Kevin-Éric Bouchard's page

I might have to revise my "No third-party" rule, once my campaign is over of course. The binder is just THAT awesome.

I had thought of converting it myself, but you people might just save me a lot of work. Sign me up!

Going out with a bang!

Mummies with scrolls of explosive runes hidden in their bandages and a necklace of fireballs under the scrolls. Players kill the mummies and read the scrolls, set of the runes and the fire damage sets off all of the beads on the necklace.

You could also replace the necklace with a very obvious Helm of Brilliance. Watch as your players specifically NOT try to use fire, only for the mummy to self-destruct.

Want a good example of a paladin in a group with chaotic members, without being a pain in anyone's butt? Big-Ears, from the webcomic Goblins. Look it up. I have never seen a better example for a paladin.

I consider it proof that the paladin is fine. It's the PLAYERS that need to change.

The Eastern weapons from UC. They're the only thing I have completely banned from my game. Anything else that's core is fair game.

A player of mine wants to combine the Divine Hunter and the Holy Gun archetypes, but I wasn't sure if it was possible, since they both modify the Divine Bond class feature.

I'm thinking it's not possible, but I wasn't 100% sure, so I told him I'd check. Which is why I'm here, looking for a second opinion.

Dotted. I want to try my hand at this.

What's cool with this box is that even if you're not a beginner, you can get some use out of it.

I know I'll be buying it for the Flip-Mat, dice, pawns and extra sheets. Maybe I'll give the books to some cousins of mine... Or I could be greedy and keep it all...

Decisions, decisions...

Kobold cavalier on a velociraptor.

Run.

OH MY GOD I WANT TO PLAY THAT SO BAD

Ahem. It sounds pretty damn awesome.

Windquake wrote:

I am still trying to figure out how a Monk with an "Dancing" Amulet of Mighty Fists would work...

I think my brain just exploded.

O_o

The monk would normally full attack, and then his "dancing" leg would act separately allowing additional kicks.

No sane GM would allow it, of course :P

I would. It's hilarious!

I see it as the amulet animating the monks fists, while he uses FoB with his legs. That's a lot of attacks.

Do you get a bonus if you say: "IT'S ALIIIIIIIVE!", when playing a Reanimator?

I'll second Zappo's Eberron suggestion. I'll also add that if I recall correctly, it's in the original campaign setting for 3.5.

Whoops. That's what I get for skipping one too many posts in a topic.

I do not, however like the gunslinger very much, as it is for one very basic reason.

Gain

1. Quick draw.

2. At a reasonable level, no misfire chance.

3. Reloading as a free-action

4. Rapid fire mechanic similar to a monks flurry of blows that allows two weapon wielding with firearms only

5. A good Will save

Lose

1. He doesn't need medium armor.

2. Grit

3. Bravery

4. Make him 3/4 BaB

5. Gun training

I also mostly agree with this. I'd actually add one thing to the Gain part.

Instead of only getting Rapid Fire, why not have the gunslinger choose between a Sniper type and a Rapid-Fire type like the Ranger? Because to me, the Sniper who lines up a single deadly shot is a Gunslinger, too.

This may seem like a strange suggestion, but why not go for a sort of middle ground?

I'm talking about a sort of Touch CMD. You get an attack that targets CMD, but removes the Dexterity modifier, or the Strength modifier, depending on your opinion.

How about making guns more viable by making upgrade modules?

They could be made by anyone with the proper Craft skill, but the Gunslinger could get them for free, like alchemist discoveries.

That way, anyone with enough gold can get a good gun, but not only does the GS get free upgrades he made himself from a bunch of scraps, but he's also just plain old better at using guns.

Odentin, you have just made yourself my favorite poster on these forums. Congratulations, I love your ideas.

But I'm pretty sure I remember there being a mention that more powerful guns would be in UC. Like more than one barrel, and whatnot...

Though on the note of better guns there was mention of more guns/alternative rules that we'll be seeing in the final book made over in This Post by a designer. Why we're not seeing those in the play test I couldn't tell you...

Ah, there it is. In other words, ninja'd. In this case, this might be a bad pun...

In fairness to the Rogue, show me the Ninja that can disable Magic Traps. And it's not as though invisibility or greater invisibility is the sole province of Ninjas. A Rogue can get invisible in every combat with a caster buddy.

Of course, having said that, a single dip in Rogue lets a Ninja get Trapfinding and not needing a caster to help you out saves on the quite powerful actions and resources of the party casters.

Except that a Ninja can't multiclass into Rogue, since it's an alternate Rogue. It would be like taking Rogue twice just to double the first level benefits.

My setting is strange.

Another example of Evil working with good is in the Dragonlance series. Raistlin. I'm actually surprised he didn't get mentioned earlier.

I saw Raistlin as someone who sort of transcends the morality scale. Sure, he murdered Gnimsh, sent a bunch of dwarves and humans to their deaths. But, when he was wearing the Red Robes, he tended to the sick and dying. He sealed himself in the Abyss with Takhisis to prevent her coming back, and helped the other gods track down Krynn, later in the series.

But, yes, Raistlin would be a good source of inspiration for an evil character that doesn't screw over the party at every turn.

In Pathfinder, the minimum casting stat you need for a full caster is 15.

By using that minimum, I find that it makes a character more interesting, mechanically speaking. It sort of removes the "one-trick pony" feel by allowing the character to do something interesting besides their main power.

For example building a Gnome Sorcerer with 20 CON is absolutely hilarious. He can easily have 18 HP at level 1.

This is a relatively simple question, that I can't seem to be able to answer.

Let's take a Magus/Cleric, and then multiclass to Mystic Theurge, and crank it up to level 17. That gives us Cleric 3/Magus 4/Mystic Theurge 10.

Would Spell Synthesis work with Spell Combat? The concept is awesome, and maybe a tad strong, but would it work?

I use 15 point buy. It's the standard, and generally prevents Supercharacters. You still have access to a stat of 20, but it'll cost ya.

Damn. Ninja'd.

Am I the only one who thought of a Fighter making a 2-level dip in Alchemist?

I like the research journal idea. Logical and flavorful. The boosted spell list also makes sense.

However, giving access to all spells seems over the top. I can't remember where it was, but hogarth's suggestion was good. His suggestions was to give the Alkie access to certain shools, and/or spells with a range of self, I believe.

About the Alchemical focus. I like it, but there should be an option to take a more "universalist" route, and might I recommend an actual advantage for specializing? Like, a reduced required level for the discoveries of that route. As for the generalist, I can't think of anything.

Poison/Mutagen foci: I don't really know what to say, since I can't judge it's power. (Haven't played this game enough, and haven't playtested the Alkie, yet.)

That's about it. Overall, it's good.

I've just had a good idea for a breakthrough: Rockets. They're basically the same as a bomb, but self-propelled. You could make it so that any rocket you make trades off power for range.

A cool idea, but I'd say he should trade precision for range. I doubt one could make a very precise rocket.

Acording to "The Book Of Exalted Deeds" the difitive work on wtf is good in the 3.5 world, pathfinders dear... step brother?, states that:

"Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an
opponent. Of the poisons described in the Dungeon Master’s
Guide, only one is acceptable for good characters to use: oil of
taggit, which deals no damage but causes unconsciousness."
^pg 34.

However...

"the powers of good have their own answer to poison and disease:
ravages and afflictions, magical traumas that turn the moral corruption
of evil creatures into physical corruption that wracks
their bodies. Ravages and afflictions affect only evil creatures, and are particularly debilitating to evil outsiders—despite the immunity
to poison that is common among such creatures.
Ravages function in a manner similar to poisons, dealing ability damage or even ability drain when the target is exposed to them
through inhalation, injury, or ingestion, and additional
damage or other effects 1 minute after the initial exposure."
^pg 35

what these two blocks o text say is that poison, unless just knocking some one out, is bad. BUT specail poisons can be used on evil people. sooo in GENERAL poisons are evil but if used on evil people the 3.5 universe sees it as ok...

hipocritical yes... but thats how it was viewed in the 3.5 world and its what i go with as a DM/GM/StoryTeller

That only means that according to the Book of Exalted Deeds, Good characters are supposed to be pacifists. I can also quote from the Planetar entry of the Bestiary: " They focus on combat and the destruction of Evil; though they understand diplomacy, a planetar would rather lead the charge against an army of fiends rather than negotiate peace."

Good characters don't have to be pacifists. That's why they have "Smite Evil", instead of "Subdue Evil with non-lethal ways". I would accept a Good character using poison, if he used it responsibly, as stated above. That's one of the differences between Good & Evil, Poison Usage. Good will use it responsibly, Evil won't care.

EDIT: By the way, Merry Christmas.

Actually, wouldn't poison be considered Chaotic rather than Evil? It's a sneaky/disloyal maneuver, not an evil one. Sacrificing souls to power a weapon, that would be evil. Poison is just unethical, not immoral.

I would like to retract my name from the list. I won't have time to play. I'm sorry.

I think Jeremy is spot-on. The Inquisitor is fine AS IS, maybe a little fine-tuning on some of the abilities' power, but nothing other than that. The Solo Tactics makes perfect sense to me, as do the Judgments.

I wouldn't recommend that method. I don't think a lot of players would enjoy being forced around magically. What I would do is give them a demonstration of their fate should they attempt an escape.

The name of the ability is NOT Judgment of Purity, it's simply Judgment. It's the exact same thing as Smite, except it's more flexible. It's bonuses help you deal out Judgment to the heretics/monsters/whatevers.

Alright, I'll grant you that. But at the same time, Paladins do that. Paladins -are- the magical soldiers for their god. So why do we need two sets of magical soldiers, when we could have one church inspector and one magical soldier?

But, that's the thing. They were NOT going for a church inspector. They were going for a "Slayer"-type dude. If you don't like the name, change it. It says so in the Rulebook, if you don't like something, change it. Don't try to adapt the class to the name, adapt the name to the class.

I'll build a Barbarian/Cleric.

How about this: When the Cavalier uses his Challenge/Whatever you want to call it ability he gains the following: The Cavalier may perform (Dex score - 10, with a minimum of one) additional attacks of opportunity for X rounds per day/whatever duration and a scaling bonus to his BAB while he uses this ability, which stacks with Combat Reflexes. However, the Cavalier suffers a scaling penalty to AC. (This penalty scales a tad slower than the bonus mentioned earlier.) This would allow him to deal extra dmage to a single foe, deal with a few foes, or simply run interference to control the movement of a whole bunch of enemies.

If there is any room left, sign me up!

Alot of people are looking to be players. Me included. I'm GMing for my group, and feel like playing a character.

T'es dans quel coin? J'suis à Laval, donc, faut que je prenne le métro. Est-ce que t'autorises les classes du playtest du APG?

Seems cool to me. Nice work. This REALLY feels like a cavalier. Have you playtested it?

I've had a few of these ideas. Although, I try fit my ideas into one or two levels. (By the way, I use 15 point-build.)

Speedster:

Save meisterS (I have multiple builds for this):

Tank:

Skill monkey:

I'll edit if I think of anything else.

On first read I'm not enthusiastic about the Cavalier for a number of reasons...

I'm with the others and you can add +1 against the Cavaliers automatic flank during a challenge. Flanking opens up the cavalier for some serious pain for relatively little gain. Put a cavalier in a room with a 5th level warrior and his 4 3rd level rogue thugs and see just how fast the cavalier dies. One volley of attacks from the thugs shortswords could see the cavalier taking 12d6 damage before he's even reached his challenge.

In the first place, what is he doing ALONE against all these people? That's what party members are for, to take care of the things you can't handle.

If this was the intent then consider increasing the cavaliers HD to d12 and grant the class some form of damage reduction or increased armor class because most cavaliers will likely be trying to charge their opponents suffering AoO to reach their foe.

If it was their intent to make him suffer horribly for challenging, then I agree, he would need a little help on that side.

The Cavalier seems very skills and saves based on his other abilities but neglects his attack rolls, damage rolls and AC unless specifically dealing with a single foe per combat. while this is more relaxed than the paladins smite evil I get the feeling the cavalier misses the mark as a tank. I know its unrealistic to simply provide him with the abilities already outlined by other classes for fear of destroying their niche in the combat but what about granting the cavalier more specialised abilities like increased AC while using combat expertise or increased CMB? I could see a market for a warrior who compensates his lack of damage and AC by using abilities like sunder and disarm, The drawback of such attacks is the need to use them in place of an attack, why not give the cavalier the ability to disarm or sunder and do a follow up attack as an immediate action? this could also help the cavaliers weakness against sneak attacks if he could disarm those who threaten the flanks. At the end of the day a cavalier is likely to be in heavy armor and his movement around the battlefield restricted unless he is mounted. This should be reflected in his abilities to soak up damage instead of trying to avoid it.

I don't see much difference in damage output between the Fighter and the Cavalier. Between the Paladin and the Cavalier, maybe. But, the Cavalier compensates with versatility of usage. He can use it against a Neutral enemy. The Paladin cannot.

The Cavalier has a lot of abilities that require him to be mounted. In many situations a mount is not of use in a campaign. most typical dungeons, city based adventures and the like will not see the use of a mount. However, this does make him the only viable mounted build granting him bonuses beyond other typical mounted characters such as the paladin. I posted a modification to the knight class that took the rangers fighting style approach. This gave the knight the choice of being a mounted specialist or a foot infantry specialist. The same doesn't fit too well with the cavaliers name but at least it provides more options within the class especially if the campaign might restrict one or the other. You have done the same with the paladins mount by adding a boned weapon and with the wizard/sorcerer familiars and druids animal companion/domain specialisation.

You don't have to take a horse. In fact, at level 4, you can take a wolf or a boar if you are Medium sized. Level 1 if Small.

I don't have a problem with the mounted angle of the cavalier but I find it very restrictive and stereotypical. The attention leans more in favor of a prestige class... Let me elaborate on why;

I can see a fighter paladin or ranger taking on the mounted combat angle and multi-classing into a cavalier to gain those benefits but I could not see a cavalier multi-classing away from the goal of the class to pick up abilities from another class more easily.
Also its easy to consider a prestige class for a fighter ranger or paladin but what about a cavalier themed prestige class? short of specialising in a specific mount a cavalier will lose everything his core class has in favor of existing prestige classes like the eldritch knight? This makes the cavalier a one trip pony in my eyes and short of race, oath and order differences every cavalier will likely play out the same.

He doesn't always have to be mounted. In fact, with the feats the mount gets, you could make it a frontline fighter that can double as a mount. Give it things like Armor proficiencies, and some of the feats from the Bestiary.

The Demanding challenge ability: Most Cavaliers will use a lance or a spear of some sort that will provide them with range, while still maintaining their opponent in melee.

The Bonus feats make sense, in my opinion. It helps differentiate Cavaliers, even within their Order.

I agree with the rest, though.

Dragonlance campaign, all level 2:

Human ranger (Ranged specialist)
Elven Sorcerer/Fighter (Dip in Sorcerer, then a few fighter levels, and going for duelist after that.)
Human Wizard (Hasn't decided his specialty yet, or his allegiance. I haven't finished building the characters.)

Why doesn't anybody want the Tome of Magic/Magic of Incarnum classes?!?

You can also make the Eldritch Knight into the ranged specialist. Swap that sword for a bow, and there you go! (Hey, it rhymes!) For some extra weirdness, swap those Fighter levels for Barbarian levels!

OR they could have just said that to see which rule they SHOULD preview, based on what you people said. In other words, they might be letting us decide. Then again, maybe not.

I will have to change Focused attack for Weapon Focus, since it's one of the prereqs, I'll grab Sense Motive next level, and I'll probable add the Hunted trait to my sheet.

Here's my character. These are basic stats. For the rest, I have the books.

I can only hope my FLGS ordered some...

Is a Tiefling Paladin OK?