|Stephen Radney-MacFarland Designer|
Liz Courts wrote:
If I did research for the design of this product, I don't remember it. ;)
This Map Pack is going to be more modular than the Map Pack: Sewers. So they'll be a lot like Mines and Rooftops. You'll also be able to use it with a couple of the Flip-Mat we have planned that feature urban underground areas with access to the sewer system.
If I can make it work with Map Pack: Sewers, I will. My main concerns are to make them modular, expandable, and that they work with the Flip-Mats we have planned.
I removed a couple of messages that were either insulting and not about the subject at hand or that commented on the insulting or tangential posts.
If you don't like catfolk, fine. Talk about that, and the reasons. Don't insult people who do. In fact, just don't insult people and general, and you will have less posts remove. I guarantee it.
Thanks to everyone who is keeping arguments civil and interesting--some good reads overall.
Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
I did say we had some secret or rather secretish projects. That said are constantly evaluating the need for portable digital projects and until we talk about it in definite terms here, it's save to assume that anything mentioned to be in development is just that.
Right now we have one other project that is nearly complete. You will likely see more information on that soon, but we hate to over promise and under deliver, so you'll just have to wait for more information soon.
I'll give you a hint, it is more story and less crunch that our current offerings, but that's all your getting from me right now. ;)
I will point out that this is a system for GMs to create races for his or her campaign, not another thing for players to min/max their characters. We are not changing the general rules from “roll your abilities, choose your race, and choose your class” to “roll your abilities, build your race, and choose your class.”
The fact this is an optional rules system to aid GM worldbuilding seems to have been largely lost in this playtest. As is the fact that there are power-level categories for racial abilities and traits, thematic categories for racial abilities with limits to the number you can take in each category based on power level, and prerequisites and limitations on some abilities.
This is not as system that will ever be legal in PFS. It is not a fundamental change to how you make characters. It is an optional tool for GMs. It is not a new build tool for combat optimization monkeys.
I don’t say that in a bad way. I tend to be one of those monkeys too.
Kevin Morris wrote:
What you're instead telling me is that, in some sense, I'm having "badwrongfun" because I want to have a race of halflings that have elven magic (or whatever other subtype-only ability).
That is not what I am saying at all. I think we can have a system that has both, frankly, and if at the end, you disagree with some of the prerequisites we put on an ability, and choose to disregard them, I promise I'll never come to your house, point, and say, "you are doing it wrong!"
Does that sound fair?
I love you guys, I really, really do, and I appreciate all the wonderful feedback you give, but can we tone down the hyperbole just a smidgeon? Thanks!
Okay folks, got it. You want us to reassess some of the abilities, and you don't care if the points of all core races add up to 10 points. I will put that on the list of strong considerations for the final iteration of the system.
Thank you for the feedback. We hear you. We want to create a system that you all will like and your GM will use to create new races for the game, so this aspect of the system will be reexamined given the arguments you all put forward.
Hey, I will freely admit that I may have been a little too strict with some of the prerequisites. Sometimes we are intentionally restrictive in an playtest document to see what the reaction will be. Other time we are overly generous, just to see how it pans out and what user reaction will be.
We do playtests to get feedback on an iteration of a design to see if we are on the right track. That's the main goal to this little endeavor.
We knew that we didn't want Tiny humanoids or monstrous humanoids. Most of the Tiny existing creatures that people may want to build were fey, so we made fey the prerequisite.
As far as the floating feat, up until now that has been basically a human only thing. It is one of the many things that has defined a human in Pathfinder. I'm also not particularly adverse to opening that up, but when designing these things its sometimes hard to figure out what the fans will consider sacred cows and what they'll let slide. Getting that information is often as valuable as gold to game designers. Well maybe not gold...
We meant no insult to those outsiders with dreams and aspirations of being Tiny. ;)
This is a little beyond the scope of what we planning for the book right now. We will put it on the idea board, though.
You are playing on hardcore mode. Enjoy!
Can you explain why HiPS is necessary?
It's not, I was having a brain fart.
The idea here was to try and increase the usability for distraction, but it is stepping on the toes of not only the feint section of the Bluff skill, but maybe Sleight of Hand as well.
I'm thinking about changing it so that you can only take a withdraw action (and maybe only a standard action version of withdraw) after creating a distraction. This puts it closer to the intent of the original Stealth rules without some of the wackiness of those rules.
Good catch, folks.
You still need to make clear how someone/thing with Scent can detect a scent (DC? Automatic?)and how and if Stealth affects that.
If it is within range, it is automatic. Stealth doesn't help you when going up against a creature that has scent. That's the long and short of it.
First off I want to thank you all for all the great conversation and feedback. You are the greatest!
After reviewing all the feedback, I've come up with a second draft of the Stealth changes, that we will be kicking around the office next week, and you will see up on the website maybe as soon as the week after, depending on schedule and the results of the internal review.
I may be speaking a tad prematurely, but I think you will like what you see in the second round of the playtest. It tackles all of the issues brought up, is clearer, and explains how Stealth works with blindsense, blindsight, scent, and tremorsense.
Again, thanks, and I look forward to the second round of the Stealth playtesting!
Evil Lincoln wrote:
The need to make this distinction at all does not bode well for the simplicity of the thing.
Don't worry overly much. This is not my first rodeo. I'm confident with all the great feedback and suggestions happening on this board, and our own desire to make this work in the simplest and most playable way, we can find the solutions.
I'm an optimist. I'm also a realist. I also love this kind of work.
Neil Spicer wrote:
You know I love you, Neil. But we are not doing facing.
Yes, that is what it means. This is to simulate the sneaky part of stealth, I was hidden, I come out sneak up on you, and then when I make the attack, you know that I am there. Remember Stealth isn't just about hiding, it is also about moving silently.
We used the invisible condition because it gets the job done, and it was a condition already in the game.
Yes, it should be at least 10 feet from the target.
I'm curious to see if there is a Character sheet with the new "Defense", "Wound Points" and the other optional rules. Anyone knows?
There is not an official one, no. I'm sure someone will make one in the future. I don't think we have plans to...but plans change. How bad do people really want one?
Gallard Stormeye wrote:
I sure can. Just got out of a chat with Jason about this.
The Grappler text in the Escape Artist skill entry is a holdover from 3.5, and is not the case in Pathfinder. An Escape Artist check escapes the pin entirely, it does not make you grappled, as the text in the pinned condition states.
Abraham spalding wrote:
1. It is one action, two attack rolls. I fire as a standard action, it is two attack rolls. If I fire as part of a full-attack action, it is one of those attacks, but two attack rolls.
2. You can use both shots of a double barrel pistol with dead shot. Both attacks take a -4 to the attack roll. Each shot gains each attack roll with the same effect, but with lower accuracy.
3. Tricky. I think this is what I think you are doing. Starting with a double pistol in one hand, firing all but 8 bullets (four attacks, 8 attack rolls) with the double pistol (at base attack plus double barrel pistol penalties at +12/+7/+2/-3 for each) then use the glove of storing to get your second pistol in the off hand (since you can't reload without without a free hand) to get the off-handed weapon attacks (two at +12 and two at +7, just counting base attack and penalties for two-weapon fighting and the double barrel pistol). Of course you would have to drop or put away the first pistol so you could reload the barrel. All of those shots at a misfire of 1-2.
Now all of that follows the letter of the rules...I guess...except for the fact that to pull it off, you rarely have a weapon in each hand, if I'm understanding your thinking clearly. If that's the case, I think I would call shenanigans.
Bonus question answer: Ah, well...ah...no.