jikjik's page

It doesn't work on nonlethal damage?

Suggested replacement text:
"Orc Ferocity: Once per day, when a half-orc is either brought below 0 hit points or takes enough nonlethal damage to equal his current hit points, he can fight on for one more round as if disabled. At the end of his next turn, unless he has been brought above 0 hit points or has fewer points of nonlethal damage than his current hit points (whichever is applicable), he immediately falls unconscious (and begins dying, if his hit points are below 0)."

i like it, i also use Fury of Gruumsh, the anger of Gruumsh flows through his children the Orcs. 1 per day gain a use +2 Str +2 Con +1 Will Sv and -2 AC gain rage points = to 2 + Con mod. if the orc takes a level of barbarian then just add 2 + Con mod to rage point total

Half-elves in 3e and 3.5e were a joke. They were basically humans without the bonus feat, and with low-light vision and crappy skill bonuses.

In PFRPG they've become more like their elven ancestors in terms of skill bonuses, and gained the +2 to any one attribute like humans. They only real other addition is the Skill Focus feat, which seems to be of questionable merit.

Does anyone else feel the half-elf is comparable to the other basic races or is some sort of adjustment in order?

the original advantage of half elves were that (way back in 1e) they allowed elf like characters more class options at a time when classes had racial restrictions (the ancestor of the modern favored class mechanic) personally, i don't use any of the half races reasoning that this sort of thing leads to headaches, several headaches (half elf/dwarf, gnome/orc, etc) instead i allow players to play the full race equivilant: elf or orc humans can mate with any demihuman or goblinoid but the offspring is invariably human with some cosmetic changes. guess i'm prohuman. never liked the whole xtra feat schtick for humans either, i just award a flat 10% xp bonus for the favored class, how else can humans keep pace with the longer lived races and be the dominant race in most campaigns just my 2 cents

They are stocky, with short and stubby legs... DEX should be the stat that takes the -2 penalty

there was mention of this in a Dragon Magazine article during Paizo's stewardship of the publication, i forget the issue number unfortunately. the piece mentioned a -2 dex penalty balanced by a +4 con bonus, reasoning that dex importance in ac and ranged combat was the equal of the bonus hp and fort save that con offered. the proposal ended with the acknowledgment that a racial bonus of +1 was needed for certain dex based skills such as craft or disarm traps to keep dwarves from being unduly penalized. the -2 dex and +4 con reinforce the dwarven tank archtype, dex penalty leads to reliance on armour/shield and con bonus extra hp (the iconic dwarven defender) personally, i go with -2 Dex, +4 Con and +2 Wis for dwarves imho dwarves are only dour and unsociable to non dwarves, +4 Con, +2 Wis and -2 Cha for duergar, dark dwarves are leaner, a little more graceful but truley dislike everyone. similarily, i rule orcs to be +4 str, -2 cha (sorry i don't use half races)

Why do people want to sugar coat half-orcs? Seriously.

Yeah, most likely half orcs are going to be the product of rape. Orcs are barbaric conquering humanoids that often attack human settlements. That stuff is going to happen.

I agree. it is part of their appeal (not that I condone rape) but everyone wants to why half orcs are born with a chip on their shoulder. the whole societal bias and hatred is just salt in the wound.

We need to go back to 2E and bring back the specialist cleric rules and allow the player to customize his/her cleric. want a combat heavy templar, choose a war diety. faith based healer, choose more benign god. a lot of discusion has been fueled by prestige class debate, i would like to see some discussion on variant classes to fill campaign niches. clerics can be anything from a holy warrior to a humble preacher. getting back to the point, maybe give an xp award for healing and buffing and have the npcs show more respect for the person that can heal why be respected or feared when you can be loved by all

in my campaign i use monk variants to simulate the different schools and traditions of my world. first off, all monks do unarmed damage equal to a club of equal size. They get a bonus to bab, unarmed damage, and ac* equal to the relative attribute the school is based on and increases by +1 per 4 levels capped by the monk's level(so a 1st level monk doesn't get the entire attribute mod at once) cmb is based on level and deals damage with a successful cmb. the Fist of Bahgtu use Str as the attribute (* this varient doesn't get ac bonus, just bonus hp as they are allowed spiked gloves and studded leather armour, see Bahgru (orc diety) for reasoning and fluff), the Fangs of Mershaulk use Dex while the Cenobites of Zerthimon use Wis. all of the variants use ki pool for different abilities to augment their damage which they acquire as they gain levels. i know that there is a desire to have something official and cannon, but if you don't like the way something is fixed you can always fix it yourself...hopefully the messageboard and forums will lead paizo to a solution that works for all!

Ive played every version of D&D (except Chainmail), Ive died as a lowly first level pc and retired as an immortal of the sphere of thought and been a githzerai zerth. in all of those years of playing, experiencing 4e was the first time a D&D edition didn't feel like a D&D game. don't get me wrong, 4e is a good game and probably a great cash cow (trying playing that game without miniatures) but pathfinder feels right, it feels like home or dungeon in this case.

Ah poor fighters, they are like drummers, they form the backbone of the band/party and nobody really appreciates them. fighters are far from generic what with feat, weapon and armour selections which allow for variety. i think that the class as a whole lacks the wow and luster of the other classes (anyone remeber the 3e ranger?) if you really wanted to you could create fighter specific feats (in the vein of greater weapon focus or weapon specialization) and don't forget you can use the fighter as a base class and use prestige classes like the duelist or dwarvern defender to fill the specific needs of you campaign

An excellent proposal!! I use a similar revision in my campaign. I agree (imho ofcourse) of using Int as the attribute of choice. By choosing a mental attribute instead of a physical one improves role playing, not all fighters are cannon fodder tanks.

Jay Rodriguez 725 wrote:

I'm more concerned with the loh implications with undead pcs

Nerfing the Loh because a player want tp play an undead an evil monster? I see no need no nerf it. If you want a suggestion. Well in your campaign add a save, 10 + halv paldin level (rounded down) + charisma. Simple fix.

I don't think our DM ever has let a pcs die for dramatic effect. If we die, we have been over confident or stupid or both or very unlucky and stupid.
No risk = no fun. Z. aka TomJohn

Agreed. already had the save dc in place before i posted (i also implemented this to all positive/negative cleric abilities). I added saves as a safegard so cleric and "antipaladin" npcs wouldn't over power the pcs(boss npcs tend to be significantly higher in level compared to a single pc from the group) not to add flame to the fire but rather than adding to the power and abilities of the base classes in general couldn't we just add feats to accomplish what we want. i.e. "divine salvation": by spending 1 use of loh a paladin can spend multiple uses of loh L(capped by cha mod) as a standard action and/or spend another 1 use of loh to make it a swift action rather than make one uber class, couldn't we start with a base and use feats, skills or alternate class abilities of similar power to diversify (the precedence has been set with the various specialist school wizards and also by James Jacobs in the article Blackgards in Dragon #312) personally, I think the paladin is a powerful class already. When one speaks, people listen. its their archtype to be inspirational leaders Roleplay a class's advantages (nobody trust the rogue, admire the cleric etc.) as for no risk = no fun I agree. My current group just has different tastes than mine.

It all depends on game style I guess. In my campaigns death is death, I don't believe in the whole resurrection thing. I like to choose when and where I let pcs die for dramatic effect. I'm more concerned with the loh implications with undead pcs. not everyone plays the normal races or alignments. I prefer my campaign world to be grey with some areas of black and white. I should state that i don't allow an entire party of undead characters but i do allow other players from outside our group to play the adversaries just to add some chaos to my plans. all and all any arguement is moot. most gms will only use what rule they want and houserule everything else. Personally, i think the any detect alignment ability is counterproductive to roleplaying but thats just my tastes. I definetly like the aproach that Paizo has taken and using the message boards and forums to help shape their product earns an immeasurable amount of respect from me, as do the opinions of my fellow players. its nice to know that good old fashioned pen and paper rpgs still have a place in the world

All and all a solid class upgrade but not allowing an intelligent, free willed undead a foe a save vs loh damage seems a little too strong. After all, part of the drama of a good fight is the conflict and risk. Unintelligent undead jobbers deserve to go down by the dozens, but a carefully constructed Undead leader/boss deserves a fighting chance. After all, lets face it, most Dms are not going to let pcs die (at least permenantly) in a campaign. Pcs have enough advantages and to allow a single, popular category of monsters an achille's heel vs a class seems unbalancing. On the otherside of the coin, maybe I'm just watching out for all of you evil pcs with grandiose ambitions; and plans that require decades to come to fruition!