spectrevk's page

In previous editions there was a sense that your level really mattered. If you were a 1st-level character, you were little better than a peasant. If you were 5th-level, you were probably a local hero. By the time you were 10th-level you probably had enough accomplishments to be known across the land. By the time you got to 15th- or 20th-level, you had saved the world (likely more than once) and were trekking across other realities the likes of which are seldom seen by mortal men.

Likewise, the NPCs around you were largely low level unless they were intended as foes or interacted with your heroic journey in some meaningful fashion. A 1st-level enemy was a roadside brigand while a 5th-level threat might be a hill giant or troll. A 10th-level threat was a powerful demon. A 15th-level threat was generally a dragon or a powerful divine servant of a deity. At 20th-level, you're likely fighting the avatar of a demigod or demon lord. As you became a bigger hero you faced beggar threats. Yesterday it was a wizard. Today it's a lich. Tomorrow a demilich AND its fanatical cultist cabal.

But much of that seems lost to me in 2nd Edition, and I'm curious to know if other people have had a similar sense.

This really hit me after I recently hosted a published adventurer in which STARVING THIEVES were listed as a plausible threat for 10th-level heroes. It kind of begs the question: If starving people are that tough, then who needs the heroes? What exactly makes them heroes when, in another published encounter, even NPC children can stand up to them (at least well enough to survive multiple fireball spells)?

Are the days where high level heroes and foes were the rare exception long gone? Is every barber, chef, and midwife now capable of challenging the PCs at all levels just because Paizo wills it?

Discuss.

Totally not a Rick Roll

This seems like more of a writing problem (why make them starving thieves, rather than a legendary band of brigands?) than a mechanical one. The problem isn't 2nd edition, this is a complaint for the writer of the adventure.

It seems like a pointless "class feature" to gain martial weapon training as a Warpriest, given that:

1. Most deities have simple weapons as their favored weapons.
2. Warpriests only get improved proficiency in their deity's favored weapon

Between higher proficiency and Deadly Simplicity, a Warpriest of a deity with a simple favored weapon is likely better off using the favored weapon. And Warpriests of a deity with a martial or even Exotic favored weapon are already proficient with that weapon at level 1. So what's the point of wasting a Doctrine ability on martial weapon training?

How come Alahazra is the only iconic who got replaced for this book? I miss her already :(

I think this all started after a friend of mine played a Solarian in one of my first Starfinder campaigns, and he had a really rough time of it. I initially assumed he was just poorly optimized (he had a low dex, high strength and charisma, an went with the solar weapon) but as I've spent more time looking at the class and trying out builds on my own, I'm left with some puzzling questions.

1. Why do they get two extra class skills at 1st level when they have so few skill points to begin with? The class requires investing in STR, DEX, and CHA at a bare minimum, and CON would certainly be a higher priority than INT, so at most they'd start with 5 skill points as a human.

2. Why don't they get more ways to use their Charisma? They're a Charisma-based class, it gives them Resolve points, but all it does for the class itself is affect the DCs of their revelations, most of which do not require a saving throw. Some kind of Charisma-based damage bonus seems like a no-brainer here, but perhaps I'm not seeing something and that would be unbalanced?

3. What is the role of the Solarian? As a melee combatant they are outperformed at low levels by Soldiers (who can focus on fewer ability scores, and thus invest in some utility as well); their revelations do offer some interesting battlefield utility, but Technomancers offer much more diverse options and superior field control. In starship combat they're basically stuck being gunners, as other classes likely have higher DEX (for piloting), INT (for engineering/science office) or CHA (for captain) abilities/skills. Is it sort of a compromise between having a Soldier in the party and having an Envoy?

4. Is it just me, or is it odd that while Kasathans are (in lore) the originators of the Solarian tradition, Korasha Lashuntas are far more optimized for the class?

I'm not pointing these things out to complain; rather, just to illustrate my current understanding of the class. If other people have found ways to make it work and make sense, then I'm eager to learn more. Please, post some example builds, or an explanation of what approach works best when creating a Solarian. All I can figure is taking Heavy Armor Proficiency if you go Solar Weapon and saving a little on DEX.

That's...still not a lot of info, and it still seems like that if you're going to include a background on a heritage, perhaps describing that heritage in the book would be a good idea.

spectrevk wrote:

I feel like “distinctive” isn’t good enough. It should match the theme of the creature, which is a highly disciplined militant race of humanoids. Goblins are the opposite of that, so making hobgoblins indistinguishable (other than size) is a problem, in my view, unless we are also revising what hobgoblins are as a whole. If they’re intended to just be Medium goblins, both in appearance and behavior, then the new design is fine.

All you'd need to visually represent them as highly disciplined military would be some polished uniforms and equipment (and maybe some peons/enemy soldiers being routed before them). Everything you've described is cultural, not biological.

Having them look like Medium goblins and having them look like highly disciplined militants isn't something that is mutually exclusive.

Theoretically sure, but in practice, thus far, they are mutually exclusive.

Ravingdork wrote:

Midnight Anarch wrote:

Also, for so many reasons, this (also from Ironfang) says "Hobgoblin soldier" better than the new hob-soldier art, which as I've said elsewhere, looks more like a hobgoblin got his head stuffed inside his armor and had a goblin shoved down to fill the space instead. Again, I get the logic but the end result still manages to come across as bizarre and unfitting to the race.

Your "hobgoblin soldier" looks indistinguishable from an orc to me.

Was mostly staying out of the subjective art discussion, but was going to add this too, tbh. I don't especially like Yoletcha's art, I agree it's a bit raggedy and un-frightening, but I have to say I find Scarvinious and the aforementioned Ironfang soldier don't say hobgoblin to me. They say standard fantasy evil warrior. Which is a thematic and classic look for sure, but not especially distinctive.

Whatever the flaws of the new hobgoblin direction, it's very distinctive. And I like that about it. Less convinced by bugbear art I've seen so far, expect maybe the sketch Wayne Reynolds did during the playtest, and I'm not sure that's even where they are going with it.

I think the Bruthazmus art by Eric Belisle is perfect as hulking goblinoid though. So I hope they ere towards that style, even if it's older art.

I wasn't trying to pile on (just thought it was interesting how completely differently I felt about hobgobliness). Hope it didn't feel like I was.

I feel like “distinctive” isn’t good enough. It should match the theme of the creature, which is a highly disciplined militant race of humanoids. Goblins are the opposite of that, so making hobgoblins indistinguishable (other than size) is a problem, in my view, unless we are also revising what hobgoblins are as a whole. If they’re intended to just be Medium goblins, both in appearance and behavior, then the new design is fine.

spectrevk wrote:

Dragonstriker wrote:

spectrevk wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

The official new look for hobgoblins is that they look more like Medium size goblins. Now and then, stragglers will slip through the cracks as we adjust our style for them, which we'll get better at not doing as the edition goes on.

Is there anything we can say to change your mind? The medium-sized goblin look is terrible.

In your opinion.

Yes. By definition, anything I post here is my opinion.

Is it? If you state something

e.g. grass is a plant
Hobgoblins look terrible
The earth is round
Hobgoblins are goblinoids

It comes across as being stated as fact.

Why? We're discussing art depicting fictional creatures in a shared fictional world. Literally nothing we discuss here, outside of rules and lore written in officially published books, could be reasonably understood as "fact".

Arachnofiend wrote:

I think the issue is that the bestiary portrayal of hobgoblins is just really bad art. The Hobgoblin General in the bestiary looks ridiculous; she looks like you had physically stretched out a goblin. This woman does not look like a seasoned war veteran and leading officer in a military hierarchy, she looks like someone who is the subject of her subordinates' wacky hijinks and never quite manages to catch them red-handed.

The Hobgoblin Alchemist in the blog post (and which I assume is also in the Character Guide book) is FAR more believable as a member of hobgoblin society. There's nothing funny about this design and he manages to be legitimately intimidating. The muscle bulk really helps with this, though there's a lot more going on with his expression and other details that assist in making him look more serious. He still has the squashed head, long ears, and full set of pointy teeth to make him look more goblin than orc but he has all of those things without it being funny, which is absolutely crucial for hobgoblins.

Funny, the general is one of my favourite of the new Hob pieces.

... is it the non-blue skin?

I think it's the hunched posture, the spindly, weak limbs, and the sad, crestfallen facial expression. She just doesn't look comfortable in that outfit, or holding the weapon. Compare it to the posture, limbs, and facial expression of the hobgoblin leader from Ironfang Invasion. Note that both have nearly the same skin tone.

spectrevk wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

The official new look for hobgoblins is that they look more like Medium size goblins. Now and then, stragglers will slip through the cracks as we adjust our style for them, which we'll get better at not doing as the edition goes on.

Is there anything we can say to change your mind? The medium-sized goblin look is terrible.

In your opinion.

Yes. By definition, anything I post here is my opinion.

spectrevk wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

The official new look for hobgoblins is that they look more like Medium size goblins. Now and then, stragglers will slip through the cracks as we adjust our style for them, which we'll get better at not doing as the edition goes on.

Is there anything we can say to change your mind? The medium-sized goblin look is terrible.

I get it that it's not something everyone likes, but we like it. It's not really up for a vote. If over the years to come the feedback ends up being "hobgoblins look stupid" then maybe we'll consider it then, but we're pretty pleased with the look in-house at this time.

We'll still be looking at feedback, so by all means keep giving it to us, but don't expect us to change the look for these things suddenly simply because some folks don't like it. Give it time and it'll sort itself out.

Fair enough. I think the 1E look works beetter for a group of highly disciplined militant warrior types. The 2E goblins look too much like the more chaotic, slightly humorous goblins, so it kind of undercuts the theme of Hobgoblins, IMO. I think the 2E design could almost work better for Bugbears, who are a bit more wild in their behavior.

I love the new hobgoblins, they actually feel like they are related to other goblinoids now instead of just being Gray humanoids (1e hobgoblins reminded me a lot of LOTR Uruk-hai, which isn't a great thing as pathfinder goblins are veeerrryyy different to the goblins that uruk-hai are related to).

Goblinoids have never looked alike. Bugbears *still* look totally different from Goblins or either version of the Hobgoblin design.

The official new look for hobgoblins is that they look more like Medium size goblins. Now and then, stragglers will slip through the cracks as we adjust our style for them, which we'll get better at not doing as the edition goes on.

Is there anything we can say to change your mind? The medium-sized goblin look is terrible.

Like many people, I was opposed to the "new" Hobgoblin art style first introduced in Starfinder, where they become just Goblins with longer legs. When this continued in the Bestiary, I was similarly bummed out. But then I looked at the Lost Omens World Guide, and the Hobgoblin leader is illustrated in the style of 1E Hobgoblins. So which is it? Are there now multiple types of Hobgoblin?

Apologies if this is a rehash of an old topic, but I'm curious about why the 2E elemental sorcerers were designed the way that they were. Some of the changes, like giving them the Primal spell list, seem welcome and interesting. But while Fire elemental sorcerers retain their ability to do Fire damage from 1E with their class spells; Water, Air, and Earth all do Bludgeoning damage. This is problematic for at least a couple of reasons:

1. It makes these options functionally identical, which makes the choice feel irrelevant. This is a shame, since one of my favorite things about 2E character generation is that the choices generally feel important and interesting.

2. It creates a bit of a balance issue, as Fire sorcerers get to deal energy damage, while Water, Earth, and Air are all stuck with physical damage. This means, for example, that the later three are all at a disadvantage when dealing with incorporeal creatures.

Now, I imagine that at least part of the reason for these changes was to create some rarity around access to acid, electrical, and cold damage. And perhaps there was something a little silly about an "earth" elemental dealing "acid" damage (are rocks known for dissolving things?) and "air" becoming more of a "lightning" element, but this solution doesn't sit right with me, or many of the other players and GMs that I've talked to in my area.

I think one possibly better solution, to at least resolve the first issue, would be to have Earth deal Bludgeoning, Air deal Piercing, and Water deal Slashing damage. This makes sense, as pressurized air can puncture objects, and pressurized water is used to cut things in industrial settings. It still doesn't resolve the second issue, though.

Mark Moreland wrote:

David knott 242 wrote:

Since both Cheliax and the Shackles are now enemies of Vidrian, the open question is whether they make any sort of common cause against that new nation.

I wouldn't necessarily say that either is an "enemy" of Vidrian. Cheliax lost Sargava long before Sargava became Vidrian, and the Shackles will just have to go back to getting money from the Vidrians the old-fashioned way—piracy. While they aren't necessarily allies, they don't have an oblique motivation to full-out conquer them either.

Conquer them -- no, it wouldn't be worth it.

Punish them -- oh yes, they have plenty of motivation to do that. The idea of Cheliax taking action against Sargava is actually mentioned in the "Continuing the Adventure" section of one of the "Hell's" adventure paths -- I think it was "Hell's Vengeance". I don't think they would particularly care that there has been a revolution there.

I think the part that strikes me as unlikely is the Shackles Pirates rolling over for Cheliax so soon after the Chelaxians tried to outright murder them with Devils. I can see them taking (very high) bribes to allow trade ships through, but nothing the size of an invasion force, because doing so would threaten the pirates' own sovereignty.

I think more likely threats to Vidrian would be wealthy Sargavans trying to cling to their power in the region, Bekyars and other hostile neighbors looking to invade while they're still weak, and various factions vying for control of the country. I'm thinking about setting my 2E campaign in the region, starting around the transition period, so the players can experience the chaos, trying to protect their friends during the transition, choose what part of the revolution they support, etc.

Aenigma wrote:

Also, what happened to Pridon's Hearth, the newest colony of Sargava? Did the native people conquered this town too?

Liberated, and probably. Vidrian has the same frontiers as Sargava.

I ran Ire of the Storm last year; Pridon's Hearth is south of Sargava, and wasn't much of a colony. They had also freed all of their slaves, and depending on the PC's actions, possibly made peace with both the local Song'O Halflings and the Lizardfolk. Regardless, Pridon's Hearth was never under the administration of Sargava in the first place, and it didn't sound like the colony's only valuable export (Malaria-curing potatoes? Something like that) was common knowledge.

If you're really that concerned, why not just houserule that players can trade a skill improvement for a weapon improvement?

Goblins shouldn't be core. Goblins shouldn't be core. (I don't like core alchemist either, but I can far more easily accept that.)

I hope you guys are balancing PF2e with the assumption that people will be banning goblin as a playable race at their tables!

Why does it matter if they're core or not? It only affects whether you have to buy a new book to use them or not. The more core races the better, IMO.

Then what are spell rolls for? I've yet to see any other situation where the caster has to roll a check to cast a spell. Is this literally just for overcoming spell resistance?

We have 3 small races, and a class (Barbarian) that can potentially wield weapons built for large creatures, but I can't find any rules for how size alters the damage of a weapon in the playlets rules. Am I missing something, or is the only benefit of wielding a Greatsword sized for a Troll doubling your conditional damage bonus from rage?

Page 197—In the Spells chapter, in the Spell Attacks section,

paizo.com, Spectre VK <jcadle@gmail.com>, Aug 14, 2018
in the second paragraph, at the beginning of the fifth sentence, add “You add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to these attacks as normal, and”

Does this mean that a spell attack is now (proficiency) + (casting stat) + (dex or str)?

DR seems much more manageable; it conveys the idea that stabbing away at a swarm of insects is silly, but still gives non-magic/alchemical players a possible method of defeating the monster.

Just after my last session running a (non-playtest) Pathfinder game for some new players, I was looking over a random encounter (Leech Swarm, CR 4, vs a 2nd level party) and realized how badly it would slaughter them if I used it. It's not just the challenge rating (a level 2 party is capable of taking a CR4), but their composition, and I recalled previous times when swarms have made life miserable for low-level parties (the classic spider swarm being a good example).

Due to the way that Pathfinder treats diminuitive and smaller swarms, it is possible for even a CR1 swarm to end up largely invulnerable to the attacks of a CR1 party, as weapon attacks do nothing, single target spells cannot be used, and such swarms are often mindless, and thus immune to spells like sleep or hypnosis. Unless the party has a Wizard/Sorcerer who chose Burning Hands (a spell that many guides recommend skipping in favor of Magic Missile, or control spells like Grease), or an Alchemist with bombs remaining, or someone spent 10-20gp (a big investment at 1st level!) on splash weapons like acid/alchemist fire flasks, the party is helpless.

This can be easy for us "old hands" to forget, especially if one has played a lot of PFS where swarm preparation is second nature, but it can be a nasty, unfun surprise for new players. Tough fights are fun; fights where absolutely nothing works because you made the wrong choices at chargen (and had no way of knowing what the right choice was) isn't fun. Will 2nd edition adjust the swarm rules to avoid this loophole? 5e D&D simply makes swarms normally targetable with weapons, which seems silly to me (I can just individually slash the entire swarm? What?) but I'm hoping that Paizo has another solution in mind.

Altronus, Kasatha Solarian: Voiced by Idris Elba
Iseph, Android Operative: Cara Delevigne
Keskodai, Shirren Mystic: Voiced by Tony Shaloub
Navasi, Human Envoy: Ali Wong, to hopefully inject some edgy humor into the character.
Obozaya, Vesk Soldier: Voiced by Shohreh Aghdashloo
Quit, Ysoki Mechanic: Brad Williams
Raia, Lashunta Technomancer: Olivia Thirlby

As a side note, I am saddened by the lack of Kasatha portraits :'(

Alternate Lashunta: Lashunta are now genderless with two castes instead. Pic related:

http://pm1.narvii.com/6199/fba02dd5bbc63b43cac98124a3b3e8fdb42ee4a3_hq.jpg

I hope you're happy: I'm definitely playing a Lashunta named Picolo the first chance I get :P

What's funny is that unattended objects *do* get a size bonus to AC, just not creatures.

The Mystic Strike feat requires you to have the "Ability to cast spells". All Lashuntas receive 3 spell-like abilities. Do these count as having the ability to cast spells for the purposes of qualifying for the feat, or not.

The section on damaging objects does include size in the formula for determining the AC of the object.

spectrevk wrote:

Bigguyinblack wrote:

Flat-footed is now just a -2 to AC and you can't take reactions.

A 5ft step is a move action called guarded step.
There is no -4 for firing into melee.
Charging now gives a -2 to hit instead of +2. You still take the -2 to AC.

Wait, why would you ever charge if that were the case?

Because your opponent is a double move+ away and you still want to attack in that round, I assume.

In a setting where ranged weaponry is already going to be more prevalent, it seems odd to make melee even *less* appealing as an option though. Ah well.

So, this one might be preaching to the choir, but it seems like everywhere I go people are always asking, "How come you play Pathfinder? Why aren't you playing 5th ed?" The other game title changes, but the question stays the same. So this week I thought I would put down my reasons. The blog post is fairly long, but so far it's received some positive support. So I thought I'd share it here, and see if folks agree with my reasons.

Why Pathfinder is My Game of Choice.

Are there reasons I don't mention, or things that you prefer instead?

I'd say the quality of module writing (and editing) is much higher at Paizo than at WotC. Or really, any other company I've bought pre-written adventures from. Try running Curse of Strahd after running an Adventure Path; it's a harsh comedown from the logical book structure and masterful pacing that you find in, say, The Mummy's Mask.

I happen to enjoy both systems, but while I may give 5e a nod for some well-made modernizations to the system, Pathfinder is a superior product for an invested gamer, IMO. Regular publishing schedule, comprehensive supplements, and a setting that feels a bit more influenced by modern fantasy writers, while Faerun still feels a bit stodgy and old-fashioned to me.

spectrevk wrote:

That really depends on how Devil blood is valued in your world. If it's common enough that it's worth less than 1GP, then I'd assume it's a fairly Evil world you're in, so yes, relatively speaking, you might still be a good person.

If, as one might expect, extracting blood from an Evil Outsider is rather expensive (more than 1GP), then Eschew Materials is irrelevant. False Focus could work, but then you're at the mercy of your deity regarding invoking a Devil's healing gifts instead of their's.

You might expect it, but you'd be house ruling it, since no specific cost is given.

That's a fair point. If we assume that Devil Blood has no earthly value, and thus a Sorcerer can cast it blood/unholy water-free, then the question of how one might roleplay this pull towards Evil is still pretty straightforward.

Sorcerers gain their magic intuitively; it's in their blood. Knowledge of an Evil spell is a stain, a temptation to draw on Evil powers to do good. Jack Bauer might have had the best intentions for torturing all of those people, but at the end of the day he's still not a nice guy. He's the guy who gets his hands dirty, and so is the "good" person who relies on Infernal healing.

spectrevk wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

Here's a thought experiment.

Let's say we have a character whose only evil acts have been casting Infernal Healing to save lives. This is the only evil spell that they know. This character has never hurt anyone, and is in fact a pacifist. They've never cheated, lied, stolen, or done any other evil act. Committing these acts just feels wrong to them. But they are now objectively evil because the only way for them to save friends on the verge of death was to use Infernal Healing.

How is their evilness expressed in the game?

Where is this saint getting all of his Devil blood to annoint people with? What is he giving the Devil who provides it in return for his supply?

From the local apothecary that sells Spell Component Pouches. You know, the same merchant who sells butter, bat poop, and every other spell component without a listed cost.

You can't have it both ways. Either we're evaluating the situation based on rational RP considerations, or we're taking game mechanics as the laws of the universe. If it's the latter, then the spell is Evil because the book says it's Evil. If it's the former, then no, you can't buy blood from a goddamn Devil at the corner store guilt-free. Somewhere in the chain of providing you with the wand (which needed the blood to be made) or the blood itself, evil occurred.

Here's a thought experiment.

Let's say we have a character whose only evil acts have been casting Infernal Healing to save lives. This is the only evil spell that they know. This character has never hurt anyone, and is in fact a pacifist. They've never cheated, lied, stolen, or done any other evil act. Committing these acts just feels wrong to them. But they are now objectively evil because the only way for them to save friends on the verge of death was to use Infernal Healing.

How is their evilness expressed in the game?

Where is this saint getting all of his Devil blood to annoint people with? What is he giving the Devil who provides it in return for his supply?

Looking at the complaint fest of the Worst Pathfinder Feats thread got me thinking: what's the supposedly weakest feat you've ever taken? Or other character option?

I'm talking about the stuff that makes the other players at the table roll their eyes and assume you don't know what you're doing. Maybe they're right, or maybe you're just a mad genius. What's your weakest/weirdest PC option that you've actually taken for a PC?

Mine would have to be my PC in Pathfinder Society whose first feat was Skill Focus: Perform (Comedy). Sounds pretty pointless, right? But he's a gnome prankster bard who uses it for Versatile Performance, so not only does he use it for social skills, but it's actually a combat feat for him. It gives him a +3 to demoralize enemies, which was his "go to" move at low levels, before he had enough spells and performance rounds per day to have better stuff to do most of the time.

How about the rest of you?

I played a Halfling Rogue in a Pathfinder Core game. I took Weapon Finesse, and fought with a Mythril dagger. Surprisingly that rogue survived, and was reasonably successful.

So...decades of him foiling their plans, injuring/killing/imprisoning their operatives and leaders, and nearly wiping them out has all been a ruse for...what, exactly? This is the dumbest plot twist I can imagine.

There is also a Fighter archetype in the APG called the Phalanx Soldier that you might be interested in.

IMO, the problem isn't that healing the party is boring, it's that Clerics, as a class, don't really develop much over time. In a game that is as much about building your character as playing it, Clerics get no bonus feats, make all of their class decisions (all two of them) at first level, and despite being designed with melee in mind, have a horribly limited list of weapon proficiencies (Simple, and maybe one more, assuming you didn't pick a god who favors a simple weapon...which many of them do).

Two different Oracles of Flame might play completely differently, with one breathing fire all over the place and the other one imbuing his weapon with flame and zooming around the battlefield with extra move speed.

Every Witch is potentially different, based on what hexes they choose, what patron spells they get, etc.

Of all of the classes capable of healing, only the Cleric is trapped in the same build from level 1 until retirement. Their only respite are the 1 per 3 levels character feats that everyone else gets. It's an outdated class design that really should have been addressed in Pathfinder Unchained, IMO.

I've been trying to download the Player's Guide for Hell's Vengeance (a free PDF, btw) for over an hour, with no success, because the system insists on trying to "personalize" the PDF to discourage piracy of a product that, for all intents and purposes, can't be pirated because it's a free download.

This is very, very disappointing.

Why are people acting like we will never be able to download the books we got in the bundle?

I'm actually not concerned about the bundle books. I'm a long-time subscriber, and I've been waiting for the Hell's Vengeance Player's Guide for weeks. They released the PDF for the first adventure before the Player's Guide was available, making it difficult/impossible to properly run the AP, then said it would be released on the 24th...then the 25th....then the evening of the 25th. Now it's "available", but I can't download it, because it's trying to personalize the PDF.

There really isn't any need to personalize the Player's Guides, because they're free. There's no reason for any DRM on those PDFs.

Let's pass the time in a more entertaining way: what kind of character concepts are you hoping to try out?

I was thinking of a purely mercenary Rahadoumi, probably a fighter or rogue of some sort, whose in it for self-advancement but is leery of becoming truly bound to Asmodeus or any otherworldly powers.

A wizard with a similar attitude (devils serve ME, not the other way around) could also be interesting.

I'm hoping there's some kind of campaign trait for being Chelaxian nobility, as well, as the idea of a 3rd/4th son (or eldest daughter) heading out to the Chelaxian hinterlands to make a name and place for himself is pretty appealing.

I guess it's true: a watched Player's Guide download never arrives :P

spectrevk wrote:

I don't like that the scene was in the game in the first place, but you don't get to pick and choose when to be anti-censorship, IMO. Leave it in with a disclaimer about "cultural differences", or allow the option to remove it, but when a third party starts deciding what we are and are not allowed to see, we all lose :(

It's hardly "third party" or really censorship at all. It's the company that's translating the game for the US market. They've got the rights to change it as they please. They're not being forced to do so by anything other than their good taste and sense of what the market wants.

And seriously Japan? WTF? How is that even close to okay as anything but some evil mind control option?

First: the company who is localizing the game for the U.S. is definitely a "third party" between the developer and the consumer.

Second: The presence of government pressure has never been a prerequisite of censorship. Most censorship is self-inflicted, motivated by fear of reprisal based on previous incidents. That's how censors work: by punishing high-visibility targets, they cow everyone else into simply doing their work for them.

Now in this case, are we losing anything of value? Not really. It's a single scene that a player could well never encounter during a playthrough, and I totally agree that the scene itself is in very poor taste, and does not appear to add anything to the narrative. But that's not the point. If we only stand for free expression when it's something that doesn't offend us, then we aren't really standing for anything at all.

I don't like that the scene was in the game in the first place, but you don't get to pick and choose when to be anti-censorship, IMO. Leave it in with a disclaimer about "cultural differences", or allow the option to remove it, but when a third party starts deciding what we are and are not allowed to see, we all lose :(

Daggers doing only 1d4 is probably the first example that comes to mind. Someone holding a knife to your throat is hardly something to worry about; even if they get a coup de grace, you're likely to survive as a moderately tough character.

Meanwhile, in real life, having your throat slit is a serious problem, no matter how big you are...

I seriously don't understand this obsession with non-Evil undead. Golarion isn't a modern gothic setting; it's high-fantasy, where "good" undead seem woefully out of place. If you want them in your game, that's fine; just houserule it. But it seems like every few days we get another thread complaining about the lack of canonical non-evil undead in a setting that has made it abundantly clear, several times, that creating undead, or pursuing undeath on purpose, is clearly an Evil action.

My recommendations:

1. Do away with the idea that magic can do *everything*. "Knock", in its current form, shouldn't really be a spell. Magic spells for magic locks, technical know-how for mechanical locks. This would also go a long way in-Universe to explain why mechanical locks are still in use, and create more interesting challenges as vaults and dungeons use layered magical/mechanical defenses.

2. "Unchain" (har har) melee characters from having to stand still to get all of their iterative attacks. A high level fighter should be able to clear a room with the greatest of ease, not stand in the doorway and have to wait for people to crowd him.

3. Martial classes should have more utility abilities. A big part of the problem is that pure martials often have nothing to do outside of combat, and in-combat struggle to keep up with Wizards, who get the best of both worlds. I would bump Fighters and Paladins up to 4 skill points per level, and perhaps give fighters some kind of 3/day bonus die (1d4? 1d6?) to skill rolls based on a chosen physical attribute (STR/DEX/CON). This should make them feel a bit more action hero-y.

4. Extend cast times for...just about everything, really. Alternatively, implement spell activation rolls. One of the annoying things about *playing* a caster is that magic isn't terribly interactive for the player. You point at someone, and *they* make all the rolls to see if your spell works. Again, Pathfinder Unchained has some interesting mechanics for making this happen.

I'm interested in remaking a party-favorite character from 4E: A Halfling Fighter. The problem is 4E had a way to draw aggro in the mark mechanic, but Pathfinder does not, as far as I know.

Aggro is a bad mechanic in tabletop play. "Tanking" in a tabletop game should not resemble MMO tanking; rather, if you must make a videogame analogy, it should resemble MOBA Tanking: positioning, control of enemy movement, bottlenecking, and high defenses are the key.

For a Fighter, this means using tactics like repositioning, the Stand Still feat, the Bodyguard feat, etc. As a Halfling, you'll have the benefit in AC, but a disadvantage in CMD, meaning that you'll be easier for large enemies to grapple, bull rush, etc.

Aggro is acceptable in MMOs because much of the group content is completed by pick-up groups (PUGs) without voice chat, so proper coordination is both difficult and unlikely. The battlefields are typically very large with a lot of open space, so positioning is generally irrelevant beyond "don't stand in fire". In that type of game, Aggro is needed because no other form of control is available to a front-line fighter.

In a tabletop game, we're generally fighting in closer quarters, difficult terrain is frequently present, and turn-based combat makes coordination easier. In fact, without requiring precise coordination, turn-based combat would be far too easy, which is why aggro is a bad mechanic that has no place in tabletop RPGs.

Cayden Cailean. All he asks of me is that I not be a dick, and hang out in bars now and then.