Natan Linggod 327's page

I've actually done this for 1e. Working out a similar system for 2e right now, so tell me how you think.

I renamed all alignment damage to correspond to weapon runes, so they are now holy, unholy, axiomatic, and anarchic damage. They deal full damage to aligned creatures of the opposite alignment, no damage to aligned creatures of the same alignment, and half to everyone else.

An aligned creature is an outsider from an aligned plane, a divine caster who serves a deity from an aligned plane, or a creature descended from an aligned outsider (eg planar scions and divine sorcerers). Aligned mortals count as the same alignment as their deity or bloodline. All other creatures are considered unaligned.

Clerics and champions still have to follow edicts and anathema or lose powers as appropriate, obviously. There still won't be any serial killers getting divine magic from Shelyn, regardless of alignment system used or lack thereof.

I like it. quick and simple. Seems easy to implement.

Though I'd rename Unholy to Profane or Blasphemous instead. That way it isn't defined by being not-holy and is instead it's own thing. Like you haven't call Anarchic, Un-axiomatic.

Yes you did Natan. In the first post I quoted you did so specifically.

As for the rest, no you didn't technically ask me to. You're right in that. You just implied that it's a normal and nothing wrong with it.

As for condemnation. I will.

*Raises hand*

I'll condemn someone else for wanting to rape people at the gaming table. It's totally our place to police other people in our hobby. It's totally our place to tell them "Dude that's NOT Ok" and "That's NOT wanted here".

Not only is it our place. It's our responsibility.

I re-read that post and I still can't see how that can be taken to say 'genocide is ok'.

As for deciding how other people should play their games, we'll just have to agree to disagree on it.

If you want to play a game about exploring the dark side of evil people, you're pretty much going to want to get your players explicitly on board with the notion. It's not something that's automatically okay because "you like the idea" or whatever. It's not fundamentally different from if you're changing anything else from the CRB for a given game- you have to let people know and get their consent.

Absolutely. The darker games I've played, and run, have always started with with a pre-game discussion about what would and would not be allowed in the game. And the degree to which it would be described.

Saying it's realistic and fine for a Lawful Good person to commit genocide is advocating for genocide by indicating that there's nothing...

Again, I have not written anywhere that "it was fine" for someone to want to commit genocide if they have reasons. I DID say that it would be realistic if they held that view.

No one is asking you to game with anyone wanting to explore that (sexual violence). I too wouldn't want to explore that subject in game.

I still won't condemn someone else (and their gaming group) for exploring whatever subjects they want though. I don't think it's my place to police other peoples games.

Could you please quote people properly so it’s clear who you’re replying to? Its hard to understand this post as your points and the people...

Sorry. For some reason, trying to quote large posts using the reply function results in half the text getting cut so I've had to do it with cut-n-paste.

I was replying to Pepsi Jedi in that post.

"The rest of my post was pointing out that genocide is a bad thing even if you try and act like it's not, and that while yes, people role play 'bad guys' there's a difference between them, and how they're played."
At no point have I tried to say genocide was a good thing.

"That playing a bad guy in a game is one thing. Playing a serial rapist is quite another." OK? I don't understand your point here.

"Not only did your post advocate genocide of a people under the lawful good alignment, but tried to justify it as being ok because of 'reasons'. You then went further to imply that a simple act of evil doesn't make one evil. And I pointed out that it depends on the act.

Stealing a slice of pie because you're hungry. Probably not an alignment altering action. Raping a bar girl because you're horny, yes. You're evil. Even if it's just the one act."

Right here I think I can see where there is misunderstanding. I was trying to explain my view using the example of a LG dwarf following Torags tennets. That is to say, the dwarf would be LG because they follow act and behave LG. That one of the tennets says "Show enemies of dwarves no mercy" can be interpreted by this dwarf as "wipe out all orcs/goblins/whatever the enemy is" doesn't change this UNLESS the dwarf actually acts on it. If the dwarf acts on this and starts killing goblins left and right, then yes, they would lose their LG alignment.

"I see that you're trying to move the goal posts to "Some what racist' when you started off with "Justification of genocide based on someone's race" "
I haven't moved any goal posts at all. Again, nothing I wrote was an attempt to 'justify genocide'.

"If you're going to "Wipe out" an entire sapient species, because some members of that species treated you badly (Very badly even) that's still genocide.

Wiping out a species because it 'is' that species isn't a "little racist" dude."
I never said it was.

"That's exactly what you wrote. You 'asked' if one would not find it realistic. If someone wanted to wipe out a people (In this instance goblins) due to 'reasons'. Wiping out a people, is genocide. As has been described up thread, by people attacking and killing people simply for aspect of being 'that kind of person' (goblin)"

Yes? That is what genocide is. I don't think I've written anywhere that it isn't?

"You implied you find it realistic for the person to commit genocide, by coaching your question as "So you don't find it realistic ______" Meaning you DO find it realistic.

It may not feel as nice when it's pointing out you're advocating genocide, but you are. lol"

Sorry, I still don't see how that is advocating genocide. I think it is realistic that someone who has suffered at the hands of others to want revenge. And in some people that might extend to the entire group that their attackers belonged to. At no point did I say this was a desirable thing, but it is a realistic thing.
"X killed my family so I'm trying to get revenge on them" is a fairly common character backstory in my experience.

"So.... for the record. You think it's fun to explore the life of a rapist? Because that's what you're saying here. And lots of people are going to have a problem with that. "
No I wouldn't find it fun. But I won't condemn others who might. Wanting to explore a taboo in a safe and non harmful way isn't something bad. Playing an evil PC can be fun. It doesn't mean I agree with or advocate that PCsviews, morals or actions irl.

"Killing people as a bad guy is one thing. You're 'playing a bad guy" enjoying aspects of rape is another. "
As I said, I wouldn't enjoy that. But I would enjoy the roleplaying of playing someone with problematic views and how the other pc's can change their minds. A redemption story sort of.

I'm getting confused at what's being talked about now.

I don't see anyone defending racism? In or out of the game?

I would also enjoy if we didn't call each other racists. We can have a discussion about the in-game moral implications of shifts to the Golarion setting without doing that. I believe in us.

I wouldn't count on it.

...

"You're attempting to normalize and rationalize genocide. Take a moment and try and think about that being 'good'."

How did you manage to get that out of what I wrote? Is my english not clear enough? That is not in any way what I wrote.

"It is sort of a strong statement to make. The flip side is "Why do you WANT to play a racist character". There's 'exploring aspects that we don't live', which is why the White wolf games made mad bank overall. But there's also "You're a raicst as your hobby" and 'where/how's that get fun'??"
You kind of answered yourself there. Exploring aspects of life that we don't live or even want to live. It gets fun in the same way acting as the villain is fun. Maybe I'm different because I'm usually the DM, which means I play ALL the bad guys, and I try to understand their motivations and mindsets so they aren't boring cardboard cutouts.

The rest of your post seems like you're trying to equate a character that is somewhat racist with being a mass murderer and a rapist, which I can only say I entirely disagree with. Apologies if I'm mistaken in my reading there.

Why would a town that routinely gets attacked by orcs and the only orcs they’ve ever known are “rough and savage humanoids ... surviving primarily by raiding other races” turn to an orc PC they’ve never, ever met for help?

They wouldn't. They might, however, turn to the elf, dwarf and humans accompanying the orc. If the other party members can vouch for the orc, or at least promise to keep him in line, then the town might, reluctantly, put up with him.

Natan Linggod 327 wrote:

One unsympathetic act does not a Chaotic Evil character make. A person can well be a Lawful Good person with problematic views. A dwarf who is Lawful Good can very much see goblins/orcs/whatever as pests to be exterminated and retain his LG alignment. After all, he'll still act LG in every other circumstance and towards everyone else.

'Mass murder doesn't make you evil as long as all the people who you murder are people who you chose to murder' is... certainly a take.

I don't know if you honestly misunderstood my comment or are deliberately doing so. I'm going to assume the former.

There is a marked difference between holding a viewpoint and actively n going on a killing spree.

A dwarf who follows Torags tenets will probably be LG. Most of those tenets encourage LG behavior. If said dwarf gets into a situation where he has the choice of allowing an enemy of his people to go free or kill them, and thus protect his people from future evil, and kills said enemy; the dwarf is still LG. That particular act may or may not be lawful or good (depending on the situation), but the dwarfs actions before and after this one act are not instantly and irreversibly negated.

Also take into account that people aren't perfect. An evil person might do good on rare occasions and not change alignment. A lawful person who performs rare acts of unlawfullness does not instantly become chaotic or even neutral.

So you don't find it realistic for a person who has suffered atrocities at the hands of a group of beings, a group of beings that is well known for perpetrating atrocities mind you, to want to wipe them out?

Also, "If you want to play an intolerant vengeance driven character you must be a racist irl" is kind of a ...strong.. statement to make.

The point of a roleplay game, imo, is to play something other than what you are. It might be only slightly different, like a brave heroic daredevil played by an average timid nerd like me, or it might be completely different like a utterly self centered, unsympathetic killer played by someone who cries at anime(also me).

And since this convo seems to have swerved into the subject of alignments, don't forget that alignments aren't expressed in a narrow band. There's plenty of wiggle room for someone to be of a particular alignment but skirting slipping over into another.

One unsympathetic act does not a Chaotic Evil character make. A person can well be a Lawful Good person with problematic views. A dwarf who is Lawful Good can very much see goblins/orcs/whatever as pests to be exterminated and retain his LG alignment. After all, he'll still act LG in every other circumstance and towards everyone else.

Kind of makes me want to play a Goblinslayer type character. Maybe a survivor of the Goblinblood wars or something.

Could be some good rp opportunities there, trying to reconcile their personal experiences of goblins with the 'new, improved' goblins.

Thanks for the advice and for listening to me vent.

Just to clarify for those who were agog at the longevity of the campaign, my group and I started playing D&D way back in October of 1976. Donnie was DM, and he stayed in that spot until his passing (from Leukemia) in early 1981. I took over as DM and have been in the big chair ever since.

Out of the eight original players (Donnie, me, and six others) four are still a part of my group. We lost one to the military, we lost two to college, and we lost the last to unfortunate circumstances (Dan was a cop, and he was shot and killed on duty; quite coincidentally, his death happened on September 11, 2001.) The people who stepped into their shoes were either friends or children of original players, including one of my sons. The youngest of the "new kids" has been with the group since the early 2000s.

The game takes place in my own homebrew campaign world (information for which now fills a literal wall of bookshelves and filing cabinets). The players ran the same characters every week, for about six hours each weekend, from 1981 until their characters got too high a level for it to be feasible, and then switched to new characters who were often children or apprentices or friends of the old ones. They've done that three times now.

In that manner, we've continued the continuity of the campaign since 1981, with older characters showing up as NPCs (for example, one of the local kings used to be a PC paladin, while the sage the group regularly visits was the original party wizard).

Holy smokes mate, your campaign is almost as old as I am! I've had a group that lasted about 10 years or so before life got in the way. I thought having a group for that long was something but to have a group last as long as yours is a hell of an achievement. for all of you.

I would love to hear the kinds of stories that came from such a long running game.

I agree with the others. I don't think converting your current campaign chars is worth doing until there is enough materiel out.

9. Combined with an unknown number of mutagens and a sample of the alchemists dna, it creates the Jäger draught. A humanoid drinking the resulting mix gains the Jäger simple template and a nearly unshakable loyalty to the person whose dna is in the draught.

8. Mixed with some acids and left to infuse under moonlight for a night, creates a flasks worth of liquid so corrosive it will eventually eat through anything.
The acid ignores Hardness and resistance to acid and treats immunity to acid as resistance instead.
The acid deals 1d6 damage per round for up to 1 hour before it denatures. The DC to end the damage early is 30 instead of 15.

It can only be stored safely in a ceramic container coated with a special oil that is made at the same time as the acid.

7. Spending a week massaging a compound of the quicksilver and various oils into a humanoids body, allows the target to permanently alter their gender, heritage and ancestry. They can choose general details (tall, short, dark hair, light skin etc) but not specifics.

Once transformed they radiate transmutation magic for a week after which it becomes their new true form and the magic aura goes away.

3. Combine it with glass and some markings to create a thermometer.

Lol. A 20th level thermometer. It doesn't tell you what the temperature is, it tells the temperature what you want it to be...

*If this is in the wrong forum, please move it*

For something that requires a 20th level feat just to make, what you get out of the Philosopher Stone is kind of meh. It's not bad, just not all that exciting I think.

I mean, you get either a bunch of gold or silver or a elixir of rejuvenation once a month. Nothing to sneeze at to be sure but still a bit bland.

So my thoughts are that these two uses are just the commonly known uses of a Philosophers Stone. That there are many other things that can be done with one should you discover how.

And these other uses just aren't known to the world yet. After all, just how many 20th level Alchemists are there? I can only think of one at the moment, Artorkus Kirran. In fact I think that's the secret of the sun orchid elixir. It's a mixture of the stones quicksilver and sun orchid essence.

So, let's think of what other level appropriate substances the stones quicksilver
can be combined with and what effects it might have.

I'll start :

1. Treating common crystals turns them into diamonds or other precious stones, similar to turning lead into gold.

2. Combining it with sufficient rarefied clays creates a clay golem with greater than normal intelligence.

Don't forget to change the somatic/verbal components to thought/emotion.

When I think of npc wizard, I assume "most of them probably just spend their times crafting items"- it is safe, and it provides a lot of money.

This seems like a great way for a noble to make sure his promising second son is taken care of. Additionally... 8 years of wizard school gets him away from the house long enough for the first son to consolidate power. Thus, you would have the backup heir, but they wouldn't have the time to cause inheritance issues.

The first son wouldn't aim to be a wizard. it would take up too much time to learn... and they wouldn't have time to actually use their knowledge. Experimenting and crafting takes a lot of time from ruling, and they aren't adventurers constantly going into battle.

It is great to RAISE a wizard for your house. No one is going to argue the usefulness of a spellcaster. But personally being a wizard is probably not the most conducive to being a ruler.

But they wouldn't keep leveling as a wizard I think. Or at least most wouldn't. They'd get learn enough have a few useful spells then spend the rest of their career advancing as something else.

Though I suppose that's not possible under PF2's weird multiclass system. Was doable under PF1.

Hmm maybe start as Rogue for the skills then multiclass into Wizard?

If not for the 'entertainer' aspect, a Bard works fantastically. Enough skills to cover a nobles education, some martial/military training, diplomatic skill and the magic needed to at least protect themself against other casters.

Oh I agree that every noble house and well off merchant would want to have a wizard in the family. And again using the real world as an example...

Oho! I like that idea. I'm yoinking that for my games now.

Btw, thank you to everyone replying!

I'm thoroughly enjoying reading everyones point of views!

Natan Linggod 327 wrote:

And there is no mention of needing 'talent' to become a wizard anywhere that I can find. Just time, money and education. All of which the upper classes have in abundance.

There is no mention of it because as a PC if you want to become a wizard you become a wizard. Obviously it takes a talent to do it. Do you honestly think if tomorrow medical school or law school was made free that everyone would be Doctors or lawyers? No way. A lot of people would go to school for it and while we would get some great doctors or lawyers out of it, we would end up with many more drop-outs or bad doctors and lawyers. There is no "talent" for either profession but it takes a combination of traits that not everyone possesses.

Back in PF1 this would be a lot of people getting 1 level of doctor(Wizard), then getting the rest of their levels in something else.

And we aren't talking about the average Joe-in-the-street here, but people with the resources to ensure even the least talented of their brood gets an excellent education.

Also, let's say that Wizardry talent is something that's 'inborn' like a Sorcerer. Wouldn't the upperclasses marry with that in mind? After all, political and economic marriages are much more common among them than among the lower classes. Adding in the requirement for marriage being a history of magic talent seems like a no brainer to me.

And remember that magic isn't something new. It's been around since day dot so a lot of the older family lines would already have been marrying for magic talent for centuries.

In fact, given how important magic would realistically be in a world where it actually works, I would expect that NOT having magic talent would be more of a rarity among the upper classes rather than otherwise.

Casting spells requires the talent to do so and takes real effort. It also takes expensive schooling. Not everyone is able or willing to do it.

In real life everyone should be a lawyer and a doctor as both can have powerful impacts on your life. Most people are not either though.

The top 1% of our world (our 'nobility' so to speak) are almost exclusively business people and politicians. Some are also lawyers but few are doctors.

Their children are also almost all trained in business, law and politics so as to take over from their parents. And they are sent to the most expensive, exclusive schools in the world.

Replace 'business, law and politics' with 'arcane magic/wizardry' and there you go.

Although, tbf children of nobility (and rich merchants) would also get training in business, law and politics anyway. The magic would be yet another tool to maintain/increase their wealth, power and influence.

And there is no mention of needing 'talent' to become a wizard anywhere that I can find. Just time, money and education. All of which the upper classes have in abundance.

In PF1 the Negotiator archtype for the Bard was exactly that.

And I had a tiefling Negotiator as an NPC that my players had to deal with occasionally. They had a kind of love hate relationship with him as he was sometimes on their side, sometimes not.

In PF2 I agree with those above that the Bard would be best as a lawyer but I think the Enigma muse works better than the Polymath. After all, learning the secrets and truth of the law is key to using it. Combined with all the memory/recall knowledge stuff an enigma Bard gets, there is no loop hole, obscure precedent or little known law that the Bard could not find. And exploit.

On the other hand, Clerics of Abadar and Asmodeus work really well thematically. Maybe multiclass Bard?

Or another kind of spell caster.

Magic gives such a significant advantage over (non adventuring) non spellcasters. I don't mean in combat but in every day life.

Divination especially. Want to find out what's the best thing to invest in for the next year? Divination. Want to know how best to organize your troops? Divination. Want to learn what other nations are doing that might affect yours? Divination.

Then there's Enchantment/Charm magic. Want to improve your negotiations? Either charm them directly or boost your own speechcraft with Enchantment.

And of course, there's the protective aspect. Want to defend against anothers Divinations or Charms or whatever? Abjuration.

Since magic in Golarion has been around since literally the beginning of time, magic use should be well established in the societal/cultural structure of every intelligent nation.

And why Wizards you ask? Because anyone can become a Wizard with training. You need the right bloodline to be a Sorcerer. You need true faith and the acceptance of a god to be a Cleric or Druid.

But a Wizard only needs training. Who can afford that training? The upper classes. Every single noble family, merchant clan or similar group with sense would shell out whatever's needed to train their kids with at least the basics of magic use. Even if it's only to enable them to defend themselves against others.

Thoughts?

You could also multiclass Ranger with Fighter. Samurai were expected to be good with the bow and be able to hunt.

Animal Companion for Mount, Hunter's Edge reflavoured as their fighting style.
Then Fighter for the Heavy Armour etc.

Yeah, let's go for:

Enhance Ability
Spell 2
Transmutation

Charisma - The target is just, like, super cool. They can fix damaged jukeboxes just by fistbumping them.

Best. Spell. Ever.

Also, wow. This question exploded into a way bigger discussion than I expected.

And, thank you for everyone who has given me ideas here.

Do you need a lore justification for every spell that no longer exists? How upset are your players that the very concept of blood money has vanished into the ether

Every spell? No. Spells that they are used to having and using regularly? Yes.

I like that worldwound idea.

I'd like the Adaptive Shifter to be the 'base' shifter with the others being class specific archtypes.
Mainly because I think the Adaptive Shifter was a great 'generic' shifter. One that didn't limit themselves to specific creatures or types. That way the more focused shifters can build off that.

So retconned out of existence?

I don't think that would fly with my players. Esp the wizard, he's definitely try to research some asap.

I might go with the gods of magic having to change the structure of magic for some reason. Would also explain why so many spells are no longer possible for certain casters, while others have had their spells completely revamped/added.

Still, I need some sensible reason as to why this had to happen. The realms forgotten had a spellplague, so maybe something like that?

Anyone got some good ideas I can nick?

Apex are items. I meant spells like the old Fox's Cunning, Bull's Strength, etc.

Now there aren't any stat boosting spells in the game, how are you going to explain where they went in world?

And why noone is researching how to cast them again.

I ask because I need ideas.

I feel like either air or water could do Slashing damage instead, if only just to give a little variation.

Nope. Not seeing it.

Note i'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't see how.

I feel that if one combination of feat options is good, then other feat options should be just as good. Otherwise, why have them as options?

If the Skirmish Strike and Twin Takedown combo mentioned above would be too powerful if Favoured Enemy were stronger, then surely that combo is even more overpowered when combined with Disrupt Prey, a feat which is usable regardless of what your enemy type is.

No, I understand the point of it. I was saying that making it too powerful when Rangers are already really on par in combat would be potentially unbalancing.

So your argument is that, if the Ranger takes a specific Hunter's Edge, with two specific feats, it's on par with other martials therefore Favoured Enemy can't be made more powerful?

Doesn't that mean the Ranger isn't up to par with other martials?

Time to stat them all out

Well that's the entire point of it isn't it? To be especially good at fighting one specific type of creature? Being better than the Fighter or Barbarian against one creature type isn't game breaking.

But what the feat currently gives you is meh at best. I just don't see it being worth a feat slot at all.
Every other feat of the same level is just straight up better . Except maybe Companions Cry?

I'd love to be proven wrong btw. Favoured Enemy is a big part of the flavour of the Ranger to me. (personal opinion only of course. ymmv)

That's why 'i made the comment about retraining.

Unless every adventure you're going to have involves the one single creature type you've chosen, or you retrain fairly often, it doesn't seem worth taking. Not for such a weak effect.

Get them all to hold action, readying to shoot the wands on the leaders command?

Is that still possible in 2E?

I mean, you can't choose anything other than animals, plants/fungi, dragons or beasts.
So no aberrations, undead, outsiders, constructs ,elementals or humanoids.

And you can't choose it more than once, so unless retraining is going to be a regular part of your adventures, you better hope your DM gives you enough of your chosen enemies to it worth taking.

Even then, all it does is let you Hunt Prey as a free action against the chosen enemy.

It really doesn't seem worth a feat slot to me.

Am i wrong? Did I miss something important about it?

Way of the Angry Frog:

Animal Barbarian, get Animal Skin and Animal Form for 15' reach (frog form), as well as sudden leap. Multiclass Monk for Dancing Leaf and Stand Still. Turn into a frog, leap like a frog, throw out that tongue and lock people down. Get Battle Cry and a Gorget of the Primal Roar to unleash 2 terrifying croaks each battle. Big angry frog tank.

....

Someone post the comic meme of Sam and Dean twisting themselves around each other to protect the other from an attack...

TBH I think alignment tags should only matter to casters who get their spells from another being. Clerics and Druids etc.
Wizards and Sorcerers shouldn't be under the same restriction.

Bards, I don't know about them. Maybe it should depend on what their muse is?

Wouldn't casting Evil spells be giving into your evil legacy and not "struggling against their legacy"?

Struggling means you don't always win. Sometimes the player gives in to the temptation of the power offered. Maybe they're in a desperate situation, lacking time or what ever.

In PF2 they can't be tempted by the power because they can't cast the spell if they aren't Evil to start with.

Seems normal to me. Not every option is designed for good characters. In PF1 the Infernal and Abyssal bloodlines both had options which were Evil spells in their bloodlines. (And no, I don't buy into the idea that we only look at one edition of a game in a vacuum and ignore other iterations.)

The Diabolic sorcerer will fit in perfectly in Cheliax or campaigns told for a Chelish sympathizer viewpoint.

In PF1, even a Good sorcerer PC could cast an [Evil] spell. If they cast it often enough they risked an alignment change but they weren't prevented from using a class ability (Bloodline spells) by their alignment.

It seems that in PF2 the struggling-against-their-legacy type sorcerers are a no longer possible. Without houseruling that is.

A quick and dirty fix is to use the Earn Income tables.

Roll how much you would have earned, if it's enough to have bought the item you want to make, then you make it.
I'd recommend limiting this method to items that could conceivably be made in less than a day.

And it gives you the option of making multiples of the same item. If you roll high enough to buy more than one, you make more than one.