Weeble Paladin's page

Well, you might ...

... wait, this is a paladin thread now? *jumps out the window*

I see what you did there, my paladin friend.

In the quarter of a century I've been gaming I cant think of a single paladin that would take an elected official to the sword because he refused to recognize the election of an evil person as legitimate.

I don't see your statement as factual. Legitimate authority is recognized and respected. If not for the person then for the office that person holds.

That's a nice image to have spread around about Paladins, and I see no reason to say anything to the contrary nor to leave any witnesses who could testify against it.

Zarius,

I'm glad that you've been enjoying the hobby for a while. I, and many other posters, have been enjoying the hobby since 1st Edition AD&D (and some even before that). In that time, I've seen a lot of DMs try to screw over players, either through technicalities or "hands are tied" literal rulings. I want to get across the point that technicalities swing both ways, and that rulings don't occur in a vacuum (consider a Kitsune Paladin sing Dominate Person to cause a king's chef to poison him because he isn't technically murdering or poisoning anyone).

I also understand that I am basing my opinion on this from the one line stating that a Paladin must "willingly" perform an evil act. But you should understand that you're basing your opinion on exactly zero lines that say that a Paladin should fall from unwillingly performing an evil act.

In short, surprise rules that run contrary of written rules that completely trash your character aren't fun and tend to cause havoc in a game.

Just to be sure I'm on the same page, are people posing that a paladin can fall if somebody sneaks poison onto his gear without him knowing?

People are posing that a Paladin can fall for doing something unwillingly. According to the text on how a Paladin can fall, the only thing that makes sense for him to do unwillingly and suffer a fall from is to use poison. Taken to its (il)logical extreme, a paladin can fall if someone sneaks poison onto his gear (or if he serves/consumes (i.e. uses) alcohol).

If he didn't know about it and fell it was because:

1. He used poison
2. The DM houseruled or misruled him to fall.

Technically, helping an evil entity violates the paladin code, but a Charmed paladin can be made to feed a person that registers to his Detect Evil sense, thus breaking said code. Since, you know, an inherently evil person is going to use that food to fuel themselves to commit evil.

You're reading that backward. The "except if evil" clause is an out for the "help those in need" requirement. That is to say, Paladins aren't prevented by code from helping evil people. However, "a Paladin avoids" working with evil people (and seeks Atonement if he does, but does not explicitly fall).

You could infer that it is against the Paladin's nature to work with or aid evil people, granting him a +2 save every round he is under effect of Dominate Person. Alternately, if it would cause him to fall (an obviously self-destructive act), he simply would follow no orders from the evil caster and receive a new save at +2 each round.

Depends highly on the definition of self destructive. After all, losing your class features isn't the end of the world (It's literally one spell away from coming back, not even any notable material components), especially compared to proper self destructive orders like "cut your own throat"

And per the definition of Charm Person, having the target do something against their nature means they need to pass a cha check but Charm spells in general are a crazy can of worms to begin with hence my "maybe." Suggestion would just work fine.

That said, I think the losing class features while under compulsion is stupid as hell, but that's Pathfinder rules, particularly Absolution and I believe JJ's personal opinion at work. I will say it doesn't fly at any table I run.

Destroying everything that you've worked your whole life to accomplish is what I'd consider self destructive. I'd like to note that slitting your own throat can also be undone by a single spell.

And Charm Person has this written in the text: "A subject never obeys... obviously harmful orders."

Basically, the way to do it is to convince/compel a Paladin to use poison without knowing he's using poison.

Dominate Person/Monster for the easiest example. Suggestion can also be fenagled as can Charm spells with a passed Cha check (maybe).

Violating your code is an obviously self-destructive action and "obviously self-destructive actions are not carried out"as per Dominate Person.

Charm Person cannot make a person do something he/she would not ordinarily do.

Edit: Noting that Suggestion has similar verbage to Dominate person as to self-destructive actions.

Which spells cause the Paladin to lie, cheat, use poison, disrespect legitimate authority, refuse to help those in need, or refuse to punish those who threaten or harm innocents?

What I want to know is why people expect Lawful Evil folk to twist the meaning of everything that anyone every tells them while at the same time expecting a Paladin to try to interpret his enemies' demands as favorably as possible. Paladins should act like a Lawful Good version of a Cleric of Asmodeus, considering what's at stake.

Wizard: Suggestion!: Your Lord is a traitor and you should attack him.
Paladin (to Lord): Your stance on poverty leaves much to be desired.
Wizard: No, I mean with your sword.
Paladin: You didn't say that, now did you?

Tableflip McRagequit wrote:

Hey, I hear ya. Sometimes a GM will claim your paladin fell because he forgot to say "god bless" after an NPC sneezed

To leave a poor innocent without the blessings of a paladin to ensure their soul does not shoot out of their nasal cavity upon a sneeze? Why, I could not think of a more DIABOLICAL act of callus disregard for the spiritual safety of the innocent.

You're going to big house, busto!

I've emulated Angels, beings created out of utter good, and been ineffective, uninterested and uninvolved when it comes to innocents. This has served me and my paladinhood well.

Nah. He doesn't fall; he just wobbles a bit.

Snowlilly wrote:

Snowblind, Snarkwyrm wrote:

Likewise, using Holy Word (Good) to nuke an entire orphanage filled with little children would go a ways to counter the Good from casting Holy Word but it wouldn't equal out. That's why aligned magic is dangerous, especially very tempting orphan nuking aligned magic, because alignment is mostly a label and having the wrong label is Bad(TM) because it is dangerous because it is bad(TM).

What if they were orphaned goblin children?

Then it is just a Good act, because goblins are evil because the bestiary says so. Yes, even children. Especially Children.

I do have to warn you though, for every goblin baby orphan that you hit, somewhere in the world a Paladin falls.

Nah, the Paladin just wobbles a bit.

what's that blue skinned idiocy doing in a serious thread?

Point me towards a serious thread, and I'll try to figure out what it's doing there.

Note: I will be using the general term "scattergun" to reference any firearm that is firing pellets, ie blunderbuss, shotgun etc.

In general, I like the Pathfinder firearms rules, but I hate the rules for scatterguns.

My problem is that, while you have a chance to hit everything within the cone of fire, it is actually harder to hit a specific target within the cone, because you take a -2 to hit on each roll.

I have been wingshooting and shooting sporting clays for a long time, and I just cannot abide this. This will be my attempt to "fix" the scatter rules. Feedback is very much appreciated, I wouldn't be posting if I didn't genuinely want criticisms and critiques of my idea.

1) Scatterguns can fire slugs or pellets.
2) When firing slugs, use the standard firearms rules, except that the critical multiplier is x4 rather than x2. Sabot or slugs shot from a shotgun are very deadly, hence the x4 critical.
3) When firing pellets, scatterguns target flat-footed AC and make an attack against all creatures in a cone. A blunderbuss targets every creature in a 15 foot cone, a shotgun targets every creature in a 30 foot cone. A double-barreled shotgun can fire only one barrel at a time when making a cone attack. This attack ignores concealment but cannot be modified by precision damage or feats such as Vital Strike.
4) Everything else remains the same (attack roll, critical chance, misfire chance, etc) and the critical multiplier drops to x2, as printed.

Why have I done this?
I believe that targeting Flatfooted AC with pellets more accurately reflects the real-world effect of buckshot. It would be nearly impossible to dodge a cloud of 7-10 .30"-.33" shots/pellets moving at aprox 1000 fps, but penetrating power is lost (hence not automatically bypassing armor and having a lower critial, x2 rather than x4 for slugs and bullets). All of this is even more true if loaded with birdshot. Trying to dodge a cloud of 300+ pellets of no8 shot at 1100 fps would be impossible, but the penetrating power, damage and range are correspondingly lessened. But, in general, combat shotguns shoot buckshot-like loads, so this was my model.

If you have actually bothered to read and think about all of this, I hope you will comment and let me know what needs to be changed and improved.

I love most of Ultimate Combat, despite its flaws. I love the Gunslinger, and I love the gun rules, except the scattergun rules.

The scattergun rules are simply wrong. It is mechanically easier to hit a bird in flight with a pistol than with a shotgun firing pellets, since scatterguns take a -2 to hit when firing pellets in a burst. As someone who has shot probably thousands of rounds both wingshooting and sporting clays, this is so wrong, I don't even know where to start.

Actually, I have an idea about where to start, but I wanted to make sure I was understanding the scattergun rules before I set about to re-write them.

When fired pellets, scatterguns target everything in the burst area, but take a -2 to hit on each target. This is correct, right? If so, this is where my modifications will begin.

Thanks.

Assuming a world that is primarily emerging guns but where several nations have commonplace guns, could/should a Gunslinger be allowed to take a revolver as her starting gun? I would think that this goes against the intent of the rules; however, a Gunslinger can take a blundebuss, musket or pistol as a starting gun, and the first line of the revolver description clearly states that a revolver is a pistol.

I know that the ultimate decision rests with the GM, but please help the GM make a fair ruling with thoughts and comments.

I guess this is a simple question. I would say so, but:

While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.

gives me pause. In real life, grappling requires patience and concentration, but in Pathfinder...?

I love the concept of a Magus with a shield. As soon as I saw this I thought Taldan Duelist Magus. It seems like the only way to do a build like this is with a Buckler, since you can't cast spells with both hands full. It seems like unless you bond with a Buckler, the class really doesn't do what you think it should until at least 8th level (that is cast spells with sword and shield in hand). I must be missing something here, right?

If you take the Racial Heritage Feat, can you take the Favored Class alternative(s) of the extra race you have selected?

Are Alchemist bombs subject to spell resistance, Damage Reduction, or Energy Resistance/Immunity? My ruling would be no, yes, yes, but I was wondering if there was an official rule I have missed.

When picking Skills for an Eidolon, does the Eidolon get a +3 Class bonus on skill?
ie do you calculate:
Ranks + 3(Class Bonus) + Ability Mod + Racial Mod or
Ranks + Ability Mod + Racial Mod

Thanks.

I just purchased UM; I haven't been through all of it yet, but I was looking at the Staff Magus Archetype and had a couple of questions I hope posters can help with.

1) Am I missing something? The Staff Magus seems strictly weaker than a regular Magus, but I may be missing something. Can someone fill in the details, or is a sub-optimal choice.

2) Since the Magus capstone seems sort of Meh... I was thinking that a Weapon Adept Monk 2/Staff Magus 18 would be a solid build. It would be rather MAD, Str, Int, Wis and some Dex would all be needed. Does Spell Combat interact with FoB? If so, how?

3) To my reading, it seems that while a regular Magus can eventually cast in medium and heavy armor, it lacks proficiencies in medium and heavy armor, and therefore would need to burn feats. Again, am I missing something?

Thanks.

It seems like there are two ways you can play an Arcane Archer; you can focus on combat, taking lots of fighter, Ranger or Zen Archer Monk levels and using spells and class abilities to augment the character's combat skills, or you can go for maximum caster levels, and be a "mage with a bow." Most builds and discussions seem to focus on the former; I am interested in the latter.

My basic build is Sorcerer 12/Arcane Archer 8, although I have toyed with Sorcerer 12/Arcane Archer 4/Eldritch knight 4. Either will give me 9th level spells and a BAB of +14 at 20th level. The Eldritch Knight build gives me Weapon Spec. and Point Blank Master, but I get them so late in the game that it hardly seems worth it, so I am leaning towards the straightforward Sorcerer/Arcane Archer path.

I plan on taking the Elemental (Fire) bloodline and focusing on blasting. I am aware that Arcane Archers and blasters are considered suboptimal at best, but there are some mitigating factors that make this concept more viable than it might otherwise be.

1) Right now, our party consists of a Chavelier that will likely take a level of Bard and then take levels of Battle Herald, and a Sorcerer focusing on enchanments and illusions (think 3.5 Beguiler).

The final character is not determined, but according to the player, "something primal," maybe a druid. With so little to go on, I'm not really factoring that character into my build concept.

So, we have a Tank/Leader and a Controller. Someone who can do damage seems appropriate.

2)Much of the planned campaign involves wars between various human principalities and a Goblin empire that eventually must unite to combat an army of demons bent on destroying the world. So, for most of the campaign, until high levels (12+), most of my opponents will be humanoid. in the end game, we will be fighting hordes of demons, which i know means lots of fire resistance and immunity, but by then I will have Arcane Archer to help out with damage dealing.

I am looking for help building my character. I don't usually build this sort of character as either a PC or NPC so I will need a lot of help. For starters, since most of my feats, particularly the early ones, will be Archery related, which 1 or 2 metamagic feats are best? Is Spell Penetration or Spell Focus more important? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Also, Sorcerer seems thematically and mechanically better for a blaster style, but would a Wizard be better?

I have seen it mentioned in a thread on the Zen Archer Monk variant that the attack bonus of the Flurry of Blows class feature is/was intended to be dependent on total BAB and that the reference to "Monk Levels" in the Core Rulebook was intended to decouple FoB from the Monk's BAB; ie it probably should have said, "Character Level."

In other words, it was intended that a character who multiclasses out of Monk will still have FoB AB progress with their BAB; however, they might not receive extra attacks that simulate higher level TWF feats because these extra attacks granted at 8th and 15th level are class features and not intrinsic to FoB progression.

Is this indeed the intent of the wording, and if so, can someone point me to the ruling?

The Pathfinder SRD says:

At 2nd level, a ranger must select one of two combat styles to pursue: archery or two-weapon combat. The ranger's expertise manifests in the form of bonus feats at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level. He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites.

I have always assumed that the Ranger did not need prerequisites when picking feats to fill the bonus feats lots, but if a Ranger used a slot that was not a Combat Style bonus feat slot, the character would need to meet the prerequisites as any other character would. Example: If a Ranger picked Archery Combat Style, and picked up Precise Shot as a 3rd level feat, the character would need the prereq: PBS, but if the character used the 2nd level Ranger Combat Style Bonus Feat slot, the character would not need PBS.

I have a player who challenges this interpretation. The player says that the last line should be construed that Rangers of 2nd level or higher NEVER need prereqs when picking feats from their combat style list.

Which reading of the class feature is correct? It would seem that if his interpretation was correct, you could take 2 levels of Ranger and have feats without prereqs for the rest of the character development.

I have my character concept, and now I am looking for some help with a build. My character comes from a city where dueling is considered both a sport and the primary means of settling disputes. All of the noble houses in the city employ Swordmasters as both guards and as instructors to the scions of the house (as well as the children of favored retainers and servants). The use of magic in duels is accepted, almost to the point of being expected. So, I need an Arcane Duelist. I have seen the APG Arcane Duelist Bard variant, but am underwhelmed. I have three potential ideas:
1) Magus from the upcoming Ultimate Magic.
2) Fighter2/Wizard6/Eldritch KnightX
3) Ranger (Guide variant)2/Wizard6/Eldritch knightX

I do not foresee this campaign going far enough for me to finish Eldritch Knight, much less decide how to cap the build.

The Magus appears to be the most straightforward build. The consensus seems to be that the Magus is either slightly underpowered or well balanced, but can nova for a short period of time to greatly enhance its combat effectiveness. This trait actually works well for a duelist who seldom has to fight more than one fight per day.

The Fighter-based Eldritch Knight gets into Weapon Spec earlier and maximizes the Fighter/Eldritch Knight synergy.

The Ranger-based Eldritch Knight has a little more variety in terms of skills, better saves, and is more versatile in general, but lacks the Fighter/Eldritch Knight synergy. The Guide Variant has Ranger Focus which grants a bonus to hit and damage against 1 enemy at a time, which works well for a duelist.

I welcome any and all comments. I will post a little more of my build tonight.

It seems that almost every Char Ops board has tried to create something like the original 1 ed Bard. WotC even tried with the Fochlucan Lyrist. But most of these have failed (IMO) because the writers and creators tried to circumvent the most onerous and frustrating aspects of creating a 1 ed bard (although the Fochlucan Lyrist had its own, completely different set of onerous requirements). So, here is my attempt to create a PRC the emphasizes those onerous requirements. I would appreciate any insight:

Ceolan Harper
HD: D8

Requirements:
BAB: +6
Skills: Diplomacy 5 ranks, Knowledge(Nature) 5 ranks, Perform (Strings) 5 ranks, Survival 5 ranks
Feats: Weapon Specialization
Alignment: NG, N, CN
Spells: Able to cast 1st level divine spells
Special: Sneak Attack +3d6, Speak Druidic

Class Skills: Acrobatics, Appraise, Bluff, Climb, Diplomacy, Disguise, Escape Artist, Handle Animaal, Heal, Knowledge (all), Linguistics, Perception, Perform, Ride, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Spellcraft, Stealth, Survival, Swim.

10 Level PRC:
BAB: Full
Saves Fort Worst, Reflex Best, Will Best.
Spells Per Day +1 level of existing divine class at each level
Special: Bardic Knowledge

As I see it, pretty much every CH build will look the same, Rogue5/Fighter4/Druid1. Weapon Specialization forces at least 4 levels of Fighter, and Speak Druidic forces one level of Druid (this point can be debated endlessly, but in my campaign, the CH is essentially a Druid PrC, so no one who learned Druid another way would be eligible, but I admit this is campaign dependent). You could get +3d6 SA from a PrC (Arcane Trickster), but that would seem to be more trouble than its worth and Arcane Trickster is arguably more powerful than a Ceolan Harper, anyway.

Also, if anyone has a better name, I'm very open to suggestions.

I just recently took up Pathfinder after playing AD&D (1&2) and D&D 3.5. The Pathfinder Fighter still seems weaker than full casters, but they seem more interesting now. So, for my next campaign, I want to try to play a Fighter with the Weapon Master variant from the Advanced Players Guide. Starting from first level and building to 19th,these are my proposed feats.

(H)EWP Bastard Sword(BS),(1)Weapon Focus(BS),(B)Improved init, (B)Power Attack,(3)Dodge,(B)Weapon Spec(BS),(5)Mobility,(B)Vital Strike,(7)Spring Attack,(B)Greater Weapon Focus,(9)Critical Focus,(B)Combat Expertise,(11) Improved Vital Strike,(B)Greater Weapon Spec,(13)Penetrating Strike (BS),Whirlwind Attack,(15) Second Chance,(B)Greater Vital Strike,(17)Greater Penetrating Strike,(B)Improved Second Chance, (19) Not Sure Yet.

My concept is sort of a 15th century Condottiero/Fencing Master/Duelist, in the vein of John Hawkwood or Salvator Fabris. In previous editions, Fighters had issues with Damage Reduction and actually doing enough damage to be viable at higher levels. I have tried to address this with Penetrating Strike and Vital Strike. I am getting into Whirlwind Attack pretty late, but at higher levels we will be involved in a military campaign, so I will likely be battling lots of low level opponents towards the end.

I would appreciate any feedback on my feat choices and any other Char Ops observations, and any thoughts on what my last feat should be.