|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Deadbeat Doom wrote:
Many, if not most, GMs would, but kinetic blade is technically a non-aiction that activates when you make an attack. It could be argued that, since you're not attacking with kinetic blade, you can't activate it to use as part of conductive.
There have been multiple debates about it in various threads, I've never followed it very closely enough to know the arguments each side uses. This is just a recollection of my skin readings of the debates.
Personally, I would never use conductive for this purpose as you don't benefit from Overflow with conductive. Kineticist itself has little to know support for using non-kinetic blast weapons, so you're basically wielding a weapon using only your BAB and ability scores. You don't have class features to boost the damage and accuracy of the attack for conductive to even come into play.
Also, keep in mind that conductive requires you to pay twice the cost. So if you can't reduce the burn cost to 0, if will cost you double burn to use conductive. Since there is a limit on how much burn kineticist can accept each round, you may not even be able to pay the cost to activate conductive.
So for me, conductive is just not worth it. It may be an interesting niche strategy for a super-single shot attack. Like some super vital strike/conductive attack. But that would just make it a gimmick.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
A post can be upsetting without being abusive or insensitive. I don't recall if you are one of the people who have actually read the removed posts, but if you aren't, then please don't speak more on the subject until you do.
But, to address your comments on Rysky... Rysky grossly misunderstood what was being said and became very upset over the post. Rysky continued to be upset, and defended his viewpoint causing him to be upset, even after being repeatedly told that he was misunderstanding the post. This was not a case of "Rysky being the only one brake enough to confront these horrible monsters posting on the forum".
Why are we defending the banned posters? Because they did nothing wrong. Outside of reposting a thread asking for clarification, after being told to make the thread in the first place, Raital did absolutely nothing wrong. Banned.
Ashiel hardly even participated in the discussion that lead to the posts being removed. Then Ashiel sought out answers to why it was removed, and expressed his opinion over the upsetting actions taken by Pazio. Banned.
They did nothing wrong, and they were banned. I'm sure Paizo will do their best to justify Ashiel's banning by continue to state he'd been a repeatedly problematic poster and Ashiel ignored several instances of correspondence correcting his posting habits (which Ashiel claims never happened, as he lacks any such correspondence in his email)... but they have no justification for Raital.
Their justification for banning Ashiel is flimsy at best, but Raital was banned with no word, no warning.
In addition, I will defend Ashiel and Raital, because they can't be here to defend themselves. I highly any significant portion of people monitoring this thread would bother to seek out Ashiel or Raital to find out what happened from their point. We certainly know Pazio won't reveal what happened.
If we weren't here posting, then the only what Paizo posts, painting Ashiel and Raital as being clearly wrong, would exist. I'm not saying everything Ashiel did was right, but I also feel he didn't do anything worth being banned over. Despite what Paizo says or claims. Unless Raital is being incredibly dishonest in her account, then I know she did nothing to be banned over.
To the staff of Paizo, you have, on multiple occasions now, claimed that you have “corresponded” with Ashiel over the last 4 years about posting appropriately on this site. Exactly what do you mean by this? Because Ashiel has stated, on another forum, that he has only 1 such record of anything, and that was for a 24 hour ban, for something he admittedly did that was wrong. Outside of that single email, Paizo has never contacted Ashiel about any such posting policies.
The only thing that I can imagine you mean by this, then, is that Ashiel has been apart of many discussion in which his, and many others, posts were removed. If this is what you mean, then why have you not taken such action with others? Hell, why have you not taken such action with myself? I have received multiple 3-day bans for my conduct here on the forums, doing such things as sniping at Mods, being outright abusive, and the most heinous of them all, being Sarcastic. No, that was not sarcasm, I was actually banned for 3 days for being sarcastic.
I have also had many of my own posts removed, maybe not as many as Ashiel, but many of them. So why am I not banned? Why have others who have been just as disruptive, sarcastic and borderline abusive, not been banned? Do you even keep records of these things?
If so, please forward all such records on Ashiel, to Ashiel, as he has no such record of them. If you don't have any records, then what are you using to back up your claims other than half-remembered scenarios? I know that, in many cases that Ashiel's posts were removed, he wasn't even breaking any rules, other posters were.
Or is that the problem? Is the problem that Ashiel, unintentionally or not, riles up other posters to cause problems, even if he himself is not breaking any rules?
I would suggest you take a good, long, hard look at any moderation incidents involving Ashiel and see who was the one at fault. If Ashiel wasn't the one causing the problem, then why is he being punished now?
I'd also like to ask why posts discussing Anevia's portrayal in Wrath of the Righteous were removed from the thread. I'm assuming the posts that got flagged for removal were either Klara's statistics post, or Rysky's response to it, and any replies. The posts before that involved a very calm and polite discussion on the Anevia's portrayal and why Ashiel disagrees with it. As far as I'm aware, nothing in those posts broke any forum rules, so why were they removed?
I would also like to see you, being Paizo's moderation team, open up discussion with Raital Latral was also banned. I'm not as familiar with what happened with her, but Ashiel provided a discord copy of their discussion. Raital claims that she was in the process of posting in the Ask thread, supplying her own viewpoint on the discussion as a trans perseon herself, when all the posts got removed, and she made her post. She added a bit about how scary it was for mods to come in and remove any discussion, effectively silencing her voice. Her post was likewise removed.
Raital proceeded to contact Paizo, I believe she made a phone call, and was directed to post in the Website Feedback forum and ask what happened. So she made her post... and it was deleted. She made the post again, and it was deleted. Then she got banned.
No discussion, no warnings, no $200 for passing Go, just banned. I cannot conceive of Raital being a disruptive poster or doing, really anything, worthy of being banned and yet...
Ashiel has stated that he is a trans person, and so has Raital. Ashiel was part of a discussion on why he disagreed with Anevia's portrayal as a trans character. Other members furthered the discussion, and caused it to become heated. Ashiel had very little to do with the heated discussion, bar the initial criticism of the portrayal of Anevia. Raital only made 3 posts total, the one in the Ask thread, and the creation of 2 threads.
Appearance wise, you have two trans people being banned over their criticism of a trans character in your product and the following discussion. You claim it was because you have had repeated correspondence with Ashiel over his post content over the years, but you have provided no explanation for why Raital was banned.
Personally, I find your explanation suspect for Ashiel's, and furthermore, I find your ban for Raital highly displeasing.
Now, I've been a loyal customer of Paizo for years now, ever since a friend gave me the Core Rulebook as a birthday gift several years ago. I've purchased nearly every hardback book todate (I have not purchased Horror Adventures or Ultimate Intrigue), and I have bough many Adventure Paths, soft cover books and accessories, such as flip-maps, harrow decks, map cards etc. I may have been disenchanted with recent design decisions, but I've still been purchasing things I liked and wanted. Granted, I haven't been using your online store, as I prefer to buy local, but I've still been buying.
But these recent incidents have ruined me as a customer of your products. I don't like the way you've treated people I consider friends. I don't like the way you guys moderate your board, as there are no real rules, extremely vague guidelines, and moderation policies are as fickle as the moods of the moderation team. With the exception of a few threads, like Ravingdork's Character Gallery, or N. Jolly's threads on the Kineticist, I will also no longer be a member of these boards.
I don't believe this incident reflects well on Paizo as a company. It also doesn't reflect well on the deep rooted perceptions of a notable part of the community that there is some form of censorship behind the scenes done by the moderation team. I've seen many posters comment on the boards that their, or others', posts have been removed. They didn't break any guidelines, but they did clash with the personal beliefs of members of the Paizo staff, or actions taken by the staff.
It also doesn't help, that for all the claims of trying to be a fair moderation team, there have been examples of this not occurring. There is a growing perception that certain actions taken are unofficially approved of, depending on who they are taken against. Such as harassing or insulting people who disagree with Paizo; as long as the posts don't generate too much stink, or are too public, they are often overlooked, even when flagged, because they are made against “approved targets”.
Likewise, I know your moderation of incidents with Ashiel has been suspect in the past. I won't mention the users name, but many know that Ashiel was actively stalked, harassed, and abused by a poster on these boards; the poster even went so far as to use information he'd gained over the years to track down Ashiel's personal Facebook account and spread it around the boards. Thankfully, Ross Byers, if I recall, deleted those posts and reprimanded the poster. But this activity went on for years and nothing was done about it. It wasn't until this poster got a little snippy in a playtest thread with one of the design team that he was finally banned. If I recall correctly, the poster even admitted to monitoring Ashiel's profile page to see where, and what, Ashiel was posting so he could respond to it.
Pazio has not done right by Ashiel in the past, nor is Pazio doing right in the here and now. Even if you were to unban Ashiel, which I suspect you won't, I don't know if he were to come back. As it stands now, Paizo has repeatedly proven it's moderation policy is suspect and can easily be abused.
This is all I have to say for now. I don't know if you will respond to any or all of this post, and I don't know if it will help make Paizo a better place in the future... but I felt in needed to be said. I don't believe anyone at Paizo intended this to happen, nor do I believe there is actually any intentional censorship going on. Regardless, I wish Paizo well in it's future endeavors, and more than that, I wish Paizo's forums becomes a better place. I've greatly enjoyed my time here, and I will miss it sorely. I will continue to monitor this, and a select few other threads, but as of now, I'm gone.
Ranged Weapon Attack FAQ wrote:
This FAQ plays all merry hell with the Kineticist. Here's why:
Using haste as an example, it specifies that it grants an extra attack with a natural or manufactured weapon. This means that, since kinetic blade/whip is neither a natural weapon, nor a manufactured weapon, that it does not benefit from haste per RAW.
Likewise, things like Bardic Performance calls out adding bonus damage on weapon damage rolls, and per the FAQ, we now know that this is likely shorthand for "manufactured weapon damage rolls". However, assuming that it does, in fact, apply to kinetic blasts, the "once per casting or use" rule comes into play. So if you make a full attack with a kinetic blade, you only gain the bonus damage on one single attack, and not the entire attack sequence. Note: the FAQ specifically calls out inspire courage as an ability that only applies once per casting.
So, yeah, this FAQ plays all merry hell with the assumed rules. Especially since the verbiage chosen screws over anything that isn't a manufactured weapon. If you recall, the FAQ says, "spells, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, and extraordinary abilities (heretoafter called special abilities)." Why is this important? Because many monster abilities are considered Su or Ex abilities.
Spikes (Ex): With a snap of its tail, a manticore can loose a volley of four spikes as a standard action (make an attack roll for each spike). This attack has a range of 180 feet with no range increment. All targets must be within 30 feet of each other. The creature can launch only 24 spikes in any 24-hour period.
Let's say that you've used Leadership, because you're a badass Bard to acquire a manticore as a cohort mount. It takes Point Blank Shot as it levels up, and you regularly buff it good hope and inspire courage. Let's be generous and say those abilities don't refer to manufactured weapon only and work for the manticore. Per the "once per casting or use" rule (because the FAQ uses "Special abilities" as shorthand for spells, spell-like, supernatural and extraordinary abilities), that means the manticore only receives the bonus on damage from Point Blank Shot, good hope and inspire courage on a single hit with his Spikes (Ex) ability.
Steve Geddes wrote:
The problem with this, is the people that oversee your posts at website feedback, and, as such, the people you would raise an issue with over the moderation team, are, in fact, the moderation team themselves.
Grossly exaggerated example, it would be like asking the dirty cop to investigate complaints about the dirty cop himself.
I have seen many examples of the... I dunno if censorship is the right word but... censorship of posts in the past. Usually over controversial issues, politics, religion, and especially, anything related to LGBT topics.
Now, I'm not saying Paizo is trying to avoid discussion on it, not that at all, but I have witnessed examples of posts removed because a moderator seemingly "took offense" to someone else's viewpoint and removed the post or posts.
This has been a growing trend I've seen, and something I've seen more and more people complain about. Especially since the moderator team has a seemingly unwritten list of rules that they can delete post or ban people over. For example, you can be given a 3-day ban for being "Sarcastic". I know this one, as I was banned for it.
The posts in question that triggered Ashiel's banning got a little heated, but, honestly, were the result of a misunderstanding. A post was made about the relative percentage of transgender's in the modern population compared to that of schizophrenic people and psychopaths. I believe it was that .3% of the people today are transgender, while 1% of the population are diagnosed with schizophrenia and 1% as psychopaths. The post went further on to discuss the level of inclusion; that there are far more members of the LGBT community as NPCs, major and minor, in adventures, than there are NPCs who are outright stated to be a psychopath, or schizophrenic.
Another poster took great offense to this, and took the misunderstood belief that the previous statistical comparison was equating LGBT, schizophrenia, and psycopaths to be the same thing.
This entire discussion was started after Ashiel criticized Anevia (the transgender NPC from Wrath of the Righteous, for those unaware) because, in his opinion, he believed Anevia was poorly characterized and comes off as a "token" character for inclusions sake. He argued why he thinks this, and stated others may think differently, but that was his opinion.
So that's a very, very brief summary of the discussion that went on. Some tempers got heated over the statistical comparison to the population and the lack of equivalent portrayals, but I can't honestly believe someone should have been banned over it.
It goes back to the "unwritten rules" of the forums that only the moderators seem to know, and which may very from day, to day, as their mood changes. Sometimes it's okay for someone to discuss LGBT, especially if the discussion agrees with the moderator over-seeing the discussion, other times, it's not okay, and the posts are removed. Again, especially if the moderator disagrees with the opinions within, even if the opinions are not harmful.
Honestly, I'm personally pretty fed up with the moderation here myself. On the surface, the moderation here is great, but there is a definite underlining of something wrong in the way it is done, and it grate's on my nerves. I've got a lot of people I consider friends here, but I'm personally ready to find some place else to talk. I don't know about others, but it would be really nice if the Moderators were held to higher standards and had actual rules they had to follow. Especially since so many posts have been deleted, or posters punished because the moderator has a personal opinion that makes them ignore any "rules" they may follow.
On the topic of the Elixir...
This is, essentially, what the elixir would do. Richard Magarey, better known for his crossdressing pro-wrestling persona of Lady Beard, is obviously recognizeable whether in "normal" clothing or in female clothing, just as he would be if he drank the elixir.
On the subject of multiple deities...
My issue with multiple deities is that such a thing can only happen with different cultures.
For example, in the Elder Scrolls universe, the different factions and races may worship gods under different names, but each one is still the same God. Lorkhan, for instance, is a God seen as a great hero of Men, but he is reviled by the elves for his part in the creation of Nirn. Why? Because Lorkhan tricked the Aedra into giving up part of their divine essence to create the planet Nirn. Some managed to stop the flow and retain most (but not all) of their divine spark and are worshiped as gods. Others were unable to do so, and began living on Nirn. These diminshed Aedra began procreating, and from them came the ancestors, the Ehlnofey, who would eventually separate and evolve into the Men and the Mer.
The races of Men hail Lorkhan as a champion of Men, for they would not exist without him. While the races of Mer, curse Lorkhan for stealing their divinity and rendering them mortal.
The different races and cultures of Elder Scrolls may use different names, and have different viewpoints, but they all worship the same gods. Akatosh, Auri-El, Alkosh are different names for the same being; the first being to form from the beginning of the universe.
In the Elder Scrolls, there are only, really, a handful of Gods. Different cultures may view them differently, and have different names, but they're all the same.
But in most campaign settings, you have multiple different gods of the same aspect, like we do in our world. For example, a "sun god" in the form of Helios (Roman), Sol (Norse), Ra (Egyptian), and Kinich Ahau (Mayan). Each god is different from the other as they came from different cultures.
However, unlike in the real world, fantasy campaign settings try and make a "universal" list of Gods. In Golarion, for example, they have the core 20 deities, and these deities pretty much make up the religion for nearly every culture.
This breaks my immersion, and is the root of my problem with it. Calistria, Lamashtu, Arshea, and Nocticula are all, on some level a "god of sex". It would stand to reason that, evil, good, neutral, whatever, different cultures would worship different gods as their "god of sex". But this isn't what happens. You go to a temple of the "god of sex" and it is a temple of Calistria pretty much every single time.
The closest this ever came to happening in our world, is when Rome conquered the Mediterranean and much of the surrounding lands. When they conquered a region or a people, they would make worship of the Roman gods mandatory, but they continued to allow the locals to keep worshiping their own gods.
Taldor, and Cheliax both conquered much of the Inner Sea, this is true, but at the same time, there are many places they never went. So why are the same 20 deities found every where you go, despite there being many different gods for any given aspect?
Even weirder, is how come there is no influence of previous empires? I mean, Thassilon conquered much of Avistan and had it's own religion of it's own making. It ruled for a very long time. Sure, the empire fell 10,000 years ago, but the religious practices of the Thassilonian empire should still be present in the "modern" day descendants of those who lived in the empire.
But there isn't one. There is only the core 20. Worship of any god not in the core 20 is some minor thing, part of some cult, or something. But that's not how it should be.
It makes sense for Elder Scrolls, because there's a finite number of gods to worship. The "sun god" of the Altmer would be the same "sun god" of the Redguard, even if they are depicted and worshiped differently. On Golarion, however, there are 15 different deities who grant the Sun domain, and therefore, 15 different deities who can be seen as a "sun god". Unlike in Elder Scrolls, each one is a distinctively different god, some are Good, some are Evil, some Chaotic, some Lawful.
So for me, it makes sense for there to be multiple gods of the same aspect, as long as there are different cultures to back up the worship of these different gods. But if you don't, then it makes more sense for there to be a limited number of gods, and, instead, different interpretations of the same gods by all the different religions.
G$* d*&nit... I had this nice post with examples of the Elixir in a, somewhat, real life sense. Also went into the "multiple deities of the same type" subject. But it got deleted because, f!$& you touch screen and my fat fingers!
I'll type it up again later, but, for now, I have yardwork to do in preparation for winter.
Klara Meison wrote:
It would probably involve a hefty penalty on to-hit rolls, since keeping a weapon on point while firing bursts is very hard. I like the AoE idea though. You could also implement suppressive fire, like what Ashiel had in her Gunslinger thread.
Good point. I intended to put something like that in there, like a cumulative -2 for every burst you make in a round, but I forgot.
I blame Cosmo for the company my Cousin works for going bankrupt and laying him off. Now he's never going to be able to pay me back in time for the plane ticket I bought him after he got stranded up here in Alaska after his brother's wedding. I'm traveling to New Zealand for my own sisters wedding at the end of the month and there is no way he's going to be able to land a new job and pay off the debt he's inevitably going to accrue while looking for a new job, and then pay me back before I leave.
Outlaw Star was always my space-wester-opera-thing of choice. Others preferred Cowboy Bebop, or Trigun, which I enjoyed both of, but Outlaw Star was definitely my favorite. The most memorable episode for me, was when Jim got that date with the girl on the space station, but she never showed up. She had a good reason, but that reason is something Jim will never know, nor likely, want to know.
Yeah, it's always bugged me that no one has ever seemed to want to tackle the concept of fully automatic weapons in the traditional d20 combat style. This is the only method that I've ever heard of that even remotely resembles real automatic weapons. Of course, the farthest I've ever let that train of thought go in the past was, "automatic weapons have a rate of fire letting them attack multiple times for every normal attack."
I never put any further thought into it, because I've never really intended to use modern firearms in my games. But shows like RWBY have really started to appeal to me, so mixing guns, swords and sorcery has started to grow on me.
Unfortunately, it doesn't really help with the "guns vs. armor" thing. If one wanted to get more accurate, one would needs to give guns an armor penetration mechanic, making it so manufactured armor of less use against guns. I mean, modern armor can absorb a shot or two, as long as they don't hit the same spot, but that's more akin to damage reduction, than armor as we think of it. Modern combat relies more on taking cover, and not getting hit at all, instead of deflecting it.
Also, another thought, when using the burst fire or automatic rules, they might use an 'exploding critical' method. So on a critical hit, only one of the shots that hit is a critical, unless the confirmation role is also a critical threat, which turns another shot into a potential critical, and so on.
I've never given it any serious thought, but I've often wondered if modern firearms, and future firearms too, shouldn't have some sort of rate of fire mechanic. Like, some abstraction with needing to control the recoil and heat of the weapon as justification or whatever.
Pardon the rambling here, but this is just off the top of my head, so some of it may not be very clear or not be very well thought out. Literally coming up with this as I type.
Basically, a weapon like an M-16 has, say, a rate of fire of 5. This means for every attack you make in a round, you can fire off 5 shots at the target you're aiming at. So if an M-16 dealt 1d6 points of damage, a single burst deals 5d6 damage on a hit. Apply bonuses from having an enhanced weapon/ammo (+3 rifle would deal 5d6+15), but other bonuses, such as from feats or class abilities, only apply once per burst.
Then, for weapons with a fully automatic capability, you could use it to fill an area with bullets by dumping the mag as a standard/major action (if in d20 Legends). Basically, you can fire every shot, up to a weapons maximum limit (weapons like a light machine gun have much larger ammo pools and don't get emptied in a single round), assigning each shot to a person. The people targeted make a reflex save vs a DC of 10 + BAB + dex for half damage and they take a -2 penalty for every 3 shots targeted at them after the first. So someone targeted with 7 shots would have a -4 penalty on their saving throw.
This lets you shoot more shots at wily targets with good saves, like Monks or Rogues, increasing your chance of hitting them at all.
You could also make rules for letting weapons spray down hallways, essentially, as a line AoE. Unlike other line AoEs, like Lightning Bolt or a dragons acid breath, damage is dealt to the first person only, unless he makes his save, at which point the next person in line takes damage. Or if he dies.
So, with the above half-assed mechanic, a riflemen could single-fire shots to get the most damage possible per shot, or he could burst fire to more quickly bring down enemies at the expense of ammo, or he could got full auto to fill an area with bullets if he needed.
Granted, it does make automatic weapons extremely powerful, but... well, they should be. Sure, a greatsword deals more damage per hit, but an automatic weapon can deal a lot more hits in a given time period.
I'm probably going to regret posting this in the morning and wonder what the hell I was thinking as I typed it but... who cares?
D20 Legends - Classes: I won't be commenting on any typos, or hold over text, just comments, observations and questions as I'm reading along in the classes chapter.
Alchemist: So an Alchemist gains True Alchemy, Concoctions, Biomancy, Bombs, and Mutagens all just for becoming an Alchemist right? They also advance with your total level, so just putting a single talent into Alchemist can be fairly rewarding, even if they won't be nearly as potent as someone who specializes as an Alchemist.
This is interesting, as it really helps with characters who practice alchemy as a "hobby" not feel like they wasted a talent during leveling.
Barbarian: I notice that Barbarians get rage powers every few levels, are these in addition to the talents they get? So a Barbarian could have some 10 rage powers, along with talents spent in another class? If so, a Rage Chemist (barbarian/alchemist) looks pretty fun!
Bard: I really like the force multiplier this bard is, but I notice the bards power caps out, at this point, at 12th level. The reason is Inspire Greatness increases your effective level for level dependant effects. Pick up Inspire Courage/Greatness/Heroics and the Epiphanies to match, along with the ability to maintain at least two of them. At 12th level, Inspire Greatness gives you +4 effective level, raising your Inspire abilities to 16th level, which puts you at the level cap. So at 12th level, you buff yourself to 16th level, and grant +5 to levels, attack, damage, AC, defenses, immunity to fear, and 25 temporary hp.
Bards pull lots of aggro huh?
Champions: Champions get a lot for a single level huh? I could easily see myself spending two talents, one for the class, and the other for greater channeling, with many builds. Really alleviates the need for healing.
Is it intentional that all champions are both negative and positive energy channelers? Will negative and positive energy be more of a "neutral" force, like elemental energy is? A bard with 2 talents spent in champion would be a Hell of an ally. Buff the Hell out of you, then clears mobs with channel energy, also heals as needed.
Rogues: Just to clarify, you reduce damage on your cunning strike when using staggering/blinding/bleeding talents before you multiply for attacking a flat-footed foe or for flanking them, right?
By the way... damn, rogues are just little murder machines huh?
If a character multiclasses into two metaphysical classes, do they have two separate choices for casting methods and spell types? For example a spontaneous, psionic bard/prepared magical champion.
I thought you were merging "wizard" and "sorcerer" into a single class, but I notice both mage and sorcerer in the pdf?
Over all, I'm super excited for the design as i first see it. It looks like someone could have tons of fun with a huge variety of characters. It's also immediately obvious that you won't need to create tons of new classes either, just more talents and class choices.
The only major character type I don't see represented is "knight". Essentially, nonmagical warrior in heavy armor. I know you hate fighters, but I mean, mounted knights, traveling swordsman etc, exist in all types of fantasy.
How would you go about creating a heavy armored warrior that doesn't have to rely on falling into a rage, magic, or backstabbing people in D20 Legends? Sometimes people just want to play a "Fighter" but that option doesn't seem to be available. At least, not yet.
I gotta say, it's hard to try and ask the above question and avoid the stigma of the 3e/Pathfinder fighter. I mean, there are some things I like about the fighter, namely being able to wield a wide variety of weapons and do well with them without having to spend daily resources, but... I hate everything else.
Anyway, I've only read the "Classes - Alpha" part at this point; I'll get working on the other bits when I can. I'm really getting hyped for this. I think Legends is shaping up to have lots of potential.
There is a bit in Wrath of the Righteous where Iomedae, basically, tortures the PCs if they don't align to her beliefs. It's a grossly summed up version if the events, but there is a bit of accuracy to it. She asks questions, and if she doesn'tlikne your answer, she blasts you with divine power, dealing damage. You can die during this interrogation.
But it's all okay, because she revives you and heals your wounds, right?
Yeah... No. There is a serious disconnect with how a Lawful Good goddess would act.
I line Jason, but... again, there is a disconnect. Unchained Monk was weaker than its current version when got done with revisions. It's worth noting, the Unchained Monk traded a lot of its defensive strength for slightly more offensive power. An Unchained Monk is, basically, a side-grade to a Monk with archetypes. Then there is the whole weapon cord thing, when he spent an afternoon trying to catch his computer mouse in his hand, couldn't do it easily, and decided to nerf weapon cords because it must be impossible to do what it used to do. Which was retrieve a weapon as a free action.
Some of his decisions... We just don't like to think about the rational behind them. If it wasn't for Mark, I shudder to think what the Unchained Monk would have been like.
So, I've gotten into various discussions over the years on proficiency with weapons, and how feats intended to grant proficiency, don't. I will admit this post is made in response to the discussion over Cao Phan's "rock throwing build" current you ongoing in the "Throwing builds are practically impossible" thread. So I do have an agenda in doing this, and that is to get clarification over what constitutes proficiency with weapons in Pathfinder. But also to prove I'm right, as egotistical as that is.
Simple Weapon Profciency:
You are trained in the use of basic weapons.
Benefit: You make attack rolls with simple weapons without penalty.
Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special: All characters except for druids, monks, and wizards are automatically proficient with all simple weapons. They need not select this feat.
Martial Weapon Proficiency:
Choose a type of martial weapon. You understand how to use that type of martial weapon in combat.
Benefit: You make attack rolls with the selected weapon normally (without the non-proficient penalty).
Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special: Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all martial weapons. They need not select this feat.
You can gain Martial Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
Exotic Weapon Proficiency:
hoose one type of exotic weapon, such as the spiked chain or whip. You understand how to use that type of exotic weapon in combat, and can utilize any special tricks or qualities that exotic weapon might allow.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You make attack rolls with the weapon normally.
Normal: A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special: You can gain Exotic Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of exotic weapon.
Foes are surprised by your skilled use of unorthodox and improvised weapons.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised melee weapon. Unarmed opponents are flat-footed against any attacks you make with an improvised melee weapon.
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with an improvised weapon.
You are used to throwing things you have on hand.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised ranged weapon. You receive a +1 circumstance bonus on attack rolls made with thrown splash weapons.
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with an improvised weapon
Universal Monster Ability: Rock Throwing:
This creature is an accomplished rock thrower and has a +1 racial bonus on attack rolls with thrown rocks. A creature can hurl rocks up to two categories smaller than its size; for example, a Large hill giant can hurl Small rocks. A “rock” is any large, bulky, and relatively regularly shaped object made of any material with a hardness of at least 5. The creature can hurl the rock up to five range increments. The size of the range increment varies with the creature. Damage from a thrown rock is generally twice the creature’s base slam damage plus 1-1/2 times its Strength bonus.
Oracle Stone Mystery Revelation: Rock Throwing:
Rock Throwing (Ex): You are an accomplished rock thrower and have a +1 racial bonus on attack rolls with thrown rocks. You can hurl rocks up to two categories smaller than your own size. The range increment for a rock is 20 feet, and you can hurl it up to 5 range increments. Damage for a hurled rock is 2d4 for a Medium creature or 2d3 for a Small creature, plus 1-1/2 your Strength bonus.
Rough and Ready:
Your intense familiarity with the tools of your trade allows you to use them in combat as if they were actual weapons and makes them more effective for that purpose than they would normally be.
Benefit: When you use a tool of your trade (requiring at least 1 rank in the appropriate Craft or Profession skill) as a weapon, you do not take the improvised weapon penalty and instead receive a +1 trait bonus on your attack. This trait is commonly used with shovels, picks, blacksmith hammers, and other sturdy tools — lutes and brooms make terribly fragile weapons.
Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
To keep post size down, I put the above examples of feats, traits and abilities in spoilers.
So, as you can see, many of the proficiency feats have nearly identical language: they all let you attack normally, but never actually state you become "proficient" with the weapon. The improvised feats state you don't take the improvised penalty, but don't state you become proficient; Rough and Ready has similar language. The Rock Throwing abilities don't have language about attacking normally or not taking penalties, but claim you are an accomplished rock thrower. It is also worth noting that many giants and creatures with rock throwing also possess the feat Weapon Focus (rock); a feat that explicitly requires proficiency with the weapon to take.
Now, the Rules As Written here is pretty clear: you aren't proficient with the selected weapon or weapons with any of the above examples. But I believe the intended function of the abilities is to grant proficiency.
So the question is, what makes someone proficient in a weapon?
I never played anything earlier than 3e, but the group that taught me grew up on playing Dungeons and Dragons, almost from its earliest public format. Most of them are family members, so they've stayed in contact their whole life. They played as kids, through highschool, some in the military, some in prison, some in foreign aid groups traveling other countries tries. My point in saying this, is, as a group, they've been a lot of places and played with a lot of people.
They are the ones who informed me of rampant variance in the rules. They explained it to me as, "I could take my 17th level wizard Ice and jump off a 20 foot building and sprain my ankle in Frank's game, or I would die in Cindy's game. So many rules were never clarified aid left up to the GM to determin; imagine having to relearn how physics worked every time you got a new job, and even then, they would spontaneously change during one shift, and revert to normal during the next."
The above is nearly a direct quote of how they explained it to me. The group misses many things about older editions, but it's much of it is centered in nostalgia. They tried running older games recently, and as a group, decided they wanted nothing to do with the older editions. Too much nonsensical rules, or missing rules. As much as they may have loved playing during those days, they prefer the simplified rules of the d20 system, especially since many rules are far more consistent from table to table.
That's because, when it comes down to it, flavor is meaningless without GM fiat. The greatest actor I the world can put on the best performance ever, but all the roleplaying doesn't mean squat if his mechanical character is Jesse Eissenberg vs. Dwayne Johnson. You can roleplay your character however you want, but if you don't have the mechanics to back it up, you're just grandstanding.
I mean, take a look at Ashiel's moralistic warrior (easily one of my favorite stories of yours, by the way) whose principals would get her killed one day. She f#@!ed one night stands, cussed and b@*&!ed people out, but she also healed whores and beat enemies unconscious, instead of to death, in order to give them a second chance. Because that's what Paladin's do. But if she didn't have the mechanic ability to do that, then her character wouldn't really be what she claimed to be.
For me, mechanical choices influence the concept just as much as conceptual design influences the mechanics. If my character is a charismatic rogue, known for his speed and grace with daggers, I sure as hell am not going to be choosing to 2-hand a great sword with my 18 strength to build the character. But I might choose traits or feats to make myself better in combat or in diplomacy and let those feats adjust the narrative of the character. Like taking Fate's Favored and playing him as lucky in games of chance.
I have never heard anyone claim that 1e, AD&D, or 2e were more rules rigid. One of the major complaints I know of from the time, is that it had so little rules governing so many things that there was a massive amount of table variation. One of the design goals of 3e was to lessen variation so players could take a character from one game and plop it down in the other without much issue.
I would put it in the magic chapter itself. It's certainly a better idea than having to prepare a cantrip to heat up your tea, and another cantrip to create a light breeze on your face, another cantrip to be a lazy fucj and pick up dropped items for you and so on. It would really make things far better for immersion if magicians could actually be magical in their everyday life.
So, the thing is, Paizo, as a company, has been approaching the design of the hardback rule books differently than they did in the earlier years. More and more, they've been intentionally designing things that are aimed towards mediocre balance, at the expense of immersion. This is very apparent in the design if the Vigilante, who has multiple rules that are nonsensical, except for balance reasons. Like the talent that lets you add intelligence to damage rolls, but only if you attack with dexterity modifying the roll, and deal damage by adding your strength. This also occurred in Occult Adventures, like with the Kineticist being unable to use Vital Strike, because the combo was just too powerful. Admittedly, it was bonkers broken, but there is no justification in the class itself, other than "because".
So the same people working in and designing Starfinder, are the ones working on Pathfinder. So I suspect that the rules are going to be over engineered to avoid powerful combos, like they have been doing lately in Pathfinder.
This is my fear. They are going to go out of their way to avoid designing things that can be powerful, for fear of making things broken. They've already received enough flak over caster/martial disparity and other thing, so I think they're going to swing the other way and ddesigning for everything being even. Basically, taking the 3.5 > 4E route that Wizards did.
I mean, I wasn't very pleased with their technology rules, and in fact, I threw up enough of a stink over something that they added some clarification to the books because of one of my annoyances. I'm still very annoyed that they felt the inclusion of some sort of "laser sword" doesn't fit their SWORD and sorcery game, because they didn't want to copy the lightsaber. Which is f*&*ing stupid. But I feel that their rules on technology were just dumb and flawed and they did it because they didn't want to make anything seem to powerful. But the way they went about to ng it breaks immersion in the game and that annoys me.
So yeah, I'm not very optimistic about the outcome of Starfinder, because I'm not optimistic about the trend I've been seeing in the design decisions made by Paizo.
If they do an amazing job, I'll be thrilled, but I'm adopting aa very skeptical outlook.
There are some minor errors here and there, some things may need to be reworded, and some clarifications need to be added, but that small glimpse is really exciting! I am personally excited for the magic missile storms that can be unleashed. I mean, up to 23 missiles fired at once? And an Abjurer might be able to turn it into a cantrip? Badass!
I like sci-fi just fine, I just dont know if Paizo can do it justice. They seem to be in a very 'mediocre' mindset right now, in that everything must be average and nothing can excel, as far as designing goes.
I cant help but wonder if this is Marks influence. Hes a smart guy, so I'm wondering if he has been catching alot of the 'strong' options before they see print and reigning them in. At least, for the hardback books anyway.
I had a thought, the Veela from the Harry Potter universe would make a good addition to role playing games. Women of unearthly beauty who can captivate men with their presence, and when enraged, transform into humanoid bird frlorm, growing beaks, wings, claws and the ability to throw blasts of fire.
So some sort of Aura of Captivation that forces men to make a will save or be Fascinated with the Veela. Transforming gives them a flight speed, and two claw attacks and probably an at will Scorching Ray.
Huh... with your construct race, one could make a reasonable facsimile of Genji, a cyborg ninja, from the video game Overwatch. Notably, because he stores his shuriken within his cyborg body and reloads by drawing them out of his arm. So, integrated weapon (shuriken), and probably faster movement. Build him as a "ninja" (however you choose to go about doing that) and you've got a reasonable Genji.
As for Log Horizon, it's definitely a much more mature show and will focus a lot more on socioeconomic problems. It also features a much more diverse cast and d9esnt focus, almost solely, on the story of a s8ngle character.
On SAO, I enjoy the show for what it is, a power fantasy written for young adults. I will say I admire Kirito because he is utterly faithful to Asuna. He doesn't even blink at other girls, because his devotion to Asuna is absolute.
As mentioned on the previous age, Cao Phen made a rock throwing build using an Oracle with the Stone mystery for a certain ability, and Barbarian for the hurling powers, followed by a Fighter archetype. With a Belt of Mighty Hurling, you get to use Strength for attack rolls with thrown weapons.
Basically, you just throw rocks at people. But rocket that deal, like, 2d4+20 points of damage and you can automatically crit and you crit on a range of 17-20. Or you can shatter through rock on impact to make them take tons of bleed damage.
Bumi Mei Fong is a 12th level example of the build, with a 25-pt buy and PC wealth by Ravingdork. Bumi inspired by own Daezzn build, which is inspired by Cao Phen's post.
It's pretty good.
One of the things I like about those rings is they could easily be magical rings in a campaign. Like each ring is a portal to a world contained within or a window to a snapshot of the past or something. Or maybe the Rings store the wearers happiest memory, or acts as a gateway to a new planet.
You could have some fun with a party needing to track down bearers of the rings so they can visit the world/memory/time within to learn some secret or discover some lost knowledge or recover some plot item etc.