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

JiCi's page

1,225 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 1,225 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Step 1
Open your book Ultimate Combat

Step 2
Get to page 229

Step 3
Notice that the ninja iconic character... is using the Fiery Shuriken spell.

How can this be achieved... regularly?

Has the ninja gotten a trick to learn spells? Is it a new Qinggong Monk power that the ninja can get access?

I'm asking something that doesn't require multiclassing.

Thanks a bunch miss ^_^

or is it Mrs XS ?

Anyway, my turn:

92. A female skinwalker (Witchwolf) Brawler (Wild Child) and her arctic wolf companion travels from town to town, issueing challenges to those she deems worthy... and defeats them in bloody ways.

The long story: A baby was left in the cold by her mother due to the infant being a skinwalker, while the mother was human. Fearing heavy prejudices and backlash, she tearfully abandons the child in the cold... only to be found by a pack of winter wolves. The pack leader, sensing a kindred spirit in the child, decided to raise her as his own daughter. As such, the witchwolf grew with the pack in both a savage and cunning way, developping both her human and animalistic natures. At a younger age, she also found an arctic wolf pup, which she adopted as her pet. As she matured into a young woman, the leader finally explained to her how he found her. Shocked, curious and enraged by it, she decided to find her real mother... but to punish her from abandonning her, not to forgive her. Mounting her now Dire pet, she seeked her mother, feingned happiness to see her again... and murdered her in her sleep as well as giving her dead body for her wolf as a meal. After the kill, the then-child realized her own powers... and decided to it for her own and her pet's gain.

More info:
- According to The Shackle Hut (AP #68, Reign of Winter), winter wolves see natural werewolves as kindred spirits, so technically speaking, a skinwalker descended directly from a werewolf makes a perfect ally.
- Winter wolves often use or work it humanoids, since they can manipulate objects better than them.
- Witchwolf + wolf companion (thanks to the Wild Child archetype) = flavorful combo

@Dreaming Psion

Wanna add a verminoid grasshopper, an animated bag of bugs, an evil plush soulbound toy, a foreign conqueror (make that 2 if you know both), a prideful hunter (make that 2 if you know both), a rejected deity of the Lower Planes, an evil queen obsessed with the color red, a greedy manimal lion prince with his manimal wolf sheriff, a ratfolk criminal mastermind, a jealous and envious awakened lion, a Numerian alien commander in search of a test subject, a greedy cook with a prosthetic arm and eye, a gunslinger/cavalier with a bull mount, a shady and shadowy harrower, a fallen hero with deadly robots, a menacing and evergrowing AI and a cursed undead pirate while you're at it XD ?

and that's ONLY from one company XDD

Alex G St-Amand wrote:
@ JiCi, it can be hard to make good villains in Tabletop RPG (at least at low levels) compared to Video Games.

That's why we need a little help ;)

Champions of Corruption does serve as a good supplement, but the whole idea of making villains need much more info than anyone can imagine.

In fact... why don't Paizo "dissect" their own villains and see why they work?

The Wild Child Brawler archetype offers a companion. Pick Eldritch Heritage to gain your familiar as well ^_^

BTW, the Cavalier/Druid combo is good... although... does that include the Beast Rider archetype in the calculations?

Problem I see is that you're likely to pick animals that aren't "domesticated" in the first place, like a horse. You're likely to pick a bear for your Beast Rider, a tiger for your druid and a hawk for your familiar.

Could be wrong though... Please tell me what actual animals you might have in mind for that one.

MMCJawa wrote:
I've long felt a villain book would be great; feats, spells, traits, items and archetypes to make memorable villains; example henchmen and lairs; GM advice on designing and running BBEGs.

*points to Examplars of Evil*

That book had some good guidelines. However, that book is WotC's take on the matter. Paizo seems to have a different option on how to portray villains, such as in the Modules and APs.

Alex G St-Amand wrote:
Evil Villains aren't too hard, Good 'Villains' (or even allies) is where almost everyone fails.

Even then, evil villains must be above the mindless brute kind, without also being a "monster of the week/session" or something.

A Good-aligned villain needs major cues. Getting arrested by a paladin or Good inquisitor is one thing, having to fight on and/or thwart whatever plan s/he has is different.

One example: you CAN have a rather over-zealous aasimar paladin who tries to bring down a non-evil tiefling, for good measures and to avoid having it fall over the dark side, and with that, you CAN have the PCs intervene to defend the tiefling, especially if it is a good NPC/contact/friend. The problem is how to make it work.

You don't see metallic dragons, angels and paladins as vilains all the time (granted the dragons can simply be territorial, but still...). Such a book could cover one aspect of villain, and that the non-evil-aligned one.

chbgraphicarts wrote:
Then again, coming up with a villain like that is WAY more difficult than what just a gamebook could likely teach you. Tons of professional writers struggle with villains like that throughout their whole lives; still, small essays or philosophies of villain design would be pretty cool, and putting Villainous Backgrounds into an Evil NPC guide would be kinda cool.

As I said, the 3 books published by WotC had guidelines to make evil characters and campaigns. Paizo could take a crack at it in a single book and give us all the info we need to make great villains... although, no example please, because that takes precious pages. What I mean it this: both Examplars of Evil and Elder Evils have like 6 chapters each dedicated to specific villains, like a mini-adventure. Considering how Paizo is releasing those as modules and/or APs, I don't think they need to add these in such a book.

Some DMs make campaigns or adventures based on the villain, like "building the bad guy and then building the adventure around it". One more tool to ease up the work isn't gonna be lost here.

1) Love it, great way to add tech in a mid-Middle Ages/Renaissance setting and to give resources for Numeria.

2) I don't know why, but I get their uneasy feeling about it, like if I use it too much, it's gonna get ugly pretty quick. It's like a Pandora's Box or something.

3) I would have loved to get a few more AI settings, because I feel like if you use the Aggregate template, the only 2 settings don't fit all Robots.

4) I would have loved to see vehicles. You mean to tell me that there are bases with advanced doors, hallways and computers, futuristic firearms, aliens (more present in Iron Gods though, but still)... but no vehicles... such as hover bikes, floating platforms and others? Come on now... I know that the spaceship crashed, but if everything has been developped "around it", why no vehicles to complement? You have robots, so I don't think it would have been off-topic to have tanks, choppers, jet fighters and others.

5) No siege weapon... oddly enough. Granted, you can up a heavy weapon to Colossal and use that, but still, having bigger cannons that serve as siege engines would have been nice.

Aside from that, pretty good booklet ^_^

Ascalaphus wrote:
JiCi wrote:

#7 Allows racial class archetypes for other races, if possible.

The Grenadier Alchemist archetype is said to be only for Hobgoblins, but nothing "prevents" other classes from taking it as well. The Winged Marauder Alchemist archetype is meant for goblins, so maybe only Halflings and Gnomes could take it as well.

The Grenadier archetype is already available to all races, it's from Pathfinder Society Field Guide. It's actually designed to be good specifically for PFS play. (It gets rid of all the poison nonsense and you get "play nice with each other" Precise Bombs.)

Well, the way I read it, it felt like a race-exclusive archetype. Good for us if some of them are available everywhere ^_^

#7 Allows racial class archetypes for other races, if possible.

The Grenadier Alchemist archetype is said to be only for Hobgoblins, but nothing "prevents" other classes from taking it as well. The Winged Marauder Alchemist archetype is meant for goblins, so maybe only Halflings and Gnomes could take it as well.

Ok, to have played a campaign in Eberron, here are my thoughts:

+ Magical Technology: really liked the Lightning Rail and Airships.
+ Cities: Sharn is just awesome
+ Artificer: great class
+ Races: The Warforged, Shifters, Changelings and Kalashtars were great.
+ Use of Psionics: thanks to the Kalashtars

- Everyone is low-leveled: Where in Faerun, everyone is high-leveled, in Eberron, everyone is low-leveled. Good luck building a villain when the setting almost discourages you from making a high-leveled character. Dude, they even FORCED you to think about every single detail how a villain's history, because recurring villains were that rare. At least in Faerun or Golarion, you can make a villain with an agenda without much of a hassle.

- Lack of support: such as...
* Few monsters: Y'know how Faerun got "Monsters of Faerun". Yeah, Eberron NEVER did. It had some monsteres here and there, but nothing about an actual exclusive fauna.
* Few infos on the other continents: I counted 2 books about Xen'Drik, one on Argonessen, one on Sarlona, none on Aerenal and none about the Frostfell or Everice. Khorvaire was the only continent with a lot of flavor to make a campaign out of it.
* Few infos on actual locales: Golarion goes region per region to develop each of them, by with modules, booklets and SAPs. Eberron NEVER did, when each region deserved some attention than Sharn and Breland.

- Too much mysteries: What caused the Mourning? Who's the mysterious prisoner on that prison island that Karnath wanted to keep alive? What's brewing in the Demon Wastes? Name it... many things were left unexplained.

- The politics were out of whack: It felt like the PCs had to fight whatever system they were visiting everytime. The politicians were one the brink of war, Sarlona had an extreme dictorship, Xen'Drik was as chaotic as Limbo and Argonessen had none. The PCs were threading on eggs everywhere.

- Magic was scarce: As odd as it sounds, due to the low-leveled people, magic wasn't as plentiful, despite all the tech.

The idea in general was great, but too many things mared it down.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Ultimate Villainy: a book that essentially combines aspects from the Book of Vile Darkness (well, the tolerable ones at least), Examplars of Evils and Elder Evils.

Basically, how to make a good viallin with each and every class in the entire game? Bonus points if they can make 5 variations of each: a Lawful villain, a Good villain, a Neutral villain, a Chaotic villain and an Evil villain (shouldn't be that hard, but still...)

DMs can have troubles making villains out of Good-aligned characters, when you can "simply" have them fight due to different ways of thinking. For instance, the leader of a revolution might be CG, but opposing either a LG lord or the PCs who are trying to overthrow a LE lord, but not in the same way as the CG leader. Another example: a paladin can be a villain, but again, it's not THAT easy to make it so when 99% of your party is Good-aligned.

I want some guidelines on how to make memorable, believable and viable villains out of every class and if possible, every alignment, in addition of adding rules about stuff that villains do to others.

So yeah, have Paizo make a 300-something book how to make great villains.

Here's a "monster" I'd like to see: Artificial Intelligences

Yes, I said it, I don't regret it and I'm not turning back on my choice.

1) This part really bugs me:

Technology Guide, Artificial Intelligences wrote:
Special Abilities: Use this section to cover any unusual abilities the AI possesses.

We only have 2 types of AIs... and when using the Aggregate Template, they do not cover many roles or aspects that robots can have. So, by having 6, 8 or 10 different AIs, like one Analyst, one Security and the rest being new types, that would give us more options.

2) There's absolutely no stopping Paizo from modifying the Aggregate Template to affect any kind of Construct, and not just robots. Given the existance of Intelligent Magic Items, that's not much of a farfetched idea to have "magical" AIs as opposed to technological AIs.

3) Mindless constructs turned intelligent can make great NPCs.

4) If that sounds too weird, I wouldn't mind a magic item that grants intelligence to a construct or even overwrites a construct's mindset, like a gem or runes.

DominusMegadeus wrote:
JiCi wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:



That is my way of thinking, because if a deity has a double weapon as a favored weapon, I don't see why a warpriest wouldn't use it.

No, no, no. You said double weapons would be strong for a warpriest. You were told otherwise, that they would in fact be pretty bad. You then turned around and told him that it shouldn't matter if they're powerful, ranting about filthy munchkins and roleplay vs. rollplay.

You can't posit that they're strong and then claim it doesn't matter once you're wrong. Especially don't make it sound like he was the one who was trying to say relative power matters.


Double weapons would make strong weapons... because, for a staff at least, I found a few uses that people keep discarding over and over when thinking of the warpriest. That... hasn't changed, I still think that double weapons make great sacred weapons.

What I don't get/like is people telling me and others that by using maths and formulas that people don't usually give two cents about, double weapons would not make good weapons in the end, not to mention that apparently, some people want to dictate HOW to play a certain class.

Dude, if I'm playing a warpriest of Apsu, Barbatos or Sun Wukong (going with the more martial-oriented deities), am I REALLY gonna pick a weapon other than the quarterstaff? Not only it makes for a good weapon, but it's also the deities' favored weapons, adding to the character's flavor.

A double weapon is a good option, but even if it's not THE best weapon for TWF, it's far from being the worst.

The kukris seem actually worse. Aside from a higher critical ratio, which isn't of your control unless you trick your die, it doesn't seem practical at all. Don't give me that joke that warpriests shouldn't do this or that, as a whole, wielding 2 separate weapons seem like a major handicap. THAT's the problem with roll-players, min-maxers and power munchkins.

Playing a staff-wielding warpriest isn't wrong, but telling people that it would be, THAT's wrong.

DominusMegadeus wrote:



That is my way of thinking, because if a deity has a double weapon as a favored weapon, I don't see why a warpriest wouldn't use it.

Undone wrote:
Nope. That's the point of the WP. The entire point.

According to what?

This is not how weapon chords work.

They work as such when you wield the weapons. If your weapons are sheathed, the cords aren't tied to your wrists; you can't work with only 2 feet of lenght of leather from your wrists to your hilts. If you draw your weapons, the cords aren't attached.


I'm simply someone capable of doing math and with game experience. There are plenty of people who want to play things and they can be cool but a halfling sling WP isn't going to do good damage. A TWF warpriest is going to be overshadowed by all mildly optimized builds and a double weapon isn't really any better.

You can by all means play whatever you want but it will be worse at the concept than other options. Just like by all means you could play the rogue but you'd almost always be better served with the slayer. It's the same concept but without the suck.

And? Playing for power and "best setups" isn't always the most fun. If everyone played their characters and classes in their most optimal ways, nobody would have fun at all.

That's the whole point of making the character you want, not the character that the maths tell us to do, not to mention that the character's backstory and roleplay options HAVE to be considered as well.

Undone wrote:
As a swift action, a warpriest can expend one use of this ability to cast any one warpriest spell he has prepared. When cast in this way, the spell can target only the warpriest, even if it could normally affect other or multiple targets. Spells cast in this way ignore somatic components and do not provoke attacks of opportunity. The warpriest does not need to have a free hand to cast a spell in this way.

Are we done here?


Only for certain spells, not ALL of them... and it doesn't work with the healing/harming effect. Any offensive spell cannot be used with Fervor, and yes, you're gonna need these sooner or later.

Double Enhance is not a feat... or if it is, I've never heard of it.

Weapon cords? Could work... if you have 2 full-round actions to spend to tie them, because you won't have them ready all the time.

Finally... do you have some sort of degree on how to properly play a warpriest? Because you sound as if you're trying to impose your way of doing it... and it's not a good thing when someone else tells you to not use this and not use that.

Undone wrote:
How does this effect what weapon you use? You can't fervor spells onto weapons unless you have a monk level and are a sacred fist.

1) You cannot use Fervor using dual kukris, because you need a free hand. Yeah, that's not stated, but you cannot use the healing/harming effect if you're holding a weapon. So yeah... drop the knife if you want to heal your allies.

2) Fervor only allows spellcasting to be used without a free hand, not to mention that you cannot use spells on others in that fashion.

3) It's still of limited use; run out, and you're out.

Again why? Miserable crit range, low damage dice, feat intensive...

Y'know, it's not all about damage. Think about utility as well. Staves can give you access to spells, so unless you can merge a wand with a kukri, Sacred Weapon can benefit you when using a magic staff.

Doesn't matter.

Of course it does. You NEED to let go of one of your kukris to cast a regular spell or to use Fervor to heal or harm, or to use a wand, or a staff.

And no, the Somatic Weaponry from WotC's Dungeonscape hasn't be converted yet.

5, you need double enhance.

Never heard of it...

Why does this help you at all? If you're a sacred fist TWF is terrible, if you're using TWF feats THF is terrible.

Care to explain why you're so hooked on the Sacred Fist?

Bottom line:
You: "I want to cast a regular spell."
Me: "Your hands are full; drop a kukri."
You: "I want to use Fervor to harm that undead."
Me: "Your hands are full; drop a kukri."
You: "I want to use a wand."
Me: "Your hands are full; drop a kukri."

The quiver can hold up to 6 staves, or spears, and also up to 60 arrows and up to 18 javelins.

What if you want ONLY a staff "quiver" that can carry like 12 staves, because you're a staff magus or a warpriest who decided to use his or her deity's favored weapon (a staff) as his or her Sacred Weapon?

Any existing item for this... or a way to substitute the arrow and javelin slots for staves?

Fervor is limited per day though...

Imbicatus wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Quick question: is a double weapon a prime choice for a sacred weapon... or is it me just me that thinks that wieding a quarterstaff is extremely powerful considering that one double weapon equals both ends dealing huge chunks of damage?
Not's really. You need TWF to make it work, and most double weapons are awful. Sacred Weapon progression is so slow, you won't be able to match a druid with shillelagh until level 15 with a quarterstaff. If you are half-orc with a double axe or flail that you didn't spend a feat on it can be a little better, but TWF is still the weakest style for a warpriest, unless you are a sacred fist using flurry.

Problem I see: Shillelagh doesn't work with magic staves; it HAS to be a mundane or a masterwork one for the spell to work.

My reasoning:
- A quarterstaff gets better at 5th level; any other double weapon gets better at 10th level
- A quarterstaff can be substituted for any magic staff available.
- A double weapon requires only ONE Weapon Focus feat for Sacred Weapon to work.
- A double weapon works like wielding a one-handed and a light weapon... the latter requiring 2 different weapons, thus two Weapon Focus feats... unless you want to go with 2 one-handed weapons and a -4 penalty to attack rolls.
- For a double weapon, letting go of one end is a free action, meaning that you have a hand free to cast spells; pretty sure you can regrab the weapon as a free action as well.
- You technically only need 4 feats to be good: the 3 TWF feats and Double Slice.
- You can alternate between a double weapon and a two-handed weapon.

To each his own, but those are the benefits I see.

Quick question: is a double weapon a prime choice for a sacred weapon... or is it me just me that thinks that wieding a quarterstaff is extremely powerful considering that one double weapon equals both ends dealing huge chunks of damage?

W E Ray wrote:

@ Ji Ci,

None of those sound like a full AP -- though they sound like good individual adventures.

I think combining all (or most) of them into ONE AP would be cool, though

Just throwing ideas left and right, pretty sure it's possible to combine some of these into one single AP.

Anything related to dragons!

I don't know...

1) A Kobold cult attempts to summon the Herald of Dahak and needs living humanoids and/or dragons as sacrifices, leading to escort missions, dragonslaying, negociations with territorial dragons, obtaining the secret to summon the Herald of Apsu, etc...

2) A warpriest of Apsu goes on a crusade to kill the mightiest of red dragons... except that the dragon itself becomes aware of it and decides to play a little game with him, by sending minions and causing calamities in the nearby regions.

3) A "dragonborn" is spotted in a metropolis, claiming that he's the last of his kind. However, this new draconic race gets the attention of actual dragons, spellcasters, historians and everytime might leads to the discovery of an entire new race living in seclusion.

4) 5 new Chromatic Orbs of Dragonkind have been discovered, but they all point to 5 unknown dragon kinds that when revealed wreck havoc as no one knows how to defeat them due to the very lack of knowledge. Basically, 5 new chromatic dragons are introduced, but nobody has a clue on their ecology.

5) A metallic dragon kidnaps a princess/highly noble woman, except that the dragon itself just saved his lover, and that there's also a half-dragon running around in disguise that needs protection.

6) A highly-respected politician turns out to be a dragon in disguise and managed to take control of a huge chunk of land, prompting the PCs to organise a revolt and rally other towns against it.

7) An alchemist or spellcaster wants draconic parts for his experiments... which might lead to something even more dangerous than defeating the dragon(s).

I can go on and on about this, but honestly, how about giving dragons the spotlight for once?

Should be all smooth for here on out ^_^

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Fire guy can:

1. Throw fire
2. Make fire walls
3. Fly using cool fire jets
4. Burn people with his hot bod
5. Make a big fire guy appear
6. Become a big fire guy
7. Generally just sort of move areas of fire around
8. Learn to see through smoke and fire
9. Turn into a fireball and launch across the battlefield

He can then also learn other elements.

Too bad he cannot:

1. Hit more easily creatures of the Water and/or Cold subtype(s) (bonus to attack rolls)
2. Counter fire spells with his blast
3. Endure hot temperatures
4. Detect heat signatures
5. Control fire sources

Look, I feel like a kineticist lacks skills related to the element itself. Sure, you can shape the element as you see fit, but that's about it...

How about a mythical God-slaying titan? Ok, hear me out on this one:

Back in an issue of Dragon Magazine, there was an article named "The Ecology of the Titan" (similar to what we've been getting in the APs). In this article, they stated out an epic monster based on... Cronos, the titan that waged war against Zeus.

In short, the Olympian Gods imprisoned Cronos and the Greyhawk Gods deviced ways to keep him imprisonned. The thing is that the Greyhawk Gods, just like the Golarion Gods, are "successors" to the Antiquity Gods, since D&D/Pathfinder is set in a in-between period of medieval/renaissance, so... it makes sense that they now have to deal with this problem. The Olympian Gods are ancient deities, similar to the Ancient Orision deities... which are all based on the Antiquity's Egyptian Gods.

So... yeah... a mythical titan who's back with a vengeance?

Is it me... or the Kinecist feels like a one-trick pony class? All he does is... shoot an energy from his hands. I feel like it's missing something.

True, a spellcaster cast spell for the most part, but they can cast different spells. The kineticist should get MORE than just fire energy blasts and alter it to his will, like a bunch of skill specializations and such.

(Oh boy, I've left this unchecked for quite a while...)

Erik Mona wrote:
I think we've generally steered clear of dragon-men because that was so overdone (often by us) in the Dragon and Dungeon magazine days. 3.5 had dragon races all over it, especially in the latter period immediately preceding the introduction of Pathfinder.

True... However... was it Paizo or Wizards of the Coast themselves who commissioned such races? If WotC were the ones commissioning Paizo for new materials, then... I don't see how Paizo should feel "guilty" for publishing more dragon races.

Dragonborn and spellscales were WotC's and the draconians were a DragonLance's creation, adapted to the D20 system. The true dragons as PCs were inspired by WotC's Savage Species and their racial level progressions.

Then again... you might want to remind what dragon race was ever created by Paizo themselves.

I think a lot of us also thought that the fin-headed half-dragons from third edition D&D were really goofy looking, and didn't fit our grittier sense of what the game world should be like. Almost too fantastic, if you will. Keep in mind this is going on 12 years ago, now, so I think some of us have mellowed in our militancy about this issue. I mean, at one time we had a "no succubi adventures" rule after doing too many of them in Dungeon, but we've obviously gotten past that.

From a design standpoint, it's totally understandable. I've also heard that from a gameplay standpoint, you were overwhelmed by the half-dragon characters and creatures, like... EVERYONE had one of these.

At the VERY end of third edition, WotC made dragon-men a major part of their brand, and something that most of us associated with fourth edition. Dragon-men seemed more like a "D&D thing" than a "Pathfinder" thing, if that makes sense, so I think the focus on dragon-men in D&D resulted in less of this sort of thing in Pathfinder.

Beats me where that idea came about TBH. I wasn't in their heads when they came up with the idea... although... I suspect that with the introduction of the Spawns of Tiamat, they needed a good counterpart to fight them, hence why they decided to match the Dragonborn with Bahamut, a LG God.

Maybe the Dragonborn got such a positive critical acclaim that they became main races in BOTH the 4th and 5th editions of D&D. I don't think outside sources, such as fantasy novels, games and TV series inspired them as much; maybe they just happened to fill a void that they weren't aware of.

As for Pathfinder, from what I could understand, dragons are rarer in Golarion than in any other setting I've seen; Faerun, Eberron and Krynn are LOADED with dragons. So yeah, in the end, the "lack" of dragon-related races is understandable.

Please note that they you cannot deny that aasimars, tieflings, dhampirs, skinwalkers, ifrits, oreads, sylphs, undines and sulis did receive a LOT of stuff to make them as equal as their related templates (half-celestial, half-fiend, vampire, lycanthrope, half-elemental and half-genie). I mean, come on, I can make my aasimar winged... with a feat... just like applying the half-celestial template to a human.

But anyway, there's clearly interest in the idea and it would be fun to try to do a book like "Blood of Dragons" some day.

Hmmm... that might sound weird, but I feel like the interest should be from YOUR part than ours, like you guys should want such a book because you like the idea to begin with. If it,s the opposite, we feel like we're "ordering you" to make a book that you might be relucant to write in the first place.

I wouldn't include the other races folks have been suggesting here, like nagaji, lizardfolk, etc. I'd give the latter its own book, and I'd throw a couple of serpentfolk-like creatures (and maybe the vishkanya) into a book called 'Blood of Serpents."

"Blood of Scales" might be better suited, because I don't recall lizards to be related to serpents. Also, if you're going with nagajis and vishkanyas, why not make "Blood of the Orient", which would cover these two races, plus the kitsunes, wayangs and samsarans?

Then again... the Monster Codex did provide more infos on some races as well... the playable ones at least.

Hey man, thanks for the input ^_^

- Centaurs
- Cyclops
- Dark ones (creepers, stalkers, slayers, callers, dancers)
- Derros
- Hill giants
- Stone giants
- Harpies
- Merfolks
- Locathahs
- Tritons
- Catfolks
- Shaes
- Tanukis
- Changelings
- Gathlains
- Shobhads
- Trox
- Wayangs
- Wyrwoods
- Wyvarans


MMCJawa wrote:
are all the monsters playtested? I kind of doubt that

Well, they can't just make a monster and hop that they are balanced for a game, pretty sure a playtested is issued between the people at Paizo to test them out.

MMCJawa wrote:
And anyway, I don't think it's nearly that simple to design NPC's. Spellcasters need to have their spell list carefuly compiled. And not all monsters really work with doing a monster codex approach. You really need to create a book that mostly uses monsters that form societies, and ideally monsters that would see heavy use in a wide variety of games. The first codex did a great job of that, but a Monster Codex 2 might run into issues of deciding what monsters to use.

Oh believe me, there are still LOOOOOOOOOOOTS of monsters that can be used in a 2nd codex. I saw 2 topics about listing 20 other monsters, and they're not done with them. They can easily do 2 more, if not 3 codes if they wished.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
The main question is: Did you get value from either the NPC or monster codex? If no, then don't buy any further ones. For me the NPC codex is very little value for money so I didn't get it. The monster codex however looks like it could be good so I'm planning on getting it. That said I wouldn't expect either a Bestiary or codex for 2014. They've already got 3 hardcovers with Occult Adventures having a bestiary included in it.

Yes, I got my value out of the $10 I spent on it... the PDF file is cheaper than the retail book.

I'm not sounding as if either codex is cheaper in terms of quality materials, I'm just asking if making a codex is actually cheaper to make in terms of time and money compared to a bestiary.

Like I said, the guys at Paizo can "simply" take 20 other monsters, slap in class levels and voilà, here's Monster Codex 2. They can also take a class, make 20 characters each and voilà, here's NPC Codex 2.

A bestiary? Good luck getting that same amount of stat blocks with the same delays, not to mention that a codex doesn't need playtests or rule checks.

...does it look easier to produce a NPC or Monster Codex than a Bestiary?

Pick a PC race or monster, slap a class, rince and repeat. Monsters? you have to think of just about everything from the ground up.

So, for those who are asking for another Bestiary, looks to me that this will have to wait for a while longer, while a Codex can be whipped up in a relatively short time. Granted for a monster codex, you need extra archetypes, items and one monster per creature clan, but still...

Kir'Eshe wrote:
Dragons! I picked the subtype in race builder and can't find much to do with it.

This would require something akin to "Blood of Dragons", where Paizo gets to introduce a new race based on actual dragons and give them abilities and features to mimic the "dreaded" half-dragon template, simlar to how the aasimar, tiefling and newcoming skinwalkers got featured based on the half-celestial, half-fiend and lycanthrope templates respectively.

These 20 entries deserve further development:
- Centaurs
- Cyclops
- Dark ones (creepers, stalkers, slayers, callers, dancers)
- Derros
- Hill giants
- Stone giants
- Harpies
- Merfolks
- Locathahs
- Tritons
- Catfolks
- Shaes
- Tanukis
- Changelings
- Gathlains
- Shobhads
- Trox
- Wayangs
- Wyrwoods
- Wyvarans

No one suggested the Two-Weapon Warrior archetype for fighters? With what it offers you can use heavier weapons to both hands without much of a hassle.

Thread necro... because I can :)

Jotun's Grip (Deep Magic; 3rd) + Storm of Blades (People of the Sands; Paizo) = the ability to enlarge a Medium Greatsword to Colossal size, dealing 8d6 points of damage initially, followed by the ability to fling that size sword plus 4 duplicates into a hapless victim. The result? 8d6 x 5 = 40d6 of slashing damage.

If you want ammunition of this combo, take a bunch of Greatswords, shrink down to, say, Tiny, or dagger-sized, for easy carrying. If you cast Jotun's Grip, the shrunken Greatsword still goes to Colossal size, so...

Why carrying? Because Storm of Blades' drawback is the fact that it consumes the weapon after casting. If you used a +2 adamantine flaming burst greatsword... it gets vaporized right after. Yeah... a Masterwork Greatsword is relatively cheap, at the very least.

Ciaran Barnes wrote:
When the 3rd ed was enveiled, this is what I thought the monk's damage die did - except the 4 levels lower part. It certainly wouldn't break anything if you llowed it now.

Well, to an extend, the 4-lower-levels part makes it balanced, because what you lose in damage, you gain in the following features:

- better critical threat range
- different damage type
- different material
- the less risky gambit to use a manufactured weapon on, say, a fire elemental

Your temple sword is now equal, if not a little bit better, than your unarmed strike.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Advanced Class Guide; Brawler wrote:
Close Weapon Mastery (Ex): At 5th level, a brawler's damage with close weapons increases. When wielding a close weapon, she uses the unarmed strike damage of a brawler 4 levels lower instead of the base damage for that weapon (for example, a 5th-level Medium brawler wielding a punching dagger deals 1d6 points of damage instead of the weapon's normal 1d4). If the weapon normally deals more damage than this, its damage is unchanged. This ability does not affect any other aspect of the weapon. The brawler can decide to use the weapon's base damage instead of her adjusted unarmed strike damage—this must be declared before the attack roll is made.


Monk Weapon Mastery (Ex): At 5th level, a monk's damage with monk weapons increases. When wielding a monk weapon, she uses the unarmed strike damage of a monk 4 levels lower instead of the base damage for that weapon (for example, a 5th-level Medium monk wielding a sai deals 1d6 points of damage instead of the weapon's normal 1d4). If the weapon normally deals more damage than this, its damage is unchanged. This ability does not affect any other aspect of the weapon. The monk can decide to use the weapon's base damage instead of her adjusted unarmed strike damage—this must be declared before the attack roll is made.

That... or it should be a feature for the Weapon Adept archetype.

chbgraphicarts wrote:
Yes, absolutely, because I would love to see a player play a Vivisectionist, make an Anthropomorphic Awakened Racoon Gunslinger as his Cohort, and an Awakened Tree Barbarian, then kill off his own Vivisectionist to replace it with the Racoon who then takes Leadership to take the Tree Barbarian as its Cohort.

You cannot... sadly...

Both Awaken and Anthropomorphic Animal only works on animals, not on magical beasts. Technically speaking, either your raccoon is smart, but remains quadrupedal, or it can walk and wield objects, but is as dumb as a post.

One solution though, take a look at the Pathfinder-updated Advanced Bestiary. There is one template to help you, even alongside the spell to create it, named "Manimal". It's essentially a combination of both spell effets... except that it doesn't give as much intellect as Awaken. It gives Int+8 and Cha+4 in the end, BUT the animal is now bipedal... and smart enough to think as any regular human would normally.

So basically, a Manimal raccoon Gunslinger (Techslinger) is a more viable option. As for Groot, just take a Treant who can alter its size :P

Hmmm... is the problem how to evaluate the class level of an awakened animal for a cohort?

Why not compare the HD and CR and take the highest to determine the cohort's level? Creatures with many HD might be low CR, but some creatures with low HD might be high CR... so in the end, pick the highest value to determine the cohort's level of an awakened animal.

For instance, an awakened Dire Bear would have 12 HD, but apparently, the CR would remain 7. As a houserule, that would count as a 12th-level cohort, available only with a socre of 17 or higher.

Here's my reasoning: racial HD are like class levels, minus features. The BAB, skills, feats, saves, etc, all increase using HD. That Dire Bear is initially a 10th level character in the "animal" class. Awaken adds 2 more HD in that same class. Hence the idea that it counts as a 12th-level character.

However, some creatures have higher CR than HD due to some other abilities. To compensate, the CR should be taken into account, not the HD count.

In the end, pick the highest value.

Artanthos wrote:
No, you don't add 1.5x Con, nor did I ever imply you did.

Well, in this case, point is moot, I misread it. The Constitution modifier is applied to the blast's regular damage, NOT to replace your own Strength modifier.

Still... the lack of a two-handed option, or least a clarification of it, is apparent.

Artanthos wrote:
JiCi wrote:
5) Can you make an upgrade to Kinetic Blade to create a two-handed weapon, such as a second higher-level talent?
One-handed weapons can be wielded with two hands.

Yet no rule is written that you add 1.5 times your Constitution mod to damage... nor is it written that you can wield the Blade in two hands.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
JiCi wrote:
5) Can you make an upgrade to Kinetic Blade to create a two-handed weapon, such as a second higher-level talent?

See this guy right here? He wants furious focus.

Or... maybe he just wants to look rad? I cannot decide now.

Kinetic Blade only allows you to add either your Constitution mod to damage or half your Constitution mod to damage... and I'm not reading anything that can allow you to added 1.5 times your Constitution mod to damage, such as holding the Blade in two hands, like any One-Handed weapon, so...

1) Can you add Light and Darkness as additional key elements, in addition to Aether, Air, Earth, Fire and Water? I know you made Electricity an Air stuff and Cold a Water stuff, but for these twos, they deserve their own spots.

2) Can you make the Explosion, Spray, Torrent, Cloud and Cyclone talents available to every element instead of making them exclusive?

3) Can you add Acid for the Geokinecist, considering how often Acid is linked to the Earth subtype?

4) Can you add the following talents?
- conjuring an elemental construct, like the Animate Breath spell
- healing from keyed element
- Deflecting/reflecting key element

5) Can you make an upgrade to Kinetic Blade to create a two-handed weapon, such as a second higher-level talent?

"A Collection of Cool Things You Want Your Kineticist to do"


Luminokinecist: being able to create and manipulate light, talents based on undead-killing spells

Tenebreakinecist: being able to create and manipulate shadows and darkness, necromancy talents... and take a page or two from the Shadowcaster from WotC's Tome of Magic.

In short, add Light and Darkness to the mix.

Also, add Wood/Plant (to counter Metal), Time, Poison and even Blood to the mix.

As for talents:
- The ability to create an elemental construct, akin to the Animate Breath spell from Draconomicon.

- The ability to heal using energy; you know that ability to convert any damage above a resistance into healing? That basically. For telekinecists, that would apply to force damage.

- The ability to deflect/reflect the key energy; you have such control of your element that you can divert its trajectory.

Imbicatus wrote:
JiCi wrote:
You can talk about balance, it won't change the fact that you cannot have a 9-tailed kitsune which also excels at the class it has chosen.

This is false. Fighter, Warpriest, and Zen Archer monk have enough bonus feats to make it easy to take the tail feats with normal feats.

Kitsune can excel at all three classes by investing in weapon finesse and slashing grace, fencing grace, or an agile weapon, or by using their bite attack and fox form.

LazarX wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Lune wrote:

A single feat that gives 8 spell like abilities usable 2/day? You don't think that is a wee bit over powered?

I think that perhaps it was designed the way that it was to prevent power creep. I think the way that it was designed is FAR more balanced than presenting it as a single feat. THAT seems like something that would be poorly designed to me.

Not if it's scaled according to levels.

Look, it's already underpowered if you need to sacrifice 8 feats, out of 10. Why? because your character, regardless of most classes, is gonna suck badly gameplay-wise.

The only way that would be balanced is if all SLAs are usable 1/day instead of 2/day... which... wouldn't be so bad.

Not all SLA's are equal. The current Tail progression makes sense. You go for all nine tails if you're trying to make a character that's like a nine-tailed character in mythology, a mysterious magical character that's not a combat bruiser. A nine-tailed Kitsune is perfectly viable if taken with a class build that synergises and builds on the strengths such a feat chain has.

And maybe you don't need to go all the way. Maybe two or three tails is good enough for a bard or rouge type character.

Ok, look... a kitsune is better suited for Dex-based classes such as rogues and Cha-based clases such as bards and sorcerers. Now... can you make effective builds of these classes with all 8 feats? I honestly doubt it. Yes, you can make a fighter, warpriest and zen archer monk with all 8 feats... but that really goes the opposite way of using a kitsune's potential to its fulliest, tails' SLAs included. Getting a Cha-based fighter... is going to lead you nowhere, compared to a rogue or bard.

Even if some of you keep defending the mecanics, you might want to remember that the feat tax is incredibly heavy and that almost every class will suffer greatly from not having key feats.

The idea of trading 1 known spell per level for a bonus tail feat... is pretty clever, and for classes who don't have 9 levels, the feats can help.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeffrey Hersh wrote:
Yeah adjusting CRs with templates is more art than science. I usually compare a templated creature with one of the same CR so see how they compare. Also, there are electronic tools (like Hero Lab), that have modes which dynamically tell you what the various average stats should be for a specific CR. I find those very helpful as well.

Well... let's try it out with what I said:

- At-will prickle whip: +0 CR, doesn't sound OP if you can use it all the time.

- Mental boost to Jotunblood: +1 CR, more skills, better Will save, better tactics... provided the GM knows what he or she's doing :P

- Limbjack limbs: that... sounds like missing rules than actual adjustments here.

- At-will searing darkness: +1 CR, you're giving an undead creature a laser cannon, hurtful to your PCs, which are 100% living.

- Pyrokenitic's Fire Bolt: +0 CR, if it's to replace produce flame, I don't see much of a balance issue here.

- Shadow-traced: like the Limbjack, that sounds more like an errata.

- Construct/Undead Swarmblood: +0 CR, the ability itself doesn't change, only the vessel.

- Various changes for Teratocephalos: +0 CR, so many possibilities, so little space to list them all... no change to that.

Jeffrey Hersh wrote:


Thanks for the feedback. Feel free to modify the templates as you want them for your game. :)

True... too bad I suck at adjusting CRs XD

Lune wrote:

No, I am sorry. You are incorrect, Jici.

As the designer of the feats posted further up in this very thread:

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Regardless, Magical Tails is pretty fair as it is now. Most other feats that grant spell-like abilities only grant one use (see most of the drow feats in the Advanced Race Guide) and of all the races in the game, no feat goes as high as Magical Tails does.
What you are presenting is that a single feat give you more power than any other race in the game gets. That is too powerful for a single feat.

The other problem is that it's too restrictive and costly to make any viable build. I've made a topic a while back asking for good builds using all 8 feats... the general consensus was that only the fighter makes it possible. The rest? Forget it. You're giving up too much options or almost mandatory feats for SLAs.

You can talk about balance, it won't change the fact that you cannot have a 9-tailed kitsune which also excels at the class it has chosen.

1 to 50 of 1,225 << 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.