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

Carl Cascone's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 179 posts (696 including aliases). No reviews. 2 lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have never allowed Summoner or Gunslinger.

All the other classes I allow. The summoner just seems a completely complicated redundant class. And I play in FR without Guns.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
IconoclasticScream wrote:
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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hello,

Please cancel my Pathfinder Battles Miniatures subscription. I am a teacher on summer budget, and that amount of money is not possible until september when I get paid again.

Many THanks!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ericthetolle wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
If it's so forgettable, why did you remember to post in here?
Because it sounds better honestly, than "Generic Realms". HOnestly, I brought it up, because bringing Greenwood back to set everything back the way it was is just another example of how creatively bankrupt D&D Next is.

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Diffan wrote:
memorax wrote:
Diffan wrote:


It was actually reveiled that Talos was actually Gruumsh, though I doubt many Talosians believe that. It was a way for Gruumsh to obtain more followers from races outside of Orcs. The same way Sehanine Moonbow is really another aspect of Selûne. A moon goddess appearing to multiple races in their own preceived form will likely be given different names. Those different aspects then grow/manifest into different portfolios and beliefs. Not really that unheard of even in Real World mythology. Heck, Lathander has been Amaunator for a long time and there is possibly a "thrid face of Dusk" too.
I don't see why that would be a problem really. It makes sense imo and I never liked the whole "I'm a good of orcs so only orcs can worship me" type of logic. In one of my FR games the group I was running the game for converted a tribe of hobgoblins to worship Tempus. They are gods why should they be limited by race.
Agreed. Espically after the Time of Troubles, where Gods power was often a direct reflection of their worship. It only makes sense for Gods to obtain as many followers as possible, and thats likely to breach different races as well. Espically something as broad a "Storms and Destruction".

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
GentleGiant wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Shifty wrote:
Anyhow, I have met a lot of GLB gamers, but not yet a T.
It sucks being a rarity.

I've met a bunch of T women (no T men, as far as I know anyway), but I don't think any of them have been gamers (at least in the PnP way - video games are another matter).

So, as Winterthorn said, revel in the uniqueness instead. :-D

I ask this honestly.

WHen one reads Trans woman does it refer to the starting point or the destination?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Diffan wrote:
Carl Cascone wrote:


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.

Agreed, however they should not be aided in this venture via spells. Tenser's Transformation, Righteous Might, Divine Power, True Strike, Enervation, Greater Invisibility, Polymorph are all ways in which spellcasters level the playing field of melee-based character. Simply removing these spells would equal the playing field a bit, at least keeping spellcasting classes 2nd to melee/ranged fighting. Really, it's only fair.

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Alzrius wrote:
Anything that's supernatural relies on magic, and does not function in a dead magic zone (unless its description specifies otherwise).

Perfect many thanks!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The extracts are Supernatural abilities but do they rely on magic? This is really where my puzzlement is coming in.

For that case Bombs and Mutagens are Supernatural. Sigh.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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.

Any advice?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bluenose wrote:
Pyrrhic Victory wrote:
I have no problem with fighters who "just fight". Is that not what they are for??? If you want magic play a wizard. If you want to heal people play a priest. Sneaky = rogue. That is the reason for the class system, to decide what kind of character you want to play and then to play it. The idea that all classes must do everything seems kind of silly to me and not very D&D.
Fine. Now make sure you take away the ability of the other classes to fight. Wizards deal with arcane magic problems, Clerics deal with divine magic problems, rogues deal with 'skillsy' problems. No overlap. After all, characters who can do everything are not very D&D.

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This is not the article I wanted to link, but this one should be an adequate summary about the stability of height across the periods.

http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=3995


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Diffan wrote:


Fair enough, though I think it might have to do with what part of the world your drawing your knights from. And while I'd love to get into a discussion of military warfare of the medieval period, I think it derails this topic a bit, lol. I wouldn't mind seeing a feat that allows players to go through a different stat (of their choice) when making attack rolls. Something like 4th Editions's Melee Training feat which says:

Benefit: Choose an ability other than Strength. When you make a melee basic attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, you can use the chosen ability instead of Strength for the attack roll. In addition, you can use...

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Diffan wrote:
Carl Cascone wrote:
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.

I don't think it has to do with common sense at all. Sure, strength/dexterity can play a part in physical attacks, but the be all-end all? NO, I think D&D is more than that, even from a realistic understanding. Knights of the 13th century probably wouldn't have Strength scores of 17's and 18's since it would be hard to accomplish that with an average height of 5'4" and weight around 160 lbs.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Diffan wrote:
Terquem wrote:

I have always had problems accepting (not that I can argue that there is any real flaw with this approach) combat "To Hit" rolls that use modifiers to the dice derived from ability scores other than Dex and Strength. I don't know why, but it really bugged me when I tried to explain to players how it was that a Bard got to add his Charisma bonus to a to hit roll with a bow and arrow. I know, in the long run, it isn't relevant how the action is resolved, things hit or they don’t, do damage, produce cool effects, yadda-yadda, but it just felt weird to me.

So I am sort of on the fence about this as far as any development of 5e is concerned. I don’t think I would like to see this aspect of 4e carried over, but then again I understand a lot of players liked the diversity it opened up in battles.

I guess I like the idea of combat being the domain of the physical ability scores, Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, and Magic being the domain of the mental ability scores, Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma.

See, I liked how I didn't have to be MAD (multiple attribute dependant) for characters that can cast a bit and are supposed to fight on the front lines. A most prime example of this is the Paladin. By having him use Charisma for his attacks, he doens't have to put a TON of emphasis on Strength and Charisma fueled a lot of his Mo-jo too. I love that sort of synergy.

I also think the only reason physical wepaon attacks are only done through Str and Dex was just to simulate real-world physics (something that is a bit controversial, so I'll steer clear) and that when you force classes to use them AND have a resonable amount of points in other attributes to their other stuff well....it causes problems. The 3E paladin needed high Strength for his attacks, moderate Constitution for HP due to him being on the front lines, moderate- to high-Charisma that fuels ALL of his class features, and moderate-Wisdom because it's what his spells were pulled from. PF made his spellcasting tie...

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
I scrolled through an old thread lamenting the old, old problem of what good-aligned PCs are supposed to do with the elderly, pregnant, blind and half-grown members of all those evil tribes.

The notion of this ever happening in a traditional game has always seemed silly to me, as there would rarely ever be any of those things in a goblin tribe for any real length of time.

The elderly, half-grown, and blind would be either be eaten or beaten to death by the tough meaner representatives of goblin society while the pregnant members would most likely be hidden away inside some barrow somewhere until they are suitable to be raped again. The only reason goblins likely even survive as a race is due to their prolific breeding.

The only time you will ever find goblin non-combatants in any traditional campaign is when the GM wants to screw with the players (especially if there is a paladin). It's very poor form if you ask me.

Regardless it is the most likely scenario.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

No worries Finn, sounds like we are largely in agreement and the double standard would annoy me. I may not be religious but I have strong feeling about not blaspheming anyone's deities. Well outside of rpgs I guess.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Finn K wrote:


Carl--
I was around in the '80s when those PR battles went down. If that is your feeling though-- When/if a game comes out that does use Christian/Muslim theology in the thoroughly-altered and not exactly the same thing way I described above-- if you say it's okay to use the Pagan gods that way, and then object to borrowing and bending Judeo-Christian-Islamic gods that same way-- I am going to call you on that blatant double-standard (I'll call anyone else on it, who does the same sort of thing). So long as you don't hold that double-standard (Okay to take some people's beliefs, but not okay to make similar use of other people's beliefs)-- at least you're consistent (if not necessarily respectful or disrespectful of the source material)and I can respect that.

What I particularly object to (and the point I was really after in the earlier post, although I guess I didn't quite hit the target as intended), is the all-too-common feeling that "it's okay to do whatever you want with all of these mythologies, but don't you dare take anything from my actual religion" that I have run into many times over from Christians, and Muslims, and Jews. Those who do that, IMO really need to rethink their position. For my part, I will NOT tolerate someone who shows such intolerance towards others on racial, religious, sexual, etc., grounds.

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Finn K wrote:


Now put it this way... imagine the outrage if, for your campaign's faiths, you took the Torah (aka 'Old Testament'), mixed it up in a figurative blender, chopped up the resulting mix and tossed in a salad with some holy water (all figuratively speaking of course)-- and unleashed a vaguely Old Testament/Judaic "fire and brimstone" faith with a Father God and a long line of cranky prophets-- perhaps mixed in with some ideas of Satan (bent by Zoroastrian duality) and maybe the minor Gods of peoples opposed to the Jews take on a little bit more reality as opposing pantheons in your game. Now add in a radical sect that follows a particular savior/prophet, which is spreading and altering the teachings of the original faith, but claims to believe in the same God (call him 'Yeshua'-- the new prophet, I mean); and maybe toss in one more sect led by a radical desert prophet who talks to the Father God's servants ('Seraphim') and talks about Djinni and Efreeti, and wants to conquer all under his theocratic state-- who first holds out the hand of friendship to the other followers of Father God, and then holds out the sword when they won't accept his version of the 'message'.... and of course, then we can borrow elements from the struggle between Catholics and Protestants;...

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Saint Trickery wrote:

Hmm. Kinda like Nazis. But with less going on. The real Nazis had a charismatic leader, scary secret police, mind control, and shadowy occult connections. As well as world domination goals, but I'm not recommending more of that.

These guys do eugenics by force. That's bad. I'm not seeing the end game to this, or how I'd build a campaign around it.

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:

Pure Line, racial purity, gotcha.

I dunno, this group just feels like a fantasy variant of the Nazis--obsessed with racial purity, reclaiming a lost empire, fighting racial enemies, breeding experiments, and searching for ancient relics.

Does it work as an organization? Yes. Is it really new? I don't think so.

I do not recommend this to advance.

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Clark Peterson wrote:

But this seems more Doctor Doofenshmirtz (bonus if you get that) than subversive magical reformation.

Phineus and Pherb is one of the most genius cartoons to come out ever!

Chorus: Now bring us some figgy pudding...
and bring some right here
we won't go until we've got some
repeat

Dr.:
No body comes to my house and demands DESSERTS!

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The NPC wrote:
MerrikCale wrote:
Leper wrote:
Anyone else disappointed by the PF pantheon? I miss the days when D&D pantheon was based on real life or literary mythology...
I wouldnt say disappointed, but I would like several pantheons. Maybe an Ulfen one, a Taldan one with some overlap etc ect
And have Golarion fall into the same trap as Forgotten Realms? Which it is already close to as it is.

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,
Where the mighty Heavens roar,
You'll behold the god of Thunder,
The God of Thunder; Mighty Thor!

But If I had to pick a Golarion god, I love Desna with Abadar second.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mathias Gehl wrote:

Version 6.12 of the Pathfinder files for Hero Lab are now available from the automatic updates mechanism within Hero Lab.

This update adds the Dragon Empires Primer as a free update for those with the Player's Companion; Golarion #2 package (which is available for $4.99). The update also fixes the intelligent item rules, bringing them fully up to the Pathfinder version of those rules. And, fixing the intelligent item rules allowed us to properly handle the black blades for the Magus' Bladebound archetype.

This update also adds player content from Pathfinder #52 and includes some bug fixes.

If you're not familiar with Hero Lab, please head over to the Hero Lab page of our website. There, you can download Hero Lab in demo mode and try it out. The only things you'll be prevented from doing in demo mode are saving and printing (although you can see the print preview), so that you can give Hero Lab a test before you decide to purchase it.

We also offer another option if you want to try out Hero Lab - Hero Lab for the Beginner Box. This is a free program, although it only contains content from the beginner box, and doesn't offer content from the core rulebook or any other Pathfinder books. It does, however, allow you to save and print.

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!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Shadowdweller wrote:

I dislike the implementation of 4e minions. Something, however, I wouldn't mind seeing in Pathfinder: Stat blocks for some readymade 'mook' type enemies juxtaposed next to mastermind type monsters in a bestiary. Some mook stat blocks of basic savage humanoid type enemies at various levels. Or possibly an entire supplement devoted to CR-adjusted mook statblocks. To keep things interesting and viable at higher levels.

Examples: Basic orc warrior, orc barbarian 1, orc barbarian 3, orc shaman, etc.

Would make my life a hell of a lot easier as a GM.

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Terquem wrote:
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.

Exactly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Terquem wrote:
It seems silly to complain that Vancian magic, “Doesn’t make sense,” ...
Well, I think the main problem is that Vancian magic is almost entirely unlike any system of magic portrayed in popular literature / film / folklore / etc. The only things that are really similar are 1) very obscure works that have only been salvaged from complete obscurity because of their influence on Dungeons & Dragons; or 2) works that are themselves direct adaptations of Dungeons & Dragons.

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DigitalMage wrote:
Same as above

And I am with you, I enjoyed the 3rd edition grapple rules. One reason the 4e teaser video annoyed me.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DigitalMage wrote:
Carl Cascone wrote:
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'.

As I stated in my post, for me, yes, there is an "extra hassle /effort /time" in calculating the diagonal movement rule in 3.5 and PF - its not much, but it is noticeable.

I personally always play RAW so when I run 3.5 or PF I run the diagonal rule and accept the extra effort, however when I play 4e I use the 4e movement rules where diagonals only count 1 and it has absolutely zero impact on my sense of verisimiltude, so as there is no "cost" for me, even the slightest benefit means it has a great cost: benefit ratio.

Carl Cascone wrote:
I can't even imagine how that can be a difficulty, especially for gamers.

I found the 3.5 Grapple rules fairly okay, but I can accept that people have different levels of ability, comprehension, or patience for detailed rules, and so accept that some people may find grapple difficult.

I think you just need to accept that for people other than yourself counting diagonals can be difficult to varying levels of degree (for me, its only very slightly more difficult, as for me the issue is remembering teh number of diagonals moved - I am good at maths but not so great at keeping more than one number in my head especially when being distracted by AoOs and all the numbers mentioned therein).

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DigitalMage wrote:


Whilst your point of view is valid, the key point is that yours is not the only valid point of view, and that the designers of 4e presumably got the impression that the diagonal move rule had a poor cost/benefit ratio for enough players that it would be best that 4e used a simpler rule.

And this is another point to be clear on, many of us understand and can even calculate the diagonal moves in PF, however the benefit it gives (in terms of increasing the fun of the game) compared to the extra hassle /effort /time it takes is not worth it to us. For us the extra "realism" is not worth even the slight delay in calculating areas of effect and movement. Obviously for yourself the extra realism is worth it, which is great as PF uses your preferred method.

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
LFDPrivateer wrote:

Looking for Pathfinder games, groups, and/or players in the Jersey Shore area.

If possible I would like to put together or even join a PFS group. I have already talked to a local comic book store who is willing to host games. I play with a group about once a month, but very much would like to play more.

We can play one shots, story arcs, Adventure Paths, etc.

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Chuck Wright wrote:

I assume that you're speaking of this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)

There have recently been (at least) two women found that have two separate DNA signatures. One almost lost her children over it because I DNA test proved that she wasn't the mother. They had to culture samples from another part of her body to prove she was.

Here's a link to a story about naturally-occuring chimerism.

Ah thank you for this!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Chuck Wright wrote:


I mostly agree with what you're saying. My approach will be more of the approach of a "natural philosophy". Some things are better off left to saying "it's magic". You can't dissect a wizard and find his Magic Missile gland, after all. <grin>

I'm also very aware of cladistics (I brought it up earlier in the thread) and think that it's the only system worth using for a fantasy setting as well as for the real world.

On chimeric DNA - I've seen the program on it twice now and I wonder what the real statistic is for people with chimeric DNA. I mean, what if the only way to detect it were to test your left toe? <laugh>

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:)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Veiled Nail wrote:
Carl Cascone wrote:

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.

Ask and ye shall receive. But I'm just an observer - I lack true mojo for submitting one of my own.

Technical stuff:
good execution of template.
"In addition the veil" should be "In addition, the veil"

Conceptual stuff:

It does a lot of things.
It provides a bonus to Cha (for 2 extra channels), a +1/die bonus to damage and a 1/day sunburst.

From a power-gaming aspect, this looks like the item of uber-channeling - so a little cheesy. I'd say SAK.

The bonus to Cha is out of place, both thematically and by slot. The Cha enhancing slot is headband.
I'm not sure thematically why this would provide a bonus to Cha.

Where I think this item really grates is the penalties for channeling negative energy. How often does the 6d6 damage + blindness occur? Does it only occur once when the item is put on? or does it occur each round?

Same for the Cha drain. The only wondrous item that acts similarly is the robe of the archmagi. And that only bestows negative levels while the item is worn. There may have been some artifacts in 3.5 that acted this way.

Many thanks!

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!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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:

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
Aura strong varied; CL 15th
Slot head; Price 80,500 gp; Weight 1lb.
Description
This veil which covers the lower half of the face is made from beautiful Qadiran fabric. Embroidered on the veil are designs of ankhs and suns interwoven with threads dyed in colors common to the desert landscape. If the wearer channels positive energy, the veil can substitute as their holy symbol and will grant a sacred bonus of +1 per die of healing or damage whenever channel energy is used. The embroidered suns on the veil empower the wearer to cast a sunburst spell (Reflex DC 25 half) on command once per day as a standard action. In addition the veil provides a +4 enhancement bonus to Charisma for anyone wearing it, provided they do not channel negative energy.
If the veil should be worn by a character that channels negative energy, regardless of their alignment or faith, the veil will not function and causes 4 points of Charisma drain. The character will also be blinded and suffers 6d6 points of damage (Reflex DC 25 half).
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, consecrate, eagle’s splendor, sunburst, nimbus of light sun domain power; Cost 40,250 gp


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Clark Peterson wrote:
The Grandfather wrote:

To be honest, Clark. I am extremely disappointed.

To call this thread anything with the word "critique" in it is a joke. I have been provided with absolutely NOTHING to work with. If this thread was called "judge's commentary" I would understand (maybe).

I have been told the Item is poorly crafted and the only point pointed out by the judges is invalid. What gives?

Good question. I'll talk with Neil about his approach of just cutting and pasting comments. I agree it seems more harsh than intended. I think his goal is to get the comments out to everyone. I'm trying to provide some more positive and constructive feedback. This is why we dont just open up our forums for view, but that is essentially what Neil is doing.

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Neil Spicer wrote:
Carl Cascone wrote:
Veil of the Final Redemption
*We already have a precedent for adding to positive channeling, and it doesn't work this way.

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:


*We already have Cha-boost items in the headband slot, no need to move your booster slot to the head slot so you can use something else as your headband.

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:


*Plus it's a great way to slap Cha drain on a captured enemy bad guy! Meh.

I didn't consider that aspect of the item. I suppose I should have.

Neil Spicer wrote:


*I get the theme the designer was going for...I think they just overdid it and didn't think through everything. If you boil it down, it grants a bonus to positive energy channeling (which uses a different mechanic than has been done before), a sunburst SIAC, and a +4 Charisma bonus courtesy of a different item slot than you'd normally expect. That's not Superstar thinking in terms of the design, despite the somewhat innovative theme, overall flavor, and professional presentation.

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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
Aura strong varied; CL 15th
Slot head; Price 80,500 gp; Weight 1lb.
Description
This veil which covers the lower half of the face is made from beautiful Qadiran fabric. Embroidered on the veil are designs of ankhs and suns interwoven with threads dyed in colors common to the desert landscape. If the wearer channels positive energy, the veil can substitute as their holy symbol and will grant a sacred bonus of +1 per die of healing or damage whenever channel energy is used. The embroidered suns on the veil empower the wearer to cast a sunburst spell (Reflex DC 25 half) on command once per day as a standard action. In addition the veil provides a +4 enhancement bonus to Charisma for anyone wearing it, provided they do not channel negative energy.
If the veil should be worn by a character that channels negative energy, regardless of their alignment or faith, the veil will not function and causes 4 points of Charisma drain. The character will also be blinded and suffers 6d6 points of damage (Reflex DC 25 half).
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, consecrate, eagle’s splendor, sunburst, nimbus of light sun domain power; Cost 40,250 gp


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Are the feedback threads going to be located in this part of the forum?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kavren Stark wrote:

Kelsey is banned for denigrating the morals of punsters.

Darksmokepuncher is banned for posting in the five seconds between me hitting "preview" and "submit post." Quick ninja!

Stark is banned because his name is Krats Nervak spelled backward. Clearly it is a rip off of Krats Nervak.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mikaze wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I assume they won't be making the Commander Shepherd movie.
To be honest I think I'd prefer that they didn't. That universe is ripe for other stories beyond telling the game's story over again.

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
If you don't like alignment, pull it from your game. If you do like it, use it. It's that simple.

Its pretty easy to do! Either way the game is not going to run THAT much differently.

1 to 50 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.