Nox Aeterna's page

1,144 posts. No reviews. 2 lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 1,144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Loved: Honestly i pretty much love all of PF1. Hell my fav games are run RAW going from, if it is in any book... well outside unchained which i avoid like the plague and only pick very few things from, then it can be added to the game. While true i dont add in every single system every single time due to how big the system is and the amount of possible rules. Then again, i love it because of all those rules and options haha.

Wanted: Even more books, even more options, but above all, even more pet classes.

Hated: Nerfs. How i hate paizo new found need to "balance" everything out. Why they made up this need to balance out everything in a table top game i dont know, but did i hate each time they nerfed eyt another thing. Above all, i hate their unchained summoner, hell i pretty avoid the whole book because of this change alone.

Will Miss: having new options made all the time. Overall ofc, if the playtest is anything to go by, then i will just keep playing PF1, 2E be dammed haha. Honestly, not a single thing in the playtest made me want to change editions, while plenty made me for sure not want to.

So i will be starting a game shortly, lvl to 1-20 with an actual decent chance to reach 20, and i thought of building the usual shapeshifting murder machine.

As apparently the entire table is of full casters, this kinda of thing will be the melee.

The issue is that, being honest, i suck at making these.

So please, does anyone have good druid/brown-fur or whatever else full caster melee builds to share?

Ofc, any help is welcome, doesnt need to be a full build, just some levels or guidelines would already be pretty handy.

Thanks for reading.

Well, on my experience the least played are the summoner, gunslinger and antipaladin. For the same exact reason, they are all banned. Nobody went for the crappy summoner second version either, so overall, it doesnt appear much.

Honestly, most of what i see are the first classes, aka from core to hybrid, with the unchained version of all, but summoner, being picked often. Occult, vigilante and shifter dont see the light of day at all or pretty much ever.

That is a pretty reasonable argument, making reference to mithral does point to this being a relevant part of the armor part.

A bit sad that my current PC that would use it, which is a arcane full caster, then is not a match for this amazing creature haha.

Thanks for the help!

blahpers wrote:
Given that specific wording, I'd say no. The wearer is protected as though by a mithral breastplate, meaning the wearer gets the Armor Class bonus; it says nothing about acting like a mithral breastplate in any other ways. Otherwise, they'd have said it could be worn as if it were a mithral breastplate (see ring of force shield and others).

Thanks for the help, so on the full cut it does reference the person wearing it:

"As a full-round action, a sapphire ooze can transform into wearable armor. This armor can be sized for creatures of the ooze’s size or one size category smaller, and the subject must be willing to wear the ooze as armor. While in its armor form, the ooze cannot take actions other than to use its hero’s infusion ability or to return to its true form as a full-round action. While the shape of the armor created can vary, it always appears to be made of glittering sapphire crystals and provides protection as if it were a mithral breastplate.

While a sapphire ooze is worn, it takes 1d6 points of damage each time its host takes more than 5 points of damage from a single attack; this damage bypasses the sapphire ooze’s damage reduction and immunities. If this damage reduces the ooze to 0 hit points, it immediately reverts to its true form and falls to the ground."

So here it is:

It reads:

"While the shape of the armor created can vary, it always appears to be made of glittering sapphire crystals and provides protection as if it were a mithral breastplate."

Does this means it always also gives the arcane check penalty of a mithral breastplate to the person wearing it?

This, as everything else, is under the call of the GM and often GMs won't have this happen.

Even casting many of the evil spells won't affect you either.

Now, if start to use necromancy, expect a swift fall to the evil side.

So lets see it.

The wizard can have pretty much double your wealth by level. Since it costs very little for one to have crafting feats.

The wizard is likely to have contigency ready to go.

You should expect the wizard to pretty easily just teleport away in case you do get past its emegerncy force sphere and cause it damage. Which means if you expect the wizard to die, you need to be able to account for this.

Wonder what other points people can think up, but anyway, if you go head to head with the wizard, you better have an entire bag of tricks up your sleeve.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I don't think things (short of mind-control magic) should ever force an intelligent opponent to attack one person no matter what.

At best, mundane options should provide an incentive to attack one person (i.e. "you get a bonus to hit me") and or a disincentive to attack anyone else (i.e. "you get a penalty to hit anyone else.")

But nothing short of magic should ever force anybody to do anything when it doesn't make sense- like "ignore the lightly armored wizard and run over there and attack the heavily armored person" - no matter how insulting you can be.

Well to each their own ofc. I would be more interested in making a full list of every single effect that "pulls the aggro" to a player and then people can run whatever way they prefer. If they want to run antagonize, that is could be an option pending house rules.

Ultimately, a player can just turn to making a full arcane caster and simply end fights with disables. This is clearly "tanking" as the enemies cant hit your team anymore or do about anything really after a few lvls, but then again, this isnt what many players expect when they visualize a big guy in armor taking hits in front of the guy in robes.

Im surprised nobody said Snapdragon Fireworks yet.

Love having this overall, be it for parties or for using during some performance moment haha.

One can discuss the definition of a tank, just like you can with other words... Ultimately, in my experience, most people will indeed come in with tanks being the guy that can take many hits and help his allies to not get hit, by whatever means, usually having something to make itself the target even if for a while.

Ofc, definition wont matter AT ALL once the player declares what they want, because the word tank might be up to discussion, but when the person literally explains the above is what they think a tank is, the door is closed and if you give them the other options people listed here chances are you will have a frustated player that cant do what they wanted to do, doesnt matter others are calling it a "tank".

What comes to mind in order of a nowadays classic tank, is antagonize, i remember also some spells that could help with this, as well as feats. It should be kinda of possible to make up such a tank. What i wonder is how many such builds one could come up with.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Did you talk to the other players about this?

The starting point on this kind of issue is OUT OF THE GAME discussion among players and GM regarding the PCs relations. How to proceed from there it is something you guys should decide together.

From what you wrote, im assuming you made a PC that does not match your party if they keep giving you fire. If you do turn CE, the paladin will literally need to have pretty good reasons to even work in the same party you are without losing his powers, so yeah, chances are this will escalate the situation if you dont deal with this now.

Usually one would either agree to go nice, aka start to go towards good instead of evil much more, make a new PC, aka you just exchange the problem character out of the party and let it be evil as a NPC, or, if you guys are certain you can deal with the ramification of this, you start to allow PvP and greater party conflicts, aka eventually the party is likely to kill your PC if they really dont like you.

Don't think there is any RAW on this. People can say what they think is best, but ultimately, nobody is right, which in turn means, it is time for you to talk to your GM directly and for him to make a call on how this will work at your table.

As you can see per this thread, expect table variation on this.

Rules don't create much of an issue. We go by RAW in my usual table, If there is dispute, the GM says how it is going to work and the later we check on it.

I would, funny enough, say there is far more dispute on golarion setting things haha. Ultimately there are clashes from people who read material after material and those who wing it, which ofc doesn't offer a faithful depiction of the god/city...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do find funny what people infer as evil while pathfinder has an entire nation of racists and yet it's alignment is CG. A God of traditional values is LG and so on.

Anyway, leaving aside how alignment can clearly shift drastically based on the GM, OP start to put neutral enemies in there too.

If the enemies are intelligent there could be easily some who just aren't evil, you can also add oozes/animais/constructs...

Even in APs where the whole dungeon was under the control of one big bad i have seen safe spots where the players can rest, it usually a hidden place often even the big bad doesnt know about, but it is there.

Ultimately, i have yet to see a party be completely stupid about this, sure they want to rest, but they go to a place they believe it is safe and use whatever they can to make it safer and then rest.

They dont just sit in the middle of a corridor, sleep and then go around fighting again.

The real reason parties skip rest is time. If they have to get to the big bad in time or crap happens, they are unlikely to rest. That is it.

I wouldnt go with this. Mostly because it is weird to me really.

The reason for this is that i dont think alignment is a logical decision on the PCs part, it is something they are, therefore, if the evil guys keeps making the good guy do evil things and this turns the good guy to evil, said now evil character wont see any reason to ask for atonement, he is evil now, he was corrupted, why would he ask for forgivness? Why would he even care about the same gods? His entire world view has changed beyond that.

Ofc, the player out of the game would still go and wish to recover his PC anyway, but it is weird to me, so it is easier to just close it off from the get go.

And, honestly, i wouldnt want to use dominate to take a PCs away from the player for a long period of time, while i can totally see PCs using this on NPCs to turn them. Since i dont favor unequal trade of blows from the PC side to the NPC one, i wouldnt want this in place either.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, i think spellcasters look rather blah in general, not only damage, but then again, the devs said they will be looking into it, now how the finished version will look only time will tell.

This idea that cantrips could carry over the MASSIVE amount of debuffs spread across the casters was just terrible.

Edge93 wrote:

Actually, it really does. You were saying in PF1 core there wasn't a huge gap between optimizing and not optimizing. Captain Morgan was pointing out how there very much was such a gap, from overpowered spells to knowing to take certain feat chains being a big factor in effectiveness, to entire classes being underpowered choices.

Which is definitely very much referring back to what you said about there not being a big mastery gap in PF1 core.

Again, no this isnt being discussed at all.

There is no "non optimizing". Everyone is trying their best to optimize AND both sides understand the system, there no new player that cant tell what the hell they are doing in this discussion.

Class balance also being irrelevant in said discussion, which is more about fighter vs fighter, then fighter vs wizard. Not that again, this has ever being an issue to me anyway.

The difference is simply how far said system mastery goes.

Again i say that, if both players understand the system, the you can perfectly well play a PF1 game with only core and it will be similar to 2E where following guides/forums wont lead to much variation at all. A person can read the entire core book and remember the options and thus optimize by themselves just fine.

Which means, this is just a false perception from the simple lack of books when it comes to 2E.

MER-c wrote:
I suspect Paizo will use the Starfinder release schedule for PF2, right now SF has about five major books, two of which amount to bestiaries, in the other three we have a maximum of eight classes, with three more being added later this year, each new core book has given extra class options or in the case of the one setting book a bunch of archetypes which any class can take. Armory added loads of new items which admittedly is very SF specific since it’s more gear centric.

That remains to be seen, but i guess that if they want balance over even options, then this will be a must.

Which ofc works great for me, since it is bound to drive even more players to remain in PF1.

Edge93 wrote:

That is true to a point, but at its core PF2 is showing itself to be straying away from the various stacking up of small numerical bonuses that was a prime cause of PF1 optimization difference than even PF1 core, let alone any supplement.

It's a base difference, not just a content difference. The lower number of bonus types plus nearly nonexistent untyped bonuses means that barring drastic change in splatbooks the main area of min-maxing is inherently very limited.

This remains to be seen.

Just because the options arent about numbers, dont mean options that work 99% of the time wont be called out plain better than situational ones and so on.

As more and more options appear, all of which people want to be "meaningful choices", some will emerge stronger and some will go to the bottom. System mastery and going to forums and guides will most likely still result in a vast gap from player to player.

To add to this, nothing is to say that in 2E numerical stronger and stronger options wont appear here and there, which funny enough might actually make system mastery even worse, since those who know those few but awesome options will get even further ahead than those who dont.

Captain Morgan wrote:

That's not really true. The core rulebook has some of the least balanced stuff the system ever had. Core rogues and core monks were wildly reviled. Core fighters could be built to do DPR very well if you two handed with power attack or had a lot of system mastery to build their complex feat chains, but only did comparable damage to barbarians, paladins, and rangers while falling severely behind in versatility. And many of the most narrative bending spells are right out of core.

And of course there are systematic things that lead to more variance, like point buys or the old WBL system.

Meanwhile many of the 6th level casters published later are widely regarded as much better balanced and some of the better brand's best work.

Which is not to say more options doesn't make the system harder to balance, but PF2 core is definitely off to a better start than PF1 was.

That has nothing to do with what im saying. You are trying to bring this about balance among classes, like some people do cause they care, moot point to me, since i couldnt care less about it myself.

The issue here is if PF2 has what it takes to publish books every single month, often multiple books a month, which is what PF1 does and what many expect of PF2, if you check many posts are about waiting a few years till PF2 bloat and thus be worth getting into, all the while adding more and more options at the same time it keeps up with what some here seem to expect, which is dimished system mastery to the point where vising forums and checking guides wont result in major power gaps.

Personally i doubt it, but only time will tell for sure i guess.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Did paizo state they will change their publish pattern for PF?

Maybe people are hanging on something that might last them at best an year.

PF1, with just the core, didnt also have such a huge gap from a player trying to do a good PC, aka maximizing using logic, and one who visited forums.

It is when more and more and more books come with tons of options and combinations that forum/guides made the gap grows. One person can read the entire feat section of PF1 core book and make decent calls there, try reading every single feat in the system on the other hand.

Saying that PF2 right now, has a small gap, doesnt meant in an year or 2 the gap wont already be there all over again when there are tons of sources all over again.

This has little to do with PF1 or 2 and all to do with a game that simply has to create tons and tons of choices, choices btw, that people expect to me meaningful.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
*A Sunshine Troll is someone who agrees with bad rules to try and hurt the game for various reasons. A group of us decided to coin a term after one heard a group of people talking about doing just that, up voting bad ideas (that they said they did not like) and pretending and defending said bad ideas.

Haha this sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me.

Reality is much simpler than that, people do not agree on what they find fun and doesnt matter how hard it is to some, they arent trolling, they just dont agree and that is that.

Hell playtest is a perfect example, 5th edt players and PF1 players arent looking for the same game, even among those groups there is gaps, but lets keep in the big 2 for simplicity.

Paizo is trying to go for the middle ground at the same time both sides pull for theirs.

There is no way they will appeal to everyone, based on how they are going by vote in the surveys, they are trying to appeal to a majority.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
As for us, we are going heads-down here for a bit as we work on the final version of the game. We will be quiet, but not entirely gone here in the short term, and you can expect to see a lot more about the game in the coming months.

Just wondering what this means for this place.

Because discussions on merits of things are still going on, with the usual lack of agreement on what is fun or isnt, good game design or isnt, has the most support or doesnt... anyway, the same that was the first day.

Will this forum be closed now that the feedback was given? Will the words tossed around here still have any weight on the final game?

35 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, honestly speaking, i dont have high hopes for this game at all, but i will still be checking out the 2E book, if nothing else, for all the years i have been playing PF1.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erpa wrote:

Or the squeaky wheel get the oil.

I'm fine with the memorization system, but it's not a deal breaker to me unless it changes to something worse.

No one asked for Coke II, but when it replaced the original, oh, voices were heard. ;)

Heh reminds me of people surprised suddenly that the survey returned plenty of people against the +1 skill system even when the forums were mostly in favor of it, hell most didnt even bother to show support when it was announced.

It turns out, plenty of people cant even be bothered with this place anymore.

If there is one thing this forum managed to do is indeed not represent people outside of it at all.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Would you look at that, good changes this late in the game.

Hoping their changes to the magic system will also make spells worth taking instead of the crap they were.

Who knows, maybe the release version will actually be decent after all.

No rules, just fade to black.

Ofc, depending on the PCs, comments, funny remarks, events due to this like romance... might come before/later, but i atleast dont GM the act itself.

For example, playing a table with a party of four ulfen, 2 stereotypical vikings, 1 mid way there. This comes up often has a topic, be it them discussing last night or the next one, but the fade to black remains for the act itself.

I go by the draconomicon.

So it is a no to me for the most part. You might meet 2, or more, in a single lair, but that would be based on one visiting it for some reason, not because they both live there.

Now the exception apparently is when they are very, very young. So an older dragon, usually but not necessarily, a parent would share the lair for a little while until the babies grow some years to teach them. After that, they get kicked out one way or the other.

MaxAstro wrote:

I should clarify that I don't mean "you are a bad GM" as an absolute and eternal judgement.

Most people spend a while as a bad GM and eventually grow out of it with experience. I was a terrible GM when I first started.

...That said, if a player comes to you and says "this really isn't fun for me", I would hope that as a human being with empathy and the general knowledge that this is supposed to be a fun hobby you would at least try to come up with a solution. And also hopefully we can agree that if someone is intentionally trying to make the game unfun for someone else that shouldn't just be handwaved away as "they are new"?

This doesnt make you a bad GM in every situation, finding a solution isnt always possible without issues and having the player either deal with it or leave the table is perfectly acceptable.

Dont forget, this often isnt a solo game. Sure, if you have for some reason 1 player, then you can work around, jump systems, do whatever is best for the two of you have fun.

That isnt the case for a vast majority of games. Often there are 3/4 players at a table, if one single player doesnt like something, doesnt mean it will be worked out of the game by any means if the GM and the others do.

Sometimes people disagree on what is fun, that is normal and happens often, role playing games arent something beyond this. This playtest is full of this thread after thread.

That is why sessions 0 are relevant to atleast try to bring everyone to the same page and make sure everyone should even be sitting on that table. Cause yes, sometimes it is best to let go of a player or of a table than try to fit someone who has different tastes in.

I see, interesting. Beating Fafnir then is an actually monumental task.

I suppose you can always cheat, since apparently nobody actually checks if you did it or didnt do it anyway, like that one king they think found the dead dragon on the floor and didnt face one.

Haha it is an interesting concept to consider what is or isnt actually valid.

You know, i have been wondering about that.

By lore, do you need to solo the linnorms or can you take a party and kill it becoming the king when you bring the head back?

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Heh yeah, i would totally sit down for a next session of a PF game where the GM just showed a NPC, of my class/race..., with cool power that i can never have, cause he is an NPC, so he gets the cool toys so he can play the boss encounter.

I would totally, 100%, do that /s :P.

In PF undeads are evil by default outside ghosts.

While the undead type doesnt require them to be evil, if you check the templates, they will require undead to be evil, outside the ghosts.

So vampire have "free will", can they be non evil? Nope.

Lich? Nope


So simply put: No, not ALL undead are evil, but pretty much all of them are.

I read plenty of manga and watch more anime than many would considerate reasonable. With this said, i prefer to play PF the way it is, when i GM, i also keep things in setting so i dont go much towards an anime vibe.

I have played anime games, but every single time another system was used.

The rules you are looking would be the monster cohort ones, issue being pipefox is an improved familiar, not a cohort by default so it isnt on the list. So keep in mind, this requires houseruling.

You can aks your DM for the level value of your pipefox, the best deal by the standard would be 4, which is the blink dog also CR 2, which means for the value of having a single pipefox, you could have a normal cohort that has 4 class levels.

Mind you, a ghoul CR 1 is actually lvl 5 as a cohort and so on. So it isnt a sweet deal powerwise at all, but your GM could give you different level values. So a pipefox could instead count as a lvl 2 or lvl 1 normal NPC instead, it is up to him.

Once the GM decides how many levels it cost to be a pipefox basically, you can make your cohort.

You use its normal sheet, it keeps the atributes and all else there, you just add class levels to make up the gap.

So lets say it costs you 4 lvls to have a pipe fox, if you are level 7 and would have a cohort lvl 5, this means you now have a pipefox with 1 class level.

Tsukiyo wrote:
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
-- based on the witch splatbook and the rules introduced there,

Sorry, somewhat off topic, what is the witch splatbook? I think I need it. Can you give the title?


Have you seen Blood of the Coven?

This is the one i can think of.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I have always hate hate hated playing in the sort of game where players act as if their characters have a copy of the Core Rulebook or Equipment Guide in their backpack, and use it as a shopping catalog.

"Have you guys seen this Awesome Magic Item on page 144? It's only 50k and I'm buying it when we get to town."
Because as soon as the player bought the book, the character instantly knew about all the items in it, and obviously the magic walmart vendor in town has it for the listed rulebook price.
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.

I'm not sure what my point is. But I like the rarity system.

I will point out that im the exact opposite.

The moment the game starts, i plan my PC from the lvl 1 to literally atleast 10 if not higher.

This means i expect to be able to get certain items for my build.

Now im not saying i wont accept GM calls on what books are valid and so on, but if i plan my PC to get certain items, that werent ruled out by the GM during session 0,i 100% expect to gather them.

If the GM tells me session 0 he drops whatever he wants and we wont be able to buy things, i will 100% make a full casters that doesnt depend much on items, cause i wont EVER make a build that depends on the GM dropping things for me.

I kinda of despise this system, but i can kinda of accept it, as long as the GM doesnt change anything after session 0, what is valid is valid, what isnt, isnt. This way i can plan ahead.

Heather 540 wrote:

Well, a Hunter is a spontaneous caster which may be easier on a new player. It also gets bonus teamwork feats which it shares with the companion.

As for feats, there's a penalty for using a ranged weapon on a moving mount. They'll want Mounted Archery to lessen that, which requires Mounted Combat. Of course, the basic ranged feats will also be needed - Point-Blank Shot and Precise Shot, etc.

I would point to the "horsebow" as another way to get past said penalties.

Issue ofc is that it is a exotic weapon, so you need to gain proficiency.

14 people marked this as a favorite.

PF1: Playing good old fantasy RPGs is great, from simply exploring a good old dungeon, to raiding a dragons treasure, it is with this stories that i spent most of my time playing RPGs. PF1 is the continuation of 3.5, PF1 has a multitude of options, a multitude of PCs that can be carefully crafted and played. PF1 is just that great.

PF2: PF2 to me means the end of an era. Time to move ones tent and look for a new place to set it.

GM aside, did you check what the other players will be running?

If you have a completely neutral party, outside of your PC, evil might work.

If you have 3 guys that are good or tend to good, then the GM can allow you to run an evil PC, but either you wont perform evil actions or you will directly clash with the rest of the party when you do.

I will also advise you to keep in mind: The game isnt a movie.

The other players dont trully need to give you the benefit of the doubt or put effort in uncovering your backstory. Simply put, if you hide your "fair and just" justifications to your evil, the other players might quite literally just turn on you, they might not spend time searching the good in you or what made you the way you are.

Personally i have had my fair share of clashes due to playing good PCs and having someone else play a evil one, directly or by being "neutral". It can get somewhat tiresome, but if you, and your table, enjoy the constant clash of wills, then you could try running it.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I will miss seeing which new books are out each month. Half the fun was seeing which new things they are creating and getting new toys to play with.

The game itself i wont miss, since i fully intend to keep playing it.

Maybe i will finally actually check out 3rd party content.

Meh, cant say im happy about the change about the paladins, but banning a class is still pretty easy, so whatever i guess.

Guess the numbers speak for themselves, thank god i dont play PFS.

Same reason this doesnt happen in most series, books...

While they might smell, it isnt expected that every single dead body would produce a stench bad enough to affect the characters.

So people will usually point out the smell, but it wont stop them on their tracts.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The obvious issue with this, that i dont personally mind, but will clearly appear if you are trying to balance them equally is the following:

1 spell, even at lvl 1, might amount to far more than 1 atk. Sure, if the guy cast some spell to hit one single enemy all is fine. If he cast an extra color spray and clear a room, doesnt seem quite the same anymore.

This is lvl 1, when you consider tha caster can do a lvl 5 extra spell while the martial just 1 extra attack, well...

Applying a metamagic feat. That, well, is worth more than than a swift move. Actually this is a very powerful item for this ability alone.

What you can try to do is divide said stones into spell levels like the rods.

Another issue is the word "wielder". Keep in mind the implications for both martials and casters regarding free hands.

Scrapper wrote:
is ranger covering scouting/stealth role or just ranged DPS?

Yeah, also covering for Scout and Stealth.

Wizard/Arcanist will cover for Knowledge checks, maybe that unique language trait too.

Cleric has like 1 skill point/lvl, or so i heard, will cover what his spells manage.

So basic rules of creation are: 20 PB and 2 traits.
Race: Must be human or an "offshoot", like assimar or tiefling.
Class/Archetype: Any Paizo made goes outside summoner.
Concept: Actually anything goes this one time.

Melee cleric: Heal/"Tank"/Buffer.
Ranger: Ranged dps.
Wizard or Arcanist: God, Summoner.

So based on this spread, i was hoping to get some ideas of the last to fit here.

My go to was going to be Paladin with VMC cavalier (star order) for tankiness and party face. Party face being one thing lacking right now i believe.

So any ideas you guys have to pitch in?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:

A jackass on two continents on a backwater planet out in the middle of nowhere. Which makes all of the difference. :P

Honestly, though, Rysky, I'm having a hard time seeing what point you're trying to make. My point was that being powerful and in charge doesn't mean you get to dictate right and wrong. I'm not seeing anything in what you wrote that rebuts that, or, indeed, addresses it. ,':\

Honestly, the one that decides right and wrong is the one above all, aka the DM. If he says evil, then it is evil, if he says good, then it is good.

With this said, she being a goddess that took part on the creation of the material plane and its beings, she being considered the judge and given a position of authority by the others such beings due to they believing she will be fair and so on.

Gives her a hell of good position to be, in the view of a DM, the one that decides right and wrong and thus have her actions always be justified, even if one cant understand how they are.

Well, will also add on the "not exactly on the pool answer" people.

Tecnically based on the CURRENT playtest, i wouldnt pick PF2 over PF1 in a million years, thus there is no chance i would jump over, but to paizos credit, they are changing things.

So i can only trully decide when i see the final PF2 book and where the issues stand at that point.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

PF is a game meant to be played with tons of magic items, due to that, ofc, individual magic items dont feel all that awesome unless they can do something they player trully, trully values a LOT.

Honestly resonance was full of holes, they were trying to deal with it last i checked, but for PF1 for example, i wouldnt ever apply such a system.

PF2 on the other hand they are trying to build from the get go to have such a thing in place, so it could potentially work. In PF1 you are just gimping your players out.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
doomman47 wrote:
Literally any necromancer ever they don't even need to touch undead, or they could be a good necromancer either using the white necromancer class or the juju oracle(pre errata) or even using stone shape to make a body then using stone to flesh to make it a corpse then using a raise undead spell. All this because she has a grudge against ugagtha or what ever the heck her name is.

Never heard of Pharasma being against "necromancers", if you can even call them such, that never create any undead. If you made a "necromancer", whose only purpose was destroying undead, i believe she would actually side you with you by lore.

Ofc, when we say necromancer, 99.99% of the times are people that raise undead. And that point there are no excuses, no reasons to be given or whatever. If you are raising undead, then you are to be punished by such evil act in her eyes. Cause yes, doesnt matter the reason, raising undead is always an evil act.

I wonder where anyone saw Pharasma punish a white necromancer that never actually have made any undead at any point. What is the source for this?

doomman47 wrote:
Pre eratta juju oracle removes the evil act of it and the undead match your alignment, White necromancer specifically requires you to not be evil, and no actual bodies are being used there for no souls are being used in the 3rd example so no one is getting harmed there for would not be evil. And the personal grudge is against some one who is not you it is a deity who escaped from pherasma's grasp.

Pre errata

It was errated because it is always an evil act, therefore the devs had to literally errata the thing to change it.

White necromancer

Isnt this third party? This doesnt count either.

For the third one i wish i could see the source, but from this list honestly, not the first or second counts as far as im concerned. Nothing here changes official pathfinder lore.

1 to 50 of 1,144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>