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

3,975 posts (4,018 including aliases). No reviews. 2 lists. 2 wishlists. 8 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,975 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Insain Dragoon wrote:

So back in Mechwarrior Online they had a really cool system for dev communication.

Every month they would post a thread like "December's burning questions" and players would post once in the thread with 1 question they really want answered by the devs. Following that people would go in and hit favorite on the questions they liked the best. After a weak the thread would be closed and the top 5 liked questions would be sent to the chairs of the devs and they would write a response.

I think something like this would be perfect for improving communication between the devs and the community.

On that note, I would just hope that the devs would answer with their named accounts. Even if you did like 8 questions and each dev got 2 (random draw) and responded with their named accounts that would be sooooooo much better than Mark posting using the PDT account. The PDT account was created to buffer the designers from the community it really should only be used for FAQs.


Kthulhu wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
If you ignore their biggest weakness then you are asking for them to be overpowering.
Dude, rope trick. It's a 2nd level spell.
To me, a rope handing out of nothing in the middle of the air just SCREAMS "set up a massive ambush". Or possibly build a giant bonfire around it.

Ok, rope trick that you don't suck at placing.

Or rope trick in the next room from where you hung a kerosene soaked rope tied off to 10 alchemist fires.

Or rope trick in the riggers room of a ship

Or rope trick with 7 hungry bears inside

Or rope trick above a smoky camp fire to obscure the rope

Or rope trick next to a tree that you cover with moss

Or rope trick with a 5 ft rope but you cast while levitating 100 ft in the air on a rope that's painted black (or white in the daytime)

Or rope trick that you tie a 16001 lb weight to and break it loose so that liability is gone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blazej wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Well... no, those two phrases really are the same thing. A person who propagates myths because they have an agenda is synonymous with a liar trying to hijack the game for their own devious and unworthy reasons. Unless you think James was referring to a positive agenda, which, given the context, I find highly unlikely.

I disagree that they are synonymous even if he isn't referring to it in a positive light.

Whether it is positive or negative there are some aspects of the game that people would like corrected with martial characters against spellcasting characters and I would define the goal to correct that as an agenda even if one isn't "devious or unworthy".

I also have an agenda, I would like people to hold off on reinterpreting what other people have said. Or at the very least not also make the argument that they want the devs to be more involved or talk more as they do so.

I feel that if that one line was insulting as being interpreted here and looked at the many posts here in the same way then removed those of similar nature, there would be virtually nothing left in this thread.

You might not find those goals devious or unworthy, but you aren't the creative director and we aren't quoting you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
and i've mentioned before that this way of stopping "caster creep" heavily restricts the kind of story the GM is allowed to tell. I'd prefer the system didn't force this kind of behavior from the GM or the Players.
Agreed. As I noted just a couple posts ago, if the game only "works" when played one specific way out of the multitude of playstyles it's supposed to support, that's a problem with the game. Really, the fact that people talk about how to structure their entire campaign around keeping casters from being too powerful is pretty clear evidence that casters can be really powerful.

No. You don't seem to get it.

Needing 8 hours of rest to regain their spells. That is a NORMAL FEATURE of the casters. That isn't using the game in a way it wasn't intended, it was INTENDED to be a weakness. It was INTENDED to be something that the game master used against the class.

Did you think it was there for fluff? That is a mechanic.

One of the fundamental core mechanics of every caster is resource management. Managing time, rest, and spell slots. Those are core parts of the class.

If you ignore their biggest weakness then you are asking for them to be overpowering.

Dude, rope trick. It's a 2nd level spell.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
I get it, you WANT to play the uber-optimization sandboxy non-story driven game. That is cool, but it isn't representative of the genre.

*Rolling eyes*

To summarize, either you are building a massive strawman or you are clearly not understanding what other people are saying.

It is actually, quite impressively, both of those. Really.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
JJ has specifically stated several times that he's not a "rules guy". He's a campaign setting guy for the most part.

It isn't a matter of being the official "front man" for rules. It's a matter of not awknowleding a problem in the core of a system he writes for AND actively denouncing those people who would draw attention to the problem as liars trying to hijack the game for their own devious and unworthy reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graywulfe wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

Another note for Paizo / Chris:

Pushing out a errata that everyone damn well knows is going to be controversial five minutes before the entire staff leaves to go to GenCon doesn't exactly paint Paizo in the most positive light.

The ARG errata was an unfortunate timing issue so I can accept that the intent wasn't to drop a bomb and run off. The ACG errata however was specifically timed to blow up in people's faces right before Gencon. We know from Mark that the errata document has been finished for a couple months now but they didn't want to release it yet, and the new printing isn't for sale yet so that wasn't the trigger. Essentially, this debacle occurred (unintentionally I'm certain) by design. I would like to see the decisions which led to that design be reevaluated and avoided in the future.

Also, that is just the tip of the problem as it were. The actual issues are the substance of those errata documents. I don't want anyone to get the idea that the issue here was merely timing. The issue was quality of work; the insult on top of that injury was the manner of release.

You are misrepresenting what Mark said. Mark said that the Design Team was done with the errata a while ago, I don't remember the exact timing, but that it still had to go through editing. Paizo puts a lot of effort into their editing and layout even for free products like an errata, the ACG being a noted and acknowledged exception. After the editing debacle of the ACG the last thing they were going to do was not put every available minute into the document to make sure that spelling and grammar did not create more confusion. They also promised repeatedly that the ACG errata would be out before GenCon.

It is more than a little disingenuous to misrepresent Mark like that.

I think that assuming malicious intent on the timing is a waste of time and energy for everyone involved.

It's a good thing that I specifically disqualified malicious intent from my comment. Also, a competent copy editor can easily do 9 pages in a very short amount of time.

The New Yorker, for example, has famously amazing copy editors and they do an entire magazine in a week. That includes correcting submissions to match their own style guides, which Paizo asks the contributors to do themselves. In short, even if you take into account copy edit times, my point still stands.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kain Darkwind wrote:

I think a lot of the mechanical problems in the game are due to a large subsection of the gaming population optimizing too much, and judging the game's options based on that.

Not just players, either, but DMs and entire gaming circles.

If you look at the base line Bestiary, published Iconics, published designer characters, etc, you can immediately see that the game is being run in a manner that is for all intents and purposes, lighter.

Many players don't even look at 15 point buy. And I include myself in this group. My players use rolled stats that are probably similar to 70 point buy, and I buff up monsters all the time with gear and resources.

But to use an analogy, if you are designing a car that you expect to drive between 30-50 mph, and you test it at 60 mph (for optimizers), you might determine you have a satisfactory, well built machine. Then when your average customer starts it up at 80mph, and the real vocal ones like to drive around 150mph, you're going to have a lot of complaints. Is the answer to make them a car that can handle 80? One that can handle 150? Or make it so that your car can't even go faster than 60?

I don't honestly know the answer to that question. I do know that you max out point buy at 102, and they suggest 15. And that's just right from the get go. I wonder if a lot of 'nonviable' options don't become more viable in an environment where losing initiative isn't the same as a TPK.

Derail:
The Wizard class is one of the SADest classes in the game and the most abuseable spells are right there in the CRB. 15 pt buy {9,10,14,20,8,7} plus 2 feats at first level. It really is disparity of options NOT this option only goes to 11 while this option goes to 17. 15 pt buy CRB only wizard starts out at 11 and goes up from there.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

Another note for Paizo / Chris:

Pushing out a errata that everyone damn well knows is going to be controversial five minutes before the entire staff leaves to go to GenCon doesn't exactly paint Paizo in the most positive light.

The ARG errata was an unfortunate timing issue so I can accept that the intent wasn't to drop a bomb and run off. The ACG errata however was specifically timed to blow up in people's faces right before Gencon. We know from Mark that the errata document has been finished for a couple months now but they didn't want to release it yet, and the new printing isn't for sale yet so that wasn't the trigger. Essentially, this debacle occurred (unintentionally I'm certain) by design. I would like to see the decisions which led to that design be reevaluated and avoided in the future.

Also, that is just the tip of the problem as it were. The actual issues are the substance of those errata documents. I don't want anyone to get the idea that the issue here was merely timing. The issue was quality of work; the insult on top of that injury was the manner of release.


Thanks Chris.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:

To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:

- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?

More visibility of new hires to the design team would be helpful, but what would REALLY be helpful is if the existing design team was more visible as a matter of procedure. Basically introductions are nice, but are a bit like these guys taking requests. It isn't the true pressing issue in the scenario.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?

I think the current method of posting in the relevant thread is good. I think adding a sticky thread (perhaps even a LOCKED sticky thread) to the rules forum where new FAQs are posted would be helpful.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?

I understand you are working from a community manager standpoint, and that the nuts and bolts of the errata process are outside your purview; however, transparency throughout the process of errata would be incredibly helpful. Particularly allowing for feedback from the community about the nature and scope of the proposed errata.

EDIT: Let PFS guys make their own rules FAQ/Errata that works for the campaign. If they think an option is not worded well, or broken, or whatever give them the option to fix it instead of just ban it. I feel like SO MANY FAQ/errata are based on PFS issues, either have the PFS and design teams merge and design the game together OR awknowldege that they are different and no one is stepping on toes if the PFS team wholesale rewrites an option or issues their own FAQ for something. If something is a problem for PFS and not the community writ large, let PFS handle it on their own; LIKE EVERY OTHER CAMPAIGN DOES.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you envision errata being notated here?

I think both TOZ and Anzyr had good suggestions here so I will simply state that either of their examples would be very useful.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?

Yes

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you envision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?

I dont know that polls would be particularly useful in any regard. It seems as though polls really only work to reinforce the views and opinions of the poll creator which seems rather unuseful.

Instead I would REALLY like to see ALL FOUR of the design team members actively engaged with the community about what is on their plates, what they are working on at any given time, what do we want to see from a *widget* like that, what FAQs are being discussed, what errata are being discussed, what do we think about the direction they are taking an FAQ/errata.

Essentially, I would like to see a culture of transparency and communication from the design team and NOT just a task in the form of a poll that misses the point and will go ignored/underused just so it can be checked off of a to-do list.

If this isn't possible, it would be great if Jason could let go of some of the "final-say" authority and give the rest of the design team enough breathing room to use their best judgement in making "official" rules decisions without his approval. You have presumably four of the top 20 designers in the world designing the game. Why not trust them to make good decisions, and empower them to solve problems? Why maintain the most extreme version of ivory tower game design possible? One man, one voice, one set of rules. That concept just doesn't work in a 2015 market place. Not with the release schedule you guys are working with. Let other people on staff make official calls, and in particular empower those staffers who would work with the community to fix problems the leeway to do so. Basically, their SHOULD NEVER be any reason for a design team member to say, "well, I had the time and desire to solve a problem today. I talked it over with the community and we made some really great progress and I think I know exactly how to implement a fix that will make everyone happy. Unfortunately, even though I'm a game designer I cant make that call. The only person who can make that call is too busy to sit down and talk to me. And they dont trust me enough to just do it. So, that problem I had the time and desire to fix will remain broken, and I will fall asleep tonight to the sound of my own tears hitting the inside of the plastic bag I try to suffocate myself with." Seriously, let Mark do stuff on his own. That is the major take away.

Also, thank you Chris for opening up this dialog. I am pleased to see Paizo staff taking an active role in engaging the community to solve problems.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
While I disagree with your hyperbolic, almost paranoid, position, I will agree that the current state of things isn't a very good look.

Fair enough...

You know what? I agree. My rant was hyperbolic. But it wasn't always so... It's just years and years of frustration taking their toll... Because I love the game, but I see the designers making the same awful design decisions over and over again when it comes to game balance.

It's pretty clear that Paizo prefers to nerf balanced options than actually improve the new ones that are not very good. It's pretty clear that they don't really care about game balance at all, and at best, care about the illusion of balance. It doesn't matter it the game is well-designed... It only matters that the new players who don't know Pathfinder and want to buy the book think it is.

I know speaking calmly and politely is more constructive... But it's really difficult to remain so when they ignore all concerns for years and show no sign of ever changing that attitude. My criticism isn't unique or new. Many of the problems with Pathfinder lack of balance and the game design philosophy that sustains it have been known for over 15 years now. The devs simply don't care. They aren't stupid. If they did care, they would have already addressed those problems.

When you speak to deaf years, eventually your start shouting. And after that, you stop caring at all... And I fear the day is coming when I simply won't bother anymore, and a game I loved will just be a bitter memory. And I fear I won't be the only one...

Who knows... Maybe that's what they want. Maybe they decided they already got enough of my money.

Im pretty much there. My group is looking at seriously spending a few months of game nights and just rewriting the system. Some borrowing from 3PP (Tome of battle and spheres of power as big ones), some reverting to 3.5 (Including bringing back some favorite classes, PrCs, and feats), some borrowing from Kirthfinder, some of our own houserules from over the years, some from PF unchained, and some from PF unmolested (bard, inquisitor, and alchemist for sure.)

We plan to ground up tinker everything together and format it into a PDF and probably have a few nice copies printed for our own reference and then just play that game forever. We may may work up a "modern/future addendum but that will be our only "splat."

Converting bestiaries and monster manuals will be a chore though!

The point is, we are so dissatisfied with the direction of the game we are willing to take potentially as much as a year of playing time out of our game to fix it because we no longer trust Paizo to get it right.


Green are PFS character names.


Issues of sexual nature rarely come up in my games mostly because it isn't the kind of story my players want to tell. As for my NPCs, unless I find a specific reason to give them a particular tendency; they are all bi.

Transgenderism in my campaign settings isn't given much consideration because transmutation magic (all magic actually) is cheap and available to the entire population. (In the sense that not everyone in the United States is affluent enough to own a cell phone, but that virtually every American could find a way to make a phone call tomorrow if they needed to.) So, essentially, people are able to adjust their bodies to meet their mental image of themselves pretty much at will.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Let me know how that works for you.

Well, if by riot he means "no longer provide Paizo with my money but continue to be a drain on their web resource," then it's working pretty well for me.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the devs made a hand-tipping comment during the vigilante play test. That the general game has been allowed to get overly powerful through a series of 'unfortunate' oversights and that they were working to purposefully keep the power level of the game in check going forward.

So, pretty much, this is the future of pathfinder. Get used to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Helaman wrote:

Didn't buy it and glad I didn't - I was disappointed with how with the exception of the arcanist it seemed that a lot of play test advice was ignored. Bad technical editing and poor understanding of their own systems balance just seems (by the posts here and elsewhere) to have created a poor all around product.

Frankly I lost faith in Paizo's technical editing when they screwed up class features RIGHT there in their own rule books when they did the Sword Saint samurai archetype and with the many screw ups with Ultimate Combat. Not sure if they even bothered to errata the Sword saint yet either.

Happy to play the game but I don't buy the new stuff anymore (not since UC I think) - the quality has gone down hill whenever they have a major publishing deadline. I am happy to hear that MAYBE Occult Adventures may be of a better quality than this book.

I'm right there with you. I stopped buying physical copies of books after the APG. There were some serious issues that very few folks around here recall because the community was so much smaller and the print runs were so much shorter. I decided at that point to only pick up PDFs.

UM and UC made me glad of that choice. The ACG was so rough that the PDF only rule got shaken. From now on it seems like PDF only if the (release +1 month) reviews don't have technical concerns.


Anzyr wrote:
Meat wrote:

All wizard party are gods, nullified by one hyphenated word, and another word: Anti-Magic Shell.

Uh I don't know if you know this or not, but Antimagic Field turns off most of the person it's centered on best defenses and makes them super susceptible to conjuration spells that originate outside the Antimagic Field. It also denies the person it's on any magical means to Flight to engage a caster. It also requires a high level enemy caster to sacrifice most of their power by centering it on themselves. And of course at 17th Level Wizards are just flat-out immune to it. This is pretty commonly known stuff so I'm wasn't sure if you were just joking or not so I included the reasons for completeness.

The best (and possibly only) reason to play an Arcane Archer is to drop AMF's on people at 400'.


I feel like weapon cords was a good nerf, although it was a double-feature and the first try sucked.

Ultimately they landed in a good place.

I also think that the poly-morph spells (and by extension, wild-shape) nerf from 3.5 into PF was really well done


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
I feel it's not so much as PFS making them change this time and more of a developers want it to be a legal option for it and decided to change stuff.

That is a distinction without a difference.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
PIXIE DUST wrote:
So PFS is forcing Change again? Nice...

Pretty much this. They should just admit to themselves that as far as the company is concerned that PFS is pathfinder. That way they can at least get the left and right hand working together. This is design by committee at its worst and it's all happening inside of a single building.

I'm getting pretty tired of paying to Beta rules for a campaign I don't play in.


Domestichauscat wrote:
138: Taking at least ten minutes on your turn to decide what you're going to do. This happened with a guy I played with every single time. It was agravating.

The real problem with that dude isn't that he takes 10 minutes, but that he doesn't even start to think about his actions until his turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Stratton wrote:
altering secure .pdfs isn't as easy as some people think, nor will everyone have the ability/capacity to do so.

This is comically wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

Here's another reason why someone with Legacy experience is valuable- sometimes.

Take this with a ;-)

Say "A Poster" chimes in with "I hate Pathfinders stupid rules for Rutabaga chopping! They are unrealistic and stupid! I dont know why the stupid devs came up with this stupid rule!"

Grognard: "Well, you see, Rutabaga chopping came from 3rd Ed, and was in it's original form in AD&D- in fact a primitive version existed in OD&D. "

Well "A Poster" now feels shot down, but since "they have always done it this way" isnt really a good reason, gets angry.

So, if "A Poster" had done some research he could of said "Look, I know Pathfinder is a legacy system, but they shouldn't have kept in the stupid rules for Rutabaga chopping. They are unrealistic and stupid!"

Mush better, since now we can concentrate on better rules for Rutabaga chopping, rather than why and how they came to be.

The legacy experience didn't do anything but waste 2 posts in this scenario.

(1) people without the legacy knowledge wouldnt have the objection and would have immediately begun working on the posters rutabaga chopping issue.

(2) the legacy knowledge created the problem that it solved. That doesn't seem particularly helpful.


Maybe remove haste as a spell entirely and have it be something martial characters can do for themselves or provide for the party.

Reveille (ex) - A fighter of at least 5th level may, as a move action, direct the tactics and movement of all allies within 40' of him. This gives each ally the benefit of [HASTE BENEFITS] until he stops directing combat. This ability can be maintained as a free action each subsequent round. Fighter can do this [BARBARIAN RAGE ROUNDS] number of rounds a day.

Then the fight could help the party, including giving something to the summoner wizard that he couldn't provide for himself.

It could even be a scaling ability a la inspire courage but offering complimentary benefits and does so as an insight bonus.


Kthulhu wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Even in really small cities there will be a Baptist church and a Methodist church. Just because you aren't at their church doesn't automatically translate.

I agree with your point, but....

If there's ONLY one Baptist church and ONLY one Methodist church, that's not a small city, or even a town. Hell, it's not even a village...it's a hamlet. And it barely qualifies as that.

I grew up in a small town...about 8,000 people when i was a kid, up to about 10,000 now. And I couldn't even begin to tell you how many churches there were. I'd lay odds that there were at least two dozen churches there...probably a lot more.

That helps to make my point actually. Someone had said earlier that you don't have to be "out" as an atheist to be suspected because people won't see you at church and they'll just automatically know you are one.

My point is even the absolute smallest collections of mobile homes that managed to file a township registration with the state will have at least 2 churches (Methodist and Baptist.)

For what it's worth, if that township is in Texas it will also have a Dairy Queen and a Sonic, but I digress...


My Self wrote:

At what spell level would Haste be a weak spell? Would it be unoptimal if it were a 6th level spell instead of a 3rd level spell? 7th level? 8th? 9th? Epic?

(This is assuming you make Blessing of Fervor a similar level spell)

I think at 5th level it would still be a go to spell. At 6th level it would be up against Mass Bull's Strength. Haste still has the edge because MBS doesn't stack with belts, doesn't grant extra attacks, and STR isn't every meleer's prime stat, plus haste helps non-combatants with AC, reflex, and movement. So you are looking at 7th level before it is level appropriate. So, it would be a weak 8th level spell. I bet people would still learn and cast it regularly at that level though.


thejeff wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
That's really not fair to Alabama. It may difficult to get elected to a state office as an atheist in Alabama, but it won't affect your safety, or ability to get a job, or where you can buy a house.

It'll certainly affect your social life though. Alabama's Baptist country. They'll give you the sad "Oh you poor thing" eyes in public if they hear about it and spread more nasty gossip than the cheerleader's table in high school behind your back.

I'm not convinced it wouldn't affect your ability to get a job either, if you actually told the interviewer.

Big city, it won't most of the time. Small town, they already know, because you're not in church. Which is all that really matters. Also means you don't plug into the local networks.

Edit: Mind you being a Muslim isn't going to be better. :)

Even in really small cities there will be a Baptist church and a Methodist church. Just because you aren't at their church doesn't automatically translate. I think the biggest caveat would be if you publicized your atheism it might cause you problems but that's seems a strange thing to do by definition (essentially you would be going around telling everyone what you aren't, seems weird.)

Also, just did a meetup search of Atheist groups near Mobile and Birmingham. There are 4, with about 1800 total members. So it seems like social life probably isn't all that stunted if you are willing to look. That's also people who are specifically looking to hang out with other atheists, it doesn't include religious types who wouldn't give a flying crap about your spirituality (or lack thereof.)


Gaberlunzie wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:


In the Muslim world today, "Atheism" just isn't a thing. You don't really get to be one if you live in Egypt or Indonesia, at least not openly, because the surrounding...

This seems to be more of a thing when it comes to poor countries than specifically muslim countries; Atheists in Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina seem to fare a lot better than they would in say Uganda, which is Christian.

It can also be seen _within_ a country, say in the US, where I'd imagine it's far harder being an atheist in Alabama than in central New York.

That's really not fair to Alabama. It may difficult to get elected to a state office as an atheist in Alabama, but it won't affect your safety, or ability to get a job, or where you can buy a house.


Ghostwasp wrote:
The reason people list how long they have played or what their experience is because there is literally no other metric in which to measure someones ability or knowledge of the game. You can say all you want that you know every rule, but on a forum that means nothing since you have all the time you want to look up rules. When trying to decide between to opinions who would you rather listen to, the guy who has stayed with the game for over 5 editions of the game or the one who thinks that they can "fix" Pathfinder after playing it for a few years.

For rules knowledge I'll take guy #2 every single time.

It has been my (purely anecdotal) experience that the follow relationship exists:

(Number of years playing tabletop RPGs) Is inversely proportional to the (% liklihood you have read the pathfinder CRB)

That is to say (again in my experience) that most old timers tend to believe their rules knowledge is such that they can "wing-it" and only keep a CRB for reference. Whereas a new player who has "only" been around for a few years AND has identified that the breaks in the system of significant enough that they need to be fixed has an extremely high chance of having read the CRB; both because it is the only rules document he has ever played under AND he is knowledgeable about its issues.


Outlander: loreseeker trait will give you another +2 combo'd with spell perfection.


Rynjin wrote:
Good to know anybody that uses any kind of houserule, or restricts or adds any options is not playing Pathfinder.

Yeah, like all of those PFS posers...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ghostwasp wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Ghostwasp wrote:

If you want "fighters" to cut mountains in half, jump for miles, or to be an anime character play a different game.

I like how "anime character" is a derogatory term in a game where building a robot ninja maid is entirely a viable concept.

Also amusing when perfectly boring normal western heroes accomplish similar feats in myhtology and fiction.

Last I checked Path of War was pretty damn popular for a 3pp. It's not perfect, but I can tell you given the bias against 3pp it makes zero difference.

Well "anime characters" is derogatory because Pathfinder is not anime, just like it is not science fiction or western. Pathfinder supports those genres but it is a terrible idea to model the core mechanics on them, as I said. As to "3PP" they are almost universally regarded as unbalanced compared to pathfinder products, although some are real gems.

Who did you poll to determine "universally regarded?"


So the Crystalline Entity teamed up with ID4 aliens?

Sounds good.


MMCJawa wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


That's another...

That will never ever happen. Hasbro doesn't give/sell IP, especially when money can still be made off of video games/books/film/other games. If 5E/future editions are a wash, they will just shelf the IP for a few years and release it later to cash in on nostalgia or whatever trend they can market DnD to.

Best case scenario is that Hasbro licenses another company to produce a new DnD, but why would Paizo agree to work with the license? They have their own setting, and a few gods and some monster IP are not worth dealing with the conditions and requirements Hasbro/WotC might require of Paizo

Under no conditions would I expect Paizo to publish under a license from WotC again.


Neurophage wrote:
Kudaku wrote:


Ah, I see. You seem to rely on 3rd party material (never heard of the Double shot feat)

That's because he got the name wrong. He's referring to Rapid Shot.

Kudaku wrote:


and homebrew of dubious quality, such as a bow of permanent Gravity Bow.

Tell me of the world where a bow than casts Gravity Bow on itself is dubious. Besides, there are plenty of magic items well within the reach of a 15th level character that are far more abusive.

"Kudaku' wrote:


My GM tends to play with the Pathfinder rules as written (RAW) so we can't use 3rd party, rules loopholes or homebrew material.
A misnamed feat and a magic item perfectly within the level of power expected at the level it's being used do not an abuse make. You're making your own point look bad. OP's still wrong, but let's at least be right about why he's wrong.

No, he's using subtlety to simultaneously demonstrate the OPs lack of system knowledge and set up a situation where Kudaku will describe abilities of a 15th level caster that are explicitly allowed (so, exist with a higher degree of credibility than the OPs own example) that completely put the fighter in question to shame.

Edit: ninja'd by the man himself.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
At 15th level 120 damage (Reflex half!!) is a waste of a full round action.

Imbue Arrow: "A spell cast in this way uses its standard casting time and the arcane archer can fire the arrow as part of the casting." Even with a swift action to cast Quickened true strike (on top of a +17 BAB, this is more to nearly guarantee a hit from maximum range even against a high AC opponent, not a "I need it to have a reasonable change of hitting"), the arcane archer still has a move action left.

120 damage to all in a 30 ft radius, not just the target hit by the arrow. That adds up to a lot of total damage against large groups (i.e., not just one or two high CR foes that the party can usually overwhelm anyway because of more total actions): 5 opponents take 300-600 total, 6 opponents take 360-720 total, etc. An arcane archer, unlike a normal archer, does more damage as the number of foes increase.

Anyway the big benefit (IMO) is to mix damage with area battlefield control in the same (i.e., shoot a spiked pit imbued arrow at the BBEG in round 1, then a hydraulic torrent imbued arrow to knock some of the minions into the pit in round 2, etc.). Area damage is useful for thinning out mobs so the party martials can concentrate massive damage on one target (their strength).

There are definately unique opportunities the AA allows. I just don't think they are worth it.


the Lorax wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Really, there's no reason to be like that.

Hm, maybe. But this dude has been annoying me for a week. I finally failed a will save.

Quote:

On top of that, it seems that Kudaku was asking a legitimate question.

Not a chance.


John Lynch 106 wrote:

Ultimately there is one reason to go with a new edition: They've run out of ideas for the current edition. Given the recent products, Paizo have demonstrated they are quite adept at shoehorning new ideas into the current edition. We've seen AD&D 2nd edition "multiclassing" and 4th ed hybrid classes where you get levels in two classes at once (variant multiclassing, hybrid classes). We've gotten psionic classes, we've got new versions on some of the worst classes in Pathfinder. We've gotten mass combat rules along with a whole bunch of other stuff. We've got updated feats that grant fighter's martial powers. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if Paizo could find a way to incorporate almost any idea they have into the current edition given how much they're willing to deviate (see the current playtest for Ultimate Vigilante).

So a new edition would need to either create significant changes from the current edition and change how the fundamental game works dramatically. This will alienate the fans of the current edition. Or they would need a spit and polish and effectively reproduce the same material but in presumably slighlty better organisation. But this isn't the 80s anymore. PDFs that get updated with the latest errata, SRDs and digital character creators dramatically reduce the value of reorganising the material with errata applied and sticking "2nd edition" onto it.

A new edition is a lose/lose proposition. Is there a chance that a new edition will sell gangbusters? Sure. But is there a chance it will completley screw the pooch? Most definitely. It will come down to a financial decision where Paizo (and ultimately Lisa Stevens) judge that the risk of losing everything is worth the potential benefit of releasing a new edition. I expect this would largely be financial, but also partly emotional. My understanding is that Lisa Stevens is a gamer so the advantage Paizo has over WotC is that the all mighty dollar isn't necessarily the sole end goal.

That's another reason I think that there is no chance to see PF2 before the end of 5E. There may be a play to acquire the DnD IP. Guarantee that if 5E is a bust that Hasboro will insist on dumping the line.


Avh wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

That was the sound of the point flying straight over your head with a pinch of ridicule from Kudaku. 100 DPR is absurdly low for a 15th level fighter. Average DPR for a 15th level fighter is closer to 250.

But this illustrates the point beautifully! Your complete and total lack of system mastery is on full display. You have no idea what you are yapping your flapping gums about. You are in fact SO OVLIVIOUS to the pathfinder system that you didn't instantly recognize absurdly wrong numbers for your 15th level fighter (neither when you said them nor when they were tossed back at you.) You have no idea about what makes a good caster in pathfinder. You have no concept of what is actually allowed by the rules when players actually read the full spell descriptions.

Well, it could be a fighter NPC, which could explain the relatively low damage for the level.

The original point still holds. He thinks that 50 damage IS BETTER than what a wizard can crank out at 15th level? I could LITERALLY close my eyes and point at the list of 8th level spells and every single one of them would be more effective than dealing 50 damage.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
The only good part about being an arcane archer is dropping anti-magic fields on people at 400'. If you can't do that then it isn't worth going into.

Color spray, create pit, frost fall, web, greater thunderstomp, hydraulic torrent, lightning bolt, pellet blast, spiked pit, stinking cloud, acid pit, black tentacles, confusion, detonate, obsidian flow, shout, etc. are all useful spells to imbue into an arrow well before antimagic field.

Even at high level, an Intensified Maximized detonate (8th level spell slot) can deal 120 points (15d6, Maximized), your choice of energy damage (acid, cold, fire, or electricity), in a 30 ft radius burst in addition to the arrow damage (and a Quickened true strike pretty much guarantees a hit).

At 15th level 120 damage (Reflex half!!) is a waste of a full round action. The fact that you wasted a 5th level slot on a quickened true strike just adds insult to injury.

Most of the spells you indicate are pretty worthless at the level they come online for the arcane archer. Black Tentacles is kinda neat, but all you did was extend the range of a spell that is already cast at range... So meh.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Kudaku wrote:

52-102 damage? In a single full attack!?!

Sure, these are impressive numbers you're throwing around but can a 15th level fighter really put out this much damage every round? I think you need to show your math here.

Easily. I'm not even trying that hard to get that.

Okay so:

15th level Fighter gets 3 attacks:

15/10/5

Double Shot feat adds one extra attack, at full bonus, but all attacks take a -2.

So 13/13/8/3

A compound bow gives a strength bonus to damage, in this case we went with +2, at 5th, 9th, and 13th they get an additional +1 cumulative bonus to a weapon. In this case the bow. Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization add more.

Many Shot makes the first shot double damage as well.

Gravity Bow gives the bow's 1d8 an upgrade to 2d6.

So 4 shots:
4d6+18
2d6+9
2d6+9
2d6+9

10d6+45 damage

So a 15th level Fighter with a bow enchanted with a level 1 spell permanently (Very within the realm of possibility) can get between 55-105 damage every single turn.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

That was the sound of the point flying straight over your head with a pinch of ridicule from Kudaku. 100 DPR is absurdly low for a 15th level fighter. Average DPR for a 15th level fighter is closer to 250.

But this illustrates the point beautifully! Your complete and total lack of system mastery is on full display. You have no idea what you are yapping your flapping gums about. You are in fact SO OVLIVIOUS to the pathfinder system that you didn't instantly recognize absurdly wrong numbers for your 15th level fighter (neither when you said them nor when they were tossed back at you.) You have no idea about what makes a good caster in pathfinder. You have no concept of what is actually allowed by the rules when players actually read the full spell descriptions.


Skylancer4 wrote:

Quite honestly anyone who had published more than a handful of products of any moderate length already knows at least half of what people have been posting about "requiring" in terms of how they would produce the product.

The thread wasn't about how to do it, they have a clue. It is about what you would be interested in seeing from them as a collaboration and what would get you to invest in... Not how you want them to run their business or police their own.

You guys are pushing it way off topic with all that.

It isn't pushing at all. It is being incredibly helpful. I've been in sales for the last 15 years. I can tell you without question that a customer will tell you yes even if they are unsure. Particularly about a future sale that won't take money from their pocket today. (It's easy to commit tomorrow's money to an idea, it is much more difficult to spend the cash in your wallet on an unknown product.) Having potential customers disclose potential objections regardless of their nature is vital in this process. Objections which are known can be overcome. Unknown objections lead to sitting in your office, twiddling your thumbs, wondering where everyone who told you yes is with their money.

LMP asked for feedback and all of it is precisely on-topic.


thejeff wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I suppose, just like Al Gore's (NOT a scientist by the way) prediction of New York being underwater right now, and how we know whether he was right or not, we'll find out if the journalist (most likely also not a scientist, but I'm not positive) who reported this is correct in a few years also.

Even then, most of the articles I've seen stating this, leave themselves an out by mentioning it as a possibility and not a definite occurrence (aka, fortune telling).

You know, I've never been able to reliably source this "prediction of New York being underwater right now".

The only place I ever find it is sites that are mocking it.

It's a mischaracterization of his "world trade center memorial underwater" rant from An Inconvenient Truth. Where he gave the audience the impression that greenland's cap melt would cause that in the immediate future.

ABC later took the idea an ran with it, making a war-of-the-worlds style predictadrama where they have a character in (the then future) June 2015 say that New York is under water, milk is $13 a half-gallon and gas is $9 a gallon.


The only good part about being an arcane archer is dropping anti-magic fields on people at 400'. If you can't do that then it isn't worth going into.


5e will really be a determining factor in the future of PF/PF2.

I will stake my claim right now that as long as DND5E is actively supported that PF will stay in its current version.

When 5E ends (however long from now) Paizo will be able to asses the strength of the brand, likeliness of a 6th edition, and size of the RPG market; in order to make a decision about rebooting PF into a 2nd edition.

I would also suggest that the shorter the lifespan of 5E, the more likely PF2 will be announced within 12 months after 5E pulls the shutters. This is because the shorter the run of 5E, the less likely a 6E will be made. If there is no active DND product then Paizo will have more room to throw their weight around.

TLDR; no PF2 until 5E dies.


memorax wrote:

Well if they are not going to offer anything new then why even bother in the first place. I have no interest in another mostly 3.5. rehash with better production values and new art. I'm all for backwards compatibility if their market research shows that the majority of their fanbase uses it. If out of 10 fans 2-3 use 3.5. I don't see why they need to cater to such a small group. I get the point about books not being invalidated and the investment put into buying the books. I rather buy something new that at the very least fixes some of the flaws. Why would I buy the same set of rules with the same flaws. Of had to cater to both old and new fans. Offering nothing new when 5E fixes some of the flaws is not the wY to go. It's not like it was when Worc released 4E. With them no longer supporting 3.5. With a edition that did not go over well for some. I think some in the hobby need to look at the hobby as a whole and not just their bookshelves.

The only solution is more books like PF Unchained. Otherwise they really should not waste time and money on more of the same.

TBH, I've been playing for about 15 years and have come to realize 2 things; (1) I don't believe it is possible (read:profitable) for a company to put out a high production value, well-edited, well-playtested, well-balanced, game with 90%+ options being true nail-biters. The process would be such that you need amazing, world-class game designers who were simultaneously brilliant and humble, charismatic and good-listeners. They would need to spend a full year in development of a single hard cover book to the exclusion of all other projects, AND employ serious The New-Yorker level of copy editors (who also were intimately familiar with the game and community) to ensure rigorous internal consistency of game terms.

(2) I still probably wouldnt be happy with all their choices and would house-rule a bunch of s~!! anyway.

So, based on that, I've concluded that the details of PF2 aren't important to me, but I would like to see it so I can canibalize the improvements into my homebrew system.


Leveling is like a clogged artery.

At first level your arteries are 95% clogged. Every level you go up your arteries get a bit more clear. They move more blood, oxygenate more tissue, clear your mind. You are definately more capable at every iteration and that isn't just skill. You are physically and mentally capable of more and more just as though you opened your arteries a little bit more.


They are definitely letting a significant revenue stream lie fallow. I'm sure they have considered the implications of that decision and probably want to avoid a licensing agreement they will later regret.

I hope they have ALSO considered the loss of new potential gamers and the cost of being several years behind the 8-ball as VTT transitions from rare luxury to normal to expected.

Not keeping up with interactive content technology will cost consumers in the long run.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Old School Nick wrote:
The one thing that would really make my buy a second edish immediately would be dropping the d20 system and bringing back THAC0 and old percentile dice.

You necro'd this thread for that?

Edit: also, on the list of all things that could ever conceivably happen ever; that is not one if the items.

1 to 50 of 3,975 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.