Dracala's page

Organized Play Member. 143 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 143 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Themetricsystem I am very glad to see you actually state that despite being a Hybrid class Shaman is unique enough to warrant a class. Its one of my favorite classes, and most definitely feels distinct enough from its parent classes and the core classes to stand on its own, at least imho.

In my opinion some other classes I would Love to see along the line are Shifter with a Proper Implementation this time, Slayer, Hunter, Kineticist, and Occultist. Though I'm sure there will more than likely be an Occult Adventures book somewhere down the line for Occultist and other classes, like the Psychic.

Vigilante I say why split it up? There's a number of great options in the Vigilante Talents & the Social Talents that's more than just skill feats... Though covering it in an archetype or a few could be an idea...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelfiredragon wrote:
I would alsolike ot point out, this thread as of this page is going down the road of all the other paladin threads

Hey Steel, do you know why its going down that road? Its because HWalsh Dragged it that way..... Like he ALWAYS does. (haven't read the third page yet)

HWalsh wrote:

See a code is inherently lawful.

There is no lawfuldin, or neutraldin, or chaodin.

There is a Paladin. A Lawful Good champion of justice.

Chaotic characters would have fast and loose personal codes, which is antithetical to Paladin codes

That's the first thing he came in and said, in a thread directly named: "What Would A CG Paladin Code Look Like?" and with his past history on these topics, yeah..... >.> And then he moved onto making an Argument that Specifically swayed in the favor of Law, without Ever trying to Actually Talk about what a Chaotic Good Champion, should have.

Also I'm of an opinion that is very disappointed with Paizo, because while Ok, the Paladin is still only LG, and they conceded they'll make other Alignment Champions down the line, I can accept that. What really disappointed me though, is that they have decided to Lock the Defense Class to one Alignment by making that the Paladin, that is now Their Niche..... Which to me is rather Sad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So both parties are getting what they want.... Just the Other Alignments party needs to wait for our day to come, wonderful x.x


The problem I'm seeing with Animate Objects (btw, I don't care about this over all subject one way or the other, as my previous post should have shown) But the problem, well problems, I see with Animate Objects is that it A) only lasts for 1 round per caster level, which is honestly ridiculous, B) is a 6th level spell instead of a 3rd level one, C) is 1 small object rather than 4hd per caster lvl. So telling people that they should just replace Animate Dead w/ Animate Objects is pointedly ridiculous.....

Again, just my 2 cents as an outside observer of this bickering, carry on.


I know I'm late but there was talk about Reincarnation and how that goes against the Cycle of life and death back on Page 4, and I have 2 things to say
A) its life, death, judgement, outsider, life, repeat
B) there's an archetype for that: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/archetypes/paizo-druid- archetypes/reincarnated-druid
Reincarnation for Free everybody, this Druid is now Outside of the Cycle, so long as she doesn't die in the next week!(its even an Extraordinary ability, so no anti-magic zones can stop it)

I'd also like to reiterate a question johnlocke asked: But then what's wrong about animating animals?

Also to Albatoonoe: um weren't the twigs once alive? Were they not a part of a living tree? What's so different about reanimating a twig and reanimating an arm? Especially since Flesh Golems, which I believe people have said multiple times requires Animate Dead, also requires stitching body parts of various corpses together, so if I fashioned a treant out of sticks, wood, and leaves, of a once living treant and crafted them together, would I not then be able to use Animate Dead on it? (btw the spell does Not say it needs to be humanoid type or of the Kingdom Animalia, so treants and other plant creatures should totally be fair game) >.>

Edit: I now go to bed, Good night all!


KingOfAnything wrote:

I thought the alchemist came out ahead from the preview. Elemental bombs and infusion discoveries from level one sounds pretty helpful.

We will have to see about the others when the blog comes.

The problem there, is that the majority of Alchemist builds were meleers rather than bombers >.> Now I understand Why they wanted to move Mutagen back (to stop dipping into Alchemist for it still), but to those who liked Melee Alchemists, yeah....


I actually used Sleight of Hand a Lot on my Rogue, stole weapons off of people I snuck up on >.>


Then that covers Everything


1 person marked this as a favorite.

lets see.... Acrobatics covers Acrobatics and Fly
Bluff and Disguise are covered by Deception
Climb and Swim, and Jumping(?) are in Athletics
Diplomacy, Intimidate/tion, Perform(ance), and Stealth are still there
Heal=Medicine
the Various Knowledges and Linguistics are distributed amongst Lore, Occultism, Nature, Religion, and Society
Handle Animal, Survival and Possibly Ride are in Survival (if Ride isn't in Acrobatics or Athletics)
Perception isn't going to be a skill
Spellcraft is in Occultism
Thievery is HUGE incorporating what 3 skills? Sleight of Hand, Disable Device and Escape Artist(?) (or is Escape Artist in something else?)
Like you said Sense Motive is More than likely still a Skill, and I could definitely see it being called Insight by the way the other skills look to be named.
Use Magic Device is unaccounted for, but it may already be in Occultism (seems more likely than Relgion or Nature), or just replaced entirely by the Resonance system >.>

That leaves Appraise, Knowledge(Engineering), and Profession.


A Few last notes, I do believe that King John did have Traditional Authority, because A) he was Richard's brother and thus seen as suited to be Lord Reagent, and B) the Nobility Supported him in the story of Robin Hood.

Also! Go look at the Real History of Richard the Lionheart and King John, Richard actually forgave his brother for trying to keep him held prisoner, and then made him his Heir.

I am sorry however for sidetracking the whole Blog Thread!


See I always saw it that Just because you follow a code of Conduct does not make you Lawful, being Lawful is about following Law. Chaotic people can have a Code of Conduct that they live up to just as much as Lawful people can, that doesn't make them any more Lawful, they just don't give a flip what anyone else thinks about it, its their individual freedom to do so. Though I will admit that chaotic people aren't Nearly as rigid as Lawful people are, they typically go by codes that allow them more freedom in what they can do, but still have things that They Won't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Indeed in Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I state the Contrary, Law IS Public Opinion, and Chaos is about Individualism.


The question though is Cabbage, did Anyone else see it as Illegitimate Authority? And, if John had won out in the end, who then would be seen as the Legitimate Authority? History afterall is written by the victors, and Stories (if Robin Hood is indeed fictional) are written for Good to Triumph over evil(like John).


I know he's not but that doesn't change the matter that A) King Richard isn't around(he was actually off fighting in the crusades, by most tellings), and B) he's in charge right now, so by fighting against him, you are Still fighting against the Rightful Authority, even if he isn't the Rightful King according to Robin Hood and the story narrative, he is still a Rightful Authority. This is exactly how Monarchies went back then, and we're discussing Law vs Chaos not Good or Evil, I don't think anyone is going to argue that John wasn't evil and that Robin Hood wasn't good. But John was using the Law to his advantage to take over the throne for Himself, Lawful Evil to a T.

Also that clip you showed, showed him being Chaotic, because the Society Literally surrounding him in that clip, was following what they saw was Rightful Authority, the Lord Reagent of England, John. Meanwhile Robin was telling everyone that he saw them as traitors and that he'd Fight against this new Order and the oppression of the Saxon People(another CG Hallmark, fighting oppression), CG does what CG does.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
I disagree that Thievery has a meaningful moral implication. I mean, Robin Hood exists and is widely referred to as a thief. He's genrally a good guy, and in some of the more 'loyal to the king' interpretations, could even be argued to be LG.

I'm sorry but how is Robin Hood who is Always depicted as fighting Against Prince/King John at all LG... I could see NG, but NOT LG! Fighting against the Authorities (see King John and the Sheriff of Nottingham) is Traditionally Chaotic. This is honestly why I HATE the conflation that LG can possibly fight against Society, because its Literally stealing from CG, and making people think that CG is just CN but Nicer. Society and Authority are Hallmarks of Lawful, so Fighting against said things would Inherently move one towards the Opposite. >.>


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry John John but Alchemists Are Not Casters, they create Alchemical Items, like elixirs and bombs, and potentially at lvl 18, Potions.


I play Most of my characters as Chaotic Neutrals, it just fits my playstyle and who I am best. an Example? My Ratfolk Rogue/Alchemist, wound up following an alluring scent(to her) to where she thought there might be food and alchemical supplies, but was instead a monster. She also almost got turned into food more than a few times herself, because of not paying close enough attention, a giant spider in a pantry, a snake under what amounted to a picnic table, etc. x3

I think my favorite thing to fight against is probably Neutral Evil. You know why Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil exists, one wants power the other destruction, but Neutral Evil? They're just evil to be evil >.>


Ah ok, and with everyone having full BAB this go around, yeah I could see where that'd possibly be a bad thing, though I do really wanna see what kinda combat bonuses Martials will get to keep ahead of Full Casters having Full BAB and same number of actions a round.... Are they moving it off of attack and onto Damage? Are they giving Martials more front-loaded attacks per round?


Can I get a reminder on how Crits will work in 2e, I kinda forgot that part >.>


Ummmm the thing about this 0/-5/-10 is that it is Literally what we have Now w/ iterative attacks, right now Full BAB Full Attacks = 0/-5/-10/-15... so >.>

Now I totally understand how you can't currently do 2 attacks and move, but still, that full attack action isn't anything we're not seeing now, and people still do it. The thing I can see possibly changing this is that there's no swift actions, just a Reaction....


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would really Love to see the numbers on that Mark cuz to me, the Cleric was one of the most Boring 1E classes, all it had was a couple of domain powers, Channeling, and Spells, it didn't even have a capstone.


With the way that all classes are going to be getting Class Feats, I'm mostly sad to see things like Mysteries(/Spirits) and Bloodlines go the way of the dinosaur.... I'm sure there will be the same old options in there as feats, BUT they're not going to be grouped into thematic packages, and you'll probably have to Flavor them yourself for the kind of Sorcerer/Oracle/Shaman you wanna be. That to me is losing a lot of the flavor of these classes.


Joe M. wrote:
See this interview summary, which Mark linked Upthread, for a few more details, including confirmation of an Alchemical Familiar class feat. But there will be a lot of class feats, I'm sure, so plenty of room for these kinds of gross goodies.

A Golem is Not a necessarily a Tumor, in fact it feels more like the Homunculus Discovery..... And I read that interview, it didn't dissuade the fear.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My problem here is that I'm seeing absolutely no mention of the cool grotesquerie discoveries that I attribute to the Alchemist class (and Absolutely Love about it) like Mummification, Parasitic Twin, Bottled Ooze, Rag Doll Mutagen, Tentacles, Tumor Familiar, Alchemical Simulacrum, etc. I want more of These types of Discoveries, they're what made the Alchemist one of my Favorite classes!

I know, I know, I need to have patience, I'm sure they'll be there.... But what if they're Not? I want to have my mad science have permanent lasting effects on my body darn it.


*has done zany antics as a Kitsune Vigilante before, and as a Catfolk Ranger*


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Ah see this isn't gonna work cause I already disagree with some of your assumptions about morality. That sort of argument never ends.

Sorry bout that kinda conked out there(because it was 7-8 am), and I won't continue the fight, because I wanted to agree to disagree a few posts before you did, and even tried to give you an out, that you didn't take.

What I will say vidmaster, is that you're right I do take things like this maybe a bit too seriously, because as I said in my last post on Pg 3(but may not have emphasized enough), I Devour Lore, and see the pie wheel system as resolutely true within Magic, so Black doesn't care about your views on morality(kinda what it means to be Truly Amoral), and Abadar would be a White Deity. I've actually very much incorporated D&D's Alignment Chart, the Magic Pie Wheel, and even Chronicles of Darkness' Supernal realms & their shadows & arcana (Pandemonium/Primordial Dream, Faerie/Hedge&Arcadia, Stygia/Underworld, Primal Wilds/Shadow, & the Aether) into how I view the world around me.

Now Everyone else, I am very sorry for intruding once more with this drivel, please continue with your talk of LG-only vs Other Alignments for Paladins Debate.


yeah, but that's just the thing, None of these philosophies are based on Good or Evil(at all), or necessarily the same Law and Chaos of D&D, both Blue and White have aspects of Law in them, while Red has the bulk on Chaotic sure, but its not about Chaos its About Individuality, Freedom, and Passion.

Meanwhile sure, Black is the only one who has the Amorality of D&D Evil, but it espouses Free Will and the Choices of the Individual. If the Individual is too sheepish to take what it wants then it doesn't deserve to have it. If they're going to fail because they're too weak to succeed, then why drag yourself down with them. That's Black's Philosophy, and you know what? that's honestly not good or evil, its not Good surely by any imaginings, but its not necessarily Evil either, its Neutral because it didn't create the evils of the world, its just playing the game by its rules. That's honestly how All of the Colors are on the Good/Evil Spectrum.

White for example wants to make Everyone play by its Ballgame, by creating rigid structures and codes of moral and civil laws to Enforce that everyone needs to work together towards White's Big Picture of Peace. This is where I get that White is about Structure and Rules, aka Lawful, because those are the Literal tools it uses to get its way.

You know I always heard when you hear that Evil People are doing Evil to create good in the big picture, that the Ends don't justify the means, well if doing evil things to create good makes one evil, then wouldn't doing Lawful things to create Peace(as seen by white) make White Lawful? Honestly in the Metaverse of Magic, the Conscience is just a Creation of White's Moral Laws.


By the way my favorite deck is my Exponential Growth Green Deck, I know Exactly what you're talking about, but you are missing big points on the Philosophy of Green, and discounting it into being allied to all of the colors, when my color specifically is opposed to Blue and Black, because they Break the Natural Cycle.

If green leans towards nature, blue leans towards nurture. Blue has this false notion that individuals have complete say on who they are. Blue not only fails to acknowledge what comes from within, it also spends lots of time and energy trying to become something else. Blue is the color most intent on creating artificial items, with complete disregard for anything natural. Blue and green both seek to educate, but while green looks to the wisdom of the past, blue is obsessed with the unknown of the future. Blue not only prevents green from getting out its message, it constantly misleads individuals by offering them a false path.

Green looks at black and sees a color intent on destroying everything green holds dear. Black is power-hungry and has no conscience to keep it in check. Black kills wantonly and dangerously, wrecking ecosystems left and right. Green sees death for what it is: a key component in the great circle of life. Black sees it as a weapon, and through misuse of it threatens the very system green cares most about. How can green introduce everyone to the natural world around them if black destroys it? Also, black does not understand that one's role in life is predetermined—it acts out trying to prove that it has free will.


So you Are Discounting the nuances of the Pie Wheel, and the Actual Philosophy of the game, because you want to fit things in your neat and tidy D&D Squares >.> I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.


Yes, but there in lies the problem, because Blue and Black are Purposefully opposed to the Natural Order of things as Green sees it.


well they are both Wizard products, so yeah.

Anyways! It's not about being literal minded, so much as not wanting the nuances of green to be discounted. See by calling Green True Neutral, you're basically saying that Green is the balance between White, Red, Blue, and Black, when its Not.

Now if you wanted to say that Green is True Neutral, White is Lawful Good, Blue is Lawful Evil, Red is Chaotic Good, and Black is Chaotic Evil, I might, and that is a very small Might, be able to get behind it.... (I'm mostly offering that as a compromise, because that's still making Red Allied to White, and Green allied to noone, and just outright removing color oppositions, which is why its a star in the first place >.>)


Ravnica is built differently as a set because its based on the 10 guilds, its built upon color combinations, as is Alara. Mirrodin on the other hand was everyone vs those Colorless guys(the True Neutral of Magic is Colorless remember, aka things that aren't colored by the 5 forces), Innistrad was about Humans vs Monsters(Werewolves were Green and Red, Vampires were Red and Black, Zombies were Black and Blue, Spirits were Blue and White, and Humans were White and Green) >.>

There was also another point I think you missed me trying to make, and that was White/Red is Just as likely to work with Black/Blue as against it due to Red being Black's Ally, and Blue being White's Ally. To be honest to get a Feel for Why/Where Colors are Allied, all you need to do is look at the color that they both Oppose, Green for blue and black, White for black and red, Blue for red and green, Black for green and white, and Red for white and blue. I'm just saying that the Magic Alignment system is Blue-Orange to the D&D System.


Except that in Magic its Not, Green opposes Blue on the basis of Nature vs Nurture and Overcoming Destiny vs Accepting Destiny. Blue believe that you can make yourself whatever you want to become, while Green believes that you are what you will Always be and there's no need to fight against that.

Meanwhile Green opposes Black on the basis of Accepting vs Overcoming Nature. Green as a Force sees Life and Death as a cycle (we all know how that cycle goes), while Black wants to turn that cycle on its head and move past it, hence all the undeath in Black. Green vs Black is about symbiosis vs parasitism, ecosystem vs self, status quo vs warping things to one's own Favor.

So Green is honestly diametrically opposed to Black and Blue, all of the Colors are Diametrically opposed to 2 of the other colors, in your example of Blue/Black being Lawful Evil and Red/White being Chaotic Good, did you fail to take into account that Red is Black's Ally and White is Blue's Ally, or that Red and White themselves are Opposed to each other? Remember that there have been Blogs on the Various Guilds of Ravnica, and Boros like the other Opposed force guilds shine a light more on how they come to terms with the differences between their colors, while the ones of allied colors show off the similarities between them.

GOD This just makes me want a D&D Take on Ravnica all the More.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah Black is Very much about Amorality. Also there's the fact that Green Does oppose Blue and Black, despite as you put it, how it may lend itself to True Neutral in D&D Terms.... But then, its also opposed to how you would have Blue as Lawful and Black as Evil, so is it then Chaotic Good?

While the D&D Alignments are based on Morality(Good vs Evil) and Ethics(Law vs Chaos) the Magic Pie is based on Philosophical Debate at its Very Core, which absolutely appeals to me.

EDIT: To go along with this a good place to put Orzhov, is Literally in LE, that's very much a good place to put the Orzhov Syndicate, they aren't really good, but they're very much about Law and Evil. And the Senate as NG? Really?!?! There is Absolutely No way they are Neutral, They're the Lawmaking group amongst the Guilds, how could the possibly be anywhere Near Chaotic?


Except that White represents Societal Structure and Rule of Law, what you would normally see as the Lawful Alignment, and is very much the opposing force to Red's Freedom of Self. Blue and Red differ more on Emotion vs Thought, Passion vs Logic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Morality is honestly a spectrum, and the fact that in D&D/PF it is boiled down to 9 categories is honestly dumb. Hell I once saw someone take the setting of Ravnica from Magic the Gathering, and try to turn it into a D&D setting with each guild overarchingly based on an alignment. The Guild of Izzet was placed as Lawful Chaotic....... And to be honest that Guild Really is LC. But Ravnica and MtG work off of a Completely Different Alignment system to D&D, one I can Honestly get behind a Lot more, because its more philosophically inclined than morally or ethically so.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

A Preface
I have been sitting here, waiting for days since the Goblin post came out. And this entire forum is utterly rife with these pro and anti Goblin Core threads. I am not a Pro Goblin Advocate, Nor an Anti-Goblin Racist. What I am is a person who Hates this line of discourse taking up Everything, and a Person Who prefers Choices be Added rather than Removed (as I've tended to show in Paladin Arguments, btw I have Never played a Paladin, nor Will I Ever play one, but don't tell HG Walsh that).

NOW from what I've been seeing of all of this, Paizo is Apparently trying to DOWNPLAY the Psychopathic parts of the Goblin Depiction, and trying to UPPLAY the more comical side of them, the Friendlier side of them. Probably because of One and only One thing, they see Goblins as an Iconic Pathfinder Race, and they want to make them more Marketable, more Full of Personality and less Psychopathy. Keep in Mind that Pathfinder is getting beaten out by 5e D&D, which puts out Much Less Content, that's one of the reasons that they're making 2e in the first place(Not the only one, but surely a good one). And to that end, Core Goblins seems like a very good move, all the other playable races are Generic, but Core Goblins? That's something Iconic.

NOW I Can Honestly see where the Anti-Goblin Core people are coming from, they don't like that the Goblins are being added to this special group of Always Allowed character races, but here's the thing, IF Paizo can actually Balance Future Races after Core so that those Races are always allowable as playable as well(or Make it so that Goblins are a Core Boon Race in PFS), then there's Honestly No Problem at all. This is a situation just like Aasimar and Tieflings were allowable and currently Kitsune (and I can't remember what other race is Currently Legal to Just make without boon in PFS, think there's one) Then what exactly would be your Definition of Core? Because Obviously there's everything allowed everywhere, except Homegames, where you can Disallow whoever or whatever you want. The main problem with Core Races currently is that they are the BLANDEST of the BLAND, which is Obviously something they're trying to fix with the new Ancestry system. Hell if they allowed more races at any given time, how many of the Current Core Races do you think you'd see?

Now if your problem is that Goblins are Disruptive, I believe as MANY People have pointed out, that its the Player that's disruptive, Not the Race. If its that certain Mob(I played WoW before I ever touched a Tabletop RPG), so I like the term Mob) Goblins like to do these horrible things and raid towns, if you want to show that off you still can, just like there are Human Bandits that like to hold people up at sword point on highways, or Human Slavers that like to enslave entire villages. HELL this is the Very Reason I hate Humans, because Humans have an EXTREMELY High Propensity for Well Informed, Sophisticated Evil... Both in Every Game I've Ever seen, and in the Real World. Just because Humans don't like eating Human babies, because they find it disturbing (don't see Goblins eating Goblin Babies) doesn't mean they don't Eat Babies (Lamb, Veal, Baby Pigs etc.) and You Yourself must admit you find it Perfectly Acceptable, unless you're a Vegetarian.

As for Pyromania, AGAIN AS OTHER People have Pointed Out, Fireblooded Sorcerers, Clerics of Asmodeus, Alchemists(from what I hear the Iconic Alchemist will be a Goblin), Evocation Wizards, Fire Kineticists, Tieflings and Ifrit are All Prime Examples of Pyromaniacs.

Now that I've gotten that out of my system, I'm Leaving, because again I HATE THE PREVALENCE OF THESE THREADS...........................


graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I agree with this. Animal Companions and Familiars can be cool, but no corebook class should have to have them.
I Agree. That said, I could see a 'beast master' class that's main thing IS a companion [or 3].

Which is what the Hunter is, I just wish it wasn't also tied down with casting.


Wanna know what I wish could be traded away? Casting period. There are a number of classes I'd Love to play that are 2/3rd or full casters because of their other stuff, but that have casting... Do I still use those classes, sure? Do I use them to their full potential? Not really, and its because of the casting. They gave us Shifters and Mooncursed Barbarians for non casting Wildshapers, Rogues can have Bardic Performance and Hexes, Untouchable Bloodragers have Bloodlines w/out casting, and they're removing Extracts from Alchemists in 2e.

Now can I get Shaman Spirits/Oracle Mysteries w/out Casting? or Hunters, Inquisitors, and Occultists w/ non-Casting options please?


Honestly I really like your Option B Kyrt, its the kind of thing I wish I could have, because there's a lot of things that spellcasters cover, that I Love, but that I then have to take Spellcasting to get, which I don't really like... >.<

Like as three examples from the characters I posted, the Animal Companion love of the Hunter, Alchemist Discoveries(Read Sciencey and Strange), and Shaman Spirits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

Because my goals isn't to stop people from multi-classing my goal is to convince Paizo to stop mechanically penalizing players who don't multi-class. ...

After listening to the blog posted, it's clear Paizo gets it. They not only recognize that much of the 1-2 level dips are simply exploitative, but that parties of 1 Clown/2 Zebra/1 MacGiver are bad for game play.

There's nothing more I need to try and convey to Paizo until we see what they do. ... But we'll see. The important thing for me is Paizo is already on top of it.

I Love how you said this a page ago, and yet you're Still arguing with everyone as if trying to convince Paizo to Still not allow Multi-classing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And I will still happily play in the upcoming system, because the Class Feats don't matter to me at all, the concepts do. So if I want to go say 8 in one class and 12 in another I will happily do that (like I said about my Monk/Brawler). I will Nowhere be as strong as either of those classes taken to max, and I shouldn't be, but I will Still have fun with them.

Oh btw, I do tend to plan out my characters from lvl 1-20, building characters that I like the concept of is how I started out in D&D cuz I had noone to play with when I first got into it....


N N 959 wrote:
Dracala wrote:
This is how I like to play, why are you telling me its wrongmcbadfun? Just because other people like to take tiny dips into other classes so that they're not really competent? Just because you have this outdated conception that goes back to AD&D?

There is no authoritative 'wrongmcbadfun' argument. When someone counters "Well, that's what's fun for me," there is no further discussion. If poking red hot needles in your arm is what's fun for you, then so be it. No on can tell you that you're "wrong." Paizo doesn't really care how you play the game, they only care that you purchase and promote their product in a positive light. They've never required anyone to follow their rules, unless we're talking about PFS, which we are not.

My perspective is that the game lost something on the way to multi-classing, something fundamental. I'm reinforced in this believe by all you people who insist you can't create your character concept without multi-classing. That tells me, unequivocally, that the mechanics are what drive the sense of character. I am of the firm believe that if the pure class mechanics were stronger and more compelling, suddenly people will find that they do want to play a fighter, a ranger, or rogue, from 1-10, if not 1-20. Call it a hunch.

You still haven't answered the one question I Actually Asked of you, or look at my conceptual characters, or even take note that I agreed with you. So what did you do? Besides look at that last paragraph? I reiterate my question 959

Dracala wrote:
959, I posted some characters I've made back on Page 3, first post. Can you tell me how I'm powergaming/minmaxing/whatever you wanna call it? Because I would Love to know your opinion of my characters. (Btw, that Bloodrager/Shaman has more levels of Bloodrager than Shaman, the Monk/Brawler actually has close levels on the two classes, and the other two only have 4 levels in rogue and fighter respectively).

Also multiclassing gives Variety that One Classing just cannot give, because soloclassing is Still tied down to its core concepts (which Yes give rise to the mechanics of said class). When someone would like to mix some of those concepts, they multiclass, because if every class had Every conceptual thing, then there would Only be One Class.

Take for example my Shaman/Bloodrager nowhere in her concept did I really care about Spells At All (I Was Tied down to them because of the classes themselves), what my concepts did include were the Mammoth Spirit(Shaman/Oracle only), and a Mounted Barbarian.

Or how about my Hunter/Fighter, I went into fighter because A) I was a Frontliner (still only used Medium Armor and my Great Club which my Hunter levels allowed for) and B) for my Familiar to be able to fight side by side with me and my Animal Companion using our Teamwork Feats. That's not something I could get out of only Hunter, because Hunter's aren't built to have a Familiar, I got that outside of classes by using Feats, and my Familiar can't just Gain Feats by itself. So outside of the Fighter levels, how could it have fought with me tactically?


He's deleted and remade it a few times so that it was at the bottom >.>


959, I posted some characters I've made back on Page 3, first post. Can you tell me how I'm powergaming/minmaxing/whatever you wanna call it? Because I would Love to know your opinion of my characters. (Btw, that Bloodrager/Shaman has more levels of Bloodrager than Shaman, the Monk/Brawler actually has close levels on the two classes, and the other two only have 4 levels in rogue and fighter respectively).

I multiclass because it fits my concept, and I like to Multiclass, just to multiclass not caring about the ramifications. Take for example my Bloodrager/Shaman. She was planned from the start to be a Bloodrider, because mounted Barbarian was part of her concept, the other part was the Mammoth Spirit, a personal totem through which she was granted power from the mighty beasts which she so admired, felt so close to, and was enthralled by. In fact this is the very reason she was a Half Orc to begin with. Could I have made her a Mounted Fury Barbarian instead? Sure, but I made her around the time that Advanced Class Origins had just come out, and the Bloodrager was hype.

Personally I don't build to be min/maxed or power gamed, I build purely because I have a cool concept come to mind, I have literally crossed Witch and Arcanist on a Changeling, just because it felt fun (never played her, because she is very unoptimized, but still the point stands, I statted her to 20). I do agree with you that the character Has to be built around the classes, because without a class there really can be no character in this system, so the character does indeed =class, by necessity. But, that doesn't mean that they can't also be defined by another class as well.

I'm also not one for just dipping I always go at least 4-5 levels into a class, because I want to appreciate the class for what the class is, and not just the parts its made of. Take for example my Hunter/Fighter, I took the fighter levels to make my Familiar as competent as my Animal Companion at teamwork. But I had already planned to get the Familiar from Level 1 and got her from Outside the Fighter class. Keira's concept was that she was a Scaleheart Beast Master who felt akin to and fought at the side of her beasties (in this case a Croc Animal Companion(who she was raised with in the Swamp by a Deinosuchus mother who saved her life and took her in), and a Caiman Familiar (who she found along the way and saved the life of, just as she had been saved). She was also made to be a Melee Combatant who didn't really care about her spells (due to it not being a part of her initial concept) but used them when she thought it prudent, like saving a downed companion by using Hydraulic Push on an opponent who was closing in. Fighter very much fit for her because she was a frontliner, who with the help of her animals was able to control zones, and beat in faces w/ her great club(which was shaped like a Croc head x3), it allowed her to be better at that. Eldritch Guardian (which is class flavor of its own, separate from its parent class) allowed her Familiar Jade to work more regimentally with her and Ruby. I prolly would have taken more fighter levels too, if it hadn't been for Boon Companion allowing for only 4 levels in another class.

This is how I like to play, why are you telling me its wrongmcbadfun? Just because other people like to take tiny dips into other classes so that they're not really competent? Just because you have this outdated conception that goes back to AD&D?


Sorry that this is a Necro (I think?) but I really like your updates Doc, the Mouse and Snake additions are awesome! Really wondered why they didn't give us the option of being a constrictor in the first place, and the mouse is an even better scout form with this.

Definitely gonna see if I can't get these changes added alongside the Official Fixes in our home games....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A class I'd like to see would be one that's akin to the Magic of Incarnum class the Totemist. The main feature of this class was that it was able to form magic into items(soulmelds) that when Bound took up item slots on their body (they could also be used unbound to lesser effect but could be used with magic items then), and had a pool of points(essentia) they used to Buff these bound melds further. The Totemist focused on items that copied abilities from various magical beasts and had a unique slot called the Totem Chakra that didn't correspond to an item slot and made them more beastly. The class even had Wild Empathy like the Druid.

Yep Totemist was one of my Favorite 3.X classes, and in my opinion the most flavorful Incarnum class.... Though I am now realizing they can't because MoI isn't OGL or on the SRD......


I can completely understand that there are those People out there that multiclass just to gain broken combos of abilities.... But, there are others like me who Multiclass for the flavor of it, and I can give a few examples of the things I've done if you'd like. Just please don't keep me from making characters I like to play because some rotten apples like to spoil the bunch.


Athaleon wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
bookrat wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


Most players enjoy it when the game behaves as predicted (within a tolerance.) That is why formulas are an important part of game design.
Counterpoint: Wildmagic. There for the sheer fun of it. :)
More counterpoint: I let my players roll average whenever they want. They can choose to do 35 dmg fireballs instead of 10d6. Nobody does, because rolling dice to see if they roll a good roll is exciting for them
I've found that when it comes to important things like ability scores and HP, many people indeed prefer point-buy for the former and taking the average for the latter.

But... but I Reeeally LOVE rolling dice to get a pool of 6 scores for my abilities (I tend to use the standard method of dice rolling), but then again I'm probably an outlier X)

1 to 50 of 143 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>