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

Sean FitzSimon's page

1,453 posts (1,516 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,453 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

@Hmm

That Evangelist class looks really overpowered. The obedience could be a limiting factor, but dang, that's a lot of bang for a single level lost. Still, I see a lot of interesting stuff there.

I was already pretty uncomfortable expanding the guide to include stuff outside the loose core, but the community seemed to agree that it was necessary. I really don't think I can expand it any further than the oracle specific stuff though- there's a crap ton of bloat already.

That said, I really like the idea of including links to relevant guides on the paizo forums. That's a fantastic idea, and I think I'm going to incorporate it soon.

As for the equipment.. ugh. I hate them both. They're powerful, but they're basically just buying feats (extra revelation). Still, they're legit. I think I'm going to be including a new section about equipment, but pruned to the basics of "equipment all oracles should know about." Ignoring the basic stuff and just focusing on things that help oracles in particular. Those are good pointers. And I love Mnemonic Vestment.


sunbeam wrote:

I took a reread of your guide since you made changes.

I do have a question about the Heavens Oracle revelation, Moonlight Bridge.

"Moonlight Bridge (Su): You summon a bridge of shimmering moonlight. The 10-foot-wide span touches the ground at a point adjacent to your position. From this point it can extend in any direction for 10 feet per oracle level. The path persists until you have crossed over the bridge or for 24 hours, whichever is shorter. You may summon a moonlight bridge a number of times per day equal to your Charisma bonus. Should the bridge be attacked, treat it as a wall of force."

Okay this is the english language, and this is a site for pedants.

But what stops you from using this exactly as you would a wall of force? Some might say it is parsing but "From this point it can extend in any direction for 10 feet per oracle level," can be interpreted to mean that you can shape it anyway you want basically. Well if you want to get funky with geometry.

You have to start on the ground, but you can go this way, then that way, then up.

Just my take on it. Maybe this is really old news and has been hashed out already, but if so I have missed it.

Even if you say it has to start on the ground, then go in only one direction, you can put it at the bottom of a door and end it at the top of the door. If you put it so the door can't swing open with your moonlight bridge in the way you have the functionality of Hold Portal or Arcane Lock as well.

Don't forget that it says, very specifically:

"The 10-foot-wide span touches the ground at a point adjacent to your position."

Emphasis mine. A span in this instance would make it almost necessarily horizontal (or mostly horizontal), but clearly indicates that it is to bridge the distance between two points.

Even if you cut out the flavor text, the ability is still written to be a bridge, and not as flexible as a wall of force. It's also important to note that the revelation does not say that the ability functions as the spell Wall of Force, but rather reacts to attacks as the spell Wall of Force.

I appreciate RAW, but I tend to err on the side of reasonable DMs and RAI. There's a lot of the books that require interpretation, and this one seems pretty clear to me. It is not, however, explicitly stated and perhaps it should be.


Official Guide Update

The following sections have now been updated to contain all current content relevant to the guide:

  • Curses
  • Mysteries

The following sections are currently being worked on:
  • Archetypes

Remaining sections are:
  • Feats
  • Spells (0-9)
  • Multiclass Options

Notes: Curses, Mysteries, and Archetypes all contain options outside of the defined "Loose Core." They are separated from the other options in their section and clearly marked with their source. Other options from these sources are not included in the guide unless explicitly mentioned.


sunbeam wrote:

Additionally though, I am kind of confused by changing the "type" of a spell.

If I understand things correctly, there are a number of sorcerer bloodlines that change they type of a spell. But metamagic rods that use elemental spell do not.

So if you had the sorcerer bloodlines for marid, and were an oracle of flame, changing a fireball to an iceball renders burning magic useless.

But if you used a metamagic elemental spell rod to change a fireball to an iceball, burning would still kick in. (icy hot?)

It's not about changing the type of the spell, but the Descriptor.

Now, RAW doesn't say that the spell will change its descriptor when using Elemental Spell Metamagic. RAI seems to be that if a spell does acid damage it gains the Acid descriptor, full stop. This is consistent within the system, but not explicitly stated. Elemental Spell also allows you to make your spell two different energy types, split right down the middle. That may be why it doesn't have the text about changing descriptors.

Regardless, I think any reasonable DM would rule that descriptors are whatever the spell currently does, regardless of how it's written or how many changes have taken place.


strayshift wrote:

Would love to see an enchantment focussed Oracle (Hint, hint Paizo) as a lot of what is coming out feels a little like repetition.

I agree with you there. Mysteries like Occult and Juju feel like retellings of Lore and Bones. They take the oracle in a slightly different direction, but the flavor is very similar.


Hmm wrote:

I am glad that you'll be covering the lunar oracle. It is my favorite of the oracles, with several revelations that I consider pure blue. I'm glad that you will be revising your awesome guide. Will you be needing any help with the guide? Let me know if you need me to pitch in.

Hmm

I actually finished writing the Lunar section on Saturday. I haven't posted the official "update" in the thread because I'm still working through the different Mysteries though. As for helping I'm always checking this thread and listening to community input. If you've got some opinions on the class I'd love to hear it.

Andreww wrote:
The Lunar Oracle brings with it a number of really interesting options. Bad touch of the moon is especially hideous as soon as you start dropping mass inflict light wounds forcing max DC will saves to avoid being confused for 5 rounds against multiple enemies. It isn't even mind affecting so can affect plants and oozes.

I touched on that in the guide, and I agree, it's stupidly powerful. It is subject to all the limitations of the confusion spell, however, which means that anything immune to compulsions or mind-affecting spells won't be affected. The wording specifically states "confusion, as the spell." It'd be unreasonably powerful otherwise.

@Andreww & Hmm: I haven't had a chance to really dig through the new books yet, but with what you two are saying I'm really interested.

Hazrond wrote:
When do you think the section on the Solar Mystery from The Harrowed Handbook will be finished? i am currently about to start a game of Rise of the Runelords and was hoping this guide could offer advice but up until recently it has been woefully unupdated...

I've been working on the guide while at the office since my homelife is particularly hectic. Solar is next on the list, so you can expect it to be completed on either Tuesday or Wednesday.

Once I'm done with all the new mysteries and archetypes I'll post an official update. As it stands I'm halfway done with the mysteries and I've already wrapped up the curses.


sunbeam wrote:

Look, this is strictly my opinion, but I think you shouldn't try to incorporate Mythic Adventures material.

This stuff is way broken as a survey of the Wrath of the Righteous threads will indicate.

And my take as a player, is that to actually cover just how it interacts with Oracles is an effort bigger than you have done with this guide, even if you use this one as a base.

My 2 cents. Plus my impression is almost no one is playing with Mythic Rules, except maybe as a cherry picked ad hoc inclusion by the dm. And PFS doesn't use it at all.

Seriously take a look at Mythic Adventures. We haven't even scratched the surface of all the broken stuff you can do with it, because it isn't even popular with min/maxers.

Anyway if you do include it, good luck. I think you have a big task in front of you.

I imagine that you're probably right. It's one of the newer books that I haven't had a chance to read yet, but I do keep seeing a lot of generally negative stuff about it. I'm going to dig through it none-the-less, but if it stands very separate from the rest of the guide I'll exclude it. Especially since I skipped Words of Power.


Skyler Malik wrote:

dont forget Lunar, Solar and Winter Oracle Mysteries!

(not covering player companions, sad face)

I've actually been mulling this over. I don't like the idea of adding things from outside the "Loose Core," but I'm going to make an exception for the different mysteries. My first thought was to give them each a tiny blurb with some basic advice, but then I remembered how wordy I am. So instead they'll receive their own section and will be clearly labeled with their sources. This will be the only part of the guide that clearly steps away from the "Loose Core." I won't be adding any of the other material from the books though.

I feel that this is a good compromise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey gang, Sean again.

So we're inching up on two years since the guide has been updated and there's some new content out for the class. I've been thinking it over and I've decided to take up the mantle and start writing for the guide again.

Expect things to be a bit slow going at first. I'll need to get acquainted with the new material, and I'm very open to hearing from the community about new (and old) options.

The guide will of course maintain it's original focus and will only include books from the "loose core." Anything third party or campaign specific will be excluded. This means I won't be covering any of the revisited series or the player companion series. I'm happy to discuss any of this and of course encourage discussion of these prereferral materials, but they won't be in the guide proper.

So what does all of this mean? Basically, I'm going to be adding the following books:

  • Mythic Adventures
  • Advanced Class Guide
  • Ultimate Equipment

I'll also dig through the Gamemastery Guide and Ultimate Campaign again to see if there's anything in those that can be added, but if I recall there's nothing. With Ultimate Equipment I'm only going to add the stuff that specifically affects the oracle. I don't want to clutter the guide. I wanted to add an equipment section the first time I wrote it, but it got very complicated. Expect something with broad strokes.

I'll post updates in this thread when new sections are complete since I usually just edit the Google document directly. Hopefully this will help alleviate some of the confusion between quick edits and entire updates.

Not sure anyone really even uses this anymore but I'm excited to be back on the project. Looking forward to responses from the community.

Until then, I'll be buried in a source book.

-Sean


Hey gang,

I've been out of the game for the better part of this year. Life took a couple awkward turns and I just haven't had time to focus on the guide or pathfinder community at large.

I saw a comment by Kroisos noting that the formatting had been stripped out of the guide so I pulled it up and yes, in fact, it had. The change was noted as being done by "anonymous" and happened late December. I'm not really sure what happened since nobody else has editing permissions on the guide, but whatever. I restored a previous version and it's back to where it should be. I don't believe any data was lost.

Like I said, I've been out of the game for nearly a year now. I haven't been following updates to Pathfinder and I don't really feel qualified continuing the guide or offering advice. The guide is and always has been both a product of the community and owned by the community, with me acting as a filter and editor. If anyone wants to expand/revamp/take over the guide just hit me up and we can chat about passing over the document.

Otherwise it'll remain public and available to whoeever wants to use it. As of now I won't be continuing production of the guide. The last time I reviewed the content of the game was February 2013, so it's fairly accurate to that point. At least, as much as an opinion piece can be.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Sean FitzSimon wrote:
This has been a pretty interesting conversation. I was pretty involved (lurker status) in the 3e boards of WotC and their CharOp folks, and you saw the term get thrown around quite a bit.
Was this before 2008?

Yeah, why?


This has been a pretty interesting conversation. I was pretty involved (lurker status) in the 3e boards of WotC and their CharOp folks, and you saw the term get thrown around quite a bit. Feat Tax was a pretty simple concept that came in two forms:

1) A feat you have to take to remain functional/competitive. Power Attack, Weapon Finesse, and Natural Spell all fall into this category. It is, of course, just a feat tax for the build.

2) A feat you have to take as a stepping stone to another feat/class that provides no benefit, or exceedingly little benefit to the character. Some of the biggest offenders in 3.5e were Toughness (3 hitpoints), Mobility (a low DC tumble check negated the feat), Skill Focus (skill DCs were very easy to make), or any feat that was then replaced by a class feature in the prestige class (this was surprisingly common). Pathfinder has gotten rid of most of these, but a few still exist.

I can't agree that Combat Expertise is a feat tax, though. It's done better with Crane Style but it still expands your abilities as a combatant and does so fairly successfully. It's only a "tax" if you choose never to use it.


@Amric: Thanks for the kind words, bud. :)

@Andrea1: It's only going to be 1d8/level if they're vulnerable to sunlight, which surprisingly few undead are. On the whole it's going to be 5d8 at 10th level for most enemies (avg. 22.5 damage) and a staggering 10d6 (avg. 35 damage) versus most undead. That's horrible on normal stuff and mediocre at best on the undead. I can see a few hedge cases where this might be better, like in undead-heavy campaigns, but on the whole I really feel like it's a red spell.


Avh wrote:

Or you can make him be similar to other classes, so with a 6th level casting of a 6th level caster (as a bard), and have a pet who is not customizable at-will but instead picked from a list (the fact that it will be more powerful than the druid pet is not an issue, the main problem is the customization at-will).

When you will have fixed that, you will have a summoner who is correct (or even powerful through its pet), but not broken.

I think this is probably the best solution. The summoner shouldn't have their eidolon nerfed down to druid strength. That's inappropriate. The druid has 9 levels of spellcasting, wildshape, and an animal companion- the summoner has 2/3 casting and a powerful summon.

The biggest issue, in my eyes, is the intense customization available to the summoner. It's too easy to min/max and a lot of the summoner rules are exceptions and special cases (so they're not well understood by the layman.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*fidgets nervously and runs for the door*


This is hurting my thinky bits.


I'm also willing to wait. I hope your player recovers swiftly.


Anyone else feel like a Paladin or Ranger archer could do a lot of damage here?


Tanuki Tales wrote:

Got some bad news folks.

One of my players may have torn out her ACL, so I'm going to need to push back starting the game for a bit. I'll be moving some of the people who have been contacting me over onto actually building up their characters, but I can't give a hard day on when we'll start.

The good news is that any lurkers or folks who haven't fully thrown in yet still have plenty of time to decide on that and contact me about their character concepts.

Oh jeez, I hope she's okay. I know that sort of thing is really painful.

I don't mind waiting for things to get going. Life happens. Just keep me updated and we'll be square. :)


Marthkus wrote:
Story Archer wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
One summons can't teleport or summon other creatures, but I get what you are saying.
This is a classic example of either 1) how people judge the Summoner class without ever really understanding its abilities or 2) the errors gamemasters make in adjudicating the summoner class which eventually causes other players to resent it.
So is that it? Case closed, master summoner is good not cheezy and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the rules?

I don't think that's what he's saying. The Summoner class is full of exemptions, exceptions, and odd-ball rules though. I'm not a huge fan of the class personally, but I do agree that a lot of the dislike of the class stems from poor understanding (or exposure to GMs/players who didn't properly understand it).


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Eldritch Heritage is based off your total level.

It will be smarter.

...that's what I just said.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Eventually, the Monkey will be smarter.

Unless the character goes the Eldritch Heritage route the familiar will always be Master Level 1, so the fighter's gonna be smarter. Barely. What a team they'll make, though!


Xexyz wrote:

I don't think it's particularly overpowered; my problem with it is more conceptual. If the barbarian otherwise has no way to tell that the target of his attack is a spellcaster, why should he get the bonus damage?

I think I'm going to amend it so that he has to see the creature cast a spell or use a spell-like ability in order for the power to work.

While this would certainly remove all doubt, you could also lean on skills. A successful monster knowledge check should identify a creature naturally capable of casting spells, and a perception or sense motive check should suffice for trained casters- at least in some cases.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I love what Paizo did with the Oracle. This is sort of how I saw it:

3.5 Cleric: Devotee of a god, channeling divine power through faith
3.5 Favored Soul: Also a devotee of a god, channeling divine power through faith (but with a crappier spellcasting system)

PF Cleric: Devotee of a god, channeling divine power through faith
PF Oracle: Vessel of a Divine Concept, channeling divine power through her very existence.

I'm speaking in hyperbole of course, so take it with a grain of salt. Paizo did a fine job of making the classes distinct in both mechanics and flavor. It gives players (and GMs) the opportunity to play around with divine magic without having to worship a higher power. Yes, you can do this by playing a "godless" cleric, but it's still different. Clerics are utterly devoted to their concept/god, where-as an Oracle is simply a conduit.


Tanuki Tales wrote:
Is anyone else having trouble accessing the house rules? I've had two people already voice this, but I'm beginning to think the issue may be something attached to Paizo and not the document (since the people I gave the link to off-site had no issue seeing it).

I found that there was a random space in the web address which, when copied, showed up as %20. Delete that and it works like a charm.


Came down with a nasty cold yesterday. I'm recovering (slowly) while also working so my background might have to wait a bit. I'm interested in knowing if anyone else is going the jungles/necromancer route to see if we should entangle our backgrounds- otherwise Talodarrin is going to be a battle-mage prodigy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shifty wrote:

I don't think I've been had.

I full expect a Sarkeesian video to be posted next, and a long monologue about creeper behaviour being handwaved and given a pass in the gaming community.

If, on the other hand, it is a legit post... well thats even more fightening.

Hope they hurry up either way though, my box of popcorn is running low.

See, that's the thing. Except for the GM following the original poster to the forums (which strikes me as the most trollsy detail) I don't see a lot of his actions as creeper-status.

Honestly, I could see myself accidentally doing exactly what he did. They've been friends/friendly for 20 years and he made a few attempts to get ahold of her. She perceives it as harassment and runs to the forums to vent or seek advice. She hasn't come back, so that leaves her original position somewhat suspect.

Maybe the GM is a creeper. But maybe he's just a guy who got wrapped up in a really awkward situation he didn't even know he was in, and then got frustrated when he was branded a villain on the forums. Maybe in his frustration he defended himself, like anyone might do, and said a few things he probably shouldn't have.

In my opinion, both parties are at fault. The OP acted like a coward and a jerk by deliberately ignoring/avoiding the GM, never bringing up her concerns to the person who matters, and then running to the forums to paint him as a harasser. The GM is potentially oblivious of social queues (not necessarily a crime) and maybe even a bit too pushy by some standards. He didn't keep very good track of his own game, which is on him. The worst thing he did, by my viewing, was throwing all the blame onto the OP. Yeah, maybe this was a misunderstanding, but posts in the vein of "you brought this on yourself" don't garner much sympathy. Also, following the OP to the forums is a mite bit creepy (even if just to defend yourself).

If it's a legit situation I feel kinda bad. Both of these people are at fault and it could have been avoided by simply talking to each other. I hope each leaves this with some sort of personal growth.


This whole thread seems pretty trollsy. A post complaining about a game from a 1-post account, and then a follow-up from another new account defending himself.

The whole situation of "he said, she said" just seems designed to incite a lot of argument, and so far it's working.

Y'all, I think you've been had.


I'd be wary of allowing it. I see it from two perspectives:

1) Scimitars aren't that great, and they're certainly not gamebreaking. Any class trying to use them to great ability is only going to get two benefits: proficiency and pseudo Weapon Focus, which is roughly two feats. However, any build worth using them with probably already HAS proficiency with them (or something mechanically similar like the rapier or longsword) so it's not a huge deal. Essentially, it's a +1 to attack.

2) Archery sucks if you're not investing heavily in it, so it's somewhat of a different beast. Melee, however, is pretty great all on its own if you've got the stats to back it up. Offering the benefit of 1-2 feats for a bracer slot and a sum of gold likely has more bang for a melee person than a archery person.

Those are just my thoughts, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Then again... there are those who might appreciate the height difference for certain... purposes...

Like being able to use the top cabinets for whatever you like, because it's not like she's going to be getting up there.


The Human Diversion wrote:
Jane Lynch

Hey! Jane Lynch isn't ugly! She's just regular looking.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Charisma may be an example of physical attractiveness, but it can also be completely divorced from appearance. Allow me to show you a few creatures with high charisma that are defined by their ugliness (or their horrifying nature).

Night Hag (CHA 17)
Sea Hag (CHA 15)
Undead Horror Tree (CHA 18)
Dark Naga (CHA 17)
Tentacled Horror (CHA 18)

Hope that helps justify your cause. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KestlerGunner wrote:
omg its amazing.

I was less than impressed. I enjoyed the heck out of it for the first hour or two, but the fun was quickly overwhelmed with a frustrating and tedious magic system.

Magic is so iconic in games like this, but Grimrock basically encourages you to play mage-less. I've made a few attempts to go back and finish it, but I can never get past level 5 before I quit.

I just keep hoping that the come out with some sort of fan-patch that redoes the magic. The game has so much potential for me!

(this is all personal opinion. I know a lot of people really enjoyed the magic system.)


FratManCy wrote:

Oh, I didn't think anyone would go that far for character creation..hm...ah.

Using the SRD options for the core races (favored class bonuses and alternate racial traits) are totally fine with me.

I typically stay around from 3rd Party materials because its may/may not be balanced for pathfinder. But, if you've a solid reason as to why this should be the exception, pick my brain.

Haha, sorry. I like to explore mechanical options as a way to flesh out a character- RP and Crunch in the same bite, you know? I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't going to dig into anything you didn't want in the campaign.

Also, I usually avoid 3rd party materials simply because of the unease of the community. And that they were notoriously unbalanced in 3e/3.5.


magnuskn wrote:
Dal Selpher wrote:
I was actually surprised and impressed with the story. Blizzard has a habit of taking heroes and corrupting them into irredeemable villains (which, frankly I'm tired of) but they avoided that this time around. I thought they did an excellent job of turning Kerrigan into a sympathetic and tragic character. I especially enjoyed the cinematic with the shapeshifter in light of this.
She's horribly inconsistent. On one hand, she's supposed to be sympathetic and still show that she is not as monstrous as the Queen of Blades v1. OTOH, she gleefully massacres planet garrisons to test her newest Zerg toys. I found her a pretty bad main protagonist, if the idea is that players should identify with her plight.

I didn't find her inconsistent at all. Kerrigan has always been my favorite character of the series, so having the expansion focus entirely on her was an absolute blast for me. Bias, I know, but I acknowledge that.

Potential plot spoilers:
I found Kerrigan's character more complex than in previous games. Early on she's sympathetic and vulnerable, and then filled with rage- it becomes her driving goal. Her humanity is waning as the story goes on and she becomes more and more like the previous Queen of Blades. She's rutheless against "faceless enemies," but randomly spares people as a "testament to her Terran roots." It isn't until she faces Raynor that she realizes that's she's truly lost herself and accepts her role, really, as the Queen of Blades.

So yeah, I didn't find it inconsistent. I found her return to evil to be organic and engaging.


Sean FitzSimon wrote:

Most of us are probably using d20pfsrd.com for character creation which, for the most part, identifies where its content comes from (so we can avoid unallowed material). However I think it was the Advanced Race Guide that expanded all core races and the site doesn't break it down by source very well.

To simplify my question, are we allowed to use any of the SRD options for the core races (favored class bonuses, alternate racial traits), excluding feats, or do we need to track down where the option came from and only use those from the allowed material?

Any chance I could get you to touch on this, please?


Most of us are probably using d20pfsrd.com for character creation which, for the most part, identifies where its content comes from (so we can avoid unallowed material). However I think it was the Advanced Race Guide that expanded all core races and the site doesn't break it down by source very well.

To simplify my question, are we allowed to use any of the SRD options for the core races (favored class bonuses, alternate racial traits), excluding feats, or do we need to track down where the option came from and only use those from the allowed material?


Interested.
4d6 ⇒ (5, 4, 2, 6) = 17 = 15
4d6 ⇒ (5, 1, 1, 3) = 10 = 9
4d6 ⇒ (5, 6, 2, 4) = 17 = 15
4d6 ⇒ (2, 5, 4, 2) = 13 = 11
4d6 ⇒ (6, 4, 3, 5) = 18 = 15
4d6 ⇒ (2, 4, 1, 5) = 12 = 11

Hmm. That's 22 point buy, but I think I'm better off going with actual point buy on this one. I'm thinking a Sylvan Sorcerer currently. Not sure on the race yet.


@Rasmus: I think that would be helpful. I don't know how anyone else feels, but to me it will really kill the mood if we're seeing leaks from other settings. The Diablo 'verse has a rich lore that should be easy to build from.

Heck, I did a quick search and found this Diablo Wiki to be both helpful and verbose.

In fact, this page here is a good starting point for the religions of Sanctuary.


@cjgrimm: Would you roll the character as a Necromancer as well (cult of Rathma)? If so, I really encourage it! I think it would be a blast to play with someone else from the same place.

Hell, if you went that route I'd love to weave our backgrounds together.


Tanuki Tales wrote:
Anyways, let's take the rest of the discussion about this Archetype idea to PMs, alright?

Sorry about that. I've sent you a PM.


Tanuki Tales wrote:
Which book was Lyrist in again? Complete Scoundrel?

It's from Complete Adventurer, if I recall. But it's also available online. I always thought it was a really great idea for a class, but pretty poorly implemented. You needed 3 classes and couldn't gain access until 11th level, which is FAR too late. I feel that the prestige class could be recreated by creating an archetype for a druid. If you stripped out most of the druid features (keep nature bond) you could build in bardic music (limited to what the Evangelist gets), evasion, and bardic knowledge. Instant success without the awkwardness of a dual-caster or messed up BAB.


jlighter wrote:
Ask your GM if, since you didn't really get a chance to play the character, you can have it re-introduced under a different name, and maybe with one or two details changed. Or ask if it would be possible to get a deity-revival-favor that you then have to work off (excellent RP opportunity).

I think this is a really good choice. If you didn't get very far in the game it's likely that your character really isn't known. Swap a few details, maybe a new race, and ask if you can return.


Tanuki Tales wrote:
My setting has its own pantheons and such (which, outside one specific goddess and one patron figure, aren't written up or decided at all), but it takes the same path that Eberron did. There is divine power and there are god-like creatures/creatures that are held akin to gods/creatures that claim to be gods, but whether the gods empirically exist is not really known by anyone. And those who would know aren't inclined to talk about it and/or shouldn't exactly be trusted in the first place.

So where does that leave divine classes, like the Cleric (Evangelist)?

Also, would you be opposed to me coming up with some type of Druid archetype along the lines of the Fochlucan Lyrist of 3.5? That's really what I'm aiming for. Bardic ability (to some degree) and druid spells.


Not really getting any inspiration here, so I'm going to bow out. It looks like you've got a lot of interest here so you shouldn't miss me too much. :D

Hope the campaign goes well!


Decided against using anything from GitPG. It was mostly 3.5 stuff anyway.

Had a few questions though- I was hoping to build a druid/bard hybrid, but the only way to really do that is to build a cleric (evangelist) who worships a nature god, which is fine. I was curious if you're using the golarion gods, or if you've got your own pantheon?


@Tanuki Tales: Oh, that sounds awesome! I love the idea of struggling to gain higher powers of magic. It makes it feel more... oomph-y.

I'm currently looking over the GitPG forums now. That place is really unorganized.

Right now I'm thinking about playing a Chameleon. I haven't decided which version I prefer more, but I don't have any interest in the martial maneuvers or vestiges. I'll hit you up with more details when I have them.


@Rasmus: Oh, I guess I was vague on that front. I apologize. When I referred to it being a "balancing issue" I was actually talking about Pathfinder and D&D, not Diablo.

But I agree about the Witch emulating curses exceptionally well. I had actually considered going the dual-cursed route to have a few of those curses, but I couldn't decide on two oracle curses that made sense. You're right though. It seems that you'd have to pick a different class depending on which tree you were looking to explore, which is frustrating. Still, summoning was always my favorite so I'm going with Bones oracle.


cjgrimm wrote:
When you say "light magic," does that imply any restrictions on magic using classes?

I'm interested to hear about your response to this as well. If you're curbing access to full casters it'll change a lot.


Well, you've piqued my interest. I'll need to look over a few sources, but I'm mulling a couple ideas right now. I'll post again when I've got a better idea of what I'd like to pursue.

1 to 50 of 1,453 << 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.