Search Posts
Thanks for all the input. In the end I went with straight Inspired Blade, specifically to keep Parry and Riposte. My GM runs a non-canonical and very magic items-stingy campaign, so we'll see what he grants. He's already told me my rapier will merely be MW. I'm keeping the stats, which he rolled for me and are very fair. No, generous. I'm suggesting to a buddy who plans to also run a halfling as my pc's cousin to take athe least 1 level of Mouser specifically for Underfoot Assault.
Oh, I almost forgot, the above build is a freehand 6/duelist 4. As for the swashbuckler (mouser) build, I'd be interested to see what you come up with compared to this.
It's been a long time since I've been active on the forums, and my Internet and access to new gaming resources is still limited (old PF book and HeroLab with only the basic module), but I'm building a new character to replace an existing character, and I'd appreciate some help on the build. As usual for me, I'm willing to sacrifice mechanical optimization to fit the character concept. The character is a halfling duelist, sort of a cross between a musketeer and an antebellum southern gentleman, but in a no-gunpowder setting. He's being inserted at L10, here's what I have so far:
Alternate racial traits: Low Blow; Underfoot
Thoughts?
One last bump....
Even the simplest of us can have moments of brilliance. Take me for example. I just a day or two ago had one of the better ideas I've ever had in all my years of gaming, but I need advice in the execution. Here's the skinny: My best friend/GM is starting a new PBEM/PBC campaign in a quasi-czarist Russian setting (it's a third party published setting, one I don't know, so if you recognize it, please, no spoilers or metagaming). Due to the small size of our group, we're each playing two characters. I immediately hit on the idea of playing a Cossack (sorry, quasi-cossack). I didn't want a paladin or cavalier, for flavor reasons, so, being a long-time fan of rangers, I went with Horse Lord/Skirmisher. I was having a hard time coming up with a second character concept, when I ran across the Rough Rider fighter variant. I began wondering if it wouldn't make a better "Cossack" than the Horse Lord. That's when I had my Epiphany: that's my second character. I worked it out with my GM, and here are the particulars: twin brothers, one set of randomly rolled stats, arrayed any way for each. Level 1, Human only. Must be played with distinctive personalities and approach to combat. Canon only. I have access to a 2009 printing CR and the net via my phone, so please be patient. I would like to get advice on tweaking each PC, then moving this discussion to a different part of the boards to report on how the two flesh out as played side-by-side. Here's what I came up with: Stat rolls: 18, 17, 16, 13, 11, 9 The brothers Rodenkov Sergei
(I'm considering making his INT 9 and his CHA 11+2=13. I know he can take Mounted Combat as a ranger fighting style bonus at L4, but given the concept I thought he should already have it. I plan to make him a slightly better horseman and his brother a better fighter, though neither will be a slouch at the other's forte.) Nikolai
So, thoughts?
If it's what I recall trying before, it didn't suit me. I'm pretty happy with the system I'm using - granted, it's cobbled together from 3 different d20 games AND my own firearms system, but there's a reason for that, and to embrace any one of the parent games would run counter to that reason. All I'm really asking, I suppose, is for I.put on the difficulties for my new application of linguistics. It seems that obscure or extreme dialects should be harder to mimic than more common or familiar ones. Going back to the Cockney example, as an American, I can easily mimic a southern US accent, but a Cockney accent is a bit beyond my skills.
You know, the more I think about it, the more it bugs me that recognizing dialects falls entirely in the realm of the Knowledge: Geography skill. It really should also be within the purview of the Linguistics skill (as described), if not MORE so.
I totally missed the K:G check. Makes sense. Regarding what you said about totally faking it being bluff vs. Disguise: I didn't address totally faking it. The idea was more along the lines of what happens when your disguise / fake identity includes posing as a specific ethnicity. Being able to actually sound cockney makes it easier to disguise yourself AS a Cockney, eg. As for spotting the fake accent, a K:G roll opposing the Linguistics roll would make sense.
Before I get to the meat of my post, a preface: I've been gone from the forums here for a while due to financal/internet access issues, and my access is still limited. So if any of this has been covered or rendered moot in the last 6 months, my apologies. Also, while there is some PF application to this question, it does stem from a d20m campaign, so I won't be devastated if it gets moved. I'm currently putting together a campaign with a buddy using a heavily modified version of d20 Modern. One of the biggest changes has been adopting the PF skills mechanics (1 point/rank, +3 for ranked class skills) and several PF skill conventions (Stealth, Perception, Linguistics ). It was, in fact, my frustration with certain limitations of the original d20m language mechanics that caused us to institute the PF mechanics. We've made it a class skill only if you take the academic, investigative, or religious starting occupations, or if you take the (highly modified) linguist smart talent. This obviously affects other uses of the skill but not languages spoken. And now the part that is universal, a new application of the Linguistics skill, and a request for input: the application is the ability to recognize and mimic accents and dialects of a language you speak, and the input regards difficulty andmodifiers for things like the obscurity of the dialect. I was also thinking that in specific situations a GM could require a roll for this application of the skill and use the margin of success/failure as a modifier to a subsequent disguise skill roll. Thoughts?
Actually, I think it's an awesome idea, if still in need of a little fleshing out. An interesting variation on the cargo cult would be a post-apocalyptic artifact cult, based on Clarke's Third Law.
Yes is no. Just go with it. Seriously, though, what Kae Yoss said. And then some. Humans are both the most optimizable and yet the most versatile race in the game. The mobility of the +2 ability, as opposed to the fixed modifiers of other races, means they are at the very least the sexcond best, and often THE best choice, for ANY class -- especially when you use dice rolls for CharGen. And that extra feat really can tip the balance. As for multiclassing, the only real non-cheesy uses for it are if you are in a VERY roleplaying, out-of-combat-intensive game, and have a specific ocncept in mind, or if you are aiming at a prestige class. The real kicker is all those high level class-specific features, as well as the "+x per y levels" ones. Combine the two, and single-class humans are already receiving a bonus just by the RAW. The penultimate example of this is arguably the Human Fighter, who is the most feat-rich character in the game.
This. And I usually play humans.
Boasting Taunt? It's Barbarian-specific, and only works while raging, but still....
4)The falcata with improved critical goes to 17-20/x3. Which essentially means that (when compared to a keen scimitar) that you are lowering your chance to crit by 10% but you are upping your damage on a critical hit by 50%. A Critical Focus tree fighter is shining not in how much extra damage he does, but in all the other nasty conditions he adds on to the crit -- bleeding, blinded, staggered.... You want to increase the odds of getting a critical, so that you're adding more and more of those conditions, or compounding one of them. That means a higher crit range x2 weapon is more desireable than a lower range/higher damage weapon. In addition, as has been pointed out, Rapiers and Scimitars are Martial, which frees up one more feat he can use somewhere else. One option is to put it into Weapon Finesse, make DEX his prime stat, drop the board, and go TWF with a rapier or scimitar and a Kukri in the offhand.
well the obvious answer is the rapier, or the scimitar, for one handed criting those are the way to go. Duh, I feel stupid for forgetting those. Also don't forget my second edit re: the Anatomist trait.
I would also consider using a higher crit range weapon then the falcata. The x3 is nice, but if you are going to invest in crits its more important to be doing them more often, then it is to have the higher multiplier. +1 EDIT: Falchion comes readily to mind, that way you don't have to burn a feat to be proficient. EDIT 2: Also don't forget the Anatomist trait.
(Tank you 3 years of running West End Star Wars) God, I miss that game.
Got to love the Duke. Thank you. I was feeling old because noone seemed to get it.
Unless the enemy has studied his Agrippa... which I have. Prerequisite: Weapon Focus, Dazzling Display.
While I don't make any claims about the mechanics of survivability, if you can get your GM to ok you picking up an archetype at the later level, given the background you described, Divine Defender or Undead Scourge seem fitting.
The first objection that comes yto my mind is, "So? You still just stick your Face out in front and keep everyone else's mouths shut."
Didn't grow up on a farm, didja?
Why does Dune come readily to mind?
You HAVE to max out, and possibly even buff, your Perform: Oratory skill.
+1 Also, something that gives access to Intimidating glare/terrifying howl seems thematically appropriate.
There's nothing to generate the deadly radiation, either.Not to mention constantly bombarded by deeadly radiation, since there'd be no core to generate a magnetic field to keep it out.That "just lava" Is the reason we have atmosphere, because the mass of the entire earth gives it enough gravity to keep the air around it. Also, a hollow planet would be cold. Very cold. And mos probably a barren, frozen wasteland, with nothing to keep it warm on the inside. Touche'.
That "just lava" Is the reason we have atmosphere, because the mass of the entire earth gives it enough gravity to keep the air around it. Also, a hollow planet would be cold. Very cold. And mos probably a barren, frozen wasteland, with nothing to keep it warm on the inside. Not to mention constantly bombarded by deeadly radiation, since there'd be no core to generate a magnetic field to keep it out.
Stop saying that!
Then I guess you misses the 2nd part..where exotics are part flavor, part mechanics. The ability to get that damage from the siangham equals special training..someone without that training shouldn't be able to do it (and yes I know that the weapon still deals the same damage, just a -4 to hit). The flavor fact comes from the fact that your standard game is based loosely on europe..not to many sianghams running around dark ages europe.
This response right here illustrates perfectly for me what bothers me most about the EW classification. In your first paragraph, you justify making the siangham an exotic weapon for completely mechanical reasons -- it does more damage, flurries, etc. But then in the following paragraphs, you defend making them exotic purely for flavor. So the list of Exotic Weapons is comprised of some weapons that are there for reasons of flavor, and their mechanical superiority or inferiority be damned, and some that are there for balance reasons due to their abilities, and the actual exoticness or commonality of their flavor be damned (I'm looking at you, Bastard Sword). And people change horses mid-stream, from flavor to balance, just to defend the status quo? Am I the only one struck by the lack of logic in that?
Cartigan has made a very valid point: burning a feat should grant you some sort of mechanical advantage. That's what feats do. I understand that one might claim, "Exotic weapons are by definition different; you're spending the feat to be different." Still, I can't think of a single feat that doesn't offer some sort of mechanical advantage. This. The big problem is that the category "Exotic Weapons" is a little too all-encomapssing, and includes both weapons that are more powerful than martial weapons, but were historically or setting-specifically actually pretty common, as well as weapons that are barely superior to martial counterparts (or equal to, or in some cases inferior to them), but are truly "exotic." The category blurs the line between flavor distinction and mechanics/balance issue. Anyone who doesn't believe that while some weapons are listed as exotic simply for flavor, others are there for balance, try suggesting a new weapon, and give it some abilities that make it do what an existing weapon does, only better. Someone will say it should therefore be exotic in 5,4,3,2,1... Perhaps the answer is to separate the two from each other. The gimped/nerfed/unimpressive weapon that are "Different", still call them "Exotic" -- but proficiency with them requires only A) Spending a trait and/or B)Having Martial Weapons Proficiency and spending a/some skill point(s). The truly badass weapons, the ones that do things other weapons can't and pot the fear of the gods in NPC's... rename those "Prestige Weapons", and yes, proficiency with them requires a feat.
Are you deadset (groan) on playing a necromancer? Sounds like your character is going to cause a party schism.No, but I'd like to have the option for 'disposable' minions. I want to buy this player a beer.
OK, this one is REALLY old school, but... I' m not gonna hit ya....Like hell I'm not! You may use the bluff skill to feint when not in combat. If you succeed on your feint roll, in addition to the normal bonuses for succeeding at feint, you make an unarmed strike without incurring an Attack of Opportunity.
Also, in 3.5 there was a feat called Hold the Line which allowed AoO's vs. Charge.
I like the towns and settlements idea. More material for post-level 20 play. Anything non-Golarion specific. I hadn't heard of Pathfinder or Paizo before PFRPG came out, and I don't play PFS or within the Golarion setting at all, so while I see your point about the impact of these big books, I also think their one biggest strength is their nigh universality. I understand that PFRPG game out in big part so that Paizo could continue their Golarion line of material with a game to support it, but you have to admit it has very rapidly evolved beyond that to be THE go-to gaming system for a lot of us who had been playing 3.x in other settings, both canonical and homebrewed.I agree. I guess my point is that Non-Setting-Specific does not equate to player options. Agreed. Just saying, if you ask what I want to see, for me, the answer is the more generic the better.
I like the towns and settlements idea. More material for post-level 20 play. Anything non-Golarion specific. I hadn't heard of Pathfinder or Paizo before PFRPG came out, and I don't play PFS or within the Golarion setting at all, so while I see your point about the impact of these big books, I also think their one biggest strength is their nigh universality. I understand that PFRPG game out in big part so that Paizo could continue their Golarion line of material with a game to support it, but you have to admit it has very rapidly evolved beyond that to be THE go-to gaming system for a lot of us who had been playing 3.x in other settings, both canonical and homebrewed.
I'm curious, based on your assertions, two things: 1) How do you explain the historical precedent of animal-drawn railways? 2) How do you justify the existence of modern real life railways, when you could just rely on trucks?
What I'm saying is that you can't build a thrower with the same outlook as an archer. Well, no, and you shouldn't be able to, since bows really DO have a HUGE mechanical advantage over thrown weapons. But from a flavor stanpoint, I see your point -- and agree, since I'm currently playing a character who relies on thrown weapons a lot. There COULD, and arguably SHOULD, be a niche for non-barbarian throwers. Their one advantage that is not exploited is they require less space. In D20 Modern, the Gunslinger AC has a class feature called Close Combat Shot, which allows firing a small or medium firearm without incurring an AoO. What about making it a feat, reskinning it to apply to thrown weapons, make Point Blank Shot a prereq, and voila! A more effective short-range throwing character.
Oops. I should correct myself, it's 3 levels of Fighter, and 6 of Sorceror, not 2 and 6.
1) So with, say, 7 total levels of Sorceror, Arcane Strike wouldn't go up to +2 until AA Level 4? 2) I think I see your point -- Enhance Arrows makes the ARROW magical and gives it a +1 enhancement, whereas Arcane Strike applies to the WEAPON.3) Is it? That's interesting, considering the Feat's description and effects. I wonder if that's an oversight.
Both interesting ideas. Invisibility as a bonus spell makes staing with Arcane Bloodline tempting. Regarding Arcane Strike: Do Arcane Archer levels count as caster levels for determining the bonus? And does it stack with the Arcan Archer's Enhance Arrows? It wouldn't seem that way, since both are Magic bonuses.
Its a cute idea and you could create a unique spell to accomplish it, however it will not work with create pit. The pit is extra dimensional. You'll create a featherfalling platform into a hole to another dimension. Cast Gate at the bottom of each level, between the outside and inside of the pit.
Probably. Bear in mind if you do this, that your AC will probably be somewhat better than someone going the Mage Armor route, but Arcane Strike (otherwise a great Feat choice) will be somewhat restricted (as it takes a Swift action), as will Quickened spells. *shrug* If I do go that route, I can always just eat the 10% spell failure on turns when I want to use those other feats.
Yes, I was already rethinking the arcane bond. What I'm trying to decide now is whether to go with a familiar, or change his bloodline altogether.
Funny, I'd already decided on Mirror Image, but I might wait and go with Arrow Eruption first, then pick up Mirror Image later. Hmmm.... The Arcane Armor Training is a good idea, hadn't thought of that. I could wait till level 11 to take a metamagic feat, since it really doesn't do me much good until I've got some higher level slots to burn. As for WHICH metamagic feat, I'm VERY open to suggestions. Also, if I go with your Arcane Armor Training/Mithril chain shirt idea, do I completely forego having Mage Armor in my repertoir? If so, with what do I replace it? Vanish?
I'm thinking of creating an Arcane Archer build -- as a thought exercize for now, perhaps to play somewhere down the road. It's a PC that has always fascinated, but never fit any of thecharacter concepts I've played. So I got to fiddling around in HeroLab, and came up with the following build, which allows for AA at level 9. I know there are a couple of ways to get there by level 8, but they all involve fewer caster levels and more levels in fighter, and this build is designed with a specific casting level in mind: Half-Elf
I went with more arcane levels than fighter levels to get to the Haste spell as... hastily (rim shot)... as possible. I picked Quicken Spell because it seems that not picking up at least one metamagic feat is underutilizing the bloodline features. Am I doing it right? Any suggestions for minor tweaks? Other spells/future spells? Different metamagic feat? Thanks in advance for input.
Then dance with a sword or a whip. Beautiful and dangerous. Stop! Warhammer time!
While I agree with the poster who said you should explain WHY this, if you go ahead with it, I'd point out that LN and CN are already hit by chaotic/axiomatic.
|
