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 6 Season Star Voter. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 4,825 posts (18,642 including aliases). 42 reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 27 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 694 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry, to clarify, they have not rebelled in the streets to overthrow the current government. Sections have broken away or been removed. However, its worth noting that many of the ones you mentioned rebelled against Cheliax rather than Taldor directly.

Galt - Cheliax at rise of House Thrune

Andoran & Cheliax - broke away after Qadira began invading, Cheliax abandon post and convinced what would become Andoran to follow offering protection to the outlying wilderness lands. Andoran then broke from the rest of Cheliax with the civil war and House Thrune.

Isger - Cheliax took Isger by force in the Even-Tongued Conquest as a means to show strength, but has not been able to free itself from oppression as many others have from Cheliax.

Molthune & Nirmathas - both broke with Cheliax from Taldor, only to be treated extremely poor by the nobility of Cheliax leading to a brutal civil war after the rise of House Thrune causing one nation to splint into two.

Last wall - When Cheliax broke away, Lastwall stuck to their sworn duty rather than take political sides.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Silver Surfer wrote:

I'm sorry we must be playing different games.....

This debate is purely based around the protective benefits in terms of survival.....not in the infinite number of variables and tangents surrounding it.

Maybe, but it looks like you are also not taking into account some of the more obvious things that strengthen the Wis to AC Cleric as well, to show it as weaker. Mage Armor is a long lasting buff and really only costs you either 750 (Wand) or 1,000 (Pearl of Power).

If we assume a +2 Dex, +3 Wis, Wis to AC Cleric, that's a pretty comfortable 19 AC at level 1, (NOT 12th). No other buffs used. Sure, the Armored Cleric is going to (possibly) have a higher AC, but they are also taking other penalties to compensate for that and that absolutely does matter.

Silver Surfer wrote:
- I didnt say that armoured cleric wouldnt self buff did I? What I did say he would be far less likely to need AC and HP buffs since he will be less likely to be hit. The maths dont lie.

Why do you say that? At best they are absolutely equal in their need/desire to buff for combat, but at worst the Wis to AC Cleric is going to already be prepared regardless of circumstances, (such as waking up or being in situations where the can't reasonably wear armor).

Silver Surfer wrote:


- Like I said a cleric with WIS-AC will still only have a max base AC20 AT 12th level. Without serious investments he gets chopped to pieces.

Sure, and if a Armored Cleric doesn't bother investing either, their AC is going to also be low. Keep in mind that Clerics need a Light Shield or Buckler to cast if they wield a weapon, and a fair comparison to a Wis to AC Cleric that doesn't invest in AC is a Chain Shirt and Light Shield, (utilizing the same stats as above).

Armored AC: AC 17, T 12, FF 15
Wis AC: AC 15, T 15, FF 13(assuming Wis to AC works exactly like the Monk's)

+1 Armor AC: AC 19, T 12, FF 17
Wis Mage Armor AC: AC 19, T 15, FF 17

No Armor/Shield AC: AC 12, T 12, FF 10
Wis AC: AC 15, T 15, FF 13

I guess the math really does show. :P Thing is, you keeps saying things like "over the life of the character", but then keep giving really iffy, one-sided examples as a single glimpse.

Silver Surfer wrote:
- Yes WIS-AC cleric can use magic vestment but armoured cleric can use it twice.... armour AND shield....3 times if your GM is lenient!

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Sure, a Cleric could cast this once on armor and once on shield, but thy are using up resources to do so. They don't just get it for free, and honestly, Armor/Shield is pretty cheap over all. Not sure what you mean by 3 times?

Silver Surfer wrote:
- Yes the WIS-AC cleric can pump DEX but thats if he chooses to do so. And even if full tank you can still get +1 from DEX and in med this is +3. With a MAD class like the cleric, ability points can be put in all manner of places for all manner of reasons for all manner of builds.... this does not change anything.

Like I pointed out, but will make more clear below, you don't have to pump Dex, but not doing so is intentionally not playing to the strength of the new class and purposefully handicapping yourself. This isn't a good way to compare the two in a meaningful way.

Silver Surfer wrote:
- This debate is centred around a new D6 class, that is inherently more "caster". A class with full 9th level casting but also additional enhancements to their spellcasting ability vs the old D8 cleric. With this in mind having it so that it was still easily possible to have all this AND full armour in my view made it unbalanced. There is also the RP/thematic aspect of the 'Holy Man'. If you disagree.... brilliant.

But wait, if it's intended to be a squish, stay back class that doesn't worry about carrying armor and shield, why wouldn't it keep Str and Con fairly low (comparatively) and pump more into Dex, Wis, and Cha, the areas it's going to benefit most from. That's a lot less MAD then the basic d8 Cleric, right, so they can easily afford it, (comparatively). I'm not disagreeing with your view or desire for a "Holy Man", which is purely a matter of opinion. Just the idea that Wis to AC is significantly weaker than Light and Medium Armor, or is somehow a weakness. Not trying to be a jerk, but most of the reasons you present, (outside of those that are pretty specific to your personal gaming experience), just don't hold up.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Entryhazard wrote:
I don't get the obsession towards making it d6 1/2 BAB, the cleric can be a dedicated caster even with d8 3/4

I really don't either. Its a deal breaker to me, as the Cleric/Divine Cases job is to be closer closer to the action than the Arcane casters. There are also plenty of ways to basically do it on your own if that's what you want, like just dumping physical abilities a bit.

Alternatively, why not play a "divine" Wizard.

Divine spells generally just are not buff enough to make the class a real full caster.

Shadow Lodge

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

How can a battle Oracle be better than a battle cleric for example.

Oracle has the lowest saves in the game, no main stat for any of the saves, low fort and ref.
Cleric Can wear same armor with 1 feat, use decent weapons and have superior spell list.
The domain vs revelations even out.

Show me a medium better level of Oracle vs cleric plsease.

Spontaneous vs memorize even out. Both have up and down sided

Most of the Cleric's options, regardless of build, are focused on making others better at things. Most Domains are a Standard Action to use that lasts 1 round.

Another huge benefit that the Oracle has over the Sorcerer (in the Cleric/Wizard vs Sorcerer/Oracle sense) is that Cleric and Divine spells are very limited and there just are not that many good ones. So while it's true that the Cleric is a better generalist, it's also not. You do not build a Cleric to be a generalist, for one. They jut do not have the Feats needed for that to work. They get 2 Domains and each of them offers a whopping 2 powers and maybe 3 spells that are not on their Spell list. But, they can only cast them at most 1/day, regardless.

Oracles have enough built in options that they can actually afford to be a generalist by giving up some (not all) of their specialty, but the real trick is that because there are not really that many good choices of spells to go with, it's not nearly as difficult to do as it is with the Sorcerer vs Wizard.

Another huge benefit to the Oracle is that they are a very SAD class, where the Cleric (to do it's job fully) is the most MAD class in the game. So while the Oracle might have the "worst" saves in the game, they do not have to split between Wis & Cha for class features, and can afford to bump Con and Dex higher than the Cleric, actually evening out those saves a lot.

The Cleric does have three realistic strengths. It's a pretty simple class for new players. If an Oracle picks a poor spell option, while it will not be detrimental, the Cleric does have the option to "retrain" a lot faster. And on those rare occasions where a specific spell is needed, it's just as likely that the Cleric doesn't have it prepped as the Oracle doesn't know it, and neither have the scroll/wand, but the Cleric can get it tomorrow if the patient doesn't die by then.

The Oracle has, in my opinion a much better realistic strength in that on those rare occasions, you are probably going to need that spell more than once. So while it's just as likely that neither of them would have it, (Oracle doesn't know it, Cleric didn't prep it), if the Oracle does know it, they can cast it as much as needed and not just once like the Cleric most likely has it prepped. However, since wands and scrolls are pretty readily available, the restriction on Oracles needed to pick and choose spells is much less a weakness than it seems, and much less than it is for the Sorcerer vs Wizard. There just are not that many "must have" divine spells.

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I tend to run games much more than play these days, and a lot of that is through Play by Post, so some of the aspects of playing through that medium skew my perspective. So much of this is also going to be for both. For example, a well organized and easy flowing scenario is much more important to me as a GM, but it's also going to show a lot more if I'm playing too, and the GM, (through no fault of their own) is having trouble understanding what's going on or answering basic questions, because the scenario doesn't think to include it.

From a GM's perspective, what makes a PFS scenario good?
* An interesting story that the players have a chance to learn and experience through play. Far too many scenarios are written with much of the explanation and history for DM's only.

* When a scenario is organized well. I shouldn't have to search (on page 19) what happens if the players answer no to something in the first encounter, and then go to page 12 for what happens instead.

* Riddles and puzzles that can both challenge the player an the character.

* Avoiding as much extra snowflake rules (or new books like Occult Adventures rules or the Technology Guide) as possible. If a story can not be told without relying on thee things as mandatory, it's probably not a good enough story, and adding these things does not help, it hurts.

* Scenarios that explore new places.

* Scenarios that make Factions matter. The single biggest selling point I had for PFS was the old Factions. When they where removed as extra side missions and being meaningful, the game lost something. This ties in a lot with the next point. . .

* When scenarios offer options and choices. Not binary ones, or ones that are just the illusion of choice. (Does the party side with person A or person B), but actual meaningful choices where either (or any) option has interesting rewards, penalties, and repercussions.

* Avoiding Sandbox style play. (specifically for online play)

* I'm not a fan of when Scenarios try to even the playing field with Social Skills (mainly), allowing things like a Craft Skill for players that do not have Diplomacy/Intimidate. Would you allow a Wizard to use Int + Caster Level for attack rolls on the chance that a party doesn't have a "tank"? No, then why reward groups/players for not being prepared for a social encounter? There is no difference.

* Avoiding highly social or roleplaying based scenarios. It bogs down play, and tends to make other players tune out and loose interest. Not just "I want to kill stuff" players/characters, but people in general. (specifically for online play)

* When the writer actually gives answers to "if the players ask this. . " that are actually pertinent and something an actual player might ask.

* Small and medium sized maps. A single large one is okay, when I have to draw it out or post it up and it's to the point that you have to zoom in 2 or 3 times (or more) just to see your figure, it's bad, and it can become impossible for some online players (using phones or tablets) to even utilize the map. Avoid!

From a player's perspective, what makes a PFS scenario good?
* I love how a lot of the earlier scenarios had a much more epic feel to play, and sometimes utilized unique rules. (A trap/lock that could be beaten by Intimidate or Channel Energy, a unique freezing curse, etc. . .)

* I enjoy puzzles and riddles. I find them rewarding. The exception being when the only possible way to answer or figure it out is based on something else within the scenario. (A coded note, but no matter what languages you speak or how great your Linguistics, it can only be deciphered with a special Code Key found later).

* I enjoy world exploration and introduction. Going to new locations, or uncommon ones like Ustalav. I'd rather this so much more than any overarching plot, mostly because so far, none of the major plots have been that interesting or engaging. I'm also now tending to find that a lot of those earlier overarching plots just do not hold up.

* When choices and actions matter.

* When I have a chance to find out what's actually going on, what led up to the current situation, etc. . . (even if I fail, the writers foresight into actually incorporating these things as a possibly is great when it happens).

* Scenarios that allow players to shine. Sometimes it's awesome to unleash a fireball that kills all enemies on the spot, or for the warrior to be able to use Cleave, etc. . . Scenarios where it goes out of the way to make classes or options fail or not be usable, (usually as a gimmick), just lead to frustration and feeling railroaded.

* Scenarios that utilize multiple decently powerful BBEG-type foes rather than one big one (and possibly a few minor ones).

* Scenarios that offer a variety of different encounters, challenges, and play-style options.

* Scenarios that anticipate and allow Diplomacy to avoid combat as an option, even if it's difficult.

* A cool Chronicle Sheet, with cool things for a lot of people, and some RP elements. If it's just XP/GP/PP, or more so if 90% of the rewards are there for basically one Class or Faction, it's disappointing.

For the most part, the best and most memorable scenarios in my opinion account for a great combination of much of these.

The Night Marches of Kalkamedes - Offered fun and interesting NPCs, both friendly and not, offered a lot of different challenge types, but also heavily tied them into a single, stand alone adventure that built upon itself. Had an amazing Chronicle Sheet. Had an epic feel, both in the sense of we accomplished something, but also that we where actually a part of something that mattered. Also utilized unique rules, but was not an attempt to shoehorn in a new subsystem book. In my opinion, this is the absolute single best scenario out there. Period.

The God's Market Gamble - An amazing BBEG build up with multiple interesting encounters. An investigation scenario done right (and there are so few of them done well, in my opinion). It also had a strong sense of the party's involvement mattering and some interesting was to learn what was really going on the whole time.

There are also a few Scenarios I outright hate and would avoid at all costs.

Rivalry's End - absolute worst scenario I've ever run/seen. The entire point of this scenario was for the writer to piss of fans that disagreed with them on a Faction or NPC, and it was abundantly clear that the writer ignored everything else involved to push this one through as the worst railroad I've ever seen, outright removing options and forcing events that the characters watch but can not change. It's primary takeaway is that players and DM's walk away actually feeling bad for playing it and disappointed that they where literally not even allowed to do obvious things that make perfect sense to alter what happens.

Scars of the Third Crusade - Too many subsystems, too little variation in encounters, and too many "DM Gottcha's" written into it. One of my main problems though is that it's specifically written to make certain characters NOT Shine just so it can present the very heavily railroaded, whole-filled plot as "meaningful". It was, in some ways, a nice attempt at certain things, but all in all just didn't play well, tended to leave players sitting there twiddling their thumbs, and ended with a less than climactic or memorable battle. I also felt that it really had a lot of challenges that where impossible to fail. No matter what, certain things just happen, just at different times.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HP: 120/120 , Init +3, AC: 25, T: 14, FF: 23, CMB: 27, F: +14, R: +8, W: +14 <constant Prot from Evil (+2), no Food/ Water, Native Outsider, Imune to Bleed, Fear, Fog/Mist/Smoke> Fly 30', Swim 30", Move 30', Perception +14 <Darkvision 60ft>, Channel: 7/7 DC 22 - 7d6, (DC 22 +19 vs Undead, +6 vs Evil Outsiders) NG Male Aasimar Cleric 13, Sunflare: +13/+8, 1d6+18+1d6 Acid (15/x2) S, 5,274-18

"You where the Chosen one. It was said you would destroy the DeSithverate, not join them. Adril, you where my brother!"

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|| || Bloodcove || Hell's Rebels || The Lost Legacy ||

Just means things will be interesting. For me, I mean. You are all going to die.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, Krensky, you are incorrect. If nothing besides the movies/show was considered Canon, why was it such a big deal that Disney announced it would no longer be on 25Apr2014.

HERE

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
At that level of rules lawyering shennanigans its not clarity they're looking for.

See, the thing is, based on the actual material, those that disagree with you see YOUR view as the one that jumping through all sorts of rules lawyering hoops and pulling shenanigans to push their own agenda.

There was already at least 1 massive thread about this subject, and while I appreciate you having made up your mind on what anyone that reads the same things you do and has a different view or ruling on what it says, some people would actually just like to not have table variation on this or similar things.

So, again, can we please stop trying to skew things with personal points of view and agenda and let it be decided upon based on it's own merits.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:
Also, those crystals that they use to make them... I heard they were really hard to find. Either naturally scarce or the Empire hid/destroyed them to prevent jedi from making new ones. So it's REALLY impractical to outfit entire armies with them.

They are very hard to find, but even harder to actually use correctly. Part of becoming a Jedi Knight was the construction of the Lightsaber. It was partially in creating a personal weapon, but the test itself was displaying enough mastery of the different types of the Force (Alter, Control, and Sense), needed to actually correctly create a working Lightsaber.

Another aspect to consider is that a Lightsaber is essentially a bomb, and even relatively minor damage to the components within the hilt would be enough to cause it to explode and kill everyone within a few yards. Part of the Force Mastery required to actually use one in combat is focusing on the Lightsaber itself not being damaged and blowing up.

The original concept was that they where simply lazar swords, but that was changed quickly to make them a partially mystical weapon and not a mundane one. So while one doesn't need to be a Jedi/Sith, they do need to have Force Sensitivity to use one as anything but a lethal taser. Well, until The Force Awakens botched that for us.

The other major aspect of using a Lightsaber is that it's a defensive weapon, not an offensive one. Simply using it like a sword is like using a loaded bazooka as a club.

Instead, with the Force, a user can block, deflect, and redirect blaster bolts, absorb energy, focus the force through the blade, and use the lightsaber as both a melee and ranged weapon/shield.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
TomG wrote:
Did a quick scan, and didn't see this one mentioned yet: Humans trying to take Racial Heritagae(kitsune) and Fox Shape feats.

That one is an absolute no for pfs. Fox shape is only available in the additional resources to kitsune, so whether you see it as a seperate ability or an add on to change shape is irrelevant, it doesn't work in PFS.

(see note above about racial heritage needing a BIG asterix)

Um, no. And can we please stop saying things like this unless it was actually ruled on somewhere.

If it was, then it's a great example of something that could be a lot more evident. If not, and to my knowledge it wasn't, then again, it's a pretty great example of very conflicting interpretations leading to table variation of the worst sort.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

My idea isn't for 5-Star GMs to call the shots or make decisions, though.

It's a filter. We describe what we're doing already. Campaign Leadership decides what fits.

But that's exactly what your proposal would lead to. If a group (any group) controls what information is worthy of being looked at, they in all but name control what gets changed or ruled upon, and that is going to be heavily dictated by their own preferences and desires. Perhaps not universally, but enough.

It's also the exact opposite of the point of the blog, which was to open this up as a public forum, as opposed to the already existing VO and 5 Star hidden forums.

Ragoz wrote:
At some point Paizo decided that high star GMs know the game any better than anyone else and it just isn't true. 5 star GMs are organizers of the campaign not game developers.

I just want to point out that's not exactly what I said. Attaining 4 or 5 Stars, or even a Venture Officer title is a pretty big deal and it is something in my opinion that's worthy of some respect. And you are correct that some individuals could and do cheat the system, per se, by running a few scenarios (or modules/APs) a lot or by running for a "home group", BUT, that's not at all a bad thing or really "cheating" as PFS is designed to both account for and allow that.

And while those individuals may not get some of the same experience or face other potential errors, they instead face other potential errors and get different experiences, and that's something that PFS needs in order to survive, grow, and improve.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

This has become like the #1 thing on my mind as I'm driving around running errands today.

If I had a say in how to tackle this, I'd set up a Forum for all the 5-Star GMs to post in. We've played and GMed more than anyone else and we've encountered more table variation than anyone else. Who better to poll than the ones that've had to come up with their own rulings?

Have us make individual threads that bring up the issues one at a time. Have us present all sides of the argument, but not actually argue with one another.

After maybe like a week, Campaign Leadership reads through all the points and issues a ruling that aligns with the Campaign.

You said this document would be regularly updated, like the Weapon Groups listing. Well, as these threads get resolved the document gets updated with them.

Let our Stars count for more than just rerolls. Let us impact change and help guide the Campaign.

(did that sound like a Campaign speech?)

There are a few reasons I think this is a bad idea. Firstly, I do think it's often misleading to assume that 5 Star GMs are the most experienced or best qualified, even within just the PFS arena. Often I see, or get the impression that they (we?) tend to be the most set in our ways. I'm only a lowly 4 Star here :P, but I'll include myself in this as well, because the point isn't to point fingers. Being more set in our ways is not the same thing as being good/more experienced/better GM's and being a great GM, or even a PFS GM does not really mean an individual is in a better position to nudge things in the best direction for the campaign as a whole.

I can't think of the number of times I've heard something along the lines of "Well, I don't care <*>, at my table _______"

* What the guide says / what the rules are / what the actual ruling has been / etc. . .

A great deal of the time I see 5 Star GM's push to get something banned or changed, it seems that their is a personal motivation involved, or it seems like a very regional or local issue that they are trying to make a universal rules change to address when the issue doesn't seem to happen or be a problem anywhere else. I often get the impression that "for the campaign" is less important than what seems to be personal agendas. But, here is the thing. Regardless of if it is or not, it will appear that way to everyone else, and will also just lead to more issues late on as other experienced people will encounter the new ruling and poke holes right through it.

I'm also not keen on yet another issue and means of fixing and improving the Campaign as a whole being taken away from all to be handled off screen by a few. I'd actually say it would be a better idea for 4 and 5 Star GMs to have an absolute hands-off approach than to focus on their opinions or points exclusively.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
HP: 120/120 , Init +3, AC: 25, T: 14, FF: 23, CMB: 27, F: +14, R: +8, W: +14 <constant Prot from Evil (+2), no Food/ Water, Native Outsider, Imune to Bleed, Fear, Fog/Mist/Smoke> Fly 30', Swim 30", Move 30', Perception +14 <Darkvision 60ft>, Channel: 7/7 DC 22 - 7d6, (DC 22 +19 vs Undead, +6 vs Evil Outsiders) NG Male Aasimar Cleric 13, Sunflare: +13/+8, 1d6+18+1d6 Acid (15/x2) S, 5,274-18
Roos Randermin wrote:
"What are you and Roak going on and on about?"

Just a warning, the following is true only from a certain point of view. There is another point of view that hated Grandmaster Torch and thus that he had his own faction that basically gave the Grand Lodge/Decemvirate the finger.

"I've been with the Society for a long time, and I can honestly say that in that time, I have few regrets. We are morning the best amongst us, a fall that shames us all."

"Some years ago, there was a group within the Pathfinder Society whose secret aim was to look out for the younger, newer, less experienced agents, and to keep them from being used and abused so often. The group, called the Shadow Lodge, had begun as a band of brothers and sisters that the Decemvirate, and more than a few of the Venture Officers had abandon, neglected to tell them pertinent information about a mission, or simply been ignorant themselves. Not all of them had perished, and as more and more survived, they banded together to avoid it from happening again."

"However, there where some within the Shadow Lodge who instead wanted, in reality a deserved revenge against the leaders of the Pathfinder Organization, and these "false" Shadow Lodge agents went to war with both the "true" Shadow Lodge, but primarily the Pathfinder Society itself, for it was they who had left them to die, or tried to have them killed. Or their friends. Or family."

"All of this was in the shadows. The Pathfinder Society had no idea who was destroying them, and so easily, so precisely. It's because the Shadow Lodge was inside the Pathfinder Society already. They new first hand who the bad apples where, and how to strike. They new first hand the Society's plan, strengths, weaknesses, and also had the same access to the same resources. It was then that the "true" Shadow Lodge came out to save the Pathfinder Society. Led b one Grandmaster Torch, the Shadow Lodge informed the Society of the true threat, and they joined forces to destroy the "false" Shadow Lodge, but only after the Decemvirate bowed to the Shadow Lodge's terms. No more would agent's simply be left to die. Or swept under the rug because of a Venture-Captain' ignorance or laziness. The Shadow Lodge also developed special strike teams that would deploy to find and retrieve missing agents, at least returning their bodies home for healing or burial."

"But as I had said, we honor the best of us, and that means they are no longer with us. Not really. There are rumors that they still exist. Out there, somewhere. But I've only hear of them once in passing, and it's been some long years now. With the threat of the "false" Shadow Lodge gone, and things truly beginning to look up, the Decemvirate pulled a nasty trick. Truly vile. Utilizing some sort of Doppelganger or some sort of magic, now on really knows for sure, they staged a public betrayal of both the Pathfinder Society and some of the Shadow Lodge's most loyal by "Grandmaster Torch", and in one simple stoke, tore it all down."

"Our shame, all of us, for we are all equally at fault here, is that we did not fight back. We did not support our brothers and sisters when they needed us the most. With the spectacle of Grandmaster Torch's betrayal, the Shadow Lodge, now the only Shadow Lodge was dissolved. After thrusting the knife into our brother's backs, they then repeated the efforts on our sisters, adding in an extra twist of the blade: the Decemvirate was even so gracious as to, "allow them to return to the fold". Yes, ponder that for a moment. The Pathfinder Society "allowed" the Shadow Lodge to "return to the fold". That is like saying that Cheliax, in all seriousness and honesty both offered to allow Andoran and the Liberty's Edge to return to their rightful place, and then fully expected them to drop to their knees and crawl back. It's outright ridiculous."

"We all allowed this to happen, and even now, whilst many are so eager to defile all that the Shadow Lodge had been and done, there are those who don't even have the competency to know that they do it. Such as the whore of Cheliax, whose own symbol is just a weak rerepresentation of a greatness that was. Look upon the whore's symbol, a burning book, and see that her agenda is one and the same. To destroy the truth. Not to find it and keep it."

"I apologize. I find it very irksome that someone so unworthy, and in fact an entire retinue of her slaves would dare to even claim some sort of kinship with the Shadow Lodge, even if it is simply through their associated symbol, and ignorance is no excuse. For Zarta, it never was. But the Shadow Lodge as somewhat similar in many ways to both your own and my own Factions. Perhaps most of all, but even Darius's friends have more than a few similarities. Like Darius's allies, the Shadow Lodge worked from behind the thrown, always seeking to make alliances with the most unexpected people, for one never knows when one, or one's friends, may need a favor. But they had a plan. A focus. Beyond power and influences, that is. Their efforts where to fix the broken Pathfinder Society, and for a time, they did."

"Like Liberty's Edge, or at the time, the followers and idealists of the nation of Andoran, the Shadow Lodge was perfectly willing to punch an idiot barking orders in the face if that idiot was, well an idiot. But I've heard many stories about Major Maldris, and while in the end, the Pathfinder Society turned Grandmaster Torch into the same hypocrite as those stories may indicate, both of the groups that followed them did so for the purposes they espoused. The Shadow Lodge was also similar to, and perhaps the most similar to my own alliance. They sought against all odds, to improve the world. While the Silver Crusade does so with the Society, the Shadow Lodge did so regardless of, or even in spite of the Society if need be. But they where also a group that believed the ends justified the means, for better or for worse."

"You may wonder why a group called that would be called the Shadow Lodge had a symbol of flame. I wondered this myself. But consider that they where more than willing to fight fire with fire, and it makes a bit more sense. Poetic, of sorts. While the Darkive hoards "darkness" and pretends to be of use, or even needed with their treasures, the Shadow Lodge took those same evils that others didn't want, but the Society was too weak to destroy, and used them for good. Or rather, used them against evil."

Roos Randermin wrote:
Roos listens to Iggys eulogy and explanation of events. "Many thanks. I joined the society soon after the closing of the two lodges and never really got filled in on what transpired. Any-who I'm gonna see what is around the corner here." and with that Roos walks over to the right "Oh look sofas. I am tired." he tells the others and then sits down.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Marc Radle wrote:

DM Becket - you're entitled to your opinion, but saying it was 'terribly written' and doesn't deserve to be Star Wars is just not true. Those claims *could* be leveled at the prequels, but NOT at the Force Awakens. You may personally dislike the film and that's fine, but making those sorts of claims are simply being disingenuous.

Of course, when something is super popular and super successful, there will still be some folks that don't like it, and that's fine. Heck, Avatar was certainly a very popular and successful film (clearly) but I didn't care for it. Of course, I didn't seek out people (or online forums) expressly for the purpose of complaining about how much I didn't like it.

Not liking something is fine. Trying to rain on the parade of people (and let's face it, from the money the film is making, and the sheer number of people seeing this movie multiple times) that DO like it just feels like ... kind of crappy to do

Well, personally I think continuously attempting to shut down opinions that do not agree with yours is a pretty crappy thing to do. A large part of why we are talking about what we don't like is so that it doesn't happen again if there are further movies.

Some people liked it, and some don't. A agree, it's fine that you do. But please, stop assuming that your opinion is the only one that matters. In retrospection, I think I like all the prequels more, and yes, I do think the Force Awakens was terribly written and doesn't deserve to be a Star Wars movie, not do I think getting rid of the Expanded Universe was close to a good trade-off.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:

Some random thoughts ...

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
Honestly, the idea the Jedi cannot marry or have children only existed after the prequels. Somewhat irrelevant now, there was a lot of Expanded Universe material that stated otherwise, from Luke marrying later, to probably the most famous, Nomi Sunrider who only became a Jedi after her Jedi husband was cut down right in front of her, and later taught their daughter to become a Jedi as well. (Ironically, she also originally swore to never touch a Lightsaber as well).

There was some theory that this was also one of the things that Obi-Wan, Mace Windu, and Yoda where referring to in their discussion in Attack of the Clones about how these new generations of Jedi are arrogant and weak, because without the difficulties of close relationships with family, they did not have the risk of falling to the Dark Side or grounding that comes with those relationships.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rey:
Now, one thing I think would be an interesting way to redeem the movie is to have Rey actually become the new BBEG, but unlike Darth Vader, no redemption. As I recall, the flashback of showing her being dropped off she was very, very young, and so I don't think it's very likely that she had been trained as a Jedi and mind-wiped. It's possible, but I still don't think so. The other major issue with that is that if she is that powerful, well the mind-wipe just isn't going to last. But, what does make sense is if she got so powerful so quickly because she was tapping straight into the dark side, and her own pride and fear which will quickly follow allow the Dark Side to grab hold and not let go. Playing up on both how everyone just seems to like and trust her, and the fact that she has personal knowledge of the Ex-Republic's and/or Resistance's entire leadership structure, defenses, capabilities, etc. . . goes on to restart the war (all out), forcing Luke to come out of exile and begin to train new apprentices.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Marc Radle wrote:
I absolutely respect the few in this thread who didn't love the movie, but it definitely seems that this opinion is *very* much in the minority.

Are we trying to have an honest discussion or win a popularity contest?

:P

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|| || Bloodcove || Hell's Rebels || The Lost Legacy ||
Eldon García wrote:
Kwnoledge Local+ 18[/ooc]

She is secretly a unique Elf called a Nightmare Creature. It's from a 3rd party book I don't own. <Yes, the scenario draws on a 3rd party book, I'm not adding it> That also means I have no idea about the fluff. But, amongst her more juicy natural abilities is a constant Protection from Good, Regeneration (Silver or Good), and two separate Fear Aura's.

Eldon García wrote:
Are they aggressive to us, or do we still have the opportunity to parley?

They are aggressive. I tried to give a little bi of time to chat, but there really is no way around the fight. It is the BBEG. You guys/gals skipped the majority of the first floor. :P

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Muser wrote:
I'd smash for a Darkive storyline. I hope the it involves Darklands.

Sure that's the way you want to phrase that?

To be honest, I'd like for basically everyone else to get that. Scarab Sage already did, and Darkive already as some of the better scenarios attached to them. Be nice for some others to get some epic feeling scenarios or trilogy.

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Now the question is 'what boon would you feel properly rewards a GM?' since you have disparaged the current GM star boon.

Personally, I'd like it to be something that adds a bit more setting, or the idea of the GM being more well informed about the in game Society or the world as a whole. I tend to find, being that I mostly play Divine Casters, the rewards just not very useful except for at the higher end. Especially things like the aegis of recovery, is just basically one more thing I can already do, just a bit worse. It also kind of competes with the Dawnflower Sash.

I also tend to dislike temporary, or one off bonuses. So a few suggestions I would like is maybe

1 Star: You get a free extra Starting Language of your choice.

2 Star: During the introduction to a Scenario, you automatically make one Knowledge Check to find out more details about the scenario when speaking to a Venture Captain. You treat it as is you where Trained in the Skill, and had rolled a total of 15 + your GM Stars. This can only be used after each other player has attempted that specific check if they are able to.

3 Star: When applying GM Credit to a Character, you are treated as if you had a Down Time benefit. This does not allow you to make a Day Job Check, but it does allow you to mark off Boons, or utilize other Down Time Benefits. If the specific Scenario, Module, or Quest does not normally allow for a Day Job or Down Time Check, this does not grant you that ability.

3 Star Alternate: You can take a 3rd Trait <universal>.

4 and 5 Star rewards stay the same, more for simplicity than anything.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
24/24, AC: 17, T: 13, FF: 14, CMD: 16 Fort: +6, Refl: +5, Will: +7, (+1 vs Fear) Perception: +3 <Darkvision, Continual Flame, Sense Motive: +9, 3/3 Channel Positive Energy 3/Day, 2d6 Will DC 11, LG Aasimar Cleric 3, Longspear +4 +5 1d8+1 20/x3 [P]

Earlier

"You also said that if we did a good job, I could get a ride on your back, and you would help my friend Oloch here overcome his fear of drowning."

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
24/24, AC: 17, T: 13, FF: 14, CMD: 16 Fort: +6, Refl: +5, Will: +7, (+1 vs Fear) Perception: +3 <Darkvision, Continual Flame, Sense Motive: +9, 3/3 Channel Positive Energy 3/Day, 2d6 Will DC 11, LG Aasimar Cleric 3, Longspear +4 +5 1d8+1 20/x3 [P]

"Only if you continue to fight. Give us the final piece so we can help you solve it."

Enhanced Diplomacy: 1d20 + 8 ⇒ (1) + 8 = 9

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
24/24, AC: 17, T: 13, FF: 14, CMD: 16 Fort: +6, Refl: +5, Will: +7, (+1 vs Fear) Perception: +3 <Darkvision, Continual Flame, Sense Motive: +9, 3/3 Channel Positive Energy 3/Day, 2d6 Will DC 11, LG Aasimar Cleric 3, Longspear +4 +5 1d8+1 20/x3 [P]

Man, I bet my next roll was a "6". . .

1d20 ⇒ 3

Oh, even better. . . <groan>

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|| || Bloodcove || Hell's Rebels || The Lost Legacy ||

That's a fantastic question. Need to hear from everyone on characters. I know that GM Lari and PW are in the Fane of Fangs game, and might be waiting on a Chronicle from that before proceeding. That game should be ending very soon. Depending on post rates, I'd expect today or tomorrow.

I'm mostly ready on my end.

I've also opened up the Recruitment thread. Please head over there and fill in the info.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|| || Bloodcove || Hell's Rebels || The Lost Legacy ||

So here is what it looks like we have so far.

Eldon García (DM Rutseg) <3>
(GM Lari)
Miaka Oinari (Dragon Reborn) <3>
Oloch (GM DevilDoc) <4>
(Pathetic Wretch)

Lets get things rolling and we can get started.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
In PF you can't, because you get 1/4 the number of skill points.
Note that's only for first level, and you accomplish the same bonus as if you put four ranks in through the way class skills work, and the way class skills work means your character can put ranks in cross-class skills without permanently sucking at them. So.... customization has increased...

I don't follow. How has being given less Skill Points to put into skills grant more customization? Remember that free +3 (which basically just means you are forced to put max ranks) only applies to Class Skills.

Optimization, sure.
Having less Ranks that do more is also simpler, (less choices) available.

In 3.5 a 2+Int class with a 12 Int would have (2+1) x 4 Skill Points: or 12.

In PF, tht same Character would have 2+1 Skill Points to spend.

Lets assume they want to put ranks into the Cross-Class Knowledge Local.

In 3.5, Max Ranks for a Cross Class skill is 4 Points (at half a rank each), which would give you a +2 Rank Bonus for that Skill. However, you are not required to put in all four Points. You could put in 2 instead (giving you only a +1 Rank Bonus for that skill, but allowing you to put those other 2 Points into another skill if you like).
And your Skill Check would be 1d20+3 (or +2 for 1 Rank only)

In PF, same skill, your Max Ranks is 1 Skill Point, (out of your 3), so putting 1 Point in grants you 1 Rank. You do not have the ability to put in a Half Point.
And your Skill Check would be 1d20+2.

Now, if we assume we want Max Ranks in Class Skills, both can put them in 3 different Skills. Both would have the same bonuses, all other things being equal.

The part about Customization, though, is that the 3.5 character doesn't HAVE TO. They can still spread their Skill Points out if they want, for instance to have the option of at least trying more Skill Checks that require training.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd actually say that 3.5's Skills, and particularly for the Rogue where much stronger, just because the way Ranks worked, you had a lot more options to spread things out, if you wanted. Instead of say, maxing out Tumble (Acrobatics), you could just put a rank or two into it (a level one) and then put the other 1-3 Ranks into other skills, allowing you at least a chance to use them. In PF you can't, because you get 1/4 the number of skill points. In a lot of ways it works out similar, and is simpler, but I prefer customization over simplicity in general.

I'd actually say that Pathfinder watered a lot of things down more than the reverse, though. By allowing most things, as an example, to be subject to Sneak Attack like Undead, it does make things better for the Rogue, but it does so by reducing a lot of the cool factor and threat level of those Undead.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
24/24, AC: 17, T: 13, FF: 14, CMD: 16 Fort: +6, Refl: +5, Will: +7, (+1 vs Fear) Perception: +3 <Darkvision, Continual Flame, Sense Motive: +9, 3/3 Channel Positive Energy 3/Day, 2d6 Will DC 11, LG Aasimar Cleric 3, Longspear +4 +5 1d8+1 20/x3 [P]

Removing the Cloak once more, and returning to my normal self, I'll thrust it into the cage, saying "Put this on, now. It will keep you from drowning."

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
If Person A and Person B both come from a poor background, why is so big a jump to ask Person A to consider how much more difficult their life would have been if they had also been gay like Person B? Or poor and non-white? Or poor and flagged as non-Christian?

Because there is a (not completely unfounded) perception that it is easier/there is less social stigma on a minority family requiring public assistance, that its ok for them to have done so because of their race. When you hit a certain level of poor being white starts to be a disadvantage for getting the help you need.

You're also describing not being shot on sight by the cops as a privilege, rather than a right. -Ooo, you went through all this hardship but hey, it could have been worse- is not a particularly tactful approach to dealing with people.

Yes. I'm pointing out a lack of tact. Thats how bad it is.

Quote:
Sure, Person A may not know or understand all the additional difficulties Person B has experienced, but both being poor is the bridge.
Just stick to one variable at a time. Otherwise it interacts and intersects in odd ways.

There is also the other side of that "Person B" isn't going to see, like the fact that I was actually targeted often for being gay (I'm not, but I had a lot of gay friends), or poor, or that you know, getting shot at because I was white while deployed more recently, might actually put me, (according to Person B's own standards) for invoking privilege, actually at a lower level of "privilege".

In other words, Person B, of whatever group they are a part of, assumes that I, as Person A did or does not have the same breath of experience that they do, and therefore should take a back seat to a conversation at hand. But, part of the point I was making is what happens that that turns out to be flatly wrong. Does Person B then need to take a back seat?

And that's basically where the concept of "but your playing it on easy mode, try walking in my moccasins for a mile" breaks down.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lissa Guillet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


You can't not have privilege because everyone is a majority about something
But some privilege is more prevalent than others. In the trans community, we talk a lot about passing privilege. Which just means, that people can rarely tell that your trans. You've had some traumatic times but passing privilege helps you get along a lot in society. It means, unless you are out and public as I am, you don't have to deal with a lot of the problems that being trans can have. It means, you aren't necessarily considered foreign to cisgendered people so people can have that moment when you remind them of their daughter or their wife or best friend without relating that to the otherness of being trans. Having passing privilege gives you a lot of the little things that cisgendered privilege gets you.

I was born (at least partially) white, and also with a penis. I'm also married with two daughters. And here is the issue with "privilege". Despite all these factors, I grew up poor. Poor to the point where most of school, I wore cloths that my parents made for me. I can honestly recall one time where I got to go shopping for cloths that I wanted, and that was in high school.

Most of that time, my father worked 2 or 3 jobs, (even after going to college after the marines), and a lot of those times, unable to afford day care, I went to work with him on the weekends or days off, working to build houses or whatever. I also had to get my GED and start working a bit early too. My mother was a baby-sitter/housewife and also struggled to finish college at night until she got a job, too.

After that, I went to college, myself working two jobs at times to do it. Being both male and white and also working, I didn't receive any special help at that. After college, I worked a bit, and because I wanted a better life, I joined the military, and I've been in the military while no less than three times, because of politics there was the threat of no pay, (and deployed for two of these occasions). I'm going into my third deployment now, within a few weeks in fact, so that I can give my family a chance to go to college, and my daughters have as much as I can give them.

It wasn't handed to me. I EARNED IT, as did my parents who worked their butts off. I can only trace my family tree back two generations before me, because my grandparents where all orphans after various wars.

Privilege is to me an insult. Unless you (whoever is speaking) is saying I was privileged enough to have parents that where willing to work, and work multiple jobs. Sure, that's a better than having parents that wouldn't. But, obviously, insulting your own parents work ethic or drive is not what the speaker means. What they do mean is that the target got a free pass somehow, and probably in a single specific circumstance only, but somehow that means they simply can't understand everything about everything.

Privilege is an insult. Yes, my wife and daughters will have better opportunities in life, because I worked and sacrificed a lot to help make that more likely. Trying to say that their gender, skin color, or even sexual orientation down the road when they develop one is a factor does nothing but undermine all the work, suffering, and effort I, and my parents did to EARN that for them.

Privilege is an insult to logic. It's basically nothing more than "the grass is greener over there" and pretending that A.) that's true on it's own, and B.) that the only or at least main reason is that the grass over there was just inherited or discounted, but only some folks get that discount.

Privilege also assumes, but goes without saying, that it's a single thing that applies to all aspects of life. One is either privileged or not. That is, they are not privileged in one aspect of life, potentially, while also being unprivileged at others, and in the rare case that those that fall back on accusing other of privilege do allow this possibility, it's always also assumed that all the special privilege gets far outweighs all the unprivileged, if there is even any.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
darth_borehd wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
TOZ wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
The 3.5 core rulebook material was pretty much all balanced.
*eyetwitch*
I'm pretty sure they where meaning that more like "They took the 3.5 Core Rulebook and balanced it out better" rather than "the 3.5 Core Rulebook was already pretty balance".
No, that's not what I meant. I mean using only the Player's Handbook, they were pretty close to being balanced. It was the supplements like the "Complete" series and so on that were poorly designed and thought out.

Oh. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that 3.5 was a better and better balanced game.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A Cleric really has to go out of their way to act outside their normal personality and normal character, or the player not be aware of something to fall.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Sorcerers received many of the same boosts, like the same improved hit die, and they gained specializations like the wizard in the form of different magically influenced bloodlines (as opposed to the 3.5 lore that all magic blood came from dragons).

Sorcerer Bloodlines actually came out right about the time 3.0 became 3.5. They are not something Pathfinder created, but took from 3.5

master_marshmallow wrote:
Clerics are considerably weaker. Turn/Rebuke has been replaced with Channel Energy, and Divine feats no longer exist. On top of that, clerics are no longer proficient in heavy armor, and Divine Power no longer grants full BAB nor can it be Persisted to turn you into Clericzilla.

Paizo really overreacted with the Cleric, getting scarred into thinking the Clericzilla was more than a myth, and did a ton of hard not notice nerfs across the board. Another thing they did was to remove a lot of the better Domain Abilities that gave permanent bonuses, Bonus Feats, etc. . ., and went out of their way to make Clerics unable to realistically affect themselves with a lot of Domains, forcing them to play as background buffers and healbots a lot more. They later also introduced the Oracle, (their more ideal version of the divine spellcaster) which in a lot of ways is just better and a lot more open than the Cleric.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Druids have changed, they are no longer omnipotent. You have to choose between being strong in combat and being strong in spellcasting. Wild Shape (and all polymorph spells as a matter of fact) is completely different, and much much weaker. You can no longer genuinely assume forms, and instead gain numerical bonuses to stats and select abilities of whatever creature you shape into. Still can't use metal armor either.

That's what they tried to do, but in reality, the Druid is still the strongest (debatable vs Wizard) class in the game. Wild Shape isn't as weak as people claim, it's just not as potentially strong as it was back then, (which was mainly because off all the other books that opened up new options and ways to modify Wild Shape).

master_marshmallow wrote:
Paladins and Rangers were both made stronger. Paladins mainly because their reliance on WIS is removed, making them less MAD. Lay on Hands now functions as a swift action, and Smite Evil is so much more powerful that it functions against a single enemy nonstop for an entire fight, AND gives you more AC. Rangers get double the bonus from favored enemy, gain different bonuses from a new favored terrain mechanic, improved hit die (10's now), and their combat style was opened up to allow more choices. Both of these classes have had their spellcasting mechanics changed the same way which lowers their CL into a linear scale, rather than always being at 1/2 level. Both of these classes also now have Spellcraft as a class skill, as do all spellcasters.

A few more pretty significant changes to the Paladin is PF gave them Mercies, (a rider to the turn undead channel energy ability that allows them to heal their allies, but at the same time wash away various conditions, and also altered their Code a bit, adding in another level of Alignment Debate.

3.5 SRD wrote:

Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
PF PRD wrote:


Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

The intent was to make the Paladin a bit more party friendly, but realistically, it makes it worse than ever.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
Really, if you think about it, shouldn't the Cleric have a far harsher code of conduct then a Paladin simply because 9th-level casting is so much more powerful than anything the Paladin gets?

I'd say so, but more because of the flavor. A Cleric is a chosen individual that's given power above a normal priest (magic), and acts as the faith's hand and voice in the world. They are also expected to know the rights and wrongs of their faith above and beyond the simple doctrines, and also have a deeper understanding and wisdom.

Unlike the Oracle, who in a lot of senses thinks they know, the Cleric actually does know the will of their faith's patron, and is bound to follow it, (or loose favor).

So the Cleric is a mixture of leader and teacher. In Golarion, the deities usually do not act directly, but through their agents and worshipers. And while that can mean any class, it's sort of the Cleric's main job. Golarion also has a really strange (modern) separation of church and state in many cases that really doesn't make any sense, (there are a few exceptions like Cheliax where the Church is very close to or sometimes is the state). In a world where priests can actively commune with their deities and call upon miracles, how would they not be very politically active around the world, and especially fill a lot of advisor roles in government. And yet, in the setting, these spiritual leaders and mouthpieces basically have no secular or religious authority.

At the same time, many faith's have very generic and vague tenets, so while the Cleric does, on the surface, have just as strict a code as the Paladin, there is very little risk of failing, just because there are so many individual Codes, (so many deities), it's both a matter of if the Player and the DM even know of something, and it's more a guideline than a specific do or do not.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
The 3.5 core rulebook material was pretty much all balanced.
*eyetwitch*

I'm pretty sure they where meaning that more like "They took the 3.5 Core Rulebook and balanced it out better" rather than "the 3.5 Core Rulebook was already pretty balance".

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've always had a strong belief that the Paladin should drop the Lawful part of the Alignment requirement and instead be required to be Neutral Good. That would, for one, take the whole Lawful Stupid concept out back and beat the utter s%&# out of it, which is worth it all on it's own.

But, if you think about it, originally they where made Lawful Good, because similar to the 4th Edition Alignment that was the best of the best for Good. Back then, when the Paladin first appeared, it was something along the lines of Lawful Good (utterly good), Good, (more similar to most peoples view of Neutral now, they will help others when they can and it's not really harmful to them), Neutral (Balance in all things, actively Neutral), Evil (savage, dark, not afraid to kill), and Chaotic Evil (psycho).

But the spectrum changed, going from a polar scale to a pair of concepts on axis Chaotic vs Lawful and not at all related Good vs Evil. In this context, Neutral Good actually fits the concept of the Paladin better, (still bound by their Code), because they only serve one master (Good, not Good and Law), and not being particularly overly bound to either order/discipline/society's ethics or personal freedom/instinct means that they can, at all times try to do the option that will bring about the most good for the most amount of people. They will not lie to do it. They will not cheat, or resort to dirty fighting. But they don't always have to use the same old tactics or worry about the what the King/Queen says vs what their faith tells them is true vs what they know is right. They still have to be respectful when they tell the legitimate-evil-as-*&^@Queen to go <bleep> herself, but there is zero risk that anyone else, DM or otherwise is going to tell them "that's a chaotic act, and even though they are going to sacrifice babies for fun, you can't do it. You are a Paladin, after all!"

A few noteworthy side effects this would have:

Firstly, it would open up Paladins to a lot more deities that probably should have them.

Secondly, Lawful Stupid would now 100% (110%???) be an Asmodeus and Abadar thing where they belong. Good riddance. Okay, Shelyn, to. I'll give you that. Anyone that thinks Goodness has anything at all to do with looking pretty deserves it.

Thirdly, it puts the Paladin vs Necromancer/Demon or Devil Summoner/Evil-but-my-character-sheet-says-neutral-wah-wah in a different light. Win/Win all around.

Forthly, Alignment debates loose a lot of traction. (See number 3 above)

Fifthly, it actually makes sense. Especially in Golarion where knighthoods are any Alignment.

Sixthly, it actually makes the Hellknights interesting outside of Judge Dredd wannabe's. "I AM,. . . THE. . ." <B$@$%SLAP> "Shut the, sorry, Cap says I can't use "that kind of language" UP!!!"

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd tend to agree most with the idea of, generally antagonistic minded GMs trying to insert their own views of morality, (possibly with a dose of modernism), into a game and Setting that probably doesn't support that subjective view so perfectly as the main one.

The other being the somewhere between the grimdark antihero prefernce and tqo dimensional shades of grey that's actually more like black vs grey only. Sort of attached to this is that it restricts the group in some ways, so again, tends to mean up front no one gets to play Evil characters that have Neutral written on the character sheet.

Another huge one I see is that the DM (or other players) is absolutely down with the idea of a chaste, spiritual, honorable, noble, shining knight beacon of righteousness, as long as that's all stuff that happens off screen. If any of that cap ever comes into actual play, or heaven forbid affects mechanics (What do you mean you will not kill them after they spill the secret. Fine, whatever, just have the Rogue do it. Wait, why are you trying to stop them. Tell me where in your Code/Alignment it says you can'take kill defenseless enemies that surrendered. They tried to kill you 5 minutes ago. Ok, well, just remember this the next time you forget to menation specifically you are using the crosswalk to cross the street, just saying.)

I've seen it though, where it's an outright punishment towards the player for not making the choice the DM would have chosen if they played in a given situation, which really had little to do with morality or intentions.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
24/24, AC: 17, T: 13, FF: 14, CMD: 16 Fort: +6, Refl: +5, Will: +7, (+1 vs Fear) Perception: +3 <Darkvision, Continual Flame, Sense Motive: +9, 3/3 Channel Positive Energy 3/Day, 2d6 Will DC 11, LG Aasimar Cleric 3, Longspear +4 +5 1d8+1 20/x3 [P]

Know Planes: 1d20 + 7 ⇒ (10) + 7 = 17

"Damn it! Tooth Fairies. Nasty little creatures, who delight in spreading fear and pain. Don't let them fool you, those mismatched teeth, well they where not born that way."

"Looks like we found Gormandelle and her daughters. Might be a crocodile here somewhere. . ."

Not up yet.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
24/24, AC: 17, T: 13, FF: 14, CMD: 16 Fort: +6, Refl: +5, Will: +7, (+1 vs Fear) Perception: +3 <Darkvision, Continual Flame, Sense Motive: +9, 3/3 Channel Positive Energy 3/Day, 2d6 Will DC 11, LG Aasimar Cleric 3, Longspear +4 +5 1d8+1 20/x3 [P]

A few bubbles begin to come up from the water, each one releasing a tiny bit of sound as they hit the surface and pop.

"Was", and "a", and another "test".

"Orcmanliness."

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:

Any chance we get a combat feat allowing charge + full round attacks?

Could be wrong, but I believe Paizo is trying to minimize the pounce options, so I wouldn't think so.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd rather see First Steps be taken out of retirement.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HP: 18/59, +6 Init, +16 Perception, F: +8, R: +5, W: +9, AC: 21, T: 14, FF: 17, CMD: 22 , LG Human Cleric 8, 5274-20, Longspear +9/4, 1d8+4 (Large +8, 2d6+5), P 20/x3

"What a peculiar pair of leggings you have, miss. And so clean, and shiney, too."

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HP: 18/59, +6 Init, +16 Perception, F: +8, R: +5, W: +9, AC: 21, T: 14, FF: 17, CMD: 22 , LG Human Cleric 8, 5274-20, Longspear +9/4, 1d8+4 (Large +8, 2d6+5), P 20/x3
Dr. Zephyrus Vitruvian wrote:
The elf gives "The Physician" a cryptic look. "A pleasure - I'm Dr. Zephyrus Vitruvian, University of Lepidstadt. No doubt we'll have much to talk about."

"Oh. A physician. I'm certain we have much we could talk about, my friend. Let me know if you need me to put in a good word for you at the University. I have a bit of clout in our homeland, despite" he takes a moment to jokingly motion at his rags, "my, um, appearance.", he says with a smile.

Pai Kromnite PFS wrote:
Uh oh, we've got a stethoscope measuring contest going on!

Mine has the Avenger's on it. Just saying. . .

(Wifey made it for me on my first deployment.)

Wait a sec. . . what are you implying there lil' miss. :P

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually like that idea. Myself, I kind of hate play at level 1 and 2. I've done it so much over the years, that level 1 in particular is the largest chunk of play, but I also tend to find it the least interesting. There are only so many lowest level threats, (Orc, Skelobies, Goblolds, minor traps, etc. . .), and because so many classes have 2+dump stat skills, play feels very binary, you can either try it or can't for a few levels until you get another skill point to actually put in a Rank.

This sort of thing also seems like it could be another option to help mitigate some of the level (Tier) gap issues, too, but also cater a bit to the "Long day at work, I just want to kick back, roll some dice and kill stuff a bit" I'm certain we all feel sometimes.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HP: 18/59, +6 Init, +16 Perception, F: +8, R: +5, W: +9, AC: 21, T: 14, FF: 17, CMD: 22 , LG Human Cleric 8, 5274-20, Longspear +9/4, 1d8+4 (Large +8, 2d6+5), P 20/x3

Sir Yanos, Lord-Baron, Count, Knight-Captain, Huscarl of the Empire, Cavalier-Commander of the Armies of Mendev, General of the battles at The Wound, Knight-Protector of Ustalav, the Nation That Was, and Crusader-Priest of Erastil
Ex-Shadow Lodge, Ex-Osirion, Ex-Taldor, Ex-Andoran, Liberty's Edge
5274-20
Day Job Heal (Temple): 1d20 + 9 ⇒ (18) + 9 = 27
Init: +6
Perc: +16
Darthbeckett@Gmail.com

Hello everyone. It's been a long time since I've played this guy, and honestly, I need to double check to make sure he is up to date. I do see a few familiar faced. This might be the first time I get to mess with Kryssa's chaps as a player. So excited. . .:)
Likewise, it's been a while since I've seen Pai in action, I can't remember if I've ever played with her or just run for her. Off the top of my head, I think we might have been in Delirium's Triangle? I've run plenty of games for Gerald, and I know RainyDay from various forums. Anyhow, glad to be here, and I think it will be fun.

Personally, I'm okay playing up or down. This character is kind of a mash up of different things. I have an owlbear pet, but I might just leave it at home with so many players. It was kind of a joke, anyway. I cast Fly on it and it ears it's name, Drop Bear.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm right there with you. I'm down to 4 more, and I'm currently running The Scions of the Sky Key Trilogy (started as x2), Phantom Phenomena, Fane of Fangs, School of Spirits, Slave Ships of Absalom, and Hell's Rebels (non-PFS). I'm considering doing the Heresy of Man trilogy, too.

It's so close. Going to make it during this game day.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, it wasn't my argument, (I'm fairly neutral on the subject, myself, really), but it did come from this thread.

I do like to keep up with (PFS) ruling, though, and as a pet peeve, I hate table variation, (in PFS).

Generally speaking, when there is this sort of things at my table, my line of thinking is first to try to look up anything relevant related to the subject, including the Additional Resources if any, or any Official Online Rulings.

Secondly, I'll try to look through the different editions of the book, if I can, seeing if maybe there was a words change causing confusion, or take a look at the 3.5 Book and Sage Advice, if it's relevant, such as a Core Rule book issue. Once, I've done that myself, I absolutely open the floor to the other players. Now, normally, I've made an on the spot call already, after asking everyone's opinion on the matter, but I also tend to try to ere on the side of "thinking outside the box" and fun, but believable. Individual circumstances really play into things here, so it's case by case. If it turns out I was wrong, or there is a legit chance that I misinterpreted things, I have no problems with a retcon.

This sort of thing is a little bit outside of that, as it's obviously involves potentially an entire build, not just a single roll or action.

JD wrote:

Plus, There's a bit of logical argument that can be made. The definition of "other forms" can be very ambiguous. 0 forms +1 still satisfies the formula "Gain fox shape in addition to your other forms".

-Question: Is the human able to transform into a fox from his "human form"?
-A: Yes.
-Maybe the base kitsune cannot transform to a fox while in human form, but this situation is different. Racial heritage states that "You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race. ... for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on." This is just a fancy way of saying that for all intents and purposes, you ARE a kitsune, just that you don't gain any of their racial traits or useful physical characteristics. Therefore, your "human form" IS your "kitsune form", and thus you can switch from human form to fox shape as a standard action.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The arguments against those are:

TomG wrote:

You can change into a fox in addition to your other forms.

1. It presupposes additional forms (plural)

Not necessarily, plural, but rather encompassing. It could be meaning plural, but that's not really supported by the rest of the Feat. That is, between Fox and Human form, you still qualify as having more than one form. And it's more true to read "in addition to your other forms" as:

in addition to any other forms you might or might not have
rather than to read it at meaning
in addition to the exactly two other forms you must have.

TomG wrote:

Your bite attack’s damage is reduced to 1d3 points of damage on a hit, but you gain a +10 racial bonus on Disguise checks made to appear as a fox.

2. It presupposes a bite attack

Beast Shape does in fact give your Fox Form a Bite Attack, even if you didn't already have one. Kitsune, (in "Kitsune" form) normally already have one, (which is 1d4), as does the Fox, (which is 1d3). This seems more to be clarification than anything. It doesn't require you already have a Bite Attack, but rather, because it actually gives you one in a limited fashion, jut calls out exactly what it is due to your new size in Fox Shape.

TomG wrote:

Changing from kitsune to fox shape is a standard action.

3. The change is from kitsune form (not from any form) to fox form

With Racial Heritage, you Human form IS your Kitsune form. They are one and the same thing, because it's not a template.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:

DM Becket, this is it in basic form.

The feat in question (Fox Form) assumes that the character is a Kitsune. That race has other form(s) that he shifts to, and the feat description alludes to that fact by the mention that this is an addition to the other form. (likely for a total of 3 forms) \

A human that takes this feat with Racial Heritage doesn't have a form that he shifts into already, so taking this feat alone most likely will not give him the ability it provides without that initial form that the Kitsune already have.

Now, it does not say anything about this in the rules text below, mostly because 9 times out of 10, it is a kitsune taking the feat anyway.

Now, this does not, in my mind, prevent the character from taking the feat (with Racial Heritage), but he can't use it without having the ability to do so. The feat by itself does not give that ability, it only adds to it.

But that's the thing. The Feat does in fact give you the ability, rather than altering something you can already do. It is a Feat that, normally, only a Kitsune can take because (and only because) the Prereq specifically calls out Kitsune as required. That is clearly something that Racial Heritage allows to be bypassed, almost exactly like you can use UMD to trick an item into being a different race/alignment/etc. . . The big difference here, though it you are not "tricking" anything. You actually are a Kitsune. As written, (intentionally or not), the Feat does actually grant a new ability, regardless of if the individual had some other ability. Most of the other arguments based around this also don't really hold water. So, for example, if it is Kitsune only, and then does modify the existing ability, technically speaking the Kitsune's natural Shapeshifting just became an unlimited EX ability, because like has been pointed out, the Feat doesn't actually call out that it's changed, or rather that it's not changed. Furthermore, the Feat actually works very much different than the actual Kitsune Shape Change.

Change Shape wrote:
(Su) A kitsune can assume the appearance of a specific single human form of the same sex. The kitsune always takes this specific form when she uses this ability. A kitsune in human form cannot use her bite attack, but gains a +10 racial bonus on Disguise checks made to appear human. Changing shape is a standard action. This ability otherwise functions as alter self, except that the kitsune does not adjust her ability scores and can remain in this form indefinitely.
Fox Shape wrote:

(Kitsune)

You can change into a fox in addition to your other forms.
Prerequisites: Cha 13, base attack bonus +3, kitsune.
Special: A kitsune may select this feat any time she would gain a feat.
Benefit: You can take the form of a fox whose appearance is static and cannot be changed each time you assume this form. Your bite attack’s damage is reduced to 1d3 points of damage on a hit, but you gain a +10 racial bonus on Disguise checks made to appear as a fox. Changing from kitsune to fox shape is a standard action. This ability otherwise functions as beast shape II, and your ability scores change accordingly.
thaX wrote:

PFS is a bit stricter, as it does say, as a "houserule," that only Kitsune can take this feat. This has been confirmed in the past, and I hope that the new Campaign Coordinator can update the Additional Resources to allow other races to take feats and traits through other means other than "being" that race. Specifically, I hope that the Goblin race feats and traits can be opened up in that way.

Hope that clears it up for ya!

This is an error. The house rule (Additional Resources) quote is referencing the Adv Race Guide. PFS specifically asked if this applies to everything or just the ARG (where the ruling is made), and the official answer was it only applies to the ARG, not every other book or material that includes "race specific" options.

Michael Brock wrote:

Alternate racial traits, racial archetypes, racial feats, and racial spells are only available for characters of the associated race. Racial equipment and magic items can be purchased and used by any race as long as the specific item permits it (for example, only halflings can purchase and use solidsmoke pipeweed).

So, no, a half-orc or half-elf may not take a human-only feat.

Tristan Windseeker wrote:

Thanks for the quick response.

Does this change the previous forum post's ruling as well? Can a half-elf still be a Spire Defender Magus? Or does this only apply to the new Advanced Race Guide feats/archetypes/spells?
Michael Brock wrote:
It does not apply to all previous rulings in other books. This applies to the Advanced Race Guide. You can find my official ruling in the Additional Resources.

HERE is the link to this ruling.

However, even if it did, those would be general rules, and the specific (exception) rule should override it. Again, this only matters IF the rule about race specific material applied to anything except the ARG. It doesn't though, so it's a moot argument.

1 to 50 of 694 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.