Wild Watcher

Mythraine's page

149 posts. 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



1 person marked this as a favorite.

So is Remko Troost in charge of all the Starfinder Iconics like Wayne Reynolds does the Pathfinder ones?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gold Sovereign wrote:

Can't deny that even I, as someone more into setting than into rules, got curious about the elemental purist, and also about the planar sneak rogue.

What does planar sneak even implies to you? Did we get any information about this archetype?

Maybe it will be the only archetype that allows you to sneak attack elementals, proteans and aeons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
My favorites to read and write about are the chaotic gods, and the gods who are a little bit rebellious and/or buck tradition to do something different. The way we have a female sun deity, for example, or deities like Desna or Milani or Nocticula or Calistria who in certain ways are rebels against the status quo and aren't perfect and make mistakes but do their best to be true to their nature anyway.

So decidedly not Pharasma XD I suppose for me its the idea of a god who is to some degree above the petty squabbles of the rest of the gods that I enjoy in Pharasma. I do like Desna though I must say :P

Actually, a non-evil death deity is very much a deity that bucks tradition. So yes, Pharasma falls into that category.

I used this exact same notion for my homebrew back in 2001. Female Neutral Death deity as all the other campaign settings were evil death deities. Pharasma is from your homebrew but renamed isn't she?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Moreland wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
So how similar will this book be to the Books of the Damned series? Are the Eldest going to get a similar treatment to the demigods of those other books? Any new Eldest?
It is very similar to the Books of the Damned and Chronicle of the Righteous. There are no new Eldest, but they each get a full write-up with obediences and such.

That is super excellent. I love those books and now this is a must-buy.

But I wonder Mark, if it is meant to be a sister book to the three damned and CotR, why was it not given a title that has an in-world equivalent artifact, like the rumoured Concordance of Rivals? It's current title makes it sound more like a gazetteer on the First World.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My advice is to check out the feat Shield Brace from the Armor Master's Handbook.

Combine this with any spear and you get a good Phalanx Fighter without needing the fighter archetype. I suggest the Longspear for reach goodness.

To complement this, add the feat Phalanx Formation from Melee Tactics Toolbox and maybe Improved Shield Bash or just Improved Unarmed Strike for foes up close.

I've been wanting to have a good approximation of the phalanx for years, and I wasn't entirely happy until Shield Brace came into being.

If you find anything else that works better, post it! I'd love to hear other ideas as well.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Joseph, You should transfer your entire post into a review.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeffrey Swank wrote:
Mythraine wrote:
Richard Pett wrote:
Mythraine wrote:

FGG'ers and/or Mr. Pett:

To confirm, does the proposed Stretch Goal Blight Player's Handbook include all the system-neutral information from the Blight Player's Guide as well as the player-specific rules from the Blight GM Guide?

I've cast a binding and impossible to ignore summons on Vaughan, so hopefully he'll come along and answer that Mythraine. I'm not sure right now what the guide will exactly have from what I've provided.

Rich

Thanks Rich,

Were you able to get an answer from Greg? I'd love to get the system-neutral info as well but not sure if it's included in the Blight Player's Handbook.

Hey Mythraine, I helped as a developer on this...the Blight Player's Handbook does not contain all the material in the Blight Player's Guide. One is a rules book and one is a flavor book (ie. a gazetteer type of thing).

Thanks Jeffrey,

I got in just in time to up my pledge to get both players guides then!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

FGG'ers and/or Mr. Pett:

To confirm, does the proposed Stretch Goal Blight Player's Handbook include all the system-neutral information from the Blight Player's Guide as well as the player-specific rules from the Blight GM Guide?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am very confused about the dual strike ability of the two-weapon trick. It requires improved vital strike as a pre-requisite.

The goal of dual strike (as far as I can tell) is to gain more damage from the single standard action when you're unable to TWF effectively with a full attack action.

However, improved vital strike provides the same function. So why have the pre-requisite that gives the same functionality as the ability gained? It seams like a large feat tax for no benefit (as you'll need both vital strike and improved vital strike).

Unless the two attacks from dual strike can be combined with improved vital strike. But it doesn't look like they can.

Can someone (possibly the feat designer) shed some light on why the pre-requisite is required or if I've missed a vital point?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Richard Pett wrote:

Splendid, thank you Mythraine. I'm really glad you mentioned Dance (as well as the Styes of course), the Hell's Rebels AP is awesome and was great fun to be part of, but has had very few reviews for its parts yet. I guess the quality of work Paizo puts out now means there are less reviews, but I still miss the amount of feedback that there used to be, it's always useful.

Oo, don't tell Logue that, he'll try to invade the Blight:)

Huzzah!

I guess I'll have to review Dance of the Damned then!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Backed.

Richard, your adventures have been some of my favourites all the way back to The Styes and more recently, the excellent Dance of the Damned.

Plus I love the modularity of FGG's Lost Lands. Razor Coast has been fully integrated into my homebrew and I am scheming for the perfect city to soon become The Blight.

Very much looking forward to this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Can someone fully spoil the Constable archetype for me? <3

I will be getting this book when it arrives at my FLGS, but I fully agree with Secret Wizard. The Constable is just too enticing to wait.

So +1, a full spoil if possible please.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Mythraine wrote:
stuff I said ...

That's a tricky question. Dex to damage with a single light or one-handed weapon is worth a feat, as per Slashing Grace, Dervish Dance, and Fencing Grace. Finesse training lets you use Dex to damage with ANY weapon that can be used in conjunction with Weapon Finesse, including when used in two hands. So overall, finesse training is better than a feat, and my gut says that makes it too good to be a talent.

But then again, investigator talents are more powerful than feats (many of them replicate discoveries or drastically lower the cost of certain uses of inspiration). Slayer talents are more in-line with rogue talents, but the trapfinding slayer talent exists, which is CRAZY good compared to most other talents. (Seriously; it is by far the most powerful slayer talent of all based on what it gives you.)

As a result, my designer's gut says this: only two talents on the investigator talent's list are combat focused, the ones that lower the cost of using inspiration on attack rolls. As a result, I don't think finesse training is appropriate for investigators. For slayers, I'd prefer to see an ability like the one Mark Seifter proposed for the vigilante; damage bonus when using Dex to hit and Strength to damage. The slayer already has some serious leverage over the rogue (even the unchained one), but its combat focused nature makes finesse training more appropriate for it, in my opinion.

I can't recall if I addressed finesse training for investigators or slayers in the product off of the top of my head.

I couldn't see if finesse training had been address in Unchained Cunning, hence my query.

OK, so humour me for a moment. If DEX to damage is worth a feat, and slayers can get to level 14 by only taking feats as talents (finesse slayer, weapon training, ranger combat style I, II and III, combat trick and feat), then perhaps finesse training could be a slayer talent?

Now I agree with you that giving it in full is OP. I was thinking something along the lines of:

Finesse Training (ex):

The slayer can select any one type of weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse (such as rapiers or daggers). Once this choice is made, it cannot be changed. Whenever he makes a successful melee attack with the selected weapon, he adds his Dexterity modifier instead of his Strength modifier to the damage roll. If any effect would prevent the slayer from adding his Strength modifier to the damage roll, he does not add his Dexterity modifier. The slayer can must have the Finesse Slayer talent and be at least 3rd level before selecting this talent. He can select this talent again at 11th level and 18th level.

What do you think?

Also, I was looking through the Ultimate Intrigue playtest and couldn't see the ability Mark Seifter proposed. Do you know what it was called?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I LOVE options for mount-less cavaliers. I know it is counter-intuitive for the class, but I've been waiting for viable alternatives to 3.5's Knight class ever since PF came out.

More of these please! Maybe a journey-man knight archetype?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
I'd like to see BoS options for characters specifically lacking a shadow-infused bloodline... like from an ancestor's ill-conceived wish or bargain with a shae, or an parent/grandparent being revived after falling to a shadow's or owb's attacks, or being trapped for a period on the Plane of Shadow. Maybe a shadow-tinged "racial rebuild" feat (like the Feyborn options from Heroes of the Wild)? Maybe a "shadowdancer" or "shadow ninja" virtual multiclass?

These all seem like they could be potential causes for a sorcerer's shadow bloodline (or Eldritch Heritage, etc.)

That said, I welcome more stuff in the vein of the Feyborn options. Those were solid gold, and I'm still sad that Fey Thoughts isn't PFS-legal. ^_^

I third this. The fey alternate racial traits in Heroes of the Wild were amazing. I would love shadow alternate racial traits in this book.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree pretty much with Kudaku.

Angels and Fiends were fantastic because they had an entire book dedicated to one race with heaps of crunch and fluff.

After setting the bar with Angels and Fiends, everyone was expecting the same treatment for other half-human races.

But with Night we got mostly Vampires when everyone wanted Dhampirs. If the variant Dhampir races had been omitted, I think it would have gotten even worse reviews.

Moon was pretty good, but introducing a new race has it's issues as well.

With Elements there wasn't enough crunch for each race for a Player Companion line. Angels and Fiends could get away with more fluff because they were only one race. But with Elements, I think people wanted the same amount of crunch for EACH of the five races that Tieflings and Aasimar got. Obviously that was never going to happen in a 32 page book. But I would have been immensely happy if Elements was mostly crunch (say 4-5 pages per race) and then just the bit on the City of Brass and an overview of the planes for fluff.

In a post above I asked for options for other races which kind of contradicts what I have said here. That's because I'm not sure if Wayangs and Fetchlings have enough excitement to hold their own book. However, I would love to be proven wrong and have the entire book just for actual shadow races that is as good as Angels and Fiends.

BTW, I adore the Blood of series. Much like I love other series (XXX Tactics Toolbox and hopefully Streets is as good as Heroes of the Wild). So I'm very much looking forward to this after an extended break since Blood of the Elements


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really enjoyed the ACG when it came out (LOVE the Slayer and really want to play a Hunter amongst others), but I was waiting for the second printing due to the errors (both Ecclesitheurge and Bolt Ace were super interesting, but I held off until they were 'complete').

Now the ACG errata is out, I can't wait to buy a copy of the ACG and get into all these idea's I want to play.

With the generally positive reception to Unchained (I am using almost half the book in regular gaming) OA at the moment, coupled with the open process and admission to the ACG's original errors, my confidence in future books is increasing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A quick read through of the ARG errata seems very reasonable to me.

I particularly love the adjustment to the Aasimar, Dhampir and Tiefling starting ages.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dreaming Psion wrote:
The War of the Skies adventure path! Aerial combats, dirigibles, gryphon riders, cloud castles, dwarven Sky Citadels, etc.

This sounds fantastic.

+1


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I found this one, which is a good replacement for INTWISCHA

LINK Dungeon Index

ADDRESS http://www.thentao.com/Dungeon-Index.xls


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually agree with Morzadian. I won't go point for point, but a clarification on if the new rogue abilities are universal with other classes who have access to the ability with the same name (e.g. sneak attack for Slayer, Nature Fang Druid, Snakebite Striker etc). Or if (like I hear that the new unchained Barbarian's Uncanny Dodge vs. the unchained Rogue's uncanny dodge are different), there will now be slightly different variations of abilities that have exactly the same name.

@chbgraphicarts I note you would agree with the latter, but a clarification would be nice all the same.

Additionally, is trap sense upgraded to danger sense for all classes that have access to it? (e.g. Slayer through a talent and Investigator).

Both sneak attack and trap/danger sense are actually off-topic. So back on topic, it seems perfectly fine that finesse training only applies to one weapon at 3rd 11th and 19th.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fubbles the Baby Cow wrote:

Third Party Publishers: take note.

Before I buy any Pathfinder product, I check to see if Endzeitgeist has reviewed it first. If it reviews poorly, I don't buy it.

I learn about most 3rd party offerings through Endzeitgeist's website.

Takeaways: Endzeitgeist's reviews create customers. Please continue to support him.

Thanks Endzeitgeist!

I'm a rare poster but constant reader of both these boards and EZG's website, and I have to wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

I have yet to be proven wrong by EZG, and my two favourite purchases due to his reviews are magnificent - The Expanded Spell-less Ranger and Companions of the Firmament.

Keep it up Endzeitgeist!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've always liked the image of the spear and shield as well. Roman hoplites and the Greek phalanx have always been cool to me.

I used the Talented Fighter from Rogue/Super Genius Games to cherry pick the best from the Phalanx Soldier and Polearm Master archetypes and it worked really well.

By level 2 I could have a fighter wielding a longspear in one hand and shield in the other AND as an immediate action 'choke up' the spear to threaten 5 ft at -4 penatly (which reduces to -3 at 6, -2 at 12 etc).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I fully agree with DeathQuaker.

When JJ kept mentioning the class names must have real world equivalents, I thought it was a brilliant idea! I always hated the 3.5 classes like "hexblade", "factotum" and "dragon shaman". Really crappy names.

BUT THEN, Paizo decides to change they're mind. Bloodrager and Warpriest are the worst.

My favs from DQ's list

Bloodrager: Berserker. Yes, VERY barbarian-esk but so is arcanist and wizard. Bloodrager is crap.

Warpriest: Templar. Evokes the EXACT right image. Warpriest then begins the bloat of Warlord, Warlock, Warmage, Warwar etc that 4e succumbed to. Blech.

The others have alright or GREAT names. The best is Shaman, Swashbuckler and Slayer.

I hear Paizo won't budge on the names which is a real shame.