The Red Mage's page

...And look, I'm not an expert on psychology or mental illness. I have no formal training and do not experience any mental illnesses myself...

It is much more likely that a psychopath would worship Rovagug than someone without that condition. A lack of empathy, amoral tendencies, and violent trends make it more likely a person will do physical harm to others than someone without those conditions. Bizarre and extreme philosophical beliefs also point in the direction of that sort of mental illness. A worshiper of Rovagug, as presented, meets both criteria.

Representation here matters, and the presentation of "madness" in this context is lazy and dishonest at best, and actively damaging (physically, mentally, and socially) to those who suffer stigma for their mental illness(es) at worst.

It is intellectually dishonest to assume all people who suffer from the stigma of a mental illness are necessarily offended or harmed by "fantasy madness". With some basic understanding of tropes and context, a reasonable person would not necessarily be taken aback by these terms. The writers do assume most readers will be reasonable, rational people, and that's their call.

As a sufferer of a mental illness (a severe chemical mood disorder), I am neither offended by "fantasy madness" nor do I think it contributes to any social harm. Real social harm comes from a lack of recognition that mental illnesses are also physical, chemical illnesses that should included with any other illness as an important part of overall healthcare.

In my opinion, you're expressing a totalitarian viewpoint on what a writer can and cannot say based on well-meaning but ill-conceived notions of social harm. Taking offense to something does not automatically make it a valid offense. "Madness" in the context of a fantasy roleplaying setting based on time-tested sword and sorcery tropes isn't. I'd rather you be offended and choose not to use that section of material than eliminate an inoffensive tidbit.

20 million arrows.

Let them fight in the shade!

Easiest way to solve this problem:

Cut the brake lines or puncture them for a small leak (harder to notice at first.) Don't forget to shred up the cable of the emergency brake- that's a rookie mistake.

Another prediction: a completely spell-less ranger with an animal companion on par with a druid and nifty hunting tricks. You could call it the Hunter! Totally spell-less though. You know, cuz when I think of a word as catch-all and archetypal as hunter, I don't think of spells. But that's an obvious one.

No, I mean, that's the actual flavor text.

"You are faster than most."

I assume you don't allow blood money or simulacrum at your tables either.

People allow blood money and simulacrums at their tables? Whoa.

I sure hope they don't do anything silly like make a class that combines the best mechanics of the wizard and the sorcerer without their inherent weaknesses, minmaxing your character before you even pick your spells.

That would be pretty silly.

They're releasing an advanced class guide? Cool!

Predictions: awesome new Style Feats, a repeal of the Crane Wing errata, errata that allows Vital Strike to be used with Spring Attack and charging, powerful rogue talents, lots of tasty archetypes, a handful of setting-neutral prestige classes, and maybe even a brand new base class (something we've never seen before, like an engineer or something), and no caster power creep at all.

And now I'm whining. . . you can't just accept my opinion that I LIKE THE GAME THE WAY IT IS AND DON'T WANT WIZARDS NERFED TO THE GROUND and move on?

Dude, if you like the game how it is, don't buy this hypothetical 2e that has reasonable casters and less exponential caster progression.

Just because you hate wizards why do you insist on trying to force them to be taken away from everyone else?

Why is the way me and my group have fun wrong?

How is it that the two players at my table who play almost exclusively martials and often actual fighters have never had a problem with "OP Wizards" that would require some new edition where Wizards can't be player?

Balance out the most overpowered class a little to stabilize the game at higher levels = hating wizards.

One group's fun = better than game design.

Two outlier players who enjoy playing gimped classes = everyone enjoys it.

Troll detected?

No bandaids for martial characters, or giving them resource management abilities that are spells by another name, or just giving them a bunch of overwhelming static bonuses.

Just redo the core magic system. That's where the problem of 3.x lies in the first place. As long as magic works the way it does, PF will always be lopsided. I'm tired of the "I have a spell for that" situation that makes careful skill allocation redundant. Magic will still be just better. But it doesn't need to be this good.

Edit: I'm not suggesting I don't like the martial/vancian divide. It's one of the things I love about all pre-4e editions of the game and it's always made the system unique, though your mileage may vary on whether or not vancian casting is a pain. I really enjoy its versatility. I just don't think spells need to be so powerful.

i want a human loligoth iconic

Oh god.

I'm a little sick of the d8 3/4 BAB classes, a few instant classics in the last few years notwithstanding.

I would love to see a prepared divine caster with no armor and 1/2 BAB. If anything, it's a niche that has never been filled and it would be a worthwhile challenge to design IMO.

Prices for large mundane purchases (building materials or even entire building/room module types) are sorely needed, as are prices for plots of land.

Also, more personal hygiene items!

I second flaming arrows/Greek fire.

Ah, but even if there is no rolling, a person playing a low charisma character shouldn't be playing them as a high charisma character. That isn't accurate roleplaying.

Red mage, you have never had a player try to bluff another player or win an argument against another pc involving an npc or a crowd?

Hmm, maybe I am gaming with chaotics.

I'm not into roleplaying strictly according to stats. The mechanical effects of your ability scores already have impact, and I wouldn't want to limit someone's fun if they wanted to roleplay (in situations with no real mechanical effect) a 7 Int as a 9 Int. There is definitely a margin of acceptability and I think common sense tends to keep that in check. Playing a 7 Cha as an 18 Cha would raise more than a few eyebrows.

I have had players bluffing each other, trying to influence each other, trying to Charm each other, etc. It usually isn't fun in a heroic campaign, but your mileage may vary on that.

In an evil/heavily neutral campaign with lots of intra-party conflict? Bring it on.

You can use this skill to frighten an opponent or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.

You can be scary, and also not use verbal threats and showboating to specifically get what you want. You can use Intimidate to frighten opponents, true, but this doesn't mean you also cannot be naturally fear-inducing. You just don't know how to use that to your advantage.

Edit: In other words, you can unnerve people without them being mechanically Shaken. They are just a bit more wary around you than normal.