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. 8,785 posts (8,813 including aliases). 17 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 8,785 << 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

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ajaxis wrote:
I don't think purging dead people should have a insidious impact on elections. I certainly can't disagree with stopping caging, "fraudulent" roll purge, needing an appropriate amount of polling booths, in appropriate locations, with enough ballots, ect.

The problem is how many mistakes are made. Both with malicious intent and just with mistakes. The issue is how close to the actual voting that people propose these things. You should never have calls to do ANYTHING regarding voting in an election year. And for instance, it should be super easy to check and make sure you are properly registered to vote. But none of these people proposing 'fixing fraud' have any interest in for instance, spending tax money to set up a website to confirm you are registered to vote, where you polling station will be and what you need to bring with you. Even though that should be a universal thing for all citizens by any reasonable measure.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
I have no idea, this hasn't happened before that I'm aware of. I'm just asking the question. While I think she's horrible, there's no bias in the question, just asking about a potential candidate getting screwed by the other side completely changing things up with only a few months left, and if there's and guidelines or rules about it.

The method by which parties pick their nominee is actually exceptionally free of regulation. They are after all private clubs. It wasn't long ago that that the conventions were actually where party big wigs got together and just decided. All the primary process is just something the parties accepted by way of public pressure. As far as I know there are no laws that demand they stick to them. I would assume that technically the only requirement is that the nominee sign up to run whenever the deadline is for everyone.

I highly doubt Hilary or any candidate would have legal recourse. They would have plenty of fodder in the public eye though. I am pretty sure The republicans backing out NOW would be glorious for the Hilary campaign, even if they somehow found the perfect conservative candidate (hint: at this point I don't think there such a person) she could easily tought the fact that they spent weeks and weeks talking up friggan Donald trump as their candidate and then are not turning tail. That would be a public disgrace for the GOP the likes of which I cant even fathom.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thunderspirit wrote:

I don't see any evidence that voter fraud (in the pretending-to-be-someone-else sense, at least) is a widespread problem, and as a result I consider most voter ID laws to be a solution in search of a problem.

However, if you're going to implement them, such an ID needs to be:

1) free, to avoid running afoul of the 24th Amendment;
2) not disproportionately applied to geographic areas, in violation of the 15th Amendment; and
3) easily obtainable, to preserve an equitable standard for all.

Since these three things would each cost money, it's not surprising there's little-to-no inclination to do them, even among those who aren't motivated to use such laws as a means to disenfranchise particular segments of the population.

It literally isn't a problem. Texas had 3 cases of the kind of fraud voter id laws would prevent over the course of YEARS. 3. That is among MILLIONS of ballots cast. 3 out of millions is statistically zero.

There isn't actually a problem. Like none. Anyone who claims to be worried about the integrity of the ballot (for this specific reason) is either unaware how numbers work, or is trying to disenfranchise people they think wont vote the way they want. Those are the only possibilities.

That said, I dont oppose efforts to actually help people get identification. But you then have to actually put the burden on the state not the individual. For instance, New York City has a program for every citizen to be able to sign up and get a government photo id. That was free AND you could make an appointment over a wide range of hours 7 days a week. It did however cost a lot of money to do. And we have a perfectly functioning dmv, but it isn't properly set up to help people not already in the system (Adults who dont already have an id of some kind) get sorted out.

That's the reality. If you want to do it properly you actually have to set up more government infrastructure. Don't want more government? That's fine, but then back the heck off the laws that require said institutions to prevent becoming a modern Poll Tax.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Back from vacation. I have to say, the day in DC was a little disappointing based off of everything I had heard. Only 2 new pokemon, Doduo and Tangela. The Exeggcute and Pinsir were nice additions, but I have seen those closer to home. Not sure what I was expecting, but mildly disappointed.
Where in DC were you? Location definitely matters even in larger cities.
I was at the Natural History Museum and Air and Space Museum, then walked down to Washington Monument. It was way too hot to do too much outside though.

Interesting. I have noticed that I need to be outside for most of my good finds. I dont know if that is deliberate or coincidence. Don't know much about the good spots in DC though. I do know for instance you could easily travel through part of NYC and not catch much of anything. But I would have thought the museums should have been good locations. Searching the reddit it seems the best hunting is in the Georgetown area. Odd.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:

Wow! o.O

For obvious reasons I'm accustomed to where I live. Getting an ID is very easy, to the point that very, very few persons should have any problem getting one in short order. The only stumbling block here is self-inflicted.

For a middle class person living in an area well served, sure. For me its a minor hastle. I have a job I can take time off of, or I can travel to one of the dmv offices that hold late hours that are slightly out of the way.

For others, the story is very different. If you look up John Olivers video, theres one county that the office wasn't even open once a month.

That and for people who cant take time off you might be asking them to choose for their family to miss a meal so they can go get the ID. Because they literally cant afford to miss work to go to the office that only operates during working hours, and as mentioned often not even many of those. Those are the people that are affected by this. And the politicians pushing the ID laws KNOW THIS. They want those people to struggle to vote. That's the gross truth of this.

Edit: All this to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist. There is literally no justification for it.

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

I the small town I used to live in the county DMV office was only open every other Tuesday.

Good luck getting an I.D. with those hours.

And there are many towns where its actually significantly worse. But even in this example. I bet it was open like 10-3 or something on that Tuesday. If you work an hourly wage without the ability to take time off, it can be effectively impossible to get there.

Voter ID laws are basically a new attempt at a poll tax. A way to put barriers to voting in front of certain people. Its a bigger injustice to democracy and civil rights then the 3 cases of voter fraud of this type (yes 3, not 3000, not 300, 3) Texas has had in the last few years.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:

I'm not sure of the logic that requiring identification when voting is a big deal.

33 states already have some form of voter identification requirement, varying as to whether or not a given state's restrictions are considered 'strict' or not. All of these states have to have some form of provisional voting in order to receive any federal funding pursuant to the 2002 HAVA. There is absentee balloting and mail-in balloting. There are a plethora of non-drivers license identifications. Every state issues (or has their counties issue, such as Hawaii's practice of leaving motor vehicle practices to the counties) such identification as far as I am aware.

A 2011 article from Politifact Ohio examines the argument with interesting conclusions.

As far as I can tell, the only persons that are outright denied the right to vote are non-citizens, citizens under the age of 18 and convicted felons that have not had their voting privileges restored by the state. i.e., persons who should not be voting to begin with.

Here is a summary of voter ID laws currently in effect across the country.

It seems that the remaining prohibitor is a lack of effort by the voter or deliberate intent to operate 'outside the system'.

The push for voter id laws is a blantant attempt to disenfranchise certain voters. It is a solution for a problem that doesn't actually exist. The only thing it prevents is people showing up to polling stations to pretend to be someone else. In which you have to actually to the place and stand in line often for hours in order to vote. Its an impractical way to influence an election because it would take a huge number of people with a coordinated effort to actually accomplish anything. And consequently the amount of cases for this actual thing is statistically zero.

What isn't statistically zero is the PHOTO ID laws disproportionately affect the poor and minorities. Many of whom live in places where its actually very difficult to get a government id, particularly since often counties that issue the ids operate during times when normal people are working if they have descent hours at all and they cost money to obtain. If you dont know where your next rent payment is coming from paying money for an ID isn't an option.

This isn't a lack of effort by the voter, there are counties where you can go once a month to get an id, during working hours only. For someone who for instance works on a clocked wage job, that's often not an option. The republicans that have pushed this know this, and they have even let it slip a few times that voter id laws have brought down democratic numbers in certain areas. Which is the actual object. (You can look up john olivers voter id video for actual video of them saying that very thing when asked about voter id laws).

So, its a 'solution' to a non-problem, that doesn't actually effect elections, that disenfranchises specific groups of people for political motivations. And while in your life, getting a government id might not seem like a big deal understand that millions of americans in this country dont share your experience. For many, this is too much of a burdeon, and one they cannot actually achieve with a reasonable amount of effort. That's fine for things that are not civil rights. But its not fine when it stands in the way of someones right to vote.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
Back from vacation. I have to say, the day in DC was a little disappointing based off of everything I had heard. Only 2 new pokemon, Doduo and Tangela. The Exeggcute and Pinsir were nice additions, but I have seen those closer to home. Not sure what I was expecting, but mildly disappointed.

Where in DC were you? Location definitely matters even in larger cities.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:

Sat in a restaurant today for about 2 hours. There were 2 stops in the place, so 2 flares were kept lit by various patrons.

Went from 1 magikarp to 8. Picked up a Slobro that is tougher than everything else I've got. Some other critters. Going to have to prune down the scrubs fairly soon as I've exceeded 60% of my pocket monster storage capacity.

I generally make sure to keep managed inventory constantly. THough the patch made it slightly less annoying, if you leave pruning out the less useful pokemon for too long it gets very tedious.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
I'm with you, I don't like a lot of things about the trade agreements so far. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make trade agreements though, we just need to make better ones. As the global economy becomes more efficient, people will have higher wages and access to cheaper goods.

It isn't just that we should make trade agreements. It is that we must. Rolling back the clock on globalization isn't an option unless you want a very literal apocalypse. If you made real pains to eliminate trade agreements with the rest of the world you would find within a few hours all of your money ceases to have a value, and shortly there after neither does anyone elses on the planet.

Basically since the 50s it has been global policy to unite the world economically. And it works. Some sentors fillabuster the budget in washington and stocks in Beijing feel it. There are decades of dependency now built into the system. That divorce would literally be apocalyptic.

The perfect case study is the British Vote to leave the EU. That is only just under 2 decades of interdependence, a non-legally binding vote, and one that most people knows will ultimately accomplish very little of meaning (the UK is almost certainly going to end up just in the European Economic zone which basically means it still has to follow all EU regs, but gives up its actual vote for them). And yet tens of thousands of jobs have already moved or disappeared, the value of the currency dropped like a brick in hours. And that, was the UK trying to reduce but not sever ties from the Europe.

If the US tried to divest itself of this massive interconnected mess it has lead the charge in creating, the amount of market chaos would absolutely lead to collapse. This wouldn't be a dipression or recession, it would be fall of Rome territory.

And maybe such a situation seems appealing to some, blow up the system and start over. Just remember that there is a cost here. Not just in wealth, but in lives. Crisis and the potential unity that can stem from it never comes free, it costs lives.

Keep in mind that I don't think trade agreements should be as they are now, where basically the only one actually engaging in free trade is the US. The EU applies regulations to any incoming or outgoing trade, China both aggressively manages its currency and has similar regs on incoming trade. Only the US plays 'fair' in free trade. That really ought to stop. But we cant simply stop trade. As mentioned it is how we have enjoyed the relative peace we have had in the last few decades, and yes, we have had relative peace in the world. It might seem to be ready to blow up at any moment (thank you 24 hour news cycle) but it objectively a less warlike, safer place then it was even a generation ago. That came from globalization.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have seen reports that the patch over the weekend screwed up the catch rates and also made certain areas of pokestops either not load or not work. I haven't experienced it myself though. Catch rates have been pretty normal for me, heck the zubats around my office have seemed slightly less irritating.

Given all the reports on the reddit I have to assume they made some changes that have screwed things up in some cases. Its not clear why only a portion of the player base is experiencing the problem but outrage over it has actually forced the first public statement from Niantic since launch weekend indicating they were working on the problems.

Given the weird range of problems I think it might have been a server side caching issue. As an example, someone reported they couldn't see the poke stops in south east central park, but when they logged into the the wifi at the apple store (and likely went into a different server with a new connection) they were there and proceeded to work just fine.

During similar circumstances people have reported catching pokemon x but finding pokemon y in their collection instead. I expect the problem was you were looking at a 40cp weedle and the server had in the cache some much more difficult to catch pokemons breakout value.

This is pure speculation and it certainly doesn't excuse the bug, but its what I think was happening based on reports.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
J-Bone wrote:

I find a lot of the ACG and OC classes to be a bit too complicated and cumbersome. The Kineticist in particular is a massive headache. So many of these new classes feature resource management and manipulation that the original ones didn't adding to the complexity. I wouldn't say they are intrinsically more powerful than Core classes with archetypes but they do present a wider range of option that when combined with multiclassing and archetypes can be gamed to high power levels.

What they provide is a way for more concepts to reach those high level. If you take the core book and the Advanced Class guide (for me this is the core set of pathfinder options), none of the new classes are more powerful then the high end of the bell curve for those 2 books. But now, more types of characters can reach that peak instead of just god wizards, druids with pouncing companions and summoners.

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

Back on page one,

bugleyman wrote:

I don't like the new classes because:

(1) They're conceptually redundant.
(2) They pointlessly compound Pathfinder's already excessive mechanical complexity.

All hail bugleyman and his One* True Answer. :D

*Albeit a compound answer, it is one with itself and therefore true in it's unity.

Neither is really factual though, only an opinion.

1. They are not anymore conceptually redundant then a bard is or a sorcerer. All of them offer new mechanical ways to express a slight variation on the original 4 or some combination there in. They have slightly different themes but mostly they are meant to give a different way to express those themes.

For many, the entire value of pathfinder is that the rules are not dissociative. Namely that they 'feel' like what they are meant to represent. A monk feels distinct form playing a fighter or ranger. That is important for many. And the new classes give a (completely optional) way to express differences in concept mechanically.

2. Actually compared to most other ways to add options, they REDUCE complexity. Feats, archetypes, prestige classes etc, things that add to the existing classes. Choose a wizard archetype and you still have all the complexity of a wizard, plus the archetype. Everything that is added to it, adds complexity to the whole. Feats have to interact with everything that has ever been written. Archetypes have to interact with everything that has ever been written for that class.

Classes though, particularly since pathfinder has deincentivised multiclassing are self contained. If you want to add options to express a new concept to the game the BEST way to do it in terms of reduced complexity is to do so with a new class. Because that class doesn't have to interact with everything ever written. Its a new, self contained thing.

Heres an example. We have the core rulebook. We want to give players a better way to create a 'swashbuckler'.

1. You could, create a chain of swashbuckler feats. Those feats would have to interact with literally everything in the core rulebook, since feats are something everyone can take.

2. You could create an archetype for the rogue or the fighter, which would interact with everything the rogue or fighter class has access to (which is more complex then just the fighter or just the rogue.

3. You can create a swashbuckler class. It is around equal in complexity to any single class. And is by straight up mathematics less complex then option 1 and 2.

You can say you don't like new classes. You can say you prefer other ways to give options for whatever reason. But it is objectively false that a new class is more complex then any other way to add rules to a system.

They are also far easier for new players to manage. If a new player wants to create a swashbuckler its way easier to hand them 5 pages of class to read over, then to have them look at a core class, an archetype from anther book, 3 feats from 2 other books, etc. This is another way new classes are less complex then others. They reduce the amount of books, and the amount of pages you need to look through to make a given character.

And aside from organized play (which is its own entity) they are easier for dms to manage. Why? Because once someone chooses that new class, it REDUCES the amount of rules you need to keep track of. You only need to keep track of what your party is going to actually use. If you constantly expand on the core classes, the mount of options a character can take as they level continues to expand. If you expand with new classes, once your player chooses the class, it reduces the amount of rules they can then choose. Keeping track of a single classed swashbuckler is not any more difficult then keeping track of any core class. But if your player instead needed to take the core rogue, an archtype from one book, a pair of feats from another, and a replacement feature from a third, added to all the things a rogue can take, that is actually more difficult to keep track of as a dm.

Are new classes less familiar then the classics? Sure, but so are ALL new rules. But it is objectively false to say they add complexity to any individual party or character. And in fact compared to any other way to make new concepts options, they are LESS complex.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If you think about it. A significant portion of the powerful wizard trope isn't taking power over a kingdom or other political entity. Often they actively don't want to rule, almost precisely because their personal power can already achieve most or all of what they actually want.

Usually if a powerful magical character seizes power they are either the villain of the piece or they are doing so in order to act against the villain of the piece. But a significant number of big time wizards literally just want to be left alone in their towers, or laboratories or personal demi planes.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Triune wrote:

Because many people have an innate psychological dislike of change.

I mean, I wish the answer were more complex, but really, that's what it boils down to.

That is hardly the universal case. And keep in mind I am a huge proponent of new classes as the primary way to add options. But there are many who just have a very specific line for what constitutes a new class. If you go back through the thread, several people for instance like archetypes, and don't like additional classes.

My own opinions, are already in the thread, so I wont repeat them. But it is factually untrue to apply a blanket label to people who don't like new classes that they simply don't want new options.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A reliable tier system would be very difficult to hash out simply because there are way too many variables between experiences. Simple conventions at individual tables change the way any class can interact, and opinions vary wildly on what constitutes power, or potential in game.

I don't think the attempt at categorizing the classes as such is a bad thing though. I think its important to look over what the potential of different classes are to help shake out aspects of both designing and playing the game.

For example its really discussions over something akin to the tier system that have lead to my understanding of narrative power and how it impacts the game, which is the foundation of my current understanding of pathfinder and how different aspects of the game lead to the 'feelings' of power or weakness most people have.

Ultimately Tiers will be opinions not objective facts. But its not like opinions are irrelevant in a game meant as entertainment.

For me the Tiers break out as follows:

1. Classes that have a wide variety of supernatural abilities at their disposal that can not just interact with encounters and at higher levels the campaign, but actually change the circumstances. This isn't exclusively the perspective of spells nor do I think only 9 level casters should be in this list. Best Examples (in my opinion) are the Druid and the Summoner along with classic prepared casters of the Wizard and Cleric.

2. Classes that Have access to a limited variety of supernatural abilities that can with preparation be used to a wide variety of aims. Best examples for me there are the Sorceror, Oracle, and any other 9 level casters that don't fit into Tier 1. Probably the Hunter two as its abilities along with its capable pet which messes with action economy.

3. Classes that are extremely flexible in the situations they can interact with but with limited ability to change the circumstances. Most of the 6 level 3/4 bab classes fit here as well.

4. Classes with that are good at handling a limited variety of situations and contributing to them. This is the good combat classes (paladin, barbarian, ranger) as well as the ninja and unchained rogue/monk.

5. Everything else.

Obviously this is exclusively a measure of potential of the class. System mastery, convventions within a group and a whole lot of other things can modify this. But based in my years of play in pathfinder this is where I am at at the moment.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cuup wrote:
santherus wrote:

Damage at L8 sounds a bit low (depending upon CON), assuming that you have your size bonus to con fro burn, overflow and empower; I'm doing 3D6 +13 at L6 (point blank, 20 con with bonus) for an average of 25 + 12 empowered = 37 for my kinetic blast.

You should have a bit more damage that me, or a little less if your con is lower.

Doesn't seem excessive really: An archer should be putting out comparable or better damage at greater range, for instance.

Your party issue might be that the class has a high floor, low ceiling for optimisation: you don't get to push 'up' a lot as you're already in the right sort of place...

(and Three feats is not exactly 'hardly any' investment!)

Totally forgot about Point-Blank Shot in my damage calculations, thanks for pointing that out. 30-35 was a quick recap in my head of the damage range I was rolling last night. On paper, I'm rolling 4d6+15 (+5 Con, +1 PBS, +4 Elemental Overload, +1 Con bonus) plus Empowered for an average of 43.5 (guess I was rolling pretty lousily!)

Its important to understand that as a damage dealer, the kineticist has a relatively high floor and low ceiling. What I mean to say is the 'minimum' damage you are going to do as a kineticist is higher then most classes even with very little optimization. You don't have to invest much to get 'pretty good' damage. At the same time, there is very little that isn't extremely apparent to do MORE damage as a kineticist. You don't actually have to invest a lot of character choices to reach the 'most' damage it can do either. Its all fairly straight forward.

What that means is if a group doesn't normally optimize much (which seems to be the case of 30-35 damage is surprisingly high at 8th level for you), then a high floor class like the kineticist is likely to seem rather strong. Meanwhile combat classes actually optimized for combat at that level will pretty easily blow those numbers out of the water.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:

I'm currently 15th level. I've wandered the same areas downtown on my lunch break time after time. Today, I encountered my very first Growlithe.


I guess there are some Pokémon that I'll just have to give up on ever being able to actually use, since they appear so infrequently that I couldn't possibly power them up even once per level.

I'm also totally jealous of my wife's CP 1100+ Gyarados. :(

Dont give up just yet. I didnt get a growlithe until recently. As you level up, spawns change. You will slowly see more growlithes and similar rarer pokemon as you level.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Dang, the coolest recurring spawn I've found anywhere is Magmar in Como Park. I'm about to hit 15th level and I still haven't even evolved a Venonat or Metapod. :/

My best is the huge number of abras spawning in city hall park. Have an alakazam and am nearly half way to a second.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
RainyDayNinja wrote:
I went for a run yesterday, and I wanted to put some miles on my eggs, but the app kept freezing up on me, and I don't think it registered half of what I ran. Has anyone had this issue while running? Or could it have just been spotty servers at the time?

Could have been a couple things.

1. Server issues.
2. Don't use the 'battery saver' move. Its buggy as hell and has a habbit of freezing the game.
3. Your best bet is to actually hold it with the app open while running. Or use some kind of mount/strap that will allow an app open without accidentally pressing things.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:

I'm 4 levels behind Missus Turin. Not too worried about trying to keep up with her save that it amuses me to keep her going strong. She's already blown through her initial allotment of poke-coins while I'm sitting on 2950 coins.

If a modest monthly expenditure helps keep her walking on an almost-daily basis, I'm solidly for it.

I'd be in trouble if there was a near-identical zombie survival based version of the same game... ;)

Well there is zombie run....

1 to 50 of 8,785 << 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.