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
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.
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.
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:
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 ?
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
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.
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:
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.
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:
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:
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).
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
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.
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.
He literally said as such a few posts before the one you quoted.
The Drunken Dragon wrote:
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:
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.
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.
James Jacobs wrote:
So Ihys was LG God of Free will ?
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 ?
Source on that ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
No sheäs not a cleric but if a lawful person does unlawful things one could assume shes no longer going to be lawful is shes 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.
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.
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)
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)
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 ?
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.
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.
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