Sorcerer Lex's page

16 posts (23 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


I dig it, does the image mean that you're specializing in polearms? Nothing like the classic full-plate fighter. I wish more people would post. =(

Hello everyone,

I've been recently frequenting the forums, and just felt like saying a friendly hi to everyone (I'm Canadian). I took a break from p&p rpgs for around 5 years, and have thankfully gotten a group of friends together to show the ropes. I've been kind of bummed out not being able to play a PC for so long, so I commissioned an amazing friend to flesh out my most recent character concept.

They don't often do that type of commission work, but if you like what you see, feel free to contact them.

I thought it would be cool to see a thread of character illustrations, and here we are. The illustration can either be done by you, or something as simple as a reference image of what your character is based off of or might look like. Feel free to include a snippet of your character's backstory.

I'll start.

Name: Lex
Race: Tiefling
Class: Sorcerer
Image: Click here
Backstory: I don't want to include too much, however the character is loosely based off of similar ideas to Blade and Alucard from Hellsing. Lex spends most of his time fighting undead, cults, and demons.

I can't wait to see what amazing stuff people have come up with. =)

I can't really understand the appeal, unless their racial trait discrepancy is somehow explained in the backstory. The players could work in some fairly easy explanations.

The elf was raised in a human society...

The kitsune character is trapped in his human form and unaware of his heritage...

Reskinning the aforementioned characters is fairly simple and I wouldn't have any beef with it, but you can easily take it too far. If the players simply wanted the kit because they like it, and had no interest in roleplaying a character with a background that explains the swapped racial traits, I wouldn't allow it.

Best of luck.

I'm surprised nobody has jumped on this one. In any case, I think it's a cool idea. If I was GMing, I wouldn't see an issue with the feat as is. I'm not sure why you chose ranks 7 and 14 for the extra expeditious performance/day, I would just make it 7 and 13 to put it in line with the regular bard bonuses. Best of luck proposing it to any groups. =)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was unable to play tabletop rpgs with a lifelong friend due to a disagreeing on size modifiers once he started GMing. He 100% could not conceive the notion that a smaller target is harder to hit than a larger one, therefore negating all AC bonuses and minuses on small and large creatures (and all the other sizes). My brain still hurts thinking back on all the examples I used to try to explain the situation, and his inability to grasp the concept.

I think you should change the name to Nightcore Performance, and play a trance-o-matic gnome party star, who somehow manages to play techno songs on string instruments. The gnome would totally have the high pitched voice to do the nightcore vocals too. Never mind, this character idea is mine!

But in all seriousness I have minimal knowledge of bards, but I don't really see this feat to be too big of a game changer. You're presumably getting a few extra actions per encounter, and only a few times per day, which seems pretty fair.

I just had a quick look at the core rulebook, your feat would offer the bard something that they would regularly get at 7th level at 1st level, which I'm assuming is a little OP. Would this feat double the effectiveness of the the already reduced performance times at bard levels 7 and 13? Is the idea that this feat would eventually allow you to start the performance as a free action a few times per day?

With all that being said, wouldn't any item of haste have the same effect on your character as this feat? I know spells and items aren't the same as feats, so the feat would be nice. I think the idea is there, but enabling a bard character something like this at 1st level might be too much.

I'm sure some pro bard player is about to chime in.

If you're interested in playing a modern game similar to Dungeons & Dragons: Shadow over Mystara the closest you're probably going to get, albeit an over the top Japanese version, is Dragon's Crown. And the nice part is that Vanillaware (creator of the legendary Odin Sphere) is making it. Unfortunately the release date is TBA 2013.

If you're looking for an MMORPG, I hate to say it but the MMO market is nearly dead (imo). Any big title that has come out in recent years has either flopped entirely or gone free to play and severely under-delivered to expectations. I'm an MMORPG enthusiast and always hope for the best, but they're almost always disappointing. I'm extremely hopeful that ESO will change my mind. Watch this video to get pumped.

Tiems already pointed out PFO, which has raised over a million dollars. It will be Goblinworks first title, and for your first title to be an MMORPG, that's a pretty huge task.

In terms for customization and role-playing, no video game will ever beat the table-top setting with a pencil and paper rpg. =3

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I apologize for my iteration in this thread of wizard vs. fighter, and also for projecting my ideals of stylized gameplay. I think it's obvious that everyone wants an epic character at some point, and I'd have to agree that it's unfair that fighters get the short end of the stick.

All I was trying to get at earlier was that I find it unnerving when characters have such high bonuses to skills that the task they're accomplishing becomes trivial to the gameplay. Rolling dice becomes unimportant when you essentially automatically succeed, which to me is boring. But it is indeed unfair that spellcasters should have the ability to automatically succeed and others should fail.

So, to get more on track...

If I were to recommend anything to be given to the fighter to make them meatier and more interesting to play, it would probably have to be some form of fighter talents similar to rogue talents or more fighter specific feats. These talents or feats would have to be powerful enough to put fighters in line with the utility and damage of other classes.

I know this solution sounds obvious and boring and I'm sure someone somewhere has already recommended it, so I'll just list a few ideas for flavor...

These are of course just recommendations, and any actual implementation would require fine tuning...

Dazing Shout
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Components: V
Range: close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: one creature of 1 HD/fighter level
Duration: 1 round
Saving Throw: Will negates

The fighter can use Dazing Shout an amount of times per day equal to 1 + con mod. The save DC is 10 + 1/2 fighter level + constitution modifier.

Notes: This would hopefully be utilized against flying enemies, dazing them and subsequently making them suffer falling damage as well as putting them within range of the melee fighter.

Intimidating Presence
Any enemy creature who enters a 30ft. radius of the fighter must make a will save or be demoralized. The creature must have line of sight on the fighter. The save DC is 10 + 1/2 fighter level + charisma modifier. Any enemy who succeeds at the save isn't required to make another save until 24 hours have passed.

Notes: This would give the fighter some utility as a debuffer on enemies.

I would have to agree with other posters that fighters should have at least 4 skill points, and that their will save should be better. I don't want to list to many suggestions because realistically I don't see them being implemented by Paizo, and I don't see any GMs going out of their way to incorporate them.

Thanks for reading, and best of luck to anyone who feels that their fighter is underpowered and tweaking their fighters until they're made better officially. =P

Rynjin, I'm not saying that a fighter shouldn't be able to make an epic jump. If you have +20 acrobatics, the jump is no longer epic, because you can make it at will...


You're missing the point entirely. Fighters make the game grounded, gritty, and more real.

Everyone is complaining that fighters don't have the abilities that wizards do. So what do you want to do about it, give fighters feats that make them able to do things comparable to spells? If you gave a fighter a feat of +20 acrobatics he's going to look stupid and cartoony as he jumps ridiculously impossible distances all the time. If it were due to a spell effect, sure you can jump that high or far, it's a freaking spell, but when your players are assuming that a character can jump 20 feet at will by the shear strength of his leg muscles, it sounds stupid. Get it?

If the point you're getting at is that a spellcaster can 1v1 a dragon but a fighter can't, I don't understand the problem. If you're playing as a fighter without a party to back you up, why are you even playing a roleplaying game with 2 people? For game mechanics to work properly you have to have a group, usually the recommended amount being 4 people.

The most enjoyable times I've had playing D&D or Pathfinder is when somebody solves a solution to the current combat scenario or problem via their wits. Yeah, it's easy to solve all problems in game via magic, but it's also boring.

You're faced with the challenge of scaling a 200 ft. cliff:
Fighter: I climb it...
Wizard: I cast fly...

You face an invisible foe:
Fighter: I run around the room kicking up dust and debris to try and see the outline of the figure, or perhaps hear him cough...
Wizard: I cast see invisibility...

You're surrounded, flanked by giants on all sides:
Fighter: Time to kick ass and chew barbarian chew...and I'm all out of barbarian chew...
Wizard: I cast teleport because I'm scared of giants...

The feats that fighters accomplish are insane and make them legends. The feats that spellcasters accomplish (saying a few words and moving their arms around a little) aren't exactly as impressive. It's all about the story, not necessarily the power level of the characters.


If you guys think that fighters should be less grounded, and more over the top, I think most people are open to suggestions.

Sorry peeps, I auto-posted a quote while I was AFK. I was moreover trying to get people more on track with offering suggestions to optimize fighters, 'cause it seems like almost everyone is arguing that fighters need a rework.

Someone earlier made the awesome speculation that fighters don't have to adhere to any kind of class rules or alignment, and can act however they want. This is obviously a huge benefit in a roleplaying game, and especially when you have new players who don't know how to properly play a paladin or cleric.

If people want fighters to be more "playable", isn't it just as easy as making some house rules? Obviously it's kind of a bummer to have to rework an entire class just so someone doesn't feel underpowered in a party with a sorcerer, wizard, and cleric, but players have responsibility too.

I could recommend a ton of ways to rework the whole fighter class to be more powerful, but most of my recommendations would be working in spells or spell-like abilities into the class and therefor becoming redundant with the fighter class dynamic. In a world where wizards can travel to different planes, shoot lightning from their hands, and fly, I always saw the fighter as the anchor point of "realism" in a fantasy universe. If there isn't an anchor, everything just becomes garbled make-belief. It can mean everything between the difference of fantasy and epic fantasy.

Maybe you agree, maybe you disagree, but I still think that the fighter (even underpowered) is essential to a successful non-cartoony fantasy universe.

Let me explain...

How many of you look back at the LOTR movies and think that Gimli was totally awesome, because he didn't have any gimmicks. He just hacked stuff to death with his beard swinging in the wind.

How many of you were completely taken out of the movie when Legolas slid down some stairs on a shield and pew pewd some orcs? Or how about when he climbed up a raging elephant, killed everyone, and killed the elephant?

Chances are, those scenes with Legolas doing ridiculous things didn't remove you from the experience as much as something similar to that in another movie. Why? Because Gimli grounded the experience with his awesome but "realistic" dwarven asskickery.

Yes, nearly everyone thinks magic is awesome, case in point Harry Potter, but don't some players want to be like Gimli?

Thanks for reading! =D

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel that all the classes are invaluable in their own respect, and it's largely up to the GM to make the PCs realize just how much they rely on each other. There's an infinite amount of possible scenarios that will make the fighter seem useless, and an equal amount that should make a spellcaster feel useless. I won't argue that certain scenarios are more common than others, but I really fail to see why people dislike the fighter so much.

What I see most people discussing in this topic is the potential damage output of a fighter character versus a spellcaster of the same level. Why not set up scenarios that will make the characters in a party appreciate each other regardless of damage output?

Scenarios that will make the fighter appear to be invaluable and the spellcaster useless:

-An enemy rogue stole the PC spellcaster's material components
-PC spellcaster is grappled or pinned
-PC spellcaster is taking consistent damage that is interrupting their spells (Concentration vs DC 10 + the damage taken + spell level cast)
-PC spellcaster is being counter-spelled by an enemy deep in enemy lines
-Enemy has spell resistance
-PC spellcaster suffers from a successful cast of a silence spell from an enemy
-PC Wizard's spellbook has been stolen by an enemy rogue or perhaps targeted for destruction by an enemy

Scenarios that will make the spellcaster invaluable and the fighter useless:

The fighter...
-can't beat a high AC
-is unable to reach target
-can't deal sufficient damage to high HP single target
-can't deal sufficient damage to multiple targets
-has limited mobility from environment or spell-effects
-has been disarmed
-is caught unarmored

With all this out in the open I have some questions to ask fellow GMs:

-Are you not actively challenging spellcasters to pass concentration checks like they should be?
-Are spellcasters NEVER receiving damage from enemies so that they HAVE to make a concentration check?
-Are enemies for some reason not targeting the spellcaster who is obviously a huge threat?
-Are spellcasters not being charged with the task of acquiring their material components?
-Are spellcasters not being targeted by enemy spellcasters?

I feel like this thread is either making fighters unsung heroes, or people aren't using important core rules relating to spellcasting, or maybe both. GMs aren't limited to boring formulaic battles where the enemies all target the fighter while the spellcaster leisurely sits in the back. Make your encounters endanger the spellcaster, make them realize that without the fighter they would be turned into mincemeat.

Sorry for the long post, I hope people find this information agreeable.

Well if you read what I posted...it wouldn't matter if a person leveled their character to 20 offline and then imported it to online. If you play the Pathfinder table-top game for levels, you're clearly playing it wrong.

What I was describing was a game where the characters and gm control the gaming experience. If you wanted to play a high-level character in the online environment, then who is going to stop you? It wouldn't matter if that is what your party and GM wanted to do. If your online buddies all had level 6 characters and you asked if you could "auto-level" yours to 20 and play with the group, I think the obvious answer for parties would be "no".

As previously stated, what I was hoping for was more of an online toolkit for meeting with other players, helping control the flow of combat, and incorporating character created visuals, whilst retaining the Pathfinder table-top game mechanics. This is clearly NOT how the game is going to be made, which is fine.

Andius wrote:

This topic needs to be renamed

"What I want and expect from PFO."

I certainly don't want people claiming they leveled their character to 20 while offline then importing that character in-game.

What a mess.

Thank you Drejk and Gilthy for your responses.

I appreciate everyone's feedback and insight, I truly do have high hopes and fully support Paizo on this business venture. I just have a hard time seeing anything "different" come from this as it stands.

-AOC had a new style of combat from the standard tab-target and skill-cycle button mashing. This was entertaining for a limited time before it became repetitive.

-AION offered a "new style" of MMO because your character had wings and could fly. All this offered was broken PVP game mechanics.

-SWTOR promised a brand new type of MMO with its voice acted cut-scenes making for a more immersive universe. I'm a HUGE star wars fan, and found that the game was the same as any other MMO, a grind-fest designed to waste your time so you keep paying that monthly subscription. Suffice to say, I made it to a little over level 20 and opted out.

I just want to know some of what PFO could have up its sleeve to offer something that will truly amaze and keep my interest for over 2 weeks.

Personally, I feel like in playing table-top RPGs, you are co-authoring a story of adventure with the other players and GM. Everyone's imagination comes together to create original characters and events that we all know can be more awesome than anything you see in the movies. Video-game mechanics are hard-coded and obviously don't allow you to have as much freedom as a pencil, paper, some basic game mechanics, and your imagination.

This is why I was hoping for an online tool-kit, and so that I could maybe play with some of you nice folks via the internet. The average "gaming time" of people my age seems to be 10pm-4am; that's a little late and inconvenient to be getting together and rolling some dice. If there were an easy way to play online with other people as passionate as I am, I would love nothing more from a game.

It's open to discussion of course, what are you guys really expecting from this MMO? I see Hannya Shou is skeptical, and unlikely to get what he/she wants as well.

Sorry for the long posts...mucho forum love to all...

What I described is nothing close to Neverwinter Nights. The blog describes next to nothing except for lore, and the Pathfinder Online Tech Demo is vague and just says "give us feedback on the type of game you'd like to see" and nowhere describes or gives and insight onto the plans for PFO.

I can tell you exactly what I want from this game, and what I hope other people are expecting from this game. In short, I'd like a digitization of how pathfinder works, and what it is. If this is far from the creators vision, please let me know.


-The ability to create characters offline and import them into the online environment and vice versa. The ability for players to import/export their characters from the online version of Pathfinder to the table-top version would create a perfect synergy of the currently existing Pathfinder product.

-A developer toolkit available for GMs that would enable them to create their own adventures.

-An online database that tracks character progression and equipment. Paizo/Goblinworks could easily utilize and digitize the GameMastery Item Cards: Essentials Deck and the like to create a beautiful online inventory. Due to players being able to import/export their characters from pathfinder online to the table-top version, players should be able to update their OWN character level, stats, and inventory online.

-Standard 5ft. by 5ft. grid tracking, enabling online players to easily see the current situation.

-Grid/character interaction, e.g., enabling characters to see the area a spell might affect if used.

-In-game mob HP tracking, letting GMs focus on more important things.

-Online friends system and live-chat system. I would not expect or want an in-game VOIP service, as most people already use multiple.

-The online character and profile. Players would be able to upload images for their character tokens (a specified file format and size) as well as a "battle image" and "portrait image". The purpose of the battle/portrait images is to "liven the game" and help generate a scene for the players. The dungeons would have preset backdrops for different rooms and sections, and the current character art displayed on screen would alternate depending on whose turn it is during the combat cycle, or by who last spoke in the live-chat system. Obviously the amazing monster art could be utilized from the existing Pathfinder Bestiary books and displayed on screen when it is the GMs turn to deal some damage.

-Party-finding. Particularly, the ability to find and join other players of similar character levels adventures. A player would only be able to join a game mid-session if all of the players and GM accept a vote. Games could also be set to private and password protected, eliminating the option of players joining mid-session.

-GMs retain near-total control. GMs would control the movement and actions of all NPCs and Monsters. The actual dungeon areas would be previously made with the aforementioned GM developer toolkit, but GMs would be able to insert extra monsters, traps, or chests live. The dungeons could have preset dialogue sequences from NPCs, and GMs could respond as the NPC after the sequence. The game could have a preset challenge rating cap, allowing GMs to only insert mobs or traps of certain difficulties.


-Paizo/Goblinworks could sell ALL of its existing Adventure Paths via micro transactions. This would be an amazing source of income for Paizo/Goblinworks, as most players would love to play the high-quality premade adventures. Players would still be able to create and host games with custom adventures created through the aforementioned toolkit.


Yes, this is my vision of what I expect from Pathfinder Online, and it may and probably does differ from the creators. When I watched the technology demo and saw that PFO is going to be a "sandbox MMO" and "unlike other MMOs" I found those promises vague.

I expect Pathfinder Online to be the tabletop game mechanics, but online. I hope this is the creators vision.