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

BigDTBone's page

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber. 1,459 posts (1,472 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. 2 wishlists. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,459 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

How does "charge" being listed as a "special attack" not prove it is an attack?

How is any other option "better supported by the rules?"


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
zylphryx wrote:

Not really. You just open the floor up to full thread deletion for controversial topics. And instead of having to flag each post, someone who is vehemently against topic XYZ would only need to get enough folks to flag the first post and the entire thread disappears.

If you really want to reduce the amount of spam in a forum, one really needs to incorporate captcha (be it traditional, math based, etc.). However, this is something I believe Gary has said they would avoid implementing.

It could be limited to threads which only have 1 post.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
andreww wrote:

It very much depends on the DC you are getting on Ball Lightning. I would go with Arcane bloodline for the extra +2 for School Power and make sure to use Persistent Dazing Ball Lightning. I would apply one with a Rod or Staff of the Master Necromancer to allow you to Heighten it a bit as well to squeeze some more DC's. I might be inclined to use Time Stop after the Quickened Disjunction in order to drop multiple dazing Balls on him.

Instead of Form of the Dragon I would use Shapechange. FoTD duration is really really short, Shapechange is 10 minutes/level. Your key issue is winning initiative. I am not sure if the Duelling Cestus works as you may have to be wielding it in the same way as the defending property got the shaft. You have an excellent chance of winning initiative between +15 or so from Noble Scion, 2 from Reactionary and 4 from a familiar.

Overall not a bad way of doing it. His reflex defence is clearly his weak spot and Dazing Spell exploits it quite effectively. Dazing him does however trigger his Contingency so you really need to get rid of it. You might have to risk blowing the walls then hitting the dragon with a disjunction/dazing ball lightning in round 1. The odds of success are good though assuming a ball lightning DC somewhere around 36. Add in a limited wish to reduce his first save by 7 as well.

You can't use attack spells in a time stop.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Rite Publishing wrote:
Craig Bonham 141 wrote:


Wow, that is awesome you all are creating so much. Good luck with all that. I was just writing about something I would like to see and purchase. But I realize just because I want something doesn't mean that there is enough of a market out there for that item to be created.

Well, thanks for what you have created so far.

Don't let what I post get you down, what I need to here from is more people who want stuff for the Divine Channeler. So that it makes me go, hey all these people want this, I should make it.

So don't give up on beating your drum :)

I HAVE A DRUM

BANG BANG BANG!

Subdomain Channeling Please :D


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
To prevent folks from abusing the auto removal against posters they simply disagree with, the auto-remove could be limited to first-post-in-thread and then also delete the thread.

Whilst I agree the abuse is a risk, I dont think it's that great a deal is it? I mean it would be visible to Paizo and easy enough to reverse (no harder than what they have to do now anyway).

I'm presuming they can still see deleted posts and that "delete" actually means "dont let non-staff see it".

I don't particularly see it as a big risk either, but if I understand the way the site is constructed correctly (and admittedly, that is a BIG if) then adding a must=post#1 line into the script wouldn't be very difficult and would prevent almost all conceivable possibilities of abuse. At the same time it would help to allay any fears that posters might have about being ganged up on.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

To prevent folks from abusing the auto removal against posters they simply disagree with, the auto-remove could be limited to first-post-in-thread and then also delete the thread.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
137ben wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
P33J wrote:

Imagine we did this to a Wizard or Caster, and maybe something will click in those who say "oh, but a fighter gets them every level":

Spells have prerequisites.

Want to cast Fireball? You must have taken Burning Hands.

Want to cast Summon Monster IV? You need to have taken Summon Monster I, II & III; and a Charisma of 13, to apply the appropriate strength of personality over it.

Black Tentacles? You need to have taken Web and the Tentacles CMB is based on your STR.

Now, we do all that, and we put a hard limit on how many spells you can have in your book per level, because fighter's don't get to carry around a book that lets them change feats every day (well there is a magic item for 7500g that lets them, but it's only 1 feat).

Now, the Wizards aren't going to be real thrilled about this, and rightfully so, it's asking too much of their character, it's forcing them to be focused on a spell chain to get that one spell they really want.

Guess what, Fighter's have to do that all the time, but instead of fixing it, we get told "you have so many feats".

I want to favorite this post like 87 times.
There's a feat which allows you to favorite a post multiple times. It has 26 prerequisites, none of which synergize with it, however. But that's okay, you get feats for every level of Forum Poster, so stop complaining!

Unfortunately I didn't plan my build around that feat (it was released in a later supplement) and I already have 1400 post xp. Too bad Paizo won't let me reroll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
trollbill wrote:
Rapanuii wrote:

To answer your question bluntly, no it wouldn't have hurt anything, but rather would have made the table WAAAY better. My results on my roll got people excited, then I'm told I failed. It was a bummer for others as well as me.

This dude isn't trying to cheat or be a jerk, but rather he honestly feels so strongly that he's right to modify things and that he needs to protect this demon. He is telling me in a way to break my character to auto succeed with intimidate and hurt the game for others, or never use this skill. This creates munchkins or makes players leave pfs.

Maybe I missed something but I was under the impression that the GM made this ruling for the sake of fun. If that is the case then it seems there is a miscommunication about fun at the table that should be worked out with a good old fashioned sit down with the GM. Just remember that it is everyone's fun we are talking about, not just one player's and not just the GM.

At this point I am in agreement with everyone else that there is nothing more to be gained on this thread. It is time to get offline and deal with the situation in real life.

The miscommunication is people reading into the OP what isn't there and making straw men arguments about social skills. None of which come close to the question asked by the OP. Now folks, like yourself, have decided that the reactionaries in this thread MUST have had the right of it and are jumping on the band wagon griping at the OP.

The OP has repeatedly addressed this level of gross and willful misreading of his posts and has very politely told those folks he is getting annoyed and to cut it out, several times.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Objectively, as you like to say, is your argument working?

In order to allow what you've said happened, as far as the information we have, we would have to allow someone shouting for surrender from the door of a cavern to intimidate the big bad into coming out. That might not be what you're trying to do, but your exact same logic would say that that's allowed.

The argument seems to be whether someone can nerf the raw intimidate or if they have to cancel any table you show up at just to prevent what you insist should work.

NEITHER is a very good result for you.

Being "friendly" is not surrendering. I know that would not voluntarily let a friend of mine attack me with a sword, take my stuff, or put me in handcuffs. Those things are beyond what someone acting "friendly" will do.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Mark Stratton wrote:
Rapanuii wrote:
How often is everyone having fun during a tpk?
How is the related to this topic? Are you suggesting that a successful use of Intimidate would prevent a TPK?

How are baby tieflings scaring off giant red dragons related to this conversation?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Because you along with nearly everyone else on this forum spent 3 pages second guessing, accusing, and shaming the op without knowing anything about his build and blatantly ignoring his accounts of what happened at the table. Spent those 3 pages telling him he was wrong about the rules because you dont like how they work and then when someone finally got you to stop and realize that you were wrong then you turn it and say "well, technically I'm wrong but you shouldn't play the game that way."

When that got shown to be wrong it turned into "well some people might do crazy stuff that you aren't doing so therefore you role-play bad."

It's really really aggravating to read and I'm not even the OP!


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

You should watch 300 and then tell me that a war chief surrounded by his army can't be intimidated by one man. You are wrong . A good check is a good check. The limit is your imagination and that isn't the players fault.

I also find it very interesting that you are saying other people are min-maxers or hate fluff when you are so closed minded to those role-playing opportunities.

When the man is the King of Sparta, and a legend in his own right, the implication is that he's of a high amount of hit dice and comes by his Intimidate check naturally.

A 7th level dude is not the King of Sparta, and saying that it lacks imagination to say that a level 7 dude should not be able to make a 17 Hit Die Huge Dragon run in fear, is insulting to everyone's intelligence.

Now if you had a 14 to 20 Hit Die King of Sparta, then yeah, that Dragon may just be intimidated by him. Maybe he's intimidated before the King of Sparta even makes his check.

Its about the ratio of effect, not whether a human could do it at all.

The only way to get a level 7 character to succeed on a demoralize check against the Huge Red Dragon is if you create a caricature instead of a character.

That isn't imagination, that's just using the rules to win. If that's how you have fun, have at it.

But lets not misrepresent what's actually happening in that situation.

Ok, that's all well and good and fine and whatever. You have accepted that the OP isn't doing this.

You're off topic. Take it to the home brew forum if you feel the need to continue discussing it.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chevalier83 wrote:

Rapanuii: This is a public forum. If you dislike people expressing their opinion in a public forum, don't visit one. PFS is a public game. If you don't like people disagreeing with you, don't play it. Neither PFS nor this forum is about you. It's about consensus and getting along with each other and I feel you have a problem with that.

Regarding the reading comprehension part: Yes, mechanically, Xerxes would be your b$*%$. However I would not allow this at my table, because I don't like that scene. Get it now?

Then you shouldn't GM PFS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chevalier83 wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

You should watch 300 and then tell me that a war chief surrounded by his army can't be intimidated by one man. You are wrong . A good check is a good check. The limit is your imagination and that isn't the players fault.

I also find it very interesting that you are saying other people are min-maxers or hate fluff when you are so closed minded to those role-playing opportunities.

Yeah, Xerxes was clearly acting friendly and intimidated after Leonidas intimidated him successfully. Maybe that's why he sent his army and had them all killed.

And the limit is never the imagination. The limit is the question whether the group has fun or not. And when I'm feeling, that an action by a player spoils the fun for the rest of the group, the action won't work. On an unrelated note: if I feel that something is fun for everyone, but I don't find a mechanical reference for it, I may allow it nonetheless.

You mean like when he offered to make him warlord if all Greece?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

You should watch 300 and then tell me that a war chief surrounded by his army can't be intimidated by one man. You are wrong . A good check is a good check. The limit is your imagination and that isn't the players fault.

I also find it very interesting that you are saying other people are min-maxers or hate fluff when you are so closed minded to those role-playing opportunities.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chevalier83 wrote:

The second a character starts a hostile action, I let them roll initiative. And casting a charm monster is definitely that.

Furthermore, there is a severe difference between spells and skills: skills can be used all day long and the bonuses can very easily be exploited. A 8th level PC would probably never be able to charm a Balor with a +25 Will save. A 27 (-4 on the check due to size) on an intimidate check is far easier to accomplish though.

E.g. +3 Skill Focus, +4 Cha, +3 Class Skill, +4 Intimidating Prowess, +8 Ranks makes a +22 before items, giving a chance of over 50% even before magic items. Does this mean I let this character attitude shift intimidate all NPCs in an adventure? Heck, no!

So it is a "this isn't magic" thing.

Plus the character in your example took 2 feats and spent half his skill points on that. Why shouldn't he be able to move the attitude of the Belor towards friendly? Oh, and a trait. fighters don't get it as a class skill.

And why not let them attitude shift using intimidate? It would get really problematic really quickly after people fell out of being "persuaded"


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Blackbloodtroll wrote:
A Wizard ends an encounter, with a single spell, or a Barbarian, with a single swing of a sword, and no one blinks an eye.

The barbarian can miss, the monster can save vs. the wizard. The complaint against one use of intimidate is that you pretty much CAN"T miss the roll: the dcs are so easy that its autowin with a very minimal investment. Strict raw, everything that's not immune is just going to wet itself and surrender to you even if you roll a 1.

(and people do complain about slumber hex happy witches)

Quote:
Now, one uses words, to not even end, but to contribute to the encounter, and frothy bile spews forth from the mouths of the masses.

Cormegon smash et all should work on most things. Instawin intimidate not so much.

Since when does the shaken condition make you wet yourself and surrender? Is that errata?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chevalier83 wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Chevalier83 wrote:
He was trying to change the attitude of a demon with intimidation. And people are making comparisons to illustrate a point. Just because a character works mechanically by "RAW", doesn't mean it is a fun or good thing to do. And if a character destroys an adventure because "it is the build", I am going to stop that at my tables.
He was using a skill check to impose a debuff condition. That's how the game works. Get off your righteous high horse.

To quote myself from Page 2:

Quote:
Usually I would allow a demoralize check for most opponents since you sacrifice a standard action. Furthermore the game impact is not as severe as in the first example.

However, he had 2 examples, one being to change the attitude of a hostile (?) demon by applying intimidation. And I'm not on a righteous high horse, I'm simply saying that I don't think, that this is a scene I would like to have in my adventure.

@ Rapanuii: Roleplaying adventures are about imagination. To the most, fluff is more important than pure mechanical rules. Yes, you are probably right in your statement about the rules. However, I feel that the action (for BigDTBone: the attitude shift, not the demoralization attempt) destroys the atmosphere of the encounter and can understand the GM and would have probably done the same. And this has nothing to do with "it's not magic".

Really? You would cry the same foul if someone had cast charm monster?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

He isn't doing that though. He isn't trying to scare off the BBEG and keep everyone at the table from having glory and treasure. He is trying to use the intimidate skill to impose the shaken condition. He is debuffing. Does that -2 on rolls against the party really ruin all the fun for everyone at the table? Does that diminish the challenge so greatly that the DM might as well just hand over he chronicle sheet and tell everyone to piss off?

I don't think so at all. It sounds like the GM in question is opposed to using a social skill to gain a mechanical advantage. Well, too bad, that's how the skill works. Let the player play his character.

Perhaps not. But the potential for what I described exists.

If all it is is an auto -2, then yeah, not so bad. Witches essentially can do that more or less too.

But still, it does destroy credulity if a Huge Red Dragon can be shaken by a medium human half their hit dice.

It destroys credulity when I say "magic missile" and FREEKING MISSILES OF FORCE MAGIC COME OUT OF MY FINGERS AND FLY TOWARD SOMETHING AND KILL IT.

It's a game, he made a check, it imposes a condition. Those are the rules. Play the game!


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

How the heck is he "destroying the game"?

His character is focused to do, a number of things quite well.

So, even when others would be unable, his character can.

He is playing one of the heroes, remember?

If another small PC were built around doing damage, with daggers, really well, would that be bad?
If the DM decided "that little toothpick would never pierce this Dragon's hide" and decided the dagger focused PC did no damage, because "it makes sense", would that be fair?

A Wizard ends an encounter, with a single spell, or a Barbarian, with a single swing of a sword, and no one blinks an eye.

Now, one uses words, to not even end, but to contribute to the encounter, and frothy bile spews forth from the mouths of the masses.

What the heck?

If it isn't magic it must suck as an option. ... or something ...


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chevalier83 wrote:
He was trying to change the attitude of a demon with intimidation. And people are making comparisons to illustrate a point. Just because a character works mechanically by "RAW", doesn't mean it is a fun or good thing to do. And if a character destroys an adventure because "it is the build", I am going to stop that at my tables.

He was using a skill check to impose a debuff condition. That's how the game works. Get off your righteous high horse.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Jaelithe wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
I think people should just be able to play what they want, and I don't think calling people "metagamer" to make you feel better about how you choose what you want is helping.

Neither is telling me I'm doing something I'm not doing.

I'm not calling people "meta-gamer," as if it's the defining characteristic of their gaming personality. I'm labeling certain actions meta-gaming because, wonder of wonders, they are. It's a matter of degree.

And, actually, I'm the one who's championing people playing what they want, by saying, "Come up with a concept, and don't worry about what the next guy is doing. There's no AP for which to carefully outfit, so just do as you please."

Now if people want a balanced party more than they want to play a particular character, so be it.

You used the term with a negative connotation and with the express sentiment that those who do it that way should not.

And it is no more meta-gaming than building a character in the first place. The act of going through the book and making choices and writing those choices down on paper is meta-gaming. There are actually super valid in-game world reasons why a party would seek out niches they cannot currently fill to join their party. I submit it is less meta-gamey to build what the party needs than to build whatever your fancy is. Your fancy is without question a meta-game decision. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

mandatory subtle wink which means that I really do think metagaming is bad even though I just said it was ok


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
Rapanuii wrote:

To be clear, I really like this dude, and I have a lot of fun of this guys tables. I want to leave things anonymous, so he doesn't feel disrespected, or gets anything negative from this thread, so I'm strictly going to leave it that way.

This person isn't a normal GM, but someone with a higher ranking I guess. I'm not sure how it works, but given this fact, I have higher expectations for how things would have been handled in this situation. Ultimately, I was told that in his game the mechanics of the game don't work like they should normally. I told him that people expect the rules to be followed within PFS, and he told me that different judges will rule things however they like at their table. I'm all for having liberties, and calling things to move on with the game, but basic mechanics should work correctly in the game in the way they were meant to work.

Pretty much this issue is my character using intimidate, and it was specifically on a target that couldn't see me. This wasn't a matter of demoralizing, but rather to take the full minimum 1 minute to convey to the creature that I'm someone they should adjust their attitude with. I was told it automatically doesn't work because the creature cannot see me, and that it wouldn't feel threatened by me anyways because he is a demon, and I'm just a human that isn't even at least holding a knife to it's throat. I am further told that I can only use intimidate if I can make the creature feel like I will kill it, which I tried to explain that isn't necessarily true at all, but was told I was wrong. I tried to after the game, and outside of the game to discuss the matter, and was told that I absolutely need line of sight, due to the skill specifically saying so. I tried to point out that it only applies to demoralize, and the first application of intimidate to change attitudes specifically says that 1 minute of conversation, and was told I wasn't reading correctly.

A situation came up again the next game, where I tried to demoralize

...

He isn't doing that though. He isn't trying to scare off the BBEG and keep everyone at the table from having glory and treasure. He is trying to use the intimidate skill to impose the shaken condition. He is debuffing. Does that -2 on rolls against the party really ruin all the fun for everyone at the table? Does that diminish the challenge so greatly that the DM might as well just hand over he chronicle sheet and tell everyone to piss off?

I don't think so at all. It sounds like the GM in question is opposed to using a social skill to gain a mechanical advantage. Well, too bad, that's how the skill works. Let the player play his character.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chevalier83 wrote:
Rapanuii: if I recall correctly, you initiated a thread called "My GM is a madman" before. I guess this was a different one. If you are consistently having problems with GMs, you might consider, that you are the constant factor in the equation and question your behavior. You seem like a Min Maxer and some GMs don't like that. Furthermore you don't seem to take it well when people criticize you. You should be more concerned about these facts than about "winning" in this game.

Isn't Rapanuii the guy that always plays fighters? It's hard to accuse someone of being a min/maxer that only plays fighters. Particularly one who uses his scant few skill points on a social skill.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Just like any other spontaneous casting you can add as many meta magic feats as you can afford.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
MattR1986 wrote:

No, not both in one player. The players who get really fussy about not being able to use 3pp never make it to the game since they aren't getting their way and go elsewhere (I assume).

Well, I hope you continue to find players in the "sweet spot" between "enthusiastic enough to commit to a 4-5 hour weekly game and give undivided attention" and "enthusiastic enough to do their own research and spend their own money on stuff."

In my experience that is an incredibly narrow window to find people in and I couldn't possibly find enough of people in that gap to fill a table. I've found that by being less controlling about what I let players bring to the table that I am able to find a bunch of really neat people to come and be happy and have a good time, even if it means I sometimes have to bump the power level of the encounters to adjust for some outlier ability.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
P33J wrote:

Imagine we did this to a Wizard or Caster, and maybe something will click in those who say "oh, but a fighter gets them every level":

Spells have prerequisites.

Want to cast Fireball? You must have taken Burning Hands.

Want to cast Summon Monster IV? You need to have taken Summon Monster I, II & III; and a Charisma of 13, to apply the appropriate strength of personality over it.

Black Tentacles? You need to have taken Web and the Tentacles CMB is based on your STR.

Now, we do all that, and we put a hard limit on how many spells you can have in your book per level, because fighter's don't get to carry around a book that lets them change feats every day (well there is a magic item for 7500g that lets them, but it's only 1 feat).

Now, the Wizards aren't going to be real thrilled about this, and rightfully so, it's asking too much of their character, it's forcing them to be focused on a spell chain to get that one spell they really want.

Guess what, Fighter's have to do that all the time, but instead of fixing it, we get told "you have so many feats".

I want to favorite this post like 87 times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Corvino wrote:
suggestions such as making Weapon Finesse, Power Attack and Deadly Aim inherent abilities that any character can use.

Any feat which says "trade x for y" should not be a feat but just a game option. Anything that has a "trade x for y" feat as a prereq would then just delete that prereq.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Jaelithe wrote:
I think synergy and cooperation should come into play only after players have made their role-play choices.
Jaelithe wrote:
I think synergy and cooperation should only come into play before a player makes their role-play choices if said player so desires.

I think my head just asploded.

I think it is entirely up to the social dynamic of the people involved to figure it out. I know at least 4 different people in the various groups whom I pay with that will wait until the other party member have decided on a class/role and then choose their concept. I also have never seen any DM say "No, you can't play a Wizard even though you really want to because Dave is already a Wizard. Instead you should be a Cleric. But make sure to take the healing domain, and channel positive, and spontaneously cast cures... You're happy right? What you're still a full caster?!?"

I think people should just be able to play what they want, and I don't think calling people "metagamer" to make you feel better about how you choose what you want is helping.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


I suspect that the graveyards full of rusty automobiles will make some of the highest quality iron ore anyone has ever seen.
But the civilization is gone for some time--those rusty automobiles are rusted away, the iron oxide dispersed.

Er, how many millions of years has civilization been gone for?

Enough to have a good dust storm and a rainy spring... about 1.0x10^-3 million years.

So, just enough time to bury the cars until a few feet of dirt and let them rust in pieces. After a thousand years, there will be a several foot layer containing awesomely iron-enriched soil.

I can only infer you've never worked in archeology....

I can only assume you have never seen a steel body car rust in half (by which I mean become two separate halves.) And soil high in ferrous oxide isn't exactly the kinds of useable mineral ore that we are talking about.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Quote:

APG playtest Nov 13 2009 - Jan 31 2010. 3 rounds. 2.5 months for 6 classes.

UM Magus playtest Sept 20 2010 - December 20 2010. 2 Rounds. Comments were open for about 4 weeks of that time. 1 class.

UM Words of Power playtest Nov 22 2010 - Dec 6 2010. 2 weeks over a holiday. 1 sub-system.

UC playtest Jan 24 2011 - April 1 2011. 2 Rounds. About 5 weeks of open comments. 3 classes.

ARG playtest Oct 4 2011 - Oct 17 2011. 1 Round. 2 weeks. 1 sub-system.

MA playtest Nov 14 2012 - ???? (Somewhere between Dec 21 2012 and Mar 25 2013)

Those weren't all gencon releases were they? I suspect that would be relevant.

BigDTBone wrote:
The playtest schedules of the past would indicate that it is possible to have them at varying times. That may no longer be true, but at some point in the past planning made it possible.

Or things are different now, or theres now a much bigger product release schedule, or there were problems back then that have been resolved or...any number of alternatives beyond planning. Maybe some disaster happened behind the scenes with this one and the holidays was the only time it could be run.

The fact is, paizo have said it wasnt possible to avoid the timing issues with this playtest and they also have access to the past schedules.

Maybe they're wrong, or maybe not. Who's in the best position to tell?

One of the gencon releases didn't wrap play testing until April... But I also seem to recall hearing that their printer told them they would no longer be bumping other runs for them.

The point I think most are trying to make here is that, perhaps, given the exact set of circumstances that existed this year (printing company requirements, # of freelancers, # of staffers, illnesses, delays, rewrites...) that it caused the playtest to come out late. I totally believe and accept that.

What I think most of us (particularly those of us with project management experience) are finding difficult to believe is that given a target window of project completion of 50 weeks that 10-25% of that project (the part representing the playtest) can't be manipulated to completion intentionally in 47 week window.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Zark wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Zark wrote:
And the explanation is simple: A) Don't have a playtest over the holidays. B) Some people don’t have the possibility to playtest regardless of when the test is made public.
B is certainly true, however as I understand it A is a unavoidable (when it comes to a book which is to release at GenCon).
No it is not unavoidable. Planing is the key.
Are you really in a position to know that?

APG playtest Nov 13 2009 - Jan 31 2010. 3 rounds. 2.5 months for 6 classes.

UM Magus playtest Sept 20 2010 - December 20 2010. 2 Rounds. Comments were open for about 4 weeks of that time. 1 class.

UM Words of Power playtest Nov 22 2010 - Dec 6 2010. 2 weeks over a holiday. 1 sub-system.

UC playtest Jan 24 2011 - April 1 2011. 2 Rounds. About 5 weeks of open comments. 3 classes.

ARG playtest Oct 4 2011 - Oct 17 2011. 1 Round. 2 weeks. 1 sub-system.

MA playtest Nov 14 2012 - ???? (Somewhere between Dec 21 2012 and Mar 25 2013)

-----------------

The playtest schedules of the past would indicate that it is possible to have them at varying times. That may no longer be true, but at some point in the past planning made it possible.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
SPACEBALL12345 wrote:

Do we have as long as we want to prep for the fight, or are we working on a time limit?

Also, any reason we don't just wait for him to attack the city and deal with him outside of his lair? (Provided we can do some silly things to prepare for him attacking.)

Also...

andreww wrote:
I have ignored the environment in the CR calculation as nothing about it should create much in the way of difficulty for any high level character.
andreww wrote:
As noted at the start his lair is warded to prevent teleportation or divination. Naturally it doesn't affect him, although I appreciate that is pure fiat.
I'm not sure how I should feel about this.

The environmental conditions (ie in a single-entry chamber filled with lava and hiding in a force wall box completely surrounded by that lava) definitely add to the CR, the teleporting and scrying wards do as well. But it doesn't matter in the end because we aren't getting XP for beating the encounter. It is just a "see if you can" puzzle.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
MattR1986 wrote:

^TY

And if there is something that has annoyed me it's usually stuff that happens before the game starts. People getting pissy they can't use a 3.5 conversion class or whatever else to suit their "concept". Feeling out players before them joining the group is a good way to avoid having problem players. The one getting on my nerves lately is people not responding to e-mails, like ever. Like...do you have a computer and check your email more than twice a month? Coupled with that, just showing no effort to where I have to pull teeth to get anything out of a Player and ask repeatedly for things. Things that benefit THEM not me. To me it says they really could care less about the game and show up because it was something to do.

Do you find that those two attributes exist in individual players? It has been my experience as a DM that players who request the use of outside content are generally responsive to communication and enthusiastic about the game experience.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Axial wrote:
I'm interested to see what's going to happen with the bloodrager bloodlines. Are they going to make a bloodrager equivalent for every sorcerer bloodline that's been published?

I think it would have been cool (although probably impossible) if we could have gotten a method to convert existing bloodlines as part of class ability. It would have saved space in the book and opened up options that will likely never come to light like an Orc bloodline for bloodrager.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
My playtest feedback is don't bite off more than you can chew.
That's a nice sentiment, but business doesn't always work that way.
Fair enough. Since that is out in the open now; don't get defensive when folks tell you you are chewing with your mouth open. Particularly when you solicit comments about your table manners after.

I love the guy, and dislike him all at the same time with his snarky remarks if it is possible...

But I think people here are talking (can't say what they are talking, it would be censored) without thinking. I'd say Mr. Reynolds deserves NONE of the jack slaw jacking people are knocking him on, and that they should listen to what he's stated.

I'd say he probably did a spectacular job given the restrictions (timelines, amount, flexibility) that he had to work with, and those ignoring his explanation of how these came into effect, what went into the considerations, and what all else were under the constraints should listen more carefully, because as he stated,

It really does sound like he's talking to a blank wall and it's like slamming his head repeatedly against it. It's like whatever he states is completely ignored and people continue with what they are saying while glossing over what he said as if it was never stated.

Giving criticism =! Telling someone they are doing a bad job.

Explaining why something cannot be done =! Invalidating criticism.

(This one is THE most important)
Requesting that someone(s) could do more/better/different job =! Telling them they are doing a bad job.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
My playtest feedback is don't bite off more than you can chew.
That's a nice sentiment, but business doesn't always work that way.

Fair enough. Since that is out in the open now; don't get defensive when folks tell you you are chewing with your mouth open. Particularly when you solicit comments about your table manners after.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
I'd have to say that starting the playtest earlier to give it another round would be ideal.

And as they told you, that's not possible because of scheduling. Paizo already started writing the ACG over a year in advance. The second round of the playtest made the book late and everyone had to work hard to get it to the printer in time for GenCon. So adding a third playtest round requires either (1) Paizo to start working on the book even earlier, or (2) even more extra work for everyone after the playtest to get it done on time.

My playtest feedback is don't bite off more than you can chew.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

I am bookmarking this thread so that the next time some project coordinator asks me, "why should we pay for professional translation services when we could just use google translate? Even Mark Cuban says it works great for technical business meetings!" I can send them this page and tell them to shut up.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Why does your GM insist upon a stat generation method from a previous version but won't allow feats from a previous version? If he is insisting on rebuilding using new rules (ie no old feats/class features/ etc.) the he should use all the new rules. Otherwise it just smacks of control freak GM. I'm not saying that is the case but your query here certainly supports that impression.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Or even better I cast my own wall of force blocking his exit and he suffocates. No archers required :)


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

He has to come into the open or suffocate. He can't use his breath weapon or chain lightening for 190 minutes. Gust of wind removes the cover issue from the smoke.

Edit: fixed stupid auto-correct issues.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
ElMustacho wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Wizard 18 / Arcane Archer 2

Prebuff / Relevant Gear-

Overland Flight
Ring of Freedom of Movement
Necklace of Adaptation
+5 seeking shortbow
Wish spell - Simulate Extended Energy Immunity (Fire) [wordcasting] -- This I do at the edge of the volcano crater, right before I jump in.

Mundane Disguise to make me look like Lava, DC - (Ha! I'm level 20, The Erinyes and Vavakia Demons can't hit it with their assumed take 10 for "guarding")

Method of Attack -

(Round 1)
Jump in lava and swim down to where the walls of force are.

(Round 3)
Succeed on DC 20~40 perception check to locate one of the squares the dragon is in through smoke. (move action)

Cast true strike. (Standard Action)

(Round 4)
Quicken (rod) a Mage's Disjunction to blow the walls of force (at least the top one), the prismatic sphere, all linked spell effects from the planetar, and temporarily suppress of of the dragons items. (swift action)

Drop rod (free action)

Be sad because rod get burned up and it wasn't cheap :( (free action)

Quick draw short bow (free action)

Cast widened (spell perfection) Anti-magic shell and imbue arrow. (standard action) With buffs down dragon AC is 41. Seeking arrow negates miss chance from cover (smoke). Bab +10, +5 bow, Dex +5, Truestrike +20 = hit on a 2.

Watch lava flood chamber after my actions are complete (mmmm abstracted action economy :D)

(Round 5)
Laugh and watch as the dragon burns to death (irony) because the antimagic shell is suppressing his fire immunity (su) and his flight (su)

(Round 6) Swim to surface and fight other demons who still have fire immunity

(Round 10ish) Win, because I'm 20th level caster and they are CR 8 and 18.

Supposing you were right before round 4...

Nope. Arrow stops being magic when antimagic field comes, so it doesn't follow Incendious, since it burns. Incendious round (your 4-5 round), takes 20d6 fire, moves away the 20x20 feet aura with a swim check. Magic has returned now. He answers you with...

The AMF doesn't start until the arrow hits, that's how imbue arrow works.

As for the immunity being (ex), I was wrong about that. I'm not seeing how the wall of force is blocking a burst effect which is destroyed by that burst though.

At the very least he is trapped in the lava with no means of escape for 190 minutes and when the prismatic sphere goes down his planetar buddy gets burned up. 190 minutes is a long time to be under lava, not breathing.

Edit: can't find flight as (su) either ;p. but without his freedom of movement ability he will have to swim out of the lava before he suffocates. At that point he is in the open and can be easily defeated by a squad of regular archers waiting for him on the crater rim.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


I suspect that the graveyards full of rusty automobiles will make some of the highest quality iron ore anyone has ever seen.
But the civilization is gone for some time--those rusty automobiles are rusted away, the iron oxide dispersed.

Er, how many millions of years has civilization been gone for?

Enough to have a good dust storm and a rainy spring... about 1.0x10^-3 million years.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Wizard 18 / Arcane Archer 2

Prebuff / Relevant Gear-

Overland Flight
Ring of Freedom of Movement
Necklace of Adaptation
+5 seeking shortbow
Wish spell - Simulate Extended Energy Immunity (Fire) [wordcasting] -- This I do at the edge of the volcano crater, right before I jump in.

Mundane Disguise to make me look like Lava, DC - (Ha! I'm level 20, The Erinyes and Vavakia Demons can't hit it with their assumed take 10 for "guarding")

Method of Attack -

(Round 1)
Jump in lava and swim down to where the walls of force are.

(Round 3)
Succeed on DC 20~40 perception check to locate one of the squares the dragon is in through smoke. (move action)

Cast true strike. (Standard Action)

(Round 4)
Quicken (rod) a Mage's Disjunction to blow the walls of force (at least the top one), the prismatic sphere, all linked spell effects from the planetar, and temporarily suppress of of the dragons items. (swift action)

Drop rod (free action)

Be sad because rod get burned up and it wasn't cheap :( (free action)

Quick draw short bow (free action)

Cast widened (spell perfection) Anti-magic shell and imbue arrow. (standard action) With buffs down dragon AC is 41. Seeking arrow negates miss chance from cover (smoke). Bab +10, +5 bow, Dex +5, Truestrike +20 = hit on a 2.

Watch lava flood chamber after my actions are complete (mmmm abstracted action economy :D)

(Round 5)
Laugh and watch as the dragon burns to death (irony) because the antimagic shell is suppressing his fire immunity (su) and his flight (su)

(Round 6) Swim to surface and fight other demons who still have fire immunity

(Round 10ish) Win, because I'm 20th level caster and they are CR 8 and 18.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Zerombr wrote:

Everyone in the party ALWAYS assists EVERYONE on EVERY ROLL they can

I can't stand that. Whether it be a crafting check or diplomacy, suddenly everyone in the party, who has been kibitzing and arguing, suddenly when there's a *gasp* potential for failure, all come together EVERY SINGLE ROLL, to ensure that they have no issues.

Side note: Way to annoy players:

"The king will see you for your request, but first, please adhere to the standard no-magic rules. No magical equipment allowed at all, nor active spellwork during your time with the king. If we detect any magic at all, you'll be escorted out, as we've long known about subtle lying magic and its persuasive ilk. Now choose the one person who will speak for your group..."

Of course the King gets all of his CHA boosting gear, but there's no reason in a fantasy kingdom that a king should be subject to Glibness or a thousand other +bluff +diplomacy gear

I had a GM who sent an assassin squad for my character early in the game. With the aide of the party, I was able to break up their attempt but always looked over my shoulder. The characters paranoia eventually got so bad that he faked his own death and bought an amulet of non-detection, spent a 4th level slot everyday on detect scrying, and wore a hat of disguise.

When that eventual trip into the protected palace came up and the guards asked us to remove our gear and dismiss any long term magics my character said, "I'm just going to wait out here."


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Another idea that occurred to me would be if the earthly population dies off due to a catastrophic climate shift. Green house effect heating the planet up (depending on how much) would likely leave huge swaths of land in Antarctica quite temperate and that continent is largely untouched by human mining/drilling. If the replanted population were placed there they would be in an area of Stone Age tech but with access to similar resources of our own stone aged ancestors.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Coriat wrote:

Pre-gunpowder Renaissance?

Well, putting that aside,

(1d1000*x)+z years

where

x=circumstantial modifier related to the challenges or ease presented by their new home (e.g. amber waves of grain vs hardscrabble hills)

and

z=flat added number of years from ~100 to ~infinity, depending on the actions of the initial settlers, whether there is great cooperation or heavy infighting, how successful they are at a few key initial challenges relating to developing basic social and economic infrastructure fast enough to make use of some of the knowledge of the first settlers.

Z is lower if there is more infighting and less cooperation, right? At least if our current society is any indication...


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Pop requires you to 1) retrieve the item 2) use the item 3) stow the item (unless you just intend to drop your magic bauble on the ground like a hooligan).
My slotless pearl of power earrings beg to differ

The standard action still applies.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

The real question comes down to how much metal could be salvaged from our building infrastructure and vehicle fleets. Which would be heavily dependent on how much time passed and how exposed the iron/steel you need was.

There was a program called "After Man", I think. it traced on what would happen in the centuries after if Man disappeared or died off suddenly. What would last and what would be lost early on.

Without maintennce for instance, the bulk of Manhattan Island for example, would fall in on itself within 5 years or so. While the Statue of Liberty would not survive more than a couple of centuries, her pedestal would be good until the next Ice Age ground everything away.

Yea, copper, iron, lead and nickel are definitely the most useful metals in rebuilding a high-tech civilization and after a few hundred years of unprotected weather oxidation would ruin most of what's loose in the world. Softer and less conductive metals like brass would be helpful for somethings but eventually a sizable stockpile or deposit of those metals would have to be found to further progress.

1 to 50 of 1,459 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.