Pathfinder General /pfg/

List of cute dog girls in my games
>0

Explain further. What's the mechanical reason for it being boring?

Post backlog of concepts you want to play

List of reasons to live
>0

Gonna be honest I really like DHB's app. Nugget Man sounds like a fun character to have along.

isn't there a "blinkling" maid in HR?

Dude even used a smol dog eared anime girl in a maid outfit.

I could probably find ways to make all of those work, just not in Golarion. Mundane healer especially.

>Empath Medium
>Spellburst Savant
>Tinker Avowed
>Maybe a Technician if SoM gets its act sorted

This is reality now, best to make peace with it and move on.

Something that I always wondered, can you be a member of multiple collectives?

Spoiled because one of my players in the Giantslayer game is on Veeky Forums. Don't look, you know who you are.

Since I've re-written stone giants to have more of a psionic bent I was planning a side quest where the players fight three stone giant brothers, one a vitalist, one a tactician, and one a zealot

Still gotta make my Blingmaker app of a River Kingdom Gillman mesmerist and con-artist.

Thought that uncommon races were barred

Oh I've got builds for all of them, just waiting on the right game to put them in.

Missing from that list is a tank with two tower shields, one granting a cover bonus and the other granting a shield bonus, and a natural bite attack.

Fuck.

I asked last thread, but I'mma ask again. How do I blow up myself and my enemies with magic?

Well I mean I saw Good Necromancer and presumed bait after that shitstorm last thread.

>talking to a friend
>his DM somehow has time to DM nearly 10 different campaigns
time wizards need to share their power.

I have a buddy doing the bullrush shield thing. He's only took 11 levels to die.

That's a tier 9 spell, cough up

Can't tell if complimentary or derogatory

Well I wasn't in last thread, just saw the last few posts, really. There was a shitstorm? I thought a good necromancer was a big trope, like most people have played one or thought about it at some point before. I didn't think it was controversial.

What is that dog girl holding?

It's, per Paizo's inane gibbering, by definition impossible. Go read the last thread.

Reading it right now, it looks and feels more like one of those drainer vitalists combined with better tactician abilities.

It's a 6th level manifester that has quite a bit of the nastier unwilling-participant effects baked in, with shit like "take half the damage I take", "suffer this condition for me", "everyone gets +2 attack/damage against this guy and if he attacks anyone in the collective he provokes AoOs from *everybody in the collective*...

It needs more decree options. but the ones there so far are handy enough.

The tenets seem okay; you basically get 1d8 (growing to 6d8 by 20th) to add to stuff through your collective. Like, the first one, adaptation:
Every turn pick a partymember (2 at 8th, 3 at 15th). They gain your "blood power" bonus (those damage dice) on their next attack against a collective member (remember you're built around forcing shit into it, so by like turn 2 probably the entire field should be in there). They can also as a swift instead expend it to gain +10ft of non-provoking movement per die of damage.

Oppression instead lets you - as a free action - do the damage to 1/2/3 targets in your collective once a turn... and heals you for half the damage done. As a standard, you can try to force (# of dice) things into your collective, and any collective members he chooses to are oppressed, which gives a growing attack and effect-DC penalty to them, makes them totally triggered, and doubling those for targets damaged by that blood-tithe ability earlier.

So overall the class seems to be completely based around "buff allies, rape enemies" through the collective system; all the stuff I listed up there costs nothing, but the decrees tie up your psi-focus while in effect (if you have more than one focus you can have more than one decree running too).

>PROTECT HER SMILE
Summoner vmc oracle with a bipedal, martial-using eidolon
>2 ghost dog
Witchwolf Phantom blade with a possessed hand
>Dragoon
Order of the pike cavalier with a fuckhuge acrobatics score
>Kell of Kells
Kasatha dual-wielding fighter. I swear to god if someone makes a pirate game and doesn't allow kasatha

How would you stat up these two for a duo app?

>notice new DSP playtest
>Highlord

Not sure if blatant reference to Starcraft 2 or not

that's just a summoner and her eidolon, user. You've posted this three times already, go home.

I have had the most deaths until recently, but he has kept his character alive the longest out of all of us. The only reason he died is because of Shield Other on me.

There's an item in steelforge that allows you to punch people and have it detonate.

Why would you want to blow yourself up?

>Go read the last thread
Well that was so AIDS I couldn't even finish it. What horseshit. You can be a good or neutral necro, people need to get their heads out of their asses.

It's not impossible for a good person to perform evil acts. It's just that creating undead is still evil. Just like creating a killer robot that murders people the moment you stop controlling it is evil (you being the evil one, not the robot).

I want explosive karate. I want my enemies to feel the fear that I feel when punching them in the fucking liver.

In your own setting, sure. In Golarion under Paizo's rules, necromancy is evil. Full stop.

The argument wasn't about being a good or neutral necromancer. It's about the fact creating undead is evil even if you use them for good. You still might be good but you're doing evil things so you better be pretty damn good.

Not all necromancy. Creating undead specifically is.

Yes, I don't mean the necromancy school, I mean raising undead.

Pretty sure Finger of Death or Massacre isn't evil.

I wholeheartedly disagree, but whatever. All the reasoning I've seen for Necros being always evil all the time reminds me of a past DM I had who insisted Paladins can't fall because they can't do evil. If a Paladin is the type of person capable of falling, a god would never have made them a Paladin in the first place, in his head.

Paladins can fall, even though RAW they have to be L/G. Necros can be good, even though rules say they are Evil.

That actually sounds kinda fun. Why the hate? Cause it was based off of the Sc2 dude?

>smithing a sword is always evil, even if you use it for good

>trapping someone's soul in their expired body and forcing them to do what you wish with your will against theirs is always evil, even if you use it for good

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masamune#Legends_of_Masamune_and_Muramasa

I just don't see what anyone's reasoning is for creating undead to not be an evil act. Sure you may do good with them but you're creating something that if you're not around tries to kill everything that moves.

That's not responcible.

That's objectively not how it works. You can still make a zombie even if that person's soul has been Magic Jar'd or something like that, it has nothing to do with a soul.

Swords if you put it down don't seek out and destroy all life.

Necromancy in pathfinder has nothing to do with souls.

Swords don't try to destroy all life as we know it the second you take your eye off them.

Like a police dog trained to attack accidentally getting of a leash? Or a sharpened killing tool like a sword could be sold to a murderer but smithing it isn't evil.

But I said smithing a sword, not wielding one. Anyone can use that sword once you've sold it.

No fucking clue, but, well, keep in mind there were 49 different people in the last thread, and two of them are arguing about whether the spatial compression of a warp drive bars the FTL result of such travel from being considered actually faster than light.

So, again, who the fuck knows.

Now, the Highlord isn't really my cup of tea; I'd like one in my party but I myself am not too fond of mindraping things, I'm more of a beatstick kind of guy.

Niether do zombies, actually.

If you trained a dog to kill all life that would be pretty evil.

An undead tries to destroy all life the moment you cease exerting control over it. A sword without input will just sit there. It has no ability to act without you.

Undead do.

If you train a dog to seek and destroy every living creature it finds then that's fucking evil.

State trooper I knew, his trick was to keep actual bacon in his left trouser pocket. Whenever he tapped the pocket, dog gets excited.

Dog gets excited, they claim probable cause.

You know the worst part?
It's not even illegal.

Because zombies don't seek they just attack any living thing on sight. They have no ability to seek since they're mindless and will just stand around or wander if nothing living is around.

Ok, so less of a police dog and more like a guard dog? It really doesn't seem like an evil thing, plenty of people train dogs to attack on sight. Also, do you think undead do this any more than a wild wolf does? They're really don't.

Knowingly selling a sword to someone you know will use it for evil, if you're not under duress, is evil.

Really not so much. I don't know where you're getting this from. Mindless undead behave like animals, and there's plenty of intelligent undead who don't act like that. Sure there are some, but it's not a rule.

Debatable, but even assuming that's true, that's still not how undead work.

Are you fucking stupid. Undead do it much more than a wild wolf does. A wolf won't continually kill until it can't see anything left alive. A zombie will continue to kill if given the opportunity until all life it can find is destroyed.

Training an animal that will attempt to kill anything and everything without stopping no matter what or who it is, is evil. In this scenario of the dog attempts to extinguish all life it can find then yeah, shit is evil.

What? No, undead really don't so this. Take a deep breath, I can tell you're getting excited, probably because of last thread, but I'm just talking.
Undead don't seek out victims, wolves do.
Undead don't have a sense of self preservation so they don't retreat, wolves do.
I mean, there are differences, but it's not like you're making it out to be. This is all talking specifically about mindless undead, I assume we can at least agree that intelligent undead don't have to be evil? That seems pretty cut and dry.

>Half-dragon shota trap

Wolves eat to live.

The zombie kills, chews the brain, and continues on. If you leave it in a town it'll just keep chewing until either it gets destroyed or there's nothing left to chew on.

The dog at the very least stops when it's sated, and does not instinctively seek to kill everything it sees.

Intelligent undead don't have to be evil, it's just non-evil intelligent undead should be about as uncommon as a non-evil demon. Their nature is that of evil.

You know what is not debatable in pathfinder? Both undead and the methods of creating undead are evil. Literally it's on the short list of 5 things "everyone knows about undead" and yet we are having this debate.

Those are not character concepts... they're build concepts.

Wolves life to eat. Undead destroy all life because that is the nature of undead.

I still don't see your reasoning how creating an undead is anything but evil.

Uh...no, it's strictly Neutral, if they're paying you for it. Merchants simply sell shit. If it's not illegal, there are no regulations, etc. then enabling someone else's sick shit by normally doing business with them is not Evil.

Zombies don't hunger for brains, either.
The behavioral entry for uncommanded unintelligent undead describes them a lot like territorial animals. Everything you've been saying is said after "If commanded [...]"

Kinda like killing a person, right? Funny how that works out. You can't be a level 2 character without being evil, I guess. Also Paladins literally can't exist. Do you see how this is a narrow worldview that doesn't work when applied broadly.

Wolves actually are pretty famous for not knowing when to stop eating. They can actually gorge themselves to death, so in a sense, they kill just to kill after they're 'full', as they have no way of knowing when they're no longer hungry.

Or to protect their pack, or because you're in their territory, or because you moved to fast near one. You really think a wild pack of wolves poses no danger to someone if they're full? Yet they are neutral.

>every weaponsmith for an army is Evil
10/10

For PF I start with a class or build I want to play, and then when I see a game I come up with a character concept that fits both the build and the setting.

>Kinda like killing a person, right? Funny how that works out. You can't be a level 2 character without being evil, I guess. Also Paladins literally can't exist. Do you see how this is a narrow worldview that doesn't work when applied broadly.
Murdering someone for no other purpose to adventure/riches is really god damn evil. Most mercenaries should be evil because they profiteer from simply murdering people. Give me a reasoning that murdering for only coin, or just because you can, is not evil? There is debate on whether self defense, reasons of religion, warfare, etc. are mitigating factors. However a good portion of the time murder is very evil

A wolf does not attempt to kill every living creature it can see until it is no longer capable of it.

Are you actually trying to say wolves kill every living creature it can see and will not stop under any circumstances unless destroyed? Because that's what undead do.

This still is not the important part of the debate. I'm saying what is your reasoning that creating such beings isn't evil?

Characters use builds to exist in the world. Every character has a build. Wooooow mind=blown!

>Are you actually trying to say wolves kill every living creature it can see and will not stop under any circumstances unless destroyed? Because that's what undead do.
Well, no, because Wolves will back off if they think they're about to lose. Zombies, however, are even less than that, and have less mind in them than a rabbit, who knows at least to avoid danger and when to fucking scram. They will, however, attack random shit alarmingly often, even when they're sated.

Depends if the army is using it for evil and you know it.

Knowing aiding evil and evil acts is evil unless you're under duress.

Is your character prepared for cold weather?

Killing shit is evil, ergo literally every fucking army is evil, because their job is to kill shit.

>Give me a reasoning that murdering for only coin, or just because you can, is not evil?
Because mercenaries are hired soldiers? I dunno man, are we using Paizo's "because these vaguely defined rules say so" evil or actual logical evil?

>Well, no, because Wolves will back off if they think they're about to lose. Zombies, however, are even less than that, and have less mind in them than a rabbit, who knows at least to avoid danger and when to fucking scram. They will, however, attack random shit alarmingly often, even when they're sated.
I don't fucking care about wolves, that isn't the fucking point of this argument.

Creating an undead, a being that if left to its own devices will destroy all life it can see in its immediate vicinity, is an evil action.

In much the same way that creating a robot that murders everything it can see unless I'm in the same room as it would be an evil action.

Creating things that will attempt to destroy all life unless you're holding the leash is an evil fucking action.

>Give me a reasoning that murdering for only coin, or just because you can, is not evil?
No no, you need to take more time reading. The point is that ALL killing is evil. It should be impossible to be a good aligned adventurer if your worldview is this narrow. I don't need to give an example of a time when killing isn't evil, that's counter to my point.

>A wolf does not attempt to kill every living creature it can see until it is no longer capable of it
Actually it does. All territorial predators do. The only difference is they tend to stick to their territory, and they tend to fall back I'd they're losing. That's really it.

>Are you actually trying to say wolves kill every living creature it can see and will not stop under any circumstances unless destroyed? Because that's what undead do
Yes, and wolves aren't evil. See where we're going with this?

>This still is not the important part of the debate
No, it's the whole point.

Are you an aussie or some shit

So you're saying Wolves are evil.

>Creating things that will attempt to destroy all life unless you're holding the leash is an evil fucking action.
I don't see how, considering you generally intend to hold the fucking leash. If you created it with the intent of just letting them, go, sure, but that's not how most 'good necros' operate.

>Killing shit is evil, ergo literally every fucking army is evil, because their job is to kill shit.
Like I said, there are mitigating factors. I am literally talking about golarion here, what happens in the setting.

There are good aligned wars in pathfinder, we know this because there are wars conducted by good aligned nations.

>Because mercenaries are hired soldiers? I dunno man, are we using Paizo's "because these vaguely defined rules say so" evil or actual logical evil?
If someone kills for no reason other than coin, then they are evil. Warfare occurs for a number of reasons and isn't always evil even under:
> Paizo's "because these vaguely defined rules say so"

>No no, you need to take more time reading. The point is that ALL killing is evil. It should be impossible to be a good aligned adventurer if your worldview is this narrow. I don't need to give an example of a time when killing isn't evil, that's counter to my point.
Not all killing is evil.

>Actually it does. All territorial predators do. The only difference is they tend to stick to their territory, and they tend to fall back I'd they're losing. That's really it.
Except this isn't fucking true. Wolves will retreat and flee if they don't think they can win.

How cute is your party's imouto?

Necrofag please take your victim complex, go away and stay away

>there are mitigating factors
For killing sentient beings who have never personally offended you and only pose danger to you because you invaded their land?

>good aligned nations
Which makes as much fucking sense as north aligned atmospheres, what are nations, fucking hiveminds?

>even under
No that's the entire reason it's not evil. Literally DM, or in this case, Paizo, fiat. No rhyme or reason to it.

We don't have one, sadly

Stop saying the whole point of this debate is irrelevant.
A) wolves (and most predators) behave extremely similarly to mindless uncommanded undead
B) such predators aren't evil
C) ergo, undead are not necessarily evil, or at least not by virtue of their behavior. This point is refuted, so either counterpoint instead of ignoring it, or give another reason they're evil.

>Wolves will retreat and flee if they don't think they can win.
But that's the LITERAL only difference. Running away makes you less evil? You could have a pack of dire wolves and it'd massacre entire cities if it decided the city was its new home.

>I don't see how, considering you generally intend to hold the fucking leash. If you created it with the intent of just letting them, go, sure, but that's not how most 'good necros' operate.
The fucking thing is I never fucking said that a good necromancer is impossible. It fucking isn't impossible, just absurd.

However, creating the undead and the undead itself are evil. You can do good with it. It doesn't make the undead not evil and destructive.

The thing is, you're using a naturally harmful and destructive thing when alternatives to what ever you wanted to do with it not only exist but are available to you. Either you don't want to put in the time to research how to make constructs or you are too cheap to.

How can killing be good and undead cant? Don't you see the hypocrisy here? Killing is, without context, evil. But, killing can be good. Same for undead.

>or you're too cheap to
Because, like, you know, making a goddamn golem is a lot harder and more expensive than just animating dead? Ergo it will take more time to get around to doing good with thirty golems than just a hundred skeletons?

>Actually it does. All territorial predators do.
Literally NO animal does that.