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

Lemmy's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 5,547 posts (6,538 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,010 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
And then there are the other posts with almost equally unpleasant language and accusations of incompetence or other insults, those are even more common.

While I never threw any personal insult against any member of the Paizo staff, I'll admit that I have often being a bit too vocal about my displeasure with Paizo's design policy. This year has been way too frustrating for me to contain my words.

But in my defense, seeing the erratas kicking martials in the teeth all the time, while caster/martial disparity grows more and more with each book, it's really difficult for me not to doubt Paizo's ability and/or interest in making Pathfinder a more balanced game. Especially when they continuously refuse to acknowledge the problems with game balance.

By now, I'm convinced that they either don't care or are just not very good at it.

For as long as the devs claim that Exploiter Wizard is fine, but a general Dex to damage feat is "too good even for Mythic", I can't help but question their competence at balancing game mechanics.

Am I being harsh? Yes, I am. But I'm not lying or exaggerating.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Step Up is a serious threat to archers and gunslinger... But just a minor inconvenience to casters. It's a bit too situational for my tastes.

Step Up and Strike is better, but it requires 3 feats... And Following Step isn't much of an upgrade over Step Up.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well... To avoid anecdotal evidence, let's see what math tell us...

Rogues have:

- The lowest accuracy of any non-full caster in the game. In fact theya re the only class that has no means of buffing their to hit.
- Low/mediocre AC and CMD.
- The worst saves in the game.

And in exchange for all of that, they gain:

- 2 extra points over a Bard ('til 6th level, that is).
- Trapfinding (which is nice to have, but far from impressive).
- A situational damage boost that is okay, but not good enough to be any class' one and only offensive tool.

Rogues are not particularly good generalists, either... Bards are far better at... Well, basically everything.

Rogues get a bunch of secondary abilities and try to pretend they are good enough to be a main class feature.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Nah, the shirt would just be temporarily removed, not burned. You just can't really give an authentic primal scream with a shirt on.
What if the shirt is made of the skin of your enemies and/or you dramatically rip it off as you scream?
Though I'm ashamed to admit it, I don't know if I would have the strength to actually tear my shirt in half to facilitate the required drama for such a scene. You are right though, ripping off a shirt made from an enemy skin would be the best way to go about this... would it be cheating if I cut the shirt strategically in advance to make it easier?

You're seeing it in reverse... It's not about having the necessary strength to facilitate your drama. It's about having enough drama to fuel your strength!

(Besides, in this case, your enemy are book pages, so they should be pretty easy to tear apart).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
Nah, the shirt would just be temporarily removed, not burned. You just can't really give an authentic primal scream with a shirt on.

What if the shirt is made of the skin of your enemies and/or you dramatically rip it off as you scream?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Thormind wrote:
Conclusion: This class should have been given 3/4 BAB like the rogue

No. One useless class is more than enough. There is no point in downgrading everyone to Rogue's level of ineffectiveness.

If the Rogue serves as an excuse to nerf perfectly balanced classes, then the Rogue is at fault and should be ignored.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zalman wrote:
Your idea that the class name doesn't make the character is spot-on. My issue is with the reverse: the mechanic does not make the character, regardless of what name the class is. Alas, Pathfinder is all about the mechanic, which is exactly why it no longer "makes sense" to play a "fighter" or a "rogue". It's also why, in my experience, players come up with way cooler characters when mechanics follow story, instead of the other way around.

That's not exactly true. Despite what many grognards claim, IME, most players will often "I want to roleplay character concept X? How can I best do it?" and then pick their mechanics accordingly.

Mechanics are just a tool for them to fulfill their idea of the concept they want. Because of this, they'll often use the best mechanics available... Just like anyone with a modicum of common sense will always use the best tool for the job.

That doesn't mean they are favoring mechanics over concept, just that they want to best represent the concept they have in mind.

And, BTW... When you say you don't believe for an instant that all the "silly" builds are created for concept rather than pure "video-game-like number-crunching", that is being condescending. You're claiming the builds you personally define as silly as always product of "roll playing" and minmanxing with no regard to character concept, and you also insinuate vidego-game players have no creativity.

That's just as dismissive as saying that everyone who likes Tolkien-inspired characters and settings are angry grognards with no creativity that can't role play anything that isn't stamped on the class' description.

Imagine, if you will, that Fighters and Rogues had their class name and description switched around. They are exactly the same, but they got the fluff text of each other.

That would be restrictive to those who claim class is anything other than a mechanical construct... But it wouldn't hurt the role playing of anyone who chooses to ignore the "official" fluff text in favor of creating their own flavor.

In this aspect, those who see classes as nothing but mechanics are actually better at role playing than those that limit them to what's written on the book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zalman wrote:
Sure, different fantasy for different folks. Still, I'm not buying for an instant that all the silly builds are created for "fantasy story concept" rather than pure video-game-like number-crunching. If you're very very lucky, a character concept will be retroactively fitted onto the mechanic, but either way the game suffers horribly in my experience from such "characters".

I think you're being unfairly condescending. Playing a half-demon tengu zen archer is not any more (or less) story-driven than playing an elf wizard or dwarf fighter.

Zalman wrote:
Without that focus on mechanics-as-class, the "older melee classes" becoming obsolete would never be an issue, because creating a really cool warrior wouldn't be dependent on first having a really cool published warrior-mechanic. Rather, the character concept -- as conceived in the mind of the player -- would force a mechanic to be created, within the context of the character being, simply, a "fighter". Interestingly, this is how the...

If those classes become obsolete, that's because their mechanics are bad, not because players don't role play. I'd never play a Fighter or Rogue, but that doesn't stop me from role playing a armored warrior or backstabbing scoundrel, nor does it hamper my ability to do so.

As it's been mentioned multiple times now, having "Fighter" written on your character sheet doesn't mean you're any better or worse at roleplaying an armored warrior. It just means you have Fighter written on your character sheet.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
That's a matter of philosophy. There's a nice big section above the rogue class description that has no mechanics in it at all. There's also all of the context the rogue carries from previous editions. These things matter as much as a player believes that they matter, and I happen to think that they matter a lot. If I'm making a rogue, I won't make a "slayer" even if it is mechanically superior because the class description and moniker do not fit the sort of character I'm making.

So... What you're saying is that players can't/shouldn't roleplay their characters as anything other than what' dictated by the class description?

That's... absurdly limiting and very unimaginative, to say the least. Such notion goes against the greatest strength of tabletop RPGs: freedom of choice and limitless possibilities of character development.

If fluff is all that a class has going for it, then that class is a failure and the game is better off forgetting it exists. Luckily, my imagination is not so lacking that I allow my characters to be restricted by the "official" fluff of their classes.

Zalman wrote:
If classes are nothing but their mechanics, then we have little more than a video game without the benefits of video. That's certainly another way to play as well, but not one I enjoy myself.

Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between "classes are just a collection of mechanics" and "characters are just a collection of mechanics"

We all enjoy flavorful characters and worlds. What some of us don't like is having flavor being dictated by game mechanics.

Mechanics should allow and enhance flavor, not limit it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:

People complain about not being able to play a highly mobile swashbuckler, and I pointed out that playing such a character is bad for the party as a whole because it leaves the rest of the people vulnerable. If your main melee character is off running around doing swashbuckler stuff, while the other three aren't, it means those other three are left vulnerable.

So you end up with the classes that can't be mobile (if the Swashy were theoretically a mobile fighter), being forced to attempt to do so in order to appease the Swashbuckler.

The problem is that there is no choice. Instead of making a tactical decision ("Should I move forward or hold my ground?"), the Swashbuckler is forced to ignore the class' flavor and stand still all the time, otherwise he loses too much of his effectiveness.

And casters are very mobile classes. They all have the potential to move and cast two spells in the same round. Some of them can even teleport and cast two spells in the same round. They can also fly, turn invisible, summon monsters, cast defensive spells, etc.

The only ones that can't move are martials... Including Swashbucklers. It'd be a much better game if the SB could assess the situation and then decide if he should move or not, but as it is, the class is stuck with "stand-still-or-suck" syndrome even when there is no reason for him to block anyone's path. In fact, even when standing still, martials are not very good at blocking anyone's path. At best, they can make an AoO, but other than that, any enemy can move around the martial and go after whoever he wants to engage in melee.

So, instead of having a mobile class that can move through the battlefield or choose to stand still when the situation calls for it, we got a "mobile" class with no mobility at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I, for one, will never again play a non-caster class, unless the game is really heavy on house rules. And even then, I'd think twice before doing so.

I'd rather not to be kicked in the teeth every time a new FAQ or errata is released.

That's how little faith I have in Paizo's ability and willingness to make Pathfinder a more balanced game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well... I'll just ban the Primalist archetype and be done with it anyway... Want rage Powers? Go play a Barbarian.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
Jack Assery wrote:
About one page per class, making up 1-2 archetypes and some option for others (rage powers only for barbarian, with only one good power with a level 6 and rp prerequisite). There is a couple options people think are good, like the mutagen fighter or exploit wizard, but it was mostly ineffectual.
So then the majority of the book is still the new classes? :( Sounds like I might just have to get the archetypes off of d20pfsrd or Nethys then... which is sad, I want to support Paizo when I can, but I just can't justify buying an entire book that I am going to more than likely completely ignore 90% of it.

I'm with you on that... So far I bought pretty much every hardcover from Paizo, but the ACG simply isn't worth my money.

If I could, I'd just buy the parts that involve Bloodrager, Slayer, Investigator and that Cavalier archetype that makes him a functional Swashbuckler.

I saddens me that Paizo decided to release a subpar product just so they can sell it at GenCon. The ACG is so rushed that even its freaking cover got an editing mistake!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be fair... SR is awful for player characters. It'll hurt you more often than it'll help you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah... It really isn't very difficult to "outswashbuckler" the Swashbuckler. The class is a mess.

I'd take a Bard, Magus, Inquisitor, Slayer, Ranger, Urban Barbarian or Daring Champion Cavalier with Dervish Dance over a Swashbuckler any day of the week and twice on sunday.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

From a business perpective, I think this woudl be a terrible moment to releease PF 2.0. Paizo just released 10 new classes (in what seems to be a very rushed book), but more importantly... A new edition of D&d is coming out. Releasing PF 2.0 means competing with it for customers, and I don't know about you, but if I have to buy a whole new game edition, I'll probably go with D&D 5ed before checking PF 2.0.

Besides, PF unchained is pretty much a "how to release PF 2.0 without actually releasing PF 2.0.". Or at least, this is the impression it gave me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Martials play "Mother may I?" with the GM while casters get to say "This is what happens". to the GM. Notice that one of those is a question and the other is a statement. Which is the whole reason there's an imbalance. Especially on the narrative power front..
Maybe that's the case, in the games that you play in or run, but casters in my games don't get to dictate answers to me when questions come up. Anyone who puts up RAW arguments for Sno-Cone wish machines or other such caster nonsense only gets those to fly with the fiat of a ridiculously accommodating GM.

That's like saying paintball guns are just as effective as real guns because the referee doesn't allow real guns to be used in the paintball tournament.

Real guns are still far more dangerous, you may not allowed to use them, but this doesn't make them any less effective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

If doing anything extraordinary is considered magic, no matter if there is any actual magic involved or not, then Fighters, Rogues and all other non-caster classes should stop progressing at 5th level.

Fortunately, it's perfectly possible to create a story where characters can be extraordinary without any use of magic.

I think the difference is where we begin and end the definition of extraordinary and magical, and where slicing through a mountain falls.

I just don't think "stuff a normal human can't do in the real world" is a good definition of magic.

And here is the thing...

Every creature of CR X should have CR-appropriate abilities. If a Fighter and a Wizard of same level have the same CR (and the rules say they do), then their abilities should be similarly powerful.

If that's not the case, then they should not have the same CR.

So if a martial characters are always limited to doing what a a CR 5 creature can do, then their classes shouldn't go beyond 5th level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
I think you might want to define what magic means to you then. Because unless the martial decided to chant a mantra to the nine gods, or speak syllables in an alien tongue prior to cleaving through a mountain, there is 0 magic involved. And none of the fantasty people who have done that (oh yes, there are fantasy people who have done that) needed to do either of those things.

Which means that they perhaps used a different form of magic or supernatural help. Just because the author didn't spell out that they used magic doesn't mean that they didn't, or didn't have some other form of assistance.

Regardless, we circle back around to what defines what a martial character is and just how far they should be able to go, which I believe was talked about extensively in another thread. Some want mile jumping mountain cutters and others a little less than that.

If doing anything extraordinary is considered magic, no matter if there is any actual magic involved or not, then Fighters, Rogues and all other non-caster classes should stop progressing at 5th level.

Fortunately, it's perfectly possible to create a story where characters can be extraordinary without any use of magic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Huh, fair enough I guess. I'm not used to playing with people that need to know all the secrets up front or you're a bad GM.

We all know that's not what Rynjin said or meant.

There is HUGE difference between "knowing all the plot secrets" and "knowing the game rules".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
WBL does entirely different things for martials and casters. Martials gain abilities they otherwise would not have. Casters extend the use of abilities already possessed, allowing for a longer adventuring day.
Martials can't do much except hit things with a stick, so, yes, anything else adds abilities. Casters have spells to do pretty much everything, so yeah, it's hard to add to that.
And at the end of the day, both can fly, both can travel the planes, both can heal, both can kill things.

Except the caster can:

A- Not buy those items and get stuff that allows him to do even more powerful stuff and expand his already absurdly large array of options
or
B- Buy those items and use the spell slots he'd use to do that stuff to make him even more powerful, keeping the distance gap casters and martials just the same.

Oh, and keep in mind that magic items usually give you a much more limited version of what a spell does. e.g.: Most items that allow you to fly only do so for a few minutes and/or a few times per day. Meanwhile, Overland Flight lasts hours... Even Air Walk lasts 10min per caster level.

Additionally, save for a few exceptions, save DCs tend to scale faster than saves and stuff like Dazing Spell pretty much garantees the caster can always target a weak save.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
Zedth wrote:
Are you suggesting that we add teleporting, plane-shifting and mindreading to martial classes?

If only there were ways for high level martial characters to pick up these abilities.....

But we always seem to assume high level characters are standing around naked with zero resources.

Actually, most people just assume characters will have the same WBL, since the WBL guidelines don't discriminate between classes.

So, if a Wizard has a thousand more resources than a Fighter, then a Wizard + WBL will have a thousand more resources than a Fighter + WBL, making the whole point moot.

Nevermind the fact that casters have a much easier access to magic item crafting feats and some of them don't even need to buy armor or weapons, saving them a lot of money.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Maybe they don't like the idea of giving some of the Paladin's most iconic class features to every divine caster.
Then why print it?

I don't think it was the PFS people who printed that feat...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cerberus Seven wrote:

Speaking of which, I started reading the 'Designing your own class' area of the ACG. Stumbled across this fun little tidbit:

Skills wrote:
In terms of skill points, most classes get only 2 per level (plus the character’s Intelligence modifier). A few classes get 4 or even 6, but this is a bonus that should be kept in mind when designing other elements of the class. Only the rogue gets 8 per level, and you should have a very good reason for giving a class a similar number (as this infringes on the rogue’s role as the most skilled class).

This actually made me LOL! I mean... Seriously, Rogues are not even in the Top 5 most skilled classes anymore!

Zhayne nailed it:

Zhayne wrote:
It sounds like politicians reciting the party line to me, really. PF's official stance is that rogues are best skilled and fighters are best combatants, and darn it, that's what they're going to say.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah... Paizo's paranoia of Dex-to-damage options breaking the game is mind-boggling and almost funny, considering how much broken stuff they accept as perfectly balanced.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oracle, Sorcerer, Ranger, Barbarian, Inquisitor, Bard, Magus and Paladin.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gregory Connolly wrote:
The big problem I have is that aside from to hit and damage bonus strength doesn't do anything much. Sure, dumping it can make you watch your gear weight and fear strength damage, but your lower CMD is the only real problem.

True, that's why adding Dex to attack and damage rolls should take 2 feats.

The Strength guy is still ahead in damage and feats, and he has much easier access to Power Attack, but the Dex guy can at least be effective without being overtaxed and forced to ignore loot just because the enemy was wielding a dagger, whip or cestus instead of a rapier.

Honestly, dueling is weak enough that adding Dex-to-damage still doesn't make it compete with 2-handed or archery builds. Dervish Dance is only so common to Magus players because Magi are already shoehorned into dueling anyway. If they could use Spell Combat with a 2-handed weapon, they would.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

- A Full-BAB shapeshifter with little to no spell casting (What I hoped the Hunter would be).
- A Full-BAB Marshall-type of class with little to no spell casting that is actually effective. (Cavaliers simply don't work).
- An anti-caster class with no spell-casting, except, maybe a few SLA of anti-caster spells, such as Silence, Dispel Magic and Dimensional Anchor. Bonus points if it has a version of SR that actually helps them instead of nerfing the character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
I dunno, I consider "Here, take this Feat to gain a +1 to hit with a single type of weapon" fairly underwhelming.

It's not only underwhelming (Hit stuff 5% more often... With a single type of weapon... Yay?), but also incredibly boring.

The only reason to take this feat is if it's a prerequisite for something else... And that is a horrible reason to take a feat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Improved Weapon Finesse: You can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to all attack and damage rolls made with weapons affected by Weapon Finesse. This damage is not increased by any condition or effect that would allow you to add 1.5 times your Strength bonus to damage (such as wielding your weapon 2-handed) but it is still reduced for off-hand attacks. You cannot use this ability while donning a shield of any kind.

Prerequisite: BAB +1, Dex 13, Weapon Finesse

Special: Characters with the Panache class feature can use this ability while donning a buckler.

TA-DAAAAAA!!!

Is is really that hard?

Paizo made an option that should exist all along a "Mythical" option, so now they refuse to give players a Dex-to-Damage feat without severely limiting it and adding pointless prerequisites.

As 9mm pointed out, you cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know, what... I was going to reply, but I'm tired of this discussion...

If you think weakening skills and making everyone (including Rogues) less competent is somehow a improvement for Rogues and that nerfing everything just so a poorly designed class can share their misery is good game design, then we have fundamentally different views on game design and simply can't agree.

Rogues suck. We should make them better, not worse. PF is already too much of a "D&D - Ultimate Caster Version".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

A whip is a one-handed slashing weapon, so it already falls under the purview of Slashing Grace from the ACG.

As to dagger, I think it's fair to limit big-damage options for light weapons. Power Attack isn't as good for a dagger either, yaknow.

Considering this takes 3 feats and requires the weapon to be wielded 1-handed, this wasn't even close to making daggers the Kings of DPR.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Why make it exclusive to rapier? What if my Swashbuckler wields a whip or dagger? Why require Weapon Focus? Do we really need yet another feat tax? Isn't spending two feats more than enough?

I'm disappointed... But not surprised. Swashbucklers have been nothing but disappointing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Ya, not going to lie, the reason I really want to play an Arcanist is not just the incredible casting. It's the exploits. Some of those are just way to good to pass up.

Some of them are truly powerful. No other full casters has class features that powerful, except, maybe, Druids. But their spell list is not nearly as good as the Arcanist's.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male Garuda-blooded Aasimar Cleric 13 - HP 120/120; AC 25(tch 16, ff 19); CMD 29; Blur (20% Miss Chance); Fort +16, Ref +12, Will +18; Darkvision, Blindsense (30ft), Perception +22, Sense Motive +24

LOL at Skill Mastery letting Garren roll twice just so he can get two "10"!

BTW, what is Erd showing me?

EDIT... Oh, I thought it was a typo, but she's actually showing me one of the half-elves themselves. Can I identify anything from it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Simply being a full arcane caster already makes Arcanists far more powerful than most other classes. Having access to their whole spell list and being able to cast as a Sorcerer pushes them even further up (and makes Sorcerer pretty much completely obsolete, save for a few very specific builds, such as a Kitsune enchanter).

Now... To make it even more broken, Arcanists also get lots of extremely powerful class features, such as being able to boost the CL and save DC of their spells by 2, teleport as a move action, change their prepared spells on the fly, counter-spell effectively, increase or decrease the duration of spells already in effect, ignore spell effects for a few rounds (this alone is very, very powerful!), etc.

Oh, and they are also the masters of metamagic.

Despite claims to the contrary, it's pretty obvious that Arcanists will hit tier 1 and, at very least, give Wizards a run for their money.

Save for some really intense and unexpected nerf, Arcanists are overpowered. Claiming otherwise is either dishonest or naive. Possibly both.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And there's a reason that was changed... Unlocking doors is not something that should be class-specific.

And no one needs full casters. A party composed of Magus, Bard, Paladin and Ranger can do just fine. And this is just one of multiple "no-full-caster-needed" party possibilities.

Instead of nerfing everyone, Rogue included, to make Rogues less obsolete, make Rogues better.

Notice how everyone can track, get a pet wolf, use stealth and scout ahead, and everyone gets feats... But Rangers aren't considered superfluous.

Everyone can deal damage and resist magic, but Barbarians are still considered a good class.

Lots of classes can fight and cast spells... But no one stole the Bard's role yet. Magus, Inquisitor, Oracle, Cleric... They may or may not be more powerful than Bards, but you don't see people claiming all 6-level spell lists should take a serious and unnecessary nerf just so Bards can feel better about themselves.

Or better yet... What about the Slayer? While it's true that we haven't seen the full class yet, most posters seem to consider it to be an useful and balanced class, even though it has no spells. And no one had to cripple skills for that, so the problem lies not in skill, but in Rogues.

Rogues are a bad class mostly because they suck in combat. They have low accuracy, low/mediocre AC and horrible, horrible saves. Whatever ability they have with skills is just not enough to compensate for that, especially when they are not all that good with skills to start with.

Want to make Rogues better? Make them better, not "worse but necessary". Make them better in combat. Make them better at skills. Just getting 2 extra skill points is just not enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
That's like shooting yourself in the foot to make your friend look like a better runner.

Actually... It's closer to shooting your friend in the foot, then shooting yourself in both knees, making everyone a worse runner, then pretending your friend is doing better just because you're more badly crippled.

EDIT: Oh, and the other guy who you shot in the knee, the caster, he still has his high powered race car and the best medical insurance money can buy... So he doesn't care.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure it works (or at very least, is intended to work) just like the spell... Immediate action when falling.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Necromancer wrote:
Crystal Frasier wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Necromancer wrote:

Shardra was born a boy (sex); she identifies as female (gender). Use the gender to determine pronouns. As to the degree of her transition (or transformation), that's for the author to answer. With that in mind, magic and alchemy likely make the transition easier (and probably much faster) than our science can accomplish.

This seems like a lot of etiquette, but it's often a sensitive issue (from what I've been told and seen) and it feels like no one understands when others refer to gender and sex as the same thing.

Yeah, I always assumed I should refer to people by their gender identity rather than biological condition.

Still, I thought it'd be safer to ask.

It should be. Just be prepared for the rare irrational anger/fear cocktail from people who have trouble discussing it in a non-confrontational scenario. Learned behavior and all that.
It tends to be a very rational anger/fear cocktail. Bear in mind that for a lot of trans people, being read as transgender in public is more than just an ego issue. It can led to public humiliation and violence. Many of us develop a knee-jerk fear response to strangers telling us they recognize that we're transgender.
Yeah, I know...But it comes off as irrational to people that have never been in such situations. I tailor my words based on how they might be interpreted by the person I'm speaking with. (And, Lemmy, I mean no disrespect by any of this) I've had to explain things in odd ways when I've had new members joining games with transplayers--I always expect the worst. Every time I end up feeling like a hypocrite, because it's like translating from one culture to another. Communicating over text is even worse thanks to the absence of facial expessions and whatnot.

Haha, tis okay. I know this is something I'm ignorant about. I'm okay admitting my own lack of knowledge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Necromancer wrote:

Shardra was born a boy (sex); she identifies as female (gender). Use the gender to determine pronouns. As to the degree of her transition (or transformation), that's for the author to answer. With that in mind, magic and alchemy likely make the transition easier (and probably much faster) than our science can accomplish.

This seems like a lot of etiquette, but it's often a sensitive issue (from what I've been told and seen) and it feels like no one understands when others refer to gender and sex as the same thing.

Yeah, I always assumed I should refer to people by their gender identity rather than biological condition.

Still, I thought it' be safer to ask.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KSF wrote:
Crystal also provided details about the tincture that Shardra used. It's very similar to real world hormone replacement therapy.

Ah, so she used a mix of the tinctures and magic for a full physical transformation? Or is she a "male" with a very feminine figure?

Also, apologies if my question or their wording offend anyone. I know pretty much nothing about transgender community, so I don't know what'd be the correct nouns to use and all that...

I'm just asking stuff out of curiosity and ignorance (as in: lack of knowledge) because Shardra seems like an interesting character. Also, after taking a closer look into the class, I think I really like Shamans.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Superstition should only be toned down if>

A- Save DCs didn't reach the stratosphere. By 13th level, many characters need a 15 or more to hit with their weak save, and aren't much better on their good saves, unless they are Con/Dex/Wis-based.

B- Spells didn't target touch AC. Here is the martial, investing a freaking fortune on armor and amulets of natural armor... And here is the casters, simply ignoring it as he casts nasty effects as enervation. This is much closer to invalidating/breaking mechanics than Superstition ever will be.

You can't target the Barbarian's save? Use one of your bazillion other options!

CWheezy wrote:
Marcus are you marthkus? Serious question, since another poster says similar things which are false (invalidating saving throw mechanic is demonstrably false, etc)

I'm pretty sure he is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Houserule: When casting a spell using this feat, the casting time is equal to the time required for the player to roll the dice and do the math. Electronic devices are banned, and Quicken Spell has no effect on this increased time.

I prefer mine...

Houserule: This feat doesn't exist. Nor will it exist. Ever.

1 to 50 of 1,010 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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