Pathfinder 1.5


Homebrew and House Rules

101 to 150 of 414 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

ciretose wrote:
I would define this as removing SoD spells. The circle of death only working on mooks below your level is a good example.

That's not what I'm suggesting though ... what I'm suggesting is for instance giving creatures at 50-100% HP a +10 to will/fortitude saves, and +5 at 25-50% ... something like that.

Liberty's Edge

Talonhawke wrote:

Btw Vinland it may not be your standard issue Sorcerer but the Emperyal(sp?) bloodline allows your Sorcerer to cast using his wisdom.

@Ciertose when you talk about rogues using CHA for Atk/Dam it makes me picture Inyago Montoya.

You say it like it is a bad thing (although he was clearly a fighter)

I just feel like the rogue concept doesn't fit with the rogue as written.

How can someone with "Rogue's luck" have some of the worst saves in the game?

How can a "Charming Rogue" have no class benefit from Charisma?

The Rogue class isn't particularly "Roguish". I think that should be fixed.


Okay, Cirtose has a point. It does cause some flavor issues for many characters, even if it does make sense for certain character concepts to use Wisdom. What about this: at first level Sorcerers choose how they use their magic: through force of personality or sheer willpower. If they choose the first, they are Charisma casters. If the second, they are Wisdom casters. Once made, this choice cannot be changed. This allows more character customization without any power increase (I got it straight from James Jacobs that Wisdom Sorcerers are not unbalancing when I brought it up in the Ask James Jacobs thread) and without destroying the classic view of what a Sorcerer is.

What if the Monk Wis bonus restriction only applied to Monks that multiclassed?

Liberty's Edge

Pinky's Brain wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I would define this as removing SoD spells. The circle of death only working on mooks below your level is a good example.
That's not what I'm suggesting though ... what I'm suggesting is for instance giving creatures at 50-100% HP a +10 to will/fortitude saves, and +5 at 25-50% ... something like that.

And when you do that, you add a lot of layers to calculate at the table.

"I cast X"

"What is the save? How much damage does it do?"

"What percentage of hit points does he have left?"

K.I.S.S.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:
Scratch that. If the Cleric can use Wisdom as a casting stat and have a high will save progression, so can a Sorcerer.

The issue is the flavor and the synergy.

Sorcerers aren't wise by flavor, Clerics are. Sorcerers draw forth magic without having to study due to being that cool.

Second, if you allow an arcane class to have the same casting stat as a divine class, you break the Mystic Theurge and basically beg for a one level monk dip.

Mystic Theurge is already broken in the fact that you've delayed your primary casting side by at least 3 levels. Making them cast with a single attribute helps a little, but it certainly doesn't fix the core problem.

That monk dip you were suggesting? Delays the casting by another level, so now you're always behind by two spell levels instead of behind two spell levels half the time and one spell level the other half.

End conclusion: still weaker than going straight in either class.

True, but they end up being worth it later. The problem is you have to deal with sucking for a long time.


Talonhawke wrote:
Btw Vinland it may not be your standard issue Sorcerer but the Emperyal(sp?) bloodline allows your Sorcerer to cast using his wisdom.

That requires you to be either Celestial or crossblooded, though.

Shadow Lodge

Vinland Forever wrote:

What about this: at first level Sorcerers choose how they use their magic: through force of personality or sheer willpower. If they choose the first, they are Charisma casters. If the second, they are Wisdom casters. Once made, this choice cannot be changed. This allows more character customization without any power increase (I got it straight from James Jacobs that Wisdom Sorcerers are not unbalancing when I brought it up in the Ask James Jacobs thread) and without destroying the classic view of what a Sorcerer is.

Would they also get to chane some class skills around, too?

What about the Oracle? Seems even more a prime Wis canidate than Sorcerer, to me. I'm just curious what you (all) think.


ciretose wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

Btw Vinland it may not be your standard issue Sorcerer but the Emperyal(sp?) bloodline allows your Sorcerer to cast using his wisdom.

@Ciertose when you talk about rogues using CHA for Atk/Dam it makes me picture Inyago Montoya.

You say it like it is a bad thing (although he was clearly a fighter)

I just feel like the rogue concept doesn't fit with the rogue as written.

How can someone with "Rogue's luck" have some of the worst saves in the game?

How can a "Charming Rogue" have no class benefit from Charisma?

The Rogue class isn't particularly "Roguish". I think that should be fixed.

Damn lack of inflection on the Internet.

I love that thought it makes me think of a guy walking you down and attacking you while he describes what he is going to do you.

A better example might be Wesley at the end of the movie during the whole "To the Pain" thing.


As a personal request, I wish bards were less obnoxious to play. I've been playing one recently, and it feels like everything good they get actually only looks good, but in fact is much much worse than it should be.

This usually comes from reading a clause at the end of a cross-reference relevant to a bard power that amounts to "disclaimer, the above power can't be used for anything cool or useful in combat, go play a fighter".

A bigger role for masterpieces in the class would go a long way, I think.

Other than that, I don't think the classes need much change, it's the general presentation of data that should be more procedural. I should be able to flip to a relevant chapter when GMing and stay there, instead of jumping around the book or memorizing the whole thing.

Skills shouldn't be as sidelined as they currently are. They don't get nearly enough attention lately, and so the skill-dependent classes have suffered as even their powers become more combat focused.

And for pete's sake, can we abolish fractional edition numbers? Call it 2nd Edition. Or Revised. I like revised. No more fractions!


Evil Lincoln wrote:

As a personal request, I wish bards were less obnoxious to play. I've been playing one recently, and it feels like everything good they get actually only looks good, but in fact is much much worse than it should be.

This usually comes from reading a clause at the end of a cross-reference relevant to a bard power that amounts to "disclaimer, the above power can't be used for anything cool or useful in combat, go play a fighter".

What do you mean? I have seen them be effective, and that was before I even began to like them.

Liberty's Edge

Beckett wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:

What about this: at first level Sorcerers choose how they use their magic: through force of personality or sheer willpower. If they choose the first, they are Charisma casters. If the second, they are Wisdom casters. Once made, this choice cannot be changed. This allows more character customization without any power increase (I got it straight from James Jacobs that Wisdom Sorcerers are not unbalancing when I brought it up in the Ask James Jacobs thread) and without destroying the classic view of what a Sorcerer is.

Would they also get to chane some class skills around, too?

What about the Oracle? Seems even more a prime Wis canidate than Sorcerer, to me. I'm just curious what you (all) think.

I am fine with Oracle as Charisma when you remember that they aren't asking for the spells, the spells are being put upon them by the gods, who noticed them and chose them, often against their will.

They were so cool, Gods just give them powers without even making them pray.


Beckett wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:

What about this: at first level Sorcerers choose how they use their magic: through force of personality or sheer willpower. If they choose the first, they are Charisma casters. If the second, they are Wisdom casters. Once made, this choice cannot be changed. This allows more character customization without any power increase (I got it straight from James Jacobs that Wisdom Sorcerers are not unbalancing when I brought it up in the Ask James Jacobs thread) and without destroying the classic view of what a Sorcerer is.

Would they also get to chane some class skills around, too?

What about the Oracle? Seems even more a prime Wis canidate than Sorcerer, to me. I'm just curious what you (all) think.

The same could be applied to the Oracle, yes. I see no reason why not.

As for skills, I'd have to think on that. I wasn't planning on changing them, though maybe a Wis Sorc could lose some social skills for some Knowledge skills.


ciretose wrote:
Beckett wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:

What about this: at first level Sorcerers choose how they use their magic: through force of personality or sheer willpower. If they choose the first, they are Charisma casters. If the second, they are Wisdom casters. Once made, this choice cannot be changed. This allows more character customization without any power increase (I got it straight from James Jacobs that Wisdom Sorcerers are not unbalancing when I brought it up in the Ask James Jacobs thread) and without destroying the classic view of what a Sorcerer is.

Would they also get to chane some class skills around, too?

What about the Oracle? Seems even more a prime Wis canidate than Sorcerer, to me. I'm just curious what you (all) think.

I am fine with Oracle as Charisma when you remember that they aren't asking for the spells, the spells are being put upon them by the gods, who noticed them and chose them, often against their will.

They were so cool, Gods just give them powers without even making them pray.

Well, that's what would be the great part about Wis casting being optional. If you like the Cha version, just use Cha.


wraithstrike wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:

As a personal request, I wish bards were less obnoxious to play. I've been playing one recently, and it feels like everything good they get actually only looks good, but in fact is much much worse than it should be.

This usually comes from reading a clause at the end of a cross-reference relevant to a bard power that amounts to "disclaimer, the above power can't be used for anything cool or useful in combat, go play a fighter".

What do you mean? I have seen them be effective, and that was before I even began to like them.

I'm not saying they're ineffective.

There are a number of bardic music powers (and somewhat more in the archetypes) that seem to do one thing but actually don't. That's frustrating. That's all...


Vinland Forever wrote:

Okay, Cirtose has a point. It does cause some flavor issues for many characters, even if it does make sense for certain character concepts to use Wisdom. What about this: at first level Sorcerers choose how they use their magic: through force of personality or sheer willpower. If they choose the first, they are Charisma casters. If the second, they are Wisdom casters. Once made, this choice cannot be changed. This allows more character customization without any power increase (I got it straight from James Jacobs that Wisdom Sorcerers are not unbalancing when I brought it up in the Ask James Jacobs thread) and without destroying the classic view of what a Sorcerer is.

What if the Monk Wis bonus restriction only applied to Monks that multiclassed?

Regardless of what the Sorcerer should be based on, I mentioned earlier that archetypes should be based on attributes. The con based sorcerer would be a bloatmage. The wis based srcerer would be a psion (or better, a mystic). The charisma based sorcerer would be a witch.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:

Okay, Cirtose has a point. It does cause some flavor issues for many characters, even if it does make sense for certain character concepts to use Wisdom. What about this: at first level Sorcerers choose how they use their magic: through force of personality or sheer willpower. If they choose the first, they are Charisma casters. If the second, they are Wisdom casters. Once made, this choice cannot be changed. This allows more character customization without any power increase (I got it straight from James Jacobs that Wisdom Sorcerers are not unbalancing when I brought it up in the Ask James Jacobs thread) and without destroying the classic view of what a Sorcerer is.

What if the Monk Wis bonus restriction only applied to Monks that multiclassed?

Regardless of what the Sorcerer should be based on, I mentioned earlier that archetypes should be based on attributes. The con based sorcerer would be a bloatmage. The wis based srcerer would be a psion (or better, a mystic). The charisma based sorcerer would be a witch.

As long as the Wisdom caster gets the full range of bloodline choices, I'm happy.

Liberty's Edge

Evil Lincoln wrote:

As a personal request, I wish bards were less obnoxious to play. I've been playing one recently, and it feels like everything good they get actually only looks good, but in fact is much much worse than it should be.

This usually comes from reading a clause at the end of a cross-reference relevant to a bard power that amounts to "disclaimer, the above power can't be used for anything cool or useful in combat, go play a fighter".

A bigger role for masterpieces in the class would go a long way, I think.

Other than that, I don't think the classes need much change, it's the general presentation of data that should be more procedural. I should be able to flip to a relevant chapter when GMing and stay there, instead of jumping around the book or memorizing the whole thing.

Skills shouldn't be as sidelined as they currently are. They don't get nearly enough attention lately, and so the skill-dependent classes have suffered as even their powers become more combat focused.

And for pete's sake, can we abolish fractional edition numbers? Call it 2nd Edition. Or Revised. I like revised. No more fractions!

I really like parts of the Bard, but I hate playing Bards for similar reasons to the ones you posted.

I really like the know it all, master of all skills part. I am not a fan of the spell list or performance part. And that part is the core of the flavor of the class.

Archeologist is a great step toward what I would like to play. I would love a Rogue archetype that gave bardic knowledges, but I don't know what you could trade out.

Which is a shame, because Indiana Jones is a lot more Rogue than Bard IMHO.

Shadow Lodge

ciretose wrote:

I am fine with Oracle as Charisma when you remember that they aren't asking for the spells, the spells are being put upon them by the gods, who noticed them and chose them, often against their will.

They were so cool, Gods just give them powers without even making them pray.

True, but as was discusse earlier about the misconceptions of Wis vs Cha, Wis would give them the ability to understand and <mentally/spiritually> survive that, while Cha. . . lets them talk nice about something they don't even grasp? And again, with Will save, if they can function with this extra meddeling, shouldn't they be bastions of willpower and inner strength? I just really disagree with the notion the Spont. Casting = Cha, but I am more just nitpicking what I think are obvious errors in logic and breaks from the mood of play vs mechanics. It's all my personal opinion, rather than something I have a real mechanical issue with.

I also really had wished tat the Oracle was more options for the Cleric (and Druid/Paladin) than another class that is so basically similar that it steps on toes.


Beckett wrote:
ciretose wrote:

I am fine with Oracle as Charisma when you remember that they aren't asking for the spells, the spells are being put upon them by the gods, who noticed them and chose them, often against their will.

They were so cool, Gods just give them powers without even making them pray.

True, but as was discusse earlier about the misconceptions of Wis vs Cha, Wis would give them the ability to understand and <mentally/spiritually> survive that, while Cha. . . lets them talk nice about something they don't even grasp? And again, with Will save, if they can function with this extra meddeling, shouldn't they be bastions of willpower and inner strength? I just really disagree with the notion the Spont. Casting = Cha, but I am more just nitpicking what I think are obvious errors in logic and breaks from the mood of play vs mechanics. It's all my personal opinion, rather than something I have a real mechanical issue with.

This is why I think letting Sorcerers and Oracles choose Wis or Cha at first level is a good idea. It pretty much eliminates this inconsistency between whether Wis and Cha makes more sense.


Vinland Forever wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:

Okay, Cirtose has a point. It does cause some flavor issues for many characters, even if it does make sense for certain character concepts to use Wisdom. What about this: at first level Sorcerers choose how they use their magic: through force of personality or sheer willpower. If they choose the first, they are Charisma casters. If the second, they are Wisdom casters. Once made, this choice cannot be changed. This allows more character customization without any power increase (I got it straight from James Jacobs that Wisdom Sorcerers are not unbalancing when I brought it up in the Ask James Jacobs thread) and without destroying the classic view of what a Sorcerer is.

What if the Monk Wis bonus restriction only applied to Monks that multiclassed?

Regardless of what the Sorcerer should be based on, I mentioned earlier that archetypes should be based on attributes. The con based sorcerer would be a bloatmage. The wis based srcerer would be a psion (or better, a mystic). The charisma based sorcerer would be a witch.
As long as the Wisdom caster gets the full range of bloodline choices, I'm happy.

That's what eldrith heritage is for.


Beckett wrote:
ciretose wrote:

I am fine with Oracle as Charisma when you remember that they aren't asking for the spells, the spells are being put upon them by the gods, who noticed them and chose them, often against their will.

They were so cool, Gods just give them powers without even making them pray.

True, but as was discusse earlier about the misconceptions of Wis vs Cha, Wis would give them the ability to understand and <mentally/spiritually> survive that, while Cha. . . lets them talk nice about something they don't even grasp? And again, with Will save, if they can function with this extra meddeling, shouldn't they be bastions of willpower and inner strength? I just really disagree with the notion the Spont. Casting = Cha, but I am more just nitpicking what I think are obvious errors in logic and breaks from the mood of play vs mechanics. It's all my personal opinion, rather than something I have a real mechanical issue with.

I also really had wished tat the Oracle was more options for the Cleric (and Druid/Paladin) than another class that is so basically similar that it steps on toes.

Have you ever heard of the concept of Divine Right?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Which is a shame, because Indiana Jones is a lot more Rogue than Bard IMHO.

BS he is a Paladin <of neutrality>1, Anti-Paladin 3, <godless> Cleric of Exploration/Dungeoning 1, Fighter 2, Ex-Monk of the Whipings 4, Bard 0, Rogue .5, <not exactly Urban> Ranger 2, Expert 34.


Beckett wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Which is a shame, because Indiana Jones is a lot more Rogue than Bard IMHO.
BS he is a Paladin <of neutrality>1, Anti-Paladin 3, <godless> Cleric of Exploration/Dungeoning 1, Fighter 2, Ex-Monk of the Whipings 4, Bard 0, Rogue .5, <not exactly Urban> Ranger 2, Expert 34.

Considering how often he gets knocked out, I don't think he has the HP to back up your statement.

Liberty's Edge

Beckett wrote:


True, but as was discusse earlier about the misconceptions of Wis vs Cha, Wis would give them the ability to understand and <mentally/spiritually> survive that, while Cha. . . lets them talk nice about something they don't even grasp? And again, with Will save, if they can function with this extra meddeling, shouldn't they be bastions of willpower and inner strength? I just really disagree with the notion the Spont. Casting = Cha, but I am more just nitpicking what I think are obvious errors in logic and breaks from the mood of play vs mechanics. It's all my personal opinion, rather than something I have a real mechanical issue with.

I also really had wished tat the Oracle was more options for the Cleric (and Druid/Paladin) than another class that is so basically similar that it steps on toes.

Survive what? A god is making them take spells and cursing them.

They aren't bastions of anything, they are puppets of the gods, chosen by the gods whim rather than as a reward for worship.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:

Okay, Cirtose has a point. It does cause some flavor issues for many characters, even if it does make sense for certain character concepts to use Wisdom. What about this: at first level Sorcerers choose how they use their magic: through force of personality or sheer willpower. If they choose the first, they are Charisma casters. If the second, they are Wisdom casters. Once made, this choice cannot be changed. This allows more character customization without any power increase (I got it straight from James Jacobs that Wisdom Sorcerers are not unbalancing when I brought it up in the Ask James Jacobs thread) and without destroying the classic view of what a Sorcerer is.

What if the Monk Wis bonus restriction only applied to Monks that multiclassed?

Regardless of what the Sorcerer should be based on, I mentioned earlier that archetypes should be based on attributes. The con based sorcerer would be a bloatmage. The wis based srcerer would be a psion (or better, a mystic). The charisma based sorcerer would be a witch.
As long as the Wisdom caster gets the full range of bloodline choices, I'm happy.
That's what eldrith heritage is for.

You have to be 3rd level and there is a Charisma requirement. I want a Sorcerer with low Charisma for roleplay reasons: she's just about the shyest person ever born, and lacks confidence in social situations.

Shadow Lodge

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Have you ever heard of the concept of Divine Right?

Exactly, it pretty much destroys the Oracle.

Divine right is the idea that one holds power because the person is in the political/meritous POSITION they are in (like say a Cleric in a priesthood), and that they are there because G*d<s> deemed it. Therefore anything they do, regardless of their lack of charisma, Cha, Int, or undertanding of repercussions, is the will of G*d<s>.

:)
Or did yo mean something else completely?

The other side is that I still think of the oracle as intending to also fill the classic "prophet" fill. Especially in the real meaning of both words. I remember Paizo saying early on to look at the actual meaning of the word oracle to explain what the class is, and it seems like they went the exact opposite route, compaired to what people generally thought).

Anyway, the concept of a messenger that understands <most of> the message, but has difficulty showing/telling others (higher Wis, lower Cha) seems more fun and interestig to to me than one that has no clue what they are being given/cursed with/by, but can explain it vry well and prettily.

Shadow Lodge

Blue Star wrote:
Beckett wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Which is a shame, because Indiana Jones is a lot more Rogue than Bard IMHO.
BS he is a Paladin <of neutrality>1, Anti-Paladin <->3, <godless> Cleric of Exploration/Dungeoning 1, Fighter 2, Ex-Monk of the Whipings 4, Bard 0, Rogue .5, <not exactly Urban> Ranger 2, Expert 34.
Considering how often he gets knocked out, I don't think he has the HP to back up your statement.

It was a joke like the ultimate epic adventure ack in the end of Dragon mag. Actually, I don't recall IJ getting knocked out that much?

Liberty's Edge

Vinland Forever wrote:
You have to be 3rd level and there is a Charisma requirement. I want a Sorcerer with low Charisma for roleplay reasons: she's just about the shyest person ever born, and lacks confidence in social situations.

And?

Nothing you described precludes high Charisma.

Dark Archive

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Chris Ballard wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Give Monks REAL full BAB
No thank you.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Why? >.<

The medium BAB just right for them. They're better than sorcerers and wizards in weapons, but not as good as fighters (at least, most simple and martial weapons).

Liberty's Edge

Chris Ballard wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Chris Ballard wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Give Monks REAL full BAB
No thank you.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Why? >.<

The medium BAB just right for them. They're better than sorcerers and wizards in weapons, but not as good as fighters (at least, most simple and martial weapons).

Yes another reason why Gunslingers should be 3/4 BaB classes, possible with a flurry of bullets like feature.


Chris Ballard wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Chris Ballard wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Give Monks REAL full BAB
No thank you.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Why? >.<

The medium BAB just right for them. They're better than sorcerers and wizards in weapons, but not as good as fighters (at least, most simple and martial weapons).

Doesn't it bother anyone that the two lowest ranked Classes to most people are the only two Non-magical 3/4th BAB classes?


Chris Ballard wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Chris Ballard wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Give Monks REAL full BAB
No thank you.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Why? >.<

The medium BAB just right for them. They're better than sorcerers and wizards in weapons, but not as good as fighters (at least, most simple and martial weapons).

They have no spellcasting. If Monks had 6th level spells like a bard I would agree with you. As it is, Monks deserve full BAB. They almost have it anyway with Flurry, Full BAB just takes away the on/off mess and lets them qualify for feats on time.


ciretose wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:
You have to be 3rd level and there is a Charisma requirement. I want a Sorcerer with low Charisma for roleplay reasons: she's just about the shyest person ever born, and lacks confidence in social situations.

And?

Nothing you described precludes high Charisma.


Nobody is as good with weapons as fighters are, how does that make it Proof that they should all have a 3/4 BAB? Are you going to try and say the paladin, barbarian, cavalier, and ranger should all have a 3/4 BAB as well? They certainly aren't as good as a fighter is with a weapon.

Liberty's Edge

Vinland Forever wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:
You have to be 3rd level and there is a Charisma requirement. I want a Sorcerer with low Charisma for roleplay reasons: she's just about the shyest person ever born, and lacks confidence in social situations.

And?

Nothing you described precludes high Charisma.

And as I said, nothing precludes high Charisma. She is shy, she lacks confidence in social situation.

She shouldn't, because she is awesome, but she does. Maybe because she is shy because she has all these strange powers that presented at puberty. Maybe she lacks confidence in social situations because she is afraid if she gets mad she will explode in an arcane rage.

Regardless, she is still very charismatic. She just doesn't use it because she is shy and lacks confidence.

Dark Archive

Monks actually do get full BAB with some weapons, it's called Flurry Of Blows. It's good for the weapons that they should have a full BAB for.


Chris Ballard wrote:
Monks actually do get full BAB with some weapons, it's called Flurry Of Blows. It's good for the weapons that they should have a full BAB for.

Well, yes, but their 3/4 -actual- BAB affects their feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise.


Chris Ballard wrote:
Monks actually do get full BAB with some weapons, as long as they don't move more than five feet it's called Flurry Of Blows. It's good for when enemies stand still and take a beating and for using several weapons that are typically subpar and that a fighter archetype is better with.

Fixed that for you. ;P

Liberty's Edge

Blue Star wrote:
Chris Ballard wrote:
Monks actually do get full BAB with some weapons, it's called Flurry Of Blows. It's good for the weapons that they should have a full BAB for.
Well, yes, but their 3/4 -actual- BAB affects their feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise.

Yes, because they aren't a full BaB class.

On the other hand, they can take other feats without any prerequisites.


ciretose wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:
You have to be 3rd level and there is a Charisma requirement. I want a Sorcerer with low Charisma for roleplay reasons: she's just about the shyest person ever born, and lacks confidence in social situations.

And?

Nothing you described precludes high Charisma.

And as I said, nothing precludes high Charisma. She is shy, she lacks confidence in social situation.

She shouldn't, because she is awesome, but she does. Maybe because she is shy because she has all these strange powers that presented at puberty. Maybe she lacks confidence in social situations because she is afraid if she gets mad she will explode in an arcane rage.

Regardless, she is still very charismatic. She just doesn't use it because she is shy and lacks confidence.

If this is true, then everyone should have high Charisma.

She's no afraid to use her power. She doesn't think she has that much.

Dark Archive

Blue Star wrote:
Well, yes, but their 3/4 -actual- BAB affects their feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise.

Are there monks that actually want those feats? I've never heard of any monk wanting either of those two feats.


ciretose wrote:
Blue Star wrote:
Chris Ballard wrote:
Monks actually do get full BAB with some weapons, it's called Flurry Of Blows. It's good for the weapons that they should have a full BAB for.
Well, yes, but their 3/4 -actual- BAB affects their feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise.

Yes, because they aren't a full BaB class.

On the other hand, they can take other feats without any prerequisites.

Except they don't get enough to make up for it and the Vital Strike chain isn't included as far as I know.

Liberty's Edge

Vinland Forever wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:
You have to be 3rd level and there is a Charisma requirement. I want a Sorcerer with low Charisma for roleplay reasons: she's just about the shyest person ever born, and lacks confidence in social situations.

And?

Nothing you described precludes high Charisma.

And as I said, nothing precludes high Charisma. She is shy, she lacks confidence in social situation.

She shouldn't, because she is awesome, but she does. Maybe because she is shy because she has all these strange powers that presented at puberty. Maybe she lacks confidence in social situations because she is afraid if she gets mad she will explode in an arcane rage.

Regardless, she is still very charismatic. She just doesn't use it because she is shy and lacks confidence.

If this is true, then everyone should have high Charisma.

She's no afraid to use her power. She doesn't think she has that much.

Or it means you role play how your character acts, not who they are.

She is shy and lacks social confidence. But she still is able to manipulate arcane magic, despite no study or training due to the force of her charisma.

Not mutually exclusive.


Chris Ballard wrote:
Blue Star wrote:
Well, yes, but their 3/4 -actual- BAB affects their feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise.
Are there monks that actually want those feats? I've never heard of any monk wanting either of those two feats.

That's because they would actually like to hit their targets, if you gave them an actual bonus to hit, then maybe they would be willing to risk using those feats.


ciretose wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:
You have to be 3rd level and there is a Charisma requirement. I want a Sorcerer with low Charisma for roleplay reasons: she's just about the shyest person ever born, and lacks confidence in social situations.

And?

Nothing you described precludes high Charisma.

And as I said, nothing precludes high Charisma. She is shy, she lacks confidence in social situation.

She shouldn't, because she is awesome, but she does. Maybe because she is shy because she has all these strange powers that presented at puberty. Maybe she lacks confidence in social situations because she is afraid if she gets mad she will explode in an arcane rage.

Regardless, she is still very charismatic. She just doesn't use it because she is shy and lacks confidence.

If this is true, then everyone should have high Charisma.

She's no afraid to use her power. She doesn't think she has that much.

Or it means you role play how your character acts, not who they are.

She is shy and lacks social confidence. But she still is able to manipulate arcane magic, despite no study or training due to the force of her charisma.

Not mutually exclusive.

According to the Core Rulebook, Charisma measures personality, personal magnetism, leadership ability, and appearance. Of these, appearance is the only one she has. She also completely lacks the self esteem and confidence necessary to be charismatic.


Dex measures how well i shoot a gun or fire a bow Vinland.
It also measures how nimble i am how well i handle my fine motor skills and such.

I can play a 20 dex fighter who uses bows like a champ but roleplay him as a complete clumsy oaf on other things. Guess what +5 on my acrobatics means sometimes i get lucky when i balance on the dc 15 tightrope other times i fall.

A Stat helps you define you characters ability it has no bearing on your personality.


Chris Ballard wrote:
Blue Star wrote:
Well, yes, but their 3/4 -actual- BAB affects their feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise.
Are there monks that actually want those feats? I've never heard of any monk wanting either of those two feats.

Combat Expertise not so much. Power Attack? Hell yes, that's a staple damage tool for melee classes. Do note that a Monk can two-hand a quarterstaff for penalty x3 bonus damage.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Chris Ballard wrote:
Blue Star wrote:
Well, yes, but their 3/4 -actual- BAB affects their feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise.
Are there monks that actually want those feats? I've never heard of any monk wanting either of those two feats.
Combat Expertise not so much. Power Attack? Hell yes, that's a staple damage tool for melee classes. Do note that a Monk can two-hand a quarterstaff for penalty x3 bonus damage.

Or even a temple sword if ya want.


Yes, or a Temple Sword.

Liberty's Edge

Vinland Forever wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:
You have to be 3rd level and there is a Charisma requirement. I want a Sorcerer with low Charisma for roleplay reasons: she's just about the shyest person ever born, and lacks confidence in social situations.

And?

Nothing you described precludes high Charisma.

And as I said, nothing precludes high Charisma. She is shy, she lacks confidence in social situation.

She shouldn't, because she is awesome, but she does. Maybe because she is shy because she has all these strange powers that presented at puberty. Maybe she lacks confidence in social situations because she is afraid if she gets mad she will explode in an arcane rage.

Regardless, she is still very charismatic. She just doesn't use it because she is shy and lacks confidence.

If this is true, then everyone should have high Charisma.

She's no afraid to use her power. She doesn't think she has that much.

Or it means you role play how your character acts, not who they are.

She is shy and lacks social confidence. But she still is able to manipulate arcane magic, despite no study or training due to the force of her charisma.

Not mutually exclusive.

According to the Core Rulebook, Charisma measures personality, personal magnetism, leadership ability, and appearance. Of these, appearance is the only one she has. She also completely lacks the self esteem and confidence necessary to be charismatic.

Or she is incredibly charismatic, but that is hidden by the fact that she is painfully shy.

101 to 150 of 414 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Pathfinder 1.5 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.