|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
More information on her Herculean 'twelve labors' (which might already exist in a book I haven't read yet...) might help to give her a little more flavor
Here you go:
First: She slew the fell beast Nakorshor’mond and cut the still-sleeping bodies of her circle from its gullets. Second: She defeated a coven of Garundi witches, freeing the city of Eleder from their tyranny.
Third: While riding a griffon in an aerial battle, she cut the wings from Segruchen the Iron Gargoyle, so-called King of the Barrowood. While falling and before he could escape, she pursued and slew him.
Fourth: With heartfelt words and a prayer to Arazni, she convinced a regiment of mortally wounded knights at the Second Battle of Encarthan to hold back a wave of wraiths long enough for reinforcements to arrive at dawn to save them.
Fifth: She smote Erum-Hel, Lord of the Morghs, at the Battle of Three Sorrows (where the Whispering Tyrant returned Arazni’s body to the Knights of Ozem). This drove Erum-Hel to flee, crippled, to Orv.
Sixth: After the Whispering Tyrant used magic to break her sword, she fused it together with a prayer and an oath to bring an end to his evil, with her pure heart and righteous ire reforging it in an instant.
Seventh: An image of Iomedae appeared at a shrine to Aroden in Absalom, healing anyone virtuous who touched it and burning wicked folk who came too near. When she later became a goddess, the shrine was expanded into a temple dedicated to her, named the Seventh Church.
Eighth: She convinced the graveknight known only as the Black Prince to throw himself upon his sword as punishment for his evil. This reversed his undead state, redeeming his soul and allowing him to be judged in the Halls of Aroden.
Ninth: She gave nine drops of her blood to free nine righteous knights imprisoned by the vampire-mage Basilov; she and the knights then slew him when he attempted to recapture them.
Tenth: She ruled the city of Kantaria for a year and a day while its lord, heirless patriarch of House Narikopolous, was missing. The city prospered despite constant attacks by shapechanging horrors—horrors which she battled personally.
Eleventh: At the Pit of the Starstone in Absalom, she cast her cloak of common wool before her. It straightened and expanded to become a firm walkway across the gap, allowing her to enter the Cathedral and take the Test.
There's variety, and there is overcompensation. I personally would rather have less deities, but for those that are to offer some variety. Different aspects of a principle, leading to their followers possibly being very different, but with common ground. This is much better if it crosses cultural bounds, too, so Sarenrae (light, healing, redemption, good, etc. . .) worshipped as a male renegade fire giant in the Land of the Linnorm Kings (just making it up), who uses the dying heat of the sun to offer a tiny respite to the common man and strike down other monsters would to me be much cooler than yet another deity (that may never show up again) that filled that same role. In that same place, Eristal might be worshipped as a female elder/wisewoman, subtly manipulating and strengthening the community and warriors to work hard and achieve by their own hand.
Things like that.
<Only changed their genders cause I thought it made sense and would be cool to show another possibility of what I meant by offering variety with fewer deities.>
Benjamin Falk wrote:
Its a bit too late for that. When federally and internationally confiscated weapons are found again on the streets within days or weeks, trying to make firearms illegal will only remove those firearms that where purchased legally, and not touch all the illegal ones. Basically all but the criminals would be loosing guns.
@ Aspasia de Malagant:
Honestly, I had the same exact thing happen. At the time I was both a little angry and ashamed. My intent was not to compare homosexuality to child abuse, (and honestly I'm not sure just how big a jump it was to the vs how much people where looking to be offended. I don't know, but my intent was not to make that claim, or to hurt anyone, and all I have is my point of view on it, so it might have came off differently than I intended). The argument I was actually trying to make is that blind acceptance is not in itself a good or virtuous thing, and mentioning that child abusers as an example (simply because I assumed that it would be a fairly universally held example of unacceptable behavior regardless of circumstance). Somehow that got translated into me comparing homosexuality to child abuse, (which it's not at all), and I felt like the way that it was moderated not only reinforced that, but cast me in a light that was untrue and a bit underhanded. (I say that because I mentioned also that I was not making a comparison between the two, but that part was ignored, and later removed).
Anyway, was it mean or hateful? I didn't think so or mean it that way, but I can see it (if read at a glance) maybe coming off that way. Was it people looking to be offended? I don't know. I was a bit angry at the time, because I had spent a great deal of time on a post, (from my ancient phone no less), and it seemed like everything was initially ignored, and then shortly later removed beyond the accusation of something I did not feel was warranted. Anyway, was just trying to say it's best to let it go. After thinking back, the point I had been trying to make originally wasn't even that important. Not everyone is going to agree, and I think that a lot of people here that met in real life would actually get along pretty great, as all the assumptions that being faceless on the internet would vanish. Sometimes tone/mood/sarcasm/humor does not come across on the forums, so it can be very easy to see something and receive it completely differently that what was meant. It's also very easy for people receiving a post to not be aware of past comments, so they would only have that one thing to go off of, which can very easily be taken out of context, especially if it was a reply to someone else, (kind of walking into the middle of a conversation in a sense). Its generally a good idea to apologize for unintentionally offending to those who might have been. :) Nobody is perfect, after all. I had not read your mentioned post, so it might not actually even be the same deal, but just trying to help.
two remarks on whether TOZ and TriOmegaZero are the same person
"This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember, all I'm offering is the truth – nothing more."
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
I take the view that certain core aspects of myself and other posters are not controversial and not open for discussion: our sexual-preferences, our gender identities/presentations, our non-Xtian or atheist beliefs, etc.
Wherein lies the problem. Those are core aspects to you (again general, not specifically you), but not to everyone. And I do not mean this to insult or belittle you, but this implies that only those things are off-limits, but those things that other people hold as core aspects of them, yah, not so much. The idea being that because these are important to me, no one else can be against them, but that somehow does not work both ways.
Made even worse when these real world things are also planted into the game/setting like the issues of atheism or slavery. They are not the same as the real world versions.
DM Beckett wrote:
"that they honestly view their own particular view as right, by it's own definition, and anything that challenges, argues, or debunks it automatically puts those people into a dehumanizing category, generally either as a bigot or as having a view that they are not treating others as real people."
Please note that you seemed to have ignored the clarifying portion of the statement. And I am not talking about you specifically, but in general. There is nothing wrong at all with holding one's views as right, and that certainly does not (in itself) make one close-minded. The close-mindedness comes in when that person uses that and the tactic of categorizing others that do not share each and every view you have to be monstrous or villainous. If you can remove the humanity from the opposition, and place them wholesale into a category (bigot, racist, sexist, etc. . .), then they must also just be haters, and have an ulterior motive, further dehumanizing and categorizing them.
The truly sad thing is that most of the time, those two sides fully agree on the finally result, and only differ on the particular points or premises involved. For example, I also believe that racists, sexists, and homophobes are bigots. Just not with how easily or how quickly some people are to lump others into those categories, or their definitions of those are. It's the "arguments supporting racism, sexism, and homophobia" that is the issue. Anyone that is disagreeing with you (again general, not specific you) must therefore be supporting bigotry. And the quicker that is thrown out at one side, the quicker the other not only doesn't need to argue or prove theirs, but they can basically put any discussion on hold while the topic spirals onto other topics. Its unacceptable in debate, and is basically the equivalent of seeing your about to loose and throwing the chess board off the table.
While I agree, the truth of the matter is that there are those that are so closed minded that they honestly view their own particular view as right, by it's own definition, and anything that challenges, argues, or debunks it automatically puts those people into a dehumanizing category, generally either as a bigot or as having a view that they are not treating others as real people.
There are also plenty of examples of double standards. I remember a few threads that where designed to be for advice for religious players and playing games that where notably civil, and a few posters went in there with the express purpose (and admittedly so) of insulting others and getting the thread locked because they had a personal beef with the subject. And they did so very quickly. And it's worth noting that this was directly related to gaming. At the same time, there are other threads that pop up, sexism, race, and political, generally not related to the game or gaming at all except when someone wants to shush others that disagree.
So I agree, but at the same time, the reality of things shows that there is pretty clear favoritism to some groups over others. (in the sense that some groups are okay to abuse while others are not, that it's okay to troll, flame, and/or instigate against some, but not others). There are posters that brag about how they are basically immune to moderation, or that will spam flag posts, or that will go in and insult others and troll, just to get some threads locked. The fact that these things appear to happen, noticeably enough that it comes up, and that they continue to happen sends a certain picture. And of the two, I think it would be better to just outright forbid discussions about real world sex, race, gender, religion, or politics, (which I'm not advocating). Favoring one side in an argument or discussion, aside from a level of (at least perceived) hypocrisy, also only serves to stifle learning and growth on any side, and puts others on the defensive. It encourages people (on both sides, or neither) to become offended, because they know that that draws attention and the axe, allows for "justified" name-calling and categorizing of individuals, and it basically makes the conversation go nowhere.
Pathfinder Player Companion: People of the Sands
The Garundi, Keleshite, and Pahmet sections of the book are legal for play. The traits on pages 8–13 are only legal if your character is of the same ethnicity as the section with the trait.
Archetypes: the elementalist oracle archetype is legal; Equipment: all equipment on pages 28–29 are legal for play; Feats: all feats on pages 9–13 are legal; Languages: ethnicities begin play with their preferred language for free. If there are more than one listed, the player may choose which one the character receives for free; Misc: the oracle mystery on page 19 is legal; the rogue talents on page 19 are legal; *order of the First Law on page 21 is legal*; the alchemist discovery on page 23 is legal; the bloodline on page 23 is legal; Prestige Class: the living monolith is legal for play. The roleplaying requirement is waved, but when taking the prestige class, 1,000 gp must be spent to acquire the stone scarab; **Roles: all roles
* I would heavily suggest ether making this not legal for pay or requiring some sort of change for these two abilities.
Rejection of Faith (Ex): At 2nd level, the cavalier must refuse all divine magic, including helpful effects or spells. As long as he has not benefited from divine magic in the past 24 hours, he receives a +2 morale bonus on one saving throw of his choice. Each day he can change the saving throw to which this bonus applies.
Threat of Reason (Ex): At 8th level, whenever the cavalier threatens a space occupied by a divine spellcaster, the spellcaster must add 4 to the DC of any concentration checks, dispel checks, or caster level checks she attempts.
** should say on page 7
In general, I like that 0 level spells are unlimited, and sometimes actually wish some of them had a little bit more oomph to them. Not to push them up to the level of At-Will Powers, but to make them a little more viable, particularly on the Divine Side.
I almost feel that Guidance, Resistance, Vigor, & Virtue could probably be rolled into one Orison/Cantrip that allow you to give a +1 to one thing and call it good. Detect Alignment and Undead could probably also be 0 Level spells I think.
Of all of the spells that I've seen "abused" or that could be easily abused, Light/Arcane Mark, Mage Hand, Mending, and Prestidigitation are the ones mostly.
Light/Arcane Mark with the Magus, though I cant remember the reasoning exactly, it's been a while.
Mage Hand (corner case) because a lot of players, generally new to the game, want to use it for much more than what it's meant to do. One recent new player wanted to use it to grab 5lbs worth of air to shove it into someone's wound and kill them, for example. Prestidigitation is kind of the same deal, and it's more the people than it is the spell, trying to push it outside of the spell's bounds.
Mending on the other hand, can be an issue, and generally starts out as garbage, and then gets really good later on with CLs. "Oh the BBEG ripped of the corner of the paper obscuring the signature, let me fix that." "Oh the villain sundered the key so w can't follow, just give me 10 mins." The casting time can be an issue, and is a great balancing factor, but clever players can do some interesting things with it.
Tactically, Spark also could be an issue, but in my opinion, it's one of the best examples of what a ) level spell should look like, both interesting and cool, very iconic for a spellcaster (walking into a room and the candles light themselves), and open enough to allow in combat uses. Potential abuse (not sure if it's too far though), is when people want to Ready it to make an Alchemist's bomb or Gunslingers ammo blow up in their faces, or line the area with oil and burn the crap out of enemies when they run through it, or things like that. (most of those things can be done with mundane gear or similar spells)
All in all though, I like 0 level spells being infinite, and wish some of them where a bit better, (stabilize having some limited actual healing for example).
The Beard wrote:
Sure, you only take half damage from that unholy blight, but you'll also take half damage from its polar opposite.
Which most likely will never ever come up. At most it might be a one time thing from within the party, and probably going to avoid <targeting> the <other> characters anyway.
The Beard wrote:
Neutral characters also tend to be handed alignment infractions left and right (normally undeserved) due to a good number of GMs, for whatever reason, feeling it necessary to penalize them for acting neutral; not acting evil, acting neutral.
??? I honestly have no idea how you figure that. Either in comparison to Good characters, or heck just Paladins alone, but giving benefit of the doubt, I'm willing to wager it's less that the DM has a lack of understanding about what Neutral really is as much as has a different one that your view of it. Doesn't mean they or you are wrong, sort of but the DM kind of wins.
The Beard wrote:
As for the church... well, those two churches you mentioned already have their plates full several times over. Neither of them could even hope to strike down the society with their current numbers and activities. Neither of'em would try, for that matter, either.
That might work if there where not so many of them in the dang Society, (assuming we are reverting back to players). :)Not really arguing, just pointing out just how much Fiat is involved to even make such an organization hold water at all, and how little sense it actually makes.
My understanding is that (or at least was that) more than a few Paizo employees still had friends at WotC and a fairly good working relationship/friendly rivalry, and also that they did not want any possible issues with using the D&D/D20 system.
Hehehe, but then you'll lose out on the distilled essence of roleplayer's joy that way. It tastes like ambrosia. That you can drink yourself, while you sell the Tears of Murderhobo for $6.50 per 22-ounce bottle...-Matt
Imagine, if you will, the cost, no the value, instead of the anguish and despair of a unadulterated and fresh from the tap from a Kitsune. Unable to utilize their strengths, but you know, you know they would not just walk away. Not with that character, and miss out on what might be. A small slice of bitterness on the side, as said player is torn between forsaking their oh-so long charade of disguising themselves amongst the legions of humanity, or letting the lie all go and actually being useful. And in the end, you know that it is inevitable. Always was, and when they decide to give in, the draught becomes infused with a harsh sweetness, almost a pulsating sensation that slowly fades as they realize that after so much self agonizing over the dilemma, it didn't matter at all.
Season 5 has flooded the wine glass, the decanter, and the mug with the tears of combat characters, so such is easily a dime a dozen. But the reverse, nay, that mixture has been untapped for some time. Now imagine for a moment, the Dhampir, uncommon, but not unheard of. Along with the Tiefling, the newest versions of the Drizzt-clone. To most of any tastes, the mere thought of extinguishing one of these was once enough to bring a smile to your face alone, but one can only partake of even the greatest of wines before they become, . . . base. Common. Unfulfilling.
Ah, but there is away to quicken that once more. Sometimes they say, a pinch of spice can make the meal, and it is the same here. One does not often see warrioresque Dhampir, no? it is possible, but they do not normally flock to that sort of thing, instead favoring the more socially inclined paths so that they can play up (ie milk) that last gram of moody, misunderstood angst. Bards and Sorcerers seem common, with Inquisitors a touch less so. Paladins are not unheard of amongst the population. All a pedigree of what I mentioned before hand, an opportunity if you will, to play up that angsty, bad boy/girl "no one get me" with cheese.
And so, what I offer, rather than something new unto itself, rather a new way to re-experience that thing, that one thing that you once so loved, but has long since vanished or ceased to bring you the sense of at peace, of fullness you have long since missed.
Soon to come will, shall certainly be a new brew of mead for those of the blood of demons and devils, perhaps a new flavor for those of angels, as hard as that might be these days, and . . . finally . . . a variety, no, an assortment of concoctions of the tears from those that would try elemental-ken.
Forum: a place (or medium) where ideas can be exchanged and debated.
Debate: a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward. or argue about (a subject), esp. in a formal manner.
Within this forum/message board, the rules are:
0.) The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards to be a fun and friendly place. <completely subjective, if not exceptionally vague, see notes on #2 below>
1.) Users who participate in our message boards agree to not: post any content that infringes and/or violates any patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary right of any third party; <straight foreward>
2.) use profanity or any type of vulgar speech; make any bigoted, hateful or racially offensive statements; <completely subjective, and made worse by Paizo itself muddying the assumed common definition by things like Bastards of Golarion. In practice, tends more to be what types of offensive statements of bigotry are unwritten as ok and which are not. Generally, a rational person in formal manner has just as much responsibility to not be offended as another has to refrain from being offensive, and it is well established that in a non-face-to-face medium, there is even more responsibility on the first party to not be offended by reading into context and also not assuming that another's post is meant in the worst possible way it can be taken without the normal aid of tone, body language, or prior conversation. Some people also seem to interpret bigoted or hateful statements to mean anything they don't like about a given subject, or pretty much the opposite of a debate, and that anything that counters or disagrees with their given point of view is automatically and ultimately wrong, which is then grounds for the okay kind of bigotry against those that differ in opinion from mine.>
3.) defame, abuse, stalk, harass or threaten others; <again, pretty straight forward, and being a part of the base definition of Debate, Forum, and Message Board above>
4.) advocate illegal activity or discuss illegal activities with the intent to commit them. <pretty straight forward, though being an international population, perhaps largely irrelevant or unspecific>
So by participating in a Forum/Message Board, it is rightfully assumed that one can express their opinions, (at least within reason), IF they do not violate the established rules of a given Forum/Message board. If this is not the case, that it is on the owner of the Forum to specify, and it also on them to make it clear what is and is not okay. For example, having an unwritten rule bashing <just an example, a general statement> that bashing homosexuals is a no-go, but not caring when others bash middle-easter cultures, a given religion, or a geographic area/upbringing displays immaturity, if not bias and hypocrisy, not only on the groups that are allowed to do so (consent by inaction), but also on those that oversee the forum/message boards. As I was editing, I noticed the "privilege" example above, that is a perfect actual example. One sort of bashing is not acceptable, the other is.
Another oddity, is that there is no rule about A.) staying on topic, or B.) how far off topic one can go in order to make a point about the topic indirectly. Being that this is the named rule I see most often sited as cause for removing a post, it doesn't actually seem to be a given rule for the specific Forum/Message Board.
This reminded me a bit of the 4.3 Guides take on 2 PP.
Alternatively, beginning with Season 4, each faction has a specific goal it hopes to achieve by the end of the season. A PC who undertakes a creative approach to forward this goal outside of the prescribed faction mission may earn 1 Prestige Point for doing so in place of the Prestige Point gained for the assigned faction mission, at the GM’s discretion. See page 19 for details on all 10 faction goals for Season 4."
Season 4 Faction Goals:
Each faction has specific goals it hopes to achieve during Season 4. Below is a brief overview of their motivations.
Andoran: Establish an embassy in Magnimar, and increase the city’s influence in Varisia at the expense of Korvosa’s.
Cheliax: Help Zarta Dralneen improve her reputation to combat an enemy in Egorian, and support Korvosa in its struggle for dominance in Varisia.
Grand Lodge: Ensure the success of the Heidmarchs’ lodge in Magnimar, and continue the war against the Aspis Consortium and any rogue Shadow Lodge agents.
Lantern Lodge: Fight the Aspis Consortium, ensure the route through the Hao Jin Tapestry is safe for Pathfinders, and restore honor to the faction.
Osirion: Find a cure for the Ruby Prince by researching Thassilonian magic and Lissalan curses.
Qadira: Claim new Varisian markets, exploit the shortcut to Varisia through the Hao Jin Tapestry, and establish trade with Janderhoff.
Sczarni: Unify disparate Sczarni families across Varisia under Guaril Karela’s leadership, and boost Riddleport’s influence in the region.
True Pathfinder Lodge: Infiltrate the Aspis Consortium, and expand Grandmaster Torch’s spy network into Varisia.
Silver Crusade: Learn about Thassilon and prepare the unsuspecting populace for a coming war with evil.
Taldor: Establish a new aristocracy in Varisia with loyalties to Taldor.
To me that is ideal for both points of view, though obviously the DM's preference didn't matter too much on which.
Scott Young wrote:
I like the Pathfinder Society background, and I lobbied to allow people to be loyal Pathfinders without a faction, back when there were only five factions.
Just to be clear, when you say Pathfinder Society, are you meaning the True Society (ie Shadow Lodge), or the slaves to the Decemvirate, wanna-bes?
I think it's the other way around, really. Season 5 (in general) is more about following orders and involves less initiative (out of character) while the earlier seasons (again in general) tended much more to the about taking initiative or finding the right time and stepping outside of the main mission a bit to try to figure out how to accomplish something else a little on the side.
My experience so far with the Season 5 SSCs is that thy are largely along the lines of what I would likely do anyway, and can still boil down to a random skill check. But at the same time, I really can't remember any times (outside of a few scenario's that had decoys for possible faction missions) where players asked constantly "is this ______ for my faction mission?". It's kind of an odd concept to me, but now that players are starting to get a feel for the SSC, I do hear a lot more out of character/metagaming rationals thrown around. "Nah, we cant do that, it might be our 2pp, or that NPC doesn't talk too much, I think they will have something for us later and probably the SSC".
Something I would like to see is more traditional parties and characters in "lower level" stories. A few novels that could be used to get people into the game and explain the world and common organizations and events without them being mostly backdrop. A lot less morally meh/antiheroes/scoundrelish and much more common-man in uncommon situations sort of characters and parties. I'm a little less interested in the special location a novel might tae place or the specific gimmick it (indirectly or directly) takes place around, and more the party dynamics, world exploration, and interesting dilemmas they face.
I'd also love to see a group of (main characters) that have an Oracle, goodish Cleric, and Paladin that focuses a lot of their differences of faith and philosophies, and the various issues that they face, and what ground they need to give to work together.
I'd love a novel about the politics between Andoran, Cheliax, and Taldor characters, (or something like that), where none of them are bards, rogues, or similar "classes". Maybe an older Andoran warrior starting to question if their battles and actions have really been for the greater (andoran) good or mattered, a young Chelish mage wanting power and station but not sure if the darker path is for them, and a Taldan priest burdened by the Empire's failures and less than righteous goals and methods, but all still loyal to and invested in their nations, and with a history to make it work.
It was interesting. Unearthed Arcana did another for the CG, LE, and CE paladins that was really good. Someone also pointed out that the Antipaladin is essentially the most party friendly divine warrior out there, because of the clauses "this does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends" and "provided such actions don't interfere with his goals."
Well, to be honest, adding brand new class features was never really the presented idea. It was also to combine two specific classes and to grant abilities that would help to bridge the areas that lacked synergy.
As big as this playtest was, imagine if each of the classes also brought in a bunch of new and unfamiliar mechanics as well. That would have been a terrible playtest (time, so much material to cover, etc. . .), I'm kind of glad they didn't.
For me it's not that I can't accept she is a genius hacker. It's that fact that that I just can't see that as enough to just throw everything to the wind and grant her a place on the team like it's nothing. Even "Gunn" went through intense training for the job and everyone was hesitant because he didn't complete it. But he was devoted to it. Skye on the other hand is (was) both a criminal by choice and a sort of lone wolf, and also has an personal agenda. To me, it just really stinks of "ok, you all met at the bar and now fully trust each other so we can just jump into the adventure" sort of mentality. Doesn't mean she isn't an interesting character, I just don't think she fits well, and it's too late to fix that. It's one of the things that just kind of ruins my suspension of disbelief for the show.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Especially if the pregens represented the baseline of how the PDT expected the new classes to perform
I agree with the whole statement, especially the last sentence.
While I agree to a point, on one hand, I think on the other giving pregens might have actually been worse over all. A lot of the issues that I (and I am sure most others) noticed came from actually rolling up different characters and builds (and also actually playing them). Having pregens would have cut down on that I think, and might also lead to incorrect assumptions ("Hey this Warpriest has no Fighter only Feats listed, so I guess that means they do not qualify"), and might have led to more people studying the pregens than the actual classes themselves.
This Playtest felt a lot different than the others I've been part of. For a few different reasons. This one felt particularly rushed. Incomplete. Even outside of the timeline, particularly for the updated version, I had two games get cancelled and missed out on the opportunity to DM for the classes as much as I had hoped.
One particular sticking point about this one, one that really seemed to be different than any others I had been part of (and I could just be remembering things incorrectly), but there seemed to be next to no actually designer/official feedback. There had been a lot of questions, pertinent to the classes and playtesting of them that seemed to get ignored. Worse, when people would go off and create new thread to ask them, fearing that they had been drowned out in the threads, rather than getting answered the new thread just gets locked, unanswered. In the past, Paizo has been known for it's openness and customer service, and that just seemed to vanish, here. Read this less as complaint or whining and more as an observation.
The surveys, as someone noted, felt extremely weak. Pigeonholed. There was no way to explain what an issue was, who, how, or to really put any of the 1-5 answers into any sort of perspective. I had heard multiple times that the surveys where to give you all some understanding of the flow of things, but honestly, if another playtest utilized them, I would probably refrain from using them again. Less scaling answers and more either this or that I think would also work better.
A lot of the issues that I kept seeing mentioned, many almost unanimously, never once seemed to get any sort of response or clarification. It also really felt like there where a few classes/threads that the Devs played favorites to from the start (Arcanist and Brawler), and (at least to a point), ignored the others. May not be true, but it did feel that way, where all of the classes seemed to have relatively similar amounts of issues and questions.
One other issue I had with the playtest is that there seemed to be a lot of misleading information, particularly on what the intention of things where, and what a particular classes role and design philosophy was supposed to be. As an example, just before the updated answered that the role of the Warpriest was to fill the place of the often requested Battle Cleric and Divine Magus concepts, and then it turns out that we get some sort of mashup between Cleric/Fighter/Monk/Oracle/Paladin. <just an example I'm not trying to throw anyone under the bus>
Now, with most of that out of the way, I would like to thank both the Devs and Paizo crew, as well as everyone that contributed to the playtests and the threads, (giving me plenty of sides to consider and things to think about, even when I hated them (Shaman-> Druid Spell list) :). Thanks for the opportunity to take part once again, and I can't wait to see what and how it all turns out.
DM Beckett wrote:
While I agree, Str, Dex, Con, and Wis is still pretty MAD.
No more so than Paladins, Rangers, Combat Clerics, Combat Oracles, and Inquisitors. I think those 4 stats is what it should be. Putting another stat attached to class feature does make it fell MAD.
Agree, and that's I think where it should be. 4 stats MAD is a good place for a balancing factor, though it truly sucks for pretty much anything below 20 Point Buy, and starts to show how the game fails. But 5 stats MAD (Str, Dex, Con, Wis, and Cha), not only is a poor balancing factor, it also drains a lot of the fun of playing the class.
Of these, I consider Climb, Diplomacy (or Intimidate), Heal, Knowledge Religion, Sense Motive, and Spellcraft as sort of mandatory skills that the Warpriest needs to fulfill their roll.
I personally would also drop Know Engineering and replace it with Know Arcana, History, and Nobility, (Arcana to be able to identify magical afflictions, History/Nobility both relating to anything warlike, identifying troops, banners, castles, battles, tactics, etc. . .)
But even without these, a Human Warpriest with Favored Class Bonus in Skill Points needs a 14 Int just to get what they kind of need to do their job, and that still leaves no real room to take anything outside the basics, like taking Craft to maintain your gear (like any good warrior) or Perception to be able to spot ambushes and sneaks.
I really think that this class (not to mention the basic Cleric and Fighter) really needs 4+Int. It just does. Alternatively, some way, some class feature that will allow it to do some of these basic warrior/basic priest things, maybe along the lines of how the Inquisitor adds a different stat or 1/2 their level to some skills.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Personally, if you want to maintain the extra damage, I would say it automatically defaults to a 20/x2 crit. Allowing 19/x2, or 20/x3 just messes with the point of having all kinds of different weapons end encourages people to pick the best weapon, regardless of flavor or fluff. This also seems like something that the Fighter class alone should even be able to use, as they are the master of arms and armor.
I also do think that Deity's Favored Weapons should have some kind of perk.
A,) So in this, would weapons that are already worse than this then get even their Crit Threat an Multipliers boosted too? Do we get to pick and choose? For instance does a Light Hammer (1d4, 20/x2) now become a 1d6, 19/x3 weapon? Does an Earth Breaker (2d6, 20/x3) become a 2d6 19/x3 or a 1d6, 19/x3 weapon?
B.) Seems like it would just cause issues and slow down the game a bit.
C.) I think will be fun for those that want to abuse the system, and will probably not be so fun for those that want to RP more along the flavor of their deity. It actually kind of takes out a lot of the reason to even pick a deity, and kind of makes Warpriests all look the same rather than all Warpriests of ______ looking similar.
I think both the easiest and most fun option would be to allow for Warpriests to take a Weapon Focus Feat to allow them to use any single weapon with their class features, but they receive Weapon Focus only for their Deity's Favored Weapon for free, and need to pay for others out of their normal Feats, with no increased damage or Crit stats for any of them. This allows any Warpriest to choose their main weapon if they want, with a minor charge (they have to pay a feat), rewards those that stick to their Deity's Favored Weapon, (they get it for free just like everyone else), and there is no potential to break the system just by picking the best weapon, but you can choose a better one if you want. It's a good compromise for everyone involved. You default to Deity's Favored Weapon, but have the option, (at 1st level or any time thereafter) to broaden your choice of chosen weapon as you would like.
While we have you , would it be possible to get an official answer on if the Warpriest does or does not qualify for Fighter only Feats? That's something that will really affect my playtest build coming up, and it would be nice to know, (even if it's just for now), if they can or can not.
Thomas, the Tiefling Hero! wrote:
Then just to be clear, let me point out that I'm not in the camp that thinks there's never a time for in-combat healing.
I don't anyone thinks that. Every single time I have seen this come up, it seems like that sort of accusation is thrown out purely to exaggerate the "other side's" point of view so that theirs sounds reasonable by comparison, and generally involves ignoring things the other person says and twisting their words.
So, one thing that keeps popping out at me as off is the Sacred Weapon additional weapon properties for Good and Lawful.
"If he is good, he can add holy and merciful.
It seems to me that these two should probably be swapped. I would think that many more Good Warpriests would be into killing Undead, (in which Merciful is a bad option), while many more Lawful Warpriests would be thinking along the lines of "bring them back alive and let the law deal with them", so Ghost Touch would be less desirable.
Ghost Touch is pretty much only designed for attacking undead (and other incorporeal rarities), while Merciful could be something anyone might have a desire to get, it seems much more appropriate for those interested in law and order.
The other thing I was thinking about is that all 4 Alignments offer the appropriate Alignment magical property, (holy, anarchic, etc. . .) AND all of the Alignment Blessings do something similar, but they do not stack. Because Blessing only last 1 Min, and Sacred Weapon only 20 Rounds per day at most, it really seems like they should be allowed to stack. Maybe drop the Blessings damage bonuses to 1d4, but it's another example of how this classes own abilities really compete with each other for use.
Bonus Feats: Do Warpriests count as Fighters for selecting Fighter only Fats or not? In the official sense only please, (I understand that as written they do not, but are they supposed to)?
Fervor Does this ability utilize Positive ad Negative Energy, or is it just untyped healing/harming? It doesn't state the former, meaning that some of the various Feats and Traits will not work with it.
Ex-Warpriests: A warpriest who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for his armor, shield, and weapon proficiencies and his bonus feats. Compared to the Ex-Cleric that specifically does loose Deity's Favored Weapon Proficiency, should a Warpriest whose Favored/Focus Weapon is Unarmed Strike or a Proficiency outside of all Simple & Martial Weapons loose that Proficiency?
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for
armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons.
Fair enough, but what if you want to pay a: "CLERIC In faith and the miracles of the divine, many find a greater purpose. Called to serve powers beyond most mortal understanding, all priests preach wonders and provide for the spiritual needs of their people. Clerics are more than mere priests, though; these emissaries of the divine work the will of their deities through strength of arms and the magic of their gods. Devoted to the tenets of the religions and philosophies that inspire them, these ecclesiastics quest to spread the knowledge and influence of their faith. Yet while they might share similar abilities, clerics prove as different from one another as the divinities they serve, with some offering healing and redemption, others judging law and truth, and still others spreading conflict and corruption. The ways of the cleric are varied, yet all who tread these paths walk with the mightiest of allies and bear the arms of the gods themselves. Role: More than capable of upholding the honor of theirdeities in battle, clerics often prove stalwart and capable combatants. Their true strength lies in their capability to draw upon the power of their deities, whether to increase their own and their allies’ prowess in battle, to vex their foes with divine magic, or to lend healing to companions in need."
That is, instead of the "shut up, your a healer cleric, period" cleric. The entire point of the thread (see the name :) ) is no one should feel so entitled, so jerkish that they can look at another player/character and say "F! your concept, F! what you want to play, and F! your build, drop it all and get over here, stand right behind me at all times, and spend every action Readying to Cast a Cure spell for when I need it." And, yet, that's the exact sort of mentality (possibly exaggerated, but not always) that people have when someone elects to play a Cleric. There is a very long tradition, probably one of the most prevalent in the hobby of
"Common, someones gotta bite the bullet and take one for the team."
"I already said no"
Benn Roe wrote:
Whenever the warpriest is wielding a sacred weapon, he treats his warpriest level as his base attack bonus for attacks made with that weapon, stacking with any base attack bonus from other classes or racial Hit Dice.
Benn Roe wrote:
Normally it just keeps going until you turn an ability like this off (free action normally) or whatever caused it to activate is no longer doing so.
Benn Roe wrote:
5) I don't like Fervor and Channel being based on Charisma. This class basically wants all of its ability scores to be 14 or higher.
100% agree. Honestly, in the last 50ish page thread, I think the one things that was nearly unanimous was to drop Cha from the Warpriest and fix the ridiculous MAD issue.
All Simple/Martial Weapons, Shields, and All Armor, plus Weapon Focus or IUS.
Sacred Weapon: In addition, the warpriest sacred weapon damage is based on his level and not the weapon type. The damage for Medium warpriests is listed on Table 1–13; see the table below for Small and Large warpriests. If the weapon normally deals more damage than this, its damage is unchanged. This increase in damage does not affect any
I first want to say I think this is a terrible idea. It's something that just looks like it's going to real pee off Fighters and basically all other martial characters. It also looks like it's begging to open a can of worms for abuse. But I also think it's unfair to reward characters for using "poorer" weapon choices. If the class is not at all restricted to Deity's Favored Weapon, there is no reason to do this ability at all, (not that I agree that that was a good reason either, mind you), but if this sort of thing is going to exist, I really think it needs to be a trade off for something they do not got if their weapon already does higher base damage.
Of the two, I would honestly rather just drop this part completely. It sort of makes the Warpriest a better Monk than the Monk in some ways, and there really should be some either/or aspect to this ability.
One thing I think needs to happen is to remove Blessings from Domains. It leads to some odd occasions
Eristal: Animal - you get a natural attack and a very gimped SNA for a deity that specializes in ranged weapons. Commuity - Eristal ONLY Blessing, that actually makes you worse with your Favored Weapon. Good/Law - Only works on melee weapons and a very gimped SM, and finally Plant - only works on melee and once again a very gimped SNA. Basically these blessing all either do nothing, but some make you worse at being a Warpriest of Eristal. (Although you can now not use a Longbow, it kind of still defeats the purpose)
Pharasma: Death - you become more undead-like,
Yah, I think that a lot of the issues with that character, (which is incredibly pertinent to the discussion involving the other named NPC's) is that it feels like different people (both writers and DM's) just didn't know how to do him (in accordance with other material).
This leads a lot of different people getting very different (sometimes more accurate than others) experiences with them. The only fairly good experience I have ever had with Sheila Heidmarch was in The Night Marches of Kalkamedes. Every other time she has acted like an unlikable twit, that I have been part of, and also presented (mostly) as needing my help urgently one again. That's the kind of thing that ruins the game and mood for me (as a player), and honestly, a DM trying to say "well she's your boss (huh?) and you just gotta sit there and take it or no gamming for you" honestly makes me want to look for the door (out of PFS entirely) more than think "yah, I am the one being a jerk and should shape up, and just ignore all the in-game history and metagame instead."
Now, one thing to keep in mind is that I am NOT advocating being a jerk, ruining the other players fun by acting out, or causing an issue that derails the game. I am talking about not acting like a automaton character that worships and serves a given named NPC just because. I think also that people mistake exactly what sort of authority these NPC's have. According to the books, it seems to imply that the various named NPC's earn their position, either by being retired "experts" in an area, or more likely by being connected, being excellent accountants, and a knack for getting people to do what needs to be done. What it does not say anywhere I can find, is that they have any power to tell people what to do, or to back it up, short of excommunicating them from the PFS (which I think actually might be above them too most of the time).
When it describes their duties, it also implies that they assign tasks out to an unofficial pool of agents, but again, no indication of power or authority over them.
Looking back at the Rules of the society, it says that there is only an unofficial heiarchy, and there are only 3 rules, Explore, Cooperate, and Report, (at which point it is the Named NPC's job to report up), and one of the places they do have some power. If they don't like agents, they are probably going to put them on the garbage missions, and hold off an reporting up as much as they can get away with it.
The PFS organization itself, though, is simply a loose grouping of individuals with a common goal in mind, and the named NPC's are generally just enablers and functionaries who need the agents as much as the agents need them, and generally it is mutually beneficial.