solitary_solidarity's page

169. A coastal shipping town sends another nearby port a message of concern: Pirates have destroyed the docks and all ships, crippling the city's economy. The second city is petitioned to find the pirates responsible and make them pay. The players are asked to help with the man-hunt, and are hired on as muscle on one of two pirate-hunting ships. Unbeknownst to the party, the messenger who brought the cry for help was a pirate operative, in the employ of the captain of one of the two ships. This pirate captain plans to lead the other ship out into the ocean chasing non-existent pirates, then attack it and take it as his own. How will the PCs react when they uncover the ruse?

I just wanted to let you know, I really like this app. Also, Frisian is an interesting one. Just generated "Smidendbeddkantasensmeenfestimmelkornpohlorereren." Definitely the name of my new character ;)

One of the most harrowing encounters my players ever faced involved a lot of the stuff that's been talked about. Archers stationed on the tops of buildings, lots and lots of mobile derps able to swim around the battlefield, wolves tripping the PCs and low level witches de-buffing all the players...they had a rough time. All the things they were fighting were easily 3 levels below them or more, but there was enough going on that they struggled. Compound on this the fact that the leader showed up with reinforcements not too much later and the party had to flee. If you can't think of anything to do with an encounter, watch some good fantasy movies and pay attention to the fight sequences. Try to think of what would make that situation difficult for the characters. A great example of this is the flee from Moria in Fellowship of the Ring. Not only are they fleeing from the Balrog, not only are the bridges collapsing and they're nearly falling to their deaths, but there's goblins shooting arrows too. When you think about it from that perspective, you start to understand just how awesome it is that the fellowship escaped. Recreating that in your game will make for a great session

Half-elf might be worth a little consideration. Their favored-class bonus is 1/4 of an evolution point per level. That would give you two more points in your pool to work with at 9th level.

Alignments are always, at best, approximations. Unfortunately, the rules of the game don't reflect this well. That's why after a while it becomes pointless to talk about morality and alignment. The sad truth is that alignment is as much a game mechanic as movement speeds. The simple fact that lots of class features and effects rely on alignment means that even though sometimes an approximation is the best answer, alignments are cut and dry.

For me, evil isn't determined by action alone. I can understand where you're coming from, I simply disagree. Unfortunately, the Pathfinder system for alignment is notoriously (although perhaps necessarily) simplified. For the confines of the game, action alone might be enough to determine alignment but I think that is ultimately a call that would need to be made by the GM. Another reason why I feel ultimately that this character would be more appropriately stationed in an NPC role, where the players could debate his intentions and characteristics as a part of the game rather than a predecessor to it.

Maybe Ark is misguided, but that's a long way from being truly evil. He's not acting out of self interest, and he's not acting without consideration of what others want. In fact, his actions stem directly from what he assumes others want. So yes, maybe he's not exactly right. The point is that he's not EVIL. If you prevent someone from committing suicide, you may be causing them more harm in the long run, and they may hate you for it, but you're not EVIL. Unless of course you're doing it with the express purpose of putting them through that suffering. Again, motivation is the key. Because we know that Ark is not doing this to gain power for himself or to relish in the pain of others, his actions, aren't evil. However, because he is mistakenly assuming that he knows what is best for everyone else, he's not exactly good either. Soooo...he's in the middle. Neutral.

And honestly, I don't think the idea of death is inviolate in Golarion. At the very least, reincarnation doesn't infringe on it.

Again, removing choices doesn't necessitate evil. And what about those who want the afterlife? Under the circumstances, and given that the afterlife is often a very uncomfortable existence for the souls in question, isn't it right for Ark to try to prevent that? You may say it's unacceptable to take away a person's choice, even when their choice brings them detriment, but what if someone close to you wanted to hurt themselves? People who stop this behavior aren't looked down on, and they're certainly not considered evil.

Ultimately, when it comes to morality, a lot depends on motivation. It's not morally permissible for someone to shove you to the ground because you're in their way. However, shoving you to prevent you from being hit by a bus IS morally permissible. And to further establish that motive is what matters, consider the situation if he had pushed you because you were in his way, but the end result was that you were saved from the bus. While they may be congratulated on the situation, they would still be looked down on for their intentions.

In the real world, morality can be hard to determine, and a lot of the times that's because we can never know what a person's true motivation is. With Arkalion however, we CAN know his true motivation. We CAN make an objective determination of his moral standing. In my opinion, it's clear that his intentions are good, and that he should therefore be of Neutral alignment, at least.

Alicorn, sorry for missing your note about the definition of lawful. For me, law itself is the loss of freedom. But to be perfectly honest, law doesn't remove choice, it just removes your ability to make some choices without punitive consequences. Under our law, you still have the choice to steal from people, there will just be more consequences than there would have been without the presence of the law. In a way, Arkalion's actions aren't even this extreme, because he's not presuming to punish anyone for "disobeying" him.

Removing choice from people is a point where "lawful*" itself has become evil.

I disagree with this sentiment strongly. Everything in society, in our very lives is based on varying degrees of choice that we lose. It's in the nature of being alive that our choices are taken away. Is a parent evil for telling his child he can only have one cookie? He must be, he's taken away his child's choice of having more than one cookie. Is a government evil for telling you you can't murder someone? It must be, according to your definition.

In fact, based on your definition, the only purely GOOD institution is anarchy, which is not only absurd, but also an indication that the practice of removing an individual's choice is more closely related to the conflict between Law and Chaos than the one between Good and Evil.

While I'm willing to admit that Arkalion might have an extreme case of hubris, and might be evil for it, his actions in and of themselves are not evil. In order for his limitation of choice to be evil, he must be using his power to the detriment of others. This leaves us with the question: are Arkalion's actions bringing people undue suffering, or are they--as Anzyr claims--ultimately bringing about the greater good?

I see two distinct elements to this thread: the philosophical question pertaining to Arkalion's actions and the practical one. Each of these questions has a different answer, but regardless, I feel that a discussion of either will come to the same conclusion. As was mentioned earlier, we're dealing with more than just RAW rules and mechanics. What Anzyr is proposing has implications that stretch into the metagame, and part of the reason this discussion has become so convoluted is because this character really needs to utilize narrative to function effectively.

I'm not saying that Arkalion CANNOT do all of this according to RAW, but that he SHOULDN'T, at least not while within the confines of being a PC. On the other hand, I believe that he would be an excellent NPC. Reading all of this from a DM's perspective, I'm inspired by the creativity and complexity of Arkalion's scheming. He has the making of a brilliant villain, regardless of whether or not you think his actions are evil. I honestly think that we can have a more meaningful discussion if we consider this character from the perspective of players in a world where his scheme has come to fruition. Forget all the minutia of how many simulacra he would need, forget the fact that his stats would need to be absurdly high. Pretend instead that his actions are creating a widespread cosmological conflict, and you are charged with protecting him from the divine retribution he has earned. Or that you are beseeched by the now-weakened pantheon to find him and end his plans. All-in-all, I think the strength of this discussion shows just how powerful of a plot device Arkalion himself can be, and I'd be interested to see where the discussion went if interpreted him that way.

Even if that discussion isn't had, I think more should be said as to the philosophical side. I feel like that's more what this thread was intended for.

"The flavor of my character is a knight in shining armor who rides around on a horse and who has amazing resolve. How can I do this with the available mechanics? I'll use the Samurai class - that seems easiest."

I tend to disagree with this statement. Cavalier and Paladin lend themselves much better to this archetype, and they're typically available in every kind of campaign that a given GM would want to run. The fact that Samurai is an alternate class of Cavalier shows that it is in fact a different version of the "knight in shining armor," with both different abilities and different flavor. Again, I would urge the player with this character concept to look more closely at those two classes and decide if their character's flavor absolutely CANNOT fall into them.

These changes are completely appropriate and if a GM told me that bards couldn't be clergy members in their game; well, I know who *I* would think of as a prima donna.

Unfortunately, we're comparing apples and oranges here. The flavor of the Bard class is very flexible. Bards have often been seen as the most flexible of all classes, in and outside of mechanics. I see no problem with saying a bard is a clergy member, because nothing in the Bard's flavor really conflicts with it. Playing devil's advocate, you could say that they're arcane casters and that therefore they shouldn't be divine characters, but there are so many options around that that I don't think there's a problem.

On the other hand, Samurais have a VERY specific flavor. Again, they are an alternate class option in part because of this distinct flavor. Just because a Bard can be re-skinned does not mean that a Samurai can be, or more importantly, SHOULD be.

I've been on both sides of this discussion, and honestly, I'm surprised to see such polar ideas. IMHO, the flavor text behind classes and abilities are much more important than many of us are giving them credit for. There's a reason smite evil only works against evil creatures and characters, and there's a reason sneak attack only applies against flat-footed or flanked opponents. The classes of Pathfinder are supposed to be distinct and the flavor plays a big part in that.

I firmly believe that simply re-skinning a samurai directly opposes this, and isn't something that should be allowed. If you're playing samurai just because you like the Resolve ability, as a GM I would urge you to rethink your character. As many others have pointed out, there are other ways of doing the same thing mechanically. Ultimately, I'm of the school that your character should be based in flavor before it is based in mechanics.

After reading a lot of complaining about the Synthesist, I decided it sounded like a fantastic idea for an evil NPC. Then I decided to Gestalt it to boot! Has anyone got ideas about what would be good with the Synthesist? I just picked fighter cause it was easy and I knew I could fill up the feat slots.

boring7 wrote:

slash140 wrote:

Something I've never really seen attempted is a build using pole arms alongside shields. I always thought spears and the like were somewhat lackluster considering their inability to strike adjacent targets, but having the shield to bash with might be able to account for that weakness. And the reach is certainly an excellent thing to have when you're on the front lines.

EDIT: Upon further research, I see that spears and their cousins are two-handed weapons, making it pretty much impossible to wield them with a shield. Such a pity, I was excited about that build for a minute.

Somewhat ironic considering the greek hoplite/roman legion combat style which was so very effective over the years.

There's a 3rd party feat, but those are always third party.

I really like that third party feat.

It makes phalanx fighter pointless… but I like the feat better than a whole archetype.

especially since, the idea of spears only being two handed weapons is ludicrous, in light of the well known historical facts that they were not wielded that way.

I like the spear should be Two handed as a simple weapon and one handed as a martial.

I don't like having to take an archetype for it.

To be honest, something just feels off about that archetype. The feat makes so much more sense.

Tetori pretty much lays it out for you with it's list of bonus feats. I recently built a human Tetori NPC and his feat structure was:
1: Imp Grapple(bonus), Combat Expertise(human bonus), Imp Trip
2: Stunning Pin(bonus)
3: Ki Throw
5: Binding Throw
6: Greater Grapple(bonus)
7: Greater Trip
9: Rapid Grappler
10: Pinning KO(bonus)
11: Pinning Rend

If you're not using the APG, that frees up Combat Expertise, Imp Trip, Ki Throw, and Binding Throw and Greater Trip. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of great options for early feats with this build. You could always pick up some basics like power attack, dodge/mobility, etc. but those are kinda lackluster. Deflect Arrows is never a bad choice, and of course you have all sorts of Style feats to choose from. Snapping Turtle isn't bad, since it allows you to grapple when it's not your turn, but after a while, your options for grappling become redundant. Your opponent is going to be grappled one way or another. I would drop it for some added versatility.

IMO, Cavalier is always the better choice when you're making a knight who doesn't want all the hassle of divine accountability. It doesn't have the restrictions that Paladins do and it's not ingrained with the righteous/divine warrior flavor that you have with Palies. When I think of a vampire Antipaladin, I've got this image of a dark crusader brimming with profane powers. If you want something more in accordance with an arcane-charged knight, mix Cavalier with sorcerer or some other cha caster. Bard, while not a full caster, has got a great spell list and his performances might make some interesting synergy with the Cavalier's minor buffs.

This is going to be an NPC. I suppose that means I could just have her Wild Empathy a few bears into helping and skip the strain on class abilities, but I'd much rather have a build that doesn't rely on DM caveat to fulfill the role. At the very least, I'd like the caveat to be based in more than a single supposed die roll.

To answer your first question: why would you want to hurl a star knife when you can throw it normally? I guess that's not a great answer, but the idea behind this rage power is that you're going to be throwing wagons and boulders etc. If I were you, I would avoid unnecessary confusion and stick to the big things. In any event, I would rule that the star knife only deals falling item damage as an appropriate item of its size, not the weapon damage.

Second question: The power describes the damage dealt very specifically:

This inflicts damage as a falling object (Core Rulebook 443) plus the barbarian's Strength bonus.

RAW, this means that regardless of how many hands you use to throw the item, you apply only your flat STR bonus. If your DM was willing to make liberal interpretations, the feat Two-Handed Thrower might get you that extra 1/2x STR mod to damage.

Third question:

This is a ranged touch attack, and the target may attempt a Reflex save (DC 10 + 1/2 the barbarian's level + the barbarian's Strength modifier) for half damage.

Fourth: Sneak attacking usually requires you to be within 30ft, but if you meet that requirement, I see no reason outlined in the rules why you couldn't sneak attack with a thrown boulder.

Fifth: Usually, you can throw multiple weapons with TWF, but because using the power is a separate full-round action which includes only the throwing of one item, you would have to use two full-round actions to throw two items.

So you're suggesting to just go with a combat focused druid and leave most of the spellcasting behind? If that makes it work I guess it's fine, but I have a hard time giving up something so iconic as druid casting, especially when I'm building for an encounter that should be difficult and dynamic.

I've been DMing WotR for the past few months, and the one thing I will say about mythic tiers is that you don't really have to care about whether or not a build is viable/not viable. The mixture of Champion/Archmage sounds to be a really interesting and rewarding combination, but I would warn you to keep a strong idea of what your character is doing later in the game. You might reach the point where you're not sure if you're really filling the role of Archer or Caster, and that can be frustrating. "Do I wanna fire an arrow or cast a spell?" If you're able to find a combination of classes and paths that compliment each other and don't just kinda clunk around, I would definitely jump on that.

With all that in mind, I would suggest moving into AA after experimenting with the different spells you like and which are useful to you as a ZA. You have some unique options for controlling the battlefield, and your archery is going to improve considerably through buffs and class abilities. Just don't lose sight of the image you have of your character. As long as you're happy with how it plays, the rest should be fine.

As you already went over, Wizards and Sorcerers can be decent shapeshifters, and you could certainly call them weaker than the creatures they shapeshift into. However, their spell list isn't designed for shapeshifters and therefore you're going to be a wizard for a long time before you get any good polymorph spells. If you and your DM have got a good understanding, playing the summoner might not be a bad idea. Players whose builds hog the spotlight are typically annoying because they either don't notice or don't care. If you're aware that your character has the potential to be game-breaking and fun-killing, you're already a step ahead and can tailor your play style if problems arise.

What is the focus of the campaign going to be? If you've got a custom setting, I might consider favoring a lower-magic scenario, just so the mid-high level wizard BBEG doesn't wipe them without a fight. I wouldn't be worried about healing necessarily, but if you're planning to throw a lot of casters at them, they're going to start hurting for it.

I'm working on coming up with a druid to emulate the story of Goldilocks and the three bears to serve as a mythic trial in a campaign I'm running, but I'm not that familiar with how to make a good Druid. I'm looking at something around level 10, with 2-3 Mythic tiers. What have you guys got to say on the matter?

slash140 wrote:

Something I've never really seen attempted is a build using pole arms alongside shields. I always thought spears and the like were somewhat lackluster considering their inability to strike adjacent targets, but having the shield to bash with might be able to account for that weakness. And the reach is certainly an excellent thing to have when you're on the front lines.

EDIT: Upon further research, I see that spears and their cousins are two-handed weapons, making it pretty much impossible to wield them with a shield. Such a pity, I was excited about that build for a minute.

Somewhat ironic considering the greek hoplite/roman legion combat style which was so very effective over the years.

There's a 3rd party feat, but those are always third party.

Thanks for the link, that hoplite image is exactly what I had in mind and this feat doesn't look that bad.

Something I've never really seen attempted is a build using pole arms alongside shields. I always thought spears and the like were somewhat lackluster considering their inability to strike adjacent targets, but having the shield to bash with might be able to account for that weakness. And the reach is certainly an excellent thing to have when you're on the front lines.

EDIT: Upon further research, I see that spears and their cousins are two-handed weapons, making it pretty much impossible to wield them with a shield. Such a pity, I was excited about that build for a minute.

So, what I'm hearing is that after all the discussion, Dead Shot is still a crappy deed that should generally be avoided? It seems like such a linchpin of the class for it to be generally ignored because of poor design.

Going back to Pinning Rend, if your unarmed damage is 1d6, would you deal 1d6 of bleed damage? Or have i misunderstood the feat?