Man, the Ventelli really lends itself to the assassin's look. This pic has made that very clear to me. :P

Also, amusing since I'm currently rolling an assassin-type rogue since my previous character, a Druid, died last Saturday.

Thanks! Yeah, the Ventelli are pretty much a race of killers/fighters/spies/saboteurs for hire, so it's sort of their thing ;)

Aww, poor druid :c I've always wanted to roll one, but have never really gotten the chance, but then, I've also sorta wanted to roll a sneaky rogue type, too, but yeah, the whole "usually the healer" deal I mentioned previously, haha. Plus since we ended up on a campaign we enjoy and will only play one campaign at a time, we've been playing the same characters for a good while now without really the opportunity to make new ones (although one of the players almost got himself murdered not too long ago XD)

Well, hey sometime in the future eh? :) I think playing the same character tends to happen because plenty of DMs don't like killing off PCs for a variety of reason, whether its because it ends up being a legit sad moment for the player/group or because they're important for the plot of the campaign.

I've been playing this Druid for about 7 months now, so it was pretty sad that he died. Especially since it was all because of just rotten luck. The creature was a tentamort (see this guy: http://bit.ly/1UiXKg8 ) and it critted on both its tentacle attack and it's stinger attack. Then I proceeded to fail my fortitude save against its stinger's poison, which dealt con damage. Paired with previous damage taken, the tentacle attack and the constitution lost (ended up taking 10 constitution damage), it was enough to kill me outright. =P

Then of course, the DM described how the poison liquefied his insides and how the Tentamort proceeded to empty him of said innards like one would empty a Capri Sun packet.

Awwwwwww, man, if my healer had been there, she could have saved you! I can force enemies to reroll any successful hit by sacrificing a spell, taking a penalty on their new roll equal to the sacrificed spell level, which means generally I can prevent the DM from critting our party :b

Your poor druid :( What kind of druid was he?

Wow, that's a really handy ability. Like, super handy. Definitely could've use that at the time. :P

Well, our party's rather small (being only 4 players) and since we decided to try something different and try to not just fill party roles and play what we wanted, everybody ended up rolling spellcasters. xp So to offer some melee damage pressure, I took Roc animal companion. Since my Druid was a Ratfolk (small sized creature in Pathfinder), he was able to ride the Roc (it was medium sized since its essentially still chick-aged). Putting armor on his Roc animal companion effectively made it the tank of the party, so my Druid would ride it into battle and buff it while it mauled enemies in melee battle.

So essentially, he was a mounted Druid who mostly used his magic to buff/heal his animal companion in battle. While outside of battle, he acted as the defacto party leader who ensured the party didn't starve out in the wilderness (the campaign is mostly wilderness).

Yup. Pretty much all my abilities are aimed towards support/healing :b I also have a feat (I think it's a mythic one?) that lets me cast any touch spell as ranged, meaning I never have to get into melee range and can heal in safety XD Can also use my move action as a channel, so I can technically channel twice per turn, or channel and cast, so I can typically put out a lot of healing/support spells if I have to.

Heh, our party is the other way around, really - most of our players tend to prefer straight-up melee damage-dealing. We have a warpriest (who serves as pseudo-tank and can put out the most DPS if he crits), a slayer, a brawler, a bow-wielding ranger, and me, a cleric healbot and party face. We used to have an investigator skill-adex and an alchemist, but their players are sorta flakey and ended up stopping coming to sessions, although our DM actually prefers somewhat limited party sizes (I think he prefers 4-5 players). But yeah, we could definitely use the utility of a wizard/sorcerer or a skill-adex :b

Your druid sounded super awesome! Who's gonna take care of the party now :b

Wow, you're like an uber healer! XD No wonder no one dies. :P Reminds of me of when I last DM'd a campaign of my own. One of the players played an Oracle with the Life Mystery and basically min-maxed for ultimate healing. So I made all the bosses target him first. =P

Well, all things considered that seems like a pretty functional party spread. Certainly could use some magic in there, but ah well. XD I prefer playing straight magic characters myself, but I also enjoy trying out different stuff and I don't have an issue playing melee characters from time to time. I can tooootally understand if your DM prefers smaller parties though. I DM'd for 8 players in my campaign and that could be a challenge at times accounting for everyone all the time.

Yeah, the mounted druid is a build I'm rather partial to. :P Fortunately, my Rogue will be able to. Otherwise the party would be screwed. XD I took a trait that gives him the Survival skill as a class skill so I put some points into it. Made sure he has a decent Intelligence score too so he could be a skill monkey. When I was thinking of what to make I had to look the party and think of what we really really needed since the campaign is an adventure path.

Two things I saw: we had tons of issues with traps since no one was good or equipped to handle them, and we desperately needed a party face. So I made a Charisma/Dexterity based rogue who could handle all the Diplomacy, Bluffing, and Intimidation, while being able to take care of traps and feed the party. :P All while being able to offer some decent melee offensive pressure thanks to the Unchained Rogue class being a thing.

Haha, yes, I am :b Beep boop, healbot, at your service :V I don't really min-max 'cause I don't want to be too obsessive about it, but I do try to pick useful feats/skills ;) My husband/DM is actually pretty good about not picking on players in a metagame sort of way - he does his best to RP the enemies, and go after who they would go after realistically. If I've been particularly troublesome or offensive, or if I just happened to be closest, then yeah, he'll "pick" on me, but not because I'm the healer persay ;)

Yeah, my husband definitely prefers wizards and more "complicated" classes. Just hitting enemies all the time doesn't particularly interest him - he sorta prefers classes where planning/strategy really lets them shine, whereas the rest of our players sorta prefer "easier to play" classes.

Heh, I've heard of the Unchained Rogue, although I can't recall if people "agreed" with it or not... but sounds like your rogue is going to fit in just fine ;) We had a rogue for one campaign who had that sort of thing in mind, his name was literally Mister Useful XD

Oh well, that's what I meant. The bosses were intelligent/strategic enough to know to single out first. =P I don't enjoy min-maxing myself. It just leaves out room for stuff that's flavorful =.

I can definitely feel where your husband is coming from there though. It's really fun to figure out a plan or strategy that will fit the situation best, and magic kind of affords that flexibility.

Honestly, Unchained Rogue is just better mechanically speaking than vanilla rogue. Paizo came to the conclusion that compared to a lot of the other vanilla classes, vanilla Rogue had gotten the shaft in regards to overall power, so they gave the Unchained version a couple extra class abilities that help with that as well as tweak a few of its previous class abilities. They did the same with the Monk and a couple other classes, though I think the tweaking was really only necessary for the Monk as well.

In any case, yeah, I'm just taking advantage that Rogues in general have the flexibility to fill a couple roles at once. That's pretty funny about the rogue you guys had though. It's very fitting for a rogue, really. XD

Ahh, I wasn't totally sure - I've had a DM metagame the heck out of situations like that. He'd plan things to go a certain way, and if rolls didn't go his way or players did something expected, he'd just make it happen anyway :b Suffice it to say, I prefer my husband as DM XD

If you knew my husband, you'd get that that's TOTALLY his thing. He loves the satisfying reward of playing a difficult class (or difficult game, or attempting a difficult challenge) and suffering through it until you've mastered it and kick ass. Cheating or just opting for the easy/simple route is really not his style.

That sounds familiar - I never looked at the Unchained stuff, but yeah, I heard the idea was to "fix" problems with classes. I think maybe someone said they thought it made them too OP or was unnecessary, but yeah, for the most part I think the rogue specifically was well-received? Anyway, I'll take your word for it, sounds pretty good to me :)

Oh yeah, I've had those kind of DMs myself. It's why I don't run games that way. It has bitten me in the butt though. The final boss of my campaign failed massively on everything. Made the final fight kind of anticlimactic. :v

Seems like he and I could get along on that front then. :P There are some days when I appreciate having a simpler character, but in the long term, I do find the more challenging ones more rewarding as well.

Certainly. My suggestion is if you do get to play something different in the future and you're looking at Rogue or Monk, go the Unchained route. Lots of problems there that get fixed. I think when people think of Unchained being unnecessary or OP, they're probably thinking of the Unchained Barbarian.

Well, I mean, as the DM I think you should be allowed to fudge things every now and then if only to facilitate the players' enjoyment. Did you at least get to make the players feel super badass via the final boss's fails?

I'll definitely take a look at an unchained rogue if I ever get to roll one ;)

Well that's the thing... I tried fudging, but it didn't help by the time I did. It was a learning experience. =P But yeah, I was able to make them feel badass by getting to fight the boss a second time. Since the initial battle lasted only about 10 minutes in real time, I just pulled the "Oh, you just fought their clone, now you're actually fighting the real one!" sort of thing. The players understood and went along with it fortunately. XD

XD Ah well, still sounded like it went not too badly ;)

Yeah, it all worked out in the end. Other than almost killing the party completely by accident and the situation with the final boss, the campaign went pretty well overall. :)

XD

you are so very good...

V.

^^; <333

That whole window somehow isn't reading right for me. I'd probably have to make a cardboard mock-up to try and figure out why the lights (the parts that open outward) look funky to me. For the actual opening, I think it's the flatness of the background behind the prince dude that's making it look like a poster instead of a guy in a room. And actually, looking at it more, I know there has to be a ledge for the surprise visitor to be chilling on but I can't actually see it--I think in that case it's partly the building's corner lining up above and below it, and the bottoms of the window lights not being obscured by it.

I know what you mean. There's one part of the window shutters that I think could be easily fixed, and I may try addressing some of the other problems you mentioned with the shutters. I'm taking the day off tomorrow since I need to work on Saturday, but I'll see on Saturday if I can tweak it to be a bit better.

No, my obscure window fetish must be addressed immediately!

On the bright side, this is the first time I've noticed something to critique. Though it's probably not too obvious since I have a terrible habit of either being silent about positives or just spouting whatever random nonsense comes to mind instead. I'd be a terrible teacher.

lol, crack that whip!

Seriously, I could see that being a thing, sorta :V Something along the lines of "inanimate objects fitting perfectly into other inanimate objects" or "watching someone write perfect calligraphy" or "arranging things neatly on a desk" and other totally non-sexual-and-usually-inanimate-object-related things - I've heard of a lot of people who find those things strangely compelling, hehe. I love the calligraphy one, for example :V

Anyway, I appreciate it :) lol, not so bad a teacher! I've definitely received worst criticism before - in fact, I can't really complain about most constructive criticism, since it's almost always way better than, "I don't like it," or "The guy looks weird" :b

Sounds like OCD to me, though one thing I've learned in my time online is that no matter how ludicrous a fetish I can think up, there are people actually into it. It could be a corollary to Rule 34: If it exists, someone faps to it. Case in point, before now I'd never considered the possibilities of calligraphy as foreplay. The mating rituals of the Canada Artist sound truly intriguing. Does a little Palmer Method get you going, or do you need to go full Spencerian?

I guess I figure comments like "Wow, great!" are as useless as "I don't like it," other than being more enjoyable to hear, so I just skip it completely if I can't come up with some sort of analysis...or the artist seems likely to be hostile to it, which I had a hunch wouldn't be the case with you.

*chuckles* Actually, as weird as it sounds, most people I've heard who like that stuff like it non-sexually :b Like, it's compelling enough to say you particularly like it, but it's not a sexual like. As Dr. Hibbert put it, it's more like the love for a fine Cuban cigar than the love between a man and a woman :b ((It's funny/interesting, after spending some time with serious fetishists and going to an event, I've realised a lot of fetishes can be surprisingly non-sexual, which is why I'm using the term a bit more liberally than most :b))

Heh, they are kind of useless, but it's still letting the artist know their art is accepted and on the positive side, and it can be a nice pick-me-up. But yeah, obviously you shouldn't leave comments if you don't want to or feel they're disingenuous :b