|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I blame Cosmo for the minor cold I've picked up resulting in a runny nose.
But I really blame Cosmo for the booger that formed deep inside my nostril and has felt like a lump and poked the inside of my nose all day, driving me crazy.
I blame Cosmo further for the booger resisting all attempts to dislodge it.
I blame Cosmo for the bloody nose I now have after wadding up a piece of toilet paper, jamming it up my nostril, applying pressure with my finger, and then rotating the toilet paper around and around under pressure, scraping the inside of my nostril until the booger was dislodge.
I also blame Cosmo for the vivid description I felt the need to provide for everyone.
See, this would not surprise me at all, because I know from the "Petition for Paizo to hire Ashiel" thread that Ashiel is a big fan of Maleficent.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Ah, I see, you're using accurate in reference to the published words, an not necessarily the official words when using FAQs/errata or corrections. Similar to why SKR uses it instead.
Honestly, I can't trust the PRD because it's information is inaccurate, far more so than the d20pfsrd. For example, Paizo's website policy is that it won't update the PRD with FAQs or errata until after a reprint of a book.
So, if I were to quickly reference the PRD about the Ring of Continuation, then I would think that the Ring of Continuation is the over powered item it was when published, instead of nerfed after the FAQrrata.
There's also tons of little tips on the side of the page that offer corrections to published material. Like when there is a misprint and a a huge creature has a CMB of +2 instead of +22. You'll see a [Editor's Note] off to the side explaining that there is an issue, advising to use the correct numbers, but leaving the printed stat block as it was published by Paizo.
Or, how about the feat Glorious Heat, which was originally printed in Faiths of Purity, and then both Mark Moreland and Jason Bulmahn commented about how it was too powerful... Then Paizo reprinted it in it's fully abuseable state in Inner Sea Gods.
Anyone looking up Glorious Heat on the PRD sees it in it's fully powered form without the commentary and suggested changes. In fact,the only 'official' source on the feat is in the Additional Resources bit for PFS which states the changes that d20pfsrd has suggested (grant healing equal to spell level, not caster level).
After all my experience using d20pfsrd, the PRD, and Archvies, I will recommend d20 and Archives over PRD in every situation. I cannot, in good consciousness, suggest the PRD over d20 or the Archvies when it is the less accurate and inferior resource.
John Kretzer wrote:
I blame Cosmo for John's inability to send snow to my front yard as well.
I blame Cosmo for my lack of ability to steal snow from John for my front yard.
I blame Cosmo for my yard looking like that since October.
James Jacobs wrote:
*tin foil hat ACTIVATE*
Hmm... Does this mean that the being who sponsored Norgorber is dead? Or that the being no longer knows the secret? Perhaps Norgorber stole the secret from this being? Perhaps Norgorber assimilated the being? In essence, Norgorber sponsored himself?
This makes Norgorber far more interesting. Of course, it's also entirely possible Aroden sponsored Norgorber (and I suspect Aroden is the sponsor for Iomodae and Cayden as well). But that's boring. I hope his sponsor and backstory is full of far more mystery and intrigue than that.
Mark Seifter wrote:
I was trying to explain why non-PFS players would be upset because of FAQs, but I guess I went off on a vent.
When it comes down to it, there are a great many players out there who might as well be playing PFS without actually doing so as their GMs are playing with Paizo as the Word of God, so anything Paizo says is final.
Meanwhile, you have FAQs that lots of people vehemently disagree with (like the Crane Wing or Monk can't 2-hand flurry). And players who had SLA early access are now playing with illegal characters with GMs who may or may not allow their character to continue or be forced to rebuild.
So the argument of 'you're not in PFS, talk to you GM and house rule it' still stands, it's not always applicable as many GMs are not comfortable doing so.
Many people, after all, look at Paizo not unlike rocket scientists. Most would never dare to tell a rocket scientist how to build a rocket. Likewise, many would not feel comfortable thinking they 'know better' than professionals working at the leading company in their field.
I was reading up on Pencak Silat (wikipedia link) for curiosity, and noticed the origin myth is that a woman named Rama Sukana learned to imitate animals fighting each other and taught the moves she learned to her husband and spread from there.
Makes me wonder if there isn't or couldn't be, some sort of origin myth for the various style feats like that of Pencat Silat in Golarion. Or even origin myths for the first Dervish Dancer or something.
1) Are there any origin myths for martial arts or feats or anything like that in Golarion?
2) Do you think a myth like the above adds to, or subtracts, from campaign setting?
3) Would you want one of your past characters to be the origin of a myth in a future game you played?
4) I know that much of Varisia and Golarion is directly drawn from your own campaign setting, but are there any myths for Golarion that were created by one of your own characters?
5) If so, which ones?
Mark Seifter wrote:
Because myself and others play with multiple GMs and when I introduce new players to the table, they aren't always aware of which FAQ I am or am not following.
At this point, I've made a document with a list of house rules, but I'm now thinking I have to make a document with a list of Paizo FAQs I don't agree with and am ignoring.
So if I sit down at... let's use Phillip, I like that name... Phillip's table, he may rule that Crane Wing is bad and it should feel bad and have to use the Paizo FAQ on my Lore Warden/Duelist PrC character. While over at... Anastasia's table, Crane Wing is good and she ignores the FAQratta.
Then they start asking why something was changed, "Well, it was changed because it was a problem in Pathfinder Society."
"Doesn't Pathfinder Society monitor it's own rules and change things for PFS if it's a problem"
"Why yes, they do."
"Then why did they change a rule that was a problem in PFS in such away that it affects all tables, instead of letting PFS handle it instead?"
"Because, reasons, Arnold."
At the same time, I feel that I can turn to Paizo less and less for guidance when they have FAQs out there that are blatantly incorrect (like the Invisibility Purge affects Natural Invisibility despite Bestiary 2 explicitly stating it doesn't and this has never been changed). When the FAQs keep changing stuff for seemingly arbitrary reasons, or addressing the symptoms of a problem instead of the actual problem themselves...
You begin to understand why people are growing less and less appreciative of the FAQs these days.
Like that FAQ you did awhile back buffing up those three archetypes (ecclesithurge, sniper and one other, I forget). Some people were really upset, because one of the things advertised for the ACG was that there would be 'more ways to use sneak attack at range'.
As the person who transcribed things from the podcast where this was announced, it's really annoying that no such ability was introduced (at least not that I'm aware of) and that the only ability to really use sneak attack at range, is still shoe-horned onto a magical item. Meaning the character is not a sniper, the magical item is.
Sorry for venting so much on you.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Let's focus on the important bits.
Mark Seifter wrote:
...the class is already to the editors, so it's past the point of no return in most regards...
This would mean, in my eyes, that further suggestions on the class are kind of pointless. Unless someone finds some game breaking combo with the Kineticist that Mark already hadn't been made aware of (though his knowledge or elsewhere), then I doubt there will be any further changes to the class.
That means like class abilities, including Wild Talents, are already in their final form. So I won't say stop suggesting new abilities for the class, but you have to know it's probably edging on the side of futility.
However, I don't know how Paizo does their archetype design, but I would imagine the archetype writers would get a complete copy of the class before starting on their archetypes.
So... if Mark hasn't already finalized what archetypes he has ordered, it might not be too late to keep coming up with ideas of archetypes. Though how much use that will be is unknown as we don't know who the writers are of if they are still reading this thread, or even if they have ever read this thread.
With all of the above in mind... what archetypes would you guys like to see?
Here's my personal list of desires:
Special note: Single Element Focused Kineticist - focuses on a single element to the exclusion of all others.
1) Does this feel right out of a horror movie?
Any other thoughts you have on this?
I also blame Cosmo for the constant 'refresh' that I keep hitting on my tracking number for my own Reaper minis (due to be delivered tomorrow).
Watching my delivery being scanned on delivery and departure is like a weird sort of miniforeplay and I'm with every update on the tracker, I get closer and closer to a nerdgasm.
I've been riding the edge since last Wednesday and I'm fairly certain I'm going to explode with delight once my package arrives.
In the meantime, I blame Cosmo for the jitters my body goes through while my senses prepare to be overloaded.
Game Master Scotty wrote:
I blame Cosmo for Game Master Scotty not including the above link.
Sara Marie wrote:
Proof Sara Marie is the best Empress of the Galactic Empire.
I blame Cosmo for someone on a Pathfinder RPG Facebook Group asking advice on which in which AP it would be best to run a party in which everyone plays a Pony...
Honestly Cosmo, at this point, I wish you would be banished into a realm in which everyone loves and adores you and seeks to fulfill your every desire.
The RAW is quite clear, it allows the spell access. The FAQratta changing the rules doesn't change the RAW. It just changes the rules as to how it's being applied.
I mean, here, look at this one. This is what the Bestiary 2 has to say on the Natural Invisibility ability.
Natural Invisibility wrote:
This is what the FAQ has to say on Natural Invisibility.
Invisible Stalker has Natural Invisibility (Ex)Will-o'-wisps have Natural Invisibility (Ex)
Pixies have Invisibility (Su)
The RAW is undeniably clear and straight up tells you that Invisibility Purge doesn't work on Natural Invisibility. The FAQ tells you that Invisibility Purge does work on Natural Invisibility.
It's worth noting that Bestiary 2 came out in 2010, while the FAQ on Natural Invisibility came out in 2011.
Does it say I can add an orison? Yes.Does it say I can add a cantrip? Yes.
Does it say I can only add an orison if I have the orison class feature? No.
Does it say I can only add a cantrip if I have the cantrip class feature? No.
Wait, so it's imbalanced for a magical race with inborn magical abilities capable of casting spells simply because they were born... to be better or faster at certain areas of magic than other, non-magical, races?
Well then, the real world is imbalanced cause them damned chimpanzees aren't using a proper point buy. They are clearly stronger and more agile than I am (probably have high HP too). It's easier for them to get Power Attack than me.
Paizo please nerf Chimpanzees.
Do you think there is a room for a class that 'builds combos' off itself? I've been playing Dragon Age: Iinquisition's multiplayer and I keep remembering back to Mass Effect 3's multiplayer and combat system.
In case you aren't aware, certain powers were able to 'Set' an enemy up for a combination, while other powers would 'Detonate' them and have special effects based off what type of power was used to Set the enemy up.
For example, if you set them up with a Fire power, and detonated it, it would release a small AoE blast of fire damage and light the enemy on fire for a short time. (it also dealt lots of damage to enemy Armor, a type of defense in the game)
A 'Cold' power that froze an enemy could be shattered, a 'Tech' would cause an electric explosion and deal massive damage to enemy shields.
A Biotic combo was special as it deal lots of damage to enemy Armor and enemy Barriers (magic force field as opposed to technologic force field)
I'm curious as to whether or not a 'combo' character could be built for Pathfinder. Like possibly a weird take on a Kineticist/Witch hybrid or something. It would have weaker powers that could be used in a combo to cause more damage plus debuffs (like entangled, fatigued, vulnerability to an element etc.)
Multi-class characters can indeed be weaker than single class characters. Prestige classes are also weaker than base classes.
So a Prestige Class more often than not requires multiclassing to enter.
So now you have multiclass (weaker option) with Prestige classes (weaker option) meaning it's a double weakness.
Oh, but wait! There's more! Fairly often the multiclass and prestige class require spread out stat requirements without compensating for it. So you end up with lower stats all around, and this means that if one of your classes is a caster, you have lower DCs on your spells and lower spells available.
So weaker stats, weaker multiclass, weaker prestige class. Very often this tends to mean that your character will feel overshadowed and/or inconsequential in encounters.
Ian Bell wrote:
It's disingenuous to say that people who weren't playing affected characters weren't affected by the FAQ (in either incarnation). It's a cooperative game and anything that any player at the table does affects everyone else to an extent (especially the GM.)
Unless you are using the previous ruling, you remain unaffected by it. Period.
Why does an SLA qualify and not an Extraordinary? Because an Extraordinary isn't magical.
What about Supernatural? Nope, doesn't mimic a spell.
With the previous ruling, using an SLA allowed you to craft magical items, take prestige classes, use magical feats (like Arcane Strike) etc. The only time a SLA wasn't a spell, seemed to be in the 'dispel/counter' option for readied actions. You can't ready an action to dispel/counter a spell like ability because they weren't spells, but likewise, you can't use a spell like ability to dispel/counter a spell either.
Option A removes fun, flavorful, but not super powerful abilities from the game.
Option B keeps the fun, flavorful but not super powerful abilities in the game.
Camp 1 is unaffected by either option. Camp 2 doesn't use Option B but likes Option A however their characters won't really be affected by either ruling. Camp 3 likes Option B and uses Option B because it's fun.
Let's go with Option A and make the people who play with the option, upset, the people who don't play with the option, mildly appreciative, and remove magical options from the none casters.
Paizo Publishing: "Martials, HA! Filthy peasants."
A third don't care as it doesn't affect them - a third like it, but doesn't really affect them - and a third hate it as it affects them because their characters are now illegal and don't function.
Congratulations on changing the rules to suit the whims of people who were unaffected by the previous rules!!!
In other news, Paizo Publishing has proposed a bill to Congress that would make it illegal for people to use electricity because the Amish don't like it.
I dunno if I agree with Vital Strike not working with Melee kineticist. The feat over all this time is basically useless (Or requires somewhere around SIX feat to not be) to most Martial characters and the ones who CAN do it rely on Magic (Druids Im looking at you), while this ONE class makes it worth it and doesnt have to jump through hoops to do so. What is the issue with that? Oh it allows the Melee to be stronger? Well then you can stay ranged blasting as far as an archer or heck just use a Conductive Bow.
It really is a fairly odd ruling and one that will break immersion.
"So... I can swing this sword and make a single powerful blow with this new feat... But I can't swing this melee blast into a single powerful blow with this feat. This melee blast functions like a weapon in every other way and can be used as a weapon in every other single scenario... except this one?"
Wouldn't be the first immersion breaking restriction I've seen. For example, you can't cast create water on top of someone, you have to cast it into a container and then dump the container on them.
Honestly? This FAQ right here is why I can never play nor GM for PFS. Too many FAQs that I don't agree with and that I would blatantly ignore at tables I ran. Crane Wing nerf? Yeah know, we use original Crane Wing, this FAQ? Ignored. Before the Monk 'clarification' was changed, that was another thing I ignored as well.
Mythic JMD031 wrote:
I count 9 Cosmos (Ah-ah-ah), but even if we only count the ones that you yourself added, that is stil 8 cosmos.
I blame Cosmo because even Mythic JMD031 can't count. How is he supposed to have a counter to keep track of all the puns people use if the creator himself can't count?
You speak as if though it isn't already...
There is a hint of 'cuddlyness' in the air...
John Kretzer wrote:
Cosmo is never unjustly blamed for anything. Even good things are Cosmo's fault, because he wants to make us happy before ripping the happiness away to make our suffering all the more intense.
I blame Cosmo for John's lack of enlightenment.
There's also a demon lord of lust, and one of secrets, and one of wind, but none of those are evil either.
Just because a demon lord holds sway over an ideal, doesn't mean the idea is evil.
Goblins roasting babies is evil because the babies have to be killed first. However, if the babies were dead due to some other reason (like still birth), it's not evil. Lord knows those goblins probably butchered a birthing center to do it though :P
Snicker, I would probably classify what you did as evil, because it seems your first instinct was to eat the person, instead of diffuse the threat. You say the fey was casting spells and being annoying, but were they harming anyone? Were they posing an actual threat at the time?
I mean, fey often take the form of pranksters, admittedly, some of their pranks can be more deadly than others...
Still, if a pixie were to cast silent image and make a scary face jump out of the trees just to shock you... I don't think eating her alive is the correct response there.