The Fifth Archdaemon

Nezzarine Shadowmantle's page

134 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

MadGnome wrote:
You could also take a level of Cyclopean Seer, select the Flash of Insight revelation, and therefore be able to choose what race to be reincarnated into. Get your GM to agree to an expanded reincarnation table first.

That’s absolutely brilliant! I’m playing one right now is level 5 and is about to level to 6th. I’m taking that level in Cyclopean Seer!


There is not an real answer for this question. The reason is because although certain classes appeal to different players, classes blossom into their own at different levels. Arcane casters are late game blossomers. Divine casters blossom a few levels earlier. Most of the rest of the classes see a more steady progression over time.


Marc Radle wrote:

Ugh! Put me down as someone who never like the so-called Tier theory of classes. In my opinion, it is unhelpful and way too arbitrary to be of any value. In fact, in my experience, it's only real value is as a way to start online arguments or never ending debates that accomplish nothing.

Everyone is of course free to discuss whatever they want but I have to say I respectfully really wish this tier thing would go away once and for all ...

Right?

I wholeheartedly agree.

For example, how many of those Tier 1's and 2's wouldn't make to high enough levels to "come into their own" without the aid of their teammates with lower tier ratings? In over three decades of gaming, I've seen only two things make a party routinely succeed: teamwork and diverse role coverage. Personally, I gravitate to casters. Is that all I play? No. Do I attempt to make the most badass, survivable character that I'm creating within legal limits? Hell yes. My preference to playing casters is because I'm the most experienced player in my gaming circles and therefore generally make the best use of them with the least amount of time in a combat turn. The team works better if I'm that role. Most often, I also face or share facing for the group because I'm very outgoing in real life. That all being said, melee, ranged, arcane, and divine must be covered or you will not usually succeed as a whole team. The diversity of the party members is not only key, its the essence of the game. What's the tier level for teamwork?


Timebomb wrote:

I'd go for a Grenadier Alchemist 2, Gunslinger X. At lvl 2, in "normal" combat just shoot/bomb things then when you need to pull out the cheese imbue your weapon with Dreamtime Tea and then put any creature you can hit to sleep for 2d12 minutes, no save, untyped. That should give you enough time to coup de grace them to death. At lvl 3+ you make it a mundane touch attack SoD with no save. For your extracts I might recommend true strike.

Try not to ruin any friendships with McMunchkin. When the rocks fall remember to go out in style, I recommend a Burning Skeletal Dire Badger with Brown Mold tied to its chest (AKA the apocalypse subway)

How do you imbue a weapon with an ingested drug? Am I missing something? If you can get around the ingested to make it injury I'm hooked! Please do tell.


So the guide is out now and my players have begun the first book. Here's what they did: A league of extraordinary gentleman- of sorts. Sort of a Marvel/DC/Whatever mash up. One guy is playing a brute archetype vigilante mixed with a scaleheart skinwalker race for a Hulk/Killer Croc hybrid. Another started with a human medium as John Constantine, died, and made a human flowing monk as Goku. Another player made the Tick as a vanilla brawler. Another player started with a dark half human psychic as Jean Grey/Phoenix, died and made Sherlock Holmes as a rogue/investigator going Sleepless Detective, another player made a cleric named Charles Xavier (the similarities end there, except a bald head, and that player has received much grief because of it), another player made the Scarlet Witch from the witch class. Nice spin was that he went tiefling. Finally, my last player went wizard as Dr. Strange. It's been a lot of fun. They just ended their first book. They have never super heroes out like this and they are really enjoying it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I understand this an old post but I felt inclined to chip in. The White Necromancer class, 2 archetypes, spells and feats which accompany it that Marc Radle designed is awesome! It's incredibly flavorful and well-balanced. One of the most enjoyable classes I've played in 30 years. Great job!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Kaer Maga?


I believe Urgothoa and Zon-Kuthon would just LOVE the Outer Gods. In addition, Nyarlathotep could be worshipped all over the place openly under one of his 999 false guises and no one would know. Mwuahahahaha....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
I still want to do a campaign based on the Book of Erotic Fantasy. ;)

I've been running one for 35 years, my wife plays the succubus, and I'm the paladin, and...

oh, yeah, right, Paizo has rules

My wife and I play that campaign too!!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We have one that my gaming group talks about all the time. The "Unlikely Heroes". So far, we have a thrash metal troll bard, a goblin dog riding female goblin cavalier, and a flumph oath against corruption paladin as solid choices. Once the other three players have solidified their choices we are going to give it a whirl...


dragonhunterq wrote:
Sahuagin with steam powered jetpacks/ornithopters

Even better


winged sahuagin?


In 30 years of gaming I watched a large number of different players slowly develop. I have purposely kept a widely diverse group of personalities at the table when I could. Right brained, creative types and left brain, statistics oriented types have played hand-in-hand with one another and shown each other how to grow into a more complete players that blend together both aspects of the game. Those aspects being the creative storytelling and the hard math. It takes time, by that I mean years, for most players to develop the weaker side of their repertoire. Very few are naturals at birth. It is human to gravitate to and enjoy our strengths and avoid our weakness. It is no different at the table. Our math-savvy types tend to gravitate to combat and pushing the envelope with character builds while the my creative, literature and art lovers, tend toward more social interactions and story. However, together they learn from one another. I think both aspects are good. I see rollplayer vs. roleplayer as merely a journey down two roads that meet at the same destination.


I CAN'T GAME EVERYDAY!!!!


I've run several campaigns so far and the answer is...rarely


I think you need to find a new gm with common sense


Claxon wrote:
Cheburn wrote:

I agree with Claxon. Your point was correct, and does not strike me as overly strict. In fact, it helps the balance of the game overall to remember these kind of limitations.

With these sorts of points though, your delivery can matter just as much as accuracy. Always strive to treat the other players and the GM with respect, and expect the same of them.

This is absolutely true. Delivering your message in a manner that doesn't come across as confrontational is probably the most important part. Otherwise other players are likely to resent you for it.

That said, I am not the sort of person to relent on basic and clear rules being followed. If my character or another should die, then so be it. There is always resurrection magic (unless you're extremely low level and without access to someone who can cast the spell for you).

The only time I'm willing to ignore some rules is if I think following the rules is going to result in a TPK.

Delivery is everything. My father once said you can tell a woman her face could stop a clock or her face could stop time. You get two different results. I listened to his advice and went into sales.


Lady-J wrote:
Nezzarine Shadowmantle wrote:
Jay707, in many circles of gamers, a "rules lawyer" argues only when it serves their purposes. They never, or almost never, argue against themselves or other pcs unless the game has turned pvp. Rules lawyering has always been, in my humble opinion an anti-gm issue. It's also helpful, if you were the gm and if you have this at the table to do one of two things, address it and/or learn the rules better than the resident rules lawyer. That all being said, what Quantum Steve said above is the most important and useful advice. Our opinions are s@%$ in comparison to the group you game with.
anti-gm sounds like it would make a pretty bad ass class lol

It is a bad ass class. I'm playing one now. It's real name is white necromancer.


Ajaxis wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Cats > Puppies
This explains Elves > Dwarves.

Hahahaha!!!!!! I never made that correlation until now. Thank you for my daily epiphany.


Gorbacz wrote:

I don't think that the problem is that James is miserable. I think the problem is that his thread is occasionally visited by people who lack tact, empathy, command of English language, social interaction skills or a combination of above. And honestly, any appeals or calls should be directed at such people first. James is going above and beyond in letting people pick his brain, which means he takes in the good with the bad, and I honestly find the opportunity so amazingly cool that even if his answer is "No. Not revealed. Meh. Not a fan." I am insanely grateful for him taking his time to let me know the inner workings of one of the people behind the setting and the game.

And yes, cats > puppies.

Totally agree with you except for the cat > puppies comment. I'm a cat = dog person. I'm considered strange by all my friends for that. I'm ok with me though. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Nezzarine Shadowmantle wrote:
To begin with, I'm sorry about the poor grammar to begin with in the earlier submission. I was a bit rushed. What I should of asked was, as the creative director, what is your opinion of the archetype? Am I alone? Have you heard any other negative feedback yet? In my poorly worded question earlier, I meant to say does an archetype ever get changed up a bit if there is a good bit of legitimate feedback that pushes for it? With that class and archetype in mind, what would you do to make it like what it appears to be modeled after?

I don't have an opinion of the archetype because I haven't read it beyond an initial editing pass I made many many months ago. As a general rule, though, once something is published we try to leave it alone. My preference is to not constantly tinker with things. If something's truly "broken" and too powerful or too weak, we'll either just ignore it (too weak) and try again with a different tack on the design space later, or we'll issue errata or ban it from PFS and let individual GMs at home games decide to keep it or not. Rules elements that are too weak are thus less disruptive to play than too strong, so there probably IS an element of erring on the soft side there.

That ALSO said, I generally don't comment on the design work/development work of our freelancers or my fellow designers if I think something isn't great. I'm from the "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all" school of thought, as far as publicly talking about the hard work of my friends, co-workers, and those I hire to write for products I head up.

I completely understand. That is an excellent policy to have. Thank you for your response. I'll homebrew that myself for my player who wants to play it as a more "Hulk" class as a barbarian archetype as you suggested.


James Jacobs wrote:
Nezzarine Shadowmantle wrote:
I really enjoyed Ultimate Intrigue but was let down by the Brute archetype. I've always loved the "tortured beast within" concept of Mr. Hyde and The Hulk. What happened with that archetype? A lot of it was cool but I felt is missed out on enhanced inanimate object damage, had an incredibly will save to resist the change, missed out on high leap bonuses, was very easy to kill with only 1d8 hit points (derived from class, I know), and had a really low ac. Have thought about beefing it up with some errata?

I had nothing to do with Ultimate Intrigue or its archetypes. I do think that some designers tend to err too much on the side of rules and in the pursuit of game balance over flavor, though. I suspect that had they instead made the brute a barbarian archetype that it would have fit your needs better. Dunno. You'll have to ask the design team to get the actual reasons.

In any event, I've not thought about fixing anything in that book with errata. Not really my job.

To begin with, I'm sorry about the poor grammar to begin with in the earlier submission. I was a bit rushed. What I should of asked was, as the creative director, what is your opinion of the archetype? Am I alone? Have you heard any other negative feedback yet? In my poorly worded question earlier, I meant to say does an archetype ever get changed up a bit if there is a good bit of legitimate feedback that pushes for it? With that class and archetype in mind, what would you do to make it like what it appears to be modeled after?


I really enjoyed Ultimate Intrigue but was let down by the Brute archetype. I've always loved the "tortured beast within" concept of Mr. Hyde and The Hulk. What happened with that archetype? A lot of it was cool but I felt is missed out on enhanced inanimate object damage, had an incredibly will save to resist the change, missed out on high leap bonuses, was very easy to kill with only 1d8 hit points (derived from class, I know), and had a really low ac. Have thought about beefing it up with some errata?


Almost as bad as Sopranos with the ending...


Just finished watching season 3 of Penny Dreadfuls. Wtf?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as an absolutely necessary tool, which also has "DON'T PANIC" on the cover. So, I think that makes it absolutely necessary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are the storyteller. Your undead in question has intelligence. Make it happen.


Jay707, in many circles of gamers, a "rules lawyer" argues only when it serves their purposes. They never, or almost never, argue against themselves or other pcs unless the game has turned pvp. Rules lawyering has always been, in my humble opinion an anti-gm issue. It's also helpful, if you were the gm and if you have this at the table to do one of two things, address it and/or learn the rules better than the resident rules lawyer. That all being said, what Quantum Steve said above is the most important and useful advice. Our opinions are s%~+ in comparison to the group you game with.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In Blood of the Night it reads, "Most vampires are evil, but like any race that doesn't have the evil subtype, there is always a slim chance for redemption. Neutral vampires are rare, but not unheard of. Most commonly they are freed spawn, creatures now balking in horror at acts they perpetrated while dominated by their masters, with living memories fresh in their minds. Some vampires shift alignment to neutral over many hundreds of years as they tire of hunting and being hunted, moderating their evil by curtailing their behavior rather than making a philosophical choice. A good vampire is so rare as to be almost nonexistent. Its very nature draws it to feast on living intelligent creatures. The impossibly rare good vampire is trusted by no one and persecuted by all-mortal and vampire alike. Other vampires despise it out of jealousy or fear. No mortal will ever be convinced of its goodness, always sleeping behind locked chamber doors and with holy symbols in hand. Both within an adventuring party and out in the world, playing a good vampire character is fraught with trials. Vampires of all types may be lawful, neutral, or chaotic. As they are essentially immortal and can reinvent their identities over the centuries, a vampire is rarely bound to one alignment all its life."

That should help with one set of undead...


How does a spell become "too" useless? I can't think of any useless spells. Inappropriate? Yes. Underpowered versus some of it's peers? Yes. Useless? Not really. Too useless? Is that like a transmute rock to rock spell? I'm not trying to be that bad of a grammar Nazi but there may be a link between your grammar skills and this lack of understanding the rules. Or better yet, in explaining how you have been possibly cheated by your GM.


Veilgn wrote:

Is that really possible?

I offended if gm doing that !

Like make my spell too useless. Or make my damage small.

There is a rule about that in gm guide book. But when I find out. I feel angry.

I hate cheated :(

Are you unable to write in fluent English sentences due to poor grammar or citizenship outside of America/UK? I need to know before I respond to that quote above so that I know what level of vocabulary to use.


MrCharisma wrote:
hjs102 wrote:
I will probably rule that the beserk effect is not intended to allow nonlethal, and he will need to attack for lethal (we do not do strict RAW if there is a solid case for reasonable intents).

I'd let them do non-lethal if they come up with it, but I wouldn't suggest it to them. (Or you could let them deal non-lethal only if they pass a save or something?)

Think of it as the Paladin trying his hardest not to kill people despite the curse.

Fair enough. I'll bite. Say, Will DC = 10 + 1/2 item caster level + ability modifier to do non-lethal instead of lethal? However, even with success I'd make the paladin atone for beating his comrades to unconsciousness without being provoked to defend himself against his stalwart companions. That should make him want to get rid of that sword.


Starbuck_II wrote:
Nothing says he can't do nonlethal: he just must attack them all.

With all due respect, it's a cursed item. I don't think you can play nice.


johnlocke90 wrote:


Lucifer actually seems pretty meh. He doesn't have much in the way of invulnerabilities and his action economy isn't good.

His only strength is big numbers(high spell resistance, high attack bonus, etc), but if you can get around that(and high level casters can) its not a hard fight.

I agree. The Prince of Darkness himself! A glorious victory against all those bible-thumping, "that game is Satanic" people out there that Frog God Games finally put that dude in print. However, I think Frog God Games should have come to the table with a lot more than they did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think you should take a long look at 3rd edition Forgotten Realms Faiths and Pantheons. They break down the gods, give example avatar stats, and show how to build them. I've used it a few times myself and it's logical and balanced...for gods. I ran a few epic level 3rd and 3.5 edition campaigns where the pcs could hold their ground against demi-gods and lesser deities' avatars. Which brings up a good point that I think should be addressed, if it hasn't been already. This gave players and gms alike the idea of the scope of those entities. At first glance, "stating the gods" would give everyone the idea that this would lead to deicide and general world chaos. However, to my recollection, these statistics given were for only the AVATARS of said deities. Physical manifestations. Truly killing a god was impossible for mortal and, typically, fellow deity alike unless under special circumstances, a.k.a plot devices. You may be able to defeat the avatar, but that didn't kill the deity. It just pissed it off. In addition, deities are loathe to take a heavy handed direct manifestation in the lives of mortals lest their rival deities do the same to "even the score" so to speak. Therefore, avatar appearances are rare indeed. Finally, entering the godly home plane of a deity is impossible unless the god allowed such an action, barring even other deities if he or she wishes. That all being said, I think using that kind of framework presented in Faiths and Pantheons and using what I mentioned as an understanding of sublime politics/physiology should work nicely. I wish I had the time. Sorry I don't.


QuidEst wrote:
*shrugs* They don't want to hand out too much free crafting material on dragons on top of their loot?

BINGO


Imhrail wrote:

Its probably more because the fight with the dragon damaged it so much that there are only a few usable scales remaining. I would argue a GM could allow more with a survival check to see if you could scavenge some more.

Good point. Next time we use save or die affect successfully on a dragon I'm going to bring that up.


How and where does the weapon focus apply when you throw down said gauntlet?


I'd say yes and no. Yes to your first question, but only sometimes. A definite no to your example. One immediate and one swift per turn. As long as there is not a ruling otherwise (usually there is i.e. nauseated), then i would allow action slow down, particularly in movement-oriented decision-making and time economy.


Stoked


Azlant! Really? How incredibly exciting! I'm


How soon until you began exploring other continents on Golarion other than Avistan and Garund? Don't get me wrong. I've loved everything so far. I'm just curious...


That all being said, all of those legitimate builds above (I stress the good ones that weren't debunked are ALL badass. They all do a little bit different things. Some are more versatile spellcasteds. Some control more undead. Some can actually heal their undead. Before playing a concept you must ask yourself? What do I want this character to be best at? Juju Oracle and Agent of the Grave gets the most undead. Can they heal their minions. Yes. Are they incredibly versatile spellcasters? No. Is the highest amount of undead controlled what you want if that means sacrificing versatility? Ask yourself those questions before you create. I promise, you can't have it all.


Oh, and Undead Master isn't a trap anymore with a white necromancer. Yay for that!


I have a new and enterprising gm. I usually gm. I'm getting a break. Yay!!! We carefully went over the concept of a Ustalavian lesser noble dhampir Pharasmian white necromancer. Taken that in Rule of Fear, it mentions that there is a schism belief of the church of Pharasma called the Pharasmian Penitence that believes in purification through suffering (self-flaggelation being a primary ingredient), we worked out a believable concept for animating corpses in the name of something not evil. It's based on the same concept that the Pharasmian Penitence believes, we all need a little purifying before we pass on before judgement before the Lady of Graves. Now we have a philosophical/theological reason that works with the class! My gm is dreaming up ideas to use as "payments" for future intelligent undead to need for longer service. As worrisome as the class looked at first glance, it hasn't been. Undead die to quickly. There is also only so many enemies you can take down if you aren't evil. There is also the material component cost issue and availability. Want to slow the roll of the necromancer GM's? Limit how often the player can get his hands on those costly components! Finally, you are a good or neutral guy with undead. You need to go city-side for adventure, supplies, etc. You understand the very common issue of people attacking undead on sight. What to do? Where to hide them? Do they get found? What happens then? Like I said, it's a lot of fun. It's not nearly as powerful as it looks once roleplay is taken into affect. Most GM's I know wince at evil campaigns. I love them. A lot of the time, players get shot down because the gm either doesn't want evil characters or has little material to gm through that caters to it. Hell's Vengeance and Way of the Wicked are the only published campaigns that cater to evil. That's two in forty years of this game being around in one form or another. Best necromancer? There's a lot of ways to make a badass undead building near-necrophiliac. I love them all. Most likely to play one? When you can't be evil. Try looking at the white necromancer. Talk to your gm. Give it a whirl. If you don't like it, make a new character. If your gm disagrees with it, he can always kill the character. Lol! Have fun!


I think it's worth noting the white necromancer class put out by Kobold Press. Lots of fun and flavor if the gm will allow and will heavily consider roleplay implications. No undead Cap has been brought up several times on several boards. I'd like to point out that that mindless undead can be only animated for short term goals and intelligent undead will do longer term service, however they may ask for something in return. What does an undead want? Any gm out there thinking adventure hook?


BRAWLER


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Paizo has to produce more stuff in order to keep the lights on (more power to them). Historically in this industry a lot of time a company has run out of books they care to publish (or think would sell), they release a whole new game or they do a revised edition of the game that ran out of steam.

It's pretty unlikely that Paizo is going to stop with Pathfinder until they ahve to, and it's almost unthinkable that they're going to do a 2nd edition (as much good as it might do.)

But "I own too many books" is just a core part of the hobby. I started with tabletop RPGs at the tail end of the 80s and one time when I moved across town I could not fit all of the boxes of RPG books in my car, so I had to take multiple trips just for RPG books. Eventually you just get choosier with what you buy.

Amen to that!!!


Most of the time, GM's are the most responsible for their players have over-powered characters. They gave them too much too soon.


However, that all being said, this is the best story of anti-bullying I have. During the first campaign that our new gamers played in, my wife was running an evil-aligned campaign that had been running for about six months before the new guys joined. They were very green. No table top experience at all. I was playing an evil cleric dedicated to the Dark Tapestry and my long-time buddy was playing an evil necromancy-specialized wizard who was focused on blood spells and becoming a vampire. He and I alone were a force to be reckoned with. The new players were introduced. One of them played a catfolk ninja that made an overly dramatic entrance in the middle of a very dangerous dungeon crawl. The two main characters reacted appropriately to this new "threat". We rolled initiative and killed him. The wizard brought him back as a mummy. The new player was given the option by the gm to make a new pc or roleplay his new "life" as an undead servant of my buddy's character. He chose the latter. I was impressed by his decision. Most people wouldn't have gone that route. About three months later, my cleric, ever the most chaotic character in the party, cast true resurrection on catfolk mummy in secret while his "master" slept. With his mortality restored, he stealthily crept into the wizard's bedroom and coup de graced him in his sleep. Epic! That should of stopped the bullying. Hell, it wasn't even bullying at that point. However, because that new player stood up for themselves, it created even more animosity. That animosity carried through to two more campaigns run by me and was purely one-sided. If you are a GM, and you have a group bully that is ruining your fun as a gm and your other players fun as a group, address the situation. If that doesn't work, try again. rinse and repeat a few more times. If all that fails, save your group and kick the bully out. A lot of the time, discussion along with group and individual reaction will cancel out the bully. "Oh, you are the resident badass and a bully? Cool. There are three of us now that hate you on and off the table and since your pc is more powerful than ours collectively, we will play dirty. Like a coup de grace in your sleep...

1 to 50 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>