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

Vic Wertz's page

Chief Technical Officer. 19,886 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,511 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
...it's not surprising I am fascinated that I see how far back some of the movers and shakers here at Paizo go and how experienced they are. I'm reading a chapter on Wizards of the Coast and their acquisition of TSR in 1997 and seeing familiar names like Lisa Stevens and Erik Mona. I know the 90s isn't that far back but in RPG terms its forever, like three D&Ds ago forever. (I'm coining the use of D&D editions as a measurement of RPG time if that hasn't happened already.) I have to say, these guys have a LOT of experience under their belts.

Paizo has an anniversary party for the employees and their families each summer, and for the last few years, we've been recognizing employees who have reached their 10-year anniversary with us. So far, that's Lisa Stevens, Vic Wertz, Erik Mona, James Jacobs, Jeff Alvarez, Wes Schneider, Gary Teter, Sarah Robinson, Jason Bulmahn, and James Sutter.

Pierce Watters was also with us at the very beginning, though he left and came back, and hasn't quite hit 10 years at Paizo yet... but he was Editor-in-Chief of Dragon and Dungeon before Wizards purchased TSR. Of Paizo employees, he's been in the gaming industry longer than anyone but Lisa and myself, and he's been in the publishing industry longer than Lisa.

Just that group right there is collectively approaching 150 years in the gaming industry.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Privacy Policy wrote:
Please note that nowhere on this site do we knowingly collect information from children under the age of 13.

Our lawyer says the word "knowingly" is very important.

I have no further comment.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll get back to you on that.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

When you would have the opportunity to close the Abyssal Rift, regardless of whether that's from defeating a henchman or encountering a villain, you go to the rulebook and look at Closing a Location. It tells you to look at When Closing. When Closing tells you either that the location is always open or always temporarily closed. Neither side tells you anything you could do to close it. The open side allows you to bury a blessing to *flip* it, and that's the only option you might have.

Flipping the Abyssal Rift is *not* the same as closing it. All it does is change it from open to temporarily closed and vice-versa (and it swaps the "At This Location" power). "Temporarily closed" is only relevant when cutting off a villain's escape route—it has no other effect.

So regardless of what a henchman (or anything else) says, you don't get to close the Abyssal Rift, so you don't get to do the things that then happen under "Closing a Location" in the rulebook, such as searching it for villains and banishing everything else. You can banish a blessing to flip it, but that's unlikely to be a worthwhile play except when you're encountering the villain.

As far as a henchman that would automatically close it, both sides of the location say "this location is never permanently closed." "Never" is one of the most powerful terms in the game—it can't be overruled. (But even if it *didn't* say "never," the Golden Rule tells you that locations trump henchmen, so that would also mean you ignore that power on the henchman.)

So defeating a henchman there is basically like defeating a regular monster or barrier there—the normal result is you banish the thing you defeated and move on.

Similarly, if you defeat the villain there, you do not get to apply the things that happen under "If You Defeat the Villain, Close the Villain’s Location."

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew L Klein wrote:
I still call shenanigans on that one. Any hat that is alive enough to not be an item can't be good

The flavor text says that Balazar talks to his hat; it doesn't tell us whether the hat talks back. And if Sweet Dragon Costume has the Dragon trait solely because its wearer believes it does, who's to say exactly what's going on here?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

11 people marked this as a favorite.
christos gurd wrote:

"intelligence and motor skill challenges"

Isn't motor skills dexterity?

They also made her break down and reassemble a carburetor while blindfolded.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Just because one is true does not mean the other is false...

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I guarantee it!*

*:
Guarantee not valid at any time.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Myfly wrote:
And of course, for an outsider it reflects the popularity and the sale numbers of the game.

Estimating even relative sales of a game by looking at BGG ratings would be much like estimating the severity of global climate change by looking out your window.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Added to FAQ.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shade325 wrote:

So Blessing of the Dawnflower is Kyra's Iconic Heroes P card. Its essentially a Blessing of Sarenrae with some kick for clerics. It also has the Sarenrae trait.

Kyra on 3 of her 4 role cards has a Power that does something cool when she plays a Blessing of Sarenrae.

Strictly speaking RAW Blessing of the Dawnflower is not a Blessing of Sarenrae so it would not trigger these powers on Kyra.

My question is was this intentional or as Dawnflower is essentially a fancy version of Blessing of Sarenrae and since it has the Sarenrae trait, should it count for these powers.

Mostly a flavor question.

Thanks!

Added to FAQ.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Myfly wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Please don't tell other people not to post.

Reading nonsense and getting insulted at the same time is not very nice. Some community rules do apply in this forum. As you wrote some time ago, it is a friendly place for discussion...

Should I encourage Andrew to write more insulting words about me?

You said you were going to flag his post—that's the right thing to do. Then a moderator will decide whether he has broken the guidelines or not (and the moderators may or may not agree with you). Fighting back is not the right thing to do.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Please don't tell other people not to post.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Technically, the rules don't actually provide a way to replay a scenario you've successfully completed.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I had just assumed that the names Hawkmoon1 through Hawkmoon268 were taken.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Longshot11 wrote:

From this blog post, a few questions spring to mind:

1) "...the enemy army immediately pillages the location deck for any remaining boons before heading off to maraud another open location..."

Is that the real intent of the Armies? Does that mean they should be FAQed to shuffle into "ANOTHER random location" ?

Mechanically, you may have several different cards that each represent the army, but conceptually, it's one big army that you keep encountering all over the place.

Longshot11 wrote:
The Cohorts: I thought when you banish a Cohort, you're supposed to remove it from the game? Does that mean these cards are supposed to be one-off, kinda like the Genie ally loot in S&S?

For cohorts that have only "banish" powers, yes.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If your Stealth skill is based on your Dexterity skill, and you are using your Stealth skill, you are also using your Dexterity skill.

But if you don't have the Stealth skill on your character card (so you're just using a d4), then you are using *only* your Stealth skill; your Dexterity doesn't come into play.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A wise man* once said "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

*:
I cannot guarantee that Wisdom was not actually his dump stat.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If VOs ask for convention support through PFS channels, and that con is not pure RPG, odds are good that support will include a stack of convention promos.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sandslice wrote:
Question is raised. When closing (or temp closing) the Canyon, if you don't acquire the blessing, is it banished as usual? (It came up and I played it as such; just verifying.)

Canyon tells you to "Encounter and acquire" the blessing, so standard encounter rules apply. That includes this sentence, under Resolve the Encounter: "If you succeed at a check to acquire a boon, put it in your hand; otherwise, banish it."

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Correct.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rulebook wrote:
You may not activate a power or play a card that doesn’t apply to your current situation. For example, you may not play a card to reduce damage when damage is not being dealt, and you may not play a card to evade a monster when you are not encountering a monster.

So if you know there's no cohort in your deck, you can't activate that power.

If you claim not to know if there's a cohort in your deck, but you actually know there isn't, you're cheating, and you might as well consider cheating with more important things. (Think bigger, cheater!)

If you genuinely don't know if there's a cohort in your deck, the rules for searching say "If you don’t find a card of the specified type, ignore any directions related to that card." So if you search your deck for a cohort and don't find one, you ignore the part about putting it into your hand, but you don't ignore the bit about recharging a card afterward, so it'll cost you a recharged card and a shuffled deck to learn that lesson.

And if you've already looked once and you still genuinely don't know if there's a cohort in your deck, you should probably consult a physician about your short-term memory loss.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

25 people marked this as a favorite.
ShepherdGunn wrote:
You're not just going to pop open the book and go, "Oh! I want that bundle of paperwork!".

The player who wants that should hold out for the Underwriter class from Ultimate Bureaucracy.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The_Napier wrote:
Donny Schuijers wrote:
By having 3-5 spells in Shardra's hand, she can make sure that if the first two attempts fail for a Check to Defeat a Bane for Seoni, that the third time WILL work.
Fairly sure that 'that character takes the new result' means you can't do it more than once on a check, I'm afraid

You're correct that she can't do it more than once per check, but the reason is *not* the phrase "that character takes the new result."

In fact, we specifically changed the reroll template from "take the second result" to "take the new result" so that you specifically *can* play multiple reroll effects on the same roll. However, the key to what I just said is "multiple reroll effects," not "the same reroll effect multiple times," which was codified in this FAQ entry, and *that* is the reason that she can't do it more than once per check.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
First World Bard wrote:
Frencois wrote:
What's good being a librarian if you can't read ... :-)
Unlike 3.5 Barbarians, Pathfinder Barbarians are literate. (Unless you find an archetype that removes it). No more skill point tax to read books!

Fo those of you who aren't familiar with older editions of D&D, in 3.5, barbarians were the only characters that couldn't automatically read and write. To become literate, you had to either spend skill points or take a level in a different class. So if you didn't spend those skill points when you created your character, you only had the option when you leveled up. A 3.5 barbarian that I played once leveled up in the middle of a dungeon, and got to explain to his party that he had now killed so many goblins that he could suddenly read and write all of the languages he spoke.

And that's why illiteracy is not a barbarian class feature in the Pathfinder RPG.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mogloth wrote:
Back to PACG - I have never constructed my own decks at the beginning. I have always used the deck lists in the book. Why? Because they are in the book. They are there for a reason. So, I use them.

They are there for a reason, and that reason is that many people want to just start playing right away, and if they're forced to read and understand every basic card in the game before they actually play the game, many people would just give up.

But these characters by their very nature are not optimal. Because we don't know which characters you're going to choose, we have to design them so that you can choose any 4 (or any 6 if you have the Add-On Deck) and you know that the cards on the list will be available to you. Which means that if you build from these lists, there's a very good chance that when you're done, cards that would be great for your character—often ones even better than some of the cards you have—are sitting in the box because we assigned them to a character that isn't being played in your game.

Once you understand the game, I would strongly suggest that when you start a new group of characters, you use this process, which I believe is the fastest way to get a great set of decks tailored to the characters you're playing.

• Pick characters
• Build starting decks using the deck lists
• Go through all the unused Basic boons and "trade up"

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
isaic16 wrote:
How does evasion work with armies? If the initial person encountering it can evade, is the army just shuffled back in? Can any other character evade one of the checks? I assume the first question is yes, and the second is no, but want to make sure.

Only the first person is actually *encountering* the card, so they're the only one that could possibly evade it.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

17 people marked this as a favorite.

These cards were stolen from our warehouse. The culprit has been identified, and is being dealt with.

No further details regarding the information in this post will be available.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The rules under "Playing a Card" say that cards you play by displaying them "function" while it's displayed, but that does not mean that every word is always in effect as long as they're displayed—it means that anything on them *could* be active. You have to read the card you're displaying and evaluate what things are active and what things are not.

But that's not actually relevant here because you are not playing those allies. Playing a card means using a power on that card, and you're not doing that. All you're doing is using them to activate Olenjack's power, so that's what you need to look at.

Olenjack wrote:
When you attempt a check, you may display any number of allies; for each ally displayed, add 1 (□ 2) to the check. Return the displayed allies to your hand before you reset it.

Note the word "when." When A happens (you attempt a check), do B (display any number of allies) for effect C (add to the check).

You are trying to read this as: When A happens, do B for effect C, and when A happens again, do C again without doing B again.

If we wanted the effect to last until you reset your hand, it would have said something like "When you attempt a check, you may display any number of allies. While those allies are displayed, add 1 (□ 2) to your checks for each ally displayed. Return the displayed allies to your hand before you reset it."

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, saw *that* coming.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
KingmanHighborn wrote:

Darn I really don't want to use another browser other then the basic IE on my XP (laptop)and 7 (desktop) computers.

I don't see why things have to be changed and forced into using Chrome and Firefox and such. Just leave stuff alone.

EDIT: For the record not mad at Paizo, just the circumstance.

I feel for you, but "leaving stuff alone" here is like not changing the locks on your doors after you realize that somebody you don't know has copies of your keys. Now imagine that inside your house is a big chest of cash that somebody else owns. The person who owns that cash (in this analogy, it's the credit card companies who are guaranteeing that you won't pay for fraudulent purchases on your card) wants to make sure you change those locks.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
mlvanbie wrote:
You can definitely have a new encounter during Before You Act (all those henchmen and villains that summon creatures for you to fight), so why can't you Before You Act during an encounter?

Before You Act specifically happens before a check, where it's safe. If you try to make a check happen *within* a check, the game will break, because even basic questions don't have answers. For example, if I played a blessing on the *outside* check, can I play a blessing on the *inside* check?

NO NESTED CHECKS. "Finish one thing before you start something else" isn't just a good idea—it's the law.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Trying to push the rules past the breaking point is *not* making the game better. It's just frustrating players and designers alike. Games with thousands of card interactions do *not* benefit from making us dictate the outcome of each and every possible interaction—that just makes the game harder to approach and a whole lot less fun.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
AND HE STACKS HIS SLICES! You don't stack your slices, otherwise the steam coming up from the lower slice is going to make the upper slice saggy!

Isn't his motto "Build High for Happiness?"

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Among other things, she is really good for taking care of any of your customer service needs.

Oops! Sorry... that's the answer to "What's Katina good for?"

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
How much salt to what amount of water?

For 4 quarts of water, I recommend a half cup of salt and a half cup of sugar, plus a teaspoon of cayenne and a couple drops of liquid smoke.

(We are talking about brining pork ribs, right?)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Grarnold S wrote:
We would recommend Trump, but we're worried PETA mistakenly believes he is an orangutan, and would thus boycott you.

What do you mean mistakenly?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

When Obsidian is ready to say something more, you can expect they won't do it quietly.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

This section of the messageboards is for general discussion about Paizo Inc. This is *not* the place to post rules questions, ask for advice on gaming topics, or discuss specific products—please look for a more appropriate forum before you post here.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Would it be possible to take a hybrid approach? Step up painting on the high-detail humanoid minis specifically, raising the cost of certain minis, and then raising booster prices by a lower margin?

Would it be *possible*? I don't know. Stepping up painting doesn't just cost more—it takes more time, and the time that WizKids has to do a given set in a factory that they don't own may not be as easy to expand as you might think. Only their production management would be able to answer that.

But I am pretty sure it's not *desirable*. Look through any lengthy discussion thread about Pathfinder Battles, and you will find a lot of people who feel it's already too expensive. I'm pretty confident that increasing the price would drive away more customers than increasing the number of paint operations would attract.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Playing cards and using powers to affect your check needs to happen during the "Play Cards and Use Powers That Affect Your Check" action.

Because Balazar is using the monster to affect the check, the right thing is happening at the right time.

Call Weapon generally doesn't work at this time because this action happens *after* the "Determine Which Skill You're Using" action, which is when you need to use the "For your combat check..." power of most weapons.

That said, it's not true that you *can't* use Call Weapon at this point—you *can* use it to call a weapon that has a power that affects the check. For example, you can call a Dagger to use it for it's "add 1d4 to the combat check" power, but it's too late to use it for its "For your combat check" power.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When molded plastic is warped out of its normal shape, gentle heat—such as a warm water bath or a hair dryer on low—often returns it to the original form.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, um... so... It's an error.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

That Ezren!

Spoiler:
He's no Damiel.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mike Selinker wrote:
SetonAlandel wrote:
Is the Radiance loot weapon supposed to have the Slashing trait like a longsword?
Darn it. Yes, it should.

Added to FAQ.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

If I'm a vegetarian paladin, would killing a vegpygmy to eat it be a problem?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Crystal Frasier wrote:
Coming from an international anthropology background, I prefer the CE dating system...

My brain interpreted this as "...I prefer the Chaotic Evil dating system..."

So which Chaotic Evil dating website do you prefer: OKKostchtchie or eDeskari.com?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't blame me—I voted for Bail Organa.

1 to 50 of 1,511 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.