Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6050359" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Character personality need not include such a focus.  In fact, that sounds very Lawful in nature.  There is nothing wrong with a player choosing a character who is simply out in the wild world, experiencing what life has to offer, and following his whims.  One such character who stood out in a game many years ago, when granted a Wish, thought for a second or two, then wished for "A life filled with adventure".  The scratch note as he phrased his wish crossed out "long" before "life" as the player reasoned it simply wasn't an addendum the character would consider to add.I find often good players will forego full optimization to build a more rounded character.  Sure, I could put the extra skill points in a skill that would augment his detection abilities, but his professional cooking skills are also an element of the character that makes him different from all those other Detective characters.So should we tell the Bard's player to take Fighter levels instead, as this game won't support a Bard?  Or should the DM, having read the character's background and basic personality, either design his game such that the poet wi9ll be a meaningful contributor, and have reasons to be drawn to the campaign, or indicate that, as this is a military trench fighting campaign, that character should be shelved for use in a future campaign that would better support such a character?  I favour the latter."Mere puppets we control" are playing pieces.  I prefer to create characters that are more fleshed out, have a personality and have some verisimillitude.  They don't, for example, pull levers on the artifact because there's a 10% chance of gaining a significant reward and hey, if he gets killed or cursed, I can always make a new character to replace him.  Their flaws and foibles don't disappear because they become inconvenient (just because we need to travel overseas, the character's fear of water does not fade away)."Well, I took an Oracle level to get the Lame curse so I would not be fatigued after raging" sounds very OoTS, actually.  And, if they understand the way the game world works, then they should know that "training under Master Lin at the White Lotus Monastery" for 20 years does nothing - you will only be able "to punch people better" when you gain enough xp to level up.  There is no requirement at all for training under the Pathfinder system.  By the RAW "A character advances in level as soon as he earns enough experience points to do so".  Any training is less than fluff - it is not even mentioned in the RAW.  Funny, given how many class abilities and feats use the word "training", but just practicing on your own will gain you any or all of these abilities - as long as you engage in enough combat to generate the required XP.  A hermit can achieve L20 in any or all classes - he just needs enough wolves, grizzlies, etc. to fight at his cave in the wilderness.  If he's a wizard, 2 spells will appear whenever he gains a level.I don't see them governed by BAB, saves, etc., however.  Those are mechanics we add to simulate the characters' advancement, not mechanics that they can perceive.This is a PrC that combines Oracle and Barbarian, not which says "Hey, dip in for one level of Oracle - and always be Lame!"  In fact, it could just as easily be an Oracle with 1 Barbarian level.  A one level Oracle dip will eventually gain 9th level casting, insufficient for many of the additional spells he can learn.  In fact, only one of those spells could be attained at 2nd PrC level with a 1 level oracle dip.  At least he can pick from the many 2nd level spells (five of those) when reaching L4 in the PrC.That second level ability isn't overly useful as an 8th level character* when the only Cure spell you can cast (with 2 levels of spellcasting) is Cure Light Wounds.  Concentration bonus at 3rd PrC level is only useful for spells as well.  Most of the early abilities augment spellcasting rather than combat skills.  Overall, I'd say the PrC is aimed at more balanced multiclassing, not just a dip.   A Barbarian dip could be more practical, but you need at least 2 Barbarian levels to get Moment of Clarity.* BAB +5 requires 5 barbarian levels and you need at least one Oracle level as well, so that's 6th + 2 levels of Rage ProphetAgain, this is where we come to Meta Player vs In World Character.  I don't think the Oracle picks his curse.  I think the player picks the curse his character is afflicted with.  The fact that Lame is the only curse that afflicts Barbarians seems significantly off.  You could certainly write it into the game world - and you may as well, since none of those Oracle/Barbarians (rage prophet or 1 level dip) seem likely to select a different curse anyway.It's funny how RAW is all-important until some of the RAW doesn't support the desired conclusion.  That portion of RAW is then dismissed as "fluff".  The "fluff" is what makes a character class more than a bundle of random mechanics.The Barbarian Rage is his berserking.  Sure, you can do it differently, but not having Rage defeats the purpose of Barbarian levels.  The official description says nothing about vikings, or any other culture.  That fluff does not in any way restrict your "son of a smithy" example.  Craft is even a Barbarian class skill.  By the way, nothing in Pathfinder denies literacy to Barbarians.  That's a throwback to 3e (one which begged the question why that Barbarian seeking training in another warrior class was also taught to read along the way).While I agree "at xth level" gets bandies about a lot in class abilities, the fact that the Curse actually provides a formula for mixing Oracle and non-Oracle levels makes this poor editing particularly noticeable.  In any case, I agree it's a problem with the writing style and not a specific change of intention.Once again, it depends.  Role playing my character, he should go after the wizard, even if that is not the tactically correct choice.  Similarly, if the character has been established as having a hatred of Goblins, he should logically go after the summoned Goblins before attacking the Wizard - his hatred overriding tactical judgement.  But either way, watch the rest of the players berate this player for letting his character personality override the best possible tactics.  "I know it's bad tactics, but that's what the character would do" is good role playing, in my books.  "Well, he doesn't hate Goblins THAT much" returns the PC to a pawn on the chessboard.None of your explanations for the characters not carrying a gun provide an in-game reason.  Bats gave up guns because he does not kill.  But sometimes, killing is the better tactical choice.  Spidey would likely not carry a gun for similar reasons (yeah, the police just love him now, and he'd be so much easier for them to catch than the Punisher is...).  Those mercy bullets may be useful much of the time, but having the option would add flexibility for times when a normal bullet would be more useful.  But the three characters don't have it in their nature to use lethal force.There can certainly be middle ground.  "Every Barbarian is a Lame Oracle" falls outside that middle ground, at least to me.  Are there no other interesting Barbarian character possibilities?So one of these characters trains extensively as a Magus expert in the use of a single weapon, training in spells and swordplay, while living like an animal in the forest.  By the way, don't Deepwardens need the Endurance feat?As to the pirate, I note the entire description is focused on mechanics.  I assume he has a personality in-game, but it doesn't come through from the post.I also note that, between both characters, there is only one dip, the Marshall.  All the other classes are taken for at least a few levels.</blockquote>

Verification