Corwin Icewolf's page

*** Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 463 posts (470 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 50 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 463 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Chase young from xiaolin showdown for lawful evil. Gleefully sets lava on innocents but let's the heroes go for no other reason then "I gave my word, accepted your challenge, and lost"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
A Humble Calf wrote:
You just have to weight them to se if they weight the same as a duck.

No, that's for witches. Wizards hang out with kings and kings sit on thrones, and thrones are cushioned, therefore you need a butt that's very cushioned with fat to be a wizard.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Should note that the signature kasatha fighting style in 1e was dual-wielding bows.

As someone who is cross dominant this always bothered me. I'm right handed, but left-eyed so in order to shoot accurately (with a bow or a gun) I need to shoot left-handed.

It seems very difficult to hold two bows in your two right hands (since they're going to get in each other's way), and it seems impossible to hold a bow in your left set of hands and your right set of hands.

FWIW, I have also always been bothered by the "gun in each hand" thing you see in action movies. This accomplishes nothing unless your only goal is "put a lot of lead down range without any particular preference about what you hit with it."

Which makes sense to do in a world where most people can survive one bullet, to be fair.


Would it be problematic to lean into the "answers to their god and their sense of justice alone" aspect? It's definitely something I'd want still in the class... Not that it's a huge deal to me, personally.

aobst128 wrote:
What if it's a rogue racket?

Then it'd likely overlap too much with a divine based eldritch trickster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AceofMoxen wrote:
Thess wrote:
The stakes are real, and they could party wipe with bad planning or bad luck. In a Pathfinder game, they’d just run into the cave and use some power or another to win and I, the GM, would be bored to tears.

Coming from 5 years of 5e, this is the opposite of my reaction to PF2 combat. Compared to their biggest competitor, Pathfinder is already much harder. Your group must be real pros if they just randomly clear Level +3 encounters.

I think they were talking about 1e, where everything they said was 120% accurate, for good or ill. They said upthread that they hadn't had much chance to try 2e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thess wrote:


2 Progression is too steep. A fifth level character can fight 1st level villains all day without breaking a sweat. We have been playing OSR games with flatter curves and have been much happier.

PF2E isn't any better in that, to be honest. Pretty sure it's intentional, too. A lot of people in playtest, myself included, wanted level to really matter, and as a result pretty much anything 3 or more levels lower than you is a bug to be stepped on.

PF2E does reward specialization less than 1E though. Mainly in that using the same tactic in all situations ever is eventually not going to work. But also there's a lot less of x stat to y going on.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't like the fact that I accidentally hit refresh and lost the entire page of gripes that I just wrote... *Sobs*

I don't understand barbarians having anathema. Do Giant barbarians worship Giants, and the Giants give them the power to rage in return? If not then what's enforcing the anathema? If so then how are Giants and dragons and animals giving out power like gods.

I don't like the ancestries being so bare bones.

I didn't like material components for spells the way they were presented in pf1e and I'd prefer 5e arcane foci than a bag of random garbage powering your spells. I also don't like that wizards need to spend a feat just to avoid using said bag of random garbage.

I don't like how weak player characters are without magic items at higher levels. "Oh you're a level 5 fighter? You got stronger, but not stronger enough. Time to go buy/steal someone else's power. Or learn to craft magic weapons yourself I guess..."

As someone said above, I don't like that casters don't get a level one feat because it discourages playing non human casters.

I don't like how weak low levels are in general. I don't like how hard it is in PFS to start at a higher level than level one. I've done the level one song and dance so many times at this point. I'm sick and tired of having to take characters up through the rat slaughtering levels.


Xethik wrote:


Moment of Clarity is only first level, so a later career boost to it seems reasonable. It could even be a class archetype like the Gunslingers, locking you into a specific Instinct.

It could also itself be an instinct that gives you sorcerer dedication, and some new tricks along with it. Of course, presumably they'd have to figure out anathema for it.


Perpdepog wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
AlastarOG wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Anyone upholding the 3.5 wizard as a standard of "balanced" is never going to be happy with anything that gets made within the mainstream RPG industry today, unless someone makes an RPG called Wizard: kneel before me or die.
They did, it's called Mage: the awakening and it's actually quite fun !
I prefer Ars Magica for my Wizards are Gods games.
I'm a fan of Godbound, myself.

Godbound always kinda bothered me with it's odd armor system. It wasn't complicated, super simple actually, just worked pretty weirdly.

Have to admit it's a really easy system to learn though, so I have a better chance of converting people to it than the others being talked about here. Even if I might prefer mage or ars magica. Never actually played ars magica, tbh.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I tend to agree with the people saying spell penetration is boring.

As a rule, plus ones with nothing else attached are boring. They were boring back in 3.0/3.5 when 90% of your levels gave you +1s and nothing else, and 90% of fighter feats looked like

Superior ultimate great weapon specialization

Prerequisites: superior weapon focus, great weapon focus, ultimate weapon specialization, weapon specialization, weapon focus.

You gain another boring +1 to your attack and damage rolls. Yahoo, I guess...

In pf1 Paizo figured out they were boring, and gave every non caster something at every level, and even gave most casters something at all even levels. So a boring plus one being defended as a great feat kind of irritates me.

Temperans wrote:


Take for example action costs. The 3 action system is great for adding versatility. But it's mostly just Martials who enjoy that as they get multiple ways to interact with the action economy. Casters do not have those interactions. What little interactions they do have is gained only at high level and are very limited.

Many of the new spells in secrets of magic allow for exactly that, actually. Gravity pull, and elemental annihilation wave, for instance. I'd still like more interesting wizard feats, though.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd rather a more lamia/naga like version of the nagaji than adding serpentfolk. I don't mind what my snake people are called, but if they still have legs then I don't see the point, tbh.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

A soul eater style, living weapon ancestry. Essentially a sentient weapon that has an alternate form as a person.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't play many weapon wizards personally, but I'm gonna go ahead and say I'm in support of this anyway, to make the concept easier for other players.


Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
Verdyn wrote:
Power creep isn't a bad thing.
I strongly disagree.

I guess it depends on if you're happy with the current level of power in the game or if you'd like it to be higher.


SuperBidi wrote:
Salamileg wrote:
This does evoke the image of young apprentice wizards having to practice the Air Bubble spell by intentionally drowning themselves.

And the ones breaking their necks when practicing Feather Fall.

That's why there are so few Wizards.

Nah, you don't have to do either.

Air bubble: have someone pinch their nose and lie down in less than 1 foot of water. Assuming they aren't a sprite or other tiny ancestry, if they don't notice an air bubble, they can just sit up.

Feather fall: just jump. Immediately after you're at the apex of your jump, you will be falling, and therefore a valid target for feather fall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pretty much. What I gather from the essays in secrets of magic is that yes there's a connection between occult and arcane, moreso than the other traditions. But it's that occult is the art to arcane's science. So I don't think a wizard should have an occult option either, just like I don't think bards should have arcane as an option.

Not in the main classes anyway. I could see adding some archetypes that switch spell lists.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It... Doesn't really make sense to me when I try to think about what it means from an in universe perspective, and raises questions about what spell slots even are.


If someone wants to spend all their first level slots and 30-60 minutes fixing a vase, sure why not?


Arklore wrote:

Going way back to the beginning of this, with 2E you have tons of options on builds that get you away from the 1E big six or the mandatory must-haves.

Perhaps there will be some alternate rules published where instead of runes, martial types will just be able to hit harder or more potently with their weapons similar to heightened spells? Like anything, there are pros and cons to this but in the games/tables I have run, the ability to actually hit seems more critical.

That's uh... Exactly what ABP is. An alternate rule that gives you those bonuses innately.

It can be hard to find GMs willing to run alternate rules when the main system is what they know though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Was ABP not made with alchemists in mind? It seems problematic if it wasn't, considering alchemist is a core class now. But the way their bonuses work...
Alchemist from the start were practicaly thrown to the side compare to how the rest of the system functions. Like the entire class on release was barely playable due to half the options either not working properly, being hard to use without having 4 hands and twice the bulk, or just straight up not really supported.

I think the bulk issues were mostly mistakes, to be fair.

The fact that the alchemist pregen in pfs doesn't line up with the original bulk for the alchemist's pack supports this.

But even so, if abp didn't take into account how alchemist's bonuses work, then like I said that's really questionable.


Was ABP not made with alchemists in mind? It seems problematic if it wasn't, considering alchemist is a core class now. But the way their bonuses work...


Themetricsystem wrote:

Am I the only one here more bothered by the OTHER clearly best-in-slot Magic Items that are pitched at individual types of Characters than they are by Runes? To me Runes are ... yeah required, but they're at least something that more or less is universally assumed as being part of the normal advancement of a character through their career.

Ring of Wizardry, Doubling Rings, Lifting Belts, and the dozens of great Wayfinder+Ioun Stone combos are just absolute no-brainers for the concepts they support that NOT picking them up represents essentially just choosing to worse at your role than pretty much everyone else. In many ways, some of these things are actually even more powerful and impactful than another mere +1 to hit with a single Weapon or a bonus to Saving throws you rarely have to actually check on.

Well, doubling rings are funny. If you use abp they aren't needed and if you don't and play a two weapon fighter they're essential.

Ring of wizardry is uncommon so you may need to put some effort into getting it.

Way finder's are uncommon, though if you're playing society it doesn't matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

Magic items are part of advancement experience in D&D type of games. They have been incorporated as part of advancement since the creation of the game.

I think Paizo was smart to include certain mandatory magic items as a measure of advancement. I think the majority of their customers enjoy magic items being part of the experience of advancement. I think just as getting new spell levels or a new higher level feat is part of increasing your power, getting a new powerful, meaningful, and necessary magic item is part of the character advancement experience.

I still don't really understand it. And can't see it that way. Gold is money, not experience. Buying a new magic item isn't the same as getting a new spell level at all. That spell level is something innate to your character, that's power, your power. Buying a new magic item is getting someone else's power. It's not the same, and doesn't feel as awesome.

Well, To me it feels kinda lame since it means your character is dependent on some random craftsman to do more damage, but I guess I could see someone more socially adept and well adjusted than me finding it cool, maybe even equally cool in a "people stick together and help each other" kinda way...

But I don't understand how anyone could see it as being cooler.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalaam wrote:
Ahahah That's litteraly a Golden Sun spell xD Love it

I mean, bigby's hand predates Golden Sun so I never really thought of it that way, but that is pretty cool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't really understand the people wanting the mandatory magic items myself. Striking runes have actually somewhat turned me off of playing fighters and monks in pfs.

And playing those classes is actually otherwise fun to me in pf2.

But then they get to level 5 and are waffling little wimps without those runes. So they have to then buy more power from somebody else to succeed, instead of getting stronger themselves.

Well, unless they're crafting them themselves of course, but then all my fighter and monk characters also have to also be magic item crafters. Which feels weird.

That's how I feel about it, anyway.


Perpdepog wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
Almost literally no Witch that saw play in the first ed can faithfully be recreated in PF2, they lost all of their punch and utility being locked into just a couple Hexes even at max level.
In fairness, this same situation played out for 1E witches as well. Evil Eye/Misfortune/Slumber/Cackle dominated the majority of witch builds, from what I recall.

I mean, I wouldn't go that far. Those were just the most useful in all combats, which is why they were the most commonly taken. Other hexes were plenty strong and useful, just more niche like giving you water breathing, at will feather fall and flight at higher levels(and making you swim better, because you weigh the same as a duck of course.) Letting you use your hair to grapple people. These were all solid options.

*Shrugs*


I'd be a wizard and learn Create food, then create water, then prestidigitation for flavoring the lousy food created by that and making the water taste like soda but with no calories.

Then, I dunno, probably something I could use to power a generator or something so I can get off the grid. Maybe control water?

Healing would be nice, but I still don't like the idea of depending on a deity or nature for it. I'd have to go with first edition arcane physician...

An immortality/eternal youth ritual that doesn't exist yet, and magnificent mansion would be all I needed from there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that it's a strange design decision regardless of which question you ask.

Because of how it works, first level spellcaster feats have to compete a bit harder with second level spellcaster feats than with martial feats.

And choosing to take less than optimal feats for the sake of following a desired character concept becomes a bit more painful for those who do so...


beowulf99 wrote:

Fair dues on FMA. Like I said, I've never given it a full watch through. But look at it this way: Let's say that some Wizard fully decodes the mysteries of the Universe and fully understands magic. They understand what every symbol and word used as incantation and or somatic component do and exactly why each material component is required. At that point, to that person, Magic would no longer be Magic, it would just be a form of science. But to everyone else it still would be magic.

I mean if I was in the FMA world and didn't understand Alchemy and watched an Alchemist do any of what they do, that would just be magic from my perspective, even if they tried to explain it to me as they did it.

And I think that may be the exact thought process they were going off of in FMA when they had the characters call it science.

But I don't think that thought process works well in pathfinder where there actually is a force that people call magic that's divided into 4 traditions, and things outside of said traditions aren't considered magic by those in the know, no matter how fantastical they are.


beowulf99 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Not really. Are tazers magic? By this logic, they are. What about Firearms, are they magic? Again, by this logic they are.

I mean, ubiquitous, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," quote here.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
After all, I'm not waving my hands, uttering incantations, evoking glyphs of traditional power, to make lightning appear out of nowhere. That's magic.

No, you aren't invoking glyphs of traditional power and waving your hands. Instead you are rubbing together bits of "alchemical essence infused reagents" and making a bomb/elixer/alchemical tool appear out of no where. That is also magic.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Could follow the rules of Full Metal Alchemist in that respect, where there's just simple transmutation circles with the materials turned into what you need, done in a matter of seconds. Or it could be like Edward Elric, whom doesn't need said transmutation circles, just a clap of the hands and poof! Which would be pretty interesting and a valid way to flavor it. But that's pure speculation.
I don't think that Full Metal Alchemist is the best comparison to draw. Now I will be up front in saying that I never gave it a full watch through, it's on my long list of to watch anime that keeps growing, but it was always my assumption that "alchemy" in FMA was basically just Magic with specific rules attached. IE there is always a price and all that. I could 100% be wrong about that, but that was always my perception of it.

FMA alchemy is completely different from pathfinder alchemy so maybe not the best for a direct comparison, but it works in this case in that according to the characters' words on it, it's science and not magic, and they're very insistent about that. So it depends whether you accept their word on that, I guess.


Yep, you're right. Was thinking it was an action for some reason. But point being, excellence is a thing and isn't typically considered magic by the rules. So I don't see why alchemy should necessarily be considered magic either, even when it let's you do things that we'd probably consider to be magic.


I mean, it's also a world where stealthily pulling the armor off someone in 6 seconds without them knowing isn't magic, so...


7 people marked this as a favorite.

In first edition, The Alchemist had class feats discoveries that allowed them to grow a tentacle, vestigial arms, a parasitic twin. They could mummify themselves, grow insect like wings. Their familiar could become a tumor on their body, which is an ability not shared by the alchemical familiar in second edition.

The 2e alchemist can't do any of that. And, given that long term buffs are problematic in 2e, and the fact that there's not one single Alchemist feat that fits that theme so far, I'm actually concerned that those abilities aren't coming back.

I'm also wondering if I'm in the minority here, or even the only one, since I haven't seen anyone else talking about it...


Ravingdork wrote:
Calistria's temples include bars, brothels, and other places of hedonism. Not sure how I'd feel about my player's divine heroes being able to summon a brothel or tavern at a whim.

It would likely be an uncommon spell like magnificent mansion, so you wouldn't have to let them.


Temperans wrote:
Btw Clerics used to get the Web Shelter spell.

And create demiplane at 7th level, which isn't a slot spell anymore. Maybe they could get a spell that lets them take the party to a refuge on their deity's plane, then? Might be a bit hot for clerics of infernal deities...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess it could be the essence thing. How do you build a temple out of spirit and life?

*Notices a huge temple made of biomass.* Oh...


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

The most amusing thing about the sprite giant barbarian is not that you can go from tiny to large (eventually huge) in one action- it's that you are constantly carrying around a weapon sized for a large creature despite being tiny.

So you have a 9" tall pixie carrying a 9' long polearm, somehow.

It physically hurts me to point this out...

archivesofnethys wrote:

You can use a weapon built for a Large creature if you are Small or Medium (both normally and when raging). If you're not Small or Medium, you can use a weapon built for a creature one size larger than you.

You gain access to this larger weapon, which can be of any weapon type otherwise available at character creation.

But no, you're not a 9" tall sprite carrying around a 9' tall weapon. You're a 9" tall sprite carrying around a 3' tall weapon. And my soul just died a little at the loss of a beautiful awesomeness.

I'm not sure what your point is... A tiny creature would use a weapon 1 size larger and that means small. Small and medium creatures use the exact same weapon sizes so it uses weapons right out of the core book and that can mean a 9' long polearm. Now most weapons have no lsted length, but Guisarme lists it's "shaft is usually 8 feet long" so 9' seems right and it's the size a tiny giant barbarian would use.

I was mixing up my editions, never mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

The most amusing thing about the sprite giant barbarian is not that you can go from tiny to large (eventually huge) in one action- it's that you are constantly carrying around a weapon sized for a large creature despite being tiny.

So you have a 9" tall pixie carrying a 9' long polearm, somehow.

It physically hurts me to point this out...

archivesofnethys wrote:

You can use a weapon built for a Large creature if you are Small or Medium (both normally and when raging). If you're not Small or Medium, you can use a weapon built for a creature one size larger than you.

You gain access to this larger weapon, which can be of any weapon type otherwise available at character creation.

But no, you're not a 9" tall sprite carrying around a 9' tall weapon. You're a 9" tall sprite carrying around a 3' tall weapon. And my soul just died a little at the loss of a beautiful awesomeness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
"Some choices are suboptimal at my tables!"

I don't think witches are bad either but in fairness I do think this is a very legitimate criticism. The focus spells are the main draw of the class and the balance for them is all over the place.

I'm not at all surprised someone who ended up playing a Rune or Wild witch has such dramatically different experiences than you and it's pretty clearly a problem, imo.

Yeah it is legitimate, especially when most classes don't have anything that situational.

If I want to make a nature witch, and my GM is like "okay, but we're not going to be fighting many animals," it's like "welp, guess my witch has to be specifically winter based and love the freezing icy cold, then"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
In fact, I do not really understand why people prefer the Shield cantrip (+1 to AC) rather than a mundane Shield (+2 to AC) for casters.

Stylistic choice? Carrying an actual physical shield around is really very unwizardly.

Could be the bulk or hands, too.


KrispyXIV wrote:
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
All this talk of the wizard's third action... sustaining a previously cast spell sounds like a good idea

I mean, so is movement via Stride or Step.

In reality, its not hard to fill that third action slot. There just seems to be an ideological divide where its felt that Wizards, in particular, need to be able to fill that with a "Wizard" specific action.

But not with a Wizard Focus spell, because they aren't good enough- though its not a power thing because people don't want more power... or something... but Wizard focus spells are definitely bad because reasons...

I'd say that Wizard focus spells aren't bad for the most part, but most of them are pretty situational. When the enemies are trying to get to you warped terrain is great but when they're already there... Listen, I have a level 7 illusionist in pfs. I've used warped terrain maybe three times.

Abjuration and transmutation's focus spells are hard to use in combat without being in danger of being killed by enemies. Augment summoning requires that you already have a summoned creature out.

Evoker's force bolt is boring but practical. Solid.

Universalist's hand of the apprentice... I've seen it used to great effect, but personally, I feel like I've failed as a wizard if I have to resort to using a weapon.

The shield cantrip is pretty situational too. If there's big stompy fighter between you and the enemy, the enemy probably isn't going to want to take an attack of opportunity just to run up and attack you. Even if your big stompy guy is a barbarian, they may prefer to keep fighting them to wasting extra movement running around them. If you cast it and then don't get attacked you wasted your third action.

Moving or Sustaining something are probably going to be your main third actions most of the time, to be honest. Even moving isn't necessarily going to be helpful.


Temperans wrote:


An aspect has multiple meanings. One of them means a part of something. The other means the apperance of something.

Sure but it wouldn't normally be used to mean that something has an appearance relating to itself. It would be normal to say "that castle has a very spooky aspect" but it would sound pretty ridiculous to say "that castle has a very castley aspect." It's being used in an odd way here if it's intended to mean appearance, I guess is what I'm trying to say.

Also, why limit the flavor unnecessarily?

Quote:
A Summoner using the Gate spell (yes they can use that spell) can summon the physical form of the Eidolon. As can any caster using a calling spell. None of them would bring a creature that is different than the Eidolon.

Maybe it's just a really big (metaphysically speaking, but possibly literally, too. Who knows?) outsider such that they can't just call the whole thing.

|Edit: actually, if you go by balazar's backstory, they don't seem to have a physical form until they're first summoned, but they can communicate somehow before having a physical form? Yeah, definitely sounds like something closer to a deity than a plain old outsider to me.|

Quote:

There is also the fact that killing the Summoner or breaking the connection can break the Eidolon and make them weaker (See Unfettered Eidolons). The actual Eidolon with the influence of the Summoner is actually weaker.

And maybe having a Summoner to bond to stabilizes their aspect in such a way that its form is stronger. Don't unfettered eidolons shift between evolutions pretty frequently, or am I thinking of something else?

Nope, I just misread a line a while back that said they continue to evolve on their own.

Anyway, I always thought they were different from normal outsiders in some fundamental way because of the way their evolutions progress and how frequently their evolutions can be changed. We're not told how, other than that they can bond to a Summoner and they start out really stupid for outsiders, so letting players fill in the blanks is fine.


Temperans wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Temperans wrote:

Eidolons are not something you "manifest in part".

When you summon an Eidolon you summon the entire Eidolon. No advanced version, no greater version, no circumstantial version. If they do it that way I would not call that an Eidolon, it would just a Phantom.

I'm not sure this will be the case in 2e. Since if there's more behind your Eidolon than "what you can manifest", that does give more oomph for the Sarkorian religion where these things are Gods.

First Edition doesn't really clearly state "there is nothing going on with your Eidolon besides what you summon" anywhere from what I can tell. It seems like "My eidolon is an avatar of some divine force, and as I become more powerful it can manifest more fully" is a reasonable diagetic perspective for a 1e summoner.

Eidolons are specifically outsiders. They are not aspects, they are not manifestations. The God Caller's Eidolon have a spark of divinity, they are not related to any Deity by default.

So I can see God Caller Summoners maybe having that flavor as part of a character's story. But not from the other Summoners.

Let's see...

1st edition APG wrote:
summoner begins play with the ability to summon to his side a powerful outsider called an eidolon. The eidolon forms a link with the summoner, who, forever after, summons an aspect of the same creature.

This makes it sound like it's a big outsider that you're summoning an aspect of tbh. Maybe it's different in unchained? (I'm not being snide, I wrote this before checking.)

Quote:
A summoner begins play with the ability to summon to his side a powerful outsider called an eidolon. The eidolon forms a link with the summoner, who forever after summons an aspect of the same creature.

You could interpret that a couple ways because of the way evolutions can change, but saying that your eidolon is an aspect of a much more powerful entity seems perfectly valid from how it reads.


Note that the alchemist discovery was better than sun orchid elixir in a way and worse in another. It made you ageless. You literally couldn't die of aging, it wasn't something you had to retake over and over. On the other hand, it also wasn't something you could mix another dose and give to someone else.

Thuvian assassination plots for discovering immortality sound pretty cool though.

Anyway, I think that a level 20 pc shouldn't be limited to things that are already possible in lore. They should have feats that allow them to do new things no one else in setting has done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I mentioned a few pages ago (maybe more than a few,) I'm a little disappointed alchemists didn't get an eternal youth option in core too, but I'm sure those options will come. Druids and monks already have them in the form of timeless body upgrades, so it seems likely at least.

Also, thinking about it, I'd prefer those abilities not to come in the form of feats, for the fact that if it's a high level feat then it's going to be an almost purely flavor ability competing with abilities that would allow you to be better in combat, etc. The same problem eschew materials has and that certain racial feats have, and one ranger feat I think. I haven't really looked at ranger in a while.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bmj wrote:
All of these wizard threads are making me worry that my wizard I just created isn't going to feel powerful D:

Yeah, if you're in a home game you may want to discuss with your gm whether a rebuild might be on the table if you end up disliking it.

Not to say that it's definitively bad, but it's something you may or may not like. I've had fun with my goblin illusionist, I'll say that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To try to redirect the thread off the tangent that was born from my depressive episode a week ago: Okay, thanks everyone. I think this is ultimately something I'm not gonna get, but some of the clarifications were pretty nice to know, and I guess clerics don't have to be as... Servant ish as I thought.

The idea that them getting power from faith is the same as wizards getting power from study still doesn't sit right with me, though. Kind of like, if anyone's seen the slayers anime, there's a scene where Lina inverse comments that she's the only one who makes herself strong, and I'm like "all your spells come from dark gods though." It's like, how can you claim that YOU'RE powerful when it's actually someone else's power and you're just channeling it and focusing it.


Staffan Johansson wrote:
Lucas Yew wrote:
By the way, speaking as a non-Westerner, why is there a tendency to portray death related paranormal elements as Evil? Is it an idea of Abrahamic religious origin, as in the "punishment for the Original Sin" thing?

I see three reasons.

1. As James said, death is frightening. It is the thing that steals away our loved ones.

2. Death is often associated with the things that cause death, which generally aren't nice things. Things like disease, poison, murder, and the like. As a related point, many settings feature Death-things as an active force as opposed to the absence of life – a corpse is different from a brick, because the corpse was once alive and is now dead, while the brick is just inert.

3. Gods of death in many settings are also associated with Undeath, and that's evil.

Death is also something that separates us from people we love. That alone is reason for us to dislike it.

Imo it makes life pretty meaningless if we'll eventually die and forget everything we've learned. It's not a matter of selfishness vs selflessness either, because most likely everyone will eventually die even if we end aging. I remember taking world religions and thinking Shinto had the best afterlife, actually. You pretty much just continue as you did in life, but... Dead. (That may not be entirely accurate as it was a pretty basic class, of course.)

Also, ArchSage20, biblical afterlives include memory loss as petitioners? That's horrible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:
By my count, if you accept the premise of "bestowed power", Cleric is one of the classes with the highest degree of flexibility in terms of concept.

What do you mean by "accept the premise of bestowed power?"

KrispyXIV wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

If religion isn't your thing, then Clerics are gonna be tough.

I very well may be misinterpreting you, but if you're saying that you have to be religious in real life to enjoy playing clerics then I strongly disagree.

In real life, I'm an atheist with a quite poor opinion of just about all organized religions. But I LOVE playing clerics (or other devoutly religious characters) in role playing games.

I was more focused on the presupposition that serving a deity was equivalent to slavery.
To be fair, what I said was
I wrote:
And maybe it's partly my issues bleeding into my play style, but as a cleric you're basically a servant to your deity's edicts, which already kind of sucks but then when you die you go from servant to full on slave, it seems.

There's a slight difference between a servant and a slave. Being a servant's usually not great either, mind you.

Edit: also, a lot of it was that one erastil incident, so if clerics can change religions more or less freely without fear of losing their sapience privileges, then I guess they're not either one.

Of course, having reread how petitioners work, I'm not sure the term slave properly applies to them, since most of them don't quite seem to be people anymore at that point. You have few memories of what you did in life to begin with, and by plane Elysium turns you into a celestial animal which eventually evolves into an agathion. Nirvana strips away what few memories of life you had left and slowly turns you into an angel, etc. Though oddly, heaven's petitioners don't seem anything horrible done to them other than the standard petitioner memory wipe. you know what, forget the afterlife tangent. Like I said it seems like an artifact. Also, there are story reasons that maybe the afterlife shouldn't be perfect.

KrispyXIV wrote:
If that's how one views religions, then Cleric's likely don't sound appealing because you have a fundamentally different view of what being a Priest or Cleric is than... Well, most.

Growing up in the Bible belt with Christian parents that don't believe in evolution on the grounds that dogs can't randomly turn into cats and people can't slowly turn their arms into wings by flapping them can give you a pretty distorted view of... well... everything, really.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Am I going to get a way to play a religious character (even a divine spellcaster) who subscribes to something like Rivethun or Sangpotshi or Animism?

I suppose the Ancestors oracle works for cultures that do ancestor worship, so we've got that at least.

I feel like a witch could work well for animism, actually, if your gm is okay with your being many beings instead of one. While druid leans more pantheist, it could be animist too. Though that's primal, still.

James Jacobs wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Erastil is lawful good, right? Yes he is. Okay, so in kingmaker, and this is a minor spoiler, but the APs been out for a really long time, erastil turns a cleric into a non sapient bear for sacrificing a bear to "any god willing to stop trolls and other monsters from stopping the colonization of the stolen lands." So, to at least one god, worshipping another god is a crime worthy of identity death.

That's a good example of us kinda messing up the way good deities work ten years ago (complicated in part by a too-busy schedule and not enough wordcount to give the topic the proper details and context), and something that I get to go into more detail aobut in the upcoming 2nd edition revision for the Kingmaker Adventure Path. In the revised version of this encounter...

** spoiler omitted **

Oh. Okay then. Thanks for clearing that up.

KrispyXIV wrote:


The vengeful Erastil example given isn't just someone deciding to worship a deity - its someone actually committing bloody sacrilege and entreating evil powers for aid (those are included in 'any god'). That's the sort of thing mortals might take issue with, as well.

Even though that example was basically just confirmed as a mistake, I feel a very strong need to point out that calling out to anyone for help because your deity apparently isn't shouldn't result in a lawful good deity effectively killing you because the person who ends up helping you instead might be evil.

1 to 50 of 463 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>