North Star's page

Deleting non-offensive replies to dubious moderation would be Orwellian if it wasn't so pathetically insecure. Yeah, I know this post is still-born but it's meant for you guys anyway.

Or maybe you'll ban me, if not now, then at the first and flimsiest opportunity.
I don't really care. I don't mind the forum itself, but when it's the kind where posts simply disagreeing with Mods are deleted, it's no big loss.

I mean, Orc is just the first thing that pops into mind when you think "magical heritage" right? Right up there with dragons and fiends right? ugh.

Of course it just has to be the go to blaster thing to have. As a fan of blasters, it really bothers me that this bloodline exists because now you have to have this dumb crossblooded sorcerer dip with a silly bloodline that shouldn't even exist from an obscure source on your Wizard or your build is sub par. /Rant

I'd really like one. Minmaxboards isn't active or Pathfinder specific enough for me. I'm also interested in seeing how many other people would like this. Is there any particular reason that there isn't one already?

I've been out of the loop on Pathfinder for a little while now, And I'm wondering if Paizo has done anything about the Monk situation. Has Paizo changed anything? If so, What? How do people feel about the class now if there have been changes? I'd really like to see a viable core Monk.

I was wanting to make a Monk reminiscent of Akuma from street fighter, but I would like to have existent DPR so that's a no-go. This isn't a conversion by the way, The Akuma thing is just an aesthetic.

Here is a rough lay out, with feats up till tenth:

---------------

Human Unarmed Fighter 9, master of many styles 1

Abilities (rolled):

Str 22(16 base, racial +2, enhancement+4)
Dex 18(16 base, level +2)
Con 13
Int 13
Wis 12
Cha 11

Feats:
Improved unarmed strike(fighter bonus)
Dragon style (fighter bonus)
Two weapon fighting(1)
Double slice(h)
Weapon focus(unarmed)(fb)
Power attack(3)
Weapon specialization(fb)
dodge(5)
improved two weapon fighting(fb)
crane style(7)
Greater weapon focus(fb)
crane wing(9)
Dragon ferocity(MoMs bonus feat)

Select gear(rough):

AoMF+1
Armour of brawling
Belt of strength+4

Other stuff

Sample attack routine at tenth, power attack on for: +17 +17 +12 +12 - 1D6+22 +3 on first attack.
-------------

Now I'm not sure about two weapon fighting, but it seems very effective when combined with dragon ferocity... I'm also a little worried about being a glass cannon with light armour and a low-ish con.

The above "proto-build" is really vague still, but how does this look so far?

Edit: Changed archetype, rearranged feats to be legal.
Edit 2: I think it's actually legal now.

So, I don't really think that rolling dangerous dice is very fun. I realize that this is an uncommon position, and many people seem to love "critical success", "fumble" rules and crit decks. My GM does. I don't. I think they destroy the already fragile verisimilitude of the system, turning elite warriors into inept clowns who stab themselves in the foot and then drop their swords. Twice. In one combat. Oh, and you better not cast any ranged touch spells, 'cause you'll end up teleporting yourself into Asmodeus's kitchen or something equally ridiculous.

Last session I played, I nearly (I roll all my attacks at once, but luckily dropped the creature on the first hit) had to make a save against strength drain (Drain! From "pulling a muscle". WTF?!) because I rolled a natural 1 on my second attack and that is what came up on the cards. I'm playing a bloody fighter and so naturally I try to set up as many full attacks as I can. Yet, what this means is that as my fighter gains more iterative attacks, and in theory greater competence, He actually increases the chances of "fumbling" and therefore looking like a fool.

I can handle the routine of full attack 5-foot step repeat. I can also handle not being being able to scry the enemy and then fly around while directing my troll zombie minion, dropping glitterdust and stinking cloud spells (and that is what I could be doing at this level). What I can't handle is being forced to take vital strike if I don't want to have higher odds of crippling my character at seventh level than I would at first level. Just from making attack rolls.

Basically I think that the whole "oh noes a natural 1!" automatic failure thing (that gives rise to stuff like fumble decks) needs to be exiled from the actual rules into the realm of house rules.

I've been thinking about GMing a game for when our regular GM can't make it. Now, I generally know what I'm doing as a player, but I have basically no experience running games.

Here is how I am planning on running the game (subject to change):

1- 15 point buy

2- max hit points at first and second level, half hit die plus 1, plus con modifier thereafter

3- CRB base classes only (other non-core content is fine pending approval [prestige classes and feats for example])

4- No automatic failure or success on anything.

Point 3 is in effect because I'm a 3.5 guy that only recently switched to pathfinder and I have no idea what to expect from oracles, gunslingers, inquisitors etcetera.

point 4 may be controversial... I just despise the jarring, random weirdness of that mechanic. The actions of highly trained, competent fighters (and if we are talking about characters who are otherwise the die numbers should be sufficient to represent luck) are not nearly as unreliable as the game makes them out to be. I can guarantee that the chances of a high-level warrior missing an unarmoured, untrained, unsuspecting (flat-footed) level 1 commoner are not as high as 5%. The chance exists, but is infinitesimal.

Something I'm kind of concerned about would be the number of players, 3 at most but more likely 2. That would seem to alter the dynamic a bit. Any recommendations for a new GM running a game for 2 players?

I have mildly bad habit, that is, creating a build before the character. But since it is too late for that and I already know what my next character will be, I'd like some help in developing greater character depth.

I'm tired of playing fairly flat characters. I try my best to role-play well, but I tend to stumble over characterization that I improvise on the spot because I created a stat-block rather than a person.

I have an aesthetic and a build in my head, and it's like this:

Fassal Hastigant, Neutral good human

"Here stands a short man, bald, long nosed with sharp features and a pallid complexion. He wears a brown robe with trim in a pattern of interlocking red and blue triangles and over that a deep cowled black cloak. He taps a heavy, well worn walking stick on the ground as he looks about his surroundings."

Fassal is an Illusionist with a secondary focus on necromancy (stuff like enervation and magic jar, not undead!) and while his magic has a "dark" feel and look to it, neither his propensity for dark places and dark magic nor his recent loss has not soiled his essentially benevolent and optimistic (though not exactly sunny) disposition.

I'm not sure where he is from yet, Osirion, Geb and Nex all seem like interesting and probable places to hail from.

I'm thinking his mentor has passed away recently, and that's why he has taken up the path of adventuring, to earn his place in the scheme of things and perhaps do some small good in the world at that.

A couple things stick out for me so far, like why does he seem so dour in some ways well adjusted in others? It's this kind of thing that I struggle with.

I'll add some more in a bit, but first I want to see what you folks have to say.

I've been looking into building a Wizard recently and something that has been kind of irking me is the universalist school powers.

Basically the universalist sort of sucks. There are a couple neat things you can do with metamagic mastery (but what other school power requires you to invest in feats just to use it?) and that's it. Losing that bonus spell slot really hurts at odd levels, which is bad enough on its own but then you start to look a bit silly compared to Conjurers and transmuters with their incredible spells and good school powers. Then there's foresight, which is essentially the One Specialization To Rule Them All (imo).

Anyway, My idea was that universalist wizards could give up hand of the apprentice and metamagic mastery and in exchange would learn 4 free spells per level instead of 2.

This would be in keeping with the idea of a wizard who is willing to forgo raw power for versatility and would provide at least some incentive to go for what should be (but isn't) the baseline wizard.

What do you think? Too powerful? Not powerful enough? Or just right?

I'd like to get some char-op perspectives on my build, Although it must be noted that I was strictly working under the following restrictions: Core rulebook only, No spell-casting (not even ranger/paladin casting), No (magical) crafting and no leadership feat.

Characters start at seventh with standard WBL (23500 gp)

abilities were rolled and I received the following array;

11,13,18,15,14,10

So, Here's who I put together;

I am aware that some of my choices are suboptimal from pure min/max point of view but I'm curious as to what others would have done under the (exact) same conditions.