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

The Shaman's page

1,298 posts. Alias of Boyan Penev.


1 to 50 of 1,298 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, to be honest, I do not mind if fighters were geared more towards fighting than, say, rangers, paladins, cavaliers and others who are meant to be a warrior with another schtick. As I see it, the paladin is also part cleric, the ranger is part rogue and druid, the cavalier has all those teamwork tricks, and so on. I do not begrudge them that. However, I expect the fighter and to a point the barbarian to be that much better when it comes to, well, fighting.

That does not mean the fighter should not be a touch better at, say, skill use (and between background skills and skill groups from unchained and some of the advanced trainings, this is starting to look a bit better), but it is the class that advertises itself as the master of arms and combat, and it should deliver that. If you want to be the warrior who is also X,Y, or Z, that is fine, but it should come at a cost when the chips are down and you are having a one on one with the loser getting a date with Pharasma.

Rangers and slayers work great imo, and the rogue and bard are quite thematic if you can find something to help with seasickness. I am in particular a fan of the thundercaller bard . It loses some subtlety you can usually do without, and being able to call a thunderstorm at sea can be a pretty scary experience. Bards are pretty handy on a ship overall, even with their poor fortitude saves. Apart from that, really, most classes work well. Paladins just have a harder time fitting in.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see an AP in a region we have not heard much from. Also, there has not been all that much when it comes to investigation and high intrugue. Now, where could that happen...

For Prince and Country

Location: Taldor
Theme: Intrigue, mass combat (later).

1. Shadows of Golsifar - the murder of the up-and-coming baroness Arimanna has shocked the provincial town of Golsifar. There is an official investigation, but a local nobleman and a friend of the baroness suspects that the official investigation would not be particularly interested in getting too far into the matter. The PCs have been accused of the crime, but through a technicality and a lot of influence, their new patron gives them a chance to find the real killer. They have to find the assassins and turn them in,dead or alive... or else. Finding what the motive is would not hurt either.

2. Bad luck and worse bedfellows – the involvement of the cut of Zyphus in the Arimanna affair has shown this group to be a lot more influential and ambitious than what is normally believed in Taldan society, and the PCs find out they have been marked for death for their interference. They must engage in a cat-and-mouse game with the leaders of the local cell in Mut, unmasking or slaying their leaders while remaining themselves unseen. In the background, other enemies pursue their own vendettas.

3. Opparan nights – with newfound reputations for loyalty and heroism, the PCs can enjoy the fruits of their success, only to find out that navigating the morass of Taldan high society can be just as dangerous. An old patron's plans may finally seek to bear fruit, alliances from before must be honored or broken, and new rivalries erupt. Honor, pride and love itself are tools to be used against the unwary. If the characters play their cards right,they can get a quick promotion to the crème of Taldor's aristocracy. If they do not, disgrace and exile await.

4. The Lion's fangs – the empire of Cheliax' recent successes has left some of their generals eager and overconfident, and some of them have decided that there is glory and easy plunder to be had in Taldor's unruly western reaches. The chaos in the region and its recently disgraced general promises easy pickings. However, the empire's newest strategi are sent there to quell the riots in Cassomir and show the simpering diabolists just how wrong they and their myriad agens are. Yet in the background of this border conflict, a hidden manipulator finally overplays his hand, when his plans for engineering a big crisis for Taldor that would shake the foundations of the empire and leave the monarch weak and reeling does not play out as he would want...

5. The price of treachery – the machinations of the viscount De Graive have come to the front and an apocalyptic war between Taldor and Qadira is about to erupt.The PCs need to mediate between the different factions of the Taldan army and ideally resolve the crisis before a massive war erupts. To do that, however,a peer of the Empire who would certainly NOT be a cardial of Zyphys must suffer a regrettable and totally not intentional incident. What a coincidence that itwould involve the same people he threw to the wolves in Golsifar.

6. Three days to the apocalypse– Despite the deaths of the viscount de Graive, his final gambit proceeds as foreseen with a planar invasion of Oppara. They have less than half a week advanced notice before rifts to Abbadon open throughout the countryside and armies of daemons swarm out, and assassin cults and plaguesbearers already spread throughout the country. Hastily appointed as wardens of Oppara, the characters need to secure the city and Taldor itself in order to beat back the hordes of Abbadon and seal the greateste rift before the Seraph of Desolation herself rides out from it brings down the mighty empire that survived legendary betrayals and the death of a god. Will the Lion of Taldor rise from its slumber and roar defiantly once more atop a defeated foe on the grey wastes of Abaddon, or will it fall silent forever?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Second Darkness has a lot of potential, but had some very rough moments. IMO both APs would look good with a remake and slight improvement, but SD would benefit more from it.

If I remember correctly, all the information in the Guide to Corvosa was from before the campaign and there were no spoilers for the plot in it. If the PCs are natives, it is good reading, and fairly safe, though as said, it could be good to ask the DM in advance in case they are planning something.

Chelios wrote:
how about a spiritualist?

Come to think of it, the medium may be even better if you do not mind switching focuses overnight. Depending on what spirit you take, you can be a good warrior,passable caster or a face.

Hey, I respond to PMs, as well. No need to make it a public issue :P .

Anyway, on to the questions:

1. Yes, they are a more nature-related class, it shows in their spell list and imo the choice of spirits they can venerate.
2. They mix mechanics from the oracle and the witch, but apparently the designers decided that the "feel" of the shaman was closer to wisdom-based spellcasters. I think they saw it as communion with a supernatural being, as opposed to the studious ritual preparation of int-based casters and the reliance on inner strength and force of personality for charisma-based casters - and I am painting with a very broad brush here.

The ranseur is an option, especially for the partisan, although I am not sure how good the side protrusions will be in trapping an enemy weapon, unlike those of the ranseur.

The ox tongue strikes me as a possible longspear design, to be honest. Some designs supposedly had side-blades as well, but from what I understand the typical one was essentially a spear with a broad, long head.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChaosTicket wrote:
Ranger Fighting Styles for other classes would fit that, too bad Ranger isnt so great.

I have heard that now and then, but I definitely do not agree. The ranger is pretty much a jack of all trades among the martials, having a pet, free feats, good skills, an extra damage mechanic and some spellcasting. It actually fulfills all the prerequisites in the OP except 6-level casting,but has a full BAB and a D10 HD instead. Sure, the hunter is a better pet master and has better casting, and the slayer is a better rogue/assassin, but the base ranger is nothing to sneer at, and it has archetypes that can help you customize it a fair bit.

I would say that it is not quite a "jack" of all trades as it is clearly biased towards combat (and is quite good at it) and has limited casting, though this can be remedied by spellcasting. It is certainly a fairly well-rounded class, though.

Ok, the impression I got was that the player had previously read the book - as in, before knowing that the game would take place. However, I read the opening post again and it seems that it happened recently. I do not know if the DM advertised the name of the game - some DMs do not do this. Presuming the player knew in advance what he was reading, okay, this is worse.

Still, it feels stupid throwing the player out for actually telling you about it. I can´t know just how detailed his "skimming" was, but ultimately he is hurting his own appreciation for the game. The DM can up the challenge - if it turns out that the encounters are too easy - and throw in some curveballs. However, the anniversary edition already has some hints in the player´s guide that giants or the like are coming. I think that some of the OP´s ideas strike me as the kind of overreacting that may end up being more disruptive than what the player did.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As I see it, for the premise to work the AP needs several components #
- First, the patron of the party must be powerful and ruthless enough to think of such a group
- The premise of the AP must not rely on the PCs trusting or liking the patron, but they should not be able to jump ship (at least not easily).
- The patron must have a clear task for them from the start to justify the PCs being called into service.

The obvious first choice is Way of the Wicked, if you do not mind it being a 3rd party campaign and specifically geared towards evil parties. Heck, it starts with the PCs being in prison and having to get out.

Reign of Winter sounds great for me too. I mean, at some point you are essentially sworn into serving as a replacement for one of the Three Horsemen, iirc with a geas. Instead of the standard hook, the Horseman could instead swear in some condemned criminals instead. A few other APs work as well - I can see a somewhat modified premise working for CoCT, Legacy of Fire, Shattered Star, Hell´s´Vengeance...

Whichever way it goes, I think it is very bad form to change a campaign to the point where it just screws some of the players.The player came out and admitted, before the campaign got this far, that he has this knowledge, and supposedly he did not mean to - he just happened to have read the book somewhere. Punishing him for that strikes me as excessive.

Sure, the DM is annoyed one or two players (accidentally) know some of the plot and enemies and want to be prepared. That is not cool, but neither is deciding as GM you are going to change the campaign to the extent that these options become a 100% trap. There is a good chance that the players are going to be unhappy because they are consciously being punished, because they were. Sounds like a great way to ensure everyone else gets pissed too and the group splits.

As I see it, option one is to continue with the campaign, tell the player that there will be some changes, and spice things up a bit. Giants should still be an issue, especially if they were hinted at, but include some more enemies of a different kind - perhaps the Runelords had other slave races like the sinspawn or some of those strange spidery things from the Pathfinder comics. Perhaps the necromancer ogress had much of her family reanimated instead (or she is a proto-alienist and has some aberrations nearby). Keep some giants, just not as much.

And anyway, what if the GF´s character is actaully decent at killing giants? PCs are generally assumed to be good at what they do. Just adding some extra stats to the giants (or making them more) can keep the fights challenging. IF this one guy knows some of the plot, it just spoils it for him. If he tries to metagame for the group, this COULD be an issue, but that is another story (and then you can start throwing curveballs).

Option two is to change the AP, ideally before everyone has set their builds. There are plenty of adventures and APs in Varisia, so it should not be hard.

Option three is to kick the players, but again, the player was being honest here, and I do not feel it is cool to punish this.

The psychic warrior is a good fit imo. Their pseudo-monk archetype (meditant iirc) is particularly good if you want to wear no armor.

Do note, that at level 1 the character won't be all that great. Level 1 characters are newbies. For comparison, a competent town guard is the equivalent of level 1-2 character.

Now, if you actually want a pathfinder-like star wars, the SW Saga Edition is quite good.

Hmm, how about a multiclassed ranger (or a prestige class with spell progression)? It meets pretty much all requirements outside of level 6 spells, so it can work well as a base.

I am hoping for a fair few campaign traits - lately there seem to be less per guide than previously - and some good mechanical suggestions for each class or class type (also, suggestions what archetypes, feats etc might NOT be a good idea).

Strange gear, memories etc would be a good idea and might tie in with the traits. More fluff for getting in the mood is definitely great for a horror AP.

Basically, any full BAB class with perception as a class skill (and ideally bonuses) can work. Trapfinding is only required to disable magic traps, not spot them. Well, at that point, your party can try to dispel the trap or just find a way to bypass it. I am a fan of the ranger - while the iconic rangers are sneaky, you do not have to be - but a barbarian or monk works well too. Heck, monks even tend to have good wisdom, which translates into good perception bonuses.

I would still say an investigator is a great rogue replacement and hard to beat when it comes to traps (and quite a few other things), but if you want something that is more suited to bashing heads, you have other options

A cleric definitely works. Pharasma, Desna and Iomedae are more typical in Ustalav and the vicinity, but you can take Sarenrae as a patron as well, her cult tends to go around a lot. I am generally not the biggest fan of the roaming exorcist archetype as haunts tend to come up fairly rarely in most games, but Carrion Crown does have a fair few. You can do fairly well at it.

I would go for a straight barbarian with beast totem and superstitious, possibly with the brutal pugilist archetype, maybe prestiging into rage oracle if you prefer. Brawlers and rangers are also an option as they have some hand-to-hand combat proficiency and animalistic abilities, respectively. A Brawler with the barbarian VMC and the right feats can be a pretty mean badger stylist.

I haven't tried a barbarian/druid, but doesn't rage hurt your spellcasting a lot? At this point I would say that the wild stalker ranger may be a better pick.

They are cool, normally I like the bard VMC, but unless your DM allows you to have double the inspire rounds it probably won't be great. Alternatively,you can choose to not get VMC and improve your channeling and other stuff to help you against undead/outsiders.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
sojoocy wrote:

While I'm still looking at bloodrager, every thread I've dug up claims that I am GOING to lag, end of story.

Someone casually mentioned a gunslinging paladin though, and now I like the idea as much or more as a bloodrager. Three feet of sparkling full plate, cape billowing in the wind while he punches holes in whatever is biggest and meanest with his adorable little it'd fill that ranged support hole our party currently has, AND my stat bonuses work.

Thoughts? May start a new thread just for this.

Ranged paladin is great in combat... I am not so sure about firearms, but they should be okay too. However, the team is a bit short on skills with most characters having 2+int, a few having 4+. This is why I was loath to recommend paladin or fighter and thought that ranger, slayer or avenger vigilante may be a good fit for the niche.

An archer bard is a good support character, but also quite handy in terms of damage as well. I have been meaning to try an alchemist or a skald, they can be good,versatile characters as well.

Actually, with risky striker and big game hunter, halfling barbarians can end up being surprisingly effective. If only there was something like risky striker for gnomes...

Sneak attacking is certainly an option, but I was intrigued by the gnome barbarian/bloodrager in particular. Ah well, I was hoping I may have missed something.

Hello fellow forumites, I have been considering building a gnome barbarian or bloodrager, but I do not want to feel too weak - I somehow both like playing relatively nontraditional picks and dislike feeling underpowered. I noticed that halflings have some interesting options for being better in melee, in particular via risky striker. Is there something like that for gnomes? I do not want to be reliant on a GM, although I imagine most would not have a huge issue with extending the feat to other small races.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
I say bloodrager is better than barbarian for halflings since they're good with charisma. And there's not that much magic in them. Go arcane for a ton of buffs upon raging, celestial for a minor smite, a reroll, and flight, or aberrant for GLORIOUS REACH TACT...wait, you're small. er...well it's not bad for you but you won't get the full benefit out of that one.

Wait, small races have the same reach as medium ones, or are you already calculating the enlarge person for large size reach?

Edit - could not edit my previous post to put it there.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The evangelist deific obedience for Shelyn and the bard variant multiclass can get non-bards versatile performance - and thus the use of dance for other skills - as well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, looks like your party is short on cunning, handy folk, so I would try to fit this role first.

I would actually consider the following:

- Ranger - overall useful folk with decent presence in a fight. The charisma is not needed, but hey, you can tank it and get the points for that. The favored class bonus is great imo - especially when you get the spell that instantly makes someone your favored enemy. A halfling archer can work great. Melee is a bit trickier, but still doable.

- Slayer - it is a more martial rogue with a bit of ranger. If you do not care for spells or pet, it is great, both for archery and for melee.

- Cavalier/daring champion - essentially a different sort of swashbuckler.Your speed is a bit of an issue unless you take the racial trait, but you can get good use of your dexterity (dex to damage at level 3 via dervish dance, fencing grace or slashing grace). Your charisma can be handy, and in a party with so many warriors, sharing your teamwork feat can be nice.

- Vigilante (avenger or otherwise, I prefer avenger) - appearing harmless and having an alternative identity works great for halfings imo. Vigilanes get a lot of skills and tricks and, depending on the speialization, possibly some magic.

- Barbarian/Bloodrager - look at the urban archetype for both so you can boost your dexterity. Doable, but not really my first choice.

Paladin is a powerful class, and fighters can be decent as well, but I would want something with at least 4+int skill points from the get-go. Ideally 6, if the party does not use the extra background skills optional rule.

If you are melee, try to get either piranha strike or power attack (the latter is better, but the strength requirement can be a problem) and risky striker. The latter feat is a way for halflings to get surprising amount of damage on their attacks, and between the good dexterity and the size bonus halfling warriors are usually not lacking in AC. To be honest, though, you already have 2/3 combat classes (3 if we count the warpriest), and I expect at least two are going melee. It may get cluttered out on the frontline.

If you do not mind something a bit less combat-oriented, bard would be great. A lot of archetypes can work, overall I would look for something that keeps versatile performance and the standard inspire courage (a lot of your team will love the bonuses). For more sneaky types,the detective, archeologist and the sandman are all great. I actually think the unchained rogue is decent, even if it isn't the greatest.

Come to think of it, I think that daring champion cavalier could be a nice martial side to a more combat-oriented MG gestalt.

On the note of the Eldritch Guardian, I am tempted to make one using a hawk or owl. Birds get a few attacks and once they switch from tiny to a medium warform they get a significant stat boost. Has anyone else tried that before?

Hmm, can you wield a light weapon with two hands anyway?

I would say there are several possible ways to build fighters. There are still some sore points about the class, but you can probably make a serviceable version. Style-wise, you can probably make two-handed weapons, ranged weapons and multiple weapons/sword and shield all work for you, though the first one will probably require the least investment to be effective.

Lore wardens and mutation warriors offer you serviceable abilities for armor training. Lore wardens are the maneuver specialists and work quite well as swashbucklery types, while mutation warriors are really handy for their temporary mutagen buffs. Advanced armor training does offer some good things, but both of those archetypes give you good trades imo. I would call it about even. However,there are almost no archetypes that give you a worthwhile trade for weapon training and its advanced options. Maybe viking and free-style fighter. MAYBE. In fact,for many weapon specialist archetypes the biggest question is "does my version of weapon training count for advanced weapon training." Attributes that cost you neither weapon nor armor training and give you something useful - like the Eldritch guardian - are definitely worth looking into.

A new and imo very big thing is the variant multiclassing from unchained. Basically, you give up half your regular bonus feats (level 3,7, 11, etc) for features from one other class.Well, guess what class has feats to spare... Some of the options aren't great, but some are pretty handy. For example, VMC-ing into a barbarian gives you rage and some of the barbarian defenses and rage powers for a berserker, VMCing into a bard gives you bardic knowledge and music for an inspirational leader (and is really handy for a lore warden), rogue eventually gets you sneak attack,etc. Unless you are into a really feat intensive style, it is definitely worth it checking what you can trade your most abundant resource for.

While "Pathfinder Unchained" sadly did not give the class the kind of serious update that the monk and the rogue got, the VMC and the combat stamina rules are really nice for fighters.I strongly recommend having them if you plan to play one.

So it would seem, but that´s still a fair bit more than a wolf. Supposedly, the biggest wolf ever shot (and measured) was under 200 pounds.

What is 4L?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm, the way you are describing it it would make sense for it to be a universal effect based on remaining HP, rather than a fighter only mechanic (not like the pain is much less when you are being blindsided by an assassin or mauled by an owlbear). Unchained had rules about debuffs tied to HP thresholds, but I do not remember if casting was affected. I would say that it should, so perhaps build on that.

By the way, the whole way 3.x and PF treats actions and turns gave casters a huge buff in that now turns are taken separately and in order. It is very difficult to interrupt casting, even if it takes several seconds, since you need to dedicate your turn in advance to do just that. One thing I was considering as a (potentially) fighter-only mechanic was allowing the fighter to spend a lot of stamina to mimic hero point effects a few times per day, which would include on the spot "prepared actions".

Yeah, this has been an issue for a while. There was even a joke that the designers were clearly prejudiced agaisnt bears :P . So far the only way to get a riding bear is through a beast rider cavalier.

I find it ridiculous that you need to jump through hoops to ride a bear when a wolf or a lion mount is pretty easy to get, tbh. The bestiary has plenty of large bears, you just cannot get them as animal companions. This may make sense for rocs, but for bears... eh, right now we are just forced to homebrew or adapt other animals.

Wouldn´t a pistolero gunslinger fit better than a fighter? You still get some bonus feats and have the deeds for trick shots.

Salt cartridges are your nonlethal ammo, they are specifically only designed for blunderbusses or the like. Eventually, you can just have a merciful gun. Alternatively, go for a gun mage that can essentially channel spells through the gun.

The problem with having many weapons in Pathfinder is that enchanting all of them costs a fortune. It is doable, but difficult. You can cheat by using a soulbolt soulknife and fluffling your bolts as pistols, I guess.

Would it be okay to just have two (eventually more if you can afford it) pepperboxes instead? If not that, I would check if your DM allows automatic bonus progression from Unchained and ask to have all your pistols enhanced with the same bonus and using either the base pistol or the smaller coat pistol stats.

1. Bard - jack of all trades done (mostly) right. You can be almost anything with a bard, and you can help other people do better too!

2. Alchemist - another versatile caster, this time with a whiff of pseudoscience. I like the extracts, I like the mutagen, and I can choose between bombs and being able to precisely dismember an enemy. Sweet. I am also particularly fond of the Master Chymist, which helps.

3. Ranger - I have had a soft spot for this class for a while, and it works pretty well in Pathfinder

Honorary mentions: Inquisitor, Oracle.

Gulthor wrote:
And of course, vivisectionist picks up sneak attack (there's no reason you have to be a creepy slasher.)

Indeed, though the fluff text made me think of a bomber alchemist. I am a fan of vivisectionists, myself - I wish there was an option for the Master Chymist to enhance that.

Btw, the crypt breaker alchemist is a specialist in trap removal and setting, especially of the explosive kind. It loses poison resistance, use and immunity, but as alchemist AND a dwarf, are you really worried about poison?

You don´t have to have rogue levels to call yourself (and be called) a rogue, just like you do not need to have a level in fighter to call yourself one. Ranger suits dwarves decently, and there are some ranger archetypes that get trapfinding (mind you, you can detect and disarm most traps without this ability in PF, it just gives you bonuses and lets you disarm magical traps). A dwarven alchemist are good with locks and the like as well, and trust me, they make stuff go boom REAL nice.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am not sure that the figher is quite at the level I would want it to be with, even with combat stamina. It did help a lot, but I would rather it became available to all full BAB classes and fighters would get extra stuff that builds on it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daniel Yeatman wrote:
I don't know, I've only ever played in one campaign where there was a Fighter and he did just fine, all the way up to level 16. I do always find it funny that so much effort is focused on one class, though. Imagine if there was this much debate about the Medium, or the Cavalier, hah.

The medium and even to a point the cavalier are generalists with wider areas of expertise. The medium is basically choose you own class every day (DM permission needed), and the generic cavalier is a sort of spellless paladin with a mount, pseudo-smite and team buffs. The fighter can just fight, and s/he isn't that great at it. You can be "decent" compared to barbarians, rangers, paladins or slayers, most of whom bring a heckof a lot more else. You do not even outclass them significantly at the one thing you do.

I really, really wish Unchained had put the fighter there instead of the barbarian or even the summoner.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am thinking about changing the Magical Child specialization to Bard (from unchained summoner) and giving it access to some of the bardic music abilities (inspire courage, competence, heroism - basically the "positive" stuff) as special vigilante talents, essentially making it a familiar-assisted buffer rather than a sort-of summoner. Do you think this would work?

Alternatively, I would just ditch the familiar for the music,but I do not want to make it too similar to the bard.

Passable, but I may be tempted to squeeze an extra point in strength for power attack later on (level 3 or so) - if you plan on using your rapier more, it is a good buff. Granted, this works better with judgements where you have an easier access to attack, but a monster tactician can easily set up flanks to manage. Otherwise, I think this looks okay, although 18 dexterity, reactionary and improved initiative strikes me as a bit of an overkill. This is just my opinion, of course.

As for your friend, hmm, net and trident/harpoon is a style that takes a while to set up. Lore warden is certainly not a bad option, but pseudo-warrior classes like ranger or slayer are definitely not bad either. There are a couple of feats that cater to that style (net and trident, net adept, etc), but I do not have any personal experience with them. Overall, with such niche styles it might be a good idea to have an alternative schtick in combat.

@ Kyudoka - well, as a cleric you can always sacrifice a spell slot for a cure wounds if you HAVE to, so any cleric (or oracle) can get the job done. I am not sure if it is worth it taking Crusader, though - do the extra feats make a big difference compared to the regular one? I would actually consider going Holy Vindicator for a pseudo-warpriest and don't mind having fewer feats, but it doesn't seem all that popular.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:
Rysky wrote:
As for her Carrion Crown writeup I don't go by that, since that writeup also calls out Abortion as Evil. No thanks.

Well for one, your personal preferences don't really matter, that's the lore, and it's all we really have to go on.

For two, it doesn't say it's Evil. It says Pharasma, Neutral (not Good...kinda the crux of this whole discussion y'know) goddess of Birth and Death, sees abortion as an abomination.

That had less to do with evil and more to do with what Pharasma is a deity of - birth and fate. An intentional abortion means that you, mortal humanoid № 18771280871, overrule what she as the deity in charge of births and by association pregnancy decided is going to happen. You disregarded her position and dogma, thus insulting her. I would have gone for "anathema" rather than "abomination," to be honest, but at any rate, it isn't about abortions being objectively evil, it is about the goddess of pregnancy and birth being pissed by mortals messing around with pregnancies and births. You can also argue that you are messing around with the fate of the unborn, which is also her portfolio. Even keeping contemporary politics and morality out of it, it makes perfect sense that she would be against it.

Ironically, I think a big part of why she is against undead might come from a similar mindset. She is the being in charge of death, and deciding that, you know, **** the system, you are going to do your own thing and stay around won't sit well with her. She allows resurrection under some limits, but undeath is an affront to what she represents.

Edit: I can agree with Pharasma not being all that good, but I see her as quite LN in how she operates. Her Osiriani counterpart, Anubis, is LN without having a markedly more lawful bent (as far as I am aware).

Rysky wrote:
As much as I would love for that to be true, Abadarites being Abadarities she was probably an awesome cosplayer they hired for good publicity.

Hey, nothing prevents an awesome cowgirl cosplayer from being into a gaudy dressing style, crossbows and sound and fair business practices. Abadarian paladins are quite atypical as far as paladins go, but I can see it happen now and then.

Rysky wrote:
I know midwives and expectant mothers pray to Her for healthy childbirths but is that actually in her portfolio?

Births and fate, definitely.

In the case of Pharasma, a paladin may have a somewhat harder time being a priest, but s/he can be a lay worshipper or even a warrior for the faith in certain situations. Yes, s/he does not agree with parts of the dogma, but I´m pretty sure a NG, CN and NE priests of Pharasma have their disagreements too. Sure, you could say that Pharasma´s stress on fate means a paladin is not allowed to help the suffering because it was fate, but how is that any more valid for a LG paladin than for a NG cleric? Pharasma is mostly focused on a few key issues, other than that as I understand it clerics have a fair amount of choice as far as She is concerned (the church organization itself is another story).

If paladins are not required to serve a god for their powers, I see no trouble with a paladin who venerates deities without being completely devoted to the dogma, i.e. praying to Pharasma often and participating in church rites. In a pantheistic setting, imo **not** paying at least some respect to several gods would be an exception, not the norm. Why wouldn´t you, for example, pray to Erastil for a good harvest, to Shelyn for love in your marriage, to Pharasma to help you with childbirth, to Gorum in war and, hell, to Cayden when stoppering the wine barrel? Acknowledging these powerful beings and propitiating them to gain their favor should be a good idea at any rate.

To be honest, a lot of the Pharasmin dogma makes perfect sense for a LN deity. She is an impartial judge of the dead and is extremely serious about enforcing the laws of the universe that she is tied to. I have a hard time imagining a CN pharasmin priest.

In the case of Pharasma, the dogma/code may be the trickier part. AFAIK on Golarion the deity-specific codes take precedence and the one in the core book was given as a setting-agnostic one. I do not think it works all that well for a pharasmin paladin. Then again, the paladin may venerate Pharasma without drawing power from her.

To be honest, I would probably go with Sarenrae anyway, unless I was making a character who specifically fits the Pharasmin dogma.

Aww, but how can you be a pirate without an animal sidekick? Granted, most of those work better as familiars, but having some animals on board is a time-honored tradition. Next you will be telling me you will NOT be getting a hook hand and a peg leg?

Anyway, yeah, in a big party it can be a pain in the ass. Mind you, if you are not using an animal companion and don´t care much for spells, a Slayer may be just as good (if not more so) as a ranger. Check it out, if you have not done so already.

I am generally a fan of bards for such pursuits, although I admit, investigators and inquisitors (for the divinely adherent) are definitely capable as well. I am a bit surprised that you did not include rangers and slayers among your options - they are quite capable when it comes to getting into - and out of - tricky places, and while not usually tied to the past,some of their skill choices are a good fit for an adventurer of the type you are interested in. Mediums can also be an interesting match for the concept (and quite popular in Ustalav), both the standard type and the relic channeler, which has a similar flavor to an occultist (but works differently).

1 to 50 of 1,298 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.