CaptainRelyk's page

If half dragons are finally coming then hype!!!! I love dragons!!!

But I do have a concern

If half dragons are coming, I hope it can be versatile in appearance

I already know some people are going to go for the “human with horns” like D&D3e’s half dragons, but me and others are gonna want a very draconic look, with a head like a dragon and a tail and full scales and everything, like half dragons in D&D5e or Belmazog. https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=1546 https://www.worldanvil.com/uploads/images/7e10fc404270ff23ab418867bebbee23. jpg

Belmazog is a half black dragon, and she has a very strong draconic appearence, and that draconic appearance is what I would like. I think she is from the ApA adventure for PF2e

But some people are just gonna wanna play a half dragon that looks like a human with horns and maybe a couple scales, like Au’ra from final fantasy

If half dragons are coming, they should have versatile appeared like Nagaji. Nagaji could look like a human with a couple scales or maybe just serpent eyes, or they could look very snake like with snake head tail and everything

I don’t want to be forced to give my half dragon a “human with horns look”. I like my half dragons to show physically they have a dragon parent and to look tall and have a dragon head and tail and clawed feet and everything

I know alignment won’t matter anymore soon but I feel this needs to be clarified

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=95

According to these rules, “Chaotic characters believe that lawful characters are too inflexible to judge each situation by its own merits or take advantage of opportunities, while lawful characters believe that chaotic characters are irresponsible and flighty”

Are we truly forced to have our chaotic characters believe lawful characters are inflexible or forced to have our lawful characters believe chaotic characters are flighty?

I could see a lawful good paladin character disagreeing on a couple things with a chaotic good liberator but otherwise believes the liberator to be a champion of good like them and see them as responsible

Why couldn’t a Paladin believe a liberator is responsible?

The rules are clear as day that your character is forced to think a certain way about a lawful character if their chaotic or forced to think a certain way about chaotic characters if they are lawful

But no good GM would force your character to think a certain way because of this

But this is PFS, where GMs have to follow the rules to a T

So what is the ruling? Is my lawful character forever forced to think chaotic characters are irresponsible and flighty?

As someone who is obsessed with dragons… I would love more dragon gods and the introduction of new dragons is the perfect time to introduce more dragon gods

So far we only have Apsu and Uvuko (is Uvuko a dragon? There’s criminally low lore on him and that’s a shame) that are good aligned and thus PFS legal and allowed at most tables. All the other dragon gods are evil-aligned like Dahuk, though I don’t know much outside of Dahuk and Ragadahn, and a lot of tables ban evil characters and evil characters aren’t allowed in PFS

Perhaps good and evil (or holy and unholy) dragons that cover the other bases?

Like a healing and life based or beauty based dragon god or a musical dragon god, or a magic based one, or a dragon god of undeath?

PF2e discord westmarch that allows Battlezoo and allows for lawful good redeemers

I’ve been searching for months for a westmarch that allows for battlezoo and also things like lawful good redeemers but I haven’t had luck

So I ask you all, is there any place where I can use battlezoo and play a lawful good redeemer?

Bonus points if they believe in the motto “flavor is free” and lets my character create flowers in the palm of their hand like that druidcraft cantrip in D&D

I’ve been searching for months for a westmarch that allows for battlezoo and also things like lawful good redeemers but I haven’t had luck

So I ask you all, is there any place where I can use battlezoo and play a lawful good redeemer?

I am wanting to make this character but I have some questions

1: she is a Human (tiefling) wyrmkin domain warpriest of Apsu, what sourcebooks do I need to own?

2: does the ancestry feat “arcane tattoos” require ACP or anything else or is it free to use?

3: anything in general i should know?

Heads up

I’ve been talking to Jon, who is the Paizo Community and Social Media Specialist, in email and I sent him the following message:

“Hello,

Thanks for reaching out.

I do have a question

While I am sure reasonable GMs will let your character do things like create sparkles, illusionary rain in a 5x5 space while your character performs a sad song, glowing eyes or create floral scents, the concern is with PFS, GMs who are very strict and only allow “RAW”, and WM/Living Worlds. Those three things are why I feel prestidigitation needs to allow for fun flavorful magic tricks like the ones I listed.”

Here is his response:

“Hi Captainrelyk,
Thanks for the reply. I can understand why you would want something like that with more flavor. Unfortunately, PFS needs to run with a much wider eye to things like game balance, and while you may use such a power for purely roleplay reasons, someone else might use it to break the game or create a shortcut somehow that causes issues for the GM running the game. PFS needs to be balanced at a much higher level than a regular game of Pathfinder, as may players are competitive about playing the game.”

I’ve seen people told about using the cantrip to create sparkles and other harmless sensory effects like the cantrip’s 5e counterpart; but, at least according to John, it isn’t allowed. Make with this what you will

If need be, I can provide a screenshot of the email as proof

Thank you,

I know I’ve been difficult, but despite my difficulty a lot of you responded in kindness and helped me realize what a major problem in my life was.

I’ve had a couple sour experiences, but overall this community is amazing and I feel really welcome.

You all are so kind, and understanding.

Not one but numerous people reached out and offered their PMs as a place for me to vent to, people have expressed concerned and throughout my difficulties people have still responded in kindness and understanding

So again, thank you

I’ve only been in this community for a couple months but I can already tell this will be one of the new online communities I have ever had the pleasure of being in

To end on a lighthearted note, I have an ancient secret about pathfinder dragons that I have found in the ruins of the TaalkTwoMuuch Temple that I want to share with you all!

Anyone else find it weird that to take fighter archetype you have to have 14 str AND 14 dex? Especially when fighters are supposed to vary from the buff full plate hunk to the nimble and quick cross bow shooter

And champion. You have to have 14 str and 14 charisma. Charisma minimum makes sense, but strength?

I get the archetypical champion is a knight in shining armor but that doesn’t make sense for all champions

A champion of Sivanah or Bastet or The Lantern Kingdom isn’t going to be buff or wear noisy plate armor. No, they gonna be wearing leather and be dexterous and nimble.

Fighters should be changed to 14 dex OR 14 str, or perhaps 14 dex OR 14 str AND 14 con

Champion should be 14 dex OR 14 str AND 14 charisma

This might be a hot take, but I’m seeing people suggest making cackle a base class feature for witches and I don’t agree with that

Not every witch is the iconic cackling witch, witches vary a lot. Having cackle as part of the base class forces the stereotypical witch flavor onto every single witch, like how lawful alignment restrictions in 1e forced the archetypical “lawful wise monk” flavor into every single monk

Not all witches are the iconic cackling, black cauldron brewing black dress wearing type

For example, my witch is a fervor witch who made a pact with Apsu and is divinely flavored, but isn’t religious or devoted to Apsu like clerics are. Her relationship to Aspu is very much business-like. Cackling doesn’t fit her.

I’ve seen other people suggest this, but if cackle has to be part of the core class (I don’t think it has to), it could be changed to “Witch Hymn”, that way it isn’t just cackling but it could be heavenly chorus singing, child like giggling, or maybe any verbal sound or even any word.

But I think the best solution is to make the witch class better in ways that aren’t restrictive of or enforcing of flavor

Question, with updated spells could we possibly get something like DnD’s version of prestidigation

That is, a cantrip that creates “harmless sensory effects” like sparkles or creating fake rain or making my character’s eyes glow or change color, or making something smell like roses or freshly baked pie

Stuff that would be amazing for role play, and especially for bards wanting to add theatrical effects to their performances, but otherwise doesn’t have mechanical effect

I get pathfinder is very tight with its rules, but I feel there should be things that allow for pure roleplay and flavor.

Question, with updated spells could we possibly get something like DnD’s version of prestidigation

That is, a cantrip that creates “harmless sensory effects” like sparkles or creating fake rain or making my character’s eyes glow or change color, or making something smell like roses or freshly baked pie

Stuff that would be amazing for role play, and especially for bards wanting to add theatrical effects to their performances, but otherwise doesn’t have mechanical effect

I get pathfinder is very tight with its rules, but I feel there should be things that allow for pure roleplay and flavor.

While I am a little miffed about chromatic and metallic dragons no longer getting more love from Paizo, and I’ve even been somewhat jokingly saying “RIP Brass Bois” everywhere, I am admittedly excited for new dragon types

However, all we have been told so far is they they “look cool”. While I don’t doubt that, what I’m and I’m sure others are really interested in is how are the dragons gonna be like personality and characteristic wise?

The reason I love brass dragons so much is they are hilarious and fun. They are extremely chatty and very social, they are a little goofy, and they are very very energetic and hyper.

We need dragons that have personalities and characteristics that make then despicable and terrifying, something heroes can fight, but we also need dragons, like brass dragons or copper dragons, who are lovable and well liked, a dragon that would get along with heroes or at the very least cause hilarious chaos.

I can’t wait to see the “badass” dragons as Mark described the new dragons as being, but I also want a lovable dragon to fill the void that metallic dragons such as brass or copper dragons used to fill.

“Lovable” dragons led to iconic moments such as Barnaby the Brass Dragon in the D&D community, a dragon who just wanted friends to party with but was abandoned and forgotten by mean adventurers. I remember people told me a couple stories of their encounters with brass bois, forgot if it was D&D or Pathfinder, but one of them said a brass dragon dramatically landed in front of the party and then asked loudly “DO YOU WANT TO HAVE SOME SOUP?” And then proceeded to give free soup to the party. The other person mentioned they were making small talk with a brass dragon, and then one of the party members offered the dragon coffee. The dragon drank the coffee and all hell broke loose. Caffeine in the system of a hyper creature does not bode well. The dragon become extremely energized and hilarity ensued. Nothing more fun than a huge and very hyper dragon that just wants a fren to talk to

I’m hoping one of the new dragons can fill that lovable dragon role, so we can get similar moments like these.

The alignment restrictions on classes in 1e aren’t fun , and I am so glad it didn’t carry over to 2e

The alignment restrictions were put in place because of what Paizo, or WoTC with old dnd editions, thought a member of a class should be like

Monks had to be lawful because of the thought they were following codes and were either the obedient student type or the wise master type. Except characters like Goku from DBZ or even Wukong from Chinese mythology show that monk types didn’t have to be lawful and can be chaotic. So you can’t play the ambitious free spirited traveling young monk type.

Barbarians having to be chaotic didn’t make sense. I imagine it was because the word “chaotic” was taken literally and not in the alignment sense? Like, the leader of a barbarian tribe would make sense to be chaotic. A barbarian who is an honorable warrior, might be lawful good.

And bards being unable to be lawful. Apparently they thought all bards had to be Charlatan types. Because we can’t have a bard who’s about being a supportive ally who encourages others. Or jesters. A jester, arguably a type of bard, serves kings and would make sense for them to be lawful

And assassins having to be evil only. Because being good at taking out certain targets stealthily requires you to be evil? If the game series Assassin’s Creed is anything to go by, it’s possible for an assassin to be good. Multiple examples of assassins fighting for good and taking out evil tyrants or other evil figures. You tell me the assassins during WWII who killed nazis either through poison, stealth kills, disguises or other means are evil?

1e forces your character to act a certain way and that sucks. I’m so glad it didn’t carry over to 2e.

The alignment restrictions on classes in 1e were stupid, and I am so glad it didn’t carry over to 2e

The alignment restrictions were put in place because of what Paizo, or WoTC with old dnd editions, thought a member of a class should be like

Monks had to be lawful because of the thought they were following codes and were either the obedient student type or the wise master type. Except characters like Goku from DBZ or even Wukong from Chinese mythology show that monk types didn’t have to be lawful and can be chaotic. So you can’t play the ambitious free spirited traveling young monk type.

Barbarians having to be chaotic didn’t make sense. I imagine it was because the word “chaotic” was taken literally and not in the alignment sense? Like, the leader of a barbarian tribe would make sense to be chaotic. A barbarian who is an honorable warrior, might be lawful good.

And bards being unable to be lawful. Apparently they thought all bards had to be Charlatan types. Because we can’t have a bard who’s about being a supportive ally who encourages others. Or jesters. A jester, arguably a type of bard, serves kings and would make sense for them to be lawful

And assassins having to be evil only. Because being good at taking out certain targets stealthily requires you to be evil? If the game series Assassin’s Creed is anything to go by, it’s possible for an assassin to be good. Multiple examples of assassins fighting for good and taking out evil tyrants or other evil figures. You tell me the assassins during WWII who killed nazis either through poison, stealth kills, disguises or other means are evil?

1e forces your character to act a certain way and that sucks. I’m so glad it didn’t carry over to 2e.

People were talking about alignment in another thread so I decided to make this thread so people can talk about it here instead.

I think alignment for the sake of clerics and who they are allowed to follow is fine

But otherwise the heavy alignment mechanics, like alignment damage, shouldn’t be in the game, at least in my and many others’ opinions

Things like The Dragon Prince or Game of Thrones or LotR or The Witcher doesn’t have people get damaged by alignment because alignment damage would make writing complex characters who aren’t 2-dimensional hard

Seeing that people are really focusing on story, roleplay, character and other similar things now, alignment damage shouldn’t have carried over. D&D did away with alignment damage, other TTRPGs don’t have any alignment damage stuff, like MoM, Shadowrun and other things doesn’t have any alignment damage in it.

I feel like having alignment so integrated into mechanics hurts complex villains or characters

The only reason alignment damage exists is because it existed in the previous edition and that’s it.

Alignment damage doesn’t exist in an era where people are focusing a lot more on story and rp

What happens when a villain who is either doing evil things in pursuit of a good noble goal or thinks they are the hood guy takes good damage? Alignment damage only works for black and white cartoonishly evil villains

Alignment damage is a leftover from early dnd editions where crunch and war gaming was the focus

D&D ditched alignment damage, PF should have as well

Thankfully, the really stupid things like monks having to be lawful or barbarians having to be chaotic are gone. You can play a chaotic good monk or a lawful good barbarian in 2e.

> A witch's patron** is a mysterious entity**,** rarely** known or understood even by the witch in that patron's service. The nature of the relationship between a witch and their patron can serve as details for character development and storytelling. When playing a witch, work with your GM to determine the nature of your patron and how much of that nature you know, both as a player and a character. There are countless ways to handle a witch's patron; the following are just a few approaches you might take.

I get that the “typical” witch patron is stuff similair to Cthulhu or other things but not all patrons have to be that

I was gonna make a fervor witch who made a pact with Apsu but apparently I can’t cause Apsu isn’t mysterious

Why limit flavor? Why make it to where all our witch patrons have to be mysterious? Why limit creativity and story like this?

Witch patrons shouldn’t all have to be a Mysterious Cosmic Horror, especially with the themes you guys created such as fervor

To compare to dnd, warlocks don’t have to have mysterious patrons. An Archfey warlock can make a pact with a not mysterious Archfey god.

Also

> A patron might be a deity or demigod, a coven of powerful hags, a fey lord, an archdevil, or a similarly powerful entity, or perhaps multiple such figures working in tandem. As you gain more of your patron's power, you might learn more about who or what they are—certain combinations of themes and lessons suggest particular patrons or agendas—but patrons empower witches for their **own secretive reasons**, which they rarely reveal in full.

We aren’t allowed to have patrons make a pact with a clearly defined reason.

If I had it be that apsu made a pact with my character on the basis they use their power for good

Well, that isn’t a secretive Reason. It’s clear Apsu is making a pact to promote the greater good

A lot of people came over from 5e to PF2e, and to make PFS more welcoming and to make it easier for people to recreate their DnD characters in PF, I think we should make a couple more ancestries free

Most notably, I think tieflings, aasimar and maybe even Lizardfolk free

A lot of people in the DnD community mainly played tieflings, and they aren’t going to find PFS fun. They have to spend ACP to make a tiefling character, which kind of sucks especially coming from D&D, whose organized play doesn’t place limits on ancestries but also has tieflings as a base race.

I understand limiting or even outright banning rare ancestries or heritages, like automatons and stuff, but I feel like options need to open up a little more.

People love tieflings, and I can’t imagine they’d be happy having to wait a long time to create another tiefling character. Not everyone wants to keep playing the same old human/elf/dwarf.

While I sort of understand why ACP is placed on uncommon ancestries, it does hurt character concepts and player freedom with characters in favor of gamey mechanics where you have to unlock the right to use an ancestry for a character like a video game, which I don’t think meshes all that well in a TTRPG where people have character concepts with backstories and personality of their own creation, with a game that has RP as a major focus.

Keeping a couple rare ancestries behind ACP I think is incentive enough to encourage people to DM or to keep playing.

I think Lizardfolk, catfolk, hobgoblins, nagaji and gnolls should be free too but that might be asking too much

We can’t even use ACP. Why lock such a fun and flavorful item away from us? I would love to have my character wear weird clothing, and it sucks that this item, which has very minimal mechanical impact, is not allowed in society.

There is no good reason to not allow us to buy this item, please allow us to buy it. Even if it’s “uncommon”, it isn’t far fetched for a character with a weird fashion sense to find a local tailor and pay them to make them weird clothing.

“A dragonkin CAN form a permanent bond with one willing non-dragonkin creature. Once this bond is made, a dragonkin cannot form another partner bond unless its current partner dies. A dragonkin and its partner can communicate with each other as if they both had telepathy with a range of 100 feet. In combat, when a dragonkin is within 30 feet of its partner, both creatures roll initiative checks separately and treat the higher result as the result for both of them.”

The feature description says it is optional, meaning we should be allowed to play a Dragonkin who refuses to make a bond with anyone, but according to Society rules we HAVE to make a bond.

“When you create a dragonkin character, you MUST select another player’s character to form your partner bond with. Mark down that character’s Organized Play number on your character sheet. If that character is permanently slain, then you can select a new partner bond by marking a new Organized Play number on your character sheet between sessions.”

That doesn’t seem like it’s optional. I feel like the intention was to provide a clear ruling on how to handle the Dragonkin Partner Bond feature in SFS, but the way it is written makes it seem like I have to make a bond instead of having the option to not make one.

The reason I bring this up is because I have a character that is a Dragonkin and in order for him to work, he can’t have a Partner Bond

This character despises the thought of making a partner bond with a humanoid. He views such a bond as “shackles” and is going out to basically say “hey look at me, I am free, I am not some person’s mount”

He doesn’t like triaxians because he views them as slavers of his kind (even if that may not be entirely true), and he judges other Dragonkin for making such bonds.

Ancestry feature or not it’s optional, a Dragonkin should have the choice to not bond with a humanoid.

In fact someone told me That was supported by lore due to there being an entire group of Dragonkin who refuse to make bonds (Don’t know which group and that person could have been wrong)

Cause that rule imo just takes some autonomy from a player character

There are other reason to make it optional. What if a Dragonkin wants to seek out a worthy person to make a bond with? To be able to do RP or quests with another character to lead up to them making a partner bond. Cause a partner bond isn’t just a mechanical feature, it has story and has story and character implications. A Dragonkin only gets to bind with one person unless they die. A player shouldn’t be force to quickly find someone to make a bond with and should have the option to roleplay with another character and have that bond actually mean something. And also we should be able to create Dragonkin who don’t want to make bonds.

I don’t think the intention was to turn it into a non-optional thing. I think the intention was just to clarify how to handle bonds but because it was worded weirdly it becomes a “must” and not a “can”.