Avenged Sevenfold=Antipaladin/A cannibal
Search Posts
I remember seeing a table that stated what exact sizes qualified something as a certain size category. I can't remember where though, and it might have been 3.X stuff. I do remember that you had to be at least 8ft to be considered Large, but can't remember anymore than that.
I don't think you can have one set template for the large variety of bosses you see. The advanced template can help beef up the humanoid enemies who would probably have character classes. I was making a Manus stat array, but don't have the time to finish it right now. You'll have to define 'dark magic/hexes' as some sort of sorcery, for example Dark Bead could be fireball but does magic damage instead of fire. Your examples seem decent, as long as you use your imagination and sit down and think about it for a few minutes I'm sure you'll be fine :)
I would think Sif actually counts as a Huge (Long) creature, considering you just about make it to his shin. I would certainly throw in the wackier bosses as well, DeS, DaS and DaS2 all have great boss design, even if DaS2 did go a little bit 'Knight Souls'. My personal favourites are: The Penetrator (Giant Fighter)
I might reply later with some actual solid crunch, but just wanted to give you a few ideas to do what you will with.
The fighter archetypes Polearm Master and Phalanx Soldier get some nice reach bonuses, however Phalanx Soldier is much more defensive. Polearm Master gives you options to counter enemies getting inside your reach and other decent reach features.
Really like all the suggestions, and thank you to everyone for answering. Cavalier, maybe Warpriest will be the classes I'll look into, and possibly the battle herald. The character would remain a front line warrior, someone with a dream and is prepared to fight for it, relying on strength of arms and sheer willpower to achieve his goals. He would have a more skill orientated character as a close friend to help out with actions that require a nit more planning and cunning. Being English, I only know the barebones of American history, but I can reflect on our own monarchs when deciding a code and alignment: Alfred the Great- Lawful Good. Perhaps the best king we've ever had. Unified a split country and held off the Danes, establishing modern courts, currency and military organisation. William the Conqueror- Chaotic Neutral. Kept a brutal stranglehold on England with force, and caused a medieval apartheid between Normans and Saxons, however, paved the way for the Middle Ages in England. John I- Neutral Evil. A week, greedy and vicious king, he plotted to steal the throne from his brother, warred on his own people and went back on his sworn word with Magna Carta. Also lost the crown jewels fleeing in the marshes. Richard the Lionheart- Lawful Neutral. Spent most of his reign abroad at war, apparently couldn't even speak English. Still, he was loved by his people. Killed on the battlefield. Edward I- Lawful Neutral. Able, strong, religious and educated, but also intimidating and ambitious. His subjects feared and respected him rather than loving him, he was an able politician and led conquests of Wales and Scotland. Not a man for second chances. Henry V- Neutral. Won the famous battle of Agincourt, more interested in France than England. Strong willed, and sometimes merciless, he ordered the execution of French prisoner to prevent them rising up if the enemy broke his lines. Trusted the common man as well as nobles. To me, it seems a much more flexible strategy would be needed if a country were to rise up from near nothing. If I was assured of the backing of a large population, it might not be an issue, but this character is essentially building a half elf Israel without the help of the UN.
Im actually making a class that fits this called a tactician. They aren't necessarily "leaders" persay, but their abilities make them very well-suited for the job. EDIT: take a look at the Leadership feat. If you want to go a route that has animal companion or mounts (or if you use a mount at all) you can, at later levels, look into adding a monstrous mount (see the feat) which pretty much makes it possible to ride a pegasus or even a dragon (Pretty awesome for a leader of a nation) I like the sound of this, wyvern would probably be my choice, intelligent but don't stop and chat with the spellcaster every step of the way.
Sorry, forgot to mention stats would be 20 point buy. I was thinking 16, 10, 14, 8, 10, 17 (15+2). Not really designed to be min/maxed, spread stats to be a good fighter and a competent leader.
I'm making a half-elf who's goal is to carve out a nation of/for other half-elves so they can have a homeland of sorts, and also inspires his allies in battle. CHA is the obvious stand out stat. I'd also want him to be a decent front-line combatant, so paladin seems the obvious choice. I'm leaning towards the Holy Tactician archetype, but I have no idea on its effectiveness. Leadership is also pretty much a given. My character is pretty much completely flexible, the only requirement being he remains a half-elf. I just wanted advice on which direction to go, feats etc.
Hi everyone, I plan to start an order of paladins using the downtime rules, with a similar design to the Templars/Teutonic Knights (as in their code, organisation etc.) The majority of the fighting force would be mounted paladins, not a large army but a skilled one. Now, the ideal situation would be having them at level 5 so they can get a bonded mount. And this got me thinking, how good is a level 5 character in perspective? I imagine level 20's are gods among men, and level 1's are slightly better than most NPCs in the world, but I'm not sure on the in between. Would it be reasonable to have so many level 5 characters in an army? Would I need to recruit them at level 1 and then train them by spending resources? Are there any rules on this I missed, or is this mostly an agreement between PC and GM? I've only done a few campaigns before, and this is the first where all downtime rules could be used, so any help would be great.
Gotta say Alex, though spells do fit quite well
Yeah, I can't really imagine Gregor as a cavalier. I wouldn't underestimate him in mounted combat though, he was able to find the exact spot above Ser Hugh's gorget to stab him in the neck. 'Gregor's lance goes where Gregor wants it to go'.
True, despite being a knight a big thing about him is that he doesn't adhere to rules. A while back I heard someone mention him as a flaming sword: is only there to kill, kills what his master strikes at, and sometimes other things get burnt.
I like the Ogrekin idea, from a flavour and a gameplay point of view, especially with oversized limbs. Weak mind or light sensitivity would work best as the disadvantages I think. As for a normal build, I could detach myself from the inspiration a bit and make it more loosely based off Ser Gregor and go down an intimidating two handed fighter with some barbarian. The suggestion of cavalier also makes sense, he did fight on a horse several times after all, and is better as a shock trooper than a rank-and-file soldier. However, having never played or really explored cavalier, I don't know what I'd be losing or gaining, so I'll need to read up on cavalier vs fighter.
Thanks for all the fast responses. I wasn't really sure on feats and the like, I wanted to get the premise first and build around that. I was mainly gonna go round the standard power attack fighter route with a bit of barbarian in there, but some of these ideas are really interesting. Of course it doesn't have to be strictly following the character, like Gregory said about low fantasy conversions. I understand that he wasn't exactly smart, but not thick either (his man needs no eyes line springs to mind), I just didn't know any other way I could replicate his immense physical stats, which is undoubtedly his main strength and the strength of the build, without dumping all the mental ones.
Hi guys,
With special dispensation from the GM, I could make my character freakishly tall, as described by Martin: 'Well over 7 foot, closer to 8', so we'll say about 7'9. Now, would it make sense to classify him as a Large character, even though the perquisite is 8 feet? It seems to fit his fighting style, added strength while easier to hit and less mobile. I was also thinking of making him an Orc, because of the stronger/dumber ability scores. This is the mind of stats I was thinking: Medium Sized
Large Sized
Class is fighter with a dip in barbarian, greatsword as main weapon, eventually full plate for armour. Tell me what you guys think and recommend, and if I need to give more information, I'm fairly new to Pathfinder so help is appreciated.
Yeah, good ideas guys, thanks!
You have to remember that the longspear is only 8 feet long. I saw a third party pike that gave 15ft reach, which would be the type of anti-cavalry weapons aforementioned. Also, if the longspear requires an exotic weapon proficiency feat, you might aswell use the archetype surely?
I'm not questioning it's effectiveness, I agree that you would need lightning reactions and a strong arm to fight like this solo. It just seems that if you want this option, however good/bad it may be, you can only go down one route.
I was trying to elude to scenarios where you may be a paladin, or a different fighter archetype because you prefer the benefits of a different ability. I understand there have to be trade-offs, but wielding a spear in one hand seems to be a fairly mundane thing to me, yet it requires someone to get three ranks in an archetype. Thanks for the suggestions so far guys; eakratz, I like the idea, you would lose the 1.5 strength modifier, so seems like a decent trade off.
Sorry, Templar, I should have been specific. Yes, I was referring to two handed polearms, preferably with reach (longspear, bec de corbin, bill etc.)
Throughout history and fantasy there have been many examples of warriors that fight with a spear and shield-Gondor soldiers, The Unsullied, Roman Auxiliaries, Macedonian Phalanxes and Spartan Hoplites are but a few examples. Soldiers using only a spear were often pikemen, due the unwieldiness of a 15-20ft pole (more than double the length of the longspear), especially when receiving a cavalry charge. However, from what I gather, there is only one fighter archetype that permits this style of combat, which not only seems fairly limited to me, but also incorporates other class features that aren't as deadly as others of an equivalent level. My question is, is there any way around this or other features I've missed within the rules, and if not, what houserules could I incorporate to make this less rigid?
I want to know what would be the best optimization for a demon (maybe also devil) hunting class. At the moment my considerations are a ranger with evil outsiders as his favoured enemy, or a paladin. I'm open to other classes; just to let you know I want to play it in an inquisitorial style, trusting few and ready to wander the world to root out evil where it hides.
I really like the sound of the armiger, although I'll have to confirm with my GM on 3rd party material. ArmouredMonk, I would prefer to keep the image of a disciplined, measured fighter rather than a tribal, reckless warrior.
Seems quite conditional. I don't want humans ending up as the runt race, as is the case in many other medieval fantasy themes, and the fluff around their abilities makes sense, it's just they pretty much dominate the other races.
Basically, I haven't really seen a situation or class guide, where a human hasn't been the ideal choice. Feats don't exactly grow on trees, and one extra can get you through those first levels. And extra skills are always welcome, especially on combat based classes. So, why shouldn't you be human? Is it purely just to add spice to the role playing, or is there a rules based reason? I don't want to be a human every time, but they just seem to be the most functional.
Anyway, back to the build. I liked the concept of a Scared Shield dip, but a lot of the paladin abilities rely on charisma, which would usually be a dump stat for a fighter. I really liked the Stalwart Defender, and if this character were to reach level 7, that's probably what I'd do.
^ Go on the desired section (eg Advice), then, in the top right, just on the left of 'Search this thread', there will be a heading saying 'Start a new thread'. This is the option you want.
Like the sound of Sacred Shield/Stalwart defender, I'll check it out. Cheers guys!
I want to make a fighter character, in the style of a soldier of Gondor, with a shield in one hand and a longspear in the other. I'm open to other archetypes/classes, as long as they still have the phalanx fighting ability, or something similar. The reason I'm asking for help is because the other class abilities of the phalanx soldier are a bit naff, so I'm open to pretty much any ideas.
I guess a lot of alignment issues are down to your GM, rules can't be made for every situation.
Charlie Sheen and Nicholas Cage with different wigs and facial hair as all of them
In many a Pathfinder game you will find that life is something that seems to come to and end quite often. Good characters often have to slaughter their enemies, but I wondered where this factors on people's interpretation of the alignment rulings. Say that a lawful good character has to kill an enemy, which is giving him a hard time. Would carving his opponent in half, or even tearing at him with his bare hands cause any qualms regarding his alignment, if it meant destroying an opponents beyond atonement. Also, are there any weapons considered unethical, for example something that may convey unnecessary brutality? |