Winter Witch

Sinn_Adraelia's page

7 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


Lathiira wrote:

First is the disclaimer: never, ever, ever apply genetics to fantasy races. That way madness lies.

Now, let's examine things a bit. Half-elves and half-orcs are humanoids. Their lineages are those of humanoids: humans, elves, orcs. No creature type changes.

Tieflings and aasimar have less than half-blood. Lineages for them let you trace back to specific subtypes (e.g. pitspawn), but they're outsiders either way. Unique races with mixed traits, true enough, but their own races.

Half-fiends and others are one parent humanoid, one parent outsider (or whatnot). Maybe they ended up with enough of the outsider parent to gain specific traits of that outsider (check out Demons Revisited for examples of half-demons with specific parents), maybe not (basic half-fiend).

Class bloodlines just tell you that you're descended from something, if even then. Even then you've got some trouble. Arcane bloodline, for example: you're descended from...magic? How'd that work? Imperial/destined bloodlines come to mind.

As for why creatures very seldom have two types: it can cause problems with a few rules interactions. Bane weapons, for example. Favored enemy ability also comes to mind. I personally don't always agree with the prioritization (I'd put outsiders over dragons, for example), but it's mostly to avoid annoying rules issues.

Do note that templates like the half-dragon change creature type. Sometimes though, subtypes hold true, telling you what lies beneath the skin.

Thank you Lathiira, your explanation gives me the reason as to why though I may not agree whole heartedly with that reason. I do see your point about outsider vs dragon priority though it would make more sense to me that way also. Still for it all to basically boil down to rules feels lacking to me though being a GM who prefers to follow the rules the best I can interpret them, this makes more sense. I can actually see the other side of the coin as well A.K.A. the players point of view when it comes to this kind of ruling.

Somehow seeing it written or basically hearing this makes me feel more at ease, when ever I have to tell a player that doesn't work cause such and such is not humanoid or that isn't technically a monster it is this.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I apologize if this is in the wrong place.

Half-Dragons have for many years of D&D, AD&D, AD&D 3.5e, Pathfinder 1e & 2e as well as 5e has been on my mind for a long time now. I have without a doubt had an issue with one small feature of these glorious creatures, and I was wondering what the community at large felt about this issue. While I am discussing Half-Dragons here I think this issue can be applied to many other templates of the Half-(type) all together as a whole.
So the issue at hand is this ,template type aside, when applying a template to any base creature why for the love of the goddess does it always say "creature's type changes to" this has bothered me for the longest time now. Frankly why does it not just add the new type to the base creatures type as well?

For an example: Tieflings are Outsider (Natives) adding a half dragon template changes this to Dragon instead of Tiefling Outsider (Native), Dragon (type)

Maybe I am missing something in my long years of playing these games but the term Half does not mean you become the full creature type half-elves for instance do not become Elf nor are half-orcs, Orc's either. Now the most commonly used Half-anything template is Dragon yes, but there are so many other half templates out there and the little research I have done so far all of them change the race type to literally a full version, (discounting Half-Elf and Half-Orc there is no race type change), literally getting rid of the base creatures race all together so why do they get to retain the base creatures stats?
I am sure some of you have maybe had this thought hit you once in your years of playing the games yes? Cause if this question has not popped up once for you then I feel it should have by now because a half species is not a full species of either race. I used Half-Dragon as the example because as we all know from Fantasy RPG lore dragons have a history of screwing nearly anything alive. Some dragons even experiment with creating new races base on their blood so this should not be a surprise to anyone.
For all essential purposes though, Aasimar and Tielfings, are technically already half bloods in their own right. Yet they are consider a race as a whole with many alternate racial archetypes based on their blood heritage. So I propose this thought to you why have Half-(Fiend, Angel, Other) outsider templates when all they would technically create is another Aasimar or Tiefling based on their bloodline? Also speaking of bloodlines there is one major discrepancy I noticed Umbral dragons do not have cold. They have negative energy for a breath weapon thus the Bloodrager Bloodline list under primal dragons is incorrect.
Yes my research even lead me into the bloodlines of some classes cause I wanted to see if having the blood gave you the race type as well. Unlike Dragon Disciple or Dragon Shaman I did not see this as an issue in the classes. I guess my research was a bit more extensive than I stated earlier, still go look for yourselves if you find this post to be incorrect. Currently I am checking into Monster Templates as well.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
As a GM, I like insinuating powerful monsters or NPCs into the the party without their knowledge, perhaps revealing later the damsel in distress they rescued a few adventures back and who helps them from time to time is really a Succubus who used them to gain a position of power, or one of the character's horses is really a Polymorphed Gold Dragon who wanted to keep an eye on the party or something like that.

In concept the reason I wanna use the succubus is close to your thoughts here. In short she was exiled, Queen is afraid of her being misused to overthrow her in the campaign due to her dragon half making her a bit more powerful.

SheepishEidolon and CBDunkerson both your ideas have merit and I will look into them further. I feel though that doesn't answer my question maybe I need to word it better in the future when I have other questions. I feel CB has the better answer though in regards to my question. This makes me feel that by adding class levels to a base succubus then increasing SR accordingly as follows.

11+CR+Class Levels = SR (Learning a class to hide her true nature and manipulate the party)

I agree leaving the DR alone sounds best as pointed out by Sheepish, and no I have no intention of advancing her to Demon Lord. Since one exist now that would be a rather lengthy campaign of which I am not prepared to run right now if I did. As for manipulation of the party that is a given as this succubus seeks vengeance for her exile. Plus she still has to "lead the group" to the midnight isles if she wishes to return from exile this poses plenty of other issues for the party in question.

I run into this topic a lot lately from other versions of D&D particularly 5e and 3.5e most frequently.

I would like to find a definitive answer if possible or at a minimum a work around that keeps the rules of the Bestiary in mind. The main sources I use are linked below:

So the main concern is the SR and the DR appear to be flat out static in Pathfinder 1e this is further confirmed here,

Most other creatures have variable SR and DR based on HD or class levels. The work around I am working on would take into consideration the CR or the HD of the creature subtract that from the static number then apply the new advanced CR or HD to the base. As for class levels that is an easy add since class levels always give and HD or the level itself counts toward the HD or CR respectively then advancement becomes an easy task.

So let me give you an example of a Succubus SR for starters, and then see what you all think about the final.

The bestiary Succubus has a CR of 7 and 8 HD the static SR is 18 since the succubus has no advancement options class levels appear to be the only way to make it a viable creature in later adventure games.

So is we subtract the CR from the SR that leaves 11 base say we add 5 class levels of Bard then we reapply by adding the CR with the levels thus making her a SR 23.
Conversely if we do HD then we end up with an SR of 23 anyway ((18-8)=10) then (((8+5)+10)=23), so no matter which way you go the SR changes the same amount but CL is effected differently.

CR example of CL (((10+7)+5)=22 CL) vs HD (((10+8)+5)=23 CL).

To be honest I feel either formula is correct but which is better or is this just strictly a house ruling thing at this point?

I feel I should apologize so please excuse my lack of communication skills when putting my thoughts into words.

GM_Solspiral wrote:

Honestly with relatively few restrictions I've managed to make it work at my table.

Here's a link

Anyone else out there letting their players have leadership? Chime in why or why not.

I found your link to be most enlightening and even thought deepening for me. I for one do not find leadership to be an issue, and I am not one to over abuse or use this feat myself as a player. Honestly if a GM bans this feat it is cause they simply do not understand it case in point I have had GM's ban classes for similar reasons. Such as Thrallherd, or the Psion class that deal in constructs which I will admit I kinda abused on a certain GM due to him not taking my advice on Psionics but that was a while ago in 2nd Ed.

I find myself more restrained now a days in the concerns of force multiplying feats and classes. I do still enjoy the leadership feat as both a GM or a Player cause I have tempered my urges from my youth.

GonzDave wrote:
Is this PFS legal to play, and try?

I would assume this has been written in accordance with the paizo rules on open game license as I have seen a number of other pathfinder compatible materials.

To N.Jolly

This looks amazing I am very interested in trying some of these options out soon. I was a huge fan of the Iron Kingdoms books for 3.5 and this fits with that steampunk western feel that I enjoy running as a GM.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
So is the rougarou's bite damage a d6 or a d4 because the creature's stats say d6 but the 0HD rules says d4?

If you look at the back of the Bestiery pg 302 on the chart a medium sized creature will have a 1d6 bite. Thus I would as a DM determine that in humanoid form this bite would remain a d6 as well. This is further Confirmed when you look at the entry for the Wolf pg 278 as a medium size creature which the Rougarou Change shape's into has. Also by the rules for Change Shape pg 298 they retain their stat abilities and gain any Special Qualities of the new form if any which the Wolf has none so they being a wolfen creature themselves would neither lose or gain anything in the wolf form.

This is just my humble opinion based on the rules set for from the Bestiery books and as a DM of 35 plus years.