R3st8's page

if we get a shifter i hope we get a dragon shifter archetype, the druid is already exceptional but a full dedicated melee class would be even better

that just made me realize, imagine if we got a shifter that worked like a summoner, where you select traits like wings or elemental resistance as feats

I’ll look at it from a developer’s perspective.

Whenever someone says there are issues with the wizard from a development standpoint, it usually comes down to two things:

The wizard’s flexibility consumes a huge amount of the power budget because developers cannot predict what players will choose.

The wizard lacks a clear identity, so developers do not know what to design for.

In my opinion, the school system was an attempt to solve this problem by making part of the wizard’s spells and chassis more predictable.

However, I also think it failed. If its purpose was to make the wizard less flexible and therefore allow it to have more specialized mechanics, it should have gone further, perhaps even incorporating the Arcane Thesis into the school system.

In my eyes, the wizard’s identity is divided into two parts.

The wizard gains power through study, not through luck, gods, spirits, or demons, but through their own efforts. This is why we do not simply play a sorcerer: the fantasy of being born with power is different from the fantasy of earning it. This is not me dissing anyone, it is simply a fact that the wizard’s fantasy is that of an independent, self-made caster who does not need no god.

The second part of the wizard’s identity is their school. If I ask you what a pyromancer’s fantasy is, we all know the answer: calling down fire meteors. If I ask what an illusionist’s fantasy is, we all know it is being Aizen. If I ask what a polymorpher’s fantasy is, we all know it involves turning into a variety of monsters, Son Wukong-style, and wrecking your enemies.

Therefore, the logical approach would be to make the school the wizard’s entire chassis and then give each school dedicated feat chains, just as the druid has feat chains that lead to powerful abilities, such as polymorphing without a time limit or transforming into a kaiju.

This way, if someone has one of those feats, you know that they have chosen the corresponding school and followed its feat chain. That would make both the flexibility and blandness problems much smaller.

Also, say whatever you want, but the wizard is f%&!ing unwieldy. Instead of creating friction with the class by forcing ten-minute rests, you could give it an ability that works instantly but can be used only three times per day, with the number of uses increasing as the wizard levels up. Alternatively, the ability could work only with spells two levels lower, as Paizo has done with other features.

The wizard should get a third focus spell that it can cast reliably in combat. It should also gain powers that scale with its level, like those of other classes, instead of having abilities that are somewhat good at early levels but become trash later on.

I was wondering whether I should answer to this but I decided that yes it's better to address this.

Yes, there are other classes that can use the divine spells list and there are other classes with similar mechanics like medicine. At no point did I ever claim the cleric was the only healer or the only one with access to the divine spell list. I'm not sure where people got that from.

If any of you want to discuss whether occult or primal casters are as good at healing or whether other classes can be as good as a dedicated cleric with a healing font, we can make a thread about that.

However, what I'm talking about is how restrictions and mandatory behavior may affect players who may, for one reason or another, feel uncomfortable about it.

It's a matter of inclusivity and accessibility. Just as people should not be forced to engage with 18+ themes or other themes that require a trigger warning, people should equally not be forced to interact with the worship of fictional deities, especially in a world where people will sometimes beat and murder each other for worshiping in the wrong way.

Yes, I'm sure there are some atheists who don't mind and some religious people who have no issue with just playing another class. I never said every single atheist and theist had a problem with it.

I also never said clerics, deities, or anathemas should be erased, I only said people who may have a serious issue with religious themes should have an option to have similar mechanics.

I never said PF2 was an MMO or that it should be an MMO, it was just one example of how people from other games may feel like they want to play that specific character and I'm not sure why people are so hung up on that.

I never said healers are being forced to pick a cleric. I'm just questioning the claim that because they picked a cleric they did so because they wanted to have or liked the restrictions. I'm merely pointing out that saying they consented to it so they can't complain is dishonest.

I feel like what I said is at best being seriously misinterpreted and at worst being deliberately distorted.

Agree. All the anathema are opt in, and they are almost universally things a character choosing the associated option would naturally be inclined to do.

If you want a character to have an option but not it's associated anathema, you should think why a character would be drawn to that option and what beliefs they have. What would make them want that option but not it's anathema.
If the answer pans out to be because your making something silly or contrarian, then you should recognise that such things don't generally fit into Golarian, and you should talk with your GM about it.

I don't think that is fair, people didn’t opt to worship a deity or be bound by their rules; they chose to play a class with healer mechanics and then had the deity and anathema forced on them. Their only option was to either accept those two or not play the class.

Some players may be hardcore atheists who strongly dislike the concept of worshiping anything and find it humiliating. Others may be very religious and find the concept too close to idolatry (remember the satanic panic). Some players simply played healers in other games, like MMOs, as a white mage or something similar, and wanted to do the same here. I don’t see the point of forcing a vegan to eat meat, and I don’t see the point of forcing someone who doesn’t want to worship gods into pledging divine servitude to a fictional character.

I just want know how many people like it and how many people would ignore then if they had the option to see how popular it is.

In PF1, it was possible to create a "philosophic deity", heck it was written right into the cleric class description as possible (but it did say to work with your GM on it). I think in the Golarion specific setting, it wasn't possible but I can't recall for sure.

The covenants of PF2 embody this concept though, and it's not unreasonable to say something akin to the Whispering Way exists as a Covenant of Undeath. Although how it would be meaningfully differ from worshipping Urgathoa is a good question.

Having the option to worship a concept would also be fun. I guess the closest thing is an oracle. Maybe it’s because, just like alignment, people have many different interpretations of things.

For example, some may hear "a god of war" and think of a bloodthirsty berserker, a calm elderly tactician, or even a knight-like god obsessed with strength and honor as opposed to subterfuge. Having gods as people makes them good characters, but from a purely gameplay point of view, it can be quite limiting because you have to search for a god that matches a specific interpretation and study the entire lore to make sure you didn’t misinterpret it.

Of course, one could just play very superficially and look only at the anathemas. But if it’s going to be that shallow, why not just be a priest of Life or a priest of War instead? Honestly, I never liked the concept of anathemas, they feel like a seed of conflict because people end up arguing about interpretations and minutiae. It’s just an annoyance, in my opinion.

Maybe I should make a thread talking about anathemas and the like.

I think James Jacob went on record once saying that divine power did not rely on mortals for continued power, but said a large enough group of mortals with belief in someone or something didn't preclude that becoming a deity, and that such a situation could be enough to give rise to a new deity.

I see. I was just wondering what it would be like to have a champion powered by the Kalistrade or a priest of the Whispering Way, etc. It reminds me of those adventurers where some false idol, worshiped by people, gained a tiny spark of divinity. It would be fun to be a paladin or priest of a non-evil idol, like cheering for an underdog team that you want to help reach the top.

To be honest, though, I think it’s hilarious and interesting when there are settings where faith can grant divinity to things, and even abstract ideals and philosophies can become gods that are either insane or incomprehensible to humans because of how focused they are on the particular worldview that created them.

James Jacobs wrote:

Personally, I think it's best to allow the soul to recognize the source of that attempt, otherwise it gets kinda potentially gross for a bad guy to kill someone, then resurrect them right into a prison or worse. And the whole idea of a bad guy that kills, resurrects, kills, and so on over and over and over, while a compelling idea for a horror movie villain, is kinda awful for a tabletop RPG about heroic PCs, in my opinion

At the very least, that should not be a default option allowed to every evil cultist or mad inquisitor that happen to have access to a moderately leveled cleric. It should probably be a specialized niche ritual only available to certain groups.

The scenario described seems more like a daemon or velstrac worshiper thing- Tenderizing the soul before they offer it to their masters. It seems like too inefficient for devils, and too much effort for demon worshippers.

So undeath? I'm sure there are some types of undeath that retain the mind/soul and cause constant suffering and don't require the target to agree to being made into a undead suffering bag.

that said if the cult follows a demon/devil etc... they may just offer your soul as sacrifice and have it be tortured on the otherside.

You would think there are enough undead in the Whispering Way to generate a covenant, and if the prophecies can succeed in turning people into gold, wouldn’t that also be enough power?

Just asking out of curiosity really.

Lia Wynn wrote:

We do!

Any character can take Beast Master to get an animal companion.

Any character can take Familiar Master to get a familiar.

Those options exist. I do see your point about limiting Santification, and I agree with it, but I can also see a valid reason to give more people options to get it.

As many others have pointed out, those are archetypes, not class-specific feats. I’m all for a non-multiclass divine archetype that lets you gain sanctification, but that is different from asking to give the Necromancer sanctification in their own feats. I would in fact argue that familiar and animal companion feats would be more appropriate simply because you could make both undead, and thus directly thematically relevant in a way sanctification is not.

To you its a option to the people who don't want it its a restriction, its like wanting beef in all food when there are vegetarians in a restaurant.

it used to mean a master of LIFE and death in earlier games so:

Harm, Heal, Breath of Life, Raise Dead, Regenerate, Revival,

still think that a necromancer that can't keep people from dying is a joke, if killing people made you a master of death every swordsman would be one.

i give 1 vote for gain the temporary points on sustain.

R3st8 wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

R3st8 wrote:

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "pinecone"? Are you referring to an open pine cone or a closed one? The spiky type or the smoother type? Yellow, brown, reddish, or dark? I'm a bit confused because not only is it hard to picture a pine cone dragon, but it’s also not exactly the first image that comes to mind when someone says "rune dragon." The first image that pops into my head is a dragon covered in glowing neon full-body tattoos, like magical runes carved into its body. I’m curious about what design they came up with.

bazelgeuse-like

Monster hunter dragons are quite unique but but so long as there is a classical looking dragon it will be great, maybe the cinder dragon will do the job, the iconic red fire breathing dragon is such as staple you can't really go wrong with it.

...Diabolic Dragon not enough?

technically speaking alignment is gone but when you put diabolical in the name, put its the will of hell incarnate in the description and give a skull face that looks like diablo its really becomes hard to roleplay otherwise, also that spike in the chest just look like its going to impale the neck and make it impossible to sleep laying down I cant unsee it, I want a neutral normal looking dragon just that.

R3st8 wrote:

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "pinecone"? Are you referring to an open pine cone or a closed one? The spiky type or the smoother type? Yellow, brown, reddish, or dark? I'm a bit confused because not only is it hard to picture a pine cone dragon, but it’s also not exactly the first image that comes to mind when someone says "rune dragon." The first image that pops into my head is a dragon covered in glowing neon full-body tattoos, like magical runes carved into its body. I’m curious about what design they came up with.

bazelgeuse-like

Monster hunter dragons are quite unique but but so long as there is a classical looking dragon it will be great, maybe the cinder dragon will do the job, the iconic red fire breathing dragon is such as staple you can't really go wrong with it.

The rune dragons have oversized scales that don't lay entirely flat, each with a rune on it. They're a bronze-y color, and look distinctly like they shed scales individually. One is put in mind of pinecones and leg warmers.

I see, so it's like natural handwraps with natural runes. I like that they are getting creative, but I just hope they don’t go too far toward Disney-style dragons or silly cartoon dragons, like those from How to Train Your Dragon, with the goofy, googly, round eyes and huge, tractor-like lower jaws.

R3st8 wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Lost Omens: Draconic Codex was announced a few months ago.

I just took a look at the page, anything other news? I haven't been paying a lot of attention to pf2 or ttrpg recently.

Judging from the page the most interesting part seems to be the new dragonet ancestry.

Conspirator dragon wasn't weird and messed up enough, so they're making despair dragons with person-shaped lures at the end of their tongues.

We're also getting pinecone-esque rune dragons and gunboat-esque barrage dragons over in arcane.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "pinecone"? Are you referring to an open pine cone or a closed one? The spiky type or the smoother type? Yellow, brown, reddish, or dark? I'm a bit confused because not only is it hard to picture a pine cone dragon, but it’s also not exactly the first image that comes to mind when someone says "rune dragon." The first image that pops into my head is a dragon covered in glowing neon full-body tattoos, like magical runes carved into its body. I’m curious about what design they came up with.

Lost Omens: Draconic Codex was announced a few months ago.

I just took a look at the page, anything other news? I haven't been paying a lot of attention to pf2 or ttrpg recently.

Judging from the page the most interesting part seems to be the new dragonet ancestry.

Any new on the dragon stuff? any rumors about player options related to dragons?

I'd say the simple explanation for why the scenario you're concocting makes no sense is because it's a straw man you've made up on the spot. Nothing you've just said has any bearing on what I've claimed: you act like I limit my players only to what the rules say, when this is in no way stated or even implied, and cite nonexistent fallacies (what is an "attempt at a reductio", exactly?) to deflect from the simple fact that you are citing the use of "roleplay" as this magical cure-all that can substitute for any and all rules.

On my side, all I did was point out that...

I assume they meant 'Reductio ad absurdum.' They probably shortened the whole phrase to 'reductio,' which is why it came out like that. So presumably, it would be 'attempt at a reductio ad absurdum' By the way, I’m not defending them, just trying to figure out what they meant.

I still think both the arcane list and the wizard class are in a fairly strong place.

Is that is why we get so many threads complaining about it? also why did you feel the need to add "fairly" as a caveat?

From experience, whenever people use words like "fine," "balanced," or "ok" to defend a nerf, it's usually because the class is so weak that even its defenders can't bring themselves to say it’s powerful or good.

We all know the issue, the wizard's features are simply lacking, and they were nerfed further in the Resmaster update when the class was already bland and underperforming to begin with.

The original nerfs might seem reasonable or minor when examined individually or from a theoretical, white-room perspective. However, in practice, both the intended nerfs and small factors like table variance combine into one massive overnerf that pushes the class into the bottom tier.

This is a design failure. But none of that matters because the developers have said they are fine with it, and the fanbase is deeply resentful of the wizard for being so strong in previous editions, any attempt to adjust it is seen as trying to turn it into a super overpowered "God Wizard 2" or something similar.

In short, there’s nothing we can do from our side.

You really need to read the preceding conversation thoroughly. I'm not asking for nerfs (outside of liturgist). Others are. But if nerfs WERE to be added, anathema would be a good idea IMO.

I don't use any of those options that are on the more overpowered side, so to me, those nerfs would be much less consequential. I never play a liturgist nor use Earth's Bile. To me, those nerfs would be far less relevant than an anathema because that would change the core of what I love about the class, the idea that you aren't subservient to the apparitions like you would be to a god or patron. That is what makes the class so good.

R3st8 wrote:

John R. wrote:

I think ADDING a nerf to the class, something like apparition anathemas as I had previously mentioned, would reign in its power without gutting its gimmick and would add a ton of RP potential. I think apparition anathemas would add a ton of more fun to the class really.

No!!! No, it would not. Restricting roleplay options does not make things more fun, it just kills ideas. Also, please leave the Animist alone, that is quite literally the one class that I love in this game. It’s perfect. Whoever designed it should be in charge of more classes. But if not, let’s at least keep that one class untouched. I want my one Animist Peach Leshy to remain as it is.

Are you being sarcastic because you have completely misunderstood my point? I generally feel the same way but I also believe adding anathema to apparitions would ADD to RPing, not detract.

Come on, man, there are already plenty of classes with anathema if you want one. If you want an animist with anathema, you can always ask your GM to house rule it for you. Please don't force me and everyone else to play with arbitrary restrictions by default. That is the one class in the game that was done perfectly. Remember the old saying: "Don't fix what isn't broken."

I think ADDING a nerf to the class, something like apparition anathemas as I had previously mentioned, would reign in its power without gutting its gimmick and would add a ton of RP potential. I think apparition anathemas would add a ton of more fun to the class really.

No!!! No, it would not. Restricting roleplay options does not make things more fun, it just kills ideas. Also, please leave the Animist alone, that is quite literally the one class that I love in this game. It’s perfect. Whoever designed it should be in charge of more classes. But if not, let’s at least keep that one class untouched. I want my one Animist Peach Leshy to remain as it is.

This might sound harsh, but I think you're adhering too much to the rules and not living in the fiction you created if you throw a fireball in a library will-nilly just because the text doesn't say it catches things on fire. Your actions have consequences, even if they aren't directly spelled out. Indeed, the game becomes shallow if you can use incredibly destructive spells without any consequence, but the rules shouldn't need to spell that out, only give a guideline how much destruction each spell rank is capable of. A rank 1 Breathe Fire might be able to light a torch, while a rank 3 Fireball burns it to a crisp.

If you want it to matter more mechanically, make the setting reflect that. Spell it out as such, make it a stealth mission or where you have to keep damages to a minimum.

PF1 had the infamous damage table, where if you rolled a nat 1 on a Reflex save versus damage, you'd damage a piece of equipment. You'd have to consult the table to see what would get damaged, like a magical hat to your shoes. Most likely it'd be your armour, and then you'd have to...

But then you encounter an issue of table variance: the fireball may or may not set the library on fire. To the GM, that’s fine. But as a player, if you try to use the fireball to burn the books so a villain can’t read them, the GM might rule that you can’t. At that point, you can’t rely on the rules to back you up anymore.

Also, the phrase "grind to a halt" feels so weird. Isn’t this a turn-based strategy game—the type that’s meant to be slow and deliberate? Aren’t critical successes and failures supposed to be the climactic moments where you slow down and focus?

Are turn-based games supposed to be fast and furious, like one of those timed chess matches where you get only 10 seconds to think? I just feel so disconnected and lost—I can’t understand the vision or direction of the game anymore.

Also players tend to get upset when the enemy mage melts all their cool magic items.

I understand it I really do. As a game completionist, nobody hates losing rare drops more than me. But again, I have to disagree because the risk of burning down the library or destroying items is precisely what causes players to start considering less destructive spells, such as those that attack the mind, or to use indirect methods like stealth. They begin employing strategy, and that is exactly what you want. That is what creates a world that feels real.

Suddenly, it’s not just about getting healed. If you mindlessly take damage, your gear breaks. The party then has a very good reason to scout ahead with familiars or rogue-like classes and to use strategy instead of brute forcing their way through. With each of these "annoying" mechanics that is lost, the game becomes more cartoonish and more shallow.

It's frequently a carryover from D&D, which has a long history of conflict between description and mechanics, eventually made explicit in 4E. This was a huge problem at tables where spellcaster players would break the game based on extrapolation. For example, Fireball being able to melt soft metals would turn into arguments that if it did so it must have reached a certain temperature which must accomplish a bunch of other things like damaging armor, scorching lungs, etc.

I feel like everyone will disagree with me, but I don’t see the issue here. Why shouldn’t a level 20 wizard’s fireball melt someone along with their armor and weapons? I find it so bizarre when fireballs can be used in forests, cities, or tents and damage nothing. It’s so weird. Sure, it’s convenient because it doesn’t burn the loot or key items, but goddammit, it’s strange. We have durability in items for a reason.

Even D&D5 is not getting a game like BG3 anymore, if you read the statements from Larian you don't even have to read between the lines to see how Hasbro/WotC really dropped the ball on that one.

I look at Solasta (and Solasta 2) as maybe more approachable levels of refinement.

What do you mean did something happen?

Plz don't nerf dragons, they are supposed to be mighty, great creatures. If anything, they should be buffed.

Well, I guess the scale of BG3 is too large. I wish they would make more Pathfinder video games. It doesn’t need to be something as big as BG3 or the scale of Owlcat games; even something smaller, like just one well-designed dungeon featuring some of the class mechanics, would be great in my opinion.

I mean, not the D&D setting, but is there any chance of Paizo hiring Larian Studios to make a Pathfinder game or something similar?

The Gates rank 1 spell is like the Wizard’s “we have Four Winds Kineticist impulse at home,” it lets you spend a whole round shifting three martials into or out of flanks/attack range they can’t do with their own actions. Or do it once or twice, for as long as the whole combat. It’s crazy strong party support, especially as it heightens. Even at level 1 it allows you to lift the entire party up a sheer 30’ cliff or wall one at a time per round.

The rank 4 not only gives you resistance (a lot of it if they have bonus energy damage to resist twice), it interrupts multiattack routines like draconic frenzy or at the least trades your reaction for one of their actions to chase you down. It’s great.

The curriculum avoids levels with totally dead/useless spells. Even if you don’t want the utility mid level mobility stuff you can heighten the force damage AOE plus short range teleport that is essentially “small slightly weak emanation force fireball plus a stride,” or the slot spell that does for allies what the rank 4 focus does for you - reaction reduce their damage, disrupt a multiattack, and move them away from a follow on strike.

I’ve previously complained about spell slot limitations, the rarity system, wizards often being relegated to support roles, their effectiveness being mostly against weaker enemies, heavy reliance on the GM, situational spells, huge table variance, underwhelming feats, weak capstones, and the overall feeling that the class could be better.

With that in mind, Paizo introduced a school system that seems to further narrow spell choices, added uncommon schools with spells that GMs might choose to ban, and created a school centered on flanking and positioning. This approach seems to reinforce the wizard’s support role, which might only shine in specific scenarios like near a chasm—and potentially mostly against weaker foes. It feels like this is even more dependent on the GM and subject to table variance.

I feel like my feedback has been ineffective.

Have any new feats been added for these schools? Right now, the schools feel more like limits than real improvements. It’s a bit frustrating when it seems like something was taken away and only partly given back, making it feel like a half-fix trying to get back to square zero rather than a real upgrade. The focus spells don’t feel very exciting compared to those of classes like the druid, bard, or witch. Wizards get only two focus spells, and unlike the druid’s, these aren’t improved by feats. There also don’t seem to be any major or capstone feats connected to these schools. Overall, the class feels basic and not very interesting. It would be good to see more work done in these areas to make the schools feel more useful and rewarding.

I will applaud how bold the design team was to not make the typical green elf that we have been seeing lately, at least you didn't do that one boring trope of making the character into she hulk with pointy ears or a green elf with abs.

That said I'm not sure how popular it will be humans can be quite judgmental when it comes to appearance,

Lets just pray and hope this doesn't turn into yet another wizard thread.

Just like how Paizo has moved away from "there are 5 colors and 5 metals" to instead have the dragons e more closely linked to a specific magical tradition.

You mean because of the debacles caused by D&D that infuriated everyone and led to widespread distrust of their license. I fully approve of what Paizo is doing with the dragons, but this was definitely done primarily for safety reasons. I wouldn't trust that license either.

I’m not denying that the author of Twilight or the animator of Smaug knew what they were doing. Stephenie Meyer crafted vampires that appealed to her audience, and the animator simplified Smaug’s design to make flight scenes easier to animate. That’s perfectly fine. My problem isn’t about their creative decisions-it’s about how people sometimes miss the bigger picture when defending the idea of redefining core concepts.

Twilight vampires are a deliberate twist on the traditional vampire myth, which is fine, the problem arises when a derivative version starts to replace or erase the original concept. Imagine if all vampires sparkled in sunlight. That would ruin countless stories that rely on the classic vampire weakness to sunlight. The reason Twilight’s sparkling vampires stand out is precisely because they contrast with the well-established idea that sunlight burns vampires to ash.

This is the point: derivative versions depend on the original concept as a reference. Sparkling vampires only work as a twist because we already understand what a vampire traditionally is-a monster vulnerable to sunlight.

This analogy applies directly to the dragon debate. Insisting that giant wyverns should be called dragons is like insisting sparkling vampires should be the standard vampire. It blurs the line between distinct concepts and creates confusion. Even AI models struggle to draw dragons correctly because the definition is inconsistent (blended with others like wyverns) sometimes dragons have four legs and wings, sometimes two legs and wings, sometimes arms and wings, sometimes not. This inconsistency is a sing of a linguistic and conceptual uncertainty.

There’s nothing wrong with designing dragons that look like wyverns as a creative choice, technical workaround or twist. But trying to overwrite the fundamental definition of what a dragon is leads to a breakdown in shared understanding. This is similar to how political terms like “left” and “right” have so many different meanings depending on who you ask that communication becomes difficult. I want to avoid that kind of confusion in my hobbies.

In short, respecting original concepts as reference points is essential. Twists and reinterpretations gain meaning only when they contrast with a clear, established foundation. Without that, we might as well start calling ducks and centipedes dragons because we will end up in a tower of babel scenario.

Holy moly I ddn't realize there were so many Twilight fans in this forum.

(The wyvern/amphithere/dragon/linnorm thing you've got up there was literally made up by this one English fantasy author.

That’s generally how it goes with fantasy-someone had to come up with the idea of a wyvern at some point, which is exactly why definitions matter. In real life, I can just show you a duck because we have a physical reference for what it looks like. But fantasy is different. We don’t have actual dragons to compare, so if we don’t protect those definitions, we end up with Smaug being redesigned and depicted as a wyvern-like creature instead of the dragon he originally was. Maybe you don’t see it as a big deal, and I get why no one likes feeling like their freedom is being limited. Still, there’s a reason definitions exist and why they need to be respected. If fantasy terms aren’t protected, they eventually lose all meaning.

At first I was wondering what a dragonet would be, whether it'd be a young dragon akin to Roll for Combat's dragon ancestry, or an alternative anthro dragon akin to a dragonkin. Then a player suggested it might be what was formerly a pseudodragon (using fey dragonet as a latchpoint) but as a playable character, and this never occured to me, but that sounds adorable. Legit curious which of the three it might be. Looking forward to PaizoCon.

Oh so can I finally have my dream of playing dragon? I just hope there is a way for players to at least grow a little bit bigger.

Also, drakes are ducks. If drakes are a type of dragon, then it therefore stands to reason that dragons are also types of ducks.

Nah that is flying type it only evolves into a dragon type after it hits level 14 :3

Agonarchy wrote:

Dragons are a reference to Greek serpents, and then the word and concept evolved and got leggier and wingier, possibly partly due to fossil finds etc. The "Asian dragons" aka the loong likely have a similar origin but developed separately, so are only dragons by convergent cultural evolution.

Oh boy :p

- Dragon -> 4 limbs, 2 wings

- Wyvern -> 2 hind limbs, 2 wings, 1 stinger

- Drake -> 4 limbs, no wing

- Lung -> 4 limbs, no wing, can fly

- Wyrm / Serpent -> no limb, no wing

- Amphithere -> no limb, 2 wings

- Linnorm -> 2 fore limbs, 2 wings

No matter what they tell you, remember: YOU ARE RIGHT! Fantasy definitions must be defended; otherwise, we end up with vampires that glitter in the sun and goblins that look like green elves. If you choose to die on this hill, I will die at your side.

From what I've heard, Chromatic Reds are renamed Cinder Dragons and Chromatic Blacks are renamed Bog Dragons.

So... pick White or Silver and you're good :)

Please let it look good, nothing against designers being creative but red has always been by favorite so I want at least this one to look really good.

I know they are no longer descendants of dragons but I always liked the idea, there is just something about a weak creature working its way to power like a magikarp evolving its way to a gyarados that makes me want to cheer and support them.

Benjamin Tait wrote:

I recall mention of a Rune Dragon in one of the new Pactbinder, sounds like a potential new Dragon

Oh yeah, they're some kind of academic dragon. If only my supervisor was a dragon...

Learning magic from a dragon sounds like a great backstory but also a great witch subclass.

Dragons are a staple of fantasy and rpgs can we get more of them?

We should start a pool.

Money goes to a charity to aid in childrens literacy.

I'll pledge 250USD that we get to 12 books, both Rules & Lost Omens, after Player Core 1, before Wizards get another new class feat printed.

Come on Paizo! Take my money, prove me wrong!

I wonder if we could do something like a kickstarter where if enough people pledge paizo will make the wizard class unchained.

The words versatile and flexible are starting to become trigger words for me, every time i hear versatile, flexible, viable, ok etc... in a class discussion I 'm starting to assume its horrible.

Apparently in the new book rival academies there are no wizard feats, just a lot of spells and schools

Really? that is disappointing.

On top of that, the Graveyard of Souls isn't the only option for athiest souls. Some train under Phlegyas and become psychopomps themselves, some find peace, some still go to an outer plane as a petitioner and some get reincarnated.

I always thought this, along with the book where an atheist begs Pharasma for help, was particularly insulting. It's almost as if it's saying that atheists can't hold to their ideals and end up bowing to the gods. If you become a psychopomp or beg a god for help, then you were never an atheist to begin with.

And even if it was the only option for athiests, the Graveyard of Souls is still an afterlife and the Boneyards is still part of the Outer Planes and the Cycle of Souls - the existance of which isn't a bad thing, anymore than Heaven and Hell existing is bad for the universe.

Yes, it is bad if you are a real atheist because the gods supposedly created your kind when the previous world clearly had immediate reincarnation for dubious purposes. They deliberately cursed your kind with aging and did everything to prevent you from escaping this curse. When you died, they trapped your souls in a graveyard. If you are a true atheist, you would be furious at the gods, especially that goddess.

On Earth, atheism most often means lack of a belief in gods (w/ a small portion believing in a lack of gods). On Golarion I think one would add the misotheists like Rahadoun/Ezren as well as those with a lack of worship of any god (since it's rarer there to lack a belief).

In all it's a much bigger umbrellas than those categories. On Facebook I wrote a post called "50 Shades of Atheism" making a list I thought I would have to pad to fulfill, but I'd had to trim. Among the missing here are the most common "I did research gods, and meh." That meh could represent a lack of evidence, a lack of a good fit w/ the gods they know exist (on Golarion), or a greater appeal elsewhere (perhaps via philosophy or simply thinking divine questions are overrated/irrelevant). So not the hate of the misotheist, implied lack of religious knowledge of the irreligious, and without falling into nihilism (which is more a pitfall for those whose religion failed them than for atheists themselves).

I wonder if there are more existentialists than those in Rahadoun. Hmm.
Maybe some cultivators in Tian?

misotheism is hatred of gods.

Not worshiping = hatred?