I've been working on a monstrous PC / NPC (Vexgit Trapper Ranger) for a game, but would like some assistance with "Level Adjustments", ability scores, saves, etc...
So far, I've been referencing the Beastiary entry for Fey creatures (p.308). Good saves: Ref and Will, D6 HD, 6 + Int skill points per HD, an array of class skills, etc.
---Questions---
-As PF doesn't have level adjustments anymore, would a CR 1 Vexgit be a CR 6 PC / NPC if I give him 5 levels of ranger? Or does the Vexgit count as a "no racial HD" creature and he'll be 5th level / CR 5?
-If I give him class levels, would I apply his good saves? Or start at 0 then add base saves from classes like a default PC?
-Would I use both the fey and ranger class skills lists? Racial skill points?
-As a Vexgit has only their single D6 normally, would I just replace all of my HD with ranger HD?
-How do I figure ability scores? There used to by a system for determining a creature's racial ability scores using its existing scores. Is this still viable or is there some hidden PF version I haven't seen?
-The Vexgit has 3 feats. Would this PC / NPC have bonus feats? Or are these automatic feats similar to bonus feats granted by class features?
I prefer to build such PCs / NPCs as within the rules as possible, but I can't seem to find a simple, codified way to build monstrous PCs without dipping into the "DM discretionary" trap that I'm trying to avoid.
I feel like I'm overlooking something simple, but any assistance would be welcome...
The deepwood sniper has been my favorite prestige class since I first started playing 3.0.
Personally, I wouldn't change anything about the class. Though it is easier to qualify in PF, the DWS is over specialized. That is both what draws me to the class and what keeps it balanced in my opinion...
I was unaware you could do a called shot to a bow string as part of a sunder.
That's exactly the point. Normally, you can't.
Lokius wrote:
...It is only a move action to restring a bow anyway or free is you have quick draw as bows are not kept strung so the assumption is you string the bow as you draw it. Of course you have to have spare bowstrings.
While all of my bow wielding characters do carry spare bow strings, it due more to my being attentive to detail and realism vs. the off chance that my string is somehow cut. Also, I can assure you that a bow is normally carried strung if there's even a remote chance that one will have to use it. Stringing a bow is not such a simple task that you would perform this after combat begins.
My typical observation of alignment rejection is that people want to modify their characters' beliefs situationally. That, of course, is what alignment is meant to prevent, so I admittedly lack empathy.
I agree completely. I've had players perform X action then conveniently be Y alignment when it suits them. And should I call them on it, they become defensive and throw the entire session off kilter.
To quote Kaftorim:
Kaftorim wrote:
They're too limiting and they don't tell you enough about your character to be a useful roleplaying tool because they are abstract and there are too few of them.
So is the system too limiting or not limiting enough? More options/a 3rd axis would do nothing but pigeon-hole a character and not give them room to flex their morality muscles. More = less.
The alignment system is simple because it covers everything. It doesn't matter who or what a character is, they WILL fit within the given system. Any finer details, be they: virtues, vices, traits, or personality quirks all fall under role-playing.
As a side note, I will admit that I liked the 4th ed Unaligned option. I felt that it provided a suitable "easy button" for those who simply don't care about anyone but themselves or are unwilling to fully explore their character's morality.
TL;DR - I like the alignment system as is and I feel that most complaints against it are the result of laziness/an inability to adapt.
Honestly, I wish there was a system to incorporate both. In 4th ed, a new mechanic was added: passive skills. Perception and Insight IIRC. Skills that are constantly used, but not always focused on.
I think saves/defences should work in a similar fashion. Active and passive. If you're aware of the incoming spell/effect/attack, then IMO you should have a better chance of avoiding/enduring/resisting. If you're not aware, then the attacker should have an advantage.
The current system leans towards an active defence as you have to actively roll. For passive saves, just add 10 to your saves and that's it. Think of it like "taking 10."
Yes, there's about a teaspoon more work involved, but it adds depth to the game in both mechanics and imersion.
Where are people getting the idea that shields are strapped to the arm? At best, there is a leather strap/band that loosely fits around the forearm and helps keep the shield upright/positioned where it is needed while a handle/grip provide the actual control.
Reading the above posts, everyone here seems to think all shields come equipped with cargo straps or are bolted to the arm and are all but impossible to remove against the will of the carrier.
Shields were/are encumbering and heavy. Many times, a shield would only be kept in hand long enough to deflect one or two blows before being dropped to take advantage of an opening. Drop the shield = move faster = possible telling blow.
Bucklers are something of a different story, but you might as well argue for whether or not helmets count towards AC.
My preferred build has always been an archer and I don't like the spell any more than you, but the spell is pretty cut and dry. It doesn't list any sort of specifications beyond "a mobile cylinder" and it states that any arrow or bolt will be deflected upward as per Windwall.
However, isn't there a spell/magic enhancement for ranged weapons that allows them to phase through solid objects? It might be from an older edition, but were I the DM in such a situation, I would allow such an attack through.
"A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn."
I don't see why one couldn't just stand there, delaying their actions or just not acting period, and still allocate the defending bonus. Tactically, it is a poor decision, but it is still allowed. Aelryinth, you make it seem like that is impossible. Can you cite examples/rules supporting the your posts?
Heymitch wrote:
So, an evil character could lug around a Sword with the Holy weapon quality on it all day long, swinging it to and fro, and not lose a level (because he didn't attack someone with it and therefore wasn't wielding it)?!?
Carry, yes. As in sheathed, in a backpack, bag of holding, etc... Weapon drawn, no.
That is, mechanically, the only difference between carried and wielded. Unless you want to bring weapon proficiencies in on this as well, but those don't matter in this case due to improvised weapon penalties.
If I am holding an object in my hand, how am I not wielding it? It could be a book, a stapler, a +1 Flaming Sword, or a grapefruit; illregardless, I am wielding it. Even an encumbering box of grapefruits could be considered a wielded object. Can you attack with it? Yes. Effectively, probably not.
Barring class features, feats, or other specific effects; posture, stance, and weapon/hand placement are as irrelevant as the color of the object.
Player: Is it a stick?
DM: Yes.
Player: Cool. Can I hit something with it?
DM: Yes.
Player: Cool. If I hold it at my side or over my head is there a difference?
DM: No, it is still a stick and you can still hit things with it.
Sounds like an interesting PC. Zen Archer instantly became my favorite class/arch type, as I used to play a ranger with the old Zen Archery feat.
As for the composite longbow / Str issue, have you seen the Efficient Pull feat? It allows you to treat your Str score as 2 points higher with regards to using composite bows.
It was in the large archery article in Dragon #349, along with several other useful bits. Bow/crossbows, feats, arrows/bolts, etc...
I was wondering if anyone had any advice for a lv 5 kobold bard's (savage skald) spell selection. He is part of a 2 PC party with a goblin breaker barbarian. They are primarily treasure hunters so I'm trying to focus on utility.
His Cha score awards him an extra lv 1 and lv 2 spell. So far, the only solid choice I have made was invisibility.
In my first Pathfinder game, I played a desert Nezumi (converted from Oriental Adventures) Cavalier/Ashworm Dragoon (Sandstorm) who rode an Ashworm (Sandstorm).
A good backstory, character depth, and (to me) new mechanics offered a PC that was a lot of fun to play. Both in RP and in combat, he was a solid PC. One of my favorites...
Unfortunately, his high AC, mobility, and damage output took our DM by surprise. So much so that she rail-roaded the party and forcefully separated my mount and I via planar portal trap. No saves were offered, no forwarning given, no chance to react.
In the following session, she realized how telling of a blow it was.
My friend and I are artists and usually draw our characters, but I also play wargames and love to convert miniatures. If I come up with a character I like well enough, I buy and convert a suitable mini for him/her/it.
Here is one of my more elaborate conversions... Sadly the picture quality leaves something to be desired.
Zen Archer Monk. A monk based archtype of my favorite 3.x feat. The multitude of abilities, bonus feats, and class features are just icing on the cake...
Medusa kill with a Look. theres' more than skin color and 'ugly' going on there.
Unless done out of malice, I'm pretty sure that a medusa's gaze isn't evil in and of itself. It's not her fault that she's a medusa and she has a gaze attack.
Good characters care about the methods used to obtain those results as well. In other words, the farther you get from evil, the higher standards of conduct you expect with respect to the mayhem you cause and/or prevent. This is why being good is a challenge.
It's more difficult to be good. If players don't want alignments or actual consequenses for their actions (heaven forbid), go play one of the hundreds of video games that rewards evil actions.
Fallout 3 for example: "Oh yeah, I totally nuked Megaton, but I did enough good deeds afterwards to warrent my title as wasteland savior despite my complete lack of remorse. Would I do it again? Heck yeah! Explosions are pretty."
Were I the DM with said monk/situation, I would have asked for an explanation of the monk's "thought process" the second he attacked the helpless non-combatant. But, as the OP already noted; even a full round after the attack, he didn't have a justification. Only a reserved hesitation and a pathetic attempt to save face after he realised what he had done.
Without just cause or explanation, as was the case here, I would have immediately forced an alignment change and generated further consequences down the road for this so called "monk".
It may be the "norm" nowadays to simply execute anything that is a percieved threat, but that's not how things work. Those that think otherwise are fools and should, by the same logic, be executed as threats because they don't know how to differentiate combatants from non-combatants.
I have a player who wants to have the spells gravity Bow and Lead Blades made permanent. He also asked to have lead Blades made permanent on another PC. What would you say?
regards,
Patrick
For an upcoming game, I've a character that has a continuous Gravity Bow ring. Not all too expensive too make either.
Due to how Permanency is worded, I wouldn't allow it. Magic items, however...
Light or no armor build. Looking for something that gets good damage, has some decent AC, and maybe some disarm.
Advice on a build?
If you are only looking for damage and AC bonuses, then I'd recommend either a STR/DEX Ranger or Fighter. They both have the BAB, while the fighter has more feats, the ranger has two weapon fighting (geared for her claws). Then take feats like Dodge, Mobility, perhaps even Combat Expertise if she has the INT requirement.
I'd double check the class variants in the APG just in case there was a specific variant that fit the bill.
If base speed is interpreted as the creature's natural movement, then what about an Ashworm? Both its land speed and burrow speed are 30'.
If I give an Ashworm a cosmetically modified set of Horseshoes of Speed, should I only increase the Ashworm's land speed? Or should I increase its burrow speed as well?
Given the equal speeds, I would say yes. I'm only looking for an outside opinion.
I believe I am the first to roger up for the Seeker. ^ ^
My personal favorite character is a Dragonborn Seeker who has multiclassed to Assassin for the Venomed Soul paragon. The Seeker's array of poisonous powers mesh well with the Assassin's class specific feats.
While I understand why save or die effects are so rare in 4th ED, I do not agree with the above listed review. I miss them, in fact.
Personally, I don't believe that anybody should be able to shrug off harmful effects as easily as they can in 4th ED. The poisons and effects detailed in Deadly Toxins are just what 4th ED needs. PCs should have more to worry about than a meager save ends "flip of the coin."
Poisons are lethal. Period. I've had worse cases of food poisoning than what I've seen PCs deal with while under the effects of 4th ED's so called "poisons."
While it may be anti-climactic for a mighty hero to fall to a lv 1 commoner who managed to spike his ale, it is painfully realistic and adds a much needed level of depth to fantasy.
Back when I started playing 4th ED, I didn't like the child friendly approach used for negative ongoing effects and experimented with variant poison effects. My final version equating to a single saving throw when the poison is first encountered, then a set number of HP drained away over a set number of rounds. Once the poison's duration was over, the victim stopped losing HP. More potent poisons would last longer, drain more HP each round, or both, depending.
I'd agree that grafts are used to draw the recipient closer to another type of creature. But at the same time, what makes this situation any different than a transplant?
If the subject wasn't a nercropolitan or other naturally healing undead, then I wouldn't allow it as a DM. But that's what makes sense to me...
Page 79 of the Libris Mortis states that undead grafts are applied to still-living subjects. The only specific requirement about being alive is mentioned under the Graft Flesh feat (Libris Mortis p.27). It states: "...other living creatures or yourself."
Thus my question: Could an undead self-apply an undead graft?
If not, would being a necropolitan (Libris Mortis p. 114) change things? Seeing as necropolitans heal naturally as living creatures do.
Thanks the David, but I've decided to add on the swarm-shifter (tomb dust) template and simply have him pretend to be a lich.
Although this does pose a new question. The Libris Mortis doesn't specify what to base the DC of an undead swarm's distraction on.
Standard swarms' distraction abilities are CON based, but nothing is mentioned about undead swarms and their lack of CON score.
Looking over the example swarm-shifter, the DC appears to be CHA based. I've seen several other undead abilities based off CHA as well, so I am lead to believe this is correct. Thoughts?
It's not that I am against warforged PCs, it's just that they are not what he wants. He wants a half-golem. Not just something with a half-golem feel/look to it.
The PC my friend is making was a wizard who was quite literally made into a half-golem against his will. This all goes into his back story and motivations obviously, but he developed the character concept from reading the template's flavor.
And he's a pretty loyal human player, so alternate base races aren't even an issue.
As for the custom feat, requiring the original casting stat to be 13 sounds good. It's simple and doesn't do anything that hasn't already been done.
I haven't really had a chance to discuss this with my friend, but I think he's okay with making the PC a cleric.
If we were to go through with the variant wizard concept though, I believe that Viletta hit the nail on the head.
Something similar to Zen Archery or the Ancestral Knowledge feat that Viletta mentioned would be perfect. Any thoughts on creating such a feat? Prerequisites? Possible drawbacks?
Lazarx wrote:
Are you looking to make a caster who's mostly made of metal? Then go warforged. Are you looking to cheesemonkey strength as a casting stat... go look for a supportive DM.
No, my friend is looking to make a half-golem caster. Not iron man with a wand.
And no, LazarX, we are not trying to make a STR caster. Most threads are objective based and reading the thread prior to posting helps everyone achieve this.
I can see how being undead would scuttle the lich template.
As a PC, I wouldn't even ask for a phylactery unless the DM brought it up. But as for a NPC, I'd really like to figure someting out...
Might just have to go with a permanent Contingency item or something...
Yasha0006 wrote:
However, I think if you were to allow the Template to be added (which I would encourage), you should adjust it slightly. Simply by the process this NPC has gone through, to me, feels like a slightly flawed method.
Well, the character is crazy. Literally. But these templates fit the character much better than just slapping the base lich template on. Perhaps I should try and create a template to turn an intelligent undead into a lich. Hmm...
I've recently dusted off several of my older characters and campaign notes and ran across an old necromancer I had never quite finished and would like to give a new coat of polish...
Basically, he is meant to be a BBEG for a campaign, but could also easily double as an evil PC. ^ ^
He's a Nezumi cleric who has taken on the Necropolitan and Spell-Stitched templates in a desperate attempt to become a lich.
My primary questions are concerning lich'dom and the phylactery mechanics...
The MM says that to become a lich you must simply be a powerful enough caster and create your own phylactery. (It also gives the requirements of creating a phylactery, but the entry makes it sound like it only works for a lich)
So... if an already undead caster were to do this?
Could he become a lich? Is it even possible?
If an intelligent undead were to make their own phylactery, does it function as it does for a lich? Or is the 1d10 day re-spawn a lich exclusive perk?
My overall goal is to dodge the +4 lv adjustment while acquiring the lich's ability to re-spawn.
My friend and I ask because he had a half-golem wizard concept in mind, but the half-golem's template is packing some hefty ability adjustments. Our focus is the -6 to Int.
Neither of us are against simply house-ruling a solution, but I find in-game rulings to be easier to work with.
As for using an alternate class, I had suggested cleric to him. But given the desired feel of his character concept, I don't think cleric quite measures up.
And thanks for the quick response Fatespinner. ^ ^
It's been some time since I've been to Paizo, but I my friend and I have a quick question...
Is there any existing way for a wizard or sorcerer to use their Wis score for spell casting instead of their Int? Feat? Variant rule? Prestige class? Etc...
I guess I should note that I am not the DM; but I do swap with the Dm from time to time. So I guess I'm looking at this from both player and DM perspectives.
I like the idea of treating the lycanthropy as more of a paragon path as Ken Marable suggested. And Evil Genius has a good idea about using a feat to "open up" the disease's later abilities.
Perhaps it would be best to use a mix of feats and powers? For example, once a PC has taken said feat, he must choose a lycanthropic encounter attack power and/or daily power instead of his class/paragon choices. Maybe even change the ability bonuses gained from leveling?
Great posts everyone! Please keep them coming. ^ ^
I guess I'm coming from the opposing camp here, but I actually like multiclassing. And, over the years, I've purchased several books purely because of the new class/prestiege class options available.
Several of you have complained that they should have spent more effort on creating adventures instead of new classes. I for one, am happy with how they did things.
My single favorite aspect of D&D is vast library of options available to create a character. I've always loved customizing my game, so the two mesh wonderfully.
Also, my group and I always homebrews our games. We've never run a premade adventure (I've tried once. 2 pages into it, I simply couldn't work with it anymore. Sorry Pathfinder).
Were Wizards to have released their products with premade adventures as their forte, instead of PC options; I highly doubt that I'd still be playing. The same goes for most anyone in my group.
If using two shields, any special abilities on those shields, you get, but the AC (whether base or enhanced) does not stack. You take the highest.
I figured as much. Thanks for clarifying.
FAQ wrote:
Can a character make a shield bash attack using the shield as a primary weapon or can it be used only as an offhand weapon?
While the rules describe a shield bash as an off-hand weapon, that’s simply an assumption (that your primary hand is holding a weapon). There’s nothing stopping you from declaring your shield bash as your primary weapon. Of course, that means that any attack you make with your other hand becomes a secondary weapon.
That makes sense. Thanks again. ^ ^
Now that I know all of this, what does everyone think a workable feat that let you stack the shield bonuses would be like?
What I have so far...
Two Shields as One
[General, Fighter]
You have learned to protect yourself better by carrying a shield in each hand.
Prerequisite: Proficiency with shields, Two Weapon Fighting, BAB +1
Benefit: If you fight defensively or take a total defense action while weilding two shields, both shield bonuses apply to your AC until the beginning of your next turn. Magical enhancements do not stack.
Is this a good starting point? I may switch out the Two Weapon Fighting, but it seemed appropriate.
I'm sorry, but you need to work on your sentence structure a little; I could barely read your post...
*larger quotes spoiler'd
Spoiler:
Endier1 wrote:
I think that character has the shield bonus from his tower shield on his off-hand and attack with spiked shield with full str bonus (right hand) with a -2 on attack due the tower shield.
He strikes with heavy shield (as he could strike with a long sword) and he blocks with tower shield (as he would with a long sword in the other hand too).
You are correct that he uses the two shields like one would use two swords, but as per the PHB, any shield bash attack is done as though with an off-hand. This fact alone makes the PC use .5 of his STR bonus and suffer a -10 on any bash attacks, regardless of what he might be holding in his other hand or which hand he is actually using to attack with.
Endier1 wrote:
Isn't neccesary the feats to attack this way.
Wha? Do you mean that he doesn't need Two Weapon Fighting? Or some other feat?
Yes, he doesn't need any feats to do this, but the severity of the penalties makes this sort of PC worthless going by the PHB.
Spoiler:
Endier1 wrote:
And, of course, he doesn't gains twice the shield bonus beacuse they not stacking similar to not staking the armor bonus of a chain armor and a protection brazers.
If he wants to use this feats, he must take with the tower shield, but it doesn't let attack with him per SRD rules.
I know the rules don't allow for stacking shield bonuses. That's my question. Is there a feat or rule somewhere that would allow it? Or perhaps a feat that allows one to make bash attacks that AREN'T off hand attacks?
Spoiler:
Endier1 wrote:
That I don't know (I have a lot of discussions with my players about it and never someone has answered to me) if the armor penalty of both shield should pply to his skills or only the wrost (as per armor+shield vs baggage)
Were I to use the AC bonus from both shields, I would also stack the check penalties. It's the same as check penalties from both armor and shields stacking. I saw this as a given...
There are some feats or is a fighting style in "The Complete Guide to Drow" either the one from Mongoose Press, Malhavoc Press, or Natural 20 Press. Natural 20 I think. I forget which, there are like 6 books with that title. It allows your AC to benefit from both shields and has the pc using the shields in loo of weapons. I don't think it has a racial prerequisite. I think there is also a feat in "Complete Warrior."
Can't say I've ever heard of those books. I was looking through the Complete Warrior before, but I don't recall there being any note of shields and this type of use. I'll check again though.
As for the tower shield being too large, that wasn't the issue. My aim if for this PC to use his "smaller" spiked shield as his weapon without such extreme penalties and gain some benifit from using two shields.
What if I want to carry a tower shield and a spiked heavy shield, using the spiked shield to bash? Is there any way to stack the shield bonuses?
From what I gather, I only get the tower shield's bonus. But beyond that, when you make bash attacks with a shield, the books only list it as an off-hand attack, regardless if the bashing shield is in your dominant hand.
The PC so far...
1st level Dwarf Fighter carrying a tower shield, a heavy spiked shield, and has the feats: Improved Shield Bash, Heavy Shield Specialization, and Shield Snare. (I use flaws, thus the extra feats)
From what I understand, this PC would only get the shield bonus from his tower shield, suffer a -2 on attacks due to the tower shield, only apply .5 of his STR bonus to the attacks AND suffer a further -10 pentalty to the attack due to bashes only being "off-hand." (had he Two Weapon Fighting this second attack penalty would only be -4)
Rules or not, this simply cannot be right.
Has anyone ever worked with/around this issue before?
The reason why swimming to the bottom of a pool doesn't crush you is because most pools are not deep enough to produce any bars of pressure.
1 bar = atmospheric pressure at sea level. At 10 meters below water however, you are at 2 bar, 20 meters = 3 bar, and so on. Eventually, there will be enough pressure to crush you, but that is VERY deep.
Also, you are looking at it wrong. If a pool of water were to suddenly land on you out of the blue, yes, it would crush you. However, you asked why swimming in it doesn't crush you.
The same goes for this pudding. Were you to swim into it (NOT recommended), you'd be fine (relatively speaking), but were it to suddenly manifest above you and fall on you... Yeah.
As for it being in a building/castle... That depends on how thick it keeps itself vs how far it spreads itself out and the general structure itself.
I would like to add that Libris Mortis is arguably my favorite supplement. It is a great book and perfect for making undead characters. You won't be disappointed.
It's certainly turning out that way. So far, I'm loving the book, and I don't even have one yet. ^ ^
As for the PC, I've ruled that he'll use the Necropolitan and Spell-Stitched templates. Being a cleric, his WIS is maxed, and thus allows him acces to more spells through his Spell-Stitched template.
I now have more questions though.
Being undead as he is, would he be able to cast Gentle Repose on himself? Or does that violate some rule about spells I don't know (I am far from being the guru on spell-casters. My forte is ranged combat)
Also, I'm still stuck in the mud with his domains. Death/Necromancy/Undead are all jockying for the first domain, but I'm really wanting Travel to be his second.
From my understanding of the domains, being chaotic evil makes this impossible. The chart on page 32 of the PHB lists Travel as a neutral domain, so would making this PC neutral evil work? I think it does, but I'd like a second opinion.
You do make some points here. I am going to add some basic low-light vision and darkvision. Low-light at 1st, and darkvision at 5th. What do you think of that.
Such abilities fit the feel of the class very well. This could be expanded further by allowing vision in magical darkness at a higher level. Just a thought.
I still have my complaints about the class though, as your repost of the class didn't seem to have any real changes aside from flavor/background.
As for nasty undead abilities, you really do need to get your paws on a Libris Mortis and look into the Corpsecrafter line of feats. You can make undead explode with negative energy when destroyed!
Holy, er... Unholy snap!
I just looked into those feats. Absolutely perfect for this PC. Awesome reference Saern. (^.^)b *Kuro thumbs up*
(And yes, I fully plan on getting a Libris Mortis when I get home from deployment. Sounds like a supurb reference.)
Oh, and I found Command Undead. Strange that it's not on the cleric spell list. Then again, it's probably a domain spell. Nevermind. >.<
I could see this kind of situation developing quite comedicly (sp?).
PCs enter into the forge, fire elementals explain their perdicament. Immortal + trapped in a small room + nothing to do = bad day, er... century (or two).
Personally, I'd be thankful. But that is also coming from my HDAD nezumi gray matter and frequent bordom. >.>;;
Were I an elemental, time and its passing might be totally different. Who knows, they may be able to shut out the passing of time entirely. If so, one could RP the elementals to simply be curious as to why the dwarves are gone or why the forge is suddenly in such poor condition...
I'll take a look at those, Timespike. Thanks for the reference. ^ ^
I did see Undead Leadership, but my source isn't perfectly clear on how it works (I don't have the Libris Mortis sadly). Do mindless undead count as followers? Or do they have to be intelligent undead?
Saern wrote:
Try looking in Libris Mortis; it has the half-vampire template, which is a pretty low LA. It also has the summon undead spells. I would also like to direct your attention toward control undead in the PHB. It's a second level spell that gives you control over any undead you cast it on, with a duration of 1 day/level. I know it works differently based on whether the target is intelligent or not; I believe that non-intelligent undead (skeletons, zombies) don't get a save. This is a great option for giving a necromancer some undead minions before he actually has access to animate dead.
Not sure what to do for the planeswalking aspect, though.
I'm still not 100% set on what template I want to use, but half-vampire is on the list for sure. The +0 LA of the Necropolitan is pretty tempting though.
So there ARE summon undead spells. Sweet. When I read that, I dug around a lil' bit and found some quick break-downs which will work for now. Thanks. ^ ^ I just need to get a Libris Mortis... It'd make this so much easier.
Control Undead at 2nd level? I'm finding it as 6/7th level. o.O? Different name/book perhaps?
As for the planeswalking, I'm actually at a crossroads. The travel domain is perfect, but it doesn't seem like a chaotic evil cleric could have it. I might be able to swing this PC to Neutral Evil, but even then I'm not for sure. Is there any way I can just pick 2 domains without regard to alignment?
Thanks for all of the help guys. ^ ^ I have yet another question though. What are some duely diabolical and/or dastardly (that's alot of d's!) spells for enhancing/augmenting a PC's undead minions? My aim being for his undead to not just be obvious physical threats, but to also carry disease/some other form of general-not-wellness.
