|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Watch Requiem for a Dream. The only thing Connelly (or Leto for that matter) will ever arouse in you ever again is severe existential dread.
The Hyenas from Lion King.
Maybe stretching the 'fantasy' criteria, but I 100% support Scar and The Hyenas. The animals' great society is a brutal caste system that functions on the backs of an ostracized and brutalized minority. Scar is not the leader the Lions may want, but he sure as hell is the one they deserve. Scar turned their own gluttony back on them and forced everyone to live in the world they created for the hyenas. Frankly the end of that movie pisses me off still - the fascists are returned to power, having learned nothing. Hooray?
Loki - Thor was a stupid, drunken lout. Odin has a perfectly good, though adopted, son to claim rulership but instead selfishly just held onto power. I don't blame the guy at all for snapping. But that is honestly the least of my problems with the movie Thor.
I am sure it has been said (a lot) but full attack.
There is a lot I love about Pathfinder - but I can pretty much guarantee my group has permanently moved to 5E, and a huge part of that is how much smoother combat is with the Move-Action-Bonus Action setup. Instead of standing still and doing nine attacks or move and do one, you have 2-4 attacks period. Way more meaningful and fun than I stand still for the whole combat and hope I do enough damage before an SoS spell takes me out.
Martin Misthawk wrote:
One of my first house rules was that intelligent undead were not immune to mind affecting.... er, effects. That always rubbed me the wrong way.
Back to the swarm thing, my group always ruled bludgeoning weapons overcame the damage immunity by covering enough surface area to make a dent.
And there's the rub. You cannot fix the problem without undoing the damage the Republicans have done - mainly redrawing the district lines into something resembling sanity and doing away with the gerrymandered mess we currently have.
But as long as Republicans hold majorities, they're not going to do anything about it for obvious reasons. And it'll be almost impossible to take away that majority because they've redrawn everything to make sure they'll stay in power.
Imagine partisan gridlock stomping on a human face forever and ever.
I have to say I'm sick to death of this "country has moved to the right" refrain. First of all, most of the country doesn't participate in the political process AT ALL - if there's been a shift anywhere, it's toward apathy.
But on most of the issues, when broken down, Americans are really more progressive than Congress or the conventional wisdom for sure. Most people do want the rich to pay more, like specific government programs (even my wife's super-Republican, gays-are-causing-the-apocalypse grandfather is worried about Social Security cuts), most Americans are in favor of common sense gun control laws. There are some ways in which that American mean streak shines through - we're overwhelmingly majority in favor or the death penalty no matter how many innocent people we execute (or how many racial biases are revealed in the system, and sadly, often even moreso afterward), and we'd rather let someone die needlessly without access to healthcare rather than see our own taxes increase by a red cent - but ultimately, by most metrics, we are arching toward a more inclusive, progressive society than we had in the 80's.
To the issue of the debates themselves, though, I was kind of shocked O'Malley didn't get more credit. Looking at the debate alone, discounting previous records or gaffes the candidates may have had, O'Malley performed strongly. When asked about climate change, he was the only one to actually mention a proactive plan instead of blaming lobbyists (Sanders, Chaffee), or freaking China. (Clinton - in what was to me the worst answer of the entire night, until Webb made it look like solid gold by comparison to his China/India blaming.)
Webb spent more time complaining about not getting his chance than actually making a case, and in the end, the only reason he's not running as a Republican is because that party has gone down the rabbit hole that if you're not prepared for a Final Solution regarding immigrants or to outright call Climate Change a hoax perpetrated to silence good Christians, you have no place in that clown car.
I like Sanders, I really do. But his performance at the debate was, "Meh." I'll give to him that of all the candidates he was the one who almost straddled the line of telling the truth and admitting that Syria is a situation we have no good answer for. (Prop up a dictator, put troops on the ground and possibly begin a war with Russia, or let civil war reign and concede a large portion of the middle east to Radicals. Sorry if you don't like that but that's the decision America made in 2002 when we planted those seeds.) And his stance on guns is, let's face it, a huge weakness facing down how many high profile mass shootings there have been since Sandy Hook.
Ultimately the real problem with Sanders is that he is just not very popular with the demographic blocs the Democrats actually need to win - the young people and economic populists love him, but they (especially young people and college kids) don't ever vote. Even when Obama was super popular with those blocs, they were not ultimately crucial to his victory. Women and African-Americans actually DO vote, and both are backing Clinton over Sanders by a wide margin.
And as much as I detest Clinton I'll take that sleazy, pandering, take-whatever-side-is-politically expedient over a loony-bin conspiracy theorist like Carson or head-in-the-clouds racist like Trump or - worst of all - a second round of the WORST president in history by any honest metric (or if you can't admit that, at least the worst Republican president), any day of the week.
You know what's sad? I KNEW what that was going to be and I still clicked the damn link.
I do keep alignment, but I have a very specific interpretation that only relates Law to civic laws. I've stated many time that every single person of any alignment has a personal code and to be any sort of adventurer you have to be disciplined. (Screw that monk justification.)
So Paladins do remain Lawful Good for me - they should respect legitimate authority and always look for opportunities to work within the framework of the law if it is possible.
However, if a player wanted her Paladin to be neutral good, I wouldn't flip the table over it.
Druids have the single most pointless alignment restriction in the game. At least Barbarians and Monks have a justification. The Druid restriction is just dumb. I squash that.
That being said, justification or no, I still don't enforce the Monk or Barbarian alignments. Barbarian tribes definitely have laws (ones I suspect are usually enforced by death or exile, what with the lack of prisons and all) - for that matter, I could see the tribal lifestyle being VERY traditionalist and with very specific protocol and etiquette, particularly when dealing with elders of spiritual leaders.
And I could see a Monk whose 'discipline' is unpredictability and natural talent, who bucks tradition and flouts expectations.
I am guessing this was probably from my earlier response and the reason is I had to copy+paste and fill in the quote tags myself since I was replying to two separate posts. I always forget the second "h", so, er... my bad.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
Well that and (spoilers ahead):
Ulfric was a Thalmor agent meant to destabilize the empire and make Skyrim/Cyrodill easier to invade. They even mention that had he simply made his case to Torygg, Skyrim would have seceded as one and presented a much stronger front. So really even if you hate the Thalmor, The Empire is your best bet.
Even though Redguards are my favorite race to play and Hammerfell declared independence, I can never bring myself to side with the racist sleeper agent specifically propped up to further the Elf Nazis' cause. (Though I like to headcanon it's just to reunite Skyrim as Asa united front against the Empire and then the Thalmor.)
Edit: Ooh, and I almost forgot the rank hypocrisy over the Markarth incident.
So yeah I can never see any good reason to go Stormcloak.
Soooo many ways to break Skyrim...
I think Skyrim kind of plays on a gentleman's agreement that you'll do things the 'right' way and have balanced skills. Of course once you've dumped 10 hours buying and selling to raise Speech by 3 points, you say screw it and do the trick to get speech to 100 in one transaction because tedious.
My favorite, although not necessarily most powerful, thing to do is max out illusion so I can get Mayhem from the guy at the college. (Best place so far: Riften, though Whiterun had its moments.) I could almost end the civil war by default just by causing everyone to murder each other.
And yet oddly, despite the genocidal rampage, I can still never find it in me to join with Ulfric. I find him distasteful.
Wait, hold everything - you don't like Pink Floyd?
But . . . why?!
(OK, I made the obvious joke. It's now copyrighted and no one else can make it without paying me a royalty.)
No! No to all of this! What even . . . I mean, wha-? I don't, I can't .... I mean, seriously, what?
Is this what all of our alignment debate has lead to?! Dear god what have we done?
How has nobody mentioned "Feral Child" yet? I would call it the worst option in all of Pathfinder.
It gives up !@#$ing wildshape in exchange for . . . trap sense and a situational bonus to CMD. JUST CMD. So to be clear, Devs, that you consider trap sense to be so freaking amazing that it's worth giving up:
Adding insult to injury is that she could still get the CMD bonus by flying in th first place.
It's sad, too, because a Tarzan type human-only Druid could've been REALLY cool - but instead you get a Druid that trades out one of its most iconic features for what is widely considered one of the most useless rogue features.
Milo v3 wrote:
TIER 1: Arcanist; Tier 2: Shaman, Tier 3: Bloodrager, Investigator, Hunter, Skald; Tier 4: Slayer, Brawler; Tier 5: Swashbuckler?
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
I don't hate elves, but I typically play elves the same way. Why?
Elves are damn near immortal, mystical, and supposedly very intelligent. They never have the problems that humans have and are almost always presented as superior in nearly every way.
My thought was, with the crapsack worlds most RPG lands tend to be, why on earth would these beings let mankind run the show?
Elves in my homebrew world have a continent spanning empire and are largely in charge of things. It's a patrician, gentle sort of tyranny - they see humans less as animals to be broken and more as unruly children that need the adults to corral them for their own safety. They'll even give them some nominal responsibility the way you might let your kid be in "charge" of the family pet or some chore. But it is tyranny nonetheless.
The difference being that they don't mess with Dwarves (the Dwarves have the underground, which holds no interest, and besides, provides a nice bulwark against Drow - who aren't actually evil, per se, but it'd be way too long to explain here) and still kill Orcs and Goblinoids on sight.
captain yesterday wrote:
I always hoped for the day when Artemis Entreri would kill Drizz't, I wouldn't know if it happened yet as I stopped reading his books after The Ghost King the worst book I ever bought, in hard cover :-)
I couldn't read much past The Pirate King. It's clear Salvatore is tired of Drizzt - which I understand and would be fine with, except the newer characters he's attempted to introduce I find very uninteresting.
Though I always liked Entreri better anyway (obviously) and thought that the Sellswords series was better than anything he'd done since The Dark Elf Trilogy.
I confess that now that my group has largely switched to 5E, I miss doing some of the absurd gamebreaking stuff Pathfinder let me get away with.
-Nearly impossible to beat Enchantment DCs.
I know those are all signs of an unbalanced system, but I can't help it - occasionally I want to be an invincible badass.
PIXIE DUST wrote:
*Insert obligatory martials cant have nice things post*
With the news that Pummeling Style getting nerfed hardcore, I am really beginning to wish the devs would listen to the large number of people unhappy with martials continuously being depowered while spellcasters go unmolested.
I'd start a new thread about it, but recent history indicates it would be locked the 2nd page in.
TL;DR: There are rules in place to help the martial/caster power disparity. If you're really worried about it, use them in your game. If you want versatile characters, stop building them to be myopic killing machines and invest some feats and/or skill points in non-combat stuff.
So to rein casters in from godlike to just really overpowered you just have to remember to use all of the convoluted rules centered around spellcasting until they reach midlevels and literally all of those things are easily overcome. Got it.
If you want a good quick fix that doesn't change the game drastically, there are two things you can do that solve a good deal (if not all) of the disparity.
1. Full attack/standard does not exist. Nor does spring attack. If you are a fighter with 2 attacks, you have two attacks. As long as you have movement left, you can attack and keep on moving and split attacks between targets.
2. Combat feats scale with level. Is this feat a prerequisite for something else? Then it's granted automatically once your BAB reaches the appropriate level. Also combat expertise is dead as it should be.
To truly hate takes time, emotional effort, focus on the object of your hate. We call the KKK and the Black Panthers "hate-groups" for a reason - they'd be a lot less trouble if they were simply "don't give a dire-rat's arse about people different then them" groups.
Hey sorry, I know this is semi off-topic, but this is just something I have to address because it's an oft-repeated and yet rarely challenged fallacy and it bothers me a lot.
It's popular to immediately compare the Black Panthers to the Klan for some misguided attempt at 'fairness', but the reality is the two groups could not be more different. The Black Panther Party was a group created by members of an oppressed minority in solidarity against a government that was actively killing them. The Black Panthers worked and interacted with other leftist groups of all races. Their fight wasn't against white people, per se, but white supremacy.
Furthermore their gathering immediately caught the ire of the US government, and in particular Hoover's FBI. They were immediately targeted with arrest, persecution, and murder. (Fred Hampton being the highest profile of these cases.)
I don't want to act as though it was all sunshine and roses - they were revolutionary, after all, and still radical. But they were not an organization founded to promote black supremacy or white genocide.
The Klan, by contrast, was founded by former Confederate soldiers with the express purpose of killing and intimidating black people after the Civil War. The Klan has killed nearly literally thousands of blacks by lynching alone. Despite this foundation of violent extremism and terrorism, it not only was not greeted with the same sort of resistance, but actually enjoyed a long period of legitimacy in the US government. (There was a time when my state, Indiana, had an entire state legislature consisting of Klansmen.)
For further contrast, here is the mission statement of the Klan as provided by a 1920 pamphlet the group released:
WE STAND FOR WHITE SUPREMACY. Distinction among the races is not accidental but designed. This is clearly brought out in the one book that tells authoritatively of the origin of the races. This distinction is not incidental, but is of the vastest import and indicates the wisdom of the divine mind. It is not temporary but is as abiding as the ages that have not yet ceased to roll. The supremacy of the White Race must be maintained, or be overwhelmed by the rising tide of color.
Now in fairness there is a black separatist, antisemitic organization of a much smaller number called the New Black Panther Party that HAS been designated a hate group, but typically when the Black Panthers are brought up the distinction is not being made. (It should also be said for the record that members of the original BPP have denounced them.)
We really need to quit parroting this myth. Without digressing too far into current events, it's a seductive narrative meant to assuage white guilt at the expense of meaningful change - and this sort of mythology we have built around our history is literally deadly.
John Robey wrote:
My only real difficulty has been gauging encounter difficulty. The XP Budget system presented in the DMG requires a lot of tweaking due to the number-of-foes multiplier and can present some pretty strange results if you push it too hard (such as the popular example of a solo lich being a moderate encounter at a given level while a lich accompanied by two kobolds is an epic encounter).
Actually that's not quite true. The DMG specifically points out that you do not include enemies whose CR is significantly below the party's APL as part of the challenge. So 2 Kobolds = CR 1/4, nothing to a 13th level party.
You'd need 16+ Kobolds before it even gets close to making a dent.
In regards to the Dex vs Str, I like the change a lot. STR is still slightly better for damage, and DEX is still slightly better defense - it's just that now you can reasonably do combat styles aside from THF and do decent damage.
TWF is viable. Archery doesn't mean having to focus on STR and DEX as opposed to a THF Barbarian just getting to pump their STR to absurdity. But Power Attack now belongs solely to Great Weapon Fighters. Criticals just doubling dice and not modifiers favors d12 and 2d6 weapons over d4 and d6.
Also, for the record, STR saves are fairly common at low levels. Pretty much every beast with a Trip attack requires a STR save. Prone isn't the worst thing in the world, per se, but it's no picnic.
Things I have learned from this thread:
1. My hatred of katanas is completely justified, but there are way cooler Japanese weapons that sadly are not getting their due.
2. Do NOT Google a "yuri" bow at work with the safe search off.
I feel like a lot of these changes would mean you're no longer playing Pathfinder. Honestly, I love 5E and a lot of the things it changed - but I don't want to turn Pathfinder into 5E. Too many people are eager to turn Pathfinder into something else and that's just not fair.
That being said some changes I would like to see:
1. Combat Expertise is the worst example I have ever seen of a rule remaining simply due to legacy. It's beyond worthless - it is actively detrimental to building martial characters who do anything besides "I hit with my stick!" I have already houseruled it out of my games, as have most GMs I know. Similarly -
2. Too many feats, especially maneuver feats, are nickel and dimed. When a trait is worth more than a feat, the design has failed somewhere.
3. Many of the super high level spells should be relegated to GM options only. The narrative shattering stuff like Simulacrum should not be assumed to be available to players, but as villainous options for BBEGs to use. Players could always take at GM's discretion of course.
4. Get rid of full attack/standard. If you have 2 attacks, you have 2 attacks. Period.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Rakshasha aren't used enough. I must correct this in my own games (alas they don't fit for this campaign).
Hear hear. It amazes me, too. Rakshasa are tailor made BBEG's for midlevel campaigns. Why more people don't utilize that I'll never know.
Speaking of things I think are underutilized as BBEG's, another favorite of mine are the Fey. Two reasons:
1. I love traditional fairy tales. Demons/devils and such are cool, absolutely, but it feels very heavy metal - and I'm just more of a Prog guy I guess. And almost all of the traditional folkloric monsters are in the 'Fey' category.
2. Their nature means the line between benevolent and antagonistic likes to blur a lot. Even "helpful" fey are often less than such, and antagonistic fey can show mercy or grant a boon at a whim because it's totally within their nature to be mercurial like that. I especially love having high level Fey as secondary antagonists or Enemy Mine characters.
As an atheist, I would absolutely be devoutly religious in Golatrion. And that's not just to say I would accept the gods as fact - any idiot in that world SHOULD - but would follow one whose ideals matched my own closely.
That's why I really hate misotheistic (NOT atheistic! Please Paizo, if ever Rahadoum gets another treatment, please change that. Atheists struggle with stereotypes of just being bitter god haters and slapping the title on any believer with a chip on their shoulder does not help.) societies in D&D and Pathfinder. It's an unlimited pantheon of deities who directly aid mortals in their lives! You can't find one you like?!
In Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, Elsa God-Hater was the only NPC you came across with this attitude, and it was a unique enough view that she took on a name after it. Even in Tamriel, gods are active enough that most people are not stupid enough to not st least pay lip service to SOMETHING, and those gods are far less involved than on Golarion.
But the OPs GM sounds terrible. Even as someone who GMs a lot and does not care for Paladins in my games (nothing against the nature of the class - it's just when it breaks something, it breaks it HARD.) I'd have to walk away from that game on principle. This is obviously one of those GMs who delights in taking powers away and, when he couldn't, punished a player in the most vindictive way possible.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
I never expect my players to forgive antagonists just because they have sympathetic motivations - but I do like that it gives it a bigger twist than just go here, roll initiative, and try to kill them first. And it's never a "No Win" situation. Whether they choose to forgive or smite, I usually play up the better aspects of either scenario.
The most straightforward was the cult leader trying to seal off the abyss. The players were having none of the justifications and he ultimately succumbed to a fate worse than death when a Demon lord claimed him for his hubris.
With the priestess it was actually planned from the beginning that the child would actually turn out to be one of the PC's (One of my players had rolled up a tiefling orphan when my backstory included the murder of a noble's tiefling bastard.) As all the players that game were some shad of good, the final showdown came down to trying to divert her before she did something truly irredeemable - making a pact with a lich - and finding and punishing the remaining co-conspirators, which included some high ranking nobles and members of the thieves' guild, so no easy task.
The Inspector had no end, sadly, as my work picked up and I had to stop playing for about two months, causing the game to dissolve. They ended up killing the Drow enclave, which also broke the seals holding the monster in the Underdark, resulting in a very difficult final boss battle. As for the Druid - well, that one is happening now, so I'll let you know lol.
My favorite antagonists are sympathetic ones. Though I'll always have plenty of kill-on-sight irredemable baddies on the way to the final confrontation, I like my final showdowns to be with somebody whose motivations a) make sense and b) let the heroes think outside the box. I've done -
A priestess who murdered the man that killed her child. Framing the PCs for his murder was keeping the authorities busy while she took out the nobles who helped him cover it up.
That's not to say they're all not evil or even pleasant, but I love the how far could anyone go if pushed hard enough story line.
You might check out the one shot module, Up from Darkness, from Rite Publishing for the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG). It starts out exactly as you describe and its definitely story driven. Lots of unique undead and traps, its a very deadly dungeon with a very unique twist. Read Endzeitgeist's review to get a good idea of what I'm talking about. The PCs begin at the lowest level of the dungeon with no memory as to who they are and why they are here...
These were all really helpful, but this post in particular was awesome. I downloaded the PDF and read through it and I have to say, wow. This gave me just about everything I wanted (and some things I didn't know I did until I read through)
The Dread Pirate Hurley wrote:
Gnomes are predisposed to having quirky obsessions. They're on a constant quest for novelty to keep them from Bleaching. It's not difficult to imagine a gnome with decidedly more... gruesome obsessions. I could see Count Rugen from The Princess Bride as a gnome.
(Side note: Already saw the Gnome hate coming to the fore. Man, people really don't like these guys, eh? Makes me sad.)
Truthfully, I think a Bleachling would make a better and far different sort of Gnome villain than the PHB Gnome. If I recall correctly, a gnome that survives its bleaching loses its CHA boost and gets a WIS bonus instead, becomes super connected to the First World and has an ethereal, inscrutable quality about it.
Imagine a hypermeditative, silent summoner-type with impenetrable motives and the appearance of a frail, albino child. I'm seeing a Shaman with a snow owl familiar perched in a lofty position beyond the PC's reach, with Ankou servants bringing the fight to their level while she casts spells from afar. That would actually be scary as hell.
EDIT: Apparently Gnome's ability array doesn't change after Bleaching, though it can speak with animals at will and gets Druid as an additional favored class. So even better - imagine a Summoner whose summons have become twisted mockeries of First World creations.
I wonder if that is to balance that since most Small races are 20ft/round, you have to spend the extra point to get the speed but also the +1 to AC and attack rolls?
I suppose. I actually liked gnomes even in the 3.5 days - one of my first characters ever was a Gnome Cleric of Garl Glittergold. It really seems like most of the hatred is just that they're silly or childish for whatever reason, but I suppose I can understand the hatred for not really doing any schtick particularly well.
Actually I really wish, as Gnomes were the traditional Bard choice from 3.5, that Pathfinder had saved the CHA bonus for them alone and given Halflings INT. +DEX/INT makes halflings the best small race for rogue, magus, wizard, alchemist, witch, investigator, etc. +CON/CHA makes gnomes a great fit for sorcerer, Paladin, cavalier, bard, summoner, and Oracle.
Unpopular opinion here, but I'd personally take your D-team over your A-team to begin with. Let's break down what you have:
1. Bard - Bards are unique in that their efficacy is largely dependent on the party make-up. The more Martials in a party, the better a Bard becomes. Your other party members are a Fighter (Martial), Ranger (Martial), Paladin (Martial, Martial, Martial!). As well the Bard has the almighty UMD which makes up for a LOT of the missing spellcasting. Wizards are technically better, but they're not nearly the team player a bard is. As well any Bard worth their salt should have the Scrolls and Wands to cover your necessities - especially healing.
2. Fighter - This is the one area a fighter wouldn't be my first choice, either, especially compared to Barbarians. However, you could not have chosen a more ideal party for a Fighter to be a part of. All of his weaknesses are beings shored up by Bardic inspiration and the Paladin's aura. You have the Skills pretty well covered by the Bard and Ranger. And if the job is simply "Go Kill _______", well, great news! Fighters still do that quite competently. I'm not gonna start splitting hairs if the Barbarian one-shots an enemy plus 20 hit points and the Fighter one-shots an enemy plus 10 hit points.
3. Ranger - Druids are (like Wizards) technically better, but you have a high skills class to complement the bard, and a full-BAB switch hitter with full feat trees to back the Fighter. 4th level spellcasting isn't 9th, but it's not too shabby, and it's one of the better 4-level spell lists. Take Boon Companion at level 5 and you're on par with one of the Druid's best class features. And if the favored enemy aligns, I'd easily say the Ranger in his element can surpass the Druid.
4. Paladin - In many ways I prefer this to a Cleric. Paladins passively buff their party just by being around. She's going to have a better way to overcome DR out of the gate. And while the Cleric doesn't have bad saves, the Divine Grace means you can pretty much pump CHA and dump WIS/DEX and still frustrate the hell out of your DM. Self heals as a swift action makes her the tankiest of tanks.
If you're running an open ended campaign with lots of world building and very complex narrative challenges, the A-team is pretty much necessary. If you're running an AP or any sort of straightforward adventure consisting of Go Here - Kill This, I'd take these options over the A-team any day of the week, with the lone exception of the Fighter - and again, even so, a lot of the big drawbacks of a Fighter versus a Barbarian are being greatly mitigated by the makeup of the party. That is how you use party synergy to overcome the issue with Class Tiers.
Very recently I played in a campaign where I challenged myself to never do any direct HP damage. I was a caster who specialized in enchantment and control - after a few sessions it became a running gag that I ALWAYS cast "Grease" - especially once we hit about Level 5 and our other caster was using stuff like Fireball to clear gaggles of minions. Despite this proving very useful (especially in some out of combat situations), I game with people who measure success by how much direct damage you're doing so there were always silly arguments about whether Grease was stupid or, as I insisted, the most useful spell in the game.
Fast forward two years. Our characters are all Level 16 and fighting a Balor with Fighter class levels for control of the World Ending macguffin - something he and a friend developed for this campaign that appeared as a normal Crystal Ball but actually containing the energy of sorta mini-universe. I've burned all of my higher level spells on keeping him and his minions away from this thing, but after the rest of us are unconscious and dying and he's managed to grab the orb I get desperate and do the only thing that comes naturally - I Grease the orb.
Amazingly, our DM Nat 1'd the save and the crystal falls from the BBEG's hands and smashes on the ground. Our DM rolls on a table for random effects and a planar gate opens --- deposting everybody in a 300ft radius onto the plane of Elysium.
Grease. We ended a 2-year campaign against a Balor with grease. Most useful spell in the game.
A Ladder from pretty much any game
In that same vein: A small shrubbery from any early RPG. Infinite HP, regeneration, immunity to all damage types, and you cannot climb over it or teleport past it. It can only be destroyed with a special weapon that can only be wielded by a 10th level character. Imagine the BBEG dropping a few of those outside his door to finish his plans while the party levels up.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Casters are built up as better than martials for their versatility, not because they always kill things better. Barbarians kill things (Especially puny wizards!) damn well.
I just ask myself, "What are orcs?" They're raiders. They don't spend a lot of time in quiet contemplation or study, and their gods are venerated by war and bloodshed - not burning incense and meditating on the universe.
Being simple works because they have the Strength to back it up.
As for Bulls Strength - A) It's limited to so many times per day, B) It's a short duration, C) It is wasted on a spellcaster with no good weapon proficiencies and half BAB and (most importantly) D) As a 2nd level spell, it is easily within the reach of an orc spell caster with 12 Wis to use on an orc Warrior for an even more ridiculous slash chop.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
I actually really want to make this now. What do you think - maybe a CR 8 or 9?
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
What was the name of Salazar's monster sidekick? Vesugo or something? THAT would have the makings of an awful PF monster without much adjustment made.
Fighting something with Power Attack, Hide in Plain Sight, a 40 ft/round climb speed, and maxed out stealth playing hit and run tactics with the party? That is the sort of thing that drives players to stage coups.
So I know this isn't precisely new, BUT there is a certain alignment - and I'm sure you've all guessed what it is even though I haven't put it in the title. At my table (and many others I'm told) it's known, colloquially, as chaotic bull@#%% - or, chaotic stupid if you're squeamish.
Players who choose this forbidden alignment are almost always to a T confrontational. They seem to choose it just for the opportunity to make action happen by acting impulsively and without thought. If they're not taking the most ridiculous course of action possible, they're arguing with the level heads in the party about why they need to dispense with the diplomacy and stab the king in his stupid, kingly face.
And worse than that, they use the "chaotic" portion of their alignment to justify that most disgusting atrocities - deception, torture, thuggery and worse are all justifiable as long as you're only doing it to the enemies. It doesn't make them evil, after all, because they only do it to evil NPCs.
Man, I hate Chaotic Good characters.
For all of the complaints about Chaotic Neutral, my problem players have almost always steered clear of the dreaded 'no-no' alignment. It's a personal favorite and one I've seen attached to the more well thought out characters in games I've ran. But Chaotic Good? C/G on a character sheet makes me nervous.
Anyone else have a Scrappy alignment at their table that's not Chaotic Neutral?
Henshin, I'd peg Lawful based on the posts I've read. You recognize corruption, but ultimately still seem to have faith in institutions. Good is a lot harder to quantify - and personally, I'm of the opinion that maybe 1% of the world, if that, ever achieves it. I'll let someone else make the moral call.
I'd peg myself chaotic neutral. I believe, strongly, that power corrupts inevitably and absolutely. Anything done to those in institutions of power - whether that be government, the church, multinational corporations, world superpowers - is almost always justified. The only good that can actually be done is constantly tearing them down and replacing them with something slightly better. The only kind of authority I trust is scientific - specifically because its basis is skepticism and tearing down old knowledge for new. I'm confrontational about the status quo - here and my personal life. And it's oddly gotten much worse, not calmer, with age. If you are really desperate for an argument, please mention the words "thug" or "traditional marriage" in my general vicinity. Is it annoying? I'm sure it is. So are Chaotic Neutral characters. Perfect fit.
As a corollary to both the Teachable Campaign and Mary Suetopia:
IT'S OKAY! THE BOOK SAYS THEY'RE EVIL
Do you not like "Always Chaotic Evil" as a trope? Do you actually like some nuance or, you know, character motivation in your stories? Do you understand why the walkers stopped being the primary antagonists on Walking Dead by season 2? This is not the place for you. Always Chaotic Evil means every mission will be, "Go Here. Kill Bad Guys. Collect Reward." Are you being sent on two-days' travel to kill a group of orcs or goblins that haven't actually done anything in the story? Does that make you feel a little icky? Get that SJW crap outta here! As long as the book says it's an EVIL race you can do anything from genocide to torture to skull-redacteding its children to death in front of it and it's a-okay! They're always chaotic evil, anyway - even if that explanation LITERALLY MAKES NO FREAKING SENSE. Now roll for encounters on your way back to collect your reward from the 'kindly and benevolent' Duke that hired you to kill sentient beings as a form of pest control.
You'd really better not want to play (insert race here, usually gnomes). The DM hates Gnomes and will it make clear how very much he hates gnomes and hates you for choosing a gnome. Prepare for every single NPC you encounter to revile you, refuse to sell to you, and generally treat you like crap. This doesn't really make sense storywise like it might with an Orc or Drow - but whatever. The populace is totally cool of a party traveling with a member of a race known for murder and deceit, but you dare include anything lighthearted in their grim fantasy world and they get really bent out of shape.
LOOK HOW MATURE MY GAME IS
This DM's world is dark. How dark you ask? Don't worry, they're going to make sure you know how dark by including something absolutely vomit inducing nearly every session. Gory mutilation will be described in nasty detail. Disease will ravage every corner of the land. Defecation and urination won't happen 'off screen', but as a recurring event - often times on or in other people for good measure. The "R" word will come up early, it will come up often, it will be a major part of nearly every female NPC's backstory, and it will probably happen to a PC at some point in the campaign.
You have to remember YOU make the world.
The Bestiaries are stat blocks with some flavor to inspire. So, they present a minotaur to use and give you the basics. When you actually run the game, in the world you create, it can be THE minotaur --- a legendary beast at the heart of a labyrinth that an ashamed king has employed the players to destroy for him. If it's not challenging enough, throw on a few levels of Barbarian and make a mid-level party quake.
Succubi can be only THE succubus; a former courtesan who trucked with dark powers for eternal youth and was cursed to seduce victims to their doom to maintain its beauty.
Especially when it comes to big monsters --- "Titans" can become singular; a lone creation of the elemental chaos itself with power that rivals the gods.
They're called source books for a reason. They give you source material to adjust as you feel fit. And if that's not enough for you, the AP's and Revisited books provide plenty of unique, named monsters with full backstories to boot.
Someone asked me who my previous post was directed at --- and this right here is a related, if not perfect, example.
Really, other people do this every day. The fact alone that we have a concept of 'emasculation' in our culture is a good indication about how often women are just expected to adjust their attitudes based on the subjective sensibilities of someone else. Yet we almost never argue about what is actually emasculating in that context - it's just generally assumed that they know because they've been taught from early childhood, as women, what sort of things are typically expected by and around men. Every woman I have ever met does this. This is the reality of their lives. And yet here we are again fretting about being asked to do the same thing for others we have grown completely accustomed to expecting from them.
And what's particularly telling is what exactly we are worried about. Like we won't be able to relax because what? Because somebody might unfairly dislike us? Wanna talk about what women have to fear if they step over the line?
It's not an argument worth having. We have some pretty strong guidelines about what should be expected. I think the line is typically a lot clearer than we want to believe because if it is our excuses dry up. But even if you do inadvertently step over it, you just apologize and try to do better. There are no REAL consequences for a slip up. What a freaking gift that is!
I sorta try to avoid this topics now as they get my rankles up... but I can't help it, because this always happens. Someone talks about how you can be more inclusive and the straight white guys inevitably bring up a ridiculous argument about how everyone needs to get over it and NOT being offensive would be its own form of discrimination by not treating people 'equally'. And I hate, hate, hate that argument with a passion.
Maybe there's a point, and maybe somebody gets to say that. But not you. Not me. Not us. Not the people whose entire lives have been defined by others going out of their way not to offend us.
Making a big budget Hollywood movie? Better not make it too black! Or only include women! Hell, you just better not even make it too 'girly' regardless of your male-to-female ratio.
Remember Magic Mike? How many of you actually saw it? Notice the actual ratio of male-to-female nudity in there? Even if you're targeting women in a provocative way you have to include something for their boyfriends in case they get 'dragged' along to see it. Ever see any such consideration given to women?
All this talk about sexy iconics and never once is it considered that it would actually be more than fair if Pathfinder never included a sexualized female character and only focused on the female gaze because it still wouldn't bring the industry close to parity. There was never a point at which heterosexual men were NOT considered as part of the target demographic. Can you say that about any other group?
Want to sell a predominately black musical genre to a white audience? It'd better have a white face stamped on it, even if they're despicable human beings. (Eminem springs to mind.)
Want to make feminism relevant to men? Better list the myriad ways that men are hurt by patriarchy, too - as if subjugating 51% of the population in the guise of tradition wasn't enough of a reason. And you'd better begin every single point by reminding men - mostly straight white men specifically, as the only group of people who predominately have so few actual problems that they have to go looking for them - that you don't hate them or aren't biased toward them.
Stop acting like being asked not to offend is hypersensitive or some great burden on you or like you're the "true" Egalitarian(TM) for not buying it. It's just people asking for the same basic courtesy we've taken for granted since we pretty much got control of the Western world 500 years ago. If we lived in a society that didn't do that, then you might have a case. But since you have ZERO idea what it's like to constantly be expected to just 'get over it' or being diminished, then no, you're not being fair when you're "equally" crude or belittling to everyone you meet. Especially when they're things that can only very specifically target someone for their gender - like rape, for instance - but ultimately no matter what the context.