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

Dreaming Psion's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. 860 posts (899 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 860 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Christopher Dudley wrote:
He didn't burn your house down?
What kind of murderhobo has a house to burn down?

The kind who knows Tiny Hut, Secure Shelter, or Mage's Magnificent Mansion or who owns an Instant Fortress or Cloud Castle.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm probably much more concerned with creature execution overall than creature type. But here goes some things I'm a little bit weary of
a) creatures that are merely slight variants/rehashes of previously existing monsters, ones that don't bring much new to the table.
b) Creatures that are mostly grab bags of assorted but unassociated resistances, immunities, and spell-like abilities.
c) otherworldly entities whose main function is to kill you or swallow your soul.

#1 tends to be giants, golems, and such. (Big brutes who can hit pretty hard but can be pushovers otherwise.) #2 and especially #3 tend to be outsiders, especially those of the big three (Demon, Devil, Daemon).

Most notably about outsiders, I'm a bit fatigued by the number of them that variant in how/why they want to kill/destroy you because many times the specifics don't matter in many games/campaigns. If there is to be more fiendish outsiders (and I'm guessing we'll see more of them if a Bestiary V does arrive), I would like to see the new ones take up a different "conceptual niche."

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Depending on your dm's interpretation of the need for sleep, any divine caster who can cast lesser restoration (relieves the fatigued condition.)

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
HyperMissingno wrote:
You know your DM is out to get the male dwarf when the boss is a mad barber.

To be fair, I think anybody could feel threatened by a mad barber.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Pretty rare as D&D never has handled monster PCs well in my opinion. The pixie one guy had was a real glass cannon whose ECL really slowed down her overall class progression, and I think the medusa PC one of my players had only worked because he had a fairly good sense of restraint. I haven't really found any rules in PF that really struck me as worth trying to use yet.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
captain yesterday wrote:

a disenchanter

when you put one of these in your dungeon you learn who's reading the bestiaries by how white the faces get! ;-)

You could probably take that amalgam template from the Advanced Bestiary and either combine it with a rust monster, a carrion crawler, or both

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
phantom1592 wrote:
Dreaming Psion wrote:
What if infernal healing didn't actually provide the healing but instead stole it from some other poor random schmuck who would have otherwise gotten healed by the same amount? (Or is simply damage). Like you're not really curing the damage you're just deferring it onto somebody else? (Either in the future or instantaneously.) Bonus points if it comes from people the caster cares about/allies with. Bonus points if it comes at exactly the worst possible time.
There are some paladin spells that allow you to share HP with people like that. Merely taking it from someone else wouldn't be evil... it would have to have some kind of 'unwilling' aspect to it.

Yes, the image I'd gotten was that it would drain it from some poor random soul against their will, with preference for those who the caster might care about and those who are in a jam, such that the caster would be essentially selling them out.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Owen KC Stephens wrote:

5) Ettin

Okay, I'm down with this, PROVIDED that one of the included bad guys is a duel-wielding rogue (thug)/gunslinger (pistolero) that two identical heads, except one is scarred and evil and one is handsome and good. His heads would get into frequent arguments, and they'd have to decide who'd win by flipping a coin.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What if infernal healing didn't actually provide the healing but instead stole it from some other poor random schmuck who would have otherwise gotten healed by the same amount? (Or is simply damage). Like you're not really curing the damage you're just deferring it onto somebody else? (Either in the future or instantaneously.) Bonus points if it comes from people the caster cares about/allies with. Bonus points if it comes at exactly the worst possible time.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Some subtypes (example: the asura and behemoth subtypes from Bestiary III) indicate that members of their subtype races have spell resistance equal to 11 + CR. My question is, does that SR increase as CR increases. So if say an asura started gaining levels in a character class and thus caused its CR to go up, would its spell resistance also go up? What if it increased CR through getting a template or advancing in racial hit dice?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Besides the usual class skills all outsiders get (Bluff, Craft, Knowledge (planes), Perception, Sense Motive, and Stealth), is there any easy way to judge which skills an outsider may have in a bestiary are class skills? (Besides looking at the ones at max ranks and seeing which skills have the additional +3 bonus and which don't?)

I'm talking about particularly complex or high int outsiders that may have more than 4 additional skills (some of which may not be at max ranks).

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, the point about exploring the social structures (or at least highlight monsters with some kind of social structure) seems like an important consideration to be in a Monster Codex. Particularly unique, weird, or interesting social structures. The hags have their coveys, the cyclops lurking in the ruins of their long-forgotten empires, etc. You can even get a lot of interesting mileage out the mummy because lots of 'em are often entombed together, allowing for complex hierarchies of tomb guardians, etc.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Does the Great Beyond cosmology for Golarion (and seemingly the surrounding planets) impose itself over the rest of the universe Golarion sits in, or does it only apply to a certain area?

Like for example, do ALL of the universe's mortal souls (barring any mishaps) go through the Boneyard and get judged by Pharasma, or is she limited in "jurisdiction" to certain parts/galaxies/solar systems?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Note that Tower of the Last Baron, Treasure of Chimera Cove, and Carnival of Tears all take place in or near Andoran, so if you're willing to juggle some levels, they could potentially be used with the "Kobold King" series. (Carnival of Tears takes place in Darkmoon Vale/Falcon's Hollow, so it seems like a natural to go with the various Vale modules.)

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You could always take the cloistered cleric archetype. You'd take a hit to saves, proficiencies, spellcasting, and power over all, but you'd get the equivalent of bardic knowledge, more skill points, and a few other minor perks.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Are you planning on ending the campaign with Blood of Dragonscar, or were you going to take the game beyond it?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In my mind, each sin can have many different manifestations, and it can be fun to explore these different manifestations through different characters as an alternative to trying to capture the sin in total through one character. For example, the ranger (via favored enemy) can be a good representative of racial hatred/prejudice as a manifestation of wrath. The enchanter (or anybody skilled with enchantment magic) seems to me like a good representative of sloth in making people do things for you without argument. Transmutation and illusion can represent the "personal enhancement in order to get what I want" aspect of lust (as opposed to the lust as compulsive force element of enchantment.)

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Deaths Adorable Apprentice wrote:

I found it on pathfinderwiki at one point. There is a Black Dragon that entered into a legal contract with a Taldan Noble to be able to legally hunt on the nobles lands. This allowed the Black Dragon to hunt everything. People can be prey just like deer. That is a fun Dragon to use. And in he Vale of the Azlant there is an undead Dragon. That can be found in the Taldor book. Oh and if you are able look though the Pathfinder Society modules there are a lot that take place in Taldor.

Best of luck

Said black dragon would be this guy:

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Will your party be primarily using dragon hunting as a means to gain political power, or will the party primarily be a party of dragon hunters who will be having a few political adventures on the sides.

Especially if it's more toward the latter, you may need to alter the non-dragon adventures to provide reason why a group of dragon hunters would want to involve themselves in politics. Gallery of Evil has a potential hook- involve a patron they know by introducing Asheron Coyle early on in the game. (Perhaps as a patron wanting artwork hoarded by dragons?)

Entombed with the Pharaohs and Tomb of the Iron Medusas would be harder. Perhaps there is some needed artifact to slay certain dragons within them?

Another idea to link politics to the dragonhunting is to have a cult of dragon worshippers akin the Cult of the Dragon or the Cult of Tiamat from Forgotten Realms. I guess you would use Dahak or Zon-Kuthon (by way of the Botherhood of Bones and Kazavon) on Golarion. The political element could come in with rooting out human servants of the cult who are able to blend into Taldan society and act as eyes and ears for evil dragons (or gods).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I've heard of using abstract philosophical beliefs as place of deities/religion as sources for "divine" spells, healing and the like when there is some background element of the players that makes using deities uncomfortable/unfeasible. That might be an option, given on the nature of their players and their wants. As echoed, be sure to check with them on their preferences

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Would it be possible to see any of the following added to the class dropdown box for searching through monsters/NPCs:

the Samurai
the Ninja
the various specialist wizard types (Abjurer, Conjurer, Diviner, Enchanter, Evoker, Illusionist, Necromancer, Transmuter)
the NPC classes (Adept, Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, and Warrior)

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Sounds like one of those precious moments when murder-hoboism is poetic and darkly humorous. And hey, at least they ACCEPT surrender; so at least they've got that going for them. ;)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As far as the perception of nobles as useless fops among players go, beyond what has already been mentioned, I think the interaction dynamics between NPCs and PCs have to be taken into account. Even if a king or noble is skilled in theory, many times in the game they don't do much except sit around and give quests and/or need to be rescued. Essentially they take a passive role much of the time. Another common trope is that the characters must/are compelled to solve all of the world's problems (a common, accidental side effect of "the PCS are the only heroes" style of world). So if you have NPCs that are there only to hand your PC things to do or to be rescued, I can see how it could be easy to view all authority figures as lazy, corrupt, selfish, or incompetent.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

With Occult Adventures and/or various similarly contemporary themed third party setting books coming out, it would certainly seem you could run Golarion as a 19th century setting. Darkmoon Vale makes for a good transplant to such a setting, for example.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
boring7 wrote:

"I want a simple character"

The answer is probably not. It's because they are so modular. A fighter is a bunch abilities you don't care about and bonus feats, a rogue is a bunch of bonus skill points and some pick-and-choose talents. It is their base nature to be customizable, easily stacking with anything. Therefore any attempt to specialize and give them a specific path instead of generic abilities going to be losing that versatile modularity in favor of something you could just take another class to get.

I'm finding a few issues here. First, the feat chain structure gets in the way of the fighter being anything of a generalist and reaching the really good feats the class needs to shine. I find that many feats are loaded down with prerequisites that don't seem to make much sense to me and are there more or less to delay entry into those feats.

Secondly, if there are a bunch of abilities that people don't really care about, then these abilities are merely add-ons that take up space and bog down the game.

As for the rogue, most of the rogue talents seem to me to be niche and inferior compared to the selectable abilities of other classes (with a few notable exceptions that seem to be the backbone of what characters use.)

If the fighter could get past the feat chain system and the rogue could get some better talents, I think that would be a good first step to breathing some life into these classes.

boring7 wrote:

You have 4 types of magic (buff/heal, direct damage, noncombat utility...I may have miscounted...oh right crowd control/debuff). You have 4 types of martials, there are reavers (damage deal), bricks (damage soak), runners(monks and mounted combat), and archers

Another complicating factor is that spellcasters have a lot easier and readier access to the four types (or most of the four types) of magic. than martials have access to one of their four types. And with conjuration magic, etc., the spellcaster is likely to have some fort of ready access to the four types of martials as well.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Popupjoe wrote:
So I've been rping for years with pretty much the same group, we've gained a few and lost a few players here and there. Adding new people has always been a bit of a chore with me the GM being the decider. Anyways, I've grown up and had a kid. My son is 12 and has enjoyed playing with me in our bi-weekly solo game for 2 years now. But every other Saturday he sits out while the adults play "Pretend" with out him. I want to included him in my long running group but half of my players are boycotting the decision by threatening to leave the game. Whats worse is my son already made a character and overheard some of the talk about others not wanting to play with him. I strongly feel as the kid should play but my friends are very dear to me as well. Any advice? Has anyone else gone through this? I'm pretty sure I'm adding him to the group and rebuilding as needed. I can't run multiple games with multiple groups at the moment.

What motivations/reasons have they given for their objections? (Beyond an age gap- what about the age difference is significant?)

And how vehement are their boycotts? Have they explicitly said in such words like an ultimatum, or did they say they would rather sit out if such an event occurred? (The difference may be semantic, but that semantic meaning might indicate an emotional difference between the two responses.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Anything particularly useful here for an "Attack on Titan" inspired/flavored game?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zharradan Marr wrote:

Hey all,

I am DMing a group of 7th level PCs. We are in a bit of a lull in our ongoing campaign,waiting for a few events to pan out and whatnot. So i was looking for an interesting NPC to keep them occupied for a session or ten. The theme of the overarching plan so far is disappearing elven magic users, and the last few games have a thieves guild/ undead thread. I have a few problems coming up with balanced threats, there are 6 players and they all have very good stats. I have been throwing generic CR9/10s at them but i am looking for a more flavour. Any suggestions welcome. Thanks in advance.

If elven magic users have been disappearing, perhaps a good side plot would be a backlash of the elves against mankind sort of thing. Have a group of elven supremacists like the Eldreth Veluuthra (from Forgotten Realms). Throw in some (possibly unseelie) fey and an evil baelnorn (elven lich) or two and you could have a diverse cast of villains for a side plot that peripherally relates to theme of your main game but could be very different in flavor.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I always likened Aroden to the Centurion from the Mutants and Masterminds Freedom City campaign setting. If not in personality, they are similar in roles (both are scions of a long passed empire, godly powers, and champions of humanity) and legacies (their deaths make the world a lot more uncertain and thus pave the wave for new heroes like the player characters.)

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
miteke wrote:

The char has 16 str and 16 wisdom (plus will be pumping stat bonuses from levels into it). The acrobatics is an easy accomplishment so there is no barrier to the dragon style tree. Also I find that the character uses the unarmed strike as much as the spear, so that is not an issue.

Cornugon Smash is a bit redundant with the Enforcer feat so I'm not interested in that. Antagonize seems a waste to me. To easy to get around and yet another language dependent intimidate.

Shatter defenses was one of the big draws in going the Dazzling Display route. It sure fits the theme better than the Dragon Style tree. And assuming a style takes a swift action which I'd rather be using to start a judgement.

I have always planned on getting her some nice bracers and allowing the character to get out of her armor. Both evasion AND the Monk AC bonus rely on that. Besides, it sucks to crawl around at speed 20 in her current breastplate. She should be able to afford bracers of armor by level 7.

Regarding the armor issue, there are always wands of mage armor (via UMD or by a caster ally using it on you) for when you need a supercharge of AC bonus but aren't wearing armor.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:

Don't forget suplexing!

Whoa, there's going to be trains in this AP?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well I guess that just depends on what your ability scores and ultimate plan for your character is like.

Dragon Style doesn't rely so much on intimidate, and it would take focus away from your spear. You also need Str 15 and ranks in Acrobatics (which you might likely have)

The Dazzling Display has a few possible feats that could go well with intimidation (Intimidating bane works for the inquisitor, gory finish and shatter defenses also might work). Unfortunately, you won't be able to get the maximum use out of this feat chain in that you can't sneak attack and you won't be able to take the Deadly Stroke feat (it requires the Greater Weapon Focus feat, a fighter only feat.)

Cornugon Smash (Cheliax: Empire of Devils) allows you to make a free intimidate check to demoralize whenever you hit with a power attack.

The (in)famous Antagonize feat can work with Intimidate, if you have the defenses to last against somebody focusing entirely upon you.

You can see a feat tree of all the feats dazzling display (and other feats) can lead to here:

A second level of monk could work if you want to focus more on character defense and less on casting. Remember that a monk's evasion doesn't work with armor.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm planning an upcoming Incursion campaign, and I'm trying to decide what PC classes I'll have available for the githyanki.

Here's what carries over from 3.5:
Barbarian (rare)
Psionic classes (which I'll be using the Dreamscarred PF versions of)
Psychic Warrior

For PF Classes I'll allow the Githyanki to have:
Alchemist (naturally would develop as an alternative to divine healing)
Antipaladin (nice replacement for the Blackguard as the Gith Knight, but changing alignment allowed to any evil, variant code for loyalty to the Githyanki race)
Bloodrager (probably even more on the fringes of society than the barbarian)
Cavalier (seems like a good class to go for dragon/nightmare riders, perhaps multiclasses with levels in antipaladin)
Investigator (focused on spying and subterfuge
Magus (makes a natural Gish)
Ninja (some have commented that the look of the githyanki sometimes seems to have an Eastern theme to theme, and I like the idea of rogues in tune with the mystical properties of the astral plane. Also, the gityanki could use a ki-user not dependent on Wisdom.)
Samurai (see the explanation for the ninja; plus this class seems to fit the githyanki's proud warrior nature)
Summoner (shapers of astral stuff)

Classes I'm disallowing from githyanki (at least those loyal to the queen):
The various divine casters (oracle, shaman, warpriest)
Gunslinger- I'm not having personal firearms as a technology the githyanki have masterd yet. I think the timeless nature of the astral plane and the Lich Queen's rule would slow down development of nonmagical technologies that don't directly address the githyanki race's needs. Firearms also have a destabilizing effect on elite social classes, so I can see the warrior caste (or even the Lich Queen herself) discouraging the use of firearms.
The more pragmatic reason I'm not giving the githyanki personal firearms is that I want the defending world to have at least one edge on the githyanki (who have dragon minions, flying ships, etc.) Note that I'm not doing this on Golarion but instead a version of FR minus the really high level NPCs.

I'm on the fence about the following classes:
Inquisitor (a divine caster, but one that's been shown not to need a good or even a philosophy, just some kind of cause. For example, look at the Inquisitor of House Thrune in a certain adventure module. The githyankis aren't TOTALLY devoid of divine casters; they have a few tertiary casters- knights/blackguards and rangers. However, allowing inquisitors of the Vaalkith line or the githyanki race as a whole seem to make the Lich Queen's ultimate goals less dramatic.
Witch This wouldn't be a problem except for the vague patron that grants patron spells. I don't think the Lich Queen would be too comfortable with witches in her ranks, lest some conflict of interest. However, the patron is a minor part of witch class, so I'm on the fence.

What do other people think? What do PF classes do you think the githyanki should be allowed to take?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oh man this is purse awesome. I can't believe I didn't notice this until now. Thanks for making this.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Indescribable wrote:
A little girl with empty eye sockets crying blood who doesn't say a word.

For that matter, I've found waifish pale girls with Anime-proportioned, soul-piercing eyes to be enough to disturb players fairly well.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
GM_Solspiral wrote:
Oh favorite trick with traps, levers and invisible or fast moving npcs that intentionally set them off.

They actually have a rogue talent for setting off traps at range (30 ft.) "Trap Springer". I imagine if you gave a Quickling a few levels of rogue and that talent; it could make for a really nasty/annoying enemy along those lines.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Death effects will become more powerful, as resurrection will be out. (And you need resurrection to recover from death effects.)

Many monsters will need to be taken out or altered (if you are applying this restriction to NPCs) because almost all of them cast spells as one of the 9 level casters.

You might allow much needed but hard to get recovery spells (and stone to flesh) to be used as rituals/incantations (like from the Unearthed Arcana rules or converted over from 3.5x in a few third party publications) or via feats (like they do in E6).

You might alter some of the spell requirements for various magical items and golems to fit the altered spell lists.

Also, you may also want to look at the monster summoning monster lists to weed out any monsters that might be able to get around your restrictions (and perhaps put some tighter guidelines on planar binding/planar ally for the same).

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Belabras wrote:
Looks like someone said James Jacobs' name 3 times and summoned him.

So does that mean he's Hastur or Betelgeuse?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cyrad wrote:
285. Someone tried to tease the dwarf by slicing a lock off of his beard.

286. Someone tried to tease the elf by slicing off a chunk of his ear.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Morzadian wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
You are acting as though mechanics and roleplaying are somehow incompatible, that's the issue. You should be roleplaying your mechanics. If mechanics aren't important to you at all, you may end up with a very weak and useless character who if roleplayed properly would not be adventuring. However, you can make select the strongest mechanics to represent your character. If you were for example dead set on a whip, Warpriest is the natural choice.

Agreed, mechanics, and characterization, exposition naturally complement each other (roleplaying).

@Wally.West classic oberoni fallacy.

I would say in the ideal, yes mechanics and rp would/should complement each other. In practice, it would be hard for me to establish any sort of direct or inverse relationship between the two. In some cases one element can give a player ideas for the other. This can really enable the player to experience a great synergistic effect between rules and in character elements and thus build energy/excitement for both.

On the other hand, both mental resources and time are finite resources. In some times and some places for some people mechanics and characterization will compete for these finite resources. This is particularly true when time is limited and there is a mismatch between what is expected between the different players of the game (including the DM.) If a couple of players turns up the dial in power but another couple of players find that keeping up with the first set of players or avoiding holding them back (if the players feel that either is a need) requires the second set to take too much time away from characterization, story, etc., then this is a case where one can come at the expense of another. And vice versa if one group wants to focus more on characterization and it takes another group too much time/focus away from mechanics related gaming activity.

So whereas there is no general inherently hostile relationship between mechanics and story/characterization, under the right circumstances they can compete for the same resources.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

276. Chicken fight
277. Accusations of alcoholic beverage copyright infringement.
278. Chicken fight over said accusations.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I thought about Shuggoth too, but I found that to be very challenging to do a chapter of NPCs for because of their relatively low intelligence and oozy shapes. (Unless one introduced something like a more intelligent shuggoth/shuggoth lord sort of thing. Which would probably be doable.) Incorporeal creatures (at least beyond ghosts) also strikes me as somewhat hard to do because they can't normally use (non-ghost-touch) gear. Of course, some creative use of templates could probably increase the options one could do with any creature.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
JiCi wrote:
Timtao wrote:

I was in my FLGS on Thursday. One of the employees said he wanted to start a PathFinder campaign, but was concerned about the size of the rule set. In his words, "The problem with PathFinder is there's too much of it."

He is no noob. He's an avid gamer. He and I had a long conversation on the various editions the world's most popular RPG.

If the people who sell games for a living are intimidated, I would say there is a problem caused by the bloat.

Too much? Technically, all you need is the 3 core books and you're set. The rest is just to expand upon it. The rest of the books only contains more rules if you don't want to bang your head trying to create them.

You don't need more classes than the 11 core ones to have fun.
You don't need more monsters than Bestiary 1 to have fun.
You don't need to know how to run an army to have fun.

I buy the books because it gives my players a LOT of options, but I'm not forcing them to use such rules if they don't want to.

If some of us think bloating is occuring in Pathfinder, wait until you see Golarion as a campaign setting, it has WAAAAAAAAAAY more material than the core rulebooks... and if you're running a world-tour kind of campaign or running sessions between adventure paths, you'll need a LOT of booklets. However, is it a bad thing that there are so many booklets about the various regions? Of course not. The more you have in hand, the less dumb you'LL be if a player can't get an answer or get somewhere because you technically don't know that yourself.

Fortunately, the PDF files are great and cheap ^_^

Just remember this: some DMs create their own classes, races and such... did THEY ever complain about being being by their own material? You should think the same about Paizo's way of using the license ;)

You don't need a lot of things to have fun, but sometimes somethings sure help. :)

In response to your suggestions, if a person doesn't particularly like many of the core options (or it doesn't fit what they want to do), then having wade through a lot of options to get "the diamonds in the rough" can be daunting or irritating. The core rulebook is large enough for some folks to find it oversaturated with options from the get-go. In these situations, having too many options can become the same as having no options because making meaningful decisions becomes either too difficult or time-consuming to be worth it.

That there are places that are filled with more options is probably not a logical answer to the concern being expressed here to those who are already having issues with the amount of details in the material presently being discussed. Density (or lack thereof) compared to other branches of the product line are therefore not particularly relevant, at least not without a recommendation to a version/hack of PF that might be more suited to their needs. (Beginner Box? E6?)

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My take on an alignment is that it's not just one monolithic thing. It's a schema or an archetype, by this I mean an ideological concept or label that organizes a bunch of similarly associated principles and behaviors into a digestible whole. It's the overall collection of these traits that defines whether a person belongs to a given alignment identity, not just one or two traits. As such, there can be many different ways of belonging to an alignment category.

Furthermore, I find that each alignment is on a continuum or even several. This is also why I don't define any form of Good as more purely good than the others (the same for evil). A person who is barely good enough to be Lawful Good will probably be less good than a Chaotic Good who has very strong Good tendencies that just happen to be chaos.

Generally I find the "many mini-alignments in one alignment" approach useful for being empathic with player disagreements about alignment/morality/social judgement and reaching common ground. It's also useful for comparing and contrasting different characters who may share a similar role or position but are miles apart in subtle ways.

When I speak about alignments, I generally try to speak of trends, generalities, and what is probable rather than absolutes, how a character definitely is, or what they will or will not do as a matter of fact.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Pendagast wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
So you see nothing poorly designed with the fact that "half the intent of a class" is based around one type of hazard (and not a particularly dangerous one overall) in a game full of them?

the entire character class is inherited from a portion of the game where play style was VERY VERY dangerous WITHOUT a thief.

In fact even WITH a thief, a 10 foot pole and 50 feet of rope, everyone was in constant peril.

When people want to play the game like a computer game instead, with rest stops, save points and re-powers… the two character classes that were designed to not require such things are going to look slantedly weaker.

Whens the last time anyone has played where their low level wizard was prevented from memorizing spells because of more than one random monster attack in the middle of the night… or maybe even got killed IN one of those random monster attacks, probably because he dint have spells to do anything with?
"I throw my dart at it" wheee!

no one plays like that anymore, its "you sleep, regain your spells and let's keep playing"
if someone does play like that they are a "bad GM who hates wizards"

put your full casters in a bubble world full of feathers and no traps and they look awesome.
mean while the guy who is meant to survive the long march to castle death land (the fighter) and the guy who is meant to get to the other side of the pit of despair (the rogue) look pretty lame when, there is nothing for them to do.

truthfully wizards etc come into their own around 7-10th level.
Rogues and Fighters are based on character class concepts from a game who's levels got close to topping out around 10th, originally.

The game/play style has changed is all I'm saying.

Play in a campaign with slow level progression, and timed plot where unlimited rests aren't feasible, and you're harried by monsters ins the scary wild, and the dungeons are lit reed with traps and obstacles….. and all of the sudden playing a wizard (especially when it's your third of fourth...

Actually, the impression I receive from playing in older editions and retroclones is that if you're low-level characters of any kind and having to rely directly on class abilities, you're already at a disadvantage and something may have gone wrong. EVERYONE at low levels stinks class ability wise. (the percentage chance for succeeding as a thief is very low until you get to high level, every body has a decent chance of getting low hit points, and spells are a rare commodity I only use them as a last resort). Note that I'm not complaining about this; I'm just making a point that a lot of it to me seems like you have to rely on various skullduggery and shenanigans that are independent of class abilities.

You are right in that the playstyle changes (though I'll have to agree to disagree with your generalities and character judgements on how it's changed), but so too do the rules change to try to accommodate the changing playstyles. In the switch to 3.X from earlier editions, for many people, casters from the beginning seemed to have received more and the fighter and the rogue seem to in retrospect have lagged behind.

Because 3.X tried to open up half of the game (the later half of the 20 level progression), rogues and fighters being designing from a Non-3e ethos that assumes level 7-10 cap is likely an indication that they could use some revisiting (at least in the eyes of a significant number of players/gms). Especially in a game system made things easier for casters.

PF/3.X is a game that often assumes a more heavy dependence on character abilities and using them in the right ways. If a significantly people find a hole in the power gap between the classes with a game that assumes a dependence upon the mechanics as a basis for play and tries to define itself by something of a built-in balance between the classes, then that can present relatively large problem to the system's mission statements.

That being said, if PF core only (or anything else, for that matter) works for you in whatever playstyle you're using, that's good and you should keep doing that. There are likely many folks who might agree with you. Many other people who come to their tables with different expectations and different understandings of the game will likely have different experiences. They may want some changes to be made to fulfill a playstyle that the game seems to be trying to allow for. The conundrum that Paizo faces is allowing for multiple playstyles, which I imagine is why they're putting their fixes into an optional supplement. So it seems to me like they're aiming for allow those folks who are thinking "it's not broke, so why fix it?" and those who think "I think this record player is playing funny; something inside needs fixing" can be relatively happy.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lost Ohioian wrote:

So I was just sitting here thinking about all the classes of Pathfinder and whatever happened to the basic 4, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Thief (That's right I said Thief!) With all these new and exciting classes that cover much of the basic 4 plus more its hard to justify your standard classes. That's not to say many people don't play them and you can OP this class or that one. I'm not knocking anyone's style of play or choices or the new school or old.

I just think that archtypes could be integrated more into the basics. I used to think man why not just make more feats if someone wants to be a polearm wielding fighter just give him the feats that's a polearm master gets. It kind of made sense to me and still does in many cases but then like a bolt of lightning (just the 5d6 kind I'm not that good yet.) Why don't they still have the basic 4 but then allow players to pick class abilities that would allow them to replace things which is all most archtypes do anyway, remove ability A and add ability B. Rather then give it set name and the choices picked for the players if all abilities are equal or close to (you can still combo pack weaker class abilities) just give a tree type system to the classes allowing you to design your class. I know it has holes this is just a rant of random thought in my head at this time.

Part of the conundrum about just making more feats and stuff for the fighter is that it further divides up and narrows what a fighter can do whereas the wizard and the cleric can change their abilities at whim. In addition, feats and the like can often complicate or take away things that a character might have been reasonably able to do otherwise had it not been for that feat etc. There's also a lot of baggage in the feat system with prerequisite feats that don't always make sense (Combat Expertise being a common one.)

As previously mentioned, wizards and clerics are still top of the heap in versatility and therefore power. They get new spells in every book, and the wizard especially has gotten a lot of love. (Check out the discoveries in Ultimate Magic and the archetypes in the Advanced Class Guide.)

As for the fighter and rogue/thief/whatever, we'll see how they do with Pathfinder Unchained. They've been the sources for some very vehement, even antagonistic arguments from the fans. There's a strong push from a segment for needing revisions even before all this additional stuff came out (reaching back into 3.0 and maybe even before). However, there's also pushback on how these classes shouldn't be changed. I imagine certain voices can be assuaged by additional options for other stuff for a while, but eventually they'd need to find a way to address those critical of the status quo. Thus, I'd imagine it takes a bit of tiptoeing to please both camps.

TheBlackPlague wrote:
It would certainly negate the horrific class list bloat that third edition and 3.5 suffered from near the end, and that Pathfinder appears to be slowly acquiring. I actually agree with you, mostly. I think that archetypes was just a fantastic idea and works SO well for new types of characters that a normal class wouldn't cover. I'm not sure they'd be able to entirely change a class enough that it becomes something totally different, though - a fighter to a barbarian or paladin, for example. That being said, if such a system was to be viable, yes please. I would love it and play it for sure.

But there would still be the same amount of material. Maybe in a different form but it'd still be there in some form or another. Whether it be prestige classes, base classes, class features, feats, spells etc. something will always be there in the form of mechanics unless there's a big change on how the game is approached.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I might like to see demigods unassociated with the various designated alignment outsider/planar exemplar races. Not every demigod has to be a hopped up alignment-representative lord.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

273. It's rainin' outside, and nobody likes fightin' in the rain.
274. It's rainin' outside, and last time we fought with umbrellas, somebody got an eye poked out.
275. It's rainin' outside, and normally it wouldn't matter. But there's this weird lady out there singin' about singin' in the rain. It creeps us out.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Speaking of philosophy, there's some different views on what makes a person Chaotic Evil: 1)what he does vs. 2)what he is. In the first one, it's the person's actions that serve the causes chaos and evil in the external world that makes her Chaotic Evil. In the second one, Chaos and Evil within the person's internal makeup govern who he is and how he does things.

In View #1, a person can serve the interests of Chaos and Evil (not necessarily in name but causes that serve this cosmic moral forces) without being that particularly disorganized or unfocused because it's not who the CE person is but how his actions and intentions promote chaos and evil within the world.

In View #2, a person gets the CE tag because these forces govern her being. A CE evil fellow follows a chaotic, disorganized, vile, and self-serving agenda (often without consciously recognizing it) because that's who the person is. Although such a person may have no ideological attachment to evil, a person in the #2 conception of CE is ironically likelier to behave more sloppily and erratically than a person who consciously serves Chaos/Evil in #1 because for #2 that's his state of mind.

To put it into more concrete terms, let's choose the glabrezu demon. Is the demon CE because he tempts people to act desperately and do what they shouldn't to have their wishes granted (promoting chaos/evil as in #1) or it is because the demon itself does the same (#2)? Is the succubus herself lustful (#2) or does she just use it as a weapon to promote chaos and evil (#1)?

I would suggest that because Chaos and Evil are both measures of individual behavior/morality as well as cosmic forces in and of themselves in D&D, there is room for both in the CE tent. The nabasu seems to be in and of itself to embody gluttony (#2) but not cause it to ripple out into the world. Nalfeeshnees on the other hand, seem oddly selfless in the sense that they promote the demon race as a whole despite being demons of greed. Of course, many CE characters will blend both "types" of CE.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Dark Ones
Intellect Devourers
Rune/Taiga Giants
Soulbound dolls/mannequins/shells

1 to 50 of 860 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.