seekerofshadowlight's page

I did not know you lived that close, well close being relative as I live in southeast ky ( close to tn and va boarders). I think you are officially the closest however.

The airport was in Louisville, which is the same state, just north and west of me. There is a bunch of small ones closer( nothing a jet would use) and Lexington ky is 2 hours away is big enough as it Knoxville, tn also two hours. But her company booked the flight and yep I am betting cost. Also flight time, Louisville to Chicago she landed before I got home and I left well before she even got on the plane.

The flights from Knoxville and Lexington all had lay overs and were not straight flights. Which often means it costs more.

I need to really change my spells at some point....

Sorry guys, been busy. I have not been home some unexpected things came up. The wife has to fly out in the morning for work and I get to make a six hour round trip to the airport..yeah me.\

I'll try to update Sunday night, if not then Monday morning.

Sorry guys, been busy. I have not been home some unexpected things came up. The wife has to fly out in the morning for work and I get to make a six hour round trip to the airport..yeah me.\

I'll try to update Sunday night, if not then Monday morning.

Why does everyone seem to want to pigeon hole "warrior" into low skills? Two have 4 and one has 6. Honestly I find classes like the rogue harder and harder to justify as written. They could easily be rolled into the fighter. They aren't "skill" based classes. They are poor combat classes with more skill points. If there is such a thing as a "skilled" class it should have abilities that allow it to do things, not just combat with more skill points then other classes.

No class should be skill starved.

Honestly why not roll cleric into the "Mage" Make 1 full caster class. Thin out the spell list, have 1 lest and go more a hex like arcana route. You could make revelation/school/bloodline something you pick that add more arcana options.

well the thing is most of those faithful have been adsorbed, often actively so. They have been told by his right hand women he is dead. His most faithful have mostly died or been absorbed or lost faith in the last 100 years as they have saw his coming fail, their homeland , his chosen people be ripped apart by war and now in the hand of devil worshipers.

The cults there are are not as large as they could be, often combated by one of the other faiths and in time will wither and die, be absorbed by an active faith or likely to mutate into something far from where it started. Razmir works as he has a hand on it, runs the whole show with an iron fist. something like that could happen, but you would need an iron hand to run it mostly.

The most likely place I see for that to happen is in Sargava. It is a ways off and could die under an invasion or by being overran by natives but if not in time I could see that becoming a haven for Aroden worship, even if in the end the "Aroden" they worship turns out to be very different then the god no one living remembers anyhow.

Oh that is a good one. another fun one would be what if a Demon lord or something posed as Aroden? That could be fun for a short while.

As others have said, cults are around, they simply are not very large and have no clerics. In time they to will fade as other gods absorb them or they die off. A hundred years is a long time for humans, much less two or three hundred.

Have a safe trip man.

Will do man. Have a safe trip.

Unrelated note, did anyone notice that the Schir demon from the first adventure made it into the B3.

It has 2 less hps, 3 points less ref save, lost a HD which means it lost its second weapon attack and They kept the summon 1d3 other demons :P.

They also rated it CR4 not the CR5 it was in 3.5. Losing that extra attack however will make a huge difference.

yep str not con lol. Ya might be out a few days ( or weeks) however, as this a a six round Poison. So you have to make 5 more saves :)

I screwed up on Larrs. When I broke up the round into two posts it caused me to overlook that the scorp had used its AoO on Celena, so he gets 6 hp's back and the DC is 20 for this rounds save.

I have asked someone who asked about an opening in the game a while ago if they still had interest. I'll let you guys know what they say.

I'll update a bit later guys. Everyone is leveled up I hope.

Humm so it is, well image that.

Witch pardon mechanic is very close in flavor really. What mechanics say priest? Healing? That is all the cleric has is channel, domains do not say "priest" spells do not say "Priest".

Oracle is really a good fit, it needs some Asian themed "curses" but it is a good fit as is the witch. A simple archetype that removes the familiar would work very well. The cleric is just a poor fit if you do not want to be the servant of a god or a divine being.

Well thematically it is a bad fit for the cleric. Which is fine, not all classes fit all area's. A witch honestly is a much better fit for the Asian based "Priest", and adapt fits as well, so would an oracle.

The issue is still you guys thinking priest=cleric.

That is the issue Loyalist was trying to bring up, as it seems he/she is very much a oriental fan. The restricted "western" idea of Clerics (and some other classes, too) either ruins the mood of an oriental setting, or the oriental setting will have to gloss over thing to try to make it work, which will probably offend people by basically bastardizing it to generic standards.

See I just do not get that. Paladin is no more Asian then there cleric yet we do not get the "Oh no I can't make an Asian paladin" Same with druids really and Inquisitors and prob a few more classes. Clerics having one god no more ruins "The mood" then paladins.

I think something does grant a paladin his power or they really could not fall. My bet is on the Eym lords.

@Finn, don't worry I have thick skin and often come off way harsher then I mean to.

@ Beckett, The role is different, an Oracle does not represent a god or his teaching, but a more "Universal" idea. And it is not simply a god or gods but many types of divine beings that may contribute to the power base. And oracles do not represent the god, so there is no conflict between gods on if he broke a rule or something. They are but a reflection of one small part of something shared by many gods and divine beings.

As for rules, each cleric has a strict code much like a paladin he must follow.

Seeker--

Is Sarenrae going to punish her cleric for occasionally (or even fairly frequently) attending services for Milani because her Cleric still honors and respects Milani and has very close ties to allies/friends who follow Milani? Is Iomedae going to zap her Cleric because that Cleric still offers prayers to Erastil every time he goes hunting, and gives a little offering at Erastil's shrine after every successful hunt? Is the Cleric of Sarenrae going to be in big trouble for accepting a commission/task/whatever from Milani's priesthood (or, since Gods/Goddesses can manifest in Golarion-- maybe even a vision from Milani herself), presuming it's a task that Sarenrae would also want to see done? Are any of these Clerics going to be in trouble for constant, close cooperation with Desna's servants or for partying with Shelyn's followers a lot? Speaking of shrine offerings... is the Sarenrae cleric going to be in trouble because she regularly leaves offerings for Desna, whom she still venerates to some extent (and especially because she travels a lot)?

I never said they would. 3.5 loy implied that, I never did. Golarion gods are not self contained, some gods might take offense but none you listed would. The god they serve is the one they have loyalties to, but they could and would still give thanks to others from time to time, clerics might even give service for the whole of the 20 if they are the only cleric/ priest in the area. They would say rites to whatever god the dead served for instance and everyone invokes they lady of graves at births and deaths.

Just because you serve one god as your god, does not mean you ignore all others. Yous simply place your god first always and look at things from their point of view/teachings.

Golarion is not a Monotheist world, why would clerics act as if it was?

I do not see any post with that time stamp on it man.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Yes those are big enough changes to be called a new edition.

You need a new edition to make Pounce a feat? :P

Rewriting two classes and how both iterative attacks, and full attacks work is a bit more then making a feat.

UMMMS NO!!! UC, UM added new rules but these where NOT new editions, or updates are the same just like some of the things that add in AP's or in corrections.

Adding new rules to the core book or as you put it "Updating an edition" is pretty much what 3.5 was :)

Stereofm wrote:

I do not see the need for ANY change.

I can think of a few things that need to be changed (Fighters and Rogues, iterative attacks, and full attacks.), but I don't think a whole new edition is necessary to do that.

Yes those are big enough changes to be called a new edition.

OK to add some new rules or update editions but NO NEW Editions!

Umm what? You do understand both things you listed would count as new editions correct?

The bone is a meta magic wand of still spell, the wand has 37 charges left

I thought I would ask, it is as much your game as mine. I can always place NPc's for that stuff if that is what you guys would like.

I agree, making a new edition just because someone else is, well that is a bad idea. But once Pathfinder is out about 5 years or so.....

Ok, do you guys want me to actively recruit a new player for a healer or would you like to try another solution? such as a wound /vitality system or allowing Action points to be used to heal?

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

4e is not the only game to do half or more of that and You can do it without it being 4e. You could do most or all of that and it still look like PF.

What screams 4e to you? Good chance some other system did it first.

Of course other games have done it, but 4e did those changes from 3.x which Pathfinder is based on. I don't see how you can do the same changes as 3.x->4e with PF->PF2 without failing as badly as 4e did.

These are the changes that feel distinctly 4e:

** spoiler omitted **

They are changes that both play up the game part of role playing game, while at the same time making it less interesting to play it since you don't have to consider your options or how you build your character.

Let me addressees these.

1: This is how new editions often work, they can be BC but do not need to be. If the system has flaws that need addressed ( and it does) then worry about making it BC does not fix those. BC is an extra not a mandate.

5: Many, many systems do this. A simple rebalanced of the spells handles with without effecting much at all. You do not need to kill vancan(sp) casting even, just fix the spells. Which are all over the place in power scale.

6: This is one of the most common adjustments to the d20 system. Changing this really effects very little, except melee classes hit more often and get more options.

7: I am not sure how this is a bad thing? You could still optimize but you should not have to just to be effective.

8: Also not sure how this is bad? Why should you feel like you wasted a feat? How is not knowing how x feat will effect you in 10 levels a 4e thing or not having sucktastic feats only new folks who know no better take them a good thing?

9: Been done by more then one person for 3e, Saga did it, which kinda went to 4e, but monte cook did it as well. Having hp divided into Vitality/wounds ( which even paizo has done) and allowing the first to be recovered with healing or rest at a fast rate is not a 4e thing.

10: Been played with by many, many games. Even paizo has played around with it as combat maneuvers. Not sure how having combat option is bad or 4e.

11: Also not sure how this is bad or 4e like. You should not have to have a rogue to find traps when you have 11 ranks in it but can't find something you should be able to because you are not a set class.

Alderac Entertainment's Spycraft had rules that allowed you to have a critical success with a skill check and the feats that give a +2 to several skills all increased the skill threat range (as well as a few other feats). I think critical successes for skills and revised crafting rules based on the actual time and effort it takes to turn raw materials into processed goods are the two things pathfinder should have that it does not.

Spycraft is made by crafty games. Take a gander at Fantasycraft if you get time. I think you might like it.

what you mean by "core", here.

Core in every single game system means the book you need to run the game. Not spates but the minimum book you need. In d&D it is 3 books, pathfinder is 2. Almost every other game its just the main book.

I don't mean this negative in any way, but why do you not simply play D&D 4th Edition? At least half of that stuff is in that game. If you don't like 4e, then...

4e is not the only game to do half or more of that and You can do it without it being 4e. You could do most or all of that and it still look like PF.

What screams 4e to you? Good chance some other system did it first.

Eh we could always say it was a long sword, not a huge deal, I left it as that because it was spell storing and Toxim used them. But I have no issue saying it was a longsword. I often switch weapon type to match what is in the group anyhow.

The cloak, it is red with nice gold piping, it could use a wash and spells a bit , but would look rather striking after some soap.

I feel it is a few years to early, I think once PF has been out about 5 years it would be a good time to really start working on 2e.

Now what do I want to see? I want real fixes, a overhaul of the system.

1: Do not worry about backward compatible, You can not fix real issues if you have to keep the game more or less just like the current version.

2:Less classes but more choices within classes. We do not need 5 full caster or 4 classes that are fighters variants when one robust class will do.

3: No more magic xmas tree. I want magic items to be cool but NOT needed. You should not need boost items to function.

4: I want a more robust skill system, heal that really heals and skills to have a real impact.

5:I want magic fixed, some spells need massively rebalanced. A 15th level wizard should not be 10 times more effective and have more options then the non magic classes. I do not mean fighters should fly but they should have effective options.

6: Extra attacks from BAB I want gone. Make an attack a standard action which you can take 2 per round if you want and use feats like rapid strike to allow two attacks with a standard action at a -2

7: System mastery should not be required to make an effective PC

8: A feat should be a feat, they should be roughly the same in power and not have trap options.

9: I want healing for every class. You should not have to have a healer. If you want to call HP's vitality to make it not magical, cool.

10:More combat options. I hit it should not be the only valid tactic, trip, push, pin, bull rush or whatever. You should have options that are not worse then "I hit it"

11: I don't want skills limited to class. You should not need a rogue to have skills or use a specific skill ( Trap finding!)

I have more but those are the ones off the top of my head.

. . .Oracles.

Not the same thing and you know this. Notice the lack of rules to follow.

New domains can easily be made and/or customised.

On Oracles, I don't like the detriments they receive, the curse. Polytheists/pantheists shouldn't be punished because they aren't mono clerics.

Yeah...lets just make the new ones sooooooooooo much better then the old and make them even less wanted and more cherry picked.

And there you go again, they aren't Polytheists/pantheists "clerics", They can be priests but they are not clerics, which is by design a holy warrior of a God.

You have a real issue of thinking a cleric is a priest. That simply is not the case. I am also guessing you have an issue with paladins being LG as well?

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I do like the oracle class better then the cleric myself and think mysteries are what domains should be, but I do see a difference in them.

I do like the modularity of Mysteries, and the increased number of Revelations over the static two-ish abilities that come with a Domain (plus the option of learning new Revelations through Feat expenditures).

Some Domains, particularly the alignment Domains, kinda stink, and the fact that almost every deity has one or two of them cluttering up their choices irks me.

The existence of 'freebies' for some Domains (such as the +10 ft. movement speed for Travel or the free Scribe Scroll for Rune) is also a bit off-putting to me. (If the alignment Domains came with the old 3.X '+1 CL to [good] spells' thing, in addition to their junk spell lists and deadly dull powers, it might be a credible attempt to salvage them.)

Given the new hotness of sub-Domains, I could definitely see 'sub-Mysteries' showing up at some point, with a few different spell options, and a few unique Revelations...

I don't really like sub domains when you look at them next to Mysteries.

Domains are so stiff and rigid were as the Mysteries are more open ended and modular. You could easily add new powers to them. You have way more flexibility and customization form the Mysteries.

At some point in the future when they look into 2e, i really home they kill domains and replace them with mysteries or something very much like them.

Seems like a player issue not one with the class or code.

To me it does, I understand it does not to you. Which is cool. I do like the oracle class better then the cleric myself and think mysteries are what domains should be, but I do see a diffidence in them.

Except it does. But ya don't want it to so yo you it does not. That is really all there is to it.

I agree, Set. I need to sit down and roll the wizard and sorcerer into a single mage class too.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

To me its about focus. Domains seem much more focused in some ways, while mysteries seem a more broad area of control.

I find that explaination meaningless. Such 'focus' is a hand wave for 'there is no real difference, we just named it different'.

I am gonna disagree. I read your response as "I think it should be the same thing so I am gonna ignore anything that explains why it is not treated as such"

And it is named different as it works different and covers a much larger era then the current domain set up. I will say I would like domains better if they worked like mysteries. Ah well maybe 2e

To me its about focus. Domains seem much more focused in some ways, while mysteries seem a more broad area of control.

As written, yeah I think it works better for the idea of a "Concept cleric". But then I think Inquisitor does a better cleric then the cleric class so YMMV

The more I think about it, the more I think concept clerics should only have one domain, and that be their concept.

Kinda why I think an oracle works best for that. Although if you go that route I think the "curse" should be somehow linked to the concept. I do not feel there are enough mysteries or curses.

Is that why it is down?

Sorry man I still fail to see an issue with the godclaw. Again you are running into priest=cleric which is not the case. The Godclaw themselves have not changed, clerics with-in the rank of the godclaw have. But even those clerics still believe as the godclaw does, they simply see their god as one of the chief blocks of that belief.The Godclaw are not evil they are LN, which falls within the one step range for all gods who make up the core teachings of the god claw.

A LN cleric of Adabar and an LN cleric of torag that are both in the godclaw are going to have more in common then with members of their faith outside of it. They both believe in the Godclaw, in its teaching. They simply think their god has a bigger hand in it then the others.

It really changes nothing with the Godclaw themselves.

The stick did not work. We need a bigger stick