I think all NPCs are plotsexual. Orientation as the plot demands (like the barmaid flirting above).
I think it's spelled "plot-o-sexual."
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
First of all: Guide to the Class Guides
Edit: In this thread, look for the "Getting X to Y" guide, which should list everything that lets you apply your charisma to things that usually aren't based on charisma.
Second of all: The sexuality of fictional game characters is driven entirely by fictional construction, not meat-space biology. Also, the sexuality of physical humans is also not based on gendered stereotyping pretending to be science!
Your link does not work.
To sort of reply to the OP, a changeling with the green widow racial trait has being attractive baked right into her racial abilities, on top of the +2 Cha that the race gets.
But changelings aren't PFS legal. Meh. Assuming you have no chronicle sheets allowing other races, than you'd be looking at aasimar or half-elf, which have being pretty written into their fluff.
"Alluring" apparently being a dwarf trait (and apparently associated with the Dwarven Goddess of Marriage) might make GMs go "wait, what?"
Charming might be more appropriate - gives +1 to bluff and diplomacy against folks that are or could be attracted to you, and also bumps the save DC of any language dependent spells you're using against those targets.
So perhaps a half-elf Lore oracle with Charming, her skill-focus feat put into diplomacy, and who picks up Side-Step Secret (Cha instead of Dex to AC and Reflex) and Lore-Keeper (Cha instead of Int for knowledge checks) ASAP. Command would be a good starting offensive spell, since Charming raises the save DC.
Yeah, the Lore oracle's been mentioned already, but hey.
Wow, Pageant of the Peacock raises my "wait, what?" flag.
Yeah, it'd make Lore-Keeper pointless. I'm not sure you'd want to bother with Think On It, either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still flailing around at the notion that 'The Most Beautiful Girl in the World' is now remembered as a Prince song.
Ugh.
Yeah, I'm old enough to remember this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am pretty sure that unless implicitly stated as part of the story/plot, all paizo npcs and such are considered bisexual.
That has to be a joke. Please let it be a joke.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am pretty sure that unless implicitly stated as part of the story/plot, all paizo npcs and such are considered bisexual.That has to be a joke. Please let it be a joke.
It's not a joke, but it could use a little bit of explication:
If an NPC's sexuality is explicitly and directly stated in, for instance, an Adventure Path, then that's that. If, however, no sexuality is given, that NPC's sexuality is governed only by the fiction created between the player's characters and the GM. Paizo has taken the stance that any of their NPCs could be attracted to any gender if you want it to be.
For example: in Rise of the Runelords, the bard who runs the theater is not-so-secretly dating the expert/paladin of Abadar, and therefore both of these male NPCs are explicitly stated as being attracted to the male gender (at least). Another from the same AP: there's a man named Aldern Foxglove who explicitly compliments female PCs on their beauty, and it's probably safe to assume that he's attracted to the female gender. Another example from the same AP: one of the townsfolk is a raunchy flirt who attempts to seduce one of the PCs. I can't actually remember now whether it says to have her seduce a male member of the party, but I (as a GM) had her seduce a female PC because it made the most sense in terms of the player playing that character and the character herself (highest charisma in the party, player explicitly states that she's attractive, etc).
TL;DR: Paizo NPCs are treated as whatever sexuality works best for the fiction created between GM and player.
1) Archivist Bard 1: BAB +0, Skill Focus: Knowledge(Arcane) (Human), Deceitful (lvl 1)
2) Bard 2: BAB +1
3) Bard 3: BAB +2, Eldritch Heritage: Arcane (lvl 3)
4) Bard 4: BAB +3, Pageant of the Peacock (in place of 2nd lvl spell known), +1 ChaTake a Viper as your familiar for +3 to Bluff.
+3 (class skill), +4 (skill points), +3 (Familiar), +2 (deceitful), +1 (trait), +3 (Charisma), +4 (PotP Circumstance) = +20 Bluff check. Use it via PotP in place of any Int skill check or Int ability check. Knowledge? Fake it. Crafting? Fake it. Appraise, Linguistics, or Spellcraft? Fake it.At level 8, you get another free Skill Focus; guess where that's going. Got a level 3 spell slot? Glibness for +20 to your next Bluff. Got 10 levels in Bluff? Deceitful goes from +2 to +4 and Skill focus goes from +3 to +6. That's another +9 from the feats and skill ranks, bringing your baseline to +29, or +49 with Glibness up; not even counting Charisma boosting magic items.
So... You spend Skill Focus on Knowledge Arcana (Which becomes a useless skill), to meet the prereq to spend another feat on Arcane Heritage, so that you can get a +3 to bluff...
When you could skip all that and just spent 1 feat, the original Skill Focus, and get a +3 to bluff.
Why wouldn't you start with that... and then go for the viper later if you have the options open for it? Fast (Ie lvl 1/immediate) payoff with less feat tax and less restriction.
Str: 13 (3)
Dex: 14 (7)
Con: 12 (2)
Int: 7 (-4)
Wis: 12 (2)
Cha: 15 (10)
What is this??
That is a peculiar array for what is proposed here.. basically ignores the concept.
Worse, it doesn't add up.
13 costs 3
14 costs 5
12 costs 2
7 returns 4
12 costs 2
15 costs 7
This is 15 points, but you have it masquerading as a 20 point build.
I am pretty sure that unless implicitly stated as part of the story/plot, all paizo npcs and such are considered bisexual.That has to be a joke. Please let it be a joke.It's not a joke, but it could use a little bit of explication:
If an NPC's sexuality is explicitly and directly stated in, for instance, an Adventure Path, then that's that. If, however, no sexuality is given, that NPC's sexuality is governed only by the fiction created between the player's characters and the GM. Paizo has taken the stance that any of their NPCs could be attracted to any gender if you want it to be.
For example: in Rise of the Runelords, the bard who runs the theater is not-so-secretly dating the expert/paladin of Abadar, and therefore both of these male NPCs are explicitly stated as being attracted to the male gender (at least). Another from the same AP: there's a man named Aldern Foxglove who explicitly compliments female PCs on their beauty, and it's probably safe to assume that he's attracted to the female gender. Another example from the same AP: one of the townsfolk is a raunchy flirt who attempts to seduce one of the PCs. I can't actually remember now whether it says to have her seduce a male member of the party, but I (as a GM) had her seduce a female PC because it made the most sense in terms of the player playing that character and the character herself (highest charisma in the party, player explicitly states that she's attractive, etc).
TL;DR: Paizo NPCs are treated as whatever sexuality works best for the fiction created between GM and player.
Good clarification - not actively 'bisexual' but rather passively 'plotsexual', just like if their religion isn't listed then its open to the needs of the story, or where they were born and grew up.
Truth be told though, the nature of the game, even things explicitly stated are usually open to change. In our Wrath game, Irabeth and Anevia were a gay couple with a different backstory included; Anevia was actually Horgus' daughter and had been disowned by him due to her chosen mate and his desire for a grandchild/heir. It led to a nice reunion/reconciliation later. Likewise Aron and Sosiel were brothers - there don't seem to be enough major sibling NPC's in Paizo's publications and it worked well for our campaign.
So, to adjust it both for the concept of an Oracle who's swapping out all uses of Dex as well and to fix the point buy errors:Str: 14 (5)
Dex: 10 (0)
Con: 12 (2)
Int: 7 (-4)
Wis: 12 (2)
Cha: 19* (13)
Am I wrong in thinking that's an 18 point buy?
Am I wrong in thinking that's an 18 point buy?
So, to adjust it both for the concept of an Oracle who's swapping out all uses of Dex as well and to fix the point buy errors:Str: 14 (5)
Dex: 10 (0)
Con: 12 (2)
Int: 7 (-4)
Wis: 12 (2)
Cha: 19* (13)
Yeah, that's 18 alright...
Good clarification - not actively 'bisexual' but rather passively 'plotsexual', just like if their religion isn't listed then its open to the needs of the story, or where they were born and grew up.Truth be told though, the nature of the game, even things explicitly stated are usually open to change. In our Wrath game, Irabeth and Anevia were a gay couple with a...
That WAS a good clarification -- thanks, Mechapoet. It makes a lot more sense than "all NPCs in Pathfinder are bisexual".
Also, it's probably what many if not most GMs were doing with their games anyway.
Assuming the OP of the information was correct, Paizo would have been better served stating that the cultures of Golarion are very open-minded and tend not to discriminate based on sexual orientation than by announcing that PF humans are bisexual by default.
We didn't.
Assuming the OP of the information was correct, Paizo would have been better served stating that the cultures of Golarion are very open-minded and tend not to discriminate based on sexual orientation than by announcing that PF humans are bisexual by default.We didn't.
Yes, that has been clarified since. Thanks.
