|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Some Mystics hold a connection to the Gods...but not all, and not in the same way as Clerics. They're more like Oracles than Clerics, Wisdom being their casting stat aside.
You certainly can make a more Cleric-y one by taking the Priest Theme, and in that case will need to be within one step of your God's Alignment, but that isn't remotely universal.
We actually more or less know what value Paizo puts on skills:
1 skill point per level = 1 Feat
Both those are codified. So is +1 Attack Bonus as a Feat (the extra attack is harder to codify). So is having a Domain (at more than one Feat, since Believer's Boon is kinda s~&*ty...call it a conservative two or three Feats).
By that metric, Cardinal gains 6 Feats...and loses two for armor and shields, and then 5 for BAB and 3 for Domain, for a total loss of 10, not counting Spontaneous Casting (which is probably about one Feat's worth). For a net 5 Feat loss. Ouch. Yeah, that's pretty bad.
A lot of Archetypes can be analyzed this way and I often find it useful to do so. It's not super precise, but eyeballing it with this method can be both useful and revealing.
For example, Eldritch Scoundrel pretty thoroughly reveals that Paizo considers 6 level prepared arcane casting with spell failure from the Wizard list to be worth about 15 Feats (1 Proficiency + 4 Skill Points per level + 5 Sneak Attack + 5 Rogue Talents) since that's what the Eldritch Scoundrel trades for it. That's probably pretty close to fair, and is certainly interesting.
I thought there were two different evil ninja organizations from Daredevil and Iron Fist that they just combined for simplicity.
There are a lot of evil ninja organizations in Marvel Comics, but both Iron Fist and Daredevil have definitely fought the Hand in the comics.
I am very excited to see more though. Especially now the symbolism of men with power over women is NOT lost.
I was never especially worried about that, to be honest.
A point of controversy; is Jessica stronger than Luke? I have heard otherwise, but I'm pretty sure in the show we see her pin his arm behind his back. When he is fighting her she just didn't want to hurt him, which I think is why she got hit more.
She didn't get hit more, she got hurt more (at least until the very end), because Luke is borderline invulnerable (or more specifically, his skin is). Jessica is not. Shoot Luke and he's annoyed, shoot her and she's in real trouble. That's his advantage over her.
Her advantage over him is that she is much stronger. We've seen how much Luke can lift when trying hard, and we've seen Jessica lift amounts similar to that with one hand.
All this is in the show, I think the distinction is less clear in the comics.
Black Dougal wrote:
I find this odd, so she didn't kill any Hand during the Defenders run?
I'm not actually sure if she did. She definitely beat some up, and was involved in setting up a building full of them to blow up...but I don't think she killed any with her hands (which is more intimate, and thus a lot more traumatic), though I'd need to re-watch to be sure.
Also, a consensus was reached among the Defenders that the Hand were undead monsters rather than 'people' in the strictest sense. Whether that's a reasonable conclusion to come to or not (and it actually is fairly reasonable based on the evidence, if not 100% true) is sorta immaterial inasmuch as thinking that about someone makes it easier to deal with having killed them.
And finally, she didn't know them. Killing someone you know, intimately, who you've seen photos of as a child, met their parents, and had dinner with is very different psychologically from killing someone in a mask you've never met before. Yes, even if that person has done things like rape you and murder people.
In short, I'm pretty sure most combat vets (or others who've killed people in a fight) would still be traumatized by killing someone they were as personally close to (no matter how awful that closeness is) as Jessica was to him. That doesn't make a lot of logical sense, but human emotions often don't.
Typically one has sex with their one significant other, you don't invite all you friends to have sex do you? I think having sex is one thing, playing a RPG is another. People don't come to your game table to have sex, usually! I don't consider sex to be a social activity that you invite all your friends to watch, but maybe that is just me.
I don't think anyone is actually suggesting a gaming group/orgy (though I'm sure someone's done that at some point). But discussing sex or having your characters have sex (usually in a 'fade to black' kinda way) is pretty different than actually having sex with anyone.
I don't think I would want to watch a pornographic movie with them or read an explicit novel out loud to them either. For me sex is private, not something I share with my friends.
Again, I don't think including relationships or 'fade to black' sex scenes in a game is the equivalent of this. Indeed, it's (as noted) much closer to watching a movie or TV show where sex happens (sometimes off-screen). And if you haven't ever watched a movie or TV show with friends wherein two characters hooked up...well, I'm not gonna say you're unique, but you're a distinct minority.
I mean, I'm having trouble thinking of a TV show that doesn't have sex at some point (at least off-screen), and I like watching TV shows with people...so the idea that non-explicit sex in a roleplaying game would be weird or inappropriate just sorta boggles my mind.
So I don't see what role it would have at a table top role playing game either, except possibly for making children, waiting 20 game years and then roling up stats for them so they can go on adventures after my character reaches 20 level and has retired from adventuring.
Well, a lot of people get into RPGs at least partially for the same reason people get into theater, to get into their character's head and explore who they are as a person. To take on the role and persona of a character to at least some extent. I certainly consider that one of the main reasons I like playing RPGs.
If that's not your particular motivation for getting involved, that's fine...but it's hardly an uncommon or unique one, and if one is gonna explore who their character is, for many characters sex and romance and how they feel about those things are gonna be a pretty big deal and thus likely to come up.
I'd allow it personally, but the GM's call is also legitimate. Saying that you at least need to have encountered the Duergar and learned of the magic's existence from them before you can use it is totally reasonable.
For Strange Aeons, knowing that your character has amnesia, I'd ask the GM if it's okay to use the spell. Maybe your character has met Duergar.
From a game balance perspective, it's a perfectly fine spell. Yes, it gives a high AC bonus, but only 2 higher than Barkskin and with 1/10 the duration. That's a fairly balanced tradeoff. It's really nice for Clerics pretty much solely because they lack most other AC enhancers, not because it's an unbalancingly good one.
A Healing Patron Witch can do almost literally all the healing spells there are. This disadvantage is worth no points even on a macro level.
Other non-Divine classes with Healing include Alchemist, Investigator, Occultist, Medium, Spiritualist, and Bard. All of those are only 6-level casters, but that's still a wide range, y'know? And Witch is 9 levels and, with Healing Patron, has everything.
Now, a complete lack of synergy (basically, an Int penalty and Wis bonus on a race with this restriction) might be worth penalty points...but even then there's a Charisma Archetypes for Witch (though it can't have the Healing Patron), and I wouldn't say it's more than -1 or -2 points. But what this idea would result in is a race very few people play and those who do still complain about. It's un-fun and basically bad design to build something specifically to screw over people who take it in this manner. In short, even though it's mine, this idea is terrible and I would not recommend it.
I'm not exactly sure what a soul is, I assume by definition it is what gives a person a sense of self, a first-person point of view. I am not sure that a sufficiently complex Artificial Intelligence program doesn't have a soul.
Well, in Starfinder it's an actual thing you can look at or manipulate with magic, is the source of identity and personhood, and goes on to an afterlife when you die.
I agree that a complex AI can have as much of a soul as anyone else even in reality...but that's not a necessary discussion to have in regards to Starfinder Androids.
I've also really gotta agree with Spacecaptain Pillbug Lebowski, it sounds like you're just drawing from random sources for what androids are like in a specific one. And that's a terrible idea. What androids are like in different settings varies wildly and trying to say things about what they are like absent a specific setting is always doomed to failure.
I believe it is also stated that Androids are manufactured, not born, they begin their existence as adults. If for example an android looks like a woman, as was the case for Ava in Ex-Machina, Ava was not made to look like a woman to facilitate the production of other androids like herself, rather she was made to look like that, and to act like a woman with emotions so as to interact with a human test subject so she could pass a turing test. Androids were originally manufactured to look like men and women to serve the purposes of those who created them, not to reproduce, reproduction is done in a factory, which raises the interesting question of how a factory that produces free willed androids with souls make money from this? The usual reason to produce a robot is to get work done after all.
They were reverse-engineered rather than being an independent creation. I'm not sure why the original Androffan androids were created but those created in what later became the Pact Worlds were made as self-aware and self-willed because they didn't know how to make an equally adaptable and sophisticated AI that wasn't (or not as cheaply anyway).
They were indeed intended as a slave species, at least in many cases, but being self-aware is not barrier to that if you lack morals. I mean, look at the Replicants in Blade Runner, those are also a sapient slave species (and also morally problematic at best).
Once the androids rebelled, who pays for the manufacture of further androids? Androids can't give birth, they don't have children, there is no reason to have an android child.
Well, this is an interesting sociological point, but I'd imagine many such factories are now android owned and will make you a new android if you want to be a 'parent' or something like one.
Others might be corporate owned and produce androids when it is economically useful. One need not be a slave to have one's very existence put money into a corporation's pocket, especially somewhere relatively isolated.
Others might be owned by a particular Church and provide android creation services as a religious duty of one sort or another (Pharasma and Triune both seem like they'd be inclined this way).
Others might be government owned and produce androids in varying rates to keep the population stable or growing depending on prevailing trends and circumstances. This is actually super useful in, say, recovering sufficient work force strength after a war or plague.
And that's all just off the top of my head.
As for why have them...the urge to procreate is hardly entirely biological. Especially if you can skip a lot of the messy 'baby' phase.
Children start off small so they can fit in their mother's womb. Well androids don't have parents, they don't start out as infants and they don't grow. It they take damage, they need to be repaired.
This is all true except the last bit. Androids are largely made of artificial flesh rather than something like steel (think the ones in the Alien franchise for physical features...at least for most of them), and have nanites to help repair them as well. They heal fine.
You keep coming back to reproduction. Which is not really related to how gender as a term is actually defined in the dictionary (which I linked last time). The examples you list don't have gender because they're inanimate...but if they become animate it's a different story.
If a sapient being believes and says they are female (or any other gender) then that's their gender. That's all that's necessary for them to have a gender, they just need to claim it. Also, many androids appear fully humanoid and female (or male, or whatever) and are capable of doing everything female (or male, or whatever) humans do with the sole exception of reproduction (they can even have sex)...but that's a very secondary point. A male-looking robot without genitalia that feels they are female and claims that gender identity would also be female.
I just don't see how that could be used in a role playing game to create drama or tension. I think it could be used as part of a disguise I suppose.
Not every game mechanic needs to fill this role. Many are simply used to flesh out the world and reflect the kind of readily available things that are in it. This one is to make it clear that people in this setting have ready access to sex-shifting, which is an interesting and important setting detail, and one that should indeed have a specific price attached.
Seems like Polymorph is not in the spell list, a polymorph spell allows one to change form from one creature to another, there is nothing in that spell description that says the other form could not be a different gender. Also in Pathfinder, the Polymorph Other Spell was changed to Baleful Polymorph, where the spell only allows the caster to turn the subject into uninteresting mundane creatures, whereas earlier editions of D&D had Polymorph Other spells that could do much more. In 2nd edition for example a wizard Could cast Polymorph Self on himself to change his form and he could use Polymorph Other on one of his fellow adventurers to turn him into something useful to the party, like a dragon for instance, they got rid of that, and now its only frogs and mice, and other small and tiny creatures, how boring!
Uh...Polymorph lets you transform other people on its own in Pathfinder. No need for a separate spell to do that.
Baleful Polymorph is just an entirely separate spell for turning your enemies into toads (a fantasy staple that Polymorph doesn't really achieve very well).
And you can still turn yourself or another into a dragon, they just moved it to a different spell to make things a little more mechanically balanced.
Probably the totem warrior barbarian. It does literally nothing.
Doing literally nothing is a significant step up over many of the actual worst archetypes.
I really don't know what the worst one is, but Brute is pretty bad, as are almost all the Paladin Archetypes that lose Divine Grace (an exception can be made for Tortured Crusader, Grey Paladin, and Vindictive Bastard), and especially Sleuth for Investigator and most other archetypes that lose casting (especially on 6 level casters or better).
Well, I see that I was universally misunderstood. I feel that there is a wide variety of causes that can call for civil discussion of whether it's healthy to let someone go, and obviously the Shifter fiasco is on the "not that big a deal" side of the spectrum. I also have never called for any firings, but I can certainly understand those who do.
You were not misunderstood (at least not by most people responding to your statement). Nobody (or not most people anyway) thought you were actually saying that creating the Shifter was morally equivalent to sexual assault. We just found you making the comparison between the two situations at all to be deeply inappropriate and tasteless.
Bringing up serious and traumatic incidents that hurt real people in a discussion about whether a class in an RPG could've been written better is just beyond inappropriate.
Plenty of people have over time suggested after various setbacks at least as far back as the ACG that people not buy or subscribe to Paizo products until they correct their course. Taken far enough, that's a call for multiple layoffs or the folding of the company. Less personally offensive, perhaps, but even more painful.
Sure, people have been calling for that, though it doesn't seem to be happening. Don't underestimate how much of a difference being personally offensive is, though. Being personally offensive in this context is a big deal and seriously not cool.
In any case, I did not intend to offend. The Shifter is not an act of criminality or moral turpitude. It is arguably one of questionable competence at one's job function, however, and potentially one that harmed the company. I only intended to point out that those are firing offenses plenty of places, and a discussion of that is not uncivil.
As I said earlier, I can see where you're coming from in regards to people being fired for making a product poorly or in a way the customer base does not enjoy.
But that doesn't mean the way it's been done in this thread (which has mostly just been entitled as s@@*, with an attitude of "I don't like this so the people responsible should be fired!" rather than any reasoned critique or analysis) is appropriate. Or useful.
And, more importantly, it hardly excuses the awful comparison you made. Which, to reiterate, was offensive on multiple levels to a wide variety of people and you haven't actually apologized for. Indeed, you just blamed people for misunderstanding you rather than accepting that you shouldn't have made the statement in the first place.
I treat my players like people, mostly. People who I know and whose individual quirks and preferences I can thus work with.
In terms of 'powergamers'...I try and keep the game balanced. This involves banning certain broken mechanical options (for everyone, not just certain people) and helping people with less optimization experience make mechanically effective characters (doable with just about any concept).
That's really all that's necessary. Very few people who 'powergame' actually care if all the other PCs are equally optimal (the few who do are probably a#@%~*#s), and so if you help less experienced players make characters in the same ballpark of power as the 'powergamer' everyone gets to be happy. I'm all for everyone being happy.
Players who throw tantrums, try and hog the spotlight, or refuse to roleplay are an unrelated problem to mechanical optimization and are not asked to return to the game (not that this has been a common occurrence...I'm not sure it's ever happened in one of my games, actually).
If they look like a human male or female and behave that way due to their programming, that is not actually their gender, as it has nothing to do with procreation. If they look like a human male or female, then their purpose is obviously to interact with real human males of females.
Nope. That's not how gender is defined at all. Look at this for example, by definition 2B Androids can absolutely have a gender.
Also, androids aren't programmed. That's really not how that works.
I wouldn't feel sorry for an android being discriminated against. androids would in many ways be superior to human beings, and that often makes them kind of scary in a science fiction setting. You ever read Asimov's I Robot Novels? Robots are discriminated against there, but they don't care, the obey the three laws of Robotics. One of the reasons they are built that way is because of Robophobia. People are afraid of the Robots taking over to put it bluntly.
The fact that people are scared of a group does not make it okay to discriminate against that group. Not even if that group actually has dangerous capabilities. I mean, on average, military veterans are more dangerous than many other groups but discriminating against them remains morally unacceptable.
Also, androids in Starfinder have souls, free will, and even emotions (the latter a bit less intense than humans but hardly nonexistent), as well as lacking programming in any meaningful sense. So they're not in any way equivalent to Asimov's robots.
Firstly, spoilers man.
Secondly, that behavior (ie: faking an emotional connection to escape slavery) sounds totally reasonable and not uncommon at all for a human in that situation, so I'm not sure what point you're getting at.
Thirdly, even if this was exclusively robotic behavior, this has nothing to do with androids in Starfinder who, as noted, have emotions, free will, and souls.
Would gender exist if not for our method of reproduction?
Gender definitely has an intimate relationship to the way our species procreates, sure. But lets look at the science regarding transgender people: they have a brain structure a lot more like their gender identity than like their assigned sex (ie: transwomen's brains are much more similar to those of ciswomen than those of cismen). We suspect that this has to do with hormonal effects in the womb (though we aren't positive).
Why would you assume there wouldn't be similar hormonal effects (or some other effect with similar repercussions) leading to similar brain structure difference, behavior patterns, and gender dysphoria in another species simply because their particular reproductive method involves a slightly different way of getting sperm to the egg?
Could another species not have transgender people? I guess theoretically, but given how messy biology is I'd be surprised if the species never had anomalous sets of hormonal signals sent while developing.
And that's not even getting into the aspects of gender that are culturally determined rather than biologically (which there are a whole lot of).
Androids don't have gender, they get manufactured, that is their method of reproduction.
Actually, many androids do have gender, so this example has a problem...
There's nothing uncivil about advocating (not demanding) that an employee who shamed and embarrassed a company be let go to demonstrate a commitment to better values (e.g. Weintsteingate) or work product (Shiftergate) going forward.
There's a huge difference between advocating someone be fired for something horribly immoral and, indeed, illegal and advocating for them to be fired because their creative direction is not one you like.
This is not necessarily to say that saying someone should be fired for a creative direction you dislike is never warranted (I've advocated exactly this in regards to Zack Snyder for the DC Movies), but this particular comparison is messed the hell up.
Also, and unrelatedly, I don't think an isolated incident like Shifter is remotely sufficient ground for advocating a firing, but that's extraordinarily secondary to how messed up that comparison is.
Barbarossa Rotbart wrote:
This assumes that the society won't be able to pick the biological sex of their children (and always uses the biological material of the two parents in question). Given the level of technology, neither seems a safe assumption.
If the technology allows for picking the sex of the child, then the society's own preconceptions and culture will have a lot more to do with the child's sex than the probabilities in isolation (and could easily result in all sorts of specific weirdness).
It also weirdly assumes all people in the society will be gay, and that it will be a mixed gender society. Those two assumptions together strike me as really unlikely.
This assumes that the method one uses to have sex/reproduce is all there is to gender. Which is pretty self-evidently untrue given that some transgender people never undergo sex reassignment surgery nor want to and still engage in sexual or reproductive acts in a way that is more common among cisgender people of their biological sex. This isn't universal, but it doesn't have to be to disprove this statement.
There are transmen who've (quite intentionally) gotten pregnant, for example. And I'm sure at least some transwomen who've, biologically speaking, sired a child (though the pregnant transmen get more press).
This is similarly untrue for genderqueer people for more or less the same reasons. How someone has sex or engages in reproduction is far from the sum total of their gender identity and expression.
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
Inquisitor: hum, all these guys have pretty high ACs, don't they. And it gets worse with Shield of Faith. Fine against the ogres, everone but the antipaladin PC will struggle to hit them. The PC monk does grapple so that's a thing.
Yeah...that just sort of happened. I worked a little on it for the Monk but the others it just sorta happened.
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
-- Withering gaze + Intimidate check is a nice mass debuff, though it burns a standard.
I think he can only do one person at a time, though there might easily be a rule I'm missing.
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
-- Pride and Penance vs. the slumber hex is nice: a DC 14 hex has a flat 50-50 chance of taking out one ogre, but he'd be very reluctant to use it.
He can actually cheat a little on this. Since his Domain ability only kicks in when initiative rolls, he can thereafter Hex without suffering as much (though he does still lose cunning mind).
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
-- Potions and wands of CLWs set up an interesting dynamic if Team Good wins (which they should): they'll promptly start curing each other. So the PCs will have to move fast...
Yup. It's also good, non-unbalancing, loot if the PCs defeat them.
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
Fighter: bravery feats, if these guys recur something has gone very wrong. But that's okay; as noted, I don't need them to be optimized. Why should J. Random Party of Adventurers have feats that are relevant to this particular fight?
They're okay Feats even in a single encounter, just not optimal ones. Plus they're fun. :)
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
This is super helpful. Thank you!
You're quite welcome. I'm always happy to be of assistance. :)
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
Thoughts on the alchemist. (TBC, I'm not asking for changes here. Can manage that myself -- you've given me a great starting point. Just thinking out loud.)
Glad to be of assistance. :)
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
-- Whoa, I'd forgotten about the defensive training vs. giants. That goes to CMD, right? So he'll be CMB 17, or 19 with a Dex mutagen. That ogre grapple attempt (+9) won't necessarily be an autosuccess.
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
-- Dang, AC 25. Not easy for a bunch of 1st level PCs to overcome!
Nope. Though it only lasts a minute so they can wait him out if they play it smart.
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
-- Huh, "offense" doesn't include bombs? I'm getting 2d6+3 bomb damage, and the acid bombs do another d6 one round later.
It's listed under attacks, and yeah it's 2d6+3 if Point Blank Shot applies (something I didn't assume on any attacks, so with Dex Mutagen and PBS his to-hit is +8 on ranged attacks and all get +1 damage).
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
-- Is he a Grenadier archetype, then?
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
-- Bomber's Eye is a rounds/level buff; he'd have to prepare it just one round in advance. Okay. Not sure about Expeditious Retreat, because it raises the possibility of him escaping.
Feel free to change his choices on Extracts, they were somewhat arbitrary beyond Shield.
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
-- Gear is fine except the bag of holding -- they have a mule, and there's a BoH elsewhere in the adventure.
He has weight limits on his alchemical weapons. If willing to cut down on those for more potions (or whatever else...maybe have him buy the mule), he could easily have a Cloak of Resistance +1 instead of the Bag.
Okay, modified Inquisitor. If the deity is NG as the Domains indicate, I think he needs to be N rather than LN. Either way the mechanics don't change at all.
This version is more of an offensive caster, though with Divine Favor he can still hold his own in a fight.
Naseby CR 2
Human Inquisitor (Hexenhammer) 3
N Medium Humanoid
Init +0; Senses Perception +9
SPELLS (Concentration +5)
And finally the Fighter. He's not optimal but the Bravery Feats are actually helpful and will get much better as his Bravery goes up (if these people recur):
Sir Villiers the Valiant CR 2
Human Fighter 3
NG Medium Humanoid
Init +2; Senses Perception +0
So yeah, that should all be about right.
And, for the record, if buffed with Mutagen and Shield the Gnome almost doesn't need a position to bomb from, since his AC is 29(!) vs. Ogres specifically.
Okay, here's the Gnome Alchemist, his stats are sans buffs on the assumption he might go with different ones at different times. His AC is 25(!) with Shield and Mutagen, but that's not exactly optimization, it just happens on alchemists.
Sprangleway CR 2
Gnome Alchemist (Grenadier) 3
NG Small Humanoid
Init +2; Senses Perception +5, Low Light Vision,
SPELLS (CL 3, Concentration +5)
SPELL-LIKE ABILITIES (CL 3, Concentration +4)
Also, just for clarity, here's the revised Monk (remember, this includes Mage Armor):
Rising Sun Drives Out Shadow CR 2
Human Unchained Monk 3
LG Medium Humanoid
Init +3; Senses Perception +8
Inquisitor and Fighter next.
Cool. I'll revamp some stuff and get that ready to go. The Unchained Monk above probably works fine for Rising Sun Drives Out Shadow with an alignment change alone (and maybe moving a rank from Sense Motive to Stealth).
What's the Inquisitor's deity's Favored Weapon (since that matters a fair bit)?
The others will take a bit but not all that long.
Here's the Inquisitor and face of this party. Casts Shield of Faith and then fights (will also cast Divine Favor and Magic Weapon if given time, stats not included). Moves to flank with the monk and smash faces thereafter (using judgment as a swift action, obviously).
SPELLS (Concentration +5)
And here's an Archer Fighter (who is so simple as to need no real explanation). Melee Inquisitor and Bomber Alchemist to follow.
Here's an Unchained Monk. Probably a former pirate. Usually uses a Potion of Mage Armor before a serious fight, then uses their ability to inflict bleed damage to mess with people. Pretty straightforward. Can use their slippers to spider climb around in combat, which is fun.
There's absolutely no incompatibility between the audience knowing a character is somewhere on the LGBT spectrum and normalizing being LGBT. The idea that these are mutually contradictory is laughable.
Have some particular examples shoehorned things in? Probably. Is it inherent in having strong LGBT representation? No.
I've seen a number of shows, read a number of books, and watched a number of movies where one or more characters were gay (or bisexual, or whatever) and they never brought it up any more than they bring up a a character being straight. But, when you think about it, you'd be surprised at how often being straight is brought up.
Most of these examples just have the character, y'know, have a love interest. Or run into an ex. Or otherwise have someone they've been interested in at some point (or are currently) come up. This is bog standard stuff for straight characters, the only reason it'd jump out when they're not straight (and it does jump out, even to me) is that our media culture currently doesn't really view being anything other than straight as normal, and so it's surprising when it's shown (and sometimes goes into tokenism, stereotypes, and 'very special episodes').
Indeed, I've never been remotely surprised when someone I actually knew mentioned not being straight (and this has happened to me around a dozen times)...and yet still am sometimes when it comes up in media, simply because that happening in media not specifically targeted at LGBT people remains a relative rarity.
Despite that, I can think of several TV shows that do that off the top of my head, and many are fine shows (though not all, since having LGBT characters doesn't inherently make your show good).
Now, one of the issues (though by no means the only one) with transgender representation is that it is legitimately harder to bring up casually and in passing, but it's far from impossible, and a lot of other queer representation doesn't suffer those difficulties at all.
I would like to see Lymnieris, mainly because his portfolio is so weird (LG angel of prostitution AND virginity? That's almost as weird as Wastri from that other game.)
Off Topic, but Lymnieris makes a lot of sense once you realize his domain of interest is basically the sanctity of consent. He's all about people being allowed to make their own choices in regards to their sexual practices and defends absolutely their right to do so.
Back on topic, I'd like to see Zohls. She's cool. Plus, an Empyreal Lord with really high Int would be good to see, and I think the Sherlock Holmes of Empyreal Lords would be interesting mechanically (hopefully with Inspiration and Studied Combat ala an Investigator).
If it had a flat bonus to hit that compensated? It'd still matter for Power Attack (which does indeed matter), but not a lot other than that, no.
A 1/2 BAB Shifter that got to add +7 to hit and +6 to damage from class features would indeed play about the same. But that +7 to hit and +6 damage do indeed matter.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
This sort of stuff goes on with classes like Warpriest, Magus, Shaman, Hunter, Oracle...you get the idea. The fact of the matter is that Full BAB is not such a defining feature that it should be compensated with the gimping of the class' other features as a result.
What part of 'not sufficient' was unclear? I'm not arguing Shifter has sufficient advantages as compared to, say, Inquisitor or that what they lose for Full BAB is worth the gain...I'm saying that both full BAB and their stat ups are meaningful and useful class features and saying they aren't is silly and counterproductive.
They just aren't meaningful and useful enough to actually either make then Class especially fun or on par with any casters.
Haywire build generator wrote:
Since Inquisitors get significant extra damage per attack from Bane, wouldn't they do well with the "many originally weak attacks" natural attack builds have a tendency to be? I guess the difficulty is in actually getting the attacks, but since so many options all give claws it shouldn't be too hard to get a full set.
The best option for this is Ragebred Skinwalker. Unfortunately, Bane specifies a single weapon, which limits a natural attack Inquisitor significantly.
I'm fairly certain you have a high degree of system mastery. You go through the forms and figure out which one offers the most natural attacks and then you seek out a magic item to captilize in the natural attack ability. At this stage of the Pathfinder cycle most people are system savvy enough to look things up in the same way you where probably aware of the helm.
I'm not sure of that at all. Of the people I'm currently running a game for (a group of 6) I think two would do so as quickly as I and a third would find it eventually. The other three would likely not find it.
High levels of systems mastery are nowhere near universal.
The Full BAB chasis is close to meaningless and it's enhancement bonus is a bad joke.
Actually, no to both. Full BAB is +5 to hit over 20 levels, the same as most really good accuracy enhancing class features, and Enhancement Bonuses save you something on the order of 192,000 GP by high levels (the difference between a +6 Belt of Physical Perfection and a +6 Belt of Strength).
They aren't sufficient but they are neither meaningless, nor a joke.
Slayer can grab the Ranger Combat Style. Warpriests get Feral Champion in UW itself. I'm not thinking of anything for Inquisitor.
At level 11 a moonlight Oracle can have beast shape 3 for 11 hours a day, beast shape 4 at level 13. As a swift action they have an ability that lets them get an extra 2 natural attacks, claw, bite or gore so they can seek out more optimal forms than the shifter, they can also get an animal companion, charisma to ac and reflex saves instead of dex. This does not even include the spellcasting.
All true. Of course, this takes quite a while to get going.
How many of these do you think beat the shifter at it's own game?
With a high level of optimization and high character level? All of them except Slayer and Ranger (who lack Pounce).
Of course, all of those but Barbarian are casters and will thus be better than a Fighter, Slayer, or almost any other martial as well. Caster/Martial disparity is a thing and one Shifters fall on the Martial side of. So...that statement doesn't mean a lot (except in regards to Barbarian, and even there Barbarians are one of the best Martials out there).
There's a reason I've been consistently comparing them to Fighters, and that's because both are fairly straightforward martial characters. The further you depart from 'straightforward martial character' the more Shifter is gonna be screwed comparatively...but that's not actually anything to do with Shifter for the most part. Fighter is in the same situation (maybe to a slightly lesser degree, but not all that much). As are most other non-casters.
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
I mean you could just do the leadership thing and get a load of buddies doing a similar thing.
At 20th? Leadership gets you one person who can do the spell at all. And she's gonna make the Save a fair portion of the time (the above build loses 10 Save DC by not being Mythic, so she saves on a 5...possibly less if she has any item that boosts saves).
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
I’m avoiding the Dazing thing because RAW I think she can 5ft step and stealth through Daze. Although I think not RAI.
I'm still not buying that, for the record.
That's pretty much what I got from looking at it. Take the touch AC attack and you just have to worry about resist: AC shouldn't be an issue.
Yeah, your damage is mediocre, but it is on a touch attack, and you get some neat utility effects (at-will grease at 2nd level, for example), and for Cold immune stuff you're a mediocre but (with Weapon Finesse and Agile AoMF) not terrible melee combatant.
And your defenses are pretty absurd.
Depends on how pedantic your GM is. Nothing prevents someone from making blunt silver or cold iron weapons, so there's absolutely zero logical reason not to allow them on blunt arrows, since that's an easy thing to make (a blunt metal tip is not a hard thing to add in place of an arrowhead).
Someone who cares more about very strict rules readings than logic may feel differently, of course. On the other hand, it's not a big deal mechanically, since you can just have cold iron, blunt, and silver arrows all available separately.
Clustered Shots would make a good 9th level feat, helps with DR.
I could never give up Manyshot as a 9th level option, and would thus wait until 11th for Clustered Shots. YMMV depending on the prevalence of DR you can't get through (remember, Bless Weapon Oils are cheap, as are Cold Iron and Blunted Silvered Arrows).
She's not immune to poison, so it works in theory.
Of course it better be non-magical Raid in a large area with a high Save DC, and even then she can succeed at one Save with Moment of Prescience and then leave the area.
So it tends to fail in practice.
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
That's a Mythic build. A fair number of Mythic builds can absolutely take her, and frankly nobody is arguing otherwise.
A non-mythic example does a lot less well.
But yeah, instantaneous conjuration acid attacks are also a valid strategy. Though I will note that it won't actually last three rounds, since she can Greater Dispel Magic it away (an explicit option in Caustic Eruption).
Of course, the gnome also has methods for boosting his bluff. A move action pageant of the peacock, for instance, gives him an immediate +4 bonus.
Oh, absolutely. I'm just noting her making one check as possible, not at all likely.
She needs to do a little more than just be in melee to lock the gnome down, IMO. I'm not sure how possible it is if she doesn't take him out (or nearly take him out) in a round, actually.
And anyway, him being within 10 feet of her is a pretty big reveal on her possible locations.
That said, her melee DPR on the gnome shown is definitely high enough to take him out in a round in an AMF (especially if you switch him out to Antipaladin...why else would they be fighting?), so if she knows to target him and manages an ambush (possible but not assured) she can stop the Koan that way...but then, we knew that already about any ability that can take her out.
Actually...she can Moment of Prescience and maybe survive the Koan the first round (likelihood is around 14%...higher if she has a few items to raise Sense Motive, a very real possibility with her unspent wealth...a +5 gets her to a 30% chance, higher bonuses make it better), so this is a very real theoretical possibility if that scenario unfolds. Not a high likelihood one absent items, though.
Wouldn't Bewildering Koan be stopped by Silence Between? Don't you need to actually ask a question for it to work?
Black Butterfly has Truespeech and thus understands all forms of sign language. The Gnome would need to speak at least one such form, but that's hardly difficult at 20th level.
So it works if the Gnome is sufficiently prepped (and, in fairness, a Bewildering Koan build is gonna have 20 ranks in Linguistics, so that's not super unlikely).
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Better question: How is anyone going to FIND her? Constant Mind Blank and an ill defined domain makes the thing basically impossible to locate, let alone ambush. Near as I can tell anyway, there's no satisfactory way for a PC party to even get to step 1 (get in same room as target) of the fight barring blind luck, artifact screwiness, or your GM just shrugging his shoulders and letting it happen.
Or them setting up and waiting for her somewhere they know she's gonna be based on mundane investigative methods.
Or invading the place she's currently hanging out, either with advance knowledge she's there, or more likely no such knowledge at all (the latter is an awful thing to do to your players as a GM and may result in a TPK...it is also hilarious).
It's doable in theory...but not easy at all. And, like I said, she's very likely to be expecting trouble and have AMF up in any situation where the PCs might run into her.
Black Butterfly can spend 13 hours a day, of the 16 she's active, in AMF. Meaning you have a less than 3 hour window per day where she's vulnerable to magical attack.
It's 14 hours, actually...but if she doesn't keep one use in reserve she's being silly (and going against her Wis 30). That drops it to 9 hours, 20 minutes of constant AMF a day. Given that there are 24 hours in a day and nothing preventing attacking her in her downtime, that's only a bit more than 1/3 of the time.
It's certainly gonna be on any time she's remotely expecting trouble, though. Which is where all my questions on how people expect to ambush her come in.
EDIT: Oh, on another subject, she can shut down Bewildering Koan, though it hurts to do and requires her to have advance info. Ki is a (Su) ability and thus can't be used/spent in an AMF. If she can get right on top of the Monk and keep them from getting away until she's taken them out she can prevent this tactic. Note that this stops Ki from being spent, not stops the Koan (which is technically not Supernatural in and of itself and will thus work on people in an AMF the Gnome is outside of).
That necessitates sticking in melee and foregoing her usual hit and run stuff, though.
Personally, as a GM I might rule Bewildering Koan as Supernatural just because of the Ki thing, but that is not RAW.
Another option these days is to take any unrestricted Animal Companion class, get a flying mount, and add the Draconic Archetype to it.
A Roc actually gives you three natural attacks, a Large Size mount with Str 22+ at 7th, and a good fly speed, so a little re-flavoring nets you a solid draconic mount (or at least a pretty wyvern-looking bird).
For something even easier to flavor you could grab a Pteranodon or Quezacoatlus.
Yep, that drunken gnome philosopher I linked from the Beastmass a little ways back has a +85. Can't really do anything to a koaned Black Butterfly himself, but throw in a decent teammate and he's good to go.
That'd do it. Assuming she's alone (which we are for this exercise), anyway.
Eh, using moment of prescience on an initiative check is sketchy at best. It's an ability check, yes, but the spell only works on opposed ability checks, and the rules give us a pretty clear definition of when a check counts as opposed: when "the attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result of the target." That's not how initiative works, you don't "succeed" on your check whenever you get a higher result than someone. Initiative checks don't even have success or failure conditions, you just roll and then act in order from highest to lowest.
I'd personally allow it, but RAW you're probably right. That said, my primary argument has always been that it's really hard to wind up in a situation with Black Butterfly where she doesn't know you're coming before you know she is, which gives her a bit of time pre-initiative.
I feel like that point remains valid.
Potato disciple wrote:
-how do forms with "if you already have (insert sense type) x or more, increase it by y" interact with other forms (minor with respective major or evenother aspects entirely) that grant that form of vision?
By increasing it.
Potato disciple wrote:
-how does the stag's enhancement bonus to movement speed interact with other major forms' incrased base speed?
It adds to them.
Potato disciple wrote:
-the monkey major form states you can "still use your hands to wield weapons(...)". do your weapons grow with you or do they meld into your body regularly?
They'd meld. So you need to drop them on the ground prior to shifting, then pick them up.
Potato disciple wrote:
-with all wild shapes that give you a modified version of an existing animal, do you adjust ability scores and natural attacks acordingly or do you only adjust what is stated to be adjsted (e.g. "Your shape changes to that of a Tiny mouse (as per the dire rat, but with a space of 2-1/2 feet and a reach of 0 feet)")
You gain Size Bonuses (ie: Str, Dex, NA, etc. as stated under Beast Shape II) and what the Form states. Nothing else.
Potato disciple wrote:
-can you use feats that you get from various major forms to qualify for other feats?
I don't believe so, no.
Potato disciple wrote:
-how does the level 15 wolverine major form ability ("you are no longer fatigued at the end of your rage") react with furious finish ("If you do, your rage immediately ends, and you are fatigued (even if you would not normally be)")
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Why? 9143 has a better perception. A "see her even in Stealth" perception if we include a buff spell.
Sure...but what Stealth does he have? Because if you have a Stealth result of 20, Black Butterfly spots you at least 300 feat out (assuming she rolls a 1), while a Perception of +90 only spots Black Butterfly at 370 feet...and that's assuming you roll a 20 and she rolls a 1 (a 1/400 chance). He'd need a lot of raw Stealth to beat her out on this.
My point is that, absent a higher Stealth than I think he possesses, he'll absolutely spot her...but not until after she's spotted him. Which gives her a round of prep.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
I'll be honest, I'm not sure how 9143 gets anywhere. They're an Adept. They don't get Teleport or Plane Shift. They can use almost any scroll they need (up to CL 17) but the hows and whys of this combat are nonexistent. Mostly because, again, that's not what this thread is. This thread is about fighting Black Butterfly. Not reaching her, not what's in her lair, not a fully fleshed out anything. It's the equivalent of mashing two action figures together.
I'm aware of the point of the thread. My point is that assuming you start them both in equivalent situations where they actually have to approach each other, the odds of him getting the drop on her go way down. This is even more true of a PC group, since the odds of them all having good Stealth are low.
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.