| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
a Lawful Good guy selling the souls of orphans to a demon.
It's to fund a retirement home!
Search Posts
I doubt fighter will ever get an update, Paizo is too afraid of upsetting the grognards that want fighters to be the bastion of boredom.Isn't Combat Stamina supposed to be their boost, particularly if it is limited to Fighters? Supposed to be? Yes. Does it actually fix the problems? Not really.
I remember reading somewhere the unchained barbarian makes it easier to be a two weapon barbarian. That combined with the fact that ending a rage can no longer kill you seem to be significant quality of life improvements. I doubt fighter will ever get an update, Paizo is too afraid of upsetting the grognards that want fighters to be the bastion of boredom.
While true, this is english we're talking about. Mixing languages in a single word isn't unheard of.
A similar thread to this one came around back when antipaladins were first introduced. Someone suggested "Reaver" and it's stuck with me ever since. I second (or third rather) this suggestion.
Well, Antipaladins have a code of conduct, despite being chaotic, so...I demand that we should also get an ANTImonk and an ANTIbarbarian!Antimonk, disciplined champion of chaos. Wait, something seems off... XD That was my point. I've always thought the antipaladin's code of conduct was... silly.
I demand that we should also get an ANTImonk and an ANTIbarbarian! Antimonk, disciplined champion of chaos. Wait, something seems off...
Vivisectionists have easily qualify under the "stab a guy in the liver" category. Beastmorphs have bombs. And again you're ignoring the limitation of my original post. So let's throw out everyone I already said doesn't qualify.
Is it spell-like? If yes -> No spellcasting.
Does the caster have a familiar? If no -> Remove Witch, Wizard and Shaman from the list.
etc
Is anyone with little to no knowledge/experience with magic going to be able to tell the difference between a wizard, an arcanist, and a sorcerer, though? Is it even common knowledge that there is a difference? Sure, a holy symbol marks someone as a servant of a deity, but that doesn't necessarily narrow their class down all that much. Better question. In a world with Bards, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers, Wizards, Alchemists, Inquisitors, Magus, Oracle, Summoner, Witches, Arcanists, Bloodragers, Hunters, Investigators, Shamans, Skalds and Warpriests. Who has been exposed to so little magic that they don't know the the broader designations for spellcasting?
But as far as an individual in the world, I can't see them having any sort of classification. The random guy who doesn't have Knowledge (arcana) probable doesn't even know the difference between arcane and divine magic, or spontaneous and prepared magic. Maybe some very specialized sage would lump out all the different categories. Maybe. But the random on the street isn't going to look at a guy and say "That's a wizard but THAT is a magus and THAT is an adept". He's going to duck and hide and use whatever word he knows - mage, magic user, wizard, sorcerer, shaman, whatever In a world filled with gods, you can bet the average layperson knows there's a difference between the holy prayers of their priests and spellcasting of abyss spawned sorcerer even if they're comprehension of the differences amounts to "priests can heal you." Again, you're resorting to martials and excluded classes to make your point. The wizard designation includes magus[a mechanical solution to the eldritch knight problem]. Adept can be identified by only once level 2 hits, otherwise they will get lumped in with other divine casters. Sorcerer, shaman, they're all easily identifiable if you know what to look for. And if you're living in a world with that many different types of magic users, you probably do.
I'll chime in to offer the descending attitude. You should not do this. Many people do not want someone to 'help' them by cutting off character options they wish to explore simply because they're not optimal. Often, when a power gamer think they're 'asking' the other players will feel pressured to let them do whatever because they're already hogging the spotlight in one way or another.... And I've encountered many friends that expressed gratitude to the power gamer, only to immediately turn to the DM for help because they were too intimidated to express anything else and didn't want to get into a fight with the power gamer over a game. Caution is strongly advised.
I don't enforce alignment restriction on any class when I GM.
Show my one non-setting specific feature that allows a cleric to cast without a holy symbol. The only way the staff magus is going to be confused is if they're not hitting anything with their staff and they are specifically wearing a mithril chainshirt. If the item is a potion it's a fighter using bull strength. If it's a mutagen it will manifest natural armor that's easily identifiable. If he's wearing light armor, he's either an alchemist or mutagenic mauler? If he has bombs? Probably an alchemist. If he just stabbed the guy in the liver with a knife? Probably an alchemist. If he's tearing up things with his bare (or bear) hands and has no bombs on his person? Probably a mutagenic mauler. But again, brawler and fighter are the exception classes. All of these except the first would fit under the broad heading "Alchemist", just like Magus fits under the broad heading "Wizard - Warrior". A spellcraft or Knowledge (Arcana) check will identify what kind of vanish it was, and from that and the person's gear one can identify what class they were within a close spectrum. Again, you've having to resort to the classes I initially slanted as not being identifiable. Martials are nonunique, anyone can do what they do. (That's one of the problems with their design if fact.)
... I'll chime in to offer the descending attitude. You should not do this. Many people do not want someone to 'help' them by cutting off character options they wish to explore simply because they're not optimal. Often, when a power gamer think they're 'asking' the other players will feel pressured to let them do whatever because they're already hogging the spotlight in one way or another.
Can we call them Sith Lords? A strict improvement.
Are classes outside of some PrCs referred by name In-Universe? Arcanists and Magi are later introduced classes. But worth noting is that they represent the mechanical solution to multiclass problems, so many people likely read them as "Wizard - Sorcerer" and "Wizard - Warrior" respectively unless the setting was built with their practices as equally common to the generic wizard. An oracle doesn't cast with holly and mistletoe. And anyone who spent some time around them would realize they cast spontaneously. Also, again a class that came later. A wizard with eschew materials still prepares from a spellbook. A witch has a familiar, a feature most wizard eschew for the extra spell in my experience. Even so, a witch, once again, lacks a spellbook. All of these might create problems in identification but that's only because there's already a standard that's been set.
Are classes outside of some PrCs referred by name In-Universe? For the most part, actually. A person casts arcane spells from a spellbook? They're a wizard. A person casts arcane spells from seemingly nowhere? They're a sorcerer. A person casts divine spells, can take the shape of an animal and has an animal following them? They're a druid. I think the only classes that can justify getting away without being recognizable by class name are the martials: Fighter, Rogue, Cavalier... they could always be something else. Lots of people fight, lots of people fight dirty, and lots of people fight on horses. That doesn't necessarily mean as much as a specific magical ability you don't see other people flinging around.
If I might suggest a way of making this a lot easier, what are her goals - short term and long term aims that either further another goal or align with her motivations, and what are her motivations - guiding principals that define how she sets her goals and what she fundamentally wants her life to be about. With those we might be able to give a better character description. Sure, no trouble. Short Term Goals
Long Term Goals
Nothing wrong with being personally Neutral, or even NE, and preferring to work with good people or encourage altruism in others when possible. Could come from guilt, pragmatism, self awareness without agency, etc. It's a mix of pragmatism and... She would help others as much as she helps herself, but it's so hard, and she wants to change but she just can't find someone to help her. She is at least self aware enough to acknowledge that she is fundamentally selfish, though. Self-awareness mixed with a lack of discipline (or maybe motivation) to follow through with that self-awareness. It's a lot easier in the wild to say "Well if I didn't ambush those travelers another bandit would have, and then I would have just ambushed that other bandit. So the end result is the same. Besides they shouldn't have been wandering into my forest." since she only has to justify herself to herself. The goal is that kind of thing will be harder once she joins an adventuring party. predisposed to do so in an evil way thanks to her fiendish heritage. This is a trope I actually want to avoid. Her selfish impulses and preference towards the path of least resistance are a personal flaw, one potentially inhereted from her parents, but not something that the demonic ancestry can take any legitimate blame for. Wolfscarred would also work. It would just have to be reflavored to serpent instead of wolf. The Hunger Curse would also work. While both of those are cool, the way I envision the scaring on her face she doesn't have a pronounced snout and only have one 'fang' due to it only affecting half (well 40%) of her face. I also want to have her conceal her face from her companions so being dependant on utitlizing the deformity is less than ideal. P.S. Again, thanks for the feedback everyone, and feel free to keep it coming. I've heard a lot of neat suggestions and I appreciate it even if I haven't directly responded to it.
Weapon Familiarity
I would point out that this is not inconsistent and various historical figures displayed the same outlook, but... that's also not the outlook she has. Her version of making the world a better place is intrinsically selfish because she defines it as a world she is comfortably living in. She wants the situation to be rectified, it's about a personal vendetta, not helping others. However she has the self awareness to know her own weakness, like being inclined to take the easier route in life even when it means hurting others. It is entirely possible to be aware of your own shortcomings. This is part of the reason why she wants to mentor someone with a greater vision or drive, so that she can teach them skills and have someone around to make the right decisions for her, thus furthering her long term goals.
You haven't been on the internet long have you?
Your race seems to have a lot of flexibility that might merit a core race plus expansive racial heritage to further specifiy, like the aasimar and tieflings each had. Below I tried to capture what you were going for while keeping the versatility on the same level as a standard race. Nephilim Racial Traits
A total of 13 RP.
Or they turn into Grenadier Human Hunters and become heroes of their new tribe upon adulthood. Precious babies. (More seriously, so could any human child)
I should also point out that there are healthy outlets to murderous urges and pyromania. All that's required is patience and discipline on the part of the caretaker to channel these things to be productive (which will be a lot more successful than attempting to squash them). For instances, alchemy training focused on controlling fire and a healthy dose of hunting should lower these 'biological predisposition' to manageable levels just as they would in any other humanoid who showed those tendencies.
No person is entirely selfish, or entirely selfless.Thank you for the feedback, please keep it coming. I wanted to comment a little bit more on alignment and philosophy. The character in question is very selfish, aside from the desire to see the world become a better place she has very little compulsion against hurting people, or taking their things if she needs them, etc. So without someone else around to keep her on a steady path she could cause a lot of destruction. For these reasons I'm not sure a good alignment is accurate but I'm interested to hear other perspectives.What you're describing is a contradiction. Selfishness and selflessness are opposite ends of the spectrum. A character who manifests behavior on both extremes to the extent you seem to be indicating is either vastly more complex than what is contained in your little blurb, clinically insane, or both. I suppose the contradiction could be papered over by giving the character the Wis score of a monkey, but this is a poor solution. You ought to flesh out the personality some more. You might not want to talk about sociopaths to me, given that that's the main type of people I'm interest in studying. For the record, sociopaths are not the only people who have no problem hurting others, sociopaths are defined by a completely different set of critia. Primarily sociopaths feel an extremely low amount of fear which combined with heightened aggression seems to lead to many of the outward symptoms the public normally associates with them (one might even argue all Paladins become sociopaths once they gain their aura of courage). Something you seem to be missing is that the primary reason that this character wants the world to become a better place is so that the situation she was raised in is rectified and does not happen again. This is in line with a philosophy called enlightened self interest and no mental disorder is needed to have it. Please, try to take a less aggressive tone when people disagree with your point of view.
I adopt them, just like I do with the adult goblins I encounter.You really must stop adopting the small sized races just because they are child sized. That halfing couple got rather cross last time, and now the guards know our faces... They are my children (On a side note I don't adopt halflings or gnomes, they're are rude and smell too much like humans and elves respectively.)
Thank you for the feedback, please keep it coming. I wanted to comment a little bit more on alignment and philosophy. The character in question is very selfish, aside from the desire to see the world become a better place she has very little compulsion against hurting people, or taking their things if she needs them, etc. So without someone else around to keep her on a steady path she could cause a lot of destruction. For these reasons I'm not sure a good alignment is accurate but I'm interested to hear other perspectives.What you're describing is a contradiction. Selfishness and selflessness are opposite ends of the spectrum. A character who manifests behavior on both extremes to the extent you seem to be indicating is either vastly more complex than what is contained in your little blurb, clinically insane, or both. I suppose the contradiction could be papered over by giving the character the Wis score of a monkey, but this is a poor solution. You ought to flesh out the personality some more. No person is entirely selfish, or entirely selfless. And it's entirely possible to be self aware enough to know that you are a selfish person and also hold a philosophy that people like you cannot change the world. The character in question is selfish, she knows that she alone, in the wild where she lived for a long time, she will always take the easiest route to success. The one that benefits her the most. Whether that is with the animals that live there or the people that wander in. She thinks she inherited the nature from her parents who also took the politically easy route in hiding her. But she doesn't like that route. She doesn't want to live in a world where people like her parents rule. But she knows that she would let it happen. However, she also knows she has skills that could help dismantle it. So she goes to find someone with conviction and pass those skills on. She doesn't think people like herself change the world, but she does think that if she can help someone with the vision or drive to meet their goal, the world will be changed in a way that makes it better for herself and people like her.
Sapient creatures cannot really be compared to reptiles and arthropods, the primary type of creatures that fit into the 'can immediately walk and hunt'. The mere fact of being a mammal does a lot to limit that assumption, but the fact they're sapient does it even more. Unless your world features some truly bizarre humanoid biology, it's unlikely what this post is asserting is remotely relevant.
I adopt them, just like I do with the adult goblins I encounter.
Recruit a god.
Oh yeah. I think unofficially torture is banned in our games. But that was more after several uses in different circumstances that proved that roleplaying out any scene that includes torture was. 1. Awkward
Does sacred geometry count? It certainly is something that will disturb the other players.
Thank you for the feedback, please keep it coming. I wanted to comment a little bit more on alignment and philosophy. The character in question is very selfish, aside from the desire to see the world become a better place she has very little compulsion against hurting people, or taking their things if she needs them, etc. So without someone else around to keep her on a steady path she could cause a lot of destruction. For these reasons I'm not sure a good alignment is accurate but I'm interested to hear other perspectives.
Please describe the following character in terms of race, class, alignment and any other mechanical aspects you deem appropriate. An elven princess born with a deformity that covers most of her body (60%) and much of her face (40%), causing it to resemble that of a serpent. The affliction is a throwback to demonic influence earlier in her family tree. Her parents hide her true appearance to protect themselves from criticism. She is arranged to marry a prince, and on the assumption that he wants the marriage she reveals her deformity. He confesses he didn't want the marriage either. This combined with having to hide who she is motivates her to run away. She makes a vow to herself never to return unless her family releases information on her true appearance (something she thinks will never happen ) She spends several years learning to survive off the lands in the wild, and reflectin on her life and decision. Over this time she grows more wise and self aware. She decides she wants to make the world a better place but believes she is too self-centered and practical to do it. She decides to find a hero to mentor and protect those who have more pure hearts. She is an imposing person who conceals herself to hide her deformity and tries to speak only when it's important. Her weapon of choice will be either something blunt or a pole arm. What race/class/alignment/etc. do you see her as?
I never said it was uncommon. Only that it checks my suspension of disbelief. To me those kinds of stories are relics of a bygone age and should not be the norm, but instead optional rules for those who want something closer to their nostalgia.
I don't think it's particularly overpowered either, but I also don't think that has any baring on if it gets nerfed. (See Scarred Witch Doctor). A mechanic buff that bleeds the flavor out of something is a nerf in my eyes. You can call it a 'concept change' all you want.
I think it comes from the fact that if you want the creature your calling to like you, paizo want you to use Planar Ally rather than Planar Binding. Which is disappointing from my perspective. Why?
5th also kept that change though. I am aware. No, 4e did that. Cute. But factually inaccurate.
No, 4e did that.
Well that certainly gives a lot more mobility to large and bigger creatures.
But decks of many things aren't forged in Mount Doom. Mount Doom is good for destroying rings only. I don't really need to destroy it, just keep it away from the rest of the party. Who's going to go swimming lava to find a deck of many things?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Lighting is determined in a radius from the light source. I have never seen any creature with low-light vision penalized for dim light conditions. This includes in organized play. Hopefully that clarifies. It's because when you complain about a rule you're ignoring or changing, it sounds like someone complaining about a food they've never tried, or claiming a recipe is bad after making an unlikely substitution. Surprising no one, it's hard to recall all the rules of a given system at all times. Especially when one has played several similar systems with slightly different rules. The -10 rule comes from DnD 3.5 and the low-light vision assumptions comes from 4e. The corrections were, again, not significant differences.
I always interpreted low-light vision as trying to imitate the visual adaption of a crepuscular or nocturnal creature, hence why it's applied every frickin' animal on the planet. The "every animal is a cat" mentality. Also again, I have never encountered a situation and cannot imagine one where this limitation mattered, so in my eyes (hah!) it might as well be unlimited.
What's everyone favorite artifacts? Feel free to share why and any stories attached the them. My personal favorites from the CRB are Sphere of Annihilation, The Orbs of Dragonkind and the Shadowstaff. I think they create a lot of interesting situations.
Again, this is usually ruled in my games to be "you can see normally in dim light". In fact, I don't think I've ever heard anyone specifically address the range low-light vision stops working even in organized games. So there we go. (The amount of nitpicking being done here, sheesh. None of this really effects my problems with the rules in question).
Sounds like another fun ability is going to be nerfed into nonexistence due to optimization. I don't think it's particularly overpowered either, but I also don't think that has any baring on if it gets nerfed. (See Scarred Witch Doctor).
I like the Unchained Rogue, it's a strict improvement to a very weak class, which makes me wish they had released an unchained Fighter. I like the Unchained Barbarian, it simplifies a few things and makes the rage powers a little bit cooler in my eyes. I like the Unchained Summoner, it's a lot more thematic and balanced, but I think it could still use a bit of work. (As more eidolin options) I like the Unchained Monk, but I think it probably deserves to have it's will save back.
Sounds like another fun ability is going to be nerfed into nonexistence due to optimization.
Not sure if it's intended, but thematically I tend to see LE characters as more likely to bind Angels (and Archons, etc), and LG characters are more likely to bind Devils. So to me it fits.
|