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

Deadmanwalking's page

RPG Superstar 2015 Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 7,347 posts (7,540 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,347 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned alchemists in here yet. Especially vivisectionists.

Because Alchemists are mediocre skill monkeys. They don't have the best skill list, no direct bonuses, and are significantly behind Investigators in skill points as well.

Vivisectionists are vastly better combat Rogues than Rogues are, but only about on par as skill monkeys (slightly less skills, several useful spells), which makes them mediocre ones at best.

In this thread people are suggesting either ways to make Barbarian Skill Monkeys, or actually good skill monkeys, not Rogue replacements in general.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Tels wrote:
Thanks for putting it in better words. The idea behind the plan relies on way to many variables. It requires the guy you disguise yourself to be someone that orders would actually be received from. It requires the people you take with you willing to follow you into a dangerous jungle. It requires said dangerous jungle to produce some creature or encounter that gives the dangerous jungle it's reputation for being dangerous. Then, it requires that same guy to head back and have no one question why he returned without the 'half the group' that left with him.

It was a definitely a chancy plan, but not one with a lot of huge risks for a PC, especially one with high social skills (to convince people to do things they might otherwise not)...and it working once seems plausible with good enough rolls/skills.

Some luck is clearly involved, but that hardly makes it inherently a bad plan.

Tels wrote:
If they bandits were being led by a werebaboon barbarian surrounded by his minions, why did half the minions just suddenly abandon their leader? Why would the werebaboon even allow it? How was no one even remotely suspicious?

High enough Bluff/Diplomacy can explain this, at least in theory. The timeframe might also have been such as he didn't notice they were gone (he was asleep, he was busy, whatever).

Tels wrote:
On top of that, none of what was done was completed via being a Rogue. It was done via simply being a character. Bard's, Rangers, Iquisitors, Alchemists, Investigators, Hunters, Slayers... the list goes on of what classes could have succeeded there, the Rogue is only one of them.

I feel like making a Ranger or Hunter with that many social skills is tricky and unusual. That aside, I obviously agree entirely. There are a few skills involved, but no actual class features.

Tels wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
Tels, quit holding back. Tell us how you really feel. :-)
Yeah, I'm sorry for channeling my frustration and anger into that post. I have an ongoing conversation with my Grandmother on Facebook who told my sister she's going to burn in hell because she's a lesbian. Suffice to say my response to my Grandmother has ensured I am most definitely Not on her nice list... probably forever.

Ooooh, I'm sorry dude. It sucks to have to come into conflict with those close to you with their own intolerance. :(

Congrats on doing the right thing anyway, though.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

zergtitan wrote:

Will I be able to use four elements with this class via the elemental expansion class feature or is there a limit on how many elements you can possibly use?

*I was designing a Mythic Guardian Kineticist who ends up releasing the good elemental lords (like the one in the Moaning Diamond from Artifacts & Legends) and in the process becomes a N minor god of the elements who acts to keep and ensure the balanced between the two sides.*

Well, at 20th level, when you get the capstone you can grab any Element's powers almost at will.

So, yeah, at 20th level you can do this. Which maps pretty well with the character concept you suggest...

Prior to that I think you're still limited to 3 Elements at a maximum.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

p-sto wrote:
Actually bringing an example from the world of Pathfinder to reinforce my comment above, I think it's rather unlikely that an organization such as the Wasp Queens managed to gain a reputation of being among the foremost thieves in Golarion by shunning concepts of personal discipline, cooperation and planning. It's true that adherents of Calistria have a greater appreciation of organization in comparison to the worshippers of other Chaotic gods but all the same that serves the argument that Chaotic characters aren't necessarily opposed to structure.

Cooperation and planning aren't Lawful traits. At all. Self-discipline is to some degree, but only to some degree.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Barachiel Shina wrote:

Here's an example.

Party is fighting a huge gang of bandits led by a werebaboon barbarian. While the Knight/Cleric, Magus, and Conjurer all are busy fighting enemies on the first floor of the building, the 2nd floor has the majority of the bandits talking on plans to take out the PCs.

The Rogue of the party, a Changeling, shifted into the form of one of the bandits they took out and went upstairs after grabbing some of his equipment. With a series of SKILL checks (Disguise, Bluff, etc.) he led half the bandits out into the nearby jungle where he knew (thanks, again, to skill checks) of wandering carnivores and the bandits were attacked by a pack of deinonychus. He returned back, managed to infiltrate again and got up to the leader before sneak attacking him and gravely wounding him.

THAT'S what a Rogue should do. Everyone else seems to expect their Rogue to wade into the thick of combat and ninja-slice everyone's heads off before they realize he is there.

I feel like Tels got emotional and was overly harsh on this. Sounds like a reasonable plan to me.

That said...what part of that plan was helped by being a Rogue? It involved being good at 4 or 5 skills (Disguise, Bluff, Stealth, Knowledge-Nature, and maybe Diplomacy)...one of which isn't even on the Rogue list (Knowledge-Nature) and most of which Rogues aren't encouraged to have the related stat that high by the rules (Charisma. mostly).

A Bard could've done all that, only better (because of higher Charisma and things like Charm Person and Invisibility) and without needing to be a Changeling (Disguise Self being a thing). Ditto Investigator or Inquisitor. Slayer could've done it slightly better, too, due to Studied Target (though they'd have needed to be a Changeling or have a Hat of Disguise).

In short, that's the player succeeding due to cleverness, not any virtue of the Class they happened to be playing. Any class with social skills could've managed it equally well, including Expert or Aristocrat (whose damage would've been worse on the final attack, but that would've been the only difference...and the PC classes listed above likely would've done more damage).

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Will.Spencer wrote:
Part of adventuring is the unknown. ;)

Yes, but if I don't know anything about where I am going, how do I even know I am going to end up in a Medieval fantasy world as opposed to some dirt ball that doesn't even have enough oxygen to breathe?

Actually, Robert Heinlein wrote a pretty cool novel about a survival course where you were given a decent amount of knowledge about the general environment where you were going (no Medieval worlds, though), and had to prepare yourself to survive there for a few days. They gave you enough knowledge so that you knew (or at least should have known) you didn't need to take a spacesuit. As the main part of the novel, a group got stuck on a world for several months instead of several days, because a supernova knocked the teleportation gates offline. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the novel.

Tunnel in the Sky. Great book. :)

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Really fun skill-monkey Barbarian build I tried once:

Go Oracle 1, then Invulnerable Rager Barbarian from there. Pick the Lore Mystery and use your 1st level Feat for Extra Revelation (your 3rd level Feat is power attack, your other Feats are mostly Extra Rage Power). Take Focused Trance and Sidestep Secret.

Dump Dex, going Cha instead. Do not dump Int (you can dump Wis a little instead due to the extra Will Save from ) Maybe take a Trait to make Bluff a class skill. Put one Rank in all the Knowledges and max out the social skills. Go with the standard Superstition/Spell Sunder/Beast Totem Rage Power lineup. Be AM BARBARIAN as well as the party face and winning all the Knowledge checks forever outside of combat.

When I did this, I also went Half Orc for Sacred Tattoo (I also took Shaman's Apprentice and Skilled), took Divine Favor as a spell, and took Fate's Favored, plus the Human Barbarian FCB, but that's not really a skill-up, just a combat buff. Also, there's no reason not to pick the Lame Curse for this build.

This doesn't replace a Rogue, it's a different kind of skill monkey (more like a Bard), and it does basically give up Come And Get Me (though almost nothing else) but it sure sounds fun. Sadly, I only got to play it for the first few levels. It was a lot of fun for those levels, though.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The basic idea is that Monks are self-disciplined, and require that self-discipline to progress in their calling and powers. They're not precisely the heroes of martial arts movies (many of whom would be more Brawler than Monk), being more like idealized Shaolin Monks.

As Rynjin notes, however, some archetypes and concepts really don't quite work with that and sorta break up the in-game logic quite a bit. Personally, I'd be cool with a non-Lawful Monk, but them's the rules.

Also, for the record, none of the things you list are inherently non-Lawful, with the exception of lying, and even there it's sort of a hallmark of Lawful Evil. Lawful behavior isn't necessarily adherence to the actual law of land, merely a consistent code of behavior. Organized crime is a typical example of Lawful Evil in many ways, and is inclined to many of the behaviors you list...

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

You've done this thread before, Mathius. As was discussed then, there are...really a lot of reasons this doesn't work well or economically in many worlds.

Perpetual motion machines ala magical traps that Create Food and Water will absolutely screw up the game. That's also clearly not remotely how the rules are intended to work, and barring that or Blood Money (which is a lost secret of ancient Thassilon in Golarion), there's very little in the way of spells that makes widespread spellcasting like this in place of mundane options economically viable.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

thejeff wrote:
Which is basically my approach to the whole thing in game: As a GM don't set up contrived situations where you have to slaughter ever last adult in a town and you don't have to worry about dealing with the helpless kids.

Agreed. :)

thejeff wrote:
But it still doesn't answer the larger question: Even without orphanages, if all the humanoid (and even other monster) races really do have free will and can make moral choices then there would be different cultures among them, some of which wouldn't be evil. I'm not willing to concede a race that is entirely evil, but only for cultural reasons.

Agreed again (at least partially, see below), but we have examples of non-evil members of a wide variety of races, just not a whole lot of them. There are indications of Orcs in the Mwangi Expanse being non-Evil, plus some tribes in the Darklands, plus isolated individuals, just only a few of them.

And so on and so forth for other races.

Also, as the premise of this thread indicates (primarily by the inclusion of special orphanages and unique needs), there's several indications that it's not entirely cultural. Some races have built in tendencies that tend to lead them to some degree in the direction of Evil. It's not insurmountable, but it's there.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

So, ghost item vs. anti-ghost item. I prefer the ghost item.

Honey. Huh. Okay.

Misnamed armor vs. weapon that should be a different weapon. Misnamed it is.

Same misnamed armor vs. a mis-formatted (but rather nice) ring. And now you fall, oh misnamed armor.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

thejeff wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
I suppose the next question after "How do you raise them?" is "What happens to Golarion now that you've done this?" Imagine this isn't a new thing, that it's been happening a while. What then?

Yeah, that's the thing. If this isn't a new idea that all the supposedly Good people have been ignoring for millennia, then either it just isn't working or Golarion should really look a lot different than it does.

It's a clash between game logic where the humanoid races are designed to be enemies for the PCs to fight and setting logic, where they really should be sapient beings capable of moral choices and thus not just be enemies for the PCs to fight.
I think trying to have it both ways is a mistake. If you want them to be more realistic creatures capable of moral choices, you really need to show that in game, not just state it out of game and then have them be evil on stage. Have some humanoid NPCs in towns. Have some peaceful orcish settlements. Something.

I actually resolved this particular lgical conflict rather easily much earlier in this very thread.

In short, very rarely does a group small enough to all be Good aligned kill an entire tribe's combatants...and if everyone's not Good, odds of atrocities are really extremely high in this kind of war. So...it hasn't cropped up very often historically.

Plus, usually there are noncombatants to take care of the children, and people who kill them will usually kill the children, too...in which case, there's no need for orphanages.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

All of those changes sound excellent! :)

Any way you could tell us whether the Medium wound up getting another Good Save? I remember that being discussed as a possibility early on...

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Jeff Lee wrote:
I really hate to see a good item where the author has missed an important detail in the mechanics. Sometimes its as simple as not assigning a DC. Other times its a new feature where the mechanics just aren't fully explained, and I get left wondering "Yes, but what happens under this circumstance, or if this comes up?"

Not just in otherwise good items, but I've noted a distinct trend in items not having a duration for abilities they provide, making said abilities conditional, but permanent...which is clearly not their intent.

So...those items got downvotes, and putting in a duration is important folks, don't forget about it.

This is not necessarily true. Ring of invisibility doesn't have a duration listed, but it does have a duration.

That's because it's based on a specific spell, which (unlike item effects in and of themselves) have an inherent duration. The items I saw were rather definitively not based on such things.

I'm talking things like, oh hypothetically, a +2 weapon that became +4 and frost if you killed a troglodyte with it.

And then no further wording after a statement like that.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Jeff Lee wrote:
I really hate to see a good item where the author has missed an important detail in the mechanics. Sometimes its as simple as not assigning a DC. Other times its a new feature where the mechanics just aren't fully explained, and I get left wondering "Yes, but what happens under this circumstance, or if this comes up?"

Not just in otherwise good items, but I've noted a distinct trend in items not having a duration for abilities they provide, making said abilities conditional, but permanent...which is clearly not their intent.

So...those items got downvotes, and putting in a duration is important folks, don't forget about it.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Yeah, I've seen several bits of snark that might easily be about mine, too. Clearly, that's just something that comes with the territory.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

You can't take Weapon Focus or Power Attack on a 1st level Skald due to BAB requirements. Though you can swap one of them with Nature Soul if you like and get it at 3rd.

You're right on how Animal Ally and Boon Companion work, though. At least, barring retraining.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Spotted a really nice rod for the third or fourth time...geez, I really like that thing.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Complete lack of part of necessary pricing guidelines vs. completely wrong design space.

I guess wrong design space wins...

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

James Raine wrote:
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
James Raine wrote:
Reading an entry: "But...you can already do that without the magic item? So basically you don't do anything?"
No idea what item you are talking about, but in their defense, there are those who said that about aspects of my item in the Top 32 last year too.
This is a little more blatant than that.

Yeah, if it's the one I'm thinking of, all it does is 'allow' something almost literally everyone can do anyway...

And I've seen at least two really cool Bard items.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Mispelled with unclear mechanics vs. hilariously overpriced. Interesting...

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Ran into my own item a second time. Still feeling a bit surreal, but at least I got the formatting right.

Haven't seen it paired with anything my conscience forced me to vote for over it...at least not yet.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Two items with no cost listed. My heart, it is sad. :(

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Despite my occasional snarkiness in the other thread, the vast majority of the items I've been looking over have been at least solid, and many quite good indeed.

I haven't fallen in love with any yet, but I've lusted after a few of them. :)

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Two items that were clearly originally Wondrous Items! Another first for me thus far...

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

First weapon higher than +10!

This is fun, I'm sad I missed it in previous years. :)

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The black raven wrote:

I do not know how you guys do it really.

After going through the compulsory 2 wondrous items, I had an interesting object paired against a wall of text. After that, the next two pairings were average to bad against the same. And I just could not keep on voting. After only 3 votes.

That was 4 hours ago and I feel like trying again but I fear the same will happen quickly :-(

Eh, I find failure amusing. Or at least satisfying to crush...maybe I'm a bad person.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

blahpers wrote:
No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise.

Pretty much this. Though for slightly different reasons than Rorschach.

See, if they've already killed any of my friends and/or family, I will scorch the g!&@$$n Earth to avenge them. F~*# making deals. People don't get to hurt or threaten those I care about and get away with it. Ever. It's bad policy.

Besides which, even if they hadn't harmed those I care about, when left alone I'm a pretty nice guy, who mostly just wants to make the world a better place. If they've been opposing me to this extent (or I them), them ruling the world almost certainly makes it a really bad place. I'm not selfish enough to let the world pay in blood, pain, and tyranny for my own happiness.

So never, not in a million years.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So...an item that explicitly changes its user's personality but with absolutely no mechanics for that. Why...just why?

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

So...there was a Wizard and he made a staff that did things. Okay then.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Petty Alchemy wrote:

The formatting needs to be good enough for me to want to read the item.

If it passes a basic standard, I can forgive smaller errors for good content. Sort of like reviewing resumes.

This is more or less my attitude as well. I require the item to have all the necessary rules information to make the item work. If it doesn't have that...what's the point in reading it?

If it has all the necessary info, though, formatting is a secondary concern at best.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Really lookng forward to the postmortem on this one. :)

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

RainyDayNinja wrote:
The Archaeologist doesn't have luck; he has "Archaeologist's Luck." The luck being referred to in that rule is from the Sleuth archetype for Investigators.

Yup. An Archaeologist has luck based class features, but not something actually called a 'Luck Pool' per se.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really like Paizo, and what I've seen of the people who work there. They aren't perfect or anything, but they seem to legitimately be pretty nice people and put in a lot of effort to make a really fun game that I've enjoyed immensely. They're also really friendly, approachable, and responsive on these boards. I've personally asked a variety of questions of the folks at Paizo and actually gotten full answer, which is really cool.

None of this is precisely unique (I've had similarly good experiences with other game companies), but they're not universal within the industry either, and are certainly worthy of approval and high regard.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Gruugdúrz wrote:
Although the hooves would be at -5 as secondary attacks. Still, that sort of character could really dish it out pretty quick!

The rules are a bit less than 100% clear on this. Hooves default to secondary on monsters, but it's usually noted when an attack provided to a PC is secondary (see here for example).

Which it isn't here.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Aelryinth wrote:
Unless fatigue pools include recovery from effects, some form of healing, and broader magical best, I'm not holding my breath with something so simplistic.

Healing and effect recovery or avoidance seem pretty possible. And the ability to have bursts of effectiveness seems almost inevitable (and definitely helps the Champion thing).

Aelryinth wrote:

Without more skill points to reflect their lack of magical ability, ain't humming for out of combat versatility, either.

==Aelryinth

Yeah, this doesn't seem likely to change. :(

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Slayers make excellent hunters sans spells and animal companion. They're also solid Warlords, Soldiers, and probably better Master/Teachers than a Fighter.

They're not any better as Champions (though they're equally good, IMO), and sorta fail as Guardians, but they do more of those roles well than the Fighter does.

Just for the record.

On a more on-topic note, if Unchained's fatigue pool for martial characters really is notably better for Fighters, that might well boost their ability to function as Champions, and possibly as Master/Teachers or Guardians. So that'd be a bit better.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

If looking for mechanics...I actually wrote up a mongol warrior a while back (the equipment's even more or less accurate, per wikipedia). In short, Luring Emissary Cavalier is basically perfect for horse archers.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Arcanic Drake wrote:
Cuttler wrote:
Any caster class that replace spells with other features like the skirmisher ranger?? I'm looking at paizo only stuff....
Um... There is the investigator's sleuth archetype. It replaces all of its extracts and other alchemy related abilities with a luck mechanic. It's more of a precision/skill class than a martial though, so I don't know how much your player would like it.

It's also a terrible Archetype whose unique abilities verge on uselessness (especially as compared to 6 level casting). Even the Spiritualist Archetype is better, and it's still many miles worse than the base class.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Digitalelf wrote:
I agree with this. They are not the same game, but from past (anecdotal) experience, the definitions of 2nd edition can be successfully applied to 3rd edition and Pathfinder.

I'm sure you have. That doesn't mean that that's the correct thing to do or explains things well in-world.

Digitalelf wrote:
I agree with this as well... In 2nd edition, if you want a character that can pick a lock as well as pick a pocket with any reasonable degree of success, then your choice is pretty limited, as these abilities are not "skills" available to all like they are in 3rd edition and Pathfinder.

Indeed. which means that anyone with some Craft and Disable Device can have a 'locksmith' profession without the need for a specific Rogue variant to do that. Which is sorta my point.

Digitalelf wrote:

Here I have to disagree with you. As I've said earlier in this post, my experience has shown (even though it is totally anecdotal) that it can be done, and done successfully. When the editions changed (from 2nd to 3rd, and from 3rd to Pathfinder), I did not alter my views of the game, nor the style in which I ran it.

I realize that there are those that would not enjoy my gaming style or agree with my views of the game (or elements thereof). I also know that my preferred style of play belongs to a dying breed of old and musty gamers (such as myself)...

There are some verisimilitude issues with the training thing. Does the trainer need to have all the skills they raise higher than they do at higher ratings than them? Do they need to purchase Feats the trainer also knows? As Ashiel notes, who trained the trainer? Eventually, if you go back far enough, someone had to be first.

What if I want to play, say, a prodigy without meaningful training? Is that just not an existent thing in your world?

Or, heck, any spontaneous spellcaster? Having them need training to advance makes just about zero sense.

There are also verisimilitude issues with the ability of NPCs (or anyone) to clearly distinguish between more mundane classes. Spell-casters are clearly distinct in-world due to the nature of their spells, as are some Barbarians due to the nature of their Rage Powers...but everyone else? Not so much.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Bloodrager seems workable. Alternately, if he's willing to do some casting (which seems to be the case) basically all of the 6-level casters can make rather potent melee characters if built properly.

What thematic elements does he seem interested in exploring? That'd make a single class recommendation much easier to make.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

thegreenteagamer wrote:
I always thought one of the things that made PF appealing to so many players was that they were so heavily playtested. It seems to me turning that tradition aside would be like the creators of Savage Worlds coming up with a complex version...contrary to that which makes it so appealing.

The only thing that's ever been heavily publicly playtested since the game actually came out have been the character classes. Not other rules elements.

And in regards to Unchained's classes, well, I think the Paizo folks have a point. Do a search on threads about Rogues, Monks, or Summoners, and you'll see a ridiculous amount of 'playtest fedback' in regards to how to make those Classes better balanced. Years worth, not weeks.

Barbarian not quite so much, but I'm willing to roll with it until we see what they came up with there.

Seriously, the last several years isn't a multi-stage playtest, but it's sure a long and thorough one of the problems with the current version. And multi-stage playtests are far from universal for Paizo classes.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Secret Wizard wrote:
No snippets. Paizo even said they would not be play testing the thing. You can tell it's the kind of thing they imagined would bring problems among the community. Perhaps they thought people would be too quick to judge?

Nah, they've gone on record as saying it had more to do with the entire game up until this point being a play test for the Classes, and them generally only play testing new classes in open play tests.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree pretty much completely with Ashiel on this one. I understand where DigitalElf is coming from in terms of 2E, but much as I love the Archetype/Kit comparison, Pathfinder and 2E are not the same game, and are not designed with the same definitions in mind.

The very existence of skills as a meaningful and expanding thing profoundly alters the dynamic between Class and in-world Profession. And makes Class Abilities several orders of magnitude less essential in defining one's in-world role.

In short, applying the standards of 2E to Pathfinder in this area is inappropriate, and a mistake.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Hama wrote:
Well, Whitehall was also a lab experiment, wasn't he?

He was. Different experiment, though.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Male Lashunta also make excellent Empiricist Investigators (+2 Str, +2 Int, -2 Wis), and are thematically well-suited to the role of alien warrior-scientist that the class allows. I really want to play this in an Iron Gods game if I can just get somebody to run one...

Ratfolk and Androids also work quite well.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Hama wrote:
Well, I believe that Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are Inhumans in MCU

Uh...the evidence we have suggests they're lab experiments made by Strucker.

He did speculate as to why they survived with powers while others died in the experiments, but that hardly screams 'Inhumans' to me.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Peet wrote:
I think it's likely that Unchained will be PFS - legal, just because Paizo generally wants to encourage PFS players to buy stuff.

I agree. At least in terms of the new classes, and possibly some new Feats. That'd be enough to justify PFS players buying the book, and a lot easier to integrate than most of the rest of the Alternate Rules stuff.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

You've got healing, buff spells, offensive damage, and skills all well covered. So a full Arcane Caster going for control spells seems the way to go. So, Wizard, Witch, Sorcerer, or Arcanist.

Which you go with is obviously up to you and your own preferences.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Zwordsman wrote:
If your planning to use mutagen at all. Take note that str bonus removes INT which loweres Studied combat.

This is true, but note that it only lowers the duration, and most foes aren't going to last too many rounds of focused fire anyway.

Still not my favorite choice at low levels, but absolutely valid a bit later on (once you've got a Headband of Intelligence).

1 to 50 of 7,347 << 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.