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

nighttree's page

1,636 posts. Alias of Marian Reinholtz.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,636 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Where is this "Inner Sea Races" book even mentioned ? I don't see anything on it in the Products section ???


So Mark...will there be other options besides the four basic elements and Aether ? or is that the foundation for the time being ???


Deighton Thrane wrote:
This actually reminds me of something me and a buddy were talking about lately, can you decide to not apply your strength to damage? Neither of us could actually find something that actually says you can. It seems silly that you couldn't give someone a love tap, instead of trying to knock their head off their shoulders, though. Probably one of those things the designers didn't bother putting in like characters needing to sleep.

I guess that's kind of what I mean....

Are you for example allowed to say I'm only going to use 3 of my 6 attack bonus, and forgo my strength mod to damage ?


Peet wrote:


I have to speak up because as someone of Scots ancestry this is really setting my teeth on edge.

And rightfully so...apologies.

I wish I could blame it on auto correct, but the plain simple truth is that when I am more focused on the content than the presentation...my dyslexia tends to creep in :(

As the name doesn't trigger an auto-correct response...I didn't even notice.

Tha mi duilich


MagusJanus wrote:

Sources for the majority usage of it by Scottish neo-pagans and the term coming about in the early 80s?

Not that I don't believe you, but if I have this conversation with anyone else and cite you as a source, your credibility would be shredded as just being a name on a screen. I will admit I'm also not certain I believe the Scottish one, but it may just be the Scottish neo-pagans I've met and not the majority.

Sources of Scott's usage by modern neo-pagans are easy to find on the internet...just punch in the term warlock...or reclaiming warlock...and you will find a gaggle of pages dedicated to the topic.

As far as usage prior to the eighties...it's not the term warlock coming about in the eighties...it's large scale adoption of the idea that it means "oathbreaker". Prior to the eighties, it's more a matter of LACK of usage (ie: warlock = oathbreaker).
Doreen Valiente and Gardner both use the term in their early writtings...but in the sense of a "binding"...which is not specifically in conflict with earlier Scott's usage, although it's a very one sided usage.

As it was used by the Scott's, it could refer to the act of attracting/binding a spirit to service...or blocking/barring them (as in the use of the term Warlocking...to protect something from spirits)or it's use in some place where spirits where bound (eg: a warlocked glade).

In other words, you can't cite "a source" for "it wasn't used to mean oathbreaker"....when it wasn't used to mean oathbreaker ;)

Generally when people (ie: wiccanate types) go that route with me (which they often do), I ask them to show me a single example in Scott's lore (or actually any lore)where it IS used to mean oathbreaker. To date, no one has been able to come up with a single example prior to modern times.

However, when all is said and done...people will believe what they want to believe. I'll keep using the meaning my culture uses....and if modern neo-pagans want to think I mean "oathbreaker" if I use the term....it really doesn't matter ;)


Extended Mutagen doubles the duration of the mutagen...so that helps...


I came to the same conclusion about using Synthesist...it would certainly be easier to use the synthesist....but as that seems too often be the case for concepts I have...I was trying to go with the class that "should" be able to do it. Eventually my table is going to get sick of me using synthesist for every bloody concept :P

Honestly it never even occurred to me to play my strength as "less than" it's actual value....is that even allowed ?

I did consider giving him a bit higher strength score...but giving him the Mania condition...to replicate his ever increasing addiction to his mutagen...

Condition: Mania
Type insanity: Save Will DC 14 Onset 1 day Effect target is sickened as long as the source of the mania is obvious; chance of becoming fascinated(see below)
A mania is an irrational obsession with a (usually inappropriate) particular object or situation. Additionally, if a manic character is directly confronted by his obsession (requiring a standard action), he must make a Will save against the insanity or become fascinated (if manic) by the object for 1d6 rounds.
Sickened: The character takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks.

My thinking was that he suffered the "sickened" effect whenever he is not under the effect of his mutagen. The -2 more or less equals a -4 to his strength score....

Completely missed that he wouldn't get Persistent Mutagen either :(
That seems completely counter to the Master Chymist description of them ending up spending most of their time in mutagenic form....


I am revisiting a character concept I tried a while back...but dropped due to frustration on actually getting it where I wanted it.
I'm hoping that with newer material released I can maybe get there.

Human Master Chemist...
I wanted the Alchemist/Rage chemist to basically be a scrawny weakling (Str 9ish)...and the mutagenic form to be a total bruiser (Str 25ish)

Just couldn't clear the gap in my last attempt...so I'm basically looking for methods that really boost the gap between the goals on STR, and will last the duration of the mutagen (average of 2 hours per level).

I'm also looking for way's to buff DR/AC that will last as long as the mutagen.

Any ideas ???


MagusJanus wrote:
That's part of why a lot of modern witches hate the term "warlock."

Only American neo-pagans. In Scotland the majority of male neo-pagans use the term Warlock ;)

Even in early modern Witch trads, the term was not associated with "oathbreaker"...that came about in the early eighties after American wiccans stumbled across dictionary references based on Tolkien's entries in the Oxford Dictionary (and I know this because I was involved in the discussions BTW).

The real hurdles are that
A) The term was in use prior to strong influence on Gaelic language by English.
B) The term appears to have more of an Icelandic origin, and since the Scott's had exposure to that language earlier than English, that would be a more plausible source.
C) And most importantly, from a semantic position, the Scott's never used the term to actually refer to an "oathbreaker". No where is there a single example of that meaning by the people who actually used the term.

It is entirely possible that the English, when hearing the Scott's use the term Warlock associated it with their word for oathbreaker....but it was certainly not what the Scott's meant when the used the term ;)


As far as replicating the 3.5 Warlock, which seems to be the goal of many...does the Keneticist miss the mark grossly ???


LazarX wrote:
Literature/Comics/History .... Keep in mind that in many cases the words Wizard/Sorcerer/Witch/Warlock/Magus have all described the exact same kind of character. It's only in the context of Pathfinder that they have different meanings.

Not entirely true...

Historically many cultures use a wide number of specific terms that address specific differences in "magic specialists" within the culture.

Example: "Wizards come from Vili, Sorcerers and Warlocks come from Vé" (Norse). They are using specific titles to address at least perceived differences in how these individuals practice/work/sometimes gender.

You see the same thing across all of Europe, and just about every other culture I have researched.. with very specialized titles for a wide range of specialists.

It's not until after conversion that they are all dumped into the same pot so to speak ;)

Of the existing classes, the Shaman, and possibly the Medium, and Spiritualist, come closest to the Scott's version of a warlock.


If you are/or know a college student...their libraries tend to have better access than most public libraries, and will even do loans to other schools. I'll look up the names of specific documents/folk tales, and perhaps you can find translations of some of them on line ;)


Neal Litherland wrote:

It's not "he" it's "you," I'm the author of the piece, hence why I said I'd like to fact check if it turns out what I had is not accurate.

Titles have been noted. Is any of this info up online somewhere so I could check it immediately rather than going through the library to get books?

In general good information is not available online...so I don't do a lot of tracking internet sources, with the exception of the occasional thing that's pointed out to me by friends. I do know that both Claudes books, and Eva Poc's book are available usually at local libraries.

If you want solid academic information...with the exception of some colleges, and a few organizations, that make solid material available on line from time to time....it's best to steer clear of the internet ;)


Mark...what is the likelihood that we will see other "elements" to build keneticist with ?

For example "eldritch" that is more in line with the 3.5 Warlock...


Neal Litherland wrote:

Do you have any references for these statements? A lot of them contradict the resources listed in the article's bibliography, and if there's a reliable source I could look at I'd be more than happy to edit for accuracy.

Thanks!

For witch lore, the most easily obtained academic sources would be Claude Lecouteux- Witches werewolves and fairies (he includes an extensive bibliography of extant sources if your interested in the original stories, or translations of... if an english speaker)

and Eva Poc's also has several books covering the topic....however her focus is more on Hungarian (which actually matches the Scandinavian/Germanic closely at least in early examples).

You want to look at sources that are pre-medieval first, as the medieval period is where many of the changes in perception occur.

To my knowledge, no one has done a specific/indepth study of the Scott's term warlock...so you have to do a bit more research under your own power. There was an etymological paper done by a linguist in the early 2000, addressing the unlikelyhood that the term evolved from "oath breaker. I'll try and find you a link to the full article....here is an excerpt as an example....

" If, as is posited in many Modern English dictionaries, the word"warlock" comes from a ME "warloghe" from OE "w¾rloga", then the Modern form we should expect to see would be something like warlow, or werlow, since the tendency to move from 'gh' to 'w' is strong in English, and from 'gh' to 'ck' unknown.
This is a trait it shares with Danish, and to provide an example, the Old Swedish "lagh" (meaning"law") is spelled in Modern Danish "lag" but pronounced "law" and in English, orthography and pronunciation are again in sync, with the form "law." That "gh" in the Middle English form "warloghe" indicates a uvular fricative, that is a g that is pronounced as if one were gargling (as in Dutch "gulder"). That aspirated "g" is what, in English, is usually exchanged for a "w". Other examples in English:"through", "drought", etc.

When one also considers the semantic shift,i.e., from "traitor, oathbreaker" to "sorcerer, conjurer", this all begins to introduce an element of doubt as to the actual etymology."

Beyond that it's really a matter of simply looking at Scott's lore, and later english translations that use the term "warlock"....there is not a single case that an argument can be made for a meaning of "oathbreaker" and no example of that meaning prior to Tolkien's entries to that effect ;)

EDIT: BTW just checked his sources....none of which are considered "reliable" academic sources.


waiph wrote:
What I find particularly funny is that the article asserts that the word's origin meant "Oath-Breaker" and the 4th and 5th edition Warlocks are about forging pacts with some kind of powerful entity, they get power from an Oath.

It's far more likely that the Scott's term "Warlock" comes from the Scandinavian term "varÝlokkur" or "spirit chanter/binder".

This fit's all aspects of etymological and folklore usage.


Gambit wrote:
I do remember there was THIS a while back. No clue when that book comes out though.

They completed the fund raiser...but I have not heard anything about it since....wouldn't mind hearing how that went either...:(


Some interesting historical tid bit's.....

The term Witch was in it's earliest usage (Germanic) referring to a strictly supernatural being (not a living mortal). A being who caused harm to humans (especially children) cattle and field....and would often torment people over a period of time.

Over time the idea evolved that they could also "posses" (for lack of a better term) someone and work through them to cause harm. Interestingly, early stories hold the person manipulated in this manner innocent by the community.

Still later, we begin to see the idea that mortals can also learn "witch craft" to curse and cause harm to the community, and eventually the original harmful spirit seems to fade from folklore, and the idea that a witch is generally a mortal takes over.

The idea of a "good witch" is a strictly modern invention, not attested to in any older folklore.

The term Warlock, is likewise not specifically attached to the idea of a "male witch" until reasonably modern time...

No where in folklore is the term warlock ever used to indicate an "oath breaker"...and the idea that it is related to the term wearlog appears no where prior to Tolkien stating it as a possible Germanic root word that the Scott's adopted.


Only slightly on topic...but have we heard anything more about the Cannibal Warlock ?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Only one problem...he states a lot of things as "historical fact" that are anything but....

Sounds more like modern neo-pagan propaganda than history.


Odraude wrote:
Just a heads up, people aren't asking for sexy men. Rugged, bad ass men can be sexy too. What people are asking for are less rugged, more feminine men that are...

Nah...rugged men are far more sexy than swishy little teenage twinks:P

What would be nice to see is a perfectly average/"normal" (neither "butch beyond measure" or a "teenage fem/twink" that was also openly homosexual.
THAT would be a score ;)


I don't see anything in the text that implies that you can use your SNA ability while your eidolon is summoned....where are people getting that from ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm of the opinion that calling the phantom from the ethereal plane taking a full minute is fine...but if it's already "housed" in your consciousness, should only take a standard action to manifest, possibly decreasing even that as you level up.

I personally love the idea of your phantom appearing in front of you as an immediate action to take a hit for you at higher levels....and being able to switch from incorporeal to material form in a timely fashion could be a very interesting way to give the phantom a bit more use in combat.


kevin_video wrote:


The only thing missing is a way to heal your comrades like the water kineticist can. That's what our current spellfire user does. He's the medic.

I think Kenetic healer covers that doesn't it ?


I spent most of the playtest focused on the Medium...so have just been getting to some of the other classes...all in all, I like the keneticist...and that's coming from someone who not horribly into elemental themed stuff. My first thought was that I could pretty easily re-skin a Spellfire wielder with this class...something like

Class skills: A spellfire wielder adds Kn: Arcana and Spellcraft to her list of class skills.

Simple Blast: A spellfire wielder has access to the following simple blast wild talent.
Spellfire blast (Sp): You release a bolt of searing spellfire at a single foe as a ranged touch attack.
If you hit, the target suffers an amount of force damage equal to 1d6 + 1/2 your Constitution modifier.
This damage increases by 1d6 for every 2 kineticist levels beyond 1st. Spell resistance applies.

Defense: a spellfire wielder has access to the following defensive wild talent at 2nd level.
Spell eater (Su): you gain spell resistance equal to your keneticist level + 11.
As an immediate action, any single target spell or effect that fails to penetrate your SR increases your current effective level of burn by an amount equal to the spell level of the effect, for a number of rounds equal to the spell level.

Wild Talents:
1st: Extended Range, Kenetic healer,
6th: Snaking, Torrent, Fire sight,
10th: Chain lightning, Cyclone, Spray, Ride the blast,
16th: Explosion, Pure flame, Sharding,

create a few new wild talents...and BINGO...the spellfire weilder I have always wanted ;)

That said, I hope they come up with a few more options less tied to the four basic elements...or methods of modifying basic elements, for example "hell fire" or such.


Eerr...ya...NO liches, Lycanthropes, etc...etc...
Just wanted to make it a fey creature as opposed to a normal cat...


chaoseffect wrote:
What template are we talking about?

Fey animal template is the one currently under consideration :)

Basically a matter of turning a Witches cat into the Cheshire Cat...


Mark Seifter wrote:
Blackfingers wrote:
nighttree, with the APG they previewed the classes and new iconics over the approximately 3 month period before the book came out, so I imagine they'll do something similar here - so I wouldn't expect such info until late April or so. Generally Paizo doesn't like to talk about the post playtest changes until things are finalized, which wont happen for a while. But we'll see...
Medium and kineticist will each get a post mortem at some point sooner and well before that, composed of comments about the playtest and teasers about the direction of the classes towards their new forms.

Many thanks Mark. I heard comments to this effect from several of the Dev's...looking foreword to hearing these.


Eigengrau wrote:
Depends on the template

Based on what...CR ?


If a player with a familiar wanted to use Improved familiar to add a template to an existing familiar would you allow it ?


What happens if an Eidolon buy's multiple different versions of the Energy Attacks evolution ?


kevin bienhoff wrote:
My HOPE is that the next mini set is for this AP. A Frost Giant Graveknight mini would be AWESOME! Plus maybe some female giants would be COOL too!

As long as the female Giants are not all about "cheescake"....I hate it when female monsters are all about giant boobs :P


How late does the Goliath Druid have to wait before using wild shape as Giant form ?


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
The goliath druid gains special access to the enlarge person spell (with some restrictions and some advantages), has a specific choice of domains & subdomains if she goes that route, and must select a dinosaur or megafauna as a companion if she goes THAT route. Her wild shape is altered to add giant form, and her summon nature's ally lists has been expanded with additional dinos, giants, and megafauna.

Many thanks....don't care for dinos and megafauna, but being able to use wild shape for Giant Form is exactly what I was looking for ;)


Mark Seifter wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Is it Wednesday-ish yet? =p

Trust me, I'm as eager as you guys to know for sure which changes I get to keep and then give you guys some idea of what's to come, but this meeting keeps being postponed. I can't even guarantee it will happen today. I certainly hope that it will happen by early next week, but no more -"ish"es from me. Instead I'll just say this:

"Whenever the meeting does happen, I'll guarantee that I'll have a post out by the next business day at the latest, barring only my absence from work that day or an unexpected emergency."

I've noticed there have been no blog posts pretty much all week...is something going on ?


I'd love some more info on the Goliath Druid !!!


Are we going to get any word from the designers regarding what they learned from the playtest, and potential changes/directions for these classes in the final product ?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I SOOooooo hope they have more Changeling goodness in here.


OK...here is another idea...what if the Phantom had full HD progression from level 1-20...then they would be a viable guardian for the Spiritualist....


Many thanks DM ;)


Is there still a way to find/access the threads...so that we can catch up on what was going on in all of the discussions ?


What if Phantoms where point blank given the "undead" type instead of outsider ?


redward wrote:

And I hesitate to point this out, but Slow is still on the list at 2nd level.

I've got a game scheduled Monday that I was going to use for my final playtest of the class. At the risk of sounding overdramatic, I'm not sure if there's a point to that.

I know the capabilities of the class at level 2. I don't think I'll be able to provide much new feedback other than whether Phase Lurch will trivialize any of the encounters in Merchant's Wake (it probably won't).

If this is going to be the state of the class prior to the book's release, I'd rather try one of the other classes so I can retain the ability to keep playing it in PFS once the playtest ends. Occultist, Medium and Mesmerist seem more polished and much more viable at the moment.

Nope....medium is still a mess....at least IMO

At this point I would rather be playing a spiritualist...


REALLY loving the sketch....


nighttree wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
As to so many of the revealed spirits putting you into the thick of things, I'm afraid that's a side effect of revealing 3 new Str spirits and 1 new Con out of 5 revealed. So you're starting to see more and more of the more combat-y options but not so much the others.

Then could we maybe get some of the non-combat options ?

I am rebuilding from the ground for our last round of playtest...and really everything seems intent on pushing me into a melee role.

Problem is, my attraction to this class has nothing to do with a melee role....that's not what I'm looking for out of it....yet I'm stuck playing a melee character.

So I'm guessing that's a no.....


Mark Seifter wrote:

I think you may be underestimating what counts as an attack for Delay the Inevitable. Not even just a weapon attack. Any attack at all will do. And if you're 13+ and you know what you're delaying is gonna kill you, you can trance into needs of the many without regrets.

As to so many of the revealed spirits putting you into the thick of things, I'm afraid that's a side effect of revealing 3 new Str spirits and 1 new Con out of 5 revealed. So you're starting to see more and more of the more combat-y options but not so much the others.

Then could we maybe get some of the non-combat options ?

I am rebuilding from the ground for our last round of playtest...and really everything seems intent on pushing me into a melee role.

Problem is, my attraction to this class has nothing to do with a melee role....that's not what I'm looking for out of it....yet I'm stuck playing a melee character.


How did your Medium cast Dancing lights at third level ?


Rerednaw wrote:
Occult Adventures, Phantom of Hatred wrote:


Shared Hatred (Su): At 17th level, when the phantom
designates a hated enemy, his allies also gain a +2 bonus
on attack rolls and a +4 bonus on damage rolls against that
enemy. Furthermore, he can use its hated target ability even
when he is in incorporeal form
.
I may have misunderstood this. I thought an incorporeal phantom may not attack? Hated Target <> Shared Hatred so I don't understand how this works while incorporeal.

The Phantom may not be able to attack....but all allies gain the +2 to attacks and +4 bonus to damage.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
If the Medium is given a both spells and class abilities independent of the Spirits, it'd help players understand how to build a Medium better, with Spirits only emphasizing the aspects they want.

I would actually be fine, and in fact would prefer, if the existing mechanic of spirits determining your spell known was kept in place.

And I'm fine with keeping the skills/level at +4.

I think the current spirit progression, and the abilities gained would be fine as well if the class had 6 levels of casting, but right now it's to pigeon holed into a melee role....and that's not what I was hoping for from the class.


The only way I can see the Medium being what I had hoped it would be would be for it to have six levels of casting (like the Bard, or Magus)...but it doesn't sound like that's even a consideration...so I'm not going to hold my breath.

1 to 50 of 1,636 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.