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

Ruggs's page

674 posts (729 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 674 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

SheepishEidolon wrote:

I recommend the following:

a) Clear instructions. When he is too loud, tell him to wait for a moment please. You are the GM, you lead the group, you have the right to utter commands if it's for the greater good of the group. Don't be afraid of repercussions. He wants to play these games too. And if repercussions happen, you will survive them.

b) Clear decisions. When you GM, it's good to listen to everyone. Don't focus too much on the annoying guy, he is just a member like everyone else. At the end, decision is yours. You don't have to make perfect decisions all the time (no leader does), you 'only' have to try hard to be a good leader.

c) Explicit criticism. When you are alone with the player, tell him you didn't like a specific behavior, e.g. domineering another player, and explain why it was bad for the group. He will tell crap like 'I didn't do that'. Allow him that last word, neither agree or disagree, move on with other topics. Keep in mind it's not a discussion between equals but between GM and player. Never attack him as a person, focus on the worst behavior patterns. Don't expect miracles, enjoy small improvements. If he doesn't change at all, tell him to leave the group.

I guess these problems are not what you signed up for. It happened to me too, I have a difficult player in my group also. But I won't run away and I won't throw him out since it's a chance to grow as a person. Take it like a paladin. ;)

Some good points, here.

Also, generally speaking a DMPC or GMPC (they're just different words due to, I think, copyright) is a red flag. It's a red flag usually because it's led to the type of behavior you're describing. So, to the above advice: accept it is likely to become awkward in the campaign he's running, if you choose to stay in it. He may end up shifting the campaign to be mostly about his PC.

...Which is the other reason it comes up as a red flag at most tables.

If it does, you may wish to communicate with the other players. How do they handle it?

Finally, if your players are more interested in hack'n'slash, you might consider a game of that sort. I know that is not what you want to hear, but.

An alternative would be to drop awards for roleplay solutions in a more public manner. People tend to respond to rewards, and I've found many gamers to be very goal-oriented.


Bandw2 wrote:
no, i'm simply rejecting the question, as no I don't see this as expanding the genre, or giving us new themes to work with.

Well, ok. :3


Bandw2 wrote:

classes aren't fluff

as spoken from the righteous barbarian knight and the witchdoctor alchemist.

To be fair, that's a separate argument--classes existing only as set of rules or as designed along a theme with an intended style. This thread is asking something different.

If you'd like to tackle that, let's take it to a different thread?


The idea of new classes existing to expand not only a general or mechanical niche, but a *genre* niche is an I've explored some, and wondered if anyone else had as well. That is, if we look around us to film and literature, "alternate" forms of fantasy have been on the rise for some time. It seems logical that Pathfinder would expand our alternate fantasy options as well.

What is meant by "alternate fantasy"? Alternate fantasy is the use of traditional fantasy elements such as elves or trolls, and adding a twist. For example, urban fantasy takes classic, fantasy characters and rethemes them in the modern era. Steampunk, an older form of alternate fantasy, or even Dieselpunk, present additional, fun settings for our classic fantasy genre. Elves in stovepipe hats, for example.

These genres are established enough now that it's also possible to retrograde them...for example, shifting steampunk fantasy concepts and ideas into a more classical knights and castles environment is easy to do and may not seem as strange as it once was. With a little alteration it's possible to take that elf with the stovetop hat, add artifice-themed trains, and toss in a few more fantasy swords and armor. Alternately, take the "feel" of urban fantasy where things are more hidden and gritty--and apply it to settings with castles and knights. In the end, you still gain the feel of Mr. Stovetop, but in a more traditional-compatible setting.

Or, your DM just runs Steampunk outright.

In the end, it seems as though many new classes in PF are crafted to diversify its genre options beyond the traditional West or East fantasy additions we've seen in previous editions. For example:

Victorian Fantasy: Investigator, Alchemist, Vigilante (the blooded noble, hero by night)
Steampunk Fantasy: Investigator, Alchemist, Gunslinger, Magus, etc.
Wild Tribal: Bloodrager, Barbarian, Ranger, Druid, Shaman, Witch (I'm aware "wild fantasy" was an option before, but PF has provided arcane "wild" classes for use in such a setting, which greatly expands this option)

I'm a little under the weather at the moment, but this is just off the top of my head. This doesn't even mention the airship rules, for example, that I seem to recall poking around somewhere.

What do you think?

What other themes do you see, made available by the new classes?

And, would you work these alternate genres into your game--or have you made use of these new options in an "alternate fantasy" ...fantasy game? That just replaces the base Western or Eastern fantasy assumptions outright?


Some of Pathfinder has made the shift from a more classic fantasy to a more urban fantasy tint. Not an absolute shift, but more "providing the option." I see the vigilante as part of that.

With classes like the alchemist, gunslinger, and vigilante, you could recreate some of your classic urban fantasy stories--though the setting would be more towards the fantasy end of things, ofc.

Something like the vigilante may exist to let Pathfinder have a broader reach.


thorin001 wrote:
Only intelligent critters would do it. Animals grab and hold on.

Maybe, maybe not? It depends on how you view 'release'. Release could just be letting go fast enough to get a better kill grip as the prey weakens--because you're going to grab them again and again and again from an increasingly better position each time.

When killing smaller prey, a dog might grab, then shake hard. The prey is disoriented, so they quick-release or even quick-drop to shift grip now that they have access to a more tender body part, grab, shake hard, rinse and repeat. Whatever it is will be dead within a few rounds of this.

"Hey, human, look, look! I brought us breakfast! I am the BEST!!!"

"...haha, just kidding! It's all mine!"

<The squirrel stares at you with silent and accusing black eyes.>


No, I honestly appreciate their work.

I've also been fortunate enough to see the new monk in actual play, and it's doing great.

Our local groups are pretty excited, and I know of around 30 or so people who are enjoying it. Another person came by today to borrow my book, and is looking to convince her DM to let her update her character.

Maybe it's different in your area. Couldn't say.


Loving what I hear so far. The spell smashing ability would be easy enough to add in, and raging vitality is a simple edit. When you take something and "unchain" it, I expect there to be some quirks.

Thank you for a tasteful fix to rage cycling, and rebalancing the powers.

I'm going to be watching threads to see what issues crop up (or don't), as I suspect there may be some pieces that quirk a bit when put together.


Got to see the new monk in play recently. It did fantastic and was deadly in DM hands.

It's also much easier to use as opponents, and may be taking the place of some of your traditional "lots of natural attack" beasties.

Thanks for the work.


Schadenfreude wrote:

I wouldn't say underwhelming. The others have major changes which perhaps provoke discussion; the rogue's had a straight up power upgrade. As I said, I think the changes are good.

There's now almost no reason to play a Str-based rogue. Which is fair enough, because that's more or less what a slayer is for. This means that rogues are now even more SAD than they were before - dumping Str has no consequences.

There are more options to get sneak attacks - dim light, smoke, etc - so more traditional rogue tactics don't actually invalidate the class now. But the basic mechanic hasn't changed - you need to be flanking or catch them without a Dex modifier somehow.

(As a note, all of the rogue archetypes still work, so you can still play a Scout if you want the extra sneak attack flexibility).

The Dex bonus to damage, though, means that they've got a bit of a boost when they're not sneak attacking. So they've been thrown a bit of a bone there.

Debilitating injury at 4th level means that you can put negative conditions on opponents. You have a choice of three, one of which explicitly compensates for the rogue's low BAB, and another which compensates for a low AC (and there's a talent which lets you do both at once).

Two-weapon fighting from level 4 is therefore a much better option.

The skill edges also make sniping easier, so ranged is a better option until level 8 (when missing out on the iterative attacks starts to put you behind the damage curve). But the Finesse and damage bonus don't apply to ranged weapons (although debilitating injury does). I think playing an exclusively ranged rogue isn't significantly easier than it was before, but playing a switch hitter might be better.

I don't think this rogue is a straight up hammer. Instead of doing massive amounts of damage every round, it looks to me like they're intended to do medium-range damage and apply negative conditions.

Using the stamina rules also helps them, because they can get Combat Expertise without Int 13 (so you can...

I love the concept of the rogue as a debuffer or strategic combatant. That said, I'd also be interested to see how these boosts affect their damage, etc.

Something in me wants them to be that medium track--not a King Damage class, but a more utilitarian one with strategy, and sneakery, built in, in an interesting and fun way.

It's for this reason I was thrilled when the rogue was effectively "split" into several classes. For too long, it's seemed as though folks were arguing for "master of x" role (see: slayer, swashbuckler, investigator), but there were too many things the rogue was "supposed to" be the master of.

The rogue wore too many hats, and didn't have its own identity--yet, many conflicting ideals over what it SHOULD be.

Regarding some of those concerns, I really would <3 to see a damage comparison to the fighter, slayer. The rogue mostly hurt for accuracy and opportunity; it looks as though both were aided and dependencies reduced...how did it change the other numbers? Any discussion, here?


The more I read, the more I'm looking forward to getting to see the new monk!


Really looking forward to seeing the Unchained monk.

Also, thank you guys for considering some of the "number shiftiness" in designs, and working to streamline it out.

From what's being said, I'm curious about the barbarian. That is, I've some concern on how Unchained barb will work with future content--and will it require adjusting old content, and if so, how much?


The old adage about not taking a dump where you live comes to mind.

It isn't smart.

Talk with the player out of game. Post that, if he doesn't want to be part of the group, see about switching to the god of mercantile.

First, no, don't craft for him except at a raised rate. Say he gets 90% while the rest get 75 or at-cost. This is a great way to shift wealth back to you, where you can resdistribute. In addition, any spellcasting he receives, he pays for through NPC pricing to you, with additional "roaming costs" if you're in an inconvenient location, time of day, or in combat. Count your funds religiously so he can't bluff paying you.

Likewise, charge for any services. If he refuses, get him blackballed at your temple.

Nickel and dime him as a means to get your funds back, in other words. If he's robbing you once, you can balance the scales through fees, fines, and interest rates.

Don't forget the interest rates and additional "roaming fees."


thejeff wrote:

Well, it doesn't speak to the Indiana law directly, but Democrats in Georgia appear to have killed (or at least stalled) a similar bill by adding an amendment stating that it doesn't allow "citing religious liberty as a reason to subvert state non-discrimination laws."

This led the bill's sponsors to table the bill saying "that amendment would completely undercut the purpose of the bill."

Brilliant.

And telling.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Anybody remember the time people found out that Chik-Fil-A donated money to groups that advocated for the execution of homosexuals and then social media caused a huge boycott that drove them out of business?

A true story that I would appreciate further investigation on.

Not long past, near where my father had worked, a Chik-fil-A was being built. Curious, he walked over there one evening to say hello to the workers and ask how things were going.

To make a long story short and abbreviate some steps inbetween, he ended up introduced to a number of the workers. Most of them did not speak English. One out of ten did, because that is what you needed to coordinate efforts--someone to translate the orders for everyone else, per group.

They told him this was the usual arrangement, and showed him the trailer where they were kept. Inside the trailer was a cage wall.

The idea was this: they were forced to live/work around the clock on the job site, then were packed away and shuttled to the next job site to work the same hours, under the same conditions. This is how Chic-fil-A (and perhaps other companies) build so fast.

The men couldn't speak English, were watched constantly, and were continually moved around, so they had no protections against the treatment and long hours.

He told me the men were desperate to share their story, in hopes someone would listen.

This wasn't some random person. This was my father, and it is a tale told within the last two years. I'd appreciate anyone else who has spoken with these workers, and invite y'all to share the tale.

Sometimes they who yell the loudest about values...

Have skeletons of their own.


ElterAgo wrote:
Ruggs wrote:
ElterAgo wrote:


Couple years ago, I had a big long post with almost everyone acting like I was a complete moron because I was trying to help a friend build a combat healer. He was familiar with PF and wanted to try a combat healer and his party was ok with him making the attempt.
Almost no matter what I posted or the couple of people trying to help me posted, there would be 1-5 posts declaiming it as an awful idea. They were very clear on the NEVER heal in combat over-and-over-again.
After a few pages of that I actually checked the posters aliases.

Turned out there were actually only 2 guys using multiple aliases just to make sure they massively shouted down everyone else. I sometimes look for that now.

Don't know how often it actually happens, but I have seen a least a few instances of a small number of people actively working to seem like a large number of people to promote some absolutist extreme point of view.

It's one of the reasons I really wish these boards had an 'ignore' function.

Requoting because it definitely pays to check aliases, though some of these guys make puppet accounts, also.

Another thing to do is check tone and style, as well as how quickly the posts occur. If these three elements match up, it may be a puppet account.

For the more extreme views on anything, there tend to be a smaller number who are very, very loud. That is true about most anything.

But I don't think most of do that very often. I certainly don't usually do that. It is very easy to get swayed by the large number of very extreme absolutist posts.

In my previous group, one of the new guys came to the boards for help with his low level cleric. He was very clear that when he hit them, they fey usually went down but he (as well as the rest of the group) was having a hard time hitting the fast little buggers. Almost 2/3 of the replies he got told him to take power attack. So he spent gold to retrain his weapon focus: long spear into power attack. Yes, those rare...

Howdy. Not trying to imply that they do. I'm actually agreeing--with more extreme views, it tends to be a very small number.

Probably folks who use alias-inflation, too: small numbers.

...but the loudness and aliasing can make things seem bigger than they actually are.

Your story is a very good reminder that sometimes it's good to step back, and take a closer look.


ElterAgo wrote:


Couple years ago, I had a big long post with almost everyone acting like I was a complete moron because I was trying to help a friend build a combat healer. He was familiar with PF and wanted to try a combat healer and his party was ok with him making the attempt.
Almost no matter what I posted or the couple of people trying to help me posted, there would be 1-5 posts declaiming it as an awful idea. They were very clear on the NEVER heal in combat over-and-over-again.
After a few pages of that I actually checked the posters aliases.

Turned out there were actually only 2 guys using multiple aliases just to make sure they massively shouted down everyone else. I sometimes look for that now.

Don't know how often it actually happens, but I have seen a least a few instances of a small number of people actively working to seem like a large number of people to promote some absolutist extreme point of view.

It's one of the reasons I really wish these boards had an 'ignore' function.

Requoting because it definitely pays to check aliases, though some of these guys make puppet accounts, also.

Another thing to do is check tone and style, as well as how quickly the posts occur. If these three elements match up, it may be a puppet account.

For the more extreme views on anything, there tend to be a smaller number who are very, very loud. That is true about most anything.


"Gamers are strongly opinionated about their hobbies."

Wait...


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

Those are some really good points. Now that you mention it, I have that feeling of going in and pointing out the flaws of their logic. But I really should just leave them in ignorance,they'll have more fun that way. I guess I also feel like trying to prevent them from thinking that I'm leaving because I can't power game in 5e (as if), even though I wasn't power gaming to begin with (at least not in that group).

Only two of them (out of 6) I'm friends with outside of DnD. So maybe a message is the best way to go.

I would send a polite thank you, and move on.

Doing the above will convince them that you're the antisocial powergamer they seem to think you are. It's a bad move. Also, it's going to come across as rude and condescending.

This is true even if you do not mean to be. I'm not pointing this out to be mean at all, by the way.

A polite note with a thank-you attached is the way to go.


Yeah. I'd start reporting the guy to the authorities, and follow up with the potions.

You could sell him to a wizard as a skillmonkey familiar. Just attach a tail.

What you might also do is work with the other members of the group, and deny him healing so long as he does this. It's amazing how effective that is.

If you're not allowed to kill him, you can still knock him out, repeatedly, and leave him behind on adventures. Did he spend points in tracking?

I'd also point out that things like diplomacy and so on working on other PCs is a house rule. I forget the source, but it's in there somewhere.

If the group is otherwise good, and they just aren't dealing with this guy...I don't know, man.


Otherwhere wrote:

re: banning the MS completely: I am really trying to make this work, and it does mean upping my game as GM - which is why I am seeking advice on countering summoned creatures.

Yes on: environment making summons difficult "low ceilings" etc. Yes on "Prot vs" for some NPCs. Yes on adding more HP and a few more minions to balance out the additional player-side team members.

Yeah - the small elementals add a whole new level of "yikes" to this. But that would be true of just about any character able to summon them. (And they only get a single attack/rnd, unlike the eagle.)

I also plan to try and keep more pressure on the Summoner directly: ranged attacks and multiple round conditions (deafness; grapple) requiring concentration checks, etc.

I'm going to give it one more session, with him flexing his lvl 3 muscles, before I decide on whether to ban the MS or not. I was thinking of just allowing a standard Summoner. The eidolon alone is not quite as bad, and not too much more powerful than a druid's animal companion - both can have creatures that get multiple attacks at low level.

I'm less concerned with him hogging "table time" as we have agreed that other players at the table will roll for his summoned creatures, just to keep them involved.

I just wanted to chime in here. Summoner was an ambitious attempt to create something new. They did a great job...but it needs revised, because it was so ambitious and different. There are a few dev comments on these boards to that effect, and even an outright "It's broken" quoted I believe, at a convention.

Pathfinder Unchained will address the Summoner (May 5th) for that reason. ...so, if this continues to eat up more of your time, require additional adaptions, actions or house rules--you might issue a stay until the revised class comes out, or at least state your intent to swap once it does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

65. Find a new gaming group. (Seriously, the goblin baby thing is just ugh...and perhaps half the reason you find a lot of CN/CE characters...it's a way of stating: "I don't want to deal with this s*+@.")


4. You could also institute "bennies" for positive behavior. Being a good team member* during a session is worth one bennie, for example. Getting into a shouting match with the DM/other players isn't.

Bennies could be used for adding a 1d6 to a roll at opportune times.

This is another play on--being a good player makes your character better.

* There's some good guidelines for play posted here and there on these boards. I'd gather some of those up perhaps, and base such a system on them.


Just wanted to echo a few others--trying to beat a minmaxer at their game will just grant them justification for what it is they're doing: See, see?? This is the type of things we face! and so on.

There are a few approaches. Here's some of my favorites:
1. Talk with them, and explain the style of game you're running. Ask them to remake the character.
2. Shift the spotlight. Highlight and reward the type of play you'd like to see. If someone's roleplaying or contributing as a team member, reward this by having NPCs respond, or giving them facetime at the table. Declare roleplay/team/etc. XP rewards and then institute them.
3. If you need to, follow up number 2 by making negative behavior less rewarding. While this can be through numbers, the social aspect works just as well. That is, give it less attention. For example:

Tim the Sluggy wants to go beat up some guards just to show he can, and no one else in the party is in on it...Well, let a few rolls decide the outcome, then move on. Don't dwell on it and give the guy the spotlight.

(I realize some might disagree with my example, and there may be some times to beat up guards, but we're assuming the instance is an overall part of a greater behaviour problem.)

Minmaxers like to "win." Turn "winning" into the behavior you want to see makes them want it, too.


There are players who will decide descriptive doesn't matter if it isn't backed up by rules.

There are players who disregard descriptive altogether and say that descriptive and rules are completely separate.

It depends on who you're playing with.

I would tend to have descriptive and rules match, but do so in an overall way with broad strokes. Not everything needs rules added to it, because that gets insane.


Sounds like a party mismatch issue. I'd let them go, and look for different people. It's the sort of thing that happens.


So the consequence of "you can remove it" would be that a ring of invisibility works for an entire party, and so on?


wraithstrike wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Change the Rogue's role in combat from DPR to debuffing.
The rogue is really not a designed to be the DPR guy. He is more like a secondary combatant with non-magical utility. Thematically the rogue is the "fixer", but without magic and no EX that looks magical, and no boost to his combat abilities he just falls behind the other classes.

He has utility abilities out of combat, sure, but in-combat? All he does is damage. The only combat related boosts he gets involve sneak attack die; whether this was intended or not, when initiative is rolled the rogue's role is to hit stuff right now. He's terrible at it, of course, and it's frankly not very thematic for a Rogue to be competing with a Barbarian.

Which is why I reworked the Rogue to revolve around the dirty trick maneuver...

Debuffing as an option is not a bad idea. In 3.X Oriental adventures you could trade in some of your sneak attack dice to do other things. The skill tricks from one of the later books would also be nice for a rogue to have.

Yes.

I'd mostly remove sneak attack, and then rework the class to focus on debuffs.

The skill system needs reworked also.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:

So, it seems like your real problem is that the tacit agreement you all had has stopped working.

Step one: figure out what they were, and write down all of the ways in which your groups house rules differ from the written rules.

Step two: announce the problem. Let everyone know that having everyone use slightly different rule sets is causing friction. Let everyone know that consensus is best, and this would really help, even if not everyone gets their way on everything.

Step three: talk it out. Discuss each change as a group, and make some decisions.

You'll invest a whole session on this, but it's worth it.

Hey there. While this is good and well-intended, I wanted to add that following the "write down everything" guidelines too far can cause a worse issue when in this case what is important is the spirit of the game. Your "spirit of the game" isn't to pin down everything and interpret it to the nth degree no matter what.

Discuss as the poster said, yet focus more on outlining your house rules in general, then follow with a conversation about how to interpret rules in the future (RAI versus RAW, etc.). It will likely require more than one conversation before he "gets" it. However, and this is important: ensure that the player knows he will not be screwed over. ...and that you encourage discussion, but that railroading the game into a rules argument that takes over an entire session is not just bad behavior, it's unwelcome at the table.

How you respond should be within the spirit and intent of how you intend to play.

Just be sure he isn't punished for not knowing...and that he understands your group's expectation of behaviour at the table.

I would probably also set a limit to how objections are handled, as well as lawyering. That is, it may be brought up once in session and must be brought up politely. Details are reviewed after session whenever possible, and if the DM says no, accept it and move on, or find another table.


Pretty much what it says. Has there been any discussion or commentary by any past or present developers on increasing (or not) the skill points per level for the 2/level classes?

I understand that the skill points per level will not change in this edition.

I'm looking for if there had been commentary, or if this might be addressed in Unchained.

I found reference to some commentary but have had no luck tracking it down thus far.

Any help would be appreciated.


I have always been the fan of this mod:

At chargen, select either Dex or Str to handle:

* AC bonus
* Ref bonus
* Init bonus

The other then handles:

* To-hit bonus
* Damage bonus

...and so on. Once assigned, this may not be changed. If they chose Str for their Ref bonus, etc. package, it could be explained as being strong enough to move more quickly (70 and 20 year olds will move their legs about the same rate and pattern; it's the force with which they strike the ground and then lift off that has the greater impact on their speed).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

DnD encouraged me to learn math as a kid.

I can see a use for this feat. Most of them involve sneaky ways to encourage a kid (or yourself) to get better at math.

- A kid might try it because you told them "man, no one can do this!" just to prove you wrong
- A kid might try it because "it was the most powerful of powerful wizards ever"
- A kid might try it, because if they could you would buy them pizza afterwards, and they get a super-powerful wizard on top of it

...etc.

Result: Kid learns better math concepts, and gets immediate benefit


With respect to others, extreme Individualism vs Collectivism reminds me too much of today's political debates.

Here are some additionals:

The Value of Karma: Due to a bad agreement, all souls are doomed for hell, or heaven is just picky. In this system, there really is a weights and measures system. Heroism is one method.

Mixed Mythology: Heaven and Hell are a mythology crafted by the human dreamstate. Therefore, you have multiple Heavens and multiple Hells. The power of the mortal is really the power of its dreaming state and imagination, which causes such things to be real and is one of the reasons that all forms of Hell quest for the mortal soul. This does not mean that good or evil do not exist; only that while the core of them may be similar, the particulars vary from place to place, and the actual, living mythologies enforce it.

Right to Destiny: A different take on the above could be that Hell was the original creators, but the mortals, once slaves, were able to dream themselves free. This is the true value of the soul: to give dreams energy and power, over time. (Because this happens over time, how or if you have this mechanic fit into the game world is up to the DM).

It was then that mortals created Heaven. Heaven was the wish of all their dreams and wants. It is perhaps: A pure realm that Hell fights against their achieving by draining their souls and in the meantime, they're stuck in this middle, or only partly-achieved state. Alternately, perhaps heaven is too pure of a realm, and mortals find themselves doubly trapped. Even more alternately, heaven-as-made-by-mortals is really mixed up (some people are just twisted, and this was created by the shared dreams of -everyone-). It can save them from Hell, but is it worth it?

Heaven as Pure Ideas, Hell as Impure Fragments: In this, Heaven represents the purest form of creation, the purest forms of philosophy, of ideals, concepts, and ideas. The plane of fire might as well be one of Heaven's many parts. Most of Heaven is unviewable by mortal eyes, and is incomprehensible to the uncleansed body. Hell becomes the unworkable, castoff fragments of these ideals, who over time, go mad on their own. It is merely a consequence of creation and nothing is to be done for it. Think of it as the leftover parts of a sculpture, as broken clocks, untruths, as a shattered landscape and the fallen buildings of an architectual failure.

The war of mortals then is to protect their own plane of existence. While imperfect, the Mortal Realm is comprehensible to them, it is livable and new creations (from Heaven, this place of pure concept, etc.) filter downwards and generally do not harm them.

However, the leftovers do, these bits of bitter, useless leftover creation who did not "make the cut." Mortals train themselves to combat these fragments. The nature of the Mortal Realm, with its position between the Pure and the Impure, makes it the perfect battleground.

Faithwise, this world could be very practical with "what is good" being focused on local customs or survival...or it could worship ideals, which Heaven embodies. Good would be honoring what is Ideal and rebuking what is Corrupt of that Ideal. For example, an engineer would strive to embody and honor true design and strong safety measures, while rebuking what caused buildings to crumble. An engineer warped by Hell would infuse buildings with flaws, or build bridges to fall.

An artist could be both a savior and a sinner. On the one hand, an artist might use art as war, reclaiming fallen structures and giving them purpose. On the other, a deconstructivist would stand for exactly the opposite: tearing down what was once Ideal and rending it to rubble.


Back to the original topic...

Don't forget Hunter's Surprise.

PRD wrote:


Hunter's Surprise (Ex): Once per day, a rogue with this talent can designate a single enemy she is adjacent to as her prey. Until the end of her next turn, she can add her sneak attack damage to all attacks made against her prey, even if she is not flanking it or it is not flat-footed.


seebs wrote:

polymorph spells

I collated all the data together from the various polymorph spells once. There's some issues.

I think I <3 you. Do you mind if I port a copy of it, with credits? I will PM details.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caedwyr wrote:
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

I didn't take from Caedwyr's posts that it promoted mod-access to non-employees.

Now I haven't reads the linked posts, but I thought Caedwyr was talking more to the lack of "community manager-focus" in the moderation by Paizo staff.

If there are steps in community building and community building that can be implemented, then there will be less moderation needed, or the nature of moderation will change as the community moderates itself - not through hard-code and ban-hammering (regardless of who does it), but through etiquette, mindful behaviour and subscription to social tenets more conducive to positive and creative discussion.

Pretty much this. From what I've seen and what I've read by some of the community managers/moderators for some of the more successful communities, there's a lot of thought that goes into things such as atmosphere and the nature of the community. As Pathfinder grows and becomes more successful, if Paizo is going to continue to have forums, they will need to decide what direction they wish to take or their community will develop in a direction they don't want and their ability to influence the community will be lessened.

I just wanted to add to this in a somewhat tangential way. Kirk Hamilton recently reviewed Kotaku's own policies and approach, as well as reviewing a related Wired article on the topic (handling internet trolling).

Quote from Wired Article wrote:


This process led them to a surprising insight—one that "shaped our entire approach to this problem," says Jeffrey Lin, Riot's lead designer of social systems, who spoke about the process at last year's Game Developers Conference. "If we remove all toxic players from the game, do we solve the player behavior problem? We don't." That is, if you think most online abuse is hurled by a small group of maladapted trolls, you're wrong. Riot found that persistently negative players were only responsible for roughly 13 percent of the game's bad behavior. The other 87 percent was coming from players whose presence, most of the time, seemed to be generally inoffensive or even positive. These gamers were lashing out only occasionally, in isolated incidents—but their outbursts often snowballed through the community. Banning the worst trolls wouldn't be enough to clean up League of Legends, Riot's player behavior team realized. Nothing less than community-wide reforms could succeed.

Some of the reforms Riot came up with were small but remarkably effective. Originally, for example, it was a default in the game that opposing teams could chat with each other during play, but this often spiraled into abusive taunting. So in one of its earliest experiments, Riot turned off that chat function but allowed players to turn it on if they wanted. The impact was immediate. A week before the change, players reported that more than 80 percent of chat between opponents was negative. But a week after switching the default, negative chat had decreased by more than 30 percent while positive chat increased nearly 35 percent. The takeaway? Creating a simple hurdle to abusive behavior makes it much less prevalent.

...there's more there, including how the focus on and treatment of an online space as a "community, so act like it" is one of the more effective measures you can have against negative behavior, combined with "those solutions which defuse the Internet’s power to amplify abuse but also encourage crucial shifts in social norms."

* Wired Article
* Kirk's Article


Taenia wrote:

Actually at least two plants have regeneration the Tendriculous and the Saguaroi.

This is a great document for some questions regarding polymorphing.

Nice! I must have missed them. I know one of the frequent grumps I'd run into regarding Plant Shape was the perceived lack of regeneration effects, and looking through I hadn't noticed any. I did see more fast healing, though. Perhaps this will help.


5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

When I was looking through the Plant Shape spell, I started wondering if while it was being written, the author might've put down "Regeneration" when they'd meant "Fast Healing."

Since some plants have fast healing, and none (to my knowledge, though this might have changed) have regeneration, this seems like a reasonable conclusion.

So, is Regeneration really meant to have been Fast Healing in the Plant Shape series of spells?

I'm not proposing a debate or argument about the effectiveness of the spell. This is just me wondering if A had been meant to be B.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The simplest fix we should take comes from an example from the Warpriest. Whenever the Warpriest is using a weapon from their deity or a weapon that they have Weapon Focus in, they use their class level as their BAB when making melee attacks.

The same fix can be applied here, letting the Rogue use their class level as their BAB when they are able to sneak attack or attacking an enemy who is denied (or loses) their Dexterity modifier. Now Rogues are relevant as 'support-martials' again.

Again with the 'giving Rogues more bennies when they can sneak attack' bit.

Granted, Flanking type Sneak Attacks do struggle to hit. But what the Rogue needs even more than increased to-hit is improved viability when not sneak attacking.

(Also, good Rogue Talents.)

To be honest, I'm not sure why it's an issue. Rogues are defined as being able to use Sneak Attack when 1. Flanking, and 2. Target is denied their Dexterity Modifier to AC. With that being said, they should do their damnedest to try and set it up, the same way any other Martial should do their damnedest to try and set up full attacks.

Feats like Outflank and Gang Up are perfect for a rogue, since it allows them to flank as long as 2 other allies threaten the target, and Outflank increases their flanking bonuses by 2 with those who also have this feat; tack on being able to make AoOs when your allies critically hit the target, and it becomes a great feat for all martials to take, especially with 15-20 critical multipliers. With Combat Expertise and Int 13 as pre-reqs, it's not too difficult for a rogue to snatch up, especially since those same pre-reqs are for Dirty Tricks, something which every rogue who calls himself a rogue should take, given the innumerable assortment of potential debuffs and ability to do so while being able to make attacks.

It's really mostly a control issue. Read any of the angryposts from a gamer feeling their choices/rights were taken away regarding Y, and then compare that to the up/down way SA works.

It's also that skills need to be more useful in specific ways.

The first is an issue with the SA mechanic itself (and a trust issue), and the second a more overall design issue that is outside the scope of an errata.


Loup Blanc wrote:

I'd agree with Digitalelf and say that quite possibly the best way for her to try the game out is with a trusted family member. You can control how deep things get, and since you know her well, you'll be able to decide what she can and can't handle. Some kids can deal well with themes like moral questions and trying to do the right thing, and some do best when it's a more black-and-white, Saturday morning cartoons format.

Of course, I'm not a parent, but I got into the hobby at about the same age--I think I was 10 the first time I played, and I got the 3.5 Starter Set when I was 11 or 12. I was introduced by my older half-brother--he's 5 years older than me--and my mother had played when she was young. The first few games were definitely more free-form and rough around the edges, but it was a lot of fun and it was definitely an outlet for me. I did a lot of the things you referenced in your post, actually. It's not for every creative kid out there, certainly, but it definitely interested me and it's become a very great part of my life, probably my favorite hobby besides writing (barely a hobby anymore, seeing as I'm a Creative Writing major now... feels like just yesterday I was the kid on the playground making believe).

Anyway, I'd say that starting small is probably good; make sure she enjoys the idea before having her go online with it. If she has some friends who are in the same boat, maybe invite them all to get together and try out a game. Have them do it through email, maybe. Set up a game right here on the forums, even--I don't think anybody would bust in and ruin it, and as long as they don't go wandering it shouldn't be risky.

Good luck!

Echoing this...my first gaming group was composed of family and family friends. It was safe and fun. There's nothing wrong with this...and a rl group helps her develop offline social skills, too. It has the bonus of you dropping in to see how things go, and being able to speak with the parents.


There are some PbP groups that are fairly good and moderated. I know Lackadaisy Cats was one a while back.

You might start there.


gnomersy wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


Allowing the rogue to target touch AC would actually free them up to focus more on defense.

Not really. The reason Rogues don't focus on defense isn't because they need to focus on offense but because they need to focus on just getting sneak attacks this doesn't alleviate that issue which means all it does is make the Rogue more inconsistent between when he's sneak attacking and when he's not.

In general I find inconsistency in my character to be annoying at best and intolerable at worst but not everyone agrees with me.

To cap it all off the ability doesn't really make sense in context either since thick hide and being literally made of steel apparently make it no more difficult for the Rogue to find a good place to stick you but only when he sneaks.

In my own experience and reading of these threads, many players and DMs hate loss of control over their PCs.

Absolutely HATE it.

Want to stab it to DEATH.

The rogue sneak attack represents 'loss of control.' Limited per-day abilities do not have this issue.

Therefore, you'll never have a good discussion on SA, because half of it is actually from frustration of not having control over a character.

It doesn't matter if it's effective, or somewhat effective, or highly effective, etc. Not at all. It matters if the player feels in control of their abilities.


I once made a summation of what I'd considered to be general recommendations based on forum posts and various 'guides. It read something like this:

- All full BAB classes receive pounce beginning at L11+
- Make specific archetypes default for certain classes. Barbarian defaults to Invulnerable Rager, and Monk to Quiggong...
- Vital Strike becomes a scaling feat (You take it once, and it advances, granting additional die as you gain BAB)
- Monk and rogue become full BAB classes
- Monk receives all style feats as bonus feat options
- Ninja talents are rolled into the rogue class (treat them as normal talents and give rogues a ki pool by default--in this way, they become a default option)
- Any class with 2 skill points per level becomes 4 per level, except Wizard
- Fighter receives a good will save
- Barbarian rage cycling becomes default (it still costs 2 rage points per round, instead of 1 as per RAW)
- Fey Foundling default for paladins.
- Remove Combat Expertise as a pre-req, and make it and Power Attack innate abilities.
- Dex to damage is default.
- Rogue begins play with weapon finesse.

I've also seen:

- Bad saves are unfun, so give everyone good saves.
- Minimum d10 for everyone, except barbarian who gets d12.
- Full BAB for everyone except casters. Casters get 3/4.
- Feats every level.
- Craft feats double your WBL.

So to add to this:

- Rogues should attack at touch AC.

It makes the game quite different. Perhaps if you are considering the touch AC, you should consider adding the rest as well.

Note: Don't take the above list as agreement or support. It's merely note-taking on my end of things.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I also vote for sending Isaiah Mustafa a letter, asking him to donate his likeness to future PF deities or demigods.

It's for a good cause.


Haladir wrote:


YMMV, I guess.

Speaking from personal experience, in 30+ years of gaming, with at least a score of paladins I can think of, I can count on one hand the number of times I encountered the typical "paladin problem" people tend to gripe about on the boards. All were directly the result of players known to be disruptive or GMs known to be, um,...

Fairly well this, yeah...for example, I've run into the folks who tried PvPing everyone around them, or a wizard who claimed omnipotent knowledge and...the ability to PvP everyone.

Yeesh.

I've found there are also fewer issues with "rules conundrums" so long as expectations are stated. Certainly none of the drama you'd expect from reading these boards. More, just the occasional attitude quirkle.

For example, the fellow who demanded a CE assassin with expanded gun rules. ...while giving what felt like an hours-long pro-NRA speech while arguing for additional gun options while attempting to out-stare the DM and and that all women should love him now, but damn them all for jilting him so far...and hey dude, what's the policy on PvP? ...you may not want that guy at the table.

Or the guy who pretended to be a female sorceress and would sit there drawing her boobs all the time, mostly to the tune of, "Lawl! I drew them too big that time!"

...yeah. Quirkles.

...are much more frequent than rules-drama.


Hey, there. I'm going to ramble on for a little bit, and then present a specific approach based on that ramble, so please forgive me. This is a pretty cool topic.

When dealing with a large amount of data, the human mind tends to create categories. So if it sees a series of different objects, it will attempt to classify them.

What I'm going to propose is that instead of presenting these books and options to a DM all at once or even a few at a time, you help him or her create these classifications and then use this as a selling point. In this way, the amount of data (which is what many have suggested is a barrier, here), seems less overwhelming and more familiar. Therefore, it appears less burdensome.

This is what I would do:

1. Promote one book...just one. It's much easier to build your case for The Idyll Treetops Supplement than Kobold #235, Kobold #651, Idyll, and then Thorinbreak Mountain Underdark all at once.

2. Through conversation, and without being pushy, talk with the DM about different 3pps or product groups (whichever you feel works). Be honest and thoughtful, but not pushy. Explain that players have tended to find Treant Slayers productions (making up a name, here) to tend to produce OP material. OTOH, Lantern Sea Gods has been in 3.x since before Paizo, and has won a lot of respect for producing balanced material. Or, perhaps cover where Lantern Sea Gods tends to get their ideas, "they always go back to CRB material during development, and balance around the ranger, barbarian, etc."

The purpose of this is to help your DM feel as though s/he "knows" the products, at least in general. This way, if you present five Lantern Sea Gods books at once, he or she has a means of approaching them and comparing them to, say, Treant Slayers.

It also helps illustrate the thought you've given towards these products.

Plus, understanding builds trust.

Remember, you'd selected each of these items individually, and your collection grew with you. Therefore, it feels familiar. However, when presenting a flood of data to someone else, we need to "pre-sort" as it were.

And, sometimes "pre-sorting" can help us make our argument in the long run, and can even be turned into a selling point.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I would love to see a male god of beauty modeled after a young George Takei.


thejeff wrote:

2005(ish)-Present: Narrative mechanics

Dogs in the Vineyard and some of the other Forge games.

I think you have a point, here. Also, I believe he addresses DnD more indepth in the article, itself.


In his A Brief History of Fashion in RPG Design, John Kim suggests that game design is less modeled after evolution in some ways than it is a series of related artistic movements. That is, one often develops in response to another. Or, in his own words: "where there are trends which may die out, or classic fashions which may revive."

In his essay, he outlined nine major movements within RPG design:

1975-1980: Explorational Wargames
D&D, Melee, et al.

1978-1988: Literary Simplicity
Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, et al.

1980-1988: Rules-Heavy Worlds
RoleMaster, HârnMaster, et al.

1984-1993: Comical Rules-Lite
Toon, Marvel Superheroes, et al.

1986-Present: Universal Problem-Solving
GURPS and its imitators.

1987-Present: Fast Cinematic Action
Star Wars, Feng Shui, et al.

1991-Present: Dark Storytelling
Vampire: The Masquerade, et al.

1991-Present: Diceless Fantasy
Amber Diceless, Everway, et al.

2000-Present: Crunchy Challenge
D&D3 / D20, Rune, et al.

...however, the article stops at 2000 (or 2004, when it was published). It's now 2014.

In your own thoughts, where are we today, and where are we headed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes being concerned with how everything hangs together at the table is the biggest, most important thing...

...and that's a purely OOC issue.

I've met some fairly quirky characters...if there were issues though, it was rarely with the piece of paper, but the person who had written on it. A good person you can work with, generally.

And generally...you try to fit everyone in and to make it work. That isn't always possible though, despite every attempt otherwise. Usually, it comes down to OOC issues, as to whether whatever is going on can be resolved.

Sometimes, it also comes down to management of the table. A good DM or group can help mitigate some issues or help someone incorporate, but there's a reasonable limit here as well and a table is no place for a therapy session.

So in the end...yeah, I've run into some quirky PCs. I remember the person behind the paper more, though.

1 to 50 of 674 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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