Sunlord Thalachos

Erk Ander's page

143 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 143 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

This is a very good question. And yes he partially answers it.

But how does Pharasma the most powerful deity deal with this ? This is obviusly wrong or illegal (much like undead). And how do the good deities deal with this ? Its not like you can sacrifice evil souls to the good planes. Ang why do es lawful evil Asmodeus allow these acts (there is at least on AP where this happens)


Is once per encounter really that powerful, also note you have far less spellslots than in prior editions. I think this a kneejerk reaction from some folks again.


Ascalaphus wrote:
Set wrote:
And were there others? A 'Charlie's Angels' setup requires three 'angels' to Aroden's 'Charlie...' :) They've got a tank (Iomedae), a caster (Arazni), so perhaps a skillmonkey? (Ah yes, secretly Norgorber is a goddess under that cowl, and the third of 'Aroden's Angels!'

Until the death of Aroden in 4606 AR, the goddess Milani was simply one of dozens of saints within the Last Azlanti's faith. She was the beacon of hope to all those who fought against repressive regimes, giving courage to those who had little but their desire to live a free life. The death of her patron, combined with the tremendous upheaval and suffering that followed his death, gave her a focus and attracted many new followers. Those devoted to her found the courage to organize the rebellions against the infernal takeover of the Chelish Empire, helping many of her outlying territories break free of its control. They fought against the slow slide into barbarism, restoring people's hope that a just and good society could be restored. Milani has never been as popular as Aroden's other followers, such as Iomedae, perhaps because the Inheritor's worship had already been firmly established before their patron's passing.

The interesting thing is that Milani is Chaotic Good, so a pretty far cry from Aroden's Lawful Neutral. Although she's working together pretty well with Iomedae these days.

In PF1, Milani had the Rose Warden prestige class associated with her, which was really well-suited to put on top of a rogue...

Having read about Milani in Inner sea Faiths. she feels FAR more like NG than CG. Quite frankly I think that what she should have been. IMO


thecursor wrote:


1) Respectfully, the main mission statement is the protection of Golarion's native species. That's their like actual job.

2) Well, we don't know specifically if it is a crime or not but we also haven't seen an actual Hellknight NPC yet, let alone one in the Pact Worlds.

3) True. Fair point. But there's a big difference between a shaking up a bad neighborhood and military action against rampaging space monsters.

4)...yeah we actually don't.

1) https://starfinderwiki.com/sf/Knights_of_Golarion

2) There are Hellknioght NPCs in Pact World. We don't spefically know if murder is a crime either. My point is there are several bounties on the Pirates and the Stewards are said to use bounty hunters to deal with criminals. They themselves are said to deal Harshly with Pirates. Why would the now use "Boounty Hunters" like KoG or HK ? Seems weird.

5 Indeed if the Pirate HQ was only a bad neighbourhood and not the HQ of well Pirates that make space unsafe.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thecursor wrote:

A couple of points from the lore:

1) The KOG is mainly concerned with protecting the endangered species of Old Golarion and therefore it is implied that their focus is further out in space.

2) The Hellknights are brutally committed to Order and thus would loathe the Free Captains...they would also loathe breaking the law and as far as we can see, the Pact Worlds are the direct jurisdiction of the Stewards.

3) Based on what I remember from the Starfinder Wednesday briefings by the developers: both the Hellknights and the KoG have "client" worlds in Near Space who support them. For the KoG, these are friendly caretaker style relationships. For the Hellknights, it is a brutally well enforced contractual obligation (like the Peacekeepers in Farscape). This means that both organizations have bigger fish to fry.

4) The Stewards are a well funded but relatively small paramilitary-style law enforcement organization and are probably not prepared to untangle the rat's nest that is the Diaspora.

5) The people in the Pact Worlds who would like to show up to stop the Free Captains are the Pact Worlds Military which is made up of fleets that are in service to their homeworlds but gather together to defend the Pact. The PWM probably includes ships from Eox.

6) There are many, many, many, many, many, many good reasons why certain sovereign races in the Diaspora would very much like to not see a fleet that includes Eoxian military vessels showing up with their guns drawn.

1) KoG is about spreading justice anf fighting evil. And they also protect the defenseless or innocent all over. Specifically in the Pact Worlds. So kickinh pirate-ass is defintely on their agenda

2) Attacking the Pirates holds in the Diaspora is hardly a crime. The Stewards literally put bounties on pirates and criminals so why would they object against the HK ?

3) The bigger fish might as well be their homesystem. Thats why they fought against the Swarm, Veskarium etc

4) We don't really know how large the Stewards are but I can't see why the would have resources or the inclination to deal with the HQ of the systems Pirates. Especially since they if any could convince the Pact world planets to muster their armies and deal the deathblow to the Pirates.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rohne wrote:


On top of that, the Vesk would not obliterate a civilian population no matter how many pirates they could eliminate. That wouldn't be honorable. And the Stewards, well, like the UN peacekeeping forces, they do condemn piracy, and they probably help fight piracy in specific locations (just like UN Resolution 2442), but to eliminate piracy completely is not within the scope of their power to do so (they don't have that many Stewards or resources at their disposal with everything else they do).

So as you can see, there's lots of reasons why Broken Rock still exists even if it is well-known.

The Vesk have conducted Genocide at least twice and some of commanders are more than willing to kill civilians. After all whats honorable is debatable.

The Stewards deal harshly with the most bloodthirsty Pirates according to sourcebooks as an example for others, this might mean that they accept some piracy given that its not cruel or overly violent. They probably do have resources and power for it though. They have huge net of allies that could aid them in attacking the Pirates. It might thus be that they allow the existance of it because they can monitor and survey it as well gather all the scum of the galaxy in one place.

But it does not make sense that KoG, Hellknights, Stewards and others know the location yet don't blow it to hell/heaven. I always playes it as them NOT knowing where it is. Or that HQ is like a town of ships that move every now and then.


Owen KC Stephens wrote:

Thanks Rick!

Starfarer’s Codex: Legacy Gunslinger brings the dashing, daring gunslinger concept from the fantasy era into the future! Designed to focus on the most interesting options from the gunslinger class, Legacy Gunslinger allows any character to become an expert in the way of the gun, presenting a Gunslinger feat, a gunslinger archetype (appropriate for any Starfinder Roleplaying Game-compatible class), and special class options for operatives (the gunslinger specialization) and soldiers (the gunslinger fighting style). And, for campaigns where it makes sense for a character to be a gunslinger first and foremost, the 20-level gunslinger base class!

Regardless of how to access them, gunslinger abilities give a character ways to do more with a gun. With abilities drawn from multiple gunslinging methods for any class ranging from 1st level to the top tiers of a campaign, a character can pick up a few gunslinging tricks or become an undisputed master of ranged weapons. So whether you want to gain fancy shooting options that allow you to twirl pistols with the best of them, use gunfire to blast things out of people’s hands, or just want a little extra grit for your character, Starfarer’s Codex: Legacy Gunslinger has got you covered!

Owen the Operative has the choice of changing the Trick attack features for more gunslinging exploits. Is this in addition to regular exploits being gained or do you lose out on both trick-attack as well as regular exploits ?


Mechagamera wrote:
Since we haven't seen them on Golorion before, it is time for the hidden kingdom of the metallic kobolds. I look forward to some Wakandan/Themyscian style arrogance: it is not your fault that your metal work is so poor, you are just a dwarf, but, take heart, it is levels about the cheap limericks elves pass off as poetry.....

Thats pretty cool idea


Full spec is no where near as deadly for Operatives as many belivve it to be. The classes that outdamage the operative (without full spec) still do even with full spec. IT would be much better to just errata that smalls arms gain full spec and be done with it.


That would be great, still surprised they don't "exist".


ikarinokami wrote:
it should be noted, that one of the survey questions in the playtest was this very question, and the vast majority of respondents wanted the magic system kept intact.

I can defintely see that. And I understamd Paizo choice. people are a litle wary of "new" stuff even if it way better. Dnd5e left the traditional Vancian and most people approved of it.

I am fairly sure Paizo will release a supplement with a different magical system.

As of now having to learn a spell on several spells lvls as sorc is frustrating (you only have 9 signature spell) and as time goes on more will notice it. SAme thig with Wizards and having to prepare a spell on several slots.


Samurai wrote:


In my view, spontaneous casters have a limited number of spells in their repertoire and it is very hard to change them, but they should have full control over how they use them by spending any slot they want on them. By contrast, Prepared casters should have a lot more choices in their spells each day, but how they use them is more limited (thus keeping the need to prepare the spell at the higher level, and losing the spell when it is cast unless you prepared multiples of it.) If "prepared casters" could freely heighten spells the way the spontaneous casters can AND freely change their memorized spell list every day, then what makes them "prepared", and why would anyone ever choose to play a spontaneous caster?

I think those 2 abilities need to be the divider between the 2 casting types: Do you want to freely change your spells every day OR do you want to freely heighten the limited spells you always know? Pick 1.

Spontaneous caster can only freely heighten their signature spells of which they have at most 9. So the free heightening would improve Sorcs and Bards as well. Also the reason you choose Sorcs is because you have your entire spell-list at hand at all times and you can cast more spells. Given that most spells are situational at best down-right useless at worst having say 35+ spells in your repetoire is prettyu damn good.


The more I read your stuff (the new classes) the more I realise how seamless and intuitive it is. Much more fun to play. I would probably never bother to play regular sorc or wizard. Apart from the Specialist having two opposition classes (I found that a little exessive) you Mage is perfect. Once again thank you for creating this. I will try to spread the good word of this creation.


Eleanor Ferron wrote:

James Jacobs wrote the entry for Nocticula, but I think I can explain some of the reasoning, or at least the reasoning for another god that had similar alignment questions (Apsu). The logic for them not sponsering redeemer champions involves specific clauses in each god's commands that don't mesh well with the concept.

Nocticula (Edict): "Punish those who take advantage of offered trust and shelter."

Apsu (Paladin Code): "Mercy is offered, but only once. Should I be betrayed in my moment of kindness, I will not stop until I have put my enemy down."

Now, you could argue that offering mercy once and then hunting someone to the ends of the earth technically doesn't violate the redeemer's code; certainly, the Cult of the Dawnflower made that argument. But then, they made Sarenrae so angry she doesn't even accept neutral followers anymore, so your milage may vary.

If I may, nothing in the Redeemer tenets nor even in Sarenraes contradicts the above edicts (which you mention). The above edicts do not prohibit nor discourage mercy only that mercy being betrayed means you have all rights and even possibly obligation to rectify the mercy given. The Redeemer only demands that you give a chance. If that chance is abused you are reasonably withing your rights to act with violence.

This is the tenets in question below

You must first try to redeem those who commit evil acts, rather than killing them or meting out punishment. If they then continue on a wicked path, you might need to take more extreme measures.
You must show compassion for others, regardless of their authority or station.

And one of Sarenrae anathema is "failing to strike down evil". If you give mercy to a murderer who then continues down that path you are responsible for that and if you fail at redempition as well killing said murderer (you may decide that you failed after the first and proceed to violent acts) than you are causing anathematic act.

Granted you are insider and I am not so you obviously sit on info I lack. AS with all theological discussion one can have very different view especially given that Sarenrae allows ALL GOOD alignments. So I definitely understand where you came from (despite lacking the information and knowledge you possess).

Personally I see Nocti as deity of the those that take their own path in life which includes redemption but isn't restricted to it. Redemption in specific is Sarenrae


Data Lore wrote:

Without opposition schools, I find that players often go for an optimal loadout of spells as defined by ubiquitous "best spell by level" guides. The go for all those "gold" or "purple" options and often have a spell set that does not thematically define the kind of mage they are.

By selecting opposition schools, their optimal loadout is, by definition, going to be different. They are choosing where they aren't going to go and means that some of their spell selections for their loadout won't be "gold" or "purple" on said guides. Moreover, since some flagrantly better spells are off the table, a larger percentage of "mediocre" or "utility" spells see play.

My implementation further encourage s the specialist to select spells from a specific spot by making that extra slot school limited. Two specialist mages with different specializations and different opp schools will have drastically different loadouts in a given session and will have different play experiences in a given campaign.

But, hey, if a players WANTS just those optimal selections, they can play a generalist.

Hmm, I see but thats issue of metagaming and bad spells in the game, imo. But I see your point.

I always felt that it was enough to make the extra spell slot of the specialist school-specific. If further enouragement to "stay in school" was needed I would implement a feature that gave +1 to DC, spell attacks etc when using school spells. I thoroughly dislike penalizing players (which is why 5e was so good).

I think restricting spell-lists encourages more optimization (choosing only the absolutely best spells) rather than creating more versatile and varied mages. But I understand your point its likely one way of making mages differ.

The reason I ask is because the creative process and reasoning behind design is interesting. I want to know whether your design-choices were for balance, lore or just sheer opinion. If understand you correctly it was not for reasons of actual game balance. Like for instance you removed arcane bond, which I assume that was for balance reasons.

From your expertise would changing prepared spell casting to neovancian (one preparation of a spell is enough as well as "free" heightening) and not doing any other change unbalance the wizard/cleric/Druid ? Is the removal of arcane bond, restricting spell selection for specialist necessary ?

I hope PAizo looks at your stuff and implements (and credits) it. Though I know they were already thinking about implementing it during the playtest/design of the game. Maybe some future splatbook might give us something else than horrible Vancian,


Data Lore wrote:

Erk Ander:

Thanks for the kind words.

I've noticed that my players will tend to value more spell slots over flexibility. So it's really about making the generalist with it's 3 spells a level compelling compared to the specialist who gets a school spell slot on top of that (matching the sorcerors number of casts).

Also, the lack of arcane bond is mostly because my player thought it was clunky (I agreed) and he asked if we could just give the specialist an extra slot and call it good. So, that was me working with him.

Opposition schools are also in, in part, because I really like them. They lead to more varied spell use. One of the things I dislike about 5e is the lack of opposition schools and how samey specialist wizard spell loadouts tend to be. Why 2? Early editions had set opp schools for every school. That led to picking certain schools every time to get opp school you didn't care about. The idea for two opp schools but you choose is actually from PF1. It's a good idea. It leads to very different loadouts for each specialist.

Ultimately, though, perfect balance, as I mentioned in my post, isn't my main concern. It's chiefly about making options compelling and distinct (which is a bit different in my view).

No problem, I am mostly impressed with the design or the result of it. You took some and you gave some.

How do you mean that opposition schools lead to more varied spell use ? On facevalue it should lead to less. Given that you can only use that extra slot for a specialist school spell there isn't any more reasons to choose specialist over universalist. Ok the access to specialist feats.

I do hope Paizo looks at you version its IMO what spellcasting should have been. I can understand why they choose to keep standard vancian due to wanting to stand out from 5e or something like that.


So I looked at both the mage and thaumaturge. I sort of agree with your point that its not a big issue to allow mages to use neo-vancian casting. I do wonder if its a bit harsh to to force specialist mages to have TWO opposition schools. The specialist-wizard gets none. And the mage has 2.

But I assume it has to do with your design philosophy. It seems you nerfed the wizards (removed bonded item, imposed oppositions schools) to make up for the neo-vancian casting. Imo thats a balanced and clever design. Even if you had kept the Sorc exactly as in core, I still think the mage/wizard would not have overshadowed the sorc (or little at least).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
zimmerwald1915 wrote:
Erk Ander wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

For one thing, if Cheliax and Andoran do go to war, Ravounel is treaty-bound to come to the aid of Cheliax- something neither Eagle Knights nor Firebrands want.

This is not necessarily true, we don't know what detail is peace agreement. It was possible that some countries were exempt, meaning Cheliax would need to fight them alone. In fact I think Andoran and Taldor was used as examples of such exceptions.
Nope. Most Ravounel can get is a time limit when they can't be called to war. Eventually, if the war goes on long enough, they will be a co-belligerent with Cheliax.

I am simply going to the quote the part from the Adventure path and the arguement with that

"Nereza agrees to place limits on the nations against
which Ravounel will assist Cheliax. For example, the
PCs may ask for an exemption on warring against
Andoran or Taldor."

Do you see now ? Depending on the success of the negotiations there might be exceptions. Just like I said. We don't know how well it went only that they succeded to negotiate. To what extent is unknown.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This.IS.Good. Nuff said.

Really I like where this is going. Or went. Thank you for sharing


PossibleCabbage wrote:

For one thing, if Cheliax and Andoran do go to war, Ravounel is treaty-bound to come to the aid of Cheliax- something neither Eagle Knights nor Firebrands want.

This is not necessarily true, we don't know what detail is peace agreement. It was possible that some countries were exempt, meaning Cheliax would need to fight them alone. In fact I think Andoran and Taldor was used as examples of such exceptions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
He literally said as such a few posts before the one you quoted.
James Jacobs wrote:
One SIGNIFICANT thing we'll be more obvious and clear about when and if we do more rules for Azlantis is to treat them more responsibly. Just as how there are numerous Tien ethnicities representing a wide range of cultures on Tian Xia, there's numerous Azlanti ethnicities representing a wide range of cultures on Azlant back in the pre-Earthfall days. AKA there's a lot of diversity among them.

I can't remember writing to you, but sure feel free to chime in wherever. I wanted elaborate than there have rarely been any Azlanti that look differently than those described in 1e, hence this is pretty much a retcon. Not that it matters greatly. It is however interesting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:


The people of Azlant, collectively known as the Azlanti, comprised a wide range of skin colors and hair colors and eye colors, yes.

I notices you changed that in the latest 2e sourvebook. In 1e they were bronzed-colouzed in skin, dark hair and purple eyes.


The Drunken Dragon wrote:

I mean, is that so far-fetched? Starfinder gave us Hylax, a LG goddess of individuality and choice. I think it was JJ himself that mentioned that sometimes gods have a unique or unexpected (and even seemingly contradictory) portfolio. For eg, there’s always Tsukiyo, LG god of madness. Granted, he is the patron of the neurodivergent and those who have come back changed after incredibly stressful events, sure, but the idea of a Madness Divinity being LG is just as odd as a Free Will deity being LG.

It might be that Ilya would’ve possibly altered over time...if he were allowed to live

Tbh, I feel personally that this is a stretch and I agree it’s unusual, but it hardly lacks precedent

Its more like it surprises me a little. And yes Hylax is a great example. However individuality and freedom etc are concepts that Paizo associates with CG. That's the surprising part. For instance I personally think Milani is more NG than CG (read her entire entry) but PAizo has decided that she should be CH, probably due to her revolution sphere. But I would love a NG Milani, first her overal creed much better.


Tender Tendrils wrote:

Its also just common sense, most societies are made up of ordinary people just going with the flow - evil regimes happen more due to a small group of evil individuals taking advantage of the majorities neutral indifference (or good, but not brave enough to go against the grain).

Your average Chelaxian is probably not pulling the wings of flies and kicking puppies for fun, they are probably just living their life and doing what they are told.

Granted that this is a fantasy setting with entire races that are inherently evil (or damn near) it is no way common sense. If you look at the entry of several nation/states/kingdoms in Golarion they have alignments. That can either be the alignment of Ruler(s) or its a "average" alignment of the inhabitants. Possibly policies of said nations. Problem is when Rulers alignment and the nations don't add up (Taldor prior to Europia)

So unless you have a source on that its likely opinion.

Doing what you are told is literally what plenty evil folks say (I was just following order) IRL. Its not a very "good" (see what I did :D) expression when discussing evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
I thought Sarenrae started as an angel and got upgraded to deity for leading her fellows in the fight against Rovagug.

The same could be said of Asmodeus and devils. I assume Angel/Devil might be considered a sort of a "divine race" and Sarenrae and Asm are the first (and greatest) of their kinds.

The so called Fall from "heaven" that Asmo led Dispaters, Moloch and the and others on could be a sort of rebellion from the other First. One being based on a lawful/Chaotic and Good/Evil perspective. OR just Free will.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Bartram wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

That's all really awesome.

The listed deities of the 'First 8' are Pharasma, Desna, Sarenrae, Achaekek, Rovagug, Ihys, Asmodeus, and a nameless God bound to Pharasma's throne.

The Speakers of the Depths are probably the Proteans.

I'm not sure that Pharasma counts as one of the first eight. The way I see it is that each of the eight sides of the seal is one of the outside alignments (with Neutral being the center)

I would interpret it as

LG: Ihys
NG: Sarenrae
CG: Desna

LN: Achaekek (before he descended into savagery apparently)
N: Pharasma (Not counted among the eight)
CN: Speaker of the Depths

LE: Asmodeus
NE: Throne dude
CE: The guy that stepped off and got eaten by Rovagug (or just Rovy)

Yup! (Throne dude is not associated with Pharasma's throne, though. It's a different throne.)

So Ihys was LG God of Free will ?


Paradozen wrote:

Thrune murdered 100 people to create an artifact, which implies that they did not murder 100 people just because. If Abrogail Thrune is as intelligent as the lore suggests, the laws of Cheliax are arranged in such a way that the creation of this artifact can be prioritized above the lives of 100 citizens of the state, and those lives can be confiscated via execution to create the artifact competely lawfully.

The difference, in my mind, between CE and LE rulers is that CE rulers will kill people and then pass the justification that says they are fine doing so, while LE people have already arranged the law code so make every instance of murder they need to commit perfectly lawful ahead of time.

This and especially the last paragraph is something I can agree on. It still begs the question what was legal justification. Is Trhune a nation where there is a law that (as you implied) allows the ruler to break other rules in the name of national security ?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Decimus Drake wrote:
It's only catch-22 if you equate lawful process with "good". Their execution has nothing to do with their crimes. They are being killed because they are objectively evil and killing them is a good act because the alignment based damage being used to kill them is objectively good.
This has never, and will never, be true.

This is 100% correct. 'Evil' has a much lower bar than 'deserving of death' does. I mentioned above that an otherwise Neutral person might be Evil due to repeatedly cheating on his wife and maybe being kind of an a#%$@%!. Those are hardly sins worthy of execution.

Cyouni wrote:
The majority of Cheliax's citizens are LE. Killing them on a large scale would still 100% be an evil act.
This, however, is not correct. Most people, in all civilizations, tend to be some variety of Neutral. LE citizens are certainly much more common in Cheliax than they are in, say, Andoran, but they aren't the majority.

Source on that ?


Samurai wrote:
You seem to think Instrument of Zeal requires an action or reaction. It doesn't. It simply modifies your Smite Evil attacks and Champion reactions with an additional effect on a crit hit. No additional reaction needed.

No I don't. But Smite Evil and Blade of justice requires one action respectively 2 actions . And Retributive strike requires a reaction (hence Divine Reflexes in case u wanna use it twice in a round).

To gain the benefit of the feat you need activate the precise actions that benefit from it.


Ravingdork wrote:
Erk Ander wrote:
...so that feat-bloat doesn't become a thing in this edition as well.

About that...

822 feats - Core Rulebook
205 feats - Lost Omens Character Guide
054 feats - Lost Omens World Guide
018 feats - Age of Ashes 1-3
002 feats - The Fall of Plaguestone (stand alone adventure)
001 feats - Society Adventures (cumulative adventures to date)
1,104 feats in total to date

;D

I know what you mean, due to the way classes are built yes we will have more feats naturally. But my points still stands. Its even more important now. It took damn near a decade to reach 1500 feats in first edition. Now we are almost already there so its even more important.


K1 wrote:
Erk Ander wrote:
Some feats are really situational (or near useless) such as Instruments of Zeal, fixing feats would be great so that feat-bloat doesn't become a thing in this edition as well

I like it, but still have to try it out.

A keen rune will be required, and also reach weapon with ranged reprisal as a paladin build.

Given 1 or maybe 2 melee allies, it would be

1 attack map 0 ( eventually, it could be even a blade of Justice. If divine smite is already up or if you have haste ).
2 attack map -5
3 reaction map 0
4 reaction map 0

4 strikes with 10% each roll.

With the gnome flickmace, a critical hit would be

Slowed 1 + knocked prone + 1 extra weapon dice.

Seems ok to me, but aa said I still have to try it.

There are essentially 2 roads, one through Retributive strike and one through the feat Smite Evil

You also have to have the lvl 14 feat Divine reflexes in your case (because you only have 1 reaction otherwise).

If you wanna use Smite Evil you need that feat first, then you have to activate it (one action).

You example (which only really works with Smite Evil, unless you have haste) requires the keen-rune, 2 melee allies that both get attacked (within 15 feet of you), the feats Smite Evil, Divine reflexes, Flickmace, Ranged Reprisal and last but not least the feat Instrument of Zeal.

No insult intended friend, I applaud your creativity and positivism. But this a s~*+load of requirements to get "a ok use" from a lvl 16 feat.

And thats my point. Very or really situational at best, useless or trap-option at worst. This is just one feat there are more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elorebaen wrote:
Zapp wrote:
Erk Ander wrote:
Some feats are really situational (or near useless) such as Instruments of Zeal, fixing feats would be great so that feat-bloat doesn't become a thing in this edition as well

Have you counted the number of new feats in the two Lost Omens guides?

Feat bloat is definitely a thing in this edition. Not only a thing - the game is clearly and intentionally constructed to permit easy publication of HUGE and HUGE amounts of feats.

Moreover, that a feat is "situational" doesn't mean it should be fixed, or that it is useless.

I didn't say merely situational, I said REALLY situational. The really part matters.

Here is the thing. PAthfinder first edition had a ton of useless and very situational feats. This edition should imo aspire to avoid that. From the very start.


Some feats are really situational (or near useless) such as Instruments of Zeal, fixing feats would be great so that feat-bloat doesn't become a thing in this edition as well


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I apt to agree with you about this. I personally find it weird that the alignment damage is so bland in nature. I'd rather see it more nuanced.

The nature of evil and in particular fiends is that harmful to all, even itself. Evil feads at evil as well. As such I think evil damage should be equally deadly towards good, neutral AND evil. As it is now the evil is deadly only towards good and vice versa. It's fairly boring and not at all thematic in the way evil works (IMO).

In AP Hells Vengeance we see again and again how evil hits back at itself (and good of course) through for example the harmful and cruel infighting. The reason that people turn towards evil is that's its more accessible and easy to procure. People make pacts and sacrifices with evil entities to gain power rather than go the long hard road of righteousness (where you must prove yourself through good deeds before getting a modicum of power).

I would change aligment damage (Evil) so that it can hurt good, evil- and neutral-aligned. Good damage still only targets evil. Because good is considerate and precise and will not harm the innocent (good and neutral in this case). Evil is equal opportunity in terms of who it affects. Hellfire is as deadly to devil as the demon (and others ofc).

This of course makes evil weapons and spells far more efficient since they can harm anybody. As such I would consider decreasing evil damage to 50% or decrease the hit-die on step. From 1d6 for unholy weapons to 1d4. Maybe 1d3.

I would also take away evil vulnerability on celestials (fiends still have their vulnerability). The attribute evil has over good is its total ruthlessness. An evil fiend can save an orphanage full of children if it suits the purposes of evil or itself, that is a fiend will do good deeds even if its against its nature. A celestial will not slaughter children of an orphanage even if it would suite purposes of good or itself (don't ask how). A celestial will not commit evil deeds due to its nature. Hence some kind RP rules (like those of demons, I love those) can replace they fact that Celestials will hit fiends harder than fiends hit Celestials. On the other had fiends will damage everything harder than Celestials will since evil damage is harmful to all.


The Raven Black wrote:

Murdering 100 innocent persons on a whim is a Chaotic Evil act.

Murdering them because it is efficient is a Neutral Evil act.
Murdering them because these are your orders is a Lawful Evil act.

And as DMW stated a single non-Lawful act does not make you stop being Lawful.

Sadly I do not know the specifics of that event, so I cannot guess which of the above applies.

Hmmm. Sounds like a shortcut for my definition of the Law-Chaos axis would be :

"I want to" = Chaotic
"I have to" = Lawful
"I need to" = Neutral

I never claimed a single act makes you unlawful, I said continueng such acts would. She has 100 good-aligned people murdered to create a artifact. I am wondering what laws they broke to get killed. Given that Cheliax is a nation of laws. I assume murder isnt lawful. And just murdering a 100 people without any trial or any such comes of as weird. Surely there is something they can find among the numerous laws. While rulers can decide who lives and dies lawful rulers usually have reasons not just "I felt like it ". Though that happens ofc.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Abrogail Thrune is not a Cleric. She can break the law all she wants as long as she doesn't break her deal with Asmodeus (in which case he would claim her soul). I very much doubt the deal in question stops her from murdering people.

Now, she is LE, so I doubt she does that sort of thing often, but doing a single non-Lawful act doesn't make you stop being Lawful, generally speaking.

No sheäs not a cleric but if a lawful person does unlawful things one could assume shes no longer going to be lawful is she

s continueing. I didnt mention it being Asmodeus complaining rather she not following the laws of Cheliax. And yes she's the ruler but laws applies to ruler as well. Otherwise we might as well all be Chaotic. A Queen doing whatever she wants regardless of what shes made lawful is more like Chaotic Neutral than Lawful evil.


I see the argument about Big A wanting non-LE ckerics etc. But being the lawful person why would ignore his own principles and grant power to those that effectly aren't in synch with him. I could see Chaotic gods granting power willy nilly but not lawful.

I also question just what lawful means in Cheliax the queen murdered 100 people just like that in AP. No justification besides we need that for Tanthum. Doesn't come of as very lawful. Granted maybe there is a law in Cheliax that allows the death of good-aligned people.


Tender Tendrils wrote:


A new hellknight order using guns would be interesting.

While I agree it would be cool, there is literally an entire Order that hates and destroys "revolutionary" tech and ideas. It would be pretty awkward on hell-kignt meetings


1 person marked this as a favorite.
zimmerwald1915 wrote:
Erk Ander wrote:

Easily Andoran, mostly because they tend to be far less conservative in adopting new tech. For instance inAbsalom the First Guard is VERY conservative where as those member from Andoran tend to want to experiment and progress.

Also pseudo-America.

Andoran has neither the know-how nor the plant to produce firearms, and no means to gain either. They could always import them, though.

Ehm, only 1 nation has the know-how and and ability to produce fireams (Alkenstar) so thats hardly a legitimate argument. Andoran has a educated population (school is free) no other nation has that level of literacy. Also Andoran smiths are known as being less conservative and more interested in experimenting and developing news arms and tech.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow the details on the art. The holster of firearms has the symbol of Ioemedae

The Knights of Lastwall turned out to be pretty cool sure they got nuked and driven out but they are stilll fighting. Really like it.


QuidEst wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
Agreed about the disappointment with the heavy armor, reactionary playstyle. Retributive Strike was a dumpster fire. If it's still around, and if Paladins are still pigeonholed into heavy armor, I'll consider it a dead class.
Does heavy armor proficiency not carry down to light armor proficiency? I thought it did.
It's the bonus to AC while wearing heavy armor but not other kinds of armor that has me concerned. It's easy to say "Oh, just ignore it" but like I always say, mechanics left on the vine exert a constant subconscious pressure to act a certain way.
Ah, I didn’t remember that.

Thats not entirely correct the bonus is to any armour with the chain, plate or leather keywords. Its called Armour Specialisation or some such. A Paladin is as good in heavy armour as in light. They didn't pidgeon hole it. They did very well by making the Paladin capable in any armour type (even unarmoured)

Yeah I had my issues with the Champion. The first being the so called reactions, the interfere with the new Divine Grace, the use of shields and Attacks of Oppurtunity. Now I LOVE options, but you are sort of forced to take the reactions since they are features .This wouldn't be an issue if you could trade out the reactions (if they were feats for instance) for feats or something

Second of all was the fact that Sense Evil, Aura of Courage, Divine Grace should have been class features (maybe instead of the Reactions). And then you have abilties like Insstrument of Zeal which is a tad lackluster, the lvl 20 ablities are not very impressive at all. The feat "Divine Smite" was better at release than the playtest version (where it was called Blade of Justice) but its still not very impressive.

Overall I actually like the Champion, make no mistake, I just which the play styles weren't forced upon us (meaning the reactions)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Holomog plz !A celestial nation that doesnt suffer from "Good is dumb", not counting the war on Geb.


Liane is nothing but amazing, her works always entertaining to read.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

also, no need to put frighten on it.

it already is an attack which is about equal to paladin getting an attack, no more riders needed.

Or, in fact, you could simply NOT have it do an attack, and only get the resistance and the Frighten.

Also:
"You must drive for power and be cunning whenever it advances your cause, harm or undermine those who seek to wrong you and value your life above others when it needed."

that's not "evil" imo. That's like the definition of neutral "don't care about others, just you survive, also punish those who are against you"

A tenet for Evil needs to promote evil, not to promote self-preservation and defense.

i'd put in something more drastic in its place, like:
"You must strive to undo good acts done by others"
or
"You must strive to accomplish your deeds in a way that brings harm to another"

or something along those lines

I would not add those lines into the tenets. Here is why, evil characters do whats in their interest or those of other evil interests. If doing good is in their interest thats what they are possibly going to do. They don't have oppose good specfically it comes with the territory since they do what the want regardless of who suffers (with some possile boundaries if lawful evil for examaple)


Reziburno25 wrote:
Erk Ander wrote:
I can already say that the Tyrant reaction is WAY better than its LG version. Even if you ditch the resistance its still much much better
Any thoughts on how to make it even?

To be honest thats fairly hard. For instance for the fighter to get a similiar ability it needs all the feats up to Dueling Riposte and then only on a crtical failure.

Even if you get rid of the resistance bonus its still very good. Maybe a -5 attack penalty ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can already say that the Tyrant reaction is WAY better than its LG version. Even if you ditch the resistance its still much much better


Edge93 wrote:
It's not Stunned 1 (At least from what I was told), it's Stunned. Stunned without a number attached means they lose all of their actions for the listed duration.

You didn't get what I meant. I know its Stunned (no save) for 1 round. I proposed it be changed to Stunned 1. My proposal was that it could also replace the usual crit effect that weapons come with. As a further balance point.

Edge93 wrote:

The closest comparison to crit specialization effects would be Brawling, which can make a target Slowed 1 for 1 round if they fail a Fort save against your class DC. So Brawling effects anyone but allows a save and only takes 1 action. This Ancestry thing effects fiends only but allows no save and takes all actions.

That's still busted. Just because it's limited in creature type doesn't make up for the ridiculous discrepancy. IMO it would be appropriate to make it Stunned 1 with no save instead of Stunned for 1 round. I don't think anyone would object to that. It drops the save allowed but is type-specific.

Actually it being limited to creature does in fact partially make up for the power, due to making it conditional. With that said as it is now it need a Fort Save OR it needs to be toned down to Stunned 1. That was my point in the first post. I see we agree on that.

Edge93 wrote:

NOTE: Okay, the above post is based on two notable misconceptions. First, I somehow misread the original mention of this Aasimar ability and thought it stunned fiends if THEY crit YOU, kinda like how armor of x material sickens y creatures if they crit you. That said, you stunning them if you crit them is probably even more broken.

The second, I misread the quoted post. I thought it was saying that this ability (As I thought it was before I realized my mistake) was fine, and that it should be compared to crit specialization effects as a balance point. Hence why I was comparing to the effects of a similar crit ability.

TL;DR The ability as it is is still absolutely broken IMO, perhaps even...

Yeah I realised you got it wrong, maybe I should have been clearer (I was tired yesterday, should have been more orderly in my response). Lets just take it easy with the superlatives. Yes is its very strong if situational and yes it needs some revision but absolutely broken is a strong word.

Either we both agree the ability needs a save (Fort) or be tonned down to Stunned 1. Either works well.


Hmm a lot of kneejerk reactions. I propose we all look at the current core ancestries. Usually most of the so called "OP" stuff is already in Core.

I If fighting fiends the 1-round stun is great, the times it occurs that is. Still I propose it replace a weapons regular crit effect (flatfooted for example sword etc) assuming you have such ability and does Stun 1. It's situational in that only affects fiends which balance out the lack of sving throw, after it requires a crit (or a massive to hit bonus)


The PF bastard sword should simply have stats of the Katana. As such it doesn't compete with the "great-sword" aka the real life Two-handed sword/Slaughter-sword/Montante. The Katana stats feels very appropriate it was well executed by Paizo.

Maybe I would replace the Deadly Trait with the Versatile (B) to represent using the pommel, quillions etc as club/war-hammer. It also differentiates the Bastard Sword from the Katana ever so slightly


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So are ThiCC Tengu going to be a thing now ?

1 to 50 of 143 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>