|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Sin, you have some amazing autocorrect or text-to-speech going on in that post.
@andreww - I would attribute your high-tier table's issues to party composition and the relatively small impact of the 4-player adjustment. That table doesn't immediately strike me as being up to the challenge in the first place, but depending on spells prepped and build choices, it should have been possible. I definitely agree that the 4-player adjustment is tiny, though.
I'm torn. I like the idea, but I was hoping to see less of this:
Starfinder page wrote:
Best of all, Starfinder is designed to integrate easily with the Pathfinder roleplaying game
I am reserving any hope for this system pending verification from someone I trust actually reading and reviewing the material, as well as whether there will be organized play. I am looking at Cypher Play coming in the fall and wondering what Starfinder will offer that is unique and different from that.
I have faith in the creative team. It's the design that I'm worried about.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Following a particular PFS scenario, the paladin at the table posted this to Meetup:
After *deeply* considering the validity of phrases such as "I am the law!", Sahira sends a missive to her companions stating that if they adventure together again, she will happily take care of all of their healing needs. // Good game, y'all. Sorry about the mess! :)
The paladin caused all of the characters to get arrested, along with several unfortunate consequences.
I am speaking to "what do you do when you printed broken rules?" The answer remains: you fix them.
Sweet, where's my new edition of the CRB that fixes all of the systemic flaws that are created there?
I'm looking at the CRB First to Sixth Printing errata doc right now. It's 9 pages long. Here's an example of what's in that doc:
Or how about this MASSIVE price increase?
The only changes that are anywhere close to the magnitude of the UE changes are the fixes to the Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally spells, where there were inappropriate CR monsters in the chart (Riding Dog vs Dog, for example). Everything else is a fix to something deemed broken in the truest sense: non-functional or nonsensical.
When we look at the item changes in UE, most of them are pricing- or value-related. The Jingasa was perfectly functional. The Staff of the Master was perfectly functional. It's not that we were misunderstanding the rules. They were not broken, but it could be argued that they were imbalanced. These could have been caught by an editor before first printing without playtest data to be flagged for review. That said, these items functioned as written with little room for interpretation otherwise.
Despite 5 errata documents over 6 printings of the Core Rulebook, it remains horribly error-filled and excludes numerous rules that still get debated to this day. Remember the Acrobatics thread that hit ~1k posts in 24 hours? Not part of the current Core errata - that's a FAQ because the last printing of the CRB was in 2013. There are still debates about rules for positive and negative energy because they're not defined. Burrow is not defined. These are basic mechanics that inform later books and we don't have any official rules on them after 7 years.
So yes, by all means, if the printed rules are broken, fix them. Just fix the ones that are ACTUALLY broken.
Snipped out the parts where I generally agree or only have quibbles to focus on the point that I disagree about.
I'm of the opinion that Big 6 negatively impacts build diversity. Items in slots should be build-enabling, not mandatory. If you're ok with a brief video game comparison, Path of Exile is a great example of build-enabling items. You get items like Sunblast in the belt slot that dramatically change an entire mechanic - normally traps have to be stepped on to trigger, but now they also trigger when their duration expires - and it allows for a new playstyle. You could have a standard stat belt in that slot, or you could rebalance those elsewhere.
Pathfinder has lots of interesting belts that could be build enabling if the slot wasn't taken up by something mandatory for pretty much everyone. Sometimes you see those items taken, such as the Blinkback Belt, but the character has to bend over backwards to make that function. If a character has to choose between doing something thematic + interesting and doing something thematic + effective, I think there's a design issue. I would expect a character that is designed as a thrower to be pretty good at that job if built competently. The design of the game, however, makes the stat belt a necessity. The closest they've come to build-enabling AND good in that slot is the Belt of Mighty Hurling, which is priced out for a significant portion of a character's career.
As Jiggy has posted in the past, gold in Pathfinder is just an alternate experience track. The game explains the bonuses from that as powerful magic items, but you can refluff that just as easily and remove some of the weirdness associated with Ye Olde Magic Mart. Unchained did a lot of work on that front with Automatic Bonus Progression and I'd love to see that sort of change integrated into Core. That would take a lot of work, but that's part of why I think it's imperative that Paizo move in the direction of a new edition instead of continuing hardcover releases in the current one.
I happen to think the FAQ/errata system is very good for the health of the game. I love the fact that Paizo addresses overpowered items. Do I think some of the nerfs went overboard? Yes. But I'd rather have heavy-handed adjustments than no adjustments at all.
I think one of the fundamental problems is that there's a strong focus on "that's too good, nerf it into the ground" and not enough on "why are the other options for the slot simply not selected?" So much of Pathfinder seems designed around Random NPC #34482 rather than actual characters that it's tough to decipher why it was printed in the first place, but the good items that aren't in the CRB seem to get struck down to NPC status after a couple years.
It sounds like a 3k talisman, honestly.
In an environment where you can craft, you can count on a GM who will also house rule the sale of an expended Jingasa.
*cough* Don't forget the "off-slot" penalty, which pushes it to 3k.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
I would have preferred a price adjustment to 15k or so and left its properties the same.
I agree with that sentiment. My point, though, is that the claim that Unchained fixes the problems of the system doesn't hold water if the official campaign itself doesn't use them. A lot of people play in PFS and it's uncommon for those folks to start using an optional subsystem outside of their PFS play if they could get confused between the environments.
I'm glad for all those people with home games who can use these fixes. That's great. I'd love to see how Stamina plays out, for example, especially since it's been a well-supported subsystem since Unchained was released. I'd love to see automatic bonus progression, fractional BAB, etc. as well. I understand fully why it is difficult to insert those into the organized play campaign and it's certainly not feasible to splinter the OPC to allow them.
If these are the fixes, though, then they need to be Core.
Most of the fundamental problems in Pathfinder exist outside of the Unchained fixes. While some examples have been, it's absolutely striking that none of the fixes are legal in the organized play setting.
I'm still not sure what the actual item's the OP is posting about having changed, and how they are problems. Maybe it's the fact that any changes happened at all?
Go download the errata from the Ultimate Equipment product page and read it, then. Look at the Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier, Featherstep Slippers, Staff of the Master, and numerous other items that have received nearly complete rewrites. Note that some of these items went from being unique and powerful to nearly purposeless.
Certainly, Paizo pays attention to what the fan base says, and 'play testing' happens both in house before the product is released, and out of house when they get feedback from us after we have the product. The results end up being that the things that they notice get fixed in the next printing of the book(s).
It is not feasible to adequately playtest every new rules element before release based on the release schedule. It's no longer a playtest once it's released.
We are insatiable as a collective, since we seem to all want different things, finding a good middle ground has lead to Paizo's success thus far, and demanding they change their entire business model to accommodate one little thing isn't going to get results.
It is reasonable to express discontent so that Paizo can make an independent determination of a course of action. I'm not demanding anything, but I am expressing my opinion and suggesting a path that would continue to keep my wallet open to them. It may be the case that others agree with me. It may not be. I'd rather see substantive rebuttals to my comments instead of statements like...
This thread is getting toxic.
I may be pretty incensed about the topic, but I'm willing to engage in conversation about it. Claiming toxicity is merely an attempt to silence a discussion.
Jared Thaler wrote:
Guess how much of that chapter is legal for organized play.
If you don't see the errata as a Pathfinder 2.0 or 2.12354, I don't know what to tell you.
I'm certainly advocating an actual 2.0 because I think Pathfinder has fundamental flaws associated with the 3.5 backwards compatibility that rocketed the system to initial success. I think the framework of Pathfinder is fundamentally broken, plagued with inconsistent and unclear writing, significant imbalances, and references to rules that simply don't exist.
Why is it that Mark Seifter had to start a thread for a FAQ request about a CRB mechanic (positive and negative energy)? Not only that, but the longer that discussion goes on, the more convoluted the answer seems to get.
Why, after roughly 7 years, are there no official rules for Burrow speed, which has appeared in monster entries since Bestiary 1 in Pathfinder, numerous adventures prior to Pathfinder's release, and even 3.5 itself?
Why is it that the rules don't clearly identify a timeline of actions so we know when Immediate Actions can occur?
While these examples are easily capable of being errata'd, there are several other items that can't be as easily changed. CRB spells, for example, being far-and-away better than most subsequent releases is not a thing you can easily fix. The heavy reliance on "the big 6" in itemization speaks to TERRIBLE item design, but the rest of the system is built on the assumption of those items existing.
Wrecking a few powerful magic items in Ultimate Equipment is small potatoes compared to the myriad problems of the CRB, which impacts every design decision down the road. I certainly can't blame 2008-2009 Paizo for the issues that are happening now - they put out a product that the market wanted. I can, however, reasonably ask why we're still working with design elements that we've known have been flawed for the better part of 15 years.
The OGL locks Paizo into dated RPG design. I don't have a problem with Pathfinder 2.0 being a separate OGL property itself, but I think that designing 2.0 around 3.5 backwards compatibility is a terrible idea.
That said, I think there's plenty of room to explore the world of Golarion within the framework of EITHER the existing system OR a new system, which is why I think that having adventure content continue in the existing system is a great idea. Additionally, because much of the softcover line is handled by freelancer submissions and its regularity provides steady income to Paizo, I think that's a great thing to continue for the time being, as well.
As for the design and developer teams, however, I think their efforts should be put towards developing the next gen RPG solution instead of additional hardcovers.
In the not too distant past, I was chatting with a seasoned guy who told me that the only reason he continues to play Pathfinder is because of the people at a particular venue. I'm starting to come around to that position, as well. As a guy who has opened his wallet for a pile of different books, these errata releases are brutal to my desire to continue playing the game (excluding free stuff, scenarios, and APs, I counted 55 in my downloads for just PDFs. I have a bunch of hard/soft covers, as well).
I know that playtesting is hard work. It's time consuming, which translates to expensive, and margins aren't amazing in the publishing world. I've said this many times before in Paizo's defense. That being said, however, the way in which errata have come down the pipe over the last few years (I'm looking at you, ACG and ARG errata!) has been extremely disheartening. Frankly, the changes are ham-handed. I get that you don't have the luxury of incremental adjustments to the system, but many of these changes go from "this is a powerful option" to "why did this get printed except to put on NPCs?" I mean, in all honesty, a number of the Ultimate Equipment errata make the item no longer worth the word count.
I play Pathfinder for two reasons: PFS and the people I've met through PFS. I have 68 tables of credit as a GM and a fairly significant investment in Paizo product, including my first printing CRB. I've developed a tabletop RPG in the past. I've played and owned numerous other systems. I've tried to believe in you the whole way, but I'm getting tired of the way y'all do business.
So much of what's printed anymore feels like filler for a specific NPC that a freelancer had in mind. I think it's time to step back from the rigorous content schedule you have in the hardcover line and have the difficult discussion of whether Pathfinder is actually progressing as a system. In my opinion, it's time to ditch the OGL framework, start a new IP, and manage the transition by continuing to provide adventure content (scenarios, APs, modules, etc.) and possibly softcover content (Player Companions, etc.) until the new IP hits its stride. The worst part of Pathfinder is the part you can't sufficiently errata without breaking more things, after all: the CRB.
With all that said, I think it's time to stop the errata process for Pathfinder, save for items that are mechanically non-functional. Let house rules handle legality of problem items. For PFS, most of the items that have been changed are effectively just bans in the first place. Home GMs can ban those options, as well.
The real question becomes "what do you fill that slot with now?" Jingasa was good because it had a useful effect and was reasonably priced. There are only a few items in the head slot that meet those criteria. Frankly, I suspect that you'll find a lot of people either skipping the slot entirely or suddenly everyone will have Goz Masks and/or Circlets of Persuasion. The Goz Mask is the better deal here because it allows you to shut off sneak attack in every combat with a 1st level wand if you want.
Think about it: every Pathfinder you come across with a distinctive, Gozreh-inspired mask from the Sodden Lands. That's the best case scenario, in which people actually fill the slot.
Andrew Christian wrote:
You are likely correct. It's true that it was disproportionately purchased (lol Jingasa slot), but this nerf is...exceptional. It feels along the same lines as some of the ACG nerfs that were so poorly received.
I had figured that the jingasa was just going to have a digit added to its price. 15000 would have been far more appropriate for the old version.
I would very much like a more comprehensive rebuild around the staff of the master. There were other choices I made on my psychic that were influenced by the existence of the old version of the item, including my selection of major amplification.
Note on healing: used to be Necromancy and I still think it belongs there.
I've run most of book 1 of Hell's Rebels and read the entire AP. For most of it, a grappler will be fine. You have decent enough rolls to build a functional character.
One thing I would strongly recommend is a non-Monk character. Lawful characters do not fit well into the campaign...at all. The player's guide should cover that particular point, but the game is effectively a rebellion against legally installed authority. The entire campaign focuses on what are essentially Chaotic, subversive activities.
With that in mind, an Order of the Penitent Cavalier is a surprisingly good choice for a grappler. Taking a 1-3 level dip into Brawler will help fill in some of the feat issues along the way. Alternatively, a straight Brawler with a grappling focus would be a very viable character.
As far as character personality, it's reasonable to remember that the rise of Thrune has been accompanied by a crackdown on life in Kintargo and so normal activity, which could include some activities of interest for the character, could be affected. There are also a lot of folks acting as civilian police, which may or may not be fun for your character to throw around. Ultimately, you'll have to decide on any motivations, but it's certainly possible to create plausible, enjoyable motivations for such a character.
Looks functional enough for a no drop stat build.
If you're willing to take a 1 level dip in Fighter, you can get heavy prof + Artful Dodge to drop dex. Otherwise, yes, I agree that it's a poor choice. Because you're a psychic caster, you no longer care about ASF, so full plate is not out of the question for you. Alternatively, just taking the dip and Power Attack can turn you into a very functional beatstick with your conjured weapon.
Mindblade simply plays differently than the standard Magus. You're less likely to go toe-to-toe with enemies and spam Shocking Grasp, but you can more effectively use buffs before or after your 5' step. An 8th level Mindblade, for instance, could have the following turns:
Round 1: Standard = Haste, Move into position such that enemies will likely be 5' away from you by your next turn, Swift = 1h weapon manifest.
The other options include manifesting reach weapons when needed, using a 2h when you want to conserve spells, and being able to sneak weapons into areas where they're otherwise banned. Additionally, given the rather meager spell list that the Magus gets compared to other classes, having Psychic Access allows you to pick up bonus options that are otherwise frustrating to come by.
Lastly, don't underestimate the ability to pick the weapon that you're manifesting. Maybe the encounter you're in could really use the reach of a whip so you can True Strike + Disarm. Maybe you need bludgeoning damage. Maybe a 2h weapon is going to be more helpful than having the free hand for casting with Spell Combat. Whatever the occasion, you're able to get what you need right away. That's pretty huge.
If Negative and Positive Energy become actual energy types like Acid, Fire, etc. will that lead to creatures with Positive and Negative subtypes (immune to Negative Energy, and Vulnerable to Positive Energy)? I hope so, because that could open the floodgates for two entirely new types of monsters not directly tied to Undead or Celestials.
Ultimate Equipment already has some super-fun stuff on that front.
Humorously, this relies on the weird wording of Cure spells because when using them to cure, they explicitly "cure" damage, not deal positive energy damage that would cure living things. This means that Deathless never stops a cure effect at all, but always stops a harmful effect, regardless of whether you're alive or undead.
Or clerics with the Death domain's 8th level power.
Death's Embrace (Ex): At 8th level, you heal damage instead of taking damage from channeled negative energy. If the channeled negative energy targets undead, you heal hit points just like undead in the area.
I think the single most confusing thing about Pos/Neg energies are the game balance decision around Channel Energy. Clearly, the ability was explicitly designed to avoid having Pos and Neg channelers heal and harm simultaneously, but suddenly we have energy with dual natures working based on intent, ignoring the idea of a basic definition for the two energies.
We end up with odd side effects, as well, with the Positive Energy Plane being the best place to house spare undead (who will never pop due to overexposure and constantly receive temp HP) while receiving no benefits whatsoever on the Negative Energy Plane. This seems like an oversight more than a conscious decision, though.
Some of the confusion can be tied back to the way that Cure and Inflict spells ended up being worded - "you channel <pos/neg> energy that <cures/deals> xd8 points of damage + 1 per caster level." That language is not parallel with other damaging spell types. This ties back to my position that the CRB needs to be rewritten to more modern standards.
Good points on that. My table was actually more suspicious of the faithful procession due to a fantastic Kn: Arcana on the Juggernaut and determining that someone could likely walk up to it with a holy symbol and just take the SOE.
One thing I specifically did to mitigate some concern was assure the PCs that the caravans themselves all thought they had the real thing. I also detailed several caravans coming in to deliver the elixir in the exact same manner as the real ones and the vials looking exactly the same.
@andreww - not quoting everything because I'd have to pull it out of spoiler tags. Shouldn't really need them in the GM thread, mind you.
Imlathre: I was similarly dismayed by the lack of Freedom of Movement and other buffs. Similar to your play experience, my table didn't get pulled in, so he quickened Plane Shift to arrive, then threw out a persistent Feeblemind before turning into a popsicle.
Return to Pashow: Treat that as a failure of the stealth check, IMO. That's the best I can guess.
Leadership bits: I treated the items like one would sundered loot or consumed potions - they're still there for the chronicle and don't detract from the gold. As I posted above, the headband, armor, and ring cover the +4 version of the bonus for each team.
re: boon - one of the most important aspects to bear in mind is "who finds the portable hole?" For most tables, this will have a significant impact on the RP that follows. Did the LG inquisitor find it? What about the CN sticky-fingers rogue? At my table, an Iomedaean inquisitor found it, announced what was found, and wouldn't let the rest of the party near the vials, more or less.
re: ill-suited, it's an undefined game term. My only answer on that would be to expect table variation. It certainly shouldn't be a blanket application to exotic mounts, in part because exotic isn't exactly defined, either. Is a wolf an exotic mount, despite the fact that it's a standard level 1 mount choice for small-sized cavaliers? Well, it certainly would be in the real world, but we don't have halflings or gnomes running around.
I'd probably apply it to snakes and vermin companions as a general rule, but other than that, I'd have to say it's a case-by-case basis. I don't think I'd hit your dinosaur with it.
I have not seen any ruling that an animal companion of any stripe cannot wear a mundane saddle, exotic or otherwise. Their magic item slots are restricted, but that's a separate issue. It's dangerous to go alone. Here, take this.
I'm not aware of any exotic ride penalties. Bareback has a penalty noted in the ride skill.
We be goblins is one scenario where I would highly recommend not making your own characters and going with the pregens. They are well balanced for the adventure and they are very fun to play.
I will second this suggestion. There's no particular need to use other characters. The party is well designed and appropriate for the adventure.
Really, the question I see with the Shadowcaster archetype is whether you think the target will fail their save. If you think the answer to that is no, then the Shadowcaster is a good choice. If you intend to pull shenanigans on the DCs, then it's meh.
I have seen a straight gnome illusionist wizard throw out persistent DC 27s in PFS. Almost nothing manages to succeed against him. With a wayang using shadow stencils and the Exploiter archetype, that bumps slightly higher (woo int bonus and Potent Magic!). The real key to success is the good ol' Staff of the Master, though. Being able to throw persistent out there with no level adjustment is huge.
Heighten is an important metamagic feat for the build, as well as Preferred Spell. Note that Preferred Spell allows you to spontaneously cast with metamagic and can be taken earlier than Greater Spell Specialization.
I'mma go with "your skeleton animates and bursts from your flesh" for the second lyric.
"Can be taken concurrently with other actions" appears to be a way in which it acts "differently from other actions." You're right that the chart and the text don't match. There are a lot of examples of that problem in the CRB. I'm inclined to say the section header of "Miscellaneous Actions" is less applicable as it lumps the 5' step in with feats and skills, whereas the chart has it lumped with delay. The 5' step is a unicorn in the system, but feats and skills are herds of pegasi by comparison.
Also, if you look under the chart of example actions and whether they provoke, the 5' step falls under "No Action." The 5' step is an exception in virtually every regard.
Readied actions, AoOs, and the specific immediate actions that say they interrupt are the "specific trumps general" of that measure of time.
Hero's Defiance has a trigger condition that allows it to supersede general rules: "The instant before you are reduced to 0 or fewer hit points..."
Stone Shield is a spell that is in contention as it does not outline any conditions. It's being used as the basis of the FAQ request. FAQ request here
Because you could use it if someone took a move action to approach you, but before they declare a standard action attack. Alternatively, if an archer 5' steps out from behind a pillar, you could activate it before they started their full attack action.