I don't ban anything.
My rules are:
If it's PFRPG by Paizo you can assume I allow it unless told otherwise.
Bottom line for me is... if players are happy, I'm happy. It takes something seriously broken to change that.
I have said "no" to a couple odd combinations, but frankly I'd love for my players to be interested enough that they were reading 3PP material trying to find goodies.
Next level he could take a rank in Profession(papermiller) and starting making his own books that don't contain explosive runes so that he can safely doodle in the future. Problem solved.
Second option: purchase two scrolls of erase, avert eyes, turn to random pages in book, cast off of scroll without looking at the book, place hands on book (target is "two pages"). Once two pages are made safe, scribe the second scroll onto them for use as a future spellbook. Moving forward, prepare erase on future days and proceed to rid the world of this dangerous graffiti, replacing it with his own doodles. Problem solved.
Not the least factor is that if Paizo uses DSP Psionics, that's a significant number of books NOT sold by Paizo compared to if they write their own Psychic Magic system. Imagine if all the Mythic content Paizo got to make was the Wrath of the Righteous AP and someone else made Mythic Adventures and the other tie-in products. Not as compelling a business decision.
Paizo has a history of doing products that synergize heavily. I honestly think that's the killer factor that precludes them ever adopting DSP Psionics. That there are no psionic advocates at Paizao doesn't help but the idea that it's a worse business plan is probably fatal.
Which is too bad. I'd totally like to see what Nick Logue and Richard Pett would do with an adventure in a setting that includes mind thrust.
Detect Evil (Sp): At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell. A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on
Standard action: cast spell-like ability, as the spell detect evil. Designate cone direction to include suspected target. Result: positive. There is an evil aura within the cone and that aura is not physically blocked by lead etc.
Move action: concentrate on a the illusion to determine if it is evil or not. Result: negative. The designated single entity is not real and therefore is not evil.
That's how a paladin's detect evil works. That's how it works in this case. That's how it works, period. End result is the paladin now knows something is awry; there's evil in the cone but the illusion isn't it. Food for thought for our holy warrior. Maybe... it's an illusion and there's an invisible evil guy somewhere in the cone?
Regeneration repairs hit point damage and nothing more. So it's pretty clear that a creature with regeneration who is "killed" by something other than hit point damage actually dies because their regeneration can never repair them.
For instance, do Constitution damage to a troll until its Con score is 0. It falls down, functionally dead. And stays that way. It will never get back up.
Yes, you could argue that were someone to apply restoration to the otherwise intact corpse it could potentially rise again but that's not terribly dissimilar from using raise dead on any other corpse.
I'd say since the scope of Regeneration is clear and focused, death imposed by means outside that scope is deadly. This would be one of those many cases where as long as you don't try to parse RAW in a nonsensical way, it's perfectly sensible. What I mean is that the rules are clear (to me) but the language chosen allows this particular rule to be 'Dorked. <Grin>
The answer is that not everyone enjoys a rules-light game where the universe exists solely at the whim of the DM. Some of us prefer a rules-heavy system where all participants are playing by the SAME rules. The player understands the universe their PC exists in and can know that their abilities can be relied on to perform consistently.
It's not for everyone, and that's why rules-light systems still exist.
Summon a bird from a tree? Sounds like Handle Animal, or a familiar. The rules support that, so why not use them?
Make things silent? The silence spell does that. If the DM's storytelling works outside the rules, all of the rules that apply to PCs are restrictions. "Oh, if I want things to go quiet, I have to use the silence spell, but other entities in this universe can just do... um... DM-says-so."
Character wants to Bluff? DM makes up a stat on the fly that means 100% that the DM has decided "this will or won't work". Some people don't LIKE that. If the DM plays by the same rules the players do, either luck plays into failure (a bad roll) or something level-inappropriate has been thrown on the table.
Look, when a player buys an adamantine sword, they know that sword bypasses hardness less than 20. They know that iron has hardness 10. They therefore know that their sword can cut through an iron door or an iron wall, or an iron ANYTHING given enough time. They know a 2 inch thick iron door has 60 hit points. They know that they deal roughly 20 hit points of damage on a Power Attack. They therefore know that they can punch through said door in about three attacks. So. When the DM just "decides" that the 2 inch tick iron door they just described isn't SUPPOSED to be cut through, and says "no, see, this door is just resisting your sword, it's weird", that can really, really be off-putting to some players. We KNOW what you did there. You substituted YOUR reality in place of the one the rule-book says WE are playing in.
In short, Pathfinder is a rules-heavy system, for people who like lots of rules to USE. A DM who doesn't use those rules is making the player's use of those rules less... consistent. Rules-light systems may be for you.
Man. Clear as mud.
Look, whatever. Doesn't much matter to me where you're at, it's your work that I've mentally got flagged as "good 3rd-party material".
I guess what I'm saying is that the "I'm now working at this company, but I'm still working for that company only now I'm not working for that company any more but I'm still working for this company and while I'm at it I'm going to work for the other company" drama is a headache, but I'll still buy your stuff, as long as it has your name on it as well as/instead of "this", "that", or "the other".
What I'm taking home from this is that one or two human being painters were new/inexperienced/lazy/sick/drunk plus a communications issue or two cropped up (Sajan's bra and the bow string issue).
Okay. So Wizkids will probably lean on the Chinese factory management and there'll be a reprimand or two issued.
It doesn't sound like systemic failure or procedural or even mechanical. It's human beings who make these gorgeous things for us and some of the humans let us down. Problem being worked on. I therefore look forward to the next set.
How are you defining "success"? Does it have to do with winning combats? Hint: If your comments run along the lines of 'sub-optimal builds,' you may be taking too narrow a view of what makes a good character.
I assume you're referring to me. Under any circumstance, I don't think I'm taking too narrow a view of anything.
If your goal is to make a character who is good at such-and-such a skill, suboptimal will result in less success. If your goal is to create a character who is good at such-and-such a combat technique, suboptimal will result in less success. If your goal is to survive and "be cool", suboptimal will result in less success. If your goal is to not be an anchor that the rest of the party has to carry, suboptimal will result in less success.
I get it. Quirky builds can be fun. But I stand by my suggestion that someone who posts a quirky build but doesn't accept the validity of input that improves the build is being passive-aggressive.
I dont understand why people on here a community that should theoretically be trying to grow makes everyone that does not build the perfect monster character when asking for advice gets told your wrong this is a better way to do it... so what if I want to be a halfling wizard with a great maul... and want to know what feats would make it more fun, stop telling me to play a @$##ing summoner!!!!
Just a bit of perspective.
When someone posts a potential build that is suboptimal, what is the community to think?
1} This is a highly experienced player who knows the system inside and out, realizes the gameplay implications of their build and has carefully considered the impact of their choices. This person is asking for input because... um... because they... reasons?
2} This is a new player who isn't terribly familiar with the system, doesn't know all the options that exist that might make their character more successful, and may be open to reconsidering some of their choices once they are told the implications. This person is asking for input because they recognize they can benefit from a community of people who know the game well.
3} This is a player who has posted their pet build so that they can complain about anyone who tells them a statistically better way of building it. They are unwilling to budge on any of their design choices despite going out of their way to place their idea up for public scrutiny. This person is a troll.
Without having any clue what thread(s) have spawned your complaint, I hope I've given you some food for thought. The community hivemind doesn't act as it does out of maliciousness. We've seen plenty of #2 and #3 over the years.
Gary and the guys do an amazing job here. It's really astounding how bloody USEFUL the site is.
I was just going over the latest preview for minis and couldn't recall if I'd picked up a particular one. Well, when I placed my order some of the minis were using their OGL names (ie. Balor) and when I went to check things they weren't (ie. Fire Demon). So checking this became more complicated. Only... not. As I was viewing the page for the mini I wanted, I noticed this bright red text at the top telling me "dude, you bought one of these earlier today, click to view the order".
Really? Nobody else does that kind of stuff.
They should. It's the dozens and dozens of linking features that make the store and forums and blog and so on one unified experience. A great experience, that is. I've been here since the late Dungeon/Dragon days and watched the site grow. Very, very good attention to usability.
So again, I wanted to take a moment out to thank the guys who smack the code around daily. Your efforts are very much appreciated.
Hmmm. You know, Erik's not the kind of guy to chose words carelessly. I'd expect this to read "if we do a Gargantuan red, it would have to be..." That's how you phrase theoretical events in the future. "Will be" typically removes the theoretical aspect. Hmmm.
Erik Mona wrote:
A wizard casts Still Silent invisibility on himself. Sorry, no idea what that was.
An wizard under the effects of greater invisibility casts a Silent lightning bolt at you. Sorry, no idea what that incoming pillar of electricity is.
How about a trap that produces a spell effect? The lights just went out... maybe, just maybe it's darkness but... dunno... there was no caster waving his hands in the air and mumbling "blah blah darkness" so I dunno, maybe you just spontaneously went blind. Especially if you've got darkvision and can actually see the zone where the darkness ends. No clue what's happening.
You can identify a spell either by identifying the actions of the caster or by the spell's effect. Sure, the rules don't say fireball is actually visible and/or hot but it doesn't take much imagination to figure that it should be. If you can observe the spell or the casting of the spell, you can use Spellcraft to identify it.
NOTE: in he case of illusions things get mind-warping. If you succeed at Spellcraft but fail your Will save against an illusion, I rule that "for a moment there I thought that was major image but damn, I guess it was actually summon monster XI. Didn't know it goes to 11. We are so screwed."
Then our OP has his answer, yeah? Petition you for the equivalent of Quick Draw that works with his supernatural ability. Or a ruling that QD itself will apply.
on the actual throat slitting topic we're all still 2nd level, 2d6 could conceivably do it to an equal CR enemy, and if it dropped them to within a point or two i would probably just handwave it for the cool factor, which I find more valuable to a game then playing Raw with a HP or two.
Reasonable. This is the sort of thing where cinematics and storytelling trumps rules. I suspect we've all done it; the bad guy with one or two bonus hit points so he survives one more round because it makes for a more heroic ending, or one or two missing hit points for the same reason.
However we have a houserule we've been using so far with our stealthy ranger where if you sneak up on someone and they are totally unaware of you and your in melee range (not movement range, melee) when the surprise round starts then with an appropriate weapon you can make a combat maneuver check to use a coup de grace on the target. And I use massive damage rules.
Ouchies. So. Does this happen to your players as well? Because... wow. This is highly broken. I can think of a bunch of low-level builds that'd murder pretty much everything they come across. Silent Spell feat, true strike, a sorcerer with a (non-proficient) scythe, a bunch of ranks in Stealth, and add invisibility... say goodbye to pretty much every BBEG ever who isn't specifically set up to obviously block it. And it's a good thing you're doing E6 or else a bunch of amusing dimension door tactics would open up. Oooooo! Wait. Cleric with the travel domain and dimensional hop. Slap invisibility on him and watch the King's head just... fall off.
I mean, whatever works in your game, but I hope you've thought about stuff like this because powerful house rules have two downfalls: 1} players can exploit them and 2} enemies should exploit them but mysteriously don't because... reasons?
What Jeremy reports matches my viewpoint as a consumer. If a 3pp is serious about PF, their products will be available to me via Paizo. I don't see any need to wander around to other vendors. Indeed, to be brutally clear, the few times someone has released elsewhere first I've discarded any interest in that product under the view that they publisher doesn't actually care enough about the ecosystem.
It's bad enough when a product is funded through Kickstarter, or when someone like FGG sells through their own store. I don't like it. I want to be able to add physical product to my existing shipping as convenient, and I want to be able to add digital product to my existing library.
So hey. Though I have an account on DTRPG I basically won't shop there because 99.99% of what I want is here.
And Liz' observation is very true. Regular visibility for a 3pp is huge.
That might be reasonable. I'll propose it to my prospective DM. I just have an odd hankering for a Dragonsmoke-addicted cleric. At 5th he'd actually be able to break the addiction with remove disease but would occasionally relapse.
Thank you very much. For the awesome reply, and the awesome job you did getting this done.
Lord Mhoram wrote:
* That is probably my biggest issue with 4E - how does a fighter know he has a daily, and why can he only do it once a day, at his choice. I've never found a non "ki/magic/energy/etc" definition I could live with. If it were a Point system (like Psionics, or ki pool) then I could easily justify it with stamina - I've done martial arts for years, I understand about just running out of oomph and relying on basic simple stuff.
Arbitrary cat is arbitrary. <Grin>
Where I come from ki is the line in the sand where it all falls down. If someone can accept monks having this weird points-per-day pool that explicitly isn't magic or divinely sourced, then I don't get having an issue with martial maneuvers having a limited-use model.
In my mind it comes down to recognizing that this is a game first and foremost. Mechanical balance and interest must be the backbone that everything else is built upon. If we accept that - for instance - the crusader's recovery mechanic is interesting because the player needs to think and adapt each round based on chance, then we merely need to find a means to justify the mechanic.
I have a much harder time wrapping my head around strikes where "you hit the target and they burst into flames" than anything to do with recovery mechanics.
You can justify them a lot of ways.
Your enemy has seen your pretty trick and working said trick into the fight again is much, much more difficult now. You need to do X in order to rework your setup so the enemy doesn't see it coming.
These maneuvers are so intricate and complicated that they are more art than math and your training has taught you that combat is a flowing dance. It is jarring and unnatural to repeat the same move frequently... it goes against your training and while it is sometimes necessary to depart from the philosophies your teachers imparted, it takes effort.
There's two examples. I'm sure more creative individuals could come up with more. But you have to want to. You have to accept that the mechanic is new and interesting and that it's worth generating supporting fluff for.
If you don't accept it, you're left in a world where strangely a barbarian can get mad exactly the same number of seconds every single day. No variance. None. Oh, and a bard can sing just this other number seconds per day, no more. Never. Well, not until they kill a few creatures or disable a few traps. 'Cuz yeah, disarming traps makes your voice more powerful. Let's also not forget in this perfect "makes sense" world, a trained fighter can go hand-to-hand with a bear and win. Or he can fall off a cliff and be mostly unharmed at the end of it. Or he can catch on fire and just stand there and burn for upwards of five minutes before he needs to think about doing anything. 'Cuz yeah, hit points make sense.
See? This is a game of imagination. Not everything suits everyone, but per-encounter martial abilities are no less psycho than a bunch of other stuff we all (mostly) take for granted.
Both sides have a point. But the player should be asking, really.
1} As a DM, there have been events that needed to be strictly timed but weren't necessarily about combat. Usually it's stuff like traps or summoning or some invisible guy buffing somewhere but it's still not stuff that a PC should go into combat for.
2} What the player knows isn't what the PC knows. The PC doesn't know anything about "initiative". Going aggressive because of some meta dice roll isn't really great roleplay.
Bottom line is the player should have asked "has something changed that my PC would react to?" If no, there shouldn't have been combat... yet. If yes, this discussion wouldn't be happening.
Wait, wait. Someone just said something ultra-important.
Jeremy Smith wrote:
Yes. No swordsage or the like, but the same type of options. Bo9S was not open content, so this was all developed from the ground up to match the concept, but not the specific implementation.
Was developed. This strongly asserts that while the product is by no means complete, it's not just a twinkle in the eye either. This is good.
Anyway, for the record we use ToB quite a bit still. Not so much the fluff but we're perfectly happy with the crunch. There's just not enough of it. We see a lot of use with the crusader class, but the choice of manuevers is small enough (especially all low-level) that we keep seeing the same ones over and over again.
My groups are perfectly happy working with maneuver cards, be they randomized (as in the case of the crusader) or using other recovery mechanics. Per-encounter abilities makes us pretty happy as well. Bottom line is that my groups don't have any issues with ToB from a structural standpoint. It was one of the best releases of the 3.5e era.
Just some feedback for you. Much like we have no interest in seeing a (perhaps Paizo-developed) psionics system without power-points, we'd be much less interested in martial initiators significantly different from ToB standards. It's partly the new mechanics and book-keeping that's fun.
Say the spellbook is worth 10k resale and you've got a party of 4 PCs. Assume you find an additional 30k worth of stuff.
THE OLD WAY
THE NEW WAY
He feels I dismissed the Intimidate check too easily. He said from what they saw in that region chest-thumping would be a better result than sweet-talking and the guy should have backed down. Even if he would have come back later, maybe with friends.
I have a problem with a player dictating to a DM what an NPC "should have done" when it comes to motivation. Mechanics are one thing (as in "that bad guy should have dropped his weapon when stunned") but motivation and personality are an entirely different thing. The whole point of a DM is to know the unknowable. The mind, the background, the motivation, the mind-set of the NPC exists solely within the DM.
Now, I'm not talking about something where a DM is totally on crack. I'm talking about a situation - like this one - where the NPC's reaction isn't clearly nonsensical.
Given the scenario you've described, your player shouldn't be second-guessing you.
He then said, I should have let him make a Sense Motive check to figure out that Intimidate wouldn't have the intended result, and that Diplomacy might be the way to go. Mind you, he had never asked for that, if he had, I'd probably would have told him.
Again I have an issue with back-seat DMing. You don't need a Sense Motive to know that drawing a sword and attack an NPC is likely to result in a fight. You similarly should understand that Intimidation is inherently a hostile act while Diplomacy isn't. It's in the words. It's in the rules. One makes an NPC friendlier and one doesn't.
Your player didn't need a Sense Motive check... he needed a rule book. To now incorrectly tell you how you should've asked him to make an extra roll to recognize he'd made a mistake? Not cool.
As a (friendly) DM, I would've probably asked the player "are you serious?" Then I would've rolled with it and did what you did. If he asked my why I was questioning his choice, I'd probably take a minute to reiterate how the rules for Intimidate work. Both the character and the player should know that. Shrug.
I didn't want to post this in the middle of the discussion for this particular module because it's more about the new format.
First up, great job transitioning to the 64-page release.
Second, very cool layout and design. I'm liking the very clear and obvious reference to the PRD despite owning all the referenced books. Classy.
Third, the quests summary is a very unique and cool idea. Nicely done.
Fourth, the Belhaim Locations table on page 61... brilliant. I built myself one for Sandpoint for my Runelords campaign but this one is much smarter. This should absolutely be a must for future adventures and AP editions that don't travel too much.
Fifth, the map and encounter mat are also very cool. The only negative I have at all is to offer that the adhesive used (the usual stuff) lightly stains what it's used on. The single tack in the middle of the page leaves a slight oily mark on both the back cover and in the middle of one page of the map. In the future I'd suggest that if it were possible, two smaller tacks in opposite corners would stand a lesser chance of marring the beautiful artwork.
All in all the new organization strikes me as very well thought-out. I like all of the innovations. All I really need is... more of these!
Oh, and James, if you're reading this... thanks for being so open during development of this module, discussing some of your design decisions. The rebirth of the modules line was worth it.
Schade, I'd like to add some real-life info for you. I'm in Canada.
I've got 72 adventure path books on my shelf. That's all the way from #1 to the most recent, no exceptions. Six years of monthly shipments.
In that time I've had one arrive literally three months after it was post-marked (hence entirely the postal service's fault). I've had a maximum of two with very light creasing at one corner. I think it's only one but I'll say two just in case.
The vast, vast majority of product that Paizo ships to me arrives unharmed and pristine. It shows up about 7 calendar days after they ship.
In seven or eight years or being a monthly subscriber to one Paizo product or another, I've had nothing but a stellar experience. Yes, I've had one or two cases where the wrong product was accidentally shipped and both times Paizo sent me the correct one immediately.
I haven't seen your photo and I won't address the damage you've got except to say that I've found Paizo beyond fair in my dealings with them. I mean it, their service has been far and away one of the two best experiences I've ever had with online purchases. (The other a small custom car-accessory manufacturer in Florida who is also a single-owner company who strives to succeed.)
Statistically you've hit an oddity. Or an abusive mail carrier. What you had happen to you isn't normal. Paizo can't and shouldn't plan for the rare psycho mail carrier. Not when the statistics show that their current packaging and efforts are almost always appropriate.
I hope your next package(s) show you how things usually work.
Oh, I'd also like to point out that Sara Marie's reply to you would've been about 6:30pm Paizo-time. I'm pretty sure they're a mostly 9-5 shop but you'll regularly see staffers posting almost 'round the clock. These people really, really do care.
Two (potential) issues with that Gorbacz.
First, it sounds like he's already done exactly that. He's stopped buying what he doesn't want and will buy what he wants. He's also - sort of - asked everybody to do the same. So, um... got that covered.
Secondly, statistics without context are flawed. If Paizo sees a drop in the number of subscribers for their modules line they cannot possibly intuit the cause. If enough people express the reason for their cancellation in a fashion that Paizo will learn said reasons, those statistics suddenly have meaning. Otherwise Paizo could just as easily decide that the reason modules (hypothetically) aren't selling very well are because there aren't enough adventures about recovering cupcake recipes and decide to have The Year of Baked Goods.
Open letters don't result in changes when there's no way for the intended recipient to learn of them. Writing on Slashdot how much you hate Windows 8 won't "get to" Microsoft. Writing on Paizo's forum about the causes for your subscription cancellation... useful.
For the record, I'm not cancelling mine but I have much the same issues... decades of material I will never run and insufficient material I need.
Being privy to the art previews through backer upadates, I can say very little of the art is anywhere near "just missed it." Most of it is nailed it, and even though WAR's style is very distinct, there are a few of the larger pieces that I was blown away with and I think give Mr Reynolds a good run for the money as far as quality comparison.
I'd just like to underline this.
I was a strong proponent for upgraded artwork being a focus of the Kickstarter and I'm thoroughly pleased by all of the samples that have been revealed in the weekly updates. There's been a very positive style change as well as quality improvement that leaves me really geeked about what the final book is going to look like. Together with a page-layout teaser that was released ages ago, I'm pretty confident that we're looking at a Paizo-class book here, which is saying a lot.
It's really amazing what Dreamscarred has done. Like Paizo, they too the SRD components of WotC's 3.5e psionics material and updated it to modern standards. Then they moved on and wrote an entire book of supporting material that embraces and extends the original material. Finally they found the funding to make the presentation of the two truly shelf-worthy.
This is going to be a release I'll be proud to have on my shelf.
Yes yes. I'm talking about something to take on the hype.
The hype. Mmmm, no, there really isn't hype. This isn't the iPhone 17, where the manufacturer has to do nothing and people will be lined up around the block days before release.
Those who are happy with Pathfinder RPG (most of us here) aren't very interested in WotC's offering. Sure, we might be curious, but that's certainly not hype. Those who are curious will either buy the core to take a casual gander, or just wait for reviews. Those who aren't curious won't.
Those who aren't PFRPG fans may or may not pick up WotC's offering(s). Sure, there'll be some people who are eager and excited but really, this is more like Die Hard 6 than a new Harry Potter movie. Those who care are pretty much committed and those who aren't aren't.
I love the Core book too. Let's not pretend that this new release will not be a huge thing in the industry.
Huge? How can it be huge? Really, honestly. The D&D market split with 4e's release. Half of the market didn't make the transition because we don't want different. That half is very strong these days. It'll take more than a new edition of a game we don't play to significantly harm Paizo's market share. As for WotC's market share, well, some people will stick with 4e for a while, some with move to the new thingie, some will come to PF, and some will start playing something entirely different.
I strongly expect that it's all a wash on average. No massive upheaval. Why would there be? This isn't Christ 2.0
A spell has to TARGET a creature, yes. Does anything say that the spell's victim has to remain a valid target after the spell takes effect?
Not really. Let's think about this.
If I cast a spell such as animal shapes that targets "one willing creature" and someone else uses Diplomacy to change my friend's mind, should they be able to just shrug off my spell?
What about spells such as haste which says that no two targets may be more than 30ft apart. Can they thereafter move further apart without invalidating the spell?
If we want to be really pedantic, there are tonnes of spells that target "one creature touched". Well, once my hand comes off that creature is no longer touched so the spell has to drop right?
What about contingency? Can we set a condition for something useful to happen in even that we die or do we lose this spell simply because once we are dead we are no longer ourselves but rather some dead object?
The creature was touched, the creature was willing, we were ourselves, and the creatures were within 30ft of one another. The spells all stay running despite their original conditions no longer being accurate.
I have no difficulty with a dead mage remaining invisible as his corpse tumbles to the ground. I have no difficulty with a warrior who had bear's endurance cast on him during the fight maintaining a nice high Con score so breath of life doesn't have to work that much harder to bring him back. Spells that make any sense remain functional and spells that don't are suppressed while they are invalid but their durations continue to erode.
I don't think the problem being described is what it seems to be. While the OP presents it as a lack of defense-bonus, the issue is initiative. And even that's not much of a problem.
If the 20th-level fighter wins initiative, the commoner doesn't hit. He can't hit. He'll be a smear of ex-commoner. If the commoner wins initiative, he gets one chance to hit. Sure. That's fair. He got the drop on the fighter. The fighter is flat-footed. Unable to defend himself. Again, unable to defend himself. Well, the commoner should be able to hit a person who isn't expecting the attack.
Arguably the issue is that all the fighter can do is take Improved Initiative, Additional Trait, and get himself a +6 to initiative. Not enough to really statistically put the leash on lost initiative.
Still, the problem isn't defense.
Worse, this way lies madness. Even a top-notch trained special-services soldier can be struck by a snake, or bit by a spider, or mauled by wolf. Sure, he'll fight back and win, but he's got a good chance of getting hurt. Well, if you start adjusting numbers so humanoid CR1 creatures can't hit you, the same happens to monsters, which is equally unrealistic.
Vic Wertz wrote:
To be fair, I'd have to say "too bad".
This isn't gold or oil or the stock market. This is a game. It makes no sense (to me) to make it less practical for a new player to gain access to iconic miniatures just in order to protect uber-collector's prizes. If speculators want to gamble that you'll never re-issue something useful, that's their right to make a silly choice. On the other hand, I can see it being a reasonable expectation that you won't re-print some specific monster/NPC from an adventure path. Like... Karzoug's statue.
Unless a huge portion of your sales are to investors, I can't help but think this serves you poorly as well.
Like RotRL Anniversary Edition, the iconics are a very visible, very common-sense special case. << Pun intended. I speak as someone who has all the released iconics, so it's not like I need a boxed set, but I've got friends who are just getting into the game for whom something like that would be appealing. The iconics are yours in a way that nothing else - even WAR's goblins or the overbite-trolls - can ever be. I wouldn't hold back on reissues to protect someone's mint-in-box eBay venture.
Welcome to a company that's too busy.
Love the staff... great, great people, but I've had a feeling that they've crammed too much into limited brain-space for the last couple years. It's my own fault, of course. Minis? Yes, please. Whatever they make, we buy. So they make more. Erik for instance is clearly deeply over-committed. And there's no sign it's going to get better. I worry about mental breakdowns and burn-out, frankly. I'd love to see Paizo have some overcapacity, just for their own health.
So are these going to be plastic or are they metal minis?
From the original post...
"To do it, we've sought out professional miniature sculptors to turn our iconic characters into miniature figures and have already approached a company capable of turning those figures into metal figurines."
This - and many similar issues - is solved by viewing square occupancy as incomplete. That is... a person occupies a portion of a 5ft square, not the whole thing. The person is dynamic, moving about within that space at will. My rule is to mentally view that position within a 5ft square always benefits the occupant.
So, at will the person within the final square of obscuring mist can elect to occupy a point within that square very close to the outside edge, and make their attacks unhindered. That benefits them. They can also elect to occupy a point deepest within their square, forcing their opponent to attack with interference. Again, that benefits the occupant.
I don't require actions to move about in the square, and I don't (as DM or player) talk about it. It's just mechanical detail in the background that explains and enables literal edge-conditions like this one.
Jim Groves wrote:
Reading in advance and replying to this having read ahead... you did splendidly. I'm not an argumentative fellow. I just like to register why my opinions are what they are... just as much as I like others to do the same.
Yes, still-more-vancian rules are a deal-breaker for me. As you've sussed out, because you and I are looking for different things in supplements. So be it. I'll never be offended by someone deliberately lunching at McDonald's when there's a Burger King right next door. I just recognize their irreparably deluded and make a mental note to never henceforth trust them with any responsibilities that require cogitation. <Grin>
Not much to say about my WotC reference, especially since you won't discuss them in any context. In case my point somehow contained some sort of slant or bias I didn't intend, all I was trying to express is the historical background of where Psionics Unleashed came from (the SRD). I'm neither a fanboy nor an edition-warrior. Shrug.
Anyway, hey, I'm totally okay with both of us getting our dream products, or just you - really - since I've got metric ass-tonnes of RPG material I'll never live long enough to touch. Variety is the spice of life.
Jim Groves wrote:
I'd love to see Paizo try their hand at a psychic magic system.
I'd far, far rather see Paizo try their hand at something different. For instance Incarnum. A lot of people didn't like the fluff, and mechanically the book was ultra-conservative to the point that incarnum classes were far inferior to non-incarnum classes, but that's just details. Paizo could do a NEW type of magic that works DIFFERENTLY and I'd be insanely excited.
Part of what I like about psionics is that it isn't vancian. It's different. Part of what I like about Tome of Battle martial initiators is that they aren't just like all the other martial classes. There's a fun new mechanic to play with.
I'd rather buy a book full of ideas like Witches having hexes and Inquisitors having Judgments than a book full of feats or spells. New territory cool. More stuff for existing territory less cool.
See... I'm of the opinion that really, it shouldn't be terribly hard to abstract things down to "were-whatever". You look like a whatever, you get one or two natural attacks from the whatever, and that's about it. Doesn't matter much what the whatever is. Getting too mired in uniquely creating templates for different animals is - in my opinion - a mistake.
That's word-count that should be spent focusing on "how do we make lycanthropy fun, exciting, balanced, and playable?"
I've been trying to put this into words the last few times this has been brought up re: "official".
In-context, the PFRPG Core Rulebook is "official" because we - the players - were comfortable with 3.5e and accepted Paizo's polishing that ruleset. Paizo didn't create their core rules, WotC did. While I haven't touched pure 3.5e since PFRPG beta, I strongly suspect that if Paizo had produced their own product not based on the SRD, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
What I'm saying is that a HUGE amount of what makes PFRPG Core "official" to many of us is that it had eight years of playtesting and theorycrafting behind its revision. It IS 3.5e+ and that's why we chose it.
Well, Dreamscarred Press' Psionics Unleashed IS the exact same lineage. It's the 3.5e SRD psionics product with eight to ten years of experience under its belt, updated for more modern gaming understanding. It's trustworthy because of its origin.
Is it a Paizo-endorsed product? No. Really, nobody gets to make the "official" Paizo anything except Paizo, unless it's a licensee like WizKids and the minis.
Is it the update of the "official" psioncs ruleset that matches what we're all playing at core, for the same reasons? Absolutely. The bona fides are identical.
I trust Paizo's original work, like the APG, UC, and UM. Per wordcount, the issues are very slim. Same thing goes for Dreamscarred's Psionics Expanded. Shrug.
Nobody who works at Paizo likes psioncs material. James has repeatedly stated that the rules don't have a "champion" at Paizo who might push for their adoption or use. Paizo has enough to do incorporating their own "new" rules into products without including anyone else's.
I don't expect Paizo to ever use anything from Dreamscarred's books, and I fully expect that whenever Paizo gets around to making new magic rules their will have no similarity style-or-mechanics to psionics as we know them. That's what no-champion means.
So this is as official as it gets, or is ever going to get. Some day then Paizo name may appear on something intended (by them) to be sort-of-kind-of what psionics is, but it won't BE psionics. It'll be P'zionics.
I dunno. I'm not a fan of minis beyond the Huge category. Down at Small and Medium there's just no substitute... it's hard to find anything the right size that fits a given monster. But once you start getting to 4" bases the minis hang over other squares anyway so size precision ceases being a concern. At that size you can go to a toy store and pick up various cheap things that fit a lot of roles. $30+ for a mini that's going to be used once just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I have hundreds of minis now but I still primarily want common things, not specific-freak monsters.
That's just my opinion.
Your player is very much gaming the system. There is an intention with the Ready action, and that intention is that you sacrifice some of your turn in order to precisely time your response.
There isn't (to my knowledge) a list of specific triggers but as long as the players understand the intention of the rule, it isn't needed.
What I'd do is explain to your player what the intention is. If that doesn't cut it, tell him/her that their trigger event must be a reaction; they have to pick an event that happens external to themselves. If "I ready for when I feel like it" was good enough, the requirement to specify a condition wouldn't be present. You ready for an enemy to come through the door. You ready for an enemy to cast a spell, make an attack, move into range. You ready for someone invisible to become visible. You ready for something someone ELSE does, not your own lips flapping.
Just because you don't have Int 28 shouldn't limit you as a player.
I have smart players, I have less-than-smart players. I have outgoing players, I have introverted players. Sometimes the smart players play stupid characters. Sometimes the introverted players play social characters. I refuse to force a player to only play character that are like him/her.
If I have an introverted player who can't actually imagine HOW the character "schmoozes the guards somehow", that's what Diplomacy is for. Roll.
Same goes for sub-average players and wizards (for instance). Can't solve the puzzle yourself? Fine, your character can make an Int check or something similar.
I don't make my scrawny players literally lift weights before their barbarian can climb a wall. No, the barb gets a Climb check. Why should social skills be any different?
I say it again. Why should social skills be any different?
I get it there's a panacea, a hypothetical perfect role-play game where everyone IS their character and is always in-character and never metagames or applies real-world sensibilities or experience their character wouldn't have. I get it. But that doesn't necessarily make for FUN.
I encourage and I reward players who role-play and try to flesh out encounters, but only to a degree. I don't generally reward the goal... I reward via XP or story rewards.
Note: I also don't encourage my bright players to play their tree-stump-dumb characters smart. Sorry. "Really, Bob, you think Ungorthungor The Mighty would come up with that complicated plan? Really? With Int 7? Really? Fine. Roll an Int check and we'll see." Fair is fair.
Restatement of opening statement:
TPK Games wrote:
3) As much as some people complain about Facebook, it really is a necessary evil. If you want read, get on Facebook. If you want to help publishers spread the word of their products, get on Facebook. In short, get on Facebook.
I want to take a moment to be clear on my position here. What I object to is any content or value that is exclusively available via Facebook. I don't care if Paizo (for instance) has a Facebook page, but the moment they stop using their own forums and start using Facebook is the day I cease having any contact with their discussion groups.
Link to? Sure, whatever floats your boat. Rely upon? No.
Why? In short I elect not to join a community that functions purely to aggregate and sell my personal information - even information I don't realize I'm making available. Any company that forces or even rewards that I sacrifice my personal privacy isn't a company I need to do business with.
1) I'm planning on tagging my backlog to make searching the site via tags/categories more efficient..BUT: Every moment I spend tagging, I can't write new reviews. What would you want me to prioritize? Tagging the backlog or writing new reviews? I can't judge what would be more useful to you.
More reviews. Not that you're slacking, of course. More on this in answer #5.
2) What type of review are you most interested in? Short, Bullet Point-length files? Big books? All? I'm asking since e.g. Razor Coast for example will eat A LOT of time and I usually print out my books. Since the print book will come in summer, that would require reading the monster on screen when I could wait and read it in print.
Whatever you like. The more a product is interesting to you, the more a review will matter. If you're not interested in a product to start with, it's a waste of your time, or nearly so.
3) Do you want me to join facebook/connect the page to fb? I don't like the platform one bit, but might bite the bullet if you folks tell me to.
No. Also, no. More no. All the "no" you can eat. The right tool for a job. When I'm looking for a grocery store, I don't look at my friends' profiles and find out what grocery stores they like. I research what foods I like already, then research what stores carry those foods. In RPG terms, if I want a review site, I'd go to a review site. Social engin^H^H^H^H^Hnetworking doesn't value-add.
4) Have you ever clicked on a link on my page to the respective product I reviewed? If not, what would make you? I'll be brutally honest: Reviewing as many files as I do, even with my at best erratic sleep-rhythm, takes a lot of time (it's almost a full-blown job by now) and at least being able to afford a pdf once in a while via affiliate sales would be nice.
No. Not likely to. Please see more in #5.
5) Where do you read my reviews? Endzeitgeist.com? GMS magazine? Nerdtrek? Here? OBS? d20pfsrd.com's shop? Pathways? Lou Agresta's RPGaggression? What would make you visit my site?
I'm going to be honest.
Here. Paizo.com is where I buy my RPG material (aside from what I buy retail at my FLGS). There is huge value in your reviews (thank you, by the way) being nicely attached to products here. I wander around, browse the SSG offerings, find myself attracted to a title or cover, read a little product description, then read your review (and/or whatever reviews are present). Then I buy the product or don't. Replace SSG with whatever 3PP and the story holds.
Paizo.com is where I find the material, and where I expect to gather my information about the material. Having reviews where the materials are just makes sense.
So, while I thank you immensely for your efforts, I have to confess that I find the idea of an off-site collection of reviews to be... backwards. It's sort of like d20pfsrd having to pull some materials because they opened a store selling product. But... the main draw of the site was that it was complete. Just like the main point of your reviews (to me) is that they are handily connected to the products.
I don't mean to rain on your parade or in any way diminish what you've done for the community. We all owe you. However, just like your reviews being impartial, I won't sugar-coat this and pretend the idea of your site is something I can wrap my head around.