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 Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber. 3,066 posts (3,070 including aliases). 2 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 612 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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

How do you explain it? Simple...

"The rules - for balance purposes - allow the use of Spellcraft to identify spells as they are cast. Those same rules - for creativity purposes - are silent as to how it works. It's left to me, the GM to flavour the details, just like I do when I describe how a sneak attack or a critical hit works."

Aaaaand you're done. Back to playing the game instead of micromanaging edge conditions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Swiftbrook wrote:
Unfortunately a great piece with a crappy distribution. I do expect to see this as a repaint, maybe even right away like the beds in the last set. I'll look for them on the secondary market, I'm guessing for around $12 to $15. Expensive for multiple of a simple mini, but in the range of consideration.

Exactly. Honestly, the way dungeon dressing minis are being handled is frustrating (almost) everyone. People who don't want them are frustrated because they happen at all. People who do want them are frustrated because they're exactly the sorts of things that you want in large quantities, but they're effectively one-per-case.

There's money being left on the floor while customers are annoyed.

I'm not sure what the answer here is, but maybe something like a dressing-specific "kit". 6 molds, 5 of each inside. Most of these are pretty simple so ideally the average price could stay in the $5 realm, making such a kit $150. I could see some people buying two (or more) kits. No case-incentive, no rares, just a bunch of molds that are useful in bulk but not overly complicated to make.

It's just really hard to get excited over - for instance - this very nice pillar when I know I'd be looking to make scenes with upwards of a dozen of them, and know that it's never going to happen because of the scarcity of what is just a pillar. Sculpting on this took nowhere near the time a monster/NPC/PC would, and there appear to be a total of three paint steps (base, inject brown runes, inject blue runes), with no difficult angles or micro detail (face/eyes/hands) needing special handling.

Sigh. The dressing experiment is good, but frustrating.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
HyperMissingno wrote:
Isn't there an entry somewhere that says that everyone aside from those kids that get tossed into the wild and are raised by animals know creating undead is an evil act?

I figure it's a laws-of-physics thing and instinct. You don't need to fall off a cliff to feel uneasy beside one. You don't need to be bit by a spider to fear them. Some world-truths are programmed in.

Tapping into negative energy in a world where such a thing exists very likely is like juggling poisonous spiders at a cliffside. Sure, some people can (and will) do it, but to most people the very idea is repulsive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Daridan wrote:
I'm having a hard time finding a comprehensive list of all the books that have psionic classes. I had been under the impression that Ultimate Psionics had them all the classes and archetypes, but then I was shown a couple of books from a friend that had some that arent in there, such as Zealots and Pathwalkers from the Path of War book. I'm having a hell of a time finding a comprehensive list of all the books that have them. Does anyone know of a comprehensive list of all psionic classes/archetypes sorted by which rulebook it comes from? Just checking the Paizo store has like 140 books listed for psionics, and it doesnt really help since it doesnt tell you specifically which ones are covered in the ultimate psionics.... Would appreciate some help with this, thanks!

As has been said, there really isn't such an index. You're probably accustomed to seeing things on d20pfsrd organized so you can look for these things, but since the psionics ruleset is non-Paizo, and because d20pfsrd is 100% volunteer labour, the coverage isn't total.

That said, here's the deal. Ultimate Psionics is the base product you start with. It's sort of like the Core Rulebook in terms of having the normal classes and powers and feats and whatnot. After UP was published, there have been some additional newer releases that have some psionic content in them. There have been "splatbooks" which expand specific classes, such as the Soulknife. There have also been psionic archetypes presented in at least one of the Path of War books (definitely PoW: Expanded). PoW:E was actually fully released about a month ago, so we're talking very new here.

But as has been said, you're looking for the books by Dreamscarred Press. You can probably look for a release date to give you an idea when things came out, since you're looking for post-UP content. Also, as far as I know, not all of Ultimate Psionics has been posted to d20pfsrd either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Misroi wrote:
Whoa, that's the first time I've heard the Race Card played on Second Darkness. Does that pop up at some time after Book 3? Because I've played through those first three books and really haven't found anything racist in them, and I think you're going to have to defend that charge when Paizo - a leader in diversity in gaming - is the one being charged.

I'm pretty sure what's being talked about is in-character racism. Drow are horrible, horrible people. Surface elves are also horrible, horrible people. Technically the drow are more sympathetic because at least their Bestiary entry says they're supposed to be evil. Surface elves evidently just choose to be jerks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
That GM was pretty miffed about the Mythic rules after that.

I'm sure that GM was also miffed by the existence of save-or-die spells too.

The ability to do massive amounts of damage isn't especially... special. Sure "save or die has a saving throw" and "what about SR?", but both of those are fairly easy to arrange in your favor, and "massive damage has AC" and "what about blur or mirror image?"

Mythic is many things, and absolutely, positively ramps up the game of rocket-tag, but the particular sentence I've quoted makes me laugh.


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

1} The ability to change shape and colour at will (applies to footwear).
2} The ability to appear of a different body-shape than reality.
3} The ability to vary visible cleavage based on attractiveness of the observer.
4} The ability to be wrinkle-proof.
5} The ability to be self-cleaning.

But seriously, the question is missing details. What are the daughters going to do in these dresses? If we're talking about adventurer daughters, the needs are very different from court ladies-in-waiting types.

Also, the correct answer is "whatever they want".


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
If a FAQ or errata are enough to kill your fun, your fun was a fragile little thing.

Thank you for posting that so I don't have to.

Frankly, if the handful of feats, abilities, and items that get nerfed are the difference between fun and not-fun, I suspect the players involved are overly reliant on the closest-to-broken they can get.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Kaisoku wrote:
Anguish wrote:
The original poster clearly has a bias. They don't like Aid Another for social skills.

Actually, he has a bias against meta-application of the rules.

This is what set him off:

Quote:
one of the other players immediately pipes up, "Hey I am going to aid too!" Then proceeds to roll dice and tell the player next to him to roll also. I ask them if they really want to do that and the first player responds, "Yeah it doesn't matter anyway, even if we fail."

It's the "just roll all the time, any time", cavalier attitude about the aid another check, regardless of the situation and poor skill/ability of the character.

Especially in a Diplomacy situation (or any "fail by 5 or more" circumstance), where bungling around can seriously screw things up. It's practically a trope in media.

The +/-2 rule and the wording of both the Diplomacy skill and the Aid Another rule all make this a perfectly normal application of the rules, as long as it was warned ahead of rolling (which it was).

I'm of the camp that while I might not inflict a penalty on a serious failure, I do expect people who want to contribute actually explain how they are. Sometimes there's not enough room for everyone to push a big block, and sometimes it's just not feasible for everyone to get their words in to convince someone.

Though I suspect that if the OP's players had actually stated what they were doing to aid (like the Cleric had) instead of just "I roll too, cuz why not pad the numbers?", it would have been received a bit better.

I read the OP, so I know that.

First of all, there is no "meta-application" of the rules. The rules are the rules, and applying them is legal, period. There is zero reason why a character with a Charisma score of 8 can't be helpful in a Diplomacy check. "Oh, Thungore, you forgot mention we the guys saved him nephew in other town last week." Stats are about probability, and that's why you roll. Being biased into the viewpoint that a low-Cha character should be penalized above and beyond their negative to the roll by labeling them a "meta-applier" is... punitive. That's being meta as a DM. "Your character doesn't deserve to use the Aid-Another rule because you dumped Cha, so I don't think you should even ask." << Seriously, that's exactly what the OP is saying. You shouldn't ask.

Second, there is nothing in the rules that say a player needs to - or even should - roleplay or justify their social interactions. I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in real life that is an Int 18, or a Cha 18. No player can roleplay high-ability score social interaction. They can try, sure. But even then, we play fantasy games to do things we can't do in reality. The socially-awkward guy who can barely bring themselves to the table with all those people around... who can't think up HOW his Cha 8 (barely sub-average) character might help... the rules permit him to participate anyway. All he needs to do is invoke The Rules.

That's the bias I pointed out.

Now, as for the application of the "you failed the Diplomacy check by 5", okay, fine. The socially-awkward guy fails to Aid, and fails by 5. The target's attitude drops by one step. Meanwhile, the high-Cha face character succeeds on his check. What happens? Simple. The target likes the face character and dislikes the awkward guy. "Sure, I'll help you, but keep that scumbag out of my sight." Surprise... the rules support realistic social encounters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Starbuck_II wrote:
I can see third party though, not all is balanced.

In a nutshell: so what?

While some of it is bad enough to be beyond salvage, even unbalanced material very, very often has a lot going for it in terms of inspiration and fundamentals. Seems to me that there's the idea that DMs are frequently willing to spend a dozen hours a day for months on end building intricate worlds (which their players likely don't care about any more than they would a pre-built setting). At the same time I'm to understand DMs can't be bothered to read a proposed class before it hits the table so they can adjust things as reasonable.

I love new material, even if it's only usable as an idea.


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

It's probably a year away, but I like to plan ahead.

I actually enjoy the mythic rules. While I don't think they're appropriate everywhere, or in most games, I'm very much a believer in having a large toolkit as a DM to make games as fun as they can be.

So, I'm toying with the idea of adding mythic templates to a smattering of creatures throughout the AP, specifically for the rules-expectation-breaking. The things like "goes twice every round" should fit in very well to leave the players (who are aware of, but mostly have not played with mythic) in shock.

In return, I'm thinking of maybe giving them a mythic tier occasionally, perhaps as much as once per book.

I'm more than comfortable adjusting challenges, so balance isn't a concern for me. I recognize the upsides and downsides of mythic, so that too isn't a concern.

I'm posting this for input as to thoughts others might have regarding places and moments where mythic content might be especially appropriate, or perhaps inappropriate. Bottom line, I'm looking for input specific to the AP, not an argument about mythic in principle.


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

Psionics. And/or 3rd-party material in general.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
MrCharisma wrote:
Gajolob Gorum Tell me more of these powerful Table-magics? Are they something a Half-Orc Paladin could aspire to?

Gorum yell divine inspiration in ear if only willing listen. Him send tiny swarm bugs to provide motiviation. Sword not work. Flail not work. Orc shot-put not work. Stomp on bug not work. Wizard casts burning hands then laugh at mighty warrior like him somehow superior because bugs burning. That how get idea. Need smush bugs, wipe smirk of wizard face, so invent flat weapon.

Can use tables, benches, sleds. Even work if rip door off hinge. << Remember if trapped in worked dungeon when swarms attack.

Half-orc good, paladin okay, but smite evil probably not work. Here secret technique:

Pick up heavy, flat object. May require teamwork for appropriate weight.
Drop heavy, flat object. Should do on top swarm, not own foot.

Is improvised area-effect weapon. Take standard -4 penalty attack, but do damage like club to swarm. Also, swarm take extra damage because spread out squishing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
...something cool and thematic that isn't immediately covered in the rules. Things like "I attempt to flatten the charging group of enemies by flipping the bar table on top of them"...

Glorious Leader Gajolob Gorum and Jair mighty warriors invent "swarmbane tables" by flip over, squish many bugs. Is martial area-effect weapon. Much powerful. Who need fireball?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Malwing wrote:
Ultimate Psionics has suggestions to make it less like alien scifi psionics but that's besides the point.

Memory is a thing. Not a good thing, but a thing. I'm maybe misremembering that text in UP being about getting rid of the crystal themes, no alien/sci-fi. Huh.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Jessica Price wrote:
That's how technical writing works. Something looking like it was cut and pasted from somewhere else = language that is precise and consistent. When people are picking apart every clause to determine how a rule works, it's important that things that work the same way be stated in the same way so that readers don't assume variance where there is none.

Absolutely, yes, and it's the best approach for this stuff.

I've spent enough time proofreading RPG material that I recognize two additional truths:

1} When reading text you think you know, it is much, much harder to notice things that are incorrect. This is (part of) why authors need editors. An author can re-read what he has written a dozen times and always see what they meant to write, not what they actually penned.

2} When using boilerplate text you are familiar with, problem #1 rises up, only worse, even if you didn't write the passage in question.

Point is that if you sit down and plan on writing a spell similar to fireball, you're wise to take the text of the actual spell and alter it BUT doing so opens you to the weakness of textual familiarity. You may miss some alterations and clarifications needed for your variant spell, because your editing capacity is even worse than if it was original text you authored.

That is all to say... copying the eidolon to become the phantom was the right thing to do. But doing that requires a much more careful eye to spot the edge conditions that apply because a phantom isn't an eidolon. It's different.

So 100% agreement with what you've said, but clarification added.

***
Aside: I'm currently playing a spiritualist and enjoying him a lot. He's a nine-year-old boy who'd been told his mother died in childbirth, but in fact she lost her marbles when he was a baby and has spent the intervening years in an asylum. When the story began, his (ranger) father has just been killed by hobgoblins and he's on the run in the woods. Elsewhere, his mother Just Knows. She... passes on, but some of her spirit shows up as a phantom to protect him. As I've been playing them, he's frightened as all heck by this monster, and she absolutely don't KNOW anything except anger and protectiveness. No talking, no gentleness... she just manifests when he's threatened. It's been really, really flavorful and fun.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Lavawight wrote:

I've used psionic classes before, and I'm using a cryptic in the current campaign. They don't have an issue with psionics being in the game, but it conflicts with the flavor of their own characters because they're so firmly attached to the new age perception of the word. Changing the name to runic magic makes zero difference for some reason; they're still stuck on the original imagery. "It is what it is." one of them said, and the argument that it is what you MAKE it did no good.

I haven't tried what Anzyr suggested yet, that's a good idea.

I can't say I understand; psionics as presented is pretty much exactly what a sorcerer does for magic, only with different mechanics. It's magic from within, not magic from without. Which is the sorcerer.

Sure, wizards study, and clerics pray, but both psions and sorcerers do what they do from the force of will. So... yeah.

Science fiction involves technology. Psionics doesn't. So... I don't understand. Sure, psionics fits better than wizardry in a high-tech setting, but that doesn't in any way mean psionics doesn't fit in a low-tech setting.


19 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
GeraintElberion wrote:
rules bloat.

Rules Bloat: A proliferation of RPG game mechanics that allegedly nobody wants, yet everyone buys.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
137ben wrote:

You know that that is simply not true. When you come to Paizo.com, you aren't just dealing with Paizo. You're also dealing with your Internet Service Provider. You're dealing with the company that develops your browser. You're dealing with the company that produces your operating system (and yes, both Linux and BSD get funding from corporations). The PRD uses jQuery, so if you use the PRD you are also dealing with the jQuery Foundation (and, by extension, the corporate members of the jQuery Foundation.) You're also dealing with GoDaddy, which authorizes SSL for the secure portions of Paizo's website (at least if w3techs is accurate.

That is in addition to all the companies that make different hardware components which make up the computer you are using to access this website.

If you use Mozilla Firefox, then you are also sending telemetry data back to Mozilla. The same goes for most other browsers (including Chrome, MS Edge, and Safari.)

I'm not sure it was ever really possible to deal with "only Company A" over the internet. If it was possible at one time, though, that time has long since passed. You are using products from many, many different companies when you turn on your computer, boot...

While the sentences you typed are correct, they don't address the issue. I'm fluent with the topics you brought up. You're just talking about something completely different. Understand, getting specific and technical isn't productive outside of technical discussions. Pitching one's comments to the audience is a thing.

My ISP isn't data-mining my IP traffic. I'm in Canada, and doing so is massively illegal here. In fact, virtually none of the layers you brought up involve personal data-mining. I run a moderate number of plugins which limit exposure 3rd-party cross-site reliance to javascript and so on. You might as well bring up video driver manufacturers, keyboard hardware manufacturers and so on.

I could get pedantic and point out things like: with DNS caching, my queries aren't sent up-stream beyond my ISP. But that's just more of the same... ignoring the point.

I don't participate in rewards programs, and points-cards and membership perks plans. I'm willing to not get the discounts, if it keeps the creepy profiles marketing is able to build on us even a moderate bit more addled. Sure, I'll shop Amazon and I know there's privacy leakage going on. There's just a difference between allowing 10% of the data-mining that could be done on me versus 100%.

The bottom line is that Facebook and Twitter and the like are openly privacy-unfriendly, and the day that Paizo relies on my usage of them is the day I stop. And you know that's the point, and you know it's the take-home Paizo should hear, even if they (likely eventually) disregard it, even if I'm somehow skipping over the technical truth that my traffic passes through a bunch of Cisco and Juniper (and larger) gear, all of which have been found to have critical flaws in them in the last... oh, day or two.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
SheepishEidolon wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Paizo has a web store, and the forums help to drive traffic to that web store. I don't see them leaving so quickly.
Hmm, they could integrate the store into the social network within a few years.

That's the year Paizo loses me as a customer. Not hyperbole.

I'm an IT guy, so it's not technophobia or illiteracy. It's that when I elect to deal with Company A, I expect I am dealing with only Company A. Shifting anything into social media has inevitable data leakage. That's how they pay their bills.

Now, I can tolerate light integration, for instance allowing PayPal as a payment method. But the day I need to visit Facebook to discuss Pathfinder is the day I stop discussing Pathfinder.

If marketing demographics have value, they have value to me. I choose to keep that data where and when I can. It's sort of like savings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Anguish wrote:
When I get home.

At me, not with me...

I am laughing at me.

There's a Download All button at the very bottom of the list. Of course.

Regardless, thank you Owen. I've always liked your work and I've made purchases here and there, cherry-picking whatever fit a project I was working on at the moment (as a DM or player). Still, having an expanded library on demand is handy.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Daw wrote:
Why is it that any talk about setting up reasonable and predictable limitations to magic is so often portrayed as arbitrary and bad GMing?

As Ashiel has said, it's usually because the GM's reasons are arbitrary and bad.

Also, we're not talking about reasonable limitations here. You don't get to insert adjectives when it comes to debated topics. You're drawing a conclusion within the question, which is naughty.

Again, the most frequent reason GMs restrict or limit spells is because they have an agenda, and instead of writing stories around a system that empowers and enables players, they stick to their guns and excise that empowerment. Instead of "you can create water", it becomes "you can't create water". The system already has built-in structure that codifies how such a spell works.

Understand, we're not talking about the "I wanna run a low-magic campaign", which is already a statement that has me asking "so why do you want to use a game system that is high-magic?" We're talking about "there are a handful of spells that I can't think around, so I'm removing them."

The true example would be "I don't know how to defend against players who can move then use ranged attacks against my all-melee monsters, so I am removing bows from the game." It's not bad GMing in the sense of "that GM is a horrible person", like the adversarial "PCs must die" GMs. But it's the "this GM could probably benefit from some advice, instead of splicing in houserules."

And that, is basically the conclusion. There are two types of GMs who run up houserules; those who are inexperienced and don't know the system well enough to be comfortable with it as it exists, and those who are very familiar with it, and have over time found various subsystems that they prefer to tweak to suit their players and themselves. Ashiel's 9/10 GMs who limit spells are in the first group. YOU may not be. I am not asserting that as I can't know that.


18 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Daw wrote:
Can you think of other reasonable situations that certain types of magic should be unreliable?

No. If the storyteller cannot conceive of stories beyond "scarcity is a problem", it's not the game's fault.

We see these threads with "detect magic means I can't hide magic stuff" or "now the wizard can fly so walls don't stop him" or your example of "create water is ruining my there's-no-water adventure". They're the result of lack of creativity, not a broken game.

This isn't the game where the only way over a wall is Climb. If you can't write a story that embraces the abilities of the player characters instead of relying on inabilities, this isn't the game for you to DM in.

Magic shouldn't be unreliable any more than swinging a sword should. Beyond hit & miss, we'd be introducing a "well, you can only make so many attacks a day because if you can just keep swinging every six seconds, you'll break my story, where a few bad guys tire you out!"


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

Amusingly, I'm going to throw out Chaotic Good here.

That's the "do good by whatever means necessary" alignment. It's batman. Remember, killing someone isn't evil. It's illegal. Sure, sure, arbitrarily killing the innocent is evil, but purposefully killing the guilty certainly isn't. In between is purposefully killing the innocent, if needful.

It's evil to kill animals for entertainment, but it's perfectly acceptable to kill them for food. Why is that? Because their death serves a purpose. A greater good. Your ongoing life.

Well, yeah, if you have reached a situation where the only path you can find to stave off great evil is to accept smaller evil, well... you're trying to do Good, and the rules are in the way... so... Chaos time.

Chaotic Good.


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

Here's how I approach Kickstarters:

1} Do I trust the company? If no, do not pledge. If yes, pledge.
2} Do not read the release date.
3} Be pleasantly surprised when awesome products show up.

So far this technique has served me (very) well. I've backed 18 (funded) projects so far, to the tune of just shy of $3,000 USD. 13 have delivered fully. 1 has delivered the electronic copy of the product and is shipping the physical book soon. 2 (including this one) are works-in-progress, releasing slowly and surely. The remaining 2 are video games, one of which is making progress but behind schedule (no, it's not Star Citizen) and the other isn't supposed to be done yet.

So yeah. I don't know when The Blight is supposed to ship. Don't care. As long as it happens, that'll be good enough for me.


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

There's also the inevitable "oh, that's it?" reaction.

It's one thing to say "the Necronomicon is such an evil tome that reading a single word of it will drive a mortal mad". It's entirely another to write the thing. So too would be Iomedae's texts, or any other in-character religious tome or canonically-famous book of poetry or whatever. It's not - ever - going to be divine.

Nothing real can live up to the description capacity of a DM. Which is why we play these imagination games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
whew wrote:
WTF! $21 postage on a $31 order?

I'd just like to take a (not at all) brief moment to reply to this. It's something that gets brought up from time to time and reflects a certain way of looking at things that might benefit from perspective.

If I agree to manufacture and sell you a concrete sphere that is a meter (three feet) in diameter, a reasonable price for that might be... oh... $10. Concrete isn't terribly expensive and once I have a nice mold made, the job should be easy.

So I'm selling you a cement ball for $10.

Only you live on the other side of the planet. It seems obvious that the price you're paying for the concrete ball has zero bearing on what it's going to cost to get the ball to you. I can't fit it in an envelope. I can't stick it in a tiny box. No matter who I use (USPS, UPS, FedEx, Purolator, DHL, or some other courier), the sheer cumbersomeness and weight of the ball makes it clear that it's going to be expensive to ship.

Well. Books aren't balls of concrete. But they're also not single sheets of paper. Shipping companies have complex tables involving dim-weight, the dimensions and weight of a shipment.

But the important take-home here is never link the price of an object to its shipping cost. The price of the item is the price of the item. The price of shipping is something else. Add them together and you've got your total cost of ownership. There's NO reason for either component to be smaller than the other.

Just trying to help you (and anyone else who actually reads this) have perspective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
Ed Gruberman!? I didn't know you had an account here!

Child, you fail to grasp Tai Qwon Leap. Approach the master that you may learn.

But seriously, I wasn't expecting anyone to get the reference, but oddly hopeful. You just made my day.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Marco Massoudi wrote:
So it seems we only get one every two weeks now...

Not the least factor, remember that the release date was pushed back to four months from now. Sixteen weeks of previews isn't going to happen.

Patience is a virtue, Marco.

"Patience, yeah, yeah, how long's that going to take to learn?"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Ckorik wrote:
OK using the 'cook' example - lets say your profession (cook) skill is a 20 (for whatever reason) and the DC is only 10. So even if you roll a 1 - it's going to be the best thing the pirates have ever eaten. You are such a good chef your 'throw it on a plate' and what seems horrible to *you* is 5 star quality for everyone else. You have a problem now - all your training and practice has you at the point where your worst effort is cuisine - and I'd make you roll a profession check in this case to sabotage your efforts - and force yourself to oversalt/etc. with the idea that it's hard for you to do even this - as what you consider 'horrid' is *still* the best food a common person ever ate.

Disagree. The DC to produce a masterful meal might be 10. But what's the DC to produce something that causes food-poisoning if eaten? Maybe 5. When a player says "I try to make something inedible", and they beat the DC of 5, do you - as a DM - turn their specifically-stated result into some grand banquet?

No.

I don't care if the Climb DC for falling off a wall is 0 and you roll a 33. You're falling off the wall if you want to, not "you scale the wall one-handed while juggling baby elephants with your other, and both legs are tied behind your back."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
ChucklesMcTruck wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
Can you give an example? I would think it would be easier to just describe what exactly you intend to do, and try to "succeed" at that.

Let's say you're trying to pretend you're not as good at a skill as you actually are. For example: you're playing in the Wormwood Mutiny and you want to end up as a swab so you have access to certain parts of the ship. But, you've got a pretty good Profession (Cook) skill, so you may accidentally end up as the ship's cook instead if you are forced to roll. You "take 1" on the roll so you intentionally screw it up.

Or, say you're using the Awaken Construct spell on an animated object, but you don't want it to become too smart so it's easier to control. You "take 1" on all the ability rolls and end up with an INT 3 and a CHA 3, which is better for your particular plans.

And so forth. I could probably think of half a dozen other examples but you get the idea.

I have a suggestion for you.

I'd run "appear worse than I am" as opposed rolls. If you're worried someone's going to figure out you know how to cook, you make a Profession(cook) check versus your observers' Profession(cook) checks. If you beat them, you can appear inept. Example: I know how to climb. I do (indoor) rock climbing. I know what newbies look like. I can probably imitate them, but doing so relies on my observations as a climber. So I try to use my climbing skills to look inept. But another experienced climber may notice subtle things I do right that I haven't properly culled from my climbing. If they're better than I am, they detect my ruse.

Using Bluff is... not right, IMHO.

As for the awaken construct situation, I'm a bit befuddled. The spell says you don't control the construct. Your Spellcraft check lets you actually succeed at the spell. The rolls for Intelligence only govern how smart the construct is. You explicitly don't gain control.

Anyway, to answer the question you're trying to ask, I'm pretty sure there is no "take 1" rule because there's no grounds to want or need one.


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

Repeat after me...

"I delay until D's turn ends. And as a free action tell D to get out of my way."


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

This is very similar to the energy missile psionic power. That one is a 3rd-level power, and gets a saving throw for half, but it works against up to 5 targets within 15ft (yes, it's an AoE).

In the psionic version, you have an "active energy type" which requires an action to change, so this is more flexible than the psionic version. Unless you're playing a kineticist psion, the one class and discipline that can change energy types on the fly.

The psionic version also has slightly different damage (or other effects) for different energy types.

While the power is considered a very good one, it isn't broken, so this spell probably isn't either. Probably the reduction in damage for sonic that psionics get wouldn't be a bad house-rule on this spell though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Damon Griffin wrote:
Marco Massoudi wrote:
I also want people to see that these things DO sell out and that they should get them before they do. ;-)
Yeah, I got that. You just seemed...really vested. :)

It's a Marco-ism; his caster has a metamagic rod of maximize player. <Grin>


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

Wow. Endz, is there a softcover version of your review coming? <Grin>

But seriously, one quick clarification for you. The ability you mentioned that reads confusing regarding needing to identify spell effects etc... actually makes sense. You can suppress stuff within 30ft. It doesn't need to be within 30ft when you identify it. So you can identify, move, then suppress. At least that's how I read it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
AdamMeyers wrote:
Do these martial builds get boring, though?

It depends.

Doesn't reading 400 pages of spell descriptions for casters get boring?

See, some people want something simple and reliable, so the most complicated decision they need to make each round is "where should I stand", and they still need someone to help them make that decision. Having classes that are basically "point & shoot" either with melee or range is a good thing because it keeps the game accessible to mellow, uncomplicated players. Having "tier 1" high-narrative-impacting flexible casters is also a good thing, because the player who isn't drunk can be as clever as their own capacity for invention.

So yeah, it depends.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Do those sorts of programs exist?

I don't think so. I mean, to a degree it's just speech-recognition, but the issue is you're actually interlacing two (or more) people talking. You could probably pass a recording through Dragon Naturally Speaking, then clean it up and separate it into individual speakers, but it'd still be a lot of work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Ryan. Costello wrote:
Anguish wrote:

Audio... check.

Video... check.
Transcript...

Thank you for your efforts but this isn't for me.

We'd love to offer transcripts, but that is a beast unto itself. We're limited by our time and budget as volunteers. If you could recommend trustworthy freeware that transcribes audio or video, we'd certainly look into that.

Absolutely, positively not trying to rain on your parade. But that underlines why I personally don't consume podcasts or vidcasts. The time burden is placed on the consumer. I can read a lot faster than you can speak. Pretty much the reason why podcast/vidcast producers don't spend the effort to make transcripts is the reason why I don't consume them. So hey, I'm very, very glad you've got an audience. I'm only posting this to explain why I made the request.

So, to be clear, thank you for what you do.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
Exactly. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it magically go away...

Sorry, but dispel caster/martial disparity is on the cleric and sor/wiz spell lists. There's just no way for martials to mundanely make it go away.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Can we have another bag of devouring? I mean, I could use a change of the avatar once in a decade ;)

You know, personally I'd find it jarring if certain people (you included) suddenly changed avatars. I don't look directly at them, but in a conversation, my peripheral vision hints at identity for me. It's kind of neat how it works.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:

If it's different enough you might like the new game better than Numenera, no?

I mean, I take your point that you'd like a Scifi game created (pretty much) from the PF rules. But if that doesn't happen, it doesn't follow that you won't like the resultant game does it?

For the sake of conversation, no. That's just not how I work. Once I've found a restaurant or two I like, that's where I go. Once I've found a meal or two I like, that's what I order. Once I've found a set of toppings I like, that's what I put on it. But again, that's me.

But another point I've made elsewhere that links in, almost-compatibility is bad (for me) in another way. There are still differences from 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder that the elders in my group occasionally stumble on. I almost never think of non-lethal as subdual damage anymore (a 3.0-ism), but we still struggle to remember that silence is now a one-round casting. I get it that change was made for balance purposes, but since the vast, vast majority of spells are Standard actions and that one used to be, it's difficult to unlearn what we used to KNOW was true. Some things, like changes to Power Attack or grapple rules are easy, because they're completely different. Small changes are... painful.

In closing, some of us play Pathfinder not despite its design idiosyncrasies but because of them.


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

There's also the consideration that the current avatars lend a stylistic consistency to the site that is... rare. As much as I like Megan Fox bent over Bumblebee, I don't really want to see that on an RPG forum. We all know that the moment custom avatars are permitted, that's the kind of thing we'll see (and worse).

Same thing goes for in-line picture embedding and signatures. No thank you.


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

Second Darkness: adventurers discover a secret dark-elf plot to call down a second starstone, ally themselves with surface elves, then learn surface elves are such horrible people that maybe letting the drow destroy life on Golarion is for the best.


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

Wrath of the Righteous: rampaging hordes of demons discover someone has changed the rules on them, literally.


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

Rise of the Runelords: the rightful ruler of a continental empire strugles to escape the prison that has protected him for millenia and return his lands to glory, only to be thwarted by well-intentioned but confused adventurers.

Council of Thieves: a pair of unbalanced siblings explore the boundaries of adulthood and are met with societal disapproval.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Options are nice. Too many rules to memorize or keep track of for a GM...not so nice.

Bloat may be options for some, but for me, I'd like it if they'd tailor things for core and actually use the others as OPTIONS rather than requirements in their APs.

That's the big difference between bloat and options for me. Options are just that, optional. Bloat is where those additional rules are written into APs rather than being optional additions to the AP.

Instead of having as an option to add, a GM has to replace and reconfigure instead if they don't want to use those books.

Which is why Starfinder is looking more interesting to me, at least at first. It's missing all those additional required books to run the AP, or to look up online in order to run it or which you have to change.

APs should be easy to run, and take less time than a homebrew. Instead one can find themselves looking through all the rule books to ensure they know all the rules prior to running the game.

Though the idea for core only PFS and core only games is good, much of the APs still reflect more items than just core (at least up to IG, haven't really glanced through the two latest ones in Cheliax).

Again, I hear you, but arrive at a different destination. I find it annoying when rules exist but are never used. Personally, I want APs to use a wide variety of source books in order to present new challenges. Yes, it's my job to actually read statblocks and research unknown feats and abilities. And yes, I get it that APs are meant to be work-light for GMs. Still, it's not the same thing as work-free. And homebrew is lots of work. While you inherently will know whatever statblocks you create, creating them in the first place is a chore. As is coming up with a coherent and artistic plot.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Trade in my PF sub for several SF subs?

There are no several SF subs to trade in for. They've said they'll release a Core, then everything else will be in the Adventure Paths. So one subscription. Done.

Also, to address all those other words, I'm confident Lisa has more statistics and experience with this than we do. So... I'm going to go ahead to trust her.

Also also, personally I hate bare-bones games. What you refer to as bloat I refer to as "supported". We've tried a couple other systems (for instance Numenara and Eclipse Phase) and neither went anywhere because all there was to use was the basic rules and basic adventure. There was no published material beyond that, and none of us have the time or inclination to create a coherent adventure, and it's kind of lame when the single basic rulebook clearly has one, or possibly two "best" or "most fun" builds, so most characters end up the same. Pathfinder benefits from lots of fiddly bit subsystems, and lots of options to put in them. But to each their own. Which is my point here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Viscount of Two Moons Hence wrote:
You just need a Laser Torch and some Napalm to find the path.

While find the path requires a divine focus, it does not have material components.


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

I get it. But no.

I'm one of those archaic crusty old men who interacts with companies via their web sites, e-mail domains, and phone systems. No Facebook, no Twitter, no MySpaceBlogHypeMegaNurplePurpleZoopieZoombaStatsGathererAdNetworkIntrusionA lienPropeNarcisistNet for me.

Tinfoil hat? Not exactly. I don't desire to socially network. I recognize there's nothing special about me, and nobody wants to know when my last movement was.

So requiring me to use a 3rd-party company known to scavenge every last drop of user information in order to access the latest information regarding your company? Meh.

I'll wait until someone reposts things to here. And if they don't, well, I'll just miss out on whatever. Not the end of the world.

Still had to add my vote for "social networking bad".

1 to 50 of 612 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.