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

Can'tFindthePath's page

787 posts. Alias of Lane Coursey.


RSS

1 to 50 of 787 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jester David wrote:
Revisions almost always invalidate the old. (3.5e to PF is anomalous in this regard.)
Pathfinder did invalidate 3.5. All of my 3.5 books have seen zero use since Pathfinder released.

Indeed, a lot of people have the opinion that 3.5 and PF are totally compatible. Except many tables, mine included, allow PF only (or even Paizo PF only). When it first came out, we continued to use much of 3.5, especially the Spell Compendium, but after awhile it became evident there were too many little changes in PF. It was far easier and more reliable to just go PF once sufficient support books were out.

You had to convert less from 3.0 to 3.5 than 3.5 to PF...


Originally posted in this thread.

I will be launching a new campaign in a few months, and I will definitely be using:

-Revised Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, and Summoner
-Fractional base bonuses
-Staggered advancement
-Background skills
-Possibly a modified version of the Grouped Skills
-Alternate Crafting and Profession rules (possibly going further in detail on changing crafting times)
-Skill Unlocks
-Variant Multiclassing alongside standard multiclassing (also, I am disappointed in most of the VMC progressions, it's a great idea but poorly executed IMO)
-Removing alignment (Outsiders, Divine and Pos/Neg energy charged things, including Blessed/Tainted locations, will still have alignment)
-Revised Action Economy (love this...hope I can convince my group)
-Stamina Combat tricks for all. (with advantages for the Fighter)
-Wound Thresholds
-(possibly) simplified spellcasting
-some kind of Automatic Bonus Progression
-...aaannd Scaling Magic Items.

Also, I love the approach to Monster creation, I have long wanted boil them down to the skeleton and add classes a la SW d20. This system could achieve much the same effect.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
It can work in an AP, though it does create extra work for the GM. He'll need to rejig loot found to match the new WBL expectations and remove items that are covered by the big 6, and occasionally check the character WBL to make sure they're on roughly the right track.
Well - yes. But in large part that would defeat the purpose of an AP instead of just running your own campaign.

My personal challenges in homebrew gaming are creating adventures, namely setting and plot. I am great at filling in NPCs, critters, and adjusting on the fly. So, for me, if all I have to do is manage the loot of an AP, that's be awesome.


The Rot Grub wrote:

Things I'm NOT using:

Staggered Level Advancement -- I rather like the dramatic effect of gaining a new level. The kids who are my players love it, and I don't find that verisimilitude is a big concern to them (lol).
Revised Action Economy -- I'm thinking of switching to this if I find higher-level play is
Wound Thresholds -- I'm concerned that this will increase the rocket-tag nature of higher-level play. And again, my players are not too concerned about believability.
Simplified Spellcasting -- My players are not very OCD about their prepared spells and usually stick to the same spells every day. I also have a separate printed sheet of their usual printed spells, and I ask them to write on it ahead of time if they want to cast new spells, so that they don't hold up the group.
Scaling Magic Items -- My players LOVE to find new magic items, and so I don't feel much of a need to introduce these to my campaigns. Also, since I'm lowering the number of magic items by eliminating WBL and using Automatic Bonus Progression, I will use inherent bonuses on monsters and NPCs so that they're not dropping +1 weapons in their wake.

Not criticizing, just giving my perspective:

Staggered Level Advancement - I have been considering this off and on since Sean K Reynolds introduced it on his site many yahrens ago. The reason for me is not verisimilitude but speed. I want to slow down advancement and concentrate on character play, allowing a decent amount of history to build for the group before they hit high level and, Gods forefend, 20th. So, I want to be able to give something regularly for PC development.

Simplified Spellcasting - One neat aspect of this system is adaptability. As he masters his magic, even a prepared caster is able to choose his lower spells on the fly. I think it needs tweaking, with a more generous pool to counter the loss of slots, and probably cost per slot level to cast the lower spells.

It's all a matter of personal taste and need. Happy gaming with new toys. Btw, are these the 'only' things you won't use, or just what you have identified thus far?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:
Wu Nakitu wrote:
djones wrote:

"Unchained Rogue has access to Ninja tricks (through the Ninja Trick talent), but can no longer take the Ki Pool Rogue talent"

Still waiting on the 29th for my PDF, can you elaborate on why Ki Pool is no longer available for the Unchained Rogue?

There's a sidebar that covers which Talents are unmodified/usable with the Unchained Rogue, and Ki Pool isn't on the list.

I'm willing to bet that's not a mistake.

The Unchained Rogue already full-out replaces the original Rogue.

Give it a Ki Pool like the Ninja, and there may have been concern that it ALSO would obsolete the Ninja.

I'm fine with the Ki Pool thing being a Ninja-Only trick - it helps further differentiate the class and keep it a legitimate option.

You may be right, but for my money, I'll take the Unchained Ninja!!!


Krinn wrote:

For my upcoming Eberron campaign, I'm planning to get the pdf as soon as it is available. I have yet to read first-hand what it offers, but for what others revealed...

- Unchained barbarian, rogue and monk. These will replace the older classes. I always banned the summoner, so I'll have to look into the new class before relieving the ban hammer.
- Fractional bab/saves ala unearhted arcana will be used if someone multiclasses (I don't expect this will actually be used)
- Variant Multiclassing will be available for everyone.
- Stamina. Free for fighters, others can use it for a feat.
- Skill Unlocks. Free for rogues, others can use them for a feat.
- Background Skills. Yes for everyone.
- Alignment. Eberron already has a different take on alignment, so I'll have to read if any of the new alignment takes are fitting.
- Action Economy. We are going to give a shot to the new act system.
- Wounds. I think I'll use this as well if what I understood is true (roughly a negative level per 25% health loss)
- Disease/Poison. Sure thing!

I'll have to read what the other rules are, like dynamic item creation, simplified spellcasting and other spellcasting related stuff.
Certainly I won't use the automatic bonus progression or innate item bonuses, because the existence of many lesser magic items fit Eberron lore.

Regarding alignment, I think an Eberron campaign would benefit from dropping PC alignment. The discussion about which in Unchained is a total removal. I prefer a system where normal mortals have no alignment, but alignment subtypes are retained. The book talks a bit about solutions for spells that depend on AL, and that could be useful. I wouldn't get rid of all such spells, but keep some for use against the subtyped enemies....although, in the true spirit of Eberron, total removal works well too.

Simplified Spellcasting has great merit, but I think it needs tweaking to make it both fair and satisfying for PCs.

And, finally, the beauty of automatic bonus progression systems is that they make room for those interesting magic items, both minor and major. Otherwise, you just end up feeding the PC big six magic item creation/commission industry. "Oh, that is a cool item....how much is it worth?....excellent!, now I can afford another +2 stat enhancement!" Cha-ching!


Arrius wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Which is a question for the CRB, not Unchained (incidentally, my take is that it's opposed to other people's Perception, which is why there isn't a set DC; you always get your weapon out). It wouldn't be under the skill if it didn't require a check.

Strangely, palming an item (weapon included, I suppose) already has a DC, with one able to substitute the DC with an opposed Perception if willing.

Could it be this carryover (and the skill trick) mean that Pathfinder originally intended to allow Sleight of Hand to draw out weapons quicker than normal?
A skill substitute to Quick Draw, in other words?

Note that the DCs in the CRB are for the action of hiding a weapon on your person. The line about drawing the weapon just tells you what kind of action it is. There is no skill check for drawing the weapon. which makes sense.


Iammars wrote:
The entire premise of this adventure path hinges on the idea that Talingarde is a good country. Obvious sexism doesn't just sour the experience for some players and make others feel unwelcome, it hurts the idea that this country is supposed to be good and that the PCs are evil.

I disagree. I think the entire premise is that Talingarde is a bigoted, misogynistic, single religion tyranny....masquerading as a "good" country.

You know, like most of medieval Europe.

In this vein, it may be the clear intention to use women (so to speak) to illustrate this.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

That's a pretty obvious straw man argument there.

Could you point out exactly where I attacked a position you do not hold?

You attacked the position "I can't play Pathfinder anymore if Pathfinder 2.0 comes out".

A position that neither I nor anyone in this thread has held.

I said, "Paizo has to decide whether PF 2.0 will bring more income than continuing to support PF 1.0 by factoring in the new customers and the ones they will keep versus the ones, like myself, who they will lose"

That's all. I didn't say "If PF 2.0 comes out, my books spontaneously combust", simply that I am not going to be investing money in PF 2.0, so people like me represent the risk of the new edition.

It seems you may have completely missed TOZ's point. That is that if everyone else (as in available players and GMs) is playing 2.0, then you will either play solo games, or adapt.

He has had this experience with D&D3.5. Now, if you have a table of reliable players who wish to continue with PF, like many do, no worries!

/translation


Dekalinder wrote:

There is no reason to delve into detailed comparison or other complicated set up. The question is simple. A system where a lesser action (5' step, swift action) takes the same economy of a greter action (move action, attack) is badly thought and umbalanced with the existing material.

If you want to make "alternate systems", you better do your job and make them functional into the existing ruleset. Otherways, what's the point? Just go write Pathfinder 2.0 new CRB.

When I look at the cost of actions in the Revised system, I see a lot of move actions effectively taking up less time, and quite a few standard actions cost just 1 act. So is the bedrock standard action, Attack, a lesser action?

As I said before, you really need to see the whole thing. And if you don't like it, it's optional. There is no reason to sling vitriol at the designers for a completely optional rule.


chbgraphicarts wrote:


It basically boils down to this: Paypal doesn't do Subscriptions.

Oh, yes they do. I used to have six subscriptions through PayPal, now I have three.

Now, there may very well be something about Paizo's subscription model that makes it a no go. Perhaps it is the variable amount of the subscriptions for the RPG line. You would think they could handle that in this day and age...


kestral287 wrote:


Yup, commenting that everybody is worse off under the new system = complaining about casters getting nerfed.

I'll ask again: who benefits?

See, that's the thing. You're looking for a boost, a benefit to your characters.

While I happen to think it does give an overall boost to mobility of melee types and a slight, and well deserved, control on some aspects of casters, that is arguable.

But, what if it benefits no character over any other? It is a total reworking of the action economy.

It can benefit an entire group's gameplay.

If it makes your game better.


Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
How does haste work?
Quote:

When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a speed weapon, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)

A hasted creature gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +1 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves. Any condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses.

All of the hasted creature's modes of movement (including land movement, burrow, climb, fly, and swim) increase by 30 feet, to a maximum of twice the subject's normal speed using that form of movement. This increase counts as an enhancement bonus, and it affects the creature's jumping distance as normal for increased speed. Multiple haste effects don't stack. Haste dispels and counters slow.

looks kinda nerfed to me. other than you can 3x your movement without run penalties now so the +30 movement is insane

Haste gives you 1 extra act, but it can only be used for an attack action...I'll be house ruling that to just give the 4th act.


This system is not "better for everyone" in regards of getting off all their favorite power combos as before...but better!

It is a reassessment, that tries to value things on their own as much as possible. It breaks the chains (pun intended) of the action economy, and opens up new options to all, while narrowing down some others.

But, a lot of the action power combos are the way they are simply because they are workarounds for the stiff action type structure.

I love the fact that a first level Rogue can take up to three attacks. Yes, he'll likely miss, but with the swing of the d20 and low level numbers, he might get the extra hit that takes down his opponent. And warrior types nearly always getting at least two attacks is great, even with the -5. There are other bennies as well, like three moves, for example.

Some subtle re-balancing is part of the system. There are a few foibles, such as the spontaneous metamagic issue, I am certain others will arise. You can make adjustments if you feel it necessary, as this is totally optional, and extremely intrusive as options go.

If it doesn't suit your style, that does not mean it is crap, or a failure.


Mark Seifter wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Hm, how does that affect Sorcerers? If they spontaneously use any other metamagic feat, they now can't also use Quicken Spell? That's a harsh nerf to spontaneous casters.
You are assuming that it takes 3 acts for a sorcerer to use metamagic.

Well, yea. It doesn't say otherwise in the Revised Action Economy section.


magnuskn wrote:
Hm, how does that affect Sorcerers? If they spontaneously use any other metamagic feat, they now can't also use Quicken Spell? That's a harsh nerf to spontaneous casters.

I agree, that is one I hadn't noticed. After PF matter-of-factly says, "yea, of course Sorcerers can use Quicken Spell....duh", now this is a back step.

Easy house rule is no full-round action requirement for spontaneous metamagic. That won't suit many, and it would cause problems with abilities that let you skip it now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

Core page 213 (Magic Chapter) "A spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round."

Still applies?

I don't see why it wouldn't apply, since nothing in the new action economy contradicts or makes an exception to that rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mortagon wrote:
I haven't received my shipping notice yet so I still don't have the pdf so I was wondering how the new action economy system works since this is of particular interest to me and my players.

Well I think it's incredible, and I hope I can get my group to try it out.

Basically, you get 3 "acts" on your turn. A Simple action requires 1 Act, and this includes things like Attack and Move, but also Swift actions. I know, stick with it.

Advanced actions include things like Cast 1 action spell, as well as things like Charge.

So, on average, you get the same amount of action, but it subtly re-balances certain combinations. Like, if you cast a 1 action spell and a swift action spell, you cannot also move. But if you make 2 attacks, you can also move. Or you can take 3 swift actions. Or you can move and then charge.

It favors martial mobility over casters, and I don't think that is bad. Also, note you can take two or three attack actions, regardless of BAB. The first attack on your turn is at full bonus, the second at -5, and the third at -10. Opens up massive combat options for low level and non warriors, while very subtly limiting iteratives to two additional attacks (normally).


Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Jucassaba wrote:
How does the new poison and disease rules work?

Basically, there are 6 (poison) or 8 (disease) states of health from Healthy to dead for several different types of Affliction (Str, Dex, etc. poison; Physical and Mental disease). Instead of taking ability damage, victims travel on this health state progression track. Each affliction type has different states and effects of those states.

It's pretty cool. Makes affliction effects more "fair". For instance, Strength damage to a Wizard normally doesn't affect them in combat until the fall down, helpless, at 0. In this system, even if you don't need your Strength for combat, and you have an unusually high score for a Wizard, you still become Weakened, Impaired, Staggered, and Immobile on your way to Dead.

That's the other important difference, all the tracks end in Dead. Any poison or disease can kill.

My bad...just re-read it, and it does say that some afflictions may stop short of Dead.


Jucassaba wrote:
How does the new poison and disease rules work?

Basically, there are 6 (poison) or 8 (disease) states of health from Healthy to dead for several different types of Affliction (Str, Dex, etc. poison; Physical and Mental disease). Instead of taking ability damage, victims travel on this health state progression track. Each affliction type has different states and effects of those states.

It's pretty cool. Makes affliction effects more "fair". For instance, Strength damage to a Wizard normally doesn't affect them in combat until the fall down, helpless, at 0. In this system, even if you don't need your Strength for combat, and you have an unusually high score for a Wizard, you still become Weakened, Impaired, Staggered, and Immobile on your way to Dead.

That's the other important difference, all the tracks end in Dead. Any poison or disease can kill.


Rycaut wrote:

What are you talking about re the Monk? (Or has the monk's saves changed in unchained?)

The core rules monk gets evenly advancing saves - all "good" the monk has no saves that advance faster or slower than any other. It is part of why a dip in monk is so strong - you get +2 to +3 if you go two levels to every save for a 2 level dip. Which is very good for many builds.

Sorry, I was thinking you knew about the poor Will save. I was just trying to answer your question about tracking the Monk's save progression versus other classes.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:

I will be launching a new campaign in a few months, and I will definitely be using:

-Revised Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, and Summoner
-Fractional base bonuses
-Staggered advancement
-Background skills
-Possibly a modified version of the Grouped Skills
-Alternate Crafting and Profession rules (possibly going further in detail on changing crafting times)
-Skill Unlocks
-Variant Multiclassing alongside standard multiclassing (also, I am disappointed in most of the VMC progressions, it's a great idea but poorly executed IMO)
-Removing alignment (Outsiders, Divine and Pos/Neg energy charged things, including Blessed/Tainted locations, will still have alignment)
-Revised Action Economy (love this...hope I can convince my group)
-Stamina Combat tricks for all. (with advantages for the Fighter)
-Wound Thresholds
-(possibly) simplified spellcasting
-some kind of Automatic Bonus Progression
-...aaannd Scaling Magic Items.

Also, I love the approach to Monster creation, I have long wanted boil them down to the skeleton and add classes a la SW d20. This system could achieve much the same effect.

16 subsystems including the monsters? That's fantastic! Seems to be the most so far in this thread. I'm glad you're getting so much use and fun out of Unchained!

Unfortunately, I am a big supporter of HeroLab (I have everything official Pathfinder), and I am quite sure that several of those subsystems will never be supported in the app. Sad face.

But hey! I have always been the one keeping track of everything for my group, especially auditing fractional saves and BAB. I'm used to busy sheets and alternate rules.


Rycaut wrote:

I don't tend to do the same thing for saves - for one I think saves get a bit more complicated (how do you track the Monk's save progression vs other classes?) and I tend to think of the boost to saves as one of the features of multiclassing (and yes for the saves that get boosted others may get a bit weaker - so I can see the arguments both ways - but for me I like fractional BAB but not save progression.

Really looking forward to getting my copy - hopefully soon (I'm a subscriber)

The Monk's save progressions in each save category are exactly the same as any other class. 1/3 level round down in Poor progression (Will), and 1/2 level +2 in Good progressions (Fort, Ref).


I will be launching a new campaign in a few months, and I will definitely be using:

-Revised Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, and Summoner
-Fractional base bonuses
-Staggered advancement
-Background skills
-Possibly a modified version of the Grouped Skills
-Alternate Crafting and Profession rules (possibly going further in detail on changing crafting times)
-Skill Unlocks
-Variant Multiclassing alongside standard multiclassing (also, I am disappointed in most of the VMC progressions, it's a great idea but poorly executed IMO)
-Removing alignment (Outsiders, Divine and Pos/Neg energy charged things, including Blessed/Tainted locations, will still have alignment)
-Revised Action Economy (love this...hope I can convince my group)
-Stamina Combat tricks for all. (with advantages for the Fighter)
-Wound Thresholds
-(possibly) simplified spellcasting
-some kind of Automatic Bonus Progression
-...aaannd Scaling Magic Items.

Also, I love the approach to Monster creation, I have long wanted boil them down to the skeleton and add classes a la SW d20. This system could achieve much the same effect.


Rycaut wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Jucassaba wrote:
What is this fractional BAB?

Assuming it works like 3.5's (as I don't have Unchained yet), it's a system where instead of adding +1 BAB at certain levels, you instead gain either +1/2, +3/4, or +1 BAB per level depending on class. Ultimately it makes multiclassing easier.

For example-- a Monk 2/Warpriest 18 is twenty levels of a 3/4ths BAB class, but comes out with +14 BAB instead of +15. But if you do 20*3/4, you'd get the full +15 BAB.

A Wizard 2/Warpriest 18 would have (18*3/4) + (2*1/2) = 14.5 BAB. Always round down, so +14.

Comes out identical for single-class builds, so much of PF won't care, but like I said-- easier multiclassing.

You can do the same thing for saves too.

Awesome! That's a house rule I have been using for some time - though haven't run my game in a little while, I really like the simplicity and small boost it gives to a LOT of concepts while still keeping scaling working quite well (IMHO) - it makes it a lot easier for non-full BAB classes to multiclass without feeling like they are really really far behind.

Yeah, the first thing we said when 3.0 hit 15 years ago was, "multiclassing xp penalties?....that's dumb", the second was, "hey, how come my multiclass character has a +0 BAB?!??". We never looked back. Most of our earliest and most used house rules relate to making it fair for multies (xp, Monk/Paladin, and BAB/Save progression.), this is the rule that I was surprised was not addressed in the PF CRB. I expected at least an option. I am glad that others might benefit from it now.


wraithstrike wrote:
It was in unearthed arcana for 3.5, IIRC.

Yes it was, and it was so poorly written I would be surprised if very many tables used it back then. They pointed you to the chart from hell that I could barely figure out...and I knew what they were trying to do! My group had been using it for years before UA came out.

Paizo did a much better job of describing it, including the math of the progressions, which is really easy. Also, they address the "first level +2" on good saves, and called it out as intended to just add once. Thank you!


Matrix Dragon wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
I have my PDF. I suggest all subscribers check their email.

I would also urge readers of this thread to dial back your expectations for Variant Multiclassing Ultimate Domination combos...

About a third of the progressions are spot on and very attractive, the rest are either confused and spread too thin, or the real stuff comes far too late.

Yea, I have been kind of worried about how many important abilities aren't going to kick in until level 19. At that point they may as well not exist in 95% or more of all campaigns.

The "secondary class features" are gained at the levels of the feat slots given up, so 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th.

It's mostly things that come online in the straight class by 3rd to 5th level being delayed until around 15th. So, the ability is worthless (or at least an afterthought to the style of your character), and building on that ability is futile.

It's a great idea, but I'll be reworking the levels at which the abilities are gained; and sometimes, what abilities are gained.


kestral287 wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Tels wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Variant Multiclassing allows you to pick up Abundant Step if Shift doesn't qualify (which it should). In any case, as soon as you get it, you are eligible to retrain your old feats into ones that you now qualify for, but otherwise wouldn't have when you got the original feat. This is explained in the FAQ.

Shift is a supernatural ability that mentions teleport. It is not, specifically, dimension door and wouldn't qualify even if it was because you are not casting dimension door. If you can't cast dimension door or use Abundant Step, then you don't qualify. How you go about acquiring the ability to cast dimension door or Abundant Step doesn't really matter as long as it's legal.

[Edit] Oops, I was misremembering Shift for the Travel Domain power Dimensional Steps. But, Shift is still a Supernatural, not Spell-like, Ability, and is not 'casting' so it doesn't qualify (though I agree, it should qualify).

Abundant Step is also Supernatural...
But is specifically detailed as legal. If it wasn't for that, Abundant Step wouldn't qualify for the Dimensional line either.

That is right, it is not technically legal. My apologies, I had commented earlier that I thought it reasonable to allow Shift to qualify. I was never suggesting that it was like casting the spell.

Different discussion, same subject.


Can'tFindthePath wrote:
I have my PDF. I suggest all subscribers check their email.

I would also urge readers of this thread to dial back your expectations for Variant Multiclassing Ultimate Domination combos...

About a third of the progressions are spot on and very attractive, the rest are either confused and spread too thin, or the real stuff comes far too late.


Tels wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Variant Multiclassing allows you to pick up Abundant Step if Shift doesn't qualify (which it should). In any case, as soon as you get it, you are eligible to retrain your old feats into ones that you now qualify for, but otherwise wouldn't have when you got the original feat. This is explained in the FAQ.

Shift is a supernatural ability that mentions teleport. It is not, specifically, dimension door and wouldn't qualify even if it was because you are not casting dimension door. If you can't cast dimension door or use Abundant Step, then you don't qualify. How you go about acquiring the ability to cast dimension door or Abundant Step doesn't really matter as long as it's legal.

[Edit] Oops, I was misremembering Shift for the Travel Domain power Dimensional Steps. But, Shift is still a Supernatural, not Spell-like, Ability, and is not 'casting' so it doesn't qualify (though I agree, it should qualify).

Abundant Step is also Supernatural...


I have my PDF. I suggest all subscribers check their email.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lou Diamond wrote:

Mark, I am making a new armor enchantment called Quickness this enchantment simply removes the slows function from heavier armors.

How much would you charge for this I was thinking in the range between 2500gp and 5000gp?

I am glad you escaped from the vile clutches of Cosmo last week. He was planing on charging us $50 a post of yours for his Gencon vacation fund.

I also have a few weapons questions for you. What would the stats be for sword breaker the iconic swashbuckler is using?

Have you heard of a weapon called a Nagamaki? I am tying to stat it up as I think it is a very cool weapon. It is like a nodachi but it has a thicker longer blade and a longer handle. I was thinking of 1d10 or 1d12 18-20x2, what do you think? The weapon was used in the edo period by foot troops against mounted samurai. Sometime it was used by mount troops that wanted a reach weapon.

Yes, I noticed that the illustration of the Nodachi in both UC and UE is sort of half way between a proper Nodachi and a proper Nagamaki. The description, however, is spot on for a Nagamaki and matches yours very closely. I would think it pretty safe to use the Nodachi stats for both. They are about the same length in illustrations I have seen, just Nodachi has a longer blade and Nagamaki has a longer grip.

Incidentally, the nagamaki is totes the inspiration for the weapons used by the elven infantry in the prologue of Fellowship of the Ring.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

That being said, using Shift to swift action teleport is pretty damn sweet on its own. You're getting 25 feet of movement as a swift action at tenth level, which in many cases is going to be as good as pounce.

Also worth mentioning that DDoor has no restrictions on having to teleport to a safe location. There's no reason why you can't Shift into the air, grab that flying wizard and seismic toss a m+$!%!@$+#!~.

That's true, if shift is a swift action then you don't really even need dimensional dervish.

...I think I need to make a teleporting ninja/unchained rogue now.

Yup, save yourself a feat and just grab Dimensional Agility to allow actions after using shift, and you should be set!

Ick, that's right. And since Dimensional Ability requires the ability to cast dimension door, techically people won't be able to qualify for it anyway....

Noooooo, my dreams of teleporting ninjas have been squashed! D:

Then again this may explain why they only ever seem to do a good job of using their quick movement to run away, and never to attack, lol.

Since the feat requires Abundant step class feature OR ability to cast dimension door, it is only logical to allow it with Shift.

I do note that the Shift ability existed when the Dimensional Agility feat was written, but I am inclined to see it's exclusion as an oversight, rather than a considered choice.


Mark Seifter wrote:
MichaelCullen wrote:

Mark,

I am hoping we can get some clarification on UMD's ability to emulate class features. Specifically, do the effective levels in the emulated class count for being considered a member of that class by the item?

One item where UMD's interaction is particularly confusing is the Ring of Revelation.

** spoiler omitted **

It seems to me that UMD could be used to emulate the needed mystery (not actually gaining use of the mystery, just being able to use the ring as if you had it). With the ring acting as if you had the mystery it would grant you it's revelation. The hiccup comes in where it says you must be an oracle. When UMD says you have effective levels in a class, is this enough to be considered a member of said class for the use of the item?

If possible could you offer some further clarity on whether an oracle with a different mystery could use UMD to trick the ring as well. The confusion on this point stems from where UMD says, "Use Magic Device lets you use a magic item as if you had the spell ability or class features of another class." Is a character able to emulate a class feature of the same class that they do not have?

Ah, I asked this same question once long ago when I was making my PFS oracle Lazeril. It would seem by strict RAW that an oracle of the wrong mystery can probably use UMD to emulate another mystery, but non-oracles can't get around the oracle restriction. I'm guessing that, given the extreme power of some revelations, the item was designed either without thinking about UMD or assuming that it didn't work, but that's only idle speculation.

I would call the description of the ring, the "general" rule. The UMD emulation is the "exception". To my mind, the note about "only Oracles" is just a clarifying afterthought for normal use of the item. If you can emulate class features, race, and alignment with UMD...you can use the ring.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dr. Johnny Fever wrote:
Oh man the multiclassing and stamina rules in PU might actually get me to take my unplayed fighter 20 build out of mothballs and give it a go!

Emphasis mine.

Lol, I hadn't considered the Paizo standard book code for Pathfinder: Unchained until now....that is unfortunate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Devilkiller wrote:
I wonder how or if tools like Hero Lab will deal with the variant rules in Unchained. I don't use Hero Lab myself, but since a lot of folks I play with do I suppose that there might be some unexpected resistance to Unchained if people can't incorporate the variants into Hero Lab. I'm guessing this is something which will likely be addressed though.

I imagine there will be room for most of the options in Hero Lab. It already lets you enable things like the Ultimate Combat armor DR system, and hero points.

I just hope they are already working on the integration. Can't wait to use this stuff, and I am spoiled by HL.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
TyroAmberhelm wrote:
And if I opted to use my bite instead of the mace during a standard action, I could add +5 to it's bite attack?
Yes, that is how it would work. However, that is not explicit in the books.

Well, it IS explicit, but... not concise.

They don't give examples to demonstrate how Primary Natural Attacks work in place of single Attack Action attacks (swords, unarmeds, etc.) well, even though the rules spell it out.

Every Natural Attack you gain is listed as either a Primary or Secondary Natural Attack by the source that grants it (unless it's native to your creature type, in which case you consult the rules section about Natural Attacks in the Bestiaries).

A Bite is a Primary Natural Attack, meaning when made by itself or in tandem with other Primary Natural Attacks, it's made at your highest BAB.

Natural Attacks can be made in addition to your Iterative Attacks (which are manufactured weapons & Unarmed Strikes) during a Full Attack Action.

Primary Attacks are reduced to Secondary Attack status (BAB-5), when made in tandem with Manufactured/Unarmed Attacks as part of a Full Attack Action.

You are quite right.

I was referring to the entry that explains combining natural attacks with weapon attacks. I was thinking that because it says "all natural attacks are treated as secondary attacks", that it was confusingly exclusionary of the default rules...upon re-reading the entry: "When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks..."

Oops. However, my own 'slip-of-the-mind' is a great example of how these things become confusing. And I have pretty high system mastery.

The exception based nature of the rules is fine (even great), but the fact that nearly all exceptions are not called out as such, nor do they reference the general rule, is where confusion and interpretation (and religious wars) begin.

As you say, not concise. In a perfect world under a perfect sky, I would love to see Pathfinder rewritten with about a quarter of the explanatory text, three times as many tables, and TEN times as many bullet point call outs. With little shaded areas that point out important rules notes. As well as sidebars discussing the logic behind the rules.

I think the book would be the same length. Shorter if you treated spell descriptions like this.

-Cheers


TyroAmberhelm wrote:
And if I opted to use my bite instead of the mace during a standard action, I could add +5 to it's bite attack?

Yes, that is how it would work. However, that is not explicit in the books.


Set wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

Actually, Inspire Courage gives a competence bonus to attack and damage, and a morale bonus to saves against charm and fear.

Good hope would be in trouble though. :(

Ah, imagine my surprise. Inspire 'courage' and 'morale bonus' just sort of flowed together in my head. Turns out it's more like 'Inspire Competence.' :)

It was a Morale bonus in 3.5; presumably, Paizo changed it to work with Rage and other 'Morales'.


RedDogMT wrote:
I should also point out that D&D (Next) currently cites that sitting or kneeling is a free action...and while I am not very familiar with that system, they still use a similar Standard Action/Move Action structure for their combat. In this situation the two systems are close enough draw a comparison from.

I would be cautious drawing on 5th Edition. A lot more things are "free", like equipping or even switching weapons and shields, among others. It's a lot less "fiddly" about actions. Simple, fast, easy....but not better.


RedDogMT wrote:
doc the grey wrote:
Really? This has been on the FAQ docket since 2009 and NO ONE has decided to answer it yet?! The thing is on the freakin' GM's screen! How the hell can you have rules presented in a game that is largely about tactical combat and then NOT EXPLAIN how they freakin work for at least 6 years!?!
Funny enough, in all of my game play, I do not recall ever having a player sit or kneel in combat. While it would be nice to have the answers to every situation in the game, it just isn't reasonable.

In my 14 year experience with 3.x/PF the reason no one kneels or sits in combat is because there was no action/benefit for it.


Jiggy wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
You seem to be a very literal person.

No, just giving you room to speak for yourself, rather than risk strawmanning you. :)

Quote:
What I am saying is that when people say something to the effect of "the rogue is weak, classes X, Y, and Z are better at everything the rogue wants to be. I personally would never play a rogue when class A with archetype B is clearly the winner in that category", they are implying that playing a rogue is dumb.

Okay, so you're saying that if someone declares that the rogue is weak and something else is better, they're telling the player that they're stupid. Got it.

Quote:
Of course we can point out a classes differences, and point people at other options to attain their goals. What I see is a lot of those points married to a definite opinion on the optimal choice. That's all.

Okay, this seems self-contradictory.

First you said that claiming X was stronger/weaker than Y meant implying that the player was dumb.

Then you said that it's okay to point out the differences between X and Y.

How do those two statements work together? Are you saying that it's okay (for example) to say that the rogue has a "different" attack bonus than the bard, but not to say that it has a "lower" one?

If that's what you're saying, well, that seems pretty ridiculous. If that's not what you're saying, then I need some clarification on how to read your post differently.

I can only hope that most people see my point. It seems clear that you will not no matter how I word it. So I'll leave it there.


Jiggy wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:

Not misunderstanding. I think the OP meant that people implied it would be stupid to play a rogue.

This thread is a great example. Most people are commenting here that he is wrong in his interpretation of the board's general opinions on these subjects. Then many go on to list their opinions, nearly all of which say the rogue is weak, and ever since classes X, Y, and Z they can't really do anything as well as other classes...but we would never call you stupid.

Uh-huh...

I'm trying to assume the best here, but I'm having trouble getting what you're saying. Please bear with me:

So the "Uh-huh..." implies you think the immediately-preceding assertion is false.

The assertion you seem to be saying you think is false is "The rogue is weak, but we wouldn't call you stupid."

So if you think that distinction is false, then that seems to imply that you think anyone calling the rogue weak is (effectively) calling someone stupid. That is, it seems to be your stance that calling the rogue weak and calling a person stupid are basically equivalent.

Does that mean you think someone truly can't say that two classes are unequal in power without essentially calling someone stupid? Or am I misunderstanding your post?

You seem to be a very literal person.

What I am saying is that when people say something to the effect of "the rogue is weak, classes X, Y, and Z are better at everything the rogue wants to be. I personally would never play a rogue when class A with archetype B is clearly the winner in that category", they are implying that playing a rogue is dumb.

Of course we can point out a classes differences, and point people at other options to attain their goals. What I see is a lot of those points married to a definite opinion on the optimal choice. That's all.


Physically Unfeasible wrote:

Anyway, I know the OP is probably trolling but on the other hand, these are appreciable points, trawled over as they are, and always worth examination for the sake of the system:

Disclaimer: This is mostly being done to whittle away a slow day (and it is fun)....

Well said.


Jiggy wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.
I must disagree. I have been haunting these boards for around 6 years, and I got the same exact impressions the OP listed.

I wonder if you might be misunderstanding me.

Let's take the OP's comments about rogues as an example. Now, I think you and I (and the OP!) could all agree that there is a sentiment on the boards that "rogues are weak". So if the OP had listed something like "People say that rogues are underpowered and other classes can do the rogue's job(s) better than the rogue," then I wouldn't have made the post that I did. That sentiment is everywhere.

But the OP severely mischaracterized that sentiment.

He portrays the "rogues are weak" crowd as calling any players of rogues stupid. He says that the "rogues are weak" sentiment is based on a comparison to the combat ability of combat-only classes.

Those are false. Typically it's only the defenders of rogues that make it personal, with the "rogues are weak" criticisms just being about the class's mechanics. No name-calling. (At least, no more consistently than any other group includes a jerky minority. Pretending that the "If you play a rogue you're stupid" is representative of that crowd is like pretending that "No moral standard WEEEEE!" is representative of atheism: people exist who say it, but they are a tiny minority that doesn't represent the larger group, and it's dishonest to claim otherwise.)

Similarly, critiques of a rogue's combat effectiveness are based on how it compares to other 3/4 BAB, "not-just-combat" classes. You know, the kinds of classes it SHOULD be on par with. But then the OP lied...

Not misunderstanding. I think the OP meant that people implied it would be stupid to play a rogue.

This thread is a great example. Most people are commenting here that he is wrong in his interpretation of the board's general opinions on these subjects. Then many go on to list their opinions, nearly all of which say the rogue is weak, and ever since classes X, Y, and Z they can't really do anything as well as other classes...but we would never call you stupid.

Uh-huh...


bookrat wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Edit: ugh. Failed my will save vs troll. Vampbyday has 400ish posts and 102 of them are new threads. Masterful troll is masterful.

This is why I said earlier that based on Vamp's posting history, he's unlikely to apologize to anyone for "misunderstanding" what's been said on the forums.

Can'tFindthePath wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.
Based on other threads he has started, this is exactly what he does and I doubt it's going to change.

Look, maybe the thread leans a little into Troll territory, but I took it as another way of saying, "I am frustrated with all of these absolutist opinions that say you're doing it wrong".

I feel that way.

When I see posts talking about a single spell that ends a combat before it has begun, or 300 damage in a round...consistently...at 10th level, I wonder what game people are playing...and what target dummies their GM is throwing against them....

See above, please. I'm not really sure why you're responding to me anyways; it doesn't make sense that you'd defend Vamp from me commenting on his posting history. Unless Vamp is one of your other accounts.... Is he?

(Wouldn't be the first time I've seen someone make multiple accounts just so they can make a show of "other people" agreeing with their posts. In fact, one particular news agency once made a job culture of this.)

Um...no.


bookrat wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.
Based on other threads he has started, this is exactly what he does and I doubt it's going to change.

Look, maybe the thread leans a little into Troll territory, but I took it as another way of saying, "I am frustrated with all of these absolutist opinions that say you're doing it wrong".

I feel that way.

When I see posts talking about a single spell that ends a combat before it has begun, or 300 damage in a round...consistently...at 10th level, I wonder what game people are playing...and what target dummies their GM is throwing against them....


Jiggy wrote:
VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.

I must disagree. I have been haunting these boards for around 6 years, and I got the same exact impressions the OP listed. No, I did not exhaustively research every topic and read thousands of posts to track down every differing opinion, so as to "fact check". Many of us cannot keep up with the sheer magnitude of post output on these boards. But, I have consistently seen the same or similar "absolutist" opinions that are being discussed, and I drew the same conclusion as to the prevailing attitude toward the subjects outlined by OP.

I think many of you are being very hard on the OP. In fact I have rarely seen so many well considered opinions posted on these varied topics in all my years here.

I don't fall into the trap of the absolute opinions, just as I don't go for all the "optimization", but I can easily see how someone could.


StabbittyDoom wrote:

The main reason that the scaling numbers are fun is because not all enemies or challenges scale. My group, for example, frequently encounters enemies of well below their CR. We just skip the encounter and say "we won" with no experience reward. This is not something you can do with a static-numbers system.

Also, the scaling numbers enable characters at level 1 to be as vulnerable as real-world heroes, whereas those at 11+ may be capable of surviving trauma so extreme it begins to stretch credulity (such as surviving a nuclear blast, or swiming through lava).

Another scaling factor is mundane challenges like crafting, climbing walls, or jumping. The existing system allows making 40ft or longer jumps, climbing the underside of an oil-slicked overhang, etc.

Not only does it enable the above outlandish deeds, it enables making some of them routine. Sure, lower level people could, in weird circumstances, do similar things. But higher level PF characters can do some of these things day in and day out and largely take it for granted.

I, personally, would much rather keep the scaling and make it something everyone gets for leveling than abandon the concept of scaling entirely. Though low-power games are fun, there are many other systems better suited to that purpose (e.g. Savage Worlds or World of Darkness).

I'm totally open to better ways to scale it, but the main draw of a direct replacement is that it means you don't have to rewrite any stat blocks :)

Indeed. I love the idea of lower numbers with slower scaling, a la 5th Edition D&D...except I like PF better. But, the point of this thread is a way to replace items that will allow the continued use of published materials, as well as avoiding excessive amounts of WORK for the GM.

I have seen various charts with choice or static progression. I have even toyed with the idea of a straight up "level bonus" to several relevant numbers in the neighborhood of +1 per 4 levels. But spreading the bonuses over the level progression would be smoother and much more satisfying. I would probably reorder which bonuses come when, especially the attributes, but this is solid.


Andostre wrote:

So... would it be possible to replace all the increasing numbers with just one number? These numbers are completely off the top of my head without any though follow through, but what if we did something like:

All classes with a fast BAB progression have a static +5 BAB forever. Medium is +3; slow is +1.

Similar concept for saves and hit points. This would leave the focus on new feats and new abilities.

The multi-classing would have to be re-written, but essentially, the concept is playing E6 where everyone starts at level 6.

Thinking about it, I can already see lots of problems with the concept to be worked out, but it might be worth exploring. (And I bet it already has been. I can't imagine I'm the first to think of it.)

That sounds pretty cool, as far as E6 goes. One of my small complaints about "standard" E6 is the normal progression from 1st to 6th, which takes no time at all, and then BAM...wall. It sort of cuts to the chase starting at 6th; basically, you make up a bad ass hero, with a bad ass build...and play them.

With regard to your proposal, I would make it +6, +4, +2 BAB. It mimics the normal E6 stops for Good and Medium, and "normalizes" the rather odd bit where Wizards end up only 1 behind Rogues. As well, it keeps the "capstone" of a 2nd attack for full BAB classes.

1 to 50 of 787 << 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.