Search Posts
Hi there, I would suggest taking a look at the Inquisitor and Alchemist classes, they cover some of the lacking roles quite well. Otherwise Bard, Rogue and Ranger are excellent choices. Wizard or Witch would also be fun, or even a Sorcerer could work well. You are lucky to have some defined roles already represented and enough flexibility to play a variety of options and retain a good party balance.
Yep, I've dropped the whip Idea. He's gonna be the cocky swordsman, focusing on the rapier. Don't know what ranged I'm going with, or what feats quite yet. Probably gonna take the city-born feat (GM's gonna hook one up for free I think).
Sooo, looks like I got my concept. He will be a dexteritous fighter, probably wielding a whip and tripping/disarming. He is an RP build, and is a prissy/sniveling rich-boy, who avoids close combat and comes-off maybe a little cowardly, his lowest stat will be Wisdom. Any advice on such a build will be appreciated.
Wow, lots o'suggestions. Thank you everybody for your responses, I am still on the fence though...
So far, we have:
We are playing pathfinder, with core only (and the AP's player's guide).
True, I have not honed-down the options yet, and I usually come-up with a character concept first, then build a class around that.
Yeah, you have a point, but I am playing a Paladin in a different game right now...
I need to build the fourth member for our party that is to begin an AP in a week or so (ROTRL), I am looking for the best fit for the party with my rolled stats. My stats are:
The party make-up, so far:
What would you suggest? Thanks.
Now, I spent a full year with 4.0, and have not shared my opinions on these boards yet, but this thread seems pretty non-hostile, so here goes. my experience::
I just started learning the 3.5 system when 4.0 came out. I took a look at the new rules and was impressed by the nice layout and flashy pictures. It took me about one night of reading to master most of the rules, and so I quickly began DMing in 4.0. I thought it was awesome that I never had to look-up rules, and DMing was so easy-you really could just slap-it together.
So I spent a year with 4.0, DM'ed a couple of campaigns, and took part in a couple of good campaigns. Most ended around level 10, and were actually really fun. Before we got a good campaign going though, a bunch come and went, and turned-out to be more like ten level experiments, we played every core class, and most of the PH2 classes to at least level five, playing around with builds and whatnot. But after a while it kept feeling like something was missing, and I couldn't figure it out. So I started reading the 3.5 PH and DMG on the side, and something came to me, I realized what was missing. D&D has always been a game that errs on the side of realism, and this became apparent as I read. I got really excited, It felt like everything that I was looking for was here, in 3.5. But, the 3.5 books were extremely ugly and badly laid-out, the text was hard to read, and the rules were often mysteries that you have to hunt and find. One day I stumbled on Pathfinder, and my prayers were answered. Smooth and thoughtful, gritty and realistic like 3.5- yet flashy and streamlined like 4.0, I was ecstatic to say the least. So we started a campaign in PF, and it is very awesome. We all love the thing to death, and no one has ever considered going back to 4.0, or even 3.5 for that matter. The game feels more organic, the distinction between "combat encounters", "non-combat encounters", and "skill-challenges" is nearly non-existent, and you can build relatively realistic characters that you actually want to roleplay. I don't want to get "flamy" so I won't go into details here, but I want to make a few points. *First, Hasn't D&D always had a simulationist feel to it? Why did "balance" take precedence over this in 4e? *Second, What happens when everything is balanced to fall under a small amount of mechanics? Doesn't everything end-up looking too much the same? What distinction is there between the wizard's magic, and the fighters combat moves? Little, save for flavor and such. *Third, how does taking the "piddley" little bonuses that used to be entwined with the magic system, and then spreading them-out between all the various powers of all the classes, make combat simpler? In 3.5, you cast a spell and you get +1 for ten minutes, not an everchanging, overlapping, set of bonuses and penalties that reset every combat. *Fourth, At what point does balance become unrealistic and video gamey?
Maybe it has something to do with unemployment rates? Michigan is usually in the top 5 (often number one). I had a decent resume going and the business I worked at closed, now I've been jobless sense April! And I live in a city!
It looks like by this list that the warmer you are the happier you are(for the most part). LOL, could be true.
I live in Michigan, and I have to say that there may be some truth to this list afterall...
Just thought I'd share this.
The answer is simple. Let Cavaliers choose either Mounted combat or Shield Defense like the ranger can choose two weapon or archery. And yes the cavalier should have courtly skills . Jumping in this thread to completely agree with you on this one...
Yeah, didn't really look at it...wolfsbane was believed to scare-off, or kill werewolves, and was poisonous, they used to grind it up and sprinkle it on raw meat...a lot of innocent wolves probably lost their lives...
Haven't noticed this yet...Just use both?
I completely agree! Honestly, if the summoner had more skills/points, and the eidolon had less, it would make more sense... If you want to be social, send in your betentacled beasty....weird.
Players who use my stuff, and put it in their mouths! (like dice and pencils)
on a lighter note: This campaign is very vivid and memorable, and I took thorough notes (all done by hand, one computer-crash too many), so if this thing is on hold for a long time, I think it could still be revived.
Plus, I'm starting a new campaign (well, same world, different time) with my girlfriend and her friend who is new to D&D, but very excited about playing. She has a great personality, and he isn't invited because we don't want that negativity. I'm going to play a character, to round-out the party. I'm excited to make my Hindu/Indian style Druid w/Bengal Tiger companion, and decidedly Indian flavored spells (albino-bindied rat summons, Gonesha/elephant or cobra wildshape, etc.) Since it's on short notice, I'll be using an adaption of Hollow's Last Hope as a staring place. I've never used a published adventure before, so I'm excited about that too. All in all, if this is resolved, I'll just have two campaigns to run, which isn't so bad either. Although I doubt he'll man-up anytime soon... Thanks for listening!
That there is a good enough reason to never play with him again. I'd move the campaign on without him if I were you. It's funny 'cause he's my brother...
I can't stand having a GM experienced (supposedly) player that keeps telling me that I'm misinterpreting rules, and feels the need to correct me all the time. Vent: Problem player...
And 9 times out of 10, it was something that changed from 3.5 to Pathfinder, that I had already noticed before game (always double check rules beforehand), or he's just plain wrong (most often than not). Why can't he just trust my rulings? What if I am (occasionally) wrong? I always rule to the best of the roleplay experience at hand, and looking for tiny rule disparities just kills the mood. Well, I tried to keep him quiet and RPing, but he remained jerkish...
One day, he blew-up at one of the players, at the end of a really good session...who happened to be my girlfriend, and we live together...so, because of that lack of respect, the campaign is on hold until he apologizes and they talk it out. It's been a week already...
This IS the update, this is the way the class is right now. He would like people to try it out with the changes at the top of this thread and give feedback on that. I agree that I would rather playtest with the rule changes you mentioned... (SM-SLA, Standard action, 1min/lvl, 1 active at a time)
+1
I honestly wonder if they just threw the oath mechanic on there to see what people would say...
I just ignored the oaths when statting-up my NPC, they really didn't make sense (NPC gets the bonus from oath of vengeance, after he kills the PC?). Won't play-out till next session...
I'm not sure why the gear wouldn't just come and go with them. Here's my solution: a 1 point evolution for each magic item slot you put on them. "Magic item graft," call it. It lets the item work, and then it's "part of them" and can come and go with them. Adds convenience, and also imparts a cost to ladling them up with magic. I like the idea of having to buy magic item slots for your Eidolon...the equipment probably should just stay on them as well, it's just easier to rationalize, and creates less gray areas. On a side note...as I build my summoner NPC, I notice that the Eidolon by itself is about CR appropriate, and once I add the Summoner, I am tempted to raise the CR by 1. I think the Eidolon is riding right on this edge, It's not insanely too powerful, yet scaling it back a little would balance alot better. I also want to mention that SM-SLA should remain 1min per level/standard action, but keep the one active at a time. Also, maybe instead of the Eidolon being such a potential skill monkey, cut his skills, and give more to the summoner...Because if you really wanted a degree of sociability with this class, you have to have your pet do all the talking, which is kinda weird...Even if you try to make a presentable Eidolon, once you start adding tentacles and stuff...yeah.
I would keep the casting time and duration the same as it was, but the one at a time is fine. Does this apply to the regular spell as well? Maybe that should still stack with the SLA...
Seriously, what better way to flavor a new casting class, than give it a unique spell list? I'm surprised the Oracle doesn't have it's own spell list. If all is the same it becomes redundant...
Thanks, seriously not enough actual play-testing going on. I find your report very positive, and comforting. I've built a level 2 oracle NPC for my campaign (made two diff builds before settling on one), and I found the same thing...more spells known, even if spells/day had to be sacrificed to do it. The party finagled their way out of fighting the Oracle (RPing there way out of a paper bag!)and my Cavalier/3 won't see the light of day 'till tomorrow (no finagling this one!). Again, thanks, and I hope this gets some feed-back. ...more details (who?,what?,when?) would be appreciated.
Yeah, I thought it looked a little tough too...maybe there is some detail I missed on how it worked, or something...
Ok I must be having issues with my internet or something but I have to post just incase. I don't see a link for summoner and witch released yet. Could someone link it to me or point it out cause it is not directly below the Cavalier and Oracle on my web page. Check the blog...
Augmentations would be cool, but evolutions is still OK. I think that Int for the summoner, and Wis for the witch would work, although I don't really care that much...
Summoner....more awesome than I could have imagined!
Very, Very well said, thank you...
I think this is a good compromise, keep everything the same, just make his abilities not specifically tied to the mount by appending the charging abilities. His mount is still worthwhile this way, and the features still work on foot. (although I don't know if increased threat range on charges makes a lot of sense on foot...)
I almost posted this exact thing, but decided against it. Good idea though, it could work with all the mounted abilities....
If you think about it, you would only have to change the three mounted abilities and maybe the expert trainer one, the rest still make enough sense, so that's only half of them...Of course, the capstone is one of the three to change. The animal companion could possibly stay as is without causing an issue...just the choice to avoid focusing on the mount in someway would be nice.
You just offer a set of alternative features to the mounted ones... I'm saying that it doesn't require a total rewrite of the class to offer an alternative to the mount features. If you choose to not go with the mount, then the features you would get (like spirited charge, etc) would be replaced with things that relate to the other option...Kind of like the rangers TWF/Ranged paths(except not feat oriented), or like the Paladins mount/weapon features...Maybe even keep the mount in basic form, but can choose an alternate path of features(not forced to focus on mount) (As writing this, and looking further at the mounted features, I notice that there is indeed a fair amount of mount related abilities, so maybe it would take a little more of a rewrite than I thought...)
You just offer a set of alternative features to the mounted ones...
Random idea:
I have a suggestion for the oracle. Perhaps it has been made. Give it either the “spontaneous casting’ of cure spells, or simply at the cure spells to its list of spells known for free. I think cure/inflict spells would be better yet...
I second this...an alternative to the mounted feature, like the paladin/druid/wizard have. I also like the cohort idea...
I really like the challenge mechanic, it is simple and clear as written. When people begin to over-analyze something like this they tend to lose site of what it really is. If challenge stayed exactly the same, word for word, in the final product, I would be happy. BTW, awesome job bringing a fresh perspective, and creative edge to the game. After switching to PF, my game has improved ten-fold. The intent in the product really shows, and my players feel that. I think they are inspired to push there role-playing to new levels by your flavorful and exciting products. Keep up the good work!
My level 2 oracle NPC has cure light wounds and inflict light wounds. She can cast 5 level one spells, so she could cast either one 5 times if she wanted too. That's 1d8+2 damage that ignores armor, with a class that is only proficient with simple weapons, that's pretty good for level two, if you ask me...sure beats clubbing them over the head, in both flavor and number.
The thing is, the monk should not be able to heal amazingly, to me it's more like a little emergency reserve, and not something that you'd spend ki-points on all day. The added bonus of a little flexibility never hurts.
Actually, good idea! Roll the oaths into the various orders. Each order has it's own oath, and all the oaths use a more standard, balanced mechanism.
Maybe the "flanked" should only apply in a round where the Cavalier attacks his challenged foe. Something like:
To me this solves alot of problems...If a bunch of rogues appear (since they seem to be everywhere in other peoples campaigns) while the Cavalier is dueling it out, he can go and tend to them and his flanking penalty will go away within a round. The challenge bonus stays in effect as normal, so when the Cavalier resumes his attacks vs. his prime foe he can still deal his extra damage, and is again flanked until his next turn.
The foe stays challenged until death, or whatever, but if something calls his attention away from the challenged foe, within one round his penalty subsides...until he strikes at his nemesis again, of course.
I actually think the challenge mechanic is well balanced, and I hope it doesn't change much. Just think a (most likely) heavily armored knightly-man dueling it out with his foe, concentrating all his efforts on that baddie, and leaving his back exposed. A snaky little halfling with a dagger in his hand comes from behind, and puts the blade through a chink in his armor.Yes...although I'm not sure why the cavalier can't stop the challenge before his foe is dead. If it "requires much of the cavalier's concentration" to perform, surely it should be easy to stop concentrating on it, no? Maybe the "flanked" should only apply in a round where the Cavalier attacks his challenged foe. Something like: "Anytime the Cavalier attacks his challenged foe, he is considered flanked until his next turn."
Forgive me if I'm off base here, but... The enemies incentive is role-playing, I don't think we need a mechanic to represent this. If the enemy is a coward then he will flee, if he is not then he will except the challenge. If there were a mechanic to compel the enemy then it would seem more like a fantastical effect. If every challenged foe just outright flees, then isn't that just poor role-playing on the GM's behalf?
Or, you could make the curse mechanic less powerful all around, less penalty and less bonus, but still keep the role-play aspect intact. It's a really cool idea, but maybe it doesn't need to be so pronounced... |
