Small Angry Golem's page

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.

Hi guys,
I want to make Gregor Clegane in Pathfinder, so I guess this only applies to people who are familiar with the character.

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
Str:22 (18+4)
Dex:12
Con:16
Int:5 (7-2)
Wis:5 (7-2)
Cha:5 (7-2)

Large Sized
Str:22 (16+6)
Dex:12 (14-2)
Con:16
Int:7 (9-2)
Wis:7 (9-2)
Cha:5 (7-2)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?