If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh and sew our skin into their clothing. And if we're very, very lucky? They'll do it in that order.
I can see everyone agrees those dudes are the embodiment of Chaotic Evil. :)
Search Posts
That was changed from 3.0 to 3.5, the druid got one improved animal instead of the x HD animal friendship spell effect (the threw out that spell in 3.5). Personally, I was never a fan of that change, and in my campaigns houserule it back. It allows for the druid to acquire a changing menagerie of friends.
Dismissal of familiars has always been an unclear point. I guess Paizo didn't want to break tradition there. ;)
First level wizards are required to choose EITHER a bond with an item or a familiar. When you choose an item you never get the ability to acquire a familiar, so the feat would be worthless to the wizard in question.
The wizard no longer suffers any penalties for the loss of his familiar, so I guess a wizard could just snap his familiar's neck wait 2 weeks before getting his new and improved familiar
No, see above.
Nothing says that you can, but nothing says that you can't. I guess it's your choice, but like I said, no penalties for the "accidental" death of your familiar... ;) Considering you can flavor feats any way you like why not make the Improved Familiar feat a ritual that transforms your old familiar into the new form? The original bonding of the familiar transforms it from Animal to Magical Beast, so why not take it one step further? Makes more sense to me that way.
Nope, not since they threw out the Animal Friendship spell
Hope I could help.
Being an outsider also makes them immune to all spells affecting humanoids, if I'm not mistaken.
Heh. I fondly think back on such characters as Vorgren Mooorg - Minotaur Ranger/Wizard, dual-wielding a greatsword and battleaxe, doing about as much damage in melee as a well-cast meteor swarm, who was also part of the Harpers. Boy, was he munchkin. (AD&D2) Grylock the Destroyer("...but my friends call me Grue") - Katana-wielding Half-Fiend Human CN Fighter/Sorcerer, spawn of Graz'zt destined to end the world, who was actually a rather nice guy but sometimes got "urges" due to his demonic heritage. (D&D3) Tilurion Llanowar - Grey Elven LG Bladesinger, twin brother to Shevan Llanowar, Grey Elven CN Wild Mage. Much hilarious roleplay ensued during our reclaiming of Myth Drannor. (AD&D2) Thinker - Dwarven Diviner/Loremaster who was an outcast from his clan for studying Wizardry and being an unbearable smartass. I think I even once lectured our Fighter how to hold his sword right. During combat. (D&D3)
I'm not sure why people feel Medieval/Renaissance people didn't tack on Greek and Latin prefixes to make new words. It's not like antimater is the first use of "anti"Well, and can't speak for the entire anti-antipaladin group, but the reason I don't like the term is that it defines the class as simply the opposite of the paladin. I'd rather the class have some actual flavor of it's own, as opposed to simply being a paladin with the terms "lawful" and "good" search/replaced with "chaotic" and "evil". But even if it does, labeling it as the antipaladin implies that it does not. I think "Reaver" is the word that would most describe the polar opposite of a Paladin. Think Firefly ;)
Personally, I think the 'no fatigue' thing in and of itself is pretty damn strong. Ask any Barbarian who has to wait until Level 17 for Tireless Rage, which Warforged Barbarians get as a minor side-effect of their racial subtype. :)
You are excused ;)
while i understand you wanting to stick with the pathfinder standard of "one mental, one physical or one anywhere if part human", i think with the additions of the powers granted by the living construct type they just become too strong in comparison to other races and any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless). WHOA! You do realize this makes them virtually immune to all death magic? I would argue that such all time favorite save-or-dies as Finger of Death (Wizard 7, Druid 8) and Destruction (Cleric 7) target the life force, which a "living" construct certainly has, and don't rely an inducing a heart attack :) If the sentience (as seems to be the case in your campaign) is derived from an inevitable mutation of the magical aura that originally animated it, and not a "life spark" as such, i would consider allowing dispel magic type spells to damage (EDIT: or disable, comparable to hold person) the construct (and woe to a construct hit by disjunction)
Considering I usually run low-level campaigns (and we are currently starting at first level with this DM), the low level effects are precisely what worries me(and him) a little.
Me, not a big fan of this. If I'm not sure if it'll work in the long run, I'm likely to disallow it, because pulling a character from an ongoing campaign opens continuity problems and is even more frustrating to the player than having his request denied up front, IMO.
That wasn't really the issue, we all more or less agreed that it might be to powerful a race for a level 1 campaign. So, no danger of any hurt feeligns anywhere. The OP was more out of curiosity to see what experiences other people have with this.
There are some DM tips in the Council of Thieves Player's Guide on how to handle this exact problem.Indeed, there is a trait there that specifically powers down the tiefling to the level of the standard races, you could simply make the tiefling work like that. True, seems like an elegant solution. Should I DM a game ayntime soon, I'll probably go with this solution.
We recently started with new characters in a homebrew campaign, and one of the players expressed interest in playing a tiefling. After looking over the Bestiary entry, my DM said "Huh. 3 energy resistances plus the other stuff seems a bit overpowered compared to the other races. If you want a somewhat monstrous PC, go with the Half-Orc, please". Now, noone argued, as we could see his point. I believe in 3.5, the tiefling with the exact same abilities (i think) had a +1 LA (or was it +2?). Pathfinder doesn't seem to have LA per se anymore, and apparently covers that in the "Monsters as PCs" chapter in the bestiary. My question is, did anyone else have a similar moment with his DM? How many of you feel the tiefling (and other no-racial HD races) are overpowered in comparison to the core races? If you feel they are not, why?
As far as conversion of the class itself is concerned, there's not a lot to do. Upgrade HD to d8. Add Linguistics as class skill, throw out concentration. Done. The high DCs seem to be a staple of the class, though, so what you definitely need to do for an efficient Truenamer is:
Good luck ;-)
This is my take, based off the OP and the ECS: Changeling:
Comments:
Shifter
Comments:
Warforged
Comments:
Kalashtar
Comments:
Alright, I've imagined it to the extreme. I saw a Barb 19/Sorc 1 who sacrificed Mighty Rage for the ability to to cast 3 Magic Missiles at 5d4+5 per day (up to 5 if he has good charisma). I don't see much of an imbalance there, considering he would probably still be better off hitting the BBEG approximately 25 times with his monster axe of evil-slaying doing about 60 damage on average per hit.
I disagree. The experience you gain ought to improve all the abilities you have. The tradeoff is already present in sacrificing the higher level class abilities that only specialists get. I see no real reason to additionally weaken the abilities you do gain. But I guess it comes down to personal preference.
Firstly, sorry for pulling this semi-ancient post back up, I just don't come to these boards very often... @Kor: That's why I wrote it like that. No ambiguity. But in the book it says "rogue's" level (note the apostrophe) which could either mean the rogue's class level or his character level. I simply isn't clear to me (but then, I'm a syntax nut ;-) ) Zurai has a point when he quotes page 31 (I didn't find that sentence when I was frantically searching for an answer back when), but that is still (though somewhat less) ambiguous, because they say "most abilities", which kicks it back to individual (unclear) ability description again. I'm willing to accept it as valid argument though, even though it requires anticipating author's intent instead of relying on what's actually written. BUT: that brings me back to the point why I even asked: most of those abilities are nearly useless when multiclassing (which I use for rounding out character stories mostly, before you start accusing me of fighter/barbarian/ranger/rogue/sorcerer characters). Example: I have this here rogue 3/fighter 5 character. He spent most of his youth on the streets living by his wits and payed fistfights before joining the army, where he never fully shedded his crooked ways, and now, while adventuring, he spends enough time with his rogue abilities to gain a rogue level every few fighter levels (i'm planning to get him to 4/x or possibly, maybe 5/x eventually). As a rogue he picked up Resiliency early on, fitting with the die-hard tough guy concept (yes, he actually has that feat, too). At level 20 he can therefore use it to gain 4 temporary hit points, because only his rogue levels trained him to pull through physical punishment by sheer force of will. After all, how would a fighter learn to do that... Wha'!? And before you argue that it would therefore make sense with the thief/mage character: even a mage has a copious amount of hit points by the time he reaches level 20, and an ability like that would simply be a waste of an option slot, considering the damage enemies throw around by that time. Add in the fact that a lot of characters will be going for a prestige class at some point and class abilities like that are useless in the high-end game, which brings up the question why one would pick them up at all, if one can instead pick up a feat or some other ability that isn't level dependent. Basically, I think what I'm saying is that abilities that scale with class level instead of character level should be the exception rather than the rule, because the combat system otherwise punishes everyone that doesn't play a "pure" character. Dang, I shoulda brought this up during the playtest phase :) Anyway, thanks for your input, I guess I'll have to convince my DM to houserule it.
See, that's just it. The syntax allows both interpretations, while formulating it as "equal to his rogue level" or "equal to his character level" would be free of ambiguity. No matter what actually is meant, formulating rules like that is something that should be avoided in the next printing. Anyway, I'm still hoping I can get a response from someone who actually knows (or can prove his assumption with an example from something halfway official).
I noticed several abilities in the PRPG with a wording like this: "a rogue with this ability can gain a number of temporary hit points equal to the rogue’s level" Especially for multi-class characters, that is a rather unclear wording. Is that supposed to mean class level or character level? Note that there are also several abilities, like cleric domain powers, that explicitly reference the class level like this: "This effect persists for a number of rounds equal to 1/2
Currently i'm assuming that if class level is meant, it is referenced as in the cleric example, otherwise it means character level. Any insights on that? |