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

JiCi's page

2,082 posts. 3 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,082 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

That might not be a correct answer, but I just love the archetypes for the vigilante, because they essentially all change the vigilante identity, while keeping the social identity mostly intact.

Avenger and Stalker... are essentially archetype-ish in their designs as well while they are specializations, so it's good to have even more specializations for the class ^_^

For the other classes... hmmm...

Bolt Ace (Gunslinger): pretty good way to have the class without the guns ;)

Ghost Rider (Cavalier): Having a spectral mount saves you a lot of resources :P

Mooncursed (Barbarian): You become a lycanthrope while raging... up to Huge :D

Grenadier (Alchemist): Replace poison by better blast zones, always good to have :)

Winged Marauder (Alchemist): Aerial bomber, nuff said XD although... pretty sure you can select a roc instead of a dire bat or giant vulture.


I keep looking for such an info in Horror Adventures... nothing :S

Are Fleshgrafts considered magic items? Can they be enhanced? Can they be possessed? Can they be intelligent?

They do take item slots, but are they magic items as well?

The idea of a claw gauntlet possessed by a demon... sounds pretty wicked >:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have yet another question ;)

Why can the wolf and tiger companions grow to Large, but the bear companion cannot? I'm asking this because you can essentially get a dire wolf or dire tiger companion, you cannot get a grizzly bear or dire bear companion, not to mention that the standard bear is Large, not Medium. I get that the wolf starts Medium since it's the standard size and that the tiger starts Medium and then grows Large (its standard size), but the bear is literally undersized. Same goes with the polar bear BTW.

Ok, maybe it's a design choice to avoid unbalanced companions, but it does beg the... question :P Bear with me XD


Depending on your GM:
- Dwarven Druid, Ranger, Hunter or Cavalier (Beast Rider)
- Bear animal companion
- Mammoth Rider prestige class

Ok, so "bear" isn't a selectable mount for the Mammoth Rider, but the GM can expand the list to add it (it's even written in the description :P ). A Huge dire bear... isn't a farfetched idea, so... ;)


Milo v3 wrote:
JiCi wrote:

Another thing I'd like to see is an extra rule section for existing templates and/or races. I know it's a looooooooooooong shot, but here goes:

- Rules for devilbound creatures with the new devils added since B5
* stat modifiers and spell-like abilities
- Manasaputra ancestry for aasimars, and other good-aligned outsiders
* Garudas and Peris are single species, so other could be added.
- Sahkil ancestry for tieflings, and other evil-aligned outsiders
* self explanatory
- Rules for half-dragons based on primal, imperial, outer, esoteric and the new category of dragons
* self explanatory, for breath weapons... and especially for the two-headed dragon.

Just add these in the appendix and it would be great. If we get new vampires and lycanthropesit would be nice to get respectiuve bloodlines for dhampirs and skinwalkers as well.

I just think that Bestiaries could easily update previous entries by adding them at the end.

Thing is, since it's RPG-line you would have to not only have that info for the new ones but also reprint the old ones otherwise it'd just be weird and annoying, and reprinting those type of things would take up decent page count.

Hmmm... in both Blood of Angels and Blood of Fiends, they wrote down bloodlines 2 per pages, as 2 columns. As for the templates, I can just see one page with charts for the extra materials. Nothing too fancy, just a chart for the new devils and another chart under it for the new breath weapons. Blood of the Night had 2 bloodlines per page, and Blood of the Moon had 1 bloodline for 2 pages, since they added feats as well.


I actually prefer having related PC races instead of monsters... ugh, my stomach is churning when I think of "monsters as PCs" and then thinking about the Level Adjustment X_X


47: Fog...


Another thing I'd like to see is an extra rule section for existing templates and/or races. I know it's a looooooooooooong shot, but here goes:
- Rules for devilbound creatures with the new devils added since B5
* stat modifiers and spell-like abilities
- Manasaputra ancestry for aasimars, and other good-aligned outsiders
* Garudas and Peris are single species, so other could be added.
- Sahkil ancestry for tieflings, and other evil-aligned outsiders
* self explanatory
- Rules for half-dragons based on primal, imperial, outer, esoteric and the new category of dragons
* self explanatory, for breath weapons... and especially for the two-headed dragon.

Just add these in the appendix and it would be great. If we get new vampires and lycanthropesit would be nice to get respectiuve bloodlines for dhampirs and skinwalkers as well.

I just think that Bestiaries could easily update previous entries by adding them at the end.


I keep thinking that a formian would work as well, since ants can lift like 6 times their weight/size. Have a worker or drone used to excavate or hefty carrying and you're good ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wannabe Demon Lord wrote:
Interesting ideas. There's a bunch of mythical creatures that could fit the role of the first. I used to use Yakshas from Hindu myth for that, but I think the Jetin from French folklore works even better. The real world creatures make interesting inspiration, and I would like to see the concepts you described. I've wanted giant bobbit worms for quite a while.

Jetins could certainly work ;)


Cole Deschain wrote:
JiCi wrote:


Naiad... sounds like an amalgam between Nereid, Nymph and Dryad...
Classically, they were their own thing.

Oh, I see ;)


MMCJawa wrote:
JiCi wrote:

PC race wishlist:

-
- A fey-based humanoid, Medium, 0HD, a elven humanoid with nymph, dryad or satyr ancestry. Seems like a missing thing here, because we have celestials, fiends, genies, lycanthropes, hags and vampires, but feys haven't been presented with a descendant PC race so far... aside from dragons and giants as well ;)

Look, IIRC, they'll go very lightly on PC races for B6, but the 4 races mentioned in the summary might not be the only ones presented. Also, you kinda can't have too many races, because the world is BIG :P

Well you will be happy to hear that B6 will have a Fey-based class, Naiads, so that is one thing off your list.

Oh right ^_^

Naiad... sounds like an amalgam between Nereid, Nymph and Dryad...


PC race wishlist:
- A giant descendant humanoid (giant), Large, 0HD, variant for giant (basic), ogre and troll. Come on already, give us a playable Large human-like race which is descendant from giants. Evil giants, like hill giants, have been known to rape their slaves or use them as concubines and good giants, like cliff giants, have been known to procreate with smaller races, 99% through magic. Beside, applying the Large trait to a human would technically bring it to 16 rp... and that's if you keep the regular human traits.
- A draconic humanoid (kobold), Medium, 0HD, yup, you're read correctly; take the kobold's draconic ancestry to its limit :P If you can have a wyvern variant (and even a Medium overweighted goblin variant), pretty sure we can have a bigger kobold.
- A fey-based humanoid, Medium, 0HD, a elven humanoid with nymph, dryad or satyr ancestry. Seems like a missing thing here, because we have celestials, fiends, genies, lycanthropes, hags and vampires, but feys haven't been presented with a descendant PC race so far... aside from dragons and giants as well ;)

Look, IIRC, they'll go very lightly on PC races for B6, but the 4 races mentioned in the summary might not be the only ones presented. Also, you kinda can't have too many races, because the world is BIG :P


Ivern, the Green Father has been revealed, and... hmmm...

For a playable character, you can go for Alluria's Oakling, or you can go for the Ghoran, and yes, they can look like treants, so you're good ^_^

For the class, I'm going to get grilled for this, but... a Phytokinecist (Kineticist [wood]) could work. Yeah, yeah, the element itself is underdevelopped, but N. Jolly's guides did expand it properly.

Ok, for its Ultimate, which is summoning a stone golem, beats me how to replicate this :P


HeHateMe wrote:
Actually, the Shaman in the ACG is an Oracle/Witch hybrid.

Ok now I feel dumb XD

Rolled 1 on my Knowledge check XDDD

HeHateMe wrote:
You're right that there is no Cleric/Wizard hybrid yet.

Yeah, maybe having two separate spell lists, but up to level 6th to avoid breaking the game :P


Dragon78 wrote:
The real question is if and when will Paizo have new classes. Though we did get one new one this year, so far no products(other then Starfinder) seems to be going in that direction. Though with several new classes in Starfinder I doubt we will see any new ones for Pathfinder next year. But there is always a chance I could be wrong about that.

Not to mention that a new class has to be revelant to the game rules. The vigilante, the latest class, was revelant to all the intrigue and espionnage rules added in UI. Still, one could argue that a vigilante could also have been a rogue archetype. I'm not complaining about the vigilante though, because the options make it one of the most versatile class ever made :)

Hybrid classes also added a weird layer of complexity, because between a regular class, multuclassing, archetypes, prestige classes and hybrid classes, you have multiple ways to make your specific character. However, one hybrid clas hasn't been done yet, but could certainly be a welcomed addition is the "theurge", which is a hybrid between cleric and wizard, or oracle and witch.

The arcane trickster could be made into a hybrid class, but it could also be a magus archetype, granting sneak attacks and ranged tricks as magus arcanas.


Another fix that I think it's mandatory by now is this:
- Add firearms proficiencies to the Swashbuckler

Look, it's supposed to be a hybrid class of Fighter and Gunslinger, but it doesn't even HAVE automatic proficiency with firearms, which THE feature of gunslingers.

I know that archetypes exist, but still, that's like having a hybrid class between cleric and wizard and not having either spell list :P


Alex Smith 908 wrote:

It dies near instantly as published. I play tested both the default version of the drakerider and JiCi's fix. The default version was handedly our performed by our winged marauder's giant vulture at very turn. It was a better mount, better fighting companion, and better scout.

Using JiCi's fix the drake was a better mount than the vulture and generally able to contribute to fights on an even keel. Though their combat purposes diverged. Once the alchemist got a large enough number of bombs to rarely run out his mount's main melee purpose was just to get harassers away, whereas the drake was expected to be in the thick of things with me. By being large sized and generally having a more capable rider the drake survived almost all melees.

Though I doubt any animal companion/eidolon would have survived the kraken spawning pool enounter.

Vultures, vultures everywhere...

What about the Roc? XDD

Jokes aside, a Roc is Large by level 7, be for a Small or Medium companion handler.

My fix basically replaced the drake's leveling-up growth in order to be a suitable mount. Many people think that it was to limit flight at low levels. The thing is that flight is an optional power and it takes 2 powers to offset the limitations of the initial flight power. As a drake is fully customizable, you can go for intelligent drakes, breathing drakes, aquatic drakes, name it, not to mention that Air Walk and Fly can be used as alternate ways to fly :P


Snowblind wrote:
To my knowledge nothing says that the potion is no longer functional when poison (or anything else) is added, so it should still work fine. The drinker would just have to make a save vs poison as they get the potion's benefits.

Wel, sure, that's part of the poison rules, but I always wondered if adding a poison ruin the potion or not.


Y'know, this is something that hit me recently: what do potions taste like?

If I had to guess, based of the spell's school the potion is based on:
Abjuration: Salty, mostly to differentiate a protective potion from a curative one
Conjuration: Sweet, mostly for cure potions
Divination: Bitter, to wake up the senses
Enchantment: Plain, since charm spels and other effects are supposed to be masked
Evocation: Spicy, since it resolves into a powerful effect
Illusion: Plain, since illusions are meant to go unnoticed
Necromancy: Acrid... I mean come on, death kinda tastes awful :P
Transmutation: Sour, since your body is changed

As for what tastes like what, that's up to you, but I feel like potion tastes and elixirs could be an interesting rule here ;)


I've seen poisoining drinks, but potions aren't safe from being poisoned, as any shady alchemist, merchant or brewer can slip a dose of ingested poison in a potion.

This does beg the question though: does adding a dose of poison in a potion spoil it, or does it mix unnoticed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All the time, I kinda hate limiting my players to just the 7 core races. They pick pretty much any races from the Advanced Races Guide plus a few extra from 3rd-party books.


To have asked James Jacobs myself, he answered me this:

"There are some non-evil villains in Villain Codex, but the majority are evil, because that works best for villains in a generic sense."


Nightterror wrote:
Why do you care for roaches so much? Giant mantis didnt have new variants since bestiary 1.

Roaches actually received size variants, like spiders, scorpions and centipedes, which ended up being separate entries.

Mantises only got 2: a Large one and a Colossal one (in Inner Seas Bestiary). That's it really. The first entry didn't mentioned anything about smaller or larger species.


MMCJawa wrote:
I suspect the theme of this bestiary will be demigods, given the number that are going to be included in this book and the fact that they will probably all be at least 2 page minimum monsters

True... but to refer to my previous statement, it doesn't guarantee a mythic monster.


Luthorne wrote:
And it's not new in Pathfinder either, there are female Empyreal Lords and Demon Lords...it's generally used as a gender neutral term.

Well, there were only "Lords" in B4; Nocticula got statted later in "Wrath of the Righteous", and there were both "Lords" and "Ladies" in B4; considering that the male term is always used to define a gender mixed group, it could be the reason.

Still... is there any "issue" about having Demon, Empyreal and/or Elemental "Lords" and "Ladies"? I hardly see a problem with this. I mean, it isn't discrimatory... or sexist... to call a royal female noble a "lady".

Hey, if we can have powerful queens and matriarchal tribal societies, I don't see a problem having a Demon Lady, Empyreal Lady or Elemental Lady, especially if the creative team refers her as "she".

Anyway, back on topic, that's just something that caught my eye :P


Goth Guru wrote:
Powerful, specific, monsters could be mythic. Maybe there is a space in the first world where prime specimen exist that spawn rank and file monsters in game worlds. It makes more sense than Echidna giving up her chaotic evil to be in the outlands.

That if mythic is even still considered revelant these days :(

While Bestiaries 4 and 5 had mythic monsters, the Advanced Class Guide, Monster Codex, Occult Adventures, Ultimate Intrigue and Horror Adventures (all books published after Mythic Adventures) didn't contain mythic rules. Dude, we didn't even get mythic variations for the new spells, let alone new mythic paths for Occult, Intrigue and Horror.


JosMartigan wrote:

Honestly I'd like to see a menu list of options that are subbed out for standard abilities (That Paizo believes are equivalent exchanges) to allow a player to customize their base class so no two fighters, rogues, wizards, clerics etc. are the same.

Additionally, a perquisite or penalty (such as a reduction in Rogue skill points) can be attached to a particular exchange to make it even out.

I believe that archetypes are structured as such in order to avoid "cherry picking". While it certainly can be done as a house rule, the point of an archetype is to show a full specialisation of some kind.

Then again, some archetypes can even be combined, provided that the archetypes don't replace the same class feature(s).


"the elemental purist kineticist archetype"

SOLD :D ! No seriously, the kineticist is one of my favorite classes, so I was waiting for a single-element archetype for a while now ;)

"Ymeri, Queen of the Inferno and Elemental Lord of Fire!"

Huh... shouldn't it be "Lady of Fire"? If she's a Queen, she can't be a "Lord". That's like saying she's a "King" :P


I do have more questions:

1) Do deities physically manifest themselves in front of mortals or do they just "possess" their heralds/servitors in order to manifest him or herself? I'm asking this because we haven't seen a single statistic block for deities. Ok, fine, maybe Pathfinder doesn't need to stat out the deities, but if you guys offer us artworks of the gods, then it's safe to assume that they do have a physical form and can appear in front of mortals.

2) How can a deity die? I've seen deities being killed in Pathfinder, but for immortal divine entities, that had to take one major event or item for one to kill a god. There is also the rumor that killing worshippers will weaken and eventually kill a god. It's referring to why the Githyanki Lich Queen never allowed high-level characters and worshipping, because if she ever bestowed divine powers to her kind (which was an outcome in a Dungeon Magasine adventure), she would risk being turned into a dead goddess if she would be overturned... or if githyankis would disappear.

3) What actually happened to the Ancient Orision pantheon? I get that one deity can disappear from a religion, but an entire pantheon? That goes back to my previous question about whether or not a deity can die. Furthermore, you have powerful beings like Osiris, Isis, Ra, Set, Horus, Anubis and Nephthys... Pretty sure that it takes more than a political reversal to wipe these deities off the cosmos. Beside, wouldn't they do something to prevent believers from switching faiths?

4) Can we expect other "ancient" pantheons in future regional booklets? The Ancient Orision pantheon is based on real-world Egyptian Gods. That got me thinking about an "Ancient Kellid" pantheon based on Norse Mythology, or maybe an ancient pantheon based on Greek Mythology, or Babylonian or Mesopotamian Mythologies. Ok, that might be considered "superfluous" lore, but still, the presence of real-world Egyptian Gods does open to having more of these in the future ;)

5) Is it possible for a cleric, paladin... or any character for that matter, to worship an entire pantheon as a whole? Worshipping pantheons has been possible back in Eberron, but I haven't seen actual pantheons with the current Golarion deities. Maybe there isn't a Golarion pantheon and each deity is considered singular, I don't know :P

6) Could there be deities based on agatheons, inevitables, proteans, aeons, rakshasas, asuras, daemons, demodands, divs, genies, kamis, manasaputras, onis, sahkils and/or titans? Asmodeus is tied to Devils, Desna is tied to Azatas, Erastil is tied to Archons, Iomedae and Shelyn are tied to Angels, Lamashtu is tied to Demons, Pharasma is tied to Psychopomps, Rovagug is tied to Qlippoths and Zon-Kuthon is tied to Kytons (according to their associated servitors from Inner Seas Gods). That got me thinking about other deities that could be ascended outsiders from other species. I say "could" because it's more than possible that not every deity has been classified and/or every outsider group has its respective patron deity. It does open the door to seeing those new gods though ;)

Thank you in advance for your time ^_^


Wannabe Demon Lord wrote:
Yeah. What JiCi said. That's a pretty good compromise. Hell, I wouldn't even mind if it went the opposite way. "The Bear King, called Bjarndyrakongur in its native land..." It could even be done like with devils, with Horned Devil, Barbed Devil, Bone Devil, etc. being the listed names, while the real names, i.e. Cornugon, Hamatula, Osyluth, and so on and so forth, being listed in the text. D&D did that with Mind Flayers/Illithids. I personally prefer to use Cornugon, Illithid, etc. when referring to the creatures, since I prefer monsters with non-English names, but the point is it would be up to the GM and the players. Frankly, it's not that important to me what the creature is called, as long as it gets used.

Actually, they have done both methods: outsiders had a common name with their real names in parentheses and mythical monsters had their real names with a common name in the description.

I'd prefer the real mythical name prior to a common name. I'm so sorry, but "Phoenix" sounds more regal and greater than "firebird" XD Beside, in a fantasy world like Golarion, who cares about the actual real-life origins of a creature? Did people really complain about seeing the Jabberwock in B2? That one came from Lewis Carol's novel... and now it's a Bestiary monster, and it didn't get renamed :P

Wannabe Demon Lord wrote:
As for themes, I'm really not sure. Horror seems like the most monster-driven of the options, but I honestly don't know.

Occult and Horror almost go hand in hand. Occult rituals often lead to summoning obscure forces and powers. The Kineticist is actually inspired from misfits with supernatural powers... and not anime XD The Medium and Spiritualist conjure spirits and phantoms. We're not talking about light-hearted stories and cute animals here when Occult is mentioned :P

Wannabe Demon Lord wrote:
Speaking of Yamata-no-Orochi, I'm wondering if any of the big name, very popular, and epically powerful mythological beasts like him, Fenrir, Jormundgandr, Cipactli, Typhon, Echidna, etc. will finally get statted here. Of the really popular mythical creatures, "insanely powerful" is essentially the only category left that hasn't been milked. This seems like the place where they'd be featured.

I feel like these monsters aren't very popular, because they are powerful. See? As a GM, it's easier to use a low or mid-level monster than a high-level one. It's not impossible by any mean, but it is difficult to integrate epic-level monsters in campaigns. Integrating high-level monsters into low-level campaigns need more preparation and need to be better fleshed out.

For instance, you could easily have a Kaiju rampaging a city while your 6th-level PC is tasked to evacuate villagers or your 12th-level PC has to stop the cultists who try to control it.

On the other hand, the Julunggali will need to be treated as a NPC with a basic behavior and deity-like dominance.


N. Jolly wrote:
Eric Hinkle wrote:
I have to admit, I'd enjoy seeing a 'forced eidolon suit'.

I could maybe see doing something like that with Arsenal Summoner, although since you can turn the symbiote into a suit of armor, it could work for this as well. I need to upgrade that ability later.

Maybe some sort of talent to make the suit of armor symbiote work better?

JiCi wrote:
Huh... what happened to the Sentai Soldier ?_?

Do you mean what happened to it in development, or where is it?

The first was just some minor balance changes, making sure it flowed better. It's in Legendary Vigilantes if you're wondering why it's not in the playtest. There were a few things shifted in the playtest to other products in which they worked better (in case you're wondering what happened to the Trickshot Sniper as well), but Sentai Soldier is currently in the just released Legendary Vigilantes; the new playtest is for a lot of the content that was too much for the original book.

Oh... I didn't see it on the Paizo store, my bad :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Counterpoint: No monsters that looked like someone grabbed random letters out of a Scrabble bag.

You... do realize that mythical creatures have names based on the culture's language, right? For instance, Yamata-no-Orochi, as weird as it may sound, is a Japanese name, just like the Sasquatch is an Anglicized derivative of the Halkomelem word "sásq'ets".

If anything, I'd like the next Bestiary to give us some other names for creatures based on real-world mythology. For example, they could start the description with "Bjarndyrakongur, as known as the 'Bear King' by survivors,..." The reason is simple: commoners will refer mythical creatures by common names, not as their real names ;)

Finally... I've been wondering about the general theme of the next Bestiary... Occult Adventures, Ultimate Intrigue and Horror Adventures have been released after B5, so... can we expect creatures tied to these books more than "general" monsters?

I get that most monsters have an "occult" vibe about them and that it's rather simple coming up with monsters based on horror fiction. Intrigue? Not the easiest theme to create, although they can focus on urban monsters instead of wilderness ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
It would nice to see monsters based on less used animals like koala, kangaroo, ant-eater, sloth, giraffe, salamander/newt, dodo, squirrel, rabbit, starfish, lemur, dolphin, snail, etc..

Hmmm... back in Sandstorm, that was a giraffe-like creature called the Cameloepardel. I could see a dodo undead creature risen due to extinction :P Squirrels, rabbits and lemurs could all be Small bipedal humanoids, monstrous humanoids or fey creatures. We do have the flail snail, but we could get volcanic or aquatic snails ;) A good salamander creature is the Shasalqu from AP #79.

The rest? No idea ^^;


Huh... what happened to the Sentai Soldier ?_?


I'm baaaaaaaaack :P

Sovereign Blade (Samurai) (Legacy of Dragons)

Dogmatic Denial (Ex): A sovereign blade gains a +2 bonus on saving throws against spells with any of the following descriptors that don’t match part of the character’s own alignment: chaotic, evil, good, or lawful. This bonus increases by 2 at every 5 levels. This ability replaces mount.

Replacing a scaling class feature with a fixed bonus is... a poorly designed alternative here :S The mount gets stronger as you level up, so any ability that replaces it should do the same IMO.

Drakerider (Cavalier) (Legacy of Dragons)

Drake Mount (Ex): A drakerider gains a drake companion instead of a mount. Unlike a standard companion, the drake is either Medium (for a Small drakeriders) or Large (for Medium drakeriders), following the drake companion's increased size rules. The drake mount does not increase in size regardless of the drakerider's level. The drake mount may increase its size by one category instead of selecting a drake power, and it gains the Mount power as a bonus power. She gains cavalier’s charge at 9th level instead of 3rd.

Hey, do you want an archetype that doesn't let you ride your drake until level 13th? Me neither :P I don't know if it was to prevent having a flying mount at low levels, but right now, a Small drakerider can ride his drake only until 9th level, while a Medium drakerider can ridert his only until 13th level. Beside, flight is optional for the drakerider; it's tempting, but not mandatory. You could build your mount with a breath weapon and burrowing speed if you want instead of flying.

Silver Champion (Paladin) (Legacy of Dragons)

Drake Mount (Ex): At 5th level, a silver champion gains a drake companion. Unlike a standard companion, the drake is either Medium (for a Small champions) or Large (for Medium champions), following the drake companion's increased size rules. The drake mount does not increase in size regardless of the drakerider's level. The drake mount may increase its size by one category instead of selecting a drake power. However, a silver champion doesn’t gain additional uses per day of smite evil at 4th, 10th, and 16th levels, and doesn’t gain mercies at 6th, 12th, and 18th levels. Also, the drake mount's alignment is within one step of Apsu's, which is Lawful Good, Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral.

Same exact problem with the Drakerider, having to start with a drake too small to ride. I know that the Undersized Mount feat is there for something, but you're wasting a feat that will be rendered useless at 9th or 13th level. Furthermore, a drake of "any nongood alignment" is pretty dumb for a paladin's mount. The drake is intelligent enough that if it decides to ally itself to a paladin, it should act accordingly.


Kineticist:

The Chain, Cloud, Cyclone, Eruption, Explosion, Fan of Flames and Torrent form infusions are now associated with any blast, not a selected few.

This would give more versatility to several elements.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree that corruptions could have used more stages... because the way I see it, it's "3 strikes and you're out", it could have used a total of 5 stages instead of just 3.

Also, the editing is a little... off. I feel like it should have been like this:
Corruption save: Everytime you [do whatever is related to your corruption], you must attempt at a Will save. On failure, you [succombs to the temptation] and your corruption increases to the next stage.

Yeah, I feel like there is a little too much text to describe something that simple :P


The Aegis is already in Mythic Adventures, as a Minor Artifact ;)


Someone's gonna have to explain me why a breastplate require as much material as a full plate... when the breastplate is like HALF what the full plate covers ?_?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Words of Power didn't get much after its publication in Ultimate Magic. I get that it's an alternate system, but it felt incomplete... a lot...

The Kineticist is close to 3.5's Warlock, except that it's focused on elemental magic and the talents require a non-lethal damage cost, as Brun. One issue I do have with the Kineticist is that the form infusions should have been available to every single element, not just a few of them.


QuidEst wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
Now that we have wild talents that grant familiars, maybe there will be some that grant animal companions, elemental eidolons, etc.
Seems like a stretch. They'd be from archetypes, not talents. It'd be too long of a chain for anything but a familiar.

The Elemental Whispers talents, from Horror Adventures, get you a familiar (chosen from the basic familiar list), a wysp or a Small elemental.


Dragon78 wrote:
I would like to see the remaining creatures from the monster manual that are not copyrighted.

Well, we now know that the Arrowhawk, Ravid and Digester aren't fan favorites among the Paizo staff :S

IMO, they had some... weird design...

The arrowhawk had an odd symmetrical body with 2 sets of eyes and 4 wings... although... maybe it's not a valid monster. In the Pathfinder edition of the Advanced Bestiary, the Amalgam sample creature was changed from a Minotaur/Arrowhawk to a Gold Dragon/Phoenix hybrid. While it could be a simple decision to take a new monster, if the arrowhawk was OGL, it would have been fine to use it. However, many of the sample creatures from the 3.5 edition of the Advanced Bestiary were kept.

The Ravid had this awkward single arm... Make a serpent with no arms or two arms, but not just one, come on... Also, it being related to the Positive Energy plane was questionable. Then again, I have yet to see a "good-looking" creature from that plane; the Jyoti are a weird bunch...

The Digester is a... bipedal alien-looking creature which can spray acid from its nozzle-like muzzle. I dunno, I just don't find any use for such a creature...


MMCJawa wrote:
For whatever reason, the excluded monsters were considered, of all the other bestiary entries, those that were most "unique" and iconic to DnD and also something whose product identity may be valuable (merchandising, media property inclusion, whatever)

You're... gonna have to explain me what's so "iconic" about a six-legged panther with 2 tentacles on its shoulders :P Same goes for a multi-tentacled worm, a flying brain with a beak and 2 hooks on tentacles and a bipedal beetle-like creature... which the Trox kinda replaces as of now XD

MMCJawa wrote:
I don't think Monster Manual 2+ creatures were necessarily restricted for the same reason, rather WotC just didn't bother releasing future books to the OGL with a few rare exceptions (like the epic book and Psionics).

Maybe it was easier to release monsters from specific chapters than entire books, or they just didn't bother because they didn't think about it...


AmbassadoroftheDominion wrote:

What's the Status on Mind Flayers and Grells, both of which are originally first edition monsters.

Grells were originally in white Dwarf #12, published in 1979, then later in first edition fiend folio. Mind Flayers were first introduced in TSR Games the Strategic Review #1, Spring 1975, then in the first edition Eldritch Wizardry, and finally in the Original (White Box) Dungeons and Dragons.

Beholders, Displacer Beasts, Grells, Mind Flayers and Umber Hulks are apparently monsters trademarked by WotC themselves. Why? I... don't know, like "REALLY don't know". 99% of the 3.5e Monster Manual is open-licensed, except these specific monsters.

The same goes for almost all monsters in Monster Manuals 2 through 5, several monsters from the Psionic Handbook, 90% of the Fiend Folio and several other creatures spread across several books: all trademarked by WotC. Even the monsters presented in both the Dragon and Dungeon Magazines are trademarked by WotC, even if Paizo published them back in the days.

Many creatures in Pathfinder are based on real-world mythologies and Golarion lore, making some of them trademarked by Paizo.

All and all, when WotC released the Open Game License, they handpicked some monsters to keep as their own, and they didn't tell us why, unfortunately.


As much as I feel like Prestige Classes are often getting outclassed by archetypes or even hybrid classes, I do like the Mammoth Rider, simply because you receive a Huge animal companion, which the Barbarian, Druid, Ranger and Hunter can get, be normally or via an archetype. Only complaint is that the PrC has a rather limited companion list... that or there are obvious omittions, like the bear, boar and roc. Even if the GM can expand the list to his liking, some animals should have been there initially; even aquatic companions have been omitted from that list, as sharks and whales should be suitable.


First timer here, although quite familiar with Pathfinder ;)

Races:
That's actually a tricky one. I'd like to see humans and androids, but for the rest? Yikes, good luck with that :P The universe is HUGE, they could make ANY kind of alien races. Just for a comparison, the Star Wars D20 setting had an alien race book... with a whopping 50 races O_O

I... don't see elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, half-elves and half-orcs as core races. Yeah, yeah, hate me all you want, but I feel like they could change them for new alien sci-fi races.

Classes:
Fighter and Rogue seem like the easiest to convert. Cleric could be convert into Medic, even then Cleric could remain as is for mystical races and Wizard... could actually work, since even science-fiction had spellcasters, not to mention that there is always the magic-vs-technology aspect. The rest is a case-by-case scenario.
- Barbarian? Mystic aspect
- Bard? Technological variant
- Druid? Mystic aspect
- Monk? Can remain the same
- Paladin? Hmmm... I'd skip it... at best, you're an officer
- Ranger? Bounty Hunter convertion
- Sorcerer? See Wizard

New classes would need to focus on sci-fi elements. A Pilot class, a Mech Warrior class, a Mechanic class and/or a Hacker/Computer Wiz class would be nice to have.

Alchemist, Gunslinger, Inquisitor, Brawler and Investigator could also work.

Monsters:
Surprisingly enough, the current types fit the sci-fi theme... except Outsider, since we might be focusing on planets than planes, not to say that there can't be any though. But yeah, you can expect a LOT of dierve fauna depending on the planet selected. Robots from Numeria are also ready to be used.

Items:
The Technology Guide has 99% of its content ready to be ported into Starfinder XD I'd like to see more vehicles, armors, weapons, regular items and *crossing fingers* mech suits.

Environments:
Huh... I don't know HOW they'll pull this one off :P Will they present a single planet with multiple continents, or several planet with just one or two major cities each? Same goes with space stations.


Hybrid classes with the Occult classes would be nice ^_^


The Experimenter vigilante archetype nets you the Craft Construct feat ;)


Control Construct is what you're looking for ;)

1 to 50 of 2,082 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.