Paracount Julistar

Virellius's page

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber. 132 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
IIRC was added as an NPC ally back at the start of the campaign when the party was like 3 PCs (or 4 but with one or two inconsistent attendees, I forget. It was over a year ago) (and also needed a healer), and the party didn't want him to leave despite having grown larger later.
Never forget, Cimri Staelish...

My HV campaign had one of our players as a Kuthite devotee who was a Hamatulatsu monk who was childhood friends with Cimri. She is not scripted to leave at the end, simply stated that her direct campaign involvement was over, and there is no specifically scripted return for her as far as I know (unless it's later in book 5), but she ended up staying around, joining Zon-Kuthons church as our monk had REALLY stoked her sadistic side, and ended up taking the Shadow Dancer to really hype up the Kuthon.

She was one of my tables FAVORITES and she was a GMPC. /shrug


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

First off, did this dude say shaken gives you a bonus +20 to move speed? Because... where is that written?

Secondly, I would never understand someone who said 'this gives you a -2 on all related rolls because your muscle mass has been magically atrophied' is MORE CONFUSING than balancing several stacking numbered things.

Having a full party of PCs with varying levels of NUMBERED CONDITIONS is going to be HELL to run. Can you imagine? Instead of 'oh you are shaken, you're fatigued, you're all suffering from sickened from the creatures nasty stank, okay' it's gonna be 'Barbarian is Sickened 2, Shaken 3, but he made his save on the encumbered so is that a 3 or 2... but the bard failed his so its a 3, right? and the bard also has sickened 3, shaken 1... the wizard has …. these others...'

I will never understand how ANYONE could, in ACTUAL PLAY, think the former is HARDER to track than the latter. My party got themselves SO confused from ONE centipede in the playtest, with only 3 PCs. As a DM now, I can just hand someone a condition card, or make my own if I don't wanna pay and my table is confused (they aren't, because having separate names makes them EASIER to understand. Shaken, Frightened, and Panicked are words of increasing severity, and are easy to understand. The same way that sickened implies you feel sick, where as nauseated is an easy to understand feeling of being about to throw up. It's basic language, and a lot easier than remembering 'What does each tier of each same-named condition do, and who is at what level'.

In a game system about simplicity, it adds in MORE bookkeeping for DMs and players alike, and that's not just speculation. We played the playtest, and it was annoying as hell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

My BIG disagree with this is that I never found '-2 to your dex is a -1 to your dex related rolls' to be hard.

'You take a minus 6 to your strength from the symbol of weakness! that's a -3 on attack and damage rolls!' is pretty simple.

What IS NOT simple is 'oh youre spooked3, sluggish2, accelerated2, exhausted5, annoyed7, but you're also aroused8, soooo... that's a... like a plus... 3.7 on your diplomacy check to attack the DM?'

I really did hate the conditions system in the playtest even more than resonance.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ron Lundeen wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
2e's canonical outcome seems to be "Arazni is still missing and Geb is forced to get off his incorporeal ass and rule Geb once again"

Not quite, although the second part is mostly true.

I understand that some people want to have Arazni's fate go differently than what we've decided for her in 2E, so "she's gone and has no further role to play in this AP" is the way to leave this open for GMs. It also firmly puts the PCs on their own for the last two adventures of the AP: the patron who's been guiding them thus far is now no longer available.

The "she still grants spells" language is primarily to avoid utterly hamstringing those rare PCs who, in the course of the campaign, decided to follow Arazni as their divine patron (which seems at least plausible, if not likely). There was some back-and-forth about this here in the office, and "those characters just need to find another patron, I suppose" was one of the options we considered, but rejected.

But, ultimately, Arazni has a role to play in 2E, so if this adventure gives the tone of "gone...for now," that's actually just what we needed.

My former-Iomedean Paladin, turned Vindictive Bastard, is absolutely going to follow Arazni. Just how I'm going to work that in alignment-wise is... Up in the air, but would it be Totally Impossible for him to serve her as she Was, and be honoring that memory, receive power from her present?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I know there's little to no info in this, but I'm a little worried this part is going to land like the Cinderlands bit of Crimson Throne did. I didn't mind it as much but the old 'bunch of foreigners must earn the respect of the native people's to gain an ancient mystic power to save their homeland' is a little overdone. I'm hoping it doesn't go that way


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
archmagi1 wrote:
Virellius wrote:

In my own campaign, our Paladin is planning on maybe serving Arazni since I let slip she is in this campaign (the art for book 3 didn't hide this either >_>) so uhhhhhh we'll see how that goes. I'm thinking I'll run it that she's destroyed but ascends to higher divnity as a non-evil deity, and her First Paladin is the PC, and that'll give him some s*~% to live up to (he's playing a vindictive bastard, so this REALLY fits well into his redemption arc).

Eager to see how it plays out in canon, though.

From page 55...

Quote:
For now, PCs who worship Arazni and gain divine spellcasting from her continue to do so

Oh yeah, I know that. Like I said, I was just curious about what the Canon reason for that is going to be. I like to avoid homebrewing any major lore changes to cosmology since my table plays all our games in the same shared universe and we try to keep them Canon to each other and Paizos setting as much as possible. :D


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

In my own campaign, our Paladin is planning on maybe serving Arazni since I let slip she is in this campaign (the art for book 3 didn't hide this either >_>) so uhhhhhh we'll see how that goes. I'm thinking I'll run it that she's destroyed but ascends to higher divnity as a non-evil deity, and her First Paladin is the PC, and that'll give him some s*~@ to live up to (he's playing a vindictive bastard, so this REALLY fits well into his redemption arc).

Eager to see how it plays out in canon, though.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
DerCed wrote:
Virellius wrote:
My party defeated Drakus in a SINGLE round. :/ THey didn't even realize it was the 'boss'.
If the party had 4 members, they would need to dish out 10 damage each. So the rolled really well and/or critted?
While not on that enemy - A monk at my table today belted out a whopping nat 17 (with bard/flank that was a crit) followed by a nat 20 on a flurry to hit for a whopping 25 damage at level 1, so a couple nice rolls can turn the tide.

We had three people. The Rogue got off a sneak attack crit, because Drakus didn't have huge AC, the Barb got off a max damage attack with a great axe, and the sorcerer hit with shocking grasp and his summoned monster got off attacks too. This system makes crits goofy and common.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

The main issue here is the drastic PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES in appearances between Taldans and Chelaxians. From a basic standpoint, it doesn't make sense to call them the same ETHNICITY. In the real world, it would be like referring to Spanish people as the same ethnicity as the Mestizo people. Despite sharing a common language, ancestry, and some genetic traits, both location and blending with other cultures caused significant differences to who they are as a culture, and an ethnicity. Complexion, dialect, and culture are completely different.

Cheliax and Taldor are quite similar, imho.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
MidknightDiamond wrote:
Maxim Nikolaev wrote:

Also reminding everybody to get rid of the damned rat!

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2vab7?Dire-Rat-in-Lost-Star-A10#11

I'm still mad it's called a Dire Rat in the module and a Giant Rat in the Bestiary.

All joking aside, with or without the rat, that last encounter is a painful one to be sure.

I really don't get this. My party defeated Drakus in a SINGLE round. :/ THey didn't even realize it was the 'boss'.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I noticed that too. Random dire rat. I didn't even notice it until after and just kinda threw it in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

None of which is mentioned in the rogue section, or even alluded to in the blurb on flat footed.

Also, I did address flanking. My main point was stealth. Why can't a rogue sneak attack after sneaking and going to attack? It's senseless. Sneak attack should be called something else if it can't function under its own name.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I'm gonna agree with almost all you said except for the bit about the word occult.

PF1 had an entire group of occult classes. Technically everything done with magic is considered occult by most judeo-christians faiths. The word occult means hidden or secret. Would they be opposed to a fecal occult blood test? A screen decorating a room can be said to occult the room behind it. Arcane and Divine also carry heavy connotations in some circles, as does Primal, the magic of the wee folk, of creation and the First World.

The word occult from my point of view is HIGHLY inclusive since it refers to things my faith would be connected to, and likely considered evil or forbidden by yours.

Everything else I'm on board for. Just remember what you find offensive others find comfortingly inclusive and familiar.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

My playtest party has a rogue. She assumed that, as per PF1, a rogue attacking from stealth would get the benefit of sneak attack. If you were to attack while sneaking, one would assume the sneak attack would apply.

This is incorrect. If you attack while stealthed, you become seen, specifically stating they are not flat footed. So, you can't stealth sneak attack someone, okay. Assassins are out.

So you want to be a multiattack rogue. You wanna get that sweet sneak attack multiattack before the beefy monster desecrates your existence. You've gotta get the enemy flat footed SOMEHOW. Reading the rogue class it tells you Flat Footed info is on page 322 or something. You check. It's a simple line about what FF IS, not how to inflict it. So you look at your feats. Nope. Not at early levels anyway. You wonder, as a new player, how?

An experienced Pathfinder could tell you 'bluff, obviously' but how would a newbie know to even CHECK the Deceive skill? Why would you think you should check a skill to activate your core class feature? There's no connection if you don't think you should look.

So you can't effectively triple attack and sneak attack since sneak requires an action to potentially make an enemy fat footed to one strike. You need a flanking partner. Once again, the assassination style is DOA. A rogue REQUIRES another melee to be effective in drawn out combat. And with a ranged rogue, you don't even get that, unless I missed something and ranged weapons give you flanking.

How is one supposed to play a rogue as anything other than a shortsword wielding soft fighter? What's the core class identity they're trying to go for? It just seems like rogue exists to give every other melee class something to multiclass from for a free d6 on flanking.

Am I missing something?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
chibikami wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:

Here you go

From this post
James Jacobs wrote:

This is a correction we're looking to make that is in many ways long overdue to the world.

Ethnically, Chelaxians are identical to Taldans and really always have been; they've been traditionally treated as their own ethnicity mostly due to the fact that their government is diabolic, which is a weird reason to do that. Especially since that didn't hold true for the nation pre-Age of Lost Omens. (Note that they don't even have their own ethnic language.) So with the new edition, we're adjusting that to include them under the umbrella of the Taldan ethnicity.

Never mind that Chelish and Taldan culture are radically different even before the Age of Lost Omens. Is the only thing binding them the color of their skin (Chelish already tend toward the pale side)?

And their language? If we run that backwards, your ethnicity is just what languages you speak.

I quoted from JJs own book and he said it was being retconned and was something incorrect from before.

Despite Taldans looking Mediterranean/Sicillian/brown European. And now essentially one of the two people's gets erased as their own ethnicity.

I'm going to be 100% houseruling the Chelish as their own ethnicity.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
demon321x2 wrote:
Just too many dice and when I won initiative I would drop one of them.
This wording makes it sound like you're rolling initiative every round. You should be rolling once per combat.

I took it to mean they won initiative for a fight they would wreck face. We had trouble with that too, with my party ALL winning init and deleting any threat.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
demon321x2 wrote:

Part of it has to do with how well I was rolling and how bad my party rolled sometimes. The skeletons with a +0 perception still beat everyone but the monk in the party on initiative because I rolled a 19. Because I rolled 8 attacks there was a few hits and I lucked a crit on a second attack and the monk was down. I could easily see if the skeletons went last the party would have cleared them with ease though they didn't have bludgeoning weapons because rogues. Level 1 is always heavy on the if the enemy gets an early good roll you are going to struggle. The goblins went down fairly easily though they ended up missing the main group because they decided to avoid that room.

You probably should have had Drakus stand and fight the rogue. With a +12 to hit, and a solid damage boost he could have gotten two hits in and dropped the rogue. Also I assume your party was all darkvision or the torch would have given them away.

The rest of the party was around the corner, only one needed a torch, and Drakus was busy eating a goblin so why would he notice a torch behind him around a corner?

Also Drakus had like 10HP. Makes more sense he'd try to take a more tactically sound situation since Faceless Bois tend to be very plan focused. Also he doesn't know his own stats or game mechanics so a tactical retreat to a more defensible location makes sense. He was surprised so he needed to calculate how to deal with the situation.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I had the opposite issue. A three person party, rogue, Bard, and sorcerer. We steamrolled everything, snuck up on Drakus, and the rogue got a critical hit and dropped him under half. In his surprise he fled the room to go get his goblin servants because he was cramped in a small corner and over half dead, but rounded a corner in to the waiting party.

A draconic sorcerer at level one with claws and a Bard also with a shortsword made quick work of him, and even though the quasits took down the Bard to 0 and my sorcerer hit 1, we were never in fear of dying because the dying mechanics are so easy. The skeletons were ignored because the party got bored of rolling every fight and just closed the door on them after the rogue grabbed the loot with a high stealth roll.

All in all I felt it was super simple and sorta rushed with no real setup. Im excited for later chapters though.


23 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Why can't my half-orc access Orc Weapons at level one? Why does he have to wait FOUR LEVELS to use a weapon he should have grown up knowing about?

It makes 100% no sense.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

So, the wife and I decided to make some PCs. We're going to be running the Adventure Path with a friend or two, and figured 'we have heard almost nothing positive about this playtest, and what we've read seems questionable, lets give it a try!'

Here's my thoughts, as someone who played 3.5 when it came out, and swapped to Pathfinder as DnD became something unrecognizable.

I feel like Pathfinder is becoming its own enemy. The systems are all, in theory, highly functional. They work, in a vacuum, and that's fine. In practice, however, I found this playtest to be stifling.

I rolled up (not that I rolled anything at all or even touched dice during the creation process, which doesn't feel right) using the Stat Boost system a human sorcerer, dragon blooded. I chose the feat to gain a bonus class feat at level one.

I chose familiar, thinking I would get something akin to 1e's familiar choice. Instead, I get a mostly useless generic stat block placed onto whatever tiny creature I want, with Master abilities that are mostly useless to a non-prepared caster, unless I'm reading something wrong. I guess 40ft movement and deliver touch is okay, but I still have to blow an action to command my cat to do something? Speaking is no longer a free action, I guess. (what's worse, I find out MOUNTS work the same way, and if you don't use an action to MAKE it do something, your horse just... sits there.)

So, there's my cat. I chose my spells, all of which seem wildly imbalanced. 1d8 to TWO targets for a cantrip, at range? Electrical Arc is the new longbow, I guess. And yet Summon Monster lets me summon... a broom. Alright. Or One (1) Rattyboi. I'll stick with reliable zapping, ty. I could always transfer a shocking grasp through my cat, but why risk him?

Back to the bloodline, I get Dragon Claws. That's nice I guess. I can do 2d4 damage in melee and resist 5 electricity damage. Took me about a decade to find where the Spell Points are listed, considering it's in a tiny paragraph, at the end, tucked away.

Set up some skills, wondering what signature skills give me at level one (nothing?) and assuming eventually I'll care about the +3 as opposed to +2. I guess that's... exciting?

So, finished it up. Bought some mundane items, a staff (which does as much damage as my claws, sort of) and looked it over.

Underwhelming is what best encapsulates it. I feel like the spells are not exciting, the bloodline powers boring and uninspired, and the best abilities gated behind absurdly high levels. Even the Greater Power is a relatively boring 5th level spell. Draconic Power, capped off by... a fly spell? Lame.

All in all, heightening spells seems neat, but sorcerer, formerly my favorite spellcasting class, has left a bland and unexciting taste in my mouth. For the first time since I've played a Paizo product, I am NOT excited to play my new character.

Someone tell me I'm wrong. What am I missing out on here?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I like you, Quandary, despite our disagreements on the true uniqueness of Asmodeus' favored people. Reeducation will be necessary.

But on a serious note, setting campaigns in non-Euro-based lands and assuming the PCs are locals is a great idea. Paizo can't on one hand promote progressive, modern ideals, and then fall into 'white guys travel to foreign lands and white savior all over the place'.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Agreed completely. Considering the shift from Race to Ancestry, you'd think 'all Asians/Tien are the same' concepts would have been removed from this edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

If Chelaxians were always intended to be the same, then why are they so physically different? You can't say Greeks and Germans are the same ethnicity just because they share a common ancestor. Chelaxians are DISTINCTLY a mix of Taldan and Ulfen. If a half-elf isn't a human nor an elf, then a Chelaxian isn't a Taldan nor an Ulfen. They are unique and separate. It's unnecessary in the face of ten years of lore and writing. Why not clarify it in Inner Sea Races and not further reinforce Chelaxians as a separate ethnicity?

I honestly feel like it's an unnecessary change to deeply established characters simply to... remove an ethnicity? I guess I don't see the POINT in combining them.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

And to be clear, I'm not trying to be unduly negative. The addition of the Nidalese makes A LOT of sense and is welcomed.

It's just a HUGE leap to now have the Chelaxians be of the same ethnicity as, from what I've always understood, a distinctly different people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I always saw Cheliax being more Germanic or British/French adjacent, where as Taldor always seemed more like southern Italy or even Byzantium to me. Very distinct appearances have been noted in numerous source books, all the way back to the Inner Sea setting book.

Unless, of course, my mental image of Taldans is significantly wrong. But according to your own writing, 'The Taldan people are a mixture of Keleshite and Azlanti blood. Taldans, by and large, have light brown hair and bronzed skin.' This was pulled from the PathfinderWiki, citing your own work in Inner Sea World Guide, page 19. This stands as a stark opposite to the pale complexion and dark features of modern Chelaxians.

The same page mentions Taldans hate that Iomedae is of 'Chelish stock' and not Taldan. How much of their identity are we retconning here?

If the Jadwiga are separate enough to be their OWN ethnicity, then why not apply the same rationale to Cheliax?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I know they exist, it's just strange they're not an ethnicity.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Don't like the use of symbols, don't like the formatting, HATE class progression formatting in that little side-note looking blurb... Honestly these PDFs lack the readability Paizo is known for.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

From every place they exist. Everywhere. Asmodeus just swooped away with them all.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Cheliax is just a myth. There's never been a House Thrune. There is no Abrogail II of House Thrune, Queen of Cheliax, Empress of the Chelaxian Empire and it's holdings, the Thrice Damned, long may she reign.
- Reeducation Bureau


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Not a single mention, and Chelish is no longer an ethnicity but... Nidalese is? Chelish people were PRETTTY distinct from Taldans, so I hope they're not just mashing them. Nitpicky but annoying. I find the lack of setting information in the CRB to be a bit sad actually. Makes it hard for new people to get into their PC for the adventure path if they don't have the setting books.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Athaleon wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:

A Paladin is a champion of Good. They hold themselves to a code of conduct to better themselves and lead by example; adhering to a code like that is something a Lawful character would do. Therefore, only Lawful Good characters would want to become Paladins. A Paladin code is not a pact you sign for power; it's a standard they hold themselves to because that is what they believe they should be.

A Chaotic character would never willingly force themself into something like that. If you think that they would, you clearly don't understand what Chaotic means: it's the manner in which the character thinks.

Being Good in the first place requires a person to commit themselves to a higher standard of behavior. Is Chaotic Good an impossible alignment to hold?

Furthermore, Cavaliers have Orders with codes of conduct, and are not required to be Lawful.

I almost made this exact post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I didn't even consider Hook Street, that's a nice touch.

And yeah, I was liking the idea of Devargo being very... LE about it, wanting his organization to continue. Maybe even throw in some hints about him watching them during the Blood Veil issue. They planned on stopping by at some point, so I'll probably have them save him from Chittersnap then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

So, my stupid self is running two simultaneous Crimson Throne campaigns. The staggering difference between the parties honestly keeps it fresh, but I have a question for the audience. My second group managed to bargain with The King of Spiders (a stupid high diplomacy check followed by winning several games of knivesies, and then a game against the king himself lead to him being EXCEPTIONALLY Impressed by our little warpriest) and gave them the info they wanted. He also expressed interest in seeing them again, since they chose to patch his wounds after a significant crit during the game left him below 0.

Im going to bring him back in during Escape from Old Korvosa, but I'm not sure exactly HOW.

What do you guys think? I was thinking as maybe a rival to the Emperor, perhaps...


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

So you're telling me my Phantom could become an Incorporeal Wererat or something, and then proceed to phase through walls spreading it's sickness? Oh Lord.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Latrans wrote:

Overall your ruling make sense. Especially as a Zeitgeist, she should be able to pass as human as long as nobody starts looking to close because she starts acting strangely. (If that does happen she may want a hat of disguise.) I like the incense and smoke for the incorporeal form when interacted with although I'd think she may take that appearance anytime she's incorporeal but at that point, she may be able to hide as a cloud of perfume coming off the Spiritualist.

As a Zeitgeist, she may look like a famous queen of Korvosa's past at the height of her beauty and popularity. Illeosa is fairly new to the throne so she won't have as strong a connection to the city as a past queen might. (And seeing a seductive imagery of a predecessor that is more beloved than she is would probably also make her jealous.)

For what you've said, she sounds like a lust phantom. Which aspect of Korvosa does she represent with the Zeitgeist part? Law, Lore, and Society would all make sense for her to look like a former queen.

Lust is correct.

I had originally thought Corruption, and the Ileosa bit fitting in as her being viewed so negatively by the populace, so suddenly and with such fervor, that the zeitgeist latched onto these new and spontaneous feelings. Corruption due to the queens own illegal activity and the rioting/anarchy, which are inherently unlawful.

The more I think about it, however, the more I'm leaning towards retraining to Law. Especially since the party goal is to save the city that's chosen them as it's heroes.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Phantom (has a few pictures).

See, that Azlanti Phantom image is what I like. That's all just ectoplasm, I assume, but in full colour. Is that normal? I don't know. I feel like they didn't give ectoplasm enough description for detail-heavy types my like stupid self.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Latrans, I really like your take.

My question was essentially to solve the issue of 'what do the NPCs see'.

I'm running Crimson Throne (the updated version) with my fiance as a two-person gestalt game, and so far its been amazing. Finished part one, well on our way to part two, etc.

The big issue was: I'm Spiritualist/Fighter and she's an Alley Witch/Urban Ranger, and both the Alley Witch and Zeitgeist Binder take their power from the minds and collective consciousness of the settlement (Korvosa) and so we've sort of house-ruled that my Phantom is the embodiment of her Patron, or at least the same force. but what does she look like?! (I'm thinking a more mature, sultry Illeosa, to make her majesty even more jealous)

Do you think it's beyond the realm of the rules to assume that a Zeitgeist in Ectoplasmic form would be able to appear humanoid, if an unusually lusty humanoid, to the point of being able to walk around without being seen as 'look an obvious ghost is right there'? That's been my big hangup. And in Incorporeal form, I've been ruling her to appear solid until interacted with, in which case her essence flows like incense smoke... I'm not necessarily big on the monochromatic flat-colour Phantom as making sense for the Zeitgeist, since it is inherently a different kind of entity. I do try to keep even home games as close to the rules as possible. Does this seem like it makes sense given the parameters? Should NPCs be able to behave normally while interacting or should they immediately call a paladin because a ghost is stalking the heroes?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

My main question was despite Eidolons being depicted in numerous ways we've only really seen one or two phantoms in art, so we don't seem to have good visuals for a wide variety. Also, they aren't a normal person, but for example a desire phantom would need to look appealing to even function as it's intended focus.

Also, what about Zeitgeists? Clearly a different being so in theory it wouldn't look like a ghost, as it isn't born from a dead soul. Right?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

So, with a brief online search, I can find no definitive answer to this question: when a Phantom is manifested in Ectoplasmic form, or even in Incorporeal, does it look 'human' in terms of colour and such? I know they have auras and the like, and I've seen the official iconic art, but other art shows one wearing normally coloured clothes with a greenish tint to the skin.

As a game mechanic that other PCs NPCs interact with, if the phantom is a monochromatic lump, it makes it almost impossible to have it out when in an urban setting, which seems... Unnecessarily crippling. As opposed to an Eidolon that could be seen as a strange pet or some such, I mean.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I'm looking to make a human Feysworn of the Lord of Water, but with a twist: I want to go in from the Skald archetype Serpent Herald and be a sort of fanatic undying cultist. My DM had rules that the Feysworn Resurrection ability does indeed let me come back albeit with the caveat of being on the first world, but with the plane shift ability I can make it back easily. So I want him to be essentially fearless, willing to die over and over in an endless spiral until the dragons of the world acknowledge Ragadahn as their true father.

Problem is, I know nothing about skalds. At all. Is this concept even viable? Even if its more flavor than efficiency.

My idea was 2h weapon, vital strike to make up for lower BAB, using the archetype form as much as us useful.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Inlaa wrote:
Some serious responses:---

This literally made me want to play an aging 'war hero' paladin who regrets a lot of the violence in his past but sees his current situation as an adventurer as a way to make up for the brashness of youth.

Also being so damn holy he sacrifices his Paladin-hood to take in the blast of some massive evil BBEG spell or ritual, knowing it will damn him but save the world, and as his armor cracks off his body under the force of the fell magic and he turns to the party, tears in his eyes, makes a dadly thumbs up.

Torag sees his true soul, purifies his body, and clads him in blessed armor. Instead of being damned, his willingness to fall for goodness instead redeems him beyond mortal ken, and becomes a half-celestial and s**@cans the villain.

And then of course leaves the party to return home to his family who he has not seen in years, to begin the last part of his life and hopefully find peace for the first time in decades.

I may have some father issues.

OH MY GOD CALL HIM THE PALADAD!


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

The idea was to essentially force enemies to come to us by limiting the battlefields area, and using spells like shadow anchor or masochistic shadow to lock down enemies while we focus-fire specific targets.

The idea, in theory, was to have a ranged battlefield control mage with the theme of shadow caster, mixing in the shadow evocation and conjuration.

I just, in my head, love the idea of the spell-archer. Pathfinder is pretty limited in just HOW one can spell-bow, however.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

So, I have a very specific character idea in mind: an archer who uses bows to launch darkness spells from a distance and uses shadow spells to control the battlefield.

My original idea had numerous flaws, and was essentially Shadowcaster wizard/Ranger into arcane archer.

Since then, the Eldritch Archer archetype for Magus has emerged, and has brought new ideas to the forefront. I've considered going Sorcerer (Umbral Scion) and about 2 levels of EA Magus to get Ranged Spellstrike (since Darkness is on the Magus list). The main issue is, of course, wanting to get the increase to DCs from the Bloodline while also retaining the blend of magic and archery. Magus doesn't get enough of the good shadow or darkness spells for me to really think I could achieve the character goal as a solid magus, but...

I want the character to be viable enough to function as a cohort, so he doesn't need to be a showstopper, just very flavorful. I know there's some new shadow spells in the Villain Codex too (Shadow Jaunt to behind an enemy and unload arrows into their backs sounds lovely).

It just seems Pathfinder isn't set up for this sort of thing to be very functional unless I go traditional arcane archer.

As a Fetchling, the Umbral Scion's Encroaching Darkness ability will pretty much keep me in dim light for the duration of most fights, giving me that nice racial ability. On top of that, if it's a shadow descriptor spell, it'll get ANOTHER +1 to the DC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Just remember: Outsiders are aware of things your PCs do. Maybe a priest of Nethys or some Aeon thinks he's abusing magic a bit too much on the destruction level and needs to balance it with some more helpful magic and decides to try and destroy his spellbook to make him start over?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I've played numerous campaigns with power gamers of varying skill, but one in particular was a notorious douche. He had this triple multiclass craft magic arms and armor one-level-dip-for-power beast of a PC that after looting the bodies of dead PCs on numerous times ended up with a WBL of about 6 times what he should have had, dominating every single encounter. The DM and I had to counter-powergame the keep it balanced, it became exhausting, and the DM actually ended up begging me to kill him in game.

Long story short, a Gate spell directly into Abaddon is not how you want your games to go. Settle this QUICKLY, out of game, before it gets out of hand.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Avoron wrote:
Virellius wrote:
I feel like the 8th level ability may be hard to make use of against enemies, simply because it relies on them having casters or other creatures around, and potentially lets you dismiss a Hex with no benefit.
Well, I don't think you'd want to use it on your hexes. Better to end one of your low-level spells, an ill omen or a scare or whatnot.

I am an idiot and did not even notice it said spells as well. Definitely better, then. Does sound fun, especially if I went stereotype and made her a changeling.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Avoron wrote:
I'd recommend taking a look at the Dark Sister archetype, with either the deception or trickery patron. Your goat familiar could take the Emissary familiar archetype, serving whatever evil god you like.

I had actually planned on using Emissary, for sure. I only gave Dark Sister a brief glance, I'll look into it deeper.

Edit: The Patron Choice is okay, I suppose, but I was leaning towards Moon or Conspiracies, maybe. I feel like the 8th level ability may be hard to make use of against enemies, simply because it relies on them having casters or other creatures around, and potentially lets you dismiss a Hex with no benefit.

Losing three Hexes is pretty rough, too, especially early on.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I have a plan for a PC I'd like to try in a campaign my friend is running. It's going to be Hell's Vengeance and I am trying to come up with a classic, Puritan-scaring, burned-at-the-stake type witch, with a goat familiar.

I want her to be sort of the roped-into-it kind of character, evil because of her actions but not exactly willingly. Sort of being coerced by her patron/familiar into commiting vile acts that she will, as she levels up, become more comfortable in, eventually going full on NE and relishing the love of power and control.

What I'm looking for is advice on how to best represent that style of old-fashioned witch via Pathfinder. Obviously, goat familiar, but I'm sort of lost on archetype and spell selection. There are the obvious ones, but I don't want to be too useless in combat because as we all know, roleplay or social use spells only go so far, depending on party makeup and GM style.

Never built a witch much beyond a Gravewalker, so this is new ground for me. Multiclassing into possessed Oracle or something is a possibility too.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I had a pretty interesting thought. I've been considering running HV soon and as a fan of the HK novel, I was curious as to if Edderas, or House Celverian, is mentioned or could be included easily in the final volume, considering a paladin of Iomedae would probably be pretty caught up in the whole Glorious Reclamation thing, and his Diabolist lover would likely be helping the party, considering her ties to Westcrown. Seems like a good way for me to break my own heart and ruin the characters from the novel, or at least add some interesting extra NPCs.

Anyone have experience or info on this?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Friend has restarted a long-dead campaign and I would like some input and advice on character building.

I'm playing a LN Human Cavalier (Circuit Judge Archetype with the Ennead Star Order) who is an armiger of the Order of the Nail. His mission is essentially to wipe out the barbarism and tribalism of the societal wastelands in the Lands of the Linnorm Kings, and our party has built up a small castle out of an old ruin. Using that as my 'Circuit Judge HQ' I get some nice bonuses with all the tribal communities around us, and so far it's been lots of fun.

Due to some lagging behind of plot, I hit level 6 before taking my Hellknight Finals (lol), but after completing the test with a very lucky silversheen-dipped Halberd crit, I'm now heading into HellKnight at level 7.

So far, I'm at 18 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 11 Wis, and 14 Cha. Not the best, but I rolled low so I'm working with what I've got.

I've got Weapon Focus-Lance, Power Attack, Mounted Combat, Cornugon Smash, and Hurtful for feats so far, including the 6th level Cavalier bonus feat, and our party is VERY behind in terms of WBL so I essentially had to sell my entire inventory to afford my +1 Hellknight Plate.

I'm planning on going Horse Master to continue progressing my mount, and probably Ride-By Attack/Spirited Charge, and I WILL be taking the Hellknight Obedience feat for RP purposes.

Just sort of looking for input and advice on what to build for. Not used to doing cavalier stuff, and I'm not looking for super min-maxxy, just an effective intimidating mounted terror with devastating charges.

1 to 50 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>