|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Kadasbrass Loreweaver wrote:
I was expecting a secret 8th faction of spies, sneaks, and other people of questionable motives (or just simply dissatisfied with the other factions) to be revealed during Gencon and retroactively added into the Season 6 guide. Something to fill the void left by both the Sczari and the Shadow Lodge
To be honest, you can really go with any faction for that, and I suspect that at least 2, if not 3 of the current factions have a Shadow Lodge backing/influence/partnership. One of them even took a large part of the old symbol.
In my opinion, Burst of Radiance, while a tad bit overpowered due to the range, is pretty much the best, and by that I mean most iconic, most in flavor for a character that is supposed to call down divine wrath, and just outright coolest spell) that paizo has given the Cleric. I might even say the single most awesome thing that paizo has ever done for the Cleric, and I wish that they would do more like it.
I partially agree with Undone, and partially disagree. Magic Vestment, and this is also very true for Greater Magic Weapon as kind of must haves to even make the Cleric viable. It allows the Cleric to get a +1 Armor or Weapon, and then add properties to it, and then use those spells to increase the AC/Att/Damage magical bonus at near the same rate other classes do that don't also have to spend money on things like scrolls to fix other player's conditions. The key here is, and this is the only thing that makes it worth it, is that both spells are measured in hours. (the problem is that most armor and shield properties, well, just suck. They are just far too expensive for the trivial abilities they grant).
Pretty much anything that is a Remove this, Cure that, is extremely circumstantial and can therefor be a wand or scroll. If not one that other character buy to be used on them.
Invisibility Purge can be nice, but with it's casting time and range, it's not nearly as great is it could be. At much higher levels, it's better, so for a 15th-20th level Cleric, it starts to come into it's own.
Blindness targets basically the best save that an enemy you most want to use it on is likely to have, and it's an all or nothing spell. So as most Clerics tend to have crappy DCs, it's usually not great.
Prayer, while nice, is also one of those spells that A.) doesn't stack with a great many things, and B.) due to it's area, tends to (rightfully so) piss off DM's more than it's actually the fairly minor benefit it grants.
Even going back to the 3.0 boards, certain entire spell levels of the Cleric list have had major issues. 3.5 was able to fix this by all the splat books, but Paizo has really dropped the ball.
Honestly, I'm a bit confused that we still don't have an answer to this, the Faction change issue, the Tech Guide issue, and the like sine before Gencon.
I just mean it's kind of odd that we haven't really even seen something like "We know and are looking into it", rather than "drop everything and do it now".
I dont hate WotC, and outside of Age of Worms, could mostly care less about APs. None of them really catch me, though I will admit, destroying House Thrune (and maybe Cheliax if we are really lucky) and fighting Giants has got my attention.
In my opinion, Golarion as a setting is a bit meh, so its not the setting either. I hope one day they do another fantasy setting that throws all of Golarions basic assumptions out the window, personally.
In the end, I play Pathfinder because I liked 3E. Id actually play 3.5 over PF if I could. 4E, after playing for a while, I found just too lite and well, boring. It just wasnt for me. From what Ive seen of 5E, its looking like it might go the same way. Just not for me. Ill give it an honest go, but I dont plan on investing in it before hand like I did with 4th. If I play and turn out to like it, its a different story.
If PF 2E abandons the 3E system, I most likely will not continue. Which is ok. It will just no longer be something Im interested in. I do think you underestimate how many people like the d20 system or went to PF not because they hated 4E or WotC, or because they liked the APs, but just because they wanted to continue playing 3.5. It wasnt that WotC dared to make 4E, it was that they turned on their own fan base and condemned 3.5 fans when they tried to push 4E as such a superior game.
Im not interested in rules lite or mostly narrative games. Just not. They are not engaging enough, not satisfying, in my opinion.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Shouldnt that apply to every sort of trap they have never specifically encountered before?
Gabriel Smith-Dalrymple wrote:
Not really. Let's look at mathematics:
I think you took my response out of context. The idea presented was that, as a logical explanation for the Feat and Skills change, it makes sense that a character that has never seen a robot or technology should have a penalty to rolls interacting with it. But, by that logic, unless a character has specifically interacted with a given type of trap, dragon, golem, or whatever, shouldn't they then also take that same penalty?
It also falsely assumes that technology and robots and stuff are rare, unique, and unknowable, (but wait what if my character is from Numeria or whatever), but that other things in the setting, lets say Dragons, (which according to the setting are extremely rare), which is covered by the Know Arcana skill, any character with 1 Rank in Know Arcana has a chance to know every fact about a dragon that there is. But it's a robot, something that's probably not as rare as an actual dragon, and for some reason, they can't use their skills, which are intended to be non-specific in application.
But, if that's the logic, then shouldn't a character that wants to use Disable Device on a trap they have never themselves encounter, then take a -5 penalty and not count as having the right tool for the job too? Well, unless they take a Feat that lets them get around that?
Well, some folks think a New Editions means something more like from 3E to 4E where it's a completely new game that would also invalidate the vast majority of setting material, forcing you to rebuy everything, while others take a new edition to simply mean an update to the existing system.
Others think that a new edition in a few years is a good idea, while others think that one far off day might be ok, but not now. When you do a yes/no sort of Poll, it leaves a lot of things in the middle, and gives odd results.
So, for me personally, the category I would say yes to would be the one that said "YES, a new edition that did not invalidate other material, but updated some of the core systems, fixed things that are most commonly discussed issues (on these boards) such as Alignment, Paladin Codes, Fighter/Monk/Rogue/Cleric/Monk/Monk/Monk/Fighter/Monk/Rogue, Reach, etc. . ., but did not require someone to rebuy the Inner Sea World Guide or Bestiary's , well maybe 2-4, but not Bestiary 1, didn't require any single AP to need to be reprinted, (well if we can get Age of Worms non-Golarion edition, that's just a win for everyone, rpger or not that makes the world a better place, because lets face it, it's the absolute best AP Paizo has ever created, not that RotRL crap they keep pushing), and if they literally started today, even without a public playtest, (regardless of your or my personal opinion of them based of the ACG), it wouldn't be our until likely 2016 at the earliest, thus giving the PF Unchained, (but not PF Unearthed) book plenty of chances to fail to be what we actually wanted (damn it, did I say that out loud) to do it's thing, as well as everyone the chance to play through the AP that b!*%~slaps Cheliax and House Thurne or whatever, and fixed some of the few issues that 3E as a system sort of created", my answer is that one. But if particular aspects of that are not true, my answer might be no. But, that exact option was not presented in the Poll.
There politely disagreeing and then there shouting people down so they don't get heard while telling them to go elsewhere. Which happened during the playtest of the core. Which I don't want to see happen again. In a playtest everyone should be heard. Not a very select few very vocal posters. I'm surprised that you would think it was a bad thing.
I think that the problem with that idea that they are sort hinting at is that everyone is going to have a different idea on who "those people" are. So it sounds great in theory, but in practice it's basically just using a different method to over shout other people whose ideas one might not agree with.
Absolutely. Along with what Rynjin said, with every new book that comes out, a lot of the core classes/feats/etc. . . just start to really show their age. The Cleric needs a Class Feature face lift so that we can start having some good archtypes for it, and the spell list has been pretty wonky since 3.0 changed it to a 9th level spell list.
The Paladin class could really use another looking at with their "less restrictive code of ethics".
I don't actually agree, but a lot of people still complain about the Fighter, Monk, and Rogue.
It's really something that has been needed for some time, in my opinion, and the longer that it's postponed, the worse and worse the issues are going to be.
There are also a lot of issues in the base system that could probably use a some fixing, (like 4+Int skill points min, Good/Medium/Poor saves, CMB/CMD not being that great a system after all, Light and Darkness, Reach, etc. . .
Basically, it's long past time for the Core material to get the APG treatment, and there is a lot of fat to trim, and too many cracks to band aid over.
Well crusaders flurry makes you get effectively full BAB for deities favored weapon anyway.
What I mean is, it basically replaces rather than fixes the Warpriest. I meant it to fall somewhere between sarcasm and humor. :P
One of my biggest questions is why in the infinite hells is extra fervor not a feat?
Well, the Warpriest was taking up too much room in the book between Feats, the Archtypes, special gear, and new spells, and they really needed to cut back so some other classes like the Brawler, Arcanist, and Swashbuckler, got a little page space, too. Again, sarcasm
I think you probably need to look at it from a different way. From the player's side, Darkness is annoying (and I mean players, not characters). It's not fun. There should have been plenty of time for you to use it against them earlier, and well most of the first part of the AP, and now that they have gotten to a point that they can overcome that, you want to rob them of that? Just like everything else, it's a spell or ability that just doesn't work so well after a few levels.
To me that really comes off as terrible DMing, and by that I mean it sounds like the intent is to be DM vs the party rather than Dm and the party (and if that's not the case, than ignore) . Enemies should not always have the advantage, and it would probably be pretty dang cool if for a while, you played the enemies like they probably should, have them burn actions/spells or whatever and try to make Darkness, only to find out their Plan A doesn't work.
Something else to keep in mind, is that Darkness is a Level 2 Wiz/Cleric spell, while Continual Flame is a Level 2 Wizard, Level 3 Cleric spell.
Unless the party's Cleric/Oracle is making the Everburning Torch, it defaults to the Wizard Level 2 version, which means that Darkness does affect it. "Magical light sources only increase the light level in an
However, if you just want to make Darkness work anyway, because you want to screw over the party, then there is absolutely no reason to have Continual Flame in the game, and I'm pretty sure your Cleric/Oracle player is going to feel pretty gipped.
No offense, but have you ever seen a Magus in play? It's nowhere near underpowered.
People might be misunderstanding/misrepresenting the healing.
They do have an ability to regenerate, but it's 4 HP/HOUR. They also each have a 1/day ability to heal another <creature> for 4d6 or themselves for 24 HP.
Disarming them, (totally possible, not particularly easy or hard) is totally an option, and one that significantly drops their damage threat.
They are weak against Crits, too, and with a wopping +1 Fort, there is a great chance they will be boned from a crit, even if it doesn't do a lot of actual damage. Also, they are affected regardless of if they save or not, it's just cool or amazing.
There is no tactics given, but the scenario implies that they guard the front door, so it's completely possible that they would not follow the party that tactically retreated (to grab some extra prep items like a potion of Energy Resistance, better weapons, swap out spells, wands and scrolls, etc. . .), or saw that they might not win and just started to run past them?
It's a difficult, but far from extreme encounter, (though for whatever reason seems designed to make the typical Magus shine like they don't already).
Now, that being said, it might be a good idea for the low tier to offer an option to for parties that will have too much trouble to encounter versions that only have Hardness 5.
That seems to be the general consensus from what I can tell, (I agree). Its basically just a worse form of fighty Cleric.
I have a few in PFS that I have not gotten to play yet, out side of a few small test runs. I really, really notice the lose of Attack Mod, which is leading me to regret my builds, (just using a straight Playtest version to Final version update until we get clarification).
They didn't fix skill points/class skills, didn't give anything to the Warpriests that use the war deity's favored weapon that doesn't benefit from the extra damage, didn't give any Warpriest spells, didn't really help much with the action economy, and kept Sacred Weapon and Armor incredibly short durations. There is also a very noticeable lack of toys for them, in the form of gear, new feat options, (extra freakin Fervor), and the divine/cleric spells are just almost universally terrible from what I have seen so far. It's pretty clear that no one that wrote the book liked this class or really wanted to touch it more than they where probably forced to. <my opinion/observation, only>
DM Beckett wrote:
None of this really makes the PF Cleric or Druid anything like a Codzilla. Allow me to share a few bits of a quote from 2008 I think really sums the whole sort of online urban legend that was the codzilla.
“CoDzilla is a largely mythical beast. It is known to roam the Internet and the Character Optimization boards. On occasion, a particularly careless DM may enable one to exist at a table, but this is rare.“
“CoDzilla feeds on splatbooks, nightsticks, and indulgent DMs.
All of the spells have as well as the class itself has been so nerfed, and the Prestige Classes, Variant Classes, Magic Items, Feats, and magic items required do not exist in PF. Druids can not utilize the same tricks, which largely relied on dumping all physical stats and walking around in ridiculous splatbook forms once they could Wild Shape with full spellcasting and gear, and at most just needed to change into a new form to overcome whatever challenge they might need circumstantially.
I'm 99% certain your #5 is also wrong, and it was Monte Cook, from 3.0 stating that they "slightly" needed to buff the Cleric, because no one wanted to be stuck playing the Cleric, (something that has always been, and continues to be true to a large degree). The Cleric has always been a highly defensive class, with some of the best Saves in the game (outside of things like the Paladin). This was done because what happens when the Cleric gets hit with things like Charm/Dominate/death? It generally leads very quickly to a TPK as there is no one there to heal the Cleric or fill their shoes to buff and heal everyone else. One of the major things that entailed was to allow <force> the Cleric to be able to spontaneously cast cure spells and give it things like Spellcraft and Know Arcana as class skills. This was done because 3E material was designed with the assumption of a party of 4 with a Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard as far as WBL, Encounter Design, Treasure, etc. . . with a little room to swap out things, but none of the other classes could really fill the role of the Cleric very well, which was essentially that of a secondary character that bordered on travelling NPC run by a player.
Not digging the new Faction symbols. Darkives in particular, all about uncovering hidden knowledge and their symbol is burning books??? Liberty's Edge, is very, very "meh". Not sure what the Sovereign Court has to do with their symbol? It sort of seems mix of the newer Andoran faction symbol and something that suggests Tian Xia.
I dont have the book yet, but Clerics, Druids, Inquisitors, and Warpriests are already pretty MAD, and Clerics and Druids Feat starved. Dont see a lot of Rangers going for it. So might not be that bad, depending on what it actually does. Oracles on the other hand, I really hope are not allowed to have it. They seem the only real problem here.
And honstly, Id be much more worried if they DID make a more open Dex to Damage Feat, because that would be stupidly broken.
Except that either way, everyone is eating the same thing. It is not the case at all that those that like them mixed get both while everyone else just gets either peanut butter or pepperoni as they like. Its all or nothing. So I guess your just not seeing the point is that in trying to say you don't want others to mandate what you can play, you are instead mandating what is played. Your acting like other people are stepping stopping your personal game, rather than it being everyone's game. But I'm starting to get the feeling this is going nowhere.
I never said it was something new, nor am I painting any sort of picture about other people's preferences. What I did say is that, based on what I have heard various Paizo devs say on the subject, specifically on Numeria and sci-fi technology elements, (currently and going back to the 3.5 days), is that it seems the fans of those in PF are the vocal minority, and its clearly one of those things that most people either love or hate. Tends to be one or the other with fewer people in the middle.
If you feel its a bad analogy, please feel to explain why, and once again, note that it wasn't my analogy. I think its better than the peanut butter & chocolate as that implies that most people like the two things they represent (classic fantasy and sci-fi), which is probably not correct, and also implies that by mixing them, we get something that many/most find even better than the individual parts, again probably not so true with fantasy and sci-fi. Not really sure from that how you took away that your personal preference is bad/wrong/disgusting/anomalous?
However, if your interested in people bashing others views and preferences, try rereading this thread a few pages back. Its filled with it against those that didn't like things like Tian Xia, 'cause all those people are just stupid and stuff. How dare they not like what you (general) do, or even worse, actively not like what you (again general you) like and feel it ruins their game to some degree.
Wasnt my analogy, I was just giving my personal preference with the one given. More for the sake of arguement than anything as Im enjoying the conversation and its off topic jumps.
But I guess thats the kicker. Especially in PFS like games, its either all or nothing. That is, if only one person wants pepperoni, the way it works is everyone has to eat it so that one can get pepperoni. Great for the guy/gal that wants peanut butter pepperoni, but but detracts from those that dont.
My understanding, which may be wrong, but especially with Numeria, is that there is a very vocal but very minority group that keeps talking about it, while the majority of fans would rather it and the technology level sort of fade away and not be expanded upon. Thats also a big reason that its taken so long for it to happen (this has been going on since 3.5 days), is that its so much of a love/hate topic.
Nah, if you like peanut butter (dinosaurs) and also like pepperoni (bomber planes) mixing them together does make chocolate, it makes peanut butter pepperoni sandwiches. A person might like peanut butter pepperoni sandwiches, which is fine, and might even like them better than something else entirely (chocolate).
Some people have tried it and want more, others have tried a taste and know enough from that to want to avoid it at all costs. The thing is really where you stand (you general, not specifically you). Do you want to force other people to scrape off what they dont like or do you want to force others to put on the extras after the communal sandwich is made?
Personally, without much of a horse in this, Id rather people add their pepperoni on to their sandwiches, as I dont really want it. Just as its been said "you dont like it, dont use it", I think its better all around to instead say "you want it, make it up and add it into your game".
From a PFS perspective, I find Tien Xia focused material very unappealing. Im not really interested in running most of those scenarios, or playing them, but if its between playing that or nothing, Ill generally go ahead and play. Same with Numeria, though actually with Numeria Ill probably sit it out, depending on how much focus is on those themes and location. One, its just not really fun or interesting to me. And two, there are so many other cool things we have only barely touched on, in and out of PFS, and Im much more interested in those. There are like 2 Scenarios in Ustalav. I think only 1 in Galt. A handful in other planes (not countimg the Hoa Jin Tapestry). A few in the Lands of the Linormkings. Id much rather see more of these than, and this is just my preference, things like Numeria.
HP: 52/52, +5 Init, +14 Perception, F: +7, R: +5, W: +8, AC: 21, T: 14, FF: 17, CMD: 20 , HP: 25/27, DV 18 <16>, OM +8 <+10, +12 vs unmounted>, Speed: 3, Moral +2
I'll go ahead and move in and engage Cultists 5, before the other army of cultists can tag team Ruprecht and/or I. Gathering my knights, Here is our plan. Silver Talon (Left flank) and Shadow Talon (right flank), wedge formation and hold back just a little. Empire Talon, Your are going to ride straight in, also wedge formation. Just before you engage, swing right and ride hard through their lines. Shadow Talon is right behind you to follow up. Ride straight through. Do not stop. Swig around and ride through again. Break their line. Silver Talon. They will expect you to hook and flank. Don't. Cross through from the left and ride hard, cavalry charge right between Empire and Shadow Talons, hitting them and ride through.
Letting the plan sink in, as well as the realization that the time for blood is now, "The time has come, for your nobility and might to be brought to bare. We are going to attack hard and fast, and hold until the job is done. Many of you follow the teachings of Iomedae or perhaps Gorum. I am told both have taken a keen interest in this. Watching what transpires here. And among you followers of certain Empyreal lords, who also have a stake in this. I know Ol' Dead Eye, crafter of the first weapons, who gave us the knowledge and skills so that we might defend ourselves is also well pleased that we have chosen to fight against the darkness. Way I hear it, Iomedae and Gorum have a wager going, to see just whose faithful in our army can strike the deepest blows. On whose lance can pierce the hart of the enemy's commander. I don't know about you, but I'm interested in seeing myself. . ."
Riding his Owlbear down the line, seeing that many of his army have been gathered from different groups. Some are faithful, others secular knights, some more mercenary, he calls out while riding, "You all know that in battle the man or woman to you left, to your right, and behind you is your brother. Is your sister. And has your back. No matter what. We all have our creeds and our calls to battle. For me, "I DO THIS FOR TALDOR!!!" But, as one, as we charge forth into the belly of the dragon, "FOR THE LIVING!!!"
"I can't hear you. And that means the enemy can't hear you. For the living!!!"
"Stay as one until you are close. Now lets roll out."
GM Lamplighter wrote:
People ask, "Why ban them at all?" For the same reason we banned the synthesist summoner and most other "banned" items in the last round - aasimar and teiflings are mechanically better than EVERY other option.
Thing is, they really are not. People keep thinking they are even after it was disproven, or try to use the Race Building Guidelines without realizing how inaccurate they are. Aasimar and Tiefling, (and it seems that few can agree on which one is the bigger culprit) are a bit stronger at level 1, but that doesn't last long at all, and tend to actually be weaker by level 3 onwards. Now, that said, I think everyone can agree that the Blood of book options, particularly the alternate heritages is too good, but only because it allows for the tailoring of specific ability score combos. But really, most of the spell-like abilities and resistances just are not that great.
But, like you said, I would be fine with a single +2, or even a +2/+2/-2. And even dropping the Resistances and Spell-Like Ability. I'd also be fine with only banning the extra heritages, which honestly seems like the best option. I think I've played 4 Aasimar in PFS, and I honestly can't think more than a handful of times Daylight/Darkness has really even been used outside of just flavor. Too many players go for Wayfinders, Darkvision, Low-Light Vision, or a 0 level Light spell most of the time, and Darkness tends to hurt the party much more than most enemies. I do have an Aasimar that 1/scenario grants another player a single personalized EBT, but big wow, and even that is more for flavor, as in PFS it's a bit of a grey area if you can legally purchase one that it's a default torch. And a 75gp Ioun Torch is infinitely better anyway which anyone can get at level 1 after a 1st scenario.
Flavor wise, of the idea is to return to Tien Xia in a major way, and with the total break from Cheliax with the Darkive, it also just makes no sense. Seems like plenty of Tieflings wanting to escape oppression from Cheliax (or the Worldwound) would find a welcome home in the PFS, and well, there is a major nation in Tien Xia of Aasimar. Sorry, to me, this really just smacks of a few DMs with the leaderships ear that complained (squeaky wheel style), and ruined it for everyone else. Might be wrong, but that's, to me, how the announcement sort of sounds.
Really, I think a lot of people overstate the Aasimar and Tiefling bit. For me, its purely flavor that I like Aasimar. So they do apeal to different crowds, but I wouldn't say its any division like RPers vs Power Gamers or anything. And the fact of the matter is, Aasimar and Tieflings are actually a bit subpar past level 2 or so. Optimizers realize that, with exceptions.
The thing about Kitsune is they just beg to be "unique little snowflake" characters. The kind thats all about RP (as long as its about them and how cool/special they are and the spotlights on them).
Well, that's kind of the rub. On the one hand, it is kind of a wasted class feature for most Warpriests that should even be Warpriests thematically until much higher level. It's a major factor in the "Warpriests are too good and need to loose something" idea, but that really only applies to those Warpriests that don't really have a warrior type patron. And on the other hand, it gives them a class feature that A.) not even straight Fighters get and B.) is going to make armored Warpriests with Brass Knuckles as their chosen weapon make Monks cry, (or other such kind of ridiculous ideas).
Throughout the Playtests, the Blessings kept on coming up, and we even had an entire thread devoted to the many issues with the individual Blessings, as well as the concept as a whole (does the Good Blessing overcome DR/Evil?). The preview doesn't really give us any practical clues if and how Blessings where fixed, and shows us one that's questionable at best, while also hyping us fans of the class up by showing how much of the stuff we (in general) tended to like. Obviously everyone's got different preferences, and that's fine. I's just the take away I get from a lot of people. Compare the Warpriest preview to the others, kind of tune out the typical fanboy/girl responses, and it seems like all the others are just awesome previews.
Personally, I would think the best option would be to have GM Star Replays renew each year on Jan 01st. Or at east maybe 1 - 2 of them. 3 and 5 GM Stars (or maybe 4-5?), might work well as a special Con Boon, allowing those GMs that go to Cons to still get a reward that they are more likely to need anyway, but allowing everyone else to still be rewarded for DMing.
If it's on Jan 1, for one it's a hard date, and it allows DM's that go to large conventions to plan for using their stars nearer the end of the Reset date, and also to start to use them for a good bit of the next season as well. Particularly on the newer scenarios that a lot of players are going to want to get into, (likely the newest 1-5s and 3-7s), continuing to reward all DMs for DMing for others and not playing themselves.
I personally also feel that this should not be a "lets reward Con-goers at the expense of everyone else" sort of deal. This is not something I would like to receive for going to a Con or GameDay or whatever, but it is something I would like to be able to use for being the main DM in my local area and for all the online games I run. I still think that (at least a limited) automatic reset is the best option for everyone. I'm holding back my stars just because there are things I specifically want to replay, but as I usually GM now, they have not come up and well, I'm usually the GM. When I do play, I have enough characters that I can usually help make nearly any party, but I would rather get no credit for most scenarios than use my Star Replays at this point, not knowing for sure that certain scenarios I want another crack at may then be out of reach. I want another go at Midnight Mauler (story) and In Wrath's Shadow (chronicle Item), for instance. I'd also love to have a single character with all of the Blakros Museum scenarios (but not Blakros non-museum), including the coming Season 6 one, which is probably going to require one of my mostly unplayed DM credit characters to fit all the levels in and be legal.
@ Cire: I absolutely disagree. I actually find the Pathfinder Society to be stupid, while the Factions are much more interesting, and would honestly rather ditch the PFS as anything but a minor background element, and shouldn't even be a major one compaired to others, (just there to give players an "in" into the game).
But thats my opinion. For the purposses of the poll, I think "option 4" is probably better as Option 3 (which should probably be more along the lines of "I dont care either way, for whatever reason".
No, it's a way to remind you that Diplomacy requires you to talk to people for a whole minute before you can even roll, and that doesn't happen if you say "Hi", and they start swinging. :)
Action: Using Diplomacy to influence a creature's attitude takes 1 minute of continuous interaction. Making a request of a creature takes 1 or more rounds of interaction, depending upon the complexity of the request. Using Diplomacy to gather information takes 1d4 hours of work searching for rumors and informants.
Because a lot of people had high hopes for the class, but are not liking what we are seeing. While it might be too late to change the book, a fact of life is that people are going to argue the most about/for the things they like the most. Wait and see isnt helpful if what people do see is not what they are looking for. If you like what you see, great. No one is mad that you seem to be getting what you want.