archery. Your smite is nice at a distance. You're a paladin. You have lay on hands. Put that favored class bonus into skills. Potion of fly, boots of striding and springing. Dip a level in a skilled class, then concentrate the skill points in 1-2 skills. My best on this concept is my fighter 7 rogue 3 (intimidate build). Think about 2-3 work arounds for different situations.
For what it's worth, I designed an Archetype for Wayfinder 17 that increases Int by 4, Cha by 2 and reduces Str and Dex by 2 each, and makes a mental stat your increasing stat. Check it out. I would love to see an honest reaction. I slapped some Hell's Rebels fluff on it. I also did a witch archetype that effectively dumps int (Elder Gods don't need a functioning brain to have a meat puppet to say the words and make the signs at the proper time).
My last game was his Salvation of the Sages. We got saved by a counterspell specialist. But I intimidated Spoiler: Considering my day job is Taxidermist, I just get this even though it is a downgrade.
a Dragon and GrandMaster Torch. We also got gold Dragon armor. It was a good game.
C-C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER! Y'all are using anecdotal evidence and nobody cares.... Oddly enough, I agree. What I thought would be one comment turned into a major thread derail that I didn't realize I was in until it was a derail. My appologies. Please ignore the thread derail this turned into, partially on my account. As for level dips, I wish more classes encouraged it. I've had a lot of fun with them. My 2 handed fighter/Thug Rogue has a +33 Intimidate at 10th level and is a blast to play.
C-C-C-C-Counterpoint: you and that "lot of people" are the minorityCounter-Counter-Counter-Counterpoint: In your universe. In mine and a lot of peoples, it is.Counter-Counter-Counterpoint: the vast majority of play is NOT PFS.Counter-Counterpoint: The vast majority of play is PFS; Knack is not PFS legal. Ergo this still falls into the area of "damn near never."Absolutely dip for martials. Damn near never dip for casters, at least not levels that give a cl loss.Counterpoint: Non-delayed full spellcasters (wizards, shamans, etc, but not Oracles/Sorcerors) can do just fine with Magical Knack and a 1 level dip in something else important for whatever build they make; they have the same spell level progression as a sorcerer at that point. C-C-C-C-C-Counterpoint: A) If it is a minority it is not an insignificant minority. i.e. not a vast minority like you claimed originally.B) I have traveled and played in 6 U.S. cities, so I have some experience. I know in some cities PFS is very big (running twice as many tables at the major conventions as Living Forgotten Realms in my former home city), and others, not so much. So I suspect your sample is one city where it is less popular and that is effecting your bias. C)That said, you strike me as a person who, no matter what I evidence I present, you will tell me I am wrong. Therefore, arguing with you is a waste of time.
Counter-Counter-Counterpoint: the vast majority of play is NOT PFS.Counter-Counterpoint: The vast majority of play is PFS; Knack is not PFS legal. Ergo this still falls into the area of "damn near never."Absolutely dip for martials. Damn near never dip for casters, at least not levels that give a cl loss.Counterpoint: Non-delayed full spellcasters (wizards, shamans, etc, but not Oracles/Sorcerors) can do just fine with Magical Knack and a 1 level dip in something else important for whatever build they make; they have the same spell level progression as a sorcerer at that point. Counter-Counter-Counter-Counterpoint: In your universe. In mine and a lot of peoples, it is. It is a YMMV kind of thing.
I love the summoner. I love being able to create and define the relationship between summoner and Eidolon. This is followed up by oracle for simular reasons. You define the relationship between the Oracle and the divine. My favorite was a bone Oracle who had Zyphus wanting to be her boyfriend. That can be played so many ways.
I think I'm Gnostic rather than Orthodox in my divine class preferences. I like the ones that feel like the person talks/feels/understands the divine at a bone deep level, as opposed to those who have gone to seminary for four years or so. So I tend to like--- Oracle/Shaman--This comes closest to what I feel like a close personal relationship with the divine looks/feels like. This is the person who talks to god or seeks it out or are asked. Druids--the connection to the natural world feels. Witch--Though it's not technically a divine class, the feel is there. Ranger/Hunter As opposed to--- Cleric, War Priest, Inquisitor, Paladin. That said if I can come up with a good background to make the connection feel "organic" I'm okay either way. For example, I'm using my changeling boon in PFS on a Chosen One Paladin of Falayna because the origin story of her future familar warning her off from her "mother" seems organic.
Knights in shining armor with a goody-goody code of honor who can do no wrong is an ancient trope that's basically ingrained in pop culture and that's what the code was referring to. I think the flaws in this though are why people are looking to other sources, be it Steve Rogers or Superman, or perhaps making a chosen one paladin who resembles Cardcaptor Sakura in a lot of ways. Even Brieanne of Tarth is functionally a paladin in a lot of ways at the same time being a deconstruction of this troupe. A knight in shining armor is only one Paladin.
You know, this statement makes me sad, and a couple of the posts make me sad. I wish I didn't live in a society where everyone one was offended so easily. It is telling that a lot people here assume I mean to mock, even though I though it was clear I wanted to avoid that. But that is their problem, not mine.
I tend to see the half races being very simular to being on the autism spectrum (like myself) i.e. being "out of phase" with the society around them and have portrayed this in two of my favorite PFS characters, though never directly mentioning that I'm doing it. Both were fellow player favorites. Perhaps because of that I was considering this. So, no I haven't done Down Syndrome and only have known people slightly with the condition, but believe me I was starting to study it. The idea that I'd just go with "stereotypical ideas" wrong headed because my very asking is an indication that I hope to do it justice, which is a pretty good indication I'm trying to do just that. This has made me realize, that it is a big 'if' but even if I could pull it off, but is even more likely some people would assume the worst right off. So no, I will not be doing this character. But I'm not sure I like some of the reasons.
I, for awhile, have been thinking of creating a developmentally disabled character, perhaps having Down Snydrome and representing this by dumping Int. It would be possibly a Chosen One Paladin of Andoletta or a spiritualist whose spirit is his guardian/protector. In both cases, I'm thinking of making the familar and/or Spirit sometimes the senior partner in decision making. On the other hand, if handled badly, this character concept could be offensive. I wonder how others would handle such a character?
On the eleventh day of Critmas John Compton gave to me: Eleven Changelings changing Ten Vorpal Falchions Nine Daggers Stabbing, Eight Monks A-Flurrying, Seven Shifters Slaying, Six Quirky Boons, Fi-i-i-ive Quite Damp Friends, Four Bards Performing, Three Factions, Two Raging Orcs, An Archetype and Carnivorous Tree!
I've often thought being a half elf/orc would be a lot like having aspergers/autism and have played my characters as such. Being "out of sinch" with those around you would be isolating, encourage eccentric interests etc. I have thought of dumping Int on several characters and having their eidolon or familiar being their caretaker/brains of the operation.I designed a witch archetype for Wayfinder 17 around this concept. I also thought of making a chosen one paladin (you get a familiar) with down syndrome with this but have wondered if it would be taken wrongly. I also had a summoner idea of a Cheliaxian dissident who is mentally damaged and has a devil eidolon that spouts government propaganda.
I think contempt for Drizzt clones has reduced the number of Drizzt clones. That said, someone mentioned "good" vampires, good werewolves etc and it is a perfectly reasonable to dislike those concepts. If I mention Sparkly Vampires, I'm sure some of you shutter. It is not prejudice, it is not racist, or wrong, it's simply a matter of taste. I, for example, ignore many of the revised Pathfinder lore like good drow or Erastil
I've also been on the other side of this when someone at a PFS table tried to insist that my Kitsume's human form must be Tien ethnically. I frankly thought he was utterly full of bull droppings. But some one else may feel the same way about my opinion on the various revisions in Golarion, So I think no one should vilify anyone over this. What is the reality of the situation is that,if you're going to go against a negitively associated trope like with good drow, you had better realise you're going to have to work extra hard and put some real thinking into your character and if all you can come up with as to why your not evil is tru wuv, you may not be the person for that character.
My PC had died in the previous scenario, so she died and went to heaven, literally.
I had the luck to live in two communities large enough have a lot of GMs. I have met one GM who I've had a serious disagreement with along these lines and a few others who aren't as open as I think they should be. My solution is to avoid that one GM in the future and if there is a choice, go with the 'other' GM in the other cases.Part of the problem is nobody should shun a GM because "not open-minded enough". Is opposing two sides of the coin the best idea to move forward ? I don't think so. I don't shy of arguments as I won't always avoid the problem and actively doing so will only amplify these when forced to face it. I'm on the minority unpopularish opinion on that, but players and GMs alike can't retreat forever to their comfort zone. Disagreements are part of the game and I evolve only with facing what I don't like. In the group where I am, disagreements are common, but we can discuss of it later or not letting disrupt a game. Not that I have much choice either, the group isn't that big. Some disagreements are worth discussing and you can have a civil discussion. I'm all for that. There are also times where there doesn't need to be a conflict. In the case of the gm I choose not to play with, I don't vocalize my opinion. Part of this is thier rulings as a GM. But suffice it to say, I think we dislike each other. Why should I spend time with a person I dislike? As for "shunning", its more a matter of seeing two GMs setting up to play the same scenario. All other things being equal, shouldn't I play at the table where I think I'll have more fun? Is flexibility one of those factors I consider? Yes. I don't shun them, in fact one of those GMs is good friend. Sure, there might be another factor, like accommodating a new player or making allowing a married couple to play together, no problem. But all other things being equal, why shouldn't I play at the table I think I'll have more fun at! There is useful creativeness and negative creativeness. The former is when the GM can quickly think it's possible and reasonably successful, moving forward. The latter is... I think we're more in agreement than we think.
Anything which can't find into a 4 or 5-hour game slot (because this is the time scenarios should last except for some exceptions) can be eliminated, ditto for something which would add more work to the GM. Organized Play don't really need some chaos experiments. Part of the work as a GM is to realize that players can use creative solutions and your job is be reasonably accomodating, because it is literally in the rules under creative solutions. It is reasonable to say, "hey, is we have another two hours, we should move on" after 5 minutes of consideration that is going nowhere. It is unreasonable to say I'm going to take the time limit as an excuse not to take 2 minutes to try to understand your creative solution and take another 30 seconds to consider if it would reasonably work. I had the luck to live in two communities large enough have a lot of GMs. I have met one GM who I've had a serious disagreement with along these lines and a few others who aren't as open as I think they should be. My solution is to avoid that one GM in the future and if there is a choice, go with the 'other' GM in the other cases.
Oddly enough, my Whimsy Oracle and my Cleric of Groetus seem like naturals for this faction, and neither are 'elemental based'. The first is first worldly in origin (and including a first world adventure would be awesome) and the latter is all about balance between the elements because the end is always balanced.
I'm really getting burned on this as 5 characters of mine won't fit in any other faction. It's essentially character death for all of them. Why can't we lose one of the more boring factions? One one hand, to me the Scarab Sages is the boring faction that I never connected with and I've tried to do cool stuff all my factions (my low wisdom character joined the silver crusade because if you lied to a Paladin, they might be merciful). But at the same time, I get this because my beloved Shadow lodge character has never been played since that faction change.
Scenario: 3-18 Godsmarket Gamble
Me: Look, this is tramatic, but food will comfort you. Here, have a coupon for free BBQ at MARVs!
Scenario 5-09 The Traitors Lodge
Spoiler:
We are running through a maze being chased by Minotaurs and, due to fear effects, are separated. I see illusionary (unknown to me) soliders being chased by another minotaur. I run one way and then yell to the soliders "Guys, I this is the way out," In order to get soliders between me and the Minotaur. GM: That's not exactly good. Me: No, it's not. I then erase the "good" on my Neutral Good alignment on my sheet. (This was the same character, a 16 year old female, who spent an entire scenario refering to Erastil as "the old horney god".)
No, I don't think there are enough classes since there are still niches and concepts yet unexplored by the available classes. So I still care. It is just a matter of finding those niches and machanically constructing a class to fit them. I disagree with this. I think too many classes cover the same ground. Take the concept of a swashbuckler. To make one you can use the swashbuckler class. Or make a duelist or a Cavilier or figher or rogue with some kind of archetypes combos and come up with the same thing concept wise. You can make members of classes that play totally differently. For example, I have two old school Summoners (one retired). The first is the Combat Eidolon Type which got the class hated. The other, the Summoner counts on summons and when it's suggested the 12 int Eidolon should be fighting (she's very much a skilldolon) his reaction is "and endanger my wife and the mother of my children." I have a lotus geisha bard who worships Kurgess and is Golarion's first cheerleader. And she is not Tien and neither is my kitsume. I had a Vigilante before there were Vigilantes. So the idea that we need a million more classes to support new ideas is not one I agree with at all. And I think yes, there are probably too many. Skald is pointless. Spiritualist could be a Summoner/unchained archetype. Swashbuckler sucks and can be done already and I could definitely keep going, but the fact is, you can create pretty much anything you want. And if you're not new to the game, it's not my fault you don't use all your options or have bought into the mentality that what I just described is somehow reskinning. So yes, I don't usually pay more than passing attention to the newer classes.
|
