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

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Why do people hate / dislike Occult adventure?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

301 to 350 of 379 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
The Dandy Lion wrote:
I love the complexity of the Occultist's resource allocation.
For me, it's a BIG turn off. It seems complex JUST for complexity's sake, so it'd look shiney and new instead of working well and easy to understand...

Oh, I think it's totally fair to be turned off. Really, the delight I feel when I get to re-allocate where I'm usually putting my mental focus each level up speaks more about me than the class.

I praise the class for making you acquire a school before you can grab spells from it, and I praise it for having a versatile class ability that you don't often want to change, but can.

...but I can understand why someone might not want to have to manage spells per day/spells known AND focus powers (literally a second pool of spells known/per day) AND resonant powers (stat bonuses from allocating your spells per day into schools).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I do sort of wonder why the Occultist's "Put n (2<n<20) points into m (1<m<7) bins" is considered more of a daunting task than "Preparing a day's worth of spells for a Wizard/Cleric/etc. off an enormous list"

Particularly since the Occultist gives you guidelines on "how many points you want in here" with the resonant powers.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

There seems to be a trend in this thread of people coming in good faith to explain why they don't like OA, and then sustained attempts to convert them into liking it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I do sort of wonder why the Occultist's "Put n (2<n<20) points into m (1<m<7) bins" is considered more of a daunting task than "Preparing a day's worth of spells for a Wizard/Cleric/etc. off an enormous list"

Particularly since the Occultist gives you guidelines on "how many points you want in here" with the resonant powers.

LOL I have 30+ years experience in navigating spell lists. Add to that the wonderful help of online sites and it's simple/easy to find the exact spell I want as I have a list of ALL available spells with description and the ability to look them up by school/subschool/descriptor/level...

Occultist is more daunting just by being new/different and secondly because your spell list isn't set but changes so you can't look at the whole list but have to search by individual school lists EVERY time you look up spells OR maintain your own separate spell list.

So 1 "enormous list" for other casters vs NO main spell list but a number of individual spell lists = implements.

That's just spells. Then there is:
Focus for resonant AND powers, meaning you can't just drop the minimum to activate resonant. For instance if you have 3 implements, you could be throwing away focus by powering a resonant that has NO powers you'll use. Or you might have no need for the resonant that day [like Necromancy in town or Enchantment on a deserted island] .Then there is the generic mental focus.

Vs other casters where I tend to use the same favored list EVERY day unless there is a specialty spell needed. So for various reasons listed, Occultist is much harder to set up. On a day to day basis, at best it's the same.

Jhaeman wrote:
There seems to be a trend in this thread of people coming in good faith to explain why they don't like OA, and then sustained attempts to convert them into liking it.

Yep, it's common. I can't count how many times people have tried to get me to LOVE burn. Strangely, they haven't here, just my other dislikes with the book. I don't mind, but I find it interesting. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Razcar wrote:

Seeing as you have taken that quote very much out of context, you apparently didn't read my post beyond the starting sentence. Or if you did read it, I presume you took it out of context because I was unclear in explaining my viewpoint.

So give it a try. If you did read it, but I was imprecise, I would be happy to try to explain my point in another way.

I did read it. That whole thing was basically just repeating "the flavour doesn't fit because it's so archetypical with victorian." which I have argued against over and over and over in this thread so I just did a minimal reply.

I have to admit I had no idea what you mean by people playing Pathfinder like World of Warcraft though.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jhaeman wrote:
There seems to be a trend in this thread of people coming in good faith to explain why they don't like OA, and then sustained attempts to convert them into liking it.

To be fair, the thread title set the battle. It presupposes the Occult Adventures is generally hated, which places those that don't hate it in the wrong. Phhht. Since Paizo actually does pay some attention to these threads, allowing a general unopposed trashing of OA will discourage any expansion or further support for this genre. Not everyone is OK with that.

"Things I don't like about Occult Adventures" would have been a better choice for a title.


Milo v3 wrote:
Razcar wrote:

Seeing as you have taken that quote very much out of context, you apparently didn't read my post beyond the starting sentence. Or if you did read it, I presume you took it out of context because I was unclear in explaining my viewpoint.

So give it a try. If you did read it, but I was imprecise, I would be happy to try to explain my point in another way.

I did read it. That whole thing was basically just repeating "the flavour doesn't fit because it's so archetypical with victorian." which I have argued against over and over and over in this thread and it's getting tiring to repeat the same thing so I just did a minimal reply.

I have to admit I had no idea what you mean by people playing Pathfinder like World of Warcraft though.

I've never really understood "the fluff doesn't fit X" when the fluff if infinitely mutable.

Suli "can shroud her arms" in elements: Kineticists aren't a big jump from there.
We have a Juju mystery for oracle's: Mediums aren't a big jump from there.
Stares isn't a big jump from evil eye/hexes and Tricks aren't that different than bard songs: Mesmerist make perfect cult leaders in Pathfinder and have no need for a watch to use abilities.
Psychic/Spiritualist: Not even a hop to get from these to sorcerer/summoner.
Occultist: A person getting power/abilities from items??? Doesn't that cover every character in pathfinder.

So the entire book already fits as/is taking into account other options and it take super slight effort to change any fluff you don't like. For instance, ninja's don't have to wear black pajamas, samurai don't have to wear the iconic japanese armor and Mesmerist don't need to pull out a watch to use abilities.

PS: I can actually see legitimate issues with 2 classes: gunslingers and vigilantes. Not every game wants guns in it and vigilante are stuck with having 2 identities even if they have never used it or wanted it.

Daw wrote:
"Things I don't like about Occult Adventures" would have been a better choice for a title.

Do you think the replies would have been different? You'd get people say they hate/dislike the book in either case. The title wasn't 'why does EVERYONE [or most people] hate/dislike the book' so I don't see it as 'setting a battle' unless someone reads that into it. ;)

Grand Lodge

I love the ideas they put forth in it, Kineticist was everything I ever wanted from an elementally themed adventurer.

But I've read the class page at least a dozen times and I still just do not get it when I'm at the table.

The other classes just seem like they raise the power creep once again, I mean, I don't hate it but it definitely feels like the ruleset has expanded well beyond human comprehension at this point.

I'm sure there are groups out there that have been able to pick this up and do something really fun, but it's probably rarer than Advanced/Ultimate adaptions.


I dunno about power creep. There are no 9th-level prepared casters in the book, and the only 9-level caster's best spells all come from the Core Rulebook.

Grand Lodge

The Mesmerist feels like the better, quieter bard. The Psychic is a 9th level caster and I think it's better than the sorcerer from what I've seen (but haven't been able to play yet).


Ventnor wrote:
I dunno about power creep. There are no 9th-level prepared casters in the book, and the only 9-level caster's best spells all come from the Core Rulebook.

Mostly. Oneric Horror, Etheric Shards, Akashic Form, a few others like Placebo Effect maybe are among their best. And then there's Glimpse of the Akashic which is specific to psychics and which is absurdly powerful even for an 8th level spell.


Jader7777 wrote:

I love the ideas they put forth in it, Kineticist was everything I ever wanted from an elementally themed adventurer.

But I've read the class page at least a dozen times and I still just do not get it when I'm at the table.

The other classes just seem like they raise the power creep once again, I mean, I don't hate it but it definitely feels like the ruleset has expanded well beyond human comprehension at this point.

I'm sure there are groups out there that have been able to pick this up and do something really fun, but it's probably rarer than Advanced/Ultimate adaptions.

There is not really anything that counts as power creep depending of course how you define power creep. It's hard for anything to be overall power creep since the CRB still the most powerful classes/options. If you want to say a single X options is better than another Y option then maybe there is some power creep, but not to significant degree. What specifically do you feel is power creep?


Jader7777 wrote:
But I've read the class page at least a dozen times and I still just do not get it when I'm at the table.

Try looking over at archives of nethys. They have a nice setup for this class and it makes it easier to figure out. Is there a particular aspect of the class that throwing you?

Jader7777 wrote:
Power creep

About the only thing I can see is psychic casting itself. Casting in armor for arcane type players could be seen as that. The Thought Components +10 concentration checks helps even things out though.

Psychic vs sorcerer... That's a mighty close call. They play so close together you might not be able to tell them apart if you weren't told the class. And sorcerers can pick up psychic casting too.

Mesmerist vs bard: Hmmm... It's more individual effects vs area effects. Bard is king if you spread out and has a LONG history of things to back them up. For instance, the mesmerist has NOTHING like a tuned bowstring.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

BEHOLDEN TO THE RELIGON OF THE SACK

May you always carry it with you!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Redelia: I can't imagine baggage occult has that the game as a whole doesn't have. The word deals with the "supernatural, mystical, or magical" which is pretty much the entirety of pathfinder. The "unfortunate flavor" SHOULD be all over the whole game. It might be one thing to notice a book on a shelf and see 'occult' and jump to a conclusion but you've played the game so why would you? In the end, they could have used the words 'supernatural, mystical, or magical' in the book title and it would have had an identical meaning so it seems odd to be hung up on 'occult'. We're talking about a game that has witchcraft in it so all those puritan worries about 'occult' should have already sailed before the book in question came out.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
I've never really understood "the fluff doesn't fit X" when the fluff if infinitely mutable.

And so are the rules. (And even if you play things like PFS, where rule conformity is important, I think it would raise some eyebrows if the GM insisted that e.g. Desna is the goddess of three-legged goats.)

Whether it is mechanics or flavour, if I'm going to buy a product I'd like it to be as good as possible from scratch. I can change the rules, and sometimes do. And I can change the flavour as well. But I rather do as little as possible, in both areas. It doesn't matter if it is flavour or rules. In fact, since I have higher expectations from the flavour, it it is even more important for me that the ideas are fun, cool and inventive than that the mechanics are.

We all get enjoyment out of different things. Roleplaying games have a "hard" and a "soft" side (or whatever you want to call them) which for example, board games lack. It's an asset for us all that this hobby is multifaceted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
Razcar wrote:

Seeing as you have taken that quote very much out of context, you apparently didn't read my post beyond the starting sentence. Or if you did read it, I presume you took it out of context because I was unclear in explaining my viewpoint.

So give it a try. If you did read it, but I was imprecise, I would be happy to try to explain my point in another way.

I did read it. That whole thing was basically just repeating "the flavour doesn't fit because it's so archetypical with victorian." which I have argued against over and over and over in this thread so I just did a minimal reply.

I have to admit I had no idea what you mean by people playing Pathfinder like World of Warcraft though.

I think a much more interesting question is why you feel a need to attack my gaming groups reason for not using a particular rule book. And in an aggressive and disparaging way. What gives?

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Razcar wrote:
What gives?

Probably you attacking other people with lines such as 'playing Pathfinder like World of Warcraft'.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Razcar wrote:
What gives?
Probably you attacking other people with lines such as 'playing Pathfinder like World of Warcraft'.

Well, that would be quite spooky, since he wrote his disparaging and aggressive retort before I said anything about WoW (a game I've had lots of fun in, BTW).

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Do you mean this one? The one directly after your WoW comment, or a different retort?


A medium can always get a spirit regardless of location. That's how the ability works. Getting no spirit is not a RAW option. The specific spirit can be up to GM interpretation if you are outside the listed locations.

I find that it is a great way for the GM to influence the party. It wasn't a problem for me as a player.


Razcar wrote:
And so are the rules.

Not really in the same way and to the same extent. The game plays the same it you alter the fluff while there are mechanical repercussions with altering the rules.

Razcar wrote:
(And even if you play things like PFS, where rule conformity is important, I think it would raise some eyebrows if the GM insisted that e.g. Desna is the goddess of three-legged goats.)

We have a post from Mark Moreland that reflavoring is fine. "No, that's just flavor text and one possible explanation for the mechanical benefits the trait grants." The mechanics matter, the flavor is just "one possible explanation for the mechanical benefit". As such, you can reflavor in PFS: just show em the post.

Razcar wrote:
Whether it is mechanics or flavour, if I'm going to buy a product I'd like it to be as good as possible from scratch.

Sure, who doesn't... So? Fluff is nice to give you ideas but it seems like a total lack of imagination think it's tied to the mechanics like a weight around it's neck.

Razcar wrote:
In fact, since I have higher expectations from the flavour, it it is even more important for me that the ideas are fun, cool and inventive than that the mechanics are.

I don't get this at all. The mechanics can can cover a multitude of "fun, cool and inventive" ideas while the fluff only covers one... As long as the mechanics are solid, the possibilities are endless. There is no need to be shackled to the author's fluff.

Razcar wrote:
We all get enjoyment out of different things. Roleplaying games have a "hard" and a "soft" side (or whatever you want to call them) which for example, board games lack. It's an asset for us all that this hobby is multifaceted.

Sure, I understand that... But that's not this. I understand "I don't like the fluff". What I don't understand is "the fluff doesn't fit X": what that means is you already have an idea what fluff you THINK will fit and if that's the case then you really don't NEED the book to tell you what you already know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:

A medium can always get a spirit regardless of location. That's how the ability works. Getting no spirit is not a RAW option. The specific spirit can be up to GM interpretation if you are outside the listed locations.

I find that it is a great way for the GM to influence the party. It wasn't a problem for me as a player.

yes, they can get a random spirit for the day: that means that the DM is basically handing you 1 of 6 sheets for you to play that day... Not my idea of fun. :(

To each there own though.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
graystone wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:

A medium can always get a spirit regardless of location. That's how the ability works. Getting no spirit is not a RAW option. The specific spirit can be up to GM interpretation if you are outside the listed locations.

I find that it is a great way for the GM to influence the party. It wasn't a problem for me as a player.

yes, they can get a random spirit for the day: that means that the DM is basically handing you 1 of 6 sheets for you to play that day... Not my idea of fun. :(

Do you play with GMs that aren't invested in your sense of fun?


KingOfAnything wrote:
graystone wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:

A medium can always get a spirit regardless of location. That's how the ability works. Getting no spirit is not a RAW option. The specific spirit can be up to GM interpretation if you are outside the listed locations.

I find that it is a great way for the GM to influence the party. It wasn't a problem for me as a player.

yes, they can get a random spirit for the day: that means that the DM is basically handing you 1 of 6 sheets for you to play that day... Not my idea of fun. :(
Do you play with GMs that aren't invested in your sense of fun?

I've had DM's that rolled random events, wanted us to roll stats and have random effects for magic. I don't see a big difference. If you take a class that has a random feature, I have a hard time calling the DM the bad guy. :P

AGAIN, if the location feature serves no purpose and you always get the spirit you want, then it's meaningless and should be removed from the class. If it DOES have meaning, then you accept that you may have a random spirit...

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

You can create most of the locations you want. Either with gold or with time and a skill check. It is not so much random as it is forcing you to mix it up on occasion. More random spirit is unavailable than forced to play a certain random spirit.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Do you mean this one? The one directly after your WoW comment, or a different retort?

Nah this was my post. A few posts down they respond that my viewpoint is "really weird" and explains why I'm wrong in my flavour reasons (quote: "Seriously?") of not using the occult classes.

Not the whole world, just a little bit interesting why. Daw gave a plausible explanation above though, I could buy that.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What people fail to realize is that Paizo is slowly killing the GM with every new book they release and the only way the average GM (the one's with full time jobs) can cope is to start banning more and more new material. The player has to know ONE class but the GM has to know about all the classes that might show up at any given table and any classes that might show up in the adventure (not to mention all the monsters they have to learn before each and every encounter). This is the biggest reason why I do not GM PFS for the general public; and never will.

I know I posted earlier that I didn't allow OA because it didn't fit the setting and I've reconsidered my position. The reason has more to do with material gloat and trying to manage it than anything else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

yeah, we've had confirmation that going on a quick hunt, that having your friends spar, etc. count as creating the features needed. Maybe get a little portable alter or something.

Also factoring in that you're most likely champion out in the field and all that requires is your friends to spar a bit you should be fine. The others are likely used in cities or during downtime where it should be easier to find existing places for the spirits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I do sort of wonder why the Occultist's "Put n (2<n<20) points into m (1<m<7) bins" is considered more of a daunting task than "Preparing a day's worth of spells for a Wizard/Cleric/etc. off an enormous list"

Particularly since the Occultist gives you guidelines on "how many points you want in here" with the resonant powers.

LOL I have 30+ years experience in navigating spell lists. Add to that the wonderful help of online sites and it's simple/easy to find the exact spell I want as I have a list of ALL available spells with description and the ability to look them up by school/subschool/descriptor/level...

Occultist is more daunting just by being new/different and secondly because your spell list isn't set but changes so you can't look at the whole list but have to search by individual school lists EVERY time you look up spells OR maintain your own separate spell list.

So 1 "enormous list" for other casters vs NO main spell list but a number of individual spell lists = implements.

That's just spells. Then there is:
Focus for resonant AND powers, meaning you can't just drop the minimum to activate resonant. For instance if you have 3 implements, you could be throwing away focus by powering a resonant that has NO powers you'll use. Or you might have no need for the resonant that day [like Necromancy in town or Enchantment on a deserted island] .Then there is the generic mental focus.

Vs other casters where I tend to use the same favored list EVERY day unless there is a specialty spell needed. So for various reasons listed, Occultist is much harder to set up. On a day to day basis, at best it's the same.

I come at this from a similar place almost completely differently. Having played several occultists I can use the exact same allocation for my mental focus every day without problems, only changing it when it levels up, and I'm basically guided in how to do it via my resonant powers (and can then choose focus powers that actually make use of it.) For example, if I take evocation because I want Etheric Shards, I don't have to choose any evocation focus powers or put any mental focus in that implement at all. The haunt collector is great for getting something out of useless mental implements. But it takes me less than 30 seconds to distribute mental focus at any level.

Prepared casters are a totally different matter, I also have 30ish years of experience with these games, and that's why I have so much trouble with the Wizard and the Cleric- because every version has spells that are slightly different than the spells in the last version. The spells you want to prepare are going to change a lot from day to day (e.g. we were in a big city, then we were on the ocean, now we're going into a crypt where there probably are undead would be three different spell lists) and the problem of "not preparing enough fireballs" is not that different from the problem of "not having enough MF for your focus powers."


I personally found the experience very refreshing.

Also, I built myself to actually be able to play all of the spirits, which helps.


KingOfAnything wrote:
You can create most of the locations you want. Either with gold or with time and a skill check.

LOL That's not something you do in the morning to get your spirit. If you're in a location LONG enough to a major construction project, I can see your point. For instance, when playing Skull & Shackles, where am I building a keep, library, stage or tavern?

KingOfAnything wrote:
It is not so much random as it is forcing you to mix it up on occasion. More random spirit is unavailable than forced to play a certain random spirit.

I don't get this. If you can't pick a spirit, then what else is there? It's just semantics if the locations I find are random or the spirit is random. Unless it's already part of the game, it's all random.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dhrakken wrote:

What people fail to realize is that Paizo is slowly killing the GM with every new book they release and the only way the average GM (the one's with full time jobs) can cope is to start banning more and more new material. The player has to know ONE class but the GM has to know about all the classes that might show up at any given table and any classes that might show up in the adventure (not to mention all the monsters they have to learn before each and every encounter). This is the biggest reason why I do not GM PFS for the general public; and never will.

I know I posted earlier that I didn't allow OA because it didn't fit the setting and I've reconsidered my position. The reason has more to do with material gloat and trying to manage it than anything else.

None of my GMs have even looked at every class played, let alone read them.

You have to be and to trust your players to know what they are doing.

Now if you don't know their class you can't preemptively counter everything they can do. But what sort of GM does that.

ASIDE: cheating players can go home.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Dhrakken wrote:

What people fail to realize is that Paizo is slowly killing the GM with every new book they release and the only way the average GM (the one's with full time jobs) can cope is to start banning more and more new material. The player has to know ONE class but the GM has to know about all the classes that might show up at any given table and any classes that might show up in the adventure (not to mention all the monsters they have to learn before each and every encounter). This is the biggest reason why I do not GM PFS for the general public; and never will.

I know I posted earlier that I didn't allow OA because it didn't fit the setting and I've reconsidered my position. The reason has more to do with material gloat and trying to manage it than anything else.

What you are proposing is fundamentally untenable for a RPG business. Players will always want something that fits their play style. You can't expect to stay in business and only offer one or two options.


graystone wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
You can create most of the locations you want. Either with gold or with time and a skill check.

LOL That's not something you do in the morning to get your spirit. If you're in a location LONG enough to a major construction project, I can see your point. For instance, when playing Skull & Shackles, where am I building a keep, library, stage or tavern?

KingOfAnything wrote:
It is not so much random as it is forcing you to mix it up on occasion. More random spirit is unavailable than forced to play a certain random spirit.
I don't get this. If you can't pick a spirit, then what else is there? It's just semantics if the locations I find are random or the spirit is random. Unless it's already part of the game, it's all random.

Referencing my post above that states HOW you make the location you want in the morning. If you were really interested in finding the source for reference to show a GM later we can probably find the post. So basically if you have a spirit that is your primary main spirit (very normal for the class to do this) then you just need to talk with your GM about what it'll take to create/carry a place to summon it.


graystone wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
You can create most of the locations you want. Either with gold or with time and a skill check.

LOL That's not something you do in the morning to get your spirit. If you're in a location LONG enough to a major construction project, I can see your point. For instance, when playing Skull & Shackles, where am I building a keep, library, stage or tavern?

KingOfAnything wrote:
It is not so much random as it is forcing you to mix it up on occasion. More random spirit is unavailable than forced to play a certain random spirit.
I don't get this. If you can't pick a spirit, then what else is there? It's just semantics if the locations I find are random or the spirit is random. Unless it's already part of the game, it's all random.

You can carry relevant shrines, GM permitting.


Chess Pwn wrote:

yeah, we've had confirmation that going on a quick hunt, that having your friends spar, etc. count as creating the features needed. Maybe get a little portable alter or something.

Also factoring in that you're most likely champion out in the field and all that requires is your friends to spar a bit you should be fine. The others are likely used in cities or during downtime where it should be easier to find existing places for the spirits.

If that's the case, the explanation from the book is VERY poor and it makes the location sections meaningless and a waste of space... And having it be a random post to explain it is even worse. :P

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Medium wrote:
Each spirit has a favored location it usually inhabits, though spirits may also be present at other locations appropriate to their legends;

You can keep a library and altar on your ship, or channel from the aftcastle, mainmast, or galley.

You just need to know which place on a ship is most like the suggested locations.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Medium wrote:
Each spirit has a favored location it usually inhabits, though spirits may also be present at other locations appropriate to their legends;

You can keep a library and altar on your ship, or channel from the aftcastle, mainmast, or galley.

You just need to know which place on a ship is most like the suggested locations.

" though spirits may also be present at other locations appropriate to their legends" = random at best IMO.

As to the rest, sure you can wedge them in someplace, IF YOU'RE ALLOWED, but that's time, money and space taken up and that's not exactly easy. Again, it's not something to do right before you call the spirit but something that takes a LOT of planning and assumes you're in the same area.

Rhedyn wrote:
You can carry relevant shrines, GM permitting.

Sure can. It's 40 lbs. for an altar so if that the average for the portable site, that 240 lbs for every one. I'm sure the average medium has that much carry capacity...

Chess Pwn wrote:
Referencing my post above that states HOW you make the location you want in the morning. If you were really interested in finding the source for reference to show a GM later we can probably find the post. So basically if you have a spirit that is your primary main spirit (very normal for the class to do this) then you just need to talk with your GM about what it'll take to create/carry a place to summon it.

We crossposted. I'd be interested in seeing that post. Both for any DM I meet but for for my own knowledge. I'd like to see the how and why of how it's meant to work.


graystone wrote:


Rhedyn wrote:
You can carry relevant shrines, GM permitting.
Sure can. It's 40 lbs. for an alter so if that the average for the portable site, that 240 lbs for every one. I'm sure the average medium has that much carry capacity...

Yeah, it's called a pack mule or two, if you needed an alter for all of them

301 to 350 of 379 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Why do people hate / dislike Occult adventure? All Messageboards

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.