Nalz's page

Hey JoeJ,

I just wanted to toss my two cents in and say that your idea sounds really cool!

While I understand where other people are coming from (and heartily suggest you check out some of those games as they are fantastic), in my experience cinematic combat really comes down to player involvement and/or interest. I have run games of Pathfinder where my players were into describing their in combat actions and it gave even simple fights a more grandiose feel. [I have also had games where combat was basically 'uhh...I attack the orc, I guess.'] On the other hand, I remember running Exalted for a group of relatively new players and the cinematic potential of the system was lost as people fumbled with the rules.

One thing you might want to incorporate - or at least consider - is some kind of stunt bonus for describing really cool/exciting/daring maneuvers. (I know Exalted has a system like this.) This might help offset some of the penalties that characters incur while doing the more ridiculous kung fu stunts. I am not sure what this bonus would be or, indeed, if it would upset the math behind the system too much to be functional. It is just a thought.

I know they are in Ultimate Magic (I wish I could remember the page - my apologies).

They are also on the Animal Companion page of the SRD.

Just out of curiosity - what level is your party?

Assuming they are high enough level to at least sort of deal with incorporeal creatures:

If you want to call them out for not burying their friend, a ghost might work as they would need to bury the body - assuming that being unburied is the reason for its existence - to completely remove the threat. (Also, if they kept the head it would give the ghost a good reason to keep following them around as its body and head could act as two separate fetters.)

Lamontius: None taken! I realized (rereading my post) that I hadn't actually escaped the cliche, but rather gone all the way around the circle - stopping right where I started. I also like Lincoln Hills' idea. My only hesitation is that it means I need to coordinate with another player (which is a silly concern really) and my group is terrible at answering emails. Maybe, I can finally persuade my group to do a character building session for the next campaign...

Xethik and Wrong John Silver: Thank you very much for your suggestions! I think I fall back on destiny because it is an easy motivation/storytelling device. (That and I have read the Aeneid far too many times.)

I am actually quite excited about this. It may be a chance for me to try out feats like 'Butterfly Sting,' which I (selfishly) normally overlook.

Sigh...a very good point Lamontius. Old habits die hard and all that. Back to the drawing board I suppose.

Hello all,

So we were waiting for a late player to show up at our last gaming session and my gaming group started talking about the standard characters we all play - not like "Paul always plays fighters," but more "Paul always plays scumbag, anti-hero types." Anyways, it came 'round the table to me and there was a decided pause, then one of my buddies said (more or less) "Nalz always plays divine characters with some sort of destiny greater than themselves." This was something I didn't even realize I was doing, but looking back on my recent characters I am forced to admit that he is right.

I have, therefore, decided that the next character I play will not have a heroic destiny of any kind. Originally, I thought about making him/her an 'every man/woman' and I am still alright with that idea. The concept that has me really excited, however, is a person who literally has no destiny - as in, they are not written into the fabric of fate. They would make fortune tellers uncomfortable, divination might not work as well...honestly, I am not sure, this idea is still in the rattling around my head while I should be working phase.

My question: Are then any feats/archetypes/traits/etc. that would support this type of build? I know there is a human trait (Carefully Hidden?) that gives a bonus against divination, but beyond that I am at a loss. I am perfectly happy to just roleplay it (assuming I can get the GM on board - I haven't run this particular idea by him yet), but I was wondering if anyone had any mechanical suggestions.

Aside (as this is commonly asked in advice threads and may be relevant): My group plays 20 point buy, in a home-brew world, and with a mid to low level of optimization so this character doesn't need to be a super star, just functional.

Edit: Oh! One more thought. If anyone can think of an interesting reason that such a character came to exist I would appreciate it. I have a couple of ideas rattling around, but anything extra is awesome!

Thank you for any help,
Nalz

Awesome, thank you Kayerloth! I will present this to my GM and see what he says.

Hello all,

We were playing the Skull and Shackles AP last night and my Oracle of Waves wanted to use 'Wall of Ice' to temporarily keep some monsters away from the party. (I am being as vague as possible to avoid potential spoilers.) Anyways, I am normally pretty good on rules and always try to know exactly what my spells do so I don't bog down the game on my turn - therefore, I was extremely embarrassed when I had to stammer momentarily and look up the spell to figure out how to actually place it on the map.

Thankfully, I have a lovely GM and he just rolled with it - saying that we would try to figure it out after the game was over. So, here I am, seeking your help in clarifying how this spell actually works.

I can see two possibilities for how a Wall of Ice is placed:

1) Despite being inches thick, it occupies actual squares on the map - blocking creatures from entering those squares and ensuring that creatures on each side of the wall are ten feet apart.

A diagram may make my meaning clearer (x = creatures, w = wall of ice; each is assumed to be in a separate 5 foot square): xwx

This approach means that creatures with reach (such as our opponents) have an advantage when attacking through the wall as they do not have to enter it and take the cold damage. This was also how we played it during last night's game.

2) The Wall of Ice exists along the grid - this means that two creatures can basically be standing next to each other (in adjacent 5 foot squares), but separated by the wall.

Diagram (x = creatures, i = wall of ice; wall of ice is on the grid and, therefore, not in its own square): xix

This approach means that smaller creatures (or those without reach weapons) can hide behind a Wall of Ice and attack a creature that breaks through (assuming it was foolish enough to stand right next to the wall).

Two more questions:

1) What happens (using either model) when the Wall of Ice is created along a diagonal?

2) I assume that creature that begins its turn in the 'sheet of frigid air' takes damage as if they were passing through it. While this isn't explicitly called out in the spell, it seems like a reasonable assumption. Is it?

I did find one other thread that addressed this question (except it dealt with Wall of Fire), but I still figured I would ask. I apologize if this question is repetitive.

Thank you very much for any help you can offer,
Nalz

Stuff about 'totally not Rome'

I strongly support this - it is the same way that I solved the 'how to try to explain Julius Caesar throwing lightning bolts' problem in my home game.

b) Legionnaires generally do not work either. Legionnaires sign up for years of service (the exact amount escapes me for the moment) and they were very group oriented. A Legion was a well oiled machine. Unless the PCs are interested in working together in perfect cohesion... which I doubt... then Legionnaires generally make poor characters (One of the first things they did to the Legionnaire characters in the HBO series Rome was get them out of the Legion) Could work if the PCs were Centurions in a war campaign.

One possible solution to this problem (and to bring them together as a group) is to make them all part of the same contubernium - literally a group of (8?) soldier who shared a tent, but used also for a group of young elite males on their first campaign being educated by a senior magistrate. This would provide a good way to get them into a military situation, give them a mentor figure, and give them a reason not to be only another face in the legion.

It really depends on what kind of story you want to tell.

Do you want to run a mystery? You could have the PCs investigating the (supposed) murder of Germanicus, the "beloved" adopted son of Tiberius and next in line to be princeps.

Do you want a military campaign? Well there is a wealth of inspiration, but I would suggest either looking at the Second Punic War (if you want a desperate fight in Italy) or one of the many campaigns to conquer Britain (if you want a 'King Maker' style exploration game).

Intrigue? Calligula was murdered by the Praetorian guard, so you could have the characters be conspirators in that affair. Alternatively, if you would rather set your game during the Republic, they could try to bring down the Republic as part of the Catalinarian conspiracy. Heck, if you wanted a good paranoia style political/social navigation game, you could set it during one of the proscriptions that took place during the late Republic.

That is just a couple ideas from the top of my head. I think the first question you want to ask yourself is whether you want to set your game in the 'legendary past' (the time of the Roman kings), the Republic, the Principate, or late Antiquity. Broadly speaking, each of these period will present a very different picture of Rome and what it means to be Roman.

So yeah, sorry for the long(ish) post. I am a graduate student in classics and anytime I get to bring the ancient world into my roleplay I get a little excited...

Edit:

An alternative option for the setting of your game, rather than a specific point in history, is 'generic' (for lack of a better term) Rome . By this, I mean the Rome that exists in the popular imagination. This setting - as opposed to a historical one - means you can pick and choose the aspects of Roman culture and history that you want rather than forcing yourself to conform to one period.

My rogues are always half-elf or elf anyways.

A fair point - mine usually have some form of enhanced vision. We do, however, have a gentleman in our group who loves both humans and rogues. It helps him out and no one really minds.

Aside: Would low-light vision help you in a dim alley? I know it extends the range of light sources, but would it help you if the only light source around was dim?

Not trying to take this thread in a different direction. I am now just worried that I have been unfairly disadvantaging races with low-light vision in dark alleys.

One thing that we have done (in my home games) is give rogues the Shadow Child trait from the 'Council of Thieves' AP. (As a free bonus trait.) This allows rogues without dark-vision to function better than most characters of their race in dim light, which my group feels is thematically appropriate.

Edit:

It also allows them to keep their sneak attack in dim light, which we like as trying to knife someone in an alley at night shouldn't negate sneak attack damage.

dot

180) The Merry Men of Merry-Moor
181) The Knights Tumblar

Core Rule Book, p. 182 (third paragraph of the natural attack section)

You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack...When you make additional attacks in this way, all your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and only adding 1/2 of you Strength modifier to damage rolls.

Hope that helps!

I am glad you brought this up actually, I need to speak to a certain half-orc barbarian who has been using full strength/BAB on his bite along with his weapon.

This ideal is Appealing to me more and more, now just how to present her...

You could always use one (or more) epithet(s) in place of a proper name. I think it would be cool to have multiple as it might reflect different cultures/races/groups perceptions of death, but as she is an actual being this might be a little weird in your world.

The epithets themselves (as in ancient Greek literature) could very in their tone - describing physical features (such as Aphrodite Kallipyge - Aphrodite with beautiful buttocks - or, more famously, Athena glaukopis - bright-eyed Athena), inherent qualities (Melaina Nox - Gloomy/Dark Nox), place of origin (Delios - the Delian [ie. Apollo]), etc.

All you need to do then is come up with a list of adjectives, which you feel describe your "Death" (wow, never thought I would type that...), and then formulate them into epithet style appellations. (The x lady, x one, she of x, etc.)

Thank you all so much for the help, it is greatly appreciated. I think I am going to run with the ranged inquisitor build XMorsX suggested - sticking with the Roc the whole way through as I like the idea of one loyal companion. Now I just need to find a suitable god (we use all homebrew gods and there are some major holes in our pantheon) and figure out how to house and feed it on a ship...

Lamontius: My group is the same way - pretty much every single BBEG has had his name twisted into something at least semi-humorous. Fortunately, Lucius has so far avoided this fate and is just called "Captain Rackham."

Awesome! Thank you Suthainn. A ranged inquisitor is not something I had previously considered - do you think that they have enough feats to support the archery combat style?

Hey all,

So here is the background:

My group is currently playing through the Skull and Shackles AP (we are somewhere in book 2 - see spoiler below) and everyone is having a blast.

Recently, we had a PC die and this sparked a debate as to whether it was appropriate to raise dead/resurrect/reincarnate a PC (who had not left any sort of documentation suggesting that was their desire) when we wouldn't do so for anyone else in the crew. Ultimately, we agreed that for this campaign no one would get raised, unless they had actively expressed a desire for this to happen at some point in the past. (For the record, we ruled that the PC closest to the dead PC had heard him express such a desire as we didn't want to punish him based on a spur of the moment decision.)

I fully support our decision, but it did get me to thinking - my character is not really one for forethought and he tend to drop quite a bit so he might have to be replaced at some point in the near future.

Now, I really have no idea what I would play if my current character bites it and I was hoping you kind folks could make some suggestions.

Here is the current party:

1) Lucius Rackham - Captain (CN; Human, Oracle of Waves 5) [Me]: He was made captain purely because he was the most likable/extroverted member of the party. He is a nice guy (just too lazy to be of Good alignment) and kind of a fop, spending too much money on cloths, jewels, and expensive wine. As the only character to max profession sailor he is currently the helmsman as well as captain. He also has solid social skills and acts as party face most of the time. When it comes to combat he is alright - I decided to play a more "balanced" character and thus fell into the classic jack-of-all-trades trap. He is also the only source of party healing (except for Sandara, which I believe Corvin is going to pick up as a cohort at level 7).

2) Corvin Shecuranz - Quartermaster [I guarantee you I misspelled that name...] (CG; Half-Elf, Ninja 5): He is the conscience of our motley crew, quick to tell us when we have gone too far. He is also an economic wiz and manages the ship's funds. He has an intense hatred for "One-Eye" (the non-disruptive, fun roleplaying kind). Outside of combat he acts as secondary face, and does the other things generally considered the purview of rogue-like classes (perception, disable device, etc.). In combat, the build is a fairly standard reasonably optimized ninja.

3) "One-Eye" - Bosun (CE; Aquadic Half-Orc, Sea Reaver Barbarian 5): He acts as a foil to Corvin, constantly pushing us towards more violent acts. After dying, he returned a bit more muted having seen the terrible afterlife that awaits him. He returns Corvin's hatred with aggressive apathy. He is the guy we turn to when something needs a good intimidating. He is probably the most combat capable character in our group and consistently dishes out really solid damage.

4) Rathion - Ships Wizard (CN; Drow, Shianti bloodline [?] Sorcerer 5): He is our stereotypical creepy wizard, who spends most of his time performing strange experiments in his alchemists lab. When he does emerge he generally acts as tertiary face and spell support. It is the player's first time playing any kind of caster, but he is picking it up fairly quickly and has been devastating in the last couple combats.

For this AP, our group is using 20pb and most pathfinder material is allowed - I say most because the GM has the right to veto anything, but it hasn't happened yet.

Questions (finally, that post went longer than intended):

1) So given our current party composition, what do you all think would be a reasonable replacement character for Lucius?

Some things to consider - I am leery of running without any healing. That being said, I don't really want to play another Oracle or Hedge Witch (which was my last character) so I am willing to be convinced to give it a go. Also, I am not a huge fan of dumping stats. I am willing to do it, but I generally like to have a solid roleplay related reason. Finally, I would really like to be able to make a meaningful contribution in combat (which is where I currently feel like I am lagging).

2) How would you go about introducing a new character into the insular culture of a pirate ship and getting them promoted reasonably quickly to an officer position? (Both general and group specific advice appreciated.)

Whew, I think that is everything. Thank you to everyone who managed to slog through my sloppy prose.

The Hell Knight Commander might work. It is the closest thing, that I can think of, to a Lawful Evil Paladin.

I think the Hellknight plate would be particularly appropriate, as I seem to remember him moving fairly quickly despite his heavy armour. I would stay away from the summoning disciplines and instead go with things like "Onslaught" or "Fearsomeness."