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

Tels's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 6,209 posts (6,244 including aliases). No reviews. 5 lists. No wishlists. 9 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Wyntr wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:

ifyou're referring to slashing grace:** spoiler omitted **

needlessly restrictive/specific. only seems worth really considering for the sawtooth saber.

note that it doesnt work with light weapons, giving the impression that in paizo's mind it makes more sense to be able to dex-to-damage a dwarven waraxe than a dagger (and it shoots the 'iconic' rogue in the foot yet again because of it).

Why doesnt it work with Light weapons? Where does it say that?

The part where it says it only works with one-handed weapons (which are different from light weapons as Jiggy said):

S

Are we sure that this meant the CATEGORY "one handed" and not "wielding your chosen weapon one-handed"?

Anyway- Isnt a Scimitar a one handed slashing weapon?

Fun fact, the majority of weapons that are in the one handed category and also deal slashing damage are not compatible with Weapon Finesse. So if you took Slashing Grace with a Scimitar, you would get strength to attack rolls and dexterity to damage.

The only compatible weapons are the Aldori Dueling Sword and the Whip if I recall correctly.

As an aside, if you are a Swashbuckler or a Daring Champion Cavalier, you have less issue as Slashing Grace allows you to treat the weapon as if it were a one-handed piercing weapon for class features, which then triggers the Swashbucklers Finesse class feature of the above two classes. That means Slashing Grace only *truly* works if you have at least one level in Swashbuckler or Daring Champion Cavalier, anyone else is paying for a feat that only partially works, and clunkily at that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Blazej wrote:
The augmentable power point system as laid out in the Expanded Psionics Handbook is not the one and true king of all spell casting systems. It is a very good casting system. With the exception of a few odds and ends, I really do enjoy it. But what I saw described for #2 seems to be a different casting system.

Well that's why I said most of what he said seemed like either fluff or campaign specific stuff. It's as acceptable to research new/different powers in psionics as it is in core magic (the chapter on powers explains that if your GM will allow you to research powers, existing or creating new ones, follow these rules). How you research those is more or less up to you, and it might include mentorship or something, as appropriate to the group.

Now if making some checks and learning a thing from someone else is a mechanical thing that he is wanting, then that could be an issue, but most all of the fluff was definitely there. Right down to all encompassing magic system with different traditions.

I must politely disagree that core casting makes it so using more powerful spells requires you to rest sooner. In fact, the amount of magical energy you have is pretty irrelevant as Vancian-style casting functions more like a revolver rather than a battery. You either have bullets in the chamber or you don't. You can shoot all your low-charge bulets and still have A-Bombs in the silo, or throw off all your A-Bombs and still have your .22 in reserve. This is why vancian casting is so awkward. It works nothing like the vast majority of people expect magic to work like (even a lot of D&D novels gloss over vancian-style casting).

I also pointed out that due to the nature of what was described, it could also be met by other magic systems, such as Star Wars d20's magic system -- which looks nothing like 3.5/PF psionics by the way -- which can represent pretty much everything mentioned, except, maybe the mentoring thing.

But the mentoring thing sounds either like RPing fluff, or something...

Forcing people to only learn magic from mentors also makes for awkward immersion. Like in Skyrim, you can only learn spells from reading spell books which destroys the book... so who gave the first casters spell books?

It also basically forces you into the trope of "ancient civilizations were more magically powerful and their magic has been lost"... which kind of sums up the majority of campaign settings out there, be it in games, books, or even anime. In this way, the ancient civilizations discovered magic and can just *learn* it (previous Elder Scrolls games), while the current generation has lost this ability and needs to be taught it and if all the casters were to die, so too would the magic (Skyrim).


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I wasn't disappointed with the announcement, because I already knew Paizo wasn't going to do power points and that psychic magic was going to be vancian. That's been abundantly clear from following the Ask James Jacobs thread. Normally, he's doesn't talk about potential future projects, but he's been pretty adamant that psychic magic, when it was done, would be vancian and wouldn't involve power points.

Regardless, I'm super excited about the kineticist. It sounds kind of like I'd be able to play an Avatar style bender with it, or even mimic several Force abilities. If only Paizo had released some sort of energy blade in the Technology Guide... Jedi Bender!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

On the subject of the wish thing, there's a Paizo-published adventure module that has that exact thing. There's an NPC, her dragon buddy, and her bound efreeti. The NPC's ability scores are mysteriously 3 points higher in every score than a normal NPC of her level, and her genie is mildly irritated by having to grant wishes to appease her spoiled dragon-friend.

If you encounter an efreeti "in the wild" or something, sure, I'm all for the efreeti having his laughs. However, when you bind a creature it is compelled to obey your demands if you succeeded at your opposed Charisma check or it agreed willingly, which means that if one of your demands is "grant me wishes and don't **** 'em up," then you're going to get wishes that aren't ****ed up.

It's quite telling that during the Pathfinder alpha/beta playtest that efreeti binding for wishes actually came up, and the devs said that they would look into it and possibly change the HD of the efreeti or something to prevent it; but instead we have bind-able efreeti and a very nerfed wish spell.

The new wish is in fact so nerfed by comparison to the old one, that it's almost like they expected you to find ways to cast it without actually casting it.

That module being Seven Swords of Sin for those that are curious.

Legacy of Fire:
Also this seems to be a major aspect of the backstory for the this AP. That is, a wizard binds an efreet to grant him wishes and, in return, the caster will make wishes that will benefit the efreet.

[Edit] Also, for those who care about the passage that refers to the genie granting wishes.

Seven Swords of Sin:
Upon arriving in this room, the PCs confront two identical red dragons basking in the pool’s heat. Only one of them is real. Revorax, a very young red dragon who Tirana has raised from ha tching, is intensely loyal (most of the time) to his adopted mother. In order to keep him safe and entertained, Tirana has entrusted him with Surnom, her captive efreet, who spends much of his time lurking below the surface of the lava pool. Surnom has a rather low opinion of Revorax but must grant the dragon’s wishes. The other dragon in the room is a permanent duplicate image of Revorax created by Surnom to confuse intruders and appeal to Revorax’s vanity.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Another case of "I can't argue against it, so it's not allowed in this discussion!"

Seriously, any time someone makes brings up undeniable proof of magic being the more powerful system, you claim it's not valid because it's cheese, or an exploit, or an exception to the rule.

It seems like the only points which are valid, are your opinions. Any concrete facts, or opinions of others, are invalid because they aren't stated by you.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Tels wrote:
The Genie wrote:
I would love to see official psionic or psychic magic in Pathfinder. I do so love that gut reaction of someone when you say you are bringing a psychic to the party and they immediately start complaining how broken psionics are. And there sits the Wizard not two seats from him who has the potential to summon a celestial quasi-god level being to destroy anything he desires 4 times a day should he choose.

6 times a day if he opts to fill all of his slots, because, you know, he can just add s$#@ to his prepared spells between encounters if he needs to.

Or that Druid who is all "lol, psions..." *incense of whoopass* *dazing maximized flame strike* *wildshape* "RaWr!"

It's kind of funny, 'cause with my psion Agatha, I had actually considered making her a druid from the start but didn't want to wait until 5th level to start shapeshifting so I opted for psion (egoist/shaper) instead for shapeshifting + summoning and it was the best decision ever.

Not for power though. She'd be much scarier as a druid I think. I spend such a huge amount of effort keeping her squishy butt unkillable that it leaves little room for "roflstomping". Druids don't have that problem, since even if you don't plan to actually make use of wildshape for offensive purposes, crafting some +5 wild full plate and +5 wild tower shield and prancing about in that junk all day long is just par for the course. No check penalties, no drawbacks, just obscene AC that stacks with your massive +6 (+11 after enhancement) natural armor bonus.

While you're pooping dazing lighting bolts, and throwing maximized firestorms around, all the while enjoying an extra +1 HP / level, a strong fortitude, an animal companion (or domain powers), and having some nice bonus features like immunity to poison. ^_^

Fun fact, I saved your posts about "why blaster druids are awesome" into a google doc that I called Ashiel's Guide to the Blaster Druid. Though, now that I look at it, you referred to it as Incense of Asswhupping, not whoopass :P

I sorry, Senpai, I failed your lessons! :'(

:D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
What would a "good DM" do? I can think of quite a few counters to scry & fry tactics, but most generally require that the big bad also be a big bad wizard (preferably a hermit too); unless I'm just word of godding it, and at that point I'm just admitting there's a problem.

I would imagine that even non-caster BBEGs are going to be paranoid enough when they hit a certain level to start lining the walls with lead and paying casters to ward the hell out of their lairs.

I also have a really entertaining Bravery feat I wrote for a Fighter BBEG that allows him to attack a square a caster has just teleported out of and leap through the weakened fabric of reality to chase down fleeing casters. Which is obviously not core or anything, but still fun and an example of the kind of stuff I wish we'd get for high level martials.

Firstly, that feat sounds baller. :P

The lead sheeting thing is actually one of the reasons I mentioned being a hermit. You basically have to stay bunkered down in your box-house that is going to give you brain-damaged babies 'cause of the lead paint, so that those scary casters out to get you don't come hurt you. Ever considered the amount of lead that you'd need to coat your average dungeon with? Yeesh.

If you decide being a hermit sitting in your tin-foil house isn't for you, then you need something like nondetection, but a magic item of nondetection that will actually matter to a serious caster is kind of a joke, in that it's so prohibitively expensive as to be unavailable to pretty much everyone. A CL 20th 24/7 item of non-detection costs a whopping 120,000 gp. That's do-able for very high-level PCs, but NPCs? They don't even have 120,000 gp until they're CR 19, let-alone enough to get it and buy gear with too. >_>

Though I suppose a 1/day nondetection item that had a 24th caster level might be somewhat feasible at 25,920 gp. Yeah that'd probably be for the best really, since it'd harder to detect you (DC...

In Pathfinder, my preference for caster strongholds is the Create Demiplane spells with awesome melee minions. See, you use Lesser Demiplane with permanency for your basic structure. Then you use castings of Create Demiplane and Greater Demiplane to add stuff, because when you use any of the Create Demiplane to alter a plane, the duration becomes instantaneous (which means permanent). So you first use Greater Demiplane to add in a permanent gate (so you can get out), then you give the demiplane the 'dead magic' trait (which functions like antimagic field. Drop in some beasties who don't need magic of any sort to kill PCs and then watch them cry as they enter the demiplane for the final showdown, only to find that all of their thousands of GP of magical items... stop working. Dem martials get eated right up and spitted out.

Bonus points if you hand a sign over the Gate that says "Exit" on it so the PCs know where to flee too with their tails between their legs.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

To be fair, the Psion can simply manifest 9th level powers 24 times where as the Wizard cannot. For example, an Egoist could manifest Greater Metamorphosis 24 times in a day if he so chose to do so. Where as the Wizard could cast it only 5 times (if specialized) in a day, or the Sorcerer 6 times.

Fun fact though, the Arcane caster gets 200 minutes per casting of Shapechange, while the Egoist gets up to only 17 minutes per manifestation of Greater Metamorphosis (if he manifests it at ML 20th, he can't manifest 24 9th level powers each day).

So, lets do some math! 17 minutes per manifestation times 24 manifestations each day equals 408 minutes of Greater Metamorphosis each day! Odd, a Wizard needs only 2 castings of Shapechange to achieve nearly the exact same duration. So that Egoist has blown all of his power points for the equivalent of 2 Wizard spells. The Wizard still has 3 more 9th level spells and all of hist 1st - 8th level spells left.

Man, them psionics is sure OP. Magics is teh sux0rz!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

My God... burning hands is actually a 3rd level spell! Wow, magic OP!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
The Genie wrote:
I would love to see official psionic or psychic magic in Pathfinder. I do so love that gut reaction of someone when you say you are bringing a psychic to the party and they immediately start complaining how broken psionics are. And there sits the Wizard not two seats from him who has the potential to summon a celestial quasi-god level being to destroy anything he desires 4 times a day should he choose.

6 times a day if he opts to fill all of his slots, because, you know, he can just add s~$+ to his prepared spells between encounters if he needs to.

Or that Druid who is all "lol, psions..." *incense of whoopass* *dazing maximized flame strike* *wildshape* "RaWr!"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Funny thing is, I don't have a huge problem with simulacrum. Even played strait it's not that bad unless you're really going nuts with it. I even wrote up a revision for it that would help more GMs be comfortable, but simulacrum is a thing. Even used in it's least-interpretive manner (making some half-level clones of yourself and/or party members) it's still one of the most powerful spells (you can make wizards, seriously).

Pretty much this. I've never run a game or played in one where simulacrum was banned. Granted I've only been in two games that got high enough level to matter, but you (Nathanael) make it sound like if you don't ban the spell from the get-go you're "unreasonable".

Am I unreasonable then? Are the other GMs at my table? Is that going to be the next recourse, calling anyone unreasonable who doesn't subscribe to your notions of game balance?

More importantly, what other spells should we go ahead and assume all "reasonable" GMs ban from the starting line? Let's go ahead and make that list, so we know exactly where you're wanting to consider "balance" as starting from. Because clearly we have to remove all the stuff "reasonable" GMs would remove before we can "properly" compare the power level between arcane magic and psionics.

If you have to make a list of spells that 'all reasonable GMs ban' from the get-go, but get to include all of the psionic powers... well, then he just lost the argument from the get-go.

We're going to talk about how psionics is OP compared to magic, but you can't bring up and of X spells because they are b!&%#@& crazy OP and destroy the game. Also, I don't have a counter to them so...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No one brings up the shenanigans that is Explosive Runes yet?

Sure, a Balor has SR, but only an SR of 28, so CL 20 Explosive Runes gets a roll of 1d20+20, it's not a guaranteed odds, sure, but it only needs a roll of 8. See, funny thing about Psionics, I don't recall if they have a lot of 'permanent' duration powers, and the ones that are? They aren't like Explosive Runes. The Wizard or Sorcerer could, theoretically, have nearly any number of Explosive Runes prepared on an object, and with only need an 8 or higher, most of those Runes are going to get through the SR.

Also, if you use a Wand of Dispel Magic, the CL check to dispel the runes is 1d20+5 vs a DC of 31, a.k.a. zero chance of succeeding in the dispel and 100% chance of causing all of the runes to explode because 3.5 Dispel includes an AoE option. I don't recall if you can cast at a lower level in 3.5, but if you can, then you could also use Spectral Hand and Erase to do the same job.

But... you know, those are all low level spells and are completely useless in a combat at high levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jemstone wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Cowboy Bebop has the moon split in two...

That's really more of a "big chunk taken out of it."

If you want more of a Moon Split In Two thing, you have to go for Thundarr The Barbarian.

Which, come to think of it, the Technology Guide handily enables... ;)

Does not. There is no energy blade in the Tech Guide.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can I send a platter full of brownies with a single Liz Courts brownie hidden on the platter? Then you get to play the game, "Guess Which One Doesn't Suck!" Sounds fun eh?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Mars Roma wrote:

As long as it goes the way of Mythic powers, I.E., Never sees PFS Play and is made a Novelty boon in some random scenario for a 1 to 3 time use only, Then cross off. I don't care.

People are going to assume its broken. which is why some people will be drawn to it, that and flavor. Paizo will likely handle it well but id rather they not risk exposure to the hate. from both lovers of the old Psionics and from people who misunderstood how powerful it really was.

Yeah... that's not going to happen. Also, 3.5 and Pathfinder Psionics were/are well balanced. The issue comes from people not following the rules. But that's an issue regardless of whether or not you're using Psionics.

One of the big issues was the manifester level cap on PP. It's akin to someone saying, "Oh, I'm 5th level but I can cast a 10th level Fireball".

Seriously, compare all of the similar powers/spells between the two systems and you'll find Spells are more powerful probably 9/10 times. In addition, when you compare what Psionics can do that Spells can't vs what Spells can do but Psionics can't... again, Spells are more powerful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I blame Cosmo for this Ocarina of Time 'Can-Can Remix' video.

http://www.youtuberepeat.com

Cosmo?

CTRL+V [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHxR92jezck]

What are you doing?

Loading...

Cosmo!

>Play<

STAHP!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mythic JMD031 wrote:
That sounds like addict logic.

That's a good analogy. If you can keep the brownie high going, life is fine... but if you lose it, that Cosmo Crash is a particularly mean one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ulgulanoth wrote:
no it doesn't, you just don't see the Cosmo until it is too late

Think of it more as a suppressed Cosmo existence, but one with retroactive consequences. As long as you keep eating the brownies, you ward of Cosmo... but if you ever miss a day, then Cosmo gets to inflict chaos on your life again. Plus, he gets to include all of the chaos that would have affected you without the brownies.

So be sure to secure those supply lines, because the longer you go with the brownies, the worse the backlash is for you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sara Marie wrote:
Feros wrote:
Sara Marie wrote:
robot chris: I would dive into tires on fire over a course of mud for a [Liz Courts] brownie.
Leaving one to wonder what exactly Liz puts in her brownies...
Butter. And chocolate.

Pro-tip, a Sara Marie brownie a day, keeps the Cosmo away.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Giorgo wrote:
1- Has the reception to this book been well received and a financial success?

To my understanding, Paizo does not release financial information likes this.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

Look. There is a simple way to keep the game challenging.

Cheat.

It's not "cheating." It's a "dynamically adjusting encounter challenge."

-Skeld

C.H.E.A.T.

Carefully
Heighten
Encounter's
Awesome
Threshold


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dwarf Favored Class Bonus: Oracle: Reduce the penalty for not being proficient with one weapon by 1. When the nonproficiency penalty for a weapon becomes 0 because of this ability, the oracle is treated as having the appropriate Martial or Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat with that weapon.

Pretty sure he posted an alternative Dwarf build on the first page. As it stands, the reasoning for proficiency is that even the proficiency feats (Simple, Martial, Exotic Weapon Proficiency) don't actually grant proficiency, they just remove the non-proficiency penalty. Logically, this means if you don't take the non-proficiency penalty, you are considered proficient.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Piccolo, something you need to understand is that, just how low-optimized the Paizo writers create APs for.

People working for Paizo (can't recall the name, so I won't name them), have stated that Paizo writes APs and modules with the assumption that the players have either 6 months of game experience, or have completed 1 AP before, and never played any other TTRPG before

So you're talking like, fighter who takes Combat Expertise, Power Attack, Toughness, Dodge, Mobility Spring Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Run, etc.

Not RAGELANCEPOUNCE Barbarian.

Think about any trap feats that may exist in the core rule book. Those are likely being taken by these players. Look at Valeros, TWF with non-high crit weapons and weapons of different types. Now imagine, if he were, instead, a Rogue using a Longsword and Shortsword. The horror right? That's the kind of person Paizo writes the APs for because it's easier to scale up, than scale down.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A poster on Facebook mentioned rewriting Aqua's Barbie Girl to instead be Barbarian Girl...

I came up with the following:
"I'm a raging girl, in a violent world.
Constant fighting, endless dieing!
Looting monster's lairs, with bodies everywhere,
Confrontation, it's bloody altercation!
Come on Barby, join my party!

Ooh! Argh, Ugh, RAWR!"

I blame Cosmo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Renewal confirmed, premieres online October 4th. Which is, like, really soon.

October 3rd, actually.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rorrix wrote:
So, I've had both a GM and a Venture Officer make up a rule in order to prevent me from using this feat as it is written. They claim that because Improved Unarmed Strike is a prerequisite for the feat, it can only be used with an unarmed strike. I brought up Perfect Strike as an example of a feat that requires Improved Unarmed Strike but can't be used with unarmed strikes, but they wouldn't accept that as an example because it specifically calls out what weapons can be used with it. I then used Dervish Dance as a different outside example, asking if I had to use Weapon Finesse in order to use Dervish Dance (which is impossible), at which point they told me that I could either play by their rules or not play at all. I asked them to produce this rule for me, and they refused to (read: couldn't). I eventually conceded for the sake of the table, but how should I approach cases like this in the future? What am I supposed to do when GMs and Venture Officers make up nonexistant rules?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the job of the Venture Captain to mediate rules issues in his area in absence of an official ruling from the Paizo Design Team or the PFS Team?

If so, then the ruling of the Venture Captain stands until a higher source overrides him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's the Paizo hazing process like?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Dubs may not equal ruined in every case but often they get horrible voice actors and lose all the emotional content of the acting. Subs are reliably much better.

That I can understand, but too many of the sub-purists come across as treating dubbing as badwrongfun that should not be available to anyone. To me they come across as Firefly's browncoats or the all-too-common stereotype of the country music fan (with the attitude of anything other than country is crappy noise pollution) which actually turns me off of the very thing they are so insistent upon promoting.

My best friend is dyslexic and really can't watch subtitled stuff effectively, he can watch either the dialogue or the animation, but not both. My wife has a serious crosseye, and has lesser (but similar) problems herself. I tend to zone out when reading so I will always find the dub preferable unless the voice acting is so terrible it comes across as completely flat (unless the character is supposed to be that way of course). That being in addition to the two people I watch anime with being unable to really gain anything from subtitled stuff.

Grey Lensmen used browncoat insult!

Freehold DM wrote:

0.0

Freehold went to pieces

It's super effective!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I usually watch dubbed stuff because I have too many distractions around my home to be reading subtitles all the time.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
Tels wrote:

Not sure why you seem hell bent on declaring Bastard Swords and Katana as more agile weapons weapons than dagger, or rapier. But fine. You win, Slashing Grace is the single greatest feat in all of existence and I should be bowing down and worshipping Paizo's glory for daring to give me a feat of such sheer and absolute magnificence.

All Hail Paizo! All Hail the PDF! Glory be unto the Design Team! We are not worthy to be in their presence!

[/pointless snark]

[Edit] Can anyone point me to that add on for Firefox that allows me to hide all of a persons Posts? Cause that's where I'm at right now.

And that post does not reek of arrogance at all...

Let me tell you one thing, as a Person who knows how to use a Katana, I can honestly say that the blade does require MUCH more skill and dexterity to use than any amount of strength.

The thing you are not catching is that the Bastard Sword and the longsword were designed to CHOP. They are designed to hack through things through sheer might. The Katana, with it's curved blade and dual alloy design, is meant to slice through things. When you wield a Katana, your strength actually means very little in the grand scheme of things. The true power of the Katana comes of the sharpness of the blade and the more slicing manner in which you slash wiht the weapon (you kind of flick if you will like you would if you were long fishing. That is the best way I can describe it.). The power in your cut tends to actually come from your two top fingers on your left hand and your pinky on the right (assuming standard grip).

In fact, many of the best Katana wielders in the world are actually not very big people.... The thing with the Katana comes more from perfection in form and speed of draw more than sheer might.

** spoiler omitted **...

Arrogance? Why? Because I'm tired of the guy being bound and determined to treat me as some sort of mustache twirling villain out to destroy or ruin Paizo?

Do you see him attacking anyone else in this thread who also agrees the Slashing Grace feat is not a good one?

Go back and read his posts; a search by date in this thread tells me that this is his first post.

He quotes a post I made rebutting someones comment that, as customers, we just need to be happy with what we are given. I refuse to be a voiceless consumer, taking only what I'm given with no input on future decisions. His response to my post is that, essentially, I don't actually know what I want an that Paizo actually does know what I want so I need to accept what Paizo gives me because they are smarter and wiser than I ever could be.

How about this one? Wherein he demands that I produce undeniable proof that the Advanced Class Guide is full of errors. I even mentioned in the post that he is response to, that if he had actually been paying attention to the response to the ACG, that he would already know this. There's a whole thread dedicated to the errors in the book, including errors that make some options unplayable, like archetypes, or horrible spelling and grammar mistakes. Deadmanwalking has been going through the book chapter by chapter outlining every little error he's finding and it's staggering.

Or the one he made earlier here. Where he tells me that 1) Slashing Grace is a well designed and good feat, and 2) He tells me that my asking for a better designed feat bugs him.

Based off his previous response, being that Paizo is infinitely smarter and wiser than I am and that I don't actually know what it is that I want, it doesn't surprise me.

Or how about the fact that Slashing Grace absolutely failes on thematic levels when the most thematically appropriate weapons to be used with a dex to damage option, don't function with it. In his opinion, it is better for a bastard sword, or a battle axe, to have a dex to damage option, than it is for a dagger, or wakizashi.

I don't know where you get off calling me arrogant at all. I outlined all of the problems with this feat, and the overwhelming consensus of this thread and others, is that Slashing Grace is not a well designed feat and needs to be fixed.

If I had said I was a better game designer than Jason Bulmahn, or Sean K Reynolds, that would be arrogance. If I said I knew more about game design than Jayde does, that would be arrogance. But I didn't do that.

What I did, was get snarky because I am tired of the guy personally attacking me like I'm a villain out to hurt Paizo. I don't see him attacking anyone else who agrees with my initial post, or who else has posted information saying the same thing.

I also don't see him going off on other people who've said far more hostile things than I ever did in this very own thread. Like the people who've said things like "Martials can't have nice things" Or "Paizo only like Casters" or something to that vein.

Frankly, I just don't give a damn to see his comments anymore. I've been discussing this subject since the day the ACG came out, and have made multiple posts on nearly every page on this thread. I consider that a rarity as most OP abandon threads shortly after a few pages. So yes, I'm tired of people trying to attack me over this subject, especially when they're trying to paint me as some villain who doesn't even know what it is that I want out of the game and that I'm too stupid to know that Paizo is full of people infinitely smarter than I am.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Larazod Malloran wrote:
Tels wrote:
Lazarod Malloran wrote:

Hey Abrogail.

Start worrying.

has a bad tendency to not think too hard about the actual ramifications of the lyrics

it's hereditary

how do you think he wound up being named "Lazarod"

"he needs a role model" he said

"oh there's a tiefling hero in some old play I heard about" she said

Are your parents dyslexic?

Sonuva...

Apparently.

feexed! Thanks!

also, tempted to actually make this character dyslexic now

At least you caught it before you hit the 10-post limit.

I actually double-checked before posting to ensure it was fixable. If 'Larazod' had only a few posts left, I didn't want them to be used up asking what I meant about dyslexia. If he did, I would have simply messaged him about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Tels wrote:

I blame Cosmo for my sister giving birth to my first niece. Now I have several months of statements like the following:

"Look at this new dress I got her!" ... "Awwwwwww, it's sooo cuuuuuute!"

"Oh, look at her in her dress... Awww... she's so adorable!

"OMG she looks just like you!" "And not at all like a winkled lump of skin like all new-born babies do."

"Oh wow! She's so intelligent! Just like her Daddy/Mommy!"

I ****ing hate fawning over babies.

Parenthood seems to be a virus—transmitted by all of the numerous liquid and semi-solid substances that leak constantly from the child—that rewires your infected brain, similar to the propagation of Toxoplasma gondii or the Cordyceps fungi. As such, many parental thought processes and actions seem unusual, even alien, to the rest of us. Be warned, if you are asked to babysit your niece, you are also at risk for infection.

I blame Cosmo that I couldn't think of a decent punchline for a "fawning—>Bambi" joke, and so I instead wrote the above drivel.

I'm already infected, thanks to my two siblings with kids both being unreliable parents. My first nephew (11 years old) was raised by me as his pseudo-father for the first 6 years of his life before his mother moved to Washington and took him with him. My brother was out of the picture at the time, and the mother is an alcoholic; enough so that when she got out of the hospital, she left the kid with my family and I and didn't come back for 2 weeks while she was partying. I was 14 at the time and it was my responsibility to take care of my newborn nephew.

During this 6 year time period, he lived mostly with us while his mother ran around drinking, dealing/using drugs and partying.

While not as extreme as the first one, the same case has played out with each of my other 3 nephews that followed. Up until a few months ago, I was taking care of my sister's two sons due to issues with drugs and mental stability she had. She finally cleared up a bit and moved back in, but mostly because we found out she was 5 months pregnant, though she didn't discover this until she'd been staying with us for a week or so.

I've been the primary or third parent for each of my 4 nephews, and since my niece's father is a criminal and in jail for the foreseeable future, I expect I'll be a parent for her as well.

I blame Cosmo for my siblings not sorting out their life.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lazarod Malloran wrote:

Hey Abrogail.

Start worrying.

has a bad tendency to not think too hard about the actual ramifications of the lyrics

it's hereditary

how do you think he wound up being named "Lazarod"

"he needs a role model" he said

"oh there's a tiefling hero in some old play I heard about" she said

Are your parents dyslexic?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I blame Cosmo for my sister giving birth to my first niece. Now I have several months of statements like the following:

"Look at this new dress I got her!" ... "Awwwwwww, it's sooo cuuuuuute!"

"Oh, look at her in her dress... Awww... she's so adorable!

"OMG she looks just like you!" "And not at all like a winkled lump of skin like all new-born babies do."

"Oh wow! She's so intelligent! Just like her Daddy/Mommy!"

I ****ing hate fawning over babies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kajehase wrote:
Thursdays, what are they good for?

RWBYThursday.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
I would argue that "Fighters fights, thieves steal, cleric heals, etc." is pretty limited roleplaying.
Strangely, the ORIGINAL Thief class didnt steal. He opened locks, disarmed traps, snuck around, and was a light fighter. Mostly his niche was to open doors and bypass traps.

If anyone wants to debate this, I wouldn't. This guy literally wrote the book on the Thief class :P


4 people marked this as a favorite.

By they way, if your kids did meet up.... would this be a case of nobody's home at captain yesterdays? :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, it's not so much that Rogues and Fighters don't contribute, it's that they only contribute 1 thing.

Rogue's bring skills; if nothing else, Rogue's are great skill monkeys. But, so too do Bards, Rangers, Inquisitors and any Intelligence Caster. With the ACG, you also add Hunter, Investigator and Slayer to the list. Now, of that list, the Bard is going to out-skill the Rogue except at the lowest levels. The rest of the list, all has 6 skill points, but they also have something else they bring.

Rangers, for example, are also a fantastic front-line melee class. Great switch hitters, good damage, good AC, an in-class flanking partner, and a touch of spellcasting. Sure, they have 2 less skill points, but what they lose in skills, they more than make up for in other areas. The Ranger brings more to a party, than the the Rogue.

Inquisitors may not have as many skills as the Rogue, but they can make up for it with top notch damage, great spell casting, and some in-class abiliites to make some of their skills go farther. Again, they bring more to the table because they can fulfill the role of Skill Monkey, while also being an amazing damage dealer, and support caster.

The same trend is true for all of the other classes. The Hunter falls into the same line as the Inquisitor, the Slayer falls into the group of the Ranger. Intelligence casters, Arcanist, Magus, Witch, Wizard, all have spell casting, plus their skill points will be nearly equal to that of the Rogue. The Magus also has the addition of being a fantastic melee character.

Special note is payed to the Investigator. Not only does he have 6 skill points, but he's also a pseudo-intelligence caster. So he's guaranteed to have an Intelligence modifier, meaning he's probably going to equal or exceed the Rogue in number of skill points. On top of that, he can add Inspiration to any skill roll, and can take a number of abilities to add it for free. THEN he also has access to Extracts which can obviate the need for certain skills.

So the Investigator and the Bard are the top 2 kings of Skills, while also bringing a host of other abilities to the table. In addition, the Investigator more-than-likely probably outfights the Rogue. Why? Because he can self-enhance himself to be more accurate in battle. Every single bonus on attack rolls the Rogue can get, the Investigator can get too, but the Investigator also gets more bonuses that the Rogue can't get.

The same little things come up for the Fighter class. Every full-BAB martial class can deal the same damage or more than the Fighter can, but they also bring a host of abilities that can be used to benefit the entire party. The Fighter's abilities benefit only himself. Just to add further shame to the Fighter, every other full-BAB class also gets 4 or more skill points per level. [Edit] Forgot the Paladin. He has the same skill points, but his combat ability so far above the Fighter it's not even funny. In addition, all of his saves will be better, and he'll be able to take more damage than the Fighter ever will, and can self-enhance himself or have a powerful pet/mount to use.

There is simply no real need to take the Rogue. The Fighter has some decent archetypes that keeps him relevant, and his bonus feats are always good for a dip, but he really doesn't bring a lot to the table other than combat damage.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Yeah, Penny started 5th grade today...

Oh Good Lord... you have a girl the same age as one of my boys.

They must NEVER meet...

Or they could meet and take over the RPG word!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lincoln Hills wrote:

Ordinarily the punishment is deportation to Alaska. So I guess you'll be OK. ;)

(Remember: nine months of winter in a snowbound house means nine months of non-stop Pathfinder!)

Spoken like someone who without a real Winter's experience.

Snowboarding, skiing, snowmachineing, hunting, ice-fishing, ice carving, polar bear jump (strip naked and jump into a frozen lake with a hole cut in it), sledding, snowball fights, snowmen...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Tels wrote:

A low magic Pathfinder game can work pretty easily, it just forces an entirely different play style.

Instead of the fighters and characters having tons of magical items, they must get those buffs and bonuses from casters who have to change their playstyle from throwing around reality shaping spells, to also preparing a host of buffs and to augment the fighting characters.

Nice idea, but too many players, according to posts I have read here on these boards, would never hear of it. Team work is worthless they say, it's all about solo power. The fact that you have a Sorc in the party who is willing and able to cast T-port is meaningless everyone NEEDS to be able to teleport on his very ow nor the class is worthless.

;-)

I guess my group has BADWRONGFUN then :P

Do you think someone from The Internet, will be called in to properly punish my group? Or do you think Alaska is out-of-the-way enough that we'll be ignored?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zark wrote:
Tels wrote:

Blaphers, Jiggy, Deadmanwalking and Lord Wraithstrike are also all on Team Awesome!

Can I be on Team Evil? I've always been told Team Evil has cookies! :)

Sure you can! Now we both in it. Muahahaha

Here is a cookie

;-)

MWAHAHAhahaha HA! Yes, I do so enjoy my cookies. *strokes goatee*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkholme wrote:
Tels wrote:

A low magic Pathfinder game can work pretty easily, it just forces an entirely different play style.

Instead of the fighters and characters having tons of magical items, they must get those buffs and bonuses from casters who have to change their playstyle from throwing around reality shaping spells, to also preparing a host of buffs and to augment the fighting characters.

It turns the game into a much more guerrilla style game. You *need* to have a scout who identifies enemies ahead of time so the party can prepare for the enemies in following rooms. You also don't prepare short term buffs because that forces the party to move from room to room or waste them.

So something like Bull's Strength becomes a staple of the spell list, while something like Haste is only tossed on for really important fights.

In such a low-magic campaign, I would encourage casters to take a few feats like Craft Wand, to help supplement their more heavily used buffs, but most item crafting would be heavily restricted. Like Craft Wondrous would just not exist; or maybe it takes 1 week, or 1 month per 1,000 gp to craft an item instead of 1 day. This would mean it would take a really, really long time to craft something. It would also explain why crafting is almost entirely an NPC job as it would simply take too long for an adventurer to make items and adventure at the same time.

That's interesting, but it requires a party focused around that style of play, which is also dealt with if the party just doesn't build magic-item reliant characters. Why wouldn't the casters just continue to throw around reality altering spells and use pets, and expect the other players to build other characters that can pull their own weight? If there are no magic items, then spellcasters with pets are the obvious choice, followed by spellcasters without pets, followed by partial casters, and non-casters are just a no-go. I would expect such a game to consist primarily of different builds of Summoner, Druid, Cleric, Oracle, and Ranger, followed by Sorcerer and Witch.

You forget the Paladin and Barbarian. Both of those two classes can function fairly well in a lower-level magic campaign since both are capable of generating great bonuses even without magic. Especially since the Paladin can self-enchant his own weapon for a short time.

Even still, one does not need to be running full casters or casters with pets to survive in such games. As long as the team is smart and works together, they can overcome just about anything they come across.

A low-magic campaign should not be one played by less experienced players. They are inherently more dangerous and gritty and they require a higher mastery of the game to succeed in. I mean, strip a party of magic gear and even Dragons can become very dangerous opponents.

As for casters, they're spell selection would have to change somewhat. Remember, they don't have as much magical items either, so that also means less spell slots/spells per day for the full casters, so they have to choose their spells more carefully. Casting Create Pit can be done so to great effect, but it's a single use spell. Casting a Bull's Strength is going to last on the martial for multiple engagements.

It comes down to the casters having to swap over to a more 'enabler' style of play. Sure, they can drop a Wall of Stone, or Black Tentacles spell when the opportunity arises, but I'd expect more of the caster dropping a Herosim, Bull's Strength and Bear's Endurance on the martial. That's a +4 to his and 2 extra HP per level right there that will last a good long while.

Although, I would expect to see party line-ups more in the fashion of Arcane, Divine, Bard/Inquisitor/Investigator, Barbarian/Paladin (possibly Bloodrager too). The reason being is such a team set-up would have enough magical spells to make up for the lack of magical items. However, all of that takes time, so in an ambush the party is going to have a lot grittier fights.

Besides, the point is that low-magic campaigns can easily be done in Pathfinder, it just takes the right group to do one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A low magic Pathfinder game can work pretty easily, it just forces an entirely different play style.

Instead of the fighters and characters having tons of magical items, they must get those buffs and bonuses from casters who have to change their playstyle from throwing around reality shaping spells, to also preparing a host of buffs and to augment the fighting characters.

It turns the game into a much more guerrilla style game. You *need* to have a scout who identifies enemies ahead of time so the party can prepare for the enemies in following rooms. You also don't prepare short term buffs because that forces the party to move from room to room or waste them.

So something like Bull's Strength becomes a staple of the spell list, while something like Haste is only tossed on for really important fights.

In such a low-magic campaign, I would encourage casters to take a few feats like Craft Wand, to help supplement their more heavily used buffs, but most item crafting would be heavily restricted. Like Craft Wondrous would just not exist; or maybe it takes 1 week, or 1 month per 1,000 gp to craft an item instead of 1 day. This would mean it would take a really, really long time to craft something. It would also explain why crafting is almost entirely an NPC job as it would simply take too long for an adventurer to make items and adventure at the same time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, I'm confused, I don't know who to Blame because I'm positive even Cosmo wouldn't do this.

My best friend has been dating a girl for 3 years, but 18 months ago, she moved to Michigan. On the 19th, my friend moved from Alaska to Michigan and moved in with her. Today she broke up with him and had, apparently, been planning it for awhile.

It takes a special kind of cruelty to let a man spend thousands of dollars to move across country for you, fully aware you were going to break up with him shortly afterward.

I blame Cosmo for not knowing who to blame for this kind of cruelty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really, really enjoy Ravingdork's version of this build in Bumi; so much so that I built an NPC version for use in my games. Though, I've turned him into a Professional Miner. I'm really glad you posted this build, I think it makes for an amazingly fun and awesome character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheJayde wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Wow... Someone is actually claiming to be offended by another person criticizing a flawed product.

The levels of blind brand loyalty are reaching brainwash levels here...

The criticism isn't offensive. Its the line, "I REFUSE to make do with a faulty product. I can, and have, and will, return a product to a company that does not work like it is supposed to and demand either my money back, or a replacement." based on one simple issue like... not having Dex based damage feats.

It's like buying a car and being upset that there are laws in place that suggest you can't run people over without consequence. The car is not designed for that purpose.

~~~~~~To Darksoul the Painbringer.

I haven't seen any numbers yet. I'm not through the entire conversation, but you would think somebody that has done the numbers would present them. If you have run the numbers, I would like to see the results. I do customer service, and though this is anecdotal at best, 99% of customers in my experience don't know the subject matter so thuroughly that they can argue with me. It is my job to know the subject that I serve. Just like its Pathfinders job to do so. You may well have run the numbers, but I havent been presented with them.

Adding damage to Dex in the format may cause issues for them later down the line. Yes, they should always be working on better things, and evolving thier company, but needs to be careful to make the right moves. This may not be the right move. I just have a little trust in them to operate thier game and understand thier job.

~~~~~~~To Tels.

I have the ACG game, and havent foudn too many errors with it so far. Havent played it much or looked into it on the forums. Though you're making a point without even one example. You should be able to bring facts to bear. You dont have to bring them all, but something is better than nothing.

And the second part of your statement is exactly what bothers me. Its the attitude... I'm right for...

I am not talking about returning a book since I don't even have a copy of it yet thanks to s@+*ty distribution to Alaska. [Edit] This is not a fault of Paizo, this is just a fact of life with living up here.

I should clarify, I am not referring to the Adventure Card Game, I am referring to the Advanced Class Guide.

However, I have returned defunct or faulty products to companies in the past, but I have never done so with Paizo. My point was, if you buy a product, and it doesn't work as advertised or is full of errors, you should try to return it for a refund or switch.

As an example, I purchased a video game from a local Fred Meyer, only for the game to be damaged out of the box, I returned it and they swapped it for a working copy. Or I've bought a school text book that happened to be missing 2 chapters of the book due to a printing error. I returned the book and got a better version.

I've purchased computer games full of glitches before. Do you know what the company does then? They release patches that fix the glitches.

I have been following several threads debating the errors and mistakes in the Advanced Class Guide, and there are many. From missing rules text, to awful spelling mistakes, to horribly murky rules, this book is, in my opinion, the lowest quality product Paizo has released in a long time. Definitely the lowest quality product in their hardback rules line.

The Core Rule Book, Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, Advanced Race Guide, Ultimate Equipment, Ultimate Campaign and Mythic Adventurers plus all of the Bestiaries have all had errors in them; but none of them have matched up to what I've seen being reported with the Advanced Class Guide.

You have rules elements that don't work (like the Ecclesitheurge missing an entire class ability), or feats that are unclear or not working as intended (like Pummeling Style allowing use with any weapon), or issues like Slashing Grace, or a ring that lets you summon CR 7 creatures on the 4th level spell list.

There are lots of errors in the Advanced Class Guide, and I, as a customer, am going to criticize the book for it. There has also been an ongoing history of Gen Con release books being rushed and of lesser quality than other books because of time constraints. I see this as Paizo biting off more than they can chew with their current roster of employees.

This doesn't mean the employees themselves are lacking, the fact they can still be the top-runner in the industry with an ambitious productions schedule and release high quality products means they really are the best. But they are still human.

I still consider the Advanced Class Guide to be a high quality product, based off what I've seen and heard. The difference is that Paizo has set themselves a standard for their products, and so have their customers. The Advanced Class Guide falls below this standard by all reports.

Even people who consider themselves on the "Paizo Defence Force" or some such nonsense, have admitted the Advanced Class Guide is not up to par.

So why you are having such a particular issue with my post, I just don't know. I have tried to keep my posts in this thread clean, and on respectful. I'm sure I've failed here and there, but I feel I've kept mostly on point without getting overly harsh or critical. Especially if you look at some of the things I've said in the past.

I also feel this thread has been generally good all around in keeping the aggression and hostility down. I know from past experiences in such threads, a topic like this could have quickly erupted into bashing, insults and flaming of Paizo and other posters, but we've been pretty good in not going down that route.

If you opt to go check out some of the other threads discussing the Advanced Class Guide, you'll find a lot more hostile posts and comments than you will find here. If you want to go on some crusade against people, do it there. Because frankly, I just don't care to respond to your posts any further if you keep up with this topic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

EDIT: And what the heck is up with you and Orthos and your avatars, anyway? Can't either of you be happy with just one avatar? You're breaking my fragile little mind!

Orthos corrupted my Avatar :(


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm considering thoughts pertaining to the idea of allowing sunder to target natural attacks and unarmed strikes. Basically, if you succeed on a sunder attempt, the weapon gains the broken condition, which amounts to a -2 on attacks and damage. If you 'destroy' the object, you basically sever the limb, or cripple it in some manner; crushed bones, cut tendons etc.

The target CMD would include the normal CMD of the creature, plus any armor bonus or natural armor bonus the creature has. The hardness of the weapon would be equal to 2+ half the creatures natural armor bonus (rounded up). The HP of the weapon itself would be 1/10th the creatures full HP (same as the HP to cut yourself out if swallowed hole).

So, for example, to sunder the claw of the bulette, you would have the following stat block: CMD 40; hardness 8, hp 8.

It wouldn't be easy to sunder the bulette's claw, but it would be possible.

Thoughts?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cranefist wrote:

It is so funny to me that someone would read "one-handed slashing weapon" and think that the sickle or dagger were excluded.

Sometimes, when a rule doesn't make sense, you need to think about it the way common English speakers would.

"You can use any slashing weapon that you can wield in one hand, and add your dexterity modifier to damage."

"Oh you mean like knifes and swords and stuff?"

"Yes."

The thing is, some words and phrases in the game carry specific rules weight and can't be ignored in favor of an alternative interpretation.

If a feat says something like.... "Your skill at fighting defensively allows you to attack when your opponent does." Then that means, when you are using the Fighting Defensively action, you can make an attack when your opponent does. But you must be Fighting Defensively, or it doesn't trigger. It doesn't mean you can in a defensive position (like with your back to a wall), or when you use a shield or something like that. It has a specific rules implementation that is attached to the phrase 'fighting defensively'.

"One-handed" is a specific rules term, "Slashing" is another rules term. It's like a filter on a search engine. Type in "weapon" then filter everything but "one-handed", then filter everything but "slashing" as well. Now you end up with all "One-handed slashing weapons" in your search engine.

If the sentence had been phrased differently, it would have a different meaning. For example: "Choose a slashing weapon that can be wielded in one hand..." This phrasing would allow for light or one-handed slashing weapons to work with Slashing Grace. But because of the phrasing of the text, the feat doesn't work so.

1 to 50 of 1,199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.