From what I've gathered the archer archetype adds versatility in your bow use (different abilities while using a bow) as well as a tiny bit more damage.
Straight fighter adds versatility in your weapon choice, allowing you to be more effective with more types of weapons, as well as allowing you to have more effective use of armor.
If you want to be really good with more than just the bow, be a straight fighter, if you want to be very versatile with just the bow as your weapon do the archer archetype.
If all you're looking for is damage, do the weapon master archetype and focus on the bow.
My personal choice would be the archer archetype. In pathfinder it is much better to focus on a single weapon than it is to have a bunch of different one. Specialization of type is rewarded more than versatility in weapon choice, and the archer archetype allows that specialization. I wouldn't choose weapon master simply because just doing damage is boring and I'd like to be able to help the party by more than just doing a ton of damage each round.
HOWEVER this is NOT the sort of advice I would give if you want to fight on the front lines. Armor training is very good if you're going to be the bruiser of the party.
Alright, I'm going to take the suggestions so far and change it a tiny bit.
four person party
* Dwarf Fighter (Two-handed gimli-axe style)
* Elf rogue (archery style)
* Halfling Sorcerer (Battle field control, with a bloodline with one of those really weak touch attacks)
* Human cleric (Mace and shield)
Plot: goblins attack the town, and make off with a prized treasure for the king. PCs follow them back to a cave and fight them. At the end there's a goblin leader with a magical amulet that raises the dead (Cleric learns about how to channel energy to harm them). Players beat boss and exit cave with treasure.
So I have found myself in a new place, with no players. I have found a few people whom are willing to learn Pathfinder, but have no experience with any table top RPGs at all. They have asked me to teach them, and I have decided that the best way to do it would be to create a small module with some pre-made characters for them and run them through it.
Folks all start at level 1
The party will be the four "default" classes (Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue) and will be of my own making (not the iconics)
I plan on using my own setting (it has a lot of standard elements, and doesn't have any huge differences from what is to be expected, it just means that there's no way for my own plotlines to be spoiled by people looking up things on a wiki)
I will be using the official pathfinder standard character sheets
So far I have decided to only fill in their skills, ability scores, and spells (for the wizard and cleric). The cleric and wizard will have their spells pre-memorized so I know what they have. I will give all the players gear before hand so that they don't need to figure that out either.
I plan on getting the players to fill in the stats that are blank for two reasons:
1) it will teach how the stats are calculated
2) my handwriting is terrible
I'm not using the pathfinder starter set because I'd prefer to control everything, and possibly use the outcomes of this module in the main campaign
Questions:
Should I switch the Wizard to a Sorcerer for ease of spell selection explanations?
I'm thinking that a small simple dungeon would be the best way to explain what is going on. What sort of dungeon should I use? Actually does it really matter?
Should I make all the characters human for simplicity? Or should I showcase the benefits of the other races (Fighter is a dwarf, Wizard is an elf, Rogue is a halfling, Cleric is a human)?
Should I introduce a villain that will re-appear when we do a "real" campaign?
Should I kill the pre-generated characters at the end of the module and have the new players make their own characters for a plot line?
Should I attempt to explain Treantmonk's roles of combat?
You can't take 20 on a combat maneuver. It is an attack roll. I also don't know where that +7 is coming from.
They are repeatedly attempting to tie up an unconscious character, since there is no consequence for failure they could simply roll the die until 20 popped up. The +7 is the fact that the character takes a -7 to all escape artist checks due to armor check penalty.
One of my friends has come up with an interesting (and sleightly power gamey) way of making it near impossible to get out of bonds at low level. Fit the character in armor before they're tied up.
If you've knocked out a boss, go get one of their minions and have them put on the minion's half plate or splint mail on them. THEN tie them up (taking 20 on the combat maneuver). Suddenly they have a +7 bonus to their tying up. Since this is so circumstantial I can't really see it being a problem, but I was wondering if it was part of the RAI or RAW.
Stumbled upon this post and decided that it needed an answer in case you were still watching it. I believe that since it says:
rules wrote:
ninja levels stack to determine with the levels of that class to determine the total number of ki points in the combined pool
Then the answer is your first one since you're planning on being a Ki Mystic monk 3/ninja X you're effective level for your ki pool will be Monk levels + ninja levels.
That's my take on it at least. I believe paizo intentionally made the classes synergize well, and wants you to use them together. Also remember that flurry of blows uses Monk level + ninja BaB when flurrying so when you flurry your BaB will be 3+(3/4 * ninja level)
You mentioned you didn't like the rules from unearthed arcana, but I think that's a little odd since I thought that the idea of archetypes came from there. Which leads me to ask: where did the idea come from? It makes TONS more sense than making a prestige class for every little thing the archetypes do and is much easier, and keeps the favored class bonus that we like. So if it didn't come from UA where did it come from?
Initially I read this as the GM was being a donkey...
I don't see any problem with using a pack mule or a donkey. There are realistic problems that arise from them (terrain, taking them inside etc.) but there are also advantages (treasure holder!). There is a reason why donkeys were (and still are) used to carry stuff, don't worry about it too much, it's just part of the game. If the situation calls for the party to be unable to carry large amounts of equipment, put it in a location where it's inaccessible to the donkey or just kill it. As the GM you are GOD of the world, something as small as this doesn't need to be a huge issue.
I give my players little "awesome" bonuses whenever they do something really cool (using web to catch falling friends, charging an enemy and severing their hand off in mid-air certainly qualify) and those add to their XP. I would give them a partial reward for surviving the encounter, and then a little bonus for doing awesome stuff in the mean time.
Pretty much any martial class with a good BaB is good with rogue now that I think about it. (Paladin + Rogue = good BaB + sneak attack + smite evil = best two weapon fighting possible and all good saves + divine grace! HELL YEAH!)
Sorcerer/oracle might be pretty darn interesting.
If you REALLY never want to run out of spells Sage Sorcerer/wizard might be fun. For extra fun leave EVERY wizard slot empty when the day begins and rely on your sorcerer spells to carry you through, when a specific thing pops up spend a bit to study your spell book before carrying on.
edit: More ideas!
A spell casting druid AKA: wild mystic, and a cleric. Three domains plus wildshape! plus you'll never be out of spells!
Two-weapon fighting is all about extra attacks, plain and simple. The idea of it is that you flurry your weapons around to deal more damage. Unless you're using home-brewed rules, or some splat book from 3.x that I'm unfamiliar with you're either going to have to play a ranger to be effective with low dex or suck. Horribly.
That said, rangers benefit from having a mediocre dex since they have to wear medium armor to gain the benefits of their feats, even if they're proficient with heavy armor.
Here's my advice for doing your low Dex build: :
Play a ranger, use the bonus feats to gain tw-fighting, improved twf, and greater twf when you feel your base attack bonus is high enough
I recommend using a two-handed weapon like a greatsword for level 1, getting tw-fighting at level 2, improved twf at level 6, and greater twf at level 10 or 14)
You're also going to want to spend a feat on heavy armor proficiency and find a suit of mithral full plate as soon as possible. After that your best option is to find other ways to raise your dex if you want higher AC.
There's a full guide on a two-weapon fighting ranger here
edit:I know you're not looking for ways to increase the number of attacks, but that basically is the whole point of using two weapons. If you really want to have flavor a character to use two weapons but only attacks with one you might want to go with the free-hand fighter and multi-class into duelist and say that you have a "dagger" in your off hand that can't be thrown, sundered or disarmed, even if mechanically it's treated like an empty hand
edit edit: duelists need high dex though. And also usually focus on making critical hits.
Change saves to be pathfinder saves (no +2 bonus on the first level) change the spell/day progression to be the same as the dragon disciple. HD does not need to be changed. Requirements should have the skill requirement lowered by 3.
That's about it.
This class is an example of the power creep of 3.5, if the player who chooses it feels underpowered they should work with you to power it up a little. Or just give them a good item (or heavy armor proficiency) or something to that extent.
In order, Fatigue, Exhaustion, Non-Lethal Damage, and forced Unconciousness.
I swear there was something that explicitly said this in 3.5, but for the life of me I can't locate it now. This is how I've always done it, and the bulk of my gaming was done in 3.5. It might be that even 3.5 never completely addressed this. Though I do seem to remember there being a feat from some book that let you get less than eight hours and still not be fatigued.
I think this was how environmental damage was done.
TONGUES! So circumstantial, used so infrequently, but incredibly useful when it comes up.
A wizard I once played with kept a wand of silent image around and used it for all sorts of things. He at one point used it to instantly paint a picture to get a message across to a tribe of barbarians.
In order, Fatigue, Exhaustion, Non-Lethal Damage, and forced Unconciousness.
Would you show me where that is in the Core Rulebook?
Why do they need rules for common sense fact of biology? There are also no rules for getting pregnant ( but we know how that happens) or no rules saying you can no longer take actions while you are dead.
There WAS a 3rd party book for 3.0 that covered getting pregnant strangely enough. I believe it was called The Book of Erotic Fantasy. WotC was not too pleased about it.
I think the language was a problem with the site, in any case it's not what I'm worried about. I'm more bothered with whether it is balanced enough to unleash on players.
A while ago I stated it out and made it here. And until now I was wondering if you'd have comments or constructive criticism about it.
I've never actually used it since we generally have more serious campaigns than this, but I think it works mechanically like the beast from the holy grail.
There are many ways to build batman, and since there are so many interpretations of the character of the years (see the alignment demotiviational) that all of them are pretty valid. In the end whatever combination of monk/rogue/inquisitor/alchemist you take, you're still just playing with numbers.
My personal opinion? Full monk. Nothing else is needed. Gadgets are bought and equipment is done by him. In the end the intelligent/charismatic part of batman is really the player's.
Generally I allow characters with an animal companion to choose a type of training and allow them an additional trick. If they wish to train the animal to do more, they have to do it while the campaign is progressing.
If a character has their animal companion put a stat point into INT though, I rule the animal is now supernaturally intelligent compared to most animals and understands verbal commands while within earshot of the PC, essentially training it in all tricks.
This might be broken, but it's understandable. Thus far, I haven't had a PC who wanted an animal companion.
I'm actually making an RPG that uses generic classes as it's base and "paths" as the way to get into more specifics (make a barbarian path, assassin path, eldrich knight path etc.)
This generic class idea seems to be the idea of the people making Threshold RPG and is interesting in its progression. Not sure when they'll finish, and it seems to be slow going.
CE cannot scheme. CE cannot masquerade as other alignments. Those fall under the umbrellas as LE and NE. As such, CE will quickly be recognized as such by all but the most oblivious of PCs and NPCs. CE cannot do something opposed to his evil nature, whereas CN can do whatever it wants because it has no nature.
C'mon. This is clearly a PC alignment discussion. Demons are outsiders with supernatural abilities and means beyond all but the most epic of PCs. Technically the standard zombie is "evil" but in reality it has no alignment. It's mindless and has nothing but the most primal of motivations (unless being controlled, of course).
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
This is a good example of a scheming chaotic evil character (and possibly my favorite CE!)
I think the problem isn't so much that the class can't do what you want so much as your concept for the class is different than other people's concept. You see the bard as a primary caster, we see it as a caster/fighter with a bunch of utility powers.
when we think bard we think this: http://media.photobucket.com/image/bard%2527s%20tale/puppyinpartyhat/the-ba rds-tale-developer-diary-vol-.jpg
or this:
http://images.wikia.com/dndawokenheroes/images/5/52/Half-Elf_Emissary.jpg
where as you're thinking this:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__KPDlTyWj3Y/S6q6YVxrQjI/AAAAAAAAAA4/c2xkzZbV6G4/s 1600/bards.jpg
As for your comparison, I don't think that we're asking you to have your sorcerer masquarade as a bard at all, I think we're trying to say the character concept you have is not one that fits with the mechanics of the class you're trying to fill the concept with.
I'm sure you can come up with a good archtype, variant, or whatever to transform the bard into your concept if you work with your GM (or are the GM for that matter). In the end all that matters is if people are having fun, so it's not really a bug up my arse what your preferences are.
Anyway, that's my take on it. Again, not trying to offend.
If Paizo released a whole bunch of flat figures, pawns, etc. I would totally buy them. I have never, and probably never will, bought miniatures. I would buy these. Up until now I've used tokens, this seems better.
[Quote =The Speaker in Dreams] another post that's long
Socerer Buffs = bardic performance in flavor, who is to say that haste isn't bardic performance being used to enhance? There's nothing that says it CAN'T be. For that matter bull's strength, divine favor, rage, herosim, all these spells could be flavored as bardic performance, you could make ANY 9 level spell casting class into this, with just re flavoring. Sure you're not following the rules, and using that lateral thinking as you put it, but what's the problem with that?
I don't understand why, just because its name is different than what you want it to be, that you say that it's not the same.
Can't you just change its name? I apologize if you find this offensive, I try my best not to cause people to rage over the internet.
I read in one of the books from 3.5 (for the life of me I can't figure out which), that there is no real reason for the nobles to be in power.
Sure there is. D&D worlds are dangerous. You don't worry so much about the kingdom next door, you worry about the roving monsters and dragons and orcs and undead. In a situation like that, the populace will GLADLY follow a powerful leader type, and ta-da, nobility.
Also, noble power structures are usually intertwined with the spellcasting community anyways. They buy the most magical services. They can often afford the training to become spellcasters. The spellcasters have a vested interest in the nobility, even if they seldom want to be nobles themselves (clerics have another job to do, and wizards usually want more free time to study magic).
And sorcerers? They seem like the political types if you ask me. Anyway this doesn't really matter, stuff like this can be hand waved as part of the campaign setting and as long as it's fun we're golden.
Why can't you say your sorcerer uses the power of music do all of what you just said? Not trying to put you down, but all of what you expressed sounds mechanically possible with the sorcerer, sure it says "bloodline X" on the tin, but the only limit here is your (and possibly your DM's) imagination, you can totally have an enchantment focused sorcerer (hell even a wizard) do all of that and tell the DM where the power source of your character comes from.
Wear a tux into combat.
Your verbal components is the sound of organs.
Night on bald mount actually happens when your maestro stands on a hilltop.
Your sound bursts are explosions of violins
Your irresistible dances are fueled by your maniacal laughter as the evil creatures stand confused as to what is happening.
You control reality with your spell caster. Nothing says you can't control what the manifestation of that control is.
HOLY CRAP that is a broken way to get stats, but if you guys like it more power to you. I would go for a fighter/mage, or some similar build because MAD means nothing to you.
I read in one of the books from 3.5 (for the life of me I can't figure out which), that there is no real reason for the nobles to be in power. The average person can read, which means information will be passed in a way that means they can't keep their peasants under their thumb. Additionally, the spell casters are dealing with INCREADIBLY powerful magic that could potentially overthrow the masses ant any point. The only setting that has ever addressed the fact that spell casting characters should really be in control of everyone was Dragon Age, where they had to be beaten down at every turn so society wouldn't be overthrown at a moment's notice.
Gnome: I wouldn't be so sure, maybe +2 int OR CHA, +2 CON, -2 STR
Orc: this is good
Tauren: +2 Strength, +2 Wis, -2 Dexterity instead, also possibly a bonus to CMD in some situations
Troll, Jungle: This is fine, possibly you might consider faster passive regeneration (maybe 1 hp/hour) or something.
Worgen: More like +2 to any one stat, and switch it with other bonuses when in hybrid form or something, rules are sketchy on this since there are already ware creatures in PF
Undead, Forsaken: consider using the rules for half-undead form the playtest of the advanced race guide.
The advanced race guide will have better rules than what I came up with when it comes out. More people will be thinking about this.
I'm sure a 3rd party product will have conversion eventually for the setting.
This thread was made after the favorite classes thread, yet has over twice as many replies. Just something I noticed.
Edit: I was reading the minor flame war above and saw a whole lot of hate for the bard. May I remind you that while the MECHANICS of the class say something, you can interpret it ENTIRELY different. For example, so what if you're making a bardic performance with perform(sing), maybe you are simply channeling your arcane knowledge into battle and making a magic buff to your allies this way? Rule 0 states that this is YOUR game. So what if you don't want to be prancing mistral for brave sir robin? You don't have to be. A class is only tied to it's fluff as much as you allow it to be. There is nothing stopping you from saying that your abilities work mechanically the same way (it's balance right?) while ignoring the flavor behind them. Your bard can be a gish! It's okay! It's a game! Have fun!
I actually don't really like how you can become a demi-god through leveling, it's not my thing. Currently I'm making an RPG similar in style to the e6 variant. I also don't like how a character's intelligence, wisdom and charisma are defined. So that's gone from it too. I call it Static RPG.
Mental stats are defined by how clever the player is, any mental skills are just defined by ranks and feats.
Oh yeah and it's close to 4e in the sense that all the classes have "powers" in a similar fashion except they are all 1d6 round cooldown instead of at-will, encounter, and daily.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Two weapon fighting (which has been houseruled to contain the entire Two Weapon Fighting chain at appropriate BAB increases.)
Benefit: Gain a +1 Shield Bonus to AC while wielding an off-hand weapon. Add the weapon's magic enhancement bonus to this shield AC.
Philosophy is simply the discipline where "common sense" is not an accepted answer.
Math: has postulates based on common sense
How do you know know through any two points there is a line?
How do you know the sum of the lengths of two sides of any triangle is greater than the length of the third side?
How do you know the sum of the lengths of three sides of any quadrilateral is greater than the length of the fourth side?
Physics: Theorems based on mathematics
Chemistry: based on physics
Biology: based on chemistry
Psychology, sociology, medicine, other sciences involving studies: all use statistics to prove points, which is math.
Nothing can be proven. It can just be shown to be likely.
