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

Quori's page

142 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 142 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

All are good suggestions, only an addition to Rumpin.

You of course don't want every encounter to nix it, but you should mix full/partial/none useful encounters.

Yes, it's a great trick, but there should be times when it flat out doesn't work. That's part of being smart with a build, is not relying on a 'one trick pony'. If you do, you will never enjoy the game.

Don't feel like you need to play into a one-trick, be real, and if it is a one-trick he'll eventually realize being really uber awesome at one thing simply doesn't work.

Then again, he may not be a one-trick. In either case, follow the full/partial/none if you can for all groups/encounters. It mixes things up, makes them continue to evolve, and focuses towards rounded characters/styles.

Yet another Q.

An Eldritch Godlings Dispel Resistance ability. The SR applies to your own magic being effected by dispel and anti-magic effects.

Scenario: I cast a spell at an opponent that has SR, I make an SR check to defeat their SR. Ontop of this, does my spell also roll it's own SR against their SR?

Pretty much, is a creatures spell resistance considered an anti-magic effect?


Just thought of another Q.

Extra Talent Feat

For an Eldritch Godling, it doesn't have a Scion Talent list, but has access through their Minor Ascendancy. Is this considered "available" to the Eldritch Godling, or does your class have to have specific access to a Scion list (Ex. Mighty Godling)?

2 Questions for clarification

Immortal Invocation:
Since you get infinite '0' level spells, can you constantly use them to fuel higher level spells? Do they not take up slots, and thus cannot be used for II?

Swift Casting:
Using a metamagic feat (for a spontaneous caster) on a spell that is a standard action to cast makes it a full-round action to cast. However, the text states "This isn't the same as a 1-round casting time".

What I get from this is the spell takes a full-round to cast, but is cast ON that round, not extended into the next round and cast at the beginning of your next round.

SC states: When casting a spell with a casting time of 1 full round, the effect of the spell still does not occur until the beginning of your next round (though you are finished casting and the spell can no longer be interrupted, the magic takes time to coalesce)

When using Swift Casting with a metamagic feat, does it make the casting a standard action with the spell taking place that round? Or, does it make the casting time a standard action, and the spell is cast at the beginning of your turn the next round?


I don't know if you check these. Might e-mail you if I can (I know you're still producing material).

The High Goblin; Can we assume it has the 'Goblinoid' subtype?

There's a lot of feats, racial traits, class options, etc... and I don't see why he wouldn't be.

Just looking for confirmation. Thanks.

Hello Kazaan,


Thank you very much. This is more than helpful.

Thank you to mpl as well.

Then what is an effect? It's not a keyword used in spell descriptions, feats, etc...

If I were to look through rulebooks and texts for 'effects', I would find nothing. I have to believe it isn't flavour and meaningless.

I was just wondering if your response was made up or from an errata. Do you have a link to a thorough discussion on the topic to which this conclusion was reached?

I work with a group on an online PBP site and we work through issues like this for others who want to play, so forgive me if I'm looking for substance to any statements made.

It is a good book, just requires a little TLC from the user to round it out. It always sucks when new races don't have favored class options.

That's why I'm so curious.

Do you have a link to the official ruling, or is that fan consensus.

To be clear, you're stating that despite qualifying for any effect that involves race, the favored class feature that relies on race does not count?

Thank you for clarification.

Ogre Blood: Half-ogres count as both humans and ogres for any effect related to race.

O.k., so it's the exact same as Elf Blood, which I know there's been controversy over. I've used search-fu and have come up dry on any errata or official rulings.

If there is no official ruling, can someone quickly summarize what the fan consensus is on the following question:

As a Half-Ogre, when levelling up as say, a fighter, can I choose the human's favored class option when levelling as a Half-Ogre fighter?

Favored classes opening sentence is: "The following favored class options are available to all characters of this race..."

Thanks for any help.

Paul DiAndrea wrote:
I love how rules lawyers try to turn a 1st level spell like CHARM into some horrid game breaker. Give them enough time and they'll try and convince you that WIZARD MARK is just an understated version of SYMBOL OF DEATH.

+1, I lol'd at this.

No matter what logic you use, many will still prefer to misread or RAW their way into something ridiculous.

It's exactly why things like Charm Person get re-stated or have paragraphs of text to fully describe a more simple spell because of misinterpretation. I remember in 2E how Invisibility had to be more clearly expressed in expanded editions and the Complete Wizard. The concept of Illusions (Phantasmal Force) required pages and pages of examples and limitations just to ensure the player couldn't pull the wool over the DM's eyes.

Nothing new here. Same kind of behaviour.

Stay at home.

Everybody wins!

There's always the ARG. Get perception +4 and as a class skill instead. Saves a trait. Stealth is nice but even without the racial bonus your check will be sick. You can easily get +12 without it even being a class skill, which is fine because it's a pain to keep pace after mid-levels.

A good rule of thumb is to assume that if you've found a tricky way around casting requirements the usual answer is no. You just haven't found why it's no yet.

If for some reason you still can't find it's a no, you just have to ask a developer so that they can provide an official answer or update that clarifies that it's no.

People are always looking though. The Magister/Magus double-dip or the infamous Precocious Apprentice are some good examples.

We should all take bets on how many days it will be before another discussion pops up trying to surpass the spell level access of a wizard or bypass PrC/class pre req's before developers clearly intend.

Dibs on 3 days.

I would like to see:

1. A product that increases support for 3PP races. Racial feats, spells, class bonuses, etc... The ARG boosted core, I'd like to see something boost 3PP (almost all of them). Think Boggle, Half-Ogre, etc...

2. The same for 3PP classes, there's not enough classes where 3PP races get to take something else on a level up, not even the Godlings. How fun is it to grab a fun 3PP race and make it a godling... but I'd like the support.

3. How about an Undead book/supplement. We don't have templates, but what are the chances of creating some undead-like playability here? I think it's an un-mined field in PF.

4. A group and I were talking about 4E skill challenges, and how it's a revolutionairy concept. PF has already cleaned up the skills. Is there a chance you can develop a supplement that is just about using, organizing and perfecting a skill challenge in PF? (or similar concept)

More to come...

Oh how far we stray...

The man is a Druid for crying out loud. They're supposed to sticking up for nature.

How can you allow them to burn alive the creature they've developed a bond with, their companion. They should become, or be warned that they're close to becoming an ex-druid for not revering nature. A druid should be treating a being of nature as they would any sentient being, with reverence and respect.

Why else would they outline the path to being an ex-druid as such? Without following the guidelines, you boil the class down to just words without meaning. The game is so much more than that.

Dabbler wrote:
A highly regarded expert wrote:

Perhaps he should not receive another animal companion. His god, or nature, or whatever has decided that he doesn't treat his companions with the respect they deserve, and he's denied any more until he atones. If he does that again, he goes into ex-druid territory.

This player appears to be about as dumb as wood, BTW.


The act isn't so bad the druid should lose his powers, I think, although he certainly isn't acting the way a Neutral Good druid should act, that may just be stupidity. I think TarkXT has the right of it - he is treating class and alignment as just words and stats when the DM is expecting a little more attempt at immersion.

I see nothing wrong or illogical about the animals locally starting to give him a wide berth; in just the same way, the Leadership feat has negative modifiers for letting your followers get killed. Let him reap what he sows until he figures out how to give a damn.


I look back at the days where Druids were TN only. Even then nature was 'respected', while civilisations were looked down on. That animal companion was worth more than any of the humans or other civilized 'allies' you had in your party, always cutting down nature to make way for their own will.

Psionics have been balanced ever since 3.5 released Expanded Psionics.

There is no difference in power between a Psion and a caster (Wiz/Sorc). Psionics just have a smaller list of powers (vs. spells) and have a higher percentage of damage based vs. utility. There's a reason Psion's are tier 2, not tier 1.

If you are having a 'nova' problem, it's an issue with the GM's. Like others have said Wiz/Sorc have the same ability to 'nova'. It's not an issue.

What is an issue is everyone fearing them and never reading the rules, allowing players to play them without knowing the rules, or not keeping players accountable for failing to do so. If you know very little and players are fudging rules then anything can become powerful. It has nothing to do with psionics.

Psionics got a bad name from 2E. Anybody who played in those times knows the groans and facepalms it created, even when you knew the rules fully.

Take Boat wrote:

Let's clarify what the Tier system is: It's not a ranking of who is best at combat, it's a ranking of who can solve the most kinds of problems a party might face and also how well. This obviously makes a lot of assumptions about what kind of challenges you are likely to face.

Wizards, Clerics and Druids can solve a wide variety of challenges and can do so pretty easily using their wide selection of powerful spells. Oracles and Sorcerers are a level below because although they use the same tools to solve problems any given character has fewer tools at his disposal.

A well-built fighter (and these days, monk) can be a terror in combat, but that's just being really good at solving a single problem (i.e. kill that guy) which is the most common problem, but not the only one.

I think the linked list is pretty accurate, except summoner and witch (they are not that versatile) should move down one tier and monk should move up one (he no longer sucks).


We're not saying monks are horrible or Barbarians aren't combat kings. It's about versatility and the tier system is accurate. It should be mentioned that power goes hand-in-hand with the tier concept however. You either have spells, or you don't and that is the biggest difference of all.

At least we're not the only ones still misplacing the term 'improved'. We know what they're referring to though.

Also, Domains are considered spell lists (per Cleric), but bloodlines are not spell lists. AFAIK.

They're racial traits. They're unmarked because they are natural. For example, there is not activation requirement, spell component or anything to have a racial modifier to abilities. Same for skill boosts/bonuses. Even things like the ability to naturally see better due to your biological nature (Darkvision/Low-Light vision) have no classification.

When found removed from race and identified, say if a spell gave it to you, I can see it being Ex. Ex is for things that are innate in a creature that is non-magical as Antimagic doesn't effect it.

For something like Darkvision, I don't see an issue if in a clinch to categorize it as Ex. It's been my experience that Su and Sp are identified for their type in the racial trait if it should be considered those types.

He's right, they're all enhancements and thus don't stack. Cunning is good, but the items outdo them. As for Ioun's, they're not useful for very much and they're very expensive.

Gapped on Tomes. I am big on PF because of the removal of prestige.


Astrikkar Arkylon wrote:

Any how that's what I've done for OP parties in the past. I just got done with a party that had a wizard with a 37 int. the rest of the party started feeling a little outclassed by the end

May I ask how he got to 37 Int? I only query because natural progression, maximum stats, full level point increase and magical items have a maximum score of 31. I assume there's a wish or two involved and some other tricks I'm aware of, but just curious in either case.

agentJay wrote:

I think its just wierd/difficult on me because every time I ask for a skill check its:

Chech for traps- 25, 23, 19, 21.
Roll init - 24, 20, 19, .... one of them rolled a 3 + dex = 8... the one roll all night below a 15.
And the dragon style elemental monk (something like that, drow of course) rolling 2d6 damage + whatever monks add....
Maybe I am not ready since I don't know what damage stuff does.
The characters were all built ( as in take this feat, this race, this weapon & armor etc) by the guy that made the other 2 GM's not want to gm. They always had to use a monster that was 4 cr above his lvl to challenge (read not die by his first attack) and actually damage him. Bah I'm rambling. (Btw he is needed to play, we play @ his place and he brings 1 other player. Otherwise a 2 man group + dm and no place 2 play

Well, to be honest it sounds like you're out of your league. It also sounds like someone is a powergamer and has already received a reputation as someone who isn't worth running games for. He may actually see this as a badge of honor, which is unfortunate.

What I would do is shut down the game and actually play. Someone suggested PFS which is a great way to get involved. You can play under several GM's and ask questions, maybe go over the module with them afterwards and pick their brains on CR, decisions, dice rolls, etc...

If the other player makes characters for others and apparently requires very high CR's, then leave him to make his own party of PC's and GM himself. It's not worth the hassle.

I know, I respect everyone's interpretation. I just view the ability differently on my perception of the rules.

I respect SKR, but I disagree with him. It may never be FAQ'd/Errata'd and I'm o.k. with it.

Also, I know how you feel about the elf thing, it's always been a little unclear over the editions with changes.

Lynli Kelborn wrote:
leo1925 wrote:

Can you give us some examples?

Also can you tell us your class? spellcaster with enchantment spells can mean a lot of things.
Witch class and the sleep hex has been banned.

Why do I get the feeling that your GM is just anti-good magic? Well, read some of the guides on spellcasters and you'll see some of the limitations to enchantment you have already expressed.

I'm a fan of the school, but combat control is not the enchantments forte. You need to branch out your spells and pick your moments with enchantment.

Also, tell your GM to stop being silly.

@cartmanbeck: There is nothing in PF that says Elves don't sleep. Can you post a link to the statement that says "Elves don't sleep, ever"?

It says in the class that the Synthesist merely 'uses' the physical scores of the Eidelon, it does not 'gain' those scores. The Synthesist himself still has his original scores when qualifying for feats regardless of how long he wears his suit. Ability increases are enhancements to the characters actual scores.

He is just wearing living armor that has physical scores, his actual scores are not being enhanced and he himself does not actually gain them.

I respect SKR but I would actually rule otherwise in my games until a FAQ/Errata were released.

Well, it was mishandled by both parties. If the event wasn't too long ago maybe you can retcon it, or weave him back in somehow. I believe in such a case where an error occurred on both sides such an action is acceptable.

GM's need to feel that the players know their characters, and that a GM will fairly rule. This keeps the sense of trust and coherency needed in a play group. I think.

Others jumping in with a stark defence, please note that errors were made by the GM in this case and he acknowledges there was a botch. He would like advice on what he should do now and in the future.

Bart Vervaet wrote:
If this was a new player I would cut him some slack, but if it was an experienced player I would expect him to know how the spells/feats/abilities his character uses, and I would hqve done the same thing


We're not all gurus and Charm Person is one of the pinnacle misunderstood as 'dominate' spells. Not because of the player, but mostly because other GM's continue to run it as such. AD is also right though, it was handled in error. Sometimes as a GM if we don't know for sure, we have to go back and look things up. If game flow is important and you're comfortable, you can make a GM ruling and proceed.

In this case AD is right that an error was made. With such a command it depends on the characters motives, alignment and relationship with is true 'allies' at the time. However, if your order, if followed out made him believe it would result in death than he would simply not follow the suggestion. For him to give a suggestion to harm another ally would require an opposed Charisma check, and even then he won't slice and dice. More likely he would use non-lethal methods to resolve an issue between two trusted friends and allies.

I think you need to consider his experience, his understanding of the game, etc... We can't baby players and reverse all mistakes. Making mistakes are part of the game and what makes it so interesting.

However, if they were new to casters, new to the game or new to my table I would have given some kind of lee-way depending. If they were more experienced, then no, it is a lesson to read your spells ahead of time, or better, OoC and ask about it first so that you are clear on the understanding of the spells limitations.

This was a costly lesson though, for both parties.

It is easy to miss if you haven't played it before.

The Diviners power is really good. I think I would choose Clairvoyance as it would suit my style a bit more (being cautious).

Diviner is not my style though.

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

We know... I already pointed that out.

However wraith and I believe that imbuing an item with a spell does use the casters attributes. It makes sense in comparison to similar working abilities. We don't believe it's a stretch by RAI to use the corresponding attributes.

Secondly, though the wielder is not casting the spell, it does not remove the fact that the spell "is cast" regardless. You don't skip pieces of the spell, or select requirements. The spell is cast 'on the creature' because the creature must be the target. This is identified by the spell storing ability in requiring that the spell be a target spell. The ability is just identifying that because you've imbued a targeting spell, the target is indeed the one in which you attacked and dealt damage to.

All you're really saying Ahre is that after YOU have hit with the weapon, dealt damage and then use a free action, the WEAPON is now considered to be casting the spell and the WEAPON must now make a melee/ranged attack as per the requirement of the spell.

I would agree that is also a RAW scenario upon which it is impossible for you to effectively imbue and use a spell that requires a melee/ranged attack roll. Thank you for your input.

It should be noted that I don't disagree that it is possible that the intent of spell storing on a weapon may allow for a melee/ranged attack spell. However, I think clarification would be required to distinctly decide this. Anything else would be speculation and RAI. I just see it as impossible to fulfill by RAW, given chronology and melee/range spells post-hoc casting to require attack rolls to be made after the wielder has attacked (and no sooner).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

OGL is what has made PF possible, and what it thrives on.

Lets show some respect. PF supports 3PP, and 3PP supports PF. The only thing that's not being supportive here is us...

*lights candle and sings kumbaya*

John Mangrum wrote:
Quori wrote:
I would agree with a mount if they had legs...
Sidesaddle my dear chap, sidesaddle!

I stand corrected. *bow*

First, he doesn't "simply will it". He must hit, he must deal damage. Afterwards, he expends a free action to activate it. It requires time to be able to activate. It may take very negligible time, but that is irrelevant as it is not automatic. Otherwise activation wouldn't be necessary.

Secondly, the spell is not "cast into the weapon". It is imbued onto the weapon. You are 'storing' the spell in the weapon, not 'casting' it.

"The weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature", but only after "the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage", and then only after the wielder uses "a free action". Once this free action is used, the spell is cast in its entirety at that time (requiring an attack roll if the spell calls for one). It's RAW, there is chronology. See Spell Storing here.

The real question you should be asking yourself is if your CL and ability scores are used at all... it specifically says it is "cast from the weapon". However I think we can agree that it's the intent of the imbued spell to use your attributes (RAI).

The casting of the spell does follow a chronology. You can rule that a spell being cast after a hit, and after an action is used to activate it, that the weapon hitting allows you to cast a spell that also requires you to make physical/ranged contact with the opponent post-hoc prompter-hoc. It should be noted that such a ruling is RAI rather than RAW.

Xavier319 wrote:
I would say no, bloodlines, mysteries, and patrons are not considered "on the classes spell list". mostly because you only get those spells from an outside source (your class) and they are 'added to your class spell list', indicating they were not originally on it. so i would say no you cannot nick those spells.

Agreed. I don't know why they think they are... The class lists are located here. If you choose a domain, you pick only a single domain (making your choices for this ability fairly straight forward).

Those are the lists you can choose from, when you choose it you don't change it. Pick them from only that list, and only if it corresponds with your divine/arcane choice.

Also, it only adds it to your spell list, not spells known. You still must learn them through normal means.

There is no rule to govern if you can have a spell on your list twice. However, I don't see how the spell can be added if you already have it. I would RAI rule it's not possible, but I also think it has minor significance.

I also think the ability is balanced. Getting haste a level earlier is not a big deal. Besides, the race itself is lackluster and to get this ability you really give away the only good ability they had in the first place.

So go nuts.

1. I would like to see Goblin options directed towards casters/intellectuals, much like the urban barbarian concept. I love more goblin material, but it's all the same alchemist/fire drab. I'd like to see something take advantage of their greediness, tricksy-ness, even if it has to be limited to an Illusionist. I think the Boggle was in the right direction. Goblins are weak and brash, but not stupid or unwise.

2. If I can have an anti-comment, tieflings have been done to death, can we maybe focus on some of the fun other 3PP races that were developed, maybe even outside of SGG?

3. I think I get the most kick out of race specific spells/feats. I would look forward to this.


Gorbacz wrote:
Also, it kinda blows when you cast an emergency plane shift in order to bail your party from an ambush on Abyss only to see Johnny left behind to be violated by spiked tentacles of forced intrusion just because his SR decided to say hello at the worst moment possible.

This made me laugh. You always enjoy SR until you're the only one left standing against an impending horde.

I would agree with a mount if they had legs...

More likely they would be stuck in a cart being dragged by a mule. very demoralizing.

Thank you cartmanbeck.

Ravingdork wrote:
Notice that a creature CAN avoid the effects of spells. It looks like it gets a choice to me. Unconscious characters are also considered willing for the purposes of receiving harmless spells too, aren't they?

Creatures with SR always have it up, unless they consciously lower it using a standard action. Even on consecutive rounds the SR will re-initiate unless you continue to use a standard action to suppress it. It's something that is naturally inherent, and you must focus time and effort to suppress.

If a creature is 'dying' or unconscious it remains active. It would only go away when they are dead (too late to really help them.

The word can is not signifying choice, it signifies probability. SR is not an assurance, it is a possibility as there is a caster level check involved. This 'interpretation' is also consistent with the fact that time and effort is required to lower SR. It is also consistent with the fact that it is active and affects things even if you are not aware of them. If you had a choice, neither of these would be required as part of the ability. You can ask for clarity on the issue, but I think we both know what the answer will be.

It should be noted that SR does not prevent Ex or Su abilities, nor does it effect the creatures own spells, abilities or items.

SR can be powerful but it comes with it several difficulties. It's your choice to take it, but the majority of players see it as both hyped and more dangerous than it is worth.

@Solkin: There's nothing in RAW to limit the limbs in any way, either by rules for medium creatures, or limitations on the limb evolution.

The synthesist is the textbook case of horrible game design. I'm sure tabletop artists the world over use it as a slang for unbalanced character design.

"Did you just make an LA 0 Hydra with all the same abilities as a playable PC? That's so synthesist!"

Though, I'm sure before Synthesist it was "That's so spell to power Erudite!"

I also thought the Sylph was kind of cool, and the Grippli picture is nice.

Does anyone else find that water based races are always fairly weak? The one water race can't live outside of water for more than 24 hours or they die... maybe cool for a Waterworld campaign, but pretty steep. Also, the one with the fish tail is nice, 50ft. Swim, 5ft. on land...

Can you imagine following after the party at the pace of 5ft/round?

Quandary wrote:
Shocking Grasp gives you a bonus to-hit if the target is wearing metal armor.

Two things happen, your attack, then the spell:

1. You attack with the melee weapon, using the enhancement bonus of the weapon and your normal abilities. You strike them (beat their AC) and must deal damage (bypass DR, etc...).

Once this is done, you now:

2. Cast the spell from the weapon pretending that you actually just cast it, yourself, independently.

A spell storing weapon doesn't actually say that you pretend as if you touched the opponent for the purposes spell being cast after the attack. What it says is, you have a condition (striking the creature and dealing damage) then it is followed by a response (you can immediately cast the spell on the creature as a free action). It allows you to piggy-back a spell on a weapon attack, it doesn't allow you to also apply the successful attack roll to your spell as well. They are independent of each other.

In the case of a shocking grasp spell, you would need to make another melee attack roll (this time a touch attack) as it is part of casting the spell. By RAW this is what would take place. Also by RAW many would say that you cannot effectively cast shocking grasp through a spell storing weapon, as it would require another independent attack, which unless your BAB or feats/abilities allowed you to, you could never successfully cast it.

If the two happened simultaneously then you could never use Charm Person effectively through the weapon, as they would be charmed the instant you dealt them damage, which would immediately break the Charm Person's spell effect.

I think, by RAW, you must meet the condition, once met and resolved, as a free action you may cast the spell from the weapon at the target. In the case of shocking grasp you must complete the spells casting requirements (expensive material components, attack rolls, etc..). If you are unable to complete the spells requirements then it either can't be cast out of the weapon, or it is wasted.

Half-Orcs in ARG, as a racial component are considered humans as well as orcs for all effects.

So Half-Orcs are considered human whenever making game choices, such as traits, feats, etc...

I haven't read the Half-Elf portion, but if it has the same statement than yes, otherwise no. Half-Elves are their own distinct race and will only count as another race if it specifically states that they do.

Hope this helps.

'You' is the caster. This means one of two scenarios:

1. The spell does not effect your ally because he did not cast it.

2. The spell cannot effect anyone, because nobody actually cast it (it is stored), you only imbued the weapon, thus a target of 'you' is worthless in a spell storing weapon.

I see 2 being the most likely choice. The spell can only affect the caster, and this spell has the weapon as the caster (if any).

In either case, no, you cannot cheat the system. You can however put a spell with any target and have it work on yourself by using it against yourself. I suggest using a non-lethal weapon and one with a very low damage dice.

I respect your opinion. I might be wrong, and it is just a game.

I think I just like the idea that there are always races/classes that are the best at something, but others can make up for that by making some additional sacrifices. There are always some things one class/race will always do better, but I guess we differ on our view of the impact this spell has.

I do agree with other posters that race only in these contexts actually creates an issue. Yes, these aren't that big of a deal, but once you have internal class inconsistencies of such magnitude, then there's an issue.

Once someone is that much more versatile based simply on the race choice, that's problematic. Of course there's ones that aren't as good as others because of their make-up (bonus to an ability score). But this comes in the form of a spell limited to one race, nothing you can do as another race can make that up.

That is why every human sorcerer now has 1 auto-feat to take, no questions asked. Since others cannot benefit from it, it becomes a lot less likely. When that Elf Sorcerer is playing the same game as the Half-Elf, he's going to wonder what he did so wrong by picking the Elf that made him so much more useless in all those situational scenarios. He can't even fix it with a feat, which he would do if he could.

Yes, a Goblin sorcerer is going to pay a few more points and have a CHA 2 points less than you, but that's a bonus spell and a loss of one DC. He can make that up in feats and intelligent play. This simply cannot be 'made-up' and is a much larger differentiation in playability.

That is unfortunate imo.

I don't usually make discussions, but there's too much heated talks on single feats or traits. Please leave that aside and lets discuss what new/re-newed races in the book catch our eye.

Please consider the over-all (feats, spells, archetypes, etc...)

I'll start it off:

Drow - I really like the added options, both as a fighter and cleric here. The new feats are quite interesting, and are easy to pick up if you're a fighter with tons of bonus feats. I like the idea of shadowing the battlefield in darkness, then going in and attacking at will, effectively making you invisible (if you use the ability to see in magical darkness that is available to them via Drow magical weapon).

Orc - I'll be honest, whenever I read a new Strength based class I immediately look for the +4 strength and weather or not they get 'reach'. This one loses reach, and the payment for the +4 is not consistent with something like Half-Ogre (3PP). It's good to see a PF legit book providing a +4 Strength though. It's easier to swallow ARG for races with your GM, rather than convince them to let you be a 'monster' or access some of the 3PP material that treads on thin ice.

Goblins - O.k., I need to be fair, there's some great goblin-ness in here. But nothing that adds versatility in other classes. PF went with the feral goblin idea, but I was hoping there'd be a more tamer and upstanding addition in here. Barbarians have the 'Urban' concept, making them more humanized. I was hoping for this to continue with goblins. They don't get a negative to Int or Wis, so I don't see why the concept can't exist. I feel like with Goblins PF knows the crowd it caters to, the crazed Alchemists and such. I find beyond that there isn't much to add for Goblins in the book, not even for a rogue like class, the ones the race would be great for.

Svirfneblin - Wow, I don't even know what to make of this yet. All I know is I really like it, and am kind of excited to see what niches he fits into overall. On paper they look a bit like goblins, but with some extra 'oomf'.

So, some ups and downs for me. Please, let me know what stood out for you as good, bad, impressed and let down about all the other races, or if you have comments on mine. Lets try to stay focused on our overall interests of the content for reach race and not engage in a 'cheese' discussion please.

1 to 50 of 142 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.