I am all for that! These are off the top of my head. Sort of roughs and tending towards the epic, I guess. They could easily be less epic.
Meet Najara wrote:
I see this one as something of a war-priest. They remember the sacred, and their life before--but know that the problem lies in the corruption of the Hated One. They must be a beacon to their remaining people, and protect those who still exist--while hunting down the source of Evil.
Meet Erathi wrote:
Here is the start of a hero, who among her people, others have turned away. They've forgotten the purpose of their original gift.
We don't, no.
Kicking things off. Here's a heroic twist on a classic adventuring backstory. I've kept some of the gritty elements, but turned it around.
Meet Mathias wrote:
Not sure what class he is, yet. Maybe y'all have ideas. :D
This article got me thinking:
What if there's a thirst out there for real heroes, who want to do the right thing? Good doesn't mean Nice, but for the sake of this thread, let's say that Good means wanting to do altruistic things. It's the journey there and the character themselves that is the challenge.
If you like, create a HERO. Let's flesh out their backstory, toss in some stats if you like. They can be gritty or bright, but at their core give them that classic "hero quality" of wanting to the right thing. Give them some altruism. Give them some flaws.
I'd love to see what you come up with!
Aside: Evil has too often been seen as a replacement word for "gritty" but we may be seeing a pushback.
If we're to believe the article (and similar ones published in places like Atlantic or comic review sites), we're seeing a thirst for heroes who genuinely...want to be heroes.
Evil doesn't have to be a replacement word for "Gritty" or "Badass." It gets used that way because in part, when we played as kids, we didn't understand what Real Evil was. We understood it meant kicking down buildings and taking names, and who wouldn't want to do that?
Good doesn't mean nice. But maybe as the gaming community ages, we're getting tired of those early, childhood assumptions that it has to be, and that the only way to be Badass is to be Evil.
That may be assuming too much. Either way, let's see how it rides out, eh?
We all started playing as kids, most of us. A kid isn't really going to understand "Evil" in the sense that an adult would. A kid's just going to want to be "that badass dude."
I usually try an experiment. Replace "Evil" on the character sheet with "Badass."
If you could do that, it's more about wanting to be badass than wanting to be Evil. Evil is an entirely separate thing, and you'd probably need a solid group to handle it.
Here is another method: Basically, instead of assuming an agendered person likes knitting or sports, ask what their interests are instead of assigning a template.
In a lump sum, that's what they're asking you to do. Granted, that's what more men and women are doing these days, so in the larger scope, it is less of a deal.
Tossing a proposal out there: the agendered person probably knows who they are at this point. They're...Sam, or Giana, or whatever. When an agendered tells you, "I am Sam" or "I am Giana," that is what they mean.
The only confusion would be on the parts of other people, and that is where the drama comes in, if any. Since Golarion isn't gender-unfriendly, it's not that big of an issue. So yeah, some confusion might arise, but a simple correction would do.
In the real world, the hardest thing to communicate is that from the agendered's view: "I am me, myself." From THEIR point, it is the outside world who makes too big a deal about gender.
So their response could be: "Just let me be me. I'm a doctor, a lawyer." For a binary person, they're a "male doctor or a female lawyer" and gender is intrinsically part of that makeup. In contrast, the agendered is saying, "...let me be that doctor or that lawyer, instead of saying I must be a female doctor, or female lawyer."
Ofc, on Golarion, we don't have to worry about that. I suspect it'll be less of a thing with the millineal generation coming forward, too.
1. Echoing the add diverse XP awards.
It makes undead more terrifying.
The other players still get their thrill, but you get more of the dynamics you are looking for. If an enemy routes--the fun is in making then route say. ...unless they really, really want a chase scene.
There are many species, aye. The other thing to remember is, the rulebook is huge and even developers can misunderstand particular points of it. So to can rules lawyers. I've found that a rules lawyer mindset can lend itself to misunderstanding.
That is, the same focus that has them so intently delving into the rules also drives their conviction. Conviction in this case can also lead to large blind spots.
So, be polite and see if things can be worked out. Anything outside of direct survival, if it cannot be determined with sources in under a minute, can be discussed afterwards, in order to keep things moving. If they get too intense and become so to the point of being antisocial--you are there to have fun with your kid.
I wanted to echo this, as well as offer a bit more. Fewer folks are asked to leave the games I run other than rules lawyers. This is not because of their enthusiasm for the rules, but for loudness and antisocialness that irritates other players to an extreme degree. While we try to work with everyone, now and then, the regrettable happens and a person may be asked to leave.
For example, I had one guy follow me around with CHARTS. He did not understand what he was doing wrong--he was so wrapped up in making his point that he did not understand when I told him that he was no longer welcome at my and others' tables.
I had another incident where someone would spam an email account with thesis-length essays on rules clarifications. When a ruling did not go their way, they tried spamming other people, as well. He would then take to tables and attempt to begin shouting matches between himself and the GM or himself and other players.
I do understand you.
If the cavernshark's idea does not work, it may be possible to establish a "working things out later, in order to keep things running smoothly" policy. I am not sure if PFS allows this, but it is one time-honored way of keeping a game moving along, without things getting sidelined overmuch.
In the end though, there are always going to be some folks who will just irritate the tarnation out of people no matter what. It is not your job to teach these folks how to behave around others--instead, it is within reason as an adult, to have the expectation that they will behave as another adult.
Also, if they are upsetting your game, they are likely upsetting others at the table as well. This means that other GMs and so forth have probably had experience with them. It may be possible to speak with a local captain or so on, and discover if this person's behavior is a known, local issue. They may be able to offer you advice on how they have handled it at their table in a way that is beneficial to everyone.
My least favorite is tied:
Favorite is also tied:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Man, I would be willing to put up with that. A cleric domain is still a domain for example. Specific references would work out fine, but overall the rules would be clearer and better-presented.
The inherited murk is, I imagine, Pathfinder's Achilles' Heel. With the number of times I have heard "I would like Pathfinder 2.0 just to be a streamlined version of Pathfinder," I imagine it to be doubly true. It is not Paizo's fault, to reiterate. The conversion was hell on their staff, and there was just no time to do so.
Yet, it would be wonderful to go in there with a rake. It would make life better for old and especially new, players alike.
And @JN, good to know. Thank you!
What is the possibility of the CRB getting a technical writing reform, on par with the Beginner Box?
One of the greater obstacles in joining a PF game for the first time is the amount of text and organizational murk in the CRB that Pathfinder inherited. This is NOT Paizo's fault--that they produced Pathfinder on the schedule they did is nothing short of amazing. Heaven knows the toll it took on their staff.
Cleaning up the language, format, and streamlining where rules are located would be a great help. I'm reminded of how d20srd.org became such a mainstay of the 3.0-3.5 days. Many users on the forums have also wished for a "Pathfinder 2.0" to just be a cleaned-up version of the CRB.
Alternately, is there a crowd source for this, or a 3PP?
I am not sure you do. Think of it this way: they are saying that an act which is evil cannot be NOT evil. There are still different sizes of evil, but it does not change that they are evil, and not neutral or good. They're not actually arguing that there are not DEGREES of evil, just that evil cannot be well, not-evil.
A good analogy could be French fries. For example, you can have a small, medium, or super-sized bag of French fries served to you at McDonald's. Yet, B&W morality states that they're ALL French fries.
...just in different sizes, but that they are French fries does not change. It's part of the nature of fries too, that there can be a bunch of them or just a few.
Gray morality though, is like the dieter who looks at the different sizes available to them at McDonald's. They consider that because it is a SMALL sack of French fries after all, and that since the fries are made out of potatoes, you really could consider them a vegetable and therefore healthy.
I would echo the possession aspect. Also, you might want to clarify if you are looking for more camp/Hollywood, or actual vodou. I'm assuming the latter, based on comments.
I used to have a host of resources on the subject that I'd scrounged for my RPGs, but they're off in a shelf somewhere. One in particular that I remember was Mama Lola: A Vodou Priestess in Brooklyn.
Roll up something else, this is never going to work.
I almost have to agree here. Sounds like very different playstyles.
It is possible--possible--that you could bring in something from an external source such as the United States' IHL Guidelines that lists acceptable and unacceptable means of combat between countries, definition of civilians, what is and is appropriate in terms of tactics against the enemy, and discuss having your PC use that as a guideline.
If that source does not work, peruse the others and see if any speak to you and your table. In any case, an outside source may help your argument. Also, treating ooc issues as ooc issues--which it sounds like this is. You need to discuss playstyle and preferences. Alignment and character actions are just a symptom of that, not the source.
Why is it so difficult to determine what has Lawful and / or Chaotic alignments, but so easy to determine Good and Evil alignments?
* Law is an outdated name. For today's geeks, "Order" would make more sense. In popular fiction, we read about arcane forces of chaos, or order. We don't read about law so much.
* It becomes tied to political/ethical stances. Communism v. capitalism, anarchy v. everything else, and so on.
...but really the first one. I believe we could clean up so much just by bringing the language into the common era.
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
If it doesn't state it, then the Bloodrager is CL4. Not sure why.
They were trying this to see if it would work. In theory, then, the CLs for Ranger and Paladin should also have the -3 removed (if this experiment was successful), but I have not seen an update for that.
It is probably reasonable enough to house rule though.
What could work is to look at different cultural models, as well.
Certain Eastern cultures can place greater emphasis on group harmony, and American values had more "group values" emphasis, historically speaking. When you saw this begin to change is in the 1940s.
Alternately, transform the "placing the greater good of the whole" phrasing into "care for others," which is seen in many charity organizations, such as those that care for the poor. To do so, they are more effective through organization, and are able to use those resources to aid those less fortunate. If you take this concept and make it wider, you have an argument for good governance, which is at the heart of many philosophical doctrines.
Aligning Chaos with American-style Freedom is going to create fewer options for players, because it casts anything opposite it into Totalitarianism. I know someone might read this and go, "but why would anyone do that? It's a fantasy game!" I am not the only one who sees this (re: Chaos == American Freedom), and it's something that once you DO see, it's almost impossible to UNsee.
I find myself wishing more than once that Paizo could have renamed "Law" to "Order." It's better terminology, provides a clearer image, better options, fewer arguments about "you must do everything the law says" and provides a more colorful balance to Chaos with greater options for the player.
It also seems to fit the OP's post a bit well, better.
I thought you might respond with something like this. The idea that because Paizo is based in the US, that Chaos should == American Freedom.
I'm glad someone other than me sees the Chaos == America! though. It can be frustrating! Seeing Chaos == America tends towards redefining it as the Ultimate Good, and can quickly run into political views. Chaos == America! then repaints Law as, to borrow your phrasing, Totalitarianism. That is, if Chaos is American Freedom, then Law must be its opposite.
Chaos == America can easily limit choices in this way, rather than expanding on them. It can also bring in undesired political overtones to what should be a fun, fantasy game.
Myself, the America! overtones of Chaos is one reason to clarify it in my own games to something that more clearly says, 'This is a fantasy game.' Or, one that offers benefits to either side of the scale, and encourages a choice and perhaps, debate that doesn't center on real life politics.
I appreciate the OP's work in that regard, as well as the nod towards 1e. There are some wonderful elements in our older systems (and their share of toads, too).
Andre Roy wrote:
It might offer an opportunity then, for a less 'US-centric' version of the gods. One of the things I have never enjoyed is how Chaos = American Freedom. Or, it could just offer an opportunity to go back to the roots.
To the OP: Love what you're doing. Thank you for sharing.
1. All unchained classes applicable.
...I'd like to roll in the automatic bonus progression, but I'm not yet prepared to address all of those price adjustments, since I have a long list of allowed MIs.
Part of this dovetails into "how do enchantments on shields work pricewise, when you can enchant a shield as both a weapon and a shield?" ...which I have never found a consensus on.
Sorry. Never meant it that way. I just get stuck in robot mode after dealing with rulesmurk and forget to be a real person.
Grapples isn't the same as Pinned. A creature can attack when only Grappled (and not Pinned) IF:* They are using a one-handed or natural weapon
* They attack at -2
So, a creature with natural attacks could use all of them at -2. Likewise, a guy with a dagger can stab away at -2, but the greatsword user is out of luck.
This is from: "In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform."
And: "A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple."
When considering any action, you are required to ask if it is purely mental or verbal, or if it falls under the spells or SLA ruling. It's permissive in that sense.
A Su ability that involves a touch attack for example, is obviously not going to be only a mental or a verbal action. It involves a physical action, so therefore is not available to the pinned creature, as SKR's post says.
Since he was the Paizo "rules guy" at the time of the posting, I am inclined to go with him.
From a thread in 2013:
The list of what you are able to do while pinned is deliberately restrictive. The subject may be forced onto their face and arms twisted behind their back. It is more severe than grappled.
You are able to use a Supernatural ability if it is purely a mental or verbal action. Not all are (see discussion and last post). It depends on the description of the ability, and GM interpretation.
Other than that, I believe you are restricted to the list given. That is, for each action that is not a spell or SLA, you must ask: is the action purely mental or verbal? Attacking is physical, and does not fall into this category.
For spells and SLAs, you follow the rules given.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
...pretty much this. I'm going to go ahead and include this as well:
Consider your table.
Slavery as a topic in RPGs can quickly veer into Creepy Guy territory. I've had to boot at least two guys when they started going on about the virtues of slavery, how Roman slavery was honorable, how most slaves LIKED their get, and by the way could one of them have a female slave?
Did I mention the women at the table, and many of the men, were creeped out?
Be careful with this topic. Even if you don't see it as creepy, arguing passionately for it at the table can easily label you as That Creepy Guy that No One Wants to Invite Back.
Freehold DM wrote:
This is very true. Polygymy is also a means of SOCIAL CONTROL, not only of women but also young males. If the Authority has control over who, when, and how many you can marry, they have control over the young males. Females become a form of currency/control.
There are some fascinating essays on this.
More attempts to pin this down, haha. Suffocation would appear to work due to exhale being specificity called out. However, supernatural abilities in general are not so clear.
The pinned condition states that the creature is limited to mental and verbal actions, and non somatic spells. The text is a little hard to quote on a phone.
Apparently some supernatural abilities qualify as purely mental and verbal, but not a all. skr reply here.
Translation : the use of a su ability while pinned will rely on the description of the ability and gm call. Supernatural abilities are also not clear cut. Cackle requires a verbal component for example -- it does not work in silence. Other supernatural abilities require a touch attack or presenting a holy symbol.
In a pin, your face could be forced against the ground and your arms twisted painfully behind you. That is why the list is so narrowly defined.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Look up the Maasai as well. Pretty healthy folk. "This close to starving" isn't that true everywhere. Granted, in the US we may be biased in our outlook--we shoved them from lands where they knew how to adjust and get food readily, and from good lands, to the starving outbacks, basically.
You might check this out. While not a PF source, by reports it is well-researched.
A few more sources:
* List of facts on the Aztec
As an aside, the Conquistadors make great inspirations for evil villains and PCs. We are talking, "pull a small boy of under the age of 4 aside, cut off a slice of his flesh to test your knife and for funsies, then watch him run screaming and laugh, then record it in bragging terms in your journal" Evil.
It was bad enough that it pit them against the Jesuits, who would work to salvage native peoples from their cruelty. They were not without fault themselves, of course.
...but, you are talking evil in the sense of cutting off childrens' hands, cutting out a pound of flesh, and then laughing as they run away, the turning tribe-against-tribe, and the deliberate spread of sickness with the intent to kill, sexual assault, subjugation and slavery, and perhaps just for giggles. Mothers at the time were not unknown to drown their children rather than risk such a fate. Reading their journals is a good source for inspiration on "how to play evil" although I suggest chugging some Mylanta along with portions of them.
If you want "primitive" in general, I would suggest checking out the anthropology section of a book store (esp one near a campus) and seeing what you can pick up for a few bucks. Great stuff there.
What you might do is start with their faith and lifestyle, and just "see how that makes them a people."
I'm still hoping for a blog post on grapple and pinned. Some day...! It is a complex enough topic involving many, many flow charts, custom writeups, and more.
In the meantime, suffocation effects should prevent any use of breath weapon:
Breath weapon: Some creatures can exhale a cone, line, or cloud of energy or other magical effects. A breath weapon attack usually deals damage and is often based on some type of energy. Breath weapons allow a Reflex save for half damage (DC 10 + 1/2 breathing creature's racial HD + breathing creature's Con modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature's descriptive text). A creature is immune to its own breath weapon unless otherwise noted. Some breath weapons allow a Fortitude save or a Will save instead of a Reflex save. Each breath weapon also includes notes on how often it can be used, even if this number is limited in times per day.
If nothing can be inhaled either through natural lungs or some sort of internal bellows system, it cannot be exhaled.
Here is what I can tell you from experience, after Unchained was published:
o I now recommend the monk to new players. It is solid, and well-crafted. The mechanics better match its theme. New and old players alike will have trouble going wrong. With the old monk, new players would read the theme, pile dex...
o The new barbarian has a stronger, more well-built chassis. The play is smoother. Barbarians join the ranks of swashbuckler and paladin for martial classes that have some form of damage mitigation. Most complaints about them can easily be fixed through the addition of more rage powers.
o The original summoner was an interesting class that broke new ground in a lot of ways. It always needed a 2.0.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
I get you. Yeah, I never meant to come across that you were uncreative. Anyone involved in RPGs is going to be, and I suspect you have creativity in spades. I may have misread part of your post, too. I really apologize for that.
What I am trying to say is that the pushback you received about optimization is often related to how optimization-related arguments and statements have been presented in the past.
While some optimizers give good, kind and well-worded advice. ...there tend to be a set who push too far, unintentionally. I have encountered the second example in that list I gave many times and the first many more often than that. As often as not, the statements were well-intended. The optimizers in question were trying to help and were honestly puzzled why others rejected their help, or why the pro-optimizing statements were seen as offensive.
As a coder friend once explained to me: "It's obvious. Why WOULDN'T you want to do that?" They went on to say that of course someone would want the optimal build in order to have the most fun because it was the logical thing to do. He would get caught up in the details, and 3E encourages a sort of mathematical character-building game as well as the traditional adventure module. It is easy to get caught up in that and admittedly, can be a lot of fun. It can also be very creative.
It took a long time before he was able to sit back and say, "I understand that others don't want the most optimal build. It isn't logical to me, but I have to be okay with that." Many times, we would need to take him aside at the table and explain why steam was coming out of someone's ears.
He was a genuinely good and creative person. He volunteered to bring snacks if people requested it, or if someone said "can I get help with X?" However, he would get caught up in character optimization and was unable to understand others' emotional reactions. He genuinely thought he was helping them. To be fair, it took me a while to see this as well because I too, would be angry because I thought he was being condescending, insulting, or so on.
It turns out that he was trying to be forthright and honest.
He is not the only person who "gets caught up" that I have met or had at the table, and I suspect he is far from the last. He himself later told me he was along the spectrum, and many of the optimizers I knew who tended to "get into trouble" were as well.
However, not all. Others were not on the spectrum, but were just so focused that they missed social cues entirely. It is possible to do that.
I suspect the kind of focus that it takes to get into that level of character optimization encourages that "so caught up I forget to read why others get upset" mindset because boy do I run into it a lot.
Much of the advice may be well-intended. I would go with a polite but clear: "no thank you" or "thank you for the advice, but I would like to focus on something else" or "thank you, but my goal is different" and move on. In the case of the coder friend, if you engaged him on a point of argument, he would become concerned that you were not seeing his point at ALL and he must convince you. It was very important to him.
He was also concerned that you would not have as much fun as you could. The result of this is that the argument will ESCALATE. It will escalate out of well-meaning intentions and a wont to be understood.
Basically, if that sort of "escalation" happens to you, express your gratitude, politely let them know that you'll consider their advice but that your goal/etc. is probably different, and then move on.
I have had way too many conversations like this in the past several months...into the past several decades. The bottom line is: a number of the more driven pro-optimizers end up missing social cues. Some are along spectrum (and have told me so) but not all are. They just for one reason or another, get so caught up that they fail to see the hurt and frustration coming from someone else.
When cues like that are missed, it tends to leave a feeling of anger or upset behind. Because, I suspect, this situation happens more often with pro-optimization mindsets/discussions, that anger and upset becomes associated with optimization in general.
Again, these honestly good and damn creative people who are trying to help. It just comes across not as they'd intended.
Often it isn't "optimization" but the perceived attitude that comes from how the demand for optimization is handled, socially. For example, the phrases:
* You're responsible for our party's TPK if you don't make x, y, or z as choices
...are off-putting. These and similar phrases are often given with honest sincerity by the individual giving them. I repeat: honest sincerity.
With autism, it is very possible to get caught up in the numerical details and a perceived goal of the game. The idea of making someone's character for them so it's "done right, so they will have more fun" can seem logically helpful. Emotionally, it fails to take into account the other person's feelings.
I suspect that disconnect may play a role here. It may also play a role with many conversations about optimization where they have seemed to go off the rails. I have had many, many conversations into the night where I have had to sit aside with someone with autism and explain why they need to let others make their own choices, or learn to phrase things in a different way.
I would estimate that this has happened at least three times in the last two months. These are brilliant, kind people. There is however, that disconnect that can put them at odds unintentionally.
What I WOULD suggest is stepping away from "optimizing" and anything else for a while, and to give this a read. It may give you a better way to approach these conversations. It may also give you a better measure. For example, the book outlines several rules for social interaction, that were written by someone with autism. If you see someone arguing for optimization and see that they are violating these rules, you can be sure that the audience will become upset or even angry.
I've been interested in a good, open conversion of this class for some time. The link didn't work for me, but that isn't surprising given it's a few years late!
Here's an initial attempt. The idea is that the spirit guide for these shamans could be ancestral, or tied to their homeland or tribe--hence the bloodline angle.
Granted, it is more of a hybrid conversion and likely needs some powering-down, but it is a start.
I would have to agree with this summary, in general. It isn't as much about "healbot" as it is being asked to be a nursemaid.
In one of the worst cases of it, I had a player try cussing me out once because I wouldn't heal them. Well, they were also cussing out my PC's deity...but the basic "you're here to support me" mindset was there.
Derek Dalton wrote:
Hey, there. Are you sure you are not reading your own experiences into the OP's question? Or that you are not answering a "to Minmax or not Minmax" argument instead of providing help?
At the moment, I am reading that things are coming down to: Him vs Him, Him, Her, Her, and Him, with the one person causing disruption at the table and arguing with the DM--even breaking the game to do so.
I'm sorry you have a player who feels he has to corner/challenge the GM. That's no fun. Even less fun is play being bogged down by rules arguments when you'd like to focus on the game. Even less fun is when those rules arguments are slowing down play for four other players, and yourself. It boils down to: Him vs Him, Him, Her, Her, and Him.
I'd suggest taking this to the rpg.net forums or a different site. I love Paizo to pieces. Their forums tend to be crunchier than most, though. This has its strengths. If you're looking for more management advice, it can be found here, but will often get bogged down with the classic minmaxers aren't bad! versus yes they are! versus Let's qualify that. That's what is happening above, and "let's qualify what minmaxing is" is really tangential to your question.
So I'd head there, or perhaps a different forum and frame your question as a social and group issue at the table. There's no need to even bring up the system really, as this sounds firmly like a player issue.
GMs have been handling issues like these since time immortal. It's group management.
Third Mind wrote:
IIRC, there are rules for lessening the crafting time via a Spellcraft check. It's been a while since I looked at them, though.
I suppose it depends on your interpretation of things. I've played a paladin who did something like that, with the purpose of intimidating his primary foes (demons).
...in order to keep them out of a vulnerable area. It was very much like marking territory, so that he didn't have to work as hard.
Now, they weren't on pikes out at the village square. He just collected now and then, and let natural gossips do the rest. That what gossip do.
Now, that might not fly at all tables. I probably wouldn't play at those tables.
This will not help with PFS, but from what I recall, one of the developers house-ruled the -3 away for rangers in his home campaigns. He said it worked out fairly well.
The various -3s are something I'd have loved to see addressed in Unchained, too! Maybe next time?