The Gaming Den

Grek wrote:Did someone really register on this board with the name Paizil?

Obviously yes.

Paizil wrote:My favorite part about Titan Mauler is they specifically get the ability to use a two-handed weapon in one hand, but for some reason it has to be appropriately sized for them. So a class based around using "weapons from their titanic foes" can dual wield greatswords but not large longswords, but has less penalties for using large longswords than for using greatswords.

I wonder why they decided that, usually dual wielding an oversized weapon in each hand doesn't look as cool as wielding a titanic weapon in two hands. The only instance that comes to mind is Diablo II Barbarians, and when I played that game I thought it looked dumb compared to holding a greatsword the proper way.

Grek wrote:Did someone really register on this board with the name Paizil?

It was just a little joke. I registered so I could see when new posts were made and don't have much to add beyond Pathfinder stuff, since the people I play with are rarely interested in anything else. I would hope people can look beyond it and berate me for stupid shit I say instead of the stupid name I picked.

Hi! I recently joined a PF game because a good friend GMs it. Do you have any advice on what to play, given the following constraints/goals:

- Do not overshadow other players too visibly (Bararian, Rogue, Blaster Wizard), all of them noobs
- Do not annoy GM with build that has to much potential (first testing session to aquiesce the noobs to the game, I played a Human Psion Shaper with Overchannel, Talented and Advanced Constructs, constantly surrounded by 8 Astral Constructs. The GM deemed that a tad to strong despite me using the Constructs mainly to aid another for the other characters).
- Have fun and contribute to the group (Ideally, I would like to buff, but buffing seems to be nerfed in comparison to 3.5 Word of Creation Bard, War Weaver or Permanent Spell cheese cleric/Incantatrix).

PF doesn't have a good "make your buddies digivolve" build?

RadiantPhoenix wrote:PF doesn't have a good "make your buddies digivolve" build?

Not really. No way to get all-day buffs, Bard doesn't go to 11.

Since you're using Psionics - maybe Tactician? I haven't tried it, it's supposed to be teamwork oriented, you can buff everyone in your "network" at once. And they can just kick ass the normal way as well.

Or possibly BFC Wizard? Set foes up to be mowed down by the rest? Maybe abuse Blood Money to get lots of Permanent spells for the whole party.

They sound like they need a buffer cleric.

The Tactician is kind of crazy over powered. And even if you're playing nice and not turning yourself in a gestalt tier character, it has a lot of fiddly buffs and effects that will annoy a GM and confuse newbie players.

Maybe a bomb focused Alchemist with a few buff and heal spells? Or just a paladin with a feat selection design to really max out it's various channel energy/lay on hands/aura stuff?

Oracle of Life? Healbot during the easy encounters, but keep enough real spells in your back pocket to save the day if the party gets in over their head.

Controller/Porter Wizard. They've got the damage covered, so just lock down all the enemy for them and cover their ins and outs.

Or if the DM's freaking out about your playa skillz, just pick some lowbie enemies to run at and get knocked around by occasionally. You've got piles of HP anyway in Pathfinder, so use some of them and let the DM get his chub on.

I'd play just a bog standard cleric. But then again, I like clerics.

O, no. Like, hell no. WTF, Pathfinder? Seriously, WTF?

Hey_I_Can_Chan wrote:O, no. Like, hell no. WTF, Pathfinder? Seriously, WTF?

I don't remember broodmother's top half being shapely and beautiful. Here, let me check.

Nope.

Why are the undead evil?

I mean, for intelligent undead it should be a free will choice, while mindless undead are, well, mindless, and lack alignment like animals (or should probably be true neutral). This pesky "necromancers and undead are Evil" always stands between me and my glorious utopia with free zombie labor.

Metaphysics.

They're evil because they run on evil juice like fiends, or only evil people become undead, or becoming undead turns your mind inside out and stuffs it full of hunger and sadism, or what have you.

If there's no such reason, then your interpretation should prevail.

Longes wrote:Why are the undead evil?

Zombie : "Zombies are unthinking automatons, and can do little more than follow orders. When left unattended, zombies tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour."

Skeleton : "Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, brought to unlife through foul magic. While most skeletons are mindless automatons, they still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force"

I think Jason Buhlman explained once that in 3e (or 2e ?), skeletons and zombies were Neutral. Then in 3.5, they became Evil for no reason. Then, then they made Pathfinder, he though it was strange that those creature were Evil; he hesitated to change them to Neutral, but many people - including him - though it could have some unseen implications on the system - eg, should a paladin be able to smite a skeleton? (they were also reluctant to make all undead smitable because of the ghosts : ghosts are the only undead that can be non-Evil).

In the end, they decided that those undead will remain Evil, so he add this little blurb about zombies going in rampage.

For once, it is not the fault of Paizo: they saw the problem, they took a decision, they know that decision is open to criticism, and they explained the design process leading to that decision.

It's a form of the "Crawling Darkness" option mentioned in the Tome of Necromancy.

Hey_I_Can_Chan wrote:O, no. Like, hell no. WTF, Pathfinder? Seriously, WTF?

Sure that's fucked up, but I thought the monster itself was pretty well designed. It's (seemingly) meant for some sort of horror adventure/setting and thematically gets the job done. Could do with less mouth rape, though.

Hey_I_Can_Chan wrote:O, no. Like, hell no. WTF, Pathfinder? Seriously, WTF?

Because half woman/half weird ass shit 'mother of monsters' is a pretty common monster archetype? Even going all the way back to Greek mythology


Ebit: Ugh, no idea why the link code isn't working there.

Thanks for all the input!

I can't continue with psionic stuff, since the DM disliked my last stunt enough to politely ask me not to use third party material he doesn't know well and thus has a hard time appropriately reacting to. So Tactician is out.

I think I will go with oracle, cleric or pally, since this role isn't filled anyway and the DM hinted at the campaign being undead heavy.

Hey_I_Can_Chan wrote:O, no. Like, hell no. WTF, Pathfinder? Seriously, WTF?

Seems about par for the course for Paizo. When James Jacobs wrote up Zuggtmoy in Dragon for the Fiendish Codex focus testing, she had an unbirthing attack that turned you evil. The capstone ability of her Thrall class actually involves your character having a wet dream about it.

Hey_I_Can_Chan wrote:O, no. Like, hell no. WTF, Pathfinder? Seriously, WTF?

I counted at least three /d/ tier fetishes there.

LR wrote:

Hey_I_Can_Chan wrote:O, no. Like, hell no. WTF, Pathfinder? Seriously, WTF?

Seems about par for the course for Paizo. When James Jacobs wrote up Zuggtmoy in Dragon for the Fiendish Codex focus testing, she had an unbirthing attack that turned you evil. The capstone ability of her Thrall class actually involves your character having a wet dream about it.

He wrote the Dragon magazine Zuggtmoy entry for the Demonomicon series too, which included Zuggtmoy cults basically being horror movies hillbillies who kidnap travelers and force them to consume lots of fungus based poisons*, then, if the traveler succumbs to the poisons but lives, they're put in "Zuggtmoy's Cradle," meaning they're bound with rope made from their own hair (or their limbs are stitched to their bodies, in the more likely case of them not having long enough hair), and buried in a swamp, wearing a Zuggtmoy cultist mask, and a tube forced in their mouth which runs up to the surface so that the cultists can force feed them spore-gruel which makes fungus and mushrooms grow in their lungs and stomachs. Oh, and of course all the bugs that'll crawl down it.

Jacobs has some shit in that mind of his. On the other hand, he probably wrote the demon lord stuff that I approve of for the very fact that it is actually perverse and broadly evil enough for Demoniacs to actually feel like villains.


*"on a table of warped wood from the coffin lids of those murdered by Zuggtmoy's cultists." Umm... why are their coffin lids? Seems unnecessarily round about, given that it means they make coffins for their victims, bury them, and then dig up the lids, rather than just dumping the bodies in the swamp. For those that they put Z's cradle, that means they dig them up, put them in a coffin they made, bury them, and then dig up the lid later.

How is this a James Jacobs thing? Shit like that is all over (horror) pop culture. I don't even find this disturbing since it's so goofy.

Because IIRC James Jacobs is the person in charge of most adventure paths & bestiaries etc.