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

Navarion's page

269 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 269 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Gestalt Swashbuckler (Daring Infiltrator)/Inquisitor (Sanctified Slayer), Gestalt Fighter (Phalanx Soldier)/Rogue (Underground Chemist), Gestalt Slayer/Sorcerer, Gestalt Magus/Arcanist... Seriously, the ACG is amazing. :D


DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I think it's pretty good.

Thank you.

Stuticus wrote:
I'd call it Dueling style instead of Fencing. Traditionally, fencing is Rapier/Foil specific. Seems a little under powered for 3rd feat chain, even if they are fairly common feats. Other than the commonality of short swords there are far better weapons. It only really makes sense thematically. I'd consider giving and +1 dodge bonus to AC along with the, can't use shield part.

The name is noted. Before the swashbuckler it would have been pretty good with the ability to add dex to damage (especially since in my homebrew setting the rapier hasn't been invented yet). The way it is now I tried to give it some extra utility with the two damage types to compensate for finesseable longswords and battleaxes even though that probably doesn't come into play that often. But I'm a bit wary of including a whole other feat (in your proposal Dodge)...

deuxhero wrote:
Use a gladius. It's literally a short sword that can do slashing damage. It even counts as one for weapon focus ect.

A Gladius can't be used with Slashing Grace because it's a light weapon, not a one-handed one.

Alexander Augunas wrote:

If it were me, I'd rename it Graceful Precision, open the feat up so it works with any light weapon that has been selected with Weapon Finesse, and allows those weapons to count as one-handed piercing weapons for any effect that requires such a weapon, just like Slashing Grace.

But that's just me.

Fair point, but I want something to make specifically the short sword viable. For other light weapons I would make other feats.


Hm, either there are no fellow short sword enthusiasts around or the feat is too horrible to comment.


Hello, after seeing Slashing Grace in the ACG which allows swashbucklers to add dexterity to both, attack and damage rolls and longswords, and reading that they would release another feat to allow the same just for rapiers I was a little bit disappointed, since I'm a big fan of short swords and still would have to use Mythic Weapon Finesse for that. So I made a feat that hopefully brings the short sword on par. It's not only useful for swashbucklers (since unlike a longsword everybody can finesse a short sword) and to make it more appealing I gave it a small benefit against damage reductions by allowing it to deal two types of damage. As Gurney Halleck said: "The point can also cut; the blade can also stab [...]"
Feedback is welcome. Too powerful? Too weak? Just right?

Ancient Fencing Style (Combat)
Due to your mastery of the short sword your damage depends more on well-placed blows than brute strength.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (short sword).
Benefit: When wielding a short sword, you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to damage rolls and it does both, piercing and slashing damage. To use this feat, you cannot attack with a weapon in your other hand or use a shield other than a buckler.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Forgotten Realms (Before the Spellplague and before they killed Eilistraee and so many others.)
2) Planescape
3) Dragonlance
4) Spelljammer


I don't think that multi-classing with two caster classes is a good idea...


Something that has bothered me for a while and seems to fit into this thread: What if you use a light P or S weapon? Do you lose all swashbuckler benefits when you use it to inflict slashing damage?


I'm not a fan of an absolute "no". The Advanced Race Guide can be helpful to flesh out a lot of interesting character concepts (especially hybrid races). However that's what I would demand, a character concept that fits into the world (meaning the GM has to approve it in the end). If someone would come to me because he wants to make a half-elf/half-orc who was abandoned at birth and raised by wolves (Feral Child or that new brawler archetype) with bonuses to strength and dexterity I would set a race point limit, tell him to go for it and check if what he comes up with actually fits (if he tries to give his elf/orc hybrid a wisdom bonus the hammer comes down). If someone comes up with a monstrosity that has no reason for existing besides its stats he can go home.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Green Smashomancer wrote:
Not sure what swords of dubtlety are, but is the high AC you have from Rogue class features, or GP? I can't think of any besides the Offensive Defense talent, and even that isn't much. Also, how is the lay of the map during your combats? Are there a lot of small rooms where full attacks are easy to come by?

He means swords of subtlety.


Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some derail about real world religion. Let's keep this centered about Golarion and be cool to each other, please.

Wow, you didn't remove "some derail", you removed all the posts of everyone who replied to it, regardless if they had anything to do with real world religion or not.


Theodor Snuddletusk wrote:

True true.

But i will argue that to an inquisitor torture is an evil act if it does not bring a threat into justice (if that is his goal). To torture a person just for the sadistic glee is pure evil, but to torture a confecion out of a suspect a nececary evil.

I dislike the face that raw should dictate it. And i am glad my dm views it the same way.

But if than the suspect is proven to be innocent the inquisitor has a major problem.

My inquisitor is lawfull good, follows a doctrine of protecting the weak. And now all evidence point at an evil heartless noble that buy up the land and tried to create a famin to lower prices. The evidence is not rock solid, but he thinks he can find the truth with some physical motivation.

Thanks for showing exactly what is so wrong with torture. You want to use it to get confessions when you can't prove anything. Welcome to the witch hunts. You can make anyone say anything through torture. You can make anyone sign a confession that they are an archdevil in human disguise if you torture them long enough. Torturing for confessions is the exact opposite of a "necessary evil". Your inquisitor is lawful evil. Period.


Okay, so if we go with what a character actually has an inquisitor with an Inquisition should be excluded, right? Sorry I'm getting a bit confused here.


Okay, so you can only get Dex to damage with "heavy" slashing weapons and not light piercing weapons. And they fix that by making an extra feat specifically for the rapier, leaving other things like the trusty short sword in the dust?


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Am I seeing it right that inquisitors and druids are excluded from getting the Divine Protection feat?

The feat says:

Prerequisites: Cha 13, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks,
ability to cast 2nd-level divine spells; blessings†, domains,
or mystery class feature.

Clerics have the domains class feature. Inquisitors have the domain class feature. (For that it doesn't matter if the Inquisitor chooses a domain or an inquisition since the class feature remains the same and is not identical with domains.) Druids have the nature bond class feature which can grant a domain but still isn't domains.

Is everything correct or did I overlook something? (Until today I believed that Spring Attack and Vital Strike could be combined, so I'm wary now.)


Tels wrote:
Yes.

Thank you. The ancient elves in my homebrew setting fight mostly with short swords and buckler. Strange that Paizo now releases a class that is that perfect for them. :D


Okay, this question might be stupid but I just looked at the Swashbuckler for the first time (since I don't like Renaissance stuff in my sword & sorcery and one of his parent classes is gunslinger I ignored him so far), do I understand it right, that as long as he has 1 Panache point and is of the appropriate level Kip-Up, Menacing Swordplay, Precise Strike, Swashbuckler Initiative, Swashbuckler's Grace, Superior Feint, Evasive, Subtle Blade, Perfect Thrust and Swashbuckler's Edge are all passively active?O_O Meaning at level 20 he gets +20 on all damage rolls and has Evasion and Improved Uncanny Dodge all the time?


Axial wrote:
So, any updates?

Backers got a preview version last Monday and could give feedback (typos etc.) during the GenCon week. Now they are going to implement that and release the finished product.


I love Sacred Weapon. I'm using a short sword with weapon finesse, so I'm not that dependent on high strength.


HectorVivis wrote:

^ It's told in the introduction: The price is too high.

They see divine magic as a paladin see an evil healing spell: You give power to these entities that, if I well understood the background of Golarion, caused a huge mess.

The problem is not you try to heal the child, it's the fact you are a cleric. If there weren't any cleric, the gods wouldn't probably be here in the first place, so a lot of things wouldn't have happened.

By saving 1 child today, he could bring terrible loss in the future.

It's not evil. It's just a particular philosophy that believes using divine power in any mean isn't a good deed.

From what I read about Rahadoum they expelled all faiths because the land was being torn apart by religious wars. And in Pathfinder morality isn't a matter of philosophy but absolute. It can be magically detected, used to smite foes etc. If you flog a Cleric for healing a dying child you commit an evil act, and if you do it often enough your alignment will shift towards evil. And if you die you will end up on one of the not-so-nice outer planes with devils, demons or daemons who won't give a hoot about your philosophy.


ZomB wrote:
Summary of Rahadoum's approach to the divine

Well, the big problem with that is, that divine magic is neither real-world religion nor high-fructose corn syrup, it's awesome. Basically in Rahadoum if a Cleric sees how a child run over by a carriage he is forbidden to cast a healing spell, even if the child is dying. If he does it anyway he'll be "fined, flogged, shamed, deported/exiled, or imprisoned for some length of time". What is more evil than punishing good deeds?


Splendor wrote:

Reading though her history it sounds like her father ran her off because he though she was a cleric. I wish there was more on the pure legion and what they actually do and if they are ok with oracles.

Alahazra

I think there are plenty of hints that it's not just her father over-reacting. The bards seem to think that it's a big deal that the flames she produces are not arcane magic (if they were okay with druids that wouldn't be as important, also according to the campaign setting famine and plagues are among the bigger problems of Rahadoum and nature worship is a religion too.) And he actually tells her to run before the Pure Legion gets her. IMHO they are extremists who wouldn't make a difference between between any divine spellcasters.


Knee-jerk reaction upon receiving the book: I love the Sanctified Slayer, but replacing the capstone ability with a normal slayer talent (not even an advanced one) seems pretty harsh.


It has begun. 30 seconds left. :D


Still nothing, regardless how long I wait. I'm going to give it 10 minutes now....


zergtitan wrote:

I can't download for some reason, every time it says wait ten seconds, I wait and count to ten, then it just refreshes the page.

is anyone else having that problem?

Same here.-_-


1 person marked this as a favorite.
brad2411 wrote:
Mainly because a cleric still worships another deity. It is weird to me that you could worship yourself but I guess it could happen.

Well, I wouldn't consider that case to be "worshipping" yourself but just being able to power your own divine spells. Also it would be a bit boring if clerics became copies of their gods, I'd prefer it like with Tempus and the Red Knight, that you become an exarch of your god and take care of parts of his portfolio he neglects.


brad2411 wrote:

I would say a N cleric would still have to take 2 domains that his god had. You only grant access to 2 domains even if they are different ones then the ones you have from your god. How I read the cleric switching the domains is that he does not have to give access to the alignment domains but the other 2 that he has from his god.

I.E. a NG cleric of Sarenrae that has the Fire and Sun domains could choose the Good, Fire, or Sun domains for his first domain to give access to. Then he could choose any domain that he wanted to but I would limit it to Sarenraes domain and special domains that associates with that character. This is my own view on it and it could be wrong.

Since Divine Source is basically about becoming a god (and every character regardless of class can take it) that would be a pretty bad nerf for clerics. Why should a divine spellcaster who is becoming a god in his own right be worse off than a barbarian or rogue?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My knee-jerk reaction: I STILL HAVE TO WAIT THREE THRIGGIN' DAYS UNTIL I CAN DOWNLOAD IT!


Necromancer wrote:
None for the paladin class, but the Champion of the Faith (warpriest archetype) gets smite and detect evil. This isn't restricted to LG and only requires the character to share part of their alignment with one of Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law (chosen at creation). This character would also be able to grab a new feat that adds CHA to saves.

Dammit, I finally got about my smite-envy got detect any alignment through the Inquisitor and now you need that for the best thing those lawful goodies have left? :D


Insain Dragoon wrote:

My prediction that the playstyle would be highly similar to the Inquisitor seems true. As with my prediction that the Inquisitor would be better at most things.

This makes me sad, I wanted to be wrong.

Ironic that I'm planning an Inquisitor (Sanctified Slayer)/Warpriest gestalt. Best of both worlds. :D


Which means that they are neither third party (since Paizo made them) nor core (since only the Player's Handbook is "core", at least the Advanced Player's Guide refers to the PHB-classes as "core"). But they are official Paizo material.


Legowaffles wrote:

Regarding the Bolded: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/mythic/mythic-magic-items/legendary-items

Scroll all the way down, and you'll see the "Undetectable" mod. I forget exactly what was said in the discussion in question, but it was basically "How undetectable, is Undetectable?". The answer was along the lines of:

Completely, and totally, undetectable, because Mythic.

On topic I'm of the general opinion that Critical Master maximizes everything as well. As such, yes, it would tend to make Maximized Critical redundant, and even a poor option should you know you'll make it to 6th or higher tiers.

It's worth mentioning that Maximized...

Chemlak wrote:
Here's the thread.

Thanks, that seems insanely powerful. But I guess that's what Mythic is about.

Landon Winkler wrote:

My reading is that, yes, Critical Master is super awesome with sneak attack (or vital strike) and eventually makes Maximized Critical redundant.

Cheers!
Landon

Hm, I'm actually thinking about a build with Vital Strike (Mythic), Impossible Speed and Spring Attack. The only issue I have with it is that you only have one shot per round and waste it on a miss. But that's the way it was in Star Wars Saga Edition unless you spend a huge amount of feats and class abilities and the character could cast true strike...


Thanks for the replies. :-)

Onyxlion wrote:
Alright I'm going to take a stab at this. First thing is that I understand greatly your frustration with the book. As much as I love mythic tiers I feel it needs at least another revision. Okay with that out of the way on to business.

I agree, I'm a big fan of mythic (my first fantasy literature were basically Ilias, Odyssee and Aeneas) but the mythic rules could do with a few better explanations especially where the interaction of different abilities are concerned.

Onyxlion wrote:
The 1st one is a tier 3 while the 2nd is tier 6, also one specifically says it while the later doesn't so from both of those facts I would indeed say the tier 6 one is indeed total maximum unlike the 3rd tier one.

Thanks. It just seemed strange that it is so much more powerful (maximized weapon damage on critical hit vs. auto-confirm and all damage maximized on crits, even if you have to take it twice.) But since pretty much everyone I showed it to agrees. :D

Chemlak wrote:

From designer comments (specifically the Legendary Item Undetectable comment from SRM), unlike any other part of the rules, when interpreting a mythic ability, go for the more powerful interpretation.

Because mythic.

Legendary Item Undetectable? SRM? Sorry, I'm afraid you lost me there.


That's the second post I made with questions about the mythic rules that gets 0 replies. O_o


mcbraggart wrote:
Which is precisely why I am worried. Would a holy symbol tattoo work, hidden under clothes or maybe displaying another symbol while the real one is a small charm or trinket I wear or attached to my weapon?

I think there is a trait that gives you a birthmark that can be used as a holy symbol. Otherwise I would go to the GM with your concept. Depending on what he and your god think about it he might allow something special like using a fake holy symbol or one of another god that is modified so that it displays characteristics of your god that are not immediately visible. Holy symbols don't have really detailed or logical rules. For example yesterday I found a feat that allows a divine spellcaster to turn his weapon or shield into a holy symbol. I don't get what keeps me from just nailing my holy symbol to my shield.


zergtitan wrote:

*Looks up at the line under "preorder hardcover" under cover picture*

Am I missing a notice or something? Because it still says PDF available August 14th.

I guess the earlier date is for subscribers.


I searched for an answer but didn't find anything official or convincing, so here's what confuses me:

Maximized Critical (Ex): Whenever you score a critical hit, the weapon's damage result is always the maximum possible amount you could roll. This doesn't affect other dice added to the damage, such as from sneak attack or the flaming weapon special ability. For example, if you score a critical hit with a longsword (1d8/×2), treat the sword's damage dice as if you had rolled 8 both times, then add any other damage bonuses that you would normally apply to a critical hit.

That's a nice ability, especially for the new warpriest. However, Critical Master looks like this:

Critical Master (Ex): Whenever you roll a critical threat against a non-mythic creature, you automatically confirm the critical hit and deal the maximum amount of damage to that creature. This ability can be selected twice. The second time it is selected, it also applies to mythic creatures.

What is that supposed to mean? Are all dice maximized? For a rogue with sneak attack that would be insanely powerful. Is it supposed to mean weapons damage dice only? Then why doesn't it say so? Sure, you have to take it twice, but then it would make Maximized Critical completely obsolete.


Logan Bonner wrote:
We on the design team are really not looking forward to writing the remaining five volumes of the Advanced Class Guide Adventure Path. Geez, 50 more classes!

I want that! Shut up and take my money!


Hello, I'm currently thinking about a mythic build and a bit confused about a few things so I'd like to know if I understand everything correctly.

Beyond Morality (Ex): You have no alignment. You can become a member of any class, even one with an alignment requirement, and can never lose your membership because of a change in alignment. If you violate the code of ethics of any of your classes, you might still lose access to certain features of such classes, subject to GM discretion. Attempts to detect your alignment don't return any results. If a class restricts you from casting spells with an alignment descriptor, you can cast such spells without restrictions or repercussions. If you're the target of a spell or effect that is based on alignment, you're treated as the most favorable alignment when determining the spell's effect on you. Any effects that alter alignment have no effect on you. If you lose this effect, you revert to your previous alignment.

Divine Source (Su): You can grant divine spells to those who follow your cause, allowing them to select you as their deity for the purposes of determining their spells and domains. Select two domains upon taking this ability. These domains must be alignment domains matching your alignment if possible, unless your alignment is neutral. You grant access to these domains as if you were a deity. Creatures that gain spells from you don't receive any spells per day of levels higher than your tier; they lose those spell slots. In addition, you can cast spells from domains you grant as long as their level is equal to or less than your tier. Each day as a spell-like ability, you can cast one spell of each level equal to or less than your tier (selecting from those available to you from your divine source domains). If you're a cleric or you venerate a deity, you may change your spell domains to those you grant others. At 6th tier and 9th tier, you can select this ability again, adding one domain and two subdomains (see the Advanced Player's Guide) to your list each time and adding their spells to the list of those that you can cast.

1) As I understand it, if I choose Beyond Morality first I can freely pick my first two domains but don't get any associated subdomains (even though people who worship the character could still take them). If I choose Divine Source first as a chaotic good character I get the Chaos and Good domains and keep them even after choosing Beyond Morality.

2) Even though it's not explicitly stated I guess it is intended for the second and third time you take Divine Source to get a domain and the two associated subdomains.

3) Can you grant spells to yourself? Since Divine Source mentions the possibility that you can exchange your old domains for the ones you are granting others that seems to be a fair question. Also you can grant a total of 4 domains and 4 subdomains. The rule kind of sounds like you get them all in exchange for your old domains, even though it is explicitly forbidden to have both a domain and one of its subdomains. (That last part luckily doesn't concern me since it's a Warpriest/Inquisitor gestalt but I'm still curious).

4) What happens if one of your clerics (or other divine spellcasters) breaks your code of conduct? Do you know instantly? When he prays for spells the next time? Not at all until you find out?


claudekennilol wrote:

Are there any rules regarding to play a character with low mental stats (cha, wis, int)?

At what point can the GM step in and say something along the lines of "look, you've the lowest charisma (score of 8 or something) so stop being the party's spokesperson". Or "stop coming up with all of these useful ideas" (having an int of 8).

Are these valid or is it just up the player to determine how to best play their own character?

Cha and Wis are incredibly easy. You just have to let them make their Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, Sense Motive etc. checks. The player may not believe that the halfling in front of him is a hill giant who is cloaked by an illusion and could stomp him flat. But if the halfling rolled higher on Bluff (in spite of the penalties to such a blatant lie) than the player on Sense Motive his character will believe it and that's what he has to play.


While reading this thread I got a strange idea (because the same rules ruined a concept for a gestalt I had, a Tiefling paladin/sorcerer gestalt with the abyssal bloodline who uses his "Added Summonings" ability to summon demons and forces them to help him). How would it be to address those issues through the trait system by adding special dispensations that add small exceptions like "You are allowed to cast healing spells with the [evil] descriptor", "You are allowed to cast summon monster spells with the [evil] descriptor" or "You are allowed to lie" (for undercover paladins)? As long as you limit it to one and don't allow anything over the top like "You are allowed to kill innocents to prove your loyalty to cults you are infiltrating" it could work.


Only way that should have resulted in a fall was if the hit with the shovel had killed the wizard.


The White Necromancer by Kobold Press creates neutral mindless undead and intelligent undead that match his alignment (which can be any non-evil).


Blakmane wrote:
Having a paladin fall serves almost no purpose except to destroy your campaign and make your players hate you. 'Punishment' mechanics have no place in RPGs.

In that case you should just scrap the paladin and all divine classes that can lose their powers. If you play one you accept to play by the rules of the god you worship and follow the code of conduct. In that regard being a paladin, inquisitor, cleric or whatever is pretty much like a pact with a devil. If you break it there'll be hell to pay. RPG's should never be about choosing the most fun ability sets but about consequences.


redcelt32 wrote:

One thing that could help both you and him would be to have him detail the personal code of ethics for his anti-paladin. Does he have any places where he draws the line? If not, then he should...otherwise where is the spark that could lead to redemption?

For instance, does he not believe in killing children? Pregnant women? Animals? Helpless prisoners? Those who perservere and struggle to survive in adverse situations? If he is willing to spare none of these, I really don't see where his redemption is coming from. I recommend selecting one of these or something similar, then you can have the storyline bump some obligations to be evil up against these groups. This could lead to an internal conflict of the will of his evil god vs his personal code, which is really the only way I see a conversion, unless you plan of sticking a Helm of Opposite Alignment on his head :)

After reviewing everything you and he may discover it works better character-wise to have him switch from an anti-paladin to an inquisitor or warpriest who is CN/CG or LE, since these might translate easier than such a drastic conversion.

My 2 cents!

What you describe sounds more like the old (lawful evil) Paladin of Tyranny from Unearthed Arcana. The anti-paladin's code of conduct doesn't leave much room for goodness:

"An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin's code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don't interfere with his goals."

There doesn't have to be a spark in the beginning. There can be events that show him that he's on the wrong track to get whatever his reason to become evil was.

Nearyn wrote:

I am of the belief that anyone who grew up with the original trilogy, knows the slightest bit about storytelling or cinematography, or simply has a working gag-reflex, found Star Wars Episode III very painful.

-Nearyn

True.


Nearyn wrote:
Every time, and I mean EVERY.SINGLE.TIME I've seen or played in a story where a paladin falls, and the next thing he does is become an anti-paladin I've done nothing but facepalm and groan in disbelief. So I'd advice you use the 3-step program I call Paladin->Fighter->Anti-Paladin... or in your case: the other way around.

Star Wars Episode III must have been very painful for you.

It's a shame that Pathfinder doesn't have an updated holy liberator class, switching to the opposite alignment bothers me. In my opinion the first thing you should do is get the motivation of the anti-paladin. You have to know why he chose to be evil to tempt him away from it. Lust for power? Forced into the role like a Mord Sith? Did he go "let the world burn" after he was betrayed? Each would need other ways of convincing him that good is the better choice.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I just think "good cop/bad cop" and "tie a guy to a chair and leave him somewhere for a while" are things that a neutral character should be able to get away with.

I mean, I've had good parties abduct people and leave them locked in rooms, or tied to furniture for periods of time to prevent them from malfeasance because it was a humane alternative to "killing them."

Imprisonment depends on length and condition. If someone bound to a chair has to be afraid that you just left him there and no one will ever find him, or he's forced to soil himself because he can't go to the toilet you have crossed the line. However, you should remember that you usually don't switch alignment for a single act. Neutral characters can get away with the occasional evil act, if it stays occasional and they also do good deeds.


Beheading someone who tries to surrender is definitely an evil act that would make a Paladin fall like a sack of rice.
The other situation you described depends a lot on the understanding of the alignment rules and the code of the paladin. I'm opposed to forcing a paladin to throw his life away, and generally I don't think that inaction can be an act (good or bad). If he really has no chance to make a difference except of ending up as an additional corpse I would allow it. However I would fully expect him to follow the "punish those who harm or threaten innocents"-part of his code. Meaning he'd have to either beat the oracle to death or to an oath to do penance on the next occasion and make sure that the Grey Maidens get what they deserve.


thejeff wrote:
That it was inspired by Les Mis doesn't mean it was meant to be exactly Les Mis. Les Mis may have led to "We should do revolutionary France", which led to Galt.

Les Miserables would be more postrevolution as far as I can tell, but maybe it was the the reason for including something France-like and then someone thought that the revolution would be more interesting.

prosfilaes wrote:
You changed two important details; instead of (white) humans, hobbits, elves and dwarves, you now have Nubians. And instead of orcs who could walk around the real world on Halloween or at a con no problem, you have giants who are distinctly inhuman.

You only asked for the good races to be dark-skinned. The only good race in my idea are black humans. You asked for the villains to be pale-skinned, that's also satisfied (and I wouldn't have a problem with Transylvanian vampires, Viking plunderers or whatever either). Tolkien originally wanted to create myths for England, so obviously people in Middle Earth looked like Englishmen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That would be an instant buy for me. The whole lack of templates (and especially half-dragons) made me abandon D&D 4E, and a few days ago I looked at Darken by Kate Ashwin again and really started missing the good old dragon/humanoid hybrids. The advanced race guide wasn't much help unfortunately.

1 to 50 of 269 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 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.