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

"Devil's Advocate"'s page

1,453 posts. Pathfinder Society character for Beckett.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,453 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Taja the Barbarian wrote:
noble peasant wrote:
There's a bit in the charge section that says if you are limited to a standard action on your turn you can charge but can't move double your speed, so can I ready an action to do this type of charge??
No, you are not actually 'restricted' to a standard action for the round: Otherwise, characters could 'charge around corners' by taking a move to get properly lined up, then take a 'partial charge' because they only have a standard action left.

The issue is though, that it's unclear if "restricted" means by outside circumstances or by action economy limitations.

So, in your example, if you took a Standard Action to Ready a Charge, (giving you only a Standard Action action later on), you technically are limited to a Standard Action, and should be able to charge.

Personally, I'd allow it in cases like this just like I'd allow it as a valid action in the Surprise Round, or similar things.

You can't "charge around a corner", for a couple of reasons. One, Charging has specific rules and criteria involved, and a few of them (move directly towards target, straight, direct line, etc. . .) would mean if you moved first, then charged, that first movement would have made the Charge action later impossible in anyway that a regular full charge or Delay action would have been done better.

Secondly, you are not limited in this case, but rather choosing to act in a way that means you can not do something else later.

You also could not Ready a Charge and 5ft Step, because the 5ft Step action means you can not do any other movement in that round, (that is until your next turn).

Shadow Lodge ****

While I agree in principle, certain deities, like that, are pretty much just asking for trouble with other players and their characters, and I find it a very hard sale that, if there are "numerous reasons", that they would be worth the trouble it will inevitably cause.

Shadow Lodge ****

Can we tone this down a bit.

Shadow Lodge

I was just checking in to see how everything was going, and holycrap! I just saw wha. . .
I mean, um,. . . yah, everything is fine. Nothing to worry about in this deep, dark dungeon filled with perfectly nice, sane, and not-mean little ghost girls.

Shadow Lodge ****

One of the big issues with 5E, and this is partially true for 4E as well, is that they tried to crowd source their design. It actually reminded me a great deal of Paizo's Open Playtesting, with a huge lack of feedback. But, for D&D, and in particular because they used this poll system for the way that the entire system was meant to run is that they essentially only targeted their own existing forum audience with their questions.

And one of the big things that came up was a push to return to the old school theater of the mind combat style, (no maps or mini's involved). Personally, I found this odd as I don't really remember ever playing those games without maps and mini's, but whatever.

The vast majority of the responses indicated that people wanted to play without a dungeon or combat map, or at the least that these sort of things where not required. Sort of in response to 4E with everything based on number of squares (very similar to the 5ft square grid), people didn't want that. But, like I said, they essentially only targeted their own existing audience here, and because a pretty large portion of players left 4E for things like Pathfinder, it probably gave a very skewed view of what potential fans would probably really want.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That might be true, but it also becomes a lot less significant after level one or two. The fact that they can't benefit Enlarge/Reduce Person is pretty huge, though.

There is also the fact that Humans do have the option to get two +2s and no -2 if they want, and can put them anywhere, not to mention "steal" from most other Humanoid's pool of uniqueness aught to rockett Humans up to ***+++. So don't buy everything that the book says.

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:


The problem is that Fox Shape doesn't even mention the shapechanging ability of Kitsunes, and thus exists in a vacuum.

You can change into a fox in addition to your other forms.

Its not naming the change shape ability, but its definitely referencing it there.

It's very possible that it was referring to that, but that doesn't mean that it's the one and only way for it to function, because it doesn't say so.

Just like Arcane Strike doesn't say that ONLY Wizards can take or use that option. Anyone that meats the Prereqs and can otherwise benefit from that option, (such as the case here), can use that option.

Shadow Lodge

Johnny_Devo wrote:


The problem is that you're projecting fluff into rules text.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I'm considering the first sentence as a piece of evidence in figuring out how the feat works.

Your distinction of what is fluff and what is rules text is arbitrary. Sometimes its fluff. Sometimes its important.

Yes, we all agree, sometimes it's fluff and sometimes it's not. But, the actual statement you are replying to is that you are adding fluff where it doesn't exist. It seems you are talking past each other here, only. Not making a argument for anything.

Johnny_Devo wrote:
Would you say that "cleave" requires a single attack roll, due to the fluff stating "you can strike two adjacent foes with a single swing"?
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Would you have let pummeling style work with a two handed sword?

Sometimes that line matters.

The original version of Pummeling Strike DID work with a Two-Handed sword.

As a full-round action, you can pool all your
attack potential in one devastating punch. Make a number
of rolls equal to the number of attacks you can make with
a full attack or a f lurry of blows (your choice) with the
normal attack bonus for each attack. For each roll that is
a hit, you deal the normal amount of damage, adding it
to any damage the attack has already dealt from previous
rolls (if any). If any of the attack rolls are critical threats,
make one confirmation roll for the entire attack at your
highest base attack bonus. If it succeeds, the entire attack
is a confirmed critical hit.

It's just as ease to argue that "you can pool all your attack potential in one devastating punch" could mean an Unarmed Strike or the more commonly used "one big hit". Neither of those actually followed the fluff of the Feat (or the name) which implies a lot of small hits all adding up, nor is there any indication that a Monk that can Flurry with a Greatsword couldn't use this Feat.

So, your point wasn't made, nor was there any debunking here. The fact that it was later errataed is sort of irrelevant, or at best using an unclear term.

Johnny_Devo wrote:
My point is, fluff is fluff. To extract prerequisites from the fluff is perfectly understandable, but also, by definition, a house rule.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I am not going to continue a conversation with someone that cannot answer an argument except through insulting it.

???

Johnny_Devo wrote:
If you read the fox shape ability in a vacuum, then while it DOES seem VERY similar to the change shape racial ability
BigNorseWolf wrote:
This complete,total and utter nonsense. The more you read the feat the more it looks like a word for word add on to change shape. The vacuous reading is yours where you ignore where the feat came from, who it was written for, when it was written... the more context that's provided the more it looks like an addition to change shape.

Wait, didn't you just say "I am not going to continue a conversation with someone that cannot answer an argument except through insulting it." But even beyond that, what exactly is your argument here?

BigNorseWolf wrote:
No. You are not being genuine here when you dismiss an in depth sentence by sentence comparison considering the timing, placement, and context of the feat as being in a vacuum. Its a banal, nonsensical and utterly random complaint that does nothing to refute the point.

Well, no, it actually doesn't seem to be to anyone else. Attacking someone's "genuinity" is also not arguing the actual subject, but attacking the person, and further the style of presenting evidence, (which is actually pretty solid). But, there is no counter to the debate itself. If I recall, the in depth, line by line approach was only taken because others against it felt the whole thing together wasn't good enough. Now it's the opposite?

BigNorseWolf wrote:
You had to assume the type, you had to assume the duration. You have to assume usages per day. You cannot simply declare your assumptions as fact and then say everyone that disagrees with you is the one making assumptions.

No you do not. As a Feat that does not specify, it defaults to an Extraordinary Ability, and specifically functions like the Spell it calls out. It is well within reason to say that it should be a Supernatural or even Spell-Like Ability, but by RAW, it is not. There is not a single assumption there, because all this is already covered in the rules.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Your mistake is in assuming that raw can only say one thing, particularly when you arbitrarily toss out the parts of raw that disagree with you. Its the assumption of perfection in rules interpretation: that is if you can argue for one thing the other way of looking at it MUST be wrong. The rules simply are NOT written that clearly.

That's the issue, though. It does seem pretty clear so far that RAW does say one thing pretty overwhelmingly, (and aren't you dong the exact same thing here, claiming that your answer is the one true one?), and it's not because one side seems to be tossing things out as much as the other seems to be adding things that are not there.

Again, so what exactly is your counter/argument/debunking here? It really does not seem to be coming across to me or from what I can tell most others here.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:


Watching the badwrongfun police twist the rules in knots to maintain reasons why this doesn't work has actually gone from maddening to entertaining.

This is disingenuous, and to the person mocking me for pointing to previous statements , THIS IS WHY I linked to them, to objectively debunk this argument.

Look at the badwrongfun police coming down on kitsune if you read it as an independant ability.

You can't sleep in fox form, have to have a timer for hitting your foxform abilities, can't swap out your kitsune magic for fast shifter to pop in and out of fox form faster, and swift kitsune shapechanger shouldn't work.. but it does. That feat lumps it in with your other change shape abilities.

The fox shape feat uses the more permissive change shape rules is a benefit to the people its supposed to be a benefit for: kitsune. If a human wants to take it for trying a strength build fox by all means let them. At two feats its hardly overpowered vs going kitsune and going with a dex build. Its not even that bad of a raw interpretation.

I do think fox shape being its own thing is the wrong interpretation though. And that interpretation comes with some costs that aren't being considered in the rush to ad hom people reading the rules as an add on to change shape.

As someone that really doesn't have a horse in this race, and has gone on record as hating Kitsune for their special-little-snowflakeness, it's pretty clear that your arguments and "debunking" just are not holding water. I have read every single post here, it's pretty clear that by RAW, it works 100%. If someone likes it or not is irrelevant. If it is/was RAI in also irrelevant, but not something that can be determined by anyone except the single individual that wrote it (or them). If it is good/right/fun or bad/wrong/fun is not really up to anyone.

So, basically, again from an outside perspective, you have not really given evidence for your argument, and I really don't see any form of "debunking" either. It does appear though that your entire stance is simply based on your personal preference, (as opposed to rules or evidence). I don't mean that as a slight, as much as to say that what you are trying to say is maybe just not translating to anyone else.

On the other hand, Johnny and others have given a great deal of pretty clear examples, evidence, and other backup to prove their point. It doesn't seem to be, based off of that, even a question at this point. (and honestly not since like page 2 where it was all laid out pretty definitively in my opinion).

Shadow Lodge

Gauss wrote:
At best you annoy the book users for purchasing an out of date book, at worst there is mass confusion in the rules.

Kind of like the ACG from Day 1. . .

:P

Shadow Lodge

Or need them.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xexyz wrote:
Again: For my setting, the magic the gods use if fundamentally different than the magic mortal spellcasters use. It's capable of things that mortal magic is not. For a reference, if you're familiar with Mage: the Ascension, it's somewhat like the difference between True Magick and Static Magic. If you want more of an explanation than that, go pick up a copy of Mage and read through it.

From someone familiar with White Wolf and Mage, you are NOT actually answering the question.

Shadow Lodge

Anyone else think it was extremely weird that they just left all the food there after getting proof that something sure as )(*U(^&^$^$*& is going on.

I'm thinking we need a new character, sort of a token character if you will, whose only purpose in the show is to smack some sense into stupid people.

<edit> Well, might need more than one, for this show.

Shadow Lodge

Thanks, I'll keep all this in mind as I continue to read.

Shadow Lodge

Spoiler:
It helps some. I'm mostly coming from jut going off of what the PG and the 1st part say, and the impressions I'm getting as I read it. I guess I'm just seeing it a little differently. Just based on the maps, it looks like Kintargo has significantly easier access to a lot of places the southern Cheliax wouldn't, but also a pretty reasonable access to a lot of the areas southern Cheliax does. The fact that, being somewhat cut off from the rest of the mainland also means that invaders could use it as a major staging ground without being detected, which to me seems very odd that someone so interested in utter domination of the political sphere of the nation (Thrune and Church Asmodeus) would simply allow to do as they please.
-
I'm also kind of seeing it as a lose/lose for the Queen. I mean on one hand, if he does the family proud, it kind of puts all the "proper" Thunes to shame, and if he fails, it shows, publically, that both the Church of Asmodeus and the Thrune name are weak. I mean it's absolutely clear from the DM's perspective that this guy is exceptionally competent and ambitious. He's risen in the ranks of BOTH the Church and the nobility of <well in their heads at least> the greatest empire in the world. And no one had any Red Flags go off? And if he succeeds <at what they think he is doing any way>, he suddenly rockets up to a rival, who has both the backing of some of the family and most of the Church. Might be looking a bit too hard at things, here, but this is the impression I get from just reading the AP <part 1>.

Would it be possible to get some spoiler free, practical and common knowledge info on the Order of the Torrent? I realize they will be coming up in part two, but it really seems like a group that players will be interested in asking about, (as far as common local knowledge), but I can't seem to really find out anything about them aside from the fact that they might be interested in finding missing people. More specifically, outlaws? Collecting bounties? America's Most Wanted? Escaped slaves? I really have no idea what this faction does, or rather did? Ace Ventura?

Shadow Lodge

A few issues I'm noticing.

Spoilsy Stuff:
So, as far as I can tell, Kintargo is probably Cheliax's most important port city, having access to not only Varisia to the north, (which looks to be cut off from most other Cheliax ports), but also fairly easy access to, well, the entirety of Garund, Tian Xia, and the rest of the northern continent. Maybe it's just that I really don't care for Cheliax, but how is it possible that this absolute jewel or mercantile and naval power is so outside of the nation's control? I mean it's a CG populated area that up until a week and a half ago seems to have basically free reign within the empire, and even having a scandalously outspoken lord-mayor. That seems more than just a little off. And then House Thrune just allows their (in their view), simple and undesirable cousin to go rule on a whim?
-
It's a bit telling that 3/5 players took Ex-Asmodean. (They also took Reactionary for Init. . .)
-
I find it extremely odd that it seems Andoran doesn't even get an honorable mention, particularly in the motivation area. It's ok, because in my campaign the Silver Ravens are actually another secret society/branch of the Eagle Knights that focus on educated and diplomatic means of spreading the way, and I'm probably going to swap them for the ones in the book, but it just seemed like a huge oversight.
-
I'm also a little bit unclear on the time lines. Assuming that the start of the adventure is day 0, so 10 days ago, a lot of the "hidden" Chaoticish, Goodish faiths in the are where burned to the ground, and many of their leading members murdered. Why is Rahadoum not even mentioned here? Number 1 suspects one would rationally think. The notably outspoken (ex-)Lord Mayor abandons the city. At the same time, the Glorious Reclimation basically retcons the one cool Hellknight order of the Godclaw out of existence way off in a galaxy far away.
3 days later, the legitimate arrives, disbands the local city guard to be replaced by his own loyal agents, as well as replaces the missing Hellknights. I get this nagging feeling like there was some sort of chaos and disorder the BBEG used to ease his way in, but I don't actually see it locally. He then issues 7 edicts, (which I understand are intentionally, well dumb), (issue is, it make shim li=ook like a chump that will get killed by his own <wo>men, not an actual threat that needs taken care of). And all of this leads to the Day 1 public protest in the park, which no one things is, you know, a bad idea that will lead to mass beatings and arrests/exocutions under Thrunite law? Huh???

Shadow Lodge

Minimal and worth the trade offs.

Shadow Lodge

It's easy to boost Dex too. Heck, Urban Barbarian dip becomes mandatory.

Size increases will at most mean -2 Att, -1 Dmg even for a Dex based monster who would easily trade it for the extra reach and higher damage, unless they are ranged.

Shadow Lodge

I'm just curious, would the Dex to Damage fans be okay with a Feat that allowed Str for Init, AC, and Refl?

Shadow Lodge

Looks like the Errata is finally out. Not too much on the Warpriest by the looks of it, but it was clarified that the Sacred Fist looses Flurry and AC bonus for wearing

Errata wrote:
Page 131—In the Sacred Fist archetype’s Weapon and Armor Proficiency, before the last sentence, add “When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a sacred fist loses his AC bonus and flurry of blows.” In the AC Bonus ability, in the third sentence, change “deflection” to “dodge”. At the end of the ability, add the sentence “This counts as the monk ability of the same name, and the sacred fist’s warpriest levels stack with monk levels for determining the benefits.” In the Flurry of Blows ability, at the end of the second sentence, add “, except the sacred fist’s attack bonus from warpriest levels does not count as his warpriest level.”

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
Is it a cleric of Gunssuckia, God of Gun Hatred, who derives his divine power from hating guns and who would have their power stripped if they cooperate with a gun user?

Absof#~$inglutelly. In fact, I think that Season 6 can use a whole lot of Gunssuckia's divine and sacred teachings. Have at it!!! Where can I learn more?

:P

Shadow Lodge

Ok. Lets say you are a fantasy character where its a real world fact that there are these folks that can remove curses, (again a real thing) or cure even the deadliest diseases with a few kind words.

He or she obviously believes the universe works differently than you do, but is willing to set that all aside if needed, or at most pay a little compensation or a favor.

Then, one day your son, daughter, close friend, whatever gets sick.And then gets worse. Then everyone else they live with starts dying from similar symptom, and its clear that your guy/girl is just not getting better.

You sympathize with the person that slits the persons throat that had the only means to help your guy/girl over the one who decides to risk their life just to help you out? The one who only failed because someone else killed them for nothing but a close-minded, uneducated sense of utter selfishness.

Shadow Lodge

Flynn Greywalker wrote:
James Sutter wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Set wrote:
These days, the pendulum seems to have swung a bit to 'everyone in Rahadoum is evil, crazy and filled with hate, and will burn their own atheist brother at the stake when he gains that 4th ranger level'
What pendulum is this? Did I miss some content? This seems radically different from how the nation is portrayed in the two campaign setting guides.

I'm with Lincoln--as probably the staffer with the most investment in Rahadoum, it's definitely not supposed to be a totally evil, hateful place. While there's certainly a witch-hunt element for those who directly espouse the worship of a god, they see it as an attempt to protect their freedom and independence from powerful outside forces (the gods and their churches) who are constantly throwing their weight around and telling mortals what to do.

I see Rahadoum less as an evil society, and more as a fiercely independent nation that's terrified of religious terrorists trying to subvert or destroy their culture. (I know, it's an outlandish idea for a nation, but this is fantasy, right...?)

True James. But, as you wrote about Rahadoum, the god wars there soured the general country. They had seen nothing but death at the hands of "good" and "evil" deities. So, they flipped the gods, goddesses and clergy the bird, forced them out and told them, don't come back or else.

People today feel that way in the real world about many religions that are supposed to be based on love and hate. That is the reason a country like Rahadoum can exist.

I love the Pathfinder Tales book Death's Heretic because it took a former leader in the Pure Legionnaires and turned him into a tool for a goddess, because he asked her to save his love.

The basic problem with that is do we assume that there has been more or less death afterwards? Afterwards, obviously means that it wasn't the divine responsible, but the people and leadership. If its more, that means that Rahadoum basically is the idiotic hypocrisy some people see it as. If it is less death afterwards, well, why does no other nation, empire, or people anywhere else share the same experience, data, or results? Either way, it does not make Rahadoum look good, smart, or logical.

Secondly, I just can not buy an explanation that the nation would be anything but CE for such practices as being perfectly willing to murder even a friend or family member who is just trying to help someone out by curing them. The sheer fact that the entire nation is based on the idea of enforcing a tyrannical law on everyone is even more vile and depraved than things like seduction into a demon cult. It's also a offensive concept which indicates a lack of understanding or care for an individuals sense of spirituality, which is probably the most important aspect of any ones sense of self. Kind of ironic as part of the reason for the Rahadoum face-lift was to not offend real world atheists.

Shadow Lodge ****

1.) Part of the reason I was thinking about this was based on a discussion I had about DM's with favorite scenarios to run. A lot of us have favorite scenarios that the more we run them, the more we are able to weed out the issues, make the NPCs a little more interesting, and make the experience more fun for everyone. So, part of the idea was that it would benefit everyone to help encourage DM's to master a few scenarios (moreso than how it currently works) by helping to incentivize them for doing so.

2.) Off all the benefits, I think getting extra access is probably the one I find most appealing as an extra reward. I'd run games without it, but still this is probably the one I like the most.

3.) I'd say, as I DM more often than I play, probably about 80% of the time I reserve this to save characters from death or a condition that will remove them from play for a while. It's nice for that, but I get my Reroll from things I've purchased. The +1-+3 is pretty irrelevant for the uncommon personal use. It's the reroll itself that's the good part, and that has nothing to do with GM Stars. Something that's also worth noting, simply having DM Stars does not give you a free reroll. You need to have one of the products to get the free reroll, and then if you have DM Stars, you get an additional bonus.

4.) I've had this from the start and never once felt any need to use it on any character. It's just, well it doesn't do much for the divine classes I mostly play.

Shadow Lodge ****

Eric Brittain wrote:
What do you think has changed?

Nothing needs change. For the most part, I expect the same individuals that have already made up their minds one way or the other are not going to change their minds, but I did point out earlier I planned to revisit it after a few months. Maybe some factual based arguments for or against? New thoughts on the subject?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
I think the difference is, whereas numerous folks have produced Dracula movies over the years with no collaboration with one each. Prior to the ramp up for The Force Awakens however, all Star Wars media was set in the same timeline, from games to books. And that continuity was maintained over multiple decades.

Not really. Actually, on of the more commonly held EU Canon has been the large amount of "The Old Republic" lore, set 4,000 years prior to, if I recall correctly, the Battle of Yavin. The Old Republic was also partially included in Star Wars 1-3 as Lucas did need to retroactively include certain aspects like Jedi not being able to marry, the Banite Sith Order/Rule of Two, (one Master and one Apprentice at a time), and to a point the miracle birth of Anakin.

Up until recently, and this probably has a lot to do with the current ownership of various licenses only, the Old Republic material was 100% approved Canon, and looking at the actual announcement, it looks like it's saying (outside of a few noted cases where it does specifically contradict the movies), they are not being removed from canon as much as future material will not include them, which probably wouldn't matter anyway.

Shadow Lodge ****

Just figured it's ben a while, so why not revisit this.

Shadow Lodge

Can someone please translate for Goth Guru?

What does a Deflection Bonus even have to do with unarmored and non-shielding characters getting a free Mage Armor or Shield casting retroactively? What freaking Monk ever would not love that ability to kick in once they get hit.

Or, off topically, when did Monks becomes fighters? Officially or otherwise?

Shadow Lodge

Monks?

Shadow Lodge

Barathos wrote:
What does that have to do with the name "Pathfinder" being only relevant to Golarion?

In Golarion, there is a world spanning army called the Pathfinder Society. What they are saying, I believe, is that the System Neutral material is written to follow the Setting Material, so for example you have the Setting's major deities in the Core book. They refused, until recently, to publish a Dex to Damage style Feat/option because of the Setting centric Dervish Dance. Things like that.

Shadow Lodge

I say read-between-the-lines because these are arguments and discussions I've heard from others, rather than something I'm trying to prove.

As far as I know the only reference to Christianity, and please note this is just one of multiple things I pointed out as lacking in PF, is an obscure reference in Artifacts and Legends. Oddly enough, its extremely vague and literally read-between-the-lines. :P

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:

Well, I don't count myself an "internet expert", but I'm willing to concede WoD, with the caveat that as LazarX, it's our world with twists rather than a new creation. That said, it was also pretty Eurocentric and bits of their treatment of other cultures and groups made me cringe at the time - often being more US/European pop-culture takes than anything else.

For Dragonlance, I only read the original novels (maybe 2 series?) and a couple modules and haven't done so in decades. They did have women as major characters, though I can't really comment on their roles at this point. I don't recall (and a quick internet search doesn't help) much racial diversity - though I guess Riverwind(?) & Goldmoon(?) were basically Native American?
I may be forgetting or they may have come in later, but I don't remember any black or asian characters.

I have no idea what you mean to imply by "analogy for inclusion". You can also present an analogy for something without actually including it. In fact that's how you usually do it. The original X-Men were an analogy for racism and were all white. Then it became more homosexuality, but it was still a long time before there was a homosexual character. You could have a strong theme of "We need each other to stand strong", but just not include people of different races or give them narrow stereotyped roles.

And really, "Judeo-Christianity"? In Dragonlance? As an analogy or actual Jews and Christians? Cause that's hard to fit in.

I'm also not sure why you think Paizo shrieks in fear at including everyone. They don't have Judeo-Christianity, for what I think are obvious reasons. They haven't done much if anything with Native Americans, though there is a place in the world for them and there's been some talk of it. They do have atheism, blacks, interraciallism and heroes and villains of all sorts. So, near as I can tell, you're way off base there.

Theros Ironfeld wasn't included much in the novels as they had to trim over half of them, but he was a blacksmith that was forced into slavery after loosing his arm. It was through his dedication and mastery of hard work and the later acquisition of the Silver Arm of Ergoth that allowed to recreate the Dragonlances and present them in the time of greatest need.

Depending on your point of view, Tanis can be either a representation of bisexuality, caught between two very different worlds and not fully accepted by either, or the more common half breed. In the first, Laurana is the more feminine aspect while Kitiara is the masculine, and it also plays a great deal into how his character is least of all understood even by his closest friends. More of a read-between-the-lines case than an explicit one, as the character as presented is not bisexual.

There is also something to Tas being gay. Again, it's more read-between-the-lines, but there are a lot of comments like "when are you going to find a good Kender (Halfling) woman and settle down, start a family,. . ." and his reply is something like "I've tried. I just, well, I can't really related to other Kender anymore." The given connotation is that he has grown up, but it could also very easily be suggesting he doesn't have any attraction to females.

For the Christian part, Tracy Hickman is a devout Mormon (I believe), and he and other have included a lot of aspects in there, some as easter eggs and others as parables. For example, the Platinum Discs of Mishakal (that hold the greatest gift for mankind) is an allusion to the Joseph Smith's Golden Plates. Paladine is often presented as a carring father that wants mortals to make the right choices on their own, there are more than a few miraculous curings of the "get up and walk" style.

Both Gilthanus' and Silvara's as well as Huma's and Gwyneth are tales of interracial relationships, (as well as the more upfront Tanis and Laurana), and there is also something to be said for Raistlin being a metaphor for transgender.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
The Shoanti have a pretty heavy Native tribes vibe going on.

They do at that. Honestly, they slipped my mind, so thanks for the reminder. :)

Shadow Lodge

knightnday wrote:

They also aren't done yet. There are portions of the world, and the gods and people therein, that haven't been touched on.

Not everything is going to be there for everyone right off the bat; that doesn't mean that they are never going to follow up.

Which is all fine and dandy, but you may want to actually look up "inclusiveness", and reconsider just how long Pathfinder/Golarion has ostensibly been in existence. It' either a "pick and choose" setting or a "a little bit for everyone" setting. Can't be both, and by it's very nature, Golarion is not a "a little bit for everyone" setting.

Don't get me wrong. I'd absolutely love for Pathfinder to catch up, and start seeing some awesome stories come from it. A single father caught between taking care of his kids and a life of adventure. A "half-breed", or heck a cajun offspring of as Mwangi and an Andoran seeing the corruption and mistrust in both their parent's peoples and trying to come to grips with life in a world that I not altered just to highlight their struggle. A classic Christian knight story. A jewish occultist. Native American Indians that are not some sort of beastmen alternate species. "The Orient" that is not some sort of secret mystic society of exoticism. There is so much ground not covered/allowed, it's insane.

Shadow Lodge

LazarX wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Earlier versions of D&D like Greyhawk has black gods (Touv pantheon) but has far less inclusion than Pathfinder, as Pathfinder has positive black characters, like Quinn the Investigator iconic.

Huh???

Pathfinder is very far from inclusive. They might be more inclusive in some specific cases, namely gender and orientation, that's also about it in. But even for just those two, they are pretty far behind the curve, (considering thing like the WoD, oddly Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and many other similar settings). Don't get me wrong, they do a pretty good job in that sense, but there are a lot of groups out there that Pathfinder/Paizo have not touched or outright decided they will not.

Behind the curve? They pretty much set the curve in Non-Earth settings. (WOD doesn't count because it's an adaptation of our world, not a wholly created setting)

What gaming setting is? Maybe d20 Modern? Nah, saying that the WoD is just an adaptation isn't going to cut it. Might be better to argue that it's a lot closer to the real world, with strong metaphors of addiction, religious persecution and extremism, personal believes vs freedoms vs security, but unless you want to argue that vampires, werewolves, mages, ghosts, and angels are both real and secretly hidden and controlling us since the start of time, I don't think that's going to fly. Or that racism is the direct result of a pair of elder's petty squabble, that religious persecution is the result of some dark pagan entity trying to corrupt mortals, and all human achievement is only possible because of the Matrix.

:)

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Earlier versions of D&D like Greyhawk has black gods (Touv pantheon) but has far less inclusion than Pathfinder, as Pathfinder has positive black characters, like Quinn the Investigator iconic.

Huh???

Pathfinder is very far from inclusive. They might be more inclusive in some specific cases, namely gender and orientation, that's also about it in. But even for just those two, they are pretty far behind the curve, (considering thing like the WoD, oddly Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and many other similar settings). Don't get me wrong, they do a pretty good job in that sense, but there are a lot of groups out there that Pathfinder/Paizo have not touched or outright decided they will not.

I'm sure there are lots of groups Paizo hasn't touched and maybe even some they've declared they won't touch, but "far from inclusive" and "pretty far behind the curve" are very strong statements and I'll need some evidence. At least examples so I know what you're talking about.

Well, if you count yourself as an "internet expert" than WoD basically goes without saying. So, lets just look at Dragonalance.

Dragonlance, in much the same way as the X-Men movie are an analogy for homosexuality, is an analogy for, well inclusion. It has a multitude of very important characters, ranging from black to white to asian to "green" and "purple". It presented strong and independent women, and men, and a broad range of motivations and personalities. Unlike Pathfinder, it didn't shriek in fear at including everyone, so there are things like Judeo-Christianity in there, or atheism, native americans, blacks, interracialism, heroes (and villains) of all sorts.

And the fact that it's over 30 years old says something. It also says a lot that Dragonlance's war cry I "We need each other to stand strong" while Pathfinders is more along the lines of "OH, pick me, I have a _____ as an Iconic. See how progressive I am. I must be the first one to do it." Well, minus the ". . . Oh wait, you don't agree. CLUB, CLUB, CLUB <over the head>. Like I said, I must be the first one to do it." part.

:)

Shadow Lodge

Morzadian wrote:
Earlier versions of D&D like Greyhawk has black gods (Touv pantheon) but has far less inclusion than Pathfinder, as Pathfinder has positive black characters, like Quinn the Investigator iconic.

Huh???

Pathfinder is very far from inclusive. They might be more inclusive in some specific cases, namely gender and orientation, that's also about it in. But even for just those two, they are pretty far behind the curve, (considering thing like the WoD, oddly Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and many other similar settings). Don't get me wrong, they do a pretty good job in that sense, but there are a lot of groups out there that Pathfinder/Paizo have not touched or outright decided they will not.

Shadow Lodge

zergtitan wrote:
Would love to see feats, items, and player options for eagle knight PCs.

Sadly, I did notice that the summary does not include something like: "and plenty of Feats/Archetypes/Player Options to help play a champion of Andoran/Eagle Knight", so I'm more inclined to think its just a fluff and DM book.

Shadow Lodge ****

Item Creation Feats, including Scribe Scroll, are not allowed in PFS. All magic items simply spring into existence randomly, (not kidding) or are occasionally unique oddities. Said Wizard NPC likewise does not have Scribe Scroll, so can not just make a scroll for you. Being a new, uncommon spell doesn't change that.

PFS limits what you can buy, or rather what is available to be bought, though it is notably a very artificial way. In Core, as far as I understand it, those spells simply do not exist to your character until that character finds them. Its pretty clear for Wizards how that works. Not so much for everyone else.

As to the Spellbook on Chronicle Sheets, Absolutely Not!!! Its only good for about 3 classes, 1 in Core, and that is something that should be written in when it applies, and signed off. Plenty of scenarios have multiple spellbooks, too much possibility for error, and not to mention APs/Modules, and I need my extra room for trophies and other notes.

Shadow Lodge

Personally, I would much rather keep the AC as a more undefined antagonistic organization as possible, so I would rather not have a book that details them more than they already are.

Shadow Lodge

I think it might be better to say something like " If a creature with a space larger than 5ft is targeted by an area affect and the area is equal to or smaller than their space, the area of the affect radiates to reach 5ft beyond their space on all sides, unless it would normally extend beyond that point."

This wouldn't give larger creatures such a huge advantage with area spells and effects, but would allow them to still affect a small area around them.

It would also be much less wonky with Huge and larger creatures where the grid intersection which is the point of origin would not be the middle square(s).

Shadow Lodge ****

Paul Trani wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

I was actually trying to ask two separate questions that as far as I can tell, the Blog does not cover.

1.) can a non-wizard purchase something on the spot that they find, but is not listed on the Chronicle sheet and use that to add that spell to their list?

2.) can a non-wizard purchase scrolls that are listed on a Chronicle Sheet any time after that session, to add it to their spell list?

Again, the answers to your questions are:

1.) No
2.) Yes

I was looking for an official clarification. I'm not sure if your response is speculation, inside knowledge that hasn't been released, answered in some random other thread, your personal preference, or what, but it's not clear in this blog.

Shadow Lodge ****

Yes, but the for the second boon, it does specify it needs to be done at the end of the scenario. It's unclear if it is just that one portion or the entirety.

Shadow Lodge ****

I was actually trying to ask two separate questions that as far as I can tell, the Blog does not cover.

1.) can a non-wizard purchase something on the spot that they find, but is not listed on the Chronicle sheet and use that to add that spell to their list?

2.) can a non-wizard purchase scrolls that are listed on a Chronicle Sheet any time after that session, to add it to their spell list?

Shadow Lodge ****

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

Im a little confused, too.

Lets say a Druid finds a scroll in a game, but it is NOT on the Chronicle sheet. Can they buy it, at value, and then add it to their effective list?

If instead they find a scroll that IS on the Chronicle sheet. Can they later, (games later), purchase it and add it to their list?

Andrew Christian wrote:
If it isn't on the chronicle, they can't buy it later.

Assuming that your response was aimed at me, that doesn't help at all, or even pertain to what was asked.

:P

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Im a little confused, too.

Lets say a Druid finds a scroll in a game, but it is NOT on the Chronicle sheet. Can they buy it, at value, and then add it to their effective list?

If instead they find a scroll that IS on the Chronicle sheet. Can they later, (games later), purchase it and add it to their list?

Shadow Lodge ****

Jesse Davis wrote:

PBPGAMEDAY.COM seems to working right now - I think it was a godaddy issue that resolved.

I am only up to session .... 73-ish - will finish the rest Monday evening.

You can actually see what is reported here: http://ironhelixx.com/pbpgameday3/results.php

I noticed that I have a game listed twice. #138 & 139 should only be one session, when you get to it. I'm not sure how that happened. It was a game I took over from DM Kim.

Shadow Lodge ****

Ragathiel
Spring Loaded Wrist Sheath
Burst of Radiance
Sacred Summons + Lantern Archon <pew pew>
Mendev Priest/Crusader Archetype
Earthbreaker
Inner Sea Gods
Champions/Faiths of Purity
Aasimar
Dhampir
All the Hero Labs data I purchased. . .
The Monster Summoner Handbook (see #4)
Furious Focus
Angelic Wings
Liberating/Murderous Command
Growth Domain
Spark
Masterwork Backpack
Journal
Stormstone
Mess Kit
Masterwork Survival Kit
Midwife Kit
Swarm Suite
Hot Weather Outfit
Ioun Torch
Various 200-800gp Ioun Stones of +1 Skill
Alkili Flask
Unique "priest" spells, lists, Feats, and Traits
Hollow Pommel
Holy Symbol Tattoo!!!!!!!!
Agile Breastplate
Mountain Pattern/Four-Mirror Armor
Enhanced Diplomacy
Lore Warden Fighter

Shadow Lodge

Oh, absolutely. I think that's my main issue with almost all of these Player's Guides, is just how lacking they are.

Shadow Lodge

Assimar have a really nifty Favored Class bonus that helps keep maximized Channel Energy relevant, though I should point out that there may not be as much undead as you'd expect.

My understanding is that the AP significantly changes after part one, so don't use early play as a guide on what to build towards.

But, keep in mind that Channeling, even maxed out, just doesn't keep up well at all, for either healing or harming.

The Evangilist Archetype might be worth looking into, especially early on.

I highly recommend talking with the other players, especially the Rogue and Sorcerer, and dividing up your Knowledge skills to work best. You take History & Religion, Sorcerer takes Arcana, Nature, and one or two others, and the Rogue takes what's left (or something like that).

Dividing between Diplomacy, Heal, History, Religion, and Sense Motive, (and hopefully Perception) should have you spread pretty thin on skills, which kind of sucks for the Cleric that kind of needs more points to do their basic job description.

Most of the Campaign Traits, in my opinion, where very bad, so hopefully your DM is giving you a free one that has to be one of those, but if not, oh well.

Affable might be a great option. Blessed Touch, Birthmark, Exalted of the Society, and Fey Fondling are my goto Cleric Traits.

If you do go with Iomedae, Chosen of Iomedae and Divine Warrior can work pretty well for a +1 free damage plus always useful Light source, though you might need Extra Traits Feat.

1 to 50 of 1,453 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.