| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Next campaign I'm planning to start 'em off at 5th and use the slow advancement. Probably use Ultimate Campaign and maybe Mythic.
Search Posts
We gonna get a section on The Book of Joy? Please?
I don't agree with that at all. Str/int is half and half, which makes it the opposite of ideal for either end of the spectrum. Etc. You've misunderstood me. The key word is 'respectively' at the end of the sentence, which means Str is primary for Fiighters/etc. and Int is primary for Wizards/etc. Touch attacks, for example, exist to give low-strength, low-BAB spellcasters a chance to actually do something hand to hand, give them higher strength or the ability to optimize for str and int you're going to get synergies that the devs probably don't want to deal with.What broken synergy are we talking about here? I wasn't talking specifics, just think about it from a developer's point of view. How many books are in the Pathfinder line? You don't know all the synergies, I don't know all the synergies and the devs... they probably know better than us but nobody can keep track of every rule or corner case. This is what happened by design to 3.5, the class combos mounted and mounted and mounted and finding new broken combos practically became a sport. Pathfinder developers don't want that, to their credit, so they're going to be extra paranoid about what they create. Better touch attacks? I'd rather just take weapon finesse. Before you say "oh but that costs a feat" the theoretical strength based wizard is taking improved initiative, lightning reflex and all of the nonexistent feats that improve your AC(artful dodge I guess?) and is still way, way behind the wizard who just.. Your assumption that wizards are way better than fighting classes in the fighter's specialty in Pathfinder is incorrect. Yes, Wizards are crazy good and they can be built to be crazy good at anything including face tanks at higher levels. They can even customize themselves to face tank one day then socialize or blast the next. Fighters just face tank/single target dps output but they are scary good at that job. I don't know, maybe you look at power attack or 2-handing and Improved Critical and think 'eh, these bonuses are so small, they won't mount up to much', I can tell you from experience that they do. Or maybe you look at save or die spells and think 'wow, that's just one save away from owning something' and forget that intelligent high level enemies have ways of being flat out immune to those spells. Also, you're missing the major point: DnD is about a small group of 4-5 PCs all of which are involved in solving the problem, not one egomaniac hogging all the attention. If you think wizards already do that, hooo-boy you should consider what a wizard with 1.5 BAB or full BAB could do. All of those buff spells? Yeah, just pile them onto better str and better class bonuses and watch everyone else at the table cry. Ok, to address another point in my favour about this, people have pointed out the male Lashunta and the Jiang-shi Dhampir. I claimed aboved that any Str/Int race, from the dev's perspective, probably has a downside to prevent op fighter/wizard/gish synergies. Note both of them take a penalty to two useful attributes - no help dumping charisma for you, you're either going to be a little more oblivious to your surroundings or have worse AC. While you can mitigate the downsides of the Jiang-shi Dhampir, their healing issues and weakness to sunlight are huge downsides for what you get in that package and blunting those weaknesses also dulls the other benefits of the Dhampir. Not that this race is untenable, I'm just saying you have to accept the downside. The male Lashunta are quite a bit more reasonable and their spell-likes support a role as some form of Gish.
It's a core balance/game design issue for DnD that's been this way since Basic. Up until very recently, one of the core concepts of DnD is that you have a small team of highly specialized PCs each solving problems in their own area. You have the spell guy, the heal guy, the tank/bruiser and so on, everyone has their own thing. Strength and Intelligence are the two 'power attributes' that everyone gets use out of but are primary to fighters/barbarians/etc and wizards/arcane spellcasters respectively. As such, a Str/Int race is ideal for both diametrically opposed classes as well as Gish builds. Both class types are very powerful in Pathfinder, combining the two has to be handled delicately to maintain game balance especially when you consider PFS legality. Touch attacks, for example, exist to give low-strength, low-BAB spellcasters a chance to actually do something hand to hand, give them higher strength or the ability to optimize for str and int you're going to get synergies that the devs probably don't want to deal with. This isn't to say that it can't be done in a balanced way, I'm sure it can, but it's a worry and that probably makes it a low priority for the devs. As such even if you get an official str/int race (or more if one already exists, I can't think of one off the top of my head) don't expect them not to have some downside. Edit: To be clear, I love the Magus and other fighting casters and yes, those classes would benefit from Str/int races. Of course, I mostly build Dex/int style characters when I go for this archetype so I haven't noticed the lack of Str/Int but I wouldn't turn back a player in a home game that brought me a concept for such a race built with APG.
Agree. The forced inclusion of minority, majority, gay, lesbian, abled or disabled feels wrong. It's a little like the idea of the female quota that sees to spring up here from time to time: we need more females in business or politics, well then lets set a minimum quota of women in these jobs and employ women to meet that quota. The inclusion feels false and betrays the whole concept of equality. This is a different issue. When you see these sorts of measure implemented, if they're being implemented responsibly and not for political/marketing reasons, it's generally because the profession in question has a problem with entrenched misogyny. Internal bias means you have to force the people involved to change through assimilation. Let's be clear, we're talking about people who literally think '<insert minority here> is not <good/qualified/talented/smart/genetically or emotionally suited> enough to perform this job'. Don't feel sorry for them.
Freaking Sweet Phew, that is indeed a relief.
Didn't the sales blurb for this say something about focused Half-Demon templates before? Man, please don't tell me those were cut, that's what I was looking forward to the whole book for.
Yeah, I know a bunch of people, including myself, waiting for the 29th.
The ring of Artrosa is completely unrelated to Maroslan's transformation into Marislova. Jadrenka possesses the ring; Maroslan willingly chose to become Marislova using the magic of Artrosa itself, a place imbued with powerful feminine energies. I can understand why this is left vague but, as someone who DMs for GLBT players, I know they're going to want to know the mechanism for the transformation if I get around to running this adventure. In a system where magic is so codified, it's a little frustrating that this one detail is so obfuscated. Sure, I can make it up myself but the point of buying adventures is that I don't have to. -.- Marislova's a great NPC, though, I love her inclusion in this.
What are Heritor Feats? In Fiendish Codex and that series of books for 3e, there were a series of feats with the word 'Heritor' in the title, as in 'inheritance'. Basically Tiefling lite feats to either add a little fiendish blood to your character or inject more ichor into your Tiefling.
YESSSSSSSSS! The book I've been waiting for since the Fiendish Codex! Mr. Jacobs, I've said this before and I'll probably say it again in the future, you are the man! -begins countdown to August-
I didn't mind the concept of Ebberon's Shifters, just their execution. As for WoD-izing Golarion, I think people have the wrong end of the stick throwing that accusation around. Vampires and Lycanthropes are integral tropes to the Gothic Horror genre, of course, but remember I6: Ravenloft was published in 1983 and the Ravenloft Campaign Setting in 1990. WoD never had a monopoly on monstrous PCs, you could get infected or turned in DnD just as well. Golarion also has the Ustalav region, which really does throw back to the roots of the Ravenloft setting and would be the perfect setting for vampiric or lycanthropic adventures. As intended, I dare say. Heck, chances are this book will be used in the campaign I'm set to play in, one of the other players is playing a vampiric summoner based on Alucard of the Hellsing series. The hunger mechanic's going to come in useful at the very least!
Well, this is what I meant about Blood of the Night not having a real good look at playing Vampire characters and not having all the tools that could have been put in place. Really, if you're playing a vampire PC, you're not playing a society game. So, who cares about alignment restrictions, house rule that. Blood of the Night should have addressed vampires of different alignments along with better ways of handling a character who dies to sunlight in mixed parties... really, it's the inconvenience and power level of the vampire template that are the biggest problems. I was hoping for more content in the vein of Fang and Fury, pun not intended. I don't actually think this material was intended in any real way of opening up a WOD-like campaign option in anything but the most rudimentary way. I mean, they devote a couple of pages to the idea, which Green Ronin spent an entire book examining. Of course, we have Fang and Fury to go on with but it would have been nice for Blood of the Night to present tighter rules. Anyway, even if you're not adapting the vampire template (or even undead in general, or at least sentient undead) to more diverse alignments, there are ways of playing an evil character in a non-evil party. See Order of the Stick for examples of intelligent alignment conflict. edit: Oh, I'm wrong about something. Good and Neutral vampires are addressed in this book! Pg 14: Netural vamps are rare, good ones are rare as hen's teeth. Doesn't mean they don't exist, just unusual.
Ok, now that I've read the book and reviewed it, some feedback that I didn't feel right putting in the review. I like the new format, as a graphic designer as well as a reader. However, that double-page spread with the three feats in blurred boxes over the art isn't so good. It pains me that the art is obscured and that the feats are divorced from the actual feats section where it would be useful for them to be for quick reference. What would I like to see in Blood of the Moon: 1. I'm going to echo this one: Rules for integrating both infected and natural lycanthropes into a party. 2. Maybe a lycanthropic template that can be used to create new lycanthope strains. You know... I don't think we need a half-lycanthrope template. I mean, we have Catfolk and Kitsune, creating anthropomorphic races or more primal humanoids with animalistic traits is something that can be covered with regular races. I stand by what I said in my review: Blood of the Night's main problem is trying to do too much at once with complex subject matter. I'd rather buy 2 books with more in depth coverage than one that skims over several things.
I can't comment on whether or not to do a Blood of the Moon book like Blood of the Night yet because the book's not available to me just yet, however I can say one thing: YES I want a 'Blood of the Moon' book! And I'm still eagerly awaiting Blood of the Night despite the negativity.
That's what makes it fun. It's also part of what TTRPGs have over video games.
I thought that was it myself, first thing I tried. Nope, it just wouldn't accept the submission. But it's fixed now, so, as someone who has been a helpdesk guy, pffft, computers!
Best. Adventure. Ever! Oh, I would have except last time I tried posting a review on this site it wouldn't accept the entry. I'll try again, let's see if it sticks this time. EDIT: IT WORKED! Praise be, the curse has been lifted! Now lets see if it works for all the things I couldn't review when I tried before...
Best. Adventure. Ever! Well, ok, a slight exaggeration but this adventure not only has everything I look for in an adventure but took me right back to the whole Castle Maure/Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure vibe that was what I fell in love with waaay back in 1e. Not as Gygaxian, of course, but any time a dungeon throws crazy awesome wierd magical stuff around I am a happy, happy, gamer! :D
Then I must eliminate the authors of #1 and 2 respectively... Apologies, Mr. Pett, about the only two products Paizo could issue that trumps a module with both interplanetary travel and Succubi for me would be a book that allows me to build my own races and another that promises to let me play a vampire as a PC. In fact, now that the Race Handbook is out, you're tied for #1. :)
This is no. #3 on my must buy list.
Mentioning Twilight is just mean, I'm sure the writer of this suppliment will have more respect for the material. On the topic of sunlight and vampires, by the way, that part of vampire lore was added by the movie Nosferatu as an excuse for the director to end the movie on the right note (spoiler: vampire dies, the couple lives happily ever after). Dracula walks about during the day in the novel, though his victim Lucy Westenra only emerges at night because Van Helsing hypothesizes that she was turned in her sleep under hypnosis and so her vampire self can only emerge at night. Similarly, Dracula's predecessors in literature, Carmilla and Lord Ruthven, weren't limited to nocturnal habits. Before that in folklore, part of the horror of the vampire myth was that anyone you know could be a vampire. Husbands, wives, strangers, anyone, much like witches and werewolves. In a way it was a similar kind of horror that modern audiences would find in pod-people and doppelgangers. Wandering about at night, of course, was a bad sign since a vampire would need to feed discretely but during the day they'd act like everyone else to blend in.
But I get it, the Pitborn's a DM tool to create low level threats for a Worldwound based campaign, not really for PCs. Unless, you know, you want to be an Eldrich Knight on 'roids. I don't have a problem with it, really. Looking back at Bastards of Erebus, you can see it was always the plan and that's not a bad thing. And yes, I get playing against type and all that and the book does do a good job of saying 'they're usually evil but there's room for your good PC'. I'd be happy to discuss my problem with the Pitborn elsewhere but really it has nothing to do with Blood of Fiends, which is a good book.
I would love to find one of these mythical beasts, I've never seen one IRL and I've been playing since 1e. That said... while all of these variant tieflings do grant players new options, they absolutely do grant GMs options as well. That's a strength, not a flaw. I agree. As for pitborn tieflings being able to benefit "more" than others if they're sorcerers due to their Charisma bonus... I don't have a problem with that, honestly. Oh, that's balanced out by their 1 net base skill point per level. And hopefully all their Str buffs will encourage them to get into hand to hand and discover almost everything is better than they are at hand to hand... though I'm sure there are builds with Transformation that can mitigate that too.
Oh, I'll still buy the book because I'm a sucker for all things fiendish (quippoth and kyton heritages, bonus). Also new art and more fluff, always good.Well... wait until you see the demon-spawn tiefling first! She DOES happen to look kind of succubusy... Well, I have the book now and I have to admit that the Pitborn illustration does indeed look succubusy. It's a pity that the rest of the entry describes an Orc. Ok, I'm trying to be funny but I'm afraid that'll read a bit snarky. To undercut that, I have to say the illustration quality in this book is awesome and I'm hoping the portrait of the Pitborn winds up being usable on these forums as an avatar pic because it's great. Lots of nice, thematic, Feats and Traits and other things, the only thing that jumps out at me as a bit of a derp moment was the handling of Fiendish Sorcery. Easy to houserule that, though. But I get it, the Pitborn's a DM tool to create low level threats for a Worldwound based campaign, not really for PCs. Unless, you know, you want to be an Eldrich Knight on 'roids.
Wow, lots of misconceptions in this thread. The ending to ME3 is objectively bad. There aren't so much plot holes in the last 10 minutes as plot singularities, they go so far as to suck in the previous two games and break them as well as nullifying whole swathes of character development and accomplishment. Imagine if, in the climactic scenes of Star Wars, a completely new character popped into existance, killed the Emperor and blew up Endor and the Deathstar along with all the heroes. Imagine if you hired out The Godfather but the ending was replaced with the one from The Room. In essence, that's why alot of people are upset. Bioware can wave about 'Artistic Integrity' as much as they want, the truth is that nobody who had artistic integrity would allow those sorts of plot holes to stand in their work. On top of that, the developers and producers flat out lied about the content beforehand. They claimed 16 unique endings, if you're generous there's a total of 7. They said that your choices would matter but they don't, really, other than through an arbitrary scoring system. They said you could get the best ending without playing multiplayer, which may be theoretically possible if you have all three games but very close to impossible. I know it's become fashionable to think that creators simply deserve our money. As consumers, gamers are beginning to discover that, according to the capitalist model, we can vote with our wallets. Mass Effect is a commercial venture, if you want to sell your product you have to fill the needs of the buyers or they'll stop buying, simple as it gets. If you're happy with ME3, by all means, keep buying. Just don't be surprised when Bioware or any other company folds because most people aren't buying their stuff. Heck, it's exactly what's happening with WOTC with 4e and 5e, nothing new.
Ok, cibet44 and Shasazar, I have given the "Pathfinder purist" comment some thought, and you know, I'm not as happy with it as I was at the time. I apologize for any slight; it was not intended as a slam. And the silver lining is that the store listing is now more detailed as well. (Thanks, Liz!) Thank you for the apology. Please re-read my previous comments, I was never angry with the content, I was angry at being misinformed. Thank-you for taking Dark Mistress', cibet44 and my feedback to heart, clearly labeling your content was all I was asking.
My second problem is that my pdf doesn't come with the cover, only the smaller version on the contents page and cover art is one of the reasons I buy magazines. For a very broad application of the word 'like'. The Ecology article was a crushing disappointment for me and I probably won't be purchasing any more KQs merely out of caution. EDIT: I am glad the cover issue has been resolved, I look forward to checking on that in the morning.
Why can't you write a review? You should be able to over at DriveThruRPG if you bought it there, and you can post a review here at Paizo without having bought it here. I attempted to post one here but got an error message. I was planning on reviewing at DriveThru in the morning. I also found that disappointing. To be fair, the article was fairly well-written, and the mechanics compromise only a small part of the entire piece, so it's possible to get some good mileage out of it no matter what system you play. To make my point clear from some of the other posts: I have no problem with 4e content in an open design magazine. In fact, I'm glad it's there, even though I have no interest in it. My sole complaint is that it's not clearly stated that the ARTICLE is for the 4e Succubus. The 4e Succubus is a DEVIL rather than a DEMON, while they fill the same roles in the pantheon of DnD monsters the background is a completely different beast. While well written, the background and mechanics presented are completely irrelevant to me, a distinction that could have been made with a little forethought by the publisher.
Here's how my last hour and a half went: -sees ad in Kobald Quarterly 21-
Ok, I realize why you're avoiding the problems of Chaotic Evil characters in an evil campaign. But it's becoming a pet peeve of mine when a product sold over the internet isn't adequately described in its blurb. This is a very specific campaign for Lawful Evil worshippers of Asmodeus and it excludes a certain style of villain, that's the kind of salient fact I would have liked to know before my purchase. Again: I know why you've designed the campaign this way and that's great, I applaud it even, but please adequately describe your product. The adventure itself is very good, the only flaws I can call out are in the graphic design area. Double spaces after full stops, edges around some of the art assets, strange fonts and text block formatting can be improved. Quality of the art assets is high overall, I particularly liked the boarders. I liked the adventure design and alot of the ideas presented are interesting. I'm looking forward to seeing how the path develops.
I'm smarting at bit at the moment because I just purchesed this issue from DriveThruRPG and now I can't write a review to voice my concerns. I have two dissatisfactions. The first is the Ecology of the Succubus article, specifically how it isn't clearly labeled as an article for the 4th Edition iteration of the Succubus. Having given up 4e long ago because it's not my thing, I bought this issue on the basis of the ecology to find it is completely useless to me. This kind of doubly smarts because I also purchased a previous issue that had 'Ecology of ths Succubus' on the cover art picture but not in the description of the issue. I put that purchase down to my own silly fault but this time I can't be so generous and now I feel that this has been a complete waste of my time and money. My second problem is that my pdf doesn't come with the cover, only the smaller version on the contents page and cover art is one of the reasons I buy magazines. At least I know to keep an eye out for Kieran Yanner from now on, this cover caught my eye in a sea of otherwise much blander covers. I couldn't rate the issue down too far because some of the other articles are an interesting read and the ad for Fire Mountain Games' Way of the Wicked has piqued my interest, however, none of that makes up for the disappointment for the main article. If I'd picked the issue up in an LGS, which are rapidly diminishing in my area, I could have passed over this issue after a quick flick through the contents. Perhaps clearly labeling the system that an article is compatable with in your advertizing could help those of us who are forced to make online purchases without seeing the content?
I found this thread absolutely hilarious and wish I'd been in on the OP's game. Thanks for brightening my day!
Ta, I can't believe I missed the playtest. My take on the concept is several posts below yours now.
Been working on this all day, a succubus heritage tiefling with a little Golarion flavour. Noctuling
Magnetic, sensual and impulsive by nature, Noctulings that still work for the cult insinuate themselves into all levels of society, making themselves invaluable to their marks up until Our Lady in Shadow requires their death. Such creatures cannot be totally controlled, however, resulting in a significant number of rogues who want nothing to do with Nocticula or her vile cult. Despite this, their Lady still views each of them as her personal tools to be used as she desires. Noctuling Characters
Noctuling
If you want to bring the RP in line with the Tiefling, knock off Gifted Linguist and go the Standard Array under Languages.
Did you like succubus tiefling, and half-succubus, I made? I like it, though I think it might be a little on the powerful side. The Tiefling entry is a little confusing but this is probably because I don't know the ARG. For example, I'm assuming that the 'Racial Base' section are alternatives balanced against other races. On the Tiefling, in my option, buffing Dex, Int and Cha without a negative is a little excessive when you compare it to the base Tiefling. After all, we don't want to make a 'super-tiefling', just tweak the original to more accurately represent the concept... even if the munchkin on my shoulder is drooling at the possibilities for bards or arcane tricksters. Fiendish resistances good, that's on par. Change Shape vs. Darkness 1/day... I'm conflicted. I think it's a fair enough trade, Darkness can be incredibly useful, though part of playing a Tiefling is roleplaying the conflict with a distrustful society. Natural Armour doesn't sit well with me, I know the Succubus has NA but thematically it doesn't sit right, Succubi are also the most human-seeming of the demons and natural armour seems more suited to a scaly or chitinous race. Personally, once I get ARG, I'd be looking to use the Tiefling as a base, switch it to -2Wis, +4Cha (the hot blood of their ancestor makes them charming but impulsive), switch Stealth bonus to Perception bonus, switch Darkness for Unnatural Lust (Charm Person would be my other selection but might be a bit too good...). Then swap out Fiendish Sorcery for something else... immunity to level drain or a gift for languages perhaps? The half-succubus is great, the only thing I could nit pick is the str bonus, I think there's a good case for dropping that in favour of a more even distribution of bonuses across Dex, Con and Int. Once I get my hands on ARG, I'd be looking more towards a +4Dex, Con & Int; +2 Wis; +6 or 8 Cha before looking to balance that in the rest of the build.
Man, I cannot, CANNOT, wait to get my hands on the ARG.
Well... wait until you see the demon-spawn tiefling first! She DOES happen to look kind of succubusy... Oh, I'll still buy the book because I'm a sucker for all things fiendish (quippoth and kyton heritages, bonus). Also new art and more fluff, always good.
Why would a CR monster be fighting a 3rd level party? Glargh, derp moment. Don't post while sick, kids. Even so, I'd hate to be the party tank fighting one of those things at APL 5 or 6.
Beetle, Goliath Stag. CR8, 104hp, +17 3d8+16 bite, 2d8+16 DC26 trample, vermin, fly speed and reach. No finesse but do you need it with those stats vs. a level 3 party?
Well... darn. Yeah, I know about the Alu-Fiend from ToHC. I was hoping for something a bit more reasonable to lay out in front of the DM. Alas, back to homebrew...
With 'an expansive look at the 10 most common types of Tiefling heritage each providing x, y & z', assuming that's not old copy, I can't really imagine at least the succubus heritage not getting a treatment. Particularly with James Jacobs as Creative Director, he knows how to put books on fiends together. While I have Bastards of Erebus, the demon heritage there is ok but doesn't really fit the Succubus. Which is fine, the Succubus is the mavrick non-monstrous looking subrace after all and you can't expect an article dealing with all fiends to focus in on the exceptions to the rule. And yes, I can use another heritage and call it something else but it's just not neat. Anyway, fingers crossed.
Considering one of the variant Tieflings has to deal with the Succubus heritage, my next character is officially on hold in anticipation of this release. The only question now is Sorcerer or Oracle...
-Nostalgic sigh- This reminds me of the old 1e DMG and the Book of Artifacts from 2e. Particularly the charts. -goes to hunt through boxes for old books-
I can't wait to get my hands on the custom race rules.
Thanks for the reply. :) I agree, one of the best characters I've ever run was a Mystic Theurge in a solo campaign. Though I wouldn't call it jealousy in the latter case as much as frustration.
Thanks, that was why I brought up the question. As much as I like the idea of a divine/arcane, cha-based, spontaneous spellcaster as a character, however, the mere suggestion generally makes most players rightly miffed at the idea of carrying around dead weight... and I don't exactly enjoy playing a character that has severe trouble contributing as much as I like the concept. Besides, I was just wondering Mr. Jacobs' opinion, not that I expect anything to be done about such a fringe case.
I know this is a tangent but, out of curiosity, as a fan of the Mystic Theurge PrC who is unable to play it (and isn't a fan of the Witch), where do you think the Mystic Theurge fits in the player trap/poor GM expection management divide? I only ask because I'd love to play a Sorcerer/Oracle without the spectre of Admiral Akbar following me from gaming table to gaming table. |