Pendagast's page

Organized Play Member. 6,019 posts. 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 6,019 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Need to have Jekyll/Hyde At level one
Some kind of transformation ability

It the cleric entry says if your dirties favored weapon is simple , then the fear applies and for elves, longbow is a simple weapon , I think that needa some dev clarification

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I was talking conceptually rather than saying all conversions were exact. Beasts are something that would be an Animal (or occasionally a Humanoid, I suppose) but have significant innate magic...which makes them something else entirely.

With that logic , beasts is a very broad category then

Where did superstitious barbarian go?

What happened to ranger favored enemies like fiends or undead?

Seeing as this is supposedly a tank build
The two handed weapon is moot

Tanks don't do the most damage
They weather the storm of the mist damage
This isn't an mmo where you need to do damage to get the monster to focus on you

A tank build has feats and terrain to put himself between the enemy and his party
If the archer is siniking 100 damage a round it doesn't matter if you can add 1.5 str to your sword

So there's a difference between a tank build, and how do I do the most damage , aka a. Bruiser build.
A kensai magus with high int and Dex and flamboyant aracana is going to have more act and do more damage than a "tank"
But is must certainly not a tank
Because if he does get hit
Gore will fly

So the real question is... are you wanting to play a tank?
Or do a lot of damage?

Monk/paladin with temple sword
Although I think there is crusaders flurry to flurry with other weapons too

But since he is allowing unchained monk and wants "powerful heroes"
Then paladin monk is the way to enlightenment!

The pcs aren't even dead yet
Unless this is a low fantasy game
They can be changed back

It's not like they were disintegrated by a 13ty level caster and can't even be resurrected
Nothing short of a wish bringing them back

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
bigrig107 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Some things just can't be cured in the early levels. This is one of them. A GM is a cruel, cruel person pitching such ridiculous creatures at their party (especially without a feasible means of reversal).

You'd have to be 9th level to cast Raise Dead (after destroying their bodies and casting Stone to Flesh), and your allies are still going to suffer permanent negative levels and all of that.

Best thing I can tell you is either beg the GM to give you an adventure with a MacGuffin that is able to fix them, or tell your stoned friends (assuming they're not thinking that rulebook is totally talking to them) to reroll new characters of the same level.

Because seriously, petrification BITES.

A GM is cruel for sending a CR 5 creature with an ability that requires a DC 15 Fort Save to avoid at their party?

Assuming a party of four, and that they rolled horribly (seeing as how the two casters are not petrified, the good Fort classes most likely are), there's still 1d3 doses of basilisk blood that could help.

It's a legitimate foe, and as long as this GM didn't pull the "there are four basilisks, make four Fort saves a round or die" crap, it's not his fault. Sometimes PC's die. It happens.

I'd say it's quite cruel. A bad roll and all of a sudden you have to make a new character because of an outrageous save or die? You might as well have been playing the Tomb of Horrors campaign if we're going that route.

In order for a PC to know the basilisk blood stuff, they need a good Knowledge (Nature) roll (which may have whiffed, and therefore can't feasibly apply it outside of metagaming, which is much more frowned upon), and even then, they might have rolled a 1 on their basilisk, meaning they'd still have one PC who's permanently turned to stone. Being forced to choose between which party member lives and which party member gets left behind as a decorative piece can be very difficult in the perspective of a PC, and can...

If a basilisk is cr5 that means less than a 6th level parties equivalent challenge.

Is it unfair if orcs kill your 3rd level character because it takes a spell of more than double your characters level to reverse?

At least your party inquisitor/scout didn't mid identify a behir as a basilisk with a bad roll and have the party tank and beat stick wander into the cavern using closed eyes a blind fighting only to be crisped by a behir.

Uhhhhhhhh guys he doesn't turn you to stone after all.…

Kinda hard to make reflex saves with your eyes closed

The more I think if it, the more it sounds like fun

Kind of a headless horseman mystic at first
Dark and shadowy, intimidating and something suspicious about the helmeted cloaked figure on a overly muscled mount.

Why would the character switch sides?
His unit was betrayed in a scramble for power?
Political idealist/out cast?
Opportunist merc looking to make the most money?

I don't think there's anything wrong with a black knight type character where it's not readily noticeable what race he is.

How long before people knew Spider-Man was a white teenager?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unless something has the scent ability, smelling s hobgoblin wouldn't necessarily be different than Smelling anyone else.
There have been numerous Orc pcs over the years
And specific Orc feats
And orcs have always been "the enemy"

Hobgoblins probably have a strange accent like any foreigner
But considering one of the APs consisted of pcs wearing dead elf skin to wander around unnoticed like they were just part of the crowd, I assume a little disguise, performance etc wouldn't be out of order.

Heck I wouldn't even tell the other pcs
I'd let them discover it.

I play a a drow in one campaign and the pcs don't know it
He's even been described as having strange mannerisms , accent and body features for an elf

How massively different is a hobgoblin from a half Orc?
Generally the hobgoblins are lawful evil
This one maybe lawful neutral

We have parties full of tiefling, and even regular goblins pretending to be gnomes on these boards

Heck id go for if you enjoy rp

Can you be a lawful neutral fell rider?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey guys, it's called a helmet and or hood.

Does a hobgoblin on heavy armor look much different t than a human in heavy armor ?
I picture thus character looking like lord soth
Armor , cloak and evil red eyes peering out

Take rich parents as a trait and have at least banded armor with full helm
Take a little bluff and disguise to cover your appearance/voice and mannerisms

How are hobgoblins that different than the mass of half orcs or Orc characters that have been played?

Elves live. Very long time
They are also like slow mo chameleons
Give them enough time and they start to resemble their environments
Drow are simply elves who have lived underground long enough to inherit the traits of the environment
Noble drow are blessed by the demon lords they serve

Wood elves look green and brown
Tower elves look white and pasty
Snowcasters look like Loki holding the frost giant casque
If a drow were to spend long enough above ground away from darkland magics and demonic rituals they would look different
Check out their alternate racial traits
A surface infiltrator would look more like seltyiel than depora

2 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Axial wrote:

Suppose I roll up a Hobgoblin PC for this campaign. What would that entail?

I recall that Second Darkness strongly discourages and all but forbids players to play as Drow. This is understandable, given the Drow's origins and their secrecy in the Pathfinder campaign setting. However, while Hobgoblins are almost universally Lawful Evil, they are not bound to evil in the same way that (setting-wise) Drow are.
{. . .}

I can't get my hands on a Second Darkness Player's Guide (this and the one for Legacy of Fire were not available for free download as separate PDFs), but I understand that in part Paizo was (apparently with some real justification) afraid of a flood of Drizz't do'Urden clones. Since such a calamity has not materialized, I would like to see this prohibition removed or at least alleviated when they release Second Darkness Anniversary/Hardcover Edition.

If not for real life issues that have prevented me from playing anything (and will continue to do so at least through October), I would be up for playing a Drow in Second Darkness, or in principle a Hobgoblin in Ironfang Invasion, except that whereas I have a well-developed character concept for the first(*), I don't have one for Ironfang Invasion, and no guarantee that when I get one that it will be a Hobgoblin . . . But I can appreciate the overall concept.

(*)I haven't read any of the Drizz't do'Urden novels, but I checked on Wikipedia to make sure that I hadn't accidentally created a Drizz't do'Urden clone . . . Check.

You really can't play a drow in second darkness

It's not an issue with a certain encounter
It's literally the entire AP as written
If you have read or played the AP you wouldn't understand
And I can't explain without spoiling the whole AP
It's literally not possible to play a drow without ruining the whole campaign.

If you're going to do that finesse thing why not build a swashbuckler?
You could do a little bit of a barabatian dip spend feat on extra rage power so you can still have witch hunter and superstitious.

Heck if you really wanted to you could get slashing grace and slash away with a bastard sword.

If you were after disruptive and spell breaker you could play a magus and get them through arcana

I'm just saying you can get more out of a build than a barb that fights with two shortswords
There's no bonus to damage there and there's no weapon training like a fighter. With a low str you will run into dr issues very soon if your party hadn't seen that already

As a 7th level barb in carrion crown
I think I'd take an elven mounted fury
Take blended view and forlorn to pick up a skill focus
S 15 D 18 C 12 I 10 W 12 ch 10

You'd have fast rider and bestial mount instead of fast movement and uncanny dodge

Rage powers : superstition, witch hunter and ferocious mount

Mounted combat
Trick riding
Exotic weapon Falcata
Two weapon fighting

At 9th ride by attack
11th spirited charge
13th improved twf
15th mounted skirmisher

Fight with Falcata and kukri

If you don't go mounted
Take feats like nimble moves , acrobatics steps and light steps
Fast move over debris, marsh, sand etc

Introduce your character as an elven mounted warrior
No one will get the barbarian part
They might think ranger

Wait to "freak out" until you're fighting undead, witch/necromancers and the like
Good fun.

Of course a ranger with mounted combat style could get skirmisher a lot earlier and pick the right favored enemies and you could have similar results
But you won't be able to get those fighter only fears of disruptive and spell breaker

Diaz Ex Machina wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
Remember , unchained barb highly favors two weapon fighting not two handed

Interesting. I've already played a two-handed fighter in this campaign, so it would be a nice change going a TWS route. Which feats should I take, apart from the obvious Two-Weapon Fighting line?

Hmmm I'd have to give it some thought

I haven't played carrion crown since it first came out.
And many option have come online since then.

7th level you say?

I'll get back to you…

Tyophelis wrote:

Thank you both for your advice. I agree I could still make intimidating work. But I really got the feeling my DM does not like it. He wants us to be scared of the deamons (which we are) and not the other way around.

With Ancestral scorn I should be able to give enemys -4 or even stagger them, my DM would hate me for that alrdy...

He s a follower of Iomedae and yes I am using the favourite class bonus for self healing, exept the first lvl because I didn t have lay on hands then. At 4th lvl I LoH for 2w6+7 on myself. The reason for wanting more hp is because I rolled really bad a 2 and a 4 followed by a 10 so it s starting to even out, but 34 hp at 4th lvl isn t that great. My main role will be to absorb hate and Dmg so a little bit of a buffer I think is needed. But I always learn Hero s defiance as first lvl spell, so I should be fine.

He wants you to be scared of the demons... Except Paladins are immune to fear and you are in a mythic campaign where not only can others choose immunity to fear, but you can get mythic presence and have a fright aura like a dragon..

Personally I'd go that route and you can have it all
Get mythic presence as soon as you can
Poof no need to roll intimidate

By the way
Fleet charge, impossible speed and aerial assault ... Very good combo
Gets you to combat with a Big Bang and you can still full attack if you haven't absolutely crushed whatever it was with your death from above manuver

Dude, it's carrion crown … you have to play a superstitious witch hunting barbarian
It's a requirement!!

Remember , unchained barb highly favors two weapon fighting not two handed
Make sure to go after disruptive and so spell breaker rage powers
Über useful at your point in the AP and after

Larkos wrote:

Yes the English Longbow did trump the crossbow but the composite longbow in this game isn't really the same as that. And "Crossbowman Fighter with Overwatch Style and VMC: Rogue" is an awful lot of hoops to jump through to use a weapon that only requires "maybe a few days of training" to learn to use properly.

I'm not asking that everyone use simple staves or scythes. I'm saying that the real life diversity of weapons happened for a reason. If the longsword/scimitar was the best single-handed weapon in all cases then why invent things like the flail, battleaxe, or spiked shield? Plenty of real knights used maces to damage other knights in chaimmail and later plate armor. This is completely ignored by this system as it is just as easy to pierce full-plate with a switchblade as it is to bash it with a warhammer.

1e had tables for what you're talking about

But almost no one used them, kinda like most people ignore encumberence.
It was deemed to be rules heavy just like the table for Soave requirements to wield weapons.

I still use Space requirements.

IRL axes and other halted weapons were much less expensive than swords
If you want to run a realistic game of thrones type campaign
Make silver the standard money.
This means characters start with silver not gold
But the prices for things remain in Unmodified.
It's fun because it makes treasure way more wow!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll just weigh in a little on power gaming, tired builds and min maxing

I came in on a late campaign
Party healer moved away , I was asked to make a healer.
I built a war sighted battle oracle
166 hp

In the 5th game session I was one shotted by a demon with a vorpal axe
None of my spells worked on him
SR and saves were crazy high (like 31)
And this was a printed monster in a forgotten realms book

It's not tired builds or power gamers or min maxers that are the problem
It's a game system that requires it to survive, participate and have fun.

Cantriped wrote:

Hmm, the only build I ever got tired of was a "Shatter Warlock" in 3.5... the character literally ruined almost every low-level encounter I threw at the party, and made combats with humanoids unfun for me to run. I had to give my big bad evil guy a cursed weapon just to keep the player from shattering it without also making the bad guy too powerful.

In pathfinder, I'm a little tired of Dex-to-Everything builds; both the lengths players will go to create them, and the fact that strength doesn't seem to get the kind of feat love that dexterity does from the developers. As a GM, I find it frustrating when players build (or try to build) characters under the assumption that any given ability score should be able to be used for everything that character does and every single check that character has to make.
Worse is when these players become annoyed that the rules don't let them do it; which drags out character generation while they search for a way to do it, or beg me to house-rule one. Second only to when said players can, and do (but usually at great expense); and get annoyed when I "use" one or more of their many dump-stats against them by posing a challenge which requires a check they didn't optimize for...
Example: When the players of a Dexterity Build have to track their encumbrance, or make the occasional climb or swim check as part of adventuring in the wilderness.

No offense but the beef you have with character builds is based on the way over done super monsters characters encounter at 10th level and above and the fact magic/wizards literally run off a single stat (int)

Yet you complain about Dex builds... That's a little uneven

Grasping hand can do it at 230 feet or more

wraithstrike wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

Telekinesis allows ranged grapple as well as some of the "hand" spells

Whips and specific feats

Creatures with tentacles and reach

Sounds like people who say you can't range grapple haven't played much?

Nobody is saying ranged grappling is impossible. We are saying that without some special exception you can't do make a grapple without it being a melee attack. Also reach is not the same as ranged. A reach attack such as a tentacle or bite from a large creature is still a melee attack.

Don't be condescending and not know that reach(melee) and ranged are not the same thing.

Telekinesis is still ranged and you can still grapple with it

The OP suggested the only way to grapple should be adjacent foes
A whole bunch jumped in and agreed

A combat manuver by the way is not technically a melee attack, it's done in place of one
Unless it specifically says you can do it as part of a melee attack, like a wolf tripping with a bite

Chemlak wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

Telekinesis allows ranged grapple as well as some of the "hand" spells

Whips and specific feats

Creatures with tentacles and reach

Sounds like people who say you can't range grapple haven't played much?


What we're saying is that you can't wrangle the rules so that a 1st level monk with nothing in his hands can grapple a target 130 feet away.

Title says it all

Tell me you can't range grapple

Yes you can

Bwang wrote:

"In addition, whenever the hair strikes a foe, the witch can attempt to grapple that foe with her hair..."

"At 4th level and every four levels thereafter, a white-haired witch’s hair adds 5 feet to its reach, to a maximum of 30 feet at 20th level."

Thank you

Prehensile hair/WHW allows the same shenanigans

Telekinesis allows ranged grapple as well as some of the "hand" spells

Whips and specific feats

Creatures with tentacles and reach

Sounds like people who say you can't range grapple haven't played much?

Knowing the AP from years ago, it's a shame your pally is dead because of all the things to smite.
No party member with channel/turning ?


I'm not sure in this campaign replacing that punch with a generi-fighter will bring you much joy.

War priest
Unchained superstitious barbarian
Undead hating ranger may come close

But a blackblade magus that also focused on spell breaker and disruptive feats would see much joy in this campaign

Personally, I played a black powder inquisitor tiefling (hell boy)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
IMO, elves aren't represented well mechanically at all and likely wouldn't be a PC race if they were.

The original "elf" would come off much more like a drow (power level)

Elves have been merged to make a cool race for pcs due to popularity

In my home brew world, elves are half elves (half elves aren't a thing) and drown are the actual elves
And most elves are neutral or neutral evil
Not chaotic good

The elves as drow thing I have going on changes them around in that my home brew elf is mainly either a sorcerer , Druid or monk

Wizard magic is the magic of men
Sorcery is the magic of elves and the first world
Elves are very much against the younger races for destroying the world and nature
My elves value the life of a tree over that of man or dwarf

I frequently have elves as bbeg

If a PC is playing an elf
Those stats represent my diluted (or half) elves
Those who live apart from nature and severed themselves from elf society and culture

Kind of like Spock
They chose a diminished existence for the chance to be something greater

I have no dark lands or under dark

Elves can be any color skin or hair as they change to their environment within a century
Drow elves cannot be pcs at all
They are immortal as far as she is considered
Can be slain like any other PC race

But that's my home brew elf

Coboney wrote:

Shadow - my issue with Level 8 is that 4th level spells are where I find things start to break a bit. They are for a lot of combat purposes not as good as 3rd level in a lot of occasions but for plot breaking and such it starts to break down here.

A quick list of 4th level spells (all core) which illustrate this: (note some of them are 'cool' but to me often feel like they should be more of a plot device or something that's more situational)

Black Tentacles
Dimension Door
Lesser Geas

Scrying isn't too bad without 5th level spells but it does ruin a lot of different plot ideas and areas. If you went to 10th level though it gets pretty bad - Scry and Fry enters.

Divination just bypasses mysteries at times. You can work on riddles and such but if the Gods *want* to help their subject it doesn't make a lot of sense unless you have rules for cosmology.

Tongues is another mystery cracker and personally my feeling is if it obligatory to the situation that they *must* learn to speak with them there should be another way. But then - I change Comprehend Language to be like Jump for any game I think thats going to come up (+10 to linguistics checks +20 at 5th etc and lets you make the check untrained).

Black Tentacles is just a whole combat ender. An I win button a lot of the time.

Dimension Door's issue is the fact with decent range (720 at level 8 ) you can move without line of sight or effect. So it can bypass whole regions and such. Not as egregious as Teleport and less combat useful due to the fact it ends the turn but still a long range no-sight-required teleport. (On another note - Wizards at mid-levels who aren't ethically constrained don't really have to worry about money with spells like teleport and DD. I mean unless you get someone to make an anti-teleport magic item for your room/house, they can just hop in, steal what they need and be out in under 30 seconds).

Lesser Geas is up there as its a weaker dominate type effect. Whereas Charm Person...

exactly how many 4th level spells do they get at level 8 tho?

Gars DarkLover wrote:
Wilmannator wrote:
More curiosity and anticipation. I've got the hard copy and the PDF. The original response was "shortly after Paizo Con" and then lots of stuff has happened. Curiosity /= entitlement. Besides, I'm now much more interested in when Occult Adventures hits the PRD, you know, so I don't have to buy it. :-P
I have the hardcover too, but many DM/GM say "not until it is in the PRD", and it also make it easier (well, faster) when making characters and stuff.

this is curious

where does "not until its in the PRD" come from?

the official PFS rules say own it use it, so ummm you can buy a hard cover but not until its available for free?

Who came up with that one?

and Ill +1... "I dont want to pay $10 I want it for free" ...seriously??

Carla the Profane wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
VRMH wrote:
Carla the Profane wrote:
I have thought about using use magic device to cast shrink item on my corpse

Wouldn't work: your corpse isn't dead (yet), it's at 0 HP. And so it's still a creature and not an object.

Understandably, there aren't many ways of making a creature impervious. That coffin might just be your best bet I fear.

well a corpse is a deceased body. So in this case we would be talking about a body...and not a corpse.

why does it need preservation if its not deceased yet? or are we just talking about protecting it so noone messes with it?

My assessment of my body being a corpse was wrong; turns out skinsend keeps your body alive but at 0 hit points... weirdly enough.

yea... thats why i was thinking of preserving a corpse... but a lot of people think og 0hp as being dead....so its an easy mistake to make

mourge40k wrote:
M1k31 wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
This is why I hate Jerks... if someone insists on a paladin, suddenly everyone needs to.change/be wary of him. Not even evil... CN and CG have issues with Jerks as well...


Paadins don't have to be douchebags, problems with Paladins come from the same source as problems with Evil Characters. From the player.

True, nobody has a problem with the paladin in our group. Personally, if I were playing a pally, I'd play him with a philosophy of "set a good example and others will follow", rather than playing him as a bored medieval cop dishing out ass kickings to anyone who breaks even the slightest rule, which is how alot of the problem players play Paladins.

Of course, all these issues with paladins are really issues with the players themselves. I'm of the opinion that these same players would cause problems no matter what class they were playing.

The real problem with doing that kind of paladin right is it requires TWO people not to be douchebags... the player and the GM, because by RAW often if you ignore the LE too often the GM can make you fall, which then leads the player to play it as lawful stupid to avoid that.

"While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."

One day, people will fully realize that the associates clause actually doesn't make you fall. Until then, I will continue to try to remind them that anyone who does make you fall because of this hasn't...

I agree.... I think lots of people would like my paladins.

you get all the bennies of having a paladin and non of the pala-bull....

although im more likely to play a holy guide/temple champion than your typical white knight.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Prof X/Magneto is a really good example.

Magneto has ALWAYS been evil. maybe he wasnt as a child, but he was as adult.

Magnetos hunt for nazis, although justified to a point, was still carried out as an evil character would do it.

Prof X, arguably NG, had the power to feel magnetos pain and anguish (the source of his evil motives) and want to help him (ie change his alignment)

X and mags worked together because they had a common goal... (training and mentoring mutants) but for different reasons/end goals (because they had different alignments.

Hunting and punishing nazis doesnt make you good.

LE demon hunters are still evil, even tho demons are evil themselves.

another GOOD example of this is Obi-wan/Vader.

Obi wan was always LG, even though his mentor Qui-gon was arguably CG or possibly Neutral.
When he begins mentoring Anakin he views skywalkers ways as something similar to Qui-gons alignment.
He mis judges his later anger and hate as "youthful exbueration" failing to recgonize the growing evil due to his closeness to anakin and the fact that they had saved each others lives on multiple occasions.

Anakin has always been chaotic, something Obi thought he could teach out of him.
He shifted from CN to CE from manipulations from palpatine over the course of the 2nd and 3rd movie.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

usually....I try a synopsis:

what this means is I have everyone roll for init.

People with the LOWEST init score declare first, those with highest declare last.

This means the higher init people (larger number) get to know what the "slower" people are going to do.

slow orcs say they are moving forward to attack XYZ.
Faster elf says I shoot orc on his way to XYZ.

Then once everyone knows who is doing what, I have the orc start moving but let the elf shoot him before he gets there, if he's still alive he gets to finish his move/action.
This helps resolve things like cover...elf couldnt shoot him before he moved etc.

once all this has finished, rolls, numbers of damage etc...
THEN I explain:

The orcs moved forward, Elf shot and got the orc in ribs
One orc hit the dwarf the and slashed his arm, another orc swung high, missing.
the third orc glanced off he dwarfs shield.
the dwarf broke the first orcs knee cap, finishing off what the elf started,

I describe near misses like hitting armor or shields, I describe bad missed like dodging or swinging high.
Some near misses I actually have hit but the magic of the armor absorbs the blow (they would have hit and done damage if there wasnt a +2 bonus_

VRMH wrote:
Carla the Profane wrote:
I have thought about using use magic device to cast shrink item on my corpse

Wouldn't work: your corpse isn't dead (yet), it's at 0 HP. And so it's still a creature and not an object.

Understandably, there aren't many ways of making a creature impervious. That coffin might just be your best bet I fear.

well a corpse is a deceased body. So in this case we would be talking about a body...and not a corpse.

why does it need preservation if its not deceased yet? or are we just talking about protecting it so noone messes with it?

Rynjin wrote:

>Lawful Good Pirate


well....what if you are a pirate on the waters of a drow controlled domain?

Rynjin wrote:

Lawful Evil characters in a good party need to have three things:

1.) LIMITS. First and foremost a Lawful Evil character is defined by what he WON'T do, not what he WILL do. For example, my LE Monk is ruthless, and largely concerned with his own self-perfection above all else, and expects his companions to strive for the same excellence in their areas of expertise. Anyone who gets in his way is considered an enemy, and pretty much fair game for whatever needs to be done to them. He'll torture for information, and "remove" troublesome roadblocks to the party. However, non-combatants (especially children) are off-limits. Not having a focus on combat or adventuring is nothing shameful, though he does think that no matter what you do you should attempt to be the best at it. People who get in the way by circumstance or accident will be dealt with non-lethally where possible, though he won't shed any tears if they die.

2.) A common goal with the party. This one should be self-explanatory. If you don't share the same goal, why in the nine hells are you even traveling with them? Honestly, this should be a criteria for any party member.

3.) Discretion. Ain't nobody need to see all the gory details, especially if your party disapproves of your methods.

A GOOD LE character is a tyrant.... not a cut throat.

LE characters USE PEOPLE.... he NEEDS the party, thats why hes with them.... if they further his goals great.
Take out all the bad guys? Get their treasure? Yes please...Less competition for me!
Good PCs are not "world domination " types, so they are never a threat to his "ultimate plans"
Except... those plans are "when I become president" and right now...everyone are interns.

The whole thing of end game would be in the distant future, not a period of time that actually gets covered by the campaign at hand...

Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
This is why I hate Paladins... if someone insists on a paladin, suddenly everyone needs to.change/be wary of him. Not even evil... CN and CG have issues with Pallies as well...

eh.... you would like my paladins.... Im more of a Obi wan kenobi, than an ONWARD TO JUSTICE!!!! type pally player.

I once got to 5th level before anyone int he party figured out I WAS a paladin... they thought I was a ranger.

Gleaming Terrier wrote:

There's no requirement for LE characters to 'act evil'. Look at the Hellknights, for example. The Order of the Nail features characters all along the Lawful spectrum, working together. I imagine that, when mixed groups patrol together, the evil ones will roll their eyes and let an offender go with a warning, muttering about the one LG character's soft heart. When he's not there to constrain them, they may let loose.

Or, not to be inflammatory, but look at American politics. Without pointing fingers, I'm sure we can all agree that members of Congress tend towards Lawful, while running the spectrum between Good and Evil. They work together, sometimes smoother than others.

^ this...

its kind of like game of thrones , nights watch.

not everyone defending the castle is the same alignment.

some of the men defending the wall against "wildlings" are the same alignment AS those wildlings.

Example. Mance Rayder is more of a chaotic good/neutral type guy.... several of the rangers in the night watch would have the same alignment as that (quoran half hand comes to mind) BUT they would rather choose their lawful evil "brother" in the watch over any wilding....alignment be damned.

TheIronGiant6 wrote:
I've been told by many people that sometimes a lawful evil character can fit into parties better than chaotic neutral characters, but am unsure how it would work, roleplay-wise. My Lawful Evil wizard is focused on achieving ultimate magical power, by any means, and will lie, steal, and kill for it. I'm sure the paladin would love me doing that. Thoughts, or maybe stories of your L.E. characters in situations like these?

in one of the APs (council of thieves) Paizo teamed the LEM (CG) , Seelah (LG Pally) and Seltyeil (LE magus) in the same group.

The paladin may not LIKE what you do...but you may also not make in obvious what you do.

Dr. doom has worked WITH the fantastic four before, and they KNOW hes a bad guy....

Its like being at work, or on a team... do you LIKE all these people you have to work with? Would you hang out with them all?
Usually no.... you tolerate each other for a greater goal....just yours and paladins are...different goals.

Paladin is alway trying to redeem you. you are always trying to make the paladin "see the light" and smarten up.

Does mean you have to mud wrestle for bikini tops every time you dont see eye to eye.

isnt this what gentle repose is for?

Lemmy wrote:
the secret fire wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
There's nothing inherently wrong with stat-dumping... IME, it's more often than not butthurt GMs who complain about it.
The inherent problem with stat-dumping is that it engenders an environment in which PCs of any given class all tend to look the same, which undermines immersion over time. This is the great irony of point-buy systems: in theory, increased player agency should lead to greater diversity, but in practice, they lead to just the opposite.

Hah! That has literally nothing to do with stat dumping.

If you can't stat dump, you can still keep your least desired attributes at 10. If you're rolling dice, you can still put your highest bonus on Strength and your lowest on Cha.

Character's feeling "samey" has nothing to do with point-buy, it's just because players will naturally try to make their characters as effective as possible.

Whether that is by allocating attribute points or dice rolls is irrelevant.

you can make three fighters in a row with dice roll and they will never be the same.

I like stat rolling for that reason, because you're forced to deal with your stats.... "Ok what am I going to do with these"? it also. often gets the guy who would otherwise play wizards to play a rogue this time, etc etc.

four people get together, roll stats and make a party right then and there with what fate gave them.... the groups are more organic and less cookie cutter everytime.

I once played a thief with NO stats over 11, it was fun...he was fat, lazy and unmotivated...I used my starting money to buy a cart, pulled by an ox and a driver.
I didnt have the Con for that walking about in the mountains s~#~! and how would I carry my loot? I had a 9 str!

honestly, the crappy stats made a fun character I would not have otherwise played.

Lemmy wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
For every modern Buffy and Vampire Diary and Anita Blake bodice-ripper treatment of seductive vampires and primally buff werewolves, there's ancient tales of just how deadly and horrible such creatures are, predators hiding behind human facades to prey on those closest to them.

And...? It isn't any less valid because it wasn't created in olden times... Specially not in a game that includes shotguns, chainsaws, androids, etc. None of those are present in ancient mythology.

Aelryinth wrote:
And some people just don't like the idea of 'nice' vampires and werewolves. Seriously, truly don't. To find them the object of romance novels is, like, complete betrayal of the trope.

So what? Just don't add them to your game. There is literally nothing to gain from making it so those who like it will never have official support for their games.

And that's not the point anyway, just one specific example.

I could just as well have said "All Sorcerers are descendant from genies". The point stands.

I kinda liked the "Old" all sorcerers had dragon blood of the 3.X genre... the alternate bloodline thing took a LONG time to grow on me.

Envall wrote:

Stat dumping is a sympton of an old system, not really a problem. Other than very crucial connections that some abilities might have, what stat row you give yourself has very little reflection how your ability to do stuff will progress. While attribute modifiers are a big part of your early levels, they quickly tamper into just another bonus modifier among the many.

In Shadowrun (5th ed) you start at 1 out of 6 as human. There is no going below 1, that is the bare minimum you can have of single attribute. Then one point increases it by one. Dumping exists in Pathfinder because you need to play that escalating game of point buy. 8 INT is gameplay wise a lot less dramatic as people would want to see it, and the player might not even care to play a stupid person. Deep down, 10 and 7 are treated about the same, which is "not exceptional".

A lot tighter number game would leave much tighter impression what exactly it means to be big mean character with maxed out Strength. It all blends together into "Meh okay just general superhuman?" when you start throwing in the general stat increasing items too. Really, I have seen nobody actually even care to distinct 10-14 str from each other, they are all just kind mundane and normal.

in 1e, a 17 str gave you +1 to hit and +1 to damage.... thats a HIGH stat for very little goodies.

Now in this edition, thats the same as a 12 str...although for whatever reason I do miss my "bend bars/lift gates" stat....yes I know this is a str check now...but I still miss it.

The problem as is see it is a the ridiculous monster stats later in the game and the unfettered spell casting 3.0 introduced.
its not a swords and sorcery game anymore, its a sorcery game... that was a big goof with 3.0 and its also why you still see a sizeable contingent of players using 1.0/2.0 rules sets.

Im my games, I tend to tone down the uber monsters a bit, and I make spell components more of a thing like 1e and it all balances back out....

4e TRIED to level the playing field. and I cant follow what 5e has done.

but seriously an 8 int is what every character with no points started with in 3.5....10 is NOT the normal every day person... 8 is,,, 10 is the equivalent of educated and informed.
12 is above average, 14 exceptional, 16 brilliant and 18 savant.

I always get a chuckle out of every 1st level wizard with an 18 int....

anyone remember when you HAD to have a 17 cha to be a paladin? what did most of their other stats look like (unless cheated? 13-14 str and 12 con was pretty normal for a paladin.... lol

how many of your fighters in 1e had 18/00 str?

i WAY preferred the days of roll your stats for this kind of reason.

Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Not necessarily MAX STR, but if a fighter doesn't start with an 18 STR he's going to have a hard time 1hkoing level one enemies reliably.
18 is pretty much max STR. sure you could get a 20, but that would also limit your race choices... so martials should only be human , half elf or half orc now? because the other standard races dont get a boost to str.
Dwarves make for good martials. Free con and wis boosts are aces and it's not like you're using the charisma for anything anyway on most of them. Plus, Dwarf fighter is one of the best ways to have not-terrible saves against spells since your bonus feats mean you can grab Power attack AND Steel Soul right away.

18 is STILL max str, isnt it?

Aelryinth wrote:

For every modern Buffy and Vampire Diary and Anita Blake bodice-ripper treatment of seductive vampires and primally buff werewolves, there's ancient tales of just how deadly and horrible such creatures are, predators hiding behind human facades to prey on those closest to them.

And some people just don't like the idea of 'nice' vampires and werewolves. Seriously, truly don't. To find them the object of romance novels is, like, complete betrayal of the trope.

It's possible to roleplay and interact even with evil undead, that seems to be missing from your explanation. And 'spirits' occupy a whole other category that is not defined by alignment restrictions like normal undead.

But note that it's 'breaking away' from the traditional, hard lines of what being a lycanthrope and bloodsucker really are that define those games/systems/stories. And its adhering to those tropes that define what the core Pathfinder game is about.

So, adhere to the core system, and house rule it different if you like. But it is adherence to that traditional baseline that makes Pathfinder what it is, and 'opening it up to all options' is NOT going to make it 'better'. It makes it more dissolute, less defined, and more ambiguous, and that's not the type of game/world they are interested in selling, or a lot of people interested in playing in.

Restrictions add flavor. 'You can't add this' is just as much flavor as 'anything
goes', which, in the end, is completely flavorless and bland in the eyes of many. Sure, a 'good' werewolf makes a fine exception to the rules...if there's ONE of him. When it's every other werewolf, it loses all relevance whatsoever, and being a werewolf ceases to be a special thing. It's just a bunch of stat mods.


True story, I was ended an entire campaign that had been going on over a year, by raising dead to fight off an overwhelming amount of enemy and save the party by flooding the battle field with my minions.

I was an 11th level priest of tempest, I was chaotic neutral...this is class could turn OR control dead and cast heal OR harm spells.

I had never previously done this. None of the players were playing good aligned characters. We had a lawful neutral monk, a neutral barbarian, a neutral druid, a neutral magic user and a neutral fighter/magic user/thief.

Everyone REFUSED to play with me or the GM after that.
Campaign canceled.

Seriously, I was shocked.

Some people REALLY hate undead.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Not necessarily MAX STR, but if a fighter doesn't start with an 18 STR he's going to have a hard time 1hkoing level one enemies reliably.

18 is pretty much max STR. sure you could get a 20, but that would also limit your race choices... so martials should only be human , half elf or half orc now? because the other standard races dont get a boost to str.

Prc into hell knight.... you have to kill a devil to become one... thats what palsdins do...kill devils right?

You could get the smite chaos ability and when you run into chaotic evil opponents you can smite them....
just tell the DM you SMITE! when you smite and do extra damage, the players will all buy farther into the paladin thing.

1 to 50 of 6,019 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>