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

Ashiel's page

9,019 posts (9,022 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,660 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
What god you worship has no direct control over either of those things.

You're reversing cause and effect. If you are altruistic, respect the dignity of others, and protect innocent life, you should have no interest in worshipping an Evil deity.

A paladin living in Westcrown or Egorian might attend services at the Asmodean church. He might even consider Asmodeus a 'lesser evil' than other Evil gods like Urgathoa or Rovagug, since he can at least have an interest in Law. But that doesn't mean he thinks Asmodeus is worth venerating, or that the Church of Asmodeus is spreading a proper way to live.

But people do so all the time. There are a lot of people who are spiritual, and religious, but ignore the aspects of their religion that they don't like or don't agree with (usually for good reasons). For better or worse, that's how religion works. On the downside it creates splinter-sects and conflict between the faithful, on the upside, it discourages stagnation and leads to new ideas and hopefully a better society.

Changing the world starts at home.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Because evil-god paladins is the stupidest idea I've ever heard in my life, and I can't believe this topic is still going.

Take your time and use your words. :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is of interest to me because it sounds like the sort of thing that I, or someone I know, might be interested in exploring in the future; and because this has far-reaching implications for all characters not just Paladins.

As I mentioned before, religion is something I take into account for most of my characters, even when religion isn't something that is connected to their class features (such as with the aforementioned witch-y character who would implore Gyronna to look upon the badguys, or stay her gaze from those she wished unharmed; and she was raised to be devoted to Gyronna by her aunt who was a very spiteful witch; but the character herself embraced Gyronna in the most positive ways possible, and clung to her as a patron of the fallen and punishment for transgressions).

It's nonsensically limiting in a multitude of ways, and quite immersion breaking. Especially with the line of reasoning used by JJ earlier in the thread where the more devoted you are to a deity the more lawful you are, and the more devoted to only certain aspects of that deity makes you chaotic; as that pretty much ruins gods for everyone, just to try to crush odd corner cases like Paladins who happen to empathize with *insert evil deity* or consider them their god.

And what exactly does that entail, exactly? Who is it hurting? It has no mechanical repercussions. Most classes, including Paladins, don't get any special features for having particular gods. What are you losing with the ability to have a Paladin who favors Calistria who is heavily vested in the punishing wrongdoers aspects of Paladinhood and happens to be promiscuous in addition to being a great Paladin? What are you losing to have a Paladin who favors Asmodeus for his allowing mortals free will, or sealing away the greatest of evils, or for being a pinnacle of societal organization and the consistency and security that it brings?

Having the occasional oddball doesn't bring the world crashing down, but it does give character options to explore in what would be an otherwise dull and regurgitated set of themes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Full adherence to a Chaotic God would imply that you're also living up to whatever part of their credo makes them Chaotic. I'm uh, not really seeing an issue here. This is a literary attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill. Paladins cannot follow Evil or Chaotic gods, without shortly becoming former Paladins.

Clerics are... significantly less restricted, in that they can be any alignment that's within one step of their deity or ideal.

Edit: Honestly, this has never not been the case since the beginning of 3E, with the noted exception of Sune Firehair being able to have Paladins in the Forgotten Realms setting. Which, as many people pointed out back then, was dumb.

Ah, but the thing is, according to JJ, their full adherence would be lawful, even if they were being chaotic; which would make any sort of chaotic character impossible as according to JJ it's not even a little lawful/chaotic, but enough to bring about full-blown alignment shift.

I mean, a Paladin who mostly worshipped an evil deity might be being a bit chaotic for being faithful and following the portions of the religion he most identified with, but would be full blown mega-lawful for being a Paladin and following their code above all else and such.

If it's enough that it outweighs the Paladin's own codes, then it's enough to outweigh everyone else's habits, which means that it's enough to force all devout chaotics to become devout neutrals at the very least.

This isn't just about Paladins at this point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
No... it means you can't have chaotic paladins, or paladin followers of chaotic creatures. My comments are about paladins only.

Nobody said anything about chaotic paladins, except for you. You're the only person who's insisted that the Paladin would have to be chaotic. A statement that frankly makes no sense based on the line of reasoning that you presented. The line of reasoning that worshiping a deity makes you more that deities' alignment, and that "ignoring half of the church's teachings" is a "chaotic act" (which the alignment rules do not support).

The thing is, taken it its logical conclusion, that means that anyone, clerics included, who are devoted to to their deities are thus becoming lawful; which means there would be no chaotic-devotees. If you thoroughly embrace a chaotic good god, then you are, by your assertion going to become lawful good because not embracing every aspect of your deity is chaotic, thus embracing them fully would be lawful.

Quote:
A non-paladin doesn't factor into my comments at all.

Except that it does, because what is true for one is true for all in this case, because we are talking about alignment. You have made a declaration that less than full devotion to a god is chaotic, and that has far-reaching consequences. Because this actually is about more than Paladins, but the question has the most bearing upon Paladins because of the fact Paladins are alignment-taxed, and the question is answered for Clerics who are sometimes alignment/deity-taxed.

Quote:
OBVIOUSLY you can have worshipers of chaotic deities. We do it all the time. They are not and can not be paladins though... which is what this thread's supposed to be asking about.

But you haven't explained why, and your only explanation was because not being fully devoted to every aspect of the deity was chaotic, which means the reverse is true too. If you have loyal clerics of a chaotic good god, they will lose their powers for eventually bending and ending up Lawful. The more invested in their god, the more lawful, by your own line of reasoning.

A line of reasoning that does not work.

Quote:
Feel free to rule thigns differently in home games, of course... but posting and asking them here in a context of "what's right" comes with an implied "What's right for the rules as written/what's right for Golarion."

The rules as written are pretty clear. It's not evil unless you are hurting, oppressing, or killing someone. Likewise, we can see that your argument is bunk because it leads to an absurdity (the lack of chaotic-aligned worshipers).

Quote:
Please don't use my words talking about why you can't have a Paladin worshiping an evil deity as anything other than paladins not worshiping evil deities, in other words. ;-)

The thing is, you haven't explained why. You just said no. That's dumb. Not saying that you are dumb, but I'm certainly saying that's a dumb argument. You need to be able to reason things and explain them with reasonable evidence and such.

The only line of reasoning that you've put forth is bunk, because it leads to absurdity and it is not supported at all with the alignment rules. In fact, the only thing that could even be considered a chaotic-part of non-full adherence to every aspect of your religious faith or god would be flexibility, but you're being inflexible in that you won't accept the darker aspects of the god over your own code of conduct; which by its nature is explicit inflexibility (whereas flexibility would be compromising between the two, but there is no compromise, it's code first, religion second).

You're going to need to do better.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
But ignoring the evil aspects of his church is not following the teachings of his church, don't you see? Ignoring half of Asmodeus's teachings is a chaotic act. By remaining good aligned and trying to worship Asmodeus, you are behaving chaotically. You might still be able to call yourself a worshiper of Asmodeus in this case (and you would likely be consigning yourself to punishment in the afterlife, but that's a different story)... but you would NOT be acting in a lawful manner by doing so, and thus would drift away from lawful good toward neutral good or neutral. And when you did, you wouldn't be a paladin.

By this argument you cannot have chaotic followers of deities, because they either A) aren't actually following them, or B) are lawful. Likewise, you'd not be able to be a member of a church unless you 100% matched up with the deity in question.

Meanwhile, in Wrath of the Righteous pt 4, it mentions Nocticula is often worshiped by heretics who aren't into the whole evil stuff, but worship her more positive aspects such as being a patron of outcasts, artistry, and the glories of midnight; suggesting that they even come into conflict with the more mainstream believers; and they still get spells.

Not everyone is going to have the same outlook on faith, and some people are just strait up blind to certain aspects of it. Asmodeous for example is orderly, assisted in the binding of the god of destruction, and even after his vengeance for what he saw as his brother's betrayal, had sympathy and allowed mortals to remain with free will.

A Paladin could very easily cling to towards the positive aspects of Asmodean faith, such as the strength of order and the consistency that it provides, their activities in caring for orphans, or the fact that for an evil god he certain hands out more healing spells to his clerics than they normally have available. He's a bad guy, but not all of his faith revolves around hurting people.

It would be entirely possible, realistic even, for a Paladin to pray to Asmodeous (especially if he was raised to believe in his power) for more benign purposes and living his life as a servant of the order and security that Asmodeous provides, even if he doesn't get into the darker aspects of the deity.

Which, you know, is not an uncommon thing for religions. Without naming any names, I'm very certain that you can go out and find some people who are widely considered very faithful to their given faith, but do not do things like keep slaves, sacrifice animals, kill their brothers for following other gods, engage in rampant misogyny, etc.

Again, simply believing in the greatness of a deity, including someone like Asmodeous who while being a jerk does have some shining points on his track record, does not make one the same as that deity. Since a Paladin does not get their abilities from that deity, they don't even have to worry about maintaining perfect relations with their church, because their own moral compass comes first.

And again, if the Paladin is not hurting, oppressing, or killing, he's not doing evil and thus does not fall. Not following your faith's tenets that conflict with your own code does not suddenly make you chaotic-chaotic, it just means you have priorities and different values.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's also the fact that super high saves don't do anything but provide a 95% avoidance vs save or die effects, or offer you a chance to survive a debuff bomb attempt. You're still quite vulnerable to spells, especially those with save (partial), save (halves), save none, or save (partial) with stacking conditionals.

For example, a barbarian can do nothing against twin fear spells, magic missile, scorching ray, cloudkill, waves of fatigue, acid fog, various wall and shape spells, a surprising amount of conjuration, enervation, energy drain, most ray spells, etc.

It's far from an unbeatable defense. This idea that having good defenses is somehow gamebreakingly super is mind boggling to me. You can even still wreck a barbarian with save effects, but it requires teamwork (a debuff bomb), more easily than you can with even a Paladin.

Most spells that allow saving throws either still do something on a failed save, or was a spell that was so bad that save (negates) is the balancing factor (because it's all or nothing, but if it's all, it's big winnin').


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Haladir wrote:
Worshiping an evil god is a voluntary evil act.

Citation, please?

Evil is hurting, oppressing, or killing. Worship is not any of those things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a bit confused. Paladins have just as good saves as Barbarians, except they're vs everything. Divine Grace + Bestow Grace = +20 to all saves by 20th level, easy. No special magic items, no specific race, no special feats, nothing. Just two in-class features used.

EDIT: And while I realize that Divine Grace requires Charisma and Supersitition doesn't require an ability score, that's like saying Superstitution would be way worse if it used the barbarians Strength modifier as a key component. It's not an ability tax when you already want to max that ability.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
Would it be evil for bank security to shoot on sight any men coming in wearing ski masks and holding guns?

Yes, but it would also be smart. You are assuming they are a threat, and probably rightfully so, and murdering them before that threat is confirmed. Of course, this is also oddly specific.

The question is, is it evil to kill drow on sight? The answer is yes. Is it evil to X under these specific conditions? The answer is probably.

Quote:

I mean, there are sometimes circumstances where danger can be extremely apparent due to the appearance of the other party.

I will admit though, giving them a warning and preparing to shoot them them if they don't surrender is generally better decorum.

And you would be right. Now you don't have to let your guard down, trust them, go with them, or tell them anything about you, where you're going, or anything to that degree; but finding out who they are, why they are, and what they're intending to do is probably better than murder on sight.

Because it is murder.

But it's not necessarily smart. Given drow in Golarion, it's probably the safest (but not the most "good") route to just kill them on sight. Most characters wouldn't be judged for it. They'd probably even be given bonus "tactical pros" for ambushing them or starting the fight first, as to avoid casualties on their side. It probably isn't going to shift someone's alignment from Good to Neutral if they're otherwise Good, just it's one of those things that aren't in perfect keeping with the Good alignment (but characters aren't expected to be completely consistent anyway).

The OP is wrong that there is any distinction between races in the actual alignment rules. There is no inborn racism in the rules, quite the opposite in fact. There is nothing that makes drow more monsters than elves, dwarfs, humans, or anything else capable of rational thought, beyond the way that they act. The reason they are generally evil is because they are subject to alignment just as much as anyone or anything else.

I also applaude Odraude for being smart enough to see how to nix the "Drizzt syndrome". Drow are a playable race in my campaign, including having two major factions of drow (one faction could even be seen as supporting the chaotic good drow ranger sorts) and the only way the number of Drizzt clones in my campaigns could be any lower would be if I could get negative values somehow (maybe a female lawful evil high elf that fights with a greataxe to uphold bigoted matriarchy in a society that she loves greatly; who travels with her pet dire wolf).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
I guess I am just complaining that hitting high Nat AC creatures is too hard (maybe they should have more HP instead) and that Combat Maneuvers get near impossible on Large and bigger creatures, and that I don't want to be a Magus/Paladin/Barbarian just to raise my AB a little more. Thanks for reading : )

Your welcome. However, I've a few suggestions.

1. Don't take this as some form of elitism, but instead realize that each type of enemy has certain strengths and weaknesses and you have to learn to accept that some tactics are going to be more or less effective at the current task. If your opponent has extreme physical AC, start chucking alchemist fires or something, or start debuffing them to take them apart, or debufff and buff as well.

If your enemy flies, draw a ranged weapon and keep pelting them since flying creatures rarely have cover. Don't complain that it's not fair that the foe flies when your main tactic is killing something with a sword.

In essence, AC is only one of several routes to kill something. Classes that revolve around piercing AC do so (most core martials), especially post-buffs. Fight your enemy on terms that are less favorable to them.

If your enemy is a turtle, punish him for it. Outmaneuver him, pick him apart from a distance. Use your terrain to your advantage (get the +1 bonus to hit for being higher than the dude who can't climb out of a 3ft. hole in the ground). Don't complain that he's a turtle.

2. If your GM gets his jollies by hitting PCs and is getting upset because a player specialized in defense, find a better GM. All that is going to lead to is an arms war between a bad GM and the party, or the party will learn that letting the NPCs hit them means weaker NPCs and push all their resources into offense; then the game becomes rocket-tag.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
bob_the_monster wrote:

Drow seem to be pretty much universally reviled in lore. Subject says it all. The way I am reading evil vs good in the alignment rules, it seems to only apply to humanoid creatures and to core races. As such, killing intelligent undead, monstrous humanoids (kobolds, drow, etc.) on sight is not inherently evil. But rather a matter of killing them before they kill you.

Let's keep the Paladin code of conduct out of the discussion, as Paladins are extremely rare in the setting in question (i.e. not a player class).

The alignment rules and D&D/PF morality makes no distinction based on race (and for good reason because that would be sick and ****ed up).

Yes, killing any sentient creature on sight is evil, just like killing any sentient thing is evil. However, you may be doing so for altruistic or protective reasons (which are good) which means a lot of people who do probably are acting more Neutral, and are pre-emptively attempting to protect themselves and others from the very likely dangerous threat.

The short version is yes, it is evil to kill something on sight, but not necessarily stupid. Even most good characters do evil things occasionally because evil is often very self-preserving.

Most of my characters wouldn't murder a drow on sight, but then most of my characters are likely to end up in some tough situations because their decisions do have consequences.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thelemic_Noun wrote:

So we all know that summoning and binding a demon and commanding it to eat a village is evil. In fact, there's probably a trope for that.

But even for nonevil creatures, it seems like there's an ethical issue here.

For summoning and binding nonevil creatures, the most expedient means is magic circle against good, which has the evil descriptor (though of course you could use the chaos or law circles as required, though this makes the process much more complicated an even more inconvenient for the Charisma-based classes that should theoretically excel at planar binding negotiations).

But all that aside, I have a hard time seeing a good creature ever using planar binding, especially to conjure good outsiders. Because conjuring an unwilling creature, and confining it until it accepts a bribe, is essentially incompatible with "concern for the dignity of sentient beings."

Now, if you summon an astral deva and tell it "this city is dying of plague. Please turn invisible and use your at-will remove disease ability to cure it without causing a panic, and if you identify any evil creatures, tell me their identities or give a description before you depart," he might do it for only a nominal fee, or even for free. But in that case, the only reason not to use planar ally instead is because of the wonky rules regarding the arcane/divine split.

While letting the party wizard use planar binding shouldn't make the paladin fall, it's easy to see a chaotic good player becoming a little bit squeamish. Especially if instead the situation is:

"Huge earth elemental, clear the trees and boulders from this radius and dig me a moat of yea size."
<rumble, rumble>
"No, I'm not paying you."
<RUMBLE RUMBLE RUMBLE>
"Because you have the Charisma of a rock. Literally."

Well, there's a lot of options you have with planar binding to make it more effective. Sometimes being the good guy means not taking advantage of those options. For example, you don't actually have to use a magic circle spell as part of a binding, nor a dimensional anchor, or anything of the sort. You don't actually have to trap the outsider, you could just bring them to you for a moment to talk.

You could even forgo the Charisma check to impose your will over them, and just default to plain ol' Diplomacy (which is always a good skill for a binder anyway). For example, while a neutral or evil wizard might happily force or coerce an outsider into their bidding, the exceptionally good (as in the perfectly good that doesn't stumble a bit by using planar binding in the traditional fashion) might simply call up a Ghale Azata without any traps at all.

Wizard: "Oh fair Azata, I have called you here because we need your help. Could you please heal my friend?" *Diplomacy*
Azata: "Sure, why not. It costs me nothing to do so, and this whole thing has taken up no more of my time than if someone asked directions to the nearest bakery," *heal*
Wizard: "Thank you, friend!"
Azata: "No problem," *poofs back to the outer planes*


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
I'm not a fan of monks losing Qi and going "Psion".

It's kind of a tomato - tomato thing. The PP represents their Ki/Qi/Chi/Prana/Energy/Wisdom-Mojo, and I just felt like keeping the basic ki mechanics of the PF monk (which largely served the exact same purpose only in a far more limited range of possible ways to play your monk) would just be wholly redundant as it would basically leave you with two different resource pools that both represented the ki that you had to do mystical things like take spears to the throat and laugh about it.

The best RPing advice I could ever impart to anyone, ever, is don't worry much about metagame names. It'll just muddy the waters.

If you prefer the mechanical pool that the core PF monk has, then that's a different thing entirely. But if it's just the names, remember that is metagaming and nothing that has any bearing to what's going on in the actual world. :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rudy2 wrote:

I did this once, and it's a bad idea. Pathfinder cannot be made "realistic" without making it so convoluted as to be unplayable.

Next you're adding hex grids

Just tossing this out there, but the d20 system is freakin' baller with hex grids. I scarcely understand why it isn't the default. I've done some experimenting with hex grids and movement, spell placement, cone effects...pretty much everything is just better with a hex grid. There's no nonsense like every other diagonal square is 2, or anything like that.

Reach is easier. Movement is easier. I just...can't think of anything that is actually bad about using a hex grid. o_o


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Are you kidding? with abundant healing around, the only thing that stops most psion players from over channeling is the worry of running out of psi points.

A very real possibility. I tend to play psions very conservatively. Overchannel does look really nice with tons of healing though (1d8, 3d8, 5d8 damage can hurt a lot at the levels they become available). I generally end most adventures at around 1/2 PP, as I'm generally more prone to manifesting low-PP effects each round.

One of the most amusing encounters in our Reign of Winter game was one where we were waging an epic battle against some giants. Now, apparently the book thought that we were going to need the help of a non-player-thing to deal with the threat, but we were droppin' 'em like they were hot because of our formation and carefully considered pokes.

For example, turns out giants have cruddy Reflex saves, and a few well placed ectoplasmic sheens (grease) were devastating to them, as being prone or having trouble holding onto your weapons round after round with a cruddy save is really hilarious to watch.

I think I spent maybe 5 PP that combat. :3


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Jeven wrote:
When someone you loves dies you don't then see them as just a corpse.

My mother passed away just recently. I was holding the IV bag while the paramedics worked their best to save her. I felt the very atmosphere of the room change when she died, and I knew when it was. At that point, her body was what was on our living room floor, not my mother. It no longer felt like my mother because my mother was no longer within it.

So I will attest with the utmost sincerity that when someone you loves dies you do not see them as a corpse. You may, however, see their corpse as a corpse, and recognize them for what still remains in another form.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:

Mostly going off of how a few of the arguments I was proud of were getting torn apart and this joke:

Rynjin wrote:
Did he give you the whole "You know why I'm right, this should be obvious to anyone with a moral compass, you morally bankrupt monster you" spiel?
I have little first hand knowledge of how the developers/former developers are in conversation/as GMs (are they that bad?). I mostly know them as the ones that make comments in the rule threads that banish silliness like "half orc raised catfolk barbarians with 4 claw attacks" who get dissed by the kind of people....with those catfolk barbarians.

Ah, I see. :o

Quote:
Admittedly, I feel now that I was likely overly defensive (I think I have been making that a bad habit lately), and thus assumed you were just trolling. But that is again the danger of how we have limits on interpreting written statements, no? We end up painting more of ourselves onto it than the writer in our eyes.

Indeed. It can be hard to tell online sometimes. No harm done. For the record, I'm not much for trolling, though I am much for a good argument. To me, a good argument is a mutual search for truth, where two individuals are not fighting one another but engaging in a series of reason-based points and counterpoints in a search for the truest of answers.

I realize this view, or ideal, is not shared by many a messageboard enthusiast, however. :\


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
IMO, a paladin should face black and white moral situations. The right answer might be very hard to discover, but once discovered there shouldn't be any doubt that it is the right answer. The class doesn't really work very well with shades of gray. To me, paladins are the four-color superheroes of the fantasy genre and I would feel like I wasn't being fair to the player if I didn't give them the chance to act that way.
It's sad that there's even a base class that makes a GM feel like they have to dumb the game down for it to be enjoyable. -_-

?? What do you mean? Playing within the rules of the genre isn't dumbing down anything.

I was referring to these sentences.

"IMO, a paladin should face black and white moral situations."
"The class doesn't really work very well with shades of gray."

I find it saddening to think that a class requires a GM to paint everything in black and white strokes, and yes I do see that as dumbing things down, because real adults, and real heroes, don't always have the luxury of a certain right or a certain wrong answer.

Further, it might be fine in one genre, but I also feel like core classes (if not any class) should be able to comfortably fit into many different genres without problems, especially if dealing with a campaign setting like Golarion which is generally as genre inclusive as possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
lemeres wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Well, the right answer there is obvious, since making deals with fiends is historically a bad idea.

In my world, there will never be a situation where the morally correct thing to do is follow the advice of a fiend.

...unless.... they give you perfectly legitimate advice based on the idea that you will never follow it, since they are so untrustworthy.

DOUBLE DEMON BLUFF!

This is exactly the sort of thing the devils (and occasional demon) actually would do in my games if they are corruption focused (which most devils in my games are). Because they usually will indeed help you, but it might come at some sort of price, even if that price has no apparent value.

You catch more flies with honey, after all.

I think the problem with that approach in this context is that a Paladin has the absolute moral right to smite evil outsider (along with dragons and undead). It's one of those coveted black and white moral choices.

Do you think any paladin is going to give a fiend five seconds to speak when they realize, for once in their life, they have express permission from the creators of the world to smite something without falling?

Only if they know that it's an evil outsider. This kind of deception usually works much better if the fiend is disguised as something more benevolent. A priest of the paladin's god, for example.

Succubi are pretty good at that. I've had campaigns where succubi have attempted to screw with Paladins for their own amusement, and sometimes get upset and in a huff when the Paladin doesn't falter from their attempts at upsetting him. In rare cases, the succubus may even appear before the Paladin and demand he explain himself because she wants to know why continues being a good guy when she's been shoveling loads of **** all in his face from behind the scenes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:

I think the problem with that approach in this context is that a Paladin has the absolute moral right to smite evil outsider (along with dragons and undead). It's one of those coveted black and white moral choices.

Do you think any paladin is going to give a fiend five seconds to speak when they realize, for once in their life, they have express permission from the creators of the world to smite something without falling?

I would. Most of my Paladins aren't generally interested in starting fights (but they're usually damn good at finishing them). If anything, evil or not, wasn't being hostile I'm not going to immediately murder it on the spot. Two wrongs do not make a right.

(This would, however, be a point where I would be highly likely to drink my elixir of +10 to a skill (sense motive) to support my already maxed ranks in Sense Motive. >_>)

Fiends are sentient creatures too, and hurting, oppressing, and killing them without justification is just as evil as doing the same to an an elf. Since I don't believe in racist genocide, I'm generally willing to stay my blade long enough to hear them out. If you cannot trust a Paladin to at least hear you out, who could you trust?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Blazej wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
If a GM told me my Paladin fell for using said scroll on said child, I'd walk out and never associate with him or her again. Not because of the game ruling, but because I would want to stay far, far away from that human being.
What if told your Paladin fell for lying if telling the truth meant a family of innocents dying? (Lets say for this example this is like Speed, but the bus explodes if the paladin doesn't tell at least 50 lies per hour.)

I'd lie my ass off (putting my power before the needs of others would kind of kill the whole point). I'd lose my powers, but if I did otherwise I wouldn't deserve them anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
I guess Neutral is the new good.
Personally, I'd argue that not using the scroll is a greater Evil act than using it could ever be. And that's defensible, per the rules. So not necessarily.

Agreed 150% actually. That's what blew my mind about it. Here you have a magical doohicky that some poor kid died for, against his will even, but at least his soul could know that it saved someone else's life. I, personally, would be comforted by the idea that if I was going to be murdered, that it would at least have a silver lining like saving the life of some kid with leukemia.

If a GM told me my Paladin fell for using said scroll on said child, I'd walk out and never associate with him or her again. Not because of the game ruling, but because I would want to stay far, far away from that human being.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess Neutral is the new good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Isn't there a passage in Wrath of the Righteous that says the spells with an alignment descriptor are an X act?

I don't know. I don't remember a Wrath of the Righteous chapter in the Core Rulebook.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
People at Paizo have claimed that casting protection from evil or summoning celestial badgers a bunch of times will make you go to heaven (JJ treats casting an aligned spell as an act of that alignment)-

That's really not how that works. Not all Good or Evil acts are equal. Casting Protection From Evil is a Good act on par with being nice to your waiter and leaving a big tip. If being nice to all your waiters and tipping well, and nothing else, is enough to get you into Heaven...you were probably a pretty decent person to start with.

Aratrok wrote:

without any rules citations, I'd add.

I'm not inclined to call those official rules. :P

Eh, I'd argue that anything the majority of the Paizo staff say is how things work is how they work officially, since they're the ones that decide what the official rules are.

Where is the chapter that describes how much good or how much evil casting a spell is? I cannot find it, because...IT DOES NOT EXIST.

What does exist is the alignment rules which throw all this nonsensical trash out on its ear, and puts a boot to the hindside of stupid arguments over things like this.

Again, it's like this: If you are HURTING, OPPRESSING, or KILLING it's evil. If you are not doing those things you are not doing evil. Doesn't matter what you're using to do it either. Either you do evil, or you don't. There is no section of the manual that states that casting spells with [x] subtype is always equivalent to x actions. All it does is affect how they interact with other spells and mechanical effects such as dispel good and detect law.

Quotes or it didn't happen. And I don't mean quotes from devs not following the rules, or quotes from devs saying that it is better to let a child with cancer die than to heal them with a scroll that was made with an [Evil] spell (to which the very example of such a thing was to such an extent evil unto itself that I was nearly sick with disgust at the very notion).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That would definitely fit with the cargo cult thing. Heheh.
EDIT: Though I was actually thinking of biblical terms, like Elijah's ascent to heaven.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

I mean, let's be real here. Most D&D characters of around 9th level would be considered gods by us today if we saw them. I mean, if you saw someone walk up to a dying person and restore them to perfect health in less than 12 seconds, what would you think?

If you saw someone fly up into the air (levitate or fly and begin throwing fire from their hands with enough force to incinerate entire platoons of men instantly (fireball with the average warrior having about 6 HP with a 12-13 Con), while our nonmagical bullets did diddly squat to them (protection from arrows), and they were wearing nothing but robes?

If you watched someone walk out into a farming community, lift their hands, bless the crops, and increase their growth and yields by 33% for the next season? Or watch someone control the weather with their will, or call down lightning on their enemies with a glance?

If you watched someone strip another person of their free will with a word? Or assume the visage of anyone they wished? Raised the dead? Or called up the dead to be their soldiers?

What of these things is NOT "godlike"?

It all depends on context. One person doing these things is a miracle. A dozen of them.... a new top 500 corporation.

Exactly!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If it's not hurting, oppressing, or killing someone, it's not evil. Source: The freakin' alignment rules.

Doesn't matter if it is creepy or gross. Creepy and gross is not evil (though a lot of evil may be creepy and gross).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, let's be real here. Most D&D characters of around 9th level would be considered gods by us today if we saw them. I mean, if you saw someone walk up to a dying person and restore them to perfect health in less than 12 seconds, what would you think?

If you saw someone fly up into the air (levitate or fly and begin throwing fire from their hands with enough force to incinerate entire platoons of men instantly (fireball with the average warrior having about 6 HP with a 12-13 Con), while our nonmagical bullets did diddly squat to them (protection from arrows), and they were wearing nothing but robes?

If you watched someone walk out into a farming community, lift their hands, bless the crops, and increase their growth and yields by 33% for the next season? Or watch someone control the weather with their will, or call down lightning on their enemies with a glance?

If you watched someone strip another person of their free will with a word? Or assume the visage of anyone they wished? Raised the dead? Or called up the dead to be their soldiers?

What of these things is NOT "godlike"?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

On a side note, has anyone here ever heard of Cargo Cults?

Wikipedia wrote:

Pacific cults of World War II

The most widely known period of cargo cult activity occurred among the Melanesian islanders in the years during and after World War II. A small population of indigenous peoples observed, often right in front of their dwellings, the largest war ever fought by technologically advanced nations. First, the Japanese arrived with a great deal of supplies and later the Allied forces did likewise.

The vast amounts of military equipment and supplies that both sides airdropped (or airlifted to airstrips) to troops on these islands meant drastic changes to the lifestyle of the islanders, many of whom had never seen outsiders before. Manufactured clothing, medicine, canned food, tents, weapons and other goods arrived in vast quantities for the soldiers, who often shared some of it with the islanders who were their guides and hosts. This was true of the Japanese Army as well, at least initially before relations deteriorated in most regions.

The John Frum cult, one of the most widely reported and longest-lived, formed on the island of Tanna, Vanuatu. This cult started before the war, and only became a cargo cult afterwards. Cult members worship certain "Americans" (such as John Frum and Tom Navy), who they claimed had brought cargo to their island during World War II, as the spiritual entity who would provide the cargo to them in the future.[13]
Post-war

With the end of the war, the military abandoned the airbases and stopped dropping cargo. In response, charismatic individuals developed cults among remote Melanesian populations that promised to bestow on their followers deliveries of food, arms, Jeeps, etc. The cult leaders explained that the cargo would be gifts from their own ancestors, or other sources, as had occurred with the outsider armies. In attempts to get cargo to fall by parachute or land in planes or ships again, islanders imitated the same practices they had seen the soldiers, sailors, and airmen use. Cult behaviors usually involved mimicking the day-to-day activities and dress styles of US soldiers, such as performing parade ground drills with wooden or salvaged rifles.[14] The islanders carved headphones from wood and wore them while sitting in fabricated control towers. They waved the landing signals while standing on the runways. They lit signal fires and torches to light up runways and lighthouses.[citation needed]

In a form of sympathetic magic, many built life-size replicas of aeroplanes out of straw and cut new military-style landing strips out of the jungle, hoping to attract more aeroplanes. The cult members thought that the foreigners had some special connection to the deities and ancestors of the natives, who were the only beings powerful enough to produce such riches.

Cargo cults are typically created by individual leaders, or big men in the Melanesian culture, and it is not at all clear if these leaders were sincere, or were simply running scams on gullible populations. The leaders typically held cult rituals well away from established towns and colonial authorities, thus making reliable information about these practices very difficult to acquire.

For all intents and purposes, these strange "gods" in their bizarre crafts came down from the sky and interacted with the natives, engaged in wars with other gods, and provided bountiful gifts of magic to these people. From their perspective, at least.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guang wrote:
Has anyone compared pathfinder and 5e creatures (bestiary entries)? Are they at all inter-compatible?

Mechanically speaking, the likelihood of them being interchangable is extremely low as the two systems are already looking to be quite different.

From a fluff perspective, bringing / converting almost anything to the d20 system is not only doable but often pretty painless. However, if the monsters are at all similar to 4E monsters in their design paradigms, you will need to round out a lot o the monsters or else they will feel very boring and lackluster by comparison to other creatures in the bestiaries.

What I mean by this is, in the 4E design structure, the monsters exist only to be killed. As a result, they rarely if ever had anything that you could use to develop them as NPCs, or include from an ecological perspective.

For example, in D&D 3.x/PF, a bone devil has a few different things that it can contribute not only to combat but to the overall narrative. Their abilities like invisibility, greater teleport, and quickened invisibility make them great options for spies and assassins, while dimensional anchor and wall of ice make them useful for providing support for more powerful fiends.

In a similar vein, Imps have commune periodically as a SLA, which is purely a sort of story-forwarding divination ability.

You're almost guaranteed to stumble across undead fiends and creatures in a pit fiend's lair because of their create undead SLA which has little in-combat application. Likewise, their ability to trap and trade souls like currency (backed by their mechanics) in itself is a strong element that you could add to various adventures.

Further, most well designed 3.x monsters are more well rounded than they were in the 4E paradigm, often capable of changing their strategies up, with two or three different means of being an obstacle to the party (erinyes for example can provide martial offense, or blast the snot out of you with SLAs, in both cases usually as hit and run or skirmish tactics), which usually leads to more dynamic combat potential* than the default creatures in by 4E MM.

*: I say potential because not all GMs will run their NPCs to their potential. If a GM just has an erinyes stand around and shoot, or try to whack someone with their sword, and/or not take advantage of their abilities then the encounter will still be just as "meh" as it would have been if they only had 1 special ability.

However, a well designed monster is a character in its own right and when placed in the hands of a GM who will make use of its potential is leaps and bounds beyond what 4E-style monsters had in potential, though the 4E monsters were simpler.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
You know that saying "a sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic"? Well, a sufficiently advanced lifeform would be indistinguishable from god.
What does a god need with a space ship?

It's called a chariot, duh. /endjoke


2 people marked this as a favorite.

People are still grossly overcomplicating things which leads to alignment problems.

Remember: Evil = Hurting, Killing, Oppressing.

Eating a corpse, regardless of its source, is none of these things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
B.A. Ironskull wrote:

It's an "only if" situation. A paladin would do everything in her power to avoid such a situation. I sincerely doubt that any party stranded anywhere would find cannibalism a sincere recourse. Survival checks, Profession checks, etc.

Really? Paladin cannibals? Really? I understand the exercise but wtf.

As a GM, I'll toss out a wounded moose- hey, it's got a broken hoof! Stabbity and sustainable.

Why should a paladin fall to cannibalism? Spells, tactics, Survival, and aid from party members....

Why in the hell would I kill a living creature, when I have both the means to heal it myself, and a dead corpse right there to eat instead!?

You MONSTER! D:<


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Alignment is actually a really simple thing to handle when people aren't overcomplicating it. Here, I'll break it down.

1. Is eating a /corpse/, regardless of what soul it once had, "hurting", "oppressing", or "killing" someone?
2. If the answer is "No" (and is is no), then it is not evil.

What people are really arguing over concerning cannibalism is whether or not it's okay to murder someone to eat them, but here's the thing.

1. Is murdering someone, for any reason, hurting, oppressing, or killing someone?
2. If the answer is "Yes" (and it is), then yes it is evil.

What you do with the body after that is pretty irrelevant, because at that point it is a soulless object made of various organic materials generally defined as meat and bones.

EDIT: So again, if I was playing a Paladin, sure I'd eat somebody. For some characters it might even be a part of their normal mode of operations. However, I wouldn't kill anyone to eat them, even if it meant starving to death myself, because that would require me to harm them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

Anzyr PSA: Less the 45 minutes to go until RWBY Season 2 Episode 1 goes live.

Watch the series and understand what a mid level martial should be capable. The answer is not "full out their bow". It's attack every enemy around while defending with your weapon, while you move around.

*yesssssssss*

This is I what I think constitutes a good martial. RWBY is nice, but a lot of their appeal is spectacle, the combat lends itself to something more real-time than turn based.

Real time isn't that much different than turn based. For example, WoW PvP is probably the closest videogame analog to d20 combat that I've seen, and all the same pros and cons, and same thinking goes miles in both.

Most people mock MMOs for "aggro" but that's just against computer foes who have no human mind backing them. But other PCs? Well those have human minds, just like GMs, and that's where the aggro thing falls apart. Your "aggro" comes from how much of a threat real people consider you, and no matter how much you insult their mothers (I.G. taunt) they are going to murder your healer/artillery if you don't do something about it.

Unrelated Note: Concerning the barbarian and buffs, I'm currently playing a dedicated Healer/Buffer in a game right now, and if given the choice between a Fighter and a Barbarian w/ Superstition, I'd take the Barbarian...every...single...time. I'll have to use fewer resources on the Barbarian, use temporary HP / damage mitigation as an option, and worst case scenario the Barbarian can just delay (if convenient).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Anzyr PSA: Less the 45 minutes to go until RWBY Season 2 Episode 1 goes live.

SQUEEEE! @.@*

** Drops everything and runs to Rooster Teeth **


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Self-explanatory question.

Say the only way a Paladin could survive was to eat another living being of the same race. Would they do it, or would they sooner sacrifice themselves for that same person to live?

1. Won't murder someone to eat them.

2. Already dead? Pass the salt, please.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
pclark4422 wrote:
The invisibility/fly combo was happening as low as level 3 since the potions only cost 750 a pop its very doable. By level 4 the sorcerer was able to make his own. That means that from now on all quests have to be underground to prevent the fly in fly out tactic. Or they have to have some sort of magic field that negates either effect.

They haven't invented the iron bar in your world? A couple of those across the windows should keep invisible flying wizards out quite nicely. Or just make the windows smaller. If you know that it's possible for people to become invisible and fly, why would you put big open windows in your tower?

Behold. GM thinking in progress. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pclark4422 wrote:
The invisibility/fly combo was happening as low as level 3 since the potions only cost 750 a pop its very doable. By level 4 the sorcerer was able to make his own. That means that from now on all quests have to be underground to prevent the fly in fly out tactic. Or they have to have some sort of magic field that negates either effect.

Consuming 1,050 gp worth of magical items at a time is a hard pill to swallow for 3rd level characters.

Quote:
As far as the invisibility bonus itself, its not just 20 its +20. Meaning that a character with 0 Stealth taking 10 (I wouldn't let him, but thats the halfway point) gets a roll of 30. In order for a wall guard to to have a 50% chance of spotting them they have to have a perception score of 20. The pre-generated NPCs at level 6 and 7 have Perceptions of +10 meaning only a 5% chance to spot, and thats assuming the player flies close by and its broad daylight.

This is basically the entire point of being invisible.

Quote:
Detect Magic and Taking 10 do take "extra time", but not from the players perspective. Thats what makes them damaging in my opinion at least having to declare or roll a die gets annoying and they stop doing it leaving them vulnerable. Sure you can have time sensitivity in game but how meticulous and draining would that be. I like and use the idea of you have X number of days to complete the quest or the princess dies or if you sleep in the dungeon the bad stuff happens. But for these abilities you would literally have to keep track of the seconds of the day. Or arbitrarily declare that too much time is being taken.

Take 10 doesn't take any extra time. It just means you're being conservative about it. You're willingly accepting the low-end of average (10-11) to avoid rolling horribly low. It also speeds up gameplay for the GM. When I'm GMing, it's a hell of a lot easier to assume the orcs in the camp are taking 10 on their Perception checks. If I insisted that every Stealth/Perception combination be rolled, then not only would that take forever, but it would also pretty much assure that Stealth doesn't work (because you will roll badly, or one of the twelve enemies nearby will roll really well).

Quote:
Detect magic can be circumvented By X thickness of Y but that's not always a viable option. Most chests or doors with magic traps aren't 3 feet thick. Magic items aren't often going to be in a lead box. Many dungeons aren't constructed by epic level wizards such as a dragon's lair, a giant's castle, or a city sewer. And many permanent effects such as The Endless Corridor (which has a soft spot in my heart) are just completely out in the open and I haven't been able to find anything that masks the presence of a magic aura. While a GM could say that detect magic doesn't work for one reason or another, that's little more than just saying "no".

Magic Aura is a thing. A low level thing. A low level, cheap thing. Given its 1 day/level duration, it even gets significant discounts if you want to make it a permanent magic item effect.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
666bender wrote:

i diagree.... agood grapple (greater, rapid etc) is viable at any level. true, not vs any foe.... but very useful.

and barbarian got str surge, but without the improve feats he will wat many AOO....
(and barbarian dont have feat to spare.)

Actually, yeah, they do. You could build an effective barbarian on half of your usual feats. Power Attack, Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will, Dazing Assault. Done. That leaves 5 feats unaccounted for, so if you really want to, you can pick up things like Extra Rage Power, or various maneuver feats. If you want, you can take Heavy Armor Proficiency and grab a mithral suit of plate and some AC-boosting rage powers and just tank the AoO (they have to hit you), which might be a tactical way of wasting your enemies' AoOs so your party can get in.

If you take Come and Get Me, you can basically punish your enemy for taking AoOs on you anyway. So either your enemy doesn't take their AoO, and you succeed on your Combat Maneuver, or your enemy does, and you smash their face in. >_>

And the funniest thing? Come and get me resolves before the enemy's AoO, which means you could run up, attempt a combat maneuver, provoke, then with your AoO, strength surge and DISARM them as part of your AoO, which against most foes is going to wreck their AoO anyway. That may have been your whole plan to begin with!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doug's Workshop wrote:

Of course price fixing happens. A longsword has cost 15 gp anywhere you are in Golarion. If that isn't collusion between merchants, I don't know what is!

But seriously, if the minimum wage in Pathfinder is 1sp/day, that means a healing potion runs about $4000 - $5000 US. There are some pro sports players who would buy that, because it's crucial for them to be out on the field scoring baskets, making touchdowns, and defending Sandpoint from raiding giants. But the normal person just doesn't have the desire or need to spend $4000 on a one-use item.

So the "market" has priced potions at the appropriate level.

Actually, minimum wage would be something like 4.2 sp a day, and would require you to be pretty incompetent at your job.

EDIT: You'd need to have an Int (for Craft) or Wis (for Profession) of 3 (minimum that a human is going to roll on 3d6), 0 ranks in the job, and no special modifiers, then take 10 for a 6, divide by 2 for 3 gp / week, then divided by 7 for pay per day; or divide by 5 if we're assuming only a 5 day work week, in which case it comes out to about 6 sp / day.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Aranna wrote:

It seems a lot of people are confusing fatigue based casting with point pool casting; The two are NOTHING alike. In fatigue based casting your actual physical ability is diminished as you cast, while in point pools your physical ability never diminishes... you can try to reskin it as fatigue but when you can swing a sword just as well at 1000 points versus 0 points your argument fails miserably.

Well, funny thing...psionics actually does have options for the fatigue based thing, or pushing yourself beyond your limits. Options such as Body Fuel and Overchannel both allow you to go above and beyond. In the case of Body Fuel, you literally begin burning off your physical ability scores, killing yourself in exchange for juice, while Overchannel allows you to suffer damage to increase the potency of your powers.

A near equivalent would be if sorcerers could burn off their ability scores to cast more spells after they ran out of slots, but AFAIK, no such mechanic exists that gets used much.

I always felt that style of mechanic didn't really work in a party game like Pathfinder, since you'll have a cleric that can heal all of that for you.

Well the funny thing is that they took that into consideration. In the case of Overchannel you eat some damage to get a small bump in manifester level (kind of like caster level) which could be used to bump your powers up a little more, or get a +5-15% chance to pierce spell resistance, but it's not something you're going to do heavily.

Meanwhile, Body Fuel causes ability burn, which is a type of ability damage that was introduced with psionics. It only heals naturally, not by any magical means is it possible to repair the ability damage. As a result, you can't just nuke your stats down to 1s and then let your cleric cast restoration on you and make it all better, it means you're going to have to heal it on your own. There's a feat that doubles your natural healing rate, which is most useful for this very reason.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

[tease] You know what would be cool! Playing a WoW Warlock in Pathfinder! [/tease]

:)

Here's a preview of some of the power-combos, as I just finished writing the create healthstone power.

** spoiler omitted **...

Sweet! :)

I'll quit bugging you about it for a while ;)

No worries. Keeps me motivated / reminded.

*Bug*

...

*Nag*

...

*Whine*

...

*Complain*

...

Am I helping?

You tell me. :)

More Warlock Powers, Due To Tels Stimulus!:
Curse of Weakness
Discipline psychometabolism [affliction, curse]
Level warlock 2
MANIFESTING
Display auditory, visual
Manifesting Time 1 standard action
EFFECT
Range short (25 ft. + 5 ft. / 2 levels)
Target 1 creature
Duration 1 minute / level
Saving Throw Will partial (see text); Power Resistance Yes
Power Points 3

The caster places a weakening curse on the target, causing their strength to wane. The target suffers a -4 penalty on all melee attack rolls, damage rolls, and Strength-based checks. A successful Will save halves the penalty (so -4 becomes -2).

The manifester can have only one curse of agony, curse of weakness, curse of exhaustion, curse of the elements, or curse of tongues power active at one time on an individual target. Manifesting the same power on the target extends the duration of the active power by the duration of the new manifesting. Manifesting a different curse power from this list on the target immediately ends all other curses on this list.

Augment
For every 2 power points spent, the penalty increases increases by -1 and the saving throw DC increases by +1.

Drain Life
Discipline psychometabolism (healing) [affliction]
Level warlock 2
MANIFESTING
Display audible, visual
Manifesting Time 1 standard action
EFFECT
Range short (25 ft. + 5 ft. / 2 levels)
Target 1 creature
Duration concentration
Saving Throw Fortitude partial (see text); Power Resistance Yes
Power Points 3

You create a link between yourself and your target and begin to draw forth their energies and empowering yourself with them, causing your wounds to heal.

Each round, the target suffers two points of damage and you heal hit points equal to the damage dealt. Each round the target may make a Fortitude save to halve the damage taken.

You cannot target yourself with this power.

Augment
You may augment this power in one or more of the following ways.

1. For every 2 additional power points you spend, increase the damage dealt each round by 1.
2. For every 4 additional power points you spend, you may choose an additional target for this power.

In addition, for every 2 power points spent, increase this powers saving throw DC by +1.

Drain Mana
Discipline psychometabolism [affliction]
Level warlock 2
MANIFESTING
Display audible, visual
Manifesting Time 1 standard action
EFFECT
Range short (25 ft. + 5 ft. / 2 levels)
Target 1 creature
Duration concentration
Saving Throw Will partial (see text); Power Resistance Yes
Power Points 3

You create a metaphysical link between yourself and another, and begin draining away their magical and psionic energies, which you can then use to manifest your own powers.

Each round, if the target has a power point pool it loses 1 power point and you gain 1 power point. If the target has spells available to cast, the target loses 1 prepared spell (for prepared casters) or one spell slot (for spontaneous casters), starting with the lowest level that it can cast (not counting 0 level spells), and you gain 1 PP plus 2 additional PP per spell level above 1st (1 PP for 1st, 3 PP for 2nd, etc). In the case of prepared casters, the target decides which spell it wishes to lose. If the target has any combination of a power point pool, prepared spells, and/or spells available to cast, the target chooses which is drained first. If the target has no power points or spells remaining, this power does nothing. This power cannot raise your PP above your normal maximum.

This power may also drain psi-like abilities and spell-like abilities, but only those with some daily limit (not at-will or constant). As with power points and spells, the lowest equivalent power level or spell level is absorbed first. A psi-like ability or spell-like ability drained this way grants a number of PP equal to a spell of the same level.

Each round, the target may make a Will save to avoid losing any power points, spells, psi-like abilities, or spell-like abilities, and thus deny you gaining power points this round.

You cannot target yourself with this power.

Augment
This power can be augmented in one or more of the following ways.

1. For every 2 power points spent, you may drain 2 additional power points, or begin draining spells one level higher than their lowest level spell (so +2 PP begins with 2nd level spells, +4 PP begins with 3rd level spells, etc), or drain one psi-like ability or spell-like ability one level higher than their lowest level psi-like or spell-like ability (so +2 PP begins with 2nd level abilities, +4 PP begins with 3rd level abilities, etc).
2. For every 4 additional power points spent, you may choose an additional target for this power.

In addition, for every 2 power points spent, increase this powers the saving throw DC by +1.

Drain life probably seems somewhat weak initially, but a number of these powers will actually end up being better because of the in-class talent system that hasn't been added to the class yet (but I do have prototype concepts for each), and the ability to augment it to affect multiple targets means you could potentially begin siphoning a pretty solid amount of Hp from multiple foes as long as your allies can keep your concentration from being interrupted (plus the class will have some talents that improve the amount of healing you gain from (healing) spells and powers when certain conditions are met, and you can expect some talents that improve range and even potency if certain conditions are met; such as a talent that increases the potency of your Drain spells for every affliction spell you have active on the target already, and the ability to swift action curse, which will mean running into a fight and spreading corruption + curse of agony and then following up with Life Drain to begin causing continuous damage while restoring your HP, or if you're fighting lots of fiends or spellcasters, begin devouring their magics to replenish yours).

A number of these powers have a duration of Concentration because I want them to consume your actions while you're using them (further emphasizing that this class is about throwing DoTs onto an enemy and then seeking safety to continue draining them into the ground, if affliction is your thing), and because it makes the warlock a tactical target (since powers with a Concentration duration require Concentration checks to avoid being interrupted) which provides you, the Warlock, with incentive to coordinate with your allies and use your summoned minion for interference/crowd control (even if it's as minor as using your Imp for soft cover at low levels).

Odraude wrote:
I wonder if Ashiel-senpai will notice me...

A wild Odraude appeared! :D


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Odraude wrote:

Actually, Paizo has psionics in their setting and has said that if they use them, it would have Vancian mechanics in line with Arcane and Divine. And JJ is a huge fan of psionics, so I think it'd be not a matter of "if" but a matter of "when".

.

What JJ is a "fan of" is something he calls psychic magic. Which from the reading of his posts is something far different than the comic book power style of D+D psionics. Different enough that by his statements, psychic magic and traditional SRD psionics could live side by side.

The other thing is that there is no announced development schedule for this material so I wouldn't hold any campaign plans waiting for it to come out.

Erik Mona has talked about a possible Paizo foray into the powers of the mind as being focused on "psychic magic" as well, and has said it will probably be vancian, and probably look more occult and less "crystal punk" than the psionics presented and supported by DSP.

Too late. I've got a tiefling psion in a friend's Rise of the Runelords game (which is now on hiatus) that carries weird fetishes, and her psicrystal (a really small construct) is a...voodoo doll. A voodoo doll that either takes on her damage (via share pain) or inflicts damage on someone else (via forced share pain).

They better try really hard, because it's damn difficult to find a theme that I can't fluff psionics right into quick, fast, and in a hurry. Especially considering psionics is far closer to real life occultism in its depictions than vancian magic ever was. I've studied various traditions of magic to better understand different cultures and in a few cases to understand some friends of a different religion than my own more clearly (as some religious beliefs incorporate willful influence on the world). I can say in good faith that none of the methods that I have read about look like Vancian magic.

I've found that, given psionics' innate fluffability (complete with DSP encouraging you to refluff them even, see spoiler below) makes it far more likely that if I want something that more closely resembles a fantastic version of an existing methodology of magic, I'm probably better off with psionics rather than core magic. That said, I'm a big fan of refluffing all sorts of stuff (having magical fruit that carry potion effects for example, or stone tablets that shatter to release a scroll effect, etc) so it's never bothered me than my psionic tiefling carries around a talking voodoo doll, or that my psionic witch carries around bone fetishes and an athame.

DSP Encourages Refluffing:
Psionics and Crystals

In many parts of this book, references are made to using crystals for psionic purposes. This is done mostly for a stylistic element that ties crystals to mental energy, but it is in no way a rule you must use in your games. Crystals are simply the type of item given in this book, you can use any type of item or concept that fits into the setting of your campaign.

For example, take the psicrystal, a small piece of crystalline rock that talks, crawls, and even manifests powers. Instead of being a piece of crystal, this could be matter drawn from the Ethereal Plane and given form by the subscionscious mind of its owner, taking a form not unlike a homunculus, or resembling a miniature replica of its owner, or even an animated doll.

Similarly, cognizance crystals could instead be created from a special type of liquid that is contained within a mineral which, when processed with special metals and shaped into a disc is able to hold a reservoir of psionic energy.

These are just a tiny sliver of the ways in which you can implement the material side of psionics to fit your game world. Crystals are the option used within this book, they certainly are not the only choice.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Which reminds me. Anyone know if DSP has plans for Mythic Psionics?

If DSP did mythic, we might have mythic rules that actually worked. That'd be pretty sweet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:

Ok, Time for an Anzyr Mini-Guide:

Psionics: How Does It Work?

1. Much like Spellcasters have a caster level, Manifesters have a Manifester Level.

2. Much like spellcasters have spells divided into group ranging from 1st level to 9th level spells, Manifesters have powers grouped from 1st level powers to 9th level powers.

3. Much like spontaneous casters, manifesters can use any power they know. The difference is that spontaneous casters must have a spell level available to cast it, while a manifester must have power points available to cast it.

4. Powers cost a number of power points based on their level. 1st level powers cost 1 PP, 2nd level powers cost 3 PP, 3rd level powers cost 5 pp, 4th level powers cost 7 pp, 5th level powers cost 9 pp, 6th level powers cost 11 pp, 7th level powers cost 13 pp, 8th level powers cost 15 pp, and 9th level powers cost 17 pp.

Check your understanding question: The power point cost of powers goes up by _ pp per level of the power.

A. 2!~

5. Powers have options called augments that change how a power works (increasing its damage dice, save dcs, adding additional targets, etc.) but require a manifester to spend the required number of augment points.

6. You cannot spend more power points on a power then your manifester level. (Ie. a 9th level manifester can spend 9 points. This means they can manifest a 5th level power without augments, or a lower level power that has been augmented up to 9 power points).

7. You cannot spend more power points on a power then your manifester level. Not following this rule is a cause of many people calling Psionics "OP" and bears mentioning twice. Once in bold.

Next time on Anzyr's Mini-Guides:

Psionic Focus and You!

See! I said it only takes like 15 minutes. :P


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

[tease] You know what would be cool! Playing a WoW Warlock in Pathfinder! [/tease]

:)

It's not finished, but here's a preview.

Warlock v0.1.1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

I didn't say the system was fatally broken. In fact, I said I like Paladins. I've been GMing for a great Paladin for quite a while. However, a large part of the reason the game has been going so smoothly is because I threw out all the mechanics for the code and such, because they don't work unless you don't follow them.

So then, you have no idea whether or not the RAW code actually cause issues as you don't play with the RAW, but then you blithely dismiss our IRL gaming experiences where we say the RAW does not cause issues at our tables?

At our tables, and apparently at the Devs own tables, the RAW code does not cause issues.

Oh divinity, give me the patience! (>.<)

Let me break this down to be really simple.
1. The Paladin repeatedly broke his code, but never in a way that should make a Paladin fall.
2. I repeatedly ignored the code because to follow the rules in this case would have only caused problems and would have resulted in asinine stupidity.

Ergo, the rule was thrown out/ignored, because it led to stupid places. That is a bad rule. I never said I threw the rules out before, and even if I did, it doesn't take much to see where he would have fallen because the definition of those rules is no less unavailable than originally even if those rules are not in play because they are dumb.

1 to 50 of 1,660 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.