Lodestone's page

Elves are dumb, man.

That sounds strange, but really, that's the only justification I can think of. Elves and dwarves and all that are just incredibly dumb. The "Learning taking a long time because they don't focus on one thing" explanation falls apart when you have a character with a backstory specifically stating they spend all their time doing the one thing. For some unknown reason, long lived races are just incredibly dumber than short lived races, and it averages out over time. Much like how human babies are incredibly dumber than cats and it averages out over time (until the human becomes smarter and overcomes the cat, but that doesn't happen with humans and long lived races)

Pest control and self defence using negative energy is still killing things..

Fire cooks food

no, dude. cmon.

Fire cooks food, provides warmth, and light and has generally been a part of every home for the previous 4,000 years.

How is the same applicable to negative energy? What possible benefit does negative energy provide other than killing things or making them cower in terror, or paralyse people, or drain their strength.

The positive energy plane represents creation and life, the negative energy plane represents destruction and death. These twin forces are the engine that keeps the multiverse spinning.

These twin forces are the engine that keeps the multiverse spinning.

What possible benefit does negative energy provide other than killing things

I think it makes far more sense for air to get the early breathing ability personally.

That said water gets it a little on the late side compared to the 5th-6th level of generic casters so if it were available a little earlier it wouldn't be a big deal.

Thematically though, I think air getting it first makes a ton of sense.

EDIT: I'd actually ok with water NEVER getting to breathe water as a power; manipulating water kinetically doesn't really result in 'you can breathe this' as a power, to me.

How the heck does it make sense that the ONE GUY who wants to be THE GUY when it comes to water, how does it make sense that he can't friggin go in the water without drowning?!

I get it. The air guy does air. Aerokineticists have a good thematic reason to breathe. But COME ON, throw the water guy a bone. It's all he has. It's the ONE job he has!

And should have been in the book. You're channeling your element through your body, so why can't you breathe in water as a water kinitecist???

Makes. Zero. Sense.

PLEASE

HE IS THE WATER MAN

PLEASE JUST LET HIM DO THE WATER IT'S ALL HE WANTS

It's just water! Just let the guy who picked the class based around water be able to go in the water without dying! It makes zero sense that the class based ENTIRELY around water and NOTHING else, the waterguy, can't do water until level 10, where as the guy based around jumping around can do it in immediately, even though he can't use most of his powers in the water!

The flavour, mechanics, and intent are supposed to work TOGETHER, not smash their skulls together.

Why must you hurt me in this way?

Why does air kineticist breathe underwater for one wild talent 9 levels before hydrokineticist can with two?

Why must you be level 4 and take a whole wild talent to do nonlethal damage as a phytokineticist?

For that matter, why must you forget to even put basic phytokinesis in the book?

Why must phytokineticist spend 3 burn at level 8 to maybe sicken someone for 1 round?

Why must basic geokinesis be so incredibly weak? Please. 100 pounds at level 20. Please, man. It's rocks. The fighter with 18 strength can lift up to 600 pounds of anything at first level.

Why must the ability to jump high and the ability to survive high falls be separate?

Why must kinetic cover crumble at the slightest touch? Is boosting yourself up 5 feet really overpowered enough to make a mound of rocks with up to 40 hit points unable to support more than 5 pounds of weight?

Why must tremorsense greater not work on manufactured underground facilities made of stone? Earth kineticist is the rock man. he does rocks. please, let him do rocks. it's all he can do.

I want to love you so much, Kineticist. Please let me love you like you deserve

I too am for institutionalized Eidolon Awareness week!

Wait, what were we talking about?

Arcutiys wrote:

I believe that when you fall asleep, your eidolon always disappears no matter what. As for always being out of your suit otherwise, I can see how that would work, but the long ritual for summoning the eidolon really puts a damper on my desire to see that in action, especially considering how common ambushes are in urban environments. I'd probably houserule the eidolon summoning time to something shorter, say, maybe 2 full round's worth.

In the APs, Paizo doesn't hesitate to write out various peoples' superstitions and myths. If you have a roleplaying GM, he should be playing these out. A synthesist suit monster guy would utterly freak out most NPCs due to these. I don't see how players can expect to wear it all the time. It's generally safe to assume that if you're going out of town, in a cave, etc that you should put your suit on before you actually get into danger. Urban campaigns can be tricky. On the other hand, elve's get a racial favored class bonus that can ultimately reduce the summoning ritual down to a single round.

Eidolons don't have to look like monsters, you know. They can look somewhat similar to regular people. Like maybe a knight in full fancy armor, that armor being his skin. Of course he'll look WEIRD, but hey.

And that problem exists for preeetty much every class. I doubt villagers would be keen on Grippli druids riding giant toads or mages rolling in with a quiver full of wands and rods, or heck, even a half orc when you get down to it. I certainly don't mind people being weirded out by eidolons sometimes, but it should be no more deal-breaking than any other class or race, with the possible exception of human rogues and bards.

And having what amounts to a race requirement for classes would be almost as f%!#ing insane as alignment restrictions

Arcutiys wrote:

Tormsskull wrote:

Arcutiys wrote:

Which is perfectly legit, because the alignment system is stupid.

Personally I like clearly good and clearly bad character concepts. Some grey area is fine, but good-aligned necromancers or demon worshipers is generally pushing it beyond credibility in my mind.

Which I find silly to the point where I can't comprehend how people think that.

Good necromancers are possible and easy, yes, but if he's so wrong then justify how anyone can be good AND worship demons at the same time.

When you idolize creatures that enjoy murdering innocents, and you strive to be that and you respect it, then you are evil. If you don't, then you don't worship the demons, and that's irrelevant.

Stop trying to start a argument with inflamatory language. It's not completely off topic, because convincing his party that being a demon dealmaker doesn't mean he's evil could be an okay way of going about things, but I damn well won't get anything good on this subject out of someone with a attitude like yours.

Arcutiys wrote:

Which is perfectly legit, because the alignment system is stupid.

Personally I like clearly good and clearly bad character concepts. Some grey area is fine, but good-aligned necromancers or demon worshipers is generally pushing it beyond credibility in my mind.

Which I find silly to the point where I can't comprehend how people think that.

Evilserran wrote:

I am playing a moody Catfolk warlock ((we combine 3.5 + pathfinder in my group, but main world is pathfinder concepts)). As a Warlock i must be chaotic. I intend on becoming a (3.5) acolyte of the skin, which must be neutral or evil, and as evil is not allowed in the campaign, i must be CN.

Sounds like you want the evil powers, the evil theme, but not have to act evil or suffer any of the consequences for being evil..

Which is perfectly legit, because the alignment system is stupid.

Arcutiys wrote:

People think everything is overpowered. It doesn't matter what it is, they will claim everything is broken until you're just sitting there listening to the dm read out a poorly written novel for 3 hours.

Except rogues. No-one thinks rogues are OP.

I've seen some people nerf sneak attack because they thought it was OP, no joke. It was just saaad.

People think everything is overpowered. It doesn't matter what it is, they will claim everything is broken until you're just sitting there listening to the dm read out a poorly written novel for 3 hours.

In my experience, people don't play the "weeaboo" classes because of ~animes~ or whatever, they play them because those classes are the ones that let them do what they want to do. Want to hit things to death with your bare hands? You're gonna have to be a monk. Want to play a rogue but be somewhat competent? You're gonna have to be a ninja.

I can attest to this. I hate most anime in general, but the historical depiction of Samurai interests me just as much as the depictions of knights, plus, I like the idea of the mechanics supporting that honorable attitude, with challenges and such. Too bad I hate using mounts. Aside from my Grippli druid who rides a Giant Frog, which was probably my best idea ever.

But I am digressing. I just dislike people who ban anything that isn't tolkien

Arcutiys wrote:

Cyrad wrote:

I never really saw a reason to ban the gunslinger. Yeah, they do a lot of damage. Yeah, they target touch AC. But that's all they do. They literally solve every problem by shooting it. If they can't shoot it, they're just a fighter with no class features.

Then again, that is just about every class except bard and sometimes rogue or rarely a charisma caster. Not that I'm arguing against gunslingers, I love having the guys around. Just saying that not many classes are naturally predisposed for out of combat stuff.

Huh? Wha?!?

Let's see, in the core rules, druids, clerics, sorcerers, wizards, and bards all have magic with a lot of out of combat utility. Paladins and rangers have a few nifty utility spells, and other class features that make them good to go on out-of-combat utility. The rogue is primarily a utility class...
heck, the BARBARIAN gets trap sense and enough scout/nature oriented schools to be a decent tracker.

The only core classes without much non-combat utility are fighters and monks. Outside of core, the only class I can think of that is geared for nothing-but-combat-all-the-time is the samurai.

Granted, yeah, but the casters become somewhat useless in combat when they use their spell slots for utility. You can only use "Create two gallons of water" to put out fires before the GM gets upset and makes every fire magical. But that wasn't my point. I know there's a lot of things that can be used out of combat, but that's player implementation. Wall of Blank could easily be used to create Blank to sell, but that obviously wasn't the intent, and spells often go out of their way to limit out of combat uses.

I also really wouldn't consider trapfinding to be a out of combat ability. Either way, like I said, I'm not trying to argue. I'm just saying that, aside from using combat abilities to break doors or intimidate people, not many classes get anything that's supposed to be used for utility. That's sort of left up to the player. A gunslinger could be just as effective out of combat as any other character, with the possible exceptions of the rogue and bard. And no one plays those classes because FUN IS NOT THE POINT OF PATHFINDER, OPTIMIZATION IS, UNLESS IT'S TOO OPTIMIZED AND THEN YOU'RE HAVING BADWRONGFUN

I play as a bard that is convinced that he and his dog, Freaky Constantina, are ninjas, and that ninja sing. So far, i've been mistaken as a ninja, a druid, a cleric, and David Bowie.

Five orc Bards. All specializing in the flute. Can't go wrong!

I wish the game never evolved(...)Back in the day,(...)Now it's more like crap,(...)

I think you have your answer. It's perfectly fine to continue playing old things, or even rule out specific things if they clash with your vision of a good time, you know. You don't have to go to new things and complain that they're new.

I also had to try super hard not to make a luddite joke because of your name, but I feel that would come off as excessively harsh if I didn't word it right, and I'm bad at wording.

I don't know why people think it's the GMs JOB to entertain everyone else, instead of everyone's GAME to have FUN. GMs make it sound as if the position is hell on earth in these types of discussions. Maybe that's why there aren't more of them

I had always wanted to subvert the trope of a warrior with an intelligent weapon, so I made (with full permission and input from the DM mind you!) an intelligent weapon that had a warrior!

That's actually a really good idea! I might have to steal that and make something similar.

Confession: I hate chocolate and cake.

I'm not even mad, I just can't comprehend how this is possible

I think D&D/Pathfinder should go back to having only three class archetypes: Warrior, priest, rogue. Everything else is a prestige class or alternate class.

Oh my god I am shunning you so hard right now

Most of the time, its completely unnecessary to have multiple races in an RPG because player play them all EXACTLY THE SAME. Now, sure there are occasional times where playing a different race may come in handy, like a dwarf being able to be a liaison between the party and a dwarven clan, but that itself doesn't really make it worth it.

The fact is that most of the time players only choose a special race because they want the bonuses that come with it.

Here's why we should have a mechanic for giving each PC cultural diversity instead of racial diversity that all end up being exactly the same: http://stovebanana.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/only-one-race-in-fantasy-rpgs/

"Most of the time" isn't good enough for a "all of the time" solution.

Forgive my asking, Arcutiys , but I'm curious as to why such a priest of utter destruction would join an organization dedicated to uncovering and preserving the treasures of the past.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm wondering why this character became a Pathfinder field agent.

Well damn man, I mean, every other person that went in the pathfinder society came out a complete wrecking ball, so what better way to learn more about the other planes and religions with artifact hunting, and get strong while doing it? (Basically his justification)

Arcutiys wrote:

Laurefindel wrote:

Arcutiys wrote:

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

I don't think Paladins should be anything other than lawful good.

I've never really "got" this. It seems like all those chaotic evil gods are MORE likely to have holy (or in this case, unholy) warriors than a lawful good god.

I dunno, I like to envision the Paladin as something more than a warrior with a cause and a crusader for a (good) religion. It's an old fashion ideal (in terms of RPGs), and perhaps that the marriage of a class with a unique paradigm is outdated, but that's how I like it.

That's not to say that Chaotic Evil characters cannot be more than warriors with an (evil) cause and crusaders for an (evil) cult or religion, but then I'd rather them have their own, exclusive class instead.

I definitely wouldn't mind calling them something different, (and not "antipaladin" which is really dumb) and maybe different powers to match their alignment.

Just weird that the only gods who would give powers to someone who can swing a sword half-decent are lawful good ones

Agreed. In theory, there are three perfectly agreeable solutions to the "My player wants to play a non-LG paladin" problem:

1. Discard the paladin's alignment restriction.

2. Tell him/her to play a ToB crusader.

3. Homebrew lots of unique 'holy warrior' classes, each with its own special snowflake set of powers.

But IME in practice, option 3 never happens because it requires the DM to actually sit down design something from scratch, which most don't have the time/confidence to do. Option 2 is often disallowed because "No weeboo fightan magic anime crap in my game!" and/or "ToB is OP!!!" And of course option 1 is frequently ignored because non-LG paladins give many DMs an icky feeling.

Which in practice means that too many DMs effectively squelch all paladin character concepts that don't cleave to the traditionally narrow Galahad concept.

I do a lot of homebrewing--with all sorts of games. Anything that's customizable. One of the reasons I was drawn to tabletop roleplaying, actually, since it encourages homebrew.

^^Also something I might get shunned for

Arcutiys wrote:

Adjule wrote:

I know what would get me not only shunned, but hated, by much of the internet and gamers (more so than saying "I don't like bacon"): Admitting being a furry. *hides behind a +5 tower shield of greater fire resistance*

I'm a huge naruto fan, you're a furry, and someone on the last page wanted to be a magical little anime girl.

Confession: I have several character concepts just in case I ever play an anime-esque game. One of them is a magical guy with a lion motif. and I've made 2 versions of him using pathfinder rules.

I'd join you, but we'll have to fight to the death over Australia. I love how it gets its own section on the 'everything trying to kill you' section of tv tropes too much. Its larger than some of the genres!

I have big plans for Australia that involve pillow forts made of cement, a observatory, and my boyfriend's washing machine that eventually leads to me ruling the world from the moon and getting a hundred dollars. It ONLY works in Australia! I MUST HAVE IT

I only read Naruto due to inertia now.

At least it's better than Bleach at this point.

You read the comic? Are you trying to outdo me or something?!

Yeah?!

WELL I PREFER THE ENGLISH DUB. THERE. I SAID IT. Do you hate me now, world?!

At the latest Pathfinder Society game in Baton Rogue: We come up on some "farmers" in the middle of a zombie-dog-plague, with a bunch of boils on their skin that we know come from the disease because my dog, me, and the Paladin caught it. We decide me and the Paladin are gonna talk to the farmers and try and see what they're up to. Everyone else hides.

Sorcerer: Rolls like, 16. Bard: High up there, maybe 19, 20 with modifiers. Monk: Pretty good, 15, 16.

Drunk Cleric: 4.

So the DM decides the Cleric is standing in the middle of the road covering his face with his hands and going "I'M HIDING HERE, GUYS, IF YOU LOSE ME." So me and the Paladin go up to the farmers, and the farmers are all like "Nope, there's no plague here. In fact, come a little closer, we can heal you." and all of us roll somewhat poorly on our sense motive checks, and the Cleric rolls like, a natural 20.

So he slowly lowers his hands and looks between each of us like he couldn't believe what was happening and then goes "Wait...that is BULL SH**T"

Probably the funniest part of a funny game

Move over and make some room already.

I'm not in your friggin game asking you to wear boobplate, now am I? How about you move over and make your own g%@ d&!n table.

Well trolls generally don't care, but then that's why they live in caves and eat people, right? ;)

If you think I'm a troll just for asking, flag my post and see where that gets you. Crying wolf because someone thinks you are wrong is a good way to convince people you are wrong.

Shifty wrote:

Were they really fighting? Or just being sexualised all over the place to the point of making them look really stupid, just for the viewing pleasure of the other gender? Have they been sent a message of exclusion?

There is nothing sexualized about those poses or attire. There isn't any exaggerated boob-n-butt posing, come-hither looking, or anything but a normal state of dress for the region and climate they are in.

What were folks saying about straw men? I think we have some literal ones here.

No, see, they have a chest area, and thus are sexualized. Much like women wearing boob-plate.

I love how Tanith started ignoring me when their argument fell apart. You're really not doing yourself or your cause favors

Arcutiys wrote:

And there's no dwarfs.

You didn't play Morrowind.

Yes, I did, and no, there are no dwarfs in it. It was a mistake historians made naming them that. They were called dwarfs because, compared to the giants, they were really small. You didn't pay any attention.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Aranna wrote:

This was an example of a group where the charismatic leader is in a players seat and doesn't want to put in the work of running himself. The others aren't charismatic and regardless of which uncharismatic player takes the GM seat they will constantly be steamrolled by Bob and his followers while gaming. This IS how a so called democratic game ends up if the big charisma guy won't sit in the GM chair. Charisma IS power in a social scene. And power corrupts. Even if Bob starts out shutting down uncharismatic GM for everyone's initial benefit it won't be long before Bob is just in the habit of shutting him down even if he doesn't realize he is ruining GMs fun.

That's true only if Bob is either oblivious or an outright dick. Also, Charisma isn't binary.

And NO Bob doesn't have to be either oblivious or a dick. It's just human nature. Bob has a group at his back willing to say he is always right. He usually starts to believe it in spite of himself. Bob right or wrong starts to assume his followers like it his way.

That's called being a oblivious dick.

Sissyl wrote:

Okay, so if the group decides on Bob getting to play an elf (supposedly by outvoting the GM), the GM has to decide to play with elves, give up on the campaign, or be a bad GM.

Or gather interest for that campaign and accept that the original elf camiagn will get run, by someone else if not by you. Don't ignore stuff just to make it seem like I'm advocating only "A" when in fact I'm advocating "A," "B," "C," or "other."

It seems like people do that a lot on here. Makes me wonder why they're against exotic races when they like straw men so much.

I very much dislike when people refuse races with the reason of "I don't want furries/weeaboo stuff in my game." It's, by all means their right, and I wouldn't ever FORCE someone to allow that stuff, but it's a silly "reason" if you could call it that. Yes, I might be playing a Gnoll because I get off on the idea of hyena men, but instead/also, I could be wanting to play one because I like the idea of playing a cannibalistic, pack-focused curious character that will get weird looks in taverns and generally stir things up. One who isn't the boring "human, small fat human, tall posh human" Tolkien-trifecta. Heroes are supposed to stand out.

I think playing exotic races should be kept in check, yes, people playing it JUST to be "anime-kawaii" or whatever is annoying and disruptive to the other players, but if there's a genuine role-playing reason, or even just a gameplay reason so long as it's not grossly overpowered, the players should work together on it. The game is about having fun, after all.

On another note, I hate when people talk about "GMs and Players" like THEY'RE different species. They're all players, GMs just play a bunch of different characters.