mmsbhs's page

Hmmm, Coriat's post is convincing, at least for me. I guess now it goes back to does one evil act turn you evil, especially if motives are "good" ("good" being intent, not actual moral goodness), or can your inquisitor do it once and still be good aligned? I would argue yes, but only because the CRB makes it very clear that the alignment is not a railroad, and there would be some kind of consequence. If it happens repeatedly, then I'd definitely shift their alignment.

I always like the idea of corruption as a powerful story tool. Gives a hint of sadness to the whole thing. A game where a PC is trying to do a good thing but ends up destroying his own soul...

So the argument to go for casters and the argument to not go for casters both are supported by sound logical reasoning. So why not do it sometimes and not other times? Or every time/ never? The latter two options probably have a better chance of bothering players, but if you know your table, and aren't a jerk, it should be fine.

mmsbhs wrote:

Wrath wrote:

If I can do that as a player, then you be can be sure the enemies will have tactics to do exactly the same thing.

Doesn't that assume this random band of thugs/monsters has meta-gamed a bit, and has the same experience with class-based tactics as you/your party does? If your average encounter is an opposing group of adventurers, then sure. If it's cave-dwelling monsters or street ruffians, then why would they have anything like that?

So for some encounters, I'm sure it might make sense. But not for all, or even for a majority. Maybe 25-35% of the time.

The rest of my post covered exactly what you said here.

It did, and I almost put that in there; instead I used your quote as a tenet of a broader argument I thought was being made in the thread. Which was stupid on my part. My apologies!

I didn't get my point across very well. It's all in the GMs discretion, and personally I think leaving a table because a GM chooses to go that route is extreme. But if the OP is looking for reasons logical NOT to do it, there are plenty for that as well. The monsters don't have to be stupid.

Probably means you don't step on a bug just 'cause it looks like it might have a stinger.

If I can do that as a player, then you be can be sure the enemies will have tactics to do exactly the same thing.

Doesn't that assume this random band of thugs/monsters has meta-gamed a bit, and has the same experience with class-based tactics as you/your party does? If your average encounter is an opposing group of adventurers, then sure. If it's cave-dwelling monsters or street ruffians, then why would they have anything like that?

So for some encounters, I'm sure it might make sense. But not for all, or even for a majority. Maybe 25-35% of the time.

Monsters intelligent enough to spot a caster are intelligent enough to run away if they think that "the horrors of hell" are about to be unleashed on them. The argument is that their fear of things other than death is so great that they will risk death to... fight the being who can inflict the horrors? They would just run away if they were that afraid.

Monsters are, in general, not incredibly experienced at fighting things with the lethality of an average PC party. Also, monsters and villains, like almost all evil beings, are driven by personal gain and self-sacrifice for the betterment of "the team" isn't at all logical. In the case of animals defending their homes and young, the closest threat to the home is the focal point.

On the uncommon occasion you run into a group of intelligent beings who are willing to sacrifice themselves for victory and recognize the caster as being undenaibly more deadly than the barbarian with a two-handed sword in front of them, and not being too scared to fight that caster even while thinking it is so more deadly that the guy about to cleave them in two... sure, go for the caster first.

Edit: Came across as a bit dogmatic. I mean in general. Obviously doing in sometimes would be fine, but there's no reason to think it is the logical conclusion for a majority of enemies.

I think Kain Darkwind is pretty close to the mark on this one. Is playing the Chili Peppers nonstop as a form of sleep deprivation as evil (or at all evil) as physical beating? I think designating all methods of "torture" as evil is too simplistic unless the definition of what is torture is narrowed.

If sleep deprivation makes a terrorist unwittingly confess a plot element of a upcoming attack, do you believe that is evil? I, for one, do not.

In that manner, certain tactics should be allowed an Inquisitor, but like everyone else has said, the GM ultiamtely is going to decide what crosses the line.

The speed is probably a mistake. There was a portion at the beginning where we were solo and the speed would have helped with "kiting" for lack of a better term. But that situation probably won't come up again, honestly, and I'm probably solving something that isn't a problem.

The "Travel Domain" and "Brawler" ideas are great!

"Useless" was an incorrect term. I guess more than just DPR would be my goal. A little utility in spells or skills, and I really like the Inquisitor flavor. Thanks again, everyone.

14 Str, 18 Dex (inc +2 racial), 12 Con, 14 Int, 12 Wis, 10 Cha.

GM fairly generous with roll rules. I didn't like the trick shots the archer archtype recieved so I stuck with vanilla. I also thought a lot about arcane srcher, but I didn't really like it. I like the flavor, just not the abilities. Didn't plan on using Rage much, mostly just the dip for the speed bump, but I'd probably want to get to 7 Fighter then for the Armor Training boost.

Right now at low levels (4-5), I've had no trouble hitting. I've also considered dipping Ninja for skills. I really just don't want to be pegged useless later on.

Thank you everyone for the responses. I appreciate the help this community offers. I've been lurking awhile, and learning a lot.

Heh, not sure how I missed that. Probably 14-15. What about dipping to Barbarian, then going Inquisitor for the last 7-8 levels? I like being a pretty good archer for dpr purposes, but as time goes on, it would be nice to be able to do other things. I'm a complete newb on this though, obviously.

If my GM doesn't plan on leveling us to 20, is there a major downside to dipping my lvl6 fighter (non-archer archtype, but he's an archer) with monk and barbarian? I like the Barbarian's speed and other small perks, and the monk will really help my Will saves and stuff. Or is that a terrible idea?