Robb Smith's page

I also supported the assertion that differing "Sources", in the forms of differing rules elements, granting the same stat bonus to a functional ability (in an untyped form) stacked, so it was not cut and dry. It required Errata.

*Edited: Clarification.

I've never heard of anyone forcing anyone to roll, and it also kind of defeats the sidebar section in Blood of Angels where it talks about non-human aasimar and says an Aasimar can just choose to be Small if they want to, (subject to GM Fiat of course.) It also kinda seems like a fundamental waste of time, because it would basically boil down to a "I tore up sheets and rerolled height/weight till I got numbers that I liked" situation

Here's my opinion.

DC 32 is a considered a pretty absurd knowledge check.

The PC should have known "something" about it. Maybe an esoteric legend. Maybe the information isn't even absolutely correct. But... SOMETHING.

When you tell a PC they know "nothing about it", you make them feel like the investment they have made into their character is pointless. This, to me, feels like a squandered opportunity for a plot hook and a devaluing of where a character has chosen to focus (or maybe even just had a bit of luck)

Allow me to illustrate the point, using your own words.

DC30: "You once heard a story about a gifted Elven cleric who once, having provided someone with materials and tons of supplies to craft a magical creation when requested, encountered an object that teleported away from him."

DC35: "He has been seeking that object ever since, and no one left alive truly knows its properties. This object seems to match the Cleric's description of that very object."

DC40: "The object sounds like it was designed to fulfill the bearer's wishes, without restriction or limitation."

DC45: "You know that such magic is rarely fulfilled as desired, and most likely would come with an unexpected or terrible cost."

gplayle:

You're welcome for the insight. Glad to hear that it sounds like you and your GM came to what sounds like, at least from my perspective, the correct decision.

Oh, and welcome to the rules forum. Most people here won't stop until you are utterly humiliated. I accept your most gracious acceptance of what at least appears to be fact.

Have a good night.

Robb Smith wrote:

Not in my eyes. That feat is legacy, 3.5 material. Nothing in Blood of Fiends requires a feat to take an alternate heritage. In addition, the chart is gone.

SUPER-pedantic correction. That feat comes from the first-ever Pathfinder Adventure Path supplement, The Bastards of Erebus.

That said, they were still disentangling themselves from 3.5 at the time, and it's an exceedingly common mistake. ^_^

Yeah, I always forget that Bastards was ... "Super-technically Pathfinder."

I have two things to state here in regards to this that are staple, if not underlying, rules for groups I play in -

1) In-combat healing, with the exception of something absolutely necessary to save someone from death, is a wasted action.

The general expectation from groups with any experience level should be that healing happens OUTSIDE of combat, except when necessary to save a life.

Healing in combat is a negative-sum game in almost all circumstances with the exception of extremely potent magic like Heal. If you're healing inside combat, you are wasting actions that would be better spent removing the source of the damage. I always sigh a little bit when I see someone casting Cure Light Wounds in combat instead of bashing the mage's face in with their mace, or providing flanking or threatening support.

2) Purchasing wands of Cure Light Wounds is a PARTY responsibility, not the Cleric's.

Straight up - Wands of CLW come off party treasure straight up before shares are divvy'd up. Just because you are USING it on everyone doesn't mean it's your responsibility to purchase it with your share of the treasure.

Playing a cleric or "healer" as long as these ground rules are established can be a rewarding and fulfilling experience.

The eternal struggle of RPGs is that there are very few people who want to run, and everyone wants to play.

Maybe, instead of living in frustration, it's time to take on the mantle of GM yourself for a while and show her a different manner of gameplay, more akin to what you feel you and the group would prefer. Life is difficult on the other side of the screen, especially if time and obligations prevent you from being able to build in depth plots and stories.

Barring that, at a minimum it's potentially time for a polite conversation where you express that your expectation for the campaign was slightly different, and that character is primarily focused on interactions with humanoids. She may simply not have realized that fact.

Empathy is the answer. Not frustration.

Agree with (most) other posters. You cannot cast spells of 3rd level without 13+. A spell "operating at" a level is not the same as the spell *being* that level.

Here's the short answer for you though, for the future: Don't make PFS characters that rely on GM interpretation. Ever. This is a recipe for disappointment and disaster.

What in the name of creation are you talking about? The feat or class ability is the source of the bonus. You are confusing "type" with "source".

Wraith is correct. You are 100% wrong, and just posted the rules citation illustrating exactly why.

When you get into this space, your own personal universe is the answer. It gets you a large number of permanent castings of create demiplane (lesser, greater, vanilla) with permanency and then plenty of money for structures, etc.

General PF rules? Sure a player can know more. But no one plays general PF, they play their GMs game which only resembles General PF because they want it too.

This is even true for things such as PFS. There just happen to be quasi-over-GMs that create some rules for GMs to play by. But that doesn't eliminate table-variation, try using illusions at several PFS tables if you don't believe me. Even in the most structured, the players are still playing in the GMs world.

I am going to fundamentally disagree with you on this one. I believe that most players AND GMs both strive to adhere to the RAW as printed. Mistakes are made, and often corrected, But saying "a player can't know more rules then the GM" because one GM might arbitrarily decide that falling is 1d6 per 20 feet instead of per 10 feet does not mean the GM "knows more rules" then the player. It means they created a variance to the rules of which the player may be unaware. It means they have arbitrarily decided to change a rule of the game.

Bluntly, if these changes are not communicated to the players in advance, therefore maintaining the status quo of "it is possible for a player to know more rules then the GM", that GM is, simply put, a bad GM. House rules or rule changes should be known, by everyone at the table, well in advance of that situation coming into play. Any situation in which the GM does not like the outcome should be run RAW and a discussion should be had after the fact, not a sudden "this is how it works". Anything else is unfair to the players.

Table variation does not excuse poor adherence to the RAW, and one of my understandings about the current state of PFS is that things like table variation and GMs not staying up to date with corrections and errata is viewed as an "elephant in the room" that needs to be addressed more harshly. It is also one of the few reasons I don't play PFS - The venture captains I've met have been unwilling to have the stones to step in and overrule a blown GM call and put things back how they're supposed to be, as opposed to other living campaign systems I've played in.

Unlike you I didn't decide to champion a joke argument.

Step back a bit and look at the title of both our arguments

"Invisibility doesn't make you quieter"

Whether or not invisibility makes you quieter is completely irrelevant. The spell provides a +40/+20 bonus to stealth checks. It doesn't matter if the monster can hear you or not. Pathfinder has no specific mechanism for distinguishing perception checks based on hearing versus perception based on vision, it's all part and parcel of the same check.

You can walk around invisible, banging cymbals together and blowing into a tuba. You still get a +20 bonus to your stealth, opposed by your opponent's perception.

For the above example, however, a circumstance penalty may be warranted.

Gaberlunzie - Here's a secret for these forums. When one person tells you that you're wrong, you may still be right and that person doesn't know what they're talking about. When 3 people tell you that you're wrong, There's a small chance that you're still right, and people can't recognize the failings of the English language and the limitations of printed media.

When EVERYONE tells you that you're wrong, you're probably just wrong, and it's time to move on and let it go.

You are wrong.

Oh, and to the OP: Yes, Casters are broken after about level 9.

Instead of claiming the argument is desperate or stupid, could you people put forth counterarguments?

I mean, by my reading all of the rules makes sense in regard to this. Spells in an actual list of spells for the sor/wiz are on the sor/wiz spell list. Spells that have a sor/wiz spell designation but are not published on any list (such as blood money) are "unusual spells" that the sorcerer can gain "understanding of through study".

How does that not make sense?

While I understand your logic, you are just incorrect. The "Sorcerer/Wizard" spell list is comprised of every spell contained in the universe of content that has been created for the game. The fact that one "snapshot" of this list, included in the CRB, comprises the "sorcerer/wizard spell list", is easily countered with the fact that Ultimate Magic and the Advanced Player's Guide both also have "Spell Lists" that are all separate and distinct from one another. "Spell List" is used singularly. Which "spell list" are you limited to, when dozens exist?

If your class is capable of casting the spell, it is on your class's "spell list" as a spell of the appropriate level.

Sure, by RAW you can absolutely use this sentence to strip your alchemist player of every single class feature that they have.

However -

There is no limit to how much catalyst an alchemist can create or have available, only to how much they can infuse with magic and use in a day. If you don't make your alchemist write down how much catalyst they are preparing and have available, you are very much taking RAW vs. Ability descriptions too far.

It is an unfair GM call to take a normally untracked resource like bomb catalyst and suddenly change it into something that matters in the game. This would be just like suddenly asking your spellcasters if they have bat guano written on their character sheet after years of using the "spell component pouches count as having everything" rule.

@RyanD:

Well Ryan, I must say that I honestly wish you the best of luck in your endeavor. Unfortunately however, as I've stated earlier in this thread, "Some scars never fade", and the entire concept of PVP looting is anathema to me.

Regardless of what's lootable, how small of a value it may be, or how easily replaceable it is, it is still my time being wasted. I'll agree with you that it adds value to PVP, but the problem is that it adds value to meaningless PVP. It creates an entire culture of "I'm going to kill you for your stuff." It reduces heroes to the same status as mobs - Kill them to see what drops off the random loot chart.

There is no such thing as "high value items" with these sort of systems, because the highest value items become the ones that people aren't afraid to lose. Anything higher then that becomes relegated to the status of stash-bait or "look at my sweet collection of magic items I'll never use because I might drop them if someone ganks me or I die'.

I also think that your policy regarding Chaotic Evil players is interesting, but I am relatively sure that the policy of crippling their character development is going to either have to be toned back to the point of meaninglessness or you will find no one for your Lawful Good players to wage war against.

Unfortunately, I am a man of my word. As expressed earlier in the thread, PVP looting is a subject on which I have no room for negotiation or compromise. It is a shame, because while I'm sure that while you probably consider me a royal pain in the behind, I appear to have been one of the few people here that isn't just a yes man, and wasn't afraid to step up and challenge you. I wish I could have remained here to do so, personally I feel a stronger and better game is forged from the fires of contention, argument, and debate then a dozen people telling you that every single decision is the best one ever - for that small subset of people.

While I fully understand that on a whole it is a meaningless and token gesture, I also cannot in good conscience spend my hard earned money on something that I do not fully support. So it is with a heavy heart that I have just completed cancelling my pledge.

I wish you and your team the best of luck, and I hope the game is successful for what you envision it to be. But for me, it seems that you are making a PVP game with some Pathfinder, and not a Pathfinder game with some PVP. And, as you stated "Not everyone is going to like the game." Trust me, I wanted to like it.

--Robb.

Thanks for the support Morgen, Berik, Vjek, and others. I do appreciate others being willing to step up and toe the line with me on this one. I do feel that those of us with this mindset are heavily underrepresented here, probably due to having been driven off in the past.

And to Jameow, I know that we don't agree 100% on this, but I appreciate you being at least able to step over the line here with us for a little bit and say "you know. From this side of the line, it doesn't really make sense."

To those of you out there lurking who here who are perhaps shy, don't want the exposure, or don't enjoy confrontation, you're welcome to send me private messages and I'll be happy to represent you as well. Or, as an alternative, you can just favorite this post.

Just want to confirm that you were talking CCP, the company who, just last year, had their CEO come out and apologize for not listening to their fans telling them that things that were put into or taken out of the game were horrible ideas?

The company whose CEO made this statement?

Somewhere along the way, I began taking success for granted. As hubris set in, I became less inclined to listen to pleas for caution. Red flags raised by very smart people both at CCP and in the community went unheeded because of my stubborn refusal to allow adversity to gain purchase on our plans. Mistakes, even when they were acknowledged, often went unanalyzed, leaving the door open for them to be repeated.

Just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

yes, but that means they have to pay for 2 accounts. But I am getting to a point where i am going to try and give up with this whole argument. There will always people who will want no risk and all the rewards (like in a themepark) and don't want to work for it.

You're missing the entire POINT. The point is that you say there's risk and reward. What I am demonstrating to you is with either minimal effort or a tiny amount of additional resource expenditure, practically every punishment that has been extoled is MEANINGLESS.

It is a pointless discussion and as said before, you will lose loot when you die in this game. So either suck it up and sign up for the kickstarter to see how it is, find friends to play with or just leave.

No company has ever gained any useful data during the design process by having a select group of fanboys tell them how awesome all their ideas are and how this is gonna be the "best game ever!". They learn valuable information by people like me coming here and telling them why certain ideas are trash and why they will not be appealing to large subsections of the market. There are ENTIRELY TOO MANY Eve supporters on this board and not enough contradicting voices that will give this game any sort of chance to evolve beyond anything but Eve 2: Now With Swords.

And, in case you haven't read numerous posts, I've been signed up since the first hour it went up. I'm determining if I'm staying pledged or not.

As an example with eve. you have the pirates, they are people who gank in lowsec where they prey on the miners, unaware rat-ers etc. If lucky they get the gank, they get some items. The result after a while will be they can no longer enter the hi-sec areas anymore. If you have -3 you will be attacked by patrols (and they will slow/stun (web) you so you cannot get away and proceed to kill you. The result after a while will be that they are limited to the low sec or nul sec areas. They cannot have access to the items that are being sold in the hi-sec locations, and those prices are most of the times half of what they are in low-sec and sometimes even more expensive in nul-sec. So they will have to work harder to get their money to buy the...

Or you just do what the smart eve players do and get a second account. That solves that problem pretty quick, doesn't it?

in a sandbox game you, the player and all the other players around, are the storyteller and the characters in the game and thus you can make your own story and actions that will impact the game. So if there are people that want to go out and play bandit, it is their right. In regards of that they should get a reward for their actions. And they will get punishment as well. Same goes for good players, they won't be able to go out and pk right away and will have to wait till they get attacked.

So, what is the risk/reward to the party? Losing everything they have and everything they've gained over the past 3 hours, and their reward is getting to keep everything they've already earned by exposing themselves to a ton of risk.

And the risk/reward to the PK? They either get free stuff, some of it likely to be good since they did just come out of a dungeon. The risk is one dagger.

Yeah, seems fair.

Yet another example of poor planning by the party/person. You shouldn't be seeking encounters that leave you battered with no way to heal, and if you see one your choices are to run or gamble.

There is a play style change that has to happen to swap from PvE heavy themeparks to body looting sandboxes. You have to plan ahead, and just because you can do something, or can buy something, doesn't mean you should do it or buy it.

You're absolutely right. Dungeons are never perhaps a little tougher then what you planned on. As a contingency, what I should have done is hired a guard to sit outside the dungeon and wait while the rest of us went down through the dungeon and had fun for 3 hours or so, so we could come back up loaded with treasure and tell them how awesome it was. Then they could tell us about all the fun they had standing there, doing some more standing, doing a little more standing, and then telling us that they think they saw an eagle.

Then, in case the guard got jumped, I should have hired a a guard for my guard, to be engaged only if the guard got attacked.

Or I could camp in the dungeon, neglecting the fact that to be an MMO, the game would need things like respawn mechanics.

So, let's sit down and map out the 50 people you think should need to be involved for 4 of us to explore a dungeon and not get murdered, and see how much of a chore we can make the game into instead of fun.

Yup. There's nothing a GM can truly do to prevent players from making absolutely stupid decisions and getting thrashed/killed accordingly. There are limits to plausibility involved. The best GMs have you limping out of the cave after hours of adventure with everyone at like, 4 hitpoints, no spells remaining, with a fair amount of treasure, and stories to share back in town.

And then ~XxX~SephirothPKMaster~XxX~ jumps you naked wearing nothing but a dagger, murders you, and takes your stuff and leaves the rest to rot in the wilderness. EPIC ADVENTURE HAD BY ALL!

With the risk of being blunt, insulting and god knows what else, I am going to post this.

What you want is basically the following:

A sandbox MMO, where you have your themepark mixed into it, with your raiding and no loss of items if you mess up.

No, being equally blunt in return, what I want is Pathfinder Online, not Eve 2: Now with swords.

You'll also notice that I haven't commented at all on the PVE portion, have I?

That's because I don't mind it as much.

In PVE, I control some of the risk. In PVE, I can pretty much run away from situations out of my control (if you run in PVP, the ganker just assumes it's because you have a real reason to run and will pursue you till the ends of the earth.) In PVE, I'm usually the one initiating the combat on my terms, not getting jumped while I'm at half health fighting 2 or 3 monsters. I have access to at least SOME FORM of risk-mitigation.

The only people losing anything substantial will be those that aren't thinking and playing with more expensive stuff than they can afford to replace.

@Robb

Does your frustration come from losing your stuff, or somebody getting a reward for besting you in combat?

The frustration of losing stuff, and in addition, losing even MORE TIME replacing said stuff, from someone who is required to put nothing of significance on the line for the chance to take said stuff.

Robb Smith wrote:

For every method of hurting evil characters they come up with, players will probably find 2 or 3 ways around it...

Sorry, Robb, you contrary for the sake of contrariness.

No, I've just been to the rodeo more than once. You're completely naive if you think that players aren't going to easily find ways around the detriments for being evil. Some of them are detectable and fixable. Many are damn near undetectable.

I am not really that opposed to PVP being in the game. I have expressed my concern as I personally feel that it does not enhance the game, but rather detracts from it, but that is neither here nor there.

Where I draw my line in the sand on this subject, however, is PVP looting. PVP looting except as a punishment for the worst of the worst criminals will, simply put, not be a part of any game I play. There will be no conversation about it, there will be no negotiation about it, and there will be no concession on it. Trying to convince me that I'm wrong and you're right is a complete waste of your breath. Trying to expound the value of how "players being monsters with random drops enhances meaningful interaction" will fall on deaf ears. Trying to detail an elaborate system of "oh, but if you're good, you only have a small chance of losing certain slots..." will be said to my back as I walk away from the table. Nothing about how this game plays, operates, or is different than "theme park" MMOs can possibly justify the frustration of losing your hard earned items to a ganker. Period.

If PVP looting is in, I am out. And I don't claim to speak for the all the PvE players of the world, but on this subject, I feel pretty comfortable speaking for at least half, if not more, who are coming with me. Even my most diehard PVP loving friend, the one who always wants to play on PVP servers, always wants to run battlegrounds, and you couldn't hold back from attacking an opposing faction player with a +5 Adamantine Chain gave me the response of "ewww." when I told him about PVP loot.

Ryan talks about the "scars of UO". Well, to that I say "Some scars never fade." This is one of them. I've played a lot of MMO's in my day, and I never thought a company would be .... well, I won't say it, cause I have nothing nice to say.

As one poster so eloquently put, "I am not paying to be someone elses content". I don't think that's a fair statement, because really in an MMO, that is what we're paying for. However:
I am not paying to be someone else's farming mule,
I am not paying to be someone else's gatherer,
and I am not paying to be someone's elite mob that might drop a rare item that I happened to be holding to MY detriment.

There is, because it will impact on your ability to interact with others, and since you cant rely on looting for equipment, it could be quite difficult to maintain your character considering the pressure on it from bounties, hunting by others and inability to use many towns and services, and your alignment and reputation affecting those you associate with you, which means if you're a douche, you'll bring others down with you, so you'll be in a constant struggle against better resourced opponents that way

Look, you have to understand that our problem is not with the 20, 30, 50, or even 80% of PVP players that act with some decorum or sense of honor, here. Our problem is with the 20% of them that are scum-sucking bottom feeders that give the entire PVP concept and population a bad name. Many of them playing in methods that are, from everything we've gotten so far, not truly "griefers" - they're just a-holes.

This 20% is the group that really ruin the experience for us. The kind that don't care about the game, reputation, etc. They just want to play quake with swords, ruin other people's day, and take your stuff. They don't care if it's a +5 Vorpal sword or a stack of iron. It was yours, now it's theirs, and they know that you're going to be irritated at losing it, and that's all they care about. They don't care about not being able to use towns, all that means to them is they have to level up to a point they're comfortable with and then be jerks to people as they pass through while dodging people better then them (problem is, with the reduced power curve that lee and Stephen spoke about, that's less of an issue).

But the biggest thing is this 20% of people who are a-holes are also the ones who are pretty much PVPing all day long. This means that they usually have skill levels that allow them to defeat 2 or 3 people who do not have interest in PVPing all day long. Don't believe it? Go play wow. It's pretty easy in battlegrounds to tell who is from the PVP servers and who is from the PVE servers. The PVE players are the ones sitting with one sapped while the rogue is killing their friend, before they vanish to kill the one that's sapped, usually while shouting "kek kek kek" over and over. (that's LOL after faction-garbling.)

This is the 20% that we PVE-focused don't want to be forced to endure. Most of us don't really have any opposition to the grand plans of people like Andius and the fact he wants to kill these people, or the whole concepts of faction warfare and etc. That whole concept is *fine* with us.

How would they even KNOW you had an ultra rare drop? If it's an ultra rare, you WOULDN'T expect them to have it even if they DID kill the thing you get it from.

They can kill you and try, but even if you have it, chances are they STILL won't get it. It's not a very STRONG incentive to lower your reputation, you'd be better off raiding a factional enemy's resources and using them to trade for the rare you want :P

And if you're reputation's already shot, there's little reason not to try, is there?

That's the problem.

Okay, so let's put it in RPG terms, how would you handle it then? How would you in a PnP RPG handle the things? Don't get me wrong, I don't want to pick a fight. But I feel what you want is a single player game with content you can handle, or just a themepark MMO.

It's a difficult comparison to make because in PNP games, you do not get rushed by 30 monsters of equal skill level to the players trying to take your stuff. Not unless your DM is a railroading jerk and intends for the things to get stolen. PnP characters are also just "better" than their surroundings.

We are handing out options to people who are afraid to lose items with solutions. We tell people to try the game and see how it feels and what happens and how you will be protected. I know that if you were in my charter and you had those items to be moved, the charter would step up and help you move them to where you want. Or if you died would help you get your gear back (if not in stock already so you could just grab it) etc.

Here's my point, Psy. You have a large group of people who are on the fence about PVP being in the game *at all*, and now you are also adding the "poison pill" of losing their hard-won equipment to the mix. Das is nicht gut.

People are now coming back with the argument "oh, it's only certain slots if you're not a criminal, and the items are easily replaceable." Well, if that is the case, then it's just another inconvenience added on top of the pile of inconvenience that the Anti-PVP crowd is already opposed to, so why bother adding such a divisive element?

However, if you only want to play lonewolf and not willing to interact with other people in regards of a charter or the game. I will never be able to convince you then to widen your horizon and try something new, and that is a shame :(

And what I fail to understand is the reason people keep coming back with people wanting a single player game just because they don't want to join some massive guild or alliance to guarantee protection.

I want to play the game, I want to play the game with friends, but I am an introvert - I prefer a smaller circle of close friends to a large group of people I hardly know. Just because I don't want to be in a guild of 500 doesn't mean I don't want to play with, say, 30 close friends, who may or may not all be online when I need to do things.

Robb Smith wrote:

I am saying that the act of setting up a contract like that is broadcasting to the entire population that you are doing something at that place and time that is worthwhile to attempt to steal.

I may be wrong, but I believe you have to accept the Contract before you learn anything more than the time.

OK, I accept the contract, tell my friends, and then we rob it in the wilderness.

That's still not griefing. It's being a lying scum-sucker.

I believe what Ryan is referring to, Nihimon, is setting up a contract saying there's a caravan that needs guarding, and then when the time comes instead of a caravan, there's a huge group of PVPers waiting to kill people and take their stuff. That's what "luring people out to kill them with a contract." would mean to me.

Edit: And also what your quote says. "Luring people into an ambush" is bad. It says nothing about using information gained from a contract to *set up* an ambush.

Robb Smith wrote:

... I need a guard. Please be at this place... to gank me...

I haven't read the entire thread, but this jumped out at me.

Ryan has made it explicitly clear that using Contracts to lure people out in order to kill them will be considered Griefing, and will be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

I'm not talking about that at all. I am saying that the act of setting up a contract like that is broadcasting to the entire population that you are doing something at that place and time that is worthwhile to attempt to steal.

Setting up a contract requesting a guard would be like the bank posting it's armored car schedule on the door.

If showing up at the caravan that requested a guard to rob it instead of guard is griefing, then everyone will just set up a guard contract and use that as insurance.

I am not opposed to a separate loot table. If it's actually taking my stuff, I'm out.

and you see more PvP because there is no reason not to constantly attack the same player

Except for all of the other penalties?

Also, if you want to not be harrased, why not hire people to protect you?

Guard Contract
The accepting party agrees to be logged in and present at a designated location during a specified time frame. Can be accepted by multiple parties, up to a limit specified by the terms. Abandonment of the contract or failure to fulfill the terms forfeits an amount of coin held in escrow as defined by the contract. The party offering the contract specifies an account to fund the contract when the contract is created. The agreed fee for the guard is placed in escrow each time the contract is accepted. If the fee cannot be put in escrow, the contract cannot be accepted. Can only be seen and accepted at the location where the contract is offered.

https://goblinworks.com/blog/index.html#20120523

Dear Sir or Madam,

I will be doing something at this place at this point of time, that necessitates me thinking I need a guard. Please be at this place on Thursday, December 12th at 10pm Central Time to gank me, I will certainly be transporting items worthy of your time.

Thank you,

Newb.

Why is the Risk vs. Reward so scary, and why not work together in a guild and then in an alliance to ensure you have your own piece of ground (where you know you will be protected by other alliance members?) And then prosper? dable in the occasional PvP and learn that yes, it sucks to lose your items, but damn it was a rush to defend our land.

Because the risk versus the reward is not the same. The person initiating the PVP conflict gets to go into it and prepare for it beforehand by stashing everything they don't wish to lose in a safe location, while the person having no choice does not receive the same luxury. They already get the advantage of surprise, it puts all the cards in the hands of the attacker.

Suffice to say, it makes being an attacker far more appealing than being an attackee. Making it so that they can take your stuff is just adding injury to insult.

Druid and ranger will likely have just enough to them, but a group should have a priest to heal the group.

Unequivocally and whole-heartedly disagree.

No specific class should ever be "required".
No specific class should ever be "the best at" a given role.

Adding either of these to the game basically changes those classes from being desirable to being mandatory amongst more serious play circles. No dedicated group wants the second best, and no player wants to be the class that people settle for when <x> isn't around.

No blood, no foul. I enjoy a spirited debate, if nothing else it forces me to dig my heels in deeper. Sorry if I ever irritated the heck out of you either, I think the reality is we're more like each other than either of us would want to admit in public. But I'd totally still buy you a beer*1a.

*: Assuming you are of legal age to purchase/consume alcohol in your area.
1: And that consumption of alcohol isn't against any sort of religious or personal decision.
a: And that you don't only drink the super expensive trendy micro-brew crap.

How about giving out Pathfinder Society boons for races not normally available in PFS play? That's really a zero-cost option that would probably generate interest in that crowd.

Agreed with most, i am just not a fan of Pay2Win, even though I myself personally have more money than time at this point in my life. It drastically diminishes accomplishments when one can just go pay $20 bucks and get the same advantage.

I'm on the fence about paying for training for alts at a nominal progression rate. I'm somewhat of an alt-a-holic myself, so It's a tough one for me.

Personally I think TERA was the company that has, to date, done Microtransactions "best". Lots of fun cosmetic options, but nothing that gives any sort of "In-Game" benefit. Though, I admittedly haven't played in a long time so I'm not sure if the gym bags give any sort of play-impacting item.

1. Magic. Specifically the spellcasting classes but mostly the Cleric, Druid and Wizard. Higher level games can still be dominated by these classes without much effort.

This was addressed, both on the "nerfing" and "buffing" sides of the spectrum, to great effect. Is there still some advantages to magic? Yes. Versatility always brings more power, and every new supplement brings the potential for overpowered spells to slip through the QC cracks. But I'm going to be honest - Most campaigns I have played in don't go past 15th level specifically *because* of this, and after 15 levels I feel a character's saga is really played out anyway.

Magic items in Pathfinder are to easy to craft and they effectively double the recommended wealth by level guidelines. Short of a Pathfinder II I don't see any real solution to this.

Yes, but this is true for both sides, as only the most arrogant and selfish spellcaster does not also craft items for the rest of the party. This is also far more of a problem in homebrew adventures where PCs are given nearly-infinite time to craft. This does not really come up in adventure paths.

To many core spells in the PFRPG core book are borked and have been since 3.0 in several cases

.

There are a handful of spells in the core book that are edging on overpowered. Things like Black Tentacles, etc. I don't consider anything to be "borked".

2. Offense Vs Defense or rocket tag. Partly related to number 1 but it can be used in regards to the other classes. Kill stuff faster than it can kill you is a very simple and effective defense. Offensive feats are usually better than defensive ones (power attack vs dodge or toughness). Two handed weapons and archery seem plain out better than say sword and board, dual wielding, or dueling (1 weapon) although the other styles can be good they require alot of effort and access to splat books. To some extent this one is easy to fix- make more powerful defensive feats and class options. Spring attack for example is situationally useful- a feat/class ability could be designed that grants you +4 AC if you are fighing a two handed weapon wielder or on that makes the opponent reroll his attack roll (a'la 4th ed Halflings).

I'm going to ask a serious question in response to this - Do you really, really want combats that last all night? I personally don't. It is not hard to make a defense specialized character that is nearly unhittable by monsters.

3. Class Balance. A thorny one here.

I'm going to go out a limb here and say it - Class balance in Pathfinder is fine. I am working on making a character for PFS, and I'm bouncing between a hundred concepts I want to make, all of which are viable, and all of which would be fun and perfectly playable. I did not just write "Wizard", "Cleric", or "Druid" on the character sheet and then decide what minor options I wanted for it.

Now, I will absolutely say that I wish Paizo would fix the handful of archetypes that are very interesting, but realistically completely unplayable as written. Things like White-Haired Witch, Urban Druid (I'm sure I'll probably get blasted for it, but bad archetype is bad.), etc.

It would be fairly trivial to say that creatures can "shift" (to borrow a 4e term) a distance equal to the natural reach given by their size from the table in CRB. You'd have to bear in mind that it would make larger creatures more dangerous, but when you consider their size on the battlefield, I doubt it would be game breaking.

No, it would be absolutely game breaking. One of the primary dangers from large creatures is the AOO from approaching them. You are giving this to them every turn. It also gives monsters *obscene* battlefield mobility.

The combat sequence for a melee character moves from:

1) Engage (Take AoO)
2) Single Attack
3) Take Full Attack
4) Trade Full Attacks (since it can't take more than a 5 foot step away without provoking or withdrawling).

To:

1) Engage (Take AoO)
2) Single Attack
3) Monster full attacks.
4) Monster x-foot steps away.
5) Player must re-engage (takes another AoO)
6) Player only gets a single attack again.)

repeat 4-6 until the player is utterly murdered.

Mobility goes from being a nice to have feat to absolutely mandatory to survive. The full attack action for players is relegated to the status of "something you might get to do between levels 5-9 or so". Two weapon fighting feats are rendered worthless. Melee characters, who already struggle to keep up with their ranged brothers, fall further behind.

For real. It may sound "silly" that a monster can only shuffle 5 feet, but it really is a fundamental balancing aspect of the rules and without it, combat breaks very quickly.

At the end of the day, the important thing to remember is that traps are really meant to be detected. It's the disarming part that's meant to be the challenge. Players not finding traps is just terrible dice rolls or people not playing smart.

If you're trying to make a trap that can't be detected and/or is just there to do random damage to the PCs, it's not a "trap", it's just doing damage to the players. You might as well just have them take 2d6 points of damage in the morning cause you feel like it.

Alright, here's my critique (before I gave up)

Special Feats:
Judgement Casting:
Character can improve spell damage by 25%, increase range by 50%, increase duration by 50% or cast spell as quicken. One effect must be chosen before casting if it is used.

No. No. No. This feat is egregiously powerful. Like, beyond sane and rational powerful. This feat would be too good with a 1x/day limitation.

It is mini-empower, extend, or quicken on every single spell you cast with no spell level adjustment. There is a reason why quicken spell adds +4 to the spell's level - it is that good.

Greater Judgement Casting:
As Judgement casting except two effects can be chosen and every effect is increased by 25%.

This makes bad even worse... moving on.

Judgement Channeling:

+ 2 to beat spell resistance at chosen domain (Clerics and other divine spell casters). Similar to Spell Focus

"At chosen domain"? Are you referring to spells cast out of domain slots? Channeling is not subject to spell resistance.

Judgement Strike:
1,5x damage on quest related damage rolls. 2x damage starting from 5th level. This accumulates with other damage multipliers, but cannot increase total damage higher than 4 times the basic damage.

A feat that turns every hit into a critical hit, but still gives me the chance to crit too? Wow, why would I ever NOT take this feat?

Quest Focus:
Character gets + 2 bonus to all skill rolls that related to ongoing quest or mission that the Order have given.

This is the one feat on the list is ok. However, you need a type to your bonus. Probably insight.

Sturdy:
Reduces penalties that come from starvation, dehydration, cold, heat or exhaustion by 4 when character is doing quest or mission that have been given by order.

This is far too ambiguous.

Demoralize:
Usable lvl / 5 times per day. Opponents who fail their Will saving throw against characters level +10 will suffer -4 to their all rolls in that combat. Successful saving throw will halve the penalty.

An ability that gives a -2 to all d20 rolls for an entire combat even on a successful save as a feat is probably too powerful, even with the uses/day restriction. You also have not included any information on how the save DC is calculated.

Ok, moving on to the fluff.

Today few can hire the Judges as they will only take part in missions that are carefully considered.
[ - vs - ]
Judges have their Code which is used in every ceremony and every member is trying to follow as they best can:

I swear to protect all innocent people.

So, your judges are breaking their own code every day, by refusing missions from innocent people.

Today the Judges can be found almost everywhere even though their number is strictly controlled by their superiors
[ - vs - ]
Almost anyone can join the Judges after passing a test. The Judges also recruit young people (aged between 15-20) and train them for the organisation. Characters can join the Judge forces later during their journeys by passing the test..

The numbers of people in this organization are "strictly controlled", yet anyone can join the Judges after passing a test. Unless this test is rigged, which would be a violation of their code (a rigged test would be a betrayal, and "I swear to protect all betrayed people and bring the betrayer to justice."), then this order has absolutely zero control over how many people pass the test, and thus join the organization.

The character must shoot five arrows at a target, which is usually 50 feet away. Every arrow that hits and scores a critical receives points (A=1, ..., E=5). If the character gets 18 points or more, the test is successfully completed.

If you make the assumption of maximum points per hit.

Since only critical hits count, a bow using person has a .00001% chance of being able to actually pass this test. Out of 1,000,000 applicants actually passes this test (by scoring 5 consecutive critical hits).

Every Member should behave well and serve their Order and Current quest giver the best way can. Judges have been known to do missions for the evil persons too, as they are generally mercenaries who follow their own path as the Order.

... Being a mercenary is basically 100% incompatible with your code. They swear to help all innocent people in need. The swear to obey all lawful commands... there are so many ways in which this does not work.

At this point I'm going to stop. There are just too many fundamental flaws present for this to require anything less than a total rewrite. Sorry, but I just don't candy-coat things as a courtesy.

How about sleet storm? It makes the ground icy so it could conceivably be used to keep things from getting airborne.

It is highly dangerous to begin attributing behavior to spells that isn't explicitly called out in the rules. Technically haste makes you move and act faster, which means your muscles generate more CO2 more rapidly, which means you have to breathe faster to expel it. Since you have to breathe faster to handle the enhanced CO2 production, that means you drown faster if someone hastes you and forces you underwater, right?

So no, Sleet Storm does not do anything outside of it's normal effect to fliers. And also why you should not attempt to integrate real world physics, biology, and chemistry into the game :)

Why couldn't you forgo the shield bonus and be considered not using it? It's not a matter of whether you actually use it that contributes to spell failure, it's the fact that it's there.

Because Pathfinder, like 3.5 before it, is at it's core a permissive ruleset. If the rules do not say you can, it means you can't.

Nothing says humans can't fly and breath fire, the reason that can't is because no rule says they can.

Hi, this is just an official representative of the Federal Bureau of "Has That Ever Worked?" checking in to confirm the fact that it is still true that creating this type of thread has never had any sort of impact on the original behavior occurring.

*Makes a check mark*

Ok, looks like we're good to go on it still not having any impact, please carry on.

But if the GM enforces crafting times, 40 to 100 days is a long time to not be out gaining XP. A lot can happen in 2-3 months.

If you do not give the PCs adequate downtime to pursue this sort of thing, then you are denying them one of their biggest resources, a feat, and it is not fair to that character.

"Thank you for saving the world.... BUT WAIT!" and "A CHALLENGER APPEARS!" are two of the absolute most annoying roleplaying game tropes of all time. The world does not need saving every 5 and a half minutes, and if it does, then I want better pay and more benefits or I'm going to go on the shortest and most effective strike in the history of the multiverse.

Other people have used the term 'mindless'. Maybe not you, but others who are arguing for the same status quo.

The point is, we are told that the Int requirement must stay, to punish the cynical min-maxers, who dump their stats to the level of morons.

I say, Int 12 is not moronic, and is not even a dump-stat.

It's also an even stat, and buying nothing but even statistics does not need to be rewarded further by opening up a feat tree.

This is not new, different, or exciting. The Dodge tree requires 13 Dex. The Power Attack tree requires 13 Strength. Stunning Fist requires 13 Wis. Two-Weapon fighting requires 15, 17, and 19 for the various levels. Noticing any trends? Can you name one possible reason that the Int tree should be different then just about every other core feat with a stat requirements needed an odd number?

Oh. Because it's depriving you of a precious dump stat.

I guess the point I'm trying to make overall Mike is that the penalty you take is consciously deciding to limit yourself to half movement (as opposed to being able to change your mind if you decide after you take the AoO and it hits/misses.)

In regards for an additional penalty for failure.. There isn't one and there probably shouldn't be one. If you're going to invest points in acrobatics, you should be able to use it without fear of getting double-penalized. If you're not heavily invested, then you usually have no chance of making it anyway. Does this mean there's no reason not to try it? Sure, why not. The way I figure it, most people are trying to do everything they can to not get hit anyway.

If there was a more severe penalty for failing tumbling than being limited to half movement and taking the AoO, I don't think anyone would realistically even attempt it except in the direst of circumstances. Given how difficult it became in pathfinder compared to the joke it was in 3.5, it becomes often becomes a 50/50 even when you're heavily invested.

But -- once again -- all this does is make the Acrobatics check more difficult. And the difficulty is not the issue I am interested in. Because regardless of how difficult it is to make the check, the penalty for failure is never any worse than simply not bothering to roll. That's why, in the example above, if you can't reach your target at half speed, you might as well add +10 to the DC and roll. The worst that could happen is that you'll fail and expose yourself to an AoO...but that was going to happen anyway. Unless you know for a fact that the DC is completely out of reach, there's literally no reason not to make an Acrobatics roll if you're going to try to move through a threatened square.

I will try to make this clear one last time, and then I will let this thread go where it wants to go, I...

This is no different than a lot of things.

There's no reason not to TRY to make a ride check to fast dismount if you're getting off your horse.

There no reason not to TRY making stealth checks to move quietly.

The difference in all of these things is that most people don't try them all the time because they know that while there's no penalty for failure, there's also such an improbable chance of success for the average person that there's no point in bogging the game down in the rolls for these sort of things.

When asked for stealth checks, most fighters, paladins, and clerics I know just handwave the DM and say "clank clank clank".