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. 8,541 posts (8,569 including aliases). 18 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 8,541 << 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
wraithstrike wrote:

Jason is still a normal human so he would top out at Iron weight or level 4 or 5 in Pathfinder. I wont make a full build, but I would say he is a slayer.

I think he is 'action move normal', not actually normal. A real human being couldnt take the punishment he does through the series. I would probably put him in the 7 or 8 level range. The one scene where he falls like 8 stories in the middle of stairs and lands on a body and gets up ok comes to mind. Though I do think slayer is a descent choice, possibly with a little multiclassing with brawler for the unarmed stuff.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:

The d20 says this is a terrible idea.


Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack.
Once in every 20 times(at least) a person walked past the sign, or statue or whatever they would feel a hostile force they couldn't place. Eventually someone would place it and recognize something was wrong in the area mentioned. Eventually someone outside of the direct control of the ruler would investigate and with a detect magic spell find out the fountain the king installed has a powerful permanent enchantment spell on it. This will hardcore backfire in a relatively small amount of time.

Now this is a rather gaping problem that I was not aware of. I didn't realize anyone would notice on a failed save. Statistically this would happen occupationally and with enough such occurrences people would get suspicious of a particular location. Even without figuring out exactly what's going on they'd probably start avoiding the area even if they don't know exactly why.

Alright. My idea is sufficiently shut down. Anyone have any alternate subversive methods for controlling your population?

Yea its one of those things people often gloss over, without some kind of special ability or trick, hiding magic is difficult long term. Probably intentionally.

My suggestion, the classic, bread and circus!

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The d20 says this is a terrible idea.


Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack.

Once in every 20 times(at least) a person walked past the sign, or statue or whatever they would feel a hostile force they couldn't place. Eventually someone would place it and recognize something was wrong in the area mentioned. Eventually someone outside of the direct control of the ruler would investigate and with a detect magic spell find out the fountain the king installed has a powerful permanent enchantment spell on it. This will hardcore backfire in a relatively small amount of time.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yea I have to agree that just dropping HP numbers isnt going to work. The game simply doesn't function in a 'realistic' way when it comes to damage. Its an action movie, or a comic book. The binary hit or miss nature of the game itself is problematic when considering 'realism'. You are really going to have to fight the system head on if you want to instill that kind of realism into the game past an E6 model.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If the goal is to remain somewhat near pathfinder rpg rule, what if all trainers were an archetype of the summoner, probably akin to the master summoner? The eidolon representing their 'primary' pokemon, and summons representing the managerie carried around in pokeballs?

Then you only need to create the templates for the various pokemon and figure out what level of summon they need to be. And also how powerful you want to make the primary pokemon (eidolon).

My intial thought is:
1. Remove all casting besides the summon spell like ability (trainers dont have spells, and to be honest, they dont really do anything on their own).
2. Create an eidolon template that has a fixed progression of evolutions for each of the potential primary pokemon (the one you pick when you first start the game). Each type of starter pokemon is represented by a fixed progression of evolutions (possibly with some selection for specific attacks) to make it resemble a pokemon type.
3. Create a new summon list and fit different pokemon into the Summon 1-9 and gate list.
4. Trainers must encounter and defeat a type of pokemon to access it in the summon list (possibly everyone starts with one option at each level automatically).

Obviously this creates the issue of the primary pokemon being dramatically stronger then any summon, but if you cut out all the summoners spellcasting, and you keep the limit of 1 at a time (either eidolon, or a summon) then you can probably make the available summons more powerful then those normally summoned by the spell as written.

Basically all this new Trainer archetype can do is Call his Starter Pokemon (eidolon), or summon a specific list of more powerful creatures via the spell like ability. With a little tweaking I think that could work.

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

It always helps to compare the cost of the feat to the cost of an item that provides the same.

Boots of striding and springing provide a +10 move speed bonus and a minor boost to jump checks. They cost 5500. This effectively provides 2 feats and a minor bonus but with less conditions than fleet (works even in heavy armor). The pricing for an item that gives +5 move speed would probably be in the region of 1250gp. Fleet is worse than that - lets price it at 750gp.

Losing a feat for 750gp of bonuses is atrocious.

I agree with this. Its not that extra movement isnt valuable, its that the return on investment for fleet is so poor. Boots of striding/springing, someone casting haste, and any number of class features do it better. Most people, if they want speed, go with one of those.

Fleet just doesn't give you enough for anyone that has things they want out of their feats.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Sometimes it's not me having trouble staying polite. I'm usually pretty mellow. Perhaps I should rephrase that as - a polite way of saying "I'm not going to discuss it with you, because I know you can't stay civil."

Sometimes it is worth it. I've certainly done it. Sometimes you've tried before and know it isn't. Or know it isn't worth taking past a certain point.

Its frustrating, its difficult. Sometimes it seems impossible or pointless. But that mentality is a big part of the reason why thousands of people lost jobs, had pay cut, or were forced to go on unpaid leave, and millions were indirectly affected by the same events because left and right couldnt talk out a budget in the US Capital building.

The two are connected. We all have to be willing to keep hammering those arguments, keep having them, letting the valvue go just a little so reason can prevail. If you want to live in a functioning democracy, part of your payment is having that argument with the jerk who never even tries to listen, because if you dont, he'll be more of a jerk next time. And so will you.

We talk about or civil rights. But we often forget the flip side of that. Civic responsibility. You cant have one without the other. Unless every member of a democracy takes their responsibilities seriously, the system fails in the long term.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Spook205 wrote:

A party, or block as you put it, also exists to make your individual vote more powerful as a component of a group. The modern party system stands because groups of individuals say, "Well I agree with 78 percent of what the Party Against Fireants, says, so I'll support them, but when possible I'll disagree on the other 22%."

The slates provided weren't followed slavishly. I'll note that nobody's slate came through with 100% accuracy.

Similarly, if I'm a bull moose party member, I have no obligation to vote bull moose, and they no means of compelling me. Will I be outvoted if I deviate? Yes, but not if enough people choose to deviate with me. If I were to say, publicize and campaign amongst my fellow bull moosers for a certain outcome for example.

Ofcourse no one is 'obligated' to vote on slate. That doesn't actally matter. The pressure and psychological influence is real. The same way you dont HAVE to vote your party exclusively in an election, but what percentage of people actually deviate? (Hint: Its small)


The idea that people forming into groups with other like minded individuals 'disenfranchising' someone is laughable. I'm not going to get into an argument over pure democracy or republicanism or the like, but if the group forms because they share an objective and beliefs, and they communicate this amongst themselves, and then vote together, I'd argue this supports rather then disenfranchises anybody.

Actually, by definition, forming groups disenfranchises people. That is what groups do. They isolate you from those that differ from you in some fashion. No such group is 100% uniform. But by forming a group, they become more so. Their organization limits individual choice. For instance, that group, will come together and decide who or what represents them. Both within and without of that group, some people will disagree with that choice. But, the groups choice has either removed the other choices, (like say the primary races in american presidential elections) or drastically reduces the viability of those other choices (such as having a environmentalist party candidate running seperately from a democratic, but green friendly candidate).

Organizing into voting groups literally cannot avoid disenfranchising people, because it limits choices.


If the fear is that this will balkanize the situation, that ship sailed a long time ago, its simply that one side of the equation is now showing up to the feud in uniform.

Since this literally just happened 3 years ago, the ship hasnt sailed a long time ago. It just pulled out of dock.


Regarding the 'loophole,' again, how can this guidance be changed such that people can still freely communicate with one another about their tastes? I can't talk to people grouped over 20? I can't make a post on the internet? I can't step into the public square and proclaim my appreciation of Count to the Eschaton?

Are we going to have campaign finance laws for a science fiction club's awards?

I'm being a bit ridiculous here, but I hope my point still comes through.

Its not an easy question. Heck its almost as complicated as the full scale political issues it mimics. But that doesn't mean we ignore the problem at its core. I am not sure what can solve the problem. That doesnt mean nothing can be done about it.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

On the other hand, sometimes it's worth just shutting down the discussion rather than letting it blow up into a big argument, when you've gathered for something else. Whether it's work or game night or a family gathering or something.

But it is worth it. Because there is a very real consequence of not doing it. You let everyone drift further and further apart. Family gatherings, and social encounters is where you SHOULD be discussing this stuff. Otherwise you dont get the disperate view points. The more you dont talk about it, the harder it is to eventually talk about it. And literally nothing matters more in the long term. Not having this conversation is part of why eventually someone wont be able to afford gas to come to game night.


I actually find "I don't discuss religion or politics in polite company" often is a polite way of saying "I'm not going to discuss it with you, because I know we won't be able to stay polite."

You know what helps something you arent good at? Practice. You know what doesnt help? Not doing it. It takes work and effort to stay civil while arguing something that matters to you. But if you dont, then when the time does come, you dont have the skills, understanding or point of view to deal with the actual problem. And you get crap like we have in washington where literally nothing is getting done, because any compromise is seen as a vile betrayal of sacrosanct views set by a bunch of people who only talk to those who agree with them.

Krensky wrote:

The meaning of "Don't discuss religion or politics in polite company." is a caution to not discuss inflamitory topics in a purely social situation because it can lead to heated tempers, shouting, harsh language, fisticuffs, and dueling. So make small talk and enjoy the ball and leave politics to the smoking room or cloakroom.

Except again, without those shouting matches, you just get more and more angry at that impossible idiot who cant possibly be that stupid that he doesn't see how right you are. In highschool I had a certain group of friends. We grew up together, we loved eachother. But we were all hot headed egotists. That can breed tension after a while. One day, on a spur of the moment, we grabed some boxing gloves, and we duked it out with whoever in the group was driving us up the wall at the moment. Afterwards, we were all love and comradery again. At least for a while.

That argument is important. Not arguing doesnt work. Ask any relationship councilor. You have to argue. And like it or not, we are all in a kind of relationship with our fellow citizens. That relationship matters. If we never argue, that presure valvue never lets off. And that builds up and gets worse over time. To the point where 'left' and 'right' cant agree long enough to pass a budget to keep the g#+ d&@ned lights on in capital building, let alone actually accomplish something.

Talking like a rational civil human being and finding common ground with someone who disagrees with you has become a sign of weakness, instead of a sane thing human beings do so we can live together in a society.


The same reason you don't walk into a restaurant and slap you junk on the table. thing, regular discourse on complicated and difficult political topics, is a vital activity to a democracy continuing to function. The other is puting your junk on the table. They have no common factors, reasons or motivations.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Spook205 wrote:

A reminder, and this should be kept in mind whenever someone complains about a criminal 'let off on a technicality' those technicalities are the law. Rule of law is one of those spokes on which the wheel of civilization turns.

True, but laws change when they are shown to be obsolete or easily circumvented. Thats why there is (supposedly) a legislature, and not just a judiciary. Laws need to be updated from time to time. For instance in the presense of a new force in the equation (block voting).


I do wonder, how does a slate differ from just telling a bunch of friends and associates who you think should get the award? Which if memory serves, is what the SP contingent, alleges is what the old guard was up to, just not openly.

The differnece is a matter of organization, scale, and psychological effect.

We can go back to political parties as the easy example:

As a liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc, you could, encourage your friends and family to consider the issues of the day, highlighting specific candidates you like, talking about their individual beliefs.

Or you can attatch your strongest beliefs to a brand. A political party. By 'branding' those beliefs you have now simplified the person's choice. At the same time, to counter you, someone else has done the same with a different set of beliefs. And their branding has made the contrast with your brand more extreme then probably any normal member of either group would present themselves individually.

Picking a brand is a lot easier then evaluatiing a bunch of individuals you may or may not know. You just let the 'experts' evaluatate them, and pick the brand closest to what you believe. So where maybe you might have voted for the moderate conservative senator, the liberal but fiscally responsible congressman and the passionate independent for mayor, you are instead encouraged both by others, and by viewing the results of deviating from the brand, to stay on brand exclusively.

Block voting drowns out the disperate voices and forces people to converge around just a few points in the spectrum. Think of trying to vote in the states for an independent. Why is that generally a joke? Because its hard to get around the big 'brands' but also because even if they reach you, you like them, but, in the end, if you dont pick one of the 'big' brands, will your vote matter?

That is the difference between just supporting a handful of authors or stories you like (fandom) and creating an organized and distinct brand (block voting). Block voting is easy, individual evaluation of all the candidates requires a lot more time and energy and is less likely to yeild the result when someone else is presenting a brand.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Political correctness was originally a conservative push and has changed meaning since the 90s. That it has now taken over the left and is strangling it is slowly becoming more evident, from the redacted story Entertainment Weekly published on this to the death threats being sent to the pizzeria in Indiana.
It's much more than political correctness taking over the left, right, or any other faction. It's the decline in the ability to disagree with grace. It's a poisonous trend that has been accelerated by the growth of instant response social media.

It is more then social media, though social media highlights it. The inability to disagree with grace started way before social media. It got its biggest boost in the 80s.

There are 2 phrases that should automatically require a punch in the nose in response.

1. 'I dont discuss religion or politics in polite company'. - this implies that we should only discuss complicated and important ideas among those who agree with us. Thats stupid. It prevents the transfer of ideas, and create a polarizing effect. If no one ever calls you on your bs, your bs becomes worse and worse over time as everyone agrees with you.

2. 'Its just business'. The implication here, societal norms around human descency, morality, or anything else dont apply in the 'business' world. Aside from the obvious negative effects of cut throat business practices, it does something far worse. It glorifies the sociopath. The person who doesn't feel, and just does what it takes to make the most, be the most, or 'win' becomes the most 'successful'. Much like voting blocks, once you let that particular plague out of pandoras box, its not easy to put it back in.

There are now people (on both sides of the isle) in politics and other areas of the public world (media for instnace) that are successful because they categorically dont allow challenges to their position, and they protect that position with a kind of visciousness that has nothing to do with the common good and everything to do with retaining power. And everyone else trying to get involved has to follow suit or get trampled by those 'doing it better'.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Depending on stat generation methods you may also want to consider how MAD a concept makes you. A bloodrager/witch combo, means that charisma, con, strength, and int are important, while you'll need at least some dex to fill out armor. Thats rough with everything but the most generous stats.

A charisma based caster for the caster side (oracle, sorceror etc) would mesh better with the blood rager. Remember the fact that witche's are primarly de-buffers means their save dcs are very important. Where as if you were focused on buffs from your casting side, you dont need as high a stat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
My god. I haven't actually read much stuff on the Hugo list, but 'If you were a dinosaur my love?' is terrible. How the hell did that dretch get an award?

Well I remember it getting a fairly positive reception on escape pod (a free sci fi short fiction pod cast). I didnt particularly like it, but it was well read, you would be surprised how much a good read can improve a story. And given escape pod listeners are probably composed of a higher then average portion of readers/fans that are willing to pay to support what they like (the podcast pays for its weekly stories and survives exclusively on listener donations). I am going to bet getting a good reception there is going to be meaningful in the voting considering the overall numbers.

Mind you escape pod runs (if they can) all hugo nominees right before the convention. I wonder if the fact that it was the last one to run is meaningful...

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well this seems like fun...

str: 3d6 ⇒ (4, 2, 3) = 9
dex: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 2, 4) = 9
con: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 1, 3) = 9
int: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 1) = 10
wis: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 1, 6) = 9
cha: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 4, 6) = 16

And now I remember why I dont like dice based stats.
Dimbles the clumsy, dim witted, feeble, but charming gnome synthesist summoner is born.

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

Which is why the concept of voting "No Award" before any entries on the slates is attractive, even if it seems unfair to deserving authors on the list.

The other, even more radical notion I've seen is to just vote "No Award" entirely - declare this year's Hugos null and void.

The question is whether the Puppies will be able to keep this up in the face of losing, possibly to nothing, in the actual voting.

Responding with progressive slates would break the system.

Except the 'no award' method is treading very close to tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Do you somehow think one hugo session of not getting their way will stop the Puppies? With people who have enough passion about a subject to actually do this sort of thing, thats sort of silly. Did losing the 2008 presidential election disband the republican party? Did losing the 2000 election disband the democratic party?

How many years of no hugo awards are you willing to tolerate to try to fix this? Because everything I know of people like Larry Correia says they would be just fine playing chicken with you.

And in the meantime, while you fight for supremacy with the puppies, real people (authors) are affected personally (I have to assume winning a hugo makes a difference to an author personally), and financially (like I said before, putting Hugo Award winner on the cover of a book is meaningful to sales).

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber


You can run as a full-round action. If you do, you do not also get a 5-foot step. When you run, you can move up to four times your speed in a straight line (or three times your speed if you're in heavy armor). You lose any Dexterity bonus to AC unless you have the Run feat.

If you have a fly speed. That is your speed. The rules never actually differentiate between walking, flying etc. The movement rules use the general terms 'move', and 'speed'


The simplest move action is moving your speed. If you take this kind of move action during your turn, you can't also take a 5-foot step.

Many nonstandard modes of movement are covered under this category, including climbing (up to one-quarter of your speed) and swimming (up to one-quarter of your speed).


Your speed tells you how far you can move in a round and still do something, such as attack or cast a spell. Your speed depends mostly on your size and your armor.


If you use two move actions in a round (sometimes called a “double move” action), you can move up to double your speed. If you spend the entire round running, you can move up to quadruple your speed (or triple if you are in heavy armor).

Notice the rules for running dont say base speed or land speed. They say speed. You can have a swim speed, a fly speed, a burrow speed. Having a speed other then base land speed means that form of movement is as comfortable to you as walking (sometimes more so ALA merfolk).

The heavy implication of land speed is there because the basic assumption is humanoids on the ground. But given there is never a distinction in game terms between the different kinds of a speed, and they use the terms 'move' not walk, the rules completely support the fact that you can run while using a non-standard form of movement. Heck, technically you could for instance, 'run' while swimming, even without a swim speed. It would just be at your normal speed (four times a quarter your speed)

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:

However, what he wrote in the linked article conceals some of the truth. It conceals what is actually worrying about his slate - the fact that it is a slate, the likes of which have either never been made before or never been so publicly announced before. It forces everyone invloved in the rewards to reconsider if this was their original intention and if the results of the voting this year are legitimate.

As was said before in this thread that actual works the sad puppies promoted are not all bad, not they do represent a spectrum of styles and opinions. The problem with sad puppies is not the Correia is a baby eater - its that it pushes the dynamic of the voting process away from "each person should vote for the most deserving winners according to their own impressions of the work" to "each person should decide which group to affiliate themseves with in order to have a chance of having their voice heard". As someone else mentioned before, this begins to sound like the idea of a political party. We don't want the Hugo awards to look like elections or to be about politics, and Sad Puppies are pushing us in that direction.

As for the Sad Puppies themselves - I disagree with them on many things, but that does not make anything that they do evil by default.

This is the actual problem here. Not their perceived or self proclaimed motivations, not their personal beliefs. Anything that is open to public vote is vulnerable to this problme. It doesnt matter what you feel about any of the individuals involved, or if they are full of it on their explanation for what they are doing. All of that is irrelevant. The problem would still be present if any influencial person or group of persons was pushing a slate of authors/novels, for any reason. Good, bad, it doesnt matter.

The problem is that it's possible. Nothing prevents them from encouraging block voting. And short of radically changing how things work, little can be done to prevent it. I am not sure its even possible to unring this particular bell. Organized block voting is exceptionally effective. You could try to grind the whole thing into the ground, or you can form your own blocks to counter those blocks.

Its the same way that despite the fact that the framers of our constitution never imagined the monolithic messes of political parties in the US, short of outright banning the concept of a political party, you arent going to go away from it. Its too effective, and anyone that tries to break away is more or less instantly marginalized.

I am not saying the sad puppies are or are not full of it, I am not saying I agree with them. I am just saying it doesnt matter. What matters is how to address the simple concept of block voting. Focus your energy there instead of trying to prove a point that doesnt actually mean anything, and the people you need to get to listen (those who are voting for the block) aren't going to be receptive to anyway.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hrothdane wrote:

What points? As I indicated when I paraphrase one of Correia's comments, I've been to their website and read their side. Where is the evidence there was any sort of organized liberal cabal, that quality works were systematically excluded from the process because they didn't meet an arbitrary level of social conscience?

Until there is compelling evidence that such corruption existed and actually affected the results in a meaningful way, Sad Puppies has no legs to stand on. Sometimes groups are marginal because they just aren't popular.

They dont really need a leg. They want a certain kind of story to be at the forefront of sci fy and fantasy. For a time, (in their opinion) that kind of story wasnt getting recognized in the way that they wished. They are now promoting authors who write the kind of story they like. Thats how voting for a thing is supposed to work.

There doesn't have to be an organized movement promoting stories they dont like in order to justify them promoting the ones they do. Regardless of how you feel about the individuals involved, or the problems their method of block voting might have caused, the simple fact that they care about who wins the awards is sufficient justification to try to promote stories they like. Just like anyone has the option to post on social media about stories they like.


Once again, where are the critiques of the quality of the writing of the supposedly undeserving works? Where is the evidence that a liberal elite has made attempting to tackle social issues trump writing quality? All I'm seeing from Sad Puppies is a bunch of people complaining about SJWs.

A story doesn't have to be bad for you to want another story to win and award over it. You just have to like a different story more. Its not immorral to say you dont want socially challenging things in your entertainment. Its narrow minded sure, but if you just want worry free comfortable (read not morally or idealogically challenging) fiction to be popular, it makes sense to approach it via awards. The awards are meaningful. Putting 'nebula award winner' or 'hugo award winner' on the cover of a book does in fact increase sales, even for fans that dont actively follow or participate in the process itself.

More sales means ultimately more stories of that variety. Authors of that style will gain popularity, and in all likelyhood publish more. They are trying to get more stories of the kind that they like in the forefront of the genre.

'I want more carefree stories like the ones I read growing up' is not an immorral sentance. They also arent trying to pressure people to not write the kinds of stories they dont like. They are trying to promote the ones they do. Their personal politics or comments from trolls on a given forum is pretty irrelevant to that act trying to 'get out the vote'.

If you dont like it, try to spread the word about the stories you like. Thats how open votes work. If you want careful reasoned examination of all the merits both literary and societal of a host of disperate candidates, democracy is a crumy method. But then again, an Oligarchy only works when you trust and agree with the oligarchs.

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

So basically what has happened here, is the 'sad puppies' have created a literary award american style political party. Its sort of a problem with the democratic process in general. A well organized group pushing a block of ideas that has the potential to pull in disperate supporters is superior to individuals pushing individual ideas.

Its easier to just tell someone 'vote xyz because reasons 1 2 and 3' then to get them to analyze and evaluate the issues that x, y and z represent solutions for. If someone was (had they evaluated everything in question) inclined to vote x,a,z, then theres a good chance they will just jump on the x,y,z bandwagon because human beings are suggestable and largely prefer others to make difficult choices for them.

The sad puppies are pushing the kind of books they want to see win awards. That in and of itself is fine. Its only different in scale and oraganization from well known figures in the genre recommending a given author or book. That is a pretty well established practice going back to the inception of things like the Hugos.

The problem is when one group gets oragnized, it pushes everyone to get organized to compete, and then you have a loss of ideas. Its probably the biggest problem with the american political system. You have 2 big voting blocks that sort of mash together a number of different positions, and in order to succeed you have to cram yourself into one of those two models or have little chance for success.

I am not really sure what the real solution is other then a countering force trying to 'get out the vote' for books other then whats on the sad puppy slate. Ofcourse you still have the problem of block voting being more effective then individual voting. You can say encourage people to read everything on the list and evaluate for themselves, but the truth is, that wont work as well as telling them what to vote for. It just wont. People dont work that way.

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

Well, I have found it really depends on a ton of factors. First and foremost you have to understand what the original cr metric is meant to compare against. A 'standard' party of 15 point buy with moderate to low optimization.

This means they have:
A pc who fights well
A pc who fights ok, and has skills
A pc who fights ok and casts divine spells
A pc who doesnt fight, has descent skills and casts arcane spells.

The expectation of 15 point buy is something near to the 'elite array' of Stats. (15,14, 13, 12, 10, 8).

Every deviation from this base assumption adds a layer of disconect from the CR scale.

If there are more then 4 players (I know the book says 4-5, but it doesnt bear out any kind of rational examination, there is a difference between 4 and 5 players), you need to account for that.

If the players optimize heavily, you need to account for that. If they are crazy uber optimizers, you need to account more.

The present set of options in pathfinder means the 4 basic characters need not be the only combination. A combat druid with companion, summoner, paladin, slayer have all their bases covered, but you probably have 5 effective combatants in that party, instead of 1 main combatand and 2 secondary combatants.

If instead of a balanced stat array, someone has a 7,7,7, 18, 14, 14. That too is something to consider as the basic math is disrupted (particularly at low levels). Also if you have a higher point buy, or a more generous stat generation method, that too is a deviation.

In general I use cr as a guide line taking into account any of the above mentioned deviations. If I want to raise the cr to make a challenge harder, I generally add monsters/enemies rather then boosting enemies. Because action economy matters, and I dont want any one enemy to be too much of a threat to any single party member. Getting one shotted is never fun, and its also not fun wheh the lone big bad guy is one shotted. That can happen if there are 3 roughly equivalent big bad evil guys, along with other threatening but not as powerful leutenant types.

If I could, my signature on these boards would be that single monster encounters are ALWAYS a bad idea. Its alot of work to make it even workable without lots of handwaving, and any encounter that does work with one enemy, would be better with 2-4 100% of the time.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cuuniyevo wrote:
tsuruki wrote:

What if we were limited to, say, level 5 and non mythic?

The level 5 version of the character I posted would have a 75ft. Base Speed and could, while raging with Haste up, run 575ft. in a single round. I believe it's PFS-legal.

Level 5 synthesist still absurdly fast

Half Elf Synthesist Summoner
1 Extra evolution
5 Extra Evolution

8 Evolution points from class, +2 from feats +1 from favored class for a total of 11

2 points for flight of 30ft
9 points more points for +180ft, speed is 210ft.
With haste (2nd level spell for the summoner) 240ft

Run at x5 (with run feet)
Flight Speet 1200ft

Still rather fast at 136.36 miles per hour

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
LMPjr007 wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
The Wolf Shifter: Wayfinder
You wouldn't know who wrote this would you?

Wayfinder #5, listed authors are Brandon “KrVnk” Waldenberg and Darrick “Drack530” Dahl

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

Godlings (all 4): Rogue Genius Games
Dracomancer: Rogue Genius Games
Battle Scion: Kobold Press
The Wolf Shifter: Wayfinder

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If flight counts as 'speed' its hands down a synthesist summoner.

20th level Half elf sythesist summoner, champion tier 10

Favored class bonus +5 evolution points

1 Extra evolution
3 Run
5 Extra evolution
7 Fleet
9 Fleet
11 Extra evolution
13 Fleet
15 Extra Evolution
17 Fleet
19 Fleet

Mythic Feats:
1 Run
3 Fleet
5 Fleet
7 Fleet
9 Fleet
1 Impossible Speed
2 Mythic spellcasting - Mythic haste
3 (I Dont think any other abilities actually increase speed)

So fleet 5 times plus 4 mythic fleets Base speed up to 75 feet
Impossible speed brings it up to 105 feet

Synthesists Evolution Pool is equal to 26 points + 5 from favored class bonuses and 4 from extra evolution for a total of 35 points

Flight (2 points) grants flight at base speed, and +20ft per extra point spent.

Final flight base speed of 765 ft

Mythic haste augmented gives +70ft for 835ft

Mythic Run means you can run at 7 times your speed
5845ft with a full round action

644.2 miles per hour

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
pennywit wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
One of the thing we have done is incorporate roleplaying and character action into events. So for instance, if there is unrest due to an event, rather then just rolling for stability, we roleplay out a scene of dealing with the conflict in character, using skills abilities and whatever else might be appropriate. The result of that encoutner can either make the stability check harder, easier, or eliminate the need for it entirely.
I think I'm going to move to this ...

It really brings the kingdom building turn sequence to life in my opinion. If you use one of the lovely fan made kingdom tracking excel sheets you can handle the nuts and bolts rather quickly (though sometimes we have in character debates on whether the general should get his second garrison in the capital, or the magister a new library, but that is fun in and of itself), making the show piece of each round the event.

If the dm simply PLANS each rounds event. IE rather then rolling PICK, assasination attempt, or bandit activity, or what have you, and then preps a little bit of activity around it, it can be alot of fun.

I also recommend having a few notes down for what might happen if any particular roll is failed (economy, stability, or loyalty). Just a few ideas like, a failed economy roll means an artisans strike because of dropping prices, and what kinds of things the pcs might need to do to molify that, things like that. Just a couple sentances and a few numbers (skill check dcs or npc stat blocks for instnace) of prep can make a world of difference there.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

One of the thing we have done is incorporate roleplaying and character action into events. So for instance, if there is unrest due to an event, rather then just rolling for stability, we roleplay out a scene of dealing with the conflict in character, using skills abilities and whatever else might be appropriate. The result of that encoutner can either make the stability check harder, easier, or eliminate the need for it entirely.

It makes those sorts of things less tedious, and less like playing civilization and more a part of a pathfinder game. We have also on occasion, not rolled events, but instead the gm plans a few months worth of events prior to the session based on whats in the tables. Particularly in the case where we can act on the events in character I am fine with them not actually being random as a player. Its more fun when the dm is actually prepared for a thing, then when he has to improvise (most of the time).

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Glad to help, let us know how it goes.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As for the difficulties of roleplaying in such a world, I dont particualrly see why it would be an issue. You can include as much or as little of it as you want in your campaign. You can go the 300(film) route and only mention it in cheap but unexplained jokes, or you could dive into the depths of the complexity of such relationships or anywhere in between. Its no different then the presense and acting on sexual relationships of various types in any campaign. Do what works for your group. Its not like EVERY person in classical Greece was involved in such a relationship. Players need to participate in it if they wish to be. Its hardly different then a campaign (such as say Golarion) where LBGT characters exist.


To the OP, are you familiar with the Godling classes from the 3rd party publisher Rogue Genius games? They are meant to help portray characters descended from the gods, and are great for that style of game. And between the 4 of them you can actually have a complete party using only those classes. They also happen to be exceptionally flexible, so using them, is only barely limiting options. It would be my personal choice to use them in part or in whole if I was running a Greek Myth style game.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cleanthes wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Joynt Jezebel wrote:

The real challenge will be getting your average group of Pathfinder players to role play ancient Greek sexual mores, where most the accepted forms of sex were between man and wife and mature man and adolescent boy.

Like Socrates and Alcibiades or Achilleus and Patroclus. I don't like your chances.

It should be noted that the boys who participated, or were made to participate in man-boy love affiars were essentially ruined for life as far as their participation in society goes.

The classical greeks did not stone men for homosexual relations, but saw them as one man yielding his power to another. This would change considerably after the Classical period.

[Warning: I teach a university course on this material, so I could get really pedantic. I'm going to try to control myself.]

It's a bit more complicated than this, though you're right that the Greek homoerotic relationship was typically not between equals; there'd be an older male (the "erastes", or lover) who was expected to be sexually attracted to the younger male (the "eromenos", or beloved), who was expected *not* to be sexually attracted to the erastes. Also, the Classical Athenians made several distinctions that shaped how they reacted to various relationships. Age was important; younger boys were not appropriate targets for "legitimate" eros, though exactly what constitutes "too young" is a bit controversial. James Davidson, one of the foremost scholars on the topic, asserts that to be legitimate targets, young men needed to be about what we would consider 18. (The ancients didn't track birthdays like we do; it's complicated :-p)

Also, the way in which the relationship was conducted mattered a lot; was it exclusive? Was it long-term? Was it discrete? It's true that the eromenos (the younger man) could lose his citizenship rights if things went badly, but it appears that for that to happen it had to be established that the young man had acted like a prostitute, for instance by overtly trading his affections to a series of different men for a price. It also would count against him if he appeared to positively want sexual activity with his lovers for the sake of the sex itself. (A useful analog is the ideal Victorian woman who was supposed to lie there and allow unspeakable things to be done to her for the sake of God and England.)

So, if the erastes and the eromenos were discrete about their relationship (which didn't, btw, require them to hide the fact of the relationship), had an exclusive relationship over a long term, and kept up the appropriate appearances concerning who was desiring what, the relationship might not only not do any harm to the standing of either party, it could actually make them objects of public approval.

Like I said, it's complicated.

Indeed, Greeks were and are complicated. Many of the cited examples of the eromenos being 'shunned' or cast out of proper society were an effort to attack, damage or otherwise harm the erastes. In general, erastes were older men of high standing, and nothing temps the typical Greek more then the option to tear someone down off their pedastal. A good way to strike a blow without the kind of open declaration that direct slander or attacks would entail, is to go after their younger lovers.

Social combat if you will has always been a principle art of the Helenic peoples.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I like urban fantasy as a setting, but its important to note that its not a heavily tread path in the gaming world. You will have to do alot of work on your own when fleshing things out.

Seattle is certainly a good location. Make sure your players are all familiar with the area you choose (this is obviously covered if you live in seattle, in which case my point is covered). The reason is one of the best ways to make modern settings easier to dive into is if people already know lots of locations, neighborhoods, prominent peoples etc.

My group and I are from New York, and so far, our best modern or urban fantasy adventures have been set there. The reason is, if I mention an event in a certain area or near a landmark, I dont need to explain the history or the background of the place. It helps players get into the setting faster. Sure there might be actual lizard people in the sewers, or trolls living under the brooklyn bridge or whatever, there is an instant connection on the part of the players. They know many places in our home city. So its easier to weave in the fantastic story elements.

Where as if we were playing in a location we dont know, we have to look up or have explained each location to get a feel for it. And then on top of that you have to add in fantastic elements. It takes more work to get into it. Which is harder since you dont have like a setting book or a wiki you can hand your players to look through.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Xexyz wrote:
I can't remember if coup de grace worked differently in 3.0/3.5, because my players continually insist that you can't coup de grace a helpless opponent who is adjacent to an ally.

I am pretty sure this was never the case, however I do believe it provokes. Thats about it. I think most people just dont like the idea of not being able to intervene in that situation.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Xexyz wrote:

Couple of things:

1. I will say that I find these boards have a fairly strong anti-GM attitude.

2. The most annoying thing about these boards is when people don't bother to listen. I see lots of posts where people are looking for advice within the context of some guidelines or constraints (such as wanting to play a certain race or be a certain class) and people will skip right by that and offer useless suggestions as a result.

1. If by anti gm, you mean gms are not treated as unapproachable infallible gods...then yea I guess you are right. The paizo boards are actually fairly balanced in the overall opinion. The thing is, by now MOST experience gamers have been on both sides of the screen. And a great deal of the entitlement on both sides (as a player and a gm) gets mitigated by the universal experience.

In the end there is an Anti Jerk sentiment. If you are being a jerk, whether a player or gm, you get called out on in these boards. For the most part, gms have the most influence over a game, so they have the most opportunity to be a jerk. Chances are thats why you have your impression. Either that or you think gms are still infallible, unquestionable demigods whose every whim needs to be catered to. Then I've got nothing for you.

2. I can agree here. In the end, everyone plays their own way. And there are so many uncontrolled factors in a given game/group for there to be some kind of universal consensus. It's important to listen to the OP when trying to help them. Because often, our assumptions on what works within a given situation will be altered by the poster's game group.

Simplest example is the whole rogue thing. Without question, the rogues potential ability to do stuff is less then every other class. But that is only an issue if other classes are meeting their potential or close to it. If the optimization of a group is low, then there isn't a need to say 'rogues suck dont play them' because it isn't an issue. It is often worthwhile to point out alternatives within the same theme just so the poster can make an informed choice, but the truth is, there are no universal truths of gaming. Group adopted conventions can change every single factor we hold sacred in our insulated world of forum discussions. We talk, debate, and theorize in what amounts to giant gaming clean room. The actual world of gaming (besides possibly pfs) is contaminated (this isnt meant to be a negative, just an extension of the clean room metaphor) with all sorts of factors that alter what we can talk about here.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
lemeres wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
Casting comes online faster than wildshape for a druid
While this is true - you have no wildshape abilities at all for three levels - a druid with maxed out physical stats can make a competent melee fighter (with an animal companion and some utility spells) during this time.
and what kind of casting can a blaster druid do at the low levels anyway?

Snowball (also staggers), flurry of snow balls, thundercloud, flame sphere, flame strike, etc., etc.

But as always, their spell list seems more about control than direct damage. So there are plenty of debilitating spells they get early on.

I was actually thinking about this a bit. Snowball if allowed definately amps up the druids blasting ability. I would almost certainly take magical lineage with it, and just make snowball your go to spell until significantly later in levels. Ofcourse many people arent a fan of snowball, since its better then other low level blasting spells by a significant margin, but then again, I think thats probably ok since blasting is on the weak side of casting anyway.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It sort of falls back to why so much discussion on the boards is mechanical instead of on flavor/roleplay things. We dont have a universal experience on such things. We can give advice on how to handle the mechanical side of things, because we share that. But much of what makes a 'great' gm is intangible things.

For some that might be funny voices, props and elaborate maps/3d terrain for encounters. Other people might find one or all of those things obnoxious and immersion breaking. Some people want the gm to be an enabler, fascilitating a player guided story, where the truely fun moments come from players creativity as opposed to an in depth pre-planned story, others want a detailed focused story that tells like a grand epic novel, with the players acting as characters in, as opposed to drivers of, the plot.

Alot of it is probably natural charisma and speaking/acting skills, the ability to improvise, and the ability to tell a good story. You cant really teach those things outside of something like formal acting classes.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Captain Marsh wrote:


Maybe so. I'm open to the idea of a community effort.

On the other hand, if the folks at Paizo thought this through they might say, "Huh. We're trying to market a game that requires on a good table experience and word of mouth to build fan base and the primary portal for that is great DMing. We better help make sure we have awesome DMs out there."

They might then say, "Look, the truth is, we don't have the right people on staff right now to lead this effort. We need one person in our organized play department who is a) interested in elevating the art of DMing to a consistent good level, b) is a good teacher with a strong ability to use the message boards and other tools, and c) is a well-known talented DM with a reputation for wowing people at the table."

Seems like that would be a good hire to make.


There is sort of a problem with the entire premise of organized dm training. The same attributes wont be positive in every group. Gaming is very much a case of different strokes for different folks. Depending on your style and preferences, different traits or behaviors will have different impacts on a group. You cant teach 'good dming' because there is no universal thing for good gming.

The only thing you can do is be prepared, pay attention, learn how the game works and establish open communication with your players on what produces a fun time and what doesnt.

In order to teach waht a good dm is, you have to define what a good dm is. And baring, knowing the rules, being prepared and being enthusiastic about what he is running, I doubt you are going to get any kind of universal agreement on what behaviors/traits make for a 'great' dm.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just to give an idea, the firarm rules basically classive each category of fire armo (revolver, automatic pistol, rifle, carbines and shotguns into light, heavy and massive categories. Thus keeping things generic enough to not need to define the difference between a Glock and a Barretta 9mil. The heavy and massive weapons deal more damage, but most also have a +x value. So like the base damage ofa heavy revolver is 1d8+2. This damage is basically an addition to the weapon die, but also is a strength rating, you take a penalty to attack if you dont have strength enough to deal with the weapon's 'kick'.

The also have a new combat maneuver for automatic weapons, called burst: If you beat the cmd of a target you hit, for every 5 you beat it by, you get an additional hit on the target. It doesnt attack touch ac because in a world of balistic armors that isnt necessary and you dont want to throw the math of the game on its head like ultimate combat firearms did.

For armor, they have given specific armors, that have a normal AC rating, and then a rating specifically against firearms. So for instance a balistic vest gives a +3 armor bonus, but gives +6 vs firearms., where as reinforced balistic armor (hard plate armor) the difference is less (+6 for everything else and +8 vs firearms). This is because different armors will be more or less effective against different weapons. Remember that not all modern armor is like the body armor regular patrol cops wear, some of it is more then effective against blades and blunt weapons (look at what swat cops wear for instance).

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Are you familiar with the Anachronistic Adventures by Rogue Genius Games? The are a set of modern slanted classes that fill out much of the traditional archetypes of character (besides magical characters) and the enforcer has some pretty good rules for modern firearms that doesnt invalidate non-firearm combat styles. In addition they have a bullet point with modern armors.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This feels like the domain of an archetype or maybe a chain of feats. If the player has to invest class resources in order to do it, it can be balanced. The 3.5 feat is a good starting point, a feat lets you activate the 2 wands as a full round action. I think there should also probably be limitations on the caster level of the wand. This shouldnt be a way to back into more powerful spells then a caster of your level could normally cast without considerable investment. For instance, a 7th level caster can cast magic missile with 4 missiles. With the metamagic feat empower (certainly duable on a 1st level spell at that level) it can have 6 missiles. So set up your archetype or feat chain with similar limitations. If you do that I think there isnt a reason why this cant be kept balanced. I mean, in the end its still just magic missiles. Sure they hit automatically, but they are just 1d4+1 damage. 6 missiles is an average of 21 damage. At 7th level, an archer can dish out 3 times that pretty easily.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

The obsession with levels is actually a flaw in the game. The problem is level 20 capstones. People want to reach them, but once they reach them they want to make those capstones relevant. So they think, let's add on more levels so we can get more capstones, but we should give a lil' something something to those who want to focus on one build and they add on more capstones. Repeat ad nauseaum.

I am not sure its a flaw. Its just human psychology. People want the next new thing. They look forward to it, they think about it, they plan for it. Then they get it, and its awesome, and then they want the next one. Thats why I like things like adventure paths. I would rather the pace of advancement be tied to a story. Then when that larger story is finished, time to move on to something new.

The kind of advancement that comes from levels is important to me at least because its alot of what we do. Without the new cool thing to play with, eventually a character gets stale, doing similar if not the same things over and over (in terms of mechanics).

In a long running e6 game my group is playing, we certainly have a lot of roleplay. But by simple measure of how long it takes, combat is still a big part of what we do. And most of the time for my natural weapon ranger, that is approach, then start clawing things. It gets old after a while. And because the game is E6, not a whole lot of that is going to change over the long term. Thats alot of time (in real life) doing something that becomes less and less interesting each time I do it.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

as stated if the spell does hit point damage and requires a ranged attack (including ranged touch attacks) then yes, it works.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Assuming we want campaigns to run about the same way, 100 levels would just mean more granularity in abilities. We could easily split up hp, skill points, saves, attack bonus and class abilities into different 'levels' but at that point, you start stretching the value of a 'level'. It would be impractical for levels to continue scaling as they do now, even in the current system, high level play becomes problematic. I am playing in a wrath of the righteous game, we are level 14 tier 6 and I'll be honest, the power isnt even fun anymore. The numbers are so absurdley inflated that its more or less silly. You would go way beyond that if you did the normal scaling of levels up to 100.

So really, the question wouldn't be can you, it would be why? All it could possibly do is stretch out existing content, and we can do that with slow progression of xp. 20 is certainly an arbitrary number, but it works as well as any other.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
lemeres wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
I dont think druids actually make good blasters do they? They have a relatively limited selection of blasting spells, and virtually nothing that adds to it. What options actually help a druid blaster?

Well, domains for one. They could just grab the fire domain and grab all the usual culprits.

But helping blasting spells directly? No, not really as far as I am aware. They can turn into elementals though, which can be a massive defensive boost. A wind elemental with flight, bonus to dex and natural armor, and DR5/- seems like it would be rather nice for a caster, no?

I mean sure, those buffs are great, but they dont really make you a good blaster. And yes with domains you can pick up a few blast spells, but still, all your class abilities tend in a different direction. You are sort of fighting the tide instead of going with it. Blasting in and of itself isnt particularly effective unless you focus on it, and the druid doesnt really give you any options to do that. Yes you can multiclass to get the damage boost, but just doesnt seem worthwhile to me. If you want to be a blaster, play a class that is good at blasting. That isnt really the druid.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I dont think druids actually make good blasters do they? They have a relatively limited selection of blasting spells, and virtually nothing that adds to it. What options actually help a druid blaster?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bsctgod wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Oracles are like one of those flashy sports cars with no back seat and a boot the size of a wellington. You struggle to carry groceries, can't carry more than one passenger, can't carry groceries and a passenger at the same time, and get lousy gas mileage. They're powerful, but a sedan or van or wagon of pickup/ute is able to actually fill the purposes for which people own motor vehicles. An oracle is the class you tack on when you already have all the roles filled.

Roles are overrated.

Roles are overrated in the strictest definition. But at the end of the day, SOMEONE needs to do each of those things, at least at the basic level. If the divine caster isnt the guy capable of removing diseases, curses, negative levels, ability damage etc, then someone else has to do it. Same thing for all the other basic roles. In a large party that matters less, but in a campaign that includes a wide variety of challenges, and is not more then 4 people, being able to do the basic thing that is needed of your 'category', is important.

And if the oracle wants to fill a role, he has to devote a lot of resources to it, really the super oracle that some people consider the standard, isnt going to be the reality for a lot of actual groups where the divine caster needs to be able to be the divine caster.

The oracle sort of has the opposite problem of the summoner. The summoner is too easy to optimize. The oracle, while powerful when optimized, has a very low optimization floor compared to most other classes.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Physically Unfeasible wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Without them, its not pathfinder, its 3.75.
Triphoppenskip wrote:
As someone stated above that's what made Pathfinder really start to feel like it's own system rather than D&D 3.75.
I find these two comments rather odd, as the overwhelming selling point of Pathfinder is that it's a continuation of 3.5.

I'd argue is was a selling point. Definitely is no longer. Sure, compatibility is still there but the game is just its own recognizable beast. It has a large swathe of features all its own.

As has been pointed out, the APG came with a set of new classes. Classes that while not turfing over all the mechanics of 3.5, introduced new ways to play in the system.

For me it being a continuation of 3.5 was important in lots of ways. First and foremost, it was the same style of game. I like that style game. Early on, it was important to be able to use my 3.5 stuff to augment what I had for pf. That is ofcourse less of an issue now, mostly because I like the space that paizo forged with pathfinder even more then I did in 3.5.

And thats sort of the point, starting with the APG, paizo began to forge their own path. It was still the same style game as I wanted, but it was something new also. They showed they werent just going to go through the motions of retreading the 3.x ground we had effectively seen twice before. They did things their own way, and I liked that. For me, the flagship of 'their own way' were the 6 base classes introduced in the APG.

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

Well basically what paizo said, was its not viable to do compliations of all their adventures, or do it with any kind of regularity. But theres a reasonable chance we could get another hardcover for certain special events in an irregular fashion. People cant be 'expecting' all their favorite adventures will eventually come out in hardcover or they wont buy them as they come out. But its fairly likely we will eventually see another hardcover.

Crimson throne is probably the most likely, but I personally would love kingmaker. I would buy that in a heartbeat without skipping a beat on my ap subscription. Particularly if it included some updates and fleshing out. I think kingmaker, despite its use of subsystems and non-traditional format has become the second most popular ap (after RotRL ofcourse). Would be a fitting 10 year anniverary hardcover I think.

I also wouldnt mind another kingdom building ap but thats another conversation entirely

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Buri Reborn wrote:

I can understand the thought behind Core. I'm just curious why they didn't open it up to let groups create their own leagues rather than forcing a literal "all or one" bisection.

The whole point of pfs is that anyone can sit down and play with the same rules anywhere. If like individual venture officers could create their own set of 'acceptable material' that falls apart pretty fast. You couldnt bring your pfs character from one group to another.


In response to the OP, base classes released since the apg. Particularly the Alchemist, Inquisitor, Oracle, Summoner, Samurai, Witch. For me the APG is what made pathfinder actually its own game, and the 6 base classes were (in my opinion) it's flagship. Without them, its not pathfinder, its 3.75.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Buri Reborn wrote:

If it in fact was a b#@!@ fest, then calling it such is perfectly fine. They were bickering at each other. It wasn't just him or his player. They were both at fault. There was nothing wrong with that phrasing.

This isn't some public flogging arena where you can freely "correct" someone either.

I am not trying to flog anyone. My point is that if one wishes to prevent problems in any social interaction you have to actually own your mistakes. Calling it a b**** fest regardless of what actually occured is deflecting blame. Mind you, its completely fine if you want to blame the other person. But that isnt taking responsibility for your own mistake. You cant be defensive AND take responsibility at the same time.

If you want to resolve the conflict, and you genuinely feel you were in error, then step one is to stop criticizing the other party's reaction to your error. Thats basically conflict resolution 101. You cant say "you know im really sorry about what I did, but also, you are totally out of line being upset about that thing i did. I mean i was wrong, but you shouldn't be upset." That doesn't work.

The player was clearly upset by the OP's actions. And I think probably not unduely so. Exactly what constitutes a b**** fest is sort of impossible to sort out short of getting a trascript of the conversation and somehow coming to a consensus of what kind of reaction is appropriate in a rules dispute(effectively impossible). If the OP wants to either A, get the rules right/make an informed pre-game houserule on witch hexes in his game, or B get the player back into the game/smooth over any issues, then the simple act of calling the reaction of the player something obviously inteded to paint the player in a bad light is a step in the wrong direction.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yea i dont find this overly cheesey if the players actually set up for it. Have them get a custom saddle for hodor style riding, and I dont see why it should be any different then any other kind of mount. If the ratfolk was on a pony he could do the same thing. He wouldnt even need to reduce himself. Maybe slightly increase the difficulty of ride checks due to the humanoid form...thats about it I think.

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

that is correct, i did not say "Sure it works, we'll look it up later"

I discussed with him in skype, which then moved into our game chat, which upset me, because i prefer players keep arguments out of open mic. Afterwhich, i said your right for now, i will look it up later. so please stop b@%%$ing. (because by then, it was a b&$*@ fest, ruining everyone's fun, not just his and mine)

I take complete responsibility for not handling it better, as well as not knowing the rules of his class better before allowing a high level witch into my campaign.

I am not completely sure you are taking responsibility for it. People who take responsibility for something they handle badly generaly accept that the other party had reason to be upset. Calling it a b**** fest isnt acknowledging that.

And this is sort of the point, you did something that was objectively wrong (namely houseruled a non-ambiguous ability on the fly based on a gut reaction to something you didnt completely understand). You can take responsibility for that, and own your mistake or not. But you cant say my bad, and then be annoyed that your bad caused a negative reaction.

1 to 50 of 8,541 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.