TombRobber's page

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

92 points on a 1-for-1 would be 15 1/3 points per stat, distributed evenly.

You could do 18 18 18 18 10 10 or 18 16 16 16 16 10, though. (Among other combinations)

How did you get this "low" stats? 92 Points is -18 18 18 18 18 15-(17*5+7 =85+7)

92 points / 6 attributes = 15.333 per attribute.

It depends on what "92 points to buy with. the buy is one for one" actually means. If the stats start at 0 and have to be bought up at one for one from the 92 points, StreamOfTheSky is correct.

The +3 on your weapon is an enhancement bonus, so it doesn't stack with the +2 from your arcane pool to give you a +5.

"These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon

So, yes, it does add together to give him a +5.

The brass knuckles are going to be errata'd like they were in the equipment book. SKR has already said that line was an error.

In short if the GM goes by intent, and not by RAW the brass knuckles won't help, which is why I did not mention them.

edit: One of many links

<shrugs> OK, so maybe it's no good for a PFS game, but we don't religiously follow errata and developer FAQs at my table. If a rule changes from what's in the book I bought, I'll probably never know about it unless I stumble upon it on some random thread here.

Anyway, to me the line in question makes sense, and will likely be extended to cestus and the like in our games. Having to say "I'm sorry, the plated spiky gloves you're wearing make your attack do less damage" seems more than a bit silly to me...

So, I have a monk who is themed as a fisticuffs/bare knuckle brawler kind of guy. (think "Gangs of New York" here.)

One thing that I have always avoided is getting him brass knuckles or cesti because they do less damage than a monk's Unarmed Strike. I don't really get the way that works, or why they were added as monk weapons. I can't understand why anyone would use them, in that case. I understand that a cestus can do piercing damage, but, that doesn't seem all that worth it, unless one happens to be fighting a whole lot of skeletons or something.

The following line from the description of Brass Knuckles (APG pg. 176) makes them awesome for Monks:

"Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk
unarmed damage when fighting with them."

So Brass Knuckles give you your full Monk damage and can be made of special materials and enchanted like any other weapon. What's not to like?

Sadly, the Cestus doesn't have the same line, so you're stuck with their damage rating...

Inspriation for PC: Based on Brotherhood of the Wolf a 2001 French historical drama film.

Summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brotherhood_of_the_Wolf
Beast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beast_of_G%C3%A9vaudan
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Feh8Eqh4nWU

This film is loosely based on a real-life series of killings that took place in France in the 18th century and the famous legend around the Beast of Gévaudan. In the mid 1760s when a mysterious beast terrorized the province of Gévaudan and nearby lands.
Grégoire de Fronsac was a knight and the royal taxidermist of King Louis XV of France, and his Iroquois companion Mani, arrive to capture the beast.

The movie is amazing, Ive probably seen it 20 times.

To the meat of the post, How best to recreate the hero Grégoire de Fronsac with PFRPG???
I love the royal taxermist/gardener aspect and want to make sure this is included. Maybe a dip in Alcvhemist could compare of a few skill points. Or Brew (potion)/(posion)??

The campaign setting is not going to be Golarion but Atlas Games Northern Crown (the 3.0 Northern American setting)
Dagada Orden will be (PC) in the service of Louis de Baude Governor of Count Frontenac (ie, the head cheeze in charge of New France at the time) He has been dispatched with a group to settle a new fur trade fort in Western Algonkia. Its going to be a big Kingmaker rewrite but will be custom material after book 4.

For the melee aspect: Fighter?? Ranger ?? Cavalier??, Paladin?
In the movie climax de Fronsac, is pretty proficient with a dual wielding hunter knives/short swords and acrobatics (jumping and flipping around). Myself, Id rather do a two handed weapon build that I can quickdraw out with a ranged weapon.

20 point buy, race: Human.

I know there wasnt a AC in the movie but if my PC had an animal companion that would rock. Thanks in advance for any and all of the advice to come.

I love the film and the character. I think you could represent him well as a Ranger with a dip into Alchemist (Vivisectionist?).

The Inquisitor class also seems to have the right sort of feel and abilities to represent him. He's hunting monsters and (eventually) church heretics, which is right up the Inquisitor's alley.

DeathQuaker wrote:

ProfessorCirno wrote:

Just be a bard!

:D

I know you're just being silly, the only thing is that you don't get the ranged legerdemain and sneak attack that way. :)

But you got me thinking... qualifying for Arcane Trickster through Bard isn't a horrible idea, especially if you're thinking of being a party face and are planning to play a support character (not a heavy hitter) anyway.

It's almost a shame you need 2d6 sneak attack to qualify for the PrC. It would be interesting to see an Arcane Trickster whose base class was Bard alone.

A bard variant that lost out on some party support and gained some rogue-ish abilities instead could be really cool.

There are already a couple Bard variants like that: Archaeologist and Sandman.

Archaeologist doesn't mesh well with AT, but could serve as a replacement, if what you're after is a rogue-like spellcaster.

Sandman gets sneak attack at 5th, so an interesting option for entry into Arcane Trickster could be Rogue 1/Sandman 5. Even better, I think, would be Sandman 5/Vivisectionist 1.

You could give him a template to make him an outsider (native).

Is there something printed in the rules that says Outsiders, particularly Native Outsiders, don't age? I couldn't find anything in my quick look...

Sleep-Walker wrote:

First Advanced Talent should be rumor-monger. Its absolutely awesome.

Actually, I made an error reading over my sheet. I listed Major Magic (charm person) as her 2nd rogue talent, but she actually took Rumormonger as her 2nd rogue talent. Major Magic was going to be the 2nd one before Ultimate Combat came out. We made character revisions, and that was one of the changes; I just forgot to remove it. Thanks for bringing it up, or I would have been "cheating!"

Charlatans get Rumormonger instead of Trap Sense at 3rd level, so that wouldn't be taking up one of your Rogue Talents. Since it's an Advanced Talent, you wouldn't have been able to take it until 10th level anyway, if Charlatan hadn't given it to you...

Let's remove the necessity to make camp and the travelling, so a city adventure. Our guy will dedicate 8 hours to sleep, 1 hour to memorizing his spells, 2 hours to his mundane needs (eating, going to the bath, ecc.).
You suggest he shouldn't do guard duty. So 1 less guy to do that, more work for the others.

He still need 4 uninterrupted hours to enchant something.

It is possible to do enchanting while out adventuring, without needing the uninterrupted time.

Check this bit out from the Core Rulebook pg. 549

"If the caster is out adventuring, he can devote 4 hours each day to item creation, although he nets only 2 hours’ worth of work. This time is not spent in one continuous period, but rather during lunch, morning preparation, and during watches at night."

So you can break it up, and do it in your spare time during the day, though it only counts for half. Still, it's enough time to make a 1st or 2nd level scroll every day. Though, since you're working on it throughout the day in bits and pieces, it'd pretty much have to take up the spell slot for the day.

I was wondering whether other people think it should work RAI/RAW?

Whether you would have allowed it?

My biggest thing is that a grudgehammer for example won't work for evil non-dwarves, but I can fool that and wield it. I can even fool a sentient magical item. Why can't I fool the golem's sensors??? The bestiary says the golem is mindless which means it is basically a magical item?

I think your DM made the right call. UMD allows you to emulate the features necessary to use a magic item. Even if a golem can be treated as a magic item, it wasn't an item in your possession, and you weren't trying to use it, so it's outside the scope of what can be done with UMD.

I've red the articles (and others as well), but I'm not sure exactly what Chuck is referring to.

Does he refers to the fact that according to mythology, dwarves are described as short and thus merit their name?

Does he refers to the fact that they also bear other names and therefore 'dwarf' isn't really their name but merely what humans call them?

Does he refer to the fact that according to some myths, dwarves are the creators and precede humans, thus their name cannot be humano-centric?

Chuck, I need you guidance here.

I'm not Chuck, obviously, but I believe the point he was making is that the use of the term "dwarf" for describing a individual of reduced stature was derived from the "dwarf" mythological creature that had shortness as a characteristic, not the other way around.

We didn't name the mythological beings dwarves because they were short, we called short humans dwarfs because they resembled the mythological being. The word "dwarf" meant the creature from Norse myth first, and then later came to be applied to humans with growth disorders.

Does that help clear things up?