TheCowardlyLion's page

Also not sure where you're seeing a holy symbol of Desna? The angel on her belt has been there since 1E, and isn't particularly butterfly shaped.

oh wow good catch, I honestly never noticed that. Guess cause of the angle.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

pixierose wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

the thaumaturge is so good though aaah that's heartbreaking! We clearly need more thaumaturge content. We need to revive its image. We need to bring back the thaumaturge iconic, and bring them back hotter, sexier, more covered in insane paraphernalia.

I for 1 support this agenda!!!

cover them in candles! there aren't enough candles!

I maybe just be playing too much WoW, but this just made me think of the current Kobold questlines they have out now.So many cool Candle mogs.... Now I need Candle armor in pathfinder... hmm.

No such thing as too much Skitter.

With Imrijka's color change, does that mean that *all* vindicators of Pharasma have that color scheme? Since it was canonized by Wes that her outfit was the standard uniform of Pharasmin vindicators?

Or that she switched Faiths? Since that's a sacred symbol of Desna she's rocking.

It happens when the review is removed (like in the case of the review having slurs in it) or the account that posted the review being deleted.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

I didn't think they were malicious -- I thought they were doing this at legal gunpoint.

As it happens, WotC backed down on the OGL changes that spawned any sort of legal gunpoint concept.

That's noteworthy because "what if they try again?"

Well...

They tried another unwanted change, got negative feedback, and backed down. And much faster than last time.

It's almost like they've learned not to alienate players.

Obviously not since, well, they did it again.

"School of making deals with fiends" is proooooooobably not the ones you wanna invite to Sarkoris.

@Peacelock

*nods*

While i disagree with that claim obviously i certainly won’t deny the boon the 3pp stuff was (and is), especially given the shunt to online play overall during that time.

You made the claim that Paizo would have outright failed without these. That’s the hyperbole.

Paizo owes the CUP everything. They often say how PF2E’s success saved the company, but the tools created under CUP are what saved PF2E from failing amidst the pandemic. And in the future, no new ones can be created.

That is a very bold claim.

Were these programs helpful to those who used them? Yes, but i think you’re vastly overestimating how many people used them, or that they were required to play.

Spreading this sort of impassioned hyperbole doesn’t really help anyone.

For those of us who aren't lawyers, why exactly are "Vesk" and "solarian" allowed when "Drift" isn't?

The latter is more or a less a unique specific thing whereas Vesk are not and Solarion is a grouping of mechanics, if I were to guess.

Forcing a GM to come up with some "erroneous knowledge" is one of the worst mechanics of PF2. As a GM it feels like garbage, especially when I can't come up with a good lie at the drop of a hat so I come up with something and the players just laugh at the obvious fake info. It's like what was the point? Making the monkey GM dance so you can point and laugh? Having a heritage or background drop Dubious Knowledge in your lap feels somehow worse than getting nothing at all.

Please just pretend this feat doesn't exist in Starfinder, and let us get back to ignoring the critical failure effect of Recall Knowledge as well.

Counter:

Misinfosphere

"Your class will be near-guaranteed to die if you take them to this game"

”Your class from a different system and setting might have issues” would be more accurate.

Goblins and Kobolds are nothing alike though in presentation and culture and how they’re represented as NPCs and (from personal experience) how they’re played.

s'all good

You know you can just say you hate the Interrogation Investigator and don't want it in your games. It's ok. We won't judge you.

Throwing out ad homimems just make you look ridiculous.

I don't know why multiple people are operating under the assumption that I would never have the targeted npc lie or give up info, when I never claimed that.

I also don't understand the hostility towards me by you lot but this feels like it stopping being about the Investigator awhile ago.

Did you read the ability?

Whether it answers truthfully or not, you clean something from its body language, and it is off-guard to the Strike you make using Devise a Stratagem against it before the end of your turn.

The choice is actually to answer one question or lie.

And an answer you don't like is still an answer.

Elfteiroh wrote:

Ed Reppert wrote:

If WOTC owns IP rights to the word "focus" in the sense of an item used to aid in casting a spell, then IP law is seriously fscked and needs to be corrected.

Note: "focus" is defined similarly to "locus" on page 303 of the Core Rulebook.

The word "focus" is Latin for "domestic hearth". "Locus" is Latin for "place". My dictionary has definitions for both, but does not suggest a meaning in a magical context for either. However, "focus" is a lot closer than "locus" to the intended meaning.

It's less specific elements, and more an percentage of them. Like, if WotC sue that Pathfinder as a whole is too similar to D&D, and present to the courts 50 instances of similarities, or if they manage to present 200 similarities, the latter case have WotC more likely to win.

There's some similarities that would be very hard to remove, like "having casting classes, some being named Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, Cleric, and Bard". It's way easier to rename focus and some other singular terms.

At one point, you really want to get down to like 50 similarities, but you're still at like 54... There are some choice that must be done. So you rename Focus component to Locus, you rename mithril to dawnsilver, Attack of Opportunity to Reactive Strike, and Flat-Footed to Off-Guard. While you manage to keep a couple of other seemingly random ones.

So yeah. The problem is not "Focus component" as a singular thing, but as a part of the whole.
Another problem is that nobody know the "minimum" percentage that can "pass". It's always dealt "case by case", and two different judges could also have different pivot points (or other person/group responsible to make that decision). So you always want the smallest amount of similarities.

(Note: all the numbers used are random and only for illustrative purposes.)

But the terms Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, Cleric, and Bard were around long before the grandparents of anyone ever involve3d in D&D were born. Pretending that those...

You missed the "part of the whole" part

Well, you'd be the first person who's said that to me. Literally every single time I've presented the two side-by-side the person I'm showing immediately recognized they are very much the same ship. The Revolution just has the side pods cut off, the front cockpit glass colored to grey, and greebling added. They are the same ship.

…

They are not.

You are being awfully carefree throwing out these accusations baselessly.

TheCowardlyLion wrote:

Got any sources for the claim that Paizo/Starfinder is stealing art?

Look through the starships in SOM: many of them are bad Photoshops of stuff taken from other properties.

Prime example #1: the Redshift Revolution, SOM p85 is a bad photoshop of Star Citizen's RSI Apollo medical ship; they didn't even change the ship's colour.

Had to borrow/bug a friend to see the ships in question since i don’t own the book and your “prime example”… looks nothing alike, the only thing they DO have in common is the color.

Edit: also compared your Justicar and Serenity, they have absolutely nothing in common, at all.

I’m not gonna go through the entire list (if someone else wants to feel free), but two prominent “examples”… aren’t.

You made very serious accusations and have just your fumes to back them up, not a good look.

Got any sources for the claim that Paizo/Starfinder is stealing art?

TheCowardlyLion wrote:

The GM shouldn’t screw over the player, likewise the player shouldn’t try to screw the game and treat this ability as mind control with every use granting a binary of “divulge all plot information” or lose a turn.

Well certainly not--but that's not an accurate reading of what I said, either. I grant you it's the last paragraph you missed, but then it's not as though the question of action costs was particularly pertinent to my case.

Apologies, that was more in response to the thread as whole spun off from your snippet i quoted, rather than all directed at you.

if all the creatures you encounter are going to subvert your class features by saying 'screw you' when you ask questions,

And they should not.

As mentioned on a previous post this is up to the GM and the context of each situation and character when the ability is used.

The GM shouldn’t screw over the player, likewise the player shouldn’t try to screw the game and treat this ability as mind control with every use granting a binary of “divulge all plot information” or lose a turn.

An answer you don’t like is still an answer.

Are people still really trying to argue that some variation of "I will not answer your question" is definitely answering the question? Are you all actually that hostile with your players when you GM?

Like dude just ban the feat if you're that mad about the investigator interrogating someone for information.

There’s no need for insults (pot kettle hostile something something), and im certainly not the one mad here.

But we are obviously working on vastly different definitions of “direct answer/response”.

TheCowardlyLion wrote:

It’s not vacuous at all, especially when the player is trying to weasel through the rule text for a gotcha.

A “direct response” is literally and exactly that, “must tell the truth or lie with no inbetween” is a restriction of your own making, it’s not mind control.

A simple “screw you” will suffice.

Do Fighters also lose proficiency in weapons? Rogues don't deal Sneak Attack because the enemies didn't feel like it? Because those would be equivalent here. Your major class feature doesn't do anything after a successful check.

"I attack. Natural 20!"
"The enemy decides he doesn't feel like being hit right now."

It also doesn't say "direct response," it says "directly answer your question." This ability isn't even that strong, since getting information from successful social checks is normal anyway. Why are people acting like answering a question will ruin everything forever? Heck, "I don't know," is the most common true answer to questions.
The issue at hand is the "Wait, does that technically use up their turn?" thing, not whether the feature does anything at all.

(To which I say, talking isn't a free action because it's instantaneous but because you can do it at the same time as you're doing other things.)

No equivalence, and the hypothetical is about a hostile player gotcha, not someone playing in good faith.

A closer equivalent would be the fighter hitting someone snd then declaring that they bleed to death and die regardless of HP cause they got hit with a sword.

The ability is not a compulsion or mind control.

TheCowardlyLion wrote:

Finoan wrote:

Refusing to answer, or giving an answer (no matter how truthful or not) that has no information at all is not allowed if the Investigator succeeded at the check.

Where is this stated?

It is literally my next sentence. The sentence that you didn't include in your quote of my post.

"That is in fact reducing the result to a failure on the check instead."

TheCowardlyLion wrote:

Quote:

Critical Success The target must directly answer your question. It doesn't have to answer truthfully, but you gain a +4 circumstance bonus to your Perception DC if the creature attempts to Lie to you. Whether it answers truthfully or not, you clean something from its body language, and it is off-guard to the Strike you make using Devise a Stratagem against it before the end of your turn.

Success As critical success, but the circumstance bonus to your Perception DC is +2.

The part that you also didn't put in your quote of the Pointed Question rules.

Pointed Question wrote:

Failure The creature can refuse to answer you as normal.

… we are talking about two completely different things/talking past each other.

Refuse to answer to me would mean not responding at all.

Refusing to answer, or giving an answer (no matter how truthful or not) that has no information at all is not allowed if the Investigator succeeded at the check.

Where is this stated?

Critical Success The target must directly answer your question. It doesn't have to answer truthfully, but you gain a +4 circumstance bonus to your Perception DC if the creature attempts to Lie to you. Whether it answers truthfully or not, you clean something from its body language, and it is off-guard to the Strike you make using Devise a Stratagem against it before the end of your turn.

Success As critical success, but the circumstance bonus to your Perception DC is +2.

But a simply "Screw you!" if neither truthful to the question you mowst likely asked or a lie because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand causing the *Investigator to know you're lying because of the context the only problem is :ying takes 3 actions aka 1 round.

Not how that works, “screw you” is apropos and truthful, if anything.

It has to be truthful or has to be lie is a fabricated restriction.

It just has to be a direct response. It’s on the GM for said response to make sense given the situation and character.

It’s not vacuous at all, especially when the player is trying to weasel through the rule text for a gotcha.

A “direct response” is literally and exactly that, “must tell the truth or lie with no inbetween” is a restriction of your own making, it’s not mind control.

A simple “screw you” will suffice.

Paizo gets a cut of it. An unearned, unnecessary, undue cut.

Who’s IP, system, and setting are you using?

I miss the "founders in charge" era

Lisa and Vic? Yeah i dont miss them at all.

To deny fan art,

where was this stated?

Replying "screw you" is also directly answering.

… i dont think P1 was built to oppose anything. I think it was just made so Paizo could stay in business.

Loooooooooool

Not adressing all of that but, “PF1 outsold DND5” is a fantasy with no basis XD

Not outselling the absolute best selling system in the market is not a failure you seem to think it is.

I am aware, but they were not necessary changes.

You’re mistaken.

Waaait, this is part of the subscription? Got email about order pending

Well, crap, I can't afford 70 dollar purchase this week :'D Crap crap crap

QUICK! Contact CS!

That's how they handled the P2 playtest.

But as always with subs, never sub with the assumption you'll get the pdf early, it's a nice bonus when it happens, but it's not a guarantee.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The nice thing about the Numerian Railgun plan is that cold iron is magnetic (and presumably could be made Holy).

I should hope so. Otherwise whence all those holy avengers?

In DND

Yeah, straightwashing makes people uncomfortable. You playing Quinn doesn’t make Quinn your’s, he’s still Quinn, till you go about editing him and we hap a ship of Theseus situation.

What you’re asking for is what the Iconics are, not have ever been.

They’ve always had backstories and personalities. They’re not a blank set of stats to do whatever with.

They’re premades if you don’t have a character of your own.

To which i then have to ask, why are you playing Quinn if you don’t wanna play Quinn? Make your own investigator to seduce barmaids.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Non-explicit representation doesn't really mean anything in a conversation about public representation.

Also, I know people tend to be kind of bad at checking their tone on the messageboard, but "you do know" is kind of a condescending way to open your message and seems likely to put people in a defensive mindset when replying.

Pathfinder is a role-playing game. Even disregarding that the default assumption is that all characters are (at least potentially) bisexual, telling people you HAVE to play this particular iconic character as gay, trans, bi, or whatever is every bit as problematic as telling them they have to play them as straight.

Is MY Quinn less valid than yours because I seduce the barmaid instead of the barman? This is why the iconics are poor choices for representation, they are EVERYONE'S characters

No, theyre art to show off the class.

Yes you can play Quinn as straight if you choose to.

Doesn’t make it not problematic, and it doesnt make other people bad for being uncomfortable with it.

Also some of the Iconics DO have a stated sexuality rather than all being player viewpoint sexual, such as Quinn and Kyra and Merisiel.

So it’d be closer to say bi until stated otherwise, which i believe was always Paizo’s stance.

Well it was frustrating for me to find out that buying the PDF and module separately (19.99+14$ is cheaper than this bundle.

Tl;DR Buy them separate, not bundled.

There goes 3$ haha

?

The price for the module separately is $16, so about a dollar more all together, unless there was a price difference/sale here or Foundry's site recently (I'm not the most knowledgeable on these things I fully admit).

Also “removed” would mean it was there in the first place and taken out after the fact.

exequiel759 wrote:

Alucard is a magus. I don't think that would be a controversial take (he is well versed in both martial combat and magic, as well as inteligent. All things that a magus is. I even think his videogame counterpart is even closer to the magus, with the laughing shadow's focus spell being one of the most common Alucard moves).

I don't know why you think magus sucks tho. Its the best nova damage dealer in the system and a solid martial overall. If you don't want magus for whatever reason, any class fits really. A vampire / dhampir has a very broad range of abilities that are associated with them to the point I could easily see any class as a dhampir and it would fit nicely.

I think magus sucks cause people keep saying it does cause it doesn't have some specific abilities in 2e that would need to be "legacy content"? Something about lacking cantrips?

So, you don’t know?

Mika Hawkins wrote:

Announced for November! Product image and description are NOT final and may be subject to change.

If I buy the hardcover do I get a PDF too?

No, the free pdf is a perk for Subscriptions, not simply buying the book.

You necroed a thread to talk about alignment, are you aware they removed it in the Remaster?

And as the Champion Remaster preview shows we more or less are getting "neutral" options for them.

Do you get a free PDF with the special edition ribbon book?

The Free PDF is part of the subscriptions, not on buying the book by itself.

"Dae is a solarian. At the time of their birth, they miraculously manifested a stellar mote."

I'm not sure I like this miracle. Philosophy is not hereditary.

Magical black hole/supernova powers go a biiiiit beyond a philosophy.

Just like Wizards babies showing an aptitude for magic after they're born.