Honeybee's page

...or people just have different opinions about what words mean when written in a feat's Prerequisites line—generally a form of binding rules text, in my experience—opinions that, in my opinion, don't deserve a smear tactic.

But, if you'd prefer it presented your way:

At its root, this debate boils down to another version of "I hate how healing anathema is handled in Pathfinder 2 and I want to restrict ignore it as much as possible".

A person opens a thread because feel that anyone who disagrees with the majority is attacked.

Two people start making veiled accusations.

Congratulations! you guys proved his point.

observation1. On holidays, people have more time to write posts.

observation2. The world is big and not everyone knows that in the US is a holiday.

Welcome to the forums, new user! We're not that bad, when you get to know us. ^_^

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Ravounel pursuing any edge they can to keep their newfound independence sounds lovely.

Independence for what? It's not a positive good for its own sake.

Independence... from a slaving empire in service to hell? You don’t gotta be weird and semantic about it.

As noted elsewhere, it probably looks different from the other side of that arrangement.

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Zaister wrote:

Have these Firebrands been mentioned before? Maybe something from PFS?

I believe they are the Silver Ravens rebranded for operating outside of Ravounel/plausible deniability. Or at least they have ties to the SRs.

They have a bird for their badge in the CRB, and are described in the same execrable way. This is probable.

Yes, it seems likely. I'm not sure, though what is supposed to so execrable about being "united by a desire to fight oppression, oppose tyrannical regimes, free slaves, rescue the wrongfully accused" and "surprisingly difficult for oppressive governments and cruel religions to defeat."

Depends on which side of all that you're on, I expect.

Whatever happened to imagination?

I'm afraid I don't recognize this "imagination". Could you provide a full-color illustration?

Rysky wrote:

Haven't seen it so no idea.

The movie starts with a group of players TPK'ing because their cleric suddenly loses his powers in the middle of a fight - something the players didn't know was possible. It results in a loud argument about whether "it makes a good story" is an acceptable justification for that kind of thing.

Game design based on The Gamers 2. *nods* Maybe next we can look at the Knights of the Dinner Table comics. Can't wait to implement Demerits for players who mouth off to the GM... that sounds like a good idea, right?

In all seriousness, I'm pretty sure the anathema system exists to minimize ambiguity and prevent this exact sort of situation. It's about as clear a set of rules as it'll ever be while still supporting the flavor of divine beneficence.

That said: if they made this an optional rule that groups could opt into, like the Removing Alignment rules in Pathfinder Unchained, I'd support that. It gives groups that prefer to play that way the green light, and that's just fine by me.

I don't think you're giving the previously established ruleset enough credit for how much influence it has in the conversation. Because I know there were 3.5 DMs who didn't let Bards be lawful who, after they switched to P1E, did let those Bards be lawful. The rules went from telling the DM he could nix a character to telling him he couldn't. Or PF GMs who, in P1E, won't be allowing nonlawful Monks (outside of a few specific archetypes) and who will be allowing every nonlawful Monk who comes their way in P2E. Or going from not allowing lawful Barbarians to allowing lawful Barbarians.

And no, it doesn't have the be the GM acting out of malice. He can simply be operating under the assumption that, of the two parties (the developers of the game and one of his players), the developers must know something that neither the player nor the GM himself does. The GM has no idea what deeply obscure insight this must be, but he doesn't care enough to belabor the point, so he tells the player to pick a different character. And if the player doesn't, then it must be the player's wrongdoing, right?

Does that mean that every nonlawful Monk player in P2E is a problem player? Is every lawful Bard player in P1E a problem player? In both of those cases, they're picking the editions that they are so that all the negotiating that they might fail at (or even if they succeed, they still run the risk of stepping on people's metaphorical toes to get there) is already done.

So yeah, I resent this implication that I must be operating from an adversarial mindset.

"The rules went from telling the DM he could nix a character to telling him he couldn't."

No, they went from characters having to be houseruled in, to those characters being legal within the rules. "If my 3.0 GM doesn't let me play my nonlawful monk, she's nixing my character!" is as much the GM's fault as not letting you play your wizard with a full BAB. It's something she could allow, but just because you want her to doesn't make her wrong for not changing things to fit your wishes.

So all those nonlawful monk players in PF1... however many there were... aren't necessarily problem players. They are, however, trying to play a character that operates on different standards than the game assumes, and just because the GM doesn't let them have their way is no reason to vilify her.

PF2 seems to be going for a strengthening of GM authority-to-make-rulings in general, which I'm just fine with. But I suppose it won't be quite as golden for players with an adversarial, rather than collaborative, mindset.

(Or GMs out to screw the players, of course... though I don't expect most of those GMs would be swayed by "well, the rules say you can't screw me, so nyah" in any case.)

I kind of expect people to start wanting clerics of nothing now.

Because really, if we're going to assume GMs are going to misinterpret everything in the worst way, then clerics are no more immune than anyone else. And this has been the same since the start of PF1 as well, since "a cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god" was pretty much an anathema in the first place.

This.

Honestly, if you can't even trust your GM, you probably shouldn't bother playing with the group. You're probably not going to have a very good time, or help the group have one. It's supposed to be a fun time with friends, not "how can I protect myself from this untrustworthy enemy of a GM". And I can't imagine this sort of baseline atmosphere of mistrust goes away just because your character doesn't have anathema.

I dunno. Maybe I've been playing wrong this whole time. *shrugs*

Lucas Yew wrote:

Even 5E has Medium playable dragons from the start (albeit without wings and breath severely limited), PF2 should have at least a Small one as soon as possible!

Dragonborn are the single worst thing in D&D. They're nothing but an appeasement of whiny nerds crying that they couldn't play a dragon PC without taking a 10-level prestige class. I don't want that sh*t anywhere near Pathfinder.

Is it Respecting Others' Roleplaying Preferences Day on the forums already!? Gosh, how time flies.

Right? People are so sensitive nowadays. It's not like orcs have a long history of being based on racist depictions of people of color, all the way back to their origins. That'd make a redesign that specifically emulated an animal commonly used in racist depictions of another group of PoC really awkward.

Good luck.

Yeah, we wouldn't want peoples' character concepts to evolve as they go through the campaign or anything unfun like that. Have your 1-20 build ready at character creation, and for God's sake, don't experience any character growth.

Hopefully the new player brought an Internet-connected smartphone with adequate service at the convention location and is willing to go searching through an unfamiliar website for that information.

Worshiping the headless god of the serpentfolk will make for some interesting roleplaying experiences, I suppose.

So if you have sequences which are somewhat challenging for non-specialists, this lets you provide opportunities for the specialist to feel "I am good at this" and when you have truly heroic challenges (like the aforementioned frozen waterfall clock) only the specialist has a realistic chance of succeeding so if they do, they feel *awesome*.

And then they roll an 8 and fail. And not only do they feel absolutely terrible about missing their obvious opportunity to be the hero, they also feel like every resource they spent on that skill was completely wasted.

Okay.

Let's talk about something we gain from the new system. Say I'm primarily a Fighter and I have decent Intelligence. At level 11, I decide to take a dip into Wizard, defined as the minimum amount of resources put towards the multiclass. What do I gain in each edition.

In PF1, I would lose out on gaining a BAB, delaying the access to that extra attack I need. I also delay access to all my other class features. What I gain would be level one wizard spells that probably never progress again, offering little benefit to me unless I use a specific few spells. Even then, those spells would be limited by your casting level of 1.

In PF2, I would lose access to a class feat, having spent it on the Wizard Dedication. You don't delay any of your regular class progression, though. What you gain is some Cantrips that scale to your level, even if you are just fresh into the multiclassing. These will continue to scale, even with no further investment.

PF2 offers far more appealing an option. PF1 is pretty much just screwing over your fighter.

I suppose an 11th-level fighter would have had enough ability score increases to be able to multiclass into wizard. At lower levels, I'd be very impressed with their dedication to an otherwise unhelpful stat (and wondering how their physical stats looked because of it).

Honeybee wrote:

Sweet. How do I play one in PFS?

wrong forum, can't help you there

Nice dodge.

So your position of "orcs are exactly as valid a player ancestry as everything else, so shut up and stop complaining" doesn't take into account that, in Paizo's organized play setting (which is the only real option some people have to play Pathfinder), orcs are completely unplayable. And this is a campaign that allows fifteen ancestries by default, plus another (estimated) twenty-two additional ancestries. But not orcs. It's almost like, just maybe, there is something different about how they're officially treated.

So maybe telling people to just play orcs instead, or whatever you're saying, isn't really helpful. (I'm erring in your favor and assuming you weren't being intentionally disingenuous.)

Arachnofiend wrote:

Orcs aren't getting the full race treatment, either.

Wow, sounds like big change from P1E, where Orcs had same ARG Featured status as Aasimar, Tiefling, Ratfolk, Dhampirs...

ARG: Featured Races wrote:

While the seven core races are the primary focus of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, they're not the only ones suitable to be played as characters. Other, even stranger races help populate the world, and—with the GM's permission—also work well as player character races, creating fun and exciting new roleplaying opportunities. (...) While many of these races are considered civilized, some are typically viewed as monsters, and may prove interesting challenges for roleplaying and character interaction. When playing drow, kobolds, orcs, or other such races, it is often best for party dynamics to take on the roles of characters who rebel against the norms of their races and societies—creatures who do not agree with their often brutal cultures, and instead wish to carve out a better existence for themselves among other races.

That almost looks like... undeniable intention for Orcs to be playable (as PCs, no less, although that isn't inherent to concept of "full race treatment").

Expressly giving advice exactly how to integrate Orc PCs into a game could even be called... encouragement.
Note Paizo's provisional Playtest Core Race treatment Goblin gives similar advice distinguishing heroic PC from problematic majority.

Sweet. How do I play one in PFS?

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I disagree.

You can disagree all you want. I have played 4th ed with mediocre GMs who used the table to make the game less fun than it otherwise would have been.

I too have played (edition) with mediocre GMs who used (game mechanic) to make the game less fun than it otherwise would have been, so I feel your pain.

I mean, it's not like a fighter using Power Attack with a two-handed weapon does more damage than a non-spellstriking magus.

Really, the situations are virtually identical.

I don't know anything about that halfling comic.

I feel like nobody properly appreciated me getting inspiration for my first PFS character from the sorts of things we discuss in this thread. (And a paladin of Shelyn, no less!)

I'm very disappointed in you all. Very disappointed.

So... the basis of your point of view is "the rules don't say they're not deities"?

The article about Yithians will be interesting.

After Shattered Star, I'm hoping it will offer more insight than if I had just read The Shadow Out Of Time instead.

TFW someone's post is wholly accurate and you agree completely... but you have to flag it anyway, because One Must Be Evenhanded.

Feros wrote:

ARRRGH!!!!! Why did you post in that Alignment Silliness thread?!? I saw that and said to myself, "Hey, Rysky posted in there. Let's see what the discussion is about...".

Now I have a headache and am going to bed disgusted by the obtuseness that littered the place...BLEAH!

Can I get a summation to save myself a headache?

Horror Adventures had a sidebar in the Spells section about how casting spells with an alignment descriptor can shift your alignment, sometimes with as few as two or three castings, or even once in truly egregious cases (such as human sacrifice).

More than a few members of the forum are displeased. There are arguments about RAW and anti-alignment statements, and some... aggressive anti-Paizo sentiment... is starting to ooze into the thread.

God, that thread is cancerous. -_-

DO IT.

Some of us just get it out of our system on the messageboards.

As someone who enjoys keeping bees, I would like to see a race of bee-people, or a race that evolved from bees.

+1000

Sorry mods.

Look at it this way - it'll be a nice break from all the other stuff they've had to clean up lately.

At least this is kind of fun.

Making my Calistrian kitsune phantom thief.

On the one hand, ALL THE TAILS. On the other hand, Deific Obedience. Of Calistria.

I guess I could just slut it up for fun instead of bonuses. But... those bonuses. Plus, it's more fun when it's done for her.

Also under consideration - Realistic Likeness, both to keep things spicy and to make sure her noble identity isn't associated with her numerous kinks.

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Listen to this Slaadi for she is wise and reasonable.

Hey now, them's fightin' words! :)

Okies, let's rassle!

This will end well.

Honey huh? I do know a pretty Thriae I could send your way...

buzzes hopefully