Paul Watson's page

Simmer down people.

Don't tell other people how to play. We ALL understand that, right?

Apparently not. Popcorn?

From the Paizo SRD

Paizo SRD wrote:

You can take a move action in place of a standard action. If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.

The bold is mine. This is why the confusion. If a "Move Action" is not "Move Equivalent", than what is (other then a Charge Attack? Can you at least see WHY if could be taken as such?

Not really. The primary clause is very clear. "If you move no actual distance in a round, you can take one 5-foot step either before, during or after the action." To me, this seems very clear and simple.

Sylvanite wrote:

It's also easier to regulate and create rules because of its standardization. How would you do this for Wondrous Items? You would have to take each item individually, assign a fairly subjective CL, and then no one would know what to do for custom created items. As it is, it's still hard to figure that out.

The reality is that the cost issue should serve perfectly well to keep things out of the hands of lower level players.

Fair enough on the cost keeping out of of the clutches of the wee lil 'uns. I can dig it.

On the other hand... How did they come up with the caster lvl of the item to begin with? Surely they already had some formula in mind to assign the stat in the first place?

Caster level of the highest spell used in the creation of the item in question.

Can someone tell me where i can find the damage ratings (or a formula for calculating) for huge and/or larger weapons?

What is the spell save DC for spells cast from scrolls? (for example a glitterdust scroll)

Scrolls save Dc use the minimum ability bonus and the spell's level so glitterdust would hvae a DC of 13 (2nd level spell +1 for having a 12 Int, minimum to cast 2nd level spells). Scrolls are not good for spells with saves.

I generally don't use minis. This is mostly for reasons of simple convenience as I play after work in the backroom of a local pub so weigh and volume ar at a premium. Thus, no minis or battlemats. I do print off the relevant maps to give people an idea of the tactical space, but then go wih intention and drama rather than accuracy.

However, if I'm Dming a Pathfindr Society adventure at a convention, I will use them, or Smal Worl token equivalents, anyway, as I'll have far fewer space concerns in my luggage

I'm still confused here..

Ok, The belt is CL 8th. This does not change when we go from a +2 belt to a +4 belt? The price goes up but the CL does not?

So, if I'm understanding what is written in the book...

A 3rd lvl wizard can make a +2 belt just as easily as he can make a +6 belt as long as he has enough gold?

Yes. It will take him significantly longer to craft the +6 belt, though, as crafting time is based on price.

Paul Watson wrote:

Joyful wrote:

Presidents' Day in 2011 is on Monday, the 21st of February. In the United States, Presidents Day is always celebrated on the third Monday of February. ...

The front page of the site says 22nd. I presume it's a typo.

I have President's Day off and it's a Monday. Though, maybe Paizo owes allegiance to some other country (real or imagined) that we don't know about...

Cthulhu for President. "Why settle for the lesser of two evils?"

Now, which party should he run for? *whistles innocntly while donning flame and sanity proof suit*

Presidents' Day in 2011 is on Monday, the 21st of February. In the United States, Presidents Day is always celebrated on the third Monday of February. ...

The front page of the site says 22nd. I presume it's a typo.

Paul Watson wrote:

Very nice. One question: Are the Silfide options for Cleric and Sorcerer reversed? The cleric option refers to the Stormborn Sorcerer and the sorcerer one refers to the Air domain and Wind subdomain. Could be correct, but thought I'd check.

No, those are correct as listed. Controversial perhaps, but what I intended.

Thanks for the answer, Owen. Iiiiiinteresting idea.

Paul Watson wrote:

Moff Rimmer wrote:

Solnes wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

I removed a post and the replies to it. Do not make bigoted, hateful, or racially insensitive statements.

Also, flag it and move on.

applause

Its supposed to be a game. Not a flamewar. :)

I think that some people think that the flamewar is the game.

You mean it isn't? Then why did they give me this flamethrower?

I was hoping that you'd burn down that house next door, man those people get on my nerves.

*salutes* Yessir, Lord President Moorluck, sir! *goes nxt door humming 'We didn't start the fire.'*

Solnes wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

I removed a post and the replies to it. Do not make bigoted, hateful, or racially insensitive statements.

Also, flag it and move on.

applause

Its supposed to be a game. Not a flamewar. :)

I think that some people think that the flamewar is the game.

You mean it isn't? Then why did they give me this flamethrower?

Very nice. One question: Are the Silfide options for Cleric and Sorcerer reversed? The cleric option refers to the Stormborn Sorcerer and the sorcerer one refers to the Air domain and Wind subdomain. Could be correct, but thought I'd check.

Paul Watson wrote:

They left out the Atheists? Honestly, doesn't anyone read the "right wing talking points" memoes anymore?

Atheists are automatically covered under "Nazis." Don't you watch Ben Stein, or listen to the Pope?

Not if I can help it. ;-)

bugleyman wrote:

Didn't you mean "socialists?"

The last American conservative who understood the difference between the two terms died not long ago, I think. I actually hear my co-workers and the local radio show guys explaining how Obama is pushing a "Communist Muslim Socialist Nazi agenda." They see no contradictions in any of that.

They left out the Atheists? Honestly, doesn't anyone read the "right wing talking points" memoes anymore?

Ancient Sensei wrote:

You don't get to do all those things, but assuming you are going to pimp your top five agendae:

1. National Retail Sales Tax

2. Begin the phaseout of SSI and MCR. Everyone covered over 25 is still covered. If we can privatize the trust fund after a few years of NRST (assuming we are realizing debt reduction), we increase benefits for those still covered. We shrink the programs as population falls, and everyone not covered has ample time and 100% of their paycheck to put towards bills and planning. We model or arrange a private system to house those funds. Probably private annuities, since they're already in place. If you want your basic necessities prebate to go into you annuity account, I'm sure those companies will work with us to arrange it. Now your return is over 6% instead of -1.

Given the previous experiences seen when public functions are privatised, Why would anyone believe that the result would be anything other than higher costs and lowered service to the public? Remember when you privatise a government function it's primary goal changes from serving the public... to turnning a profit. Is that so hard to understand?

There was a time when I identified myself with gamers. But given the resounding far right wing attitudes I see prevailing among them... I'm not so sure any more.

Gamers, as a group, are as diverse as any other grouping. For every Ancient Sensai, there's a Bugleyman who's jut as passionate in comoletely the opposite direction. We no more share a political philosphy than baseball fans do.

Look around.

Panic.

Piss off the 49.99% of people who didn't vote for me.

Piss off the 50.01% who did.

Resign in disgrace having accomplished nothing useful.

Hey, you asked what I would do, not what I'd like to do.

I thought this was handled by the spell being a buff now, use the stats of the higher level spell with the abilities limitted by the base form.

Most people understand it to mean that the buff is determined by the size of creature you become.

Our CoT game has an Air Sorcerer/Haunted Lore Oracle/MT but he was created as a replacement for a deceased character and so didn't have to go through the low-level pain.

I dont understand the desire to play "good" vampires. These beings take sentient life for sustenance. How can this be good?

I'm sure cows feel the same way about you.

Also, vampires don't have to kill their victims. Given their high charisma, I could see some giving in willingly. That said a good vampire should be such a rarity as to be almosst unique.

Short Story: Played my CoT campaign...TPK'd the group. Group makes new PCs and a player is making a Ninja with the Shadow Child Campaign Trait.

Shadow Child: wrote:

....When attacking targets in areas of dim light,

you do not suffer the standard 20% miss chance on attack
rolls for being in the poorly lit area.

Player asks if this will allow him to use precision based damage while in dim light. Effectively removing the concealment. Or does it just allow him to ignore the 20% miss chance, but the target is still effectively under concealment.

I ruled the later and the trait does not say that he ignores concealment, just the miss chance, while in Dim Light.

I mentioned to the group that I would bring these forward here and see other people's opinion on the matter(s).

So...Thoughts?

In my CoT game, we go with the former interpretation as if there's no miss chance, then you're not under the effects of concealment. I can see your argument, however.

Of course, there's no evidence that there are ghosts. I'm just saying, my unwillingness to give paranormal geeks a listen does not disprove that there are not ghosts. Evidence is biased toward truth. There's no evidence that there's no God, and there's no evidence that Jesus was not a real person who satisfied prophetic claim. Refusal to believe something, or belief in conjecture that there's no God, is not evidence. I just want everyone to open their minds to the point that it takes faith NOT to believe in God, also. It's an easier faith, but faith all the same.

Steven,

There is no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster did not create the world from noodles and tomoto sauce using his noodly appendage. Ramen. I presume you give equal weight to his noodlieness?

What positive evidence is there for the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God? Because without that kind of evidence, I think a massive amount of scepticism is quite justified. Your belief that there is a God and that he is the Christian God is not evidence, either.

Do druids/rangers/wizards get to physically control their animal?

Like, does it basically function as another character for them to do combat with.
If they are, I assume I should roll seperate inititive for them?

Generally sdpeaking, yes, but the DM should check the tricks the animal knows to ensure its being used correctly. Also remember that commanding the animal is a move action.

You probably should, but it will increase the complexity of the combat slightly.

EDIT: Also remember the animal is still just an animal. Complex plans are not going to work very well.

Hey guys, i read something on the giantitp forum recently, and was wondering (again)...

This was basically about the SLA ability of the summoner to..Well, summon monsters :P

Quote:

Since you can only keep one set active at a time, don't bother keeping them alive - throw them into combat and let them soak up the enemy attacks.

Now, I as a DM have always been using the houserule that *any* class can always only have *one* summon spell active.

This was introduced mostly to keep druids in 3.5 a bit down on the overpowered-ladder (bear companion + bear form + summoned bear *sigh*)
and i have been using it ever since.

Question:
Is this a houserule, or a core rule?

Seems to me that summoning 3* 1d3 of wolves at e.g. level 5 can be quite a bit "too" powerful, no?

It is a houserule. The Summoner can summon more creatures, as long as he uses his spells to do it rather than his supernatural ability. As he's the only class with any limitation on summoning, your rule is a houserule.

I don't want to make it use a save or be subject to spell resistance, as it already relies on the skill check and more rolls means a worse spell. Looking through the book for other similar examples, the nearest other spell in effect is glibness. I had thought glibness was enchantment, but it's transmutation. This as transmutation would fit.

I meant, there'd be no Saving Throw and that would be replaced. by the demoralise check

Terrify

School enchantment; Level bard ?, sorcerer/wizard ?, witch ?
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Range personal
Target you
Duration instantaneous
Your voice resonates frighteningly and becomes clearly audible even in the heat of battle. Make an Intimidate check to demoralise all foes within 30 feet who can hear you.

First. Maybe second Wizard so that the Bard and witch get some bonus but I'd probably still go with first. It gives the benefit of a single feat, once. That's not terribly powerful but certainly more than a cantrip.

EDIT: Enchantment is probably the wrong school. I'd go with Necromancy [Fear] or Transmutation as it is affecting yourself. Personally, I'd make it Necromancy [Fear] and sub the Demoralise for a saving throw. If you keep it with Enchantment, I'd add Mind-Affecting (as all Enchantment effects so far are Mind Affetcing) and Compulsion 9as it sure ain't a charm)

Some very simple questions that I haven't been able to find the answer for.

1) Can a 1rst level Sorcerer get a familiar? If so, how?

2) How many feats would said 1rst level sorcerer have?

3) I've seen references to three first level spells per day, and two. Which is it? Or is it three spells known, but only two slots to cast per day?

Thanks!

1) Yes. He needs to take the Arcane Bloodline.

2) 1. 2 if human. Sorcerers don't have bonus feats at level 1.

3) You can cast three spells per day (more if you have a high Charisma). However, you only know two spells (not affected by Charisma), so you would have to cast one more than once to use all three of your spells.

EDIT: Ninjaed.

Steven T. Helt wrote:

As an aside....maybe not being very tall is a good thing. Doesn't that make all girls leggier?

Actually, it makes monogamy pretty much a given, ethics aside, because no female I've ever met will so much as look at a guy who's not at least a couple inches taller than she is. One female friend of mine put it this bluntly: "I mean, honestly, do you guys really think their personality matters that much? OK, maybe 'funny' counts a little bit, but mostly we're looking for taller, hotter, and richer."

(Shrugs) So be it. I was marginally taller and richer than my wife when we met, and I wouldn't trade her for anyone.

Oh well, one out of three ain't bad, I suppose. *le sigh*

Thanks for throwing my words back in my face. Awfully kind of you.

Calling the three new classes super-archetypes, as written, is like saying the ranger is an alternate class for fighter, or that bard is an alternate class for sorcerer. They're too different to warrant such a hollow apraisal. Each has brand new mechanics or use existing mechanics in new and different ways. An archetype tweaks a class just enough to satisfy a players need for a particular type of character. It also has a format that can be easily followed. Calling these alternate classes, when they are in fact all new classes, is just a cop out. A way to say, "hey look! No class bloat here! These are archetypes that totally overhaul a class!"

Mechanically there's no reason to make these alternate classes. Game balence-wise there's no reason to make these alternate classes. It doesn't pass the logic test at all. So if someone could impart some logic to this it would be appreciated. Thank you.

Gubnslinger is a master of one weapon. How is that NOT a Figbhter? Should sword masters be their own class? How about axemen? Pikemen? Does every weapon need its own class?

Ninja is an oriental rogue. It's a master of stealth and attacking from the shadows. How does that not fall into the Rogue balliwack?

Samurai is a Cavalier class. It's an inspiring, non-magical leader of men and inspiring warrior. Again, how is that not the Cavalier?

Making everything a new class was one of the problems with 3.5. Some concepts are so close to one of the existing class that they don't need their own class. Gunslinger is pushing it but it should still be a Fighter archetype conceptually. Ninja and Samurai are even more obviously part of the base class they're archetypes of.

This is a really solid product. Lots of the ideas are fantasic, but I suspect the spagyric variant will get the most attention.

One, hopefully, quick question: how do the new variants function with your archetypes? At the moment, I'm going with the alchemist will swap out the mutagen for the new vaiant and the bombs for the archetype as that will retain the most discoveries for them. And I know the rules for swapping archetypes between classes are still not official, and may never become so, but there I'm saying these variants ar subbing for the Grenadier package, replacing Bombs and Throw Anything in that archetype. Does that sound about right to you?

Dumb Question, but I've been mistaken on one or two things recently.

Can you add power attack to Vital Strike?

Yes, but the Power Attack damage doesn't multiply

Paul Watson wrote:

Wolfthulu,

Just curious but how is the 1st Amendment, which Jefferson said in a private letter was to buiild a wall of separation between church and state, compatible with your belief that the US was founded as an explicitly Christian nation?

The wall of separation is not to keep religion out of the public square - not to protect government from the effect of a religious people. It was to protect the people from a state religion (i.e. the Church of England).

The establishment of the nation didn't at its founding and doesn't now require that all citizens follow a Judeo-Christian religion. But the very foundations of the idea that men have rights comes from Judeo-Christian philosophy.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams

Whether you think that a generally religious populace is necessary or not, many of the founding fathers thought it so at our founding. It is much easier to argue that we are no longer a religious people (as a whole) than that Americans weren't at the founding.

This is true, however, a public school is an arm of the government and therefore has no business endorsing any religion over all others, even if it happens to be a popular one. Actually, especiall yif it happens to be a popular one as then you have the majopprity sayign to everyone else: "Believe this or you're not welcome".

This is not about keeping religion out of the public square, it's about preventing the government from forcing one religion on people.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Wolfthulhu wrote:

Alternately, find me a single founding father that quoted the Quran or gave thanks to Allah.

I don't need to -- I never made the claim that the U.S. was founded on Islam, unlike your claim that it was founded on the Ten Commandments.

Insert holy scriptures/deity of your choice, I used Islam simply because it is the most commonly discussed non-christian religion these days.

Xabulba, Samnell... yeah, not even gonna bother. Go ahead and chalk that up as a 'win' if it makes you feel better.

Wolfthulu,

Just curious but how is the 1st Amendment, which Jefferson said in a private letter was to buiild a wall of separation between church and state, compatible with your belief that the US was founded as an explicitly Christian nation?

While you're at it, could you point out where God or Christ appears in the Constitution of the US?

As title implies- what kind of sense does that make?

It's normally not an issue; I would suspect but it has suddenly become one for my home-brew game due to some changes in the way magic works. I intend to remove the Divine/Arcane line and school the divine spells as appropriate.

In my homebrew; Cure spells work because they induce the body to repair itself, at a rapid rate. They do not just "poof" the injuries away.

Even so, under the normal paradigm this makes little sense.

Were I to alter it; to which other school would you suggest?

The two I was thinking were Transmutation and Necromancy, but even Evocation has a strong case made for it. From the PRD for your perusal:

Necromancy

Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force.

Transmutation

Transmutation spells change the properties of some creature, thing, or condition.

Evocation

Evocation spells manipulate magical energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, an evocation draws upon magic to create something out of nothing.

Your thoughts?

-Idle

This is a holdover from 3rd Ed. In my campaign they've been retconned to Necromancy (just like Inflict spells) and, IIRC, the way it was in earlier editions . This makes more sense to our party rather than the "summon positive energy so that necromancy is icky, icky, icky!" route that WotC went with.

A Master Chymist need 7 levels of Alxchemist to get the 3rd level extract entry requirement, so if we're talking about a level 10 Mc, it's a level 17 character. At comparable levels, the Fighter will be a better crossbowman.

This means the Fighter has all the bonuses KaeYoss mentions, plus a +2 to hit from the extra BAB. And assuming the Fighter wants to be a crossbow master, he's taken the Crossbowman Archetype, he gets all those useful abilities as well as the damage bonuses.

Welcome to the boards.

Our group uses the Critical Hits and Critical Fumbles. Like Mothman, they may not be incredibnly balanced, but they do make things fun. I'd recommend using both if you do so. The look of terror on a player's face when he rolls a one now does my black DM's heart proud.

We also use the Plot Twist cards, although their effectiveness varies. Some of my players are inventive enough to come up with practically anything and fit it to a card, but they add a lot more DM complexity so if you're nervous, I'd recommend against them until you're sure of your DM-fu.

Finally, we use the Gamemastery Combat Pad. This has really herlped with speeding up our combats, especialyl as one of the players has volunteered to refgularly run the board so I can concentrate on making the combat fun.

Or maybe most of the people I know just happen to be cantakerous people. :)

Edit: Excluding me, of course!

That's also a possibility.

CourtFool wrote:

House Bill 79

Why just the ten commandments? Why is no other religious ordinance equally protected?

They should be. I would assume they're not because I've yet to see anyone sue over a religious ordinance display that is NOT the Ten Commandments, but assumptions...yeah.

On the other hand, I'm glad you're getting involved. What does it mean that no matter what his or her stance on issues, when a citizen gets involved in government, they're pretty much universally unhappy with what they see?

:P

Because the people who are happy don't generally come on the Net/write to their local paper/call the local radio or TV station to say how happy they are? The disenchanted are always louder than the contented. This doesn't mean they should be dismissed, but just because all the pople you see are complaining doesn't eman all the people are complaining.

Ernest Mueller wrote:

Name Violation wrote:

my moral code requires me not giving a @#!?

i was raised with the rule "snitches get stitches"

sorry guys.

Yeah really what's up with all the junior G-men? "Someone has copied PDF who can I narc them out to?" Jesus.

I know these people. They work hard to make something for us to enjoy.

I would love to work in the industry some day, but I can't and won't do it for free.

People who work to deliberately undermine a creative company repulse me. It's one thing to share a PDF in your group, that's not unlike lending someone the book. But setting up an account to deliberately undermine the whole venture? Yes, rest assured, I will inform on you, because I give a damn.

And this spineless gangster crap about "snitching" and "narc-ing" and "junior G-men"? Please. Get over yourself.

You see, there are some things even the most evil holographic President draws the line at. That right there should cause people's heads to explode.

And if it doesn't

GeminiG wrote:

I am wondering what happened to the old addage treat people how you want to be treated. People who say they are your friend and then they disrespect you and your items that hold sentimental values.

BTW, welcome to the Paizo boards GeminiG. Most of the threads don't get this excitable.

Unless they're about politics. Or religion. Or 4E. Or whether Wizards are overpowered or not. You know, the important things.

Fundamentalists scare me more.

Quoted for truth.

I accept up front not everyone will agree with this comment, but I think it's worth an honest week's thought. The progenitor of this golden rule you speak of is increasingly marginalized in our culture. Insofar as the country thinks less and less of Jesus' advice and claims, there should be little surprise that His wisdom, once thought invaluable, is similarly marginalized. As one comic strip put it, a little boy prays at night "God, every day in our country there are fights in our schools, kids bringing guns and drugs, teachers seducing or corrupting their students, and prejudice and hate and conflict. How can You let this happen?" To which God replies to the little boy, "I feel for you, son. But I haven't been allowed in your schools in some time."

We can't give each other what we don't have. And if we don't respect one another as God's creation, whom He loves and has plans for, then we can't show each other that respect.

For one, the Golden Rule existed before Jesus in many differebt cultures.

For two, your post is one of the best examples of disrespect of, well everyone who doesn't believe in your version of God (currently two-thirds of the planet) by saying only your special religion has a belief in being nice to others.

For three, God is not banned in American schools. Teacher led prayer is so that children are not forced to pray to something they don't believe in. I'd have thought a conservtive like you would be all for the government not forcing religion on people. Would you be ok if schools were forced to teach Islam and lead daily prayers to Allah? You wouldn't? Well, golly gee, that's just how non-Christians feel about you getting to force their children to listen to your religion.

For four, Europe doesn't have such a problem with school shootings and we'e had God out of the schools for quite a while, so clearly it's not lack of God that's the problem.

For five, there's a little matter of your Contituion limitng the government's role in promotig religion. This is a good thing unless yu want to lve in a theocracy. And I'm assuming you know why that wold be a bad idea.

So, in short, I'm afraid your analysis is incorrect in several parts.

Cartigan wrote:

"Alternate" classes are far worse solution to having to support new classes than prestige class proliferation. Alternate classes introduce new mechanics and represent character lifetime choices meaning they should be supported like base classes, but I won't hold my breath.

My main issue with alternate classes. If they want to make them, fine. But don't make players go levels 1-20 with them and not be able to change it up or do something different with them other than what's available. No one will want to play Alternate Classes after seeing a book released giving Fighters, Wizards, and whatever else pages of new options for them, but barely any, or zero, stuff to play with themselves.

Will the Ninja have a broader option of Ninja Tricks in the future? Will it have class feats designed to enhance its class abilities? Will it have prestige classes for itself beyond Ultimate Combat in future products? If the answer is no, then it needs to be an archetype. Or maybe Alternate Classes are just that, glorified archetypes in disguise as classes. If so, that's very misleading of Paizo, hence why I see them as unnecessary.

Emphasis added.

It's not misleading if Paizo have said, as they have, that Alternate Classes, are just Archetypes presented with all the class informatin rather than just as swap outs. To jump from "I don't like Alterate Classes" to "Paizo are deceiving me by ths presentation of their stuff" is such a leap that you havd to be a 4th level Monk or 2nd level Ninja to even attempt it.

Pres Man wrote:

If a player really wanted to multi-class in say, rogue and ninja, how many GMs would truly tell them, "No, they are the same class"? And how many GMs would say, "Sure, if you want to, it would be better to just pick one in the long term, but hey, whatever"?

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I absolutely would. Rogue/Ninja? Sure thing! Fighter/Fighter? Absolutely!

However, the character would not gain the benefits of first level in this case. He would not automatically get a bonus feat for his "1st level" of the second Fighter class. He would continue to progress saves as if he were a single classed Fighter. Same with the Rogue/Ninja. Levels stack for determining SA and Rogue Talent progressions, as well as saves.

In a nutshell, this.

Tam

Fixed to quote the original questioner rather than me

Im a little hazy on the rules when it comes to monsters with multiple attack options, ie the dragon, bite, tail, claws. ive always been under the impression that the dragon on its turn only gets to use one of these means to attack. But, recently, i was in a game and the dm did all three on a guy in one turn. i talked to him about it after the game and he told me that it is allowed because its the dragons full attack action.

Have i been doing it wrong? are the creatures supposed to be getting all the attacks and i have been holding them back unawares, or am i correct in my line of thought?

If a creature takes a five foot srtep, they can full attack and use every one of their attacks (which is why you never, ever, ever want to get within 10 feet of a dragon). If they make a move action, they can only make a standard action and thus make only one attack, although they can choose which.

Mahorfeus wrote:

Quote:

I absolutely would. Rogue/Ninja? Sure thing! Fighter/Fighter? Absolutely!

Great, now we can have Ranger/Rangers wielding four bows n' arrows at once.

Joking aside, I really like the idea of alternate classes. It changes the flavor and play style of a base class, but allows you to use all of the same support as the base version. This mitigates the usual rush of feats that follows the release of new classes - you don't need any new ones for the Samurai and Ninja.

Hence why the Gunslinger shouldn't be considered an alternate class. Not only does it already have a number of feats dedicated to it, but its class features are completely different from those of its supposed progenitor. At least for the Antipaladin it was just a matter of replacing every occurrence of the word "cure" with "inflict."

Forgive me but is that the case, if you have a gunslinger it automatically qualifies for all fighter feats. I figured that was the intention, but after reading the download wasn't 100% sure. So is that stated somewhere that I just missed, or a logical conclusion, or just speculation? I'm being serious, I haven't been following the playtest discussions because I currently don't have a group, so please let me know.

In the role section, it says the Gunslinger is an alternate class for the Fighter. Alternate classes have previously been described as 'big archetypes', so they are still the base class unless stated otherwise. Hence, the Gunslinger is, currently, a Fighter.

I remember somewhere James was saying its a good chance Rogues will be able to take some ninja tricks anyway.....so what is the issue is it you just don't like that there are more than one instance that the word "ninja" shows up?

No, it's that it makes support for the Ninja in future publications more problematic. If they're Rogue Talents, then ther's no problem but if some (but not all) Rogue Talents are also Ninja Tricks then every future Rogue Talent is going to have to specifty it's also a Ninja Trick. This means fewer Rogue talents as they'll also have to give the Ninjas something. For an overhyped archetype, that's too much additional work needed to support it.

Zark wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

My critique of Paizo and Pathfinder concerns the use of "alternate" classes as a "replacement" for new base classes.

I'm not too happy about it either. Mainly because it forces the new classes to a mold they must fit.

The Ninja must follow the rogue, same skill points per level, same sneak attack, etc
The Gunslinger a fighter, the Samurai a Cavalier. Since I don't like the Cavalier the Samurai isn't my cup of tea.
I can however see the point in not letting Ninja multi class as a rogue, etc, but I'm not sure that would be a big problem.
So I guess I agree with you on this to some extent.
Still I'm happy with Eric's answer.

Here is a question, and I realize that people can't truly be honest on how they will answer it because the rules haven't been finalized, but with what you are seeing now ...

If a player really wanted to multi-class in say, rogue and ninja, how many GMs would truly tell them, "No, they are the same class"? And how many GMs would say, "Sure, if you want to, it would be better to just pick one in the long term, but hey, whatever"?

I would compare it to clerics. Obviously, you wouldn't allow someone to be a cleric of deity X and then multiclass as cleric of deity Y. So it is really that close of a relationship or is it not? (again, obviously we don't know what the end product is yet, so this is all assuming what we know at this time)

I'd ask them why, given how similar the classes are. But I'd be inclined to say no. Would you allow someone to multiclass Fighter with Fighter (Two-handed fighter)? It's the same thing.

First Impressions:
1) Have to agree with Seeker on the Ninja Tricks. We hatesss them, precioussssss. They should be Rogue Talents. I have no objection to some requiring a Ki Pool as not all Rogue Archetypes benefit from all the Rogue Talents, but this seems to distance it too much from the base class. It also makes supporting the Ninja more difficult as it means every Rogue talent in future will have to be mentioned whether it's also usable by Ninjas as a Ninja Trick rather than using their Rogue Talent trick. Muddles things too much.

2) Ninja Tricks are overpowered. This mostly applies to the magic tricks. There should probably be a minimum level (and Charisma) applied to these to make them less powerful at low levels. I know Ninjas magically vanishing is pretty much the archetype's main feature but this is a bit much.

3) Ki Pool vs Evasion: Ki Pool seems more versatile, especially with the option to add extra attacks, while Evasion is much better defensively. The extra attack option probably makes this a bit more powerful, but removing it would make the ability much weaker than evasion. If changes are needed, possibly make the extra attack option a Trick/Talent? I'd also add in a Ki Strike ability to the Tricks/Talents list.

4) Overall, this is clearly a Rogue, but some of the Tricks seem more powerful than the Rogue equivalent and, conceptually, I despise the Ninja Tricks vs Rogue Talents split.

First impressions:
1) This is a Western character with flintlocks and that just doesn't work out. The naming conventions, the gun tricks, everything about this class calls out to the Westerns, but because of the era limitations on firearms, he can't actually use those abilities as people imagine. This seems to be a problem for others and is a disconnect point that I'm not sure is easy to resolve. The cannot full ttack unless you take a specific trick, burn up a very limited resource (grit) or take another feat after that but only after 11th level also really grates on the image.

2) The class is Fighter archetype, which absolutely makes sense given it's a weapon specialist. But the Fighter chasis is hard to make out. Changing the save progression is a big change for an archetype. Especially when you go and give them a good Fort save with the Brave and Tough ability. I can see why you'd want a ranged weapon specialist to have good Reflex, but this didn't happen with the crossbowman or archer archetypes and I think it pulls the class too far from the source. Giving it back the good Fort and making Reflex the boosted save would accomplish this.

3) Gun training doesn't scale and is essentially pointless at levels 13 and 17 in the playtest as there aren't enough guns to use. This isn't a problem with the class but an issue with the playtest design. I understand why you'd want to keep the details of more guns in reserve but it does hamper thigns a little given how central they are to this character.

4) Grit seems to be complicated, very low in points, and doesn't scale with level. If the gunslinger feats added a grit point each as well, this would make the ability more useful (although possibly still too limited at high levels).

Hi all.

My request is can somebody please provide me with the name of the guy that was tricked by the midget chessmaster and ended up building a very basic computer as a result.

I remember reading something like this in a thread about 100 desicions that would have spawned an alternate history and now I can't find the thread.

I'm takeing basic programming logic and design this term and we have to do a report and slideshow presentation on famous computer scientists so I would like to do mine on this guy but can't remember his name or find the thread.

Thanks in advance.

I believe it was Charles Babbage. His Difference Engine is often regarded as the first proper computer.