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

Odraude's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 5,823 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,823 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Jiggy wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Because ghosts and spirits and incorporeality are inherently magic creatures.

So magic can only be engaged by more magic? This is good for a game in which a PC can choose to be nonmagical but will inevitably face magical foes?

Quote:
Creatures of the Ethereal realm that can only be damaged greatly by magic (and even then, by half) and channeling positive energy.

Why do we have to keep the idea that they can only be damaged by magic? Why is that part of the definition of being incorporeal?

Quote:
It feels like something that to me, shouldn't be overcome with skill alone.

Then why do we still have classes that rely on skill alone if skill alone isn't enough to overcome what they face?

Quote:
I stand corrected, those are good points. Though for SR, I honestly just assumed that the creature was just immune.

A creature immune to magic is still affected by non-SR spells. "Immune to magic", in Pathfinder, means "immune to spells that allow SR".

Quote:
As for that 2,000, a fighter isn't buying a magic weapon just to deal with incorporeals. He's buying a magic weapon to fight things better. A fighter will always be buying that +1 magic weapon. The fact that it helps with incorporeal creatures is a bonus to it. And there are other methods to dealing with ghosts and undead beyond magic weapons. Such as holy water.
He's still depending on magic to do more than 2d4 points of damage even at 20th level. Also, see my last post.

1. I'll admit it's a preference thing, but yes, I feel that magic should defeat magic most of the time. It's something you see in fantasy media and it's really not that far-fetched. A player can still fight magic with magic weapons or items or blessing to defeat magical creatures.

2. That's usually the standard in fantasy literature. Ghosts, shades, and such can't be hit without some form of spiritual item.

3. Because those magical creatures can still be overcome with preparation. Bringing silver or cold iron or holy water. In fantasy, it's not often you see a supernatural hunter come in without the right materials and research. Salt, holy water, a crucifix... it's all staples of fantasy literature.

4. Yes, like I said, I made a mistake about spell immunity. So sue me.

5. Again, I don't have an issue with relying on magic to fight magic. I saw your last post and it feels less like an actual example of gameplay and more just an example of a GM wanted to screw over a player. And before you say it, yes, I understand that removing the fighter's magic items is much easier to do than sticking a wizard in an anti-magic zone.

That said, I feel we can compromise about this issue. I'll be honest, an ability to overcome incorporeal would certain help the fighter, even if it doesn't quite match my personal preference. Maybe the fluff is calling for a blessing from the gods, or, like the monk, channelling chakra/ki/prana/some other mystical, but inner spirit energy. I could dig that, and it'd give the fighter the boost for using a "magic weapon" without "magic". That seems like a good fit, no?


LazarX wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Tels wrote:
I regret asking that question now...
Honestly, I didn't want to bring it up. But LazarX is misreading xavier and making him out to be the bad guy, and I don't like that.

All I did was hold up a mirror and interpret pretty much what he said. Jacobs said that he'd like to see ALL superheros gender bent, and what he took that to mean the marginalization of the male heroes.

If you take that as Xavier being a bad guy, that's your lookout, not mine. I see it as nothing more than a typical male reaction. As to what that says about men in general, that's for others to decide. What I've said about the treatment of female characters in superhero comics, I stand by.

Except you missed the part where JJ said that male superheroes would be relegated to sidekick and marginalized status. Go back and read the quote. There was no assuming that the male superheroes would be marginalized. He literally wrote it. If it was just "superheroes can swap genders" then yeah, xavier would be making a false assumption about it. But there was no false assumption. It's there, in bold for you, that the male superheroes would be marginalized.


Tels wrote:

I don't know, harming ghosts shouldn't be a 'magic only' idea. Especially with the idea that 'pure iron' was used to ward off spirits in old times. Or things like blocking the entrance with a line of salt stops them from crossing the barrier etc.

It would be a nice addition to Cold Iron if it also allowed characters to damage incorporeal creatures without required magic to do so.

Thing is, with cold iron, that was inherently a magical material. Many of those materials had spiritual properties of purification inherent to them. And you see that in Pathfinder with holy water.

Though I agree, that seeing more of that with salt and cold iron and other items would be really cool.

Jiggy wrote:
Odraude wrote:
every explaination I can think of that allows him to cut through ghost is magical in nature. Whether it's praying spirits to aid him or even just being really good at cutting ghosts.
What makes "just being really good at cutting ghosts" inherently magical in nature? That description doesn't sound magical at all to me. Sounds like a description of skill. Where's the requirement for magic coming from?

Because ghosts and spirits and incorporeality are inherently magic creatures. Creatures of the Ethereal realm that can only be damaged greatly by magic (and even then, by half) and channeling positive energy. It feels like something that to me, shouldn't be overcome with skill alone. I mean, maybe if it was an invoking of spirits to aid him or something, but that's still magic in nature. Sorry I don't agree.

Jiggy wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Wolfgang Rolf wrote:
I honestly would not mind if the fighter couldn't cut a ghost or shadow, to balance things the GM should introduce monsters that are immune to magic.

Because it's a false equivalence. A fighter can, with magical items, defeat a shadow. Even with doing half damage, a fighter can still put the hurting on an incorporeal creature. So even though it's an immunity, it's one that can be over come without a wizard, since you can buy the magic item yourself or make it yourself with Master Craftsman.

How would you have a mage overcome something that is immune to magic?

Maybe in the gazillion ways they already do? Non-SR spells, summons, just teleport to another continent and not deal with it...

EDIT: And I'd point out that the spellcaster doesn't need to spend 2,000+ gp (or 50gp and the first round of combat to get ready) to do any of this like a fighter does to deal with incorporeals.

I stand corrected, those are good points. Though for SR, I honestly just assumed that the creature was just immune.

As for that 2,000, a fighter isn't buying a magic weapon just to deal with incorporeals. He's buying a magic weapon to fight things better. A fighter will always be buying that +1 magic weapon. The fact that it helps with incorporeal creatures is a bonus to it. And there are other methods to dealing with ghosts and undead beyond magic weapons. Such as holy water.

But that's also why I think the fighter could use ways to make buying and crafting items cheaper. To lessen the burden of magic item dependence

Also, having done it, the magical oil is a minor inconvenience, if that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
I regret asking that question now...

Honestly, I didn't want to bring it up. But LazarX is misreading xavier and making him out to be the bad guy, and I don't like that.


Wolfgang Rolf wrote:
I honestly would not mind if the fighter couldn't cut a ghost or shadow, to balance things the GM should introduce monsters that are immune to magic.

Because it's a false equivalence. A fighter can, with magical items, defeat a shadow. Even with doing half damage, a fighter can still put the hurting on an incorporeal creature. So even though it's an immunity, it's one that can be over come without a wizard, since you can buy the magic item yourself or make it yourself with Master Craftsman.

How would you have a mage overcome something that is immune to magic?


Tels wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Odraude wrote:

I don't know. One staple I like from fantasy media is the use of magic items by mundane people to take down creatures. It is something I'd like to keep in Pathfinder. It rewards preparation. Kinda like how Batman can still roll with the Justice League for high powered threats and still use gadgets and cunning to fight them.

Course, fighters need the boost in cunning and manuevers. Not disagreeing with that. I'm just not really keen on adding magic to the fighter.

Usually, as the trope goes, the relationship between the wielder of the legendary magic item and the monster he uses it to defeat is not comparable the relationship between a 20th-level fighter and a CR3 monster.

Also, though I admit I'm not a comic afficionado, it's my understanding that Batman's "gadget budget" is waaaaaay more than that of the supers he's competing with. That's WHY it's a valid edge. But in Pathfinder, everyone has the same budget; it's the equivalent of if everyone in the Justice League got to have all of Batman's toys in addition to their innate superpowers. If you want that comparison to be valid, start having fighters and wizards get vastly different WBL in your games.

Finally, I wasn't aware that anyone was talking about "adding magic to the fighter". I know I certainly wasn't.

To be fair, how else are you going to take down a shadow without magic? A fighter being able to cut ghosts is in itself a magical ability, whether it's a spell, SLA, or supernatural ability. :)

One thing I didn't get a chance to type (was rushing to the bank) was that since the fighter is dependent on magic items, it would be good to have talents/feats/class abilities that lessen the burden. Two I had in mind were:

Quartermaster: Through haggling and thrifty spending, the fighter is good at getting deals for items. The fighter only has to spend XX% of the buying price when purchasing mundane or magic items.

Master

...

And to be honest, I don't like that. But it's too late to change that now.

Jiggy wrote:
Odraude wrote:
A fighter being able to cut ghosts is in itself a magical ability
Why?

Because honestly, every explaination I can think of that allows him to cut through ghost is magical in nature. Whether it's praying spirits to aid him or even just being really good at cutting ghosts.

I like the style of Charles Atlas powers for fighters. Crazy maneuvers, like leaping bounds and catching bullets and cutting bullets mid shot. But I honestly can't think of an extraordinary means for cutting ghosts besides a magic item or weird science gizmo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
xavier c wrote:
I did not say anything about Feminism. james said he would like to see all of the male superheroes be marginalized and to me that is not gender equality

Interesting valuation. James said that he'd like to see all superheroes gender bent, and to you it meant margainalising the males by turning them into women. I guess in your eyes for the women, it'd be a tradeup.

And you'd be right. Female superheros have had it rough. they're typically hostage bait, or pitted against silly opponents until recently. hardly anyone sees them as anything other than objects of tititilation. In other words, hardly characters to be taken seriously.

The fact that this question comes up shows how far we have to go.

Actually, what he said was that superheroes could be genderbent and that the men would be put into margainalizing positions

Quote:
I'd not mind seeing pretty much ALL the superheroes do a gender change, and make a world where the vast majority of superheroes are women and the superheroes who are men were mostly regulated to sidekick or eye-candy or marginalized status.

Xavier didn't assume that. It was explicitly stated in the quote (bolded for emphasis). And while JJ did say it to get people thinking, it's hard to convey that over the internet (much like sarcasm and humor). So he took it as it was stated.


Tels wrote:

Blasphemous as it may be, I personally only think Batman wins because of GM Fiat. He wins because the writers say he needs to win and the only reason he can roll with the Justice League is because they will ignore previous material in favor of letting Batman contribute.

I mean, if an enemy can get hit by a wrecking ball, or a train, or thrown through a building, hit by missiles and shot by bullets without getting injured, Batman coming up and punching him isn't going to hurt him.

To be fair, that's pretty much any literary character in existence :)


MMCJawa wrote:

Theresa Bane's Vampire Encyclopedia has actually a pretty good listing of different names for South American fat sucking vampires, beyond Pishtaco.

I was pretty happy to see Pishtacos show up on Supernatural last season

Yeah, I found one about the kharisiri through that book. Which is a much better word than fish taco :)


Jiggy wrote:
Odraude wrote:

I don't know. One staple I like from fantasy media is the use of magic items by mundane people to take down creatures. It is something I'd like to keep in Pathfinder. It rewards preparation. Kinda like how Batman can still roll with the Justice League for high powered threats and still use gadgets and cunning to fight them.

Course, fighters need the boost in cunning and manuevers. Not disagreeing with that. I'm just not really keen on adding magic to the fighter.

Usually, as the trope goes, the relationship between the wielder of the legendary magic item and the monster he uses it to defeat is not comparable the relationship between a 20th-level fighter and a CR3 monster.

Also, though I admit I'm not a comic afficionado, it's my understanding that Batman's "gadget budget" is waaaaaay more than that of the supers he's competing with. That's WHY it's a valid edge. But in Pathfinder, everyone has the same budget; it's the equivalent of if everyone in the Justice League got to have all of Batman's toys in addition to their innate superpowers. If you want that comparison to be valid, start having fighters and wizards get vastly different WBL in your games.

Finally, I wasn't aware that anyone was talking about "adding magic to the fighter". I know I certainly wasn't.

To be fair, how else are you going to take down a shadow without magic? A fighter being able to cut ghosts is in itself a magical ability, whether it's a spell, SLA, or supernatural ability. :)

One thing I didn't get a chance to type (was rushing to the bank) was that since the fighter is dependent on magic items, it would be good to have talents/feats/class abilities that lessen the burden. Two I had in mind were:

Quartermaster: Through haggling and thrifty spending, the fighter is good at getting deals for items. The fighter only has to spend XX% of the buying price when purchasing mundane or magic items.

Master Blacksmith: Years of training in the forge allow you to craft items faster, be they mundane or magic. Crafting mundane items (including weapons out of special materials) takes half of the time. Magic items only cost XX% to make, instead of 50%

Or something like that. Definitely not claiming any of this is balanced, but I feel it's a good start into getting the fighter to ease the magic dependence while still keeping the fighter "mundane".

Wish there was a better word for mundane, since with better skills and combat maneuvers, he's anything but mundane. :)


I don't know. One staple I like from fantasy media is the use of magic items by mundane people to take down creatures. It is something I'd like to keep in Pathfinder. It rewards preparation. Kinda like how Batman can still roll with the Justice League for high powered threats and still use gadgets and cunning to fight them.

Course, fighters need the boost in cunning and manuevers. Not disagreeing with that. I'm just not really keen on adding magic to the fighter.


To those that have made new races for Wayfinder, how does one go about adding a race that isn't really in the setting? Seems like a greater effect to canon than simply adding a monster.


Adam Daigle wrote:
Thanks for the assist, Evil Midnight Lurker! I understand being broke, Odraude. Moving is always more costly than you assume. Here's hoping to things looking up soon!

Thanks. Luckily I'm moving in two weeks. I've got everything set up to move down to Ft. Lauderdale with the girl friend. Just gotta keep an eye out for jobs down there and be ready for when school starts. Chefs are vicious and the ones at Cordon Bleu are no slouch. I'll have less time for RPGs, but hell, I'll certainly make time.

In the meantime, I've got another monster that I apparently finished but never posted. This is the Ñakaq. It's a creature that sucks the fat out of its prey and uses it for macabre crafts. In my setting, these creatures are the spawn of Camazotz, a horrifying bat demon-god of blood and gluttony. They take after their papa quite a bit and will be an intersting surprise to players. While sucking fat seemed silly at first, I decided that to really creep out players, I would describe the oddness of the lairs of these creatures. Soaps made from human fat, greased bells that smell of human corpses... it should really set in with the horror. And the name is a lot better than phishtaco :p

Updated on the first post as well.


JoeJ wrote:

The one time I ran a genuinely low magic campaign I was specifically going for a Knights of the Round Table feel. All of the PCs were knights, using one or another martial class. In keeping with the genre, they didn't fight magical creatures, except for a couple of witches. Mostly their opponents were other knights or marauding sea raiders. This also had the benefit of requiring the least amount of fiddling to get the level of challenge right - the PCs didn't have any magic items, but neither did the bad guys.

I found that healing was a complete non-issue. Sure, it took a while for wounded characters to get better, just like in the stories. But that had basically zero effect on the game. Time spent healing usually allowed for a lot of interaction and roleplay with the inhabitants of whatever castle they were at. And if there wasn't anything interesting going on, I'd just jump forward to the point where the PCs were ready to get going again.

Did the players do short adventures, or longer adventuring days with more encounters? The latter is where you will see the healing issues. Players infiltrating a lair but can't make it all the way to the end because of loss of HP. Granted, they can sneak, but all it takes is one f%+@ up...


Nice, that sounds awesome. I really wish I didn't have to cancel my subscription. Damn being broke :(


Probably right. I could see a variant of mummy rot where it makes the victim more and more emaciated. That way it looks just like the Incan mummy.


I've plotted out how I would run a low to no magic campaign. These are the pitfalls I would remember.

  • Altered Healing: This is absolutely important to remember. You need to give the PCs some form of healing/recovery mechanic to aid them, since you are banning healing magic and, in your case, alchemical items. If you do not do this, you are dooming your players to long downtimes where they rest all day to heal. I use the recovery system from 13th Age mixed in with Wounds and Vigor.
  • Alchemy: I'd keep alchemy in honestly. It's useful and helps players handle some of the crazier monsters. If you want to throw demons and dragons at your players, but don't want to give them magic, let them have alchemy. If not, then just let them fight nothing but humanoid creatures.
  • Bake in the Big Six: There are items that help out with saves, attack rolls, and stats that you have to take into account. If you are removing all magic items, you need to just tally up these stat boosting items and simply give them to the players as they gain levels. This allows them to defend against higher level creatures.
  • Calibrating Expectations: I'm going to be frank. Players aren't going to be wowed by magic or magic creatures if you play them as is. They won't care that this hydra is a rare, fantasy creature because they are already jaded by fantasy literature and media. They will never really fear a chimera or other monster unless you give them a reason to fear it. I'd suggest throwing mostly humanoid creatures, play up the rarity and danger, or even better, let the players assume that there are no mythical beasts. This way, there is a sense of dread when the mythical creature appears and trashes everything around them. But even then, this will only do so much, because players have seen it all. So I suggest adding new creatures they've never heard of. Players fear what they don't know, so this will be your best bet.
  • Rewards: This is actually a lot easier with Ultimate Campaign. Since there are no magic items, you need to still give players cool rewards. Well, how about a store front? Or castle? Or land? Titles and an army are cool too. You can still reward your players handsomely in a low-magic campaign. Conan didn't do jack s%%@ unless there was ample money in it.

In short, that's what I'd do as a low/no magic setting. Probably would couple it with Incantations for 4 level + spells.


I'm really disappointed I had to cancel my subscription. Alas needed that money for moving fees. But I plan on picking this up and jumping back on for iron gods.


I think an Ultimate Skill wouldn't have enough in it to really justify the hardcover. But, I'd love to see something like this in Pathfinder Unchained. It'd definitely fit.


JoeJ wrote:

Okay, so cross boring7 off the list of people who might enjoy a game like this.

I'm guessing you missed the thread where I suggested a very low magic/very powerful martial campaign, based on examples like medieval romances or wuxia, chanbara, or swashbuckling/pirate movies.

One thing to understand is that many players (including myself) have had very poor dealings with GMs that use low magic. So much so that it's a red flag for me when I read that as a description for a campaign. Many times it isn't even intentional. It's just that the GM takes away magic from the players, but forgets to do the same for the rest of the world. I remember being a level 10 fighter forced to fight some demons and the best weapon we had was a masterwork longsword. Couldn't heal either cause no alchemy. It wasn't fun and by the end of it, we all took leadership and would just throw our followers at monsters.

Most GMs don't put much thought into how removing magic changes the game, so they screw over their players. If you're going to remove things like magic weapons, healing items, and spells, you need to compensate for it with rules that add bonuses to hit and recovering HP. Otherwise your players will resent you when you throw demons and werewolves and dragons and they can't do much because they have no magic.


Squirrel_Dude wrote:

On the idea of a Mystic Theurge base class:

Please no? We are clear about how that is akin to asking for a class that has access to two spell lists, right? Well, technically the Theurge could be Arcane+Druid or Arcane+Cleric, so that's potentially 3 spell lists, but that's beside the point. I understand that it could theoretically just be a 2/3s caster, but those have a spotty history of actually being balanced (lookin' at you summoner).

I really just have no desire for that class to exist.

Rogue Genius Games was able to pull it off without it being unbalanced.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:

Okay. Here's one problem I have with the d20 system - it de-emphasizes roleplay and increases the importance of die-rolling.

Let us take, for instance, Wrath of the Righteous. At the very start when your players start interacting with the first roleplaying encounter, you're given diplomacy rolls and what you need to roll to achieve that.

That's it.

Now, an experienced GM may very well say "screw the dice" and allow a passionate argument or dialogue to prevail in convincing the encounter to do what the players are interested in. But that's not what the encounter says. It says "make diplomacy checks."

And you could make an impassioned argument that is logical, well thought-out, and takes 15 minutes... and then the GM has you roll, you roll a 1, and it's wasted effort. A smart GM who has a few games under his belt may ignore that. But far too many GMs for my taste are of the mindset "the dice roll what they roll, and I can't fudge results."

I want roleplaying. Roleplaying! I want my players to go through an encounter and have that plaintive little voice ask "can he do that?" I want my players to prevail without ever having drawn a sword. I want them to pull an Asimov in "Foundation and Empire" and defeat the Mule in a verbal argument within the first page of 11 pages of debate and dialogue.

And I want Paizo to take that chance and create that product. I think they would be better for it. And I think we as GMs and players would be better for this.

On the other hand, there are those of us that aren't really all that charismatic, or can't speak well when on the spot. I'm no thespian. I'm best described as a gruff, cantankerous old man. That's why I like the Diplomacy roll. It allows me to play someone charismatic, or simple interact with people without penalizing me for my inability to be charismatic.

But that's why I (and most GMs I've enocuntered) give bonuses to people who have roleplayed their way really well. That way, you reward those that try to use Diplomacy well with penalize those that have the inability to.


One template I'd like to see is possibly one for "skeletal insect" undead. Now, the current skeleton template might or might not cover insects cause of the whole "outside skeletal system thing." Some GMs allow it, others don't. I'd like to see one that tweaks it a bit. Maybe a bit more brittle, but more nimble than a standard skeleton.

That and there needs to be more undead bugs. I don't know what, but I have this need to run an adventure with undead bugs.


Incan mummies. Could they be just the mummy template, or would people want to see them with an altered template? And what would the alternate look like?


And just so we can stay on topic...

I've been slowly making a collection of monsters based on Native American legends, American folktales, and Latin American folk stories. It's a bit on a stand still since I'm getting ready to relocate myself to Ft Lauderdale, but the topic is here, with the Bestiary part in the first post link. Once I get everything settled by August 7th, I should be able to post more monsters.


I'd actually like to keep the weapon group bonuses with Weapon Training. I actually like the concept that the fighter can be good with multitudes of weapons, and it still gives the fighter the ability to use one really well. Maybe an option where a fighter can choose a weapon group for a smaller bonus, or choose a single weapon for a larger bonus?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Evil Queen wrote:
Odraude wrote:
The Evil Queen wrote:

Odraudy, serious as ever...

You better get used to my online-cosmoplay already or just ignore it.

And don't take it personal or so serious, I just like vain behavior and arrogance online behavior, much like you try to make fun of me in every single post you make towards me (good for making friends on here and gaining free favorite-points/hits). Its no coincidence my favorite characters of all time are Vega (SF), Zelos Wilder, The Riddler, Snievan (the last remnant), Zarbon (Dragonball), Maribelle (Fire Emblem), Tanya and Rain (MK) and Vanity Smurf.

Still, when I buy a copy of the bestiary, it's MY personal bestiary copy.

That all sounds like really s##&ty excuses for being a c%&+ to people.

How am I evil to people after calling lions and giraffe's boring?

Interesting way of looking at opinions you have!

It's the dismissive, elitist attitude you have towards anyone's responses. The point of this topic is to be a wishlist for what everyone wants. To share cool ideas with other people and speculate what's coming next. That means there are no bad ideas here that will some how ruin the Bestiary. If people want more animals, or dinosaurs, or demons, or whatever, then they should be able to express it here without your snide remarks about how bad the ideas are. Especially since you get so defensive when people do it to you. It's very hypocritical and not in the spirit of this topic.

The bestiaries are a product for the entirety of the fanbase, not just only for Sincubus/Ganasgh/Evil Queen/whatever. That means everyone gets to see the creature they like and may not like, but there's something in there for everyone. And that in itself is not going to ruin a product, because it's a product made for all of the fans.

Also, it takes a real narcissist to favorite their own posts with an alternate account.


That makes more sense. Gotcha.


I actually don't have a problem with a country that bans magic. But, if you ban ALL magic, it becomes significantly more difficult to capture and contain illegal casters. That's why it is a lot better to pick a caster time, like all divine magic or all witches and sorcerers. That's how places like Rahadoum exist. Otherwise, you can just be a caster and fight the police. Which, can be a great way to cause a great caster rebellion.

My thoughts on it: Anti-magic governments can be a compelling story-telling, but generally are used by GMs to screw over players because they hate casters.


With Iron Gods ending before the theoretical Bestiary 5 for next year, it's a good chance we can see monsters from it. One thing I really want are robotic versions of familiars. I'd bet my unborn child that we'll get those in Iron Gods and it would be awesome.


The Evil Queen wrote:

Odraudy, serious as ever...

You better get used to my online-cosmoplay already or just ignore it.

And don't take it personal or so serious, I just like vain behavior and arrogance online behavior, much like you try to make fun of me in every single post you make towards me (good for making friends on here and gaining free favorite-points/hits). Its no coincidence my favorite characters of all time are Vega (SF), Zelos Wilder, The Riddler, Snievan (the last remnant), Zarbon (Dragonball), Maribelle (Fire Emblem), Tanya and Rain (MK) and Vanity Smurf.

Still, when I buy a copy of the bestiary, it's MY personal bestiary copy.

That all sounds like really s~+#ty excuses for being a c+$# to people.


Zark wrote:

My gut feeling tells me unchained won't contain any changes to the fighter. I could be wrong but rewriting the fighter would mean they have to rewrite a lot if other classes, such as the cavalier, samurai, magus and warpriest.

Easiest fix is just to create some new feats and and just errata some stuff.

I don't really see how rewriting the fighter would require those other classes to be changed.

Honestly, I could really see them adding fighter talents that replace combat feats. Also, there is mention of the martial maneuver pool that will be appearing in Pathfinder Unchained. But the devs have already said that much of this book is pretty much slaughtering sacred cows that have been bothering people for a long time. And the fighter is one of them. They've already led with the monk and rogue, so I would be surprised if the fighter wasn't in that book in some way.


Zark wrote:
They been getting feedback for years and yet UK only contained 1 fighter feat but more than 100 wizard spells. :(

It also contained some good fighter archetypes, some good feats for all martials, good new weapons, and (while sadly not a lot of people used this) dueling. Dueling has pretty much changed the way I run combat for the better. Arguably, the tactician fighter is what a lot of people have wanted in a fighter.

Ultimate Combat was for all martials, including ones that can cast spells and spell casters that could be built to be a martial.


Ashiel wrote:
Aranna wrote:

It seems a lot of people are confusing fatigue based casting with point pool casting; The two are NOTHING alike. In fatigue based casting your actual physical ability is diminished as you cast, while in point pools your physical ability never diminishes... you can try to reskin it as fatigue but when you can swing a sword just as well at 1000 points versus 0 points your argument fails miserably.

Well, funny thing...psionics actually does have options for the fatigue based thing, or pushing yourself beyond your limits. Options such as Body Fuel and Overchannel both allow you to go above and beyond. In the case of Body Fuel, you literally begin burning off your physical ability scores, killing yourself in exchange for juice, while Overchannel allows you to suffer damage to increase the potency of your powers.

A near equivalent would be if sorcerers could burn off their ability scores to cast more spells after they ran out of slots, but AFAIK, no such mechanic exists that gets used much.

I always felt that style of mechanic didn't really work in a party game like Pathfinder, since you'll have a cleric that can heal all of that for you.


Fully aware.


Zark wrote:

I don’t want to be the gloomy guy, but I think this thread is pretty pointless.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there folks,

Couple of points to clean up the discussion and squash some speculation...

1. This book is not a second edition of Pathfinder. Nor is it intended to be a "rules light" or "essentials" version of Pathfinder.

2. This book is designed to let the design team play with the rules in a way that we have not been able to before, revisiting some old designs and tinkering with parts of the game that are otherwise considered "sacred" parts of the system.

3. There will not be a play test for this book. We have been getting years of play test feedback on many of the rules we will be examining in this book. Think of it more as an additional design step as opposed to a "start from scratch" design process.

4. There will not be new iconics for the classes. We will get some new art for them, but we will not be inventing new iconics.

5. There is a veritable mountain of other exciting things in this book that are just too "green" for me to talk about at this time. Expect to hear a lot more in the coming months.

Glad to see folks are excited about this book. We are certainly very excited to bring it to you!

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

My bold.

One more thread, or ten more threads won’t change their minds.

Me I really just want five things.
- More skills
- more and better fighter only feats
- better saves.
- A more flexible fighter, less specialization. Cut of the feat chains
- Feats or/and abilities that let the fighter do crazy stuff.

I’m not really interested in boosting the DPR.

I guess a couple of more things could be stated such as ignoring some prereqs and other stuff, but although inconvenient I really don’t find them to be that big of a problem.

No playtest doesn't necessarily mean they still won't be looking at feedback.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:

That was a joke, but I added a winky face to show it more obviously :)

The sentences following it describe what I think would be easy for the devs to do if they don't decide to revamp the fighter. While such changes would not be as preferable as a real revamp, they would at least make the Fighter a significantly less terrible choice when compared to a Ranger, Paladin, Slayer, Brawler, Samurai, Cavalier, Bloodrager, revamped Monk (here's hoping), or Barbarian.

Winky face does indeed help. Me sleeping also helps :p

It just gets so tiresome to see an opportunity to improve the fighter with Pathfinder Unchained and it getting wasted on snide jabs at Paizo and the standard "fighter cant have nice things" pity-me-party comments. When instead there could be more ideas that could be thrown in to help the fighter. It's clear from the description of Pathfinder Unchained that they really want to take the feedback from the last six years and do the things people have been want them to do to the mechanics. I'd rather see our creative energies turned to brainstorming and ideas, rather than the standard self-serving cynical tripe that usually floods these threads.

Not saying you are doing that, of course. I just mean in general. Though this thread has been good so far.

Sleepy time now. The sun is up which means I go down. :p


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Spoiling the pages of your bestiary," eh?

Way to once again be dismissive of what people like. That elitist attitude you have about other people's ideas is really annoying. Though I'm sure if we said your suggestions would spoil the bestiary, you'd suddenly play the victim.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

I am inclined to agree Zark, but it's worth at least trying. It's possible that since the Fighter was so eclipsed by other martials that the devs forgot it existed.

Even if the Fighter isn't in the book, maybe there will be revamped feats or maybe something similar to Arcane Discoveries for wizards, but for bonus combat feats.

If they don't address the fighter in any sort of way I'd be pretty sad, but I'm willing to try and provide feedback in the hopes that some dev is on the same wavelength with us.

I sincerely doubt that the devs, whom constantly trawl the forums and interact with their fans on a nigh-daily basis has forgotten about the fighter. Hard to make that judgement, Especially since we don't know much else about the book. But if the monk and rogue are being looked at, then chances are good that the fighter will be looked at in some manner.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd be surprised if it wasn't Absalom honestly. It always felt weird, that it's been played up as like the analogue of the Free City of Greyhawk, but there haven't been large adventures that take place in there. I think there's really only been some PFS modules.


I can't afford the hardcover these days. In between jobs now so I gotta watch my spending. PDFs only for awhile.


One thing I'd love is the fighter to be able to "size up" the opponents. I think it makes sense thematically, as a fighter, he'd know how to spot weak points or general strengths about whatever they are killing. Maybe something like...

Know Your Enemy: At X level, the fighter can use any knowledge skill untrained for the purposes of identifying a monster's abilities and weaknesses. At Y level, the fighter can add their fighter level to any Knowledge check made for the purposes of identifying a monster's abilities and weaknesses.

Something like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I blame me. I'm just in a bad mood.


Lord Mhoram wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
HERO! The system you should only play if everyone knows what their doing, and everyone is on the same page.

Yeah - I'm in a dream group for Hero. I've been playing it since '85 and I have the least experience, and we have had the same players for over 15 years. That helps a lot.

After GMing HERO for decades, balance in PF is easy to do, and being able to say "No- it may be book legal, but not at my table" is second nature - as HERO expects the GM to make the balance, not the system.

That's the truth. HERO taught me how to say no as a GM.


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Artanthos wrote:

I want a Glitterboy.

I thought people wanted less anime in Pathfinder.

People want less non-Tolkien in their Pathfinder, since other people having fun with their non-Western settings ruins the quality of their fantasy apparently.

You're allow to have fun, but only if it's fun accepted by the fantasy fan base. Or else! :p


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Tels wrote:
Have you ever noticed that if your avatar and Odraude's avatar were to be put side by side, it looks like they're roaring at each other?
RARRRRGHH!

RARRRRGHH!


James Jacobs wrote:
xavier c wrote:

I did not say anything about Feminism. james said he would like to see all of the male superheroes be marginalized and to me that is not gender equality

That was intended to get people thinking about what it feels like to be marginalized, so that they don't unintentionally or unknowingly support a status quo that already does that same thing. If the idea of marginalizing male superheroes makes one uncomfortable, then in theory, they realize why gender equality (which is NOT the status quo yet, alas) is so important a goal to strive for.

That makes more sense. Ignore my last post then.


James Jacobs wrote:
xavier c wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Tels wrote:

James, are there any other superheroes you would like to see undergo a similar gender change?

If you had to do a gender change of a major character in Golarion, who would it be and why?

Who would you be the least willing to change? Why?

I'd not mind seeing pretty much ALL the superheroes do a gender change, and make a world where the vast majority of superheroes are women and the superheroes who are men were mostly regulated to sidkick or eye-candy or marginalized status.

As for Golarion? I'd probably pick Aroden to gender chagne, because he's one of the core elements of the setting.

I'd be least willing to change pretty much any of the women characters to men, since despite our pretty progressive steps toward gender equality, we're still not quite there yet.

So you want to marginalize men and boys? Is that what gender equality is?
Aiming for a 50/50 representation is not marginalizing men at all, neither is gender equality.

That's true, but you kinda posted the opposite in your previous post. I definitely agree with you about equality and making compelling characters of all types.


What are some good resources or advice for doing the mathematics of game design? Id love to tinker with making an rpg but I don't know much about game design from scratch.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
El Ronza wrote:
So, the Slayer is basically the Angel of Death, capable of Raining Blood down on his Necrophobic enemies? Guess I need to look at the class Piece By Piece, lest I end up Criminally Insane from the awesome. The rogue has been Reborn, and I like it, though I foresee an Epidemic of slayers in PFS when the book is released. I guess the base rogue is Expendable Youth now, one of the Skeletons of Society. Well, I'm part of the New Faith here - I like this class, and all its Seven Faces, which will allow me to spread Hate Worldwide. Cast Down the nonbelievers, Spill the Blood, and may your slayers find Serenity in Murder. Just be careful - with all that killing, they're likely to end up somewhere South of Heaven...

Marry me.

1 to 50 of 5,823 << 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.