Cheapy's page

Hi Toz! Dipping my toes back in.

I think the idea could be applied with some success to a traveling group that surrounds the party, so followers and what not. That way you still get the flavor of the followers and supporting cast, but without having to micromanage them all.

Could get very abstract and say that the shared resource is the party's destiny and reputation (or dare I say, mythic destiny?), with modifications to capabilities that way. Go do this quest to get Fame in a region, to which you can use to have people do odd favors for you around town, etc. Very fun to think about.

Yes! The idea of a second character of sorts that the whole group shares is fascinating.

gesalt wrote:

Seems like both classes are just bad.

Inventor still has int as the KAS so it has a lower hit rate, you can crit fail your skill-based damage amp and damage yourself, you have 8hp and your mechanical companion is still worse than a dex animal companion.

Gunslinger is better off as a crossbow slinger. In fact, just never ever use guns. You've either got d4 damage dice or screwed with reload. Drifter gets to not provoke an AoO with a ranged attack but still provokes on reload so that's a joke. The "brace of pistols" item doesn't work with quick draw so it's just reload with extra steps. At least early theory says you can get a half-decent gunslinger going by level 6-7 with juggler dedication, focused juggler and paired shots with repeating hand crossbows. Even with reload 0 you still need a free hand to reload so it's a trap feat for anyone not juggling.

Even the subscribers probably haven't fully analysed the rules yet, so making absolute judgements like that based information that can barely be called fragmented isn't very useful.

I don't think the world has enough fingers to count how many times hasty non-playtested judgements have been made and found to be wrong after a year of playing data.

Hello James!

Was the starstone inspired at any level by the pulp classic "Quest for the Starstone" (Image in link NSFW) with Jirel of Joiry and Northwest Smith? Paizo did publish this a while ago.

Congratulations, Michael! This is a great culmination of many years of hard work!

I appreciate it when a group is told that there is definitely no trap on the door, even though they know the trapspotter rolled a 2, and the barbarian walks through the door first. I applaud the group where the wizard goes through the door first with the same situation.

I think that the secret rolls can really help with tension, when appropriate. When you are rolling, there are situations where it is Capital-I Important. You don't half-ass Capital-I Important things. And for Capital-I Important things, your character may not have the full picture. You don't know if they can see through your disguise. You don't know if you correctly translated this vital clue (GMs, make sure there are at least 3 ways to discover it!). You don't know what's behind that door. But you tried your best, using the tools at your disposal, and given the state you are in. That all adds to the tension. It gets people sitting on the edge of their seats to see what happens next.

Knowing exactly how you rolled allows inferred information that will damper the tension. I think it's very noble to say "Well, I would never act on that information!", but it's rarely always true. Rolling that 2 on the Disguise check means I am fairly certain we'll be caught with my pants down, but I'll try to act as if I don't know that results. Much of the tension is gone, and we're just biding time until the jig is up. Maybe we'll still act like we think our disguises are great, but also in a way that once the fecal matter hits the fan, we'll be in a less-disadvantageous position.

But then again, maybe that's a good thing, reminding us to act in a way that minimizes potential losses in case things go poorly while literally surrounded by the Duke's very muscular body guards.

Maybe that's something the group enjoys, the comedy of knowing that your character is an idiot for thinking the Osiron garb will let you fit in with nobles at Magnimar.

It's complicated. It's a lot of additional things for the GM to keep track of for a game that already has a lot of those things. I don't like rolling dice as the GM all that much, and I definitely slipped on this a bunch in my sessions. But it's also a valuable tool for maintaining tension. I think that in my games, I'll generally have the players roll, but remind them to act as if they didn't. For Capital-I Important rolls, I'll roll secretly. Sure, it gives some information. But I feel like in most of those situations, the players already know if it's Capital-I Important.

I just wish there was a better way to keep the tension and player/character divide, without loading the GM with more responsibility, so that for more seriously-toned games, the tools were there.

I suspect that they feel that the excitement it brings to the table outweighs any negatives the spikes create. They certainly create memorable moments that you'll share with friends.

The main thing I would add is that in PF1, across the number of groups I played in, the concerns about wands of healing and what not never really appeared. We understood that they existed. The concerns never really played out though. We never used a ton of low level items, except for the "Happy Stick".

The Christmas tree effect didn't really affect us either. Items chosen using the Rule of Cool worked surprisingly well, despite all the moaning on the forums about needing the flat bonuses that drove the Christmas tree effect.

Based on what I saw on the forums back then, the groups were generally a low-to-average-power level. It certainly was not anywhere near the stereotypical PFS level of optimization, or even a tenth of that. It was mostly rogues and fighters. In some of my main games, it was rare to use anything but CRB classes. They were simpler, but still allowed players to have a lot of fun.

There is an interesting tidbit from Jeremy Crawford that blew the minds of the 5e community earlier this year: Despite how prevalent discussion of feats were in 5e communities online and in organized play, most characters don't use feats. They are still super popular, and players like them, but a majority of characters simply do not use them. This sort of reminds me of that, and maybe that's the cause of the friction. (Also, how amazing must it be to have that sort of data? Being able to see what people are actually doing, how things are actually being built up, etc. Incredible!)

I really like the idea of a unified system, rather than tracking all the different points for different classes. I really like the idea of making Charisma useful to all characters, even if they won't be talking. I'm not sure I like everyone having to track something now, when before there were many options to not have to track much. But I'm very excited to see what the design team is able to come up with, as they've shown many awesome solutions to problems in the past.

I'm really not seeing the parts where this is more like a boardgame than a roleplaying game or how it can't be used for a fantasy world.

I think all of these sides have some interesting and good points, but I can't escape laughing at the fact that Fighters finally are the best at fighting with a wide range of weapons, something people were clamoring for in 1e, and people aren't liking it.

And, in response to all the responses of my previous question, I would posit that we've already broken the forum's sanity.

Unless you REALLY REALLY REALLY want the 3D gimmick, get the 2DS. It plays all the same games and is cheaper (and slightly more durable, since it doens't have the clamshell hinges to break).

NOTE: The...

Personally, I recommend the 3DS over the 2DS, just because the giant rectangle is a bit annoying to carry around in my opinion. The 3D definitely isn't the selling point it once was tho.

And looking it over, it seems that there's now the 2DS XL, which has the folding case. I'd recommend getting the XL, no matter which version you get. It'll perform better than the base 2DS, and can play the 3DS Exclusive games. Also, that little analog stick on the right hand side is great for many games.

3DS XL doesn't come with a power adapter (wtf?!).

When, exactly, will Deep 7 FaWtL be made?

Even some biological things can be learned and grown. The great Pearl Divers in the Pacific have some minor ability to hold their breaths longer than most humans, but a lot of it is practicing and pushing themselves.

Even things like Darkvision I can see as only coming on-line later on in your life. Baby's aren't born with object permanence, but it's a biological thing due to brain juju, and that's one of the traits that separates homo sapiens from many other animals (aka: a racial feature).

There are a number of people I'd like to play (or play more with). I played with Rogue Eidolon only once, but would be fun to play again with. Same with Ssalarn. A game with Endzeitgeist would be very interesting (and he uses so much 3pp that I wouldn't even be able to metagame capabilities!).

Wraithstrike would be good fun as well, I feel.

RavingDork would be amusing to watch play. Not sure if I could handle his type of games tho.

I'm also wondering once again where Mikaze went.

I'd enjoy a game with CalebTGordon, Abraham Spalding (Who is back from serving, apparently!), Umbral Reaver, Steel Draco (who I learned from another forum is doing Savage Fallout. I'll join that one, thanks.), Diego Rossi, TacticsLion, Robert Brookes, ....

Now that I think longer on it, as long as there's pre-gens and beer, I'd probably play with most people.

This forum is for character advice on 3rd party stuff, so it's probably a good place to ask such questions. But here works too!

Linda's and my goal for this was to allow for multiple types of builds with the class, so it really depends on what you're looking for. We wanted to support a few different types of commanders with this, the chief two being the the leader from the front that leads by example and would probably focus on more physical abilities, and the leader from the rear that could focus more on mental abilities (and some physical ones), and give her troop commands. Internally, I believe we referred to the former as the Badass, and the latter as the General. It's been a bit, but I believe there was also a split between Charisma and Intelligence for the General type, namely through the Tactician archetype to use Intelligence in place of Charisma. The Strategist archetype is compatible with the Tactician too, and it goes further in replacing abilities associated with the Badass, allowing for some hybridization if you wish.

As general (ha.) advice, I'd suggest at least 12 Charisma regardless of the type you want to be (unless you use Int instead), so you can use Motivational Speech an additional time, especially if you start at a low level. The troop is pretty easy to hit until you teach them some ways to avoid damage or be in a more advantageous position, so being able to heal them after combat will be key. Silly soldiers think it's fine to be next to 4 orcs at once!

For the character (Strategist archetype only) I played, I believe I focused on Strength, some Constitution, and then I think Charisma and Dex in equal amounts, as I wanted the option at least to switch between ranged and melee.

You're right, and it appears that the product no longer is on the Paizo website.

Looks like you can get it here though.

Rest in Peace Steve. I'll never forget you for your generosity and for helping me get started in the industry. I learned a lot from you, and wish your family the best in these dark times.

FWIW, the core line has already assigned the power level of swift action potion drinking at:

1) Mythic
2) Requiring selecting a specific talent (Assured Drinker)
3) Requiring you to spend a mythic point.

The PDT doesn't do FAQs on non core-line work. The closest they've done to that was some encouraging for the Golarion team to answer the Freebooter Ranger archetype question.

Your best bet is to ask the question in the product discussion page for the product it came from.

Either it was announced at GAMA today or there's some very fast photoshopping by twitter user UnclesGames: Slide announcing the hardcover.

James Jacobs wrote:

Mogloth wrote:

So, based on the way that James has been trying to manage expectations about this secret project, which of us will be the first back here to say, "Uh, that's it?"

;-)

I'm certainly preparing for everyone to say that. ;-)

Out of sheer contrariness, I will now be completely over-the-top in my enthusiasm for whatever the sekrit projects are, no matter how mundane.

Today, Paizo announces Pathfinder, The Toaster(tm), the newest way to bring the excitement of Pathfinder and the giddy flames of goblin kind to a breakfast near you. With exciting toast burn configurations such as "Ezren's Chin", "Griddle of Opposite Germination", and "Runetoast", breakfast will never be boring again!

** spoiler omitted **

It's clearly powercreep.

Currently if you want a familiar (and don't have a class that does so), you have a cha of 13 and spend 2 feats. and get a familiar at level -2.

This is 1 feat and it gives you an improved version of one of the most popular familiars along with all that entails.

---
tl;dr; This feat gives you improved initiative, alertness and a little flying
...

Based on the actual feat text, yea, it seems fairly obvious that it was banned for power reasons and a huge expectancy of table variation.

Spend 1 feat, acquire the most valuable resource in pathfinder: an extra set of actions.

Your time to shine has come.

You have to go through a lot of effort to actually create a character that "isn't viable". People routinely play at a power level above what the game was built for, and that provides a huge buffer space. You'll do fine, and magi that aren't the bog-standard-cookie-cutter dervish dancer with intensified shocking grasp do just fine in the game, especially with a competent GM.

In combat? No, not at all. They have many nice things and there's been a huge amount of power creep / lowering-of-level-where-rocket-tag-is-an-issue since the release at Pathfinder.

Out of combat? They could use a few things, yea.

A wee bit melodramatic, no?

If anything, they increase the availability of options at the tables I play at, as the options were banned previously.

My cavaliers only ride horses with three spoilers on the back.

The overwhelming majority of these nerfs being aimed at casters is just undeniable proof that Paizo hates casters.

Wait, people actually thought Divine Protection was balanced?

Huh.

*blink* wow, alright thanks for the quick response everyone. Kinda bummed about not being able to do multiple attacks like I hoped, but I can see the point. Thanks again for the quick response to my question.

In the playtest game I ran, our kineticist actually did basically the thing you were trying to do, just across a number of rounds.

It was still pretty effective.

They are already useful and competent. Ample playtesting has shown this out repeatedly. In-combat things are not the area they need help in. Buffing them up, or replacing them with a set of classes that just further exacerbate rocket tag and bring the levels that it's active at much lower won't help as much as working in logical out-of-combat abilities, and that's where you should focus your attention if you want to be successful.

No no, this new thread someone will make will totally have a new perspective that hasn't been brought up in the past 15 years. It's definitely not rehashing the same thing over and over.

Which is what Mum-Rob just said, d'oh.

Well said.

This is a messageboards problem and one seen predominantly in the games of people who are on the messageboards. Regardless of which messageboard it is. A tempest in a teacup.

There can be issues, but only when things are pushed to their limits, and in many many MANY games, martials are by far the most powerful characters.

This is especially true at the levels that most people play at (lower levels), and in the average game.

Yes.

There's also this too.

They've been saying that it'd be released between those dates for a few months now. It's not really a surprise.

Because he's a dwarf?

I get the feeling there's some context I'm missing, but I'm not so sure I'm actually missing much.

Reading the rules strictly and without trying to determine the intent isn't the best idea. In fact, I'm not even certain it's possible. It's easy to see why as well:

Written words have one purpose, and one purpose only: To convey the intent of the designer. The words and rules they encompass did not appear out of a void. The words first appeared when a human being typed them on a computer. And that wasn't the first time the rules came into being either. Previously, they were in the designer's head, jumbling about and sorting themselves out. They were bouncing off myriad other ways to implement the desired behavior. How can I best capture this feeling and action I'm trying to encapsulate? Should it be a bonus applied in a certain situation, or something that gives a new ability in that situation?

And, as surprising as it is, it turns out that the designer does not suddenly become a robot when they are designing new rules and transcribing their thoughts into words that convey their intent. Or if they do transmogrify, it sure as heck doesn't happen to me or any other of the many designers I know. This means that they are still just human. They can still make mistakes when conveying their intended rules.

So yes, applying common sense is necessary. Sometimes it's needed to fill in the gaps when mistakes are made during when transcribing rules from the mind to the document.

Of course, coming at the rule without preconceived notions is also very helpful. Sometimes the designer wants to do something that doesn't actually fit what would be called "common sense". Usually this involves being very specific about something to show how it's different from the norm.

And this isn't even getting into the idea of design blind spots, where you are so deep into a system and you know it so well that you simply do not realize that one of the rules in your head is not actually written down, and your mind just fills-in-the-gaps when you are re-reading everything.

But it all comes down to the designers not being robots. Things will never be perfect, and you need to try to figure out what the intent was in a fair manner in the cases where things are odd. There are often times very strong hints that point one way or the other, with a few principles that can be applied to figure out the intent.

Well, unofficially, I think it'd be fine for that case, although if they took other damaging tactics, I'd keep them at d8. It's feat for an effective +1 damage increase. You can also just say they have bastard swords, but some also have daggers that they use now and then, and then between pommelsmacks and thrown elbows, that accounts for the B,P, and S damage type.

The other reason Linda and I went with this model was because it ensured we could have better handle on the balance. When we removed the possibility of outfitting your own troop, it meant that the class wouldn't get massively more powerful or weak based on the wealth that the party got, which is a factor we can't really control. We wanted to take a complex concept, someone in charge of a bunch of people, and take away as many of the the aspects that made the archetypical idea difficult to run without massive spreadsheets. And part of that included outfitting the troop personally. (And paying them, although we experimented with that a bit and Linda made a great system for how to handle it.)

One thing I'd recommend though is to sort of divorce yourself from the thinking that it's exactly like an NPC. It's fine to just say "Yes, they all have bastard swords", without giving them the feat. The squad weapon is never really specified, so it can be whatever you want. In the base adventure that introduced the troop subtype, the auto-damage represented rifle buts, elbows, knives, bayonets, and the occasional-probably-too-close-pistol fire. It was just whatever the troop had in hand.

Fluid Tactics would probably help though, letting them switch easier between two-handing the bastard swords, and using them one-handed with shields.

In the game I'm playing in, I have a General that leads a group of half-elfs that are outfitted with a mix of longswords, falcatas, shields, crossbows, and shovels. Their squad name is the Ditch Diggers, which is somehow a term of honor given our nascent kingdom.

Also remember that they changed how stealth works. If you start in cover or concealment, you can get to another place where you have that and make the stealth roll again, even if you're darting in open sight.

Stealth is unfortunately one of those skills where people don't really follow the rules.

I start punching trees until I get enough wood to make a crafting table, then I make some wooden tools. I then start to progress my way up the tech tree until I get killed by an exploding green thing.

Ezren.

Because Ezren. And dat chin is the stuff of dreams.

I have this weird condition where if I see someone seriously complaining that "martials can never have nice things", I just forget everything in the post I read.

It's weird, but it actually makes the forums a lot more enjoyable to read than before I developed that.

Additionally, here is commentary from a former member of the Pathfinder Design Team ranting about the rods.

Honestly, I think all of the metamagic rods are cheesy and should be removed from the game. The metamagic feats are already annoying and weak and there's no strong incentive to take them, and on top of that you can pick up the rod as a cheap feat-in-a-can and not have to prepare the spell ahead of time, and on top of that, they can bypass the 9th-level spell limit (normally you can't quicken anything 6th or higher with the feat because there are no 10th-level spell slots), so the rods are even better than the feat.

The parenthetical statement is clearly at odds with the idea that the rods allow you to prepare the spells ahead of time using the metamagic feat, as if that were the case, you couldn't use the rod of quicken, despite what the statement above states.

Caused too many questions to arise and unbalanced things that were made under the ruling they weren't spells.

When there are guides on which race to pick to get which spell of which casting tradition and which spell level, just so you can make a build using something that was never the original intention, things have gone way, way too far.

Seems like the immunities are doing their job fairly well :p

In our groups, we usually see minor forms of this, with wasted actions now and then. But we generally prefer more interesting combats than facerolls, which tend to happen when all those wasted actions happen.

4th edition had one such table, and it was one of the most hated things about the edition, as the characters never actually got better.

If you really want to go ahead with that, just make an excel chart that sets chance to succeed at 50%, and make an average build against that, putting every rank of a skill into that, etc.

You'll have to do that for ability checks too, because ability checks are already screwed up and scale much slower.

"Doesn't need to be playtested," is the common refrain from those who armchair analyze, "it's obvious how this will work, given X, Y, and Z."

But the thing is that if you want your opinions to be considered more, you should still playtest. And playtest fairly! Because armchair analysis is prone to missing details and people on the forums almost invariably want things stronger during the playtests, so it's hard to separate actual good ideas from the usual "buff buff buff buff buff", and playtesting reports helps with that greatly.

I'm quite glad to see that others are planning on more playtests. Since high level playtests are rare, I will probably aim my own tests there.