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

Beckett's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter. FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 4,823 posts (14,028 including aliases). 33 reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 23 Pathfinder Society characters. 5 aliases.


1 to 50 of 454 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just for reference, "source" in regards to stacking, is mentioned only 1 time in the entire Core Book. Others appear as "a patron is the source of a clerics blah blah", or "light source", etc. . .

Here is where source can be found:

Bonus Types: Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties — a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.

Please note, this section is found on page 208. That's notable because the section it is in, and when taken out of context sounds like it might actually go along with ability scores being a source. But, it's talking about stacking magic spells and spell effects (only).

Here are the actual rules on staking. This can be found on page 13, under the Common Terms portion.

Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.

No mention of sources. Why is that? Because "source" is refereeing specifically to the spells that are being talked about later in the combining magic spell and effects stacking portion.

Odd, as in Pathfinder, a modifiers "source" is actually 100% irrelevant. Well, unless you are using the 3.5 rules, (but then, why would you do that and ignore everything that contradicts Ability Score/Modifier = a Source?

I just CTRL + F'd the entire Core Rule Book document for all uses of "stack", "stacking", "source", "same source", and "sources stacking". And while I might have made a mistake, (please feel free to point me to it, I'm not perfect), what it actually is starting to look like is that the person that wrote the new FAQ, and all those rules experts they conferred with on the subject actually had no idea what they heck they are talking about, (and I do mean this in the least douchy way possible).

Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack? For instance, can you add the same ability bonus on the same roll twice using two different effects that each add that same ability modifier?

No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier. For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.

Removing the irrelevant part about "source", the correct answer from the book should be: If they have a different or untyped Type, then yes, except when they come from the same spell cast multiple times on a single target. If they have the same Type they do not stack except in the cases of any of the following: dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, racial bonuses, and any untyped Bonuses, (as they stack with all other Bonus Types, including themselves).

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
OldSkoolRPG wrote:


While BigNorseWolf is being his usual rude and insulting self he does have a valid point. Even if there were tons of builds that used double dipping the debate over whether it is valid has been raging for years. Its not like it was a completely unquestioned practice and just suddenly the design team one day woke up and decided to change it.

Actually, if you read through most of those on the PF site, its usually BNW and a small grip of others saying no, because everyone else is a munchkin.

On the 3E CharOp boards, the arguement was never over if they could stack, but rather if the specific instances would stack based on the bonus types or the sources, and methods to achieve prereqs for it. Source has always referred to the specific spell, feat, class/racial ability, not the some undefined broad category. So two Enhancement bonuses to the same thing (Type) would not stack, but two castings of Bull's Strength (Source) would also not normally stack, regardless of if that specific source gave the same or different bonus type. The exception was if a Source could give multiple different choices, like with Bestow Curse, if they picked different options each time, they would stack, because all of them would affect the target at the same time.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, let me first start by saying this probably isn't going to happen, nor is this any sort of official topic/poll/whatever. It's just an idea I was thinking about, and wanted to present to hear different sides on it.

I was thinking, why not make all 1-5th level (and 1st-7th for some older scenarios) scenarios open for infinite DM credit "replay". The idea is, that the lowest Tier is generally the most commonly run Tier, as more new players join in different groups. I personally don't mind running something I've already gotten credit for, so this is really more of an attempt to garner thoughts, though sometimes it does get annoying trying to remember if I've run something or just prepped it, did I play it and run, which character, etc. . .).

I've also noticed, on my part, that the more I run a scenario, the more he players tend to enjoy it, as I have more experience with things, a little more willing to make on the spot calls, knowing what that might lead to down the road, and for the multi-part scenarios, or those that lead into others, it makes it easier to blend the experience in together.

Another thing is that there are a lot of requested scenarios, and sometimes it's harder to find a DM to run them, especially for a new crowd coming into the scene, (home games or games store). So the idea is that if all of the low tier games allowed the GM to still get credit, while also getting better at running some scenarios and thus making the game that much better for the players, it might help to make more GM's willing to run more games.

Something I have encountered is that when it comes down to a situation where it would really be better to split a table into two groups, but not required, a lot of the time other possible DM's would rather play and get credit rather than DM and not get credit, (both because everyone wants to play, but also because for smaller groups, probably between 8ish to maybe 20ish people), it can start to create a gap where the various player's levels just don't match up, which begins to cause a problem with being actually able to play at a table with other players.

So, a few assumptions about what I mean with "all 1-5th level (and 1st-7th for some older scenarios) scenarios open for infinite DM credit "replay"."

This would only apply to the GM who ran, not be infinite credit for everyone. You can still not apply it to a character that already has either Player or GM Credit for that scenario. Like normal, the DM would get whatever Sub Tier would normally apply, but, in the cases of the 1-7 Tier Scenarios, the infinite credit can only be applied to a Character between 1st and 4-th level. Sort of like the 1st-2nd Tier games, where it's infinitely replayable by 1st level characters, but only once for a 2nd level character, you can only get credit for early levels, as the point to promote more DMs and games of the 1st - 5th ish level play (or 1st - 4th). This would not apply to Specials, Exclusives, Modules, and scenarios that already have their own rules for Replay. And this would not be retroactive, but (hypothetically) start at a specific date and then continue on from there.

Thoughts?

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It gives it to non-casters. . .
J/K

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's even worse, setting GMT aside completely, it makes absolutely no sense why the Faction would have simply gone away after that. In fact, it makes perfect sense that they would both stay and probably become even more numerous, to watch out for further issues.

That whole debacle of a scenario/plot wrap-up was just extremely poorly handled, and probably needs to be retconned out, because it's that dumb.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:

@Atarlost, I think that the Warpriest does the opposite of novaing. Paladin comes to mind when it comes to not having the resources to go past a 15 minute work day. The Warpriest has a lot of pools of stuff to do things with so why on earth would he do all of them at once?

I agree that they aren't ideal healers. I agree that they have limited to terrible out of combat utility. But I can't agree that Warpriest isn't a full time martial if Paladin is a full time martial.

Huh? The Paladin, while it might not be able to Smite or Channel/Lay on Hands every round of every combat, really doesn't need to. They generally have the BaB, AC, and HP to go toe-to-toe and deal good damage without needing to buff. They are sort of like a Fighter, but can go even longer as they can heal, buff, and fix themselves if they need to when they need it. And a lot of their buffs are either "always on" (Cha to Saves, Immune to Fear, Disease) or in addition to something else they grant that's worth it on it's own, (curing fatigue, sickened, etc and channeling to heal).

Even when they can't cast spells, starting at level one they can also supplement with wands and scrolls (no UMD).

Diego Rossi wrote:

Have you considered the utility of fixed know spells vs, the ability to change them every day?

For spamming the same spell in all combats the inquisitor is better, for the ability to prepare for a specific kind of combat the warpriest seem better.

Not too terribly much in practice, honestly. Like the "Battle Cleric", the Warpriest is not likely going to have a great deal of variation on their prepped spells. They know up front they are going to have one or two spell slots per level devoted to their own self-buffing with Fervor, and probably going to want a few spells ready for "oh Crap I (or my friend), (yah, right, who am I kidding), just got hit with _________ spells just in case. That pretty much covers what a non-9thlevel spont caster knows.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
I suppose you are arguing for a full BAB for Maguses an Inquisitors too, right? After all they too are front line melee characters.

The Magus gets the ability to attack and cast a spell, combining the two actions into one without being super limited how often they can do this, and often going for Touch AC. It really doesn't need full BaB, and as it combines a 1/2 BaB and Full BaB class, the 3/4 BaB it gets works very well thematically and balance pretty well.

None of that really applies to the Warpriest who combines 3/4 BaB with Full BaB.

When the Magus attacks, they tend to do much better than another martials normal strike. When the Warpriest does their thing though, it tends be more like they get close to on par with other front line classes, both offensively and defensively. Might be slightly better, might be slightly worse. But they are burning a very limited resource just to be in the same basic ballpark.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Undone, I don't mean this to be mean, but I really don't think you know what you are talking about. Based on your guide and your comments here and other Warpriest threads, I would guess that you are either using a very odd and arbitrary scale when you compare the Warpriest to a "Battle Cleric" or you do not have much experience with Clerics/Oracles/Inquisitors/Paladins in play, (but particularly the ones that are more martial in nature).

Having played both (and I freely admit I favor Divine Classes most of all) in PFS and less limiting games, the Warpriest is ok, but it really just doesn't compare to what a basic Reach Cleric can do kind of in the same role and a similar theme. The Warpriest is pretty extremely one-trick-pony and even more 15 minute work day orientated.

A very common tactic for many divine casters is go the Augment Summoning, Summon <Good> Monster, Sacred Summons route, which makes summoning certain aligned monsters a Standard Acton, (and a fairly cheap Rod of Quicken is not that much).

Quickening Divine Favor a tad earlier is, at best, ok. Not terribly good, but not bad. A cleric is typically casting Bless to give everyone in the party that +1 to hit instead of just themselves a +1 to hit and sometimes damage. Net result is the Bless is netting more "damage" than the Divine Favor, as every time anyone hits when 1 less on the attack roll would have missed, that's all on the Cleric (or whoever cast Bless).

Warpriest don't get access to any "unique" spells via their Blessing as Domains and Mysteries grant (with a few pseudo exceptions like the Animal Blessing), and while they have the same skill points as the worst of other Divine casters, they have a far worse skill selection than any of them, and skills are a huge part of the general game.

Sure, it can quicken Bull's Strength (possibly a bit before a Cleric could), but a Cleric is probably casting a Blessing of Fervor early on and then Extending some buffs for free while also allowing others to do the same thing long before hand. Warpriest might be able to stack Sacred Weapon/Armor with Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment, but a Cleric could be stacking those two spells with long lasting Bark Skin or other cool things with the right Domains, leaving the Cleric's Medium Armor and the Warpriest's Heavy Armor pretty dang close, though probably a bit higher for the Warpriest. All in all, different ways of doing similar things, with the Warpriest tending to have less of a pool to do it with.

A decently built "battle Cleric/Oracle" is going to be extremely close to a min/maxed Warpriest when it come to damage, but the truth is, as much as I hate it, (and this is just my personal experience and the vast majority of what I've seen or heard about the class in actual play), is that the Warpriest comes out at the bottom end even in that. But, and here is the kicker. That's based off of two important factors. 1.) It's a decently built other divine class vs a very strong Warpriest and 2.) The Warpriest trades out so much just to be on par with other classes in the same role/theme. Not better, really, just close to the same. The trade off is just not worth it, in my opinion, and leaves the Warpriest in a very underwhelming place, especially after the general feeling of the Warpriest related Playtesting.

Add in that it was very clear that no one that wrote the ACG liked the Warpriest, in the sense it got so little in the form of new spells, feats, magic items, and 90% of it's archtypes, it's playable, and in some niche cases good at things, but it's just not a hybrid Cleric/Fighter, battle Cleric, Divine Magus, or alternate "Paladin" we where promised.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I'm not interested at all in the "bringing the hybrid classes to the campaign setting" part at all. To me, that's the fun part of running a game, not reading about it.

What I'm really hoping for is that this book is more of an add on that starts working towards making the ACG the book it really should have been from the start, and focuses much more the general PF game system and not the campaign specific flavor of the setting.

Not going to happen, but one can hope.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Frozen Fingers of Midnight MAP // Sarkorian Prophecy MAP

Both Savage and Storm Tooth step up and try to attack, but before Storm Tooth is able to swipe with a claw, th nearest Sahuagin beats the little raptor to it.

AoO vs Storm Tooth (AC 17): 1d20 + 4 ⇒ (1) + 4 = 5 <miss>

Kryssa circles around the other side of the crates, using her allies as cover until she comes out with a strong swing, severely hurting one of the fishmen. Rhuul makes a comment about Kryssa's lack of chaps from the rear, inspiring his allies to greater heights of murdering and hoboing on the side. Horef attempts to do a cartwheel around the foes, but missteps. Luckily, none of the enemies where able to catch his opening in time.

With targets before them, the Sahuagin attack back.

Bite vs Horef (AC 19): 1d20 - 4 ⇒ (6) - 4 = 2 <miss>
Claw vs Horef (AC 19): 1d20 + 4 ⇒ (5) + 4 = 9 <miss>
Claw vs Horef (AC 19): 1d20 + 4 ⇒ (15) + 4 = 19 <HIT>
Damage: 1d4 + 2 ⇒ (2) + 2 = 4

Bite vs Kryssa (AC 19): 1d20 - 4 ⇒ (17) - 4 = 13 <miss>
Claw vs Kryssa (AC 19): 1d20 + 4 ⇒ (20) + 4 = 24 <POSSIBLE CRIT>
Damage: 1d4 + 3 ⇒ (4) + 3 = 7
Claw vs Kryssa (AC 19): 1d20 + 4 ⇒ (3) + 4 = 7 <miss>
Crit Confirm: 1d20 + 4 ⇒ (1) + 4 = 5 <miss>

Bite vs Storm Tooth (AC 17): 1d20 - 4 ⇒ (19) - 4 = 15 <miss>
Claw vs Storm Tooth (AC 17): 1d20 + 4 ⇒ (9) + 4 = 13 <miss>
Claw vs Storm Tooth (AC 17): 1d20 + 4 ⇒ (1) + 4 = 5 <miss>

ROUND 6
Savage/Storm Tooth, Kryssa (-7), Rhuul, Horef (-10), and Vrothum
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sahuagin 3 (), Sahuagin 4 (-10), Sahuagin 5 (-4)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nah, you are not alone.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Back when PF Core was still coming out, there was a massive push to try to have Spontaneous Cure/Inflict replaced with Spontaneous Domains, which would have had a very similar effect. But they chose to basically revert back to the 3E Cleric, with a crapload of spell nerfs instead.

The Alpha/Beta versions of PF had the Cleric getting Domain spells as spell-like abilities, and it was pretty amazing.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The worst, but also the absolute best I've seen was back in the good ol' 3.5 days. We where starting a new game, and being that by that point everyone was sick to death of frequently starting new games (we had a lot of people often switching in and out, so it was difficult to keep a story going week to week, and well, just got tired of low level play), one of the guys just marked out that entire section and then explained to me that he had up until yesterday, (out of character at this point), been a 38th level character, but while on the final leg of his quest to Ascend, got level drained (3.5 style) all the way back to level 1, then, to rub it all in, the BBEG had erased his memory and taken all of his gear and wealth, with the exception of about a hundred gold, (starting gp), stuffed under his pillow at the inn, that apparently he cradled at night, but doesn't know why or where it came from. Not liking walking around "feeling naked", he stopped by a smith and grabbed some armor and weapons before strolling in to meat the other players.

He just woke up, now level 1, this morning, and has no idea. Go.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A few thing I can think of:

7 person tables

That they removed 1-7 subtier. Probably one of the worst things in PFS, in my opinion.

The whole Pathfinder Society as an organization thing.

The wonkiness of alignments: and doing [Evil] spells, and because a VC asked you, and etc, etc, etc. . . make evil, evil or make aligments not matter at all and switch all the divine spells/classes/stuff mechanics. one or the other.

How Factions basically don't matter any more.

Swarms.

Haunts. Could have been great, but half-assed, inconsistent rules and rulings basically ruined it.

That unwritten but heavily enforced DM rule that you can't kill the various VC's that are dumb@#%*^'s as a <non-player> character attribute.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
May Contain Meerkats wrote:
Disk Elemental wrote:


But when the two sets of morals come in conflict, which one is the Paladin going to chose?

Either they break their word to the organization, or they break their oath to the god.

I don't really understand why a Paladin would put themselves in that situation.

I'm having trouble imagining a situation in which a lawful good deity will have an unresolvable problem with the principles of Explore, Report, Cooperate. But maybe I missed something.

Iomedae is not on good terms with the Society after they stole her crown and refuse to return it, moving it from lodge to lodge to keep it from her and her faithful, but its kind of hand waved in PFS.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The way I see it, a lot of people see that the Pathfinder Society as a group is neutral, and take that to mean that it's mostly comprised of neutral characters and npcs, but is bothered to allow those pesky good characters in.

But that's not what a neutral organization means. It means that they do not actively seek to advocate, fight for, or instill good or evil in the world. As an organization, the PFS's goal is simply to study and record, and sometimes "collect", and as a matter of practice is willing to employ all manner of people, holy, secular, political, unaligned, good, evil, religious, arcane, etc. . ., because all of those bring unique abilities and specialties to the task at hand.

Out of game, the entire and singular point of the Pathfinder Society, both in the setting and also in the organized play module is just to have a single, easy jumping in point for all players. Instead of needing a convoluted backstory before jumping into a game, it's literally you are just members of a adventuring guild. One that has no actual authority over you, anyone else, or truly any nation or land in the world. In fact, the vast majority of the world and it's governments and people do not like the Pathfinder Society (mostly for the right reasons) because they think they are above the law, are thieves, trouble-makers, and adventurers. Even the good ones, and even the good ones that have done good things, and even the good ones that have done good things and are actively trying to use the Society's resources to accomplish good and untarnish that deserved reputation, spread freedom, or order.

So, with all that in mind, the PFS does not favor non-good characters. They do not expect that the non-good, shady, not-quite-legal way of getting it done is the right, best, or accepted way. They expect a team to work together, and that goes for everyone, not just the guys and gals that don't have a moral or political issue with doing something. They are a dime-a-dozen anyway. What they do need are characters that either have a code of ethics that will not dig the society down even further in the world's eyes, or for those that don't hold to such ethics, to be able to at least pretend and play nice until it's not required to do so.

I don't know, maybe that's just how I see it. But the key point is that it goes both ways, and that neutral (with evil tendencies) is not the default assumption. Not being good doesn't make a character more right, or more in line with the precepts of the game, or excuse them from playing friendly, having fun, or working with other players any more than it does for a paladin, or a cleric, or a good character.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rushley son of Halum wrote:

I'm not saying that Paladins can't have interesting and deep characters and concepts.

I'm saying that plenty of players view them as a "concept in a box" something you don't need to develop or work to.

Same can be said for each and every class evenly, though.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nope, 6-02 gets you 6 vials of djezet which a are applied as an extra component when casting a spell to increase its effectinve spell level by 1. Cleric casting Continual Flame with these makes an everburning torch that is a 4th level spell, thus beats Deeper Darkness.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trying to talk them out of fighting.

Not sure if your buddy made the save vs Charm/Suggestion.

You made your Sense BS check.

You yourself are Charmed.

Anyway, for me, it wasn't even that I got the intangible benefit of preventing them from 5ft Stepping or forcing Casting Defensive. I just noticed a lack of chances to use it. Enemies would Acrobatics around, or step only when it would either place me in a disadvantagious position to follow or when I couldn't 5ft into their square.

I've sometimes seen a similar thing with my Reach Cleric and Combat Reflexes. Sometimes, some DMs I get to use it, sometimes I get to have a limited form of mundane crowd control, and sometimes it seems like every enemy knows to either avoid coming close to possibly provoke or use only ranged and avoid combat like they know I have it before combat starts.

Not complaining, just making an observation, which may be false.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kadasbrass Loreweaver wrote:
I was expecting a secret 8th faction of spies, sneaks, and other people of questionable motives (or just simply dissatisfied with the other factions) to be revealed during Gencon and retroactively added into the Season 6 guide. Something to fill the void left by both the Sczari and the Shadow Lodge

To be honest, you can really go with any faction for that, and I suspect that at least 2, if not 3 of the current factions have a Shadow Lodge backing/influence/partnership. One of them even took a large part of the old symbol.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't particularly like the new Factions, but I don't particularly dislike most of them either. Hate the new symbols. I'm really disappointed with what I've seen in play for some of the new Factions. 6-02's Darkive, in my opinion was very bad. Both in that it was not what the players wanted from a certain NPC in the bland player handout, and the mission goal and theme seemed to be the opposite of the Factions supposed intent. It also seemed like it was trying to force PvP, have the Darkive characters enslave/rob a well-liked reoccuring NPC, (and one that's, from past scenarios in the line become a strong ally and friend to the Society). WtF!?!?!?

I feel the Sovereign Court is just too vague to care bout right now. And the change basically ruins any sort of motive I had for building Taldor characters from before now.

Liberty's Edge, while I kind of like changing from just Andoran, the Faction has just been a terrible, terrible hypocritical mess since Season 2 or 3. And perhaps the most of any Faction, it has the coolest nation based vanities that just don't fit now with the nationlessness of the new Faction. Silver Crusade has basically taken everything cool and interesting from the Andoran/Liberty's Edge Faction outside of the Eagle Knights.

Really the only thing I have against the Scarab Sages is how much I just detest the name. I like the flavor, and of all of the new Factions, it probably has the most in depth and believable flavor, both as a group and as a transition, but that stupid name is bad enough to turn me off, and the symbol does not help.

Its really time to get rid of some of the Faction leaders. I don't care for the Taldor/SoftCourt leader. She strikes me as boring and just doesn't really fit well. Andoran's/Liberty's Edge's Faction head is such a corrupt hypocrite it basically invalidates the entire Faction. He really should have been at the top of his own list last Season, and the fact he did not assassinate or remove himself from power from the start just kind of makes it a big joke.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my opinion, Burst of Radiance, while a tad bit overpowered due to the range, is pretty much the best, and by that I mean most iconic, most in flavor for a character that is supposed to call down divine wrath, and just outright coolest spell) that paizo has given the Cleric. I might even say the single most awesome thing that paizo has ever done for the Cleric, and I wish that they would do more like it.

I partially agree with Undone, and partially disagree. Magic Vestment, and this is also very true for Greater Magic Weapon as kind of must haves to even make the Cleric viable. It allows the Cleric to get a +1 Armor or Weapon, and then add properties to it, and then use those spells to increase the AC/Att/Damage magical bonus at near the same rate other classes do that don't also have to spend money on things like scrolls to fix other player's conditions. The key here is, and this is the only thing that makes it worth it, is that both spells are measured in hours. (the problem is that most armor and shield properties, well, just suck. They are just far too expensive for the trivial abilities they grant).

Pretty much anything that is a Remove this, Cure that, is extremely circumstantial and can therefor be a wand or scroll. If not one that other character buy to be used on them.

Invisibility Purge can be nice, but with it's casting time and range, it's not nearly as great is it could be. At much higher levels, it's better, so for a 15th-20th level Cleric, it starts to come into it's own.

Blindness targets basically the best save that an enemy you most want to use it on is likely to have, and it's an all or nothing spell. So as most Clerics tend to have crappy DCs, it's usually not great.

Prayer, while nice, is also one of those spells that A.) doesn't stack with a great many things, and B.) due to it's area, tends to (rightfully so) piss off DM's more than it's actually the fairly minor benefit it grants.

Even going back to the 3.0 boards, certain entire spell levels of the Cleric list have had major issues. 3.5 was able to fix this by all the splat books, but Paizo has really dropped the ball.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I'm a bit confused that we still don't have an answer to this, the Faction change issue, the Tech Guide issue, and the like sine before Gencon.

I just mean it's kind of odd that we haven't really even seen something like "We know and are looking into it", rather than "drop everything and do it now".

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
These forums, despite the opinion of some, aren't really any better than any others. There have been a few threads where I've had the entire Paizo Defense Force rise up and tell me to GTFO, that my opinions were unwelcome, and that I should leave these forums and not return sine I have the temerity to prefer some other system to Pathfinder.
The "Paizo Defense Force" is definitely a thing. Unfortunately.
To be fair while it is a thing it's a thing that in my experiance most game systems (or game companies) seem to have to various degrees Shadowrun has it, exalted has it 4e had it etc
Really, it's not even limited to gaming systems, it seems to be part of fandom in general. If it has fans, some of those fans will become ridiculously fanatical about defending it from any perceived attack.

Paizo has a very devoted fanbase, but that devotion is based on two things: The quality of their adventure paths, and wotc hate.

The exodus of half the D&D fanbase to pathfinder was never about the system itself, it was about punishing wotc for 4E. It wasn't enough for people to just keep playing 3E; they wanted 3E to beat 4E in the marketplace and thus prove them RIGHT. Well, mission accomplished. 4E threw in the towel in 2012, and 5E adheres to many of the traditions that the previous version jettisoned. 5E is an apology that is reclaiming a lot of goodwill or wotc, while Pathfinder is essentially an already burnt effigy. I think that the player base will start to dwindle away until paizo either A)comes out with a 2nd edition; one that jettisons the backwards compatibility with 3E; or B) starts making products for wotc again. It can't just be the same game until the heat death of the universe and hope to survive.

I dont hate WotC, and outside of Age of Worms, could mostly care less about APs. None of them really catch me, though I will admit, destroying House Thrune (and maybe Cheliax if we are really lucky) and fighting Giants has got my attention.

In my opinion, Golarion as a setting is a bit meh, so its not the setting either. I hope one day they do another fantasy setting that throws all of Golarions basic assumptions out the window, personally.

In the end, I play Pathfinder because I liked 3E. Id actually play 3.5 over PF if I could. 4E, after playing for a while, I found just too lite and well, boring. It just wasnt for me. From what Ive seen of 5E, its looking like it might go the same way. Just not for me. Ill give it an honest go, but I dont plan on investing in it before hand like I did with 4th. If I play and turn out to like it, its a different story.

If PF 2E abandons the 3E system, I most likely will not continue. Which is ok. It will just no longer be something Im interested in. I do think you underestimate how many people like the d20 system or went to PF not because they hated 4E or WotC, or because they liked the APs, but just because they wanted to continue playing 3.5. It wasnt that WotC dared to make 4E, it was that they turned on their own fan base and condemned 3.5 fans when they tried to push 4E as such a superior game.

Im not interested in rules lite or mostly narrative games. Just not. They are not engaging enough, not satisfying, in my opinion.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Part of me is just hoping that there was such a backlash against the new Factions, Season 6, the new symbols, and the like that they have reconsidered the whole thing.

:)

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Shouldnt that apply to every sort of trap they have never specifically encountered before?
Gabriel Smith-Dalrymple wrote:
Not really. Let's look at mathematics:

I think you took my response out of context. The idea presented was that, as a logical explanation for the Feat and Skills change, it makes sense that a character that has never seen a robot or technology should have a penalty to rolls interacting with it. But, by that logic, unless a character has specifically interacted with a given type of trap, dragon, golem, or whatever, shouldn't they then also take that same penalty?

It also falsely assumes that technology and robots and stuff are rare, unique, and unknowable, (but wait what if my character is from Numeria or whatever), but that other things in the setting, lets say Dragons, (which according to the setting are extremely rare), which is covered by the Know Arcana skill, any character with 1 Rank in Know Arcana has a chance to know every fact about a dragon that there is. But it's a robot, something that's probably not as rare as an actual dragon, and for some reason, they can't use their skills, which are intended to be non-specific in application.

But, if that's the logic, then shouldn't a character that wants to use Disable Device on a trap they have never themselves encounter, then take a -5 penalty and not count as having the right tool for the job too? Well, unless they take a Feat that lets them get around that?

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shouldnt that apply to every sort of trap they have never specifically encountered before?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, some folks think a New Editions means something more like from 3E to 4E where it's a completely new game that would also invalidate the vast majority of setting material, forcing you to rebuy everything, while others take a new edition to simply mean an update to the existing system.

Others think that a new edition in a few years is a good idea, while others think that one far off day might be ok, but not now. When you do a yes/no sort of Poll, it leaves a lot of things in the middle, and gives odd results.

So, for me personally, the category I would say yes to would be the one that said "YES, a new edition that did not invalidate other material, but updated some of the core systems, fixed things that are most commonly discussed issues (on these boards) such as Alignment, Paladin Codes, Fighter/Monk/Rogue/Cleric/Monk/Monk/Monk/Fighter/Monk/Rogue, Reach, etc. . ., but did not require someone to rebuy the Inner Sea World Guide or Bestiary's , well maybe 2-4, but not Bestiary 1, didn't require any single AP to need to be reprinted, (well if we can get Age of Worms non-Golarion edition, that's just a win for everyone, rpger or not that makes the world a better place, because lets face it, it's the absolute best AP Paizo has ever created, not that RotRL crap they keep pushing), and if they literally started today, even without a public playtest, (regardless of your or my personal opinion of them based of the ACG), it wouldn't be our until likely 2016 at the earliest, thus giving the PF Unchained, (but not PF Unearthed) book plenty of chances to fail to be what we actually wanted (damn it, did I say that out loud) to do it's thing, as well as everyone the chance to play through the AP that b~%#&slaps Cheliax and House Thurne or whatever, and fixed some of the few issues that 3E as a system sort of created", my answer is that one. But if particular aspects of that are not true, my answer might be no. But, that exact option was not presented in the Poll.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
There politely disagreeing and then there shouting people down so they don't get heard while telling them to go elsewhere. Which happened during the playtest of the core. Which I don't want to see happen again. In a playtest everyone should be heard. Not a very select few very vocal posters. I'm surprised that you would think it was a bad thing.

I think that the problem with that idea that they are sort hinting at is that everyone is going to have a different idea on who "those people" are. So it sounds great in theory, but in practice it's basically just using a different method to over shout other people whose ideas one might not agree with.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

5.) I DON'T CARE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

3.) NO, as in never.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

2.) YES, but more like an update, or a Pathfinder 1.5 that would not invalidate older setting/story material or be a mostly new system.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Absolutely. Along with what Rynjin said, with every new book that comes out, a lot of the core classes/feats/etc. . . just start to really show their age. The Cleric needs a Class Feature face lift so that we can start having some good archtypes for it, and the spell list has been pretty wonky since 3.0 changed it to a 9th level spell list.

The Paladin class could really use another looking at with their "less restrictive code of ethics".

I don't actually agree, but a lot of people still complain about the Fighter, Monk, and Rogue.

It's really something that has been needed for some time, in my opinion, and the longer that it's postponed, the worse and worse the issues are going to be.

There are also a lot of issues in the base system that could probably use a some fixing, (like 4+Int skill points min, Good/Medium/Poor saves, CMB/CMD not being that great a system after all, Light and Darkness, Reach, etc. . .

Basically, it's long past time for the Core material to get the APG treatment, and there is a lot of fat to trim, and too many cracks to band aid over.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Well crusaders flurry makes you get effectively full BAB for deities favored weapon anyway.

What I mean is, it basically replaces rather than fixes the Warpriest. I meant it to fall somewhere between sarcasm and humor. :P

Undone wrote:
One of my biggest questions is why in the infinite hells is extra fervor not a feat?

Well, the Warpriest was taking up too much room in the book between Feats, the Archtypes, special gear, and new spells, and they really needed to cut back so some other classes like the Brawler, Arcanist, and Swashbuckler, got a little page space, too. Again, sarcasm

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like that crap in 3.5 with Psicraft and Know Psionics. . .

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you probably need to look at it from a different way. From the player's side, Darkness is annoying (and I mean players, not characters). It's not fun. There should have been plenty of time for you to use it against them earlier, and well most of the first part of the AP, and now that they have gotten to a point that they can overcome that, you want to rob them of that? Just like everything else, it's a spell or ability that just doesn't work so well after a few levels.

To me that really comes off as terrible DMing, and by that I mean it sounds like the intent is to be DM vs the party rather than Dm and the party (and if that's not the case, than ignore) . Enemies should not always have the advantage, and it would probably be pretty dang cool if for a while, you played the enemies like they probably should, have them burn actions/spells or whatever and try to make Darkness, only to find out their Plan A doesn't work.

Something else to keep in mind, is that Darkness is a Level 2 Wiz/Cleric spell, while Continual Flame is a Level 2 Wizard, Level 3 Cleric spell.

Unless the party's Cleric/Oracle is making the Everburning Torch, it defaults to the Wizard Level 2 version, which means that Darkness does affect it. "Magical light sources only increase the light level in an
area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.
"

However, if you just want to make Darkness work anyway, because you want to screw over the party, then there is absolutely no reason to have Continual Flame in the game, and I'm pretty sure your Cleric/Oracle player is going to feel pretty gipped.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure where you're getting Magus being underpowered from.
It's from a math perspective. The damage a magus outputs X times per day which is subject to SR, resistances, and immunities is very low.

No offense, but have you ever seen a Magus in play? It's nowhere near underpowered.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

People might be misunderstanding/misrepresenting the healing.

They do have an ability to regenerate, but it's 4 HP/HOUR. They also each have a 1/day ability to heal another <creature> for 4d6 or themselves for 24 HP.

Disarming them, (totally possible, not particularly easy or hard) is totally an option, and one that significantly drops their damage threat.

They are weak against Crits, too, and with a wopping +1 Fort, there is a great chance they will be boned from a crit, even if it doesn't do a lot of actual damage. Also, they are affected regardless of if they save or not, it's just cool or amazing.

There is no tactics given, but the scenario implies that they guard the front door, so it's completely possible that they would not follow the party that tactically retreated (to grab some extra prep items like a potion of Energy Resistance, better weapons, swap out spells, wands and scrolls, etc. . .), or saw that they might not win and just started to run past them?

It's a difficult, but far from extreme encounter, (though for whatever reason seems designed to make the typical Magus shine like they don't already).

Now, that being said, it might be a good idea for the low tier to offer an option to for parties that will have too much trouble to encounter versions that only have Hardness 5.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

That seems to be the general consensus from what I can tell, (I agree). Its basically just a worse form of fighty Cleric.

I have a few in PFS that I have not gotten to play yet, out side of a few small test runs. I really, really notice the lose of Attack Mod, which is leading me to regret my builds, (just using a straight Playtest version to Final version update until we get clarification).

They didn't fix skill points/class skills, didn't give anything to the Warpriests that use the war deity's favored weapon that doesn't benefit from the extra damage, didn't give any Warpriest spells, didn't really help much with the action economy, and kept Sacred Weapon and Armor incredibly short durations. There is also a very noticeable lack of toys for them, in the form of gear, new feat options, (extra freakin Fervor), and the divine/cleric spells are just almost universally terrible from what I have seen so far. It's pretty clear that no one that wrote the book liked this class or really wanted to touch it more than they where probably forced to. <my opinion/observation, only>

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:

Still not happy with the Warpriest, but it does treat it's level as BaB for Feat Selection, and counts as a Fighter for Fighter Only Feats.

Codzilla was a 3.0/3.5 thing, and required a lot of splat books and navigating a few grey areas, and focused on self-buffing.

Undone wrote:

Bull.

Core Cleric and druid were and are the two most powerful classes in the entire game.

1) Good fort is unique to them among full casters.
2) 3/4ths BAB is only them and now the shaman.
3) In 3.5 you could have a cleric in full plate easily. In this edition some archetypes do that but the core book cleric is nerfed.
4) The core druid with only augmented summons and natural spell is the most powerful and flexible class in the game. Bar none.
5) The big guy gygax himself stated "Clerics and druids have to be overpowered because no one wants to heal." That's why the're so strong.

None of this really makes the PF Cleric or Druid anything like a Codzilla. Allow me to share a few bits of a quote from 2008 I think really sums the whole sort of online urban legend that was the codzilla.

CoDzilla is a largely mythical beast. It is known to roam the Internet and the Character Optimization boards. On occasion, a particularly careless DM may enable one to exist at a table, but this is rare.

CoDzilla feeds on splatbooks, nightsticks, and indulgent DMs.
CoDzilla is very slow-moving, taking considerable time to reach full strength and running out of energy quickly. CoDzilla can be thwarted by foes temporarily withdrawing or taking cover behind a tower shield for one minute.
<Dispel Magic>“

All of the spells have as well as the class itself has been so nerfed, and the Prestige Classes, Variant Classes, Magic Items, Feats, and magic items required do not exist in PF. Druids can not utilize the same tricks, which largely relied on dumping all physical stats and walking around in ridiculous splatbook forms once they could Wild Shape with full spellcasting and gear, and at most just needed to change into a new form to overcome whatever challenge they might need circumstantially.

I'm 99% certain your #5 is also wrong, and it was Monte Cook, from 3.0 stating that they "slightly" needed to buff the Cleric, because no one wanted to be stuck playing the Cleric, (something that has always been, and continues to be true to a large degree). The Cleric has always been a highly defensive class, with some of the best Saves in the game (outside of things like the Paladin). This was done because what happens when the Cleric gets hit with things like Charm/Dominate/death? It generally leads very quickly to a TPK as there is no one there to heal the Cleric or fill their shoes to buff and heal everyone else. One of the major things that entailed was to allow <force> the Cleric to be able to spontaneously cast cure spells and give it things like Spellcraft and Know Arcana as class skills. This was done because 3E material was designed with the assumption of a party of 4 with a Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard as far as WBL, Encounter Design, Treasure, etc. . . with a little room to swap out things, but none of the other classes could really fill the role of the Cleric very well, which was essentially that of a secondary character that bordered on travelling NPC run by a player.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
mswbear wrote:
I really, really, really need this book to expand the Shaman's spell list. I also need the feat section to offer up some feats that actually bloister the new classes and cover obvious gaps in the new ACG, instead of thematic things that are super situational.....extra fervor would be a good start, extra blessings, improved fervor, improved hex, like doubling the teamwork feats offered in the ACG....yeah...

I agree. The Warpriest, and divine in general pretty much got gipped I think in the ACG. All but the Teamwork Feats. Please, no more, <ever>.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not digging the new Faction symbols. Darkives in particular, all about uncovering hidden knowledge and their symbol is burning books??? Liberty's Edge, is very, very "meh". Not sure what the Sovereign Court has to do with their symbol? It sort of seems mix of the newer Andoran faction symbol and something that suggests Tian Xia.

Season 5:
Determining Subtiers: In order to determine which subtier a mixed-level group of PCs must play in, calculate the group’s average party level (APL). Divide the total number of character levels by the number of characters in the party. You should always round to the nearest whole number.

Season 6:
Determining Subtiers: In order to determine which subtier a mixed-level group of PCs must play in, calculate the group’s average party level (APL). Divide the total number of character levels by the number of characters in the party. You should always round to the nearest whole number. If you are exactly at 0.5, let the group decide which subtier they wish to play.

Nice.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Nicos wrote:

It seems there is a feat that let you add your charisma bonus to ALL saves...but only if you are a divine caster.

I haev not read it myself, but does anyone can think in a world where that feat is remotely balanced? (specially after no generic dex to damage feat?)

And with this... I lose any faith that Paizo knows anything about game balance.

I dont have the book yet, but Clerics, Druids, Inquisitors, and Warpriests are already pretty MAD, and Clerics and Druids Feat starved. Dont see a lot of Rangers going for it. So might not be that bad, depending on what it actually does. Oracles on the other hand, I really hope are not allowed to have it. They seem the only real problem here.

And honstly, Id be much more worried if they DID make a more open Dex to Damage Feat, because that would be stupidly broken.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

On second though, I want to clarify. Are you talking about some group of people that sits and watches your game, but doesnt play? If so, I guess that might make sense. Im referring to the group of people that all play Pathfinder, which all have different tastes.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
However, if your interested in people bashing others views and preferences, try rereading this thread a few pages back. Its filled with it against those that didn't like things like Tian Xia, 'cause all those people are just stupid and stuff. How dare they not like what you (general) do, or even worse, actively not like what you (again general you) like and feel it ruins their game to some degree.

Yes - how dare someone tell me that the things I like ruin "their" game, because it's not "their" game at all. It's OUR game. "They" have no business deciding that "their" preferences should be the default, and despite the fact that "they" might not be comfortable with some tropes and elements, asking "them" to sit at a table with a character who explores some of those tropes is, on balance, far more reasonable than asserting that people who want to explore those tropes should be excluded from the game on the grounds that it erodes "their" sense of privilege.

Essentially, the biggest reason why your argument (and analogy) is wrong is that it assumes that being forced to tolerate a character concept you don't like is a roughly equivalent "hardship" to not being allowed to explore those concepts at all. To attempt to salvage your analogy, you assert that you feel that you are being forced to "eat the pepperoni too", when, in fact, it would be far more accurate to say that you are being asked to sit at a table and eat your peanut butter while other people at the table order food you don't like. You are not wrong to not like their food, but you ARE wrong to act like they should be forced to eat "normal" food just to appease your sensibilities, and you are especially wrong to believe that asking them to change their diet to suit you is as reasonable as them asking you to tolerate their different food at the table you all collectively share.

Except that either way, everyone is eating the same thing. It is not the case at all that those that like them mixed get both while everyone else just gets either peanut butter or pepperoni as they like. Its all or nothing. So I guess your just not seeing the point is that in trying to say you don't want others to mandate what you can play, you are instead mandating what is played. Your acting like other people are stepping stopping your personal game, rather than it being everyone's game. But I'm starting to get the feeling this is going nowhere.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never said it was something new, nor am I painting any sort of picture about other people's preferences. What I did say is that, based on what I have heard various Paizo devs say on the subject, specifically on Numeria and sci-fi technology elements, (currently and going back to the 3.5 days), is that it seems the fans of those in PF are the vocal minority, and its clearly one of those things that most people either love or hate. Tends to be one or the other with fewer people in the middle.

If you feel its a bad analogy, please feel to explain why, and once again, note that it wasn't my analogy. I think its better than the peanut butter & chocolate as that implies that most people like the two things they represent (classic fantasy and sci-fi), which is probably not correct, and also implies that by mixing them, we get something that many/most find even better than the individual parts, again probably not so true with fantasy and sci-fi. Not really sure from that how you took away that your personal preference is bad/wrong/disgusting/anomalous?

However, if your interested in people bashing others views and preferences, try rereading this thread a few pages back. Its filled with it against those that didn't like things like Tian Xia, 'cause all those people are just stupid and stuff. How dare they not like what you (general) do, or even worse, actively not like what you (again general you) like and feel it ruins their game to some degree.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wasnt my analogy, I was just giving my personal preference with the one given. More for the sake of arguement than anything as Im enjoying the conversation and its off topic jumps.

:)

But I guess thats the kicker. Especially in PFS like games, its either all or nothing. That is, if only one person wants pepperoni, the way it works is everyone has to eat it so that one can get pepperoni. Great for the guy/gal that wants peanut butter pepperoni, but but detracts from those that dont.

My understanding, which may be wrong, but especially with Numeria, is that there is a very vocal but very minority group that keeps talking about it, while the majority of fans would rather it and the technology level sort of fade away and not be expanded upon. Thats also a big reason that its taken so long for it to happen (this has been going on since 3.5 days), is that its so much of a love/hate topic.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nah, if you like peanut butter (dinosaurs) and also like pepperoni (bomber planes) mixing them together does make chocolate, it makes peanut butter pepperoni sandwiches. A person might like peanut butter pepperoni sandwiches, which is fine, and might even like them better than something else entirely (chocolate).

Some people have tried it and want more, others have tried a taste and know enough from that to want to avoid it at all costs. The thing is really where you stand (you general, not specifically you). Do you want to force other people to scrape off what they dont like or do you want to force others to put on the extras after the communal sandwich is made?

Personally, without much of a horse in this, Id rather people add their pepperoni on to their sandwiches, as I dont really want it. Just as its been said "you dont like it, dont use it", I think its better all around to instead say "you want it, make it up and add it into your game".

From a PFS perspective, I find Tien Xia focused material very unappealing. Im not really interested in running most of those scenarios, or playing them, but if its between playing that or nothing, Ill generally go ahead and play. Same with Numeria, though actually with Numeria Ill probably sit it out, depending on how much focus is on those themes and location. One, its just not really fun or interesting to me. And two, there are so many other cool things we have only barely touched on, in and out of PFS, and Im much more interested in those. There are like 2 Scenarios in Ustalav. I think only 1 in Galt. A handful in other planes (not countimg the Hoa Jin Tapestry). A few in the Lands of the Linormkings. Id much rather see more of these than, and this is just my preference, things like Numeria.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HP: 59/59, +6 Init, +16 Perception, F: +8, R: +5, W: +9, AC: 21, T: 14, FF: 17, CMD: 22 , LG Human Cleric, 5274-20, Longspear +9/4, 1d8+4 (Large +8, 2d6+5), P 20/x3

I'll go ahead and move in and engage Cultists 5, before the other army of cultists can tag team Ruprecht and/or I. Gathering my knights, Here is our plan. Silver Talon (Left flank) and Shadow Talon (right flank), wedge formation and hold back just a little. Empire Talon, Your are going to ride straight in, also wedge formation. Just before you engage, swing right and ride hard through their lines. Shadow Talon is right behind you to follow up. Ride straight through. Do not stop. Swig around and ride through again. Break their line. Silver Talon. They will expect you to hook and flank. Don't. Cross through from the left and ride hard, cavalry charge right between Empire and Shadow Talons, hitting them and ride through.

Letting the plan sink in, as well as the realization that the time for blood is now, "The time has come, for your nobility and might to be brought to bare. We are going to attack hard and fast, and hold until the job is done. Many of you follow the teachings of Iomedae or perhaps Gorum. I am told both have taken a keen interest in this. Watching what transpires here. And among you followers of certain Empyreal lords, who also have a stake in this. I know Ol' Dead Eye, crafter of the first weapons, who gave us the knowledge and skills so that we might defend ourselves is also well pleased that we have chosen to fight against the darkness. Way I hear it, Iomedae and Gorum have a wager going, to see just whose faithful in our army can strike the deepest blows. On whose lance can pierce the hart of the enemy's commander. I don't know about you, but I'm interested in seeing myself. . ."

Riding his Owlbear down the line, seeing that many of his army have been gathered from different groups. Some are faithful, others secular knights, some more mercenary, he calls out while riding, "You all know that in battle the man or woman to you left, to your right, and behind you is your brother. Is your sister. And has your back. No matter what. We all have our creeds and our calls to battle. For me, "I DO THIS FOR TALDOR!!!" But, as one, as we charge forth into the belly of the dragon, "FOR THE LIVING!!!"

"I can't hear you. And that means the enemy can't hear you. For the living!!!"

"Stay as one until you are close. Now lets roll out."

"Charge!"

1 to 50 of 454 << 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.