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

Ruggs's page

593 posts (621 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 593 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Do not take this the wrong way.

Every time I see a thread like this though, I keep wanting to add #MURICA to it.

...and then hand the paladin a skin-tight leotard and tiny shield.

As a former teacher, I'd rather someone like that kid dressing outlandishly, but not in a racist/harmful versus others way (no neo-Nazis and other goofiness), than a kid bullying others.

Now that said...

As a social construct of a society, a school is always going to have standards. That is, it cannot exist in an ideal vacuum: such a thing does not exist.

Some of these standards are pretty important. Say, a kid mouthing off during class is also distracting to the other students, and to the lesson, so there are reasons for good behavior standards.

In others, these existing standards, such as expressed by this school, reflect ongoing social changes we see in society. Remember, schools are not vacuums.

Perhaps then, it is our perception of what society should allow that needs adjusted. If society changes, then schools (as part of that society) would largely follow.

Also, on a broader education is a grand thing. Individualism must have its expression, but there is a price to pay when you have the high school-only kid who never learned the full consequences of slavery in the US, but who was "smart in other ways." True story, there.

Luckily, there are many ways to get an education, and different types of school systems. An education, the fact of an education, opens our minds in ways a lack of one cannot, even with as much "free spirit" added onto it.

To put it another way: We humans live buy 60, 70 years. If knowledge is accumulated, but not passed on in that fragile number of years, it is lost. Imagine more like the kid I mentioned above, and realize just how fragile knowledge in general, is.

Therefore, if we are upset at how this kid was treated, or if we think of our education system as "slavery," work to improve it, instead.

Something you might try, which still keeps wizards and other 9-level casters in the game is to convert all spells 6th level and above to rituals. This basically allows them to be cast, but creates a longer casting time, which allows them to be interrupted more easily. I haven't worked out the details, but time to cast would increase with the level of the spell (or also the slot required to cast it, whichever is more a disadvantage to the caster).

All 2-skill point classes become 4, save for int-based casters.

Allow full BAB classes 2 attacks if taking a regular move action.

Do not allow traits/feats that reduce metamagic costs.

Do not allow rods more powerful than lesser.

There are other adaptions, but the ritualist approach can definitely add flavor to a game, and still allow access to higher level spells, but in a more controlled and flavorful manner.

I do not think anything is wrong with the fighter.

<pauses for incredulous looks>

I think it's more that the fighter is becoming an outdated concept, or has reached this point already. The design scheme these days favors more versatile PCs, and Pathfinder as a game is hurting for expanded noncombat options. The designers gave us Ultimate Campaign, which is fantastic. It does not craft diplomatic combat though, and similar areas which would require a skill revamp. I wish we'd had this foresight when PF was going through its initial revision and the developers were discussing skills--hardly anyone had feedback in comparison to the classes themselves, and skills went largely unchanged. Hindsight is 20/20, though.

What I'd like to see is fighter divided into different and more versatile classes. The tactical warlord is a strong contender for one of them. Until then, I think Da'ath's list is a good, straightforward set of updates* that bring the fighter forward and towards the new schema, and are updates which have enjoyed a lot of popular support.**

* I say updates as opposed to changes deliberately here, as I see what is going on as more of an evolution.

** Among these more versatile versions should still be a "vanilla" flavored warrior as part of the draw of the fighter IS that s/he is simple, straightforward and that's an important demographic.

Back in development, smite was limited to a melee weapon. That language was changed to allow ranged.

We might be looking at something from that era (has it really been that long?).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gaming at Tabletop is a social exercise. Sometimes I cannot help but feel as though threads like this become an attempt to step outside of that exercise, to call on developers to make decisions for us to either contain or sometimes enable munchkinism when we ourselves need to be the ones stepping up to do so.

I'm not claiming this thread is, mind, it's that some of, or perhaps what appears to be an abundance of, these threads make it seem that way.

Do some rules questions need addressed? Absolutely.

That does not mean all of them do, though, and does not mean that we may be relying too much on developers when what is really needed is a good thump on the head and a "knock it off."

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It isn't as though travel with babies isn't something humans ourselves haven't dealt with for some time. Yes, it will be troublesome and risky, but pioneer women and families suffered during long journeys in the wilderness.

For folks in the US, there's the Oregon Trail: "On the Oregon Trail, one in every five women were in some stage of pregnancy. Nearly all married woman traveled with small children." (Source)

Or: "It's estimated that 40,000 of the emigrants were children, one of every five..." (Source)

...not to mention travel in other cultures at different times, especially more nomadic societies. At least in Golarion, you have your party and magic to help you.

Craft a papoose and purchase a wand of endure elements for the tyke, and a similar one of prestidigitation for the diapers. Perhaps a low-level hireling to stand off to the side and hold the child during combat.

The Catholic faith is just one of many, and the deities of Golarion and many other settings aren't Catholic, but their own thing. To echo other posters, I don't see why celibacy would be required of most of them or even be a default assumption.

There is one old faith of an ancient temple which has a pole coming down the center of it. The pole enters into a (I am not making this up, nor am I trying to be crude) er, circular area which becomes a fountain.

This ah, structure is to represent the fertilization of the earth. The pole and so one is washed with milk and honey and so on during these ceremonies by groups of (yes, clothed) villagers, who are singing and chanting together.

...the idea of celibacy as part of a priesthood, etc. is then something based on specific real-world faiths, but not only are we speaking of a fantasy realm, rl faiths on Earth are actually quite varied.

Also, there's no reason for faiths which include sex to be about zomg "holy prostitution." It can have quite a different representation, as evidenced by the above temple. ...and it's quite cool if they do, as the "holy prostitution" angle can easily be over-cliched.

Hey, there. I'm considering converting the rules for Performance Combat into something akin to Diplomatic or Influence Combat. A few of the tweaks I'm considering:

- Use the Performance Combat rules largely as written, with Diplomacy replacing Perform
- Profession and Craft may be used much as Diplomacy may, when within applicable areas (Craft/Swordsmith could be used among other weaponsmiths or among a group of dwarves, for example, whose culture places a particular value on the skill)

So far, so good. I'm down to the section on action types, though, and victory points. Any suggestions for guidelines here?

Also, any possible speed bumps you could see, and suggestions for overcoming them? I'm looking for some brainstorming, if you're willing to share. :)

Something you might look at: In the APG, there are a set of rules for Performance Combat. With a little bit of tweaking, you could turn these into rules for Diplomatic Combat.

This would turn attempts of PCs to sway crowds and so on into an ongoing contest, with opponents able to counter-diplomance, as it were.

I would also consider letting craft and profession work in place of diplomacy with specified groups. For example, someone proficient as a swordsmith might use their known skill in this area to influence other weaponsmiths or a culture which honors them, such as dwarven ones.

Nezzarine Shadowmantle wrote:

2)If no one has ranks in Use Magic Device, introduce a magic item with limited healing capabilities that are none spell completion, i.e. spell-like abilities

To the OP: I can well understand the predicament this can create. Everyone is going to play a little differently, after all. A number of groups I've seen happen to employ clerics, and enjoy them. It certainly doesn't make them "playing wrong" or "enjoying wrong." Sometimes though, they can be a little overly relied on by other party members!

I agree with the MI idea. You might also take the players aside and explain that the cleric may or may not be there in future sessions. That you hope the player will be, but this isn't always possible. Let them adjust their PCs and encourage them to brainstorm on more defensive strategies. A first step is to look at the barbarian's AC or other defenses, for example. The second step is to get them talking and working together around the issue. Encourage them to think of it as similar to a puzzle in a campaign, but one they're given time out of session to address (and a little leeway with adjustments).

As for leeway, if they come up with some good ideas, I would consider letting them redistribute a little wealth or perhaps a feat. Not overly much, but enough to let them adjust for example, if someone's playing a two-handed AC 15 fighter who always rushes into the front line... etc.

Clerics can be amazingly fun, and healing is not an evil, verybad. I'd suggest though, rather than feeling this is something you need to solve more personally, present it as an opportunity for them to focus on themselves as a team and encourage them to brainstorm ways to be a little more self-sufficient.

The cleric player might appreciate it, too.

Mojorat wrote:
If he's riding the mount they always have shares initiative. However the normal rules as far as I know allow the rider to do an attack anywhere in the mounts movement.

For an updated version of PF mounted combat, you might look at this publication. It has a few very nice areas, such as expansions for the ride skill and some clarity on action economy...and maneuvers, specifically.

You might not use all of the rules, but it is something you and your DM might review together.

Its writer has experience with jousting competitions, and horses in general--which is evident by some of the templates and write-ups.

LazarX wrote:
Terokai wrote:
no where in the spell does it mention needing to make checks to remain in the air. And paralysis does not counter the spell, only end of duration, antimagic or dispel magic can end or suppress the effect. Only winged creatures are called out as needing to make fly checks to hover. So you would stay there in the air not moving but not falling either.
It doesn't have to be in the spell. Universal Fly Rules say you need to either move at half speed or make hover checks to stay in the air. The spell does not put any specific overrides on the general rules for flight other than giving you a bonus to Fly Checks. If you are paralyzed you can't make move actions, which means you can't fulfill either of the conditions needed to remain airborne. Hence your further movements become determined by gravity.

I can run with this, though.

MC Templar wrote:

I would say "no"

Paralyzed specifically calls out can not move
Fly does not specifically identify "is a purely mental action"

so barring an FAQ, I'd rule against it.

This is my concern with this interpretation: by this definition, all ongoing spells would cease to function which had been cast by the now-paralyzed character.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

However, the bible and Christianity was never simply for certain people, but for all men. It's a point that I think is missed by those who are both extremes of the spectrum (for various reason).

This is where beliefs diverge, very much. I've been told that because I follow a largely non-theistic faith that it is not a real faith.

I believe it to be a lack of understanding on the part of the speaker--that is, simply not having been exposed to a nontheistic faith in full, and perhaps unable to comprehend how one would work...or even how it /could/ be a faith at all.

Education and understanding is key. I felt I should point out what appeared to be an assumption, however. You may believe your faith's teachings were meant for me.

...and I would be free to suggest that mine were meant for you.

I don't say this combatively, merely an expression and hope for the future that the talking, and understanding continues...not just for faith, but for LGBTQ and many other areas, instead.

On a similar topic, (or perhaps tangent, so please bear with me) NPR covered wonderful program the other day--they're doing a series on tribalism. The idea of who belongs and 'what we believe' is strong among tribal peoples because it's also equated with safety. That is, everyone would have the same tattoo, or the same rites of passage which then come to identify an 'us.' Anyone outside that 'us' (without the tattoo, or rites) was likely a raider or other, threatening individual.

I'd propose that to some degree--wanting others to conform to our views is also a kickback towards safety, /wanting/ things to be similar, or to provoke a similar worldview. That, wanting everyone to share a similar faith, outlook, or tattoo--could be a measure of that tribal circle of safety.

Again, I am not meaning to insult. This is more academic wandering, and I'll tie it back into LGBTQ in a moment. :)

At our tribal level, what we don't 'know' becomes defined as 'other' and 'other' becomes 'threat.' I do not think this invalidates the studies Jessica and others mentioned--I believe it adds to them because if a person possesses these tendencies (a liking for men where their culture declares gay to be evil) then they fight not only themselves but their fear of becoming a nonmember of their culture. An outsider, and something they've long been accustomed to viewing as 'evil.'

This would imply that those who cannot 'put a face' to someone who is LGBTQ and see how these 'other' peacefully fit into their lives fall into a pattern of fear/hate/etc. The same is for different faiths,'s at its basis, and perhaps more crudely said, 'they who do not possess the same tattoo are different and a threat to my tribe and my way of life.'

It's possibly why talking and education breaks down those barriers, because it expands the 'tribal circle.' The 'other' becomes a 'possible us.' ...and why certain hate groups are so against a broader education to begin with.

For example, I once had a deacon level his finger at me and declare, in thunder and lighting, that because I'd taken the time to experience other, Protestant, faiths that my own was then 'weakened' and I risked going to hell.

He feared 'other' becoming 'us.' (And I say this not to condemn a faith--my Catholic friends were a little shocked, too).

lemeres wrote:
Azten wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

I've always considered them among the stronger choices, although the fluff suggests they're rather high-maintenance.

I'm not entirely sure, but doesn't the poison DC scale with your caster level?

Yes it does, because poison is based off hit dice. Unlimited poison I might add.

And let's not forget telepathy! This little dragon is an amazing scout because he can(at limited range, of course) communicate silently with anyone in the party!

EDIT: oh, and unless I'm misremembering the poison, it can put elves to sleep.

I am unsure of this, but I seem to remember that familiars do not truly gain hit dice, but instead they simply are treated as having their master's hit dice so that a random color spray doesn't take it out when you are at level 15.

This idea is supported by the fact that familiars do not gain more feats at every odd level like any other intelligent creature. Just looking at the stat blocks for the iconic witch shows that fact.

I recall this ruling as well. I believe there's a blog post somewhere. It ended up limiting the LoH ability of a certain familiar, for example.

Wolfsnap wrote:
There is a book on Mounted Combat specifically which might help. It also offers some alternate rules to make mounted combat better/smoother.

I went and snapped this up (haha) and have to say. I love their idea for the optional, simplified rule for treating a mounted character and mount as a "template" that confers a certain set of bonuses, as well as a specific list of feats which mounts/riders can share.

While this would be too much of a "rules rewrite" at this point, as a simplification of existing rules it's a novel idea.

As a side note, the product appears written by someone with at least some knowledge of horses, which is a plus.

I saw a pair of comments here that summed it up for me rather well...

Odraude wrote:

The issue is that these "extremists" you keep pointing out are no worse than the extremists on the other side. Hell, they aren't even worse than the moderates on the other side, who still actively believe that homosexuals' rights should be limited because of religion.


SunshineGrrrl wrote:

There's been a dustup recently in the trans-community that kind of relates to the point I want to make here. One person is in the industry that was greatly criticized and she spoke out against a very large barrage of loud angry trans women who believe we can do better. And they're right, hollywood can do better. But her point was that we all need to act better because that only makes people angry. I'm not sure she's exactly right about that. There needs to be people talking sense and being diplomats, but there is also room for someone to scream when they feel hurt and I think that's important if unfortunate part of the discourse.

The fact is, with this specific case, some people at the company asked that he step down in light of his actions. Perhaps they had personally been wronged by the prop 8 decision or that someone they love had been hurt and they didn't want to see that happen again. How can anyone believe without a shadow of a doubt that he will not vote with his conscience for the company when his conscience in life told him that he should help deny thousands of men and women some basic rights that he enjoys. He had the chance to apologize or say that he no longer believed that was the course people take. There is room in faith to allow others to live their lives in the way that is important for them, even if you disagree with it. The moment someone else's faith becomes law, that's when we lose our freedom. It's not when someone speaks up or when someone steps down for the good of the company. It's not when there is yelling but when there is silence. Freedom comes with a price. You are free to be whoever you feel you should be but your actions have consequences.

We speak out when we feel like we're not being treated fairly. We speak out when others hurt us. And we speak out when we are afraid that the place or thing we love, might be made more hostile for someone else being in charge of it, even if he says he won't do it, because we're used to people lying to us.

Eich did something bad. He was...

...bolding added by me. A CEO is a public face, a powerful position. I would not wish to be an employee underneath this guy.

Mojorat wrote:

People complain about optimization when it results in a clash of playstyles.

If you have 4 players, 1 is playing middle school basket ball, two are playing high school basket ball and the 4rth is playing olympic basket ball it results some or all of he players not having fun.

IT has little or nothing to do with the power level of the wizard, and that in fact probably obfuscates the issues.

I would echo this, as well as the negative social culture it (much like anything else) can create when let go to extremes. I believe there was a post a few months back that was a sort of a social guide, a list of do's and do not's.

It's a good guideline for both optimizers and roleplayers, which basically boils down to: don't be a jerk. Also: work with your gaming group.

It's largely a social issue as well as a clash of playstyles.

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Well, I see discrimination and many others do. It's quickly becoming a rallying cry against the LGBT movement (for the moment).

I think I've said all that needs to be said...whether you agree it was discrimination or not...that's also your right. At least (hopefully) people won't call down for your firing for your opinions or political actions.

However...IF you donated to a political campaign, or had a religious belief for Gay marriage...and were fired for it...under the law I believe that's discrimination.

The reverse STILL holds the US at least. This is why Eich could step down...but in theory he couldn't be fired (beyond the fact that he did and still has too much power with Mozilla for them to be able to do that anyways I think).

But, this conversation isn't really going anywhere. No matter if you agree it was or wasn't discrimination, it doesn't change that many out there are rallying to that cry currently because they also see it as distinct discrimination.

And that's the real performing what others are seeing as discrimination, I think the LGBT movement has caused their movement more harm then good in this action. There were other ways to do this that were not as harmful.

I spent the better part of a pair of days listening to something very similar to this. In the end, the difference was I think, they were focusing on a very narrow area: to suffer one's job based on personal actions. Those against saw the man's donation to hate groups as a right, and those for saw the social harm and violence attached to the act, as well as the opportunity not taken for apology.

The debate isn't winnable--more, I think, it's a reflection of ideologies.

That feat is an unfortunate example of "rules for rules' sake" and ends up complicating more than it clarifies.

I tend to pretend it doesn't exist. Hopefully someone will weigh in for PFS. :/

I will give perhaps a slightly different answer. The rogue:

- Possesses mechanics which suggest it is a fighter/combatant (SA) when in reality it is squishy and more of a striker. This is misleading to beginner players who think: sexy, light fighter.
- Creates an expectation of solo adventures, whereas the bard typically is seen as working with the party

The first can be overcome with experience. However, the second almost seems to be a function of the class. The rogue is a class that works well when the DM arranges solo adventures, information-gathering sessions and so on. It's almost like running two different where the rogue shines, and one where the combat-oriented classes shine.

The bard, by contrast, possesses the ability to enable other party members, work with them, and fulfill intel roles.

In a party-based game, that is often more desirable.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kickstarting is serious business. It takes time to craft one and then run it successfully, and then coordinate the follow-up...not in terms of a month or two, but a year or two.

Most gamers are not managers, or trained in business.'s a big leap between running a gaming table towards business management.

Many of the old MUDs and so on back in the day floundered or exploded because of this difference. Same is true for gaming publishers. "Hey, I love playing with my friends...why not make something everyone can enjoy?" Or, "Hey, I can design xyz better than...why not make some money doing what I love?"

So I wish the owners of Frog the best, and suggest there's a growing market out there for how to run and manage a successful Kickstarter from the gaming angle. Or better than and classwork combined, and it's never bad to hire the occasional consultant.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Great message for a Friday.

FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Especially when they publish things like the Valkyrie whose stat block would very much lead you to believe that she's combining both Spirited Charge and Vital Strike

Why? Because she has both feats?

So having an option when you can't charge makes you think it is only there for when you can?

When a mounted flying creature has a feat line up like "Mounted Combat, Power Attack, Ride-By Attack, Skill Focus (Ride), Spirited Charge, Trample, Vital Strike, Weapon Focus (spear)", yeah, most GMs are going to assume those are all meant to work together. And until very recently, they did.
But at the same time, they only did work for a few months. the RAGELANCEPOUNCE faq made vital strike on a charge possible. So when that material was written, it probably wasn't in the rules that you could vital strike on a charge.

There was a some point a discussion clarifying that you could not vital strike on a charge, I believe. If that is the case, then allowing the mount to charge but the rider not, yet the rider still gaining the benefits of a charge and none of the restrictions sounds more and more like an unintentional loophole.

Charisma suffers from...well, it suffers from being interpreted as "the prettiness stat."

It has potential for much more, though this seems rarely realized.

DeathQuaker wrote:

This is great! Having spent long hours pasting braille-stickers to cards for the use of my two friends with Lieber Congenital Aumarosis, this being successful would save a lot of time and agony. We've found ways to play together even when we don't have time/materials to braillify cards, such as reading cards and such to them, but that means a lot of time we have to limit ourselves to cooperative games (not that cooperative games are bad) because they can't keep their decks secret. Having people pre-produce brailled sleeves is amazing. I've passed word of the Kickstarter onto my friends.

Very cool to see that list of publishers that support them--my one concern indeed would be making sure they don't technically violate IP with this--and I think I will be more inclined to buy games from those publishers from here on. I really hope more sign on (PAIZO I AM TALKING TO YOU -- accessible Rise of the Runelords card came would be AMAZING).

They are being very careful. Their products would require the user to purchase the original product (you have to have the card before applying a sleeve or sticker, and so on), and they would cease production of an item if a publisher made an accessible version of that item.

One of the owners has worked at the national level with several blind organizations, and is very active in the community. It is very cool. :3

Please pass it on! I have my fingers crossed for them, and hope your friends enjoy it.

Victor Zajic wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:

I wonder if employing stigmata mightn't offend or upset certain Catholics specifically, or Christians in general, with whom you're gaming.

I'm a staunch Roman Catholic, and frankly I'm not sure how I'd feel about it. Strikes me as, perhaps, a little too close to impinging on those with religious sensibilities.

Does a paladin using lay on hands offend you? Because that's a bibically based term too. Honestly, as a Christian, I'm more offended by the concept that it's okay to steal themes and tropes from other religions, but not from Christianity.

Back on topic: I would tailor the stigmata to your particular god. My Holy Vindicator of Asmodeus has a pentacle of blood trace itself on his forhead and starts bleeding from there.

I'd enjoy seeing more faith-based PrCs and so on which were much less closely tied to Judeo-Christian or Eastern/Japanese mythology.

The stigmata is blatant, to be sure.

It does bring to mind if perhaps a second setting, aside from Golarion, could be developed for or if it already is.

Then again, if there was a 3PP who explored a settings with classes drawn from alternate faith and myth systems aside from Judeo-Christian and Eastern/Japanese, it would be wonderful. There may already be one.

In upcoming publications, the release of the PF shaman is nice, but the title is misleading.

While a great class, it isn't as truly "shaman" as much as a combination of classes that nods its head thematically to popular geek tropes (not a bad thing). The devs stated it shouldn't be compared to or draw from expectations of real world inspirations, iirc.

Anyhow, I'm derailing. :)

Shimesen wrote:

i agree that it does not seem logical that the developers do not want creative uses and niche builds made out of this feat. that said, i can understand the reason behind it to a degree.

if you created a feat with the soul purpose of "when you cant do your main thing you do" as the basis of its design, it stands to reason that whenever making a ruling or clarification on that feat, that you rule or clarify AGAINST anything that would be outside of its original design.

that said, i dont like it when my creativity gets trampled on because im trying to use something "outside of its intended purpose". i personally believe that thinking outside the box should be rewarded, not stifled...but thats just me.

There are all forms of creativity. I've been trying to reconcile the old Rules of the Game article with PF and back and forth. It was the most comprehensive guide I've seen yet, though there are parts of PF it doesn't work with and vice versa.

One of the parts I enjoyed with 3.5 is that when you performed a maneuver when mounted, the rider and mount counted as a unit. You used the mount's size and strength bonus, for example. OTOH, it seemed for the trade-off that the both of you only received the one action (in addition to movement).

I doubt that interpretation will make it into PF, even though it felt "right" from a creative standpoint.

We all play differently. I'm grateful for a roundtable discussion amongst Paizo devs, rather than posts by one or two people here and there. These rules deserve that attention.

Ziegander wrote:
Ruggs wrote:

With the new FAQ, is there any word on who needs the feats now, the mount or the rider? Or both?

This has come up in some of my games and I would appreciate an answer as I'd like to be fair.

Well, it seems Stephen has retreated from the topic entirely. He hasn't addressed any of the accusations that the new FAQ has broken many other things at all, nor has any mention been made, from him or otherwise, that it's even something that's being looked into.


It does need some discussion. My hope is for small realignments or clarifications that make it work more smoothly. I'm okay with the new FAQ; I'm also grateful they've discussed it and hope to see more brought to the table, as it were.

It matters for my players and while I'm okay with crafting more general guidelines as to how the rules are interpreted, I'd love it if there could be something more official, instead.

The most delicate areas I'm concerned with:
- Guidelines for dividing up who needs what feat, mount/rider
- The ride skill replacing Handle Animal when controlling mounts in combat, officially (though this is minor--it's easy enough to handwave...the first is more difficult)

So in the end, not too much at all, but who possesses and uses the feats are stumping, as it were. I suspect a hard line would be difficult to construct, given the wording of a number of feats. Developer intent/guidance really would be enough.

With the new FAQ, is there any word on who needs the feats now, the mount or the rider? Or both?

This has come up in some of my games and I would appreciate an answer as I'd like to be fair.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
If their rulings can't be trusted unless they're in a FAQ, and their FAQs can't be relied upon because they're subject to change, there's nowhere to go for reliable rulings.

...this and previous posts more read to me as though you've a horse in the race (haha) and have gotten a little focused on it to the point where not just "one" thing seems wrong but...the whole system now is. Stepping away from this for the rest of the weekend would not be a bad move.

I don't mean to be insulting, Ss. I mean that more, from this keyboard, the posts seem to be spiraling and beginning to a break might be a good idea.

Shimesen wrote:
Perhaps for this thread we need to start a list of what DOES work with vital strike. I think maybe I'll start a new thread with that name and we can go from there

That sounds like a great idea.

Athaleon wrote:
And the PRD isn't perfect either. They still haven't sorted out the Crane Wing errata, and that was pointed out on the day it happened, how long ago?

My understanding is that there's a central sort of documentations source in XML containing most of the PRD, Rulebooks, and so on that's maintained in InDesign. To update the PRD, they have to go back to the source, and then follow through the entire publication cycle once again.

This republication then spiders off in several directions from the single source. In theory.

In theory, XML publication is easy. In practice, there are quirks--most likely seen when we saw the titled updated to 'Playtest' not too long ago.

This also suggests that there's an established documentation team as well as a series of teams surrounding that. I'm not too surprised the error hasn't been fixed yet.

That said, the person who probably needs asked about it isn't a developer, but one of the documentation managers. I'm not sure if they've been updated or not, or what their republication schedule/cycle is.

FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

I honestly feel like a blog post would be the best option for the mounted combat system at this point. One of my GM's has soft banned (AKA if you make a mounted character, you'll lose your mount over and over and over...) mounted characters in combat simply because of the mess that it is.

Everybody (or I should say mostly everybody) recognizes it as a mess. A good portion of classes and archetypes rely on the system. Having a clear, concise write up of developer intent in a form that is official would greatly improve game play in pathfinder. It would be one thing that Pathfinder would have above any other TT RPG.

Though we should continue this in another thread, and leave this thread to continue about vital strike. Here a link to a new thread about the different issues in the mounted combat section.

I would echo this and appreciate it. I'd also love to see the ride skill supersede the handle animal skill officially when working mounted. I believe this would add some clarity as well as general streamlining to mounted combat.

As a side note, I sympathize with you both.

Sindalla wrote:

If you ignore the Handle Animal skill, then you can just do Ride checks, but only with animals that have been "combat trained."

Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.

This part would seem to make a certain amount of sense. Most animals aren't going to want to charge head-long towards an enemy (you can easily spook a horse with a flapping plastic bag) and will tend to spook. Being able to have the animal do so seems as though it would logically fit underneath combat training and be a benefit thereof.

I'm still trying to sort through this ruling, myself.

It's my understanding that:
- They're defining a new type of action
- This means that anything usable on a charge is usable during a Mounted Charge (new action type)
- This means that anything not normally usable on a charge is not usable during a Mounted Charge (new action type)
- Feats like overrun still work as they can be used as part of a charge. However, we're still not clear who makes the roll. that about where we're at?

Valantrix1 wrote:
Being blind myself, I highly approve! I'll check it out!

As a heads-up, they met their goal and are still going. It looks as though one of the stretch goals will be Braille gamerdice.

I am totally stoked about this. I'm sighted, but I totally want a set of Braille gamerdice.

Karl Hammarhand wrote:

I have been thinking this very thing. Pondering the best way to approach it from both directions. My own thoughts run this way, Pathfinder gains ever more complexity limiting its appeal to novices and rewarding rule-lawyers and those with the extreme time required to become moderately familiar. It also allows a wide range of options and powers to create the 'builds' many players have come to expect.

They have an abbrieviated, 'Beginners Box'. This is an opportunity to create a game/system that appeals to the more casual/old school gamer at the same time. Ruthlessly prune the rules. Remove all but the base classes/races. Streamline the rules eliminate anything that adds needless complexity for its own sake or little gain. Make the mechanics easy to understand. Gms are encouraged to keep it simple but be flexible.

Support it on its own up to any level. Find an isolated corner of Golarion without gunslingers, alchemist pc's assembly line magic items etc. Keep the wonder without the power creep. Later, if the players/gm want to add alchemists with potion launching hand cannons or kobold/dragon/celestials as pcs then they can.

They don't need a whole new product just a streamline/repurposing of what they have. Satisfies both camps while leaving all options open. They would need a new/unexplored area of Golarion but that's the kind of things Devs and artists are for. Lots of stuff could be modified/repurposed while leaving blank areas old school GMs love to fill in.

I see it as a win-win.

From my own queries (and starting some threads on the matter, as well as studying them) a great number of players would prefer that PF 2.0, should there ever be one, be a streamlined version of existing PF.

Streamlining in this case would mean better rules presentation as well as streamlined rules and rules sets.

This does not mean reducing the number of classes or options--merely cleaning up the underneath, as it were.

Anyhow, back to the thread. :) As a side note, I'm glad I'm not the only one who has seen this, and I'm curious how others might see the fighter class develop, for example.

Arcane swordslinger?

Well, this ticked me off.

I don't like the things they implied about LGBTQ, but it also made me wonder if there was a tomboy's support group anywhere for young girls.

I myself am/was one, and the messages surrounding it can be pretty negative, accusatory, and fearful.

Hey, there! Some of you may have heard of this, some not. Some friends of mine just launched their first Kickstarter, which is aimed at making board games accessible to the blind...enabling both the blind and sighted to play together.

It is pretty damn awesome.

The company is run by a teacher for the blind, and a guy who designs board games. They're a pretty cool pair.

I'm really excited for them; they've worked long and hard to get here.

Scavion wrote:

1. Yes.

2. Yes, and hopefully it'll diversify the classes allowing them to tackle a number of concepts more than mediocre-ly. The crafty Rogue should be just as effective as the thug Rogue despite it's current state. In combat or otherwise.

Part of my belief is that should this be a trend, that classes like the rogue fall out of place. That is, rogue as it exists is both too general a concept as well as dedicated too firmly towards a specific mechanical role.

The same goes for fighter--too specific a mechanical role, while at the same time being too general of a concept.

Under the trend I'm imagining exists, there would be no fighter or rogue class. There would be investigator and thief, for example, or warden and arcane swordslinger...and so on, with a broader set of skill points, supernatural abilities, and broader mechanical role.

Does that make sense?

Pan wrote:
I understand the ideas you are expressing but I am struggling to understand the question(s).

Fair enough. I tend to get wordy from time to time.

1. Is this a trend anyone else is noticing?
2. If yes, do you think this emerging trend should or will impact some of the older classes, and if so, how would you like it to develop?

Kudaku wrote:
Ruggs wrote:

It's partly an era issue. I believe we're running into a "gotcha" to where we're expecting more well-rounded classes and characters. This newer expectation runs heads-on versus the old system, where 2 skill points per level was, previously, fairly acceptable because it wasn't a fighter's role. ...likewise, your rogue wasn't a nerfwhingyterribadawful (according to the forums), because they had their own role.

In the new and more generalized style, the class with 2 skill points per level has no place. The fighter as a /concept/ has even less place, because, going with the idea of "everyone has a way to contribute, just differently," every class should have a combat advantage and capability--just a different one.

Likewise, under the new style which has been emerging, the rogue as its concept exists has no place.

The inquisitor, witch, and similar classes personify this new style and new era. They're flexible in a multitude of areas. I imagine were Paizo able to rewrite the core classes, many of them would take on more robust, "new style" flavors.

This is in addition to points other posters have made. It is fairly easy to get a skill boost. When it comes down to it, a skill is just a number, which makes the idea that 15 ranks equals an epic level of discipline harder to swallow.

If we wanted skills to have a greater impact, they would need to be more robust, and bonuses to skill rolls would need to be more limited and controlled.

Finally, we would also need to re-adjust older classes, to bring them to the design preference of the newer era.

I wish I could favorite this post more than once - I really think you've nailed the main issue with the largely unchanged rogues and fighters compared to more contemporary classes.

I'm glad you like it. I've started a thread--it's an area I would love to see get more discussion and input.

Hey, there. I'd wanted to see if anyone else was well, noticing this and if so what your thoughts were regarding it. That is, I think Pathfinder's style is changing.

In the older era, classes like the fighter worked well with 2 skill points, because their primary focus was on combat. Likewise, the rogue or thief had their focus on sneaking and other, more out of combat utility. Each had their own, separate roles that they could fulfill.

In the newer era, the ideal seems to be: "every class has a way to contribute to every part of the game, just in different ways." In this era, the desire is that every class be a "fighter," though in different ways (an example here is the Investigator or the War Priest, who each have their own way to challenge their lower BAB). Each class should also possess more "out of combat utility," as well, which newer classes such as the witch and inquisitor possess.

Has anyone else noticed it, and if so--would its result be more for the design of more and different classes than your fighter and rogue, rather than revising them?

This doesn't ask if either of these classes are favorites, or if the classes themselves are good, or bad. It more asks if say, this era/style change IS a thing, and if classes which are too role-specialized in one area need to be broken up and diversified in order to fit the new era.

Summary: RPGs and RPG styles evolve. We have only to look at the era surrounding Nobilis, oWoD, and contrast it with times when crunchier games were the norm. Are we looking at one, now, within Pathfinder? What does that mean for older classes, which are more singularly roled?

5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's partly an era issue. I believe we're running into a "gotcha" to where we're expecting more well-rounded classes and characters. This newer expectation runs heads-on versus the old system, where 2 skill points per level was, previously, fairly acceptable because it wasn't a fighter's role. ...likewise, your rogue wasn't a nerfwhingyterribadawful (according to the forums), because they had their own role.

In the new and more generalized style, the class with 2 skill points per level has no place. The fighter as a /concept/ has even less place, because, going with the idea of "everyone has a way to contribute, just differently," every class should have a combat advantage and capability--just a different one.

Likewise, under the new style which has been emerging, the rogue as its concept exists has no place.

The inquisitor, witch, and similar classes personify this new style and new era. They're flexible in a multitude of areas. I imagine were Paizo able to rewrite the core classes, many of them would take on more robust, "new style" flavors.

This is in addition to points other posters have made. It is fairly easy to get a skill boost. When it comes down to it, a skill is just a number, which makes the idea that 15 ranks equals an epic level of discipline harder to swallow.

If we wanted skills to have a greater impact, they would need to be more robust, and bonuses to skill rolls would need to be more limited and controlled.

Finally, we would also need to re-adjust older classes, to bring them to the design preference of the newer era.

I would mind the Dex to Damage debate less if they offered a more complete swap. Meaning, you could pick which ability handled:

To hit/damage


Init, AC, Ref saves

...and select which attribute you wanted to handle each group. Perhaps strength helps you spring/jump out of the way more completely, for example.

This would be more even across the board, but I don't think anyone would take me up on it.

Elbedor wrote:

So to cast Speak with Dead on a Zombie you must first:

Kill Zombie
Raise Dead
Kill Person
Speak with Dead

Not sure they'll be very happy to chat with you at that point though. :P

I am all for skipping to the "Braiiiiins..." part of the discussion... :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Name it the Martial Maneuvers pool, and I imagine you'll get quite a few converts.

I wouldn't focus on damage as much as options. For example:

- Spend a point to gain extra movement
- Spend a point to perform a maneuver you know along with an attack
- Spend a point to perform a maneuver you don't know
- Spend a point to assess the battlefield and better strategize ( idea what this would actually do, but it sounds good!)

Matt Thomason wrote:
Ruggs wrote:

PS +1 for proper bookmarking/indexing of PDFs, as well as OCR!

Actually no OCR at all, as Paizo PDFs come direct from the source material and therefore get the original text directly without needing to scan and OCR it :)

Yep, yep. :) That's my bad. I suppose the correct term is "embedded text" or "preserved text." I can never recall offhand.

I did a little more digging, and ran across this nice PDF on how to make a document accessible from InDesign, also.

It sounds as though there might be at least a small market for a how-to document aimed at making gaming publications accessible.

For example, although a number of these tutorials mention creating a tagged PDF and how to enable it, they provide fewer guidelines for tagging (part of what makes a document accessible) methodology.

I imagine most game systems (say, a core rule book) could have similar expectations for tags and content flow. That's one of the reasons this could be a potential publication market. Provide an easy guide and a concise, clear set of standards (and maybe an example InDesign, etc. document or two) and make it both easier and aimed at gaming pubs.

I'm not certain, but it seems like a possibility.

1 to 50 of 593 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.