Badger

R0b0tBadgr's page

Goblin Squad Member. 54 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I *require* my players to use pencil and paper, for two reasons:

1. Creating a character for the first time, and having to level it up manually means you actually had to go look up the ability and write it down, and not just check a box. More than once I've had players not know what they can do because they had a tool put everything together automagically.

2. Phones, tablets, computers, game boys, iPods, Commodore 64s, and Babbage machines are not allowed at my table, nor are things like them. It's too easy to get distracted, and I'm not just talking about during combat. During role play interactions where the party is talking to Someone Important, inevitably I have to repeat myself because someone was playing on their Atari 2600 and not paying attention!!!

I realize this may seem Draconian to some, but I'm the Dragon Master!!! And these are my friends. If I was running Pathfinder Society stuff then I'd just roll more nat 20's against someone who wasn't paying attention :-P (not really, but I might threaten it)


From my experience, you need neither a twitch account, nor do you need to watch it live to see it on twitch. At least the stuff from Paizo. Other channels may vary. I actually have no internet access in my burrow, so I go to the community watering hole and download it via mystical means and watch it home with my burrow-mate and pup.


Strange, as the first time i tried the forum goblins ate my post.

My question was, how much damage do the mantis claws do? It has the mandible attack, but the scary claws that are mentioned in the description aren't mentioned in the info block. That is what I want to know.

Maybe the author of this tome was afraid to include such information... Or the scribes didn't copy it faithfully... Who knows???


As a badger, I need to keep an eye out for creatures that may infiltrate my burrows. As such, I am going through the tome of beasts looking for other burrowing creatures and have found the Ankhrav! This is a very scary beast indeed, but what is worse is the hive mother!!! Unfortunately, while it says that the ankhrav hive mother has a pair of razor-sharp mantis-like claws, the tome has no information on just how dangerous such creatures are. I desire to know, so I may better defend my burrows, and possibly help you humanfolk also...


Yeah, after the second or third item broke I would have asked my GM for a perception check to see WTF is happening. Cast iron doesn't just break... -_-

The passivity of the group is mildly annoying. The rest of the stream is highly entertaining, so it only bothers me once in a while. Like Mykah (sp?) could say that she's going to check out that key every morning, until she figures the damn thing out. I love them but yes, I do want to scream advice to the players sometimes... :,(


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:


And I'm kind of hoping we get some sort of grit/panache/stamina fluffed non-magical alternative to focus either in a new class or class option somewhere down the road here.

I don't think that focus in and of itself needs to be wholly re-flavored to be nonmagical for purely marital classes. For instance, the monks focus is called 'ki', and does 'ki' stuff. I don't know what the sorcerer stuff is called, but it's not 'ki'. So for a fighter getting focus powers and then calling it 'stamina' you have the nonmagical flavor, and can take feats that generally improve focus powers, like getting more focus points, and the devs don't have to write a feat for each class to give that class more focus points (though I think they did this anyway...).

I personally like the 'general mechanic that is re-flavored per class' as opposed to making more mechanics that are slightly different but are only different in ways you need to look up in a book in the middle of a session. 3.5 did this really well: 10,000 mechanics, each doing one different thing and not doing it very well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing to note: if item bonuses are a thing (like for the aforementioned +1 lock pick kit) then we can definitely have epic dwarven smiths who have been smithing for hundreds of years and who come from a long line of epic smiths who were smiths for hundreds of years granting a +1/+2/+3 item bonus that would stack with a +1/+2/+3 magic bonus. I really hope this is a thing...

I do realize that one of the things the devs wanted to do was reduce the number of stackable bonuses. Because having a magic bonus, an item bonus, a conditional bonus, a class bonus, a weapon bonus, a status bonus, an awesome bonus, a bonus bonus, a fractal number bonus and a few untyped bonuses leads to insanity. And you don't even have to add in your unworldly extradimensional Cthulhu bonus!!! O_o


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, I think it may have been in one of the spoilers or somewhere else I saw: you get your base ancestry languages +Int Mod additional languages IIRC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've really wanted to play Strange Aeons, and assuming i get to play for once in my life, I'm going to play a human wizard, probably transmutation or conjuration specialist. I may multiclass into cleric to get more healing, or even occult sorcerer to get that... I'll have to see my options.

And yes, i know it's a 1e AP. We mostly do homebrew stuff but I've always liked the Cthulhu cosmic horror genre. Now i just have to convince my wife and help teach her how to convert 1e to 2e...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
@R0b0tBadgr You heard a mix of different things. There in fact will be archetypes in core, but they will be of the "dedication feat" style. Level 1 archetypes will have rules in core, but there won't be any examples.

I'm still half awake and coming off of being very, very ill. What you said is mostly what I meant. Being able to take a pirate archetype or cavalier archetype or drider-riding drow archetype at level 1 is what i'm looking for; not fighter/wizard multiclassing dedication thingy at level 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

We actually do know that level 1 archetypes are going to be a thing; rules for how they work are confirmed to be in the core rulebook. However, it's also confirmed that no actual level 1 archetypes will be in core.

And evidence suggests that level 1 archetypes are going to be in the style of PF1e archetypes - replacing the basic class features of a certain class, instead of being a dedication feat.

Level 1 archetypes?!!

For real??

Link? I believe you, but I totally missed this!

Also, this is great news!!

+1 on wanting a link. I knew that rules for archetypes would be in the core, and that there wouldn't be any in the core unfortunately, but I didn't hear anything about them being available at level 1. If this is true, it's exactly what I'm looking for!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was more thinking, if you come from a culture, and everyone from this culture had the ability to get some cool thing. Now, because you left home to go adventuring, you don't necessarily have the chance to go back home to get the cool thing when you reach 2nd level. Especially if it is a *thing* you need to physically acquire.

The cavalier is a good example, as you get a mount. What if you're like a drider riding drow or something crazy. If you're in the middle of slaughtering halflings on the surface, how are you to get your cool drider mount when you reach second level? Why couldn't you get it at first? (Assuming everything is level-scaled) This way you could have your band of drider riding drow go up to the surface in their first adventure slinging spells, singing songs, stabbing swords, and stealthily shanking all in their path, all at first level.

At the moment, I'm making it a general ancestry feat & class feat... But that's just me abusing the system as a system abusing GM.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
I am having a hard time seeing how a champion fits in though, I'd think their who concept of crusading for justice seems to conflict with a life in the circus. But I'm sure it can be done with some creativity.

"Hi, I'm Bob, strongman and paladin of Iomede. Let me tell you about how awesome Iomede is while I impress you all with my impressive feats of strength! They would be more impressive but I needed a high CHA so I would be a better performer so I could tell you how wonderful Iomede is. Oh look! A fight, I'll be right back after I break it up..."

I think that would work perfectly!! :-D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I kinda like the ritualist idea, but IMO what I think of is someone taking a LONG time to cast a spell, that has major consequences for those it is cast on. I'm thinking between 3-9 actions, need not be consecutive, but can't try and cast something in between, so like attacking once or moving would be fine.

Though I may just build this for my setting...


I know none of the dedications in the playtest core rulebook can be taken until at least 2nd level, as they're marked as such. Though I was wondering if anyone has seen or heard (or wants to leak) anything about whether or not there will be dedications that can be taken at first level.

Cavalier is a good one that could have been taken at first level, but it was made for second+. I know there are some kinda core class features that people get at first level that might leave a class hamstrung if they don't have it. At least that's how it is in the playtest rules.

I'm working on some things for some of my players and it would be nice if they could take a dedication at first level and not horribly unbalance everything.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Gregg Reece wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Aww.. shucks folks. I am just happy to have the opportunity to share my stories with all of you. This really is the first chance I have ever had to tell a long-form story and share it with a wide audience. And I really have to give credit to all of the great players I have had a chance to play with over the years, and this group is no exception. Great players make GMs better!
You're saying having an evil lich inviting hero parties into his dungeon and having his hapless minions (ie: the players) setup traps so that he can impress the vampress two dungeons over isn't long-form story-telling? ;)
Well.. I mean, other than that one!

Wait what??? What is this other one??? Where is it??? Where can I find it????? I NEED MORE JASON BULMAHN IN MY LIFE!!!!!! Once a week isn't enough for me... :'(


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
I don't think you can just take a random soldier or commoner and have them do 100 push ups, 100 situps, and 100 squats EVERY SINGLE DAY and expect them to hit 20th level.

You forgot the 10km run and not using AC the whole time to train your mind :-P

That's actually a perfect example for a PC. Saitama (aka One Punch Man) did a workout that is, for the most part, totally normal. And yet, after doing that workout for 3 years he is the most powerful hero on the planet, stronger even than hero's that have been doing it for years, decades even.

So no, not everyone in Golarion (or any other world you play in) can become a 20th level whatever. Heck, most probably won't break second level. The people running the towns that have a 5th level write up are pretty exceptional themselves...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
scary harpy wrote:
Roswynn wrote:


I do wonder about hags. They're among the monsters I like the least, because they so obviously come from a place of misogyny... and they have no male equivalent. In folklore I guess that would be ogres, with "ogress" just another word for hag, probably, but in Lost Omens/Golarion? If a hag is an evil fey tied to spell-like powers and nature who always looks, in her true form, like a horrible old woman, what *male* fey is the missing piece of the puzzle here?

B/c I hope there is one.

I always thought that the mad scientist was the male equivalent to the witch. An old man wearing a long white lad coat in a lab with bubbling potions in beakers who laughs while creating montrosities and weapons.

The Teson is a fearsome fey creature in some ways very much like the Hag, but in others very different. The Teson are universally male, and are infatuated with magic, especially transmutation magics. Hiding in the deepest parts of the forest, they work on their experiments. One of their favorite past times is finding and capturing vain young women, and altering them in ways to make them grotesque, though not always on the outside. One of the worst things they like to do is mess with the victims brain in such a way that they always perceive themselves to be ugly and unlovable. They are also incredible creators, and some seek a Teson out in order to have them make unique and powerful items.

The Teson reproduce very systematically, creating their child in the lab, before eventually switching their child for someone else's. They also implant a desire to protect the child in the parents that is so strong they end up sheltering the child from all harm, stifling their growth. This leads the child, who wants to expand and explore, to despise their parents. This will quite often, in a moment of anger, lead them to kill their parents. The anger and hate will quite often lead the child to do horrible things to his mother and father - things I dare not speak of on a PG-rated forum.

It is said they're are no female Teson because any offspring that show female traits are kept by the Teson. As they hate women they probably torture the fetus, eventually killing it painfully... Or worse.

(Thank you scary harpy for the seed of an idea. Also, if anyone wonders as to where the name "Teson" comes from, it's Tesla and Edison smashed together. I think this is way more interesting than "hags can sometimes be guys"!)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm in the middle of building some supplements for second edition, and I want to know the status of making things like the Pathfinder logo community use. Also things like the action symbols and such would be nice too, as I'm currently using some that I've made by tracing the ones in the rulebook, but I don't want a cease-and-desist because a lawyer got sue-happy (I honestly don't think this would be an issue, but I do want to play by the rules).

I would really like to have at least this much pre-launch, as it's just two-people working on some cool supplements. I would love to be able to preview the rules so everything can be up to spec on launch day, but I highly doubt we qualify for that kind of access.

Thank you.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I am curious about, some of the players mentioned a questionnaire that Jason had them fill out to get them thinking about their character. I was wondering if we could get a copy of that questionnaire because I'm very interested in using something like that for my next game.

Thanks!! And it was an awesome stream!!


I'm not saying that having a group that simply sells stuff is exciting. But what if a player wanted to open a shop, hire some people to generally run it, and then adventure when they feel like it and craft in their downtime to support their adventuring? Honestly as GM I can houserule this but I prefer to houserule as little as possible so people don't get confused with rules they can't look up, or ornery because they disagree with it.

I agree that Elhezer the Black Mage who is known for his powerful magic opening a shop in town doesn't sound all that exciting... But it would give me the opportunity to plant some adventure seeds by having people come in (or teach my kids how economics works, but that's a different story).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with your second and third points, but from a real world point of view, drinking alcohol was usually safer than drinking water, as the water was usually filled with bacteria that would give you dysentery (and thus, you die). So wine or beer was not only a thing to do at taverns, but a thing to do in general so you wouldn't be sick. I mean, how heroic do you think you would be if you had liquid poop running down your leg as you ransacked the evil lich's lair.

I understand being inclusive, but if you try and super include everybody, then remove wheat for all the gluten intolerant PCs... Just food for thought.


Honestly, it's pretty easy. So easy I'll write something for the PF2 team they can use verbatim for the low-low price of: add my name to the "these people added stuff" list (Paizo ppl, pm me for my info)

me wrote:


Selling items is usually done at half the listed price through merchants who buy and sell those kinds of goods. Occasionally you may have a guild shop or the like that can get you better prices if you sell to them. This can get you upward of 75% of the price of the item. If you own a permanent shop that sells these kinds of items you can sell them at whatever price you choose. Just know that owning a shop comes with it's own expenses: taxes, rent, employees, etc. Discuss this with your GM to figure out the details of running your business.

Something like that in the core rulebook would be all i need as GM to be ok with the economics of the world.


So i just read this article: https://theangrygm.com/theorycrafting-an-unsummary/ and it made me think about buying, selling, crafting and economics in general. I just looked briefly in the index in how to sell items, and there isn't anything there. First edition i know you sell things for half price. And apparently D&D 5th is the same except you can't sell magic items, and if you do, well you lose.

If that's the case, who in their right mind would ever make a magical item, except one that they needed??? I mean, wizard makes a staff, and wizard has no more use for the staff, so he sells it for half price to merchant. Merchant then sells it to adventures for full price. Who wins? The merchant. The cost for making the staff is half the cost of buying it, plus the skill needed to actually make it. So the person who makes out is the middleman, and all he did was facilitate the transaction. The wizard made nothing at all, and the adventures spent money.

This means that all your scrolls, potions, and other single-use magical items are either created by you, or - because of the economics of buying and selling - don't exist. They're is no magic store you can go into to buy things you want because no wizard will make anything. In fact, for rules-as-written, am ex-adventurer wizard would still make nothing because they can only sell their magical thingy at half price, and you can only buy at full price, so the other half goes... Nowhere!

This is stupid, and IMHO should be fixed. If my players want to open a magical item shop to support their adventuring they should be able to, but rules as written for first edition would mean they make no money. I know most groups may not like this, but i think it should be addressed.


Sorry Deadmanwalking, Captain Morgan & anybody else, it's late and I'm posting without thinking how bad it will derail fun RPG discussions. While there are a few other arguments for my stance of "no good deity would allow abortions" it will take a lot more energy than I have to give. It basically boils down to when a person is imparted with a soul (which a careful reading of the beginning of this thread so will give a good answer). So I'm bowing out. We can have this discussion IRL if any of us meet.

Back on topic, I think a few more "deities for the people" would be good overall for the fun of the game, even if they were smaller. Fertility deities, weather deities, money deities, weather money can help me show my fertility deities... All that. There were gods that had temple prostitutes (both male and female) IRL that were all about giving into your pleasures (historically they went much further than the laws would allow one to go today, and for good reason, but why not have a deity that allows all 18+ relationships?)

Anyway, Merry Christmas to all, and to all a Good Night!!


Cole Deschain wrote:
R0b0tBadgr wrote:
Having more than just Lamashtu as a fertility deity would be good, and more realistic, but would that make the setting more interesting?
Yes.

I agree it can, it's just the meat of my post was meant to be taken as "it's hard to do right" not "it shouldn't be done". Would I like to see it? Yes!!!! Would it be easy? Probably not...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

A fertility deity could be anti-abortion, but nothing remotely necessitates that. Fertility doesn't have to be strictly about unchecked and unrestricted growth, after all. It's very possible to have a LG fertility deity who is all about careful and planned cultivation, both of crops and of families, and that attitude in no way necessitates being anti-abortion (quite the opposite, if anything). And that's only one possible example.

While I can agree on your other point, as it's kind of semantics, this one I don't. Chopping down a tree just because you didn't plan on having it grow there isn't really the same as planting a tree and then later deciding it's not where you want it. Preventing a child being born is really easy: don't have sex. Planting a tree in a spot or having sex both have natural consequences. I'm not equating children to trees, but if you don't want to grow anything in the field, don't plant anything there. A deity of fertility and growth - unchecked or not - would be against abortion. Imo a deity against unchecked growth would have spells to prevent a seed from taking root in the first place, instead of burning the field down.

(Edit: killing people is always an evil act, imo, even if that person doesn't have a choice to say as much (in fact, doubly so for the voiceless))


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Having more than just Lamashtu as a fertility deity would be good, and more realistic, but would that make the setting more interesting? This is kind of a balance in world building as adding a deity isn't just "and here is Bob the fertility deity who helps men & women become fertile, he's NG" and leave it at that is kinda lame. How did he become a deity? What else does he have perview over? What are his anethema? A good fertility deity would definitely be anti-abortion as that kind of defeats the purpose of becoming fertile in the first place, and seeing how PC paizo is in general, they probably won't do this. Also, being realistic, there would be deities that do what we consider horrible things, but their followers consider good. See Molech for a real world example of a god people worshipped that is evil by our standards (unless you are ok with burning children alive), but good and celebrated by their worshippers.

World building is hard, and while I don't agree with all of the decisions paizo has made they have a pretty decent pantheon. I would appreciate some more neutral options and some interesting good options, if less powerful. Also, restricting clerics to alignments makes sense in a world where good and evil are nearly tangible entities. Saying you are good while the god you worship calls for human sacrifice is saying that human sacrifice is good, or that you don't understand/believe all your deities tenants. By restricting this, it makes the starkness more real and understandable.

Ok, you can start the hate against me now.


I don't know if this was brought up, but I was wondering if anyone has played with allowing certain activities to span turns. For instance, allowing a spell caster to move and then spend 3 actions to do a full-blast Magic Missile. This would have some drawbacks of course, such as allowing bad guys to run over and kick a casting caster. I'm thinking of allowing this in one of my games but I wanted to know if anyone else had any experience with this.

I would rule you couldn't spend *more* than 3 actions on a given activity (like MM for instance) and you can't ready an action that takes more actions than you have left (so move twice and ready a strike would be a no-go in this instance).

This would allow someone to spend the minute in combat to unlock the door while everyone else is protecting the rogue as they try to escape, also the aforementioned spell caster using 2 actions to cast one spell, another to start casting, and the first action on their next turn to finish that second spell (and allowing them to cast a third in 2 rounds...)

Any thoughts??


I don't know if this thread is still being looked at it cared about, but indexes are a big thing for me in general. I **LOATHED** trying to look something up in 3.5 because the index was half a page, over the copyright statement... Which tells you what _those_people_ think about an index: the only people who are going to read it are the people who are going to read the legalese, which is pretty much nobody. The only reason I haven't posted before is because Jason asked for *specific* things I looked up. So here it goes:

Item bonus, what it is and what it applies to.

The difference between circumstance bonus and conditional bonus. I tried looking up each individually and failed, and I looked in the glossary to no avail. They are defined in "bonus" on pg291. (I'm writing a small thing to sell eventually and wanted to have the correct bonus type, none really fit).

Materials - found them

This is just a sample of things I've looked for in the past 20 minutes or so. I do use the index a lot while playing, to look up spells and abilities. Not only in the core book but also in the bestiary. I don't know how many times I've read "<> Fancy attack" and I'm like... WTF does Fancy attack do? Where is it? Is it in the back with the rest of the monster Fancy attacks? [Goes and searches the back of the book in my PDF reader] nope, where is it??? Oh, it's in the stat block 2 creatures previous because it's only for this type of creature. So I just wasted 10 minutes searching for something that could have been "<> Fancy attack (pg 123)" or in the index (or both preferably). I may have seen it if I was wielding a dead tree... But then again, maybe not.

Please make the index awesome!! The trait list and glossary are good also and please keep/expand them.

Thank you all, I love the system so far!!! Please keep being awesome!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's an odd-ish question. I have a few friends who - for legal reasons - can't use the internet. I want them to be able to play and participate in the playtest, and that is easy (this is still a pencil-and-paper RPG). But if they want to add their voice to the surveys, I'm going to have to essentially print out the questionnaire and type in their responses. And I'm fine with this.

Unfortunately, I'm worried that responses may be email-blocked or something of the like, and so I may not be able to add their voice to the playtest. As the GM for these adventures, I want to be able to run the game for my 4 players, have them do the survey, and have all their voices count even though I had a few people write their response on paper and added it in later. So is this going to be feasible? Or am I going to be stuck with saying "Yeah I had 4 people play but you only get 3 survey responses"?

Thanks in advance.

P.S. And while I do know a few people who are currently incarcerated who would like to get in on the playtest, doing that would be a headache of its own... :(


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's an idea Lyee. Play Doomsday Dawn (and the PFS scenarios if you're doing those) exactly as written (or as close to exact) to get a feel for how PF2 is as written and provide the asked-for feedback. Then, separately (and probably afterward) run a campaign using any house rules & monsters & whatnot, have fun, and provide that feedback to the forums along with any cool house rules that you came up with.

It's my understanding that Doomsday Dawn should only take a few sessions to run, so in the next year you could either run it like a dozen times, or once for your group, and then a 8+ month campaign starting at 1st level.

This is essentially what I'm planning on doing, so I can give the best specific feedback, and also give general "hey, I think these changes worked beautifully and added a lot of fun to the game".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Saffron Marvelous wrote:
If Sun Wukong isn't a monk, no one is a monk.

I haven't read the actual story, but from a brief glance at Wikipedia, and from various other sources (like "The Forbidden Kingdom" w/ Jackie Chan & Jet Li, I know, HollyWood stretches tales blah blah) I have to agree with Saffron. To quote the first 2 paragraphs from the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Wukong):

Wikipedia wrote:

Sun Wukong, also known as the Monkey King, is a fictional figure who features in body of legends, which can be traced back to the period of the Song dynasty.[2] He appears as a main character in the 16th century Chinese classical novel Journey to the West (西游记). Sun Wukong is also found in many later stories and adaptations. In the novel, he is a monkey born from a stone who acquires supernatural powers through Taoist practices. After rebelling against heaven and being imprisoned under a mountain by the Buddha, he later accompanies the monk Tang Sanzang on a journey to retrieve Buddhist sutras from "the West".

Sun Wukong possesses immense strength; he is able to lift his 13,500 jīn (7,960 kilograms (17,550 lb)) staff with ease. He is also extremely fast, able to travel 108,000 li (21,675 kilometres (13,468 mi)) in one somersault. Sun knows 72 transformations, which allow him to transform into various animals and objects; however, he has trouble transforming into other forms, due to the accompanying incomplete transformation of his tail. Sun Wukong is a skilled fighter, capable of defeating the best warriors of heaven. Each of his hairs possesses magical properties, capable of being transformed into clones of the Monkey King himself, and/or into various weapons, animals, and other objects. He knows spells to command wind, part water, conjure protective circles against demons, and freeze humans, demons, and gods alike.[3]

(the bold is my emphasis)

Later on, it makes this point under "Names and Titles":

Wikipedia wrote:

Xíngzhě (行者)

Meaning "ascetic", it refers to a wandering monk, a priest's servant, or a person engaged in performing religious austerities. Tang Sanzang calls Wukong Sūn-xíngzhě when he accepts him as his companion. This is pronounced in Japanese as gyōja (making him Son-gyōja).

and

Wikipedia wrote:

Sūn Zhǎnglǎo (孫長老)

Zhǎnglǎo used as honorific for monk, because Sun Wukong believed in Buddhism.

So yeah, Sun Wukong - the Monkey King - is LITERALLY a monk, and is referred to as a monk even by other monks. So this isn't like that Hells Angels biker guy you just met at a bar saying he's a Nun. This is one of the many ways that a monk can be.

Sure, there are some things that he can do because he is a supernatural being (like his hairs being able to transform into clones of himself) but many of his powers are from his Taoist practices.

So yes. He's a monk


Stone Dog wrote:
You can always not charge money for it. Quests, services, adventure hooks, and more could remove or reduce the cost of the spell.

Honestly, as a GM, this is what I would do. Unfortunately, I'm not always the GM, and many are not so nice as to say "You fell, so go quest and prove you're awesome and deserve to be reinstated". And the more rules-lawyery among us would balk at a GM doing that, which is why I was curious in the first place.


I started listening to the Glass Cannon Podcast a few months ago when they did the little playtest thing, and one of the recent episodes I've listened to they mentioned atonement (I'm quite a bit behind, like a year or so :-P )

This got me thinking, and maybe this has been addressed before and I just didn't see it, but I'm curious as to how atonement works. One of the things they mentioned is that in PF1 Atonement almost feels like paying indulgences. Especially since it's SO FREAKING EXPENSIVE that a first level Paladin/Cleric/Whatever who falls for whatever reason and needs atonement is, well, stuck to take their next Nth levels in... something else, until they work up the $$$ to pay for atonement.

So how does this work? Is there a new way to atone that doesn't cost an arm and a leg (and maybe a half dozen class levels?) Or is it the same as before?


Grey Star wrote:
Now, about the code, I think the player who plays a paladin, need to define what is the conviction that drives his character into being a paladin. If he acts accordingly whit his conviction, he follows his personal code. If not, he is a risk to falling. I think it's more simple than a universal code and that open the road to a more interesting character development.

The Paladin having a personal reason for following a particular code is definitely something a player needs to think on. Not only when playing a Paladin, but also when playing a Cleric (or other character that strongly follows a deity).

This is a player thing, and also kind of a real-world thing. If IRL you want to carry a gun and catch bad guys, become a police officer. If you can't follow all the rules, then don't. If you become a police officer and you break the rules, don't expect there to be no consequences. Knowing why you want to be a police officer can lead you a long way to not committing crimes yourself, or mishandling evidence, or what have you.

What you're asking for Grey Star is a player thing, not a rules thing, and I've always wanted my players to have reasons for what they did (whether or not they played a paladin) because it makes for more fun & in-depth characters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
I'm getting incredibly tired of people trying to force non-Lawful Good Paladins in. Just. It is wearing me down, personally, to the point where I've visited these forums less and less.

Yeah, I totally agree. While I don't think it unreasonable for there to be Paladin-like holy warriors for even Caden Calien, Asmodeus or Demogorgon, they are CERTAINLY not Paladins, and the angst around it is draining.

But, this is not a Paladin alignment thread, this is a debugging the code thread! And personally, I like TheFinish's change to the second point in the code:

"You must protect the innocent as best you can, and never knowingly cause them harm."

So, yeah, there's some more pennies for this discussion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SilverliteSword wrote:

I was kind of hoping that the stealing armor/weapons thing could be used in combat...

Maybe there's another skill feat that reduces the time it takes to steal something, so between the two you might be able to do it. Especially if your bard is distracting them so they don't notice you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malthraz wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

... but at the risk of an explosion, it's time to reveal the most exciting revelation yet for the entire playtest book. In addition to the index, it also has...

...

...

a glossary of terms!

This is outrageous, it is a total nerf to people that spend their time reading the book cover to cover. How am I supposed to be the table system expert, when anyone can just look things in an index?!

A glossary is totally an argument tax. Now we are forced to look terms up in a glossary, rather than argue about it for 20 minute. This is actually going to reduce the amount time spent playing the game, because Adventure Paths are going to be quick and easier to get through.

I can't believe that Paizo are doing this. I might reconsider even getting PFe2. Maybe I will just have to ban the index and glossary at my table.

You are WRONG SIR!!! Having a Glossary is the One True Way and ranks up there in importance with LG Paladin Goblins as the One True And Bestest Good!!! Also, having a Glossary gives you not only MORE to read, but then you can easily memorize it, and be all smug when people ask for a definition, disagree with your definition, then calmly state "Well, go ahead and look it up then..." and have them read with dread exactly the words that you stated.

This is the essence of the Pathfinder Rules Zealot! Which should be included as a Core Class!!! The range of it's powers know no bound, with abilities such as Detect Wrongness, Channel Rules, CRB Bomb, Smite GM, and reactions like Opportune Rule Quoting that are triggered when someone does something WRONG (obviously this only works when Detect Wrongness is on, but for the Pathfinder Rules Zealot, it is always on, even when the game is off!) Unfortunately, you need to be of the OBJECTIVELY BEST alignment of CENGL! But this isn't a problem for the Pathfinder Rules Zealot, only for the people who OPPOSE the zealot!

@Mark, when are we getting a preview of this class???

:-P


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of a Chaos Knight bestowing a reroll & take the greater as a boon instead of the traditional +X boon that's usually bestowed. Or maybe a +NdX or something, like "Target gets +1d6 for attacks, on each attack, for the next round" so they roll 1d20+1d6 to see if they hit. Maybe a little clunky? IDK!

Breaking Rigid Thought -> Out of the Box? or Out of Box Experience? or There is No Spoon???

Warping reality to get a bonus to AC sounds cool, with the reaction to make an opponent hit himself is also pretty nice.


Malk_Content wrote:
When I was young there was something in the back of Mage (2nd edition I think) that brought everything together for me. It was a four page comic, basically showing a typical scene you'd expect in the game. After that was the same 4 page comic, with an explanation of the rules that would be used to resolve those situations. Obviously couldn't be done through out the book, but a one off to help illustrate core concepts to people new to the hobby would be pretty great. Perhaps showing a typical first level encounter.

This sounds really cool!! I like this idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ohhh LORD!!! A good index AND A GLOSSARY!?!?!?!??!?

And I second (or third, maybe fourth... I just ++ it) the request of having page numbers in the glossary. Having a quick definition, and then a place to go for more information would be awesome.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
2Zak wrote:
BUT is there anyone truly innocent in the world? "Let the one who is without sin throw the first stone".

To bring a real-world religion into this conversation (christianity as taught by Christ): no one is innocent. All are sinners and thus are unable to be right with God (and it's only through the blood of his son Jesus... I won't preach here). Thus, from a very legalistic standpoint you could justify having your LG Paladin of Jesus kill everyone who isn't a Christian (see: the spanish inquisition; which nobody expects). The thing is though, you have mercy, and forgiveness, and this is what Jesus actually taught. This is also what most good deities in fantasy settings actually mean (usually).

This is also a good distinction between L. Good and L. Evil: in the Evil counterpart, you're guilty automatically. No save, just punishment. (LN would follow the law, but jury trial first or some such).

Also, I would think that attempting to save someone's life - even a known murderer - would rank high on a Paladins list of priorities. Evil but maybe redeemable bad-guy you caught and was about to fall off a cliff, do you jump to save him even though it might be a ploy to escape and cause more havok? Yes! Should a paladin lose his powers over not attempting? Probably not if it's the first time, but probably yes if it's part of a long string of oversights (unless the player is just that absent-minded).

The Raven Black wrote:
One essential thing for me on this specific topic is that people clearly understand that innocent and Good are completely different things

Yes. Very Much So.

Tallow wrote:
An Evil Kobold Child running around picking mushrooms and minding his own business could be considered innocent.

Maybe this can be an example in the CRB?? :-P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ring_of_Gyges wrote:
If we had some clear idea of what was supposed to be so bad about Infernal Healing, we might be more sympathetic to the Paladin who says "I'm sorry you're going to die, but I won't help you. I won't do evil things, even to help good people."

From the spells description:

Quote:
Components V, S, M (1 drop of devil blood or 1 dose of unholy water)

and

Quote:
You anoint a wounded creature with devil’s blood or unholy water, giving it fast healing 1. This ability cannot repair damage caused by silver weapons, good-aligned weapons, or spells or effects with the good descriptor. The target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell and can sense the evil of the magic, though this has no long-term effect on the target’s alignment.

There is no reason for a Paladin to have the unholy water. The devil blood might be available, but probably only right after killing a devil. And honestly, if a Paladin carries around a vial of devil blood to cast this spell, then they're probably doing a few other amoral things they shouldn't be doing.

Also, it probably does bolster the armies of hell, at least a little bit for a short time.


QuidEst wrote:


The new Pally code already avoids the unrealistic expectations and tyrannical conclusions of “or through inaction allow a human to come to harm”.

Verty true, which is good as a not-so-nice-GM could easily say "You didn't do X, and thus allowed untold peasants to come to harm, thus thou art no longer a Paladin of ANYBODY!!! Oh, and save from Divine Flame Strike from your former diety, just b'kuz"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it hurts to help people - newbs especially - bootstrap into game with a setting already somewhat at hand. And as much as Paizo doesn't want there to be, there will always be the kids who love role playing but can't afford $5,000 worth of books or subscribe to anything, and thus can only convince their parents to buy them ONE book. That book being the Core rulebook (maybe two if you're lucky, get a monster manual).

This gets them the rules, an overview of a generic & default-ish setting that most people are familiar with, and the rest of your school knowing you're a nerd. :-P

That being said, there was a set of books attributed to Gygax on world building, that included an "Extraordinary Book of Names" and a few others that have been out of print for DECADES. Having Paizo make a set of books like that would be FREAKING AWESOME and would definitely go on my wishlist and would eventually be bought.

Also, you can just ignore it if you don't want it. The fluff is there to make it more enjoyable overall. If you don't want fluff then they don't have to pay artists to draw all the characters & whatnot, and just have a wall of text!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The one thing I'd really like to point out, just to point out something that may or may not be obvious to some people.

The Paladin's Code seems very 3-Laws (or 3+0th Law if you've read all of the Foundation series). One of the things that Asimov did throughout the series is show how these three simple laws that most people would be like "Yeah, that seems foolproof" are actually *far* from foolproof, and can cause so much trouble all over the place.

I'm not trying to say we should stop trying to get the code as crystal-clear as possible, but there will always be loopholes. Hopefully Mark Seifter has read most of Asimov and realizes this, and thus does not get an aneurysm trying to make it 100% foolproof.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

+1

Also, having some info on Golarion in the core rulebook would be nice, to kind of bootstrap people into the default setting.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

That's what I really, really want. Is a full index that I can use to look up stuff.

When I first got the Pathfinder Core book I geeked out on the fact that there was an index I could look things up in. Compare that to the 3.5 players handbook which was... Unacceptable.

I know I can use an app/the internet/search a PDF instead of looking up things in an index, but there is no where to type in your search terms in a dead tree. And having the rules in book form is always the best IMHO (instant access, no dead batteries, near-infinite screen size, etc...)

Just my $0.02.

And so far, I like what I see. :-D

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>