Howdie folks,
As we prepare for the journey that is Kingmaker in our second group, I need to make a character for it, as I finally(!) don't GM but play. So, so far I am leaning to a ranger gnome, slightly crazy person. From the AGP I am picking either the Guide or Spirit Ranger "subtype".
The campaign trait will be "Pioneer", as this character will be solidly rooted in the natural borderlands.
Looking good so far?
I am wondering whether to throw in a few levels of Oracle. I plain and simple love the flavor of this class. The Mystery would be Nature, of course, to fit with the scheme so far.
Who can give any input on the idea(s) so far?
Howdie folks,
As we prepare for the journey that is Kingmaker in our second group, I need to make a character for it, as I finally(!) don't GM but play. So, so far I am leaning to a ranger gnome, slightly crazy person. From the AGP I am picking either the Guide or Spirit Ranger "subtype".
The campaign trait will be "Pioneer", as this character will be solidly rooted in the natural borderlands.Looking good so far?
I am wondering whether to throw in a few levels of Oracle. I plain and simple love the flavor of this class. The Mystery would be Nature, of course, to fit with the scheme so far.
Who can give any input on the idea(s) so far?
Rangers are awesome in Kingmaker. Gnome is an offbeat choice, but should provide some interesting advantages as well, throughout the campaign. You certainly shouldn't have to worry about bleaching unless your group opts for long stretches of downtime! I probably would like the Guide option better than the Spirit Ranger, particularly if you do then take a couple of levels of Oracle, which would seem to obviate the need for some of what the Spirit Ranger gives you. If you do Spirit Ranger without the dip into Oracle, it makes more sense to me.
As for the slightly crazy, well all gnomes are, and as long as it doesn't go beyond slightly, no problem. I don't think I'm revealing too much, given the name of the AP, to say your character will eventually be taking a leadership role of some sort in a new kingdom. Too much crazy could be a drawback in that aspect of the game.
Thanks for the input. Offbeat choice is pretty well what I am going for here. Not to cripple the character numbers wise, but to stray from you standard (half-)elf ranger stereotype. And as what the Players Guide says makes me hopeful that a gnome is a decent choice to have some fun with in the AP, that seems to work out.
No idea what you mean with "You certainly shouldn't have to worry about bleaching unless your group opts for long stretches of downtime!" Can you elaborate?
Other than that, I am just now a newly aquired Gnomes of Golarion for some more input :)
Nevermind, I read about the Bleaching. Thanks again.
Anything else, anyone else?
Nevermind, I read about the Bleaching. Thanks again.
Anything else, anyone else?
i have a halfling cavalier (order of the cockatrice) for kingmaker, the greatest character i ever made to be honest.
he originally rode a wolf named fluffy, the stag lord put an end to that mount so he has since trained a ram he named johnny butte.i'd recommend cavalier, kingmaker is the best adventure path for cavaliers to truly shine.
Greetings, fellow travellers.
I would actually go for a human character. Sure, you might meet a couple of gnomes along the way, but the whole region is "run" by humans. Imagining a gnome in a leadership position, hm, doesn't work for me.
But than again, I am not a huge fan of that race (actually I banned them from my campaign as a player race).
Being crazy shouldn't be an issue, as it is not tied to a specific race.
Maybe go for halfling having escaped from Cheliax and taking refuge in the Riverlands. Can't remember which one, but one of the six freedoms prohibits slavery. Having gone crazy during slavery while working for a devil worshipping Chelaxian shouldn't be too complicated to put into the character's background.
As already mentioned the ranger class works really well in the AP, in fact every class which has an affinity to the nature theme is awesome.
Ruyan.
|
Greetings, fellow travellers.
I would actually go for a human character. Sure, you might meet a couple of gnomes along the way, but the whole region is "run" by humans. Imagining a gnome in a leadership position, hm, doesn't work for me.
Ruyan.
I could actually except a gnome in the position of Magister. Gnome illusionists are famous worldwide. another good class for the gnome would be the alchemist. A GM gnome NPC from a previous campaign loved to throw "Tinkerbottom Bombs (his name was Tinkerbottom)." This was before the alchemist class, but that is what he would be.
Leadership would not actually be my gnomes strong side, that is true... But I am not sure I ought to build a char with that in mind.
No you shouldn't build the character with the end of the campaign in mind. Build the character that you want to build, exactly the way you want to build him. Chances are that if you do that, the amount of fun you will have within the game will be exponentially bigger than if you go with backgrounds and such like that other people have suggested to you.
There is no right or wrong way to play the game, so why not go ahead and play it your way?
rangers completely and totally rock this AP. one of my players has a ranger (favored terrain - forest. enemies are fey and humans) and he's proven his character concept many times over. I think any outdoors based class will be useful though. druid works too for that matter.
Only that leadership starts with #2 here - so 5 books (~12-15 levels) in a high-up position to consider.
There is no right or wrong way to play the game, so why not go ahead and play it your way?
Sure thing, I will play and build my character my own way :) I merely use this thread to get input, possible further ideas and such, as well as answers to questions. Which, if I may, works out nicely so far.
I will most certainly stick with the gnome ranger base. Oracle is iffy, with a tendency towards "no". Spirit ranger or Guide are also undecided, but from the background of the char I lean towars Guide here.
a gnome ranger does sound fun, do you mind if inquire as to the combat style you're going with, i'm just curious. i've always been partial to rangers and druids myself.
a gnome ranger does sound fun, do you mind if inquire as to the combat style you're going with, i'm just curious. i've always been partial to rangers and druids myself.
I was going for a ranged ranger (Ha!), which, numbers-wise is a bit of a drawback, short bow and all, but sounds like fun. Hmm, come to think of it, maybe a crossbow gnome would be just crazy enough to try..
On the note of crossbow ranger: As I ranger gets all simple weapons by default, light and heavy crossbows are included in that, right? So I could indeed take Rapid Reload as my 1st level feat, true?
On another note: Mounted crazy gnome ranger might be something to think about.. ah, options, options, options...
On the note of crossbow ranger: As I ranger gets all simple weapons by default, light and heavy crossbows are included in that, right? So I could indeed take Rapid Reload as my 1st level feat, true?
On another note: Mounted crazy gnome ranger might be something to think about.. ah, options, options, options...
That is correct, you are proficient with crossbows (virtually everyone is) and can, if you desire, take rapid reload as your first level feat. Only drawback is that, because you are a gnome, size Small, you have to use small weapons, which do less damage, but there are ways to ameliorate that with feats and spells. The advantage (and disadvantage) of crossbows, of course, is that they are not dependent on Strength.
Mounted is good in Kingmaker. There is a lot of outdoor adventuring. And as a Small character you can ride a Medium mount in some indoor locations, even. It does require you to invest come in feats and skills to really pull off the mounted concept to its best, but it could be cool.
Thanks for the input. Offbeat choice is pretty well what I am going for here. Not to cripple the character numbers wise, but to stray from you standard (half-)elf ranger stereotype.
As someone who is currently playing an Elven Ranger (only the real thing will do) in Kingmaker, I think I can speak to this class/role with some (limited) authority.
As Brian Bachman said, a Ranger is a great choice for this particular AP. You simply won't be disappointed. One thing you need to consider, which perhaps I didn't, is that you're going to be heavily involved in setting up a human province/kingdom. By choosing a race other than human, you are effectively cutting yourself out of any sort of Leadership role. Certainly you will be able to fulfill Kingdom roles (like Marshal), but you'll not be crowned King. If that is something that doesn't appeal to you, fair enough. For myself, I sometimes regret my racial choice.
In short (haha), just make sure that Gnome is exactly where you want to go with this PC. As I am having fun with my Elf, I am sure you can have success as well.
AGP options: I went Core Ranger and that is something I definitely haven't regretted.
Thanks for the input. Offbeat choice is pretty well what I am going for here. Not to cripple the character numbers wise, but to stray from you standard (half-)elf ranger stereotype.As someone who is currently playing an Elven Ranger (only the real thing will do) in Kingmaker, I think I can speak to this class/role with some (limited) authority.
As Brian Bachman said, a Ranger is a great choice for this particular AP. You simply won't be disappointed. One thing you need to consider, which perhaps I didn't, is that you're going to be heavily involved in setting up a human province/kingdom. By choosing a race other than human, you are effectively cutting yourself out of any sort of Leadership role. Certainly you will be able to fulfill Kingdom roles (like Marshal), but you'll not be crowned King. If that is something that doesn't appeal to you, fair enough. For myself, I sometimes regret my racial choice.
In short (haha), just make sure that Gnome is exactly where you want to go with this PC. As I am having fun with my Elf, I am sure you can have success as well.
AGP options: I went Core Ranger and that is something I definitely haven't regretted.
i gotta disagree with you there, we have an all halfling party, just because you aren't human doesn't preclude you from being king (or whatever form of government you use).
i gotta disagree with you there, we have an all halfling party, just because you aren't human doesn't preclude you from being king (or whatever form of government you use).
Please don't think I'm telling you that you're group is doing it bad-wrong. In fact, if you're having fun, then you're clearly doing it right.
I'm not 100% on this statistic, but I believe Humans are the most prolific race on Golarion. Is that right?
Speaking for my game, when you look at Golarion there are racial regions, like Kyonin for eaxample, where a particular race is in absolute control. Our group just assumed that because Brevoy is a human-centric state, so too would their puppet-state be human-centric. I don't think a bunch of humans would look to kindly to owing fealty to a haughty Elf.
i guess it all depends how you want your game. our kingdom, while human-centric has a growing halfling population as word of a halfling-led kingdom has begun to spread.
just because you are a "haughty elf" doesn't mean people won't accept you for leader if you're the best person for the job (there's even a form of government called a meritocracy). not all humans are ignorant and racist and if the gm is playing them all that way he is doing everyone a disservice.
however as you said if you are having fun go nuts.
i'm not trying to be a jerk or call anyone racist (gamers have been in my experience the least racist people out there), i'm just a bit tired of the "i'm different race so humans won't want me to be king" argument. my two cents (before taxes).
Speaking for my game, when you look at Golarion there are racial regions, like Kyonin for eaxample, where a particular race is in absolute control. Our group just assumed that because Brevoy is a human-centric state, so too would their puppet-state be human-centric. I don't think a bunch of humans would look to kindly to owing fealty to a haughty Elf.
it's a valid assumption, but not necessarily true. the back story for the campaign i'm running is that the players are all third or fourth sons/daughters of various Brevic families...but they're also 'mistakes' that the family elders would rather not have around while everyone is maneuvering to take the throne. party composition so far is:
1. Human bard (took the bastard trait).
2. half orc inquisitor (daddy liked orc women).
3. half elf brother and sister (twins. mom got it on with an elf).
4. a dhampir necromancer (mommy got bit while pregnant, died screaming in an insane asylum).
5. human ranger (too provincial for court, fourth son in line of succession).
one of the half elves is also an infernal bloodline sorcerer. so thats another reason for ditching the twins. um...plus the players watch a lot of 'Game of Thrones' and REALLY liked the Lannister brother/sister thing....'nuff said 'bout that.
|
|
i guess it all depends how you want your game. our kingdom, while human-centric has a growing halfling population as word of a halfling-led kingdom has begun to spread.
just because you are a "haughty elf" doesn't mean people won't accept you for leader if you're the best person for the job (there's even a form of government called a meritocracy). not all humans are ignorant and racist and if the gm is playing them all that way he is doing everyone a disservice.
however as you said if you are having fun go nuts.
i'm not trying to be a jerk or call anyone racist (gamers have been in my experience the least racist people out there), i'm just a bit tired of the "i'm different race so humans won't want me to be king" argument. my two cents (before taxes).
I have to agree, and disagree. I say if the party is ok with it, you could have any race in the ruler position. While realism can be nice, don't let it interfer with the enjoyment of the game.
Having said that, a human does not have to be racist to not want to be ruled by another race. Other races, with the possible exception of elves, simply don't understand the human mentality enough to rule a kingdom of humans. An elven kingdom actually makes alot of sense in this area. The Stolen Lands have alot of forest with fey, a typical backdrop for elven kingdoms. The only problem with elves is that since they live so long, the kingdom building would go very slow, because wy go fast if you live for several hundred years. If there are any shorter lived races in the party, they will be ong dead before you are ready for the 5th book.
Personally humans are my favorite race to play. I love the extra skill point and feat. Plus, I know ow humans work and think.
A couple of points:
1) Kingmaker doesn't have to be played in Golarion.
2) Even if it is played in Golarion, it doesn't have to be Golarion exactly as written. Every GM changes some stuff, I'm sure, and the very actions of the PCs will change history in their world, creating differences from the published world. The setting is there to enhance play, not restrict it.
3) The kingdom is the player's sandbox, and they should be given freedom to do with it what they will, within reason. They can form it in whatever image they want. They are the leaders and can choose who fills what role themselves. Then people of various races immigrate or not, as they see fit. It's not a democracy in which the immigrants get to choose their leaders (unless the PCs make it so). The only vote the immigrant citizens get is with their feet. Frankly, most of them will be making their decisions based on whether they think they can prosper in this new kingdom, not on whose butt is currently planted on the throne.
4) Don't assume human racism is common. I haven't gotten that from my reading of the Golarion setting. There are certainly racial tensions and rivalries and some areas are more tolerant than others, but in most places, the races seem to mingle pretty well and are pretty tolerant of each other.
5) I would hesitate to suggest anything that would restrict a player's choices in character creation without really good reason, and I think "humans wouldn't like a gnome leader" isn't good enough, or even necessarily true.
6) Finally, there is absolutely nothing in the kingdom-building rules mechanically (nor should there be) giving penalties or bonuses to specific races in leadership roles. While some GMs might say the choice of a different race as leader has certain logical consequences, that is definitely that GM's own interpretation, not the intent of the designers. Personally, I think it would be a poor interpretation, and most citizens would probably prefer a half-orc paladin of Iomedae as king to a human necromancer.
1) Kingmaker doesn't have to be played in Golarion.
You're right of course, it doesn't. That doesn't change the fact that it is an AP set in the world of Golarian. When discussing Pathfinder APs, with complete strangers, one makes basic assumptions that they are playing within that game world.
2) Even if it is played in Golarion, it doesn't have to be Golarion exactly as written. Every GM changes some stuff, I'm sure, and the very actions of the PCs will change history in their world, creating differences from the published world. The setting is there to enhance play, not restrict it.
This seems like it should have been prefaced "In my opinion." Looking at Golarian, Brevoy specifically, while there is nothing in the rules explicitly denying a race other than human to take the thrown, it seems only natural that a human leader will emerge.
The above is my opinion. :)
3) The kingdom is the player's sandbox, and they should be given freedom to do with it what they will, within reason. They can form it in whatever image they want. They are the leaders and can choose who fills what role themselves. Then people of various races immigrate or not, as they see fit. It's not a democracy in which the immigrants get to choose their leaders (unless the PCs make it so). The only vote the immigrant citizens get is with their feet. Frankly, most of them will be making their decisions based on whether they think they can prosper in this new kingdom, not on whose butt is currently planted on the throne.
Again, this is your opinion, Brian.
Yes, Kingmaker is a sandbox-type adventure. Yes, the characters can do as they will. When it comes to the role of Baron, or Kingdom Ruler, anyone can take it. My question, my concern, is why would a non-human seek to rule a human-heavy kingdom? There would need to be some really good reasons, other than "I want to."
Would you allow a non-Elf to seek, and attain, leadership over Kyonin?
4) Don't assume human racism is common. I haven't gotten that from my reading of the Golarion setting. There are certainly racial tensions and rivalries and some areas are more tolerant than others, but in most places, the races seem to mingle pretty well and are pretty tolerant of each other.
Did you play Second Darkness, Brian? 'Cause let me tell you, racism is alive and well in the elven kingdoms. Why is that? Because elves have been portrayed as distant and isolationist as long as female warriors have been forced to wear fur bikinis.
If you want to assume that everything in Golarian is hunky dory, well that's cool. Other people assume that Golarian is a little bit like the real world, where more often than not, people form their own isolated (or insulated perhaps) communities.
5) I would hesitate to suggest anything that would restrict a player's choices in character creation without really good reason, and I think "humans wouldn't like a gnome leader" isn't good enough, or even necessarily true.
I think the question is two-fold; why would a capricious gnome seek government office over a human-state and why would said humans have him? I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it doesn't seem likely on either side of the equation.
6) Finally, there is absolutely nothing in the kingdom-building rules mechanically (nor should there be) giving penalties or bonuses to specific races in leadership roles.
That is true, completely. I agree that mechanically there is no reason to limit the races.
Let me ask you this, Brian: you have a Gnome Ranger and a Human Paladin and both players ardently want to be King. How do you resolve that problem? Personally, I think you put the burden of proof, so to speak, on the gnome player. He needs to really make a case for why his character wants and deserves this role. The CHA-heavy Paladin is such a natural choice, how do you say "sorry, the gnome gets it"?
While some GMs might say the choice of a different race as leader has certain logical consequences, that is definitely that GM's own interpretation, not the intent of the designers.
I wasn't there when they designed this AP, but I'm willing to bet they had 3 races in mind for King; human, half-elf and half-orc. Again, not saying the other races can't take that particular role, just that there needs to some substance as to why they would want to.
Would you allow a non-Elf to seek, and attain, leadership over Kyonin?
Without getting into everything else said, as I don't argue against opinions (hey, I've my own, ya know?), this doesn't exactly fit, as Kyonin is already an elven-ruled nation.
If the PCs were seeking to rule Brevoy, the humans may have a fit. Pitax, Mivon, Numeria, or the River Kingdoms? Humans may have a fit. But the Stolen Lands aren't ruled by anyone. They're up for the taking by anyone of any race who can grab and hold it. I doubt Restov would much care the race who takes the Stolen Lands' crown, as long as they are viewed as friends. They're trying to solidify their untamed borders in case of war. They may prefer a human, but hey, such is war. They'll take a haughty elf or wistful gnome, or even a surly dwarf if it means they have a strong border. (None of them half-orcs, though. They don't live long enough. And they smell!:)
Of course, the above is my opinion. Your game's mileage may vary... :)
Would you allow a non-Elf to seek, and attain, leadership over Kyonin?Without getting into everything else said, as I don't argue against opinions (hey, I've my own, ya know?), this doesn't exactly fit, as Kyonin is already an elven-ruled nation.
I brought up Kyonin as an example of designed racism in Golarian. The Kobold Question, which will come up in Kingmaker, is another example.
Basically, it is my contention that it is a logical assumption that a puppet-state of Brevoy, a human-centric state, would likewise be human-centric. I am not saying that if you play any other way, that you are playing Pathfinder bad-wrong. I'm saying that non-Human characters need to demonstrate why they would seek to be rulers of a human-centric state, especially when suitable human characters (who want the role) are already in the party.
Brian's 6pt statement was a lot of opinion and rather made me feel as though he was saying "loaba, you are making assumptions that are bad-wrong." I didn't really appreciate that.
Brian's 6pt statement was a lot of opinion and rather made me feel as though he was saying "loaba, you are making assumptions that are bad-wrong." I didn't really appreciate that.
No worries. I steer clear of bad-wrong when it comes to such things as opinions. Who the heck am I to say someone's game is one way or another? I and my players seem to be having fun. If you and your players are, too, then you're good-right, even if we were to disagree on such matters as human-elf relations. :)
|
|
How'd we get so far off topic. All he wanted to know was how it would work in campaign. He never said what position he wanted, or even if he wanted a leadership position. And here we are arguing about racism in Golarian. The truth is like any place, Golarian has racism. How wide spread it is is up the DM. We are all gamers, we all play and love Pathfinder. Everyone's version of the world will be different. None are wrong, they are just different. Whether the world is a perfect fantasy place where all "good" races are allied and perfectly friendly against the "dark" races, or it is very gritty, and there is racism in the world, elves believing themselves so superios, dwarves being insulsar and not wanting anything to do with the world, and humans believeing that they should rule everything is up to ecah DM. There is no right or wrong answer.
As for the original question, I think a gnome ranger would be fun for you. I think you will not weaken yourself too much by taking some levels of Oracle. It will affect BAB. I usually prefer one class, maybe two if it makes it easier to get to a prestige class. But, it is your character. Have fun with it. As long as YOU enjoy plaing it, it will be successful. I remember a player creating and playing quite successfully a halfing barbarian. Another person created a half-orc monk who was raised by dwarves. So, have fun, that is the main thing. Any character can be survivable, just use smart tactics that bring you advantages out and limit your disadvatnges.
I and my players seem to be having fun. If you and your players are, too, then you're good-right, even if we were to disagree on such matters as human-elf relations. :)
If everyone at the table is having fun, then you gotta be playing good/right. :)
To the OP - thread derailed, and that was not my intention.
I'll rephrase what I said in my initial post. If you're planning on vying for the role of Ruler, that's cool. It wouldn't be cool in my game, in yours it could be just fine. Overall, regardless of which Kingdom Role you pursue, you've made great class and race selections. There is gonna be so much stuff you're character will be drawn too, it'll be lots of fun.
Lots of stuff in response to my lots of stuff.
First off, I apologize if it looked like I was telling you you were doing it wrong. That was not my intent. On the contrary, I was reacting to what I perceived as your telling the OP that what he planned to do wouldn't work, based on some highly subjective opinions of your own.
Of course, most everything I write is opinion, save on those very rare cases when I quotes rules. Sometimes I explicitly identify it as such, sometimes not. Just to be fair, I note that you did not explicitly identify the following statement, which is what I was reacting to, as opinion: "By choosing a race other than human, you are effectively cutting yourself out of any sort of Leadership role." That said, your later posts do make that clear, and I have no problem with your voicing your opinion, even if I disagree with it.
In answer to your questions:
-- Kyonin is irrelevant to the issue. That is an established kingdom with established rulers and succession. Kingmaker is about a brand new kingdom being carved from the wilderness, whose demographics and leadership are completely up to each individual group to determine. That said, if one of my players, even if a non-elf, said he wanted to try and become the ruler of Kyonin, I wouldn't tell him he couldn't try. I might mention the nigh-impossiblity of the task, though.
-- I did not play and don't own Second Darkness. I'll take your word for it that elves are portrayed as racist in Kyonin. They are in the world setting as well. My point is not that racism does not exist in Golarion. My point is that Kyonin is just one kingdom and that racism should not be assumed to be the driving factor everywhere in the world. Lots of the described kingdoms have much more mixed populations and tolerant views.
-- As to why would the gnome want to seek office, that's for him to decide, not either of us. As to why would the humans accept him, again I don't think you should assume they would reject him just because he was a gnome or even that your should assume that every gnome is capricious. There are a wide variety of kingdom leadership roles, requiring a wide variety of talents, and I think the character as described would probably be fine for many of them.
-- As to how to decide between a gnome and human who both want to be king, the answer is simple. I don't decide at all. The players do, amongst themselves. They may or may not bring race and racism up as part of the argument. That's up to them and I'm certainly not going to tell them they have to, or that they can't.
-- Finally, I'll take your bet on designer intent. Favorite beer at a pub of your choice should we ever meet? James or one of the other designers want to weigh in and help us out?
Really, really finally, I join you in apologizing for the thread derail. In my opinion, it wasn't completely unrelated to the OP's original request, which was to evaluate a character concept. It was just a tangent off of that request.
Brian - thanks for your response. You are quite correct in saying that my first statement did come across as though I was telling the OP "this is the law." That's my bad and rather than post a long response to what you said, I'm just going to agree to disagree.
About that bet - you're on. :)
sorry!, partially my fault for derailment. great arguments all around, intelligent discussion is always fun to read:) i'm a big fan of golarion gnomes and rangers so i love the choices considered.
As to why would the gnome want to seek office, that's for him to decide, not either of us. As to why would the humans accept him, again I don't think you should assume they would reject him just because he was a gnome or even that your should assume that every gnome is capricious. There are a wide variety of kingdom leadership roles, requiring a wide variety of talents, and I think the character as described would probably be fine for many of them.
I picked this one point out because it is relevant to the OP and his character.
Yes, there are many Kingdom Roles for the PC to choose from. Going strictly off the assumption that the OP's character will be built to the strengths of the Ranger Class, the role of Marshal looks to be a natural fit. Also, I believe Counselor would be a good choice for a high WIS Ranger. The role of Kingdom Ruler, to my mind, simply doesn't appear to be a good fit.
As to why would the gnome want to seek office, that's for him to decide, not either of us. As to why would the humans accept him, again I don't think you should assume they would reject him just because he was a gnome or even that your should assume that every gnome is capricious. There are a wide variety of kingdom leadership roles, requiring a wide variety of talents, and I think the character as described would probably be fine for many of them.I picked this one point out because it is relevant to the OP and his character.
Yes, there are many Kingdom Roles for the PC to choose from. Going strictly off the assumption that the OP's character will be built to the strengths of the Ranger Class, the role of Marshal looks to be a natural fit. Also, I believe Counselor would be a good choice for a high WIS Ranger. The role of Kingdom Ruler, to my mind, simply doesn't appear to be a good fit.
I pretty much agree, stated that way. Marshal is the role pretty much designed for rangers. Counselor can be anybody with a decent Wisdom. And of course high Charisma helps in multiple roles.
We're cool.
Of course, you'll need to know my favorite beer is Guiness, for when I win our bet. :)
Of course, you'll need to know my favorite beer is Guiness, for when I win our bet. :)
Guiness is a fine choice, I like a nice stout myself. During the summer months, I imbibe much hoegaarden or czechvar (when I can find it.)
Holy mackerel, you guys went running with this one, did ya?
To put a stop to this (unless you enjoy this discussion just too much, in which case you are free to go on): My gnome would not ever dream of sitting on anything remotely resembling a throne, so this whole issue is really not one for me or him.
I did go with xbow-ranger, as that seems just to cool. A bit of a fantasy play on the warhammer 40k dud with the biggest weapon of them all... just scaled to gnome size, which kind of makes it just more fun :)
You all were very entertaining to read and did - believe you me - actually help my thought process. Thanks for all of that.
Now, to start the campaign and enjoy it!
Enjoy! And I hope you have a lot of fun and it works out as planned for you (and your alternate personality).
Ruyan.