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

Rogue Eidolon's page

3,607 posts. Alias of Mark Seifter (Designer).


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,607 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

djones wrote:

I found this a delight to run and my players seemed to really enjoy it; it took a fair bit of time for the first couple of events but by the 4th or fifth everyone was comfortable enough that they were already planning their actions ahead and ready with their choices when it was there turn.

And then when ** spoiler omitted **

Thanks, Thursty...this was really awesome.

If I had to give feedback:

** spoiler omitted **

Nice review! Consider leaving the same post in the review section as well to increase visibility for others planning on running it.

***** Designer

pH unbalanced wrote:
Kurald Galain wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Its seems like too small of a bonus. Unless your 5 charisma dwarf can't even make the check on a 20, (The odds of making the check X the odds that the diplomancer needs exactly a +2 bonus to make their check) were less than 1/20 chance you had of just making the check yourself.
This is only the case if there's no penalty for failure. And in terms of diplomacy, offending the person you're speaking with is not usually a good idea.

Failing by 5 meant you could not influence the same NPC with the same skill for the rest of the game. Failing by 10 meant you couldn't influence that NPC with any skill. Succeeding by 5+ gives a free discovery, succeeding by 10+ counts as two successes.

Making a discovery check to give your best influencer a situational +4 can often give a better chance of getting an extra success via succeeding by 10+ then your chances of getting a success on your own. At least early in the scenario. Totally depends on the situational math.

Agreed; discoveries didn't used to be as effective in some of the earlier influence scenarios, but in the UI version, they've become a strong early-game tactic. Heck, discovery of influence checks might even be giving effective bonuses of +10 (or more, if you have a character better at the easiest influence skill than they are at Diplomacy) due to the lower DC, which means if you would have succeeded without the discovery, you're guaranteed to get two successes with the discovery, causing it to pay for itself.

***** Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kevin Willis wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
SCPRedMage wrote:
Kevin Willis wrote:
SCPRedMage wrote:
Can't say I'm happy that my alchemist has to ditch his lesser ring of inner fortitude.
I'm not sure I'm going to ditch it off mine. I take the penalties for the cognatogen now, but several times I've been completely unscathed by things that drain 1 ability point per hit thanks to that ring.

Except that you don't get a choice about it affecting cognatogens or mutagens, meaning you can't gain the benefits of either while wearing even the lesser ring.

Yeah, the protection from the drain is nice, but it completely nullifies a class feature.

It looks like it's preventative (mentions "prevents" and "the wearer takes") and doesn't retroactively remove penalties, damage, and drain (like you can't pass it around the party to negate penalties and ability damage after the fact) so I think you should be able to remove, drink, replace.

I realize that's an alias talking but that's even more lenient than what I was thinking. My thoughts were:

I don't walk around under the effects of my cognatogen all the time. In fact I personally usually make the decision to drink it when I intend to *start* an encounter. It's worth it to me to keep the ring on until then in case I run into - a wraith, for example.

Also I was thinking I could put it back on just prior to the cognatogen ending, preventing the damage from occurring when it did run out (cognatogen is a bit more harsh at the end than a mutagen).

Saying it's not retroactive while the ring is off is more lenient for this combination, but it's less lenient for a character who wanted to remove->replace->remove->replace->remove->replace the ring in order to successively recover all their ability damage and drain (or pass it around the party and remove everything). Being preventative also seems like how it's meant to work to me based on the wording of the ring.

*****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
SCPRedMage wrote:
Kevin Willis wrote:
SCPRedMage wrote:
Can't say I'm happy that my alchemist has to ditch his lesser ring of inner fortitude.
I'm not sure I'm going to ditch it off mine. I take the penalties for the cognatogen now, but several times I've been completely unscathed by things that drain 1 ability point per hit thanks to that ring.

Except that you don't get a choice about it affecting cognatogens or mutagens, meaning you can't gain the benefits of either while wearing even the lesser ring.

Yeah, the protection from the drain is nice, but it completely nullifies a class feature.

It looks like it's preventative (mentions "prevents" and "the wearer takes") and doesn't retroactively remove penalties, damage, and drain (like you can't pass it around the party to negate penalties and ability damage after the fact) so I think you should be able to remove, drink, replace.


A good rule of thumb I've found is that if you're in the experimentation phase and looking to stack two archetypes / replacement options and you have to ask yourself which order to apply the two because that would change things, you've definitely selected two options that alter the same feature and don't stack (that's not the only way to figure it out, but it's something that's helped me notice that's what I was doing in the past). This is generally more clearcut when you are trying to add an extra layer to this mix that also replaces speak with animals of its kind (for instance, Improved Familiar); with all three in the mix, it definitely doesn't work.


Awesome! The kitsune emissary and the intelligent katana that upgrades as you progress the relationship should both be a lot of fun, and I'm guessing the latter will be super useful for GMs who want to use it as a prototype to create their own intelligent items that upgrade their power based on relationship ranks!


Eric Hinkle wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Swashbucklersdc wrote:
With your Winter AP line starting up (two products, anxiously waiting on more...), any updates on the possibility/timeline for a Winter Relationships book...

I will say that, if we do find a way to keep doing these, two of the NPCs in my archives, while I wrote them for my Far Eastern home game, are perfect for a Winter AP

** spoiler omitted **

Oh I would love to see the one about ** spoiler omitted **. Especially if they're based on the one from what I still think of as 'the Baba Yaga AP'. I liked that one and I long hoped someone among the 3rd party publishers would do more with the character.

You could definitely use it there, but you'd need to add in a plot element to cover the source of the malaise.


Ragadolf wrote:
Hannibal_pjv wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:

It's a bit crashy on my iPad 2, but it may be pushing the little thing pretty hard. Fortunately, I'll be upgrading soon.

I did find one possible bug in rule implementation. The reroll for Darts is supposed to let you discard to reroll the dice if you fail the combat check. When I used it, it just rerolled the d4 for the Dart card. That was a much worse result than I had initially gotten - I had missed the roll by only 1 or 2, after the reroll, I missed by 8. That simply can't be the card's intent.

If you reroll you take the new result, even it would be worse. So it does work like in real version.
Yes, But I think he meant that you are supposed to reroll ALL of the dice for the combat check? Not just the one d4 for the darts?

It seems to me that if you miss by 1 or 2, then reroll only a d4, the worst you could do is missing by 4 or 5 (if the d4 was a 4 and then became a 1 on the reroll), so if it decreased to missing by 8, it must have rerolled everything. Unless he's saying that on the reroll, it rolled just the d4 and then ignored his other dice altogether.

EDIT: Ninjaed by Keith.


Endzeitgeist wrote:
If the current format of sample relationships doesn't pan out...well, as an alternative, what about general relationship toolkits for themes? Milestones, boons, etc. for piratey, viking, far eastern, varisian, urban, horror, kingdom building campaigns, for example (with, perhaps, nods to when in Skull & Shackles they'd be appropriate). You know, thematic expansions? They'd still retain usefulness for APs and have a broader appeal for people not using APs? Since the base system sells well, perhaps taking the focus from the particular into the broad may be an option. Just an idea, of course!

Hmm. That's an interesting idea. Off-hand, I don't think that would work. Each character is different based on that character's story and personality, and so I don't think generic milestones without characters in mind would be fully possible. You could list a skill and a DC, but UR itself tells you how to calculate those DCs, and the main thing is you couldn't really have the character bio information and breakthroughs. I try to write products that I would be excited to use for my games, and it's the human element of these NPCs that really make me excited about the ones I've written so far. It's probably not surprising that the base system is going to have to sell at least somewhat better than the products that use it (since you need the base system to use them, so it has to be more), and part of it might simply be a factor of rules systems and subsystems selling more than worked-out examples because not as many GMs are confident that they can create a new system from scratch as are confident they can use the system to create stuff themselves. It's interesting, and it does show that splitting Ultimate and Imperial Relationships (at one point way way back it was a single product, and back even before that when I first imagined it, before I worked at Paizo or had the idea picked up by Legendary, I even had the insane idea to have the whole UR line as one enormous compilation product with the rules and the 50+ relationships) was a really good idea, even though it leaves UR without any worked-out examples.


Chemlak wrote:

Always a pleasure, Mark, and as I've said elsewhere, each one of these NPCs gives me great ideas for NPCs in my home campaign, which is probably why I'm constantly harping on about generic NPC UltRel write-ups (if only it wasn't so hard to persuade my players to have their characters get to know NPCs, but that's another matter entirely). I'm also hugely aware of the effort involved, and you'd need compelling characters, background, and a whole host of other things before even getting to the UltRel stuff.

I really want this to be a going concern as a product line, because it provides something for GMs that can be tough to manage at times: good, developing relationships with NPCs.

A few of the NPCs I made up for my home game of a Far Eastern AP would be even more generically useful, though I believe that all three relationship singles in the Ultimate Relationships line so far are usable in a wide range of games (the least generically usable is probably the Viking Shieldmaiden, even though she isn't actually a Far Eastern character herself).


Chemlak wrote:

Reviewed!

So. Damn. Good.

Oh man, thanks for the great review!

Of note for anyone wondering (I was, for instance), I checked and Imperial Relationships is considered part of the Ultimate Relationships family of products for the 50% off sale on Legendary's site!

Designer

Swashbucklersdc wrote:
With your Winter AP line starting up (two products, anxiously waiting on more...), any updates on the possibility/timeline for a Winter Relationships book...

I will say that, if we do find a way to keep doing these, two of the NPCs in my archives, while I wrote them for my Far Eastern home game, are perfect for a Winter AP

Very Mild Spoilers for both APs and/or spoilers of possible future relationships:
A huldra masquerade reveler struggling with the idea of mortality after murdering someone she loved expecting they would come back like in Faerie and a winter wolf trapped in human form by magical experimentation who thus has identity disphoria.

Designer

Chemlak wrote:

Ah, I wasn't sure which pay method LG used (should have guessed, though). Thanks for the insight, Mark.

I am, as you might have guessed, hugely enthusiastic about these rules, and want to see more examples (I think it's fair to say that the rank-ups you've generated are an order of magnitude more thoughtful and creative than my own ideas).

If it's not too much to ask, where does Imperial Relationships fit into this discussion? It's superb, and raises the question of singles versus compilations (with a side-order of DO NOT BURN YOURSELF OUT for good measure).

Imperial is in between, but considering it released alongside UltRel as the only source of UltRel-style NPC write-ups at the time, I'd expect it to have a bump. It also involved four NPCs that people would be extremely likely to want to use with relationship rules and had some other differences.

Thanks so much for the kind words and for the review of ImpRel (I'll probably talk about it more in the ImpRel thread)!

Designer

Chemlak wrote:

It's a cost-benefit thing, which from the comments Mark has made makes it a tough call.

It takes a long time to do a full relationship write-up for a single NPC. I've managed it for a few, and it pays off at the table, but from LG's perspective, they have to balance sales against Mark's freelancer cost, development, art, layout, and a few dozen other things, and if a product doesn't sell (and unfortunately it looks like the singles just don't sell very well), there's not likely to be more in the series.

Personally, I'd love to see some generic NPCs, as well as ones from the Righteous Crusade AP, and I'm more likely to buy collections than I am singles, but I can't begrudge Mark and Jason making business decisions based on past sales experience.

Thus my desire to do whatever I can to make this particular line of products keep going.

Yup. The secret for GMs with this system is that you don't have to do all the work of detailing all 10 ranks right away; just figure out the overall arc and then keep yourself ahead of the PCs' interest in the NPC (or perhaps challenge yourself on the fly and don't come up with the overall arc even). This allowed me to have 54+ of these for my home game without expending impossible amounts of effort, since most of them the PCs didn't pursue very far. But the "First Rule of Dungeoncraft" method doesn't work for a published product, and making one of these that's really thoughtful and expresses the NPC's personality takes a while.

@Sales stuff: That's almost entirely right (the other discussion of that has been in the Cassisian Detective thread). One difference is that Legendary usually actually works with royalties rather than rates, if you're wondering about why I said the low sales led to personal burnout for me on finishing the later singles, rather than it leading to someone at Legendary being hesitant on ordering more. Without getting into numbers, I will say that the singles take me generally longer per word than most things I write and have by last check made if I recall somewhere around 10x less per word than my usual per-word rate (Compare to the main UR which has made more than my usual per-word rate; so lots of people are excited about the system, they just haven't been buying the singles). So assuming synergy from having more options out there cancelled out fatigue (which is most likely being generous), it would take 10 of the singles to equal the main rules. Now, that was before this new sale, and the number is always slowly increasing, so things might change, and I will say I'm thrilled by the reception to these main rules!


Chemlak wrote:
Looks like I'm going to have to sit with both versions side-by-side and check all the corrections and additions in full, then revise my review.

I'll go ahead and PM you a changelog, since I have one for my own records. Endz, if you want one, I can send one your way too.


Chemlak wrote:

I think there may have been a glitch, Mark. I re-downloaded it yesterday from Paizo.com which says it was updated December 2015 on the site, but the PDF says it's first printing, and it looks identical to the original on a skim-through. Methinks the wrong one got uploaded for the update.

Edit: wow, how wrong can I be? Okay, the incomplete page reference for Milestones is still there, but the Camaraderie Point section in the updated version does provide general guidelines about which column of the chart you should use based upon the level you are when you first encounter an NPC. It's subtle, but incredibly important, and happens at levels which are low enough to make a difference.

I totally missed it.

So looks like it did go up! There's five or so other small changes like that, and all together, they cover everything you need for a different style of campaign set-up. Though they be but little, they are fierce. They cover both your and Endz's requests in that regard.


I actually don't have it in my assets on any site, so I can't check it. Did it not get those updates? I've had them since last July. I'll poke Jason about it.


The Raven Black wrote:

Same here. The Guardian is something I was really hoping for and a great idea too.

For future releases beyond those 2, I think you could check on these boards which NPCs people would like to see first. With a list of the available NPCs that Mark has already worked on for his home game. This would also allow you to assess the market's interest in further releases ;-)

I do have a list, but I figure that might just be a tease for now given the uncertain future of the line.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Endzeitgeist wrote:
FWIW, I hope sales pick up. I really, really love these.

I don't know if it will help sell these or not, but maybe you could take a look at the updated Ultimate Relationships: "Endzeitgeist Edition", now with specific rules for adapting if you're not running an AP or campaign arc. More likely it will help with the main UR instead, but there could be some product synergy!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:

Oh, see, now you're just teasing us, Mark.

The offer from LG on these this week was just too good for me to pass up, so I snagged all three, and I'm in the process of absorbing them and wondering how and when I can introduce them to a game.

I'll review them all individually at some point, but for anyone reading this and contemplating: buy them. As soon as you can. Mark has done a fantastic job, and don't be put off by the links to the Far Eastern Adventure Path: these NPCs offer great relationship ideas suitable for any game, and each one I read gives me more ideas on fleshing out my own NPCs for long-term relationships with PCs.

Glad you enjoyed! I happen to think these are super-useful too, having used them for my home game with much success among my players. So far, they haven't sold enough to justify the number of hours of work they take (it's a big reason why I stalled out on Kitsune Emissary, which I've had half done since October), but I think more reviews will surely help out!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The upcoming ones are the kitsune emissary, who was raised by the kami and The Guardian, an intelligent magic katana who upgrades weapon power as you rank up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Endzeitgeist wrote:
Reviewed first on endzeitgeist.com, then submitted to Nerdtrek and GMS magazine and posted here, on OBS and d20pfsrd.com's shop.

Thanks for the review EZG! Also of note vis-a-vis the review, The Silence Between and Verity are different empyreal lords (the former is a CG azata, the latter is LG archon, and of course, our detective is a NG angel), so things are even more complex for him :D.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Blymurkla wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
It just says the familiar can use the master's bardic performance, not feats or other effects (such as skill bonus modifiers) that might augment the bardic performance ability.

You're probably right.

But I want to make sure and the ability says:
At 4th level, a duettist's familiar learns how to create supernatural effects with its performances, just like its master.

Isn't it possible to read that as the familiar using your stats and abilities for bardic performance?

It's possible. But, also possible to read it as the familiar needs to have the feats or Charisma in order to use them, just like its master.

Personally, I think that whole line is for flavor.

Yep, generally, lines structured like "At Xlevel, she learns how to/discovers the secrets of/some other descriptive verb explaining slightly in-world about picking up the ability..." are flavor overviews of the ability in the following sentences.

Designer

Unless the gear was also imaginary (which would be pretty funny, but I'm not sure how to pull it off), presumably it sort of falls to the ground in a similar way to disintegrating a creature with gear.


Draco Bahamut wrote:

I really love the Ultimate Relationships rules and i plan on using it with every adventure path, but Kingmaker has a really large cast of NPCs. I am making that in my campaing, NPC must have a rank 4 relationship with someone in the party before accepting a Leadership position. Someone else is using these rules ?

If you and the players are ready to spend a lot of time on NPC relationships, then UR works well with a large cast. In my Jade Regent group, the PCs had over 30 active friendly NPCs with this system (the UR singles line with the Lonely Lyrakien and so on are inspired by the relationship rank-ups I built for those NPCs). Rank 4 seems like the right point to accept a kingdom role, but that means the PCs need to make sure to spend milestones with the early NPCs like Oleg and Svetlana (and even someone like the Old Bel Dame if they need a caster). Since the Kingmaker campaign traits aren't based on relationships, no one will start at rank 2 either.


Saldiven wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Nohwear wrote:
Measured Response can be a very good Feat. Mathematically it does not make sense, but there are those do constantly roll poorly for damage. I would say that this feat is really designed for these people.

Consistently rolling poorly means

1. The player rolls a biased die. Buy a fair die and replace the bad one.
2. The player remembers his or her bad rolls and forgets the good ones. Keep better records.
3. The player magically warps the laws of probability. Study mathematics magic and learn how to warp them in his or her favor instead.

4. The player got tired of this argument and tracked thousands of die rolls over a period of several years using many different die.

As a statement of fact: my die rolls are significantly below average. Playing 40K, my average d6 roll came out to about 2.7

I believe there was a (fairly controversial) study involving thousands of die rolls that showed the rounded-edge, hollowed-pop style six sided dice (like the ones sold by Chessex) show a statistically greater likelihood of rolling 1 than would be expected for a perfectly shaped cube.

If so, then it's lucky we use mean rather than mode for "average", or else you'd be dealing minimum damage when you take the average!


It's also a useful feat if you happen to know that the average is enough.

For instance, let's say that you're toting a greataxe with 18 Strength, for 1d12+6. You're in a fight with some mooks that you know have 11 hp from the last time you dropped a mook. With Measured Response, you drop the foe unconscious automatically, whereas without it, your chances of doing so are only 7/12 (1/12 to disable at 0 hp).

*****

Nefreet wrote:

If you're speaking of the free firearm that Gunslingers receive at 1st level, then it disappears into the void, along with any money you spent to enhance it.

If you're speaking of taking the feat, buying a firearm, and retraining the feat, I'd strongly encourage thinking otherwise. You would never again be able to enhance it, and you could never again buy ammunition for it.

I think he's talking about using an ability to temporarily gain the feat whenever he wants to enhance it or buy ammo, but then never having the feat in normal play.


You still have your two-way empathic link, as a start.


You might consider mining Ultimate Commander's general class, which has a troop as part of its mechanics. Not that you necessarily use the class, but rather, it has a bunch of different options for the troop based on what sorts of units the general picks, and you can just mine those for your troops.

*****

UndeadMitch wrote:
Or a sign that the pregen was at a table with some seriously underpowered or unprepared PC's. Or, he could also mean that the pregen was at the right place at the right time to keep the scenario from getting out of control. Let's not jump to conclusions here.

For the strengthy bruiser pregens, the interesting thing is that sometimes it's all down to what the character is wielding in the art. For instance, Zadim's main advantage over Valeros was that he's pictured with two kukris and not a longsword and shortsword, and Oloch and Crowe are pictured with greatsword and earthbreaker, vs Amiri having a size Large bastard sword that gives her a -2 to hit. Once you're hitting things with a greatsword or earthbreaker with your high stat in Strength, you're already in a great place.

I've seen Crowe carry a table of prepared and powerful PCs that were all about buffs and debuffs, but the three of them knew sitting down that they needed a melee pregen to make the 4th, and that they were going to make that pregen shine thanks to their excellent buffs and debuffs. They each got to have fun doing what their characters do, and the table went well. It would have been even better if it was a new player who got to feel awesome instead of just the GM-controlled 4th.


Since it doesn't affect the usage of charge, just reloads any ammunition, it seems like it would only help with reloading/running out of rockets and grenades for their respective launchers (and even with unlimited rockets/grenades, those still eventually run out of charge).


To me, trying to apply a familiar archetype on that necro-ed familiar seems like the horn-blower trying to apply barbarian archetypes on the barbarians she summons with horn of valhalla. Several of the archetypes (like emissary and figment) actually give an origin story to the familiar that directly conflicts with necromantic focus. That said, familiar archetypes aren't a concept that exists in the RPG line, where necromantic focus appeared, so it wouldn't be possible for necromantic focus to directly address them.


Mesmerist wrote:
The penalties from multiple mesmerists' stares don't stack, nor do they stack with penalties from witches' evil eye hexes.

-5 is still pretty great though, and you save the dip.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Since it doesn't say they count as each other's self for that purpose, it would be a standard action (the limit is for the master casting personal spells from the class that granted the familiar; an Improved Familiar can't use personal spells on the master, as one other example).

*****

Andrew Shumate wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
TheEverbloodFighter wrote:
James McTeague wrote:
Matt Lewis wrote:

The Guide says:

Quote:
Additionally, any magic items whose usage frequencies are less than 1/day (such as 1/week or 1/month and so on) are considered to have the frequency of 1/scenario.
...which I guess would apply to downtime too?
Technically you can use it all you want during a scenario, but it doesn't really matter. It remakes the potion only if you drink it, so you'll never have more potions than what you started with. So you can drink that potion of bull's strength all you want during downtime - not really going to help you once the scenario starts again.
As I didn't see it specifically called out in the item's description, I have a feeling that there are people who will think they can alchemical allocation the contents into an empty vial, thus creating effectively infinite amounts of the same potion (and in an indeterminable downtime one could potentially exploit this greatly). I do understand that the allocated potions cannot be sold for value, however they allow for surplus potions of a potentially useful sort (CSW, Fly, Bull's Strength, Enlarge Person, etc.).

Alch alloc specifically indicates that you have to spit it back into its container, not another container.

Alchemical Allocation wrote:
you can spit it back into its container as a free action.
Certainly, but it doesn't indicate in the text that the item behaves according to the rules of alchemical allocation. While it is used in the creation of the item, items don't always follow the rules of the source spells. The item's text does not indicate that the potion must be drunk from the flask.
This discussion should probably move to another thread. However, it does say that:
Flask of Reconcoction wrote:
If a potion in the flask is poured out of the flask, rather than drunk directly from it, the flask does not reconcoct that potion.

*****

TheEverbloodFighter wrote:
James McTeague wrote:
Matt Lewis wrote:

The Guide says:

Quote:
Additionally, any magic items whose usage frequencies are less than 1/day (such as 1/week or 1/month and so on) are considered to have the frequency of 1/scenario.
...which I guess would apply to downtime too?
Technically you can use it all you want during a scenario, but it doesn't really matter. It remakes the potion only if you drink it, so you'll never have more potions than what you started with. So you can drink that potion of bull's strength all you want during downtime - not really going to help you once the scenario starts again.
As I didn't see it specifically called out in the item's description, I have a feeling that there are people who will think they can alchemical allocation the contents into an empty vial, thus creating effectively infinite amounts of the same potion (and in an indeterminable downtime one could potentially exploit this greatly). I do understand that the allocated potions cannot be sold for value, however they allow for surplus potions of a potentially useful sort (CSW, Fly, Bull's Strength, Enlarge Person, etc.).

Alch alloc specifically indicates that you have to spit it back into its container, not another container.

Alchemical Allocation wrote:
you can spit it back into its container as a free action.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Neat ideas ColonelMidas! I continue to be glad that people are getting a kick out of this archetype.


Kalindlara wrote:
Could you post as Rogue Eidolon, to make your unofficial status clear?

I also do that sometimes when I post in other threads. Based on experience, it won't help in the particular situation of FAQ follow-ups (in fact it's in some ways even worse) because confusion is not the only reason not to do them. What you'll see next is that (to use butter-side up and butter-side down as an example to illustrate) that if I post butter-side up as Rogue Eidolon, Yooks will use this to flare up butter-side up stance, saying that this definitively proves BSU, while Zooks will point out that I chose to post as Rogue Eidolon, thus either proving BSD or at least weakening BSU because otherwise I would have posted as Mark Seifter.


N. Jolly wrote:
JiCi wrote:

Kineticists... don't have many magic items to use. That's something that just struck me.

How about the following?
- A rod for Kinetic Blade/Whip that grants melee weapon enhancements to the Blade/Whip when attacking.

- A gauntlet that does the same thing for Kinetic Fist.

- A pair of gauntlets that grants ranged weapon enhancements to Blasts.

The original book did have something like that in mind, but I ended up scrapping it. I really should try to include something like that in the sequel, I do want to include some more magic items to help round out things, so I'll probably work on something like that for the next book.

Also didn't know you could make a post without actually typing something learned something new.

I bet I know why you had to end up scrapping the AoMF for blasts; same reason I did in Occult: The math. It throws off three different balances. 1) Physical vs. Energy (and in so doing, element balance), 2) Blade/Whip vs. Ranged, 3) Kineticist vs. Other Characters (especially physical melee kineticist or annihilator). That said, since it's something people who don't check the math and just think about what they want think about, I'd say a 3pp book with a disclaimer or warning about these things (like in Secrets of the Masquerade Reveler how I put a disclaimer warning that reveler evolutions are dangerous to allow for regular eidolons, but you can if you want) is actually a great (maybe the best) way to handle it. Eventually, someone who doesn't check the math as much as you did is just going to put one out without a disclaimer (that's what I sometimes worry about myself).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Stantree wrote:

Ready Action

"The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun. Readying is a standard action. It does not provoke an attack of opportunity (though the action that you ready might do so)."

So Ready Action doesn't have 100% parameters on what is the trigger for the readied action. With Rhino Charge, if I am correct, I could ready action Charge after I leap, since that is only a Standard Action.

I still have movement, because Rhino Charge, which allows me to complete the acrobatics movement to leap up over the enemy for the charge.


I'm interested in this topic because I'm considering starting a Wrath game with my home group, and I'm definitely going to be modding the rules, particularly the specific abilities you mentioned were on my list (other than reading MVS like deinol, though even then, I've seen MVS acting rather ridiculously), with very similar planned fixes (my fix for surges, for instance, is to make them a "surge" action that is once per round but separate from swift/immediate). I've used mythic a fair amount for adversaries and seen it in that one PFS scenario for PCs, but I don't have tons of non-theoretical experience with mythic PCs yet. Still, it's good to know that your group is having issues with some of the same abilities I had flagged in my read-through.

I'm also worried about abilities like recuperation and sustained by faith that refresh everything more times in a day.

Posted here just as a regular GM, interested in modding mythic for my game, not a designer or anything; this system was written way before I got here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Of note, while the edits don't change the overall text much, it seems that they will have a major effect for many people (Wanna run it on a non-AP? We have you covered!), so if you're a proud owner, be absolutely sure to check the new version out!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Indeed, many thanks Oliver. I love the imagery in the way you liken the breakthroughs to boss fights in all your reviews, and I've used that imagery from your review in conversation myself after your review of the original UR.

Reviews always make me want to finish more, and the morale bonus increases my speed, so it's definitely true that more reviews means more URs sooner!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I first saw the pride emotional focus, I thought some of the benefits were really strong (double morale bonuses, holy cow!), but then I realized that you're really likely to wind up failing a passively-required check and lose the benefits (and take penalties), whether it's failing a Perception check against one out of eight monsters who rolled really high on Stealth (and thus acting on the surprise round but not knowing about the eighth guy), failing a Sense Motive against something's Bluff, etc, so I'd suggest caution with using it (it also prevents you from ever Taking 20 while the benefits are up, since there is always a consequence of failure). It could be quite effective on a phantom, where you could have it in your consciousness and not able to attempt any checks (and thus fail them), but it's trickier if it's on your main character (plus you can't avoid morale bonuses as a bloodrager).

Designer

Thanks for the review Malwing!

I had the pleasure of running a one shot with a reveler in it since the last time I came to this thread, and I was quite pleased with how much out of combat narrative stuff the reveler was contributing during the party's investigations, through skill masks with Task Reveler and especially liberal use of speak with plants when appropriate. Certainly more than a "normal" barbarian. I hadn't really given a reveler to someone outside of my own group until then, so I hadn't seen how it would work for someone who was less familiar with it.


Thanks so much for the review Oliver!

When running rank-ups, keep in mind that rank-ups can be used as a flat ability check at a lower DC (For instance, DC 28 skill checks = DC 19 ability check, though if it's trained-only there is an increase) and that you receive a cumulative +2 bonus for each attempt at a rank-up, so by design, if you keep at it, you are eventually guaranteed to succeed; it just might take a while. If she has affinity for you, you get a +2 on everything and need fewer CP to reach the next rank, so her affinity for fighters and skalds also has a mechanical effect of assisting them a good deal.

***** Designer

Mark Stratton wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Here's the weird thing about it. As written, it seems it's only for natural fliers, but if so, then there is literally no effect of maneuverability whatsoever for magical fliers, so things like wings of lesser flying, which are currently priced as if their bad maneuverability is a drawback, get out of jail free.

Given the fact that the spell specifically gives it a maneuverability rating, I think it only makes sense to apply the bonus for doing so. If it had a poor rating, the penalty would apply (as you indicated related to the pricing for a magic item.)

But perhaps the development team could take a look.

That was always my inclination as well (otherwise why would it matter, anyway?), but then the rules say it's for natural fly speeds only, putting it into table variation. Maybe someone should start a thread in the rules forum; if or when there's enough interest in the FAQ queue, I'd be happy to have us Design team members take a look at FAQing it.

*****

5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's the weird thing about it. As written, it seems it's only for natural fliers, but if so, then there is literally no effect of maneuverability whatsoever for magical fliers, so things like wings of lesser flying, which are currently priced as if their bad maneuverability is a drawback, get out of jail free.

1 to 50 of 3,607 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.