Tzeri D'Zargo's page

Hi all,

I've been recently butting heads with the DM of my home game.

Let me paint the picture:

We're running Rise of the Runelords and the party consists of a sorcerer, shaman, slayer, hunter and ranger (me). The slayer is an archer - great character, mechanics aren't very sound. He had no rapid shot or precise shot by level 3.

I wanted to play a switch hitter style, but I was told that if I were to do it, I would be required to use throwing weapons - as that cramps the style of the slayer.

I relented and we played through Book 1.

Starting in Book 2, I wanted to explore a new concept, so I opted for a Grippli Inquisitor who would be using a bow. I'll own it, knowing the fight I had with even becoming half-an-archer, that was ultimately resolved in a borderline nonsensical way, I should have expected major pushback. The problem was the character concept came to me with a bow and I *really* am tired of playing a melee - my other 2 characters are also melee. If I rolled a straight divine caster or straight arcane caster, I'd be equally stepping on toes, so I looked at Bards/Inquisitors as a sort of hybrid, ideal 5th man option.

Unfortunately, without a bunch of free feats for things like Quick Draw, a throwing weapon build isn't really viable at all - my anti-hero human ranger had enough to make it work, but Hero Grippli with only 2 at level 4 cannot. Besides, as I said, the character concept just loses so much of its flare if I have to ditch the bow. Maybe that's a personal problem of mine though.

Even before the mechanics were done up, I've been told I'm not allowed to use a bow.

Like I understand the potential is there to steal the "thunder" (I use that term loosely, the slayer is - far and away - the most useless member in the party when Initiatives hit the table.) of an archer, but I don't understand why this is a problem, especially since the Hunter and the Ranger both were two-handed melee fighters. The DM pointed out I used a Greatsword, he used a Glaive. And that made it okay. I was a little baffled at that explanation, but didn't fight him on it. Why can't two archers be in the same party and ... share the thunder?

Or am I being unreasonable/delusional/obnoxious... or all the the above?

Hey all,

I'm still fairly new to society play. My first character just hit level 3, so I'm looking to make a second character that's viable for level 1-2. I'd like to do something a little odd-ball with this one, as my first character is a fairly generic, pretty optimized meathead 2-hander Paladin.

I'd like to try something a little crazy if not a bit silly this go around - a boomerang based build. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any good synergies that might make this build viable - it seems Archery just so far outclasses it by doing more damage, requiring less feats (as Exotic Weapon Prof + Quick Draw are must-haves), has 3-4x the range, requires far less gold (enchanting 4-6 boomerangs over a single bow),

Is there anything out there that can make a PFS legal Boomerang-using build that isn't awful, or is this sort of concept going to result in a gimp character that will essentially be a waste of a spot at the table?

Hello,

I'm sorta of new to society, but I've always loved roleplaying paladins. I've done a little homework seeing how they work in Society as Pathfinders, searching the forums and whatnot.

I know a lot of this will come down to whoever is running the game and will vary on a table to table basis, but I was wondering if some of the following conclusions were acceptable - my goal is to play a paladin who is an asset to the team, who doesn't bring down the fun at the table or just come off as this insufferable dink everyone just has to endure.

1. Evil Outsiders as pets. A paladin is, technically, under oath to destroy these whenever possible. Whenever possible being the operating word. Since we're geased to prevent attacking other Pathfinders and their pets, it's not possible.

My approach: Fall back on the Pathfinder mantra: Explore, Report, Cooperate and just ignore it. The Society allows them to have an imp - you are not a legitimate authority here. Besides, being overtly critical can severely jeopardize the ability to cooperate with this individual and may lead to chaos, which my character is every bit as against as evil. There's always a greater evil to pursue - pick your battles. Being uncompromising is the fastest way to insure chaos.

2. Surrendering Prisoners. A paladin is under oath to be honorable. Many interpret this as providing quarter to surrendering enemies or being agents of the law, required to take them prisoner and to a legitimate authority.

My approach: When in a city or any place with a legitimate legal structure, quarter is given by the paladin in accordance to his oath to respect the laws of society. He'll asks others do the same - it's not like spending 5 minutes turning over prisoners to guards will pose any undue burden. Sometimes, however, a paladin finds himself outside a structured society where the only law is natural law. In wilds, dungeons or lands ruled by evil (such as evil societies and monsters), he is within his right to be judge, jury and executioner and is by no means required to jeopardize the greater good or recklessly endangering his companions by taking dangerous foes prisoner.

3. Party members are endangering civilians. A paladin is under oath to protect the innocent. Being violent to others who may not have posed a threat to the party or, for example, an alchemist or wizard lobbing his bombs/fireballs at an enemy in a crowded room are severe ethical problems for the paladin.

My approach. Judgment call. If there's a clear and present evil, continue fighting it. You can't stop the alchemist from blowing up civilians (as you are geased to prevent direct action against another Pathfinder), but you can stop the evil he's trying to attack who's probably just as dangerous to the common good. After it's done, you tend the wounded as much as possible. You can try to preach the error of the guy's way, but more likely, my character would just write a lengthy report to his supervisors calling for the removal of the character from the Society. Also, if any legitimate authority comes to arrest the offending characters, the paladin does not interfere.

4. Others using ambushes, killing foes while they sleep, poisons... etc. Paladins don't use poisons and are encouraged to fight honorably and encourage those notions in others.

My approach. Not only is foiling an ambush or waking a target the party witch put to sleep so you can all 'fight honorably' a violation of the Pathfinder tenant to cooperate, I would argue it's actually a selfish act. What if a party member died because you had to go do something tactically unsound because your honor demanded it? Putting your own moral code above the wellbeing of your allies and, by your actions, forcing them to adhere to it is a Lawful Evil act. You are forwarding your own agenda without a care to how it may impact others. As for poisons, since it's explicit in his personal code, the paladin forgoes using them of course... but since it is allowed by the Society, it's not his place to criticize others for using it.

Anyway, please let me know if you take issue with any of these interpretations on how to play a paladin in society. At the end of the day, I want to play a character that adds fun to the table, not subtracts it - like so many paladins seem to do. The eye-roll when you say your class from the rest of the players who don't know you is always a sign of that.

Also, if you've bumped into issues playing a paladin that I didn't cover, please let me know how you handled it. I'm curious.

Thanks!