Sub_Zero's page

I'm fairly new to pf2e, and was hoping for advice to make a dwarven Thaumaturge who started off with a tome (eventually getting a weapon).

I love the idea of him being a pack rat and crafter who makes anything he needs for any situation. (Hopefully crafting magical gear if possible)

Class wise, he'll be taking scroll thaumaturgy, and increased investitures.

Where I could use advice is since my GM used free archetypes, which should I get, and additionally, what skill/general feats would help this concept.

I'm fairly new to pf2e, and was hoping for advice to make a dwarven Thaumaturge who started off with a tome (eventually getting a weapon).

I love the idea of him being a pack rat and crafter who makes anything he needs for any situation.

Class wise, he'll be taking scroll thaumaturgy, and increased investitures.

Where I could use advice is since my GM used free archetypes, which should I get, and additionally, what skill/general feats would help this concept.

I would really love to know when/if they make more of these. I'm definitely interested in getting some.

not sure what kind of weapon you're using but, sap adept/master would help fill that bucket up with sneak attack damage. The only issue is that it's not lethal damage, but the bonuses are pretty sick.

by level 5 you'd deal 5d6+10 from the sneak attack damage alone.

One of the issues is that the foe needs to be flat footed, which they are if you use the scout archetype.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Why would a character who believes that mind-affecting spells are evil, themselves be evil? I'm not sure I follow what you're saying.

I'm saying it's possible for someone to know that what they do to stop and destroy Evil is, itself, wrong. And to justify to themselves that it's necessary for the greater good. So...someone with that attitude would say "Sure, I show up as Evil. I show up that way because I do bad things so that people like you can sleep quietly in your beds. I deserve no place in the society I protect." Or something similar.

DMW, you missed the obvious, and best possible line for this. I'm truly disappointed in you ;P

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

Sub_Zero wrote:

well, a small longspear would probably fit well for a 5-6 foot spear that Martel uses.

The shortspear fits best, but is too short (3 feet). The longspear is too long (8 feet).

I'd just houserule a longer version of a shortspear (basically a shortspear but 6' long). That would then fit him perfectly for a duelist or swashbuckler build.

Why not just a regular spear?

too most legally qualify for the duelist class which needs a 1-handed piercing weapon.

You could just hand-waive a spear being 1-handed piercing as well.

Feel free to ignore me since my post is almost completely inquisitor free. (I just don't see Martel as mainly being an inquisitor). With that said.

well, a small longspear would probably fit well for a 5-6 foot spear that Martel uses.

The shortspear fits best, but is too short (3 feet). The longspear is too long (8 feet).

I'd just houserule a longer version of a shortspear (basically a shortspear but 6' long). That would then fit him perfectly for a duelist or swashbuckler build.

Duelist fits well since they get Int to defense, which fits how smart Martel was (if not too cocky in the end).

prior to that lore warden fighter/vivisectionist alchemist fit well. In fact a vivisectionist alchemist might go well with the strong knowledge Martel had of human anatomy/poison (he knew his poison would be exceptionally painful and knew how/where to cut down the Mountain).

As for feats, dodge, combat expertise. You'd need to houserule in weapon finesse to work with spears.

I discuss religion and politics with my friends all the time. That includes the seriously socialist ones, and I'm a libertarian. And the atheist ones, while I'm highly religious. Never been a problem for me. Y'know why? Because I'm a pretty chill guy and absolutely willing to listen to viewpoints other than my own on most issues.

Considering I sound exactly like one of your friends, I'm happy that there are times that we come to agreement on some issues.

I do think this is my favorite point that I'd like to expand on a bit, on my view of this.

There are absolutely grey areas and points where people's morality is gonna differ. But some s~!+ is just unacceptable. The sexual abuse of children is unacceptable, genocide is unacceptable, rape is unacceptable, and torture is unacceptable.

I think the point that might be getting lost in translation, is that Atemis can think of situations where torture is the most moral thing that can solve a situation. Depending on how you define morality (for me it is about well being), every situation has a limited number of options and some of those are more moral then others.

If you twist reality you can create a situation where torture is the most moral action you can take (now hear me out, because this statement needs alot of clarification). In the TV show 24, they perform a number of actions to make torture the best option, #1. Torture works in that world, and it apparently works reliably) #2 There isn't enough time for other options #3. there aren't equally fast other options. This isn't to say that I agree with it, but to point out that if you can twist reality to make morally reprehensible acts moral in a twisted world. Even then, it's still evil, it's just the happens to be better then any other option that you could take.

Heck, we can do this with genocide. If we existed in a universe where alien life invaded earth and captured you and put you in a chair in front of two buttons. If you hit button 1, the entire people of Europe would be instantly killed, if you hit button 2, the entire world would be instantly killed. If you don't choose either, then the entire world would be slowly and painfully killed. Assuming that we have certainty that they can back up these claims, and will carry out there plan without interference, which option do you choose? Personally, I'd say option 1 is the most moral choice. It's still evil, it's just the most moral choice of 3 horrible options. But once again, we've had to twist the world around pretty significantly to make it so.

With all of this said, you have to really warp reality to make these scenarios work, and I think this is what Artemis is trying to say he wants the right to do. To that, sure go ahead and say your character is not evil for torturing people. I'll still point out it's evil.

Finally, I'll point out this statement:

Can we all agree that the subject of torture is something to be worked out between the DM and the table, and stop trying to dump our own worldviews and moral compasses on people? Fact of the matter is, everyone has their own sense of these things, and while there may be overlap, I highly doubt you will find many people who agree on every moral and ethical quandary or topic down to the last letter.

you can use this to validate every morally reprehensible thing you do in game.

Stopped reading halfway through Artemis 'a reply. When you state your not interested in continuing discussion I'm not interested in any points you have to make.

Assuming your right, and you may be, Then the inquisitor can torture someone for the greater good even if his deity doesn't like it. Problem solved for the OP.

Well to give a fuller context.

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.

So for a paladin not only must evil partnerships be to defeat the greater evil, they also need the atonement spell, and if it's more harm then good it should be stopped.

I'd say others have already shown torture is rarely for the greater good and ineffective to boot. Inquisitors aren't paladins though, so doing it once or twice in the heat of the moment won't change their alignment, but prolonged use should.

Also if the deity doesn't like it they can easily strip you of your powers. Inquisitors are not immune from this.

Who? What is the source material for this character?

He's a villain in Naruto. He's particularly awesome, because he'd use a scythe to deal damage to his enemies, then through a ritual he'd bind his body to the enemies. this meant any damage done to him also affected his opponent. What made this particularly bad for the opponent is that Hidan was immortal, so a quick sword through the stomach did nothing to him, but killed his opponents.

first off, you don't get flanking using ranged weapons.

Flanking

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

One strategy that might work would be to have him grab shatter defenses, and hopefully someone (barbarian perhaps), can put the shaken condition on an opponent followed by him making them flat footed.

I throw my vote in for "We be Goblins".

It's short, sweet, teaches the basics well, and the pre-generated characters means that you won't have to deal with any crazy builds while you run it.

Also, the PC's get to be psychotic goblins, which is always fun for a short term game.

Mulet wrote:

As for the other PC's, they've complained a few times. One of the PC's died (the character was HATED inside the game, but the players loved it), so the Magus used up a scroll of reduce person on the corpse, then used a set of +1 Manacles on it's hands, then wore the corpse like a cape and threw it into the river after running around for a bit.

... and this character is Chaotic Good? I typically consider it pretty hard to get me to move peoples alignment, but even I'd give a warning that a change of alignment is in store for doing something like that. Even if the character was a total jerk, he still had family and friends who'd probably want to see him properly buried (if at least not mockingly worn as a cape before being dumped in a river).

Also, I agree with the majority opinion here. This is mostly an OOC issue, and an issue that the other players should be involved in. (Even if the players don't care, ask them if their characters would be ok with someone leaving their back exposed during a fight to go raid the corpses?)

also, where was the Paladin during this (maybe it was the Paladin, which is the only scenario that I can see in this), because you've talked previously of having him fall for gambling. Surely letting someone wear a deceased companion as a cape and throwing the body in a river deserves a knock to the alignment, if something as simple as "he gambled, therefore fall" was grounds for punishment.

As for the other PC's, they've complained a few times. One of the PC's died (the character was HATED inside the game, but the players loved it), so the Magus used up a scroll of reduce person on the corpse, then used a set of +1 Manacles on it's hands, then wore the corpse like a cape and threw it into the river after running around for a bit.

... and this character is Chaotic Good? I typically consider it pretty hard to get me to move peoples alignment, but even I'd give a warning that a change of alignment is in store for doing something like that. Even if the character was a total jerk, he still had family and friends who'd probably want to see him properly buried (if at least not mockingly worn as a cape before being dumped in a river).

Also, I agree with the majority opinion here. This is mostly an OOC issue, and an issue that the other players should be involved in. (Even if the players don't care, ask them if their characters would be ok with someone leaving their back exposed during a fight to go raid the corpses?)

wizard. Single stat dependent. God wizard will help your lowly martials who will need the help of a God wizard to control the battlefield. Plus summons will be more valuable since their value goes up as other peoples stats go down. Their flanking bonus will be super valuable compared to a high point buy where it wouldn't be needed. Plus less points=less points in CON, which means that hits summons take will not go against your squishier characters.

str 8
dex 12
con 12
wis 10
int 18
chr 8

I am assuming you made a typo and meant Strength increases at levels 4 and 8.

Superstition is a rage power people either love or hate. Personally I wouldn't want it. Especially without raging vitality to keep you alive.

I was actually looking at making a tough as nails Dwarven barbarian with a heavy shield and a dwarven waraxe. I always feel bad when I squish a rather tough enemy with one good swing with a two handed weapon.

I would also not take weapon focus or Heavy armour proficiency. You would loose your fast mevement in heavy armour and mithril is not worth getting with that dex.

Stats wise I would start with less Str. around 15, and also look at 13 dex.

I find it kind of sad that you are sticking to Core only, as there are some really nice rage powers and archtypes for barbarians in the other books :P

You're right, that was a typo. It was supposed to be 4,8 not 2,4.

I wouldn't lose the fast movement since mithril fullplate counts as medium. (i just need the proficiency), and dwarves don't care about the movement decrease from medium armor, so I should be fine. I could push back the heavy armor when money becomes less of an issue, which is definitely an option.

I agree about not using other books. I'm hoping as time goes by they'll open up other sources, and I can tweek my build then, but for now, I'm focusing on making due with just the core rule book.

Upon reflection, your right, a dwarven waraxe and shield fits my build better anyways. I also won't need weapon focus to help offset the penalty anymore.

The group I'm in will be switching GM's, and the person taking over has never GM'd before. To help them out, we are sticking to the Core rule book only for feats/builds. The only exception is traits, which we can grab from elsewhere (this is for the Jade Regent campaign).

This defeats some of the more complicated characters I was hoping to play, so I figured I'd make a dwarven Barbarian who focuses on sustainability. I want this character to be the GM's whipping boy. My goal is to ensure that the GM can always throw attacks against my character, and I'll trudge along.

With that said, the GM will also allow max hp for the first 3 levels, which will help my character out.

I normally heavily min/max my characters, but I don't want to be too OP for this particular campaign, so instead I thought I'd focus on making a really solid tank. I want my defense to be high so that I can reliably take the punishment that the GM dishes out.

Build:

20 Point Buy, Dwarven Barbarian 10

Stats:
strength- 18 (16 start, with bonus added at levels 2,4)
Dex- 12
Con- 18 (16+ racial)
int- 8
wis- 12 (10+racial)
chr-8 (10-racial)

traits:
- glory of old
- childhood crush

feats:
1 toughness
3 power attack
5 weapon focus (dwarven waraxe)
7 iron will
9 heavy armor proficiency

Rage Powers:
2 superstition
4 no escape
6 renewed vigor
8 clear mind
10 improved damage reduction

Saves:
Fortitude:21
Reflex:14
Will:16-reroll

hp: 151/171 (GM gives us max HP first 3 levels, plus belt of stubborn resolve)

I figure with this many hp, really good saves, and decent AC (mithril fullplate), I should be as sustainable as can be.

I can also switch between using a large dwarven waraxe 2-handed, and using a dwarven waraxe with shield when needed.

On an equally unrelated note I got bored at work the other day and straight up rewrote the rogue. I'm typing up the results and putting it in the homebrew section after I put it past Cheapy to see if he vomits, slaps me, or makes a cheeky comment as is his way.

color me intrigued. :D

Mattastrophic wrote:

Chengar Qordath wrote:

The problem being, of course, that applying a similar level of system mastery to non-rogues produces characters who can shatter published content.

I agree with you, Chengar. It's not very difficult to produce characters who blow through published material. The APs are designed for a party of four 15-point characters with very few non-Core options, meaning that adding in all the powercreep which has occurred since will smash things. The Rogue, I'll say, started off behind a bunch of other classes, and hasn't gotten the same powercreep boost that other classes have received.

That being said... Can we make the Rogue work in published content? Absolutely. The Rogue just doesn't turn published content into Easy Mode like several other classes (with their powercreep) do.

So, if you and all of your group enjoy Easy Mode, I can understand avoiding the Rogue. There's plenty of material out there for you and your group to build whatever Smashy McSmashersons you want. But if you or any of your group don't enjoy Easy Mode, the Rogue is a pretty good idea.

-Matt doesn't enjoy Easy Mode.

So, in short, after 2,500+ posts the answer is NO, we CANNOT make the rogue "work" ... There will always be a class that can fill the rogue's role more effectively.

Alchemists and Bards come immediately to mind. Are those classes "shattering content"? I think not. Rogues need to be rewritten. Badly.

The post count alone demonstrates the case.

I completely disagree. I'd say the answer is a resounding yes.

Despite all of the criticism that I've given the rogue across multiple pages, there have been a few builds that do come together to make an effective character.

Mr. Hammery Sap master man is a great example of a rogue filling a decent niche.

The Dashing Archer also, works quite well (although it does even better at higher levels).

Let's remember our goal though.

first the goal I'm going to make our goal here as clear as possible. We wish to make a rogue (PURE rogue) that can perform roguish functions while dealing enough damage in combat to be on par with his spellcasting peers (bards, aclehmists, etc.). We do not want to surpass them as that may prove more difficult than it's worth.

The goal was to make a rogue who does rogue things (skills mainly), who can still deal enough damage to be relevant. In that regard, we have met the goal.

Now if your goal is to have a rogue who outperforms the other classes, your right, we've failed, but that was never the goal.

Don’t think I shouldn’t but any ranks in the social skill since sometimes I won’t be using performance.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but you don't have to do a performance to use the versatile performance skill.

For instance, when you use perform (dance) instead of acrobatics, it's not that you're break dancing across the battlefield (although you certaintly could). It's that your study of the intricacies of dancing help you perform acrobatics.

In other words, if you max the perform skill there is 0 reason to put any skill points into that particular skill (other then putting a few in while you wait to gain a new versatile performance).

Rogue talent: 4x combat feat, Slippery Mind

ummm.... you can't select combat feat 4 times.

That said, that is a fix to help the rogue out, since combat feats are better then rogue talents most of the time. This is sad, since other classes abilities tend to be better, or at least have chains that lead to better things. Rogues talents are bad enough that the best one, is one that gives you a feat.

And... those scenario are more friendly for the other more ''martial'' class? A paladin will do far better than a Rogue in a flying fight in the night? You are pointing a problem that almost all martial class (and even the one with 4th level spell) will have...

the difference is, that a paladin can whip out a bow, and have a much better attack and chance to hit then the rogue. Even without specialization, the paladin can contribute (although not as effectively) while the rogue really, can't.

AC: 18(10+2dex+6armor)

not to pick on the build too much, but monsters with decent attacks will hit him on a 2+ and even ones with poor attacks will hit him on a 5+. (monster guide shows CR10 good attacks will have a +18 and low will have +13).

I've seen this thread a while now, but havn't read close to everything pre-posted. I'll give my thoughts:

I don't see that combat capability as much of a problem with the rogue. A rogue is sneaky, not a front line fighter in armour. I don't like the idea at all that a rogue should be equal in a fight against/with a fighter, paladin, cavalier or barbarian. Those guys are warriors, a rogue is... a rogue.
However, some improvements can be made to combat as well.

What I see the problem as, is that almost any spell caster is a better sneaker, climber, bluffer ,etc-etc than any rogue.

The ninja is supperior to the rogue because of the ninja tricks: vanish, shadow clone and so on. These really help. I know that rogues have talants that lets them pick ninja tricks and a ki pool. But their ki pool is = to their Wis mod or a minimum of +1. A rogue shouldn't need a high Wis.

Since breaking compatibility isn't wanted, aka no altering the rogue class as is, we need to add new and cool rogue talants. Some or even most, I think, could be solved if they just got a better ki pool.

Something that makes them able to go invisible (like vanish).

Something to avoid damage (like shadow clone).

Maybe something to highten their chance to hit, a temp bonus on attack rolls, maybe when flanking.

Somthing that makes them better bluffers than any spell caster with basic illusion spells.

Something that would make them more mobile and able to compare with a spell caster with fly.

Basicly a, very limited, set of spells but in talant form.

I'll bring something more concrete in a while, when I'm not pressed for time.

you've essentially described the majority of the feelings on the rogue.

No one is arguing that they should be as good at fighting as a fighter (well almost no-one). It's mainly that they're not good at fighting, and are worse at their niche then other classes that are both good at fighting and filling the rogue niche.

Dervish dance also requires to have one hand free. Meaning you couldn't use two scimitars...

One way to enchanted the build would be to eventually get both sabers +1 Agile. Other ways would be Smite Evil, weapon training, The mobile fighter or two-weapon warrior fighter archetypes, or even rage(urban barbarian archetype really helps here).

ah forgot about that.

oops.

Hello. I've been looking the feats available in the game and I was curious about a good combination of the feats listed above in conjunction with the available classes, archtypes, and the sawtooth sabre. There are so many combos to come up with but I was hoping I could get some advice on some that would be the most efficient. I'd prefer to use a race that gets a DEX bonus to their stats and small size if able but this is not required. Since the sawtooth sabre is treated as a light weapon for purposes of two weapon fighting how efficient would the build work with me wielding two of them? Any advice to enhance this concept would be great. Thank you.

I played a 1-shot game where I used the advanced classes book class called the Slayer and played a halfling.

I used 2 scimitars, and took dervish dance and he was amazing (dervish dance allows dex to damage).

If you can talk to your GM, see if he'll allow dervish dance to work with any weapon (sawtooth sabres), and you'll be good.

Right off the bat, you should include a brief description of what the guide seeks to accomplish. You dive right in, and while I was intrigued by the concept, without a description I didn't know if the guide applied to my character concept.

edit: Actually the more I look through your guide, the more confused I am.
assume by transmuter wizard, you mean a wizard who focuses on transmuting, but tell me how this is supposed to work. What's the concept? What will this look like at different levels? How does feat choice impact this?

The guide looks solid but it's missing a central focus to keep it solid.

there's always the ninja base class.

It has alot of the same feel as a rogue, but it's way better. Just relabel the ki pool into (awesome trick pool if you don't like the flavor), and you've got a functional rogue.

Vanishing trick, in particular works amazing.

thorin001 wrote:

Why is everyone so interested in violating paladins recently? ;)

What do you mean "recently"? Looking for ways to make Paladins explode is the number one hobby here. It's what all alignment threads revolve on.

well it's one of the hobbies here, along with:

Rouge sux (spelling intentional)
monks sux
martials never get nice things
monks are OP
..... and of course Paladins falls

Why is everyone so interested in violating paladins recently? ;)

because it's fun to ruin something so pure...

Cheating

Though it’s considered more polite to call it “fudging,” cheating happens—sometimes a GM will be tempted to alter a die roll to make the story go a certain way, or to
save a player character from a blow that would kill them and knock a fun personality out of the game. Should the GM give in to the temptation to cheat? And if the GM is truly in control of the world, and making his or her rolls in secret—is it really cheating at all? There are several schools of thought on the matter. One side says that the dice are there to assist the story, not determine it—if a GM needs to occasionally alter or totally fabricate some die rolls for the sake of making an encounter a perfect challenge for the players without killing them, then he’s just doing his job. Others say that it’s the randomness which creates the realism and sense of danger, and that PCs who believe the GM won’t let them die lose half the fun. And a third notes that GMs who clearly cheat or have too many coincidences—the party’s powerful new items always getting stolen by sticky-f ingered half lings, or villains being saved by miracle rolls when a player comes up with an unexpectedly effective strategy—undermine the players’ enjoyment, and subtly encourage the players to cheat as well. Where you fall on the spectrum is a personal call, but if you do decide to fudge rolls for the sake of the game, it’s best done in secret, and as infrequently as possible. And only—only—if it results in more fun for everyone.

Seems to me that while Paizo, tends to favor the no-fudging rule, they consider both to be legitimate within the system, expecially if it result in more fun for everyone.

The fact that the wizard was not having fun at being killed without a chance to act in any way, seems to indicate that not fudging was definitely not the most fun.

I fall under the line of thought that this was a bit dickish of a move. It is not fun to have your character die, without any chance of acting. Yes, he should have probably had spells up to counter/mitigate the situation, but regardless of that, dying before you can even act, just kinda sucks. It's not heroic, epic, or even meaningful. It might as well be "rock fall you die" since he would have got the same amount of reaction time to that as well.

I have too much bad experience with Trip/Disarm.

Dirty Trick is cool, but requires a real specialized build.

Now that Spiked Destroyer has no deity worship required, I had hoped to use it with this build.

I guess I should have clarified, what I meant was that the Brawler is great, not my particular build.

With brawlers flurry, you can twf when it suites you without investing in it. With the maneuvers, you can pick up a needed feat on the fly, and a bull rush build is complimented by this.

Well, the DM is giving us higher point buy, and many options, to allow for flavorful builds.

Bull Rush is something I really don't have the greatest amount of experience with, so I want to really delve into it.

Brawler is also a class I don't have experience with.

I know that focusing on the Brawler's Flurry is good, in theory, but enemies just seem more mobile than that.

The ability to move, then ready a Charge/Bull Rush seems pretty cool too.

What's great about Brawler's Flurry is that you're good at it without any investment on your part. So when the opportunity to full attack presents itself, it's there to use, else-wise bull rush opponents into the dirt.

I will say, I've been focusing on a trip/ki throw/dirty trick brawler, and they're great.

We are going to play a gestalt game, and I've already confirmed with the DM that I will be able to take Druid (Pack Master) and Ranger (Beast Master) and have each class give me separate effective druid pools to spread between animal companions. I'm planning this character up to 8 at the moment.

At level 8 I will have 3 animal companions all effective druid level 8. I want them to feel different from each other. This means I have 4 feats to chose from, 7 skills, 3 tricks, and 1 ability point to customize them. Also, I can use the animal companion archetypes Bodyguard, charger, Racer, or Totem Guide. For flavor reasons they are all wolves.

I will probably be picking up a hawk, that I will likely use as a longer range scout/messenger but keeping it out of combat. Later on we've talked about undergoing a quest to turn one of my animal companions into a cohort via awakening it. Still working on flavor & mechanics for this part.

Before any customization the wolves look like this:

Str 23, Dex 15, Con 19, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6
Init: +2 Speed: 50
AC: 18 (10 +2 dex +6 natural armor)
Saves: 9/7/3
Health: 63 (7d8+28)
Bite: +11 (1d8+9+Trip)

(to spend: 1 ability point, 4 feats, 7 skills, 3 tricks, and possible archetypes)

So, how would you customize them?

wait, how are they all effectively druid level 8?

As to the actual question. I'd go with a horse, hawk, and some form of combat beasty (wolf, tiger, etc.).

One is your loyal hawk who scouts, the other your trusty steed, and the final your loyal guardian.

would that combine with a bull rush?

Does it count as a charge?

Haven't read the whole thread, but using ctrl+f no one seems to have mentioned one of my favorite traits for Halflings:

Helpful

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/race-traits/helpful wrote:

You see nothing wrong with letting others achieve greatness so long as the job gets done.

Benefit: Whenever you successfully perform an aid another action, you grant your ally a +4 bonus instead of the normal +2.

With this, as long as you can hit a 10, you can dole out +4s to your allies! As a bard, you can even do it from 15 ft away with a whip.

If you get the Gloves of Arcane Striking, your Aid Another bonus even scales with your Arcane Strike bonus.

And if you don't have anything else to do with your feats, you can get Combat Reflexes and Bodyguard to give +4 (or more) AC to those adjacent to you.

Now go and be a team player!

Have one of you're allies be a halfling opportunist for additional fun.

Is there a version of the Bard that exchanges spell casting for something else just like there is for the Ranger?

There isn't.

This is mostly because magic is far more important to a bard then it is to the ranger.

What are you looking for? There are a few new classes that might accomplish what you're looking for otherwise.

the problem is, animal ally states that you can't:

" must not have an animal companion or mount that advances as an animal companion."

the paladin's divine bond states:

"This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the paladin's level as her effective druid level."

So at this point, the feat doesn't qualify.

Ok... this will seem odd

Paladin 5
Pack lord Druid 1
Cavalier 4
Mammoth rider 1
cleric 9

So you wont really be a druid BUT
Human

level 1:
*Paladin 1
*Effective Druid Level(0)
-Nature Soul
-Skill focus Nature

Level 3:
Paladin 3
Effective Druid Level(0)
Level 5:
Paladin 5
Effective Druid Level(7)
Animal Ally
Level 7:
Paladin 5/ Druid 1/ Cavalier 1
Effective Druid Level(11)
Monstrous Mount (Warg)
level 9
Paladin 5/ Druid 1/ Cavalier 3
Effective Druid Level(21)
Eldritch Heritage(Slyvan)
Level 11
Paladin 5/ Cavalier 4/ Druid 1/ Mammoth Rider 1
Effective Druid Level(34)(4 level 7's and one level 6)
Horse Lord

Level 13
Paladin 5/ Cavalier 4/ Druid 1/ Mammoth Rider 1/ Cleric 2)
Effective Druid Level(45)
Boon Companion

Level 15
Paladin 5/ Cavalier 4/ Druid 1/ Mammoth Rider 1/ Cleric 4
Effective Druid Level(57)
Boon Companion

level 17
Paladin 5/ Cavalier 4/ Druid 1/ Mammoth Rider 1/ Cleric 6
Effective Druid Level(70)
Boon Companion

Level 19
Paladin 5/ Cavalier 4/ Druid 1/ Mammoth Rider 1/ Cleric 8
Effective druid level(80)
Greater Monstrous mount
(EDL 85 at level 20)which is 5 level 17 Wolves/wargs

You just have to keep track, anything that is not restricted (Animal domain, Druid, Eldrich Heritage) can be wolves, the rest must be wargs.... Though a warg is a good pet.

I'm so confused. How do you have an effective druid level of 7 at 5th level? Is there a feat or ability that I'm missing?

If you're not starting at level 1, then a mounted ranger would do quite well.

At level 5 take boon companion, and you have a beastly horse. At level 7 swap out for a large wolf (and who doesn't want to ride a giant wolf into battle).

The feats to be effective while mounted are helped by the style, and using a two-hander when the mount isn't available still makes you a threat by yourself. (especially when you get your favored enemy bonus).

I would say that remember the 25% goes to your weapon is a guideline. Just like armor, not every character will need/want to invest the same amount in it.

Some characters (wizards especially) flourish without the need for a weapon at all, and are better off spending their funds on disposable items like scrolls and wands.

Scavion has the right of it though, with metamagic rods are essentially the wizards "weapon"

Now, normally, a deity might be a little more lenient if the action was truly due to misinformation - however, there was no misinformation here, there was simply the idea that because this village is goblins, they must be evil. If the deity itself felt this way, that might be acceptable, but I'm doubting that is the case.

I suggest you do read through the whole thread. There was definite misinformation.

For instance they were all told of every evil goblin tribe in the area except the 1 good tribe that was an exception. They were told by Nualia (who they didn't realize was evil) of an evil goblin tribe that was causing harm, and they had no way of communicating with the tribe in question.

To make matters worse, the GM didn't give the paladin any warning after the first act of killing the good goblins. Instead he let the paladin keep his powers and continue smiting his way through the whole tribe before worrying over having the paladin fall. Where was his deity? Was she busy doing something else, or does she regularly let her paladins wipe out a whole village before punishing them?

In other words, there was a lot wrong with how this entire event went down, including significant misinformation.

in later levels I always considered my wizards staff to be his weapon of choice.

Mulet wrote:

Dread Knight wrote:

It would be interesting to hear from the players since it has been 'resolved' in game and it probably wouldn't matter if they saw this thread now.

I mention my posts at most sessions. I use spoiler tags, and never post about stuff that ESSENTIAL to the story. When I bring up the paizo forums, they tend to say

"Let me guess. Kill his character?", in reference to my older posts getting a lot of "Just kill the character" sort of replies. It's actually an in joke for us...

If the forums are a joke to you and your group . . . why do you bother posting questions on the forum?

I'm glad things worked out for your group, and it sounds like you do have a very different type of group from the rest of us, but I can't shake the feeling that the forum doesn't get the true players' stories, and you are skewing the forum's response to the players. Add me to the group that would like to see a response from your players after reading this thread in its entirety.

this. So much this.

I couldnt't put my finger on it, but this thread and its sister thread had been somewhat unsettling for me (although amusing). Then I looked up the OPs thread history and found this little gem: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qpwv?How-to-deal-with-a-half-assed-paladin ;-)

Conclusion: Don't allow Paladins if you can't handle/don't want to handle them.

I remember that one.

Btw, this actually helps put some context to the paladins decision to not take money from the bank. If Mulet was ready to make his paladin fall for gambling, I'd be pretty uneasy too taking money from the bank. Not because I'd be good role play, but because it'd feel like a trap.

I think both kyrt and wiggz have a point. My take on it is this:

The GM creates the setting and sets the stage, including general plot points, npc reactions, etc. However, its the PCs that drive the story.

As an example:

As the party is sailing the seas in their newly acquired ship, they see another ship that appears to be struggling. Coming up on the ship you notice that the crew looks famished and the ship is damaged but salvageable -- and potentially much better than the PC's current ship.

Now, the GM has set the stage, but its up to the PCs to decide if they are the "white knights" of the seas, helping make repairs and sharing their food, or if they simply take advantage of the hobbled ship, capture its crew, loot the ship for any valuables left and ultimately commandeer the soon to be better ship.

Both actions should have consequences. If they help the ship, they gain a potentially powerful ally and word of their good deed will spread as they gain standing among other sailors. Of course, enemies might use this information as a means to lure the PCs into an ambush. On the other hand, if they take over the ship, news will also spread. Other sailors will distrust them, etc.

So, I side with kyrt in that its up to the PCs to determine how to drive the story based on the info given, but I also side with Wiggz in that I'm not a fan of the absolutely empty sandbox. i.e. "Okay, party, what do you want to do today? Where do you want to go? Off to Magnimar? Alright, let me consult the random encounter tables . . . "

To be fair, I think what the bard is doing is slightly worse then that. It's more like:

"As the party is sailing the seas in their newly acquired ship, they see another ship that appears to be struggling. Coming up on the ship you notice that the crew looks famished and the ship is damaged but salvageable -- and potentially much better than the PC's current ship...

bard: Hold on, I didn't go sailing with everyone else, so I'm not there.
GM: Why?
bard: Because my character is doesn't like sailing, I want to go off and explore the wilderness.
GM ooc: Wait, I told you I wanted to run a pirate campaign
Bard ooc: I know you just have to make the hook interesting to me. Maybe a little bonus xp for a few side quests to get my character interested will do it
GM ooc: ????"

It's one thing to make decisions in a plot hook, that a GM didn't forsee, but it's kinda another when the PC decides they're not interested in a plot hook, even though the rest of the party is. This is especially true of AP's. When you're playing an AP, you've got to be aware that it'll have more rails then your typical game, and going off the rails removes the entire purpose of the GM using an AP. Going off rails will also frustrate your GM to no end, since the AP's a waste of money at that point.

Well, I wouldn't say you have to find an 'alternative' to strength (for a 20 point buy, I'd end up with 16/14/14 physical stats instead of my preferred 18/14/14), but a supplement would be nice due to the slight decrease in strength as well as damage dice on weapons.

Halflings do have the nice advantage of having an alternate racial trait that gives them a 30' speed. Although, they still need a lot of planning (carrying capacity for small characters is far lower than medium ones; you really run the risk of going over encumbrance)

I think you mean 14/14/14 for the point buy. Not only do you not get the +2 but you take a -2 to your strength.

Sweet lvl 20 halfling swashbuckler it is :)

One of the first character concepts that I ever wanted to put together on these boards was a halfling duelist. I figured I'd go dervish of dawn 5/lore warden 5/duelist 10.

After having looked over the swashbuckler advanced class, I'm not seeing any reason to enter the pretige class, rather then go full swashbuckler (this isn't a bad thing). My question is, "Is there something I'm overlooking, or is the swashbuckler a superior option to the duelist class"?

Would that stack with lead blades?

probably, but from reading the text, it sounds like it only works on non-magical staff's. Which while good early on, would take a toll in later levels.