Aasimar

Knitifine's page

204 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 204 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
a Lawful Good guy selling the souls of orphans to a demon.

It's to fund a retirement home!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JAMRenaissance wrote:
Knitifine wrote:
I doubt fighter will ever get an update, Paizo is too afraid of upsetting the grognards that want fighters to be the bastion of boredom.
Isn't Combat Stamina supposed to be their boost, particularly if it is limited to Fighters?

Supposed to be? Yes. Does it actually fix the problems? Not really.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I remember reading somewhere the unchained barbarian makes it easier to be a two weapon barbarian. That combined with the fact that ending a rage can no longer kill you seem to be significant quality of life improvements.

I doubt fighter will ever get an update, Paizo is too afraid of upsetting the grognards that want fighters to be the bastion of boredom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:

I hate "Antipaladin" for the wrong reasons.

It's just that ANTI is latin and PALADIN is french.

Should be INPALADIN.

While true, this is english we're talking about. Mixing languages in a single word isn't unheard of.


Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
A similar thread to this one came around back when antipaladins were first introduced. Someone suggested "Reaver" and it's stuck with me ever since.

I second (or third rather) this suggestion.


Renata Maclean wrote:
Knitifine wrote:
Bunnyboy wrote:
I demand that we should also get an ANTImonk and an ANTIbarbarian!
Antimonk, disciplined champion of chaos. Wait, something seems off...
Well, Antipaladins have a code of conduct, despite being chaotic, so...

XD That was my point. I've always thought the antipaladin's code of conduct was... silly.


Bunnyboy wrote:
I demand that we should also get an ANTImonk and an ANTIbarbarian!

Antimonk, disciplined champion of chaos. Wait, something seems off...


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

Who says alchemists need bombs or a knife? Beastmorph is a thing... and vivisectionist is a go to for mutagen alchemists.

As for the vanish. Your not limiting anything. Its a ninja, a rogue with a ninja trick, a stygian slayer, a bard, a magus, a warlock vigilante, a zealot fey vigilante, it could have HiPS, a arcanist, a wizard, a sorcerer... It can really be damn near anything. Vanish is a pretty common spell...

And also, you seem to be falling on tired tropes. Who says an alchemist isnt in medium armor wielding a greatsword? And the guy using magic and a sword. Not necessarily a magus... the blade adept arcanist is very similair, same with the Eldritch scrapper sorcerer...

Heck, the ONLY thing i cn think.of as a semi dead give away is the mystic theurge.. and ypu still dont know what combination of classes he is...

Vivisectionists have easily qualify under the "stab a guy in the liver" category. Beastmorphs have bombs.

And again you're ignoring the limitation of my original post. So let's throw out everyone I already said doesn't qualify.
Rogue, Ninja, Vigilante, Slayer, Magus.

Is it spell-like? If yes -> No spellcasting.
If no... is it arcane? If yes -> Wizard, Sorcerer or Witch.
If no... is it divine? If yes -> Cleric, Druid, Oracle or Shaman.

Does the caster have a familiar? If no -> Remove Witch, Wizard and Shaman from the list.
If yes, reduce the list to those classes plus maybe Sorcerer and maybe druid.

etc
etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Renata Maclean wrote:
Is anyone with little to no knowledge/experience with magic going to be able to tell the difference between a wizard, an arcanist, and a sorcerer, though? Is it even common knowledge that there is a difference? Sure, a holy symbol marks someone as a servant of a deity, but that doesn't necessarily narrow their class down all that much.

Better question. In a world with Bards, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers, Wizards, Alchemists, Inquisitors, Magus, Oracle, Summoner, Witches, Arcanists, Bloodragers, Hunters, Investigators, Shamans, Skalds and Warpriests. Who has been exposed to so little magic that they don't know the the broader designations for spellcasting?


MeanMutton wrote:
But as far as an individual in the world, I can't see them having any sort of classification. The random guy who doesn't have Knowledge (arcana) probable doesn't even know the difference between arcane and divine magic, or spontaneous and prepared magic. Maybe some very specialized sage would lump out all the different categories. Maybe. But the random on the street isn't going to look at a guy and say "That's a wizard but THAT is a magus and THAT is an adept". He's going to duck and hide and use whatever word he knows - mage, magic user, wizard, sorcerer, shaman, whatever

In a world filled with gods, you can bet the average layperson knows there's a difference between the holy prayers of their priests and spellcasting of abyss spawned sorcerer even if they're comprehension of the differences amounts to "priests can heal you."

Again, you're resorting to martials and excluded classes to make your point. The wizard designation includes magus[a mechanical solution to the eldritch knight problem]. Adept can be identified by only once level 2 hits, otherwise they will get lumped in with other divine casters. Sorcerer, shaman, they're all easily identifiable if you know what to look for. And if you're living in a world with that many different types of magic users, you probably do.


alexd1976 wrote:
Knitifine wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Avaricious wrote:
...

Or you could help your allies come up to your level and all be powergamers. As long as the GM is okay with it, run with it.

I'm all for weekend superheroes, crunching dragon faces is fun.

Lots of flexing and boasting. Good times.

I'll chime in to offer the descending attitude. You should not do this. Many people do not want someone to 'help' them by cutting off character options they wish to explore simply because they're not optimal. Often, when a power gamer think they're 'asking' the other players will feel pressured to let them do whatever because they're already hogging the spotlight in one way or another.

Several of my friends had 'substandard' characters, I pointed out some stuff they could do to bring them up a notch... for the most part they appreciated it, especially after realizing that they had basically wasted feats/archetype choices to make something that could still stick to their original concept and be significantly more... survivable.

Of course every gaming group is different, if your friends don't appreciate advice, you could always nerf yourself.

'weaker' characters can still be fun to play. Even a 'weak' wizard can stop time and clone himself. :D

And I've encountered many friends that expressed gratitude to the power gamer, only to immediately turn to the DM for help because they were too intimidated to express anything else and didn't want to get into a fight with the power gamer over a game. Caution is strongly advised.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't enforce alignment restriction on any class when I GM.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

If your on a battlefield, there is no distiguisable difference between a Wizard with eschew materials, a sorcerer, or an arcanist. If you see a staff magus casting a spell he simply looks like a wizard with a little armor (again, not horridly uncommon).

A cleric casts spells with a.holy symbol but even that is easily circumvented.

Also, with all the archetypes amd such there is an even harder time trying to "identify" on sight. If you see him pound down a potion and get beefy what is he? Mutagenic Fighter? The mutagenic mauler brawler? An alchemist?

If you see a very dex based guy suddenly vanish into thin air is he a ninja? Maybe he is a arcane trickster? Or a illusion focused wizard/sorcerer?

Show my one non-setting specific feature that allows a cleric to cast without a holy symbol.

The only way the staff magus is going to be confused is if they're not hitting anything with their staff and they are specifically wearing a mithril chainshirt.

If the item is a potion it's a fighter using bull strength. If it's a mutagen it will manifest natural armor that's easily identifiable. If he's wearing light armor, he's either an alchemist or mutagenic mauler? If he has bombs? Probably an alchemist. If he just stabbed the guy in the liver with a knife? Probably an alchemist. If he's tearing up things with his bare (or bear) hands and has no bombs on his person? Probably a mutagenic mauler. But again, brawler and fighter are the exception classes. All of these except the first would fit under the broad heading "Alchemist", just like Magus fits under the broad heading "Wizard - Warrior".

A spellcraft or Knowledge (Arcana) check will identify what kind of vanish it was, and from that and the person's gear one can identify what class they were within a close spectrum. Again, you've having to resort to the classes I initially slanted as not being identifiable. Martials are nonunique, anyone can do what they do. (That's one of the problems with their design if fact.)


alexd1976 wrote:
Avaricious wrote:
...

Or you could help your allies come up to your level and all be powergamers. As long as the GM is okay with it, run with it.

I'm all for weekend superheroes, crunching dragon faces is fun.

Lots of flexing and boasting. Good times.

I'll chime in to offer the descending attitude. You should not do this. Many people do not want someone to 'help' them by cutting off character options they wish to explore simply because they're not optimal. Often, when a power gamer think they're 'asking' the other players will feel pressured to let them do whatever because they're already hogging the spotlight in one way or another.


KenderKin wrote:
Can we call them Sith Lords?

A strict improvement.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Knitifine wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:
Are classes outside of some PrCs referred by name In-Universe?

For the most part, actually.

A person casts arcane spells from a spellbook? They're a wizard.

A person casts arcane spells from seemingly nowhere? They're a sorcerer.

A person casts divine spells, can take the shape of an animal and has an animal following them? They're a druid.

I think the only classes that can justify getting away without being recognizable by class name are the martials: Fighter, Rogue, Cavalier... they could always be something else. Lots of people fight, lots of people fight dirty, and lots of people fight on horses. That doesn't necessarily mean as much as a specific magical ability you don't see other people flinging around.

Arcanists have spell books...

Magus have spellbooks also....

An oracle of the darktapesty can shapechange into an animal, cast divine spells, and with a feat has an animal.

What about druids with no AC... aka the domain druid?

A wizard with Eschew Materials looks really damn similair to a sorcerer...

A witch can look indistinguishable from a wizard also...

Arcanists and Magi are later introduced classes. But worth noting is that they represent the mechanical solution to multiclass problems, so many people likely read them as "Wizard - Sorcerer" and "Wizard - Warrior" respectively unless the setting was built with their practices as equally common to the generic wizard.

An oracle doesn't cast with holly and mistletoe. And anyone who spent some time around them would realize they cast spontaneously. Also, again a class that came later.

A wizard with eschew materials still prepares from a spellbook.

A witch has a familiar, a feature most wizard eschew for the extra spell in my experience. Even so, a witch, once again, lacks a spellbook.

All of these might create problems in identification but that's only because there's already a standard that's been set.


Entryhazard wrote:
Are classes outside of some PrCs referred by name In-Universe?

For the most part, actually.

A person casts arcane spells from a spellbook? They're a wizard.

A person casts arcane spells from seemingly nowhere? They're a sorcerer.

A person casts divine spells, can take the shape of an animal and has an animal following them? They're a druid.

I think the only classes that can justify getting away without being recognizable by class name are the martials: Fighter, Rogue, Cavalier... they could always be something else. Lots of people fight, lots of people fight dirty, and lots of people fight on horses. That doesn't necessarily mean as much as a specific magical ability you don't see other people flinging around.


Snowblind wrote:
If I might suggest a way of making this a lot easier, what are her goals - short term and long term aims that either further another goal or align with her motivations, and what are her motivations - guiding principals that define how she sets her goals and what she fundamentally wants her life to be about. With those we might be able to give a better character description.

Sure, no trouble.

Short Term Goals
1: Find a 'good' person to mentor. (OOC this is her main reason to get into an adventuring party.)
2: Enjoy the company of 'good' 'civilized' people long enough to forget some of the worse memories she has from surviving in the wild.

Long Term Goals
1: Pass on all her skills, wisdom and knowledge to her apprentice.
2: Through her apprentice, provide a way to change the world so that it's not ruled by 'cowards too tangled in politics to care about their own families'.
3: Enjoy the comforts of civilization for as long as she can.
4: Once goal 1 and 2 are complete, leave back to the wild to continue living how she currently is.

Cult of Vorg wrote:
Nothing wrong with being personally Neutral, or even NE, and preferring to work with good people or encourage altruism in others when possible. Could come from guilt, pragmatism, self awareness without agency, etc.

It's a mix of pragmatism and...

Snowblind wrote:
She would help others as much as she helps herself, but it's so hard, and she wants to change but she just can't find someone to help her. She is at least self aware enough to acknowledge that she is fundamentally selfish, though.

Self-awareness mixed with a lack of discipline (or maybe motivation) to follow through with that self-awareness. It's a lot easier in the wild to say "Well if I didn't ambush those travelers another bandit would have, and then I would have just ambushed that other bandit. So the end result is the same. Besides they shouldn't have been wandering into my forest." since she only has to justify herself to herself. The goal is that kind of thing will be harder once she joins an adventuring party.

Ravingdork wrote:
predisposed to do so in an evil way thanks to her fiendish heritage.

This is a trope I actually want to avoid. Her selfish impulses and preference towards the path of least resistance are a personal flaw, one potentially inhereted from her parents, but not something that the demonic ancestry can take any legitimate blame for.

Doomed Hero wrote:
Wolfscarred would also work. It would just have to be reflavored to serpent instead of wolf.
Imbicatus wrote:
The Hunger Curse would also work.

While both of those are cool, the way I envision the scaring on her face she doesn't have a pronounced snout and only have one 'fang' due to it only affecting half (well 40%) of her face. I also want to have her conceal her face from her companions so being dependant on utitlizing the deformity is less than ideal.

P.S. Again, thanks for the feedback everyone, and feel free to keep it coming. I've heard a lot of neat suggestions and I appreciate it even if I haven't directly responded to it.


Weapon Familiarity


the secret fire wrote:

You are describing a character who wants to "make the world a better place" explicitly for the benefit of others, or in your words:

Quote:
...so that the situation she was raised in is rectified and does not happen again.
...and then goes right on hurting and exploiting those "others" whenever it suits her.

I would point out that this is not inconsistent and various historical figures displayed the same outlook, but... that's also not the outlook she has. Her version of making the world a better place is intrinsically selfish because she defines it as a world she is comfortably living in. She wants the situation to be rectified, it's about a personal vendetta, not helping others. However she has the self awareness to know her own weakness, like being inclined to take the easier route in life even when it means hurting others. It is entirely possible to be aware of your own shortcomings. This is part of the reason why she wants to mentor someone with a greater vision or drive, so that she can teach them skills and have someone around to make the right decisions for her, thus furthering her long term goals.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

What you should be askin yourself.... goblin babies....

Goblin babies means pregnant goblins...

Just try and envision a pregnant goblin...

With all those horomones??? And random cravings???

Or even more disturbing.... goblins going at it to become pregnant in the first place...

Just try and envision it..

You haven't been on the internet long have you?


Your race seems to have a lot of flexibility that might merit a core race plus expansive racial heritage to further specifiy, like the aasimar and tieflings each had. Below I tried to capture what you were going for while keeping the versatility on the same level as a standard race.

Nephilim Racial Traits
+2 to One Ability Score: Nephilim characters get a +2 bonus to any one ability score of their choice at creation to represent their varied nature.
Native Outsider: Nephilim are outsiders with the native subtype.
Medium: Nephilim are Medium creatures and have no bonuses or penalties due to their size.
Normal Speed: Nephilim have a base speed of 30 feet.
Darkvision: Nephilim can see in the dark up to 60 feet.
Nephilim Resistance: Nephalim gain acid resistance 5, cold resistance 5, electricity resistance 5, and fire resistance 5.
See Alignment: Nephalim gain the ability to cast See Alignment as a spell-like ability 1/day.
Skilled: Nephalim gain a +1 bonus to Bluff, Diplomacy, Perception and Stealth checks.
Slayer: Nephalim gain a +1 racial bonus on attack rolls against Outsiders with the Good or Evil subtypes.
Languages: Nephilim begin play speaking Common, Celestial and either Infernal or Abyssal. Nephilim with high intelligence scores can choose from the following: Abyssal, Dwarven, Elven, Gnome, Halfling, Infernal, and Orc.

A total of 13 RP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Or they turn into Grenadier Human Hunters and become heroes of their new tribe upon adulthood.

Precious babies.

(More seriously, so could any human child)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I should also point out that there are healthy outlets to murderous urges and pyromania. All that's required is patience and discipline on the part of the caretaker to channel these things to be productive (which will be a lot more successful than attempting to squash them).

For instances, alchemy training focused on controlling fire and a healthy dose of hunting should lower these 'biological predisposition' to manageable levels just as they would in any other humanoid who showed those tendencies.


the secret fire wrote:
Knitifine wrote:
the secret fire wrote:
Knitifine wrote:
Thank you for the feedback, please keep it coming. I wanted to comment a little bit more on alignment and philosophy. The character in question is very selfish, aside from the desire to see the world become a better place she has very little compulsion against hurting people, or taking their things if she needs them, etc. So without someone else around to keep her on a steady path she could cause a lot of destruction. For these reasons I'm not sure a good alignment is accurate but I'm interested to hear other perspectives.
What you're describing is a contradiction. Selfishness and selflessness are opposite ends of the spectrum. A character who manifests behavior on both extremes to the extent you seem to be indicating is either vastly more complex than what is contained in your little blurb, clinically insane, or both. I suppose the contradiction could be papered over by giving the character the Wis score of a monkey, but this is a poor solution. You ought to flesh out the personality some more.
No person is entirely selfish, or entirely selfless.

Well, no s*%#, but what you are describing here is not someone who is conflicted, like Han Solo was, but rather someone who is a predator:

Quote:
...she has very little compulsion against hurting people, or taking their things if she needs them, etc.

...and an altruist:

Quote:
...aside from the desire to see the world become a better place...
...all at once. This is not how human personality actually works outside of angsty anime stories. There is a word for very selfish people who have no problem with hurting others and taking their things: sociopaths. Sociopaths don't care about saving the world. Short of actual mental disorder (which could be mechanically represented by a dismal Wis), the alignment you're going for here is apparently chaotic stupid.

You might not want to talk about sociopaths to me, given that that's the main type of people I'm interest in studying. For the record, sociopaths are not the only people who have no problem hurting others, sociopaths are defined by a completely different set of critia. Primarily sociopaths feel an extremely low amount of fear which combined with heightened aggression seems to lead to many of the outward symptoms the public normally associates with them (one might even argue all Paladins become sociopaths once they gain their aura of courage). Something you seem to be missing is that the primary reason that this character wants the world to become a better place is so that the situation she was raised in is rectified and does not happen again. This is in line with a philosophy called enlightened self interest and no mental disorder is needed to have it.

Please, try to take a less aggressive tone when people disagree with your point of view.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
Knitifine wrote:
I adopt them, just like I do with the adult goblins I encounter.
You really must stop adopting the small sized races just because they are child sized. That halfing couple got rather cross last time, and now the guards know our faces...

They are my children

(On a side note I don't adopt halflings or gnomes, they're are rude and smell too much like humans and elves respectively.)


the secret fire wrote:
Knitifine wrote:
Thank you for the feedback, please keep it coming. I wanted to comment a little bit more on alignment and philosophy. The character in question is very selfish, aside from the desire to see the world become a better place she has very little compulsion against hurting people, or taking their things if she needs them, etc. So without someone else around to keep her on a steady path she could cause a lot of destruction. For these reasons I'm not sure a good alignment is accurate but I'm interested to hear other perspectives.
What you're describing is a contradiction. Selfishness and selflessness are opposite ends of the spectrum. A character who manifests behavior on both extremes to the extent you seem to be indicating is either vastly more complex than what is contained in your little blurb, clinically insane, or both. I suppose the contradiction could be papered over by giving the character the Wis score of a monkey, but this is a poor solution. You ought to flesh out the personality some more.

No person is entirely selfish, or entirely selfless. And it's entirely possible to be self aware enough to know that you are a selfish person and also hold a philosophy that people like you cannot change the world. The character in question is selfish, she knows that she alone, in the wild where she lived for a long time, she will always take the easiest route to success. The one that benefits her the most. Whether that is with the animals that live there or the people that wander in. She thinks she inherited the nature from her parents who also took the politically easy route in hiding her. But she doesn't like that route. She doesn't want to live in a world where people like her parents rule. But she knows that she would let it happen. However, she also knows she has skills that could help dismantle it. So she goes to find someone with conviction and pass those skills on. She doesn't think people like herself change the world, but she does think that if she can help someone with the vision or drive to meet their goal, the world will be changed in a way that makes it better for herself and people like her.


Pendagast wrote:

In 1e monsters actually had special stats... younglin goblins were trreated as kobolds

baby orcs were treated as goblins.... so ummm with actual state for babies....uhhh errr the intent was for combat.

Who says a baby goblin is defenseless? where does it say that? Or its it just a weaker goblin?

at what age does something start being chaotic evil and swinging a dog slicer? is that written anywhere?

In the animal kingdom some of the babies can walk minutes after birth.

some of the young predators begin hunting and killing very early.

Goblins have a short life span...so when do they start , well being "gobos"?

If you find a nest of spiders...do you squash it burn it or poison it, or do you hope for a kinder brighter world with less scary icky venomous critters?

Sapient creatures cannot really be compared to reptiles and arthropods, the primary type of creatures that fit into the 'can immediately walk and hunt'.

The mere fact of being a mammal does a lot to limit that assumption, but the fact they're sapient does it even more. Unless your world features some truly bizarre humanoid biology, it's unlikely what this post is asserting is remotely relevant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I adopt them, just like I do with the adult goblins I encounter.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Recruit a god.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh yeah.

I think unofficially torture is banned in our games. But that was more after several uses in different circumstances that proved that roleplaying out any scene that includes torture was.

1. Awkward
2. Nonproductive over the alternative "X endures/endured torture by Y"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Java Man wrote:
Does sacred geometry count?

It certainly is something that will disturb the other players.


Thank you for the feedback, please keep it coming. I wanted to comment a little bit more on alignment and philosophy. The character in question is very selfish, aside from the desire to see the world become a better place she has very little compulsion against hurting people, or taking their things if she needs them, etc. So without someone else around to keep her on a steady path she could cause a lot of destruction. For these reasons I'm not sure a good alignment is accurate but I'm interested to hear other perspectives.


Please describe the following character in terms of race, class, alignment and any other mechanical aspects you deem appropriate.

An elven princess born with a deformity that covers most of her body (60%) and much of her face (40%), causing it to resemble that of a serpent. The affliction is a throwback to demonic influence earlier in her family tree. Her parents hide her true appearance to protect themselves from criticism. She is arranged to marry a prince, and on the assumption that he wants the marriage she reveals her deformity. He confesses he didn't want the marriage either. This combined with having to hide who she is motivates her to run away. She makes a vow to herself never to return unless her family releases information on her true appearance (something she thinks will never happen )

She spends several years learning to survive off the lands in the wild, and reflectin on her life and decision. Over this time she grows more wise and self aware. She decides she wants to make the world a better place but believes she is too self-centered and practical to do it. She decides to find a hero to mentor and protect those who have more pure hearts.

She is an imposing person who conceals herself to hide her deformity and tries to speak only when it's important. Her weapon of choice will be either something blunt or a pole arm.

What race/class/alignment/etc. do you see her as?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Entryhazard wrote:
Knitifine wrote:


Alignment subtypes.
The idea that good, law, evil or chaos can be a type of matter seems silly to me. That something can be 'made of evil'? My suspension of disbelief just flies right out the door.

It's actually something that's not that uncommon in narrative

Like, even Sauron was this

I never said it was uncommon. Only that it checks my suspension of disbelief. To me those kinds of stories are relics of a bygone age and should not be the norm, but instead optional rules for those who want something closer to their nostalgia.


Imbicatus wrote:
Knitifine wrote:
I don't think it's particularly overpowered either, but I also don't think that has any baring on if it gets nerfed. (See Scarred Witch Doctor).

Scarred Witch Doctor was a concept change, not a nerf. Thanks to Fierce Intelligence, half-orcs can start with a 22 casting stat at first level.

You may not like the flavor change of removing con based casting, but in terms of power, it was a buff.

A mechanic buff that bleeds the flavor out of something is a nerf in my eyes. You can call it a 'concept change' all you want.


Milo v3 wrote:
I think it comes from the fact that if you want the creature your calling to like you, paizo want you to use Planar Ally rather than Planar Binding. Which is disappointing from my perspective.

Why?


Cwethan wrote:
5th also kept that change though.

I am aware.

Rhedyn wrote:
Knitifine wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:

5e replaced sonic damage with thunder damage making it seem like previous edition sonic was viewed more as air than anything else.

PF isn't d&d but it came from those origins.

No, 4e did that.

There was no 4e.

WotC is like microsoft

1e 2e 3 3.5 Nothing 5e.

They can't count.

Cute. But factually inaccurate.


Rhedyn wrote:

5e replaced sonic damage with thunder damage making it seem like previous edition sonic was viewed more as air than anything else.

PF isn't d&d but it came from those origins.

No, 4e did that.


Doomed Hero wrote:

I've never been a fan of the five-foot step mechanic.

Why is it that a Cat can move five times further than the length of its own body without risking getting smacked for it, but a titan can't move the length of it's own big toe?

I've ruled in my games that a creature can "adjust" up to the size of it's own Base. This means small characters have a bit of trouble moving safely, but I add Size bonuses and penalties to Acrobatics checks to balance this.

Well that certainly gives a lot more mobility to large and bigger creatures.


Oh yeah. The hunter class exists.


Goddity wrote:
Knitifine wrote:

0.

I throw it into the fires of Mordor.
Keeping it on hand will just encourage the less sensible players to give it a whirl.
But decks of many things aren't forged in Mount Doom. Mount Doom is good for destroying rings only.

I don't really need to destroy it, just keep it away from the rest of the party. Who's going to go swimming lava to find a deck of many things?


Ross Byers wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Lighting is determined in a radius from the light source.

I have never seen any creature with low-light vision penalized for dim light conditions. This includes in organized play. Hopefully that clarifies.

Ross Byers wrote:
It's because when you complain about a rule you're ignoring or changing, it sounds like someone complaining about a food they've never tried, or claiming a recipe is bad after making an unlikely substitution.

Surprising no one, it's hard to recall all the rules of a given system at all times. Especially when one has played several similar systems with slightly different rules. The -10 rule comes from DnD 3.5 and the low-light vision assumptions comes from 4e. The corrections were, again, not significant differences.


DM_Blake wrote:

I agree with the darkvision; the range limit is silly.

Orc1: Can you see me?
Orc2: Of course I can. You're only 60' away.
Orc1: (takes one tiny step backward) Can you see me now?
Orc2: Where'd he go? He was just there, I swear it. He just.... vanished into thin dark.

Then again, on the *ahem* bright side, at least it doesn't let you see in the infrared spectrum...

As for low-light vision (and the subsequent nit-picking), if you're going to dislike a rule because you read the rule wrong, then maybe you should re-read the rule (hopefully with some helpful messageboard guidance) and then re-evaluate the rule on its actual merit.

For me, I think low-light vision is perfect. Your eyes are so sensitive to light that you can see twice as far as a normal human in poor lighting. I have no problem with that.

I always interpreted low-light vision as trying to imitate the visual adaption of a crepuscular or nocturnal creature, hence why it's applied every frickin' animal on the planet. The "every animal is a cat" mentality. Also again, I have never encountered a situation and cannot imagine one where this limitation mattered, so in my eyes (hah!) it might as well be unlimited.


What's everyone favorite artifacts?

Feel free to share why and any stories attached the them.

My personal favorites from the CRB are Sphere of Annihilation, The Orbs of Dragonkind and the Shadowstaff. I think they create a lot of interesting situations.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Knitifine wrote:

Darkvision

I hate dark vision having a range limit. I would prefer darkvision to function similar to low-light vision, where it's range is the same as normal vision.

Nope

PRD wrote:


Low-Light Vision

Characters with low-light vision have eyes that are so sensitive to light that they can see twice as far as normal in dim light.

Twice as far as dim light normally permits, not 'as far as normal vision'

Again, this is usually ruled in my games to be "you can see normally in dim light". In fact, I don't think I've ever heard anyone specifically address the range low-light vision stops working even in organized games. So there we go. (The amount of nitpicking being done here, sheesh. None of this really effects my problems with the rules in question).


Sumutherguy wrote:
Knitifine wrote:
Sounds like another fun ability is going to be nerfed into nonexistence due to optimization.

This combo requires two feats and two 15kish magical items (three feats if you aren't a rogue), has some pretty glaring weaknesses (time, particularly), and scales rather reasonably with level from what I can tell (1.2k hp at level 20 < the shenanigans that wizards can still do), so I don't think its particularly overpowered, especially considering that by the time it hits peak effectiveness most spell-casters can laugh heartily at the notion that mere hit points will save anyone from them.

It is accessible to martials though, so that may mean that it is indeed doomed.

I don't think it's particularly overpowered either, but I also don't think that has any baring on if it gets nerfed. (See Scarred Witch Doctor).


I like the Unchained Rogue, it's a strict improvement to a very weak class, which makes me wish they had released an unchained Fighter.

I like the Unchained Barbarian, it simplifies a few things and makes the rage powers a little bit cooler in my eyes.

I like the Unchained Summoner, it's a lot more thematic and balanced, but I think it could still use a bit of work. (As more eidolin options)

I like the Unchained Monk, but I think it probably deserves to have it's will save back.


Sounds like another fun ability is going to be nerfed into nonexistence due to optimization.


Not sure if it's intended, but thematically I tend to see LE characters as more likely to bind Angels (and Archons, etc), and LG characters are more likely to bind Devils. So to me it fits.

1 to 50 of 204 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>