Dandy

AceofMoxen's page

Organized Play Member. 208 posts (474 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. 1 wishlist. 11 Organized Play characters. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 208 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aberzombie wrote:
Tom King (hack writer)

Oh, I'll never forgive him for Heroes in Crisis, but I just finished his Mister Miracle and it was great. It's not like he'll be directly involved. His Supergirl story got great reviews, and now some other people are going to try to improve it.

Radiant Oath

I look at the term 'Ancestry,' and I think "all of these can interbreed." In my opinion, inter-ancestry pairings produce a child of just one ancestry. Humans have more of a habit of taking on traits from the other parent with either half- or adopted. Fantasy settings are for magical things and I want a magically diverse world. I make an exception for Ghorans, because reproductive problems are called out in lore, but any other two ancestries can have a kid if they love each other enough.

"Your parents were a Conrasu and a Poppet? Well, pick one and adopted ancestry the other."

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.

OP, don't forget your skills. Fighters get to take three skills to legendary and 10+1 skill feats. Your top options are:

Medicine: every party needs a backup healer. The medicine skill in pf2 is the way to go for out of combat healing. Battle medicine and a free hand let's you boost poeple in combat, too. Continual recovery is a big upgrade.

Athletics: You'll want assurance to avoid a multiple attack penalty. Against weak foes, strike twice and then trip or shove. Titan wrestler is an upgrade, and you'll want underwater marauder.

Intimidate: scare your enemies to make them easier to hit. Intimidating glare, battle cry, and scare to death are upgrades.

Also consider;

Acrobatics: you can take kip up to stand up as a free action, and cat fall to avoid falling damage.

Society: An important knowledge skill, but one your spellcasting friends might forget about.

Radiant Oath

Kasoh wrote:


The decision to make damage primarily a function of high amounts of dice instead of static modifiers didn't please me...

You don't like rolling dice or you don't like it when dice rolls matter?

Radiant Oath

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/james-gunn-unveils- dc-slate-batman-superman-1235314176/

Booster Gold and the Authority are near the top of my list. I'm very curious who is going to be on the authority team. Supergirl is another fantastic choice. I'm excited for Waller and creature commandos, too.

But ugh, Damien. Please no

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:


Given PF1e had a bunch of classes at its finish, and I still wanted moar and it has taken this long, so far to still not have the same amount while still not really presenting anything particularly “new” apart from the Inventor and Thaumaturge (both only just) I feel quite the opposite of seeing “Bloat”. I can’t imagine what folx who want an Inquisitor must be feeling. The rate is glacial just to get to where PF1e was, and the threat of yet another edition to reset the Core and build up from that is maddening. To me.

This isn't paizo's fault, that's how this market works. People who are willing to switch from d&d are willing to keep switching to the new shiny thing. New techniques make better games. We've seen very clear evidence that an edition is only profitable for about ten years. It's very weird to me that so many people blame Paizo for changing things and not the players who moved on or stopped buying books.

Anyway, I could never get into pf1e because it was too similar to 3.5. Paizo had to do something different to gain me as a customer, and now I've even gone back and played a little first edition.

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
and presumably also released a ton of feats, spells and new game systems to boot.

Not so much. For example, since the advanced players book, fighter has only received about ten feats across all 20 levels. Only secrets of magic had a bunch of spells.

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
AceofMoxen wrote:
I think this is a misrepresentation of what happened. Pf1e sales dropped. The players were the ones who put 3.5 back in the trash. Paizo had to do something to avoid going out of business.
Because the system was becoming bloated. Another revision more in the style of 3.5 -> PF1E would have been welcomed by people like me, who are now not buying PF2E products.

on the other hand, I never was a customer of pf1e. Pf2e brought me to pathfinder. It is not enough to satisfy current customers, a business needs to be always adding new customers.

Radiant Oath

5 people marked this as a favorite.
still not Gortle wrote:


And for what’s it’s worth, I loved Paizo because they saved 3.5 - yet then sometime later decided this really did belong in the trash bin which is where they [wrongly, so very very wrongly] tossed it. And when Paizo did that, the good will I had for them they also tossed in the trash heap.
After which I view them based solely on their achievements, without a savior nostalgia lens.
Which, sadly, are as lacking as their math in PF2e.

I think this is a misrepresentation of what happened. Pf1e sales dropped. The players were the ones who put 3.5 back in the trash. Paizo had to do something to avoid going out of business.

Radiant Oath

I expect reprinting this version is a non-starter, but I would be interested in a Special ORC Edition.

Radiant Oath

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Even with Hasbro (seeming to) back down, the ORC is still important!

Radiant Oath

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Paul Ryan wrote:
Good news at this point, but I won't be surprised if this all happens again two more D&D editions down the road...

Exactly. I'm done with D&D. I shouldn't have to fight for my hobby. The way Hasbro did this under the table has completely broken my trust.

Radiant Oath

You think this thread was nerco'd, but they deleted all the true posts of the past decade.

Radiant Oath

I'm very sad. This has been the best tv show since the expanse ended.

All the characters are great, but I especially love Cliff.

Radiant Oath

For your kobold, don't forget skills and skill feats. You get a skill feat every even level, plus lip reading from your background. It's unusual that your heritage is blue, but your dragon disciple is gold. It's perfectly legal, but you might ask your dm about it.

Summoner is one of the more complex classes in pf2e, but I really like your concept. I might suggest a summoner with sorcerer archetype would be more powerful. You would be charisma casting for both.

Radiant Oath

Devastation Bob wrote:
I guess I was wondering more about thrall husbandry for lack of a better term. Are they treated well, livestock would be, but you don't educate or clothe cattle either.

If you think livestock are treated well, I may have news for you.

Ecgbryt, I recommend not looking too closely at the number of farmers and farmland for living cities either. These numbers never work out.

Radiant Oath

The above is correct, but I've seen lawyers say it comes up so rarely that the lines are not clearly defined.

Radiant Oath

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The date on this blog post is Wednesday, January 15, 2023, but it appears to have been posted today.

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was a fan of this series when it ran in Dragon magazine as ecology of the monsters. With 2e, I think Paizo has had a chance to revisit every monster. We get more details regularly, like with Gnolls in The Mwangi Expanse.

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Onesiphoros wrote:
if I can ever get a group together that's large enough and interested in the Amber Diceless RPG I'll be able to die happy.
Ditto. Though I don't think I'm up for running Amber, I'd love to be able to play it again.

Speaking of Amber, everyone see we might be getting a tv show? A year ago, I would have been discouraged, but after Sandman, I have some hope.

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fletch wrote:
D3stro 2119 wrote:

Oh, and another note on races: I really dislike "humanocentrism" (something something Absalom of all places still being 80% human) and "race stereotypes."

This is where my fogey-ism shows through because I prefer humanocentric settings. I'm not sure I can describe it well, but I find racially-homogenized settings take away some of the fantasy feel. Like, if elves and gnomes are everywhere, they become mundane.

Buuuut, since Absalom is supposed to be THE metropolis, I agree that it should have a wider range of residents. That should be its special thing, like you walk in and are like "ohmygod, there's elves and goblins and mermen and..." Of course you only get that feel if all the other cities in the world aren't also like that.

I disagree. Racially-homogenized settings make perfect sense in fantasy. Separate cities for different races should be a sci-fi thing, where the species eat different food and breathe different air. Most of my golarion cities are no more than 50% human.

Radiant Oath

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Feros wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
At least for me its not the language that's the issue, it's all organizational. Feats and spells being arranged alphabetically rather than by level, needing to flip between the various appendices to parse out conditions or focus spells, stuff along those lines. All a massive hassle if you're using a book or pdf and makes learning the system horrifically tedious.

Though both feats and spells were organized alphabetically in PF1 too (and in 3.x, iirc).

There's definitely something about the organization, but I'm not sure exactly what. The group I introduced to it had a lot of initial trouble navigating the process.

Indeed. Layout was poor.

The key to the trouble seems to be cross-referencing. Whenever 2e puts out a rules mechanic, they often have several specialized rules that use that mechanic. So when you read a rule, feat, or spell, they often reference something else in the book. This saves space and allows you to print more options, but it also means you have a spell or activity that is spread out over different places in the book.

It gets really bad when you start getting to tertiary rules, so the rule in front of you references another rule in a different book, that references yet another rule in the CRB.

From a game design standpoint, it's brilliant and flexible, resulting in a wonderfully modular system. From a gameplay perspective, it is a headache flipping to one page, to get an explanation that requires you to flip to another page or book, and on and on...

Whenever 3rd edition comes out, this is a problem that will need to be addressed.

I love pf2, but this is true. It's even worse with exceptions. Soothe is a healing effect. Undead are immune to healing effects. Soothe works on undead.

Radiant Oath

https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/7182208/OGL-1-2-Feedback-Survey

Let WotC know what you think!

Radiant Oath

https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/7182208/OGL-1-2-Feedback-Survey

Let WotC know what you think!

Radiant Oath

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Draft of the new ogl is up. Still a problem.

Also, I like new trek.

Radiant Oath

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I don't want to prematurely sound any alarms, but this post just got deleted. I think we might want to consider the possibility that a new Paizo leadership policy, as they welcome disgruntled 5e players, may be to try to pivot towards a new, less progressive community that will allow them to get away with more.

I don't know, and I'm not allowing myself to jump to conclusions. I can't recognize any good reason to delete the post I made, unless you see "I'm glad there aren't bigots in this space" as baiting.

I do kinda read that as baiting.

Radiant Oath

Apparently, Wotc does not care what you put in those surveys.

Radiant Oath

3 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
You don't understand, KC, it's really painful knowing fictional gay people exist ;p

Then I'm worshipping Zon-Kuthon.

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like "not allowing GMs to disallow characters" whether it's because they're suspicious about the provenance thereof (a la side-eying rolled stats) or they don't fit the campaign or they seem likely to cause intraparty conflict or whatever is a dealbreaker.

Hasbro sees DMs as employees who pay them.

Radiant Oath

As an Economist, I wonder why WotC thinks they have a competitive advantage. I imagine AI-DM will be closer to a video game than a TTRPG. It sounds like they are planning it in a combat-only role, and I'd rather have Diablo or WoW mechanics than any version of D&D. The advantage of D&D is doing weird stuff. I have a professional interest in thier plan to compete with video games.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:
My prediction: When you can get a human GM, only the GM needs to buy the books. When you need an AI GM, everyone's gotta subscribe.

This, Plus Grinding! We'll have people who play all day, every day, just like in WoW. They'll have maxed out level 20 characters, running quests over and over again for the best gear. Then they'll join human-DM games with super-powerful characters.

Letting players transfer characters between human and AI games is the only advantage WotC has and it's predatory as hell.

Radiant Oath

7 people marked this as a favorite.

As a general rule, I multiply all population numbers by ten.

Radiant Oath

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Wizard Level 1 wrote:
The most interesting heroes are those that overcome their flaws and weaknesses like Rastlin, Dresden, and Geralt, to name a few.
I have never seen Geralt be anything other than badass.

Badasses can (and should) have flaws and weaknesses.

Radiant Oath

Unicore wrote:

Charisma

In retrospect, "Diplomacy" is problematic as a skill. There probably needed to be a default social interaction scaling attribute that every character is default trained in. Calling it diplomacy would not be right, because I think diplomacy is for more complicated and nuanced social interactions and could be a stand alone skill for negotiations and complex social encounters, but a default "hello there!" skill should have been like perception and be automatically trained. This avoids the awkwardness of having characters who literally cannot socially interact with others at all, and make something intrinsically valuable attached to the charisma attribute that players know will be getting used regularly, like perception. Social interacting is just too intrinsic a part of the game to leave it to something that can be left untrained.

This is deep, and I'm going to spend some time thinking about it. I don't know if I want any numbers attached to social interactions. I do want a chance of failure, and I want players who aren't sliver-tongued to be able to play characters who are good at social interactions. Those two factors push me back to mechanics.

How about a flat check? With feats to improve success? Everyone would have a chance, but if you want to play a honey-worded character, you could take those feats.

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have only heard bad stories about using the proficiency without level rules. I might suggest instead a campaign that will never go beyond level 3 or 5, as Keith Baker(creator of Eberron) describes his "ratcatchers" campaign. Usually in Eberron, we expect NPC's with third level spells to be common. So limiting your players to level 5 or lower will ensure they don't overtake the generals. Instead, players would get extra feats as they advance. A level 7 elite unit is always going to be at the edge of what a level 5 conscript can fight.

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucerious wrote:
This is why one of my favorite battle cries is “I surrender!”. I don’t actually surrender, I just give enemies a pause.

War Crime.

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quoting myself from a previous thread like this.

Comedy relief--Think Pippin and Merry. A character who advances the plot by screwing up. I have no idea how to create this without breaking the math of pf2, but it's an character type that is common and missing. In certain other games, you can get this with a bard, but bards in pf2 are much more power fantasy than comedy relief.

Distance-mancer--Vista from Worm, parahumans. She has the power to manipulate distance. Could be a single spell that scales. So you cast the spell, no character moves, but the distance between them is reduced or expanded. Maybe even a character who bends space like a gravity wave. Even on a virtual tabletop, this would be hard to represent.

Power thief--Kirby from Nintendo. 3.5 had the spellthief, which is kind of what I'm looking for. Someone who steals enemy abilities and uses them.

Radiant Oath

Jaya Hemond was a warrior in the crusades. She was captured by demons and her soul and flesh were bound to a Brimowak. She was rescued by the mythic heroes, but the binding could not be undone. She is a constant source of heat and flames. Feeling uncomfortably warm in normal temperatures and looked down upon by her fellow crusaders, Jaya fled to the north to die.

She was found by the broken tusk tribe, who welcomed her after some initial confusion with a "sister cinder." She hasn't told them about her demonic origin yet.

Human Tiefling Elementalist Sorcerer (fire)

Radiant Oath

Mightypion wrote:

Evil games can be quite fun, but they need a group and a bit of experience.

My go to guides for making an evil character:

--Who is your favorite Villain, that is not completely superhuman (f.e. Thanos)?
--How you would transfer him to Pathfinder?
--What makes that villain compelling or interesting to you?

My top three favorite villains are Magneto, Grand Admiral Thrawn, and Dr. Doom. The only one that might work in a party is Magneto, and it's only because he's not actually evil. Thrawn and Doom both expect to be in command. Doom will absolutely kill any party member who tries to give him an order. Thrawn is not a backstabber, but again, the reason he would work better is that he's close to LN. Villains don't work in teams often, and especially not without a clear leader.

EDIT: For an interesting fourth villain, I like Nero from Star Trek [2009]. He would have a different problem in a party. Central to his character is that he makes awful choices. He chooses revenge over saving his people. Nothing will distract him from his target. He wouldn't last long in a party game.

Radiant Oath

Grand Admiral Thrawn in Heir to the Empire.

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope Tarondor will update his ranking some day. He did a really good job, but he ends at Strength of Thousands. https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43jay?Tarondors-Guide-to-Pathfinder-Adventure- Paths#1

Radiant Oath

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
I saw an Eberron guide in homebrew the other week...

I've seen at least three Eberron conversions. This is the one I would use. https://scribe.pf2.tools/v/2qF7WjsY-pathfinders-guide-to-eberron

But I have nothing against this one: https://shardfinder.darkcloudblogs.com/?m=0

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So I'm playing a thaumaturge in PFS and we are fighting a group of foxes. The foxes have no weaknesses, so when I succeed on exploit vulnerablity, I pick a weakness that applies to one fox and just that fox, right?
I'm on the spot, so I say this fox is weak to rabbits. I pull a rabbit out of my bag (hat) and I beat the fox to death with the rabbit and my hatchet.
The whole table is in stitches, laughing about this. I decide the next one will be more serious. Next turn, I have another fox, so I roll exploit vulnerablity. This time it's weak to a piece of a henhouse, which no fox ever entered. The table laughs again.

Is this the proper way to play a serious member of the dark archive? What serious weakness would a fox have? Im not complaining, I'm curious what other thaumaturges would have done. Playing comedy characters is pretty common for me, and I'm glad to have the opportunity, but I don't believe this is how Paizo intended the class to be played.

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.
S.L.Acker wrote:


To my mind, all of Golarion for all the time it will exist in a state suitable for mortal life, is insignificant next to the likely infinite worlds and immortal beings guiding them that should exist in the broader universe. So why should what a single mortal does, for ill or good, matter in the scheme of things?

A young girl was walking along a beach upon which thousands of starfish had been washed up during a terrible storm. When she came to each starfish, she would pick it up, and throw it back into the ocean. People watched her with amusement.

She had been doing this for some time when a man approached her and said, “Little girl, why are you doing this? Look at this beach! You can’t save all these starfish. You can’t begin to make a difference!”

The girl seemed crushed, suddenly deflated. But after a few moments, she bent down, picked up another starfish, and hurled it as far as she could into the ocean. Then she looked up at the man and replied,

“Well, I made a difference for that one!”

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.
mikeawmids wrote:
AceofMoxen wrote:
I'm in a strongly story-based 5e weekly Eberron game, a weekly PF2 game/society play, and a weekly SWADE game where we try to avoid combat.(we're not very good at it) I would not play a combat-focused 5e game. I'm really bored of 5e character concepts, and I can't stand silly rules like "see invisibility doesn't let you defend yourself from invisible creatures."
How's the SWADE game going? I would love to play more Savage Worlds, and I do have a Slipstream game llined up for early 2023.

Tonight is our third session, I haven't made up my mind. I like classless systems in theory, but in practice, the party kinda lacks cohesion.

Radiant Oath

I've only skimmed the discussion here, because I've been in too many alignment arguments (And I'm a young fella by some of your standards) I'm generally against alignment, but

Squiggit wrote:
keftiu wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I hope alignment stays a staple of DnD descendants. In fact I think a game without alignment cannot really belong to that family.

D&D launched without Good and Evil alignments, I believe, originally sticking to Chaos and Law. Most OSR systems that I’ve seen do away with Alignment, while 13th Age replaced it instead with your Relationships to a number of major Icon characters in the world.

There’s lots of d20 fantasy gaming out there without Alignment, so it feels strange to me to declare all of those somehow illegitimate when 99% of their bones is D&D.

Or 5e, which does have an alignment grid, but almost completely divorces it from actual mechanics. They even crossed the dreaded rubicon of letting paladins be whatever and it turns out it wasn't a big deal and nobody cares and the game was better off for it.

I cringe when I see a CN Paladin. You swore an oath? And it's the power of that oath that empowers you? Were you planning to abide by that oath? Does the Oath restrict your freedom? Have you got a detailed explanation for why you chose two opposing stances? No, you just wanted to smite things and be edgy? Rogue sucks, but you want to deal big amounts of damage, you say?

keftiu wrote:
Animate Dead doesn't have the Evil tag in 2e.

Thank the divinity within!

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm in a strongly story-based 5e weekly Eberron game, a weekly PF2 game/society play, and a weekly SWADE game where we try to avoid combat.(we're not very good at it) I would not play a combat-focused 5e game. I'm really bored of 5e character concepts, and I can't stand silly rules like "see invisibility doesn't let you defend yourself from invisible creatures."

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aeshuura wrote:
I really like the new cleric. It opens up all kinds of concepts.

Unless you're a LG cleric of the Blood Vol.

I'll just smite myself I guess.

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aroden? LN, likes to control things, vaguely watches out for little guys. Small problem of being dead, but that doesn't seem to stop people.

Radiant Oath

PossibleCabbage wrote:
It's deeply weird to say "pick another system" for something for which first edition literally had rules for.

I don't think it's weird to say first edition had too much going on. Controversial, but not weird.

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Comedy relief--Think Pippin and Merry. A character who advances the plot by screwing up. I have no idea how to create this without breaking the math of pf2, but it's an character type that common and missing. In certain other games, you can get this with bard, but bards in pf2 are much more power fantasy than comedy relief.

Distance-mancer--Vista from Worm, parahumans. She has the power to manipulate distance. Could be a single spell that scales. So you cast the spell, no character moves, but the distance between them is reduced or expanded. Maybe even a character who bends space like a gravity wave. Even on a virtual tabletop, this would be hard to represent.

Power thief--Kirby from Nintendo. 3.5 had the spellthief, which is kind of what I'm looking for. Someone who steals enemy abilities and uses them.

1 to 50 of 208 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>