DeathMetal4tw's page

I'm not sure how discussion of resource depletion was covered, but I think that in a sandbox game the mass harvesting of wood should deplete patches of forest. This would have two awesome benefits:

1) The natural depletion of resources will be a realistic and natural source of conflict between nations, cities, etc. Wood fuels nations but the need for wood fuels war.

2) The amount of forest depletion has to be kept in check. If characters like druids, rangers and woodland barbarians have an incentive to preserve their forests, this will create a fascinating new faction: The tree huggers. Whether you love them or just love killing them, nature oriented factions could be awesome if they had a real incentive to fight deforestation.

My 2 cents on lumber.

I'd love to see dire bats and other suitable flying mounts in the game. Plea over.

I just don't get what this means- I see a lot of creatures who's special abilities simply say "Con Based DC"- Take the giant spider's poison for example. I don't know what this means and I can't see an explanation anywhere.

Is the DC something like 10+the animal's con modifier or something?

PvP isn't the whole game by any means, but it's such a fundamental aspect of online MMO's that I'm surprised it hasn't been covered by the blogs yet. There's a lot that I'd love to see addressed:

1) Will there by attempts to promote "tanking"? In other words, will savy tanks be able to knock opponents down or otherwise prevent enemies from destroying the squishies? Games like WoW have simple "aggro" mechanics which it relies on in PVE situations, but PVP is a chaotic because aggro doesn't effect PC's. I think if PFO executes martial classes well, they'll be able to disrupt other player characters or keep them engaged.

2) How will friendly fire be handled?

Could this work? I want to make a gnomish inquisitor who rides a giant beetle companion (animal domain). I was thinking of giving the guy full plate proficiency, a nice beefy shield and a repeating hand crossbow.

I know the thinking is that crossbows are worse than bows, but could it work if you were making up for the lack of damage with some sweet AC?

Could this work? I want to make a gnomish inquisitor who rides a giant beetle companion (animal domain). I was thinking of giving the guy full plate proficiency, a nice beefy shield and a repeating hand crossbow.

I know the thinking is that crossbows are worse than bows, but could it work if you were making up for the lack of damage with some sweet AC?

I was just wondering, could it be practical? Is it possible to carry a siege weapon around as your main mode of attack?

The Bestiary III came out fairly recently and now I'm waiting for the advanced raced guide. Ultimate Equipment should be fun and so should the Bestiary IV. But what next?

I feel like an Ultimate Class Guide would be in order. This is something I'd be really interested in buying if it ever came out, and I feel like there's a world of stuff to be added.

Historically, I don't know if full plate wearers ever fought off horse back. That's why recently the thought of a warrior waddling around all turtles up in his armor has been making less and less sense to me. Is anyone else bothered by the lack of "realism" in walking around covered in full plate?

We've all seen it in WoW and similar games: Players and NPC's don't truly take up space, so you can actually run through them. Not only does this look half assed and ugly, it can also screw with the tactics of large battles (which we know we'll see in PFO). Are players going to be able to walk through each other when the game comes out?

In pathfinder, enlarge person is one of the most beloved buffs among players. Large size does confer certain advantages, so it's constantly being casted.

The problem:

A sufficiently useful buff will become ubiquitous. If being large is generally an improvement, people will run around casting it and/or having others cast it on them. The problem is that now you have a game of magically educed giants, and it just looks terrible.

I've seen some of this enlarge person abuse in some neverwinter two servers and it got very ugly very fast. Just imagine watching The Lord of The Rings, but in this version of the movie Gandalf turns himself and all his friends into giants every time they go to battle. It would be a pretty obnoxious movie.

What I'm asking for is an aesthetic approach to game design. If something has the potential to throw a bucket of cornysauce onto the whole world, please don't implement it.

I've always wanted to roll a ranger with a high craft trap skill. By RAW there seem to be a ton of options. Poison tipped weapons traps, etc. etc. I also realize there's a bit of paperwork involved, which is why I've never seen them in action. Are traps effective? Does anyone have experience with them? Are they a waste of time?

I realize that druids are usually considered to be the best shapeshifting class, what with natural spell and all. But recently I've been thinking about the potential for a polymorphing magus.

1) In terms of BaB, the magus can go toe to to with a druid. The same goes for hit dice.

2) The magus can eventually wear heavy armor, which can contribute to being even tougher than the druid.

3) The magus has access to all the undead anatomy spells. To me this is key to his shapeshifting glory, because the forms allowed in transformation can usually handle the verbal and somatic components involved in casting. Thus, like the druid, the magus can cast while morphed.

4) The math: With Undead Anatomy IV, taking the form of a large undead will really help you out. you take a -1 to your ac from being large and a -1 to ac from the spell taking away 2 dex, but gain +6 natural armor, resulting in a net bonus of +4 AC.

The +6 strength and +2 con don't hurt either.

So do you think the magus can out-morph the druid?

I recently had an idea for a Pathfinder PvP arena. I thought it would be fun for the both of us to build teams of 2-3 players to go head to head.

Has anyone done something similar?

Also, assuming a 15 point buy, what would be a solid 2-3 man team?

In the neverwinter games, characters could only carry one summoned entity around at a time. If you had an animal companion, then technically two. This was a major nerf and character immersion killer for summoning oriented mages. Sure, it made games run a little faster, but it was a big sacrifice in my opinion.

I hope there will be no major limits to how many summoned creatures you may have at a time. This way, necromancers can really move around with squads of corpses (true to animate dead) and conjurers can summon many beasties onto the battlefield.

Has anyone here had experience with a vermin companion? If so, how do they compare to animals? I'm considering making a beastmaster ranger with a giant beetle or spider but I don't know if this is gonna be weaksauce.

For combat oriented players in PFO it seems like we will have access to all 11 core classes.

I think it would be so awesome if PFO threw us a brand new class!!! Not something from the APG, UC or UM but a brand new class.

I sound pretty greedy right now (sorry). But I just think it would be such an awesome surprise.

I was just kind of wondering about this. When settlements start coming to life, will there be NPC warriors involved in combat? It's logical to say that among the NPC residents of settlements and kingdoms some of those locals would be trained for warfare.

I say warrior NPC's might be a good thing, and here's why:

1) The players won't be on 24/7. Games have peak hours and off peak hours, so a devoted horde of players could probably strike at 4am on a tuesday morning and take out a whole city if they were organized and they wanted to.

2) Large groups of players rarely act in an organized way in battle. I've seen some large scale WoW battles and it seemed like a swarm of people were jumping over each others heads and flinging spells every which way. If NPC armies march at the king/ruler's orders, they will form an organized nucleus around which actual characters can organize coherent tactics.

I'm hardly confident in my opinions, but I'd love to see some discussion.

Since they arrived in Ultimate Magic I've really wanted to make a ranger (or animal domain cleric) with a vermin companion: Especially the Giant Spider or Giant Beetle.

Has anyone had experience with vermin companions? Yea or Nay?

By looking at the RAW, the animate dead spell looks like an absolute beast. Apparently you can raise anything with a body, and can have up to four times your HD of summoned HD. In other words, a level 5 cleric can summon 20 HD. You can turn that into three undead dire crocs, 4 cyclopses, etc. It seems you can raise multiple creatures of a CR at or greater than your level.

Is this inherently broken? I've played a lot of necros, but never about level 4 so I could never get to use this spell. I'd imagine it as severely overpowered: Am I wrong?

Also, what's a better tactic? A few big bad zombies or a horde of smaller ones?

Clan Name: The Void Gazers

Premise: A guild dedicated to promoting necromancy, alchemy and other “dark arts and sciences.” The guild exist for the following reasons:

I: For the right to live a life free of halflings.

II: For the right to survive in a world with paladins, clerics and other potential enemies of the unsavory arts. By any means necessary.

III: To live in a world of intellectual and moral freedom where no magical or alchemical experimentation is considered taboo.

IV: To venerate rats, bats and vermin. Rats carry lethal pestilence, bats are misunderstood creatures of the night (And hopefully awesome mounts) and vermin are directly linked with death itself. The guild will promote the use of such animals as companions and such. (Although there will be plenty of room for skilled horsemen too).

Economics: The guild will have members who craft arms, armor and magical items of all sorts. Crafting should be a large part of the guild’s income.

Government: Oligarchy. There will be three or more different leaders who will share power.

Alignment: Roughly chaotic neutral. While some of what goes on behind castle walls will be dark, even “evil” to some, not all students of the dark arts are evil. We also don’t want to wage war for the sake of being evil.

Your character in this guild:

-No halflings.

-No bards. They sing music in battle, but we fight in battle.

-No druids. Their love of nature and opposition to the undead (as well as their dislike of technology and progress) make druids natural enemies of the cause.

-No Monks. We’re not a lawful guild in any sense, and ki energy is viewed as “beneath” the arts of magic and armored/armed fighting.

-No Paladins. Paladins are the genuine enemies of the cause.

Besides these restrictions, any type of character will be allowed. You need not be a necromancy oriented spellcaster, alchemist or other user of dark magic. As long as you support the cause, all types of soldiers, craftsmen and other citizens are welcome. Just don't be squeamish when people attack us and we have to pummel them with skeletons, demons and diseases!

If anyone's interested in the possibility of getting involved, let me know.

I played neverwinter nights 1 and 2 for a while and have played pathfinder for a long time. It's safe to say that I've made every type of character possible at least twice, and I'm getting tired of seeing the same wizard, the same fighter, the same ranger, etc. over and over. I'd like to see Pathfinder Online change these roles up a bit.

I've seen a wizard. I think the PFO wizard should be different. It should have it's own spells and it's own style. I want to see a new vision of the ranger- the rogue. Everything! I'm not saying the core classes should be destroyed or changed radically, but I feel like they should feel new in a sense.

I get it, crossbows have been considered the inferior ranged weapon in D&D for ages. Well I've had enough! I'd love to see them come into their own in PFO. I'd love if they had cool bayonet charge options and other stuff to set them apart from long/short bows.

I'm sure there will be "Good guy" organizations out there when the game launches. I'm wondering if the persecution of necromancers and the like will play out as I expect or if dark wizards/sorcerers will be tolerated. I'm planning on trying to join/establish a group that promotes freedom for dark magic users and alchemist to experiment and master their crafts. Will I have enemies?

Lately I've been thinking back at some of the more massive encounters I ran as a DM. A swarm is something I don't like to throw in too often because of how long a large battle take, but when they're pulled off right I find they can be pretty cinematic and fun as hell. I once threw a level 5 party of mine against a small goblinoid village, pitting the poor guys against 20+ goblins (I may have used the advanced template for the goblinoids, I forget), 10 or so hobgoblins and around 4 ogres just for good measure.

The human ranger, human archaeologist bard and gnome alchemist that fought them were able to hold down a couple of choke points and murder everything that lived. IT WAS EPIC! Bomb splash damage was downing guys left and right, the archaeologist was able to cripple the horde with a slow spell and the ranger was at least decent enough to not die.

Have any of you here dealt with very large encounters? Did any DMs find them difficult to balance? For those with experience, do you find that the amount of paper work makes such battles dull?

I'm a disturbed man. A man of extremes, really. When the topic of friendly fire came up, (usually because I brought it up) I scowled in dismay at those who wanted a no FF game. However, because Pathfinder Online is the one thing on planet earth that I have hope for, I feel that it is in my best interest to be a positive influence on the message boards. Rather than butting heads with those who disagree with me, I want to be productive.

And here is the fruit of my most recent mental labors:

Fact: Friendly fire from spells, explosions, etc. is important in keeping the game internally consistent as a simulation, both as a fantasy world and a game of PVP and PVE combat tactics.

Fact: There are those who despise friendly fire. For them, the "realism" of their endeavors is not quite as important as dying for what they see as no reason.

Idea Time: In the same sense that feats exist to increase spell DC's, feats could exist that would hamper the raw power of magic versus familiar/allied targets. Such feats could reduce spell DC's versus the caster and allies, even without the use of metamagic. I will never flinch from the notion that friendly fire is essential, but those who despise it should have options: Options for their own spell casting characters as well as options to ally with spell casters who put effort into ensuring that they don't accidentally kill their buddies. Even I would consider taking such feats as a caster, because they would represent an actual mental effort on behalf of the caster to mitigate damage to allies, and therefore make perfect sense as opposed to granting an inexplicable invulnerability to everyone.

I am by no means a game developer, and I apologize if I come off as shoving ideas down the dev team's throat, but I feel like this solution could settle the FF debate for all but the most hot headed of prospective players. I'd love to hear feedback from both sides of the argument, and see if something like this would keep the fan base together.

I see no reason why a copy of your character sheet should be available to others, even allies. After all, in real life you do run into people who clearly appear to be soldiers, cops, nurses, fire fighters, office workers, etc. However they don't walk around with copies of their resumes and diplomas hovering above their heads. They could be impostors!

I had a good deal of fun playing a disguise oriented rogue in neverwinter nights' online servers. I had an evil streak back then, and some of my favorite tricks involved pumping points into UMD to appear as a mage or spending feats on armor/weapon proficiencies. (I had a great deal of fun pretending to be a paladin). Typically, I'd murder those who fell for my disguises, pickpocket them or otherwise be a deceitful bastard.

This brings me back to Pathfinder Online. I think it would be wrong to force people to reveal their true "class identities". World of Warcraft does it, but I think this is going to be an altogether different game. In a sandbox, spies and assassins should be allowed to do their thing without basic game rules rendering their roles obsolete.

Come on!!!

I've been feeling some grief lately over crossbows. What are we to do with the bow and arrow's sub-par high tech cousin?! I have a proposed "fix" that will attempt to redeem the crossbow without simply making it as powerful as traditional bows. The solution? Make them different!

Fix number one: I was extremely disappointed when I learned that attaching a bayonet makes a crossbow useless for shooting. This makes little sense to me, but if it is what it is, how about a feat to fix this?

feat 1: Attaching a bayonet now does nothing to disrupt shooting. Furthermore, a character taking this feat has learned to use crossbows and their bayonets as a functional whole. From here on in, any weapon focus, improved critical, etc. feats now effect attack rolls with both the bayonet and crossbow component.

Another feat could help solidify this style of fighting:

feat 2: You have learned to charge frantically into combat with your crossbow firing off a shot before your bayonet finds it's mark. Benefit: When charging an opponent with a crossbow mounted bayonet, you have the option of firing one shot with your crossbow as a free action at your second highest base attack bonus. This shot must be fired within 15 feet of the target of your charge.

Prerequisites: Proficiency with a crossbow and bayonet, Point Blank Shot, Feat 2, BaB +6

I think a feat chain like this will make crossbows great weapons in their own right while still lacking the overall ranged damage a longbow archer can offer. This model of crossbow fighting is not only fun, but represents something mind numbingly cool: A desperate, terrifying charge not possible with other weapons.

When Pathfinder Online comes out, what will you roll? For the sake of argument let's assume that you just have one shot at it. I'm just curious about the "dream characters" that people have been coming up with in their heads. I'm especially curious to see how many people make characters for battle versus harvesting/business/etc.

DISCUSS!

Traps are fun! A high perception DC here, a little poison there, and with a good craft trap roll a player can make something really awesome in pathfinder. Keeping the craft trap skill relevant will do a lot for the game.

First of all, it's an excellent skill for merchants (who may sell pre-made traps), workers (who may want to keep some protection around) and for general combat awesomeness. Traps also allow for some incredibly interesting PVP opportunities, and the ability to set them should exist in game.

It may be a little counter productive to ask the developers about things that wouldn't be established until the game has been out for a while, but I will shamelessly do it anyway (;

Has the possibility of additional playable character races in PFO been considered by Paizo? Does anyone think that adding more race options would be a good idea? Personally I think there are a lot of cool villain and anti-hero roles that could be filled by goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, full orcs and above all else, tieflings and strix. I think if the latter two races were considered core options they would be selected more often than halflings and gnomes, but that's just my opinion.

The tiefling is a staple of D&D and by extension, pathfinder. They are one of the most loved non standard player races of all time. As for the strix? To be honest I think it is one of Pathfinder's least appreciated contributions to pen and paper RPG's. If paizo makes something this god damn sexy, it should be put to good use.

Discuss!!!

Think about it! You could need powerful siege weapons to destroy or damage buildings (except for wood buildings which could be burnt) so it won't exactly be easy to destroy an enemy stronghold. If destroying key buildings is difficult enough, it could require sieges over an hour in length. Of course it's always easier to defend a castle than it is to tear it down, so such sieges would require a tremendous prolonged effort. This could give the game a cinematic "Helms Deep" feel as player factions struggle to aquire/destroy land.

Destructable/stealable buildings would heighten the stakes for players in a game where death doesn't grant terrible penalties, and it would make Pathfinder Online's wars feel much more important that some world of warcraft guild battle.

One of my problems with the monk class is that I've always considered it an Asian flavored class and I prefer a more typically medieval setting for my games. I was wondering how other DMs/players treat the monk in their game settings: Is it something to keep out of a medieval Europe style fantasy setting? Or would a monk style character feel at home in a Lord of the Rings style setting?

Okay, first of all I'd like to say that this isn't a flame thread. As a matter of fact I think the summoner class was beautifully written and I commend the design team for thinking outside the box with it. I just want to share my experience with others and see if other Pathfinder players had the same problems I did.

I rolled an elven summoner and I only got the thing to level two, but even that early in the game I saw a problem. I took the bipedal form and gave the thing 4 evolution points for proficiency in martial weapons and a feat for light armor use, so my eidelon was attacking with a claw and a longsword at around +5/+5 (without buffs)and had at least 19 AC at level two. Overall my character and his summon seemed on par with the barbarian in terms of power level, considering I could heal the eidelon and with rapid shot I had a total of four attacks between two guys versus the barbarian's one. If I really had to go toe to toe with that barbarian, I don't know if I could've won. I didn't feel overpowered as I feared I would.

So what was the problem???

I felt like I was hogging the spotlight. Not only did I get two turns while everyone else got one (typical of casters who summon) but I really felt like I had two characters to role play. The barbarian had a distinct personality whereas I felt like I had to struggle to breathe life into two entities. It was a role playing nightmare!!! Has anyone else been in this situation?

I'd really like to know if and how flight will be implemented in PFO. The fly spell as written in pathfinder is a world of fun: A fly speed of 60, or 40 with an encumbrance or medium/heavy armor. Will there be any intact variant of this in the final game? I can just imagine the chaos: squads of characters flying around and dealing death from above! Surely there are spells out there that might be hard to implement in an MMO (I'm looking at you, time stop) but I hope fly makes the final cut.

I'm wondering if multiclassing will be "gimped" in PFO like it is in pathfinder. One of the games' blog posts mentioned how players will be rewarded with a capstone ability for sticking to one path for all 20 levels, which I really do like. But the game design team does seem to want player characters to be as individual and varied as possible, which makes me think that multiclassed characters ought to at least be viable. I guess I want to know if a lot of thought has been given to the subject yet.

I'm a tad concerned for the integrity of PFO's setting. While the original seven races will be the only playable ones at first, we can't forget that paizo has rules for catfolk, ratfolk, monkey people and other blatant furry races. I'm extremely worried that later expansions/updates will allow furies to frolic through the game unimpeded.

It's not that I believe all furries should be thrown away in camps (this would be a terrible burden on the tax payers) but we should not extend the olive branch to them either.I have several reasons why PFO should not be a furry friendly game.

-Allowing (INSERT ANIMAL HERE) people into the world would be taking a shit on D&D's Tolkien origins and cramming a World of Warcraft aesthetic down the players' throats.

-Furries tend to admire other furries and network with each other. On the surface this seems like a good thing because it will inspire racial interest guilds. However in practice this will just amount to a bunch of cat people elitists engaging in cybersex activity the second they aquire property.

-Some races (mostly non core) have animalistic features while being undeniably better designs than furry races. For example:

+Strix have a haunting bird/bat like appearance, but aren't as simple as "human + x animal"

+Half Orcs look like bestial monsters. The image of an ape or boar comes to mind.

+Tieflings have horns which are arguably goat like.

In conclusion, please don't let this game devolve into furry masturbation fodder.

The other day I had a wondrous thought. I wanted to start a clan of flyers! By having sorcerers and wizards cast fly on themselves and their allies, I could have a flying horde of bad asses. The name? Wings over Golarion :D :D

However, making a clan full of flying characters has some logistical problems. For example, PFO is early in development, and I simply don't know if there will be a "fly" spell, or if it will work anything like it does in the book. Also, flying mounts are an option but I just don't know if they'll be in the game either.

If anyone's interested in my premise, let me know because I'm looking to collaborate. There is work to be done and the skies of Golarian will be ours for the reaping.

I haven't gotten to see the book yet, so I'm curious which pc races are introduced.

I've been having trouble as of late with the idea of the little folk fighting. The more I look at it, the more baffled I become. It's at the point where I'm considering not allowing gnomes(formerly a favorite race of mine)in the games I DM. As far as fantasy goes, I realize you can write/say/do whatever you want, but I enjoy a bit of common sense in my world. With that in mind I have found myself wondering over and over: "What the f*** are these puny creatures doing with a bunch of tough, dangerous adventurers?" All in all I find both races woefully inadequate as true combatants.

Halfling Battlefield qualifications:

Halflings posses great luck. Seriously? LUCK?!

Halflings get a bonus to perception. Ideal for a prey animal.

Halflings are slow. They are also small. They are quite literally small, slow creatures. What the f&#%?

Halflings are charming and child like. Ideal qualities for fighting ogres, really.

Gnome Battlefield Qualifications:

Gnomes have some nifty magic. Just nifty, kind of useful. Nothing more.

Gnomes are also small, slow creatures.

Before I get torn apart for being a hack and slash bastard, keep in mind that I know not every mission involves combat. But ultimately, combat is a part of virtually every game. (At least give me some credit for not talking in power-gamey terms). I just think that being little and puny means a race should avoid battle, barring extreme circumstances or racial abilities. Try as I might, the image of a halfling or gnome slaying a troll just doesn't do anything for me. I find it kind of unsatisfying.

Any thoughts?

I've been having trouble as of late with the idea of the little folk fighting. The more I look at it, the more baffled I become. It's at the point where I'm considering not allowing gnomes(formerly a favorite race of mine)in the games I DM. As far as fantasy goes, I realize you can write/say/do whatever you want, but I enjoy a bit of common sense in my world. With that in mind I have found myself wondering over and over: "What the f*** are these puny creatures doing with a bunch of tough, dangerous adventurers?" All in all I find both races woefully inadequate as true combatants.

Halfling Battlefield qualifications:

Halflings posses great luck. Seriously? LUCK?!

Halflings get a bonus to perception. Ideal for a prey animal.

Halflings are slow. They are also small. They are quite literally small, slow creatures. What the f*!&?

Halflings are charming and child like. Ideal qualities for fighting ogres, really.

Gnome Battlefield Qualifications:

Gnomes have some nifty magic. Just nifty, kind of useful. Nothing more.

Gnomes are also small, slow creatures.

Before I get torn apart for being a hack and slash bastard, keep in mind that I know not every mission involves combat. But ultimately, combat is a part of virtually every game. (At least give me some credit for not talking in power-gamey terms). I just think that being little and puny means a race should avoid battle, barring extreme circumstances or racial abilities. Try as I might, the image of a halfling or gnome slaying a troll just doesn't do anything for me. I find it kind of unsatisfying.

Any thoughts?

EDIT: wut?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/races-of-the-dragon-empires/nagaji

First off, I'd like to note that I made the following race with the help of Golden's Guide to Race Creation.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183223

As for the main event, here it is:

Nar'gul

(0) +2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma, -2 Constitution

(0) Medium Size

(0) Humanoid

(2) Darkvision (60 feet)

(0) Weapon Familiarity/Proficiency: All Nar'gul are proficient with the star knife (their traditional weapon of choice) and Spiked Armor. Nar'gul treat the khopesh as a martial weapon.
s
Note: Golden’s Guide to Race Building lists weapon proficiencies as a one point ability, but the only two weapons my race gets automatic proficiency in are such weak/situational choices that I chose not to deduct a point.

(4) Spiked Tail: Nar'gul possess a long, sinuous tail that ends in a spike. This provides a secondary attack that deals 1d6 slashing damage.

(4) Spell Resistance: Nar'gul characters posses SR 5+lvl

(-1) Frail Flesh: Nar'gul spell resistance counts as 2 higher than it actually is when a healing spell is directed at the Nar'gul. In addition, the DC to heal or otherwise stabilize an Nar'gul is 2 higher than normal.

Note: While this was not in Golden’s Guide as an example ability, I estimated it’s worth at around -1 point.

(1) Acrobatic: Nar'gul tails aid in balance and delicate maneuvers, granting Nar'gul a +2 bonus to the acrobatics skill

Description

Nar'gul resemble pale, lithe humans with a few very notable exceptions. For one, they lack any sort of hair- In it’s place they possess spiny fins on their heads (look up dark naga in the bestiary for a good visual example). These fins vary in hue from dark blue to violet to shades of gray. In addition, Nar'gul posses long tails that end in scythe like spikes that can vary greatly in length and appearance between individuals. Average Nar'gul height is about three inches shorter than average human height.
Nar'gul culture is ancient and their race’s past is shrouded in mystery. While some call caves home, others are just as welcome in forests or cities. Their large but secluded native island has long been subjected to bombardment by some unseen magical force, and over time the Nar'gul have developed a resistance to magic that helps them survive in such a place. Because of a constant preoccupation with pleasure and a rash temperament, most Nar'gul gravitate towards the neutral and chaotic end of the alignment spectrum, although this is far from a rule.

Discuss.

I've heard that people do online sessions of pathfinder. Where would I go/who would I ask to get invited into one or start one?

If you have a claw attack and wield a one handed weapon in your main hand, can you use your weapon normally with the addition of a secondary attack, or do you follow the rules for two weapon fighting?

I'm a little conflicted. Part of me wants to introduce alternative racial options for players in my campaign but the other part of me finds it a little (for back of a better word) unrealistic. While I want to see how a kobold character could play out, when I run it in my head all I can see is a vermin race that will be ignored by most NPC's. The same applies for Hobgoblins, tieflings and some of the other goodies in the bestiaries. How do you handle alternative races? Do you allow them in your campaigns? Are they game changers? Should I just rewrite the world's view of races traditionally seen as "lesser"?

I want to see some homebrew races people have made, with the rules from the beta of the ARG or elsewhere. I'm just curious how the typical pathfinder player's imagination works.