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

Epic Meepo's page

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32. RPG Superstar 2013 Marathon Voter, 2014 Marathon Voter, 2015 Marathon Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 4,273 posts (4,437 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 9 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,273 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Malwing wrote:
Epic Meepo wrote:
Explaining why my character has the abilities I chose for my character is my job, not my class's job.
We give a little bit of that up by having classes in the first place...

Classes as they currently exist have numerous flaws, this being one of them. Most of what I have to say on this matter is too far off-topic for this forum, but suffice it to say, I don't want to see the vigilante emphasizing what I consider to be one of the weakest part of the class system (i.e. the baked-in flavor baggage that comes with each class).

Will I be upset if the vigilante ends up working that way? No, because I already have a work-around in place that lets players in my campaigns play Pathfinder without using any pre-existing class. But I will still be a bit disappointed. Though I enjoying designing my own character options, I also like getting an occasional class from Paizo that I can use without creating any house rules (which I would have to do if the vigilante comes with too much baked-in flavor).

Quote:
I think Origins can serve a similar role to Bloodlines, Orders, Patrons, and Domains...

Bloodlines and domains don't involve any sort of mandatory flavor. "I have fire in my blood" and "I have dominion over over death" are both things that can be attached to almost any origin story, or no origin story at all. Players aren't required to perform or endure any particular actions to be magically infused with fire or to have mystical powers over death. Those are capabilities, not origins.

As for orders and patrons, I consider those to be bad design. The entire order concept makes absolutely no sense, since "order of the X" implies membership in some sort of organization, yet does nothing to create or define membership in an organization. Patrons are equally nonsensical, since the flavor stating that you have an otherworldly patron has absolutely no game mechanical justification. Calling orders and patrons "orders" and "patrons" makes no sense to me. I don't want the vigilante following in their footsteps by saying only vengeful people can use a certain combat style, or whatnot.

Quote:
I say this as a person who has played with identity and superheroism within the context of the rules that already exists and as someone that loves the concept. I believe that the history behind the tropes, it's prevalence in fiction, and scholarly analysis of masked vigilantism backs up my argument.

See, your very argument for implementing origin stories as game mechanics is imposing unwanted flavor on my vigilante character. (So is the class name, but it's too late to change that at this juncture.) Superheroes and masked vigilantes are defined by their origin stories. But stop trying to force my vigilante character to be a superhero or a masked vigilante. Superheroism, supervillany, and masked vigilantism are not a mandatory part of this class. I can just as easily play a gentleman thief vigilante who just happens to like costumes because they are trendy or a serial killer vigilante who kills because he happens to be a sociopath, not because he was subject to some specific event or emotion in the past.

In fact, I would argue that the vigilante is not the "superhero class" at all. Batman might (or might not) have vigilante levels, but that's not what makes him a superhero. Batman is a superhero because he has mythic tiers. A mythic vigilante is a superhero. In fact, a mythic vigilante already has an origin story by virtue of being mythic; defining the source of ones mythic powers is already an integral part of becoming a mythic character. A non-mythic vigilante, on the other hand, need not be a superhero, and shouldn't require a mythic-style origin story.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Malwing wrote:
...an origin would justify why the dual identity is a central class feature.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your effort to make the class more substantive. But the mechanics of the class need to justify the existence of its central class feature, not the flavor text. Explaining why my character has the abilities I chose for my character is my job, not my class's job.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Be polite to your fellow platesetters everyone.

I'm going to be platesetting the vigilante this weekend, but I'm already confused by dual identity. Does an avenger's social identity go to the left or the right of the salad fork? :P

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Sorry, but I absolutely DO NOT WANT a base class that forces me to use an origin story I didn't write myself (with input from my GM). If someone wants to design a prestige class that can only be gained by an orphan whose parents were murdered, I'll grudgingly tolerate it because prestige classes have pulled that sort of stunt since day one, but I don't ever want to see a base class using that same design philosophy.

It's bad enough that most of the character traits in the game come with mandatory origin story dribble that invalidates alternative thematic concepts. ("No, your trait bonus to initiative can't be the result of a distant quickling ancestor. You can only get that bonus if you were bullied as a child. Unless you house-rule it, that's the mandatory origin story for that bonus.")

Also, what happens if I'm a 10th-level rogue who wants to multiclass into vigilante? I already have ten levels worth of origin story. If the vigilante specializations are origins, do I have to pick one that matches events which occurred over the past ten levels? If I want the class features tied to a different origin, do I need to go on a side quest to justify the mandatory back story that never actually happened across ten full levels of play?

Origin stories are cool... when I get to write them from scratch for my own character. I don't want my base class telling me what events occurred during my character's early life or dictating my character's reasons for adventuring.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why does it have to be a prestige class? It could be the first-ever evangelist-like base class. That would make the vigilante a self-contained gestalt subsystem that can transform any other class in the game into its superhero alter-ego starting at 1st level. (Okay, probably starting at 2nd-level, since you can't give all of the abilities of another class in addition to the starting vigilante stuff all on 1st level. The evangelist-style stuff would have to wait until 2nd level.)

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

A more constructive version of my earlier criticism:

It seems that the vigilante wants to emulate several other classes while also getting social talents. If this is an important design goal, you could discourage level-dipping by having the vigilante work like the evangelist prestige class from Inner Sea Gods. Instead of granting specializations that parallel other classes, the vigilante could just allow some fraction of its class levels to stack with one other base class, granting class features accordingly (in addition to the vigilante's social and intimidation talents).

Using some variant of the evangelist prestige class mechanic would be easier than reinventing the wheel with a bunch of talents that mimic the flavor of other classes; would give the vigilante a concrete cover identity (a member of the emulated class); and would allow for a wider range of vigilante character concepts. (You wouldn't, for example, need to wait for a new psychic specialization to make a vigilante with a psychic flavor. You could just select a psychic class as the class whose features you gain on certain vigilante levels. The option to emulate any other base class would be baked right into the vigilante's mechanics.)

EDIT: I can't take full credit for the above suggestion. I remember seeing at least one other poster calling out the evangelist prestige class as an example of a better way to implement the vigilante's specializations.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cthulhudrew wrote:
Epic Meepo wrote:
ow imagine what would happen if performance combat and kingdom building worked like dual identity. The only characters who could win over crowds in arenas would belong to the gladiator class. The only characters who could build and rule kingdoms would belong to the kingmaker class.

Then again, you could still achieve a similar (if not precisely identical) dual identity role for any character by using the Reputation subsystem from Ultimate Campaign.

You're not barred from playing a character similar to the Vigilante- there are already many classes and archetypes that accomplish similar things, and rules that exist to also emulate it. The Vigilante as a class is just a more specialized version of those broader efforts, to appeal to people for whom those efforts do not quite cover things.

The existence of a class doesn't suddenly shut off all options for different sorts of campaigns.

If it's true that the vigilante is a more-specialized version of something that multiple other classes can already pull off, then the vigilante shouldn't be a base class. A more-specialized version of a class that already exists is just an archetype.

In fact, the vigilante class reads a lot like a list of abilities meant to appear in archetypes for other classes. Avenger could be a brawler or fighter archetype, stalker could be a rogue archetype, warlock could be split into an arcanist and a kineticist archetype, and zealot could be an inquisitor archetype. The vigilante class is just dual identity and renown plus a bunch of abilities that should be options available to other base classes.

If the vigilante is going to be a base class, it needs to be something more compelling than "I'm kinda like that other base class, but I can socialize, too." Vigilante needs to be to the master spy what the swashbuckler is to the duelist; it needs to be a spell-less analog of the bard; it needs to be something, anything, that we don't already have. What it doesn't need to be is four existing base classes with some social subsystem abilities tacked on. That's what archetypes and feats are for.

If it's absolutely necessary that a vigilante mimic the role of another base class, at least do away with all of these designer-imposter specializations. You should just get to count some fraction of your vigilante levels as levels in one other base class of your choice and gain the features of that other class accordingly. You aren't a feaux inquisitor (or whatever other class). You're a super-diplomat who can turn into a super-boogeyman, both of whom happen to have some genuine inquisitor class features in addition to their social/anti-social talents. (Which, incidentally, makes for a great cover story. "I'm not a rebellious vigilante, I'm an inquisitor who keeps the peasants in line. I can demonstrate my inquisitor abilities if you require proof.")

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

9 people marked this as a favorite.

To expand upon Abraham's point, let's compare the dual identity mechanics from Ultimate Intrigue to the performance combat mechanic from Ultimate Combat and the kingdom building mechanic from Ultimate Campaign.

  • Dual identity is a mechanic for blending into high society when not adventuring. The design goal is to make this mechanic available to characters of every major party role (arcane, divine, martial, etc.). To accomplish this, we get a vigilante class (and, presumably, vigilante archetypes) with specializations that recreate the wheel by mimicking other classes while also granting a dual identity. Characters who want a dual identity must multiclass, retrain, or archetype into vigilante.
  • Performance combat is a subsystem for winning over a crowd in an arena. The design goal is to make this mechanic available to characters of every major party role (arcane, divine, martial, etc.). To accomplish this, characters of any class can participate in performance combat by performing certain actions while in an arena. Characters wanting to be better at this can take performance combat feats, purchase performance combat items, or learn performance combat spells.
  • Kingdom building is a subsystem for building and ruling a small kingdom. The design goal is to make this mechanic available to characters of every major party role (arcane, divine, martial, etc.). To accomplish this, characters of any class can apply their ability modifiers to various kingdom statistics and can use their existing class features to explore new territory. Characters wanting to invest more in a kingdom can spend more time exploring and can donate treasure to their kingdom's treasury.
Now imagine what would happen if performance combat and kingdom building worked like dual identity. The only characters who could win over crowds in arenas would belong to the gladiator class. The only characters who could build and rule kingdoms would belong to the kingmaker class. Aside from acting as vehicles for these new subsystems, these new gladiator and kingmaker classes would just mimic the abilities of existing classes so characters wanting to play characters resembling those other classes can participate in the exclusive, new subsystems.

What happens if we want to make a new subsystem for airship pilots? Do we have to make a new airship pilot base class with specializations that allow cleric-like airship pilots, fighter-like airship pilots, rogue-like airship pilots, and wizard-like airship pilots? And do we have to go back and add an airship pilot specialization to the vigilante class, the gladiator class, and the kingmaker class?

Why should we recreate the existing base classes every time we get a new subsystem? Why not just design rules that allow characters of any class or archetype participate in the new subsystem?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

chbgraphicarts wrote:
Epic Meepo wrote:

Avengers and stalkers, being mundane, should require a few rounds to change identities, but they should get to keep all of their talents when in their social identity (since a mundane disguise doesn't magically change who you are).

Warlocks and zealots, being magical, should lose most of their spells and talents when in their social identities (because you have to turn off your magic to hide it from other magic), but they should be able to magically assume their vigilante identities as a standard, move, or swift action.

But then you run into issues of things like Powered Armor characters - are they Avengers, or are they something else?

Powered armor characters aren't supported by any of the current vigilante specialties; none of them has artifice- or mutagen-related talents.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:

Either way, Dual Identity needs to allow for much-faster changes than a Full-Round Action at lv13.(!!!)

By lv11, you should be able to Transform as AT LEAST a Standard, if not a Move Action.

Avengers and stalkers, being mundane, should require a few rounds to change identities, but they should get to keep all of their talents when in their social identity (since a mundane disguise doesn't magically change who you are).

Warlocks and zealots, being magical, should lose most of their spells and talents when in their social identities (because you have to turn off your magic to hide it from other magic), but they should be able to magically assume their vigilante identities as a standard, move, or swift action.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The vigilante's niche seems to be "one-level dip class."

You take one level in vigilante if your character concept requires a scry-proof dual identity, then immediately multiclass into something else:

vigilante (avenger) 1 / slayer X
vigilante (stalker) 1 / ninja X
vigilante (warlock) 1 / arcanist or kineticist X
vigilante (zealot) 1 / inquisitor X
vigilante (not-alchemist) 1 / alchemist X / master chymist Y
vigilante (not-investigator) 1 / investigator X
vigilante (not-occultist) 1 / occultist X
vigilante (anything) / bard X / master spy Y

You have your one vigilante level to protect your secret identity plus a bunch of levels in something else to get vigilante-like abilities you can use even when you are not using your vigilante identity.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No mutagenic vigilantes that sprout adamantine claws or turn into big green monsters?

No artificer vigilantes that craft custom suits of magic armor?

No supernatural flight talent?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have some progress to report, as well as some spoilers to reveal:

I'm getting closer to publishing an introductory version of the Custom Class Builder. I still have lots of class and archetype features to edit, but most of the central mechanics are finalized.

The Custom Class Builder streamlines a fair number of common class features by making them work like inquisitor judgments (or unchained barbarian rage stances): you can, in theory, gain a large number of these class features from a single custom class; every one of them scales with your class level, no matter how many others you gain; and you can (usually) have only one of these scaling class features active at any given time.

By setting things up this way, the Custom Class Builder makes it easy to mix and match class features like bardic performances, fighter weapon training, inquisitor judgments, ranger favored enemies, etc. A custom class grants a combination of these scaling abilities that fit its theme, and class members choose which one of these abilities is active at any given time.

In addition, every custom class has an ability called heroic effort, which serves as a general-purpose point pool. Some of the scaling class features mentioned above require heroic effort to activate and maintain. Custom classes can also grant various other features that would normally depend upon different point pools: arcanist exploits, gunslinger and swashbuckler deeds, monk and ninja ki powers, magus arcana, etc.

Every custom class grants one class feature per level plus a number of additional proficiencies on 1st level. Many low-level features of existing classes can be selected as proficiencies. Each custom class also gains a progression of bonus talents based upon its Hit Die, with smaller Hit Dice granting more bonus talents. Blocks of these bonus talents can be exchanged during class creation for spellcasting (or similar abilities), with larger blocks resulting in better spellcasting progressions.

The last major component of the class creation process, which I am developing now, involves companions (animal companions, eidolons, familiars, etc.). During creation, a custom class can exchange one or more proficiencies to gain a companion as a class feature; the more proficiencies exchanged, the better the companion. One proficiency might get you an animal, ooze, plant, or vermin companion that must be controlled using the Handle Animal skill, while four proficiencies might get you an independent dragon or outsider companion with eidolon evolutions.

The introductory version of the Custom Class Builder won't contain all of the three-thousand-plus character options currently in development, but it will contain a beta version of the custom class creation process, along with a representative sample of the many features that can be added to a custom class.

My current goal is to release this introductory PDF for playtesting and review later this summer.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pipefox wrote:
Of course if he playtests by making up parties of characters and having them converse and interact with one another when he's the only one there... that would be a little strange.

Now I want to run a PbP with no one but myself and four aliases so I can tell the story of an AP in the form of an online novel about my four characters.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The carnivorous dinosaurs are here (and also here).

The herbivorous dinosaurs are here (and also here).

I am referring, in the above statements, to Animal Races: Dawn of the Carnosaur and Animal Races: Dawn of the Cerapod. Each of these two, related PDFs features a new, playable and customizable race of humanoid dinosaurs.

In Animal Races: Dawn of the Carnosaur, you meet the ruthless carnosaurians, the often-villainous upper class of the Great and Terrible Lizard Empire. In Animal Races: Dawn of the Cerapod, you meet the fierce but noble Bird-Feet, Bone-Heads, Horn-Heads, and Shield-Bearers that are the common folk of the same ancient empire.

All of that is ancient history, but history tends to repeat itself. Animal Races: Dawn of the Carnosaur includes the stats of a carnosaurian lich who may be scheming to revive his long-dead race, while Animal Races: Dawn of the Carnosaur details numerous ways an ancient race might survive its apparent extinction. (Hint: one of those ways involves an extradimensional zoo which may or may not be a theme park.)

If you feel like playing an anthropomorphic dinosaur (or someone who wants to revive an ancient race of anthropomorphic dinosaurs in the modern world), check out Animal Races: Dawn of the Carnosaur and Animal Races: Dawn of the Cerapod.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The dinosaurs are on their way...

Animal Races: Dawn of the Carnosaur and Animal Races: Dawn of the Cerapod have both been uploaded. Barring technical difficulties, both are on schedule for release on June 12th (or slightly before that, depending upon your time zone).

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

I'm going back and adding some extra illustrations. These PDFs now have some nice, full-color artwork.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Troodos wrote:
Epic Meepo wrote:


  • And Shield-Beaerers, armor-plated saurians who clobber things with their heavy, spiked tails.[/list]
  • But thyreophorans weren't Cerapods...

    Every Animal Races product includes options for playing characters based on both the title animal and on close relatives of the title animal.

    Dawn of the Carnosaur, for example, won't limit itself to Carnosauria; it will also include character options related to coelurosaurs like maniraptors and megaraptors. Tyrannosaurs are also included in the form of two lizard tyrant bestiary entries.

    ...

    Which, I suppose, gives away my next spoiler: Dawn of the Carnosaur includes a short bestiary with stats for both living and undead lizard tyrants.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    To expand upon the previous post, Dawn of the Ceratops divides the cerapods into four castes:

    • Bird-Feet, fast-moving saurians who smack things with their whip-like tails;
    • Bone-Heads, thick-skulled saurians who smash things with their heads;
    • Horn-Heads, ceratops-like saurians who gore things with their many horns;
    • And Shield-Beaerers, armor-plated saurians who clobber things with their heavy, spiked tails.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    Non-scientific translation of the previous post:

    Animal Races: Dawn of the Cerapod lets you play Bird-Feet, Bone-Heads, Horn-Heads, and Shield-Bearers, all of which are different but related groups of humanoid dinosaurs.

    That officially makes cerapods the most diverse race to appear in the Animal Races product line so far.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Itchy wrote:

    As a dinosaur lover who has spawned a dinosaur lover, I have a question on your spelling. Dawn of the Cerapod?

    Do you mean Sauropod, the family that includes all the long necked giants including Apatosaurus, Brachiosaurus and Argentinosaurus?

    Or are you referring to the Ceratopsians, a family of horned/frilled dinosaurs to include Triceratops, Protoceratops, Styracosaurus, and Montanaceratops?

    I am referring to the proposed Cerapoda clade, which includes Ceratopsians, Ornithopods, and Pachycephalosaurs.

    The same PDF also covers Cerapoda's sister clade, Thyreophora, so it would have been more accurate to call it Dawn of the Ornithischian, but "Ornithischian" didn't sound as cool as "Cerapod" (and wouldn't have fit on the cover even if it did).

    Saurapoda, meanwhile, make an appearance in both PDFs as a race of reptilian giants.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    Warhawk7 wrote:
    Would I perhaps be able to make a young infant dinosaur that yells out "Not the Mama!"?

    Heh. Go for it. :)

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    Animal Races: Clan if the Raven is now available in the Paizo store.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Welcome to the Jurassic Multiverse.

    Your tour begins two weeks from today.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    Animal Races: Clan of the Raven is now available here and should be up in the Paizo store soon.

    This new Animal Races product is all about the tengu. More specifically, it's about a customizable race of shapechanging variant tengu. Play a traditional crow- or raven-headed tengu, or play something more atypical: a Parrot, perhaps, or a charismatic Songbird. Take any existing feat available to tengus, or any of several new feats that add shapeshifting capabilities, voice mimicry, and other racial traits to your tengu character.

    Also included: heraldic symbols inspired by tengus; a mysterious goddess known as the Phantom Queen; a variant race of psychopomps that attack their foes by generating flocks of murderous, flaming crows; and more.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    wakedown wrote:
    The bounded part of bounded accuracy helps to prevent these situations in organized play and restore a lot of the teamwork and interest to the game.

    Huh. Your argument has convinced me that the PFS house rules need to implement bounded accuracy, ASAP.

    That being said, changes to the PFS house rules should have no impact whatsoever on the Core Rules of the game itself. The Pathfinder RPG is bigger than PFS, and shouldn't change its Core Rules to accommodate one narrowly-focused campaign.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    wakedown wrote:
    Epic Meepo wrote:
    wakedown wrote:
    [examples]
    Your examples keep assuming that Pathfinder characters encounter only monsters whose CR is approximately equal to their own level. Sure, in a poorly-designed adventure ...

    My examples all draw from the last 100 adventures written and published by Paizo that I've run.

    I've picked random examples based on recent runs, or ones I thought were particularly fun. You'll find the average DCs/ACs all trend upward and your success rate is essentially constant, barring extreme stacking of modifiers by PCs.

    Some of them are actually pretty darn good, so I don't know if I'd say they are poorly-designed because the PCs never meet groups of lower-level enemies. It practically never happens (that higher level adventures maintain lower or constant DCs/ACs), though.

    ** spoiler omitted **...

    Ah, you're primarily running PFS scenarios. That explains why you aren't noticing any number-related character growth in Pathfinder. In my experience, PFS focuses on a very narrow slice of the Pathfinder game. Many types of encounters that showcase character growth are specifically excluded from PFS (as opposed to something like Kingmaker, where the advancement of your raw numerical bonuses can change the difficulty and feel of entire dungeons).

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    wakedown wrote:
    [examples]

    Your examples keep assuming that Pathfinder characters encounter only monsters whose CR is approximately equal to their own level. Sure, in a poorly-designed adventure where the PCs never meet groups of lower-level enemies, they won't feel like they are advancing. Advancement in Pathfinder is all about becoming significantly more badass than creatures that are below your level; that's why those creatures are below your level.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    I have always taken that part of the aid another rules to mean, "You can use aid another when a friend is affected by spells that explicitly say you can use aid another."

    For example, sleep explicitly mentions that you can use the aid another action to awaken the target of the spell.

    Other spells do not explicitly say you can use aid another actions to affect them, and thus do not interact with the spells clause of aid another.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    Ashiel wrote:
    Quote:
    You can also use this standard action to help a friend in other ways, such as when he is affected by a spell, or to assist another character's skill check.
    Yeah, that's what I was referencing. Aid Another as written is quite versatile. You can use it to help people escape Web Spells, make saving throws, shake off dominates, get out of nets, etc.

    No, you can't do any of those things. The final sentence of the aid another section is just telling you that other sections of the rules (the rules for spells and the rules for skills) include other specific uses for the aid another action.

    EDIT: See, for example, the description of the sleep spell, which explicitly details one of the "other ways" you can use aid another.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    Ashiel wrote:
    Shake it off makes mooks into walking saving throw buffs without even needing to use Aid Another (it totally stacks with aid another though).

    How are you using aid another to buff saving throws? In the Core rules, aid another has no effect on saving throws.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    To expand upon Felydiira's point, numerous monsters and feats also use swift actions. Unless Paizo plans on going through every bestiary (and every NPC stat block and every feat) to make an official ruling on every possible use of a swift action, the unchained action economy (which, by the way, is a lateral move, not a revision) will create massive amounts of table variation.

    Also, creating a system that is incompatible with 3PP support material does not render that 3PP support material obsolete. For an example, see 4e. 4e was infamously incompatible with 3PP support material written for 3.5 but you would be hard pressed to find someone on these boards who thinks 4e made Paizo's 3PP products obsolete the way cars rendered horses obsolete.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    Coming in the next few days, Animal Races: Clan of the Raven, which is all about shapechanging tengus.

    And after that, dinosaurs...

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Duskbreaker wrote:
    The problem with flying kick is that it doesn't say you actually fly when you move, so difficult terrain will still half your movement.

    The description of flying kick flat out states that you move through the air when using flying kick. The first sentence reads: "The monk leaps through the air to strike a foe with a kick."

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    rainzax wrote:
    Shisumo wrote:
    Dragon Style allows monks to both charge through difficult terrain and to charge through allies.
    Thinking I'm going to just let (modified) Flying Kick allow the monk to initiate a (mini) charge in the middle of a flurry. Meaning a Flying Dragon Kick would be permitted through difficult terrain and allies.

    A flying kick is not a charge attack, so you can move through difficult terrain and allies while using flying kick even if you aren't using Dragon Style.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    Puna'chong wrote:
    Joe Hex wrote:

    Sorry if this has already been answered- long thread...

    The sidebar that addresses Flurry of Blows, I'm assuming has the standard monk in mind- as far as the Unchained Monk goes, at first level, can they make 2 attacks at their FULL BAB, with it only counting as 1 act?

    That would be a mighty boost under the new AE, considering, that they could attack 2 more times with the usual penalties, or combine it all with moving.

    I went over that in the first half of my big RAE Houserules write-up.

    I think Joe is asking about the rules as written in the book, not your house rules.

    Going by the RAW in the sidebar, both the standard monk and the unchained monk would use the flurry of blows ability in the sidebar (which is not the same as either of those classes' flurry of blows abilities).

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    brightshadow360 wrote:
    WHERE.....IS....MY......HADOUKEN?!?!?

    Go back and read the list of qinggong powers. You'll find multiple version of it there.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Charon's Little Helper wrote:
    LazarX wrote:
    Mark Seifter wrote:
    kestral287 wrote:


    I also frankly really don't like the clothing-with-armor-bonuses thing. I just... can't make that one make sense in my mind.

    It's actually in the game already:

    Magic Vestment wrote:

    You imbue a suit of armor or a shield with an enhancement bonus of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5 at 20th level).

    An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.

    I take it pants are sufficient, if you're going for the Seltyiel fan service look?
    What about a loincloth for the Tarzan vibe?

    And don't forget chainmail bikinis.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Puna'chong wrote:

    I'll be able to post my homebrew changes soon here. I'll provide a link when it's ready, and I'll post it on the Homebrew forums. As written, the system doesn't do everything all the time, and it doesn't do it 100% effectively. That's a product of a shift of systems, but for the most part everything fits in really smoothly once you look at it.

    At least, that's what I've been finding.

    I can see how the unchained action economy can be made to work (as your house rules demonstrate), but I don't know that I would call the new action economy a smooth fit for the existing game.

    To me, dropping the unchained action economy into the current Pathfinder game feels like replacing a car's entire engine because a few bad spark plugs are holding back its performance. I'd rather just keep the engine where it is and replace the bad spark plugs.

    In Pathfinder, the full-attack action is the bad spark plug. Rather than seeing a rewrite of the entire action economy that makes combat more dynamic, I really wanted to see a rewrite of the full-attack action that makes combat just as dynamic while leaving everything other than full-attacking intact.

    For (a very rough) example, change the full attack action so it grants you three acts, each of which can be used to either attack or move. [Insert the attacking and moving portion of the unchained action economy rules here.] Everything other than full-attacking uses the normal rules.

    A (cleaned-up) version of the above suggestion would create dynamic combat very similar to that which occurs in the unchained action economy without having to first gut the entire Pathfinder action economy system.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
    This quickly becoming a homebrew thread...

    Any thread about implementing the unchained action economy has to be a homebrew thread. The unchained action economy is just a framework with extensive examples, not a complete system; you have to homebrew it to make it work.

    That being said, if Pathfinder 2.0 is built with this action economy as a starting point, I suspect that PF2 will run much better than PF1 with no homebrewing required.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Joe M. wrote:
    I'm glad they used the space in unchained for more optional rules rather than a suite of Unchained Monk options...

    Off the top of my head, you can add dozens of options to the unchained monk, including backwards and forwards compatibility with Core monk support material, by adding a single ki power:

    "Archetype Power: You can select a class feature granted by a monk archetype as a ki power if that class feature replaces a single monk class feature (and nothing else). To select an archetype class feature as a ki power, your monk level must be no less than the level on which that class feature is granted by a monk archetype. You cannot select a class feature as a ki power if that feature improves or relies upon an ability you do not have."

    The lack of something quick but effective like that built into the unchained monk is, in my opinion, a missed opportunity.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    The fine folks at Paizo appear to have resolved the technical glitch affecting this product. If you purchased this PDF through the Paizo store, you should now be able to download it properly.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    If I were a bladebound magus, I'd be thrilled with redundant free weapon enhancements. I could have a scaling magic sword and a scaling magic bow.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    VM mercenario wrote:
    No reason to not take Come and Get Me instead of Taunting Stance, since they come at the same level and you probably have some other stance already.

    The unchained barbarian can't take Come and Get Me. The unchained rage powers replace all of the rage powers from the CRB, APG, and UC except for those listed in the "Unmodified Rage Powers" sidebar. (The sidebar states this explicitly.)

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    Lance Manstrong wrote:
    There is a pelvic thrust style strike but its limited to attacks with the pelvis and its not available until level 18.

    It also costs 4 ki.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    Charon's Little Helper wrote:
    Epic Meepo wrote:
    A campaign where everyone got automatic bonuses plus three scaling magic items (one wonder, one prize, and one bauble) would be amusing. Those bonuses and items would account for 100% of the expected WBL, so the GM could just hand-wave all treasure for the entire campaign.

    While WBL wouldn't be an issue - it would allow any treasure the players did find to be used for estates, retainers etc without gimping their characters.

    In addition - wizards would still need a decent chunk of gold (though a small fraction of WBL) to keep writing down new spells.

    Yep, players could acquire gold for cool flavor stuff without gimping their characters. (I'd make a wizard's spellbook a bauble that grants a few extra spells known per level.)

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    A campaign where everyone got automatic bonuses plus three scaling magic items (one wonder, one prize, and one bauble) would be amusing. Those bonuses and items would account for 100% of the expected WBL, so the GM could just hand-wave all treasure for the entire campaign.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    Deadmanwalking wrote:
    And Flying Kick explicitly requires the attack made after it to be a kick...

    More amusingly, the head-butt style strike says it can only be made with head-butt attacks. But unarmed strike says, "A monk's attacks can be made with fists, elbows, knees, and feet." It would seem that "head-butt" is not an attack a monk can make while using unarmed strike. (Which is why this whole "must use this body part" stuff is uncalled for.)

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    Puna'chong wrote:
    It's a great framework.

    I would agree that "framework" is the right word. This isn't really a system. It's more of a suggestion for how to build a system with lots of examples.

    That being said, if Paizo ever builds a game/edition from scratch, I would support an action economy based on this framework over an action economy based on the 3.x standard.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    White Unggoy wrote:
    Rolling ahead with implementing abilities with that explanation...

    You are correct that my previous post was how I would rule this in my game.

    I have sent you a private message regarding sharing your HL file.

    1 to 50 of 4,273 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.