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

Kolokotroni's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. 8,806 posts (8,834 including aliases). 17 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 8,806 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Take half elf (not unchained) synthesist summoner.

Base land speed of the quadraped eidolon is 40ft.

26 ep from level 20. 5 additional EP from favored class options

Extra evolution 5 times. Total Evolution Pool is 36 points.

2 points for flight at Base Speed +20ft per extra point spent.

Take the run feat and fleet 4 times.

Base speed when in eidolon form is 60ft.

Flight is 60ft+680ft if you spend all points enhancing flight speed.

Flight at 740ft. If you 'run' while flying, at x5 you move 3700ft per round.

If you add in mythic:
As mentioned above, mythic champion 10,

Impossible speed +30ft

Extra mythic feat 5 times.

9 mythic fleets

Mythic run.

Base speed becomes 125ft, 225ft with activation of impossible speed.

Add in haste, and boots of striding and sprining plus the above mentioned 680ft bonus on flight speed.

You fly at 695ft. If you mythic run at 7 times that, 6755ft in one round. Which roughly 768mph. Which is just enough to break the sound barrier.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have it, I like it. Its the adventure card game. If you like the adventure card game you will like it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thecursor wrote:
Okay, okay, I want all of you to stop what you're doing and realize that this is a passionate argument on a forum that has gone on for at least three days...about backpacks.

Are you somehow implying we cannot have extended passionate arguments about innocuous minute details in the rules? Because if so, welcome to the internet, and this forum.

Now what if we put spikes on the masterwork backpack and use it for an extra attack?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So I am guessing most people are not familiar with what a good, structured backpack can do. If it is set up right, an item doesn't actually have to go IN the backpack to benefit from it. If for instance, your belt that your weapons are connected to is also hooked to the backpack, or anything strapped to it on the outside, or really anything you are carrying is connected to it in some way, it makes a significant difference in how much you can carry because of the way it balances and spreads out the load. Obviously we can all think of cases where its silly, but they aren't as extreme as you might think. And lets just say thank goodness the rules don't require that kind of detail tracking of materials to for instance decide which pouch on which side of the pack, your belt or pouches you have things in to keep track of encumbrance.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Lets just be honest and say our packs of murder hobos are not short on body count. The world of the fantasy rpg is outrageously violent... I was watching a video the other day on youtube that talked about the escalation of violence in rpgs and he mentioned that almost all rpg characters are the pyscopath that goes from name calling to a murder in zero seconds. Theres never any actual escalation that sane real human beings would have to an altercation. You don't shout, posture, maybe push and shove, you almost always skip straight to your most lethal means of engagement immediately.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I always allow oddball races, and by far I prefer to play them.

As a player I generally find some inspiration in the mechanical side of my character for their roleplay. Class often plays a big role in this, but race definitely does. And one of the biggest things in my mind and especially in my group that has been playing dnd together for more then 2 decades now (wow hard to believe that), is that the nature and flavor of the core races is really well established. We have a strong inclination for dwarves to be a certain way, elves to be another, etc etc. Humans are more of a blank slate, but blank slates don't work for me. If you give me a blank canvas I stare blankly.

Less common races give me more room to try out new ideas. They also give me an opportunity to establish things in Table cannon that were not there before. For instance one of my all time favorite characters was a wayang witch I played in a friends campaign. Because no one had any set ideas of how wayang should be and there was no established practice with them I felt free to go wild with both the character and the background information on the wayang themselves. It was a ton of fun.

Ive had similar experiences with things like changelings, gripplis, and other 'odd ball' races. They inspire me to put more life in my characters and give me a framework to do something fun and interesting. When I play a core race I often struggle to make them anything but dull and 'normal'.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If you roleplay out going to different shops, haggling with merchants, and then picking out specific goods that the GM randomly determines if are in or are not in stock. Absolutely. It can definitely take that long.

That is among the reasons why all 'shopping' is handled away from the table via email in my games. Because it can take up a huge amount of time. And while I like roleplaying out situations like that, the trade off just isn't worth it. I would rather roleplay plot relevant moments then encounters with shop owners for insignificant purchases. But this is just my feelings on the matter.

As others have stated, talk to your GM and the rest of the players and figure out something that works for everyone. Its ok to handwave the purchasing of mundane gear to save time at the table. At the very least have players show up to the table with a pre gm approved list of things they are going to buy and their cost and roleplay it immediately without people needing to look up prices and such.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Until relatively recently I would lay out index cards of events starting with whatever the starting condition of the adventure/campaign is. IE Sandpoint is attacked by goblins while players are at a festival. Then I add additional events leading towards the conclusion of the adventure/campaign.

Then I take different colored index cards and mark down paths that the players could take to get from one event to the other. IE: 1. Players search goblin bodies, find coins with mysterious symbols on them. 2. Players follow/track retreating goblins back to lair. 3. Players gather information in town and try to find out who might have a grudge against the town.

Then I would lay out all these connecting index cards between the event cards. Once I had that mapped out I would start writing encounters descriptions, detailing npcs.

Now adays I use software for creating flowcharts. WAAAY easier then using the index cards. Same idea though. I also follow the rule of 3. Always include at least 3 ways for players to find a vital piece of information. And if the players think of something I didn't, I can add it in, and figure out a way to map it back to the events that I wanted to happen. So maybe the players hunt for the goblins down by the docks instead of at the caverns under the mayors office. So I transplant the Mayors office encounter to the Docks on the fly where possible to keep things moving towards what I was working for.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Poison Dusk wrote:

As someone who plays several characters that walk that line on the edge of evil, I don't really think he was too far off in his roleplay. Of course, you have to try to get along with other players, but it is not always necessary to get along with other characters. For instance, I play a LN monk who is dedicated to Zon-Kuthon, and I routinely play at a table with a player you is playing a CG cleric of Desna*. While we butt heads on many things, we both are still working towards the ends of the Pathfinder Society, even if we may have different views on how to accomplish those ends. I also have a cleric of Asmodeus/hellknight who just ran a game with a paladin of Iomedae. They did not like each other at first sight, and I happily pointed out how I (in character) thought slavery was perfectly fine, as "All men build themselves up on the backs of others." If played right it can be very entertaining to have different viewpoints stuck together. Read the short story [u]Noble Sacrifice[/u]. However, if you cannot make it work as players, try to find a way to limit that kind of interaction. I like playing characters at all points of the compass, so to speak, and you can't expect everyone to get along with everyone else in character, as long as you work together, and you know, report cooperate and whatnot. That all being said, if the player is being too much of a jerk, then something can, and should be done about it.

TLDR; You don't have to all get along, in game. Small conflict between characters can be fun, just keep it small and in character.

*The monk does have the vow of silence, so it makes things easier.

I strongly disagree in the context of organized play. In a home game, with people you know, and like sure. Push the boundaries of roleplay go nuts. But in a PFS game, there is literally no way this isn't a Jerk move. You KNOW they cant stop you. You KNOW you can say and do basically anything you want short of attacking a player. And you DONT KNOW how the other players will take that. It might be fun for some, but that kind of conflict is definitely not fun for others. And in particular because they CANT roleplay their characters, because of the restrictions of organized play.

Like I said, having inter party conflict can make for a great story, in a game where you are friends with the people you are playing with and in which both the players and GM are not restricted with how they can react to that conflict. Personally I think its completely unacceptable for someone to take this route and in all honesty a similar experience is why I will never touch Organized play with an 11 foot pole.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Really there ought to be a different combat maneuver that helps bring a flyer to the ground. Tripping a creature with legs is not the same thing as bringing down a flyer, winged or not. The problem ofc is we now have years of legacy of it being comparably difficult to bring a flyer down to earth (the gunslingers targeted shot at wings for instance) and it being comparably easy to say aloft (the non scaling fly check dc to stay in the air after being attacked for instance).
The other problem is the associated pile of feat you would need to take in order to not suck at such maneuver.
I so rarely see combat maneuvers done at my table, it would preferable to just remove the "Improved" versions of feats and just make maneuvers not provoke. Upgrade the "Greater" versions of the feats to give a +4 bonus to the maneuver and sometimes cause it to provoke from allies (depending on the normal greater version). Also remove stupid Combat Expertise as a requirement for them, damn feat tax.

This is part of a fundamental flaw in the system. The opportunity cost of mundane options is WAAAY too high. It shouldn't take so much investment to do combat maneuvers.

A halfway descent start is to set combat expertise and power attack on fire and push them over a cliff and ditch the improved feats, but its only a start. A systemic change is really whats needed.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Really there ought to be a different combat maneuver that helps bring a flyer to the ground. Tripping a creature with legs is not the same thing as bringing down a flyer, winged or not. The problem ofc is we now have years of legacy of it being comparably difficult to bring a flyer down to earth (the gunslingers targeted shot at wings for instance) and it being comparably easy to say aloft (the non scaling fly check dc to stay in the air after being attacked for instance).

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Buri Reborn wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
So a couple feats and say less than five percent of the content changing renders the books worthless? I still don't see it.
You don't need to see it. The value proposition for me as a consumer simply isn't there. So, I only buy the PDFs. With content subject to change as it is, that's about all I value Pathfinder's content to be worth.

So then what is the problem? You are given an option as a consumer to purchase something that suits your tastes and values? Heck you literally don't have to buy them and get most of their value by using the prd or srd. So where exactly is paizo screwing over their consumers? Like I said, the fact that they might errata away certain options has been there since literally the second printing of the core rulebook years ago.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
RaizielDragon wrote:

I won't likely be getting the 4th level, so really all I'm getting then is the Hex, which I have 5 to choose from: Curse of Suffering, Deny Succor, Enhanced Cures, Life Link and Life Sight. And this is in exchange for a Revelation, which is fairly similar in function. The difference being that, as pointed out, I can change which of the 5 I have each day. Fair enough. I also lose Handle Animal and Survival as class skills, and gain all Knowledge skills I didn't already have instead.

You get way more choices then that. You can choose which SPIRIT you want each day. You can in theory take ANY shaman hex you qualify for each day. Its actually more flexible then the normal wandering spirit ability of the shaman which doesn't give you a choice of hexes until 6th level.


However, bringing up "double dipping" in Channel isn't a thing, because you don't get Channel as a Spirit Guide until 7th level.

The Spirit Guide Oracle only makes sense if you single class. If you are multiclassing it isnt the best combination. Personally I think with very few exceptions, long term multiclass characters are inferior to single class characters. And since you are 6th level now, presumably it wouldn't be too long before you got to 7th level.


With all of that being said, is there any reason (other than Wis vs Cha) to use Oracle over a Shaman, if I can gain access to the main abilities I'm interested in (Life Link) with the Shaman AND get Channel? I ask because we have a pretty generous ability score rolling system, so I won't likely need to tank Wis, and if I only need a 12 to make 3 levels of Shaman work, that may be doable.

I would have to really sit down and look at it but my instinct is the cleric/oracle list is better for your purposes then the shaman list. I don't have concrete examples to back up that impression. In addition one of the big class abilities that I think is ideal for your stated goal is the combat healer revelation.

Also the presumption is that only needing charisma will give you better spells, more spells and more channels. Again the recommendation comes primarily from being single classed, not from a multiclass concept. And obviously what stats you have modifies how good the single ability score focus of an oracle is or isnt. But I still think for your stated purpose its superior.


What is the "one feat" for a tanky Oracle? Also, I think a d8 HD vs a d10 means the Paladin can be a little more tanky than an Oracle.

I meant heavy armor proficiency. They can already wear medium armor, which depending on your stats may be sufficient, but you can take heavy armor prof to clunk around in full plate with a shield of that suits your needs. In terms of HD I promise being a full oracle with all of its healing and buff abilities VASTLY out weights an average of 3-5 hit points extra at 6th level (depending on how you split the multiclass). Remember having more healing is practically like having extra hit points if your focus is being the combat medic. Having a sift action cure serious wounds (life oracle with combat healer) is FAR superior to having 3d10s instead of d8s for HD.

A paladin is a better idea if you want to make a true frontliner who hits as hard as he is well defended/tough. If as you stated you are only concerned with being able to take hits and heal/buff, a full oracle (or shaman for that matter) is vastly superior.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Buri Reborn wrote:
I'm not spending money to buy feat x only to have it fundamentally changed. It takes the hardbacks and turns them into, essentially, an admissions fee of sorts that just keeps the club named Pathfinder going. They have little value in and of themselves since they're not portable to other games. This makes them, by definition, useless. I'm not dropping $40 on a book that I might not get a good long bit of usage out of it. That's a s+@+ty deal for the consumer.

How is it that an errata that affects at most like a single page of materal of your hardcover book makes it useless? In addition to that, excepting pfs, why does it matter at all? Keep using your book. I am reasonably confident paizo does not recall every copy of the book to white out feat x that you love so much.

Your book is not ruined. Even if you are playing in a game that uses the latest updates, you can do what everyone else does as far back as 3.5. Print out the errata, fold it and slip it into the back of your book. You book is now just fine because unlike your implication, the errata changes a tiny fraction of the actual content in your book, the overwhelming majority is just fine.

This also isn't new. Paizo has been providing errata that has altered their material since the game began. If having errata is a deal breaker for you, how is it you have not already picked up on the practice and changed your consumer practices?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
RaizielDragon wrote:
I think the intent of including a tanky Paladin side to the build was because we don't have many front-liners currently. We have an Archer Paladin, a Pyrokineticist, and an Unchained Rogue.

Thing is an oracle can be just as 'tanky' as a paladin with one feat. Since you are not concerned with dealing out damage you don't need a paladin for defense. In addition it will be far superior at the 'emergency healing' aspect of the goal. And he'll have access to all the requisite condition removal spells which is super important for the divine caster of the party to carry with them in any normal adventure.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If you really want to in combat emergency healing like rory I suggest against multiclassing. Your ability get people back from the brink or keep them up is already completely outclassed by the damage foes do, splitting your levels, no matter what nifty abilities you get is just going to make that worse.

I think a straight life oracle is a good path. The ability to swift action heal (even at the cost of 2 spell slots) is fantastic in an emergency. A few channel energy feats and you have about the best healer pathfinder has to offer. You already have medium armor and shields and its possible to take heavy armor with a feat if that makes sense for the character to get it nice and tanky. A Spirit guide life oracle with some descent armor and a shield sounds like precisely what your player is looking for to me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If you include material from the more prominent 3rd party publishers, I am pretty sure there literally isn't anything you cant to. Certainly no fantasy tropes I can think of.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just to avoid confusion from the above sarcastic comment

A summoner can summon his eidolon in a ritual that takes 1 minute to perform. When summoned in this way, the eidolon hit points are unchanged from the last time it was summoned. The only exception to this is if the eidolon was slain, in which case it returns with half its normal hit points.

If the eidolon didn't get taken out, it will have exactly as many hit points when re-summoned as it did when it was sent back to its home plane regardless of how long you wait.

That said as mentioned normal magic works on eidolons unless you are a synthesist.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sohei wrote:

Evening all,

I have a couple of basic GM questions I am hoping the great minds of this forum may be able to help me with.

1 - currently prepping ROTR, is there a resource I can use to 'stock' the various shops, weapons, armour, magic items, prices etc - or shall I stop being lazy and do it manually?

2 - Gameplay question. I have run this group through Crypt of the Everflame and they are extremely defensive to the extent that I can't get actually get them to go in a room half the time and any combat tends to take place in door ways. What mechanics can I use to try and force their hands to take the battle to the baddies - so I get the -4 into melee and LOS cover (I think). Is that it? If the party are three deep in the corridor or whatever, I don't see that it's possible to have a monster charge into them to try and flank. Believe me, these guys are happy to sit and take the minuses to their attack rolls all night.


1. Don't do this. Its not worth it. It is way too much work for literally no gain. And it is counter to the design of the game (in so much as the game expects character to eventually be able to get equipment useful to their purpose). As Bart mentioned, look at the value that should be available in your town or city, the base value means that anything that value or less should have a 75% chance of being available. Let your players roll a diplomacy or knowledge local to find out who might have it (if its available). I don't have my copy of the adventure handy but as its a small town I imagine sandpoint is around 1000gp.

2. Step one, every single hallway in every adventure is actually at least 10 feet wide not 5, regardless of what is in a published adventure map. In addition, every single door of any consequence is a double door that is 10 feet wide (2 squares). Is this unrealistic? Yup. But it REALLY helps with the press in dungeons and buildings and such.

Step 2. Make it so more monsters/enemies do not make themselves known until the party is in the room. They can easily have taken 20 on a stealth check and chosen really good hiding spots. You can also have enemies come up behind them in hallways if they are being unreasonably hesitant to enter a room. You are the gm after all. If you want to insert a secret door that lets an extra bad guy get in behind them you may.

The other thing you can and should do is explain you will be enforcing distance penalties on perception checks. If the player refuse to enter a room the dc to spot something goes up by 1 for every 10 feet the item is into a room. In a largish room that can make a very big difference. You can even impose an additional +2 penalty for unfavorable conditions (everyone trying to peak through a doorway is less then ideal circumstances to spot something important). Explain that if they refuse to enter rooms the WILL miss things, including treasure, plot points and more.

Side note: Often its a good idea to just talk to your group if something about their behavior is a problem.

Also as mentioned you can have your baddies equipped with alchemical splash weapons, (bottled lightning works really well for players lined up in a door/hall) like alchemist fires or bottled lighting as cheap low level way to encourage your party to spread out.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Is there some reason guards cant carry a custom magic item that identifies the school of a spell being cast and observed by the wearer/user of that item? If a city/kingdom is going through the amount of trouble required to manage this regulation surely they could provide tools to aid the process?

Another option is to add a regional trait -
PlaceLandia City Guard. A guard of Placelandia is trained in regulating magic. He gains a +2 trait bonus to spellcraft checks to identify the subschool of magic of a spell being cast, but not the spell itself (IE your reduced dc of identifying the school, not the spell). In addition spellcraft is always a class skill.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hard to tell, though I own all the hardcover books, I don't really use them very often. Unless for some reason I don't have access to the internet, I use the prd or d20pfsrd. In the rare case something isn't on d20pfsrd its generally in a soft cover book.

But I definitely use a wide variety of sourcebooks in my campaigns. Particularly over the course of it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My only complaint would be you have now removed the 2d6 2handed martial weapon from the game. The warsword doesn't take the place of the greatsword, it is a downgrade of it. That 2d6 is actually fairly important in maintaining the balance between 2 weapon and 2handed styles. Other then that its fine, I just personally don't care enough to make the change.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Abraham spalding wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
This is among the reasons why every table should use the automatic progression system or something similar. The mathematical need for the big six items is a massive deterrent for interesting ideas. If you used the magic item progression system you don't need to keep the belt slot for stat boosts. Unfortunately the one paizo set up still sort of doesn't help because weapon attunement is to a specific weapon, but that can easily be fixed to just be towards a weapon IE javalins, or throwing stars or what have you.

Or you can allow more wealth and custom items. Either way accomplishes the same power creep.

Note that while I'm sassing I'm not saying anything here is "badwrongfun". All in all I feel the entire thing is just an argument for bound systems instead of unbound systems for role playing games. But that's game theory for another day/thread.

If you actually handle it correctly there is no power creep. You obviously don't have something like the automatic progresson system AND normal wealth. If you do that theres no power creep, you are just replacing a portion of player wealth that normally goes into +x items and instead just giving them plus x to stats weapons AC and saves as a part of leveling up.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
What they (and the older ones I visit) aren't doing is devoting as much space to RPGs as to other types of game - board games, card games, miniature games.

True, but part of that is how dense of a value most RPGs have. From what I understand, RPGs are known to have a lower turn rate than any of the other 3 main game-store categories (CCG/mini/board games) but their advantage to the store is that they're denser. It's not hard to get 10k worth of RPG books in 15-20ish sq feet of space (maybe 40-50 with walking space). While their turn rate is lower, that square footage probably sells the 2nd most $ after wherever they keep the latest MTG boosters. :P

While most board games are more expensive than a single RPG book, they take up far more space. The same is true of minis. (CCGs are a bit denser than RPGs, but beyond MTG and 1-2 flavors of the month, they're getting diminishing returns by stocking them.)

From the same perspective, filling up too much space with RPGs is a hugely expensive initial outlay.

You also don't actually need all that much space. I mean how much space would it actually take to stock a couple copies of each pathfinder hardcover and a selection of other products? 2 shelves on an normal sized bookshelf? Most game stores I have seen has 1 maybe 2 bookshelves with rpg stuff in it and that can actually equal a really impressive selection. The only time it ends up taking more space is when they include side materials in the same display, IE maps, minis etc. But more often then not I see those in a different area of the store.

I mean you only need to see the spine of a book to brows a selection, that's how books work. And rpgs are mostly books. Where as board games, take up more space, particularly if you want to show off the top cover art that often helps sell the product. Minis, same thing, they often have elaborate art, or are in clear packages to display the minis. Or come in boxes akin to board games if not bigger in some cases.

I see this reflected in my own home. Storage of rpg materials is almost nothing compared to board games and miniature games.

I don't think the amount of shelf space matters, its more whether or not the store actually stocks the latest products and has a good selection. If it does, I would say rpgs are well selected there even if they are just a small corner of the store.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This is among the reasons why every table should use the automatic progression system or something similar. The mathematical need for the big six items is a massive deterrent for interesting ideas. If you used the magic item progression system you don't need to keep the belt slot for stat boosts. Unfortunately the one paizo set up still sort of doesn't help because weapon attunement is to a specific weapon, but that can easily be fixed to just be towards a weapon IE javalins, or throwing stars or what have you.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hugo Rune wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
By definition, players roleplay PCs. GMs roleplay NPCs. If an enchanter charms a goblin, the GM still roleplays him. They may not think of fire as a threat, and that could be of weal or woe.
That's not strictly true. I often let my players control NPCs that accompany the party. I only intervene when they state the character will do something that they wouldn't do. I've even let them level NPCs though I set some guidelines, such as maxing out a particular skill or defining an area of focus eg archery.

Many gms do this sort of thing. It makes sense particularly in the case of hirelings or other charcters under the authority of the players or just to lighten the gms load. The issue is that the op is asking for a RULE somewhere to make this happen. And no such rule exists. Even something like leadership where a rule grants you an npc cohort and an army of npc minions, they are (by rules) still under the control of the gm. The fact that most gms simply let a player control their cohorts is an extremely common house rule, but its still a house rule and wont ever appear in any book.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ryzoken wrote:
Michael_Hopkins wrote:
Playing anot Aether Kineticist in PFS, I can say that if it weren't for the fact that I play more like a scouting trickster with Telekinetic Maneuvers now, I would feel like an unnecessary addition to the group. I do have fun with dirty trick though!


Hmmm... I've felt quite useful in each of my outings. Not sure what the difference is. Build maybe? Or maybe just a difference of perception? Something else?

For reference, my kineticist as he currently stands:
Plumekith Aasimar Kineticist(Aether) 8
Str 7, Dex 21 (25 with belt and overflow), Con 16 (20 with overflow and a +2 ioun stone), Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 7

TK Blast hits at +15 for 4d6+15, Foe Throw when applicable at DC 20.
80hp, 32 burn damage, 24 force ward; AC of 26 with mithril kikko, mithril buckler, ring of prot 1, and dex.

Feats: Weapon Finesse, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Expanded Metakinesis: Merciful.
Skills: Acrobatics +15, Bluff +1, Diplomacy +10, Intimidate +2, Linguistics +3, Perception +16, Sleight of Hand +11, Stealth +23, UMD +11

Infusion Talents: Kinetic Blade, Extended Range, Pushing Infusion, Foe Throw
Utility Talents: TK Finesse, TK Haul, TK Invis, Self TK

By mid levels they certainly develop. Its just a lot slower then most classes. And I wonder, what does the rest of your party look like?

The problem with the kineticist isn't the ability to contribute to encounters. They certainly can. Particularly as you get a number of infusions to mix into your kinetic blasts. But it hits the same notes as something like the zen archer. You still need all 4 other basic character types covered by someone else to handle typical adventures. For instance the aether kineticist can get very 'roguey' in many ways, but it still cant handle traps (a staple of most adventures) and has a fairly limited range of skills (when compared to things like bards, rogues etc).

Honestly a straight forward fix in my mind would be to add in the base abilities needed to cover one of the bases to each of the elements. If someone wanted to play a kineticist in my game that's what I would do as a gm.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What about the mountain pass flip map, the reverse is a pretty plain snowy environment

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Having played MANY games sci fi rpgs that had varied amounts of integration of Star ship combat, particularly in a certain galaxy far far away a long time ago, I would say that the approach they are taking is an excellent one.

WAAAAY too often you get situations where space ship combat is only interesting for 'the pilot' and everyone else is either making an uninteresting dice roll each turn, or actually doing nothing. Its next to impossible to have ground characters perfectly transition into space unless they have a whole second set of abilities, which is generally an issue, because not every game or story emphasizes space combat.

This is particularly important in a class based system. IE pathfinder. If your class has space combat abilities, then they are wasted when on the ground, and better then everyone else when you are in space. If your class doesn't have space combat abilities, you are SOL in spaceship encounters and subjected to a sideshow.

For example star wars saga edition was basically a d20 system with star wars stapled on. Unless you specifically take space combat options, you don't have them. And they only applied in space.

The solution? In the space ship book they gave alternate forms for lots of abilities that functioned in space. The also added feats that let people do cool space ship stuff on par with force powers (spells). It worked ok, but if you were say, an axe swinging wookie warrior. This didn't help you much and you were still relegated to hanging out during space combat, and the pilots still had lots of unused abilities during the ground scenes.

In my group we decided eventually that everyone would literally have 2 characters built separately, one for the ground, and one for space, just so everyone could actually participate all of the time.

I would be absolutely stunned if I ever saw a class based rpg that had unified rules for ground and space combat that actually worked well and kept everyone engaged in both situations.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dragzner wrote:

The gist he gave me, was find a way to make an NPC and we'll go from there. now obviously here is the tricky part. making the darn thing. I'm just wondering if there is a way to create life like a sort of Frankenstein thing but to where i can adjust the creature depending on my materials, caster level, and gold amount. I basically wanna make a person in the campaign if we were disregarding the terms PC and NPC, an at least somewhat customizable person. Now from what people have been telling me i have a couple options

A I make a construct
B I change class to either summoner or some other creature customizing class
C I have a 1on1 talk with my GM

now obviously i did C, and my GM doesn't like class changes so that leaves me with A, but im looking for more options. I understand that there arent that many I'm just asking if there is an option i haven't heard about.

The game doesn't work that way. If the gm wants to go strictly by the rules, a 1 on 1 game isn't going to work very well. I would do C again. There are ways to make 1 on 1 games very rewarding, but they involve house rules. Because the game isn't actually meant to function that way. If you want I have a very solid set of house rules I can provide that have worked extremely well for me in one on one games, even allowing us to go through published material (meant for 4 players) pretty neatly. But the first step is to get the gm to understand that adjustments need to be made to make it work. Without that you are pretty much out of luck.

A player never 'makes' an npc. At least not without the GM just saying yea sure go ahead and make them. You will not find any rules that say 'Take this option, then you can design a npc from the ground up to accompany you on adventures'. Even Leadership the closest to this leaves it open to the gm to decide if they will make the npcs, or let the players customize them.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A kinteticist cannot be a replacement for literally anything but a damage dealer. While they have some utility abilities that develop extremely slowly (compared to any 6 level casters), they don't have any of the vital features of member of a 4 person party excepting, somewhat Ironically the front line fighter.

They don't have many skill points, and a relatively poor class skill list. Teay also don't have the ability to deal with magical traps. IE not a rogue/skillmonkey. Unlike the bard, alchemist, inquisitor, investigator etc, that either in their base form or with archetypes can serve this purpose fairly well.

They also don't have access to condition removal abilities (ability damage, negative levels, blindness deafness etc) so they cant replace a divine caster. The alchemist, Inquistitor, and warpriest can all do this fairly well either directly or with certain archetypes.

They don't have access to detect magic, the ability to discern magic items, or spellcraft. So they cannot replace an Arcane caster.

The only role they can actually serve is the frontline fighter using things like kintetic blade. Which is sort of weird for a class whose primary ability on paper is a ranged attack. They can sort of replace the combat aspects of a magus, or warpriest, or alchemist, as long as you still have a skilled character, an arcane caster and a divine caster in your party besides the kineticist.

Effectively unless you are the front liner, you need to have a completely functional party besides your kineticist to have a completely functional party. This can be done of course. You can have a bard, druid, warpriest party and be just fine adding a kineticist. But the kineticist isn't handling any challenges that group of 3 couldn't handle on their own with a slightly lower CR.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Murdock Mudeater wrote:


Oh, one more. Can I use create pit to temporairly drain liquid from an area? I'd obviously still need to meet the other requirements of the spell, but providing they were met, and reasonable drainage of the terrain would allow the water to drain into the pit, would the pit absorb the water? Or does it only hold creatures?

Technically yes, but extremely temporarily. The pit is actual open space, water would flow into it. But remember the duration is 1 round + 1round per level, that's 6 seconds a round. And the end of the spell the bottom of the pit slowly raises pushing the water back up.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
HeHateMe wrote:

I have been noticing that newer releases generally have weaker stuff than the Core book. Some really flavorful options, but mechanically weaker. As far as PF goes, I don't believe that power creep has ever been a thing. The core book has all the most broken stuff right there (Sorcerer, Wizard, Cleric, Druid).

Take Occult classes for example: generally weaker than core classes. Some flavorful stuff (Kineticist, Occultist), but on a lower power scale. Ultimate Intrigue was just full of sadness if you're looking for powerful options. Let's see if Horror Adventures has anything good in it, I don't have it in my hand yet.

This isn't actually new for paizo releases. It just becomes more apparent the more options there are.

There has ALWAYS been a curve with LOTS of sub part options, a hand full right around or right bellow average, a few above average options and A couple that were 'too strong'.

The difference is now we have many many concepts covered with 'above average' or 'too strong' options. So any new material that fits a similar vein is far more likely to have a 'better' past equivalent or close correlation.

And for the most part its probably a good thing that new options are generally not more powerful then the cleric/wizard/druid. That's a pretty high bar. I think the target is probably closer to somewhere between the core paladin and the core sorcerer. Put them in there somewhere and you have a workable option. And while that might seem 'weak' compared to a wildshaping druid with a pouncing dinosaur buddy, I think we can all agree that setting our target a little lower then that is ok, for the health of the game as a whole.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
voska66 wrote:
Helic wrote:

Deserts aren't a problem of availability of water - you can have a river running through a desert without it changing much of the surrounding territory. Deserts are a problem of water distribution - i.e. it doesn't fall from the sky over every part of the landscape and soak into the ground to be stored for deep rooted plants to access.

Create Water won't do jack for deserts, even if the water didn't disappear after 24 hours. Control Weather could do it, but that requires a much higher level caster, and won't change the climate factors that formed the desert in the first place - like the rain shadow formed by mountains or the prevailing winds. So you'd need on-going maintenance to keep it from turning back into a desert.

Pathfinder is simply a game where past a certain power level, mundane annoyances can be entirely removed. Create Water and Endure Elements make desert survival trivial - so what? You never lack for OTHER challenges.

People also often complain about magic 'ruining' mystery plots. This is because Pathfinder was designed to be about hitting monsters in the face. Mysteries isn't wrongbadfun, but Pathfinder wants you to be able to solve mysteries fast and get back to hitting monsters in the face.

Mysteries work well in Pathfinder. As GM you just need to think like you are in world with magic. Also think of it like today. Not only can you scry on people via cameras every where with geo locations but you can go back in time watching recorded video. So think of world where you can scry like that and speak with the dead. A mystery will take all that into account.

Mysteries work about as well in pathfinder as they do in most rpg systems. Namely, they work well if the DM is very good at telling mysteries, and the players are good at (and enjoy) figuring them out. A mystery works when the protagonist comes upon timely clues a bit at a time, slowly unraveling the plot, and the reader can slowly figure things out as an audience. The problem here is that in this case the audience and protagonist are the same people. Which is MUCH harder to balance.

Remember, ACTUAL investigation (the kind done by real detectives) is INSANELY boring. With huge amounts of dead ends and a lot of sitting around waiting for things to develop. When your detective isn't being guided by the plot, but is the protagonist, the audience, and the driver of events, the chances of a satisfactory pace for a mystery plot with the fun AHA I figured it out moment, is super slim.

Then there is the whole roleplaying thing. I may be X good at figuring out mysteries. But my character, the Investigator with a 24 intelligence and all of the knowledge, is smarter them me. The same way my half orc barbarian is way better at hitting things with an axe then I am. So if I am playing a character that is smarter then I actually am, his (or her) ability to figure out mysteries ought to be way better then mine. Which leads to clues being sorted out via dice rolls. Which takes literally all the satisfaction out of a mystery plot. Which also leads to dms unable to cope with such a situation trying to limit a characters abilities to use the tools and skills they have to solve the problem, which creates the conflict this whole thread is mostly about.

Relatively few rpgs that are not explicately designed for the purpose, are good at telling fun mystery stories.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DM Beckett wrote:

Just saying, a Decanter of Endless water is 9,000GP. Its things like that a DM really needs to consider. Maybe it was tried before, (in a different area) and it destroyed the area, having a very different result. Or it was too devistating on the ecosystems.

Or perhaps the desert is right in the middle of some warring or cold warring countries, and they each see the large, deadly desert area as a combination of neutral territory and natural defenses. Its easier to set up provision lines to go half way in and back to meet, but to try to transverse the desert with an army, even with the ability to teleport some people, is just too risky. There are also the natives, and so no one really wants the desert to be made more habitable, as it would mean they can be attacked from multiple sides with much more ease and from surprise.

5 gallons per second (30 gallons per round) is not going to change an environment. The amount of water used for such projects in the US is measured in acre-feet. As in the amount of water that would fill a one acre space to a height of 1 foot. And not like a couple of these. But millions of them.

As an example, the state of Arizona (a US state that is basically 4 deserts) uses approximately 1.75 trillion gallons of water on agriculture annually to make a PORTION of its land suitable for things to grow. That comes out to about 55,492 gallons a second if I did my arithmetic right. And that is an ANNUAL use. As in just pouring water on this land and planting crops, does not become self sustaining. They need to continue to pour the water on the land every year.

So actually my original thought of several dozen clerics is inaccurate. You would need something like eleven THOUSAND decanters of endless water to make progress on making a dessert not a dessert. Or Something like all the divine casters on golarion working in concern.

Clerics aren't going to turn a desert into not a desert with a cantrip. Short of a literal global effort on the scale of the mendevian crusades or an actual act of a diety, no one is turning a desert into farmland.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Sometimes you need to remember the sausage metaphor. If you knew how they made sausage you might never touch the stuff ever again. Clinton is a politician. She has been a politician for a long time. I am reasonably confident you could dig up dirt on literally every politician given enough time and effort. And an astounding amount of effort has gone into discrediting Hilary. So sure, she looks dirty, I would find it hard to believe anyone who can actually get anything done in Washington wouldn't look dirty as mud just from being in that environment for that long.

Because that is the reality of the situation. Everyone focuses on the president, they forget the president, excepting the appointing of Supreme Court Judges, does exceedingly little domestically. They have to work with congress to do that. And despite resounding dissatisfaction with congress, incumbents stay where they are. So if our next president is going to accomplish literally anything, they need to actually know how to work out deals with other politicians.

Because even when everyone is being completely altruistic and not at all corrupt, our system of government is designed to force people to deal with each other. Every problem will affect different portions of the nation differently. If a wave of Potato crops get hit with a disease that needs research, the Senator from Idaho (if acting in complete altruism and representing his constituency) will be very concerned. A senator from California, might be more interested in water management of the Colorado River. And the Senator from New York actually wants to deal with issues in the Financial Sector. All of these things probably need to be dealt with for the collective health of our nations economy, but the priority is very different. Consequently a DEAL has to be made.

Hilary Clinton, though she has been aggressively demonized by the Right, can actually sit down and make deals. She has in the past, and can again. Trump cant even get his own party in congress to support him, let alone people with opposing view points.

Best case scenario for Trump getting elected is he does nothing for 4 years. That is literally the best case. He can't actually do any of the things he has said he will because all of them would require authorization and funds from congress. And NO ONE in congress is ready to do any of the stupid things that have come out of his mouth.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As mentioned it isn't your highest Attack bonus, it is your highest base attack bonus. Therefore when two weapon fighting (in any form really) you can attack with either weapon first.

PRD wrote:

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

The two highest attacks must come first (your first attacks with either your rapier or shield) in whichever order you prefer. After that your 2 attacks from high bab and Improved two weapon fighting (again in whichever order you prefer)

Basically you have to attack in pairs, once with the rapier and once with the shield in an order of your choice, first with the higher set of attacks, then with the lower. If you got a third set you would do this 3 times. The order within the pairs need not be constant, just that you take them at each level of bab together before proceeding to the next.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Daw wrote:

Helic, Kirt-Ryder's statement is fairly accurate.

Lebanon was a forest until the Cedars of Lebanon were cut down, now a desert.

Low estimate for the growth of the Sahara desert caused by overgrazing by now non-nomadic tribal herders in the last 2 centuries is 10%, high estimate is over 30%

Iran was pushing back the desert by reforesting at heavy social costs. The new trees were cut down deliberately after the revolution.

Israel and Utah have both been successful in reclaiming desert, and these reclaimed areas are becoming self sustaining.

Much of agricultural Northern China was reclaimed from the desert hundreds of years ago.

The Mojave forest was burnt down when the Native Americans moved southward and tried to burn out the undergrowth like they had been doing successfully in Northern forests.

Dessert reclamation needs water on the order of diverted rivers. Create water doesn't pour out that kind of water. At least not without dozens of casters working in concert. And if dozens of casters ARE working in concert to change part the world, why shouldn't they? That's like the power of a small nation right there (not to mention the apparent backing of at least one diety who would otherwise be perturbed that a significant number of his or her empowered agents on the mortal plain are spending their time watering the dessert).

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Coffee Demon wrote:

A room in a dungeon that says "All shadows cast in this room are infinitely deep holes" (from Blue Medusa, below) become problematic because the PF system makes us feel like we need to know what plane those holes to go; what spell that references; how those shadows interact with every spell, are they magic and how to dispel, why are these shadows inconsistent with how shadows are described in the Shadow Planes Players Companion (or whatever) etc. The DM can't just roll with what players throw at the room, and players are less willing to throw ideas at a room because "what about rules"?

So there's another way that I think the rules restrict "free-flowing" games.

I do love this system though. I'm just saying it makes some things a challenge.

Check out the award-winning Maze of the Blue Medusa system-agnostic adventure. That is a crazy crazy open-ended dungeon that I would love to try with Pathfinder sometime. But a lot of the rooms require player creativity, and not a Skill Check to work out a solution to.

Similarly, I'm playing Caverns of Thracia with a group using Pathfinder. A large part of that classic (and amazing) module is figuring out the rich history of the caverns. Non PF players are invested in piecing the puzzle together using their wits. A few trained-in-PF players aren't thinking that way at all, and want to roll the dice for more information using Knowledge checks.

So Free-Flowing maybe isn't the best term. Creative? Sounds condescending. I dunno.

I think you are equating your personal experience with a general truth.

In several groups I have played pathfinder (or similarly heavily codified games in) we have had plenty of creative and off the wall ideas and solutions to problems/challenges.

I think it depends on the PEOPLE more then the game. That said, I do think a certain kind of PERSON is drawn to heavily codified rulesets and others are drawn to more narrative driven or abstract rulesets with less codification.

I think this is a matter of correlation, not causation. If someone is naturally creative and witty, they will be creative and witty in whatever system they are playing. If someone is the kind of person that needs a set of rules and guidelines in order to address a problem, they too will need and follow such a path regardless of the system. Its about the people and the group, not the system. I have many times had my group shake off inconsistencies in rules in favor of rule of cool in games like pathfinder. The only difference being it was out of a sense of fun, not out of a sense of opposition.

In my group, no one would bat an eye about crazy portals that don't make sense within rules outside of the gms notes. They would bat an eye at the 'your abilities don't work in the desert because I don't want them to'. The difference is the oppositional nature of the latter example.

The big issue is that the less codification you have in a ruleset, the better the gm has to be. There are FAR more bad gms out there then there are good ones. The reason you get all the aggressive reactions from people on the boards or anywhere with the "Why cant I make create water not work in the dessert comments" is that most of those people have experiences with GMS would actively try to shut down their solutions to problems for their own more or less petty power fantasies.

MOST gms (IE most people) will struggle to make consistent and 'fair' (read satisfying for all parties invovled) on the fly interpretations of complex rules. Most people don't have an instinctual understanding of statistics, and have significant confirmation bias. That means their 'feelings' about how things are going and what they expected are often way off and so they overcompensate. And those average to bad gms do a terrible job of 'free flowing, on the fly' games.

Just about anyone can run a dungeon crawl and get some monster smashing fun out of it. It takes a particular talent to get in a free wheeling creative inventive open ended game going. Since MOST people will not be good at such a thing, most people have experience of a bad example of playing such a thing. And they will instinctively react to any deviation in that direction based on said experience. That's why heavily codified games like pathfinder are popular in the first place. The experience is far more consistent.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Trump did not say what people are saying he said. He's a meathead and all sorts of other potentially scary things, but he did not advocate having her killed.

Technically true... in that it seemed like he was suggesting killing her judges rather than Hillary herself.

What he said was that once Hillary had appointed her judges there would be no way to stop them from 'taking our guns'... except possibly that the 'second ammendment people' could do... something.

Once the judges are appointed no amount of 'political pressure' means a thing. Ergo, Trump was either NOT talking about political activity (and has thus been lying about it ever since) or his statement was inherently self-contradictory nonsense.

To be fair. Self-contradictory nonsense is a plausible explanation. That said, what he said could easily be misinterpreted, and that is something that trump also has a habit of providing. When you focus on giving vague nonsense statements, the idea that someone might get the wrong idea from them is sort of to be expected.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:

To me the core reason why the republican party is going off the rails is because they decided to change the political debate to a debate on morality.

If you and I are discussing the best way to change a tire, we may initially disagree on the best course of action, but eventually we'll get a first step done, then a second, etc. If we disagree a lot, we might take a long time to finish it, but it'll get done eventually.

If instead I start with the premise that it's morally evil to change the tire, progress is going to happen much slower, if at all.

What started happening 30-40 years ago is that one party stopped talking about how to solve issues and instead started talking about whether things were moral or not. The problem with debating morality in the public sphere is that there isn't much room for compromise on morality. We can agree that there might be grey areas and how far something is towards one end or the other, but there are clear and definite things outside the grey area, things that are black and white.

Once something is placed in the black or white area, there's no real discussion to be had. It's just shouting and demonizing. It's no longer a debate or argument, but a fight. You either agree or disagree, there's no compromise or persuasion.

When people talk about the parties being the same, go back and listen to the rhetoric used at the conventions. During the RNC they were chanting "lock her up". They don't want to just defeat Hillary in the election, they want to throw her in prison. Conversely, at the DNC, it was about going to the polls and defeating Trump. When you paint the opponent as a criminal who needs to be imprisoned, you can't sit down and have a conversation with that person. Why would you? They're a criminal! It's the same reason no one invites NAMBLA to debate relevant sections of the criminal code, you'd be morally disgusted by what they have to say.

Before Trump, you see the effects of this strategy in the Senate and House. Routinely members of both houses refused to negotiate across the aisle because they had campaigned on the morality of their beliefs and refusing to compromise on them. John Boehner regularly had issues bringing votes from his own party on negotiated deals that were acceptable more broadly. The Tea Party caucus in general could be described as having a general strategy of refusing to compromise.

Thinking about it now, it's probably part why Trump did so well in the primaries. He's built a reputation of being tough and getting what he wants in a deal, which stomping your opponent in a negotiation sounds like "not compromising". It isn't his pure morality that is appealing, but rather his image of being able to get what he wants, regardless of the opposition. He seems pure in the sense that he doesn't compromise with others.

This is quite true. And its the biggest cause of the deadlock in congress. The word compromise has been turned into a dirty word. When our entire political system is specifically designed to REQUIRE compromise. It is explicitly designed to not allow people to just strong arm others into their way of thinking.

Particularly when you try so very hard to demonize people instead of simply attacking their policy and ideas. You end up with an impossible task when you actually try to govern. Republicans are not exclusively responsible for this, but they have truly embraced the idea. Compromise is how a society works. You literally cannot have society without compromise. But when you paint the other side as morally wrong, as opposed to just politically so, you cannot then later sit down and negotiate with each other. Which you will have to do. Even if you somehow win a majority in the house, senate and win the white house, there are still mechanisms for your opponents to block you if you don't sit down with them and work things out.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I started in AD+D in 1980 so I know how the OP feels to an extent. I recently tried doing some First Edition only to find out that I was so spoiled for the improvements to the game since, that I could barely sit through one session of it. I"m fairly confidant that I'll never play First Edition again.

You have to remember a lot of people look back with rose colored glasses. Not all, there are people who still prefer the mechanics of older editions. But mostly it was the experience you are looking for. I think its hard to argue that pathfinder is not an objectively better written and designed rpg then ADnD. But I play pathfinder as an adult, amidst a busy life. I played Adnd as a child with a simple life, and a lot of fun. I look back fondly on those older campaigns with my cousin dming ridiculous story lines with poorly thought out rules, and house rules layered on top of misunderstandings. And it was fun, because life was more fun then.

Personally I think with the options afforded to me with the internet age and pathfinder combined, I am more then ever able to create a character that feels the way I want it to. I don't get the feel of 'THE paladin' but instead, MY paladin, the way I envision him, because I am given the freedom to adjust what is there to the character I want to create.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rednal wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:

72% of Republicans still aren't sure whether Obama is an American... a pluarlity are sure that he isn't.

Trump isn't the problem. Rather, the Republican party has descended into collective insanity. Trump is just another symptom. Like Palin... Cruz... even Reagan in the early days. Slowly but surely an entire political party has become divorced from reality. If anything, what comes after Trump may be much worse.

...Given that Trump seems to be behind the whole Birther thing, wouldn't it be more accurate to say he is the problem with their party right now? Or at least part of it?

The problem is that actual conservatives made a deal with the devil and attached themselves to a group of people embodied by trump in order to win elections. Trump didn't cause this problem, he is a consequence of it. For years the republican party stopped being a party focusing on conservative economics and restrained government and focused on courting people who were angry, afraid, and ignorant.

Heck, the last republican president had one of the least conservative (in the traditional sense) administrations in our history. And he was able to get away with it because the base of his party no longer cared about the details of policy, but instead wanted buzzwords and rhetoric.

He signed the defense of marriage act, while drastically expanding federal power (patriot act) and took a budget surplus and turned it into a massive deficit (hardly a fiscal conservative).

Trump didn't cause this problem. The republican party rolled out the carpet for him. It started in the 60's and is coming to a head now. Turns out when you constantly stir up fear, bigotry and ignorance, eventually you lose control of it.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
RainyDayNinja wrote:
I got the new update this morning. Catching pokemon seems to be much easier, although I haven't gotten to use the new tracking feature. I'm not even sure what's supposed to be different about it. I'm also getting my curveball bonus consistently, where I only got it on about 10% of my curveballs before (and 5% of my non-curveballs, for some reason).

The patch included potential fixes for the bonus xp for curveballs/nice/great/excellent throws.

The new tracker isn't actually implemented for everyone. The actual change is being tested for some users.

The only thing that has actually changed is that the refresh of the 'nearby' (now called sightings) list has been fixed. The top left one should be closest, and the max any of them should be about 200 meters away from your location (wherever your avatar is since that may be off from your actual location given gps issues). So you can potentially triangulate rare pokemon on your radar now. If it moves up the list you are approaching it, if you move more then 200m away it falls off the list.

I haven't gotten much time to experiment with it personally, but that's how it should work.

The new system they are testing with a subset of users is something completely different. In addition to the thing mentioned above, there will be pokemon shown in front of 'nearby' pokestops. Or at least the picture that's in the pokestop. So charmander will be in pictured with the picture of the fountain that is a pokestop. Which indicates said pokemon is very near to that pokestop.

Obviously this is most useful in areas with lots of pokestops that are clear landmarks. IE if a pokestop is an indistinct tree, probably not easy to figure out. But that statue of so and so, you know where to hoof it to catch the pokemon in question.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ssyvan wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Blocked at work. What's it say?
Verbatim - "Trainers, a new bug affecting throw accuracy increases the odds of escape and omits the XP bonus. We are working on a fix, stay tuned..."

It was pretty clear it was a bug from the beginning. But those upset about other issues with the game used it (and Niantics relative silence)as a moment to rally venom against Poke Go. Anyone objectively looking at the game thinking they intentionally introduced near impossible catch rates wasnt being objective. Given that the reports were inconsistent (this happened to me exactly once, out of several hundred catches since that patch) and the fact that despite the fact that they could have Niantic didn't make the game a blantant cash grab. It makes no sense for them to make pokemon break out of catches outrageously often to sell more pokeballs. If they wanted lots of microtransactions candy and stardust would be available to buy, or at least greatballs/ultraballs. But they didn't do that. And if you play the game the way its design intends (walk around areas with lots of pokestops catching what you find) you literally don't need to spend a dime.

The problem was Niantic was too used to a relatively placid community with their ingress players. The poke go fans are quite a bit more rabbid. Thankfully they are actually starting to communicate, and almost instantly things like the main subreddit went back to happy stories about the game (since most people who liked it were still playing and enjoying it).

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
Get rid of revives. My god are they worthless in the numbers you get them.

One side note, in the update they drastically altered the poke stop rewards. I am getting WAY less revives and potions then I was an significantly more pokeballs as compared to before the patch, for which I am grateful.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Also here is a link to a video a friend took of last night's stampede. Keep in mind this was only a small part of it. sdk

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Well, of course, if I hear later that it's in better shape, I'll give it another try. Heck, even after I said I was done the first time, I still checked in from time to time to see if I could catch something or use a PokeStop (I couldn't). Finally just uninstalled it, but I'd try again if I got wind of a stable, functional game.

The trouble of course is that in my experience, it is a stable, functional game.

My problems with it are more minor: it seems to be really dependent on good, solid Internet and GPS, even when other apps can easily handle it. Its frustrating need to be in the foreground to even do things like track movement for egg hatching. That it consistently undercounts the distance I've walked (or worse, ran).
I'm not sure whether these are poor design choices (or just ones I don't like), poor coding or somehow necessary to avoid cheating, but they keep frustrating me.

The distance tracking has gotten worse as part of their efforts to fight the botters that are overwhelming a lot of areas. There were changes to their API to make it harder to get in by ways other then actually playing the game, as well as extra checks on movement via the gps, but it consequently has caused issues in the tracking.

That said, your best bet is almost always to travel in as straight a line as you can, and if you are going to double back, stop, wait for about 5 minutes then turn back.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Maybe someday I'll get to play again, then? For the time being, though, there's nothing left for me to do. :/

There have been bugs in both cases in new York, in particular in that corner of central park. It was eventually resolved. And worked really well last night. I dont disagree that the bugs are frustrating. Heck the first time I trekked out to the park (not near where I live in the city) it was 102 degress out side and the servers were down for the whole day.

But they will get the issues sorted out. Unfortunately right now they are putting a lot of effort into fighting the spoofers and botters and not doing a good job of it. I expect that effort is part of what is causing issues. The people doing this are WAY better at it then the ones that did it in Ingress.

The poke stop issues will calm down in time, and they will sort out the catching problems. It really isn't universal, I have had difficult catches or random runaways for no reason, but also a lot of catches that were easier then before (zubats in particular are a lot less difficult to grab for me).

I just dont want people to completely write it off over some growing pains. Maybe give it a week or two and try again. I honestly did that when I was sick over the weekend, didn't play for about 4 days, came back and had a really fun night.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I finally got a chance to play with some friends at the corner of central park that is the mecha of pokemon. It was as magical as the first few days when it came out. Literally thousands of people gathered together. And I was part of my first poke stampede when a pair of lapras spawned near the lake. It was pretty amazing.

With all the negativity that has flowed through the community, I think we fail to realize that very little of what made this game so amazing has actually changed.

Also I think there is actually a bug in the catching system, I dont think it was deliberate, since the reports of problems catching pokemon isn't consistent. I expect that kotaku article is premature. But obviously everyone should do as they wish, it is after all just a game. Me I literally had one of the most fun evenings I have had in a long time, and I got some good exercise in the process.

1 to 50 of 8,806 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.