|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
John Compton wrote:
First, the PrC would be available at 4th, not 2nd. That's only 2 levels earlier than folks could normally get it.
Second, the primary thing pointed out as an example of being overpowered (a summoning SLA granted by Lamashtu) isn't even legal in PFS in the first place. So what exactly are the power concerns? (Since the class is altered rather than banned, it's clear we're not dealing with a "doesn't fit campaign" or "reserving for chronicle access" issue here, so that just leaves "overpowered".)
Third, rknop correctly identifies that we've already got a pretty complex system here. It gets even more complicated when you factor in organized play. Isn't that the whole reason that, as you and other members of campaign leadership have often pointed out, PFS sticks to PFRPG rules as much as possible, to avoid adding additional layers of differences/complexity unless absolutely necessary?
So for this special exception that deviates from PFRPG rules, we're adding a piece of complexity to an already complex system in order to get... what? Presumably some sort of concern for power, but what power are you seeing?
If there's no compelling power issue, then PFS would be backtracking on its own standards of non-complication, so let's see what the power concern is.
Through traditional entry, character level 11th (the last level most PCs will ever play) will be Evangelist level 6th, which is the level that grants the second Divine Boon. This has already been decided to be acceptable in PFS.
What changes with early entry? A two-level shift. That means a couple of things:
1) Most characters can upgrade their Protective Grace to +2 and get Gift of Tongues prior to retirement. Is this overpowered?
2) A character playing Eyes of the Ten can actually get Divine Boon 3 halfway through instead of never. Is this overpowered?
3) A character gets Divine Boon 1 at 6th level instead of 8th, and Divine Boon 2 at 9th instead of 11th. Is this overpowered?
If PFS still has the goal of not deviating from PFRPG rules unless absolutely necessary, then someone needs to demonstrate that one of these things will harm the game.
If no one can do so, then there doesn't appear to be a reason to keep the extra point of complexity involved in the Evangelist being a special exception to existing rules.
While every FAQ is an official ruling, it doesn't mean every FAQ is "right".
A rule going one way or the other has nothing to do with "right". There is no "right" way for the game to be. This notion of there being a "rightness" from which a rule/build/playstyle could deviate is the source of a lot of unnecessary drama, rage, divisiveness, and elitism that plagues our community. If we could all abandon the idea that a given element of the hobby has a "right" version, the community would benefit exponentially.
If you're in deeper darkness and can not see, how will read a scroll?
You dismiss the shrink item spell that you cast on your teepee-turned-wizard-hat a couple days earlier, letting it fall down around you and block the effect of the DD. Since you've also cast continual flame on the inside of the teepee/hat, you have a cozy little reading room. When finished, step out of the teepee with your active daylight.
you can't take "rich parents" either, what's the big deal that "adopted" doesn't work?
There's a difference between "this option is banned" and "it's legal for you to take an option that literally has no effect".
And that's besides the fact that it's pretty weird to have the trait selection rules center around categories, and then not even have all the categories available.
There is no limit to the free actions you can take in a turn by RAW.
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
Core Rulebook, Magic chapter, Casting Time wrote:
You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.
If the wizard's been targeted, then the spell has come into effect. If the spell hasn't come into effect, then the target hasn't been decided yet.
There is no point in time at which the final decision of the target has been made but the spell has not come into effect.
But if we get supreme pizza every week, and some people really want cheese pizza, I'd have to be a real jerk to ask the pizzeria to not offer cheese pizza just to ensure I get the pizza I want.
If you get 5 supreme pizzas every week, and then you announce that you're going to start ordering 2 cheese pizzas every week, I don't think it's an unreasonable concern (let alone jerkish) to think you might only be ordering 3 supremes from now on, rather than assuming you'll be ordering 7 total pizzas.
Especially if your venue is only ordering 1 pizza each week because you can barely scrape up the money for it.
It would be nice for the players, but if the badguys had that defense, then players would be less inclined to use those abilities (flesh to stone, Sleep).
I disagree. People still use the Evil Eye hex even though it never progresses beyond -2 to one stat/type of roll. People still use slow even though it never fully incapacitates anyone. So it stands to reason that an effect which started with a -2 (or similar condition), and had a chance to stack on a slow effect, and further had a chance to fully neutralize the target, would indeed be used by PCs (assuming it was appropriately leveled/resourced for its power level, of course).
The entire premise of CORE seems to disagree with you: it seems to be an outlet for people who either can't (because of lack or replay) or won't (because of being newbies or disliking something about standard PFS) play anything but Core.
Although there will be some players flipping back and forth, all the branding/advertising so far seems to have been aimed at folks who would otherwise not be playing PFS, and therefore are not likely to mix with the standard PFS tables.
So no, it's not a one-night thing, at least if the reality comes anywhere close to the impression being presented.
Mark Stratton wrote:
Uh... I think you misunderstand what the offense was. It's more that— actually, you know what? Let's not even go there. Though I'm not convinced it was the product of a language barrier (or of ignoring context), let's just go ahead and give him the benefit of the doubt and say he meant no offense.
Now, how does that factor into how best to respond to those who were offended?
Dunno about your venues, but at the ones I skip around between, people usually come in, find out what table they're at, and then socialize with their tablemates. If Alice and Bob are never tablemates, they never socialize with each other. I think that's what BNW's getting at.
Mark Stratton wrote:
For one of those posts you are correct. For the other, you are the one who needs to re-read it, because it absolutely was what it was made out to be.
Either that, or maybe explain the "context" that makes it mean something other than what it very plainly says?
Again, you're right on the "cheese weasel" post; I actually remember that one and was going to jump in with a correction, but saw you beat me to it. But it really undermines your position to claim that the other one is in the same category.
Federico Castrovel wrote:
I'm not even that into Frozen, but that was amazing. Bravo!
(Have you seen the "Do you wanna go to Starbucks?" version?)
Displacement grants a 50% miss chance "as if" the target had total concealment; this means that the 50% miss chance is the ONLY similarity to total concealment, and that the target does not actually HAVE total concealment.
What some people seem to think the spell produces is "total concealment, except X". But if that were the case, it would simply say that it grants total concealment and then specify targetability.
But that's not what it says. The only places it even mentions total concealment is when it says "as if" and "unlike actual".
The target explicitly does NOT have total concealment (or any concealment, for that matter). This makes a difference not only for IPS, but also for things like Sneak Attack and Stealth that care about whether or not you have concealment.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
I love how I get told to not assume that all players think the same way, and how all GMs *do* think the same way, in the same post. :)
Yeah, Undone's lack of caveats is unfortunate. See also: my recent reply to Scribbling Rambler.
Sometimes I don't know whether it's genuine ignorance of how clauses work in a sentence, or unconsciously believing the sweeping generalizations and not realizing that it shows through in their words.
Either way, this is why explosives are not strictly superior to bullets, in a manner of speaking.
Scribbling Rambler wrote:
Perhaps that that single individual might do something disruptive, rather than attributing that attitude to a whole category of people who have no interest in such a goal?
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Really? Because Mike Brock has repeatedly responded to that topic by referencing the reporting system's inability to do a mixed game. That kinda gave me the impression that it is the "driving issue".
If a player with a CORE character is sitting at a mixed table, s/he gets to benefit directly or indirectly from non-CORE content through their interactions with the non-CORE characters at the table. That is not what CORE is about.
Okay, then what is Core "about", that gets interfered with by being on a team with a non-Core PC?
Well, let's be optimistic. There's still a chance for that type of thing to be the exception rather than the rule. Gonna try my best to give the benefit of the doubt. :)
I'll be happy to be proven wrong but I've got a bad feeling about this. Splitting geeks into groups can often split an already small group socially.
I have similar reservations. I mean, mechanically, the idea is fantastic. It addresses multiple issues pretty elegantly.
But on the "people" level... I'm less optimistic. As soon as I finished reading the blog, I was already wondering how this development would interact with existing elements of elitism in the playerbase. As I read through the comments, I pondered whether I should voice my concerns or just quietly hope for the best so I wouldn't risk fueling the very thing I fear.
Then I discovered that it only took 40 minutes for someone to proudly proclaim that the Core Campaign is the place for people who are better roleplayers than those who use more books. It even came straight from a VO.
And no one batted an eye.
You made a throwing weapon whose special power is resolved exactly as though it had been thrown. The only difference is that when you use the blast ability (which you can apparently do as much as you want every day), you still have it in your hand. So... kind of like if you added returning to it, or had it on a blinkback belt.
So, mechanically, you didn't actually even design a new magic weapon. You just took something that already existed and described a different visual.
All in all, the difference between holding and wielding is not very precisely defined. Near as I can tell, the only time you're holding something without wielding it is if you're holding it in such a way that you can't wield it (such as holding a two-handed weapon in one hand). Otherwise, it seems to me that if you're holding a wieldable item in a wieldable manner, then you're also wielding it, automatically.
Oh, so wondering whether "except" is an exception to "goblin-only" or an exception to "legal". Heh, yeah, kind of ambiguous there. I'd wager a guess it's illegal for everyone.
brock, no the other one... wrote:
What about players with paper allergies who use electronic sheets for that reason?
Any rule can have exceptions for disabilities. That should go without saying, so what point are you trying to make?
Unlike the media used for character sheets, real dice versus electronic rollers can actually impact gameplay integrity.
Also unlike the media used for character sheets, a ruling on only allowing "real" dice doesn't force anyone to do extra work or spend extra money compared to what they were doing before (even someone without dice can very easily borrow some, or buy one set once and have it last them for years, coming out to less money per session than having to reprint character sheets).
Therefore, unlike the media used for character sheets, I would be in support of (or at least not opposed to) a requirement to use physical dice.
Using one CRB feat in exactly the manner it was intended is above average?
An 8th-level cleric who dared to put ranks in Sense Motive (or any other characters' class skills that aren't tied to a dump stat) is above average?
A 1st-level CRB class feature that's worse than just succeeding on your Perception check in the first place is above average?
With all due respect, I don't think your assessments are valid.
Fixed that for ya.
Yeah, there's stuff I already have to write by hand. That's exactly why I tried to convert to automation anything that I could. The weight may just be one more number per scenario. And my BAB is just a couple more numbers per level. And so is my HP. And my AC. And my CMB. And my CMD. And this, and that, and the other. There are a LOT of things that are each "just one more number".
Floods are made of raindrops.
My umbrella got yanked away, and now you're pointing at one droplet in the downpour and comparing it on its own to the three or four drops that were already hitting my elbow when I still had my umbrella, and marveling at my complaint of getting wet.
Heh, you're the second person to mention that BOL mixup. Isn't it funny how people can get used to how they typically use something, to the point that they start to think it's what the rules mandate?
Okay, maybe I'm the only one who finds that utterly fascinating. I blame my psychology background.
Honestly, I try not to think about all my gear on my characters. I don't really like the aesthetics that get produced by imagining what the character would really look like by mid to high levels. One of the things I like about PFS is that loot/gear is handled off-stage so I can more easily just use it as the "other XP track" that it basically is in 3.X/Pathfinder and kind of just look the other way when it comes to the actual items themselves. :/
I really had a thing for that shortsword that gave you a bonus to ID monsters if you looked at their reflections in the blade as a move action. Sure, technically it was a skill bonus in a can, but it was evocative and different, clean and elegant, and was a refreshing change of pace from the parade of "I have to be uber and cost 150k to be superstar" that pervades the contest. It made me smile, and I would totally put it in any game where one of my players was a shortsword user.
Lady Firedove wrote:
This was one of my favorite items! It was one of the few which, when I saw it, I immediately had to tell my wife about how cool it was. Sad that it didn't make it. :(Nitpicks: Stats scream mithral, but it's not...? Also, at that price point, I'd really like a slightly higher armor bonus, even just 1 more point, for all those attacks that aren't AoOs.
With those thoughts in mind, I'm gonna cross my fingers that your item finds its way into a future Paizo product. (It's happened before!) :D
Raven Leather! That was one of my favorite armors! Awesome visual, good utility. If I had to guess why it didn't make it, maybe because the thing it does isn't very "armor-y"? Like, maybe it would have been better as a cloak or shirt or other slotted wondrous item (had that been legal). I liked it though. :)