Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Volnagur the End-Singer

Anguish's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber. 2,112 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists.

1 to 50 of 294 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Barachiel Shina wrote:
I have the subscription so I am waiting on the PDF :D

Um, Barachiel, if you've got the subscription to the WiP here on Paizo, just re-download it. It contains the unified book (DRP2710_FULL.PDF).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

It's a snowjob.

Martials hit things. Casters cast.

Those are two very, very different things that work very, very differently and have very, very different results. They can be no more perfectly balanced than can a bowl of jello and a song lyric. Totally different concepts.

So it's a load of hooey, all these threads. Martials can be underwhelming not because they need more numbers or feats or whatever... they can be underwhelming because THEY'RE NOT CASTERS. That's it. That's all it's ever been about.

Hitting things will never be as sexy as dominate monster except to people who find hitting things more sexy than mind-controlling things.

Nobody needs a boost, nobody needs a nerf (except within the different roles perhaps).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

It's complicated and I don't have access to the PDF yet (on the road and busy) but they might be based on DSP's psionic monsters revisited, which also had mind flayers. They were completely reworked and while the art was similar, the mechanics and flavor were not. I suspect it's those plus the name "illithid" that are WotC's IP.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
ErrantX wrote:

Dude, where were you months ago then? :P

If anything, I'd like the third option if you're offering, and I'll run things by you for PoW2. I need a good editor. I have a bad habit of my mind racing faster than my fingers do when I start writing and get into it. I'm sort of a "don't get it right, get it written" kind.


Rule #1; don't try to edit text that is being actively rewritten and developed. Unless you're paid hourly. And are medicated. Or masochistic. <Grin>

I absolutely see what's happening here and it's really not bad or unusual. Mostly it's a matter of being too close to the manuscript so when you proof yourself, you read what you meant, not what you wrote. There's nothing horrendous so far.

I'll stop cluttering this thread and update you and Jeremy via PM as I hit milestones. Note: I'm not professional editor; I'm just a guy who has an intimate relationship with the English language.

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Odraude wrote:

To me tracking HP isn't really trivial. Not all that great at math, so having more math isn't something I like. That's why I prefer vancian. For me, it's just a tally mark. A lot easier than adding and subtracting, as well as the changing values when you change spells.

Y'know - and I am absolutely not in any way saying you are wrong - doing exactly this kind of stuff is how you GET "good at math".

See, there's math, and then there's mathematics. Most people don't actually need to know how to do most algebra, geometry, or calculus. You're taught that in school as a fundamental exposure for higher education, not necessarily real life. But that stuff is mathematics.

Math is useful daily. Addition, subtraction, the basics. Pathfinder can teach you that there are fast ways and slow ways to do math, and when you learn the fast ways, suddenly it's actually easy.

For instance, school teaches you to add numbers by making columns and "blah blah carry the one". Sure. Only a lot of the time you can do it faster. For instance, "clumping".

When you roll a bunch of d6s for a fireball, you can do it the hard way, by simply adding up all the numbers one die at a time, or you can do it the easy way. Find a 4 and find a 6, and you've got 10. Find two 5s and you've got 10. Out of 6s to pair with 4s? Use two 3s because those are 6 again. In seconds, starting with the higher numbers and working down, you can take any pile of d6s and bring them to a few stacks of 10. Hey. Look. You've got five stacks, plus... 3 left over. 53.

This kind of math you learn to get efficient at very quickly when you DM, or run a complicated character.

All I'm saying is that this doesn't have to be BadScaryEvilMath. It can be "that thing I do when I need to subtract 7 power points from my 93 per day pool". WATCH THIS: 7 is really 4+3, right? I pick that breakdown because 93 is obviously 90+3. Well, nuke those 3s. Now I'm really subtracting 4 from 90. So... 86. When you teach your eye to see the EASY, tiny numbers, when you learn the shortcuts, it stops being math.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Rushley son of Halum wrote:

He can't be readied. It wasn't an aoo.

Your GM is doing something that a lot of GM's tend to do where they don't really describe whats happening and feel that because you're "only" the player that they don't need to explain the rules behind what they're doing.

Some do it as a way of preventing metagaming. I see it as just kind of cheap. Obviously we don't need to, and shouldn't know all the details of a monster right away, but when the interesting quirk comes up they should explain it when asked.

But I think thats what happened. Some kind of unique trait that the GM just didnt explain.

Y'know, I don't necessarily agree. I play with some pretty darned advanced players and frankly the standard monster mashup of DR/SR/Combat Reflexes/AC/resistances/immunity/FH/regeneration just doesn't draw their attention any more.

Gone are the days where the player is in awe because a troll gets back up a minute after it's "killed". "OMFG, what do we do?!?" Gone are the days where a succubus can actually pass itself off as someone a PC might actually want to kiss. No. Now it's all about carrying different weapons for different DR, and having magic circle against evil up to deal with charms and influence spells, and it's all about death ward so heaven-forbid a monster tries to enervate, nothing bad comes of it. Basically, there's no WONDER anymore.

So. Strangely, my monsters occasionally have oddball abilities. Things that bring back the challenge and the wonder. "What?!? I hit him and he got STRONGER? What?!?" Nothing broken, nothing that doesn't feel like it fits the game, but not necessarily something that the players can recite chapter and verse, quoting the source book and page number for.

I'm not saying that's what happened here, but the idea that every monster's abilities should be open-book explained and documented upon encounter doesn't rub me the right way. You roll your knowledge check. You get to know the 1, 2, 3 or maybe 10 things you get to know for the 5, 10, 15, or maybe 50 you exceeded the DC by. That doesn't mean you know everything. Sorry. And some very rare, very juicy BBEG guys don't just rely on the classic defenses. Some zombies do weird stuff, like have vorpal teeth, or are fast zombies or maybe they "touchie-feely zombies" or whatever. It's up to the DM to make combat interesting, not documented.

Final word: there's a complete difference between what I'm talking about and a DM who just hand-waves because they didn't know the rules well enough. That I grant.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Oath wrote:

I seem to be doing most of my playing at Cons or at stores these days. Lugging 5+ books is getting tedious.

I've been considering going the paperless route. Either a small laptop or a tablet (like the Samsung Galaxy Note 12) for reading PDFs and storing my character sheets.

I've seen some folks use a tablet, but they seem to be just using it to browse the PRD. Then I see 17" laptops in their unwieldy glory.

How many folks have found a well-tuned setup and does anyone have any tips?

I've got a Galaxy NotePro 12.2" Bought specifically for this purpose.

Using Repligo Reader, when you zoom so you skip the page borders, text is basically exactly the size of a hardcover book. You definitely get a full page view in. Zooming this way is a double-tap action.

Opening/closing/switching PDFs is easy and it remembers recently used PDFs so you don't have to crawl your structure over and over.

That said, I wouldn't want to do character sheets this way, just compressing hardcovers into one portable device.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I've never liked the "official" character sheets. Too much clutter.

Standard statblocks. Learn to love 'em. <Grin>

But seriously, I've got all of my players in two groups "trained" to use statblocks. It's consistent and works great for nights someone can't show up so someone else plays their character. Everyone can help everyone else find things, there's not a bunch of derivative stuff for clutter, AND... I'm doing back-door DM training.

Obviously that's not great advice for brand new players, because seeing all the origins for stats is useful while learning, but for anyone with a little experience, it's time to drink the statblock Kool-Aid.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Frankly this is all a beautiful illustration why FAQs aren't answered casually and quickly.

There's a lot of thought and research that goes into doing this right and completely.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
MagusJanus wrote:
If the enemy is intelligent...

That's just it. If an enemy is intelligent - and not all monsters are - they should realize they're getting nowhere attacking X and should move on to try to take out Y and Z.

The OP's GM isn't necessarily "ignoring him"... he may just be playing the bad guys intelligently. I can't tell. But as a GM I am very, very careful to vary the tactics I use based on a} intelligence and b} knowledge.

The big reason why the game doesn't have an aggro system is because that denies a creature its intelligence, coupled with what's-good-for-the-goose meaning that such a thing would be used against PCs as well.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
...making him spend hours going through pdfs, books, faqs, etc to audit your characters might just not be worth the time for him and that's fair imo.
Who would be so cruel as to make him hunt for things you've already found? Bring him the material yourself. No searching needed since you've already done it for him. All he has to do is glance it over and say whether or not it looks acceptable and why. Takes 10 minutes per character tops (and often FAR less).

To be fair, as a DM it's not always about "here's my character sheet". It's about one or two or five levels later when the PC picks up a new feat, or a new spell or whatever that completes the brokenfecta. The DM didn't see it coming because... freakbuild, and gets to now explain to the player "no, you can't have the one thing you've been working towards since Day 1 because it's broken."

Nobody is happy that day.

I'm not saying the OP is playing that game, but the more complex a build is, the more work it will always be for a DM. DMs are the guys who are supposed to remember it all, right? Even if you accidentally forget your PC is immune to flanking, or gets an automatic check to detect monsters that are green, or sunders wood just by observing it, the DM has to remember all of those edge abilities when simulating the world for you. The more unusual abilities in one package, the more a DM has to deal with.

I'm all for interesting builds, but to suggest "just write it down" misses the point that being DM isn't all fun and games. Well... it is, but... you know what I mean.

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
137ben wrote:

Nice interview.

Now, I'm curious how all the people who think spellcasters are perfectly balanced in 3e will rationalize away Johnathon Tweet as not a "real" D&D player.

Absolutely, positively not looking to get into an edition war debate but the variation and imbalance is why my groups still play this game. We don't accept the consequences of perfect balance; uniformity. That a wizard's abilities are completely different from a fighter's, and both are completely different from those of a druid or a cleric is precisely what makes this system worth playing (to us).

Balance comes at a cost. This is a team game, where it isn't important that the fighter is balanced against the wizard... what matters is the party is balanced against their opponents.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
christos gurd wrote:
Anguish wrote:
Hmmm. Too bad; no Paizo download?
now there is

Thank you. And LRGG.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Tangent101 wrote:

Here's a question for the 12-part AP crew:

Why do we need a 12-part Adventure Path?

Why do we need a 6-part Adventure Path? Why do we need an Adventure Path at all? Why do we need dice?

We don't. We (for some values of "we") want one. Totally different thing.

I mean, if you really want to continue to level 20, the APs offer suggestions for GMs to expand upon.

Great. So the market (DMs who don't feel like designing the bulk of their adventure set) can just... design the bulk of their adventure set. Problem solved, I guess. The whole point behind running pre-written adventures is to reduce the work that a DM has to do. A 3-part AP that goes from 1st to 7th would be... incomplete. It might be cool, but it would be of reduced utility compared to the current APs. So too a more complete AP would be less incomplete. In the sense that the current APs are "better" than a short 3-part AP might be, a 12-part AP might be more-better.

You can also buy a high-level module to play for levels 17+ and "finish" the game with that.

Well, what you're saying here is that I can buy one of the something like... three... existing high-level modules and run one of them once the actual mega-plot has just... stopped.

Availability of high-level material is sparse. Very sparse. Worse, the idea behind an AP isn't to have a series of adventures that are just concatenated. The idea is a long-running plot that slowly becomes revealed to the PCs, and culminates in a cohesive finish. Neither the DIY or the "run an adventure" in any way resembles that.

Also, one high-level module (32 pages) works out to something like four or five more sessions. Meh.

So really, what is the point?

To provide a product that is unique and not otherwise available.

Why should Paizo risk alienating customers who might not like the 12-part AP's storyline and opt out of buying it? After a year, why should customers return?

Like I said, personally I would envision this as another product line. The modules line, the AP line, and the career campaign, if you will. Not everyone subscribes to the AP line, but nobody suggests that the AP line existing somehow shouldn't exist because smaller products exist. I am saying that I think an additional product would attract additional interest. I know I'd buy it as well as my current modules and AP subscription.

If you want a 12-part AP, look to a secondary publisher for that, or make one yourself and sell it according to Paizo's terms as PDF files.

I mean this in the most respectful yet whimsical way possible but what you just said...

"If you want a 12-part AP, go buy one of the zero that exist."


"I don't get it that APs are for DMs who don't have the time, inclination, or skill to create their own campaign."


"Products that don't interest me should not exist."

I want to take a quick moment here to underline that last bit. You won't find me anywhere in any post being critical of Paizo's choice to produce either Mummy's Mask or Iron Gods. I haven't dropped my subscription, and I haven't threatened to. That said, I have no interest in those two APs. There's a year worth of product, something like $300 of my cash, that's just a waste for me. But I support the idea that other people might like this kind of material, and I encourage Paizo to try new and different things. And that's with regards to a product I DO buy, which could have been interesting to me but isn't. What I'm proposing is a separate product line that you could just ignore. It's like being a Pathfinder Battles subscriber and not being worried that the pawns product exists. For some people that's the right/better product. For some people more is better and they buy both.

So hey. Don't feel threatened by the idea.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

I'd just like to take a few moments (I don't have time for a full review right now) to make a few comments that might be helpful to people who are curious but cautious.

First, most of the monsters in this book can be used in a non-psionic campaign. While many of them have psi-like abilities that require looking up how the equivalent powers work, as with non-psionic monsters those tend to be secondary abilities, not the main feature of the monsters.

Second, these are all very, very flavorful monsters. That isn't to say they're "all crystals and headaches", which many people who don't like psionics would expect. There are a bunch of monsters that work together in a sensible hierarchy or ecology, which is really cool. These are the kind of monsters you'll read the description of their background and behaviour and think "cool".

Third, the layout and artwork are top-notch. Jeremy and Andreas haven't skimped on getting this done right. Frankly this looks like a book Paizo would publish, while not being a direct imitation. DSP has their own style, but the quality is right up there with the heart of the industry.

So folks, if you're looking for another monster book at a reasonable price and you're a little concerned by the "psionic" appearing in the title, don't be. This is every bit as exciting a release as a FGG Tome of Horrors, only perhaps more so.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

That is one gorgeous book, Jeremy. Rather I should say, that is yet another gorgeous book from DSP. Great job. The art is very nice. Very glad for you folks getting this release done.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Psion. Kineticist, specifically.

Pick up crystal shard and a couple of the energy X powers and everything else is just fun support. It's easy to run if you start off low-level because the power point math is easy to see working. "Gee hey, I'm 2nd level so I can spend either 1 or 2 power points. I get it."

Psion gets enough powers known that he shouldn't get "known" into a corner with useless things. Pick easy feats instead of getting into optimization with metapsionic feats and really, this could be a fun, simple character.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

How about... it doesn't discharge but the caster thinks it did... because illusion?

This is sort of like a fighter taking a swing. Sure, his sword goes right through the illusion but if he fails his save (for interacting with the illusion), he doesn't get to say "hey, it doesn't matter I rolled a 1 on that Will save, my sword went through and I saw it so it's obviously an illusion."

That fighter doesn't get to shift targets for the rest of his iteratives because "I know this one's fake".

Same applies to the caster. The spell remains on his hand, and he will happily cast something else next round, losing the spell. Unless he accidentally touches someone else, zapping them.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Seems like I keep finding myself forced to post one of these every six months or so, but I wanted to take a moment to thank Paizo for being who they are.


First up, I've recently purchased a couple non-mint products. I got two copies of Ultimate Psionics and two copies of Inner Sea Gods. All four books were in amazing shape, and the comments all of my gaming groups have been making follow the line of "really, that little ding? That'd happen in a one normal session of use!" Paizo's idea of non-mint seems very, very, very high quality. Speaks loudly.

Second, I've noticed something new-ish in a couple recent books, including Inner Sea Gods. It would appear Paizo now credits (what appears to be) the entire staff. From Lisa and Vic down to the warehouse staff, it appears everyone gets a mention on the credits page. That is so ridiculously classy that I feel it needs pointing out. Sure, boxing up a book and shipping it isn't as sexy a job as statting out a new faecomancer prestige class but a mistake at the warehouse level, or on the website is much more impactful than getting turds-per-day wrong. The reliable, often unseen, unheard folks that just make day-to-day stuff work are absolutely essential to allow the public-facing visible staff do what they do.

So hey. Thank you, whoever at Paizo decided to be inclusive, and make the gesture to those people who typically wouldn't be credited. I mean, in addition to those people, who are definitely thanked.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Almost any class will do.

No, really. To be a face character you "need" Diplomacy and perhaps Bluff or Sense Motive. Make a barbarian without a Charisma penalty and put one of your skill points into Diplomacy. Problem solved. Or a wizard. Or a summoner. Or a cleric. Or a monk. Whatever.

You don't need to be as-high-as-mathematically-possible to be good at something. If you need to, use a trait to make Diplomacy class and you've got a nice +4 bonus between the trait and the class bonus.

Don't let classes shoebox you.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

None of the alignment/type/subtype line should be bold.

None of the alignment/type/subtype line should be bold.

None of the alignment/type/subtype line should be bold.

None of the alignment/type/subtype line should be bold.

Touch AC should include Size bonus so should be 19.
AC 25, touch 19, flat-footed 18 (+7 Dex, +6 natural, +2 size)

Charisma is used in place of Constitution for calculating saves and undead poor Fort so should be +3 plus 5. Will should be +6 plus 2 from Wisdom plus 2 from Iron will.
Fort +8, Ref +10, Will +10

In the Psi-Like Abilities section, there is an extra space inside the brackets for the DC for psychic crush which should be removed.

Undead have a 3/4 BAB progression. A 9 HD creature should have a BAB of +6
A Tiny creature suffers a -2 penalty to CMD and CMB, so those should be +4 and 21 respectively.
Base Atk +6; CMB +4; CMD 21

Undead creatures get 4 + Int skill points per hit die. This creature's Skills are correct but I cannot account for the Autohypnosis score. I'm probably missing a rule somewhere but I can't find sufficient skill points for this score to not just be Int (+3).

In the description of the creature, "psychic crush" (two instances), "slay living", "defensive precognition", "id insinuation", and "psionic blast" should be italicized.

None of the alignment/type/subtype line should be bold.

In the description of the creature, "ego whip", "psionic blast", "scorching ray", and "telepathic lash" should be italicized.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

I finally was conscious enough to start proofreading. I won't likely have time to actually playtest anything before this goes off to publisher, but at least I can do this much. So here's today's batch.

Truespeech (Su) description indicates this functions as tongues. The spell name tongues should be italicized.
Regeneration (Ex) indicates inevitables gain regeneration/chaotic yet all three provided statblocks have regeneration (sonic).

PAGE 2 (Automaton, Alpha)
BAB +4 plus Str +2 plus Size +1 = melee attacks at +7
Subtract two for Two Weapon Fighting penalties and the end result should be:
Melee short sword +5 (1d4+2/19-20) and short sword +5 (1d4+1/19-20)
NOTE: there is an extra space in the second short sword, right after the forward slash. It should be removed.

Languages line should have "; truespeech" appended to it.

PAGE 3 (Automaton, Beta)
Languages line should have "; truespeech" appended to it.

Leech Field (Su) reference to Psionics Unleashed should probably be removed or updated to Ultimate Psionics or both... or something.

PAGE 4 (Automaton, Gamma)
Languages line should have "; truespeech" appended to it.

BAB line should read:
Base Atk +15; CMB +26 (+28 bull rush); CMD 37 (39 bull rush)
Dispel Psionics (Su) should state what caster level this ability functions at. Hit dice is default but should be mentioned I think.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Sara Marie wrote:
Laschoni wrote:
Bummed this isn't going out with my May subs. No worries, I'm okay with the pdf, I understand it has been a rocky road. So a big thanks to Jeremy for his hard work and transparancy.

Fixed it and sent you a new confirmation email.

sara marie

I'd just like to underline what appears to have happened just now. It looks to me like a systems issue caused Laschoni's copy of UP to not slot into his/her monthly subscription. Laschoni made a comment about it in a thread generally about the product, way the heck down the page. A Paizo staffer saw this, and took care of the issue without being asked.

This. This is why Paizo are awesome.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

It's a rough market for Paizo to gamble on. The little that's been said so far, Paizonics will follow the existing spellcasting mechanics. For some that's great. For others, that's a dead product. I - for one - won't spent money on a same-mechanics book. More spells? Sure, I have done, but that's like a monster manual to me; some resource to dip into to make an encounter unique.

So. Paizo knows the market is split on this. It's worse than themed APs like Mummy's Mask and Iron Gods. Folks (like me) don't cancel their subscriptions despite having zero interest in them. Inertia carries the sales to a degree. A rulebook is different... it mostly stands on its own. While Mythic as a system was also risky, it had enough "clever" involved to sell. For instance being usable at low levels, not just "epic".

Paizo knows very, very well how to extract money from us. They seem warm and cuddly - and on a personal level they are - but never mistake the corporation for something (significantly) other than a means for feeding its employees and putting roofs over their heads.

Paizonics may not do that.

I personally don't get the urge for more-of-the-same, but this question keeps coming up so some do. Me, my money is on new. New mechanics, new subsystems, new toys to learn and master. I don't want a druid who gets his spells from dreams and they're all dream-themed. I want a narcomancer who can "weave" visions, fantasies, and hopes. He should be able to shape moments of lucid-dreaming, allowing him to slip back and forth between the waking world and that of sleep, dragging portions of the one into he other. How? Who the heck knows? But a bunch of dream-flavored spells aren't it. I crave something exotic, something with "wow". But that's me.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
I've seen people raise concerns about this course if action before, but never understood what the downside is. Can someone enlighten me?

Remember that massive thread not so many months ago titled something like "Paizo's moderation practices are evil and the perpetrators need to die flaming horrible deaths"? That might not quite be the title but dipping into the complain-fest that was that thread from time to time sure got me the impression that Paizo should bolt their doors during business hours and travel to and from home in armored Pope-mobiles.

Fact is that moderation almost invariably involves silencing or editing someone's voice. That someone rarely agrees with what has been done, else they would have self-edited.

When Paizo does it, we all have to suck it up. These are their forums and they can do whatever they like to us. We are visitors in their house.

When a community member does it... well... (*&#$%(*% him, that #(*& head. Who does he (*^&$(ing think he is? Suddenly it's a different story because a fellow guest is dictating the rules of the house, even if they've been given the authority to do so by the owners.

Right now it's cut and dried. If a post is edited, it was someone with indisputable authority to do so. If even one community editor exists, then there will arise the question "was it HIM/HER that did it? Should they have?"

The way things are is the wisest, least acrimonious method of moderation. And even with that in place there's the occasional digital lynch mob, like the thread I mentioned at the start of this post. You don't want to see worse.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Damon Griffin wrote:
@Mromson: Subscribe now, pay for the hardcover edition of Book One of Mummy's Mask and I'll buy you a gift certificate for the PDF.

Classy. Way classy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Drake Brimstone wrote:
Let me help out here, the part you are missing is "This action occurs just before the action that triggers it."

Drake has just pointed out where the whole idea falls down. Readied actions are triggered by other actions, not actual conditions. Those actions aren't necessarily "move" actions or "standard" actions, but they are nonetheless actions.

"I ready a fireball for if an enemy becomes visible in this room."
This is triggered by the action of ceasing to be invisible. It is not triggered by someone in the room who is already visible.

"I ready a trip attempt for the first enemy who comes through this doorway."
This is triggered by an enemy (ie. not an ally) doing movement through the doorway. It is not triggered by someone who is already standing in the doorway, nor by an ally.

The ability to decline to take your readied action is to cover the event that conditions have changed since you readied your action. "I ready a finger of death for the first creature that comes over the hill." What happens when it turns out a horde of orcs are chasing your mother and she's the first one over the hill? The "may" allows you to decline to commit matricide.

So no, you don't get to change initiative order by readying for an event that is already taking place. That's what delay is for.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Q: where is the boundary between overpowered and not.
A: at your table.

The answer isn't to be found in the system, or on this forum.

The answer - as originally pointed out - stems from the disparity between several builds at the table. It's to be found in the relationships and views and enjoyment that each player your your table experiences. If your fellow players are unhappy, the boundary may have been crossed. If your GM is unhappy, the boundary may have been crossed. If nobody is unhappy, no boundary has been crossed.

In a word, mu.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Well, having just stumbled on the 50k reveal, I'm certain I'll be jumping on this. New mythic-support AP? Yes, please. Nick Logue? Yes, please. A bunch of other revered names that aren't Nick Logue but are - for instance - Richard Pett? Yes, please. Very cool.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Just a little more feedback. The new order process needs a little TLC, in my humble opinion.

I've had two items (one PDF, one physical) in my shopping cart for a day or so. Tonight I committed the order by dropping to the shopping cart and telling it I was ready to buy. It (as usual) asked me to sign in to the purchasing side of the site, and immediately thereafter jumped to step 3, where it was asking for payment selection. Um. Step 2? I want the physical product held until my next subscription shipment, so I had to click on the 2 to go back to a step I never saw in the first place. There I was able to sidecart as usual, jump to step 4 and commit the order.

I get it the new ordering screens are cleaner and there's something to be said for that. But honestly, I expect to see:

1} Are these quantities correct? Click NEXT when they are.
2} You usually ship stuff to LOCATION and you usually combine your shipping. Click NEXT to do that or click CHANGE to change these options.
3} You usually pay with PAYMENT type. Click NEXT to do that, or click CHANGE to enter other payment methods including gift certificates.
4} Here's a summary... I'm going to send QTY of PRODUCT to LOCATION with combination mode COMBO and charge PAYMENT for this. Click CONFIRM if that's right.

Straightforward and linear. Pretty much frankly what there used to be. Jumping around to futz with the individual steps seems really weird. I mean, maybe it's just me, but I've never, ever been... cautious... about placing a Paizo order before. It was always abundantly clear what was going to happen and I never had even the slightest question that something was going to ship immediately when I didn't want it to (or go sidecart when I was Jonesing for a product Right Damned Now), or that it was going to invent a payment method and I'd get arrested for fraud.

The new system, yeah, it's new, but I feel paranoid that I need to double check everything.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

These are the levels where a party should be trying to learn how to fight together. "Hey guys, can you try to leave a hole that I can shoot through?"

Also, as has been said, this problem won't stick around for long. Touch AC targeting is an awesome gift that keeps on giving over time.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Per Jason here, "sneak attack damage is not a special effect that accompanies the attack, it is part of the damage roll."

The context of that discussion was regarding DR, but the principle applies. Sneak attack is simple extra damage that is included in the base total, but does not multiple on a crit.

So yeah, add it all up using standard math.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Sneak attack is simply more damage. What that means is that you add it all up.


The minimum is always one, no matter what you roll and what your penalties are. So if you roll a 1 on your weapon die and you roll a 1 on your sneak attack die and you have a -3 penalty from Strength and no bonuses, your result is 1. But if you roll a 6 on your weapon die and a 6 on your sneak attack die and have a -3 penalty from Strength, your result is 9 because 6+6-3=9.

Sneak attack is not an additional attack. It is just additional damage, so the Strength penalty only applies once to the whole attack.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
snickersimba wrote:

rig something up that when the spam, SOMEHOW, it hacks into there computer and kills it, the router, and all other computers for good. Thus permanently stopping spam, because they are now out of money trying to buy new computers and routers, and there service provider is told to deny them acess to a new router. Boom.

Or just have me hopped on sugar running into peoples houses and beating them over the head with a sack of paizo merchandise

I'm not replying to you in particular, but stop.

If spam was a problem that could be eliminated by a few forum goons brainstorming, it would've been dealt with a decade ago. It's a complicated issue with serious technical and logistical difficulties.

I get this all day, every day from my customers whose anti-spam packages are blocking upwards of 90% of ALL e-mail trying to enter the building. Not 90% of unwanted mail. 90% of ALL. Because that's how bad the spam problem is.

It doesn't matter that each day the CEO's mailbox has 840 messages automatically blocked and zero false-positives. All I hear about is the two messages a month that make it through.

Paizo does an excellent job of dealing with this. I trust in them to adjust their manpower and technology as they see fit.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

I just wanted to add, these two non-mint copies are in addition to the limited edition one I'll eventually get from the original Kickstarter. I bought these as backups and gifts... and I'm impatient... and they were at a great price.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Follow the Rule of Cool.

I once had an NPC bad guy cavalier knocked off his charging horse and bashed to death. The horse basically kept running. Weeks later, it found itself a new helper to assist it in revenge.

I'm pretty sure I retconned a little more Intelligence into that horse to make this work, but it was certainly worth it. See, the party first noticed a black unicorn, which turned out to be the horse's new advocate. Yeah, shape-shifting devil who'd taken on the horse's situation for amusement. The devil explained that it had agreed to punish the particular PC who'd nuked the cavalier, and that the rest of the party were free to go, unharmed as long as they didn't interfere. Very witty. The horse watched the fight from a decent distance, the party mashed the devil, and the horse re-evaluated its vengeance quest. It trotted away, having recognized it was outclassed.

Sure, it was kind of cute, kind of trite, but the players enjoyed it. It was a call-back to a previous encounter, it was the direct consequence of their overwhelmingly rapid success with the cavalier, and it wasn't punishment. It was bonus fun.

So follow the RoC in your own way, that's my advice.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I think the cutting off quotes is causing more annoyance than the nested quotes would, honestly.

Maybe it depends on what subforums one frequents. I take part in many (too many) debates, so it's a pain in the ass to have to go back and copy what got cut.

In my humble opinion - and I do actually do this - you should be in-line replying. Chop up the original quote and reply paragraph by paragraph.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

I'm pretty used to editing what I reply to to remove nested quotes where not required, so going to the effort of pasting in the full original text if truncated is just par for the course. At the same time, I'm also someone who takes the time to tag spell names in italics and apply other formatting regularly to make my stuff readable. Dunno. If something is worth being said, it's worth spending some effort on it.

I'd rather not see huge nested quote spam and this is a reasonable way to prevent it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

I agree with William. There isn't a RAW method aside from maybe a Heal check, which you're not going to do in combat to your foes.

I basically "leak" maybe three stages of health to my players. "You've barely scratched him", "you're getting there but he's not on the brink", and "he can't take much more of this". I don't think any more granularity is a good idea.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

To summarize the findings so far...

1} The Fly skill does NOT have anything to do with flight as long as you stay at or above half your fly speed.

2} Because of #1, your Dexterity being reduced to 0 does NOT impede your flight in any way.

3} Your Strength score being reduced to 0 reduces your ability to carry items to a total weight of nil, PLUS your armor (up to and including heavy armor).

4} Bearing heavy armor reduces your fly speed to 40 while using fly, so flying at 20ft per move action leaves you able to apply #1 and #2.

5} Your Strength score being reduced to 0 does NOT render you unconscious, due to the general ability damage rules.

6} Directing flight via fly does NOT have any ongoing physical movement requirements described.

Sounds like RAW you can fly as you wish when paralyzed, as long as you are utterly naked except for armor, which can weigh as much as 75 pounds in the case of stoneplate. Just don't carry a dagger with you, or you're unable to lift off.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
seebs wrote:
A character who has a strength of 0 is unconscious. However, a character with an effective strength of 0 might not be. And the description for paralyzed does specifically allow mental actions.

I dunno. Differentiation without a difference, I think.

The point behind an "effective" Strength score of 0 isn't to ignore the ramifications of having Strength 0, it's that you DO have the ramifications without the fact. Let me explain that mealy-mouthed sentence.

If your Strength score was "actually" 0, you need something like restoration to correct that. Removal of the condition imposing the Strength score wouldn't repair the damage/drain, because there's documentation on how repair to ability scores are managed.

With an "effective" Strength score of 0, you are impacted by all of the results without the actuality.

Said a different way, your Strength score isn't actually 0, you just pretend it is.

So yeah, unconscious. And understand I want people to be able to fly while paralyzed. This ruling isn't one I like AT ALL. But it is clear.

Also, in my original finding of this, I documented how we've arrived at this state. When you follow the 3.5e to PFRPG evolution of the text, it's pretty obvious what happened. Jason made a change to a root system and missed a dependent system a couple layers down. It's easy to do when working with such a complex referential system as PFRPG.

Even if you don't like that explanation and can't reconcile the contradiction, there still technically isn't one. You can still make Will saves against effects that don't call for willing targets, which would be a purely mental action. (You count as willing when unconscious if a spell demands that, but you're not forced to voluntarily fail a save if the spell does not.) That's just another example of purely mental actions you can still take while unconscious, on top of dreaming.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
WRoy wrote:
Sorry, that wasn't the clearest... I was trying to point out two things at once and they got jumbled together. PRD states a character with a Strength score of 0 is too weak to move in any way, which the fly spell says nothing about superceding. Secondly, a creature with Str 0 has an effective max load of 0, so it could not carry anything aloft with fly.


WRoy just won the thread.

I'm not kidding. I was just reading this and decided to look for those three key words: "in any way", just to see if (s)he was being... creative. Not important, but WRoy was quoting what written but didn't complete the quote.

I present... THE ANSWER:

"A character with a Strength score of 0 is too weak to move in any way and is unconscious."

And. Is. Unconscious.

Sorry, no purely mental actions allowed; you're unconscious.

It's an oversight in the conversion from 3.5e to Pathfinder. In 3.5e, the details for Strength 0 were: "A character with Strength 0 falls to the ground and is helpless." That didn't include unconscious, so the paralyzed condition made sense as written: "A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A paralyzed swimmer can’t swim and may drown. A creature can move through a space occupied by a paralyzed creature—ally or not. Each square occupied by a paralyzed creature, however, counts as 2 squares."

So there we have it. Since Jason rewrote what happens when your Strength drops to 0, he negated a portion of the paralyzed condition, which moots the entire discussion. The text that permits purely mental actions should be stricken from the rules as it cannot possibly apply, with the possible exception of any rare creature that cannot be made unconscious.

Can you fly while paralyzed? No.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Bonus fun find reading RAW literally and ignoring idiom...

"The creature is rooted to the spot, frozen and helpless."


So now you're a statue made of ice. Ice has 3 hp per inch of thickness. I'm 9" thick. So I'd have 27 hit points and hardness 0.

At low level that's good. At high level, that's one hit from destroyed.

Let's remember that next time we're playing paralysis using the literal interpretation devoid of context. No coup de grace required... just a hit.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Remy Balster wrote:

A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions.

Strength of 0 has a carrying capacity of 0.

He is automatically overloaded, and cannot move.

Since when does a person's own weight count towards encumbrance?

Fly has carry capacity limits based on Str.

"You generally need only make a Fly check when you are attempting a complex maneuver."

So hey, we can just ignore the Fly skill entirely for purposes of this discussion as long as we don't try anything complicated. Yay!

The subject of a fly spell can charge but not run, and it cannot carry aloft more weight than its maximum load, plus any armor it wears.

Yup, got that. And while it might be reasonable to declare "you're not absolutely nude so you can't fly", it might also not be. Remember, it's dealing with what you carry. It's a model for "I grab Frank's unconscious body and fly away with it." You know, things you carry in your arms. While yeah, there's a literalist interpretation of this sentence, we both know that it's about preventing a flying mage from saying he wants to "pick up the castle", not about a DM saying "you know Bob, your wizard's been sewing those sequins on his robes... those are heavy so you can't fly anymore."

Additionally, Fly skill is Dex based. Your effective Dex is 0. You cannot use this skill while paralyzed.

Actually, - not that you need to use Fly to fly - citation required. The abilities section in Core discusses what happens when various abilities hit zero, but I couldn't find anything that says what you just said.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

You don't need to make Fly checks as long as you stay at half your fly speed or above. So do.

If you must hover, well, you have a Dex of 0 so suffer a -5 penalty to Fly checks. Given fly gives you perfect maneuverability, you get a +8 bonus to Fly checks. Core does NOT say you can't use Dex skills while at 0 Dexterity. So your Fly DC 15 check works out to needing to roll a 12, assuming you have no ranks or other bonuses to Fly. 60/40.

But again, paralyzed sets your Dex to 0, and Core says "A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious)."

So, effectively immobile. Not actually immobile. Good thing you've got a spell up and running that addresses that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
aegrisomnia wrote:

^ In my posts, I basically suggest all of the stuff you dismiss:

1. Being paralyzed means you don't breathe. Breathing requires movement, and you can't do that.
2. Being paralyzed means you are immobilized; it says so (or at least heavily implies it) in the PRD, to the point of being almost unambiguously RAW.
3. Being paralyzed means you cannot be moved; it is heavily implied in the PRD, to the point of being almost unambiguously RAW.
4. Being paralyzed means you cannot cause to be moved; this one requires a little straining, but who's to say that "move" is meant in the intransitive sense in the rules? "I can't move" almost always means that you can't move yourself, but there's nothing preventing it from meaning that you are unable to move (other stuff).

My justification: a boring and straightforward interpretation of what is admittedly a pretty ambiguous description of the condition which is apparently at odds with what we mean by "paralysis" IRL. Please let me know if you'd like more of the in-depth analysis, but how paralysis interacts with telepathy in general (especially when applied to the self) is interesting and not clearly defined in the rules, as far as I can tell.

That's all an unacceptable (to me) reading of the RAW. I get it that the English language in general and Pathfinder in particular reuses words in multiple contexts. Synonyms, yeah?

To read that extensively into "cannot move" dictating immediate fatality... why then did the developers bother writing remove paralysis?

They did so because their understanding of "cannot move" does not contain an inability to breathe, or an inability to pump blood, or that the victim of paralysis is (if lucky) left behind by Golarion's orbital motion or (if unlucky) forced through the surface of the ground at 107,200 kilometers per hour (assuming Golarion's rotation around its sun is equivalent to Earth's around ours).

No. The developers thought "hey, paralysis is like a person who's got upper spinal damage, only it gets their face too". And they wrote their language using words that were clear to them. They even included some bonus text about being allowed to take purely mental actions, which you kinda sorta can't do if you're suffocating while having a heart attack in orbit. Oh, and the electrons in your brain stopped because y'know, they're a part of you and you can't move 'em.

In fact, yeah, if the electrons can't orbit their protons, technically the entire state of matter that your body was composed of ceases being what it was, with completely unique properties.

Or is it more likely "cannot move" was intended to have an implied "voluntarily" and "your muscles"? Like say... a paralyzed person.

See, under general anesthesia, I "can't move", which fits both the rules and the description of "paralysis". I find it a really weird stretch to - having found a reading that makes sense - assume Pathfinder instead implies a bunch of other immediately fatal side-effects.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
it also say you can not move. Flying is movement.

In some terms. For instance for purposes of provoking attacks of opportunity, using a fly speed is movement. But in terms of a creature who is paralyzed? That's kind of a stretch.

Let's imagine - and I know I'm extrapolating - that the paralyzed condition said "you cannot move your body parts". That would be utterly and completely in line with what we real-world folk know of as paralysis, yes? And it wouldn't conflict with brutally obvious real-world realities such as... oh... let's say...

can a paralyzed creature still breathe?

That's right. I went there.

Nothing about paralysis says that your lungs stop working. And yet... your chest is moving.


Oh. That's right. We all get it. We all know what paralysis means, and what the condition clearly confers. You lose voluntary control over your muscles. That's it. That's all. That is the result of paralysis, in the real world and in the game world. Why? Because it doesn't even imply that a paralyzed creature starts to suffocate.

Bonus fun: your heart doesn't stop when you're paralyzed.

So. Now that we've washed away the interpretation that says a paralyzed creature becomes unable to "move" in the sense of "be relocated in part or in whole", what are we left with that conflicts with the idea that a magic fly spell can be mentally directed to lift, swoop, and generally cavort in the air?

I don't mean to play the "it's magic" card but:
a} IT IS and
b} there is no b.
By being magic, it is nonphysical. The source of flight motion isn't physical.

Purely mental simply means lacking-physicality. This qualifies.*

*UNLESS you've got a GM who has elected to make their flying casters flap their arms, in which case the (always-to-be-encouraged) world-building supersedes the actual rules.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
What is walking? It's movement. If you're paralyzed you can't do ANY form of movement, you're essentially shut down from any voluntary physical action. If you're hit with paralysis while flying, you immediately assume the aerodynamic characteristics of a brick, whether you're using wings, or magical flight.

Walking requires a creature to cause their limbs to move, relative to one another. And you know it. A paralyzed creature is not immobile or immovable. They are simply unable to cause their body (parts) to move.

A paralyzed creature could cast a silent dimension door, which would have no somatic (movement) components and no verbal (lip movement) components. Because they did not move their body, they have not violated the restrictions of the paralyzed condition. And yet... lo and behold... said caster somehow becomes located at a different place. They have... MOVED.

Is this not entirely sensible? The creature did not move themselves... the magic of the dimension door spell performed the movement. Same as commanding an unseen servant to tip you over or wiggling your fingers (assuming you had a telepathic link with such).

The fly spell imparts a mode of flight which is not dependent on physical motion. No flapping of the arms. You just magically... fly.

So do.

Normal creatures have no ability to move while paralyzed, which is why the condition is written the way it is. But given the entire world is rotating, it's pretty darned obvious the condition does not confer a lack of ability for one afflicted to move.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Mazra wrote:

To reiterate a theme, there are far more players than DMs. DMs will buy a case or two; or cherry pick the monsters in the aftermarket. Players will buy NPCs in the aftermarket. And the coolest miniatures rise to the top. That is why the iconics are selling at high prices in the aftermarket. The demand for these are the greatest.

The Dungeons and Dragons miniatures (DDM) line was very successful through very many sets. But in addition to appealing to players of the RPG, they created a separate game that used the miniatures. All miniatures whether monsters or NPC types were needed by all players. Power pieces from this "skirmish" game were in high demand during its heyday. This "skirmish" game created an additional demand.

When the economy tanked in 2008, Wizards of the Coast cut cost and discontinued the miniatures game. In their own words, the miniatures game only represented one third of the sales. ONLY!!! I don't know too many businesses that can survive losing one third of their business. Where is the DDM line today?

Overall the Pathfinder Battles line has done well without an added miniatures game associated with it. How much better could it do if it had one? It seems to me that Wizkids has a certain knack for creating miniature based games. Maybe they can't come up with something without using a clix base. Just a thought.

It's really hard to say. There are only so many dollars worth of discretionary "fun spending" available in the average household. Introducing a new minis game wouldn't (in my case) net any additional profit because I'm already spending as much as I can/will with Paizo and 3PP. I suspect many others are in similar situations, where their spending capacity is reached. While I'm sure there would be some increased spending, there'd also be a lot of redistributed spending, and the effort of maintaining and producing yet another product might not be worth whatever increase there was.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Given the site is hosted on Apache, odds are good. What you need to know is that evidently a well-designed attack from the outside could read arbitrary data in memory on the web server. The most obvious use of that would be to capture Paizo's private key for their SSL certificate. That could enable a man-in-the-middle attack, but such a thing would in turn require a DNS hijacking, which isn't trivial. Unless such a thing happens, that's not an earth-shattering problem. The second possible exploit would be to capture personal information as it's entered, such as say... credit card info while you're entering it. If Paizo has designed things well, the stored credit card information will be on a separate server designed to do the actual transactions, meaning that unless you're updating/changing CC info you should be safe.

I don't expect Paizo to say much about this. Revealing anything about your internal server structure is... unwise. But the bottom line is that the risk to you is probably minimal. A lot of the problem with OpenSSL is what could be done. It's unclear what site(s) are poorly designed enough that the flaw actually matters for them.

As far as I know, OpenSSL has already been patched, in which case Gary and the gang may have already updated their server cluster. I'm just trying to give you a generic answer that applies here, and elsewhere, until a more specific one is available.

1 to 50 of 294 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.