Ryan Freire's page

2,441 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 2,441 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

You could also have one of them be a vigilante with a safe house. I forget which version of vigilante has the blast you unconscious attack. Avenger vigilante's aren't that different from fighters tbh.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
But man if being on these forums isn't killing my enthusiasm. The amount of negativity and lack of respect for Paizo is crazy disheartening.
I disagree. I've found that these forums have all too often adopted a tone of "love Paizo or get out" that discourages criticisms, critiques, and speaking up about things that aren't wanted, liked, or otherwise appreciated. That so many people are willing to express views of the Playtest and the new edition that are something besides wild exaltation is something I find quite heartening.
Dude... This is blatantly false. Look at the ratio of threads on complaints vs appreciation.

Thats because the people who complain create threads and the people who demand appreciation or get out show up to crap all over those threads. Its a pretty standard forum dynamic.

Loreguard wrote:

Simply making wands more expensive per charge only removes wands from being viable items for use by proper level adventurers and simply makes them economically viable for people once they are a high enough level that that cost isn't significant any longer. So actually that just makes encourages the use of sublevel items at higher levels. Your suggestion of reducing the number of charges to 15, probably just makes the the same price as potions, assuming you were talking about he old P1 version of wands and their prices and charges, since you mentioned the P1 number of charges for a wand.

Which doesn't matter when placed as treasure, only when crafting.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I see people say things like this. "Exponentially" is a word with a lot of meaning. I also see quotes similar to "Because Wizards is killing Paizo in marketshare..."

For people who say these things like this, I ask: Where do you get this insider information? When I asked one guy (the guy who made the marketshare comment), his response was that it was because in his little town in Iowa, D&D was displayed way more prominently on the shelves.

While actual sales figures are likely company secrets for both Hasbro and Paizo, there are some public figures we can look at. One indicator is the number of games being played on the popular platform Fantasy Grounds. There we see that D&D has 66% of the games played, and Pathfinder has 12% (and Starfinder 1%). That's not sales per se, but it's certainly an indicator of popularity. Roll20 posts similar numbers, 61% for 5e and 10% for Pathfinder.

We also have Nathan Stewart stating that D&D sales increased by 44% from 2016 to 2018.

But when you look at the raw numbers on roll20, pathfinder games have actually increased, just not at the same rate as d+d games. MORE GAMES IN GENERAL are being played on the site, including an increase in pathfinder games.


Seriously at 15 charges a wand they still might be worth crafting but you're going to chew through them like candy healing up at mid to high levels.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope they fix it by tossing it entirely and reworking how many charges wands get.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Domains missed the entire point. Domains were a nod to sphere access which was one of the limiting aspects of 2nd edition clerics. Without sphere access limiting their spell selection (based on what kinds of powers a deity would actually grant their followers) clerics took the front seat as the most powerful class in 3rd, and frankly remained top 3 in pathfinder 1.0

3 people marked this as a favorite.
glass wrote:
Wandering Wastrel wrote:

A-freakin-MEN! If PFS is causing problems, then abolish/fix PFS.

Don't f&&$ up the entire game for those of us who wouldn't even notice if PFS died in a fire and never came back.

Oh, you'd notice, if you ever wanted new players or new products. Because without PFS providing a bunch of almost-free marketing for paizo there would be considerably fewer of both.

Also, PFS does not cause problems. What it does is highlight them.


PFS regularly bans and limits far more options for the lower powered martial classes than it does for the casters. PARTIALLY this makes sense as it requires time to suss out the potential problems of an option, but the ISSUE is that options to improve and balance weak classes are put through a tighter lens than the power options the most powerful classes have from core book.

I submit that throwing obstacles at post core balancing options is in fact causing problems.

12 people marked this as a favorite.

And yet balancing around Item availability is a thing that my gm has done reasonably and easily for decades.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
I don't play PFS and I hate CLW wands. Makes the game too easy. If you want the game to be easier just ask your GM to lower the difficulty. The game shouldn't be just easy mode because some people don't want to be challenged.

Or, yknow, you put limits on wands not potions permanent items and X use per day items, which is the actual issue.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I will tell you what why don't you give me the specific issues and I said specific on what you don't like about resonance. The impression I've gotten is you like being fully healed for every fight and nominalizing healing in general. Also you prefer using 5+ magic items at 1st level per character. I've already answered that question of what its fixing in other forums but you refuse to acknowledge it so lets go again I guess..

This is an unnecessary attack. Just because someone doesn't like Resonance doesn't mean they free, unlimited, full healing between fights or that they want 1st level character covered in magic items.

I personally don't like Resonance because it's a dumb solution to a marginal problem. The whole reason it exists in the playtest is because the Paizo devs, who go to conventions and see a lot of PFS being played, don't like CLW wand spamming. They think the people who do that are playing the game wrong, so they've crafted a ham-fisted "fix" that causes other problems (read: healing in general, a well-recognized problem with the current playtest). This "problem" has much better solutions on the wand side of the equation that don't break other parts of the game.

This is a great example of how "problems" in PFS can have a huge effect on those of us that play home games.


This, PFS has crapped up the game in pf1 and now its crapping up the design of pf2

8 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
You could start by not responding to peoples unhappiness with "nothing is wrong with the game its surely the players who are wrong"

"Bulk is bad and needs to go away because my 8 STR Alchemist cant carry his equipment & 15 other things without being encumbered."

This is no different, you're actively choosing to leave your Cha at a negative score and you complain about the drawbacks.

Having a Character die because of poor rolls is one thing and it feels bad that I'll admit, but when the player knowingly chose to endanger the PC by relying on luck in order to use a Healing Potion... that on the player, not the system.

I agree it's like the bulk issue. For me, it's be like out of the blue saying heavy armor and heavy shields now require a 14 intelligence and fighters and paladin players complaining they have to spend the extra points to the basic functions of the game and their expected equipment. Or wizards spell books suddenly upped to 6 bulk and every wizard now needs a 14 strength.

From my perspective, if the game expects everyone st start with a 14 stats, you should JUST start with the and then make your character. This illusion of choice is annoying.

The game also doesn't work if you dont maximize your main stats

17 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

Don't dump CHA or pay the price, its all about risk v reward... especially if you don't have a healer, its really quite simple.

Cheap unlimited healing for everyone is going away, and it needs to, you'll adapt.

No I won't, I will just play a different game.
How am I supposed to react to that? K bye?

You could start by not responding to peoples unhappiness with "nothing is wrong with the game its surely the players who are wrong"

34 people marked this as a favorite.

At what point does "you need to optimize and play just right or its not even fun" become a problem er-archetypes/high-guardian-fighter-archetype

Combat patrol


19 people marked this as a favorite.
Rules Artificer wrote:

I do think that this indicates that the scaling with Resonance is a little off. The developers have also stated that the current mechanics of Resonance do little to limit the huge quantities of cheap magic items that high-level players can use, which is (by dev statement) one of the design goals of the Resonance mechanic.

It seems like an easy solution to me to have Resonance start higher and scale slower than 1/level. This both helps low-level characters from being scrapped for Resonance when they arguably need it most, and helps high-level characters having way too much Resonance (according to the devs).

Its not about resonance being "a little off" its about it being a bad solution to a "problem" fewer people want solved than some think. An easy solution is to scrap resonance entirely, up the prices of wands and/or change their mechanics to work more like 1 spell staves.

25 people marked this as a favorite.
Funky Badger wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
Cheap unlimited healing for everyone is going away, and it needs to,

Why is this?

Does it improve the game?

No, it doesn't as evidenced by how much people hate resonance, hate having to stop adventuring due to hp loss, and hate the idea of a dedicated healer being required in party.

9 people marked this as a favorite.

The modern world of tabletop games sucks.

I mean the other thing is even in E8 the people who killed one were probably level 17 equivalent in advancement...feats and the like.... Yeah, By a CR equivalent level of exp you're level 8 + 249 other feats.

Plus its such a high crit weapon that maximizing your static damage bonuses make a big big difference in long term combat effectiveness.

I feel like bloodrager plays to the strengths better, and sorc (weirdly) plays to versatility.

Personally, i havent tried bloodrager, but its the one i'd pick if i were making a dragon disciple

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No that would be something that makes a sub par martial choice remotely playable.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:

[FWIW, 4E fans also assured us that the complaints online were meaningless....]

FWIW 4E was blatantly and significantly influenced by loud voices on their forums, a LOT of what some of the most obnoxious "3.5 is not up with modern game design" posters wanted was included in 4E. Then it tanked.

TBH the pf 2.0 playtest feels a lot like the WotC forums immediately pre 4e.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like the sorts of fans who are super-super mad about the Last Jedi are the sorts of fans who are a net negative to have in your community anyway, and everything is better off if those folks are relegated to their dusty dimly lit corners and leave the rest of us alone.

Just because someone buys your game doesn't mean they aren't also actively driving people away with their awfulness. Unlike movies which are a solitary experience even if you go with other people, tabletop games need a community which is not actively unwelcoming otherwise they die.

People who get super passionate about a property are the ones who buy your merch and make sure to go to every single thing.

Where the comparison breaks down is that pathfinder is not the cultural touchstone that is Star Wars. Star wars is in a pretty unique place as basically the only long term space fantasy/opera property given significant funding by the entertainment industry, its backed by freakin Disney now and with a sea of merch that contributes to the growth of that property, whether the movies are critically accepted or not.

Pathfinder is in a SEA of other rpg options and despite the increasing mainstream absorption of TTRPGs (thanks mainly to the internet) its still a relatively niche hobby in comparison to even things like MTG. When you're in a niche like that the risk of a poor reception from current fans increases. In a lot of ways the idea that these sorts of hobbies are going to tap into some large untapped market of growth is like assuming there's always administration and waste you can be rid of to balance a budget. Its a risk, and that waste you can cut isn't always actually there.

It is unfortunate that often times the most passionate advocates for a thing take it far too seriously.

Horseback archer might be able to take it down if the horse is jacked up to be at least as fast as the dragon.

The characters saves matter in a fight vs an ice linnorm. The character you list has a roughly 50% chance to eat 1d6 con drain each time he gets bitten. and a greater chance to eat the full 80ish damage from a failed reflex vs its breath weapon.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Few people actually want caster nerfs, most just want martials to have good options for out of combat contribution.

I was going to say drop some terrain on them to pin them down and whale on them while they cant fight back effectively but ice linnorms have freedom of movement soooooo

thflame wrote:

The difference between getting a STEM degree and learning to cast magic, is that getting a STEM degree doesn't give you skills that make supernatural tasks mundane.

Heck, unless you get a job in your field, most of that information is useless to you. An unemployed wizard can still cast spells.

Not to mention that the difference between the Average Joe and a STEM degree holder is NOTHING compared to the average peasant and a Wizard.

It also doesn't take 7 years to learn how to cast magic. Any fighter can go raid a tough dungeon and be able to cast spells shortly afterward, without ever having to have studied magic at all. (Yes, I know the lore says otherwise, but the game mechanics say no.)

At least in PF2 you have to have training in Arcana and 16 INT (though a fresh wizard can have a 10 in INT).

Regardless, game mechanics could definitely reflect the lore of Golarion better. A LOT better.

Granted, nobody would want to play a wizard if it took 10 levels to be able to cast cantrips without risking death or dismemberment.

Except commoners aren't going to go into a dungeon and come out learning to cast spells. They're going to take a far safer and slower path to learning. Also, the stuff you gain at a level is supposed to be stuff you've been working on in downtime.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It totally is. 6 years on average to get a masters, Characters with wizard, cleric, monk, druid roll 2d6 (avg 7) for starting age.

It requires roughly 5 years more effort to become a 9 level caster.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just to point out that whole "why doesn't EVERYBODY study magic" line of thought.

Pretty much the same reason people don't all have STEM masters. Its hard, it requires devotion, and you need to feed yourself while you're learning it. Thats not even considering the places where "powerful mage wreaks havoc" is recent history. Or the rulers who maybe don't want their peasants shooting magic missiles when the time comes for an uprising.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
So if a *player* with an arguably low IQ rolls an Int 18 Wizard, do you tell them that they need to quit playing the character because they can't realistically roleplay the rules? Will your group constantly pressure them to drop the "smart" aspect of the character?

No what happens there is that the GM steps in with things an 18 int char may not overlook but the player might.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

We could always start up some more goblin, paladin, and alignment threads.

Just for comparisons sake, to remind us how good we have it right now.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

More than usual does not a toxic environment make when the usual is 1 in every 100 threads or so.

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I suspect that if you're finding this milquetoast forum conversation unpleasant you'd be better served by taking a wellness break.

People aren't going to like the things you like occasionally and they're going to talk about it.

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Who's the final judge on what is "bad behavior" ?

In which case it seems silly to call the boards toxic, given the lack of locked threads and bans handed out

Ah, PFS, the worst aspect of pathfinder, hindering all martial power while doing next to nothing to trim back the most powerful classes in the game.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Who's the final judge on what is "bad behavior" ?

Moreover "bad behavior" is not synonymous with the boards being toxic.

Wands working more like things such as spell lattices would go a long way too. The wand doesn't do the thing, the wand lets you act like you have the spell on your list and you can use your own spell points/slots to cast whats in the wand.

wands = 1 spell of lowish level
Staves = multiple spells of = caster level.

13 people marked this as a favorite.

Toxicity is the single most overused term in existence right now and holds no more meaning than "attitudes and opinions I don't like"

Wrangling about rules, themes, feel of a game is not toxicity. Even heated arguments about it is not toxicity.

Brolof wrote:
I'd say go with the Double Axe purely for the sheer image of it. An orc rampaging around with a dual bladed axe just seems cooler to me. You need Weapon Training to be able to pick up the Advanced Weapon Training, and since yours doesn't count, you can't pick it up. It's what make a variety of fighter archetypes not nearly as good as they used to be.

The arsenal chaplain's weapon training counts. You can't forfeit the second choice but you can take the feat.

Same for a number of those fighter archetypes, if it specifically says "you must take weapon training with X" or is just referred to as weapon training (dragoon and unarmed fighter respectively) For both of those you have the weapon training prerequisite of the feat, but don't have the opportunity to trade later weapon trainings away for an AWT.

simple != better game design automatically

FascistIguana wrote:
I hate this attitude. where the DM decides to take player control away just because they arnt as dumb as the dm thinks they should be. whats next? yelling at him every time he conjugates a verb or uses a pronoun other than "me smash"? keep in mind that wolves have an int of 2 and are well known for pack tactics including ambushes, hit and run, flanking, and disctraction

I hate people who dump mental stats and then play their characters as normal.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Sounds terrible

There's this logical chain that always seems to come up: Alignment/Saves/TouchAc is "outdated" or "not within modern rpg design" lets change it to be more in line with "other less successful thing".

Meirril wrote:
doomman47 wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Meirril wrote:
Cavall wrote:
I'd use a +4 keen flaming vorpal dagger. Take THAT core rule book!
I'd slap around anyone that tried to drop said dagger into a game. Name 2 reasons this item is illegal.
Its +11 and you can't have keen+ vorpal on the same item
I see nothing in the enchantment entries that state keen can't be on the same weapon as vorpal.

While nothing is written in Vorpal about not stacking it with other enchantments, it is a +5 enchantment. You can't have more than +5 in enchantments. You're also not allowed to create +11 weapons.

And its a good thing there was a technicality, because I swear that daggers were piercing only but I was wrong. Piercing/Slashing is valid for vorpal enchantment.

I dont know where i remember reading the no keen + vorpal, maybe it was a different setting or an older version. But there's no restriction on only +5 in enchantments, just a hardcap of +10 modified for non artifacts.

Meirril wrote:
Cavall wrote:
I'd use a +4 keen flaming vorpal dagger. Take THAT core rule book!
I'd slap around anyone that tried to drop said dagger into a game. Name 2 reasons this item is illegal.

Its +11 and you can't have keen+ vorpal on the same item

I played with one in a zeitgeist shaman is legit, though not as powerful as the oracle

MrCharisma wrote:
Taja the Barbarian wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
I'd say Alchemist or Investigator.
Note that Investigators' version of Alchemy does not allow the use of wands (Alchemists have a specific rule allowing this, but Investigators deliberately do not)

This is true, but Investigators get enough bonuses that you can trivialise the UMD check by level 5.

Taja the Barbarian wrote:
... and alchemy itself is not particularly good for healing/support:

This is subjective, I disagree.

I'll go farther than disagree and just say its wrong. The ability to put polymorphs, specifically polymorphs that allow gear useage (monstrous physique and giant form) on your fighter or barbarian is freaking insane.

Fatigue would only be 2 rounds anyway, you'd enter rage and exit in the same round, using it to blast the target for probably 125-150 damage tbh

I mean, other than the rules i linked talking about how you spend WBL when creating a character, the rules about how magic items are actually available, spending caps, purchasing caps, the in game realities of finding a 16th level ranger who took craft wand in order to create the wand in the first place...

1 to 50 of 2,441 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>