bradipus's page

If there's a thing that nobles love most than everything is money.
They have to mantain a luxurious lifestyle, and have to pay tributes to their king.

i'm in with the ones who suggested you could buy the land if you have enough wealth, otherwise, you're a druid, so you're supposed to have a deep knowledge of the natural processes, including agricultural techniques. (other than some nifty and useful spells)
Think about that: with advanced agricultural techniques like crop rotation, you reduce the amount of lands that is needed for humans to farm the food they need to survive, hence preserving more of the wildlife.
with plant growth once in a while you'll help produce more abundant harvestings.
More abundant harvesting means more money for the lord, for the farmers , for everyone and they are all happy.
A summer house is a trivial thing compared to all of this..besides, peasants will remember the help you've given them, and will be more likely to complain with your present and future requests .

"there's a grove dryad living in there, would you mind chopping the lumber you need for your heating a few miles south, instead of here?"

If you really are determined to proceed on the opposition path, unfortunately, killing someone in cold blood, without even an hint of self defense is Evil, no doubt about that, especially if you could employ different means of achieving your goal rather than killing.
How this will affect your AL it's for your DM to determine this.

The summon monster I spell touches on alignment.

“When you use a summoning spell to summon a creature with an alignment or elemental subtype, it is a spell of that type. “ (Pathfinder core rulebook, pg 352)

It then specifically calls out certain creatures who’s alignment changes from the summoning.

I would rule that the shadows have a CE alignment. And that it is up to the LE character to keep them in check less he displease his god. In most cases the Evil/Good portion of an alignment trumps the Lawful/Chaotic portion.

How can He displease his God if it's the God him/herself that grants him/her that spell?

I would go witch, and provide some debuffing as well as some condition removal/healing (which your party actually lacks somewhat). That is ofcourse assuming the answer to cheapy's question is no, otherwise I would have a few suggestions based on 3rd party material.

as i wrote before, i forgot to mention the cleric which handles the removal healing with inquisitor, druid and bard contributing a bit to the workload.

i didn't give you many details..
Well the situation in which i'm in is quite unique in itsellf..
in my group 6 players have never played before, and 2 have very little experience.
The previous concept i had form my char was based on the Nightcrawler build which floats on the web, which i liked, but before unleashing its potential i'll have to wait at least until 12th lvl, but when it does the results will be very good..maybe too much.
(dimensional pouncing SA-ing FTW).
I'm afraid that in the long run other players will be overshadowed and may lose interest in the RPGs, which is a thing i'd like to avoid because i like it a lot and i'd like to share the joy around.
So i'm willing to gimp myself (hence the limitation on Core, APG and ultimateS)and find a middle ground in which i can help.
The intention of my post isn't to rant "my DM doesn't pay attention to me because we are a lot" but "how can I contribute to the party in an effective way since most of the traditional rogue roles (except trap spotters) are already taken?

I agree, another GM would be great for your group, though I'm only seeing 7 classes with you being the 8th, rather than the 10th.

Other than that, I don't really have any suggestions on what you could build to stand out. What do you most enjoy playing?

forgot to mention the cleric in that..

Well, until you said that being the stealth/covert ops guy didn't interest you, I was gonna say that. I do notice that you said covert ops TEACHER. This is the wrong way to play it, in my less-than-humble opinion. If you're trying to do something stealthily, then you don't bring along Sir Clangs-a-Lot, Sneezy the Wizard, and St. Prays Loudly. Instead of you trying to bring the whole party along when you do the stealth thing, try going alone. Hell, I played a character that was maximized around stealth once...to the point where we decided that the guy in the party with no bonus to Perception didn't actually know I was in the party. :P

At any rate, a few levels of rogue goes pretty good with most classes, with obvious exceptions like Paladin. I think rogue makes an especially good multi-class with fighters, sorcerers, or witches.

i don't bring ser clang a lot,and the wizard, but only the panther druid and the ranger who can stealth almost as good as me, but they have never player before at all so, they need a bit of coaching to perform effectivel as scout.

I'm playing with a rather large group of friends a PF campaign and i'm a rogue.
Due to the abnormal number of people every niche is already covered and i'm struggling to fit a niche to fit in.
Damage is handled by Ranger,fighter,Inquisitor
Face is handled by Bard and fey sorcerer charm specialist.
control and support by wizard and druid and sorcerer and bard
Druid (panther shaman)and ranger can stealth decently and act as scouts.
My only niche is to be the trap handler/spotter and covert ops teacher.
(some are new to the game, so i'm teaching by example on how to move stealtily, avoid to be tracked etc)

But it's a bit dull, to be honest.
So, i've asked to my gm the permisison to rebuild the character from scratch and he gave me one condition:
The Pc must still has some rogue levels. (the PC is lvl 7 atm)

Any advice on how to build myself a little niche to fit in?
Personally i've been considering dipping into lvl 2 rogue to get evasion
and then considering a synthesist
(seems a lot fun, the eidolon armor reminbds me a lot of Saint seiya)

Core, APG, and Ultimates are the books allowed.

Thanks a lot.

Yes, Skeletons are vulnerable to fire; however, there is a little misunderstanding with the meaning of the word "vulnerable", because it's used improperly.

The word "Vulnerable" means only that "it can be harmed", so skeletons are vulnerable to fire, because it can damage them; fire doesn't inflict extra damage to them, though.

If something inflict Extra damage to you then you are "susceptible" (which roughly means "weak against) to that something, and is the word that should be used.

So in short, skeletons are vulnerable to fire, but not susceptible.

Creatures with an elemental subtype should be "susceptible" against the opposit element and not "vulnerable"; the former is a more severe condition than the latter.

What i was saying, is that in the CRB the word "vulnerability" is used improperly and is should be replaced with susceptibility.