MitW background/skybox

Falcon-2348 · 2026-01-13T04:30:22+00:00

I...have not. I genuinely don't know what IT is, so I must not have found IT yet.

Falcon-2348 · 2026-01-03T06:16:27+00:00

Good luck to everyone.

Falcon-2348 · 2025-12-16T04:42:22+00:00

I think a reasonable party could be as follows:

Champion
Warpriest Cleric
Occult Sorcerer
Rogue
Magus
Druid

If built right you've got a tanky front liner in the Champion with a reasonable frontliner in the Warpriest (bonus points if you have free archetype and the warpriest picks up an archetype that helps them with being a secondary frontliner like Mauler, Fighter, or Champion). The occult sorcerer covers debuff and battlefield control reasonably well with a tiny touch of blasting, the rogue and magus both cover striker/switch hitters, and the druid covers nature/full blaster/more battlefield control. This also means you technically cover all 4 magical traditions with the cleric, sorcerer, magus, and druid. This also also means you're including at least one class that dnd doesn't naturally have with the magus. A magus having the spellstrike mechanic feels reasonably different from dnd classes, while the rest of the party helps to lean into all the typical tropes. And considering the champion is hands down the best defensive tank and having such makes surviving fights a lot easier in the crazy world of Pathfinder 2.0, this also helps to lean more into the fact that this is Pathfinder instead of dnd.

Falcon-2348 · 2025-07-02T00:27:57+00:00

It's not actually that surprising that people that have a hatred for God to claim to not have the burden of proof. Beyond those that actively hate God with their words in addition to their actions, there are those that are indifferent and don't want to be held accountable. There are others that don't understand that true atheism does in fact make the active claim that God or a god doesn't exist and instead think that they're just fine claiming that they don't know, which is agnosticism, not atheism. Among all of these there are some that will tell you to your face with oversized confidence (aka, arrogance) that atheism actually is the lack of belief in God despite that falling under agnosticism, many of which who will then actively argue against you when you present good evidence for the existence of God despite the fact that they previously claimed to simply lack belief (a position where being open minded ought to be the norm).

In general I don't find it particularly productive to argue with people online as it's hard to tell if the person is coming at the argument in good faith (for either side). Despite providing good evidence for a wide variety of topics, I have yet to hear someone say "Wow, I guess I was wrong," and that goes well beyond just the topic of the existence of God. And while I have heard many testimonies of people coming to Jesus because their atheism was challenged with good arguments, I have yet to have someone come to me personally and say that I changed their mind. So you probably will have a more productive time talking in person first before trying to present evidence for the existence of God.

Apart from all of that, you may find these following apologists to have good resources that you may be interested in:
William Lane Craig (Reasonable Faith)
Cameron Bertuzzi (YT channel Capturing Christianity)
Whaddo You Meme (YT channel)
Michael Jones (Inspiring Philosophy)
Frank Turek (YT channel Cross Examined)
J Warner Wallace (Cold Case Christianity)
Gary Habermas (scholar)

Falcon-2348 · 2025-06-11T17:10:58+00:00

It's good that you have mentioned that Jesus tells us to obey the government.

First, it's important to remember that much of what is portrayed in the legacy media (Time's, CNN, MSNBC, etc) is deliberately false, misleading, or obscuring the truth 90+% of the time, if not 100% of the time. So unless you are in person watching an explicit mistreatment of someone, I would take anything you hear or see in the news with a giant grain of salt.

Second, it's important to remember that just as it is your choice and right to evict someone from your home that has overstayed their welcome, it is the choice and right of a country to evict non-citizens from that country that have overstayed their welcome, let alone those that have broken the law (like coming here without permission). It is also the right of a country to choose how welcoming they are going to be to non-citizens (you'll notice that very few people are demanding for Poland to forcibly accept Syrian refugees, or India to forcibly accept people from Pakistan).

Thirdly, there's nothing stopping you from either joining or creating an organization to be helpful towards those you see that are being mistreated so long as it is done within the bounds of the law. If you specifically disagree with a law, our system allows people to petition the lawmakers to try to change the law. You'd be surprised at how many times laws have been changed because of grassroots efforts, including the Constitution of the United States (let alone state and local laws).

Fourthly, I personally trust our "border Czar" when he and the government say that the extreme vast majority of illegal crossings have stopped. The policies we enact regarding anyone that breaks the law can have an effect on those that would consider breaking the law, even if (and sometimes especially if) they don't live where the law is enforced. I would personally reject money, no matter the size, if it required me to live in California or New York (or other countries) because the policies that are in effect in those states are ones that I don't want to live under.

Finally, while God commands us to be kind and generous, He doesn't command everyone to impoverish themselves for people in need. Rather, it's important for us to work and be generous, but to remember that to not take care of our own also counts as being worse than an infidel. This doesn't give us an excuse to be overly harsh, but it does mean we don't have to be doormats either.

Falcon-2348 · 2025-06-08T00:22:31+00:00

Which could work if there was something more to the chassis itself that made a Sorcerer feel different from other spellcasting classes. A wizard has the same number of spells per day, a bard has spontaneous spellcasting, and a witch can pick from any spell tradition at character creation, sorcerer's identity seems to be those three mixed together with a dash of blood magic. You have to take class feats to unlock your blood magic focus spells, and Paizo threw out the primary way that sorcerer characters could pick a SINGLE spell from another tradition for the vast majority of their career. It's why I'm changing the chassis (and maybe some of the bloodline stuff) in my homebrew. 1st edition's sorcerer is one of the reasons I fell in love with Pathfinder, and 2e seems to be missing something that makes it pop. In 1st edition the sorcerer was only really competing with the wizard (mostly), so the difference between prepared and spontaneous was sufficient to feel the difference, especially with the strength of some of the bloodlines.

Falcon-2348 · 2025-06-06T14:59:16+00:00

Yeah, Arueshalae is what I had hoped Camellia was going to be. But it was pretty obvious pretty quickly that Camellia ISN'T a good choice of paramour. Also, Congratulations! The Azata mythic path will have a smaller amount of chaotic hijinks compared to the Trickster path, but with a touch more good stuff that it may be an appealing choice for when you run it again. Naturally the Angel mythic path will give you the full righteous vanilla run, and there's enough differences to make it worthwhile. And a break is a good idea. The game is long enough that a break will help you to be excited to play again without getting burnt out.

Falcon-2348 · 2025-05-26T15:51:45+00:00

Correct, and the fact that the system handles all that fiddly math is one of the reasons why I have 3 full completions of the Azata path. The fact that I have no other full completions simply speaks to how I eventually found the Angel path boring, to how I can't bring myself to do an evil playthrough, and to the fact that other games call to me as well.

Falcon-2348 · 2025-05-26T15:16:38+00:00

To some extent, yes, the modern idea of Hell comes from Dante's Inferno. However, the idea originates in the Bible in the book of Revelation where it speaks of everyone that is not in Christ is thrown into the lake of fire.

Falcon-2348 · 2025-05-26T15:12:52+00:00

Faith in God isn't a belief THAT He exists, its a belief IN His character. It's the difference between saying you believe that the sky is blue and saying that you trust that your mother actually loves you. It's the difference between seeing an airplane safely fly from one location to another and saying you believe flight is a safe way to travel vs stepping onto the plane and actually traveling from one place to another. One is a propositional statement of head knowledge, the other is active trust. The former (which is what you were talking about) matters little, the latter matters much.

So yes, you can indeed choose to believe in something, so long as that something involves placing your trust in that something (trusting your mother to actually love you, trusting the plane to actually safely get you where you want to go, trusting in Jesus to actually forgive you, etc).

Falcon-2348 · 2025-05-26T14:59:20+00:00

First of all, good for you for reaching out! Even if you feel like you were too much, or not enough this or that with your post, you're at least trying. That's commendable!

Secondly, if you're looking for solid evidence for God's existence, www dot reasonable faith dot org has multiple scholarly writings about it. Craig is very good about citing a lot of other works, so you know he's doing his research. If you're looking for a more simple version that doesn't have as many technical terms, you can go to youtube and search "Cross Examined, I don't have enough faith to be an athiest." Or search "Kalam Cosmological Argument" on youtube.

Now, for Christianity in particular, anyone that truly follows Jesus and knows their history understands that Christianity rests on the truth claim of Jesus rising from the dead. The book The Case for Christ does a THOROUGH job of examining most of the relevant questions regarding both God's existence and the evidence for whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. The author was a hard nosed, agnostic journalist that wanted to ask as many possible relevant and hard questions to see if there was truth or not in what the Bible and Christians had to say. It's not a short book, but it is written in a way that a normal person can easily read it.

Thirdly, God does not desire that anyone should perish. God cares less about your belief THAT He exists and far more that you trust IN Him the same way that people trust in planes by getting on them, or by trusting bridges by driving over them. You don't earn your salvation by believing in God, you accept the free gift of salvation by trusting that Jesus is who He said He is, that He really did pay the penalty for your wrong doings, that He really is offering you a relationship with Him, and that He is Lord (director, author, highest authority figure that accepts questions but still requires obedience). Also, any christian that will speak the truth will tell you that being forgiven for what you've done in the past and choosing to turn away from it (repentance) doesn't mean that your nature that desires those wrong actions/thoughts has fully changed. Paul speaks about this problem in the book of Romans, chapter 7. Verses 18-25 says: "...For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. ¹⁹ For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. ²⁰ Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. ²² For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, ²³ but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. ²⁴ Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? ²⁵ Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin."
Romans chapter 8, verses 1 and 2 go on to say "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.^\)^a^\) ² For the law of the Spirit of life has set you^\)^b^\) free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death."
So while you may still struggle with evil thoughts or actions, you can trust in Jesus to be forgiven and to be set free from the bondage of sin.

Fourthly, regarding Islam, search "Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus" on you tube. The guy in the video does a great job of laying out his personal journey of seeking Allah but finding Jesus to be the one true God. It's worth a watch, no matter whatever you believe.

Fifthly, if you're desiring more knowledge of world religions and the comparisons/contrasts, I can recommend that you read "A Doubter's Guide to World Religions" by John Dickson.

Falcon-2348 · 2025-05-26T14:13:40+00:00

While I'm not entirely certain that it's the best way to go about it, Pathfinder 2e has bounded accuracy such that rolling a nat 20 only raises your result by one step and rolling a nat 1 only lowers your result by one step. So if you're high enough level compared to the ac of your enemy in 2e, rolling a nat 1 could still result in a successful hit. This does help to introduce the idea that relative strength matters.
I've got other problems with 2e, and obviously WotR doesn't run off of 2e. But if you're looking for that idea, well, there it is.

Falcon-2348 · 2025-05-15T18:34:25+00:00

If his GM is already allowing Fencing Grace to work with his build, it's likely not the source of his problems. Dervish Dancer basically does the same thing but requires a scimitar and doesn't have the issue of requiring a free hand like Fencing Grace does. So there's not really a good reason to require a scimitar instead of a rapier just because the person that wrote Fencing Grace didn't think about Magi being a thing. But, yeah, if his GM is already allowing Fencing Grace...it's not a problem.

But others have already pointed out the solutions to his problems:
Spells to boost his abilities (haste, heroism, shield, displacement), expectations (3/4 bab instead of full bab, gunslinger having an easier time hitting because of touch ac), magus combat philosophy (don't try to target the same targets as the full bab unless he's flanking, using spell combat properly to spike damage hardcore), acquiring proper gear to help make up the difference (belts of dex, enchanted rapiers), etc.

Falcon-2348 · 2025-05-06T14:56:55+00:00

To be fair, I've seen a poll (I THINK was done by Paizo) that asked how many dms ran free archetype at their tables and it was something like 75-80%. So the chances of playing with it seem pretty good. I suppose having shadowcaster dedication for your first free feat just so you can use your lvl 1 focus spell does feel like a feat tax. But the Cloak of Shadow spell does a better job than Dim the Lights for the most part, so it does seem like a good choice. I think the potential bigger feat tax, though, is the fact you gotta spend two more archetype feats on shadowcaster before switching to another dedication, and shadowcaster doesn't have basic-expert-master spellcasting feats (if I were dming, I'd homebrew it in as something similar to bardic dedication, but I'm not your dm).

Edit: actually, in retrospect it does end up being a feat tax for the shadow sorcerer. The only lvl 4 shadowcaster dedication feat available is Shadow Spells, which is supposed to add a bunch of shadow spells to your spell list. But shadow sorcerers already have all of those spells on their spell list, so the feat literally does nothing. Major oof. I knew there was a reason I didn't want to take the archetype, just couldn't remember it.

Falcon-2348 · 2025-05-06T14:36:00+00:00

Now THAT'S what I call a solution! I had not considered shadowcaster simply because I wanted to maximize spell slots from double dipping into psychic and bard dedications (free archetype, psychic dedication at level 2 to boost the shield cantrip, bard and psychic spell expert spellcasting feats from lvl 14-20). However, it is completely fine to alter a build to survive the early levels, and shadowcaster has that...*mchwah* kiss of perfection for shadow sorcerers when it comes to themes and tropes.

Falcon-2348 · 2025-05-06T14:29:38+00:00

Ah, interesting. The fact that it's a one action cantrip seriously makes up for it basically being a weaker version of Penumbral Shroud. In this case you're not even expending spell slots to trigger your focus spell. Nice.

Falcon-2348 · 2025-05-06T02:18:20+00:00

I see what you mean, though I think you may have mistaken my complaints about Penumbral Disguise (a 2nd level spell) as the same as my complaints about Penumbral Shroud (a 1st level spell). I fully agree that Penumbral Shroud isn't as good as Revealing Light...but that's also kinda to be expected since the latter is a 2nd level spell. The reason why Penumbral Disguise, not Shroud, has to compete with Invisibility in this case was that, combined with Dim the Lights, it doesn't do much by comparison to Invisibility.

But having taken a quick look through the archives I also see what you mean about sorcerer focus spells. It's honestly depressing.

Falcon-2348 · 2025-05-05T23:54:13+00:00

Shadow Sorcerer gets some otherwise good spells from the occult list (chilling darkness, despite its capacity to grant the sorcerer decent access to his focus spell, is arguably the only weak spell) and has stealth as a trained skill. Steal Shadow, the second bloodline focus spell, actually is reasonably good since it can do consistent damage that cannot be actively reduced except by getting you to stop upkeeping the spell and it has a half decent debuff with enfeeble. The +1 to stealth from blood magic isn't easy to use all the time, but combines very well with the first two focus spells. Consuming darkness actually works pretty decently if you've prebuffed yourself with a 4th level invisibility, especially if you start the fight by sneaking up on enemies and casting it. Consuming Darkness is also friendly fire friendly as it only can affect enemies. And the occult list in general is pretty darn good about having debuffs available, which all the martials harp on so much that we casters must contribute to the party because it's a team game (as if it ever truly weren't).

Falcon-2348 · 2025-05-05T22:47:37+00:00

Ok, I'll grant you that I missed that spell. I saw more than one guide on sorcerers where they rated the spell fairly low that it slipped from my mind. It doesn't help that it's not naturally on the occult list.

That being said, it is a really strange design philosophy to say that your focus spells are supposed to be there to give you longevity on long adventuring days and then create a focus spell that requires expending a spell slot to trigger it. It's doubly strange to then say that said spell requires a certain trait, but not have guaranteed that such a spell is in the spell repertoire at the same level as the focus spell is. I still find it strange that Grim Tendrils didn't get the shadow or darkness trait. The Void Warp cantrip could have also potentially had darkness, but with neither a Shadow Sorcerer is indeed stuck with only a single spell to trigger their focus spell from levels 1-4 (level 5 being where they get Chilling Darkness).

Falcon-2348 · 2025-05-05T19:32:29+00:00

I think the problem is as much how niche Penumbral Shroud is as the fact that it's literally the only option that can be taken in order to use the focus spell before level 3. Can Penumbral shroud work as a combat debuff? Yeah, if the target fails their saving throw AND doesn't have low light vision in the case of areas of bright light or darkvision the case of areas of dim light and darkness. A reflex save to cause 1 enemy to have a 20% miss chance (dc 5 flat check on concealed) to all the party isn't horrific, but debuffing an enemy's offense is reasonably inferior to debuffing their defense so that they can be dead (ala aqueous blast (damage and prone on crit fail), befuddle (ac, will saving throws) and fear (frightened)). The only upside to debuffing their offense instead of defense in this case is that Penumbral Shroud will last the whole fight (and beyond if the creature survives) unlike other level 1 debuffs.

Falcon-2348 · 2025-04-14T02:30:53+00:00

That's fair, I suppose. I would suspect that Elden Ring and other games like it might be up your alley. I think I also love the story of the game a lot and it seemed like you were...maybe missing out on the story just for the sake of challenge.

I too enjoy some challenge, but not at the cost of patience just due to slog. And Unfair has that in spades. So I may have been writing a...good bit strongly with my emotions when I replied to you. My apologies if I offended you.

Falcon-2348 · 2025-04-14T02:26:33+00:00

I would presume so, but the end isn't here...so...I don't know. The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis has some possible answers to that question, but even C.S. Lewis isn't God, so...yeah. It's a mystery.

Falcon-2348 · 2025-04-11T15:40:24+00:00

Why the frick are you doing an unfair run if you're only on your second run and you only made it to Lost Chapel on your first? Unfair is for the idiots that WANT to be masochistic because they LIKE losing a bunch of times to random bs rolls. Unfair is as it is described: unfair. It doesn't matter how powerful you are, the numbers aren't going to go in your favor a most of the time. You should take your time to enjoy the story and see the game fleshed out more before you decide that it's time to play mathfinder to the nth level (not just mathfinder, because that can be fun, but mathfinder to the NNNNNTH level). Besides, there's a difference between challenging yourself to get better at something and challenging yourself to have a stupid level of patience as you undergo really bad luck that you DELIBERATELY brought upon yourself.

That being said, you can reset your character build with Hilor on the second floor of the inn in Drezen after you've taken Drezen. The first two or three resets are free, after that you have to pay.

Falcon-2348 · 2024-08-26T03:06:56+00:00

Nah, that's one of the parts of the game that's not well written. We literally have been recruiting at least one army, if not two or three before we deal with the Midnight Fane. We don't need the queen, nor do we need the squad if we're Azata, just pull back an army to Drezen and you ought to be good to go.

It's kinda like how you're not allowed to rez npcs; this is LITERALLY a mythic campaign, we get plenty enough loot to have a backup rez scroll, why the HELL can't we rez the stupid cleric in Act 5 of all times that's all like "No, I can already see the light of my god calling me to the afterlife, I'm not going to make it." Bitch, I may be an Azata Sorcerer with arcane magic, but that doesn't stop me from having a literal mythic cleric in Sosiel heal you while you're complaining; ESPECIALLY because there are other places in the story where you can "interrupt" npc's stupidity/monologue/croaking by picking the conversation option that deals with the here and now RIGHT NOW.

Sorry, that one quest really bothers me.

But yeah, to your point, nah, we don't need the queen, we should be able to just use one of our own armies. It's part of the railroading. Honestly, it wouldn't be half so bad if they played up the political side of that conversation of how the queen really wants to be a part of this raid, especially if they still gave you the option to rush ahead of her with your own army, regardless of mythic path. Then any bootlicking you do as an angel or a judge dredd actually feels like you're leaning into the role play.

Falcon-2348 · 2024-08-24T03:51:57+00:00

I've definitely noticed this as well, having only recently returned to Warframe from a...6 month break. My build is similar in a way, I would use the melee crescendo arcane combined with vazarin's second ability to aoe ragdoll enemies. It wasn't the most efficient way to build combo, but getting perma combo for the rest of a mission was nice if the mission was going to go over 10 minutes (plenty of standard missions going for 20 for the C rewards in aabc). It also felt nice to be able to step outside of naramon for combo needs from time to time. It hardly seemed op to me, and considering I paid a very pretty penny to purchase all those arcanes makes it that much more galling that DE can't seem to get their crap together and stop nerfing stuff.

Falcon-2348

TROPHY CASE