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

Jiggy's page

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32. RPG Superstar 2013 Marathon Voter, 2014 Dedicated Voter, 2015 Dedicated Voter. FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 18,372 posts (20,227 including aliases). 17 reviews. 4 lists. 1 wishlist. 13 Pathfinder Society characters. 16 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 18,372 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Shisumo wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
I'm not sure if all of you are just out and out lying, exaggerating, or see an entire different messageboard than I do.
At the risk of giving you advice you didn't ask for, I'm going to say that "a number of people have had experiences that I don't seem to have had, they must be lying" is pretty much never the right answer, in any context. What it actually means, particularly if you want to maintain a reasonable level of intellectual honesty, is that it's time to re-examine your own biases, particularly your confirmation bias, to see if they're interfering with your ability to accurately assess what's going on. Sometimes you'll find it is. Many times you'll find that it's not. Either way, the re-examination is worth your effort, and will hopefully keep you from dismissing valid experiences that you just don't happen to share.

I agree that people should check their biases and verify their information/conclusions.

So, hypothetically, let's say that Bob Bob Bob (hereafter abbreviated as "BBB") decided to go ahead and do that. Suppose that he went and "did the homework", and discovered that (for example) condescending or insulting "rogue-is-weak" posts were, as an objective fact, vastly outnumbered by polite/respectful "rogue-is-weak" posts.

Suppose that, having discovered this to be a fact, he now encounters someone asserting the opposite.

What is he allowed to say now? Is he allowed to question whether that person is "lying, exaggerating, or see an entire different messageboard"? Or if not that, then is BBB at least allowed to instead insist that the other person perform the same fact-checking that BBB did?

Does there ever come a point where a person has done enough fact-checking that they can assert that forum behavior is X and call into question the validity of claims to the contrary?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:


People will tell you that your opinion is wrong.
.
.
.
People will tell you your opinion is based in ignorance.

I don't see any bad thing in the first and the second could be equally ok.

Opinions can be wrong, if the argument focus on the opinions and not the persons then there is nothing bad about it. Many times a wrong opinion/statement of mine have been corrected in this forum, many times my opinion about a issue have changed due to argument that other people have made, there is nothing toxic about it.

Well, an opinion can't be wrong, but people can be wrong about whether or not the thing they just said is actually an opinion or not.

Example:
"The rogue is so weak I don't want to play it" is an opinion. It is outside the scope of rightness and wrongness.
"The rogue is the only 3/4 BAB class without an in-class way of boosting its attack bonus and therefore, among that group of classes, it is the worst at attacking things" is an assertion of fact, and is either right or wrong regardless of how anyone feels about it.

People mix up this identification a LOT.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Petty Alchemy wrote:
While I agree with the point Jiggy has been making, I also agree that the "mass murderer" bit is uncalled for. There are plenty of other less offensive analogies that could've been used to make the same point.

Maybe if I'd referenced confusion or entangle instead of fireball? Though then you lose the anti-troll element...

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:
Did you just equate my incidental, admitted vent on the internet to mass murder?

Did you just fail to distinguish real life from a fantasy game?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Zhangar wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
@ Jiggy: It's more that if someone asks for advice on a rogue, they get an avalanche of responses telling them that they (along with everyone else who has ever played a rogue) are playing the game wrong. The posts are usually incredibly condescending at best.

What I keep seeing in those threads is this:

OP: "I want to make a rogue."
Respondent: "What do you want to do with your rogue?"
OP: "I want to be good at X, Y and Z."
Respondent: "The rogue class isn't actually good at those things. For that combination of abilities, you'd be better off playing this or that other class instead."
(Sometimes lines 2 and 3 are skipped due to it already being spelled out in the first post.)

That's the vast majority of what I see happening with "rogue hate" in Advice threads. Do you call that "telling everyone who has ever played a rogue that they're playing the game wrong"? Because I sure don't.

Or do you think that's not how it usually goes down?

Tell you what: whenever you see someone actually talking down to people in the manner you're claiming, you PM me a link to the post. And then for every instance you come up with, I'll show you three instances of the opposite, and we'll see who runs out first.

What do you say?

Sure. Check your PMs.

Check yours. ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

7 people marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:
Maybe it's because I'm playing the game wrong

Just so we're clear, putting this in your own post doesn't count as an example of people telling you that you're playing the game wrong.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:

My OP wasn't because I was saying you were being mean. I'm sure you're a nice guy. I'm sure 75% of the people on the boards were nice guys. My OP, really, was to vent (as I explained in the first post BTW. Does it count as trolling if you openly say that you are ranting?) Anyway, my OP was for those that had seen the 25% of posts that were super jerk-like in nature and had maybe gotten the wrong ideas.

It was a place for me to vent to those 25% of people who DO say those things.

Then exercise more precision. If you blow up a bunch of innocent bystanders when you use a fireball spell to shoot a troll standing in a crowded market, the fact that there really was a troll there and he was your only real target doesn't make you any less of a mass-murderer.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
I can only hope that most people see my point. It seems clear that you will not no matter how I word it. So I'll leave it there.

It's more that I'm afraid I do see your point, but I keep hoping against hope that maybe I've made a mistake and you're really not the kind of person who can't hear an opposing viewpoint as anything other than an attack.

I'm trying, buddy, but you're not making it easy. The words you've actually said are communicating that everything's fine until someone says X is weaker than Y and then suddenly they're implying you're stupid. That's not just me, that's what you actually said.

So if that's not what you were going for, then just leaving it isn't doing yourself any favors.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:
@ Jiggy: It's more that if someone asks for advice on a rogue, they get an avalanche of responses telling them that they (along with everyone else who has ever played a rogue) are playing the game wrong. The posts are usually incredibly condescending at best.

What I keep seeing in those threads is this:

OP: "I want to make a rogue."
Respondent: "What do you want to do with your rogue?"
OP: "I want to be good at X, Y and Z."
Respondent: "The rogue class isn't actually good at those things. For that combination of abilities, you'd be better off playing this or that other class instead."
(Sometimes lines 2 and 3 are skipped due to it already being spelled out in the first post.)

That's the vast majority of what I see happening with "rogue hate" in Advice threads. Do you call that "telling everyone who has ever played a rogue that they're playing the game wrong"? Because I sure don't.

Or do you think that's not how it usually goes down?

Tell you what: whenever you see someone actually talking down to people in the manner you're claiming, you PM me a link to the post. And then for every instance you come up with, I'll show you three instances of the opposite, and we'll see who runs out first.

What do you say?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
You seem to be a very literal person.

No, just giving you room to speak for yourself, rather than risk strawmanning you. :)

Quote:
What I am saying is that when people say something to the effect of "the rogue is weak, classes X, Y, and Z are better at everything the rogue wants to be. I personally would never play a rogue when class A with archetype B is clearly the winner in that category", they are implying that playing a rogue is dumb.

Okay, so you're saying that if someone declares that the rogue is weak and something else is better, they're telling the player that they're stupid. Got it.

Quote:
Of course we can point out a classes differences, and point people at other options to attain their goals. What I see is a lot of those points married to a definite opinion on the optimal choice. That's all.

Okay, this seems self-contradictory.

First you said that claiming X was stronger/weaker than Y meant implying that the player was dumb.

Then you said that it's okay to point out the differences between X and Y.

How do those two statements work together? Are you saying that it's okay (for example) to say that the rogue has a "different" attack bonus than the bard, but not to say that it has a "lower" one?

If that's what you're saying, well, that seems pretty ridiculous. If that's not what you're saying, then I need some clarification on how to read your post differently.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Can'tFindthePath wrote:

Not misunderstanding. I think the OP meant that people implied it would be stupid to play a rogue.

This thread is a great example. Most people are commenting here that he is wrong in his interpretation of the board's general opinions on these subjects. Then many go on to list their opinions, nearly all of which say the rogue is weak, and ever since classes X, Y, and Z they can't really do anything as well as other classes...but we would never call you stupid.

Uh-huh...

I'm trying to assume the best here, but I'm having trouble getting what you're saying. Please bear with me:

So the "Uh-huh..." implies you think the immediately-preceding assertion is false.

The assertion you seem to be saying you think is false is "The rogue is weak, but we wouldn't call you stupid."

So if you think that distinction is false, then that seems to imply that you think anyone calling the rogue weak is (effectively) calling someone stupid. That is, it seems to be your stance that calling the rogue weak and calling a person stupid are basically equivalent.

Does that mean you think someone truly can't say that two classes are unequal in power without essentially calling someone stupid? Or am I misunderstanding your post?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.
I must disagree. I have been haunting these boards for around 6 years, and I got the same exact impressions the OP listed.

I wonder if you might be misunderstanding me.

Let's take the OP's comments about rogues as an example. Now, I think you and I (and the OP!) could all agree that there is a sentiment on the boards that "rogues are weak". So if the OP had listed something like "People say that rogues are underpowered and other classes can do the rogue's job(s) better than the rogue," then I wouldn't have made the post that I did. That sentiment is everywhere.

But the OP severely mischaracterized that sentiment.

He portrays the "rogues are weak" crowd as calling any players of rogues stupid. He says that the "rogues are weak" sentiment is based on a comparison to the combat ability of combat-only classes.

Those are false. Typically it's only the defenders of rogues that make it personal, with the "rogues are weak" criticisms just being about the class's mechanics. No name-calling. (At least, no more consistently than any other group includes a jerky minority. Pretending that the "If you play a rogue you're stupid" is representative of that crowd is like pretending that "No moral standard WEEEEE!" is representative of atheism: people exist who say it, but they are a tiny minority that doesn't represent the larger group, and it's dishonest to claim otherwise.)

Similarly, critiques of a rogue's combat effectiveness are based on how it compares to other 3/4 BAB, "not-just-combat" classes. You know, the kinds of classes it SHOULD be on par with. But then the OP lied and said that the benchmark for saying rogues are weak is dealing "redonkulous" damage that no Pathfinder character should ever be dealing and being worse at combat than the fighter. He just made that up to help his own view sound better by comparison.

And that is what I'm calling him out for. Not for noticing the "rogues are weak" sentiment, but for demonizing people by lying about how the discussions actually go.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I think his point was the "moonlight=daylight" rule, not the "double your torches" rule.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ElterAgo wrote:

Agreed. Heavy fog would count as the cover or concealment that would allow you to sneak around. I can think of only 1 PFS scenario that I have been in that had heavy fog.

And if its the one i'm thinking of, that fog was there PRECISELY so that a rogue had an excuse to sneak right up next to party members and gank them. Thats the kind of terrain advantage I['m talking about when it comes to NPC vs PC stealth tactics.

Did that NPC pay the requisite feat tax to be able to Sneak Attack in fog? ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
dkeller wrote:

So I've been looking in the forums up and down and on other rules websites etc for a ruling on how spellstrike works 2 handed?

I've seen a lot of contention about people interpreting the rules different ways but really i'm looking for the official ruling on this (by the way what is RAW?).

The "official ruling" is what's written in the rulebooks. That's as official as it gets.

And in the Core Rulebook, it says that non-light weapons can be wielded two-handed. Nothing in the Spellstrike class feature provides any kind of exception to this. So that's all there is to it.
(Note that Spell Combat, which is very different from Spellstrike, DOES prohibit two-handed wielding. If you've found arguments/contention on the topic, it's probably mostly the result of people getting the two confused.)

Theoretically, "RAW" is an acronym for "Rules As Written," but most people use the term to mean something more like "an interpretation that isn't specifically called out as untrue," which is subtly (but significantly) different. For instance, if someone made the claim that druids aren't allowed to use metal weapons, that would not be something supported by "rules as written", but it is something that the rules don't specifically call out as being untrue. People very often defend stances like that as being "RAW", all while thinking they're talking about "rules as written".

Quote:

Also how does being a staff magus and having the quarterstaff master feat fit into all of this. This feat allows me to use my weapon one or two handed each turn, however I have to decide whether I use it one or two handed before each turn. Does that mean that the feat actually stops you from spellstriking 2 handed as you can't use a "free" action to switch hands as specifically stated in the feat?

Weird, so does that mean that someone without that feat has an advantage over someone with it?

Normally, a quarterstaff is always a two-handed weapon, making it impossible to attack with it at all if you're not using both hands.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

bowser36 wrote:
So can a magus cast the spell for spell strike then proceed to swing his weapon two handed? I'm assuming no

Spell strike? Yes, you can absolutely do that.

Spell combat, however, only works with a weapon wielded in one hand.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ElterAgo wrote:
The primary thing that people complain about is the result of the lack of facing rules in PFS. Since by RAW no one is 'looking the other direction' when you try to sneak past, it means they are looking right at you. If they are looking right at you with decent lighting, there is no chance for stealth to succeed.

For what it's worth:

Stealth wrote:
When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment.

So yes, you CAN "sneak past" the room where the guys are playing cards, as long as you can get from one side of the doorway to the other in a single turn, and then succeed on a Stealth check. (Note that this is a relatively recent eratta to the Stealth skill.)

Also:

ElterAgo wrote:
It makes sense in our minds that the guys sitting around the table are paying attention to each other and not looking down the hallway. (That is how most GM's I know would rule it in a home game.) But by RAW they are paying attention to what happens down the hallway just as much as the food or cards in front of them on the table.

There's a +5 to the Perception DC if the creature is distracted.

So if you're creeping down the hall, and there's an open doorway to a room full of card-players, and you need to move past it to continue down the hall, literally all you have to do, by the rules, is walk on by and make a Stealth check with a +5 bonus.

There's still plenty of other obstacles with using Stealth, but at least they finally fixed the dart-past-the-opening issue.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

You don't need access to spell slots that aren't involved. Heck, you could do this with cure light at 1st level if you wanted.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

IceniQueen, you are now immortal. Your post is probably going to be linked in a great many future discussions. You might even get your post's general idea named after you for easier reference. Granted that's just my own speculation, but I'm pretty confident. At the very least, I know that *I* will be linking your post in future discussions. But I really do think you're going to be a reference point for a loooong time.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes, good game design is making something that's better than the bad things that already exist.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Dedicated Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

Congrats Monica! Totally voted for you. :)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Jack of Nothing, do you have any idea how many products have to be looked through each month to decide what to allow already? Do you realize this has to be done in addition to PFS leadership's other duties like planning entire seasons of scenarios, reaching out to freelancers, revising/developing their work, and making policy changes to how the campaign works? Do you understand that there are already literally over 100 sources with legal material for PFS characters?

Are you sure your request is reasonable?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I don't know what most of what you just said means, but I've enjoyed the art-style-flipping.

Also, I'm liking the characters so far. Each is distinct and believable (well, Jeaha is maybe slightly too trope-infested), and they even managed to make an intelligence-based character (Yun) without any "Straw Vulcan" crap.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Oh! Missed that one. Neat!

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

UndeadMitch wrote:
While it is stuck at +1 damage it does let all of his weapons get past DR/ magic and hurt incorporeals.

Just the DR. Doesn't help against incorporeals.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Rogar Stonebow wrote:
As to the pool of points system that Jiggy is suggesting. How would dispel magic affect everything?

It wouldn't. Badassery is not inherently magical.

Dispel magic could still dispel enemy buffs or hostile ongoing spells (like slow), or be used for counterspelling, or suppress magical traps long enough to get by. But it couldn't be used to make everyone have to stop and recalculate their stats because one of their items got suppressed.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I've been enjoying the art style, with the flipping between "realistic" and "cartoony" drawings (or even showing both in the same shot) depending on the intended mood of the scene or the emotions of the characters.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

thejeff wrote:
I'm not sure why it's fine that adamantine and mithral are rare and special, along with full plate, but everything else that usually comes with magic items has to be freely available. Why not just go back to GM fiat for all magic items?

Because then you have to re-work all the encounter math. And I mean, if you're more skilled than me at making custom encounters with minimal legwork, then just throwing out the whole WBL mechanic might just be the better approach. There are definitely veteran GMs out there who can do that.

But I still sometimes go looking for a level-appropriate encounter that I can run from "book stats", so I can't afford to just strip off a major element of built-in character advancement and expect encounters to run properly.

So for me (and, I imagine, lots of other GMs) those abilities still need to be there, and be acquired at about the same pace.

One solution is the "gain X ability at Y level" method that others have mentioned using to great satisfaction.

Another is the "just use it as-is and look the other way when the Fridge Logic hits", which is what a lot of people do.

I'm just presenting another option: the WBL-to-points swap. It fixes a lot of Pathfinder's problems. It does not fix all of them. It also pulls off a band-aid or two. But it does fix a lot of problems. In fact, I'd say it fixes the vast majority of gear-based problems in the game. (The issues of between-encounter healing and "resource check" obstacles are non-gear-related problems whose band-aids happen to be gear.)

If you just dropped it into a game you were starting (and weren't setting out to break it), then although you might have to make a token effort to massage the edges a little, I think you'd find the net result over the course of a campaign quite agreeable.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

thejeff wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Expensive mundane stuff breaks under this system. Even the single barreled ones are 1000gp each.

"Expensive mundane stuff"? You mean, guns? Yes, if you want more than the gunslinger's starting gun, then a GM using this system will need to figure something out.

Meanwhile, in the other 99% of games, things work beautifully.

As I edited in, Full Plate?

Full plate can easily be something found, or earned over time. It's not like it was ever something that you needed to have right away at first level to be viable in the first place. And remember all those other armors that are just a hair inferior to full plate but, since wealth is so plentiful, you only ever buy the best? Now those exist again.

Quote:

I assume special materials for items are also handled by "points"? Or not, because that means all your stuff has the same special material abilities. Can't carry a cold iron mace and a silver dagger.

Or you're looking at buying mithral and adamantine gear with no budget.

Or these rare and precious metals could again be rare and precious. Now finding an adamantine sword is actually something to be excited about, instead of something you either were already assuming you would buy or are just going to sell anyway.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

thejeff wrote:
And the clerics can all go back to being healbots.

That's probably the biggest issue with this system, but honestly, the wands of CLW were never an elegant solution to begin with. I don't see that as a "new problem", I see that as one of the very few problems that remain unsolved.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

thejeff wrote:
Expensive mundane stuff breaks under this system. Even the single barreled ones are 1000gp each.

"Expensive mundane stuff"? You mean, guns? Yes, if you want more than the gunslinger's starting gun, then a GM using this system will need to figure something out.

Meanwhile, in the other 99% of games, things work beautifully.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

thejeff wrote:
If you're going to leave those as found/purchased items, you have to go back to laying out treasure appropriate to how much of that kind of stuff you want.

Or you don't, and the casters have to actually think about what they want available that day instead of having scrolls to cover everything so they can focus their spell slots on being godlike. Might actually increase teamwork.

;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

thejeff wrote:
You may be happy with the changes in the TWF case (I probably would be too), but maybe less so with buying a stack of double barreled pistols and not worrying about reloading in combat, since each is treated as having the same bonuses when I use it.

Tsk tsk tsk, your head's still in WBL-land. ;)

Those things cost 1,750gp apiece.

The only way that isn't a fortune is if WBL is still a thing. But if you remove WBL as a mechanic, then PCs are never guaranteed to have that kind of coin. Saving up to buy that would be a well-earned prize, and finding it as loot would be super-exciting.

And since you can apply your existing bonuses to it, you don't have to go "Oh, that's not what I'm specialized in, I guess I sell it at the next town." You can actually keep it for your whole career if you want.

But you also won't be buying a stack of them, so your concern is moot.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

I wouldn't care to play a game where all items were replaced. I don't mind some of the big 6 being replaced for simplicity, but I think to do much more would overly complicate things as opposed to simplifying. Plus I like finding really cool items. Finding Points isn't nearly as satisfying.

My 2C.

But that's the thing: when gear is a built-in part of your character's power progression, it will never be special. There's no such thing as "finding really cool items" when it's just part of your budget and if you gain another level or two you'll just have to sell it anyway.

If instead your baseline power progression is character-based, then you can find cool items and have it actually be special!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

thejeff wrote:
So you just do away with treasure entirely? Replaced with these "points".

Well, for Pathfinder's definition of "treasure", yes. The things that are part of your character's growth budget get completely disconnected from money. Now you don't have to worry about contriving reasons for there to be up-for-grabs gear lying around a dungeon, you don't have to pretend the economy isn't a thing, you don't have to worry about over-equipping an enemy and have the resultant looting of the body screw up the power balance, and you gain the ability to drop a cache of gold or a magic sword and have it actually be TREASURE.

Quote:
And can I spend these points as needed, rather than up front? Especially for things like consumables? Would short term effects have to follow the current rules for using potions/scrolls/wands? Or could I just spend the points for a scroll of daylight to get the effect, without burning actions or needing to see?

I'm not quite sure on scrolls/potions/wands yet. You could do it the way you described, or you could come up with costs for gaining a 1/day SLA (and for increasing uses per day), or you could just leave those items as-is (after all, potions and scrolls and wands seem like classic treasure to find in a dungeon).

But that's such a small portion of Pathfinder's "XP2" system that it calls WBL, that it's not as big of a deal which way you go with it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Basically instead of gold the GM gives you a point pool that you can only spend on stats, etc.

No, not just on stats. Pretty much every magic item in the game is replaced by the ability to just learn to do the things that base-Pathfinder's magic items do.

Quote:
No separate pools or what not to keep track of.

See above; I'm not adding a pool that has to be tracked alongside WBL, I'm replacing "wealth by level" with "abilities by level".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

thejeff wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
I think what you're saying would work, but you'd have to build a new system.
No I wouldn't. All the prices and abilities are already there, you just make it character-based instead of item-and-money-based. What issue are you seeing that makes you think a new system would need to be built?

What do you do with treasure? Do you replace all magic items? Including consumables and other non Big-Six stuff?

If I learn to make my sword burst into flame, is it just that sword? Or can I make any weapon I'm using flame?

Any weapon. Hey look, now suddenly we've solved the "TWF is too expensive" issue and the "gear loss is a fate worse than death" issue all at the same time!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
I think what you're saying would work, but you'd have to build a new system.
No I wouldn't. All the prices and abilities are already there, you just make it character-based instead of item-and-money-based. What issue are you seeing that makes you think a new system would need to be built?
Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about spending money to collect upgrade points or something. In retrospect I think we're talking about basically the same thing. The only difference being the flavor.

I'm talking about something like this:

GM: Okay, having defeated the brigands, everyone gains 213 points.
Fighter: Cool, that takes my total up to 2,102. I'll spend 2,000 of that to get a +1 enhancement bonus to all my attack and damage rolls, bypass DR/magic, and deal half damage to incorporeals.
GM: Sounds good. Now, who's opening the next door?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
I think what you're saying would work, but you'd have to build a new system.

No I wouldn't. All the prices and abilities are already there, you just make it character-based instead of item-and-money-based. What issue are you seeing that makes you think a new system would need to be built?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

BigDTBone wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:

A good one makes the game better.

A bad one makes the game worse.

Which, depending on who you ask, can be a single person.

Namely, a "bad" rules lawyer is someone who argued over minutiae that you think is irrelevant.

A "good" rules lawyer discusses the intricacies of rules interactions that have long reaching ripples throughout the game.

Again, probably the same person depending on who you ask.

If I'm understanding where you're going with this, another way to phrase it might be:

A good rules lawyer is one whose listeners understand the implications of what he's saying. A bad rules lawyer is one whose listeners don't understand why it matters.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
This is one of the many reasons I like the idea of replacing magic items with equivalent character abilities that are "purchased" with non-monetary points. I.e., instead of spending 4,000gp on a +2 CON belt and then wondering about bathing, the economy, etc; you just spend 4,000 "points" on gaining a permanent +2 to CON for that character. Problem solved.

I like this idea. Perhaps rituals that have expense material components to imbue a willing participant with increased stats.

Edit: think that would work for the stat items and maybe a couple of other big six items?

Actually, I'm not even talking about using magic or even making it an in-character thing at all. In character, you're just growing in experience and power. Out of character, you're accumulating points (much like XP, actually) and then spending them on upgrades. You can use this system to replace damn near every magic item in the game, and fix a LOT of problems.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

This is one of the many reasons I like the idea of replacing magic items with equivalent character abilities that are "purchased" with non-monetary points. I.e., instead of spending 4,000gp on a +2 CON belt and then wondering about bathing, the economy, etc; you just spend 4,000 "points" on gaining a permanent +2 to CON for that character. Problem solved.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Did you consider asking them to show you the rule they're referring to? I mean, if you're sitting there pointing to a rule that explicitly says talking is a free action, then the burden of proof is on them to show that this is an exception. If no exception can be found, then the umbrella rule applies.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

felinoel wrote:
I've got people assuring me that one to two words instructing someone where to go is commanding them and therefore not a free action, any thoughts to the merits of this?

Using a "command word" to activate an item is a standard action unless otherwise specified in the item description.

Commanding an animal via the Handle Animal skill (whether you do so with speech or not) could be various action types depending on whether or not it's a class-granted companion and whether it knows the trick or needs to be "pushed".
Speech that isn't attached to a different, action-defined game mechanic is a free action.

All of the above is explicitly spelled out in the Core Rulebook.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Cleric. You can have one or two that fight better than a fighter, then have a couple Theologians (able to prep domain spells in regular slots) with really good wizard-list-poaching domain choices and maxed WIS. Prepare to roflstomp everything ever.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not interested in things like sleeping, bathing, and "coitus" being parts of playing a game with my friends, so I don't even bother dealing with this.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Anybody else watching this show? My wife and I are following it, and it's been pretty good so far.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
As for mana points and the like...

This has me thinking: What if all magic was at-will, with no resource tracking at all? I mean, obviously you couldn't just plop that straight into Pathfinder since every spell would need to be balanced against that constant availability. But theoretically, couldn't that work? And would it reduce gameplay headaches since you don't have to track anything for it?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

DM Beckett wrote:
If it brings other Core Classes in line with the APG and ACG, I'd be happy, but one would think if this where to be the case that would be part of the products tag line right after "we nerfixed the Summoner". It wasn't so I'm not even half counting on that.
Pathfinder Unchained product page wrote:
•New versions of the barbarian, monk, rogue, and summoner classes, all revised to make them more balanced and easier to play.

1 to 50 of 18,372 << 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.