I'm feeling your pain. I had to ask for the same thing because the summer school classes I thought I'd be teaching fell through. Good luck. :)
Same thing here Iconoclastic. I was all set to teach to Summer School then someone from in house of the district complained they did not get notice.
I would give up the summer months off i a heartbeat to work year round.
But I hesitate to complain because well at least I am employed. Too many of my friends are not.
Quite the contrary. It shows just how good D&D NEXT could be. I am quite happy with the playtest, and I am greatly looking forward to purchasing support for the Forgotten Realms label once again.
It can also be theorized that since those worshipers were worshipping Talos instead of Gruumsh (even though it was Gruumsh) their faith could have spawned that aspect. In essence the aspect being worshipped actually becomes a Deity reducing Gruumsh's power.
I ask this honestly.
WHen one reads Trans woman does it refer to the starting point or the destination?
I don't understand the crux of mr. Dancey's criticism of this item. It works well mechanically I think, but most of the criticism from Mr. Dancey seems to be on the naturalistic end.
Ofcourse most of what he says is true, but dogs don't blink in and out of existence, octopoid tentacles don't grow out of shoulder blades of panthers, and the size of a titan would cause a complete collapse of the skeleton. Not even counting that giant insects can't survive out of water because their Chitin would collapse.
We have also restored coral reefs in a matter of decades not millennia.
This is not even my favorite entry but the criticism seems somehow unfair given the vast history of monsters in D&D and the bestiaries of pathfinder. In a fantasy game one should not have to worry about anything being chemically, physically, or biologically sound. If that is the case I can take a huge red pen and cross out 85% of our 3 bestiaries.
Generally Ryan Dancey is the first criticism I read, and one that I lend serious weight too, and still will. This particular criticism just struck a nerve.
I would want them to keep Invisibility. Maybe make SOME spells specialist only like Enervation. Perhaps we could keep the shapechange spells and make them multiround castings. Something you would need intelligence (Intel not IQ) to use. As for True Strike, Divine Power and such I like defensive buffs for spellcasters, I never have liked offensive buffs. Tenser's Transformation was a munchkin from the start.
I would want to keep Offensive buffs for the Ranger and Paladin.
Tonight I am running a module where the PC's will go into an area of Dead MAgic. All magic items will be shut off as well as all spellcasting.
Would the Alchemist's Extract work? At this point I am saying no.
I think the Bombs would work, and I think the Mutagen would work, but my mind can change on this as well.
Not every creature has the ability for magic or divinity. Every creature however has some capacity to fight and use skills. The fighter should just be BETTER at fighting, as the rogue should be better at exploiting skills.
Wizard may not fight well but he can still fight. The same cannot be said about using magic.
I can easily be on board with STR/DEX being the primary weapon stat and then having a feat that allows you to replace one of those with INT/WIS/CHR. It makes it work for me. Much like the feat Noble Scion in the INner sea world guide. Every paladin should have that feat, (using CHA as your initiative statistic), though the background is for noble birth so you can only take it at first level.
I envision it as the Paladin shouting a challenge or insult, or something that causes the opponent a moment of shock and fear. Really good feat.
I like the idea of a FEAT allowing the ability to be replaced. I am opposed to an arbitrary assignment with whatever ability works best for your class features.
You make a descent case for it, in fact the only one that makes sense, but I still prefer the physical stat/mental stat separation. I would be more willing to allow the mental abilities to add in different ways.
What struck a nerve with me in your post (not in a bad way necessarily) is the misconception of the height of a KNight. Knights actually were rather tall, because there are many that would not be able to cut the warrior class because of the weapons (A flamberge was easily 8 pounds)and the sheer weight of armor. Knights had to be incredibly strong (I am not going to pretend to put a D&D number to it). I have had the pleasure of fighting in full on plate mail, and intelligence is not going to pull you through THAT:)
Unfortunately much of the preserved armor is later than 13th century, but archaeologists estimate the average height of NOBLES in briton and Normandy to be about 5'7" -5'8". Much goes into this estimate, from the size of weaponry, the size of shields, saddles, tack, and of course skeleton measurements.
Funny enough MANY nobles also were Dwarfs (the genetic condition, necessary to say that here,) because of the breeding.
So I will give you the abilities.
Its true poorer people were shorter than nobles, but the idea that people in the Middle Ages were extremely short is a misconception.
This is one of the things I could not get to work out in my head. I like the separation of physical stats from mental statistics. Maybe it is because of real world physics, but I never liked the idea of any other stat controlling physical attacks other than strength or Dexterity. It might make playing a character easier, but I don't think common sense should be sacrificed for ease of rules.
Regardless it is the most likely scenario.
Finn K wrote:
I promise you no double standard here.
I am being completely honest here. I would not care one whit if the game decided to distort real world religions. I am not saying that to be a jerk, and I am not an atheist, but religion of all kinds have a very low importance in my life. I am also a religiously literate person but I find religion more akin to philosophy than faith. I tolerate all religions, but I do not crusade on any of their behalf.
My wife is pagan, and I go to her ceremonies because they are Asatru, and I think they are cool and I get to drink mead. I don't feel any sort of spiritual identity at a blo(a)t I just go. I also re-enact vikings in the SCA so it is just fun. It annoys me they don't dress like viking though. Occasionally I will go to church on Christmas Eve or Easter and relax, but I don't really feel any more devotion if I go to church. I am more than likely to get any feelings of devotion or Faith while hiking or scuba diving.
I wonder what about the original Deities and Demigods was really OFFENSIVE however. They were really raw statistics with a blurb trying to interpret mythology. PErhaps since I am not religious I don't get the offense, which is very possible because there are things that my Mom gets offended at that I don't blink an eye towards.
When I was an undergrad I used to challenge the Christian group on campus as follows: "How can you call the gods of the Ancient Greeks mythical when the people at that time were just as devoted to their deities THEN as we are to our deity NOW." They usually gave me drivel about knowing through faith, or claiming that worship in that time did not show devotion as now (yeah right). They never thought they were stumped because of the faith copout, but really they could never provide a satisfactory answer.
So I come from a stance that it is not a big deal, but I also realize I am not sensitive to religious needs.
But look at the Golarion Gods. We have Asmodeus, and we have Irori. OK Irori is not CALLED Buddha but I could see how it might offend some of that religion (actually are they ever offended?) to have a mock portrayal of Buddhism.
I would not ever purposely offend someone's religion, but I don't find converting ANY deity into raw statistics an offensive action.
Finn K wrote:
We already have Asmodeus. That was a Jewish Demon. I lived in the 80's where mothers were against D&D for the supposed Devils and Demons in it.
If someone is offended at the gods from mythology being represented slightly off, that is nothing compared to the publicity battle that D&D went though in the 80's.
I will take the real world gods. Something will always offend someone, and after D&D survived the Mothers going after them in the 80's they could easily survive it now. People should understand it is a game and not a literal interpretation.
Saint Trickery wrote:
I don't know if we should nail a designer because, eugenics is bad. So is murder, but we make villains that are murderers all the time. We make villains that enslave; there is certainly a segment of the population that could offend.
The designer should not be dinged because an activity the organization does is offensive. Isn't killing innocent people offensive? So why do we allow murderers as our villains?
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I don't find the 'nazi' theme to be any more unoriginal than another Merchant den out to dominate the trade of the world, or crazy cults.
The only thing I didn't like about this was the Lich. However this mistake is so obvious it feels like asking a student to complete a physics problem and then failing them because they switched a positive sign to a negative sign, or a math error.
They had 3 days to do this or something. I am not going to fault someone for missing the harbingers on pg 266. That book is meaty, and it SHOULD have been found. Yet what about the design? I think it was done well. I think it was well thought out.
For the Organizations I have found only one that is in my book an A entry. This one might have been if he got the research correct. Still should the entire core of the idea which is good be failed because of an oversite and a dumb mistake? The magnitude of the mistake is huge, but the solution, and chance of repeating a mistake like this is minimal. When I was in high school I pumped gas into a Diesel car. I will never make that mistake again.
Clark Peterson wrote:
Phineus and Pherb is one of the most genius cartoons to come out ever!
Chorus: Now bring us some figgy pudding...
With that said I liked the name, but I was disappointed. However, I have been following Tom and I want to see what he can do later, so I'll probably go for it.
The NPC wrote:
I don't see Forgotten Realms as a trap, I think it adds to the flavor.
I added an Ulfen Pantheon (the Norse gods, some of whom were already worshipped under their Golarion names in Avistan), I added Mielikki because Gozreh is too broad. The romans and greeks had gods for mortar and bricks so I like Lots of minor gods. I also gave Osirion the Egyptian Pantheon.
Mielikki I include in the Ulfen Pantheon because well she is Finnish.
I brought in the Non human pantheons as well, I like my elves with Corellon and my dwarves with Moradin (which is the dwarven name for Torag).
My favorite god of course:
Cross the rainbow bridge of Asgard,
But If I had to pick a Golarion god, I love Desna with Abadar second.
[Hero Lab] Version 6.12 of the Pathfinder files for Hero Lab are now available! Dragon Empires Primer!
Mathias Gehl wrote:
I bought the Campaign setting package about a week and a half ago (the deal for $19.99), is the Dragon Empires going to be added to that soon?
By the way I am very happy with that purchase. You guys made the Faction rules SUPER EASY. I used to have to track that separately. Now I can use that time improving my maps.
you guys rock!
I agree. I solve this problem because I have hero lab, and I generate mook stats and print them out. I keep one copy in the bestiary incase I forget.
Hero Lab has made preparing Pathfinder supereasy.
I really don't know how correct it is to categorize the work of Jack Vance as, "Obscure". Is this a comment coming from someone who is familiar with his work, and numerous awards and believes it is "Obscure" simply because it is not the current "Thing" on HBO. It is, to me, the same as saying the works of Bing Crosby, Cole Porter, or Oscar Wilde, are "Obscure". probably not an accurate description. "Not as well known as Salvatore", would even be a stretch. It would all depend on what group of people you are asking.
Jack Vance just did a good job explaining his magic system. Any other magic system from the time could easily have worked that way, including folklore.
It is not inherently better or worse than any other magic system, but it is the BEST system for any edition of Dungeons and Dragons and Pathfinder.
Perhaps my frustration with ignoring the diagonal rule simply comes from my experience in education. It probably is not a game issue at all. I understand that most gamers know the diagonal is longer. I understand that YOU the DIgital MAge made a valid decision to ignore that rule yet you understand it. My issue and often frustration comes when a vast majority of people, do not understand simple geometry. Eliminating the diagonal rule is a missed oppurtunity to subtly teach a simple principle.
Perhaps a person (not even a child, plenty of adults do not understand simple math) doesn't realize the diagonal is longer. Pathfinder might make them realize there is a difference, where 4e in striving to be accessable is willing to ignore it, because it is 'just too hard'. There is an opportunity to VISUALLY teach a math principle while having fun.
Now I understand the purpose of gaming is NOT to educate, yet I wonder if my vocabulary would be at the level it is now if not for Gary Gygax and D&D. 4e eliminated much of the intellectual lifting for access. It is not WOTC's job to teach, but it is just one more missed opportunity 'along the way' to teach something valuable.
I do not think that learning the diagonal rule makes people more educated or anything insulting like that. I am discussing it as that '1 more thing' that can be ignored that over time adds up.
People think being enumerate is not an issue. If we in the United States at least had a better rate of math proficiency it is quite possible many people purchasing houses could have identified they were being sold a bill of goods by predatory banks if they were able to simply inject numbers in a formula.
Its fine if you don't want to use the rule, but is counting out a 1 then 2 then 1 then 2 really difficult? I promise no snark intended, but there is no extra effort in preserving that 'realism'. How is counting the 1:2 ratio on diagonal squares really a matter of difficulty?
It is not a matter of simulation. Clearly if you look at the battlemat,the mini that moved 3 squares corner to corner has a greater displacement than the one that moved 3 squares front to back. It simply throws off the scaling of your map.
I can't even imagine how that can be a difficulty, especially for gamers. i find math of pathfinder to be sweet and easy.
Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:
~GETTING RID OF THAT STUPID DIAGONAL MOVEMENT RULE. NO! Do NOT defend this rule. It makes NO sense. NONE. Someone tried, I made them walk outside, and *GASP* you get to places QUICKER when you move diagonally, not the same rate. It's STUPID. And of all the rules I moved into Pathfinder from 4ed, this is the one that shall forever move with me. I've NEVER seen it abused in practice.
If you are not going to count diagonals then just use a tape measure, otherwise distance is meaningless. Measure it out. Place two minis 5 squares apart. Measure the distance. Take two minis and place them 5 squares apart corner to corner now measure THAT distance. THAT is why the diagonal rule makes sense.
Whether you travel forward, backward, left, right, or diagonal you travel a DISTANCE. Moving diagonal has nothing to do with it.
The diagonal rule is logical because the distance from se to nw is 1.4 inches instead of a inch. Moving forward through 2 squares gets you two inches, moving diagonally gets you 2.85 inches.
If one square represents 5 feet, then the diagonal is 7 feet. Moving two diagonal squares nets you ALMOST another square.
So just because someone decides to move nw to se they should gain more distance? That is not what makes sense. Why would anyone move forward?
No one needs to defend it because Pythagorus does it so well.
Moving diagonally does NOT get you anywhere faster. In real life if you travel diagonally you are simply traveling a distance.
EDIT: Someone Ninja'd that response.
I live in Morris county, but I have a house in ocean grove (Neptune) that I visit at least once a month. I want to run my own adventures and paizo adventure paths. If we can get more people I can offer to GM in ocean grove and I can make the trip more than one weekend a month. I will travel down there at least 2 weekends a month if we can get people together. Unless you are far south of Pkwy exit 102. If your near 102 I am willing to travel down there.
Chuck Wright wrote:
Ah thank you for this!
Chuck Wright wrote:
Chimeric DNA is completely laboratory made, from a bunch of different sources, used in medicine. My degree is in Molecular Biology and I used to work with it all the time. I left the field though because I am a complete germophobe, and I got tired of working in WHITE labs with UV lights and fans. I switched fields now.
I agree with you on the naturalistic approach. It jars me when game writers for fantasy of an assumed historical period that is not 1900's use genes in discussion. It kind of pulls me out of the fantasy so to speak.
The idea of hereditary component was around in the times assumed by the Pathfinder rules and Golarion, but DNA is a product of the atomic age.
When we started getting close we called it the 'transforming principle' in the 1920's. We were not sure what that was at the time though protein was suspected.
So I enjoy pieces about ecology, descent, and behavior in pre 1900's assumed fantasy, but DNA really is a modern idea. I also get jarred when Monster Rules are scientifically explained. It isn't necessary, and the explanation is usually just a reach.
I like the alchemist as a pseudo-scientist. he makes bombs and it is Assumed he is using a mix of mundane and magical chemicals but there is no effort to explain HOW its done. I think if you are not running science fiction that is where explanation should stop. Say it HAPPENS.
Its like the mediclorions of Star Wars. Suddenly George Lucas needed a scientific mechanism to explain the force (which I just say is magic). So now not anyone can be a Jedi. All Jedi must be symbiotes. What if I kidnap little anakin and culture his mediclorions and inject them into people? Now they can all be Jedi?
More than likely it was just an explanation for George Lucas' crazy immaculate conception idea.
I don't beleive it. I fully bet Shmi Skywalker got gaga over some jedi. She had some drinks they got busy and the JEdi (who presumably would be a powerful one to give off such offspring) realized he messed up, and to save Shmi from heartbreak used the force to make her forget.
So when Qui-gon asks her about the father, she has to say she literally has no idea. You can even see the shame on her face in Phantom Menace.
That is the explanation I am sticking with:)
In modern biology classic taxonomy is nearly extinct. It is just to difficult to get the characteristics to conform. Evolutionary biologists pretty much favor cladistics now.
I am a scientist and I hate imposing science on a classically magic world. I like science to stay far out of fantasy. This is in no way poopooing the idea for others I just don't like it because there are too many conflicting items.
I remember in 2nd edition a biology book was released for the beholder. I hated it. Bringing the levitation to a pseudoscientific level opens lots of more options for beating the beholder. Really though it is impossible to get the biology to work so I just like leaving it at magical rather than naturalistic biology.
Though we do have chimeric DNA in the real world :)
Just my thoughts, and not saying others should not do it if they like.
Veiled Nail wrote:
honestly the Charisma bonus was completely intentional, to enhance channeling. I suspected it was overdone. You are correct I modeled the negative energy penalty after the robe. I thought it was cool, and I should have learned the lesson I tell people in the Larp I wrote rules for, if you think it is cool you should revisit it. I did not follow my own advice.
I thought the CHA bonus was a good edition because it was channeling, that was the only reason I included it.
Thank you, your criticism leads to thoughts!
I have put together a word document of a sampling of items and their criticisms just for reference. Some because they are from members of this board I have come to respect, some because of mistakes they made, and others because it is an item theme I might have submitted.
The brutal honesty is helpful. I have read just about every item and its criticism DESPITE the work I should be doing in real life. I have learned heaps just from reading the item and judges comments.
Many items I think that were rejected by the judges, I think are even better than some items in the top 32.
The bottom line is this is HARD. Its easy to make items, but I guarantee even in the days of TSR Dragon submissions the scrutiny was not as tight, and you would have even been paid $5 for your bit.
The judges are under no obligation to critique these items so it is really up to each individual to do their homework. This thread alone is a HUGE resource.
Honestly any feedback from anyone would be appreciated. I don't care how harsh the criticism, after all you really don't know what I look like so if you put it sounds like it was written by a fat, bearded guy that lives in a cave you don't REALLY know that the description suits me so I would take no offense.
Any bits would be appreciated.
Carl Cascone wrote:
Clark Peterson wrote:
NO NO so many times NO!!
There is something to be gained from the RAW criticism. It is something you can only get if you are in the room. Critique is certainly useful, but this is a first screen.
Brutal honesty is sometimes the best criticism one can recieve but so often it is not given.
The fact this is even happening is a gift!
Please don't change what you are doing.
Neil Spicer wrote:
OK community help:) Is there something other than the phylactery I am missing? I see how I departed from that but could there be something else to which the judges refer?
Neil Spicer wrote:
I suspected adding a Charisma bonus was not wise but it fits the items purpose. Is it generally bad form to include other ability bonus items other than the Belts and headbands?
Neil Spicer wrote:
I didn't consider that aspect of the item. I suppose I should have.
Neil Spicer wrote:
I was worried it was overdone, but I chose to go for it. We all make poor choices.
At least I earned the last part I emphasised in bold, so some of what I was trying to create I managed to get.
I appreciate the professional compliment as I work hard on that.
This answered many of my questions. Thank you.
Neil Spicer wrote:
All the relevant things that everyone should have fgured out
I have not gotten critique yet but still thank you, and I hope I get my initial critique.
As someone that grades for a living, I know how much work is involved. My environmental science exams which I am grading now run about 2400 words each and I have 120 of those, far less than you guys have to deal with. except I only have this weekend to do it.
I was very disappointed I didn't make it, but realistically with my grading deadline, and the biochem research seminar I have, I really don't know how I would have pulled off the organization by today.
I would have by hook or by crook, but it is kind of good I didn't have too. Sleep is good.
Thank you for the work you put in, it is realized.
I am not an overly sensitive individual so any feedback would be appreciated:) Thank you for the opportunity. Initially I had planned this to be a Sarenrae specific item, but I eliminated most of that because of the background material.
Honestly it was nice to design something with the pressure of format and publicity. Normally I design for home, it was a great pleasure to treat this as a job, even if the better ones won!
Veil of the Final Redemption
Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
Last year I felt like the William Hung of RPG Superstar. Well not exactly, but I was pretty hard on myself. I digested the judges criticisms, worked hard on the areas where I fell short, and read, then reread, the advice that offered (for free!) by various judges and well-versed posters on the boards. My design and balance skills have increased. Now to see if my wordsmithery is up to the challenge ahead.
congratulations on making it this year. I'm glad the first year XP paid off for you.
Kavren Stark wrote:
Stark is banned because his name is Krats Nervak spelled backward. Clearly it is a rip off of Krats Nervak.
I am REALLY attached to Mass Effect. Bioware scored something great there.
I am not necessarily attached to Shepherd. I love the character, but Mass Effect really IS more than the character. I am hoping for the Mass Effect Franchise to continue after ME3, but I would like to see it involve other characters. the feeling I get is that Mass Effect is loved for its universe, contrasted with Metal Gear Solid which seems loved for its character.
In any case, there is no way the anticipation of a ME movie could match the anticipation I have for Mass Effect 3 right now. I am really hoping my saving the Rachni Queen paid off.
Sardonic Soul wrote:
Ok, I got my riot gear and bear mace so I'll weigh in and wait for the backlash. Psionics just aren't core to the game. When people think about a fanatsy game like pathfinder or d&d people think of wizards, clerics, etc. Nobody thinks of luke skywalker. If you were playing a scifi game nobody would bring up magic. It's that simple. Granted some people like a crossover but they are niche. That is why with all the base classes out now not one is a psionisist. It would require its own book and take resources away from more popular game supplements. In the end it would lose paizo money catering to a niche. That's why it was left to third party devlopers. In short psionics are like gun rules or Ron Paul, most people don't care for them but those that do are rabid about it.... There I'm done and will head to my bomb shelter till the fallout fades.
Star Wars doesn't use psionics. Star Wars also is not sci fi, it is fantasy through and through. The force is magic, especially as portrayed in the expanded novels.
But I am with you, I do not like mixing sci fi in my sword and sorcery. I am happy however that Golarion has contained areas to satisfy that niche.
I have my own cosmological explanations as to why psionics won't manifest in most golarion ethnicities, and why workable guns can only be formed in Arkenstar. I have my own 'magic/tech rating system largely inspired from ARCANUM and Manual of the Planes 1st edition.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
I'd rather Paizo left psionics to Dreamscarred. I really don't want to choose between two systems.
If that is the case though, then there will never be a Paizo written AP. I am interested in psionics only for those dark tapestry creatures, and perhaps deep sea. I imagine Vudrani to be psionic but I never intend to let it manifest anywhere else except Numeria.
I am very interested in an AP for Numeria (At least a Chronicles book PLEASE!) and a vudrani AP. If Dreamscarred gets adopted I don;t know if Paizo would write it 'psionicly' or with psionics in mind.
I was thinking about picking dreamscarred up but does anyone know if there is a HEROLAB supplement for it? For 3pp, not being Herolab compatible is deal breaker for me.
I flipped through a book of theirs in the game store and it looked really nice however, I think it was victorian age.