Gorbacz's page

If Pathfinder continues down the road to steampunk, DDN might find a market in disgruntled PF players... which would be pretty funny.

I don't really see Golarion going into steampunk. In fact, with the exception of Distant Worlds and the Jade Regent AP/Dragon Empires Gazetter, Paizo has pretty much played it safe (a little too safe in my opinion) with their products and their setting. Hell, they gave us a pirates AP with no firearms (but the option for one) because they knew the majority of the fans would lose their minds if suddenly anything non-medieval was put into publication. Also the rules themselves would still be setting neutral, allowing for all kinds of fantasy genres that you want to play including Steampunk.

Buckbeak of course.

I like RD threads, because RD makes no claim to be anything but a hardcore loophole seeking munchkin.

It is the people who pretend they aren't trying to game the system that get on my nerves.

I will not be buying 5E. The developers at Pathfinder have more than earned my loyalty.

They're making a 5e? When did this happen?

The day after 4th Ed came out.

If you want to play a certain type of character that the GM isn't interested in supporting, you've basically got 3 choices.

1) Play the character anyway, hope the GM changes his mind (perhaps after you make a few more impassioned pleas), and prepare for a disappointing game.

2) Play a different type of character and save the first idea for another game.

3) Find a new, more flexible GM.

What is MAD? Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more....

I wish for...
All the mentioned monsters and creatures from Distant Worlds to be included.

Agreed. The grippli are indeed inspirational.

Question: I realize the book is marketed to players who wish to play non-traditional races and whatnot, but shouldn't a GM be able to make just as much use of the book to create great memorable NPCs? I really hope so, and am looking forward to the book for that reason =)

-Pax

Of course! Crazy races are for everyone!

Apparently if you're playing a warrior type and you don't have Gloves of Dueling, you're DOINGITWRONG and having BADWRONGFUN.

Woah! More than a dragon? Hmmmmm...goblins would be glorious!

It's not goblins. It's a lot bigger than goblins.

Wow, I think my (now third level) sorcerer in PFS would make some people cry.

• No wand of CLW, 4 potions of healing instead
  
• Darkwood masterwork club.
  
• +1 Hakiri-maki
  
• sleep, snapdragon fireworks in his spell list.
  
• Lowest stat is an 11 wisdom, highest stat is his 17 int.
  

But he's fun.

I think I have favorited more posts in this thread than in any other thread ever.

I am really liking the new stuff replacing the iconic stat page, but I am missing the iconic stat page. sigh :|
complicated feelings are complicated.

I had a character who didn't take Power Attack until 6th level. Am I a bad person?

You are just drawn that way.

I had a character who didn't take Power Attack until 6th level. Am I a bad person?

Part of the reason we quit putting the pregenerated iconics in there is precisely because of this reaction.

I'm actually not at all interested in trying to make the most over-the-top numbercrunched optimized characters... be it in a game I'm running or as sample PCs. Partially because it's kind of soul-numbing, but also because it's pretty hard to sift through every possible spell option and try to perfect a stat block that, in the case of those sample PCs, is being done at the last minute anyway.

In fact, we often picked spells for the PCs based ENTIRELY on the length of the spell, since too many long-named spells would make the spells prepared not fit in the space we had available. In other cases, we'd pick spells (and feats and the like) that might not be "optimized" for a specific build, but are the perfect feats for that particular character.

For example as well... Merisiel is wearing studded leather armor because that's what she's wearing in her artwork.

The iconic stat blocks had FAR more masters to serve than the "Optimization Master." to the extent that serving the "Optimization Master" was never on the to-do list in the first place.

AKA: Those pregenerated characters are NOT intended to be optimized, but folks who want or expect them to be get worked up and therefore threads like these start up. So we quit doing it.

If you're looking for a better representation to how we build high-level wizards, a better place to look than the prebuilt PCs is to any high-level wizard NPCs in the adventure. Of course... those are built as NPCs with specific story goals and requirements their stats must serve first before any other master... and they've got worse stats than most PCs most of the time, so maybe not.

I had a character whose grease spells summoned slippery strawberry jam.

Skill points aren't gained retroactively actually, just hit points.

Does your username every get you into sticky situations?

#1 Ability Scores:

Strength is 4 points above what it should be, like Marten already mentioned.

Dexterity should be biped base 12, +4 for 10th level, -2 for Large evolution. That's 14 not 16 which also lowers AC and Reflex saving throw by 1.

#2 Feats:

Weapon Finesse should be weapon focus.

#3 Evolutions:

Claws: I am afraid that Marten is wrong about number of claws - each claws evolution grants 2 claw attacks, and first claw evolution (i.e. first 2 claw attacks) is free for biped eidolon so 2 evolution points spent on a total of 6 claw attacks would be right (but see below). He is right on the part noting that claws put on legs shouldn't be allowed to be used to deliver attacks while wearing boots nor does the arm that holds shield could be, so he is short on number of limbs to deliver full number of claw attacks.
Also, because the 10th level eidolon has a limit of five natural attacks possessed it could not be able to purchase claws evolution three times as it puts it above the limit (unless explicitly allowed by GM to buy single claw attack for a total of five claw attacks, still the remaining one claw would be on one of the legs and made unusable with boots of speed).

Improved damage (claws): It was stated by developers that it does not stack with Improved Natural Weapon (claws) feat.

Limbs: A total of four arms is correct as he starts with two free and bought a pair of arms for 2 evolution points.

#3 Derived statistics:

AC should get only +2 from Dexterity, but natural armor bonus should be 2 for base form, +8 for 10th level, +2 for improved natural armor evolution, +2 for large evolution for a total of +14. No shield bonus to AC as all arms are too occupied clawing opponents. Which gives a total of 26 (+1 armor, +2 Dex, +14 natural, -1 size). Haste would boost it back to listed 27, as it would increase Reflex save to listed value.

Attacks: 5 claws +20 (1d8+11) while haste is active. Without haste it's 4 claw attacks +19 (1d8+11). With power attack it turns into 5 claws +17 (1d8+17) with haste or 4 claws +16 (1d8+17) without.

Not that this is necessarily proof of anything, but here are the number of pageviews for classes on d20pfsrd.com since August 2009:
-
-
-
-
Class.............Pageviews
Sorcerer...........911,159
Wizard.............666,009
Rogue..............652,256
Fighter..............647,940
Monk.................639,021
Cleric................620,640
Ranger.............590,250
Oracle...............540,854
Alchemist..........478,024
Druid.................476,651
Barbarian..........439,009
Bard..................437,969
Magus................431,383
Paladin..............422,367
Summoner.........409,340
Witch................388,974
Inquisitor..........378,085
Cavalier............278,804
Gunslinger.........234,877

I think you're really looking for two different things here.

See, by all accounts, Rise of the Runelords is a perfect scenarion to be Big Damn Heroes in. You can be shining paragons of all that is good and right easily. The same is true of all the other APs though some (Jade Regent and Legacy of Fire leap to mind) are more conducive to it than others. That's no problem. Indeed, it's the norm, even in something like Skulls and shackles, where you're easily able to be CG heroic pirates.

But you seem to also not want the villains to be terrible monsters who perpetrate all manner of atrocities. That's a bit rarer and harder to find in the APs...to the point that I'm having a hard time thinking of one where that's not gonna be at least something of an issue.

See, I disagree with your assessment of Golarion as particularly grim or dark. There are bad things, but there are also shining beacons of light and good. Lastwall and Andoran, for example, really are great places people would want to be a part of. And Paizo doesn't go out of it's way to make things overly hopeless and depressing ala Warhammer. No, what they do is very simple: They make the villains truly villainous.

If you're the main villain of a Paizo AP...odds are you're a real monster of some sort. Same for most of the lesser villains. In my opinion this is a good thing, and allows for more and better opportunities for someone like a Paladin to demonstrate their righteousness as well as lay low the wicked. But it also results in some fairly dark plots (which is very different from a dark world) as the PCs see evidence of the horrors committed by the villain.

So the question you asked? Yes, all the APs allow it easily. The other one you implied? Gonna be hard to come by.

James Jacobs promotion gift shopping list.

1. Dust 1 cup.
2. Rust 1/2 a cup
3. Machete
4. One 3 foot tall homicidal machete wielding animatronic monkey with optional Kung fu grip and the evil level set at 11.
5. 1 frozen yogurt.

Why separate Fauns and Satyrs into two separate monsters?

Because two monsters is better than one.

Liz Courts:” HULK MAKE PEACE WITH INNER CHILD!!"

Liz Courts: "HULK EXPRESS TRUTH CONSTRUCTIVELY."

Liz Courts: "HULK ONLY INCREDIBLE AFTER HULK SMASH DESTRUCTIVE PATTERNS!!"

Liz Courts: "HULK SMILE!"

Cosmo: "HULK MAKE TIME FOR HULK!"

Cosmo: HULK CRY IT OUT!

CS Erik: HULK DO STRETCHES BEFORE EXERCISE!

Robot Chris: HULK DO YOGA EVERYDAY FOR HULK BALANCE

Sara Marie: IT NOT FAT IT HULK MUSCLE

Cosmo: HULK MAKING HULK BE OK WITH HULK!!!!

Robot Chris: HULK WATCH NOTEBOOK, DO NOT JUDGE

Blue Chris: HULK LOVE SELF BEFORE LOVING OTHERS

Cosmo: HULK WORK THROUGH PUNY BANNER'S ANGER ISSUES!!!!

"It's more like a gooey ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... sting-y jelly... fish."

Robot Chris: Today, my mind is like a jellyfish—it's all wobbly and FULL OF STINGERS!

crystal: *twitch twitch*

crystal: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!

Mark You fast!

Robot Chris I robot!

James, if you were to do a character build for Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, what levels/feats would each have in your opinion?

Aragorn: Leadership + lots of melee sword feats

Legolas: Lots of bow related feats

Gimli: eew. dwarf.

Also I would like to know what happened to Erik Mona.

The pugwampis have him. We are organizing a group of Pathfinders to go and try to recover him since he spent 5 PPs to have his body recovered.

How weird is it that albino ratfolk alchemists are a recurring theme?

Skaven were spreading poison, disease and warp explosions since 1986.

You are mistaken as to who is responsible for "every negative change" to the monks since they came out.

I am not functioning alone. The design team works together on these things. And before it goes to print, Jason reads all the rules content as a last-minute check.

How brass knuckles interact with monk attacks was a decision the design team reached after discussing it.

Monk vows were a decision the design team reached after discussing it. (Mind you, in the design turnover for the vow, the benefit was you got +1 ki for every 5 monk levels. So it's not like I took what was presented and nerfed it, I felt it needed more of a boost than as it was originally written. Clearly most people think it deserved more, but don't paint this situation like I did this to punish anyone or that I hate monks or vows.)

The wording for flurry of blows in the Core Rulebook was written by Jason (and as that TWF reference isn't in the Beta, it was probably added very late in the design process for the Core Rulebook). At the time, Jason felt his intent was clear. The blog preview for PFRPG monks shows flurry-as-TWF was his intent. "Sean's ruling" on how flurry works isn't my personal belief (derived independently with no input from Jason) of how the rule should work, it's the result of me checking and re-checking with Jason about it over the course of the boards discussion to make sure I understand what he meant by the text in the Core Rulebook.

As it turns out, the rules for the monk flurry aren't clear. I got it wrong when answering an earlier FAQ (perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough to Jason when addressing that FAQ issue, perhaps Jason misrembered that he changed how flurry works in PF). Other people on staff got it wrong when they built or developed stat blocks. Freelancers got it wrong when they wrote archetypes for the monk. Like much of the rules text in the Core Rulebook, the flurry text could really benefit from being rewritten and reworded. The design team hasn't decided what to do about that yet, but that doesn't change that Jason intended it to work like TWF. This isn't "Sean's ruling," this is "how Jason the designer wanted it to work."

It's really easy to make me the point man for your outrage and rude comments because I'm the guy who's always answering FAQ questions. And it's easy to want to "go ask mom" if you don't like the rule answer from "dad." But that's not how it works. If you don't like my answer, you can't ask Jason to override me... because what we say in the FAQ is the result of a discussion and consensus with the other designers, regardless of whose name (mine, Jason's, Stephen's) is attached to that specific FAQ. It's fine to disagree with a FAQ, or say you won't do it that way in your campaign, or ask for the design team to reconsider a FAQ decision, but you can't single out me or Stephen or Jason and say "that guy is wrong, I want another designer to correct them." That just makes you look foolish.

Yes, ProfessorCirno, your information is wrong about me designing the gunslinger. I have no idea where you got the idea that I had anything to do with the design of that class. Maybe you should think about what other information you think is true is actually wrong. And that goes for everyone in this flurry meta-topic. I've been reading all of this, and I can't help but laugh at some of the ridiculous and provably false things some people are quoting as the truth. One really good example is "Jason couldn't have meant flurry to work like TWF, that would make the sohei invalid, and Jason designed the sohei, and he wouldn't have designed the sohei that way if he meant flurry to work like TWF." Except that Jason didn't design the sohei (at least, Jason Bulmahn didn't... it was designed by freelancer Jason Nelson). You guys don't know who designed which parts, or who developed which parts, or what discussion led to a particular choice of wording. Talking as if you do know really puts you on shaky ground.

Does the brass knuckles ruling hurt the monk? Only in the sense that the monk is a weak class and needs to be fixed at its root, not patched with a weapon choice that would become the default weapon for monks if you don't want your monk PC to suck.

Does the vow of poverty hurt the monk? Only in the sense that the monk is a weak class and needs to be fixed at its root, not patched with a two-paragraph option for gearless monks that doesn't address the greater campaign issues of wealth by level, wealth in a party, and so on.

Does the flurry-as-TWF rule hurt the monk? Well, it certainly doesn't help that it breaks or forces weird interpretations of certain archetypes, and is written in a confusing way that led to unclear interpretations by most people who read it.

I don't want the monk merely patched, I want it fixed. I agree that it's hard to play an effective monk, the monk rules are convoluted, and it's expensive in terms of magic item and ability score needs. But I don't know that the monk can be sufficiently fixed without requiring significantly more explanatory text in the Core Rulebook--which we can't add without messing up the layout for pages and pages, which we can't do because we have that book and other books referring to things in the Core Rulebook by specific page number. I--and the other designers--don't want to just slap a bandage on it and call it good; this is a significant concern, just like the stealth rules, and deserves careful consideration.

My much-earlier point from the other thread still stands: I go out of my way to engage with people on the boards, discuss rules, and figure out what people want in the FAQ. When Jason and I discuss something in the rules, if I disagree with his ruling (for example, I think the trip weapon property is really weak), I'm not afraid to (1) explain the official ruling, and (2) admit that I disagree with that ruling. Yet too many people here think that I'm some kind of FAQ-lackey, making rulings without talking it over with other members of the staff, and think it's okay to be rude to me or go "over my head" when they disagree with the official ruling from the design team. I got tired of that attitude. And I stopped posting answers to rules, and stopped posting FAQs, because I didn't want to deal with it any more (which is sad, because I actually like answering rules questions). Because I'm not required to deal with rudeness and personal attacks, I won't do it.

And since I stopped posting rules clarifications and FAQs, there have been zero new FAQs posted.

Take that as you will.

You might want to work on your definition of 'critical issue'. ;-)

Numeria is certainly a polarizing element—not everyone likes having lasers and robots in their game. That's a big part of why we designed the Inner Sea region to be modular, such that beyond a region's border, they don't have a LOT of impact on the rest of the region. That does result in a certain level of non-realism, I realize, but it's worth it to us in order to make Golarion as widely usable as possible to as many people as possible. So... if you happen to not like Numeria, (or Irrisen with its eternal winter, or Andoran with its democracy, or Belkzen with all those orcs, or whatever) you can turn that region into a blank-slate (either an empty wilderness or a nation of your own design) without significantly impacting the rest of the setting.

Now... that said... Numeria is one of the top requests from folks for more information about it, and is often requested as the site for an Adventure Path. Reaction to Numeria elements we've put into other books has been mostly positive as well. Chances of us doing something big with Numeria at some point in the near future are pretty high as a result... at which point folks who hate Numeria will, I guess, get a chance to let their wallets catch their breath!

Removed some posts. Just because you can type stuff like rapey sexualized "metaphors" into the little box and hit "submit post" doesn't mean it's OK. I've also edited the thread title. Wishing violence on actual human beings is not cool here, ever.

Steve Geddes wrote:

I personally find it annoying when my clients try and tell me how to do my job better (they're nearly always wrong). If they began with an opening gambit of wishing me violence, I'd be even less inclined to engage with them.

The hell do I care? It's not like they're going to suddenly learn how to do math or care to produce a quality product.

Also, their forum interface is terrible.

Yeah, and their moderation policies are too lenient.

After reading both of Tom's post I think he needs a nap.

Some people take the weirdest stuff personally.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Can pcs with the Aquatic or Swamp Domain, or any other channel granting domain, take the Channel Smite feat?

Why shouldn't they?

They say they work like a cleric's channel, but they are a bit more limited. I like to be sure.

Well, actually, a developer comment is sure to quiet my very vocal fellow player, who disagrees even after it was given the okay by my DM.

That kind of saddens me... that there are players out there who won't accept the GM's word as rule for their game.

In which case, I can offer this analogy:

If an adventure is a movie, then:

The rules are the cameras, lights, and sets.
The author is the screenplay writer.
The developer is the director.
The editor is (surprise) the editor.
The art director is the cinematographer.
The adventure's NPCs are actors.
The publisher is the producer.
Paizo is the Movie Studio.
The PCs are the stars.

The players are the audience.

But the GM is the one who choses what movie to show, and wether or not the Players get to watch it. He can turn the movie off whenever he wants. He can splice in new scenes or re-edit it to his heart's content. He's basically the movie theater owner, projectionist, manager, and staff of the theater. As such, he's 100% in control of what the players get to do or see or how they interact with the movie.

There's a specific reason why we've skewed relatively "non-epic" for our Adventure Paths—at the time we'd finished Savage Tide, there was a LOT of customer feedback along the lines of "Why does every Adventure Path end with a super powerful outsider/god and the PCs saving the world? Why can't it end with a human wizard and the PCs saving something like a nation or a city?"

Which is why we chose the plots we did for the first few Adventure Paths—the public was calling for Adventure Paths where the PCs faced the likes of more human, less outlandish foes.

Further hampering things, of course, is the fact that with the Dungeon APs we were able to pull upon decades of D&D nostalgia and established plotlines—we could have bad guys that folks recognized. We couldn't do that when we launched Pathfinder at the start.

The lack of a solid set of rules for what happens beyond CR 25 (or 20th level for PCs) is also a problem.

I think that the first of those two problems is gone, more or less—at 5 years in to the world's game life cycle, we've got plenty of epic foes to pick from who are established characters in the world (such as what we're starting to do with Skull & Shackles, Shattered Star, and beyond).

The second of those two problems is still a problem though... For now, at least.

Like many others, I really disagree on the matter of Curse of the Crimson Throne.

Evil's a hell of a drug.

It's interesting that, 2 years later, there are still folks out there who think the Slumber hex is a bit too much.

Sounds to me like some people on this thread want all the advantages with none of the disadvantages.

Okay, I just reread the thread and have no idea where you got that impression.

One thing I've noticed is that I see more people arguing about D&D rules on the internet compared to 20 years ago. So obviously D&D rules are getting worse and people are getting more argumentative.

The barb was fair game, period.

This, I agree with. A super-genius final boss should behave as such.

As long as you are following the rules, unless the rule is obviously broken, then you are doing nothing wrong, you also shouldn't have to fear being a dick if you use the rules as written.

Okay, this is ridiculous. Of course you can be a dick using the rules as written.

You can literally never let the Ranger's Favored Enemy show up, put the Paladin in no-win situations to make him fall (and then deny him Atonement by saying there's nobody around to cast it), kill the Witch's familiar every combat by targeting all possible attacks on it, even if the villains have no reason to, have APL+3 Rogues steal the wizard's spellbook every night, and a dozen other things, all without technically violating the rules at all.