Depora Azrinae

scary harpy's page

441 posts. Alias of unnambed.


RSS

1 to 50 of 441 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Captain Morgan wrote:

I'm gonna take a guess here that the reason you find the setting confusing is because you are trying to absorb all of it, which frankly isn't necessary. Golarion is a kitchen sink setting where you can find a whole bunch of different thematic set pieces for all sorts of genres. But those set pieces tend to be, well, set, and stick to their own borders. You don't need to understand Ustalav to run an adventure in Varisia.

There are a couple of big events with geopolitical implications that cross boundaries, namely a couple new nations and the Whispering Tyrant coming back. But those can be summed up by a sentence each and there are plenty of adventures it won't actually matters for.

You guessed correctly.

Wheldrake wrote:
Sandpoint was designed specifically for simplicity. It's a great place to start. The Sandpoint Hinterlands are rather crowded, but it's all good for a starter setting.

Seems Sandpoint is the place to go.

Thanks everyone.


I'm not a GM.

I'll look into Sandpoint.

Thanks.


If you find Lost Omens to be very complex and wanted to simplify, what would you do? Where would you go?

Thanks.


CorvusMask wrote:
Speaking of driders, I like that they remembered the "males have spider heads" thing from 1e, but I have to admit their conical headshape with mohawk reminds me of Coneheads movie :D I mean I still like the drider design yeah, but I find their headshape kinda funny

I don't like the male drider design...but the female is good.

I don't see why both can't be un-hideous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the D&D Hobgoblins and Bugbears have become more attractive in appearance over the years.

I understand why Paizo wants to make their monsters their own.

I also think some just hate change. Any change.

I think that's what leads to many a heated thread here on the boards.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dansome wrote:

This is a great series. ... It's a shame it's only 8 episodes.

Also, Omelette is amazing.

I like Oatmeal too.


Are there 2 Academic backgrounds in the Lost Omens World Guide? (and 3 Survivors?)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
scary harpy wrote:
Rysky wrote:
FrostFox wrote:


Not canonically. The Bestiary says -only- Lavender. The art that will be used for the direction going forward is -only- Baby Blue.

Google Lavender.

They range through all different shades of blue and purple.

Didn't JJ specifically say Lilac?
The Bestiary says lavender. Lilac also comes in blue and purple so it's a moot point.

When I hear lavender or lilac I think of a shade of purple and not blue.

Maybe that's just me.

I would like the dark elves to be purplish lavenders and lilacs.


Rysky wrote:
FrostFox wrote:


Not canonically. The Bestiary says -only- Lavender. The art that will be used for the direction going forward is -only- Baby Blue.

Google Lavender.

They range through all different shades of blue and purple.

Didn't JJ specifically say Lilac?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
scary harpy wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


1) ... Furthermore, as you'll see in the Bestiary, drow have lilac flesh tones now, for reasons I hope are obvious, but I won't get into them here so I can try to return the thread to the original poster's request...

This begs the question:

Why lilac and not lavender?

fyi: I was joking.

(Obviously, I shouldn't make jokes. My bad.)

Also,

I will look forward to a gnoll ancestry whenever it arrives.


James Jacobs wrote:


1) ... Furthermore, as you'll see in the Bestiary, drow have lilac flesh tones now, for reasons I hope are obvious, but I won't get into them here so I can try to return the thread to the original poster's request...

This begs the question:

Why lilac and not lavender?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, the rich and intelligent could learn wizardry.

Are they likely to become adventurers? I don't think so.

So, wouldn't they all be really low-level wizards?


I found the cosmology in the 4th edition to be intriguing. I wouldn't mind Pathfinder adopting it if D&D is done with it.


keftiu wrote:
Set wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
shroudb wrote:

tbf, none of the animals are, or can be, evil.

it's just that the "usual" depiction of hyenas in folklore was usually... quite terrible.

Have you HEARD the laugh? Like I know better, but they sound really freaky. The coyotes around here sound like women screaming in the night sometimes, so the horror stories have a reasonable origin.
[tangent] I totally want to have a hyena witch, whose 'cackle' hex is renamed 'chortle' and has her making a sinister hyena-chuckle instead of cackling to maintain her hexes.
Is hideous laughter in 2e?

yes, it is.


Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Look, I'm gay. I know you are making a point about LGBT sex and stigmatization and I get it, but that's not my point. A vast majority of consenting adults have sex as much as they want and no one bats an eye, as long as they do it at home. That was my point.

So am I. Yes, that was the point I was making. I understand your point.

Back to the other topic:

I see this thread getting locked soon.

Maybe we should all take a few moments to relax before we reply again.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Yes, killing is something quite serious and usually horrendous, becoming desensitized to killing is bad.

Still more socially acceptable than nipples and sex though, sadly.

That's not really a fair argument. Adult humans have sex all the time without it being socially stigmatized. Killing has always been socially wrong for most purposes. It's the age of the participants that creates a stigma about sex and sexuality, not the morality of the actions.

Besides that, it isn't really a refutation of the argument.

I must be misreading this.

Adult humans have sex all the time without it being socially stigmatized.

Or you've got to be joking me.

I can easily think of adult humans who've been socially stigmatized for having sex.


Val'bryn2,

I suggest evil fey for the creatures in your campaigns.

Mitflits, especially, seem to have replaced Kobolds as the weak and wicked target of choice (meaning disposable enemies).


5 people marked this as a favorite.

An alternative setting, either continent or word, that is heavily influenced by Etruscan-Greek-Roman mythology. All ancestries and creatures would be seen from this perspective.

Concerning the divinities, the primordial entities and titans are included; the differences between the Greek Deities and the Roman Deities are examined. All would have entries.

This setting is not stuck in the Bronze Age; it would be a Medieval/Renaissance setting just like other settings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
If killing people for money is wrong, he doesn't want to be right.
LuniasM wrote:
I'm so vain, I prob'ly think this post is about me.

Thank you both.

I will enjoy these songs...in my head...all day...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
i'm more or less just upset that this happened to goblins and not kobolds. :/
Kobolds are one of the ancestries being added in the Advanced Player's Guide.
Gencon Highlights blog wrote:
That last one will be a 256-page hardcover with four new classes (Investigator, Oracle, Swashbuckler, and Witch), ten ancestries and heritages (Aasimar, Catfolk, Changeling, Dhampir, Duskwalker, Kobold, Orc, Ratfolk, Tengu, and Tiefling), and tons of archetypes, general feats, spells, and magic items.

Only 256 pages!?!?!

We need more than that!
Hefting these books is our exercise.

The Diplomat wrote:

In one of the early Pathfinder comics (I cannot remember which issue) there was a one-shot story about a wizard in Korvosa who conducted experiments on goblins and created a highly intelligent strain of them. The goblins ended up escaping the lab and began integrating into upper echelons of Korvosa, wearing top hats and monocles, etc.

Maybe some of them moved to other cities and integrated into the gentry there, also.

It’s highly probable that a goblin PC might be one of these or their descendants, particularly if you made a goblin wizard or alchemist.

Are you sure this wasn't a parody of Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH?


pixierose wrote:
I could have sworn in 1e there we're dwarven panethons and elven pantheons.

There were...a few.

Luis Loza wrote:
You'll get to see a few of these in Gods and Magic. The handful of pantheons will even have rules for worshipping them, which will allow GMs to build their own pantheons using the existing ones as a guideline.

Will we see the return of the Osirion pantheon? (Will we see other myths like Greek or Norse?)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Baby Samurai wrote:
Dracovar wrote:


And Redeemed Drow! NO, wait! I don't want to turn back into an Elf. Like, can that even happen?
We have enough of those, at this point, I miss good old fashioned demon worshipping faerie drow!

I don't miss them at all.


Where do I find the rules about making potions?

Can Wizards still do this? What about other spellcasters?

Thanks.


Pan, definitely not a Kitsune wrote:

Basically, when it comes to "exceptional" redemption - demons, demon lords, ancient powerful wizards - it's only been "pretty ones" so far.

Sure, you could redeem any low-level humanoid schmuck that passes you on the way, but that's because "humanoids can be redeemed" is the basic assumption. When it comes to "breaking the rules" and redeeming ancient evils, they've all been the lustful kind of evil so far.

On the other hand, with some luck, we might get to redeem a gold dragon soon, so there's that?

Rysky wrote:
I was asking for evil male characters being redeemed, with the book actually calling out the possibility.

I all for redemption...but will this option be popular among most players?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan, definitely not a Kitsune wrote:
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
Doktor Weasel wrote:
** spoiler omitted **
But fun!

Fun? Really??


Rysky wrote:
Well you said "now" so it was taken to mean you were referring to the 2e version.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

No need to shout. You said '…but not the way they are designed now.'

This implies they were, at some point, designed some other way. When? By who? My comment was along the lines of 'Wait, when have hags been designed differently?' as well as noting for those watching this thread that PF2 has not radically redesigned Hags as compared to PF1 (an important thing to note, since not everyone has the books).

Inasmuch as it makes your comment confusing and sound like it's specifically criticizing PF2's design, yes it's relevant.

A phrasing like 'I've never liked the way D&D/Pathfinder has designed Hags since 3.0' would have not provoked the response I made, but you implied (probably unintentionally) that this was a new design decision. Which seemed worth noting as not precisely correct, given the context of a new edition which not everyone has access to all the monsters from yet.

You should obviously redesign monsters if that makes you happier with them and your players are cool with it, yes.

okay.

To clarify, I have never like the way hags were designed.

THEN, I had the Adept class to fix what I thought was wrong with hags.

NOW, I do not have the Adept class.

SO, I will have to redesign hags.

I understand scarletrose's frustration.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
scary harpy wrote:

scarletrose, I understand the sentiment. My favorite monsters are hags…but not the way they are designed now.

Uh...this is not new. This was as true in PF1 as it is now, very possibly more so.

Did you see the part about understanding the sentiment?

I still don't like the 2ed version of hags. Is whether it's new or not really relevant?

I understand scarletrose's frustration. I agree she should redesign the Succubus.


scarletrose, I understand the sentiment. My favorite monsters are hags…but not the way they are designed now.

While they are described as “monstrous witches”, I find there is very little ‘witchy’ about them outside their covens. They are more like Ogresses with a few special abilities. They can’t even cast a spell to heal themselves!

I used think the Adept NPC class was a perfect fit for hags: they gained a familiar, a few low level spells and some skills…and they only had to meditate on wicked philosophy (no particular deity needed)! This let them fit the Halloween Witch Archetype nicely.

If you’re dissatisfied with the Succubus write-up, then definitely rewrite when the Gamemaster Guide arrives in January. I assume you will use the previous edition’s Succubus as guide. I’m not even buying the Bestiary until I can get the Gamemaster Guide (because I have several monsters that I want to rewrite also).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan, definitely not a Kitsune wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I do agree that our redeemed succubi (it's actually both Arueshalae and Nocticula) being dressed less provocatively has unfortunate implications that should be addressed.
** spoiler omitted **
Spoiler:
Pan, definitely not a Kitsune wrote:

I'm… slightly annoyed that it's always the pretty ones that get redeemed.

Arueshalae, Nocticula, and now Sorshen all have that in common. A succubus, the succubus queen, and the runelord of lust.
It's time that Zon-Kuthon gets turned back into Dou-Bral. Preferably while keeping his scars.

I think Zon-Kuthon and Dou-Bral should become separated beings; Dou-Bral should seek redemption...with some scars. I want Thron back too.


Hopefully, I've misunderstood this.

An Advanced Player's Guide will not be a core book; since it's not core, some won't allow it's material into a game.

Please tell me I'm wrong. I really like the Witch class.


Xenocrat wrote:
scary harpy wrote:

Spell Mastery

General
1st-level Wizard
Prepare some spells without a spellbook

This is the 1st Ed. feat.

Has anyone found the 2nd Ed. version of this feat?

Doesn’t exist.

Thanks!

Mystery solved.


Spell Mastery
General
1st-level Wizard
Prepare some spells without a spellbook

This is the 1st Ed. feat.

Has anyone found the 2nd Ed. version of this feat?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Temperans wrote:

The way I understood it, if it's a PC race there is at least 1 member of that race of each alignment; But anything not fitting the culture has a chance of being the exception not the rule. The core races are special in that if you did a survey it will average out to neutral more likely than not, but still their culture usually follow some larger alignment pattern. (Ex: Dwarves tend to be more lawful while Gnomes tend to be more chaotic)

As for racism between the races. Elves are described as "dismissive of other races", even if they know they have their good qualities. Dwarves straight up hate orcs and goblins, and find most other races (besides humans) as not worth their "respect". Half-Orc raised by Orc, are often basicaly brainwashed into hating Elves, Dwarfs, and Humans (Hatred alt-racial trait).

I just want to point out that elves were never meant to be bigoted in Pathfinder. It has snuck into products before, but that's just the classic Tolkien influence. James Jacobs did an interesting stream where he talked about how elves are meant to be these really groovy hippies who are all about sharing their magic secrets and stuff. Real chaotic good types.

I imagine with the published materials being brought under more scrutiny and being more focused on Lost Omens, this will come across much more consistently.

I'm truly looking forward to the groovy, hippie elves.

Peace, man.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
scary harpy wrote:
While that may be true on the First World, does it still apply when the fae are not there?
It was my understanding that the overwhelming majority of fae on the prime material just wandered through one of those portals that occasionally opens up by accident or design. With the exception of a few fae like dryads, most simply cannot thrive here but nonetheless appreciate the novelty.

Well, that certainly applies to the Mitflits and the Pugwampis.

Thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Well that’s an issue.

But that’s a completely different issue

is it?

Quote:
than talking about things that aren’t Humanoids that have innate mindsets/instincts/Alignment.

yes we are.

maybe we should discuss why they were designed that way?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
scary harpy wrote:
Rysky wrote:


Like the group formerly known as Outsiders, Fey aren’t a culture, they’re created with the mindset they have. Ankou don’t come from a village of assassins and torturers, they come prebuilt with that mindset and abilities.

Which isn’t to say they can’t change their mindset, they probably have an easier time than the group formerly known as Outsiders. They just don’t have a completely open and free will like Humanoids do, they have specific instincts and mindsets built in.

Some would have said the same about goblins. Some still do.
... Goblins are Humanoids.

yes.

that does not matter to some.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:


Like the group formerly known as Outsiders, Fey aren’t a culture, they’re created with the mindset they have. Ankou don’t come from a village of assassins and torturers, they come prebuilt with that mindset and abilities.

Which isn’t to say they can’t change their mindset, they probably have an easier time than the group formerly known as Outsiders. They just don’t have a completely open and free will like Humanoids do, they have specific instincts and mindsets built in.

Some would have said the same about goblins. Some still do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:


I feel like the fae might be an exception like fiends and undead. Specifically, since on the First World what think and what you do is liable to affect what you are. So Mitflits who get over their whole deal become something else, and Gremlins who lose their desire to ruin things for the fun of it become non-Gremlins.

While that may be true on the First World, does it still apply when the fae are not there?

If I recall mite history correctly, they left the First World and devolved into Mites over a long time. Since their original form is lost, we don't know what they were. (of course, this origin may have been revised.)


It's a general issue with 'disposable' enemies.

Mitflits were in the preview...that's the reason I commented on them.


swoosh wrote:
But not spiders, rats, skeletons or imps?

I'll let you fixate weirdly on them.


swoosh wrote:
scary harpy wrote:
Mitflits should not have to advance out of this state...they shouldn't be in the state to begin with.

Why just mites though? Why not the dire rats and giant spiders and skeletons and imps and quasits and etc. too?

It seems weird to fixate specifically on mites.

Not just mites, is it? They are just an example.

Once it was also orcs, kobolds and...goblins.

Several races of disposable humanoids. They're evil, of course, so it good that the heroic murder hoboes slaughter them and steal the creature's belongings.


Malk_Content wrote:
scary harpy wrote:


Low-level PCs need low-level adversaries...how about an evil human commoner? Or an evil elf commoner? Or an evil gnome commoner? Or an evil halfling commoner? Or an evil dwarf commoner?

All those things are valid enemies. Basically if somethings level is between -1 to 1 its going to be moderately pathetic. Its impossible to not be (or else they would be higher levels.) Nothing precludes Miflits from advancing out of this level state.

This is my point.

We have all these evil commoners (of PC races) and dire rats, giant spiders, skeletons, etcetera. We have many enemies for low-level PCs.

Also, nobody believes all dwarf-elf-gnome-halfling-human commoners are evil.

So...why do we need to design a fey that's very pathetic and, of course, very evil...all of them.

I don't feel we do. I don't think it's necessary to create a creature just to be abused and murdered by our brave heroes.

Mitflits should not have to advance out of this state...they shouldn't be in the state to begin with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asgetrion wrote:
scary harpy wrote:
Rysky wrote:
scary harpy wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Zaister wrote:
scary harpy wrote:


I hope Mitflits/Mites have options so they can become less pathetic.

If not now, then I hope for options later.

I think the whole point of their existence is to be the pathetic little buggers they are.
Exactly! They're supposed to be pathetic, vengeful little miscreants, and IMO that 2E Bestiary entry nails them perfectly!

There is no need for any race to be pathetic just so low-level PCs can have an easy victory.

All threats should be able to be scaled up and down.

I think Asg was referring to how they are, not to their mechanical stats or combat effectiveness.

I mean how they are and their mechanical stats.

Many may have disliked the Advanced Race Guide, but I liked how I could easily customize by the numbers.

I meant it too; I *love* how the 2E mechanics support the flavor! And I just don't get why such creatures shouldn't exist? Low-level PCs need low-level adversaries such as dire rats, giant spiders, skeletons etcetera. These can all be scaled up, too; maybe we don't yet have the exact rules, but I've always felt RPGs should be art rather than rocket science. You want a mite hero? Remove 'Self-Loathing' and put some bonuses on that stat block. Then add power attack or even some kind of unique combat ability. :)

(@Rysky: C'mon, what's this with 'Asg'? Asg? Is that a proper way to address a grumpy, Chelaxian fiendish dwarf librarian? ;P)

okay.

Low-level PCs need low-level adversaries...how about an evil human commoner? Or an evil elf commoner? Or an evil gnome commoner? Or an evil halfling commoner? Or an evil dwarf commoner?

Not pathetic enough? maybe give them psychological issues...and influenza too.

There, that should be sad and weak enough for our brave PCs to murder.


Bardic Dave wrote:
scary harpy wrote:
Rysky wrote:
scary harpy wrote:
Rysky wrote:
My comment was in reference to the ARG.
I found the numerical system in the ARG to make customization easy.

Cool, not sure what that had to do with the conversation.

(unless when I used Asg as short for Asgetrion and that was mistaken for ARG)

If I'm unhappy with a creature' statistics, I find it easier to customize them with a numerical system.

I'm unhappy with mites...so I would like a numerical system to adjust their stats.

There's a "numerical system" in the bestiary for raising or lowering a creature's level (its CR as it used to be called), so you can make a level 20 mite if you want. Otherwise, the GMG will have detailed rules for creating monsters from scratch if you want to redo the mite completely.

I'm looking forward to the GMG.

In January, isn't it?


Rysky wrote:
scary harpy wrote:
Rysky wrote:
My comment was in reference to the ARG.
I found the numerical system in the ARG to make customization easy.

Cool, not sure what that had to do with the conversation.

(unless when I used Asg as short for Asgetrion and that was mistaken for ARG)

If I'm unhappy with a creature' statistics, I find it easier to customize them with a numerical system.

I'm unhappy with mites...so I would like a numerical system to adjust their stats.


Rysky wrote:
My comment was in reference to the ARG.

I found the numerical system in the ARG to make customization easy.


Rysky wrote:
scary harpy wrote:
Rysky wrote:
scary harpy wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Zaister wrote:
scary harpy wrote:


I hope Mitflits/Mites have options so they can become less pathetic.

If not now, then I hope for options later.

I think the whole point of their existence is to be the pathetic little buggers they are.
Exactly! They're supposed to be pathetic, vengeful little miscreants, and IMO that 2E Bestiary entry nails them perfectly!

There is no need for any race to be pathetic just so low-level PCs can have an easy victory.

All threats should be able to be scaled up and down.

I think Asg was referring to how they are, not to their mechanical stats or combat effectiveness.

I mean how they are and their mechanical stats.

Many may have disliked the Advanced Race Guide, but I liked how I could easily customize by the numbers.

What... does that have to do with the conversation?

I'll assume the question was answered.

I'm grateful that Reckless could explain better than I can.


WatersLethe wrote:

To be honest, it should have been orc > kobolds > goblins > hobgoblins

agreed.


Rysky wrote:
scary harpy wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Zaister wrote:
scary harpy wrote:


I hope Mitflits/Mites have options so they can become less pathetic.

If not now, then I hope for options later.

I think the whole point of their existence is to be the pathetic little buggers they are.
Exactly! They're supposed to be pathetic, vengeful little miscreants, and IMO that 2E Bestiary entry nails them perfectly!

There is no need for any race to be pathetic just so low-level PCs can have an easy victory.

All threats should be able to be scaled up and down.

I think Asg was referring to how they are, not to their mechanical stats or combat effectiveness.

I mean how they are and their mechanical stats.

Many may have disliked the Advanced Race Guide, but I liked how I could easily customize by the numbers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Asgetrion wrote:
Zaister wrote:
scary harpy wrote:


I hope Mitflits/Mites have options so they can become less pathetic.

If not now, then I hope for options later.

I think the whole point of their existence is to be the pathetic little buggers they are.
Exactly! They're supposed to be pathetic, vengeful little miscreants, and IMO that 2E Bestiary entry nails them perfectly!

There is no need for any race to be pathetic just so low-level PCs can have an easy victory.

All threats should be able to be scaled up and down.

1 to 50 of 441 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>