Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you use the "Telekinesis" spell to perform combat manuvers from the APG?
Is the Linnorm in the Linnorm king book unique or an actual type of linnorm?
What is, in your opinion, the most dangerous continent on Golarian?
Is there any place on Golarian were dragons can be found in large numbers? like a flight of dragons or a species that has formed some sort of social structure.
How many moons does golarian have and are they inhabbited?
If your GM thinks it's cool, I don't see why not.
There are a LOT of linnorms in that book, both unique ones and actual types of them.
Sarusan.
Not yet there's not. Maybe somewhere we haven't talked about yet.
One moon. It's got things living on it, yes.
One moon. It's got things living on it, yes.
Uh oh.
Have you or Erik... ever had a character slain by one of these "things"? Perhaps in a different game engine?
can you tell me why people like wizards, sorcers seem much more powerful
Not James
I understand where you are coming from,
Wizards are more in adaptable in game than the Socerer, that is why.
In the game, Wizards have more spells known and can get more very easily, but to make it simple, they have a changeable spell list known (per day) where the sorcerer only has a very select few spells known, but can cast more often.
I.E. (using only second level spells)
Day 1 (Attack the dragon)
WIZ: scorching ray (to attack the white dragon)
bulls strength (give the Fighter a buff to fight said dragon)
Bear Endurance (give the Fighter another buff to fight said dragon)
SOR: scorching ray (to attack the white dragon)
Shatter (no good)
Detect thoughts (maybe useful)
Day 2 (infiltrate the castle)
WIZ: Alter self (disguise as a local)
Invisiblity (move unseen)
Locate Object (Find the Item)
SOR: scorching ray (no good)
Shatter (no good)
Detect thoughts (useful, put not really)
|
And a human-shaped insectoid monster from DRAGON magazine during the 1st Edition game. (And I'm still imagining that the Aspis Consortium is secretly run by them.)
Oh, that's awesome. The Aspis may not be OGL, but it's still wicked cool to image that the powers behind the scenes might not be human, or even humanoid...
(Ditto the Pactmasters or the Decemvirute, for that matter. Golarion has quite a few organizations / regions run by masked mystery men, who might not necessarily be 'men.' Flashback to the man-sized roaches from Mimic, who, when standing up with their wings draped over them, could be mistaken for a man in an overcoat, at a distance...)
|
The Changeling from the Pathfinder #43 has –2 Constitution, +2 Wisdom, +2 Charisma racial adjustments. Is that one time only divergence from the usual race design philosophy (races have bonus to one physical and one mental stat, and penalty to one mental stat), or future trend? Also, would you consider +2 to Intelligence as more appropriate for the Changeling? Will this race be changed in any significant way in the future ARG?
Elf Racial Traits
+2 Dexterity, +2 Intelligence, –2 ConstitutionDon't seem a standard philosophy.
|
|
What is the largest number of games you have run in a week?
I have done as many as three. I am sure there people out there who have ran more in a week.
Four for a time.
Shadowrun, Vampire the masquerade and 2 AD&D 2nd ed campaigns.can you tell me why people like wizards, sorrcers seem much more powerful
Sorcerers require much more thought about building them up.
You need to chose spells with good versatility and feats that complement them so that you can broaden their efficacy.A wizard can change is focus during a campaign simply adding to his spellbook.
A wizard will work well if you always (or almost always) have time to prepare for the challenges you will meet and even better if you go for the short adventuring day where you meet one or two challenges in a day. A sorcerer has more endurance and with a good spell selection can overcome 90% of the obstacles without the need to regroup and return another day.
|
Creative Director
|
can you tell me why people like wizards, sorrcers seem much more powerful
Because wizards have been in the game from pretty much the start, and as such have a LOT more tradition and nostalgia and inertia behind them. Sorcerers have been around only about a third as long as wizards.
I'm not a huge fan of playing wizards myself these days, so I have no insight, really, into what folks really love about them.
|
Creative Director
|
How does it make dex less important, it makes it so that grit is bassed off dex not wisdomwill their be a sniper architype for the gunslinger and is this feat over powered, if so could you fix it?
Sniper’s grit
Pequiset: 16 dex and +3BAB
Instead of grit being based off wisdom its based of dex
A sniper archetype is a pretty good idea; I'd like to see one some day.
I don't necessarily think the feat's overpowered as much as it is kinda weird—why do you have to have a high Dexterity in order to qualify for a feat that makes Dexterity less important for you? Seems counterintuitive to say "You have to be good at one thing in order not to do that thing." On top of that, I'm not a fan of switching out what ability scores are important for classes.
It makes Dexterity less important to the gunslinger because she no longer needs a high Dexterity to augment her attack rolls with her gun.
It makes Dexterity less important to the gunslinger because she no longer needs a high Dexterity to augment her attack rolls with her gun.
James, I think you misread his rule — and so did I the first two times!
|
Creative Director
|
James, I think you misread his rule — and so did I the first two times!
It makes Dexterity less important to the gunslinger because she no longer needs a high Dexterity to augment her attack rolls with her gun.
Oh... huh! So I did.
That tells me one important thing: that the feat is pretty nonintuitive and goes pretty fundamentally against my impression of what a gunslinger is.
Dexterity is already arguably the BEST stat in the game for a ranged weapon class; it helps a LOT of stuff. Making it help even more stuff (in this case, grit), is too good. Further, grit isn't a physical quality; it's a mental one, and thus tying it to a physical stat doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Pathfinder classes generally have more than one "best ability score," and this is by design.
Not a fan of letting grit work off of Dexterity... to the extent that I read the feat twice and my brain automatically changed what I was reading. Which tells me it's not the best idea for a feat.
Pathfinder classes generally have more than one "best ability score," and this is by design.
How do you feel about introducing more options to classes (specifically single-stat-focused ones) that emphasize a non-key stat? Clerics are a good example of the positive impact: Casting based on Wisdom, but Channeling (and Selective Channeling) on Charisma.
I think there's fruitful ground for Wizards, Witches, Summoners, and Sorcerers to flex their attributes a bit. A possibility: Witches cast with Intelligence but hex with Charisma.
Something that I've been toying with doing, and wanted some input.
I like witches, but I've always been a fan of the witch in the idea of the trinity (not that trinity). The Maiden, The Matron, and The Crone.
Looking at it like that, The Maiden is charismatic and somewhat chaotic. The Matron is the intelligent thoughtful middle of the road witch, and The Crone is the wise old witch of the woods.
The two things I'm thinking of to reflect this is either
A) Allow a witch to choose their mental casting stat. Int (Matron), Wis (Crone), or Cha (Maiden).
or
B) Add two patrons, one of which makes the casting stat Wis and is divination oriented, the other who's Cha and illusion oriented.
Wondering how you felt about either, when you have time.
@Run, Just Run: keep in mind distance penalties for perception - even if you could shoot very far, if you cannot see what you're shooting at, then you're not likely to hit.
|
Creative Director
|
Pathfinder classes generally have more than one "best ability score," and this is by design.How do you feel about introducing more options to classes (specifically single-stat-focused ones) that emphasize a non-key stat? Clerics are a good example of the positive impact: Casting based on Wisdom, but Channeling (and Selective Channeling) on Charisma.
I think there's fruitful ground for Wizards, Witches, Summoners, and Sorcerers to flex their attributes a bit. A possibility: Witches cast with Intelligence but hex with Charisma.
I actually quite like having classes that have multiple key ability scores, since that encourages different kinds of specialization, and helps make the assigning of ability scores actually matter. If there were only one good score for every class, we might as well just list starting ability scores and not let folks build their own scores.
Part of what being a wizard is, to me, is the fact that you'll have a pretty good Intelligence. Once you start muddying that up, the value of the word "wizard" erodes.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
ok thx, what feats would you sugjest for a sniper, pls add why, what feats increase range other then farshot as well. Also why don't gunslingers have stealth? What is the best spellcasting class to compliment the gunslinger, for enchanting his gun, best domain, bloodline or arcane school
Guns are noisy. Why would a class that causes explosions every time they make an attack be any good at stealth?
The concept of a sniper isn't really something that fits well into a fantasy setting, really—it would work better in a modern or futuristic setting in my mind.
As for how to best build a gunslinger sniper... I'm not gonna say yet, since the final rules aren't out yet, and won't be until Gen Con. Furthermore, I don't think that there ARE "best" choices for any class. That's just not the way I build characters. I come up with a personality and history for my PC first, along with a vague idea of what KIND of character they are (such as a swashbuckler, or a politician, or a missionary, or a scholar, or whatever). Once I've got those decisions made, I start deciding on race, class, and all that stuff, making choices to make a cool build for that character, NOT choices to completely optimize a specific class.
If I were you, I would consult one of the rules boards for advice on how to build an optimized sniper gunslinger. I'll be back here building an exiled noble from Cheliax who's recently found new faith in Desna who just happens to be a gunslinger (such a character would probably have a pretty high Charisma to help her be a gifted politician, even if Charisma isn't the obvious best stat for a gunslinger).
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something that I've been toying with doing, and wanted some input.
I like witches, but I've always been a fan of the witch in the idea of the trinity (not that trinity). The Maiden, The Matron, and The Crone.
Looking at it like that, The Maiden is charismatic and somewhat chaotic. The Matron is the intelligent thoughtful middle of the road witch, and The Crone is the wise old witch of the woods.
The two things I'm thinking of to reflect this is either
A) Allow a witch to choose their mental casting stat. Int (Matron), Wis (Crone), or Cha (Maiden).
or
B) Add two patrons, one of which makes the casting stat Wis and is divination oriented, the other who's Cha and illusion oriented.
Wondering how you felt about either, when you have time.
I'd set up the Matron, the Maiden, and the Crone as patrons and be done with it. I wouldn't adjust the mental casting stat at all, since I would want the class to feel like a witch... not like a cleric or a sorcerer. Changing the witch's casting stat isn't something I would even consider.
Whats the best class to go into to make it like a ghost from SCII
I can answer that: the Ninja. Have a look at the (free) playtest, or wait a bit for Ultimate Combat.
Otherwise the "sniper" archetype from the rogue class will do too.
We're having an argument about paladin code of conduct. I have a few questions about what files and what doesn't fly for paladins.
- Is going to a Legal Brothel okay?
- Is Looting Equipment from a Dungeon okay?
- Do the ends justify the means for a paladin?
We have a couple people basically arguing some weird interpretations of the paladin code. The code of conduct is clear that a paladin MAY ally with an evil entity in order to defeat a greater evil. I mean this isn't even a rules question but if you ally with an evil to defeat a greater evil that seems to me that the ends justify the means, one of our guys is saying that because they seek atonement during the duration of the alliance it doesn't count as an evil act.
Is it bad whenever I hear Callista Grincich I think Calistria gingrich?
|
Creative Director
|
We're having an argument about paladin code of conduct. I have a few questions about what files and what doesn't fly for paladins.
- Is going to a Legal Brothel okay?
- Is Looting Equipment from a Dungeon okay?
- Do the ends justify the means for a paladin?
We have a couple people basically arguing some weird interpretations of the paladin code. The code of conduct is clear that a paladin MAY ally with an evil entity in order to defeat a greater evil. I mean this isn't even a rules question but if you ally with an evil to defeat a greater evil that seems to me that the ends justify the means, one of our guys is saying that because they seek atonement during the duration of the alliance it doesn't count as an evil act.
I'd say yes to all three of your questions... although it would depend on the paladin's specific code perhaps. A paladin whose code includes chastity would not go to a legal brothel, but wouldn't rail against anyone else for going to one.
Looting equipment from a dungeon should pretty much ALWAYS be okay. That's one of the core, fundamental parts of the game. If your GM says you can't loot a dungeon and doesn't provide an alternative way for your paladin to keep up with the equipment race with the other PCs... don't play a paladin in that group.
A lot of Linnorms in the book, Cool
So it is Sarusan that is the most dangerous, If Sarusan is the Golarian equvilent of Australia then those dreaded "Drop bears" must be particularly nasty.
Who came up with bardic masterpieces? That mechanic, to me, fixes so many of my complaints with the bard and how it portrays music. I'd like to thank the rule designer by name.
|
Creative Director
|
Who came up with bardic masterpieces? That mechanic, to me, fixes so many of my complaints with the bard and how it portrays music. I'd like to thank the rule designer by name.
I'm not sure who designed them—I do know that the entire design team worked to make them cool. I believe it was Erik Mona (with some prodding from me, no doubt) who made sure that bardic masterpieces were in the book in the first place, though, so whoever actually did the design, we should also thank Erik for making sure that they were designed at all in the first place!
I'm not sure who designed them—I do know that the entire design team worked to make them cool. I believe it was Erik Mona (with some prodding from me, no doubt) who made sure that bardic masterpieces were in the book in the first place, though, so whoever actually did the design, we should also thank Erik for making sure that they were designed at all in the first place!
The individual song descriptions still leave me a little wanting as a musician, but the mechanic is everything I've hoped for and then some. It's a really great piece of rule design, among the best from anything in the whole Pathfinder rules line.
I have long lamented that the bard's relationship with music in game terms completely failed to capture the real relationship between music and combat, which is both ancient and varied. A mechanic that allows the bard to spend finite resources on multi-round casting time, very-long duration effects; this completely changes the entire class for me. It has gone from the class that I should like but always resented to potentially my favorite class.
I have so many ideas... from the St Crispen's Day speech in Henry V to the rebel songs of my own Irish heritage — any one of which could be a bardic masterpiece. I am tempted to invent a few dozen and have a bard who casts nary a spell!
Bravo, Erik and team! Bravo, and encore.
I was going to ask this in the rules section, but you have since decided to color such post there with a single brush and ascribe to all who use that forums the view point and disposition of a single poster to all.
Hopefully my posting here washes me of the dark taint of a result of my consideration of posting this question in the proper forum.
We are currently having a blast in curse of the crimson throne.
Our ranger just hit level 5. We are currently engaged with some lycanthorpes.
The ranger has favored enemies human. do lycanthorpe count as human? or are they a shapechange subtype and don't count as human for favored enemy status?
Thanks
According to the prd, a werewolf-bitten human would gain the shapechanger subtype (which doesn't appear on the favoured enemy chart, except as Humanoid [other] maybe), so I'd definitely give him his favoured enemy bonus.
|
|
A) Allow a witch to choose their mental casting stat. Int (Matron), Wis (Crone), or Cha (Maiden).
I like this idea.
To my mind, an archetypal Witch is a Wisdom-based caster, from the lore and the wicca / goddess / nature stuff. (The Green Ronin Witch class being a good example of that.)
The Pathfinder Witch, who gets their powers from interaction with a Patron, would, on the other hand, seem best suited for a Charisma-based caster.
I have no idea where Intelligence came in to the equation. It almost felt like it was picked because there were already a fair number of Charisma (bard, sorcerer, paladin, oracle, summoner) and Wisdom (cleric, druid, ranger, adept, inquisitor) based casters, and Intelligence was selected just to 'have another Int caster.'
But hey, it made sense to someone, so I'd be inclined to allow an Int-based Witch as well, as the other two.
So I totally support your idea of allowing all three options.
Some witches are naturalists, concerned with the rythmns of nature and the flow of forces, using insight and will to work their craft (wisdom).
Some are schemers, who flatter and appease fickle and uncertain patrons, who whisper their gifts to them in exchange for sweet words and ritual acts (charisma).
And some are just book-reading wizardy types, unlocking the secrets of the universe with math and reason, performing incantations by rote, with little concern for the cycles of the natural world or sucking up to whimsical supernatural tutors (intelligence).
A) Allow a witch to choose their mental casting stat. Int (Matron), Wis (Crone), or Cha (Maiden).I like this idea.
Thanks, I feel it also makes them more unique. And there are so many 'threes' with regards to witches (3 fates, 3 hags, 3 narns), it just seems to work well.
|
Was the name for the Imbrex, the Twins (one of the Eldest from the Inner Sea World Guide) named after classical roofing tiles? My wife, who has a degree in history, started laughing when I mentioned Imbrex.
I'd say yes
- Do the ends justify the means for a paladin?
I'd disagree vehemently, James. The path to hell is paved with people that considered the ends justified the means. The spanish inquisition comes to mind.
Do you really want to say that the ends justify the means? So a Paladin who's trying to stop a demon (an evil) can torture people to get information, burn down an entire town to make sure he get's the one evil invoker who's trying to summon it or is aiding it?
The ends should never justify any evil acts by the paladin.
I'd say yes
- Do the ends justify the means for a paladin?
I'd disagree vehemently, James. The path to hell is paved with people that considered the ends justified the means. The spanish inquisition comes to mind.
Do you really want to say that the ends justify the means? So a Paladin who's trying to stop a demon (an evil) can torture people to get information, burn down an entire town to make sure he get's the one evil invoker who's trying to summon it or is aiding it?
The ends should never justify any evil acts by the paladin.
Sounds like a cool idea for a paladin/ex-paladin enemy npc.
Do the ends justify the means for a paladin?
I'd say yes
I'd disagree vehemently, James. The path to hell is paved with people that considered the ends justified the means. The spanish inquisition comes to mind.
Do you really want to say that the ends justify the means? So a Paladin who's trying to stop a demon (an evil) can torture people to get information, burn down an entire town to make sure he get's the one evil invoker who's trying to summon it or is aiding it?
The ends should never justify any evil acts by the paladin.
Interesting question. Of course, as with any interesting question, the answer is going to vary from person to person--there is no 'right' answer.
And in fact I would sit even more on the fence by saying "it depends."
If your example paladin was seeking out a demon whose presence threatened the very fabric of spacetime, then I would fall on James' side. As the GM I would allow the paladin to keep her powers while she tortured and slaughtered innocents, provided that she kept herself strictly focused on her goal of preventing the demon from destroying reality. Then I would expect her to sacrifice her own life in atonement at the end of her quest--presuming she was successful in defeating the demon in the first place, of course. I would make this clear to the player right upfront, probably via some in-game mechanism like a dream visitation from her deity.
If instead the demon was a minor nuisance then I would agree with you. The paladin would lose her powers the moment she strayed from the difficult road she has chosen to walk.
Think of it this way. The 'ends' you mention in your example are (more or less) 'prevent the demon from being summoned'. If that's the only 'ends' then that doesn't justify much in the way of 'means'.
If, on the other hand, the 'ends' are 'prevent the demon from destroying the fabric of spacetime', there are a heck of a lot more 'means' that are justifiable, as far as I'm concerned.
Like so many other things in life, this isn't black and white. At least, not to me, and not since Paizo's changes to the paladin class made it possible to play a paladin that isn't Lawful Stupid.
You might say that my view of a paladin's role perhaps overlaps with the role of an inquisitor--a divine warrior with a mandate from her deity. In my Golarion, the difference between the two is that the inquisitor is free to employ whatever underhanded tactics they like whenever they want, while a paladin is held to a somewhat stricter code of ethics and behaviour. The degree to which she is held to that code is, to me, dependent upon the nature of the threat she is facing at the time and the actions that are required to defeat it.
You might not like that idea, and that's cool. Different interpretations and ways of playing this great game are what makes the world go round.
That and the conservation of angular momentum. ; )
--Mike
Well Set because the word witch litterly means "intelligent woman" so being int based caster makes perfect sense.
Well Set because the word witch litterly means "intelligent woman" so being int based caster makes perfect sense.
Source please?
Lots of stuff.
In a Shadowrun game, I'd agree just fine with you. However, D&D and PF has always been absolutist in Good vs Evil. There are entire planes built up of Good, Evil, Chaos, and Law. Beings whose very essence is one of those four, or a mix of two of them.
The problem I have with that sort of setup is, where's the line. A demon comes down and tells a Paladin that if he tortures an orphanage to death, he'll spare the city. Is it ok for the Paladin to torture and cook up the orphans for the demon's dinner to save the other 3000 people in the city? If not, why is it ok just because it's more? What's the cut off? 100,000 people? 1,000,000 people? One Billion? At some point, it turns into an algebra problem instead of morality or ethics.
It's like, to me, security theater. We've given up tons of our civil rights over the last 15 years for 'safety'. What nobody realizes is we let the terrorists win. They don't want to kill us, they want to scare us, and make us give up our way of life, which we are doing.
It's the same way with evil, it doesn't have to destroy good, it just has to make good not good. If good stoops to evil to fight evil, then good becomes evil, and evil wins. No amount of atonements can fix that.
My sorces are our old webster dictionairy/enclycopedias.
I reject your reality, and substitute my own.
That is refreshingly honest.
I added a spoiler tag.