I guess the point to make here is that a) it's his mistake to make, you're advice however well intentioned will likely only make your ranger bitter if you can't stop giving it.
b) with a party your size and scope, you're not likely going to suffer any meaningful consequences for your rangers mistake (i.e. Player death)
c) get over it and play the game
It sounds to me like you should go to therapy. If your worried that they'll just tell you to stop playing RPGs. Don't be, just explain how RPGs are a positive part of your social life, and you just need their help to get perspective to make it better. Any therapist that is unwilling to help you fix the problems YOU want to fix is not very good. So just take your buissness elsewhere.
The trick for me with overcoming the stigma of getting help, is one of choice. I'm choosing to become a better version of myself by whatever means. Not hiding and getting by hopping no one will notice and make me go to therapy.
In any case don't get the help you "need", get the help you want.
As many as you want is the short answer.
However keeping the major pantheon, that any one character is expected to be familiar with, down to around or under ten is helpful especially when first introducing your setting.
Also, I'd ask my players what kind of gods they want to worship. Cause these deities are mostly used as motivation and description for the characters themselves and the world they're interacting with, so making sure these gods will be appreciated is important.
Now leaving your world open to the existence of more deities later can give your world something to grow into later. However dumping scores of gods at your players feet all at once is an excellent way to have all that work and creation ignored.
One of the most fun characters I ever played was a human barbarian with unarmed strike and improved grapple. This was also a game that never made it out of 1st level. I spent the whole game getting into trouble, and since I wasn't drawing steel the worst that would happen is I get knocked out and spend a night in jail.
He was a bit of a misfit and would collect daggers. My favorite was being at the back of the marching order playing with a butterfly knife I wasn't proficient with.
It was also fun to watch the other players squirm when I would find a new sword I would discard my hand axe. Just drop it on the ground.
At the end I got half the party to join in a fight with the main enforcer for the local crime boss. He was a threat we weren't supposed to face till the next module so we got our asses handed to us, but no one drew steel so no one was killed. While the goons were rifling through our stuff, it gave the GM a cool way to introduce the local sheriff who chases the goons away. It gave everyone motivations going into the next book and we were only down at most 20gold.
I've found a post about this in reference to spells with a casting time longer than a standard action. It wasn't diffintive, but consensus was that spells like enlarge person (normally a full round casting time) when cast as an alchemist's extract were reduced to the standard.
However, while creating a gnome alchemist, I was looking at the spell burst of speed, and it has a normal casting time of a swift action. The spells effect would be greatly reduced if the casting time reverted to the standard that all extracts are supposed to take.
While it is still better than a normal double move for a gnome; the gap between an alchemist caster vs. anyone else would be very significant.
Anything I'm missing that makes this spell as good as I want it to be? Or am I over thinking it?
From a flavor stand point I like the idea of a false tooth or cyanide pill with this spell in it.
The gnome's using the saboteur archetype, so anything that adds secret agent flavor is a bonus.
My suggestion:
1) talk to your problem player about the problems. Lay it out on the line that he's being disruptive. That you want the game to be fun for everyone, but his fun seems to come at the expense of the other players and it won't be tolerated any more.
2) when behavior like this props up do NOT get mad. Just don't allow it.
He wants to go off on his own. Let him, but the story is happening where the other players are.
He wants to kill the other party members. Ask the victim if they're ok with it. The victim says no? Well then sorry he can't do it then.
Take controll of your game provide consequences for bad behavior that are fair and non-retaliatory. He probably enjoys negative atention. Don't give it to him!
This will require you talk to your other players make sure your all on the same page.
Above all stay calm!
The best threat, if you mean it, is to not play anymore.
As long as the characters are not overgeared, it doesn't matter how they got their stuff. It might affect the story, of course, but it has no effect on their power level.
If they steal the Belt of Giant Strength +6, then they don't get to find one at the dragon's lair or something... That's okay.
Their decisions will help you write the story. Robbing a magic shop may have consequences, but so does robbing an ancient tomb...
Instead of saying "no, it's not possible" or punishing them for it, just adjust WBL income and use the players' action to mold your world.
This right here is the way to go.
As a frequent rogue player. Playing a thief can be a lot of fun.
The one thing a GM has to be sure of is that the Player is motivated by Character flavor more than straight greed.
When I steal as a player I'm not interested in making the game into "everyone sit down and watch me rob the city blind with no consequences." That:
a) is ultimately boring for both me and the rest of the party
b) can steal focus away from what everyone else wants the plot to be about.
A good example is the quintessential scene of the Rogue unlocking the chest or looting the bodies and trying to pocket some of the wealth for himself. If your other players are in on it and your not cheating the rest of the party a significant amount, then the other players are often more willing to forgo their perception checks.
In any case don't be afraid to talk to your player on the why's and the implications of theft. Any part of the game that becomes GM vs. Player is in most cases annoying, distracting and ultimately pointless.
If the GM wants you to pay for that shiny new sword. Your going to PAY for that shiny new sword, in money or blood.
Now if you just happen to find some bracers of armor of a decent enhancement bonus, why not keep them? But yeah investing cash money into AC resources is a bit unfulfilling.
A point I would make is if you can trust the GM not to screw you over when it really matters, and the flavor makes the battle more memorable or cool. Let it slide.
You just one shottted what sounds like the only guy to cause you trouble. Maybe he's giving the other players a chance to shine before you wreck the other bandits too.
However if you can't trust your GM as far as you can throw him, then by all means stand up for yourself.
Personally I prefer a more descriptive game where the GM can throw you some weird curveballs. It can be a useful way to balance out encounters that aren't as challenging as planned or are harder than expected.
The trick is that it can seem arbitrary and punishing if done wrong or on a whim.
The real magic of the wrist sheath is that it lets you hide a dagger or similar sized object in easy reach. Where normal objects hiden on your person cost a standard action to retrieve (unless you have quick draw) The wrist sheath alows you easier access at the continued cost of AoO provocation.
The only question in my mind is can you draw your item as part of a move?
I would say definitely if you have quickdraw. But that may not be official.
I like what I'm seeing so far. I found the Laws of Man especially interesting.
It just makes me a little sad that there is no agreed upon origininator of something like geometry. I know it seems like small patatoes when compared to magic and the gods, but not every grand construction is held up by magic. You use applied geometry.
Certanly one can be invisible and not stealthing.
So perhaps it could be read to mean that concealment of any type is not enough to catch an Uncanny dodger with his pants down.
I could see where the sneak attacker would have to beat the dodgers perception check without any circumstance bonuses from concealment. Invisibility still allowes the check but grants no bonus vs a Rogue but 50% miss chance.
I've been watching the Cosmos series again recently, and I am struck with the overwhelming desire to create a character based off Carl Sagan. I notice in the series that he repeatedly makes mention of the great thinkers who struggled with and made progress on whatever topic is at hand.
It got me thinking who or what minds have brought Golarion to the current roughly renaissance period? And what prominent figures shape the intellectual future? And how have they affected their fields of study?
There seems to be a large number of political, military, and religiuos figures, but mathematicians, philosophers, and scientist are more scarce. I understand that paizo would want to leave us, the consumers, room on the canvas. Especially with magic since everyone has their own idea on how it works.
Let me know what I've missed, or what stories have you come up with to fill in the blanks?
Or am I the only one who cares about fake philosphers in this fanciful game of make believe?
It's also a way to keep pesky ranged characters within charging distance.
I rationalize it as precision damage. Not so much as hitting harder, but aquiring the ability to deal more damage through better placement which is only afforded at closer ranges.
Just remember there are a lot of rules that are like scabs. Picking at it only makes it worse.
That would be a great feat but the DM is only allowing official Pathfinder products. I can always ask. Maybe I can substitute a class ability for Mount progression.
I'm playing in a gestalt game set in Golarion were the cults of Urgathoa and Rovagug have teamed up to break the biggest bad out of jail.
the players are each a child of the gods, I'm the daughter of Iomedea and a Cavelier/Bard the plan was to go into Battle Herald/Low Templar but the campain has proved either easy or really deadly and I worry that my mount will become too fragile without any prgression when I drop Cavelier.
I want to keep Battle Herald, and my feats are precious to me.
Any ideas?
I'm the only character that isn't thrilled to be a child of a god. So Paladin while good on paper isn't likely at the moment. I was thinking Inquisitor with the animal domain combined with boon companion.
The closest thing I can find is the transformative property from the APG.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-weapons#TOC-Transformative
But I'd probably lower the price since your reducing the overall versatility of the ability.
Thanks Tels for the input. I may just opt for Fury's Fall. It strikes me as an example of having better footing. And means I'm less likely to fall over when I fail those trip attempts.
Unfortunately the Monk of the Empty hand is central to the whole concept. Which means no proficiency with sais.
I'll probably pick up the Dueling-FG on the amulet though.
I am working on a Monk build for the Ruby phoenix Module. Whose central conceit revolves around a tournament that pits the best in the land against each other for a chance at a veritable trove of treasure.
Characters are 11th level, standard starting gold, and 20 point buy. Two traits though one has to be regional. Also the players aren't allowed to talk about their players before hand so I want something self sustaining.
I'm thinking it would be fun to run a Monk of the Empty Hand. Taking peoples weapons and busting their faces in, and while I know it's impossible to be the answer to all problems I wan't to hedge as many bets as I can without sacrificing the effectiveness of my combat trick.
Any suggestions on feats and magic items would be greatly appreciated.
So far my stat block is STR 18 DEX 15 CON 12 INT 13 WIS 14 CHA 12
Including stat increases and a belt of +2 to STR and DEX. Though this is not set in stone alternatives are encouraged.
My feat short list is at 7/10:
Catch off Guard
Improved Disarm
Defensive Combat Training
Improvised Weapon Mastery
Feinting Flurry
Combat Expertise
Improved Trip
Race so far is Half-Elf for Skill focus Bluff to help my feinting. Also I see him as a wanderer someone with great skill and talent but who lacks the reverence that most confuse with discipline and honor. A mild sort of Jackie Chan.
Also planning on making use of Use Magic Device so Wands and such are on the table.
another way to think of it is that the cool down time of each dragon type still has to tick down in real time. for example I morph to red dragon breathe, then I morph blue then breathe, If I ever go back to red then I'll have to wait those 1d4 rounds as a red dragon before I can breathe again (not necisarily consecutive rounds mind you). In practice, depending on how vast the spell recipients knowledge of creatures with potent breath weapons is, there may be little difference as the player will probably get a fair amount of ones on that d4 (or what ever other die) before he must suffer through the down time.
Check out the bard spell list. For Enchant spells especially. obviouse example Hideous Laughter as a first level spell. Though keep in mind your DC's will be lowered as a result.
I will soon be playing in a 17th level module the role of healer has fallen to me. I have decided to try for the fastest cleric alive.
I current am employing the travel domain, the longstrider spell that comes with it, a one level Barbarian dip for fast movement, and boots of speed for 10 rounds of haste each day.
Is there anything else that could help, that wont cost me an arm and a leg. Either in gold, a costly feat (tree), or many more level dips.
For simplicity's sake we only use official pathfinder products.
on the topic of item number 2.
You might ask them to come up with a 3X3
which is where you ask them to list 3 people that they have a close relationship with. 3 people that they are acquainted with. and 3 people that hate them or they hate.
its a good way to flesh out a back story. gives you NPC's that they theoretically will care about or at least want to deal with.
A way to motivate the players to use this device is to allow them to call on these characters for assistance monetary or other wise. DM discretion of course.
If your attack is at +8/+3 and you choose to use TWF then you would attack at +6/+6/+1. If you had Improved TWF from the feat or class skill you would attack at +6/+6/+1/+1.
that's +6 main hand/ +6 Off hand/ +1 main hand (and in the case of improved two weapon fighting)/ +1 Off hand
As far as I can tell. inspired command and inspire courage overlap.
When ever you inspire command you follow the action rules of inspired command, and gain all the benefits of said ability at the bonus dependent on your herald level as well as the benefits of inspire courage at what ever bonus you would have as a bard equal to your bard level plus your herald level.
You can spend rounds of this ability from both your Bard or Herald reserves, but you can't spend rounds of Herald to do things like Counter song or distraction.
And while you can inspire command and gain the benefits of inspire courage. You cannot inspire command and counter song or distract at the same time. Though feats that extend the duration of these benefits after you stop using the abilities.
Personally I agree with you. My suggestion of ways to convince your DM to allow it:
1. Use but don't stress the inconvenient Material focus argument. It can be easily mitigated with a handy haversack.
2. Ask if you can try the spell as written and if after a session he still thinks it's overpowered you'll both work on something thats less offensive.
3. Remind him that the spell is intended to be more powerfull as only those who follow pharasma are allowed to take it. Thematically it makes sense that she would want to protect her ardent followers. and if you ever displease her then she can always take it away.
4. One way to tone down the spell with out losing its effectiveness; reduce the DR 5/bludge to DR 4 or 3/bludge without reducing the total damage mitigated of 5 per cl
5. If that dosn't work try for a reduction of total damage (40 max) which puts off the penalty for later. or 4 per CL instead of 5 per CL. cause if he goes for 5 per 2Cl that hamstrings the spell so much I prolly wouldn't use it.
6. ALWAYS approach your GM with rules adjustments as a teammate and not an adversary. Nothing shoots down more reasonable abilities spells and house-rules than adversarial Player GM relations.
This is awesome. I just hope that all the players are ok with failing. Not in a combat or ultimate goal sorta way. but for instance if role played correctly the other NPC's will quickly learn to hate these stupid selfish a$$holes and not co-operate and prolly die.
that and I see self sabotage and party cohesion being an issue if the players let it.
Perhaps allowing this to be used with other Light weapons?
Ya that could be an option. Would that be too powerful though?
Probably. The issue is that you are Reducing the drawback of a low STR and the more you allow characters to have dump stats with no or little down side the more unbalanced it becomes.
I'd say mechanically allowing one kind of weapon that is equivalent or worse than the scimitar is fine. As long as its only one kind of weapon that dex goes to damage with.
But the flavor of the feat would require it be slashing. To take advantage of the WHIRLING dervish style.
Ok I'm playing a Kobold Sorc to Dragon disciple. If i cast chill touch and activate my claw ability; first is it only one claw with chill touch active? Second if i miss AC with the claw but i still hit the baddies touch AC would i lose the claw damage but still discharge the spell?
Any other suggestions for this concept cause playing a kobold usually won't measure up.
I Like the idea of witch with fly. Mostly for the Baron Harkonen of David Lynch's Dune. Floating around being fat gross and evil. May not fit with the OP's concept but I like it any way. Also helps to mitigate the movement speed issue without burning spell slots.
One of the things iv'e seen done in the past in a slightly more frivolous game is to give said dumb character a wealth of anecdotes, mantras and sayings that don't make any sense by them selves but come to the correct conclusion. like say you as a player think your GM is trying to insinuate a spy for the BBEG in to your group. "mama always said never trust a man with too many pockets 'cause he might put you in one and take you away."
Or a puzzle your character never could hope to solve is solved because "the Blue glass shiney don't make your feet sad like the purple one."
Perhaps you should be a LITTLE fast and loose with the stealth rules. Like maybe if he keeps moving to NEW places to SA from. Like climbing to the roof top and attacking from there. Then move to a new vantage point that the target wouldn't expect him to strike from. This may cost him turns where he is not attacking to reposition.
When your a melee rogue you have greater access to flanking opportunity at the cost of vulnerability due to proximity.
with the ranged sneaker you give up some of the opportunity in exchange for not being the primary target.
I've been thinking of an optional system. where you can put on portions of your heavy armor to simulate lighter armors. Like only putting on the breastplate from your full plate armor. the question is how to balance this. and what if it's enchanted? does owning +3 fullplate mean you own +3 breastplate? I think not but i do think that front liners should have options when they have to travers the Marshlands, or the mountain top ridges. than to go full armor or no armor.
If the PCs get around a planned combat by using skills (Diplomacy, Bluff, Stealth, etc.), then give them XPs as if they had won that combat (which, by avoiding it, they did).
the only thing to worry about is if they then decide to fight them anyway.
Though as a GM one can usually tell if they are doing it for extra XP or for story related reasons, and act acordingly.
A problem might be that some of your characters aren't as interested in non-combat challenges. If they don't take the XP cheese, then they may get more and more alienated from the group during these sessions where they don't do as well.
The main point is to know your players will they enjoy competing for skill based XP. Because if not letting the party share the XP still provides an incentive but doesn't leave anyone behind. Which may make this more palatable for your combat minded players.
The main point is to keep things fair and fun for everyone. Make sure your rewards don't just allow one or two players to outshine the rest of the players for more than one session or segment at a time.
Also make sure your players know that they need to work with you if they want a chance to shine. this can include a more fleshed out back story that you can mine for plot hooks. but if they want to be the quiet bad-ass with no past and a big sword 'let them'. Players will be as involved or uninvolved as they want to be just let them know that if they are or become disruptive to other players moments that there will be consequences.
Bottom line listen to and respect your players, but ask that they listen to and respect you. you'll have less problem moments and the problems that do come up will be easier to deal with.
This assumes that the gold piece as a currency has its' worth based on weight. Maybe it's a more modern currency, based not on the value of ore but the strength of the local economy. Because i don't know about you but gold seems very common to me in golarion.
I'm creating a cleric who grew up in a town who's only temple is dedicated to erastil, yet the character is a fairly nerdy goody two shoes. Now in a more cosmopolitan town he would have been drawn from an early age to a more knowledge based deity, and i seem him being so drawn later in life.
The question is whether anyone has any suggestions on a cleric switching deities mechanicly speaking.
The issue is that your consolidating Reflex saves, AC bonus, and now attack bonus or maneuver bonus into one stat. that has to be a feat. now if they could be the same feat is up for debate that would be a difficult debate.
My GM gave the big bad of the session vital strike recently. During combat he interpreted the feat (which says that when ever the character makes the attack action roll an extra weapon die) so that the baddie used it for AoO's. As players the party raised a fuss about the rules as intended and not as written and he graciously backed down.
In a RAW sense was he correct or is there errata that I'm unaware of cause that just seems broken to me.
thanks in advance
thanks for the clarification everybody you each basically confirmed my beliefs. sometimes the rules combined with preconceived notions form a murky swamp that swallows the mind.
ok I just wanted to find out what requirements are insermountable and which just require a higher spellcraft check.
I have a party member with a magic-item crafting cohort and we're tring to figure out what item are out of reach.
for example does the crafter have to be CL 10 in order to keen my weapon. when other abilities are far more expensive and yet require lower caster levels.
Also an efficient quiver has a CL9 but is only 1,800gold and plenty of items have much lower caster levels but much higher prices.
So does the higher caster level just set the power level of the item and the baseline spellcraft check or is it a unavoidable requirement like item creation feats.
Maybe im just hung up on the the idea that the price has always been the hoop to jump through and now that we have a cohort designed to make hoop jumping easier the hoop has just changed.
Thanks in advance.
Yes. I literally just grabbed a wooden longsword I got at the Renn Faire one year, laid down on the ground to establish what 5'9" looks like and guesstimate 5' and 10', then tried swinging that far. I figured this was relevant because it demonstrates what 5-ft squares are approximating, and that concept of actually moving around roughly within that square is why it made sense to me to not need to move with the feat.
Characters aren't standing still when attacking. Like, people don't fill a 5' square when standing, that's how we can pass each other in corridors less than 10' across. If you've ever seen fencers there's a constant back and forth going on, that's what the 5' squares represent. You don't need a feat to physically lunge, (how else do you attack with a piercing weapon?) the feat represents the ability to move and attack someone who thought they were just outside the reach of your weapon without dropping your guard (admittedly probably using a lunge).
Only slightly off topic, does Riddleport make any sense at all? The city is run by factions that specialize in specific crimes including smuggling and selling drugs. But since the place is run by criminal gangs why is this stuff illegal there in the first place?
So people have to go through them to get them; if they weren't restricted, anybody could sell them. Also, I expect that they also specialise in transporting and distributing them in places where they are illegal.
I've haven't played an AP which involves them, but aside from their description of an Authoritarian Dictatorship which limits your free will, it sounds like a very safe place for individuals to live, providing good potential for personal growth.
Have you heard of an old British series called 'The Prisoner'?
It's less 'limits free will' and more 'surrender any and all personal autonomy and obey a eugenics obsessed near immortal in all things without question or be roasted by dragon fire'. *shudders* I'd take 'might be stabbed' over that any day.
Edit to avoid double posting: Thinking outside the Inner Sea, I suggest (from best to worst); Koaling, Wanshou and Shenmen. (YMMV but I'm not a spider fan.)
I don't see where RPing a sexual encounter enriches the gaming experience... It's something of the most intimate nature and unless everyone is on board it shouldn't be done. It often just becomes a puerile, childish snickering, giggling mess of crass remarks and crude jokes. If you're group act their ages (assuming they're adults)then this shouldn't be something brought to the table at all.
I defiantly agree that it shouldn't be done unless everyone is on board (basic rule for anything sexual in any context), but in this thread people recounted times it enriched the game for them. I think if everyone is up for it, it can add a lot to a game the same way sexual subject matter can be used in every other form of story telling. I mean, a bunch of the most important fantasy series of all time feature it to some extent. Hell, even if it is puerile and crude, there's a place for that in gaming too.
On the other hand, I think the idea of a grownass man getting mad at their friend for not wanting to write and perform erotica for them is ridiculous. That guy's lucky you invited him back.
Apparently a lot of Besmera's priestesses are just prostitutes with a 'Pirate Queen' costume and a holy symbol.
Makarion wrote:
Worth pointing out that, according to the lore, it's specifically the Chaotic Good branch of the church of Calistria that supports the temple prostitutes (or is supported by them, of course).
I'm sure I read that her evil temples sometimes used prostitutes to gather blackmail material ect.
Calistria's relationship with prostitutes is a really interesting element of Golorian; they can't be so marginalised when a major world religion is actively promoting the profession. Basically, Jack the Ripper wouldn't have got far when the church of vengeance was looking out for his preferred victims.
The reason I picked Monks and (anti)paladins is due to their disease immunity which would certainly come in handy (ok, the antipaladins are immune but still spread disease however being CE I doubt they care).
Given that temples are where you go for 'remove disease' spells, I wouldn't be too worried about that aspect.
Although, it does open up a nice business plan for Evil temples; one service creating demand for the other.
The Stabbing Beast does not believe that anything other than its master can kill it, despite mortal records that show it has been killed in the past; Norgorber wiped its memory of these failures when he resurrected his herald.
Interview with a Gorumite
Interview with Jinta Marius of The Iron Arms Company, a worshipper of Gorum and worker of divine magic, conducted by Ieina Genro of the Fellowship of Divine Truths.
Jinta Marius is a powerfully built human woman of Cheliaxian decent, originally from Molthune, although her height and stature, along with her clear blue eyes could be signs of some Kellid ancestry. When we met for the interview she was wearing the spiked plate mail associated with her faith and carried a plain but well crafted bastard sword on her hip. The symbol of Gorum, the sword and mountain, was depicted in a large hunk of wrought iron and hung from her neck on a heavy chain.
She had agreed to the interview in exchange for me recommending her Company to a former college of mine looking for experienced mercenaries, although she made it clear she would have preferred to spar for it. We began the interview after brief introductions and greetings.
Transcript as follows:
Could you start by explaining what you do?
I’m a front line healer for The Iron Arms. Its my job to keep those bastards standing and sword arms strong. Not that I only close wounds mind, I do plenty of causing them too.
So you can channel healing energy?
Wouldn’t be much of a healer if I didn’t.
I ask because most Gorumites I know prefer destructive energy.
I imagine they weren’t healers in a mercenary company. But yeah, I’ve got a brother who does that. Makes sense, calling on Gorum to lay low the foes surrounding you, but that’s not what they pay me for. Gorum gives me the power to keep us in the fight and turn defeat into victory. Also, I can fight side by side with my comrades without worrying about withering them when I channel, which is more than I can say for him.
Your brother? Does your family also worship Gorum?
Brother in arms and brother in faith, not kin. And no, I came to Gorum after I joined the army.
Could you talk more about that? About how you found your faith?
Well like I say, it was once I joined the army. Signed up as soon as I was old enough, no story there, in Molthune they give you every reason to. Then I was a soldier, and no matter what they might say, every soldier is a little bit religious, at least every one I’ve met. There are times when the only thing you have in a battle is prayer. I just kept praying after the battle was over. And who should a soldier in the thick of it turn to but Our Lord in Iron?
There are several gods of battle. Seranrea obviously, but also Iomade and Torag. Even Cayden Cailean. Not to mention various Empyreal Lords and Archfiends. Why choose Gorum?
Didn’t feel like a choice at the time. Honestly none of the others even came to mind. Even if they had though, it wouldn’t have mattered. We weren't on some glorious crusade or anything, despite what the Imperial Governor says. We were just fighting. When you need the strength to kill the person in front of you, or need to charge through their opening volley to even reach the battle, it’s Gorum you need. He doesn’t fret over who or why.
About that, does it concern you at all that Gorum is indifferent to the reasons for conflict? That he doesn’t seem to care about good or evil?
Ha! No. Out there it might be easy, (she gestures vaguely up and out) the ones with animal heads are good and horns are bad, but it’s not so simple here. Here all sorts of people fight for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes even if your going to war for some ‘worthy cause’ it might still be decent people you’re having to fight, or the people you depend on might be pricks. I’ve been to the Worldwound; not all those crusaders are saints. Most soldiers on either side in any battle are fine people, they didn’t start the war but they enlist because they want to protect their family or they trust their ruler or they need a job. It’s easy for a general to point and say ‘they are the enemy’ simple as that, and that’s how those other gods act. They tell you who to fight and how. I lost my faith in generals a long time ago; orders come down to march into what any soldier can tell is an ambush, or to capture a ‘stronghold’ that’s nothing but a goat farm. Gorum is different, he trusts you to pick your own battles. He knows the person best qualified to make decisions on the battlefield is the soldier actually there, because he’s not just a general, he’s a soldier too. A warrior. He’s on the front lines with you.
And which battles do you pick? How do you feel about good and evil?
You do what you can. I lend a hand when I can and I don’t hurt people who don’t have it coming and aren’t in a position to fight back. If I do have a problem with you, you’ll know and we can fight about it. So far as I care that’s the end of it, win lose or draw. Hells, I might even heal you up after. Professionally, I don’t really pick. I go with the Company and I don’t see any ‘good’ in abandoning my brothers and sisters. The Captain chooses the jobs, but I trust him. He’s in the same boat as the rest of us, with the same information. I haven’t always agreed with him but I see why he makes the choices he does and he doesn’t take work from total bastards. We’d never work for, say, Hellknights or Nidal or the like. If any of that changes, we’ll fight about it and I’ll win, die or walk away.
Interesting. Putting aside good and evil, Gorum is known for not taking sides in mortal conflict. How do you feel knowing your god may well be supporting your enemy?
Glad. Some one needs to look out for those poor sods. (she laughs) Hardly equal otherwise. The only thing better than winning a fight is winning a fair fight. (she pauses) Honestly though, it’s not a problem. I’m a mercenary. I don’t hate the people I kill. My enemies today might be fighting beside me tomorrow. My cause isn’t more righteous than there’s and they’re as worthy of Gorum’s favour. Well, till we kill them.
And when you come across another Gorumite in combat?
We fight. (shrugs) The only difference is I’d say we fight harder. I do anyway. No one wants to back down then. Normally you retreat because you’re out numbered or out manoeuvred, never a good thing but it happens. In single combat with another Gorumite there’s more on the line. it’s not just my life at stake but my pride, even my faith almost. Mostly I fight for money or glory or the hell of it, but against them fighting is about proving my strength and the strength of my conviction. It’s about dominance. It’s holy. I’m not going to admit weakness readily.
Gorum asks his followers to be forever seeking battle. What do you do when there are no wars to join?
Its never come up and its not likely too. People are always fighting. The Iron Arms Company has never had to look far for employment, and when the job’s done we move on to the next. I can’t imagine I’ll ever have to stop.
You don’t ever want to stop? So you won’t know peace until death?
Not even then, Gorum willing. The faithful can look forward to war eternal on Gorum’s blessed battlefield.
It doesn’t bother you at all that your faith condemns you to conflict for eternity?
Condemns? No, you’ve got it backwards. I don’t fight because I worship Gorum, I follow Gorum because I’m a fighter. If I wanted to herd sheep or whatever, I’d have no use for Gorum and he none for me. I’d probably kowtow to Erastil or somebody and hope anything interesting passed me by. But after I’d been on the front lines there was no going back for me. You can pass the time however you want, drinking or screwing or whatever, but the only time that really matters to me is when you’re in it, with the steel ringing and blood in the air. To be besides my brothers and sisters in arms with the enemy in front of us, that is what is best in life.
You sound quite dismissive of the Stag Lord and his followers. Do you have any thoughts on them, or the gods and followers of any of other religions?
None. I don’t even have anything particular against Old Deadeye’s people, least they look after their own. Doesn’t matter who you worship, if you’re on my side in battle I’d die with you, and if you’re against us I’d kill you.
Thank you for your answers. Is there anything else you’d like to add?
Not really. Remember The Iron Arms Company is you ever need mercenaries, and remember me if ever you just want to fight. We’ll be happy to oblige in either case.
I was thinking about different characters interpretations of their Gods and religion, and thought I could use it as the basis for a writing exercise practising voice and character. I decided to come up a group interested in religion on Glorian as a format thing. They aren't really for anyone exactly, but I thought I'd share it here in case anyone is interested in reading it. Feel free to use any of the ideas in your game. I don't mind getting any writing feedback on these.
Let me know if there are any particular deities or philosophies you'd like me to try, but I'll write these when I have the time and an idea, so erratically and possibly never.
Hopefully someone'll get something out of this.
Details of the group and its members:
Fellowship of Divine Truths:
Fellowship of Divine Truths
An interfaith society dedicated to the cataloguing of the various forms faith takes, with particular attention paid to obscure faiths and practices though all perspectives on faith are valued. Based in Absolom, all three founding members are still the most active, though the society is slowly growing.
Members
Founders
Monk of Irori LN- Abram Qual
Male Human Cleric 2/Monk 2 of Iori
An Absolom native, he was inspired by his gods interest in history and knowledge. He also hopes that by better understanding the nature of divinity more might be learnt about his god’s ascension. Has a somewhat cold and detached demeanour and his writing style is plain but meticulous.
Cleric of Shelyn NG- Chamia Ontanic
Female Half Elf Cloistered Cleric 3
Spent the majority of her adult life secluded in a Taldan monastery and perfecting her art (Illustration). Since venturing out, and coming to Absolom, she has become fascinated with the array of faiths and rituals she has seen. Believing that faith itself is an inherently beautiful thing, she hopes to come to understand the appeal of, and beauty in, other forms of worship. She comes across as charitable but naive, and her writing style is descriptive, verging on florid. When not on assignment, she spends her time compiling the Fellowship’s notes into illuminated manuscripts for archival.
Cleric of Sarenrea NG- Ieina Genro
Middle Aged Female Human Rogue 4/Cleric 3
She converted later in life than most. Believes strongly in redemption and cooperation, and that understanding is essential for both. Independently wealthy from her previous life as a merchant, she provides the funds for the organisation. Her genuine interest and charming demeanour comes across in discussion, but in her writing she tries just to provide appropriate context with out colouring her readers’ interpretation.
Others
Pantheist CN- Heuaxit Ancauldian
Male Gnome Expert 5
A former leather worker who’s colour was fading. A friend suggested religion as a solution, and while looking for a faith to join he became fascinated by the variety and intricacies of religion in the inner sea and so far the search itself seems to be keeping the Bleaching away. Non-judgemental with a knack for odd questions.
Inquisitor of Geryon LE- Leric Theed
Male Human Inquisitor 2
Although neither liked nor trusted by the rest of the Fellowship, he is nevertheless keen to uncover and document heresies, seeing them as the holy works of his masters. He is also interested in muddied or uncertain aspects of various faiths, where heresy may be easily introduced. He is under a mark of justice to not introduce falsehood to the archive, or to deceive subjects of interview. Both smug and sycophantic and in writing, his tone is snide.
First up, Gorum. I'm thinking Groetus or Zon-Kuthon next.
Edit: I should clarify, I'm not saying that the views expressed represent the only, or even typical attitudes of followers. I might even include multiple different interpretations or overtly heretical ones.
The closest I know of in fictional mediums of this was in a DC vs Marvel Comics crossover where Batman fought Captain America and it took Batman 2 minutes of sparring to find out that Captain America was a better hand to hand combatant that he was.
Note: That was BATMAN and it took him 2 minutes.
Yeah, I'll be that guy. Batman actually determined that they were reasonably equal in close combat, and that determining a victor would leave them fighting all day so they decided to find an alternative. No official ruling exist as to which is better.
Nerdy pedantry aside, I have no issues with your argument, though I can also comfortably cite many example of fiction where people can judge peoples' skill in combat just from a stance, or the callouses on their hands without even getting in to combat (pretty much anything with a katana in it). I'm fine letting my players find a middle ground between the too extremes.
Perhaps PF2 could keep the more restrictive alignments for the deities, as well as add more alignment options (probably best within one-step), but in parentheses?
For example: Sarenrae - NG, LG, CG, (N)
So, the 'non-official' one-step alignments could be a character/ roleplaying hook for a player. The "bordering heresy" explanation above is just one idea - I'm sure many others could work, e.g. someone new to the faith's teachings, or a member of a "race" neither known for worshipping the particular deity nor of an alignment associated with the deity, etc.(I miss Eilistraee & Meriadar...)
This could also work as means of explaining in-world 'discrepancies' with a particular deity's faith/worshippers, e.g. Nocticula....
While I still prefer 'One Step' as the rule, and have some confusion as to why some of the restriction were made and others not, that does work as a compromise and fits neatly with the rarity system. If those additional alignments were marked as 'uncommon' then players and GM would know that it was both unusual and depends upon the GM's discretion to allow. If they did want to branch out with some gods, they could mark those further out 'rare'. It should also lessen the number of people being told that their character is wrong.
Actually the current Pathfinder comics Spiral of Bones story line has been showing the pychopomp bureaucracy as being ordered but with individuals able to make calls outside the rules when they feel is is just to do so. It is a lot less "absolute rules" and more "make sure its done right".
Sweet, hadn't seen that! Guess I've got some more reading to do! Thanks for mentioning it.
I believe that philosophically where CN conflicts with Pharasma is that Pharasma is about in-part about Fate and CN is in-part about self-determination, and moreover Pharasma is has arranged an orderly hierarchical system for the dissemination of souls according to "where everybody fits" in order to keep the universe running well, which is hard to reconcile with "maximally chaotic."
Desna also believes in Fate, both temper it with belief in free will. The fact that Desna favours one, while Pharasma balances the two is what makes Pharasma Neutral on the law/chaos axis. If Pharasma is all about orderly hierarchies where everyone fits to the degree of excluding worship, that sounds like a lawful deity to me. I still don't understand how permitting privileges to one group and denying them to another can be considered being neutral towards either group.
I've honestly wondered for a while why (other than deity by alignment number balance) Pharasma was neutral, rather than lawful neutral. The Psychopomp bureaucracy certainly sounds pretty lawful.
I think the argument (other than the one I listed) is that she presumably shows no favouritism, either to the cause of Law, nor to the individual souls of Lawful mortals, because if she does the entire why the multiverse works breaks down, both in a game setting sense, and probably literally from an in world perspective. Of course, you could argue that she does this despite her own personal preferences precisely because it is her duty and is very important (and the fact she gives souls to daemons and Urgathoa despite her hatred for them supports this.) That's my LN Dawrven Cleric's interpretation at least.
I do see the other side though, that the court less 'judges' souls and more sorts them, in the same way it isn't necessarily a lawful act to call a spade a spade, and they just keep the flow moving as best they can. When Pharasma is actually called upon to do judgement, she doesn't just pull out a copy of 'Da Rules', she looks at the soul individually, and is comfortable with making judgement calls on the fly and acknowledges that flexibility is often needed to best accomplish her task. In short, adopting a balanced approach to Law and Chaos in her actions.
I believe that philosophically where CN conflicts with Pharasma is that Pharasma is about in-part about Fate and CN is in-part about self-determination, and moreover Pharasma is has arranged an orderly hierarchical system for the dissemination of souls according to "where everybody fits" in order to keep the universe running well, which is hard to reconcile with "maximally chaotic."
Desna also believes in Fate, both temper it with belief in free will. The fact that Desna favours one, while Pharasma balances the two is what makes Pharasma Neutral on the law/chaos axis. If Pharasma is all about orderly hierarchies where everyone fits to the degree of excluding worship, that sounds like a lawful deity to me. I still don't understand how permitting privileges to one group and denying them to another can be considered being neutral towards either group.
Having a custom alignment spread for each deity is a big step up. +1
Now we can debate the specifics of whether a specific deity supports a certain kind of follower or not. Those are good debates to have: they get deep into the lore and themes of the world. How ecumenical!
Plus, it's very easy for a GM to house rule an exception if a player can come up with a fun and flavourful reason why their specific character might not fit the mould.
Well, I DO enjoy the debates! (clearly)
As I said before my problem is one of consistency more than anything. Well that and I'm against systems that restrict player agency when coming up with character concepts beyond the purely mechanical.
There just seems so little rhyme or reason to why certain deities preclude certain followers, when others allow it in similar situations. Especially when there are usually cannon examples in official material of concepts that don't fit the mould.
I guess one way of interpenetrating it is narrowing the scope of what the different alignments mean. As in, CN can now be defined as an alignment in which it is not possible to follow Pharasma's religion to her standards. But that raises the question as to why, nothing about the CN alignment seems to demand messing with the dead, or taking a particular stance on abortion. (although, admittedly, I'd rather not debate that topic; very loaded. So if you disagree, I'd rather accept that and move on) You could argue that Her prophecy domain implies predestination, which you could see a CN character objecting too, but then Desna is also a godess of prophecy.
Like I said, the way I see it is that while Zon Kuthon is evil, he doesn't really care that his followers are lawful evil as long they are one of them(he wants them to either want to feel pain or want to inflict pain, if they want to do both then good)
Except he turned a nation of barbarians who had horses in to an oppressive totalitarian theocracy demanding absolute obedience, perpetually shrouded in secrecy and shadow, rather than just asking they 'occasionally hurt themselves or each other, either ways cool'. He has a vision of a world of darkness, suffering, bones, tears and blood filled with constant pain. If you say a cleric is only those who can participate in all the rituals and believe the entire doctrine whole heatedly, how can he have neutral followers. Why would attending his gatherings not force you to participate in the humiliation, degradation and suffering of an innocent any more than attending a feast of Urgathoa would force you into cannibalism. I feel the Lawful deity is the one more likely to demand that the full extent of their doctrine be enforced than the Neutral one.
now I can build a N god that accepts LG and CE clerics at the same time, without going against the rules, because a god can grant spells to any alignment he wants. Nothing bars a GM from allowing his player to be a cleric of a god because of their alignment, so you could always have a N cleric of Erastil or a LN cleric of Asmodeus, as this is just a cosmetic change to the setting flavor. There's nothing saying you can't make a cleric of an alignment that's two steps from a deities' alignment or something like this.
No, nothing stops a GM from house ruling for more freedom, but nothing stopped them from house ruling for restriction before, but there a big difference between a group saying 'We don't allow this option, because our specific group has more fun without it.' and a publisher saying 'We are taking these options away because... no.'
You could have always made your created god grant spells to who ever you wanted before anyway, but I assume we'd all rather follow the rules when they don't prevent fun, hence celebrating the fact the rules don't specifically prevent you from creating that god. I'm not opposed to lifting some restrictions on who can get spells if it makes sense (like for Nethys), but that has not been the case at all; every alignment is still within one step, but some have been taken away.
PFS isn't a reason to remove option from the general rules. It's not a PFS document; They include so many options unavailable to PFS character, for instance, every Evil God but ZK and the reaper of reputation. They can just state in the PFS rules 'you cannot be an evil PC, or a cleric of an evil deity (except, inexplicably, Zon-Kuthon or Norgorber)'. The rules still support Evil PC, they just support neutral PC less now.
Uh, that same logic for followers of Zonzon can be applied to Urgathoa, and vice-versa. You’ll have pushers in every group.
Also not sure how I feel about the statement that if you practice kink you’ll totes slide into horrendous Evil stuff.
Yeah, I know. I was demonstrating that point by swapping words from a post that was applying the logic the other way. And no, kink=evil is probably my least favourite thing about pathfinders deities. Also that recreational sex seems to be trending to a chaos thing, minus one NG Angel and one LE devil. Maybe that's why so many of the Law deities seem a little up tight.
But Zon-Kuthon? Yeah, this guy is the reasonable and open-minded one.
That said. If this is building to the redemption of Dou-Bral, I'm 100% sold. I doubt it is, since last I know, there's no intention of making that happen. But I'm on board.
Off topic I know, but yeah, I was so eager looking over the starfinder deities hoping to see Dou-Bral (and maybe Noctalia), but no sill Zon-Kuthon. I was also hoping 'the thing' that corrupted him might be a separate deity now, serving as the thematic link to all that 'space is big and cruel and scary and alien and I want to go home' sauce that they might want a little bit of.
"I guess what I think is that Urgathoa does not take an active role in her followers appetites in any way, so as long as people are eating lots and sometimes becoming undead, I think people who have clear and hard boundaries on their tastes (and respect the same in others) can manage there, even if they are not exactly common. It could be a sign she's self involved and respects the same in others.
But ZK? If you're just showing up for the kink orgy, you're eventually going to get pushed in the direction of kidnapping, burning ghettos, and torturing random people with needles so you're either going to become evil or you're going to get out of the cult (possibly as an art exhibit)"
Its the inconsistency that annoys me as much as anything. At this stage I'd rather all deities were 'Exact Alignment Match Only' or it went back to 'One Step'. Obviously I prefer the latter, as it gives people more interesting options and 'cleric of <blank>' isn't all you need to hear to understand what the character'll be like, but at least it seems based on solid logic.
Yeah, I can see that. I'd want Orc added as core, even if dripping with disclaimers saying 'not meant for good PCs' and 'attacked on sight in most places' to give half-orcs from orcish backgrounds a stronger base.
Also, certain species haven't previously been able to inter breed with each other (Dwarves and anyone not an outsider, for example), though I suppose that doesn't preclude it from being added in. Or they could add feats to each race saying "half your ancestry is of a different people, choose one of the following <list of compatible options>. Immediately choose one feat from that ancestry, and you can choose from it's feats at any time you gain another ancestry feat. You also gain it's trait."
I feel like a significant part of the restrictions is "who can genuinely and intensely believe the entirety of the holy writ of this god and do ll of the rituals, without becoming an entirely different alignment in the process."
Clerics of Zon-Kuthon?
ZK has clerics who are serious masochists right? Like I could see a LN cleric of ZK who wants to endure tremendous pain to drown out the sorrow deep inside, and then heal themselves up so they can do it again (you channel negative but can still prepare heal, I think.)
If you're not hurting anybody but yourself (and you're hurting yourself *a lot*) I think you can be an LN Kuthite cleric, but perhaps I'm wrong.
Revelling in suffering and misery and loss is a big part of the creed. Paraphrasing the above 'No, I don't go in for the whole kidnap, torture, non-consent and purifying the weaknesses of fear and joy part. I'm just in it for the kink and body mods.'
It's all about the identity of the divine, and not the identity of the PC.
A god can grant spells to those who he wants to. If it wants to grant spells for LE characters and LE evil characters only, them it does so out of his own will. It's not like it wouldn't allow Neutral characters to worship it, but they are not worth enough to get spells, as a cleric is not a common worshiper...
Ok, I can see that argument, and will address it in a moment. First though, It really should be about the player. It is a game for the players; The deities aren't having a worst time because players are choosing to make a cleric of a different alignment. It's different if it is making players miserable, but with any gaming group if any aspect of any character is making other players uncomfortable it shouldn't be allowed at that table, but I find it hard to believe just knowing that other groups interpret a deity's religion differently within the rules affects someones enjoyment of the game to a significant degree.
I do understand that a rich and rules supported lore does make a game better, and this could be part of that. However;
A) This seems to contradict elements of the lore as I understand it, specifically with regards to (for example) LN Asmodean Cleric Hellknights, and any clerics (and I'd guess war priests, but the rules aren't in for them) in The Cult of the Dawnflower.
B) The argument you made (as I understand it) might work for edge (LG, CG, CE, LE) gods, but makes less sense for any with a Neutral component. You can't really claim to be neutral with regard to two groups if you offer resources/accept aid from one group but refuse the other.
c) It is just as easy to justify why a deity would choose to grant spells to a group one step removed on either axis as it is to explain why it wouldn't. With regards to Asmodeus (as that was the example used), he's the master of fine print, subtle corruption and deals that seem to work for you. Devils are only too eager to offer you all sorts of things easily. Once you're a cleric it's that much easier to align you to his 'correct' way of thinking, with the built in incentive/safety net that he can withdraw your powers the moment you are not furthering his agenda. Don't get corrupted? Well, being LN doesn't protect you, you're damned anyway and maybe as a cleric you indoctrinated or tainted other and he gets their souls too.
I've always felt like half-elf and half-orc work best as templates rather than races in their own right. Both are supposed to be devilishly rare in the setting lore anyway.
...
The rest are rootless drifters and outcasts doomed to watch everyone else age and die in front of them--and there's not many. The number of these elves that decide to settle down with a human who's rotting away to entropy in front of their eyes? And start a family? So they can have a child that they will just have to watch die? That feels like a rarity within a rarity within another rarity.
1) If you don't count the Growing communities in the Iron Archipelago and on the Isle of Kortos for Half orcs, plus the popularity of half-orc gladiators in just about any city with an arena.
and 2) I feel bad for breaking this to you, but you don't need to settle down or decide to start a family to create a child. Those drifters and outcasts need to do something on all those centuries of cold winter nights. How many half elves do you think a Calistrian could farther in 500 years of adulthood? Even one deciding that Bachelor's snuff was too expensive or they didn't like the side effects, and you couldn't exactly call half elves rare.
3) Both Cross bloods breed true, I'm sure I've read your as likely to have only one or two similarly 'half' parents than be the direct offspring of a human and a member of another ancestry.
Keep in mind this is a play test and paizo has given numerous disclaimers that this would not be final. They have mentioned that they still need help catching typos or how to better explain things... If you don't understand something, simply ask for clarity.
I thought that was exactly what this thread was for...
In PF1 the CRB section for Monks said "Lawful only" but this didn't mean there were only lawful monks since we subsequently printed several archetypes and an Aasimar trait which enable non-lawful monks.
I don't see how this is fundamentally different. I see "there aren't rules for this yet" to mean "this option is currently unavailable to players" not "this sort of thing doesn't exist in the world."
OK, last post I'm gonna make on this, as I'm sure no one wants to read me elaborating further. They currently do not exist, they may exist in future, I'm not clairvoyant, but not now. Non lawful monks did not exist in Glorian until those archetypes came out, and then they were retconed in to existing. Similarly, lightsabers do not exist IRL, they might in future but it is still correct to say that they do not exist. It does not seem useful to me to ignore complaints about the current rules or the rules implications for the setting, because they hypothetically might change. I don't know what changes may happen, so I can't comment on them, I can only comment on what is currently true.
I do not like the tightening restrictions on deities and alignment, as I prefer games to emphasise player choice and creativity. I'm not saying I'm abandoning the system or company, nor trying to fight about it. I just don't think the change will fix the problem of poor/disruptive roleplaying, but will make some players unable to play certain interesting characters using Rules As Written.
Implications of what is allowable under the current ruleset is in no way an indication of all the things that can exist in the world. Nowhere is this saying "Asmodeus has no LN or NE clerics" it's just there are no rules for them yet.
It sort of is, in the rules for clerics where it disallows them from existing. There is no equivalent table labelled 'weapons that exist on Glorian' with a big 'No' next to firearms, so that really isn't an equatable. Granted there may be a future archetype that lets them exist, but you can say that about just about any concern with the playtest. Additional rules may come later, but we can only express our feelings about what we have. Feedback based on assumptions as to what we hope happens can't be of much help to the devs. Also, a) why create that archetype in the first place if the reason for disallowing clerics of certain alignments was because you didn't want people of certain alignments getting spells from certain gods? ans b)why would you need an archetype to allow clerics to do it? just let them be within one alignment step in the first place.
The issue is so - if you don't want your players to abuse CLW wands, then don't make them available. It's not that difficult for the GM to say that there doesn't happen to be a CLW wand in ye olde magic item shoppe.
It's easy to not have it for sale, but I don't want to have to tell a player they can't take Wand/Staff creation feats because I want them to be more likely to die.
Still, resonance doesn't seem like a great system to me, especially how it affects alchemists. The party has to pay out double if they want any healing or buffs from them, and it reduces their attack options to do so.
Due to these factors, most groups put alternative versiins in place
Do they? I haven't really heard mention of anyone doing it. Honest question. It's also not something I've seen players struggle with, though I guess those who do might just be the people who pick spont casters, so maybe?
Why not ? Unless I missed something, I don't see anything preventing you from saying that you are a varisian half-elf. You don't need to take an ancestry feat to say "I am varisian".
Well yeah, you can say your character has traditional tats, but if you want that to actually mean anything (like being the basis of your spells) you'll be behind an actual human, who's character sheet reflects their background. I mean, I can play a half-orc and say I can see in the dark, but the game won't back me up on it till 5th lvl.
I do think you are overstating the problems with the totems, though I did notice a couple of things that stood out as very restrictive.
On animal totems, I agree they probably should say 'manufactured weapons' for clarity, but that is very much a nitpick. The bigger problem is that it prevents them from EVER making ranged attacks, which can lead to all sorts of situations where your PC is just sitting on their hands during a combat encounter. If it just prevented them from using them whilst raging that'd be one thing, but a blanket ban seems to restrictive for me. It's also a shame that Shoanti, who seem a logical choice for Animal, can't use their signature weapons with it. That is a minor concern over all though. Honestly, I'm not even sure what purpose that Anathema serves, seeing as using a weapon over the Natural you get means you are essentially ignoring your Totem's signature benefit.
The dragon Anathema also seems a little harsh, as flavour said you might be inspired by watching a dragon destroy your home but then you have to obey that type of dragon; I can see the psychological reasoning for this, but it basically makes chromatic dragons a non-option for PCs. If the Anathema was "Do not defy a dragon of your type if you share an alignment on the good/evil axis, or you must try and slay any dragon of your type (where you have any reasonable chance of success) if opposed on the good/evil axis" That facilitates awesome vengeance seeking dragon slayer backstories/character builds.
On Giant, so far my favourite Totem (and the only one that lets my Half-orc use an orcish weapon out the gate, but that's another point to be made elsewhere), but am I correct in thinking that the sluggish penalty from Giant Stature stacks with the oversized weapon I'm obviously using? Because if so that kind of sucks. I mean, I'm already unsure why 'has big axe=easier to hit', but understand there are balancing reasons, but -3 AC on top of other penalties seems steep to use my Totem's shiniest power.
Edit: Oh yeah, Barbarians should definitely get Unarmed proficiency, especially if they have Animal Totem.
I can see advantages but you could get the same effect from giving Half elves and Half orcs a feat allowing them to choose human and elf/orc feats.
I think the bigger problem is it makes them sort of fade in to the background. They aren't there, getting the full treatment other races are. If it feels like the CRB isn't treating them with respect, but rather as 'humans-with-a-dash', then you can't expect players to get as invested in them.
Even if losing an ancestry feat isn't particularly unbalancing, it still feels like you are having to sacrifice something that every other option has just to play them; It still decentivises playing them, even if they don't actually play any worst. It's something that annoyed me in Dungeon World (not a game I recommend, btw), and it annoys me here too.
Yeah, either it doesn't affect anything, so there's not really much to object to, or its more realistic and immersive and an improvement. I've not seen any convincing arguments against it.
I guess the reason this issue sets my teeth on edge is it feels a lot like when D&D said you couldn't have CG PCs anymore, so I left. I don't want the system I left them for to go down the same road. Obviously this isn't as egregious, but I hate that whole line of thinking.
I think the main line of the argument is that there are some players who act out and play disruptively, and this is somehow meant to stop that. It won't; they'll simply not play a cleric, or just play a legal combination of cleric and alignment and still be disruptive. It's fine for a GM to say I can't play an Evil PC or a PC who worships an Evil God, but it's different for a company to tell me my character concept is wrong, especially if they are a concept I've already been playing.
I think I get this one. So one of Pharasma's main objectives is ensuring the orderly transition of souls through the River of Souls so the whole system of existence works, because we need to keep reinforcing the outer planes with more souls since otherwise the Maelstrom is liable to eventually consume them. A major part of Pharasma's objection to the Undead is that the circumvent her carefully planned, organized, and intricate system to keep the reality stable.
So people who are interested in breaking systems (any systems) "for the heck of it" are never going to be very close to Pharasma's heart.
Well, most of the people who are trying to break that system are NE (Daemons and Urgathoa. I guess also Qlippoth), not CN. And if she is so opposed to rule breaking beyond messing with unlife, why isn't she lawful?
A lot of the arguments I seen in favour seem to be mainly arguments for only exact alignment matches, but most deities still have some options. The one step rule was logical and consistent, but now it seems strange and arbitrary;like why does Phasmara favour law over chaos now, or why Ugathora won't grant spells to neutral followers anymore, but will to CE or LE.
I agree it seem to me they are telling people they were wrong about their characters; it's precisely this sort of restriction that puts me off systems. I'd rather they took alignments away and had more tougher Edicts and Anathema; It might be hard keeping to Lamashtu's teachings and staying neutral, but if a player is up to the role play challenge I say let them try. Even if it means they slip to evil in the end, or have to retrain/atone to a different class/religion, those are still great RP opportunities. It feels odd that Paizo would say that those stories are not allowed.
I think this mostly limits cherry-picking single parts of deities, which... I don't have a problem with.
Can you "worship" Calistria if you just want revenge, and don't care about sex (or the other way around)? Sure. But to be a cleric, you should value both.
Except that all the lore I have read indicates that Calistiran temples usually Do choose one of those elements over the other. So long as you don't actively deny another part of the portfolio (for example, A Calistrian advocating against vengeance or preaching abstinence) then I don't see why it would be a problem. Why would Sarenrea refuse a cleric who was more focused on healing people than hunting Rovagug cultists, or vis versa? Pharasman temples also explicitly divide aspects of their portfolio among its priests, with separate clerics for Midwifery, funerary rites and prophecy.
Actually, re-reading Gorum's entry, he seems more LG than CN; he's seem concerned with people doing battle honourably and fairly, and not mistreating the defeated. A paladin could follow his edicts and anathema! Maybe just adding something like 'seek battle' to edicts, or 'actively avoid a non-combat solution' to anathema would help a little.
I feel this is the rule that'll be most commonly house ruled out. With Anathema, I felt like they were creating a lot of opportunities for role play where there was a disconnect between your aliment and your deity's, but then to additionally also restrict alignment seems odd to me.
I agree that taking away Asmodeus ability to grant spells to LN/NE worshippers is odd. I thought his church was all about making itself useful to everyone, and offering people power as a way to indoctrinate them. Not to mention the fact that specifics of alignment matter less to them when they've got your name on paper.
I also worry that adding in these new restrictions could seem like Paizo is telling some 1e players that they were 'playing your character wrong'. It's one thing to make a mechanical build no longer playable under new rules, but deity/alignment is core character concept stuff.
This kinda restriction is one of my least favourite things in RPGs, where it hinders your ability to tell interesting stories with nuanced characters, rather than rewarding it.
Andoran keeps you relatively safe if you don't support slavery.** spoiler omitted **but most people cannot afford it.
THat's a good point actually, what would happen to a population of humans which migrate to another plane? Long term I mean. Do they turn into a kind of outsider native to that plane after a couple generations?
Yeah, and they're usually changed by it in some way; check Fechlings.
Humans who got stuck in Shadow and adapted after a couple of generations.
Witch: "I just asked my patron to move the fire from my torch into their hair and let nature take over."
I've never really thought of this being how a witch casts. It sounds more cleric-y to me. I always thought it was on the witch themselves to do 'heavy lifting' and the patrons merely taught them how, possibly provided a little power initially but not doing it for you. I agress that wizards do seem a little like physicists to me (which I know is only one interpretation).
I tend to think of witches casting in the same way a chef cooks; there's undeniable science there, but it's as much an art in their hands.
I've always thought of gems as trade goods, along with other items of similarly standardised pricing, like spices and precious metals. I know they're not listed on the table, but it's not extensive. The game treats certain things as having inherent worth, with spell components being an example of this. Rather than a wizard insisting they pay 5k for a tiny stone, I can see them bemoaning that market forces making it much more expensive to use high level spells.
As to whether you can use several dimonds as the component, I've always read it as one but that could just be a hold over. Honestly, I would probably still rule as much; if the designers had ment to open it up I'd have thought they'd change it to 'dimond(s)' rather than just remove the 'a', and being without components on hand is supposed to be a major disadvantage for casters, like a ranger losing their quiver. Still though, if they couldn't conveniently just retreat and return to town I might allow it just so I didn't have a player sitting out for most of a session or more.
