Man in Ice

Laird IceCubez's page

Organized Play Member. 244 posts (270 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I went to reflavour that these items were items that Count Lowls deemed too troublesome or dangerous to get and that the party had obtained a different/easier set of items.

It makes the dream quests sound more impressive than retreading old water and grabbing the same stuff as their past selves.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What does a 1e Skald have that a 2e Bard with Warrior Muse not have?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Laird IceCubez wrote:

Is Nyarlathotep unique in that he has multiple worshippable aspects or can other deities also do that?

Nyarlathotep in 1E has Black Pharaoh, Faceless Sphinx and Haunter of the Dark.

in 2E he has Crawling Chaos and Haunter in the Dark.

It's unusual but not unique. Norgorber, for example, has four aspects.

But Norgorber grants the same gifts regardless of what aspect you worship, whereas Nyarlathotep grants different domains and favored weapons.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If anyone is looking for more encounters because their players rushed the dream section and still have plenty of boat sections:

I ran an encounter where two rotting soaked boats rise up from the sea next to the Sellen Starling, flanking it, operated by two different captains who are after Captain Skywin.

Ontop of each of the boats are about over a dozen draugrs, low level creatures, but its the sheer number that makes them troublesome. The draugrs would either swim over and climb up the boat or simply jump over if the boats were nearby enough.

So the PC have to either find a way to sink the boats or deal with all the draugrs.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Would be cool if this included something for the TTRPG.

Like how the comics and card decks have spells and characters.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any plans on adding new major planes?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any plans on porting over the Primitive Humans charity race as Racial Feats for 2E?

My druid player had fun as one in 1e, I was wondering how Paizo would handle racial drawbacks like the "Frightened by Magic" racial trait for 2e.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cthulhudrew wrote:
Laird IceCubez wrote:
I'm here to make known that there's people that want Ghorans.
Yes - I understand they are quite tasty!

Comes with the full package. I'm ready to play a delicious person again.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Nethys guys said they won't add any Kickstarter material unless Paizo requests them to.

It's why the Niobe and Vampire Hunter D material hasn't been added. In fact, the Worldscape One-Shots haven't been added either, on purpose.

So unless a Paizo staff requests it to be added, it won't be.

But that's why I'm maintaining this thread, to track any content that won't be added. Like an Archives of Zon-Kuthon or something.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm here to make known that there's people that want Ghorans.

First non-human character I ever played.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of a Harrower. I think Pathfinder needs a class that's tied to the Pathfinder lore.

All the classes so far can be from any setting.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think what Yqatuba meant is the year on Earth in the Pathfinder setting.

In certain modules and APs, the players can meet people from Earth or even travel to Earth, and its around the 1920s there.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The guys behind the Vampire Hunter D Kickstarter got back to me that they would like to port their content to 2e in 2021. So I'm hoping that happens.

Niobe hasn't gotten back to me about it yet.

Kingmaker is already being ported so I got no worries there. Though I don't know if what they're bringing over include The Puzzle Box Module.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In Blood of the Moon, in a year, 12 full moons are named, but what if a year has 13 full moons?

Would it be called a Blue Moon like they do on Earth?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Here4daFreeSwag wrote:

Something old...

GeraintElberion wrote:
Laird IceCubez wrote:

Sorry to necro-post, but I've come to know that there is a Kingmaker module from the Kickstarter called The Puzzle Box.

That's another unlisted book I believe.

Is there any way to get hold of that post-Kickstarter?

I could be wrong but if it's the one for the Kingmaker CRPG, I think that there's a purchasable Music OST and Art-Book Extras DLC that also contains the module pdf?

Something new...

Would the Heroes of Highdelve(?) from an earlier Gencon count as another unlisted PF book?

But its listed on both the Paizo shop and the official reference document.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:

There's actually a fair number of products from various companies that, for legal reasons, can only appear in Kickstarter stretch goals or similar reward venues because they can be distributed as part of the event but not sold for profit. This usually happens because of specific limitations to the license under which the product is being produced. The peculiarities of fundraising platforms occasionally allow things to happen that sometimes just can't happen otherwise. It's not necessarily about publisher-enforced exclusivity; the fundraiser may be the only way the product could ever exist in the first place.

Edit (Just noticed this thread was a pretty old necro, but leaving the post for anyone who may not have been aware.)

Well, I necro-ed it already so its okay. Didn't want to make a new thread since I'd have to repost all the same content.

Though I was under the belief that Paizo was working towards getting these Kickstarter rewards to be purchasable on their official website for some time.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry to necro-post, but I've come to know that there is a Kingmaker module from the Kickstarter called The Puzzle Box.

That's another unlisted book I believe.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My party straight up just didn't care and didn't ask how he got rid of his Negative Levels. They're more focused on Iris Hill.

I guess I can't blame them, the druid player has a tendency of not telling the party everything he knows so they've sort of given up on asking him things. Shame though.

Well, they'll probably be more interested once he has to take the Rubies and can't explain why he needs them.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alright! I just ran it as a solo session for my Druid. I think it went very well. It piqued his curiosity intensely. He's always been suspectful that the important figure in his dreams/past is more than he seems, but this solo session made it even more apparent.

He's regained his strength, but he periodically feels things moving beneath his skin. When he wakes, a thought that is not his own will come into his mind: that if he mentions what happened to him in his dream, the strength he regain will be taken back and more. If he mentions his deal or his quest or how he got rid of his negative levels, it will come back and worse things will happen.

After ingesting the blood of Leng and getting the quest for the Leng Rubies, he was stuck in the dimension for what felt like a week before waking up.

So I've told my player than this will take place when the whole party sleeps. So he'll only lose his negative level next sleep. Which would be soon for the next session since it was night time.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Whatever did happen to this product line? Are there any further plans on continuing it?

I always did like the extra tidbits of content at the end of the comic.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It has 4 new races, 3 new archetypes, 1 new class, several feats/magical items, 4 new creatures and slightly more.

Though I'd like to know what the type/subtype of the Esufey are, and can they fly? They say they may have wings.

The new class is known as Omdar/Omdura. It's a 6th level Spontaneous Diving Cha Caster using the Cleric/Inquisitor list.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If what Paizo said is accurate, they plan on re-releasing every class from PF1E, so Anti-Paladin will exist again.

I'm hoping that the CG/LE versions of paladin/anti-paladins aren't archetypes. That will only reduce their complexity.

The differences between two classes and two archetypes are leagues apart. A paladin archetype would be too similar to the base class than a whole different class.

Paladins should be allowed to be extremes of the alignment scale or there should be classes to emobdy each extreme alignment.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why not swap out Arcanist for Wizard as a core class and have Wizard added later on as a non-core class. Or just swap their casting methods. So Wizards will have PF1E's Arcanist's casting and Arcanists will have Vancian casting.

Shift the rest of the prepared classes like Clerics and Druids to PF1E's Arcanist casting style too.

While I find Vancian casting a relic, I also think it's a nifty mechanic that can still be kept for another class.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope deities have obediences baked into their worship block, I always liked reading those parts.

As for the feat tax argument, I remember people arguing over having to re-purchase Attacks of Opportunity. Isn't this the same argument?

EDIT: Have they said how many general feats we get yet?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:

It's rather funny to watch all the opponents of the proposed ability boosts for the 3 small races not being able to agree on what other stats should get boosted instead. Clearly it's not as clear cut as some think it is.

And people can still get a +2 to the other stat they think is more "natural" for said ancestry, by using the floating boost.

They still all agree that +2 to Cha is not the way to go. I agree that it shouldn't be +2 Cha to all small races too.

Sure, I can be a higher-wis or higher-int gnome or halfling, but they'll always be charismatic. All the small races will always be charismatic all the time.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Speaking of half-bloods, I wonder if there'll be a half-fey ancestry.

So far almost every major plane has one. Except the 2 energy planes, 2 transitive planes and the fey plane (First World).

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mewzard wrote:

If they know a particular area is bad about that, maybe they hold off visiting until their name is more well-known so their reputation speaks for itself.

If the Player puts in the time and effort to make an appropriate backstory, play the character decent, and earn his/her long overdue respect, why not? Hell, maybe said PC could be the one who starts making strides towards bettering his/her people, showing them a new way to better their lives. Maybe some only do it for their benefit, while others open up to the idea. A few generations later, they could be the source that turned the Goblin people around to show they had this good potential all along, so long as they were given the right opportunities to do so.

You're right, and you don't need it to be a core ancestry to be able to do anything that you've said. This is all good material, but for an uncommon ancestry.

An event that leads to goblins having a good potential after generations later would be an amazing thing. I would accept core goblins once such an event has occurred, but it hasn't.

Mewzard wrote:
This is so much more preferable than do what 5E's biggest mistake was and regress on race. Seriously, making all "evil races" evil to the core, except Drow because Drizzt, and any other decent examples were either faking or not pure blood was so disgusting, I dropped the Forgotten Realms novels mid-book after that came up (Drizzt being told by his wife that his god told her that upset me greatly). Straight up ruined decades of storytelling right there. Hell, even Half-Orcs apparently have calls to evil from Gruumsh they have to resist mentioned in the Player's Handbook.

I agree with you, evil races are a ridiculous stereotype, and there're definitely good goblins out there, but they are uncommon as opposed to evil goblins.

I'm not saying ban goblins from being a playable race. I'm saying don't make them a core race. They can be a featured race or an uncommon race. Goblins aren't rare, but goblins player characters should be rare, that's how you make them special.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
SortHac wrote:
I really don't want goblins in Core primarily because they are described as few in number. While it may or may not be written down, Core races/ancestry have the distinction of being some of the most common races to be seen as adventurers, as well as being not uncommon sights in taverns.

Aren't goblins incredibly common on the face of Golarion, whereas things like "Half-Orcs" are terribly rare? I don't understand this argument.

If you're saying "Goblin Adventurers were rare" then sure, I agree with that but all kinds of adventurers are pretty rare, and "adventurer demographics" have nothing to do with population demographics.

I mean we've already experienced things like "new kinds of Changelings are printed, so we get kinds of Changelings as adventurers that never were previously adventurers" already and can deal with it. For most of Pathfinder 1.0 there were no Shifters or Vigilantes, but suddenly they were always there.

Yeah, and those non-core classes are evidently rarer since they weren't there previously. Core classes still make up the bulk of the class demographic, shifters and vigilantes didn't sudden become commonplace.

EDIT: There's a section that mentions that vigilantes aren't suitable for certain types of campaigns. I love vigilantes but that's a good reason for them not being core. Core material are assumed to be usable in a broad but specific selection of situations. That's why anti-paladins aren't core, but paladins are. Because the setting assumes that your party will be compatible with good people.

Goblins can be adventurers, just not as a core ancestry.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I am not convinced the core designation was ever important. It seems like "core vs. non-core" is not as relevant a distinction as "'those options we are using because we like them' vs. 'those options we are not using because we do not like them.'"

I mean, I have a hard time believing that people who think it's inconceivable to prohibit a "core" option in a game somehow managed to not run into a single problem with the Leadership feat.

And yet you see variations of the Leadership feat (and it's variants) being printed in Adventure Paths and hardcover books. It's because it is core that it keeps re-occurring. What other feat that involves a subsystem has this level of popularity despite it being banned in quite a number of tables.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Quote:
Does everyone play their heroes as having severe ptsd by 6th level? Because given the literal horrors parties deal with on a regular basis, they would be a mess mentally a fraction of the way through a typical adventure path.

Sure seems like it most of the time. I am not a kind creator and my DM puts us through the ringer. Gathering up most of the NPCs we'd befrinded and using explosive rune and dominate to turn them all in to suicide bombers as an opening move in an ambush is my DM's idea of a random encounter.

Current PC was specifically designed to not be batman. He is currently batman with a drinking problem. DM fully admits he has no one to blame but himself.

PTSD is not universal. It's a fairly common (and fairly awful) response to trauma, but not a universal one. Having a particular character not suffer from it is not unrealistic.

And, on a real world note, the idea that everyone who suffers trauma gets PTSD is pretty toxic and devalues the experiences of those who don't. Rape survivors without the symptoms people expect often get disbelieved, for example.

So...let's not do the whole 'all people who experience trauma get PTSD' thing, okay?

I think you replied to the wrong guy. He never implied that all people who experience trauma get PTSD.

There's nothing wrong with him having his character roleplay, it's his character and if the players in his game were fine with it than it's fine. It's their matter anyway.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Not having printed material after 10 years does, in fact, indicate that it isn't there. Which is why you need the handwavium to justify the change.
I'm sort of confused why you keep implying that words in a book that explain how something is or came to be are "handwavium" considering the entire game is words most of which are about imaginary people in an imaginary place.

A complete shift in pre-established history is not normal, regardless of imaginary status.

But since it is an imaginary setting, it is handwavium because everything written is intentional.

Just as bad players aren't bad because of the race but due to them intentionally chosing to make those bad choices.
I'm not saying the core goblins is bad because it's not possible, it's bad because of how unlikely it is. Goblins being acceptable is an act of handwaving. An intentional deviation of the norm.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

One question in regard to goblins as arsonists: What do you do about ifrit player characters? According to the lore, most of them learn to cast Burning Hands before they reach puberty, with the result that nearly all of them have criminal records as arsonists. And yet ifrits are a freely available race in PFS.

Nearly all Ifrits are criminals? That does sound like they would be a poor candidate for a core race.

Yeah, I still don't want goblins to be core. They're worse than ifrits.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:
Laird IceCubez wrote:
Or maybe we shouldn't, because they have a history of being disruptive and non-productive?
Actually, I think its because they are inherently evil, like assassins. Sure other classes can be evil, but anti-paladins are deeply evil, like devils/demons are evil. I would guess generally speaking that anti-paladins are very productive and only disruptive if the player plays them as such.

Yeah I just meant that anti-paladins have a bad rep just like goblins do. You wouldn't want a normal goblin in your party, just as you wouldn't want a normal anti-paladin.

People are arguing that goblins increase my "choices", then why should I limit myself to non-evil characters. There are no rules forbidding an evil character to be in party.

Just cause you can role-play one, doesn't mean it should be in core.

TwilightKnight wrote:
I think it would be more accurate to say "Because it doesn't make sense given the current narrative. Jason has said they intent to provide more details as to why goblins as a core race makes sense. If that means there is going to be a significant shift in how goblins are viewed across Golarion because of the narrative in upcoming APs, then perhaps it will make perfect sense, or at least more sense than it currently does.

You are absolutely right. If there is a significant shift in narrative that isn't just nonsense, then yes, I will be perfectly fine with it.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
Is goblins as an ancestry going to make the game unplayable to you? If so, how?

Do you mean literally unplayable or unacceptable? I'll assume you mean the latter. Because it doesn't make sense having goblins now be a major part of civilization, they've always been on the outskirts or servants.

None of this would even begin to matter to me if this wasn't Golarion-infused.

GentleGiant wrote:
Is the inclusion of goblins somehow going to limit the non-goblin characters that you can make?

If you want to be pedantic about it, then yes. If they removed goblins as core, they'll have more book space for different material of options for non-goblin stuff. So yeah, it does limit my characters.

GentleGiant wrote:
All the other races that you had in the PF1 Core Rulebook are still there, so how does adding one extra ancestry pose a problem?

Because it doesn't make sense. See above.

GentleGiant wrote:
If we're talking dislike due to "flavour", what keeps you from just either ignoring it (and we don't actually fully know what the "it" is yet) or just changing at the table (like the inclusion of a goblin, I mean gnome or halfling NPC - see how little effort that took?).

Because it's in the Golarion setting. It's not my flavour, it's their flavour.

What's stopping you from changing gnomes and halflings into goblins? You seem to be particularly more adept at it.

GentleGiant wrote:
If your opposition is due to playing in PFS and you think the inclusion of goblins will "generate" more problem players, how is that different than dealing with problem players in PFS now (and isn't the problem then players and not the rules)?

I don't play PFS.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
Laird IceCubez wrote:

And they've built a world for the past 10 years based off those standard number of races, a world that isn't suited for core goblins.

Don't get me wrong, goblins are perfectly playable, they're just not core material.

According to what metric?

So far I haven't seen anyone be able to explain what "core" means, with actual references from the rulebook.

Core means that aside from niche books like Blood of the Beasts, most NPCs or story elements will be using or of the core races.

There are no non-core race iconics, most settlement stats contain only core race statistics, most racial archetypes and racials feats are for the core races.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Weirdly, people have no problem with Rogues in their campaigns, but if you aren't constantly stealing from people or murdering or yelling expletives at the guards then are you even playing a rogue right?

Like rogues, steal and break into houses and backstab. Everyone knows this is the established flavor. Surely there is no other way to play a rogue correctly.

How disruptive rogues must be. I can see the argument for including rogues in a later source book, but including them in CORE doesn't make sense. Player characters are only allowed to be non-disruptive, productive citizens.

You're right, might as well have anti-paladins be in core classes since paladins are in too.

Or maybe we shouldn't, because they have a history of being disruptive and non-productive?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
Laird IceCubez wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
Hostile NPC wrote:
The so-called "core" races are deemed such because they are the ones that are most widely accepted in most nations. They have the distinction of "core" because they have the full capacity to decide their morality person by person. They are "core" because they make up the fabric of civilized society. Finally, regardless of my utter disdain for the adventuring profession, "core" races are those with the greatest inherent capacity to function as adventurers in a vast array of circumstance and setting. To be "core" is to be representative of what is typical, expected, and accepted.

Huh, you must have a different printing of the Core Rulebook than I have, because most of that isn't anywhere in the races chapter. In fact, in my Core Rulebook there's even a reference saying that you can play other races than the 7 listed... and wouldn't you know it, goblin is one of the examples given that are good choices as they're close in power with the other ones.

So one could technically say that goblins have been in the core rules of PF1 all along.
It's almost as if the core rules intentionally didn't make them a core race on purpose by listing them as an example of a non-core race.
It's almost as if PF1 was just keeping the standard number of races of 3.5. Now that list is being expanded with one of the races that were suggested as perfectly playable races. That way you don't have to go looking for it in the other core book, but you have a perfect example of a race/ancestry that functions on the same level as the ones presented in PF1.

And they've built a world for the past 10 years based off those standard number of races, a world that isn't suited for core goblins.

Don't get me wrong, goblins are perfectly playable, they're just not core material.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
Hostile NPC wrote:
The so-called "core" races are deemed such because they are the ones that are most widely accepted in most nations. They have the distinction of "core" because they have the full capacity to decide their morality person by person. They are "core" because they make up the fabric of civilized society. Finally, regardless of my utter disdain for the adventuring profession, "core" races are those with the greatest inherent capacity to function as adventurers in a vast array of circumstance and setting. To be "core" is to be representative of what is typical, expected, and accepted.

Huh, you must have a different printing of the Core Rulebook than I have, because most of that isn't anywhere in the races chapter. In fact, in my Core Rulebook there's even a reference saying that you can play other races than the 7 listed... and wouldn't you know it, goblin is one of the examples given that are good choices as they're close in power with the other ones.

So one could technically say that goblins have been in the core rules of PF1 all along.

It's almost as if the core rules intentionally didn't make them a core race on purpose by listing them as an example of a non-core race.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Subparhiggins wrote:

And if I love Goblins, and I just really want to play one because I have a great character idea? What if goblins are my favorite race? I should just forget about it because my GM doesn't really like them that much. Despite the fact that it is my character, and not theirs. And the fact that I might be the only goblin in their entire campaign. And the fact that I would be perfectly fine with them ignoring the fact that I was a goblin and having an NPCs never ever comment on it.

I actually had a DM who banned Stryx from his table for no reason other than, "he didn't like them". No reason given other than he wasn't feeling them. This wasn't made apparent until I approached with the express purpose of wanting to play one because I thought they were really cool both aesthetically and lore wise. Nope. Banned. Why? I still don't know. To this day, still never gotten the chance to play one.

This same GM also banned Gunslingers because he didn't like them. It didn't keep him from playing them exclusively as GMNPCs though. He liked them enough for that I guess. But hey, not everyone's fun is equal.

Then you can do what the other people here have suggested, you can find a new GM/friends to play with.

Subparhiggins wrote:
Isn't there a story about how Pathfinder almost didn't have Dwarves because one of the developers just didn't like them?

Banning core material feels weird doesn't it? Imagine trying to justify banning goblins once they become core.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
And yet the typical AP could upend huge parts of the world in a couple of months. But 10 years won't apparently make a dent in one particular area to some people, as it somehow strains their view of the world, despite plenty examples of goblin PCs (even by the same people). I'm finding it increasingly...

And if Paizo releases an AP that upends how the world views goblins, I bet a bunch of people will be fine with goblin PCs.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.

One more thing to note about Goblins being a core race is that you'll be seeing more Goblin NPCs not just in Adventure Paths, but even in the NPC codices and just generally referenced more since they are a core race.

It's going to be harder to avoid.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:

I gotta admit, I am more okay with Goblins as a core race than Gunslingers as a core class, but it is more to do with the implications of those.

A goblin becoming a hero isn't that far fetched. There are probably millions of goblins in Golarion. Someone's really going to look me in the eye and tell me that none of them have turned their back on the murderous ways of their race, or been raised by someone who isn't a goblin and turned out okay?

Guns, on the other hand, have very logical ramifications to existing in a fantasy setting. Given magic having the plausible possibility of completely nullifying any downsides of guns (and the fact that I have seen official artwork of semi-auto guns in PF1), EVERYONE would use guns.

Wait no that doesn't make any sense, your argument for allowing goblins is that they exist on Golarion and it's a choice to play them versus your argument against gunslingers is that their existence would cause everyone to be them?

That only works as an argument if guns didn't already exist in Golarion.

If anything I'd argue that guns and goblins would go hand-in-hand, with the chance of the gun exploding on a miss.

Silver Crusade

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Didn't Paizo say they didn't want to include Gunslinger as a core class due to some people not liking gun rules even though they are an offiical part of Golarion lore.

Now they're adding goblins as a core race. Kinda odd they couldn't do the same with guns, it's been 10 years, technology spreads.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
PCScipio wrote:

Some more food for thought: Goblins of Purity.

** spoiler omitted **

"...all while maintaining the rip-roaring fun that being an arsonist or a baby-eater brings."

"- An exciting reworking of the alignment system that allows you to play arsonists and baby-eaters while still being good-aligned"

This is my point exactly.

You do realize that you're making your point with an April Fools Day joke, right? Kinda like quoting the Onion as a factual source.

I mean, the whole joke is that Goblins being a playable race is a joke. That's what made it funny, the unbelievability of it.

It's a joke made reality. Friendly Rogue is just pointing out that even Paizo recognizes the ridiculousness of Goblin PCs.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Didn't Paizo said that they'd be porting all the 1E classes to 2E.

Does that mean that they'll port Vampire Hunter. :p

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Got bit by 6 different types of vampires.

GM allowed this character. He regrets it.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If classes are going to be modular what is the purpose of archetypes?

Not bashing, just curious.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait, then what happens to all the cross-over stuff.

Is the Worldscape still canon in 2E?

(Will Vampire Hunter D be ported to 2E? How about the Niobe Module?)

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What happens to the pre-existing Golarion NPCs of classes that aren't in 2E yet?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What is the favoured weapon of Shimye-Magalla?

Classes/Levels

Monk (Zen Archer) 6 / Cleric 1