Mino's page

Just remember that being "evil" desn't mean not having feeling or affections. An evil character is perfectly capable of express love or friendship, if only for the simple egoistical fact that it makes them feel better or they find something funny ecc. ecc.

In short, just remeber that
Evil characters can still have friends.

This. People always seem to see "evil" and immediately assume "sociopathic douchebag". You can be evil and still be likable. You can be even be heroic.

My favorite evil character was a NE wizard. He had no moals whatsoever, though he found it distasteful if people harmed children, except in the pursuit of SCIENCE! (He was that kind of guy). He was still friends with the party and even later fell in love with the NG druid. He greatly admired her, because she was kind and cared about everyone, which was something he could never do. He liked that. He still thought she was a fool because of it, but that didn't change anything. He eventually did great deeds and fought a great number of foes as vile as he was, some for decidedly petty reasons. (To paraphrase: "You killed quite a number of people. Some of which I liked."
He was pleasant, funny, loyal and trustworthy to a fault and if you crossed him he would brutally torture you and everything you liked to death over a number of weeks.

Personally, I would roll three times and take the middle result, but, yeah, just having them cancel each other out seems to be the easiest option.

B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I also wouldn't them being able to get rid of the invaders by planning a successful rebellion later on unless some special once in a life time leader was born.

A great bard once wrote:

Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.

^And it's an innuendo.^

Just a reminder a hero can arise from unlikely circumstances. Also it seems Golarion Orcs are really hard to pacify

What I was saying was that someone had to be born who could make it happen. So my statement is still true.

Imagine trying to rule a kindergarden. You are clearly smarter than every single one of your INT 7 (or less) "subjects" but I would still deem it impossible.

Huh. In all my games we just take max at first level and the straight roll beyond that. It seems to work just fine.

So, I guess Oracle it is, especially since we already have a ninja-type.

What Mysteries would you recommend? Lore, Lunar or Nature all have that nice Cha to AC revelation, but Nature doesn't fit the character at all and I don't really need an animal companion...

What else is there that would fit?

Thanks for all the replies.

It's not a published module or anything, and more an unbiased evil thing at that. (Though, from what I gather, slightly more versus other evil; "Stop trying to destroy the world I'm trying to rule, you fool!"; That kind of thing)

From what I gather, Athaleon seems to be correct and the BAB from Antipaladin would be wasted in Eidolon form. So I would only really be getting the higher hd and divine grace. Hmmm.

I shall look into slayer, and some more into the available mysteries.

I just found out our evil game next week will be a gestalt game, so the synthesist I had planned will need to be revised. I'm totally stumped right now, so I'll ask you: What could/should I pair with that?

For info: it will be a exclusively lawful evil game (Asmodeus centric, if that helps), likely a generous point buy, though jet to be decided. Race has to be half-elf. Tha game will feature espionage, diplomacy and combat equally heavy so I will need at least some skills for that.

Right now I'm thinking Inquisitor might be fitting, though I have no idea in terms of domain or inquisiton. Also I just had one in another game, so something different might be nice. Some kind of oracle maybe? Both classes would be Cha heavy so that fits...

I would be really grateful for your ideas and thoughts as to what to do with this character.

Faeries in general should be lawful purple (or in Toot's case lawful pizza). They don't really have a place on the good-evil scale but the bound-by-their-word, unable-to-lie thing is the core of the whole fae paradigm. So I guess LN would be most fitting.

The ring of wizardry is almost prohibitivly expensive. For the price of a level 1 ring you could get ten level 1 runestones...

A Folding Boat. Nothing like throwing a box at someone, just to watch it transform into a ship midway ;)

Damn, I knew I missed something... ;)

Mino wrote:

Most people here probably wouldn't be against rolling if they had rolled three 18s...

Actually, I got very nearly that on the last Pathfinder character I rolled. I still hate rolling for stats, because my problem with rolling isn't my character being potentially too weak, it's the characters not being balanced with each other, which I hate in a game system and strive to minimize.

Mino wrote:

Its is a greater challange to build and play a character this way. It's why you roll in the first place.

Yeah...that's not fun for me at all, either.

Oh, I agree. Which is why we seldom roll for stats (and when we roll, everyone uses the same set).

Putting a 4 in con isn't trying to get you killed it is just playing with the rolls you have been given.

A 4 in any stat will gimp you so it is just a trade off between survivability or competence.

As long as you don't have a way to replace Con with something else, it is. A 4 Con means 0.5 to 3.5 HP on average at first level. That is not a character, that's a punchline.

A 4 in Cha definitely won't gimp an Inquisitor.

So many options to use Wis instead of Cha for dem skills mang.

Actually, all those are in addition to Cha, not instead. So you will still have that -3 penalty. :(

First agreeing to roll for stats and than making a character that will die immediately ON PURPOSE because your rolls dind't agree with you feels dishonest to me. Frankly, if you do not want to do random roll you should say so before you roll.
Most people here probably wouldn't be against rolling if they had rolled three 18s...

Its is a greater challange to build and play a character this way. It's why you roll in the first place.

Mino wrote:

It obviously depends strongly on the class you will play, though a 4 will hurt a lot, no matter where. Personally, I would do a Lore Oracle, with Sidestep Secret and Noble Scion (War), put the 4 in Dex an the 17 in Cha. The only thing aside from skills you use Dex for will be your CMD, which I think would be alright as a primary caster.

Would also gimp his initiative. Normally want to avoid if possible. Could always put it into Con and then apply an undead template

Should really have elaborated here. Yes, as Zathyr said, with Noble Scion and Sidestep Secret you use your Cha for Initiatve, AC and Reflex Saves, so Dex is mostly useless except for CMD and if you somehow encounter Dex drain (Though as an oracle, you can prepare for that).

Going undead would be a perfect way out, though completely dependant on DM fiat (or is there a PC way of being undead at first level?).

I really wouldn't dump Cha, if just for the reason EVERYONE does, and the world hardly needs another surly, ugly, unpopular half-orc. Some half-orcs ought to be nice.

It obviously depends strongly on the class you will play, though a 4 will hurt a lot, no matter where. Personally, I would do a Lore Oracle, with Sidestep Secret and Noble Scion (War), put the 4 in Dex an the 17 in Cha. The only thing aside from skills you use Dex for will be your CMD, which I think would be alright as a primary caster.

The way I read it, it does work on 20s, since the wording on the "warning" application is "would be hit by a melee or ranged attack". This implies that the result actually HAS to be revealed, since you would know if the would be hit otherwise. So it seems to work just fine as a crit negator.

All in all, I find teamwork feats largely underwhelming as an archer.

@stuart haffenden, if the re-rolls allowed you to take the better of the two rolls, I'd be all for it, but you have to take the second roll (with Aggression or Warning) even if it's better/worse than the original. This can have some serious negative drawbacks on the group, like turning an enemy hit into a crit. This isn't so bad if it's only used for Aggression, as it can only make a miss into an even worse miss, or possible better, but I'm not sure it's worth it.

Don't think of it like that. Think of it as "negate enemy crits several time per day", since the chance of re-rolling that nat 20 is 0.25 percent. The other applications may be situational, but when you need something to hit [i]right now{/i], that re-roll could be a life saver.

Well, on short term, Stinking Cloud and Slow are great spells you could easily pick up (also nice for collecting fools to blast if you want to ;)). Among 4th level spells Confusion sticks out (and can occasionally win encounters by itself).

Most of the other great spells you can have right now, you already have.

About the gratification thing: Some control spells can actually feel like blasting. Instead of looking at a charging horde of goblins and going "Fireball!" and watch them burn to their miserable deaths, you go "Create Pit!" and watch them fall, break every bone in their bodies while you whistle and listen to their moans of agony.

You have to think more like a sadistic psychopath and less like a mass murderer...

...That's a terrible aesop. -.-

I successfully used Profession (Lawyer) to trap the head of an order of paladins in a heavyly biased contract, when he wanted to hire us for a mission. Sure, all the things he wanted were there, as was the agreed price. But there were also things like a bonus for overtime, for excessive danger, fees for weapon and armor repair and general allowances.
The poor sod had no idea want he was getting into and failed nearly all checks to get out of it. The only one he made was Sense Motive, so he knew I wanted to rip him off, but he couldn't for the life of him figure out how and he was out of options. Which in turn gave us about five times the amount we were initially promised. And that is why I love Lawful types... :)

Thanks all :)

I'm actually covering the skill-based intelligence work myself. As a cha-based caster with maxed social skills I should be fine, hopefully. And if i need to actually break in somewhere, I will have our rogue do it. He will fail, but at least he will die happy. (nothing against the guy; he is quite skilled. He just fails at everything. I guess it's a dice thing.)

And yes, that was the intent: the spy-ring will be most of my followers, my cohort will be my second in command.

Here is a guide I wrote on the topic.

Also, you may want to look into the witch class as well. Not the strongest diviner, but they do have some good tricks in that area.

I actually read that before, mostly for the follower roles. Great job.

Holy cow, I didn't even think of a witch. That might be an even better fit since they can supply some spells neither I or the druid will have. Got to think about that now.

My sorcerer is a sort-of spymaster and recently took leadership to build up his net of contacts as to actually "know a guy" in every city of interest. However, I also gain a cohort and I have no real plans for that. My dm wants me to build him/her since he's busy and he said that anything goes as long as it's not "too freaky".

So my first thought was that I didn't really want them to be in combat. Me and our druid are rather enjoying summoning (a bit too much) so I don't want another character there who will slow things down.

Since the focus of my character lies in the gathering, keeping and careful sale of certain secrets, I thought a wizard with an emphasis on divination would mesh well with that.
Unfortunately, I know relatively little about wizards and less about the appropriate spells. Would an actual diviner be best for this? Some other school? Which spells and feats would be important? I have little more than an idea of what I want, so I would be thankful for any help.

Anti-magic fields work definitely. Also I would think line of effect/sight is a clear must for most of them.

A master summoner might also work. Who cares if you stats suck? Just summon someone who has better ones. ;)

A miser isn't per definitionem greedy. And as long as no one is harmed (i.e. refusing to feed someone who will clearly starve soon) it is certainly not evil in itself.

There are many things that might be "behavior unbecoming of a paladin", but there are few things that will actually make him fall or even have his deity take notice. And most of it is personal preference anyway.

It is important to keep in mind that paladins are not outsiders. They are still human (or elven or whatnot) and as such will struggle to keep within the ideals of their god. They will sometimes fail. It is expected. Sometimes they will even fail spectaculary. There is an atonement spell for a reason. The only thing that is important that they keep trying. The paladin might me a miserly, whoring, drinking bastard, but he strives not to be. Most times.

The paladin is a powerful tool, but a flawed one. And the gods know that.

Personally I like having extensive backgrounds for my characters.

However, not everyone likes to write and some are just very bad at it. ;)
So, as a DM, I usually expect at least the follwing:

Why are you here? Why do you do whatever it is you do? What are your plans for the immediate future and what it you long term goal?

The last two are the most important ones as they give a feel to what the charater will be up to (or work towards) as I tend to play mostly sandbox.

Also, I usually tell them I might add details not given in ther backstory if it fits. Or steal the ones that are there. Nothing derailing, but just to involve the characters a bit more. It ist one thing to kill a noble. It is another to kill the noble responsible for the taxes that drove your father's business into bankruptcy.

So I guess the reward for having a better backstory is more influence over the following story (which makes sense to me).

Pixie Anything

Seriously, constant greater invisibility, flight, DR and SR? Count me in! Though spellcasters work best, i really would try to build something martial, just for the look on the GMs face when he realizes that Tinkerbell over ther just knocked his guys around.

It isn't really quantifiable like that. You can build some very powerful things very easily using only the crb and it's even easier to build something completely useless the more material you have available. The sheer number of choices means the are many (i.e. most of them) that are subpar ore worse. So no, it isn't really self-evident that they will be more powerful. The more books, the more chance to f%*@ up.

calagnar wrote:

I made a offensive casting cleric. With a archetype that gives up channel."

It's early, but what Archtype gives up Channel?

Divine Strategist does for one.

Keeping the party alive is the party's job, not a single character's.

"I really don't want to fight that stupid dragon, but all my friends are going..."

In general, I find TN can use any possible motivation for any possible situation. A TN character is without a clear tendency toward any other alignment. A combination, an amalgamation of the other eight. So really, anything goes.

Obviously like Conan the Librarian.

;)

On a more helpful note, take a look at the differences between a Vanilla and and Urban Barbarian. This is no uneducated savage, he is trained in diplomacy, two knowledges, linguistics, maybe profession (accountant). He is well able to fight in crowds and his rage is more a cold, calculated anger with far fewer drawbacks (though maybe less powerful).

I had a Dirty-Harry-like captain of the guard as an Urban Barbarian and it fit quite well.

I view Evil in most games about as disruptive as low Cha, Int or Wis or some races (namely dwarves and Elves). Some people tend to see those as an excuse to be a dick.

"I have low Cha so I AM a surly bastard no one wants to hang around with", "I am a dwarf, so of course I must do this, because my ancestors did", "As an elf, I am vastly superior to all of you short lived manfolk.", "I am too dumb to know I shouldn't set fire to the tavern.", "I am evil, so it is my alignment to kick you down that flight of stairs just for shits and giggles."

Of course, all of those can be played "right", but if you use it to explain why you behave like a dick, it stops being a game mechanic. You are just a dick.

- Weapon bearer squire who can fight himself (is a fighter after all) but mostly sticks to handing you the right weapons for the task at hand.

Had one of those a while back, though he was more of a caddy to play of my gentlemanly paladin.

"Very well. Mortimer, hand me my weapon." - "Which one, sire? The Longsword?" - "The greatsword of course, you fool! Don't you see we have a villian upon us?"

Was great fun. :D