Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Stephen Custom Avatar

Stephen Radney-MacFarland's page

Designer. Pathfinder Society Member. 756 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 234 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey everyone. This forum is not to discuss your thoughts on the wonderful work of other publishers. Please keep the conversation on target about Occult Adventures and move discussions about other products to the appropriate forum.

Thank you.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dustin Ashe wrote:

There are still a lot of real-life spiritualists and spiritists around today, especially in South America. I don't know if it warrants changing the name of the class, but I just wanted to let you know that it's not just a outdated belief but a vibrant faith.

Some spiritualists might be thrilled or not at all mind to find out their beliefs are represented in the RPG hobby. Others, maybe not.

Yes, because many of these ideas are fantasy takes on real-world occult belief this is actually something we discussed, and took the approach that we always do. These are fantasy versions of of characters made for a game, and are not meant as a statement on real world belief.

In other words, this is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, events and incidents are either the products of the author’s imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.

We just like making cool things that people grok and love to play.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lukas Stariha wrote:
Under the proficiency section, "all light weapons, kukris, saps and scythes" are listed as their weapon proficiencies. Should "light weapons" be changed to "simple weapons"?

That should be simple weapons.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Awesome. I'm glad you like it.

As far as the list of emotional foci, this is a short list made for the playtest. As the playtest goes on, I'll probably post other emotional foci to try out (though these will not be PFS legal). The published class will have a more complete list of emotional foci.

So no worries. Vengeance is on my short list of emotional foci.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Howdy everyone,

I'm Stephen, and I will be the design lead looking over your comments and playtest notes on this class.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Of course I know when he is coming back. ::evil grin::

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I wouldn't compare the investigator to the barbarian...just saying. His function within the party is a little different.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Stephen wanted to punch Jason, his close coworker and friend, in the face with a metal gauntlet. What do you think shall happen to you?
To be fair, I heard a rumor that Stephen played a Crane Style monk in PFS. :)

No...it was in Jason's game. Sorry guys. ;)

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:

Poor MechE_. Unaware of the price he shall pay for bargaining with Stephen.

Stephen wanted to punch Jason, his close coworker and friend, in the face with a metal gauntlet. What do you think shall happen to you?

To be fair: 1) Jason picked the funding level...it's not my fault that he gives his life (or at least his face) so cheaply; 2) FOR THE CHILDREN!; 3) Jason kinda deserves it.

But yeah, beware bargaining with an antipaladin.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, and swift study is still an investigator talent...so no worries there either.

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.

The attack and damage rolls are for melee attacks. The bonus to damage is not an insight bonus (it is just a bonus) that is why the sentence is parsed like that.

There are ways that you can get studied strike with ranged attacks, so no worries about that for the folk who want it.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LoneKnave wrote:
When you only have a standard (see surprise round), it's just a standard. Studying itself is activated with a swift.

That's not entirely true. You can take free actions during a surprise round (Core Rulebook 178, and the general rules on swift actions is that you can take them "anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action" (Core Rulebook 188).

If you can take studied combat as a swift action, you can use it in the surprise round.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you, everyone, with a special shout out to those who contributed (even if you didn't contribute to Paizo). The event raised over $25,000 for charity and was a blast, so the real winners are the kids!

All of the teams were fantastic and terrifically fun to play against. A special shout out goes to the Removed from Play podcast, who were wonderfully good sports and sacrificed an truly beautiful Cygnar warband. I had a great time meeting and hanging out with them, and look forward to seeing them again at Lock & Load in a couple weeks.

Again, thank you all. Without your support, we couldn't have done it. You prove again that we have the best fans in the business!

Well, that's it for me. I have a Jason to punch. :)

Paizo Employee Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you, everyone, with a special shout out to those who contributed (even if you didn't contribute to Paizo). The event raised over $25,000 for charity and was a blast, so the real winners are the kids!

All of the teams were fantastic and terrifically fun to play against. A special shout out goes to the Removed from Play podcast, who were wonderfully good sports and sacrificed an truly beautiful Cygnar warband. I had a great time meeting and hanging out with them, and look forward to seeing them again at Lock & Load in a couple weeks.

Again, thank you all. Without your support, we couldn't have done it. You prove again that we have the best fans in the business!

Well, that's it for me. I have a Jason to punch. :)

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graywulfe wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
So, please donate. I don't want to have to start medicating Stephen.
I will self-medicate, thank you!
With the blood of innocents?

Innocents? No. They are often weak and too easy prey. I like to leave a trail of evil men and women behind me. More of a challenge.

I'm a strange antipaladin in that regard.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
So, please donate. I don't want to have to start medicating Stephen.

I will self-medicate, thank you!

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
RFP_Omnus wrote:
You guys are doing such a great job. Paizo is a worthy opponent and the kids are the real winners. With all of that said... You are all doing so good at holding second. Its just adorable :)

Thanks, Omnus! You are right the kids are the real winners. As long as we raise a lot for charity, who cares who comes in first. See you this Sunday!

::waits a little bit...makes sure Omnus is gone, and speaks to the Paizo fans::

I'm glad Omnus is gone? The nerve. He comes into our house, and calls us adorable because we are coming in second.

Second!

When have we ever come in second?

Sure, we raised a lot of money. Sure the kids are already winning. Sure, Jason will likely get punched in the face. But now it's our pride on the line.

Personally, I've already put in $50.00...and I'm not asking anyone to put in more than they can afford, but every dollar helps. Every dollar will help us show those lead pushers who has the greatest gaming community in the world. Spread the word. Throw in a dollar, throw in five. I'm just one antipaladin asking you please...look into your hearts...help the children...

...and then help us bury our foes and spread their remains to the four corners of the internet until they are nothing but a rumor of a thing that dared stand up to our might!

But for the kids. Always for the kids.

Paizo Employee Designer

10 people marked this as a favorite.
CardKingdom_dan wrote:
Just thought you might like to see the competition that Team Paizo will be facing. Tremble before the mighty Team Card Kingdom. :) Check it out

I am trembling...with laughter.

Oh, wait, that sounded really crappy. What I mean is, that's a nice video. Well done and funny.

So how is that working out for you...being funny?

Oh...I'm sorry, that sounded really mean and condescending. I mean...

Screw it. Never mind.

We will crush you on the field of battle and then I will smite Jason with a gauntleted fist*.

FOR THE CHILDREN!

*because that is how chaotic evil rolls, baby!

Paizo Employee Designer

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Zark wrote:


edit:
and for the Children and for clobbing of Jason?

@Stephen Radney-MacFarland: If you don't get the Gauntlet can you use a fish instead? A Cod perhaps or a Herring? :P

Sure. No problem.

Hey, Jason. Want to take a walk with me to Pikes Place Market? There is something I need to show you.

Paizo Employee Designer

6 people marked this as a favorite.

...and clobber Jason?

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matrix Dragon wrote:
I have a feeling that Jason should have added a few zeroes to that face punching stretch goal ;)

Yeah, I was a little surprised he went that low.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
RFP_Susan wrote:
Hey guys! I feel I speak for all of team Removed From Play when I say that, when we win the Gauntet, we will totally let you borrow it to punch Jason in the face. :)

This is my kind of adversary. Welcome RFP_Susan! I'm sure Jason will thank you too. ;)

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Liz Courts wrote:
Something something OSHA, something something workman's comp...

Yeah...that might have been it. Jason starts talking about that kind of stuff, and he starts to sound like one of those Peanuts adults in my head.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Serpent wrote:
Stephen looks like someone from a Seattle-based 90s rock band. What's your instrument, Stephen? :)

A big [censored] sword. :)

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

Maybe Jason should be allowed to punch back? :o

Think of the children, Stephen..

I'm fine with that.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

This technically counts as a tiara right?

(bonus it would help with all the punching)

Oh, it won't help.

Paizo Employee Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
My vote is that Stephen would be the prettiest of all the princesses.

I am a pretty [censored] princess! Anyone who says differently will get a spiked gauntlet to the face.

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I found the tiara I want.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Tiara day? Okay, I'm game. I think I would rock a tiara. Hard. :)

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

Hey Stephen: if we hit the $5,000 mark, will you make it a spiked gauntlet, and maybe at $7,500 you could perform the punch while also wielding a polearm?

;)

Ooooh. I like that idea. Hey, Jason, can we do this? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
(As an aside.. people seem really excited about seeing me get punched.. not sure how to feel about that...)

I'm not sure how you should feel either...I feel great about it. :)

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I just call you folks, "awesome." Sure, it is not very evocative, but It fits. :)

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Win or lose I'll punch Jason anyway...you just don't get to see it. ;)

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Just think of Jason as an adorable piñata. The harder we hit him, the more candy will fall out! FOR THE CHILDREN.

Jason's made out of candy, right?

Paizo Employee Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.

If we raise enough money* for the charity, and we win, I promise to punch Jason in the face with the gauntlet, record the deed, and post it on YouTube.

*It's only fair that Jason gets to decide the amount, since he is the one getting punched.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
the Haunted Jester wrote:
I have a feeling that this book will be pushed back until December given that the Strategy Guide is set to be released in the same month. That book has been pushed back a couple of times and I don't see it being delayed any longer than it already has been.

Over my dead body. ;)

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ralanr wrote:
Guy St-Amant wrote:
Ralanr wrote:
If we were going to have a new evil iconic, I think it'd be the slayer, though it seems really obvious to me (he seems to have some evil in his eyes. I could be very wrong though). I'd be surprised if someone else became an evil iconic instead.

The Magus is the only confirmed Evil Iconic since there isn't an AntiPaladin Iconic.

Evil Iconics could have some uses, for Pathfinder Players Companion: Champions of Corruption... and for a theoretical Evil AP.

Um...

/image/content/PathfinderRPG/PZO1115-AntiPaladin.jpg

Then who the hell is this guy? I mean I know he doesn't have a name, but still.

Me. ;)

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:
So if you don't have Combat Reflexes and have already taken your attack of opportunity for the round, do you still provide flanking for your ally on the other side of the enemy?

Off topic, but yes, as long as you are still threatening your opponent. You can threaten any opponent where you can make an attack, even if it is not your turn, that area is defined by the weapon your are wielding and some other mitigating factors.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Are wrote:

James, can you say anything about roughly how many (if any) of the new feats and other options will be available to monsters in general, rather than be restricted to the featured races?

I'm not James, but I can take this one.

It is going to be a good mix of both. When a feat (or other rules item) has an intrinsic link to a race, it will be restricted to that race, but if it doesn't we open up for general use.

For example, you may have a feat that expands a race's racial trait. I did a few of these for the section that I wrote, and the race (or at least the racial trait) is in the prerequisites, but there were be plenty of options that expand choices in the game in general (even PC options), even though the mechanics are designed around the the tone of a specific race.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kevin bienhoff wrote:
Will Cave Chambers and Cave Tunnels be able to fit to fit together in the long run? Maybe to even some of the other flip-mats? Dungeons, Dragons Lair? Make up your own Darklands encounters linking them all together!

Yes. Cave Chambers and Cave Tunnels are made to fit with each other (and to link up to some of the dungeon sets already printed). They also link to at least two upcoming Flip-Mats (Hill Country and Tech Dungeon) and will likely link up to many more in the future.

I like having my toys play well together. :)

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Why do some folks act like Sean killed their pet?

I don't get it.

He could not have done possibly anything personal enough to random people on the internet to warrant the d-baggery that is on display sometimes.

Ok here is what I know he did, but it's not a comprehensive list. Proof is on these boards, just hard to find. There are screenshots too.

-Killed the Monk class
-Treated a lot of play testers badly in the play test
-Made a lot of very bad feats and class abilities
-Played a huge part in why Crossbows are so bad
-Helped nerf martial characters a lot

If you like Monks then yes, SKR did in fact kick your puppy.

This is not quite accurate. Sean was the mouth of the message boards for a long time, so it was him out defending some decisions that were made by the Design Team.

Sean was (and will be) responsible for putting some great stuff in the game and was a valuable and is very missed member of the Design Team.

He will be a hard fellow to replace. I also think folks are going to be very happy with the final classes he lead for the Advance Class Guide. Sean and I had many discussions about those classes in playtest and final form, and a lot of what we talked about was spurred on my the great discussions and comments made on these boards.

I'll tell you a little secret. Back when I was in college, Sean and I used to go rounds frequently on the old TSR Online AOL boards. I will admit that online he can be...well...challenging at times. His dedication, passion, and quirky sense of humor sometimes doest translate well on forums. After working with him for years I can also tell you he is one of the nicest most talented guys in the industry. And he cares a lot about his work and the fans.

I miss that bald bastard. :)

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bizbag wrote:
Wouldn't it be simple just to say that a lance gets double damage on the first attack, but not any subsequent ones? You get the benefit you invested in (extra attacks from pounce, extra lance damage) without going all force-multiplier on the game.

The lance FAQ already states that, and the new FAQ on mounted charge now says that too. That is one of the clarifications that was already out there that we are implicitly putting in the paragraph describing a mounted charge, or as the cavalier class features refers to it "charging while mounted."

The main problem when it came to mounted charge is that while the mounted combat section of the Core Rulebook stated that the mount charged, and that line was used to justify the argument that the barbarian couldn't pounce on a mounted charge, there were too many abilities (the lance, cavalier abilities, archetype abilities) that hinged on a mounted charge or when you charge while mounted. There was a disconnect between the FAQ and those rules.

In the end we do realize that this allows a mounted barbarian with the Greater Beast Totem rage power to use pounce at the end of a charge, but if she is using a lance, has Spirited Charge, or is using both the multiplier is only applied to the first attack if that attack hits.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:


No, and this is one of the points I want to make. Messageboard posts on a subjects made by the design and development team are not "official rulings" on the games. Clarifications in FAQ posts and errata are official rulings.

Stephen,

There is a FAQ on the ragelancepounce issue. This specifically states that Pounce works when you are the one charging, not when the mount is charging, making this new ruling a change in the existing rules.

And upon further reflection on this matter, the first part of that FAQ is in error, but the second part is purely valid.

We will clarify this in the near future.

Paizo Employee Designer

12 people marked this as a favorite.
thebigragu wrote:
Yes, this disregards official rulings SKR already made. What a mess.

No, and this is one of the points I want to make. Messageboard posts on a subjects made by the design and development team are not "official rulings" on the games. Clarifications in FAQ posts and errata are official rulings.

This serves a couple of purposes.

First, it allows the design and development team to interact with fans, and have rules discussions with fans, in an exploratory, argumentative (and I mean that in a construct sense) and even sometimes a playful manner without the fear of taking such comments out of context. This is good for everyone.

Second, it does not force anyone playing the game to participate in or wade through message board threads (some of which can be a thousand or more posts long) in order to find official rulings. Many of us enjoy doing such things, but not everyone, and it should not be seen as a requirement for playing Pathfinder.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ziegander wrote:


So to clarify further: If you want to charge while you are mounted both you and your mount must spend your full-round actions to do so?

Correct.

Ziegander wrote:


Can you charge as a standard action while mounted? If yes, then do both of you have to be denied the ability to take a move action or can you do it if just your mount is unable to take a move action? If you can standard-action charge while only your mount is unable to take a move action, could you still take a move action, such as dismounting at the end of the charge?

Only if both you and your mount can only take standard actions (since you are both are charging and must conform to the charge rules when you make a mounted charge).

Ziegander wrote:


When riding a mount, can you command the mount to charge while you yourself do not charge? If not, well, why not? If yes, do you lose your actions anyway, or can you spend them on doing something else? For example, if I'm riding a war-trained mount, can I not cast a spell on my mount (standard action) and then command the mount to charge after being buffed (or simultaneously while I buff it as the case of turn order may be)?

Of course. The mount is charging, but it is not a mounted charge. In order for you to make a mounted charge (and get things like the bonus for using a lance or the effects of Spirited charge, you must make a mounted charge). The clarification will deal for what is a mounted charge and the effects are.

Paizo Employee Designer

15 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, folks, after some long and illuminating talks about this issue, I have answers.

First, I learned that the Core Rulebook I use at home is woefully out of date, so I got myself a shiny new home copy to help answer after-hours rules questions. The Spring Attack issue I noted last night has, of course, been fixed in later printings of the book. I know you are all excited. ;)

Second, my suspicions and knowledge of the rules were correct. Vital Strike can only be used when you make an attack action. It cannot be used with any other actions (including those actions that happen to be standard actions) that allow you to make an attack roll as part of them (even if it is a single attack roll). It can’t be used as part of Spring Attack, as part of a charge (even if it is the standard action charge you can take if you are limited to only taking standard actions), Ride-By Attack, or even as part of the fleet charge champion strike in Mythic Adventures.

In short, if you want to use Vital Strike, you must take the attack action as describe on page 182 of the Core Rulebook. Attack rolls as part of another action and ability's will not do, unless there is an some exception involving Vital Strike written in that action and ability’s rules.

That, of course, brings us to the question of whether or not you are considered charging when making a mounted charge. After much discussion, some gnashing of teeth, and combing through the various rules bits involving mounted combat, we have decided to clarify that section of the Core Rulebook to state that when you charge on horseback you do so as a full-round action, and both you and your mount are considered charging.

There will be an official FAQ of that change to that clarification of mounted charge in the near future posted by the Design Team.

Also, keep in mind that while the design and development team does enjoy to interact with all of you, and even give our feedback to rules issues, off-the hip (and after hours) rules discussion by the staff should not be taken as an FAQ or errata for the game as a whole. If you are using random posts to justify your build in Pathfinder Society or as a player in other games…you really should cut that out. Just a bit of friendly advice from this designer.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
I don't think Stephen realized the kerfuffle when he made his initial comment. This topic gets the forums stirred up easily.

I know kerfuffles when I see them--I don't shy away from them. My original post stands. You can make a Vital Strike when you use the attack action (standard action). The rest is just a clarification of what are attack actions and what are not.

Forums stir. That's what they do. It is my job (or one of my jobs) to give folks answers, tempest in the proverbial teapot or not.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, and The Walking Dead is over, and the lady is on her computer doing work...so I figured I could do the same. What is good good for the goose is good for the gander, or so I'm told. ;)

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Archaeik wrote:


Mounted Skirmisher (Combat) wrote:


You are adept at attacking from upon a swift moving steed.

Prerequisites: Ride rank 14, Mounted Combat, Trick Riding.

Benefit: If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action.

Normal: If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack action.

/popcorn

That is fairly weak sauce if it is being used to justify the use of Vital Strike at the end of a charge. It still takes a move action to move the horse (or a full-round action if you fail the check) so it seems to be talking about that and maybe not considering the charge because, well, the rules are vague and maybe not well understood...the question really is whether charging with a horse is a charge action on your part or it is some kind of strange exception (as Sean argued in the post quoted above).

My guess is yes when you charge on horseback, you are making a charge action, but I will agree the mounted combat section is really unclear on that and to clarify it is worth an FAQ. Hence I will consult with the rest of the design team (read: Jason) and get the real answers. With that answer I can also answer a few of the other questions floating around. The real issues is a bunch of actions that use an attack (as I read an attack roll) for something other than the attack action, and the full-attack action, and where those instances sit in the action economy and how they interact with one another.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:

Great to felling smash plus vital strike, I thought It woudl be ruled the other way :)

I recommend stephen to not post about mount charge + vital strike, not until he have everything crystal clear, otherwise it could be a forum stampede XD

Oh, I agree. I would rather get a right answer that clears up all these nagging questions. I try not to post off the cuff and have to back track.

"Yes, darling. Sorry. I'll be right there."

Off to watch some Walking Dead with the lady. Talk to you tomorrow, everyone.

1 to 50 of 234 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.