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

Cory Stafford 29's page

FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 802 posts (1,177 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 8 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would either add up all the experience from all the encounters and divide it up evenly or just give the summoner the exp from the encounters she participated in. After all, a PC wouldn't get double experience if that PC and their cohort were in two different encounters at the same time.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I really don't see people telling others what to play but offering helpful suggestions. If you ask for advice, most people will tell you how to build or play a character so that it is more effective (min/maxing, optimizing,etc.) because most of us assume that you will have more fun, and your friends will as well if you play a very effective character. There is noting wrong with that. If their suggestions don't fit your character concept, you are free to ignore them. If they are being a jerk about it, report them and ignore them afterward.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Narrow down what you want your character to do (lots of damage, hinder enemies, social skill, heal and buff, etc.) Then look at the appropriate class guides. If you want something simple: For damage, play a human barbarian with high strength, a two-handed weapon, and the power attack and cleave feats. For hindering enemies play a human sorcerer with improved initiative and dodge as feats and mage armor and sleep or color spray for 1st level spells known. For healing and buffing, a human life mystery oracle with the channel revelation, and extra channel, and selective channel feats. For social skills, play a bard. Race and class don't matter much. Just have a high charisma and pick diplomacy and bluff as skills.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The reason for the summoning isn't so much to fit two types of summoner into once class. It's so the summoner has something to contribute when his eidolon can't do much. If the eidolon gets beat down to nothing, he can still summon stuff. If his eidolon is a land bound melee machine and the party is fighting a flying creature, he can dismiss the eidolon and summon something more appropriate. To replace the summons, you need an ability to spontaneously increase the versatility of the eidolon. An evolution pool that he can use to give his eidolon temporary evolutions for a round per level may do the trick.

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:

I can't wait to see the respectable Nambla NPC and the respectable druid and its "companion".

Ok, I'm being a little flippant here. ;)

But anyone ever read Elfquest? Does the idea of a druid having relations with their "companion" really seem so far fetched in a fantasy setting? And the talk about the Greeks and homosexuality, often in a positive light, too often sounds like support for the ideas of Nambla. Not to mention the exploitation of underlings by their superiors. I don't think anyone pushing for respect for homosexuals should ever by pointing to the Greeks and their exploitation of young men as a good thing.

Frankly I don't really care about if their are homosexual characters or not, though I would say that the fact that the only group that has been bothered by it in Pathfinder series was a immoral family is a bit disturbing. To me that shows there is not a very balanced view on this issue. It also indicates, perhaps subconsciously, that one can't be opposed to homosexual behaviour (whether done by a homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, trysexual or whatever) and be a decent person in the viewpoint of the Paizo staff/writers. James' comments about how he finds such ideas disgusting do nothing to aleviate that viewpoint.

Exactly. It's fine to say "homophobes" (which is a misnomer since it's disgust not fear that is the relevant emotion) are evil. It's not okay to say "I believe homosexual behavior to be immoral." That is hypocritical and definitely not tolerant. The fact that they made a gay paladin (Really? There are many DM's that could not conceive of him engaging in such behavior and remain lawful good and keep his paladin abilites.) and the only one in a small town that disapproves of the homosexual couple is "evil". That isn't just putting gay npc's in an adventure path. That is Paizo saying "Homosexual behavior is defintiely not evil, but disliking it is." That definitely has no place in an rpg.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roberta Yang wrote:

I too hate that players aren't required to play clerics anymore.

My ideal D&D game consists of going back to town and sleeping for two weeks after every battle, waiting for the incredibly slow natural healing to have an effect.

Exactly. Would you prefer the other side of the coin, where every combat has PC's near death, and they have to go back to town to rest for days or weeks, thus putting the campaign on hold? I know most players would bail on a campaign like this, me included.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:
I have no problem with North Carolina admitting that they are a bunch of bigots. Its their right to be wrong. Just like it's my right to boycott businesses located in North Carolina, while letting them know why I'm boycotting them until the law is overturned or they leave North Carolina.

Bigots? They have a right to decide what is legal in their state. If what they decide doesn't agree with you, that makes them bigots? Whose the real bigot? That's the left for you, they are tolerant only if you share their views, otherwise they are the most intolerant bigots out there. I'm sick of liberal hypocrisy. I bet you liberals would be the first to refuse having a gay couple babysit your kids.

Cheliax *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KestlerGunner wrote:

Every faction should have a mission that should change the canon setting of Golarion. If that faction wins the Faction War of the season, that mission should be achieved.

EG:
Shadow Lodge mission Season 4: Uncover the identity of one of the Decemvirate.
Cheliax mission Season 4: Introduce a permanent Erinyes noble into Absalom society, complete with enormous influence over Absalom politics.
Andoran mission Season 4: Replace all Absalom town guard with Eagle Knights, and have Absalom's security privatised into their hands.

So, my Grand Lodge hero might actually like the SL mission for that season, and this would influence RPing.

Of course, if Paizo don't want the canon setting changed at all, there's no point in arguing this. Nothing can happen and it'd be best reduced to a +2 to something.

This sounds like the best way to do it. If a faction wins, it means something, but they won't exactly dominate the other factions.

Cheliax

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I also think it's kind of hilarious that people are whining in one thread about how awful it was of WotC to discuss 4e in terms of how it improved 3.5, and here we have nothing but people (some of them the same!) discussing 5e in terms of how they hope it improves from 4e.

Who where you responding to?

I was responding to the above quote. When WotC was hyping 4E, especially before they revealed much in the way of mechanics, their 4E "marketing" was essentially trashing 3.5 or certain styles of play. James Wyatt ranted about how the 3.5 paladin sucked because he could only smite a few times a day. They put in print things like "D&D isn't about traipsing through fairy rings," and "If you used profession skills in your games, then they probably weren't very fun." If they had said, "Some people had a problem with this in 3.5, so here is how we are trying to improve it in the new edition," it would have been much better received than trashing 3.5 and any style of play that didn't revolve around killing every monster you see like murderous hobos.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Beckett wrote:
I don't know, I'm still trying to go back and see what specifically you two are referencing here, but reasons to dislike either 4E or WotC is a subjective thing, not an objective one.

People are trying to present reasons for not liking one or the other as objective - for instance, claiming that 4e's marketing insults older gamers, or claiming that certain things do not exist in 4e (when in reality they do). Both of these things are untrue, but are claimed as reasons for not liking 4e or WotC (or both).

I also think it's kind of hilarious that people are whining in one thread about how awful it was of WotC to discuss 4e in terms of how it improved 3.5, and here we have nothing but people (some of them the same!) discussing 5e in terms of how they hope it improves from 4e.

"It's bad when the person who made the game criticizes it, but when I criticize it it's fine and not at all hypocritical!" seems to be the attitude.

It's one thing to say we can do x better. It's another to say "if you used x in your 3.5 game, then it probably wasn't much fun." That's the kind of thing that ticked people off.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:

*sigh* How about no? Or at least have them stick to the "Modular" approach and have varying systems that do the same thing? Vancian magic cna be supplemented with At-will powers and abilities that can be used infrequently (heh, encounter spell) but then we're getting back to 4E's system. But really, what is so freakin' great with Vancian magic (other than some morbid attempt at nostalgia)? Monte is quoted saying:

"There are other options for other classes, but for Wizard, Cleric (core), Vancian is the way to go. There's something to be said for picking spells that match what you think is coming. Rewarding. I know it's a bit controversial, but I think Vancian magic is a core element of D&D."

No. No, no, and then some more no. Simply put, I find nothing rewarding by "picking the correct spell (ie. answer) for the situation." In fact, I get the feeling of dodging a bullet because I had picked right, not wrong with spell selection. Why do you think Reserve feats received such great reviews with Complete Mage supplment? Why do you think people really like At-Will spells and Encounter Powers? Because your useful fight after fight. This is a big step backwards, rewarding psople who pick the right spells while putting people who don't at a serious disadvantage.

Do you know how frustrating it was fighting monsters that had resistances to the spells you selected, thus requring you do delve into a pretty limited supply of magical items (which, BTW, aren't going to probably see as big an impact with D&D:next)? It sucked. Example~ Group: "hey, we're getting crushed because this guy is invisible, wizard what do you have??!" Wizard: "Uh, yea sorry I didn't prepare See Invisibility guys, went with Scorching Ray instead. Sorry, we're SoL."

And I know they're making Feats that can be treated as at-will attacks but I have a sickening feeling that it'll be far far inferior to "real" spells and probably have no effects aside from some damage (heh, like crappy cantrips).

IF they're...

They are trying to make an edition that has the basic core elements of D&D. Vancian casting is definitely a core element of D&D whether you like it or not. It will be core, but I'm sure there will be options to have non-Vancian casting.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even more than this, they need quality adventures, both for home games and organized play games. Most of WotC's published adventures and modules for LFR are terrible. They need more story and more roleplaying hooks than, "Here's a skill challenge so you can get another milestone." Even if 4E was a great version of D&D, you'd be hard pressed to see it if you just played their published adventures and LFR mods.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Laeknir wrote:

Of course, it's all unicorns and rainbows now. Can they deliver? That's the real question.

I sort of expected a more negative reaction (or any negative reaction at all, really). The conventional wisdom seemed to be that an edition announcement would be seen as a money grab, but apparently that's not the case.

Well, the people that didn't like 4E don't have much to be negative about. They either have Pathfinder and don't care or just want to see 4E die and be replaced by something that is more like the D&D they know and love (plus saying "I told you so." feels good). I would expect a lot of 4E fans to be at least a little upset.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Forever Man wrote:

Regardless, Pathfinder is really D&D now. I'd hate to see that iconic trademark for ALL role-playing games disappear from the Earth.

Firstly, NO Pathfinder is Pathfinder, D&D is D&D...
While Pathfinder is not D&D, it is also not a unique system called Pathfinder. It is a D20 system, and always will be, til the day Paizo creates a unique character creation and combat system that is not based on the OGL.

What makes you think D&D = d20 system. D&D 3e, 3.5e, & 4e edition all use the d20 system - 1e/2e & 4e do not have any OGL content. Your implication is that out of all the D&D's to date 1e/2e & 4e aren't D&D! The only true D&D is 3/3.5e then?

Actually, I think he's saying that Pathfinder's utter reliance on the D&D 3.5/d20 rules means that it's pretty hard to hold the position that Pathfinder and D&D are two completely distinct things. I think that, for 90%+ of people who played D&D 3.5, if you sat them down to play a Pathfinder core game without actually telling them that it was Pathfinder, they'd probably still think they were playing D&D.

Funny, because 90%+ of 3.5e players if you sat them down to a core 4e game wouldn't think they are playing D&D... ;)

Actually, most of them would probably say something along the lines of, "Huh, this seems a lot like D&D. Are you sure we're playing something different?"

I don't know about that. It would be more like, "This is kind of like D&D, but I don't think it really is D&D." One of the main reasons 4E failed is so many gamers took a look at the books or played a game of it and said or at least thought "This isn't D&D."

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Steel_Wind wrote:
WotC didn't do many adventures for 3E...
Perhaps not compared to 2e. But 4e took a dry spell and turned it into the Sahara. I'm not necessarily talking just about big major things like Red Hand of Doom. I mean any adventure support, from short one-shot modules to full-length campaigns.
They produce an enormous amount of adventure material for fourth Edition, it's just not very good (and is predominantly available through the "online iteration" of Dungeon magazine).

Yeah, lots of combat encounters strung together with the barest hint of a plot tying them together (which is what most of WotC's 4E adventures are) doesn't make for much of an adventure. If you are going to publish adventures, make them at least somewhat interesting or don't bother.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I could do with out this type of stuff. It has absolutely no place in an RPG. The game is supposed to be about having fun, not about some people trying to push personal agendas.


©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.