Neith

TheFinish's page

317 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 317 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

PossibleCabbage wrote:

If your body can tell the difference between "I pour poison down your throat while you are unconscious" and "I pour nutritious broth down your throat while unconscious" (one results in a fort save, one doesn't) then I have no problem with your pre-rational mind being able to differentiate between harmful and non-harmful effects and make a will save for the former and not the latter.

So I'm just going to ask the player if they want to make a save, or make a choice for an NPC, if this comes up. I have no problem with unconscious people making fort or will saves, but reflex is pushing it (though in a particularly farcical game, I would allow "Weekend at Bernies" style shenanigans, I guess.)

No matter what the rule is, I'm going to play it this way anyway.

That's why I specified saves, however. The broth, in the gaming sense, doesn't require a save. Much like you can't resist a geas/quest if someone has you unconcious for ten minutes, you can't resist broth either. No save means nothing to resist.

But do note you could resist a potion of cure light wounds. You just choose not to, as a player. That's what I'm referring to. Your body doesn't actually know it's not harmful, you must conciously choose to fail a Will save to get the full effect of cure light wounds, for example.

The game already assumes you save against everything that allows a save. It just allows you to willingly fail a saving throw at any moment, for those spells/effects that are beneficial. I'd remove that choice for unconcious characters, much like how it is removed for a raging barbarian with the Superstition rage power.


I figure an unconcious character should not get to choose if they are "willing" or "unwilling" for the purposes of target selection, but that also goes for saves.

An unconcious character has no idea of what is going on around them and no way to know who or what is casting something on them, therefore, for me, it should be one of two options:

1) Unconcious characters resist everything. The body/soul/what have you has no idea who is doing what where or how, so it tries to prevent everything it can instinctually. They must save against any and all spells that require saving throws, and never count as "willing" targets. -> This is my preferred option.

2) Unconcious characters resist nothing. The unconcious body has absolutely no clue about anything and thus can't resist. You automatically fail any and all saving throws you're required to make and are always "willing" if spells require willing targets.

Option 1) is preferred to me because I assume you'd instinctually reject outside forces you have no knowledge of, but I can see it going either way.

I still think unconcious/immobilised characters should automatically fail reflex saves. That they don't was always strange to me.


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
That's what reincarnate is for. Can bring you back even from that, indefinitely. It's like lichdom, except it costs you 1,000 gp every time you die. Plus 25,000 if you want to cast wish so you're returned to your original form. Oh and it requires a helper, but so do all the others so.

Maybe the universe is pissed at you for not paying your Life subscription fee?

So lichdom is basically the metaphysical equivalent of stealing cable?

What if the lich pays 1,000 gp every time his body is destroyed and/or he lives enough years that a person of his original race would've died?

Would that cover it? How does the universe quantify your Life subscription?


Rysky wrote:
Except you’re not, as you stated it doesn’t talk about resurrection. But it does talk, however lightly, about an undead and the soul that formed them, referring to them as Delinquent Souls. There is no such stigma or caution attributed to Resurrecting/Reincarnating.

A Lich/Ghost/Ghoul/what have you is essentially between steps 1 and 2 of the cycle, for however long that is. When you resu/raise/reincarnate/whatever, you're yoinking them from the cycle at any step 2-5. Then they have to restart the cycle from there all over again if/when they eventually die.

Note that reincarnate can totally bring you back if you died of old age (unlike the others) so there's no real difference between a Lich and somebody who keeps reincarnating all the time. Both of those souls can go effectively forever without being judged, thus interrupting the cycle.

There's no reason to make the distinction between intelligent undead and these kinds of people since they will all at one point go through the cycle anyway. It's just a question of when, and as the article says:

"The process might take millennia, but such gulfs of time mean little amid the greater workings of the multiverse."

Also this doesn't adress mindless undead. They don't have souls. They don't do anything to the cycle.

Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Resurrected/raised people are still mortal, and will die in time if only of old age. The same is not true of undead

That's what reincarnate is for. Can bring you back even from that, indefinitely. It's like lichdom, except it costs you 1,000 gp every time you die. Plus 25,000 if you want to cast wish so you're returned to your original form. Oh and it requires a helper, but so do all the others so.


Rysky wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Almarane wrote:
If Animate Dead is evil because you don't follow the normal cycle of life (life then death then life instead of life then death), then Resurection should be evil too because this breaks the normal cycle of life juste as much as Animate Dead (life then death then life instead of life then death). We may argue that you need the creature's permission for Resurection, but still. Resurrecting someone, even with their permission, is a perversion of the cycle of life, no matter how you do it.
Cycle of Souls, not life. Resurrection doesn't damage the soul.

Neither does animate dead though. Your soul is just peachy.

Also raise dead, resurrection and such do damage the soul. That's what the Negative Levels/Con Drain is supposed to represent.

Actually no since you need True Resurrection to be brought back if you’re turned into an undead, do you not? I’d have to go look through the River of Souls article again but I think it’s expanded upon there.

Also, Con Drain/Life Energy =/= soul

Both resurrection and true resurrection can return you to life even if your body was made into an undead creature, but only if the creature was destroyed. I assume raise dead can't because destroying the undead creature would destroy the body and you need it whole for the spell, but it's unclear.

Only intelligent undead have souls (or rather, are souls, if we're talking about intelligent incorporeal undead). And those do indeed go against the Cycle of Souls, but mindless undead (which is what you make with animate dead) are soul-less and don't interfere at all.

Also note that the "Progression of Souls" part of the River of Souls article makes no mention whatsoever about resurrection. You can yoink them out of it at certain points, but that's not actually part of the cycle. You're messing with it just as much as a Lich is.


Planpanther wrote:
TheFinish wrote:


Neither does animate dead though. Your soul is just peachy.

Also raise dead, resurrection and such do damage the soul. That's what the Negative Levels/Con Drain is supposed to represent.

Is it spelled out somewhere that soul damage is the narrative for the penalties? Are you sure those conditions are not just game penalties for dying?

I mean, heck if I know, but the description for Energy Drain and Negative Levels is:

"Some spells and a number of undead creatures have the ability to drain away life and energy; this dreadful attack results in “negative levels.” These cause a character to take a number of penalties."

What exactly are you draining when you drain "life an energy" if not the Soul (or the Mojo, or whatever you want to call it).

Note that if you kill someone with Enervation (IE they have Neg Levels >= HD) they'll be physically fine but you can't resurrect them unless you drop a resto.

So why would the penalty for dying be Negative Levels if it's not supposed to represent your life force or whatever was compromised on the way?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Almarane wrote:
If Animate Dead is evil because you don't follow the normal cycle of life (life then death then life instead of life then death), then Resurection should be evil too because this breaks the normal cycle of life juste as much as Animate Dead (life then death then life instead of life then death). We may argue that you need the creature's permission for Resurection, but still. Resurrecting someone, even with their permission, is a perversion of the cycle of life, no matter how you do it.
Cycle of Souls, not life. Resurrection doesn't damage the soul.

Neither does animate dead though. Your soul is just peachy.

Also raise dead, resurrection and such do damage the soul. That's what the Negative Levels/Con Drain is supposed to represent.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:

Flesh golem creation isn't evil because it is making a neutral construct that only does what it is told. Even if a flesh golem retains it's memories there is no promise that it is going to wind up a particular alignment.

Just a nitpick, but creating a Flesh Golem is [Evil] because you need to cast animate dead to create a Flesh Golem in the first place.

Some other golems require it but most don't. Creating a golem should still be an Evil act regardless because you're forcing a sapient being into a prison and binding it to your will (which is what the geas/quest requirement in most golems represents.). The process is never called out as such though, which is weird.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Dasrak wrote:

I hadn't notice that Spell Resistance was missing, but you're right. Not sure how I feel about that.

One thing I did notice was that the single target damage seems to scale weirdly slowly... to the point at which I'm not seeing why you wouldn't just always use the area of effect option instead of the single-target option when using the spell against undead. Presuming a Cleric with 22 wisdom using a 4th level spell slot, you're looking at 4d8+6 (avg 24) damage to a single target or 3d8+6 (avg 19.5) damage in an area of effect plus the same amount as healing in an area of effect. Sure, the single-target version uses one fewer action, but that doesn't seem to justify such a tiny increase in damage at the cost of losing the AoE.

single target is 7d8. AoE is still worth it if at least three people are injured or if the damage on two targets isn't high enough to need 7 whole dice.

He's talking specifically about damage though, and single target damage when using the 1 or 2 Action Heal at 4th level is 4d8+Spellcasting vs 3d8+Spellcasting when using the 3 Action Area to deal damage (and Heal).

That's one action to affect a 30 foot Aura at the cost of an average of 4.5 damage less, but you gain the benefit of healing people at the same time.

Oh and both the 2 and 3 Action version require a Save, so by using the Area (and getting more targets) you're increasing the number of saves, thus increasing the chances of a Crit Fail, for more damage.

Dasrak wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
The single action version allows no save, while the ranged and AoE version both allow undead creatures to save for half damage.

The single-target version also calls for a touch attack. While I do think a touch attack is generally better than a save (at least in PF1; remains to be seen if that's different in PF2) it's not that much better. This is particularly true since the wisdom modifier is incorporated into the damage formula, necessarily meaning that any character who uses this spell offensively will have good DC's anyways. Even presuming everything saves for half against the AoE version, that's still 10 damage per target. You still only need to affect three targets for it to net even for damage. And remember, it's also healing on top of that. The action is only part of the cost here, too. There's also the cost of the spell slot to consider, which is the same whether you use the one action or three action version.

I just don't see how the advantages can make up for the disadvantages here, not when the single-target damage is that close to the AoE damage.

Oh I agree entirely. There's a definite advantage when healing, but if you want to damage people....not so much.

Maybe if the range on the 2 Action version was bigger, but as it is...


Dasrak wrote:

I hadn't notice that Spell Resistance was missing, but you're right. Not sure how I feel about that.

One thing I did notice was that the damage seems to scale weirdly slowly... to the point at which I'm not seeing why you wouldn't just always use the area of effect option instead of the single-target option when using the spell against undead. Presuming a Cleric with 22 wisdom using a 4th level spell slot, you're looking at 4d8+6 (avg 24) damage to a single target or 3d8+6 (avg 19.5) damage in an area of effect plus the same amount as healing in an area of effect. Sure, the single-target version uses one fewer action, but that doesn't seem to justify such a tiny increase in damage at the cost of losing the AoE.

The single action version allows no save, while the ranged and AoE version both allow undead creatures to save for half damage.

But if you're talking 2 Action vs 3 Action....well it'd depend a lot on what you can do with that 1 Action left.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Spells that create undead are Evil because the easiest way to attract, concentrate, and bind negative energy to a corpse is to commit an act of ritual evil.

That's a fine idea but not something that's actually represented in the rules. animate dead just requires onyx and corpses; it doesn't require ritual sacrifice or any other thing of the sort.

Also note that Negative Energy binds to corpses on it's own. If you cast deathward, grab Mr.Bones the Skeleton and plane shift onto the Negative Energy Plane, Mr.Bones will swiftly animate as Mr.Bones the Animated Sekelton. Same with Davey the Corpse, who will become Davey the Zombie.

(Also, as a funny note, I went looking for stuff on the Negative Energy Plane and found that Sceaduinar used to be True Neutral, so that's an interesting tidbit.)

An onyx, a corpse, and an [Evil] spell. I'm saying the evil is the means, not the end. Think of it like blasphemy. You're saying/doing something so powerfully wicked that it has real, tangible results.

But like I said, it's headcanon, it definitely doesn't have any official support.

And yeah, if you bring corpses to an environment supersaturated with negative energy, it'll happen on it's own.

But where do undead arise spontaneously on the material plane? From the corpses of hideously evil people, or in places where terrible things (torture, mass murder, etc) happened.

Sure, but blasphemy is literally using the power of Evil to hurt Good (and Neutrals), much like Holy Word is the opposite.

I'm not opposed to spells with [Alignment], when it makes sense. protection from [X], magic circle against [X], etc. Those make sense because you're using one of the many objective universal forces (Good/Evil/Law/Chaos) to act against it's opposite.

But what is animate dead going against? What's undead the opposite of? Life? Okay but then, why isn't raise dead a [Good] Spell?

If using negative energy to make a walking corpse = Evil, then using positive energy to bring someone back to life = Good. You cannot simply declare that two energies are Neutral, but using one is unaligned and using the other one is [Evil]. Except it's not always [Evil]. Just sometimes. Which makes even less sense. That's the main issue I have with this whole thing.

Well, that and the fact that a mindless being incapable of moral action is Neutral Evil, which goes against basically everything under Alignment.

As for where do Undead rise spontaneously: anywhere that the Negative Energy Plane has enough influence on the material. Since Negative Energy is associated with destruction, this could be a myriad of places (I seem to recall a place where burning undead rose up after a terrible forest fire, but I can't find the source.*).

Also note Good people make Undead too, since Ghosts can rise wherever and be of any alignment.

Nethys, "Elder God" wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Nethys, "Elder God" wrote:

So what you're saying is there's a massive store of knowledge on my supposedly home plane that I have yet to claim?

The Aeons will ride at dawn.

Nethys you don't live in the Boneyard, you live in the Maelstrom. Did you forget that, again?
And you don't think it strange that most N deities end up making their homes not on the primary N outer plane? I'm over here, Brigh's in Axis, I'm sure there are other examples. Heck, opening the plane up to more than its One True Queen of Neutral might be reason enough to pick this fight.

Hey man, you do whatever, just run it by Jacobs first to see if it actually sticks, y'know.

*EDIT: I actually found the source, though it wasn't a forest fire, it was a volcano. The Fellsig is an undead created from the violence and pain caused when Droskar's Crag erupted and pulled a Vesuvius on the many settlements in Darkmoon Vale. That was a terrible thing, but it was a Neutral terrible thing, a natural disaster. There's no need for Evil to have Undead.


Nethys, "Elder God" wrote:

So what you're saying is there's a massive store of knowledge on my supposedly home plane that I have yet to claim?

The Aeons will ride at dawn.

Nethys you don't live in the Boneyard, you live in the Maelstrom. Did you forget that, again?

Also I'm pretty sure Aeons don't ride. They just fly.

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Spells that create undead are Evil because the easiest way to attract, concentrate, and bind negative energy to a corpse is to commit an act of ritual evil.

That's a fine idea but not something that's actually represented in the rules. animate dead just requires onyx and corpses; it doesn't require ritual sacrifice or any other thing of the sort.

Also note that Negative Energy binds to corpses on it's own. If you cast deathward, grab Mr.Bones the Skeleton and plane shift onto the Negative Energy Plane, Mr.Bones will swiftly animate as Mr.Bones the Animated Sekelton. Same with Davey the Corpse, who will become Davey the Zombie.

(Also, as a funny note, I went looking for stuff on the Negative Energy Plane and found that Sceaduinar used to be True Neutral, so that's an interesting tidbit.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Where is is stated that you can resurrect Petitioners?

Urgathoa (and Zyphus) became Undead Deities, they didn't resurrect.

Actually it's been explicitly stated by Jame Jacobs that Pharasma does know what's going to happen and can see all the divergent path of Fate.

In the Petitioner description:

"Creatures who die, become petitioners, and then return to life retain no memories of the time they spent as petitioners in the afterlife. "

Also if Pharasma knows what's going to happen, then the strands of fate are set. Therefore, Urgathoa and Zyphus achieving godhood was decreed and they are as natural as Pharasma herself, which implies Pharasma is in the wrong.

If Fate is a set thing (and having infinite strands still means it's set and unchanging, all strands are equally valid), and you have Undead happening, then Undead are fine and ordained by Fate. Ergo they are not intrinsically Evil by going against Fate or whatever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

If a soul has been judged it can't be brought back outside of GM allowance and a carefully worded Wish/Miracle, if it's been judged it's been turned into an Outsider, it's not still waiting around somewhere as a soul.

As for anti-resurrection helping Pharasma? Not actually the case since she's also the Goddess of Fate.

No, if it's been Judged, it's passed from the Boneyard to whatever plane it shall reside in and become a Petitioner. Who are Outsiders, but they can be brought back to life.

It takes time for the Petitioner to transition into the kind of Outsider (Angel/Devil/Demon/etc) that cannot be resurrected. In that time, if you bring the Petitioner back to life, you've told Pharasma to go suck a lemon.

I mean, imagine Dave. Dave died. He's in the queue in the Boneyard.

Soul Dave: "Man, this sucks baloney, I wanna be with my wife and kids..."

Dave is judged. He was actually an ok guy, so he gets to go to Nirvana.

Petitioner Dave: "Well, this place isn't so bad. But I really wish I could be with my wife and kids....I was going to teach Timmy to ride a horse..."

Bobby the Cleric of Abadar is paid by Dave's family to resurrect the guy. He does so.

Petitioner Dave: "Oh heck yeah I'm going back! I never wanted to be here in the first place, woohoo!"

And off he goes.

How is that any different than what Urgathoa did when she told Pharasma to go suck a lemon? I mean, the only real difference is that Urgathoa had no help from Bobby the Cleric and she came back as an undead creature....because.

As for her stance as Goddess of Fate, that means jack all. Since Aroden's death Fate is an ever changing thing. She doesn't know what's going to happen, which means she doesn't know when the great good army of Skellingtontown might save Golarion, or whatever.

Saying "Resurrection is ok because /Fate" isn't any more valid than syaing "Animate Dead is ok because /Fate".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:
Side note...
TheFinish wrote:

The outsider that is born from the Cristalized Essence of the Negative Energy Plane is Neutral Evil.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/sceaduinar/

Meanwhile, these guys, born from the Positive Energy Plane, are Neutral.

[...]

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/jyoti/

[...]

From the Sceaduinar description you linked:

"They believe their positive energy counterparts, the jyoti, long ago stole their ability to create, breaking the parallel between the two energy planes and forcing these void-dwellers into an unwanted role of pure destruction."

They're not "evil because negative energy", they're "evil because the jyoti (you know, the neutral guys) broke them".
Depending on how you read it, the Negative Energy Plane itself is either broken along with them, or it's still neutral, with its created outsiders the only evil part of it.

No, they think the Jyoti broke them, this is never actually confirmed. What you have is a being made completely of Neutral Energy that is actually Evil. And unlike Nightshades who, while made from Neutral Energies from the Shadow and Negative Energy Plane, are evil because of fiendish energies mixing in their creation, there is no actual reason listed why Sceaduinar are born Evil from Neutral energies.

ElSilverWind wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
I view it occuring at least primarily because the in-universe judge of alignment has a conflict of interest. This in and of itself is fine, but refusing to acknowledge it and not having some other deity handle undead cases is not.

Who would even handle the other cases in matters related to undead though? Most is the other Good Aligned Dieties such as Sarenrae and Iomadae also view undeath with scorn. The only core 20 dieties in the setting who’d be willing to defend the use of undead are already Evil. I’m just saying that hiring Satan as your lawyer doesn’t exactly make you look innocent.

The entire problem is that undead were never meant to exist in-universe. They only appeared once Urgathoa escaped the Boneyard (and consequently brought disease to the material plane) and broke a part of reality to do so. Their entire existence is a loophole to the natural laws of the universe and how it was meant to function. In a sense, it is “cheating”. At least, to Pharasma it is.

So yes, you can win by cheating. You can even have the purest of intentions with why you needed to win. But the judge is watching. And she isn’t amused.

Pharasma's dislike of Undead is well noted, but here's the thing.

Why is animate dead, which does nothing to a soul at all and doesn't interfere with their judging and/or placement [Evil];

But raise dead, resurrection and true resurrection; spells that actually mess with the souls Pharasma has already judged (or will judge) by letting them ignore the cycle and come back to the Material Plane, not [Evil]?

I mean, if we're going about the natural laws of the universe, then spitting in Pharasma's judgement by bringing someone back is way worse than just making a skeleton. If anything, making a skeleton is helping Pharasma since it prevents souls she's already judged to be brought back to life.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Planpanther wrote:
TheFinish wrote:


It's just that PF seems to think the Negative Energy Plane is Evil, for some absurd reason.

Citation?

The outsider that is born from the Cristalized Essence of the Negative Energy Plane is Neutral Evil.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/sceaduinar/

Meanwhile, these guys, born from the Positive Energy Plane, are Neutral.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/turul/

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/jyoti/

The Negative Energy Plane is Neutral. Negative Energy is Neutral. Therefore it stands to reason that something made out of Negative Energy would be Neutral. But nope. It's Evil. Why? Who knows.

Same for mindless undead. Let us put aside that the descriptions of them (especially Skeletons) doesn't sound mindless at all. But they are mindless nonetheless.

They are corpses, animated by Neutral energy. By all accounts they should be True Neutral, much like Golems, who are animated by Neutral energy (Elementals). But they're Evil. Why? No reason given.

All you can really infer from this is that the Negative Energy Plane is actually Evil, not Neutral. Otherwise, cosmologically, this makes no bloody sense (not that PF Cosmology has a lick of sense anyway).

No. The process of a animating dead is evil, not the negative energy used. This has been mentioned before.

Why? That's my question. It's been mentioned, but never with an actual reason. I'm putting Neutral Energy in a corpse to make it do my bidding. Why is that Evil? Furthermore, why is that Evil, but enslaving an elemental inside a body of rock to serve me is not. Elementals are creatures with actual intelligence. Why is animate dead an [Evil] spell, but not geas/quest? Or dominate person? Or baleful polymorph?

All I'm doing when I cast create undead is putting fuel in the tank, then telling the car what to do. I am hurting literally zero creatures, assuming the deceased/their family was ok with me taking the corpse. There is literally nothing Evil in the process itself, so why does it get labelled as Evil?

Also, you asked me for a citation as to why I claimed PF thinks the Neg Energy plane is Evil, and I gave it: an outsider made of pure Negative Energy is Evil. Why? Negative Energy is Neutral.

Stone Dog wrote:

Mindless only means that they lack an intelligence score and are immune to mind affecting magic. It is one of those moments where a game term doesn't line up exactly with a real world definition. They simply can't be trained out of their normal state, which at the moment is full of malice and hate for the living.

If skeletons and zombies wind up being simple bone robots that sit on their shelves politely when they aren't being used or continue to perform their last order until they wear out, then I don't think creating them should be an evil act. It would be like making any other tool, but with a creepy motif and possibly criminal to get. Religions and governments would possibly have strictures and punishments about them, but simply making bones walk around and do things wouldn't be an evil thing all by itself.

Ideally though, I think there should be ample room in Necromancy to do both things. Create Undead being the fast route to having a bunch of minions, but having the motivating force inside the creatures be one of the insinuated evil spirits fueled and bolstered by Negative Energy. The creation of constructs from corpses being the slower, more reliable way to make stable minions that are not ravening body counts waiting to happen.

Both of them would use Neg Energy as fuel and be disrupted by Pos Energy, but Undead remain the blasphemous creatures who spread horror and destruction while necromantic constructs are just seriously creepy tools and not particularly hazardous when uncontrolled.

Actually, mindless just means they lack an Intelligence score and don't acquire skills or feats. The immunity to mind-affecting is because they're undead. Liches, for example, are not mindless but they're still immune.

And again, why is a creature that is a corpse animated by a completely neutral energy force full of malice and hate? I could see skeletons/zombies wanting to destroy things because Negative Energy is entropy, but it wouldn't make them Evil. No more than an avalanche, a forest fire or a tsunami are evil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
TheFinish wrote:


It's just that PF seems to think the Negative Energy Plane is Evil, for some absurd reason.

Citation?

The outsider that is born from the Cristalized Essence of the Negative Energy Plane is Neutral Evil.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/sceaduinar/

Meanwhile, these guys, born from the Positive Energy Plane, are Neutral.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/turul/

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/jyoti/

The Negative Energy Plane is Neutral. Negative Energy is Neutral. Therefore it stands to reason that something made out of Negative Energy would be Neutral. But nope. It's Evil. Why? Who knows.

Same for mindless undead. Let us put aside that the descriptions of them (especially Skeletons) doesn't sound mindless at all. But they are mindless nonetheless.

They are corpses, animated by Neutral energy. By all accounts they should be True Neutral, much like Golems, who are animated by Neutral energy (Elementals). But they're Evil. Why? No reason given.

All you can really infer from this is that the Negative Energy Plane is actually Evil, not Neutral. Otherwise, cosmologically, this makes no bloody sense (not that PF Cosmology has a lick of sense anyway).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:
I think the best way to do it is to tie Evil alignment to intent, not actions, then introduce the concept of an Evil echo, which has nothing to do with free will, but rather is a side effect of pulling from an evil power's domain. Just make the ruler of the negative plane (even if it is a disembodied power source of inscrutable psychology) Evil, so pulling power from the negative plane causes the ruler's evil to echo into the prime material. Detect Evil doesn't have to be perfect; allow it to not discriminate between actual Evil and an Evil echo and it limits its effectiveness admirably anyway. (Detect, smite paladins could very well smite someone who is not evil, but is in the middle of an echo.) LN worshipers of Asmodeus could conceivably have similar issues.

This is a bit weird, and also kind of breaks the whole opposition between the Positive and Negative Energy Plane. Unless the Positive Energy Plane has a Good Ruler and a Good Echo to compensate.

The whole idea of the two planes is that they're Neutral, but opposed. None of them are inherently Good or Evil, and both are required for universal balance.

It's just that PF seems to think the Negative Energy Plane is Evil, for some absurd reason.


JoelF847 wrote:
QuidEst wrote:


A previous blog indicated that illusions win ties, though. Illusions of a higher level are still protected, so there's no contradiction. Unless I'm mistaken, that means that mostly just the big bad
This also means that illusions will rarely be useful against the PCs unless they're cast by the big bad. A cabal of 3 illusionists who are 1 level lower than the PCs will have all their stuff auto-detected still.

Indeed. Also, which blog said illusions win ties? I tried searching for it and the only blog that came up referencing Illusion is this one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:

Lots to digest here, much of which sounds good. Not sure what to make of auto-scaling cantrips though. It seems that there's a place for things like a low level detect magic or light spell which doesn't get more powerful, which all/most casters have. By making utility spells like this auto-scale, you still have the problem that an at-will ability can automatically defeat entire classes of other spells (illusions or darkness).

I'd rather see these types of spells require some investment rather than be an always available option. Even if they need to be heightened to defeat their reversed school, that still means they'll always do so from a higher level caster.

Do cantrips have to start at "0-level"? If light were say level 2, but dancing lights was a level 1 cantrip, and you had to learn higher level cantrips at the expense of another spell that would at least make it not a default spell known by everyone who'd be able to nullify magic darkness all the time.

We've had mention of the Detect Magic interaction. Illusions are protected from Detect Magic of equal or lower spell level. So, as compared to before where it just sucked for you, your top-level slots are now getting free protection from Detect Magic.

Sort of. They're getting free protection from lower level spellcasters. Guys that can cast the same level of spells as you still go through your illusions, since detect magic will autoscale to your best spell level (since it's still a cantrip).

Notice the blog specifies:

"Now, illusions of a higher spell level than a detect magic cantrip can foil detection!"

So it'll work against mooks, but the big bad can still detect magic his way through your illusions.


Yeah, make it Best to Worst (Critical S, S, F, Crit F), and just ommit whichever doesn't apply.

Much better.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Magus Black wrote:
Quote:

Regenerate

The target temporarily gains regeneration 15, which restores 15 Hit Points to it at the start of each of its turns. While it has regeneration, the target can't die from damage and its dying value can't exceed 3 . If the target takes acid or fire damage, its regeneration deactivates until after the end of its next turn.

I seriously don't like this bit here. A creature with Regeneration cant be killed no matter how much damage you deal? This makes it sound like Ogres and the like are either going to absolutely viciously (regardless of level) or they expect everyone to carry Fire and Acid weapons everywhere they go.

Does this mean that their may be mandatory Holy/Unholy/Axiomatic/Anarchic weapon for high level play? I certainly hope not...

This is already the case though. You can't kill a Troll by hacking it with weapons in PF1 either. You need to use Fire/Acid damage or kill it without inflicting damage (like drowning them)


Catharsis wrote:

Mark, would you be willing to divulge any info on the following?

1. Which casting actions provoke AoOs?
2. Are cantrips now viable as at-will attacks, allowing casters to forego weapons usage?
3. Are martial classes going to grant abilities powered by «spell points» as well?

I'm not Mark, but the answer to 2 and 3 seems to be yes.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Cantrips aren't 0-level spells; they're spells you can perform all day. The damaging cantrips aren't super powerful compared to a martial's attacks in any case, but they'll still change what sorts of things you want to prepare in your various spell slots.
Blog wrote:
There is power in naming something; while you don't really count them differently than if you had a pool of uses per day, this allowed us to create new and interesting abilities that cost multiple Spell Points or that you could add extra features to at the cost of more Spell Points, in a way that works across classes more smoothly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Also, any word on what Spell Points are? They're mentioned in the blog. Are they like spell slots, or something different?

It sounds like a pool you use to "cast" stuff like Domain Powers or School Powers; which are now special kinds of spells.


Yrtalien wrote:
Wait how much does a single target, single action heal spell of 2nd level... heal 2 or 3 d8. My math says 3d8 but the example says 2...

3d8+Spellcasting Ability. Mark confirmed the example in the blog is wrong.

It's 2d8+Spellcasting if you use it to deal Damage with 1/2 Actions and 1d8+Spellcasting if it's a group Heal/Damage.

Enlight_Bystand wrote:
"TheFinish wrote:

EDIT: Also, not a fan of vampiric exsanguination being half damage on a pass. It should be no damage, period.

Yeah just like how if you save against a PF1 fireball you take no damage...

Half damage on a save from a blast has been a pretty common rule as long as there's been saves as far as I'm aware.

It has been, but now there's the whole double damage on a crit fail, hence why I think it should change. Not that it's a dealbreaker either way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Serum wrote:

Heal looks like it carries over all of the problems from P1E, except even worse because P2E's inflated HP scaling. It just doesn't look like it does enough to compete with other spells at the same level.

Compare Heal at level 6 to Vampiric Exsanguination. For the same action cost, I could heal one person of 6d8 damage at range, or I could force everyone in a 30-foot cone to save or take 10d6 damage and gain 5d6 temporary hit points.

Maybe spellcasting modifier scales with level, but then Heal cast at level 1 will be more efficient (again) than Heal cast at level 3.

Not quite. The 2 Action version of Heal adds 2d8 to the healing per Heightened level. So a 6th level Heal would be:

1d8+Spellcasting (base) + 2d8x5 (2d8 per level of Heighten)= 11d8+Spellcasting Ability.

At least, that's how the Heighten text reads.

EDIT: Damn, Mark beat me to it. Though I do wonder where the extra 2d8 comes from.

It should be 3d8 at 2nd; 5d8 at 3rd, 7d8 at 4th; 9d8 at 5th and 11d8 at 6th, no?


13 people marked this as a favorite.

Huh, this sounds very much like 5th Edition, with upcasting and rituals, except it appears the Heightening is...set? Limited? Not sure how to express myself.

Heal obviously can be cast as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. But Regenerate only says Heightened 9th. Does that mean Regenerate can only be a 7th or 9th level spell?

Speaking of Heal:

"At the bottom of the stat block, you see what one type of heightened entry looks like. This one gets better proportionally for each spell level above 1st. So a 2nd-level heal spell heals or damages one target for 2d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier, a 3rd-level one heals or damages one target 3d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier, and so on."

Wouldn't a 2nd level Heal spell restore 3d8+Spellcasting Ability if I use the 1 or 2 Action version; and 1d8+Spellcasting if I use the 3 Action Version to Heal?

"Heightened (+1) Increase the amount of healing or damage by 1d8, or by 2d8 if you're using the one- or two-action version to heal the living."

Oh and detect magic can't spot higher level illusions, but if it's still a cantrip wouldn't it mean it gets auto-Heightened to your highest slot, which means bad guys will still detect your illusions unless you're fighting lower levelled spellcasters?

I do like spell-points for domain powers and such though. Hopefully it's more flexible than the current X/day things.

EDIT: Also, not a fan of vampiric exsanguination being half damage on a pass. It should be no damage, period.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

Yeah, but other books in 1e state that negative energy isn't inherently evil. And mindless creatures usually don't have alignments.

I think JJ answered to this question somewhere, but yeah it would be nice to show the answer in book instead of hunting for it in the forums

I mean Pathfinder operates under the same strictures: Negative Energy is Neutral, Mindless/animal intelligence creatures do have alignments, it's just almost always True Neutral.

Except Undead. Because reasons. What are those reasons? Who knows...

Maybe Pathfinder thinks Negative Energy is Evil (even though it's obviously not), given that the Negative Energy Outsider (Sceaduinar) is Evil while the Positive Energy Outsiders (Turuls, Jyotis) are Neutral.


totoro wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
totoro wrote:
I strongly prefer class-based systems, but we wanted to do some cyberpunk and there are no good class-based systems out there for a cyberpunk game. The WotC Star Wars worked well, though, for science fantasy. We're doing Shadowrun until August.
The original Interface Zero is d20 Class Based Cyberpunk, have you tried that one?
I'll look it up. Thanks!

Just make sure to get the right one! The newest editions use Savage Worlds as the engine, but IIRC there's a True20 version and a d20 Modern version too. They should all be in drivethrurpg, at any rate.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
Napoleon was not short, btw. He was of average height for the time, and claims he was "short" were English propaganda to try and diminish his exploits by suggesting he was overcompensating.
Not completely true
Quote:
At 5 feet 2 inches (1.57 m), he was the height of an average French male but short for an aristocrat or officer
Napoleon Complex
Quote:
Napoleon was often seen with his Imperial Guard, which contributed to the perception of his being short because the Imperial Guards were of above average height
Not that it really has anything to do with anything.

Napoleon wasn't 1.57m high, he was 1.69m high. He was 5 feet 2 inches in the FRENCH measurement system, which today is the equivalent of 5 feet, 7 Inches. At the time, the average height of a frenchman was 5 feet 5 inches (in today's measurements), so he was above average.

Napoleon being short was entirely British propaganda and nothing else.


totoro wrote:
I strongly prefer class-based systems, but we wanted to do some cyberpunk and there are no good class-based systems out there for a cyberpunk game. The WotC Star Wars worked well, though, for science fantasy. We're doing Shadowrun until August.

The original Interface Zero is d20 Class Based Cyberpunk, have you tried that one?


Kjeldorn wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

Goblins and humans cannot both be original to an area. Setting information is consistent with the idea that goblins lived in central Avistan first and that humans colonized later. Since then, goblins have been pushed into an increasingly small territory. So it makes sense they'd push back. And really, they have that right.

Well...

Yes they can. Remember this is Golerion, where a magical popping into existence at the behest of the Gods are a possibility.

Which is kind of what happened with the Goblins (if we are to believe their "stories about their history/origins")

As far as I can remember its Lamashtu stealing what will become the Barghest/Goblin Hero-Gods Hadregash, Venkelvore, Zarongel and Zogmugot from Asmodeus.
She lets them loose on the mortal world, where they hunt mortals, and from the spilled blood of those mortals (Humans?) the first goblins are birthed.

So, technically, the goblins couldn't claim the right to any land, as that would belong to those "Mortals" (Humans? Elves? Dwarves?...)

Though in all honesty, any claim to Golarion should probably go to the Xiomorns, maybe the Aboleths :P

Quite, Xiomorns were there first, everyone else get out! Let the Earth bugs have their nice home back!

Also, funnily, both Goblins of Golarion and Inner Sea Races specify goblins come from human blood spilled by the Barghest gods. So Goblins confirmed for evil land grubbing blood-golems!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I've never liked the wording on those kinds of abilities because there's a whole slew of situations where you know the end result even if it hasn't been revealed yet.

For example, a Natural 1 in an Attack roll/Saving Throw. Nobody needs to tell you that failed. Can I use the re-roll anyway? The result was sort of "revealed" by the die roll itself, so what do we do?

Or, you been fighting, I dunno, Orcs for a while in this combat and you've sussed out their AC is 19 (or whatever). Same deal.

It'd be much more elegant if it was just straight re-rolls you can use after you know the effect. It's less punishing on the player and faster.


Unicore wrote:
The more I think about it, with the base chassis of the races looking so similar, it is probably going to be pretty important to limit ancestry feats from crossing over too many lines or you end up with certain choices becoming "obvious" base choices for things like vision and speed, because the desired ancestry feats would become to easily accessible to everyone. This doesn't challenge the idea that it is probably better for more ancestries to be more similar in terms of their racial templates not deviating wildly, but that choosing a certain ancestry path should mean not having access to other ancestry feats. Or else ancestry will just be a function of combining the options that result in the best mechanical advantages. (Why is every illusionist suddenly being raised by gnomes? for example.)

As I've said before, you are correct. Ancestry Feats need to be locked tight to their corresponding Ancestry. If you allow cross-Ancestry choices it will become a balance nightmare before you can say "Racial Heritage" (we all remember how that worked out right?)


10 people marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

If you (general you) don't think there's any difference between the three small ancestries, simply due to them all getting +2 to Cha, then you're discarding the other 99.9% of what makes each ancestry unique.

There's a whole lot more to a character than just their stat bonus.

The problem is that right out of the gate, that's all you have.

A PF1 Halfling and a PF1 Gnome have the same 2 out of 3 Ability Score modifiers (+2 Cha, -2 Str), they were both Small, they both had the same Speed and both have Keen Senses. And that was it.

A Halfling got Fearless, Halfling Luck, Sure Footed and Weapon Familiarity (with Slings).

A Gnome got Low-Light Vision, Defensive Training, Gnome Magic, Hatred, Illusion Resistance, Obsessive and Weapon Familiarity (with "Gnome" weapons).

That means they shared 5 Things. Halflings had 3 things that were theirs, and Gnomes had 6 (3, if you do not wish to count Low-Light Vision, Defensive Training and Hatred, since other races had those).

Now, will they be different in PF2? Yes, because their Ancestry Feats are different. But how many Ancestry Feats do we get at first level? We'd need 3 (at least) to get the same level of "Difference" we had in PF1 between Gnomes and Halflings.

This is what I mean when I say they all feel rather samey.

We all know there's more to characters than stat bonuses. Primarily, how you roleplay them. But mechanical differences are important too, and I don't feel they'll have enough of that out of the gate.

You'll have to point me to the exact page number in the playtest document where it says that ... oh, wait, we don't have that yet. So, again, you're conjuring up negativity over "information" we don't have yet.

If Mark comes in here now and says "Yeah guys, everyone gets a whole bunch of Ancestry Feats at 1st level, don't worry", I'll stop worrying.

As it is, since it hasn't been mentioned in any of the three Race blogs we've had so far (and they always talk about picking an Ancestry Feat at a time), I'll keep my misgivings.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:

If you (general you) don't think there's any difference between the three small ancestries, simply due to them all getting +2 to Cha, then you're discarding the other 99.9% of what makes each ancestry unique.

There's a whole lot more to a character than just their stat bonus.

The problem is that right out of the gate, that's all you have.

A PF1 Halfling and a PF1 Gnome have the same 2 out of 3 Ability Score modifiers (+2 Cha, -2 Str), they were both Small, they both had the same Speed and both have Keen Senses. And that was it.

A Halfling got Fearless, Halfling Luck, Sure Footed and Weapon Familiarity (with Slings).

A Gnome got Low-Light Vision, Defensive Training, Gnome Magic, Hatred, Illusion Resistance, Obsessive and Weapon Familiarity (with "Gnome" weapons).

That means they shared 5 Things (+2 Cha/-2 Str/Small/20 feet/Keen Senses). Halflings had 4 things that were theirs (+2 Dex/All the ones I listed), and Gnomes had 7 (+2 Con/All the ones I listed); at least when comparing each other (since +2 Dex/+2 Con/Low Light/Defensive Training/Hatred were not exclusive to either of them).

Now, will they be different in PF2? Yes, because their Ancestry Feats are different. But how many Ancestry Feats do we get at first level? We'd need a whole bunch to get the same level of "Difference" we had in PF1 between Gnomes and Halflings.

This is what I mean when I say they all feel rather samey.

We all know there's more to characters than stat bonuses. Primarily, how you roleplay them. But mechanical differences are important too, and I don't feel they'll have enough of that out of the gate.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

Oh, added bonus comment (on topic this time!):

I'm also not excited about the possibility of previously standard racial traits being pushed down the line. The old "racial traits plus alternate racial traits" system was one of my favorite parts of PF1.

I'd prefer a system where the ancestries are similar to their PF1 selves, and ancestry feats make them even MORE impressive. I don't want to have to buy back what I had over my first ten levels.

Sorry if this sounds like I lack faith in the design! I'm just anxious about this stuff. ^_^

I agree with you wholeheartedly. When the Dwarf and Elf Blog said that Hardy was a Level 1 Only Ancestry Feat and that Weapon Familiarity and Ancestral Hatred were also Ancestry Feats I was rather bummed.

Let us be full Dwarfs/Elves/Halflings/Gnomes/Goblins from day 1, not piecemeal approximations of the old PF1 Races.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like one of the reasons I'm in favor of "goblin redemption" is that goblins really do a terrible job at being a "scary evil threatening thing." For the most part, they aren't really threats past the very first session and being creatures that are smaller than people, weaker than people, and pick around in garbage to survive really makes goblins come across to me as more pathetic than threatening.

Like there's very little fun or interesting I think you can do with goblins other than "making people feel bad for them".

It really depends a lot on how you write them, I think. If you have it, check out the Isger Goblin Tribes described in Goblins of Golarion. They won't seem nice or zany then.

I think that's perhaps the only thing that makes them interesting. They're the overlooked danger. Like in Warhammer. Yeah, a single Goblin is basically nothing to be worried about. A gang of five, that starts being different. Ten, fifteen, well, you're in trouble now. And they're almost never alone.

And then, their unpredictability. Yeah, mostly they don't do anything, but once in a while, their raids do real damage. Or worse, you get a Goblinblood War.

It combines to make for an enemy that is both hard to take seriously but you absolutely should take seriously. An Orc is a known quantity, danger wise. A goblin can oscillate between non-threat and horrible threat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
eddv wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I'm fine with both Gnomes and Goblins having Charisma because they have nothing else in common stat-wise. That's also only two of the core Ancestries having a Cha bump, which is fine.

But Halflings...Halflings are now almost identical to Goblins in stats and that's an issue. Changing Halflings to Wisdom actually seems like a really good solution to this to me, and I'd definitely be on board for it.

I prefer that to swapping things on the Goblin as that leaves Gnomes and Halflings too similar.

Or just cut the goblins entirely since theyre the ones forcing the issue!

This does also highlight the issue that Ancestries themselves don't seem very distinct:

+2 Dex/+2 Cha/-2 Wis; 8 HP; 25 feet; Darkvision
+2 Dex/+2 Cha/-2 Str; 8 HP; 20 feet
+2 Con/+2 Cha/-2 Str; 8 HP; 20 feet (I think? It's not in the Blog); Low-Light Vision

They all get +2 to a Stat.

They don't seem really distinctive, is what I'm saying. Their Ancestry feats obviously are the main source of difference but at 1st level I don't know they'll be enough to mechanically differentiate these guys.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JRutterbush wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
bookrat wrote:

These are looking great!

Since being a slave is a part of the history (and current events!) of halflings, will we see a slave or escaped slave background?

I'm willin to bet all my silver smerduks that there'll be a "Slave" background of some kind. It makes sense not just for Halflings but also for lots of Half-Orcs and Goblins.
Modern RPG's have been trending away from touching on subjects like that in their core materials lately, though.

Have they? I might very well be out of touch, of course, but the only two Fantasy RPGs I've gotten lately are Conan and Zweihander, both of which feature Slaves/Slavery as a background element in the Core rules.

Mark Seifter wrote:
TwilightKnight wrote:

"Additionally, the sling is now a more formidable weapon than in Pathfinder First Edition—we've both increased its damage and done away with the difference in damage die size between Small and Medium creatures."

The way this reads is a bit misleading. Is it that slings (and only slings) will have the same damage small vs medium? Or will all weapons not have the same damage. I read it as only slings are getting this treatment, but others are reading all weapons are. Can we get designer commentary please?

All weapons!

On the one hand, I'm sad since I sort of liked that difference. On the other hand, it's much simpler this way so eh.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:

These are looking great!

Since being a slave is a part of the history (and current events!) of halflings, will we see a slave or escaped slave background?

I'm willin to bet all my silver smerduks that there'll be a "Slave" background of some kind. It makes sense not just for Halflings but also for lots of Half-Orcs and Goblins.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I really like that Gnome art. Well done Mr. Reynolds!

As for the blog, it's nice. I've made my issues with the whole Ancestry feat stuff known elsewhere.

The only strange thing here is that all the Small races get +Cha, instead of diversifying a bit. Heck, Goblins and Halflings are +Dex/+Cha! That seems a bit redundant, to be honest.

But other than that, this looks ok, so yay!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
TheFinish wrote:

Well, lets see:

Gogmurt is an Neutral Evil druid. He was against the attack on Sandpoint only because he feared retribution. When his chief didn't listen to him, he got angry. He has dealt with this anger by throwing goblins that annoy him into the Howling Hole (a big drop into a space inhabited by a bunyip). He attacks the PCs on sight as well. So....pretty bad.

Ripnugget thought the raid on Sandpoint was a swell idea and is thinking of doing more, all to impress Nualia, who is also Evil. He pretends to want to parley but actually just wants to kill the PCs. So also pretty bad.

-----

Grindtooth is just a gang leader looking for people to rob. Pretty bad but considering where the PCs are at the time (Whitethrone, a NE city), pretty normal.

Great Chief Graalsk is the only ok one. He makes sure his Goblins don't do anything bad in Thornkeep, because he knows they'll be slaughtered if they do. He's still called out as a pompous blowhard, but that's hardly a crime.

Though I'm not sure what your definition of "monstrous" is. I consider raiding villages, assaulting people and the like "monstrous" behaviour, so these goblins are monstrous in addition to being monsters.

What is "monstrous" is very subjective. I was asking for your opinion and appreciate that it might differ from mine. No worries.

I think this list goes to show how the representation of goblins has changed quite a bit since Rise of the Runelords was published.

I could also argue, that as the prequel, We B4 Goblins represents the earlier, monster variety of goblins that 1, 2, and 3 served to rehabilitate. :)

I don't really think We Be Goblins 1-3 rehabilitates Goblins in any real way. The character writeups remain the same, horrible as ever, and the stuff they do can't really be called "good".

In We Be Goblins 1, your tribe ran off a goblin for the high crime of.....knowing how to write. The tribe thinks the goblins who attacked Sandpoint were the absolute bees-knees (and refers to Sandpoint as the "hated man-town"). Oh and if you fail the chief feeds you to Squaly Nord.

In We Be Goblins 2, you're basically going after Pa Munchmeat due to a territorial dispute, more or less. One the goblins never tried to solve peacefully, even though Pa Munchmeat hasnt really done anything but defend himself. Oh and one of the dares to select the chieftain is to put the competitors in a boiling sludge with four eagles whose wings have been clipped.

We Be Goblins 3 is the only one where the Goblins are actually justified in what they do, though even then they kill one of their own tribe and play "Killgull" (and also burning horse/dog effigies, and running through squashes made to look like gnomes). Oh and the adventure background says they still organize raids and stuff.

As for Goblin change....not really. I mean the first Ruins of Azlant module has a tribe of monkey-goblins on the island and they never try to establish relations with the colony (besides planning a raid) and always attack the PCs on sight.

No adventure has really presented Goblin tribes as anything other than evil monstrous obstacles to overcome. That's why I don't buy this "Paizo has been mellowing out on them" line of thiking. Especially after they published the Inner Sea Race Guide.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
I actually count the We Be Goblins characters (most of them anyway) on the non-monstrous side. Characters can have an evil alignment and still be gray area for me. In fact I think those adventures strongly back up my claim. They are examples of likable goblin protagonists fighting bad guys and not mindlessly attacking other races. TheFinish brought up some great counterexamples for this though. I'm just saying that I think you're missing the big picture..

Maybe Adventures 1-3, but in the 4th one you literally raid a wedding for no real reason. I mean, some of the wedding goers are Evil (and the rest work for Evil people), but you raid them literally just to kill them because they made "words". And before that you're sent to deal with a Half-Elf woman just because she has garish clothing and a horse.

That's.....pretty damn monstrous. And the writeups for the characters are all pretty horrible, except for Mogmurch, whos....ok. For the most part.

KingOfAnything wrote:

Quote:
Despite his helpfulness, Tup remains evil and impulsive and may prove a headache, doing anything from making unflattering puppets of the heroes of Sandpoint to lighting them (or all of Sandpoint) on fire in their sleep.

Would a party that befriends Tup, gets his help, and then later learn he is a goblin have no qualms about killing him? Would that change if they knew he suffered from pyromania?

How would you rate the others on that list?

Well, lets see:

Gogmurt is an Neutral Evil druid. He was against the attack on Sandpoint only because he feared retribution. When his chief didn't listen to him, he got angry. He has dealt with this anger by throwing goblins that annoy him into the Howling Hole (a big drop into a space inhabited by a bunyip). He attacks the PCs on sight as well. So....pretty bad.

Ripnugget thought the raid on Sandpoint was a swell idea and is thinking of doing more, all to impress Nualia, who is also Evil. He pretends to want to parley but actually just wants to kill the PCs. So also pretty bad.

Grindtooth is just a gang leader looking for people to rob. Pretty bad but considering where the PCs are at the time (Whitethrone, a NE city), pretty normal.

Great Chief Graalsk is the only ok one. He makes sure his Goblins don't do anything bad in Thornkeep, because he knows they'll be slaughtered if they do. He's still called out as a pompous blowhard, but that's hardly a crime.

Though I'm not sure what your definition of "monstrous" is. I consider raiding villages, assaulting people and the like "monstrous" behaviour, so these goblins are monstrous in addition to being monsters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Only because you're ignoring literally all the nameless goblin mooks that get wrecked in various adventures and focusing on outlier named characters.

Do you really count nameless goblin mooks as characters? I'm pretty sure the question was about non-evil characters, specifically.

Sure, there may be hordes of nameless monsters, but do any of them count as NPCs?

Well I mean technically they're all NPCs. But I get what you mean.

I don't particularly feel like combing through all my APs and modules but:

- The Terrible Tup [A Song of Silver] is Neutral Evil
- Garvex The Dog [Trail of the Hunted] is Neutral Evil
- Gogmurt and Ripnugget [Rise of the Runelords} are Neutral Evil
- Grindtooth [Reign of Winter] is Neutral Evil
- Skizzerts [Emerald Spire] is Neutral Evil
- Great Chief Graalsk [Thornkeep] is Neutral Evil
- All the premade Goblin PCs of We Be Goblins are Evil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
You dramatically overestimate the number of non monstrous goblins. As most of the examples of non monstrous goblins literally have to misrepresent the text they're brought up in, and/or strategically leave out the ends of sentences in order to reach "not quite as monstrous".
You dramatically underestimate the number of non-monstrous goblins as the majority of goblin characters have been represented as non-evil or non-monstrous for several years now.
The hell they have, how many nameless goblins get wrecked in any AP compared to named "non monstrous" goblins? You care to try to put together a ratio?
I might be wrong, but I don't think so. PFS has had a liberal sampling of non-evil goblins. The only AP I can think of that had a goblin in it was Ironfang Invasion #1. It had "Garvex the dog", who was basically a slave of the hobgoblins and treated like a dog (not to say they mistreated him, but that they literally treated him like the other dogs). You can certainly claim him as monstrous, but I'm feeling good about my ratio.

Ironfang Invasion, really? Not....Rise of the Runelords? They also make appearances in Reign of Winter, Shattered Star, and Ruins of Azlant if we count Grindylows and Monkey Goblins. Never a single Good or even Neutral goblin among them.

As for a goblin named character....well the only one that comes to mind (besides the one you already mentioned) is the Terrible Tup, a NE serial pyromaniac statted in A Song of Silver.

If I were you I wouldn't feel so good about your ratio.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
It is a Dc 5.5 knowledge local check to identify a goblin, roughly 75% of the populace will recognize one on sight.
Actually couldn't the populace just take 10 and automatically identify the goblin? Assuming average intelligence.

They could, as long as the goblins that they are trying to identify aren't already attacking them. ;)

Well if the Goblin's attacking them, then 75% of the time they'll know it's a goblin, 25% of the time they won't know what it is, and 100% of the time they'll either run away or try to kill it, probably the latter, given a goblin's size.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
It is a Dc 5.5 knowledge local check to identify a goblin, roughly 75% of the populace will recognize one on sight.
Actually couldn't the populace just take 10 and automatically identify the goblin? Assuming average intelligence.
If you take 10 you also know a pertinent fact about them, like they're arsonists/cannibals/afraid of dogs/horses

In game rules, sure. But in this case game rules don't accurately model reality. Someone from Absolom would have trouble identifying a goblin in the crowd of species, regardless of how intelligent they are. Unless of course they've studied something that specifically informs them on the subject.

Yes, like whether or not they can make a dc5 knowledge local check, as its under dc 10 whether they've studied it or not is irrelevant, that low dc is the bar for whether or not you can know something without studying (investing skill ranks)

...

You mistake mechanics for reality. I understand that in game NPCs do a knowledge check, just like PCs. That's not the point. If we were to separate Golarion from the system and use another system, the method for obtaining knowledge about goblins would be different, correct? That is because the roll of a die is a way of modeling real life. When an author sets a novel in Golarion, you'll notice the characters don't roll dice every time they try to accomplish something. That's why your points on the knowledge DC are not really doing it for me. What you are giving as definitive is an approximation used to streamline a game. It would be excessive to got into a character's history, checking where they lived and what experiences they have, in order to determine what they know, and what the knowledge DC is for what they might know. But in the real game world, a characters intelligence and training in knowledge X has nothing to do with their familiarity with goblins.

That said,...

Why wouldn't they? Yeah, the characters don't roll dice all the time, that's for sure, but when the game says "Identifying a Goblin is DC 5" , the game is saying "Knowing what a goblin is on sight is literally easier than identifying a common plant or animal (which is DC 10), or the symbols of the most common religions (also DC 10)"

It is setting a baseline on what an uneducated person in the world knows. Even if you, personally, have never seen a Tiger, you could learn what a Tiger is by just going outside and asking people. It's the same in Golarion, except Goblins, unlike Tigers, are everywhere, as Inner Sea Races says:

"No newly discovered corner of the world remains goblin-free for long. Where humans tread, goblins scamper behind."

This is reinforced by the fact that you can find Goblins in Irrisen, all down the Varisian Coast, in Isger, and all the way down in Mediogalti and the Shackles. They're even in Tian-Xia, though in less numbers.

A Golarion peasant, particularly from the Inner Sea, is going to know what a Goblin is. Just as they know what a dog is, or a cow, or a horse.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
It is a Dc 5.5 knowledge local check to identify a goblin, roughly 75% of the populace will recognize one on sight.

Actually couldn't the populace just take 10 and automatically identify the goblin? Assuming average intelligence.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
Folks, fumbles are baked in to the system. Monsters will be enraging reactions when you crit fail. What those reactions are remains to be seen. Also, the frequency is unknown. Reactions might be far and few between or they could be widely available. Who knows?

The difference is:

- When you Crit Fail, whoever you're facing may not have any of those Reactions, unlike OP's fumbles, where something bad always happens.
- Even if they do have an applicable Reaction, they may choose not to take it (because they need their reaction for something else). A fumble of the type OP wants (and people don't) doesn't require an enemy choice.
- Even if they take their Reaction, Reactions are limited. It's unlikely an enemy will be able to capitalise on multiple fumbles, unlike OPs fumbles.

Then again, if the Crit Fail Reactions presented in the playtest are badly designed I sure as heck will tear them a new one. But as it is there's enough differences I'm willing to give them a try instead of scrapping the system altogether.

1 to 50 of 317 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>