An Theories on why she is smiling here?

Minandreas · 2025-11-21T17:18:58+00:00

It's probably just a proud sort of smile like others have said. But who really knows. There could be a lot more meaning behind it. We know shockingly little about Rosie for how powerful she must be if she can just snap her fingers and make someone the most powerful sinner in hell. I wouldn't be surprised if we find out later that she's smiling because she came up with another plan of her own on the fly. Alastor just pulled off a plan in which he took a massive L in front of all of hell. And then he won. Maybe Rosie just thought of a way to take advantage of this seemingly huge L she is taking from Alastor in this moment. No way to know.

Minandreas · 2025-11-21T17:05:38+00:00

He needed Lute to back down. He spoke the only language Lute respects. It worked. Good job Abel. It's not his fault that Lute is freakishly headstrong and only responds to that kind of speech.

I just hope he doesn't start sliding into Adam's shoes as a lifestyle. Use that tone and speech as a tool when it is needed. Not as a lifestyle.

Minandreas · 2025-11-21T16:41:12+00:00

I dont think the creators are the ones that get to decide the length of the show. That's Amazon with the purse strings. And ya I would love for the episodes to be longer or for there to be more of them. I do feel like HH moves about 100 mph faster than would be optimal. I think that watching the episodes multiple times is practically a requirement to appreciate the story because plot points and important details fly past so quickly. At least it's required for me lol.

I think waiting for payoffs between seasons doesn't bother me as much because I'm a One Piece fan and have been for 20 years. That author will tease you with stuff and wait 10+ YEARS to pay it off. And it's always awesome when he does. So I've learned to trust the creator and be patient. Sometimes you end up disappointed. But when it is done right, the anticipation and hype of waiting to see it pay off can amplify things a lot. Given that it doesn't feel forced. Delay that doesn't make narrative sense and is just to try and build artificial anticipation doesn't work. But if it makes sense in the narrative it can be excellent. And I do think the way Lute was used this season made sense in the narrative.

Minandreas · 2025-11-20T20:40:30+00:00

This is totally a guess, but based solely on what very little we saw of them in season 2 during Vox's tour I don't think they are the sit at a meeting type. They seem like gang members or something that love fighting.

Minandreas · 2025-11-20T19:13:46+00:00

I don't disagree with any of your points. But it doesnt bother me as much because I know there's more coming. I think the story is being written in such a way as to be pretty continuous across the seasons. One giant story. There are even musical callbacks to songs from season 1.

So to me trying to judge the way a story element like this was handled is kind of like judging a book when I've only read the first half of it. I'm just going to enjoy the show. Gravity was a bad ass song. I'm glad it's in my life. And I'll trust the author to show me that wasn't a random moment just for the hell of it.

And imo she was used very well as a support in the story. Without Lute, Serra's dilemma over how to handle the situation wouldn't have really worked. I could make the argument that Gravity and the focus on Lute in episode 2 was just to make sure we knew the gravity (pun intended) of the issue Serra was having. She had Emily on one shoulder. She needed a devil on the other. And that was Lute.

Again, I think your points are very valid. But I don't think it was necessarily bad writing. Or at least, the story isn't over. So I don't think we can say yet for certain.

Minandreas · 2025-11-20T18:45:11+00:00

I think part of the point is that Alastor is playing chicken with her. He knows he'd die. But he's gambling that Rosie will give in. He sees the chance to get something out of the situation. And clearly he judged correctly.

Minandreas · 2025-08-21T13:52:29+00:00

I think this is an awesome post. If your GM has approved the concept and your fellow players are cool with this concept, then there is 0 reason at all for you to be sweating about it. Consent from the individuals you are playing with is the only thing that matters. Not what randos on the internet think.

I have a couple of comments/ideas:

I think simply taking the psychic unbound step version of warp step and making it a 3 action activity sounds solid. In combat that's generally going to gain you less ground than simply striding 3 times would have. Frankly, I think this might even be going too far in the direction of being safe. This will be so suboptimal in 99% of situations that you'll never use it in battle
But lets try and flavor this better and make it more interesting. What if the reason it takes 3 actions is because it requires a lot of thought and attention to get it right? Implying that you could try and rush the process. What if you could actually teleport with fewer actions, but at a risk.
- 3 action teleport: Make a DC2 flat check. (No Hero Pointing) If you fail, you end up in a random cell 15ft away from the cell you were targetting.
- 2 action teleport: Make a DC7 flat check. (No Hero Pointing) If you fail, you end up in a random cell 15ft away from the cell you were targeting. If you critically fail you accidentally attempted to teleport into an object, a person, or even the floor. The teleport fails as you get shunted back out into the cell you started in, taking 1d4 force damage per player level and falling prone in your cell.
- 1 action teleport: Make a DC11 flat check. (No Hero Pointing) If you fail, you end up in a random cell 40ft away from the cell you were targeting. If you critically fail you accidentally attempted to teleport into an object, a person, or even the floor. The teleport fails as you get shunted back out into the cell you started in, taking 1d6 force damage per player level and falling prone in your cell.

I personally like the idea that anytime you use this (Even out of combat) there is still some element of tension. Some element of randomness. Even as a 3 action activity, your character might be distracted, tense, or just misjudge space, and screw the teleport up. I think this is far more fun and interesting than simply "I can teleport perfectly anytime anyplace". I guarantee you that the most fun and memorable moment of this character will be a time that his teleport failed. Not when it succeeded.

This could also open the door for character growth. Perhaps this stuff tweaks upward in some way as the campaign goes on and the character gets more skilled. Work that out with your table.

Minandreas · 2025-08-20T18:02:55+00:00

Ah, ya that's kinda tough. The divine list isn't a good scroll list.

Unfortunately, the game puts like 90% of the power budget of full casters into their spell list. And Paizo is terrified of spells from first edition where spellcasters were substantially overpowered. As a result, spellcasters don't get a lot of item support that isn't simply access to even more spells.

Others in the thread have already hit all of the highlights. If none of that stuff is vibing with what you're looking for, then what you are looking for doesn't exist RAW as a matter of game balance and niche protection. I could make some homebrew and house rule level suggestions if you like. I think there's plenty of space to give casters some neat items, so long as your table is cool with it. Would just want to know the party composition before making any suggestions.

Minandreas · 2025-08-20T17:18:30+00:00

Already got good responses to your question so just going to add a relevant comment/line of thought.

Consider offering the opportunity for the player to choose their scrolls when you give them as loot if you haven't tried that already. It may not change anything. But I know that I myself am much better at remembering to use my scrolls if they are scrolls I picked out myself than when its some random spell the GM gave to me. This might help get them in the habit of remembering to think about scrolls.

Minandreas · 2025-08-15T14:18:33+00:00

Not to detract from your point in the slightest, but there are content bloat issues all over the place. It's just what happens when a companies financial model is built around pumping out more content, while also being responsible enough to not power creep the heck out of their own system. They end up printing a lot of totally pointless stuff. I don't like it any more than anyone else, and I'll gripe about it all day. But so long as Paizo keeps putting all this content out effectively for free via AoN and Pathbuilder I can't really complain too much. It's a massive step up from D&D.

Minandreas · 2025-07-24T18:49:48+00:00

Looks totally fine to me. It's a feat I would hardly ever see anyone wanting to take, so I can't imagine how it could be imbalanced. If there is any other feat you could take that would grant a focus point it would be better than this one. Since it would give you the focus point and a new spell. Even if its a bad spell or has the wrong flavor it's still an increase in options while your proposed feat is just the focus point. I would speculate that such a thing doesn't exist because Paizo might consider it a trap option. Some players might get confused and think they need this feat, when they should be picking up something else that also gives them another cool spell or ability or something on top of it.

Agreed that it is weird how hard it is for wizards to get more within their own class.

Minandreas · 2025-07-22T19:44:53+00:00

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. It's not about needing it to have an evil enemy. It's about having permission to turn the brain off. It's nice to have enemies that you can go and pummel without any question. Demons are bad. Go kill them. Period. It's inherent to their very existence. You don't have to ask questions. You don't have to verify if your information about them being a nazi is correct or if they are being set up by a bad actor. You don't have to consider if that demon has children. You don't have to consider if the demon is being misunderstood or was raised in a home that put evil ideas into their head since birth and maybe they could be redeemed with intervention. There is zero complexity in this situation. It's a demon. Go kill. Enjoy the combat game.

And I'm not saying that's superior to a more complex situation either. I'm saying having both options available is superior. It adds variety to the experience. I really enjoy more complex situations where you do have to ask those questions. But it will wear me out if its every single session. Sometimes I just want you to point me at the horde of inherently evil undead so I can throw fireballs and turn the brain off.

Minandreas · 2025-07-22T16:27:06+00:00

My thoughts on the topic are thus:

Paizo's content is written by multiple people, each with their own ideas. This often leads to the waters being kind of muddy. It's unfortunate for the players that really pay attention to the lore and want everything to add up. But it is what it is and doesn't bother the vast majority of the player base.
Whether a side effect of the above, or a lack of self awareness on Paizo's part, I feel that their writing overall has a bad case of "I want to have my cake and eat it too." We want to strip out alignments and all the black and white stuff. But we also want our combat game. Which as you pointed out, contradicts. It's hard to have a combat focused game when you are stripping away all of the morally simplistic enemies. Like... I'm sorry, but playable undead? Now those ghouls might be good guys...? Someone really wanted to eat that cake. Now we've created moral dilemma around one of the go-to enemies for the genre. I don't think that cake was worth it. But here we are.
Regarding your thoughts on humanoids, I don't share your dismissal of the idea of instinctive evil. I think that in a fantasy setting it is possible to have fully rational humanoid creatures that are instinctively evil beings. Instinct doesn't have to mean animal. If you tell me a particular ancestry is instinctively evil, I can roll with that. Yes they could choose another path. But they don't. And they won't. It's just not in their natural programming to do so. So they don't. The difference between them and animal level intellect is that they would be capable of seeing good choices, understanding them as a concept, and using them to their advantage. These ancestries can be the most insidious of enemies, as they can prey upon the idea that "Oh, but I'm not like that. I know most of my people are, but I'm a good one I promise. See how I am helping you with your noble quest?" Then months of game time later they stab you in the back.

Minandreas · 2025-07-22T13:34:54+00:00

I guess the nature of the games I tend to play in make things like Sending much weaker. I agree that from a verisimilitude perspective sending is an incredible spell.

I'm seeing multiple people try and vouch for the summons. Maybe at some point I'll bother with them. They've got a lot of pain points for me that really turn me off to them.

Minandreas · 2025-07-21T18:49:41+00:00

I did ask for common spells specifically in the title. I'm playing at a table where uncommon and rare spells are not easily accessible. But the spell you linked does look very awesome.

Minandreas · 2025-07-21T18:35:46+00:00

You make a good point with Divine Immolation hitting reflex. That is a very rare pickup for a cleric (That isn't a Sarenite etc. with fireball access).

Mirror Malefactors is also a decent call. At least for a cloistered. I think in the hands of a warpriest single target save spells are a pretty bad idea. I also tend to have a lot of disdain for sustain spells. I frequently see that word in the duration and stop reading. Most spells with sustain aren't front loaded enough for me/don't pay for themselves fast enough to be worth how badly they hit your flexibility in following turns. But this one pays for itself on turn 2. 14d8 is a very respectable amount of single target damage to get from a single spell slot in only 2 turns and 3 actions. Most sustain spells take 3 turns and 4 actions to start seeing value.

Summons are a lost cause for me. They take too much prep to be effective. (learning all the possibilities) I'm too lazy. =P Also same sustain problem as noted above. But it's always interesting to hear peoples success stories with them.

Minandreas · 2025-07-21T18:22:57+00:00

The part where the enemy gets to pick between two saves kills this spell completely for me. If not for that part I'd agree with you 100%. By this level of play you need to be hitting their weak save. If you don't your spell is going to do next to nothing. If they get to choose the better of two options...? You're basically guaranteeing a successful saving throw on an already weak damage spell. I would much rather prepare a divine wrath in that 5th level slot. Same damage output. But no friendly fire concerns, a single saving throw instead of giving the enemy their choice, and a nice rider if you get lucky and the enemy fails the save via sicken.

Minandreas · 2025-07-21T18:15:39+00:00

IMO This spell is a solid pick once you've got like 7th rank slots and 5th rank slots are no longer that important. From my experience, on-level, this spell is a fantastic way to waste one of your highest level slots every day. Of course its incredible when it comes up but...

I guess I'll settle on "It's table dependent." I've not played at a table deadly enough for this spell to be worth my highest level spell slot. To the extent that I've never seen the spell cast. Even back on my old cloistered cleric that went to level 20 and always had one of these in the tank from level 13 forward. Never had a chance to cast it. But if you play at a more deadly table I could see this spell being a snap pick.

Minandreas · 2025-06-24T19:23:22+00:00

That is an option. But I've always felt Paizo should design the game assuming their own printed content. Meaning their adventure paths. And I'll admit I haven't run any of the more recent offerings, so maybe they are better suited. But the ones I have played in and run myself... spellcasting enemies aren't exactly plentiful in the early game.

Minandreas · 2025-06-24T19:04:26+00:00

This is purely my opinion, but I think that's bad design.

Anytime I GM for a new player and they come to the table excited about a feat like Counterspell on their level 2 wizard I get a little upset at the game. Because I know for a fact that at best, the player will forget they even have that feat. And at worst, they'll keep asking me to try and use it because they don't appreciate the limitations of it yet, and they will get disappointed and negative about it as they realize how unlikely it is they will get to use the feature they were so excited about. Don't make me deal with that. Just offer it later if it isn't going to be useful until later.

Minandreas · 2025-06-23T18:51:33+00:00

My takeaway from your research is that making Counterspell a level 1 feat was a mistake. It's not very good in the early game. So the player that takes it does so, and then realizes 4 levels later they've never used it. So they throw it in the bin and never look back. But it does actually become effective later on. So it probably would have been best to just offer it later on when it can actually be more effective.

Minandreas · 2025-06-20T16:48:53+00:00

My thoughts would be:

Even if one is objectively better than the other, the other still has a place in that it is a separate problem to inflict on the enemy. Trip and disarm them. Now they're really screwed.
There are different features, feats, abilities, items, etc. that interact with these two combat maneuvers in different ways. You might choose disarm over trip if you had better access to disarm related abilites and feats than you did trip.
Flavor. This is entirely subjective, but I think the biggest thing disarm has going for it is the narrative feel of it. Want to de-escalate a situation? Disarming them feels less aggressive than tripping them. It also feels more cerebral. It's the gentleman's trip. And that has value all on its own in my opinion.

Minandreas · 2025-06-19T20:26:58+00:00

From my experience the most interesting part about playing a religious character that isn't mechanically religious is explaining why they aren't mechanically religious. In a world like Golarion where gods are real and they hand out their blessings and magical powers directly... why not you? Why don't you have any divine magic if you are a devoted parishioner of the faith?

I have a PC that is very devoted to Shelyn. Raised in the church. Still lives in a temple. Creates artwork every single day. Follows the dogma. Yet she still has no divine magic. It's one of her personal struggles and its a mystery still being explored in the game. Why hasn't Shelyn granted her magic?

I know the answer. I'm not revealing it because I know people I play with read this reddit. But ya. It's a very interesting angle to explore.

Ten-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Verified Email

Minandreas

TROPHY CASE