Sunlord Thalachos

Erk Ander's page

162 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I really HOPE they dont make Holy/unHoly (and their weaknesses) pure polar opposites like in vanilla 2e.

What I mean is that I hope they take into account how the different concepts differ due to their nature. Unholy should be decent against pretty much anything while Holy is only good against fiends etc. So unholy is relatively easy way to gain power and damage (just be evil, support evil or powerhungry). Holy is powerful against fiends but pretty much useless against other targets and demands more from the user (it easier to be evil than to be good).

Not sure I am being clear. Its too late overhere

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Major props for revising some stuff from the core-book. I really respect that. Also Hopefully feats will be less situational this time

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is some excessive measures. Yes I understand that none of the content that Paizo themselves make shall include AI-content but to bar others is overreach

Here is an example of a nonvancian caster. I detest vancian casting.

Either its pretty good. Its more like 5es casting in some regards. It also cexists, for the bard, druid, sorc and cleric alternative_casting_classes/

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I made a comment about this ages ago. To summarize, it makes no sense imo that evil and good are simply polar opposites in terms of how they cause damage. Angels etc are extra weak against evil energy and Fiends extra weak against Good ebergy. But thats sort of shallow view of alighment based damage. Evil and Good are more than just complete opposites. Evil is far more indiscriminate than Good is. As such everybody is equally vulnerable to evil damage regardless of actual alignment. Good damage on the other side tends to be more controlled and deliberate as such evil takes full damage, neutral takes half damage and good takes no damage.

At least thats how I think it should have been

Well my wish is sort of to late. The game is in my opinion suffering from feat bloat. There are near two dozen classes and an at least 40 feats for each class. Not only are there way too many classes (just make them archtypes of subclasses of actual clases) there are way too many feats of which 90% are less than useful due to being so conditional.

So what do I want I would wish for more quality over quantity


There is a guy called Data-something that came up with a great fix to your problem. He balanced all casters because of this.

This is great and the way it supposed to be imo.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Have to say I love an iconic that that is fairly mature (agewise) and a parent as well. Cool

3 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:

For myself, I'd love to just go down the list of nations:

Osirion: Hooooo boy. Osirion is my single least-favorite place on Golarion.

I agree that Osirion is not very original

With that said note every region needs to LG wholesome. Some regions like Katapesh are going to to be unpleasant by moderns sensiblities. And if you look at cultures that inspired Katapash or Qadira slavery was everpresent. Katapash is meant to be what its meant to be, not every region has to be unproblematic. Thats why you have Andorans fighting against slavery and other injusticies over there (Which the Okeno Pirates hate). Much like the Worlwound its not a pleasant place not meant to be. Its a symbol of what can happen if wealth is the only thing that matters and you are willing to sell you parents to get it.

Conflickt between Taldor and Qadira has nothing remotelyto do with Crusades. Absolutely nothing. The Crusades was a multinationell and religiously motivated conflict. Qadira vs Taldor is not.

Blue_frog wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

that makes me think they are strictly weaker in combat that a barbarian/fighter or rogue while having minimal ooc utility, a investigator meanwhile has great potential for ooc use.

still like the flavor of swashbuckler however

Well, they have more mobility than anyone but the monk. They can dart about the Battlefield with little concern for AOO (vexing tumble) and more speed than a mobility rogue or shield fighter.

Their AC is 1 less than a shield fighter and with buckler dance better than most melee. Their damage with panache is on par with most dps and some options allow them to have insane dps (impaling finisher, dual finisher, bleeding finisher).

Starting at level 10 with derring do, they're the unmatched masters of acrobatics and their respective trade. A gymnast is the best character there is at tripping/grappling, a braggard is the best at intimidating. It's not even close.

Meanwhile, a wit swashbuckler can give every turn +4 to a friend's attack while gaining panache.

Bah, I wasn't convinced at first but now I think they're pretty strong.

According to calculator I posted their DPS is just below Fighter and Barb most times. Finisher or not. Havent calculated or seen it any calculations with Rogue or Ranger

Here is a calculator for DPR for the Swashbuckler ng_pathfinder_2e_average/

SuperBidi wrote:

It's a complicated question. AoO (which I know more) happens very rarely if the party is not built for it. Something like 10-20% of the time. If you have a character who specializes in tripping, it gets suddenly closer to 30-40%. So it's very party dependent.
Opportune Riposte is more monster/DM dependent. On a first attack, it will trigger 5% of the time (same level enemy). On a second attack, 25% of the time and on a third attack 50% of the time. So, if your DM loves hit and run monsters, ranged attackers, spellcasters and such, it will happen quite rarely. But against stupid brutes, it happens a lot. 3 attacks from a brute will trigger one with more than 50% chance. If it's a lower level brute, you will trigger it nearly for sure.
So, because there are 2 variables it's hard to compare AoO and Opportune Riposte. But at least Opportune Riposte is not party dependent. And if you end your turn next to a lower level monster, you can be pretty sure it'll trigger it once. Then, monsters will understand they should not attack you, but it's not bad not to be attacked, too.

Hmm is AoO really that party depedent ? Doesn't it greatly depend on the DM and moster as well ?

Also even if point about stupid brutes is take into consideration it would take 6 attacks over 2 turns to be guaranateed a riposte. Thats not something you want optimse over say usage of Charmed Luck that will pretty much happen way more often

Overall I like it. But you are truly overestimating opportune riposte, Charmed Life or even AoO are more likely to occur than a critical failure. Its nice when it happens (for various reasons) but its not super likely. And hardly somehting you can count on. Unless you somehow can get extremly high AC (hard due to AC increases being very limited) or fighting very weak enemies all the time (GM dependent)

Arrow17 wrote:

For spontaneous casters its HUGE nerf as I can only heighten spells by using signature spell. This only allows one spell per spell level attained. So if I take Fey bloodline for example I lose out on 3 bloodline spells if I do not take signature spell at 1rst, 2nd & 16th levels for these spells. In addition I have to cast each spell at its highest level to effect equal level opponents. It seems like a HUGE tax for a few spells that opponents will likely make their saving throw

In care you like alternative spellcasting I would suggest Datalores Homebrew. ITs very good (I only disagree with opposed schools and not Sorc not getting a little more stuff). I would suggest you try it out before you mess with Incapacitation. I agree with you that it really makes some spells useless. But I also understand its existance. alternative_casting_classes/

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Erk Ander wrote:
Rogues and Swash have the same saves and the same AC. The Swash get 1 hp more per lvl. So the defenses are the exactly the same and Swash get at most 20 more HP. Not exactly squishy.

It's +2 HP per level, actually (so +40 HP eventually, a pretty meaningful number). Swashbucklers also have vastly increased mobility...which translates directly into getting attacked less if you use it right.

They also have much better defensive Feat support (specifically, Charmed Life is a great Save buff, and they have a bunch of high level defensive stuff, most notably Dueling Dance and Incredible Luck).

Sorry +2. The Rogue is more likely to have a higher CON than the Swash due to being a very SAD class and not needing str for damage.

Vastly is a exaggeration, yes the class is faster on par with the monk. And yes Charmed life is nice and its big brother (incredible luck) even nicer. Though it forces the class to upgrade CHA (at least 14) just to use those feats.. But that pretty much it in terms of saves. Dueling Dance is a multiclass feat or 2 away.And its decent.

But if get down to it the Rogue gets debuff that aid the entire party something insane.

The point still stands the class-chassis is only slightly sturdier than rogue. However I belive its much to early to say that Rogue is objectively better. Lets things marinate

PossibleCabbage wrote:

It's easier to get Panache than it is to inflict Flat-Footed, FWIW.

But the main difference is that while rogues can pile on the damage as well as any martial, they are pretty squishy and have poor defenses. The Swashbuckler is as sturdy as the fighter or ranger.

Rogues and Swash have the same saves and the same AC. The Swash get 1 hp more per lvl. So the defenses are the exactly the same and Swash get at most 20 more HP. Not exactly squishy.

Fighters get the Agile grace feat (which quite frankly Swashbucklers should get as well)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mudfoot wrote:
We know that Rovagug is the most powerful god there is. So is it unreasonable to believe that he manipulated Saranrae into making the Pit?
This is pretty explicitly canonical, having been stated outright a few places.

Hmm, I think Jacobs has said Pharasma is the most powerful with Rova being numero dos.

Where does it say he manipulated Sarenrae. Also Sarenrae has a temper doesn't make here evil.

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.


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.

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: 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


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.

1 to 50 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>