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. 650 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 650 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Hama wrote:

A terrible Tolkien-esque setting where every race was incredibly more powerful than Humans who had no special abilities whatsoever (even feat and skills were removed)

And it goes from there.

^--- this, although not to the degree where everything cool for humans got stripped.

I have been plopped into this exact setting so many times I can't even point to a specific one. Just, we get it - humans suck and you obviously hated high school.

The only other terrible one I can think of is a homebrew world where the gods had come to reside on the material plane. You don't know railroading until the king you're meeting with is a literal god - good luck with any bluff check, sense motive, perception, etc.


Terquem wrote:

You know, I guess I'm just odd, but I hate it when a player wants to know "everything there is to know" about the upcoming adventure in order to build a character.

I'd prefer players who wanted to build characters based upon what they thought would be fun, and then see if that can be made to happen once they begin the adventure.

As a GM, I get annoyed by that, but I also think you have to make some allowances. Because it's true that a character won't be any fun in the wrong environment.

Player: I made a scruvy sea-dog of a pirate, who wields a pistol in one hand and a rapier in the other. He's a competent sailor to boot, and I gave him a couple rogue levels to adequately represent how he fights dirty and gets the drop on people.

GM: Okay. This is a prehistoric game in a landlocked country wherein you'll be fighting almost exclusively oozes and elementals. Oh yeah, and guns haven't been invented yet, so don't plan on using that proficiency. But have fun with your character!


  • Occasionally fudging die rolls, and reserving the right to roll behind a screen while requiring players to roll openly

    Yes, although my fudges almost always serve the players rather than me. If the first combat has an orc crit the fighter my player spent fifteen minutes making, I'll fudge the hell out of it.

  • Employing prominent NPCs/GMPCs

    Aren't prominent NPCs what a GM is supposed to make? I've only used a GMPC once - and that was a healbot/perception monkey. (2 person gestalt game and they both took classes without perception - they each had a negative modifier.)

  • Disallowing (or even placing restrictions of any kind on) full casters

    Yes, I do this. I don't allow Summoners. It takes too long, nobody builds them right, and I don't think they fit the system. And I've considered doing an all T3 and below game.

  • Enforcing alignment in clear and definitive fashion

    Yeah. Too many players write "CN" on their sheet as excuses to go on murder sprees.

  • Imposing an objective morality on paladins, such as disallowing prevarication for selfish gain, torture, baby- (including baby monster) killing and casual sex as inherently evil and/or chaotic

    In defense of the OP, I could see casual sex as being considered "chaotic". But I don't consider it so, so no. But I actually give my Paladins a 10-point edict to follow according to which god they choose. Far fewer "Should the Paladin fall?" arguments that way.

  • Not providing the "required"/desired magical paraphernalia on schedule

    Oh yeah.

  • Believing the DM's role is benevolent autocrat rather than either gleeful tyrant or impotent fantasy tour guide

    I prefer to see it as a little of both. The important thing is I try to find a balance between the sessions where the players feel challenged and where they get to feel empowered.

  • Refusal to permit evil (or even chaotic neutral) PCs

    Not at all. If you can work within the group, and it can make sense within the framework of the story, all alignments are allowed. Just don't mindlessly backstab the other party members.

  • Disallowing classes that violate the campaign's established and specific tone

    Just did this, actually, against the advice of several other posters. So far it's working out okay, although I did almost kill the party with a swarm.

  • Laying the smack down, hard, on abusive meta-gaming

    Depends. If they're not advancing the plot due to some Platonic ideal of never metagaming, I will encourage them that maybe their character would have an idea of what to do next. But I will come down hard if that 8 int Fighter decides he knows all the strengths and weaknesses of a dragon without the appropriate ranks in knowledge or a good in-story reason.

  • Requiring immersive role-play rather than simple recitation of mechanics

    No. Not everyone can be creative off the cuff like that, and I see no reason to punish them. And I enjoy the mechanics sometimes too.

  • Taking control of PCs who refuse to role-play honestly when charmed, dominated, etc.

    You know, I've never had a problem with this in my games. We all sort of have an agreement not to use "Dominate Person" on PCs in our games - the worst you'll get is a "Hold Person".

  • Retaining control over magical weapons, cohorts, mounts, animal companions, eidolonsSUMMONERS DON'T EXIST! RRRAAGGEEEE!, etc.

    Nope, no way. Too much work on my part. Unless there's a good reason your cohort wouldn't do what you ask them to ("Say, Nodwick, would you kindly go sacrifice yourself on that altar so we can bypass this puzzle? There's a good lad!") I am fine just letting the player handle it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Gamers who take umbrage with an established world and refuse to stretch their creative muscles rather than get to make whatever combination they feel like.

And the most common subset of that - Weeaboos.

Anime is fine. Manga is fine. Japanese culture can be pretty cool. But I really don't want to role play with your Generic Ninja Stereotype #1,542. And I especially don't want to (in one disturbing case) even scratch the surface of your weirdo loli-fetishism.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Liranys wrote:

Does no one recognize the "sneak attack with a ballista" reference? lol

It's from the same bit as "I shoot magic missile. At the darkness!" and "I steal his pants."

Name the movie!

From the same series, the most succinct description I've ever heard of a typical D&D session:

"Where did you even get a tomato?!"

(Like a boss)"I'm a Bard."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not to derail, but after going through and reading this thread I'm noticing something - a lot of the posters hate Pathfinder. And not in the sense that, "I'm ostensibly a fan but I find a lot of fault and pick apart the system" hate, but like, "I hate Pathfinder and think it's beyond redemption" actual hate.

Which makes me ask, why are you here? I mean that not in a snarky, "Ew, why is he here?" sense, but just out of legitimate curiosity.


Bigguyinblack wrote:

Fyi if this is for PFS you should know Pummeling Charge is no longer legal.

Feats: all feats on pages 136-159 are legal for play, except Animal Soul, Divine Protection, Evolved Companion, Evolved Summoning, Pummeling Charge, and Spirit's Gift.

Yup, gods forbid you build a competent martial character in PFS.


I like the idea of the Rogue, sorta, but I'd still say Bard makes a better gestalt - especially since you're already a CHA based caster.

Plus, think of how cool the flavor will be of a raging, war-chanting uberhulk tearing it up with a great axe.


All this way and absolutely nobody has mentioned Anton Chigurgh?

The things he does he does because . . . well, who knows? But he also


manages to get what's his back, outwit the cop that's pursuing him, and escape

while being an evil SOB the entire time.

Also Patrick Bateman from American Psycho. He might not be a genius, but he hides in plain sight while indulging in very twisted, over-the-top sadism on whims. Heck, he was set off when a guy had a better business card than he did.

Morrigan from Dragon Age: Origins is a good video game example. She's brutal, uncaring, in it for herself, thinks nothing of pissing off those around her - but always knows when to stop just short of ruining her plans.


AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
I am designing a character that is an athiest (or dystheist if you prefer) who is kind of like Rahadoum in her thinking, that mortals should serve themselves not so called "gods" (especially because she's meant to be a sort of guide for a mythic campaign where she's helping the PCs become mythic like she is... and she's ABLE to grant spells (she has the mythic powers) she just doesn't because she rejects the idea that she's a god, although at the same time she doesn't see where she isn't the same as those who do call themselves gods, since she CAN be worshipped and grant spells). Thing is, I want her to be a witch but now I'm thinking... What would her patron (mechanically, her patron is fate from Reign of Winter) could she have then? She wouldn't want to be beholden to a god or even a god-like being to get her powers...

I actually ran a similar kind of witch in a friend's homebrew setting wherein the gods had been kicked out of the celestial planes and were very real, and very present. She made a deal with the Asura to destroy/banish them so her "patron" was a very powerful Asura rana and her familiar was a Tripasura disguised as a cantankerous gnome.

The nice thing about patrons is they're vague enough that you can fluff it up however you like. The 'patron' can simply be an embodiment of some naturalistic force that serves as more of a mentor or a guide than a master.


Just for fun, I have to think about what this build would look like...

So by level 4 with a human Sacred Fist you've got:

Lv 1 SF(1): IUS, Pummeling Style, your human bonus feat (Maybe WF?) Nevermind - you don't have +1 BAB to do that.
Lv 2 MoMS(1): Pummeling Charge (bonus)
Lv 3 MoMS(2): Dragon Style (3rd level feat), Dragon Ferocity (MoMS)
Lv 4 SF(2): +0/+0 Flurry.

Problem I see with this is it sets your flurry back and you're already on a slow track. You've got +2 to hit at level 4, or +0/+0. So with a 20 STR, +5/+5 for 1d6+7/1d6+7.

At level 4, that's kind of pathetic, really. The one nice thing is if you crit on either it's a full crit, but still...


Ughbash wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:

Wait, how could you get Pummeling Charge at level 2 with a 1 level MoMS dip?

Prerequisite(s): Improved Unarmed Strike, Pummeling Style; base attack bonus +12, brawler level 8th, or monk level 8th.

You have the first two prereqs down, but you still have to be a Level 8 Brawler. So don't you have to take a 2 level MoMS dip?

Pummleing Style requireds Improved Unarmed strike and one of the three following things +6 BAB, Brawlers Flurry or Flurry of blows....

So a REGULAR monk or brawler could pick it up at first level.

a MoMS can NOT pick it up as a regular feat at first level since he does not get flurry though eh could as a bonus feat.

So the order of your classes is important.
Level 1 Sacred Fist and pick up Pummeling Style with your level 1 feat.
Level 2 MoMS and pick up Pummeling charge withyour MoMS bonus feat.
Level 3 (My prefernce) MoMS and pick up Evasion, Dragon style with your level 3 feat, and Dragon Ferocity with your MOMS feat.
Level 4 - 20 Sacred Fist.

This is assumihgn str/wis based sacred fist.... with guided enchantment other styles may be better.

MoMS can specifically take any style feat and ignore prerequisites for it:


At 1st level, 2nd level, and every four levels thereafter, a master of many styles may select a bonus style feat or the Elemental Fist feat. He does not have to meet the prerequisites of that feat, except the Elemental Fist feat. Alternatively, a master of many styles may choose a feat in that style’s feat path (such as Earth Child Topple) as one of these bonus feats if he already has the appropriate style feat (such as Earth Child Style). The master of many styles does not need to meet any other prerequisite of the feat in the style’s feat path.

So I get how the MoMS gets it, but the Warpriest shouldn't?

EDIT: I get it now. Sacred Fist can take Pummeling Style first level since he has flurry of blows, then 2nd level go MoMS. OK, that works.


Undone wrote:
thiago soares wrote:
What is more advantageous in the opinion of you: Warpriest with sacred fist Archetype or Brawler with Steel-Breaker Archetype?
Well both are good unarmed characters but I'll have to champion the sacred fist because it's effectively full BAB with 6 levels of spell casting. You can also multiclass 1 level of monk of many styles for pummeling charge at level 2 for a powerful character.

Wait, how could you get Pummeling Charge at level 2 with a 1 level MoMS dip?

Prerequisite(s): Improved Unarmed Strike, Pummeling Style; base attack bonus +12, brawler level 8th, or monk level 8th.

You have the first two prereqs down, but you still have to be a Level 8 Brawler. So don't you have to take a 2 level MoMS dip?


Deirdre "Dee" Sarini wrote:
I get really tired of two character's as concepts: The crazy-snarky oversexed action girl. I've seen them in almost every attempt I have made to play Pbp and typically they end up just distracting others and at times being inappropriate for if there are younger types around.

I always wonder what the guys who do this are trying to personally work out. Immature and sexist as it (usually) is, I understand the impetus behind writing a sex-crazed bisexual woman into your fiction . . . it's quite another thing entirely to want to be that character.


Stylistically (the art, race and class descriptions, etc.), do you prefer the 5th Ed. style or the Pathfinder style?

This one is really hard for me to say. 5th Edition is new, so it's going to engender strong feelings either way, whereas I've had my Pathfinder books for years so I'm sort of used to *that* style. Overall, though, I'd give it to PF for consistency. Some things in 5th Ed. really jumped out at me as great (The Warlock looks really cool, and Dragons in the Monster Manual look much more epic to me.) but there were just as many things that looked cliche or terrible. (Gnomes, goblins - pretty much any small race.)

Mechanically, what did it do better than Pathfinder?

I think what 5th Ed. did beautifully was realign D&D with its strength - party based gameplay. In Pathfinder, too many builds were traps and it was too easy to make a build that completely replaced another build through the proper combo of feat selection. So now a Fighter feels different from a Barbarian feels different from a Paladin feels different from a Ranger. No more, "Fighters suck - just play a Ranger and call it a Fighter."

Even within builds, they've ended the dominance of THW Fighters. They still have some goodies - like being the only variance that can power attack at the cost of a feat - but it's not the runaway superior option it has been since 3.0.

Mechanically, what did it do worse than Pathfinder?

Multiclassing and cantrips. Here are two instances where the simplification has really hurt 5th Ed. There's really no reason for a Wizard/Sorcerer to NOT take a 1 level dip in fighter. Suddenly you can wear armor and cast spells.

And the cantrips are unlimited by beefed up to a point where the meet and even occasionally exceed the capability of first level spells. When you can throw an unlimited 1d12 ranged touch attack that scales with level, I'd call that a tad broken.

Also for simplicity's sake, a lot of the more flavorful spells have become blase damage dealers. Cloudkill, for instance, now instead of the differing effects depending on creature levels just does so many dice of Poison damage. I know they wanted to streamline, but it's made playing a Blaster-Caster the only real option.

Dex to damage for ranged and finesse, on its surface, seems kind of awesome. Thematically it makes sense and works well for classes that traditionally built for stealth and movement rather than brute force. But it sort of makes Dex the "God" stat. There are still reasons to build a STR character, I guess - but not many.

I give Advantage/Disadvantage a wash - it's nice not to have to sift through a dozen different variables to figure out your total bonuses, but it's also too dependent on luck for my taste.

Among those things it did better, can or should any of them be translated to the PF system?

The feat system, definitely. Make feats tie to ability score increases, so that in order to take one you must sacrifice something else that may be valuable to you. And make them worth that sacrifice. 30 (mostly) great feats is a far superior system to 100's of feats comprised of 70% crap, 20% situational, 5% every worthwhile (insert class here) build will have and 5% that should just be an available option, all intertwined by obnoxious feat trees and prerequisites.

Among those things it did worse, was the PF mechanic the clearly superior option, or could they be fixed with small tweaks?

I think a tweak to the Advantage/Disadvantage system could save it. Spoony did have a great point when he pointed out that having a disarmed, injured, confused opponent confers exactly the same advantage as the True Strike cantrip. That seems unfair and actually sort of discourages what 5th Ed. was attempting to do by making the players consider and role-play out combat rather than just doing the typical "I full attack - does 27 hit? 21? 25? 19? OK, two hits." *roll damage* routine.


OK, so in a respectful enough way as not to have this thread locked, this is a semi-related thread to the "Will You Be Switching?" topic. But whereas many of those posts answered with a brief yes or no, I wanted to delve a little deeper.

Now that the PHB and Monster Manual are out, in comparison to PF, what do you think of 5th Ed? As objectively as possible (A completely positive/negative comparison is fine, as long as you reason why and don't just say "D&D/PF sucks and only tools would play it"):

Stylistically (the art, race and class descriptions, etc.), do you prefer the 5th Ed. style or the Pathfinder style?

Mechanically, what did it do better than Pathfinder?

Mechanically, what did it do worse than Pathfinder?

Among those things it did better, can or should any of them be translated to the PF system?

Among those things it did worse, was the PF mechanic the clearly superior option, or could they be fixed with small tweaks?

I'm sure there are more questions to be asked, these are just the first four that popped into my head. Feel free to add more.


I'd like to break from chorus here and say just one thing about it - don't fall into the time travel trap.

Seriously, don't.

You're really talking about more a dystopia than post-apocalyptic and it would be much cooler for the PC's to have to set right now what's wrong, rather than giving them a reset button.

Also, "Spellcraft", to my mind, should only know if there's something that obviously indicates it's a spell. If the wizard fails to notice the illusion, it just looks like the bad guy is doing something and then casting a different spell.


Blueskier wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Balance, to the vast majority of people except to those who enjoy Skinsaw Murders-level of strawman,
What do you mean by this? Whats the problem with the murders? Could you explain please?

I believe he's referring to an AP wherein many of the enemies you fight are Scarecrows.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Eltacolibre wrote:

I know a lot of people seems to be obsessed with the idea of everything needs to be balanced...but quite frankly do you actually really care? Like a player wants to play a tiny fey creature barbarian and complains that he isn't doing as much damage as the half-giant barbarian? Old school players do you remember how hard it was to play a pixie barbarian?

I mean, I understand that some people like to play special snowflake characters but do you actually care that them playing a subpar option or class should be compensated by something else?

Frankly, I don't think that everything should be balanced to be viable at the same scale of power all the time but that's just my opinion.

First of all, I can see somebody has been watching Spoony's Counter Monkey Videos.

Which is funny, because I remember when I watched that video I was like, "Well, of course that's ridiculous! You picked a ridiculous example!"

I do expect SOME balance. What that means is I don't need every option to be as good as every other option - and I really haven't heard of any players who are asking for that.

But speaking as someone who mostly GM's, there is nothing more frustrating than running a party where one member is either A) So powerful they make the rest of the group redundant (In my group these are generally Clerics, although one Paladin in a demon-heavy campaign pretty much one-shotted every encounter) or B) so weak that they never get to contribute anything. (EVERY rogue I've had come across my table has fallen to this.)

If you want to play against type and challenge yourself with a build that's not super powerful but you love the concept, I absolutely believe you should have that choice. But when comparing optimized builds against one another there shouldn't be options that so vastly outperform the other that they render the latter obsolete.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, combining the PHB and DMG into the CRB was one of the best things about Pathfinder. Now that I've gotten the first book for 5th Ed., I keep trying to find terrain rules and magic items and the like and I have to remind myself I don't have *that* book yet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll probably be playing both.

I can see the benefits and drawbacks to both - what I do like about 5E is that I think this will be what I use when introducing somebody new to the hobby. They can cut their teeth on a simplified-but-not-too-great Advantage/Disadvantage system and flat class bonuses and then move on to the more complex but ultimately more rewarding tome of tactical and design bonuses and penalties of Pathfinder.

I do think they made one very, very good decision: They scaled Feats way back. Power attacking is one flat bonuses that's wrapped into another feat. You can move and attack without taking the atrocious Dodge-Mobility-Spring Attack feat chain. Fighters and Monks get more attacks than any other class, and there is no way to change that. The strength of D&D/PF has been in a diverse class system that allowed you to craft a very specific niche. (As opposed to systems like Heroes that gave you flexibility at the expense of clearly defined roles.) The Feats system eroded that more and more to the point where I had players rolling up Sorcerers that could melee on par with a fighter, and Alchemists that completely replaced Rogues. In 5E, Rogues don't suck because there's no one who can step on their toes with the right feat combinations.

To take a feat, you have to be at a level that gives you an ability score increase. And not every class gets these at the same levels. So your rogue or fighter can have God Stats (eventually) or be feat hounds. I love that. I hope that if there is a PF 2.0, they consider this change as well. Feats have just simply gotten way too out of hand.


INT and CHA.

I've never been a fan of strong, silent types. While HULK SMASH! style gameplay can be fun (I'm looking forward to rolling up a Brawler for our next 1-shot) the characters I really connect with are usually intelligent fast-talkers who more often use their wits or personality to get themselves out of a jam rather than relying on physical capability. Littlefinger and Tyrion from ASOIF, The Doctor, Amanda Waller, Bilbo, et al.


Wow, I REALLY liked this one. Apparently this is the first episode written by Peter Harness, and it feels like he took all of those complaints so many of us had since the Matt Smith years and finally acknowledged them.

FINALLY Jenna Coleman gets to do something with Clara. FINALLY The Doctor is challenged by a 'lowly' human over the trajectory the character has taken for the past four years. FINALLY we get a secondary female character whose arc is not defined by her relationship status. TWO even, although one is 14-years-old. And we've spent three whole episodes (going on 4!) without being in Victorian London, with 2 1/2 of those actually being on other worlds. (I'm counting the moon as 1/2.)

It wasn't perfect - I felt like the whole thing with Courtney not feeling 'special' was a tad overblown (Kind of on the Doctor's side here, tbh.) and the Tumblr jokes are already dated and, I know this is my own hang-up, but Capaldi's accent makes divining what he's saying a chore sometimes - but it was so much better than the show has been in a long time.

I'm still ambivalent about Capaldi, but I liked him more this episode than any of the rest of Season 8. They managed to keep him gruff but returned that sense of wonder and excitement.

I really hope the rest of the season has more in common with this and less in common with "Deep Breath".


Spoilered for rant-y reasons:

Taliesin Hoyle's godawful encounter with the 'lesbian' character:

The Indescribable wrote:
The Shining Fool wrote:
Taliesin Hoyle wrote:

"My character is a beautiful blonde with big t+$&.

.She's a lesbian."

I've had enough of this from "dudebros" in my games that I am now reflexively opposed to players playing cross sex/gender. I know that that is the wrong reaction, and I try to suppress my suspicion of new players who want to play cross sex/gender, but it is very difficult.

I've had to pull the lesbian card when playing female characters to stop getting hit on.

In that instance, I see the validity of taking that approach.

But this does remind me - not really a bad role-playing experience per se, but just an annoying tendency I come across constantly. Whenever a man cross-plays (Okay, and one woman I played with - but still, only 1 out of the 10 or so. The rest actually had a pretty even split between male and female PC's with about the same level of backstory, depending on how much the player got into that sort of thing.) I groan because that character will always, ALWAYS be one of two things:

A) A lesbian/raving bisexual that still manages to try and only seduce other women. (Or in the case of the aforementioned woman, a man who was always nominally bisexual but only hit on other men. I have no idea whether she was just being obnoxious or purposely ironic.)

This actually became such a common and hated offense at our table that when a new guy joined up and tried to pull the stunt, the DM made him role-play out what he said he was doing, in the first person voice, with another (male) player that had at that point in the story been polymorphed into a female Catfolk (don't ask) That was the most awkward fifteen-minutes of Pathfinder I have ever sat through. Shockingly, the player didn't return the next week.

So now, far more often they're just -

B) Completely aromantic. Not just asexual - aromantic. Every relationship she has ever had was platonic, every relationship will be platonic. She's never been in love. Never had an awkward romantic experience. Never noticed the other half of the humanoid race as anything other than foes to be mowed down or plot coupons for the next adventure.

Now, there's nothing wrong with not wanting a romantic/sexual element in your game (nor is there necessarily something wrong with playing a lesbian, if you're still playing an actual character) - but I mean these are the same guys who make tons of male characters who entertain romances, visit brothels, hit on attractive female NPC's; so that's definitely not the issue. And I'll take B over A any day of the week, but the dreadful part is that it invariably leads to dull characters. Like just making the character a woman was interesting enough so now you're done.

Worst backstory I'd ever encountered was a half-orc Monk. She had come from a far away land. I know what you're asking - to where? For what?

Well, too bad, you don't get to know because that was as far as she had gotten. She was here to 'see what's what.' And whenever we had downtime, if you asked what she was going to do, that was it. Which makes sense, I suppose, since that's what she had come from a far away land to do.

The GM did eventually get the player on track and help them flesh out a real backstory, but those first few sessions were brutal when it focused on her.


LazarX wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
Doctor Who is a British show, but Moffat has shown before that he's sensitive to American values and wants the show to do well over here. So why (a) make the black guy controlling and possessive, and also (b) insinuate that the black girl is late for "Shoplifting"?

You just answered your own question.

Really, the Brits seem to have a much better standing in race relations than we do. I would think portraying minorities in a negative light would be far more off-putting across the pond. I mean, seriously - consider the last time a Hollywood movie allowed its white female lead to be romanced by a black guy. (Without it being the entire plot of the movie ala Jungle Fever.)

Political discussion aside, this episode was actually the best of the new season, in my mind, but I'm still agitated over The Doctor's hatred of soldiers. IX and X had far better reason to hate soldiers, and even though his hatred of war and the military was trotted out quite a bit, they always made sure to show him being respectful to enlisted soldiers. (If not always the top brass. The Sontaran Strategem/The Poison Sky are good episodes to see it in action.)

I mean, just why? Where did this even come from? For that matter, shouldn't it have gone in the opposite direction, considering this incarnation regenerated after making his peace with the War Doctor? It's maddening!

Have you considered the possibility that it's simple jealousy? The one person he approved of of Mr. Bow Tie was no real threat to Clara's attachment to him. The Doctor travels almost always only with FEMALE companions... think about that.

But then how do you explain his treatment of the female soldier in Ep. 2?

It's quite clear to me they wanted this incarnation to have it out for soldiers. I'm sure so they can make some big point about it later, but it doesn't work when the characterization is non-sensical to begin with.


Chris Mortika wrote:
Doctor Who is a British show, but Moffat has shown before that he's sensitive to American values and wants the show to do well over here. So why (a) make the black guy controlling and possessive, and also (b) insinuate that the black girl is late for "Shoplifting"?

You just answered your own question.

Really, the Brits seem to have a much better standing in race relations than we do. I would think portraying minorities in a negative light would be far more off-putting across the pond. I mean, seriously - consider the last time a Hollywood movie allowed its white female lead to be romanced by a black guy. (Without it being the entire plot of the movie ala Jungle Fever.)

Political discussion aside, this episode was actually the best of the new season, in my mind, but I'm still agitated over The Doctor's hatred of soldiers. IX and X had far better reason to hate soldiers, and even though his hatred of war and the military was trotted out quite a bit, they always made sure to show him being respectful to enlisted soldiers. (If not always the top brass. The Sontaran Strategem/The Poison Sky are good episodes to see it in action.)

I mean, just why? Where did this even come from? For that matter, shouldn't it have gone in the opposite direction, considering this incarnation regenerated after making his peace with the War Doctor? It's maddening!


This is why alignment should follow character and not vice versa.

So for instance, my Druid that was searching for his estranged father without being immoral nor particularly heroic was True Neutral.

My human conjurer who had a mild obsession with the plane of Leng was a bit creepy, but not at all malicious.


SAMAS wrote:

Obsidian Monkey is easy, if you know who that enemy is.

Third Wish:

(if Mortal) "I Wish to be scared half to death!"
"I Wish to donate a kidney!"
"I Wish a sixteen-ton safe would appear forty feet over my head!" *dodge*

(if a Demon/Devil)"I Wish two Solars would appear by my side!"

(If Undead)"I Wish for a week of constant exposure to Positive energy!"

The exposure to Positive energy could kill you too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you are wise, you'll take the second monkey. It's the only one that does not directly put you at risk. The key is simply learning to let go of your hatred, or at least understanding that if you have $50 million, it really doesn't matter if someone else has $100 million.

Failing that, you could always wish for things that would be nice to have but not in excess.


Really, you don't need all that. Some things to remember to keep gunslingers in check:

1) Touch AC only works within the gun's range increment (unless you're dealing with advanced firearms, which I assume you are not) So a Pistol might target touch AC - but only within 20ft. Flying enemies have suddenly become the Gunslinger's bane.

2) Bullets are expensive. A lot like encumbrance, this is something that is fudged a lot for simplicity's sake that serves as a really good equalizer.

3)Disarm, disarm, disarm. Don't do it all the time - if your player wants to be a gunslinger, then when that gun is in their hand they should be the ultimate badass. But nothing says they have to be every encounter. If you want to challenge them, take that gun away and make them rely on their wits for a little while. Unlike other classes that will have an armory that they're semi-effective with, once the Gunslinger wades into melee she's a lot less impressive.

4) It's cheap, but Dominate/Sleep/Hold works just as well on Gunslingers as any other low-Will class. You don't have to prepare spells that seem specifically catered to shutting out Gunslingers.


Imbicatus wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Really, Pummeling Bully is just a stepping stone to get to Pummeling Charge.
Pummeling Bully is not a prerequisite for Pummeling Charge. You can skip Bully with no MoMS shenanigans needed, and most builds should.

No, I didn't realize. Guess I just assumed all Style feats had to take the -BLANK - Style > Second Tier Ability > Third Tier Ability progression. But that is awesome. Guess I won't need a monk dip after all. And I can free up some feats. Huzzah!


Seranov wrote:
Yeah, a MoMS dip would let you ignore the prereqs. But I'm pretty sure that if you don't have those prereqs and you try to use Pummeling Bully, you're going to provoke AoOs from everyone threatening you.

That's fine by me. Really, Pummeling Bully is just a stepping stone to get to Pummeling Charge. I thought that's how it read but I wanted to be sure before I dipped MoMS.

Brawler 2/MoMS1/BrawlerX should do, I suppose. Losing 1 BAB isn't too bad to get the feat and I do get to bump my will save.


Yeah, there's a ton of these, aren't there? But I couldn't find this one, so here it is - and I suppose this is a more general syntax question in relation to feats, anyway, though I couldn't think of how to word it for a search.

In the Pummeling Bully feat it lists the prerequisites as this:

Improved Reposition, Improved Trip, Improved Unarmed Strike, Pummeling Style; base attack bonus +9, brawler level 5th, or monk level 5th.

So if I'm reading that correctly, for a straight Brawler to take Pummeling Bully after grabbing Pummeling Style, s/he will also need to take Improved Trip and Improved Reposition? Just need to know to see if it would be worth taking the MoMs dip to avoid it.


Kthulhu wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Rose: ... without advanced strength, wits, or technology

That is a pretty good description of Rose. Especially the part about without wits.


Lord Snow kind if picked up the baton in discussing my original point, so I won't bother rehashing what will ultimately be the same arguments. But I would like to add that in addition to the fact that Ten's obsession with Rose was not just about her looks, series 3 also laid judgment on it. His obsession was wrong, and while he didn't come to love Martha, his learning to appreciate her for who she was was a huge part of his character development. 11/12's insulting of Claire is always played for laughs.

But what's interesting to me is how strongly everybody seems to react to Rose. I think I'm the only person who is a fan of the series that says, "Yeah, Rose, she wasn't bad." (Donna/Martha after she was the 'official' companion > Martha > Jack > Rose > Craig -if you count him- > Rory > Claire > Amy > all of the other one episode companions > no companion > series cancellation > River Song) It's like you have to either think she's the One True Companion and all others are merely imitators, or that she is the worst thing to happen to television since The Star Wars Christmas Special.


Simon Legrande wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:

Do whites practice racism? Absolutely.

Do blacks practice racism? Absolutely.
Do Hispanics practice racism? Absolutely.
Do I practice racism? Never.


Do whites have an entrenched advantage in the U.S. overall? Absolutely.
Do blacks have an entrenched advantage in the U.S.? Absolutely not.
Do hispanics have an entrenched advantage in the U.S.? Absolutely not.
Do I benefit from this power disparity? Often, even if I don't see it.
Sure, I'll agree with that. Am I going to feel guilty about something I have no control over? Absolutely not. I'll continue to treat others as I wish to be treated, as individuals. If guilt isn't the point, as some have said, then what is the point? What is the next step after everyone acknowledges it? What is the ultimate goal behind having all white people agree that white privilege exists?

Actively working to subvert its effects when possible. Seeing a more fair representation of other people in places of power. Unraveling many of the racist assumptions that plague our criminal justice system. Recognizing and eliminating racial barriers to entry into higher education and economic strata. Creating more diverse media portrayals.

To put it succinctly, an all around leveling of the playing field that begins to undo many of the ills caused by our history.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
That chip up there is called collectivism. I keep it there as a reminder that even though I wish to be treated as an individual and strive to treat others the same, that will usually be considered bad because many other people would rather identify themselves by the group they belong to. Every now and then someone comes along and tries to load some guilt up there too. Because for some reason I should be held accountable for the actions of people I've never met just because we have the same skin color. Well there's no room for the guilt so don't expect me to feel any.

Nor should you.

But refusing to acknowledge racism doesn't eliminate it, just as the act of acknowledging racism is not itself racist.

I'm not sure that I ever said racism doesn't exist. I'm quite aware of its existence partly in thanks to the term "white privilege". I'm acknowledging that racism exists on all sides and that anyone who says only whites can be racist is flat out wrong. The way I see it, the only way to eliminate racism is for ALL people to stop practicing it.

Unfortunate use of the word irony aside, that's still incredibly ignorant.

Nobody says only whites can be racist.

OK, most people don't say that. A very select few do. Just like a few people will say all heterosexual sex is rape. But their numbers are so negligible that they could hardly be counted at all and are more often used as a strawman to conflate valid arguments with ridiculous ones.

It's not that people of any race cannot be racist. It's just that institutionally whites have power in America. That's such a plain fact to say it isn't a level of denial I can't even begin to debate with. And the problem is not that people are racist - which sucks, but will never be solved - but that this particular racism is widespread and institutionalized.

Taken individually, it doesn't matter if Abdul next door to me thinks all white people are shifty-eyed devils, or if Jim Bob down the street thinks all blacks are intellectually inferior criminals.

What matters is that our entire culture had been built upon the backs of an oppressed people, and in many ways continues to do so while also disenfranchising those who are identified by other socially outlying features. That is what needs to be fixed, and ignoring it is a tacit endorsement of a system that is still heavily weighted against minorities. Deflecting onto those individuals whose attitudes you find distasteful gives you an all-too-convenient excuse not to worry about how those people are treated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Xabulba wrote:
Amy was not useless, she has legs you can look at to forget...hmmmm...Amy's legs.

This right here sums up a huge problem with Moffat's run.

RTD Companions:

Rose: Provides a human connection and through sheer determination alone - without advanced strength, wits, or technology - rescues the Doctor and all of the human race from a Dalek invasion.

Martha: A brilliant medical student, eventually doctor, who while not possessed of Time Lord intelligence, is easily the most clever of the companions. On many occasions it is her cleverness - The Family of Blood episodes, Last of the Time Lords - that ultimately saves the day.

Donna: Provides a moral center that keeps the Doctor form straying too far. She convinces him that even fixed points in time provide opportunities to do something right, and the lack of her influence is felt severely in the "Waters of Mars" episode.

Moffat companions:

Amy: Has nice legs. The actress, Karen Gillam, was essentially hired on that feature alone. Moffat was going to pass because thought she was "wee and dumpy". It wasn't her acting ability, or her personality that changed his mind - he just had to see she was actually tall and fit.

Claire: Fairs marginally better, but is constantly subjected to unflattering physical comparisons to Amy and quips about her looks. Also the whole "born to save the Doctor" nonsense. He found a way to keep stuffing the same character in the fridge over and over and over and over . . .

Really, I know there's a lot of complaints about it, but I feel like the sexism wouldn't even be that bad (still bad, but sadly not any worse than most of the industry) if not for the nonsensical storytelling, the recycling of recent plots, and the lack of interest in coherency or motivation. Matt Smith's characterization and now Peter Capaldi's is infuriatingly nonchalant about sacrificing others to save himself. I get that he can be dark, he can resort to killing if he has to, but the peaceful resolution isn't even a blip on his radar any more. The end of this most recent episode - which has earned an inordinate amount of praise, imho - goes right back to that.

For me, there's one saving throw that could be made, and a few people have suggested it. This is all speculation (I don't think Moffat is actually clever or moral enough to make it happen, but I've read a couple of fairly convincing arguments), but right now about the only way to redeem this incarnation is if he actually does turn out to be The Valeyard.


OK, so I've been reading up on this Gamer Gate thing, and I'm a tad confused still. I'm not a huge gamer (Tabletop > Video Games, forever and always), but it seems like this is inescapable at the moment (My YouTube is currently inundated with pro- and anti-Quinn videos.) So tell me if this is sort of correct:

-Zoe Quinn made a video game called Depression Quest and released it on Steam.

-Quinn claimed to be harassed in the lead-up to releasing the game by members of a board called Wizardchan. They say they didn't.

-Quinn's ex-boyfriend makes a blog about her which mentions numerous infidelities with members of the gaming press - the one everybody seems focused on is this guy from Kotaku, whose name escapes me.

-Quinn files a DMCA violation against a YouTube user named TotalBiscuit, which raises the ire of 4chan.

-4chan users are accused of doxxing Quinn and release nude photos, personal information, etc. They maintain that Quinn did this herself to garner sympathy.

One side says that the whole thing is not about Quinn's behavior at all but an expression of hostility toward female gamers and developers. I'm a bit confused by what the argument is on the other side of the coin, though - is it that she deserves no sympathy because she faked the attacks, or that she deserves no sympathy because she brought it on herself?


Josh M. wrote:

I really enjoyed 3.5's Knight class(PHB2). The closest thing to it I've seen in PF is the Cavalier, but I still prefer the Knight over Cav. Knight does the same thing Cav does, for the most part, with a lot less baggage. The "Knight's Challenge" can sometimes require a bit more DM intervention than usual, but works pretty straight forward.

I tried to roll up a Cavalier, and everything about it just seemed like an overly complicated reworking of the Knight. I'd scrap all the stuff about Orders and whatnot, myself. Not every game setting is going to have the same generic Orders.

I feel like without the Order abilities the Cavalier wouldn't really be worth playing though. I guess you could rename the orders or call it something else, but I see no reason to gimp it by flat taking out one of its major class features.


I was inspired to make my next BBEG a Mastermind archetype.

Also making a Brawler inspired by the big bearded guy in Bloodsport.

A Slayer that serves in a Morag Tong inspired guild.


Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Fey blooded might be the worst bloodline to take for an enchanter. You'd be better off going cross blooded serpentine and impossible and be able to use your enchantment spells on animals, magical beasts, monstrous humanoids, and constructs.

And yes, a kitsune could take spell focus at level 1, just not greater spell focus. However, if you go cross blooded with impossible, you get spell focus for free at level 3.

Sorry, I meant Greater Spell Focus.

But really, I still say Human > Kitsune. At some point the save DC's don't need to be higher. Really front-loading the save DC's are where it's at. I'd rather get an extra spell known every level than +1/4th DC to a save they probably won't make anyway.

Everybody knocks Fey, but "Laughing Touch" is actually a pretty amazing bloodline power and there are some very worthwhile bonus feats. But why I really say Fey over Serpentine or Impossible is because A) animals are still susceptible to the biggest enchantment spells and B) enchanting something isn't always the best solution.

Sure, if you mean by "ultimate enchanter", he should be able to enchant his way through every situation every time, then you have a case. But if by ultimate enchanter you mean best enchantment specialist, then he should be great when enchantment fits and have other options when it doesn't.


Fey blooded sorcerer gives an additional +2 to Compulsion effects.

And yes the Kitsune can also take spell focus enchantment - but not at 1st level. By the time the differences really start coming in the save DCs are pointlessly high anyway. But a human will have +CL spells known.


I am actually a big fan of human over kitsune for enchanters. I know this goes against conventional wisdom, but really at a point there's no reason to increase spell DC's any further. With my last human enchanter, by level 8 most enemies had to roll at least a 15 to beat my higher DCs and the combat-oriented ones could only save on a natural 20. I also prefer Socerer over Wizard because the Charisma boost is thematically appropriate.

As a human at 1st level you take Spell Focus (Enchantment) and Greater Spell Focus (Enchantment). The bonus feat gives you the same +1 that you get as a Kitsune.

So with a 20 CHA you could have DC 20 Sleep and Hypnostism spells (10+5+1+1+1+2) at Level 1. And compulsions become even better in the higher levels once you get Hold Person, Dominate Person, Hold Monster, Dominate Monster, Unnatural Lust, Suggestion.

Put your human FCB into extra spells known for utility. If you really want to enchant mindless or undead pick up some metamagic rods, but I had a lot more success switching up my tactics as the situation called for it. (Undead have good will saves anyway.) Make conjuration your secondary focus and transmutation your tertiary.

And remember that Heroism and Rage are also Enchantment spells, so you can make your summons or lackeys absolute beasts.


I actually like the occasional theme game with restricted classes. Other systems may be "better" but come on - role playing games are not the easiest thing in the world to learn. Deadlands might do Weird West better but my friends know Pathfinder. Easier to make Pathfinder fit a concept, no matter how imperfect, than have 6 guys stumbling through a game and pausing every 5 minutes to check the rules.


Scavion wrote:
Sarenrae is probably the only deity I explicitly dislike.

I'm curious now - why the hate for Sarenrae?


Umbranus wrote:

I would allow barbarians, as others have stated it is enough to ban the more mystic powers.

How are you going to handle healing? If there is none that could prove to be a pain in the back.

Healing was going to be potions specifically. Plus rest and recuperating obviously.


LessPopMoreFizz wrote:

You can allow the Investigator with the multiple archetypes that ditch the Alchemy class feature, most notably the Sleuth.

As for the Alchemist, I think giving away the Infusion discovery for free will help a lot to balancing things somewhat. Every party will want one, but not everyone will need to play one. It's a powerful force multiplier.

That's a good call. Could work for both Alchemist or Investigator.


Bachelor snuff is really cheap though for any adventurer. 1-3 days effectiveness for 1gp?

And immunity to disease?

Paladins are not only perfectly okay being promiscuous, in Golarion they're about the only ones who SHOULD.


Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Another option would be to use Clarke’s third law. It states that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. Just reskin the spells to a more scientific explanation. Wizards could create small devices that create the effect instead of casting spell. For the most part the device or at least most of the components are expended when the device is activated. Divine magic will be tougher, but could be done by calling on the energy from other dimensions. The alignment restrictions could be that without the proper mindset (Alignment) you are not able to understand the dimension.

I can appreciate reskinning whatever you want to be whatever you want, but I really wanted to present a world with a very different sort of magic. Making yourself more monstrous or donning a headband that increases mental acuity is feasible, but summoning creatures from planar rifts or wagging your finger to sling fireballs should be off-limits.

Without boring everyone with plot details to a game they're not playing in, too much magic ability would kind of subvert the whole premise.

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

If there are no magic items either you are looking at only having 3 worthwhile classes: Alchemist, Investigator, Gunslinger

If you ban those too, then the optimal option is Slayer.

After banning all of that, things are a bit more even.

I didn't intend on banning magic items, but I was looking at an ECL5 with standard WBL. I figured that wouldn't be getting into the truly ridiculous equipment. After reading some of these posts, I might ditch the Alchemist and Investigator.


Rhatahema wrote:
Rather than ruling what classes will or will not be allowed based on what they have access to, why not simply ban spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities? If a class grants one of those abilities, the player can't use it. Then leave it up to the player if it's a worthwhile option.

Seems like that might require too much legwork on their part.

But I am reconsidering the alchemist allowance. It would be a fairly large power disparity.

1 to 50 of 650 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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