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

Caedwyr's page

2,409 posts (2,411 including aliases). 5 reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 2,409 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Regarding the "stat stick", I always figured that was one intended use of a weapon, especially with the whole gear slot system from Ultimate Equipment.

How is the succubus communicating telepathically while she is unconscious (as per the Flesh to Stone spell)?

It's an issue of world-building and one that most kitchen sink settings try to pretend does not exist. It isn't an unfixable problem, as shown by the many settings that manage to deal with the issues, but it is something that if any sense of verisimilitude in a setting is considered important, needs to be addressed. Given the popularity of quasi-European medieval fantasy settings that use the rules as presented in the Core Rulebook, it's pretty obviously not a problem that enough of the playerbase cares about to prevent such settings from selling very well.

If you are looking for spells that reference other spells for how they work, and all the gaps/unintended consequences, the "Hand/Fist" spells are full of fun and inconsistencies.

So, to address the point brought up earlier in this thread. Yes I believe that Seebs has probably done a closer critical read of the spell text than the developers have. I choose to believe this, because evidence tends to indicate that the developers are competent when writing mechanics in English, and slip-ups like the ones shown in this thread are probably due to inattention and not incompetency in writing clear and consistent mechanics.

Do people really think Paizo writers and editors are incapable of writing clear and consistent rules with at least a high school level of competency? The interpretation that some seem to be pushing would require elementary school level writing mistakes in a pretty simple couple of sentences. To paraphrase the developers "this doesn't need a FAQ as the rules are already clearly written".

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know there's been a few things that have given rise to doubt, but I'm surprised how widespread the belief seems to be that Paizo's writers are incapable of writing a clear and consistent mechanic, as shown in this thread.

I think LazarX has made a pretty strong argument that you should cancel your subscription and stop purchasing items through Paizo, as Paizo is unlikely to change their shipping practices. Amazon is probably a cheaper option and can bundle things together like you want.

How much does a portable hole weigh?

thejeff wrote:
andreww wrote:
Mike Franke wrote:
But unless you are in a gonzo high magic world, NPC wizards don't do this kind of thing for the same reason nobles still live in castles.
A lack of thought about the impact of magic and flying monsters on an internally consistent world?
Or more likely the realization that an internally consistent world based on a set of rules for adventuring isn't really desirable or quite possibly possible.

Amethyst: Renaissance does a decent job of creating such a world. Albeit, a number of world changing spells are made unavailable or modified in the pursuit of such a world.

Marthkus wrote:
andreww wrote:

Except that the arty could, instead of having brought a useless rogue, bring a useful second bard and one can good hope and the other can haste and everyone is set from round 1. You don't get to benefit from stuff you have no access to when comparing what each class brings to the table.

As things stand your previously posted Rogue build manages all of 26 dpr against an average CR10 opponent at level 10. That is assuming ideal conditions where you start out flanking and in reach of the target. It doesn't begin to touch the many situations in which he is hosed down to about 5dpr, such as flying opponents, foggy or dimly lit situations, someone casting blur or obscuring mist and god knows what else.

Two bards? What are you talking about? The bard and the rogue were never in the same party.

I only do considerations in a party/actual-game setting.

By the way the DPR I am counting in a party setting is 45.7
Of course that doesn't get into the realities of play and combat. You are now moving beyond just comparing the numbers and into encounters and the game. I still have theories to test on that front. (Yes I am comparing numbers for a party setting and am still pretending not to be talking about actual play aspects. Wheeee!)

I know I'll regret this.... but I believe that the argument is if your group assumes a bard and a rogue, then the central question of this thread still applies: why take a bard and a rogue over two bards?

I hope you have lots of input on the crunch side of things, as you are one of the top mechanics combined with flavour developers currently working on PFRPG both first and third party.

I believe that there are several systems for ship combat. The best of which is reputed to be Fire as She Bears from Frog God Games. That set of rules covers all sorts of spell interactions, including Gust of Wind.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The world as per the spells and capabilities of characters/npcs does not match the world as typically presented by world builders. Any issues are generally glossed over with half-hearted justifications.

Reincarnate (spell) uses the D% dice:


39-42___Goblin (Advanced Race Guide Goblin)
90-93___Kobold (Advanced Race Guide Kobold)
95-98___Orc (Advanced Race Guide Orc)
100_____Other (GM's choice)

Yeah, the swordmaster is a great example of how you can give a martial class more combat options without needing to go super natural or a uses/day or uses/combat mechanic. I really hope the design catches on more widely, because it does a lot of things well.

Just call it "Safe Fall".

Scott_UAT wrote:

So is Rogue Glory (I assume you mean this product) a book of new feats and the like or an actual new class rebuild? Reading only the description/ reviews and not the product I can't tell. I see that it says suggestions on alternate class features. I want to avoid books that are just supporting classes/offering options for classes and stick to just classes (I think LRGG has a dozen of those).

I added it to the list unless anyone objects or corrects me.

I understand your concern. From Endzeitgeist's review (Thilo G.), it seems that the book is basically a rebuild of the rogue class, which involves a slightly altered base rogue and a whole bunch of additional content. I'd put it closer to a rebuild class rather than a simple splat book with more options for rogues.

So I have all Rogue/Super Genius Games products listed as Super Genius. I know SGG has control of some stuff and RGG has control over other stuff. Anyone wanna untangle that Gordian's Knot?

From what I've been able to tell, anything by Stan!, Owen, or Christina Stiles Presents goes to Rogue Genius Games, anything by Hyrum stays with Super Genius Games. I'm not so certain about other stuff that might not fit into those categories.

For the rebuilds section, you'll want

From Rogue Genius Games:

Talented Rogue
Talented Monk
Talented Fighter
Talented Barbarian
Talented Cavalier

From Drop Dead Studios

Glory Rogue

Nathanael Love wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

36d6 damage every round


Is this "throw lots of dice each round" or "do a bunch of damage each round" in intent and meaning?
Pretty much. . . Rogue can sneak attack with ever attack essentially every round since it is so easy to flank with anything. Bards can't do that.

You answered YES to an OR question. Which of the two were you referring to?

1. Doing lots of damage; or
2. Rolling lots of dice?

It's a gamist mechanic intended to provide balance that unfortunately has scant flavour justification.

Nathanael Love wrote:

36d6 damage every round


Is this "throw lots of dice each round" or "do a bunch of damage each round" in intent and meaning?

It appears most of the previous two messages were already on the list linked in the OP. Thanks for the additions.

Death Knight is an alternate class (which I think you said you were including)
Heavy Grounder and Front Grounder appear to be separate classes in how they are presented.
Dias Ex Machina classes are from Amethyst: Renaissance. They appear to be closed content.
All Alluria Publishing listed classes are Cerulean Seas.

The Mushakemono, Bone-Breaker and Hishoken are all 20-level racial paragon classes.

If you are excluding core class rebuilds, you might want to not include the Alvena Publishing Gunslinger, the Schooled Bard from 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming and probably a bunch more that are already on the list. You are also going to run into issues of when Paizo and a third party publisher both go to the same design space (see Advanced Class Guide and how it treads on the toes of a bunch of existing 3rd Party Classes).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regarding the Talented classes, how would you categorize them, if not calling them full classes? I agree that they are a redo of the core classes, but they are at least at the level of an alternate class. Note that a bunch of Super Genius Games credited classes are now Rogue Genius Games classes.

Also, here are a few more:

Aquanaut - Alluria Publishing
Greater Familiar - Skirmisher Publishing
Angler - Alluria Publishing
Kahuna - Alluria Publishing
Mariner - Alluria Publishing
Siren - Alluria Publishing
Angakkuq - Alluria Publishing
Front Grounder - Dias Ex Machnia
Heavy Grounder - Dias Ex Machina
Marshal - Dias Ex Machina
Mechanic - Dias Ex Machina
Operator - Dias Ex Machina
Medic - Dias Ex Machina
Stalker - Dias Ex Machina
Gunslinger - Dias Ex Machina
Sniper - Dias Ex Machina
Vanguard - Dias Ex Machina
Gunslinger - Alvena Publishing
Death Knight - Rogue Genius Games
Luckbringer - Rite Publishing
Mushakemono - Rite Publishing
Bone-Breaker - Rite Publishing
Hishoken - Rite Publishing

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing I've always wondered about, is what is the the checklist designers go through when sitting down and doing the initial prototyping and concept level design, prior to putting actual mechanics down. I always figured it would be something like the following, but I am beginning to suspect that they might be following another procedure.

Caedwyr's imagined design procedure wrote:
  • Step 1. Identify niche/concept you want a class to cover.
  • Step 2. Ask yourself if this niche is sufficiently broad to warrant a new class, does it cover something players might want to play, and can the existing system and style of game promoted by the rules leave it as a viable niche.
  • Step 3. Review other classes/existing material to see if this is a niche that has already been covered, and if so, does it add anything to the game to add another option.
  • Step 4. Identify what range of activities you want the class to be doing in combat situations. Make sure you cover the different level ranges and the assumptions/style of game changes that occur over the different level ranges. Do you want the class to always be doing the same type of things, or do you want the class to shift focus as they go up in level?
  • Step 5. Identify what range of activities you want the class to be doing in a social situation. Make sure you cover the different level ranges and the assumptions/style of game changes that occur over the level ranges...
  • Step 6. Identify what other non-combat activities you want the class to be doing over the different level ranges.
  • Step 7. Review combat, social, and other non-combat areas to make sure you have provided ways for players of the class to contribute to suitable degrees in each area at all levels. Some areas may have more than others, but you want to be sure to have at least some way to participate in this different areas of the game or else the phone games come out and players start to tune out.

@ Ashiel: You might want to take a look at Rogue Genius Game's Talented Fighter class link1, link2. It may not have all the things you are wanting, but it is reported to offer a superior chassis that allows a broad range of mechanically viable builds. Where it might still be lacking is in some of the non-combat more narrative type capabilities.

TheSideKick wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

Word yo. I like the Fighter and have played one many times. That doesn't prevent me from acknowledging the fact that there are many options for other classes to do what he does better or more efficiently while still being able to do lots of other cool stuff that the Fighter just can't.

but that goes both ways, fighters can do things other classes cant do.

What actual goals/effects can the fighter produce/do that other classes can't?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I believe Ashiel has made the case in the past that if you are going to restrict a new player to a more martial class, you are better off using the Ranger instead of the Fighter. The Ranger starts off as a functional martial with some direction as to what type of fighting they will want to do, adds some class features the player can customize in that direction, while still not ruining the ability to contribute if they make poor choices. It has a decent skill list and a fair number of skill points to spend on them, with some class-based support to their skills. Later on, it adds a lower powered companion and fairly simple, thematic spells, to provide an introduction to those parts of the game. After playing a Ranger, the new player has been slowly introduced to a wide range of the different areas of the game, but not all at once. They are also easier to build a functioning character with low levels of system mastery than something like a Fighter.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, if there are two rules and one rule creates something that fits the CR guidelines, while the other produces nonsensical results, choose the second? That seems like blindly following the wrong set of rules because you saw someone else doing it rather than using a bit of common sense.

How do those compare to the opening salvo from Cassandra in the spoiler above?

From Cerulean Seas Campaign Setting:

Since Tome of Horrors (2002) is listed in the Section 15, it is likely that this was pulled from ToH.

You attack as you swim by an opponent.
Prerequisite: Base swim speed greater than 30 feet
Benefit: When swimming, you can take a move action and a standard action at any point during the move. You cannot take a second move action during a round when you make a swim-by attack.
Normal: Without this feat, you take a standard action either before or after your move.

I've now fully updated the site to the Revised version.

(It had the old wording yesterday when I saw Zhayne's post. I went in and fixed that section, but have not gone through and checked that everything else is updated.)

I'm guessing it was from which did not have the new proficiency list. I don't think most of the rest of the class there has been updated to the revised Magister, but I did go in and fix the weapon and armor proficiency section.

(also, I noticed that in the revised PDF, the spells known table says "Magus Spells Known" instead of "Magister's Spells Known".)

From the Magister PDF (Revised version)

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Mastering two sources of magic leaves little time for weapon training—a magister is proficient with only the club, dagger, light crossbow, and quarterstaff. A magister is also proficient with light armor, but not with any shields. Due to her mix of arcane and divine power sources, a magister can cast class spells while wearing light armor without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance (even if casting a spell from an arcane spell list). However, a magister wearing medium or heavy armor incurs a chance of spell failure if the spell in question has a somatic component (even if casting a spell from a divine spell list). A multiclass magister still incurs the normal arcane spell failure chance for arcane spells she casts as another class.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This looks like an incredible hidden gem. Thanks for the review Endzeitgeist. This one took me completely by surprise.

Talented monk probably is the version closest to Paizo's version of the monk, while still allowing for multiple builds with similar power levels to that of the Zen archer or the other couple of decent monk builds.

You might also want to check out Ashiel's psionic monk, which is available for download for free and has had a number of people praise it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you want your game to be accessible to new players, then where confusing wordings/interactions of different portions of the rules or other such issues arise, you need to address these issues. If you are not interested in expanding your playerbase or making the game accessible to non-grognards, then you can just keep on keeping on.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
I think I will implement both Kirth and Diego's fixes. They look good.
Not bad, but I'd still prefer an official fix.
Why do you need one so badly? We hardly ever had "official fixes" back in the day, and we managed to get by quite nicely, in fact judging from this board, better than today.

I imagine because some players are interested in making the game more accessible to newer players.

From what I hear, it was a popular archetype for some PFS players.

Even some text saying that this spell is intended for story purposes and is expected to be highly subject to GM interpretation would be useful.

Go to this thread and ask for a copy of Kirthfinder. It appears to have what you want.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What I tried to raise upthread, is that while common sense and experience with the game is great for all the long-time GMs, GMs and players new to the game do not have all the experience or calibration of common sense that allows them to identify what is disruptive and what is not disruptive. If you want your game to be accessible to new players... you might want to clean up landmines such as Simulacrum.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Sure. But this is often touted as why Pathfinder is broken. Altho I doubt if it sees much IRL table-top use, fixing it will help out the community.
The "community" needs to learn that it can help itself.

It can. No reasonable GM will allow it.

That doesn't change the fact that, by RAW, it is a possible outcome.

If it requires houseruling to fix, obviously it was broken.

Why not push for an official fix, eh? It won't hurt your game one way or another, and will help the game as a whole. Why gripe about it except to hear the sound of your own typing?

If we asked Paizo for an "official fix" for every possible spell, archetype, game effect that could possibly break a game, then we'd be asking for a FAQ the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica. There have been breakable things in the game since First Edition. However it was Third Edition with it's emphasis on "builds" and builder tools to serve it which opened up the floodgates. to the kind of nonsese we see here. The answer is not to try to build an incomprehensible list of fixes for excesses, it's for GM's to develop the common sense and discipline to simply say "NO!" to obvious crack monkey moves.

On the other hand, defaulting too much to Rule Zero ends up hurting the robustness of the Pathfinder ruleset. At some point, you end up with so much in the way of house rules and DM Fiat that the base rules aren't much more than a very loose set of guidelines. A bit of table variation is fine, but if every single game needs twenty pages of house rules plus lots of fiat rulings/bans during actual play...

Not to mention that the more time the GM needs to spend being the rules referee, the less time there is for actually playing the game, building the world, etc.

The problem with leaving all sorts of things in the game because they can be "rule zero'd" away is that it makes it much harder for a new group or new GMs to pick up the game and not hit all of the various landmines of broken or unbalanced rules. This is fine if you aren't planning on adding any new players to the game... but not so great if you are trying to make your game more accessible.

DrDeth wrote:
So, it's kinda surprising. Many people keep pointing these out as issues of why "wizards are OP', but few seem willing to come here and hit the FAQ or make suggestions to fix these?

Most people won't even see this thread or read it as it is located in the House Rules/Homebrew sub-forum.

Threads like this make me realize that the morality of the Pathfinder world is nothing like the morality of our world and trying to draw conclusions based on the morality of our world is a fool's errand. It seems that many operate under an orange/blue system of morality.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

They can if they take the feat.

I found a rather ranty review of the original Magic of Incarnum that you may be able to glean some useful critiques from. You may be aware of it, but amid the various frothing of the thread there's some decent insight into what was on the right track and what some of the problems were with the older book.

So, Iomedae = Gildaroy Lockheart is what I gather from how this is written. An odd characterization to say the least, but it is Paizo's sandbox.

As I stated early in the thread, Rage Cycling, if intended was to be a level 17 ability for Barbarians. New splatbooks allowing them to rage cycle earlier than level 17 is a clear example of power creep and takes the barbarian to a different balance position than is intended by the core rulebook. Since Paizo has said that they want to maintain the balance of the core rulebook, to be consistent they should nerf or remove the option for barbarians to rage cycle earlier than level 17. Otherwise, their entire balance/limitation to what was in the core rulebook rings hollow as a justification for other recent balance decisions.

1 to 50 of 2,409 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.