|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Sharky find that if goblin chief talk with silly Beavis-like accent and keep bringing up Evil Plans soon even players who had bad week at work start thinking about what tortures to inflict on human prisoners, what ways to murder gnomes, etc. Maybe DM have tougher time inspiring people, but even lowly NPCs can get in character and drive story forward (until they get eaten by goblins)
Scientific Answer: This probably isn't really happening, but if you come to suspect that the player might be rolling the dice in some special way so as to influence the outcome I guess you could try a dice rolling tower.
Superstitious Answer: Have people touch the lucky player's dice and then call out low numbers as he rolls.
Spiteful Answer: Have all the monsters focus on killing the amazing PC who never misses before he can attack them.
Unless the goblins have Plane Shift I'd assume that the party could probably get the bag back though it might require some work or perhaps some concessions - "Roofus hide bag and not give it back unless you bring him cake! Magic cake with explosive candles! You also call him King Roofus now!"
I guess Locate Object might be useful in those situations. It was one of the first 2nd level spells I took with my first 3e PC - "Kazaan Dhal never loses his keys!"
I guess if nothing else I guess the Paladin could help prepare the blood as a sacrifice for some mighty demon or devil which is the only one capable of saving the orphange/city/world/farm. The moral implications of this seem unclear to me. I mean, I guess a Paladin could also become sort of a holy prostitute who tries to placate Evil outsiders with sexual favors. At least he or she would be immune to disease ("All our companions are Paladins, so you know they're clean!")
What some groups find clever/amusing/fun others might find offensive/stupid/annoying - I think that's ultimately the case for a lot of this stuff, and if you try to force your opinion on a group of people who don't want it there's likely to be conflict regardless of how people on the boards interpret RAW.
I think that a Paladin who supports his followers on "My holy blood" would be a pretty weird character, but it made me wonder how much nutrition there is in blood anyhow. Assuming that human blood would be relatively close in nutritional value to lamb blood it looks like it is at least a great source of protein.
I'd kind of like to give my mythic Viking PC the ability to raise an animal companion so that he could have goats (or something) to kill and eat each night like Thor. Fighters don't get animal companions though, and it didn't seem worth the feats for the flavor (um - roleplaying flavor, not goat flavor - I can get that at the local Caribbean restaurant)
Even a lot of regular people in the real world will become martyrs rather than betray their beliefs to gain mercy from somebody who has power over them. I'd think a Lawful Good outsider should probably be even more principled.
I guess each DM needs to reach his or her own decision on what's "unreasonable" in a particular game. If you've got a player who wants to turn Planar Binding into an installment of the "Saw" movies that could be interesting for some games and an off putting nuisance for others.
Based on more recent comments it sounds like maybe the “torture” being referred to by the OP isn’t particularly violent or painful. Perhaps it is more like kidnapping somebody and then browbeating them into submission? Anyhow, as Ashiel alluded to, you can simply call the outsider, explain your offer, and let the outsider choose whether to accept, go back where it came from, or run around the local area doing whatever sort of stuff that kind of outsider might want to do.
If you call a Good outsider to perform a task aligned with its ethos maybe that's all which would be needed. If you're calling an Evil outsider you've already cast a spell which Good aligned deities might frown upon and brought a powerful Evil entity onto the Material Plane. The fact you're calling an Evil outsider instead of a Good one also might suggest that you're calling it for an Evil purpose since else it would be safer and easier to contract the services of a Good outsider. I'd think that all of this might raise a few divine eyebrows.
@Starbuck II - You’ve presented an interesting situation since if I say something bad about a small child that probably makes me a jerk. Since you brought it up I’ll guess that your niece is a wonderful and well adjusted child or adult now, but I don’t think the fact somebody is OK now means that everything he or she ever did must have been OK too.
We had a few kids in our neighborhood who sprayed some animals such as frogs with “gum cutter” (a product used to clean engines) and then set them on fire. Those kids were somebody’s nephews. Anyhow, I’m assuming that the caster of Planar Binding probably isn’t a little kid and therefore probably understands the implications of his or her actions.
If you swat a fly I don't think most folks won't think you're a bad person. If you catch the fly, pull off its wings, and maybe stab it to death with a pin or cut it into pieces I think most folks would think that's kind of twisted and you "might have some problems".
I hope that "torture == bad" seems like something most folks should be able to agree on. I guess that the ambiguity comes in when doing something bad would help you prevent something even worse from happening. When is it "worth it" to do something bad?
If there were a credible terrorist threat to blow up NYC but the terrorists said they'd back off if members of Congress raped 1,000 virgins on the White House lawn and then burned them all alive for the glory of Satan should we do it or just let NYC get blown up? In the real world that might be a complex and painful question. In the fantasy world I think the answer should be, "We send a big fricking hero to save the day!" (or perhaps "kill those bastards and save the day!" depending on your exact genre)
One of the things the OP asked about was, "if a good aligned wizard can do this without getting into trouble with his god". I'd guess the implication is that the god in question is Good aligned. I suppose a Wizard doesn't really need to care if "his" god approves of his actions. I mean, if a Wizard worships Sarenrae but makes deals with Shadow Demons by sacrificing virgins to them it won't affect his powers, but I'd guess it might affect his standing in the church of Sarenrae and where his soul goes for its eternal reward.
If he just uses Evil tagged spells to call a succubus "mostly for conversation", to help entertain the troops in a holy war (like an Abyssal USO), or to help save the orphanage that might have less impact, but should him casting Evil tagged spells affect Sarenrae's opinion of him? I think the answer should be "yes". After all, Sarenrae grants divine spells, but she doesn't grant the ones with Evil tags, implying to me that maybe she disapproves of such spells. I guess you could posit that she doesn't mind them or even really digs them but simply lacks the power to grant them since they're outside her Goodly area of power and authority. I could see a PC using that as a rationalization of sorts, but I'm guessing that wouldn't be Paizo's official explanation for why Clerics can't spells from opposed alignments (though I've been surprised before)
Some games seem like they're on constant overdrive, and I wonder if that could be one reason why folks don't feel like they can get the tension they want from the threat of death or defeat. If your PC is dancing on the edge of death in every fight then I guess it wouldn't feel "special" anymore after a few sessions.
I had a Bard with a few Paladin levels. He'd generally try to imprison rather than kill all but the worst humanoid villains. He'd also offer them the option of trial by combat though, a one on one fight against him which ended with their death (which at that point was kind of their own choice - suicide by Paladin)
It just occurred to me that drowning people in holy water and claiming that it "washes their souls clean" might be amusing, but I think it would be more appropriate to a madman than a Paladin (and it might even insult whatever Good deity blessed the water)
I agree that an Eldritch Guardian's Mauler familiar could be a great combatant though I'd probably go with a crab instead of a weasel. This weasel (who might be named Zeke) is a Bard's familiar though, so he probably won't be that tough.
I agree with the Shifty Mongoose's assessment that the it might be nice to keep the opponent busy. The problem I'd expect to see is that an enemy might decide that the easiest way to get rid of the weasel for good is to attack and kill it rather than just pry it off.
Anyhow, it doesn't seem like anybody is contesting the "automatic" nature of the weasel's Bite damage each round. As long as the weasel isn't a Mauler the damage is likely to be pretty insignificant. Even a Mauler with Constrict probably wouldn't do enough damage with a single Bite per round to warrant putting a familiar on the front lines. I expect to see weasel attacks come up mostly in a comedic fashion or perhaps when things are desperate.
It sounds like once a Weasel attaches it automatically maintains the grapple and inflicts Bite damage each round. That's rather different from the Stirge, which makes a CMB check each round to maintain the grapple but gets a +8 on it. Of course the stirge also attaches with a touch attack and does Con damage, so that's not the only difference.
Is it correct to assume that once a Weasel Bites somebody it keeps on doing 1d3-4 damage each round until killed or removed with a successful CMB check? It doesn't seem like that should be tough given the Weasel's CMD of 6, but since somebody is taking a Weasel familiar I'm guessing this will come up at some point.
It sounds like this AP has quite a bit of RP in it. I'm thinking of picking up the "Social Combat" cards so that even if we don't have any players who are comfortable talking in character the RP encounters can be more than me just describing the NPC and having the player with the highest Diplomacy make a single d20 roll. Has anybody used those?
@Melkiador - I wonder if handling some of the rebellion management stuff between sessions might make sense (using dice servers if needed)
@Serisan - Oddly enough, the Humble Bundle only included the first 3 books. I guess maybe that's Paizo's way of getting you to buy the other 3!
I think Mark wanted to avoid rather than engender a Monk debate. In the interest of hypocrisy I'll add to the derail by saying I think the choice to encourage even weapon based Unchained Monks to mix in unarmed strikes seems like a fun one.
I've enjoyed the fact that Vicious Stomp and Enforcer make it useful for one of my current PCs to mix unarmed strikes into the action even though he generally wields a heavy flail. Having more reasons to punch, kick, and slap enemies might help combat feel a little more dynamic.
At first I read the title of this thread as "spiked kilt", and I think that would be more amusing than this expensive dagger hiding mechanism. As a house rule maybe allowing a character to draw the spike hilt dagger as a Swift action if the "host" weapon is currently wielded would be an occasionally useful benefit. It could be nice for making a full attack with the dagger while you're grappled or perhaps making a ranged attack if an enemy you're attacking in melee enemy falls before your full attack is over (something I've sometimes used shurikens for)
Transformative - As long as the "host" weapon remains a one or two-handed sword or hafted weapon I don't see why the transformation should disrupt its ability to conceal a dagger.
Shrinking - The rules for this enchantment seem a little unclear to me since they don't actually state if the weapon becomes a light weapon (as opposed to say a two-handed weapon which happens to be dagger sized and only do 1d4 base damage). The rules also don't say if the weapon's damage type, crit range, etc change. Since the rules are vague and the spiked hilt seems weak I'd probably let you use these together unless you came up with some unexpectedly overpowered combo (and I can't think of one here)
I'm considering having my Viking take the "Divine Source" ability next time he gains a Mythic Tier. It might not be as powerful in game terms as being able to charge through allies or even just gaining another +2 Str, but the idea of my PC being a viable target of worship sort of amuses me since he's well known for bragging and would probably start telling people he's a god.
The fact that the party and their allies include multiple divine casters who would never consider converting to his worship (and in fact think he's kind of a bozo) would be extra roleplaying gravy. I'm not quite sure what his portfolio would be, perhaps demigod of drinking, boasting, and threatening?
I sometimes make old PCs available as deities such as a drunken monk who invented pizza with psychedelic cheese and used his monk's spade as the pizza peel (that stick with a flat end you use to move pizza. Sorry, that's kind of all I have...
I'm currently playing a Viking PC in a game set on Mystara, where the typical Norse pantheon is active. I think that probably makes it a little easier to roleplay since I know more about Norse myths than say myths about Gorum.
If discussing potential shortcomings in RPG products is considered "disrespectful" it seems like that might make it tough for the folks writing them to get honest and potentially useful feedback.
Anyhow, the Misfortune hex affects one enemy, allows a saving throw. Unlike Evil Eye it doesn't do anything if the enemy makes the save, and even if they fail you'd have to spend a Move action each round to extend the duration with Cackle. Unless I'm mistaken the 3pp Combat Precognition ability affects everybody attacking you, allows no saving throw, and lasts for multiple rounds (at least if you have a Wisdom bonus) without any further actions on your part. I think that the 3pp ability sounds better than Misfortune in terms of defending attacks on AC.
I feel like Mirror Image might be a more fitting example. Usually it costs a standard action to deploy, but the Magus can pop it out quickly with Spell Combat. Of course that means that the Magus isn't casting some other spell, but if you're focused on defense then Mirror Image can be pretty powerful (especially if you already have a high AC)
I'd normally think of the SoL effects as the "head shots" since they're a one hit win while stuff like damage slowly wears you down. DM Blake makes a good case for that reversed analogy though. Sometimes my own PCs end up focusing on defense so much that the DM or other players might accuse them of being boring (like Floyd Mayweather some might say)
When playing a Fighter I sometimes feel like Will saves are low blows though. Sure, I can take steps to mitigate the risk like wearing a cup and a +5 cloak of resistance, but when I get hit by a SoL I sometimes have to take a rest whether I want it or not, and it is often more than 5 minutes. If the party isn't well prepared with spells like Protection from Evil those sorts of issues can go on for hours. I think debuffs are better "body blows" for both the PCs and the DM, and I tend to focus on those a lot especially as a PC since I think they're not only more fun than "rocket tag" but also perhaps a little more reliable in the long run.
Simple stuff like intimidation can take offense down a notch. If the DM uses ability damage, ability drain, negative levels, lots of poison, etc that can drain the party's coffers kind of like buying saving throw boosts. If it is clear that the PCs are going to get hit with this stuff fairly consistently they'll often start buying the counters. Going back to the original topic of the thread for a moment I'll nominate True Strike as a great spell to use against players from time to time, especially if the attack it boosts carries a nasty effect like negative levels, a powerful Poison, etc.
Back to the low blows analogy, I didn't mean to say powers which remove a player's control should never be used. Some boxers like Bernard Hopkins would probably consider low blows to be "part of boxing" and something that can be used from time to time to gain an advantage, kind of like holding. If you keep fouling repeatedly in boxing the ref might step in and take a point or even eventually disqualify you though, sort of like if you keep on taking away the player's control he might eventually complain or give up.
A big part of the discussion in this thread is how a DM can challenge characters despite high AC. Saying that you want the players to have effective characters isn't a very good excuse unless there's evidence that having a high AC means a character can't be effective in other ways, something which clearly isn't true. Punishing the other players instead of the one with the high AC also seems pretty backwards to me.
I'm not aware of any builds which can't do anything besides "stand there and not be hit", but I suspect that you also might not enjoy playing a character who is very hard to hit but also very good at hitting back with weapons, spells, or other powers. As I'd mentioned before, many people seem to equate taking lots of damage with having fun. I guess it is some kind of thrill seeking.
I get my enjoyment of the game primarily out of roleplaying, talking in funny voices, and figuring stuff out, so "close calls" to maintain excitement aren't something I need a lot of. They also seem to come up on their own over the course of a campaign without anybody really forcing it. To me it sounds like maybe you're just projecting what you like onto what the players should like.
Anyhow, isn't arbitrarily boosting monster attack bonuses kind of like DMing in "god mode"?
I'd say it should work, and I wouldn't expect too much controversy since your blocking the attack with your weapon. I've seen greater doubts when my PC tries to block a touch attack with Crane Wing since people reason that the monster is still coming into contact with him. The fact that shields don't count against touch attacks strikes me as pretty weird. I mean, incorporeal creatures could reach right through them, but it seems like a shield should be able to obstruct a caster with a held charge...oh well...
Pounce is available at 6th level, but Rake doesn't show up until 8th. Dire Tiger is indeed a fine shape for these sorts of shenanigans. You also get Grab at 8th level, which is why I mentioned picking up Greater Grapple around 9th if possible. In the level 4-5 range I guess a Cheetah with 3 attacks and a free Trip might not be bad if you want a cat theme all along.
If a rational enemy is clearly outclassed and has a viable escape option I'll usually use it unless it seems against the enemy's nature or personality. For instance, demons can teleport, but they might fail to retreat due to their murderous rage.
Another option perhaps less used is villains who die but then come back anyhow whether by getting raised or becoming undead. The players get the satisfaction of defeating the foe and perhaps a bit of a surprise when he or she returns, perhaps as part of a deadly ambush.
Escaped enemies can also act against the party in subtler ways by telling other villains the party's strengths, weaknesses, whereabouts, etc. Stuff like this can make running down that last goblin a little more interesting.
If what you're saying is that strawman argument regarding Pathfinder should be called a Straw Golem Argument since Pathfinder has golems and Paizo uses one as their logo then I guess that's not a completely unreasonable suggestion. I can see how you might find that wordplay amusing. Something I find amusing and perhaps more relevant to the discussion of Wizards vs Rogues is Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit.
Why wouldn't you want to join the Donner party? Aren't you hungry for adventure?
If you're thirsty instead our Rise of the Runelords party included several PCs from a clan of gnomes named the Rockbottoms who ran a brewery in Sandpoint. My Cleric was the Fighter's uncle, but since I didn't have a name on my sheet by the time the first session started he got stuck being called "Uncle Buck". He was an older adventurer who got drained down to 1st level by undead. He was also our original "brewmaster" and made a lot of potions generally referred to as "magic beer" (we had some special house rules where drinking his potions required a Fort save to not start getting drunk)
Later on when the Cleric died he was replaced with a gnome Alchemist named Cousin Larry who took over the role of brewmaster and added a distillery. We also ended up with a gnome Sorcerer from the Rockbottom clan who fought (though not very well) with the same silver shovel he used for the malt and hops. I can't recall that gnome's name at the moment, but he and Cousin Larry somehow managed to survive the rest of the campaign and retire back in Sandpoint, where the Rockbottom Brewery stands to this day. Grab a flagon and head for Rockbottom!
The discussion of gaining various bonuses to Stealth for having cover is kind of interesting. The fact that you get a -20 on your Perception check to notice an invisible Ninja sneaking into your camp with a running chainsaw seems pretty weird to me, so I've been thinking about house rules to let the Perception skill be used to hear creatures without seeing them (and perhaps see them without hearing them though situations where you'd have a penalty to hear but not see might not come up as often)
I disagree with thorin001's statement that, "Critical fumbles are never a viable variant". Everybody I play with uses the Fumble Deck, and most of them love it. It probably helps that we also use Hero Points and you can spend a point to make a card go away. Honestly we get far more complaints about the Critical Hit deck since there's one guy who rolls lots of crits and has an uncanny ability to draw the "normal damage" cards.
That said, I think that expanding the fumble range when there's cover would be a bad idea. I suppose that a DM who wants to really stress the value of cover could have attacks which miss due to cover target the cover instead. Too much of this might get people thinking about where all the other arrows which miss end up though. We already track where misses end up for bombs, but I'm not sure how many groups would want to do it for arrows and bullets too.
If you think the DM was wrong in your RAW debate I think that getting a FAQ to clarify the RAW situation would be more helpful than making a "revenge" PC to somehow "prove" to the DM that you really aren't a munchkin since you could have done something much worse but clearly RAW (and you might only find that the DM disagrees with your interpretation of RAW again)
I think that a bullet list of important things to know about the room might be pretty helpful. It would also be nice if the electronic versions of adventures had clickable links to referenced material.
I also miss the way some old school adventures would include a lot of illustrations of rooms, puzzles, monsters, etc. I guess that the expectation levels for artwork have increased a lot since the days of black and white illustrations by Erol Otus, and I understand that adding several pages of full color glossy pictures to a book would probably raise the price. Maybe stuff like this could be available as a web bonus though.
We’ve got an ongoing “Goblin Game” which is currently at 12th level. It included both “We Be Goblins” and “We Be Goblins Too”, but by the time “We Be Goblins Free” came out our PCs had gained too many levels for the DM to feel like ramping the challenge up to our CR range. The DM demanded that all PCs must be goblins and banned Good alignments.
The party is basically a bunch of CE psychopaths with my NE character acting as the “voice of reason” though that pretty much just consists of trying to convince them that we’ll be able to cause even more terror and mayhem in the long run if we have a Plan. With 12 Int my goblins thinks he’s an absolute genius, so the more complicated and ridiculous the Plan is the better. One of my favorites involved using severed giant frog feet to make fake “boggard” footprints around a raided gnome village. It also involved giant frog heads on sticks and actually helped instigate a gnome vs boggard war (weakening both sides as a prelude to a goblin takeover).
Soon we’ll be building siege engines such as zombie throwers and maybe some “skele-bombs” with bloody skeleton shrapnel which reforms into undead monsters behind enemy lines. We're pretty skilled at Craft (Alchemy), and thanks to Background Skills my PC is getting good at Knowledge (Engineering) too.
One odd situation where a group insisted on rolling was the 3d4 which an old group of mine insisted every male PC must roll during character creation. I always thought that the practice was intensely silly, but I also happened to roll pretty well. One PC who rolled an 11 took Craft Rod later in his career and titled himself “The Lord of Rodly Might”. All of the magic rods he crafted were 11 inches long. Another guy rolled a 3 for his half-orc Barbarian and endured a little ridicule from time to time. The 3d4 roll wasn't my "innovation", but it became somewhat of a tradition for a while. I think Small PCs got 2d4 instead.
On a different note, if a player insists on playing a Human who is small enough to fit into the Small size category I wonder how many DMs would adjust the character's size to Small and how many would say that the PC remains Medium despite the description. I guess the field could be further divided into DMs who would adjust physical ability scores and those who wouldn't.
@blackbloodtroll - Even if you rolled over and over you'd never end up skinny or fat since you always get the same height to weight ratio.
We once assembled an all Bard 9th level party to play a module based on the Gamers movies. I can’t recall if we finished the module, but we each had different archetypes, some of which offered different or stacking bonuses. I forget my PC’s archetype at the moment, but it involved pranks and tricks. He also had Intensified Spell and a trait to apply it to Thundering Drums for free, and the results were pretty impressive (at least in a game full of 9th level Bards)
We’ve got an ongoing “Goblin Game” which is currently at 12th level. It included both “We Be Goblins” and “We Be Goblins Too”, but by the time “We Be Goblins Free” came out our PCs had gained too many levels for the DM to feel like ramping the challenge up to our CR range. We’ve been on various homebrew adventures which have included:
Whether or not martials need better things I think that casters could stand a few nerfs. For instance, the "encounter-deciding spell" which Casual Viking mentioned is something which I find kind of boring and sometimes dispiriting.
The Witch (or whoever) uses an SoL spell or power. Then the DM rolls a d20 and either the enemy is effectively vanquished or nothing at all happens. The caster either robs me of the fun of fighting the enemy or fails to provide any meaningful support as I fight the enemy with one less PC making a meaningful contribution. Sometimes SoL spam ensues and it is a race to see which competing track (HP Damage vs SoL). I think it would be great if more spells and powers had their results averaged towards the center with successful saves often still imposing some negatives and failed saves not necessarily taking the foe out of the fight (at least not for long)
Obviously that would be a downgrade to the power of casters, and I suppose some people might object that a Fighter who gets off a full attack could still "easily" take an enemy out in one round, but defenses against that are certainly possible, and it isn't like casters don't have damage dealing options too (summoning in particular)
I think I've probably played more levels as a Bard than any other class, but I haven't found my recent excursion into Fighter and Barbarian particularly unrewarding (other than the low Will of one of my 3 PCs getting hit repeatedly). As I recall, Bards don't have a built in method to fly either. My last one rode a Sylvan Sorcerer's animal companion (which often had Overland Flight on it). He was pretty decent with a bow too almost by accident (Inspire Courage + Good Hope helps a lot)
A Fighter is generally expected to have gear. Most of them wouldn't function very well without armor and a weapon. I'm sure there are certain Fighter builds which would work well naked, but I don't think that's the base assumption.
There are at least two Fighter archetypes I can think of which offer options for flight without magical gear, but I think it is for the best that those options are contained within archetypes rather than bundled into the base class where they might force players who don't really want magical or quasi-magical (alchemy, ki powers, etc) flight for their PCs. I think that adulterating the Fighter’s “fighter-ness” with mysterious flying and leaping abilities would be a greater affront than allowing the Fighter to be a physical combatant who might need to use equipment to deal with certain problems.
Deciding that options which exist via feats or equipment aren't valid would limit a lot of characters. I guess those limitations could come into play against a player's will in certain games where the DM is very tightfisted with treasure and the PCs don't work together (or perhaps don't include any casters), but I hope that those games are either few and far between or a mutually agreed upon exercise in "gritty low magic adventuring" (or something along those lines)
I think that a team game could certainly include a conversation like:
Fighter: "Witch, cast Fly on me right now so I can go attack the Erinyes in melee!"
Witch: "Give me 375gp and I'll make you a potion of Fly so I don't have to waste my actions in combat. Why don't you just shoot her with your bow?"
Fighter: "I didn't buy a bow..."
Witch: "You have that bow from the last Erinyes we killed, use that!"
Fighter: "That only does 1d8+6 damage since the devil is immune to the fire. Chances are that I'll do no damage at all."
Witch: "Use Deadly Aim!"
Fighter: "I didn't take it. I had to focus solely on achieving the highest DPR possibly under ideal conditions and therefore have no backup plan."
Witch: "Fine, I'll summon a monster to kill the darned thing. It attacks about as well as you do anyhow. Are you happy? Are you happy that you made me show you how useless you are?"
Fighter: "Can I ride on the summoned monster?"
Witch: "Sure, can you make a Ride check?"
Fighter: "No, I spent all my skill ranks on Knowledge (Dungeoneering) so you wouldn't have to."
Witch: "Oh to Hell with it. Ice Tomb! Haha! I win!"
DM: "Does the ice break when the Erinyes falls to the ground?"
Witch: "Nobody knows..."
@Scavion - I really wish that harpoons worked more like I'd expect them to. The idea that you'd need to score a crit to get your harpoon to stick in a whale seems pretty odd and disappointing to me. I actually wrote up some harpooning house rules for a whaling session a while back where the party had to hunt down a Great White Whale to help a ghostly captain's spirit rest (we aren't fans of whale hunting in real life, but it seemed appropriate to the adventure)
@DrDeth - I basically agree with much of what you said, but I'd honestly like to know more about why people feel martial classes aren't satisfactory outside of combat. It seems to me like anybody can put some ranks into social skills and participate in roleplaying, and that's how most of the out of combat time in my groups is spent. Maybe other people have some different experiences which can help me understand the problem though.
I’ve long meant to play a PC called “El Flamingo” based loosely on “Zorro the Gay Blade” along with some confusion between flamingo and flamenco. The time has just never been quite right. One DM in particularly asked me to never play a PC with the original Crane Wing feat, and I respected that wish. The recent changes to Master of Many Styles seem to ensure that the “Flamingo Kick” counterattack (with Snake Fang) isn’t likely to make an appearance any time soon.
Regarding the Demon Mother’s Mask, my goblin PC loves the idea of it and sometimes dreams about making an army of animal headed goblins who ride to attack Sandpoint on a bunch of goblin headed animals. Having convinced some human sailors to become cannibals for the glory of Venklevore he also hopes to have them help create “man-pigs and pig-men” for the glory of Lamashtu and in the process make humanity into swine in a rather literal sense.
If you want to go over the edge into something really weird you could consider the various ways in which ghouls might amuse themselves with paralyzed prey or even allies who like the idea of being helpless.
@Anius - From a power perspective it is difficult for me to imagine a Vivisectionist who is more disruptive than a regular Alchemist with Fast + Force Bombs. From a roleplaying perspective I could certainly imagine that a Vivisectionist who takes the Dr. Moreau theme to extremes might not fit into some non-Evil games very well as a PC.
If you enjoy using plastic dinosaurs as minis or the idea of it then I suggest that you visit your local dollar store. The toy section will probably have various dinosaurs, insects, and other "critters", some of which will likely be sized appropriately to be monsters in your games. I've even found unusual stuff like dinosaur skeletons.
Often the toys are in garish colors like bright yellow or green, fluorescent pink, etc, but the underlying sculpts are frequently pretty good. If you have even modest painting skills you can end up with several table quality minis for a dollar. You can also find a lot of sub-dollar minis online from lines like Dreamblade, Mage Knight, and Horror Clix. I'm usually happiest showing off the minis I got dirt cheap.
During Saturday's game one of the players was spending a lot of time sorting pawns into alphabetical order. It looked like a nuisance. Then again, finding the right minis is sometimes a nuisance too. Perhaps I'll get some stackable cabinets with small, removable drawers and put monsters with a certain theme in each drawer (fishmen, mushrooms, orcs, drow, etc)
It was definitely a potential nerf for PCs like my girlfriend's Orc (not half-orc) who had a 5 Int and an 18 or 20 Con. I guess I should have been more specific.
Anyhow, the fact that the intended nerf was actually a buff for half-orcs since they don't get the orcish -2 Int only makes the errata look even clumsier in my opinion.
There's more encouragement to stick with MoMS now than there was before, but after playing around with theoretical builds a little I think that bailing out after the 2 level dip still looks pretty appealing. Maybe removing the prereqs besides Monk level for feats in the wildcard slots would be enough to tempt more folks to stick with MoMS levels though. I haven't thought of any particularly overpowered combos that it would allow yet since it isn't like there would be early entry - maybe you'd save a feat or two and some skill ranks though for styles like Boar and Snake you really need the skill ranks to get the most out of the style...doesn't seem too extreme to me...
Anyhow, those are just some thoughts. I'm personally not a foe of multiclassing and don't see why sticking with a single class should always need to be better than mixing several together. Delaying too many of the benefits of a class or archetype until high levels would punish everybody, not just level dippers. Once you've got 4-6 levels into a class that seems like a pretty significant investment to me though. I wouldn't consider Gunslinger 5 and then finishing off with other levels to be plundering Gunslinger any more than I would Paladin 4 with Oath of Vengeance and then other levels to be plundering Paladin. I suppose you could push out the big Smite Evil power from Oath of Vengeance a few levels to stop us dippers, but then the "real" Paladins would suffer too.
As far as Mutagens go it could be tough to beat Mutation Warrior 4 as a buff and bonus feat package, and it doesn't even stop you from participating in the extremely popular Barbarian 2 or 4 programs. I guess that multiclassing flexibility is one of the strengths of martial classes (or perhaps one of the weaknesses depending on how you feel about it)
Making it difficult to identify a creature which has a disease sounds pretty weird.
Fighter: "Hey, is that a dog?"
I was greatly pleased to see the change to double-barreled muskets and even more pleased to see the FAQ clarifying that it applies to other double-barreled guns. This is an issue I’d been discussing on the boards for a long while now.
Litany of Righteousness seems like another good change to me though honestly I would have rather seen it nerfed to just grant bonus damage or only do double damage on the first hit.
I have mixed feelings about the latest update to Crane Wing. It is tough to compare and contrast it with the previous version since I can’t seem to find a copy of that. Anyhow, it seems to me that simply allowing you to apply a +4 dodge bonus to your AC once per round after you are hit would have been more flexible and easier to use during play than giving you a +4 bonus which disappears when you’re hit by 4 or less. That ship has probably sailed, but I do hope that the Combat Trick for Crane Wing gets updated at least via FAQ.
Overall this errata had some good changes and helps to improve my faith in the Pathfinder system. Some folks have brought up the idea that the game might lose players because of rules updates, but the game also might keep players because of rules updates.
I have a lingering distaste for disguised or poorly described monsters after playing with a DM who often refused to describe most monsters beyond something like "He's a big guy" or "It is kind of hairy". It seemed like he was afraid that if he admitted the "big guy" had blue skin one of the players might guess it was a Frost Giant and try using a fire spell.
Whether or not it would be reasonable to try using fire against blue stuff and cold against red stuff is probably a matter of opinion. Fighting sparsely described monsters represented by plastic soldiers isn't great fuel for the imagination though. That's a shame since the DM's story and descriptions of roleplaying encounters were usually detailed and interesting.