Zodiac_Sheep's page

If you take one level of druid and then retrain it. Would you still know Druidic?

*Opens mouth. Closes mouth.*

Uh, anyway, ignoring questions that as a GM would make me very sad indeed...

I'm planning on playing a Hunter in a campaign soonish, and I was sort of wondering the same thing. I think a reasonable suggestion for a GM is to ask your GM if you can get a little and lose a little; if your character was trained by Druids, though not as a Druid (perhaps as a Ranger or Hunter), it might make sense for you to know it but have to conform to a Druidic code or lose some predefined class features. A class-neutral suggestion would be something like this:

Pros:
Gains Druidic as a bonus language
+2 bonus on Kn(Nature) and Survival checks (as Nature Sense)

Cons:
Must revere nature, cannot teach Druidic, must be some sort of neutral. If you screw up, you either seek atonement (spell) or lose pros and maybe get a -2 to Will saves or something.

If you want to know Druidic without being a Druid... I got nothing outside of dominating a Druid or something similar.

Yeah, Paired Opportunist is pretty sweet so that might end up being my level 6 team feat instead of Lookout or something similar. Only problem is I'll have to get some armor spikes to make sure I threaten at both ranges, but that's not a big deal outside of being slightly cheesy. Plus, the "not casting much in combat" is a pretty good point. Bardiche it is, more interesting than a greatsword or nodachi (which would be slightly cheesy since my character isn't of Eastern origin anyways) to boot.

Follow up question: Should I have my snake pick up Combat Reflexes? I'm guessing yes, to maximize on that, at level 5 since that's near when Paired Opportunist would come online. Only problem is now I want to pick up Broken Wing Gambit, too, and auuugh so many good feats to pick from. Oh well. I'll figure it out.

I'm going to play as a Human Hunter with a Constrictor Snake AnC in an upcoming game, and I want to know if I should be throwing down with a Greatsword, Bardiche, or Lucerne Hammer. Feat list for the first three levels:

1: Combat Casting or Combat Reflexes (using Eye for Talent so no bonus feat)
2: Outflank (Hunter bonus feat)
3: Combat Expertise, Pack Flanking

Stats are 17 / 14 / 14 / 13 / 14 / 10 (25 point buy).

Way I see it is these are the advantages of each:

Greatsword: 3d6 with Lead Blades, 19-20 crit range for Outflank

Bardiche: Reach and 19-20 crit range for Outflank

Lucerne Hammer: Reach and 3d6 with Lead Blades.

Please note that I'm not changing my general build, AnC, or stats in any way, with the exception of my first level feat. I plan on taking Combat Casting if Greatsword, Combat Reflexes otherwise. I just want advice on the best possible melee weapon.

I would just let them handle transactions normally. Although sometimes it's good to at least introduce and describe who they are vending to just in case the party finds the character interesting and wants to role play. Most of the time I've found my party wants to fast forward through down time so they can get back to the adventure as quick as possible.

This is important to note, because what kind of group you play with will determine how downtime works. Errant_Epoch's here group wanted to get through the downtime ASAP, so buying things may have been just buying stuff, with little to no RPing. My group, on the other hand, really liked just wandering around Sandpoint and would spend hours going to the inn, talking to people, getting drunk, etc.

Try to feel out if your group prefers the dungeons or the town, and adjust accordingly. If you group hates negotiating prices and talking to NPCs, trim that part. If they really enjoy it, then throw lots of time and energy into those encounters. One isn't necessarily better than the other, but you should always pattern your behavior based on what everyone likes doing.

The answer to your question is, "When you want to play a Rogue."

It's not all about how powerful a class is mechanically. It's absolutely silly to say that the Rogue is a useless class because other classes do a lot of their stuff better; the class has it's own mechanics and lots of people have fun playing a ROGUE, not a Slayer/Ninja/Investigator/whatever.

I'm not arguing that you have to be a Rogue to be a sneaky backstabber or anything like that. I am arguing that saying you should never play a Rogue because it isn't the best class is a ludicrous concept, especially in a tabletop RPG, where power NEVER has to be an issue if you don't want it to be.

I once read here that the best part about being a Rogue is writing it down on your character sheet, and I say: So what? If that's a valuable part of your tabletop experience, and you like having lots of SA dice and Rogue talents (as underpowered as they can be) and other stuff, who cares?

I prefer point buy, but I'm okay with rolled stats if they aren't too brutal (3d6 straight down is tyranny, man).

As a GM (which I pretty much always am) I use a 25 point buy and only allow one dump to 8. This makes characters that are about as optimized as a 20 point buy without restrictions without them having to gimp their non-essential stats.

If a player wants to have a barbarian with high charisma, at most tables it's a non-issue, even in point buy. Sure, you won't be as good as an optimized barbarian, but the difference is fairly minimal so long as you don't make your barbarian's charisma, like, 16 or something. I think 13-14 is a good number for a character interested in buffing a non-primary stat, especially with a more generous point buy.

Underfoot Adept/Maneuver Master, technically. Fortunately, they step on each other's toes to such a small extent that most DMs ignore it or don't even consider them conflicting.

So, if I timed this properly, I could use the second one to wish for 2 relatively benign things, then wish for a primed nuclear weapon, which my enemy gets two of?

You could just use that to kill your nemesis with some inventive wishing.

It's the subject of an old joke. A man finds a genie in a bottle, who says the man gets three wishes under the condition that the man's despised ex-wife gets twice as much. So, first, he wishes for a yacht, which his ex-wife gets two which are just as luxurious. Then, he wishes for a billion dollars and his ex-wife gets twice as much.

"And what would your third wish be, pray tell?" the genie inquires.

"I wish to be beaten half-to-death."

i'm 25 and i look around 10ish. realisitcally. so there is real world precedent for girls that missed puberty well into adulthood.

I'm not saying there isn't precedent; I'm saying that if TC wants to play an 11-year old, is told no, and then plays a character who's 25 and looks and acts like an 11-year old he's doing it to be a dick, not because it's conceivably possible.

He can, but shouldn't.

If he doesn't want you to play a kid, he should say that you shouldn't and you should respect that. No "s/he's 25 but looks and acts 11, teehee," crap either. I think it's a little silly to put a limit on things like that, but he's the DM. Respect that.

That being said, the DM should look at it like this from a "should I let a character play a kid" standpoint (I'm pretty secure in thinking letting you play it but making you take NPC classes is just dumb):

1) Would it make anyone at the table, INCLUDING THE DM, uncomfortable? How uncomfortable?

2) How does you being a child further the story? Doesn't have to be in definite terms (he's the child of the king in the AP or something isn't necessary, but it's a little weird to want to play an 11 year old 'just cuz').

You shouldn't be punished or assisted by playing a kid, but if it causes problems for anyone at the table it shouldn't happen. As the local career DM, I'd ask everyone at the table what they think. If no one disliked the idea, and I know I wouldn't particularly care, I'd let it happen. But if anyone piped up, I'd flat out say no. Sure, "realistically" the kid should take penalties, but it's about fun and if I can guarantee that everyone is cool with it we put it down on the sheet. Done.

Also, to ElementalXX, I can smell a DM's dick from miles. I think I got the short end of the stick.

Suichimo wrote:

Sandal Fury wrote:

I know this isn't really the focus of the discussion, but I feel a powerful need to point out that your original plan wouldn't work; being able to use a SLA once per day does not meet the "able to cast 3rd-level arcane spells" requirement of Eldritch Knight.

Except that it does:

FAQ wrote:

Spell-Like Abilities, Casting, and Prerequisites: Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as being able to cast that spell for the purpose of prerequisites or requirements?

Yes.
For example, the Dimensional Agility feat (Ultimate Combat) has "ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door" as a prerequisite; a barghest has dimension door as a spell-like ability, so the barghest meets the "able to cast dimension door prerequisite for that feat.

Edit 7/12/13: The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.

Well, that's... ew.

Yeah. I'm a pretty lenient GM, and I love prestige classes so I houserule some stuff to make them better, but in my games I don't let players use SLAs to qualify for feats and PrCs (unless of course the prereq is literally to have a SLA). It just reeks of cheese to me, even though it isn't making anything overpowered or anything like that.

Everyone is allowed to have a few irrational hatreds, and I've chosen mine.

Comments? You sure?

OK, the Elven über-wizard I can get.
But why in the name of Aroden would he hang out with a Goblin Doctor Jekyl?
And a frog with a six-gun? I think my kids watched that movie a couple years back.

I think this is the main reason why I cringe at the idea of letting players run rampant in the advanced race guide. What is it somebody called it the other day... oh yes, the "special snowflake syndrome".

While I understand why people dislike "special snowflake syndrome," and it gets real tiring real fast to play with the Aasimar with the bastard father and dead mother for the sixth time in the row, the ARG exists so that people can go a little crazy with it. It's really fun to get to play with/as a gunslinging frog and crazy goblin Dr. Frankenstein.

It's fantasy, go insane. You're Vermin Hunter will be right at home.

Murphy can't be an Investigator; I'd go ballistic if there were a Murphy with magic/extracts. Gunslinger all the way, or potentially fighter if no guns.

I'm on board with Thomas as a CN/CG (depends on the book) Bloodrager. He's got a little bit of magic, not nearly enough to be a full on wizard, that he uses in a book that focuses on him (he does a little person-finding cantrip, if I recall), so Bloodrager would make sense.

Billy/Will would probably be a Shapeshifter Ranger, I guess. There still isn't a full BAB, non-magic using shapeshifter, yet. *Grumble*.

Michael and Shiro would be Paladins, but I think that Sanya would actually be a NG Fighter. Given his outlook on life and the faith, I don't think he'd be a Paladin but just a guy who works with the Church for the greater good.

Harry would be a Wizard, or possibly an Arcanist. He could be a Spellslinger to add the gun and stuff, but by Cayden Cailean's spilled ale that archetype looks terrible. Molly would be a Witch or maybe a Bard, with a focus on illusions.

And Butters would be an Expert (NPC Class)... but a really cool one.

Cnetarian, mark your spoilers please.

Winter =/= Evil. Winter is harsher than Summer, but it's pointed out in various parts of the Dresden Files that even Winter has good aspects to them and Summer bad, especially since Winter has (mostly) been a much more stable force, for good or ill, in the DF Universe compared to the Summer court. The Summer court has been a serious source of... problems... in some books.

I'd call Toot-Toot TN myself, being bound by oaths but not taking particular care to make them. The oaths part is more of a compulsion than a choice, anyway, and alignment is about attitude a lot of times.

These are great! I especially like the household items made of mundane materials. I bet I could get them enchanted, too, if I really want to.

I'm looking for "fun," not effective. A Medium Durable Adamantine Arrow, other than reeking of cheese, is not fun. I've got effective weapons; when I'm raging, I've got 3 natural attacks. This is when I want to strike somebody with something like a garden gnome (thanks Zwordsman).

I really the the goblin skull idea, except I'm going to use it as a two-handed weapon and change it to a bugbear skull. Specifically, Bruthazmus' skull, who was having sex with his wives.

I might be playing a Feral Gnasher goblin in an upcoming campaign. He's actually Ripnugget from the Rise of the Runelords AP, who's joined the party (temporarily currently, possibly permanently) after some slightly complicated and hilarious circumstances. I'm refluffing him as a Feral Gnasher since it's such a cool archetype and it isn't too different from his Fighter class anyway, and he'll be using Lesser Beast Totem claws and his bite when raging. However, since he's got Improvised Weapon Mastery, I want to have him pull out some cool and weird stuff to smack people with when he isn't raging.

I want to have at least one one-handed item, one two-handed weapon, and a couple of small weapons to fling at people. Anything fun and goblin-y would be great. I've already got a few ideas, like a clipboard (a Ripnugget gag from the campaign), but I'd like to hear a couple of ideas.

Thanks!

Eye for Talent only replaces your bonus feat, not your Skilled trait.

Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Humans, Orcs, Ratfolk, Tengus.

Dwarves, Elves, and Humans are the staple races. Removing them for a setting like Golarion would be foolhardy and make a lot of people upset. While for a more off-the-wall setting I can easily see either very strange dwarves/elves or a complete absence of them, here they need to maintain a presence.

Gnomes vs. Halflings is a bit tough, since they have a good amount of similarities. Gnomes are more fey-like, have a more interesting backstory, are more magically inclined, and are generally more interesting than Halflings. Halflings fill a "gutter-trash" niche to them that are going to be filled by Ratfolk and Tengus, though, so they're even more redundant.

Unlike a couple of the other posters here, I don't have a problem with the half-humans at all. I do sort of dislike that they're core races, though; when, from a player's perspective, there seem to be more Half-Orcs than true Orcs you're going to run into a bit of disillusionment. I'd keep the half-humans in some capacity, but they'd either be a racial trait options package or be prominently represented in the ARG equivalent. Orcs step in for Half-Orcs, maybe being rebalanced mechanically and lorewise to be more player friendly, and Half-Orcs get to be a featured race in the ARG instead.

That leaves Ratfolk and Tengus. They've got a connection to Humans like the Halflings did, since they typically inhabit Human cities, so that's good. Ratfolk are another shorty race so the Gnomes don't feel lonely, too. They've got some decent fluff and would be easy to introduce into most settings as an "urban" race, in contrast to the Elves and Gnomes and in concert with Dwarves (hoping that they aren't Terry Pratchett's Dwarfs with a propensity for eating rats, of course), Tengus can be at home in cities and in the wilderness, I feel, and they've got a cool feel to them that isn't represented by other races. They've got the whole "graceful warrior" along with the Elves, to contrast with Dwarves and Orcs, but they don't really have the whole "aloof, holier-than-thou" feeling, so that's good.

Of course, mechanically that list isn't very well balanced, but screw that. Mechanics are a lot easier to change than narrative feelings.

Have you considered using gestalt rules? 2 well-built gestalt characters should be able to handle most anything written for a 15 point buy party of 4. Give them a more generous point buy or let them roll for stats and ensure that their builds are at least somewhat optimized. The only place they should notice a marked difference is with their action economy compared to a larger, less optimized group and you can always lower the number of baddies they have to fight in each individual encounter if you find they are really struggling for it.

This is good advice, though I should highlight that two gestalts are definitely weaker than four characters. It is a sort of compromise between having more people and having multiple characters to a person, though.

Don't use a 15 point buy. Use 20, minimum. My group uses 25 and there's no problem (we too are running RotRL, and we're a new group, too) and, in fact, the problem is closer to "too weak" than "too strong" because of poor battle planning. If you use gestalts, I would lower the minions for most of the encounters.

They could run two characters each. RotRL is for four people, so from a difficulty standpoint it should be fine.

Roleplaying and in-character interactions, not so much, but that's how things go when you've only got two players.

If you really want a strong argument for them stacking, look at the Quingong Archetype, which Devs have said stacks with all others because of the word "May" in it's choices.

Maneuver Master uses the same "may" in the bonus feats section,

PRD Maneuver Master Bonus Feats wrote:

Bonus Feat: In addition to normal monk bonus feats, a maneuver master may select any Improved combat maneuver feat (such as Improved Overrun) as a bonus feat. At 6th level and above, he may select any Greater combat maneuver feat (such as Greater Grapple) as a bonus feat. At 10th level and above, he may select any maneuver Strike feat (such as Tripping Strike) as a bonus feat.

Unlike many others, it does not say it replaces a monks normal bonus feats, just adds options on top of the normal list that they may choose.

It's a small distinction, but the same distinction that allows Quingong to function in addition to all the rest.

This is actually a super cool justification besides "come on, man, don't be stupid about it."

By the way, I'd focus on Dirty Tricks in addition to Trips if you want to go the Underfoot Adept route. You're not getting screwed by size changes and Dirty Tricks is a pretty good combat maneuver besides.

wraithstrike wrote:

Sometimes players win fights they are not supposed to win. I would have them run into an NPC who tells them what the unbeatable monster did before the players run into it so they know not to try.

To prevent this make the monster actually unbeatable--> As an example saying the monster is only harmed by plot item X would be a good way to do it. It can also be immune to magic because _____.

I have a very different idea about how to make the monster actually unbeatable: Don't. When I, as a GM, THINK that an encounter is unbeatable, and the players prove me wrong, that surprise provides the kind of fun that made me start on tabletop RPGs in the first place. If I wanted a story to happen JUST SO, I would write a novel.

QFT.

I would recommend the "competent NPC gets devoured" idea that others have suggested. If the party goes ahead and dies anyway, that's too bad. If they win, than that's just a different kind of clever, or at the very least luck.

Don't say "don't kill this guy, he'll murderface you." If, before the session begins, you mention that not every fight will be winnable under normal conditions, that's fine. However, I implore you to not introduce a monster and then say "don't try to kill it." Best way in the world to kill off your game immersion.

Probably not the best, but certainly the most AWESOME.

Str: 17
Dex: 15 + 2
Con: 17 - 2
Intelligence: 10
Wisdom: 8 + 2
Charisma: 7

No one suspects the dual-wielding TENGU, one hand gripping a Bastard Sword and the other a Sawtooth Saber.

1: TWF
3: Raging Vitality
5: Double Slice
7: ITWF
9: ???
11: Profit! / Two-Weapon Rend

At level 5, with 18 strength from the level 4 upgrade, and then 22 strength from rage, you'll have one Bastard Sword coming down for 1d10 + 6 and the other 1d8 + 6, AND a beak for 1d3 + 3, which... doesn't seem all that impressive, because it really isn't, but it's super cool and flavorful. If you want, you can take two points out of Dex (and qualify for TWR with a belt or something, not a big deal) and pump your Str or Con by 1 and your Wisdom (meh) by 1, but it isn't really that great.

In comparison (still saying level 5), a barbarian is getting (Greatsword) 2d6 + 15 with the same strength, and isn't spending near as much in the way of feats. So a two-handed barbarian is dealing an average of 22 damage on a hit and the Tengu is doing 11.5 + 10.5 + 5. So, you've get an edge of 5 damage, and you have more critical opportunities, but one less feat (the barbarian had to get Power Attack), you have to full attack, and your PB is spread out much thinner. Also, you're not especially likely to hit with all three of those attacks, so keep that in mind.

You could also use a Two-Bladed Sword, dropping your damage lead by 1 but letting you two-hand for when you move / take AoOs, so that's better (if not as AWESOME). Also, note that you can "two-hand" your beak for similar results, except it's 1d3 (1d6 with Blood Beak) versus 1d8.

A half-orc with 20 strength and Toothy by level 5 deals 11.5 + 11.5 + 5.5 with an Orc Double Axe, but again, not as cool.

EDIT: Wait, I got it. Boar Skinwalker with Extra Feature.

Str: 18
Dexterity: 15
Constitution: 15
Intelligence: 10
Wisdom: 10 + 2
Charisma: 7 - 2

1: TWF
3: Extra Feature
5: Double Slice

And the Animal Fury rage power.

If you use Scimitar + Kukri (for max crits), you get 9.5 + 8.5 from weapons and then 6.5 + 5.5 + 5.5 + 5.5 from natural attacks when raging + shifting. That's 41 damage! That's twice the damage of of two-handing a Greatsword! Why isn't every Ragebred using this?

Oh right, Lesser Beast Totem.

There is the Halfling Underfoot Adept archetype for the Monk class. Fun and cool, it also may or may not stack with the Maneuver Master archetype, depending on GM interpretation (MM changes what feats you can take as a bonus feat at 1st level, UA replaces your bonus feat). I'd let it happen, as would most GMs I would wager, but there is that risk.

Marc Radle wrote:

In my opinion, it[the tier system] is unhelpful and way too arbitrary to be of any value.

To be far, Mr. Radle, how can a system of classifying artificial concepts (classes) within a constructed system (Pathfinder rules) by competence at designed situations ever be anything but arbitrary? :P

That said, I must agree that it is like most classification systems, or many real-world algorithms; woefully unhelpful when applied by those who don't understand it.

I think it's more like "when applied in any situation in which they aren't really necessary." Tier systems are typically useless for the average person, whether they understand it or not. In most home games, a tier system is useless because the GM is the one who determines how the game is played, and generally it's played in a way such that a Rogue and a Wizard can be of comparable worth. The tiers come into play when the players are pretty much completely optimized; an optimized Wizard versus an optimized Rogue, in which the GM is making no efforts to raise up the Rogue or lower the Wizard. These situations are comparatively rare.

It's like how one shouldn't worry about tier lists in a fighting game unless they play in very high levels of play; what's going to make the difference is just who's plain better at the game, except in corner cases of very overpowered characters or very underpowered characters. Another example would be Radiant Dawn's tier list for all the playable units; extraordinarily thorough and taking into account almost every aspect of the character, but not hugely relevant because the game can be completed with mid to low tier units even on the highest difficulty. Tier lists generally only become relevant in extraordinary situations, which means they are generally irrelevant to actual play.

That being said, it can be pretty fun for general debate and discussion. The other fact is that its existence can't really be disputed (tiers don exits people aside), so of course some people are going to talk about them. Nothing wrong with that. Since when has relevance stopped people from doing something, eh?

Is there any particular reason you don't just want to be a gnome, which doesn't have to do cheesy things with Racial Heritage and has a racial trait that gives them two languages per rank?

IUS based Magus (Kung-Fu Wizard!) would be awesome. Maybe 1/2 Monk damage for his fists, only Spellstrike through fists, no shields/medium/heavy armor, lots of cool stuff. A sort of "a true warrior should need no outside help to become a weapon" sort of thing.

Full BAB Wildshaper, probably Barbarian based.

A poison based Alchemist or Rogue. One that can make poison not, you know, suck.

I had more, but I can't think of them right now.

Feinting is more shifting to one side and then striking from the other (and other, similar tactics) than outright lying and deceit. It's just a battle tactic, just like dirty tricks are battle tactics (clocking someone in the ear with your gauntlet to deafen them doesn't seem any more dishonorable than shoving a sword through aforementioned ear).

Generally, fighting styles should be divorced from a Paladin's code, I feel. Specifically, there may be instances (poison is specifically prohibited), but otherwise the Paladin shouldn't be gimped any more than a LG Fighter. If you feel like your character wouldn't feint, that's fine and your decision, but nothing in the mechanics say you can't feint in combat because it's "dishonest."

You could also make it so the trapmaster could trigger the traps INTO enemies. With a +10 DC (or +5, or +0, depends on how you want to run it), instead of merely preventing the sawblades from making you six inches shorter in the worst way possible, you could send them towards your enemies. This way the trapmaster is still master of traps and kicking ass with it, and he's getting to do something cool, and he's getting to be in the spotlight. Just my two cp.

So, I have the WBL pulled up and I plan on just using whatever value is listed to create my character, but I'm not exactly sure what I should be using.

What I'm asking is at what point is the WBL chart most accurate? Is 10,500 gold (the amount listed for a 5th level character) standard for a new 5th level character, or for one that's near reaching 6th level? I'm guessing the former, but I'm not sure, so I just came here to ask.

Thanks.

Does he regret his actions? Does he make an effort to repent for them, or has he in the past?

On the law/chaos side he definitely sounds neutral, but from Good/Evil he sounds neutral to me as well. Good isn't just about helping out friends and being a nice guy; even vile characters can make sure there friend isn't having a hard time at work and lends money out without conflicting with their alignment. It sounds like your character did something bad once and doesn't really regret it; while I wouldn't say the one bad thing he did would define his alignment, the fact that he doesn't regret it DOES, since it's an ongoing action to be okay with what he did. Based on that, his would be True Neutral. If he makes an effort to rectify his wrongdoings and whatnot, I would say he's Neutral Good that hit a big stumbling block that the character is actively trying to move forward with. If he isn't trying to move forward with it, it screams True Neutral to me.

Ravingdork wrote:

Potentially 20 such aasimar in the whole world? That's actually more than I would have thought.

That's a really high-end estimate, assuming both a higher population for Golarion and a higher Aasimar percentage of that population than is likely. Half that number seems a lot more reasonable.

That's also assuming every assimar uses the variant table, which, assuming that's true, would make the rarest result... the basic spell-like ability the aasimar come with.

You can (probably) use a gore and a bite in the same attack set, based on the gargoyle being able to.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/monstrous-humanoids/gargo yle

Nobody official has come and said definitively that you can or can't, but I'd say the evidence suggests that you can.

Now that mention it, you're probably right that I need to give this archetype an offensive incentive to boost Wisdom instead of a defensive one. I don't really want to add Wisdom to damage, at least not in the way you describe, for two reasons: One, I want this archetype to sacrifice damage potential for defensive properties, although I think it would be thematically appropriate to have a higher chance to actually hit. Two, I want the ability that replaces Fast Movement to be a non-scaling ability that's there from the very first level, in a way that is similar to how Fast Movement is.

Right now I'm trying to think of how to add Wisdom to attack rolls without it being too weak; A barbarian with 18 strength during rage probably has 22 Strength, so +6 to attack rolls and +9 to damage rolls (with a two-handed weapon). A serene warrior (that adds Wisdom to attack rolls) with 18 Strength/18 Wisdom during tranquil fury has +8 to attack and +6 to damage rolls, which is okay but seems a little weak.

Thanks for the advice, though; it's been very useful. If you've got anymore ideas, I'd love to hear them.

This is supposed to be a representation of those warriors that channel their rage into a calm, cold fury. They're just as angry as the typical barbarian, but that anger is channelled precisely and carefully.

This class is supposed to be much more defensive than the regular barbarian archetype, with MUCH higher saves (maybe too high) but no strength boost during rage. It also has to deal with Wisdom as a secondary attribute, so they're a little more MAD.

I think it might be somewhat overpowered right now, so I'd like some advice on how to change a couple of things up. There's just one ability that I think I need to replace, and I'd like advice on that, but I'm going to post the whole thing to see what you guys think.

I don't really have a problem with the "barbarians can't be lawful" alignment restriction, but this feels very appropriate for this. Plus, this archetype is supposed to be fairly synergistic with the Monk class, so this is necessary.

Just three flavor-appropriate skills to add. With the changes from rage to tranquil fury, these can also be used during tranquil fury, so that's nice.

THIS is the ability that probably needs to be replaced. While having great saves was one of the things I wanted to do with this archetype, I think it may be too much. Let's compare classes right quick.

Level 3 barbarian during rage, no other bonuses to saves, has a Fortitude bonus of +5, a Reflex bonus of +1, and a Will bonus of +3. Pretty good for those levels, but only during a rage.

Level 3 paladin, whenever, only +2 bonus to saves from Charisma, has a Fortitude bonus of +5, a Reflex bonus of +3, and a Will bonus of +5. Very good, and it's on all the time.

Level 3 serene warrior, during tranquil fury, only +2 bonus to saves from Wisdom normally but gains an additional +2 from tranquil fury, has a Fortitude bonus of +9, a Reflex bonus of +5, and a Will bonus of +12. Sure, it's only during tranquil fury, and otherwise its saves aren't super impressive, but those are huge numbers. If you guys have an idea on how to balance it without making it too wordy or complex, or have another ability idea to replace Fast Movement (I want to replace that ability since it doesn't feel appropriate for the class), please tell me. Or, if you feel it isn't too good in relation to everything else, mention that too.

This is probably worse than the normal rage, but it's supposed to be since the serene warrior's other class features are generally more powerful. Using Wisdom instead of Constitution to determine bonus rounds is a pain early on, and the lack of strength bonus means this barbarian isn't a whirling destruction of death, but it's got better saves because of the Wisdom boost and can perform activities that require patience. I think it's pretty well balanced in relation with the other abilities, as a whole.

This essentially turns a barbarian's Will save from a weak save to a strong one. With the way trap sense normally scales, sometimes it's actually slightly ahead of the Fortitude save, but I think this is a pretty good replacement and an elegant way to turn a barbarian's save from weak to strong.

Just to make sure all the class abilities gel with each other.

Thoughts? Opinions? I really appreciate the thought you guys put into this, thanks!

Lawful Good: Blue

Neutral Good: Gold

Chaotic Good: Green

Lawful Neutral: Brown

True Neutral: White

Chaotic Neutral: Orange

Lawful Evil: Yellow

Neutral Evil: Black

Chaotic Evil: Red

I don't think so. The code doesn't explicitly state anything about gods or deities in any real way, and even if it did I think the fact that you're changing gods would invalidate anything your "old" code (if there were such a thing) would say, so you'd still be in the clear.

It'd be a lot more feasible if you use fractional BAB; i.e. you get .75 BAB when you take a level of monk and .75 BAB when you take a level of rogue, which effectively equals +1 BAB. Always round down.

That (helps) solve the BAB issue by quite a bit, I'd wager, and ameliorate the problem of constantly having to qualify for PrC to stay on track.

I'll just throw out the Drunken Master archetype for the Monk. Lawful isn't exactly a typical alignment for a philosophy like that, but if you wanted to you could make it work. A true and stolid devotion towards hedonism sounds right up the Drunken Master's ally, doing his best to ensure his pleasure and the pleasure of others within a rigid set of rules, those rules being things like "not interfering in the business of others," and "making sure my fun is not at the behest of others." Not a traditional take on hedonism, but in some ways that makes it more fun.

If you were to go Chaotic Good (or Chaotic Neutral, but I feel like Good is more up this character's alley) I don't blame you. CG is my favorite alignment, and it took me a while to even get used to the idea of playing a Lawful character before I role played my Grey Warden from the Dragon Age: Origins video game as Lawful Neutral. I was stunned by the amount of flexibility that the character had in morality and methods. Anything was fair game if it helped the war; doing fair deeds for others is all well and good, but if it comes at the cost of even a moderate amount of support in the war, it was a cost too high.

I guess what I'm saying is you can afford to have flexibility in the character, so exploring avenues outside of what is "expected" (in this case, Chaotic Good) can provide even more flavor and role playing goodness to a character you're already looking forward to playing.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/cavalier/archetypes/paizo---ca valier-archetypes/dune-drifter-cavalier-archetype

New archetype for the Cavalier you might be interested in, although I understand if you're firm on the Oracle.

Human with Eye for Talent trait and Huntmaster. What really tips this archetype is A) the fact that you don't really get any benefit from being on the horse, so it's in your best benefit to treat it as a separate entity and B) you can strap your alternative banner (a hat, probably) to your horse. Your haberdashery-haunting horse can hearten heroes with his head-perched hat. How cool is that?

Just throwing it out there.

I heard a rumor that in Inner Sea Combat there will be a cavalier that gets to use their hat/sheriff star/eyepatch as their cavalier banner. It's called the Spellscar Drifter and from what I've seen will be a firearm wielding wild west style cowboy as a cavalier. So when that hits in like 2 days you might be able to take a look.

...

this is the greatest thing ive ever seen

ever

seen

Ishpumalibu wrote:

Is this drunken hero such a high intermediate god? It's possible, he seems to be respected in every bar lol. However he became a deity from the test of the star, and fairly recently, this to me says he wouldn't be intermediate, but maybe he has enough worshipers.

He accumulates them quite easily. Every time anybody with a hangover says "Oh God," they're making a supplication to him.

Discworld, Hogfather. There's the oh god of hangovers. Not the god of hangovers, mind you, the oh god of hangovers.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/s-z/veiled-ill usionist

Also, here are two pictures I shamelessly stole off of Baldur's Gate for you. Neither of their hats are THAT magnificent, but hey, I spend enough time looking for pictures of my own characters.

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/tiax_8260.jpg

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/quayle_7066.jpg

Hmmm yes you are totally right xD he IS Chaotic Good

Thank Cayden, I thought you knew something I didn't.

Anyway, I don't think the Pathfinder rules need to stat out the gods because they don't plan on publishing anything where they would A) want you to fight a god and B) want you to kill a god.

But hey, if you're homebrewing it that's your setting now. More power to you. I wouldn't be inclined to do something like that as a GM, but I would admit that as a player it could be one Hell of an adventure. Good luck!

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LordBritishPostulate

If you stat it, they will kill it.

Anyway, why would't he be Chaotic Good? Since that's basically the only thing we really know about him that would fit on a character sheet, that at least should be right...

I remember toying around with a concept for an all evil campaign a while ago. It went something like this...

There's a prison break in a paladin-run massive (as in, the whole adventure takes place there so it's gotta be at least full dungeon sized) penitentiary. All of the PCs are, if not cellmates, at least contained in the same wing. If the GM is worried about infighting (with one of the aspects of the adventure a significant possibility if your players are a bit cutthroat), all of them are under the effects of a spell cast by an epic level wizard that prevents them from harming the paladins and others running the place and each other; for some reason (I haven't determined it yet) the spell has fizzled out regarding the paladins but not each other, and if someone tries to engage in combat with the other they have to deal with no-save nauseated.

In this case, I, as the GM, would pre-make all of the PCs and have the players pick them before they start in earnest, with a character sheet and a one to two page bio describing their history. The players would read everything and pick characters they like out of it; there'd be PCs like the classic goblin alchemist, a hobgoblin monk, and other fun stuff. I'd try to make as many "monstrous" PCs as possible so they can take advantage of the opportunity.

The goal of the adventure would be to escape, obviously. There'd probably end up being a necessary boss fight to unlock the gates so everyone could leave or something along those lines, but again I haven't figured that bit out yet. The wrench in the plan would be this: every PC has something they're trying to get that's being held in the dungeon.

At the end of character selection, which would be a different day then the first day of adventuring, each player would get a sealed note depending on their character. The note would describe an extremely important set of items to that character; the goblin alchemist, for example, needs to obtain his research notes that are held in the prison because they represent years of his life and are very important to him. The note would describe its general location in the prison and why they would avoid telling the others what they're looking for (the alchemist would avoid talking about it because of the goblin's writing superstition). It would also have a powerful, class-important item for player encouragement. The players wouldn't be encouraged to prioritize the item over survival, but it would be fun as each player tries to subtly (or not) steer the adventure towards almost mutually exclusive locations to get their stuff.

Just a fun idea I had. Hope I get to run it some day.

Mosaic wrote:

In order to control the blah-factor, you could say that every magic item I the game is unique. There is only one +1 cloak, only one +2 ring, etc. After that player would have to turn to flavorful-but-less-optimized items. Obviously only works in a low magic setting where PCs can't craft. Or they could craft, but every item requires a special unique component.

So to control the balhblah factor you have to shoot people in the foot? Wouldn't it be easier just to give your cloak of fiery awesomeness +2 resistance bonus? Or something scaling if you don't want it to be thrown away?

Sometimes players like being shot in the foot; it gives them something new and interesting to work with outside of what they expect and deal with on a regular basis, and that can be a lot of fun.

Granted, some players don't, and even if they do it might not be something that they want all the time (if you're constantly gimping them in the same way each time it's as creatively stimulating as using the big six). In those cases where you want to encourage creativity without taking anything away from them then you can give them a cloak of fiery awareness +2 resistance bonus. That's somewhat dangerous, though, since for it to work you're giving them something better (no matter how small in that betterness) for the same price. Again, what you do and how you do it depends heavily on the group.

I feel your pain. I've got a planned Drunken Rager barbarian with high charisma and the Spirit Totem set (get it?) in the wings. His backstory is that, like most barbarians, he went around drinking and screwing every woman that would let him in every tavern he travelled to (hence the high charisma; he couldn't seduce them if he dumped it like most barbarians do!). Since having survived into middle age, he now adventures in part to try to keep his dozens of children in comfort even though he isn't around to act as a father figure... and he still goes around drinking and screwing every woman that would let him. I really like his character, though, so I'm not going to regret going with the Spirit Totem for flavor.

I'm also dipping into Unbreakable (for Endurance so I can pick up the Drunken Brawler feat), picked up the Fortified Drinker trait for him, and I'm going to dip into Chevalier for face skills + Smite Evil. He'll be a lot of fun to play when I finally get him into a game.

He also has Rough and Ready with Profession (brewer) so he can put that Heart of the Fields bonus somewhere thematically cool and maybe even useful (roleplaying + maybe the GM will let me brew my own stash) AND he can fight enemies with bottles of alcohol if need be. Again, this guy will be so much fun.

Wow, some of these are really good ideas. I went through every page on the wiki in order but nothing really hit me, and normally I'm good at this sort of stuff. Guess it was on off-day, but this is really helpful. Thanks. The Pharasma and Ghenshau ideas were pretty good, along with some of the more general ideas with Gorum and Rovagog.

I was honestly thinking about Nethys on the same lines, but couldn't think of anything great for him. However, some of the ideas here for him were really good. I like the whole "misuse of magic" angle; I think that fits perfectly with an Inquisitor. I might have to reflavor his personality a little, but I think that on the whole it fits pretty well. A sort of schism between the divine and arcane followers of Nethys fits especially well since Nethys is all about schisms, even in his own personality, and a divine caster hunting down arcane casters to maintain the sanctity and purity of magic is right up a Lawful Neutral character's ally.

One more thing: for all of my characters I write up a quote as a sort of introductory statement that tries to capture their purpose and personality in a single statement. I haven't really thought very hard on it, and I threw it down basically so I wouldn't have to think about it until I went back and re-edited everyone's bio, but what do you guys think about this?

“By doing as little as speaking words and waving their hands wizards can detonate the world; by doing as little as standing I can stop them.”

It's supposed to have a sort of "arcane casters abusing the world" vibe and an air of superiority, along with alluding to his Inquisitor and racial abilities amounting to being able to shrug off such attacks without effort. Good, bad? Any other general ideas? I haven't thought too hard about this one, so I won't be offended if you guys don't think it's great. Thanks!