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

Caedwyr's page

2,589 posts (2,591 including aliases). 5 reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,589 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Guang wrote:
That doesn't sound right. Wasn't there some kind of Cetecian (sp) that could go for hours between breaths? 1 hour/2 points con sounds about right in any case, would match seafolk and others.

You are probably thinking of Sperm Whales, which make dives that last for 90 minutes and dive to depths of about 2,250 m (~7,400 ft).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you are looking for a full adventure path, then Way of the Wicked is one of the better ones (though not for heroes)

If you are looking for smaller adventures or short linked adventures, then you might want to check out the reviews here. There may also be some full APs here that I'm not aware of:

Endzeitgeist's reviews.

Make sure to click on the "older Entries" button at the bottom for more.

I'll let others mention their favourites


Does technology not work in Golarion/Pathfinder though? Why, with civilizations as old as they have been presented in Pathfinder, has there been so little development? The exclusive/limited list argument works for magic, but not for the setting's development in other areas. In fact, the exculsiveness of magic to a small portion of the population would seem to encourage the non-magical to find alternate paths of development even more.

It also ignores that the demographics/examples as shown in the modules and adventure paths tends to make magic a lot more prevalent than is indicated in many of these discussions.


Neongelion wrote:

This is a related thing, but I have to ponder: what are the conditions supposed to be on any given world where magic could flow in abundance or be completely non-existent? Earth, for example, had a period in its history, long long ago, where magic was at least as common as it was on Golarion, but by the present day it is all but extinct. You also have the culture that created the starship that crashed in Numeria. As far as we know, the Androffans were completely unaware of magic (given the reaction robots give to spellcasters in Iron Gods).

Which leads me to another train of thought: does magic actually hinder a civilization in terms of technological and, perhaps, cultural progress? See it like this:

Golarion: its history is bathed in magic, from mighty spellcasters to arcane and divine scars on the land. Most of Golarion is largely in a pre-industrial age, even if socio-economic conditions are somewhat better than it was in Medieval times in Europe. Still, most of it is dominated by monarchies or theocracies and slavery is legal or at least accepted in much of the Inner Sea region, even if it is frowned upon by many people.

Earth: Magic was once a powerful force but has vanished. Advances in technology by World War I is light years ahead of what most of Golarion has access to. Many nations are advanced forms of government like republics or have some system of parliament.

Androffa: No magic at all, the Androffans are capable of utilizing nanotechnology, interstellar travel, artificial intelligence, mind uploading, and so on. Government type is unknown, but we can assume some sort of federation of worlds.

Maybe pure coincidence, but it's an awfully interesting one. Also note that

** spoiler omitted **

Sometimes I wonder if Paizo actually has this all figured out or not.

Magic as a force of stasis is pretty much exactly the setup used in Dias Ex Machina's Amethyst:Revolution books.


Limited polymorph effect might work, since you'd want to have an adaption that would cover pressure effects as well. Another option would be to have more limited amulet of adaption for water to air, or for air to water, or water depth to deeper/shallower depths.

Another path, would be for such an amulet to activate latent psionic abilities to psychometabize an effect similar to adapt body at the cost of increased caloric intake to fuel each change (rules based or just flavour)


blahpers wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
blahpers wrote:
We play different games.

Exactly right!

But here's the source of the disagreements: the game you're playing doesn't really require balanced rules -- in honesty, it doesn't really really and truly require any rules at all. In contrast, the games that I and Kolo and others would like to play do require reasonably well-balanced rules, which Pathfinder does not necessarily provide.

Conclusion 1: Pathinder is not the right game for us.
Observation 1: Pathfinder is a rules-heavy game that purports to be right for us.
Conclusion 2: We're playing it wrong. You're playing it right.
Observation 2a: The devs keep telling us that no one is wrong.
Observation 2b: Your style of play works equally well with any other game, or none at all.
Conclusion 3: Neither you nor we are doing anything wrong. Instead, the parts of the game that are supposed to be working for people like us aren't. They're meant to, but they're not.

That's bad. Sorry you aren't getting what you want from the game. But not caring about balance is not the same thing as not caring about rules at all. And questioning whether such an approach is "sane" or "useful" is a little on the side of "unnecessarily adversarial".

So, is the message you are trying to convey, is that if you care about balance in your roleplaying game, we should not look to purchase Pathfinder material?


An occultist makes for a pretty good villain. You can build it along a lot of different themes/styles and it tends to come with lots of roleplaying flavour/motivation built-in. The failed binding can also be a great way to have the influence of the spirits lead the occultist/binder down a particular path.


voska66 wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:
The best love to the rogue I've run across so far is the Glory Rogue from Rogue Glory and the Genius Guide to the Talented Rogue from Rogue Genius Games. Both do a good job of bringing love to the rogue without changing the class entirely.
I find balance to be only required in game where you have one clear winner and clear loser. So in Player vs Player game balance is important. In a game where the goal is not to win but create a story, develop the adventure, simulate a setting then balance is not important. The party works together and the wizard being able to move mountain while the fighter hack the bad guy in two is exciting. The Wizard dropping a mountain on the fighter and saying I win is not exciting.

What does this response have to do with my post?


The best love to the rogue I've run across so far is the Glory Rogue from Rogue Glory and the Genius Guide to the Talented Rogue from Rogue Genius Games. Both do a good job of bringing love to the rogue without changing the class entirely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, first off, I mean, don't just report the results of how your group did, because that is going to have all the usual problems with luck/lack of luck with the dice, but instead look at each of the parts of the scenario/module that interact or can interact with the mechanics you are testing and report what the odds of success are whenever a dice roll is called for with the builds you are using. They should also report if the class is able to significantly participate in the check or if they cannot.

The testers should also report where the new mechanics allow them to interact with the story, places where the GM had to fudge things a little to make them fit (this can be great anecdotal data to help flesh out examples in ability descriptions or maybe add another example on a table of possible skill uses).

Other useful data points are going to be how much a class depends on the other group members, are there any large achilles heels in the class or blindspots and to what degree the class is able to offer something new to the box of tools used for problem solving.

This is a rough framework and I'm sure it can be refined to be much better at organizing the questions/data collection, but it should also help minimize the usual issues of playtesting where the developers get a lot of unbalanced or misleading data or just less useful data because there's the guy who can make the commoner shine or the guy who can make the greatest blending of flavour and mechanics ever seem to be boring.

As for the simulated part, that is there because to do the mechanics heavy part of this analysis, you don't really need other people present. You can look at the target AC, saving throws, skill checks, range of skills required in the module and compare them against the sample build being used for testing the class. But, by comparing it to published modules you are working from a comparable baseline and it puts it into the language of the developers rather than the theorycrafters. Using the module also helps calibrate the theorycrafting because it lets the theories be put to the test of an actual module and helps refine the models used in the theorycrafting.

This is basically a stream of consciousness description of what I was thinking, but it roughly lines up with the evaluation/playtesting method used by some reviewers

Endzeitgeist wrote:

Step 1: I read the pdf/book. If the content is no utter wreck, I take the content with me to my group. At this stage, I usually have a dry analysis (avg damage, utility, etc.) done. Here, I do have target values – if you can out-nova psionics or sorcerors, there’s an issue, for example.

Step 2: If we’re NOT playing my main campaign, each player chooses one of the classes to playtest. S/he generates a character. I then proceed to run these characters through a module I wanted to playtest. I do this mainly because I think that scenarios à la “class xyz fights dragon in vacuum” do not represent how a class actually plays. Such tests provide an inkling, yes, but that’s about it. (See nova-issues et al.) Also: What fun is playing e.g. a super-duper-damage class that can’t do anything but squishing foes?

Step 3: I compare how the class fared with my analysis and ask my players how they experienced the class, both the player of the class and the rest.

Step 4 (optional): If all players agree that a certain content might benefit the main campaign, it is added for further in-depth playtesting. So yeah, that’s about it.

Why do I prefer this type of tests? Take IG’s Ethermancer – looked complex on paper, math was very hard to do, all day casting -> wasn’t sold. In actual game-play, the class fared much better and proved to be actually a fun addition that did not steal the thunder of the other classes while still contributing. Now my main campaign actually has one of these guys as a PC. The actual “how does it play”-experience is most important for me.

The key for me, is if Paizo/the players can come up with some good modules to use as testing templates, then the people who like to do the step one theorycrafting can also delve into some deeper analysis and review of how the classes actually handle in a game, without having to get a group of friends together. It should help increase the highly relevant participation in the playtesting.

It would also let players test out the mechanics at a broader range of levels (this will depend heavily on the choice of level appropriate modules, no level 1 dungeon crawling at level 18) and avoid the issues where Paizo doesn't have the time, or planning needed to properly review the mechanics design at all level ranges in semi-real world settings.

Like I think I've mentioned upthread, from watching the playtests, I get the impression that most theorycrafting feedback is largely disregarded, especially when it gets more complex. By putting the feedback into the module format, it will hopefully help the players get their message to Paizo more clearly and lead to a more useful playtest for all. With proper testing methodology setup, it shouldn't really take the playertests all that much longer than a normal detailed theorycrafting post either.


Skeld wrote:

PFS makes a good test environment. You have a set of short adventures that everyone should be playing basically the same way (so there are no weird houserules that interfere or interact with) and you have the potential for a wide swath of possible race/class/etc. combinations and different people with different playstyles.

Of course, the Mythic playtest didn't use PFS.

-Skeld

I agree that PFS can be useful for testing. Another way to do it, would be to do a simulated run through a PFS adventure. The drawback of course, is that PFS does not handle the higher levels very well at all. What we really need are some very good high level modules that take into account the type of capabilities characters possess for the higher levels. I seem to remember the Mythic playtest having a sample mythic adventure, but I don't remember it being all that useful and a lot of it was tied up in the mythic trials system that was later revised.

Actually, to make this more constructive, do people have some modules they suggest to use as test candidates for the different level ranges?


The thing is, you don't actually need to sit down with other players to do what I posted. In it's core, all you are running is a same-game test with a variety of combat and non-combat challenges. You can take an average paizo adventure and look at the overall goals and individual goals and then model the probabilities of a character being able to achieve those goals. I'm not talking about one fight after another, but rather attempting to run through an adventure, maybe with a generic party, maybe solo.

Theorycraft is the analysis part. Playtesting is the calibration of the models used for the theorycraft. Maybe eventually, paizo/the players can develop some standardized suites of tests to help evaluate new content.

The big point I'm trying to get across, is I think that an argument that says "with x combination of class features/feats a character will have a Z% chance of success on circumstance X. Is this intended?"


For me, the larger glaring issue is not that people were aggressive in their criticism in the playtest segments. While its unfortunate that this type of feedback is typically ignored, being human, it's not all that surprising and I can't entirely blame a group of designers for reacting in that way. For many community-centric companies, special community managers are hired and there is a whole field of work based around good ways to get community feedback without it being a painful experience for all involved.

For me, the larger issue is that Paizo did not undertake the modeling/math checks I asked about in my original question that James Jacobs very kindly and forthrightly responded to:

me wrote:
I was wondering if there was any attempt to mathematically model expected damage outputs, initiative values, and other fairly basic "be good at your combat niche" type character building options? Things like probability of success, expected damage amounts, etc are all calculatable values. I've found the bestiary monster CR guidelines (how much HP, damage, etc you should expect for a monster of a certain CR) extremely valuable and I was wondering why it appears something similar wasn't done when developing this system.

The reason for this lack may be due to not having the required staff, not having basic design analysis/feedback procedures for this type of review, blind spots in the proto-typing/analysis/review/refinement process, or maybe other spots. The take-away for the players who want to participate in playtests is figuring out what format their analysis needs to be in for Paizo to receive the data and treat it with due consideration, rather than ignoring it. It appears the best way to do this is to do a mock-run of an adventure, post the results, and describe the probabilities of success along with an analysis as to where those success/failure rates come from when put up against something intended for that level of challenge. It's bit more work, but seems to do a better job of reaching the developers.


I guess they end up walking around with bags over their soul crystals. An interesting item for a Relluk might be something that makes the light from their crystals visible to only the Relluk and not visible to others, kind of like the thief's candle item from the Harry Potter books.

Another thing to consider is that light travels differently in the water and there may be other senses it is more important to conceal yourself from than sight.


Right, but the main take-away is that Paizo is not doing that type of testing themselves, so it is up to the players.

You do have a good point in much of it being in how Paizo responds to players and how players express themselves. Based on past playtests, it also appears that it needs to be couched in the terms of running a dungeon/adventure, rather than a numerical analysis that says with X capabilities, Y bonuses, the character has a success rate of Z%. And then comparing those success rates with what the target success rates might be. While there was a bunch of complaints about how he went about things, andreww's playtests for the Advanced Class Guide where he demonstrated an arcanist soloing multiple of the "harder" adventures and abusing some of the mechanics of the arcanist exploits appears to have led to changes in those exploits.


Piccolo Taphodarian wrote:

...I don't get how Paizo designers thought number inflation was the way to go for Mythic. Numbers were already too high in regular Pathfinder. Then they make them higher? And add only 30 to 50 hit points to the PCs. And maybe a 100 to the monsters. That is one or two uses of Foe-Biter or one or two crits with mythic power attack. How do game designers that get paid to do this fail to take into account the mathematical problems that such numbers cause for encounter design. I don't understand how they could have messed up the scaling so badly in mythic, when it is easy to calculate and see the problem.

Or did they truly intend on PCs and NPCs killing each other in one hit. So fights come down to win initiative and kill or lose initiative and die. I wasn't expecting that type of game...

James Jacobs actually answered that question earlier in the thread.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r1pa&page=11?Wrath-of-the-Righteous-A-Fail ed-AP#517

James Jacobs wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:

James, there's something I'm curious about and I was hoping you might be able to shed light upon. Since many of the issues that have arisen with this AP are related to Mythic and the numbers underlying the system, I was wondering if there was any attempt to mathematically model expected damage outputs, initiative values, and other fairly basic "be good at your combat niche" type character building options? Things like probability of success, expected damage amounts, etc are all calculatable values. I've found the bestiary monster CR guidelines (how much HP, damage, etc you should expect for a monster of a certain CR) extremely valuable and I was wondering why it appears something similar wasn't done when developing this system.

Thanks for your responses in this thread and I look forward to seeing what you come up with next.

The problem is that there really wasn't a lot of good solid playtesting feedback for high tier, high level characters for us to work with. At least, as far as I saw. The high level Wrath of the Righteous adventures used the best feedback and material we had... but in large I felt increasingly like I was flying into the dark. There were SO many options available, and to a certain extent I kind of felt like the design team and the playtesters alike really focused more on character building than they did on actually building adventures or how to build long-term campaigns for Mythic. Which is sort of par for the course, it feels like... the higher level things get, the more they need playtesting, but the less folks seem interested in playtesting them.

In a way, Wrath of the Righteous IS the high-level mythic playtest. It's a shame that it's also the final product, I guess.

If I did this again, I'd be in a better place to develop a more well-balanced and well-made AP... but I'm not eager to do it again anytime soon. Which is too bad for me, since the type of story I wanted to tell with Wrath (facing off against demigods/etc.) is one I particularly like (it's the core of the 3 Dungeon APs we did, after all).

I just really think that Mythic sort of failed at one of its roles—to provide a solid play experience beyond 20th level, which is kind of what I wanted but, as it turns out, wasn't really exactly what came out of Mythic Adventures.

So, basically, Paizo didn't do any of the number crunching to test out the math and relied on the mythic playtest to catch any problems with the math. Additionally, it sounds like the playtesting for the Wrath of the Righteous campaign was pretty much non-existent. The long and short of it, is that for any future playtests, stress testing of the underlying math/system at all levels of play is extremely important. Whether or not that feedback will produce any changes (see Advanced Race Guide racial point system) is another thing, but at least Paizo will have been provided with the data since they don't seem to do any such rigorous testing themselves.


Can the relluks shift their gem light into part of the non-visible spectrum?


If you are trying to get down to core principles, you'd probably just want to determine the number of actions required for a character to take down a target CR opponent and how many actions that target CR opponent needs to take down the character. Expanding this into non-combat areas would turn it into more of a same game test, though in a non-combat situation capability to do lots of somethings would probably take precedence over economy of actions in most situations.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Instead of Full-Attacks, for combat I'd look at % chance of removing the target from being able to contribute to combat. You'd basically be looking at which side is able to reduce the other sides actions/round to zero first.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
I demand that ...

I stopped reading at this point. There are, in fact, people in the world who are entitled to demand things of me.

Random nerds on an internet forum aren't normally in that select company.

If it rubs against your sensibilities, try substituting the word "insist" instead of demand and reading the entire post. It isn't as nefarious as you seem to be afraid.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Vancian/Slot based casting is basically Yu-Gi-Oh. You have a deck of cards. You select your cards for the day, and then have a chance to spend those cards. You just have to hope that you've selected the correct set of cards for the challenges you encounter and that you have enough of each card. It's a conceptually interesting magic system, but not one that gets reflected in fantasy literature very often.


Albatoonoe wrote:
So, an interesting idea. Why doesn't a group take up the task of making an alternate powerpoint system for all casters? That way, these new psychics and anyone else can be powerpoint casters, but those that like Vancian casting (counting myself and I know many others) can have our cake too.

Already done by a Paizo employee

Houserule Handbook - Spell Points Compilation

It's got positive reviews and generally seems very well received.


This summer I sat down and read pretty much all of Iain M. Bank's Culture novels (I have not received Excession or Player of Games from the library yet). I was impressed by the novels. I'd read Consider Phlebas a year or so ago and thought it was okay, but wasn't really grabbed by it. Digging back into the series of the books was a very good idea and I'm glad I did it. I've also found that the books tend to get even better on reflection and would highly recommend them to anyone interested in "big idea" speculative fiction.

Also Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath is the best name for a ship.


So, is this basically the Tome of Magic updated for Pathfinder and done right (minus the binder)? Seems like a pretty nice collection of alternate magical traditions.


Owen KC Stephens wrote:

It seemed weird to have our chronal dragon in the same pdf as the official paizo time dragon, so I opted not to include it.

I AM thinking of doing some dragonrider/dracomancer archetypes, and if I do a Dragon Age Master dracomancer, that would include the chronal dragon.

I'd be interested in that. The Paizo Time Dragon is fairly paint-by-numbers, while the RGG Chronal Dragon is one of the best blendings of mechanics with flavour I've seen in the entire game system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Will McCardell wrote:
Hmm, I have the sneaking suspicion that Endzeitgeist likes this one.

I have no idea why you would say something like that. None at all.


Yeah, the d20pfsrd.com page for the Super Genius Games archetype stuff is not perfect. Ideally, all the other class stuff would be collapsed and only the header that describes how the archetypes are applied + the witch specific stuff would show up. I wasn't able to do this because of the Google Sites limitations on the types of scripting you can put on pages (and didn't know any other advanced html tricks to reproduce the same effect). The end result is you need to do lots of scrolling around to be able to see all the explanations for how things work.

The long and the short of it is, Jayder22 is correct, as is the Archetype table on the Witch page. The archetype table is consistent with the Youxia page, but the information is more spread around because it isn't possible to collapse all the unneeded info on that page.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've enjoyed Cerulean Seas and Amethyst: Renaissance.


I guess I'd question if toppling is the most OP way to build an exploiter wizard. I'd think there would be a build that could break the game even more and still be PFS friendly.


If anyone has a copy of the bookmarked PDF version of this, I would appreciate a copy. I'm enjoying using it, but there are sections it would be nice to be able to quickly jump to when referencing these rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's already a PFRPG compatible Warlock (different name though). In fact, Endzeitgeist (reviewer extraordinare) called the Ethermancer by Interjection Point Games "the best Warlock currently available for any d20 system". The previous link is for the Kickstarter to expand the existing content and bundle it together in a PFRPG Tome of Magic type collection, which would also feature the best version of the Truenamer, an awesome composer/music based class, and potentially an updated version of shadow magic. The individual reviews (and links to where you can purchase the pdfs) for the Ethermancer (warlock replacement) and it's first expansion are below

Ethermancer review
Ethermancer expansion material


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For explosive runes/symbol spells, it might be better to have an unused rune/symbol lock out that spell slot/use per day until it is either dismissed/dispelled or activated.


wraithstrike wrote:

I really don't mind weapons not being equal, but if we go that route we should get rid of the simple vs martial categories. That however means we have to list every weapon someone is proficient with instead of saying "take this category". Of course we can also move crossbows and slings over to the martial category, but people like wizards(insert other caster as needed_ who may never have used a martial weapon can now use one. You can deny them proficiency, but at low levels they need something to do. Those 4 spells a day won't last forever. So the solution is to make some weapons "not good".

Is there another solution?

Yes. A weapon could have martial and simple expertise. Those who are barely trained like a commoner or wizard take one move action to fire the crossbow, but someone with martial expertise get to use the weapon as if they already had rapid reload.

PS: This might be the best 30 second idea I have ever had. I might even try the martial vs simple expertise in a home game.

Take a look at Kirthfinder for a fully fleshed out version of this idea. It's an interesting way to spice up the weapons and allow for a broader freedom in what you use depending on your investment level.


Eltacolibre wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:

I'd like to play a Aya Brea type character from Parasite Eve 1. The basis of her power is semi-aware mitochondria that allows her to manifest a number of abilities from a pool of energy that recharges over time. The character is generally martial in nature despite the supernatural/extraordinary abilities.

Abilities are the following:

Heal (self-heal, varying strengths depending on energy expenditure)
Scan (reveals target's health condition and any weaknesses)
Slow (slows targets' movement/actions)
Detox (cures poison)
Barrier (attacks against the character drain the energy pool before doing HP damage)
Energy Shot (dump all remaining energy into a large medium ranged blast that damages target)
Confuse (causes confusion effect in target)
Haste (self-only)
Gene Heal (activatable fast healing)
Medic (removes all negative status effects)
Preraise (contingent self-heal when HP reduced below zero)
Full Recover (self-only Heal effect)
Liberate (transform into powerful creature with wings capable of doing high melee damage for a period of time. Doing so drains all of the energy pool. When the transformation expires, the character is staggered for a time).

I'd appreciate any advice on how to build such a character using the Pathfinder rules (no 3pp).

90% of these abilities can be done easily with an alchemist, just pick up exotic weapon proficiency firearms and you are set. My biggest issue was the energy shot but you could technically fluff the alchemist bombs at being some kind of energy shots. The self-heal is way too easy with stuffs like making a potion of heal, drinking it and activating when you are low on hp, it's one of the alchemist discoveries. You have of course, the good ole Resurrection trick for alchemist using alchemical allocation and philosopher stone. There is of course, the other ugly solution...mystic theurge you would get all the abilities but you will be playing a mystic theurge.

I thought of the alchemist, but the big issue I've run into is the lack of a regenerating resource pool and the slot-casting method, which is very different in thematics than a more point-based combined resource pool to better represent the pool of internal energy. If I can figure out some way to allow the alchemist to regenerate their resource pool, some sort of spontaneous casting alchemist with a combined resource pool it could be made to work.


boring7 wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:

I'd like to play a Aya Brea type character from Parasite Eve 1. The basis of her power is semi-aware mitochondria that allows her to manifest a number of abilities from a pool of energy that recharges over time. The character is generally martial in nature despite the supernatural/extraordinary abilities.

Abilities are the following:

Heal (self-heal, varying strengths depending on energy expenditure)
Scan (reveals target's health condition and any weaknesses)
Slow (slows targets' movement/actions)
Detox (cures poison)
Barrier (attacks against the character drain the energy pool before doing HP damage)
Energy Shot (dump all remaining energy into a large medium ranged blast that damages target)
Confuse (causes confusion effect in target)
Haste (self-only)
Gene Heal (activatable fast healing)
Medic (removes all negative status effects)
Preraise (contingent self-heal when HP reduced below zero)
Full Recover (self-only Heal effect)
Liberate (transform into powerful creature with wings capable of doing high melee damage for a period of time. Doing so drains all of the energy pool. When the transformation expires, the character is staggered for a time).

I'd appreciate any advice on how to build such a character using the Pathfinder rules (no 3pp).

Most of the spell effects can be done with magic items, without the negative side-effects. But that's the base-line worst solution.

Some brand of nanite-based android prestige class may be in the works with the Numerian shizzle-wizzle currently being made.

One of the big things I'd love to be able to do is the regenerating common energy pool that powers the various abilities. It really helps with the themeing and the "internal power" characterization of the abilities. Using magic items would make the character more of a gadgeteer/cyborg type character which is very different in theme.


Also, regarding my request for some suggestions on how to build a Mistborn, I'm fine with the character build starting off weak, but I'd like to be able to ramp up to the total badass level eventually. I'm fine with not going quite as far as Vin does towards the very end of the series, but Kelsier's level would be an appropriate level of badassness.


I'd like to play a Aya Brea type character from Parasite Eve 1. The basis of her power is semi-aware mitochondria that allows her to manifest a number of abilities from a pool of energy that recharges over time. The character is generally martial in nature despite the supernatural/extraordinary abilities.

Abilities are the following:

Heal (self-heal, varying strengths depending on energy expenditure)
Scan (reveals target's health condition and any weaknesses)
Slow (slows targets' movement/actions)
Detox (cures poison)
Barrier (attacks against the character drain the energy pool before doing HP damage)
Energy Shot (dump all remaining energy into a large medium ranged blast that damages target)
Confuse (causes confusion effect in target)
Haste (self-only)
Gene Heal (activatable fast healing)
Medic (removes all negative status effects)
Preraise (contingent self-heal when HP reduced below zero)
Full Recover (self-only Heal effect)
Liberate (transform into powerful creature with wings capable of doing high melee damage for a period of time. Doing so drains all of the energy pool. When the transformation expires, the character is staggered for a time).

I'd appreciate any advice on how to build such a character using the Pathfinder rules (no 3pp).


I'd like to create a Mistborn character and have it be the best option.


Endzeitgeist had good things to say about the following high level adventures:

Rule of Law: Clash of Constructs - a 14-16 investigation adventure
Kingdom of Toads - levels 15-16, 17-18 or 19-20 depending on the scaling you choose
Coliseum Morpheuon - level 16-20 planar mega-adventure


Simon Legrande wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Yes. Because when I play a game, I expect everything to be clear, up front, on how it's going to work. If you change Plane Shift without telling me, who knows what else you're going to secretly houserule? And how do I even know that you did it ahead of time instead of going "Oh, s#+!, I don't want him to cast that. Yeah buddy, sorry, it doesn't work".
Even if it means the GM giving up a plot point that you're not meant to discover until you reach a higher level?
If the only way the gm can keep his plot a secret is by not telling me the rules of the game, its a bad plot. You should be able to tell me how planeshift works, at least generally without telling me the in game reason why it doesnt work the way the game says it does. If you cant or wont do that, I'd would call that bad gming.
Huh, fair enough I guess. I'm not used to playing with people that need to know all the secrets up front or you're a bad GM.

In stories, good authors use foreshadowing and other hints to suggest what might happen or what limits might occur. In that framework, if Plane Shift doesn't work, then the players can recognize that something is strange and it becomes a plot point. If abilities randomly don't work and there has been no foreshadowing, then it is pretty much on a level of a deus ex machina or similar type of storytelling reveal which tend to be very unsatisfying and in a cooperative game setting, feels like the game master is cheating.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
My experience with actual game play is the exact opposite.

And, interestingly, BOTH experiences are real ones. From which we could conclude:

(a) Only the people seeing the problem are right, and everyone else is lying. But I don't think you're lying, so we eliminate option "a."

(b) Only the people not seeing the problem are right, and everyone else is theorycrafting. Except that we're speaking from play experience, and posting links, and so on, so we know this option isn't correct, either.

(c) Some people have a problem and others don't experience it.

So, out of 3 possibilities, two are wrong. We look at the third one. It suggests that some people are doing something that prevents the problem, or else are refraining from doing other things, that lead to the problem. Things that we might, you know, write into the rules and disseminate to everyone, instead of keeping them a secret.

The advantage of following option 3, is it makes the game easier for new players to pick up and easier to GM as well, since you don't have to worry as much about hitting all sorts of landmines that experienced players and GMs know to avoid.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Just...why???

Unanticipated medusa.

I hope the caster had it on a scroll and not memorized.


James Jacobs wrote:
blahpers wrote:

I see. It comes down once more to your idea of what constitutes lawful or good behavior. I've found your previous assertions on the subject . . . unique, but hey, it's your game.

Since this isn't the time or place for that discussion, and since I'm pretty confident neither of us will influence the other in any meaningful manner, I withdraw.

Fair enough.

That said... someone at Paizo needs to be the person who makes the decision on how alignments work and what behaviors constitute those various alignments. That person happens to be me, as the company's Creative Director. Part of what I get paid for is to provide these baselines for the game.

How does the paladin work with respect to pantheon worship, or other types of polytheistic worship?


So, here's an interesting question. How easy would it be for a level 20 caster to turn Cthulhu into a bunny-rabbit?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
That's not worship. That's lip service.

Paladin's don't need to worship a deity, they're invested by the forces of Law and Good. That means the Paladin has to embody those ideals in word and thought. Given that the "real" Asmodeus is LE, the paladin needs to believe either that Asmodeus' tenants are ultimately good and he's largely misunderstood, have a basic misunderstanding or highly abridged understanding of what Asmodeus' tenants actually are, or be part of some splinter cell that seeks to redeem Asmodeus' evil by doing good works in his name and showing has his emphasis on law and order ultimately serves the greater benefit of existence.

The point is, a paladin who worships Asmodeus is probably not gaining his powers from Asmodeus, he's gaining them from his innate purity and he happens to also worship Asmodeus, which can be reconciled in a number of ways, the most obvious of which would be that he doesn't actually understand Asmodeus the same way that you and I, who can whip open Inner Sea Gods and read his write up, understand him.

You can also have a Paladin who views Asmodeus's job to be the tempter and jailer of those who are evil or who might do evil. Asmodeus isn't there to be a nice guy, but in the end he still wants the world to continue. Even with the bad parts of Asmodeus, an order of Paladins who worship him could still base their structure around the Lawful parts and basically play the good-cops who work towards a world that will not fall to the temptations of Asmodeus or be sent to him when they die. Asmodeus helps identify and draw the evil out so the Paladins can target them.

Sure, these are non-Golarion interpretations of the god and Paladins, but they seem consistent with how religions have been handled in the real world by worshippers (see Hinduism, Christianity, etc.) where aspects of a god or agents of a god are what would be considered evil in Pathfinder.


From Kirthfinder, here is one way to deal with the Explosive Runes issue, and other glyph type spells:

Quote:

ACTIVE OR LATENT SPELLS

Active or latent spells that are permanent or last until discharged (such as explosive runes, glyph of warding, fire trap, secret page, symbol of death, etc.) count against your personal numen (Wealth by level to purchase magic items). In general, the cost is as per a magic trap (spell level x caster level x 50 gp, plus the spell’s listed material component cost, if any). The numen is replaced when the spell is no longer potent, due to discharge, dispelling, or whatever. Some examples:

3rd level explosive runes x CL 6th x 50 gp = 900 numen each.

For an 8 HD simulacrum: (6th level simulacrum spell x CL 11th x 50 gp) + (8 x 500 gp) = 7,300 numen.


Most of the Adamant material has problems and the balance tends to be wonky. The Priest is an exception and is generally seen to be fairly well balanced. RGG/SGG and Dreamscarred material tends to be well balanced. Rite, Tricky Owlbear and Kobold Press are a bit closer to the Paizo level of balance, but also have a lot of cool stuff.


James Jacobs wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Ched Greyfell wrote:
Check out the article in Council of Thieves where it talks about Asmodeus having paladins that worship him.
Do you understand what the Paizo Golem does to people who cite content that the developers repeatedly say is in Error? It's not a pretty sight. Hardboiled Chelaxian Hellknights go faint at the thought.
Why care if Paizo later walked it back as not being canon for Golarion? It provided an in-game rationale for paladins of an evil god. Probably not the one I would have gone with, but one that works with the rules. If the OP is looking for a precedent as to how this can be handled, rules-wise, it is a good place to start.

Because if you care about the rest of the stuff we create, then you should care about it when we admit we make mistakes?

And if you don't care about our preferences for how to present Golarion... I'm not sure why you're posting in the Campaign Setting forum...

This thread is in the rules section. I figured the OP was looking for some guidance as to how the situation could be handled from a rules perspective and not necessarily the Golarion setting.

That aside, the Paladins of Asmodeus might be exactly what the OP was looking for in a game set in Golarion. It may not be canon, but each player's game does not have to follow the canon setting and it might provide some inspiring material that would be useful for the OP's game, even if it does take place in Golarion.


No you aren't, but I think a lot of forum users have given up on seeing any change or action taken.


LazarX wrote:
Ched Greyfell wrote:
Check out the article in Council of Thieves where it talks about Asmodeus having paladins that worship him.
Do you understand what the Paizo Golem does to people who cite content that the developers repeatedly say is in Error? It's not a pretty sight. Hardboiled Chelaxian Hellknights go faint at the thought.

Why care if Paizo later walked it back as not being canon for Golarion? It provided an in-game rationale for paladins of an evil god. Probably not the one I would have gone with, but one that works with the rules. If the OP is looking for a precedent as to how this can be handled, rules-wise, it is a good place to start.

1 to 50 of 2,589 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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