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

goldomark's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Marathon Voter. 427 posts (432 including aliases). 3 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 427 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Shane LeRose wrote:

Psychic = spiritual. It relates to the essence of things. So outsiders should play a strong part of it as should some fey and some undead.

Psionic = mental. This relate to the mind, or the intelligence guiding a something. This focuses on living, thinking beings. Humanoids and abberations are prevelant here.

There can be overlap, just as you can combine the arcane with the divine. YMMV, but this works for me and will be a part of my campaigns.

Probably the best distinction and reconciliation.

Soul magic vs. mind magic.

John Kretzer wrote:
Rakshaka wrote:
This is sort of 'Dragon-lancey', but I'd love to be able to journey Azlant right before Earthfall.

That sounds like a very short campaign....

The PCs just arrive in Azlant....look up at the sky and wonder what that fiery things coming down from the sky at them....

It could work for one book of the AP. "The clock is ticking and the PCs need to find items X,Y and Z from the Azlanti capital while the Starstone is hours away from impact! Quick, if you fail the Consortium of the Hack will get some advantage in its future invasion plans!".

Same principale with dino age adventure book. "Save the clan or Kru'k! the clan of Kru'k is responsable for the bloodline that produces Aroden! They also made this totally rad legendary magical mask that you will pick up in two adventures! Aberrations riding dinosaurs! Grrr!".

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And here is a report from our Numerian corespondent: 01010100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101101 01100001 01100011 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100101 01110011 00100000 01101100 01101111 01110110 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00101110 00100000 01001111 01100010 01100101 01111001 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101101 01100001 01100011 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100101 01110011 00101110 .

Seems like a modern setting. By that I do not mean it was set in our time, but that it reflected modern expectations of a setting. Maybe post-modern would be more accurate.

It was conceived to contained everything. The setting felt whole from the start and not full of holes that needed patching over time. That clearly influenced Golarion. Magic was an integral part of society too. Which makes a lot of sense. Why wouldn't there be a magico-industrial complex?

It could have used better described deities and more high level NPCs, but those were not there because it was also ment to be the anti-Forgotten Realms settings. It is ashame because in many ways it what the FR should have been with a 100 years jump in time.

I'm guessing it will receive minimal support from WotC. Maybe a AP.

Who was the first occult adventures iconic revealed?

mikeawmids wrote:

But there are dinosaurs around in present day Golarion!

I doubt a whole AP will be based around the Dominion of the Black as the fanbase seems pretty divided on getting Lovecraft peppers on their fantasy pizza.

An evil organisation of time travelling wizards would be fun to fight. I would like to see something similar to RoW, where you're jumping to a different time period in each of the six books. Anything that reminds me of Timesplitters is going to go down well. :D

I'm not too attached to the Dominion of the Black as the BBEG. Maybe I shoul have went with a more generic Time Travelling Wizard.

I still like the idea of going to the future to fight an invasion. I just wonder if the invaders aren't responsable for tinkering with the past, what would be the Time Travelling Wizard's motives?

The future AP wish list made me think about a time travelling AP and historical moments I would like to visite.

In no paticular order:

1. Age of Destiny: The founding of the Yixing Empire in Tian Xia.

2. Age of Enthronement: Make sure Iomedae can get access to the Starstone and see her become a goddess.

3. Age of Serpents: Dinosaurs and cavefolk!

4. Age of Legend 1: Visite Thassilon in the past and maybe make a cameo during the RotR AP.

5. Age of Legend 2: Visite Azlant at its peak and one of its moon colonies.

6. The Future: The Moon half blown up and is an outpost of the Dominion of the Black. This is the place from which they want to invade Golarion.

Maybe the theme of the adventure is to correct some events the Dominion of the Black changed in the past to help its conquest of Golarion in the future. Like they try to make sure Karzoug rises because that would cause chaos in the Inner Sea region. With Iomedae not a goddess Golarion would not have a leader to lead the charge against the invaders and their gods. Delay the rise of Yixing and you thus make sure humanity is less advanced when the Dominion invades.

Other stuff the PCs could do is steal some powerful items from the Azlanti. Taking them doesn't change the future since the items were going to be destroyed during Earthfall anyway. Prepare a cache of weapons on a Azlanti moon colony for the future.

Which Ages would you like visite?

1. Time travelling campain.

2. Distant Worlds: planet hopping to discover the Dominion of the Black invasion plot of Golarion and stop it.

3. Psychic/Vudra.

4. Arcadia: build a colony.

That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
Ever tried to use a fuel-less chainsaw as a weapon irl before? Ok neither have I, but it would be completely useless as a weapon. The tree branch on the ground you just cut off would be more effective.

I've never tried to use a large great vorpal sword to behead a great wyrm gold dragon either. Have you?

I'm basing my great sword comparison to this pic. Seems like a bludgeoning great sword to me when the engine is not on.

Skeld wrote:
goldomark wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
This is the rules forum.
Actually, this is the rules questions forum.

It's like Sparta with less kicking, more screaming, and roughly equal amounts of bloodshed.


I suggest this: Sparduh!

mplindustries wrote:
John McDruid wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
if you're not using a charge it's not a weapon.
Sure it is. It doesn't stop being a weapon.

Actually, I am pretty sure it does stop being a weapon. Technological items do not function without charge, so the chainsaw would do nothing. You would have to use it as an improvised weapon at that point, the same as if I had a Laser Rifle with no charge--I don't get to shoot it anyway for lesser damage or something.

So, Bob Bob Bob is correct: it would deal whatever damage the GM felt, as per the improvised weapon rules.

It still a weapon even withut charges. It is not like it become a kitchen utensil.

Heck, I can even enchant it with magic weapon.

Bob Bob Bob wrote:
This is the rules forum.

Actually, this is the rules questions forum.

By the rules, you do the damage and damage type the GM says is appropriate.

I thought I did the damage the books said it should do.

Yes, you take a -4 penalty for an improvised weapon. The only thing that removes this is Catch Off Guard or something else that removes the penalty for using improvised weapons. Exotic feat means nothing. And if you, the player, know how to fight with a running chainsaw... we may need to call the police.

Check again. The chainsaw is an exotic weapon. PF Techonology Guide or the SRD link in the OP.

If the chain is not being moved, it won't cause damage.

Or do bludgeoning damage. ;)

chbgraphicarts wrote:

They couldn't, in good conscience or logistically, do a direct port of the Psionics Handbook from 3.5 - Dreamscarred Press has already cornered the market with an extensive run using Psionics (to the point of it effectively being an entirely different game with the same core mechanics).

Dreamscarred's update of the Psionic Handbook is about as close to perfect as you can get, and it allowed there to be a Psionics line that Paizo didn't need to worry about investing time and energy in.

I'm fine with Occult Adventures being Psychic, rather than Psionic, and it thematically works well; the classes evoke a dark-fantasy/occultist feel of fantasy that was ever-present from around the middle of Victorian Era to the end of WWII. It has that sensibility of grim wonder that you'd want.

My only real beef is the "Psychic Spells." I'd rather they just stick with the "Arcane vs Divine vs Alchemical" setup they've got; frankly, it just FITS better anyway - either these spells are Arcane, or Divine, untyped like Alchemical Extracts, or they're both Arcane AND Divine at the same time (which would fit, as the whole book seems like a massive love-letter to Penny Dreadfuls, Poe, Burrows, and Lovecraft, and Lovecraft's sensibilities are that, when you go back far enough, there IS no difference between Arcane and Divine). Adding a 4th type to the mix seems like it's just adding a new level of gnarliness that you don't need.

Along with that, I really don't like the Undercast, though I suppose it's not dissimilar to how [Insert Spell Name] I-[n] already work; I just wish they'd put the "this may be cast as..." in the description rather than adding a whole new set of rules that redundantly describe what spells have been doing since god-knows-when.

Yeah, a beter name than spell could be found. Not easy, but I'm not a desinger.

Meditation? Manifestation? Invocation?

After reading the classes, the Kineticist feels like the 3.5's Warlock. The Medium feels like the Binder (from 3.5's Tome of Magic). The Occultist feels like it is flirting with the Artificer and Incarnum magic.

I'm not complaining. The Warlock and Binder were awesome classes and it is nice to know that they now officially exist (and are upgraded) in Pathfinder. Incarnum was a cool concept poorly executed and the Artificer is something Pathfinder needs. All that is needed now is a Trunamer and Factotum. Wink wink nudge nudge.

I wonder if the book will come with Mythic options for those classes.

I would have expected more of an Indian feel to it, since psychic magic is supposed to be big in Golarion's "India". Maybe that will be for the Golarion supplements and the Adventure Path.

Finally! This is craaaaaazy!!!

I love the angle, it refreshes psionics by adding a new angle, yet it stays close to traditions.

5th edition of D&D is the 5th edition of D&D.

If someone invited me to play D&D I would ask which edition. I would avoid 4e and 5e and play 2e, 3.X and PF. 1e would be played out of curiosity as I never played it. Supposed to be similar to 2e.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The review of this product needs to be removed. It is a spambot.

Gates. Gates are the way to export/import merchandise between cities.

No need a bunch of high level wizards constantly teleporting stuff. Just a few high up wiz who build gates once. That is much more cost effective.

Now the game is about guarding those gates, who gets to use them, the quantity of goods one merchant can send through a gate, sabotage, invasion...

lemeres wrote:

I'd also throw in something like the bard's performance or an inquisitor's judgements, along with the weapon.

This is because, while summoners are fantastic spell casters with access to lots of buffs (at levels earlier than any other class) as well as standard action summoning, they do not have much in the way of bonuses to combat abilities. That is why they have eidolons: those critters have more than enough combat prowess to make up for it.

Actually, following the weapon training that sohei monks get would work out well balance-wise. You know, the one where it gets an extra +1 to attack and damage at level 6 and every 6 levels after (so +3 at level 18). Not great enough that they completely overshadow bards, but more than enough that others couldn't say "wouldn't this work just as well with a half-orc rogue with your buffs on it?" or "couldn't you just play a magus instead?".

Hmm...maybe add in that their summoner level counts as fighter level for feats though (and possibly use their level instead of BAB for prerequisites). The feat investment necessary is enough that it seems fair, and it again makes the summoner better at what you are trying to do here: hitting things while still having magical abilities (without stepping the the magus' toes too much). Add on the black blade mechanic from Magus and it should be fine. I'd play it at least.

That is the plan, but I wanna make sure I do not give access to a weapon that will be too powerful.

I want to give the weapon a +1 enhancement bonus at level 1 and one more every 4 levels (max of +5 at level 17). I also want to give a +1 bonus for special abilities starting level 3 and one more every 4 levels after that (max of +5 at level 19). The abilities would be limited at first and the list expend as the summoner increases in levels.

Too powerful, considering only the summoner could use it and BaB stays 3/4?

How many NPCs does that amount to?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Nelson wrote:
Lots of quasit love!

Low CR mythics are welcomed and desired.

Shadow Demon

I'm working on an archetype that would make an eidolon a magical weapon instead of a monster. How much is an eidolon worth in gp, depending on level, of course?

Stats on couples in PF adventures are clearly needed.

If Epic and Mythic are so different, why do I need them to fight Demon Lords like Dagon or Pazuzu (both have stats in 3.5 and PF)?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
So the REAL question is, would you prefer The Genius Guide to Horrifically Overpowered Mythic Feats (which takes existing Mythic feats, and overpowers them horrifically), or The Genius Guide to Mythic Horrifically Overpowered Feats (which would do mythic versions of the existing Horrifically Overpowered feats)?

Bolded part. Super powered mythic feats I do not need them... Yet.

I guess some people will say that 3e D&D has nothing to do with 3.5 D&D.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
LazarX wrote:
ShortRedandLoud wrote:
Mythic is more comparable to Epic levels in 3.5, than Divine ranks. Some similarities, though.
It's not comparable at all. mythic ranks are not class levels, the way epic ones were. They're also not a system that does not activate until level 20, they are a parallel system that can be used as early as first level.
Stop being overly pedantic, dude. Mythic tiers may not be exactly the same thing, but Mythic Adventures can quite obviously be seen as Paizo's parallel to WotC's ELH.

How could it be parallel?. ELH doesn't start until after level 20 and consists of advancing class hit dice and classes beyond level 20.

Mythic Tiers does not advance hit dice, can be started at any level, and does not expand the 20 character level system but sandwiches in between.

There's not one shred of similarity to them.

Mythic like Epic, gives PCs new and powerful abilities, introduces powerful enemies and iconic enemies, like Demon Lords, changes the fluff of the game by giving them a legendary aspect or cosmic importance that is not necessarely present in other games, etc...

LazarX wrote:
goldomark wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Again, Gods don't have stats in Pathfinder. At ALL. They're walking bundles of GM Fiat. If you're looking to change that, and do some 3.5 epic/divine/mythic mashup, you should be posting this question in the 3.5/Homebrew forum.
This is totally a GD topic about comparing things across editions.
Pathfinder isn't an edition of Dungeons and Dragons. It's not D+D, never has been, never will be. And I thank all of the gods for that.
How do you explain its similarities to D&D 3.5? Cosmic coincidence?
It's simmilarity to D+D ended when the APG was published.

What did the APG do to do that? The core rules are pretty much the same.

Matt Thomason wrote:
goldomark wrote:
There are some 3PP who are working on the closed playtest. They might be under NDAs, but can make compatible products read to be released when 5e comes out.
That's interesting to know, I just wish that sort of thing would be more open, even if it's an open "we haven't decided yet" just so we know a little more about what to expect. Then again, it's not like any announcement would make me likely to drop Pathfinder to go back (even if I wanted to, I don't have the time or the money for both so it has to be one or the other, and I have too much invested in this game now to switch for anything short of a free Ferrari with every PHB), it's just plain curiosity on my part :)

I understand waht you mean. A 3PP designer said so on EW and I happened to stumble on the exchange of posts. This was a few months ago, maybe things have changed.

The D&D boat as sailed for me. Too much money invest in PF to start buying and learning a new edition because it is super important to get new versions of the fighter and wizards. The alpha playtest was rather meh, too. Nothing very exiting.

LazarX wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Again, Gods don't have stats in Pathfinder. At ALL. They're walking bundles of GM Fiat. If you're looking to change that, and do some 3.5 epic/divine/mythic mashup, you should be posting this question in the 3.5/Homebrew forum.
This is totally a GD topic about comparing things across editions.
Pathfinder isn't an edition of Dungeons and Dragons. It's not D+D, never has been, never will be. And I thank all of the gods for that.

How do you explain its similarities to D&D 3.5? Cosmic coincidence?

MMCJawa wrote:
goldomark wrote:
It also raises the question as to what Paizo will do in a few years.
It's this reason which has always made me think that any future changes to the core rule set will be pretty incremental.

Yeah, I think PF 2.0 will be more a 1.5. Like PF is 3.75.

Some backward compatibility seems to be a must.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are some 3PP who are working on the closed playtest. They might be under NDAs, but can make compatible products read to be released when 5e comes out.

And CR 30 for beauties like Cthulhu.

Not to mention their already precarious financial health.

It also raises the question as to what Paizo will do in a few years.

Mearls has said they were aware of the problem with the GLS and they will try to do something about it. He does come from the 3PP industry. What Hasbro will decide that remains to be seen.

An open license for some rules would make sense. Enough for 3PP to use, but not enough to make an entire RPG game from it. But again, what VPs at Hasbro will decide...

What sort of restrictions did the GLS have the OGL didn't have?

PsychoticWarrior wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
PsychoticWarrior wrote:

Exactly my feelings. It may be cheaper to bundle the PHB and DNG into a single volume but the unwieldiness of that 500 page monstrosity (with its weak binding and easy separating cover!)
This is why gygax gave us ducttape.
And if I was talking about a WotC product you would likely not be nearly so flippant (or forgiving, apparently). Paizo, of course, gets the free pass on shoddy products because...well I don't really know why in this case.

He isn't being flippant, as far as I can tell. At some point we had to ducttapped our PHBs, cause we used them so much.

I'm sure some people will complain about 5e. No doubt about that.

What they will complain about is what interest me.

lokiare wrote:

My question is this: If they plan on releasing the start set in 2 months, does that mean they are pretty much done testing it and its gone to the printer?

Does this mean the starter set will have many rules changes between then and the PHB release?

Wht I want to know is:

1) Will people complain that there should have been a beta playtest because the rules are broken and CharOp people would have seen all the issues (whether true or not)?

2) Will people complain the alpha playtest was a waste of their time because the final product is very different from what was tested (whether true or not)?

Prime Evil wrote:
One interesting question is whether WoTC are planning to offer some kind of licensing arrangement less restrictive than the 4th Edition Game System License. WoTC pretty much lost the entire third-party publisher ecosystem to Paizo overnight when they abandoned the Open Game Licence in favour of the GSL. While the direct economic value of the third-party ecosystem to WoTC is small, it is important to them in capturing mindshare and building a community around their products. I would argue that the rise of Paizo has been at least in part due to the effort that they have invested in building a strong community of third-party publishers around Pathfinder - this has helped to build a buzz around their own products and to demonstrate their respect for the broader hobby.

What were the differences between the OGL and GLS anyway?

Not really. Mythic is something rather unqiue in the history of D&D/PF.

The North has been detailed many times. Seems like pay for a product I alreayd bought... 3 times already?

Now had that this is compatible with an editoon that stil hasn't came out (and probably will be very different from the playtest), yeah, no.

32$ for that!?



CrazyElf wrote:

A wizards bonded object uses a slot if it's a ring or an amulet.

If the item were say a "Hand of the Mage" amulet, and I paid double because "An item that does not take up one of the spaces on a body costs double", would it then no longer use up a space on the body?

I'm thinking it would.

It wouldn't take a slot on the body, but then you wouldn't be wearing it, thus you would need to roll concentration checks when you cast spells. There are no loopholes.

You could invent a unique hand of the mage that bypasses this rule or an archetype that does that.

Steven T. Helt wrote:

Which one was yours, brah?

And, Chopswil:

** spoiler omitted **

The elixir of last will.

chopswil wrote:

bunch of monsters and magic items from superstar 2013 are included

nice touch!!!

Which one? I'm curious because I was asked if my item could be used in the module.

Will Khepri have a beetle for a head?

1 to 50 of 427 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.