The Neutral Good side of me wouldn't regret it. The Chaotic Neutral side, however... ;)
Also the fact that most people just aren't trained for these kinds of situations. Just because you may have a gun doesn't mean you'd be calm enough to hit your target, and in a crowded theater full of panicked people running everywhere, a person shooting back at the gunman could just as easily kill more innocents by accident.
Hmm...I like your advice. I'll talk to my players about what they want to do.
Frankly, I don't have the luxury of choice and they're my best friends. And they were interested enough when I explained for a whole car ride the cosmology and gods of the Pathfinder-verse. I don't mind being the "campfire storyteller", so to speak. And when we all played a previous campaign with another GM he just explained what was going on at the beginning and there was no confusion.
That said I looked over the whole campaign of CoT and ended up not liking it. So we're doing RotR instead.
I've always had the idea in my mind (and a former GM reinforced this between wizards and sorcerers) that a notable number of wizards look down on sorcerers for not being academically trained in their magic.
Now when I look at the fluff behind Pathfinder sorcerers (never played 3E) it seems that they could be just as snooty towards wizards for the wizards having to "learn their magic from books".
Then when you throw witches into the equation their powers are basically granted to them by some mysterious force which makes it seem like both of the other classes could look on them with disdain.
I'm basically asking your opinions on this matter and how you play your character/NPC spellcasters. I'm not saying <i> every </i> wizard has to fit the "no like sorcerers" persona.
Also, while writing this post this question came into my mind: Do wizards have to have some special quality to actually train to become a wizard, or could anybody with the privilege of having the cash and being in the right neighborhood become a wizard? (i.e. Could Valeros have been a wizard had he had access to a school?)
Ah, but the Motherless feat in the Social section (pretty obviously tailored towards Qlippoth-spawn) makes it seem that they are indeed not self-reliant at an early age.
I like the 100 alternate racial abilities, I wish we could see stuff like this for other races other then Tieflings and Aasimar.
I does make sense though, when you consider that outsiders are extremely varied in nature even in their own little groups. So a tiefling with one ability could have inherited it from a bone devil whereas a tiefling with another ability could have inherited it from a marilith.
I think it would be funny if a god like Torag was secretly the god of rock and roll.
The NPC wrote:
Yes but I didn't know any better at the time.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Good point. Anyway it's not like my Motherless has to look like that if I don't want it to. Prior to my purchase, I pictured Qlippoth-born as having weird deformities like tentacles on their heads instead of the standard horns of demon/devil-born. Closer to aberrants really.
I bought a hard copy of Blood of Fiends and I must say, kudos to the designers of the book! It really is a great book for lovers of the fiendish such as myself.
There's just one thing nagging me. We are given a picture of one of The Motherless and it is by far the least human looking of all the Tiefling types. Quite horrifying actually. Then the book describes that they eat their way out of their mother's wombs, killing her.
Now I know that it says they have talent for getting others to care for them, but I can't believe in a world where half-orc babies are all-to-often left in alleys to die that anyone would want to care for a freakish barely-human looking thing that kills its own mother upon birth. The first thing most people would probably grab when seeing an infant Motherless is a weapon. And I seriously doubt any maid wants to nurse one of them.
So I guess my real question is, do Qlippoth-born have some sort of illusory or mind-control ability, or is the "iconic" qlippoth-born shown in the magazine just a particularly horrific example?
Since we're on the topic of nooby questions. One more thing I don't quite get (and won't have to worry about for a little while anyway). The way the book phrases it had me confused.
Will two of the same (or different) CR 2 monsters make a CR 4 encounter or a CR 3 encounter, and similarly, will 2 CR 20 monsters make for a CR 40 encounter or a CR 21?
I'm going to be the GM for the first time. One thing I want to get cleared up is concerning Monster hp and Hit Dice.
I understand the function of Hit Dice, but I need to know:
On the stat block for oh say, Goblin, it says hp: 6 (1d10 + 1). Does that mean that when I roll a d10 to determine hp, and I roll a 10, will the Goblins hp be (6+(10 + 1)) = 17, or will it be 10 + 1 = 11?
Or say I'm running the Tarrasque. Its stat block says hp: 525 (30d10 + 360). Say I roll 5's on every single one of those d10's (for the convenience of this thread). Would its hp end up being 525 + (150 + 360) or would it end up being just 150 + 360?
Well, I don't necessarily care about the snooty nobility thing as much as maybe having a place for downtrodden "English" peasants, Celt-y barbarians, "Scottish" highlanders, plenty of downs and moors, and flocks of sheep.
Chelaxians are easy enough to turn into a sort of twisted Victorian culture if I feel like it.
I suppose I could say that parts of Cheliax are like GB, whereas others are like Italy and Spain...
A lawful good rogue? Easy!
A rogue trained from early age in the arts of espionage by his order. They send him into orc camps/goblin lairs/cultist hideouts in the dead of night to slit the throats of these evil-doers. He is no thief, but a master of espionage.
A rogue need not be a thief, heck, not even a non-good rogue has to be a thief.
Basically, a rogue is anybody who is good at stealth/trickery.
Thief, spy, runaway noble, hide-and-seek champion turned adventurer...
Perhaps like Gregorian or Benedictine monks.
What a lot of people don't realize is that the Knights Templar (and I think maybe the Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights) were a monastic order.
But in Golarion the Templars would have become Paladins.
I have suddenly envisioned an order of Templar look-alike monks that have a similar tunic to the Templars (white with red emblem) minus the metal armor and swords.
I'm personally fine with anybody playing as anything even if it's stuff I don't particularly like.
Wanna be a monk? Fine! Wanna be a Friar Tuck look-a-like with kung-fu skills? Fine! This is Golarion, baby!
However, I've always sort of rolled my eyes at the fact that Ninja and Samurai get their own classes instead of being archetypes. At least they are alternate versions of existing classes though.
As an avid reader of the Book of the Damned series, I would love to see for each type of the Big 3 D's:
Devils: Devils are my favorite of all fiends. Expand upon The Whore Queens. They are interesting in that they are a part of Hell but are fairly separate from the archdevils. They get about a footnote apiece in Princes of Darkness. Also: The Malebranche.
Demons: Demons are my least favorites of the three. Maybe some more Nascent Demon Lords. Overall, each demon lord got less info than the archdevils and horsemen because of the sheer quantity of demon lords. Maybe some more tidbits on them.
Daemons: The Oinodaemon. We know his origins, but what is her agenda? Does he even have an agenda? What would she do if he were to be unleashed upon the world again?