The Sideromancer's page

2,861 posts (3,296 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 13 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,861 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

In a sense, those are controllers/buffers/damage that happen to have healing instead of being healers.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
...
off-topic abbreviation:
Glossary wrote:
In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how he died, has hit points equal to or less than his negative Constitution score.
, and from the previous citation,
Glossary wrote:
A dying creature can take no actions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
The problem with common sense is that it is neither common or entirely sensible. Having a few foreign friends I can tell you it can be very different in different areas, and in a large country it can differ across provinces. Best not to count on it.

Literally at the top of my Clarifications and Houserules document:

• I will accept mechanically rigid solutions and creative solutions. Players will be informed of any changes to what is considered mechanically rigid, but should be aware that repeated use will make a solution less creative.
• Common sense is too vaguely defined to be mechanically rigid and is most certainly not creative.

So I guess I would accept the javelins in the belt pouch.

Did you let dead creatures take actions in PF1? Because the dead condition famously doesn't say they can't, only common sense does.
The Dead condition also doesn't remove the dying condition, which applies the unconscious condition, which prevents actions.
So if I go from conscious to dead in one stroke without passing through dying (which is quite possible), then I can still take actions at your table? Cool! I'll start by pulling javelins out of my belt pouch and throwing them at the guy who killed me.
PRD, dying wrote:
A dying creature is unconscious and near death. Creatures that have negative hit points and have not stabilized are dying. A dying creature can take no actions. On the character's next turn, after being reduced to negative hit points (but not dead), and on all subsequent turns, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check to become stable. The character takes a penalty on this roll equal to his negative hit point total. A character that is stable does not need to make this check. A natural 20 on this check is an automatic success. If the character fails this check, he loses 1 hit point. If a dying creature has an amount of negative hit points equal to its Constitution score, it dies.

I'm not seeing a lower bound here. Did you take an infinite amount of damage?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
The problem with common sense is that it is neither common or entirely sensible. Having a few foreign friends I can tell you it can be very different in different areas, and in a large country it can differ across provinces. Best not to count on it.

Literally at the top of my Clarifications and Houserules document:

• I will accept mechanically rigid solutions and creative solutions. Players will be informed of any changes to what is considered mechanically rigid, but should be aware that repeated use will make a solution less creative.
• Common sense is too vaguely defined to be mechanically rigid and is most certainly not creative.

So I guess I would accept the javelins in the belt pouch.

Did you let dead creatures take actions in PF1? Because the dead condition famously doesn't say they can't, only common sense does.

The Dead condition also doesn't remove the dying condition, which applies the unconscious condition, which prevents actions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
The problem with common sense is that it is neither common or entirely sensible. Having a few foreign friends I can tell you it can be very different in different areas, and in a large country it can differ across provinces. Best not to count on it.

Literally at the top of my Clarifications and Houserules document:

• I will accept mechanically rigid solutions and creative solutions. Players will be informed of any changes to what is considered mechanically rigid, but should be aware that repeated use will make a solution less creative.
• Common sense is too vaguely defined to be mechanically rigid and is most certainly not creative.

So I guess I would accept the javelins in the belt pouch.


While I can't tell you about D&D, neither the Lighting Bolt spell nor a Blue Dragon's breath weapon reflect at all in PF.

Primarily because it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for them to do so. If the endpoints with the charge difference are changed, there's no reason for the bolt itself to go over to the mirror and then to the final space, and if the plasma is meaningfully affected by hitting the mirror, it would be much more likely to scatter than keep to a thin channel going in a different direction.


As a Canadian, I can say that I'm only familiar with the Imperial units that I know the metric conversions for, despite the large amount of cultural leakage from the US. A foot only exists as 12*2.54cm, ºF are only 9/5ºC+32, a pound is only .47? kg (I forgot the last digit). Volume and force are basically undefined unless I have something on hand that measures using them. They might as well be Klingon units, I'll have to look them up either way.

Edit: somebody mentioned plumbing. I was recently working with pneumatic tubes, so I now have a new reference point. 1/4 inch is just slightly bigger than 6mm, because we can't use the old imperial stuff with the new stuff from a German company.


I was recently given a GM screen as a gift for when I needed to roll in secret.

I'm still figuring out how to attach it to a wall as a poster, because I don't need it as a screen. (the info on the GM side isn't actually for a system I play in)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will say that "the freezing and boiling points of water" are more likely to be relevant in Golarion (and thus produce a temperature scale identical to Celsius) than "How cold this one specific mixture is" (the basis for 0ºF)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Who needs a shirt when you have this many belts?


Tangentially related, but Lich is no longer a template, forcing you to dig through the entire stablock to modify it if, for example, an arcanist decides they want some extra safety after the PCs got them down to single-digit HP. (said arcanist was level 15 at the time)


Grimcleaver wrote:
I wonder if something else that might bear addressing, if we really are talking about modeling the kind of scarcity we see in fiction and our world, is the value of gems in Pathfinder. Real gems, to the best of my research, have never been worth hundreds, much less thousands of gold. It's always seemed a little silly and kind of gamey feeling to me.

It helps there's an actual demand for diamonds that uses them up now. Black onyx too.


The multiclass archetype for fighter seems like the best plan here. The dedication doesn't really do anything for you, but it allows for Expert in bows and borrowing class feats. It does not have any specific ties to heavy armour.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I am going to go with Yes, I do.

Fully custom creations aside (since I don't have much experience with them), modifications are much easier when you know where everything came from.


Charlaquin wrote:
Lucid Blue wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:
Visanideth wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:


(Also, the fighter would be at negative hit points and close to death in your second example. I would imagine him bleeding out on the ground.)
Instead he's standing with 23 hp and full combat capabilities, so the question still is: did that 1500 lb sword hit or not?
He's lying on the ground bleeding. 23-31 equals -8, does it not?

Forget hit points if the "abstraction" causes so many problems. Let's use "unconscious and dying." There's no more abstraction. There's no more figurative anything. The state is what it is. It doesn't matter how you got there. It doesn't matter if you have "literal sword wounds." Or if you fell from a great height and broke bones, or just "suffered the abstract consequences of a great fall."

You are "unconscious and dying." It is what it is.

And the soup line of naked medics can still fix you up better than the cleric wielding healing magic.

Or at least, they can do more in volume. The clerics run out of spells. The soup line can fix a constant stream of "unconscious and dying" patients. Right back to full health. Thousands of "unconscious and dying" patients a day. With no resources. And no limit. Other than they can only see each patient once.

Yes, and 10,000 peasants can launch a spear at supersonic speed just by passing it from one to the next in the course of a 6-second round, but nobody cares because we understand that this little quirk is an unavoidable result of the fact that the game rules are not designed to account for such situations. But if you use them like a normal human being who isn’t out to prove that they can fabricate a situation where the system’s logic breaks down, then they work just fine.

They can move it fast, but you can't launch it fast. The last guy in the line throws like just another commoner


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reading this (and thinking of a video game I'm a fan of also going through this), it occurs to me that it wouldn't be an unreasonable strategy if you made sure the endpoint was still Pathfinder.

I guess I'm saying that PF2 would work decently as an entry point for PF1, but not so much as its own thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

After seeing the playtest material, I'm a lot less certain why a current fan would be interested than an ex-fan.


I gotta say, the title reads as if it looks good on paper but fails when making a character.


Grapes of Being Tired wrote:
Sulako wrote:

One thing that has been tossed out there in aether (I haven't confirmed it yet, so if it has been, awesome) is that the new Campaign Setting Book is going to take into account all of the events of the previous Adventure Paths.

That's actually pretty dope. It gives the players a tangible effect on the world up to this point. I like that.

It annoys me slightly for the same reason Starfinder's take on Iron Gods annoyed me, it kind of makes a canon end to the APs. Which, granted, most of them did have.

I developed a headcanon that only required the canon end to exist, not necessarily occur

Spoiler:
The "global memory" used for pre-Gap information was recorded through prophecy, and thus has potential inaccuracies after Aroden's death. Assuming the gods are not immune to the gap, Triune may have woken up wondering who their third aspect is and decided "sure, that looks right." What it is if it isn't Casandalee is an open question, but I lean towards a starstone-ascended minor AI that is continuing it's directive to make Absalom Station an excellent transport hub.


Not having hands is a rough deal.


Heck, you often saw crossbowmen bringing their own cover


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
Identifying a spell being cast is now a feat.
That seems...unfortunate.
It gets worse though, you have to spend a reaction to do so, and be trained in the skill relevant to the tradition (since spellcraft is gone).

And then you can't counterspell it, since you don't have a reaction left to do so.


Noble Scion PrC wrote:
Greater Leadership (Ex): At 2nd level, a noble scion gains the Leadership feat as a bonus feat. He can recruit a cohort up to one level lower than himself. At 10th level, he can recruit a cohort of the same level as himself.

The chaining is probably an exploit, but the higher-leveled cohort is fully intended.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To those saying to playtest before expressing opinion on the ability to build characters: I have. Building characters is my playtesting. Nearby groups are either so intermittent as to basically not exist, or have sufficient differences that I'm not a good fit for them. But I still bought and used PF1 books because I could enjoy what they had to offer, and have fun thinking through what I can do. So what I'm focused on in the playtest is how I enjoy the system i.e. making interesting characters. I don't need to run adventures to have a good opinion for my interests, because the characters actually being run though any adventures is going to be a rarity.

And sure, maybe I'm the type of gamer Paizo neither needs nor wants. But until they say that to my face, I will keep commenting on how the system works for me.


I smell cheese.

Standardly, when "you" is used in a piece of mechanics, it refers to the bearer of that piece (e.g. feats). So one could argue a statblock that consists of "you lose" is referring to the creature itself.

I am well aware this is not the intent, but I'm pretty sure nothing I would consider posting in this thread would be following intent either.


Voss wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:

And how long you can fly, which limits how high they can fly safely.

Congrats, Dragon Totem is no fun at all. :(

It's better than animal. You _wield_ a weapon (not even attack), congrats, lose all totem benefits.

What the flip is an Animal Totem barbarian supposed to contribute against fast, far or flying enemies?

My plan was to go though old characters and see how they fare. I was not expecting it to break on things like the no archetype core race core class party, but both the stormborn sorcerer and the barb that uses both natural attacks and their chainsawgreatsword are out of luck


2 people marked this as a favorite.
mach1.9pants wrote:

I'm wondering if this lack of ways to break out of the standard tropes is on purpose, to narrow the focus of the playtest, it makes it easier to test narrow rules. The problem is tho, pathfinder has so long been about options (millions of them when you add in third party) that players will focus on what they've lost rather than trialling the chassis. If this is the case Paizo would do well to explicitly state this, in HUGE letters, somewhere.

They mentioned that about multi classing, only core four given, but I think it applies throughout the rules

I'm still not sure that would make this a successful playtest. After all, we're not actually playtesting the large amount of options that would be the make-or-break, we're playtesting the base ruleset.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Losing out on N seems weird as well. He's a god of armies as much as individual mercs, a profession that often strives for extreme amounts of discipline and general Lawfulness. Sure, you wouldn't be as likely to fight for lawful reasons as a priest of Gorum, but it makes it that much harder for the, pardon my wordplay, General populace.


Just a friendly reminder to adjust CR if somebody shows up with reduced wealth and or using an NPC class.


bugleyman wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
Rholand wrote:
One peculiarity I noticed; You can't cast Wall spells diagonally. My guess is it is to avoid having to count the diagonal squares and people trying to cheat themselves to an extra 2.5 foot of wall?
In other words, any character with access to these spells and half a brain would be fully aware of the grid's existence.

Uhm...how does resolving an infinite number of directions to four (instead of eight) make someone "aware of the grid's existence"?

Aliasing is inherent in translating the "analog" (real world directions) to "digital" (a representation with a finite number of directions). The fact that you appear to believe that eight would imperceptible but four would obvious says more about your perception than it does about your character's!

I never said 8 wouldn't be perceptible. Also, there are several examples given in the CRB for non-45 degree angles.


Dave Justus wrote:
If it has stats, you can kill it.

To refer to another game, 999/999/999/999/999/999 stats will stop neither Toxic nor F.E.A.R


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

The more I think about it the worse it feels to not have combat feats everyone can take and making Fighters "Combat Feats the Class" even more than in 1E.

None of the Fighter Class Feats are interesting, cool, unique class abilities. They're literally just combat feats, most of which we've seen before.

Now if you want to Power Attack as a cleric, you need to be a fighter/cleric?

None of the other class feats had this problem, they all seemed pretty thematically appropriate from what I could tell.

They need to turn basically all the Fighter Class Feats back into Combat Feats anyone can take, let Fighters select them with their Class Feats, and add interesting, unique Fighter-y Class Feats to flesh out their list a bit more.

Cleave is locked to Barbarian 6, and only during rage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rholand wrote:
One peculiarity I noticed; You can't cast Wall spells diagonally. My guess is it is to avoid having to count the diagonal squares and people trying to cheat themselves to an extra 2.5 foot of wall?

In other words, any character with access to these spells and half a brain would be fully aware of the grid's existence.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

The following acts are anathema to all druids:

• Using metal armor or shields.

*flips table*

There was ONE thing I wanted out of this class! ONE THING! It would even save word count!


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
So yeah, its basically what I feared from the previews, only worse. GREATLY reduced customization, a system that actively punishes you for thinking outside the box (I need to be trained in Religion just to READ A HOLY TEXT?!?), and is overall just very video-gamey.

This is where I stand up for video games. There are plenty that have little restrictions of this kind, and those that do still contain options to play against type and produce interesting combinations. I've played video games with weapons locked to classes, and greatly enjoyed what I could do with that system. You can only ever have 4 different types of actions in combat? I can live with that if it makes the gameplay and the picking of movesets fun.

Video gamey is too good a term for this.


Cleave is a pretty iconic fighter option. I'm not sure there's much that simply gets across "great at fighting" like bringing down two attackers in one stroke. It wasn't amazing in PF1 unless you were a dwarf, but one with everything going was truly spectacular.

The playtest fighter cannot gain cleave. It's Barbarian only. Patterns tell me it would be available at 12 in Core once the multiclass for Barb is online, due to the "half your level" on getting class feats via multiclass.

So after We've dropped three feats, our fighter can cleave, right? Well, not fully. Cleave has the rage trait, restricting it to during that status. So we can cleave 3/4 of the time, but not if you go toward the standard fighter equipment. Because you can't rage (and thus cleave) in heavy armour.

It is, as far as I can tell, impossible to make something you could do as a first level fighter in the PF1 CRB, or heck, even the PF1 beginner box. I would request that Cleave and Great Cleave be Fighter feats in addition to Barbarian feats and lose the rage trait.


Isaac Zephyr wrote:
When an exploit like this is discovered in a video game, it gets patched to balance it again.

Unless it's decided to be more interesting with it in place and future balance patches accept its existence. Sometimes you get entire genres popularized out of a programer's screw-up (not that I'm personally a fan of the biggest case-in-point here, but that's less relevant) I've even seen games where a glitch gets patched and the devs say "we meant to fix some other thing. If we can figure out how to put that back in, we'll do so."


Arachnofiend wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:

I got the impression FE weaponry was always at least partially magical with the enhancements split between longevity and power. Weapons in e.g. Fates and Echoes don't have limited durability because they draw power from the wielder (in either hp or other stats) while the highest-effort enchantments (the regalia et. al.) only start having limited uses if there power isn't maintained. The existence of a few magical sources that happen to give infinite-use weapons as a secondary effect of having significant power on their own seems to support this.

I mean, this is the series where you walk into a blacksmith and tell them to power up your spellbook.

Weapons in Fates and Echoes don't break because disposable weapons was an almost universally reviled mechanic in the older games; in Echoes getting rid of it even let them do more interesting things with weapons that allowed you to build characters around the abilities of a specific weapon.

Like, Fire Emblem is a terrible example for disposable equipment because the mechanic created a meta where you only ever used the crappiest weapons you could get away with because getting top level gear was so inefficient and fragile. If a cruddy iron sword with 40 uses will do the job then you take that cruddy iron sword to end game.

I sometimes try to keep my ingame and metagame explanations separate. Side note: it's interesting that the earliest-obtained unbreakable regalia in a game with otherwise breakable weapons is in the hands of a character known for breaking things during practice.


willuwontu wrote:
I'm even more worried about thursday, with the servers going down earlier.

I got the "scheduled maintenance" page and not the "error" page, so I assumed that was setup for the big day.

Edit: apparently so.


Xenocrat wrote:

The reddit guy who had an early copy's agreement with Paizo not to talk expired today, and he says the only archetypes in the book are the two we knew about (Pirate and Grey Maiden), the multiclass ones (Cleric, Fighter, Wizard, Rogue), and Cavalier.

Surprised there aren't more, but Cavalier is a good archetype idea.

Cavalier as in "person on a horse" or Cavalier as in "martial teamwork-based support"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I got the impression FE weaponry was always at least partially magical with the enhancements split between longevity and power. Weapons in e.g. Fates and Echoes don't have limited durability because they draw power from the wielder (in either hp or other stats) while the highest-effort enchantments (the regalia et. al.) only start having limited uses if there power isn't maintained. The existence of a few magical sources that happen to give infinite-use weapons as a secondary effect of having significant power on their own seems to support this.

I mean, this is the series where you walk into a blacksmith and tell them to power up your spellbook.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*looks around*
*equips Gloves of Improvised Might (+3)*
*Grabs Fish*

Let's do this!


ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

I'd say that, fundamentally, a Cavalier is a swordy guy who gets to have a horse animal companion so that he doesn't have to mess with buying horses and having them die instantly to area of effect at higher levels.

Definitely, "get a horse animal companion" is an option that should exist for everyone who could reasonably be a knight. Perhaps one feat for a horse animal companion would be too much, so perhaps the first could grant a first level horse and the second cause it to advance.

Based on what I use Cavalier for, it's a class that allows you to grant teamwork feats to the party and has options for other support (including battle herald) while keeping up offensive presence.


the David wrote:

You know, this is what happened in Ravenloft. Strahd wasn't just a vampire. He was a vampire wizard. Even then, the villagers only referred to him as "the devil Strahd" so it was likely the players would face a nasty surprise somewhere along the line.

I've even been contemplating to turn Strahd into a Mindflayer or Kyton, just to get that element of surprise.

Now that I've mentioned Mindflayers, guess what? They're psychic vampires that eat brains instead of drinking blood. They've got the power to dominate lesser beings, they can create spawn, they hate light. Do I need to go on? Early D&D was full of this stuff. Does anybody remember the Gas Spore?

Here's a nice twist on the vampire. Give a Nymph the Vampire template, now add a level of Anti-Paladin for the Smite. Now you've got a charisma bonus on hit points, armor class, saves and attacks. Yeah, that's nasty.

Needs more Noble Scion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From a cosmology perspective it seems kind of strange that

  • Creatures from the Ethereal plane are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Astral plane are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Elemental planes are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Outer planes are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Positive Energy plane are Outsiders
  • (non-undead) creatures from the Negative Energy plane are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Shadow plane are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the First World are Fey

Either subdivide outsiders more, or fold fey into it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elleth wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
My most recent message described a battle with Merisiel and Valeros on one side and Kyra and Seelah on the other.

Maybe it's just me but I'm finding the following exchange kind of hilarious:

K: I back away.
V: Sure, but I'm taking an attack of opportunity.
S: Whoah there, hold on a sec. Not if I stab you first.

Also I guess I can see how it sounds complicated to some PF players, though I suspect this system would be easier to explain to at least one of my 5e players than swift, full round, standard, move action etc. (he frequently forgets how to roll for attack, and "You can do three things, some things count as more than one" seems easier than explaining the different types of action)

It is not just you. The first two happened, but Seelah had used her reaction on a Shield Block, so she could not react with a Retributive Strike. I considered re-arranging the reactions to make the Retributive Strike possible, but a reaction to a reaction was too much for an easy example battle.

Now I'm curious if it could end up going full MtG stack style -it has been suggested that fighters and co can get multi reactions, right?

E.g.
K: I back away.
V: Sure, but I'm taking an attack of opportunity.
S: Whoah there, hold on a sec. Not if I stab you first.
V: Haha, not so fast! I'm going to shield block you.

I am reminded of a tabletop wargame where the reactions were declared after the first half of the turn and the person whose turn it was could do whatever they wanted with the information. I rather appreciated

P1: I round the corner, coming into range of your guy here
P2: I need make sure I'm not hacked, so I declare Reset (the basic way to contest hacking rolls)
P1: Okay, do that. I'm going to shoot you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's also this thing, though it does come with a few other abilities as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:

Sorcerer/Monk in PF1? Well, someones not made for a longshot, thats for sure - with the new system that might actually be a viable character.

I am somewhat saddened that we get neither monk nor sorcerer to test

Hey Mark, any chance we get additional mcs during the playtest?

Monk 1/Empyreal bloodline or Scaled Fist monk 1/(most other bloodlines would give you your casting stat to AC. In fact, I think of empyeral sorc/zen archer monk to be one of the better foundations for Arcane Archer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm now picturing a two-man team where the Envoy gives extra reload actions so the Soldier can fire an automatic weapon continuously until they have exhausted every cartridge/battery on their person.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just felt like you should all know that I finished creating a level 10 PC and they had 2222 gp 2 sp left for their WBL.

1 to 50 of 2,861 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>