vonFiedler's page

Have you looked at Emerald Spire?

I read Emerald Spire when it came out and I was not impressed. It's a lot bigger than anything I'd want anyway, being a whole campaign basically. Though it is possible that bits of the dungeon could be used. I might thumb through it again.

I've been running a home game for a while in a custom setting. It's been the most successful campaign of my life, in no small part because I used to have a ton of time and resources to create a lot of maps and custom content.

Used to, unfortunately. Now it's time to wrap up the campaign, with act 3 going overlong and me wanting to be finished by summer's end.

I'd like to go out with two dungeons. I'll be making big changes myself, as appropriate for the story, but I'm looking for some cool paizo dungeons to use as inspiration/layout. As a result, level range doesn't really matter to me.

The first dungeon is an underground kobold fortress. This leads down into an inter-planar museum/vault. The whole tour of the elemental/alignment planes is itself one big lock that the players need to figure out.

The second is a labyrinth... ala the movie labyrinth. Basically the final act is just that movie. I've got a few setpieces already planned, but could use a big maze and ending castle (I may use one of the castles in Curse of the Crimson Throne).

Let's say that I'm making a pretty extensive homebrew of 1st edition Pathfinder. It's a d20 game in the sense that it has classes and levels and most of the things you would expect to find in either edition of Pathfinder or most editions of a certain other d20 game.

So you are attempting to do anything in the game, such as roll to hit, or perform a skill check, etc. You put your hand in your dice bag and pull out a d10 as explained by your GM.

At this point, do you keep playing the game because that doesn't matter to you, or do you chuck your dice bag in the GM's face and leave, shouting things like "sacrilege!", or "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

People who plays lots of other tabletop games would probably be more open-minded in general to other dice configurations, but we're talking about a recognizable d20-like game but without the d20s. My reasons for using a d10 instead are not arbitrary, but that doesn't really matter, as some people would always assume it's arbitrary anyway. I'm just wondering how many of those people exist.

TL;DR Would you enjoy a game like Pathfinder equally if it used d10s instead of d20s, or would you dislike it?

Looks like another new way to tell people how to play their characters that wasn't in Pathfinder before. Not a fan of this one either.

But that penalty carries over to your next turn, assuming you have to use stealth again to get into position still.

Or maybe give rogues the ability? At level 1?

Because Stealth was so good in PF1 apparently.

Let's not forget that you, unlike the errata added into PF1, you now need to be in cover or concealment at all points of movement or you aren't stealthed. It's completely useless in all regards now.

I've had a simple wish since the beginning of PF1. If you beat your opponent's perception with your stealth, why can't we just say their back is turned? Stealth was bad in PF1, now it's a dead skill.

EDIT: Someone else pointed out in another thread that you have to make a stealth check every time you use sneak, and that's true whether it's multiple in the same turn or across different turns. Even a legendary stealther WILL fail over time. That one rogue feat becomes mandatory.

I'm not exaggerating at all. I'm playing Doomsday Dawn part 1 as a rogue right now and I feel like dropping out.

I like retributive strike a lot actually, but with its reactive nature, I don't think it's enough to make the Paladin an interesting class.

I can nitpick a lot of things but the biggest thing I'd like to see changed is how Barbarians work.

Barbarians were my favorite core class in Pathfinder. I'd hesitate to say that they've been ruined, as they're probably somewhat powerful between their rage damage and damage resistances.

But how did Barbarians ever evolve from a point where they weren't allowed to be lawful to a point where they have to follow laws in order to have their class features? When you think of anathema, you think of Cavaliers, Paladins, Clerics, and Monks... and now Barbarians? One of these things is not like the other things.

Most of these anathemas aren't big deals in and of themselves. The superstition anathema certainly is, but that's also not new. What kills me and drives me away from the Barbarian class is that Animal totem barbarians can't use weapons. There's good reason that animal totem is an option for Barbarians, as association with animals is huge with Barbarians in real life, between your Berserkers (Bears) and your Ulfhednars (Wolves). But those guys weren't running into battle trying to bite people, well, at least not exclusively. Even Animal Order Druids can use weapons!

"Why not just use Fury totem" another player has said to me. Because as I've seen pointed out on the board, Fury totem denies you access to 14 of Barbarian's 41 feats. That's only 27 feats to choose 11 from, or about 30 feats if you have a totem. Compare this to other traditionally martial class. Fighter has 67. Paladin has 46. Ranger has 39. Even Monk and Rogue are essentially martial now, and they have 51 and 47 feats respectively. Barbarians has only a few more effective feats than Sorcerer, a class that gets class feats half as often. Not only does Barbarian get a slightly low amount of feats in general, it can't use a lot of them.

So why can't a Barbarian take feats from other totems the way that a Druid can take feats from other orders? You could argue that Sorcerer and Wizard have this problem, but they are also full casters, so they have many more options in general, and they get half as many class feats. I realize that in PF1E Barbarians couldn't take feats from more than one totem, but totems were only introduced in the APG. This is core content, and as is, Barbarian is very restricted in both what it can do and in the flavor players want to bring to it. So even though the class has some fun things (unlike Ranger, but that's a different story), I wouldn't want to play one. Things would probably need to be rebalanced to allow cross-totem feat selection, but it would well worth it. Please allow cross-classing and if you keep anathema, please fix at least the animal totem (and maybe tone down superstition).

Node of Blasting is a spell that causes one touched object to, when touching a creature with a mind, deal 6d6 damage and stagger for 1 minute.

RAI this reads strictly like a trap spell. You put it on something unattended and later on some goof walks over and tries to pick it up.

But RAW, unlike most traps, I see no reason why I can't use this on an enemy's equipment in combat. It says nothing about the object being unattended, which is a common restriction for these purposes. It doesn't even have a long casting time. It's a standard action.

Now I think I've seen a dozen different ways people say it could or should work in home games, but I'm interested in using this in PFS, so I'd like to be sure I can get away with it.

I've heard "you can't just touch someone's attended items". I'd love to know if and where this is officially stated. It makes common sense that you'd have to contest this somehow, which isn't built into Node of Blasting, but not having the mechanics for this doesn't mean you CAN'T do it when the spell says Touch on Object with no restrictions.

Even if I was right, I would think this exploit would have been FAQed out of the game. But strictly speaking, I don't think I'm wrong. Any insights?

I need a tiefling for Paizocon. Spending a thousand dollars to go to a convention to find out that I can't play my main is honestly making me feel really distraught. I guess I can't Charlie Bucket this and say that I deserve to be able to play it more because I want it more, but then, I am writing a novel about her and she is a character featured in a (I think) somewhat prominent upcoming 3pp book.

The only boon I have is the Emerald Potion thing from the online game. I'd be willing to part with any or all boons I get AT Paizocon. Or work something out. Or beg. I'm begging.

Hmmmm...

I wouldn't make that character a rakshasa at all. I'd go with a rakshasa blooded tiefling from Blood of Fiends.

Oh, my bad, it is a Rakshasa Blooded Tiefling. What I meant was what are there some ideas I could use to make a Rakshasa bloodline bloodrage? It doesn't transfer easily to combat.

I'd like to homebrew a Rakshasa Bloodrager for a character of mine in someone else's game. I'm an experienced designer, but I don't think I can form the basis of this while being impartial. Do you have any general ideas I could follow?

P.S: One thing that i would ask you, folks, to enlighten me, is the preference of Offensive Defense rogue talent over Beffudling Strike... I could understand if someone chooses to pick them both, but, as far as i could see, the later IS better than the former... Am i missing something?

Befuddling Strike gives -2 to attack to a single enemy. Offensive Defense gives +1-10 AC against ALL enemies. Beffudling strike certainly isn't useless, it can help your team as well as yourself. But odds are the Fighter you are flanking with can take hits better than you. An OD Rogue becomes an annoyingly hard gnat to squash when he has Uncanny Dodge and Evasion, which are both highly underrated.

That's the whole point of this thread right? Let's see a build that compliments the group better that couldn't be done better by another class.

Why does it have to better than every other class? Why can't you just play a class that you enjoy and contribute your fair share? Like I said, I'm gonna post a build when I can (my next game is next Sunday) with minor magic (acid splash). He's even going for a familiar. It suits his character concept. He could take better talents in those places, but he likes his character and he pulls a little MORE than his own weight.

So a one-level dip into maneuver master will give you a free maneuver, but only calculating CMB as if your BAB was +1. That might work for a little while but you will quickly run out of gas on it.

The rules as intended here are a little debatable. It seems to miss the wording from the regular Monk's maneuver training. The maneuver master oddly also gets maneuver training even though this is mostly redundant now. I'd wager that at most tables the ability would work like maneuver training, giving a +1 for that Monk level but also using the Rogue's other BAB.

Yes, I will call improved feint a trap. Improved feint requires a move action, which means you can only do it during times that you could have full attacked.

Why would you full attack if you aren't getting sneak attack in? With 3 iteratives that's 3d6 and let's say a +4 weapon, that's a very idealistic (hitting with a +1 BAB on that last iterative) 22 damage at level 15. We were doing more damage at level 5. With improved feint, you are doing 35 damage. Which is certainly not as good as a full attack with SA, with an ideal damage of 106 before TWF. And I don't want it to seem like I think TWF is vital or anything, cause I really don't believe that, but the fantasy projection there is 212 damage. Now 35 ain't 106 (or a more realistic 71), but it's still better than 22. Back at level 5, that's comparing our 14 damage with improved feint to a TWF full attack without SA at 7 damage. Double the damage for half the attacks! Why would you turn down that option? Then there's that other reason that a Rogue should always want to sneak attack; the rogue talent that always somehow gets forgotten when people are gushing about beast totem. Offensive defense gives the Rogue a +3-8 AC bonus in these calculations. So why would you ever CHOOSE not to sneak attack if you had the chance?

Actually the bard isn't married to his routine, and the fact that you put this situation in such a rogue favored situation amuses me. The fact that the rogue can be on par with another class only when you stack the situation in their favor is a good indicator that it needs some work.

You think THIS situation is stacked in the Rogue's favor? You're the one who stipulated that these calculations use feint every round. You're the one who used a self-serving archetype to pump up your damage and to-hit, when a regular Bard could have increased his damage, the Rogue's damage, and the Fighter's damage. YOU set the terms, I just played them out as realistically as possible.

In any real fight, we'd have flanked that foe and I'd be getting even more damage per turn through TWF.

If this battle had been the party getting the drop on a group, the bard would have pre-buffed himself, no need to waste that during round 0 or round 1.

Totally predicted this. So let me get this straight; while my Rogue is trying his hardest to sneak up on a guy, you are gonna start dancing a jig just past the doorway, then cast a verbal spell (and let's hope you aren't singing, cause dancing isn't actually a requirement of battle dance), all of which could blow my cover? Let's hope you at least wait to cast the verbal spell until the surprise round, which still leaves the problem of having to move more than 5 feet.

Yeah you're right, maybe you should adapt and use a different spell. I would suggest glitterdust. With the opponent blind, I can drop them pretty much by myself, and it will still have been a team effort. No one feels left out, no one needs to measure dicks.

Now I could wait until my next gaming session and grab that Rogue's sheet, cause he's certainly doing a damn fine job even with a few odd talents like Minor and Major Magic. But until then, all you need is the list of ways to get sneak attack that I already posted. Incorporate at least 8 of them into any build and you'll probably do fine.

Even the "Bard will be a better skill monkey" is highly debatable. If you started a game at Level 18, the Bard would certainly be better. The trouble is getting there. A good Rogue will have 9 skills ranks per level at level 1, and between 10-11 by the end. There's a front loaded simplicity to it. The Bard will have 6-7 skill ranks, and he'll want a headband of cha more than a headband of int. So he has to rely on versatile performance. And while I love this bard class feature, it is a slow journey requiring a lot of patience. You have to plan in advance which skills you want, and until you hit level 6, 10, as high as 14 (seriously just pretend versatile performance 5 doesn't exist unless you really want to spend money on a Cha/Int headband), you are sitting on skills that do nothing but make small change on the street. At level 1, a Bard might have almost no useful skills at all. Hell, even choosing which VP you want at level 2 is really annoying. Only dance gives acrobatics, which is vital, but then you're a bard with no face skills until level 6. So once you've chosen 3-4 skill ranks to be dead for half an AP, you have 2-4 skill ranks left to ration between 6 good knowledges that you'll be wasting class bonuses on if you neglect. Oops, forgot to mention perception, stealth, UMD, and disable device (the last of which you won't even get a favored class bonus on).

This isn't all to say that Bard is a bad skill monkey. It is a great skill monkey. It's just not "obviously better" than the Rogue.

Improved feint is a trap feat. Getting a single attack during a sneak attack is a terrible way to do damage. Especially if you're using a rapier with weapon finesse. That tells me that your strength is probably no higher then 14, which means you're damage will be awful. In addition you only get to use this trick during a full attack.

Are you seriously going to stand here and call Improved Feint a trap feat when you use Weapon Specialization? This and your STR obsession tells me you are a little too fixated on numbers and not interested enough in diversity and tactics. Of course feinting is never as good as being able to get an iterative in while flanking or greater invisible, but here's a key fact of life in PF; just because you have iteratives doesn't mean you are gonna be attacking the enemy multiple times. Hell, it's a fundamental argument in threads complaining about the Monk.

The thing is that feinting is better than not getting a sneak attack in at all. Rogue even from a character stand point is all about being underhanded and resourceful to even the odds. Even a Fighter, who also believe has to be resourceful, will still largely come down to projected numbers, but with a Rogue there is so much more than just theorycrafting. Your tactical acumen will determine your realistic damage output.

Rogue Attack: 3 (bab) + 4 (dex, I'm assuming this is your primary stat)+ 3 (opponents denied dex bonus)= 10 (not to shabby)

Bard Attack: 3 (bab) + 4 (dex) + 4 (bard song)+1 (allegro)= 12 (better attack that isn't situational)

Rogoue Damage: 1d6 (rapier)+ 3d6 (sneak) + 2 (strength, assuming it's this high)= 16 per attack

Bard Damage:2 attacks that both deal: 1d6 (scimitar) + 4 (dex) + 4 (bard song) = 11.5 per hit/ 23 average

Don't forget that you are spending a full round to get that Inspire Courage + Allegro up.

Turn 1: Bard buffs (and buffs only himself, the greedy git). Rogue hits opponent for 14 (he's using either a shortbow or a rapier depending on the situation, as you'll see soon).

Rogue 14, Bard 0.

Turn 2: Bard walks more than 5 feet, so gets only one attack for 11 damage. Rogue gets 14 more in.

Rogue 28, Bard 11.

Turn 3: Well the fight is probably over, but if not the Bard gets 23 more damage in and the Rogue gets 14.

Rogue 42, Bard 34.

Oh shoot, did we forget Turn 0? We don't always get a Turn 0, but any Rogue worth his salt will often enough open with a sneak attack out of stealth. 14 more damage.

Rogue 58, Bard 34. Enemy superdead. What was our Fighter even doing? Is he drunk again?

Now I will freely admit that this is ONE way the fight could go for are Rogue. It could go worse, but it could also have gone better (we assumed he only ever got in one attack with feint because the guy playing this Bard wouldn't flank). But the Bard on the other hand is married to his routine, while a Rogue should have various resources to try and turn each encounter into an optimal one. It won't happen every time, but who wants one player to always be the center of attention?

In the end, I feel that the Rogue suffers the same problem the Fighter does. They both require, nay, EXCELL with a level of tactical acumen and diversity that people oddly don't really associate with the classes. Rogue is "urg, meat grinder" like it is in so many video games, and Fighter is "am good weapons at". Throw on those Fighter feats, cause that's the important part right? Not the exponential advantage of having more than double the feats most classes get.

You mean the post where you said "if you get 1 sneak attack off you're doing it right, but if you get more then 1 you're pissing me off". Yeah, I skimmed that one due it not making sense on it's head.

No, I mean the post you had just replied to. What could have possibly made you think I was referring to my earlier post?

A rogue getting ideal conditions where they get all of their sneak attacks off is just barely on par with the other classes. Heck lets take a look at John Doe Fighter vs rogue with 1 sneak attack at 5th level.

Fighter hits with his greatsword dealing (2d6+ 6(strength)+ 6(power attack)+ 1 (weapon training)+2 (weapon specialization)= 22 damage on average

Rogue hits with his lets say longspear (highest damage simple weapon that I saw)= 1d8 + 6 (strength, assuming it is high) + 3 (power attack)= 13.5

I don't know why you are using some kind of strength rogue to get your point across, but if you are gonna use math to prove your arguments you might not want to completely forget sneak attack. Also weapon specialization? Hey, if the fighter really wants to waste a feat on 2 damage, he can have that 2 damage over the rogue.

Worse, the rogue will hit less often then the fighter, and the fighter doesn't have to get in a special position to get those attacks off.

Wrong. The Fighter and Rogue are teammates, so they will both get in position to flank. They will both accomplish flanking easier this way, they will both benefit from flanking (fighter less so than the rogue but still). You might need to work on teamwork in your home game, I've never run a game where flanking was hard to accomplish (or haven't you heard of the conga line of death?).

Heck, lets look at a twf rogue who gets his full attack in and is flanking. Assuming short swords (b/c why not)

2d6 (both weapons) + 3 (strength) + 2 (power attack) + 1d6 (sneak attack) + 1 (strength) + 1 (power attack) + 1d6 (sneak attack)= 21

This gets worse as you add in levels and the fighter starts getting iteratives.

Well since you just reset to level 2 (and have an impossible build, you aren't getting PA until level 3), I'd say 21 damage is pretty fair. What with your fighter doing 16 damage right now (whoops, 18, what with your weapon specialization). You also arbitrarily dropped your Rogue's STR between examples, but I guess that's understandable given your Power Attack AND TWF. Now most rogues would forgo STR and be doing 14 damage at level 2, which is enough to drop a lot of Level 2 npcs. Less than the optimized Fighter, but we all know those guys are kings at low levels. Why try to rob them of that?

Now if we were actually back at level 5, you could be doing 8d6, or 28, to that Fighter's 22 (which more realistically is 20 because weapon spec sucks). With 2 other likewise competent teammates, you are doing 70-80 damage in a turn. There's a reason 4 PCs always has an upperhand on all but superboss single enemies, and the Rogue is more than competent at keeping me from getting more turns in with fun enemies.

What he's saying is that BAB 20s very often find themselves in fights where they have a >75% chance to hit on their first attack. In these fights BAB 15s certainly aren't hosed, and a good rogue has ways to even the odds (see above, I even missed a few like blindness).

Then some fights aren't as good for Rogues, but then again some fights aren't easy for Fighters, some aren't even easy for Clerics and Wizards.

As a GM, my experience is this;

If you are getting in one sneak attack per turn, you are doing it right.
If you are getting in more than one sneak attack, you are pissing me off.

...

My rogue pisses me off a lot ("don't worry, I'll only use dust of disappearance on bosses :X ").

Let me the count the ways you can sneak attack

1. Use the 10 feet of speed you have over your fighter buddy to flank
2. Use acrobatics to flank
3. Use a reach weapon to flank
4. Attack while invisible (bonus points for greater invisibility)
5. Feint
6. Win initiative (aggravatingly easier done than said)
7. Get a surprise attack by bluffing
8. Get a surprise attack with disguise
9. Get a surprise attack using the revised stealth rules that everyone should have always been using anyway but apparently mostly weren't
10. Use stealth in combat anyway
11. Do #10 using bluff
12. Do #4-#11 from the cozy distance 30 feet with a ranged attack

And those are just the ways that every rogue should be able to exploit. Don't even get me started on things like Phantasm Wizard allies.

IMO, it's way harder for NPCs to be successful Rogues than it is for players to be.

Honestly I didn't see the point of Warpriest at first either. There's definitely a good point to be made for Battle Clerics already being a very crowded trope what with Paladins, Inquisitors, Battle Oracles, and well... Clerics as is.

But as I was rewriting Second Darkness and giving everything in the underdark an Advanced Class (gives them a foreign feel), I realized that I like Blessings waaaaaay more than I like Domains. Sure Domains give bonus spells and in that way they are more optimized, but in terms of flavor I've found myself crawling through domains and subdomains when making npcs and just feeling really bleh about it all. So the more demon lords that certain characters worshipped, the more Warpriests I wanted to add in. Which was tricky cause there isn't much room for Shamans as is in Second Darkness.

The playtest is secondary man... I'd do it to make the Drow cooler. Remember my players don't know there is an ACG, so when they get hit by spellcasting barbarians, raging bards, and what have you, they'd be like WHAT.

Also I know it's 3.5, I already said I'd be remaking all Drow.

I'm really bummed right now.

Why you ask?

Well the group I GM for is currently playing through Rise of the Runelords. We plan to do Curse of the Crimson Throne, followed by Second Darkness. Like a neat little Varisia trilogy, using the same calender, having more npcs hop around each path, and with the player's actions affecting the next path.

My players don't know about the ACG, and if I was running Second Darkness right now (playing up that Drow don't exist), not only would the Drow be revealed, but they'd ALL be using ACG classes. It'd truly make the Drow a mysterious adversary.

Well... can't just skip ahead. Only halfway through Runelords, by the time we get to Second Darkness the ACG will certainly be out.

Oh well.

Now who can take my idea and actually use it?

All I know is that there is a now a class that perfectly fits my long time main PC. She was;

1. Thematically a Barbarian (well, in her own special way but just take me at my word here)
2. Extremely charismatic
3. Obsessed with magic (in one ap, she wanted to become a runelord) but too anti-academics to learn any
4. It'd be neat if of her own power she could turn into a giant tiger (BLOOD OF THE TIGER)

Before she was a Barbarian with Beast Totem and UMD. I made it work but I always pined for a better option. When Bloodrager was announced, I was hopeful that #1-3 would be fulfilled... but now all 4 are through Arcane bloodline.

A rakshasa bloodline would be neat but I mean arcane is already so good.

So Bloodrager definitely fills a niche and feels like it has a strong place in Pathfinder.

As far as I can tell, Downtime from Ultimate Campaign establishes two contradictory systems for creating buildings (and organizations).

System A
Spending limit per day depending on settlement size
Use a downtime activity day to spend capital, once spent building is AVAILABLE IMMEDIATELY (uppercased for exact wording)

System B
Buildings take many days to create, sometimes even over a month regardless of settlement size
Settlement type might cause further delays
Starting to build only requires you to be in the settlement, no downtime activity day is required.

This leads to two contradictions;
System A is done as soon as capital is spent, System B takes much longer.
System A requires downtime activity days, System B does not.

Neither system is obviously wrong, as both spending limits and the long amount of time to create buildings make sense. They just don't work together at all. So what's the deal with this section? Am I missing something?

That's just the thing; they aren't player characters. Even the Pathfinder novels don't have fictional characters doing anything as special or world shaping as PCs get their hands on, so what could a level 16 wizard possibly be doing when not in his downtime if it isn't part of the plot? Sure, somewhere out there in Golarion there has to be a handful of people more awesome than the players doing important stuff (and given the close dates of these adventure paths, some of them are other PCs), but in every population 25,000 city? Why aren't they easily stopping whatever apocalyptic event is going in any given AP? In my Kingmaker King's words "Why can't I tell my citizen to go wipe out those monsters?". The gold you get for spellcasting services is also incredibly meager.

That's just the problem, both of my examples are in a Metropolis!

A player of mine wants to do this to a completely destroyed Robe of the Archmagi

"Limited Wish: Effect in line with a 6th level spell, namely a buffed Make Whole that can fix things with higher CLs. Since Make Whole is level 2 and allows up to 1/2 CL, and Mending, a cantrip/orison doesn't allow bringing the spell back to magic stuff, a level 4 verson should probably allow up to CL, so a CL 14 Limited Wish to fix it would probably be in the same line of power as the spell itself."

It sounds reasonable, but I can't help but feel maybe there is a reason there isn't a good spell to fix powerful magic items.

Any thoughts?

When GMing, One thing I've always been routinely asked by different groups is "Can I pay to get a spell cast by a high level mage". We're talking CL of 15 or higher here. Sometimes its for a specific spell of high level, sometimes it's just for the CL. This can happen anywhere, but it still happens in reasonably large cities like Westcrown or a player kingdom from Kingmaker, so I can't use that excuse.

My gut reaction is No. Maybe it's just how I see Golarion (and d20 in general) but the higher level you get the less people around are going to be on your level. I don't like the idea of a caster more powerful than any player will ever be sitting in a tower twiddling their thumbs waiting for a meager paycheck while all hell breaks loose in the storyline outside. But I can't find a rule to support my feeling, and even I don't know what CL to draw the line at.

The max morale bonus is +4, but the DC for Taunting and Fear are (10+CR). An army of 100 bards playing Dirge of Doom has a really high chance of winning any war, against any army regardless of CR difference. Why is the DC so high when morale bonuses are so low?

EDIT: So basically I want Irovetti to personally take out one of the player's armies, then have to retreat into his keep to heal. But in a test battle against the Enormous Militia, he actually took NO damage. And that was without using Dirge of Doom.

I'm confused as to why so many would think it'd be a problem for an Undead Lord and an Undead Slayer to be in the same campaign. I've never played a game of PF without at least one pair of buddy cops per group.

The problem is that it completely denies a character's heritage, humanity, and for what gain? According to PF25, some Tieflings live for years as a human before their traits manifest. In this case it sucks for them, but it's one thing to come face to face with being a Tief, but being denied any humanity? You have the potential for a gripping struggle here, but as is its a losing battle by default. Even Dhampir can call themselves "persons".

Can you not see how arrogant that comes off?

I absolutely for the life of me cannot.

But on the other hand, can you not see how arrogant it is to say that professional game designer doesn't need to look down at a gamer and justify themselves? There's very little in this world that makes one person better than another; the fact that I purchase their product isn't one of them (and even the subconscious implication is a pretty bleak and corporate view of the world). It's here nor there but I'm actually a game producer myself.

You are saying, by your example, you've never made requests of a restaurant, or registered complaints? You give them money, and sometimes patronage. I've worked enough in retail to know the pragmatic responsibility to keep your customers happy, but consumers also have a responsibility to speak with their money. Paizo is an awesome company; it's concerns and constructive criticism that keep them that way, not white knighting. They have a forum where I can reach out to them, so I'm using it.

Wanna know the difference between Half-Elves/Half-Orcs and Aasimar/Tieflings?

Both parents of Half-Elves/Half-Orcs are humanoids.

As I pointed out a page ago;

"Most tieflings never know their fiendish sire, as the coupling that produced their curse occurred generations earlier."

Both parents ARE generally humanoid.

Tieflings aren't half-human half-demon/devil. That's explicitly the point.

"Simultaneously more and less than mortal, tieflings are the offspring of humans and fiends."

"Most tieflings never know their fiendish sire, as the coupling that produced their curse occurred generations earlier."

Not only are they half-human, they are often more human than demon/devil. Though I can find nothing in the ARG to corroborate any of your genetics claims. Though here's an interesting bit;

"But half-elves, half-orcs, fetchlings and—most oddly—aasimars tend to view them as kindred spirits who are too often rejected or who don't fit into most societies by virtue of their birth."

Guess half-elves and half-orcs can't find Tieflings all THAT kindred, eh?

And as for saying "Try to read some of those books without facepalming..."

... keep in mind that I helped write several of those books.

If it's any consolation, I only facepalm now having been exposed to Pathfinder. Things that I took for granted years ago now can seem very silly.

It works that way because the fact that Tieflings and Aasimars are NOT humanoids. They are different; they're MORE than humanoids.

That's one of the main reasons why they're not core races, and instead are in the Bestiary.

As with any non-core race, if you use them as PCs, you may run into problems with game balance and game play.

For me, personally? I love the fact that there are non-humanoid options for NPCs and PCs alike such as Tieflings and Aasimars. It adds a welcome variety to the game. It works that way because we, the designers of the game, want it to work that way.

But what if not all Tiefs and Aasimar want to be more than human? Or, from the glass is half empty angle, what if they don't want to be "less" than human? What if they want to be MORE than Tieflings? MORE than Outsider? That's a gripping character struggle, but it's a battle already lost. Though I guess it'd be a fun houserule to say that Level 20 Tiefling monks become human...

I cannot entirely naysay the merits of, as you say, having non-humanoid options. Unfortunately, every single one of them is part-human and can claim these same issues. Even Dhampirs can say they are "persons", and they have to put up with negative energy affinity!

No one's being hostile(except maybe BBT, but he gets that way when he thinks someone is being stupid). Perhaps the fact that people have to repeat themselves and are using shorter sentences because re-hashing the same thing over and over can get tiring is causing you to misinterpret the tone they're using. The internet is funny like that.

The OP came into the Rules forum with a question that wasn't a rules question and then proceeded to demand attention to what he deemed a gross oversight. When presented with bushels of evidence, including links to threads where this exact same topic was discussed, he continued to press his agenda.
This isn't a rules question any more. The rules are clear and the devs have addressed this. If he wants to discuss it further he should take it to the Houserules forum or the ask James Jacobs thread. As the Creative Director of Paizo, JJ probably has lots of insight into the thoughts behind the Natove Outsider subtype. Of course, since he's already addressed them in threads linked in this thread, he may or not respond. JJ's pretty cool though, so that's the OP's best bet of getting a response.
It's either that or hang through the "hostility" you percieve in this thread and continue to be corrected by knowledgeable players and GM's who understand the rules and are trying to help you and remain stubbornly ignorant until this thread hits a thousand posts and draws a curious dev in to see what all the fuss is about. And then hope he feels like throwing you a bone, since the topic has already been clearly defined elsewhere.

As an aside: There is no surer way to evoke a negative response than to come into the Rules forum and demand an answer, and then throw your hands over your ears and inform knowledgeable peers that you don't care what they say because you want a dev to answer your question...

This isn't in the rules forum anymore, hasn't been for at least a few of the above posts.

"When presented with bushels of evidence, including links to threads where this exact same topic was discussed, he continued to press his agenda." Yeah, that's a fat lie. Don't call me stupid and ignorant when you're deliberately misrepresenting my position (which anyone can double check, this thread being a massive two pages long and all). I made absolutely no posts after Cheapy presented his links. Which are definitely helpful, though they still don't answer the "why". Other than Cheapy, I don't know who else you'd call helpful. I don't find it very helpful to have the same three or four people repeating the same point ad naseum, especially when they keep doing it for several hours after I've left.

Donato makes the most sense in regards to the why, but that still really begs the question as to why they'd introduce MORE Native Outsiders.

There may be no simple fix, but that's why, as most of you didn't notice, I never explicitly asked for one. I wasn't aware of Ask James Jacobs, and maybe I'll have better luck there, but still, god forbid I, a paying customer, try to ask a question on a company website, or imply that maybe my fellow GMs don't have all the same insight that said company has (which is why we ask questions).

Maybe this thread will be all around more interesting in general discussion. For instance, I actually do agree that real world genetics don't have a place in Pathfinder. Doesn't make it not fridge-logic that Half-Elves are more human than Tieflings, or necessitate the typing hierarchy for a race without racial HD. And you can say that Tieflings aren't meant to be playable, but aside them from being playable in PF25, the first full PF module, it's also something of an infrastructure issue given the inevitability in any system of an expanded playable race splatbook. If it's gonna be playable, and part of its character is that its half X - half human, isn't making it actually human a bit safer? It might not gel with that hierarchy, but there are other existing exceptions.

Having a pinch of Outsider blood in you at birth makes you a full-blown Outsider. It doesn't matter how many generations away your Outsider heritage lays.

Unless you are a sorcerer.

A Tiefling is part Human, part Demon/Devil/Evil Outsider (but not necessarily a half/half mix. In fact, likely a lot less) while an Aasimar is part Human, part Angel/Deva/Good Outsider (but not necessarily a half/half mix. In fact, likely a lot less), and the blood is mixed from creatures of two very different types. The resulting creature would be both Humanoid AND Outsider type, except that types do not stack. In fact, somewhere on the SRD there exists a priority lists for creatures that have multiple types, and which types take Priority. Outsider was near the top of that list. I cannot find it right now, but I will continue to search and if anyone knows where it is please link it.

Often enough though both parents of Tieflings are two humans, or a human and a tiefling descended from other tieflings (which only creates a logic loop). Also, you CAN be more than one type as illustrated by Scion of Humanity, not that it matters to a player character who don't get an Outsider's HD, proficiencies, etc.

'"I don't like this, it should be different" is the best argument ever,' said no one in history.

You seem to have read my post in total, referencing part of it, so I don't know why you'd accuse me of making that argument. My arguments were in the OP.

The corollary is interesting though; "Just because it's this way, means it shouldn't be changed".

First of all, I'm well aware that I can do whatever I want when I'm the GM for a home game. There are three reasons I'm bringing this issue up;

1. I can find no official sentiment on the matter.
2. It's a problem that has come to a head to in my gaming circle (where I am not the only GM).
3. It's an especially annoying dealbreaker for me.

What I'd like is some answer either A; taking into account the following, convincing me exactly WHY things work they are written and that it was intended, or B; listen to my complaints. I know people were heard when they complained about Tief ages (and thanks for that).

I'm talking about any spell or effect that affects humanoids but does not affect Tieflings or other player characters. At least for Tiefs, and by extension Aasimar, I find this to be a grievous oversight when it comes to the flavor of the species. Tieflings are not even necessarily half outsider (as is the case with a certain CoT character), most have ancestral blood and by player fiat could have as weak a bloodline as sorcerers do. So they are often more human than Half-Elves or Half-Orcs, but not from a RAW standpoint? For instance; my main is a Tiefling who absolutely refuses to acknowledge that she isn't human. She's in denial to be sure, but, she shouldn't effectively be a monster. I'll walk away from any table where she isn't a humanoid, and no, I don't rely on Enlarge Person or anything like that. It just screams to me that it's an oversight, like the Tiefling ages were, that for Tiefs to be Outsiders it has to be at the exclusion of being Humanoid. Again, Half-Elves and Half-Orcs are still human, in spite of having typically less human blood than Tieflings. Cause that's the classic character struggle right? Being a child of two worlds, just like Mr. Spock. Being BOTH. And for a Tiefling doubly so, as they might not even want anything to do with their other heritage. Certainly in the world of Golarion this leads to many being racist against Tiefs, same with Half-Elves and Half-Orcs. But the difference is that it is effectively JUSTIFIED racism, that Tiefs AREN'T humanoid, AREN'T human.

Ok, so not everyone is going to play their Tiefling the same way. And how does this affect things like Ifrits, Fetchlings, etc., if people don't care about flavor? Well, it kinda flies in the face of basic game balance in general. Charm Person is a level 1 spell. It can be pretty good, even battle ending. It has its drawbacks to be sure. Like that +5 bonus to the save, or the need to make opposed Cha to get them to do anything really significant. Oh and it also only affects humanoids. So it won't always be useful. But it's only a Level 1 spell. So later you get a better version that affects anything. There are many spells with this sort of balancing factor, like Daze. But it begs the question; why humanoids? Well, there are several generalizations that come with humanoids. For starters, they are mooks. Charm Person won't hit that dragon, or those will-o-wisps, or that end of campaign lich, but it will hit the rank and file bandits that tried to mug you at level 1. Second, humanoids are generally defined by class levels. Third, you can usually count on your party being humanoid. Charm Person might be situational, but you can usually come to PFS with Enlarge Person prepared. Then you are fighting for your life in a potential TPK with 3 Aasimar Fighters as allies. Whoops! It may have been one thing (arguable) when Tiefs were the bad guys, but now that they are playable it just makes no sense that they can't be affected by spells balanced to affect Players, things defined by class levels, and to a degree mooks (I've seen a LOT of Tiefling mooks in my time).

I realize Tiefs as outsiders only is pre-PF. But I wouldn't love PF as much as I do if it didn't routinely slap some sense into the absurdity that is 3.x (seriously, try rereading those old books without facepalming).

So why does it work this way? Is this just a holdover from 3.0 or is there more to it than that?

You can repeat yourself all you want. But I don't know what they intended when they made the races Outsider only. Which is why I asked, asked them, "what did you guys intend". That's the convincing part of option A. If there is some secret reason they kept it this way that I don't know and you don't know (cause it's probably better than "well it's like elf sleep immunity") then I'd like to hear it and maybe it will make perfect sense to me.

But that doesn't change that I don't know what they intended. I can hazard a guess. So, Tieflings are descended from Outsiders. But they can't be Outsiders cause those can't be rezzed, so they are Native Outsiders. But that doesn't even come close to touching on all the implications I put in my OP, and if they had some greater intention here (beyond, well that's the way it was in 3.0), I really cannot fathom it. I know the RAW, but I don't know the RAI, and don't tell me you do.

Yeah sounds like a player/gm conversation then - as a GM I'd let them select Scion and the conversation would end :)

And that's respectable, but not all GMs are as reasonable.

Scion of Humanity would be pretty neat if it wasn't limited to Aasimar.

They are Native Outsiders.

They have always been Native Outsiders.

Spells, have always treated them, as Native Outsiders.

The books, Adventure Paths, and all other Paizo material, has treated them, as they are, Native Outsiders.

Also, in 3.5, they were Native Outsiders.

In 3.0, they were Native Outsiders.

To quote my OP

"I realize Tiefs as outsiders only is pre-PF. But I wouldn't love PF as much as I do if it didn't routinely slap some sense into the absurdity that is 3.x."

Other things were overlooked in the Advanced Race Guide. Age was another thing that had adverse effects on Tieflings as characters. That's getting errata'd, but this is untouchable? Heaven forbid we make changes from 3.0.

Now, you could make a thread saying "Should Tieflings be humanoids?", and make a case there, but that would not belong in this forum, now would it?

That's fair enough, though my first and last intent was to get listened to by Paizo employee on the matter. Think of this as, "should the rules work this way?".

The funny thing about a roleplaying game is that, when the rules collide with the flavor and culture of the game, its not so black and white. As explained, the typing affects a tieflings core character in dramatic and not really thought out ways.

HOW is it a balancing thing? Explain that? How is it balancing that spells made to affect players and player analogues, does not in this case?

Who was inventing Tiefs and said "you know what would sure make Tiefs better and worse for no real net change? make them only outsider." Was it the same guy who had non-class skills ranking up half as fast? Or the guy who worded polymorph spells as vaguely as possible?

First of all, I'm well aware that I can do whatever I want when I'm the GM for a home game. There are three reasons I'm bringing this issue up;

1. I can find no official answer.
2. It's a problem that has come to a head to in my gaming circle (where I am not the only GM).
3. It's an especially annoying dealbreaker.

I've seen players and GMs weigh in on this issue. Odds are I will probably see the some of the exact same people say the same things that I have seen in other topics. This is not going to assuage me, but by all means make those posts. And while you are at it, please FAQ this topic.

What I WANT is an official answer either A; taking into account the following, convincing me exactly WHY things work they are written and that it was intended, or B; listen to my complaints. I know people were heard when they complained about Tief ages (and thanks for that).

I'm talking about any spell or effect that affects humanoids but does not affect Tieflings or other player characters. At least for Tiefs, and by extension Aasimar, I find this to be a grievous oversight when it comes to the flavor of the species. Tieflings are not even necessarily half outsider (as is the case with a certain CoT character), most have ancestral blood and by player fiat could have as weak a bloodline as sorcerers do. So they are often more human than Half-Elves or Half-Orcs, but not from a RAW standpoint? For instance; my main is a Tiefling who absolutely refuses to acknowledge that she isn't human. She's in denial to be sure, but, she shouldn't effectively be a monster. I'll walk away from any table where she isn't a humanoid, and no, I don't rely on Enlarge Person or anything like that. It just screams to me that it's an outstanding oversight, like the ages nonsense, that for Tiefs to be Outsiders it has to be at the exclusion of being Humanoid. Again, Half-Elves and Half-Orcs are still human, in spite of having typically less human blood than Tieflings. Cause that's the classic character struggle right? Being a child of two worlds, just like Mr. Spock. Being BOTH. And for a Tiefling doubly so, as they might not even want anything to do with their other heritage. Certainly in the world of Golarion this leads to many being racist against Tiefs, same with Half-Elves and Half-Orcs. But the difference is that it is effectively JUSTIFIED racism, that Tiefs AREN'T humanoid, AREN'T human.

Ok, so not everyone is going to play their Tiefling the same way. And how does this affect things like Ifrits, Fetchlings, and Kitsune? Oh wait, Kitsune are Shapechangers AND humanoids, my bad, guess that's what they call an easy solution. Ok but how does it affect non-humanoids in general if people don't care about flavor? Well, it kind flies in the face of basic game balance in general. Charm Person is a level 1 spell. It can be pretty good, even battle ending. It has its drawbacks to be sure. Like that +5 bonus to the save, or the need to make opposed Cha to get them to do anything really significant. Oh and it also only affects humanoids. So it won't always be useful. But it's only a Level 1 spell. So later you get a better version that affects anything. There are many spells with this sort of balancing factor, like Daze. But it begs the question; why humanoids? Well, there are several generalizations that come with humanoids. For starters, they are mooks. Charm Person won't hit that dragon, or those will-o-wisps, or that end of campaign lich, but it will hit the rank and file bandits that tried to mug you at level 1. Second, humanoids are generally defined by class levels. Third, you can usually count on your party being humanoid. Charm Person might be situational, but you can usually come to PFS with Enlarge Person prepared. Then you are fighting for your life in a potential TPK with 3 Aasimar Fighters as allies. Whoops! It may have been one thing (arguable) when Tiefs were the bad guys, but now that they are playable it just makes no sense that they can't be affected by spells balanced to affect Players, things defined by class levels, and to a degree mooks (I've seen a LOT of Tiefling mooks in my time).

I realize Tiefs as outsiders only is pre-PF. But I wouldn't love PF as much as I do if it didn't routinely slap some sense into the absurdity that is 3.x (seriously, try rereading those old books without facepalming).

This isn't a religion, this is the Vudra caste system.

Prehensile hair is a SECONDARY natural attack. It takes a -5 penalty to hit and gains damage bonus equal to HALF the appropriate stat (INT).

SKR has said that Prehensile Hair gets the full bonus when used by itself.

With all due respect, I find it hilarious that you talk about action economy. Sure, let's compare the witch spending a standard action to make a single foe slumber for a round or two at low level while a Sorcerer or Wizard is using Color Spray to incapacitate groups of foes for several times that duration.

See, you are talking about ONE standard action. An action "economy" (meaning, in the big picture) takes into account a character's options throughout the scenario, or at least until they can full rest. The Wizard has a limited amount of Color Sprays, in fact most likely will have only 4 spells total at level 2 without dipping into scrolls. On the other hand the Witch also has 4 spells, but can Slumber is infinite and Prehensile Hair will usually work for the duration of two whole encounters.

In the context of "better spellcasters", Schools and Bloodlines add increased power to spells that the witch cannot (well, hardly) ever match - like being able to use Charm Person on undead, animals, and magical...

No, in the contest of "better spellcasters early game", Schools mostly offer trifling utility and Bloodlines mostly offer mediocre touch attacks. Our best Sorc uses her Bloodline for an animal companion and it still pales in comparison RIGHT NOW to what Prehensile Hair is capable of.

They add their Wisdom TO their Dexterity check, in addition to their Dexterity. There are feats and class features that affect other ability checks too.

On the subject of coup de graces, again, Paladins can serve up to 7 different gods with wildly different ideals.

I feel a Paladin of Sarenrae would never coup, because any evil foe is an opportunity for redemption. On the other hand, Erastil is a hunter and Iomedae a warrior. Both are not strangers to killing your foes. Erastil out of a mixture mercy and judgement, and Iomedae for the pragmatism involved in keeping evil out of this world. Abadar represents societal law, and so his Paladins could occasionally take the role of executioners.

It's pretty much been already stated - but witches really aren't the best early game casters (depending on how one chooses to define "best"). Hexes are consistently pretty potent and useful - but witches lack the breadth and versatility of other arcane spell lists. Furthermore, both Sorcerers AND Wizards tend to get abilities that augment the focus of their school specialization / bloodline. These may or may not be as potent as the witch's hexes, but that IS another trade-off.

I play and GM a lot of PFS as well, and with a group that is only a few months old our highest level character is Level 4. At the best of times early Sorc/Wizards slowed down the scenario with their abysmal action economy (we've basically gotten used to seeing Grease cast all the time). At the worst of times they just affected almost nothing, and in one of these fights it led to a Fighter dying to save the Sorcerer. Thankfully, we had two big dumb fighters so it wasn't a tpk.

Obviously that paradigm is going to shift sooner than later, but at these levels the Witch (who gets two Hexes by Level 2) is a powerhouse that can reliably end fights, deal damage on par with the fighter, or screw over that +8 to hit monster's attack roll. No one before you stated that witches aren't the best early game casters, Bloodlines and Schools just don't offer the same early game utility or power (and you get more bloodline/school powers through feats). I might go as far to argue that they are better early game than the full divine casters too, but that's a very different role for comparison.

Well, you just mentioned WHY it isn't always OP. More and more high power enemies just stop being affected by it. Certainly not never useful though, but there's not much more efficient than a 2 Round Slumber and a high AC Paladin doling out coups with no regard for AoOs.