Thorn 'Rat''s page

Str3d6 ⇒ (2, 4, 2) = 8
Dex3d6 ⇒ (4, 1, 2) = 7
Con3d6 ⇒ (5, 1, 5) = 11
Int3d6 ⇒ (6, 5, 1) = 12
Wis3d6 ⇒ (4, 2, 3) = 9
Cha3d6 ⇒ (2, 2, 6) = 10

Or one could use that dragon class/race that someone did on the d20pfsrd.

As for gestalt, I kind of get it. There's little point to having a party full of the same class.

Ehh, aren't dragons supposed to be all about nonintervention in eberron, what with the prophecy and all? That setting makes it a little weird.

Hmm. No. But I am not opposed to buying a partially charged wand or something like that with starting money.

One of the players in my first RoW game took rich parents and bought a full wand of cure light wounds

Thanata, There's some trouble with your line thing.

You'll have to delay until after Amel, or you'll need to cast defensively or risk an AoO.

With a 20ft line, you'll also set fire to the carriage unless you delay, but that might not be a problem, I don't know.

Posting on phone right now, but I run it AoE damage as being rolled only once, instead of once for every target.

Also, I believe staggered at 0hp makes you drop into negatives if you take a standard action, such as attacking the zombie.

Hohum. Yes please. I'm thinking dwarven cleric.

Hey, I figured this thread was a good place for this:

Basically, I'm converting Dragon Age: Origins to pathfinder in order to play with a long-distance friend whose computer isn't up to date enough to run the game, and whom I want to spend some time doing stuff with. I figured this was a good way to include him in the awesomeness that is dragon age, and shoot the shit along the way.

That means I can run a solo game as a pbp here too, preferably for someone who hasn't played DA:O. So if that's you, and this seem interesting, there you go! I wouldn't require a solo game in return. You don't need to be particularly experienced with pathfinder.

It would not always be a true solo game, as certain NPCs will attempt to ingrate themselves with your quest, but if you really wanted to hack it alone, that'd be an option. No-one says you have to follow the lain-out tracks, that's the beauty of an RPG.

I've found a bunch of variant rules that lend themselves well to telling this story, but if you just want to use regular pathfinder, that's fine. The only variant I'll insist on is using 'Epic 8', which is basically a level cap at 8th level. My reasoning for doing this is to keep the story relatively low magic; long-distance teleportation and ressurection would throw a wrench in the works.

That, and the only allowed races are elves, humans and dwarves.

I've always loved the concept of heavily armored ranged specialists, so here's the bare bones of a character that does just that.

As of yet unnamed spearman.

As written, you don't actually get a magic staff if you take a bonded object that's a staff. What you do get, is a masterwork staff that you can craft into a magic staff, as if you had the craft staff feat, as soon as you qualify for the craft staff feat, which should be 11th level, using the normal rules for magic item creation.

You don't have to have the actual feat to do this, but you do have to have caster level 11.

Also, a staff of mage armor would cost 3200gp. That's like, way out of bounds for what a first level class feature should give you at first level, even ignoring the rules.

Huh. It appears that this forum doesn't like homebrew stuff much. You could try putting this up on gitp or myth-wearvers, you'd probably get more response there. Still, if you want to keep it on here, I'd like it myself. There's five or so people here right now, so you can get a game off the ground.

Would you allow a Warder using the martial tradition to access Silver Crane? Sort of like a pathfinder replacement for the Crusader of 3.5e.

Alternatively, I might do something with the fighter/magic user trait.

Do you allow the tome of battle PRCs?

Aww, if this was Revised ed. I'd be all over it. As it stands, I sadly don't have the rulebook(s) for saga edition.

But good luck with your hunting!

Sure. It just didn't say that anywhere, so I figured maybe the reason that there wasn't a blanket 'use these two books only' statement somewhere was that for other stuff we could use whatever.

Still, I'll see if I can build something within the confines.

By the way, the PRD sorts content by source, which makes it handy for stuff like this. Just putting it here in case it helps anyone else - I found it a lot more useful than the d20pfsrd for this, personally.

Edit: Going with a bard, I think. It's a good way to fill out the skilled slot. Won't have trapfinding unless you'd consider allowing the Trap Finder trait from People of the Sands? Still, can't have everything, and it'll be effective at ranged combat, which is probably worth the trade off.

Hmm. I think a mounted ranger could be cool, but I'd want to have an animal companion I could ride, like a roc or something. I'll have to check where Boon Companion is from; I fear it's animal archive or something obscure like that. Most of the good stuff is.

Maybe something really simple, like a cleric, or a druid? I'd want to avoid over-reliance on melee, given we're setting out to kill a dragon.

Can we grab spells, traits and magic items from outside sources? What about alternative racial traits for the races you listed?

Very interested in this particular style of story, but it's been more than a fair while since I've built something using only APG and Core materials. I'll have to consider whether it's something I could get excited about playing.

Still, props for a really nice story concept.

That is really, really interesting. Count me in.

Edit: Are guns going to be availible? A stalker with a sword and pistol combination sounds like fun to me right now.

In that regard, it's a bit of a shame that there's no high dex, high faith spread availble - although I might be able to make something work with the hunter spread, maybe? It's not ideal. Likewise, feeling the lack of a Str=Cha>Con>int=dex=faith spread, it'd be nice for a warlord or a paladin. I'll figure out a combination that works.

I'd be up for shattered star.

*Rogues* have trouble making it good, and they get a flat bonus of ~1.75/level damage per attack.

I'd be extremely hesitant to attempt this with a bard.

The only thing I'd touch twf with outside of sneak attackers would be paladins or cavaliers, and even then only if combined with Order of the Flame or Oath of Vengeance. Otherwise you'll have too much trouble dealing damage.

My point is fighters and wizards are two very different classes and should be treated as such. Neither really is better then the other both having their strengths and weaknesses. Neither the Wizard or Fighter are my favorite class but I don't slam on them saying they suck. It's how they are made and played that can make them suck or be great.

I apologize if I was mean but it get's frustrating when someone slams on me without really reading what I wrote. I think it's unfair to say all classes suck even though I personally hate the Bard. I have apologized for my opinion on them. If you hate a fighter don't play on but don't slam on someone who loves them.

They are different, but you can still measure if one does better than the other at stuff.

Like say, it's clear to see that the fighter is tougher than the wizard. It's also clear that the wizard can make himself roughly as tough as the fighter for a short time by casting a spell. It'll be a toughness with holes in it (i.e. Mirror Image or Displacement is useless against AoE, fly does not protect you from ranged attacks, and windwall does jack squat to melee attackers), but it still serves to even the playing field a good bit.

Obviously, fighters are better than wizards at killing things with melee or ranged attacks, depending. But wizards are better at making a lot of things die at once than fighters. They're better at taking down opponents without killing them than fighters, and they arguably might even be better at taking single foes down quickly than fighters are.

They're better in almost any non-combat situation too. They have better knowledge skills, and while the figther probably has ranks in climb and a big strength score, spells give better mobility than the movement-related skills do, from feather-fall & spider climb, to dimension door, to gate.

They're better at gathering information. The fighter is limited to the diplomacy skill for this, and is likely equally as bad at it as the wizard, charisma being a tertiary stat at best to both classes.

The wizard has spells that can gather information, like scry, clairvoyance, true seeing etc.

Obviously, if your measuring stick is 'how good is it at hitting things?' the fighter will win. But I'm pretty sure there's more to RPGs than hitting stuff.

Also, a drawback of the wizard class is the admittedly bad low levels. Their greatness becomes evident around the time they get 4th level spells. At that point they have enough spells to cover defense, while also providing utility & pumping out offense. Before that point, they run out of spells a little too quickly to really show off their potential.

BretI wrote:

As others said, although not optimal a dwarven rogue can be fun and more survivable. The stonecunning can help with traps.

If you really want two weapon fighting, mix the Rogue with at least one level of a character class that gives martial weapons. That allows you to use the dwarven urgrosh for two weapon fighting. I think many dwarven rogues would mix in a bit of a more martial class anyways.

You could also just TWF with short swords or daggers like most Rogues, if you like.

If you do go with a double weapon, be sure that it's finesseable.

TWF combined with relying on STR is a bad idea, dwarven urgrosh or no.

Regarding the PA/DF debate: going from what paizo employees and faqs and stuff have said, a good way to arrive at the correct interpretation is this:

Consider all possible interpretations of monk rule interactions you can think of.

Pick the one that's the least beneficial for the monk in the current scenario.

This will 9/10 be the one that is backed up by faq and rules explanations on the boards.

So long as they didn't moan and whine about being bad, sure.

Your GM is suspicious because people who say they want stuff like this, 90% of the time, even though they swear up and down they're fine with a weak character, they end up being passive-agressive about thier character's uselessness and want to spent game time devoted to moaning about how they can't do anything well.

So sure, go right ahead. But do try not to be that person. And if discord arises from this, remember that it was entirely, 100%, your fault.

Still here.

Horror is best done freeform. Uncetainty is very often the best thing you can do for horror, and mechanics almost always take away from that.

Hmm, psionics are cool.

I'll put together a proper statblock at some later point, but here's the basics

Ideas:
-Obviously, there's a fear theme. It's something he's cultivating as a deterrent of sorts; he wants to get to a place where his reputation alone is scary enough that potential enemies think twice before they tangle with him.
-He's a minor noble, or the son of a noble.
-He's failed to protect either some of his family or some of his (farther's?) holdings before - that's what has him working on his reputation. He figures if everyone is scared of fighting him, he can have his lands in relative peace.
-Also, Eiríkr is a name with some lovely meanings behind it, so that's good.

Ehh, having someone with +10 in Perception at level 1 is more than enough.

I find that, as the levels progress, say at around level 8, a +5 item and max ranks is more than enough to see you through, even for a fighter, or something. You might be heading into overkill territory, and if you have another skill you like, or a martial/exotic weapon you like, maybe change skill focus for that.

Actually, I think I'm going to have to bow out. I really wasn't counting on getting into this one, and consequently I got involved in more games than I can handle.

Sorry.

Hey! I'm here!

Honestly, I thought my chances of getting into the game where beyond miniscule, so I kind of gave up keeping up with the other thread. I'm very honored to be chosen for this, though.

I'm going to be reading over this thread tonight, and hopefully make my first post in the IC.

Oho, the irony. Thorn's family is probably dead.

@12.5%- if you took the racial heritage [elf] feat there would be no rule bending at all... Is there a reason you don't want to do that?

There's no reason he couldn't have an elf somewhere in his ancestry, I'm just not that well versed in pathfinder's nooks and cannies, to be honest - I didn't know it existed. Also, I envisioned him as a human, but having to have elven ancestry isn't a deal-breaker in any way. I'll think on it; thank you for pointing that option out!

Could I make a human treesinger druid? I envision him as having his connection to Gozreh take the form of an instinctual deep connection to plantlife.

If you don't like bending the rules around racial archetypes, that's fine as well.