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

Buri's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 3,346 posts. 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 5 Pathfinder Society characters.

1 to 50 of 197 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lisa Stevens wrote:

We may very well be "kicked down" to #2, but it would be more accurate to say "kicked up" to #2, because Pathfinder continues to grow and sell more and more Core Rulebooks. This quarter we are in right now, the one where D&D 5e is releasing, will see us sell more Beginner's Boxes and Core Rulebooks than any other quarter outside of the ones the two products were released in!

It seems pretty clear to me that D&D5 is going to scratch an itch for some customers that wouldn't be interested in Pathfinder. Different strokes for different folks. I don't think there is all that much overlap between our two markets, which is great for roleplaying games, since that means more people playing RPGs. If we were just divvying up the same shrinking pie, then it would be a losing situation for all. But for my vantage, it seems like RPGs are growing. I know that Pathfinder sure is!


Well, Pathfinder lost me. Customers come and go, absolutely. But, some little things lead by some huge recent moves just ended my enjoyment of the system. Primarly, I can't escape the feeling that PFS is dictating the future direction of Pathfinder at large more and more. Many genuinely unique things got trashed like Crane Wing all because of PFS complaints. The two should be separate. The thing with spells known also smells of the same situation. It all seems to work toward a generalizing of the system skewing towards more of what 4E was.

Also, the manner of sweeping nature of those changes by way of errata rather than making them really work with a new system with staff comments here and there makes me think Paizo will evolve Pathfinder rather than releasing a new edition. Thus, there is no permanence or sense of mastery of the system since what the system is can and will change based on the needs of the moment rather than what works with the system overall.

A minor nitpick has been the recent book styling. Part of what drew me in to the aesthetics of the CRB was that 'old tome' page design. The new style isn't bad. It's just not what hooked me. In relation to the above points this is incredibly minor.

Anyway, I hope you see this as I've thoroughly enjoyed Pathfinder since beta. My introduction was literally during a 3.5 session with my DM dragging our characters through a portal into Golarion where we then made Pathfinder versions of our characters with beta rules. That was cool. I'm sure you do get tons of feedback how awesome Pathfinder is. It really is. The shakiness is something I can't accept from an expensive hobby. Looking at 5th presents a system that is flavorful, concise, and feels genuinely evolutionary in its concepts. I understand that Paizo has a lot invested into what Pathfinder currently is, but I hope you find the courage to really create your own niche and try to solve all those pesky problems that make you feel like you need to change the base system to cater to a vocal minority of your customers.

All the best.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Outside of my current campaign, I'm done with Pathfinder. The last 6 months has left me with the distinct notion that Paizo is leading Pathfinder with PFS more than anything else. As a system, to lead your development by majority input from the most conservative arm of your player base is just bad, and recent rulings on system wide erratas have no place. PFS should be distinctly its own thing probably with its own CRB equivalent. Until that changes I probably won't be coming back.

5th ed makes a lot of right decisions in that you can spring board so many concepts and gives players and GMs wide latitude to dress things up with just the basic rules. You can say what you want about GM fiat in PF but it's one thing to adapt a system to your game and another entirely to have that kind of flexibility written into the core assumption of the rules that gives you many variants, advice on what affects what, etc. and leaves things open yet mechanically inclusive to give them meaning from within that system. It feels like a more inclusive and overall more robust system from the start rather than putting on a dress of GM bolt ons.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Timebomb wrote:
Just to get it out of the way, I don't see what the PC's gender has to do with anything. Moving on...

Many females get preferential treatment as a way to pander to them to get them to stick around. It's obvious to everyone else at the table, and it's very annoying.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just think people need to step back and put their presuppositions to rest about alignment and the code. Look at Paizo's examples of holy warriors and read about the good gods actually do and build their paladins based off that rather some bland view that somehow needs to apply to each and every one. That's the boring factor. Not all LG people get along and that applies to paladins interacting with other paladins even within the same religion. So, grow a beard and paladin like no other. GMs that would restrict this are the ones asking for one dimensional paladins and have no room to argue.

What gets demagogued about most often on these forums is what I'd call a mix between the Ragathiel and Shelynite paladin. They're a person who simultneously has to put down all wrong doers but simultaneously can't harm a kitten. That's assinine.

My comments on optimization guide worship is that they all espouse roughly the same ideals. You hit hard, are hard to hit, etc. Looking at that kind of character sheet leads to very few gut responses and they're all pretty much along the lines of being the hardass of the group. Your build should reflect your roleplay ideals because if that's what your character is really all about then you should be putting time (i.e. build resources) into making that actually a part of your character.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:


Paladin's are some of the most cookie-cutter classes ever... should have been a prestige class. Unlike most classes, the Paladin has the most likely to end up carbon-copies...

Well, quit building to optimization guides and build to a concept and you might get something different now and then.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is that because of the change in that she never got to use it like it was originally written?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, there has not been a newly released CRB, no new Bestiary or GMG. Instead, what's happened over the last several months are fundamental rewrites to base mechanics that have ripple effects. This is how the system evolves: not through new editions and neatly segregated rules, but through rolling rewrites where everyone is dragged into the 'new way' whether they like it or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Then remove it from your game. That's the only way to gain the consistency you so desperately want.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:
this is has been acknowledge for years now as a mistake. all paladins are within one step of thier diety.

In PFS perhaps but not in Pathfinder at large. (Yes, they're different!) AFAIK, that errata does not exist.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My favorite theory is PFS folks complaining. Lord knows they complain and people listen because "they're the most consistent play group Paizo has." (paraphrase) Indeed, the cranewing butthurt is strong with me still.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
It was never really useful for crafting and always had limited in combat application due to the limited duration.

Minute/level is in a lot of combat spells. It had plenty of use.

I gotta say, too, the whole 'ignore the FAQ if you don't like it' reasoning is crap. What makes me buy Pathfinder materials is what they say, the features they present, and so on. To say it's okay to change it, while objectively true, creates a convenient double speak for marketing. No, I buy Paizo's products for what they are. If it's on me to reinvent them then I'll save my money and just create my own gaming system, thank you very much.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

PFS. Yeah, I said it.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:

Sure, I can see some of that dissatisfaction with the PF rules. But it isn't reflective of an anti-spontenaity philosophy, it seems to me, as much as it is reflective of the general nature of the system they inherited. I.e. due to some extent to legacy issues.

But what really undermines the worry that this is some foundational anti-spontenaity philosophy: if you want one strong example of spontenaity mechanics, look at the upcoming Brawler class, with it's ability to swap out feats on the fly. Or the Arcanist and its exploits. You might enjoy those options. :-)

There MUST be a point where the 'we inherited this' line is no longer an acceptable response. They've had the system for years. They are uniquely their own entity as a company and as a gaming system. No longer do I hear Pathfinder likened to being D&D 3.75. People know Pathfinder as Pathfinder. At this point the inherited rebuttal is an excuse. If you disagree then, we'll have to agree to disagree.

My take away from those other classes is more confusion not less. If it's okay for them to do that then why isn't it okay for the spell to remain as it was? The brawler doesn't have those limitations. Neither does the arcanist for those exploits. So, it's clearly not a martial vs. caster balance thing. What's worse, the brawler can have up to 3 feats at a time. As a move action. Thus, being able to still attack. Hell, you can do one as a free action. Chain a few of those together for some nifty effects. For FREE. Some even as an immediate. But, god forbid paragon surge letting you select some extra spells as a standard action. Which, depending on the GM, takes away complete surprise depending on what they reveal to those making spellcraft checks. You can't chain surges to qualify for whole feat chains so many of the bogeyman scenarios are just as that: nonexistent.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think this change speaks to a philosophy that is against ingenuity. Want a different ability? Better gain that level or go through weeks of in game retraining. But on the fly? No, sir...

One of the larger critiques a friend of mine has against Pathfinder is that to do anything mechanically different is tedious as all hell and then it's essentially unchangeable if circumstances change such as say from one round of combat to another. I'm starting to see his point. It's one thing to create rules and have to live with them but to back track like this speaks to a philosophy of thought. Spontaneous invention is bad.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Talk about a thread lobotomy. I've not been so confused visiting a thread before and almost sent a PM to Vic to report a supposed huge bug. Anyway...

Lemmy, I find the 'can't' argument unreasonable compared to 'can' because the rules are structured for your external contact with the game world. They define the manner and reason you can perform an action in an objective sense for most general cases. You interacting with yourself or what you think about yourself and others is subjective so you can't really have rules for it, not that I think they're required anyway.

However, I've seen the 'can't' argument brought up more since PFS came out and is a large reason why we can't have nice things, imo. In PFS you can basically only do what your sheet says you can. Genuine inventiveness be damned. It doesn't matter if you can describe something simply and concisely. If you don't have feature x then you can't do it. For example, even if you invest of your own time and write a beautifully constructed prayer to your god in a time of need as a one time thing, I've yet to see a table lately where the GM would give you so much as a +1 bonus to something let alone any other effect. I've seen that transition largely to non-PFS play and I utterly hate it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You've got a lazy GM who didn't have a boiled down mechanic to tell him how to run those events.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

JJ isn't a "rules guy." You have to take his interpretations to mean that's how he'd run his games. They're not representative of the intent of the rules for the game in general.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

You monster!

3 people marked this as a favorite.


Seriously. I love the Golarion setting. However, I have yet to see a GM who will let me do with a character what Paizo does with their own material.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I were to allow it, it would probably come in the form of a skill check that you couldn't take 10/20 on. Probably a DC 25 know(arcana) or some such that you had to make every round. Or, simply treat it as a standard action every round you wanted to not hit your friends to concentrate and not do the skill check.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Ok, but saying "Sometimes people aren't on the same page" is not a legitimate argument.

Sure it is. Proper context is crucial to any debate. If someone can highlight that opponents are using different contexts then the debate is moot. I'll point out many political debates where nothing of real substance is worked through but is merely a barrage of accusation, riposte, and retort that looks good. Election periods in the US are notorious for these kinds of debates. The debates that stay on point and actually try to get something done are likely to come from organized forums like a congressional subcommittee.

The context here is a spell that easily says you very likely can get wish consistently far lower than you could cast it yourself and for far cheaper in a way that gains you further free castings. Some guidelines on the scope of what that spell was meant to be used for would be very beneficial. It's not a new rule. It's a clarification on how the current rules work. Thus, an FAQ and not errata.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Certainly. Nothing stops someone wanting to make a simulacrum of an efreet expecting access to wish either. The only thing stopping it is the GM. The thing differentiating the two is that planar binding prescribes many ways a bound creature can potentially escape or have other ramifications. Simulacrum has no such provisions and even the higher binding spells don't modify how the process works at all except for the HD of the outsider you bind. Simulacrum is simply "do this, get this" with no buts or clauses. Thus, when comparing the two, it deserves a set of guidelines for various scenarios.

It is a very reasonable stance to not touch it as a GM given the distinct lack of those same features of planar binding. To say the mind boggles is a bit of a stretch and leads me to think you're not looking at all the variables.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see this as an issue where someone is asking for a rule to be changed. He's asking for a clarification. That's what FAQs are for.

As for trying to play the tough guy? SMH, yo... SMH.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

The tempo I'd prefer to things like this is "GM until we clarify" and not just "that's why we have GMs." I'm fine house ruling but dealing with players who bought the materials and clearly see certain options in black and white (beige, rather) do, in fact, have a reasonable expectation to be able to exercise those options. To be told no, it doesn't work that way, you read it wrong, [insert other "no" response here], etc. is frustrating and deflating. They should be fixed eventually.

I don't care what the development team has to say about it or even Paizo as a whole. It's good customer service to explain to people what the default assumptions are to your system so if they buy it they don't need a bunch of clarifications from some other person or to come here and be told "learn 2 read" in various forms by dozens, or potentially hundreds, of people.

I wholly hold that to fix all the rules is impossible is conflation born of a mind that doesn't want to really examine what's wrong. Maybe they feel they're too busy, too tired, etc. But, it's possible and possible to do cleanly and concisely. I know it's possible. Having been in software for the past decade, all I do is develop and fix rules. If I told a client "no fix for you, just use this work around" I'd have not made it this long. Yes, it can be painful. Yes, it can have some ripple effects, but you do it because it's vital to the health of the system and your relationship with your customers.

So, I live in both camps. "House rule 'till FAQ'd/errata'd" is my stance.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Ditto. I have absolutely no concept of measurements without reference. I can't estimate time, distance, weight, anything.

I can understand them and visualize them fine. However, I tend to take things so precisely as described that I've had attorneys tell me I was being too literal. I've found a scene spoken to me or described in a book, even in great detail, can have multiple logical interpretations. Pictures are just so much easier. Else, those games turn into a game of 200 questions (no typo) about things that seemingly don't matter, and really don't, but help me route out logically what can and can't exist in the scene. Essentially, I force myself to draw the scene correctly by scatter shot questions that usually just end in frustration for myself and the GM.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dotting for interest. I believe the full arsenal of spells and abilities should be open for consideration for GMs. I'd like to see the argument against that.

Re: wish, the GM is greater than the mightiest god. Pharasma bows beneath his heel. A GM lynchpinning something with wish doesn't realize the arsenal they have.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I enjoy multipage backgrounds to characters I get really psyched about. If I'm having bad luck and go through characters relatively quickly churn of characters I tend to just do the background generator in ultimate campaign.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilorin Lorati wrote:

Numeria and other planets would be my first options.

The Starstone idea... it's sitting in the middle of a giant maze, who would know it's gone missing?

It's frequented often. The test of the Starstone would be gone if the stone itself was. So, someone shows up being all hopeful, there's no test, just an empty room, feels had, complains, investigation is made, "zomg it's missing," the call is made for heroes. Go!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The great back and forth is gone. I'm kind of sad. That was somewhat fun.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
In fact, by the time anyone knows otherwise, you're already leaving.

Why not pull me back in? I've revisited places many times. I've never gotten a note from management, none of the servers, no dirty looks, no attitudes, no bad food, and so on. No one except those I've been with may have remarked about it after the fact. In my experience it acts like a thing that others force upon themselves and others rather than being an industry expectation.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of the areas I've thought about making some house rules around is identifying items. I'm talking about going way beyond just identifying the item. I mean like having a caster concoct a ritual that would reveal the story background of an item that would let me reveal at least bits of the multiparagraph history the AP attached with it. Or letting the party go through those laborious rituals I'm sure most of have read about to gain some nifty powers or different abilities. I'd love to let my player do it but I'm up the air on how to judge things.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've yet to be asked to leave an establishment.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So be it. However you label me I hope it keeps you warm and fuzzy.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A mythic runelord AP. There's gotta be one right? The one that was never deposed? Illusion, I think it was. Peacock guy. Xanderghul.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You DO tip at McDonalds?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you need a larger line, BigNorseWolf.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DSXMachina wrote:
And what if the 'tip' is added to the bill automatically?

I wouldn't eat there.

DSXMachina wrote:
A few other questions, does the tip get shared with the cooks, dish-washers, or concierges? Or would that be on an ad-hoc basis?

Many chain establishments split tips which I vehemently hate. If I'm trying to tip the bartender or my server, that doesn't mean the hostess was pleasant to deal with.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I tend to not tip but not out of douchebaggery. I want the wait staff to be angry. I want them to complain to their boss. They deserve a guaranteed fair wage and shouldn't feel like they have to kiss ass to get one nor do I think customers should feel they have to bribe someone to not f%+~ with their food or give them poor service. This whole exchange is inherently antagonistic and is unnecessary. I'd gladly pay more for eating out if this were remedied.

When I do tip I tip well even upwards of 50-75% if you really impressed me with your service. I make good money.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Louise! >:O

Great show haha

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I almost think there should be an action economy factor into CR calculation. 1 enemy should be a CR - 1 adjustment almost every time. More enemies than PCs should probably be a CR + 1. 2x number of PCs CR + 2, 3x as + 3, etc.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Absolutely 0 combat advantage, but it's frickin awesome none-the-less.

This is what I'm talking about!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You just need to grip it firmly and it either comes naturally or you need to coerce it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Threnodic and thanatopic metamagic feats.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, entrust the play of the prince to a player and bring them into the loop. Have them prepare a replacement character that you will introduce very quickly after the switch.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
insaneogeddon wrote:
2. It encourages missile weapons - which discourages chivalry and honor by definition.

So, every standing armed force in the world today is honorless by definition? Note, I did not say army.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If it has anything to do with Eox, then it would most likely be connected to the one time they fired their planetary defense gun and annihilated most of their own people. Whatever was shot with it probably left a lot of wreckage damn near everywhere.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwyn wrote:
It isn't. (Though, as noted by others, good communication - as illustrated in your post - is key.)

I honestly fail to comprehend why a simple 'no' isn't sufficient. Why do I have to provide details about my story that could easily be spoilers in order to justify a decision? If pressed for a reason a mere "it won't work for this campaign" should be sufficient.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a system it's brilliant that Pathfinder supports guns. For Golarion, they fit fine as Numeria has basically robot tech with androids. For other settings that's for them to decide individually.

1 to 50 of 197 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

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