|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'm trying to figure out how to say this gently, Rynjin.
Weapon cords now offer precisely the effect they were originally intended to at a cost that is in line with the benefit they offer.
I get that you don't like that. It's still a fact.
[EDIT: And no, this is not me kissing Paizo's ass. I've actually thought it was the right call for awhile.]
The same logic that requires only things called out as ranged "weapons" would mean that we literally cannot calculate the attack bonus for any ranged attack that is not labeled as a ranged "weapon," because the rule for calculating that attack bonus uses the same language:
The PRD wrote:
So I think we're over-parsing here as far as distinctions between what is and is not a a ranged weapon.
You're right, those sorts of scenes should be built at the table level, where the GM knows his/her group and knows what they've come to do. For some groups, "I have a broadsword and a serious beef with the patriarchy" is exactly the escapism they're looking for; for others, it's more like "I have to put up with this **** all day in my 9-to-5, the last thing I want to deal with is the same thing in my fantasy." YMMV.
Mr. Bubbles wrote:
...she's not. That would involve saying something like, "Adventuring is not a male-dominated profession."
One of my friends and I were discussing whether there needed to be a PC-level "noble" class, sort of an upgraded aristocrat. My position was no, because we already had one. Charismatic, widely educated on many topics, capable of giving inspiring speeches to his allies, trained in swordplay, and with a smattering of useful magics he learned at the well-heeled academy he attended? Yeah, we can do that. Just cross out the word "bard" at the top of the page, write "noble" in its place, and bingo! All done.
Flame Effigy wrote:
Two new patrons: ethereal and mind. There's also a "voodoo doll" type magic item called a ganji doll that's got a very witch-y feel to it.
Flame Effigy wrote:
Are there any new options for familiars/intelligent magical items for old classes?
Not that I have seen.
While I don't mean to distract the topic from Nefreet's excellent work here, I'd like to note that, as the guy who made those pregens, to the best of my knowledge they did not and do not include anything not PFS legal, and did have the Community Use boilerplate on the title page. They may well have had a few other issues - I've found a couple math errors over the years - but by and large there shouldn't be any reason those characters can't be used or distributed in the manner LazarX suggested. (They aren't pregens in the PFS sense of the term, though, as Mike notes, and are not presented as such in the document.)
Vic Wertz wrote:
I don't suppose he's actually a multiclassed Medium rare commoner/medium?
Watch it, my friend. There are limits.
Having to rewrite the fluff of a system to make it work with the story you want to tell is basically indistinguishable from "it doesn't work with the story I want to tell" for my purposes.
As a guy playing someone with a masked identity (masked avenger swashbuckler) in Iron Gods right now, I can say with some authority that it neither requires taking over the campaign nor foisting an alternate identity on the rest of the group. It requires a certain amount of flexibility on the part of the player and some thought beforehand on why the PC would be interested in traveling with the rest of the party, but that's a good thing to do with any character, so I don't feel like it's demanding too much.
Legend lore tells us that characters of level 11 or above are "legendary," which is generally the point at which I start allowing Knowledge (local) rolls to know "specifics" of character's build (class, approximate level, noteworthy class abilities); this requires a roll against a DC of 15 ("particularly rare" creature) + CR, which is usually class level for PCs and class level -1 for NPCs, with better rolls granting more info as usual. Characters below that level can be recognized in their home communities with a Knowledge (local) roll, DC 15 + the community's Society modifier, but success grants only a name and a basic rep, nothing more.
I often make a point of not avoiding them, if the opponent in question has no reason to know how the PC fights. I think it adds to the verisimilitude, if bad guys waste actions or attacks sometimes, the same way PCs sometimes do. (And do they ever... I remember once running a game for several players I didn't know very well. They were ambushed by two sorcerers, one of whom was an elf. One of the PCs, playing a slumber witch, announced she would use her hex on the elf. I stared, then finally asked, "Are you sure?" And she said yes, and the elf of course ignored the hex because it was an elf. Players, man, I tell ya...) If PCs sometimes get overconfident, make mistakes or simply take reasonable-seeming actions that turn out to be bad ideas because of things they couldn't know, I don't see why NPCs wouldn't do the same things sometimes.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
That's a completely different issue. If the monsters start to move and there's a delaying player, then ignoring that player's desire to step in is definitely a problem - but not one caused by grouping monsters together. That's a GM who's not paying attention to her players, and has nothing to do with the initiative issue; it'd be a problem regardless.
I think Barachiel is saying that it gets harder for others to ID you, not for you to hide.
Chess Pwn's got it. We're making sure we can't break (brake?) the combat side of the class, so they've only given us the combat pieces to work on.
That said, I think it would incredibly cool if each talent choice actually gave you two talent choices - one social, one vigilante - that switch off as you swap personas. There's no sign of that in the playtest at the moment (and why would there be, since we have no social talents to playtest) but I think that might make the identity make a great deal more impact on the character.
...which is why it's in the social campaign sourcebook.
-The campaign to be primarily set in a single city.
Not in the slightest. In the worst case scenario - a highly-mobile campaign, where the PCs rarely stop anywhere for more than a day or two - he loses one of his class features. Otherwise, when he's got time, he can move his renown around while the wizard is crafting.
-The campaign to almost never have social situations devolve into...anything else.
...because he's suddenly without his martial weapon proficiency and BAB? His light or medium armor?
Are fighters not allowed to get ambushed at night unless they have a way to sleep in armor?
Setting aside the issue that "social encounters" tend to be solo encounters for the party face regardless, how the party handles their vigilante companion is likely to vary significantly from vigilante to vigilante; it's certainly not something that the game forces on us. Even beyond the false dilemma, the idea that the vigilante persona and the social persona know each other and associate with the same set of people is actually incredibly common in the source material (is Seoni in love with Miles Castle, the wealthy patron of the party, or with the dashing avenger Whiplash who leads their dungeon explorations? Oh, if only she knew they were the same man!), so I don't really understand why "the partying [hanging] around the vigilante's social persona" is such a terrible thing.
...Not so far, no.
The concept I came up with from the instant I saw the playtest uses that exact trope, in fact.
For all that I am enjoying the vigilante so far, I really do think that the renown sizes are too small. It's especially weird that the sizes only really seem to matter for the social persona - "within miles equal to level" on the Intimidate side means you'll encompass an entire metropolis by 3rd or 4th level, while your social is still limited to something like a single city block.
It occurs to me that Indiana Jones/Dr Henry Jones, Jr might well qualify as a vigilante - and in so doing provide a possible archetype for what an "adventuring" vigilante might do in a traditional Pathfinder game. Just as the mild-mannered and somewhat soft-spoken archeology professor occasionally wanders off and saves the world from spirit-nuke-possessing Nazis (using a pseudonym to do it, even!), the adventuring vigilante might simply be someone who doesn't adventure "full time" for some reason, but nonetheless can grab his towel and be prepared for trouble when he needs to...
Scott Betts wrote:
Which, since I'm still playing the game, isn't over yet.
I don't have to understand any such thing. I may not own the entire Mass Effect universe, but I do own my particular permutation of it.
Scott Betts wrote:
The canon-pedant in me requires that I point out you've got the Destroy ending exactly backwards. It doesn't prevent the cycle from restarting, it guarantees it. And the changes are fundamentally galaxy-altering, not universe-altering, which is almost certainly why the story is taking us to a different galaxy.
Scott Betts wrote:
These are enormous changes, any of which by themselves could define the flavor of an entire fictional universe. It isn't reasonable to try to write and produce the same video game story set in all three of these. It certainly isn't reasonable to act like it's owed to you.
I appreciate your assessment of my rationality, Scott, but to be perfectly blunt, hogwash. I could write around the differences in the endings in probably dozens of different ways, depending on what kind of story I wanted to tell. An example:
Our hero, Commander Vaquero, is exploring his/her ship during the game's intro sequence. He/she encounters the ship's engineer, Lt. Techie, in the engineering room.
Cmdr. Vaquero: Tell me about the Transit Drive, Techie.
The synthesis physical changes require, at most, an extra set of skins be designed for the character models, and that only if they don't handwave it away with a line about how "the physical appearance changes were a temportary aftereffect of the Synthesis Wave" or something.
If this is a problem I can solve in 30 seconds, I'm pretty sure Bioware can manage it too.
Scott Betts wrote:
Of course, none of this may end up mattering if the "Backup Plan" theory holds up. If the game is told from the standpoint of someone who left before the Crucible was turned on, and if Andromeda was immune to its effects, they could choose to simply ignore the endings entirely.
And frankly, that would be spiffy-keen with me. I'm not demanding that they include my choices; I want them to avoid invalidating them. That's seriously not that hard a task.
The key word there is "unrelenting." The Morning War may or may not have had fault on both sides, but the undeniable facts are that the geth stopped fighting and the quarians didn't. This is especially true in the actual scene where you have to make the choice, because Shepard and Tali both warn Gerrel that they are about to commit auto-genocide-by-geth if they keep up the attack, but none of the quarian ships break off - even when they start getting blown thoroughly out of the sky.
Scott Betts wrote:
You need to understand that just because you chose to partake in a particular kind of entertainment doesn't mean that you own the creative product wrapped around it.
Given that such ownership was an explicit selling point of the series, I don't have to understand any such thing. I may not own the entire Mass Effect universe, but I do own my particular permutation of it. One of the most important pieces of the pitch Bioware offered us was that our Cmdr Shepard was unique and important, the driving force and decision maker for essentially the entire galaxy. Stripping that away is breaking the promise they made to me, and badly damaging the emotional investment I have in their world.
Scott Betts wrote:
At a certain point, it becomes impossible to account for all the choices given to players in previous titles - as choices involving the same subject matter come up successively, the number of universe permutations around that subject matter increase exponentially.
Yes, but we're not talking about all the choices players made in previous titles. We're talking about one choice with three relevant options. I really don't see how that is an unbearable set of writing constraints.
They managed it for Dragon Age. Not sure why they wouldn't do the same for Mass Effect.
This is certainly not an old war I want to refight, but I have to admit, I never felt like my choices "didn't matter" or that the ending was simply about RGB. The only thing that was missing from my first playthrough was the knowledge of what happened next - there was a climax for certain, but almost nothing in denouement. I cured the genophage; how does that impact the krogan in the aftermath of the war? I decided that the quarians would never be able to let the war end*; where does that leave the geth in a world where the Reapers have been tamed and repurposed? I knew my choices had made a difference, I just wanted them to go ahead and show me what those differences were. Which the Extended Cut nicely provided. End of issue, as far as I was concerned.
On the other hand, if they choose a canon ending - and most especially if it's Destroy - that will feel like agency being stripped away and my choices didn't matter. Whether it would be enough to make me not buy it and play, I really doubt, but it would nonetheless piss me off.
*Yes, I wiped out the quarians on my first playthrough. That playthrough was, for various irrelevant reasons, one that did not have an imported game save, so someone had to bite it, and only one species was acting as an unrelenting aggressor.
Scott Betts wrote:
I've got five bucks that says they import your save and modify dialogue for whichever ending you picked.