Sighter's page

Hermea.

I'll second Hermea. And the Tales line might be a good way to flesh out some of the history of the world; maybe instead of setting the book in modern times, we get to actually read the stories of things like the war between Geb and Nex, or Baba Yaga, or ancient Osirion, or the Whispering Tyrant's reign in Ustalav.

Maybe a novel with more First World elements, dealing with the Fey?

Also, Galt. The online stories featuring Norret have been my favorite so far.

So, given your starting point of "this is a bit of a distraction", tell me again why you started this post?

(I'm a militant atheist, believe that anyone with a faith is irredeemably stupid, am prepared to be convinced by actual evidence that there is a divine being but even if I am will hold to my philosophical position that if there is they deserve no worship and I will therefore be consigned to whatever creative and unpleasant afterlife they have prepared for the irredeemably stupid who refuse to bow down to the great tyrant in the sky).

Significantly over 300.

That's all you need to know, citizen. Now, move along. Move along. ;-)

I've lived in the military my entire life, so I can say im a gun fanatic. That said, I like Paizo's approach to guns as "emerging". It's not something everyone has, and (like in real life in those 'times') there isn't a clear advantage of a gun over a bow. Guns, for those who DO have them, will often be things like a Scattergun or Blunderbuss: guns that usually hit regardless of how good you are with them.

The gunslinger is a nice try at bringing the wild west into Pathfinder, but it doesn't impress me. Wizards, Rangers, and Paladins will still be doing most of the butt-kicking. I personally think guns fit in more as back-up weapons for wizards (intircate weapon for an intricate man) or rogues (intricate weapon for a cunning rogue).

Are they nice to have in Pathfinder? yes
Are they meant to be your main weapon? no

Edit: Or for Inquisitors (intricate weapon for kick-ass monster hunters) ^_^ Think Solomon Kane

Yes, yes, OR the zombies have a group of survivors cornered and you have to rescue them, OR they, along with some traps, are guarding teh lootz, etc.

But WHATEVER

Can we stop this threadjack, now? Are there maybe any other neat ideas/rules the devs have? Because I was really enjoying THAT bit.

Nice way of thanking the devs who cared enough to reply by pulling this sort of thread-jack and busting out the Wrong Bad Fun™ arguments. I'm sure they'll not make that mistake again.

Quite the service to your fellow posters too. If your debate is so damned important, why not have the courtesy to spin it off into its own thread rather than trashing a helpful one?

You want the advice forum.

Edit: OK, I guess I could be a little more specific. If you want to discuss "how to make a build moar awesome", post to the advice forum. If you want to suggest an awesome build, post it to the advice forum. If you want to ask "why does this thing suck because I hate it so much", post it to your blog.

Sean K. Reynolds wrote:

If I make you think about the rules and you develop a reasonable interpretation of how they work, you're a better GM and a better player, and don't need to rely on an "official" ruling from the staff.

[smaller]Let's look at it this way: From a game mechanics perspective, is there any difference between the following two abilities?
1) A class ability that gives you the ability to channel energy.
2) A revelation, feat, racial ability, magic item, spell, or other ability that gives you the ability to channel energy.

First, let me give a bit of background. Back when I was at Wizards, at the start of 3E I worked with Jonathan Tweet on a bunch of advice columns, including an article called "How to Design a Feat." One of the concepts we established was "things should be the same, or they should be different." (And by "different" I mean "very different" so you don't mix up the two.) That concept helps players remember different rules--if rule X is already in the game, and you're creating new rule Y that works a lot like X, you should either (1) make Y work EXACTLY like X, or make Y work differently than X. That way, players can remember that Y works like X, or not accidentally confuse how Y and X work. And if Y feels a lot like X, it's almost certainly supposed to work like X, and things that attach to X should be able to attach to Y.

For example, imagine an alternate universe where the PFRPG feat Improved Trip gave a +2 bonus on trip maneuvers, but Improved Sunder gave a +3 on sunder maneuvers, Improved Grapple gave a +4 on grapples, and Improved Disarm gave a +2, and only some of them said you didn't provoke an AOO for attempting the maneuver. That would be incredibly confusing and hard to remember--unless you were a total memory freak, every time you encountered one of those feats you'd have to look up the exact bonus it gave because the listed bonuses were all very similar, and you'd have to look up whether or not it provoked an AOO because there wasn't a clear pattern to which ones did or didn't. Instead, in this universe, all of those feats give a +2, they all let you do the maneuver without provoking an AOO, and all of them give you a +2 to your CMD when defending against that sort of maneuver. Not only does this mean the feats are balanced against each other, but they're consistent and therefore easy to remember. Likewise, all of the +2/+2 skill feats give you +2 to two skills, not +1 to one skill and +3 to another skill. Consistency in rules means you have to memorize fewer specifics and just remember things like "the core skill bonus feats give +2/+2" and "the improved maneuver feats are all +2 offense/+2 defense/no AOO." That helps you play the game and run the game.

So when the cleric class has a header section called "Class Features" and under that is an entry that says "Channel Energy," and the oracle class has a section called "Class Features" and under that is an entry that says "Channel: You can channel positive energy like a cleric," and the paladin class has a section called "Class Features" and under that is an entry that says "Channel Positive Energy (Su): ... she gains the supernatural ability to channel positive energy like a cleric," those all are intended to work the same way, even though they're not given identical names. For one, because the paladin and oracle "versions" of that ability tell you it works like the cleric "version" of the ability. For two, because having them all work the same way is simpler and easier to remember than each of them working a different way. Now, given, the oracle gets 1+Chamod per day instead of the cleric's 3+Chamod, and the paladin spends uses of lay on hands instead of a separate X/day allotment, but if you line up a good cleric 5, a life oracle 5, and a paladin 5, and tell each of them to channel a burst of positive energy, all three of them are healing 3d6 to living or dealing 3d6 to undead, DC 10 + 1/2 level + Chamod, 30 ft. radius, no AOO, and so on. Exactly the same. Because it's easier to remember that way. Because it makes the game easier to run that way.

And that means things like Improved Channel and Alignment Channel and Extra Channel should apply equally to the cleric, life oracle, and paladin (you'll note for Extra Channel the paladin ability's counting method of uses per day for the feat is slightly diff because the paladin ability is based on using lay on hands, but the net result is the paladin gets +2 uses of channel per day, just like the cleric and oracle). Because to do otherwise means we need different versions of these feats for oracles and paladins because under the strictest interpretation, neither of them has a class ability that's specifically and explicitly named "channel energy;" and three sets of redundant identical feats for clerics, oracles, and paladins is lame and a waste of space.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If you line up Daffy Duck, Donald Duck, Duckman, and Howard the Duck, from a game standpoint it makes sense that a +1 duck-bane arrow is going to do +2d6 damage in addition to normal arrow damage if you shoot any of them, because they're all ducks. And if you shot that arrow at "Duckie" from Pretty in Pink, it wouldn't get any bonus damage, because he isn't a duck. And you should be able to see why those first four are ducks and the last one isn't.

And if for some reason two things that seem almost the same (like "channel energy" vs. "channel" vs. "channel positive energy") shouldn't act exactly the same, count on us to tell you how it is different. For example, take the necromancer "power over undead" ability; you can't heal or harm with it, but you can use Command Undead or Turn Undead with it (both of which are based on channeling), and can take feats that augment those two applications, but not feats that alter your purpose away from undead. So, necromancers get an ability that works just like channel energy, except (1) it always works like Command Undead or Turn Undead (i.e., no heal-harm aspect), and (2) can't ever be used on something other than undead. Does the necromancer have an ability called "channel energy"? No. Does it let you do stuff that clerics with Command Undead or Turn Undead can? Yes. In those cases, does it work exactly like channel energy modified by those feats? Yes. Does it make sense that the necromancer can use feats and abilities that rely on channel energy as long as the feat or ability augments their power over undead? Yes. So if there was a "Prerequisite: channel energy class feature" feat that increase the number of d6s you healed or harmed, would you let a necromancer take it? No, because their channel never heals or harms. If there was a "Prerequisite: channel energy class feature" feat that increased the number of HD of undead you could command or turn at one time, would you let a necromancer take it? Yeah, because that sounds exactly like something the necromancer should be able to do with his channeling ability, as it's something a Command Undead/Turn Undead cleric ought to be able to do it. What about a channel feat that changed the area from a sphere to a cone? Sure, because you could see a Command Undead/Turn Undead cleric taking that feat.

Sometimes rules aren't going to have the exact same name or wording.
* Part of that is because things are designed by different people and one prefers one wording to another.
* Part is because we don't want similar chunks of text near each other to be identical, because that's an awkward read and is boring.Note that the descriptions for flaming and frost aren't exactly identical, even though they work basically the same way. And would you really want the cleric class ability to be written as "channel energy (positive)" or "channel energy (negative)"? And the paladin ability as "channel energy (positive)"? And the necromancer ability "channel energy (positive, Turn Undead only)" or "channel energy (negative, Command Undead only)"? I mean, c'mon, try using that in a sentence. :/
* Part is because between book A and book B we've decided a better way to phrase a rule so it's clear to more people, so B's rule looks or is named just a little different than A's rule.
* Part is because English is a very flexible language, and whether you say "Sean kissed Jodi on their first date" or "Jodi was kissed by Sean on their first date," you should understand there was a kiss.
* Part of it is we have to wrap some text around a piece of art or make sure that a paragraph ends at the bottom of a page so a new header can start at the top, so we alter a word or two so the lines break differently. Not important words like "as a cleric of your level," but stuff that keeps the same intent. A paladin's ability could have been written as "Channel Energy: You channel energy as a cleric of your level. Paladins always channel positive energy, never negative energy, etc. etc." but it's cleaner to present it the way it is, rather than presenting negative channeling as a possible option for the paladin and then taking it away in the next sentence.
* And part of it is sometimes we make mistakes and don't write things as clearly as we should, or forget some obscure combination in this very complex game, or an author use a pre-errata wording of an ability when writing a new ability.

Could the game be more "perfect" by using exactly the same terminology? Yes, mostly. But I think holding that up as some kind of ideal is a pipe dream. Even programmers, who copy a subroutine from one part of a program to use as a model in a different part, still make changes sometimes, either because they better understand how the coding works since they wrote the original sub, or something unique is needed for that sub in the new location, or whatever.

But, as Monte says, "the DM is not a robot." Players aren't robots, either. And as James Wyatt says, "You can never write a rule that is so clear that *everyone* understands it." Skip Williams used to get Sage Advice questions like, "Do I have to take Power Attack before I take Cleave?" Obviously the answer is "yes"... but it wasn't obvious to that reader, for some reason. Now, that's a very simplistic example, and the "channel energy class feature" prereq is not a simplistic example, but I think you get the gist of it: sometimes you're going to have to make rulings based on how you think the rules fit together. Sometimes it's more obvious than others how those rules fit together, but if they seem to have the same root, it's better to assume they're supposed to work the same way than to doubt your own ability to realize the similarities between them.

If "channel energy" and "channel positive energy" and "channel" aren't all class features (even though they're all listed in the "Class Features" part of their respective class writeups, and even though the book never defines exactly what a "class feature" is, although each class's "Class Feature" entry does say "The following are class features of the [class]" or even "All of the following are class features of the [class]"), you'd have to wonder why the Core Rulebook didn't include paladin versions of Improved Channel and Turn Undead that have "channel positive energy" as a prerequisite. And you'd have to wonder why consecrate boosts cleric channel energy DCs but not paladin channel positive energy DCs (the spell specifically says "The DC to resist positive channeled energy..." which probably means a cleric channeling positive energy, but is unclear if that also means a paladin's "channel positive energy" ability). And so on. When, realistically, it makes sense that paladins should be able to take Improved Channel, and that consecrate should affect paladin channel DCs just as well as it affects cleric positive channel DCs. And likewise for life oracles. And necromancers.

Things should be the same, or they should be different.

(To be continued, as I don't want to lose this post....)

(Actually, I'm going to bed, I'll address the other points tomorrow!)

At bare minimum I would like to see a table that gives us the ages, heights, and weights for each race like we have for the core races.

Anyone with limited knowledge of InDesign should be able to make typo changes with the associated skills to keep the page format in place with the use of tracking and kerning, etc.

Any time we make any changes to files that may be sent to the printer, more than one person is going to do it. Specifically, a developer/designer would need to request the change; then, any number of people might be able to enter it, either in InCopy or InDesign but, either way, a layout person would need to check it in InDesign to ensure that it didn't cause text flow problems, and an editor (who wasn't the person who made the change in the first place) would have to make sure that it was entered correctly. So a minimum of three people would have to put their hands on any file, for any change. And that does turn into exactly the scenario that deinol identified, where a bunch of tiny changes add up to hamper our efforts making our *new* books as error-free as possible.

And that's just the start of it.... if you then wanted that PDF to go out to customers, another person would have to spend several hours making the new PDF (and checking it), and then we'd have to send an email to thousands of people letting them know that it has changed, and then everybody who has the PDF in their downloads can come pound our site for the next few days to download gigabytes of data to each get a sentence fixed.

(Also, I'm pretty sure that folks would want a public changelog, so we'd have to spend time implementing and maintaining that too.)

It's far more efficient—for you *and* for us—if we just post that new sentence on the FAQ, and when we go to reprint, we can make a bunch of changes all at once, and give you a handy compiled errata doc to bring your edition up to the current one.

The amount of crying going on for fixing what was a blatantly ridiculous trait is hilarious.

As for it not being masterwork, you can still have a level 3 cleric cast a Masterwork Transformation spell on it so it can be enchanted. The trait still works just fine for any character background ideas people want to do, it is just no longer a complete BS trait.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

I gotta say, I don't like the step progression. I think gaining levels should be a dramatic point in the overall plot of the campaign, not just something that creeps up on people.

And I think players shouldn't have to wait for 16-20 hours of gameplay to occur in order to see any improvement in their characters. ;)

Heck, that's why I been using it for the last year or two. Otherwise, it feels like players get nothing for alot of work...

And that's why I do really high point-buy with mostly experienced gamers and throw them at really difficult encounters. 3-4 per level is how it usually works out. Like a level 6 party vs. a CR 10 Fire Giant. Still shocked nobody died there, but they *were* specifically hunting Fire Giants...

I think you'd agree that there are many monsters in the bestiaries that have a Treasure entry that says "none," and that it's possible, and in some cases likely, that you'll encounter those creatures outside of the context of a random encounter or wandering monster? If you're breaking into a necromancer's lair, by default the pack of zombies milling about the courtyard aren't going to give you any treasure, and they're not a random encounter....

I know what "moving the goalposts" means. What confuses me is why SKR thinks that I did that.

You: Even if characters level the old way, they are still getting constant small rewards in the form of treasure.

Me: Except for the encounters that don't give any treasure.

You: Like social encounters? Those can give other rewards (points of contact, clues, etc.)

You mentioned each-game rewards in the form of treasure. I said "except for encounters that don't give treasure." Your response was "then they get other kinds of rewards."

If we're talking about weekly rewards, and you say PCs already get treasure every week, and I say "some encounters don't give treasure," then saying "oh and stuff other than treasure" is moving the goalposts. :p

Because I could say, "some encounters don't give contacts or goals," and you could come back with, "well, there's still the reward of sharing a fun experience with your friends," which would be moving the goalposts. We could go on and on like this. :)

I don't care about the percentage of ability-damage monsters in the scenario, I care about the story, the ideas, the coolness factor, memorable encounters and several other things that leave me considering Trial of the Beast a 4-star scenario, as opposed to, say Memory of Darkness or City of Seven Spears. That's called constructive criticism, as opposed as raging at the module because your last evening's game didn't go as smoothly as you like.

I think this is an important point, Gorbacz, and I think you're right on. Ability damage is a tool for constructing a creature, encounter, or scenario. It isn't inherently any better or worst than any other tool (OP's assertions to the contrary notwithstanding). Just like any tool in any situation, it's how the tool is used that matters. The mere existence of ability drain, in small or large amounts, means absolutely nothing about the quality of the scenario, any more than would large or small numbers of orcs, secret doors, or gold pieces. How the elements are assembled is what matters, not the elements themselves.

I have no idea if this book is 5-star, 1-star, or something in between. However, I do know snot-nosed whining when I hear it.

Every complaint/attack fired wildly at Paizo in this thread should have instead been directed towards one person only: your GM.

It is your GM's job to make sure you have fun in a D&D game, not the creators of the material your GM uses. Your GM is not a slave to the stat blocks Paizo publishes, and if he/she is then they should not be, plain and simple.

Go to your GM and whine that you can't handle the ability damage, and hopefully they'll make the game more enjoyable for you.

Other people have brought this up, but it does bear some repeating - you decided to play an AP that was billed as "Gothic/Cosmic Horror Mashup" from the start. The enemies that fit that description traditionally have lots and lots of ability damage and drain powers. So going in you had plenty of hints that this mechanic was going to be more relevant than usual. If you really hate dealing with it so much, you should have asked to play something else.

Other people have brought this up, but it does bear some repeating - you decided to play an AP that was billed as "Gothic/Cosmic Horror Mashup" from the start. The enemies that fit that description traditionally have lots and lots of ability damage and drain powers. So going in you had plenty of hints that this mechanic was going to be more relevant than usual. If you really hate dealing with it so much, you should have asked to play something else.

But,but the game should revolve around me and my likes and everyone else shouldn't matter.

And for those of you from the peanut gallery metagaming and DM fiat is not an acceptable solution.

GM fiat is not always a good solution ... but sometimes it is. Your GM knows your party better than the module’s author or the Paizo designers do. If the GM knows that this party is not equipped to deal with a particular threat, or is becoming frustrated by something, or is liable to cry ‘Bad game design!’ when something doesn’t go their way, then changing things around is a perfectly acceptable solution. Cut some of those repetitive encounters, swap out shadows with ghasts, giant spiders with giant beetles, whatever. There is nothing wrong with this. No group should be expecting Paizo (or any company producing adventures) to get the mix exactly right for their party all the time.

It is part of the GM’s job to ensure that the players are enjoying the game. If there is clear frustration at an ongoing situation, or the players have clearly expressed they are not having fun, it is a poor choice as a GM to say ‘that’s how it’s written in the adventure, deal with it’. A good GM will change things, or explain things to the players. There is nothing wrong with saying ‘Yeah, I can see you guys are getting the short end of the stick with all this ability damage – don’t worry, this is an isolated part of the adventure, it’s not like this for much longer, hang in there.’ There’s also nothing wrong (if it works for your group) with implementing a house rule to make creatures do less ability damage, or make ability damage easier to repair, if done carefully and thoughtfully.

It’s not only the GM’s responsibility to ensure the players are having fun though, the players also have that responsibility for themselves. Communicate with the GM what the issue is, why things are un-fun. Take steps to ensure that your characters are not caught unprepared next time. Consider a party mix and character class choices that can deal with a wide range of different situations. Think about creative solutions to problems. Know your GM’s play style and plan for it.

Or, you know, you can complain about Paizo’s creative powers, fantasize about beating up the module author and post a one star review of the module (before finishing it?). Either way.

I pretty much play by the book, except for my steps-based level advancement system.

When I saw this awhile ago it struck me as a perfect fit for my "manifest destiny of awesomeness" philosophy to RPGing and have used it quite a bit.

I tweaked it to fit within a PFS pace of play, where you level every three sessions. The three groups are:

A - Hit Points and Skill Points
B - BAB, Saves and Attribute Bonus
C - Special and Character Feat

I broke them up this way so that each category gave a mix (or a least the potential) for both active and passive class attributes, along with (once again the potential) for character attributes that involve some choice on the player's part as to what they will do with the character.

It works well, the players enjoy always getting something no matter what happens. That translates into a lot more roleplaying and nuanced moments of play because the pressure is off to kill stuff to satisfy the metagame, or scour the countryside for gold and treasure. Even for the hard core power gamers it makes playing more of its own reward, rather than having to rush through for a meta-game goal.

For "end of chapter" type moments in the campaign I'd just have everyone level up regardless of what step they were on.

What's fantastic as a GM is that I don't ever have to think about XP. The reward system is passive, which makes things that much more easy going. I'm not dispensing rewards, the system does it automatically.

I know what "moving the goalposts" means. What confuses me is why SKR thinks that I did that.

If I read it correctly, the Step system assumes that your party is playing through 4-5 encounters in an approximately 4-hr gaming session. He suggests awarding them small pieces of crunch at the end of every session (and has crafted a system to do that fairly.)

Another poster indicated that most people, whether they know it or not, respond better to more frequent, smaller, rewards than they do to larger, less often, ones.

You then countered that social encounters yield rewards as well, and you seemed to indicate that those awards were equal to crunch awards. I don't think they are, if only because they're completely arbitrary by nature. If it came down to having to choose, I'd much rather gain a quarter-level every session than making non-crunch contacts with NPC's.

Like social encounters? Those can give other rewards (points of contact, clues, etc.)

Moving The Goalposts, party of one, your table is ready.... :)

Even if characters level the old way, they are still getting constant small rewards in the form of treasure.

Except for the encounters that don't give any treasure.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I pretty much play by the book, except for my steps-based level advancement system.

I'm going to present this to my group. I'm sure they'll love smaller advancements considering we get maybe 1 game month, 2 if we're lucky. I do have a few questions. If a 4th level wizard advances a step and chooses Special, would he get access to 3rd level spells? Can he even cast them despite techically being a 4th level caster, or would his fireballs be 4d6 in this system?

Yes, he would, which means he'd have 4d6 fireballs. Nothing wrong with that. :)

I already purchased a faction shirt. Cheliax rules! Where may I buy one of these Monte reroll shirts?

He only made a limited number. Here's what mine looks like.

Dapifer wrote:

This Step Advancement seems really smooth and I really like the concept, I would very much like to use it in my up coming campaign if that's alright with you.

Well, it's available on my website, and the original version was published in Monte Cook's World of Darkness a few years ago, so I was hoping some people would use it. :)

I see, well thanks a lot! I mentioned to one of my players that we would be using a tiered system instead of XP and his face lit with joy and anticipation, and I believe the rest will react in a similar manner.

We loved XP, we loved it on videogames and on tabletop, but at some point it becomes really tiring, this system feels like a good alternative that let's the player still run towards that tantalizing carrot in front of him, but also allows a little more personal investment on the character, choosing which step would be appropriate to advance at every milestone, but without the feeling of need to kill every XP tag you can find.

@Frogboy: Give it no further thought, I realized Sean must have posted it online for a reason, but I have this exaggerated respect for ideas not my own so I wanted to ask anyways, for me it feels better to have direct and explicit thumbs up from the author than to assume it's ok because it's online, I guess you could say I am weird in that regard.

Dapifer wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I pretty much play by the book, except for my steps-based level advancement system.

Allow me to say this, your idea is genius! I had thought in the past some way to advance characters in Tiers in a more organic way, like the Sa Ga games.

This Step Advancement seems really smooth and I really like the concept, I would very much like to use it in my up coming campaign if that's alright with you.

At least you were nice enough to ask. I should work on my manners. :-P

The entire second page is the OGL (even though I'm pretty sure none of those Noun: The Verbing games were ever released under it, so I don't know why they're listed)... so you're pretty clear to use it...

I gotta say, I don't like the step progression. I think gaining levels should be a dramatic point in the overall plot of the campaign, not just something that creeps up on people.

And I think players shouldn't have to wait for 16-20 hours of gameplay to occur in order to see any improvement in their characters. ;)

This alternate method intrigues me and if I were inclined to give up conventional XP tracking, I would give it a go. It appeals to me much more than pure GM fiat/hand-waving.

Four a party of 4 PCs, the XP/level chart and the XP/encounter chart are built so you need about 20 CR-appropriate encounters to advance one level on the medium track. At 4-5 CR-appropriate encounters per session, that's 4 or 5 sessions between levels... which is exactly what 1 "step" per session gives you.

So it's no more GM fiat than "I've decided this session is going to have many/few low-level encounters" (which translates to lower/higher XP that session).

I pretty much play by the book, except for my steps-based level advancement system.

I mostly run games by the book. I do little tweaks here and there though. For example, I allow vital strikes to work as Spring Attacks and charges and all that. Also, the spell breath of life is actually called cure deadly wounds in my game, so that spell can be spontaneously cast a lot easier.