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

Lemmy's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 6,993 posts (8,994 including aliases). 4 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 9 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,431 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Look at me! I'm cynical and angsty! I don't care about anything! And I'll prove it by replying again and again and mentioning my cynism over and over! I'm so deep..."

Heh...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bards are probably the most well-balanced class in the whole game!

It's nowhere near as powerful as full-caster that know what he's doing... Nor is it nearly as limited as most martial classes are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
This is why I think you are overreacting to the Law. It is just a push back against all the protections being given to everything BUT religion. A LOT of people just want assurances religion isn't going to become the big legal target for anyone with an issue and this helps protect them. Religion is at least as deserving of protection as skin color is. All you out there waving flags saying a new wave of runaway discrimination is sweeping the land are ignoring many many facts to reach that conclusion. Look at the lists of states and communities where this is already law, is there any more discrimination than before? Nope. So since this REALLY isn't about stopping a new surge of discrimination what is this about? Maybe this is really about wanting religion torn down.

The fact that bigotry already exists and is sadly protected by law in some places is no justification for protecting it even more.

I still see no answer to my question. Only attempts to deflect it. Why is homophobia okay when so many other acts described in the bible are not?

If you really think Christians, of all people, are persecuted in the US and that criticism against obviously biggoted laws is an attempt to have "religion torn down", then, holy s$@&, you need a serious reality check!

And it'd be nice if your argument werr consistent with itself... Even assuming that Chriatians are an oppressed minority... How exactly does that justify discrimination against LGBT folk? That's like a gay man saying it's okay to be racist just because homophobia exists.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
And once again I ask... Why should this particular rule be allowed to go against the law? There are many examples of acts condoned by the bible that would not only be ilegal, but also considered hedious by any sane person in thos age...

Are you picking and choosing your Laws? This IS now the law in many areas. I suppose if one law is in conflict with another law it is up to the high courts to decide the issue. Although I can't imagine any judge taking racism seriously.

And yes there are many questionable rules from the now out of date part of the Bible that refers to ancient Jewish law. I don't seriously expect anyone to live by ancient Jewish customs... not even the Jews.

Please, don't be willfully obtuse... You know what I meant. Try actually answering my question instead.

In any case, let me rephrase it...

There are many hideous acts condoned by the bible that are deservedly considered criminal and/or abhorrent by modern society. Why should this one (bigotry) be protected by law in the name of "religious freedom" instead of condemned, as we do with all others? What is so special about hating LGBT people that justifies discriminating against them being legally allowed?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Aranna wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
littlehewy wrote:


It's been brought up numerous times, but why is it not okay to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but okay to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

There's a problem with your question.

To a libertarian there is a difference between "Something is ok to do" and "something should be LEGAL to do". It is entirely possible that discrimination is seriously not ok, but that its still not as not ok as government intruding into how people conduct their business.

Let me then restate:

Why should it be illegal to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but legal to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

The religious reasoning is obvious. Nowhere in the Bible does it say being black (or any other race) is being sinful against God. It does actually say that about Gays. I am not saying I agree with refusing gays service. But one of the core principles of the nation is freedom to practice your religion. All this law does is keep that ideal safe. It is a good law. Let public outrage work against the tiny few who would take advantage of the law to actually discriminate. I trust that good will win in the end.
You realize there are other religions than Christianity, right?

More importantly... Religion is not (or at least, it shouldn't be) a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card to justify going against the law. There are all sorts of rules in the bible that are illegal. You can't, for example, stone people because they were unfaithful to their husband/wife. You can't sell people into slavery. Not even those from other "tribes". You can't kill people because they worked on Sundays either...

So why is bigotry allowed to break the law?

And what comes next? Do we write a law allowing people to deny service to customers who wear clothes of mixed fabrics? What about customers who eat shrimp?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can we simply accept that Charm Person is really f!%%ing poorly written? There is no need for these mental gymnastics to pretend it's well designed. We know most GMs wouldn't allow the spell to be abused, no matter whar RAW says.

Personally, I simply rule that all the spell does is cause the target to see thd caster as a very close friend. There is no Cha check or anything. The target simply does whatever it'd be willing to do for a close friend.

Problem solved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, pretty much everything bad has higher chance to happen to low-income people, since a higher income gives you more means to avoid the bad stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

BTW, every piece of media influences people... But unless someone consumes it in excessive amounts (because anything in excess is harmful), blaming one or another type of media for an increase of negative behavior is foolish at best and dishonest at worse.

All my life I've seen people accuse one thing or another of causing violent or degenerare behavior... RPGs, Rock n' Roll, porn, movies, video games, comics, Harry Potter... None of those ever had anything solid to back up their claims... Millions of people enjoyed all of those and they didn't become any more violent or degenerate than people who didn't.

So, yeah... I simply don't buy the "porn leads to [random negative behavior]" argument. If anything leads to that it most certainly is ignorance, misinformation and poor socio-economical conditions.

anedocal tale:
I know it's just anedoctal evidence... But my teenager life was spent in Brazil. On my first job, I had more than a few coworkers who came from really poor backgrounds and dropped school really early, but even the teenagers among them usually joked about porn saying stuff like "Hah! Too bad those girls 'don't exist' IRL... Well at least that means I don't need a 3ft dick! LOL!". There was always a very clear understanding that what they saw onscreen is nothing like the real thing, nor is it supposed to be. I don't think any of them would say that hurt their self-esteem or confidence. They just enjoyed the fantasy-fulfilling media and then went on to live their life, completely conscious and indiferent to the fact that it doesn't match fiction... Even though they were the perfect example of people who are supposedly influenced by whatever media is being blamed for whatever behavior


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see anything wrong with rape fantasies. Humans fantasize about all sorts of thing that we would hate to experience IRL. Just see how many people are excited about the idea of a zombie apocalypse. I doubt any significant number of them would actually enjoy losing their families and friends to undead cannibals... Hell! We're on a forum dedicated to a game of fantasizing about getting into all sorts of violent situations... which oftrn end with the mauling and death of player characters!

That's thr thing about fantasy... It's safe. We can imagine whatever we want and make it pleasing because it has no consequences. I had a girlfriend who enjoyed roleplaying rape... It was... odd, but harmless. We had a safe word, just in case it became too real, but it was never used. She actually complained I was too nice... I guess that's a good thing. :P

Anyway, my point is that fantasy exista specifically so that we can safely experience stuff we can't live through in our lives.There is nothing wrong woth fantasizing about whatever. People only need to be aware that real life doesn't match fantasy (and most people are) and there is nothing wrong with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Saying porn causes body image issues and sets unrealistic expectations about sex is like saying The Matrix sets unrealistic expectations for learning kung fu and makes young martial artists feel bad about themselves because they don't look like Hollywood stars and can't dodge bullets!

Just touching on this point.

I'm not disagreeing with your larger point, but mainstream pornography is part of a much larger set of societal influences that cause body image issues. It's not the main culprit - I'd not even say top five - but it's still a part of how society can influence body image.

I'm speaking only about U.S. culture, by the way; I know we have an international community here, and I don't want to speak for other parts of the world. :)

However, I don't think anyone over... I dunno... 14~15 years believes that sex is like porn (even those who never had it), in the same way that they know police work is not like they see it in Lethal Weapon movies. Most people can diferentiate reality from fiction.

And seriously... If someone has issues because fiction portrays attractive and competent characters, then that person has to grow up and learn how to deal with it, even if they will need help for that... Because what's the alternative? Have all fiction only portray characters who are completely average ot below that just so no one feels inadequate?

I've always known for a fact that I'll never be as attractive, competent, charming, smart or overall awesome as my favorite characters... Rather than make me feel bad, all that did was make me admire those characters more and do my best to be more like them in whatever aspects of life I admire in them.

Society too often decides to blame media for showing idealized characters instead of teaching people that it's okay to not be a hollywood superstar with super powers. The real solution is to educate young people, not to bash movies, games, porn or whatever for providing the escapism fantasy we want them to provide!


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Meme that grinds my gears...

"I played a completely different game with completely different rules decades ago... Therefore I'm better than you and my opinion about this game is worth more than yours!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still find it funny how the "but it influences people!" crowd never seem to inude themselves in their claims... Nope. It's always everyone else who is too stupid to separate fantasy from reality. "Porn influences people negatively... Not me, because I'm Oh-So-Enlightned, but everyone else, because they are obviously not nearly as smart as my brilliant self!".

Can we stop assuming that people are stupid? They aren't. Most of them might be uncultured, but they aren't stupid. 99% of the world can (and does) tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

I'm so f*+&ing tired of this holier-than-thou atittude...Saying porn causes body image issues and sets unrealistic expectations about sex is like saying The Matrix sets unrealistic expectations for learning kung fu and makes young martial artists feel bad about themselves because they don't look like Hollywood stars and can't dodge bullets!

And if are going to mention Japan, let's remember that even though rape is a very common theme in Japanese pornography, it's one of the nations with the lowest number of actual occurences of the crime in the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Some Guy again wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Oh, brother... If you're worried about the Rogue being replaced, you're going to have a bad time with Pathfinder... That ship has sailed a looooong time ago.
Thanks but not helping

You see... The thing is... Fighter and Rogues are very limited and underpowered classes. My advice to you is... Stop using them as a standard to what any class should be capable of. Otherwise, you're condemned to think everything is overpowered.

Some Guy again wrote:
I do apologize I am heavily biased against the slayer because it is every martial players wet dream.

The Slayer is not even in the top 10 classes when it comes to power. Hell! It's not even in the top 3 martial classes! The Slayer is a Fighter/Rogue that works. That's it.

Barbarians, Bloodragers, Paladins and Rangers are considerably more effective! Swashbuckler and Brawler are up there too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Some Guy again wrote:
Darkheyr wrote:

I'm more concerned about the rogue being too weak, and thus the Slayer replacing him completely, if I'm honest.

There's not much the Rogue can do others (especially the slayer) do not do better.

That's a huge deal for me too

Oh, brother... If you're worried about the Rogue being replaced, you're going to have a bad time with Pathfinder... That ship has sailed a looooong time ago.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Some Guy again wrote:
Some Guy again wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

I like that it is can fight rogue-style, yet (unlike the rogue) inflict fairly good damage.

Why shouldn't it be allowed to participate with everyone else? Do you think it's too powerful? Too weak? It's hard to defend it against accusations no-one has made.

That's true, no one has made any accusations that I have seen, maybe it is the perfect martial killing class with no flaws
haha solid point

Uh... You do realize you're agreeing with yourself, right?

Anyway...

I don't love the class. But I like it.

It's a good mix of martial and skills. A solid class who can contribute meaningfully in a variety of ways without ever being overpowered. It has decent options both in and out of combat, but will never break the game like a caster can do...

As far as mundane classes go, Slayer is probably the best balanced one (assuming you aren't counting Barbarians as mundane). It doesn't have the awful weaknesses of Rogues or the extreme narrow-mindedness of Fighters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dislike literally all of those changes. IMHO they cause more harm than good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
your quotes are off.

Yes, they were. Thanks for pointing it out. Fixed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
A healthy risk is one that, if the gamble fails, situation = status quo.

That's not a risk. A risk, by definition, includes the possibility of a negative consequence. If there is nothing to be lost, there is no risk.

A healthy risk is one where the possible gains outweigh the possible negatives. I believe instructing young people and making them feel comfortable talking about sex is a good thing. And a far more effective way to protect them from the possible negative consequences of sex than trying to pressure them into not having it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

You know, there is a reality in between "had sex beforehand" and just sort of flying blind ("hope for the best", "without knowing", etc).

Sex and money are the two most common topics of conflict for couples. It's a good idea for a couple to discuss finances in detail before getting married (seriously, every premarital counseling curriculum will hit that topic). But they don't have to share a checking account before they can know if their financial habits are compatible.

In the same way, I agree with you that a couple should be making informed decisions about the role sex will play in their relationship. That does not automatically require that they need to actually have sex in order to become informed. They need to talk about it. Heck, even once they HAVE had sex, they need to talk about it. [ETA: For sexual activity to actually inform you in any meaningful way, it would need to be happening regularly (with lots of talking as well). But by that point, you're already committed to the relationship, so it's no longer a "preparing to make an informed choice" kind of thing.]

"Haven't had sex" does not automatically equate to "completely uninformed". In fact, if a couple can't communicate well enough to reach a point of deciding whether to commit, then frankly they can't communicate well enough to sustain a long-term relationship at all, regardless of how sexually-compatible they are. Also, if your relationship is such that discovering a sexual issue would be a deal-breaker (rather than something to work through together), then it's not a good life-partner relationship in the first place.

However, the very taboo that keeps sex as "marriage-only" thing also turns it into a thorny topic, which prevents meaningful conversation about the topic.

Finances aren't such a touchy subject. It requires math and equations to understand how it affects you and your partner. Sex is not so easily calculated.

In the real world, all attempts to stop people from having sex inevitably failled one way or another. Social pressure simply can't change a core aspect of human bodies.

If sex can only be had after marriage, then people will marry just to have sex. Or they will do it in secret and never talk about it for fear of being punished/ostracized for their deed... Which perpetuates the culture of ignorance and misinformation about sex, making it more dangerous and harmful, rather than safer and more enjoyable.

I don't see anything wrong with consenting adults having sex as often as they like however they like. Meaningful relationship or not... If they are happy being nothing more than "f~~+ buddies", then so be it. If they want to have sex only after married, then so be it. If they want to never have sex or have lots of casual sex with complete strangers... So be it.

As long as it's between consenting adults, no one else shoudl care. It's not like they are harming anyone. Some of those lifestyles might be healthier or riskier... And bring more ore less happiness to each individual... But that's their choice. It should be an informed choice, rather than a mandate.

I simply don't see any real reason to impose restrictions on things that don't affect anyone else. Don't want to have causal sex? Don't. Don't want to wait? Don't.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

BTW, I don't think thread derails are necessarilly bad... They can be problematic if they are too hostile or toxic (but that goes for every conversation) or if they are interrupting or poisoning a different conversation... But I have no problem with derails such as this, where it's a natural evolution from a different subject and remains civil and polite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the idea is also innately harmful because even a couple who sincerely believes in it and follows it completely informed might end up finding out they aren't sexually compatible, which might lead to an unhappy life for the couple. Obviously, sex isn't all that matters, but it's a big part of a couple's relationship...

The decision of whether they can or cannot live with their incompatibility should be an informed one. Hoping for the best and only finding out after you made an emotional and legal commitment is a dangerously foolish idea to say the least.

I'm not saying it's wrong to wait... It isn't. Everyone has the right of waiting for as long as they want... I'm just pointing out that making auch a huge commitment without knowing such an important part of the relationshio is rarely a good idea...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@greenteagamer

There is a difference between believing you're correct and trying to impose your view on others... If you think your deity of choice doesn't want you to eat hamburgers, then don't eat hamburgers. You can even talk about it with others and try to convince them to not eat hamburgers either... Just don't try to forcefully forbid others from doing it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marco Polaris wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

I personally think all beliefs and behaviors can be criticized. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, but they shouldn't be free of criticism just because they slap a tag on it.

No one should be punished for their beliefs, (although they can and should be punished by their actions, which may have been motivated by a certain belief). But norhing should be free of crticism. No belief, opinion or behavior.

I've met many people who say that.

I've met very, very few people who truly believe it. Which is a shame.

There will always be those who are willing to impose their beliefs on othera and act as if their beliefs (and only theirs) should be free of criticism.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally think all beliefs and behaviors can be criticized. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, but they shouldn't be free of criticism just because they slap a tag on it.

No one should be punished for their beliefs, (although they can and should be punished by their actions, which may have been motivated by a certain belief). But norhing should be free of crticism. No belief, opinion or behavior.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Ah, so are indeed saying your opinion is more valid then everyone else's. Which is wrong, so there we are.

Time to lock the thread, indeed!

==Aelryinth

I'm actually impressed by how you managed to somehow get that from anything I said...

Well... I'm not surprised. I wasn't expecting honest and consistent arguments.

Well, given your eyes wide shut, total lack of consistency, and self-contradictions, I'm not surprised. Honest and consistent arguments are going to look quite strange to you, as exemplified by your continuous construction of straw men to warp what they are actually saying.

You shouldn't be impressed. You should be honest, consistent, clear, and able to post that way. As it is, you're none of those, and you twist what others say and then restate it erroneously while assigning beliefs to others that they don't have with strawmen and blanket statements.

You really need to clean up your posts and reading comprehension. You seem unable to understand what people are actually saying, and when you post, your erratic wording or explanations is NOT helping your cause.

You, of all people, making those accusations about anyone else is actually pretty funny.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Cult of Ashiel... will you sacrifice stuff?

...As if he needed any more dead birds. ><'


2 people marked this as a favorite.
hgsolo wrote:
Aemesh wrote:
All they want to do is play ignorant, judgement-impaired killers? *sigh*
We prefer the term "murder-hobos" good sir!

The correct term is "manslaughter nomad", thank you very much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
No, but the setting assumes the magic chapter's rules work, doesn't it? Which means, among many, many other things, that more powerful spells require more experience to cast. Someone with no experience casting meteor swarms would be expressly against these rules. See how that works? The magic system is predictable, and there is no magic involved that allows for a thousand attacks per second. Saying that because there is magic, nobody ever should complain about someone making a thousand attacks per second, that's just bull.

But by that logic, the only reason to complain about a character making 1000 attacks is the rules saying they can't. It has nothing to do with realism or whether or not its good or bad for the game.

The problem with realism in Pathfinder is that it's inconsistent and nearly always used to limit or nerf the weakest options in the game. It often gets in the way of balance, playability and fun.

e.g.: People complaining because Gunslingers don't take 30~60 seconds to reload their weapons, not caring about the fact that if that were the case, those weapons (and a whole freaking class) would be f!!%ing useless!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DMJB83 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

It is ALREADY BALANCED. Trying to balance it further just UNBALANCES it.

That is what happens when you try to fix what isn't broken.

Like I stated before I'm trying to allow acceses to it to my players as it is something they want, but I personally have decided that I dont feel it is completly balanced.

So if my new prerequites are to stiff by all means help me tweak them, but dont tell me to leave it as is because as is I'll just have to tell them no. Thats not the direction I wanna go.

Just remove the free Double Slice clause. There is really no need to demand more prerequisites (specially weapon-specific ones, for the reason stated by BWO. All you do is effectivelly force your players to sell Excalibur ao that they can upgrade their generic +1 rapier).

I honestly don't see the point in forcing character to slug through 4 levela just sp that they can finally be effective combatanta at 5th level.

I can't stress thia enough: You cannot and should not balance anything by making it more annoying to use.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

My mistake,

still this isnt the thread for complaints about game design:-)

How about this, then?

A meme I hate: People who like to pretend the game is perfect and dismiss any criticism to it as the critics being haters, ignorant or doing "mental gymnastics".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Because Jason didn't like 3.5's trip builds... So he nerfed tripping (and maneuvers in general) as much as he could. Feats, weapons, AoOs, the maneuver themselves... It all got a huge beating from the nerf bat.

It's one of the reasons why some people mock Pathfinder by calling it D&D 3.5 - Caster Edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
The idea that a company would use that as a design principle.

Oh, it's not a design principle (at least I don't think it is)... It's just a consequence of a series of other design principles...

Like chaining even high-level martial classes to realism while allowing magic to do everything possible. Or the idea that that anything that can be used at will must be very limited in power because otherwise it would be unbalanced... Or maybe the idea that just because a character can deal lots of damage, he should have little to no usefulness out of combat.

And so on...


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Pfff... You WoW players care only about optimization, DPR and rollplaying!

Back in my day players roleplayed so well that Robert DeNiro, Marlon Brando and Al Paccino would be jealous of our players' performance! And our storylines were so deep, emotionally involving and thought-provoking that they put Citizen Kane, To Kill a Mocking Bird and Casablanca to shame!

Oh, yeah... We had roleplay-heavy games! Like Tomb of Horrors... And great freedom and focus on character customization... With our random rolled stats and attribute prerequisites for base classes...

Grumble, grumble...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
StabbittyDoom wrote:
With a 10 wisdom and iron will, even a low will class should be passing basically all will saves on a 16 or higher. The only exception is if they multi-class like crazy with low will classes or have some other source of penalty.

"Pass on a 16" is hardly satisfactory. Failing 75% of your savea (particularly Fort and Will) means your character will be dead or useless most of the time. Saves are really freaking important. They aren't just minor weakneaaes like having lower than average AC... They can make or break your character.

If you need more than an 11 to make the average Fort/Will save... You are going to have a bad time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:

Some simple math: 4,000 books at $40 a book would equal about $160,000 in expected sales. That's probably multiple staff members salaries right there.

Assuaging your personal displeasure over a product you've apparently never actually read probably isn't worth eating a $160,000 loss in expected sales.

(I'm guessing the actual loss would be less than that, but probably still worth a staff member's yearly salary. Paizo's going to prioritize their bottom line over placating a handful of posters on the message boards, and they'd be fools to do otherwise.)

1- The numbers I mentioned are completely arbitrary. I have no idea how many books Paizo sells or how many they have in stock. I was merely illustrating a point.

2- I have read the book. Multiple times. And I found it extremely lacking... And I'm obviously not the only one who thinks so. I doubt it's onky "a handful of forum posters". I personally know 3 guys who returned the book for store credit and many others who simply decided to not buy the book after seeing it. None of them post in these boards.

3- Like I said, they are free to do as they please with their errata policies... And I'm free to do as I please with my money. And I surely won't spend it on a subpar product. If Paizo prefers to have a subpar product rather than get my money, I'm totally okay with that. Pathfinder isn't exactly a basic necessity.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
The fear is that a consumer, knowing there are errata (available) may decline to buy an in-stock book from a FLGS expecting that there's a second printing coming soon.

And the alternative os having the consumer get screwed by buying a faulty product and not gettin an errata any time soon?

"We know we screwed 6000 of you with a faulty product we could easily release an errata for, but we printed 10000 books, so unless we screw another 4000 of you, you're all screwed forever. No, we don't care that the book is a mess! We printed it and we WILL make a profit... Or hold your errata hostage forever and ever."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a honest question... I get why they wouldn't want to release the errta'd print copies while they still have the faulty ones... But why not release the digital errata and update the .pdfs? What reason there is other than forcing fans to buy a poorly made product?

If they released the digital errata, buying the faulty copy wouldn't be that bad... But the fact that Paizo refuses to release even that before they run out of their current print edition makes it seem like they really don't give a damn if their fans got a bad product, after all, they already have their money.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
amethal wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Paizo's "no errata 'til the reprint" reprint rule is still one their few policies that I despise... I might be misinformed but it sounds like "We don't care if my customers got a faulty product, if it doesn't sell enough, we are not fixing it.".
You do appreciate that you are not entitled to any errata at all, don't you?

I do. Just like I appreciate the fact that they aren't entitled to my money.

It's Paizo choice to not errata the ACG. If they don't care that their customers got a faulty product, it's their right to not fix it. All I'm saying is that I won't be giving them any money for it. I didn't buy the ACG, and I surely won't buy it before it gets its errata. If that means I'll never buy it because Paizo doesn't care enough to do it, then so be it.

I'm not demanding the errata. I'm just saying that I won't buy the ACG if it doesn't get errata'd. And I will advise others to do the same, because I don't think companies should be rewarded for selling a bad product and adopting a consumer-unfriendly policy.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Well... Considering that's by far the worst edited and most rushed hardcover book yet, I wouldn't be surprised if it took some time for it to run out of copies.... Hopefully it will take long enough to encourage Paizo to step up and bring their qualily standards back to what we are used to.

I'm sad to say it, but I certainly won't contribute to the errata release. As far as I'm concerned, every ACG copy can gather dust in a damp cellar. Paizo's "no errata 'til the reprint" reprint rule is still one their few policies that I despise... I might be misinformed but it sounds like "We don't care if my customers got a faulty product, if it doesn't sell enough, we are not fixing it.".

I never expected to be this disappointed with a Paizo product. Some books may not have been as good as others, but only the ACG reaches the point where I'm really freaking glad I didn't buy it. That book alone made me decide to never pre-order anything Paizo ever again. Ever. Cancelling my preorder felt like dodging a bullet laced with cyanide and Joker toxin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

BTW, Rynjin... You might want to update the Initiative counter in the campaign description...

Heh... As luck would have it... It's indeed Talryn's turn!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is a fun thing for Str builds...

Power Attack -> Cornugon Smash -> Hurtful (+ Intimidating Prowess, if you to be extra sure you will make that Intimidate check). Enjoy your swift0action extra attack at full BAB. Watch as dex-builds drool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:
Pretty sure that special ability is a waste of ink, as you can't wield something that's not in your hands. The designers have stated that wielding requires you to attack with the tool in question to be considered wielding.

The designers have stated a number of things about wielding weapons... Many of which are contradictory and/or nonsensical.

All we know for a fact is that they really don't want to give a definitive answer for what is considered "wielding an weapon".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, you should. There is nothing overpowered with Dex to damage. Absolutelu nothing. The character is spending 2 feats still be considerably less damaging that a Str-based warrior who spent ZERO feats.

People keep mentioning the Magus, but that a poor argument:

1-Magi use Dex because they are forced into dueling, an underpowered combat style that simply doesn't benefit much from Str.
2- Str-based Magi are still very solid and can give any Dex Magus a run for his money!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Human Diversion wrote:

If you've gotten to level 20 and don't have a plan for getting out of being jumped while nekkid, you deserve to die.

At that level you should have a custom bathtub stored in a portable hole with minor portals to the elemental plane of water and fire to have a nice hot bath that will teleport you and your gear to a safe spot given a command word if you're jumped.

You're missed the point of the thread.

The discussion is not abou "bashing" any class (it's just a sad reality that Fighters are so dependent on gear that they can easily be defeated by characters 10 levels below him if he happens to lose his stuff), nor is it about literally being assault during bath time.

The "X is taking a bath" line is just a funny way of saying "how gear-dependent is this classs?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unassuming Local Guy wrote:

I think the takeaway here is that a most fighters with no gear lose more than most spellcasters with no gear more than most monsters with no gear lol.

Don't sneak up on a Tarrasque while he is bathing

I think Fighters with no gear lose more than any other class with no gear...

Sure, Rogues will have worse defenses and offense, but they at least have enough skill points to try and escape the battle or something.

Fighters? Not so much... Having only 2 skill points per level and zero out-of-combat class features pretty much limits them to fight-or-flight response... Except they are not very good at fleeing, and without gear, not very good at fighting either, since they have very high bonuses (most of which were stripped away) but little in-combat versatility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
I kind of assumed a 'naked' fighter would have his amulets and rings on, at the very least.

I think the point is more about a character being caught with no gear, rather than literally being ambushed while bathing (since in that case, any half-sane character would have at very least his rings and amulets... And probably an weapon nearby too).

Seriously, once you get a silversheen weapon (which cost a whooping 400gp more than normal ones and are completely immune to rust) why would you ever not have at least on weapon with you at all times? You don't survive to 20th level by being careless.

Aelryinth wrote:

Only with sufficient Ranks in Diplomacy and/or Bluff, and a substantial penalty for doing a rush job of it.

How many skill points do fighters get again? Are those class skills?
Ah, right.

==Aelryinth

I think Diplomacy wouldn't even work... Not only Fighters are horrible at social skills other than Intimidate (few skill points, no class skills, no incentive to raise Cha, etc), there is also the fact that the rules explicitly state that Diplomacy is more often than not, ineffective against creatures that intend to do you harm in the immediate future.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well... Honestly, there is no reason why a caster wouldn't have his spells prepared. Why would he even do anything in the morning before preparing spells?

Fighter might reach 20th level by being unbelievably tough. Rogues do it by being incredibly cunning, Paladins do it by being fiercely devout.

Wizards? Wizards do it by being extremely paranoid! At 20th level it is perfectly natural for a Wizard to (completely in character!) never leave his room before preparing his spells and then raising half a dozen magical protections around himself!

Having the right spells is a bit more difficult, but by 20th level, they are so many and do so much... That it's actually rather difficult to not have at least a few who can own the 10th level opponents.

Besides, the Wizard gear is unlikely to help the opponent as much as the Fighter gear does. "Oh, you now got a +6 to Int? Nice... All I have is spells 5 levels higher... A few of which are still on effect. And then, there is my Contingency... And this army of newly-created undead/constructs/whatever..."

As usual... Gear dependency is not nearly as much of a problem for casters as it is for martials. Because having the most powerful effects at your disposal is not enough... You gotta have every little bit of advantage at your favor too!

- Martials need weapons and armor? All you need is a headband... And you can craft it at half price without having to pay two feats for the benefits of less than one.
- Martials can't move and full attack? You can teleport as a move action and then cast. Twice.
- Martials need a feat to attack unarmed or with ranged weapons without provoking? You have an inbuilt mechanic to completely avoid AoO when casting in battle... And its difficulty is completely unrelated to your opponent's strength! Casting adjacent to C'thullu is just as easy as casting adjacent to a 1st level commoner.
- Martials need high specialization to just do one thing moderately well? You just grab whatever spells you want.
- Martials needs to fulfill all sorts of awful prerequisites that make no sense (e.g.: Combat Expertise). Well, most of the feats you want only require you to be an spell caster... If that! (Improved Initiative, Combat Casting, Defensive Combat Training, most magic item craftfing feats, most metamagic feats, toughness, etc...

Ugh...

Sorry... Rant sneaked its way in... ><'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:

Ashiel, what do you believe the sort of features a Mage-Killer would definitely require to achieve it's concept?

Aka if this class walked into a room with a Wizard, it'd be a 70-30 odds(60-40 is also acceptable) of them killing the Wizard mono E mono.

How do you kill a wizard with 2 obsolete sound systems?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, specific builds can survive it pretty well. The Martial Master is a good archetype... Mostly because it makes the Fighter less Fighter-ish and more Brawler-ish.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
Disarm the fighter, then sunder everything the wizard and rogue are carrying. Grapple the wizard; when they teleport away, grapple the cleric and drown them in the bathrumb.

Hopefully, the guys who just ambushed you will stand around doing nothing while you take all those actions. :)

1 to 50 of 1,431 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.