Stephen Radney-MacFarland's page

Liz Courts wrote:

Le Cacahuète Galerie wrote:

I think I may have seen some Paizo staff and contributors who 'play tested' a larger model/version of this map at Gen Con.

For research I am sure.

Ahem.

I can neither confirm nor deny the extensive research and testing required to adequately put this map into production.

After looking at the final map, I remain unconvinced that the pubs portrayed do not resemble any locations based in, on, or around the greater Seattle area or locations in the midwest. :P

If I did research for the design of this product, I don't remember it. ;)

How is this different then GameMastery Map Pack: Sewers?

And if it is different, will it work with GameMastery Map Pack: Sewers?

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.

One of our players has the iPod version of it. Its cool, but since we also have both decks, we usually use those instead, since its more gratifying to draw cards than tap a screen.

Back a while ago, Erik Mona mentioned a program that was in development during a speech. It sounded very cool, did it get scrapped? Is it still being worked on? Have people just forgotten about it?

EDIT: So used to spelling it the right way instead of with a K... ;)

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. ;)

Backpeddle? I don't remember doing any front peddling. ;)

The playtest will go as follows: People playing well thought out balanced races will play exactly as the established races.

Those min/max'd to hell and back will play just like any other cheese build, with even more options available to maximize stats. The racial build rules, as written, are not just power creep, they are a power explosion.

Either way, it will be up to the GM to know when to tell a player NO.

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.

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.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

The goal of the race builder is to have GMs or players with heavy GM oversight create races for a campaign. It's a campaign tool, not a machine for min/max wild dreams.

So this is why we only have bonus Feats on Humans and only tiny Feys?

To give the DM not the option to create tiny outsiders?

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. ;)

Suggestion/question.

Could these rules be adapted to build templates?

In an official capacity.

Because A template builder would be useful for GMs.

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.

The playtest rules state that constructs cannot be raised or resurrected. Are there any ways to bring a construct or half-construct back from destruction? Or are you playing on hardcore mode when you play a construct or undead?

Note: I have no problem with it being hardcore. I'm just curious if there are existing spells or methods of bringing back this type of character.

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.

Hey everyone,

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!

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.

Some corner case thoughts:

Facing - Something I've always wanted to see as a rules tweak to Stealth involves "facing" on the battlefield. Let's say there are no pillars behind which to hide. But, it's a colossal showdown with a whole bunch of melee opponents on either side. The trusty rogue manages to take down his guy and the rogue wants to aid the fighter (who's across the room) with a timely sneak attack on the adversary that's beating him down. Say, the rogue wants to hurl a quick dagger into the bad guy's back and hopefully take him down (thereby stealing the glory from the frontline warrior). Do the flanking rules already cover this situation (i.e., assuming he's in range, and has either Precise Shot or decides to roll with the -4 friendly fire penalty)? Or, would an opportunity exist for the rogue to make a Stealth check to be "invisible" to that particular opponent (but not to anyone else who's facing him)? I've always felt the bad guy in that situation really ought to be flat-footed to the rogue and subject to sneak attacks, even though they're in general melee at that point and not in a surprise round, etc. Is this already covered as a ranged sneak attack?

Food for thought,
--Neil

You know I love you, Neil. But we are not doing facing.

Does this mean I can Stealth behind a pillar, then on my next turn, make another Steath check, move at half my rate into the open, and jab someone invisibly, assuming they don't roll enough Perception to see me?

If so, is this true even in bright daylight?

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.

Paizo wrote:

Sniping: If you already are invisible to a target and you are 10 feet from that target

Should that read "and you are AT LEAST 10 feet from that target"

An absoulte 10' range seems odd

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?

Cartigan wrote:

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

But doesn't the Escape Artist entry specifically say a success means you "change from a pinned condition to merely grappled."?

Link, Under Grappler

Or am I misreading the blog as saying that's no longer the case?

Hurray, rules clarifications produced without familiarity with the rules!

Ouch, Stephen can we get a clarification for the clarification or is Escape Artist supposed to be worse than using CMB to escape a pin?

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.

Wasn't the part about Tripping someone who is prone already in the FAQ?

It is, but we are still getting a lot of questions about it, so we figured that maybe repetition would help hit the point home.

1. If I "double tap" both barrels at the same target is it two attacks?

2. If I take the penalty can I fire both barrels with Dead shot? If so does the Dead Shot affect both barrels or just one? Please provide and example of how the damage math would work.

3. If I have two double barreled pistols and two weapon fighting(improved and greater), plus a glove of storing, can I make (at level 20) 14 attacks (assuming rapid reload and paper cartridges)?

Bonus question: Can I make advanced versions of the basic firearms?

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.