Depora Azrinae

scary harpy's page

503 posts. Alias of unnambed.


RSS

1 to 50 of 503 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Mass Kneebreaker wrote:

I definetly agree on that. Mystic theurge could be an awesome idea, especially if you could combine any two Branches of magic.

However, i think personally the class needs something unique, instead of just wearing two different hats. Even Druid, Wizard, Bard and cleric feel different From each other.

How about some sort of a "Magical overload" mechanic, to represent the two methods clashing in the caster?

Agreed.

1 spell slot for arcane magic,
1 spell slot for divine magic,
1 spell slot for magical synthesis (whatever that would be...)


Squiggit wrote:

A big part of the mystic theurge's concept though was blending arcane and divine elements together, theoretically in a co-equal fashion to some degree.

A level 10 wizard who has one third level cleric spell slot doesn't really feel like it encapsulates that very well.

This.

The Mystic Theurge blends a both types of magic together...as opposed to a wizard dabbling in druidic magic.


AnimatedPaper wrote:

Warlock was also already a PF1 archetype with a very different focus. That would not be a terrible name for the weapon summoning class/archetype many have wanted to see to keep true to the pathfinder version.

Even better if the item was intelligent.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Warlock was also already a PF1 archetype with a very different focus. That would not be a terrible name for the weapon summoning class/archetype many have wanted to see to keep true to the pathfinder version.

Even better if the item was intelligent.

Okay...how about Warloghe?

I think Pathfinder should have it's own version of the warlock...nothing like D&D's warlock.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

M
Y
S
T
I
C

T
H
E
U
R
G
E

as a class...not a prestige class.

Name to long?

Shorten it to Warlock.


Krampus! in March... :(


graystone wrote:
thaX wrote:
scary harpy wrote:
Verzen wrote:

I 100% disagree. Magus and summoner are such that I want them to expand on their unique features. Giving them full casting will make them very bland. Id rather get rid of magic all together for these two and come up with interesting spell like abilities for Magus through focus points and have even better ways than most at restoring focus points during combat. Maybe even a focus spell that allows you to mimic a single target spell to enhance damage, but still costs a focus point.

...

A Magus with no magic and just spell-like abilities...sounds like a Warlock to me.

Maybe just me.

Ssshhhh... We are not allowed to have full class warlocks here...
Just call them kineticists and it'll be ok. ;)

Eh, I don't see why we have to do that.

Call them Warloghe or Warlow...or call them Warlock and make the class different from D&D!

Pathfinder should really have it's own Warlock; it has other classes D&D does not.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:

I 100% disagree. Magus and summoner are such that I want them to expand on their unique features. Giving them full casting will make them very bland. Id rather get rid of magic all together for these two and come up with interesting spell like abilities for Magus through focus points and have even better ways than most at restoring focus points during combat. Maybe even a focus spell that allows you to mimic a single target spell to enhance damage, but still costs a focus point.

...

A Magus with no magic and just spell-like abilities...sounds like a Warlock to me.

Maybe just me.


zergtitan wrote:

Just completed my survey.

Basic Summery,

Magus: Needs full spellcasting(i.e. retaining spell slots, but not gaining 10th level spells or legendary spellcasting) and needs spellstrike to instead add a free strike action to the spell casting and tie the effect of the spell attack to the effect of the weapon attack.

Summoner: Needs full spellcasting(i.e. retaining spell slots, but not gaining 10th level spells or legendary spellcasting) along with having the eidolon have it's own pool of Hit Points. Also suggested a Summoning focus power along the lines of Summon Monster specialized to each magic tradition.

I argued that having more options doesn't make either class more powerful then any other due to the Action Economy. And the slower Proficiency progression makes them balanced compared to their more specialized peers.
The Magus should feel like a more desirable option to the Wizard/Fighter Multiclass and the Summoner especially for a Sakorian Godcaller should feel more like a full caster at the side of their deity or friend then heavily reliant on the eidolon being present to even be effective in any way.

Verzen wrote:

I 100% disagree. Magus and summoner are such that I want them to expand on their unique features. Giving them full casting will make them very bland. Id rather get rid of magic all together for these two and come up with interesting spell like abilities for Magus through focus points and have even better ways than most at restoring focus points during combat. Maybe even a focus spell that allows you to mimic a single target spell to enhance damage, but still costs a focus point.

With summoner if we give them full casting, the Eidolon will be incredibly bland. It will be a flavorless AC. We already have those. They are called Druids.

Let's have something we don't have and that is an interesting Eidolon with a lot of customization built in. Why are people so keen on trying to reinvent existing classes? If you want a spellcasting class, we have those. Just play one of them. Lets get something truly unique.

With some wanting to go one way and some wanting to go the opposite way, we could easily end up with 4 classes from this playtest.


I find the 'Summoner' sounds boring.

Of course, we could call this class the Warlock but it doesn't really change anything.

The Somner/Somnour/Sompnour is the only other idea I could think of.


scary harpy wrote:


Nitro~Nina wrote:

This sounds very cool, actually, and is exactly the sort of thing I think when I think "Warlock." I had actually forgotten that the Vigilante "Warlock" archetype existed but that's also not at all similar to what the word conjures for me outside of the comic-book context of the Vigilante. Warlocks are dark, mysterious, not perhaps necessarily eeeeeevil but certainly, yes, Occult in some way. Masters of things man was not meant to know, primarily, and I could see this sort of class being The Occult Caster in the same way that the Wizard, Cleric and Druid are for their respective traditions.

...
I had forgotten the Vigilante Warlock too. I was hoping the Warlock would be it's own class but I guess we will probably get an archetype then.

Now that I think about it, the same thing could be said about the Mystic Theurge...I would have preferred it as it's own class but it will probably be archetype...if anything at all.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
scary harpy wrote:

I'm hoping for a Warlock class.

...
A little curious what you mean by this. What kind of inspiration or mechanics would you center the class on?

I have neither inspiration nor mechanics. I'll leave that to people-who-know-what-they-are-doing.

Nitro~Nina wrote:
TheDoomBug wrote:

I'd rather like an Occult Wisdom (Prepared) caster, perhaps tying into out-there concepts. Wisdom being needed to maintain sanity while invoking the incomprehensible and pushing the class toward Occult Cleric and Planar Druid. Focus spells could have some kind of backlash, like the Oracle's cursebound spells, related to mutating one's body into less stable forms.

I think this could be a "PF Warlock that isn't D&D's Warlock."

This sounds very cool, actually, and is exactly the sort of thing I think when I think "Warlock." I had actually forgotten that the Vigilante "Warlock" archetype existed but that's also not at all similar to what the word conjures for me outside of the comic-book context of the Vigilante. Warlocks are dark, mysterious, not perhaps necessarily eeeeeevil but certainly, yes, Occult in some way. Masters of things man was not meant to know, primarily, and I could see this sort of class being The Occult Caster in the same way that the Wizard, Cleric and Druid are for their respective traditions.

...

I had forgotten the Vigilante Warlock too. I was hoping the Warlock would be it's own class but I guess we will probably get an archetype then.


I'm hoping for a Warlock class.

Not a copy of the D&D Warlock; I want Pathfinder to have a new class name Warlock.

I really don't want the D&D Warlock and the Pathfinder Warlock to be similar in any way.

I just want to play a warlock in Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vaktaeru wrote:

I don't really see a way to play Magus without investing in getting more spell slots. If they had 2 spell slots of each of their highest levels and 1 of every other level, it would probably be fine. Generally speaking you'll be in three to five combats each adventuring day. There's not much point in being a full caster though if you only get to cast a full spell once per combat on average - especially when that spell is liable to be weaker than the actual spellcaster's equivalent.

...

Orithilaen wrote:

I haven't playtested yet but I've done some character building, and I think I dislike the 2/2 casting more than I initially thought I would.

...

I think what might work is to give the magus and summoner only one spell slot at their highest two spell levels, and compensate by giving them two spell slots at each lower spell level. Their spellcasting is still going to be pretty constrained by action economy and by the fact that they have fewer high level spells than everyone else. But it means that you have a more versatile and less frustrating set of spellcasting options. And it means that people won't feel that multiclass archetypes are superior.

2 good ideas.

Which would work best for the Magus? Which would work best for the Summoner?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Vaktaeru wrote:
I don't really see a way to play Magus without investing in getting more spell slots. If they had 2 spell slots of each of their highest levels and 1 of every other level, it would probably be fine. Generally speaking you'll be in three to five combats each adventuring day. There's not much point in being a full caster though if you only get to cast a full spell once per combat on average - especially when that spell is liable to be weaker than the actual spellcaster's equivalent.

I like this idea for both the Magus and the Summoner.

These classes are spell-casters and, thus, are appearing in Secrets of Magic.

So, let them cast spells!


Mystic Theurge, maybe.

as an archetype, I guess.

perhaps Beguiler, too.


GayBirdGM wrote:


Why would we need a class for NPCs? Aren't they made using entirely different rulesets than player characters?

It's not an NPC class.

It is a class for NPCs...unless you want to play a very weak PC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

An Adept class.

The usual 5 cantrips.

Only 1 spell per level.

Will is it's primary attribute.

Can only access common spells.

Meditates for spells.

Has 4 traditions: Arcane, Divine, Occult, Primal.

Selects 1 tradition at 1st level; irrevocable choice.

No access to 10th level spells; there's no feat. (So, short of a wish or Celestial/Infernal intervention, Adept's do without.)

I think of it as an class for NPCs.

Just off the top of my head.


I'll ask the dumb question:

How is a Summoner diffent from a Conjurer (Wizard specializing in Conuration/Summoning magic)?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

off the top of my head...

Hobgoblin
Investigator
MC Wizard (Divination)

If you can't find out something one way, you can find out another.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is bliss.

(Anyone else think she should multi-class into Druid?)


Squiggit wrote:
scary harpy wrote:
Oracles have their curses; so, why not? I think of it as a role-playing challenge.
Oracle curses are largely personal. Someone showing up to a table with PC that makes all their allies worse just by existing is a different beast entirely.

true.


Lord-of-Boggards wrote:
QuidEst wrote:

No pugwampi. (As much as it pains me to say that.)

Sure, I'd love it flavor-wise once we get gnolls, but their defining mechanic is one that I don't think is a good idea to have on anything playable for balance reasons. Normally, it'd be easy to say, "Oh, their feat only forces a reroll for a target once per day", but it's a big part of their lore that gnolls are the only other creature not passively affected by their aura. If Paizo doesn't mind giving them a more limited and party-friendly option, then I retract my reservations.

And it pains me to admit you are probably right. Their misfortune aura would probably be a bad idea unless your party was only gremlins and gnolls. It hurts to say that though, partly cause I love their flavor, partly because of how cute their 2e artwork is.

I don't see an issue. Forewarned if forearmed.

If you have a pugwampi PC in the group, then other PCs will affected by the misfortune aura if they aren't gremilins or gnolls.

Oracles have their curses; so, why not? I think of it as a role-playing challenge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I root for Mitflits. So, yes, I would like gremlins as an ancestry.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

so...when someone asks What classes would you like to see next in 2e? or What ONE Class should be prioritized for Aug 2021, one of the answers should be a revised/updated Alchemist.

I don't see a point in adding a Magus or Summoner while this original base classes is second-rate at best.


first:

Bard - Muse: Enigma

then:

Cleric - Doctrine: Cloistered Cleric

Interesting.

I'd have never considered either class before now.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow.

This really makes the waiting much worse.


ZomB wrote:
scary harpy wrote:
Should I ask if the Inner Sea has public libraries here or start a new thread?
PFS scenario Echoes of the Overwatched visits Forae Logos in Absalom, one of the largest libraries in the world.

Good to know. Thanks.

I asked because I thought most medieval libraries were private...and nothing like we think of public libraries today (so I wouldn't expect a section dedicated to children's literature...or magazines).

Now back to the topic: adventures in postal service.

(Brilliant post, Old_Man_Robot. LOL!)


What day can I go into my LGS and buy this?

I must support it during these trying times.


Should I ask if the Inner Sea has public libraries here or start a new thread?

I am half-wondering if libraries could inspire an AP and am unsure what to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Inspectors is an American crime drama television series centering on the criminal investigations of U.S. postal inspectors; the half-hour series aired on Saturday mornings on CBS as part of the network's Dream Team Saturday morning three-hour block of children's programming.

If this can be a children's show, then it can be an AP.


thejeff wrote:

And Orcs aren't really the weakened cannon-fodder either. They show up around the same time and in the same ways as humans do. A couple levels later as fodder and at any point as classed and more powerful bad guys.

Weakened cannon-fodder is more goblins and kobolds. There's a place for that and it still doesn't need to be "always evil, kill on sight". Just weak enough to use as enemies in numbers.

I think the key isn't so much how they're used as enemies, but how often and in what context they show up as non-enemies. It's one thing to have a note saying "they're not always evil" or even one adventure somewhere where there's a non-evil group of them, but to have them show up semi-regularly as non-villainous NPCs - living in towns, doing their thing.

Thanks, thejeff.

I don’t know how I’m failing to communicate clearly…but, apparently, I am. Sorry to anyone I confuse.

Weakened cannon-fodder is more goblins and kobolds…and now mitflits…but not halflings and gnomes. Why?

Perhaps because only some beings are labeled disposable, evil foes. If that description gives automatic permission to commit offenses against these labeled peoples, then I think this is a problem.

I agree the key is not how some beings are shown as enemies but how else they are shown. (I’ll use fey for my examples.) Is the mitflit committing an atrocity…or is he foraging vegetables for his supper? Is the hag perpetrating some foul deed…or is she in the marketplace for her weekly shopping? Are the PCs acting heroically when they attack beings because “they are always evil”?

I don’t know how else I can say this…so I probably won’t say much else if anything. I hope I didn’t wander too far off topic.


Squiggit wrote:
scary harpy wrote:
Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Halflings and Humans have ancestry options...and they can also simply be adversaries.

And they have been?

I feel like bad humans are fairly standard and common enemies, even.

I'm sure they are.

Are they the weakened cannon-fodder for low-level groups? Or are they the BBEGs?

There is a subtle difference.


NECR0G1ANT wrote:
scary harpy wrote:

I can already tell that this thread will be closed by the moderators sooner than later. So, I will add my two cents now.

I enjoy the inclusiveness of diversity in Pathfinder. I also welcome the changes of Goblins, Kobolds and Orcs.

Beware: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Mitflits have replaced Kobolds as a disposable, weak adversaries for low-level players.

As someone from Paizo explained, these are necessary evils for a rpg; otherwise, beginning characters are in a fight to the death with two rats...and the rats might win!

My view is different. Instead of Kobold or Mitflit, why not an evil Halfling or Gnome? (The GM can apply a weakened template to any of them.) Would killing the vile Gnome or Halfling would bother the players?

Why could this uncomfortable? Perhaps because all Halflings and Gnomes were not labeled 'Something Evil' and stated to all worship some evil entity...and, therefore, are not designated as unworthy to live.

I understand Mitflits are fey and I'm not asking for their redemption. I am saying racism can take many forms.

I too like that Kobolds, Goblins and Orcs are ancestry options, but I don't think that this means they won't also serve as antagonists. The Bestiary has entries for all of them, and one official Paizo Adventure has orcs as disposable mooks.

Just because they have an ancestry option doesn't mean they can't also simply be adversaries.

I don't think I suggested otherwise.

Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Halflings and Humans have ancestry options...and they can also simply be adversaries.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I can already tell that this thread will be closed by the moderators sooner than later. So, I will add my two cents now.

I enjoy the inclusiveness of diversity in Pathfinder. I also welcome the changes of Goblins, Kobolds and Orcs.

Beware: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Mitflits have replaced Kobolds as a disposable, weak adversaries for low-level players.

As someone from Paizo explained, these are necessary evils for a rpg; otherwise, beginning characters are in a fight to the death with two rats...and the rats might win!

My view is different. Instead of Kobold or Mitflit, why not an evil Halfling or Gnome? (The GM can apply a weakened template to any of them.) Would killing the vile Gnome or Halfling would bother the players?

Why could this uncomfortable? Perhaps because all Halflings and Gnomes were not labeled 'Something Evil' and stated to all worship some evil entity...and, therefore, are not designated as unworthy to live.

I understand Mitflits are fey and I'm not asking for their redemption. I am saying racism can take many forms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dargath wrote:
Based on some research from Pathfinder 1E the Summoner is the “World of Warcraft Demonology Warlock” ive been looking for. In other words a magic using class with a permanent pet useful for combat in a directly attacking animal companion sort of way over the utility way a familiar is. So I just want to cast spells and have a big ass demon bodyguard pet. +1 for Summoner if that’s how it played in 1E.

I think this is an intriguing suggestion: rename the class from the Summoner to the Warlock. That's certainly different from the other Warlock.

The class really needs to be distinct from the Conjuror.


TheGentlemanDM wrote:
I'm keeping a running total as a curiosity, and also to make it easier for Paizo to see where this thread is actually leaning. Using a rough 1 point for a first pick, and 0.5 points for secondary options...

if that's how it's done...

+ 0.5 Summoner


+1 for the Shaman


It's a shame the Kineticist cannot be renamed the Warlock. I wish Pathfinder had it's own Warlock class and this would work really well. :(


They are all so good!

There must be a way that more than 1 can become official. (Please.)

If these 4 made it this far, I suspect that 3 will all become unofficially official.


Themetricsystem wrote:

I'd very much like Paizo to tackle the three basic types of Summoner with the core chassis out of the gate with NO need to deal with archetypes.

1) Summon a semi-persistent Eidolon that does the heavy lifting for you in combat that gets ever more powerful, strange, and unique as you advance.

2) Specialize in summoning more temporary creatures for use in both combat but also for skill challenges that are especially suited to any number of creatures unique roles. Able to cast every Summon Spell printed numerous times a day with the use of Focus points.

3) Channel the power of ancestors, spirits, ghosts, and other extraplanar beings that can haunt places and invite them to share their body and as they advance the summoner gains new and more powerful otherworldly beings that further empower and enhance the summoner themselves. This could be used in a variety of ways from the Synthesist concept to a Spiritualist and Medium all the way through to concepts where characters summon legendary magical equipment and weapons to help them fight

Sounds like 3 different classes to me.

Squiggit wrote:

I feel like trying to cram so many disparate ideas into one class just would end up diluting it. Plus "specializing in summoning temporary creatures" just seems like something a conjuration wizard should be doing.

IMO, a summoner class should focus on what made the summoner in PF1 unique: A customizable, high powered, singular companion that fights on behalf of the summoner, with the summoner augmenting it.

You might be able to squeeze the Spiritualist and Hunter in there, because both of those classes were thematically similar in PF1 and were built in kind of similar ways.

But trying to make it simultaneously the summoner, spiritualist, synethesist, master summoner and medium all at once sounds really messy. I realize master summoner and synthesist were both summoner archetypes in PF1, but the overloaded chassis is largely why the class was so problematic in PF1 anyways.

I agree that the Conjurer and the Summoner should be distinct.

Staffan Johansson wrote:

I think a PF2 version of the Binder could be a really cool type of summoner.

The 3.5e Binder made short-term pacts with various entities called Vestiges which each granted a list of abilities. The result was that the binder essentially could sub in for most other classes as needed, depending on which entity/entities it bound that day. That could be a cool baseline, with the additional ability to manifest the entity in question as an eidolon (high-powered minion).

The PF1 Medium is built around the same idea, but with the spirits connected to the six primary stats (and, I think, Harrow suits?) which doesn't really have the same pizzazz as binding Amon, the Void before the Altar or Chupoclops, the Harbinger of Forever.

I like this idea!

I also like the Summoner being renamed (because Summoner sounds so boring.)


Beguiler

Binder

Shaman

Summoner (with a new name...even if it's somnour or sompnour)

I really like spell-casting classes.

and Hexblade (...always interested me for some unknown reason.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dragon Magazine #283

Do-It Yourself Deities

One of my favorite articles about pantheon design! It includes several historic pantheon examples and a homebrew pantheon example of about 15 deities.

Also, another great read is the Realistic Religions article is in the same issue.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
NemoNoName wrote:
Gonna build a Witch focused on fighting with their hair. <3

Should be a relatable character. I think most women spend a lot of time fighting with their hair.


Oh, who are the people in your neighborhood?
In your neighborhood?
In your neighborhood?
Say, who are the people in your neighborhood?
The people that you meet each day


2 people marked this as a favorite.
0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:


Ideally, the theme of this question is less whether e.g. Chill Touch does negative or cold damage, rather it is how trivial magic interacts with the environment and setting.

I don't think cantrips would be trivial...I think minor magics would be vital to survival for everyone.

Imagine living a world with all the monsters of bestiaries! (Then add all the gods.)


How would Torag and His Followers Feel About Hobgoblin PCs?

Would there be any difference between Gobin PCs and Hobgoblin PCs in their view?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kelseus wrote:
I really like how she is clearly striving to be a better version of herself (allowing CG followers) but also struggles with her worst impulses (still NE). It really helps to better flesh her out as a more three dimensional character. Flaws make a character interesting.

I read her entry (several times) and found it confusing.

Who would she allow to worship her?

What are her goals? What really are areas of interest?


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

"I need to have physical books,"

"I want to have a complete set of ancestries,"

And "I don't want to have to buy more books," are three reaaally hard things to reconcile.

Don't forget this one:

"I cannot afford to buy all these damn books"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Or you can just use the Archives of Nethys.
I'm hoping for a "well but that requires Internet" followup.

Sometimes I like to read holding a book in my hands.

I don't expect others to understand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

Hobgoblins, lizardfolk and leshy are already playable for a couple of months already, they were published in the Lost Omens Character Guide. But, of course, nobody noticed because people who come down here to kvetch pretty much never read the stuff they complain about :)

To make your life easier, aasimars, catfolk, changelings, dhampirs, duskwalkers, kobolds, orcs, tieflings, ratfolk and tengu will be out in 3 months with Advanced Player' Guide.

Also, the indomitable Shoony, the pug-people, were published in a recent AP instalment. I think some here might flip out at the notion of pugfolk in their xxxxtreme dark and edgy fantasy grimdark :D

I am looking forward to the APG.

If I understand you correctly, I have to buy these 3 separate items to have all of the playable ancestries (in addition to the core books). How convenient.

1 to 50 of 503 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>