Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Tar-Baphon's Ogre

EntrerisShadow's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 581 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 581 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Cheliax

The sad thing is the Hunter would actually be a great class . . . if the Druid didn't exist. And technically the fact that it's mechanically weaker is a good thing for balance's sake. It's not like it's terrible - I'd still rank it a solid Tier 3 alongside Paladins and Bards.

But the problem is the Druid DOES exist, so I struggle to find a reason you'd choose a Hunter instead.

Cheliax

VRMH wrote:
Carrick wrote:
Sounds like this guy might be happier as a paladin of Shelyn instead.
That could actually be your solution. Have him being "passed on" from one Goddess to the next, as a parallel to his worldly behaviour.

I'm going to add to the chorus to say you might encourage him to become a paladin of Shelyn. She seems way more in line for what he wants to play.

Of course, the problem also is that this is RotRL, and it treats 'lust' as being something "sinful", so . . .

Cheliax

Dustin Ashe wrote:

Nice to see a thread giving praise where it's due.

Entreris, you might also enjoy reading this one written in very much the same spirit as your thread here.

That's awesome. Thanks for the link!

Cheliax

26 people marked this as a favorite.

Fair warning, this is going to get rather maudlin.

Lately, it seems like there has been an uptick in threads blasting Paizo for the editorial decisions they've made. I won't be too specific here, but let's just say there have been complaints levied about the insulting lack of eye candy, or Paizo menacingly pushing the so-called 'gay agenda'. And to the credit of the posters here - and the human race - most of the community has rushed to Paizo's defense.

But I'm tired of waiting an reacting to negativity. Too often those of us who are impressed by the decisions a company makes are content to say 'Oh, that's nice' to ourselves and move on, while the bitter and angry minority tries to drown out the rest to sound bigger than they are.

So, apropos of no (specific) complaint:

Thank you, Paizo, for making a dedicated effort to include LGBTQ individuals - who have made up a large part of the human experience, but who have been relegated to obscurity bordering on invisibility.

Thank you for writing well-rounded female characters that are not relegated to damsels in distress and trophies to be won. For not treating female sexuality as something sinful or shameful, or as something that exists for men and male players.

Thank you for presenting humanity as a wide range of ethnicity and body types, and creating a human 'culture' that is as varied as our experiences in the real world. We are not uniform as a species - our art should reflect that.

Thank you for being accessible to your consumers. Far more often than not it feels as though companies are an unknown entity, rather than actual organization made of up of living people. Many companies, especially the larger ones, are content to allow third party intermediaries handle any direct public interaction and remain hidden behind official press releases.

Does Paizo achieve these things 100% of the time? No. Nobody does. But they are perhaps the most consistently thoughtful of any major tabletop or fantasy publisher on the market today. That they strive to reach a goal that is ultimately impossible, while managing to get a little closer at every opportunity, is something most of us appreciate - even if we do not say it often enough.

I started playing Pathfinder because I love role-playing and I love fantasy. It could have been any fantasy TTRPG, but with nearly every decision that Paizo makes in its materials and as a company in general, I feel more confident about that decision. There are very few companies I will gladly give my hard earned money to without a bit of ethical trepidation, and Paizo is chief among them. Thank you for being that, especially in an industry that desperately NEEDS a company like that.

Cheliax

After seeing so many people choose it, I have to ask: Am I the only person who feels like the "Original" Core 4 is probably the worst lineup you could choose?

Fighter - Super, super weak.
Cleric - Superpowered fighter. (Plus dozens of other possibilities.)
Rogue - Fighter looks strong by comparison.
Wizard - Narrative god.

I'm surprised so many people want to keep them.

Cheliax

Just to make my actual list:

Gnomes, Gnomes, Gnomes, Gnomes, Gnomes, Gnomes, and Gnomes.

What, I can't do that? Fine I'll play by the rules.

Dwarves - Dwarves are sort of on here as the least-bad of "Races I Don't Care For". (The worst I can say? Every dwarf I've ever encountered was played exactly the same. Left a bad taste in my mouth.) Most of the extra races are elemental or planar - which, as many others have said, should really be an applied template. The remaining ones are 90% anthro and I HATE anthro.

Elves - I've always enjoyed elves, and they offer so much mechanically that it's not hard to justify keeping them.

Gnomes - I love Gnomes. They're different from any other race and get some boons that are flavorful without being gamebreaking. 3.5 Gnomes? Meh. Pathfinder Gnomes? Friggin' awesome.

Goblins - Replaces halflings as the other small race. I always feel like Halflings and Gnomes are too similar, and I just don't care for halflings - they have the same problem as the Summoner for me: They never seem to fit ANYWHERE in the provided world. Apparently they're there to remind us this is based on Tolkien. Goblins are fun, over the top, and make way better halflings than halflings.

Hobgoblins - Replaces half-orcs. I despise "half"-anything races. The only reason I've ever seen anybody take one is for the weapon proficiencies or broken alternative FCBs. Also half-orcs encourage way too much "Rape as Backstory", another thing that sticks in my craw. I prefer hobgoblins as the outsider, semi-monstrous go-to race.

Humans - To provide a baseline. We are human, having humans gives us a reference point to understand how the other races relate to us. They need a nerf, but that's a different topic. (I felt like a Bonus feat and extra skill point were good enough boons - did they really need the floating +2???)

Kobolds - Replaces half-elves. With a stat boost, preferably. Really play up the difference between kobolds and goblins here - possibly giving them a CHA or INT boon to reflect their draconic heritage and intricate knowledge of engineering. Also rounds out the list a little more to have 3 small races vs 3 medium races vs 1 in between (Dwarves are sorta smallish-medium).

Cheliax

Mattastrophic wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:

There was a pretty in-depth discussion of it here.

From what I could tell the classes usually labeled tier 3 were like Paladin, Bard, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Warpriest, Magus, Hunter, Barbarian. Pretty much anything with 6 levels of spellcasting made it here (aside from the Summoner which was Tier 2 or possibly Tier 1 depending on who you asked.)

Thanks for the link. That discussion is a bit of a mess, though. There's also the problem of "splat or no-splat?" which was there in the 3.5 version of the tier list as well. When you assume that every character has full access to everything ever printed, there are going to be issues.

Anyways... am I the only one who left all the full-casters off his list?

-Matt

I very nearly did - in fact, I think the only full caster to make it on my list was the Sorcerer. But ultimately that was because casters are just too big a part of the game to me, and Sorcerers are slightly more balanced than a Wizard imho. But truthfully, I might consider replacing Sorcerer with Hunter for balance - without the broken Druids or Summoners around to steal their thunder, the Hunter is a pretty solid class.

Cheliax

After reading the interpretation key, I'm now afraid I might be a narcissistic serial killer.

But at least I have a great sex life.

Cheliax

Tensor wrote:


1) What is your favorite animal and why (give two or three sentences only) ?

Hippos. Hippos are one of the most misunderstood animals out there - they're seen as fat, goofy beasts, but in reality, hippos are dangerous predators that even crocodiles avoid. There's something kind of cool about that.

Quote:
2) What is your favorite color and why (give two or three sentences only) ?

Blue. I don't know why - makes my eyes pop, I guess?

Quote:
3) Imagine yourself sitting alone in a completely white room with no windows, describe this room in two or three sentences.

It's square, with a desk in the middle. I imagine any sound echoes loudly.

Quote:
4) Imagine a waterfall, describe it in two or three sentences.

It's tropical, surrounded by lush plants and fauna. It empties in a clear blue basin, and the air smells fresh around it.

Cheliax

Necromancer wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:


Personally, I HATE Drow, no matter what the setting or campaign. The whole "good light elves are turned into dark skinned evil variants for having stained souls" just makes me feel icky. It's just too close to the 'Curse of Ham' justification slavers used to use for their treatment of blacks.

I know that wasn't the intention when the race was made, I know that wasn't the intention Paizo had when they made their own lore. But it still rubs me the wrong way.

This.

I like to rewrite drow as outcasts from the First World (or equivalent fey paradise) due to a drow noble's gift to an ungrateful Unseelie lord. As a cruel final touch, the drow were dropped directly into the underdark/darklands/etc. and had always been dark blue/purple. As their connection to the First World faded, insanity kicked in and now we have bat s~+& crazy drow.

Personally, I like the idea of Mikaze's take on the drow/elf situation in setting in the post on her 'Monster Orphanages' thread.

Looking at the addendums in the spoilers, she painted a dark picture where the Lantern Bearers made sure that a dirty little secret hidden underground remained that way. This helps to deepen the troubling nature of how the drow were the elves that DIDN'T abandon Golarion during Starfall.

I might have to borrow that if I include elves in the next Golarion visit.

Ditto. This may have just rescued Drow from the Scrappy Heap for me.

Cheliax

Kerney wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Kerney wrote:
Most of all NO DROW. Hate them as a pc race. Might consider them in an underdark campaign but even then I might instead just designate them the bad guy race. Probably reason I'm not running an underdark game and have no interest in playing in one.

But bro, I have this awesome idea for a drow character. He's trying to escape the prejudice against his race because he's a good person. He's also a TWF ranger and...

I can see this isn't swaying you. No worries, I also had an idea for a sociopath assassin...

As long as your sociopathic assasin is not in my good campaign sond good. Would fit right in with my "scum and villiany" game.

ONe of the best game I ever ran as a child was the "when the elves are dead" where tolkienesque evil had apparently won and proof of that was the recent extinction of the elves who were servants of the big good.

Most of the characters were half elves trying to remain hidden/not dead and eventually lead a countercoup.

Personally, I HATE Drow, no matter what the setting or campaign. The whole "good light elves are turned into dark skinned evil variants for having stained souls" just makes me feel icky. It's just too close to the 'Curse of Ham' justification slavers used to use for their treatment of blacks.

I know that wasn't the intention when the race was made, I know that wasn't the intention Paizo had when they made their own lore. But it still rubs me the wrong way.

Cheliax

Mattastrophic wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Keeping it in the Tier 3 camp make a balanced party without having one player crush it or another run around like a useless git due to poor planning.

Is there a class tier list posted anywhere?

I'll chip in:
-Fighter (houseruled to catch up with the Ranger)
-Bard
-Rogue (includes Ninja)
-Ranger
-Inquisitor
-Paladin
-Monk
-Cavalier (includes Samurai)

-Matt

There was a pretty in-depth discussion of it here.

From what I could tell the classes usually labeled tier 3 were like Paladin, Bard, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Warpriest, Magus, Hunter, Barbarian. Pretty much anything with 6 levels of spellcasting made it here (aside from the Summoner which was Tier 2 or possibly Tier 1 depending on who you asked.)

Cheliax

Puna'chong wrote:
Alternatively, "suicide" isn't really anything covered in the book. Mental states aren't listed as any kind of penalty or anything, so who's to say that casting major image on someone night after night and making good Diplomacy or Bluff or Intimidate checks isn't enough to eventually convince them?

That's where I was going to go with it. Have the serial killer torment their victims with fairly low level illusion spells - maybe throw in some enchantment like "Crushing Despair", and then at the end of it, they come in like an Angel of Light and offer their victim a 'solution.'

Actually, that could be a great set up to introduce them as a big bad, too. They can start taunting the PCs. Casting "Nightmare". Stuff like that. Oooh, this could be so much fun.

Cheliax

Sara Marie wrote:

I know religion (or lack thereof) is a subject that hits near and dear for a lot of people, however, please remember that there are people on the other end of the keyboard and they deserve the same respect that every human deserves, no matter how much or what you disagree with them about something.

Also, let's not edit someone's quote to make it look like they wrote something offensive. There are better ways to make that point.

I understand the necessity of doing so, but man it sucks to see your post disappear after you spent twenty minutes writing it. Especially when it's a criticism of the thing that got the post chain erased!

C'est la vis.

Thing is, it's going to be hard to get through this without mention of religion. The anti-RPG hysteria was in large part caused by religious sentiment. There were people, so-called "doctors", who tried to crouch it in medical terms (much like a lot of wannabes do with video games now) but the vast majority of hatred came from the same Satanic Panic corners that unfortunately gripped a lot of the 80's.

Cheliax

Landon Winkler wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
This is obviously a bit misleading in some ways since in this sort of thing many classes are mutually exclusive (few choose Sorcerer and Wizard, for example). And even more so because the ACG isn't quite out yet. Redoing this a month from now, I'd expect the ACG class numbers to all go up quite a bit.

Interesting to see bard in the lead, though!

It's also interesting that people seem to share my opinion on spontaneous vs. "Vancian" casting. Which makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

Cheers!
Landon

I'm not surprised. Bards are a love or hate it class, with far more lovers than haters. (Not in my group, though. Ugh . . . just try suggesting a Bard is a better option than a Rogue and watch the sparks fly.) So you may see plenty of bard hate, but they're outnumbered 2:1.

Now I am somewhat surprised by how high Fighter got on the list, considering even most people I know that like the Fighter prefer Barbarians and Rangers.

As a semi-aside, this list has inspired me to try out a game with limited classes. Keeping it in the Tier 3 camp make a balanced party without having one player crush it or another run around like a useless git due to poor planning.

Cheliax

After rereading this I'm reconsidering some of my options.

I'd still keep Alchemist, Barbarian, Bard, Magus, Paladin, and Sorcerer.

But after taking another look at Brawler, I think I'd rather have it than Monk - even if it were an archetyped Monk. Warpriest I'm still ambivalent about, but I think the Inquisitor would ultimately be a better option. Clerics are simply too broken.

I was tempted to replace the Paladin/Cavalier with the Slayer as the skillful foil to the Barbarian - especially since I love the new class - but ultimately with medium armor proficiency, only 2 more skills per level and the fact that their class skills overlap, the Barbarian and the Slayer can both be used to build very similar adventurers.

So for whoever was keeping score, subtract 1 Warpriest and 1 Monk, and add 1 Brawler and 1 Inquisitor. So my new list:

"CORE 4":

Barbarian (Fighter)
Bard (Thief)
Inquisitor (Priest)
Sorcerer (Mage)

Unique/Difficult-to-Impossible to Recreate:

Alchemist (Potion brewing bombardier. Try building that with a wizard before the alchemist inspired archetypes came about.)
Brawler (Unarmed close-up, CMB focused maneuver master.)
Paladin (Classic knight in shining armor exemplar.)
Magus (Fighter/Mage multiclass gish - this can be done otherwise, but not well and not easily.)

Cheliax

Aranna wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:

Protestant: WTF?!?!? Can we get over the "God hates" thing already? God loves everyone. As long as they believe in God. If they don't, then God hates 'em.

This isn't accurate by the way. I mean the first part is... God does love us all. But the second part isn't. God promises all our misdeeds will be punished... This is a death sentence for everyone on earth. But he loves us and so he sent his only begotten son to die for us and give us a second chance at heaven through him... we only need to believe, nothing more.

Protestantism: I don't get humor.

I notice you didn't take issue with the description of any other religious tradition. Interesting. If you're so interested in whether somebody is getting the wrong idea, why not correct ALL of it?

Because religious folk don't give a crap about people who don't belong to their club.

Cheliax

boring7 wrote:
Kage_no_Oukami wrote:
I personally like the idea of core races varying depending on the location in the world, but for sake of simplicity I'd love to get rid of halflings, half elves and half orcs. Then replace them with kobolds, catfolk, and perhaps samsaran. I like the plane touched races equally, but that means there are too many to include them all as core.
Cheat and count them as one race.

Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of the whole exercise?

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ector777 wrote:
Alchemist is just too weak.

I'm very curious about this, particularly since your preferred list includes both the rogue and fighter. Why would you call the alchemist weak? I've heard a lot of complaints about flavor, but I don't think I've ever heard an alchemist called weak, so I'm wondering what strikes you as weak about it?

Cheliax

Necromancer wrote:
Valeros the Fighter - forehead, face, ears, neck, elbows, and upper forearms, fingers

I know this is neither here nor there, but speaking as a straight male, Valeros looks so much cooler mythic than in the original artwork. CRB Valeros is very meh - compare him to Seelah: both are covered, but Seelah's pose and expression tell a story. The look in her eyes says this is a woman who's resolute and determined. Valeros' expression says this is a man who just passed gas and is leaving the table before anyone thinks to blame him.

Mythic Valeros, on the other hand, looks like someone prepared to fight. He's daring you to attack.

Showing skin is not always sexual - I think that's important to remember. Of course, that might just be my privilege as a man that I can say so without the associated baggage of what message it may be portraying about my gender.

I was going to say something in response to Sitri's post, but Abraham spalding beat me to it and said it way better than I could've, so . . . *slow clap*

Cheliax

Zhayne wrote:

1. Interesting is in the eye of the beholder.

2. Race and personality are completely unrelated.

Technically, all qualitative value is in the 'eye of the beholder', but few people are going to argue that Twilight is a better work than Shakespeare. (Those who do are either idiots or being deliberately contrary.)

However, there are certain factors that can be considered when trying to determine value as closely to objectively as is possible when dealing with what is necessarily subjective. Since nearly all original work is derivative of work that came before it, how derivative is it? In the narrative sense, what options does this particular choice sensibly provide? Of course you can make anything into anything, but it would be jarring to the point of disruptive, for instance, if aliens with sci-fi technology arrived in the next book of A Song of Ice and Fire.

As to #2, you cannot entirely separate race from personality. Not in this sort of fantasy role-playing game. The personality is part of the race. Tieflings not only commit the sin of being redundant, but they're redundant even within the provided material - half-orcs already fulfill the hated halfbreed with a dark and troublesome origin niche. There was hardly a need for another.

Obviously, Tieflings vs Gnomes is not as serious a discrepancy as Twilight vs Shakespeare. But to me it reflects the same marketing urge that feels the need to repackage everything with the more brightly colored elements removed and replaced by drab grays to make it 'adult'. But Gnomes get all of the hate because somehow dark and grimy is synonymous with better in this new paradigm, even if what replaces it is yawningly trite.

Cheliax

Lemmy wrote:

I'm okay with the core races... Although I'd switch Gnomes' Cha bonus for an Int bonus. that way they aren't just weaker versions of Halflings.

Additionally, I think I'd just make the Half-Orc an actual Orc, but keep the Half-Orc's mechanics, except the "count as human" thing.

I agree 100% about Half-Orcs, but I really think +2 INT makes way more sense for halflings. They're supposedly quick witted underfoot types, whereas Gnomes are larger-than-life First World immigrants. That screams CHA to me and gives Gnomes a fair monopoly on spontaneous caster builds.

But I'm assuming we have to keep the races as is, so if I had choose, I'd remove both "HALF" races and replace them with Goblin and Hobgoblin. There would be a more even balance of Small vs Medium races in the games, and no more uncomfortable discussions about how exactly half-orcs come about.

It always hits my ear wrong how many people say they would remove gnomes. That was my LEAST favorite thing about 4th Edition (and that's saying something). They removed one of the best, most interesting races in the game and replaced it with one of the least interesting (Ooooh, I'm another race for dark and brooding loners. Way fun for a cooperative game, guys. /sarcasm) and somehow made Tieflings even more dull by giving them a vague, yet incredibly trite, justification for their commonness.

Cheliax

For 8 -

Alchemist - It's too unique of a niche to adequately do with another class. You cannot make anything else do an approximation of what the alchemist does, so it stays out of necessity. Don't get me wrong, I DO like them and I don't want this to sound like I'm damning with faint praise. But I knocked a lot of stuff off the list because the other classes cover what they do and provide some additional goodies. The alchemist is just too much its own beast. (The same could be said of Summoners, but @#$% Summoners.)

Barbarian - Drops the alignment restriction and becomes the core 'fighter' class. As this is going to be the only non spellcasting class on this list, it is better balanced with the higher hit die and useful rage powers.

Bard - Fills the 'thief' role of the "Big 4", but does it so much better than the iconic rogue. Also fills buffer/debuffer role. And - full disclosure - I'm just in love with bards. I would never want a TTRPG without them.

Magus - Proper 'Gish' class. If you want a more fighty, less skilled 3/4 Arcane caster. Basically fulfills the nova/blaster type.

Monk - Either the Sensei, Tetori, or Zen Archer archetype. I'm leaning toward the Tetori since there's already a class that favors buffs and a couple others that can be suitable archers. By having a Tetori you make a suitable maneuver focused class. (Does still eventually become obsolete, but not for quite a while.)

Paladin - The foil to the Barbarian. Trades out the maneuverability and consistent damage output for situationally huge bonuses in addition to healing and restorative capability. Also provides the best route to mounted combat.

(Alternatively, the Cavalier. Not as great as the Paladin, in my opinion, but a lot of that same fluff with fewer table arguments.)

Sorcerer - Probably the most balanced of the full caster classes. Less bookkeeping and game breaking potential than the wizard. Essentially powerful without being OP and the limited spell list means you have to be a bit choosier with the spells chosen.

Warpriest - I was divided between the Cleric or the Inquisitor, so I'm going to say Warpriest. The mechanics are just better and more interesting than a Cleric, and being a 3/4 BAB class with 6th level spells is more intuitive and makes a lot more sense for Pathfinder. Fulfills pretty much the same role as the Cleric.

Cheliax

Degoon Squad wrote:


I always have to laugh at these power tier thing and people who so this is way more powerful this other class.
A thoughtful and well played first level commoner armed with a club is better to bring along then a twenty level wizard armed to the teeth but played by a Dim wit. And if you cannot contribute to a party playing x class chances are the problem is YOU , not the class.

1. The tiers are meant to compare apples to apples. A moderately skilled (in the gaming sense) player who plays a Wizard will be far more powerful than one who plays a rogue. An extremely skilled player with a fighter can make it sufficient - an extremely skilled player with a wizard can break your campaign.

2. That's profoundly ridiculous. It's simply not built into the game that anyone could challenge that sort of power disparity - no matter the IQs of the respective players, provided the wizard is at least capable of reading and understanding what his different spells do.

Cheliax

Hama wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:


Not me personally, but one GM had a whole mess of houserules crippling rogues (SA only worked on the first attack of a flank, even if you were TWF for instance) because one of his first games a player one-shotted his boss with a rogue.
That man is very very very sad.

Oh, there's more (spoilered for the thread's sake):

Spoiler:
The worst part is that the attitude infected most GM's I know. Since he was one of the first to GM, and the other major GM agreed with the rogue assessment, and most GM's I know learned from them, it had just become an accepted fact.

The one time this particular GM and I really got into an argument (as a player, as when I GM, I'm typically very Go-With-the-Flow) was over the TWF - by 10th level our Halfling rogue in our party had already spent most of combat useless due to the sheer number of constructs and elementals we were fighting. He asked for some help between sessions to maximize how he could actually contribute when we got to humanoid enemies so I mentioned TWF with a high crit range weapon is usually considered a solid rogue build. So yeah, it was pretty cliche, but he had a dual something-or-other - maybe wakizashis? - rogue. But then when it was supposed to actually work, the GM decreed even when you're flanking, ONLY the first attack gets the sneak attack.

It's like seriously, if he missed the first 5d6 opportunity from flanking then he was doing 1d4+2 damage. AT LEVEL 10. And the GM was still insisting rogues are overpowered. It wasn't even my character, but at that point it was like . . . well, kinda like this.

Cheliax

Cr500cricket wrote:

Rules Lawyer, I sometimes catch myself doing this... Help?...

Secondly, has anyone else here been accused of power gaming while playing a fighter or rogue?

Not me personally, but one GM had a whole mess of houserules crippling rogues (SA only worked on the first attack of a flank, even if you were TWF for instance) because one of his first games a player one-shotted his boss with a rogue.

Of course, that had a LOT more to do with the stupidly overpowered weapon he allowed the player to have. (I don't remember exactly what it was, but it was the equivalent of a +5 weapon for a single-digit leveled character. Somehow I don't think the 2d6 additional sneak attack was the problem.)

Cheliax

Adam Daigle wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:

Also, Jessica Price, sorry. Usually the two developers I see post on here are you and James Jacobs, so obviously I misremembered that. But I am very certain there was a similar thread a while back wherein a developer specifically pointed out that she rejected the female trox art for Bestiary 4. Sadly I didn't post in that thread or favorite so I cannot for the life of me now remember who it is.

Seems you got a few things jumbled. In this thread, Crystal gave some background on the trox that appears in Bestiary 4. (Which was news to some of the developers.)

Yes, thank you. Joana in PM also corrected me. The post was locked before I got a chance to reply and I couldn't remember which one it was to go get my facts straight. But yes it was Crystal Frasier.

Cheliax

I'm pretty much with DrDeth on this one but I'd put Witches at a high Tier 2. (I know, academic difference, but still) The spell list just isn't as versatile as a Wizards, despite the fact they are prepared casters.

If Cavaliers are Tier 5, then Rogues are low Tier 5 bordering on Tier 6. (Also I feel like Commoner should be removed from the list entirely since was designed precisely to be bad at everything. It's the Tier 7 or Tier 0 - functionally designed with an inverse goal.)

I am actually a fan of tiers, though I do think there needs to be a division - one that ranks potential power and one that indicates the ease of play. Something like a 1-6 Ranking and then an assignment between Beginner - Novice - Moderate - Advanced - Mastery.

So Fighters might only be a High Tier 5, but even a Beginner can make them do that easily. Rogues are fairly straightforward but easy to break (not in an 'overpowered' way) so they would be a Novice class. A Wizard has so much bookkeeping involved it's at least a Moderate class. Summoners require an Advanced knowledge of the game and the Master Summoner is a Mastery-only class.

Cheliax

Also, Jessica Price, sorry. Usually the two developers I see post on here are you and James Jacobs, so obviously I misremembered that. But I am very certain there was a similar thread a while back wherein a developer specifically pointed out that she rejected the female trox art for Bestiary 4. Sadly I didn't post in that thread or favorite so I cannot for the life of me now remember who it is.

And also . . .

SAMAS wrote:
Lilith wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
I am actually now very curious to see several different women draw their version of a sexy Batman. It would be enlightening.
Emphasis on muscle structure, Adonis belt, jawline, and lips.

Okay, how about Superman?

Or better yet, Iron Man?

WHEE! I'm starting a trend.

Cheliax

Necromancer wrote:
Lamontius wrote:
(Almost certainly NSFW) - while I guess words are cool for debating boobs vs junk, Gabe from Penny Arcade provides his take via drawing
A tanuki barbarian...huh.

I don't know what the fuss is about. I always wanted a game that let me play as Brock Samson.

Cheliax

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
Sitri wrote:

I have read several threads somewhat lately where people have been complaining about art where some of the women display some level of sexuality. I can't help but think that contributed to the very sterile looking new iconics. If they pull up the brawler's belt a half inch, the entire female lot is ready to go for 1960's prime time television decency standards. Obviously there are some people that are very happy about this, but does anyone besides me find this a bad thing?

It's the inevitable result of the philosophy driving it. Trying to be everything results in being nothing. Things considered 'mainstream' are oppressed with the belief that mainstream's very existence oppresses everything else. It's why, under the aegis of religious freedom, religion is forbidden in public institutions whether it's a manger scene in front of the local library or the inclusion of God in the pledge of allegiance. The phenomenon is evident in many places in modern culture and we're seeing it here - stylized or accentuated male and female sexuality is repressed because somehow it's very existence oppresses gay and transgender individuals... which in turn results in the 'saming' of the sexes or, ultimately, a complete lack of any sexuality whatsoever.

Predictable as the sun rising I'm afraid.

OK, sorry for three posts in quick succession, but this has been gnawing at me since I read it. I didn't want to derail the thread, but the first thing is as infuriatingly wrong as the rest of it that I cannot just let it go without challenging it.

Religion is not forbidden in public institutions. You can read your Bible, pray, talk about Jesus, use public institutions to have private meetings for religious groups if they provide equal access for that sort of thing. (Don't even get me started on schools granting ease of access to religious groups for these purposes and then shutting out atheist or LGBTQ groups.) What we ask is that the tax dollars WE ALL pay for not be used to codify or show favoritism to one particular religion. Give me one good reason why I should pay for a model recreation of a scene from YOUR holy book.

To say Christianity is somehow maligned in a society where 75% of the population is some form of Christian, your churches are granted tax exempt status (often even in the face of obvious politicking - a fact that makes me guffaw whenever a fundamentalist says gay marriage is granting 'special rights' to homosexuals), and all of your major holidays are federally recognized is ignorant to the point of delusion.

And that precious "God" mention wasn't even in the Pledge of Allegience until the 1950's - claim what you will, history is on our side. Even Bellamy's family didn't support the move when Eisenhower and Congress officially recognized the change. They actually changed a secular pledge to be more in line with your beliefs.

I would like to argue with the bit about male/female sexuality being neutered because it offends gays, but I can't. It's so ridiculously wrong on so many levels it can't be argued with - because nobody has given that as a reason for ANY of the artistic decisions. It's an absurd strawman argument you invented.

Cheliax

KSF wrote:
TanithT wrote:
Here's a blog that explains a little about what that feels like.
Also.

I am actually now very curious to see several different women draw their version of a sexy Batman. It would be enlightening.

thejeff wrote:
And it's not particularly Roma either, from what I know. Maybe a dancing costume, but not everyday wear. In one of the previous threads on this, someone posted a far more practical, at least Roma and still both sexy and attactive outfit.

Also interested to see that now. Time to climb Mt. OldThreads again.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
I don't see any issue with the way the new iconics are portrayed. I would prefer more Jirelle's to Seoni's, given that Seoni's outfit might be sexy, but seems like the least practical thing ever to wear for adventuring.

Actually, Seoni's outfit makes decent sense for a sorcerer to me. Every caster I've ever played wore robes until late levels when you could buy mithril light armors that had 0 ACP and a Spell Failure chance of (pretty much) nill.

You could make the case it is still unnecessarily sexual - there's probably not a great reason to bare that much skin when you're wading into combat, although my understanding is the outfit does fit the Varisian culture. (I'm not super familiar with Golarian, but Varisians are meant to be Roma equivalents, right?)

Overall, I'm of a split mind on this. On the one hand, it's hard not to wince at sexual depictions of women when you consider how our hobby is perceived by the outside world. There's especially the danger of making it unappealing to women* - who, more than just being invaluable for their perspective, are ultimately essential to the survival of any product. TTRPG's will not survive without a strong female player base. That's a fact.

On the other, it's sexist in of itself to say that a woman must never be presented as sexual. To say nothing of the commentary it makes to insist that a woman who displays her body or sexuality has no value beyond her physical appeal to men. But it's very difficult to find the line between sexual agent and sexual object and clearly delineate it. Read any argument over Amiri to see this in action.

And then of course there's the whole can of worms about male vs female sexual depictions. Can you really compare exposed breasts to exposed penises? Is there a difference between a chiseled man in artwork and a curvaceous woman? How is the specific way the characters are presented, even if both show a similar amount of skin, still clinging to the archetypal male power fantasy?

Sorry, there's really no good answer to this. I think Paizo has done as well as they can by having several women in the design team who have a level of artistic control over what is published (I remember Jessica Price mentioning something about a female Trox depiction for Bestiary 4 she had specifically denied.) but you're never going to find the perfect balance.

*I know a lot of men will also be put off by the inclusion of cheesecake - gay men, religious men, straight men who find it unappealing, etc. But women are the largest affected group, bar none.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Splode wrote:

Player Says: These are my lucky dice!

Player Means: The numbers on these dice are faded beyond recognition, making it easy for me to fib about my roll!

Alternatively: I don't understand how probability works.

Cheliax

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm confused - None of those things you mentioned are really selfish? Lazy, yeah, (I mean, sitting at home watching internet movies - going two places for your coffee/breakfast seems like a huge pain in the butt, actually) but selfish?

Of course, every new generation is lazy, selfish, and entitled according to the generation that preceded it. Society is always going to hell in a handbasket.

Is this thread meant to be an honest complaint or a parody? It's becoming very hard to tell.

Cheliax

Anzyr wrote:
tsuruki wrote:

Idd have gone with just about anything but Hunter, of all the APG classes it seems the most bland and I dont see the point, unless the official book fixes it to be more interesting somehow of course.

.
I'dd have liked a martial druid. Full-bab or Limited bonus dependent class with less spellcasting (paladin progression or just no spellcasting at all) and more focus on Wild shape, basicly a Druid/Ranger hybrid or Druid/Barbarian hybrid - Spellcasting.
At later levels instead of gainign access to more creautre types (elementals, plants) it might gain bonuses for existing forms, larger claws, stronger bites, extra senses.
Somewhere past 14th level he would become able to shift its wild shape form without expendign extra uses.

Of course the game has been missing a 1/2 bab full divine casting class, something with exeptionally strong healing ability and a multitude of domains.

Druids are already sufficiently martial enough. Do want the Fighter to lose *even worse* to them?

That being said I would love an INT based divine caster ala the Archivist. Though we already sort of have options for "Theurges" in Witch, Razmiran Priest Sorcerer and Ancient Lorekeeper Oracles.

Personally, I still think that martial Druid could work and be balanced. Spontaneous SNA and AC are terribly powerful - ditch those, bump up the HP and to-hit, and you could have a relatively powerful, but probably still less powerful than core Druid, archetype.

Besides, the Barbarian already makes the fighter obsolete. Actually, pretty much every other full-BAB class does. What's one more on the pile?

Cheliax

Zark wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:

I would say gnomes are slightly better mounted combatants, too.

A gnome cavalier can talk to his mount, can use heavy armor without wasting a dex bonus, and gets proficiency with one of the best melee weapons in the game.

+1

And with a charisma score of 11 or higher he can pick arcane strike as well.

Although I'm not sure I agree about the "one of the best melee weapons in the game" thing.

Totally forgot about the 'Arcane Strike' bit. It pretty much offsets the initial STR penalty for a Fighter.

Although I still maintain the Gnome Hooked Hammer is ridiculously good. You can two hand it or go TWF with it, one side is bludgeoning damage (which is typically considered the best damage type) and the other side gets a juicy x4 crit multiplier. And it's a trip weapon. All in all, pretty darn good.

But even if you don't think the GHH is that good, there's also the racial trait someone else mentioned that a gnome is considered proficient in any weapon they create. Essentially, pick the best weapon in the game, make it, and voila! Gnome proficiency. You can wield a Keen Falcata without blowing a feat on it.

Cheliax

I would say gnomes are slightly better mounted combatants, too.

A gnome cavalier can talk to his mount, can use heavy armor without wasting a dex bonus, and gets proficiency with one of the best melee weapons in the game.

Cheliax

Well, thank you for the advice (in particular Excalibur and Cyrad)

I'll go back to the drawing board but there's a lot of better ideas to consider now.

thejeff, the more I think of it, the more I would like that, too. But it's hard to translate.

Cheliax

OK, I just copied everything into my Google Drive, so I'm hoping this works now. I apologize for the formatting - it didn't really translate perfectly, but it should be readable.

So here is the Google doc version.

As a side note my first thought is to change totemic and totem animals to something else to differentiate it from the Barbarian, I'm just not sure what else I would call it.

Cheliax

After perusing the General Discussion forum and reading about classes still desired after the ACG*, it seemed like the most common one was a shapeshifting class. Instead of reinventing the wheel, I decided to just try doing a Ranger/Druid hybrid that ditched the animal companion to focus on the shapeshifting abilities.

So here is the basic chassis for The Shifter homebrew class.** I have the mechanics written, although I've not quite figured out how to word the fluff.

I was hoping for some feedback - obviously it's unfinished, and I wanted to see if anybody might have some good suggestions to rearrange the totems or to fill in the gaps where I've not been able to select abilities yet.

The other half of the issue is balance. Because I'm eliminating perhaps the most powerful abilities of both classes (The spontaneous summoning, Nature/Hunter's Bond animal companion, and favored enemy) to preserve a more authentic flavor, I tried to make its replacement - the Totemic Shift ability - suitably powerful. I just want to make sure I didn't go overboard - or perhaps even not go far enough.

*Original thread can be found here.

**Right now it's an open office document. You can download the software for free from http://www.openoffice.org. I'm working on getting it into drive, but unfortunately the formatting goes crazy and I'll have to figure out another way to include the table.

Cheliax

Rysky wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:

Lemme preface this by saying that the GM in question is otherwise one of the best GM's I know, and I always love playing in his game.

But there is one ruling he insists upon that is just irritating:

You cannot power attack with unarmed strike. His reasoning is that 3.5 (where he cut his teeth GMing) said you cannot power attack with light weapons, and unarmed strike is a light weapon. Pathfinder has no such rule and 3.5 specifically made an exception for natural attacks and unarmed strikes.

Talk about a game where you really, REALLY don't want to play a monk. (As opposed to the normal standard where you just really don't want to play a monk.)

Curious, how does Tiger Style work in his games then?

Honestly, it's never come up. He's had this ruling looooonnng before Ultimate Combat came out so those of us in the know gave up on monks long ago.

I can try to point him to it, but honestly after pointing out the actual exception and the fact that Pathfinder says nothing about power attacking with light weapons anyway, I doubt it'll make much of a difference.

Cheliax

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadowborn wrote:
3. Stop being so pedantic.

Pardon me, but pedantic is an adjective. One either is or is not pedantic, rendering your qualifier "so" superfluous. In the future I expect you'll be more cautious with your grammar, Shadowborn.

*Adjusts monocle and smooths creases in smoking jacket*

Cheliax

Lemme preface this by saying that the GM in question is otherwise one of the best GM's I know, and I always love playing in his game.

But there is one ruling he insists upon that is just irritating:

You cannot power attack with unarmed strike. His reasoning is that 3.5 (where he cut his teeth GMing) said you cannot power attack with light weapons, and unarmed strike is a light weapon. Pathfinder has no such rule and 3.5 specifically made an exception for natural attacks and unarmed strikes.

Talk about a game where you really, REALLY don't want to play a monk. (As opposed to the normal standard where you just really don't want to play a monk.)

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
StrangePackage wrote:
How many of you as GMs allow evil characters in your standard non-evil campaign?

Generally, yes. But if the story being told is more traditionally heroic, you'd better have a good explanation. For instance, in one of my games all of the PCs had been falsely accused of a crime and were trying to clear their name. Because of the self interested motivations, I allowed evil characters without question. In another, the PCs were tasked with saving a town and a Druid's grove from a rogue Blight Druid granted tremendous power. In that case you'd better have a compelling story why your Chaotic Evil Barbarian decided to help out these innocents instead of slaughtering them.

Quote:
How many of you as players have played alongside or as the token evil teammate?

One of my most memorable characters was this. The key is never to outright antagonize the group. You can manipulate them, subtly, but never force them to do anything. I was strongly allied with the CN Pirate in our party and I simply kept the worst of what I did hidden from him.

There was actually even a great storyline where my character tried to lead the Paladin to the dark side by creating a test of moral fortitude he was intended to fail. In the end, the Paladin passed his moral test and frustrated my character, but it was a marvelous bit of storytelling that let us both test our role playing chops.

Quote:
What roles do you guys find most fitting for the TET in terms of group dynamics? Alignment? Classes?

Any alignment I think works. Some people will say never chaotic evil because that means always backstabbing the team or doing the most evil thing possible all the time, but I say those people don't know chaotic evil (Stupid Evil is its own beast). But for classes? Anything with a high CHA - Bards and Sorcerers are my two favorites for this role. If you're going to be -ahem- "morally questionable" you'd better give the group a good reason to keep you around. Haste and Inspire Courage are great reasons.

Wizards, Alchemists, Rangers, Rogues, and Witches also make good choices. What it boils down to is evil PCs need to be schemers, and it's hard to effectively play evil with a class whose schtick is All Combat All the Time. You can write "CE" on your character sheet, but if your fighter is just mowing enemies down then he's no different form the other murder hobos and could just as easily be "CN" or "TN". If you want to play that evil up, you won't have the skills or spells to do much besides start random fights and kill those weaker than you.

Cheliax

Tom S 820 wrote:
Headfirst wrote:

Okay, here's my challenge to the Pathfinder community:

Using the least amount of new rules possible, what would you change about the existing classes to fix them? Keep in mind, "fixing" could mean nerfing, buffing, or altering a class's focus. Optimally, such modifications would be cut-and-paste features from other classes, if only to reduce the potential for strange interactions with other parts of the game. For example, here's my idea on how to fix rogues.

Ambush: For purposes of sneak attacks, the rogue's base attack bonus from rogue levels is equal to his rogue level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the rogue uses his normal base attack bonus.

Canny Defense: When wearing light or no armor and not using a shield, a rogue adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per rogue class level as a dodge bonus to his Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a rogue is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied his Dexterity bonus, he also loses this bonus.

There, two little additions that I think would go a long way toward making the rogue class more attractive. Most of the complaints we see have to do with the fact that rogues, while skilled out of combat, are way behind the curve on the battlefield due to their medium base attack bonus and low armor class. So, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, we've simply brought over effective mechanics from the monk and duelist to fill those gaps.

Anyone want to give this a shot for the other classes?

I could see letting ambush work if was only in surprised rounds. As a Rouge Talent. Also I would make be Situational bonus equal to 1/2 you rogue level. This would net you +5 above full BaB PC for one shot per fight at 20th level. IF you can set up the Ambush....Hell still my say no to that one because it would be more likely be used by GM than PC. Since How often do PC get to act in the Surprised round vs GM Minions.

For Canny Defense add if you are not encumber...

You're kidding, right? That would hardly be a rogue fix at all. The problem is he already has to work to be situationally useful. Other classes aside from the Duelist get a version of Canny Defense (like the Kensai, for example) and it doesn't hurt the Duelist at all. And make it a rogue talent? You may as well not change the class at all.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
aceDiamond wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen, I present the Drakainia. If you don't take real life SAN damage after reading "Invert Birth", I don't know what will phase you. Plus, the artwork in the Bestiary 4 is horrifying.

Pretty sure Darakania is the most difficult monster in all of the Bestiaries that isn't a Great Old One, right? And even Great Old Ones don't have Mythic Ranks. (shudder)

For low level, though? Stirges. Just . . . freaking Stirges, man.

Cheliax

thejeff wrote:

Here's a quick pass at a Ranger archetype that gives me most of what I want from a shapeshifter class.

** spoiler omitted **

It doesn't quite match the normal archetype format in terms of trading abilities out, but I doubt it's overpowered, at least at higher levels.

In fact, I'd like to add more forms, especially at higher level, but there really isn't a template in PF for such abilities. Form of the Dragon, I guess.

I gave it more uses of the ability because I really want him to have to only pick one combat form for the day even at low levels.

I haven't playtested this, so I've got no idea how it will work out. My suspicion is that it'll be weak in combat, at least at low levels, but will have good flexibility and utility. Flight at level 1 is pretty sweet, but since he won't have any casting or ranged ability while flying, not too broken.

Personally I don't think you'd even need to ditch the Medium armor proficiency to keep that balanced.

This really is how the Hunter should've done the Ranger/Druid hybrid - instead of focusing on the pet, make a shaper. 3/4 BAB, Natural Weapon feat chain that ignores prerequisites, 6th level spellcasting, and instead of a companion a shaping focus that gives them some leveling "always on" abilities (no x rounds-minutes-whatever per day) and eventually allow their wildshaping to surpass the Druid's by giving them templates.

So an 8th Level Shaper gets ALL of the options in Beast Shape III (including Medium Magical Beast), at 10th Level they can add Celestial/Fiendish (neutral would make a permanent choice upon level) template depending on alignment, using their WIS mod to Smite instead of CHA. Instead of Druidic they could learn Celestial, Infernal, or Abyassal.

Cheliax

EntrerisShadow wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
Since I don't think anyone's said it so far: EntrerisShadow, sneak attacks works on constructs now. And plants. And undead. Also, Shadow Strike works on both melee and ranged attacks. That does mean the Snipers Eye talent is kind of pointless in comparison, but then that's a pretty standard evaluation of a lot of rogue talents.
Well that is a step in the right direction, but still.

Missed this before, but . . .

I just realized that Shadow Strike is a combat feat that requires a BAB of +1 and doesn't apply to Total Concealment. Also it's not part of the core rules so no luck if you're playing PFS, or if your GM just says "Core Only". Having taken a closer look, I think that reiterates my point.

The devs are saying to be effective at what should be your schtick as a rogue you have to be 3rd level, with a feat, AND you still can't use it if the target has total concealment.

Sneak Attack is really NOT that powerful of a mechanic, fellas. It really doesn't need to be nerfed into the ground like that.

Cheliax

Cerberus Seven wrote:
Since I don't think anyone's said it so far: EntrerisShadow, sneak attacks works on constructs now. And plants. And undead. Also, Shadow Strike works on both melee and ranged attacks. That does mean the Snipers Eye talent is kind of pointless in comparison, but then that's a pretty standard evaluation of a lot of rogue talents.

Well that is a step in the right direction, but still.

1 to 50 of 581 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.