Natan Linggod 327's page

Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 7 Season Star Voter. 740 posts (925 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Frogliacci wrote:

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pepsi Jedi wrote:


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'.

So just to make things absolutely clear, I do not think genocide is ok.

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pepsi Jedi wrote:


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

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


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
...

"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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
james014Aura wrote:
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...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hastur! Hastur! Hastur! wrote:

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


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?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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)


6 people marked this as a favorite.

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?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Paradozen wrote:

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.

....

Battletoad?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gloom wrote:


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.

The point is that the power/spells are still there for them to use. A temptation.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BishopMcQ wrote:

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.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Thus far, literally no NPC of a PC Class (or close equivalent) and Ancestry has any abilities that a PC could not.

That may change at some point, but for the moment, complaining about something that has yet to happen and may never seems a tad premature.

With my lunatic players, anticipating edge cases coming up in game has become a bit of a habit for me. :D


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Good if you just want to dabble in another class.

Not that good if you want to have an actual blended class type character.

And completely doesn't allow for "I was a rogue but am now dedicating my life to God-of-choice as a cleric". This is a bit of an edge case but I've seen it happen a few times over the years and have used it myself for NPCs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

3. They are alone in their home when they hear an infants cry. investigating it, they find it coming from their own bedroom, where they see the covers of their bed moving as though a baby rocking back and forth within while crying. When they pull back the covers they find it is actually a large spider . it doesn't attack, it simply sits in the bed, rocking and crying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mr. Damage wrote:

Made it one post back in 2013.

How about a silent image fog copy that you practice with your party so they save but the enemy archers only see fog? No save for the enemy until they get up to the fog, you see out but they cannot see in.

By "practice with your party" I assume you mean "have a code word so they know it's an illusion and attempt a save". No amount of practice will guarantee you make a save though. That said, I like that idea. Other illusion possibilities include a wall, bushes, a boulder or a fake darkened cave mouth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just thought of a reason why we couldn't use magic, speak with gods etc. We'd be able to except that C'thulhu being here 'taints' the 'magic field' of our solar system to such an extent that natives are unable to 'connect' to the magic anymore. likewise, communications from gods/spirits/etc can't get through the mental and spiritual 'static'.
Visitors from Golarion can still use magic since they sort of carry it with them. Likewise, earthlings can use magic elsewhere, once they've left the interference field.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, Earth is in the same universe? Who's stopping us from using magic then >:(


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally I find the idea that poison = bad/honourless to be mildly insulting considering the number of real life cultural groups that use poison on a regular basis for hunting/fishing and yes, occasionally war.
My own peoples culture included.

I mean, what is or is not honourable is entirely culturally driven.

Keeping the 'universal' rules in paladin codes as few as possible leaves much greater room for variants in cultural/religious mores across Golarion, imho.

Which ,I feel, will lead to a richer game world and more rp opportunities.

Also, as a side note, the costs of poison in PF are ridiculous. IRL with sap from a tree and a days work over a campfire I could easily make enough poison to go hunting with for a week. Meanwhile, in golarion just gathering enough hemlock for a single dose is going to cost more than most people make in a year.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hells yeah!

Also, add me to the backward compatibility group. I have one group I run that would probably jump into the new rules no prob but another that will definitely want to keep using the old stuff.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't usually add them to random loot. If they show up, I reroll.

When they do show up, it's always because there's some story behind their being made.
Common story, as a quest reward for some king. Knights, heros etc are granted the book as their reward for completing some quest the king needed done. They failed/died/etc so the reward was never granted.
Another one is that they were created by divine will. IE some cleric gets a vision command to create one and keep it safe "until the one destined for it arrives", which is, of course, one of the PC's when they show up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agreed that poorer people wouldn't have something like the chamber pot.
Someone like a successful merchant might though.

A cooling/ice box that extends the shelf life of food might be something even commoners might save up for however. Great as a family heirloom. And more practical than a sword for most people heh.

But leaving aside individual purchases for a moment, what about quality of life items/effects paid for by governments or organised religions?
Even in real world medieval times, 'public works' to improve the lives of the common people were a thing.

In the Eberron setting, things like magic streetlamps or magically cooled fountain water were around in the larger cities. I don't remember if Golarion cities have anything similar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait, so Fiendflesh shifters, called out as specifically being un natural and generally hated by druids, still has to follow druidic oaths, revere nature and stuff?

wat?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fireball upwards as a flare signal. Lets the villagers know I need supplies, I have an arrangement for delivery of groceries.

Fishing with Fireball.

Jump starting the ceramic hot water heating stove with Fireball.

Helping start the local mines smelter with Fireball.

Fireball once a week to get rid of the garbage in the garbage pit.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes.

But be sure to discuss boundaries first. And possibly a safe word.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

A 1st level spell and a cantrip.

#1 buy a pig skeleton off a butcher. [or 'find' your own]
#2 cast Restore Corpse: gain one rotten pig.
#3 cast Purify Food and Drink: Gain one fresh pig.
#4 everyone enjoys bacon and pork chops.
#5 cast Prestidigitation: Gain clean bones [optional, but I don't want a mess]
#6 toss bones in bag of holding for tomorrow.
#7 go to step #2 next day.

EDIT: replace pig for your favorite snack animal, but watch out for weight on some of the tastier ones. ;)

You know, a group of druids could make a fortune using this combo to supply exotic meats to rich people without making a dent in the animals population.

Gain favour and monetary resources to run nature preserves without impacting endangered species population count. Sounds perfect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want to know why commoners (including some judges/lawmen) have such indepth philosophical player knowledge of paladins?

IRL taking a persons word as acceptable evidence during a trial on the basis that they are part of the clergy, nobility or just "a gentleman", isn't new and, to be frank, still goes on in some places today. (Maybe not overtly but it still happens)

Why wouldn't people in a world where proof of ones favour by a god is readily available, trust the word of that favoured person without thinking about it too much?

Edit: forgot the word 'player'


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some of the talk of investing hoards reminds me of the great dragons in shadowrun. Like Lofwyr, who used his hoard to invest in companies and became the wealthiest creature on earth.

I kind of want to run a game where the "mechant consortium" is actually just a dragon in various guises..


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Decimus Drake wrote:
It's probably all about sex. As Kileanna said, a large hoard is a status symbol, a sign of power. Thus dragons could select who they mate with on the basis of hoard size. The bigger the hoard = the more powerful the mate = the better the offspring.

"Ey baby! Wanna come back to my cave and check out my ... wealth?"


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What's in it for them? Most are super intelligent and would know it just makes them a target for thieves and adventurers. And other dragons.

And what did they do before the advent of humanoid civilization? There weren't any coins back then, what did they hoard?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope one of her songs is "Rainbow Connection"


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I believe there's a famous bard grippli named Kermit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really like the Fiend Keeper archtype for Mediums.

I know technically it's meant only for grippli but I found it fit some character(& NPC) concepts that I've been playing around with for a while, trying to find ways to build them.

So I thought I'd share 'em and see what other people have come up with!

Feel free to share yours! And use mine in your game if you like!

1: The Fallen Knight.
This is an npc concept I had waaaaay back in AD&D times. The story behind it was a paladin battled a legendary evil dragon and in a last desperate move used a [magical mcguffin] to obliterate the dragon and himself. Some magical weirdness happened and instead the dragons spirit is bound to the paladin. The sheer evilness of the dragon prevents the paladin from drawing on holy might any more and instead he has learned to use the power of the monster within him to fight the good fight.
*In the original version he gained his special abilities from a magic item set spontaneously created from the dragons remains.*

2: The Bad Deal.
This concept was based on a series of short stories I read ages ago. Can't remember the name of the series though. In it a warrior makes a deal with a 'goddess' (who seems to be equal parts snake, cat and seductive psycho) wherein he houses her within him and 'feeds' her other spirits in return for her granting him power. He once allowed her too much control and wiped out his own village so now he rarely draws on her power, though she tempts him constantly.

3: The Guardian of Shushu.
Based on Percedal from Wakfu. This is basically the same idea as the 'standard' Fiend Keeper except the evil spirit is kept in a bonded weapon. Only the character can access the spirits powers but he must be wielding the weapon to do so.

4: Future Not Self.
This was inspired by Young Loki/Old Loki comics run. The characters future self is immensely powerful but fantastically evil. Something happens in the future to prompt the Evilself to go back in time and possess his younger self. Things don't go exactly to plan and the young self retains control. And he never quite knows if he's playing into his future selfs plans or not.

5: Sins of the Soul.
This one is a multiclass with 1 or 2 levels of rogue to start with. The char is/was an explorer/archaeologist/nosey parker who gets cursed while poking around some Thassilonian ruins. Each spirit is actually an alternate version of his own soul embodying a sin. Only 6 of the 7 Sins seem to have manifested. So now he's constantly searching for a way to un curse himself while worrying about whether the 7th sin is biding its time to take control.

So, what cool concepts have you come up with?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LegitName wrote:


I looked through the True Dragons at this link - http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/dragons

The following dragons were said to be able to cast antimagic field (I didn't see any with spellbane):
Copper (Variant)
Dungeon (3pp)
Gold (Variant)
Mithral
Red
River
Wrath (3pp)

Dragon spell lists are suggestions not absolutes.

32.) Don't assume the dragon you're facing now uses the same tactics/spells/abilities as the dragon you faced last time.

1 to 50 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>