TomJohn's page

I can’t really know anything for sure until I’ve read the playtest, but I don’t understand why they keep the iterative attacks. Why not just get rid of the full attack with all its 0/-5/-10 and just let martial classes (or any class) attack, move and attack? In fact most of my issues have with PF has already been fixed by 5e:

- more flow to the game,
- fighters, rogues and monk rock.
- anyone can be a trap expert. Disable device etc. is not a class feature so rogues shine because they are rogues, not because they can handle traps.
- Anyone can have any skill as a class skill. Just pick a background that gives you that skill.
- pointless feat chains are gone.
- weapon finesse is gone because dex to attack and damage is tied to the weapon
- the spellcasting system is intuitive and sorcerers are not punished
- full casters don’t need a crossbow. Instead they have at will
- cantrips that get more power as they level ep
- Bard is now a full faster (but they made it a debuff class which I dislike immensely).
- Weak foes/monsters are still viable at higher levels.
- Multi classing is far more simple.
- Archetypes only gives you more, you don’t lose anything.

There are still some issues like cleric being generic, Beast master ranger being weak, some classes not having short rest rechargeable powers, unbalance feats, etc, the 3:e/PF/5e initiative system creating problems, bonus action system flawed, but overall they fixed almost everything.

I doubt our gaming group will start plating PF again. Time will tell, but if PF stick to iterative attacks ( 0/-5/-10), an unintuitive spellcasting system and an unintuitive character creating process, etc, we won’t leave 5e. At the same time I hope PF is not making the mistake and trying to become a Paizo version of 5e. The new initiative system seems very interesting, so maybe there is hope.

Good luck Liz, you're great!

Merry Christmas James Jacobs
1) What do you wish for Christmas?
2) What movies do you look forward to in 2016?
3) Favorite movies this year so far?
Kind regards Zark

Link to Sage Advice Rules Roundup with the following PDFs

- Sage Advice Compendium (version 1.0)

- D&D Spell Lists (version 1.0)

- Player’s Handbook Errata (version 1.1)

The spell list is very neat :)

Zark wrote:

I actually think we need a FAQ, but unlike most posters here I think the answer posted by the Design team is an excellent answer that should be posted as a FAQ answer.

Honestly, whatever happened to “this is your game”? No, is also an answer and when you say no a lot of people freak out. You really should sit down and contemplate on why. I think – to some part - it is the same reason why some of us has switch to 5e. PF is too complicated/bloated and “this is your game” no longer rings true.
The answer from the PTD is an good ruling. Why not stand your ground and make it an official ruling?

At the same time I really don’t understand why you won’t give in and give people what they want when it comes to stuff like the fixing the rogue etc. PF unchained is a sad example of this. It’s a fix but not really a fix. Slashing Grace and the warpriest are other examples.

If “this is your game” should be taken seriously, making this PDT answer an official ruling could be a step in the right direction. Next step could be PF 1.5 or even 2.0.

This misses the mark in such a big way.

Nothing about having clear rules prevents it from being "your game". You are free to houserule anything you like at any time.

But knowing what the rule was MEANT TO DO is NEVER a bad thing.

If you then want to use the rules as written, you can do that.

If you don't want to use the rule at all, you can do that.

If you want to change the rule, you can do that too.

Not knowing how a rule works makes it LESS your game if you're in the first category. If in your game you want to use the rules as they appear in the book...you can't, because it's unclear.

Either way it doesn't change the second two categories. It's still their game whether the rule is clarified or not.

I see we don’t agree and that is fine, although it’s a bit unclear if you think everything in my post “misses the mark in such a big way”.

You have received an official answer from the PDT that could easily be posted on the FAQ. Later on Stephen Radney-MacFarland has explained their stance on the matter:
“There are rules for take 10, but the last thing we are going to do is try to cover every instance on when you can take 10 or not. The game is far too complex […]”

They are giving the power to the GM and at the same time saying they can’t create list that covers every corner case. Would I mind a short list of examples? Perhaps not, but it would only spawn new questions. Also, I think this answer sends out an important signal when the PDT hand over more power to the GMs.

You’ve been around long enough to remember Sean K Reynold’s answer to this question when he still was a member of the PDT. He was even involved in the process of creating the 3E rules for skill checks.

ciretose wrote:

If Sean is saying that part of Take 10 is knowing exactly how far that distance is, Sean writes the rules and that is the rule.

I never said PCs automatically can eye-measure distances without error. But if you're a jumper, or an adventurer who lives his life in increments of 5 feet, you're going to develop a good sense for eye-measuring distances.

The issue we've been discussing is whether or not you can Take 10 on a jump, not whether or not a character can exactly know a distance without measuring it. As Ashiel suggested, grab a rope or a 10-foot-pole and measure it if you really need to know the exact distance.

If the player asks "how far is it?," and the GM says "about 10 feet," and the player uses Take 10 because he knows his Take 10 result gets him 11 feet, that's fine.

And if the gap was actually 12 feet and he fails to clear the gap, that's within the margin for error of eyeballing it, and that's fair.

And if the gap was actually 15 feet, the GM is being a jerk for estimating it at 10 feet; if the player knew it was closer to 15 feet, he'd know that was beyond his Take 10 result and would have to decide if he wanted to chance a roll on it.

In any case, he's still allowed to use the Take 10 rule on his jump, which is what we've been talking about. It doesn't matter if the chasm is one inch wide, 5 feet, 10 feet, 50 feet, or a million miles... if the player wants to use Take 10 on the jump, he can, even if he doesn't know that means he'll fail to span the gap, and even if he does know he'll fail to span the gap. Maybe he's trying to get into range of his wizard ally on the other side of the gap who's ready to cast feather fall on him as soon as he's in range. Maybe he's hoping to land on some spikes at the bottom of the chasm so he can have a dramatic death scene. It doesn't matter... he can use the Take 10 rule, whether rolling a 10 would save him or kill him, and whether he knows how far the distance is.

There has been an answer around from one of the PDT members since October 2012 and some people still go on about it. The answer from SKR should be enough for any GM. (In my experience, most people that scream for FAQ answers, when they already have been given a direct answer from a Dev, are players.)

Some questions are easy to answer with a yes or know, some are almost impossible, and some answers seem to create even more confusion. I guess take 10 is one of those questions where the PDT fear a FAQ will generate even more questions and confusion. Again, I’m not saying a small list has to be a bad idea, but the PDT has given us an answer and sent out a signal and it is: It’s up to the GM.

As for Paizo not giving people what they want? I still claim they don’t. So many people are still waiting for a vanilla rogue and vanilla monk that doesn’t suck; a full BAB holy warrior of any alignment; a generic dex to attack and damage feat that cuts it; killing iterative attacks or making martial classes more flexible; not forcing full casters to use crossbows when they run out of spells, etc. So no, I don’t think I miss the mark in such a big way. I don’t think Paizo lives up to “this is your game”.

I like a PF 2.0 where they have made the game more intuitive, flexible and easier to understand. A PF 2.0 where playing the game and having fun is more important that spending hours creating a new character or arguing with Devs over rulings. This is why this ruling appeals to me.

DM_Blake wrote:

So, to translate into simpler terms: No FAQ required because Rule Zero...

This is quite unacceptable. We bought the rulebook, and keep buying supplemental rulebooks, because we want rules. Or at least guidelines telling us when it's a good idea to apply a rule and when it's not a good idea.

Saying "Oh, here's a fun rule but your GM is expected deny your use of it whenever he whimsically feels it would be more dramatic" is worse than having no rule at all. If we wanted that game, we could all just sit around playing "make-believe".

Why even sell a rulebook at all? The CRB could have been one page long and would have said "Everything is whatever the GM wants; you're all subject to his whims, fancies, and interpretations. Deal with it." End of rulebook.

"Design" is the middle word of "Pathfinder Design Team" but this non-answer is also non-design.

Very disappointed.

I understand you are disappointed, but quite frankly the rest of what you say is hyperbole.

There are rules for take 10, but the last thing we are going to do is try to cover every instance on when you can take 10 or not. The game is far too complex and has a narrative structure where we must trust our GMs to make the best decision possible during play. And we do trust our GMs as well as the players to make arguments as to why they should be allowed to take 10 at a certain instance. Creating a long list of yes and no for all the situations of the game would end up being nothing more than advice anyway.

That is at least why I supported the answer how it stands. No FAQ needed.

Good gaming!

I actually think we need a FAQ, but unlike most posters here I think the answer posted by the Design team is an excellent answer that should be posted as a FAQ answer.

The answer from the PTD is an good ruling. Why not stand your ground and make it an official ruling?

At the same time I really don’t understand why you won’t give in and give people what they want when it comes to stuff like the fixing the rogue etc. PF unchained is a sad example of this. It’s a fix but not really a fix. Slashing Grace and the warpriest are other examples.

If “this is your game” should be taken seriously, making this PDT answer an official ruling could be a step in the right direction. Next step could be PF 1.5 or even 2.0.

Zark wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

How long after Pathfinder was released did it take to get a stable of non-English versions on the shelf? 5e is six months old or so, if it was in that time frame, I think it would fair to bring up their lack of foreign language editions. Otherwise, not so much.

Tracking down the exact answer would take a bit, but I know that we had announced French and German even before we released the English version and I believe both of those languages had their versions of the Core Rulebook out quickly. We released in August 2009, and I'm pretty sure French was out before year end, and German was pretty close to French.

(Also, I've learned that Lisa has already revealed that Chinese and Hebrew translations are in progress, and there are still others to be announced.)

I’m really surprised and a bit sad that Paizo is ignoring the Spanish speaking public. ...

A couple things:

As Erik has already mentioned, we do have a Spanish publishing partner. The bit you quoted wasn't a complete list of our translation partners—the first paragraph of mine that you quoted was answering houstonderek's question, so I listed only the ones that released Core Rulebooks within six months of the English release. And the second paragraph you quoted was me updating the list that I'd given out earlier in the thread, which, for easy reference, is this:

Out now:
•French (Black Book Editions)
•German (Ulisses Spiele)
•Italian (Giochi Uniti)
•Portuguese (Devir)
•Spanish (Devir)
Coming Soon:
•Chinese
•Hebrew
•TBA (and this isn't just a "someday there will hopefully be more" thing, it's a "contracts are currently in process" thing).

Also, it's important to note that the absence of any given language on the list does not mean that Paizo is ignoring that language. We are not in the business of publishing and selling in other languages; instead, we are looking to partner with experienced local publishers who already know how to sell and...

I'm really happy to see so much of the Pathfinder books available in Spanish and more being release in Spanish this year.

Sorry for derailing this thread.

Thanks for the info and please try to highlight that products are available in other languages, and where those can be found.

It is sad or even frustrating when some people call me and others names. We are labeld "power gamers or optimizers" just because we find finds feat bloat and other kind of bloat problematic.

It’s also frustrating that me and others are pointed pout as stupid or whiners just because we think that bloat is something real in PF and that we are automatically wrong just because this is brought up once in a while.

I’m not saying I’m right and others are wrong. I’m simply saying I and many with me are have a problem with PF and were PF is heading. It doesn’t really help me or others when people essentially say that we can p*ss of if we don’t like the game.

Assuming that people complaining about balance issues or weak feats or bloat are power gamers/optimizers are not only rude but it is actually untrue. We are a gaming group that played for about 10 years and we consists of mainly casual players and most are not optimizers. In fact I would go as far and say that the only one in our group that have a good grasp of the rules and builds something even remotely close to optimized characters is me, and I usually play bard or other support characters. The problem with weak/false options is far greater if you have an organic attitude of building your character, something my friends have. When you build “fun” characters and pick feats or stats that match the vision of what you think could be a cool option that is when the problem often starts.

When you create an elven ranger archer and can’t pick precise shot until level 2 you realise that there is something seriously wrong with 3.x and PF. Me, I usually try to plan ahead and try to build balanced characters, but my friends have a more intuitive and organic approach and I often experience they get punished for it.
Bloat, weak feats, etc. isn’t usually a problem if you are an optimizer it’s in fact those that are not that suffers. At least at our table.

chbgraphicarts wrote:

Tarantula wrote:

chbgraphicarts wrote:

In the 5 years that Paizo's been publishing Pathfinder, there are only 15 big books, with 32 classes (38 once AO comes out), and 86 prestige classes.

Woah, 86 prestige classes?

I get 10 from core.
and 8 from APG. What am I missing?

Also, I only counted 31 base classes
11 core
6 apg
1 UM
3 UC
10 ACG

You forgot the Antipaladin.

"The antipaladin is an alternate class. Making use of and altering numerous facets of the paladin core class, this villainous warrior can't truly be considered a new character class by its own right."

It´s not a base class, but an alternate for paladin.

The ninja is also an alternate class. Just as alternate classes are new classes so are archetypes. So the numbers are far higher than what has been stated.

To me the main problem isn’t the number of classes that Paizo produces; it’s the fact that PF was supposed to fix 3.5, but it obvious it didn’t.

New classes and new abilities create new weird synergies that in the end make the game problematic. I feel that some of the core problem are just addressed by add-ons or by patches and when it is obvious it can’t be fixed using patches then Paizo moves of to create a new class that is another option to X o Y, or perhaps it is the other way around; Paizo is so busy to create new stuff they don’t have the time to fix the old. My guess it is a bit of both.

But to problem runs deeper than just looking at classes, something the stealth play test showed. I’m not saying the Devs needs to give us a Pathfinder 2, but I think the Devs need to look at the core book(s) and fix what needs to be fixed. I also think denying that there is no problem with stuff and then years later admitting there are problems isn’t a way to go. With unchained coming out I fear this is just another optional patch that can possibly create more frustration than it solves and the problem will mainly be that it A) is only a patch so the real problem is still out there, b) it is only optional so those that see this as a salvation, but don’t get to use it will still be frustrated C) there is no chance that Paizo will support both options, the core options and Unchanied, D) more rules bloat will create more weird synergies that needs to be dealt with my Paizo and by GMs.

I don’t know, The Devs and the community may not want to admit it but I fear we need a PF 1.5.

Necro this thread.

I think people have a reason to be worried, especially if you take all archetypes into consideration, but mostly when you look at the quality of the new classes and why they have been released.

I don’t mind new classes, nor do I mind Paizo doing Psionics, but the ACG is problematic and so are the Ninja, Gunslinger and Summoner. The number of the Archetypes is also a kind of bloat.

The quality is declining and some of the new classes are just there to fix the old classes. The Ninja, Investigator and Slayer are there to fix the rogue and Swashbuckler is a dex fighter fix. Brawler is a monk fix, etc.

I also think lack of support for new classes or mechanics introduced is problematic, and by new classes I also mean archetypes.

Bloat is happening and you should be concerned.

I think people have a reason to be worried, especially if you take all archetypes into consideration, but mostly when you look at the quality of the new classes and why they have been released.

I don’t mind new classes, nor do I mind Paizo doing Psionics, but the ACG is problematic and so are the Ninja, Gunslinger and Summoner. The number of the Archetypes is also a kind of bloat.
The quality is declining and some of the new classes are just there to fix the old classes. The Ninja, Investigator and Slayer are there to fix the rogue and Swashbuckler is a dex fighter fix. Brawler is a monk fix, etc.

I also think lack of support for new classes or mechanics introduced is problematic, and by new classes I also mean archetypes.

Bloat is happening and you should be concerned.

Kthulhu wrote:

Asphere wrote:

Javin Swifthand wrote:

To be honest

if a system works

and all the group enjoy it why change it????

There are different levels of enjoyment. They may enjoy something else even more.

There's also system burnout. If your group plays Pathfinder, always and only ever Pathfinder, it's sometimes a nice change of pace to play something different, whether it be Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer 40K, FATE, Swords & Wizardry, or BESM.

After 14 years I am definitely burned out on 3x, any version.

+4

edit:
We, 3 players and one GM, had our first 5e game this evening and while not perfect I’ll doubt we will spend more time with PF than with 5e. We had the best gaming experience in years.

Fighter was more fun than PF, Wizard was more funny and cleric was not bad. In fact my friend played a Cleric with Life domain and he was very pleased. Even rogues seems fun.

I played a Wizard with Criminal background and have found a great mix of caster with some rogue flavour.

I made a relevant post about the topic of crossbows vs. bows vs. Earth "realism" today.

I just noticed this and now I starting no read all the other blogs. It feels like I have died and gone to heaven. I just feel like I’ve come home.

I really don't mind weapons not being equal, but if we go that route we should get rid of the simple vs martial categories. That however means we have to list every weapon someone is proficient with instead of saying "take this category". Of course we can also move crossbows and slings over to the martial category, but people like wizards(insert other caster as needed_ who may never have used a martial weapon can now use one. You can deny them proficiency, but at low levels they need something to do. Those 4 spells a day won't last forever. So the solution is to make some weapons "not good".

Is there another solution?

Yes. A weapon could have martial and simple expertise. Those who are barely trained like a commoner or wizard take one move action to fire the crossbow, but someone with martial expertise get to use the weapon as if they already had rapid reload.

PS: This might be the best 30 second idea I have ever had. I might even try the martial vs simple expertise in a home game.

Awesome. Stealing this for the next time I GM

I kind or perfer low levels to mid levels (level 2 or 3 to 8 or 10) but from what I understand lot of people think the sweetspot is around level 7. Although I always assumed the “sweet spot” meant level 6 to 8 or level 10, but 12 makes sense. All full casters have 6 level spells, full BAB classes have their 3 attacks and you get your 3 ability point. I personally think the game begins to break apart around level 12, but I’m well aware that is just an opinion.

The things you suggest is just what I and my friends have been waiting for. A simpler game where characters are less dependent upon their gear to survive and succeed.

The “Elevate martial characters to have parity with spellcasters, but still maintain fun and distinct flavor for each class” also sound very nice. In fact everything you list sounds great.

Is this Kickstarter only for North America or can we in Europe join in as well?

Zark wrote:

I specifically thinking about the Counterspell and Quick Study Arcanist exploit. Both need a nerf.

At limit to how many times per day Quick Study can Counterspell can be used would be a simple fix.

Edit:
Actually, I think a lot of the Arcanist exploit should come with a limit of uses per day. Just like the Oracle.

Doesn't the action on Quick Study prevent it from being used with the Counterspell Exploit(or did you just mean using it on its own)? Also, successfully countering still requires a Dispel Check, does it not?

Counterspelling doesn't seem too terribly OP, especially since you're using up your limited number of spell slots on a less than sure thing. As for quick study, it might be a bit powerful if you can find a way to get the points to use it often, so I'll give you that one.

I meant using the abilities on their own. Counterspelling may not seem to be terribly OP, but regardless of Dispel Checks this ability is very powerful, especially when the PC faces a Boss with this ability (boss being higher levels than the PC’s) or when the PC’s fighting creatures that cast spells that can easily be Counterspelled. This ability can easily kill a blaster that mostly relies on adding meta magic to low level spells such as fireballs.

I've been doing in depth reviews

...
Cheers!
Landon

I agree to some parts with your analysis about the Shaman and Investigator (and also to some extent the Skald). A lot of the stuff in this book just seems to be too complicated. Shaman is a good example of this. I’d go as far as even saying it is more complicated that it needs to be.

...

Slayer- The biggest disappointment is the piss-poor slayer talent selection. The best thing it gets from the talents is combat feats, with few exceptions the rest are uninteresting class features that already existed. Does very little new or unique. Other than that, solid. 6/10
...

I wouldn’t say the slayer talent selection is piss-poor, but I agree it could have some more talents, especially advanced talents. I think “time and space” was an issue with this book. Not enough space to cram all the stuff they wanted into the book, not enough time to rinse out the bad stuff and awkward wording and this also led to not having enough space for what really was needed in the book. That said Ranger Combat Style is awesome. I love that he does not need to have the normal prerequisites to pick those feats. I think they got it right even though I really dislike sneak attack. There are some other minor issues I have with the class such as not having diplomacy as a class skill (and I personally prefer classes that get spells), but I really think they nailed it with this class. I really like the simplicity of the class. For those that like a more mundane rogue we now have the slayer and for those of us that want a rogue that uses magic we now have the Investigator.

BTW, when I told my friend about the class he wanted to play one in next campaign. He doesn’t like spells and he always dreamt of playing something like this. I think there are many players out there that have been waiting for something like this, a really good spell less ranger that is more of Slayer than a Ranger. Also, the fact that the spell less Ranger A) is not very good, and B) haven’t got any support from The Devs has really made a lot of people avoid that Archetype. I know it is a matter of taste so I won’t say you are wrong in not liking the Slayer.

Arcanist: Obsoletes the Sorcerer in many ways, but I'm not sure that's a huge problem given how much weaker Sorcerer was than Wizard anyway and the fact that the thing you could actually do with Sorcerer rather than Wizard (spam one spell until people die) isn't nearly as viable an option for them. They also have less spells per day than anybody, so there's that. All in all, fairly balanced with the Wizard, IMO.

Well put. That is how I feel too. I think the problem with Sorcerer vs the Arcanist lies with the Sorcerer not the Arcanist, although I still think they should nerf stuff such as Quick Study.

Investigator: My favorite thing ever. There is no part of this Class that doesn't make me happy inside...well, aside from the ridiculous level minimums on the Strike-based Talents. But those are easy enough to fix or ignore. And Empiricist is made of win.

I totally agree that ridiculous level minimums on the Strike-based Talents is annoying.

• It not getting cantrips or spell-lie abilities that can be cast at will (detect magic, detect poison, Sift, light, etc.)
  
• Studied combat being overcomplicated
  
• Not gaining Studied combat until level 4
  
• Studied Strike. I think they either should have boost it or stopped it from killing Studied combat.
  
• The ridiculous level minimums on the Strike-based Talents
  

What however is problematic is the poor editing of the class. For example the Quick Study talent says it lets an investigator use his studied combat ability as swift action instead of a standard action, but the studied combat ability says it’s a move action. Stuff like this is really problematic.

No. Optimizers aren't evil IMO. Whiners are.

Sometimes it’s depressing to be right, but perhaps it was a good thing to get it in the open.

Optimizers, Whiners, whatever. It’s all the same thing: US and Them.

TEAM-GOOD is right and TEAM-EVIL is right. This thread didn’t start with an open question it was always a thread about US and THEM. A thread for bashing.

thegreenteagamer wrote:

The consensus answers seem to be that most people either do not play the game as is, or that those who do are not nearly as vocal about it..

There is no consensus. The vast majority of the people who play the game as it is... are those who stay off the messageboards (for reasons which I've outlined previously). which are disproportionately represented by the vocal malcontent segment of the population.

So in other words, it's the latter case.

The vast majority.

BTW, Perhaps I missed “the reasons which you've outlined previously” but I can’t find them.

================================================

As for PFS play they don’t play the game as it is. They ban classes, races, item Creation, feats, spells, etc. so that is hardly to play the game as it is. Especially since playing the game is using houserules if it fits your game. It even the most important rule.

The Most Important Rule
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

This thread is not an friendy question on how you play the game. This thread is about US and THEM and this thread and some of it's posters does not "Help us keep the messageboards a fun and friendly place."

Before bashing THEM and loudly complaining on how mean the Paizo messeageborads have become, wouldn’t it be a good idea if we all check out what we write before we hit the “submit post”-button?

I think this tread is very interesting. Anyone interested in human behavior and RPG should read it.
This thread isn’t only about liking or not liking Pathfinder as it is. It is also about US and THEM. Calling out that you belong to team GOOD and pointing at TEAM EVIL. TEAM EVIL is just another word or label for those that complain. It doesn’t really matter if the complains are legit or not.

THE OP sets the tone when he basically says that anyone not enjoying the rogue is an optimizers [optimizer = EVIL] and anyone not liking Pathfinder can p*ss off.

He then leaves the torch and other posters pick it up and it goes on.

TEAM EVIL are negativity monsters, TEAM EVIL are venomous in their opinions; TEAM EVIL are just an echo chamber; TEAM EVIL are Jerks; TEAM EVIL are powergamers; TEAM EVIL are completely negative; I dislike most of the forum posting by a lot of you. [you = TEAM EVIL]; I have plenty contempt for them. [Them = fellow gamers = TEAM EVIL]; etc.
It is important for TEAM GOOD to point out that TEAM EVIL is a vocal minority and TEAM EVIL’s opinions are not representative for the silent majority. This is also implies that the opinions of TEAM GOOD is indeed representative for the silent majority [silent majority = those that don’t even post]

Is this kind of behavior good just because it is presented by TEAM GOOD? And are all opinions and questions raised by TEAM EVIL bad or evil just because they are raised by TEAM EVIL?

There are jerks in all camps, but it is perfectly possible of being sober and helpful and correct without pointing fingers at people. That is why I like people like wraithstrike and Deadmanwalking. Both are good examples of how we all could behave (and I wouldn’t label them as being in team good or evil). Does TEAM GOOD have cool people? Sure they do. Blahpers and Jiggy have been around for a long time and I can’t recall seeing them posting anything mean or condescending.

Are there Jerks in team EVIL? Sure there are, but that doesn’t mean that everyone that disagrees with you is evil. Also, even if someone is hostile and negative in tone, that doesn’t automatically mean that everything he/she says is useless. Just because the tone being used is unappropriated the message doesn’t have to be.

So can’t we drop the GOOD vs EVIL thing and instead just try to respect each other’s opinions without labeling and judging others?

Is there anyone out there who just likes Pathfinder as it is, with what they've done so far?

No, I don't, and sadly I think the quality is deteriorating, at least when it comes to rule books. I also see deteriorating in trust as an issue.

I personally think the game has become too complex, too filed with patches, too rigid and too unbalanced and the fact that game more or less demands that you plan numerous levels ahead. The game isn’t intuitive enough and there are too many traps and too much “Ivory Tower Game Design”. BTW, I know Ivory Tower Game Design doesn’t equal traps, but to a new player or a player that prefer a more organic character progression the end result is often the same. The level of system mastery has almost become silly. Strange thing is this is even true to classes such as fighter, rogue and Sorcerer that should be intuitive to play.

Skills, trapfindning, wildshape, feat chains, feat prereqs, dex based melee characters, weapon specialization, maneuvers, bloodline spells and bloodline feats, sneak attack, Stealth, channeling/healing, Pets, Versatile Performance, lack of options/feats, Archetypes are but a few examples of this.

Archetypes are both a blessing and a cure, but often the later, especially if we look at classes like the fighter. Instead of offering an ability as a feat, they make it a class feature and tie it to an archetypes which means you are shut out of that option unless you play that archetype.

There are too many classes or concepts that require system mastery and this is a bad thing. Also, there are too many patches and they are not even in the core book, they are spread out in numerous book and even presented as optional rules. Two things that should really be in the next edition of the core book are traits and retraining rules. Also, some of these patches are not even published in the core book line but are presented as campaign specific options or tied to Golarion. The fact that the game rewards versatility, but often demands specialization is a contradiction that really hit hard on new players or players that have a more organic style of designing a character.

Overall I feel that the fundamental problems with the game aren’t fixed. Some problems with a spell or a class feaature are fixed or at least tweaked by the use of the FAQ, but I personally would like to see a Pathfinder 1.5.

I hate to admit this but I’m really worried about the overall quality of Pathfinder. For example, it feels like a lot of the feedback from the Warpriest and Swashbuckler playtest was ignored. I think the ACG was rushed and rush/lack of time seems to be a constant problem. Every time people start complaining about FAQ pending the answer is in the line of “we just got to finish this first”.

What also worries me is the fact that there have been voices raised for years that the rogue, fighter, monk and summoner are problematic classes. In the case of the fighter I more and more agreeing with people like Cheapy that the class not really the problem, but rather that the game rewards versatility, but the class demands specialization. However the other classes especially the rogue and summoner are problematic. Yet, this has always been ignored, downplayed or even denied by Paizo and by some of the more loyal posters. The general attitude have mostly been: Oh, another rogue thread. Now, all of a sudden we are getting a new rogue and a new summoner, but again this is an “optional” fix. Again it feels like a lot of the feedback from the posters that complained about the rogue being to week and the summoner being too powerful and to complex was ignored and denied for years and years. So now they admit that we were right, but the fix is still optional. I'm not sure this is a great way of earning trust. I think people could easily read it this way: the Devs have not been honest with us. All these years they have denied that the monk and rogue were problematic and now they finally admit it. Can we trust them not to repeated this behavior? Conclusions people might make are: They won’t fix the rogue, but just offer an optional fix. The fighter and other issues won’t even be offered an optional fix. So if they say the fighter is fine, how can we trust them? They used to deny there was a problem with the rogue even though they now admit there is a problem.

When the ACG was released I was excited. I hadn’t been that excited since the APG, but now I’m disappointed. Just like Shadow strike was rogue patch that cost the rogue a feat that she really shouldn’t have to pay, the Fencing Grace is a patch to Slashing Grace that in itself is a patch that really shouldn’t cost what it costs. Also, people are still debating if Slashing Grace should apply to light weapon or not. Some say it probably shouldn’t because it is too good, but at the same time some of the most powerful classes can now get charisma bonus too all saves and that is fine? This feat is published in the same book that gave us Swashbuckler, the class that only gets Charmed life. You can obviously draw other parallels such as the Arcanist being able to use Quick Study as many times as she wants, but the Oracle picking Revelations that can only be use once per day or once per day + once every x level.

Does, the trust issue goes both ways? Aren’t the Devs trusting their fans? If they do why did they not give the fans what they wanted? Of all classes in the book, the Swashbuckler (and possibly a full BAB holy warrior) was the most requested new class of all. If they should have released of rock solid class it should have been that class. Now they patch the patch in a splat book that isn’t even a part of the core book line. The complicated just got more complicated and if that wasn’t enough The Daring Champion made the cavalier a better Swashbuckler than the Swashbuckler and we still haven’t got an official response to the question if Slashing Grace applies to light weapons or not. Sad thing is that I’m starting to think this is going to be met with silence from Paizo or they simply state that they are now involved with Unchained and Occult Adventures and they don’t have the time to address that issue.

The thing is that I’m starting to loose trust in the quality of Paizo rule books. The AGC does not only have the wrong logo on the cover, but the book lacks Paizo's usual editing quality. I even go as far as saying that the editing is a definite problem. We are not only taking about typos, some of the stuff in the book is also badly written in that you simply don’t understand what they mean and in some cases like the Slashing Grace, some stuff is actually poorly designed. This, and the fact that Paizo makes the appearance of not having good internal communication, makes me believe that it is only a matter of time before we see a “Paizo needs to get their house in order part 2”-thread, and sadly Paizo would kind of deserve that.

Edit:
BTW, I'm actually looking forward to Pathfinder Unchained and from the sound of what they are planning it seems to fix some issues, but obviously not all. Also, even though I got some issues with the class I’m very happy we got the Arcanist.

Gnomezrule wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Cool. Now finally we can assemble a team made up of a Human Gunslinger, a pair of Half-orc Slayers, a Wyrwood Druid and a Raccoonfolk Alchemist and have them team up with a wheelchair-bound Human Psychic and his uncanny students on a quest to save the galaxy from Dominion of the Black.

You seriously made me stop reading this thread and look for Raccoonfolk.

"Raccoonfolk" are available in the Paizo store.

Cooooooool.

Monk lovers will like this book. A lot of cool stuff.

Those that had hoped for some love for the rogue and fighter will probably come to the conclusion that it’s time to end all hope.
Fighters: No fighter feats and no feats at all worth investing in. I may have missed something, but I don’t think so. I don’t even think Pummeling Style chain can be used unless you use unarmed combat, but I might be wrong.

Rogue: I skimmed true the feat list and first thought feats like Talented Magician (extra uses of minor and major rogue talents), Twist Away (Use Reflex in place of Fortitude as an immediate action), Twinned Feint (After succeeding at a feint, you can attempt a feint against a second target), all sounded cool until you actually read the feats. Talented Magician only give you one more use of each. Really? Would it be broken to let the rogue use the minor magic rogue talent at will? Would it even be broken to double the uses per day? Twist away don’t change feints duration or the time taken to feint, so unless you have cleave it is useless. Twist Away is nice, nut the fine print is that it leaves you staggered until the end of your next turn. Sorry, I have no hope for the rogue, not even in Unchained book.

Those that like me love the Bard, will realize the Skald is the new Bard. Sorry guys. The Skald gets feats that the Bard should have had ages ago, stuff like raider effects to his performance. True, the Dirge of doom chain is awesome, but we only got it thanks to the Skald. The Skald is also a better spell caster than the bard and it gets Scribe scroll so it can use Spell Kenning to get a bunch of nice scrolls during downtime. Or Pick item creation feats or craft wand and craft away. People complain the Arcanist is broken, hey a Skald can cast any spell from Bard, Cleric or Wizard list twice per day at level 11. Need arcane Eye? Sure. Need fireball? Sure? Need greater magic weapon? Sure. Need fly? Sure. I don’t think Spell Kenning is broken. The Skald isn’t a full caster and it will mostly be used for utility, but the ability scream bard. Why Bard didn’t get access to Spell Kenning as a feat is beyond me. BTW, the Bloodrager can pick a feat that activates Arcane Strike as a free action when raging. Would that be nice if you are a Bard? Arcane Strike as a free action if you perform? No, not for the Bard.

Daring Champion is a better Swashbuckler than Swashbuckler. Daring Champion is the ultimate Swashbuckler fix. Sad the Cavalier is a better
Swashbuckler, but strike out the name Daring Champion and use the name Swashbuckler. Done.

The arcanist is overpowered for tables that play with a 15 minute adventuring day.

False.

When the spell casters run out of spells, spell casters AND mundane classes go home.

This argument of yours is old and it still doesn't hold any water.

It's part of the problem.

Making DEX bad as an offensive stat will not fix the fact that STR is bad too.

Making DEX acceptable and STR too (ideally, giving STR to Will saves and allowing more skills to be affected by STR) would be a very desirable course of action.

Str isn't a part of the problem.

I think it’s better to focus at the issue being discussed and suggesting a reasonable fix of the feat, instead of demanding that the Devs should rewrite parts of the core rule book.

I think Tels made an excellent OP and I’m glad we still seeing people trying to be productive, even though the devs won’t address this issue before Gen Con.

I only hope we can offer the Devs a productive thread after they get back from Gen Con and now we have the time and opportunity to actually show them we are productive without being jerks or demanding total rewrites of the skill system or whatever.

Can we hope for a change of tne feat? I hope so. The Devs did nerf Smite evil and have made other changes to already published material, but they will only listen to reason, not to insults or demands to rewrite the core rules, regardless or these demands are reasonable or unreasonable.

Creedence Clearwater Revival have made some really great covers. I personally think that covers I Heard It Through The Grapevine is their far best cover.

Creedence Clearwater Revival covers I Heard It Through The Grapevine, by Marvin Gaye

Creedence Clearwater Revival covers Proud Mary by Ike and Tina Turner.

More 60’s stuff

The Studio version Joe Cocker’s cover of With a little help from my friends, by the Beatles. I would say that the studio version is almost as famous as Beatles own version. And his classic Woodstock version of the same songis also nice.

Zark wrote:

I disagree

the strength build is 2 feats and a level ahead, which is a huge benefit

Two feats ahead depends on how you look at it. The dex character basically get improved initiative, dodge and lighting reflexes for free. Not to mention it get a huge bonus to all range attacks using any weapon that basically equal weapon focus and greater weapon focus to all range weapons.

• Boost melee attacks
  
• Boost melee damage
  
• Grants higher AC – most dex based AC use light armor / mithral medium armor anyway, at higher levels bracers. The only downside is the horrible AC when you lose you dex bonus.
  
• Grants higher touch AC
  
• using light armor/medium mithral armor/Bracers grants you better mobility.
  
• Grants better reflex saves
  
• Grants higher initiative
  
• boost dex skills that mostly are far superior than str skills
  
• boost range attacks and range touch attack
  
• Grant more attacks of opportunity
  

compared to the easily and cheaply replacable aspects of dexterity, which with the exception of of initiative, are like minor, due to equipment

Have no idea what you mean – no snark intended

plus the strength guy, can carry more weapons than the dexterity guy, AND wear better armor without as much penalty. a weapon in immediate combat access is not inside a haversack, and haversacks themselves have weight.

Not a problem at all, seriously.

Edit:
Also, I’ve never seen a str build melee character that dump their dex. Most – except perhaps paladins or clerics – have at least 10 and maybe even 12 or 13. Str builds don't/can't dump dex the same way a dex build can dump str. So I don't see it as a problem if a dex build were "forced" to have at least 11, 12 or even str.

[…] my problem with the feat is it completely ignores some of the classics, like polearms, daggers, kukris, wakazashi, katana, shortswords and gladiuses.

On this we totally with you on that I’m missing the light weapons. Not so sure about polearms.

Don't forget, the Strength build is also ahead on damage with 1.5x Strength and 3:1 Power Attack.

Balance is more than just Dex damage vs str damage. A Str 18 is obviously going to beat a dex 18 when it comes to raw damage. I never denied that, but the dex character is going to be able to deal enough damage and still getting all the other benefits. Also a str character won’t dump his dex to 7, but a dex might dump str to 7.

Also, the THW argument is silly since the dex builds such as the magus is based on not using THW or dual wielding weapons.
The “with 1.5x Strength and 3:1 Power Attack”-argument is a false argument, because the dex builds aren’t designed to use Greatswords or Falchions anyway.

Here is something from Sean's advice for the 2013 archetype round

A rogue archetype that says "you have to take this rogue talent at level 4" isn't cool.
A fighter archetype that says "you have to take this weapon category at level 5" isn't cool.
And, assuming that choice is especially appropriate for that character, it's not really a limitation because the character would probably want that thing anyway. A character with a dagger-fighter archetype wants to take "light blades" for weapon training, so forcing him to do it isn't a limitation to the character at all, and you shouldn't treat it like it's a penalty or weakness to justify making another new class ability better (as in, "oh, the daggermaster has to take "light blades," so to compensate for that limitation I'll give the archetype this other cool thing...").

My bold.

And that str is easier to pump with all kinds of stuff like transmutation effects!

I would say this is not entirely true. Boosting dex and str is more or less just as easy or hard.

edit 2:

I don’t mind a feat that let you swap str for dex, but this feat goes further. It almost obliterates the need for Str and use dex for str AND dex. A feat that let you swap dex for str should require you to have a decent amount of str, just as a str build have a decent amount of dex.

Zark wrote:

AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do they keep inspire courage?

Yes.

And I misspoke. They lose inspire competence (and countersong, suggestion and dirge of doom) for various alternate powers. The fire resistance also increases with level.

I'm sold. This is soooooooooooooooo cool.

First the dirge of doom feat and now this. :)

Thanks Pazio.

Thanks Jim Groves for bringing me these good news! :D

stuff

Thanks. I've edited the post ;)

Even though I'm baffled too by no rapier and dex damage could we take that discussion elsewhere? This is not the rapier thread.

Also, as Set pointed out there might be an explanation for this.

Anybody noticed an earlier post saying the hunter has lost its cantrips? that information was wrong and based on a misunderstanding! .

Let it go or take the raper/dex - damage elsewhere. Please

More info on the investigator?

If the Devs don't have to worry about backward compatibility I hope we get a warlock and a psionic I this book. That would be awesome.

Zark wrote:

Stuff...

Of note, the Shaman is also a 3/4 BAB class, just like all of the other divine classes except Paladin and Ranger. At least as of the second playtest.

Yes, I know. I meant in the absence of a 1/2 BAB dedicated divine Caster, the Shaman will hopefully be able to fill that niche to at least some extent.

I’m pretty sure I will love the shaman as long as the spell list is to my liking.

stuff

And the tuatara is awesome!

Edit:

Ninja'd by Rysky

You know, I'm disappointed that the Hunter got switched over to a spontaneous caster. As it stands, all of the 6th level caster classes, except the Magus, are spontaneous casters, so I was kind of hoping the Hunter would be the first 6th level prepared caster.

Anyway, as for those who worry about accuracy... don't. The Hunter shares teamwork feats with his companion, so if he flanks with them, he can get some monstrous accuracy bonuses.

For example, get Outflank at level 2 and then get yourself a +1 menacing spiked gauntlet and now you have a +6 to hit when you flank with your companion.

As an archer, get Snap Shot and if you take Outflank, Enfilading Fire, and the above gauntlet, you can flank with your companion and get up to +8 to hit while doing so.

Sure, other classes can do this too, but they probably won't be able to do it as easily as the Hunter, except for the Inquisitor of course.

You still can't flank with a bow.

The gantlet does not grant you flank bonus on your attack with the bow. That is just rule abuse.

Zark wrote:

Also, this is a 3/4 BAB class that really seem to lack to boost its bonus to hit.

You mean outside of Animal Focus bonuses (or the ability to re-allocate wealth that would have gone into getting a similar bonus), druid/ranger buff spells, and an always-available flanking partner?

No need to be snark. I was just wondering.

True Animal Focus bonuses is nice but the amulet still caps at +5 bonus. That hasn’t changed.

AC was never a problem with my pet. Nor was con. The problem was to hit, damage and will saves.

The only headband my pet needed was wisdom. So I had no use in raise Int or charisma.

druid/ranger buff spells? Barkskin and Gravity bow, but no bonus that helps with to hit or hitting thru DR, as far as I know. And for the record the Ranger has access of the same spells and get full BAB AND favoured enemy.

Flanking doesn’t help if you use a bow.
Perhaps I’m ignorant, if so I apologise.

Great blog post Mark.
Hunter is one of the classes that I have been very hesitant about but I am far more interested now.

Lot of nice changes to the class, still there are some question marks remaining.

Precise shot at level 2 is nice, but that will mean that you have to struggle at level 1.
Pets start to lose power rapidly at level 10 – 12. Hitting thru DR and weak will saves are a constant problem and the will saves mean you more or less have to raise Int to 3 so it can pick iron will and improved iron will. (To me the ability point increase to int is an ability point tax.)

Also, this is a 3/4 BAB class that really seem to lack to boost its bonus to hit. So if the pet will fall behind at mid levels and the Hunter is a 3/4 class that lack ability to boost to hit and damage what is it going to bring to the party.
Also magic items to keep both the Pet and the hunter valid at higher levels really drain the Hunter.

edit:
Finally, although the very cool change to spell casting is a very much needed boost to the class I can see this as a potential problem, especially if you have a grumpy GM that don’t like the idea that a class can use level 2 spells and level 1.

Again. I love the blog post and the class seem to have improved immensely, but I still see some issues with the class. That said I know we only get a glimpse of the finish product, so I hope these issues have been dealt with. At least the problem of Pets losing power and the problem of the hunters bonus to hit.

this class is so unnecessary.

No, it is not.

Thanks Crystal for your posts.

Lemmy wrote:

KSF wrote:

Crystal also provided details about the tincture that Shardra used. It's very similar to real world hormone replacement therapy.

Ah, so she used a mix of the tinctures and magic for a full physical transformation? Or is she a "male" with a very feminine figure?

Also, apologies if my question or their wording offend anyone. I know pretty much nothing about transgender community, so I don't know what'd be the correct nouns to use and all that...

I'm just asking stuff out of curiosity and ignorance (as in: lack of knowledge) because Shardra seems like an interesting character. Also, after taking a closer look into the class, I think I really like Shamans.

Shardra's appearance and figure are 100% home-grown, with no magic required. Any more specific information about her body is reserved for her, Kolo, and whoever she may spend a night with. And Valeros. Because one way or another, Valeros knows what's going on in everyone's pants.

I would love it if it was revealed that Valeros is gay or bisexual.

BTW, I hope that when we get some more Iconics we get some more men with beards or Moustaches and one male gay Iconic and one or two Hispanic looking Iconics.

Edit:

I agree the fighter and rouge need a boost, but that don't mean the slayer need a nerf.

It's cool having an assassin-type character that doesn't look like a Medieval European rogue. And bonus points for having another Arabic-style character. We don't get enough of them in fantasy (besides Aladdin and Ja'far knockoffs.)

+1

That Gruumash is pretty awesome, I hear.

Yes he is. He and Orthos, just out of the blue, jumped in and gave me some really good advice yesterday.

I realised I have forgotten so many people on my list that I probably have to rewrite it when I have the time and access to my computer (posting from my phone).

To all posters in this thread that are spreading love: you are on my like list! Sorry if I didn't name you!

If I was his summoner then I could call him.

Thant would be neat. Very useful when you have rules question.

As my pet I would call him Al, or perhaps I call him Betty and he calls me Al. ;-)

Secane wrote:

Humm... I feel I should clarify my original question as I have played and played with good fighter and rogue characters.

By relevant, I mean it in a why would players still want to play these core classes? When there are much better and similar themed options out there?

This is not a new problem. There's already really no reason to play a Rogue rather than an Urban Ranger, Archaeologist Bard, or Trapbreaker Vivisectionist Alchemist, for example.

Secane wrote:

It is not as if the core classes are flawed or are unusable options.

The Fighter and Rogue can work fine in a game, but it seems like the advanced Classes can do it much BETTER.

So can a Ranger, Paladin, or Barbarian. Or the ones I list above. Every objective analysis people do says that Slayer is slightly worse than Ranger, mechanically speaking...how much worse would it need to be for you to feel it wasn't overshadowing things?

Secane wrote:

Shouldn't the newer classes be made to complement the core classes? And not over-shadow them?

"Less powerful than a Ranger" seems to fall very thoroughly into this description actually. Trying not to overshadow Fighter and Rogue results in classes that are no good to basically anyone.

Secane wrote:

Really? I always thought that the fighter works fine... the rogue could be a little weak at times, but I have seen some scary fighters.

Like a pure crit fighter that was downing the entire room of mons. (The scary part was that is was build with just the CRB, only his weapon was from UE.)

Or the Fighter Archer, which could be mainly due to how powerful archery is and fighter gives it all the extra feats it needs to be scary.

Fighter does damage pretty effectively. Its issue is that, unlike every other class there is, it does absolutely nothing else (with the exception of decent AC, I guess). Even Barbarians can manage good saves and a decent skill selection, plus Spell Sunder and Pounce...Fighters just deal damage. They have no saves, no utility options, no nothing. Unlike every other Class that can pretty much equal them in damage, they have nothing else.

Great post Deadmanwalking.

Some of the posts in this thread make me sad. What frustrate me are the constant complaints every time Paizo is releases something new.

During the playtest people raised there worry that the main problem with the rogue was is that it unfortunately brought the new classes down. The investigator and slayer was the two big concerns, but also Swashbuckler was a problem.

People loudly, and rightly so, pointed out that the new classes wasn’t the problem. The problem was the rogue (and to some extent the fighter).

Now when the Devs seems to have listened to us, people complain that the slayer is too good.

First of all, we haven’t seen the new classes nor do we know if the old classes get some new cool abilities or/and feats, but second, …….
….here it is: the slayer isn’t too good. Nor are any of the other new martial classes or the Investigator too good, it is the rogue, and to some extent the fighter, that are too weak

Seriously, would we have been happy if they had nerfed the Slayer or the investigator because they would have been more powerful than the rouge. Me, I’m extremely happy that they didn’t use the rogue as their benchmark.

BTW, and the ranger? The ranger is still very much a valid class.

Some of the posts in this thread make me sad. What frustrate me are the constant complaints every time Paizo is releases something new.

During the playtest people raised there worry that the main problem with the rogue was is that it unfortunately brought the new classes down. The investigator and slayer was the two big concerns, but also Swashbuckler was a problem.

People loudly, and rightly so, pointed out that the new classes wasn’t the problem. The problem was the rogue (and to some extent the fighter).

Now when the Devs seems to have listened to us, people complain that the slayer is too good.

First of all, we haven’t seen the new classes nor do we know if the old classes get some new cool abilities or/and feats, but second, …….
….here it is: the slayer isn’t too good. Nor are any of the other new martial classes or the Investigator too good, it is the rogue, and to some extent the fighter, that are too weak

Seriously, would we have been happy if they had nerfed the Slayer or the investigator because they would have been more powerful than the rouge. Me, I’m extremely happy that they didn’t use the rogue as their benchmark.

BTW, and the ranger? The ranger is still very much a valid class.

They been getting feedback for years and yet UK only contained 1 fighter feat but more than 100 wizard spells. :(

Edit:
Edit again:

Wraithstrike, Deathquaker, Gauss, Ross Byers, Mikaze, Ashiel, Jiggy, Cheapy, Evil Lincoln, Tacticslion, BigNorseWolf, Treantmonk, Diego Rossi, Bob Loblaw, Orthos, Lemmy, Gorbacz, Kobold Cleaver, roberta yang, Blackbloodtroll, Deadmanwalking, Scavion, Teels, Nicos, John Kretzer, RavingDork, Abraham Spalding, KaeYoss and TOZ and a whole lot of other people. Gorbacz, Kobold Cleaver and TOZ can be hilarious and often are.

Anybody know what has happened to KaeYoss?

Let’s not forget the Paizo staff. James Jacobs , The Design team, SKR, and all the others are really awesome and Sara Marie, Cosmo and Liz Courts are so funny they can make me cry.

Special prize for most helpful goes to Wraithstrike (rules) and Gauss (Builds) .... and you gotta include Treantmonk for his guides and harmor for his guides to the guides thread. AND the person and paizo that keeps on updating the OP on that thread.

Special prize for spreading most love goes to Mikaze.

Special prize for most fun: Sara Marie.

Special prize for wall of texts Ashiel

Special prize for smartest poster Deathquaker (some of her post are beyond brilliant, they are fantastic).

Hey, I might actually get two hard covers since I have two eyes and do not want to create discord between them.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

And congrats to Mark on both an excellent post and a successful Resurrection. Paizo's health plan is clearly both excellent and well-funded. Let's hope it also includes funding for the Restorations necessary... ;)

There is a deductible on the restorations.

I always knew SKR was right when he said that you only borrow from your future self.

Pay now, and when you level up next year and declare your WBL to the tax agency they adjust your WBL for it. ;)

Na, they should get run at level 1. That would be a fair trade.

Edit:

First art from WAR that I don’t like.

Although the back story is well written it is too little adventurer and too much Prize fighter for my taste.