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

Tels's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 5,521 posts (5,552 including aliases). No reviews. 5 lists. No wishlists. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,521 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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?


So... can I have caiphai in my fantasy?


jhpace1 wrote:
ANYtime you re-WBL you get a better character! Every Adventure Path out there is miserly compared to the Core/Gamemaster Guide.

That's actually not true. James Jacobs says they put in betweeon +50% to +100% more treasure in adventure paths (depending on the story) because not every group will find every item. However, this is WBL for 4 characters, so if you have 5 or more players and the GM doesn't adjust the treasure, they certainly will seem to be pretty miserly.

Psionics have actually been around for a while now, and many people play with heavy psionics in their games. I wasn't expecting epic campaign spotlight stories, just cool things people have done in the game.


Caybun Weer could probably be made an Investigator/Shadow Dancer, though I'm not sure if it would necessarily be 'better'. Just as Batman has gone through periods of being more 'fighty' and more 'detective' you could have one version that is less fighter more detective, and another more fighter less detective.

[Edit] Oops, submitted it early.

Foerth could probably be better as a Slayer, because the River Kingdoms are so full of a variety of creatures and races which is where the Slayer's Favored Target can trump the Ranger's Favored Enemy.

Taur Thelyn can make a pretty good Slayer/Horizon Walker if you abuse the Rogue Talent 'Terrain Mastery'. Though I'm not sure if he'll be able to get all the feats he has now.

Those are all that come to mind when I do a rough glance through the Emporium. I'm just not sure if the ACG classes will replace any characters as they currently exist. It's possible that some of the archetypes could do it better though. Like I thought about swapping Sela Kurn to an Arcanist (as he seems kind of spell-hackerish), but I'm not really sure if that would work.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
Tels wrote:
I'm looking forward to playing the Commoner: Unchained!
Announced for Pathfinder Unchained: New adjustments to the CR system render NPC classes useless, so they have been removed from the game. The Commoner: Rechained.

Y U H8 MY Parade?


Damn. I was hoping my theory would play out and this thread would blow up with examples of awesome psionics. :(


I have a theory, we shall find out if I'm right when I get back from fishing in the morning.


Glutton wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Mark Hoover wrote:
So Thor's a girl; your thoughts?

About time!

AKA: I approve.

Kinda been done already.

PS I love Earth X and think the end bit with Galactus should be official Marvel stance. Did you ever pick it up?

Little note though, this won't be some alternate universe Thor, or some temporary gender bend. As far as has been released that I've read, "Thor" will be a girl for some time (perhaps even permanently). It's unknown what will happen to the current Thor, only that he will be found 'unworthy of the power of Thor'.

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?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I remember one of my friends playing a Psion who's favorite power created, in his own words, "Ecto Boogers" that he would snort out of his nose and throw at people. It was actually two powers, Ectoplasmic Sheen and Entangling Ectoplasm, but he flavored them both as one power (still counted as two mechanically). He would hawk and snort out a big green booger that he would then throw on people to make them slippery or stick them to the floor/walls/tree etc.

Kind of gross, but hilarious when he, essentially, covered a dragon in his boogers and kept it from flying. :)


Anzyr wrote:
Odraude wrote:

Well actually, instead of it being a "reach for reserves", you could phrase it as a "one last ace in the hole"

"Uren was surrounded by the savage barbarians. Back against the wall, he knew that he only had one incantation within him. One last ace up his sleeve. As his hands flourished and eyes glowed crimson, Uren uttered a single word...

'...fireball...'"

Still sounds evocative. Though I find that we are getting grossly off topic from Psioncis.

Ya, but the audience already knows he has it. Don't get me wrong, obviously you can make really good fantasty stories with vancian magic, I just find it lends itself less easily to a narrative. "And lo did Urek prepare 3 Fireballs that morning, because he planned poorly and prayed he did not run into thing that required something other then a hammer."

Ugh, I remember a scene like that R.A. Salvatore's 'A Thousand Orcs' when a someone calls for the Wizard to fireball a group flooding the gate or something, and the Wizard calls back, "I can't, I only prepared 2 fireballs today!" Really kind of broke my immersion in the book.

Honestly, the magic system I would prefer the most would have to be modeled after the Harry Potter universe. Where you can know any number of spells, but you it kind of requires a skill check, or some sort of focus or something or you fail.


Ravingdork wrote:
I've updated the artwork for Lweoh Estalc.

I like it!


pming wrote:

Hiya.

Tels wrote:


No, I was looking to be able to use Snap Shot feats and the Stand Still feat to be able to 'control' my area by preventing people from moving past. Kind of like shooting at someones foot to stop them from moving, or nailing their cloak to the earth etc. I just thought it would be a fun and thematic little combination.

Uh...ask your DM? The rules, ALL OF THEM, are the baseline from which all DM adjudications are made. The rules are the _baseline_, they are not the _end-result_. If your DM thinks that's cool, yay you! If your DM think's it's cheese...well, there you go. If you're trying to get some rule to point to and say "Nuh-uhh! See! Rules says yes!", you could be in for a rude awakening (hint: the DM is always right...even when he goes directly against the rules!).

Personally? If I was your DM I'd just make up a new Feat and call it "Trick Shot: Pin Foe's Movement". Then toss on some requirements and write it out describing it's use for "pinning" an opponent to some surface (as per your description). So, once again, talk to your DM. :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Well, I'm the GM, but my GMs tend to turn to me for rules clarifications any way. The idea popped into my mind as I was helping a friend build an Inquisitor Archer and I wondered if it was technically legal or not. I didn't find anything definitive myself, so I asked the forums.

Even still, the only thing stopping it is kind of shaky as it is. Personally, in my home games I'd absolutely allow ranged combat maneuvers with weapons. I'd probably have them very difficult (-5 penalty or more). To not obviate the Archer-Fighter ability, they would gain no penalty to the shot, and may even gain a bonus.

I just think that shooting a weapon out of someones hand with a bow, or shooting a hanging rope, or pining a cloak to the a wall is way to thematic and iconic for an archer to be restricted to the archer-fighter class.


I'm looking forward to playing the Commoner: Unchained!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

[tease] You know what would be cool! Playing a WoW Warlock in Pathfinder! [/tease]

:)

Here's a preview of some of the power-combos, as I just finished writing the create healthstone power.

** spoiler omitted **...

Sweet! :)

I'll quit bugging you about it for a while ;)

No worries. Keeps me motivated / reminded.

*Bug*

...

*Nag*

...

*Whine*

...

*Complain*

...

Am I helping?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blackvial wrote:
David Neilson wrote:
I was actually more curious that they used "The Bull" since it is obviously a male gendered animal for a female iconic. Unlike if they had called say "The Avalanche", "The Dragon" or "The Destroyer"
maybe because she fights like a bull in a china shop?

Very gracefully? Mythbusters


Treefolk wrote:
If you're flooking for a few manuvers there are trip and grappling arrows (and bolt equivalents).

No, I was looking to be able to use Snap Shot feats and the Stand Still feat to be able to 'control' my area by preventing people from moving past. Kind of like shooting at someones foot to stop them from moving, or nailing their cloak to the earth etc. I just thought it would be a fun and thematic little combination.


Ashiel wrote:
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Which reminds me. Anyone know if DSP has plans for Mythic Psionics?
If DSP did mythic, we might have mythic rules that actually worked. That'd be pretty sweet.

Link


James Jacobs wrote:
Heretik61 wrote:
2. Are all creatures in the bestiaries published by Paizo assumed to exist in the Inner Sea setting to some degree?
2) Nope. Most, but not all.

What monsters are not assumed to be on Golarion?


Alleran wrote:
Tels wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
Right, and what of his pre-lich fight with Aroden that raged for like ten days?
Do you have a reference for how long the fight lasted, because I can't find anything other than it was a "terrible battle".

The wiki cites their battle to the Campaign Setting and the Liches of Golarion article (from the final Carrion Crown AP book). You could have a look at those to see if it's in there. I'm AFB, so I can't look through my own stuff, but ten days is ringing a bell somewhere in my head.

What also might be pertinent is whether or not Aroden was a full deity at the time, or if he was still a demigod:

James Jacobs wrote:
And it's a common misconception that Aroden used the Starstone to become a deity—he did not. His act of raising the Starstone and the Isle of Kortos helped put him into demigod level, and it was numerous other things he did in the thousands of years to follow that eventually boosted him into true deity level. He was a demigod while "walking Golarion," and that's something that plenty of other demigods (Arazni, Treerazer, Lorthact, Ydersius, etc.) have done and still do.

If he was a demigod, then given that Tar-Baphon lured Aroden to the Isle of Kortos, set the trap, and had all the home-ground advantages he could muster (and, you know, wizard), and was already mythic thanks to unlocking Zutha's Cenotaph (he may have been in the CR 22-24 range), I could see a drawn-out battle taking place (yes, everybody knows it'll come down to the first round or two in play, but this is story-wise).

I'd forgotten that reference to Arazni losing power when she was killed and later brought back as a lich. How interesting. I'll have to look at Mythic Realms again to see if there's anything in there that agrees/disagrees with it.

Well, Aroden ascended in 1 AR and the battle took place 896 years later, so he was probably a full God at the time. However, it may be possible that Tar-Baphon did the same thing that Lamashtu did with Curchannus (in fact, the story of Tar-Baphon and Aroden is scarily similar to that of Lamashtu and Curchannus except Aroden won). He could have lured Aroden to the island and then besieged him with many of his allies, only to ultimately fail because he didn't have quite the same 'oomph' that Lamashtu did; Lamashtu being a full on Demon Lord at the time, where as even a mortal with 10 Mythic Tiers just doesn't have the same 'spark' of power as a Demi-God being.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that after becoming a lich, Tar-Baphon built an even more powerful trap in the same spot, but Aroden was smart enough not to fall for his tricks.

Or it may very-well be that Aroden didn't challenge Tar-Baphon a second time because he was a demi-god during the first battle (and thus able to interfere with mortal events), where as during the second challenge, he had risen to full Godhood, and therefore prevented from interfering directly with mortal events.


Peter Stewart wrote:
Right, and what of his pre-lich fight with Aroden that raged for like ten days?

Do you have a reference for how long the fight lasted, because I can't find anything other than it was a "terrible battle".


Blackvial wrote:
Tels wrote:
Cthulhudrew wrote:
Mark Moreland wrote:
Needless to say, Kess is not evil. None of the iconics we've introduced thus far from the ACG have been evil.

(emphasis mine)

In other words- MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!? :D

I suspect the Slayer may be evil.
I thought there wasn't going to be any evil iconic characters?

The Magus, Seltyiel, is Lawful Evil.


Cthulhudrew wrote:
Mark Moreland wrote:
Needless to say, Kess is not evil. None of the iconics we've introduced thus far from the ACG have been evil.

(emphasis mine)

In other words- MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!? :D

I suspect the Slayer may be evil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I blame Cosmo for the following rant I posted on Facebook:

Rant:
You know what's really annoying? All the stupid s$!* you find when you search for something.

Google "Meals to eat on an upset stomach" You know you find as good "meals" to eat? Bananas. 'Cause Bananas make a good full-course meal.

Oh, Ginger! Yeah, I love me some Ginger root for dinner!

Pro-biotics! Delicious! Whoo! Eating well tonight!

It's even worse because half this crap is listed on those stupid websites that make you click an arrow to 'view the next slide' only for it to re-load the entire website. Now, why does it re-load the entire website instead of just moving to the next slide? I'll tell you: So they can load up another damned advertisement group.

F$#*ing websites keep stuffing their advertisements down my throat while I'm too busy vomiting stuff back up my throat while trying to find something to settle my stomach, but still filling for everyone else to eat for dinner.

Seriously, when I search for 'meals for dinner' I don't want to find single ingredients that don't actually help me in anyway. Especially when one of the damned ingredients listed is probiotics!


Rogar Valertis wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:

Tar-Baphon IS incredibly scary as written, with his variation on the mythic lich template.

Consider this: unlike every other caster on Golarion, there is no upper limit at all to the number or power level of undead he can have under his direct control. He can have undead more powerful than Arazni as his minions.

Which is a cool ability that goes a long way towards painting him as a mighty tyrant, that's fine. But Tar-Baphon, within the lore we've seen, is not painted as powerful because he controls a battalion of arch-vampires, super deathwalkers, or ultra liches. He's painted as tremendously personally powerful. With the power to not only defeat, but to humiliate the herald of a god and (pre-lichidom) fight a battle against a god that lasted days and wrecked an entire island.

If the intention is for him to be terrifying because he controls minions, I think some disconnect has occurred between the writers of his history and fluff and the guys who put his stats together.

A does not follow B in this case, and I'm wondering if it's intentional, or just an oversight in his building process.

The fact he was (and is) a terrible menace to Golarion doesn't mean he's the most powerful being on Golarion. On the contrary, the fact he failed tells the tale more eloquently than words could.

That said the assumption that Tar Baphon should be more powerful than Arazni because he defeated her when she was an herald is just wrong: check Herald of the Ivory Labyrinth and consider how a CR 22 Marilith (unique) can do the very same thing. This is mechanically correct because... heralds are CR15 creatures (with ONE exception, check Inner Sea Gods). So at the time when the Whispering Tyrant defeated her Arazni was a pale shadow of the creature she became in undeath. One could claim the Tyrant should be more powerful than Jeb, but we just don't know how powerful Jeb is. The only thing we know is his final battle with Nex...

Actually, Arazni was a demi-god and a herald of Aroden at the time of her death. Her CR was unique (like the Tarrasque), in the CR 26-30 range. But Arazni was not just defeated, she was utterly humiliated, indicating a vast difference in power between Tar-Baphon and Arazni at the time.

If she had been a normal Herald (CR 15), there wouldn't be as much of a problem. But the lore is that Arazni as she exists today, is weaker than she was when she was killed:

Undead Revistied Page 26 wrote:
The Harlot Queen of Geb—once Aroden’s herald Arazni, before her forced corruption by the Whispering Tyrant—is another famous lich, though not nearly as powerful now as she was as a goddess. Still, she has the ghost-king’s power behind her to help keep the scheming and independent-minded populace at bay. There are known to be a number of liches who live openly in Geb—these seem to enjoy the novelty of living in plain sight, as well as the long game of politics with each other in this undead state.

So that means as a Lich Wizard 20/Marshal 8 (CR 26) she is weaker than she was a demi-god, which means as a demi-god she was in the CR 27-30 range. That means when Tar-Baphon fought her, he would need to be in the CR 28-30 range, and yet, he's not.

The only thing that I think of to rectify this, is that Tar-Baphon did not fight her alone. Instead, he used his unique ability to control vast sums of undead to overwhelm Arazni before capturing her and torturing her as he did.

This would make the mechanics of Tar-Baphon fit along with the lore of Tar-Baphon. Especially since he was defeated by a guy using an artifact, and sealed away. So it's possible Tar-Baphon wasn't overwhelmingly powerful like other casters were (Geb, Nex, Sorshen), but that through his raw strength and the numbers at his command, he was able to do everything he did.


Rurouni Kenshin 2: Kyoto - The Legend Ends trailer

[Edit] Ok, further information. From what I found is that this trailer is for both sequels to the original movie. There will be one, roughly titled as Kyoto Fire, and the second will be the Legend Ends. My understanding is that the whole Shishio/Kyoto arc will take place over two movies, and then they will adapt the next arc, Last of a Legend.

I don't know how much of this is true, but it would make sense as the Kyoto arc had a lot happen in it.


RedDogMT wrote:

The maneuvers themselves actually make it pretty definitive. Of the 'big' ones, only Grapple and Overrun do not specifically call out using a melee attack...but the description of the maneuvers are strong enough to avoid confusion.

.
Of course, there are exceptions such as the bola which can be used to trip at range.
.
.
Bull Rush: You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack...

Disarm: You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack...

Grapple: As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe...

Overrun: As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square...

Sunder: You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack...

Trip: You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack....

A GM that allows Combat Maneuvers to classes other than the Archer-Fighter Archetype is being quite generous. Now, there is nothing wrong with a GM doing that, but it would be homebrew.

The thing is, you have the general combat maneuvers rules, then you have the specific maneuvers themselves that alter how the general rules work.

So in the general rules for combat maneuvers, there doesn't seem to be anything that specifically limits ranged weapons from making maneuvers. The specific maneuvers themselves, like disarm, trip, sunder etc. limits those manevuers to only being used during a melee attack without another exemption.

The CMB check for Stand Still just uses the general CMB rules, which is why I asked. However, Honorable Goblins post, I think, kills the idea as it mentions in place of a melee attack for attacks of opportunity. Since the Stand Still mechanic is an attack of opportunity, I would have to go so far as to only allow Stand Still to function with melee weapons, per RAW.

It's a shame, but it's probably something I'd allow regardless. Honestly, I really don't see any issue with ranged weapons for disarm, sunder, or trip because it does happen a lot in many media. Shooting a sword out of someones hand, or maybe in the leg to trip them, or sundering a rope used to hang someone etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cthulhudrew wrote:
Tels wrote:
Real-life Chainsaw-Sword.

That looks kind of puny. :(

But I give them props for the attempt, at least. It's a good step towards something like on the cover of Lords of Rust.

I look upon it as a prototype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Real-life Chainsaw-Sword.


SlimGauge wrote:
Stand Still explicitly says "adjacent squares", not "threatened squares", so if your combination works at all, it only works in adjacent squares.

Good point, so RAW it would still work with Snap Shot. (My group uses Stand Still ass applying to all threatened squares, so a little house rule for us).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Coridan wrote:
I really don't get why the rogue is considered so awful personally. They tend to be brutal in our home games, though a way to be effective as a ranged rogue would be nice it would be easy to do with talents.

It's because he has little-to-no method of increasing his attack bonus like literally every other class in the game can do. It's also because the two saving throws that can 1-shot a character, the Rogue has bad saves in (Fort and Will). Also, as a 'light armor' class, he doesn't have the HP or AC to stand at the front lines with everyone else.

So he has a harder time hitting than every other combat class in the game.

He has a harder time saving against the most dangerous spells than all of the other main combat classes who either have a good Fortitude, or a good Will save. Reflex almost always means 'Save or take Damage' while Fortitude could mean 'save or die' or 'save or take s+$! tons of damage that can kill you' or 'save or take ability damage'. Will saves tend to mean 'save or kill your party'.

On average he has less HP than other classes, or he has less AC, or less methods of mitigating attacks. Caster martials (like Bards, Alchemists or Magi) can use magic to increase their defenses (like displacement or mirror image), while classes like Monks, Fighters or Paladins can have really high armor classes. Then you've got Barbarians who have chest muscles that deflect bullets.

The Rogue's main method of boosting his damage, sneak attack, is also one of the easiest damage boosters to deny. A cheap alchemical item, the smokestike, shuts down sneak attack. Many creatures are immune to sneak attack, or can't be flanked.

Combine it all together and the Rogue has the short end of the stick when it comes to combat. Then you have several other classes who steal from the Rogues role as 'skill monkey' by letting them disable magical traps (also available through a trait!), or completely obviating the need for him through judicious application of magic.

The Rogue's got a tough life because every aspect of his class can be done by someone else, and often times better than he can.


Peter Stewart wrote:
Why is Arazni (who was defeated, humiliated, and tortured to death by the Whispering Tyrant) statistically more powerful than he is in almost every meaningful way?

Lichdom made the Tyrant more powerful, why too cannot it make one that he killed more powerful as well?

Perhaps Arazni might have a little rematch if he ever escapes from his cell. Hell hath no fury like a bat-s++# crazy, evil, psychopathic, undead female wizard lich, scorned after all.


With the exception of the Archer-Fighter Archetype which explicitly gives the Fighter the ability to make a variety of combat maneuvers with his bow, is there actually anything in the rolls that says you can't make a combat maneuver with a ranged weapon?

I've tried looking around the rules myself, but I can't find anything that explicitly states you can't use a ranged weapon, like a bow or throwing axe for combat maneuvers. Now, the only weapons that it would even be possible with, is Disarm, Trip and Sunder, as they are the only maneuvers that can normally be used in conjunction with a weapon.

Disarm, Trip and Sunder however, all explicitly states they are used in place of a melee attack. So these maneuvers are all out of the question. Normally, this means you can't make any combat maneuvers with a bow.

However! The reason why I ask this question is because of Stand Still and Snap Shot.

The Snap Shot feats (Snap Shot + Improved Snap Shot) allows the bow user to threaten up to 15 ft around him. Stand Still allows you to make a combat maneuver in place of an attack of opportunity to prevent a creature from moving through your threatened squares.

So, if a bow user could make combat maneuvers, he could use Snap Shot + Stand Still to control his threatened area.

This brings me back to my question: Is there a rule that says you can't make combat maneuver checks with a ranged weapon?


Ed Reppert wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

It's my birthday (party) today!

I'm...

...uh...

...*ahem*...

..heh...

...*deep breath*...

...thirty.

Happy birthday, young'un! :-)

Happy Birthday! 30 years old is still prime time for many people!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Apocryphile wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


HUGS!!!!

How can a Tyrannosaur hug? They've only got teeny weeny little arms….

p.s.

I'm guessing not much of this book will be made PFS legal…?

They hug with their jaw.


Torbyne wrote:
Not even to help young love bloom?

No, that falls into the realm of Evil, possibly Chaotic Evil even.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ENHenry wrote:
As for Kess... Now THAT'S my kind of woman! Kind of reminds me of my wife's approach. :)

Did your Wife clobber you over your head, and drag you to the bedroom while declaring herself 'married and ceremony be damned'? Because that's the kind of thing I picture Kess doing.


James Jacobs wrote:
Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
Need a T-Rex t-shirt?
OMG!

There needs to be a series of pictures of you chasing the Paizonians around the office with this shirt. Preferably while wearing The Gauntlet. Maybe with a Goblin Plushy riding your back?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Cybe-Cleric of Shelyn - Digital Love


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

Now, one thing that's been ignored, is the NPC wealth.

His hypothetical CR by class level (which is what we're using to determine XP) is 18. That nets him 41,000 gold to play with. I bet we could actually make him somewhat pretty vicious with that...

...
...
... Ashiel?

NPC's use NPC Wealth, not monster wealth, so he'd have 123,000 gp if using basic stats, or 159,000 gp if using heroic stats. There's a lot you can do to give a commoner a boost with that amount of wealth.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

I'm all for those changes.

If Wizards are buffed as well. :)

Cool.

At 20th level, wizards get a bonus hit point.

I think Wizards should get the Run feat at 20th level myself. I mean, a whole bonus feat! That's gotta be a buff right?


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Much as I was vaguely hoping for something else, I quite like this one, she seems both nice and fun.

And I'm betting on NG, Alignment-wise, though CG is also possible.

There's always headcanon for those who were disappointed.


137ben wrote:
Tels wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
I can assure you he had really good answers, though I can't really share most of them right now. But i will give you one: a couple of the classes that are not called out in the Classes chapter on the outline rely heavily on systems that are called out in other chapters.

Hypothetical clarification:

As in, the reason Fighter isn't listed as a class fix is maybe a chapter deals with fixing feats or something? Just as an example of what you mean?

So like Feats Reforged?

Sounds like Paizo has another opportunity to profit by copy/pasting others' work.

You realize that was a hypothetical example right?

Another one might be that Wizards get nerfed not through the class, but through the toning down of magic itself. The class stays exactly the same, but magic over-all gets weaker.

Or another example of a class getting fixed by fixing another system at the root of the problem is Sorcerer/Wizard relation getting fixed by fixing Vancian Casting.

Or maybe Cavalier charges aren't so OMGWTF powerful because they fixed mounted combat?

These are just hypothetical examples to clarify what Vic meant by addressing a class by addressing the underlying system. So maybe we won't see casters getting worked on in the class section of Pathfinder Unchained because the Design team is going to address the Caster/Martial disparity in the Magic chapter by nerfing magic or something.

[Edit] Also, you could tone down the snark. Humanity as it exists does so by building off the work of others. Everything we do today, happens because someone else took the first step. Paizo building off Wizards isn't a bad thing, and it's not bad if they make money off of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if Sound Striker will be an archetype that gets 'unchained'?

I've been listening to this video for years, and now all of a sudden it hit me: Celtic Sound Strike. Just wade into battle with a set of pipes and a kilt.

Most people don't enjoy my appreciation of the bagpipes, so I guess pipe music would qualify as 'Weird Words' for them huh? :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WPharolin wrote:
Ah good ol Jim the farmer. He knows two things. How to farm and how to pluck a banjo. Oh look, theres that celestial courier delivering yet another message from the Queen of Eternal Twilight trying to convince Jim to come perform in the Court of the Thousand Golden Moons. Silly celestial outsider. Doesn't he know that Jim is just an ordinary farmer, no different from me or you? He aint got time to play his banjo for divine queens of fortune, love, beauty, and dreams come true. He has to tend his crops like all the other common folk.

Always time for banjos.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Dark Psion wrote:

What are the two sticks for?

They are not thick enough to be escrima fighting sticks, don't look like they are bamboo and two aren't enough for a tent or shelter.

She gives them to her enemies for splints after she's done breaking their legs.


I'll list a number of ideas that I think would be cool on the Fighter. Any of these ideas would make him better, but if he got them all, he'd be too powerful.

1) Maneuver Styles: similar to ranger Combat Styles, but only pertaining to combat maneuvers. The Fighter gets to select a type of maneuver, and gains the feats for that maneuver as he goes up in levels. He gains the feats without meeting the pre-reqs and if other feats come out in splat books later, he's considered to meat all the pre-reqs of the feats he got, for the purpose of other feats.

For example, say he selects Improved Trip. If another feat comes out in a splat book, he's considered to have Combat Expertise and Int 13 for the purpose of selecting a Trip related feat.

It's possible that as he increases in level, he could select a second or even third Maneuver Style.

2) Increased movement based on his BAB. Like for every iterative attack he gains, he can take a free 5-ft step in addition to his normal movements. So a 20th level Fighter could take a total of four 5-ft steps. Possible even tie this into Armor Training in that he could take even more 5-ft steps in light/medium armor. At 20th level, he can take 4 steps in Heavy Armor, 5 steps in Medium Armor, and 6 steps in Light Armor.

This would make him much more mobile in combat, while also showing off his mastery of the battlefield.

3) If Weapon Training stays, I'd like to see it function at +1 to hit/+2 to damage so it stays more in line with other class' combat bonuses. I'd also like to see Weapon Training apply weapon specific feats to the entire weapon group.

4) Armor Training should get a boost, so that he is better protected by his armor, above and beyond that of just an increased dex bonus. So a scaling AC bonus, but only while in armor would be good.

Ideally, I'd like the Fighter to be a crazy in martial versatility, while also being good at offensive and having a strong defense. Barbarians and Paladins should keep their roll as damage kings, but they should also be more focused in what they can do in combat. Where the Fighter lacks in damage, he should excel in options. He should be able to use his weapons and armor in more ways than any other class. His armor should be like a second skin and his weapon just another limb for him.


Vee8 wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

The bare midriff is sensible. The rest of the outfit... Not so much. It's got way too many parts, but that's a complaint I have with most of Reynold's artwork, so eh.

The story, on the other hand, is excellent. This sounds like a character I would have made!

His designs do seem to be more of separate armors cobbled together rather than single tailor made suits but I suppose it makes sense when you start getting loot that replaces bits of armor like boots of striding and springing or rust gauntlets and other such items that basically replace the mundane piece of armor the original suit came with.

Still, I would like to see someone rock a more uniformed appearance!

Seelah's got your back.


Vic Wertz wrote:
I can assure you he had really good answers, though I can't really share most of them right now. But i will give you one: a couple of the classes that are not called out in the Classes chapter on the outline rely heavily on systems that are called out in other chapters.

Hypothetical clarification:

As in, the reason Fighter isn't listed as a class fix is maybe a chapter deals with fixing feats or something? Just as an example of what you mean?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Orthos and his split personalities :P


Cr500cricket wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Bill Lumberg wrote:
If a freak blizzard trapped the staff of Paizo inside the building for an extensive period of time who do you think would be the first to resort to cannibalism? (There is one in every workplace.)

This has actually happened before.

The freak blizzard trapping the staff in the building, not the "extensive period of time" (it was only about 4 hours after work), nor the cannibalisim bit (although we did post to these boards looking for suggestions about who should be eaten first...).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm Canadian, Americans don't know the meaning of snow. They are better at everything else but hockey though, and Rugby!

As an Alaskan, I resent that statement. Although many people seem to consider Alaska as a part of Canada anyway. (Psst... Canadians are American too, so are people from Brazil or Mexico or Chile!)

Mr. Jacobs, what do you think the most prolific 'common knowledge fact' that turns out to be untrue is? Things like, "You only use 10% of your brain" or "Goldfish only have a 3 second memory" etc.

1 to 50 of 5,521 << 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.