Runaway Panda's page

Is there a reason you chose to make Warforged impossible to raise of resurrect? It seems like a very minor power issue that would not materially impact the playability of the race, but it undermines one of the core flavor elements of the Warforged. If I recall correctly, the Eberron Campaign Setting book explicitly states that they have souls and can be raised; which then became the primary argument for them being declared free peoples at the end of the Last War.

When we chose to use the advanced race guide as our guidelines for undergoing this conversion process we decided on using the half-construct template found in the book because mechanically it fit well with what a warforged was.

With that said, I see no problem if other GMs want to make that slight alteration in order to stick closer to the lore and not so much with the mechanics.

what's wrong with having both the swiftwing and deepsea shifts? it's not exactly like they boost each others effects, and I don't think its broken if you have to spend 3 feats to get an additional movement type.

It was like that in the original 3.5 version and I honestly don't really know why. Having a swim speed is already pretty niche so I'll see if he's willing to change that in a later revision.

My friend is planning on running a game in the Eberron campaign setting and asked me to help him in converting the Eberron races with him using the Advanced Races Guide as an outline. Somewhat content with what we came up with, we were hoping to get some feedback, tips, or constructive criticism on our converted races in hopes of fine tuning them and just seeing what everyone else thinks.

Some things to note:
- We looked around for other peoples conversions to give us a better idea of where to take the Eberron races. If you see similarities between the two this is likely because we liked what we saw and they deserve all the credit for their work.
- We built each race with a starting pool of 11 race points and tried very hard to keep everything in line with this rule.
- Racial feats were either changed or outright removed to better suit their updated versions and make them more attractive when playing that race.
- We added 3 new shifter archetypes that didn't exist in the Eberron book (as far as we know). They are Filthborn, Night Stalker and Flanged Tail.

Here's a link to the PDF: http://www.mediafire.com/view/qp24x6f6gqlvi7q/Eberron_Race_Conversion_v1.33 .pdf

If you have any questions regarding the changes we've made please do not hesitate to reply as we are eager to know what you guys think.

Recently started looking into building a Duelist and to my surprise there was a guide on it!

After messing around for a bit I came up with a 1-10 build that I thought I'd share with you all. Let me know what you think and thanks goes to Oterisk for his awesome guide.

The Build

Please let me know if I missed anything as I will be using this build in my game or If this was already posted elsewhere. Thank you!

Edit: Fixed some confusion with Crane Riposte and the Duelist class feature Riposte.

In this case your character was acting in an aggressive manner which was understandable given her background, but was excessive and probably not making her any friends. Consider playing off her initial reaction as surprise and instinctive dislike. Having had some time to "cool off," probe the necromancer and your other parties for their opinions about this situation - your character may legitimately be trying to figure out what sort of justification the necromancer has for his actions, since she feels that necromancy is only used to victimize. Your LE necromancer likely feels he is being pragmatic. They're not using their bodies, why not make use of them? Your character could easily tolerate the use of undead as long as they're not used in a directly evil way, even if she's likely to continue being suspicious.

This is what I will likely go for when our next session rolls around.

Personally, I'd bow out on the good character, and go something a little more shady neutral. Otherwise I just see things ending up bad for you. You're outnumbered pretty well, and there may come a point when that Necromancer decides to stop you from rescuing an innocent from a burning building.

I really hope it doesn't come to this because I really like my bard! :( However, I did start brainstorming some possible replacements that wouldn't feel too forced and would actually fit into the current campaign... as a just in case, hah.

Personally, among mature groups, character conflict is what makes the game still interesting.

If your characters have to fight to the death, the bard may be wise to look to the party for help before the situation goes there.
(because bards spin people to their views)

I really like how it turned out. Keep me posted on this relationship :D

Well I'm glad you're enjoying it! I'll do my best to keep you informed for as long as you hold interest.

Another option is the greater good thing.

If your character hasn't been burned in the past he may be more willing to see how this sort of cooperation plays out as a life lesson experiment.

That's another interesting idea. After all, my character(being a bard and all) loves to write stories and what not. Maybe he could see this as a potential story he could eventually write about.

That doesn't mean he cant cock block the necromancer at the local tavern. After-all haters gonna hate.

Damn right! Ha ha.

Excuse me ?

The OP states that his character is willing to agress and maybe hurt/kill another PC who did nothing wrong to the OP's character and everybody blames the second PC's player ?

Just because the OP's character is Good and the second PC is Evil ?

That is just wrong in so many ways I cannot believe it.

While I do agree that he did not actively attempt to hurt me I feel that generally speaking someone will side with a good player rather than an evil player. Is this right? Probably not, but that's the way it is.

To the OP :

1) Good alignment is not (and should never be) a blanket statement that allows your PC to harass other PCs. Acting in self-defense OK. Forcing other PCs to be subservient to your wishes = jerk PC.

Again, I agree with your point. alignment shouldn't be used in that way. However, I will say that my intention was never to harm him, it was something my character believed to be wrong and merely asked him to cut it out. Never with the intention of killing him(but definitely trying to show that It was a serious issue with my character).

2) YOUR PC is in the minority, alignment speaking. He should mind how other party members will react to his attempts at strong-arming their friend, who might be a Necromancer but never hurt any one of them and very likely helped the party survived on previous occasions (ie, usual behaviour of a PC party member).

This is only the second session. The first was spent introducing each character, ending with an event that threw us all together. The only ones with a bit of history are the fighter, the ranger and the necromancer. The fighter is searching for an artifact that belongs to him, the ranger was hired to track down the one who stole it, and the necromancer at one point held the artifact and attempted to use it to gain power(which ended in failure and the artifact slipping away from his grasp). The 3 of them are not aware of each others actions, except for the fighter suspecting the necromancer of foul play but with no evidence to support his hunch.

In other words, have your PC try to find a compromise with the Necromancer so that they can keep on trusting each other as party members. Maybe both of your PCs can ask a 3rd PC you both trust to judge fairly on this and everyone agrees to follow his ruling.

I find it ironic but also oddly appropriate that the most likely respected judge in your PC party is the other LE guy.

I actually kinda like this idea. Though I imagine my character would still not trust the necromancer.

Casting a spell with an [evil] descriptor is not an evil act in Pathfinder. Therefore, the simple act of casting Create Undead is not evil.

I think the reason for that is so a neutral cleric can cast it without shifting alignment if he uses it a lot.

@Runaway Panda

that is an agreeable way to play the character. I just try to stay neutral on the subject for party cohesion and trying to state that evil is not black and white and as cut and dry as most would think. I have slightly over 35 years of gaming experience and even RPed when there was no advantage or disadvantage mechanically to. It though comes a lot to do with the player and how well (s)he can use only the knowledge the character knows and how the player's characters can behave them selves around others which is a lot easier said then done.

I guess the ball is in the necromancer's court then. My character is willing to come to a compromise so long as he is willing to tone down the undead raising, but as a necromancer that is a pretty big thing to ask for. Basically saying, hey don't play your character to the fullest. As for how we feel out of game it's a whole different story. We find it to be really interesting from a role playing perspective I just worry it might derail the campaign if it eventually leads to a 1 on 1 fight to the death.

Alright then. Well, for the immediate moment, you can probably refrain from trying to slit his throat or anything. As much as an evil character can lurk and plan for a fatal backstab, good can do that too. You can keep an eye on him, see how he uses these undead (i.e. how much it presses your morals), and take notes on how to kill him should the need arise.

I know PvP's not all that cool in a lot of cases, but sometimes it is the best way to hash something out. In the meantime, you can play nice, like I said, and see what happens. Might make for some really sweet roleplaying moments to let the current situation persist a little while, and gives you time, in game and out of game, to mull over your options.

Obviously, if you think that the necromancer, the GM, or any of your fellow players will be, out of game, upset by such a situation, then this probably isn't good advice, but in a party of mixed alignments, I'd hope everyone is prepared for a possibility such as that.

Actually these interactions were some of the most fun times I've had role playing in quite some time. The friction between our characters and our vastly different viewpoints really make for some interesting dialogue.

The thing is depending if he serves a god or not and how he is playing the neutral part of his alignment there should be room for compromise since neutral imo should be played as 1 that tries to keep the balance and/or one that does not care for an abundance of order and freedom.

He is a worshiper of Urgathoa and even had his own cult dedicated to her prior to the campaigns chain of events that lead to us coming together.

As for the neutral statement. While normally I would agree with a neutral character wanting to keep a balanced outlook I am also a good character, which would mean I'm not a fan of evil acts regardless of the one doing the evil act and would strive to work against it. Maybe not as zealous as a chaotic good or lawful good character might go about it but I would still try to stop it in whatever way I could.

Did you all know what the other players would be bringing to the table ahead of time?

We all told each other about our characters before the campaign started and felt that a lawful evil character could work so long as it was done in a subtle way. The other lawful evil character, the cavalier, has this nailed down perfectly. His actions only hint at his darker intentions and has yet to do something that would identify him as evil.

First question. Why does your bard object to raising the dead? I totally understand if it's simply an "it's evil" thing, but that's probably a good start.

Depending on the ferocity of your character's attitude towards undead, I think my advice might be variable.

My bard is a half elf. He was raised by his Varisian mother who hails from the gloomy nation of Ustalav. The people of Ustalav have had a fair share of undead troubles and seeing as he was raised by his Varisian parent and lived in Ustalav for a time he would learn to fear and hate undead himself. Or at the very least have a great distrust of them.

I am a bit bothered by the "Handle it well" comment. If your good PC's are not doing something about the evil one they are not handling it well they are letting it slide for the metagame. If the evil guy is not doing evil as to not be killed by his party then why did he pick evil alignment?

Well the thing is our party is actually has more evil than it does good. There are two lawful evil characters, two chaotic neutral characters and myself who is neutral good.

So I'm currently in a campaign where someone is playing a lawful evil necromancer. My character is a neutral good bard and earlier tonight we got into a bit of a scuffle when he decided to raise two bodies as his zombie minions, just after we killed a Mohrg who had risen from a nearby pile of corpses. As he was performing his ritual I tried interrupting it, eventually drawing my sword and attempted to talk him down. We came to a temporary agreement but I worry that If this campaign continues we may end up at each others throats again, our characters anyway.

As a good character, how do you handle an evil aligned character?

As to why our characters were even traveling together in the first place, an unknown force brought us all together and we are now in a temporary alliance until we figure out a way out of our current predicament.
The rest of the party consists of a Chaotic Neutral Ranger, a Lawful Evil Cavalier and a Chaotic Neutral Fighter. With me being the only good aligned character in the bunch.

what does it make it too juicy?

Basically.

Just wanted to give everyone an update on the situation.
The players and the DM discussed the issue further and we all came to a civilized conclusion.
We decided on 15 point buy but to avoid power gaming, as some of our players are known for(myself being guilty of it as well), we cannot drop a stat lower than 8 as the extra 2 points gained by going from an 8 to a 7 was the source of the problem, or so we concluded.

Thank you all for your positive and negative feedback, it definitely helped us come to our final verdict.

In order to truly get to the bottom of this we'd have to decide on an acceptable score for your primary stat, in order to determine how low secondary stats can be without ruining a players character concept in any point buy.
If you're a level 1 wizard with a 16 int, are you considered weak? Can you only succeed with a 18 or higher? If you need that 18, in a 10 point buy you'll be taking some hits in your other stats. If you don't, if a 16 is acceptable you're going to be just fine.

So I ask you, how high do your primary stats need to be in order to be successful as your character?

With a 50% disagreement on the point buy method, perhaps both sides should consider a compromise.

That's what I was trying to shoot for but ultimately the DM chose to stand his ground as he felt that it could ruin the story he was trying to tell in his campaign.

Hmm, low stat game? Give everyone the open-minded feat for free. Woot.

This sounds like a great middle ground as 1 extra skill point can give a character more depth without increasing their power too much. I'll shoot this idea at my DM. Thanks!

First off, thank you all for your input. It helps put things into perspective.

To shed some more light on our debate it was two people against the 10 point buy while it was myself and the DM on the other side saying a 10 point buy "ain't bad at all".
The two people against it actually did say that they were going to switch classes because it made their characters bland/boring/not deep/dull as dirt(one was playing a fighter the other was a ranger) and even said they would all make bards(the class I had decided on) if the DM stuck to the 10 point buy because "why bother with non-casters?" which to that I said "regardless of the amount of points given to build our characters casters will always have an edge on the martial classes".
Their concern was that they would have to choose between being effective in combat while still being useful outside of combat, saying that having low int/cha/wis makes their characters un-fun to play outside of combat.

And I don't think a monk in a 10 point buy is impossible.
STR: 16
DEX: 14
CON: 13
INT: 7
WIS: 14
CHA: 7
That's what I came up with using a 10 point buy. +2 str for being human, gaining bare minimum 2 skill points per level.
So if you truly believe that your stats don't affect your ability to role play outside of combat then I think this monk will do just fine in and out of combat scenarios.

The subject of this thread and the question you are asking are completely separate things.

You're right. I ended up asking a lot more questions than just one. Once I started typing this out more and more questions kept popping in my head. Thanks for your answers! It really helps.

I find I like my PC to actually be good at the thing they are flavored to good at.

Now in order to achieve this do you have to alter something in order to do it? For example, let's say you're playing a wizard and in typical wizard fashion he tends to read a lot and study late into the nights but decides to do some form of exercise every morning to stay in shape. Do you then increase his strength(or con) to show this part of your character and lower stats elsewhere? Or you just say he's fit but leave the stats unchanged, choosing to instead optimize your stats to better suit a wizard?

Note, this thread is in the wrong forum.

Sorry, I must have clicked the wrong section and didn't notice. This was supposed to go into the advice section.

So earlier this week a couple of my friends and I got into a debate about how a 10 point buy campaign limits players to only being able to make bland boring characters. They went on to say that because of the 10 point buy the only decent option left to them is to play casters as they are viable in both combat and out of combat scenarios and generally benefit from having a good int/cha/wis score without losing out elsewhere.

My question to you all is this: How limiting is a 10 point buy in regards to how deep a character can be? Is it possible to be both well rounded and effective in combat? Are fighter types really hurt more than casters are? And would a 15 point buy really change any of these issues? Your advice is needed!

So I made a level 6 bard in a new campaign that will be starting up soon. He is a half-elf with Varisian roots(Mother's side) and I wanted to emphasize his story telling abilities by actually having a few stories written out before hand. Unfortunately I'm not the brightest when it comes to this sort of thing and I was hoping you all could throw out some ideas for potential stories he can tell.

The only story I've come up with so far involves my characters attempts to romance a jungle giant(think amazon women but much taller).

For your first time you're gonna want to pick a simple premise(the players are hunting down a bounty of some sort for example) then pick a location either homebrewed or a campaign setting you frequent and start coming up with some character creation guidelines. I recommend the players know each other to start(you can do the more advanced stuff when you feel more comfortable) and try and keep your first campaign short, maybe 1-3 sessions max. If you have any other cool ideas for them to do either social or combat be sure to blend it in so that it flows well with your core idea. Oh, and never get in over your head with your ideas. Simple and easy are best for first timers. If you have trouble free forming(as I do) writing important info down is a must.

And always remember that you will mess up and that it's totally okay when you do so long as you can bounce back from it.

Hmm, I think I like the 10 lvl revision better, honestly. You get more abilities per level. You do lose a couple things like immunity to Mind-effecting and the ability to add 2 bonuses to a favored weapon on touch, but I think the 10 level version still comes out ahead because you can get more levels of a base class in there and you game doesn't have to go to high level to see the full class.

I dunno. I really like the older one. With the inner sea guide hellknight you can't neglect intellect because you need to fill the skill requirement to become a hellknight. You also become a charisma based character instead of wisdom(the old hellknight uses wisdom for smite chaos and its other features) which means you lose out on a better will save. You lose two class features if you play the inner sea version of the hellknight and you get one less force of will capping out at a +6, +4 and +2. So it boils down to getting your disciplines and other abilities sooner VS gaining an extra force of will, one kinda weak class feature(mercilessness), one super cool ability(Judgment) and a better will save. I kinda like the better will save as usually fighters have horrible will saves making them prime candidates for command, hideous laughter and the like.

Edit: Oh wow, you do get to add two abilites to your favored weapon! That's awesome.
Also, if I wanted to go with my original idea of becoming a paladin later in the campaign the newer hellknight would be a better choice since they too are charisma based and I'd have less levels to invest in the hellknight. Hmmm, this is a tough choice...

Wow! Thank you so much! I'm gonna read the crap out of it!

Where can one view the older version that had the added levels? Or is that information gone forever.

Ooooh! I didn't know each order had its own favored weapon. This will definitely make things interesting!

Starting off as a cavalier sounds cool too. What cavalier order would you recommend? So far I've only looked at the order of the sword.

Also, I thought hellknights only had 10 levels?

Actually, a hellknight can be any combination of lawful whether its good, neutral or evil so long as they follow the law and their code of conduct(example The leader of the Hellknight Order of the Gate, Vicarius Giordano Torchia is lawful evil).

The idea I was kicking around involves my character starting off as an aspirng hellknight(inspired at a young age from stories and the like), eventually earning the rank of hellknight and later discovering that despite their view on law their way of upholding it isn't what he expected. Conflicted with upholding the law at whatever the cost with doing what's right, this conflict sets him up for the eventual transition to a paladin. The end goal being a high level character with 8-10 levels in hellknight and whatever else in paladin.

While the paladin and hellknight synergize really well I was never really a fan of Lawful Good. Even though my character would eventually become lawful good its more of a character growth thing which makes it more appealing to me as opposed to just starting off as lawful good.

Edit: Fighter, hm? What fighting style is your hellknight using? Sword and board or just swinging away with a savage two hander?

Every time I look at this PrC I just get the urge to start writing up a sample character of one. I just can't get over how freaking cool they are. From their look to their fluff. Just awesomeness all around.

So I'm wondering, how you guys would go about building a hellknight? What class would you select for the first 4 levels before you take your first level of this awesome prestige class? What race would you pick and why?

When I first read up on this class I had this awesome idea of having a hellknight go through a sort of redemption and eventually become a paladin. Kind of like Cecil from Final Fantasy 4. What cool story ideas would you guys try and make happen as a hellknight?

Other examples of reflex saves could be.

*Holding ones shield in front of you to deflect a portion of the blast.

*Pulling your thick cloak over your face to protect your lungs from inhaling the flames.

*Reacting fast enough to whisper a plee to ones god to protect them.

*Turning so that your back and folding your arms around you to limit how much of your surface area is exposed.

These examples are awesome. Totally changes my idea of the reflex save. To me it was almost always just jumping out of the way. Thanks for sharing them!

Wow. Quick responses.

Cool! I was merely curious.

Thanks for the feedback you guys.

Just a thought here but is it possible to eliminate the reflex save granted by the fireball spell to avoid getting hit if the enemy is in a create pit spell? The pit is 10ft by 10ft while the fireball explodes in a 20ft radius. I find it hard to believe a person can dodge a fireball in an enclosed space like that.

What do you guy's think? Sound possible or would it just depend on the GM and whether or not he'd allow it?

nategar05 wrote:

Any class that uses Int and doesn't mind having Dex. Which is to say, any class that uses Int. Wizards, Witches, Wizards, and Alchemists come to mind. I listed Wizards twice because they're awesome Wizards.

Are the better wizards than a human?

Would they make a good Magus?

What about a Eldritch Knight (compared to the Magus) probably not.

I'm playing a magus in a brand new campaign my D&D group started and I'm loving it. If you build a dervish magus you get +2 to the two stats you benefit from having high. Sure you take a con hit but toughness and the favored class bonus can pick up the slack if you're that worried. Not only that but as others before me have said elves come with a lot of neat fluff. Part of the reason why I picked elf in the first place.

From what I can see I don't see why you couldn't.

Personally I'd go with either Ranger, Rogue or Ninja although all of these classes are capable of filling the assassin role quite well.

Ninjas get neat little combat tricks that help them be all stealthy and assassin like. Rogues too but to a lesser extent from what I've seen. When I think rogue I think thieves like Locke from Final Fantasy 6, quick and cunning characters but generally not back stabby assasin types like Shadow from the same game.

Rangers get the advantage of being able to specialize in slaying drow with favored enemy reinforcing your characters hatred for them though this can easily be achieved with role playing. And you get a pet. A f##&ing pet. Did I mention you get a cool pet? Just making sure. Oh and you can shoot them full of arrows from a distance all sniper style, that's assasinish right?

I could see Magus working out as well if built as a dervish dancer in order to take advantage of dex since I assume you'd be sneaking around a lot. Better synergy imo.

That said, these are just my opinions and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Hope it helps.

northbrb wrote:

so if i understand it right, the brass knuckles in the APG stack with a players unarmed damage

No, they replace a character's unarmed damage and make it lethal instead of subdual. The exception is a monk's unarmed damage, which they are allowed to do with the brass knuckles. It's a Monk Weapon, which means it is flurry usable. It still requires Ki Focus special ability if the monk wants to use ki abilities with it. But, you can enchant them and use them with the monks' superior unarmed damage.

Couldn't you just use stunning fist with your elbow or knee? The feat doesn't specify it needs to be a fist(although it's heavily implied) but merely an unarmed strike and since monks can use almost any part of their body as an unarmed strike couldn't this be plausible and just skip the ki focus enchantment?