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

LoreKeeper's page

Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 2013 Dedicated Voter, 2014 Star Voter. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 3,921 posts (8,652 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Pathfinder Society characters. 20 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,921 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Other than having a +3 weapon, there are also oils and the like to temporarily apply to a weapon to allow it to bypass specific DRs; so a cold-iron weapon with silver-oil would bypass both.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't like the changes to prone and disarm; the two conditions are some of the few meaningful conditions that a martial can impose on another character - nerfing that is nerfing martials in my opinion.

Provoking an AOO on maneuvers is a tool for me (to force out AOOs to enable other actions and making things safer for the other PCs).

I do like less damage and more dancing bit.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
LoreKeeper wrote:

Somebody mentioned "poisoner". Now given OP's example of a psion, there is no reason why a player cannot play a sorcerer, call it a poisoner, focus on appropriate spells (sleep, daze monster, etc), only applies spells via touch, and calls the spells appropriate poison names. "Narcotic poison" (sleep), "muscle relaxing toxin" (daze monster).

In other words, any "cannot be done" is really saying "cannot be done this way", or "cannot be done and still be as good as the minmaxed synthesist", or even "cannot be done in PFS".

Except for the part where he's actually casting spells and has to follow all those rules. Uses per day. Can be dispelled. Doesn't work in anti-magic. Anyone with a spellcraft roll knows they're really spells. Has to chant & wave his arms.

So?

You can make poison via magic, why shouldn't the poisoner follow the normal spell-based rules?

If the request is to make a mundane poison user, then sure, it doesn't work so well. But really the call was for a "poisoner". If you're willing to suspend disbelief a bit then you realize that the "chanting" is recalling the poison recipe and the waving of arms is mixing the ingredients (and of course the spell component pouch is the poison reagents pouch). AND what's more, when an enemy caster uses dispel to stop a poison, he really is just disrupting the delicate balance of ingredients. Anti-magic field? Obviously a zone in which ordinary laws of physics don't apply - your reagents don't react properly anymore.

Really, the more you think about it and get into it, the more reasonable the idea is.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Solidchaos085 wrote:

Someone already said knight riding a dragon, but I'll add to that.

Assuming no 3pp, you cannot get a proper dragon as an animal companion, and I mean the full deal (breath weapon that scales to character level, flight WITH the character riding (stupid monstrous mount), and a reasonable growth for said dragon that DOESNT render it useless in endgame dungeons)

Whoa slow down here. The request was for a knight riding a dragon. Not for a dragon animal companion. Provided the GM exposes the party to NPC dragons and a knight(fighter, cavalier, whatever) befriends said dragon and the dragon let's him ride on top. No issue.

...

Somebody mentioned "poisoner". Now given OP's example of a psion, there is no reason why a player cannot play a sorcerer, call it a poisoner, focus on appropriate spells (sleep, daze monster, etc), only applies spells via touch, and calls the spells appropriate poison names. "Narcotic poison" (sleep), "muscle relaxing toxin" (daze monster).

In other words, any "cannot be done" is really saying "cannot be done this way", or "cannot be done and still be as good as the minmaxed synthesist", or even "cannot be done in PFS".


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think the best addition is the ki-for-attack in all situations. The way I read it it allows the monk to not spend a round attacking, but still spend ki to get an attack. So he could take out a potion, drink it, and still trip somebody, all in the same turn.

The problem of course comes in conjunction with multi-classing; this could allow combat-orientated casters to cast and attack for example.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A pleasant read. It's good to see the monk perform on expectations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Serisan wrote:
Fearspect wrote:


Novack: I don't see why an Exploiter Wizard couldn't get the Extra Arcanist Exploit feat. Could you explain that?

I can jump on that one. Extra Arcanist's Exploit requires the Arcanist's Exploit class feature as a prerequisite. Exploiters get Exploiter's Exploit instead.

Quite honestly, that's about the only thing that keeps the Exploiter from being flat-out perfect.

Paizo has stated previously that "duck typing" generally applies to their published material (if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck). For example the sensei (monk archetype) "advice" ability and evangelist (cleric archetype) "sermonic performance" both allow you to qualify for Extra Performance and Lingering Performance feats even though only "sermonic performance" spells out that it interacts with feats.

I see no reason why this wouldn't apply to Exploiter's Exploit too.


Felos impromptu gains the Undersized Mount feat.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I suspect you are using a very non-standard way of point-buy. It sounds like you pretty much pay 1 point for +1 to 1 stat. Normal point-buy in Pathfinder limits the stats that cannot be increased beyond 18, and that costs 17 points.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Somebody that believes they are (a) god would probably behave in a manner appropriate to their alignment and ideals. Look to actual ascended humans for example: Irori, Iomedae, Norgorber, Cayden Cailean.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
LoreKeeper wrote:

I'd like to point out that full-BAB on the monk unleashed is nice and all, but *I* don't feel particularly strongly for it. Instead I'd like to see a big (big, BIG) list of monk talents to take every even level, akin to rogue talents and rage powers.

Who said you can't have both full BAB and customized talents?

Oh certainly, why not? What I'm trying to say is that I think that monk talents are more important than full BAB. Full BAB is just something relevant to martials in general, but monk talents could be something that define the monk class in general (and characters in specific).

Pretty much every Player Companion that gets published now has a smattering of new rogue talents, special bardic masterpieces, alchemical insights, and so forth. But only once in a long while something for monks crops up (off-hand I can only think of meditation feats; and those are really for everybody - the monk merely has a slightly easier time accessing them). As a monk player I'm pretty much always jealous of (most) other classes when I read through a Player Companion.

Monk talents, are essentially what the qinggong archetype tries to retro-fit onto the existing monk chassis. Given the constraints it manages quite well - but written into the class from the ground up it would be far more relevant.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd like to point out that full-BAB on the monk unleashed is nice and all, but *I* don't feel particularly strongly for it. Instead I'd like to see a big (big, BIG) list of monk talents to take every even level, akin to rogue talents and rage powers.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
christos gurd wrote:
Pummling lets you flurry as a single attack.

Yes and no. You still have to roll all attacks and damages independently; only the first attack and damage roll would benefit from the wraps (assuming you allocate the bonus to the first attack).

Likewise you cannot use Furious Focus to "ignore" all Power Attack penalties while doing a Pummeling Strike.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No, the Paizo team (by the last ruling that I know of) have declared that using a two-handed weapon makes all off-hand attacks nonviable; even if you have a third arm or are using a non-off-hand attack like a knee to the groin.

There *is* at least one item that allows you to TWF a two-hander with an off-hand attack though. The Cheliax Player Companion (I think) added a helmet with a chin spike (a devil beard or some such) that can be used for TWF along with a two-handed weapon.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Conversely, if you *do* follow the monk's flurry rules (as opposed to actual two-weapon fighting), you have no problem. As long as you can flurry your two-handed weapon (i.e. it is a monk weapon) then you can mix it with attacks with other monk weapons and unarmed strikes in any way you want.

If you can flurry a two-handed weapon via other means (such as archetypes or special magic items that say you can) then it works too. (I recall there is some katana that can be flurried - it's just very expensive.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@Globetrotter:

I think what you really need is to introduce your players to the concepts of disarm, sunder and steal. Very easy to do counters to an everburning torch.


Just as an errant thought: if (most of) the party dies, we can also consider one of the recent APs: mummy's mask, iron gods, or if we look at the "older new" APs also wrath of the righteous. I don't know how others feel about it, but the fantasy steampunk vibe of Iron Gods has me curious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Depending on how the Pummeling Style works out (can it be used with (all) weapons?) here's something neat:

The inspired strike deed of the Swashbuckler (inspired blade archetype), in conjunction with Pummeling Style. Upgrade one of your hits to a crit - then have Pummeling Style count all your hits as a crit.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Has anybody pointed out the interaction between inspired strike Swashbuckler (inspired blade archetype) and Pummeling Style? Spend panache to force a hit into a crit; apply it to all successful attacks via Pummeling Style.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Counterpunch is a pretty cool new high-level feat in the Advanced Class Guide. What I find bothersome is that monks are excluded from qualifying for it. The prerequisites are: Dex 18, Combat Ref lexes, Improved Unarmed Strike, Weapon Focus (unarmed strike); base attack bonus +16 or brawler level 12th.

Since a monk caps at +15 base attack bonus, and isn't a brawler, the feat is simply not available for a monk. I find that a bit odd and assume it is not intended. Any thoughts?

(The ACG has loads of great options for monks and other classes, I just find it odd that this particular one is not included.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Honestly this "sexist" thing is nonsense in this case (in my opinion). Except to imply that it is sexist that guys don't also have the opportunity to enter the contest.

What I believe is the problem here, is that the author of the article thinks this is all about having the most attractive girls have a shot at buying the new phone. (Which would be sexy-ist thing, not a sexist thing.) But it isn't really about the sexy-girl-gets-the-phone: yes an attractive girl has better odds all other things being equal - but really, this is an opportunity to skew odds in your favor in a myriad of ways. The photo can be clever, funny, the location can be exotic, or weird, or dangerous, the logo design can be creative, original, artistic, or done with plants, there's any number of ways in which a positive and healthy representation can be made.

Instead of seeing opportunity there are complaints.

Anybody that thinks they will develop self-esteem issues because they didn't get votes on a contest to be eligible to get a phone... well... perhaps re-evaluating their priorities in life may be a step forward. But it's all part of the system! The patriarchy! It's all just one more example! Well, rubbish. The patriarchy is defeated in all ways that matter; mopping up the extras is just a matter of time as the old guard dies out. What is left, what is the root of problems for everybody, is an egotistical kleingeist. A self-centered, self-serving me-me-me society. Everything should be easy. Everything should be free.

Guys. Girls. Get over yourselves. We should serve to make the world a better place. Not to make the world a better place for us.


Gooo Untari! :D


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Veldrin Shadowbane wrote:
Nothing wrote:
Sure, with quickdraw you can draw your katana as a free action, then attack with it as a standard action, and finally sheath it again as a move action. Repeat every round to look as badass as desired.
Can I full attack while sheathing/unsheathing if I don't take a 5 foot step?

The sheathing is a move action; Quickdraw won't let you put it back fast again (though in theory you could have 5 swords and drop a sword (as a free action) at the end of every round.

If you skip the sheating, then yes, you can full attack. You can even take a 5-foot step at any point during the full round attack (if memory serves me right).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There's also a samurai archetype that helps a little with this, the sword saint, here's a link

Possibly consider the feat Wave Strike


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd not so much remove a class, but I would make the master of many styles (MoMS) archetype unavailable for multi-class characters. Seriously, that level dip really riles me up the wrong way.

Alternatively, I'd fix the archetype to not be such an attractive dipping class.


I think the trick is to play non-casters. Whew! Problem pushed away to the GM ;)


What? The initiative order is forever long; Mahjik only got another action just now. He'll be able to focus on the deeper darkness ahead of him soon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

See Lefty X, martials don't really have a problem dealing damage. That isn't where they take second place to casters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

heh. hehehe. bahahahahahaa!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just a moment's food for thought: all and any re-imagining of the rogue class (and classes in general) should try to not solve all the problems of the class. Building a level of weakness into the class (and perhaps compensating for it elsewhere in the class) helps to diversify the class.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

+1 to Haladir

There are plenty of classes, even PFS-legal ones, that fit the bill of sacred warrior for any given faith or philosophy. If your true gripe is that those classes don't get to bypass DR and add Cha to saves, well that is a silly reason.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
Yes, nerfing martial characters, just what the game needs. [/sarc]

I only play martial characters (and only melee ones at that, no sucky ranged ones). I just don't like Power Attack.

I'm all for buffing martials, but Power Attack is not what I want. It's boring, it's powerful in wrong ways, it makes encounters less interesting.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
christos gurd wrote:
There going to be any feat rewrites?

This is a biggie, I think. Some feats really shouldn't do what they do. Power Attack is a good example. It is statistically sound with respect to how much damage scaling happens - but it isn't balanced that well in practice. PCs are hitting for 1d8+42. "Tough" monsters evaporate in one round.

The thing is, although it should balance out: the party has too many ways to buff to-hit to the point where a miss (even with Power Attack penalty) is very unlikely - but the damage output is exceedingly high. Not to mention incidentally side-effects, such as significantly reducing the value of DR on many creatures that rely on it as their primary means for defense. CR 8 fighting-type monsters can have attacks that deal 1d6+3 damage; and the PCs that encounter them do 1d6+15.

Increase the penalty, reduce the damage, limit the scaling, add additional negative riders (AC penalty, limited use, limited per-round-use, Standard Action use, 1 round fatigue, not-multiplied-on-crits, etc).

The bottom-line is that the feat is too good; I'm willing to say "fun-diminishing", particularly for something that PCs pick up at level 1.

What I would suggest:

Power Attack
Benefit: You can choose to take a –2 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a bonus on all melee damage rolls equal to your Constitution modifier. This bonus damage is halved if the attack is made with a weapon wielded in one hand.


  • benefits traditional martial "tough guys", especially barbarians(!)
  • significant but not over-powering bonus
  • scales benignly


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A suggestion: instead of having 40 point buy, start with 20 point buy - but at levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 do not give a static +1 to a stat. Instead give +3, +4, +5, +6, +7 additional point buy. (Players can save points if they want, even from level 1 onwards.)

The +3 at level 4 is not enough for a SAD player to push his primary stat to 19 or 20, but it is enough for a MAD player to push a 13 to 14 as well as an 11 to 12. (Since it is additional point buy, you do not have to apply the extra points to the same stat.)

Note that the point buy still applies on the values without racials, so a 18 (16 + 2 racial) can be pushed to 19 (17 + 2) at 4th level with +3 point buy.


Happy birthday!

Don't for a minute believe that thing those Blink182 people say ;)


We fiiiine :D

Goblin Squad Member

Monk.

That said, I feel GW need to prioritize the class diversification and implementation above other content. I think everybody deserves to be able to play the game with the character they have in their head. Rather than choosing 1 of the 3 initial classes and fight against an ever expanding list of different enemies.


Welcome back to the land of the living ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Cool :) welcome aboard.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd seriously consider taking Sprain Ogre's suggestions to heart.

A bunch of "good" PCs that let that happen are not good, they are looking to ride on the easy coattails of being celebrated heroes. Not suffer through moral quandaries or make hard decisions.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think a lot of this discussion is hogwash. "Hypersexualized" is a term that should be used to actual hypersexualized content. Attractive presentation is not hypersexualized presentation, no matter how much you want to point out all the girl images cleavage and model-like proportions. Hyperbole does not make the argument more sound (and xeose4 makes appropriate commentary and apology to that effect earlier in the thread).

There's 2 important distinctions in perceptions here that should be highlighted:


  • Fan service for males: the impression the discussion here gives is that every single female image is serving the (straight) male libido. The root of this premise is that the female images have breasts (a primary female sexual characteristic and thus unavoidable) and show skin. The fallacy here is that those 2 qualities make for sexy females. The truth: they do not. The vast(!) majority of female images are attractive, but also the vast majority of female images aren't sexy. And often the actually sexy images do not show skin or cleavage.

  • Fan service for females: the impression is that there's rarely much of interest for girl gamers (or for that matter gay guy gamers). On actual enquiry about specific examples of what are otherwise attractive male images: eyes are wrong, smile is wrong, wields an unattractive weapon, is described as unfriendly, doesn't follow acceptable deity, is evil-aligned, wouldn't want a long-term relationship, has a missing tooth, is sickly, is too old, is more-like-a-father, is part of the underground, is poor/unclean, etc. The truth: the majority of male images is attractive.

The bottom line here is that for females there is a large disparity of what constitutes attractive for the individual girl. Sample discussion from existing art has different girl gamers highlight entirely different samples and aren't interested in the other images. Tastes differ after all. But 90% of female image samples are "sexy" because they "got boobs". Well: 90% of female images are "not sexy" to me.

Is the base assumption here that "sexy" for guys is an image for a female that they'd have an imaginary one-night-stand with; while "sexy" for females is an image for a guy that they'd have as an imaginary husband?

...

Since the discussion started on Wrath of the Righteous, I decided to page through The Midnight Isles and give my sexy rating of the character art:

Potential WoR spoiler:

Ash giant thug (male, not sexy)
Mutasafen (male, sexy)
Yaniel (female, "handsome", not sexy; perhaps sexy to a lesbian)
Ursathella (female, average, sexy? to taste)
Nezirrius (n/a)
Gelderfang (male, ruggedly handsome, sexy? to taste)
Vellexia (female, sexy)
Nocticula (portrait only)
Kestoglyr Mantiel (male, not sexy)
Fulsome queen (female, not sexy)
Melaxmera (n/a)
Abyssal harvester (n/a)
Half-fiend mythic minotaur (male, sexy? to taste)
Galfrey (female, not sexy; gender invariant art)
Hepzamirah (female, sexy? to taste)
Minagho (female, sexy)
Shamira (female, sexy? to taste)
Cambion (male, sexy)
Nocticalu (female, sexy)

Note Vellexia as an example of a sexy female without the need to show breasts or excessive skin. I've given a couple of females that I'd personally classify as unsexy (Ursathella, Hepzamirah, Shamira) the benefit of the doubt and made them sexy "to taste".

Male sexy count: 2
Male sexy to taste count: 2
Male unsexy: 2

Female sexy count: 3
Female sexy to taste count: 3
Female unsexy: 3

In my opinion: a bit of an edge in favor of the male gamer, but adequate presentation for both genders. Given the male-dominated clientele, this is acceptable.

...now I grant that any number of female gamers won't classify the males that >I< classified as "sexy" as sexy themselves. But that doesn't change the fact that they're presented visually as sexualized as any of the sexualized female images.

Just because you don't like chocolate raisins doesn't mean its not a sweet.

...

Finally: xeose4 also points out that for him (though not for the discussion in general in this thread) the emphasis is on equal opportunity of game content. This is an argument that I can get behind to a certain extent; but by and large Paizo has handled sexuality reasonably well.

When designing an AP, the authors (by necessity) take certain baselines into consideration and work from there. The party consists of 4 PCs with a spread of 1 front-line, 1 divine, 1 arcane and 1 misc. The party is not min-maxed. Players "buy in" to the story and don't actively derail it. And as a quiet assumption: the players are male. The story is presented to (in general) appeal to the male.

What is the common thread to go from designed AP to reality? The GM. The GM needs to handle that his/her 7 players are all paladins. The GM has to engineer a return-to-plot after 2 PCs decide to petition the queen in Kyonin instead of saving the Worldwound. The GM also has to re-imagine a female love interest into a male love interest for his/her female gamer. On the whole going from a female love interest to a male love interest is - on average across all campaigns - less work than to design the love interest as male in the first place and converting to female as needed. Of course, that doesn't mean that all romantic options should be designed as female upfront. And here Paizo can perhaps improve the odds a bit for female gamers.

In my opinion, a bit of a shoot-your-own foot is happening here sometimes: as often a suitable position in the AP for a male romantic option is taken by a female, not to have a female romantic option available - but to have a powerful female in a position of prominence or authority. I.e. sometimes fighting gender inequity on a professional level can create gender inequity on a social/romantic level.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This depends heavily what you play. Certain seasons of Pathfinder Society are very friendly to non-optimized builds.

Bards are, almost by definition, great all-rounders.

Given my love of, and the challenge in optimizing, monks: they can be great "non-optimized" characters. Good insight and good defenses mean that they can stick around long enough in all events to do their non-optimized things.

A themed spellcaster that purposefully picks all his/her spells to be not (directly) combat orientated. An illusionist is an easy example, but you could also go with a plant theme, or a architect caster who focuses all his spells on building things.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Another way of looking at it: a cleric may well feel that an anti-magic zone disrupts the connection with their deity. Especially if (s)he is not aware she's in an anti-magic zone; but even if she does know.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've got a couple of disrelated issues with regards to the topic, I'll go through them separately:

1. I like the discussion (and expect its fruit to show in upcoming Paizo products). But I would like to point out something that bugs me with SRS assertions:

SRS, opening post wrote:
Male beauty and female beauty are not really on the same continuum. Masculine women are not the most beautiful possibility of masculinity, at least if you're a gay male like I am.

I can appreciate that sentiment, but I find that pretty much all examples of beautiful men linked by SRS later on can be described as feminine looking guys; certainly all the ones labelled as "cute". Naturally it is possible to split hairs on this, but is that really far from the truth? For the art team it would be a lottery system to find an appropriately cute looking guy that has the right amount of gruff and the right amount of fluff.

(By the way: what is wrong with Nethys, visually speaking, in this regard? From the description and visualization I kept thinking he would be a shoo-in. Or is he okay visually but the sporadic madness is a problem?)

2. I think the spread for male eye-candy can - and should - be improved. There is definitely a lack of guys that look nice, while at the same time appearing desirable enough for the sack, or reliable enough to be marriage material. Or at least not averse to going out to dinner with.

3. But, I would like to point out that the abundance of sexualized female imagery is not really all that. Don't misunderstand - there is lots of it. But there is only a (very) small handful that actually hits the "sexy" strike zone. The kind that makes me nudge a buddy and go "dude! check this out!". (Almost invariably those reactions are reserved for awesome action scenes in Paizo products, for me.)


Treat yourself to your favorite dish :)


Best of luck!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That is some very sexy artwork right there.


For now at least. Maybe by level 3 its all high seas and fog.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Allowing a player to pretend that a weapon is not a weapon so that he can abuse the improvised weapon rule to find the closest weapon to a spear and come up with something that is not a spear makes a mockery of the rules for improvised weapons, reach weapons, double weapons, DR/bludgeoning/piercing/slashing, several feats including Versatile Weapon and Catch Off Guard, and several abilities including Spinning Lance, Pole Master and Monk of the Empty Hand.

Not at all. If a player wants to use a spear in reverse (kinda like a quarterstaff), then that is great. 1d6, bludgeoning, -4 to attack. Good to go. He cannot improvise a quarterstaff into a spear (assuming a normal quarterstaff), as there is no pointy end to a (normal) quarterstaff.

Trying to use a long spear as an improvised long quarterstaff (i.e. with reach) may be subject to GM's approval. Personally I wouldn't allow it.

No mockery is being made. A -4 penalty to attack, and the inability to make a quarterstaff to slashing damage (for lack of cutting edge), is the most sensible (i.e. conforming to real life) and most inclusive ruling. "Inclusive ruling" in this case is meant to be a rule that allows the greatest number of players to have fun.

"Inclusive rulings" are, I think, the best way to decide between competing rule interpretations: more characters have more options - and that leads to a richer story. In the same way that all characters can attempt to trip and disarm; they might not be good at it, they might get hit in the face for trying - but they can try. Likewise every character can bludgeon with a spear or longsword. They might not be good at it - but they can try.

The other options?


  • Catch Off Guard: no -4 penalty (cannot make quarterstaff slash)
  • Weapon Versatility: no -4 penalty and can make a quarterstaff slash
  • Spinning Lance, Pole Master, Monk of the Empty Hand: no -4 penalty, specific benefits (e.g. empty hand can slash with a quarterstaff)

There are plenty of reasons to specialize; and plenty of benefit for such specialists. However, to limit the use to *just* those specialists is contrary to real-life expectations: everybody can try.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My GM initially had me take a -4 penalty on attacks when using weapons as improvised weapons on the grounds that the archetype doesn't explicitly grant Catch Off Guard (which would negate the -4 penalty for improvised weapons). We consulted the Paizo staff on it (probably somewhere in Ask James Jacobs Anything), and they stated that Catch Off Guard and Throw Anything are implicitly granted to the monk of the empty hand - there is after all no point to an archetype that takes -4 penalty to fighting all the time. The inference here is that Catch Off Guard applies to improvised fighting with weapons.

I think you need to reconsider "improvised weapons" not being weapons. You are insistent that it is a definition thing, but then you're not looking at the complete list of definitions. Everything can be an improvised weapon.


  • The manufacture of an object to be used for the purpose of hitting someone makes that object a weapon.
  • The non-standard use of an object to hit someone makes that object an improvised weapon.

These are not mutually exclusive; they can readily overlap.

You base your reading of the rules text: "Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat—commonly bottles, chair legs, stray femurs, and that sort of thing". From just that it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that you have. On the other hand, I claim that the list of examples is incomplete; it could readily include "haft of an axe" without becoming inconsistent - however it would change your reading of the rules significantly.

Consider a bowstring. It certainly is designed to be a weapon (not an improvised weapon). In a bind somebody could use it as a garotte. But doing so is nowhere even close to the realm of intended use of the string; it's an improvised use.

1 to 50 of 3,921 << 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.