AceofMoxen's page

If it doesn't bite you and you explode, it's Runic, not venomous.

My personal recommendation is keep it in a familiar satchel or other similar place that keeps them out of combat.

What? You want to use your familiar in combat? Than prepare for it to be knocked/unconscious or die.

As a GM, the second your familiar starts augmenting your combat abilities in an offensive way, it paints a target on its back that will likely see it killed. If you want to keep it conscious a while longer, Lifelink can help you do that.

That feels like punishing the witch player. What other class's key abilities do you target to remove for the day?

As for language barriers, this is why spells like Translate and items like Books of Translation or Choker of Elocution and skill feats like Multilingual exists. A situation where players encounter a character who barely speaks common or doesn't speak it at all, is also a fun challenge for a party. It allows non-pure combat characters to shine!

As mentioned above, Darmok and Jalad is a story that only works once. Stargate SG-1 tried to have translation as a reoccurring issue, and quickly dropped it as boring. Maybe you could build a game where translation is a major, reoccurring challenge, but that's not pathfinder, and I'm skeptical of that game's appeal to a board audience.

Also, starting at level 3, casters have increasing options to completely negate the challenge of translation. This turns these encounters into a simple gear check. If your caster is low-charisma, and the translate only affects them, you can have a little fun, but again, that only works once. It's pretty common that the caster has the best Charisma, too.

One of the better uses for languages, IMO, is during combat. The Hobgoblin commander shouts orders, and the PCs who understand goblin can know what's happening.

2: bone croupier is not a valid summon due to being uncommon. Find a few examples of common creatures that have powerful abilities that still work with a level difference of 5-7

Not only is this an errata, it's an unusual errata to an AP volume that was not compiled into a single book. Bone Croupier was *THE* use for Summon Undead from the time it was printed until the time it was errata'd.

Maybe this is just me but I really like summoning using actual stat blocks. I find it sells the fantasy of summoning much more than using a template. I really felt this in dnd 5e around 2020 when they starting printing summon spells that used a template. A vital change given how problematic the first summoning spells were, but it creates a very different feeling.

I wonder if we're looking at this backwards. Especially as the game becomes more digital, maybe we should create the monster and assign it a level and rank required for summoning separately.

For example, a unicorn and a zombie owlbear are both level 3 creatures.

As mentioned above, a 4th level slot to get a unicorn is a sweet deal. Two 3rd rank heals are a time-delayed 6th rank heal, and there's a cleanse affliction. Ghost touch is also useful. It's also intelligent and capable of speaking to you, fey, and animals.

on the other hand, the zombie owlbear brings 85 HP, a fear effect locked at DC 19, and some attack power. It'll need a 14 to hit a moderate level 8 creature's AC, and the moderate attack bonus will crit it on a ten. If the level 8 enemy even cares to stay engaged with the permanently slowed summon.

If we create 'Summon brute,' that only gets sacks of hp and attack monsters, could we summon the zombie owlbear at rank 3 without breaking the game?

And yeah, the Unicorn should probably move up a spot (or be uncommon?) two 3rd rank heals with flexibility for a 5th level slot is not outside consideration.

I think the other option is to give each creature a unique summoning spell, so you have to call them in advance. Maybe you learn them in batches of threes? Less flexibility for more power (see the other thread about the wizard debate)

Roll for Combat did a Pokemon-inspired class. Could a version of the summoner with long-term bonds to a limited group of creatures that scale satisfy?

Yes. Restriction breeds creativity.

You keep that Universes Beyond talk back where it belongs.

However, what I'm talking about is how restrictions and mandatory behavior may affect players who may, for one reason or another, feel uncomfortable about it.

It's a matter of inclusivity and accessibility. Just as people should not be forced to engage with 18+ themes or other themes that require a trigger warning, people should equally not be forced to interact with the worship of fictional deities, especially in a world where people will sometimes beat and murder each other for worshiping in the wrong way.

Yes, I'm sure there are some atheists who don't mind and some religious people who have no issue with just playing another class. I never said every single atheist and theist had a problem with it.

Maybe someone has significant religious trauma or triggers, but I don't think just removing Edicts and Amathema is enough to help them play a cleric. You should respect that by playing Shadowrun or something.

If someone has this severe trauma or triggers, I don't think they will enjoy the pathfinder universe, where other PCs and NPCS are influenced by the gods. There are many good RPGs, and it's probably easier to pick something else up.

I also never said clerics, deities, or anathemas should be erased, I only said people who may have a serious issue with religious themes should have an option to have similar mechanics.

For example, some may hear "a god of war" and think of a bloodthirsty berserker, a calm elderly tactician, or even a knight-like god obsessed with strength and honor as opposed to subterfuge. Having gods as people makes them good characters, but from a purely gameplay point of view, it can be quite limiting because you have to search for a god that matches a specific interpretation and study the entire lore to make sure you didn’t misinterpret it.

Of course, one could just play very superficially and look only at the anathemas. But if it’s going to be that shallow, why not just be a priest of Life or a priest of War instead? **Honestly, I never liked the concept of anathemas, they feel like a seed of conflict because people end up arguing about interpretations and minutiae. It’s just an annoyance, in my opinion.**

(Emphasis mine) "Anathemas are just an annoyance" is a hair's breathe from "anathemas should be removed." The original statement makes clear anathemas have no redeeming qualities for you, unless you've changed your mind.

Now that we have Guardians, we can finally say that there is always more then one option to fulfill even the most hard coded old-school quad of tank, mage, healer, skill monkey.

The 'Old-school' Tank was just as much about the cannon as the armor. It was literally the fighter class. MMOs created the idea that a tank is supposed to be seen and 'draw aggro' instead of just standing in front. This is a disruption of the metaphor. The 'Old school' D&D players who invented the term were aware that tanks were vulnerable to the proper weapons and needed to hide or be supported just like any other weapon or party member.

Even in WW2, a tank that is not supported by infantry is dead, And in classic RPGs, a tank is a reliable source of damage, unless you fight a rust monster.

This is tongue-in-cheek.

Some players may be hardcore atheists who strongly dislike the concept of worshiping anything and find it humiliating.

As a hardcore atheist myself, allowing a fictional god the power to humiliate you is in my personal, IRL anathema. Maybe someone has significant religious trauma or triggers, but I don't think just removing Edicts and Amathema is enough to help them play a cleric. You should respect that by playing Shadowrun or something.

Others may be very religious and find the concept too close to idolatry (remember the satanic panic).

If Baldur was close enough for Christians in Norse lands, I'm certain they can find someone among Pathfinder's Gods. If they're not flexible, they probably aren't going to be ok with some of the things other players do. (I'll not comment on Non-Christians)

Some players simply played healers in other games, like MMOs, as a white mage or something similar, and wanted to do the same here.

Copying MMOs should not be the goal of a tabletop game. Also, MMO players seem to exclusively view healer as a burdensome job. That's the worst attitude to take to a tabletop game. Give them the DPS job that everybody wants.

I don’t see the point of forcing a vegan to eat meat,

You can actually harm a vegan by forcing them to eat meat (I've heard), but no one is harmed by loose rules in a pretend game.

To Kelseus:

I will highlight the Champion rules to him, throught he is one to read rules in the most black and white fashion possible, so last time I asked failling to comply an edict or anathema is losing my class powers.

I've already tried asking him a letter to the law thing, but he already outruled it, explaining that for the sake of the rules, following the laws equal following the law of the place I'm currently am, always.

For example I asked if there was a law priority, like possibly sticking to a set of laws whathever the place I'm in (like Abadar's for example, or a few of the rules Calistria respect, or laws from which my character originates): No.

I asked if with Law skill I could try to interpret law in a fashion which would favor my POV: No.

I asked if I could in a conflict choose which side I consider as legitimates: No.

It seems like I'm kinda stuck to being a law enforcer of the place where my toes currently are, that's why I came here to see If we missed something.

So currently, my only hope is the highlight to the champion rule.

This may be a spoiler for your GMs plans, but it's on the wiki.

You might be able to salvage this character by saying an aristocrat (winter witch) killed your family unlawfully(probably before 4713), but escaped punishment. You begged Calistria for revenge. As part of her bargain, she granted you the power to get revenge, but only if you can do it lawfully. You'll have to collect evidence and put the winter witch on trail to get revenge.

I would recommend you try to join the game your GM envisions, or convince him to boarden his game, or sit this one out. Playing a game just to be disruptive is an insult to the other players.

I could see it be frustrating for folks approaching from the opposite side of creation—class and mechanics first and personality later, but that's part of why we have SO many deities in the setting to choose from. And of course, you can always chat with your GM to adjust or remove edicts and anathemas if they're that big of a problem.

I am a player who approaches building a character from the mechanics first side, and I love having edicts and anathema. I wanted a redeemer champion with a one-handed agile thrown weapon. That lead me to consider Likha. I had just read some history about Roman emperors staging gladiatorial battles as historical recreations. They often changed events to make previous rulers and enemies look good or bad. So my champion is a gladiator who insists on truth in historical gladiatorial matches. (Nonlethal) His reaction is part of his stage fighting technique.

It’s kind of fascinating for me to speculate on this because of the existence of magic changes the development. Kind of gives me a headache though.

Keith Baker and WotC have done quite a bit of work on this topic for the Eberron setting.

1st-3rd level magic is available on the battlefield most of the time.

4-6th level magic is expensive and rare.

7th+ rank casters were not concerned with the war.

(broken armor -7)

https://2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=60&Redirected=1

Broken armor only ever reduces ac by -3 plus the loss of runes.

I'm Still curious about exampler's 'only the worthy' feat. Is it fair to break/destroy a weapon the PC pins an enemy with?

What happens when someone time-travels from lost omens to before Aroden's death? Do they create a zone of non-prophecy while they're in the past or do they become ruled by prophecy while in the past?

The guide claims this is the 'Final' Runelords story. Let's check back in five years.

But yeah, Pharasma's approach is a bit like preventing climate change and global warming, Necromancers are effectively burning fossil fuels in a funky cosmic way.

OK, but I would classify this as 'good.' Why is fighting climate change neutral?

I think we've exhausted the topic.

Offsetting your necromancy is easy! Just kill two or three rival necromancers.

Plot Hook: Powerful good necromancer needs to kill more evil necromancers for his offset this year. He's willing to pay for your Credits.

That said, I dont expect we'll find ethical Necromancy very common (if that's what's happenin). It kind of messes with some of the appeal of playing against type with dark powers if theres no "type" to play against--and if you could do all the things with ethical Necromancy as with classic void-soul-slavery, why would people resort to the latter in the first place?

In the USA, any Chocolate product that does not have some kind of "Slavery-free" or "fair trade" label was made by slave children.

All major chocolate companies missed the June 2005 date of the Harkin–Engel Protocol. The deadline was repeatedly rolled back. In 2021, The Economist reported that child slave labor in chocolate manufacturing had actually increased due to Covid19. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/08/23/the-number-of-child-lab ourers-has-increased-for-the-first-time-in-20-years (I'm a subscriber, I've read the article, and can provide quotes if you wish)

When this issue came to attention around 2001-2005, some comopanies tried to get chocolate labeled "Slavery-free" or "fair trade" into stores. The retail locations (Walmart, gas stations) quickly discovered that putting M&Ms next to "Slavery-Free" chocolate just made most customers skip buying anything.

According to wikipedia (I know), A Chocolate product needs only 11% of the cocoa to qualify as "fair trade" to use that label on packaging. Kit Kat in 2010 switched to fair trade, and at some point before 2020, quietly switched back.

I've missed RD posts.

I feel like they always generate either interesting discussion or heated debate and I'm here for it.

I was thinking there might be overlap between free-hand and concealable, but there really isn't. Just the wrist launcher, which is not great.

Gauntlets are part of my heavy armor. We might be asked to turn in weapons, even hand wraps, but no one asks the fighter to start taking off his armor. No silly thievery checks needed, and at high levels, I'm etching basic runes on the inside of the gauntlets. Or maybe my wizard buddy is keeping runic weapon ready.

One of my gauntlets is sliver and the other is cold-iron. Someday, I'll remember which is which.

Long-lived creatures
When a soul incarnates into a creature, it is accounted for based on that creature's life span (whether this accounts for early returns is unclear). The sun orchid elixir is a good example because Pharasma did not like this very much, but worked out an arrangement with its creator. Mythic creatures like Sorshen are a bit more arbitrary, and probably invokes some amount of "Pharasma knows when they will die and they have been accounted for in their destiny"

I'd like to know more about the creator of the exixir and his deal with Pharasma. Iirc, the queen in Wrath of the Righteous held the record at three doses of Sun Orchid. It makes sense that Pharasma could forgive 4x on a lifespan. But the creator himself has been taking an elixer himself when needed for thousands of years.

On the topic of descicrating the dead, I again think this is a silly rule for any universe with common undead. Do we really expect the knights of lastwall to return living members of the whispering way to their church intact?

In historical food safety, there's an interesting connection where religious forbidden foods are often ones that were unsafe in that time/region for reasons we now understand. The same thing should apply to undead. On Earth, even ancient rules/honor/codes of warfare say it is best to return bodies to enemies or allow them to collect their dead. In practical terms, this is a way to reduce revenge.

In a Universe with spontaneous undead or common undead, it's simply practical to take steps to prevent such return. All cultures should allow hacking off the head and storing it elsewhere, for example, as long as the process is done respectfully.

Mad Dog Mike wrote:

I honestly get the impression literally the only reason Pharasma cares at all about good vs. evil is that it gives her a sorting mechanism to get soul energy to the right places and everything else is a very minor consideration to her. Whether undeath is "wrong" morally doesn't mean much to her because she hates them for screwing with the Cycle.

100% this, I'm with you because that's my same view on Pharasma. She isn't making a "moral" judgement on undead in the traditional way other might. Pharasma knows undead are a prevision on the cycle of souls and prevents souls from getting to their final destination, which causes the system to slow and degrade bit by bit, putting the universe a little more at risk of collapse.

If collapsing the universe is "bad," then we're back at Pharasma is better than good. If Pharasma is torturing souls to prolong her life and her families', then we get Pharasma is evil. One of the reasons Im happy alignment is gone is that it allows for both to be true.

Quote:

So her opinion on the subject isn't really about moral judgement. I think she isn't quite as worried about life extension stuff per se (though some of her psychopomps may be) simply because those frequently aren't indefinite prolonging of life so the soul energy moves along eventually, and why worry about a few centuries when there are plenty of creatures that live that long anyway? But theoretically infinite lifespans like undeath can provide goes too far, as well as things that can divert souls from their proper place (pretty sure it's canon you can sacrifice good people to Hell and the other lower planes and their souls go there, and Pharasma opposes that too), which undeath might also do given how undead creatures tend to go quite far from their living moralities. Add in undead can often create more undead and you can see the problem it poses to her Cycle. But her ethics only focus on what's good for her work; there might actually be good necromancers out there, but she probably would still want them stopped/killed (though she'd send their soul on to Heaven if that's where it belongs).

Yep, I'm on basically this same page as well.

The problem is that all the good-ish deities I know are against the undead or unconcerned. If there was a good god of undeath, I could accept the perspective that Pharasma has biases. But, the original comment that got me invested in this discussion was that stories in Pathfinder seem to end with Pharasma was right. I think either Pharasma is suppressing the knowledge of good undead or the universe justifies Pharasma's opinions.

This gets us deep into Descartes' Evil Demon Hypothesis.

Mad Dog Mike wrote:

I honestly get the impression literally the only reason Pharasma cares at all about good vs. evil is that it gives her a sorting mechanism to get soul energy to the right places and everything else is a very minor consideration to her. Whether undeath is "wrong" morally doesn't mean much to her because she hates them for screwing with the Cycle.

100% this, I'm with you because that's my same view on Pharasma. She isn't making a "moral" judgement on undead in the traditional way other might. Pharasma knows undead are a prevision on the cycle of souls and prevents souls from getting to their final destination, which causes the system to slow and degrade bit by bit, putting the universe a little more at risk of collapse.

Before I discuss this, Why do you think Pharasma wants to protect the cycle of souls? For herself? For her daughter? Or for future happing by by

I believe the idea behind holy and unholy is the cosmic war of "good" and "evil" which is why it replaced alignments and why Pharasma is still cosmically above it all.

There's an RPG precedent for True Neutral working for the greater benefit of reality. In Greyhawk, Mordenkainen and some peers recognized that the mortal, even immortal, conflicts paled in comparison to the ultimate threat of Tharizdun, that all resources would be necessary to fight him (or in practice continue to contain him by manipulating his own power so he traps himself; even combined he's still stronger). This higher awareness led to "heroes"/PCs doing some questionable deeds, arguably self-righteous evil ones! "From a certain point of view" indeed.

I dislike the idea that "the greater good" is a TN focus. Good should be the "alignment" of any good person. I'll go back to Marvel's first secret wars, where a still-villianous Magneto was sorted with the good guys, because he fights for selfless reasons. As I commented above, It's like Angels and demons are scrambling over crumbs and Pharasma is making sure the next meal (universe) is coming.

Note also that people are not tortured by Pharasma. Each soul goes to the outer plane that fits it best according to the soul's morality (previously known as Alignment).

And people on Golarion know about Hell and the other planes. If they then decide that Lawful Evil is their way, that is on them. Not on Pharasma.

The message I'm getting is that it is impossible for the players to comprehend the mind of a god like Pharasma, but the average dude on Golarion understands the full moral picture of the universe.

Pharasma delivers sentences with either no jury, or a jury of psychopomps. She has full knowledge of what happens to souls she sends to Hell. I am reminded of Kant's example of lying to the murderer at the door, in which most people agree you should lie to a known murderer about hiding his target.
I'll also bring up "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" again. Pharasma is running Omelas in my mind, but at the very least, she isn't walking away.

You could argue that Pharasma is neutral because her ends justify her means, but I've never liked the logic. We all agree that some ends justify some means.

Mangaholic13 wrote:

Also, do we have any source that "objectively" states 'this is why undead lead to the heat death of the universe'?
Yes, undeath disrupt the River of Souls... but has it been stated clearly what that does?
Basically, I'm asking, do we have something that says right out, "This is what undeath does to the Universe".
I only ask because the Book of the Dead is written by Geb, and therefore still a subjective view.

The Windsong testaments' story about the three fears of Pharasma, as well IIRC as planar adventures, explain that what keeps the whole of reality regenerating so that it is not eroded to nothingness by the Maelstrom is the cycle of life and death where the souls of dead mortals are sent to the outer planes they are most attuned to so that the essence their soul carries strengthens it and thus reinforces the bulwark that the outer planes form against non-existence.

Then they are eroded by the Maelstrom (or the Void, not sure which role they play there) which sends them back to Creation's Forge where they are recycled as newborn mortals' souls, who go on to live their life, develop moral trends that align them with an outer plane, die and are judged by Pharasma...

Less souls going through the Cycle means that the whole of reality becomes more fragile and more likely to end.

Pharasma is the caretaker of this whole cycle. It is why she is dead set on keeping the souls flowing.

If you accept this at face value, then Pharasma would seem to be "more good then the good gods." It's like Angels and demons are scrambling over crumbs and Pharasma is making sure the next meal (universe) is coming.

This story suggests that Pharasma is focused on delaying and ensuring the next universe. If the side of the Angels were to defeat Hell, the entire universe would decay, right? I hate this idea that the universe requires absolute evil to ensure tomorrow.

I'm deeply reminded of "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas." Pharasma is willing to torture an unlimited number of people who cannot comprehend their crimes in order to maintain a system that will continue to torture people.

Let's pin down Phrasma's stance.

As far as the narrative in Pathfinder is concerned, Pharasma is always right.

Is she always on the side of right? Or is she singly focused on ensuring (and maybe delaying) the creation of the next universe and absolutely has the correct knowledge about how to do so? Without alignment, we can really ask these questions.

In theory, when alignment was part of the game, Phrasma should have been an opposing force to the party just as much percent of her appearances as Abadar, right? That is, if you took a random 30 appearances of each or their followers across the pre-remaster period, you would find them opposed to the party vs. aligned with the party at the same ratio? I doubt it. The only time I remember her opposing the party is at the beginning of Tyrant's Grasp.

In 1e, she allowed NE clerics, but I'm absolutely confused about what they would do. I've been told since 2006 that "Neutral is not Good-lite." I still have the same response that if I'm a Neutral traveler, I would absolutely prefer to sleep at the inn of a Good-aligned innkeeper than an Evil innkeeper. Did a NE cleric of Phrasma ever appear? In 2e, She only allowed GN, TN, LN followers. (Is Phrasma Neutral on Law-Chaos? clearly no) I'm pinning a "good-lite" label on TN Phrasma.

Pharasma didn't care about good or evil, and doesn't care about holy or unholy, though? The presence or absence of the unholy trait is irrelevant when it comes to her.

Phrasma allows neither sanctification, however, a list of tasks she might assign her followers includes killing Soul-stealing Fiends, but not Celestials. So Holy could be helpful to her followers. The wiki says "Her followers ... carry tiny vials of holy water"

Let's look at the wiki:

anathema "rob a tomb" is replaced with "take from the dead in bad faith".

Her followers can take from the dead in good faith? Or in no faith at all? There are many ways to interpret this. Let's say a rich man is buried with his wealth, and a young Phrasmain cleric vows to keep his tomb sealed. A few years later, a judge rules that his wealth was acquired through fraud. Is breaking the cleric's vow 'Bad faith,' or was the rich man already acting in bad faith because of the fraud? What if he does break the seal, and later finds out the judge was corrupt? I think he's under no obligation to correct his mistake. Is the only way a Phrasmain cleric can be bad is in unlikely hypotheticals?

Worshipers

Midwives, pregnant women, morticians

So a villainous Midwife is just not doing her job correctly? A villainous mortician can't worship Phrasma and steal from the dead in bad faith. I guess they could overcharge the families for their services? I'm aware of jokes about a Pregnant Woman (sidebar for non-woman who can get pregnant?) using her embryo as a hostage to commit crimes. It absolutely feels like she only allows evil in the silliest situations?

Edicts

Strive to understand ancient prophecies, destroy undead, lay bodies to rest
Anathema
Create undead, desecrate a corpse, take from the dead in bad faith

Do 'Destory undead'and 'Don't create Undead' are at the center of this whole discussion. 'Understand ancient prophecies' is almost certainly not meant to apply to Great One Olds or Outer Gods, so it's not evil. I have a personal bugbear about "desecrating corpses" in settings with undead. There should be agreement that any corpse that might be turned against you can be chopped up or burnt, as long as you do it respectfully. By Earth rules, Lastwall should be making efforts to return bodies of living whispering way followers to Tar-Baphon and/or the church of Urgathoa. You can't just import Earth practices into a fantasy setting.

The Pharasmin Penitence is an extremist sect that views worldly pleasures as going against Pharasma's plans and actively seek out those whom they feel upset their beliefs by making life easier, for instance, arcane casters

Alright, that's a villainous group. Phrasma doesn't care about suffering or boredom.

Iomedae still bears a slight grudge against her for not revealing Aroden's impending death

This is silly, and the only source seems to be a 2008 book. I really hope this isn't canon, especially as it appears to be only "legends" that Phrasma knew. (there is some Canon dispute on Phrasma's foreknowledge)

The god of accidental death, Zyphus has a fierce rivalry with the Lady of Graves, but it is not altogether clear if this feeling is mutual.

Zyphus, 'Most Hated Rival of Pharasma,' 'Most other gods view him as more of an annoyance than an actual threat' I think this guy is a masochist looking to get stepped on by the most powerful woman he can find.

Pharasma's clergy often worked with those of Aesocar, especially those who delivered Azlanti babies

This is interesting. Aesocar is labeled as LG, but she was involved in Azlanti "creation of life, creating many lifeforms through magic." I assume Pharasma was aware that the Azlanti were slaves of the Alghollthu, making any lifeform they create also slaves. So maybe Phrasma is ok with the creation of slave races? That's pretty evil.

Maybe Pharasma is more evil than I thought.

I believe the real world reason is that they've been "halflings" since TSR was sued by Tolkien Enterprises for using some Middle Earth names (ents [treants], hobbits [halflings], balrogs [Type VI demons/balors]).

There's no point in renaming halflings now. In about 8 and a half years, the original version of 'The Hobbit' will enter the US public domain, and every Fantasy setting will immediately be full of them. This will be followed by the Tolkien estate claiming totally reasonable extrapolation of the first edition's depiction of Hobbits is actually based on later works. (See also: the period where only the first couple Sherlock Holmes books were out of copyright, and the Doyle estate claimed "respecting women" was only a trait you could have stolen out of a later book)

Arkat wrote:

Really? "cross-breed" is offensive??

Yes. Yes it is.

I'm not a biologist, but I know how to research and remember stuff. Modern Humans do not have the "genotype–phenotype relationships and phenotypic diversity" of Dog Breeds. Calling any Human a cross-breed is explicitly inaccurate. Therefore, it's similar to B$%#@, an insult by comparison to dogs. (Cite: https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-01 09-y) (I like dogs better than humans, so I would use this insult)

I'm actually kinda obsessed with the idea of playing a character who failed the test of the Starstone now. I'm thinking of Neo in the Matrix after the oracle tells him he's not "the one."

Thanks for the feedback. I'm assuming retraining is pretty easy, so weapon trait specific options aren't traps, but could cost downtime.

You're right that swift capacity is too strong. I think I'll move it to a fighter/champion/ranger/barbarian feat at some level. I really want flash grip and swift grip to be available to many classes, but you're right that action compression should be class feats.

I want lozenges to be stronger, but I think buffing them directly is a better approach. I'll wait to see the alchemist remaster first, however. I have a lot of hopes riding on that one.

I'm eager to try occult witch plus loremaster with 6 slots of Hypercognition. "Just hand me the stat block, GM."

Bear in mind, Pathfinder in particular owes a lot of its DNA to 3rd edition D&D... which had a "core" pantheon of (IMO, insanely boring and forgettable) Greyhawk deities... but never used the words "Greyhawk" or "Oerth" anywhere in the text.

Vecna is an amazing god, actually. Probably my favorite D&D God in the strictest terms about what a god is. St. Cuthbert demanding good so much he's neutral about it makes him a great antagonist (for the time and place I was, at least) Pholtus also makes clear that Greyhawk good does not equal our good. Wee Jas is one of the better death gods in D&D and has some fantastic imagery. Corellon Larethian is the biggest example of "your good is not our good." He/She was abusive of Lolth and her followers, has next to no regrets about it, but is still CG.

This entry needed to be about twice as long to have the emotional impact it deserved. All the right pieces are there, but it moved too fast to settle me in one mood before moving to another. I know you have word limits for good reason, but I think this one suffered.

I have a bit of a long-term prediction, that whoever dies, there will be a future event where they come back, but it'll be after years. Maybe the transition to 3E. Because if I recall correctly, they said the dead deity wasn't going to be brought back "at the end of the thing", nothing about them not pulling a Red Hood.

...which honestly I think would be really cool; the deity comes back, possibly changed, and the world's already moved on without them. No returning to where they had been, because that spot has been filled.

The whole problem with "killing off a character and then bringing them back to life" is the idea of doing something for shock value, but then undoing it so you can maintain the status quo. But if the status quo does NOT survive, then "the character's continued status as dead" becomes less important.

Whoever dies will echo in the setting for a long time. Aroden is still a big deal.

Rant about Red Hood

Saw this on Reddit and it was an instant buy for me. A PF2e Video game? Finally! It’s clearly worth the $5 price tag, but I’m torn between “leaves you wanting more” and “maybe classes should have more than a single 2nd level feat?” I thought it had good encounter design, but terrible writing. I’d have played more if Champion was an available class.

Take Nenio with you at the end of act four, and you get what I think is the funniest dialogue in the game.

In any case, the idea that Desna's butterfly-elf form isn't enitrely her original holds merit.

A BUTTERFLY isn't in its original form?

Dranngvit is dead? I'm free! I'm free!

My Money is still on Torag to bite it.

Or, maybe we get more than one dead deity.

I went back and reread his Justice League series. Thirty-five years later, people still talk about Batman punching out Guy. It's hard to imagine anything printed in today's Justice League provoking such a reaction.

Nevertheless, it seems strange to me that a rogue pretending to be a monk will likely outdamage a true monk at the monk's niche: unarmed strikes.

this was already true with thaumaturge.

Aww man I liked Pathfinder Training bonus feats/lore :'D

Sidenote, did any society scenario have enemies weak to Law/Chaos damage? Maybe one protean somewhere? I'm mostly curious if there was any guidelines for those situation

My thaumaturge did deal law damage at one point, so this could be a nerf to him.

You had economics in high school?

I taught economics in high school.

I'm still thinking of more than one death.

However, I will remind you that Razmiran, more than any other evil force, can raise a character about the institutional nature of evil, which cannot be defeated by killing the leader of the villains. Razmir is not so much a direct "god" as a mask. Anyone can take his place.

I think an unusual plot could be a political-detective story where the group confronts Razmiran in order to find out that now we are faced with the third Razmir at this place.

A PC must become the Fourth Dread pirate Roberts.

Sanityfaerie wrote:

...and the great part about this is that it forces them to engage with the world, but doesn't necessarily force them to do so in an actively hostile way. Like, a lich can totally be sating its undead hunger by finding some way t make lots of money and then winning auctions for rare tomes... or by buying all those rare and valuable experimental components... or by hiring adventuring parties!

Or subscribing to all research (not only magical) magazines or reports of all Golarion's academies.

And obviously, no self-respecting lich is not subscribed to Pathfinder Chronicles.

New head-canon: the Decemvirate are 9/10 liches.

Dancing Wind wrote:

Quote:

We are currently sold out of Pathfinder Beginner Boxes, with news on that to come!

Is this a GenCon announcement or just a 'reorder process went awry' announcement?

Nothing is awry. We don’t have anything further to announce today.

Speculation: New Beginner box for Remaster.

"Look at me. I am the patron now."

AceofMoxen wrote:

OP is starting with PF1 now, in 2023. So PF1 is running on a system that was cutting edge 23 years ago, which I rounded to 25.

Wow.

That's a long time.

I maintain that PF1 is badly flawed, and it always worried me that few were interested in addressing those flaws within the system without creating a new one.

3rd edition was fine, 3.5 was incredible, but by late 3.5 (the polymorph fix and swift actions), the system was showing its age compared to newer games. Pathfinder one killed dead levels and improved on 3.5, but at that point, the game was improving much slower than the gaming landscape around it. Unchained didn't solve much, and the late PF1 stuff seemed to lean into problems rather than introduce solutions.

Freehold DM wrote:

AceofMoxen wrote:

Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:

PF2. Cleaner ruleset. Closer parity between classes. 3 Action economy.

This, and a million little things that make up keftiu's comment, and I was genuinely tried of 3.5's problems. PF1 starts with a 25-years out of date operating system. We've had so many innovations since then.

3.x was 25 years old when pf1 came out? That can't be right...can it?

No, it can't. 3.0 released in 2000, then 3.5 was like 2 years later. Pathfinder, as a system, released in 2009.

sigh. OP is starting with PF1 now, in 2023. So PF1 is running on a system that was cutting edge 23 years ago, which I rounded to 25.

keftiu wrote:

Tropkagar wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Also wasn’t the Consortium in P1 at the climax of Organized Play?

I'm not aware of Organized Play at all.

That’s where 90% of the Aspis Consortium content is - they’ve been one of, if not the single main antagonists across Society’s run.

Even if you don’t do Organized Play (like me!), the scenarios have a lot of fun lore that isn’t found anywhere else.

In that case, I think a book about this organization is all the more needed.

Having played PFS2, I think the Consortium is intentionally vague. Many scenarios have no actual agents, but a warning that if you fail, the Consortium will do the job instead. I think a lack of lore is a strength of the Aspis.

It seems to me that "the exception suggests the rule," but must be considered with other factors. It's not an overiding rule, but could be evidence towards a rule.

PF2. Cleaner ruleset. Closer parity between classes. 3 Action economy.

This, and a million little things that make up keftiu's comment, and I was genuinely tried of 3.5's problems. PF1 starts with a 25-years out of date operating system. We've had so many innovations since then.