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

Jamie Charlan's page

511 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 511 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

pretty much far as any of us can tell.
seriously dick move, that.


"Killing off a class" is not a bad thing if it's done by folding it into another class when both needed the help.

YES, the cavalier is no longer worth taking if the fighter can do most or all of what the cavalier could do.

HOWEVER: You get a better cavalier, just happens to be named fighter now (it doesn't have to be named fighter either anyways)

This is where the usual suggestions of "just use the PoW classes and rename them" come from. There's nothing you can do about the mechanics of your chosen class doing everything they can to screw you out of ever being truly worth your weight, but when all you need to do is slap the old name on a different set of mechanics that do everything you'd want and more, you fixed your entire problem by changing a single word. No house-rules, just roleplay.


It's an Option! Multiple! Bits! Attack Satellites!

Why are they artifacts and why can't you get four? It has to be four!


Taenia wrote:
The original version of Crane Wing was too strong even without MoMS. The ability to simply negate one hit when combined with a good AC meant that they could save such deflections for Crits and normal hits would just miss. And with lower AC they could simply avoid 1 attack a round. No roll, no save no nothing just auto deflect. This would be capstone ability rather than something acquired at level 5 (or two with MoMS).

One attack is nothing so long as you aren't facing an AP's "I attack once" NPC (and there's the problem).

When you're negating one hit out of 5+ from a very angry berserker, dragon, or pack of anythings surrounding you (like say, six summons), it's 'nice' to have, but it probably won't save your life.


Pendagast wrote:
A fighter can have an ac of 20 at level one and 15 hp without half trying hard

15HP? He's got 20 con? What did he do to his Strength score?

Starting cash average 175. He can afford +6 armor and a shield, but if he does that his attack sucks. That's 18AC, 20 if he's got shield AND dex. His skills also suck moreso, thanks to the penalties.

Moreso because apparently this guy's got 20 con, 14 or more dex, and is using 1h and shield.

So, he's hitting as hard as the wizard, or is he running around with 8 in every mental stat, or both?


"Dumb as wood" as you put it would explain why she has levels in monk. Some clearcutters or the like obviously got her out of the way by telling her where she could learn important wildlife secrets.

Couple of years later she walks out of that monastery not entirely certain what any of that had to do with animals. Her old forest is completely gone, but hey, ENLIGHTENMENT! One with the universe and all that stuff!

Either way she should have intense difficulties with any "buk lurninz": Math and reason generally perform stratospheric flight over her head, but she'd have an easy time with common sense, minus the whole "punching things with your face until they bleed and die" thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't forget AoE: those better maneuvers being cast can often also affect multiple hostiles at once.

Just try tripping everything in a 10ft radius somewhere within 25+5ft/level of you in just one action as a fighter. Even at 20th level!

OR you could Mass Hold-Monster for a far more powerful effect in a far larger 30ft radius within 100+10ft/lv (that's TWENTY SEVEN TIMES the affected volume)!

OR you could Cloudkill!

OR you could laugh at the silly little cleave maneuver and lower yourself to a measly regiment-annihilating Meteor Swarm!

Or any other number of options, each and every single one of which is better in every way!

Now sure it was different back when the per-day limits actually meant something, but we've had more spells of our two highest levels per day than we do encounters per rest (and we can make DAMN sure of that if we have to with some low level spells) since 3.0.


Oh come now. Not wanting to see someone slain from the inside because not everyone involved had quite as good a save vs Ghoul Fever is totally bigotry and oppression!

Seriously though. Adventuring's just begging for things to go full horror


Plus there's also that whole other can of worms; fetuses and infants in battle. Because your stuff might be safe as long as you make your saves and avoid crits and shock and stuff, but when you fail or fall... I mean, sure, a woman can go adventuring. Her body her choice, whatever... but, um... it would be as unfair as it is unrealistic to avoid certain extremely related subjects. And while this may sound like a joke, and it partly is, these are all *COMMON SITUATIONS* adventurers must deal with that would suddenly take quite a grizzly turn when CR-0 offspring are involved. You can't just pretend s@~& that happens all the time don't happen and wave it all away.

Like how easily a level 0 fetus is going to pass its Fort DCs against that poison you failed a save on.

Critical hits. Going into Shock or Dying with a kid in you (all things that tend to falcon-punch your "passenger" problem quite well)

Size-Shifter spells. Magical Aging. At exactly what age/moment that newborn starts counting as a separate entity (READ: TARGET) for purposes of AoEs.

Mind-affecting exposures; can an unfriendly magic-user subtly turn your child into the next Mecha-Hitler?

Or how much DR or Shield-AC babies provide when worn.

Tracking bonuses and Stealth penalties from crying or needing a diaper change.

Raising the Undead, through ritual or direct necro-conversions.

What to do when your precious little dead baby will be a wight in just 1d4 rounds.

"Do us all a favor, stay home until you can hand it to a nanny"
Sincerely, Erastil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Simply retcon'ing him into having ALWAYS been pro-LGBT does nothing but create a boring, ho-hum deity where there was once an interesting being.

Plus he'll probably staunchly remain opposed to any gay/lesbian couples that want nothing to do with kids at all (as opposed to ones who adopt). It honestly would not make sense for him to change his mind about that last part, because he's a bloody god of exactly doing not-that!

Not because he's evil, but because he's a good god of farming and families, and they're living in outright opposition to what he quite literally exists for. That's not bigotry, that's just not liking something that goes against everything you stand for. He's like a father that respects your choices but can't help but mention he'd really have liked some grandkids every once in a while. You're crushing his frickin dreams here! Are you going to fault him for that? Can you honestly say "you're a horrible, evil thing for wanting grandkids" and still look at yourself in the mirror in the morning?

If he was Evil, he might 'do something about it'. But he isn't. He doesn't try to condemn or rid the world of folks that disagree with his ideals. That fact shows he's tolerant and *good*.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Uh, you wouldn't want to anyways; they're completely different systems. 4e has more to do with the old chainmail games than with other editions of D&D. That's why people get decent use out of it running things like Final Fantasy Tactics or the such; stuff that's mostly focused on large setpiece battles.

They might as well put out a manual explaining all the differences between a house and a canoe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gabriel Cantrell wrote:
I have to say that that the alteration to the Abundant Ammunition spell is a welcome one as that stops players from using it and weapon blanches to get more than their ten shots. A very good change!

I always viewed it as compensation for the ridiculous per-shot cost the gunslinger has until he can afford this (you know, when everyone else has been running around with 'eternal' ammo bows anyways for better DPR), especially advanced or modern firearms, which cost as much as magic weapons before you even enchant them. *EVENTUALLY* when you finally have infinite ammunition, yours gets to be adamantine bullets. Because the other guy no longer NEEDS adamantine, because he could afford a +5 weapon and you can't.

Although the wording on the "alchemical" part significantly worries me in regards to people (I can think of several better adjectives to use on them but let's say 'people' for now) arguing that the powder or metal cartridges are alchemical parts of the ammunition and that therefore screw-you-gunslinger.

Seriously though. It's a gunslinger. They needed no bloody nerfing.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Things would make much more sense if the martials were actually realistic.

Given what's natural and realistic, there's no reason fighters shouldn't be burrowing through stone under their own power while regenerating their lost heads, monks would be flying and using breath weapons through their fists, and thieves would be teleporting like blink-dogs to flank with themselves by 10th level or so.

Because Umber Hulks, Dragons, Blink-Dogs, and regenerating limbs are normal, realistic things as far as golarion's concerned.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or at the very least, the classes are.


Longbows also needed years of training for what we'd qualify as *proficiency*; that much training on a crossbow would mean quite the weapon-master. If "martial proficiency" feat represents the time and training needed for a longbow, then Focus and Specialization and something else (either far-shot or point-blank-master maybe) would all have to fit in a single crossbow feat.

Now, the english longbow WAS faster and shot further. Under 200 yards the crossbow was generally better at penetration, but they were otherwise roughly as lethal due to the lighter bolt and (deliberate) low draw length. The weapon was built to be portable. If you're willing to take massive strength into account, a larger crossbow could easily have a 20" or longer draw length instead of 12-14", which would drive its output straight into "I cast gravity-bow on my longbow" territory, or allow you to use a much lower draw weight than "winch it for a minute". Unfortunately the bow also required a *lot* of time and very high quality wood to produce, and couldn't be kept loading for a rapid shot should you be surprised (not that that's very good for the crossbow, but hey, living.)

This is all assuming no one's touching any of the technology regularly availble on much of Golarion: If nothing else you could easily see autoloaders. Whether a clockwork gnome(er, gnomish system) that handles the winching for you (still has reload time, but it doesn't eat your actions doing so), a limited-charge CO2 cartridge, or a high speed electrical motor, or even just some bloody MAGIC that pulls the bloody thing for you, there's very little reason to be hand-cranking the things.

Just as a comparison point, modern crossbows we have available in real life are hand-drawn, but they're also compound models: They're accurate, quite easy to draw (think 'hand' not 'light') and put a bolt in the air with enough speed and force to drop a bear.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah even Ultimate Combat had 28 pages of spells (just the descriptions, not counting the list) and plenty of archetypes/options/feats for full casters too. Alchemist, Magus, Paladin, Ranger make sense, but the biggest share was still for clerics, druids and sorc/wiz.

In comparison, Ultimate Magic had what for combat feats? Radiant Charge, the Quarterstaff chain, and maybe learning one ranger trap? No archetypes for pure martials or anything.

Would've been a great time to introduce more "supernatural" (read: completely and utterly mundane by the standards of golarion's ecology, which is the definition of mundane that should be used, not our world's) abilities to bring the martials up to par.


The only part that "isn't variable" is that trigger - and even then you can have different weights on there too.

But ALL that changes is that once you've drawn a bow, you have to hold it yourself. That's the only difference. It's a type of spring; whether you're keeping it wound by pushing down on it or keeping it wound by pinning it as-is in place, either way it's wound.

As for firearms, they are for the most part independent of strength: Other than actually holding the thing up and handling recoil (again though there's devices or mountings that help here, as can your firing position) It's a chemical reaction and the physical structure of the weapon itself that are doing all the work. Chemical potential rather than mechanical storage of the wielder's energy.

Firearms are a vastly different mechanism, so long as one does not deliberately oversimplify things in an attempt to keep the status-quo.


They're also kept slow because otherwise "wouldn't be realistic".

This in a world where realistic is alien elves dodging the lightning spells of a dragon at 20 000ft while trying to stab it with a magic sword before you mildly hurt your knees and walk off your un-assisted landing at terminal velocity onto that ancient crashed spaceship.


alexd1976 wrote:
If anything, strong characters SHOULD be allowed to reload faster than weaker ones, but i don't think they should get a strength bonus on the damage

The CROSSBOW would get bonus damage if built stronger rather than faster (you *do* have to be careful selecting the crossbow, some mechanisms were integral rather than attached/bypassable). One would likely want something with a balance of speed and strength. "Strength Bonus" is the easiest way to do this without a table dedicated to crossbows. Much like a bow though, if you can't handle the crossbow because it's not a mechanism you're strong enough for, you're still as screwed.

Note: I would be completely fine with a table dedicated to crossbows.

Quote:
I guess you COULD conceivable make a crossbow that required a certain strength to use, but then you could just make a gearing system to load it regardless of strength...

Yeah see, that's kind of how they work to begin with. "Strength" is the draw. Composite (actually ALL bows realistically) are no different at all: You need a certain amount of strength to draw it. Crossbows are just built so that you can *supplement* your own strength with mechanisms that multiply it at a cost in time.

Quote:
Was there not a time when crossbows ignored a certain amount of armor? Maybe back in 2nd ed?

There was a table of Armor vs Damage types but it was mostly ignored/optional. Crossbows were a bit weaker back then as well, but there was *much* less chance (and attacks per round, etc) of having the kind of strength that would really help your bow out, and there was an incredible difference in training: Bows needed an additional proficiency slot (and long/short were separate; you knew specific weapons, so a starting fighter with specialization in bows might just barely know how to use a dagger along with it, and nothing else).


You forget that the person's strength can influence how fast they can turn that crank (and there's far more than just cranks, from hand-pulled to a simple lever to belt-hooks and stirrups to windlasses), as well as - given the limitations of size, weight and available materials - how powerful a 'crank' they can be turning.

A strong enough person may be capable of hand-drawing what another would need a slow, minute-long winching for. A strong enough person may instead apply this to a mechanism you'd normally have a pair of pack animals on a giant wheel for.

Someone with Strength 5 couldn't use a normal "light" crossbow anymore than they could handle a shortbow.

Edit: If you want a good example of crossbow adjustments, look up how they did in GURPS. Just like a bow, you get a crossbow meant for your strength. Usually. Compounds are a bit more efficient (treat Strength as 2 higher), but beyond that if you want a different strength, it's loading mechanisms. Crossbows have their own strength, you have your own strength, and mechanisms multiply both time and what you can handle. Whether a 2.5 multiplier means a strength 4 guy can use a strength 10 crossbow (just give him a minute) or a strength 10 guy can use a strength 25 crossbow (that's more normal), that's up to how you have it built. No need for anything other than drawing it over the trigger by hand if you're as strong or stronger than it is.


"Mechanical Systems" Is an upgrade.
And a bow is a mechanical system anyways.

See, first, you have pointy stick.
You throw pointy stick. That does damage.

Bow lets you take smaller pointy stick and throw it faster, further, thus more dangerously, by using the mechanics of bendy stick and notactuallystring.

Crossbow takes Bow and adds a little rail so small pointy stick doesn't fly off at a strange angle, which makes it much much faster to learn. This is a good thing. A good one. As far as things go. A good thing everyhere save this weapons table here... Then it adds trigger system and maybe special pulling system, so that crossbow itself holds notactuallystring drawn: all that means is your arm doesn't get tired.

Then, later Crossbows go "hey, arm not get tired nice, but what if we make ultra-strong crossbow with pulley to draw, since we don't need arm-strong anyways?"

A Crossbow is taking that same power you'd put into a draw, and multiplying it further in exchange for time; by having that same energy, say, turn a winch for 20s. In exchange, they can give it weights that give no f***s about how strong your arms are beyond needing to turn the crank, which results in utterly ridiculous output.

Now of course because they also liked to make the things more portable the bow of a crossbow was generally made shorter, which made it less efficient (but even if half you were getting half but on like 6+x the draw weight a bow could have) but you don't HAVE to do it that way either.

No, if reason or this so-called "realism" that got applied to crossbows here were anything even remotely similar to their actual definitions (reason and realism), crossbows would be extremely scary, because the last thing anyone wants to be staring is the force-wall-reinforced-adamantine monstrosity a storm-giant spent a minute with a windlass cranking up to eight times what he could draw.


Maybe he's playing Final Fantasy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Being to blast "all day" is really just a QoL improvement.
Not because you can blast all day, but because you don't have to book-keep each and every use.


Yeah, "This is what it is under normal circumstances, but it becomes *this* rating instead under these conditions" is excellent advice to those reading your guide.

It lets you give both the 'general' issues of the ability but also lets you point out the bits you like about it and how effective they may be when used correctly. This way people can more accurately judge the utility of an ability in regards to how they want to build their character.

Reminds me of the 4e guides, where you'd have powers rated gold (the "you are literally mentally deficient if you do not take this" rating) for some builds, but red for others. Warlocks were a good example, where the pact riders could turn a really unimpressive choice into something spectacular.


Your issue is that people are seeing orange as a bad thing, but, it kinda is.

More importantly though is not how you personally feel about something that's 26% useful, it's how it comes across to readers who may know little about the class and are relying on this to make an informed decision.

Just okay is not good. It's just okay, which is great in a sea of red, but comparatively horrible if surrounded by blue and purple. You can explain that it's got some good uses, certainly (and why would you not), but you have to remember that if you mark it off as "just okay but not actually bad", the most memorable thing to most readers will be "you can do better".

"I can do better. It's not horrible but I should look for better, because better IS out there. This color tells me so".

As for archetypes: Not impressed at all either. They're gushing in other threads about Omnicide but come ON, that's a level 20 capstone. It's only worth the wait if you've somehow turned NWN2's epic level campaign into Pathfinder or something, because no one else ever gets there and getting there is thoroughly unimpressive.

But while you might be swapping a green for a red, orange and blue, yes they're complex but they're still something people will look at, and might decide "this blue is nice but not THAT important to my build, whereas getting rid of this one orange here is everything to me". But, we have to leave that up to the reader.


Well, no. The whole point of orange is sub-par. Whether because it's very situational, or not enough of a boon/bonus, it does mean that it's not a particularly wonderful thing to have. Marking it orange indicates the ability is inherently of little value, though not necessarily an active detriment to your character (red is fully detrimental, at the very least by virtue of wasting a level/slot/whatever, for example).

Consider it from an Archetype-swapping perspective, really. If burn is orange, and another archetype's ability replacing it is blue, then to anyone reading the guide, the meaning is very, very clear: "You are replacing not-good with quite-good so you should do this".


It's weak enough that you can probably do simple-blast 1 action, complex blast 2 actions, gather power move equivalent per action?

Might make it decent and viable though.


I'd say the exact wording on metakinesis is still a problem. "Accepting a point of burn" implies no lowering/avoiding. It implies (like the overwhelming soul archetype) that it doesn't work if you don't gain that burn.

Surely some errata?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One more point of damage compared to adding strength bonus is nothing.

There's nothing to prevent someone with titan-like strength to use it to draw an Arbalest the way you might pull a hand-crossbow, or using that strength to winch adamantine cable for a portable weapon with a ballista's kick. Nothing, except that the game simply goes "NOPE THERES NONE BOWS ONLY".

And actually the longer range IS unrealistic: while they had a better ballistic profile at short ranges, the stocky, lighter, un-fletched bolts are inferior to arrows for long range delivery. One big disadvantage crossbows had, in fact, was ineffectiveness at long-range volleys the way you could get 40 archers to do across a battlefield.

So yeah, they definitely need actual options. No need to have 'trap' choices in a game anyways.


It's gotta suck for Mark, seeing a class that did seem like plenty of effort and imagination went into come out as it did. Feel kinda bad about having to tear into it, but fret not: It's not really the class you design we're ripping apart in front of you. It's a vile imposter with (it would seem, given your reaction to metakinesis) even fine bits of wording changed specifically to be bad; an insulting clone of what you actually created!

And who knows, maybe we can find good in it too.


Don't forget "you can accept a point of burn" means it's not a cost you can reduce or bypass though. The metas eat you up, even when all they'd let you do is roughly match some poor scrub with a crossbow.


Decent damage would be a start.

If we absolutely MUST (and the class would be less crap-level unbalanced if it were removed) keep burn, I'd like to see burn handled akin to exalted's DB elemental auras: As burn goes up, the entire area starts eating an increasingly hostile zone of decidedly difficult-to-resist ravaging. The kind of high intensity endless grinding turbulence that quickly overwhelms resistances.


I'm sorry to have to put it this way, but one of the things we *need* to see in the guide, in addition of course to how to best use or optimize things, is how it holds up to others with a similar primary role.

Because a gathered blast takes up your whole turn, so it would be quite disingenuous to compare it to single attacks instead of full volleys - which I've noticed some people seem to do on these forums.

Here's a question though: will the color scale be in relation to other options in the class, or in relation to the game in general? What I mean by that is, if something would be orange or red under most circumstances, is it blue by virtue of being as good as it gets on a kineticist?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm in agreement with Insain Dragoon here that it's an issue.

And I STRONGLY disagree that the disparity is "Completely and utterly Situational". Not when the situation in question is "nearly every damned situation and then some"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A level/class-based systems exacerbates the problem as well: The entire point of levels is balancing: Something of a given level is supposed to be similar in capability - both numerical and narrative-control - as another of the same level.

In 2e this was (partially) remedied by having different XP growth curves.
Since d20 system's inception, however, this is gone as well. By its very concept and theoretical intent, saying "Level X" is supposed to allow a quick, straightforward (if only approximate) understanding of the scope of capabilities of any given character.

When one class automatically ensures that a level 8 character of said class vastly outstrips a level 11 character of this other class, there's a grave flaw in the design of at least one of those two classes, and possibly both. The "level" indicator loses much of its value as a measuring standard.


Puna'chong wrote:
I dunno, I think burn is cool. My players like it as a mechanic too. Gives a good reason to be a little conservative because there's a bite to it, and a nice trade-off for hitting harder or using some abilities. And it's for a class that'll usually be getting at least the equivalent of a d12 because it's basically a Con SAD class.

That would work if you were actually hitting hard, or if your abilities weren't things most others can do without killing themselves.


I really hate to admit this because of both how pathetic kineticist blasts are and because Burn's just bad, but the class as-is IS a bloody perfect fit -right down to even the burn- for actual elementals. Even explains itself if you're firing off chunks of yourself.


As is the whole VS line is basically a trap. Three feats and one Mythic feat (if you're even allowed those) just to scale with level a bit more, and even then it can't even come close.

So long as you're not locked-in to PFS though there's a few things you can do.

Marksman Sniper style's boosted shots increase base damage by a die (and later two, and three), which means there's more to VS.

Daevic's Arms of the Conqueror is an incredible boost to base damage dice through sheer size-up, but you'd be insane not to see what it does to your full-attack's output instead (hint; you COULD begin to approach a very angry barbarian's output with the latter). Likewise you can use Storm Gauntlets with Wrist-Bind to give a good amount of elemental damage to each hit as well, though that isn't multiplied.

Aegis can pick up a bigger weapon, and give it an effective size-up too through Powerful-Build and Augmented Weaponry. This is actually best used to further boost that sniper marksman type.

No matter what though, you're looking at a minimum of 3 feats (4 if you can be mythic) to do this. Unless you're willing to houserule things (that's not following the rules, just ignoring them), the character won't even come close to a full-attacker... but at least if you're using one of the double-shot weapons (minotaur or double-firearm) you'll at least be viable.

Except, you know, for blowing 4 feats on doing something anyone can just full attack to equate.


Anyone know if metakinetics are even compatible with infusion specialization?

Their exact wording; "accept a point of burn", differs from all other mentions regarding costs, and give me the impression that even a measly empowered blast will guarantee some unavoidable nonlethal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually let me inject an additional question before we even get to your meat of the matter:

Were all these changes useful, critical, or otherwise positive-adjectives in bringing the games overall power level down? Were even a majority?

Nothing went around smacking the arcanist down a notch, or making sure the psychic wasn't immune to the one thing that could stop it from casting spells. Some monkies can't climb as fast no more, and a bunch of planetouched casters just died of extremely-sudden-onset-Alzheimer. The Scarred Witch Doctor went from being an interesting con-based alternative to yet-another+2-INT

As for your actual question:
That literally depends on what parts of the game we're talking about:
-Full Casters could go down a peg or two; the 'prepared' types more than the 'spontaneous'
-The classes who can only do one thing, and not always all that well (Gunslingers, Fighters, Kineticists...) on the other hand need to go UP a peg or two. Their damage might be fine (er, not for kineticists by a good 50%, seriously, what the hell) but "I kill thing now" is all they're good at, and EVERYONE in the game can kill things good already (except... you know). They need options, they need versatility, they need the power to impact the world around them in ways OTHER than "I waste it with my water balloons full of opium"
-Races that are worth 6-7RP could certainly use a step up... but uh, first we'd need to fix that RP system entirely because hooooo boy!

There's ... not really a "better way to accomplish it"... or rather, "changing existing rules" IS the right way, but this latest attempt to do so was equal parts corrupt, negligent, arbitrary, sarcastic and petty. The right way, done any which way but RIGHT.

So uh, the better way I suggest would be for it to be done by someone whose head is neither in the ground nor in their rear. They also need to listen to people whose heads are not in such dark places either. "Uh well it was fine for us because our cleric's just a blaster/healbot and no one's optimized beyond having the right character sheet and maybe their name spelled right" anecdotes about how a class you've not tested extensively are USELESS to this game, and the full-on a*&*+%!s who want to keep things as they are so their spechul-wittle-T1 gets to be that much better (including at melee when he wants, but SHHHHHHH!) than the poor non-unchained-monk arguing back and forth that "GAME IZ FINE, LRN2PLY" need to shut up and think about something other than their DMPC for once.

EDIT: In regards to the least tiers needing a way to impact things, ANYONE can roleplay. Don't pretend everything's fine with the class just because the fighter can roleplay to try and get around his major mechanical failures as a class: ANYONE can roleplay. The cleric his god worships can roleplay just as much, he's just not nearly as hampered and doing it for bonuses and fun rather than to try and desperately avoid having to roll against his pathetic-if-even-it-was-trained skill ranks. Seriously. How people can keep bringing that up as if it was the solution... that's got to be maliciously deliberate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm more curious about all the dead planetouched, to be honest.
Someone somewhere in the offices had to sit down and decide "This is a problem. This is a big problem. Forget actual problems, THIS needs our attention". How? Who had their campaign or character ruined by this - other than the people who just had characters turn to dust post-errata where they once were still in the prime of their lives?

To partly quote:

Can anyone really say that the <planetouched> were breaking the game with their extra <years of lifespan>? In what module, adventurer path, or homebrew campaign did those <lifespans> enable an unfair advantage, considering they still die <early to adventuring>?


Entryhazard wrote:
I want to see what happens if rope trick is cast while standing on a slope

By RAW?

Next stop, diagonal city.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

... well, most MMOs include a free respec when s@+& like this happens for a reason...

But you'll have to, uh, I dunno, get the GM's approval, or some kind of judge or official?

Who's in charge of these things anyways?

Quote:
Nope. The GM can do more or less whatever he wants. The GM can say, "No. The spell fails because I said it does." If the player doesn't like it, then they can negotiate with me after the game or they can get up and leave. The player cannot overrule the GM.

This does not, however, in any fashion change the actual rules in the book. You do have the freedom to do this, yes. But the irregularities, inconsistencies, imbalances or flat out errors in the book are not in any way gone. They are still there, still waiting, still the default, still the basic actual rules of the game, still the metric standard by which one must perform comparisons, simulations and performance estimates in order for anyone to be able to be speaking of even remotely the same game when trying to figure out what's right or wrong or needs a ruling in this game.

Also, if you're saying that with a perfectly normal spell just to spite the player, the group needs a better GM.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Rule 0 warning:

When you IGNORE a rule, that doesn't mean the rule was fine as-is

When you CHANGE a rule, that doesn't mean the rule was fine as-is

Yes, one can always just ignore or change the rules. But that DOES NOT AND CAN NEVER be used as an excuse to claim the ruleset is just fine.

If it was fine, you would not have thousands upon thousands all coming up with their own fixes and demanding to know why planetouched wizards now have about a 40% chance of dying before level 1 (with a majority of the remainder having less than a decade left before old age permanently claims their decrepit body).

Similarly, if the Kineticist was tier 2(I can't believe someone actually claimed this. Has our education system fallen so far that people can't count past two anymore?) or 3, you wouldn't be seeing so many people taking issue with its restrictions, drawbacks, limitations and inability to outshoot even a "not even a real fighter NPC sub-class".


The cloud's a better option. Less reflex saves, half damage twice if they enter the cloud AND end their turn there.


There's also of course the issue of your 1d6 weapon being (Sp)...


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Work on... like, some kind of kineticist upgrade book?

Keeping on that 'car' analogy, this errata's reactions are basically people getting the car back from the shop and going "WHERE THE F*** ARE MY WHEELS", getting told "woah there. they did good work, and you should be grateful they changed the oil like that"

Which leads a lot of people to immediately think "F*** OFF ASSHO*E, I WANT MY F***ING WHEELS BACK", causing others still to start thinking "why are they so damn rude to the mechanics"... And then there's the lot that still see the axles and are thinking "But aren't THOSE the wheels right there?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kip Shades wrote:

Actually, one thing that I've been wondering: With all of the advice for nerfs and buffs for the playtest versions being ignored (and Paizo seemingly doing the opposite in many cases, providing nerfs where buffs are needed and vice versa), why hasn't anyone taken matters into their own hands and put together alternate versions of these classes (at least the ACG and OA stuff) based on the feedback given in the playtests?

Honestly, it could be rather interesting to see how it would turn out. Perhaps an alternate Kineticist based on the playtest feedback? (Hell, if I did such a thing, I'd probably rub it in Paizo's face that I can do their job better than they can.)

People do, but, additional materials or homebrews are just alternatives to the main rule-set. They're certainly handy, but they in no way repair the problem for the main game.

If your car breaks down, you can rent or buy another car, which is fine, but doing so does not magically mean the one that broke down is suddnely completely functional again. Not without fraud, that is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Additional communication is certainly good... But I think the core issue has proven to be words going in one ear and out the other unimpeded when communication was being done in the first place.

One big advantage of playtests is the ability to throw a piece of meat into a forum, and freely collect the results from hundreds of rabid data-eating beasts mangling their way through every little orifice of the mechanics being tested.

Often, not only are the problems singled out, but all the work showing how this was proven accompanies it, as do various fixes and suggestions. All that's left is to pick your favorite out of the reasonable ones and that's it, you're done!

But if, instead of using all that data, you ignore it like the average beancounter two floors up wants us to do with OSHA, you end up with nothing fixed. nothing repaired.

All that time, all that work, all that arguing and math and brainstorming... all of it just burned off in the wind.....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hear Hear.
If things weren't broken, or at least seen as erroneous or undesirable, they wouldn't get houseruled in the first place.

A rule, imbalance or other factor *CANNOT* be said to be fine just because one can house-rule it. The very act of house-ruling it means the rule (or rule set) has been rejected in favor of something else. You are no longer playing by the same rules.

If you replace all the pieces with colored discs and have them capture and move all in the same way, you're no longer playing chess.

1 to 50 of 511 << 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.