Ancient-Born

Xanzal's page

Organized Play Member. 41 posts (84 including aliases). No reviews. 2 lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Organized Play character. 1 alias.


RSS


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So! I am not an Ace. But my fiance is. Furthermore, she is also aromantic. As this topic is one that has more of a personal impact on my life, I thought I'd share some of my thoughts.

Part of the reasons that Aces tend to be hard to portray in fiction and what not is due to the initial reaction people have. Just the other day, she told a friend about her orientation, and the friend's response was "Oh, you haven't found the right person yet." And that's not the first time. People have such a hard time understanding that a person has no sexual interest that they don't want to believe it, especially if the Ace in question has, understandably, not yet tried sex. In addition, people like to equate sex=feelings. After she pushed back against the right person thing, the friend asked how she could be getting married if she was an Ace.

Orthos wrote:
our situation is more based on being extremely good friends, sharing a great deal of our interests and opinions, caring for each other very strongly, and a desire for companionship and someone to rely and depend on and support

That is an extremely good way to put it. She has no interest in doing anything with me that's sexual, but wants me around for everything else. We're extremely close. We share a lot of opinions. And, frankly, the fact that I'm willing to work with her Ace-ness is extremely appealing to her. However, that's what works for us.

For the layperson who knows nothing about it, an Ace is really just a person who is afraid of sex, or just hasn't met the right person. They'll want it once they try it, or find said right person. It makes it very hard to be heard when you're constantly told that your feelings are incorrect. It's hard to try to tell them how you feel when they tell you instead that you mean something else. After that, you just give up trying to correct them, and try to move on or ignore them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I was under the impression that the Labyrinth needed its King back.


Doting for later. This is good stuff.


You said he was fine sized, right? So, what, a grain of sand? How much damage is he set to do with his guns anyway? 1D1? Who is even going to craft these weapons of his? Forgive me if these are silly questions, but if someone told me they were going to be the size of a fly and attack a dragon with guns his own size, I think I'd laugh.


So, I had an amusing incident last night that I would like to share. My players, having fought through a vampire den, managed to find the coffin of the head vampire.

The Witch of the group detected magic, and I spontaneously decided to add a magical aura for fun on the coffin. At first, they assumed it might be a magical trap, or perhaps an aura from the vampire's equipment. They studied the aura, and found it was illusion magic.

In my group, I have a history of adoring illusion magic, and using it in fairly sneaky and devious ways. However, I only rarely use it. This one aura (from a Phantom Trap spell) managed to bring my players to a standstill for roughly 20 minutes as they tried anything they could to figure out what was wrong with the coffin. They tried disbelieving it, throwing things at it, examining it for traps repeatedly, and nearly left in order to get extra supplies to deal with this obviously deadly apocalyptic spell.

It was only when the Paladin finally opened the coffin out of frustration, daring me to do my worst, I finally told them what the spell was. They were annoyed at first, but then admitted that it was pretty good. Does anyone else have any fun stories like that?


There is a viable alternative to allying with the vampires, so it doesn't hinge on an alliance. Personally, I don't like the alternative, but it is there.

There's also the fact that the bad guys of the AP are hellbent on trying to bring back someone connected to Urgathoa. Pharasma may not like the vampires, but she certainly does not want this person brought back into the world. She is also the goddess of Fate, so she does know what might be required to prevent this from happening.

In addition, there is nothing stopping the Cleric from coming back to Caliphas to deal with the vampires after the AP is done. In fact, the final book has a section dealing with how to prolong the game after the last book. This is one of the potential ways to do so.

Pharasma despises the undead, but she is not the mindless 'Kill 'em all' type of goddess. Gaining help from the vampires for the time being, then coming back when stronger to kill the vampires is probably something she'd be rather okay with.


Cheburn wrote:
Jarazix wrote:
Xanzal wrote:

As a very entertaining side note, at least to me, the Paladin was right about the wizard. This isn't exactly a good 'lesson'.

Wizard: Stop judging me to be evil now that I'm a bugbear! Commits heinously evil act to 'teach' a lesson about judging others

Paladin: Hoo boy, now that the wizard who I thought might be evil because they turned into an evil species turned out to be evil and tricked me, I'm certainly never going to judge someone by their species again.

Good point, but it was the ostracization from the group that was the last straw. So was it in a sense self fulfilling prophecy for the paladin?

That's up to you, as the GM, to say, since you're now in control of the NPC.

In many fantasy stories though, the main villain feels he was wronged by the heroes. There may even be a lot of truth to it. At the end of the day though, he still has free will. He's choosing to do evil because he feels slighted. His actions (often fueled by his pride), not his treatment by the group, make him an evil person / creature. There is some RP potential here, if you don't just try to use the situation as a method to "teach the Paladin a lesson."

In addition, bear in mind that you haven't specifically stated how overt the Paladin was in his suspicion. I've traveled with a companion for months (in game), and only once mentioned that we might have to kill that person. If that was what happened here, then no, I wouldn't say it was a self fulfilling prophecy.

Another good point to keep in mind is that Reincarnation is not full on resurrection. They're brought back in a different body, as a different creature. The spell itself states that the creature remembers the majority of their past life and memory, but that isn't the same as saying "This is the same person." The best example I have of this is Doctor Who. With each reincarnation, he becomes a different character. He remembers what happened, and still sticks with his goals, but he changes. From what I've been told, this most recent Doctor is rather ruthless and alien. The fear that the bugbear may embrace his darker nature is a very real and very reasonable fear. I would certainly say that the Paladin contributed to it, but I'm not willing to say it's the Paladin's fault, and that he should be blamed for it.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

As a very entertaining side note, at least to me, the Paladin was right about the wizard. This isn't exactly a good 'lesson'.

Wizard: Stop judging me to be evil now that I'm a bugbear! Commits heinously evil act to 'teach' a lesson about judging others

Paladin: Hoo boy, now that the wizard who I thought might be evil because they turned into an evil species turned out to be evil and tricked me, I'm certainly never going to judge someone by their species again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would also like to point out the other side of this equation-- The Lover.

So, after a bender, I somehow end up being the victim of an illusion. No idea how, of course, because reasons. I also have a letter somewhere on my personage that I haven't noticed either, because reasons. Now, I walk into my lover's bedroom. Maybe I'm ready to sleep off a hangover, maybe it's time to contemplate the mysteries of the universe, whatever. I see my man in bed, and I call out to him, and he wakes up. He immediately looks panicked upon seeing me.

Now, I apparently have no idea that I look different (Is there a spell that actually puts an illusion on a person without them being aware? I suppose that's a DM call, but I'd rule that looking down at my terrifying red claws might tip me off that something's wrong). I call out to him gently, teasingly, but he's not reacting the way I would assume. Instead of teasing me back, he reaches for the sword he tends to sleep with. He takes what looks to be a defensive posture, and again, does not react to my words with anything but suspicion.

Do I:

A) Approach my lover and try to touch him?

B) Stay in the corner of the room, trying to make placating gestures?

C) Leave the room altogether and wait for him to sober up?

My vote is B or C, depending on how he's behaving. The point of this post is not to try to make excuses for the Paladin, but to point out that the lover was behaving idiotically. Unless the lover was blond (I'm kidding, of course), there is little to no reason the lover should have behaved that way.

Heck, in her shoes, I would have become suspicious of the Paladin in all honesty.

Edit: In essence, not only was the wizard setting up the paladin, the DM was setting him up as well, albeit to a lesser extent.


This is made of awesome. 'Nuff said.


Keep in mind that with Uncanny Concentration, you stop worrying about vigorous/violent motion. Such as riding on a mount. Then you're down to just casting defensively.


Deft Palm allows you to hide it while it is in plain sight, using Sleight of Hand.

Sleight of Hand wrote:
You can hide a small object (including a light weapon or an easily concealed ranged weapon, such as a dart, sling, or hand crossbow) on your body.

This does not allow you to hide a halberd.


You don't make melee attacks at a range. You make ranged attacks at a range. Reach weapons can hit from further away, but it's still not ranged. Ranged attacks are things like bows, shuriken, etc. The benefit behind that talent is the ability to attack something and get sneak attacks from further than 30 feet away. Regardless of what a ninja can do, that talent does not stretch their arm out to four times its normal length.

Though, thinking about it, it'd be a surprisingly effective tactic. I'd be too busy laughing at the ninja to properly defend myself.


It increases the range at which you can make a sneak attack. This only applies to ranged weapons. It doesn't explicitly state that because it doesn't need to. Your rapier still only has a five foot reach-- it doesn't magically stretch the blade out an extra 10 feet to make sneak attacks. Lunge and reach specifically deal with reach, not range.


Ravingdork wrote:
Where are the stat blocks? Come on guys!

I only feel comfortable enough with the Dresden Files to provide stat blocks, but I'll probably see if I can't put some together for ya once I get home. As always, YMMV.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Harry Dresden
NG Arcanist 6/Fighter 1/Eldritch Knight 7/ Winter Knight 1 (Think of it as a Mythic Class, like the Archmage or Champion. Or as him taking the dual path feat for both)

Honestly, I'm not much for famous pop culture characters, so I haven't thought about most anything else. However, I have devoted some time to the Butcher characters. Butcher tends to make a lot of pop culture references, so this kinda counts. I could try putting up stats and what not, but not sure if most people would get them.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Actually, I'd argue that "Wizards" in Harry Potter better fit the Sorcerer class (they only have a few spells they use regularly, most of the rest of what they do is Item Creation Feats).

As for the Wizards in Harry Potter... I don't know. A lot of wizards tend to settle on the same set of spells and use those almost exclusively. But Sorcerers with the Arcane bloodline would work, considering their need for their wands. Would help explain the Pureblood/Mudblood thing, too. I could see it going either way.

Tony Stark
CG Transmuter 6/Fighter 1/ Eldritch Knight 10

Give him the Craft Construct feat, allow him to craft Constructs with the Construct Armor ability, and he's running around in a big metal suit, flying and blasting people with his ray spells.


I'm planning on DMing a homebrew game, revolving around destroying an ancient vampire-- one of the originals, from the plane of shadows. I don't have the Blood of the Night book on hand to get the exact name of these old ones. At some point, I plan on this vamp, using the Mythic Vampire template, infecting the players.

I hope to have them eventually find a way to cure themselves of the vampirism, and as a result of having been infected by one of the first vampires, then curing themselves, it unlocks their mythic potential. That's what I hope to happen, at least. We'll see if it happens.


Areelu is just special-- I seem to recall the book stating that the familiar is a special 'gift' from Deskari.


Holy crap, dot. This is fantastic.


Joe Shmoe 741 wrote:
The thing with Pharasma is actually quite problematic too--we're supposed to buy that the Four were able to force her to open the floodgates, when they one of the weakest factions around?

Again, I was refering to the janitor bit. It's possible that, while yes, they are evil, they are the end of the universe. Meaning, they're the ones who clean up and shut everything down. They are the horsemen of the apocalypse, after all. And if they're fighting, chances are everything is. Charon telling Pharasma that isn't so much a 'We'll MAKE you do it' as it is a 'You know how the universe is going to end, and you know what role we serve'.

As others have pointed out, there are good reasons for people not to lay the smack down on daemons. Exposing weakness to other groups is one of them. The horsemen may not be as powerful as gods, but that doesn't mean they're stupid. Chances are, they can put up enough of a fight to significantly wound a group coming after them, leaving them open for other enemies. And if the horsemen are anything like demons, then they also have the homefield advantage so long as they play the defense game. Smart tactics combined with a strong defense can definately be dangerous.

Besides, daemons aren't enough of a threat yet. You've pointed out just how weak they are mathematically. If these guys are so weak, why should anyone bother to take them out? Especially when attacking them could leave you vulnerable, and the other factions are ready to tear into you? It's possible the horsemen know this, and are purposely feigning weakness.

Joe Shmoe 741 wrote:
I also completely concur with the poster who said that if Asmodeus himself led an invasion with the archdevils I'm not seeing much the Four could do about it.

They play the defense game, and the Empyreal Lords suddenly see an opportunity to rid the world of a great evil, and attack from the other side. At which point, the Demons see that the Lords are under attack, and start swinging. When they all fight, that may be the apocalypse. So, mutually assured destruction.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Why do the daemons still exist? Why do the devils still exist? They seek to enslave and corrupt all of existance. Why do the demons still exist, who enjoy destruction and chaos? Or for that matter, the Qlippoth? Because they aren't a problem. Yet.

It's quite possible that one day, they may be destroyed. Although considering their nature, I don't find that likely. Also keep in mind that they are neutral evil. So, while the devils are beholden to their order and law, and the demons are slaves to their destructive desires, daemons are adaptable. They can use any tactic, any strategy, with little to no issue. They could be considered 'Pragmatic Evil', instead of 'Netural Evil'.

Another take on it is that they're almighty janitors of the Pathfinder Universe. If I remember correctly, Charon has outright stated to Pharasma 'You know how this will end.' It was after this that she opened the portal to Abaddon for souls to be judged. Maybe they're simply the last ones out of the universe. The creatures that will stack the chairs, turn out the lights, and lock the doors, if you will. As long as there are mortals to make them, they will exist.

Your mileage may vary, of course, but the daemons are my favorite kind of fiend.


I believe it's stated more plainly somewhere, though I can't find it at this time, but this is a more round about way to come to that conclusion.

Total Concealment wrote:
If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you.
Armor Class wrote:
Sometimes you can't use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC.

So, if Stealth provides total concealment, they cannot see you. If they cannot see you, they cannot react to the blow. If they cannot react to the blow, they cannot use their Dexterity bonus to their AC. This is identical to the effects being Flat-Footed.

Again, I believe it's stated more plainly elsewhere, but the intent seems clear. If you are hidden, opponents cannot use their dexterity bonus to their AC.


I generally find it easier to buy a scroll and scribe it, rather than hunt down another wizard. I've always been under the impression that while wizards don't mind selling off scrolls, they're disturbingly protective of their spellbooks. Which seems silly, when it comes down to it. Perhaps it's a matter of no one wanting to expose their awful penmanship?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll always have fond memories of Master Alchemist.

I remember when my buddy and I were sitting around, shooting the breeze, and he commented on how he was sad that it took so long to craft poisons. I pulled out my copy of Advanced Player's Guide, of which he also had a copy, and pointed the feat out. His response was a half shouted 'How have I never seen this feat before?'


Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Aha, gotcha. But it's actually the combination of the two that does it. The AC plus the deflection. The strongest build to take advantage of the deflection is one that can hold its ground at a chokepoint and be hit very rarely (deflecting the hit), letting allies attack from behind. Since +4 AC helps with the hit very rarely thing a lot, it's a big boost for the deflection. I would have had to sacrifice significant offense to get that much AC if, say, Crane Style did nothing and Crane Wing worked without fighting defensively, as an example of another way it could have been without the +3 AC, and I completely needed to have both high AC and deflections to be unstoppable against hordes of enemies with many attacks per round each. As someone mentioned in one of these two threads, mirror image, from yourself or from a wand is also a devilishly good combination with old-school Crane Wing. Anything that makes it so that the enemies' hits are not likely to cluster together more than one in the same round.

Hm, true. I see the point there, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. Just because a handful of abilities work well together does not mean that one of the abilities is too powerful, at least in my opinion. Let's take that chokehold situation you just mentioned. If we're working with a doorway (which would be fantastic), and I plant that Tower Shield, I have total cover. Meaning, 'You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover.' I am now a wonderful wall, and my buddies can attack past me. I can't attack, which is definately a point in Crane Wing's favor, but they can't hit me. A few abilities still can, sure, but it's about as limited as the list as what can ignore Crane Wing.

You know, I've never actually thought about using a Tower Shield before. They always seemed too cumbersome to me. But now, I may have to look at it. Admittedly, it's only the Tower Shield that can do these things, most other equipment won't be up to it. But, regardless, I feel like Crane Wing wasn't as awful as people made it seem to be. It's definately a matter of opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Xanzal wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Xanzal wrote:

Claiming that Crane Wing was broken is akin to claiming using a Tower Shield is broken. Both give you (Essentially) +4 to AC, and until the third feat in the Crane Wing line, they give you identically the same penalty to attack rolls. Of course, you actually have to be in melee combat to use Crane Wing, whereas with that shield, you can use it all the time. I can tell you from experience I've been nailed pretty hard by things just out of my reach, or when I have to eat AoO to get to something with reach.

Also, while a Tower Shield may not deflect attacks, it could give you total cover.

you can always total defense or attack defensively against an empty square and then advance.
Is that a thing? If so, then my DM has been screwing me over pretty hard. I was unaware that I could defensively fight nothing to get bonuses. Seemed pretty silly to me.
You can always attack a square. If there was an invisible creature following you (which can happen surprisingly a lot), and it was in that square (unlikely), you even have a 50% chance to hit it!

In which case, we're to a Tower Shield and Crane Wing functioning pretty much the same way most of the time. And if a character fights defensively with a Tower Shield, it's going to end up with an AC of +7 pretty easily. My point is simply that saying Crane Wing gives a +4, something easily replicable with armor or shields, makes it too powerful is rather silly. Armor and shielding doesn't cost a feat. Deflection is nice, but not a game changer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Xanzal wrote:

Claiming that Crane Wing was broken is akin to claiming using a Tower Shield is broken. Both give you (Essentially) +4 to AC, and until the third feat in the Crane Wing line, they give you identically the same penalty to attack rolls. Of course, you actually have to be in melee combat to use Crane Wing, whereas with that shield, you can use it all the time. I can tell you from experience I've been nailed pretty hard by things just out of my reach, or when I have to eat AoO to get to something with reach.

Also, while a Tower Shield may not deflect attacks, it could give you total cover.

you can always total defense or attack defensively against an empty square and then advance.

Is that a thing? If so, then my DM has been screwing me over pretty hard. I was unaware that I could defensively fight nothing to get bonuses. Seemed pretty silly to me.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Claiming that Crane Wing was broken is akin to claiming using a Tower Shield is broken. Both give you (Essentially) +4 to AC, and until the third feat in the Crane Wing line, they give you identically the same penalty to attack rolls. Of course, you actually have to be in melee combat to use Crane Wing, whereas with that shield, you can use it all the time. I can tell you from experience I've been nailed pretty hard by things just out of my reach, or when I have to eat AoO to get to something with reach.

Also, while a Tower Shield may not deflect attacks, it could give you total cover.


Dotting. This idea amuses me greatly.


Quick question: For the Tiefling race, are subraces allowed? Such as a Demon Blooded Tiefling?


Are we by any chance still accepting submissions? I'm at work right now, so I can't do anything quite yet, but I should have something together in a few hours if you're still willing to consider.


Barding Stitches

Check out the Barding Stitches, near the bottom of the page. That's about the closest thing I can find for a way to give a snake barding. Other than that, no faqs or anything else I'm aware of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rorek55 wrote:
IMO, paladin is one of the strongest, if not THE strongest in this area. with inquisitor or ranger a close second.

Hence why the confusion. They were indeed included.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
rorek55 wrote:
no offense, but did you read my post or just the title?

I certainly read both. Which is why I think it's strange you said that the Paladin was the strongest, who does cast spells, after the title stated that you wanted to leave 'half' casters out of the discussion. And then followed up with the Inquisitor, who has 6 levels worth of spells, just like the magus, who you tried to exclude. After all, they both go above 4th level. Kinda strange, if you ask me.

If we're actually excluding casters, I like Cavaliers. Mounted combat is gnarly, if hard to pull off in dungeons. Otherwise, my vote usually goes for a Barbarian.


Skythen wrote:
And logically an intelligent creature is going to try and kill his biggest threat or step away from the flank.

While I'm not trying to excuse what the DM is doing (Targeting the familiar exclusively), that's not quite true. If I have a guy in front of me wanting to hurt me, and a pig (a small sized familiar) tripping me up from behind, I may very well turn and gut the pig, to get it out of my way. If I can figure out that the pig is actually benefiting the guy in front of me, then I may decide to outright focus on the pig. It's not going to be as difficult to kill as the fellow with the morning star, but it will help me defend myself against the bruiser.

The point there is, different intelligent creatures will behave differently. So, were I in the DM's place, I would occasionally target the familiar since various intelligent creatures may. I wouldn't target it exclusively, because that seems silly, but while the hulking barbarian may want to crush your skull, the battle savy duelist may try to gut the familiar. This is also in a world where killing a person's familiar does actually hamper them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks Mikaze! You're fantastic!


I'd be interested in a Distant Worlds, Cerulean Seas if there's not enough left.. And two from the second list? If you're willing, the Expanded White Necromancer, and the Sacred Necromancer? On one hand, I feel guilty... On the other, these things would be awesome!


Wait.

Lo&beholder wrote:
The spelling and grammar makes people look that's why i never take anyone to task for it cause i get the strategy and i hope no one forgot the spell checker but either way.

So you intentionally brutalized the english language, just to get people to look at your thread?

Doesn't this suggest to you that, had you actually spelled the topic properly, people would have ignored the thread because the idea is rather silly?

Either way, no, banning the wizrd and fiitter would not make all the other classes 'better'. All it would do is cause the internet to find another thing to argue about. And if Paizo actually decided to ban the two classes, the two staples of fantasy games that have essentially been around for decades, they would likely be laughed out of their own building.

Then again, in retrospect, I suppose I have no problem banning the wizrd and fiitter. I've never played those two classes, and I can't think of anyone who has. I'm a big fan of the Wizard, though.


As a forwarning, I'm a sucker for interesting mechanics or roleplay ideas. Therefore, if something feels really dry on flavor, or just replicates another class, then I tend to not care about it. Unfortunately, I kind of felt like these classes were the result of someone taking two different classes, shoving them together, and saying 'Here ya go!'. I'm thankful this is the playtest, and have high hopes for these classes in the end.

Arcanist: Hm. Interesting. I don't feel like it has a huge edge on either the Wizard or Sorcerer, but I definately feel like it has its niche. However, flavor-wise, I find it extremely lacking.

Bloodrager: These bad boys come in three varieties: 'Big', 'Bigger', and 'OH MY GOODNESS IT'S COMING THIS WAY!' Honestly, the rage powers were just ripped out, and replaced with some bloodlines and spells. I feel like the Bloodrager could stand to have another Barbarian ability or two taken away, and have their spells and bloodlines fleshed out a little more, but these guys are pretty awesome. The Bloodlines are in need of a good balancing, but promises a lot. Flavor-wise, I enjoy them.

Brawler: My reaction to these guys is a resounding 'Meh'. While I'm glad that the monk essentially got a boost to offensive power with them, it just feels forced to me. Flavor-wise, I'm just unsure of the difference between a Fighter who brawls, and these guys. Were Brawlers kicked out of the monastery before they learned what Ki was? With that being said, I can see a friend or two of mine enjoying them.

Hunter: Also meh. These guys just feel like reskinned rangers to me. It doesn't help that it seemed to me that every class feature they got was copy and pasted from another class. Flavor-wise... Again, they feel like rangers to me.

Investigator: Now, these guys I like, but I'm willing to say I'm biased. I've pretty much fallen for the Vivisectionist Alchemist, and these guys remind me a lot of good old Vivi. I like the access to knowledge skills, and am intrigued by the Inspiration, though that looks like it could get rather unwieldy. Flavor-wise, they don't really stand out to me by themselves, but what I could make with them could be fun.

Shaman: I think it needs work. This is a weird case where, on one hand, they did try to be rather clever and innovative with new mechanics, but on the other, feel like an awkward meshing of two classes. Flavor-wise, they don't stand out to me. But, that's partially because I'd already been using Witches and Oracles as 'Shamans' in my games. I have high hopes for it, though.

Skald: I like Norse mythology. Skalds are part of this mythology, to one extent or another. I do not like this Skald. I feel like it really is just a Bard that swaps out a few songs for the rage ability, an ability which may or may not be useful, depending on the group composition. I like classes that work well in a group. I do not like classes that require a certain group. Flavor-wise, I love them. But I hope they get refined.

Slayer: Interesting. I like these guys, and they are very adept at stabbing things repeatedly, then killing them, but I feel like they are still slightly unwieldy. I like the idea of having an assassin based class, and these guys could do it, but they currently just feel more like combat specialists to me, good at working on one guy at a time. Flavor-wise, I've always been a fan of assassins. I think that the longer a kill takes, the greater the diservice you are doing yourself and your victim-- both in the pain you are inflicting to the guy, and in the amount of time it takes to wash your clothing of the blood. If they can get this guy streamlined, I'll probably really enjoy myself with it.

Swashbuckler: Pretty cool, but I feel like they're a bit shoehorned into certain decisions and choices. But, then again, I've never been a fan of the Swashbuckler persona. Being loud and flashy seems counter-intuitive to me in a fight. Pretty much the reason I like assassin types in the first place. Flavor-wise, I feel like they do a good job of evoking the Swashbuckler image people love. I just won't be using it myself, generally speaking.

Warpriest: Ooph. This one hurt. I feel like it's a more watered down Cleric, honestly. I actually had some really high hopes for this one, considering that the Magus is essentially a hybrid of Fighter and Wizard. I hope they get some work. Flavor-wise, again, they feel like a watered down version of the Cleric to me. The buffs to armor and weapons is kinda cool, but not enough for me to feel like these guys are the Millitant arm of their respective faiths.

Of course, your mileage may vary. I have high hopes for pretty much every class presented with the playtest, and thoroughly look forward to getting with my buddies to try them out.


Doting. This game sounds right up my alley.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've yet to understand why I hear so many DM/Group horror stories here. I'm beginning to think I've simply lucked out, and have the perfect group.

I don't get how someone can claim to be charitable, but freak out any time the slightest donation is asked for.

I don't get how partying with two dozen people is 'fun'.

I still don't understand why the wrestling team in High School all those years ago would call me gay, when I was part of the Ballroom Dance team, all those many years ago. I held beautiful women close to me. They grappled with other men in leotards.

I don't get people who can function, and be perfectly happy, with only 4 hours of sleep a night.

I don't get social people.

I don't get people.

I don't get why people think I must be lonely because of this.