Rory Collins's page

Giancarlo Esposito as Quinn

Danny Trejo as Ezren...yeah, a little old but hey

Where are the Investigators putting their stats? I've seen 18 int, 16 Dex all the time with ranged weapons...

I'm thinking, if they are going full Investigator type where investigating crimes, talking to suspects, Charisma has to be up there. Just a hunch though Watson.

I will say, while the concept of an Investigator is cool the problem is it is one of the classes you have to spread stats for giving it a Jack of All Trades, Master of None vibe until later levels where you can add more stats to fill in. It is a good class for games with very little combat and as part of a team that has heavy hitters already in it, but if the campaign relies on a good chunk of combat then Rogue is probably a better choice.

Since there's going to be, or there already is, a stream of new players coming to the game i think that this argument is not at all unproper to discuss.

in my opinion the game fails at teaching new players how they should play the game: low levels are COMPLETELY focused on damage and innate survivability:
-the first since a crit can and probably will oneshot most enemies, and heavily injure some bosses; plus there aren't really any worth debuff spells to use, focusing wholly on damage is therefore not only the most effective strategy but highly incentivized by the fact that enemies WILL also do that! "three fighters and a bard" didn't come out of thin air.
-by innate survivability i mean the survivability of the base chassis of the class, in later levels thanks to items and abilities almost everyone will have resistances and means to significantly reduce damage taken, at lower level the best you have it's shield block which, while incredibly effective, doesn't really permit any serious stalling. (a high level kin can tank a boss due to abilities, a low level barb can tank a boss due to his enormous hp pool).
these two factors, coupled by the fact that some classes genuinely get an enormous spike around level 7+, have new players focus on raw numbers and come to conclusions such as:
-rogue suck (sorry, had to :p)
-casters suck
-the best party is 3 martials and a buff oriented caster.

what do you think?

I'm going to pull from my own personal experience here and not exactly about what you said here. I came over from DnD during the Great Migration. The issue I have found is more that some of the abilities and things are not very clear. They seem to be more geared to those that have been playing PF/PF2E for a while. I don't want to have to work through mental gymnastics most of the time. What I have found is that a lot of the things that throw me are abilities that are combo abilities you could already do, but save you some action economy.

I am going to be in Richmond that Saturday to see Laura Bailey and Travis Willingham...I live in Hampton.

What got me into Pathfinder was the whole OGL fiasco. I have been playing tabletop RPGs since 1981. I started with the enemy and played a bunch of different rpgs (Paranoia, Talislanta, etc.) throughout the years and every iteration of that other RPG. The first time I heard about Paizo was when I got a subscription to Dragon and Dungeon magazines. I had gotten those magazines for years prior and when they were being published by their parent company. Still I never really paid attention to who Paizo was.

Eventually at some of the book stores and comic stores I started seeing some Pathfinder stuff but really never had any interest in it until that massive miscalculation on that other company's part. After that I picked up all the PF2E stuff I could and some of the Pathfinder 1 stuff for various locations. So far, I have enjoyed PF2E. There are some things I don't like (very very crunchy where some of the feats seem to cover things you should be able to do with a skill normally, some rules being a little obscure for new people coming in, etc.), but the practices of the company for their people (ie. inclusiveness and the blogs about the people that made their products) and the world they have built are what make it worthwhile. Also, even on these forums, representatives of the company get involved with the community. That doesn't happen anywhere else.

Luis Loza wrote:

We did a whole lot of seed planting in War of Immortals. Check out the gazetteer in that book sometime to see everything that's gone oh, so right wrong.

Numerian robots waking up! Giant creatures walking Arcadia! All sorts of great stuff is hiding in there.

“human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... MASS HYSTERIA!”

I view the plots of APs as guidelines, especially if we have reached the 6th volume of the AP. If this is fairly early on, read ahead and look for ramifications of your player's choices. If not... go with your gut. If your players have found an excellent solution, not in the AP, go with that as your new reality.

Definitely. Players will go a different route than what is planned, even in an AP, that is their job. Maintain the gist of the overall story but follow the players' lead and continue to pull from the AP where you can...maybe add a new wrinkle here or there but reward the players' creativity.

Sometimes their wandering off the path can lead to a new direction you never thought of and listen to them throwing out ideas because you may be able to use their ideas (unknowingly to them) to adapt.

Szuriel is the Rider of War

What Kind of Rider?
She's an Apocalypse Rider, she's got one of those Apocalypse steeds.

I now imagine her being painted on the side of a van from the 70's

Though it is just as guess, my thought is it is probably something as simple as less words, being easier to say and maybe just detaching them from a real world religious connection to make them their own.

Like Ravingdork, I pick a concept or idea and then pick a class with the closest mechanics to build that idea. Even if the skills and abilities come later down the line. If it comes down to a min/max choice or concept choice, I go concept.

I think the system the "other" company used, with the inflated experience required to gain levels as you got a higher level was pretty arbitrary as for each challenge that was overcome the amount of experience gained was also inflated.

With the PF2E system it is consistent and easier to keep track of without too much math needed. Earn 1000xp, if you get over 1000xp you get a new level and keep the difference as you start the climb up that hill once again.

Shoot I still remember the days when the predecessor of that other company had it where you leveled classes differently because each class had their own experience chart and some of the experience required was so outrageous.

I also get seasick (it's so much fun when you're in the Navy) and can completely relate. Also, how dare you drop a line like 'a tanuki named Mochi' and not give me more?! Great read, as always.

I was lucky I was rapid response and never have to go on a float. I'm 100% positive I would have become seasick. We did amphibious landings (USMC of course) using LCACs and the floating feeling sucked!

Cole Deschain wrote:

It might be a pretty blatant bit of marketing sensationalism, but it's definitely helping bring home how fleshed-out most Pathfinder deities are.

Right? I also love how thoroughly Paizo is establishing that the death of a villainous god is not necessarily going to be a net positive for the world. A lot of us early on wondered if Paizo would kill off a "villain" god, since surely that would reduce the setting's tension instead of upping it. But what would happen if Lamashtu died and left all those outcasts and monsters without their protector? What if the death of Gorum, the Lord In Iron, leads to a plague of supernatural rust that allows the Whispering Tyrant to gain a foothold, or causes all runes placed upon iron to fizzle out, forcing everyone to finally make the switch to black powder?

On a totally unrelated note, I realized why I've been ignoring Sarenrae and Iomedae as options. I think their deaths would be very compelling by nature--they are widely and rightly beloved goddesses, and losing either of them would be devastating for the world--but I've been struggling a lot more to think of, well, a twist. Like, I think a lot of us are probably assuming that the death of Sarenrae or Iomedae would be a typical "goes down fighting a worse evil". And that's fine! But all of these deaths so far have been very ironic, very fitting. Like our psychopomp scribe says, each prophecy has exposed some banality or vulnerability.

I don't think it's enough for a goddess of heroics to go down fighting. If it's going to measure up to the rest of these, I feel like the death needs to mean something. So, here are some theories.

** spoiler omitted **...

Keep going, these perspectives are awesome

I KNOW the answer, and y'all's ability to comb through evidence and give plausible arguments is VERY fun to watch.

Is bribery illegal on these forums? Asking for a friend....

The first errata I am calling for...the credits for the illustration attached to this thread!

Your strawman fails and you should feel bad.

No, not at all. I am for changes when they are needed and are offensive, but this begins a whole descent into things that are unnecessary. People that do a little research into real world barbarian cultures will realize that many were advanced. In games and fiction are they presented as the mindless savages. Even the real world Berserker is very different from what is presented in fantasy.

There is absolutely no strawman argument. If you make a simple change as I stated, then it stands to reason that those with mental health issues...I have PTSD from my time in the Marines...could find issue with rage, berserking, etc. I don't personally because one is fantasy and one is not, but who can say what others think...especially since something such as Barbarian is now being looked at a certain way.

Also, being snarky on the internet doesn't make you tough, it makes you an ass. Most people here are talking and contributing.

If you down that rabbit hole of renaming Barbarian because its connotations to a "class" of people then going with Berserker can be associated with a mental illness or intense rage...which of course can cause its own problems. I don't have a problem with Barbarian or Berserker. In fact there are so many issues to find if you are looking for them....the fighter has a name that promotes violence...a warrior promotes war...there is fighting in the game to solve situations....you steal from dead bodies....you take part in heists...you kill...you drink....you trash people's property....blah blah blah. You see how crazy this can go?

In history people that were called Barbarians were seen as not belonging to a specific culture, yet they were known to be artistic and be able to work metals even by the people that called the Barbarians. Robert E. Howard and like writers are what made the Barbarians into fur wearing maniacs.

Anyways, I can see limits based on certain things such as inequality but ....