The Emo Bard's page

Telekleia is banned for jealousy.

Derek is banned for accusing me of using a game mechanic I despise.

I like the Sorcerer because of it's bloodlines, the Witch for it's spell list (though it really should have Animate Dead and the like), and the Ranger for it's high skill points and combat potential.

How many arrows can they carry?

I reckon its the same answer as...

The same number of bits in the Wizards spell component pouch, or the number of strikes the fighters sword can deliver before it is bent/broken through viloent strikes.

Yes.

The Emo Bard wrote:

Yes. That's why I said that other races (except Elves) often mistake them for vampires. They may not be all that similar, but most human commoners don't know that (though someone with an education very well might).

But you're being disingenuous by saying they only have one similarity, they are quite similar. You basically created a living, PC-playable version of a vampire, not a completely new race.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a PC vampire, but I admit I shouldn't have called the two races to dissimilar.

My first thought was: switch the wisdom with con, and it's really good stats for a dog-person.

Huh. I suppose it could.

I put the penalty in con because it seemed to fit the whole "They need to drink blood to counteract an enzyme deficiency" thing. It makes sense for such a race to have a lower average constitution.

The Emo Bard wrote:

The only similarity between the two is the fact that both drink blood.

The Emo Bard wrote:

Ability Score Modifiers +2 Dex, +2 Wis, -2 Con

-Telvi tend to be quick and perceptive, but they lack a bit in constitution.

Bite Attack - 1d3 dmg (This is a primary attack if unarmed and secondary if armed. Telvi do not have the blood drain ability, as they do not drink enough blood in one sitting to cause any serious damage. To attempt to do so would make them sick from overeating.). These fangs can be sheathed so as to appear human. This is a free action.

Darkvision 120 ft.

Scent - Telvi have the Scent ability.

Those things are all similar to vampires when you have the point of view of a humen

Yes. That's why I said that other races (except Elves) often mistake them for vampires. They may not be all that similar, but most human commoners don't know that (though someone with an education very well might).

I'd like to dot this thread for further reference for my own campaigns.

One more thing about the Telvi: they tend to get along with Elves somewhat better than humans do to their tendency to live near forests (which means Elven communities), the fact that they Elves don't often mistake them for vampires, and the fact that Elves and Telvi both have more than a little cultural interest in magic. The two races generally deal with each other respectfully, and Telvi PCs may choose Elven as a starting language in place of Common.

The Telvi are a humanoid race hailing from "Europe". They appear to be human except for one thing: they have fangs. This is because, unlike humans, they have to drink blood in order to make up for an enzyme deficiency they are all born with. This is in addition to consuming normal food and drinking water, not instead of it. Ideally a Telvi should drink about a pint of blood a day (generally not all in one sitting), but they can survive without it about as long as they could survive without food. This blood does not need to be human or humanoid (animal blood is highly common as a dietary staple), nor does it have to be fresh, though it should be reasonably well preserved. Blood starvation is treated exactly the same as food starvation.

Telvi are very often thought to be vampires by other races, though they most certainly are not. The only similarity between the two is the fact that both drink blood. Telvi are not undead, do not create spawn (they reproduce sexually, just like any other humanoid race), are not healed by drinking blood, and lack a vampire's host of magical abilities and weaknesses. That said, vampires have a massive place in Telvi myth, folklore, religion, and literature, as a great many Telvi seem to be fascinated by them. Some even aspire to become vampires, though these individuals are generally at odds with Telvi society as a whole, which, while fascinated by vampires, also considers them quite evil. Telvi society has a lawful bent, as they tend to live in well organized tribes, but they can be of any alignment.

Telvi, do to often being mistaken as vampires, tend to live in their own communities near enough to humans to trade but distant enough not to be subjected to constant ignorant bigotry. They prefer to live in or near forests do to the availability of food and shelter. In more enlightened areas that understand them better they may live closer to or even in human settlements. Telvi are capable of masquerading as humans quite easily if they so wish, though their need to acquire blood supplies may draw suspicion after awhile. The Telvi are noted for their extremely keen senses and the fact that they produce a higher percentage of Sorcerers compared to their population as a whole than most other races. They can excel in most classes, but make particularly good Rangers and Rogues do to their incredible perception.

Thoughts?

The Emo Bard wrote:

Ringtail wrote:

Level adjustment?

Spell resistance is too powerful not to come with one, even with light blindness. I know the Bestiary doesn't list one, but it needed one just like the 3.5 version did.

SR sucks. It doesn't differentiate between friend and foe so if your buddy tries to help you out he has to pass it also. It also takes a standard action to drop it if you want him to get past it without having to roll the dice.

Another thing is that SR level+5 is not enough to make the bad guys really care, but when you really need that buff or cure......

Whether it's overpowered or not, it'd still be nice to see it go.

The Emo Bard wrote:

Ringtail wrote:

Level adjustment?

Spell resistance is too powerful not to come with one, even with light blindness. I know the Bestiary doesn't list one, but it needed one just like the 3.5 version did.

It was just that you mentioned the level adjustment in your opening post as though it were a rule, which it isn't, and not a suggestion, that confused me

The OP has been fixed.

LA went the way of the Dodo, dude.

Drow are just a bit more powerful than the core races, and are still fine for PCs.

Drow Nobles should be taken out into the sunlight and set ablaze.

Or shot into the sun.

With Spell Resistance, it should have kept the LA. Plus, that little bit of extra power causes a lot of angry yelling, at least at my gaming table. I think it needs just a bit of a nerf, and that's what I did.

Level adjustment?

Spell resistance is too powerful not to come with one, even with light blindness. I know the Bestiary doesn't list one, but it needed one just like the 3.5 version did.

Drow are one of my favorite races. Unfortunately, there is that irritating level adjustment. I know Pathfinder got rid of it, but Drow are still more powerful than core races. Now that the Advanced Race Guide is out, I have nerfed them just enough to put them on par.

Since this Drow has just as many RP as the core races, it is a perfectly reasonable choice as a PC race. Also, since it lacks that pesky light blindness, there is no need to worry about being active during the day.

Thoughts?

...Yea. So getting rid of sneak attack. The question is, do I go with a full BAB and some new offensive abilities, or a 3/4 BAB and even more offensive abilities?

Charles Scholz is banned for looking like a strawberry-flavored klansman.

In short, yes, you could have the companion take Martial Weapon Proficiency for one particular weapon (honestly you may as well take an Exotic Weapon since you're stuck burning a feat). However, I'm not sure that you're really gaining all that much from going this route. Remember, it loses all of its special attacks (pounce, rake, gore, etc) which I would say are generally better than being able to swing a weapon.

This. You can certainly do it, but it may not be the most effective character build.

The Emo Bard wrote:

It would seem that it could use one. Instead of waiting for a supplement to do it at some indeterminate time in the future, how about us players take a stab at it?

Here's my house ruling for the rogue class.

Skirmish:
- All rogues receive the scout archetype's "skirmisher" talent and normal sneak attacks at first level.

Precise strike:
- Starting at level 3 A rogue can sacrifice, as a free action, a dice of sneak attack for a bonus of +1 on his BAB. He can only sacrifice a maximum of half his dices (round down) this way and must choose to do so before the roll is made. The BAB bonus granted by Precise strike can also be used on disarm, trip and sunder attemps. If sundering, the remaining sneak attack dices also apply to overcome the hardness of the object being sundered.

Shadow Strike:
- All rogues gain the feat Shadow Strike for free at fifth level, if they already have Shadow Strike, they can choose another feat instead.

Sneaky strike:
- Sarting at level 11, the rogue may choose to sacrifice a maximum of half his sneak attack dices for BAB after the roll is made.

There you go, now, have fun in combat!

Does this BAB bonus give an extra attack when the total BAB hits +16, and can it be used when a sneak attack could not (such as when face to face with an enemy aware of your presence or when more than 30 feet away)? If the answers to these questions are yes, then this is totally awesome and I shall use it.

What he's saying is that by taking Combat Expertise and Improved Feint, you can feint against enemies as a move action, allowing you to get a single sneak attack in. Further, if it's a non-human, you take -4. If it has an int of 1 or 2, you take -8 to feinting. If has no int, you can't feint it at all.

...which is not a solution at all. Not because of the penalties, although those hurt a ton. But because it takes a move action to get one attack in.

Thanks.

The Emo Bard wrote:

It would seem that it could use one. Instead of waiting for a supplement to do it at some indeterminate time in the future, how about us players take a stab at it?

Personally, I think canning Sneak Attack would be a good idea to start with. It may be the iconic feature of the Rogue, but it's also rarely useful, as it is pretty difficult to actually get into a position where it can be used. As such, I think replacing it with other combat abilities that are useful more often may be a good idea.

Secondly, I think the Rogue needs something unique that other classes do not get. At the moment they do not have this. As for what that could be, however, I still need to do some thinking.

Any suggestions are welcome, as are anyone else's Rogue overhauls. I'm not about to say I can't possibly be outdone at this, and if someone else comes up with a Rogue overhaul that's better than what I can come up with I will use it happily.

This thread shall be updated as I progress further along on the overhaul.

A rogue with Improved Feint uses sneak attack quite often!

Please elaborate.

The Emo Bard wrote:

I think the biggest issue is the inability to sneak attack from more than 30ft. If you aren't sneak attacking, there is little point to playing a Rogue in a combat campaign unless your GM really likes traps.

Sniper rogue allows you to sneak from distances greater than 30'

Oh, yea, Sorry about that.

It would seem that it could use one. Instead of waiting for a supplement to do it at some indeterminate time in the future, how about us players take a stab at it?

Personally, I think canning Sneak Attack would be a good idea to start with. It may be the iconic feature of the Rogue, but it's also rarely useful, as it is pretty difficult to actually get into a position where it can be used. As such, I think replacing it with other combat abilities that are useful more often may be a good idea.

Secondly, I think the Rogue needs something unique that other classes do not get. At the moment they do not have this. As for what that could be, however, I still need to do some thinking.

Any suggestions are welcome, as are anyone else's Rogue overhauls. I'm not about to say I can't possibly be outdone at this, and if someone else comes up with a Rogue overhaul that's better than what I can come up with I will use it happily.

This thread shall be updated as I progress further along on the overhaul.

I think the biggest issue is the inability to sneak attack from more than 30ft. If you aren't sneak attacking, there is little point to playing a Rogue in a combat campaign unless your GM really likes traps.

Call it an improvised buckler?

With the caveat that it only works against light weapons and rapiers, it could work. I'm still torn on whether donning it should be a move or full round action, though. I'd think pulling a coat off is a different motion that reaching for a shield.

EDIT: Unlike normal bucklers, it should also prevent use of the hand for anything else.

This was once (and in some areas still is) a common tactic in knife fighting, specifically in parts of Spain and South America. The knife is held in one hand and the coat, poncho, blanket, or whatever wrapped around the other hand/arm to intercept cuts and stabs.

In Pathfinder terms, how should this be handled? I'm thinking the tactic should be effective against light weapons and rapiers (Not other weapons, though, as a longsword or battleaxe is going to cut right through it, and a mace'll break the bone, coat or no.). I also think that the arm should not be able to be used for anything else. However, should it be an AC bonus or damage reduction? 1 point or two? Also, should removing a garmet and wrapping it around the hand and arm be a move action or a full round action (I'm pretty sure it should provoke AOO)?

Spanky The Leprechaun is banned for starring in horrid horror films.

Spanky the Leprechaun is banned for hogging all the Lucky Charms.

Spanky the Leprechaun is banned for attempting naughty deeds with the village midwife.

The Emo Bard wrote:

Troubleshooter wrote:

For balance purposes, a GM should at least create the NPC himself. The best feat a TWF fighter can spend is on Leadership for his own personal Bard.

Great. Now that you suggested it, I'm going to have to go and do it. What could be more awesome than a knight with minstrels?

What does TWF stand for?

Two-weapon fighting. He's saying that, mechanically speaking, the buffs granted by a bard are extremely beneficial for a two-weapon fighter.

Thanks.

I realize it's rather powerful, and should probably be a no-no because of that, but the Rule of Cool says it must be done. I wish to be serenaded as I charge into glorious battle!

For balance purposes, a GM should at least create the NPC himself. The best feat a TWF fighter can spend is on Leadership for his own personal Bard.

Great. Now that you suggested it, I'm going to have to go and do it. What could be more awesome than a knight with minstrels?

What does TWF stand for?

The individual GM should decide how cohorts are created. I personally would let the individual players create their own cohorts (I run a LOT of campaigns where the PCs work for the government, so creating a new character and then saying "This person was assigned to me as an apprentice by my superiors" makes perfect sense within the game world), but I can see why other GMs wouldn't want that.

AM BARBARIAN wrote:

AM NO WINNER IN PLAYER VS DM.

UNLESS SOMEONE PLAYING BARBARIAN. BARBARIAN AM ALWAYS WINNER.

UNLESS DM KILL BARBARIAN. THEN AM DIRTY FIAT.

What happens when AM BARBARIAN fights AM BARBARIAN. Who wins?

AM BARBARIAN.

submit2me wrote:

I don't think you're wrong, but I also think you should just agree to disagree with your GM. He has the final say, after all.

One question, though. How does the player who wanted to be an aasimar feel about this? If they aren't upset about it, then it's a moot point in conjunction with your GM not allowing it. If the player is upset, then it might be worth talking about further with the GM.

If he thinks the aasimar is too powerful (which I think it's not), then he can "de-power" it. I know you said he thinks this is pointless and the player should just be human, but it's all about flavor in this case. You can't flavor a human to come off as an aasimar. You can, however, change the racial abilities of the aasimar to be more on point with the core races. I think it might be worth talking about it again for the player's sake.

The player sort of wanted to play the race once he heard of it's ancestral lineage but he backed off once my DM and I started arguing. I guessed I'm pushing for him to allow aasimars is because our roleplaying has been so dry. I don't just think that it's some of the players fault. I think it also lies on the DM. He doesn't address specific people, He doesn't incorporate half of the characters into the story line. He alters the rules and tells me they come into play once the common sense rule has been activated. At the same time he follows certain rules that don't make much sense, such as melee touch attacks use strength.

If that's how the GM wants to play the game, you should think long and hard about whether this someone you want to continue playing with. If his behavior is sucking all the fun out of the game, it may not be worth continuing with him as GM.

The Emo Bard wrote:

According to RAW, Aasimar have no level adjustment. As such, I would say that your GM is wrong by the RAW, especially if he is allowing Tieflings. If a Tiefling is not overpowered, an Aasimar isn't. Neither race is better or worse than the Core Rulebook races.

That said, he is the GM, and what the GM says, goes. He may be being stupid, but it is his campaign, and he's allowed to be stupid. The again, you are the player, and can choose which GM's game to play. Remember that.

He knows that there is no level adjustment, he pointed on the pfsrd that the monstrous races section said that they varied in power. Therefore he feels justified to nerf them.

Point out that the Pathfinder core races are just as powerful, then.

According to RAW, Aasimar have no level adjustment. As such, I would say that your GM is wrong by the RAW, especially if he is allowing Tieflings. If a Tiefling is not overpowered, an Aasimar isn't. Neither race is better or worse than the Core Rulebook races.

That said, he is the GM, and what the GM says, goes. He may be being stupid, but it is his campaign, and he's allowed to be stupid. The again, you are the player, and can choose which GM's game to play. Remember that.

LagunaWSU2 wrote:

I would not lose hope, sir. High level Pathfinder is a harsh forest to navigate...only made more harsh by your characters having anything they want.

Part of the only control you have as GM is player gear...when you throw that out...well...Baby with the bath water and all that.

Except the fact that the GM basically controls everything, you just have to learn to say "no" not that hard really, it's one syllable, two letters.

This. As a GM, I HATE saying no, and I try to reach compromises with the players as much as I can so that I don't have to, but there is a point where the law must be laid down and something outright forbidden for the good of the game. At the end of the day, YOU are in charge, not the players. Being open-minded and tolerant with what you allow is a great way to play the game, but there have to be limits. Otherwise, what's the point of even having rulebooks?