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.

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.

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.

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?

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."

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.

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.

Dotting. I'm planning on writing an adventure called "The Monsters of Sarenrae" or somesuch where all of the PCs are "monstrous" races. Not all of the PCs would necessarily be affiliated with Sarenrae, but they would travel as an adventuring group sponsored by Sarenrae and (more specifically) a half-orc or half-drow (haven't decided) adept that would be played by the GM.

The adept could drive the wagon through town and otherwise help the party do things that would get them lynched in the town, as well as back-up healing and not being totally useless in a fight (if he were forced into one), without overshadowing PCs. Eventually, the PCs would have to leap out of their covered wagon to help put out a fire or something similar and have to deal with the consequences.

The group being sponsored by Sarenrae gives a great opportunity for the party to have their own unique backgrounds but still have a very good and sensible reason to be travelling together. It would also help them get quests, supplies, etc. without being in danger.

I haven't thought super far into it, but I think it might end with the party discovering a corrupt branch of the church that's been operating in the city, preying on the downtrodden and people trying to redeem themselves. Depending on how lawful good they treat the situation, they may defeat the conspirators, bring them to justice, and finally be truly accepted into the proud community.

This "orphanage" thing may not necessarily be very helpful for this, but on the other hand it could be a great backstory for one of the PCs. While a lot of people like the characters who ran away from their own society to become great heroes, I do think the whole "being raised from the beginning by loving adoptive parents" has an appeal all its own that can really sell a character, and is more realistic (at least IMO).

Keep up the good work!

Only read half the topic, but here's my two cp.

From some roleplayers' perspective, a 7 is a (mostly) unnecessary stat. With the range of stats someone can have, 7-18 before modifiers, the 7 number doesn't come up quite often enough. Let's use Charisma for example.

A 10 represents someone of average Charisma. A 9 represents someone who isn't especially prone to social mishaps, but may represent someone who has a propensity of blurting out the wrong thing or has a somewhat offputting personality. An 8 represents someone with a true and honest problem; maybe they don't like people, or maybe they have difficulties socializing without getting very anxious, or maybe they have a very offputting personality. A 7 could represent the same thing, or a more severe case, but a roleplayer can decide that an 8 is enough to represent a genuine and consistent flaw for their character.

My problem with the point buy system (at least for the standard 15-25 point system) isn't just that it encourages dumping, so we get the same dumb fighters and gullible paladins, but that it also discourages putting points into wasteful stats. Nobody ever gets to play Charisma-heavy barbarians or surprisingly buff wizards, either. With a good group that likes roleplaying and some generous dice rolling or points, they might choose to have a fighter with 14 Intelligence that can help the alchemist take a crack at that puzzle.

I discourage stats under 10 unless there's a good and solid roleplaying reason as to why you want it there. I also encourage putting points into stats that they don't have as much of a use for. Min-maxing might not be evil, it isn't, but I dislike it personally. If you enjoy min-maxing and combat more than roleplaying, or don't mind roleplaying a dumb brute every time you roll up a fighter, than drop those points down to 7. However, I prefer tables where the players may be a bit weaker to compensate for an unusually wise and sensible bard, where the GM is more liberal in his interpretation of the rules, and where talking in character and the social interactions are just as much fun and of import as the combat.