I am honestly considering applying for this, though I am uncertain if I should be prioritised. Do consider me if you would be so kind, though.
Character concept: Adalieh wanders the land, helping those less fortunate combat wounds and other physical ails. She is accompanied by her raven, Greywhisper, who croaks ominous warnings and instills wisdom and terror in those who listens to its whispers. Despite her charitable nature, Adalieh nevertheless has a fickle, greedy nature and, much like her familiar, looks for trinkets to satisfy her vanity.
my spells known were without feats just favored class bonus and bloodline spells. and the sorc can still buy a one use scroll and use it for the spells he doesn't know you may need a spell once and the wizard has it forever but usually those spells are once or twice so the wizard gets it permanently where as the sorc has to spend the money a few more times. and both will have to go to town to get the spell.
What if you aren't a human? What if the DM doesn't permit alternate favoured class bonuses? If the crux of the argument is "this isn't a problem if you're a human sorcerer" - because the alternate favoured class bonus for an extra spell is human only - then... you still need to justify it for the other races who do not have this.
I like this.
I already houserule it so spontaneous casters have the same progression as prepared ones.
a wizard has 5-8? spells per day per level. A sorcerer has 6-9 spells per day per spell level. they know 12 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 4 without feats at the cost of 1 hp per level or 1 skill point so the sorcerer has more spells per day and can have more spells know with alt favored class and feats so they have almost as much versatility as a wizard and they can just buy a scroll if they need the spell. A wizard can cast any spell but in my opinion they don't need to know more than 10 spells of any given level so you are down maybe 2-3 spells. So they decided to leave the slower progression in to balance this. also the wizards only get 1 more feat then the sorc
But while the sorcerer is using every alternate favoured class bonus and every feat on new spells, the wizard can simply buy a scroll and learn it - and still have feats.
To say that "just because the sorcerer can match the wizard in versatility - provided that he expends every single resource to do so - they had to balance it by slowing down his progression" doesn't cut it for me. The wizard can get all the spells by only expending gold. The sorcerer, in the meanwhile, needs to cripple himself so he has less skills/less hit points and less feats, only to be outdone by a wizard.
Don't get me wrong - the sorcerer has an edge because he can cast any of those spells on the fly. But considering how much he sacrificed for it, it just isn't worth it.
What a heated reply.
I disagree with the designers as well.
I started this topic because I wanted to know if there was a... valid reason for the slower progression. So far, the answers I have got, to me, does not justify the slower progression. I personally do not believe sorcerers or oracles would outclass wizards and clerics if they had equal spell progression. What the oracle and sorcerer have in power, the cleric and wizard has in flexibility.
But clerics - barring archetypes or class alternatives - do not need to prepare cure spells to use them. Clerics also have access to their entire list every day, while oracles are limited to the spells they pick.
Mechanics-wise, I would say that is a weak balancing factor. Yes, the oracle gets free spells - but the class they're being balanced against doesn't have to prepare said spells and can cast them in pretty much the same way.
What about the Oracle? What's the balancing factor there? The Oracle doesn't have a similar ability (to my knowledge) yet she's put in the same boat as the sorcerer.
I present my Dwarf Magus, whose name is not yet determined (though likely will be Art Halfstone). He might or might not be the Kensai archetype, I haven't decided yet.
Crunch is in this profile.
Arth was born and raised in the city of Taggoret, in the Five Kings Mountains; his mother was a wizard dedicated to the ideals of Nethys, and his father an exemplar of Irori (Ease of Faith). Early on in his life, partially because of parental dispute (Suspicious), partially because of his desire of a journey, he travelled from Taggoret and Avistan, to the distant lands of Tian Xia. Settling down at an age of twenty-four in Minkai, he found solace and quiet. Still wounded from the rift in his family, he embraced both his parents' ideals, and sought out training in both the mysterious crafts of the arcane, and the esoteric yet deadly art of the Urumi (OR Tian swordfighting). Yet when tension rose in Minkai, Arth returned to Avistan - while admiring the country, he had no desire to get involved in their politics.
Several years later, in Absalom, Arth was attending one of its many colleges to pursue his study of the gods, both old and new. There, he met Professor Petros Lorrimor. Admiring the man's mastery of the many disciplines of knowledge, Arth enjoyed both lectures and evenings with the man, devoting most of his time to further his own understanding of the realms of the divine, of mythic histories and ecclesiastic tradition. It was Lorrimor who gave Arth, as a parting gift, the silver symbols of Irori and Nethys - keepsakes that he now holds dear.
After Absalom, Arth moved to Magnimar, where he studied until the age of fifty. By some morbid coincidence, on his fifty-first birthday, the letter of Professor Lorrimor's passing arrived - and with all intent of honouring the man, he set out for Ustalav within days...
I always thought Barbarians had to be non-lawful because the concept of lawful implies order and restraint. At least, I always interpreted it as this. Monks need to be lawful because they achieve their powers through clarity of mind, and Barbarians can't be lawful because their rage is giving in to their passions and becoming an unfettered, raging weapon, which goes against the order and self-control aspects of the lawful axis.
Well, my two cents, at least.
It looks like Jade Regent is the current leader, but after taking a look at the Carrion Crown AP, it's captured my imagination. Anyone have interest in taking part in that, or is JR still preferred?
Having run both to... a minuscule degree, I can personally say I prefer the atmosphere in Carrion Crown, but also find the... ah, light-heartedness of Jade Regent to be very tasteful as well.
Speaking of, would it be at all possible to obtain your email address=
In my campaign, we have a spellslinger. He's a mad scientist who enjoys explosions and walks on the beach with mad monkeys.
He is possibly the most hilarious character ever conceived at any of my tables.
I personally think it is a brilliant archetype. It completely nerfs the wizard in regards of potential power - i.e., his flexibility, but it also allows him to enchant his weapons to god-level rather early on - if you go two-weapon fighting and precise shot, he actually becomes frighteningly efficient in ranged combat. The flavour is magnificent too.
I say it is absolutely worth it.
You need to provide at least some info on your guys to receive any sort of help here. APL? Classes?
There's eight characters (only six of them are played at once, though)
All characters are 8th level, and the party consists of:
Magic items are very varied. Some are over-equipped, others are under-equipped. I don't have their character sheets here at the moment.
In my current Kingmaker game, I am trying to make new villains because the overall plot and direction of the game has gone too far away for the original villains to be any good.
However, I am not good at creating villains, stat-block-wise. How far is too far?
Currently, the idea is that there are four people, lead by some as-of-yet unknown entity are heavily opposed to the player character's kingdom for one reason or the other. I'm thinking said entity is a gestalt heavens oracle/ starsoul sorcerer 20/20, simply to be ridiculous, but even I realise that may be way too much.
However, for the four villains, my current ideas are thusly:
A: A crossblooded draconic/stormborn sorcerer. He specialises in lightning magic and dispel magic, through elemental focus, destructive dispel and spell focus (evocation). Personality-wise, he is likely sanguine, the insane one, the hothead who loves the thrill of combat. - at the moment, I have him statted out at 11th level and 19th level. At 11th level, he is throwing out lightning bolts and electrified fireballs that deal 10d6+11 damage with a DC 25 reflex save for half. Looking at my player's character sheets, only the monk has a decent chance of dodging, at something like 40%. Is this too much?
B: An oracle of bones. Of course specialising in necromancy. Blindness/Deafness, Bestow Curse, Ray of Enervation, negative levels, undead armies, the standard drill. There's also potential for psychological warfare, seeing as one of the PC's wife died, and they never found her body. Likely the choleric one.
C: A diviner wizard. Responsible for anti-scrying, scrying on the player characters (justifying the DM meta-knowledge, go go) and generally being the douchebag and the "face" of this villain group - a melancholic personality. Have him statted out at 9th level currently.
No idea about the fourth one. Possibly a phlegmatic martial monk, or some form of martial character. Could ramp it up to eleven by making a cleric.
I realise it's difficult to know if they are too strong or too weak without any actual stat blocks to show - but there's also the concern that, for instance, the sorcerer would one-shot the party wizard (who, of course, has 8 con and 30 hit points). I've killed off some characters during the course of the campaign, but I don't want to be a jerk by showing up with way too powerful villains.
So... any tips?
Is it possible to get some quick TL;DR synopsis on what the party is going through and what the general plot seems to be? I'm quite enamored with the Bones / Cult mysteries, but they seem to have great potential for disrupting the party / derailing the plot. I don't want to be that player (if I have a shot at all).
Here is my opinion.
If you have a BAB of +6, it means you have the capability of attacking twice in one round if you use the full-attack action. It means you are martially proficient to attack twice in one round, the second attack with a penalty - known as iterative attacks.
The only rulings for off-hand weapons that I've seen are usually linked to the full-attack action known as two-weapon fighting. If you have a BAB of less than +6, it means that you need to exert yourself to attack beyond your regular limit - this is why you suffer penalties on all attacks when you perform a two-weapon fighting.
This has been mentioned multiple times. As an example of my conclusion and the logic behind it:
I'm a 6th level Fighter, wielding a waraxe in my right hand (my dominant hand) and a warhammer in my left hand (the weaker hand). When I attack twice at BAB +6 with two different weapons, the rules do not say one of the weapons is an off-hand for the purposes of strength bonuses.
Logically, this would be the case.. It isn't a faulty conclusion. When I am wielding two different weapons, I am "dual-wielding", which generally tends to require a primary hand and an off-hand. This can easily be interpreted as two-weapon fighting. Per RAW, I can't find any justification for said conclusion, though.
I am in favour of full strength for the warhammer's attack, the alleged "off-hand". At BAB +6 I am that proficient in martial combat. As a 6th level fighter, I know how to efficiently attack twice in a round. I am not exerting myself to attack beyond my limit. This is my in-character, fluff-based explanation.
It boils down to preference and personal interpretation. To my knowledge, the rules never mention off-hands apart from when you are using the two-weapon fighting attack action. Therefore, the only attacks in which the concept of an off-hand for the purposes of strength to the attack becomes relevant is when you are performing a two-weapon attack. Merely changing weapons during a regular full-round attack is not classified as a two-weapon attack, per the rules as
My opinions, at least.
I never said I didn't allow guns. I simply said I didn't allow Gunslingers.
The justification for the particular spellslinger is: he's a mad scientist who delves into scientific pursuits, and tries to advance technology as a whole, rather than only magic. In the Kingmaker game, for that is the adventure we are currently running, we oft jest that we're playing the prelude to Eberron with the way things are going.
I'm ambivalent about gunslingers in particular. I don't see anything inherently broken with the gunslinger as a whole - I raise an eyebrow at the pistelero archetype, though. I don't permit gunslingers in my games at the moment, however. While I think guns are a good fit in fantasy, I also prefer good ol' fashioned swords, hammers and fireballs.
What I do permit is the spellslinger. There's a very... scientific feel to guns, in my opinion, and I might be stereotyping slightly but I can imagine a "modern-esque" wizard creating the guns in Pathfinder. I've allowed them in my games, and I'm glad I have. Go go Professor Cain and your Kobold Riflemen Brigade.
To me, it sounds like the biggest hindrance is, in fact, the presence of a Paladin in your party.
If dipping into Juju Oracle is the only path you can take, I suggest you go Oracle/Sorcerer with the Magical Knack (Oracle) trait, and eventually go Mystic Theurge. It can easily be explained in-character, without breaking your theme, as "I wish for dominion over death in all aspects."
My suggestion, at least.
I am biased with my selection, and I think it is my right to be. My beliefs are somewhat similar to lordfeint's, though instead of half-orcs it's druids and synthesist summoners (because half-orcs are hot. I mean.)
I still have a druid in one of my campaigns.
As a DM, I am trying to have fun with my campaigns, and for that to happen I need to be biased. This is a character flaw of mine. I need to uphold a standard of mine.
That doesn't mean you can't be frustrated, but there will always be a demand of DM, and too many players. With the wrong players, the want to DM can go right out the window, and I've been close to the edge of that. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case with other DMs as well.
I'm personally a huge fan of Norse mythology and its names: Hrimfaxi, Hresvelgr, Fimbulvetr... Celtic folklore gives us names such as Leanan Sidhe, Taranis, Llŷr... Mythology and lore in general has many gems in regards of names.
The two most memorable character names I've used are Flix Flickerflame (gnome wizard) and Eir Sagasdottir (human cleric, played as a valkyrie/summoner). They're not as epic as some of the other names in this thread, though...
Other honourable mentions: Helm Hammerhand (LotR), Roxas (KH2), the entire Organisation XIII in general (with particular mention to Lexaeus and Luxord)...
And then there's names that are so bad, they're borderline good:
Two-weapon rend is feat or untyped physical damage, rather than weapon damage. Whether you are dual-wielding daggers or bastard swords, two-weapon rend's damage is consistently d10. The weapons are irrelevant, and their size does not affect the feat's damage.
Sneak attack is precision damage. It represents an exploitation of an enemy's weakness. The weapon is irrelevant, and its size does not affect the sneak attack damage.
As midnight_angel already pointed out, large and small characters do not deal more or less sneak attack damage.
I'm poking through the basics of all your character sheets. I'll have some more questions, but initially I notice that Tobar is short one ability point. Not really sure where you want to put it, but you've only spent 19 points.
Do notice that Tobar is a dwarf. My calculations show 20 points.
It's a bit of a catch 22 because regardless of what you told me to play, I'd be disappointed, heh. And I was looking up feats for the fighter and everything...
I'll have the character and sheet prepared shortly, but right now I have a CotCT game to advance.
GM Todd: How common are guns? The prices for ammunition and firearms depends on their rarity...
Alternately, can I, as per the Gunsmithing feat, craft my ammunition prior to game start? That way I won't be excessively gimped with only 5 shots until we get a significant amount of money...
Well, here are the pros and cons of my choices.
With the fighter, I'm more single-minded in what I do: damage. I will be lightly armoured, but have high dex. I need to full-attack to do most of my damage, though. Two-Weapon Warrior is supposedly inferior to regular fighter, because I lose the armour training class bonuses. On the other hand, I'm using an orc double axe - a weapon I don't think I've ever seen being used.
With the spellslinger, I'm basically a less versatile wizard. While it oozes with flavour, it also sacrifices a LOT! 4 opposed schools instead of 2, no arcane bond, no cantrips, no scribe scroll - for a free gun (1500 gp), the ability to enhance spells with a gun (with a 10% risk of explosions - which are fun), the ability to shoot spells, the ability to enhance bullet with spells...
Neither of my options are particularly efficient by an optimized standard. I don't want to be a detriment to the group in combat. Both options are very conditional - as a fighter, I need to be up in their faces constantly. As a wizard, I do have the gun to fall back on when I've used all my spells for the day - the ability to attack touch AC with d12 damage is pretty decent. However, I only have 5 doses of black powder. That's 5 attacks with the gun. I can't afford much more.
Admittedly, the insane prices for black powder is also a concern. 10 gp per dose, that is, per shot, gets really expensive really quickly.
If either of the archetypes are too detrimental in general, I can play a vanilla fighter or wizard as well. To me, it's the character that matters.
Dreaming Warforged (and GM Todd), I'm fine with both. I know the advantages and disadvantages of my choices. I'll leave it up to you.
Well, I presented my application as both fighter and wizard, and I'll play him as whatever I need to be - but I must admit there is a fondness to the idea of a Spellslinger or Gun Mage that really appeals - even if it is an archetype that truly gives up a lot more than it gives.
It's the personality and character that matters, though.