Thief

Air0r's page

Goblin Squad Member. 513 posts. No reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists.


1 to 50 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lost In Limbo wrote:

I'm a big fan of the Voice Amplifier from Alien Archive.

I'm not sure if anyone else at the table is amused by a gallant robo-knight who keeps forgetting to turn his volume down, but I certainly am.

"IGNORE ME! GO ABOUT YOUR DAILY LIVES AS THOUGH I WERE NOT HERE."

"oh great you can read my mind." "IGNORE ME! ...ALSO YES."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Are there still any plans to release that "akashic druid"?

I thought the radiant with the druid-like veils covered that?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

i nominate drop dead studios or dreamscarred press.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott_UAT wrote:


Wear it's skin.

soo... horror?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I signed up! now to wait and see what form of horror you guys have in mind, cause vampires and werewolves in space sounds awesome, but who knows, lol.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Awesome! Thank you guys for being awesome!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to play, if it isn't too late.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

sounds a lot like Dreamscarred Press's Bloodforge series. Is it supposed to be a fusion of that sort of concept and the Advanced Race Guide creation style rules?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

well, starjammer is pathfinder in space. and i have lots of pathfinder stuff.

starfinder is too new and not enough of my friends have it yet for me to run a game, especially with the alien book another 2-ish months out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am liking a lot of what I am seeing. on the DM side of things none of my players have tried this angle. and from the player side of things I am excited to problem solve a way to make it work (or watch as it spectacularly backfires story-wise).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I realized recently that I wanted a character to have a backstory that wasn't tragic, wasn't too unfortunate, or too goofy. I wanted to create a character who has a family, kids included and adventures specifically to provide for their family (and ensure that they are set for generations to come).
But, then it was pointed out that in order for that to work, the character would have to return home often in order to actually deliver the gold and actually bond with their family.
I sort of imagine it like real life military deployments (which can take months or possibly longer sometimes) but more self-planned and without the convenience of modern banking technology.
Anybody have thoughts on how this could (or couldn't) work? Especially at lower levels?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Palidian wrote:
Currently (very slowly) creating a campaign setting, and subsequently a Desert-themed campaign. I got frustrated at the lack of deserty stuff in Paizo products that didn't devolve into desert cliches (ancient Pharaoh being resurrected, Genie wishes gone wrong, etc.) and I thought it would be more fun to just write one more customized to my players, so I'm writing a full on desert Adventure Path that has all the trappings of desert stories (a plot-important pharaoh, gnolls, sphinxes, oasis-towns) but with an interesting new story.

You have my interest, as I have been considering running a desert game also. In my case drawing heavily on Akashic Mysteries (from DSP).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, I know it isn't official yet, but the martial discipline that is in DSP's werewolf playtest would be perfect for an alternate mimic. I'd likely expand on the Mimics transformation abilities while I'm at it, so it can take a bunch of forms, like doors and tables, and switch it's form on the fly.
That martial discipline would be most fitting, because (if I recall) you would temporarily shapeshift parts of yourself to gain the natural attacks necessary to perform the various maneuvers.

easier idea: altering elementals to have have some Solar Wind abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

I'm wondering how others handle flavor in their world.

It largely depends on the world.

I like my worlds a bit more metropolitan, with races from all over living (almost) everywhere, mingling, etc. races like kobolds and ratfolk usually have the jobs/tasks that no one wants to undergo (sewer maintenance, trash collection, street cleaners, etc.). Like that. I let me players pick most any race (after I review it), though I don't generally allow templates.
Ideally, your class will not describe your character. I have noticed some players will just pick a class and build a character around that instead of making a character (personality, a very basic backstory, some defining mannerisms), and then selecting the class(es) that best fits their image of the character. My players are free to pick most classes (with review).

So how this sometimes works at my table:
player: "I want to play a vampire who fight using his shadow."
Me: "Maybe not vampire; it wouldn't really fit this campaign. at least not right now. what part of the vampire appeals to you?"
Player: "The immortality, basically."
Me: "Here is a list of immortal races that I am ok with, though you can pitch ideas my way if you want." (hands player stats for Elan, Houri, and Spring Child)
Player: "Cool! What class can fight with their shadows?"
Me: "Tough one to pull off, most classes wouldn't be till later levels. If you don't mind the extra bookwork, Psychic Warrior has an archetype called Silhouette, which gives you a shadow duplicate of yourself that can fight alongside you."
Player: sounds great!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

besides a bunch of grammar things that will get sorted in editing anyway:
1) Would an Anima Saber wielded by a Shade Tamer deal negative energy damage?
2) Additionally, is there any chance of seeing some akashic/animus cross-over? an archtype for mystic that gives them veil-weaving and the ability to enhance it with animus (or use animus outside of combat through essence investment, maybe once per day per essence invested?)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

they never had to do thousands, as none of my players ever managed to DO thousands (or even hundreds). maybe I lucked out and my players just never noticed these powers? who knows.
what i do know is that comparing 0-9 anything (caster, manifester, etc.) based on blasting ability is kind of dumb; if my encounters can be solved with nukes the majority of the time, then i have failed to design good encounters. what i mean is: damage shouldn't solve all problems. If it does, your DM is doing it wrong (or depending on group, just right, but that isn't my kind of group).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the fast answer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Frogsplosion wrote:


The only problem I have with Path of War (and psionics, actually) is I find Dreamscarred Press doesn't understand how damage scaling works, because a lot of their classes, spells, feats and abilities boil down to or combine to become "do even more obscene damage than usual".

I haven't experienced this as a DM/GM or as a player. I use their stuff a LOT.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

some occasional 'side quest' style adventures have their appeal, but otherwise that home stretch to 20 would be a great place to settle into.
also, your own setting could be nice. it just needs a solid draw though. (also, leave no adventuring stone unturned; underwater, unique planes if any, heck, even some info on surrounding space just in case some starjammer inspiration hits you)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like some cerulean seas inspired adventures. (I am planning on running some players through a cerulean seas game, where after a few levels a massive starjammer ship, not sure what type yet, crashes into their sunken planet, releasing things that had been sealed away deep in the planet. but, now there is all this tech that no one knows how to use, and maybe even survivors if they act fast enough. like within a week fast? not sure)

also things with odd starting levels; most adventures I make up in my home games start at level 3 (past that point where an unlucky roll can one shot a character).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have mixed feelings about the Hot-Blooded trait.
one one hand, it is nice. but on the other hand, it kind of feels like a must have have trait for kineticists.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sadie wrote:


mekka2000 wrote:
What would be PERFECT should be a sheet for Spheres of power things. Not a new character sheet for each classe, but at least 1 sheet where you can put your spheres, your talents, caster level, spell pool, ...
Vote for Spheres of Power has been noted. I do actually keep a big list of all the stuff people ask for most often, even if I only work my way through the list slowly.

you can go ahead and put in a vote from me as well then.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
taig wrote:


Entries into Legendary Games' drawing: Gerald, Bardess, Air0r, and DJEternalDarkness.

there are a lot of pages to wade through, do we PM them or the other way around?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

yay, I won a thing (with a 3)! sent PMs. it's just Pyromanic press and dire rugrat for 3, right?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am interested. I could always use more material both as GM and as player.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeremy Smith wrote:
We'd been working on stats for the iconics, but lost much of the data when we had to change website hosts. The stats had been provided by backers and was in a private, backer-only forum. We've never released them in any sort of "official" capacity.

Admittedly, I had started this little thing a while back. kinda left it there after no one gave feedback, though. I could take another look at it.

NPC


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Christopher Dudley wrote:
Did they ever do anything with adapting the Incarnum book? Picking up D&D's forgotten bits and pieces and supporting them has seemed to work well for DsP so far.

Akashic Mysteries is their Magic of Incarnum. It is very good.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread is for comparing some of what fans want to see from dreamscarred press (once their plate is a little less full).
I suppose I'll go first:
1) A book focusing on curses, drawbacks (those thing you take to get more traits), drugs, diseases, poisons, and other less than positive things that affect psionic and akashic users (at least as its main target).

2) a book converting some of their old 3.5 monsters into pathfinder, as well as adding some new ones. I basically want another bestiary, perhaps spanning more than just psionics (they have path of war and akashic mysteries after all).

3) third dawn campaign setting and more stuff for it.

4) Dreamscape book, including dreamscape combat.

What about you guys? Similar interests? something different?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am backing you! so far I like what I've seen. no real feedback yet beyond: keep up the good work!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Air0r wrote:
Apupunchau wrote:
Its good to see GMs embracing the out of the ordinary. All to often I see complaint after complaint about "special snowflake" characters, based on the oddball races a person chooses.
I encourage "special snowflakes" because I don't care about your thirteenth human ranger who focuses on archery or your wife's fifth elf druid who likes brewing alcohol a little too much. it lost it's charm. try something new.

I would be much more alongside this line of reasoning, except that I feel that changing the race is among the less effective ways of making a new and interesting character.

Quote:
I don't care about your thirteenth human ranger who focuses on archery.

Okay, granted. I agree.

But somehow

* your human kasatha ranger who focuses on archery

... isn't that much better. Usually, I find that it's worse, because people have cherry-picked the new race to be that much more focused on building the same thing. (Kasatha can make even better archer rangers than humans can!)

Why not try instead

* your human ranger slayer who focuses on archery, or
* your human ranger who focuses on archery skirmishing and nature magic. or even
* your elven sorcerer who specializes in transformation magic?

Exactly! I just want my players to break their mold more often and try some COMPLETELY different sometimes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Apupunchau wrote:
Its good to see GMs embracing the out of the ordinary. All to often I see complaint after complaint about "special snowflake" characters, based on the oddball races a person chooses.

I encourage "special snowflakes" because I don't care about your thirteenth human ranger who focuses on archery or your wife's fifth elf druid who likes brewing alcohol a little too much. it lost it's charm. try something new... I am ranting...

But yeah, bring something unique to my table. something I can get interested about. your experience will be great regardless, but if you are playing something cool and weird and different, then I can feel more encouraged to try the cool and weird and different stuff that i normally down throw at the party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, the players of my thursday night game acquired a companion: which i am stating out as an atstreidi Guru. I'll let you know if any odd situations come up in play next thursday.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of my thursday night players is taking a level of psychic warrior (silhouette). So next week, unless he changes his mind before then, we will have some use-based feedback.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gnomersy wrote:

So I'll be honest I'm not here to point fingers at the dev or design team or anything of the sort they're doing their jobs and doing what they want to do and that's fine.

I just wanted to see if anyone else shares my opinion about FAQ and Errata content in Pathfinder.

So I've been playing the game for a good long time and overall I genuinely like the base system that pathfinder was founded on. Namely, give the players lots of different options for everything. This is the same base model that D&D 3.5 was designed on and I was a fan of it there too.

Now my issue is that every time I see a FAQ or an Errata it's usually not fixing things it's not oh we wanted to include an "s" over here and "No allies in this particular case doesn't include you" it seems more and more to be "Oh hey look at this ability that made a certain niche build fun and interesting as well as decently viable? Yeah we'd actually really like it if instead you just didn't have fun. Mmmkay thanks. Oh and give us another $10 for our latest pile of new interesting things that you can use for a year or two before we nerf it so hard that it will not be fun or interesting or viable."

I get it they need to do balancing sometimes, but once that thing is out and about for years the time for balancing is over at that point balancing it doesn't accomplish anything worthwhile because anyone who cared already had a fix either sourced off of something like the suggestions forum or their own creation and anyone who didn't was probably happy with it.

Anyways that's how I feel. Does anyone else actually dread it when paizo rolls out new FAQs/Errata and just wish they could get the unedited content more easily so they could not use them(particularly on online indexes like d20pfsrd)?

Before even getting to reading the over hundred posts on this thread, I want to directly adress the first post:

Yeah, I mostly ignore nerfs whenever possible as a DM. Yes, I dread new FAQ/Errata. And yeah, I'd love free access to the various versions of a rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am sitting here reading (slowly) the bloodforge infusions playtest, thinking about how perfect it would be to have the original Dreamscarred race from back in 3.5 when it hits me. I know what I want to see in the next Akashic Mysteries supplement:
A Nightmare/Dreamscape Daeva, naturally blending akasha and psionics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
WabbitHuntr wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
More races, more classes, more archetypes, give me more! I love having options, and the bane of my existence is hearing the words "Core only". Vomit inducing, that.
Core Only= campaign I won't apply for
And of course, you are both fine with GMing a campaign with "everything Paizo"?

I open the flood gates in my games with "Play any race and class you want from paizo or 3PP. if you want something that even that massive list doesn't have, we'll work on it together and make it happen."


14 people marked this as a favorite.

path of war (the whole thing). I love it. lots of people don't.

psionics. I love it. some people don't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

suddenly I want stats for Dire GINGIVITIS!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A few months ago I wrote a full depiction of the starting area (including economic and political atmosphere) and some detail of surrounding regions and larger world events. I had pre-set events that would happen at certain points with predetermined outcomes if the PCs chose to ignore the events (which could come back and bite them). I spent weeks selecting various monsters that could show up in certain areas and... I put a lot of work into is what i am saying.
Come time to start the game: only one player bothered reading any of it and even he only skimmed it. only one person read the houserules. And one player made it so clear that he didn't want to play (and I hadn't even invited him to begin with) that it killed the mood and ultimately the game. the trouble player then stated he was going to DM 5e, and almost everyone left except his wife, my wife, and me. he had the nerve to then ask why no one was showing up to the 5e game.

saltiness aside: I like to go super in depth in world and encounter building, open the world to the players, and then wing it when the unexpected happens. Lately I have had no reason to, as all of my fun players have been chased away and haven't returned.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Air0r wrote:
James Risner wrote:

But Weapon Focus Grapple is a thing.

Really? this is new to me.

It's in the feat description.

CRB wrote:

Weapon Focus (Combat)

Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.

Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.

that moment you have been playing (RPGs) for decades (and pathfinder since it came out), and have been the rules lawyer, have used something time and time again, and have only just noticed something about it... I have just now had that moment.

EDIT: added clarity


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Air0r wrote:


The other problem being that those same two players miraculously always have high rolls (they cheat and don't bother hiding it).
Why are you still playing with them?

Because I am running a game for everyone to have fun. As long as their fun isn't interrupting the fun of the other players, then I don't mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My reading would indicate that you would not get the DR. However, I am fairly certain that the intent was to let you keep the DR.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
GeraintElberion wrote:


I wonder how many groups play 'full pathfinder' with every single Paizo rule book?

As a DM, I generally open the floodgates and tell my players "play whatever you want, even 3PP. Just let me see what you want to do first."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Point out to them Psionics is more like the spell casting found in the overwhelming majority of fantasy literature? Because in most fantasy stories a character runs out of magic instead of having only prepped 2 Chain Lightnings that day. So Psionics is a vastly superior representation of magic for most fantasy stories and that's just a fact.

This solidly represents my perspective on the topic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

definitely. I would seriously start by telling them exactly this: "You can attach any flavor to the mechanics."

although I have other advice, there is one thing that you mentioned that actually bugs me. I may be a minority in this, but to me psionics is NOT sci-fi or modern, and in fact I CANNOT imagine psionics in those settings unless magic could fit.
I know, that sounds weird, but to me psionics is my magic, to the point that vancian casting is ditched for psionics and then I call psionics magic (I mean, full refluff before anyone even sees the Ultimate Psionics book). I've done that for so long, that psionics as anything other than magic just rubs me wrong. maybe its the mana err i mean Power Points.
That said, psionics in other systems is generally fine cause it is flavored to fit. pathfinder and 3.5 psionics is super neutral setting-wise. Your players are applying a setting theme to those setting neutral rules.
I guess I am saying: If your players can't seperate their perception from rules, then just don't call it psionics. Call it rune magic (just as suggested in the book).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:
Foghammer wrote:
From either a real-world OR fantasy logic standpoint, wizards are better than you.

To be fair, the whole POINT of the Wuxia genre is to showcase that weapon-users can become versatile too, with proper supernatural martial art training alone. Starting a landslide with a sword swing at the nearby scenery, language-free telepathy, extended lifespan and youth, and eventually ascension to divinity (albeit the lowest in the celestial bureaucracy), all common elements that show up regularly (especially for the protagonists and BBEGs, though). As I grew up with the genre, I always find it absolutely weird to see warriors being underdogs to spellcasters in western fantasy tropes...

If there is Reality + Magic, I find it perfectly FAIR to have Reality + SMA and Reality + Super-Skills stuff rolling around (like running on water surface with Athletics/Acrobatics DC 35).

There is a reason I like Path of War, and I think this nails it on the head pretty well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blackwaltzomega wrote:

I feel like Fightin' Magic gets a bad rap. It always struck me as the logical result of people developing martial arts in a setting as ridiculously high-magic as any 3rd Edition/Pathfinder setting needs to be to accommodate half the core classes.

In a setting where magic gets that powerful, it stands to reason martial arts with real power behind them would bear a certain resemblance to magic.

I agree. As a DM I let my players know that Path of War (and psionics) is an option. the part i leave out is that they WILL run into enemies built upon it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:

Personally I like newer classes better. In fact, I can't stand the CRB classes and refuse to ever play them. They're completely unbalanced, unimaginative, broken trainwrecks. In the same book, you have the Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid and Cleric, all hideously broken. Then you have the Rogue, Monk and Fighter, all underpowered and useless. The Bard is the only balanced class in that entire book.

The Ranger can be either OP or worthless, depending on what favored enemy/terrain you pick, and the Paladin ruins more campaigns with that stupid alignment requirement than all the other classes put together.

Personally, I think PF works best with 6-level casters. Martials are worthless and 9-level casters are Godlike. That's the big issue with the Core classes, they exist on either extreme with nothing in the middle except the Bard.

I largely agree. I was about to mention how i still play monks, but then realized that I haven't touched CRB monk in years and, in fact, play unchained monks these days. (Or third party classes).

side note, you made no mention of barbarian.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
Derklord wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Am I missing any other big ones?
The "I once played a barbarian who was more useful than the party's wizard (who refuses to cast any spell that doesn't do fire damage), therefor the tier list must be wrong!!!!11" one?

Player ability contributes more to class effectiveness than any single class ability.

The tier system assumes Shrodinger's wizard, and makes all comparisons based on that assumption while removing context provided by the rest of the game system. i.e. the current tier system was designed to support a predetermined result, not to objectively analyze in-game functionality.

Your missing the point of the Tier system; it isn't comparing player ingenuity but rather classes as they are ON THEIR OWN. Flexibility of class features to accomplish tasks before a player is even added to the equation.

the tiers aren't measuring fun, they are measuring the raw possibilities of a class mechanically (before feats, items, race, or even players and etc.) between each other.
If used as JUST a guideline and nothing more, then it is neat little tool. though if you are making a class, it is potentially more than just neat.

1 to 50 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>