Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Zorek

Amaranthine Witch's page

211 posts (304 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

I really liked the book, more than Death's Heretic, specially because it shows us truly new places. My only issue is the ending for Roshad and Bors.

Spoiler:
It doesn't feel like it's the goal of the Iridian Fold (and from descriptions in the book, they were making good pace toward it), and I'd say Salim has the mojo to put Roshad in a new body, seeing as he isn't actually dead.


I don't remember where I found a link to this video (I really hope it wasn't here, or I'll feel like a moron) but I really liked it:

Eu nao quero voltar sozinho


S'mon wrote:
Lamashtu isn't going to be a big fan of non-procreative sex. But she's the mother of monsters, I'd think she would work around that - maybe a female Lamshtite priestess might spontaneously grow male genitalia in order to impregnate a female consort/victim, the kind of thing that happens in Japanese hentai. Likewise a male victim/consort might find himself impregnated, with something nasty growing in his bowels/stomach.

IIRC, the second thing is canon.


I can't edit my last post, so I'll continue here:

And I think that whatever it is that corrupted Dou-Bral, it could not have taken Shelyn. It's noted that she is uniquely resistant to the Whisperer of Souls' influence, and she doesn't seem to have a drop of bitterness or resentment in her (she even keeps his brother's old divine realm in case he gets better, despite the fact that he attacked her and turned their father into a tortured monstrosity). In contrast, Dou-Bral was jealous of his half-sister for being "better" (in spite of being younger?) (My theory is that in opposing Rovagug, and witnessing the death of so many gods, he became a little broken, leading to his confrontation with Shelyn and allowing whatever twisted him a foothold into his mind).


Mikaze wrote:
Set wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
I would love to know what Zon-Kuthon was like before his transformation. You know, what he was a god of, his old domains, old favored weapon, etc.

It is an interesting notion.

It might be interesting to totally reverse his current Domains;

Darkness becomes Sun
Death becomes Healing
Destruction becomes Protection
Evil becomes Good
Law becomes Chaos

Another option would be to consider which gods didn't exist back when Zon-Kuthon was Dou-Bral, and therefore which Domains were less represented;

No Cayden Cailean, Iomedae or Norgorber (yet) means that there were openings for Chaos x2, Charm x2, Death, Evil, Glory, Good x2, Knowledge, Law, Strength, Sun, Travel, Trickery.

Glory, Good, Knowledge, Strength and Sun might fit well for what was once one of the more locally prominent Taldan gods, along with sister Shelyn, covering Domains that were later filled in by the new Starstone Scions, and befitting a god whose Taldan people would have gone on to events like the Armies of Exploration, and yet not overlap too much with his sister (avoiding Charm and Protection, for instance).

And... I've totally talked myself out of just reversing his current Domains, and like this second idea better. :)

I kinda like the idea of Dou-Bral originally being more of a darkly romantic god, completing a sort of yin-yang relationship with Shelyn that was much more stable and healthy than the current situation. Perhaps with a touch of the Byronic? That could have led to their falling out that resulted in him leaving and getting ZK'ed?

That could also mean Shelyn had to step up and pull double duty for representing the kinds of love and beauty her brother used too. Or that if it had been her that ran into whatever got her brother, she could have wound up being a twisted goddess very different from Zon-Kuthon...

Hmm....

According to Gods and Magic, Dou-Bral is older than Shelyn, and she joined him in watching over love, music, art and beauty. Then they argued and went to the spaces between the planes where he became Zon-Kuthon.


Mechalibur wrote:

One thing that I wonder about the Risen Guard... where are the Forthbringers getting all those diamonds? Let's say there are around 100 members of the Risen Guard (doesn't seem that unreasonable), that's a total exense of 500,000gp worth of diamonds, not counting ones who have been brought back multiple times.

Also, a level 20 cleric/wizard/mystic theurge... I wonder if she's the most powerful priest of Nethys in the whole Inner Sea region.

If I remember correctly, the Ruby Prince is a great summoner and binder, so it's likely that he gets them shipped from the elemental plane of Earth.

And I think you're right, she might be the most powerful priest of Nethis, but that's hardly unusual, as it was Nethis' might that enabled the establishment of the empire of Ancient Osirion.


There is an error in Table 12: Theurge. At level 8th it indicates +6/+2/+6 as it's saving throws, when it should be +2/+2/+6


What I meant is: the summoner gets maze, summon monster VIII and dominate monster as 6th level spells. Can I get a summoner scroll of those spells and learn them as 6th level spells as well?


4d6 ⇒ (4, 3, 1, 4) = 12=>11
4d6 ⇒ (1, 1, 3, 6) = 11=>10
4d6 ⇒ (5, 6, 6, 3) = 20=>17
4d6 ⇒ (6, 1, 5, 3) = 15=>14
4d6 ⇒ (3, 5, 1, 2) = 11=>10
4d6 ⇒ (3, 1, 5, 6) = 15=>14

Interested in playing a witch.


I have read parts of the book (as my main interest was the Theurge), and although I like it, I have a few concerns.

Both the Theurge and the White Necromancer lack interesting class features:

-All the Theurge's class features are about spells. I think it needs more flavorful options, probably linked with knowledge, research or metamagic.

-Given the extremely limited spell list of the White Necromancer, it has too few class features, as it is right now, I think I'd never play a white necromancer over a sorcerer, an oracle or a witch. I'd either beef up the casting or the class features.

We need some kind of guide on spell levels for the Theurge, as it is right now, I see nothing that impedes me of finding scrolls made by a summoner or a paladin and get plenty of spells at a reduced spell level.

Also, the Paper Talisman ability of the Six Talismans Monk has a save of 1/2 the level plus Wisdom modifier. Shouldn't that be 10 plus 1/2 the level plus wisdom modifier?


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
So I'm curious about other LGBT folks: How long did it take you to realize you weren't 'normal,' and was it a single moment of epiphany or a gradual realization?

I became aware that I liked men when I was 14-15, after discovering yaoi anime, because neither in my village nor the city where I went for my secondary education there wasn't any mention of homosexuality (despite my favorite aunt being a lesbian, which I found out later). Then I realized that I found my tennis instructor hot and I was in love with my male best friend.

After a time I realized that most of the time I didn't feel a man, and although I knew about trans people, most of the time I didn't feel female either. It wasn't until a year ago or so that I found out about gender fluidity, and it felt as the right way to describe me.


Thanks!


Could someone who already has it post the level and tier progression?


Dotting for interest.


Annabel wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:

How nice of you to tell those poor misguided asexuals that the fact they don't want to have sex is a product of the way they were brought up, and if they had lived in a different socitey they'd get the joys of sex. [/SARCASM]

And I'm not really defending him, I'm just saying that while making a joke (and I'd like you to explain to me why it's so offensive to you) may be bad, saying "let's space him!" is certainly no better.

If you don't understand the idea of social construction, don't talk about it. That is the simplest solution.

To say something is socially constituted is not to say that it is learned. To claim that one is "asexual" requires that notions about sexuality and sexual sexual desire be socially constituted in such a way that the utterance "I am asexual" is intelligible. Asexuality, homosexuality, gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, demisexual, straight and heterosexuality are all socially constituted. The blithe claim that appealing to a biomedical authority of essential asexuality doesn't change the fact that the idea of "asexuality" is socially constituted. Even biomedical knowledge is socially constructed. This is often a difficult pill for folks to swallow, but it has been supported by sociology and philosophy of science for over fifty years.

And you are (and are still) defending him: see your response to Vivianne Laflamme.

And the suggestion to "space him" was actually put forth by the President of the Twelve Colonies of Kobol, under suspicion of "scummery" because the joke (and subsequent deflection) constituted an instance of marginalizing queer folks. I think the important term here is "scum," which clearly references scum-like behavior. There are plenty of decent cis people, many of which I am sure Laura Roslin would be uninterested in putting out the airlock.

BTW: I am still uninterested in respectability politics.

Me: you reject asexuality?

You: No, I reject the claim that it's biologically determined
Me: How is it determined, then?
You: It's socially constituted, obviously. <-- which I took to mean determined by upbringing (sorry, English is not my first language)
Me: /sarcastic rant about how sexuality is not a result of upbringing/
You: If you don't know what you're talking about shut up.

So you're answering "society puts names on things" (if that's not what it means you'll have to explain it to me again) when I asked "if sexuality is not biological, what it is?"?


Annabel wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
Annabel wrote:
No, I reject the claim that it's biologically determined.
How is it determined, then?

It's socially constituted, obviously.

Amaranthine Witch wrote:


Annabel wrote:
Generally, cisgender heterosexuals have a difficult time recognize their privilege, and in turn do things like make "jokes" at the expense of queer folks.
I know that, but that image does not say "cisgender heterosexual" and gay men and lesbians may be (and most are) cisgendered. And it's still inappropriate.

Yes, and on the occasions that cisgender gay men and lesbians perpetuate the oppression of trans men and women, they are being bad people too. But it's worth noting that the oppression of queer folk isn't a product of a few "bad gays." It arises out of the dominance of cisgender heterosexuals, and the marginalization of all others.

Are you really having a hard time seeing how the "joke" about gender ambiguous dwarves wasn't a dig at non-heterosexual/cisgender conforming individuals, which makes up the group of people generally referred to as queer folk? If you don't understand the "humor," don't defend it.

I'm not that interesting in getting into a respectability debate here with you. I'm not going to play into these politics of turning straight heterosexuals into the victims of queer villainy. If you don't understand the message, just let it go.

How nice of you to tell those poor misguided asexuals that the fact they don't want to have sex is a product of the way they were brought up, and if they had lived in a different socitey they'd get the joys of sex. [/SARCASM]

And I'm not really defending him, I'm just saying that while making a joke (and I'd like you to explain to me why it's so offensive to you) may be bad, saying "let's space him!" is certainly no better.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
And it's still inappropriate.
So you didn't have anything to say when Astral Wanderer was making jokes at the expense of gay and bisexual men and women, but you are stepping in to defend cisgender people from an image macro?

You mean this?

Astral Wanderer wrote:
Have you looked at Dwarves? Well, they looked at one another, and since they can't tell their men from their women, they probably reproduce only to swell their numbers and with the least possible contact.

Considering that most people are heterosexual and I'd never want to do the deed with a woman, I don't see why it's so offensive making a joke about heterosexual people not wanting to have sex with people of the same gender as them (altough it's still a little weird).


Annabel wrote:
No, I reject the claim that it's biologically determined.

How is it determined, then?

Annabel wrote:
Generally, cisgender heterosexuals have a difficult time recognize their privilege, and in turn do things like make "jokes" at the expense of queer folks.

I know that, but that image does not say "cisgender heterosexual" and gay men and lesbians may be (and most are) cisgendered. And it's still inappropriate.


Annabel wrote:
Astral Wanderer wrote:
Annabel wrote:
Astral Wanderer wrote:
Have you looked at Dwarves? Well, they looked at one another, and since they can't tell their men from their women, they probably reproduce only to swell their numbers and with the least possible contact.
What's wrong with androgyny?
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Astral Wanderer wrote:
Have you looked at Dwarves?...
So your explanation of dwarven heterosexism is that you cannot imagine why a woman would want to have sex with another woman or a man would want to have sex with another man?

Guys, your passive-aggressive attitude is going to gain mythic tiers.

Not every joke means that someone would shoot down homosexuals or whatever.
Relax.
I think you understand that the only humor to be found in your "joke" was as the expense of gay men and lesbians. Good dodge though.

I don't see the connection between cis/trans and gay men and lesbians (leaving aside that the text of that image is not cool).


Annabel wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Annabel wrote:


The two women dwarfs explicitly stated, (in dwarven) that they were deeply in love. "Deeply" having special meaning to dwarves, who value notions of depth because they live underground.

They do have sex, and that sex is lesbian dwarf sex. And this is being labeled a perversion.

I whole-heartedly agree with them: they are suffering under a sex-negative, heterosexist society. The sex-negativity coming from the clearly restrictive social norms surrounding sexuality. And the heterosexism (homophobia) coming from the fact that the only socially legitimated sexual acts are allowed under the ostensibly "natural" purposes of "breeding."

OK. You are clearly rejecting the theoretical premise of this thought experiment: that dwarves lack interest in sex.

You seem to be assuming that dwarves really must have the same variety and intensity of sexual desire that real humans do, but that it's being socially repressed.
As such, I wouldn't use this approach to dwarves in a game with you. (Or probably at all. It's a neat idea, but I'm not really sure where to go with it.)

I'm actually rejecting the premise that "sex activity" is something that is biologically determined.

There seems to be this underlying notion that feelings of "disgust" or ideas about "perversion" are somehow built into human(oid) biology: that whenever dwarf feels disgusted by these two women, that disgust is due to some sort of "natural" (and moral") wrongness of their sexual relations.

And it is you who are assuming that dwarves have a more narrow range of sexual desire than humans.... Or is it that we are both making all of this up on the fly because it is all made up?

I was just asserting that there will be dwarves (maybe even a sexual minority of them) who don't fit normative dwarven standards, and thus will face marginalization because of their sexuality....

Sooo... you reject asexuality?

The problem with the dwarf scenario isn't the asexuality. It's, as rooboy said, that they're unlikely to have evolved to that stage (asexuality is the norm) or been created that way, and conflating asexuality with aromanticity.


chaiboy wrote:

I've been digging into the various types of slavery and you could put different kinds into alignment context. Here is a really rough attempt at it.

I of course left my notes but will try to put what i could remember into this list.

LG would only have bondage. That is you sell yourself into bondage in order to pay a debt or are forced into bondage to pay off a loan or other debt, such as a criminal activity. Basically you have a choice to enter such a situation. You have various rights for proper treatment

LN would be serfdom/Thrall. You and your family are born into it and are tied by location or work until such time as you can buy or freedom. If you want to change jobs or leave family to become a soldier then someone has to buy your obligation. It is almost like a work contract. you stay until you pay it off or someone else does. You have some rights against being mistreated but not many.

LE would be chattel slavery. You were forced into bondage and have no rights. Your owner has rights over you as if you where their property. There is little way for you to escape this situation. There is no way to buy your freedom since you are considered a thing not a being. You have no rights at all.

NG would be a type of bondage but a gentleman's agreement. no formal rules exist but the word of your master and you and the agreement both of you struck up. There are no formal rules just your master's compassion in how you are treated and it will be good. Pure business with workers over profit.

N, True Neutral would be serfdom/thrall. Maybe you where taken in battle or you where born into it. You don't have a formal way of getting out of this situation but you could in time convince your master to free you. either by deed or money. You would find you are treated based on how the master can get the most out of you. So treatment will be even handed and not harsh unless necessary. The only rule is what the master wants. Pure business with profit and sustaining the workers.

NE. Chattel slavery. This is...

I agree with pretty much every assessment, except the CG one. CG people wouldn't keep slaves, chaos=freedom, good=empathy, and that is incompatible with slavery.


Drejk wrote:
Dallimar wrote:
So, a little background. One of the players in my group wants to play a paladin of Arodan, gaining his power through faith in the teaching of the dead god rather than from a deity itself, but he may be taking the Touched by Divinity trait and, for our home game, I think it would be a great turn to have him be the son of Arodan (I'll be working up to a campaign later that involves this as the central theme).

Remember that (unless you as GM change the way the setting works for your game) on Golarion faith itself does not grant power (or Razmir wouldn't be so desperate to buy longevity elixirs) so believing that Aroden is not dead won't bestow actual power.

With being child of Aroden there might be a small problem of timing if playing in default campaign year, unless the character would be half-elf, elf or member of other long-lived race... Of course extended lifespan can be sign of the human character's divine heritage in the first place...

The only divine caster that requires a god is the cleric, the others, including the paladin and the inquisitor may or may not have one. He could be a paladin that follows the teachings of Aroden but with a more benign touch (Aroden is LN). He also should have been in stasis for some time, as Aroden has been dead for more than a hundred years.


Keign wrote:

Obviously, I enjoy the idea of having an anti-spellcaster facet to this class...

Feedback Loop(Su): When you successfully dispel a spell, you may channel energy back through it to its caster. By spending a point from your Arcane Reservoir as a part of your dispelling action, you deal 1d6 Force damage per level of the spell to it's caster. For example, dispelling Mage Armor would deal 1d6 of damage, and dispelling Haste would deal 3d6 Force to the caster. Will negates.

Copycat(Su): When you successfully identify a spell being cast which you are capable of casting, you may spend one point from your Arcane Reservoir on your next turn to prepare it in a spell slot of the appropriate level, either replacing another spell which you had already prepared or preparing it in a previously un-prepared slot. This is a move action which provokes an attack of opportunity. You must have the new spell in your spellbook in order to prepare it in this way.

Feedback Loop is really underpowered. The damage is abysmal, it's a will save to negate (the strongest save for all casters), and the DC will be low (it works off charisma). I think Copycat is fun, but it may make the arcanist too versatile.

Up-thread it was suggested making the old counterspell exploit an advanced form of the actual counterspell exploit, and I have to say I wouldn't take it either, unless there's an Extra exploit feat. Then I'd grab both the same level, and not spend two levels with an exploit I wouldn't use. Instead I'd make it a chain: See Magic -> Filter Spell -> Counterspell (the old version, stating it doesn't work with Parry Spell) -> Counter Drain

Filter Spell would be something like: if the arcanist identifies a spell as it's being cast, she may spend a point from her arcane reservoir to reduce the caster level of that spell by 1 (minimum 1).


andreww wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
Why would anyone take the counterspell exploit now? If you want to counterspell your enemy's highest level spell, you have to be three levels higher than him. When was the last time the enemy casters where underleveled compared to the party?

Because enemies dont always lead off with their highest level spells.

Because if you have the spell you are using then it still counts.

Because at higher levels because they are also quickening a lower level spell as well as casting a hugher level one for improved action economy.

The first I don't agree with (except for buff spells), the second is highly unlikely, as you have few spells known. The third one I agree, sort of.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mystically Inclined wrote:
Side note- I'm willing to bet the Arcanist Iconic will be female. The witch and wizard are male so it would balance the female casters.

I don't see how you can mistake the witch for a man.


Why would anyone take the counterspell exploit now? If you want to counterspell your enemy's highest level spell, you have to be three levels higher than him. When was the last time the enemy casters where underleveled compared to the party?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Mikaze, I've made this for you, as a thank you for being so generous and generally fantastic. Maybe it's not very good, but this year is all I can do. (If you want the original file, send me a PM and I'll pass it to you)


Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Mikaze, Mike, you're awesome!


If it's possible I'd like to ask for the Book of Heroic Races: Reapers and Cackle of the Gnolls.

It's fantastic of you to do this Mikaze, many thanks.


Lormyr wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
Karzoug's Ioun Stones are in page 421 of the Anniversary Editon. They are called Thassilonian Ioun Stones and are minor artifacts.

I understand that. I am questioning if there was some official FAQ or errata for Seekers of Secrets that in some fashion invalidates those ioun stones for purchase. If there is, it is not known to me and I would like a chance to read it.

The ones Karzoug possesses as artifacts are in all ways identical to the non-artifact versions PCs can purchase from Seekers. Perhaps there was a clerical error somewhere, or this issue was simply overlooked between the time of RotRL orginal printing --> Seekers or Secrets --> RotRL AE, or maybe Karzoug is just intended to have "super special" ioun stones.

I am at the moment less concerned about that than I am if these ioun stones were errata'd at some point to not be purchasable.

As far as I know, they remain separate items, despite the variants having the same names and the same powers. The fact that Karzoug's are artifacts makes them immune to dispel magic and antimagic field, and makes mage's disjunction less useful (and potentially dangerous to the caster).


Robert A Matthews wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
Claxon wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Claxon wrote:
the people who are writing these characters in aren't the core "developers", they're just writers.

Except for when they are the Core developers?

B2 has Soulbound Doll which are Constructs with Rage.

Except Souldbound Doll specifically is stated to have:

Quote:
Susceptible to Mind-Affecting Effects (Ex) The weakened conviction of a soulbound doll's soul makes it susceptible to mind-affecting effects, despite the fact that it is a construct.
Which includes morale effects.
And even if they didn't have that ability, the soulbound doll's rage is the spell, not the ability, and only if they are CN.
Why does it matter if it is the Rage spell instead of the Barbarian's rage? They both grant morale bonuses.
It matters because the rage spell may target people other than the caster (in fact 1 creature per 3 levels), so it wouldn't be out of place as a spell-like ability for a construct.
The only thing allowing it is the Susceptible to Mind-Affecting Affects. The rage spell still grants a morale bonus. A bonus that constructs normally receive no benefit from.

And I'm telling you the soulbound doll doesn't need to cast it on itself, more likely it casts it on other people.


Lormyr wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Seekers of Secrets came out in 2009, while the RotRL Anniversary Edition came out in 2012. In RotRL AE, they're artifacts; since that's the latest source, I'm sticking with it. (Even setting aside that practically everything in SoS has been retconned at this point...)
Can you point me to where the game mechanic stuff from SoS has been retconned? I am not aware of any such thing. There is no faq or errata regarding it that I have been able to locate. I am aware some of the fluff has been altered and expanded upon since it's release, but that does not impact game mechanics.

Karzoug's Ioun Stones are in page 421 of the Anniversary Editon. They are called Thassilonian Ioun Stones and are minor artifacts.


Robert A Matthews wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
Claxon wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Claxon wrote:
the people who are writing these characters in aren't the core "developers", they're just writers.

Except for when they are the Core developers?

B2 has Soulbound Doll which are Constructs with Rage.

Except Souldbound Doll specifically is stated to have:

Quote:
Susceptible to Mind-Affecting Effects (Ex) The weakened conviction of a soulbound doll's soul makes it susceptible to mind-affecting effects, despite the fact that it is a construct.
Which includes morale effects.
And even if they didn't have that ability, the soulbound doll's rage is the spell, not the ability, and only if they are CN.
Why does it matter if it is the Rage spell instead of the Barbarian's rage? They both grant morale bonuses.

It matters because the rage spell may target people other than the caster (in fact 1 creature per 3 levels), so it wouldn't be out of place as a spell-like ability for a construct.


Claxon wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Claxon wrote:
the people who are writing these characters in aren't the core "developers", they're just writers.

Except for when they are the Core developers?

B2 has Soulbound Doll which are Constructs with Rage.

Except Souldbound Doll specifically is stated to have:

Quote:
Susceptible to Mind-Affecting Effects (Ex) The weakened conviction of a soulbound doll's soul makes it susceptible to mind-affecting effects, despite the fact that it is a construct.
Which includes morale effects.

And even if they didn't have that ability, the soulbound doll's rage is the spell, not the ability, and only if they are CN.


I've been watching some of Anita's videos and I have to say that although I don't really disagree with most of the things she says (femShep being sexist is stupid, because nearly anytime anyone refers to Shepard it means both. The man commander is maleShep), I don't like the way she has of saying it.


Alice Margatroid wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
Yaoi is written (mainly) by girls for girls. Bara (much more porny) is the one written by men for men and the one with massive amounts of beefcake.

Are you sure? Of course I haven't really done much research into the subject (not my cup of tea) but the few examples I've seen on the internet seem to be by male artists . . .

Of course I'm basing most of my understanding on animes like Genshiken (great show BTW) and anime, as we know, isn't always true to life.

BL (short for 'boys love', commonly known as yaoi here) is indeed largely written by and for women in Japan. It's really quite interesting, academically speaking, in that regard, as the whole scene essentially arose from self-published works in a rather sexually repressed society. In a way it was a "harmless" way for the girls to have an outlet for their sexuality [not in a homosexual way necessarily, mind you]. And it's become a MASSIVE industry.

I entirely disagree with Amaranthine's suggestion that bara is "more" porny than BL, though. Bara is basically the gay man version of BL and, yes, is pretty damn porny. Think bears and muscular/fat dudes as a rule of thumb, and I'm sure your imagination can fill in the rest. But damn can regular BL get filthy. I suppose it's just that, typically speaking, bara is all porn, all the time, whereas BL will (usually) try to weave in a story and some feelings/emotions before they get down to the dirty business.

Interestingly, yuri (girl-on-girl) was originally written by women for (heterosexual) women as well, and was generally much more innocent/pure than BL stories were. Modern yuri has changed a lot though (for the better in my opinion), but it's still actually often consumed by heterosexual women.

Anyway! You'd be surprised at how many women authors there are out there. Perhaps less common in terms of what becomes popular over here in the west - especially as you are a grown adult man and are unlikely to be reading the stuff aimed...

I won't deny that BL is very porny too, but it's infinitely easier to find a BL with no sex content than a Bara with no sex content.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Karzoug should be aware of the PCs tactics. If he faces a known and effective counterspeller (or a dedicated counterspeller) he should use tactics other than the default (I won't go over it now because I have to study for an Anatomy test).

EDIT:

Shisumo wrote:
It's also pretty cool when you get to use swift actions right after using immediate actions. In fact, it's so cool it's completely illegal.

I hadn't noticed. So, a broken item, illegal actions and poor tactics. I don't think this is a good indicator of what the exploit is like.


Lormyr wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

What you described was not the experience we witnessed. Our GM was well prepared too, as he ran this module for our PFS group some months ago.

** spoiler omitted **...

So, is the problem the immediate action counterspelling, the two staves of the master or the bad tactics by Karzoug? (Hint: it's not the first)

RotRL:
Karzoug cannot be ever, EVER feebleminded. It's part of his EX immortal ability.


Yaoi is written (mainly) by girls for girls. Bara (much more porny) is the one written by men for men and the one with massive amounts of beefcake.


RotRL:
In the Anniversary Edition, Karzoug has eight 9th level spells, a rod of greater quicken metamagic and a fireball-hurling glaive, and is backed up by a blue dragon, a rune giant and two advanced storm giants. The arcanist will have at most four 9th level spell slots. Even if he rolls well for all four of his counterspells, Karzoug and his buddies will destroy the arcanist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lormyr wrote:

Spell Parry is not so bad when you must use a readied action to counter. When you are countering with an immediate action (which is the root problem), Spell Parry becomes very strong (a symptom of the root problem).

Just my opinion.

I'd say the problem is there was no immediate action counterspelling when Spell Parry was first printed. Solution: errata Spell Parry to require a readied action counterspell or mention that the "counterspell" exploit can't be used with feats that modify counterspelling.


Caineach wrote:
So, going back a little bit to the beefcake/cheesecake discussion, I think a good example of male cheesecake would be shoujo manga and anime. Tuxedo Mask from Sailor Moon, all of the guys from Revolutionary Girl Utena, Fruits Basket. Japan has explored the pretty boy quite a bit.

I don't think I would call those male cheesecake... more like lambcake. Male cheesecake would be some uke poses on the cover of yaoi mangas.


Savage Tide Spoiler:
I do mean Malcanthet in Savage Tide.


I can't wait to get into the Abyss and to meet Nocticula (although I'd prefer Socothbenoth). My only concern is that we already had a "Meet the Dangerous Demonic Seductress Overlady" and it wasn't my favourite part of that adventure.


Are you saying that a PC with Divine Source would ignore an Antimagic Field?


The demon lords and empyreal lords' ability to grant spells is part of their "Demon Lord Traits" and "Empyreal Lord Traits"

The only godlike power you gain with Divine Source is the ability to grant spells. This is vastly inferior to the power of a true deity.


I think it's both.


It sounds really cool, but I wouldn't like it at all if the main way of regaining "arcanist points" was draining magic items. It makes for a cool option, but the arcanist should have a more reliable means of replenishing a class feature.


LazarX wrote:
raidou wrote:

Quick question -

An Arcanist picks up a Ring of Wizardry. Which spellcasting progression does this item double - Spells Prepared (as a wizard) or Spell Slots (as a sorcerer)?

Prepared... just as the item itself specifies. It's a big advantage, you have more spells at the ready, even if the amount of slots to power them does not increase.

It actually says:

"This special ring comes in four varieties, all of them useful only to arcane spellcasters. The wearer's arcane spells per day are doubled for one specific spell level. A ring of wizardry I doubles 1st-level spells, a ring of wizardry II doubles 2nd-level spells, a ring of wizardry III doubles 3rd-level spells, and a ring of wizardry IV doubles 4th-level spells. Bonus spells from high ability scores or school specialization are not doubled."

So I'd say it doubles the spell slots.


Renchard wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Granted, I'm not sure how spirits cause wall of stones to appear, but given that they aren't going to make new spell lists so they can fit more classes in, whatcha gonna do?
An earth spirit can't make a wall of stones appear? I think it's probably important to define what a "spirit" is before deciding what kind of spells are appropriate for them. They don't have to be ancestor spirits, after all. The druid spell list might be more fitting if they're looking for a WoW-type shaman.

I agree. Now we have ancestor spirits, the spirits that enter a leshy's body (that are also contacted with commune with nature), the spirits contacted by a spirit planchette, the spirits of the spirit totem, the spirits of the spirit ranger, the "spirits" the menhir savant can detect...

1 to 50 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.