|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
There will be few high level earth kineticists, because the usual vita will read like:
Lev 1 kineticist
Hitting lev 6
Got hired by Dwarven Low King XY as chief engineer, payment 100 GP per day (*)
lived happily ever after and had absolutely no reason to go monster hunting again
(* Move earth kineticist probably as good at digging tunnels and mining as about 500 skilled miners; the latter would earn 500 gp per day, so 100 is a good deal for the Low King and for the level 6 kineticist)
Game Master wrote:
This subforum is for:"Rules Discussion Occult Adventures Playtest
Post all of your thoughts about the playtest classes and the magic and spell rules here. Note that actual playtest feedback should go in the Playtest Feedback forum. Please make sure to peruse the existing threads to see if anyone is already discussing your topic before starting a new thread. Each class has its own primary discussion thread to get things started."
"Post all your thoughts about the paytest classes ..." = "Tell us: I like/dislike class X/class feature X, because ..."
Hence, this is also a "I don't like your class" forum. (Which btw, i did not even say, just that i dislike the consequences of burn mechanics.)
Main Problem i see with the kineticist is that his abilities do fall into two vastly differing categories and one of them is contrary to kineticists usefullness and coolness factors:
-equal or less than "1/day" powers
Coolness about kineticists is "at-will" and anything he can do per day will run contrary to that coolness factor.
Compared to anything even semicasters can do, "per day" kineticist talents suck, simply because semicasters have greater selection and have it up to 5/day for every spell level.
Mechanically i see no good reasons, why part of the kineticist stuff needs to be in "per day" category. Other classes - e.g. witch - work fine with useful at-will powers.
And the kineticists still has some rather usefull at-will powers, namely spark of life for trap and encounter detection (spend every turn a move action to have your elemental walk 50-100 ft in front of party, opening anything; any encounter enemies will attack elemental for 1 or more rounds, while party considers preping, engaging or retreating) and move earth,siege of fortified structues gets lot of new options with "move earth" tunnels for colapsing walls and it screws any natural dungeon plan.
But some of the kineticists talents would be too strong as full "at-will".
Furthermore the burn mechnic of dealing uncurable non-lethal damage and accumulating burn points is added bookkeeping.
Hence, my suggestion for burn:
That way the kineticists "per day" abilities turn into "per encounter" abilities. Their power can be adjusted sufficiently by adjusting the burn points the kineticist can suffer before taking damage. E.g. if only up to constitution modifier is safe, this change grants a high level kineticist just something like 2 explosive blasts per encounter, which is enough to keep him in check.
But both usefullness and coolness drastically increase, because now a lot of cool stuff can be used regularly instead of 1-2/day. Furthermore, the theme of kineticists burning his own essence or so is meintained, while at the same time bookkeping is simplified. (Yes, damage can be healed after combat, but accepting for example 4 burn for explosion is still accepting a lot of damage in the midth of combat and therefore probably not taken lightly).
And it doesnt require much other changes, e.g. all other talents are tied to "recover burn", so function accordingly without change of wording.
The only talent in need of adjustment (at least as far as i think):
Without this adjustment, a lev 1 kineticist could otherwise fully heal entire armies with 1 hour time or so. I also made the healed amount explicit, because currently its unclear what happens when composite blasts are available.
Is this a good way to bring the kineticists ability more in sync with the general "at will" theme?
Joey. Out of combat. You are not being punched and healed in the middle of a fight. You know this. I even mentioned a wand of cure light wounds, which is an out of combat healing tool.
Futhermore, the combination of lay on hand and painful resurgance means that even the healer is not required to some extent.
e.g. at 9th level one has about 7 3d6 lay on hands, so if one just happens to receive 7 times about 10 dam over course of adventuring, thats 7 phrenic pool points regained over the course of the day (at 9th level getting 7 times hit for 10+dam over the course of a day is probably not that unusual).
And a ring of regeneration is beyond fast healing equal to "Instead of fast healing 1, regain 1 phrenic pool point per 1 minute "resting"" (of course its expensive, but if one has good use for phrenic pool points its an high level option)
One overlooked part of summons is the sometimes rather extreme skill levels they have. Just saying.
Which gets even better with Evolved Summoned Monster because +8 one skill is a 1 point evolution.
Maybe even more overlooked are spell abilitis, e.g. with summon good monster feat:
summon monster 2 =3 pyrotechnic/entangle(grig) or 1 hideous laughter (faun)
summon monster 3 = aid for entire party (latern archon)
summon monster 4 = aid for entire party, circle vs evil (hound archon) or permanent image (pixie) ("cheating" 2 spell levels)
summon monster 5 = blur entire party, 2 cure serious (azata, bralani) or 1 wind walk, 1 create food/water/wine, 1 gaseous form, 1 major creation, 1 persistant image (djinni) or 3 cure light, 1 cure moderate, 1 neutralize poison (unicorn) or 3 dispel evil (mostly vs enchantments), 3 remove disease (Agathion, Vulpinal)
summon monster 6 = align weapon, versatile weapon (Archon, Legion), hallucinatory terrain (Azzata Lillend)
Higher summon monster give only heal and freedom of movement as far as i can see.
While these spells are sometimes not that great, you get them for free by having the respective summon monster prepared (actually all spells of lesser summon monster level are avaiable through one of higher lebel). And some of these spells are useful and not on every list.
Well, i meant all the other builds are not powerwise as good as bloodlines of bloodrager when including that the bloodrager can cast spells including a level 2 spell buff when entering any bloodrage.
Edit: And the mount is always a hassle due to usual DM mount aversion.
I would say yes, especially considering infused extracty. A wizard under transformation spell could not cast himself but would still be effected by imbibing an infused extract.
So alchi should be fine and transformation is not a bad option for him.
I suspect the arcane bloodline trumps any rage power except maybe pounce.
At lev 4 rage gets blur, protection vs arrows, energy protection or spider climb and at lev 8 haste or displacement selectable at start of any rage anew without any additional cost in any way.
Only at lev 16 its a bit stupid for both beastshape and form of the dragon do not go well with the + 5 falchion and transformation has disadvantage and might give little bonus.
For higher levels other bloodlines probably better.
My two cents:
A lawful good character considers obeying, enforcing laws and having them a good in itself and he thinks they are a requirement for a good world.
A neutral good character does not consider obeying, enforcing laws and having them a good nor an evil in itself and he does not think they are a requirement for either a good or an evil world.
A chaotic good character considers obeying laws, enforcing laws and having them an evil in itself and he thinks they are detriment for a good world.
If obeying/enforcing a law has in sum good effects, LG will be in favor of with all zeal and will consider any opposition to be near equivalent of evil, NG will be in favor of and CG will be sceptical of, since causing the good without using the laws would be even better.
If obeying/enforcing a law has in sum neutral effects, LG will be in favor of and will consider any opposition to be suspectible, NG will not care and CG will be against and consider anybody in favor to be suspectible (Here LG and CG can easily clash).
If obeying/enforcing a law has in sum bad effects, LG will accept a limited enforcement and strife to replace the law with a better, NG will be against and CG will be against with a zeal indistinguishable from the zeal of LG in the opposite case, cause he is in face of what he considers the devil himself.
In the above "law" stands not only for law, but institutions, governments and their ilk. Yes, this interpretation indicates that after freeing a city from the reign of devils, the LG might not throw the entire lawbook the devils enforced into the dust bin, but check for laws that can remain in place with modifications; CG would throw it into the dustbin without looking (assuming devilish lawbooks can be safely disposed in dustbins).
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
No, its 20 years. After reading AD&D base rule book conversation:"Would be stupid to play anything but cleric."
"With druid DM will constantly hassle you with that neutrality nonsense, as fighter you are nothing without your equipment and a wizard can do absolutely nothing without access to a book made of paper."
"But wizard can do cool stuff."
"But you need to trust your DM that you find the good spells and that your book dosent get destroyed when you get hit by fire or simply fall into water, even a heavy rainfall could be problematic. Would you trust me as a DM when your power is absolutely tied to a paper book?"
"And the cleric can hit things, has moderately acceptable weapon options, can carry a shield, can wear heavy armor, but most important just needs a single rather small holy item, which can made of steel or even more durable stuff and is for sale for little gold in practically every minor city, and it gives cleric access to dozens and later hundreds of spells. So cleric very seldom will be useless and therefore is best."
"I already said "yeah"."
And to the OP: Part of the problem is that the community can not agree on how extraordinary a fighter can be without breaking immersion. If you allow him to do truely fantastic things it will be looked as anime, hidden magic, not realistic, and so on.
I think deeper part of the problem is the HP and damage mechanics in itself. It drastically limits what a martial can do.
Take for example what people call debuffing. In real life, if a competent fighter scores while swinging his two-handed sword with full strength on one leg of a large grizzly bear, the grizzly bear gets seriously "debuffed", meaning serious bleeding, cut muscles, broken bones or maybe even unusable or lost limb. Ok, in real life the large grizzly bear would still be a problem with his body mass, bite and the remaining limbs. But with that one hit the situation for the real life fighter is vastly improved; for example, running away might now be an option (outrunning uninjured bears is not possible, with leg injury on bear you stand a chance).
All this is completely removed by HP mechanics. Suddenly, its either a killing blow or it is in itself irrelevant for further combat except as HP reduction. And if HP reduction is in the current combat situation not useful, the martial suddenly needs some stupid special options always smelling like magic or requiring extraq feats or whatnot.
An example from a real life conversation with an experienced DM, who also liked realism:
A game mechanic example from PF, gunslinger and swashbuckler both have a complicated 7th level ability to cause with an attack on a body part a malfunction of that body part (arm->drop things; head->confused; wings->fall). Such a power is only necessary due to HP (though it might appear in other injury systems as well), because realistically to cause someone to drop an item, to be "confused" for at least 6 secs or to hamper his flying an ordinary, an unsophisticated and moderately trained hit with a greataxe on arm, head and/or wing is often sufficient. But thanks to HP meachanic it ends up as some special ability to which only few martials have access.
But to change this, the entire system would have to be changed. So in PF one is stuck with having to balance martials by making seemingly unrealistic options/rules to compensate for the unrealistic HP system.
At 12th level or higher, a monk can slip magically between spaces, as if using the spell dimension door. Using this ability is a move action that consumes 2 points from his ki pool. His caster level for this effect is equal to his monk level. He cannot take other creatures with him when he uses this ability."
= lev 15 monk (beforehand dimensional assault not available feat wise) with activated pummeling style can make efficetively a full attack against 1 target for 2 ki points provided target is within 160 ft (140 ft small monk) and not protected by stupid barriers.
(Unfortunately not in suprise round due to full action.)
(I know, dimensional dervish, but its another feat gained at 17th level and it requires swift)
But the rules question already popping up:
Haste? I guess, yes.
Medusas wrath? I guess, no.
Stunning Fist? Uh, oh ...
One makes attack roles with pummeling, so stunning fist could be used. Is it declared for one specific attack role? Probably. If that hits, fine. If it misses? That attack role missed, but the single pummeling attack with which stunning fist is used might still deal damage even if the attack role with stunning fist missed. Then it missed, but the enemy was still damaged by the unarmed strike using stunning fist. Probably means stunning fist missed, but unclear from wording.
And could several stunning fist be used in a single pummel? (For example to have differing effects or ensure sucess).
I suspect stunning fist is resolved and used for each attack role with pummeling separatly. (Meaning by burning several stunnings fist one could make enemy stunned and fatigued.)
And do i get it correctly that pummeling charge:
Having 7 attack rolls + 1 trip or repositioning attempt in surprise round could give monk/brawler an edge.
You can use Slashing Grace with a dwarven waraxe but you will not be able to finesse it (as in dex to hit) unless you also take a level in swashbuckler. Aldori Dueling Sword and Whip are the only two weapons that you can have both dex to hit and damage without also being a swashbuckler.
Damn, i missed that. So the weaklings have the choice of either hitting od doing damage unless they use an aldori dueling sword or a whip.
But scimitar and dervish dance combat feat also give dx to hit and dam, only it requires a hand free.
serve the purpose of Monk/Brawler Fist getting through DR better, getting trip maneuver as effectively free action and getting pounce against single target?
So this is again an attempt to improve the monk/brawler using unarmed strikes?
Does it suceed better than the other styles that attempted that so far?
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Odd is, that for a high ST and low DX the choice of one handed weapon is not that critical (ST 18, DX 6, dagger 6 dam, waraxe 9.5, a relevant but not crippling difference, dagger can be hidden more easily and be used in close combat and be thrown, difference gets less relevant with further bonuses), while with low ST and high DX waraxe or other is must have over dagger (ST 6, DX 18, dagger 1 dam, waraxe 9.5 with correct feats, thats a large difference). So strong people might use daggers, weak and dexterous people must use scimitars, longswords, bastard swords, dwarven waraxe and all other qualifying for the respective feats.
But anyway, RPGs are not for musing about such things, i just suspected some missed rule, but there wasnt any.
How many ways do we need to have Dex to damage?
I do not care, i was just irritated about that "Wait, you are a very dexterous dwarf, dont take that light and quick 1 lb dagger, thats only for strong people, instead use this 8 lb dwarven waraxe to train with." and thought i missed/misunderstood some rule/feat.
Light weapons can have the Agile enchantment, which allows dex to damage.
I know, but thats magic and expensive. If pure training is applied and a dexterous recruit shows up, training of daggers and other light stuff will mostly be secondary because it is known that dexterous people can make far more use of their dexterity with heavier weapons.
And even with magic, agile takes away - 1 to and -1 to dam and is not available before about lev 6, while the feat based dex damage is available lev 1 - 3.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
There's a feat that allows you to use Dex to damage with rapiers in Advanced Class Origins.
Ok, that explains the rapier archetype for swashbuckler.
But leaves all light weapons to be still bad choices for high dx.
There are 2 feats giving DX bonus for damage instead of ST.
This only works with scimitar.
This works with any "one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword)" or such as a dwarven waraxe if either dwarf or having exotic weapon proficiency.
Since my intution indicates that it should be less complicated to make use of DX with a rapier than with a dwarven waraxe, i suspect i might miss a feat or a rule. Is there any other way except agile to gain DX bonus on Rapier or any other one handed piercing or light weapon?
If not, was there any general "flavor" idea behind dexterous people preffering waraxes over rapiers?
Generic Villain wrote:
But i think its impossible to cure prejudice toward middle ages. Its always fun to ahve people talking about witch hunts, absolute rulers and horrible torture then say "Yes, the renaissance was realy a horrible age, good its gone."
(I know middle ages also weren't that nice, but in those three categories renaissance has far higher "score".)
It demonstrated that no convincing evidence for a current interest was presented in the eyes of the judge. Guess what, 4 of 9 supreme court judges had adifferent opinion. That means that an interest can be formulated, but the evidence was too thin.
As i described on page 1 or so, have a hereditary kingdom and suddenly there is a strong interest for the nation whether the king/queen can marry same sex or only opposite. And nobody would argue about whether there is enough interest to justify the king ordering his eldest son to keep his eyes on girls, preferably princesses of neighboring kingdoms.
As far as i know, nobody ever claimed that black + white was not a marriage. It was a marriage, just an illegal one. Even if preformed in secret it was punishable.
If two men exchange vows that is not of anybodys and especially the states concern. Instead of what is asked for, is a change of definition. And the reason given is that not changing the definition causes emotional harm.
Majority is not an issue regarding guts, its what the other side is capable of and willing to do. Which is seriously limited if the supreme court also says the other side is bigot and the one in charge of various agencies is also on your side. And paizos customer base will include fewer conservatives than general population, due to age and education of customers (average education level of paizo customers can be expected to be higher than average, because buying rule books several hundred pages long is correlated with a willingness to read)
Matt Thomason wrote:
The state cannot and should not care about emotional harm. It has to respect individual rights and otherwise pursue what is deemed to be of general interest for the nation.
Rights are not directed at couples but at individual. And one man one woman obviously does limit everybodies right to marry in the same way.
Yes, that was an error.
So opposing homosexual marriage = mass murderer?
No, its about "If you're against homosexual marriage, you're probably not good aligned and if you actively oppose it you're evil (deity or not)".
It doesn't take guts to stand for something in the US which is favored by current US president and current supreme court majority.
Matt Thomason wrote:
2) There are no prerequisites for rights. Is just that there is no right to marry people of the same sex.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Yes, IF inclusiveness is not only promoted by NPCs being that way, but by promoting the idea that paizos version of what the result in society of inclusiveness should be, is painted as the only moral choice.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Again, any stance they take is "whacking" someone with "a moral club". I don't think you need to use aggressive language to learn whether the product is something you want to support. I dare say many who think it is right to be inclusive feel as strongly about the morality as you do.
Deliberately including something until a certain goal is achieved is whacking with a moral club.
And its not about feeling strongly about it. From my feelings i am rather indifferent, slightly liking gays more over lesbians as they increase my market value. I just feel strongly about the utter arrogance and bluntness of "until..." as that is not what i would like to pay for.
The black raven wrote:
To the OP. I think you can expect inclusion of politics in most all Paizo products in the form of gender equality, race equality and other similar topics.
Examples for similar topics?
No, its worded with the intent to avoid any political difficulties.
You are assuming a lot about me. I do not reject material, that whacks me with a moral club, i enjoy to some extent reading it and taking it apart. Its just i do not like to pay for it, especially when the purpose is something different.
Steve Geddes wrote:
More people to insult, means more care before judgement necessary.And i see little care about the possibility of error from those saying "bigot".
Steve Geddes wrote:
Thats something i have no reason to suspect.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Any argument trying to show that operating a brothel is not good, is rather complicated and has many twist where one could go wrong and arrive at the wrong result. So i am doubtful about my conclusion in this regard.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Of course, but if they elevate some issues to "until...", this influences the product i am buying, hence, i care what exactly they consider relevant enough to whack me with their moral club.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Yes, that is also one. Can someone confirm that?
That would make my decision whether to unsubscribe rather simple.
Steve Geddes wrote:
If sterile couples could be with absolute certainty be reliable identified without any incursion into their privacy, then yes, it would be an argument.
But when two men show up before a marriage official, the official gains the information "they will never have biological kids together" without doing anything.
If a man and a woman show up before a marriage official, the official at most gains very imprecise information about the probability that the two will have biological kids together (derived from their age and outwwrad visible health and maybe indirect information about their intent in regard to having kids). And he could only by forcing them to take tests and inform him about the results gain somewhat more precise information, with only in a very few cases getting 100% that they will never have kids (Infertility test have a failure chance). And he would never know, whether they want to have kids. So he lacks information compared to the two men.
Hence, if one thinks that the first difference is sufficient to justify differing treatment, a difference remains even in light of infertile couples.
Which is mostly the thought behind the second question i wrote in the OP. is more to come?
After this thread i expect no.
The discomfort over loving consensual commitment rituals scoring higher than a graphic description of killing a sentient being for flattened circles of metal is all based on the value system of the individuals in the game, which makes the water of culture more observable and testable than everyday life.
In Skulls and Shakles there was no claim that raiding a peaceful coastal village and slaughtering the few tactically ill advised level 1 warriors and then collect loot, which might mean starvation for the surviving villagers, is good. Opening issue even metnioned the problem, that the AP is no place for LG or maybe even G chars.
(I would be even sceptical about the AP being suitable for neutral chars.)
Otherwise, in most fantasy games much slaughtering of sentient beings would qualify as self defense, with nearly all the rest being in light of the circumstances as good or evil as killing of a taliban today.
Of course. In mid 19th century slavery was a political issue in the US (and also elsewhere) and one of several or maybe the most important or even the only issue (i read varying claims about that) that caused a civil war to erupt. And majority does not equal right.
By saying that a good god cannot be against marriage equality.
I just noted a difference. Whether that difference is relevant enough to justify differing legal/custom treatment would be a matter of political debate.
Gnoll Bard wrote:
Probability of a child living with married heterosexual couple to be biological child of the two is (as far as i guess from what little i know about statistics) about 50-90%.
Probability of a child living with a married homosexual couple to be biological child of the two is about 0%.
Thats a difference.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Not the way to save me, if the only difference had been marriage, i would have still voted that way. So while the other issues were more important, it doesnt help me being "evil".
Matt Thomason wrote:
It is the same, because the pro-natural marriage stance is pro-natural marriage because of certain biological qualities which are guranteed to be absent in L and G marriage. Hence, L and G marriage are treated differently.
Reliability and side effects are known words?
Two sides in the sense that major opposing political factions exist. Some 50%+ voted 2008 or so in california against gay marriage. Decision in favor of segregation would probably generate below 10% support.
Thats at least what me and another user concluded:
Matt Thomason wrote:
In last election i voted for a party in favor of anti-LGBT laws in so far, as L and G cannot marry as marriage is man and woman. Hence, i am supporting a party that would suggest - or more precisely keep the current - laws that are according to paizo evil, which is as calling me evil. And that is somewhat insulting.
James Jacobs wrote:
Is there any other issue thats not politics and treated similar?