For a less ridiculous restriction, what about setting up a campsite, cooking and eating dinner, and removing armor in order to sleep? Won't fatigue affect those? Based on my own experience with fatigue, yes. I suggest requiring a will save in order to summon the willpower to cook dinner and get undressed. If you fail, you just lie down and sleep.
I actually subscribed to the Twitch channel just so I could watch episode 6 without having to wait a week, and it only confirmed my feelings. This is the best new live play show to come along in a while. The characters are great, and they interact really well with each other. The story is engaging, with plenty of good twists and turns. I actually care about what happens next, which is something most shows like this never achieve. Heck, some of my own games never manage that!
Wait. "Updated illustrations of classic Curse of the Crimson Throne characters." Like Laori Vaus? Could this mean a mini is actually possible, now that some good art might happen?
That spacesuit isn't sportsbra tight. It's tighter. It individually, separately defines each breast. So, in that sense, it doesn't get anything at all out of the way. That fact, coupled with the strange pose, makes her look all wrong for adventuring. Just sayin'. To be fair, the level of definition on the breasts is a function of both tightness and flexibility of the material. The right material might actually look like that when worn at the correct tension, especially if the tension was different from area to area (some compression clothes today do this). Clearly this is some kind of futuristic material designed to support, protect, and show off the body. But in general, yeah, it looks a bit strange, especially when combined with the pose.
I love the research rules in this book so much. I think I'm going to try using them in my Rise of the Runelords game (in the Jorgenfist library, to begin with). If that works, I might add more libraries for research later in the game, since there's a fair amount of hidden knowledge to acquire in that AP. I also love: Spoilers for Shifting Sands:
The methods suggested for locating the final wing of the library. The idea of building a scale model of the tower and adding it to the model of the city is cliche in all the right ways. Gives the adventure a fantastic Indiana Jones vibe. Before this adventure, I had happily categorized this AP as "fun to read, but I probably won't run it", which is my favorite category of AP, since it wouldn't compete for time with all the others I want to run. Now that I've read this one, though, I keep looking at my shelf wondering what I can cut/delay in order to run this.... Curse you, Pett!
The real question is: when do we get a "Lords of Madness" book in this style? This books sounds awesome and all, but I want more info for Aboleths and other awesome aberrations! Thanks for the clarification! I still want a book like this one about Abberations, though. :P And a true "Lords of Madness" type of book would be awesome too, but I don't think I need to tell you that.
The real question is: when do we get a "Lords of Madness" book in this style? This books sounds awesome and all, but I want more info for Aboleths and other awesome aberrations!
I love reading previews of books that are already sitting on my shelf. It reinforces for me how much subscriptions rock. :P Seriously, though, this book is amazing.
Hmm I wonder what Domains Cosmo grants. Madness and Trickery, at least.
We just need some kind of archetype that loses armor proficiency and gains wisdom to AC, and we could make some pretty awesome Warpriests of Irori.monks would cry for a great many things that let them actually pull off the unarmed combat bit (or really any combat bit, zen archer and tetori notwithstanding), tels. decent crit range is just one of them.I'm well aware, but I felt someone had to point it out. I don't know if it will factor into the Warpriest design, but it should at least be mentioned. If we blame Cosmo for all problems, does that make us all minions of Cosmo?
monks would cry for a great many things that let them actually pull off the unarmed combat bit (or really any combat bit, zen archer and tetori notwithstanding), tels. decent crit range is just one of them.I'm well aware, but I felt someone had to point it out. I don't know if it will factor into the Warpriest design, but it should at least be mentioned. We just need some kind of archetype that loses armor proficiency and gains wisdom to AC, and we could make some pretty awesome Warpriests of Irori.
Sure. But keep in mind I'm not going home with you.That's disappointing, but totally understandable. I admit that I'm mostly asking because I was hoping to try it out on some other classes. Do you expect this feat to be broadly available, or Swashbuckler only? Even if it's just to play Pathfinder? I think my girlfriend would complain about anything more than that.
That's disappointing, but totally understandable. I admit that I'm mostly asking because I was hoping to try it out on some other classes. Do you expect this feat to be broadly available, or Swashbuckler only? In that case, I only have one remaining question (for now): Can I buy you a drink sometime?
"Primalist" is just as much a made-up word as "bloodrager." My impression was that the problem with "bloodrager" wasn't just that it's made up, but that it's a portmanteau. Primalist follows a pretty standard word construction of adding a suffix to indicate a person who creates/uses/manipulates the object/substance/system being referred to. New words using the "ist" suffix appear in English all the time. That said, I think Reaver is better.
Well, I got a chance to play test this class over the long weekend. I'll try to write up a longer summary (with build details) sometime this week, but I wanted to get my basic impressions posted in case I don't have any time to write the rest. Quick background: I tested this class, at level 5, in Trial of the Beast (book 2 of Carrion Crown). Up until now, I've been playing this character as an Inquisitor, so I'm mostly comparing those two classes. There is also a Cleric in the party, so I got a little bit of comparison there. My overall conclusion is that while the class isn't exactly bad, I would pretty much never choose to play it when I have the option of an Inquisitor. The Inquisitor can cast most of the same buffs, does a similar amount of base damage, and has similar defenses. The Inquisitor also has more ability to buff itself using Swift Actions, and those Swift buffs apply regardless of the weapon being used. The bosses of the section we played ambushed us in a multi-level room; our buffs had worn off and they had a range advantage on us. I ended up having to use some Standard Actions to buff, and had to use my bow for a significant amount of the encounter. The Inquisitor would have handled these obstacles much more smoothly than the Warpriest did, not least because his dex is higher (didn't need any cha), and so he has a higher attack bonus on his bow to begin with. And just to top things off, the Inquisitor has a lot more skill points than the Warpriest. I lost count of the number of times that one of those missing skills would have been very useful. I did feel more combat capable than the Cleric, but I think that had almost as much to do with my build as my class. She was built for defense and healing, but she was still dealing reasonable damage. I also can add my name to the list of people saying this class is too front loaded. Choosing 3 feats at level one is challenging, particularly when you have a +0 BAB and are unlikely to have the int or dex required for some combat feats. I took Improved Initiative because there wasn't much else to fill that slot with. My Inquisitor still had a higher init bonus….
I promised to stop posting in the other Warpriest thread, and I'll stick to that. But it turns out I'm compulsively argumentative, and I'm bored. So here I am again. Sorry.
Of course daggers are viable. They're not optimal, but that's ok. A Warpriest using daggers can be completely effective. But why would a Warpriest of Pharasma use them? The lore you quoted was pretty clear about the purpose of daggers, and it has nothing to do with combat. Would a Warpriest of Pharasma carry a dagger? Yes, unquestionably. Pharasma would imbue it with holy power, and it would become a +1 Umbilical Cord Bane Dagger. Mothers would weep with joy at the swiftness and cleanliness of its cuts. Babies would become devout priests at its mere touch. Then the Warpriest would head out to rid the land of a plague of undead, and kill the necromancer leading them. Out of respect for the sanctity of his ceremonial dagger, he wouldn't use it in combat. Instead, he might use a morningstar, or maybe a warhammer. Maybe he'd use a longsword, if he knew there would be no skeletons. Pharasma would approve of his quest, and be generous in her support. She would bless his armor, strengthening his defenses against the ravening horde. She would grant him spells to bolster his allies and break his foes. Her Divine Radiance would infuse his...wait, is that a morningstar? You know the rules, man, No Dagger, No Divinity. Do better next time. A Warpriest of Pharasma who actually cares enough to role play his religion the way the lore suggests it be played will never gain the benefits of Sacred Weapon. Doesn't this suggest, even a little bit, that the favored weapon list isn't well suited to this task? That maybe "favored" doesn't always mean "preferred in combat"?
The part about what it's favored for. The text you quoted is extremely explicit that the reasons for Pharasma favoring the dagger have nothing to do with combat. It even specifies that many priests refuse to fight with it and use a different weapon. And for some reason you still think "favored" means "Fight with this weapon and I will imbue your strikes with my holy power. Fight with anything else, and I will not". I'm not invested in this argument enough to fight it any further, and I'm pretty sure I've made my point thoroughly enough that the devs will understand where I'm coming from, even if they don't agree. I'm going to stop posting in this thread until I have some playtest information and can contribute beyond the weapon debate.
still waiting on the flavor backstory on any other diety weapon. If its such a fundemental part of their religion it shouldn't be a problem for you to get with your mighty subscription.Yes, I'm aware of that, thank you, but it bears no relation to the point. -_- The Focus Weapon ability doesn't convey any of that. It just says "Thou shalt use the weapon named in column 5 of Table 3-6 in the Core Rulebook in the row pertaining to thy deity, or thou shalt not have the use of thy class features. Because reasons." So it's ceremonial, has a bunch of specific uses that aren't "fighting", and some priests actually refuse to fight with it as a matter of faith. Yeah, Pharasma definitely wants her Warpriests to use a dagger. EDIT: This is actually the strongest argument against using favored weapons I've seen yet. It's pretty clear proof that the favored weapons list was not made with something like the Warpriest in mind.
Someone who cares enough to read all that backstory in order to properly role play a worshiper of a certain god probably also cares enough to choose an appropriate weapon. Or maybe they'll read the lore, decide there's no compelling reason to use a specific weapon, and make their character differently. Someone who doesn't care enough to read that isn't suddenly going to make a devout and flavorful Shelynite because the favored weapons table says "glaive".
I don't think it's too much either. I do think that it's much more likely to hurt people with interesting character concepts than people who are trying for mechanical optimization. Honestly, I would rather see a Warpriest of Desna with a greatsword and a cool background than a Warpriest of Gorum with a greatsword because greatsword. What do you think about tying some weapons to Blessing choices? This opens up the flexibility somewhat, while still making sure not every Warpriest has the same weapon.
Take a feat. Problem solved. This is a patch, at best. The worst thing about it is that it's essentially a tax on people who actually care about flavor. If someone honestly just wants the best weapon they can get, flavor be damned, then they can just choose a god that gives them a weapon they like. If they wanted to "choose their deity based on the concept they want to play and what the deity represents", but that deity's favored weapon doesn't match their concept, then they have to take a feat. I don't mind feat taxes, but this one seems to run counter to your professed preference for flavor. You continue to assert that those of us who are opposed to the focus on favored weapons are more concerned about mechanics than flavor, that we just want to be able to run around with a falchion regardless of deity. This is, whatever you might say, a straw-man. If the update to the class were to make all weapons statistically identical in the hands of a Warpriest, I would still want this changed. Now, all that said, I like the idea of focusing on flavor-appropriate weapons. I just think the favored weapons list has some serious issues when it's applied in this context. There are a lot of very flavorful characters that can't be made if you are restricted to one weapon per god.
I'm in the camp that doesn't like being tied so tightly to the favored weapon. Apparently this means I don't like flavor, which is a bit confusing. If I didn't like/want flavor, this wouldn't be a problem. I would just choose a god with a good weapon, and that would be that. Problem solved. My issue isn't that I want the best possible weapon, it's that I want the freedom to choose a god appropriate to my character and still have some options with a weapon. If this isn't meant to be possible, why do Warpriests even have Martial Weapon Proficiency? Proficiency with simple and favored weapons should be sufficient. I'm also not complaining about things like Warpriests of Desna. I'm totally ok with using starknives (though I think Desna favors starknives because they are stars, not necessarily as a combat weapon). If I made a Warpriest of Shelyn, you bet I would use a glaive. Shelyn's glaive is very important, after all. But the poor Warpriest of Pharasma (as has already been pointed out a few times) is in real trouble. An undead hunter with a dagger is not going to get very far. And what about a Warpriest of Abadar? I want to run around with a warhammer, delivering Abadar's mighty justice. Does that mean I'm against flavor, just because I don't want to do that using a crossbow? I could play a Paladin, of course, but only if I'm interested in being Good. I totally understand the rationale for this focus on favored weapons. I also agree that it's one of the few pieces of flavor currently in the class. I still think it's a restriction that is more harmful than helpful for creating cool (and flavorful) characters. I would very much prefer to see this changed to something else. If it's not going to change, though, at least my Warpriest of Shelyn will still be awesome.
If this truly is the direction the flavor of this class is heading, I think Use Magic Device should become a class skill for Arcanist. That might make sense. On the other hand, it doesn't sound like they "use" magic devices so much as "rip them open and drink their Magic Juice". I wonder if Magic Juice tastes like Gummyberry Juice.
I don't think the Design team is all that concerned with catering to munchkins. The thing is, this isn't a problem for munchkins. They'll just pick whichever god gives them the weapon they want and be happy with it. For those of us that want to choose a deity that we like, and that matches our character concept, this can be a major limitation. I understand the fluff reasons for the focus on favored weapons, and I understand the perspective that priests of war focused gods should be better in combat than priests of less martial deities. However, Paladins are able to use whatever weapon they want to, without worrying about how their god feels about it. I think a lot of my problems with this class come from comparing it to the Paladin (and I don't think I'm the only one). It seems strange that in order to be a combat focused divine caster that can actually pick and choose weapons, I have to be lawful good. It seems strange that if I want full BAB, d10 HD, and divine spells, I have to be lawful good. When I saw that Warpriests had martial weapon proficiency, I was really excited, because it suggested that they would have the same flexibility as Paladins. Weapon choice has been the biggest problem I've had with my Inquisitor, and I would really love a better option. I can get over the 3/4 BAB, but the focus on favored weapons means I'm not particularly likely to pick this over Inquisitor. I might do it just for variety, but I would rather see this class fill a space that doesn't already have several other options.
Oh, i see that is disappointing, i don't play online games, never have, never will. still should be an awesome trip:) The good news is that The Emerald Spire will be available for everyone, not just backers of the Kickstarter. So you can get your megadungeon fix without having to play any online games.
What are the titles of the chapters? I would play this.
So we shouldn't talk to you about Titanic then? :P Nah, I already know the ending to that one. It's an unsinkable ship, so it sails across the ocean and everyone lives happily ever after. Duh.
I'd be fine with the AP dealing with finding an angsty 13yr old boy and helping him grow some bawls so that he'll get over his daddy issues and pilot a 30m tall biomechanoid killing machine which also happens to have the soul of the boy's mother trapped inside. Also, pet penguins. Spoilers, man. SPOILERS. :P
AARGHH! Curse you Paizo! Why would you make an AP that's all full of robots and other sciencey nonsense? Why couldn't you put out a Razmir AP or something, so I could at least pretend I have some tiny chance of keeping up with all the APs I want to run. Yeah, I'm pretty excited about this. But unless it's even more awesome than it sounds like it will be, it's going to have to get in line.
So, non-white people should be only included if they make great story?I hope it doesn't get overdone though. We get it, inclusiveness is good, just don't beat me over the head with it. I'm cool with everyone loving everyone but some moderation makes it feel more organic and less forced. I hope that didn't make me sound like a hater. I'm really not. Thanks Gorbacz. That's much more succinct than anything I could think of. EDIT: While I think The Bag makes the point pretty clearly, I want to expand on this a little. Including LGBT characters only when the story explicitly calls for it is not being inclusive, it's holding those people up as specifically out of the ordinary. It reinforces the notion that "normal" people are all straight, and people who step out of that norm are plot points. Being inclusive means acknowledging that sometimes people are gay, or bi, or whatever else, even when there's no specific story reason for them to be so. A lot of relationship information for NPCs isn't really relevant to the plot, but that doesn't mean it should all be left out. In the same way, ignoring LGBT people until it can serve the plot doesn't make sense.
Contacts are a very good idea for this campaign. And once you're actually using a system for them, it's easy to add important NPCs as contacts when the players meet them. I think there's a contact system in Ultimate Campaign. I would give you a link to the rules on the PRD, but the site is running too slowly at the moment.
** spoiler omitted ** Seven Graves to the Day?: That's true. You could certainly say that the other coins were introduced earlier. I read it as suggesting they all occurred around the same time (so the Direption could distract from the other events), but there's nothing stopping you from handling it differently. I guess I just like the unexpectedness of the plague without foreshadowing.
Some good advice in general, but I have a couple comments in response to your foreshadowing advice. Seven Days to the Grave spoilers:
One of the first events in 7DttG is the sinking of the Direption, which is one of the ways the plague is introduced to Korvosa. The other tainted coins are introduced in a similar time frame. As written, there should be no hint of the plague during the events of Edge of Anarchy. One of the things that makes the plague so scary is that it basically comes out of nowhere and spreads like wildfire.
If you think this would be too jarring for your players (or for you), then foreshadowing it would work fine. If I were going to do that, I would probably start with rumors about a strange ship being sunk in the Jeggare, then follow that with rumors about a fever going around. Basically move part of 7DttG into the last parts of EoA. The quarantine of Old Korvosa actually is in 7DttG (the sidebar on page 44), but it's really easy to miss if you don't know what's coming. For the players, it's even easier to miss, so I would definitely encourage playing that up a bit more. Just don't actually let your players stop it from happening.... Another thing that can be worth foreshadowing is the Cinderlander (from History of Ashes). For the experience issue, the other option is to use the Fast XP track instead of Medium. This brings Pathfinder advancement more in line with 3.5 expectations. If you play frequently enough that getting through an AP takes a reasonable amount of time, then adding in extra content is a really great thing to do, and I encourage it. For me, it would stretch the time required into the realm of the truly absurd. Definitely try to read through the whole AP if you can, and if there are changes you want to make, note them now so you can adjust for them.
You say no insider knowledge. I assume that having the PDF already counts? ;) Well then.... If you think you can handle it...: Your guess appears to be correct. The Dominion of the Black scout is a neh-thalggu. It's not clear (to me at least) if this means the Dominion is all neh-thalggu, or if they're just used as scouts. One of the new monsters in the book is a creature bred by the Dominion, and it's quite creepy.
You're being selective and ignoring the other language that 'counters and negates darkness spells of equal or lower level.' Which covers the 'existing spell' concept. The two spells negate one another when they come into contact. I'm not trying to be selective, but I don't see the text you're quoting. The only similar phrasing I see in any of the spells I've checked is what I quoted above. The only place I see the word "negate" is in the Daylight spell description, where it says: Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect. Which is definitely not dispelling either effect. Despite this, Daylight includes the language about countering or dispelling darkness spells of equal or lower level. By your interpretation, under what circumstances would this temporary negation occur? If one or both spells are always going to be dispelled on contact, what is the point of this part of the spell description? I may have just missed the text you're quoting, in which case I would appreciate a pointer to where I can find it. You're trying now to justify the 'casting style' as an excuse for your rules. Unfortunately, that doesn't hold water, either. WHen you cast your darkness spell at the coin of Light, the areas overlap as the spell manifests, and negate one another. mechanically, that's no different then bringing the darkness spell into the radius of the Light spell...they work exactly the same way. I think I explained what I meant here poorly, but I also don't think it's all that important to my interpretation, so I'll drop that part of my argument for now.
The description of the Darkness spell says: Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness. So in this situation, the Darkness spell wins in the overlap area, and the Light spell is suppressed in the same area. EDIT: This also implies that there are magical light sources that can increase the light level in an area of Darkness. If the intent was to remove this sort of complexity entirely, wouldn't that be something to avoid? Daylight (as I quoted above) also has rules for suppressing effects. The rules in general allow for relatively simple interactions between these spells even without automatically dispelling each other.
I certainly don't want to add unwarranted complexity, but I do want to explain my interpretation as well as I can. Again, I make no claims that my rules knowledge is any better than yours, but I definitely read these rules differently. Also: I just noticed this, and I'm not sure where to put it in my post, so I'm adding it here. You've been claiming that Darkness and Light will negate each other when brought in contact, but Light is a cantrip/orison while Darkness is a level 2 spell. So under your reading of the rules, wouldn't Darkness negate Light without being negated itself?
I'm not claiming I know what I'm talking about, but that's not how I read that at all.
Not "Darkness dispels", but "Darkness can be used to dispel". By my reading, this means that if Wizard 1 cast Light on a coin, Wizard 2 could cast Darkness specifically to dispel the ongoing light effect (targeting the coin or the effect itself). If Wizard 2 instead cast Darkness on his own coin, then he has chosen to use the spell to create an area of darkness rather than use it to counter or dispel a light spell. Basically my interpretation is that dispelling a magical effect is an explicit action that the caster takes when casting the appropriate spell (Dispel Magic generally, or Darkness in this example). It is not an ongoing effect after the spell has been cast.
If I do someday do an All Dungeon AP like I mention above, it will NOT be Kaer Maga/Undercity. It'll be some place we've teased folks about but never really fully detailed. Like a siege castle near Absalom, probably. Or maybe Hollow Mountain. The answer to this appears to be yes. RotRL Spoiler: Karzoug's stat block specifically calls out that, being immortal and older than venerable, he gets the mental stat boosts without the physical penalties.
Gary: Hot dogs travel in packs? I guess that makes sense. And the packs are always a different size than the packs of buns. >.<
There is also a bridge in Brooklyn, which I would be happy to sell you for the low low price of $100. EDIT: I accept paypal!
I would like to direct your attention this way... I am intrigued! Still, I would love to see what Paizo would do with the subject matter. For one thing, I would love to see an AP of this sort that started on the surface and delved deeper as it went (yes, like Second Darkness). I'm not a huge fan of dwarves or Drow in general. |
