|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Demisexual? Pardon but that's a new one for me.
Definition and description found here.
And don't worry about not having heard of it, it's a tricky thing to notice given that, from the outside it's often indistinguishable from someone who's just shy about relationships or not interested in casual sex or relationships.
Joynt Jezebel wrote:
That makes you very atypical for a heterosexual man. Less so for heterosexual women.
I'm aware. :)
That said, I'm not sure what I feel is precisely the same as what those women feel. I think that most people of both genders, even those who prefer a committed relationship, are capable of being attracted to at least some people they see for the first time, even if doing something about it never occurs to them.
That doesn't happen to me. I can acknowledge someone as objectively attractive, but before I know them? Not even the faintest spark of actual attraction.
Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
I think (if I'm not mistaken) he's identified himself as demisexual, which part of the asexual spectrum.
That's correct. I do also accept being called heterosexual, though...I feel it's close enough for government work in my case.
That doesn't really fit. Demisexual, as I understand it, means that one only finds individuals of whichever gender is appropriate to that person sexually attractive after a pronounced period of acquaintanceship. If that sounds confusing it might help to think of it as being mostly asexual with the exception of those who the individual has known for some time. It can even be used as a modifier of the more common romantic and sexual orientations such as demihomosexual, demibiromantic, and so forth.
That's more or less accurate as I understand it as well, and the best lead-up I'm gonna get to mention a particular thing about myself. :)
Previously, both elsewhere on these boards and in this thread, I've referred to myself as straight. That's both true and misleading. I am a man, and I am attracted exclusively to women...but I'm also only attracted to women I both know and like as people quite a bit (as well as finding physically attractive). Which makes me demisexual (I suppose demiheterosexual if you want to be specific). I've been aware of this for a while (a year or two, I believe), and have mentioned it to just about everyone in my real life, but the time never seemed quite right to mention it online.
So...yeah, there's that.
I think Investigators would be MUCH rarer and more balanced a class if DM's and players gamed them the way they were designed to be roleplayed instead of ignoring or just giving a cursory nod to what should be his/her PRIMARY focus.
This doesn't actually make any sense. An Inquisitor of Pharasma has no reason not to be part of a PC group in an anti-undead campaign. Being part of the group is, definitionally, doing their job.
Ditto Inquisitors of an Good deity you'd care to name in something like Wrath of the Righteous. Or Inquisitors of Erastil in any rural 'bandit and monster hunting' game. Or Inquisitors of Desna or Cayden Cailean in a revolutionary group. Or Inquisitors of Gorum in any game at all (since they just wanna fight). Frankly, Inquisitors of some deity probably have a vested interest in any campaign you'd care to imagine.
And that's ignoring the fact that Inquisitors are people. You think, say, a LG Inquisitor of Erastil is gonna desert, say, their little brother (another PC) while they're in danger? Or other Inquisitors inherently ignore the fact that they have human connections with other PCs?
Being an Inquisitor is a calling, certainly, but it's not any more of one than being a Cleric, and they're certainly allowed to have personal lives and loves, and to go and do things that aren't specifically missions for their God.
What's wrong with roleplaying a dominatrix? People are more than the sum of their profession and sexual preferences. Such a character is very possible even in a more serious game.
Add that this is clearly a joke character, and, well your objection is pretty much completely invalid.
You're being fairly disrespectful anyway. Would you assume that a character whose profession was thief would try to steal the king's pants while talking to them or similar ridiculousness? Because that's what you're assuming: That a particular profession defines someone so totally they can't do or think anything outside it. Which is b&$+&~#+.
Also, the name makes me think that what you're going for is a medieval furry-pornstar. With all respects, keep your sexual preferences and fantasies out of the game (this is applies to everybody).
Wow. That's seriously judgmental in a 'You're having badwrongfun!' sorta way. Stop dictating what play styles are okay for other people.
Yes, definitionally, playing a character named 'Fuzzy Love' is both sexualized and ridiculous...but that's fine if the game isn't being taken entirely seriously.
Have you really never played a light-hearted 'beer and pretzels' kind of game where jokes like this (or poop jokes) are appropriate? Because they're not exactly uncommon...
I am experiencing deja vu regarding the labels discussion.
To reiterate my opinion on this issue from three years ago:
Gun Dragon wrote:
I havent looked up the primal companion but i was thinking of taking the aasimar race and take the celestial companion feat?
Tiger's still best if you do that. Pounce is hard to beat as advantages go.
Primal Companion would let you give the Ankylosaurus extra attacks and Pounce making the advantages it possesses come into focus.
Four of the six PCs in my game (all the melee characters) just grabbed Outflank.
Two of them grabbed it because one's a TWF guy with Butterfly Sting and the other a Magus with a light pick and they're built as a team anyway. The other two melee characters followed suit to get in on the action, because when two people already have it, it's pretty much worth it.
So people use them if making teamwork oriented builds, or fighting alongside those who already have them.
Yeah, the Lord is not actually doing anything Evil that you know of. His Alignment might be Evil, but the evidence seems against it at the moment.
Killing him is thus pretty clearly wrong, and not the proper attitude for a Paladin to take.
Watching him closely for signs of Evil on the other hand seems only prudent.
I agree with your conclusion, but would like to make two pedantic notes.
One, vampires can absolutely be Neutral, there are a few official examples. So...the Paladin might be suspicious, but don't assume the vampire has to be Evil.
Two, Law actually isn't as important to Paladins as Good. They fall only for Evil acts, not Chaotic ones, and have detect and Smite Evil, not Chaos. Doesn't change what the Paladin should do in this case (since protecting people from bandits is Good as well as Lawful), but seems relevant.
You can take the Eldritch Heritage Feat line for Bloodlines you don't have, so doing that with Arcane Bloodline would work. It's two Feats rather than one, but the familiar will level with you, and it opens up the ability to grab some other Arcane Bloodline goodies.
Aberrant Bloodline Sorcerers can also get a Tumor Familiar, but that doesn't help someone with Draconic.
Awesome! That sounds like a lot of fun, actually. :)
I really need to get up to date on that thread...
Yeah, that'll work if you want to go that route. Personally, I'd just stick with Inquisitor. A Full Attack with all your buffs will generally be quite a bit better than a Channel Energy usage in most cases anyway.
David knott 242 wrote:
Well -- let's take a wizard with slightly above average charisma. The bardic knowledge bonus is great for this character, and even the bardic performance feature is a decent feature. If I could stop there, the Bard VMC would be a no-brainer for this character. But then we get to Versatile Performance -- and that feature doesn't look so good.
Yeah it does. It still gives two skills for the price of one. It's not really super, but there are few Wizards with decent Cha who won't get any use out of it, after all they get to be pretty good at two social skills at discount prices.
David knott 242 wrote:
So whether any of the Bard VMD features are "amazing" depends on the character in question. An intelligence based character would find bardic knowledge "amazing" and be gradually less impressed with each feature that follows. A charisma based character, on the other hand, would see this VMC as starting out weak and gradually improving.
I agree in general, that some are certainly better than others for some characters, but frankly, by 11th, Bardic Performance is worth at least two Feats by itself, making Versatile Performance almost superfluous.
I'd probably stick with Inquisitor, those are very good at murdering just about anything, especially once you acquire Bane at 5th level. And I can't think of anything with good stat synergy that'll make it better.
That said, Antipaladins are where it's at for angel murder. Smite Good + Ridiculous Saves + Conductive Weapon and Touch of Corruption make for a very high level of capability in this specific field.
If you have a low CHA you effectively lose the difference between your CHA mod and the other skill's ability mod in skill points. It also effectively lowers your skill point cap, which may or may not be relevant.
Eh. With low Charisma you can always go Comedy or Acting or something that's already two Cha skills.
It's not ideal, but you should've known that going into Bard VMC with low Cha.
Actually the best deep cover agent would.
Desna almost started a potentially universe-destroying war over a Demon Lord possessing her high priestess and stealing their soul. She stormed into the abyss, annihilated the Demon Lord in question, and walked back out with her worshiper's soul.
Assuming she's a deep cover agent, if her goal was to start such a war, she'd have done other, similar, things, and if her goal was anything else, she wouldn't have done so. So she pretty much has to really care.
It's like a deep cover agent almost martyring themselves (with, like, a 90% chance of martyrdom) to save the guy they're spying on's life, and it means you're effectively not a deep cover agent any more. you may have been once, but deep cover agents who risk everything to do what their cover identity would do have gone pretty much completely native.
Now if you want to speculate that something like that is Desna's origin...that's a bit more plausible, but whether that's true or not, she pretty clearly actually cares now.
Blackpowder Witch wrote:
Yeah, she pretty explicitly focuses on them as adversaries. For whatever reason.
Blackpowder Witch wrote:
I'm putting on Tinfoil hat from Occult Adventures early can calling Desna and Black Butterfly are playing the long game. This is all a conspiracy to lull the mortals into a false sense of security till they can implant everybody with brain slugs.
Nah. Desna legitimately cares about her worshipers (maybe too much, what with almost starting the largest war ever over harm to one of them). You can pretty easily make a tinfoil hat case that she was once part of the Dark Tapestry or a Great Old One, or even that she's currently a particularly friendly Great Old One...but a sinister agenda? Nah, not consistent with previous behavior at all. Not even the best deep cover agent would be willing to pull off her flaws as well as her virtues.
Not exactly, there's no evidence she's ever been anything but Good...but it's been explicitly stated that she predates humanity as such and her original form isn't remotely human (the term 'giant space butterfly' has come up).
So...thematically, yeah, she's one of those 'prehuman alien entities' like the Great Old Ones, only friendly. There's no evidence she's actually related to them in any way other than thematically, though. Well, aside from her faith actively combating them, anyway.
This is mostly from the 'Ask James Jacobs' thread, but there are certainly quite a few hints in published material as well.
Nah, Stonelord's solid. You give up a lot of what makes a Paladin a Paladin, but get the equivalent of Barbarian Rage (as well as AC bonuses and DR on par with an Invulnerable Rager, though easier to get through) instead, and with built in Rage Cycling via Lay on Hands. You also lose Cha dependency almost entirely, which is handy for a dwarf.
It basically plays as an entirely different Class (and more like a Barbarian than a Paladin in many ways), but that doesn't inherently make it bad.
I'm interested in the nature of the role change between the two identities. I'd hope for the ability to gain bonuses to, say, social stuff in one and combat stuff in the other, for example. Or social bonuses in one identity and spell-casting in the other.
Speaking of which, I'd also like to see options for spellcasting and non-spellcasting versions of the Class that are actually pretty well balanced. Something that historically hasn't been Paizo's strong suit (I'm looking at you, Sleuth), but I hold out high hopes nonetheless.
David knott 242 wrote:
Versatile Performance is not so amazing if your original class neither requires charisma as your highest stat nor has Perform as a class skill.
Eh. The second of those is easy to get around. And the first is just bad planning: If you're gonna take a Bard VMC, you should have high Charisma to do it with.
That doesn't make it bad, it just means you need certain prerequisites to make it good. Y'know, like most stuff in Pathfinder.
Thing is, none of that is exclusive to Paladinhood. That's just being very Lawful Good. Cap has nothing else in common with Paladins.
Well, he's very charismatic and strong-willed, and indeed has the equivalent of very high Saves, and is certainly pretty much immune to fear. He's also notably more effective fighting truly evil foes, if only because then he doesn't hold back.
He does indeed lack healing powers or spells per se, but those are pretty much the only Paladin things he lacks...and he does heal unusually fast, which works thematically with Lay on Hands if he only takes, say, 4 levels of Paladin. Which is about what I'd peg him as having, for the record.
Milo v3 wrote:
Those rules are more what you might call 'guidelines'...
Hans Gruber's men, or any of the other henchmen in the Die Hard franchise, were just cardboard minions though, so it's not quite applicable in my opinion.
His safecracker and his right-hand man (the one whose brother John McClane kills first) are both significantly more than cardboard minions. They're not his equals, but they give him back talk and are fairly well realized characters for non-main characters in a movie.
In order to demonstrate how four evil PCs of equal standing can work together, you need a situation more analogous to that.
Here, you have a better point. That particular dynamic is rare in characters in media who could actually be considered evil. I can think of several 'villain' teams that have friendships and close relationships (the villains in Season 3 of Legend of Korra leap to mind), but they tend to not be 'Evil' per se. At least not in the 'work with fiends' sense.
All too often, villains in fiction are the boss and minions who will be killed if they don't obey the boss' orders. It's easy to make evil work together in a situation like that because they're afraid for their lives. That sort of dynamic doesn't work for a PC party, necessarily (or it'll be very complicated to make it work).
This is true in some cases, but frankly, not all that many. Fear doesn't inspire nearly as much loyalty as the possibility of gain, and that's borne out in most fiction. Again, for example, Hans Gruber's minions aren't scared he'll kill them, they think he'll make them rich.
That's a more sustainable dynamic for a party, though still perhaps not ideal. A combination of that and actual friendship is probably best.
There's definitely a certain amount of that in media, too. Look at large portions of most TV shows and movies where the protagonists are members of organized crime. There tends to quite a lot of legitimate loyalty among main characters in things like sons of Anarchy or Peaky Blinders. Yeah, something usually happens to break some of those bonds of loyalty in those shows...but that's not inherent to them existing, and usually requires one of them to betray another in some way...they're very loyal up until that point. And, frankly, the same often happens with non 'evil' characters in long-running shows (they're just a bit more likely to reconcile rather than kill each other). The real difference in many cases is simply that 'evil' characters are less forgiving of betrayal.
The 'secret', such as it is, is to just not be the guy who betrays anyone. If nobody does that, there's no need for the bonds of loyalty to break down, and party cohesion can remain really solid.
That build is way too focused on Dex, and lacks sufficient Con. The odd-numbered scores are also useless.
I'd go with something more like:
At 20 point-buy, anyway. With the stat points from being 12th, go +2 Dex, +1 Wis.
I'd also go Slayer 5/Sacred Fist 7. You get very little from Sacred Fist 8 (unless you're going all the way to 20th) while Slayer 5 ups Studied Target quite a bit.
I'd limit players to 6-level casting at most (so, Inquisitors or Bards would be allowed, but no Wizards or Clerics). There's no reason to make deals for power when you have access to Wish and it'll reinforce the 'magic is rare and powerful' dynamic.
I'd also use the Automatic Bonus Progression rules, so as to keep the math right while limiting items as you suggest.
I'd argue those last two groups aren't Evil-aligned.
But a fair selection of villain groups in movies and books have minimal friction as well. Not all, but I don't recall Hans Gruber's men in Die Hard turning on each other, just to list the first example that leaps to mind.
Frankly, it's not all that hard to avoid inter-PC friction in an Evil group. The trick is to remember that Evil characters are people. They usually have friends, and allies, and loved ones, and probably aren't notably more likely to attack or betray such people than a Neutral character is.
There've been more than that, given that he's a legacy hero and has been around for quite a while.
That said, the only one we've ever seen stats for, or are likely to see stats for in the future is
I was looking at the prd and the only entry I found for squirrel was this.
And I sorta assumed the stats for a squirrel would be about those of a flying squirrel. Apparently not.
Looking at those, I'd say the problem there is more with the squirrel stats than those of the cat, personally. Particularly given it's CR as compared to a cat's.
Uh...squirrels and cats both have identical to-hit and AC. So...the squirrel/cat thing? Doesn't actually work like that. If the squirrel is the attacker and uses hit and run tactics it breaks even...but that's all it does.
As for Commoner vs. House Cat, that age old battle misses a couple of important rules: Grappling and Reach.
A cat has CMD 6, even with a +0 CMB, a Commoner is really likely to make that, and then squeeze the cat into unconsciousness pretty quick. Can the cat escape? Sure, in theory, but it'll likely get recaptured before it can attack. Its odds of getting a full attack off before being re-grappled are 1 in 4.
Also, the cat provokes an AoO every time it moves to attack the human. That's not enough to win the fight, but it sure makes things worse for the cat (since one good hit and it's down).
Combine the two, and the cat's odds are less than great, especially if (as noted) most people are 2nd level or higher.
Now, can a cat still kill a human being? Sure. Especially with a coup de grace. But...that's accurate. Almost anything, if directed with malign will and knowledge of our vital spots can kill a human. Cats just aren't temperamentally inclined to do so.
For that matter, lynxes and bobcats in North America, which come in at 20 lbs or so, which is the high end of house cat weight, and are built along similar lines, routinely hunt deer. Successfully. That makes house cats killing us (from surprise anyway) pretty plausible if they were so inclined.
Earl Grey wrote:
And I fail to understand why fighters should be proficient with all the weapons from different cultures from all over the world.
They aren't. Exotic Weapons aren't on their list at all.
And before you call that a false comparison...a lot of the weapons on Opuk0's list are, indeed, Exotic.
John Kretzer wrote:
There's a pretty simple reason for this:
Being able to say to yourself "How difficult is this on a scale of 1 to 10?" is very useful. It lets you peg difficulties pretty intuitively, and do so on the fly.
The game really wanted to use a d20, and doing so is useful for a few reasons...specific effects for high numbers being sufficiently rare, for example, as well as the 'we're used to rolling d20s' factor.
If you want to both have difficulties rated 1-10 (and particularly to have some be impossible without difficulty reducers) and also to roll a d20, some multiplication is necessary.
And really, given that dividing/multiplying by 3, and adding and subtracting one digit numbers (and way fewer of them than, say, Pathfinder) are pretty much all the math the game has...it just doesn't seem like that big a deal.
That's more Charisma than you really need, and too many odd scores (which are, if you recall, useless in and of themselves).
I'd go with:
And might drop Wis to 9 and raise Dex or Int to 12.
Or (as I suggested above something lie a year ago) you could go Stonelord if you're going Paladin for flavor rather than mechanics, and could take significantly less Charisma in that case.
Eh, it's mediocre at 7th when you get it, but even there it's a valid party buff. At 9th, it goes to +2 and is very solid, and way better than a Feat. At 11th when it becomes a Move Action? It's amazing.
And then you get Versatile Performance, which is amazing (and easily worth a couple of Feats) if you're willing to retrain a little.
I'd still go with the level of Oracle rather than VMC for a Barbarian build. It lets you do some really neat stuff.
For example, I still dream of playing my Oracle of Lore 1/Barbarian X with a dumped Dex and maxed Cha, Sidestep Secret, and Focused Trance for any length of time (best done as a Half Orc with Sacred Tattoo and Fate's Favored).
It's a Barbarian build that can actually be the face of a party, and wins at all Knowledge checks forever outside of combat. In short, for one level of Oracle and a little Int investment, you get to be one of the better skill characters in the party on top of Barbarian stuff. Your in-combat stuff suffers a bit (and you can't go the Come and Get Me route), but Divine Favor + Fate's Favored and free Rage Cycling help make up for that to a large degree.
With super-powers beyond the abilities other PCs have? Probably not.
But the whole 'dual identity' thing? Sure.
As others have noted, that can be used for a host of fantasy tropes, from the Zorro-style pulp adventurer, to a Scarlet Pimpernel style secretive freedom-fighter, to a Jack the Ripper style serial killer. All three of those are more 18th-19th century than properly medieval, but what with the guns and all, plus some of the hints about Occult Adventures, Pathfinder is already drawing on those eras for inspiration. And doing a good job of it.
Heck, there's already the 'Mysterious Avenger' Swashbuckler Archetype, which fits this thematic archetype right down to having a 'Secret Identity' Class Feature.
I would like to add a note on the Oracle VMC: Lame curse will grant immunity to fatigue at level 10 (Hello Barbarian and Bloodrager). Many revelations grant multiple feats, such as Skill at Arms and Weapon Mastery, making up for the loss from the first place. The only problem with it is that's a really late-game VMC, as you stay at an effective oracle level of 1 in regards of revelations till level 8 and only progress halv level in regards for curses. Around level 11-15 it really kicks off though.
Several of the Revelations you can grab at 3rd are great, though. All Martial Weapons and Armor for one Feat? Heck yeah. Also...that one allows Wizard 5 and then straight into Eldritch Knight. You admittedly don't get Power Attack until 5th, but that's not the end of the world.
Presumably the one from the Guide to Korvosa and Curse of the Crimson Throne. He's very much a masked vigilante with a secret identity who's unique to Golarion after all.
It's possible to do his stats with existing stuff, but not easy.
And I'd bet we get a new person as the Iconic vigilante, rather than anyone who's been mentioned before.
Blackpowder Witch wrote:
Sorry to dig this up, but was Adowyn's religion and alignment ever brought up?
There's a PFS playable version. It lists her as NG, and a follower of Erastil. So, yeah, that's been mentioned.
Seoni is shown in a wedding dress in that same book. There are a few veiled references from the folks at Paizo that these two things may not be unrelated...